Link¨oping Studies in Science and Technology

Thesis No. 564
Driveline Modeling and Principles
for Speed Control and
Gear-Shift Control
Magnus Pettersson
Division of Vehicular Systems
Department of Electrical Engineering
Link¨oping University, S–581 83 Link¨ oping, Sweden
Link¨oping 1996
Driveline Modeling and Principles for Speed Control and
Gear-Shift Control
c 1996 Magnus Pettersson
magnusp@isy.liu.se
Department of Electrical Engineering
Link¨ oping University
S–581 83 Link¨ oping
Sweden
ISBN 91-7871-744-2
ISSN 0280-7971
LiU-TEK-LIC-1996:29
To Anna and Oscar
Abstract i
Abstract
A vehicular driveline consists of engine, clutch, transmission, shafts, and wheels,
which are controlled by a driveline management system.
Experiments and modeling using a heavy truck show that there are significant
torsional resonances in the driveline. A linear model with a drive shaft flexibility
is able to sufficiently explain the measured engine speed and wheel speed.
Engine control for automatic gear shifting is an approach at the leading edge of
technology. A critical step is the controlling of the engine such that the transmission
transfers zero torque, whereafter neutral gear can be engaged. Driveline oscillations
is a limiting factor in this system. A model of the transmission torque is developed
and a state-feedback controller is used to drive this torque to zero. The result is a
possibility to optimize the time needed for a gear shift. Furthermore, neutral gear
can successfully be engaged also when facing load disturbances and initial driveline
oscillations.
Traditionally in diesel trucks, the engine speed is controlled by a system called
RQV. This system has the desired property of a load dependent stationary error,
and the undesired property of vehicle shuffle following a change in pedal position.
A model based state-feedback controller is derived that actively reduces wheel
speed oscillations. The performance and driveability is significantly improved,
while maintaining the desired load characteristics for RQV control.
In conclusion, the proposed strategies improve performance and driveability in
both speed control and gear-shift control.
ii Abstract
Acknowledgment iii
Acknowledgment
This work has been carried out under the excellent guidance of Professor Lars
Nielsen at Vehicular Systems, Link¨ oping University, Sweden. By inspiring me and
taking time for many discussions he has contributed to this work in many ways.
I am indebted to Lars-Gunnar Hedstr¨ om, Anders Bj¨ornberg, Kjell Gestl¨ ov, and
Bj¨orn Westman at Scania in S¨ odert¨ alje for the help during this work, and for
interesting discussions regarding control and modeling in heavy trucks.
I am also grateful to Simon Edlund, Lars Eriksson, and Mattias Nyberg for read-
ing the manuscript. Thanks for the remarks and suggested improvements. Thanks
also to Tomas Henriksson, my former office colleague, for our many discussions
regarding research and courses.
I am indebted to Dr Joakim Petersson, Dr Fredrik Gustafsson, Dr Anders
Helmersson, and Dr Tomas McKelvey for help and discussions.
Thanks to Dr Peter Lindskog and Magnus Sundstedt for support on computers
and L
A
T
E
X.
I am very grateful to my parents Birgitta and Nils and my sister Katharina for
their love and support in whatever I do.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my wife Anna and our
son Oscar for their encouragements, patience, and love during this work.
Link¨ oping, April 1996
Magnus Pettersson
iv Acknowledgment
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Outline and Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Driveline Modeling 3
2.1 Basic Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Shaft Flexibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 Model 1: Drive Shaft Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2 Model 1 Extended with a Flexible Propeller Shaft . . . . . . 10
2.3 Models Including the Clutch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.1 Model 2: Flexible Clutch and Drive Shafts . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.2 Model 3: Nonlinear Clutch and Drive Shaft Flexibility . . . . 12
2.4 Additional Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 Field Trials and Modeling 17
3.1 The Truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Measurement Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4 Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4.1 Influence from the Drive Shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4.2 Influence from the Propeller Shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4.3 Deviations between Engine Speed and Transmission Speed . . 26
3.4.4 Influence from the Clutch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.5 Model Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
v
vi Contents
4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control 35
4.1 State-Space Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.1.1 Disturbance Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.1.2 Measurement Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2 Controller Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3 Some Feedback Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4.1 Transfer Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4.2 Design Example with a Simple Mass-Spring Model . . . . . . 43
4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations 49
5.1 RQV Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.2.1 Mathematical Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.3 Speed Control with Active Damping and RQV Behavior . . . . . . . 53
5.3.1 Extending with RQV Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.4 Influence from Sensor Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.4.1 Influence from Load Disturbances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.4.2 Influence from Measurement Disturbances . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.4.3 Load Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.5 Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations 67
6.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2 Transmission Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.1 Transmission Torque for Model 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2.2 Transmission Torque for Model 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.2.3 Transmission Torque for Model 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.3 Preliminary Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.3.1 Unconstrained Active Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.3.2 Undamped Gear-Shift Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.4 Gear-Shift Control Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.5 Gear-Shift Control Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.6 Influence from Sensor Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.6.1 Influence from Load Disturbances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.6.2 Influence from Measurement Disturbances . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.7 Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7 Conclusions 89
Bibliography 91
Notations 93
1
Introduction
The main parts of a vehicular driveline are engine, clutch, transmission, shafts,
and wheels. Since these parts are elastic, mechanical resonances may occur. The
handling of such resonances is of course basic for driveability, but is also other-
wise becoming increasingly important since it is a linking factor in development of
new driveline management systems. Two systems where driveline oscillations limit
performance is speed control and automatic gear shifting.
Fundamental driveline equations are obtained by using Newton’s second law.
The result is a series of models consisting of rotating inertias, connected with
damped torsional flexibilities. Experiments are performed with a heavy truck with
different gears and road slopes. The aim of the modeling and experiments is to find
the most important physical effects that contribute to driveline oscillations. Some
open questions are discussed, regarding influence of sensor dynamics and nonlinear
effects.
The first problem is wheel speed oscillations following a change in accelera-
tor pedal position, known as vehicle shuffle (Mo, Beaumount, and Powell 1996;
Pettersson and Nielsen 1995). Traditionally in diesel trucks, the fuel metering is
governed by a system called RQV. With RQV, there is no active damping of wheel
speed oscillations resulting in vehicle shuffle. Another property is that a load de-
pendent stationary error results from downhill and uphill driving. The thesis treats
model based speed control with active damping of wheel speed oscillations while
maintaining the stationary error characteristic for RQV control.
Engine controlled gear shifting without disengaging the clutch is an approach at
the leading edge of technology (Orehall 1995). The engine is controlled such that
the transmission transfers zero torque, whereafter neutral gear can be engaged.
1
2 Chapter 1 Introduction
The engine speed is then controlled to a speed such that the new gear can be
engaged. A critical part in this scheme is the controlling of the engine such that
the transmission torque is zero. In this state, the vehicle is free rolling, which must
be handled. Driveline oscillations is a limiting factor in optimizing this step. In
this thesis the transmission torque is modeled, and controlled to zero by using state
feedback. With this approach, it is possible to optimize the time needed for a gear
shift, also when facing existing initial driveline oscillations.
A common architectural issue in the two applications described above is the
issue of sensor location. Different sensor locations result in different control prob-
lems. A comparison is made between using feedback from the engine speed sensor
or the wheel speed sensor, and the influence in control design is investigated.
1.1 Outline and Contributions
In Chapters 2 and 3, a set of three driveline models is derived. Experiments with a
heavy truck are described together with the modeling conclusions. The contribution
of the chapter is that a linear model with one torsional flexibility and two inertias
is able to fit the measured engine speed and wheel speed within the bandwidth
of interest. Parameter estimation of a model with a nonlinear clutch and sensor
dynamics explains that the difference between experiments and model occurs when
the clutch transfers zero torque.
Control of resonant systems with simple controllers is, from other technical
fields, known to have different properties with respect to sensor location. These
results are reviewed in Chapter 4. The extension to more advanced control design
methods is a little studied topic. The contribution of the chapter is a demonstration
of the influence of sensor location in driveline control when using LQG/LTR.
Chapters 5 treats the design and simulation of the speed controller. A key
contribution in this chapter is the formulation of a criterion for the speed con-
trol concept described above with active damping and retained RQV feeling. A
simulation study shows significantly improved performance and driveability.
Chapters 6 deals with the design and simulation of the gear-shift controller.
A major contribution in this thesis is a gear shifting strategy, based on a model
describing the transmission torque, and a criterion for a controller that drives
this torque to zero. The design improves the performance also in the case of
load disturbances and initial driveline oscillations. Conclusions are summarized in
Chapter 7.
2
Driveline Modeling
The driveline is a fundamental part of a vehicle and its dynamics has been modeled
in different ways depending on the purpose. The frequency range treated in this
work is the regime interesting for control design (Mo, Beaumount, and Powell
1996; Pettersson and Nielsen 1995). Vibrations and noise contribute to a higher
frequency range (Suzuki and Tozawa 1992; Gillespie 1992) which is not treated
here. This chapter deals with building models of a truck driveline. The generalized
Newton’s second law is used together with assumptions about how different parts
in the driveline contribute to the model. The aim of these assumptions is to find the
most important physical effects, contributing to driveline oscillations. Modeling is
an iterative process in reality. Nevertheless, a set of three models of increasing
complexity is presented. Next chapter will validate the choices.
First, a linear model with flexible drive shafts is derived. Assumptions about
stiff clutch, stiff propeller shaft, viscous friction in transmission and final drive,
together with a linear model of the air drag constitute the model. A second linear
model is given by using the assumptions made above, and adding a second flexibility
which is the clutch. Finally, a more complete nonlinear model is derived which
includes a clutch model with a static nonlinearity.
2.1 Basic Equations
A vehicular driveline is depicted in Figure 2.1. It consists of an engine, clutch,
transmission, propeller shaft, final drive, drive shafts, and wheels. In this section
fundamental equations for the driveline will be derived. Furthermore, some basic
equations regarding the forces acting on the wheel, are obtained. These equations
3
4 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling
Engine Clutch
Transmission
Propeller shaft
Final drive
Drive shaft
Wheel
Figure 2.1 A vehicular driveline.
are influenced by the complete dynamics of the vehicle. This means that effects
from, for instance, vehicle mass and trailer will be described by the equation de-
scribing the wheel. Next, a relation between the inputs and outputs of each part
is obtained, in order to get a complete physical model. Inputs and outputs of each
subsystem are labeled according to Figure 2.2.
Engine: The output torque of the engine is characterized by the driving torque
(M
m
) resulting from the combustion, the internal friction from the engine
(M
fr:m
), and the external load from the clutch (M
c
). The generalized New-
ton’s second law of motion (Meriam and Kraige 1987) gives the following
model
J
m
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m
−M
c
(2.1)
where J
m
is the mass moment of inertia of the engine and θ
m
is the angle of
the flywheel.
Clutch: A friction clutch found in vehicles equipped with a manual transmis-
sion consists of a clutch disk connecting the flywheel of the engine and the
transmission’s input shaft. When the clutch is engaged, no internal friction is
assumed, giving M
c
= M
t
, according to Figure 2.2. The transmitted torque
is a function of the angular difference (θ
m
− θ
c
) and the angular velocity
difference (
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
c
) over the clutch
M
c
= M
t
= f
c

m
−θ
c
,
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
c
) (2.2)
2.1 Basic Equations 5
M
d
r
w
F
w
θ
f
θ
w
Wheel
M
m
M
fr:m
M
p
θ
t
Clutch
Trans-
M
p
M
f
M
d
θ
t
θ
p
θ
f
Engine
θ
m
M
t
θ
c
M
w
θ
w
M
fr:t
M
fr:f
M
fr:w
M
c mission
Propeller
shaft
Final
drive
Drive
shaft
Figure 2.2 Subsystems of a vehicular driveline with its input and output angle
and torque.
Transmission: A transmission has a set of gears, each with a conversion ratio
i
t
. This gives the following relation between the input and output torque of
the transmission
M
p
= f
t
(M
t
, M
fr:t
, θ
c
−θ
t
i
t
,
˙
θ
c

˙
θ
t
i
t
, i
t
) (2.3)
where the internal friction torque of the transmission is labeled M
fr:t
. The
reason for considering the angle difference θ
c
−θ
t
i
t
in (2.3) is the possibility
of having torsional effects in the transmission.
Propeller shaft: The propeller shaft connects the transmission’s output shaft
with the final drive. No friction is assumed (M
p
= M
f
), giving the following
model of the torque input to the final drive
M
p
= M
f
= f
p

t
−θ
p
,
˙
θ
t

˙
θ
p
) (2.4)
Final drive: The final drive is characterized by a conversion ratio i
f
in the same
way as the transmission. The following relation for the input and output
torque holds
M
d
= f
f
(M
f
, M
fr:f
, θ
p
−θ
f
i
f
,
˙
θ
p

˙
θ
f
i
f
, i
f
) (2.5)
6 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling
F
a
v
F
w F
r
+mg sin(α)
Figure 2.3 Forces acting on a vehicle.
where the internal friction torque of the final drive is labeled M
fr:f
.
Drive shafts: The drive shafts connects the wheels to the final drive. Here it is
assumed that the wheel speed is the same for the two wheels. Therfore, the
drive shafts are modeled as one shaft. When the vehicle is turning and the
speed differs between the wheels, both drive shafts have to be modeled. No
friction (M
w
= M
d
) gives the model equation
M
w
= M
d
= f
d

f
−θ
w
,
˙
θ
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.6)
Wheel: In Figure 2.3 the forces acting on a vehicle with mass m and speed v is
shown. Newton’s second law in the longitudinal direction gives
F
w
= m˙ v +F
a
+F
r
+mg sin(α) (2.7)
The friction force (F
w
) is described by the sum of the following quantities
(Gillespie 1992).
• F
a
, the air drag, is approximated by
F
a
=
1
2
c
w
A
a
ρ
a
v
2
(2.8)
where c
w
is the drag coefficient, A
a
the maximum vehicle cross section
area, and ρ
a
the air density. However, effects from, for instance, open
or closed windows will make the force difficult to model.
2.2 Shaft Flexibilities 7
• F
r
, the rolling resistance, is approximated by
F
r
= m(c
r1
+c
r2
v) (2.9)
where c
r1
and c
r2
depends on, for instance, tires and tire pressure.
• mg sin(α), the gravitational force, where α is the slope of the road.
The coefficients of air drag and rolling resistance, (2.8) and (2.9), can be iden-
tified e.g. by a identification scheme (Henriksson, Pettersson, and Gustafsson
1993).
The resulting torque due to F
w
is equal to F
w
r
w
, where r
w
is the wheel
radius. Newton’s second law gives
J
w
¨
θ
w
= M
w
−F
w
r
w
−M
fr:w
(2.10)
where J
w
is the mass moment of inertia of the wheel, M
w
is given by (2.6),
and M
fr:w
is the friction torque. Including (2.7) to (2.9) in (2.10) together
with v = r
w
˙
θ
w
gives
(J
w
+mr
2
w
)
¨
θ
w
= M
w
−M
fr:w

1
2
c
w
A
a
ρ
a
r
3
w
˙
θ
2
w
(2.11)
−r
w
m(c
r1
+c
r2
r
w
˙
θ
w
) −r
w
mgsin(α)
A complete model for the driveline with the clutch engaged is described by
Equations (2.1) to (2.11). So far the functions f
c
, f
t
, f
p
, f
f
, f
d
, and the friction
torques M
fr:t
, M
fr:f
, and M
fr:w
are unknown. In the following section assumptions
will be made about the unknowns, resulting in a series of driveline models, with
different complexities.
2.2 Shaft Flexibilities
In the following two sections, assumptions will be made about the unknowns. First,
a model with one torsional flexibility (the drive shaft) will be considered, and then
a model with two torsional flexibilities (the drive shaft and propeller shaft) will be
considered.
2.2.1 Model 1: Drive Shaft Flexibility
Assumptions about the fundamental equations in Section 2.1 are made in order
to obtain a model with drive shaft flexibility. Labels are according to Figure 2.2.
The clutch and the propeller shafts are assumed to be stiff, and the drive shaft is
described as a damped torsional flexibility. The transmission and the final drive
are assumed to multiply the torque with the conversion ratio, without losses.
8 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling
Clutch: The clutch is assumed to be stiff, which gives the following equations
for the torque and the angle
M
c
= M
t
, θ
m
= θ
c
(2.12)
Transmission: The transmission is described by one rotating inertia J
t
. The
friction torque is assumed to be described by a viscous damping coefficient
b
t
. The model of the transmission, corresponding to (2.3), is
θ
c
= θ
t
i
t
(2.13)
J
t
¨
θ
t
= M
t
i
t
−b
t
˙
θ
t
−M
p
(2.14)
By using (2.12) and (2.13), the model can be rewritten as
J
t
¨
θ
m
= M
c
i
2
t
−b
t
˙
θ
m
−M
p
i
t
(2.15)
Propeller shaft: The propeller shaft is also assumed to be stiff, which gives the
following equations for the torque and the angle
M
p
= M
f
, θ
t
= θ
p
(2.16)
Final drive: In the same way as the transmission, the final drive is modeled by
one rotating inertia J
f
. The friction torque is assumed to be described by a
viscous damping coefficient b
f
. The model of the final drive, corresponding
to (2.5), is
θ
p
= θ
f
i
f
(2.17)
J
f
¨
θ
f
= M
f
i
f
−b
f
˙
θ
f
−M
d
(2.18)
Equation (2.18) can be rewritten with (2.16) and (2.17) which gives
J
f
¨
θ
t
= M
p
i
2
f
−b
f
˙
θ
t
−M
d
i
f
(2.19)
Reducing (2.19) to engine speed is done by using (2.12) and (2.13) resulting
in
J
f
¨
θ
m
= M
p
i
2
f
i
t
−b
f
˙
θ
m
−M
d
i
f
i
t
(2.20)
By replacing M
p
in (2.20) with M
p
in (2.15), a model for the lumped trans-
mission, propeller shaft, and final drive is obtained
(J
t
i
2
f
+J
f
)
¨
θ
m
= M
c
i
2
t
i
2
f
−b
t
˙
θ
m
i
2
f
−b
f
˙
θ
m
−M
d
i
f
i
t
(2.21)
Drive shaft: The drive shaft is modeled as a damped torsional flexibility, having
stiffness k, and internal damping c. Hence, (2.6) becomes
M
w
= M
d
= k(θ
f
−θ
w
) +c(
˙
θ
f

˙
θ
w
) = k(θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
) (2.22)
+ c(
˙
θ
m
/i
t
i
f

˙
θ
w
)
2.2 Shaft Flexibilities 9
θ
w
θ
m
J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
+J
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f J
w
+mr
2
w
k
c
M
m
−M
fr:m
r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
Figure 2.4 Model 1: Stiff clutch and drive shaft torsional flexibility.
where (2.12), (2.13), (2.16), and (2.17) are used. By replacing M
d
in (2.21)
with (2.22) the equation describing the transmission, propeller shaft, final
drive, and drive shaft, becomes
(J
t
i
2
f
+J
f
)
¨
θ
m
= M
c
i
2
t
i
2
f
−b
t
˙
θ
m
i
2
f
−b
f
˙
θ
m
(2.23)
−k(θ
m
−θ
w
i
t
i
f
) −c(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
w
i
t
i
f
)
Wheel: If (2.11) is combined with (2.22), and if the linear part of the air drag
in (2.11) is used, the following equation for the wheel results
(J
w
+mr
2
w
)
¨
θ
w
= k(θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
) +c(
˙
θ
m
/i
t
i
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.24)
−b
w
˙
θ
w
−c
w
A
a
ρ
a
r
3
w
˙
θ
w
−mc
r2
r
2
w
˙
θ
w
−r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
where the friction torque is described as viscous damping, with label b
w
.
The complete model is obtained by inserting M
c
from (2.23) into (2.1), together
with (2.24), which gives the following equations. An illustration of the model can
be seen in Figure 2.4.
Definition 2.1 Resulting equations for Model 1 - drive shaft flexibility.
(J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
+J
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
)
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m
−(b
t
/i
2
t
+b
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
)
˙
θ
m
(2.25)
−k(θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
)/i
t
i
f
−c(
˙
θ
m
/i
t
i
f

˙
θ
w
)/i
t
i
f
(J
w
+mr
2
w
)
¨
θ
w
= k(θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
) +c(
˙
θ
m
/i
t
i
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.26)
−(b
w
+c
w
A
a
ρ
a
r
3
w
+mc
r2
r
2
w
)
˙
θ
w
−r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
Possible states describing Model 1 are
˙
θ
m
,
˙
θ
w
, and θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
.
10 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling
2.2.2 Model 1 Extended with a Flexible Propeller Shaft
It is also possible to consider two torsional flexibilities, the propeller shaft and the
drive shaft. In the derivation of the model, the clutch is assumed stiff, and the
propeller and drive shafts are modeled as damped torsional flexibilities. As in the
derivation of Model 1, the transmission and final drive are assumed to multiply the
torque with the conversion ratio, without losses.
The derivation of Model 1 is repeated here with the difference that the model
for the propeller shaft (2.16) is replaced by a model of a flexibility with stiffness k
p
and internal damping c
p
M
p
= M
f
= k
p

t
−θ
p
) +c
p
(
˙
θ
t

˙
θ
p
) = k
p

m
/i
t
−θ
p
) +c
p
(
˙
θ
m
/i
t

˙
θ
p
) (2.27)
where (2.12) and (2.13) are used in the last equality. This means that there are
two torsional flexibilities, the propeller shaft and the drive shaft. Inserting (2.27)
into (2.15) gives
J
t
¨
θ
m
= M
c
i
2
t
−b
t
˙
θ
m

_
k
p

m
/i
t
−θ
p
) +c
p
(
˙
θ
m
/i
t

˙
θ
p
)
_
i
t
(2.28)
By combining this with (2.1) the following differential equation describing the
lumped engine and transmission results
(J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
)
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m
−b
t
/i
2
t
˙
θ
m
(2.29)

1
i
t
_
k
p

m
/i
t
−θ
p
) +c
p
(
˙
θ
m
/i
t

˙
θ
p
)
_
The final drive is described by inserting (2.27) in (2.18), and repeating (2.17)
θ
p
= θ
f
i
f
(2.30)
J
f
¨
θ
f
= i
f
_
k
p

m
/i
t
−θ
p
) +c
p
(
˙
θ
m
/i
t

˙
θ
p
)
_
−b
f
˙
θ
f
−M
d
(2.31)
Including (2.30) in (2.31) gives
J
f
¨
θ
p
= i
2
f
_
k
p

m
/i
t
−θ
p
) +c
p
(
˙
θ
m
/i
t

˙
θ
p
)
_
−b
f
˙
θ
p
−i
f
M
d
(2.32)
The equation for the drive shaft (2.22) is repeated with new labels
M
w
= M
d
= k
d

f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
f

˙
θ
w
) = k
d

p
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
p
/i
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.33)
where (2.30) is used in the last equality.
The equation for the final drive (2.32) now becomes
J
f
¨
θ
p
= i
2
f
_
k
p

m
/i
t
−θ
p
) +c
p
(
˙
θ
m
/i
t

˙
θ
p
)
_
−b
f
˙
θ
p
(2.34)
−i
f
_
k
d

p
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
p
/i
f

˙
θ
w
)
_
2.3 Models Including the Clutch 11
θ
w
θ
m
J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
J
w
+mr
2
w
k
d
c
d
M
m
+M
fr:m r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
k
p
c
p
θ
p
J
f
Figure 2.5 Model with stiff clutch and two torsional flexibilities.
The equation for the wheel is derived by combining (2.11) with (2.33). If the linear
part of the of the air drag in (2.11) is used, the following equation for the wheel
results
(J
w
+mr
2
w
)
¨
θ
w
= k
d

p
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
p
/i
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.35)
−b
w
˙
θ
w
−c
w
A
a
ρ
a
r
3
w
˙
θ
w
−mc
r2
r
2
w
˙
θ
w
−r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
where again the friction torque is assumed to be described by a viscous damping
coefficient b
w
. The complete model with drive shaft and propeller shaft flexibilities
is the following, which can be seen in Figure 2.5.
(J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
)
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m
−b
t
/i
2
t
˙
θ
m
(2.36)

1
i
t
_
k
p

m
/i
t
−θ
p
) +c
p
(
˙
θ
m
/i
t

˙
θ
p
)
_
J
f
¨
θ
p
= i
2
f
_
k
p

m
/i
t
−θ
p
) +c
p
(
˙
θ
m
/i
t

˙
θ
p
)
_
−b
f
˙
θ
p
(2.37)
−i
f
_
k
d

p
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
p
/i
f

˙
θ
w
)
_
(J
w
+mr
2
w
)
¨
θ
w
= k
d

p
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
p
/i
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.38)
−(b
w
+c
w
A
a
ρ
a
r
3
w
+mc
r2
r
2
w
)
˙
θ
w
−r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
2.3 Models Including the Clutch
The clutch is so far considered to be stiff and lumped together with the engine
mass moment of inertia. In this section this assumption is relaxed and first, the
clutch is modeled as a linear flexibility. Secondly, a nonlinear model of the clutch
is derived.
2.3.1 Model 2: Flexible Clutch and Drive Shafts
A model with a linear clutch and one torsional flexibility (the drive shaft) is derived
by repeating the procedure for Model 1 with the difference that the model for the
12 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling
clutch is a flexibility with stiffness k
c
and internal damping c
c
M
c
= M
t
= k
c

m
−θ
c
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
c
) = k
c

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
) (2.39)
where (2.13) is used in the last equality. By inserting this into (2.1) the equation
describing the engine inertia is given by
J
m
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m

_
k
c

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
)
_
(2.40)
Also by inserting (2.39) into (2.14), the equation describing the transmission is
J
t
¨
θ
t
= i
t
_
k
c

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
)
_
−b
t
˙
θ
t
−M
p
(2.41)
M
p
is derived from (2.19) giving
(J
t
+J
f
/i
2
f
)
¨
θ
t
= i
t
_
k
c

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
)
_
−(b
t
+b
f
/i
2
f
)
˙
θ
t
−M
d
/i
f
(2.42)
which is the lumped transmission, propeller shaft, and final drive inertia.
The drive shaft is modeled according to (2.22) as
M
w
= M
d
= k
d

f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
f

˙
θ
w
) = k
d

t
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
t
/i
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.43)
where (2.16) and (2.17) is used in the last equality.
The complete model is obtained by inserting (2.43) into (2.42) and (2.11), and
using the linear part of the air drag. An illustration of the model can be seen in
Figure 2.6.
Definition 2.2 Resulting equations for Model 2 - flexible clutch and drive shaft
flexibility.
J
m
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m

_
k
c

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
)
_
(2.44)
(J
t
+J
f
/i
2
f
)
¨
θ
t
= i
t
_
k
c

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
)
_
(2.45)
−(b
t
+b
f
/i
2
f
)
˙
θ
t

1
i
f
_
k
d

t
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
t
/i
f

˙
θ
w
)
_
(J
w
+mr
2
w
)
¨
θ
w
= k
d

t
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
t
/i
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.46)
−(b
w
+c
w
A
a
ρ
a
r
3
w
+c
r2
r
w
)
˙
θ
w
−r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
2.3.2 Model 3: Nonlinear Clutch and Drive Shaft Flexibility
When studying a clutch in more detail it is seen that the torsional flexibility comes
from an arrangement of smaller springs in series with springs with much higher
stiffness. The reason for this arrangement is vibration insulation. When the angle
difference over the clutch starts from zero and increases, the smaller springs, with
2.3 Models Including the Clutch 13
θ
w
θ
m
J
m
J
w
+mr
2
w
k
d
c
d
M
m
+M
fr:m r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
k
c
c
c
θ
t
J
t
+J
f
/i
2
f
Figure 2.6 Model 2: Linear clutch and drive shaft torsional flexibility.
Torque
θ
m
−θ
c
θ
c1
θ
c2
−θ
c1
−θ
c2
mechanical stop
k
c2
k
c1
mechanical stop
k
c2
k
c1
Figure 2.7 Nonlinear clutch characteristics.
stiffness k
c1
, are being compressed. This ends when they are fully compressed at
θ
c1
radians. If the angle is increased further, the stiffer springs, with stiffness k
c2
,
are beginning to be compressed. When θ
c2
is reached, the clutch hits a mechanical
stop. This clutch characteristics can be modeled as in Figure 2.7. The resulting
stiffness k
c

m
−θ
c
) of the clutch is given by
k
c
(x) =
_
_
_
k
c1
if |x| ≤ θ
c1
k
c2
if θ
c1
< |x| ≤ θ
c2
∞ otherwise
(2.47)
14 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling

θ
2
θ
1
k c
Figure 2.8 A shaft with stiffness k and internal damping c with a backlash of 2α
rad.
The torque M
kc

m
−θ
c
) from the clutch nonlinearity is
M
kc
(x) =
_
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
_
k
c1
x if |x| ≤ θ
c1
k
c1
θ
c1
+k
c2
(x −θ
c1
) if θ
c1
< x ≤ θ
c2
−k
c1
θ
c1
+k
c2
(x +θ
c1
) if −θ
c2
< x ≤ −θ
c1
∞ otherwise
(2.48)
The nonlinear model is given by the following equations. The linear part of the air
drag is included, as in the previous models.
Definition 2.3 Resulting equations for Model 3 - nonlinear clutch and drive shaft
flexibility.
J
m
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m
−M
kc

m
−θ
t
i
t
) (2.49)
−c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
)
(J
t
+J
f
/i
2
f
)
¨
θ
t
= i
t
_
M
kc

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
)
_
(2.50)
−(b
t
+b
f
/i
2
f
)
˙
θ
t

1
i
f
_
k
d

t
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
t
/i
f

˙
θ
w
)
_
(J
w
+mr
2
w
)
¨
θ
w
= k
d

t
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
t
/i
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.51)
−(b
w
+mc
r2
r
w
+c
w
A
a
ρ
a
r
3
w
)
˙
θ
w
−r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
where M
kc
(·) is given by (2.48) and c
c
denotes the damping coefficient of the clutch.
2.4 Additional Dynamics
For high speeds, the linear part of the air drag, is not sufficient. Then the differ-
ential equation describing the wheel and the vehicle (2.26), (2.46), and (2.51) can
be changed to include the nonlinear model of the air drag, described in (2.8). The
2.4 Additional Dynamics 15
model describing the wheel is
(J
w
+mr
2
w
)
¨
θ
w
= k
d

t
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
t
/i
f

˙
θ
w
) (2.52)
−(b
w
+mc
r2
r
w
)
˙
θ
w
−r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))

1
2
c
w
A
a
ρ
a
r
3
w
˙
θ
2
w
It is well known that elements like transmissions and drives introduce backlash.
Throughout this thesis the dead zone model will be used (Liversidge 1952). The
torque resulting from a shaft connected to a drive with backlash 2α is
M =
_
_
_
k(θ
1
−θ
2
−α) +c(
˙
θ
1

˙
θ
2
) if θ
1
−θ
2
> α
k(θ
1
−θ
2
+α) +c(
˙
θ
1

˙
θ
2
) if θ
1
−θ
2
< −α
0 if |θ
1
−θ
2
| < α
(2.53)
where k is the stiffness and c is the internal damping of the shaft, according to
Figure 2.8.
16 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling
3
Field Trials and Modeling
Field trials are performed with a Scania truck. Different road slopes and gears are
tested to study driveline resonances. The driving torque, engine speed, transmission
speed, and wheel speed are measured. As mentioned already in Chapter 2, these
measurements are used to build models by extending an initial model structure by
adding the effect that seems to be the major cause for the deviation still left. There
has been some open questions regarding model structure in this study. One such
question is whether differences in engine speed and transmission speed is due to
clutch dynamics or has other causes. The parameters of the models are estimated.
The result is a series of models that describe the driveline in increasing detail.
3.1 The Truck
Tests were performed with a Scania 144L530 truck (Figure 3.1) on test roads in
S¨odert¨alje, Sweden, September 1995. The 6x2 truck (6 wheels, 2 driven) has a 14
liter V8 diesel engine (Figure 3.2) with maximum power of 530 Hp and maximum
torque of 2300 Nm. The DSC14 engine is connected to a manual range-splitter
transmission (Figure 3.3) via a clutch. The transmission has 14 gears and a hy-
draulic retarder. It is also equipped with the gear shifting system Opticruise (Ore-
hall 1995). A propeller shaft connects the output shaft of the transmission with
the final drive. The drive shafts connect the final drive to the wheels which has a
radius of r
w
= 0.52 m. The weight of the truck is m = 24 ton and the front area
is A
a
= 9 m
2
. The drag coefficient is equal to c
w
= 0.6.
17
18 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling
Figure 3.1 Scania 6x2 144L530 truck.
Figure 3.2 Scania DSC14 engine.
3.2 Measurement Description 19
Figure 3.3 Scania GRS900R range-splitter transmission with retarder and Opti-
cruise gear changing system.
3.2 Measurement Description
The truck is equipped with three sensors measuring the angle of the flywheel of the
engine (θ
m
), the output shaft from the transmission (θ
t
), and the driving wheel

w
). The velocity of a rotating part is measured by using an inductive sensor
(Nwagboso 1993), which detects the time when cogs from a rotating cogwheel are
passing. This time sequence is then inverted to get the angle velocity. Hence, the
bandwidth of the measured signal depends on the speed and the number of cogs
the cogwheel is equipped with.
If the cogwheels of the three sensors are compared, the transmission speed
sensor has fewer cogs than the other two sensors, indicating that the bandwidth of
this signal is lower.
By measuring the amount of fuel that is fed to the engine, a measure of the
driving torque (M
m
) is obtained. The friction torque of the engine (M
fr:m
) is also
calculated online from a function given by Scania. From these two signals, the
torque u = M
m
−M
fr:m
acting on the driveline is calculated.
Hence, five signals are sampled (
˙
θ
m
,
˙
θ
t
,
˙
θ
w
, M
m
, M
fr:m
) with the Scania sam-
pling program “Truck-view”. Sampling is not equidistant in time, and the sample
period range from 0.05 s to 0.11 s (corresponding to sampling frequencies between
9 Hz and 20 Hz). The data has information up to half the sample period, which
means that there is information up to 10 Hz frequency.
The four signals used in the following modeling are calculated from the five
sampled signals. The four signals are (
˙
θ
m
,
˙
θ
t
,
˙
θ
w
, u = M
m
−M
fr:m
).
In the rest of this thesis, the control signal u = M
m
−M
fr:m
is assumed to be a
20 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling
6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8 8.2 8.4
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
Time, [s]
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Figure 3.4 Example of resampling a signal not equidistant in time (x). The
dotted line is the linear interpolation between the samples and the straight line is
the signal filtered with 6 Hz.
continuous signal. This is reasonably for the frequency range considered for control
design. A motivation for this is that an eight-cylinder engine makes 80 strokes/s
at an engine speed of 1200 rev/min. The dynamics from fuel amount to engine
torque is not considered in this work.
Preprocessing Data
Since the sampling is not equidistant in time, the data sets are resampled. A new
data set is obtained by interpolating the old data using linear interpolation. This
introduces higher frequencies than those in the original data set. Therefore, the
interpolated data is low-pass filtered with a frequency corresponding to half the
sampling frequency in the original data. This means a frequency in the interval 4.5
to 10 Hz. The chosen frequency is 6 Hz. This is done offline and therefore without
phase shifts in the signals. An example of the resampling is seen in Figure 3.4.
Parameter Estimation Software
To estimate the parameters of the linear models derived in Chapter 2 the Sys-
tem Identification Toolbox (Ljung 1995) is used. The prediction error estimation
method (PEM) for parameterized state-space representations is used to estimate
the unknown parameters and initial conditions.
In order to estimate the parameters and initial condition of the nonlinear
Model 3, the continuous model is discretized. This is done by using Euler’s method.
3.3 Experiments 21
For a continuous differential equation, ˙ x = f(x, u), the discrete version is
x
n
= x
n−1
+hf(x
n−1
, u
n−1
) (3.1)
where h is the sampling time. The global truncation error with this method equals
O(h). Therefore it is necessary to keep h small. A too small h can give numerical
problems and it also gives unnecessarily long iteration time. The data is resampled
at a sampling frequency of 1 kHz. Furthermore, the five differential equations,
describing Model 3, are scaled to be of the same magnitude.
For a given set of parameters, initial conditions, and control signal sequence u,
the state vector is calculated at each sample. By comparing the model output (y
m
,
y
t
, y
w
) with the measured signals (
˙
θ
m
,
˙
θ
t
,
˙
θ
w
) a cost function can be evaluated.
The cost function used is

