SAE International A Constant Radius Constant Speed Simulation 0738 Methodology-Yaw Rate Control Cwo Gee Liang General Motors Company to pat Y yaw mite” comering maneuver at 2 tant speed, which in tur guarantees the vehicle A simulation methodology is developed for the Constant, ' constant radius circular pa The simplicty of Radius Constant Speed (CRCS) analysis to predict the we jodology proves to be more efficient, accurate and ABSTRACT 1804138 [1] soad tet peviormance. The CRCS analysis can ‘comparing with the sophisticated dnwver-in-the-loop ach in racing a constant radius circular path bbe used 10 predict the vehicle steady-sate handling c characteristics such as underter, rear comering compliance, fd coll gradieet ete. The Vane Rate Comal methodology i ‘DAMS [7] and Hyperwork (8) are used in shis work to Be eS a one OO) aialp ec naroet nines Re? a? Se De eee eee eee, YAW-RATE CONTROL Es eae INTRODUCTION STEER CONTROL ee ee nae, Oe te Sian. alee wr ac teacle nae emcee abate reac are So gees SE aes ae Cane dins ta ead AE ares a A ce aaa as gee neat CEST, GotnalaadGrenrcmcnsces Si ancien oer tas dr ane Serr ae: | Baur Se ee ae Ce ee oe sae pan) km, wt FL chet are while driving the vehicle constantadive path, svsively higher speeds oa the ona “constant radius” czculr path if je the test procedure, a troditional simulatongpprtach is to incorporate 2 duver @,- Vet Roy model (2.3. 4. 5, form the diver in-the-loop path o fhe quality of etter rad test or silat PEW he patcping aby ofthe ever ‘Where ais the yaw sate, V isthe tangent velocity. and Ry is the tuning cade, The celation it true only when (1) the ssstemnis ina steady ate and 2 the sytem is na 2D plane Tn this work, instead of using the driver-in-the-loop path ites * folowing, a deer salen epreach 19 proposed A sila yaw conta algo 5 ed to eee vehicle‘Note that for a vehicle wavels at a high g maneuver wih ogra side slip angle, Vz the vehicle tangent velocity, nat the fore-aft speed Ve Figure £. Circular Motion- Planar Sinematies A simple steer PID contol is used to contol the steer ‘wheel angle 6 soto regulate the voile yaw rte as segues ‘Equation (1) fora specified constant rads Ry and 3 cen constant vehicle tangent speed Vj As shown inthe block diagram, Figuce_2. the steering angle command can be defined as =P +1S~DS)@n-@. where the actual vehicle yaw rate, op the target ya rate a8 defined in Equation (1), § the Laplace ana operator, PA, and D are the gsins of proportioning, inter and derivative terms, respective Figure 2. Ster PID. Control SPEED CONTROL Im this report, 2 similar GGeplying force to the ‘vehicle The PID te speed PID controller 3) is sed to maintain the approach tends 10. over. capacsty is demanded. The abore contol could be replaced by a more ‘Two vavitions of speed profile have been developed for the Constant Radius Constant Speed simulation S 1. Cosstant Radius Discrete Speed (CRDS): In this cate, the target vebicle speed Vy isa sai fnction (a sequence of lncreasing step functions) where atthe end peach sep he ‘ehilereachet 9a steady state 2. Constant Radive lnscesing Spe ‘nereasng speed, the get veil Fer a slowly be defined at V0= Vu @ hee Vo i nia 4. Fe dpedet Catal, tne, i 9 y'4 mall fad cnt sin els Set geen a om ‘dy te wher Boge al fra ttelerton sy 0.058. Note that roach tends to under predict the performance g. soll gia) As the vehicle speed keeps system never sees to is ue steady sate Fi eaten the vebicle argtsposd profiles for CRDS and Sp “ as, suet ut ten tm GYRO MODEL The kinematics Equation (1) is te only in a orizontal OC Y) plane Since the detailed ADAMS models are mostly