See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325923746

Optimization of driver actions and motion trajectory of FWD racing car

Conference Paper · June 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 209

1 author:

Michał Maniowski
Cracow University of Technology
46 PUBLICATIONS 163 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michał Maniowski on 22 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimization of driver actions and motion trajectory of FWD racing car
Michał Maniowski *

Abstract: Paper presents an innovative method for aiding a race driver. In In comparison to the mentioned approaches, “miMA”
order to improve the race driver actions and the vehicle trajectory a multi- environment is characterized by:
criteria optimization is utilized. Formulated „miMa” simulation model of
d. possibility of combined optimization of driver actions for
driver-vehicle system with 26 generalized coordinates and more than 400
parameters is implemented for optimization with genetic algorithms. closed-loop manoeuvres, vehicle chassis parameters and
Numerical example considers Ford Focus ST170 (FWD) prepared for a track motion trajectory;
racing. The optimization decision variables include 19 parameters responsible e. actions of real and virtual driver are substituted by
for the driver actions (controls of brake, accelerator and steering wheel) and 1 additional optimization variables, what emulates driver
parameter regarding initial position of the vehicle on a selected track part with
RH corner. In order to improve this track section lap time and exit velocity adaptation process of searching for speed (no need of race
different driving strategies typical for FWD car are found by using driver model!);
optimization. f. multibody spatial model of vehicle with discrete
Keywords: race vehicle dynamics, vehicle modeling, multi-criteria
parameters specialized in motorsport applications;
optimization, advanced driving methods g. implemented genetic algorithms enable search for global
minimum of a highly nonlinear task;
1. Introduction h. decision variables with mixed continuous-discrete
domain;
Paper presents an innovative optimization method of race
i. effective code yielding proper balance between model
driver actions and Front-Wheel-Drive race vehicle trajectory
accuracy and computation time.
to improve lap time and velocity at selected race track section.
The paper aim is to check the proposed method effectiveness
Race driver has to guide and stabilize the vehicle along an
taking into account Ford Focus ST170 (FWD, 170HP,
optimal path by using steering wheel, brake, accelerator and
1250kg) on a selected track part including a single right hand
clutch pedals, gear shift and hand brake [8]. Race track is
corner with even and high friction road surface. „miMa”
composed of different sections, like: straights, single corners,
model with 26 degrees of freedom and more than 400
chicanes, etc. Race driver divides each section, according to
parameters, verified on the basis on road measurements, is
his experience, with reference points that create the vehicle
being optimized by using genetic algorithms. 20 decision
motion trajectory and order the driver actions. Optimal motion
variables describe the driver actions and the trajectory
path is a compromise between the shortest distance path and
reference point. Two criteria, i.e. section time and exit
the longest path giving the highest velocity.
velocity, are defined as optimization goal functions.
Typically, the driver strategy, the track section prioritization,
and the vehicle trajectory are adapted based on many
expensive road tests with trial and error methods [9].
Additionally, further progress may not be accomplished due to
limited awareness and experience of a driver.

In order to fasten this process, „miMa” simulation model [5, 6,

7] of vehicle-driver-road was formulated for optimization
tasks that can be implemented in motorsport, like: racing, go-
cart racing, drifting, off-road and rallies, Fig.1.

The known methods for addressing this problem are based on:
a. professional simulator of race car (enormous cost!) [8]
operated by a real driver (results are confined to his/her
experience);
b. advanced vehicle model [3] but implemented for open-
loop maneuvers only (not requiring driver reactions) or
using to simplified driver models (complexity of human
modeling);
c. oversimplified vehicle-driver models [2] useful for
academic purposes only.

