A STUDY OF

CONTROLLABILITY AND OBSERVABILITY OF

SEQUENTIAL TYPE GEARSHIFT MECHANISM

By

PRIYANSHU AGARWAL
DECEMBER 2009

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York 14260
 Abstract

Faster and efficient gear shifts have always been the demand of automobile industry. Be

it an automatic transmission having distinctly low efficiency or an automated manual

transmission with combined benefits of automatic and manual gearboxes, the

phenomenon of gear shift has always been the area of interest. Sequential type gear shift

mechanisms have been increasingly employed in automated manual transmissions due to

their suitability to readily available (rotary) actuators. However, there is a dearth of

published literature addressing the issue of modeling the dynamics of the system and

studying its controllability and observability. The objective of this proposal is to develop

a model for the dynamics of Sequential type gearshift mechanism and to study the

controllability and observability of the mechanism as a dynamic system. A mathematical

model capable of catering the dynamics of the system is developed. The resulting

mathematical model is used for state-space realization. The effect of various design

parameters on the degree of controllability and observability of the mechanism is studied

using gramians. In addition to this, output controllability, i.e. in this context the ability to

achieve desired gearshift force given any initial state within a finite time, is also studied.

i
 Acknowledgement

I am highly thankful to Professor John L Crassidis for his support during the execution of

this work. The fruitful discussions I had with him often after the class session provided a

lot of useful information for the completion of this work.

Finally, I am also thankful to my colleagues in the course of Systems Analysis who had

technical discussions at times on the subject and always motivated me to explore the

unexplored.

ii
Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgement

Contents

1. Introduction
1.1 Mechanism description
1.2 Construction
1.3 Working
1.4 Motivation
1.5 Expected Benefits of Study

2. Technical Plan
2.1 Mathematical Modeling
2.1.1 Fork Cantilever Beam Analogy
2.1.2 Drum Dynamics Equations
2.1.3 Fork Free Body Diagram
2.2 Governing Differential Equation and State-Space Representation
2.2.1 Governing Equation
2.2.2 System Analogy
2.2.3 Shift Force Behavior
2.3 Elimination of Dependent Design Variables
2.4 Measure of Controllability and Observability
2.5 Output Controllability

3. Results
3.1 Simulation Inputs
3.2 System Response
3.3 Degree of Controllability and Observability Contour Plots
3.4 Output Controllability
3.5 Condition Number improvement

4. Conclusion

5. Future Work

iii
Bibliography

Appendix

A.1 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for drum ramp angle (θ) and drum radius (RD)

A.2 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for angle (ζ) and angle (φ)

A.3 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for mean sleeve diameter (Ds) and distance Ac

A.4 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for length (O1) and length (O2)

A.5 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for drum ramp angle (θ) and drum radius (RD)

iv
1. Introduction
Faster and efficient gear shifts have always been the demand of automobile industry [1]. Be it an
automatic transmission having distinctly low efficiency or an automated manual transmission with
combined benefits of automatic and manual gearboxes, the phenomenon of gear shift has always been
fascinating researchers [2]. Sequential type gear shift mechanisms have been increasingly employed in
automated manual transmissions due to their suitability to readily available (rotary) actuators. However,
there is a dearth of published literature addressing the issue of controllability of such gear shift
mechanisms. Both the issues i.e. reducing shifting time and improving efficiency of shifting can be
addressed by such a study. The study will also provide a rationale as to how parameters can be
calculated for designing more controllable mechanisms.

1.1 Mechanism description

The mechanism is a cylindrical cam follower system. The basic purpose of the mechanism is to convert
given torque input provided to it at the cylindrical cam into axial force on the fork for gearshift. The
mechanism is used universally in two-wheelers and occasionally in four-wheelers for gearshift.

(a) (b)
Figure 1-1 An illustration of the Sequential type Gear Shift Mechanism (a) the manual version of the
mechanism, (b) the automated version of the mechanism

1.2 Construction
The mechanism shown in Figure 1 (a) consists of the following major components:
• Drum (Cylindrical Cam)
• Forks
• Fork Rail

1
• Star Wheel
• Shift Lever-1 (Guitar shaped with a welded splined shaft)
• Shifter Lever-2 (Cross Lever)
• Torsion Spring
• Tension Spring

The drum, fork rail and splined shaft with shift lever-1 are supported in the casing. The shift lever-1 and shift
lever-2 are assembled along with the springs as shown in Figure 1 a). The star wheel is attached to the drum
with the help of a bolt and the drum is free to rotate about its axis. The drum is provided with grooves on its
circumference. Furthermore, the fork is provided with a lug that protrudes from its head. The lug on the fork
engages in the groove on the drum. The Fork legs rests on the gear collar (not shown in figure) and the fork
is constrained to move axially on the fork rail. In addition to this, the star wheel is provided with projected
lugs on its front face on which the shift lever-2 rests. Shift lever-2 is connected to shift lever-1 through a
revolute joint and tension spring between the two ensures that the shift lever-2 maintains contact with the star
wheel lugs. A torsion spring is provided on shift lever-1 to reposition the lever after shifting the gear to its
original position. The entire assembly is inside a transmission casing. Figure 1 b) shows the automated
version of the same mechanism. In this case the drum is rotated using a motor through gearing. The detent
lever is provided to keep the drum stationary on each engaged gear position.

1.3 Working
The shift lever-1 is rotated with the help of a push-pull type cable. As shift lever-1 rotates, it rotates shift
lever-2 which in turn rotates the star wheel. Since, the star wheel is rigidly connected with the drum, the
drum is also indexed by the same angle. The configuration of the two levers and star wheel is such that the
system is always indexed by a fixed angle for one stroke of the shift levers. Due to this fixed rotation of the
drum the forks engaged in the grooves on the drum surface move axially on the fork rail by a fixed distance.
This axial movement of the fork leads to the axial movement of the shifting sleeve which leads to shifting of
the corresponding gear. The fact to be noted here is that a single fork is manipulated by the mechanism
during a gearshift under load. The magnitude and pattern of required drum torque governs the gearshift feel
in the manual version. However, the main concern in the automated version is minimization of the peak
torque due to actuator size limitations.

1.4 Motivation
The direction, position and velocity of the fork during the shift can be governed by appropriate design and
control of the mechanism. What makes a mechanism proficient in gearshift is the ease with which it can
achieve the required dynamically varying force on the shift fork during gearshift. However, what makes
designing a controller for the mechanism difficult is the fact that the phenomenon of gearshift lasts for a
fraction of a second. This demands that the response time of the controller be extremely low. Thus, there
exist apparently irreconcilable requirements for the controller to achieve all these objectives. This calls for a
study of the controllability of the mechanism to make the system more amenable to control from design point
of view.

1.5 Expected Benefits of Study

The benefits of the study are that once a complete picture of the controllability of the mechanism is
understood, the influence of design parameters on controllability can be evaluated. This will help in
developing more controllable mechanism thus, realizing the objective of developing controllers with
faster response.

2
2. Technical Plan
This chapter deals with the development of the mathematical model for the dynamics of the gearshift
mechanism. Free body diagrams are developed for the various components in the mechanism and finally
a differential equation governing the dynamics of the system is obtained. A discussion on the measure of
controllability of the system is then carried out.