∀i
_
(
˙
θ
m
(i) −y
m
(i))
2
+i
2
t
(
˙
θ
t
(i) −y
t
(i))
2
+i
2
t
i
2
f
(
˙
θ
w
(i) −y
w
(i))
2
_
(3.2)
where ∀i means that the sum is to taken over all samples in the estimation data.
The optimal parameters and initial conditions are the ones minimizing (3.2). The
data sets are divided into two parts to be used with the parameter estimation and
validation respectively.
For Model 1 the following states are used in the parameter estimation
x
1
= θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
, x
2
=
˙
θ
m
, x
3
=
˙
θ
w
and for Models 2 and 3,
x
1
= θ
m
−θ
t
i
t
, x
2
= θ
t
/i
f
−θ
w
, x
3
=
˙
θ
m
, x
4
=
˙
θ
t
, x
5
=
˙
θ
w
are used. More details about the state-space representation can be found in Chap-
ter 4.
3.3 Experiments
A number of roads at Scania were used for testing. They have different known
slopes. The sensor outputs described above were logged, with the friction torque
(M
fr:m
) subtracted from the driving torque (M
m
). Step input experiments were
done by repeatedly pressing and releasing the accelerator, in order to excite drive-
line oscillations.
Trial 1: The test was performed with step inputs on the accelerator with gear 1.
The road was almost flat. The data is seen in Figure 3.5.
Trial 2: The test was performed with step inputs on the accelerator with gear 5.
The road was almost flat. The data is seen in Figure 3.6.
Trial 3: The test was performed with step inputs on the accelerator with gear 5.
The road has 16 % slope. The data is seen in Figure 3.7.
Trial 4: The test was performed with step inputs on the accelerator with gear 8.
The road was almost flat. The data is seen in Figure 3.8.
22 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling
0 10 20 30
−500
0
500
1000
1500
[
N
m
]
0 10 20 30
50
100
150
200
250
300
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 10 20 30
5
10
15
20
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Time, [s]
0 10 20 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Time, [s]
Driving torque u = M
m
−M
fr:m Engine speed
˙
θ
m
Transmission speed
˙
θ
t
Wheel speed
˙
θ
w
Figure 3.5 Torque and angular velocities for a test with gear 1 and flat road.
0 10 20 30
−500
0
500
1000
1500
[
N
m
]
0 10 20 30
100
150
200
250
300
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 10 20 30
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Time, [s]
0 10 20 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Time, [s]
Driving torque u = M
m
−M
fr:m Engine speed
˙
θ
m
Transmission speed
˙
θ
t
Wheel speed
˙
θ
w
Figure 3.6 Torque and angular velocities for a test with gear 5 and flat road.
3.3 Experiments 23
0 10 20 30
−500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
[
N
m
]
0 10 20 30
50
100
150
200
250
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 10 20 30
10
15
20
25
30
35
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Time, [s]
0 10 20 30
2
4
6
8
10
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Time, [s]
Driving torque u = M
m
−M
fr:m Engine speed
˙
θ
m
Transmission speed
˙
θ
t
Wheel speed
˙
θ
w
Figure 3.7 Torque and angular velocities for a test with gear 5 and 16 % slope.
0 10 20 30
−500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
[
N
m
]
0 10 20 30
100
150
200
250
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 10 20 30
30
40
50
60
70
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Time, [s]
0 10 20 30
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Time, [s]
Driving torque u = M
m
−M
fr:m Engine speed
˙
θ
m
Transmission speed
˙
θ
t
Wheel speed
˙
θ
w
Figure 3.8 Torque and angular velocities for a test with gear 8 and flat road.
24 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling
3.4 Models
A number of driveline models were developed in Chapter 2. The choices made in
the modeling are now justified, by fitting the models to measured data. Besides
the measured states (
˙
θ
m
,
˙
θ
t
,
˙
θ
w
), the load and the states describing the torsion of
the flexibilities are estimated by the models.
The data shown are from Trial 1, where the driveline oscillations are well ex-
cited. Similar results are obtained from the other trials.
3.4.1 Influence from the Drive Shaft
First, the influence from the drive shaft is investigated by estimating the parameters
and initial conditions of Model 1. The engine speed and the wheel speed data is
used to estimate the parameters. In Figure 3.9, the results from Trial 1 are shown.
Here, also the transmission speed is plotted together with the model output engine
speed scaled with the conversion ratio in the transmission (i
t
). The plots are typical
examples that show that a major part of the driveline dynamics in the frequency
range up to 6 Hz is captured with a linear mass-spring model with the drive shafts
as the main flexibility.
Result
• The main contribution to driveline dynamics from driving torque to engine
speed and wheel speed is the drive shaft.
• The true angle difference (x
1
= θ
m
/i
t
i
f
− θ
w
) is unknown, but the value
estimated by the model has physically reasonable values.
• The model output transmission speed (x
2
/i
t
) fits the measured transmission
speed data well, but there are still deviations between model and measure-
ment.
3.4.2 Influence from the Propeller Shaft
The model equations (2.36) to (2.38) describes Model 1 extended with the propeller
shaft with stiffness k
p
and damping c
p
. The three inertias in the model are
J
1
= J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
J
2
= J
f
(3.3)
J
3
= J
w
+mr
2
w
If the size of the three inertias are compared, the inertia of the final drive (J
f
) is
considerably less than J
1
and J
2
in (3.3). Therefore, the model will act as if there
are two damped springs in series. The total stiffness of two undamped springs in
series is
k =
k
p
i
2
f
k
d
k
p
i
2
f
+k
d
(3.4)
3.4 Models 25
−0.5
0
0.5
r
a
d
100
150
200
250
300
r
a
d
/
s
5
10
15
r
a
d
/
s
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
1
2
3
4
5
r
a
d
/
s
Time, [s]
x
1
= θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
x
2
=
˙
θ
m
x
2
/i
t
=
˙
θ
t
x
3
=
˙
θ
w
Figure 3.9 Model 1 estimated on data from Trial 1. The top figure shows the
drive shaft angle difference, and the bottom figures show the model outputs (x
2
,
x
3
) in dashed lines, together with the measured data in solid. The plots are typical
examples of that a major part of the dynamics is captured by a linear model with
drive shaft flexibility.
26 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling
whereas the total damping of two dampers in series is
c =
c
p
i
2
f
c
d
c
p
i
2
f
+c
d
(3.5)
The damping and the stiffness of the drive shaft in the previous section will thus
typically be underestimated due to the flexibility of the propeller shaft. This effect
will increase with lower conversion ratio in the final drive, i
f
. The individual
stiffness values obtained from parameter estimation are somewhat lower than the
values obtained from material data.
3.4.3 Deviations between Engine Speed and Transmission
Speed
As mentioned above, there is good agreement between model and experiments for
u = M
m
− M
fr:m
,
˙
θ
m
, and
˙
θ
w
, but there is a slight deviation between measured
and estimated transmission speed. This deviation has a character of a phase shift
and some smoothing (signal levels and shapes agree). This indicates that there
is some additional dynamics between engine speed,
˙
θ
m
, and transmission speed,
˙
θ
t
. Two natural candidates are additional mass-spring dynamics in the driveline,
or sensor dynamics. The explanation is that there is a combined effect, with the
major difference explained by the sensor dynamics. The motivation for this is that
the high stiffness of the clutch flexibility (given from material data) can not result
in a difference of a phase shift form. Neither can backlash in the transmission
explain the difference, because then the engine and transmission speeds would be
equal when the backlash is at its endpoint.
As mentioned before, the bandwidth of the measured transmission speed is lower
than the measured engine and wheel speeds, due to fewer cogs in the sensor. It is
assumed that the engine speed and wheel speed sensor dynamics are not influencing
the data for frequencies up to 6 Hz. The speed dependence of the transmission
sensor dynamics is neglected. The following sensor dynamics are assumed, after
some comparison between sensor filters of different order,
f
m
= 1
f
t
=
1
1 +αs
(3.6)
f
w
= 1
where a first order filter with an unknown parameter α models the transmission
sensor. Figure 3.10 shows the configuration with Model 1 and sensor filter f
m
, f
t
,
and f
w
. The outputs of the filters are y
m
, y
t
, and y
w
.
Now the parameters, initial condition, and the unknown filter constant α can
be estimated such that the model output (y
m
, y
t
, y
w
) fits the measured data. The
result of this is seen in Figure 3.11 for Trial 1. The conclusion is that the main
part of the deviation between engine speed and transmission speed is due to sensor
dynamics. In Figure 3.12, an enlarged plot of the transmission speed is seen, with
the model output from Model 1 with and without sensor filtering.
3.4 Models 27
θ
w θ
m
J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
+J
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f J
w
+mr
2
w
k
c
M
m
−M
fr:m
r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
f
w
y
w
f
m
y
m
f
t
/i
t
y
t
Figure 3.10 Model 1 with sensor dynamics.
Result
• If Model 1 is equipped with a first order sensor filter for the transmission
speed, all three velocities (
˙
θ
m
,
˙
θ
t
,
˙
θ
w
) are estimated by the model. The
model output fits the data except for a number of time intervals where there
are deviations between model and measured data (see Figure 3.12). However,
these deviations will in the following be related to nonlinearities at low clutch
torques.
3.4.4 Influence from the Clutch
So far the clutch has been assumed stiff, and the drawback with the models consid-
ered so far is that they are unable to estimate the angle difference over the clutch
that actually exists. Model 2 and 3 on the other hand estimate a clutch angle
difference.
Linear Clutch (Model 2)
The parameters and initial conditions of Model 2 are estimated with the sensor
dynamics described above. A problem when estimating the parameters of Model 2
is that the bandwidth of 6 Hz in the data is not enough to estimate the stiffness
k
c
in the clutch. Therefore, the value of the stiffness given by Scania is used and
fixed, and the rest of the parameters are estimated.
The resulting clutch angle difference (x
1
= θ
m
− θ
t
i
t
) and the drive shaft an-
gle difference (x
2
= θ
t
/i
f
− θ
w
) are seen in Figure 3.13. The true values of these
torsions are not known, but the figure shows that the drive shaft torsion have
realistic values that agree with other experience. However, the clutch angle tor-
sion does not have realistic values, which can be seen when comparing with the
static nonlinearity in Figure 2.7. The model output velocities (
˙
θ
m
,
˙
θ
t
,
˙
θ
w
) show
28 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling
−0.5
0
0.5
r
a
d
100
150
200
250
300
r
a
d
/
s
5
10
15
r
a
d
/
s
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
1
2
3
4
5
r
a
d
/
s
Time, [s]
x
1
= θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
y
m
= x
2
=
˙
θ
m
y
t
= x
2
/i
t
(1 + αs) =
˙
θ
t
/(1 + αs)
y
w
= x
3
=
˙
θ
w
Figure 3.11 Model as in Figure 3.9 but with sensor dynamics included. The
top figure shows the angle difference over the drive shaft, and the bottom figures
show the model outputs (y
m
, y
t
, y
w
) in dashed, together with the measured data
in solid. The main part of the deviation between engine speed and transmission
speed is due to sensor dynamics. See also Figure 3.12.
3.4 Models 29
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
Time, [s]
r
a
d
/
s
Figure 3.12 Enlargement of part of Figure 3.11. Measured transmission speed
(solid), output from Model 1 without sensor filtering (dashed), and output from
Model 1 with sensor filtering (dash-dotted). The parameters are estimated on data
from Trial 1.
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
−0.02
−0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
r
a
d
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
−0.5
0
0.5
r
a
d
Time, [s]
x
1
= θ
m
−θ
t
i
t
x
2
= θ
t
/i
f
−θ
w
Figure 3.13 Clutch angle difference (top figure) and drive shaft angle difference
(bottom figure) resulting from parameter estimation of Model 2 with sensor filter-
ing, on data from Trial 1. The true values of these torsions are not known, but the
plots show that the drive shaft angle has realistic values.
30 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
0
r
a
d
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
−0.5
0
0.5
r
a
d
Time, [s]
−θ
c1
θ
c1
x
1
= θ
m
/i
t
−θ
t
x
2
= θ
t
/i
f
−θ
w
Figure 3.14 Clutch angle difference (top figure) and drive shaft angle difference
(bottom figure) resulting from parameter estimation of Model 3 with sensor filter-
ing, on data from Trial 1. The true values of these torsions are not known, but the
plots show that they have realistic values.
no improvement compared to those generated by Model 1 with sensor dynamics,
displayed in Figure 3.11.
Result
• The model including a linear clutch does not improve the data fit. The
interpretation of this is that the clutch model does not add information for
frequencies under 6 Hz.
Nonlinear Clutch (Model 3)
When estimating the parameters of Model 3, the clutch static nonlinearity is fixed
with known physical values and the rest of the parameters are estimated, except
for the sensor filter which is the same as in the previous model estimations.
The resulting clutch angle difference (x
1
= θ
m
− θ
t
i
t
) and drive shaft angle
difference (x
2
= θ
t
/i
f
− θ
w
) after minimizing (3.2) are seen in Figure 3.14. The
true values of these torsions are not known as mentioned before. However, the
figure shows that both angles have realistic values that agree with other experience.
The model output velocities (
˙
θ
m
,
˙
θ
t
,
˙
θ
w
) show no improvement compared to those
generated by Model 1 with sensor dynamics, displayed in Figure 3.11.
In Figure 3.12 it was seen that the model with the sensor filtering fitted the
signal except for a number of time intervals with deviations. The question is if
3.4 Models 31
this is a result of some nonlinearity. Figure 3.15 shows the transmission speed
plotted together with the model output and the clutch angle torsion. It is clear
from Figure 3.15 that the deviation between model and experiments occurs when
the clutch angle passes the area with the low stiffness in the static nonlinearity (see
Figure 2.7).
Result
• The model including the nonlinear clutch does not improve the data fit for
frequencies up to 6 Hz.
• The model is able to estimate a clutch angle with realistic values.
• The estimated clutch angle shows that when the clutch passes the area with
low stiffness in the nonlinearity, the model deviates from the data. The
reason is unmodeled dynamics at low clutch torques (Bj¨ ornberg, Pettersson,
and Nielsen 1996).
3.4.5 Model Validity
As mentioned before, the data sets are divided into two parts. The parameters are
estimated on the estimation data. The results are then evaluated on the validation
data, and these are the results shown in this chapter.
In the parameter estimation, the unknown load l, which vary between the tri-
als, is estimated. The load can be recalculated to estimate road slope, and the
calculated values agree well with the known values of the road slopes at Scania.
Furthermore, the estimation of the states describing the torsion of the clutch and
the drive shaft shows realistic values. This gives further support to model structure
and parameters.
The assumption about sensor dynamics in the transmission speed influencing
the experiments, agrees well with the fact that the engine speed sensor and the
wheel speed sensor have considerably higher bandwidth (more cogs) than the trans-
mission speed sensor.
When estimating the parameters of the models investigated, there is a problem
with identifying the viscous friction components b. The sensitivity in the model to
variations in the friction parameters is low, and the same model fit can be obtained
for a range of frictions parameters.
32 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
r
a
d
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
r
a
d
Time, [s]
θ
c1
−θ
c1
x
1
= θ
m
/i
t
−θ
t


↑ ↑

y
t
= x
4
/(1 + αs)
Figure 3.15 Clutch angle difference (top figure) and measured and estimated
transmission speed (bottom figure) from estimation of Model 3 with sensor dy-
namics on data from Trial 1. The result is that the miss fit occurs when the clutch
angle passes the area with the low stiffness (|θ| < θ
c1
) in the static nonlinearity.
3.5 Summary 33
3.5 Summary
Parameter estimation of the models derived in Chapter 2 shows that a model with
one torsional flexibility and two inertias is able to fit the measured engine speed
and wheel speed. By considering the difference between the measured transmission
speed and wheel speed it is reasonably to deduce that the main flexibility is the
drive shafts.
In order for the model to fit the data from all three measured velocities, a
first order sensor filter is added to the model, in accordance with properties of
the sensory system. It is shown that all three velocities are fitted. Parameter
estimation of a model with a nonlinear clutch explains that the difference between
the measured data and the model occurs when the clutch transfers zero torque.
Further supporting facts of the models are that they give values to the non-
measured variables, drive shaft and clutch torsion, that agree with experience from
other sources. Furthermore, the known road slopes are well estimated.
The result is a series of models that describe the driveline in increasing detail
by, in each extension, adding the effect that seems to be the major cause for the
deviation still left.
The result, from a user perspective, is that, within the frequency regime in-
teresting for control design, the mass-spring models with some sensor dynamics
(Model 1 and Model 2) give good agreement with experiments. They are thus suit-
able for control design. The major deviations left are captured by the nonlinear
effects in Model 3 which makes this model suitable for verifying simulation studies
in control design.
34 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling
4
Architectural Issues for Driveline
Control
As seen in the previous chapters, there are significant torsional resonances in a
driveline. Active control of these resonances is the topic of the rest of this thesis.
Chapters 5 and 6 treats two different problems. Besides formulating the control
problem in this chapter, there is one architectural issue that will be given special
attention. There are different possible choices in driveline control between using
different sensor locations, e.g. engine speed sensor, transmission speed sensor,
or wheel speed sensor. If the driveline were rigid, the choice would not matter,
since the sensor outputs would differ only by a scaling factor. However, it will be
demonstrated that the presence of torsional flexibilities implies that sensor choice
gives different control problems. The difference can be formulated in control the-
oretic terms e.g. by saying that the poles are the same, but the zeros differ both
in number and values. The issue of sensor location seems to be a little studied
topic (Kubrusly and Malebranche 1985; Ljung 1988), even though its relevance for
control characteristics.
The driveline model equations in Chapter 2 are written in state-space form in
Section 4.1. The formulation of performance output and controller structures used
in the rest of the thesis are given in Section 4.2. Control of resonant systems with
simple controllers is known to have structural properties e.g. with respect to sensor
location (Spong and Vidyasagar 1989), as mentioned before. In Section 4.3, these
differences are illustrated for driveline models. In Section 4.4, forming the main
contribution of this chapter, an investigation about how these properties transfers
when using more complicated controller structures like LQG/LTR is made. This
part is based on the material in Pettersson and Nielsen (1995).
35
36 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control
4.1 State-Space Formulation
The input to the open-loop driveline system is u = M
m
− M
fr:m
, the difference
between the driving torque and the friction torque. Possible physical state variables
in the models of Chapter 2 are torques, angle differences, and angle velocity of any
inertia. In this work, the angle difference of each torsional flexibility and the angle
velocity of each inertia is used as states. The state space representation is
˙ x = Ax +Bu +H l (4.1)
where A, B, H, x, and l are defined next for the linear Models 1 and 2 in Chapter 2.
State-space formulation of Model 1:
x
1
= θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
x
2
=
˙
θ
m
(4.2)
x
3
=
˙
θ
w
l = r
w
m(c
r1
+gsin(α))
giving
A =
_
_
0 1/i −1
−k/iJ
1
−(b
1
+c/i
2
)/J
1
c/iJ
1
k/J
2
c/iJ
2
−(c +b
2
)/J
2
_
_
, (4.3)
B =
_
_
0
1/J
1
0
_
_
, H =
_
_
0
0
−1/J
2
_
_
(4.4)
where
i = i
t
i
f
J
1
= J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
+J
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
J
2
= J
w
+mr
2
w
(4.5)
b
1
= b
t
/i
2
t
+b
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
b
2
= b
w
+c
w
Aρr
3
w
+mc
r2
r
2
w
according to Definition 2.1.
State-space formulation of Model 2:
x
1
= θ
m
−θ
t
i
t
x
2
= θ
t
/i
f
−θ
w
x
3
=
˙
θ
m
(4.6)
x
4
=
˙
θ
t
x
5
=
˙
θ
w
4.1 State-Space Formulation 37
A is given by the matrix
_
_
_
_
_
_
0 0 1 −i
t
0
0 0 0 1/i
f
−1
−k
c
/J
1
0 −c
c
/J
1
c
c
i
t
/J
1
0
k
c
i
t
/J
2
−k
d
/i
f
J
2
c
c
i
t
/J
2
−(c
c
i
2
t
+b
2
+c
d
/i
2
f
)/J
2
c
d
/i
f
J
2
0 k
d
/J
3
0 c
d
/i
f
J
3
−(b
3
+c
d
)/J
3
_
_
_
_
_
_
and
B =
_
_
_
_
_
_
0
0
1/J
1
0
0
_
_
_
_
_
_
, H =
_
_
_
_
_
_
0
0
0
0
−1/J
2
_
_
_
_
_
_
(4.7)
where
J
1
= J
m
J
2
= J
t
+J
f
/i
2
f
J
2
= J
w
+mr
2
w
(4.8)
b
2
= b
t
+b
f
/i
2
f
b
3
= b
w
+c
w
Aρr
3
w
+c
r2
r
w
according to Definition 2.2.
4.1.1 Disturbance Description
The disturbance l can be seen as a slow-varying part resulting from the rolling
resistance and the road slope plus and additive disturbance v. A second state
disturbance n is a disturbance acting on the input of the system. This disturbance
is considered because the firing pulses in the driving torque can be seen as an
additive disturbance acting on the input. The state-space description is
˙ x = Ax +Bu +Bn +H l +Hv (4.9)
with x, A, B, H, and l defined in (4.2) to (4.8).
4.1.2 Measurement Description
For controller synthesis it is of fundamental interest which physical variables of
the process that can be measured. In the case of a vehicular driveline the normal
sensor alternative is an inductive sensor mounted on a cog wheel measuring the
angle, as mentioned before. Sensors that measure torque are expensive, and are
seldom used in a production vehicular applications.
The output of the process is defined as a combination of the states given by the
matrix C in
y = Cx +e (4.10)
38 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control
F
y
(s)
M
C
e
z
x
u
y
1/s
A
B
˙ x
F
r
(s)
r
D
H
l +v
Figure 4.1 Plant and controllers F
r
and F
y
.
where e is a measurement disturbance.
In this work, only angle velocity sensors are considered, and therefore, the
output of the process is one/some of the state variables defining an angle velocity.
Especially, the following are defined (corresponding to a sensor on
˙
θ
m
and
˙
θ
w
for
Model 1).
C
m
= (0 1 0) (4.11)
C
w
= (0 0 1) (4.12)
4.2 Controller Formulation
The performance output z is the combination of states that has requirements to
behave in a certain way. This combination of the states is described by the matrices
M and D in the following way
z = Mx +Du (4.13)
The control problem can be seen as in Figure 4.1. The unknown controllers F
r
and F
y
are to be designed such that that the performance output (4.13) meets its
requirements (defined later).
In this thesis controllers will be designed as state-feedback controllers exten-
sively except for a few simple examples. The control signal u is a linear function of
the states (if they are all measured) or else the state estimates, which are obtained
from a Kalman filter,
u = l
0
r −K
c
ˆ x (4.14)
where, r represents the commanded signal with the gain l
0
, and K
c
is the state-
feedback matrix.
4.3 Some Feedback Properties 39
Identifying the matrices F
r
(s) and F
y
(s) in Figure 4.1 gives
F
y
(s) = K
c
(sI −A+BK
c
+K
f
C)
−1
K
f
(4.15)
F
r
(s) = l
0
_
1 −K
c
(sI −A+BK
c
+K
f
C)
−1
B
_
The closed-loop transfer functions from r, v, and e to the control signal u are
given by
G
ru
=
_
I −K
c
(sI −A+BK
c
)
−1
B
_
l
0
r (4.16)
G
vu
= K
c
(sI −A+K
f
C)
−1
N −K
c
(sI −A+BK
c
)
−1
N (4.17)
−K
c
(sI −A+BK
c
)
−1
BK
c
(sI −A+K
f
C)
−1
N
G
eu
= K
c
_
(sI −A+BK
c
)
−1
BK
c
−I
_
(sI −A+K
f
C)
−1
K
f
(4.18)
The transfer functions to the performance output z are given by
G
rz
= (M(sI −A)
−1
B +D)G
ru
(4.19)
G
vz
= M(sI −A+BK
c
)
−1
BK
c
(sI −A+K
f
C)
−1
N (4.20)
+M(sI −A+BK
c
)
−1
N +DG
wu
G
ez
= (M(sI −A)
−1
B +D)G
vu
(4.21)
Two return ratios results, which characterizes the closed-loop behavior at the
plant output and input respectively
GF
y
= C(sI −A)
−1
BF
y
(4.22)
F
y
G = F
y
C(sI −A)
−1
B (4.23)
When only one sensor is used, these return ratios are scalar and thus equal.
LQG/LTR is not directly applicable to driveline control with more than one
sensor as input to the observer. This is because there are unequal number of sensors
and control signals. Therefore, it is important with the type of investigation about
the structural properties made in this chapter, when extending to more sensors.
This is however not considered in this work.
4.3 Some Feedback Properties
The performance output when controlling the driveline to a certain speed is the
velocity of the wheel, defined as
z =
˙
θ
w
= C
w
x (4.24)
When studying the closed-loop control problem with a sensor on
˙
θ
m
or
˙
θ
w
, two
different control problems results. In Figure 4.2 a root locus with respect to a
P-controller gain is seen for two gears using velocity sensor
˙
θ
m
and
˙
θ
w
respectively.
The open-loop transfer functions from u to engine speed G
um
has three poles and
40 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control
−10 −5 0
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
I
m
a
g
−10 −5 0
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
I
m
a
g
−20 −10 0
−15
−10
−5
0
5
10
15
I
m
a
g
Real
−20 −10 0
−15
−10
−5
0
5
10
15
I
m
a
g
Real
Gear 1 and
˙
θ
m
feedback Gear 1 and
˙
θ
w
feedback
Gear 8 and
˙
θ
m
feedback Gear 8 and
˙
θ
w
feedback
Figure 4.2 Root locus with respect to a P controller gain, for gear 1 (top figures)
and gear 8 (bottom figures) with sensor on
˙
θ
m
(left figures), and
˙
θ
w
(right figures).
The cross represent the open-loop poles, while the rings represents the open-loop
zeros. The system goes unstable when the
˙
θ
w
gain is increased, but is stable for
all
˙
θ
m
gains.
two zeros, as can be seen in Figure 4.2. G
uw
on the other hand has one zero, and
the same poles. Hence, the relative degree of G
um
is one and G
uw
has a relative
degree of two. This means that when
˙
θ
w
feedback is used, and the gain is increased,
two poles must go to infinity which makes the system unstable. When the velocity
sensor
˙
θ
m
is used, the relative degree is one, and the closed-loop system is stable
for all gains. (Remember that
˙
θ
w
is the performance output and thus desirable to
use.)
The same effect can be seen in the step response when the P controller is used.
Figure 4.3 demonstrates the problem with resonances that occurs with increasing
gain for the two cases of feedback. When the engine speed sensor is used, the engine
speed behaves well when the gain is increased, but the resonance in the drive shaft
makes the wheel speed oscillate. When using
˙
θ
w
feedback it is difficult to increase
4.4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR 41
0
0.5
1
1.5

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0
20
40
60
80

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Time, [s]
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Wheel speed,
˙
θ
w
feedback
Engine speed,
˙
θ
m
feedback
Wheel speed,
˙
θ
m
feedback
Figure 4.3 Step responses using a P controller with different gains on Model 1
with gear 1. With
˙
θ
w
feedback (top figure), increased rise time results in instability.
With
˙
θ
m
feedback (bottom figures), increased gain results in a well behaved engine
speed, but an oscillating wheel speed.
the bandwidth, since the poles moves closer to the imaginary axis, giving a resonant
system.
The characteristic results in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 only depend on the relative de-
gree, and are thus parameter independent. However, this observation may depend
on feedback structure, and therefore a more detailed analysis is performed in the
following sections.
4.4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR
Different sensor locations result in different control problems with different inherent
characteristics, as seen in the previous section. The topic of this section is to show
how this influences control design when using LQG/LTR. The reason for using
42 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control
LQG/LTR, in this principle study, is that it offers a control design method resulting
in a controller and observer of the same order as the plant model, and it is also an
easy method for obtaining robust controllers.
4.4.1 Transfer Functions
When comparing the control problem with using
˙
θ
m
or
˙
θ
w
as sensors, open-loop
transfer functions G
um
and G
uw
results. These have the same number of poles but
different number of zeros as mentioned before. Two different closed-loop systems
results depending on which sensor that is used.
Feedback from
˙
θ
w
A natural feedback configuration is to use the performance output,
˙
θ
w
. Then
among others the following transfer functions results, where (4.16) to (4.21) are
used together with the matrix inversion lemma
G
rz
=
G
uw
F
y
F
r
1 +G
uw
F
y
= T
w
F
r
(4.25)
G
nu
= =
1
1 +G
uw
F
y
= S
w
(4.26)
where n is the input disturbance. The transfer functions S
w
and T
w
are, as usual,
the sensitivity function and the complementary sensitivity function. Also, as usual,
S
w
+T
w
= 1 (4.27)
Feedback from
˙
θ
m
The following transfer functions results if the sensor measures
˙
θ
m
G
rz
=
G
uw
F
y
F
r
1 +G
um
F
y
(4.28)
G
nu
=
1
1 +G
um
F
y
(4.29)
The difference between the two feedback configurations is that the return difference
is 1 +G
uw
F
y
or 1 +G
um
F
y
.
It is desirable to have sensitivity functions that corresponds to y =
˙
θ
m
and
z =
˙
θ
w
. The following transfer functions are defined
S
m
=
1
1 +G
um
F
y
, T
m
=
G
um
F
y
1 +G
um
F
y
(4.30)
These transfer functions corresponds to a configuration where
˙
θ
m
is the output (i.e.
y = z =
˙
θ
m
). Using (4.28) it is natural to define T
m
by
T
m
=
G
uw
F
y
1 +G
um
F
y
= T
m
G
uw
G
um
(4.31)
4.4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR 43
The functions S
m
and T
m
describe the design problem when feedback from θ
m
is
used.
When combining (4.30) and (4.31), the corresponding relation to (4.27) is
S
m
+T
m
G
um
G
uw
= 1 (4.32)
If S
m
is made zero for some frequencies in (4.32), then T
m
will not be equal to
one, as in (4.27). Instead, T
m
= G
uw
/G
um
for these frequency domains.
Limitations on Performance
The relations (4.27) and (4.32) will be the fundamental relations for discussing
design considerations. The impact of the ratio G
uw
/G
um
will be analyzed in the
following sections.
Definition 4.1 T
m
in (4.31) is the modified complementary sensitivity function,
and G
w/m
= G
uw
/G
um
is the dynamic output ratio.
4.4.2 Design Example with a Simple Mass-Spring Model
Linear Quadratic Design with Loop Transfer Recovery will be treated in four cases,
being combinations of two sensor locations,
˙
θ
m
or
˙
θ
w
, and two models with the
same structure, but with different parameters. Design without pre filter (F
r
= 1)
is considered.
The section covers a general plant with n inertias connected by k −1 torsional
flexibilities, without damping and load, and with unit conversion ratio. There are
(2n − 1) poles, and the location of the poles are the same for the different sensor
locations. The number of zeros depends on which sensor that is used, and when
using
˙
θ
w
there are no zeros. When using feedback from
˙
θ
m
there are (2n−2) zeros.
Thus, the transfer functions G
um
and G
uw
, have the same denominators, and a
relative degree of 1 and (2n −1) respectively.
Structural Properties of Sensor Location
The controller (4.15) has a relative degree of one. The relative degree of G
um
F
y
is
thus 2, and the relative degree of G
uw
F
y
is 2n. When considering design, a good
alternative is to have relative degree one in GF
y
, implying infinite gain margin and
high phase margin.
When using G
um
F
y
, one pole has to be moved to infinity, and when using
G
uw
F
y
, 2n−1 poles have to be moved to infinity, in order for the ratio to resemble
a first order system at high frequencies. It could be expected that a higher control
signal is needed for
˙
θ
w
feedback in order to move the poles towards infinity.
When the return ratio behaves like a first order system, also the closed-loop
transfer function behaves like one. This conflicts with the design goal of having
44 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
−60
−50
−40
−30
−20
−10
0
10
Frequency (rads^−1)
G
a
in


