Driver Models for Tyre Testing:

Why and How?

Master Control Systems Engineering
27 May 2009

Ir. Saskia Monsma

Overview

Introduction

Research project

Driver modelling

Simulation study

Experiments

Conclusions & Follow Up
Introduction

Researcher at Mobility Technology research &
lecturer for Automotive engineering

PhD-research:
How to improve assessment methods
to judge driver-vehicle handling
in relationship with tyre characteristics?
 Handling, tyre characteristics

Handling: cornering behaviour
+ the driver’s perception

Tyre characteristics
Fy

slip angle α
cornering stiffness V
aligning torque
pneumatic trail Inner pressure
peak lateral force Performance
temperature
coefficient Service
wet/dry
braking force conditions
coefficient
Tyre
size characteristics carcass
Dimension ply-type
aspect ratio
Construction compound
belt
Aging
wear after normal use
wear-in

0 5 10 15 (deg)
 Relation:Tyre Characteristics  Driver-
Vehicle Handling is not straightforward

Many different tyre parameters

There is a lot between tyre characteristics and

vehicle performance…
s i on
sp en
) su
t ive
(ac
c on tr ol ele
tio n
trac ctr
on
ic
ad sta
dr vanc steer b
y w i
b il
i ty
sy i ve ed r e
ste r as co
nt r
m sis ol
t
s ys t em
b raking
t i - l ock
an
Relation:Tyre Characteristics  Driver-
Vehicle Handling is not straightforward

Many different tyre parameters

There is a lot between tyre characteristics and
vehicle handling…

Vehicle handling performance needs to be
‘translated’ into tyre characteristics

What is good driver-vehicle handling?
– Subjective (depends on person, brand of vehicle, etc. )
– Depends on drivers mental workload and control effort

How to judge driver-vehicle handling?
 different assessment methods
 Assessment Methods to judge
(Driver-)Vehicle Handling (1)
e t es t ing
Re al li f

Objective vehicle tests
– Driver = steering machine
– characteristic data (e.g., response times, overshoot,
bandwidth,..)

Subjective rating
– Controllability, steerability, etc.
– Questions, statements: agree/disagree

Closed loop achievement
– Driver must perform task as best as he can
– Circuit, (double) lane change on max. speed, elk-test, slalom
on max. speed, etc.
 Assessment Methods to judge
(Driver-)Vehicle Handling (2)
e t es t ing
Re al li f

Workload measures
– Driver performs a certain task (manoeuvre, sec. task)
– Steering Reversal Rate, High Frequency Area, Time to Line
Crossing

Combined primary and secondary task performance
– Driver performs primary and secondary task (improve task)
– Performance on primary and/or secondary task

Restriction of driver input
– limited vision (glasses), driver decides for opening/closing
– task performance and frequency of opening/closing

Physiological output
– Muscle tension, blood pressure, heart rate variability
 Assessment Methods to judge
(Driver-)Vehicle Handling (3)

t es t in g
Virtual
= Simulating vehicle behaviour according to
the procedures as prescribed in test
protocols driver
models
– open loop: vehicle + tyres
– closed loop: vehicle + tyres + driver

Advantage: optimisation of vehicle + tyres
behaviour before the vehicle is built

Used by vehicle manufacturers and by
automotive suppliers
 Driver Modelling

In objective tests: driver = “steering machine”

In subjective test: driver = “black box”

 Driver model for opening the “black box”

Analysis gives further understanding of the relation:

Tyre Characteristics  Driver-Vehicle Handling
Research Topics
1. Driver models (professional test driver)
2. Drivers mental workload and control effort
measures
3. Neural networks for the assessment of driver
judgement and control of vehicle performance
4. Design of assessment tools
(based on and refining research topics 1-3)
 Driver-Vehicle System Model
perception
action disturbances
road air

steering
road control
conditions vehicle
driver

required throttle
trajectory brake
vibrations, noise,…

deviation from path, in orientation,

following time, distance,..

Open-loop system
Closed-loop system
 Human behaviour and driving tasks
SRK-model for human behaviour
(Rasmussen)

There are many different driver models for different

driver behaviour
– Provide insights into basic properties of human performance
– Predict the performance of the driver-vehicle system
(stability)
– Driver assistance systems
DARPA Urban Challenge

Vehicles with no driver

and no remote control

60 miles urban area
course with traffic

Obeying all traffic
regulations
 Model the Driver
disturbances
road air

steering
road control
conditions vehicle
driver

required throttle
trajectory brake
vibrations, noise,…
also?
deviation from path, in orientation,
following time, distance,..

modelled with
linear differential equations
Model the Human Controller

Describing functions (= approximate
transfer functions) of human performance
using “control language”

Can you model human performance by
linear models? non-linear
– Thresholds
– Detect and remember patterns
– Learn and adapt
Yes, with a quasi-linear model and with
– Stationary tracking task by highly trained
controllers
– Unpredictable input
Quasi-Linear Model of the Human Controller

YH = linear transfer function

u(t) = linear response

n(t) = internal noise (perceptual and motor system,
uncorrelated with input signal)

u’(t) = quasi linear response
Adaptive Nature of the Driver

Drivers can adapt to changing vehicle
behaviour
– although vehicle behaviour changes,
overall driver-vehicle performance can
remain the same

Drivers can sense small differences
in handling behaviour
 Relation with Mental Workload

boredom, loss of
situation awareness overloaded
and reduced alertness

 Primary task performance measures will only be sensitive in

regions D and B, not in A1, A2, A3. Most self report measures
are sensitive in all but A2
 McRuer Crossover Model

YH

limitations of the human

gain
reaction time
adjusted to
lead achieve good
control
YH(jω) lag

neuromuscular
lag
Simulation study

Will the driver adapt his parameters for
different tyres?