2.1 Mathematical Modeling

The objective of the mathematical model and the assumptions involved are as follows:

Objective: To develop a differential equation that can represent the dynamics of the mechanism. More
precisely, to develop a relationship that can relate the torque applied on the cylindrical cam with its
angular acceleration and the axial force resisting this motion applied on the fork.

Assumptions:
1. While gearshift both the fork legs make continuous contact with the gearshift sleeve. This ensures
that when the fork is loaded both the legs experience equal deformation in axial direction. This is
indeed critical for the gearshift sleeve, as differential loading might tilt the sleeve and can even
increase the fork required to shift it during a gearshift. This assumption neglects the influence of
variation of tolerances involved during manufacturing of components.
2. The fork lug is always in contact with the drum groove wall. This assumption signifies that the model
does not take into account any nonlinearity in terms of contact between the fork and the drum. So,
any unique position of the drum signifies unique position of the fork provided that the drum groove
geometry is known.
3. Drum bearings have no frictional losses. This ensures no frictional moment is acting to diminish the
applied torque on the drum.
4. All bodies are rigid. No deformation of the bodies involved in the system is considered.
5. Both the fork legs have same area moment of inertia. Though the moment of inertia of the fork legs
will differ and will also vary with the distance from the fork center line. In order to avoid
complexities, the influence of these parameters on force distribution among the two fork legs has
been neglected.
6. The coefficient of friction is same for all contacts. Usually the coefficient of friction between the
components is that of standard lubricated steel to steel contact. However, at times the fork is fixed
with the rail in which case the fork rail slides in the transmission casing which is usually a pressure
die-casted aluminum component.

Figure 2-1 represents a simplified model of the mechanism to be used for developing the mathematical
model of the system. The torque TD is acting on the drum due to which drum experiences an angular
acceleration of which in turn accelerates the fork by . The gearshift sleeve also offers a force of Ffa1
and Ffa2 on the two fork legs which amounts to the total force acting on the fork axially.

3
Figure 2-1 Simplified representation of the mechanism with external forces & moments acting on it

2.1.1 Fork Cantilever Beam Analogy

According to this analogy the fork leg is considered to be a simple cantilever beam which bends in the
presence of an external load. Figure 2-2(a) represents the formula for the maximum deflection of a
cantilever beam. It can be easily seen that for a given deformation the load acting on the beam is
inversely proportional to the cube of the length of the beam.

As per the above mentioned analogy the two fork legs can be represented as two cantilever beams which
undergo same deflection under load. The condition of equal deflection comes from the assumption that
the two legs make continuous contact with the gearshift sleeve. So, the distribution of axial force on fork
legs is considered to be inversely proportional to the cube of their arm lengths from rail center line.
Hence, the fork acting on the fork can be distributed on the two legs accordingly.

(a)

4
 (b) (c)

Figure 2-2 Gearshift fork legs represented as two cantilever beams. a) Formula for maximum
deflection of a cantilever beam, b) Forces acting on the two legs of gearshift fork, and c) Simplified
representation of fork legs as two cantilever beams

Considering the aforementioned analogy the force Ffa1 can be deduced to be as follows:
3
Ffa ( A2 + E2
2 2 2
)
Ffa1 = 3 3

(A
1
2
+E1 ) +(A
2 2
2
2
+ E2 )
2 2

The dimensions A1, A2, E1 and E2 can be referred in the Figures 2-5 and 2-6.

2.1.2 Drum Dynamics Equations

Figure 2-3 Developed View of Drum Profile & Force Components acting on it

5
Figure 2-3 represents a developed view of the drum obtained by unwrapping the drum groove profile.
Also shown is a zoomed view of the fork lug and the forces acting on the drum due it.

Now, from Newton’s second law of motion

So, the net torque acting on the drum is given by

where, fl represents the friction force developed between the fork lug and the drum and is given by

Further in Figure 2-3 it can be seen in the zoomed view of the fork lug traversing the drum groove that
the drum groove ramp angle is related to the angular rotation of the drum and the axial movement of the
fork as given below

(A)

Also, the instantaneous axial velocity of the fork is related to the angular velocity of the drum by the
following equation

(B)

Differentiating the above equation we can obtain the following expression

(C)

Also, by integrating equation (A) we can get the following expression for x.

(D)

2.1.3 Fork Free Body Diagram

Figure 2-4 represents the free body diagram of the fork. The reaction of friction force fl and force R1as
was discussed in the previous section also acts on the fork lug. View U represents the top view of the
fork lug with these reactions acting on it. Now, in order to develop a better understanding of the system
in term so axial force and tangential force, these forces are distributed among the axial force FA,
tangential force FT and a moment Mf. The axial force FA tries to tilt the fork due to which normal
reactions Ny1 and Ny2 from the rail are developed in order to avoid tilting. The tangential force tries to
move the component in its direction. However, the almost symmetric location of the fork lug avoids
development of substantial moment in one direction due to which the two reactions Nx1 and Nx2 from the

6
rail are acting in the same direction. The reactions Nx1, Nx2, Ny1 and Ny2 thus lead to the friction forces
fx1, fx2, fy1 and fy2 respectively. The gearshift sleeve also applies force Fft on the fork leg as the force FT

Figure 2-4 Free-Body Diagram of Fork

also tries to rotate the fork about the rail center. Due to the force Fft a corresponding friction force also
acts on the fork leg which is developed between the fork and gearshift sleeve.

The tangential force, axial force and the moment as discussed above are given by the following
equations

The friction forces fx1, fx2, fy1 and fy2 are related to the corresponding normal reactions between the fork
and the rail by the following expressions

7
A coordinate system XFYFZF as represented in Figure 2-4 is also attached with the fork for conveniently
handling forces and moments acting on the fork. It is also to be noted that it is only in the axial direction
that the fork experiences acceleration, in all other directions the forces acting on the fork are in
equilibrium.

2.1.3.1 Equilibrium in XFYF Plane

Figure 2-5 Free-Body Diagram of Fork representing forces in XFYF plane.

Considering the forces acting on the fork in XF, YF direction and moment acting along ZF, we have

8
Since, the fork does not experience any acceleration (linear or angular) in these directions the net forces
and moments are equated to zero in the above equations.

2.1.3.2 Equilibrium in XFZF Plane

Figure 2-6 Free-Body Diagram of Fork representing forces in XFZF plane.

Considering the fork in XFZF plane, the fork experiences an acceleration in the ZF direction. So, the
equations are:

2.1.3.3 Equilibrium in YFZF Plane

As forces along XF, YF, ZF have already been taken care of, the only quantity left to be considered is
moment about XF axis.

9
Thus, the moment equation is given by

Figure 2-7 Free-Body Diagram of Fork representing forces in YFZF plane

2.2 Governing Differential Equation and State-Space Representation

Now, we have all the equations that capture the dynamics of the system. All we need is to solve them in
order to obtain the final expression for the drum angular acceleration.

2.2.1 Governing Equation

All the above mentioned equations i.e. Equation (1) – (13) & (A) – (F) are solved using Symbolic
Toolbox in MATLAB to obtain the following expression:

10
 (14)

where, f1(θ), f2(θ) and f3(θ) are given by the following expressions

where,
ki s are constants which depend on various mechanism parameters and which depends on
the drum groove profile.

2.2.2 System Analogy

Figure 2-8 Gearshift Mechanism analogy with a mass spring-damper system

It can be easily seen from the system equations that the gearshift mechanism dynamics is analogous to a
mass spring-damper system having time varying forces acting on the mass in opposite directions and a
damping coefficient that varies as a function of the displacement of the mass.