(
d
B
)
Figure 4.4 G
w/m
for a) (solid) and b) (dashed).
a steep roll-off rate for the closed-loop system in order to attenuate measurement
noise. Hence, there is a trade-off when using
˙
θ
w
feedback.
When using
˙
θ
m
feedback, there is no trade-off, since the relative degree of G
um
is one.
Structure of G
w/m
We have in the previous simple examples seen that the relative degree and the
zeros are important. The dynamic output ratio contains exactly this information
and nothing else.
For low frequencies the dynamic output ratio has gain equal to one,
¸
¸
G
w/m
(0)
¸
¸
= 1
(if the conversion ratio is equal to one). Furthermore, G
w/m
has a relative degree
of 2n − 2 and thus, a high frequency gain roll-off rate of 20(2n − 2) dB/decade.
Hence, the dynamic output ratio gives the closed-loop transfer function T
m
a high
frequency gain roll-off rate of q
m
+ 20(2n −2) dB/decade, where q
m
is the roll-off
rate of G
um
F
y
. When using
˙
θ
w
feedback, T
w
will have the same roll-off rate as
G
uw
F
y
.
Parametric properties of G
w/m
Typical parametric properties of G
w/m
can be seen in the following example.
Example 4.1 Two different plants are considered:
a) J
1
= 0.0974, J
2
= 0.0280, k = 2.80, c = 0, b
1
= 0.0244, b
2
= 0.566, l = 0.
b) J
1
= 0.0974, J
2
= 0.220, k = 5.50, c = 0, b
1
= 1.70, b
2
= 0.660, l = 0.
with labels according to the state-space formulation in Section 4.1. The shape of
G
w/m
can be seen in Figure 4.4.
4.4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR 45
LQG Designs
Integral action is included by augmenting the state to attenuate step disturbances
in v (Maciejowski 1989). The state-space realization A
a
, B
a
, M
a
, C
wa
, and C
ma
re-
sults. The Kalman-filter gain, K
f
, is derived using a Riccati equation (Maciejowski
1989)
P
f
A
T
+AP
f
−P
f
C
T
V
−1
CP
f
+BWB
T
= 0 (4.33)
The covariances W and V , of v and e respectively, are adjusted until the return
ratio
C(sI −A)
−1
K
f
, K
f
= P
f
C
T
V
−1
(4.34)
and the closed-loop transfer functions S and T show satisfactory performance.
The Nyquist locus remains outside the unit circle centered at −1. This means that
there is infinite gain margin, and a phase margin of at least 60

. Furthermore, the
relative degree is one, and |S| ≤ 1.
Design for
˙
θ
w
feedback. W is adjusted (and thus F
y
(s)) such that S
w
and T
w
show a satisfactory performance, and that the desired bandwidth is obtained. The
design in Example 4 is shown in Figure 4.5. Note that the roll-off rate of T
w
is 20
dB/decade.
Design for
˙
θ
m
feedback. W is adjusted (and thus F
y
(s)) such that S
m
and T
m
(and thus
˙
θ
m
) show a satisfactory performance. Depending on the shape of G
w/m
for middle high frequencies, corrections in W must be taken such that T
m
achieves
the desired bandwidth. If there is a resonance peak in G
w/m
, the bandwidth in
T
m
is chosen such that the peak is suppressed. Figure 4.5 shows such an example,
˙
θ
m
feedback in b), where the bandwidth is lower in order to suppress the peak in
G
w/m
. Note also the difference between S
w
and S
m
.
The parameters of the dynamic output ratio are thus important in the LQG
step of the design.
Loop Transfer Recovery, LTR
The next step in the design process is to include K
c
, and recover the satisfactory re-
turn ratio obtain previously. When using the combined state feedback and Kalman
filter, the return ratio is GF
y
= C(sI −A)
−1
BK
c
(sI −A+BK
c
+K
f
C)
−1
K
f
. A
simplistic LTR can be obtained by using K
c
= ρC and increasing ρ. As ρ is in-
creased, 2n − 1 poles move towards the open system zeros. The remaining poles
move towards infinity (compare to Section 5.1). If the Riccati equation
A
T
P
c
+P
c
A−P
c
BR
−1
B
T
P
c
+C
T
QC = 0 (4.35)
is solved with Q = ρ, and R = 1, K
c
=

ρC is obtained in the limit, and to
guarantee stability, this K
c
is used for recovery.
In Figures 4.6 and 4.7, the recovered closed-loop transfer functions, Nyquist
locus, and control signal are seen.
46 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control
10
0
10
2
−60
−40
−20
0
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
a)
10
0
10
2
−60
−40
−20
0
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
a)
10
0
10
2
−60
−40
−20
0
Frequency (rads^−1)
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
b)
10
0
10
2
−60
−40
−20
0
Frequency (rads^−1)
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
b)
Figure 4.5 Closed-loop transfer functions S (left figures), and T (right figures).
Feedback from
˙
θ
w
in solid curves, and feedback from
˙
θ
m
in dashed curves. T
m
is
seen in right figures in dash-dot curves. W = 15 (θ
w
, a), W = 5 · 10
4

m
, a),
W = 5 · 10
2

w
, b), and W = 50 (θ
m
, b).
Recovery for
˙
θ
w
feedback. There is a trade-off when choosing an appropriate
ρ. A low ρ gives good attenuation of measurement noise and a low control signal,
but in order to have good stability margins, a high ρ must be chosen. This gives
an increased control signal, and a 20 dB/decade roll-off rate in T
w
for a wider
frequency range.
Recovery for
˙
θ
m
feedback. There is no trade-off when choosing ρ. It is possible to
achieve good recovery with reasonable stability margins and control signal, together
with a steep roll-off rate.
The structural properties i.e. the relative degrees are thus dominant in deter-
mining the LTR step of the design.
4.5 Summary
Control and damping of torsional oscillations in vehicular drivelines is an impor-
tant problem. Different sensor locations give different transfer functions, G
um
or
G
uw
. These functions have the same poles, but have different relative degree and
different zeros. The dynamic output ratio, G
w/m
, exactly captures these differences
and nothing else. The problem that the performance output signal is not the same
4.5 Summary 47
10
0
10
2
−60
−40
−20
0
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
a)
10
0
10
2
−60
−40
−20
0
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
a)
10
0
10
2
−60
−40
−20
0
Frequency (rads^−1)
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
b)
10
0
10
2
−60
−40
−20
0
Frequency (rads^−1)
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
b)
Figure 4.6 Closed-loop transfer functions S (left figures), and T (right figures)
after recovery. Feedback from
˙
θ
w
in solid curves, and feedback from
˙
θ
m
in dashed
curves. T
m
is seen in right figures in dash-dot curves. For the
˙
θ
m
design ρ = 10
6
(a) and ρ = 10
5
(b) is used, and for the
˙
θ
w
design ρ = 10
4
, 10
8
, and 10
11
is used
in both a) and b).
as the measured output signal is handled by introducing a modified complementary
sensitivity function, being modified with G
w/m
. Both structural and parameter
dependent aspects of sensor location have been characterized. In LQG/LTR, pa-
rameter dependent properties dominate in the LQG step of the design, whereas
structural properties, i.e. sensor location, dominate in the LTR step.
48 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control
−0.2 −0.1 0
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
I
m
a
g

A
x
i
s
a)
10
0
10
5
−50
0
50
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
a)
−0.2 −0.1 0
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
Real Axis
I
m
a
g

A
x
i
s
b)
10
0
10
5
−50
0
50
Frequency (rads^−1)
G
a
i
n


(
d
B
)
b)
Figure 4.7 Nyquist plot of return ratio (left figures) and F
y
/(1 +G
uw
F
y
) (right
figures). Feedback from
˙
θ
w
in solid curves, and feedback from
˙
θ
m
in dashed curves.
For the
˙
θ
m
design ρ = 10
6
(a) and ρ = 10
5
(b) is used, and for the
˙
θ
w
design
ρ = 10
4
, 10
8
, and 10
11
is used in both a) and b). A dash-dotted circle with radius
one and centered at -1, is also shown in the Nyquist plots.
5
Speed Controller Design and
Simulations
Driveline oscillations may occur in different modes of operation. Active damping
in two modes will be treated in this and next chapter. The first problem is wheel
speed oscillations following a change in accelerator pedal position, known as vehicle
shuffle (Mo, Beaumount, and Powell 1996; Pettersson and Nielsen 1995). Tradi-
tionally in diesel powered trucks, the relation between the accelerator pedal and
the amount of fuel metered by the diesel pump is governed by a system called RQV
control. The RQV control gives a specific character to the driving feeling e.g. when
going uphill and downhill. This driving character is important to maintain when
extending speed control with active damping. Traditional RQV control is explained
in Section 5.1. Thereafter, the speed control problem keeping RQV characteristics
is formulated in Section 5.2. The sections following study the problem using avail-
able computationally powerful methods like LQG/LTR. Sensor location, influence
from disturbances, and load estimations are treated.
5.1 RQV Control
RQV control is the traditional diesel engine control scheme steaming from the
mechanical centrifugal governor, used to control the diesel pump (Bosch 1993). In
todays electronically controlled engines, the RQV scheme is still used for controlling
the fuel amount to the engine, since the driver wants the engine to behave as with
the mechanical governor.
RQV control is essentially a P controller with the accelerator as reference value
and a sensor measuring the engine speed. The RQV controller has no information
about the load, and a nonzero load (e.g. going uphill or downhill) gives a stationary
49
50 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations
error. The RQV controller is described by
u = u
0
+K
p
(ri −
˙
θ
m
) (5.1)
where i = i
t
i
f
is the conversion ratio of the driveline, K
p
is the controller gain, and
r is the reference velocity. The constant u
0
is a function of the speed, but not the
load since this is unknown to the RQV controller. RQV control is demonstrated in
the following example.
Example 5.1 Consider the truck modeled in Chapters 2 and 3 traveling at a speed
of 2 rad/s (3.6 km/h) with gear 1 and a total load of 3000 Nm (≈ 2 % road slope).
Let the new desired velocity be r = 2.3 rad/s. Figure 5.1 shows the RQV control
law (5.1) applied to Model 1 with three gains K
p
. In the plots, u
0
is calculated
such that the stationary level is the same for the three gains. (Otherwise there
would be a gain dependent stationary error.)
When the controller gain is increased, the rise time and the overshoot is in-
creasing. Hence, there is a trade-off between short rise time and little overshoot.
Furthermore, the engine speed behaves well, but the flexibility of the driveline
causes the wheel speed to oscillate, when the gain is increased.
Figure 5.2 shows the transfer functions from load and measurement disturbances
v and e to the performance output, when the RQV controller is used. The resonance
peak in the transfer functions is increasing when the controller gain is increased.
5.2 Problem Formulation
The performance output for the speed controller is the wheel speed, z =
˙
θ
w
, as
defined in Chapter 4. In Figure 5.3, the wheel speed z is seen for Models 1 and
2. Model 2 adds a second resonance peak from the clutch. Furthermore, the high
frequency roll-off rate is steeper for Model 2 than for Model 1. Note that the
transfer function from the load l to the performance output z is the same for the
two models. This chapter deals with the development of a controller based on
Model 1.
5.2.1 Mathematical Problem Formulation
A first possible attempt for speed control is a scheme of applying the engine torque
to the driveline such that the following cost function is minimized
lim
T→∞
_
T
0
(z −r)
2
(5.2)
where r is the reference velocity given by the driver. If a control law is to minimize
the cost function, then (5.2) can be made arbitrarily small if there are no restrictions
on the control signal u, since the plant model is linear. A diesel engine can only
produce torque in a certain range, and therefore, (5.2) is extended such that a large
control signal adds to the cost function.
5.2 Problem Formulation 51
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
115
120
125
130
135
140

S
p
e
e
d
,

[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

S
p
e
e
d
,

[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
Engine speed
˙
θ
m
Wheel speed
˙
θ
w
(performance output)
Control signal u
Figure 5.1 RQV control (5.1) of Model 1. Controller gains K
p
= 8, K
p
= 25, and
K
p
= 85 are shown in solid, dashed and dash-dotted lines respectively. Increased
gain results in a well behaved engine speed, but an oscillating wheel speed.
The stationary point z = r is reached if a control signal u
0
is used. This torque
is a function of the reference value r and the load l. For a given wheel speed
˙
θ
w
and load l the driveline has the following stationary point
x
0
(
˙
θ
w
, l) =
_
_
b
2
/k 1/k
i 0
1 0
_
_
_
˙
θ
w
l
_
= δ
x
˙
θ
w

l
l (5.3)
u
0
(
˙
θ
w
, l) =
_
(b
1
i
2
+b
2
)/i 1/i
_
_
˙
θ
w
l
_
= λ
x
˙
θ
w

l
l (5.4)
The stationary point is obtained by solving
Ax +Bu +Hl = 0 (5.5)
for x and u, where A, B, H, and x is given by (4.2) to (4.5).
52 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−140
−120
−100
−80

G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−150
−100
−50
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
Closed-loop transfer function G
vz
Closed-loop transfer function G
ez
Figure 5.2 Closed-loop transfer functions G
vz
and G
ez
when using the RQV
control law (5.1) for the controller gains K
p
= 8 (solid), K
p
= 25 (dashed), and
K
p
= 85 (dash-dotted). The resonance peaks increase with increasing gain.
By using these equations, the cost function can be written such that a control
signal u that deviates from the stationary value u
0
(r, l) adds to the cost function.
The extended cost function is given by
lim
T→∞
_
T
0
(z −r)
2
+η(u −u
0
(r, l))
2
(5.6)
where η is used to control the trade-off between rise time and control signal ampli-
tude.
The controller that minimizes (5.6) has no stationary error, since the load l is
included and thus compensated for. However, it is desirable that the stationary
error characteristic for the RQV controller is maintained in the speed controller, as
mentioned before. A stationary error comparable with that of the RQV controller
can be achieved by using only a part of the load l in the criterion (5.6), as will
be demonstrated in Section 5.3.1. Furthermore, the following demands should be
considered.
• The control signal can not exceed u
min
= −300 Nm or u
max
= 2300 Nm.
• The influence from load and measurement disturbances on the performance
output, wheel speed, should be minimized. Load disturbances result from,
for instance, road roughness or impulses from towed trailers.
5.3 Speed Control with Active Damping and RQV Behavior 53
−200
−150
−100
−50
0

G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−140
−120
−100
−80
−60
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
G
uz
for Model 1 and 2
G
lz
for Model 1 and 2
Figure 5.3 Transfer functions from control signal u and load l to performance
output z. Model 1 is shown in solid and Model 2 is shown in dashed. The modeled
clutch gives a second resonance peak and a steeper roll-off rate.
5.3 Speed Control with Active Damping and RQV
Behavior
The problem formulation (5.6) will be treated in two steps. First without RQV
behavior i.e. using the load l, and then extending to RQV behavior. The problem
formulation (5.6) is in this section solved with LQG technique. This is done by lin-
earizing the driveline model and rewriting (5.6) in terms of the linearized variables.
A state-feedback matrix is derived that minimizes (5.6). This is done by solving a
Riccati equation. The derived feedback law is a function of η which is chosen such
that a feasible control signal is used.
The model (4.1)
˙ x = Ax +Bu +Hl (5.7)
is affine since it includes a constant term l. The model is linearized in the neigh-
borhood of a stationary point (x
0
, u
0
). The linear model is
∆˙ x = A∆x +B∆u (5.8)
where
∆x = x −x
0
∆u = u −u
0
(5.9)
x
0
= x
0
(x
30
, l)
54 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations
u
0
= u
0
(x
30
, l)
where the stationary point (x
0
, u
0
) is given by (5.3) and (5.4). Note that the linear
model is the same for all stationary points.
The problem is to devise a feedback-control law that minimizes the cost function
(5.6). The cost function is expressed in terms of ∆x and ∆u by using (5.9)
lim
T→∞
_
T
0
(M(x
0
+ ∆x) −r)
2
+η(u
0
+ ∆u −u
0
(r, l))
2
(5.10)
= lim
T→∞
_
T
0
(M∆x +r
1
)
2
+η(∆u +r
2
)
2
(5.11)
with
r
1
= Mx
0
−r (5.12)
r
2
= u
0
−u
0
(r, l)
In order to minimize (5.10) a Riccati equation is solved. Then the constants r
1
and
r
2
must be expressed in terms of state variables. This can be done by augmenting
the plant model (A, B) with models of the constants r
1
and r
2
. Since these models
will not be controllable, they must be stable in order to solve the Riccati equation
(Maciejowski 1989). Therefore the model ˙ r
1
= ˙ r
2
= 0 cannot be used because the
poles are located on the imaginary axis. Instead the following are used
˙ r
1
= −αr
1
(5.13)
˙ r
2
= −αr
2
(5.14)
which with a low α indicates that r is a slow varying constant.
The augmented model is given by
A
r
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
0 0
A 0 0
0 0
−α 0
0 0 0 0 −α
_
_
_
_
_
_
, (5.15)
B
r
=
_
_
B
0
0
_
_
, x
r
= (∆x
T
r
1
r
2
)
T
(5.16)
By using these equations, the cost function (5.10) can be written in the form
lim
T→∞
_
T
0
x
T
r
Qx
r
+R∆u
2
+ 2x
T
r
N∆u (5.17)
with
Q = (M 1 0)
T
(M 1 0) +η(0 0 0 0 1)
T
(0 0 0 0 1)
N = η(0 0 0 0 1)
T
(5.18)
R = η
5.3 Speed Control with Active Damping and RQV Behavior 55
The cost function (5.10) is minimized by using
∆u = −K
c
∆x (5.19)
with
K
c
= Q
−1
(B
T
r
P
c
+N
T
) (5.20)
where P
c
is the solution to the Riccati equation
A
T
r
P
c
+P
c
A
r
+R −(P
c
B
r
+N)Q
−1
(P
c
B
r
+N)
T
= 0 (5.21)
The control law (5.19) becomes
∆u = −K
c
x
r
= −
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
∆x −K
c4
r
1
−K
c5
r
2
(5.22)
By using (5.9) and (5.12) the control law is written
u = K
0
x
30
+K
l
l +K
r
r −
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
x (5.23)
with
K
0
=
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
δ
x
−K
c4

x

x
−K
c5
λ
x
K
r
= K
c4
+K
c5
λ
x
(5.24)
K
l
=
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
δ
l
−K
c4

l

l
where δ
x
, δ
l
, λ
x
, and λ
l
are described in (5.3) and (5.4).
When this control law is applied to Example 5.1 the controller gains becomes
u = 0.230x
30
+ 4470r + 0.125l −
_
7620 0.0347 2.36
_
x (5.25)
where η = 5 · 10
−8
and α = 0.0001 are used. With this controller the phase margin
is guaranteed to be at least 60

and the amplitude margin is infinity (Maciejowski
1989). The result is seen in Figure 5.4.
The rise time of the LQG controller is shorter than for the RQV controller. Also
the overshoot is less when using LQG control. The driving torque is controlled such
that the oscillations in the wheel speed are actively damped. The controlled driving
torque makes the engine speed oscillate, as seen in Figure 5.4.
5.3.1 Extending with RQV Behavior
The RQV controller has no information about the load l, and therefore a stationary
error will be present when the load is different from zero. The LQG feedback law
(5.25) is a function of the load, and the stationary error is zero if the load is known.
There is however a demand by the driver that the load should give a stationary
error, and only when using a cruise controller the stationary error should be zero.
The LQG controller can be changed such that a load different from zero gives a
stationary error. This is done by using β
l
l instead of the complete load l in (5.23).
The constant β
l
range from β
l
= 0 which means no compensation for the load, to
56 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
120
130
140
150

S
p
e
e
d
,

[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

S
p
e
e
d
,

[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
Engine speed
˙
θ
m
Wheel speed
˙
θ
w
(performance output)
Control signal u
Figure 5.4 Model 1 controlled with the LQG control law (5.25). RQV control
(5.1) with K
p
= 25 is seen in dashed lines. With active damping, the engine speed
oscillates, resulting in a well behaved wheel speed.
β
l
= 1 which means fully compensation of the load and no stationary error. The
compensated LQG control law becomes
u = K
0
x
30
+K
l
β
l
l +K
r
r −
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
x (5.26)
In Figure 5.5, the RQV controller with its stationary error (remember the reference
value r = 2.3 rad/s) is compared to the compensated LQG controller (5.26) applied
to Example 5.1 for three values of β
l
. By adjusting β
l
, the speed controller with
active damping is extended with a stationary error comparable with that of the
RQV controller.
5.4 Influence from Sensor Location
The LQG controller investigated in the previous section uses feedback from all
states (x
1
= θ
m
/i
t
i
f
− θ
w
, x
2
=
˙
θ
m
, and x
3
=
˙
θ
w
). This is not possible if only
5.4 Influence from Sensor Location 57
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
2.3
2.35
Time, [s]
S
p
e
e
d
,

[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Figure 5.5 Example 5.1 controlled with the RQV controller (5.1) in dashed line,
and the LQG controller with stationary error (5.26) with β
l
= 0, 0.5, 1. The LQG
controller achieves the same stationary as the RQV controller by adjusting β
l
.
one sensor is used, which is the case considered in this work. The sensor either
measures the engine speed
˙
θ
m
or the wheel speed
˙
θ
w
. In this section an observer
is used to estimate the rest of the states. The observer gain is calculated using
LTR technique. Then two different observer problems results depending on which
sensor location that is used.
The LQG feedback law (5.23) then becomes
u = K
0
x
30
+K
r
r +K
l
l −
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
ˆ x (5.27)
with K
0
, K
r
, and K
l
given by (5.24). The estimated states ˆ x are given by the
Kalman filter

˙
ˆ x = A∆ˆ x +B∆u +K
f
(∆y −C∆ˆ x) (5.28)
K
f
= P
f
C
T
V
−1
(5.29)
where P
f
is found by solving the Riccati equation
P
f
A
T
+AP
f
−P
f
C
T
V
−1
CP
f
+W = 0 (5.30)
The covariance matrices W and V corresponds to v and e respectively. The output
matrix C is either equal to C
m
(4.11) when measuring the engine speed, or C
w
(4.12) when measuring the wheel speed.
58 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations
Loop-Transfer Recovery (LTR) is used to recover the properties achieved in the
previous design step when all states are measured. This is done by selecting
V = 1
W = ρBB
T
(5.31)
C = C
m
or C
w
ρ = ρ
m
or ρ
w
and solving (5.29) and (5.30) for K
f
.
When using LQG with feedback from all states, the phase margin ϕ is at least
60

and the amplitude margin a is infinity as stated before. This is obtained also
when using the observer by increasing ρ towards infinity. For Example 5.1 the
following values are used
ρ
m
= 5 · 10
5
⇒ ϕ
m
= 60.5

, a
m
= ∞ (5.32)
ρ
w
= 10
14
⇒ ϕ
w
= 59.9

, a
w
= 35.0 (5.33)
where the aim has been to have at least 60

phase margin.
The observer dynamics is cancelled in the transfer function from reference value
to performance output and control signal. Hence, these transfer functions are not
affected by the sensor location. However, the observer dynamics will be included
in the transfer functions from disturbances both to z and u.
5.4.1 Influence from Load Disturbances
Figure 5.6 shows how the performance output and the control signal are affected
by the load disturbance v. There is a resonance peak in G
vz
when using feedback
from the engine speed sensor, which is not present when feedback from the wheel
speed sensor is used. The reason to this can be seen when studying the transfer
function G
vz
in (4.20). By using the matrix inversion lemma (4.20) is rewritten as
(G
vz
)
cl
=
G
vz
+F
y
(G
uy
G
vz
−G
uz
G
vy
)
1 +G
uy
F
y
(5.34)
where G
ab
means the transfer function from signal a to b, and cl stands for closed
loop. The signal y in (5.34) mean the output of the system, i.e. either
˙
θ
w
or
˙
θ
m
.
The controller F
y
is given by (4.15) as
F
y
(s) = K
c
(sI −A+BK
c
+K
f
C)
−1
K
f
(5.35)
with C either as C
m
for engine speed feedback, or C
w
for wheel speed feedback.
For the speed controller (z =
˙
θ
w
), Equation (5.34) becomes
(G
vz
)
cl
=
G
vw
1 +G
uw
F
y
(5.36)
5.4 Influence from Sensor Location 59
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−140
−120
−100
−80

G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−150
−100
−50
0
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
Closed-loop transfer function G
vz
Closed-loop transfer function G
vu
Figure 5.6 Closed-loop transfer functions from load disturbance v to performance
output z and control signal u. Feedback from
˙
θ
w
is shown in solid and feedback
from
˙
θ
m
is shown in dashed lines. With
˙
θ
m
feedback the transfer functions have a
resonance peak, resulting from the open-loop zeros.
when the sensor measures the wheel speed, and
(G
vz
)
cl
=
G
vw
+F
y
(G
um
G
vw
−G
uw
G
vm
)
1 +G
um
F
y
(5.37)
when the sensor measures the engine speed. Hence, when using the wheel speed
sensor, the controller is cancelled in the numerator, and when the engine speed
sensor is used, the controller is not cancelled.
The optimal return ratio in the LQG step is
K
c
(sI −A)
−1
B (5.38)
Hence the poles from A is kept, but there are new zeros that are placed such that
the relative degree of (5.38) is one, the phase margin is at least 60

, and the gain
margin is infinite. In the LTR step the return ratio is
F
y
G
uy
= K
c
(sI −A−BK
c
−K
f
C)
−1
K
f
C(sI −A)
−1
B (5.39)
When ρ in (5.31) is increased towards infinity, (5.38) equals (5.39). This means that
the zeros in the open-loop system C(sI − A)
−1
B are cancelled by the controller.
Hence, the open-loop zeros will become poles in the controller F
y
. This means that
60 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−150
−100
−50
0

G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
0
50
100
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
Closed-loop transfer function G
ez
Closed-loop transfer function G
eu
Figure 5.7 Closed-loop transfer functions from measurement noise e to perfor-
mance output z and control signal u. Feedback from
˙
θ
w
is shown in solid and
feedback from
˙
θ
m
is shown in dashed. The difference between the two feedback
principles is described by the dynamic output ratio. The effect increases with lower
gears.
the closed-loop system will have the open-loop zeros as poles when using the engine
speed sensor. This means that the G
vz
will have the poles −0.5187±3.0753i which
causes the resonance peak in Figure 5.6.
5.4.2 Influence from Measurement Disturbances
The influence from measurement disturbances e is seen in Figure 5.7. The transfer
functions from measurement noise (4.21) can be rewritten with the matrix inversion
lemma as
(G
ez
)
cl
= −
G
uz
F
y
1 +G
uy
F
y
(5.40)
The complementary sensitivity function is defined for the two sensor alternatives
as
T
w
=
G
uw
F
y
1 +G
uw
F
y
, T
m
=
G
um
F
y
1 +G
um
F
y
(5.41)
Then
(G
ez
)
cl
= −T
w
with
˙
θ
w
feedback (5.42)
5.4 Influence from Sensor Location 61
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−100
−80
−60
−40
−20
0
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
Figure 5.8 The dynamic output ratio G
w/m
for gear 1 (solid), gear 7 (dashed),
and gear 14 (dash-dotted).
(G
ez
)
cl
= −T
m
G
uw
G
um
= T
m
G
w/m
with
˙
θ
m
feedback (5.43)
where the dynamic output ratio G
w/m
was defined in Definition 4.1. For Model 1
the dynamic output ratio is
G
w/m
=
cs +k
i(J
2
s
2
+ (c +b
2
)s +k)
(5.44)
where the state-space description in Chapter 4 is used. Especially for low frequen-
cies, G
w/m
(0) = 1/i = 1/i
t
i
f
. The dynamic output ratio can be seen in Figure 5.8
for three gears.
When ρ in (5.31) is increased towards infinity, (5.38) equals (5.39). Then (5.42)
and (5.43) gives
(G
ez
)
cl,m
= (G
ez
)
cl,w
G
w/m
(5.45)
where cl, m and cl, w means closed loop with feedback from
˙
θ
m
and
˙
θ
w
respectively.
The frequency range in which the T
m
= T
w
is valid depends on how large ρ in
(5.31) is made. Figure 5.9 shows the sensitivity functions
S
w
=
1
1 +G
uw
F
y
, S
m
=
1
1 +G
um
F
y
(5.46)
and the complementary sensitivity functions T
w
and T
m
(5.41) for the two cases of
feedback. It is seen that T
m
= T
w
is valid up to about 16 Hz. The roll-off rate at
62 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−70
−60
−50
−40
−30
−20
−10
0
10
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
Figure 5.9 Sensitivity function S and complementary sensitivity function T.
The dash-dotted lines correspond to the case with all states known. When only
one velocity is measured, the solid lines correspond to
˙
θ
w
feedback, and the dashed
lines correspond to
˙
θ
m
feedback.
higher frequencies differ between the two feedback principles. This is due to that
the open-loop transfer functions G
uw
and G
um
have a different relative degree.
G
uw
has a relative degree of two, and G
um
has a relative degree of one. Therefore,
T
w
has a steeper roll-off rate than T
m
.
Hence, the difference in G
ez
depending on sensor location is described by the
dynamic output ratio G
w/m
. The difference in low frequency level is equal to the
conversion ratio of the driveline. Therefore, this effect increases with lower gears.
5.4.3 Load Estimation
The feedback law with unknown load is
u = K
0
x
30
+K
r
r +K
l
ˆ
l −
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
ˆ x (5.47)
where
ˆ
l is the estimated load. In order to estimate the load, the model used in the
Kalman filter is augmented with a model of the load. The load is hard to model
correctly since it is a function of road slope. However it can be treated as a slow
varying constant. The augmented model is
x
4
= l, with ˙ x
4
= 0 (5.48)
5.5 Simulations 63
Controller
Design based on Model 1
Control law (5.27)
Observer (5.28)
z (
˙
θ
w
)
y (
˙
θ
w
or
˙
θ
m
)
r
Vehicle
Model 3: (2.49) to (2.51)
Figure 5.10 Simulation configuration. As a step for demonstrating feasibility for
real implementation, Model 3 is simulated with the controller based on Model 1.
This gives
˙
ˆ x = A
l
ˆ x
l
+B
l
u +K
f
(y −C
l
ˆ x
l
) (5.49)
with
ˆ x
l
=
_
ˆ x
ˆ
l
_
, (5.50)
A
l
=
_
_
_
_
0
A 0
−1/J
2
0 0 0 0
_
_
_
_
, (5.51)
B
l
=
_
B
0
_
, C
l
=
_
C 0
_
(5.52)
The feedback law is
u = K
0
x
30
+K
r
r −
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
−K
l
_
ˆ x
l
(5.53)
5.5 Simulations
An important step in demonstrating feasibility for real implementation is that
a controller behaves well when simulated on a more complicated vehicle model
than it was designed for. Here, the control law based on the reduced driveline
model is simulated with a more complete nonlinear model, derived in Chapter 2.
The purpose is also to study effects from different sensor locations as discussed in
Section 5.4. The simulation situation is seen in Figure 5.10.
The nonlinear Model 3, given by (2.49) to (2.51), is used as vehicle model. The
steady-state level for Model 3 is calculated by solving the model equations for the
equilibrium point when the load and speed are known.
The controller used is based on Model 1, as seen in the previous sections. The
wheel speed or the engine speed is input to the observer (5.28), and the control law
(5.27) with β
l
= 0 generates the control signal.
64 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations
The simulation case presented here is the same as in Example 5.1, i.e. a velocity
step response. The stationary point is given by
˙
θ
w
= 2, l = 3000 ⇒ x
0
=
_
0.0482 119 2.00
_
, u
0
= 109 (5.54)
where (5.3) and (5.4) are used, and the desired new speed is
˙
θ
w
= 2.3 rad/s. At
steady state, the clutch transfers the torque u
0
= 109 Nm. This means that the
clutch angle is in the area with higher stiffness (θ
c1
< θ
c
≤ θ
c2
) in the clutch
nonlinearity, seen in Figure 2.7. This is a typical driving situation when speed
control is used. However, at low clutch torques (θ
c
< θ
c1
) the clutch nonlinearity
can produce limit cycle oscillations (Bj¨ ornberg, Pettersson, and Nielsen 1996). This
situation occurs when the truck is traveling downhill with a load of the same size
as the friction in the driveline, resulting in a low clutch torque. This is however not
treated here. At t = 6 s, a load impulse disturbance is simulated. The disturbance
is generated as a square pulse with 0.1 s width and 1200 Nm height.
In order to simulate the nonlinear model, the differential equations (2.49) to
(2.51) are scaled such that the five differential equations (one for each state) have
about the same magnitude. The model is simulated using Runge Kutta (45)
(Simulink 1993) with a low step size to catch the effect of the nonlinearity.
Figures 5.11 to 5.13 show the result of the simulation. These should be com-
pared with the same control law applied to Model 1 in Figure 5.4. From these
plots it is demonstrated that the performance does not critically depend on the
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
2.3
2.35
Time, [s]
S
p
e
e
d
,

[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Figure 5.11 Wheel speed when controlling Model 3 with the LQG control law
(5.27) derived from Model 1. The solid line corresponds to
˙
θ
w
feedback and feed-
back from
˙
θ
m
is seen in dashed line. At t = 6 s, an impulse disturbance v acts on
the load. The design still works when simulated with extra clutch dynamics.
5.5 Simulations 65
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
−400
−200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
Figure 5.12 Control signal corresponding to Figure 5.11. There is no difference
between the two sensor alternatives in the step response at t = 1 s. However,
the load impulse (at t = 6 s) generates a control signal that damps the impulse
disturbance when feedback from the wheel speed sensor is used, but not with engine
speed feedback.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, [s]
A
n
g
l
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

