热门搜索:

  • /?35
  • 下载费用:25 金币 ?

Vibration 101 -Brake roughness.pdf

关?键?词:
VIBRATION 101 BRAKE ROUGHNESS
资源描述:
Vibration 101 Page 1 Vibration 101: Brake Roughness Kelly Vibration 101 Page 2 Vehicle Vibrates While Driving (VVWD) – Brake Roughness Build CAE Model Measure Components Tune / Select Properties Slider Bar Tools CAE / DFSS RESULTS Build / Test Vehicle on BR Test Correlated Model Correlate Model Wheel End Predictor ES Flat Spotting Hub to Bore Tire Uniformity Net BTV DTV Growth BTV Sensitivity to 18 microns DTV Vibration 101 Page 3 Vehicle Vibrates While Driving (VVWD) – Brake Roughness Build CAE Model Measure Components Tune / Select Properties Slider Bar Tools CAE / DFSS RESULTS Build / Test Vehicle on BR Test Correlated Model Correlate Model Wheel End Predictor ES Flat Spotting Hub to Bore Tire Uniformity Net BTV DTV Growth BTV Sensitivity to 18 microns DTV Vibration 101 Page 4 Brake Roughness: Vehicle Sensitivity Test ? Vehicle sensitivity test has been showing increasing run-to-run variability ? Change has been strongly linked to tire T1H ? Brake torque fore-aft and T1H interact ? In order to correct test repeatability tire forces have to be negated T1H T1H DTV Vibration 101 Page 5 Brake Roughness: Tire Phasing - Right to Left Steering Wheel Nibble vs. Tire Phase Lug #5 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Right to Left Phase (degrees) Nibble RMS Velocity (mm/s) Average: 146 mm/s Lowest Nibble when Tire Vectors are In-phase Highest Nibble when Tire Vectors are Out-of-phase Average negates right to left vectors Vibration 101 Page 6 Average Nibble vs. Lug Nut Angle 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Lug Nut Angle (Degrees) Average Nibble RMS Velocity (mm/s) Brake Roughness: Lug Nut Indexing Steering Wheel Nibble vs. Tire Phase Lug #1 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Right to Left Tire Phase (degrees) Nibble RMS Velocity (mm/s) Average: 72 mm/s Steering Wheel Nibble vs. Tire Phase Lug #3 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Right to Left Tire Phase (degrees) Nibble RMS Velocity (mm/s) Average: 144 mm/s Steering Wheel Nibble vs. Tire Phase Lug #5 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Right to Left Phase (degrees) Nibble RMS Velocity (mm/s) Average: 146 mm/s Lug Nut #1 Lug Nut #5 Lug Nut #3 Lug #2 Chosen Lug Nut position chosen such that resultant vector equals brake-only vector Peak walks with the lug nut angle Vibration 101 Page 7 Brake Roughness: Tire Phasing - Right to Left Steering Wheel Nibble vs. Tire Phase Lug #5 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Right to Left Phase (degrees) Nibble RMS Velocity (mm/s) Average: 146 mm/s Test closest to average should be used for correlation to CAE so tire effect is minimized Vibration 101 Page 8 Brake Roughness: Measured BTV for Correlation ? Historically CAE has used multiple runs for correlation with unknown tires phases and little knowledge of BTV ? New process for correlation being investigated is using actual measured BTV from test to help further refine model correlation ? Torque wheel adapters are being fabricated so majority of vehicles can measure BTV and BTV measurement will become requirement of on-road test ? BTV vs. frequency will be provided for specified correlation test run Vibration 101 Page 9 Old vs. New BTV Load Comparison Left Side Right Side 0.25g 0.15g BTV will likely not be constant vs. frequency Vibration 101 Page 10 Recommended Model Correlation Steps ? Vehicle – Confirm suspension and steering hardware and store with test – Know tires and wheels used for test – Use fingerprinted parts when possible ? CAE – Correlate both suspension fore-aft, tierod lateral, and nibble to test to better separate suspension differences from steering differences – Give insight to which modes are causing which peaks to better understand