Vehicle COG comparison for longitudinal rollover

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on comparing the longitudinal stability of two vehicle models, Model A and Model B, based on their center of gravity (COG) height and axle split. Model A has a COG height of 2,537mm and is positioned 1,487mm from the rear axle, while Model B has a lower COG height of 1,745mm and is positioned 1,141mm from the rear axle. It is concluded that Model B offers approximately 9% greater stability due to its lower COG, which reduces the likelihood of tipping backwards during maneuvers such as climbing hills. The analysis emphasizes the importance of the tipping axis and the static stability factor in determining vehicle stability.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vehicle dynamics and stability concepts
  • Familiarity with center of gravity (COG) calculations
  • Knowledge of axle load distribution during acceleration and braking
  • Basic principles of static stability factor calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the calculation methods for lateral static stability factor in vehicles
  • Explore the impact of COG height on vehicle rollover risk
  • Study the effects of axle load distribution on vehicle stability
  • Investigate the use of tilt tables for testing vehicle stability
USEFUL FOR

Automotive engineers, vehicle stability analysts, and designers focused on improving the safety and performance of vehicles, particularly in off-highway and ATV applications.

Raudi
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi
I am trying to compare which of the (2) models has the greatest stability longitudinaly.
I have the COG height and longitudinal (axle split)
Model A has it COG closer to the centre of the axles (longitudinal - further from rear axle 1,487l) but sits much higher (2,537 above axle centre)
Model B has its COG closer to the rear axle (1,141) but sits much lower (1,745mm from axle centre)

Obviously there is a trade off going higher with the COG.

I believe that Model B has the greater all round stability by around 9%
The main factor that is trying to be quantified is which model is more likely to tip backwards.

X → Y ↑
Model A 1,487 2,537
Model B 1,141 1,745
 

Attachments

  • COG comparison.png
    COG comparison.png
    52.3 KB · Views: 616
Flipping forward or rearward is pitch stability, flipping on a sideslope would be lateral or roll stability. For your problem the tipping axis is the relationship between the axis of support (normal line from ground contact point of the closest wheel that goes through the wheel center) and line the connects the CG to the center of the closest tipping wheel, in your case the rear wheel. The vehicle flips when the CG moves outside the axis of support of that wheel based on the slope of the ground and acceleration. Statically, the free body diagram is a sum of the moments about that rear wheel, so the worst design occurs when the angle formed between the wheel center and CG, and horizontal - you have the x and y, so you have the angles are A - 59.6 and B - 56.8, so B is a lower angle and thus better. Don't forget to taking into account the maximum ground slope you can accommodate with a CG so close to a wheel. not sure where you got 9%?

If you need a diagram let me know...

You will also want the lateral static stability factor calculation. This calculation is used in the auto, ATV, and off-highway industries and is government metric. It takes into account suspension movement during the roll by physical testing on a tilt table.
Lateral the basic calculation is simple. static stability factor = T / 2* h (T is track width). (h is center of gravity height) for lateral assuming the cg is in the center.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
43K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K