Control of motorcycles by variable geometry

rear suspension

Simos A. Evangelou, Daniele Dini

Departments of Mechanical, and Electrical and Electronic Engineering,

Imperial College London
Contents

• Introduction

• Motorcycle model

• Displacement control design

• Results

• Conclusions

2 /18
Introduction

• Motorcycles can become unstable

• Wobble, 6 − 9 Hz – mainly steering

• Weave, 2 − 4 Hz – yawing, rolling, steering

• In cornering, lateral modes coupled to in-plane modes

• Motorcycle prone to resonant road forcing

• Rear suspension participation in weave oscillations

• Active control via rear suspension

3 /18
Motorcycle model – prior model

• Suzuki GSX-R1000 parameter set

• Main frame – 6 DOF

• Swinging arm, rider upper body, front frame, spinning wheels

• Rear monoshock suspension, telescopic front forks

• Aerodynamic forces, moments

• ‘Wide’ / flexible tyres, ‘magic formulae’, relaxation

• Autosim, nonlinear simulation C++, linearisation Matlab

4 /18
Weave mode

5 /18
Monoshock rear suspension

6 /18
Variable geometry rear suspension model

Fb

X
p13
!
Z
spring/damper
l = l02 − da2
unit

∂l l0 ∂l0
=
Fa
Fa
∂θ l ∂θ
Fs
p21
" ∂l da
p21 =−
Fs p13 to p21 is l0;
Fb
p13 to p"21 is l ∂da l
da

actuation 7 /18
Variable geometry rear suspension

8 /18
Spring/damper unit length and leverage ratio

Spring unit length (m)

0.301

0.3005

0.3

0.2995

0.299
−0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Leverage ratio dl /dθ

0.316

0.3155

0.315

0.3145

0.314
−0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Actuator displacement da (m)

9 /18
Equivalent moment

The moment M corresponding to a spring/damper force

Fs = f (l , l˙), by virtual work, is
∂l0 " # l0 ∂l0 " # ∂l
M = Fb = f l , l˙ = f l , l˙
∂θ l ∂θ ∂θ

Equivalent moment M(θ, da, θ̇, d˙a) about the swing arm pivot
is $ %
∂l ∂l ˙ ∂l
M = f l, θ̇ + da ,
∂θ ∂da ∂θ
10 /18
Control design – Nyquist diagram

• da → ψ̇
1 +
• 75 m/s speed
Imaginary axis

0.5

0 • 15 deg roll
−0.5
• weave 27.5 rad/s
−1

• wobble 47.9 rad/s

−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Real axis

11 /18
Control design – frequency response

−5

Magnitude (dB)
−10
da = K (s) sψ −15

−20

−25

kcs −30
270

K (s) =

Phase (deg)
225
s2 + 2ζ ωs + ω2 180

135

kc = −5, ζ = 0.5, ω = 10 90
10
0 1
10
2
10
Frequency (rad/sec)

12 /18
Displacement controller with nonlinear saturation

kd
+ −
kv
2ζ ω

− − −
ψ̇ + va + d̃a da
d
& &
kc dt + −
+
da0
ω2
−

kd = 10000, kv = 3000, da0 = 0.015 m, damin = −25 mm,

damax = 25 mm, vamin = −1.15 m/s, vamax = 1.15 m/s.

13 /18
Simulation results – 75 m/s speed, 15 deg lean

15.3 2
uncontrolled uncontrolled
controlled 1.5 controlled

15.2
1

Steer angle ( )
◦
Roll angle (◦ )

0.5
15.1
0

15 −0.5

−1
14.9
−1.5

−2
14.8
−2.5

14.7 −3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) Time (s)

Sinusoidal road forcing at t = 0 to t = 0.623 s, peak ampli-

tude 5 mm, forcing frequency tuned to weave.
14 /18
Simulation results – 75 m/s speed, 15 deg lean

30
uncontrolled
25 controlled

20

15
Yaw rate ( /s)

10
◦

−5

−10

−15

−20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) 15 /18
Actuator displacement, velocity

0.03
da
va
0.02

0.01

−0.01

−0.02

−0.03
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) 16 /18
Simulation results – 75 m/s speed, 15 deg lean

Yaw rate (rad/s)

 
Time (s)
17 /18
Conclusions

• A variable geometry rear monoshock suspension system

introduced;

• Actuator displacement control law designed;

• Improved cornering weave mode stability in prospect;

• Power, force requirements attainable;

• Energy regeneration possible.

18 /18