bust sn 8D, a gyrolike device is necessary to measure the vencle response projected onto the horizontal X-Y (2D) plane A gyro body ith 2 small and neslisibla mass is atached to the vehicle body with the folowing constraints, +2 hall ott connects the gyro 10 the vale body +s kinematic constrain is applied so the gyros z ais (2) is parallel tothe global z nis (2) and ‘4 kinematic comsiraint i used co the eyo ¥ axis (48 perpendicular ta the vehicle body's x ate “As a remit, the guvos sevelocin, yvelecity, and san ‘elecity responses will be the same a3 the vehicle body's responses projected tothe 2D horizontal XY) plane. Gy20's sll and puch angles a always ze and st x. 2Aisplacements will be the same as the vehicle body's in the slobal coordinate systera, RESULTS COMPARISON WITH A PATH FOLLOWING PID STEER CONTROL APPROACH Aa in-house Path-Following PID Steer Controller is acquired forthe comparison. The contolles contol the stering wheel sagle 20 that the vehicle moves on a predefined eieulae path, Figuses 4-5 show the responses of the pathiollowing approach (sed lines) versus the proposed Yaw-Rate contol approach (blue). Both are the results of Constant Radius Increase Speed simulation with small constant forward acceleration of 0.05 2. While the higher-bandwisth path- fallowing approach effectively traces the vehicle on the preseribed eirular path, is responses in yaw rote and steering angle are much more fluctuating at the higher speed comparing to the Yaw-Rate control approach Tae pat following approach requues adaitional pot signal processing to obtain the supposedly steady-state results. Note that the ‘vo approaches generate two diffeent cixcular trajectories. t is because that che Vaw-Rate control approach does not use ‘the geographical path as the control parameter ‘Yaw Rate (degisee) Figure 4. CRIS. song Comparison (Vane eng oe 28 Figure $c ton Resale Comparteon (Steering Weel Angle) Ol 2 WITH THE DRIVER-IN- q OP APPROACH, ver Model [4] was acquired for the comparison. The GPa ene san rte non Soe arr eae ee MS enctal ine) toss”ae tara an 8 approach (blue). It is a Constant Radius Discrete Speed smlation in which the vehicle speed initially stays at 90 kph for 20 sec and then increases to 100 kh for another 20 sec ‘While ILU aver models less effective in following the path as the speed transitioning ffom $0 kph to 100 kph it sevecthelese reaches ite steady state, Note tht st 100 kph. the vehicle is approaching te maxioum possible Iseral acceleration. A futher investigation of te steady state results canbe found inthe following section Yaw Rate. Figure 6, CRDS Result Comparison (Yar Rate)ie Figure 7 CRDS Result Compartson (Steering Wheel Angle) ACCURACY 1 this section, the accuracy is measured by how closely the ohio stays on a 100-m ewcular path fo the steady state Figite § shows the vehicle trajectory for a CRDS run, ia which the vehicle speed increases fom 10 kph upto 100 kp [epmisly than ineremont of 10 leh, Note that 28 show in Figume § the vehicle isnot following 9 unique preset cuealae path, rather the vebcle only comveraes to 3 1 turning radius ram at each steady fate, te. at 3 different coc seed eile wveg os i caer uajectery (he same 100 m rads but 2 dies center) nits steady state Jn ie 2 pr of tery is high eggpt Which represents the trajectory erween 93 see an vehicle isan a steady sate a the ey a kane fing of the 95.95 see tajeciory sep thatthe pair converge oa cle centered at Set 100.1907, with the radius R= 109927m, and the masta path enor of 6.35e-4 m, The abo@eurve Siting isto St the Values of cy pas tothe circu? lation ® where the