Sei sulla pagina 1di 42

# Delft University of Technology

## Mechanical, Marine, Materials Engineering (3ME)

ME41115
Vehicle Dynamics B
Vehicle State Estimation II

## Dr. Mohsen Alirezaei

m.alirezaei@tudelft.nl

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 1

Outline
• Introduction to friction estimation

Introduction

Introduction

## What would happen with the cyclist

if the controller does not know the
friction coefficient between

Probably this:

## Operating ranges of driving

Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 5
Friction Estimation

Most of the methods that investigate the friction estimation are based on lateral excitation of the
vehicle dynamics. Those methods evaluate a correlation between lateral acceleration, yaw rate
and longitudinal velocity.
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 6
Friction Estimation using Electronic
Power Assist Steering (EPS)
Like a driver senses tire grip through the feel of the steering wheel
torque, this method identifies friction using the wheel aligning moment
estimation.

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 7

Friction Estimation using Electronic
Power Assist Steering (EPS)
friction vs. slip angle based on lateral force, torque about kingpin and
wheel aligning moment. The dotted lines show the maximum uncertainty in
torque about kingpin estimation using steering torque sensor of EPS.

1.2
Normalized wheel aligning moment Normalized lateral force

0.8
 [-]

0.6

Minimum
potential 0.4
friction
min. and max. torque measured in steering system

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
slip angle [deg]
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 8
Friction Estimation using Electronic
Power Assist Steering (EPS)
friction vs. lateral acceleration based on lateral force, torque about kingpin
and wheel aligning moment. The dotted lines show the maximum uncertainty
in torque about kingpin estimation using steering torque sensor of EPS.

0.9
Normalized wheel aligning moment
0.8
0.7

0.6
Normalized lateral force
 [-]

0.5

0.4
Minimum
potential 0.3
friction min. and max. torque measured in steering system
0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 ay [g] 9
Minimum Friction Potential Estimation

local maximum value of the self-aligning moment and torque about kingpin
are proportional to the tire-road friction.

1 potential = 1

0.8

## 0.6 potential = 0.5

 [-]

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
slip angle [deg]

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 10

Minimum Friction Potential Estimation

μ 0.0022 ‐0.0607
1

0.9
0.8
tire self aligning moment
0.7
 [-]

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Torque [N.m]

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 11

Minimum Friction Potential Estimation

## 0.6 True tire road friction potential

 [-]

0.4

0.2

0
Estimated mimimum friction potential based on lateral acceleration

-0.2
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
time [sec]

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 12

Friction Potential Estimation

## Two vehicle with two different sets of sensors are considered.

Vehicle without EPS: Vehicle with EPS:
Set of sensors: Set of sensors:
: steering angle : steering torque
: vehicle speed : vehicle speed
:lateral acceleration : steering angle
: yaw rate :lateral acceleration
: yaw rate

Internal Model
Internal Model

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 13

Friction Potential Estimation
Vehicle without EPS
Bicycle model for the vehicle without EPS:
In the bicycle model the tire cornering stiffness is scaled with friction coefficient
( , ).

, , ,
, , ,

, , , , , where, , , , ,

## Extended Kalman Filter (EKF)

, ,
Continuous process: ,

, ,
Measurement:

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 14

Friction Potential Estimation
Vehicle without EPS
Bicycle model for the vehicle without EPS:
In the bicycle model the tire cornering stiffness is scaled with friction coefficient
( , ).

, , ,
, , ,

, , , , , where, , , , ,

, , , ,

0
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 15
Friction Potential Estimation
Vehicle with EPS
Bicycle model for the vehicle with EPS:
In the bicycle model the tire cornering stiffness is scaled with friction coefficient
( , ).

, , ,
, , ,

, , , , , , where, ,
,

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 16

Friction Potential Estimation
Vehicle with EPS
Bicycle model for the vehicle with EPS:
In the bicycle model the tire cornering stiffness is scaled with friction coefficient
( , ).

