AVEC ’12

A Direct Method for Optimal Control and Optimal Design of

Two-Wheeled Vehicles
Giacomo Perantoni, David J N Limebeer and Matthew R Arthington
University of Oxford

Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road

Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX1 3BN, United Kingdom
Phone: (+44) (0) 1865 283172
E-mail: giacomo.perantoni@eng.ox.ac.uk, david.limebeer@eng.ox.ac.uk, matthew.arthington@eng.ox.ac.uk

This paper illustrates a method for the optimal control and optimal design of two-wheeled vehicles
and presents results of its application to minimum lap time, obstacle avoidance and dynamic
parameter optimisation problems. The task is to find the best control trajectory for a defined
manoeuvre within a constrained state-space, which can include both fixed and moving obstacles.
If the vehicle model includes free design parameters, then these are simultaneously optimised to
best facilitate the prescribed manoeuvre.

Topics / Vehicle Dynamics, Modelling and Simulation.

1. INTRODUCTION time a simpler single-track car model is used to obtain

The design of two-wheeled vehicles is a fascinating
art and a precise science. Bicycles and motorcycles are,
by their nature, characterised by a structural ‘inverted
pendulum’ type instability that requires stabilization by
the rider. With increased speed and more extreme riding
conditions other instabilities may come into play,
including the well-studied wobble- and weave-mode
oscillations described in [1], and the more recently
analysed burst oscillations [2]. In modern vehicles,
highly engineered design and control strategies aim to
guarantee stability and enhance performance. The load
distribution, geometry, flexibilities, damping elements,
gear ratios, amongst other design parameters, can be
chosen to influence the vehicle dynamics. In addition,
passive and active control strategies are employed to
improve stability, safety and performances.
This work applies a general method for the
deterministic model-based optimal control of non-linear
systems to the problem of design, trajectory planning
and control of two-wheeled vehicles, with an initial
focus on minimum-time manoeuvres. A review of the
applications of optimal control to vehicles can be found
in [3].
The research in [4], [5] and [6] studies the related
task of finding the minimum-time manoeuvre for a
Formula One car, including load transfer, yaw inertia
and a thermodynamic model for tyre friction, amongst
other dynamic effects. The analysis is based on shooting
methods, and allows for the optimisation of both the
vehicle trajectory and the control inputs. It can also be
used to estimate the sensitivity of the lap times to
vehicle parameters (assuming a perfect driver).
Minimum-time manoeuvres have also been
considered in the context of driver assistance [7]; this
fast solutions for real-time driver support. The solution
of the optimal control problem is found using indirect
methods, seeking trajectories that satisfy the first order
necessary conditions for optimality, as given in [8].
There are fundamental differences between
two-wheeled and four-wheeled vehicles, since the roll
dynamics are an essential feature of two-wheeled
vehicle behaviour. Modelling a vehicle such as a
common motorcycle in its full non-linear dynamics is
not a trivial task and requires automated model building
facilities. As a consequence, the optimal control of
non-linear two-wheeled vehicle models is facilitated by
(and in some cases requires) the integration of
multi-body and optimal control software. Some valuable
examples of this combination can be found in [9] and
[10], where increasingly detailed two-wheeled vehicle
models are considered.
Direct optimal control methods are well suited to
the solution of the problems discussed, offering the
possibility of readily including time-varying constraints
and the optimisation of vehicle parameters. One aim of
the current work is to eliminate the dependence on a
vehicle model with fixed parameters, which is a
recurrent theme in all of the optimal control studies
mentioned above. Furthermore, we wish to consider the
optimisation problem with time varying constraints for
more complex models than the one described in [7].
In the following we discuss the application of direct
methods for optimal control to a two-wheeled vehicle
model: Section 2 introduces the vehicle model; Section
3 will briefly describe the direct method for solving
optimal control problems; Section 4 will outline some
applications of optimal control and present the results
found.
 AVEC ’12

2. VEHICLE MODEL vehicles. The subscripts 𝑓 and 𝑟 will identify the front
and rear contact points respectively.

Table 2 Tyre friction parameters.

stiffness factor
𝜙 shape factor
𝑀 peak value
curvature factor
𝑥̂𝑚
Our vehicle model has 5 degrees of freedom and 5
𝛿 free generalized speeds as listed in Table 3, which in
combination constitute the state, 𝑥, of the vehicle.