what stiffness and masses could be different from test Vibration 101 Page 11 Vehicle Vibrates While Driving (VVWD) – Brake Roughness Build CAE Model Measure Components Tune / Select Properties Slider Bar Tools CAE / DFSS RESULTS Build / Test Vehicle on BR Test Correlated Model Correlate Model Wheel End Predictor ES Flat Spotting Hub to Bore Tire Uniformity Net BTV DTV Growth BTV Sensitivity to 18 microns DTV Vibration 101 Page 12 Brake Roughness: Generic Target Setting Process Response Net BTV Vehicle Sensitivity to BTV Suggested to move from targeting “BTV sensitivity to 18 microns DTV” to “BTV sensitivity to 3 sigma equivalent DTV” allowing brake group more latitude to manage DTV and BTV jointly Brake Sensitivity DTV (18 Microns) Vibration 101 Page 13 Brake Roughness: Generic Target Setting Process Response Net BTV Vehicle Sensitivity to BTV Setting BTV vs. Vehicle Sensitivity targets allows Vehicle Dynamics to apply the proper amount of countermeasures sooner Brake Sensitivity DTV (18 Microns) Vibration 101 Page 14 BTV vs. DTV - Dyno 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DTV (microns) BTV (N-m) BTV vs. DTV - Dyno 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DTV (microns) BTV (N-m) Left & Right FRONT DTV 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 0 eval 2.5k 4.9k 7.5k 1 0.5k 1 3.0k Mileage DTV (microns) LF DTV Cap M easurement RF DTV Cap M easurement Left & Right FRONT DTV 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 1 .2k 3.2k 5.7k 8.2k 1 0.6k 1 3.1 k Mileage DTV (microns) DTV Cap M easurement DTV Cap M easurement Net BTV = (9 + DTV Growth) / 18 * BTV sensitivity to 18 microns DTV Average growth from DST: 21 microns Average growth from DST: 9 microns BTV Target based on GVW Brake Configuration #1 Brake Configuration #2 Vibration 101 Page 15 BTV Sensitivity vs. Net BTV 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 GVW BTV (N-m) Net BTV BTV Sensitivity to 18 microns Linear (Net BTV) Linear (BTV Sensitivity to 18 microns) '08 VN127 '05 P131 P221 DF U251 U22x '04 P221 '05 Focus S197 CD338 D219 GMT900 U387 U152 EN/FN U204 Chrysler 300 Cadillac STS Malibu U377 BTV sensitivity assumes 18 microns of DTV but most recent vehicle lines have performed better, bringing “Net BTV” line lower BTV sensitivity Net BTV Vibration 101 Page 16 Proposed Target Curve - May 2006 y = 0.0071x + 68.242 0 50 100 150 200 250 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 GVW (lbs) Net BTV (N-m) Vehicles from Car Cluster Would Have to Meet 95 – 115 N-m and Truck, 115 N-m to 155 N-m BTV is going to be dictated by the GVW of a vehicle as opposed to 100 N-m constant target used in the past Vibration 101 Page 17 Vehicle Vibrates While Driving (VVWD) – Brake Roughness Build CAE Model Measure Components Tune / Select Properties Slider Bar Tools CAE / DFSS RESULTS Build / Test Vehicle on BR Test Correlated Model Correlate Model Wheel End Predictor ES Flat Spotting Hub to Bore Tire Uniformity Net BTV DTV Growth BTV Sensitivity to 18 microns DTV Vibration 101 Page 18 Histogram 0 10 20 30 40 50 2 8 14 20 26 32 38 44 50 56 More Frequency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Frequency Cumulative % Brake Roughness DfSS Target Setting Process ? Threshold values for nibble and seat fore-aft and lateral were dictated by 6 VER equivalent ? Net BTV for current production vehicles (with 1 YIS data) was generated ? DfSS was run for reliable models ? Correlation was done with all 3 customer response locations ? Nibble was the only response that correlated well to warranty Vibration 101 Page 19 Brake Roughness: New Targets ? Nibble objective targets are considerably tighter than previously ? Seat X is marginally relaxed and Seat Y is marginally tighter ? All metrics are now maximum of run ? All metrics now correspond to BR 7 VER which is equivalent to Corporate 6 VER