[
r
a
d
]
θ
c1
Figure 5.13 Clutch angle difference corresponding to Figure 5.11. The influence
from the clutch nonlinearity can be neglected, because the area with low stiffness

c
< θ
c1
) is never entered.
66 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations
simplified model structure. The design still works if the extra dynamics are added.
Further evidence supporting this is seen in Figure 5.13. The area with low stiffness
in the clutch nonlinearity (θ
c
< θ
c1
) is never entered. The load impulse distur-
bance is better attenuated with feedback from the wheel speed sensor, which is a
verification of the behavior that was discussed in Section 5.4.
5.6 Summary
Speed control with active damping and RQV behavior has been proposed in this
chapter. RQV control is the traditional way speed control is performed in diesel
engines. RQV control gives a certain driving character with a load dependent
stationary error when going uphill or downhill. With RQV, there is no active
damping of wheel speed oscillations, resulting in vehicle shuffle. An increased
controller gain results in more wheel speed oscillations while the engine speed
behaves well.
A major contribution in this chapter is a formulation of a criterion for speed
control with active damping of wheel speed oscillations and a stationary error
giving RQV behavior. To solve the criterion, a linear driveline model with drive
shaft flexibility, and parameters estimated from experiments are used. Simulations
show that the performance of the design, based on the simplified model, works well
for a more complicated model, with a nonlinear clutch characteristics.
An investigation of the influence from different sensor locations on the control
design shows that when using LQG/LTR the open-loop zeros are cancelled by
the controller. With engine speed feedback this is critical, because the open-loop
transfer function has a resonant zero couple. It is shown that this zero couple
becomes poles of the transfer functions from load disturbances to wheel speed.
This results in undamped load disturbances when engine speed feedback is used.
When feedback from the wheel speed sensor is used, no resonant open-loop poles
are cancelled. Load disturbances are thus better attenuated with this feedback
configuration.
Measurement disturbances are better attenuated when the engine speed sensor
is used, than when using the wheel speed sensor. This effect increases with lower
gears. Two different closed-loop transfer functions result, depending on feedback
configuration. The difference between these two is described by the dynamic output
ratio.
In conclusion, even though there are sensor choices, the use of active damping
significantly improves the behavior for both sensor cases. Further, the formulation
is natural, it allows efficient solution, and there is a simple tuning of the amount
of RQV feeling.
6
Gear-Shift Controller Design and
Simulations
Traditionally a gear shift is performed by disengaging the clutch, engaging neutral
gear, shifting to a new gear, and engaging the clutch again. In todays traffic it is
desired to have an automatic gear shifting system, where the complete shift action
is controlled by a microprocessor. If the automatic gear shifting system is to work
with a clutch and a manually shifted transmission, one of the following strategies
can be taken.
• The gear shift is performed with a microprocessor controlling the clutch and
the shift event.
• The gear shift is performed without using the clutch (Orehall 1995). In this
case the engine is controlled such that the torque in the transmission is zero,
whereafter neutral gear is engaged. The engine speed is then controlled to the
propeller shaft speed (scaled with the new conversion ratio). Following that,
the new gear is engaged, and then the speed controller controls the driveline
to the speed demanded by the driver.
When using the second approach, neutral gear is engaged when the transmission
transfers zero torque. It is clear that driveline oscillations is an important perfor-
mance limiting factor if they are not damped out. This is because the system has
to wait until satisfactory gear shift conditions are reached, and thus seriously in-
creasing the total time needed for a gear shift. One reason this is not acceptable
is that, since there is no torque, the vehicle is free rolling which may be serious
with heavy loads and large road slopes. The observation that the vehicle is free
rolling, i.e. changing its velocity, when obtaining gear shift conditions shows that
the desired control goal is not a stationary point, which has to be handled.
67
68 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
This chapter is devoted to study a new idea that the transmission torque can
be estimated and controlled to zero while having active damping. The problem
formulation is further discussed in Section 6.1. A model of the transmission is
developed and the torque transmitted in the transmission is modeled as a function
of the states and the control signal in Section 6.2. Some first primitive attempts
are then discussed in Section 6.3.
A key result in this chapter is, in light of the simplistic attempts in Section 6.3,
the formulation of the gear-shift control criterion in Section 6.4, and its treatment
in Section 6.5. Influence from sensor location and simulations are presented in the
sections following.
6.1 Problem Formulation
The gear-shift controller is the controller that drives the transmission torque to
zero, while damping oscillations. If a gear shift is commanded when the driveline
is oscillating, the gear-shift controller should still drive the transmission torque to
zero.
The control signal is restricted to be in the interval between u
min
= −300
Nm and u
max
= 2300 Nm. The time it takes for a gear shift should be possible
to optimize. The influence from load and measurement disturbances should be
minimized.
6.2 Transmission Torque
The performance output z for the gear-shift controller is the torque transmitted
between the cog wheels in the transmission. A more detailed study of the trans-
mission is depicted in Figure 6.1. Here, the input shaft is connected to bearings
with a viscous friction component b
t1
. A cog wheel is mounted at the end of the
input shaft which is connected to a cog wheel mounted on the output shaft. The
conversion ratio between these are i
t
, as mentioned in Chapter 2. The output shaft
is also connected to bearings with the viscous friction component b
t2
.
Two equations describe the inputs and outputs of the transmission
J
t1
¨
θ
c
= M
t
−b
t1
˙
θ
c
−z (6.1)
J
t2
¨
θ
t
= i
t
z −b
t2
˙
θ
t
−M
p
(6.2)
6.2.1 Transmission Torque for Model 1
By using (2.1)
J
m
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m
−M
c
(6.3)
together with (2.12)
M
c
= M
t
, θ
m
= θ
c
(6.4)
6.2 Transmission Torque 69
M
t
Transmission
θ
c
θ
t
b
t2
b
t1
J
t1
J
t2
Input shaft Output shaft
M
p
Figure 6.1 Transmission with two cogwheels with conversion ratio i
t
. The cog-
wheels are connected to the input and output shaft respectively.
equation (6.1) is expressed in terms of engine speed
(J
m
+J
t1
)
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m
−b
t1
˙
θ
m
−z (6.5)
To describe the performance output in terms of state variables,
¨
θ
m
(which is not a
state variable) is replaced with (2.25)
(J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
+J
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
)
¨
θ
m
= M
m
−M
fr:m
−(b
t
/i
2
t
+b
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
)
˙
θ
m
(6.6)
−k(θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
)/i
t
i
f
−c(
˙
θ
m
/i
t
i
f

˙
θ
w
)/i
t
i
f
which together with u = M
m
−M
fr:m
gives
u −b
t1
˙
θ
m
−z =
J
m
+J
t1
J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
+J
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
_
M
m
−M
fr:m
−(b
t
/i
2
t
+b
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
)
˙
θ
m
−k(θ
m
/i
t
i
f
−θ
w
)/i
t
i
f
−c(
˙
θ
m
/i
t
i
f

˙
θ
w
)/i
t
i
f
_
(6.7)
From this it is possible to express the performance output as a function of the
control signal u and the state variables x, according to the state-space description
(4.2) to (4.5).
Definition 6.1 The performance output for Model 1 is
z = Mx +Du with
70 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
M
T
=
_
_
_
(J
m
+J
t1
)k
J
1
i
J
m
+J
t1
J
1
(b
1
+c/i
2
) −b
t1

(J
m
+J
t1
)c
J
1
i
_
_
_ (6.8)
D = 1 −
J
m
+J
t1
J
1
where the labels from (4.5) are used.
The unknown parameters in (6.8) are J
m
+J
t1
and b
t1
. The other parameters
are estimated in Chapter 3.
One way of estimating these unknowns would be to decouple Model 1 into two
models, corresponding to neutral gear. Then a model including the engine, clutch,
and the input shaft of the transmission results, in which the performance output z
is equal to zero. Trials with neutral gear would then give a possibility to estimate
the unknowns.
In the derivation of Model 1 in Chapter 2 the performance output z is elimi-
nated. If z is eliminated in (6.1) and (6.2) and (6.4) is used, the equation for the
transmission is
(J
t1
i
2
t
+J
t2
)
¨
θ
m
= i
2
t
M
c
−i
t
M
p
−(b
t1
i
2
t
+b
t2
)
˙
θ
m
(6.9)
By comparing this with the equation describing the transmission in Chapter 2,
(2.15)
J
t
¨
θ
m
= i
2
t
M
c
−b
t
˙
θ
m
−i
t
M
p
(6.10)
the following equations relating the parameters are obtained
J
t
= i
2
t
J
t1
+J
t2
(6.11)
b
t
= i
2
t
b
t1
+b
t2
(6.12)
For the rest of this chapter the following assumption about the parameters in
the transmission is used.
Assumption 6.1 J
t1
= J
t2
and b
t1
= b
t2
.
Then (6.11) and (6.12) gives
J
t1
=
J
t
1 +i
2
t
(6.13)
b
t1
=
b
t
1 +i
2
t
(6.14)
In Chapter 3, the estimated combinations of parameters from Model 1 are
J
1
= J
m
+J
t
/i
2
t
+J
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
(6.15)
b
1
= b
t
/i
2
t
+b
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
(6.16)
6.2 Transmission Torque 71
From (6.13) and (6.15) J
m
+J
t1
can be derived
J
m
+J
t1
= J
m
+
J
t
1 +i
2
t
= J
m
+
i
2
t
1 +i
2
t
(J
1
−J
m
−J
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
)
= J
m
1
1 +i
2
t
+J
1
i
2
t
1 +i
2
t
−J
f
1
i
2
f
(1 +i
2
t
)
(6.17)
A combination of (6.14) and (6.16) gives b
t1
b
t1
=
b
t
1 +i
2
t
=
i
2
t
1 +i
2
t
(b
1
−b
f
/i
2
t
i
2
f
) (6.18)
For low gears (i
t
large), and since J
f
and b
f
are considerably less than J
1
and b
1
,
the following assumptions are used
J
m
+J
t1
≈ J
1
i
2
t
1 +i
2
t
(6.19)
b
t1
≈ b
1
i
2
t
1 +i
2
t
(6.20)
6.2.2 Transmission Torque for Model 2
The performance output expressed for Model 2 is given by replacing M
t
in (6.1)
by equation (2.39)
M
c
= M
t
= k
c

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
) (6.21)
Then the performance output is
z = k
c

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
) −b
t1
i
t
˙
θ
t
−J
t1
i
t
¨
θ
t
(6.22)
This is expressed in terms of state variables by using (2.45)
(J
t
+J
f
/i
2
f
)
¨
θ
t
= i
t
_
k
c

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
)
_
(6.23)
−(b
t
+b
f
/i
2
f
)
˙
θ
t

1
i
f
_
k
d

t
/i
f
−θ
w
) +c
d
(
˙
θ
t
/i
f

˙
θ
w
)
_
(6.24)
leading to
Definition 6.2 The performance output for Model 2 is
z = Mx with (6.25)
M
T
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
k
c
(1 −
J
t1
i
2
t
J
2
)
J
t1
i
t
k
d
J
2
i
f
c
c
(1 −
J
t1
i
2
t
J
2
)
J
t1
i
2
t
J
2
(i
2
t
c
c
+b
2
+c
d
/i
2
f
) −c
c
i
t
−b
t1
i
t

J
t1
i
t
c
d
J
2
i
f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
72 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
with states and labels according to to the state-space description (4.6) to (4.8).
In Chapter 3, the following combinations of parameters from Model 2 are esti-
mated.
J
2
= J
t
+J
f
/i
2
f
(6.26)
b
2
= b
t
+b
f
/i
2
f
(6.27)
From (6.13) , (6.14) , (6.26), and (6.27), J
t1
and b
t1
can be derived as
J
t1
=
i
2
t
1 +i
2
t
(J
2
−J
f
/i
2
f
) (6.28)
b
t1
=
i
2
t
1 +i
2
t
(b
2
−b
f
/i
2
f
) (6.29)
which are approximated to
J
t1

i
2
t
1 +i
2
t
J
2
(6.30)
b
t1

i
2
t
1 +i
2
t
b
2
(6.31)
since J
f
and b
f
are considerably less than J
1
and b
1
.
6.2.3 Transmission Torque for Model 3
The performance output for Model 3 is derived in the same way as for Model 2,
with the difference that (6.21) is replaced by
M
c
= M
t
= M
kc

m
−θ
t
i
t
) +c
c
(
˙
θ
m

˙
θ
t
i
t
) (6.32)
where M
kc
is the torque transmitted by the clutch nonlinearity, given by (2.48).
Then the performance output is defined as
Definition 6.3 The performance output for Model 3 is
z = (M
kc
,
˙
θ
t
/i
f

˙
θ
w
,
˙
θ
m
,
˙
θ
t
,
˙
θ
w
)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 −
J
t1
i
2
t
J
2
J
t1
i
t
k
d
J
2
i
f
c
c
(1 −
J
t1
i
2
t
J
2
)
J
t1
i
2
t
J
2
(i
2
t
c
c
+b
2
+c
d
/i
2
f
) −c
c
i
t
−b
t1
i
t

J
t1
i
t
c
d
J
2
i
f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
(6.33)
The parameters not estimated in the definition above are approximated in the
same way as for the performance output for Model 2.
6.3 Preliminary Trials 73
0 5 10 15
−400
−300
−200
−100
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
Figure 6.2 Transmission torque z from parameter estimation of Model 1 and
Model 2 on data from Trial 1. The solid line corresponds to Model 1 and the
dashed line corresponds to Model 2.
Comparison
In Figure 6.2 the performance output (6.8) and (6.25) during Trial 1 are shown
from the parameter estimation of the linear Models 1 and 2. Figure 6.3 shows
the performance output in the frequency domain. The low frequency level differs
between the two models, and the main reason to this is the difficulties to estimate
the viscous damping coefficients described in Chapter 3. The difference at higher
frequencies is a result from the clutch which gives a second resonance peak for
Model 2. Furthermore, the roll-off rate of Model 2 is steeper than for Model 1.
6.3 Preliminary Trials
Two preliminary trials will be performed in this section, to study gear-shift control.
6.3.1 Unconstrained Active Damping
A first attempt is to study the performance output, z = Mx + Du, with M and
D given by (6.8). A control law can be derived since z includes the control signal
and D is scalar. If u is chosen as
u = −D
−1
Mx (6.34)
z = 0 is guaranteed.
74 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
−100
−50
0

G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−100
−80
−60
−40
−20
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
G
uz
for Model 1 and 2
G
lz
for Model 1 and 2
Figure 6.3 Transfer functions from control signal u and load l to transmission
torque z. Model 1 is shown in solid and Model 2 is shown in dashed. The modeled
clutch adds a second resonance peak and a steeper roll-off rate.
Example 6.1 Consider the truck modeled in Chapters 2 and 3 traveling at a speed
of 3 rad/s (5.4 km/h) with gear 1 and a total load of 3000 Nm (≈ 2 % road slope).
The stationary point is obtained by using (5.3) and (5.4).
x
30
= 3, l = 3000 ⇒ x
0
=
_
0.0511 178 3.00
_
, u
0
= 138 (6.35)
In Figure 6.4 the resulting transmission torque z, control signal u, engine, and
wheel speed is seen when the control signal is chosen as in (6.34). Unconstrained
active damping is achieved which obtains z = 0 instantaneously. The wheel speed
decreases linearly, while the engine speed is oscillating.
Unconstrained active damping (6.34) generates a control signal that is impossi-
ble for the engine to generate. To deal with this situation, it would be desirable to
use an control law which also considers that the control signal must be in a certain
interval.
It can be noted that despite z = 0 is achieved this is not an stationary point,
since the speed is decreasing. This means that the vehicle is free rolling which can
be critical if lasting too long.
6.3.2 Undamped Gear-Shift Condition
The previous approach is not realizable because of the unrealistic control signal. A
second attempt is to explicitly handle the expected vehicle behavior (free rolling)
6.3 Preliminary Trials 75
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
−10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
−15000
−10000
−5000
0
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Time, [s]
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
Time, [s]
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Transmission torque z Engine torque u
Engine speed
˙
θ
m
Wheel speed
˙
θ
w
Figure 6.4 Unconstrained active damping of Model 1. At t = 1 s, the control law
(6.34) drives the transmission torque to zero. The oscillations in the transmission
torque are damped with an unrealizable control signal. The wheel speed decreases
linearly.
when the transmission torque, z, is zero, but without using active damping. This
control law is thus derived by considering a stiff driveline, and solving for z = 0.
By using the labels according to Chapter 4, the differential equation, describing
the stiff driveline is
(J
1
i +J
2
/i)
¨
θ
w
= u −(b
1
i +b
2
/i)
˙
θ
w
−l/i (6.36)
This equation is developed by using Model 1 in (2.25) and (2.26), and eliminating
the torque transmitted by the drive shaft, k(θ
m
/i −θ
w
) + c(
˙
θ
m
/i −
˙
θ
w
). Then by
using
˙
θ
m
=
˙
θ
w
i, (6.36) results.
76 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
Equation (6.5) expressed in terms of wheel speed is
z = u −b
t1
i
˙
θ
w
−(J
m
+J
t1
)i
¨
θ
w
(6.37)
Combining (6.36) and (6.37) gives the performance output for the stiff driveline.
z = (1 −
(J
m
+J
t1
)i
2
J
1
i
2
+J
2
)u−(b
t1
i −
(J
m
+J
t1
)i
J
1
i
2
+J
2
(b
1
i
2
+b
2
))
˙
θ
w
+
(J
m
+J
t1
)i
J
1
i
2
+J
2
l (6.38)
The control signal to force z = 0 is given by solving (6.38) for u while z = 0.
u
shift
(
˙
θ
w
, l) = µ
x
˙
θ
w

l
l with
µ
x
= (b
t1
i −
(J
m
+J
t1
)i
J
1
i
2
+J
2
(b
1
i
2
+b
2
))(1 −
(J
m
+J
t1
)i
2
J
1
i
2
+J
2
)
−1
(6.39)
µ
l
= −
(J
m
+J
t1
)i
J
1
i
2
+J
2
(1 −
(J
m
+J
t1
)i
2
J
1
i
2
+J
2
)
−1
Figure 6.5 shows Example 6.1 applied to Model 1 controlled with the undamped
gear-shift condition (6.39). This control law achieves z = 0 with a realizable control
signal, but the oscillations introduced are not damped. Therefore, the time needed
to fulfill the gear-shift condition is not optimized. The performance of this approach
is worse if the driveline is oscillating at the time for the gear shift.
6.4 Gear-Shift Control Criterion
Neither of the two approaches in the previous section solve the problem satisfactory.
In this section a new idea for gear-shift control is formulated. The transmission
torque is estimated and controlled to zero with active damping. The idea is formu-
lated as a cost criterion which uses a combination of the two previous approaches.
The criterion is formulated such that active damping is obtained with a control law
whose deviation from the undamped gear-shift condition (6.39) adds to the cost
function. Let the cost function be
lim
T→∞
_
T
0
z
2
+η(u −u
shift
(
˙
θ
w
, l))
2
(6.40)
= lim
T→∞
_
T
0
(Mx +Du)
2
+η(u −µ
x
˙
θ
w
−µ
l
l)
2
The controller that minimizes this cost function damps oscillation (since the first
parenthesis is minimized), and at the same time, prevents the control signal from
having large deviations from the undamped gear-shift condition u
shift
. The trade-
off is controlled by η.
If the driveline is stiff, there is no difference between the two parenthesis in
(6.40). Furthermore, the point at which the cost function is zero is no stationary
point, since the speed of the vehicle will decrease despite z = 0 and u = u
shift
.
6.5 Gear-Shift Control Design 77
0 2 4 6 8
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
0 2 4 6 8
−150
−100
−50
0
50
100
150
200
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
0 2 4 6 8
0
50
100
150
200
Time, [s]
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 2 4 6 8
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Time, [s]
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Transmission torque z Engine torque u
Engine speed
˙
θ
m
Wheel speed
˙
θ
w
Figure 6.5 Model 1 controlled with the undamped gear-shift condition (6.39). At
t = 1 s, a gear shift is commanded. The speed dependent realizable control signal
drives the transmission torque to zero. Undamped oscillations in the transmission
torque increase the time needed to fulfill the gear-shift condition.
6.5 Gear-Shift Control Design
The new idea for gear-shift control is in this section given efficient treatment by
solving (6.40) for a control law by using LQG technique, using available software.
This is done by linearizing the driveline model and rewriting (6.40) in terms of the
linearized variables. A state-feedback matrix is derived that minimizes (6.40), by
solving a Riccati equation. The derived feedback law is a function of η which is
chosen such that a feasible control signal is used.
The linearized driveline model is given by (5.8) and (5.9) in Section 5.3. The
78 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
cost function is expressed in terms of ∆x and ∆u by using (5.9)
lim
T→∞
_
T
0
(M∆x +D∆u +Mx
0
+Du
0
)
2
+ η(∆u −µ
x
∆x
3
+u
0
−µ
x
x
30
−µ
l
l)
2
= lim
T→∞
_
T
0
(M∆x +D∆u +r
1
)
2
+η(∆u −µ
x
∆x
3
+r
2
) (6.41)
with
r
1
= Mx
0
+Du
0
(6.42)
r
2
= u
0
−µ
x
x
30
−µ
l
l
The constants r
1
and r
2
are expressed as state variables, by augmenting the plant
model (A, B) with models of the constants r
1
and r
2
. This was done in (5.13) to
(5.16).
By using these equations, the cost function (6.41) can be written in the form
lim
T→∞
_
T
0
x
T
r
Qx
r
+R∆u
2
+ 2x
T
r
N∆u (6.43)
with
Q = (M 1 0)
T
(M 1 0) +η(0 0 −µ
x
0 1)
T
(0 0 −µ
x
0 1)
N = (M 1 0)
T
D +η(0 0 −µ
x
0 1)
T
(6.44)
R = D
2

The cost function (6.43) is minimized by the state-feedback gain
K
c
= Q
−1
(B
T
r
P
c
+N
T
) (6.45)
where P
c
is the solution to the Riccati equation (5.21). The resulting control law
is
∆u = −K
c
x
r
= −
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
∆x −K
c4
r
1
−K
c5
r
2
(6.46)
using (6.42) gives
u = K
0
x
30
+K
l
l −
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
x (6.47)
with
K
0
=
_
λ
x
δ
x
µ
x
_
Γ (6.48)
K
l
=
_
λ
l
δ
l
µ
l
_
Γ
where Γ is
Γ =
_
_
1 −K
c4
D −K
c5
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
−K
c4
M
K
c5
_
_
(6.49)
6.5 Gear-Shift Control Design 79
0 1 2 3 4
−10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
0 1 2 3 4
−300
−200
−100
0
100
200
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
0 1 2 3 4
100
120
140
160
180
200
Time, [s]
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 1 2 3 4
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Time, [s]
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
Transmission torque z Engine torque u
Engine speed
˙
θ
m
Wheel speed
˙
θ
w
Figure 6.6 Model 1 controlled with the LQG-control law (6.50), solving the gear-
shift criterion (6.40). At t = 1 s, a gear shift is commanded. A realizable control
signal is used such that the transmission torque is driven to zero, while oscillations
are actively damped.
with λ, δ, and µ given by (5.3), (5.4), and (6.39).
When this control law is applied to Example 6.1 the controller gains becomes
u = 2.37 · 10
−4
x
30
−0.0327l −
_
4.2123 0.0207 −1.2521
_
x (6.50)
where η = 0.03 and α = 0.0001 are used. With this controller the phase margin
is guaranteed to be at least 60

and the amplitude margin is infinity (Maciejowski
1989). The result is seen in Figure 6.6. By solving the gear-shift criterion (6.40),
active damping is obtained with a realizable control signal. The control law is a
function of η which is chosen such that the control signal is feasible.
80 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
6.6 Influence from Sensor Location
The LQG controller investigated in the previous section uses feedback from all
states (x
1
= θ
m
/i
t
i
f
− θ
w
, x
2
=
˙
θ
m
, and x
3
=
˙
θ
w
). This is not possible if only
one sensor is used, which is the case considered in this work. The sensor either
measures the engine speed
˙
θ
m
or the wheel speed
˙
θ
w
. In this section an observer is
used to estimate the rest of the states. The observer gain is calculated using LTR
technique. Two different observer problems results depending on which sensor
location that is used. The unknown load can be estimated as in Section 5.4.3.
The LQG feedback law (6.47) becomes
u = K
0
x
30
+K
l
l −
_
K
c1
K
c2
K
c3
_
ˆ x (6.51)
with K
0
and K
l
given by (6.48). The estimated state ˆ x is given by the Kalman
filter

˙
ˆ x = A∆ˆ x +B∆u +K
f
(∆y −C∆ˆ x) (6.52)
K
f
= P
f
C
T
V
−1
(6.53)
where P
f
is found by solving the Riccati equation (5.30).
When using the LQG with feedback from all states, the phase margin ϕ is at
least 60

, and the amplitude margin a is infinity, as stated before. This is obtained
also when using the observer by increasing ρ towards infinity. For Example 6.1 the
following values are used
ρ
m
= 10
4
⇒ ϕ
m
= 77.3

, a
m
= 2.82 (6.54)
ρ
w
= 10
11
⇒ ϕ
w
= 74.3

, a
w
= 2.84 (6.55)
where the aim has been to have at least 60

phase margin.
The observer dynamics is cancelled in the transfer function from reference value
to performance output and control signal. Hence, these transfer functions are not
affected by the sensor location. However, the dynamics will be included in the
transfer functions from disturbances to both z and u.
6.6.1 Influence from Load Disturbances
Figure 6.7 shows how the performance output and the control signal are affected by
the load disturbance v. In Section 5.4 it was shown that for the speed controller,
the resonant open-loop zeros become poles of the closed-loop system when feedback
from the engine speed sensor is used. The same equations are valid for the gear-
shift controller except the difference that the D matrix in (6.8) is not equal to
zero, as for the speed controller. Hence, also the transfer function DG
vu
should be
added to (5.34). The closed-loop transfer function G
vu
is given by
(G
vu
)
cl
= −
F
y
G
vy
1 +F
y
G
uy
(6.56)
6.6 Influence from Sensor Location 81
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−100
−80
−60
−40
−20

G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−200
−150
−100
−50
0
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
Closed-loop transfer function G
vz
Closed-loop transfer function G
vu
Figure 6.7 Closed-loop transfer functions from load disturbance v to performance
output z and control signal u. Feedback from
˙
θ
w
is shown in solid and feedback
from
˙
θ
m
is shown in dashed lines. With
˙
θ
m
feedback the transfer functions have a
resonance peak, resulting from the open-loop zeros.
Thus, the closed-loop transfer function from v to u also has the controller F
y
in the
numerator. Hence, the closed-loop transfer function from v to z has the open-loop
zeros as poles. For
˙
θ
m
feedback, this means that a resonance peak is present in the
transfer functions from v to performance output z and control signal u.
6.6.2 Influence from Measurement Disturbances
The influence from measurement disturbances e are seen in Figure 6.8. According
to (5.40) the closed-loop transfer function from e to z is
(G
ez
)
cl
= −
G
uz
F
y
1 +G
uy
F
y
(6.57)
Then
(G
ez
)
cl
= −T
w
G
uz
G
uw
with
˙
θ
w
feedback (6.58)
(G
ez
)
cl
= −T
m
G
uz
G
um
with
˙
θ
m
feedback (6.59)
with T
w
and T
m
from (5.41).
82 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−100
−50
0
50
100

G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−50
0
50
100
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
Closed-loop transfer function G
ez
Closed-loop transfer function G
eu
Figure 6.8 Closed-loop transfer functions from measurement noise e to perfor-
mance output z and control signal u. Feedback from
˙
θ
w
is shown in solid and
feedback from
˙
θ
m
is shown in dashed. The difference between the two feedback
principles are described by the dynamic output ratio. The effect increases with
lower gears.
When ρ in (5.31) is increased towards infinity, T
m
= T
w
as was discussed in
Section 5.4. Then (6.58) and (6.59) gives
(G
ez
)
cl,m
= (G
ez
)
cl,w
G
w/m
(6.60)
where cl, m and cl, w means closed loop with feedback from
˙
θ
m
and
˙
θ
w
respectively.
The dynamic output ratio G
w/m
was defined in Definition 4.1, and is given by
(5.44).
The frequency range in which the T
m
= T
w
is valid depends on how large ρ
in (5.31) is made, as discussed in Section 5.4. Figure 6.9 shows the sensitivity
functions (5.46) and the complementary sensitivity functions T
w
and T
m
(5.41) for
the two cases of feedback. It is seen that T
m
= T
w
is valid up to about 2 Hz.
The roll-off rate at higher frequencies differ between the two feedback principles.
This is due to that the open-loop transfer functions G
uw
and G
um
have a different
relative degree, as discussed in Section 5.4. T
w
has a steeper roll-off rate than T
m
,
because that G
uw
has a relative degree of two, and G
um
has a relative degree of
one.
Hence, the difference in G
ez
depending on sensor location is described by the
dynamic output ratio G
w/m
. The difference in low frequency level is equal to the
conversion ratio of the driveline. Therefore, this effect increases with lower gears.
6.7 Simulations 83
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
−120
−100
−80
−60
−40
−20
0
20
Frequency [rad/s]
G
a
i
n


[
d
B
]
Figure 6.9 Sensitivity function S and complementary sensitivity function T.
The dash-dotted lines correspond to the case with all states known. When only
one velocity is measured, the solid lines correspond to
˙
θ
w
feedback, and the dashed
lines correspond to
˙
θ
m
feedback.
6.7 Simulations
As in the case of the speed controller, in Section 5.5, the feasibility of the gear-shift
controller is studied by simulation on a more complicated vehicle model than it was
designed for. The control design is simulated with the nonlinear Model 3, according
to Figure 6.10. The effects from sensor placement are also studied in accordance
with the discussion made in Section 6.6.
Model 3 is given by Equations (2.49) to (2.51). The steady-state level for
Model 3 is calculated by solving the model equations for the equilibrium point
when the load and speed are known. In Assumption 6.1, the relationship between
the model parameters in the transmission is given. By these, the equation for the
transmission torque is calculated using (6.33).
The controller used is based on Model 1, as seen in the previous sections. The
wheel speed or the engine speed is input to the observer (6.52), and the control law
(6.51) generates the control signal.
Three simulations are performed with the same parameters, given by Exam-
ple 6.1, (i.e. wheel speed
˙
θ
w
= 3 rad/s, and load l = 3000 Nm). In the simulations,
a gear shift is commanded at t = 2 s. The first simulation is without disturbances.
In the second simulation, the driveline is oscillating prior to the gear shift. The
oscillations are a result of a sinusoid disturbance acting on the control signal. The
84 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
Controller
Design based on Model 1
Control law (6.51)
Observer (6.52)
z (6.33)
y (
˙
θ
w
or
˙
θ
m
)
r
Vehicle
Model 3: (2.49) to (2.51)
Assumption 6.1
Figure 6.10 Simulation configuration. As a step for demonstrating feasibility for
real implementation, Model 3 is simulated with the controller based on Model 1.
third gear shift is simulated with a load impulse at t = 3 s. The disturbance is
generated as a square pulse with 0.1 s width and 1200 Nm height.
In order to simulate the nonlinear model, the differential equations (2.49) to
(2.51) are scaled such that the five differential equations (one for each state) have
about the same magnitude. The model is simulated using Runge Kutta (45)
(Simulink 1993) with a low step size to catch the effect of the nonlinearity.
In Figure 6.11 the simulation without disturbances is shown. This plot should
be compared with Figure 6.6, where the design is tested on Model 1. The result is
that the performance does not critically depend on the simplified model structure.
The design still works if the extra nonlinear clutch dynamics is added. In the
simulation, there are different results depending on which sensor that is used. The
model errors between Model 1 and Model 3 are handled better when using the wheel
speed sensor. However, neither of the sensor alternatives reaches z = 0. This is
due to the low frequency model errors discussed in Section 6.2. In Figure 6.12
the simulation with driveline oscillations prior to the gear shift is shown. The
result is that the performance of the controller is not affected by the oscillations.
Figure 6.13 shows the simulation with load disturbance. The disturbance is better
damped when using feedback from the wheel speed sensor, than from the engine
speed sensor, which is a verification of the discussion in Section 6.6.
6.7 Simulations 85
0 2 4 6 8
−10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
0 2 4 6 8
−300
−250
−200
−150
−100
−50
0
50
100
150
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
Transmission torque z Control signal u
Figure 6.11 Simulation of Model 3 with observer and control law based on
Model 1. Feedback from the wheel speed sensor is seen in solid, and from the
engine speed sensor is seen in dashed. The design still work when simulated with
extra clutch dynamics.
0 2 4 6 8
−10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
0 2 4 6 8
−300
−250
−200
−150
−100
−50
0
50
100
150
200
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
Transmission torque z Control signal u
Figure 6.12 Simulation of Model 3 with observer and control law based on
Model 1. Feedback from the wheel speed sensor is seen in solid, and from the
engine speed sensor is seen in dashed. The conclusion is that the control law works
well despite initial driveline oscillations.
86 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
0 2 4 6 8
−20
−10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
0 2 4 6 8
−300
−250
−200
−150
−100
−50
0
50
100
150
200
Time, [s]
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