Table 3 Vehicle states.

𝐹𝑥
𝑏 Generalised coordinates
𝑤 𝑥 Cartesian coordinates of the
𝜓
𝑦̂𝑚 rear-wheel ground contact point (in
𝑧𝑚 inertial coordinates)
yaw angle
Fig. 1 Timoshenko-Young bicycle diagram (from [1]). roll (or lean) angle
The vehicle model we use here (see Fig. 1) is an steering angle
extended version of the well-known Timoshenko- Generalised speeds
Young model [11]. The original version of this model 𝑥̂ longitudinal speed of the main frame
has no prime mover and the rolling contacts are ̂ lateral speed of the main frame
modelled using non-holonomic constraints. The vehicle 𝜔 yaw rate
is steered using the steering angle . 𝜔 roll rate
In our model we propel the vehicle with a
𝜔𝛿 steering rate
controllable force 𝐹𝑥 applied to the rear-wheel ground
contact point (in the forward direction of the main frame,
𝑥̂𝑚 ), while steering is achieved using the torque-like 3. OPTIMAL CONTROL
steering acceleration input 𝜔̇ 𝛿 . The vehicle is
In this section we employ well-known optimal
parameterised using the 4 variables in Table 1.
control techniques in order to perform various
manoeuvres. The optimal control problem can be
Table 1 Vehicle parameters.
described in terms of the minimization of a performance
mass of the main frame body index subject to constraints (including those associated
wheelbase with the vehicle model). The general optimisation
forward distance of the mass centre problem is
mass height
[ (𝑥( ) )
{ ( ) 𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) }
(2)
This simplified two-wheeled vehicle model cannot
reproduce effects such as straight-running self-stability, ∫ (𝑥( ) ( ) ) ]
or the weave and wobble modes, but captures the basic
dynamics associated with the roll freedom.
subject to the constraints
The non-holonomic rolling constraints in the
original Timoshenko-Young model are replaced with 𝑓(𝑥̇ ( ) 𝑥( ) ( ) )
friction forces due to side-slipping tyres. For the present
(𝑥( ) ( ) )
purposes we have chosen a relatively simple Pacejka
Magic Formula tyre model [12], which maps the tyre (𝑥( ) ( ) ) (3)
sideslip angle 𝛼 to the lateral friction force. This (𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) )
relation is described by: { (𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) )

𝐹 ( ( 𝛼 ( 𝛼 ( 𝛼)))) (1) where is time, and 𝑥( ) and ( ) are the vehicle

in which , , and are parameters that define
the shape of the friction curve. The inclusion of tyres in
the model introduces an effective limit on the roll angle
while cornering. The friction parameters, shown in
Table 2, are used for both the front and the rear wheels,
although this symmetry is not usually valid for real
state and control vectors respectively. The vector
function 𝑓 describes the vehicle dynamics. The vector
functions and define the equality and inequality
constraints for the system (e.g. the road shape, or box
constraints on the states and controls) with the subscript
referring to the boundaries of the time horizon. The
 AVEC ’12