11
2.2.3 Shift Force Behavior

A precise model for the shift force behavior will involve mathematical modeling of the entire drive-train
along with characteristics of the clutch. This in itself is another area of research. So, in order to avoid
complexities the shift force is assumed to behave as a combination of a spring with Ks as the spring
constant and a damper system with Bs as the damping coefficient as shown in Figure 2-9. However, the
value of Ks and Bs is assumed to be unknown. The axial force from the fork Ffa acts on the sleeve a
component of which compresses the spring and another component is dissipated due to the damping
behavior of the shift force.

Figure 2-9 Shift force behavior representation as a spring-damper system

So, mathematically the axial force can be represented as follows:

Substituting the expression for the axial force in the final equation (14), we get the following equation

(15)

Now, the state-space representation of the system is as follows:

Now, in order simplify the system to convert it into a LTI system the drum ramp-angle is assumed to be
constant for the system. The above system can then be reduced to the following state-space
representation:

.
x 2 = f 1u + f 2 KsRD tan θ x1 + ( f 2 BsRD tan θ + f 3 ) x 2
⎡. ⎤ ⎡ 0 1 ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ x 1⎥ = ⎢ +
f 2 BsRD tan θ + f 3 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ x 2 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ f 1⎥⎦
u
⎢⎣ x 2 ⎥⎦ ⎣ f 2 KsRD tan θ

12
 ⎡ x1 ⎤
y = [ KsRD tan θ BsRD tan θ ] ⎢ ⎥ + [ 0] u
⎣ x2⎦
Please note the value of the functions f1. f2 and f3 is not mentioned here explicitly in terms of the design
parameter due the sheer size of the results. All the computation that has been performed is done after
solving the equations symbolically in MATLAB and then substituting the desired values for the
parameters.

2.3 Elimination of Dependent Design Variables

Considering the number of design variables involved it is advisable to eliminate the dependent variables so
as to effectively deal with the problem. However, the above mathematical model is developed without any
such optimization so as to establish a more generic approach for solving the problem in case any of the
following mentioned relationships ceases to exist.

It was observed that the design variables A1, A2, E1 & E2 are related and that by introducing two more
variables the total number of design variables can be optimized.

Figure 2-10 Design variables defining the fork geometry

S NO. DESIGN VARIABLES DESIGNATION

1 Sleeve Mean Diameter (excluding chamfer & fillet) Ds
2 Distance of Fork Leg Contact Point Circle Center from Rail Center Ac
Table 2-1 Geometric design variables added in the mathematical model
13
The value of ξ, Ac and Ds can be substituted in the following equations to obtain the values of A1, A2, E1 and
E2.

The following design variables are then eliminated:

S NO. DESIGN VARIABLES DESIGNATION

1 Arm Length of Fork Leg Force Opposite to Lug Side A1
2 Offset Distance of Fork Leg opposite to Lug Side from Shifting Sleeve Center E1
3 Offset Distance of Fork Leg on Lug Side from Shifting Sleeve Center E2
4 Arm Length of Fork Leg Force on Lug Side A2 
Table 2-2 Geometric design variables eliminated from the mathematical model

The following are the constraints for the design variables:

The fork leg offset from fork lug center should always lie between –B1 and B2.

The fork leg length A2 should satisfy the following constraint:

S NO. DESIGN VARIABLES DESIGNATION

Angle between 'Perpendicular to Radial Reaction from Shifting Sleeve' and
ζ
1 ‘Line joining Fork Leg Center to Rail Center'
2 Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to opposite to Lug Side end B1
3 Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to Lug Side end B2
4 Distance of Lug from Rail Center Line C
5 Fork Lug Diameter dl
6 Fork Leg offset from Lug Center O3
7 Fork Lug Angle from the YF-axis as viewed in XY Plane. φ 
8 Fork Rail Diameter d 
9 Groove Ramp Angle θ 
10 Drum Radius RD
11 Sleeve Mean Diameter (excluding chamfer & fillet) Ds
12 Distance of Sleeve Center from Rail Center Ac
Table 2-3 Final geometric design variables in the mathematical model

This study focuses on ten variables out of the variables mentioned in Table 2-3. The fork lug diameter

14
and fork rail diameter are not considered since these parameters have little scope for variation.

2.4 Measure of Controllability and Observability

The rank test of controllability matrix only provides binary (yes/no) information and does not provide a
graduated measure of “how controllable” a system is. A quantification of controllability can provide
inputs to design components so as to make the mechanism more controllable.

The condition number can be defined, using the L2 norm, as the ratio of the maximum singular value of
a matrix to the minimum singular value. The application of this to the controllability matrix relates to the
standard definition of on-off controllability, namely that if the rank of C is equal to the order of the
system, then the system is controllable. Consider a diagonalized 3x3 controllability matrix. If the
diagonal entries are all equal to one, we can see that this system passes the controllability test. This
matrix would have a condition number equal to one, as the maximum and minimum singular values are
both one. If the first entry is increased while decreasing the last entry, it can be seen that controllability
is being “lost” until a certain threshold is reached when the maximum entry is much larger than the
smallest entry. At this point, control over the state corresponding to that smallest entry is lost. A matrix
with this property would have a very large condition number, because the largest singular value is much
greater than the smallest singular value. Using the condition number on the controllability matrix is
therefore a measure of controllability that gives information as to partial, or relative, control over a
system. This is advantageous compared to the on-off measure given by the rank test of the
controllability matrix.[3]

Although in theory the rank conditions of the controllability and observability matrices are easy to
check, these can be poorly conditioned computational operations to perform. A better way to determine
these properties is via the controllability and observability gramians. [4] However, the system should be
stable for calculating gramians.

Another important consideration is that if reciprocal of the condition number of the gramian is
considered it would convert the measure to a value that lies between 0 and 1, with 0 being the poorly
controllable and 1 being highly controllable. This would help in directly accessing the improvement
achieved by varying a certain parameter.

The system developed in the previous section will be studied for the observability and controllability.
The controllability for the system under consideration can be defined as the ability to achieve the desired
drum angular velocity and position by providing a torque input to the drum within a finite time. The
observability can be defined as the ability to determine uniquely the drum angular velocity and position
for a given axial force on the fork. The observability and controllability gramians are calculated. The
reciprocal of condition number of the gramians is then evaluated and plotted as a function of the
parameters.
2.5 Output Controllability
Output controllability is the related notion for the output of the system; the output controllability
describes the ability of an external input to move the output from any initial condition to any final
condition in a finite time interval. A controllable system is not necessarily output controllable, and an
output controllable system is not necessarily controllable.

15
For a linear continuous-time system, like the example above, described by matrices A, B, C, and D,
the output controllability matrix

must have full row rank (i.e. rank m) if and only if the system is output controllable. [5]

The output controllability in this context is defined as the ability of the torque applied at the drum to
achieve the desired axial force.

16
3. Results
This chapter presents the results for the variation of condition number of the controllability and
observability gramians with the variation in mechanism parameters.