Path tracking

th
pa
Simulation study models
 Optimisation of driver controller gains

Based on minimisation of cost function:

J = ∫(current path error)2 + weight * ∫(steer workload)2

= steer speed
=d(steer angle)/dt

Parameters:
– Preview time = 1.5s
– Weight = 1 Current defined path
200
– V = 25m/s
– Path:
y

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
x
Different tyre characteristics:
cornering stiffness
Simulation with two virtual drivers

Driver controller gains are optimised
(based on cost function) for reference tyre
characteristic (= reference driver gains)

Simulations with different tyre

characteristics for two virtual drivers
– non adaptive driver (with reference driver
gains: )
– adaptive driver (with - for each different tyre
characteristic - optimised driver gains)
 Errors non adaptive driver
lateral current error versus time steer speed versus time
0.8

10

0.6

5
0.4

steer speed(deg/s)
lateral current error (m)

0.2
0

-5

-0.2

-10
-0.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Cornering time(s)
stiffness 80%
-0.6 Cornering stiffness 90%
Cornering stiffness 100% (reference)
Cornering stiffness 110%
Cornering stiffness 120%
-0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
time(s)
 Errors adaptive driver
lateral current error versus time steer speed versus time
0.8

10

0.6

5
0.4

steer speed(deg/s)
lateral current error (m)

0.2
0

-5

-0.2

-10
-0.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Cornering time(s)
stiffness 80%
-0.6 Cornering stiffness 90%
Cornering stiffness 100% (reference)
Cornering stiffness 110%
Cornering stiffness 120%
-0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
time(s)
 Results non adaptive driver
Human controller gains versus
different tyre characterisitics Cost function for different tyre characteristics
140% Preview path error 350%
sqr(current path error)
gain (%)
130% weight*sqr(steer workload)
Preview orientation 300%
error gain (%)
120%
250%
110%
200%
0.044 100%
0.66

J
150%
90%

80% 100%

70% 50%

60%
0%
80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Cornering stiffness Cornering stiffness
 Results adaptive driver
Human controller gains versus
different tyre characterisitics Cost function for different tyre characteristics
Preview path error
140% 350%
gain (%) sqr(current path error)
Preview orientation
130% error gain (%) weight*sqr(steer workload)
300%
120%
250%
110%
0.044 100%
200%
0.66

J
90% 150%

80% 100%

70%
50%
60%
80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 0%
Cornering stiffness 80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Cornering stiffness
Objectives experiments

More Understanding on Subjective Evaluation
1. Correlation between objective criteria and
subjective evaluation
2. Experimental derived workload measures
(control effort, mental workload)
3. Evaluation of driver model parameters
accounting for subjective evaluation

Also
– New test vehicle
– Testing of driver measurements
Experiments

Same tests are performed with different
tyres
– keeping driver, vehicle and environment as
constant as possible  differences related
to the tyres
– keeping tyres, vehicle and environment as
constant as possible  differences related
to the driver
Experiments: Set Up

Test vehicle + measurements
– Vehicle dynamics (x,y,z: velocities,
accelerations, angles, angl.vel.,)
– Steering wheel (steering angle,
steering angle velocity, moment)

Two professional tyre test drivers

Driver measurements
– Camera’s
– Heart beat
Test Track: Test Centre Lelystad
 Experiments: Tyres

Choice based
on expected
winter all season summer
handling behaviour

Measured

Lateral force [N]

slip angle [°]

Experiments: Content

Objective tests (ISO-standards):
steady state circle, step steer, puls steer
– (10-20 repetitions of each driver-tyre
combination)

Subjective evaluation
– “Mini circuit”
on highest possible speed
– “blind” testing in badges:
1,2,3 / 2,3,4 / 5,6
– 9 evaluation aspects
+ overall judgement
Subjective evaluation aspects

Steering precision while cornering

Stability while cornering (no throttle change)

Stability while cornering (throttle change)

Yaw overshoot

Predictability

Yaw delay

Steering angle

Grip

Controllability

Overall judgment

Comment
Test week impression
Results Overall Judgement
Influence Tyres on Evaluation Aspects
– +

Yaw delay
Steering precision

Stability while
cornering (no throttle
change)

Grip

Steering angle
Correlation Objective Measurements
with Subjective Evaluation

Step steer response time for lateral

acceleration (time delay between 50%
steering angle and 90%
steady state value)
Correlation Objective Measurements
with Subjective Evaluation

Step steer response time for lateral

acceleration
 Results puls steer: bandwidth yaw rate

tyre in non linear range?

Workload Measure: High Frequency Area
Indicator for workload: High Frequency Area
area beneath curve fcut-flimit
HFA =
area beneath curve 0-fcut
Results High Frequency Area
Model Based
Driver Parameter Assessment

Two-track model of test vehicle including
lateral load transfer

Tyre model: Magic Formula δ 1

Driver tracking control model = −Kd .
ε prev 1 + τ .s
Optimisation of
Driver Model Parameters Ld and Kd

Cost functional for optimising driver model
parameters Ld and Kd for the different tyres
path error steering rate
weight factor

FC = ∫ (ε ) .dt + wδ .∫ δ
.dt
2
() 2

tracking performance workload

Small variation in Ld and Kd

in contrast to non-extreme conditions!
(Monsma: Tyre Technology Int., Annual Review, 2008)
 Conclusions & Follow Up

HFA as workload measurement is promising for
correlation with subjective evaluation

Investigation of mental workload for extreme
manoeuvring (heart rate measurements, video)

Driver model parameter adjustment is limited in
extreme manoeuvring conditions in contrast to
non-extreme conditions.

Explore driver parameter adjustment for
relation:
non–extreme conditions  subjective evaluation

Workload measurements (and modelling)
Videos test drivers