PSI - Issue 77

Francisco Castro et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 77 (2026) 611–630 Francisco Castro/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2026) 000 – 000

624 14

a)

b)

Time [s]

Load change [kg]

Load change [kg]

Time [s]

Front right wheel Rear left wheel

Rear right wheel Front left wheel

Front right wheel

Front left wheel

Figure 12 – Results from the static setup for Vehicle Load Case 5: a) Flat axles; b) Front axle lifted with an angle of 27.88º.

The CoG position results are summarized in Table 2, and those are the values that are going to be used as comparison to those obtained from the dynamic (in motion) tests. The position is relative to the rear axle, the position is relative to the left side and is relative to the ground. Table 2 – Results from static CoG measurements for each load case scenario.

[m] [m] [m]

Vehicle

Load case: empty

0.1541 0.1519 0.1840 0.1514 0.1864 0.1528

0.1175 0.1150 0.1181 0.1068 0.1180 0.1076

0.1017 0.1026 0.1047 0.1068 0.1194 0.1170

Load case 1 Load case 2 Load case 3 Load case 4 Load case 5

3.2. In motion results

3.2.1. CoG height measurements: braking motion results To assess the accuracy of the developed method for estimating the vehicle’s centre of gravity (CoG) height under longitudinal dynamic conditions, a series of braking maneuvers were conducted. These tests aimed to generate measurable pitch motion by inducing significant longitudinal deceleration while maintaining controlled and repeatable conditions. This angular response is a key input for the CoG height estimation process. The data obtained from the road tests, for all load case scenarios, are presented in Figure 13. The final results for the CoG height are summarized in Table 3.