3.1 Simulation Inputs

The following inputs are used to calculate the controllability and observability gramians. The following
inputs are for an existing mechanism.
Constants
µ = 0.16
Independent Design Variables
θ = 42*pi/180
RD= 24.5;
ζ = 31.61*pi/180;
φ= 62.08*pi/180;
Ds = 79.63;
Ac = 66.22;
O1 = 85.44;
O2 = 16.55;
O3 = 67.8;
C = 14.95;
Ks = 5;
Bs = 1;
dl = 8.3;
d = 13;
ID = 200;
mf = 0.2;

3.2 System Response

Impulse Response Step Response
0.06 0.03

0.05
0.025

0.04

0.02
0.03
Amplitude
Amplitude

0.02 0.015

0.01
0.01

0.005
-0.01

-0.02 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 3-1 System response for step and impulse input

17
 The system response is plotted for the step and impulse input which shows that the system is stable for
the above mentioned value of variables. Also the same can be proved by calculating the eigen values of
the A matrix which lies in the Left Half Plane. Hence, the gramians for the system can be calculated.

3.3 Degree of Controllability and Observability Contour Plots

This section deals with the analysis of the effect of parametric variation on degree of controllability and
observability of the system.

Drum Ramp Angle (θ) Analysis

The contour plot in Figure 3-1 depicts that the reciprocal of condition number of the controllability
gramian increases with increase in drum ramp angle (θ). This implies that the degree of controllability of
the system reduces with increasing drum ramp angle. Also, the scale in the figure shows that the number
varies considerably with the variation of the parameter. The decrease in controllability of the states with
increase in drum ramp angle can be attributed to the fact that increase in ramp angle leads to an increase
in the reaction from the fork lug on the drum, for the same axial force developed on the fork, due to
which the drum angular acceleration decreases. This reduction in acceleration also leads to a decrease in
angular velocity and hence, angular displacement than was possible with lower ramp angle. Thus, the
ease with which any given angular velocity and displacement of the drum can be achieved decreases
with increase and ramp angle. Hence, the controllability of the system reduces with increase in drum
ramp angle.

The second plot in Figure 3-1 shows that the degree of observability decreases with increase in drum
radius (RD). The decrease in observability of the states with increase in drum ramp angle can be

Degree of Controllability Degree of Observability

50 50

45 0.3 45
0.25
Drum Radius (mm) →

Drum Radius (mm) →

40 0.25 40
0.2

35 0.2 35

0.15

30 0.15 30

0.1
25 0.1 25

0.05 0.05
20 20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Drum Ramp Angle (deg) → Drum Ramp Angle (deg) →

Figure 3-2 Contour plots of the reciprocal of condition number of controllability and observability
gramians as a function of drum radius and drum ramp angle.

interpreted mathematically. The increase in the drum ramp angle leads to the increase in the value of C
matrix, which can be seen from the following equation.

18
 ⎡ x1 ⎤
y = [ KsRD tan θ BsRD tan θ ] ⎢ ⎥ + [ 0] u
⎣ x2⎦
The problem of observability is similar to determining the value of x1 and x2 for a given value of y. This
increase in value of C matrix makes the controllability gramian more biased in terms of singular values
i.e. the maximum singular value increases and the minimum singular value decreases thus, leading to
increase in condition number or decrease in degree of observability and making system less observable.

Drum Radius (RD) Analysis

Figure 3-2 also shows the variation of degree of controllability as a function of drum radius. The
increase in drum radius leads to a decrease in the degree of controllability of the system. The scale
shows that the effect of drum radius on controllability is also considerable though less than that of the
drum ramp angle. Hence, drum radius also becomes a critical parameter in deciding controllability of
the system.

The observability of the system also shows a similar trend though the improvement in the degree is a
little lesser in this case. However, the improvement on a practical system in controllability and
observability cannot be compared as these two represent totally different quantities.

Degree of Controllability Degree of Observability

80 80
0.08 0.0735
75 75
0.0795 0.073
70 70
0.079
φ Angle (deg) →
φ Angle (deg) →

0.0725
65 65
0.0785
0.072
60 60
0.078
0.0715
55 55
0.0775
0.071
50 0.077 50

0.0705
45 0.0765 45

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
ζ Angle (deg) → ζ Angle (deg) →

Figure 3-3 Contour plots of the reciprocal of condition number of controllability and observability
gramians as a function of fork lug angle φ and fork leg angle ζ.

Fork Lug Angle (φ) Analysis

The variation of degree of controllability with the fork lug angle is shown in Figure 3-3. The plot shows
an interesting trend this time. It seems that the controllability is poor around a specific value of the angle
i.e. around 65 to 70 degrees. As one moves away from this angle the controllability improves. However,
it would be difficult to provide a practical explanation as to why this happens.

The degree of observability also varies in a similar fashion with variation in fork lug angle. However,
the rate at which the degree improves as one moves away from the poor observability region is slower as

19
 compared to the rate of improvement shown by controllability. This again cannot be compared in
absolute terms.

An improvement fact to be noted here is that the improvement achievable both in controllability and
observability of the system is not much by varying this parameter.

Fork Leg Angle (ζ) Analysis

However, the plot in Figure 3-3 shows that the controllability improves with the increase in fork leg
angle. This means that an asymmetric fork will lead to a better controllability. This however, cannot be
questioned as it is the complex interaction of forces and reactions induced in the system that is leading to
determination of controllability and so an asymmetric configuration might improve controllability.

The observability shows a very similar trend with improving degree against increase in angle.

Degree of Controllability Degree of Observability

85 85

0.078
80 0.072
80

0.076
75 75 0.07
Distance Ac (mm) →

Distance Ac (mm) →

70 0.074
70 0.068

65 0.072 65
0.066

60 0.07 60
0.064

55 0.068 55
0.062
50 0.066 50
0.06
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Mean Sleeve Diameter (mm) → Mean Sleeve Diameter (mm) →

Figure 3-4 Contour plots of the reciprocal of condition number of controllability and observability
gramians as a function of distance Ac and mean sleeve diameter.

Distance Ac Analysis
The plot in Figure 3-3 shows that the controllability increases with increase in value of Ac. This means
the farther the shifting sleeve is from the fork rail the more controllable the system will be. The plot for
observability also shows a similar trend. However, the improvement is not significant.

Mean Sleeve Diameter (Ds) Analysis

However, the mean sleeve diameter shows opposite trend. The controllability decreases with increase in
the diameter. Also, the effect is much more prominent as compared to the one with decrease in distance
Ac. The observability follows a similar trend.

Length O2 Analysis
The controllability of the system increases with increase in length O2 as can be seen in Figure 3-5. For
the considered mechanism the fork lug is highly biased on one side due to which the increase in O2 lead
to a symmetrically placed fork lug. This implies that controllability increases with symmetrically located

20
 Degree of Controllability Degree of Observability
30 30
0.08 0.0735

0.0795 0.073
25 25
0.079 0.0725

Length O2 (mm) →
Length O2 (mm) →

0.0785
20 0.072
20
0.078
0.0715
0.0775
15 15 0.071
0.077
0.0705
0.0765
10 10
0.07
0.076
0.0695
0.0755
5 5
0.075 0.069

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105

Length O1 (mm) → Length O1 (mm) →

Figure 3-5 Contour plots of the reciprocal of condition number of controllability and observability
gramians as a function of length O1 and O2.

fork lug. The same it true for the observability of the system.

Length O1 Analysis
The increase in length O1 leads to an asymmetric fork lug due to which the controllability decreases with
increase in length O1. The same holds good for the observability.