scalar function is the cost associated with the This large sparse NLP problem can be attacked
terminal conditions and is the stage cost assigned to using methods from the mature field of numerical
the instantaneous state and control. optimisation.
It goes without saying that an explicit analytical
solution does not generally exist for problems of this 4. RESULTS
type and so one must resort to numerical algorithms for
a solution. The approach adopted here is one of For our calculations we have used the ‘Imperial
transcribing the given problem into a general College London Optimal Control Software’ (ICLOCS,
finite-dimensional Non-Linear Programming (NLP) http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/ICLOCS/), an open source
problem. Following the methodology given in [13] the toolbox for the direct transcription of continuous time
dynamic system is discretised in time, while the optimal control problems. We interfaced ICLOCS with
continuous state and control functions are quantised into the multi-body software VehicleSim (www.carsim.com)
a finite set of decision variables as follows: so that optimal control problems involving complex
mechanical systems can be transcribed and solved
[ ] automatically. The NLP problems are solved with the
[𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) ] open-source interior point optimizer IPOPT [14].
(4)
[ ( ) ( ) ( ) ] 4.1 Minimum lap time problem
[ ] The aim of this section is to study the optimal
control of our modified Timoshenko-Young bicycle
The difference equations coming from the model. The task is to complete a lap of a prescribed
discretisation of the continuous-time differential closed track in minimum time. The cost and constraints
dynamics are considered as a set of constraints on the for the optimal control problem are defined as follows:
decision variables:
(𝑥( ) ) (𝑥( ) ( ) )
𝑓 (𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) ( ) ) (𝑥( ) ( ) )
𝐹 ( ) [ ] (5) (𝑥( ) ( ) ) (𝑥( ))
𝑓 (𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) ( ) )
(𝑥( ))
where the functions 𝑓 represents a discrete time
(𝑥( )) (8)
approximation of the continuous time differential
equations* 𝑓 from (3). | | 𝑚 𝑥
The cost and the constraints are then reformulated [|𝐹𝑥 | |𝐹 | ]
as functions of the decision variables : (𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) ) 𝑥( ) 𝑥( )
(𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) )
( ) (𝑥( ) )
∑ {[ (𝑥( ) ( ) ) The minimum time objective can be embedded in
the terminal cost term; there is no need for the integral
(𝑥( ) ( ) )] term in (2). If one were to require a penalty of such
( )⁄ } things as energy consumption, then the stage cost term
(𝑥( ) ( ) ) would be required. The last row of defines a
(6) constraint on the maximum magnitude of the drive force
( ) [ (𝑥( ) ( ) )] applied to the main frame, which is consistent with the
(𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) ) characteristics of the tyres and reproduces the concept
(𝑥( ) ( ) ) of a ‘friction circle’ for the rear tyre. The second last
( ) row is a box constraint on the lean angle with
[ (𝑥( ) ( ) )] 𝑚 𝑥 6 °, which is introduced to enforce upright
(𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) ) running and assist the NLP convergence. The other
entries of are used to describe the track and obstacles.
Following discretisation, (3) is solved as a NLP The circuit is defined in terms of feasible sets in the
problem: state space, which constrain the movement of the rear
wheel ground contact point. In our case the obstacle
( ) boundaries are defined in terms of circles (shown in Fig.
𝐹 ( ) 2), with the feasible zones either inside or outside these
(7) circles:
{ ( )
( )
(𝑥( )) ((𝑥 ( ) 𝑥 )
(9)
( ( ) ) 𝑟 )
*
Here the trapezoidal rule is used, for which
[𝑥( ) 𝑥( )]⁄( )
[𝑓(𝑥( ) ( ) ) 𝑓(𝑥( ) ( ) )]⁄ .
 AVEC ’12

Fig. 2 Bicycle trajectory for the time optimal control problem. The cartoons show the configurations of the bicycle
at equally spaced time instants (~ 𝑠). The thick grey curves show the obstacles and track boundaries, while
the thin grey-scaled curve is the trajectory of the rear contact point. The grey scale shading corresponds to time,
and is consistent with that used in Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 (later times are darker). The axes are given in metres,
with optimal lap time 𝑡𝑓 ≈ 4 𝑠.
16
60
200

40
15
[m/s]

100
[N]

20
xm

 [deg]
Longitudinal force F

14
Longitudinal speed v

0 0
Lean angle


60 hard constraint
13 -20
-100 
45 friction limit

-40

12 -200

-60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 3 Longitudinal speed 𝑥̂ (solid line) and Fig. 4 Lean angle for the minimum time trajectory.
longitudinal force 𝐹𝑥 at the rear contact point
(dashed line) for the minimum time trajectory in The solution of this and other minimum time
Fig. 2. problems confirms some results derived theoretically,
such as the non-minimum phase behaviour of a
The quantities 𝑥 and are the coordinates of two-wheeled vehicle entering a corner [1]. Some
ℎ
the centre of the obstacle, 𝑟 is its radius and the intuitive results were also obtained, such as the wheels
sign stipulates whether the unfeasible zone is on the working close to their friction peaks to attain the highest
inside or the outside of the obstacle boundary. For this available cornering force (see Fig. 5).
problem the obstacles are fixed and is time invariant. The method also reproduced counter-steering
Equality constraints are used to enforce the continuity of behaviour and drifting under extreme cornering, both of
the trajectory at the initial and final time, thereby which are observable in real motorcycle riding.
defining a minimum lap time racing problem. Some interesting results were obtained in special
Fig. 2 shows the optimal minimum-time lap cases, such as the non-circular minimum-time trajectory
trajectory for the modified Timoshenko-Young bicycle of a Timoshenko-Young bicycle running around a
around a simple closed circuit, with the longitudinal circular track when the lean angle is limited and the
speed and drive force given in Fig. 3. The roll angle is maximum absolute value of the longitudinal force is
given in Fig. 4. Note that the tyre friction saturation large. This is analogous to having tyres with high
effectively limits the roll angle to approximately 4 °. friction in the longitudinal and low friction in the lateral
direction, thus favouring long straight accelerations and
slow tight corners to trace a quasi-polygonal trajectory.
 AVEC ’12