[
N
m
]
Transmission torque z Control signal u
Figure 6.13 Simulation of Model 3 with observer and control law based on
Model 1. An impulse disturbance is acting on the load at t = 3 s. Feedback from
the wheel speed sensor is seen in solid, and from the engine speed sensor is seen
in dashed. The conclusion is that the load disturbance is better attenuated when
using feedback from the wheel speed sensor.
6.8 Summary
Driveline oscillations is a limiting factor in gear shifting with engine control. Based
on a model of the transmission torque, a criterion for a gear-shift controller is
obtained, that actively damps driveline oscillations. The proposed solution handles
the fact that the gear-shift condition is not a stationary point.
When using a driveline model with drive shaft flexibility, it is possible to solve
the criterion for a control law that minimizes the cost function. The control law is
derived with LQG/LTR technique. Simulations show that the performance of the
design, based on the simplified model, works well for a more complicated model
with a nonlinear clutch characteristics. However, there can be problems with a low
frequency level that gives a stationary error. This difference in level is a result of
the difficulty to estimate the driveline friction parameters.
An investigation of the influence, from different sensor locations, on the control
design results in the same conclusion as in Chapter 5. When using LQG/LTR the
open-loop zeros are cancelled by the controller. This results in undamped load
disturbances when engine speed feedback is used. Therefore, load disturbances are
better attenuated with feedback from the wheel speed sensor.
6.8 Summary 87
Measurement disturbances are better attenuated when the engine speed sensor
is used, than when using the wheel speed sensor. This effect increases with lower
gears. Two different closed-loop transfer functions result, depending on feedback
configuration. The difference between these two is described by the dynamic output
ratio.
In conclusion, actively damped transmission-torque control works well also in
the case of existing initial oscillations. Furthermore, disturbances occuring during
the control action are actively damped, and thus reducing the time needed for a
gear shift.
88 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations
7
Conclusions
The driveline is a fundamental component in a vehicle, and there is currently
a strong trend in improving performance by adding functionalities in driveline
management systems.
The major contribution of this thesis is a novel gear shifting strategy based
on modeling of the transmission torque, and design of a criterion for a controller
that drives this torque to zero. This controller is to be used with a new automatic
gear shifting system, utilizing engine controlled gear shifting without using the
clutch. The proposed solution offers a possibility to optimize the time needed for
a gear shift, which is important since the vehicle is free rolling when in gear-shift
condition. Furthermore, neutral gear can successfully be engaged also when facing
critical load disturbances and initial driveline oscillations.
A second important contribution is the extension of the traditionally used RQV
controller. A criterion for a controller that actively damps wheel speed oscillations
with a stationary error characteristic for the RQV controller, is obtained. With
this controller the performance and driveability is improved since vehicle shuffle is
reduced. Furthermore, the formulation is natural, it allows efficient solution, and
there is a simple tuning of the amount of RQV feeling.
A basis for these results is the modeling conclusions drawn from experiments
and modeling using a heavy truck. A key contribution is the observation that
a linear model with stiff clutch and drive shaft flexibility is able to explain the
measured engine speed and wheel speed. Extra clutch dynamics is not able to
explain more of the experiments for low frequencies. Therefore, the linear model
is concluded to be a basis for control design, which is verified by simulations on a
model with a nonlinear clutch characteristics.
89
90 Chapter 7 Conclusions
Another important observation from the experiments is the explanation of the
difference between the measured engine speed and transmission speed. The major
part of the difference is explained by a simple sensor model. Parameter estimation
of a nonlinear model shows that the deviations still left occur when the clutch
transfers zero torque.
A common architectural issue in driveline control is the issue of sensor location.
Different sensors give the same open-loop poles, but different zeros. An investiga-
tion of the influence from different sensor locations on the control design shows that
when using LQG/LTR, load disturbances are better damped with feedback from
the wheel speed, due to well damped open-loop zeros. Measurement disturbances
are better attenuated when the engine speed sensor is used, than when using the
wheel speed sensor. The difference is explained by the dynamic output ratio, and
increases with lower gears.
There are thus issues to be considered in sensor choice, but the overall conclusion
is that the proposed strategies improve performance and driveability in both speed
control and gear-shift control.
Bibliography
Bj¨ornberg, A., M. Pettersson, and L. Nielsen (1996). Nonlinear driveline oscilla-
tions at low clutch torques in heavy trucks. To be presented at Reglerm¨otet ’96 in
Lule˚a, Sweden.
Bosch (1993). Automotive Handbook. Stuttgart, Germany: Robert Bosch GmbH.
Gillespie, T. D. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. SAE International.
Henriksson, T., M. Pettersson, and F. Gustafsson (1993). An investigation of the
longitudinal dynamics of a car, especially air drag and rolling resistance. Tech-
nical Report LiTH-ISY-R-1506, Department of Electrical Engineering, Link¨ oping
University.
Kubrusly, C. and H. Malebranche (1985). Sensors and controllers location in
distributed systems - a survey. Automatica 21, 117–128.
Liversidge, J. H. (1952). Backlash and Resilience within Closed Loop of Automatic
Control Systems. Academic Press.
Ljung, L. (1988). Control Theory 1984-1986. Automatica 24, 573–583.
Ljung, L. (1995). System Identification Toolbox. User’s Guide. MathWorks, Inc.
Maciejowski, J. M. (1989). Multivariable Feedback Design. Addison-Wesley.
Meriam, J. L. and L. G. Kraige (1987). Dynamics, Volume 2 of Engineering
Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons.
91
92 Bibliography
Mo, C. Y., A. J. Beaumount, and N. N. Powell (1996). Active control of drive-
ability. SAE Paper 960046.
Nwagboso, C. O. (1993). Automotive Sensory Systems. Chapman & Hall.
Orehall, L. (1995). Scania opticruise: Mechanical gearchanging with engine con-
trol. Truck and Commercial Vehicle International ’95.
Pettersson, M. and L. Nielsen (1995). Sensor placement for driveline control.
Preprint of the IFAC-Workshop on Advances in Automotive Control, Ascona,
Switzerland.
Simulink (1993). User’s guide. MathWorks, Inc.
Spong, M. W. and M. Vidyasagar (1989). Robot Dynamics and Control. John
Wiley & Sons.
Suzuki, K. and Y. Tozawa (1992). Influence of powertrain torsional rigidity on
NVH of 6x4 trucks. SAE Paper 922482.
Notations
Variables
r Radius, reference signal
u Control signal
z Performance output
x State vector
y Sensor output
v State disturbance, velocity
e Measurement disturbance
n Input disturbance
l Load
θ Angle
α Road slope
Symbols
J Mass moment of inertia
i Conversion ratio
k Torsional stiffness
93
94 Notations
c Torsional damping
b Viscous friction component
m Vehicle mass
c
r1
, c
r2
Coefficients of rolling resistance
c
w
Air drag coefficient
ρ
a
Air density
A
a
Vehicle cross section area
F
a
Air resistance force
F
r
Rolling resistance force
M Torque, performance output state matrix
A State-space matrix
B Input state matrix
C Output state matrix
H Load state matrix
D Performance output control signal matrix
G Transfer function
G
w/m
Dynamic output ratio
S Sensitivity function
T Complementary sensitivity function
K
c
State-feedback matrix
K
f
Observer gain
ϕ Phase margin
a Amplitude margin
Subscripts
m Engine
c Clutch
t Tranmission
p Propeller shaft
f Final drive
d Drive shafts
w Wheel
fr Friction
0 Stationary value
t1 Transmission input
t2 Transmission output

Driveline Modeling and Principles for Speed Control and Gear-Shift Control c 1996 Magnus Pettersson magnusp@isy.liu.se Department of Electrical Engineering Link¨ping University o S–581 83 Link¨ping o Sweden

ISBN 91-7871-744-2 ISSN 0280-7971 LiU-TEK-LIC-1996:29

To Anna and Oscar

.

. neutral gear can successfully be engaged also when facing load disturbances and initial driveline oscillations. which are controlled by a driveline management system. clutch. Furthermore. The performance and driveability is significantly improved. Engine control for automatic gear shifting is an approach at the leading edge of technology. A linear model with a drive shaft flexibility is able to sufficiently explain the measured engine speed and wheel speed. A critical step is the controlling of the engine such that the transmission transfers zero torque. Experiments and modeling using a heavy truck show that there are significant torsional resonances in the driveline. while maintaining the desired load characteristics for RQV control. shafts. In conclusion. whereafter neutral gear can be engaged. and wheels. Driveline oscillations is a limiting factor in this system. Traditionally in diesel trucks. the proposed strategies improve performance and driveability in both speed control and gear-shift control. A model based state-feedback controller is derived that actively reduces wheel speed oscillations. A model of the transmission torque is developed and a state-feedback controller is used to drive this torque to zero. transmission. and the undesired property of vehicle shuffle following a change in pedal position. This system has the desired property of a load dependent stationary error. the engine speed is controlled by a system called RQV. The result is a possibility to optimize the time needed for a gear shift.Abstract i Abstract A vehicular driveline consists of engine.

ii Abstract .

I am also grateful to Simon Edlund. I am indebted to Lars-Gunnar Hedstr¨m. and o o o Bj¨rn Westman at Scania in S¨dert¨lje for the help during this work. Finally. I am indebted to Dr Joakim Petersson. Link¨ping University. patience. Kjell Gestl¨v. Link¨ping. April 1996 o Magnus Pettersson . Dr Fredrik Gustafsson. and for o o a interesting discussions regarding control and modeling in heavy trucks. Sweden. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my wife Anna and our son Oscar for their encouragements. By inspiring me and o taking time for many discussions he has contributed to this work in many ways. and Mattias Nyberg for reading the manuscript. Dr Anders Helmersson. for our many discussions regarding research and courses. Anders Bj¨rnberg. I am very grateful to my parents Birgitta and Nils and my sister Katharina for their love and support in whatever I do. Lars Eriksson. and love during this work. Thanks for the remarks and suggested improvements. Thanks to Dr Peter Lindskog and Magnus Sundstedt for support on computers A and L TEX. Thanks also to Tomas Henriksson. my former office colleague. and Dr Tomas McKelvey for help and discussions.Acknowledgment iii Acknowledgment This work has been carried out under the excellent guidance of Professor Lars Nielsen at Vehicular Systems.

iv Acknowledgment .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 3 7 7 10 11 11 12 14 17 17 19 21 24 24 24 26 27 31 33 . . . .2.1 Outline and Contributions .2 Model 3: Nonlinear Clutch and Drive Shaft Flexibility 2. . .1 Model 2: Flexible Clutch and Drive Shafts . . . . .2 Shaft Flexibilities . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . .3. . . 3.4 Additional Dynamics . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The Truck . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . .2 Influence from the Propeller Shaft . . . . . . .3 Models Including the Clutch . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Model 1 Extended with a Flexible Propeller Shaft . . . . . . . . .5 Model Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 3. . . . . . .3 Experiments . v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. 3 Field Trials and Modeling 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . .4 Influence from the Clutch . .Contents 1 Introduction 1. . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . .2 Measurement Description . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Summary .4 Models . . . . . . . . . . . .4. .4. . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . 3. . . . . . . .3 Deviations between Engine Speed and Transmission Speed . . . . .1 Influence from the Drive Shaft . .1 Model 1: Drive Shaft Flexibility . 2 Driveline Modeling 2.1 Basic Equations .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Extending with RQV Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Transmission Torque for Model 2 . . . . . .1 Transmission Torque for Model 1 . 35 36 37 37 38 39 41 42 43 46 49 49 50 50 53 55 56 58 60 62 63 66 67 68 68 68 71 72 73 73 74 76 77 80 80 81 83 86 89 91 93 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 RQV Control . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Simulations . .2 Problem Formulation . . . . 6. . . . . .4 Influence from Sensor Location . . .1 Transfer Functions . 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations 6. . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. .3 Load Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Influence from Load Disturbances . . . . . . .3 Speed Control with Active Damping and RQV Behavior 5. . . . . . . . 5. 4. . . . .3 Transmission Torque for Model 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Measurement Description . . .2. .2 Controller Formulation . . . . . . . . .1 State-Space Formulation . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR . . . . .6 Influence from Sensor Location . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . .2 Influence from Measurement Disturbances 6.5 Summary . . . . . .6. . . 6.1 Mathematical Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Influence from Measurement Disturbances . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Transmission Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . 6. . .2 Undamped Gear-Shift Condition . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Influence from Load Disturbances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . 5. . 7 Conclusions Bibliography Notations .3 Preliminary Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . 4. . .3 Some Feedback Properties . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Design Example with a Simple Mass-Spring 4. . . . . . .4. 6. . .1 Disturbance Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . .4. . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 6. . . . . . .5 Gear-Shift Control Design . . . . . . . . . . .vi Contents 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control 4. . 4. . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model . . .1 Unconstrained Active Damping . . . . 5. .1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Gear-Shift Control Criterion . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . .3. 6. . . . . . . . .2. .8 Summary .

The engine is controlled such that the transmission transfers zero torque. there is no active damping of wheel speed oscillations resulting in vehicle shuffle. Some open questions are discussed. The result is a series of models consisting of rotating inertias. Another property is that a load dependent stationary error results from downhill and uphill driving. the fuel metering is governed by a system called RQV. mechanical resonances may occur. Traditionally in diesel trucks. The first problem is wheel speed oscillations following a change in accelerator pedal position. Engine controlled gear shifting without disengaging the clutch is an approach at the leading edge of technology (Orehall 1995). and wheels. Pettersson and Nielsen 1995). The handling of such resonances is of course basic for driveability. regarding influence of sensor dynamics and nonlinear effects. Since these parts are elastic. Experiments are performed with a heavy truck with different gears and road slopes. Beaumount. transmission. whereafter neutral gear can be engaged. The aim of the modeling and experiments is to find the most important physical effects that contribute to driveline oscillations. The thesis treats model based speed control with active damping of wheel speed oscillations while maintaining the stationary error characteristic for RQV control.1 Introduction The main parts of a vehicular driveline are engine. connected with damped torsional flexibilities. Fundamental driveline equations are obtained by using Newton’s second law. and Powell 1996. clutch. known as vehicle shuffle (Mo. With RQV. shafts. 1 . Two systems where driveline oscillations limit performance is speed control and automatic gear shifting. but is also otherwise becoming increasingly important since it is a linking factor in development of new driveline management systems.

A key contribution in this chapter is the formulation of a criterion for the speed control concept described above with active damping and retained RQV feeling. Experiments with a heavy truck are described together with the modeling conclusions. The contribution of the chapter is a demonstration of the influence of sensor location in driveline control when using LQG/LTR. Control of resonant systems with simple controllers is. In this state. Driveline oscillations is a limiting factor in optimizing this step. These results are reviewed in Chapter 4. and a criterion for a controller that drives this torque to zero. A critical part in this scheme is the controlling of the engine such that the transmission torque is zero. The extension to more advanced control design methods is a little studied topic. Chapters 5 treats the design and simulation of the speed controller. . known to have different properties with respect to sensor location. it is possible to optimize the time needed for a gear shift. Conclusions are summarized in Chapter 7. a set of three driveline models is derived.1 Outline and Contributions In Chapters 2 and 3. from other technical fields. With this approach. 1. and the influence in control design is investigated. Chapters 6 deals with the design and simulation of the gear-shift controller. which must be handled. The design improves the performance also in the case of load disturbances and initial driveline oscillations. A comparison is made between using feedback from the engine speed sensor or the wheel speed sensor. In this thesis the transmission torque is modeled. Different sensor locations result in different control problems. the vehicle is free rolling. The contribution of the chapter is that a linear model with one torsional flexibility and two inertias is able to fit the measured engine speed and wheel speed within the bandwidth of interest. A simulation study shows significantly improved performance and driveability. A major contribution in this thesis is a gear shifting strategy. A common architectural issue in the two applications described above is the issue of sensor location. and controlled to zero by using state feedback. based on a model describing the transmission torque. Parameter estimation of a model with a nonlinear clutch and sensor dynamics explains that the difference between experiments and model occurs when the clutch transfers zero torque.2 Chapter 1 Introduction The engine speed is then controlled to a speed such that the new gear can be engaged. also when facing existing initial driveline oscillations.

drive shafts. In this section fundamental equations for the driveline will be derived. Next chapter will validate the choices. First.1 Basic Equations A vehicular driveline is depicted in Figure 2. Nevertheless. final drive. Furthermore. a set of three models of increasing complexity is presented. together with a linear model of the air drag constitute the model. It consists of an engine. transmission. A second linear model is given by using the assumptions made above. The frequency range treated in this work is the regime interesting for control design (Mo. The generalized Newton’s second law is used together with assumptions about how different parts in the driveline contribute to the model. This chapter deals with building models of a truck driveline. Assumptions about stiff clutch.1. Vibrations and noise contribute to a higher frequency range (Suzuki and Tozawa 1992. Gillespie 1992) which is not treated here. and adding a second flexibility which is the clutch. Finally. contributing to driveline oscillations. some basic equations regarding the forces acting on the wheel. are obtained. a more complete nonlinear model is derived which includes a clutch model with a static nonlinearity. propeller shaft. and wheels. These equations 3 . The aim of these assumptions is to find the most important physical effects. viscous friction in transmission and final drive. Pettersson and Nielsen 1995). a linear model with flexible drive shafts is derived. Modeling is an iterative process in reality. Beaumount.2 Driveline Modeling The driveline is a fundamental part of a vehicle and its dynamics has been modeled in different ways depending on the purpose. and Powell 1996. stiff propeller shaft. clutch. 2.

4 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling Wheel Engine Clutch Drive shaft Final drive Transmission Propeller shaft Figure 2. no internal friction is assumed. in order to get a complete physical model. for instance. Next. vehicle mass and trailer will be described by the equation describing the wheel. a relation between the inputs and outputs of each part is obtained. When the clutch is engaged.1) Jm θm = Mm − Mf r:m − Mc where Jm is the mass moment of inertia of the engine and θm is the angle of the flywheel.2. and the external load from the clutch (Mc ).2) . The transmitted torque is a function of the angular difference (θm − θc ) and the angular velocity ˙ ˙ difference (θm − θc ) over the clutch ˙ ˙ Mc = Mt = fc (θm − θc . The generalized Newton’s second law of motion (Meriam and Kraige 1987) gives the following model ¨ (2. This means that effects from. the internal friction from the engine (Mf r:m ). θm − θc ) (2. giving Mc = Mt . Engine: The output torque of the engine is characterized by the driving torque (Mm ) resulting from the combustion. Inputs and outputs of each subsystem are labeled according to Figure 2. are influenced by the complete dynamics of the vehicle.1 A vehicular driveline. according to Figure 2. Clutch: A friction clutch found in vehicles equipped with a manual transmission consists of a clutch disk connecting the flywheel of the engine and the transmission’s input shaft.2.

if ) (2. θp − θf if . This gives the following relation between the input and output torque of the transmission ˙ ˙ Mp = ft (Mt . θc − θt it . Mf r:t .1 Basic Equations 5 Mm θm Engine Mc Clutch θc Mt Transmission Mf r:t θt Mp Mf r:m θt Mp Propeller shaft θp Mf Final drive Mf r:f θf Md θf Md Drive shaft θw Mw Wheel θw rw Fw Mf r:w Figure 2.2. each with a conversion ratio it . Mf r:f .3) is the possibility of having torsional effects in the transmission. giving the following model of the torque input to the final drive ˙ ˙ Mp = Mf = fp (θt − θp . The reason for considering the angle difference θc − θt it in (2.4) Final drive: The final drive is characterized by a conversion ratio if in the same way as the transmission. θp − θf if .3) where the internal friction torque of the transmission is labeled Mf r:t . θc − θt it . θt − θp ) (2. Propeller shaft: The propeller shaft connects the transmission’s output shaft with the final drive.2 Subsystems of a vehicular driveline with its input and output angle and torque. Transmission: A transmission has a set of gears. No friction is assumed (Mp = Mf ). it ) (2. The following relation for the input and output torque holds ˙ ˙ Md = ff (Mf .5) .

the drive shafts are modeled as one shaft. Therfore. • Fa . Aa the maximum vehicle cross section area. Here it is assumed that the wheel speed is the same for the two wheels.8) where cw is the drag coefficient. the air drag. However.6 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling v Fa Fw Fr + mg sin(α) Figure 2. for instance.3 the forces acting on a vehicle with mass m and speed v is shown. is approximated by Fa = 1 cw Aa ρa v 2 2 (2. and ρa the air density.7) The friction force (Fw ) is described by the sum of the following quantities (Gillespie 1992). where the internal friction torque of the final drive is labeled Mf r:f . open or closed windows will make the force difficult to model. Drive shafts: The drive shafts connects the wheels to the final drive. No friction (Mw = Md ) gives the model equation ˙ ˙ Mw = Md = fd (θf − θw . Newton’s second law in the longitudinal direction gives ˙ Fw = mv + Fa + Fr + mg sin(α) (2. When the vehicle is turning and the speed differs between the wheels. θf − θw ) (2. . both drive shafts have to be modeled. effects from.6) Wheel: In Figure 2.3 Forces acting on a vehicle.

• mg sin(α). So far the functions fc . fd .2.11) A complete model for the driveline with the clutch engaged is described by Equations (2.7) to (2.1 are made in order to obtain a model with drive shaft flexibility. ft . and Gustafsson 1993). ff . In the following section assumptions will be made about the unknowns. The clutch and the propeller shafts are assumed to be stiff.g. Pettersson. by a identification scheme (Henriksson.10) where Jw is the mass moment of inertia of the wheel. The coefficients of air drag and rolling resistance. where rw is the wheel radius. without losses. and Mf r:w are unknown.8) and (2.9) where cr1 and cr2 depends on.2. can be identified e.11). resulting in a series of driveline models. and then a model with two torsional flexibilities (the drive shaft and propeller shaft) will be considered. . and the drive shaft is described as a damped torsional flexibility. Mw is given by (2. Including (2. and the friction torques Mf r:t . fp .9) in (2. The resulting torque due to Fw is equal to Fw rw .2 Shaft Flexibilities In the following two sections. where α is the slope of the road.1 Model 1: Drive Shaft Flexibility Assumptions about the fundamental equations in Section 2. for instance. the rolling resistance. the gravitational force. Mf r:f . Newton’s second law gives ¨ Jw θw = Mw − Fw rw − Mf r:w (2. First. is approximated by Fr = m(cr1 + cr2 v) (2.10) together ˙ with v = rw θw gives 2 ¨ (Jw + mrw )θw = 1 3 ˙2 Mw − Mf r:w − cw Aa ρa rw θw 2 ˙ −rw m(cr1 + cr2 rw θw ) − rw mgsin(α) (2. a model with one torsional flexibility (the drive shaft) will be considered.2 Shaft Flexibilities 7 • Fr .9). and Mf r:w is the friction torque. (2. 2. The transmission and the final drive are assumed to multiply the torque with the conversion ratio. Labels are according to Figure 2.2. with different complexities.1) to (2. 2. assumptions will be made about the unknowns. tires and tire pressure.6).

having stiffness k. the model can be rewritten as ¨ ˙ Jt θm = Mc i2 − bt θm − Mp it t (2.18) can be rewritten with (2.21) Drive shaft: The drive shaft is modeled as a damped torsional flexibility.14) By using (2. the final drive is modeled by one rotating inertia Jf .17) which gives ¨ ˙ Jf θt = Mp i2 − bf θt − Md if f (2.19) Reducing (2. and internal damping c.5).20) with Mp in (2.22) . which gives the following equations for the torque and the angle M p = Mf .16) Final drive: In the same way as the transmission.13).17) (2.16) and (2. and final drive is obtained ¨ ˙ ˙ (Jt i2 + Jf )θm = Mc i2 i2 − bt θm i2 − bf θm − Md if it f t f f (2. The friction torque is assumed to be described by a viscous damping coefficient bt . corresponding to (2. corresponding to (2.18) Equation (2. The model of the final drive. The model of the transmission.13) (2.3). θm = θ c (2. a model for the lumped transmission.19) to engine speed is done by using (2. Hence.12) and (2.13) resulting in ¨ ˙ (2.6) becomes Mw = M d ˙ ˙ k(θf − θw ) + c(θf − θw ) = k(θm /it if − θw ) ˙ ˙ + c(θm /it if − θw ) = (2. which gives the following equations for the torque and the angle Mc = Mt . is θc ¨ Jt θt = θt it ˙ = Mt it − bt θt − Mp (2.15) Propeller shaft: The propeller shaft is also assumed to be stiff.12) and (2.12) Transmission: The transmission is described by one rotating inertia Jt .20) Jf θm = Mp i2 it − bf θm − Md if it f By replacing Mp in (2. is θp ¨ Jf θ f = = θf if ˙ Mf if − bf θf − Md (2. propeller shaft.15). θt = θ p (2.8 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling Clutch: The clutch is assumed to be stiff. (2. The friction torque is assumed to be described by a viscous damping coefficient bf .

21) with (2.drive shaft flexibility.22) the equation describing the transmission.16). and drive shaft.1).22). . An illustration of the model can be seen in Figure 2. The complete model is obtained by inserting Mc from (2. (2. and θm /it if − θw . propeller shaft.24) (Jw + mrw )θw = k(θm /it if − θw ) + c(θm /it if − θw ) ˙w − cw Aa ρa r3 θw − mcr2 r2 θw − rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) ˙ ˙ −bw θ w w where the friction torque is described as viscous damping. the following equation for the wheel results 2 ¨ ˙ ˙ (2.23) Wheel: If (2.13).23) into (2.1 Resulting equations for Model 1 .24). which gives the following equations. with label bw .12).2. (2. where (2.4 Model 1: Stiff clutch and drive shaft torsional flexibility. ¨ (Jm + Jt /i2 + Jf /i2 i2 )θm t t f = ˙ Mm − Mf r:m − (bt /i2 + bf /i2 i2 )θm (2. and (2.26) −rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) ˙ ˙ Possible states describing Model 1 are θm .2 Shaft Flexibilities 9 θm k Mm − Mf r:m c Jm + Jt /i2 + Jf /i2 i2 t t f θw rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) 2 Jw + mrw Figure 2.4. final drive.17) are used. together with (2.25) t t f −k(θm /it if − θw )/it if ˙ ˙ −c(θm /it if − θw )/it if ˙ ˙ k(θm /it if − θw ) + c(θm /it if − θw ) 3 2 ˙ −(bw + cw Aa ρa r + mcr2 r )θw w w 2 ¨ (Jw + mrw )θw = (2.11) is combined with (2. By replacing Md in (2. θw . becomes ¨ (Jt i2 + Jf )θm f = ˙ ˙ Mc i2 i2 − bt θm i2 − bf θm t f f ˙ ˙ −k(θm − θw it if ) − c(θm − θw it if ) (2. and if the linear part of the air drag in (2. Definition 2.11) is used.

1) the following differential equation describing the lumped engine and transmission results ¨ (Jm + Jt /i2 )θm t = ˙ Mm − Mf r:m − bt /i2 θm t 1 ˙ ˙ − kp (θm /it − θp ) + cp (θm /it − θp ) it (2.34) (2.18).30) in (2. This means that there are two torsional flexibilities.31) Including (2.30) is used in the last equality. and repeating (2.33) where (2.2. the clutch is assumed stiff.16) is replaced by a model of a flexibility with stiffness kp and internal damping cp ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Mp = Mf = kp (θt − θp ) + cp (θt − θp ) = kp (θm /it − θp ) + cp (θm /it − θp ) (2.15) gives ˙ ˙ ¨ ˙ Jt θm = Mc i2 − bt θm − kp (θm /it − θp ) + cp (θm /it − θp ) it t (2.27) into (2.10 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling 2.31) gives ˙ ˙ ¨ ˙ Jf θp = i2 kp (θm /it − θp ) + cp (θm /it − θp ) − bf θp − if Md f The equation for the drive shaft (2. As in the derivation of Model 1. without losses. the transmission and final drive are assumed to multiply the torque with the conversion ratio.30) (2. and the propeller and drive shafts are modeled as damped torsional flexibilities. Inserting (2.28) By combining this with (2.27) in (2. In the derivation of the model.2 Model 1 Extended with a Flexible Propeller Shaft It is also possible to consider two torsional flexibilities.12) and (2.27) where (2. The derivation of Model 1 is repeated here with the difference that the model for the propeller shaft (2. the propeller shaft and the drive shaft.17) θp ¨ Jf θ f = = θf if ˙ ˙ ˙ if kp (θm /it − θp ) + cp (θm /it − θp ) − bf θf − Md (2.13) are used in the last equality.29) The final drive is described by inserting (2. the propeller shaft and the drive shaft. The equation for the final drive (2.22) is repeated with new labels ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Mw = Md = kd (θf − θw ) + cd (θf − θw ) = kd (θp /if − θw ) + cd (θp /if − θw ) (2.32) now becomes ¨ Jf θp = ˙ ˙ ˙ i2 kp (θm /it − θp ) + cp (θm /it − θp ) − bf θp f ˙ ˙ −if kd (θp /if − θw ) + cd (θp /if − θw ) (2.32) .

the following equation for the wheel results 2 ¨ ˙ ˙ (Jw + mrw )θw = kd (θp /if − θw ) + cd (θp /if − θw ) 3 ˙ 2 ˙ ˙ −bw θw − cw Aa ρa rw θw − mcr2 rw θw − rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) (2.5.38) 3 2 ˙ −(bw + cw Aa ρa r + mcr2 r )θw − rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) w w 2. The equation for the wheel is derived by combining (2.11) with (2.3 Models Including the Clutch The clutch is so far considered to be stiff and lumped together with the engine mass moment of inertia. In this section this assumption is relaxed and first. If the linear part of the of the air drag in (2. The complete model with drive shaft and propeller shaft flexibilities is the following.3.37) = ˙ ˙ kd (θp /if − θw ) + cd (θp /if − θw ) (2.35) where again the friction torque is assumed to be described by a viscous damping coefficient bw .11) is used. 2. the clutch is modeled as a linear flexibility.1 Model 2: Flexible Clutch and Drive Shafts A model with a linear clutch and one torsional flexibility (the drive shaft) is derived by repeating the procedure for Model 1 with the difference that the model for the .5 Model with stiff clutch and two torsional flexibilities.2. which can be seen in Figure 2. ¨ (Jm + Jt /i2 )θm t ˙ Mm − Mf r:m − bt /i2 θm t 1 ˙ ˙ − kp (θm /it − θp ) + cp (θm /it − θp ) it ˙ ˙ ˙ = i2 kp (θm /it − θp ) + cp (θm /it − θp ) − bf θp f = ˙ ˙ −if kd (θp /if − θw ) + cd (θp /if − θw ) 2 ¨ (Jw + mrw )θw (2.33). a nonlinear model of the clutch is derived.3 Models Including the Clutch 11 θm kp Mm + Mf r:m cp Jm + Jt /i2 t θp kd θw rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) cd Jf 2 Jw + mrw Figure 2.36) ¨ J f θp (2. Secondly.

44) (2.22) as ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Mw = Md = kd (θf − θw ) + cd (θf − θw ) = kd (θt /if − θw ) + cd (θt /if − θw ) (2.19) giving ¨ ˙ ˙ ˙ (Jt + Jf /i2 )θt = it kc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) − (bt + bf /i2 )θt − Md /if (2. The drive shaft is modeled according to (2.3.39) where (2. ¨ Jm θ m ¨ (Jt + Jf /i2 )θt f = = ˙ ˙ Mm − Mf r:m − kc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) ˙ ˙ it kc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) 1 ˙ −(bt + bf /i2 )θt − f if 2 ¨ (Jw + mrw )θw (2.42) and (2.1) the equation describing the engine inertia is given by ˙ ˙ ¨ Jm θm = Mm − Mf r:m − kc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) (2. When the angle difference over the clutch starts from zero and increases.12 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling clutch is a flexibility with stiffness kc and internal damping cc ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Mc = Mt = kc (θm − θc ) + cc (θm − θc ) = kc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) (2. propeller shaft.43) where (2.14).45) ˙ ˙ kd (θt /if − θw ) + cd (θt /if − θw ) = ˙ ˙ kd (θt /if − θw ) + cd (θt /if − θw ) (2.16) and (2. and final drive inertia.40) Also by inserting (2. with .flexible clutch and drive shaft flexibility.13) is used in the last equality. The reason for this arrangement is vibration insulation.17) is used in the last equality.43) into (2. and using the linear part of the air drag.46) 3 ˙ −(bw + cw Aa ρa r + cr2 rw )θw − rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) w 2.41) (2.11). the smaller springs. the equation describing the transmission is ˙ ˙ ¨ ˙ Jt θt = it kc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) − bt θt − Mp Mp is derived from (2.39) into (2. Definition 2.2 Resulting equations for Model 2 .42) f f which is the lumped transmission. By inserting this into (2. The complete model is obtained by inserting (2. An illustration of the model can be seen in Figure 2.6.2 Model 3: Nonlinear Clutch and Drive Shaft Flexibility When studying a clutch in more detail it is seen that the torsional flexibility comes from an arrangement of smaller springs in series with springs with much higher stiffness.

the stiffer springs. are being compressed.3 Models Including the Clutch 13 θm kc Mm + Mf r:m cc Jm θt kd θw rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) cd Jt + Jf /i2 f 2 Jw + mrw Figure 2. Torque mechanical stop kc2 −θc2 −θc1 kc1 kc2 kc1 θc1 θc2 θm − θc mechanical stop Figure 2. the clutch hits a mechanical stop.7 Nonlinear clutch characteristics. This ends when they are fully compressed at θc1 radians.47) .7. are beginning to be compressed.6 Model 2: Linear clutch and drive shaft torsional flexibility.2. If the angle is increased further. This clutch characteristics can be modeled as in Figure 2. stiffness kc1 . When θc2 is reached. with stiffness kc2 . The resulting stiffness kc (θm − θc ) of the clutch is given by   kc1 kc2 kc (x) =  ∞ if |x| ≤ θc1 if θc1 < |x| ≤ θc2 otherwise (2.

48) and cc denotes the damping coefficient of the clutch.8 A shaft with stiffness k and internal damping c with a backlash of 2α rad.8).3 Resulting equations for Model 3 .51) 3 ˙ −(bw + mcr2 rw + cw Aa ρa r )θw − rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) w where Mkc (·) is given by (2.51) can be changed to include the nonlinear model of the air drag. described in (2.26).50) ˙ ˙ kd (θt /if − θw ) + cd (θt /if − θw ) = ˙ ˙ kd (θt /if − θw ) + cd (θt /if − θw ) (2.46). The linear part of the air drag is included. ¨ J m θm ¨ (Jt + Jf /i2 )θt f = Mm − Mf r:m − Mkc (θm − θt it ) ˙ ˙ −cc (θm − θt it ) ˙ ˙ it Mkc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) 1 ˙ −(bt + bf /i2 )θt − f if 2 ¨ (Jw + mrw )θw (2. Then the differential equation describing the wheel and the vehicle (2. and (2. The torque Mkc (θm − θc ) from the clutch nonlinearity is  if |x| ≤ θc1  kc1 x   kc1 θc1 + kc2 (x − θc1 ) if θc1 < x ≤ θc2 Mkc (x) =  −kc1 θc1 + kc2 (x + θc1 ) if −θc2 < x ≤ −θc1   ∞ otherwise (2.14 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling 2α k θ1 c θ2 Figure 2.nonlinear clutch and drive shaft flexibility. the linear part of the air drag.4 Additional Dynamics For high speeds.49) = (2. as in the previous models. 2. The . is not sufficient.48) The nonlinear model is given by the following equations. Definition 2. (2.