Degree of Controllability Degree of Observability

24 24
0.08 0.073

0.079 22 0.072
22
0.078
0.071
Distance C (mm) →

20
Distance C (mm) →

20
0.077
0.07
18 0.076 18
0.069
0.075
16 16 0.068
0.074

14 0.073 14 0.067

0.072 0.066
12 12
0.071
0.065
10 0.07 10
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Length O3 (mm) → Length O3 (mm) →

Figure 3-6 Contour plots of the reciprocal of condition number of controllability and observability
gramians as a function of distance C and length O3.

Length O3 Analysis
The fork lug offset from the fork leg i.e. O3 does not affect the controllability of the system much as is
obvious from Figure 3-6. Still, the controllability reduces with increase in its value. The same is valid
for its influence on observability.

21
Distance C Analysis
The distance C cannot be varied much as is limited by the length of the fork lug which cannot be
increased beyond a certain value due to its small cross-section and the load being transferred through it.
For the given variation the controllability decreases with increase in its value. Observability follows the
same trend.

3.4 Output Controllability

For the input values mentioned previous in the chapter the following A, B, C and D matrices are
obtained.
⎡ 0 1.0000 ⎤
A= ⎢ ⎥
⎣-12.9094 -2.5819 ⎦
⎡ 0 ⎤
B=⎢ ⎥
⎣0.0022 ⎦
C = [110.2995 22.0599]
D = [0]
The output controllability matrix is then given by

[CB CAB D ] = [0.0493 0.1192 0]

From the above equation it follows that the above matrix always has row rank as 1 until the first to terms
reduce to zero which for the given parametric variation is never true. Also, the condition number for the
matrix is k = 1. Hence, the system is always output controllable. This seems very plausible practically as
the torque applied at the drum can always be used to control the force developed at the fork in the axial
direction.

3.5 Condition Number improvement

The value of the drum ramp angle and drum radius is reduced to the following:
θ = 22*pi/180
RD= 20.5;

The degree of controllability improves from 0.0775 to a value of 0.3634. Also the degree of
observability of the system improves from 0.0712 to 0.3229. Thus, the study has a good potential to
improve the controllability and observability of the system.

22
4. Conclusion
In general, controllability and observability show similar trends with variation in parameters. This
means design for improved controllability will also lead to design for improved observability. This in
fact is good for designing a controller for the mechanism since a controller almost always work in
tandem with an observer.

The following conclusions can be made about choosing the design variables for sequential type gearshift
mechanism for improved controllability and observability:

1. Drum ramp angle and Drum radius should be kept as low as possible
2. Fork lug angle should be kept as low as possible.
3. Fork leg angle should be kept as high as possible.
4. Distance Ac should be as large as possible.
5. The mean sleeve diameter should be as small as possible.
6. The length O1 should be kept as small as possible.
7. The length O2 should be kept as large as possible.
8. The length O3 and distance C should be kept as small as possible.

Also, it can be concluded that the following parameters have a major role in determining the
controllability and observability of the system and should be given attention during the design stage.
1. Drum ramp angle
2. Drum radius

Please note that the parameters are listed in the order of their decreasing influence on controllability and
observability for the given range of parameter variation.

Furthermore, the system is found to be always output controllable.

The above conclusions can give rise to an altogether new area of design i.e. design for controllability
and design for observability. Such an awareness of the controllability and observability of the system
during the design stage itself can lead to much improved controller performance in later stages.

23
5. Future Work
The nonlinearity in the model due to deformation of the fork under considerable load can be taken into
account which has been altogether neglected in this model. Also, the variation of the drum groove ramp
angle can be taken into consideration which will make the system highly nonlinear. Another important
fact is that the friction coefficients at different places in the mechanism vary due to varying lubrication
condition within the system at a time and also with time at the same place. This makes it highly
uncertain to determine the values of the coefficients accurately for the model. However, the torque
required to achieve same force on the fork vary significantly with coefficient of friction. All this makes
it important to take into consideration the uncertainty in coefficient of friction to make the model more
accurate. However, the complexity involved in modeling the uncertainties need to be handled
accordingly.

24
Bibliography
[1] Dudnikov, Andrey, Estimation procedure of increasing the speed of gear shift in sports cars at the
design stage.

[2] Kim D H, Yang K, Hong K, Hahn J, Lee K (2003), Smooth shift control of automatic transmissions
using a robust adaptive scheme with intelligent supervision, International Journal of Vehicle Design,
Vol. 32, No.3/4 pp. 250 – 272.

[3] Jason Burns (2009), Optimization of medical guidewires through controllability matrix, MS Thesis,
Drexel University.

[4] Rowley and Batten (2008), Dynamic and Closed-Loop Control, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics.

[5] Katsuhiko Ogata (1997). Modern Control Engineering (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall. ISBN 0-13-227307-1.

[6] Dullerud G. E., Paganini F. G., A course in robust control theory: a convex approach, Springer,   
pp. 57‐81. 

[7] Cooper R. A., Observability and controllability of scooters, Human Engineering Research
Laboratories, Departments of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, Mechanical Engineering, and
Medicine, University of Pittsburgh.

[8] Rothbart H. A., Cam design handbook, McGraw‐Hill Handbooks, 2004, pp. 27‐55. 

[9] Norton R. L., Cam design and manufacturing handbook, Industrial Press, Inc., pp. 177‐312. 

25
Appendix
Please note that dynamics equations are solved for each parametric variation due the inability of
MATLAB (unable to reshape) to handle bulky symbolic calculations iteratively.

A.1 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for drum ramp angle (θ) and drum radius (RD)
clc;
clear all;
close all;

syms R1 FA FT Fft_f Nx1 Nx2 Ny1 Ny2 Ffa TD theta RD u ID mf zeta_ang C A2 A1 B1 B2

E1 E2 O1 O2 O3 d dl phi gammadot gammadot2 K1 K2 dthetadgamma Dsi;

%Constants
u_val = 0.16;

% Independent Design Variables

theta_val = 42*pi/180;
RD_val = 24.5;
zeta_ang_val = 31.61*pi/180;
phi_val = 62.08*pi/180;
Ds_val = 79.63;
Ac_val = 66.22;
O1_val = 85.44;
O2_val = 16.55;
O3_val = 67.8;
C_val = 14.95;
Ks_val = 5;
Bs_val = 1;
dl_val = 8.3;
d_val = 13;
ID_val = 200;
mf_val = 0.2;

%Dependent Design Variables

A1_val = Ac_val+Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A1_val = 87.09;
A2_val = Ac_val-Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A2_val = 45.35;
E1_val = Ds_val*cos(zeta_ang_val)/2; % E1_val = 33.91;
E2_val = E1_val; % E2_val = 33.91;
B1_val = O1_val - O3_val; %B1_val = 17.64;
B2_val = O2_val + O3_val; %B2_val = 84.35;
Dsi_val = Ds_val-5;

%System States
gammadot_val = 0;

Eqn = 'FA -R1*(cos(theta)-u*sin(theta)) , FT -

R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta)),FT+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)-Nx1-Nx2,FT*sin(phi)+Ny1-Ny2-
Fft_f*sin(zeta_ang), -
FT*C+Fft_f*A2/cos(zeta_ang),FA*C*sin(phi)+Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)