Fig. 5 Front- and rear-wheel lateral friction forces 𝐹𝑦𝑓 and 𝐹𝑦𝑟 , respectively on the left and in the middle. The
total rear-wheel force is shown in the right-hand diagram. The markers correspond to time-indexed operating
points with grey scales consistent with Fig. 2.
4.2 Avoiding moving obstacles
𝑥(𝑡𝑓 )
Moving
obstacle
𝑥(𝑡 )
Fig. 6 Extended Timoshenko-Young bicycle
travelling at ~110 km/h (as required in [15]) and
avoiding an obstacle that is invading the road at a
speed of 1.25 m/s. The dotted lines are the start
and finish lines. Grey scales are associated with
time instants for moving objects, with darker plots
corresponding to later times, apart from the near
and far objects, which are static. The straight lines
are the lane boundaries.
A second optimal control application is the
avoidance of moving obstacles. The direct transcription
methodology allows the straightforward introduction of
time varying path constraints that can be used to
represent moving obstacles. In this case is an explicit
function of time:
(𝑥( ) ( ) ) (𝑥( ) )
(𝑥( ) )
(10)
[ ]
(𝑥( ) )
An extension of (9) allows the introduction of an
obstacle that moves into the vehicle’s path using
constraints of the form:
of the obstacles; here 𝑧 8.
Fig. 6 illustrates a minimum time problem in which
the modified Timoshenko-Young bicycle performs a
moving variant of the double lane change manoeuvre
(original manoeuvre in [15]) in which an object moves
across the lane obstructing the road. The optimal control
calculation procedure finds simultaneously the vehicle
trajectory and steering control to avoid the obstacles and
reach the target in minimum time (the drive force is
imposed to maintain a constant longitudinal speed as
required in [15]). In order to minimise the trajectory
length the rear contact point travels at the boundary of
the invading obstacle. A similar problem, with an
obstacle leaving the vehicle path (as opposed to
invading it) has been solved using the same techniques.
As expected, this showed that the vehicle must wait
until a clear path appears to the target, and then enter
this path at the maximum possible speed as soon as it
opens up.
4.3 Design optimization
There is a third line of investigation relating to the
optimisation of vehicle design. Using the direct method,
the model parameters are included in the optimal control
problem as optimisation variables. For this purpose the
differential equations in (3) are rewritten with an
explicit dependency on the model parameters vector 𝑝
𝑓(𝑥̇ ( ) 𝑥( ) ( ) 𝑝 ) (12)
and, accordingly, the constraints (5) now read
𝐹 ( 𝑝 )
𝑓 (𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) ( ) 𝑝 )
(13)
[ ]
𝑓 (𝑥( ) 𝑥( ) ( )𝑝 )
With the inclusion of free vehicle parameters the
NLP problem from (7) becomes:

(𝑥( ) ) ((𝑥 𝑟 ( ) 𝑥 ( )) ( )
{ }
(11) 𝐹 ( 𝑝 )
( ( ) ( )) 𝑟 ) (14)
𝑟 { ( )
( )
where the exponent 𝑧 is used to change the shape