The torque resulting from a shaft connected to a drive with backlash 2α is  ˙ ˙  k(θ1 − θ2 − α) + c(θ1 − θ2 ) if θ1 − θ2 > α ˙1 − θ2 ) if θ1 − θ2 < −α ˙ (2.2.8. .52) It is well known that elements like transmissions and drives introduce backlash. according to Figure 2. Throughout this thesis the dead zone model will be used (Liversidge 1952).53) M= k(θ1 − θ2 + α) + c(θ  0 if |θ1 − θ2 | < α where k is the stiffness and c is the internal damping of the shaft.4 Additional Dynamics 15 model describing the wheel is 2 ¨ (Jw + mrw )θw = ˙ ˙ kd (θt /if − θw ) + cd (θt /if − θw ) ˙ −(bw + mcr2 rw )θw − rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) 1 3 ˙2 − cw Aa ρa rw θw 2 (2.

16 Chapter 2 Driveline Modeling .

and wheel speed are measured. 2 driven) has a 14 o a liter V8 diesel engine (Figure 3. As mentioned already in Chapter 2. Sweden. The transmission has 14 gears and a hydraulic retarder. The parameters of the models are estimated. The result is a series of models that describe the driveline in increasing detail. One such question is whether differences in engine speed and transmission speed is due to clutch dynamics or has other causes. 17 .52 m. The DSC14 engine is connected to a manual range-splitter transmission (Figure 3.3 Field Trials and Modeling Field trials are performed with a Scania truck. The driving torque. There has been some open questions regarding model structure in this study. engine speed. September 1995. these measurements are used to build models by extending an initial model structure by adding the effect that seems to be the major cause for the deviation still left. The 6x2 truck (6 wheels. transmission speed.3) via a clutch. The drive shafts connect the final drive to the wheels which has a radius of rw = 0.1 The Truck Tests were performed with a Scania 144L530 truck (Figure 3. 3. The weight of the truck is m = 24 ton and the front area is Aa = 9 m2 .6. Different road slopes and gears are tested to study driveline resonances. A propeller shaft connects the output shaft of the transmission with the final drive.2) with maximum power of 530 Hp and maximum torque of 2300 Nm. The drag coefficient is equal to cw = 0.1) on test roads in S¨dert¨lje. It is also equipped with the gear shifting system Opticruise (Orehall 1995).

18 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling Figure 3.1 Scania 6x2 144L530 truck.2 Scania DSC14 engine. . Figure 3.

θw . the output shaft from the transmission (θt ). which means that there is information up to 10 Hz frequency. which detects the time when cogs from a rotating cogwheel are passing. the transmission speed sensor has fewer cogs than the other two sensors.2 Measurement Description 19 Figure 3. In the rest of this thesis. indicating that the bandwidth of this signal is lower. This time sequence is then inverted to get the angle velocity.2 Measurement Description The truck is equipped with three sensors measuring the angle of the flywheel of the engine (θm ). θt . If the cogwheels of the three sensors are compared. 3. the bandwidth of the measured signal depends on the speed and the number of cogs the cogwheel is equipped with. θw . The four signals are (θm . The four signals used in the following modeling are calculated from the five ˙ ˙ ˙ sampled signals. θt . Sampling is not equidistant in time. From these two signals. Mm .3. five signals are sampled (θm . Mf r:m ) with the Scania sampling program “Truck-view”. The velocity of a rotating part is measured by using an inductive sensor (Nwagboso 1993). ˙ ˙ ˙ Hence. u = Mm − Mf r:m ). the control signal u = Mm − Mf r:m is assumed to be a . a measure of the driving torque (Mm ) is obtained. By measuring the amount of fuel that is fed to the engine.3 Scania GRS900R range-splitter transmission with retarder and Opticruise gear changing system. and the driving wheel (θw ).05 s to 0. and the sample period range from 0. the torque u = Mm − Mf r:m acting on the driveline is calculated.11 s (corresponding to sampling frequencies between 9 Hz and 20 Hz). The friction torque of the engine (Mf r:m ) is also calculated online from a function given by Scania. Hence. The data has information up to half the sample period.

the data sets are resampled. Preprocessing Data Since the sampling is not equidistant in time. the interpolated data is low-pass filtered with a frequency corresponding to half the sampling frequency in the original data. The chosen frequency is 6 Hz.8 Time. The prediction error estimation method (PEM) for parameterized state-space representations is used to estimate the unknown parameters and initial conditions. .5 7 6.4 Example of resampling a signal not equidistant in time (x). [s] 8 8. An example of the resampling is seen in Figure 3.20 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling 10 9.5 to 10 Hz. A motivation for this is that an eight-cylinder engine makes 80 strokes/s at an engine speed of 1200 rev/min.6 7. Therefore. This means a frequency in the interval 4.4.5 9 [rad/s] 8.4 Figure 3.2 8. This is done by using Euler’s method.2 7. This is done offline and therefore without phase shifts in the signals. A new data set is obtained by interpolating the old data using linear interpolation. continuous signal.4 7. This introduces higher frequencies than those in the original data set.8 7 7. the continuous model is discretized. The dynamics from fuel amount to engine torque is not considered in this work. This is reasonably for the frequency range considered for control design. The dotted line is the linear interpolation between the samples and the straight line is the signal filtered with 6 Hz. In order to estimate the parameters and initial condition of the nonlinear Model 3.5 8 7. Parameter Estimation Software To estimate the parameters of the linear models derived in Chapter 2 the System Identification Toolbox (Ljung 1995) is used.

The road was almost flat. The road was almost flat. initial conditions. x4 = θt . The road was almost flat. yw ) with the measured signals (θm . For Model 1 the following states are used in the parameter estimation ˙ ˙ x1 = θm /it if − θw . Furthermore. in order to excite driveline oscillations. They have different known slopes. 3. Trial 1: The test was performed with step inputs on the accelerator with gear 1. The optimal parameters and initial conditions are the ones minimizing (3. Trial 2: The test was performed with step inputs on the accelerator with gear 5. The sensor outputs described above were logged. More details about the state-space representation can be found in Chapter 4. Trial 4: The test was performed with step inputs on the accelerator with gear 8. x2 = θm . and control signal sequence u. x2 = θt /if − θw . The global truncation error with this method equals O(h). The cost function used is ˙ ˙ ˙ (θm (i) − ym (i))2 + i2 (θt (i) − yt (i))2 + i2 i2 (θw (i) − yw (i))2 t t f ∀i (3.3 Experiments A number of roads at Scania were used for testing. ˙ ˙ ˙ x1 = θm − θt it . x = f (x.2) where ∀i means that the sum is to taken over all samples in the estimation data. the state vector is calculated at each sample. un−1 ) (3. x3 = θm . The data is seen in Figure 3. . the discrete version is ˙ xn = xn−1 + hf (xn−1 .7.8.3 Experiments 21 For a continuous differential equation. are scaled to be of the same magnitude. A too small h can give numerical problems and it also gives unnecessarily long iteration time.1) where h is the sampling time. θw ) a cost function can be evaluated. The data is seen in Figure 3. with the friction torque (Mf r:m ) subtracted from the driving torque (Mm ). Trial 3: The test was performed with step inputs on the accelerator with gear 5. The data is seen in Figure 3. u). By comparing the model output (ym . The data sets are divided into two parts to be used with the parameter estimation and validation respectively. ˙ ˙ ˙ yt . The data is seen in Figure 3. The data is resampled at a sampling frequency of 1 kHz.3. x5 = θw are used. For a given set of parameters.5. describing Model 3. The road has 16 % slope.6. θt . Therefore it is necessary to keep h small. Step input experiments were done by repeatedly pressing and releasing the accelerator.2). x3 = θw and for Models 2 and 3. the five differential equations.

.6 Torque and angular velocities for a test with gear 5 and flat road. [s] 20 30 Figure 3.22 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling 1500 1000 500 0 Driving torque u = Mm − Mf r:m 300 250 [rad/s] 200 150 100 ˙ Engine speed θm [Nm] −500 0 10 20 30 50 0 10 20 30 20 ˙ Transmission speed θt 6 5 ˙ Wheel speed θw 15 [rad/s] [rad/s] 10 5 0 10 Time. [s] 20 30 Figure 3. [s] 20 30 2 0 10 Time.5 Torque and angular velocities for a test with gear 1 and flat road. 1500 1000 500 0 Driving torque u = Mm − Mf r:m 300 250 [rad/s] 200 150 100 0 ˙ Engine speed θm [Nm] −500 0 10 20 30 10 20 30 40 35 30 [rad/s] 25 20 15 10 0 ˙ Transmission speed θt 12 10 [rad/s] 8 6 4 ˙ Wheel speed θw 10 Time. [s] 20 30 4 3 2 1 0 10 Time.

[s] 20 30 Figure 3. [s] 20 30 10 Time. 2000 1500 Driving torque u = Mm − Mf r:m 250 ˙ Engine speed θm 500 0 −500 0 10 20 30 [rad/s] 150 100 0 [Nm] 1000 200 10 20 30 70 60 ˙ Transmission speed θt 20 18 16 ˙ Wheel speed θw [rad/s] 50 40 [rad/s] 10 Time. [s] 20 30 Figure 3. [s] 20 30 14 12 10 30 0 8 0 10 Time.8 Torque and angular velocities for a test with gear 8 and flat road.3.3 Experiments 23 2000 1500 Driving torque u = Mm − Mf r:m 250 200 [rad/s] 150 100 50 0 ˙ Engine speed θm [Nm] 1000 500 0 −500 0 10 20 30 10 20 30 35 30 [rad/s] ˙ Transmission speed θt 10 8 [rad/s] 6 4 2 0 ˙ Wheel speed θw 25 20 15 10 0 10 Time.7 Torque and angular velocities for a test with gear 5 and 16 % slope. .

the inertia of the final drive (Jf ) is considerably less than J1 and J2 in (3. Here. Result • The main contribution to driveline dynamics from driving torque to engine speed and wheel speed is the drive shaft.4 Models A number of driveline models were developed in Chapter 2.1 Influence from the Drive Shaft First. θt . the model will act as if there are two damped springs in series. The engine speed and the wheel speed data is used to estimate the parameters. but there are still deviations between model and measurement. 3. Besides ˙ ˙ ˙ the measured states (θm . The plots are typical examples that show that a major part of the driveline dynamics in the frequency range up to 6 Hz is captured with a linear mass-spring model with the drive shafts as the main flexibility.9.4) k= kp i2 + kd f .2 Influence from the Propeller Shaft The model equations (2. The choices made in the modeling are now justified. Therefore.3) If the size of the three inertias are compared.38) describes Model 1 extended with the propeller shaft with stiffness kp and damping cp . The three inertias in the model are J1 J2 J3 = = = Jm + Jt /i2 t Jf Jw + 2 mrw (3. θw ). The data shown are from Trial 1.36) to (2. 3. Similar results are obtained from the other trials. also the transmission speed is plotted together with the model output engine speed scaled with the conversion ratio in the transmission (it ). by fitting the models to measured data. where the driveline oscillations are well excited. The total stiffness of two undamped springs in series is kp i2 kd f (3. • The true angle difference (x1 = θm /it if − θw ) is unknown. the influence from the drive shaft is investigated by estimating the parameters and initial conditions of Model 1.24 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling 3. In Figure 3. but the value estimated by the model has physically reasonable values.4. • The model output transmission speed (x2 /it ) fits the measured transmission speed data well. the results from Trial 1 are shown.3).4. the load and the states describing the torsion of the flexibilities are estimated by the models.

together with the measured data in solid.3.9 Model 1 estimated on data from Trial 1.5 ˙ x2 = θm 300 250 rad/s 200 150 100 ˙ x2 /it = θt 15 rad/s 10 5 ˙ x3 = θw 5 rad/s 4 3 2 1 14 16 18 20 22 Time. . The plots are typical examples of that a major part of the dynamics is captured by a linear model with drive shaft flexibility.4 Models 25 x1 = θm /it if − θw 0. [s] 24 26 28 30 Figure 3. x3 ) in dashed lines. The top figure shows the drive shaft angle difference.5 rad 0 −0. and the bottom figures show the model outputs (x2 .

fm ft fw =1 1 1 + αs =1 = (3. and the unknown filter constant α can be estimated such that the model output (ym . The result of this is seen in Figure 3. and transmission speed.26 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling whereas the total damping of two dampers in series is c= cp i2 cd f cp i2 + cd f (3. or sensor dynamics. there is good agreement between model and experiments for ˙ ˙ u = Mm − Mf r:m . . As mentioned before. and fw . with the model output from Model 1 with and without sensor filtering. The conclusion is that the main part of the deviation between engine speed and transmission speed is due to sensor dynamics.12. 3. if . and yw .4. but there is a slight deviation between measured and estimated transmission speed. the bandwidth of the measured transmission speed is lower than the measured engine and wheel speeds. ft . The following sensor dynamics are assumed. Two natural candidates are additional mass-spring dynamics in the driveline. with the major difference explained by the sensor dynamics.10 shows the configuration with Model 1 and sensor filter fm . yt . θm . Neither can backlash in the transmission explain the difference. In Figure 3.11 for Trial 1. initial condition. because then the engine and transmission speeds would be equal when the backlash is at its endpoint. This indicates that there ˙ is some additional dynamics between engine speed. The speed dependence of the transmission sensor dynamics is neglected. due to fewer cogs in the sensor.3 Deviations between Engine Speed and Transmission Speed As mentioned above. This effect will increase with lower conversion ratio in the final drive. yw ) fits the measured data. after some comparison between sensor filters of different order. yt . Figure 3. Now the parameters. and θw .5) The damping and the stiffness of the drive shaft in the previous section will thus typically be underestimated due to the flexibility of the propeller shaft. The explanation is that there is a combined effect.6) where a first order filter with an unknown parameter α models the transmission sensor. It is assumed that the engine speed and wheel speed sensor dynamics are not influencing the data for frequencies up to 6 Hz. ˙ θt . The motivation for this is that the high stiffness of the clutch flexibility (given from material data) can not result in a difference of a phase shift form. an enlarged plot of the transmission speed is seen. The outputs of the filters are ym . This deviation has a character of a phase shift and some smoothing (signal levels and shapes agree). The individual stiffness values obtained from parameter estimation are somewhat lower than the values obtained from material data. θm .

Linear Clutch (Model 2) The parameters and initial conditions of Model 2 are estimated with the sensor dynamics described above. but the figure shows that the drive shaft torsion have realistic values that agree with other experience. The true values of these torsions are not known.7. Result • If Model 1 is equipped with a first order sensor filter for the transmission ˙ ˙ ˙ speed. the clutch angle torsion does not have realistic values.4 Influence from the Clutch So far the clutch has been assumed stiff. Therefore. The model output velocities (θm . θt .13. θw ) show . However. However. 3.3. Model 2 and 3 on the other hand estimate a clutch angle difference. and the rest of the parameters are estimated. The model output fits the data except for a number of time intervals where there are deviations between model and measured data (see Figure 3.4 Models 27 ym fm yt ft /it fw yw θm k Mm − Mf r:m c Jm + Jt /i2 + Jf /i2 i2 t t f θw rw m (cr1 + gsin(α)) 2 Jw + mrw Figure 3. The resulting clutch angle difference (x1 = θm − θt it ) and the drive shaft angle difference (x2 = θt /if − θw ) are seen in Figure 3. θt . which can be seen when comparing with the ˙ ˙ ˙ static nonlinearity in Figure 2.4. θw ) are estimated by the model. the value of the stiffness given by Scania is used and fixed. these deviations will in the following be related to nonlinearities at low clutch torques. all three velocities (θm .10 Model 1 with sensor dynamics. A problem when estimating the parameters of Model 2 is that the bandwidth of 6 Hz in the data is not enough to estimate the stiffness kc in the clutch.12). and the drawback with the models considered so far is that they are unable to estimate the angle difference over the clutch that actually exists.

5 ˙ ym = x2 = θm 300 250 rad/s 200 150 100 ˙ yt = x2 /it (1 + αs) = θt /(1 + αs) 15 rad/s 10 5 ˙ yw = x3 = θw 5 rad/s 4 3 2 1 14 16 18 20 22 Time. The top figure shows the angle difference over the drive shaft. The main part of the deviation between engine speed and transmission speed is due to sensor dynamics. and the bottom figures show the model outputs (ym . .28 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling x1 = θm /it if − θw 0.5 rad 0 −0.12. yw ) in dashed. together with the measured data in solid.11 Model as in Figure 3. See also Figure 3. [s] 24 26 28 30 Figure 3.9 but with sensor dynamics included. yt .

04 0.5 14 16 18 20 22 Time. on data from Trial 1. [s] 16 17 18 Figure 3. The parameters are estimated on data from Trial 1.3. output from Model 1 without sensor filtering (dashed).02 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 x1 = θm − θt it 0.5 x2 = θt /if − θw rad 0 −0.11.01 −0.03 0.13 Clutch angle difference (top figure) and drive shaft angle difference (bottom figure) resulting from parameter estimation of Model 2 with sensor filtering. [s] 24 26 28 30 Figure 3. 0.4 Models 29 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 rad/s 11 12 13 14 15 Time.01 0 −0. and output from Model 1 with sensor filtering (dash-dotted).12 Enlargement of part of Figure 3.02 rad 0. Measured transmission speed (solid). but the plots show that the drive shaft angle has realistic values. The true values of these torsions are not known. .

5 14 16 18 20 22 Time. θt . In Figure 3. the figure shows that both angles have realistic values that agree with other experience. The true values of these torsions are not known as mentioned before. displayed in Figure 3. The interpretation of this is that the clutch model does not add information for frequencies under 6 Hz.30 Chapter 3 x1 = θm /it − θt θc1 rad 0 Field Trials and Modeling −θc1 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0. Result • The model including a linear clutch does not improve the data fit. but the plots show that they have realistic values. on data from Trial 1.11. the clutch static nonlinearity is fixed with known physical values and the rest of the parameters are estimated. θw ) show no improvement compared to those generated by Model 1 with sensor dynamics.14. Nonlinear Clutch (Model 3) When estimating the parameters of Model 3.5 x2 = θt /if − θw rad 0 −0. The true values of these torsions are not known.2) are seen in Figure 3. ˙ ˙ ˙ The model output velocities (θm . The question is if . no improvement compared to those generated by Model 1 with sensor dynamics. The resulting clutch angle difference (x1 = θm − θt it ) and drive shaft angle difference (x2 = θt /if − θw ) after minimizing (3. [s] 24 26 28 30 Figure 3. displayed in Figure 3.12 it was seen that the model with the sensor filtering fitted the signal except for a number of time intervals with deviations. However. except for the sensor filter which is the same as in the previous model estimations.14 Clutch angle difference (top figure) and drive shaft angle difference (bottom figure) resulting from parameter estimation of Model 3 with sensor filtering.11.

When estimating the parameters of the models investigated. is estimated. The assumption about sensor dynamics in the transmission speed influencing the experiments. • The model is able to estimate a clutch angle with realistic values. The reason is unmodeled dynamics at low clutch torques (Bj¨rnberg.4. Result • The model including the nonlinear clutch does not improve the data fit for frequencies up to 6 Hz. The load can be recalculated to estimate road slope.5 Model Validity As mentioned before.3. o and Nielsen 1996). there is a problem with identifying the viscous friction components b. the unknown load l. the estimation of the states describing the torsion of the clutch and the drive shaft shows realistic values. In the parameter estimation. agrees well with the fact that the engine speed sensor and the wheel speed sensor have considerably higher bandwidth (more cogs) than the transmission speed sensor. and the calculated values agree well with the known values of the road slopes at Scania. the model deviates from the data. The parameters are estimated on the estimation data. Furthermore.7). The results are then evaluated on the validation data. Pettersson. 3. and these are the results shown in this chapter. This gives further support to model structure and parameters. which vary between the trials. The sensitivity in the model to variations in the friction parameters is low.4 Models 31 this is a result of some nonlinearity. Figure 3.15 that the deviation between model and experiments occurs when the clutch angle passes the area with the low stiffness in the static nonlinearity (see Figure 2. and the same model fit can be obtained for a range of frictions parameters. . It is clear from Figure 3. • The estimated clutch angle shows that when the clutch passes the area with low stiffness in the nonlinearity.15 shows the transmission speed plotted together with the model output and the clutch angle torsion. the data sets are divided into two parts.

15 Clutch angle difference (top figure) and measured and estimated transmission speed (bottom figure) from estimation of Model 3 with sensor dynamics on data from Trial 1. [s] 16 17 18 Figure 3. .32 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling x1 = θm /it − θt θc1 −θc1 rad 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 yt = x4 /(1 + αs) 16 14 ↑ ↑ ↑ 12 rad 10 8 ↑ 6 ↑ 4 11 12 13 14 15 Time. The result is that the miss fit occurs when the clutch angle passes the area with the low stiffness (|θ| < θc1 ) in the static nonlinearity.

the mass-spring models with some sensor dynamics (Model 1 and Model 2) give good agreement with experiments. They are thus suitable for control design. The major deviations left are captured by the nonlinear effects in Model 3 which makes this model suitable for verifying simulation studies in control design. In order for the model to fit the data from all three measured velocities. drive shaft and clutch torsion. .5 Summary 33 3.5 Summary Parameter estimation of the models derived in Chapter 2 shows that a model with one torsional flexibility and two inertias is able to fit the measured engine speed and wheel speed.3. within the frequency regime interesting for control design. from a user perspective. Furthermore. The result is a series of models that describe the driveline in increasing detail by. the known road slopes are well estimated. in accordance with properties of the sensory system. Further supporting facts of the models are that they give values to the nonmeasured variables. The result. adding the effect that seems to be the major cause for the deviation still left. Parameter estimation of a model with a nonlinear clutch explains that the difference between the measured data and the model occurs when the clutch transfers zero torque. that agree with experience from other sources. It is shown that all three velocities are fitted. in each extension. is that. a first order sensor filter is added to the model. By considering the difference between the measured transmission speed and wheel speed it is reasonably to deduce that the main flexibility is the drive shafts.

34 Chapter 3 Field Trials and Modeling .

The formulation of performance output and controller structures used in the rest of the thesis are given in Section 4. The difference can be formulated in control theoretic terms e.g. forming the main contribution of this chapter. However. If the driveline were rigid. these differences are illustrated for driveline models. the choice would not matter. since the sensor outputs would differ only by a scaling factor. it will be demonstrated that the presence of torsional flexibilities implies that sensor choice gives different control problems.3. e. transmission speed sensor. or wheel speed sensor. with respect to sensor location (Spong and Vidyasagar 1989). engine speed sensor. even though its relevance for control characteristics.g.2. an investigation about how these properties transfers when using more complicated controller structures like LQG/LTR is made. there are significant torsional resonances in a driveline. by saying that the poles are the same. Ljung 1988). The driveline model equations in Chapter 2 are written in state-space form in Section 4. but the zeros differ both in number and values. Besides formulating the control problem in this chapter.1. The issue of sensor location seems to be a little studied topic (Kubrusly and Malebranche 1985. Control of resonant systems with simple controllers is known to have structural properties e.g. In Section 4. there is one architectural issue that will be given special attention. In Section 4. Active control of these resonances is the topic of the rest of this thesis.4. Chapters 5 and 6 treats two different problems. 35 . There are different possible choices in driveline control between using different sensor locations. This part is based on the material in Pettersson and Nielsen (1995). as mentioned before.4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control As seen in the previous chapters.

6) . angle differences. Possible physical state variables in the models of Chapter 2 are torques.36 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control 4. The state space representation is x = ˙ Ax + Bu + H l (4. c/iJ1 A =  −k/iJ1 −(b1 + c/i2 )/J1 k/J2 c/iJ2 −(c + b2 )/J2     0 0  0 B =  1/J1  . B. In this work.1. x.1) where A. the angle difference of each torsional flexibility and the angle velocity of each inertia is used as states. H.3) (4.2) ˙ = θw = rw m (cr1 + gsin(α))  0 1/i −1 . and l are defined next for the linear Models 1 and 2 in Chapter 2. the difference between the driving torque and the friction torque. H =  0 −1/J2 (4.5) 2 mcr2 rw bt /i2 t bw + + bf /i2 i2 t f 3 cw Aρrw + according to Definition 2. State-space formulation of Model 1: x1 x2 x3 l giving  = = θm /it if − θw ˙ θm (4. and angle velocity of any inertia.1 State-Space Formulation The input to the open-loop driveline system is u = Mm − Mf r:m . State-space formulation of Model 2: x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 θm − θt it θt /if − θw ˙ = θm ˙ = θt ˙ = θw = = (4.4) where i = it if J1 J2 b1 b2 = = = = Jm + Jt /i2 + Jf /i2 i2 t t f 2 Jw + mrw (4.

and l defined in (4. B. In the case of a vehicular driveline the normal sensor alternative is an inductive sensor mounted on a cog wheel measuring the angle. (4. A.      H=   0 0 0 0 −1/J2       0 −1 0 cd /if J2 −(b3 + cd )/J3       (4.2) to (4. This disturbance is considered because the firing pulses in the driving torque can be seen as an additive disturbance acting on the input. A second state disturbance n is a disturbance acting on the input of the system.1. and are seldom used in a production vehicular applications. H.1.4. The output of the process is defined as a combination of the states given by the matrix C in y = Cx + e (4. The state-space description is x = Ax + Bu + Bn + H l + Hv ˙ with x.8) 4.10) .9) 4. = = = = = 0 0 1/J1 0 0 −it 1/if cc it /J1 −(cc i2 + b2 + cd /i2 )/J2 t f cd /if J3    .1 Disturbance Description The disturbance l can be seen as a slow-varying part resulting from the rolling resistance and the road slope plus and additive disturbance v.1 State-Space Formulation 37 A is given by the matrix  0 0 1  0 0 0   −kc /J1 0 −cc /J1   kc it /J2 −kd /if J2 cc it /J2 0 kd /J3 0 and    B=   where J1 J2 J2 b2 b3 according to Definition 2.8). Sensors that measure torque are expensive.2 Measurement Description For controller synthesis it is of fundamental interest which physical variables of the process that can be measured.2. as mentioned before.7) Jm Jt + Jf /i2 f 2 Jw + mrw bt + bf /i2 f 3 bw + cw Aρrw + cr2 rw (4.

14) where. the following are defined (corresponding to a sensor on θm and θw for Model 1). The control signal u is a linear function of the states (if they are all measured) or else the state estimates. In this work. where e is a measurement disturbance. . r represents the commanded signal with the gain l0 .1 Plant and controllers Fr and Fy .38 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control D l+v H r Fr (s) u B x ˙ 1/s x M z A C Fy (s) e y Figure 4.13) The control problem can be seen as in Figure 4. The unknown controllers Fr and Fy are to be designed such that that the performance output (4.13) meets its requirements (defined later).11) (4. Cm Cw = = (0 1 0) (0 0 1) (4. ˙ ˙ Especially.12) 4. u ˆ = l0 r − Kc x (4. This combination of the states is described by the matrices M and D in the following way z = M x + Du (4. which are obtained from a Kalman filter. In this thesis controllers will be designed as state-feedback controllers extensively except for a few simple examples.2 Controller Formulation The performance output z is the combination of states that has requirements to behave in a certain way. and therefore.1. the output of the process is one/some of the state variables defining an angle velocity. only angle velocity sensors are considered. and Kc is the statefeedback matrix.

these return ratios are scalar and thus equal. This is because there are unequal number of sensors and control signals.1 gives Fy (s) Fr (s) = Kc (sI − A + BKc + Kf C)−1 Kf = l0 1 − Kc (sI − A + BKc + Kf C)−1 B (4.23) When only one sensor is used. defined as ˙ z = θw = Cw x (4. which characterizes the closed-loop behavior at the plant output and input respectively GFy = C(sI − A)−1 BFy Fy G = Fy C(sI − A)−1 B (4.3 Some Feedback Properties The performance output when controlling the driveline to a certain speed is the velocity of the wheel.21) Two return ratios results. In Figure 4. when extending to more sensors.20) (4. two different control problems results.3 Some Feedback Properties 39 Identifying the matrices Fr (s) and Fy (s) in Figure 4. 4.22) (4. This is however not considered in this work. The open-loop transfer functions from u to engine speed Gum has three poles and . it is important with the type of investigation about the structural properties made in this chapter.17) (4.4.19) N (4.2 a root locus with respect to a ˙ ˙ P-controller gain is seen for two gears using velocity sensor θm and θw respectively.24) ˙ ˙ When studying the closed-loop control problem with a sensor on θm or θw . v. and e to the control signal u are given by Gru Gvu Geu = = I − Kc (sI − A + BKc )−1 B l0 r −1 −1 (4.15) The closed-loop transfer functions from r. LQG/LTR is not directly applicable to driveline control with more than one sensor as input to the observer.18) Kc (sI − A + Kf C) N − Kc (sI − A + BKc ) N −Kc (sI − A + BKc )−1 BKc (sI − A + Kf C)−1 N = Kc (sI − A + BKc )−1 BKc − I (sI − A + Kf C)−1 Kf The transfer functions to the performance output z are given by Grz Gvz Gez = = = (M (sI − A)−1 B + D)Gru M (sI − A + BKc ) BKc (sI − A + Kf C) +M (sI − A + BKc )−1 N + DGwu (M (sI − A)−1 B + D)Gvu −1 −1 (4.16) (4. Therefore.

and θw (right figures).2. but is stable for ˙m gains.2 Root locus with respect to a P controller gain. for gear 1 (top figures) ˙ ˙ and gear 8 (bottom figures) with sensor on θm (left figures). as can be seen in Figure 4.40 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control ˙ Gear 1 and θm feedback ˙ Gear 1 and θw feedback 6 4 2 Imag 0 −2 −4 −6 −10 −5 0 Imag 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 −6 −10 −5 0 ˙ Gear 8 and θm feedback ˙ Gear 8 and θw feedback 15 10 5 Imag 0 −5 −10 −15 −20 −10 Real 0 Imag 15 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 −20 −10 Real 0 Figure 4. but the resonance in the drive shaft ˙ makes the wheel speed oscillate. When the engine speed sensor is used. two poles must go to infinity which makes the system unstable. Guw on the other hand has one zero. The system goes unstable when the θw gain is increased. and the gain is increased. Hence. the engine speed behaves well when the gain is increased.3 demonstrates the problem with resonances that occurs with increasing gain for the two cases of feedback. Figure 4. while the rings represents the open-loop ˙ zeros. When using θw feedback it is difficult to increase . and the closed-loop system is stable ˙ for all gains. When the velocity ˙ sensor θm is used. all θ two zeros. and the same poles. the relative degree is one. (Remember that θw is the performance output and thus desirable to use. The cross represent the open-loop poles.) The same effect can be seen in the step response when the P controller is used. the relative degree of Gum is one and Guw has a relative ˙ degree of two. This means that when θw feedback is used.

giving a resonant system. However.3 only depend on the relative degree. since the poles moves closer to the imaginary axis. θm feedback Amplitude 0. The reason for using .4. increased rise time results in instability.4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR ˙ Wheel speed.5 2 2. θm feedback Amplitude 2 1. as seen in the previous section. but an oscillating wheel speed. and are thus parameter independent. increased gain results in a well behaved engine With θ speed.2 and 4.5 Time.4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR Different sensor locations result in different control problems with different inherent characteristics. the bandwidth. [s] 3 3. The topic of this section is to show how this influences control design when using LQG/LTR. θw feedback 41 1.5 5 Figure 4.5 1 0. ˙m feedback (bottom figures).5 0 0 ˙ Wheel speed.5 4 4.5 0 80 60 40 20 0 ˙ Engine speed. and therefore a more detailed analysis is performed in the following sections.3 Step responses using a P controller with different gains on Model 1 ˙ with gear 1.5 Amplitude 1 0. this observation may depend on feedback structure. With θw feedback (top figure). The characteristic results in Figures 4. 4.5 1 1.

These have the same number of poles but different number of zeros as mentioned before. in this principle study. Using (4.16) to (4. Sw + Tw = 1 ˙ Feedback from θm ˙ The following transfer functions results if the sensor measures θm Grz Gnu = = Guw Fy Fr 1 + Gum Fy 1 1 + Gum Fy (4.30) ˙ These transfer functions corresponds to a configuration where θm is the output (i. where (4. The following transfer functions are defined Sm = 1 . ˙m ).42 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control LQG/LTR. and it is also an easy method for obtaining robust controllers.21) are used together with the matrix inversion lemma Grz Gnu = = Guw Fy Fr = T w Fr 1 + Guw Fy 1 = = Sw 1 + Guw Fy (4.31) . as usual. ˙ It is desirable to have sensitivity functions that corresponds to y = θm and ˙ z = θw .28) it is natural to define T m by y=z=θ Tm = Guw Fy Guw = Tm 1 + Gum Fy Gum (4. 4. Then among others the following transfer functions results. open-loop transfer functions Gum and Guw results. ˙ Feedback from θw ˙ A natural feedback configuration is to use the performance output. the sensitivity function and the complementary sensitivity function.e. Also.26) where n is the input disturbance.29) (4. as usual.27) The difference between the two feedback configurations is that the return difference is 1 + Guw Fy or 1 + Gum Fy . θw . Two different closed-loop systems results depending on which sensor that is used.1 Transfer Functions ˙ ˙ When comparing the control problem with using θm or θw as sensors.28) (4. is that it offers a control design method resulting in a controller and observer of the same order as the plant model. 1 + Gum Fy Tm = Gum Fy 1 + Gum Fy (4.4.25) (4. The transfer functions Sw and Tw are.