-1-
+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*E1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*E2)+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)*O3
+Nx2*O2-Nx1*O1+u*(Nx1+Nx2)*d/2+u*R1*dl/2*cos(phi)-u*Fft_f*Dsi*cos(zeta_ang),-
FA*C*cos(phi)-FT*sin(phi)*O3-
Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*A1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*A2)+Ny1*B1+Ny2*B2-
u*Ny1*d/2+u*Ny2*d/2+u*R1*dl*sin(phi)/2-u*Fft_f*((A1+A2)/2-Dsi*sin(zeta_ang)), FA-
u*(Ny1+Ny2+Nx1+Nx2)-Ffa-u*Fft_f-
mf*RD*(tan(theta)*gammadot2+sec(theta)^2*dthetadgamma*gammadot^2), TD -
R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta))*RD-ID*gammadot2';

S = solve(Eqn,FA,FT,Fft_f,Nx1,Nx2,Ny1,Ny2,R1,gammadot2);
gammadot2_val = S.gammadot2;
gammadot2_val = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),{gammadot},{0})));

%Degree of Controllability & Observability variation with Drum Radius and

%Drum Ramp Angle
fun_sim = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),{dl,u, zeta_ang, C,A2, A1, B1,
B2, E1, E2, O1, O2, O3, d, phi, ID, mf, Dsi} ,{dl_val, u_val, zeta_ang_val, C_val,
A2_val, A1_val, B1_val, B2_val, E1_val, E2_val, O1_val, O2_val, O3_val, d_val,
phi_val, ID_val, mf_val, Dsi_val})));
f1 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{1,0})),4);
f2 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{0,1})),4);
i=0;
X = (42-20)*pi/180:pi/180:(42+20)*pi/180;
Y = 20:1:50;
for RD_val = Y
i= i+1;
j=0;
for theta_val = X
j = j+1;
f1_val = double(subs(f1,{RD,theta},{RD_val,theta_val}));
f2_val = double(subs(f2,{RD,theta},{RD_val,theta_val}));
A = [0 1; f2_val*Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)
f2_val*Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
B = [0; f1_val];
C = [Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val) Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
D = [0];
sys = ss(A,B,C,D);
CG = gram(sys,'c'); % Computing Controllability Gramian
OG = gram(sys,'o'); % Computing Observability Gramian
CC(i,j) = 1/cond(CG); %Condition Number Controllability Gramian
CO(i,j) = 1/cond(OG); %Condition Number Observability Gramian
end
end
figure
contourf(X*180/pi,Y,CC);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('Drum Ramp Angle (deg) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('Drum Radius (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
title('Degree of Controllability','FontSize',15);
figure;
contourf(X*180/pi,Y,CO);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('Drum Ramp Angle (deg) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('Drum Radius (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);

-2-
title('Degree of Observability','FontSize',15);

A.2 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for angle (ζ) and angle (φ)
clc;
clear all;
close all;
syms R1 FA FT Fft_f Nx1 Nx2 Ny1 Ny2 Ffa TD theta RD u ID mf zeta_ang C A2 A1 B1 B2
E1 E2 O1 O2 O3 d dl phi gammadot gammadot2 K1 K2 dthetadgamma Dsi;
%Constants
u_val = 0.16;
% Independent Design Variables
theta_val = 42*pi/180;
RD_val = 24.5;
zeta_ang_val = 31.61*pi/180;
phi_val = 62.08*pi/180;
Ds_val = 79.63;
Ac_val = 66.22;
O1_val = 85.44;
O2_val = 16.55;
O3_val = 67.8;
C_val = 14.95;
Ks_val = 5;
Bs_val = 1;
dl_val = 8.3;
d_val = 13;
ID_val = 200;
mf_val = 0.2;
%Dependent Design Variables
A1_val = Ac_val+Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A1_val = 87.09;
A2_val = Ac_val-Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A2_val = 45.35;
E1_val = Ds_val*cos(zeta_ang_val)/2; % E1_val = 33.91;
E2_val = E1_val; % E2_val = 33.91;
B1_val = O1_val - O3_val; %B1_val = 17.64;
B2_val = O2_val + O3_val; %B2_val = 84.35;
Dsi_val = Ds_val-5;
%System States
gammadot_val = 0;
Eqn = 'FA -R1*(cos(theta)-u*sin(theta)) , FT -
R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta)),FT+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)-Nx1-Nx2,FT*sin(phi)+Ny1-Ny2-
Fft_f*sin(zeta_ang), -
FT*C+Fft_f*A2/cos(zeta_ang),FA*C*sin(phi)+Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)
+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*E1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*E2)+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)*O3
+Nx2*O2-Nx1*O1+u*(Nx1+Nx2)*d/2+u*R1*dl/2*cos(phi)-u*Fft_f*Dsi*cos(zeta_ang),-
FA*C*cos(phi)-FT*sin(phi)*O3-
Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*A1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*A2)+Ny1*B1+Ny2*B2-
u*Ny1*d/2+u*Ny2*d/2+u*R1*dl*sin(phi)/2-u*Fft_f*((A1+A2)/2-Dsi*sin(zeta_ang)), FA-
u*(Ny1+Ny2+Nx1+Nx2)-Ffa-u*Fft_f-
mf*RD*(tan(theta)*gammadot2+sec(theta)^2*dthetadgamma*gammadot^2), TD -
R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta))*RD-ID*gammadot2';
S = solve(Eqn,FA,FT,Fft_f,Nx1,Nx2,Ny1,Ny2,R1,gammadot2);
gammadot2_val = S.gammadot2;
gammadot2_val = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),{gammadot},{0})));
%Degree of Controllability & Observability variation with Angle Zeta and

-3-
%Phi
clear fun_sim f1 f2 f1_val f2_val CG OG CC CO
fun_sim = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),{dl,u, RD, C,A2, A1, B1, B2,
E1, E2, O1, O2, O3, d, theta, ID, mf, Dsi} ,{dl_val, u_val, RD_val, C_val, A2_val,
A1_val, B1_val, B2_val, E1_val, E2_val, O1_val, O2_val, O3_val, d_val, theta_val,
ID_val, mf_val, Dsi_val})));
f1 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{1,0})),4);
f2 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{0,1})),4);
i=0;
X = zeta_ang_val-20*pi/180:pi/180:zeta_ang_val+20*pi/180;
Y = phi_val-20*pi/180:pi/180:phi_val+20*pi/180;
for Y_val = Y
i= i+1;
j=0;
for X_val = X
j = j+1;
f1_val = double(subs(f1,{zeta_ang,phi},{X_val,Y_val}));
f2_val = double(subs(f2,{zeta_ang,phi},{X_val,Y_val}));
A = [0 1; f2_val*Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)
f2_val*Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
B = [0; f1_val];
C = [Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val) Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
D = [0];
sys = ss(A,B,C,D);
CG = gram(sys,'c'); % Computing Controllability Gramian
OG = gram(sys,'o'); % Computing Observability Gramian
CC(i,j) = 1/cond(CG); %Condition Number Controllability Gramian
CO(i,j) = 1/cond(OG); %Condition Number Observability Gramian
end
end
figure;
contourf(X*180/pi,Y*180/pi,CC);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('\zeta Angle (deg) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('\phi Angle (deg) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
title('Degree of Controllability','FontSize',15);
figure;
contourf(X*180/pi,Y*180/pi,CO);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('\zeta Angle (deg) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('\phi Angle (deg) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
title('Degree of Observability','FontSize',15);