The advantage of this formulation is that the vehicle
can be optimised for specific manoeuvres while
recognising the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle
(assuming optimal rider controls). This method can be
applied to a large variety of applications, starting with
the frame dimensions for fastest cornering to the
suspension optimisation for minimum distance braking,
or even for the design of the steering assembly
components to satisfy some boundaries or requirements
on the rider’s steering control. A successful application
of this process confirmed some design guidelines for the
standard Timoshenko-Young bicycle that can be
theoretically proved: considering the original model in
[11] running around a circular track, with constant speed
and an upper bound on the modulus of the lean angle,
the vehicle is faster for a larger . This can be verified
considering the distance 𝑅𝑚 of the mass from the
centre of rotation. For a given radius of the rear contact
point trajectory 𝑅𝑐 and a given maximum lean angle
𝑚 𝑥 there holds 𝑅𝑚 𝑅𝑐 𝑚 𝑥 (assuming
) and the angular speed to guarantee the moment
𝑔 tan 𝑎𝑥
balance about the roll axis is 𝜔 √𝑅
𝑐𝑝 ℎ sin 𝑎𝑥
𝑅𝑐𝑝 ℎ sin
time spent for a full lap is thus 𝜋√
𝑔 tan
which is monotonically decreasing (with > ) up to
the singular condition 𝑅𝑐 𝑚 𝑥 , at which
. The optimal control calculations also confirm
that is independent of the parameter , which can be
theoretically proven.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The direct transcription method for optimal control
has been successfully applied to a series of
minimum-time problems for an extended
Timoshenko-Young bicycle with Pacejka-type tyre
friction. The continuous-time optimal control problems
have been converted to non-linear programming
problems and then solved through a numerical
optimisation algorithm.
The solution of the minimum lap time problem
returned both the vehicle trajectory and the vehicle
controls. These results can be used as reference
trajectories for rider training purposes and as
performance indices for various vehicle/track
combinations.
In a manner similar to that proposed in [7], the
optimal manoeuvre method applied to obstacle
avoidance could be beneficial for the on-line generation
of reference manoeuvres in an interactive driver/vehicle
scenario.
The design optimisation method would be
extremely advantageous looking into the development
of new automotive technologies, such as hybrid or
electric vehicles. An automatic procedure would also
support the decision making processes with component
sizing and positioning, possibly using a
‘mission-oriented’ approach when the design with
stringent specifications.
AVEC ’12
REFERENCES
[1] D. J. N. Limebeer and R. Sharp, “Bicycles,
Motorcycles and Models”, IEEE Control Systems
Magazine, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 34-61, 2006.
[2] D. J. N. Limebeer and A. Sharma, “Burst
Oscillations in the Accelerating Bicycle”, Journal
of Applied Mechanics, vol. 77, 2010.
[3] R. S. Sharp and H. Peng, “Vehicle dynamics
applications of optimal control theory”, Vehicle
System Dynamics, pp. 1073-1111, 2011.
[4] D. Casanova, On Minimum Time Vehicle
Manoeuvring: The Theoretical Optimal Lap, 2000.
[5] D. P. Kelly, Lap Time Simulation with Transient
Vehicle and Tyre Dynamics, 2008.
[6] D. P. Kelly and R. S. Sharp, “Time-optimal control
of the race car: influence of a thermodynamic tyre
model”, Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 50, no. 4,
pp. 641-662, 2012.
[7] E. Bertolazzi, F. Biral, M. Da Lio, A. Saroldi and F.
. The Tango, “Supporting Drivers in Keeping Safe Speed
and Safe Distance: The SASPENCE Subproject
𝑎𝑥 Within the European Framework Programme 6
,
𝑎𝑥 Integrating Project PReVENT”, IEEE transactions
on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 11, no.
3, pp. 525-538, 2010.
[8] A. E. Bryson and Y.-C. Ho, Applied Optimal
Control, Taylor & Francis, 1975.
[9] V. Cossalter, M. Da Lio, R. Lot and L. Fabbri, “A
General Method for the Evaluation of Vehicle
Manoeuvrability with Special Emphasis on
Motorcycles”, Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 31,
no. 2, pp. 113-135, 1999.
[10] E. Bertolazzi, F. Biral and M. Da Lio,
“Symbolic-numeric efficient solution of optimal
control problems for multibody systems”, Journal
of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol.
185, pp. 404-421, 2006.
[11] S. Timoshenko and D. H. Young, Advanced
Dynamics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948.
[12] H. B. Pacejka, Tyre and Vehicle Dynamics (Second
edition), Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006.
[13] J. T. Betts, Practical Methods for Optimal Control
and Estimation Using Nonlinear Programming -
2nd ed., SIAM, 2010.
[14] A. Wächter, An Interior Point Algorithm for
Large-Scale Nonlinear Optimization with
Applications in Process Engineering, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania: CARNEGIE MELLON
UNIVERSITY, 2002.
[15] “Lane Change Manoeuvre Test Procedures”,
Government of South Australia. Department for
transport, Energy and Infrastructure. Safety and
Regulation Division, Walkerville, 05/06.