When the return ratio behaves like a first order system.27) is Sm + T m Gum =1 Guw (4. This conflicts with the design goal of having . one pole has to be moved to infinity. Limitations on Performance The relations (4. Instead. without damping and load. It could be expected that a higher control ˙ signal is needed for θw feedback in order to move the poles towards infinity. Structural Properties of Sensor Location The controller (4. ˙ ˙ being combinations of two sensor locations. as in (4.31). a good alternative is to have relative degree one in GFy . Definition 4. T m = Guw /Gum for these frequency domains. and two models with the same structure. There are (2n − 1) poles. have the same denominators.32) will be the fundamental relations for discussing design considerations. The impact of the ratio Guw /Gum will be analyzed in the following sections. Design without pre filter (Fr = 1) is considered.4.27).2 Design Example with a Simple Mass-Spring Model Linear Quadratic Design with Loop Transfer Recovery will be treated in four cases. The relative degree of Gum Fy is thus 2. but with different parameters. and the relative degree of Guw Fy is 2n.4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR 43 The functions Sm and T m describe the design problem when feedback from θm is used. and Gw/m = Guw /Gum is the dynamic output ratio. The section covers a general plant with n inertias connected by k − 1 torsional flexibilities.31) is the modified complementary sensitivity function.27) and (4. and when ˙ ˙ using θw there are no zeros. When using Gum Fy . 2n − 1 poles have to be moved to infinity. When combining (4. When considering design. and when using Guw Fy . The number of zeros depends on which sensor that is used. and the location of the poles are the same for the different sensor locations.15) has a relative degree of one. then T m will not be equal to one. Thus. implying infinite gain margin and high phase margin.1 T m in (4. the corresponding relation to (4.32) If Sm is made zero for some frequencies in (4. the transfer functions Gum and Guw . When using feedback from θm there are (2n − 2) zeros.4. and with unit conversion ratio. and a relative degree of 1 and (2n − 1) respectively. also the closed-loop transfer function behaves like one.30) and (4. in order for the ratio to resemble a first order system at high frequencies. 4.32). θm or θw .

a high frequency gain roll-off rate of 20(2n − 2) dB/decade. Gw/m (0) = 1 (if the conversion ratio is equal to one).0974.220.44 10 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control 0 −10 Gain (dB) −20 −30 −40 −50 −60 −1 10 10 0 10 Frequency (rads^−1) 1 10 2 Figure 4. k = 2.660. there is a trade-off when using θw feedback. Gw/m has a relative degree of 2n − 2 and thus.4. l = 0. b) J1 = 0. Furthermore.0280. The shape of Gw/m can be seen in Figure 4. l = 0. . where qm is the roll-off ˙ rate of Gum Fy . Hence.0244. b2 = 0. Tw will have the same roll-off rate as Guw Fy . a steep roll-off rate for the closed-loop system in order to attenuate measurement ˙ noise.0974. b1 = 0. Example 4. k = 5. Structure of Gw/m We have in the previous simple examples seen that the relative degree and the zeros are important. The dynamic output ratio contains exactly this information and nothing else. J2 = 0. c = 0. the dynamic output ratio gives the closed-loop transfer function T m a high frequency gain roll-off rate of qm + 20(2n − 2) dB/decade.80. b2 = 0. since the relative degree of Gum When using θ is one. Parametric properties of Gw/m Typical parametric properties of Gw/m can be seen in the following example. For low frequencies the dynamic output ratio has gain equal to one. Hence. J2 = 0. ˙m feedback.1 Two different plants are considered: a) J1 = 0.70. there is no trade-off. b1 = 1. with labels according to the state-space formulation in Section 4. When using θw feedback. c = 0.1.50.566.4 Gw/m for a) (solid) and b) (dashed).

this Kc is used for recovery. The design in Example 4 is shown in Figure 4. and R = 1. Kf = Pf C T V −1 and the closed-loop transfer functions S and T show satisfactory performance. where the bandwidth is lower in order to suppress the peak in Gw/m . Ma . are adjusted until the return ratio (4. and Cma results. W is adjusted (and thus Fy (s)) such that Sm and Tm ˙m ) show a satisfactory performance. and recover the satisfactory return ratio obtain previously. the bandwidth in T m is chosen such that the peak is suppressed. Kf . and that the desired bandwidth is obtained.6 and 4. If the Riccati equation AT Pc + Pc A − Pc BR−1 B T Pc + C T QC = 0 (4.4. Ba . Kc = ρC is obtained in the limit. and |S| ≤ 1. The state-space realization Aa . Note that the roll-off rate of Tw is 20 dB/decade.33) Pf AT + APf − Pf C T V −1 CPf + BW B T = 0 The covariances W and V . The remaining poles move towards infinity (compare to Section 5. This means that there is infinite gain margin. Depending on the shape of Gw/m (and thus θ for middle high frequencies. Cwa . is derived using a Riccati equation (Maciejowski 1989) (4.34) C(sI − A)−1 Kf . The parameters of the dynamic output ratio are thus important in the LQG step of the design. and to guarantee stability. ˙ Design for θw feedback.5 shows such an example. of v and e respectively.4 Driveline Control with LQG/LTR 45 LQG Designs Integral action is included by augmenting the state to attenuate step disturbances in v (Maciejowski 1989). the relative degree is one.5. In Figures 4. A simplistic LTR can be obtained by using Kc = ρC and increasing ρ. LTR The next step in the design process is to include Kc . . If there is a resonance peak in Gw/m . W is adjusted (and thus Fy (s)) such that Sw and Tw show a satisfactory performance. The Nyquist locus remains outside the unit circle centered at −1. the recovered closed-loop transfer functions. 2n − 1 poles move towards the open system zeros. When using the combined state feedback and Kalman filter. and control signal are seen. the return ratio is GFy = C(sI − A)−1 BKc (sI − A + BKc + Kf C)−1 Kf . corrections in W must be taken such that T m achieves the desired bandwidth. Note also the difference between Sw and Sm . Furthermore.35) √ is solved with Q = ρ. and a phase margin of at least 60◦ . ˙ Design for θm feedback. The Kalman-filter gain. As ρ is increased.1). Loop Transfer Recovery. Figure 4. Nyquist locus. ˙ θm feedback in b).7.

but have different relative degree and different zeros.e. a). There is a trade-off when choosing an appropriate ρ. The problem that the performance output signal is not the same . and T (right figures). b). together with a steep roll-off rate. There is no trade-off when choosing ρ. A low ρ gives good attenuation of measurement noise and a low control signal. The dynamic output ratio.5 Summary Control and damping of torsional oscillations in vehicular drivelines is an important problem. These functions have the same poles. and W = 50 (θm . ˙ ˙ Feedback from θw in solid curves. It is possible to achieve good recovery with reasonable stability margins and control signal.46 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control a) 0 Gain (dB) Gain (dB) 0 a) −20 −20 −40 −40 −60 10 0 10 b) 2 −60 10 0 10 b) 2 0 Gain (dB) Gain (dB) 0 2 0 −20 −20 −40 −40 −60 −60 10 10 Frequency (rads^−1) 10 10 Frequency (rads^−1) 0 2 Figure 4. but in order to have good stability margins. W = 5 · 104 (θm . 4. T m is seen in right figures in dash-dot curves. W = 15 (θw . and a 20 dB/decade roll-off rate in Tw for a wider frequency range. exactly captures these differences and nothing else. Different sensor locations give different transfer functions. a high ρ must be chosen. ˙ Recovery for θm feedback. and feedback from θm in dashed curves. This gives an increased control signal. the relative degrees are thus dominant in determining the LTR step of the design. W = 5 · 102 (θw . Gum or Guw . b). Gw/m . a).5 Closed-loop transfer functions S (left figures). ˙ Recovery for θw feedback. The structural properties i.

and feedback from θm in dashed ˙m design ρ = 106 curves.6 Closed-loop transfer functions S (left figures). dominate in the LTR step.4. and for the θw design ρ = 104 . T m is seen in right figures in dash-dot curves. Feedback from θw in solid curves. and 1011 is used in both a) and b). Both structural and parameter dependent aspects of sensor location have been characterized. and T (right figures) ˙ ˙ after recovery. 108 . i. whereas structural properties. . as the measured output signal is handled by introducing a modified complementary sensitivity function.e.5 Summary 47 a) 0 Gain (dB) Gain (dB) 0 a) −20 −20 −40 −40 −60 10 0 10 b) 2 −60 10 0 10 b) 2 0 Gain (dB) Gain (dB) 0 2 0 −20 −20 −40 −40 −60 −60 10 10 Frequency (rads^−1) 10 10 Frequency (rads^−1) 0 2 Figure 4. sensor location. In LQG/LTR. being modified with Gw/m . parameter dependent properties dominate in the LQG step of the design. For the θ ˙ (a) and ρ = 105 (b) is used.

is also shown in the Nyquist plots.1 0 −0.2 0.48 Chapter 4 Architectural Issues for Driveline Control a) 0. Feedback from θw in solid curves.1 0 Real Axis Gain (dB) Imag Axis 50 0 10 0 a) 50 Gain (dB) Imag Axis 0 10 b) 5 0 10 10 Frequency (rads^−1) 0 5 Figure 4.1 −0. A dash-dotted circle with radius one and centered at -1.2 0.2 −50 −0. and feedback from θm in dashed curves. and 10 is used in both a) and b).1 b) 0. .2 −50 −0.7 Nyquist plot of return ratio (left figures) and Fy /(1 + Guw Fy ) (right ˙ ˙ figures).2 −0. and for the θw design For the θ 4 8 11 ρ = 10 .2 −0.1 −0.1 0 −0. 10 . ˙ ˙m design ρ = 106 (a) and ρ = 105 (b) is used.

In todays electronically controlled engines. Beaumount. going uphill or downhill) gives a stationary 49 .1 RQV Control RQV control is the traditional diesel engine control scheme steaming from the mechanical centrifugal governor. the speed control problem keeping RQV characteristics is formulated in Section 5. Pettersson and Nielsen 1995). The sections following study the problem using available computationally powerful methods like LQG/LTR. This driving character is important to maintain when extending speed control with active damping. the RQV scheme is still used for controlling the fuel amount to the engine. The RQV control gives a specific character to the driving feeling e. and a nonzero load (e.2. influence from disturbances. known as vehicle shuffle (Mo. Sensor location.5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations Driveline oscillations may occur in different modes of operation. 5. Active damping in two modes will be treated in this and next chapter. Traditional RQV control is explained in Section 5. since the driver wants the engine to behave as with the mechanical governor. when going uphill and downhill. The first problem is wheel speed oscillations following a change in accelerator pedal position. and load estimations are treated. Traditionally in diesel powered trucks. RQV control is essentially a P controller with the accelerator as reference value and a sensor measuring the engine speed. and Powell 1996.g. Thereafter.g.1. the relation between the accelerator pedal and the amount of fuel metered by the diesel pump is governed by a system called RQV control. The RQV controller has no information about the load. used to control the diesel pump (Bosch 1993).

the high frequency roll-off rate is steeper for Model 2 than for Model 1.2. the rise time and the overshoot is increasing. The RQV controller is described by ˙ u = u0 + Kp (ri − θm ) (5.1 Consider the truck modeled in Chapters 2 and 3 traveling at a speed of 2 rad/s (3. A diesel engine can only produce torque in a certain range.) When the controller gain is increased.2) where r is the reference velocity given by the driver. z = θw .1 shows the RQV control law (5. when the gain is increased. Furthermore. Model 2 adds a second resonance peak from the clutch.2) is extended such that a large control signal adds to the cost function. 5.1 Mathematical Problem Formulation A first possible attempt for speed control is a scheme of applying the engine torque to the driveline such that the following cost function is minimized T T →∞ lim 0 (z − r)2 (5. since the plant model is linear. This chapter deals with the development of a controller based on Model 1. the engine speed behaves well. but the flexibility of the driveline causes the wheel speed to oscillate. 5. Let the new desired velocity be r = 2.2) can be made arbitrarily small if there are no restrictions on the control signal u. as defined in Chapter 4. Note that the transfer function from the load l to the performance output z is the same for the two models. and r is the reference velocity. (5. If a control law is to minimize the cost function. Figure 5. u0 is calculated such that the stationary level is the same for the three gains.2 shows the transfer functions from load and measurement disturbances v and e to the performance output. there is a trade-off between short rise time and little overshoot. Example 5.3 rad/s. The resonance peak in the transfer functions is increasing when the controller gain is increased. RQV control is demonstrated in the following example.1) applied to Model 1 with three gains Kp . In Figure 5. the wheel speed z is seen for Models 1 and 2.2 Problem Formulation ˙ The performance output for the speed controller is the wheel speed. but not the load since this is unknown to the RQV controller. In the plots.3.6 km/h) with gear 1 and a total load of 3000 Nm (≈ 2 % road slope). and therefore. Hence. Figure 5.50 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations error. then (5. . The constant u0 is a function of the speed. when the RQV controller is used. Kp is the controller gain.1) where i = it if is the conversion ratio of the driveline. Furthermore. (Otherwise there would be a gain dependent stationary error.

4 2.1 2 1. [s] 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Control signal u Figure 5.5) . B. Controller gains Kp = 8.1 RQV control (5.4) = λx θw + λl l l The stationary point is obtained by solving Ax + Bu + Hl = 0 for x and u.2 Problem Formulation ˙ Engine speed θm 51 140 Speed. l) =  i = δ x θw + δl l (5.2 2. dashed and dash-dotted lines respectively. l) = (5. The stationary point z = r is reached if a control signal u0 is used. and Kp = 85 are shown in solid.9 0 2000 Torque. [rad/s] 135 130 125 120 115 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ˙ Wheel speed θw (performance output) Speed.3) l 1 0 ˙ θw ˙ ˙ (b1 i2 + b2 )/i 1/i u0 (θw .2) to (4. Kp = 25. Increased gain results in a well behaved engine speed. This torque ˙ is a function of the reference value r and the load l.1) of Model 1. [rad/s] 2. [Nm] 1500 1000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 Time.5. H. (5.5). but an oscillating wheel speed. where A. and x is given by (4.3 2. For a given wheel speed θw and load l the driveline has the following stationary point   b2 /k 1/k ˙ θw ˙ ˙ 0  x0 (θw .

for instance. • The control signal can not exceed umin = −300 Nm or umax = 2300 Nm. By using these equations. The controller that minimizes (5. Furthermore. as mentioned before. The resonance peaks increase with increasing gain. The extended cost function is given by T T →∞ lim 0 (z − r)2 + η(u − u0 (r. • The influence from load and measurement disturbances on the performance output. the following demands should be considered. the cost function can be written such that a control signal u that deviates from the stationary value u0 (r. since the load l is included and thus compensated for. it is desirable that the stationary error characteristic for the RQV controller is maintained in the speed controller.1.6).2 Closed-loop transfer functions Gvz and Gez when using the RQV control law (5.3. A stationary error comparable with that of the RQV controller can be achieved by using only a part of the load l in the criterion (5. However.6) where η is used to control the trade-off between rise time and control signal amplitude.6) has no stationary error. . and Kp = 85 (dash-dotted). Load disturbances result from. road roughness or impulses from towed trailers. Kp = 25 (dashed).52 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations Closed-loop transfer function Gvz −80 Gain [dB] −100 −120 −140 −2 10 10 −1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 Closed-loop transfer function Gez Gain [dB] −50 −100 −150 −2 10 10 −1 10 10 Frequency [rad/s] 0 1 10 2 10 3 Figure 5. should be minimized. l) adds to the cost function. wheel speed.1) for the controller gains Kp = 8 (solid). l))2 (5. as will be demonstrated in Section 5.

u0 ).e. The problem formulation (5.6) will be treated in two steps. Model 1 is shown in solid and Model 2 is shown in dashed. First without RQV behavior i.3 Transfer functions from control signal u and load l to performance output z. using the load l.8) .6) is in this section solved with LQG technique. This is done by solving a Riccati equation.3 Speed Control with Active Damping and RQV Behavior Guz for Model 1 and 2 53 0 −50 Gain [dB] −100 −150 −200 −60 −80 Gain [dB] −100 −120 −140 −2 10 Glz for Model 1 and 2 10 −1 10 10 Frequency [rad/s] 0 1 10 2 10 3 Figure 5.6) in terms of the linearized variables.6). The linear model is ∆x = A∆x + B∆u ˙ where ∆x = ∆u x0 = = x − x0 u − u0 x0 (x30 . 5. The derived feedback law is a function of η which is chosen such that a feasible control signal is used.3 Speed Control with Active Damping and RQV Behavior The problem formulation (5. and then extending to RQV behavior. This is done by linearizing the driveline model and rewriting (5.7) is affine since it includes a constant term l.1) x = Ax + Bu + Hl ˙ (5. The model (4. l) (5. A state-feedback matrix is derived that minimizes (5. The model is linearized in the neighborhood of a stationary point (x0 .9) (5.5. The modeled clutch gives a second resonance peak and a steeper roll-off rate.

l))2 (M ∆x + r1 )2 + η(∆u + r2 )2 (5.6).11) = with T →∞ lim 0 r1 r2 = = M x0 − r u0 − u0 (r. l) (5. the cost function (5.18) . they must be stable in order to solve the Riccati equation (Maciejowski 1989). Instead the following are used r1 ˙ r2 ˙ = = −αr1 −αr2 (5. l) where the stationary point (x0 . The cost function is expressed in terms of ∆x and ∆u by using (5.10) (5.9) T T →∞ lim 0 T (M (x0 + ∆x) − r)2 + η(u0 + ∆u − u0 (r.16) By using these equations. xr = (∆xT r1 r2 )T 0 T T →∞ (5. B) with models of the constants r1 and r2 .14) which with a low α indicates that r is a slow varying constant. Ar =     −α 0  0 0 0 0 −α   B Br =  0  .13) (5. The augmented model is given by   0 0  A 0 0    0 0 . Since these models will not be controllable.4). Note that the linear model is the same for all stationary points.10) a Riccati equation is solved.10) can be written in the form lim xT Qxr + R∆u2 + 2xT N ∆u r r (5.15) (5. This can be done by augmenting the plant model (A. The problem is to devise a feedback-control law that minimizes the cost function (5.54 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations u0 = u0 (x30 .12) In order to minimize (5. Then the constants r1 and r2 must be expressed in terms of state variables.17) 0 with Q = (M 1 0)T (M 1 0) + η(0 0 0 0 1)T (0 0 0 0 1) N = η(0 0 0 0 1)T R = η (5.3) and (5. Therefore the model r1 = r2 = 0 cannot be used because the ˙ ˙ poles are located on the imaginary axis. u0 ) is given by (5.

The result is seen in Figure 5.3 Speed Control with Active Damping and RQV Behavior 55 The cost function (5.25) where η = 5 · 10−8 and α = 0. With this controller the phase margin is guaranteed to be at least 60◦ and the amplitude margin is infinity (Maciejowski 1989).4). The LQG controller can be changed such that a load different from zero gives a stationary error.230x30 + 4470r + 0. and only when using a cruise controller the stationary error should be zero.19) becomes ∆u = −Kc xr = − Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 ∆x − Kc4 r1 − Kc5 r2 (5.3) and (5. The constant βl range from βl = 0 which means no compensation for the load.0001 are used.9) and (5.24) δl − Kc4 M δl + λl Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 x (5.12) the control law is written u = K0 x30 + Kl l + Kr r − with K0 Kr Kl = = = Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 Kc4 + Kc5 λx Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 δx − Kc4 M δx + λx − Kc5 λx (5.5.21) By using (5. and the stationary error is zero if the load is known.4.3. Also the overshoot is less when using LQG control. The LQG feedback law (5.19) (5.36 x (5. There is however a demand by the driver that the load should give a stationary error.25) is a function of the load. λx . as seen in Figure 5.4. 5. and therefore a stationary error will be present when the load is different from zero. The rise time of the LQG controller is shorter than for the RQV controller.23).10) is minimized by using ∆u = −Kc ∆x with T Kc = Q−1 (Br Pc + N T ) (5.1 Extending with RQV Behavior The RQV controller has no information about the load l. The controlled driving torque makes the engine speed oscillate.125l − 7620 0.20) where Pc is the solution to the Riccati equation AT Pc + Pc Ar + R − (Pc Br + N )Q−1 (Pc Br + N )T = 0 r The control law (5.23) where δx .1 the controller gains becomes u = 0. δl .22) (5. and λl are described in (5. The driving torque is controlled such that the oscillations in the wheel speed are actively damped. This is done by using βl l instead of the complete load l in (5.0347 2. to . When this control law is applied to Example 5.

[rad/s] 140 130 120 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ˙ Wheel speed θw (performance output) Speed.56 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations ˙ Engine speed θm 150 Speed. the speed controller with active damping is extended with a stationary error comparable with that of the RQV controller. x2 = θm . With active damping. resulting in a well behaved wheel speed. By adjusting βl . The compensated LQG control law becomes u = K0 x30 + Kl βl l + Kr r − Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 x (5.4 2.3 rad/s) is compared to the compensated LQG controller (5.9 0 2000 Torque.1) with Kp = 25 is seen in dashed lines.5. RQV control (5. [rad/s] 2. This is not possible if only .4 Influence from Sensor Location The LQG controller investigated in the previous section uses feedback from all ˙ ˙ states (x1 = θm /it if − θw .3 2.1 for three values of βl . and x3 = θw ).1 2 1.26) applied to Example 5.4 Model 1 controlled with the LQG control law (5.25). 5. [s] 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Control signal u Figure 5. βl = 1 which means fully compensation of the load and no stationary error. the engine speed oscillates.26) In Figure 5. the RQV controller with its stationary error (remember the reference value r = 2. [Nm] 1500 1000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 Time.2 2.

0.3 2. The LQG controller achieves the same stationary as the RQV controller by adjusting βl .27) with K0 .23) then becomes u = K0 x30 + Kr r + Kl l − Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 x ˆ (5.05 2 1. The observer gain is calculated using LTR technique. The output matrix C is either equal to Cm (4.4 Influence from Sensor Location 57 2.12) when measuring the wheel speed.2 2.1) in dashed line.5 Example 5.29) where Pf is found by solving the Riccati equation Pf AT + APf − Pf C T V −1 CPf + W = 0 (5. and the LQG controller with stationary error (5. The sensor either ˙ ˙ measures the engine speed θm or the wheel speed θw . Kr . 1. and Kl given by (5.25 Speed. or Cw (4.15 2.1 2. .35 2.95 0 1 2 3 4 Time.28) (5.5.11) when measuring the engine speed. [s] 5 6 7 8 Figure 5. one sensor is used.30) The covariance matrices W and V corresponds to v and e respectively. which is the case considered in this work.5. [rad/s] 2.1 controlled with the RQV controller (5. Then two different observer problems results depending on which sensor location that is used. In this section an observer is used to estimate the rest of the states. The LQG feedback law (5.26) with βl = 0. The estimated states x are given by the ˆ Kalman filter ˙ ∆x ˆ Kf x = A∆ˆ + B∆u + Kf (∆y − C∆ˆ) x T −1 = Pf C V (5.24).

Hence. or Cw for wheel speed feedback. By using the matrix inversion lemma (4. This is obtained also when using the observer by increasing ρ towards infinity. There is a resonance peak in Gvz when using feedback from the engine speed sensor.35) with C either as Cm for engine speed feedback.20). 5.15) as Fy (s) = Kc (sI − A + BKc + Kf C)−1 Kf (5. This is done by selecting V = 1 (5.34) becomes (Gvz )cl = Gvw 1 + Guw Fy (5.34) mean the output of the system.36) . However. When using LQG with feedback from all states. which is not present when feedback from the wheel speed sensor is used. and cl stands for closed ˙ ˙ loop.31) W = ρBB T C = Cm or Cw ρ = ρm or ρw and solving (5.0 (5. the observer dynamics will be included in the transfer functions from disturbances both to z and u.6 shows how the performance output and the control signal are affected by the load disturbance v.9◦ . For Example 5.30) for Kf .33) where the aim has been to have at least 60◦ phase margin. these transfer functions are not affected by the sensor location. The observer dynamics is cancelled in the transfer function from reference value to performance output and control signal.58 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations Loop-Transfer Recovery (LTR) is used to recover the properties achieved in the previous design step when all states are measured. i.20) is rewritten as (Gvz )cl = Gvz + Fy (Guy Gvz − Guz Gvy ) 1 + Guy Fy (5.4. ˙ For the speed controller (z = θw ). The controller Fy is given by (4. am = ∞ 1014 ⇒ ϕw = 59.e. Equation (5. The reason to this can be seen when studying the transfer function Gvz in (4. the phase margin ϕ is at least 60◦ and the amplitude margin a is infinity as stated before.29) and (5.34) where Gab means the transfer function from signal a to b.1 Influence from Load Disturbances Figure 5.5◦ .32) (5. aw = 35. either θw or θm . The signal y in (5.1 the following values are used ρm ρw = = 5 · 105 ⇒ ϕm = 60.

5.4 Influence from Sensor Location
Closed-loop transfer function Gvz
−80 Gain [dB] −100 −120 −140 10
−2

59

10

−1

10

0

10

1

10

2

10

3

Closed-loop transfer function Gvu
0

Gain [dB]

−50

−100

−150 −2 10

10

−1

10 10 Frequency [rad/s]

0

1

10

2

10

3

Figure 5.6 Closed-loop transfer functions from load disturbance v to performance ˙ output z and control signal u. Feedback from θw is shown in solid and feedback ˙ ˙m is shown in dashed lines. With θm feedback the transfer functions have a from θ resonance peak, resulting from the open-loop zeros. when the sensor measures the wheel speed, and (Gvz )cl = Gvw + Fy (Gum Gvw − Guw Gvm ) 1 + Gum Fy (5.37)

when the sensor measures the engine speed. Hence, when using the wheel speed sensor, the controller is cancelled in the numerator, and when the engine speed sensor is used, the controller is not cancelled. The optimal return ratio in the LQG step is Kc (sI − A)−1 B (5.38)

Hence the poles from A is kept, but there are new zeros that are placed such that the relative degree of (5.38) is one, the phase margin is at least 60◦ , and the gain margin is infinite. In the LTR step the return ratio is Fy Guy = Kc (sI − A − BKc − Kf C)−1 Kf C(sI − A)−1 B (5.39)

When ρ in (5.31) is increased towards infinity, (5.38) equals (5.39). This means that the zeros in the open-loop system C(sI − A)−1 B are cancelled by the controller. Hence, the open-loop zeros will become poles in the controller Fy . This means that

60

Chapter 5

Speed Controller Design and Simulations

Closed-loop transfer function Gez
0 Gain [dB]

−50

−100

−150 −2 10

10

−1

10

0

10

1

10

2

10

3

Closed-loop transfer function Geu
100 Gain [dB]

50

0 10
−2

10

−1

10 10 Frequency [rad/s]

0

1

10

2

10

3

Figure 5.7 Closed-loop transfer functions from measurement noise e to perfor˙ mance output z and control signal u. Feedback from θw is shown in solid and ˙m is shown in dashed. The difference between the two feedback feedback from θ principles is described by the dynamic output ratio. The effect increases with lower gears. the closed-loop system will have the open-loop zeros as poles when using the engine speed sensor. This means that the Gvz will have the poles −0.5187 ± 3.0753i which causes the resonance peak in Figure 5.6.

5.4.2

Influence from Measurement Disturbances

The influence from measurement disturbances e is seen in Figure 5.7. The transfer functions from measurement noise (4.21) can be rewritten with the matrix inversion lemma as Guz Fy (5.40) (Gez )cl = − 1 + Guy Fy The complementary sensitivity function is defined for the two sensor alternatives as Tw = Then (Gez )cl = ˙ −Tw with θw feedback (5.42) Guw Fy Gum Fy , Tm = 1 + Guw Fy 1 + Gum Fy (5.41)

5.4 Influence from Sensor Location

61

0

−20

−40 Gain [dB] −60 −80 −100 −2 10

10

−1

10 10 Frequency [rad/s]

0

1

10

2

10

3

Figure 5.8 The dynamic output ratio Gw/m for gear 1 (solid), gear 7 (dashed), and gear 14 (dash-dotted). (Gez )cl = −Tm Guw ˙ = Tm Gw/m with θm feedback Gum (5.43)

where the dynamic output ratio Gw/m was defined in Definition 4.1. For Model 1 the dynamic output ratio is Gw/m = cs + k i(J2 s2 + (c + b2 )s + k) (5.44)

where the state-space description in Chapter 4 is used. Especially for low frequencies, Gw/m (0) = 1/i = 1/it if . The dynamic output ratio can be seen in Figure 5.8 for three gears. When ρ in (5.31) is increased towards infinity, (5.38) equals (5.39). Then (5.42) and (5.43) gives (5.45) (Gez )cl,m = (Gez )cl,w Gw/m ˙ ˙ where cl, m and cl, w means closed loop with feedback from θm and θw respectively. The frequency range in which the Tm = Tw is valid depends on how large ρ in (5.31) is made. Figure 5.9 shows the sensitivity functions Sw = 1 1 , Sm = 1 + Guw Fy 1 + Gum Fy (5.46)

and the complementary sensitivity functions Tw and Tm (5.41) for the two cases of feedback. It is seen that Tm = Tw is valid up to about 16 Hz. The roll-off rate at

The load is hard to model correctly since it is a function of road slope. and Gum has a relative degree of one. Therefore.48) . The augmented model is x4 = l.62 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations 10 0 −10 −20 Gain [dB] −30 −40 −50 −60 −70 −2 10 10 −1 10 10 Frequency [rad/s] 0 1 10 2 10 3 Figure 5. When only ˙ one velocity is measured.4. Tw has a steeper roll-off rate than Tm . 5.3 Load Estimation u = K0 x30 + Kr r + Kl ˆ − l The feedback law with unknown load is Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 x ˆ (5. The dash-dotted lines correspond to the case with all states known.47) where ˆ is the estimated load. Guw has a relative degree of two.9 Sensitivity function S and complementary sensitivity function T . lines correspond to θ higher frequencies differ between the two feedback principles. Hence. the difference in Gez depending on sensor location is described by the dynamic output ratio Gw/m . This is due to that the open-loop transfer functions Guw and Gum have a different relative degree. the model used in the l Kalman filter is augmented with a model of the load. this effect increases with lower gears. Therefore. the solid lines correspond to θw feedback. and the dashed ˙m feedback. The difference in low frequency level is equal to the conversion ratio of the driveline. However it can be treated as a slow varying constant. with x4 = 0 ˙ (5. In order to estimate the load.

5.5 Simulations

63

r

Vehicle
Model 3: (2.49) to (2.51)

˙ z (θw ) ˙ ˙ y (θw or θm )

Controller
Design based on Model 1 Control law (5.27) Observer (5.28)

Figure 5.10 Simulation configuration. As a step for demonstrating feasibility for real implementation, Model 3 is simulated with the controller based on Model 1. This gives ˙ ˆ ˆ x = Al xl + Bl u + Kf (y − Cl xl ) ˆ with xl ˆ Al =     0 Bl The feedback law is u = K0 x30 + Kr r − Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 −Kl xl ˆ (5.53) = B 0 x ˆ , ˆ l A 0 , 0  (5.50) (5.49)

=

0  0 , −1/J2  0 C 0

(5.51)

Cl =

(5.52)

5.5

Simulations

An important step in demonstrating feasibility for real implementation is that a controller behaves well when simulated on a more complicated vehicle model than it was designed for. Here, the control law based on the reduced driveline model is simulated with a more complete nonlinear model, derived in Chapter 2. The purpose is also to study effects from different sensor locations as discussed in Section 5.4. The simulation situation is seen in Figure 5.10. The nonlinear Model 3, given by (2.49) to (2.51), is used as vehicle model. The steady-state level for Model 3 is calculated by solving the model equations for the equilibrium point when the load and speed are known. The controller used is based on Model 1, as seen in the previous sections. The wheel speed or the engine speed is input to the observer (5.28), and the control law (5.27) with βl = 0 generates the control signal.

64

Chapter 5

Speed Controller Design and Simulations

The simulation case presented here is the same as in Example 5.1, i.e. a velocity step response. The stationary point is given by ˙ θw = 2, l = 3000 ⇒ x0 = 0.0482 119 2.00 , u0 = 109 (5.54)

˙ where (5.3) and (5.4) are used, and the desired new speed is θw = 2.3 rad/s. At steady state, the clutch transfers the torque u0 = 109 Nm. This means that the clutch angle is in the area with higher stiffness (θc1 < θc ≤ θc2 ) in the clutch nonlinearity, seen in Figure 2.7. This is a typical driving situation when speed control is used. However, at low clutch torques (θc < θc1 ) the clutch nonlinearity can produce limit cycle oscillations (Bj¨rnberg, Pettersson, and Nielsen 1996). This o situation occurs when the truck is traveling downhill with a load of the same size as the friction in the driveline, resulting in a low clutch torque. This is however not treated here. At t = 6 s, a load impulse disturbance is simulated. The disturbance is generated as a square pulse with 0.1 s width and 1200 Nm height. In order to simulate the nonlinear model, the differential equations (2.49) to (2.51) are scaled such that the five differential equations (one for each state) have about the same magnitude. The model is simulated using Runge Kutta (45) (Simulink 1993) with a low step size to catch the effect of the nonlinearity. Figures 5.11 to 5.13 show the result of the simulation. These should be compared with the same control law applied to Model 1 in Figure 5.4. From these plots it is demonstrated that the performance does not critically depend on the

2.35 2.3 2.25 Speed, [rad/s] 2.2 2.15 2.1 2.05 2 1.95 0

1

2

3

4

5 Time, [s]

6

7

8

9

10

Figure 5.11 Wheel speed when controlling Model 3 with the LQG control law ˙ (5.27) derived from Model 1. The solid line corresponds to θw feedback and feed˙m is seen in dashed line. At t = 6 s, an impulse disturbance v acts on back from θ the load. The design still works when simulated with extra clutch dynamics.

5.5 Simulations

65

1600 1400 1200 1000 Torque, [Nm] 800 600 400 200 0 −200 −400 0

1

2

3

4

5 Time, [s]

6

7

8

9

10

Figure 5.12 Control signal corresponding to Figure 5.11. There is no difference between the two sensor alternatives in the step response at t = 1 s. However, the load impulse (at t = 6 s) generates a control signal that damps the impulse disturbance when feedback from the wheel speed sensor is used, but not with engine speed feedback.