A.3 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for mean sleeve diameter (Ds) and distance Ac
clc;
clear all;
close all;
syms R1 FA FT Fft_f Nx1 Nx2 Ny1 Ny2 Ffa TD theta RD u ID mf zeta_ang C A2 A1 B1 B2
E1 E2 O1 O2 O3 d dl phi gammadot gammadot2 K1 K2 dthetadgamma Dsi;
%Constants
u_val = 0.16;
% Independent Design Variables
theta_val = 42*pi/180;
RD_val = 24.5;

-4-
zeta_ang_val = 31.61*pi/180;
phi_val = 62.08*pi/180;
Ds_val = 79.63;
Ac_val = 66.22;
O1_val = 85.44;
O2_val = 16.55;
O3_val = 67.8;
C_val = 14.95;
Ks_val = 5;
Bs_val = 1;
dl_val = 8.3;
d_val = 13;
ID_val = 200;
mf_val = 0.2;
%Dependent Design Variables
A1_val = Ac_val+Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A1_val = 87.09;
A2_val = Ac_val-Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A2_val = 45.35;
E1_val = Ds_val*cos(zeta_ang_val)/2; % E1_val = 33.91;
E2_val = E1_val; % E2_val = 33.91;
B1_val = O1_val - O3_val; %B1_val = 17.64;
B2_val = O2_val + O3_val; %B2_val = 84.35;
Dsi_val = Ds_val-5;
% System States
gammadot_val = 0;
Eqn = 'FA -R1*(cos(theta)-u*sin(theta)) , FT -
R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta)),FT+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)-Nx1-Nx2,FT*sin(phi)+Ny1-Ny2-
Fft_f*sin(zeta_ang), -
FT*C+Fft_f*A2/cos(zeta_ang),FA*C*sin(phi)+Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)
+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*E1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*E2)+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)*O3
+Nx2*O2-Nx1*O1+u*(Nx1+Nx2)*d/2+u*R1*dl/2*cos(phi)-u*Fft_f*Dsi*cos(zeta_ang),-
FA*C*cos(phi)-FT*sin(phi)*O3-
Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*A1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*A2)+Ny1*B1+Ny2*B2-
u*Ny1*d/2+u*Ny2*d/2+u*R1*dl*sin(phi)/2-u*Fft_f*((A1+A2)/2-Dsi*sin(zeta_ang)), FA-
u*(Ny1+Ny2+Nx1+Nx2)-Ffa-u*Fft_f-
mf*RD*(tan(theta)*gammadot2+sec(theta)^2*dthetadgamma*gammadot^2), TD -
R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta))*RD-ID*gammadot2';
S = solve(Eqn,FA,FT,Fft_f,Nx1,Nx2,Ny1,Ny2,R1,gammadot2);
gammadot2_val = S.gammadot2;
gammadot2_val = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),{gammadot},{0})));
%Degree of Controllability & Observability variation with Ds and Ac
%Calculating Condition Number
fun_sim = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),{zeta_ang,phi,dl,u, RD, C,B1,
B2, O1, O2, O3, d, theta, ID, mf} ,{zeta_ang_val,phi_val,dl_val, u_val, RD_val,
C_val, B1_val, B2_val, O1_val, O2_val, O3_val, d_val, theta_val, ID_val,
mf_val})));
f1 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{1,0})),4);
f2 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{0,1})),4);
i=0;
X = Ds_val-20:1:Ds_val+20;
Y = Ac_val-20:1:Ac_val+20;
for Ac_val = Y
i= i+1;
j=0;
for Ds_val = X
j = j+1;

-5-
 %Dependent Design Variables
A1_val = Ac_val+Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2;
A2_val = Ac_val-Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2;
E1_val = Ds_val*cos(zeta_ang_val)/2;
E2_val = E1_val;
Dsi_val = Ds_val-5;
f1_val = double(subs(f1,{A2, A1, E1, E2, Dsi},{A2_val, A1_val, E1_val,
E2_val, Dsi_val}));
f2_val = double(subs(f2,{A2, A1, E1, E2, Dsi},{A2_val, A1_val, E1_val,
E2_val, Dsi_val}));
A = [0 1; f2_val*Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)
f2_val*Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
B = [0; f1_val];
C = [Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val) Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
D = [0];
sys = ss(A,B,C,D);
CG = gram(sys,'c'); % Computing Controllability Gramian
OG = gram(sys,'o'); % Computing Observability Gramian
CC(i,j) = 1/cond(CG); %Condition Number Controllability Gramian
CO(i,j) = 1/cond(OG); %Condition Number Observability Gramian
end
end
figure;
contourf(X,Y,CC);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('Mean Sleeve Diameter (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('Distance Ac (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
title('Degree of Controllability','FontSize',15);
figure;
contourf(X,Y,CO);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('Mean Sleeve Diameter (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('Distance Ac (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
title('Degree of Observability','FontSize',15);

A.4 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for length (O1) and length (O2)
clc;
clear all;
close all;
syms R1 FA FT Fft_f Nx1 Nx2 Ny1 Ny2 Ffa TD theta RD u ID mf zeta_ang C A2 A1 B1 B2
E1 E2 O1 O2 O3 d dl phi gammadot gammadot2 K1 K2 dthetadgamma Dsi;
%Constants
u_val = 0.16;
% Independent Design Variables
theta_val = 42*pi/180;
RD_val = 24.5;
zeta_ang_val = 31.61*pi/180;
phi_val = 62.08*pi/180;
Ds_val = 79.63;
Ac_val = 66.22;
O1_val = 85.44;
O2_val = 16.55;
O3_val = 67.8;

-6-
C_val = 14.95;
Ks_val = 5;
Bs_val = 1;
dl_val = 8.3;
d_val = 13;
ID_val = 200;
mf_val = 0.2;
%Dependent Design Variables
A1_val = Ac_val+Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A1_val = 87.09;
A2_val = Ac_val-Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A2_val = 45.35;
E1_val = Ds_val*cos(zeta_ang_val)/2; % E1_val = 33.91;
E2_val = E1_val; % E2_val = 33.91;
B1_val = O1_val - O3_val; %B1_val = 17.64;
B2_val = O2_val + O3_val; %B2_val = 84.35;
Dsi_val = Ds_val-5;
%System States
gammadot_val = 0;
Eqn = 'FA -R1*(cos(theta)-u*sin(theta)) , FT -
R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta)),FT+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)-Nx1-Nx2,FT*sin(phi)+Ny1-Ny2-
Fft_f*sin(zeta_ang), -
FT*C+Fft_f*A2/cos(zeta_ang),FA*C*sin(phi)+Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)
+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*E1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*E2)+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)*O3
+Nx2*O2-Nx1*O1+u*(Nx1+Nx2)*d/2+u*R1*dl/2*cos(phi)-u*Fft_f*Dsi*cos(zeta_ang),-
FA*C*cos(phi)-FT*sin(phi)*O3-
Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*A1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*A2)+Ny1*B1+Ny2*B2-
u*Ny1*d/2+u*Ny2*d/2+u*R1*dl*sin(phi)/2-u*Fft_f*((A1+A2)/2-Dsi*sin(zeta_ang)), FA-
u*(Ny1+Ny2+Nx1+Nx2)-Ffa-u*Fft_f-
mf*RD*(tan(theta)*gammadot2+sec(theta)^2*dthetadgamma*gammadot^2), TD -
R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta))*RD-ID*gammadot2';
S = solve(Eqn,FA,FT,Fft_f,Nx1,Nx2,Ny1,Ny2,R1,gammadot2);
gammadot2_val = S.gammadot2;
gammadot2_val = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),{gammadot},{0})));
% %Degree of Controllability & Observability variation with O1 and O2
% %Calculating Condition Number
fun_sim = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),...
{zeta_ang,phi,dl,u, RD, C,A2, A1, E1, E2, Dsi, O3, d, theta, ID, mf} ,...
{zeta_ang_val,phi_val,dl_val, u_val, RD_val, C_val, A2_val, A1_val,...
E1_val, E2_val, Dsi_val, O3_val, d_val, theta_val, ID_val, mf_val})));
f1 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{1,0})),4);
f2 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{0,1})),4);
i=0;
X = O1_val-20:1:O1_val+20;
Y = O2_val-15:1:O2_val+15;
for O2_val = Y
i= i+1;
j=0;
for O1_val = X
j = j+1;
%Dependent Design Variables
B1_val = O1_val - O3_val;
B2_val = O2_val + O3_val;
f1_val = double(subs(f1,{B1, B2, O1, O2},{B1_val, B2_val, O1_val,
O2_val}));
f2_val = double(subs(f2,{B1, B2, O1, O2},{B1_val, B2_val, O1_val,
O2_val}));