*PhD Michał Maniowski, Cracow University of Technology, Institute of

Fig.1. Samples of “miMa” implementations in motorsport
Automobiles and IC Engines, mmaniowski@pk.edu.pl
 2. “miMA” model of driver-vehicle-road system
2.1 Definition of “miMa” model

Model of driver-vehicle-road system (Fig.2) adapted for

optimization problems was formulated by the author in Matlab
environment. “miMa” is characterized by deep specialization
in motorsport applications. The vehicle model relates its
design parameters (p) and driver actions (δ) with the vehicle
dynamic characteristics, which can be derived based on its
motion states ( q, q ). The driver actions are described by:

δ = [δh δb δa δc δg δe]T (1)

where:

δh – steering wheel angle [rad];

δb – normalized position of brake pedal (δb ϵ <0,1>);
δa – normalized position of accelerator pedal (δa ϵ <0,1>);
δc – normalized position of clutch pedal (δc ϵ <0,1>);
δg – gear shift position (δg ϵ{-1,0,1,2,3,4,5,6}); z
n
δe – normalized position of e-brake (δe ϵ <0,1>). yn
xn

1.5

1
z [m]

0.5
Fig.3. Focus ST170 and its “miMa”model
0
Table 1. „miMa” components for dynamic analysis of Focus ST170
-0.5

Generalized
Fig.2. “miMA” model of driver-vehicle-road4 5
Model parts Description
6 7
coordinates (q)
8
Car body 6 (x, y, z, φ, θ, ψ) Position
9 and
10
The driver model (Fig.2) has to guide (P1) vehicle on a 11 1
orientation of rigid
desired path and stabilize (P2) it, using δ (1) based on
body
observation of the selected vehicle motion states (ζ) and visual
information from the road. The road-environment model y [m]
Wheels 4 (φ1, φ2, φ3, φ4 ) Rotation about wheel
includes description of road profiles (h), friction potential (μ),
bearings
wind velocity (vw) and ambient temperature (Ta).
Suspensions 4 (z1, … z4) Bounce motion
2.2 “miMa” model of FWD racing car (Focus ST170)
Tires 4+4 (Fx1…Fx4, First-order dynamics of
Numerical example considers Ford Focus ST170 (FWD, Fy1…Fy4) tire horizontal forces
170HP, 1250kg, free differential, semi-slick tires) prepared for
a track racing, Fig.3. Its nonlinear vehicle model, presented in Steering sys. 1 (φk) Compliance of steering
Fig.3, described by 26 generalized coordinates and more than shaft
400 discrete parameters is suitable for dynamic analyses in
frequency range up to 20 Hz. Main components of “miMa” Powertrain 1+1+1 (Ms, φm,φw) Engine torque +
model, like: car body, wheels, suspensions, tires, steering differential +
system, powertrain, are defined in Tab.1 by respective compliance of shafts
generalized coordinates (q).
Sum 26
The most crucial chassis parameters in motorsport are related
to tires and wheel suspensions.
 Table 2. Main parameters of „miMa” Focus ST170 model displacement sensors) of brake, accelerator, steering wheel;
vehicle linear accelerations and angular velocities (inertial
Model parts Description platform); and longitudinal&lateral vehicle velocities (optical
head).
Engine 2000cm3, 170HP at 6800rpm
a) b)
Powertrain front wheel drive, free differential,
regular gear box, final drive 2.88;
a)
Main dimensions l = 2.61m (wheel base); b = 1.48m
(track width); hc = 0.48m (center of
gravity height);

Suspension vertical stiffness (FR/RR: 35/27

bounce N/mm); linear stiffness from anti-roll
characteristics bar (FR/RR: 30/25 N/mm).

Masses and m=1250kg (62% for FR axle);

moments of inertia mnp=40kg (FR unsprung mass);
(car empty) mnt=30kg (RR unsprung mass);
Jz= 2100kgm2 (car inertia moment
relative to vertical axis)

Tires semi slick Toyo R888 205/55R16

Active safety ABS+EBD (braking): on

systems TCS (traction control): off
c)

Tire horizontal forces are generated by semi-empirical „Magic

Formula” [1] with complex slip conditions, relaxation lengths
in longitudinal and lateral directions and improved by the
author characteristics relating the wheel camber and load with
tire friction potential. Effects of tires temperature were
neglected in this paper.