Nibble Floorpan 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 5 10 2 7 12 Seat Lateral Peak Velocity (mm/s) Seat Longitudinal Peak (mm/s) Floor VER as a function of Seat Longitudinal and Lateral Peak Velocity All Vehicles Seat Y: 4 mm/s Seat X: 5.5 mm/s 8 VER: 7 VER = 6 mm/s Seat X 5 mm/s Seat Y 8 VER = 18 7 VER = 44 6 VER = 70 200 100 0 1050 NIBPEAK SNIBBLE S = 0.993729 R-Sq = 76.1 % R-Sq(adj) = 75.9 % SNIBBLE = 8.70582 - 0.0386761 NIBPEAK 95% PI 95% CI Regression Regression Plot (Truck) 7 VER (BR) = 6 VER (Corp): Nibble: 44 mm/s 7 VER (BR) = 6 VER (Corp) : Seat X: 6 mm/s Seat Y: 5 mm/s (Car / SUV) and 6 mm/s (PTAC) Vibration 101 Page 20 Brake Roughness Warranty vs. BR Nibble DfSS (with tire loads) y = 3.3057e 0.0311x R 2= 0.7802 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 BR DfSS Nibble (% exceeds 44 mm/s) 1 YIS N27 (60-day R/1000) U228 S197 C170 P221 U222 U204 D219, P131 U152 U251 CD338 Brake Roughness DfSS Correlation Current production CAE models were run with appropriate Net BTV. Correlation was sound, target needed to be set. Front BTV and tire inputs on all 4 corners Vibration 101 Page 21 Brake Roughness DfSS Correlation N27 vs. BR Nibble DfSS (with tire loads) y = 3.3057e 0.0311x R 2= 0.7802 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 BR DfSS Nibble (% exceeds 44 mm/s) 1 YIS N27 (60-day R/1000) U228 S197 C170 P221 U222 U204 D219, P131 U251 CD338 U152 Decision was made jointly by Brakes and VDyn to set target at 50% so as to remain competitive yet not force costly changes for minimal R/1000 gain At 50% Exceeds represents approximately 16 R/1000 (60-day) 1 YIS Vibration 101 Page 22 Summary and Rollout 2005 June 2006 DfSS with Net BTV Master (objective or subjective?) Unclear VER Objective Subjective Standard Minimum 8 (B/R) / 7 (Corporate) 8 (B/R) / 7 (Corporate) 7 (B/R) / 6 (Corporate) Peak or RSS / Start Speed RSS / 95 MPH Peak / 85 MPH Peak / 85 MPH Objective Target 200 mm/s Nibble 20 mm/s Seat X 25 mm/s Seat Y 150 mm/s SWV 44 mm/s Truck Nibble 6 mm/s Seat X 5 mm/s Seat Y (car) 6 mm/s Seat Y (truck) 50 % Exceeds 44 mm/s Nibble Input Type Single Wheel 18 microns DTV Single Wheel 18 microns DTV 2 Wheel BTV and 4 Wheel Tire Loads Source Target Unclear Net BTV Line Net BTV Line Program Adoption 2007 / 2008 2009+ Vibration 101 Page 23 Brake Roughness Changes - Assessment Was Is Sign-off Test DfSS* Brake 9 microns DTV and 100 N-m BTV sensitivity to 18 microns DTV Variable DTV and BTV to achieve designated “Net BTV”* *Requirement being written and approved Vibration 101 Page 24 Brake Roughness Changes - Correlation Was Is Test 3 runs with random tire phase 6 runs with distinct left-to-right phase conditions Test One lugnut position Average of multiple lugnuts Metrics RSS Peak BTV Input Constant BTV on left, 0 BTV on right Actual measured BTV Vibration 101 Page 25 Back-up Vibration 101 Page 26 Brake Roughness: Implications to Test ? Multiple runs necessary to get correct phase increments ? “Sine wave” must be done for 3 or 4 lug nuts ? 30 micron DTV rotor was removed ? Number of accelerometers reduced for framed vehicles ? Subjective runs are done at discrete phases ? BTV is recommended which requires extra runs ? Rear test may soon be required Vibration 101 Page 27 Brake Roughness Objective Targets ? Current brake roughness targets were established in 1997 ? Car and truck data used to generate metrics ? Metrics originally showed good correlation but over the last couple of years has deteriorated ? Many vehicles recently measured “green” objectively but were “red” subjectively ? Majority of subjective evaluators have unchanged Vibration 101 Page 28 Brake Roughness: Old Targets ? Old targets were from contour plots for steering wheel nibble, shake, and floorpan ? All targets were RSS of the run ? Car and truck had same metrics 