, , , ,

Kalman Filter

Internal Model

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 18

Friction Potential Estimation
Sensitivity Analysis

## driver and assist torque ( ) (upper subplot) and

lateral position of the vehicle (lower subplot) for a lane change

100
[N.m]

50
assist

0
+T
driver

-50
T

-100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time [sec]

2
y [m]

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time [sec]

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 19

Friction Potential Estimation
Sensitivity Analysis
steering angle (upper left subplot), lateral acceleration (upper right subplot) and yaw
rate (lower left) using main vehicle model (blue), bicycle model which uses steering
angle as an input (without EPS) (green) and bicycle model which uses torque as an
input (With EPS) (red). In all models the road friction is considered as 1.
1 2
main model
model based on steering angle
0.5 model based on torque 1

a y [m /s 2 ]
 [d e g ]

0 0

-0.5 -1

-1 -2
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
time [sec] time [sec]

5
The figures show that the bicycle
model for the vehicle with and
r [d e g /s e c ]

## without EPS performing well.

0

-5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 time [sec] 20
Friction Potential Estimation
Sensitivity Analysis

## driver and assist torque ( ) (upper subplot) and

lateral position of the vehicle (lower subplot) for a lane change

100
[N.m]

50
assist

0
+T
driver

-50
T

-100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time [sec]

3
y [m]

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time [sec]

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 21

Friction Potential Estimation
Sensitivity Analysis
steering angle (upper left subplot), lateral acceleration (upper right subplot) and yaw
rate (lower left) using main vehicle model (blue), bicycle model which uses steering
angle as an input (without EPS) (green) and bicycle model which uses torque as an
input (With EPS) (red). In main vehicle model road friction is 0.14 and for the
two other models the road friction is considered as 1.
2 2
main model
model based on steering angle
model based on torque
1 1

ay [m /s2 ]
 [deg]

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
time [sec] time [sec]

## 10 it can be seen in the bicycle model without EPS

5
although the friction coefficient is different than the
main model the yaw rate and lateral acceleration
r [deg/sec]

## 0 are almost same as the states of the main model.

-5 On the other hand, the sates of the bicycle model
with EPS is different than the main model. It means
-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 the bicycle model with EPS is more sensitive to the
Vehicle Dynamics B –time
2017 22
[sec]
friction change.
Friction Potential Estimation
Sensitivity Analysis

## bode diagram of transfer function between yaw rate (output) and

steering angle (input) of the vehicle model without EPS. The bode
diagram is plotted for different velocity and high friction (solid line) and
low friction (dash line).
Bode Diagram

15
10
5
M agnitude (dB)

0
-5
-10

-150

high , Vx=5m/s
-30 low , Vx=5m/s
Phas e (deg)

high , Vx=10m/s
-60 low , Vx=10m/s
high , Vx=15m/s
low , Vx=15m/s
-90
1 2
10 10 10 10
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 23
Friction Potential Estimation
Sensitivity Analysis

## bode diagram of transfer function between yaw rate (output) and

steering torque (input) of the vehicle model with EPS. The bode
diagram is plotted for different velocity and high friction (solid line) and
low friction (dash line). Bode Diagram

-40

-50

-60
M agnitude (dB)

-70

-80

-90
0

high , Vx=5m/s
low , Vx=5m/s
Phas e (deg)

## -45 high , Vx=10m/s

low , Vx=10m/s
high , Vx=15m/s
low , Vx=15m/s
-90
1 2
10 10 10 10
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 24
Friction Potential Estimation
Sensitivity Analysis

yaw velocity gain based on steering angle (upper subplot) and yaw
velocity gain based on torque (lower subplot) vs. velocity for high
friction (blue) and low friction (red).

1
10
high 
low 
r/ | s s

0
10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Vx [m/s]
-2
10
r/T |s s

-3
10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Vx [m/s]
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 25
Friction Potential Estimation
Result of developed EKF

## driver and assist torque ( ) (upper subplot) and

lateral position of the vehicle (lower subplot) for a step input
80

60
T d riv e r+ T a s s is t

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

1.5
Y [m ]

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 time [sec] 26
Friction Potential Estimation
Result of developed EKF

## steering angle (upper left subplot), lateral acceleration (upper right

subplot) and yaw rate (lower left) for main vehicle (blue), bicycle
model which uses steering angle as an input (without EPS) (green)
and bicycle model which uses torque as an input (with EPS) (red).