Wheel suspension mechanisms of Focus ST170 are

thoroughly described by kinetic-static models [4]. The front d)
wheel suspension is composed of McPherson strut with lower
L-type wishbone and the trailing steering system with rack-
and-pinion. The rear wheel suspension, called sword-axle, is
composed of three lateral arms and one longitudinal (with a
sword shape) that exhibits flexing in bend, what was modeled
by additional revolute joint. Dimensions of the actual
suspension mechanisms have been identified and verified
comparing kinematic characteristics. Characteristics of the
suspensions spring and damping elements have been
determined on the basis of test bench measurements.
e)
2.3 Verification of “miMa” model on RH corner

Selected parameters of Focus ST170 “miMa” model are

enclosed in Tab.2. The parameters, like: dimensions, masses
and moments of inertia, suspension characteristics, were Fig.4. a) Focus ST170 (with (b) semi slick tire) with components for
estimated on the basis of indoor experiments. The outdoor measuring: c) brake&accelerator&steering wheel position, d) vehicle
accelerations and angular velocities (inertial platform), e) linear
experiments were utilized to determine characteristics of: tires,
vehicle velocity (optical head)
engine, resistances. The considered vehicle was instrumented
with sensors for measuring (Fig.4): positions (wire based
 x

Fig.5. Base line simulation of Focus ST170 negotiating RH corner on

center line trajectory

The vehicle model was verified on the basis of many motion

states considering the selected track section (Fig.5), containing
right-hand corner with in&out straights, described by smooth,
even and isotropic road surface with medium grip and ambient
temperature Ta = 10oC. The considered track part can be
described as narrow (4.5m wide) with high curbs and opening
corner (with increasing radius).

Two measurement results of track tests with an expert driver,

utilizing typical for FWD car driving technique on center-line
of the track, are compared with simulation. The driver actions
(δa, δb, δh) and the vehicle motion states (vx, ψprim, ax, ay, βt) are
presented in time domain in Fig.6.

The considered maneuver begins on straight section A (Fig.5)

with 94km/h initial speed (vx), where the driver still fully
accelerates (δa=1) the vehicle on 3rd gear (δ g=3). Next, the
vehicle is slowed down to 55km/h by 3 seconds of brake
application (δb), achieving deceleration (ax) up to -7m/s2, with
simultaneous downshifting from 3rd to 2nd. During this phase
of braking the driver uses right foot to utilize heel and toe
method enabling a smooth gear reduction. Accelerator blips
just after the 1st second are carried out to increase the engine
revs by using side part of the right foot. This requires
additional clutch operation, which in not shown in Fig.6. In
last phase of braking the driver changes foot from right to left
in order to overlap braking with accelerator application (now
by using the freed right foot).

Then, the driver initiates negotiation of the right-hand corner

by (so called trail braking) gradual release of the brake and
turning the steering wheel (δh) to extreme value of -115deg.
Fig.6. Time results of Focus ST170 negotiating RH corner
(measurements vs. base line simulation)
 straight, the exit velocity (vC) is crucial, giving higher speed at
the straight end. In other cases, when further acceleration is
not possible, the section time (t AC) should be minimized.

Driver actions (Fig.6: δh - steering wheel, δb - brake pedal, δa –

accelerator) were parameterized by piece-wise functions and
included with 19 components to the optimization decision
variables (d). In that way the driver adaptation is emulated,
giving new driving patterns unrestricted from his/her
experience. The rest of the model parameters are kept
constant.

Optimization algorithm of the driver actions and the vehicle

trajectory in the considered maneuver is defined as follows:

- minimize the driver-vehicle performance criteria

Fig.7. gg-diagram of RH corner negotiating by Focus ST170 w = [w1 w2]1x2 (2)