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SX_RMS_1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 SY_RMS_1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Floorpan Shake RMS of 1st order Seat Track Longitudinal Velocity RMS of 1st order Seat Track Lateral Velocity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SX_RMS_1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 SY_RMS_1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Floorpan Shake RMS of 1st order Seat Track Longitudinal Velocity RMS of 1st order Seat Track Lateral Velocity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SX_RMS_1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 SN_RMS_1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Steering Wheel Nibble RMS of 1st order Seat Track Longitudinal Velocity RMS of 1st order Steering Wheel Nibble Velocity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SX_RMS_1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 SN_RMS_1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Steering Wheel Nibble RMS of 1st order Seat Track Longitudinal Velocity RMS of 1st order Steering Wheel Nibble Velocity Steering Wheel Nibble RMS of 1st order Seat Track Longitudinal Velocity RMS of 1st order Steering Wheel Nibble VelocityVibration 101 Page 29 Brake Roughness: Targets (6 VER Corporate) Subjective Old Target Car Target Proposal Truck Target Proposal Nibble Nibble RSS = 260 mm/s Seat F/A RSS = 26 mm/s Nibble Peak = 44 mm/s Nibble Peak = 44 mm/s Floorpan Seat F/A RSS = 26 mm/s Seat Lateral RSS = 33 mm/s Seat F/A Peak = 6 mm/s Seat Lateral Peak = 5 mm/s Seat F/A Peak = 6 mm/s Seat Lateral Peak = 6 mm/s Steering Wheel Shake Steering Wheel Shake RSS = 195 mm/s TBD TBD Vibration 101 Page 30 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR STEERING WHEEL SHAKE & NIBBLE RATINGS UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE Ford Corporate Rating Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Brake Roughness Rating Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Oscillation Almost Damping and transfer Oscillation will be Transferred to Dampable when Steering Steering Wheel of oscillations Hands and Forearms Hands Only Steering Wheel is Wheel Lightly Held (using both hands) when Steering Wheel is Firmly Held Firmly Held Lightly Held Lightly Held Between Finger Tips Very Clearly Perceptible Perceptible Lightly Just Not Perceptibility Extremely Perceptible (Annoying) (Unpleasant) Clearly Perceptible Perceptible Perceptible Perceptible Visibility Distinctly Visible with Visible with Slightly Visible with Barely Not (simultaneously damped) Large Amplitudes Mean Amplitudes Small Amplitudes Visible Visible Corporate scale and brake roughness scale are not compatible In order to be consistent with other error states, the brake roughness VER requirement is changing. Change includes 1 VER relaxation and 1 VER conversion to corporate scale Vibration 101 Page 31 Competitive R/1000 Analysis N27 3 MIS TGW/1000 2 14 13 10 9 5 12 12 12 14 13 13 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 BMW DAIMLERCHRYSLER FORD GM HONDA HYUNDAI MAZDA NISSAN TOYOTA VW Company 3 MIS TGW/1000 2003 2004 2005 2006 Much of competition is stable vs. MY with some, like Nissan, with high year-over-year variability Vibration 101 Page 32 2006 TGW Comparison 2006 3MIS TGW/1000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 BMW DAIMLERCHRYSLER FORD GM HONDA HYUNDAI MAZDA NISSAN TOYOTA VW Company 3 MIS TGW/1000 Generally high mileage data is used for brake roughness, but to assess competition 3 MIS GQRS correlation is necessary
? 汽车智库所有资源均是用户自行上传分享,仅供网友学习交流,未经上传用户书面授权,请勿作他用。
0条评论

还可以输入200字符

暂无评论,赶快抢占沙发吧。

关于本文
本文标题:Vibration 101 -Brake roughness.pdf
链接地址:http://www.autoekb.com/p-9430.html
关于我们 - 网站声明 - 网站地图 - 资源地图 - 友情链接 - 网站客服客服 - 联系我们

copyright@ 2008-2018 mywenku网站版权所有
经营许可证编号:京ICP备12026657号-3?

收起
展开