1.5 2

1 1

ay [m/s ]
2
 [deg]

0.5 0

0 -1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
time [sec] time [sec]

4
r [deg/s]

-2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
time [sec]
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 27
Friction Potential Estimation
Result of developed EKF

## Friction for main vehicle is 0.14 (blue line) and estimated

friction based on vehicle model which uses steering angle as input
(without EPS) with initial friction of 1 (green) and estimated
friction based on vehicle model which uses torque as an input (with
EPS) with initial friction of 1(red).

steering
1 torque

0.8
 [-]

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time [sec]
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 28
Friction Potential Estimation
Result of developed EKF

## driver and assist torque ( ) (upper subplot) and

lateral position of the vehicle (lower subplot) for a step input
80
T d riv e r+ T a s s is t [N .m ]

60

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time [sec]

1.5

1
Y [m ]

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time [sec]
Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 29
Friction Potential Estimation
Result of developed EKF

## steering angle (upper left subplot), lateral acceleration (upper right

subplot) and yaw rate (lower left) for main vehicle (blue), bicycle
model which uses steering angle as an input (without EPS) (green)
and bicycle model which uses torque as an input (with EPS) (red).

1 2

ay [m/s2]
 [deg]

0.5
0

0 -1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
time [sec] time [sec]

4
r [deg/s]

-2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
time [sec]

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 30

Friction Potential Estimation
Result of developed EKF

## Friction for main vehicle is 1 (blue line) and estimated friction

based on vehicle model which uses steering angle as input (without
EPS) with initial friction of 0.14 (green) and estimated friction
based on vehicle model which uses torque as an input (with EPS)
with initial friction of 0.14(red).

1

0.9 steering
torque
0.8

0.7

0.6
 [-]

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Introduction

## • Basic problem: identifying friction potential during normal driving

conditions
• Solution becomes more important with higher levels of vehicle
automation when task are taken over from the human driver
• Interesting possible solutions was presented by Toyota (Umeno):
• Wheel speed vibrations are used for friction estimation

## T. Umeno: Estimation of Tire-Road Friction by Tire Rotational Vibration Model,

Review of Toyota CRDL, vol. 37 No. 3, 2002.

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 32

from wheel speed vibrations

## ABS wheel Signal

Bandpass filter
speed sensor conditioning

## • Slip stiffness Estimation

Tyre model
• Friction method

• Estimation method:
• identify parameters of a second order linear time-invariant (LTI)
system
• use discrete time autoregressive (AR) model in combination with
instrumental variable (IV) method

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 33

Tyre Modelling

Basic idea:
• Slip stiffness is measure
for friction
• Slip stiffness drops at
low friction surfaces

## Magic Formula model:

• Slip stiffness is changed
by scaling factor LKX

Tyre Modelling

## • Simple tyre model of Umeno

• 2nd order model for describing the 1st tyre in-plane resonance

1 C
fn 
2 Ja
1 C J a  J b 
 
2 J a C F R 2

## • Natural frequency affected by sidewall stiffness (e.g. inflation

pressure)
• Damping ratio increases with decreasing slip stiffness (i.e. friction)

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 35

Tyre Modelling

• MF-Swift
• rigid ring
• Magic Formula slip model
• contact patch model
• enveloping model

• Well-validated
• Accurately represents
primary tyre modes
(rigid ring modes)

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 36

Simulation environment

## Quarter vehicle model

• rigid car body, wheel carrier and rim bodies
• suspension stiffness and damping
• linear elements, uncoupled in X, Z
• TNO’s MF-Swift tyre model

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 37

Simulation environment

## Power spectral densities of wheel speed for different slip stiffness

(i.e. friction)

Tyre resonance ‘disappears’ for low friction surfaces (i.e. small LKX)

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 38

Simulation environment

## • Natural frequencies and damping ratios from eigenvalue

analysis

• Conclusions:
• Damping increases with decreasing slip stiffness (i.e. friction)
(similar conclusion as Umeno et al.)
• However: natural and peak frequencies (fn, fp) also decrease

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 39

Evaluation of estimation method

• Results can be
compared

LKX = 0.5
Model Estimation
fp [Hz] 32 34
 [-] 0.24 0.20

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 40

Evaluation of estimation method

## LKX = 1 LKX = 0.5 LKX = 0.2

Model Estimation Model Estimation Model Estimation
fp [Hz] 35 35 32 34 23 30
 [-] 0.17 0.14 0.24 0.20 0.44 0.32
ref /  [-] 1 1 0.71 0.70 0.39 0.44

## • generally resonance frequency is

rather accurately estimated
• LKX = 0.2 (~ice): no excitation
• inaccurate results
• increased damping is still good
measure for low friction

## Vehicle Dynamics B – 2017 41

Evaluation of estimation method

Model Estimation