(measurements vs. base line simulation)
where: w1= tAC, w2= -vC;
The vehicle approaches the corner mid-point B (Fig.5) with
lateral acceleration (ay) achieving (Fig.6) value -7.5m/s2 and - through decision variables
yaw velocity (ψprim ) reaching -31deg/s. Side slip angle (βt) of
the vehicle rear axle increases to -6deg at the corner entry. d = [δ Ay]1x20 (3)
Next, the driver gradually applies acceleration pedal (δa) and where: δ = [δh δb δa]1x19 driver actions;
reduces steering wheel position (δh) in order to change the Ay – y-component of vehicle position in section A;
vehicle heading to the corner exit with increasing velocity (vx).
Since time of 7s, the driver with the steering wheel (δh) set to - under constraints
straight ahead position can again fully accelerate (δa=1) on 2nd
gear on exit straight approaching end of the section (C). c1) dmin < d < dmax (decision variables change in ±30%);
Passing the section C finishes the simulation.
c2) trajectory reference points (radial deviation of B&C
Additionally, the so called gg-diagram [8], i.e. characteristics
points from center-line trajectory cannot exceed ±1.5m);
of longitudinal acceleration (ax) with respect to lateral
acceleration (ay), is presented in Fig.7. This diagram describes
c3) braking without full lock ( );
the vehicle performance envelope, limited by tires friction and
engine power. An expert race driver ought to reach this
c4) braking with left foot (overlapping of brake and
envelope boundary all the time.
accelerator is possible);
In order to simulate the considered maneuver the driver
actions (Fig.6: δh - steering wheel, δb - brake pedal, δa – c5) vehicle spin is rejected ( ).
accelerator) were approximated by linear piece-wise functions
and incorporated as the model inputs (Fig.2). High adequacy
This multi-criteria optimization has been solved by using
of the formulated model can be confirmed by evaluation of the
Genetic Algorithms with nondominated sorting [3], which is
motion states (Fig.6,7) and the simultaneously obtained
effective in finding of global optima of discontinues objective
trajectory (Fig.5), which is in accordance with the track center
spaces. The following parameters of GA were found to be
line.
effective here: selection by tournament, reproduction with
crossover fraction 0.8, forward migration of fraction 0.35,
pareto front population fraction 0.35. Simulation of a single
3. Optimization of vehicle trajectory and driver
road scenario of 8s duration time takes about 3s on PC with
actions 3GHz processor and 2GB RAM. About 30000 evaluations (ca.
20 hrs) of the objective function (2) are needed to terminate
3.1 Definition of multi-criteria optimization with satisfying results.

The described above closed-loop maneuver with RH corner

(Fig.5) will be evaluated with respect to a sport performance
by using two criteria: section time (t AC) and exit velocity (vC).
Which one is more important depends on a following part of
the racing track. In case when the corner leads to a longer
 3.2 Optimization results

Obtained Pareto-optimal front is presented in Fig.8 in

normalized w1 -w2 plane. Base line simulation is scored by ones
in both criteria. Any improvement can be expected for the
solution with lower criterion number. Convex front of Pareto-
optimal results (Fig.8) means contradictory relation between
the criteria, i.e. the driver can decrease time of passing this
section or increase the exit velocity of the car. In dependence
on the driver preferences and a type of following part of the
racing track, different solution can be chosen. Extreme
solutions represent different driving strategies giving the
section lap time lower by 5% (w1 = 0.95) or higher exit
velocity by 6% (w2 = 0.94).

Fig.8. Pareto optimal results on normalized criteria plane

The optimization solution O1 (Fig.8), that represents a

compromise between the criteria, is chosen for further
analysis. The solution O1 gives decrease (by 3%) of section
time from tAC=8.02s to tAC=7.78s and increase (by 6%) of exit
velocity from vC=71.2km/h to vC=75.5km/h (Fig.10).
Simultaneously, the vehicle trajectory does not violate the
track boundaries with high curbs (Fig.9).

Obtained motion paths have very similar length

(140m), but quite a different curvatures (Fig.9). In optimized
O1 case, the vehicle starts wider (Ay=1m), delays turn,
approaches a late apex of the corner (in 6s), and finishes on
outer side of section C. The base line and optimized
trajectories cross each other two times (in 4s and 7s). The
vehicle O1 takes over the base line vehicle at the beginning of Fig.9. Comparison of base line and optimized O1 vehicle trajectories
braking phase thanks to delayed and harder braking (Fig.10).
But in the corner center the vehicles positions equalize due to
longer and more curved path of the optimized trajectory in
turn-in phase (Fig.9). The vehicles position order change again
in exit of the corner, where the driver O1 can take advantage
of much earlier acceleration. This vehicle O1 lead is further
increased, giving a more than full car length advantage at the
section end.
 Fig.11. gg-diagram of RH corner negotiating by Focus ST170
(base line simulation vs. optimized O1 simulation)

More effective trail braking gives larger rear axle slip angle
(βt) at turn-in phase, what creates more yaw rotation of the
vehicle.