-7-
 A = [0 1; f2_val*Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)
f2_val*Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
B = [0; f1_val];
C = [Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val) Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
D = [0];
sys = ss(A,B,C,D);
CG = gram(sys,'c'); % Computing Controllability Gramian
OG = gram(sys,'o'); % Computing Observability Gramian
CC(i,j) = 1/cond(CG); %Condition Number Controllability Gramian
CO(i,j) = 1/cond(OG); %Condition Number Observability Gramian
end
end
figure;
contourf(X,Y,CC);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('Length O1 (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('Length O2 (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
title('Degree of Controllability','FontSize',15);
figure;
contourf(X,Y,CO);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('Length O1 (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('Length O2 (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
title('Degree of Observability','FontSize',15);

A.5 MATLAB code for condition number calculation of controllability and

observability graminas for drum ramp angle (θ) and drum radius (RD)
clc;
clear all;
close all;
syms R1 FA FT Fft_f Nx1 Nx2 Ny1 Ny2 Ffa TD theta RD u ID mf zeta_ang C A2 A1 B1 B2
E1 E2 O1 O2 O3 d dl phi gammadot gammadot2 K1 K2 dthetadgamma Dsi;
%Constants
u_val = 0.16;
% Independent Design Variables
theta_val = 42*pi/180;
RD_val = 24.5;
zeta_ang_val = 31.61*pi/180;
phi_val = 62.08*pi/180;
Ds_val = 79.63;
Ac_val = 66.22;
O1_val = 85.44;
O2_val = 16.55;
O3_val = 67.8;
C_val = 14.95;
Ks_val = 5;
Bs_val = 1;
dl_val = 8.3;
d_val = 13;
ID_val = 200;
mf_val = 0.2;
%Dependent Design Variables
A1_val = Ac_val+Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A1_val = 87.09;
A2_val = Ac_val-Ds_val*sin(zeta_ang_val)/2; % A2_val = 45.35;
E1_val = Ds_val*cos(zeta_ang_val)/2; % E1_val = 33.91;
E2_val = E1_val; % E2_val = 33.91;

-8-
B1_val = O1_val - O3_val; %B1_val = 17.64;
B2_val = O2_val + O3_val; %B2_val = 84.35;
Dsi_val = Ds_val-5;
%System States
gammadot_val = 0;
Eqn = 'FA -R1*(cos(theta)-u*sin(theta)) , FT -
R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta)),FT+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)-Nx1-Nx2,FT*sin(phi)+Ny1-Ny2-
Fft_f*sin(zeta_ang), -
FT*C+Fft_f*A2/cos(zeta_ang),FA*C*sin(phi)+Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)
+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*E1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*E2)+Fft_f*cos(zeta_ang)*O3
+Nx2*O2-Nx1*O1+u*(Nx1+Nx2)*d/2+u*R1*dl/2*cos(phi)-u*Fft_f*Dsi*cos(zeta_ang),-
FA*C*cos(phi)-FT*sin(phi)*O3-
Ffa*((A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2))*A1-(1-
(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)/((A1^2+E1^2)^(3/2)+(A2^2+E2^2)^(3/2)))*A2)+Ny1*B1+Ny2*B2-
u*Ny1*d/2+u*Ny2*d/2+u*R1*dl*sin(phi)/2-u*Fft_f*((A1+A2)/2-Dsi*sin(zeta_ang)), FA-
u*(Ny1+Ny2+Nx1+Nx2)-Ffa-u*Fft_f-
mf*RD*(tan(theta)*gammadot2+sec(theta)^2*dthetadgamma*gammadot^2), TD -
R1*(sin(theta)+u*cos(theta))*RD-ID*gammadot2';
S = solve(Eqn,FA,FT,Fft_f,Nx1,Nx2,Ny1,Ny2,R1,gammadot2);
gammadot2_val = S.gammadot2;
gammadot2_val = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),{gammadot},{0})));
%Degree of Controllability & Observability variation with O3 and C
%Calculating Condition Number
fun_sim = vpa(simplify(subs(simplify(gammadot2_val),...
{zeta_ang,phi,dl,u, RD, A2, A1, E1, E2, Dsi, O1, O2, d, theta, ID, mf} ,...
{zeta_ang_val,phi_val,dl_val, u_val, RD_val, A2_val, A1_val,...
E1_val, E2_val, Dsi_val, O1_val, O2_val, d_val, theta_val, ID_val, mf_val})));
f1 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{1,0})),4);
f2 = vpa(simplify(subs(fun_sim,{TD, Ffa} ,{0,1})),4);
i=0;
X = O3_val-20:1:O3_val+20;
Y = C_val-5:1:C_val+10;
CC = zeros(length(Y),length(X));
CO = zeros(length(Y),length(X));
for C_val = Y
i= i+1;
j=0;
for O3_val = X
j = j+1;
%Dependent Design Variables
B1_val = O1_val - O3_val;
B2_val = O2_val + O3_val;
f1_val = double(subs(f1,{B1, B2, O3, C},{B1_val, B2_val, O3_val, C_val}));
f2_val = double(subs(f2,{B1, B2, O3, C},{B1_val, B2_val, O3_val, C_val}));
A = [0 1; f2_val*Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)
f2_val*Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
B = [0; f1_val];
C_M = [Ks_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val) Bs_val*RD_val*tan(theta_val)];
D = [0];
sys = ss(A,B,C_M,D);
CG = gram(sys,'c'); % Computing Controllability Gramian
OG = gram(sys,'o'); % Computing Observability Gramian
CC(i,j) = 1/cond(CG); %Condition Number Controllability Gramian
CO(i,j) = 1/cond(OG); %Condition Number Observability Gramian
end
end

-9-
figure;
contourf(X,Y,CC);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('Length O3 (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('Distance C (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
title('Degree of Controllability','FontSize',15);
figure;
contourf(X,Y,CO);
colormap(gray);
xlabel('Length O3 (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
ylabel('Distance C (mm) \rightarrow','FontSize',12);
title('Degree of Observability','FontSize',15);
O3_val = 67.8;
C_val = 14.95;

- 10 -