You are on page 1of 18

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