Comparing gg-diagram of the both simulation cases, presented

in Fig.11, one can notice effects of the optimized (O1) driver
actions as: greater on straight deceleration (ax) reaching -
8m/s2, full overlapping of braking and cornering phases, and
greater pure lateral acceleration (ay = -7.8m/s2). The driver
(O1) utilizes the tires friction potential better. The upper part
of gg-diagram does not change because it depends on the
engine power characteristics, which is constant.

4. Conclusions

The paper presents optimization results of race driver actions

and motion trajectory considering extreme negotiation of RH
corner with Focus ST170 (FWD, 170HP) prepared for road
racing. Decision variables were defined with 19 components
describing the professional driver actions including steering
wheel, brake and accelerator pedals during the considered
closed-loop maneuver. One more (the 20th) decision variable
was included to make possible changes the vehicle initial
position. “miMa” model of the vehicle with 26 state variables
and 400 parameters was. The developed model was
successfully verified on the basis of track tests with an expert
driver.

The optimization goal function included two criteria, i.e.

Fig.10. Time results of Focus ST170 negotiating RH corner section time and exit velocity of the vehicle. The optimization
(base line simulation vs. optimized O1 simulation) constraints included boundaries of the racing track section,
among the others. This multi-criteria optimization has been
solved by using Genetic Algorithms with nondominated
sorting. The obtained Pareto-optimal population created a
convex front, which means conflicting relation between the
criteria, i.e. the driver can decrease time of passing this section
or increase the exit velocity of the car. Changing the driving
strategy according to the optimization results the section time
can be reduced by 5% or the exit velocity can increased by
6%, what in a competition reality gives tremendous progress.

The considered track part with RH corner can be categorized

as: narrow opening corner, with high curbs and medium grip,
isotropic, even surface. The chosen optimization solution O1,
that represents the best compromise between the shortest time
and fastest exit velocity, looks quite reasonable for this kind of
corners. Although, length of the analyzed motion path is very
similar to the base line trajectory, it is described by quite a
different curvatures. In optimized O1 case the vehicle
performs trajectory with a late apex. The driver (O1) delays
braking and turning more before hitting the apex, where
he/she can feed the power earlier. The driver (O1) utilizes
better the tires friction potential trough overlapping of
longitudinal and lateral forces.

The racing track can be decomposed in many such a sections.

Optimized passing of each section gives the best total lap.

Formulated “miMA” computational environment enables also

combined optimization of driver actions, motion trajectory and
vehicle chassis parameters.

References
1. H.B. Pacejka, “Tyre and Vehicle Dynamics”,Butterworth-Hienemann,
SAE, 2002.
2. D. Casanova, R.S. Sharp, P. Symonds: Minimum time manoeuvring: The
significance of yaw inertia. Vehicle System Dynamics, vol.34, 2000,
pp.77–115.
3. M. Gobbi., G. Mastinu and C. Doniselli: Optimising a Car Chassis,
Vehicle System Dynamics, 32: 2, 1999, pp. 149-170.
4. J. Knapczyk, M. Maniowski: Elastokinematic Modeling and Study of
Five-Rod Suspension with Subframe. Mechanism and Machine Theory,
vol. 41, 2006, pages 1031-1047.
5. M. Maniowski: Optimization of spring-damper modules of rally car for
fast passing over jump inducing bumps, International Association of
Vehicle System Dynamics, Manchester 2011.
6. M. Maniowski.: Optimization of wheel suspensions and driving control
of FWD car for faster cornering. Czasopismo Techniczne PK, z.10, 5-
M/2012.
7. M. Maniowski.: Research on controlled oversteer utilized in drifting
competitions. Automotive Safety, Slovakia, 2014.
8. W. Milliken, D. Milliken: Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale PA
USA: Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International, 1995.
9. P. Van Valkenburgh: Race car engineering and mechanics. HPBooks,
2002.

View publication stats