fing er ms IRTTABSUCX-Xay? (Y-Yol-?D, 0 fioed a8 is the cave iting resus forall stead ate ory segments of he CRDS ron a Fig st vies cosa vee spends 1 so hat he eile taveng DO Gra te prs 100 meter conan ao pth Gn QEAR ES as ‘Table 1. Curve Flng Results for Crenlar Trajectories “At Different Speeds m6 ane Sognen| Seed soon [eum [next al sas [20] 130025] 0000! onset] 2nee04 af ae28 [an | 1o7as| sooe| onsage| 1.25604 af saa | 40 | 103456) s0042el_sooa07| eto af enas [60 [154717] aos 1 206-0] | soas | en | 204909] 00se6| sooor7| 4 e4eo of esas | 70 | wr7e| o.709e! so0006| a0 zer5 [a0 [o2723] sone] smnoes| —1.736.00) al esas | 100 | 137701 s009e] suoge7l — esse-ou ‘The above path error 18 used comparing the acausey feenveea the JLU driverinchedeop approach aad tae Yaw- ‘Rate Contol ayproach shown ia Figures 6 and 7 The vehicle ‘eajectories (between 10 sez and 20 sec) of two approaches sate fined separately to the ideal ecolar aguation 2). The ‘elt ave sown st Tabla 2. The VaweRate Contol sults nt 4 near-perfect 100 m crcle while JLU Driver path following Tesult shows that the vehicle is waveling oa 299.62 mm exe ath ie. an average steady-state path exo of -0.38mTable 2. Accuracy comparison Nowe | ORE Mas Fnor tere | Spear” | snem | yoo | Rin) | Ye ip ° nese J vg | sors | s078 | ooswer | rete ireke fon | 20.6 | 999 | sosisr | 1ase> Figuies 2 and 10 show the cross plot of (1) Path Exzor Vs Steenag Wheel Angle and Q) Lateral Acceleration Ve Steering Wheel Angle dung the steady-state period of 10-20 see. Tho plate of staring angle isto ill the “enersy” requied to maintain the steady states. Note that at an ideal steady state, both ccs plots should convere to 2 sinale point respectively. Figures 9 and 10 show thatthe Yaw Kate Control approach (blue lines) gives a more “steady” state result than the JLU Driver approach (ed) Path Eror Vs Seeing Ange be ROBUSTNESS, ‘Miltiple vehicle models manning CRDS are wied to test the robustness of the proposed methodology caps, the vebicle speed increases ftom 20 Eph, 0 kp with 10 kph increment while the yawaagie (oalipller steers the Vehicle to perform tie 100 m divs. cornering maneuver The test vehicles inch car, a midsize fer, 2 SUY, and the same STV ‘allt atthe tear The vehicle handling characte fs moreaied om 2199 disasbunon #8 changed same PID serine Contrl is applied The ress ween Alleles comzge te WOsaeagel ote seh aes avenge ea Se gee ets Encore SUV-S00ng cos sesaaalipye naire vc sow roe ae ‘rehiclefean 6 longer maintain che 100 m constant cadius manedi@agt 100 kph. ‘lémuonal £00 kes asically changes the re the total vehicle mast 2689 kg and the weight, font bias 10 46%, The (0, and D=0.1) of Yaw Rate ‘vchisle models Table 2. Robusmess Study g b Ge oe wo Ge aw wm oN am ae a Seng Ae Figure 9. Cross Poi of Path Error Vs Stee Figure 10. €Eross Plots of Lateral Acceleration Vs ‘Steering Angle law Lawinte —lorowsecwr [was cor ei a) [erode im > rom) SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS. 8 yawerate contol algoitim +8 proposed wo perform the 1S04138 Consist Radius Constam Speed (CRCS) simulation. The simple 2D kinematic selationship between the yaw rate, the speed, andthe tuming radius is applied. A ID steer control is incorporated to regulate the projected 2D yaw rate co that the vehicle i= moving on a constant radius ‘lecular trajectory. The simplicity af the methodology proves to be more effcien, accurate and robust comparing with the sophisticated deiverinthe-loop apeecach in waciaz 2 constant radius citcular path. The methodology has since been implemented and deployed for future virtual vehicle development