Angle difference, [rad]

θc1

0

1

2

3

4

5 Time, [s]

6

7

8

9

10

Figure 5.13 Clutch angle difference corresponding to Figure 5.11. The influence from the clutch nonlinearity can be neglected, because the area with low stiffness (θc < θc1 ) is never entered.

In conclusion. An increased controller gain results in more wheel speed oscillations while the engine speed behaves well. To solve the criterion. The area with low stiffness in the clutch nonlinearity (θc < θc1 ) is never entered. This effect increases with lower gears. there is no active damping of wheel speed oscillations. even though there are sensor choices. the use of active damping significantly improves the behavior for both sensor cases. The design still works if the extra dynamics are added.66 Chapter 5 Speed Controller Design and Simulations simplified model structure. Simulations show that the performance of the design. a linear driveline model with drive shaft flexibility. based on the simplified model. RQV control is the traditional way speed control is performed in diesel engines. The load impulse disturbance is better attenuated with feedback from the wheel speed sensor. which is a verification of the behavior that was discussed in Section 5. A major contribution in this chapter is a formulation of a criterion for speed control with active damping of wheel speed oscillations and a stationary error giving RQV behavior. the formulation is natural. RQV control gives a certain driving character with a load dependent stationary error when going uphill or downhill. The difference between these two is described by the dynamic output ratio. Load disturbances are thus better attenuated with this feedback configuration. 5. An investigation of the influence from different sensor locations on the control design shows that when using LQG/LTR the open-loop zeros are cancelled by the controller.6 Summary Speed control with active damping and RQV behavior has been proposed in this chapter. When feedback from the wheel speed sensor is used. Two different closed-loop transfer functions result. with a nonlinear clutch characteristics. . Further. Measurement disturbances are better attenuated when the engine speed sensor is used. and parameters estimated from experiments are used. because the open-loop transfer function has a resonant zero couple. This results in undamped load disturbances when engine speed feedback is used. no resonant open-loop poles are cancelled. With engine speed feedback this is critical. than when using the wheel speed sensor.4. resulting in vehicle shuffle. depending on feedback configuration. works well for a more complicated model. Further evidence supporting this is seen in Figure 5. it allows efficient solution. and there is a simple tuning of the amount of RQV feeling.13. It is shown that this zero couple becomes poles of the transfer functions from load disturbances to wheel speed. With RQV.

Following that. and thus seriously increasing the total time needed for a gear shift. whereafter neutral gear is engaged. the new gear is engaged. If the automatic gear shifting system is to work with a clutch and a manually shifted transmission.6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations Traditionally a gear shift is performed by disengaging the clutch.e. changing its velocity. i. The observation that the vehicle is free rolling. when obtaining gear shift conditions shows that the desired control goal is not a stationary point. This is because the system has to wait until satisfactory gear shift conditions are reached. since there is no torque. neutral gear is engaged when the transmission transfers zero torque. the vehicle is free rolling which may be serious with heavy loads and large road slopes. In todays traffic it is desired to have an automatic gear shifting system. which has to be handled. In this case the engine is controlled such that the torque in the transmission is zero. 67 . • The gear shift is performed with a microprocessor controlling the clutch and the shift event. and engaging the clutch again. where the complete shift action is controlled by a microprocessor. • The gear shift is performed without using the clutch (Orehall 1995). The engine speed is then controlled to the propeller shaft speed (scaled with the new conversion ratio). It is clear that driveline oscillations is an important performance limiting factor if they are not damped out. shifting to a new gear. one of the following strategies can be taken. One reason this is not acceptable is that. When using the second approach. engaging neutral gear. and then the speed controller controls the driveline to the speed demanded by the driver.

1.68 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations This chapter is devoted to study a new idea that the transmission torque can be estimated and controlled to zero while having active damping. A cog wheel is mounted at the end of the input shaft which is connected to a cog wheel mounted on the output shaft.1. The influence from load and measurement disturbances should be minimized. the gear-shift controller should still drive the transmission torque to zero.2 Transmission Torque The performance output z for the gear-shift controller is the torque transmitted between the cog wheels in the transmission.4. The conversion ratio between these are it . A model of the transmission is developed and the torque transmitted in the transmission is modeled as a function of the states and the control signal in Section 6. Influence from sensor location and simulations are presented in the sections following. as mentioned in Chapter 2.5. θm = θ c . Some first primitive attempts are then discussed in Section 6. 6.3. The output shaft is also connected to bearings with the viscous friction component bt2 . and its treatment in Section 6.1 Problem Formulation The gear-shift controller is the controller that drives the transmission torque to zero.2.1) (6.12) Mc = Mt .1 Transmission Torque for Model 1 ¨ Jm θm = Mm − Mf r:m − Mc (6. A more detailed study of the transmission is depicted in Figure 6. the formulation of the gear-shift control criterion in Section 6. Here.1) together with (2.2) 6.3) (6. in light of the simplistic attempts in Section 6. The control signal is restricted to be in the interval between umin = −300 Nm and umax = 2300 Nm. while damping oscillations. The problem formulation is further discussed in Section 6. the input shaft is connected to bearings with a viscous friction component bt1 .2. The time it takes for a gear shift should be possible to optimize. If a gear shift is commanded when the driveline is oscillating.4) By using (2. A key result in this chapter is.3. 6. Two equations describe the inputs and outputs of the transmission ¨ Jt1 θc ¨ Jt2 θt = = ˙ Mt − bt1 θc − z ˙ it z − bt2 θt − Mp (6.

5).7) ˙ ˙ −k(θm /it if − θw )/it if −c(θm /it if − θw )/it if From this it is possible to express the performance output as a function of the control signal u and the state variables x.1 The performance output for Model 1 is z = M x + Du with .25) ¨ (Jm + Jt /i2 + Jf /i2 i2 )θm t t f = ˙ Mm − Mf r:m − (bt /i2 + bf /i2 i2 )θm t t f −k(θm /it if − θw )/it if ˙ ˙ −c(θm /it if − θw )/it if (6.6.1) is expressed in terms of engine speed ¨ ˙ (Jm + Jt1 )θm = Mm − Mf r:m − bt1 θm − z (6. The cogwheels are connected to the input and output shaft respectively. equation (6.6) which together with u = Mm − Mf r:m gives ˙ u − bt1 θm − z = Jm + Jt1 Jm + Jt /i2 + Jf /i2 i2 t t f ˙ Mm − Mf r:m − (bt /i2 + bf /i2 i2 )θm t t f (6.2 Transmission Torque 69 Transmission Jt1 bt1 θc Mt θt Jt2 bt2 Mp Input shaft Output shaft Figure 6.5) ¨ To describe the performance output in terms of state variables. θm (which is not a state variable) is replaced with (2. Definition 6. according to the state-space description (4.1 Transmission with two cogwheels with conversion ratio it .2) to (4.

the equation for the transmission is ¨ ˙ (Jt1 i2 + Jt2 )θm = i2 Mc − it Mp − (bt1 i2 + bt2 )θm t t t (6. clutch.1) and (6. Assumption 6.16) .15) (6.4) is used.11) (6. corresponding to neutral gear.12) gives Jt1 bt1 = = Jt 1 + i2 t bt 1 + i2 t (6. Then a model including the engine. and the input shaft of the transmission results.8) D = 1− Jm + Jt1 J1 where the labels from (4.12) For the rest of this chapter the following assumption about the parameters in the transmission is used.11) and (6. If z is eliminated in (6.5) are used.2) and (6. in which the performance output z is equal to zero. The other parameters are estimated in Chapter 3.9) By comparing this with the equation describing the transmission in Chapter 2.15) ¨ ˙ (6. the estimated combinations of parameters from Model 1 are J1 b1 = = Jm + Jt /i2 + Jf /i2 i2 t t f bt /i2 t + bf /i2 i2 t f (6. One way of estimating these unknowns would be to decouple Model 1 into two models.8) are Jm + Jt1 and bt1 . Trials with neutral gear would then give a possibility to estimate the unknowns. (2. The unknown parameters in (6.14) In Chapter 3.70 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations  MT =   (Jm +Jt1 )k J1 i Jm +Jt1 (b1 + c/i2 ) J1 +J − (JmJ1 it1 )c   − bt1  (6.13) (6. In the derivation of Model 1 in Chapter 2 the performance output z is eliminated.1 Jt1 = Jt2 and bt1 = bt2 .10) Jt θm = i2 Mc − bt θm − it Mp t the following equations relating the parameters are obtained Jt bt = = i2 Jt1 + Jt2 t i2 bt1 + bt2 t (6. Then (6.

2 Transmission Torque 71 From (6.18) For low gears (it large).25) MT = .2.1) by equation (2.2 Transmission Torque for Model 2 The performance output expressed for Model 2 is given by replacing Mt in (6.39) ˙ ˙ Mc = Mt = kc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) (6.45) ¨ (Jt + Jf /i2 )θt f = ˙ ˙ it kc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) ˙ −(bt + bf /i2 )θt − f 1 if (6.20) 6. and since Jf and bf are considerably less than J1 and b1 .19) (6.24) leading to Definition 6.17) A combination of (6. the following assumptions are used Jm + Jt1 bt1 i2 t 1 + i2 t i2 t ≈ b1 1 + i2 t ≈ J1 (6.22) ˙ ˙ kd (θt /if − θw ) + cd (θt /if − θw ) (6.14) and (6.23) (6.6.2 The performance output for Model 2 is z = M x with         J i2 kc (1 − t12 t ) J Jt1 it kd J2 if J i2 cc (1 − t12 t ) J Jt1 i2 2 t (it cc + b2 + cd /i2 ) − cc it f J2 − Jt12iitfcd J        − bt1 it  (6.16) gives bt1 bt1 = (6.15) Jm + Jt1 can be derived Jm + Jt1 = = Jt i2 t 2 2 2 = Jm + 1 + i2 (J1 − Jm − Jf /it if ) 1 + it t 1 i2 1 t + J1 − Jf 2 Jm 1 + i2 1 + i2 if (1 + i2 ) t t t Jm + bt i2 t 2 2 2 = 1 + i2 (b1 − bf /it if ) 1 + it t (6.21) Then the performance output is ˙ ˙ ˙ ¨ z = kc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) − bt1 it θt − Jt1 it θt This is expressed in terms of state variables by using (2.13) and (6.

30) (6.33) The parameters not estimated in the definition above are approximated in the same way as for the performance output for Model 2. θw )     Jt1 i2 t J2 Jt1 it kd J2 if J i2 cc (1 − t12 t ) J Jt1 i2 2 2 t J2 (it cc + b2 + cd /if ) − cc it Jt1 it cd − J2 if 1−        − bt1 it  (6. θm .28) (6. θt .8).48). given by (2.31) = = i2 t (J2 − Jf /i2 ) f 1 + i2 t i2 t (b2 − bf /i2 ) f 1 + i2 t (6.3 Transmission Torque for Model 3 The performance output for Model 3 is derived in the same way as for Model 2.2.3 The performance output for Model 3 is     ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ z = (Mkc . In Chapter 3.72 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations with states and labels according to to the state-space description (4. (6. (6.6) to (4. J2 b2 = = Jt + Jf /i2 f bt + bf /i2 f (6. .26) (6. and (6.32) where Mkc is the torque transmitted by the clutch nonlinearity.21) is replaced by ˙ ˙ Mc = Mt = Mkc (θm − θt it ) + cc (θm − θt it ) (6. Then the performance output is defined as Definition 6. 6.13) . Jt1 and bt1 can be derived as Jt1 bt1 which are approximated to Jt1 bt1 ≈ ≈ i2 t J2 1 + i2 t i2 t b2 1 + i2 t (6. θt /if − θw . the following combinations of parameters from Model 2 are estimated.14) . with the difference that (6.27).29) since Jf and bf are considerably less than J1 and b1 .26).27) From (6.

25) during Trial 1 are shown from the parameter estimation of the linear Models 1 and 2. The difference at higher frequencies is a result from the clutch which gives a second resonance peak for Model 2.3 shows the performance output in the frequency domain.1 Unconstrained Active Damping A first attempt is to study the performance output.8) and (6. 6. the roll-off rate of Model 2 is steeper than for Model 1. z = M x + Du. [s] 10 15 Figure 6. (6.8).2 the performance output (6.3.34) . [Nm] 100 0 −100 −200 −300 −400 0 5 Time. with M and D given by (6. If u is chosen as u = −D−1 M x z = 0 is guaranteed. The solid line corresponds to Model 1 and the dashed line corresponds to Model 2. Figure 6. A control law can be derived since z includes the control signal and D is scalar.2 Transmission torque z from parameter estimation of Model 1 and Model 2 on data from Trial 1.3 Preliminary Trials 73 500 400 300 200 Torque.6. and the main reason to this is the difficulties to estimate the viscous damping coefficients described in Chapter 3. to study gear-shift control. The low frequency level differs between the two models.3 Preliminary Trials Two preliminary trials will be performed in this section. Furthermore. Comparison In Figure 6. 6.

34). x30 = 3. it would be desirable to use an control law which also considers that the control signal must be in a certain interval. u0 = 138 (6. To deal with this situation. while the engine speed is oscillating. Model 1 is shown in solid and Model 2 is shown in dashed.4 km/h) with gear 1 and a total load of 3000 Nm (≈ 2 % road slope). The modeled clutch adds a second resonance peak and a steeper roll-off rate.00 .34) generates a control signal that is impossible for the engine to generate. Unconstrained active damping (6. The stationary point is obtained by using (5.1 Consider the truck modeled in Chapters 2 and 3 traveling at a speed of 3 rad/s (5.35) In Figure 6. A second attempt is to explicitly handle the expected vehicle behavior (free rolling) . control signal u. since the speed is decreasing.0511 178 3. and wheel speed is seen when the control signal is chosen as in (6.3) and (5.3 Transfer functions from control signal u and load l to transmission torque z. l = 3000 ⇒ x0 = 0.4).4 the resulting transmission torque z. engine. 6.2 Undamped Gear-Shift Condition The previous approach is not realizable because of the unrealistic control signal. The wheel speed decreases linearly. Example 6. This means that the vehicle is free rolling which can be critical if lasting too long. It can be noted that despite z = 0 is achieved this is not an stationary point.74 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations Guz for Model 1 and 2 0 Gain [dB] −50 −100 −20 −40 Gain [dB] −60 −80 −100 −2 10 Glz for Model 1 and 2 10 −1 10 10 Frequency [rad/s] 0 1 10 2 10 3 Figure 6. Unconstrained active damping is achieved which obtains z = 0 instantaneously.3.

34) drives the transmission torque to zero.8 2.25) and (2. z.6.5 1 1. [Nm] 40 30 20 10 0 −10 0 0.4 Unconstrained active damping of Model 1. . Then by ˙ ˙ using θm = θw i. the control law (6.5 0 0. [s] 2 170 165 160 155 150 145 0 2.7 3 Figure 6. [Nm] Torque.1 180 175 [rad/s] [rad/s] 0. This control law is thus derived by considering a stiff driveline.5 1 1. [s] 2 2.3 Preliminary Trials Transmission torque z Engine torque u 75 60 50 Torque.5 2 ˙ Engine speed θm ˙ Wheel speed θw 3. the differential equation.26). when the transmission torque. The wheel speed decreases linearly. describing the stiff driveline is ¨ ˙ (J1 i + J2 /i)θw = u − (b1 i + b2 /i)θw − l/i (6. The oscillations in the transmission torque are damped with an unrealizable control signal. and solving for z = 0. is zero. and eliminating ˙ ˙ the torque transmitted by the drive shaft.5 Time.36) This equation is developed by using Model 1 in (2.36) results. k(θm /i − θw ) + c(θm /i − θw ).6 2. (6.5 Time. but without using active damping.9 2. By using the labels according to Chapter 4. At t = 1 s.5 1 1.5 2 0 −5000 −10000 −15000 0 0.5 1 1.

The transmission torque is estimated and controlled to zero with active damping.4 Gear-Shift Control Criterion Neither of the two approaches in the previous section solve the problem satisfactory. prevents the control signal from having large deviations from the undamped gear-shift condition ushif t . .37) Combining (6. If the driveline is stiff.38) J1 i2 + J2 J1 i2 + J2 J1 i2 + J2 The control signal to force z = 0 is given by solving (6. The performance of this approach is worse if the driveline is oscillating at the time for the gear shift. the point at which the cost function is zero is no stationary point. The criterion is formulated such that active damping is obtained with a control law whose deviation from the undamped gear-shift condition (6. l))2 ˙ (M x + Du)2 + η(u − µx θw − µl l)2 (6.76 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations Equation (6.5 shows Example 6. since the speed of the vehicle will decrease despite z = 0 and u = ushif t . and at the same time. ˙ ushif t (θw . The idea is formulated as a cost criterion which uses a combination of the two previous approaches.36) and (6.37) gives the performance output for the stiff driveline. z = (1 − (Jm + Jt1 )i (Jm + Jt1 )i (Jm + Jt1 )i2 ˙ )u − (bt1 i − (b1 i2 + b2 ))θw + l (6. but the oscillations introduced are not damped. l) µx µl = = = ˙ µx θw + µl l with (Jm + Jt1 )i (Jm + Jt1 )i2 −1 (b1 i2 + b2 ))(1 − ) (6.40) = T →∞ lim 0 The controller that minimizes this cost function damps oscillation (since the first parenthesis is minimized). This control law achieves z = 0 with a realizable control signal. Let the cost function be T T →∞ lim 0 T ˙ z 2 + η(u − ushif t (θw . Furthermore.39). 6.40). The tradeoff is controlled by η. In this section a new idea for gear-shift control is formulated.38) for u while z = 0.39) adds to the cost function.1 applied to Model 1 controlled with the undamped gear-shift condition (6. there is no difference between the two parenthesis in (6.5) expressed in terms of wheel speed is ˙ ¨ z = u − bt1 iθw − (Jm + Jt1 )iθw (6. Therefore. the time needed to fulfill the gear-shift condition is not optimized.39) 2+J J1 i J1 i2 + J2 2 (Jm + Jt1 )i (Jm + Jt1 )i2 −1 − (1 − ) J1 i2 + J2 J1 i2 + J2 (bt1 i − Figure 6.

Undamped oscillations in the transmission torque increase the time needed to fulfill the gear-shift condition. The derived feedback law is a function of η which is chosen such that a feasible control signal is used. by solving a Riccati equation. a gear shift is commanded.5 Gear-Shift Control Design The new idea for gear-shift control is in this section given efficient treatment by solving (6.5 Gear-Shift Control Design Transmission torque z Engine torque u 77 200 60 Torque.40) in terms of the linearized variables. A state-feedback matrix is derived that minimizes (6.5 1 0.40).3.5 2 1.39).9) in Section 5. [Nm] Torque.8) and (5. 6. At t = 1 s. This is done by linearizing the driveline model and rewriting (6.5 3 150 [rad/s] [rad/s] 2 4 Time. [Nm] 2 4 6 8 40 20 0 −20 −40 0 150 100 50 0 −50 −100 −150 0 2 4 6 8 ˙ Engine speed θm ˙ Wheel speed θw 200 3.5 Model 1 controlled with the undamped gear-shift condition (6.5 100 50 0 0 0 0 2 4 Time. The linearized driveline model is given by (5.6. The speed dependent realizable control signal drives the transmission torque to zero. [s] 6 8 Figure 6. using available software. The . [s] 6 8 2.40) for a control law by using LQG technique.

9) T T →∞ lim + = with η(∆u − µx ∆x3 + u0 − µx x30 − µl l)2 T T →∞ 0 (M ∆x + D∆u + M x0 + Du0 )2 lim 0 (M ∆x + D∆u + r1 )2 + η(∆u − µx ∆x3 + r2 ) (6.21).48) Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 x (6.45) where Pc is the solution to the Riccati equation (5.41) can be written in the form T T →∞ lim 0 xT Qxr + R∆u2 + 2xT N ∆u r r (6. This was done in (5.44) (6.41) r1 r2 = = M x0 + Du0 u0 − µx x30 − µl l (6.16).42) The constants r1 and r2 are expressed as state variables.13) to (5.49) .78 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations cost function is expressed in terms of ∆x and ∆u by using (5.47)  1 − Kc4 D − Kc5 Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 − Kc4 M  Kc5 (6.43) is minimized by the state-feedback gain T Kc = Q−1 (Br Pc + N T ) (6. B) with models of the constants r1 and r2 .42) gives u = K0 x30 + Kl l − with K0 Kl where Γ is  Γ= = = λx λl δx δl µx µl Γ Γ (6. the cost function (6. by augmenting the plant model (A.46) ∆u = −Kc xr = − Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 ∆x − Kc4 r1 − Kc5 r2 using (6.43) with Q = (M 1 0)T (M 1 0) + η(0 0 − µx 0 1)T (0 0 − µx 0 1) N = (M 1 0)T D + η(0 0 − µx 0 1)T R = D2 + η The cost function (6. The resulting control law is (6. By using these equations.

A realizable control signal is used such that the transmission torque is driven to zero. and µ given by (5. [s] 3 4 160 140 120 100 0 3.0207 −1.50). active damping is obtained with a realizable control signal.2521 x (6. With this controller the phase margin is guaranteed to be at least 60◦ and the amplitude margin is infinity (Maciejowski 1989).6 Model 1 controlled with the LQG-control law (6.40). δ. By solving the gear-shift criterion (6. [Nm] 100 0 −100 −200 ˙ Engine speed θm ˙ Wheel speed θw 200 180 [rad/s] [rad/s] 1 2 Time. while oscillations are actively damped. and (6.3). The control law is a function of η which is chosen such that the control signal is feasible.5 2 1. solving the gearshift criterion (6. with λ.37 · 10−4 x30 − 0.5 0 1 2 Time.5 Gear-Shift Control Design Transmission torque z Engine torque u 79 200 60 50 Torque.6.0327l − 4. The result is seen in Figure 6.1 the controller gains becomes u = 2. a gear shift is commanded. (5. . [s] 3 4 Figure 6.0001 are used.5 3 2. When this control law is applied to Example 6.40).39). [Nm] 40 30 20 10 0 −10 0 1 2 3 4 −300 0 1 2 3 4 Torque.50) where η = 0. At t = 1 s.6.2123 0.03 and α = 0.4).

This is obtained also when using the observer by increasing ρ towards infinity.47) becomes u = K0 x30 + Kl l − Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 x ˆ (6.48).7 shows how the performance output and the control signal are affected by the load disturbance v. aw = 2.6 Influence from Sensor Location The LQG controller investigated in the previous section uses feedback from all ˙ ˙ states (x1 = θm /it if − θw . The closed-loop transfer function Gvu is given by (Gvu )cl = − Fy Gvy 1 + Fy Guy (6.8) is not equal to zero.55) ⇒ ϕw = 74. which is the case considered in this work. x2 = θm . 6. The observer gain is calculated using LTR technique. However. and the amplitude margin a is infinity. In this section an observer is used to estimate the rest of the states.4.56) .4 it was shown that for the speed controller. as stated before. The unknown load can be estimated as in Section 5. When using the LQG with feedback from all states.52) (6.3.1 the following values are used ρm ρw = = 104 ⇒ ϕm = 77.51) with K0 and Kl given by (6.84 ◦ where the aim has been to have at least 60◦ phase margin. The estimated state x is given by the Kalman ˆ filter ˙ ∆x ˆ Kf x = A∆ˆ + B∆u + Kf (∆y − C∆ˆ) x T −1 = Pf C V (6.30). and x3 = θw ). am = 2. also the transfer function DGvu should be added to (5. the phase margin ϕ is at least 60◦ .6.82 10 11 (6. The LQG feedback law (6. This is not possible if only one sensor is used.34).80 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations 6. these transfer functions are not affected by the sensor location. Hence.53) where Pf is found by solving the Riccati equation (5.3 . Hence.3◦ . The same equations are valid for the gearshift controller except the difference that the D matrix in (6.1 Influence from Load Disturbances Figure 6. The observer dynamics is cancelled in the transfer function from reference value to performance output and control signal. the dynamics will be included in the transfer functions from disturbances to both z and u. In Section 5. The sensor either ˙ ˙ measures the engine speed θm or the wheel speed θw . as for the speed controller. the resonant open-loop zeros become poles of the closed-loop system when feedback from the engine speed sensor is used. Two different observer problems results depending on which sensor location that is used. For Example 6.54) (6.

. According to (5. For θm feedback.6.41).2 Influence from Measurement Disturbances The influence from measurement disturbances e are seen in Figure 6.7 Closed-loop transfer functions from load disturbance v to performance ˙ output z and control signal u. resulting from the open-loop zeros. Thus. 6.59) Guz Fy 1 + Guy Fy (6.6 Influence from Sensor Location Closed-loop transfer function Gvz 81 −20 −40 Gain [dB] −60 −80 −100 −2 10 10 −1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 0 −50 Gain [dB] −100 −150 −200 −2 10 Closed-loop transfer function Gvu 10 −1 10 10 Frequency [rad/s] 0 1 10 2 10 3 Figure 6. this means that a resonance peak is present in the transfer functions from v to performance output z and control signal u. Feedback from θw is shown in solid and feedback ˙ ˙m is shown in dashed lines. the closed-loop transfer function from v to z has the open-loop ˙ zeros as poles. With θm feedback the transfer functions have a from θ resonance peak. Hence.40) the closed-loop transfer function from e to z is (Gez )cl = − Then (Gez )cl (Gez )cl = = Guz ˙ with θw feedback Guw Guz ˙ −Tm with θm feedback Gum −Tw (6.58) (6.6.57) with Tw and Tm from (5. the closed-loop transfer function from v to u also has the controller Fy in the numerator.8.

as discussed in Section 5.9 shows the sensitivity functions (5. The dynamic output ratio Gw/m was defined in Definition 4.4. because that Guw has a relative degree of two.60) ˙ ˙ where cl.44). Hence.w Gw/m (6. The frequency range in which the Tm = Tw is valid depends on how large ρ in (5.31) is made. Feedback from θw is shown in solid and ˙m is shown in dashed. Tw has a steeper roll-off rate than Tm .4.59) gives (Gez )cl. This is due to that the open-loop transfer functions Guw and Gum have a different relative degree. Therefore. as discussed in Section 5. and Gum has a relative degree of one. Then (6. Tm = Tw as was discussed in Section 5. The difference between the two feedback feedback from θ principles are described by the dynamic output ratio. and is given by (5. w means closed loop with feedback from θm and θw respectively. When ρ in (5.4.m = (Gez )cl. Figure 6. the difference in Gez depending on sensor location is described by the dynamic output ratio Gw/m .82 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations 100 50 Gain [dB] 0 −50 −100 −2 10 Closed-loop transfer function Gez 10 −1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 100 Closed-loop transfer function Geu Gain [dB] 50 0 −50 −2 10 10 −1 10 10 Frequency [rad/s] 0 1 10 2 10 3 Figure 6. this effect increases with lower gears. The roll-off rate at higher frequencies differ between the two feedback principles.58) and (6. It is seen that Tm = Tw is valid up to about 2 Hz.31) is increased towards infinity. The effect increases with lower gears.46) and the complementary sensitivity functions Tw and Tm (5.41) for the two cases of feedback. The difference in low frequency level is equal to the conversion ratio of the driveline.1. m and cl. .8 Closed-loop transfer functions from measurement noise e to perfor˙ mance output z and control signal u.

the feasibility of the gear-shift controller is studied by simulation on a more complicated vehicle model than it was designed for. given by Exam˙ ple 6. in Section 5.e.1.33). When only ˙ one velocity is measured. the equation for the transmission torque is calculated using (6. In the simulations. wheel speed θw = 3 rad/s. In the second simulation. The . the relationship between the model parameters in the transmission is given.7 Simulations 83 20 0 −20 Gain [dB] −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 −2 10 10 −1 10 10 Frequency [rad/s] 0 1 10 2 10 3 Figure 6. The effects from sensor placement are also studied in accordance with the discussion made in Section 6. Three simulations are performed with the same parameters. The wheel speed or the engine speed is input to the observer (6.6. and the control law (6.6.9 Sensitivity function S and complementary sensitivity function T . The steady-state level for Model 3 is calculated by solving the model equations for the equilibrium point when the load and speed are known.5.51) generates the control signal. In Assumption 6.7 Simulations As in the case of the speed controller. the solid lines correspond to θw feedback. a gear shift is commanded at t = 2 s. according to Figure 6. lines correspond to θ 6.1. Model 3 is given by Equations (2.52). The controller used is based on Model 1. as seen in the previous sections. The oscillations are a result of a sinusoid disturbance acting on the control signal. (i.51). The dash-dotted lines correspond to the case with all states known.10. the driveline is oscillating prior to the gear shift. and the dashed ˙m feedback. The first simulation is without disturbances. By these. and load l = 3000 Nm).49) to (2. The control design is simulated with the nonlinear Model 3.

. The disturbance is generated as a square pulse with 0. than from the engine speed sensor.6. where the design is tested on Model 1. the differential equations (2. In the simulation. neither of the sensor alternatives reaches z = 0.49) to (2.84 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations r Vehicle Model 3: (2.1 s width and 1200 Nm height.2.6. The model is simulated using Runge Kutta (45) (Simulink 1993) with a low step size to catch the effect of the nonlinearity. This plot should be compared with Figure 6. The model errors between Model 1 and Model 3 are handled better when using the wheel speed sensor.11 the simulation without disturbances is shown. The design still works if the extra nonlinear clutch dynamics is added. In Figure 6.49) to (2.1 z (6. which is a verification of the discussion in Section 6. As a step for demonstrating feasibility for real implementation. The result is that the performance of the controller is not affected by the oscillations.33) ˙ ˙ y (θw or θm ) Controller Design based on Model 1 Control law (6. In Figure 6.51) Assumption 6. This is due to the low frequency model errors discussed in Section 6.51) Observer (6.10 Simulation configuration.51) are scaled such that the five differential equations (one for each state) have about the same magnitude. The result is that the performance does not critically depend on the simplified model structure.13 shows the simulation with load disturbance. Model 3 is simulated with the controller based on Model 1. However.52) Figure 6. there are different results depending on which sensor that is used. In order to simulate the nonlinear model. Figure 6.12 the simulation with driveline oscillations prior to the gear shift is shown. third gear shift is simulated with a load impulse at t = 3 s. The disturbance is better damped when using feedback from the wheel speed sensor.

[s] 6 8 −50 −100 −150 10 −200 −250 −300 0 30 20 0 −10 0 2 4 Time.7 Simulations 85 70 Transmission torque z 150 100 50 0 Control signal u 60 50 40 Torque. and from the engine speed sensor is seen in dashed.6. and from the engine speed sensor is seen in dashed. [Nm] 200 150 100 50 Torque. . [s] 6 8 Figure 6. The design still work when simulated with extra clutch dynamics. [Nm] Torque. Feedback from the wheel speed sensor is seen in solid.12 Simulation of Model 3 with observer and control law based on Model 1. The conclusion is that the control law works well despite initial driveline oscillations. [s] 6 8 2 4 Time.11 Simulation of Model 3 with observer and control law based on Model 1. Feedback from the wheel speed sensor is seen in solid. [Nm] 2 4 Time. [s] 6 8 Figure 6. [Nm] 0 −50 −100 −150 −200 −250 −300 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 −10 0 2 4 Time. Transmission torque z Control signal u 90 80 70 60 Torque.

works well for a more complicated model with a nonlinear clutch characteristics. This results in undamped load disturbances when engine speed feedback is used.13 Simulation of Model 3 with observer and control law based on Model 1. The proposed solution handles the fact that the gear-shift condition is not a stationary point. there can be problems with a low frequency level that gives a stationary error. Based on a model of the transmission torque. from different sensor locations. that actively damps driveline oscillations. 6. load disturbances are better attenuated with feedback from the wheel speed sensor. This difference in level is a result of the difficulty to estimate the driveline friction parameters. Simulations show that the performance of the design.86 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations Control signal u 200 Transmission torque z 80 70 60 50 Torque. . The conclusion is that the load disturbance is better attenuated when using feedback from the wheel speed sensor. and from the engine speed sensor is seen in dashed. However. it is possible to solve the criterion for a control law that minimizes the cost function. on the control design results in the same conclusion as in Chapter 5. Feedback from the wheel speed sensor is seen in solid. An impulse disturbance is acting on the load at t = 3 s. [s] 6 8 Figure 6. When using a driveline model with drive shaft flexibility. a criterion for a gear-shift controller is obtained. Therefore. [Nm] 40 30 20 10 0 −10 −20 0 −150 −200 −250 −300 0 Torque. based on the simplified model.8 Summary Driveline oscillations is a limiting factor in gear shifting with engine control. An investigation of the influence. When using LQG/LTR the open-loop zeros are cancelled by the controller. [Nm] 2 4 Time. [s] 6 8 0 −50 −100 150 100 50 2 4 Time. The control law is derived with LQG/LTR technique.

The difference between these two is described by the dynamic output ratio. actively damped transmission-torque control works well also in the case of existing initial oscillations.6. disturbances occuring during the control action are actively damped. This effect increases with lower gears. depending on feedback configuration. and thus reducing the time needed for a gear shift.8 Summary 87 Measurement disturbances are better attenuated when the engine speed sensor is used. . than when using the wheel speed sensor. Furthermore. In conclusion. Two different closed-loop transfer functions result.

88 Chapter 6 Gear-Shift Controller Design and Simulations .

is obtained. This controller is to be used with a new automatic gear shifting system. Extra clutch dynamics is not able to explain more of the experiments for low frequencies. which is important since the vehicle is free rolling when in gear-shift condition. A key contribution is the observation that a linear model with stiff clutch and drive shaft flexibility is able to explain the measured engine speed and wheel speed. The major contribution of this thesis is a novel gear shifting strategy based on modeling of the transmission torque. 89 .7 Conclusions The driveline is a fundamental component in a vehicle. Therefore. which is verified by simulations on a model with a nonlinear clutch characteristics. A second important contribution is the extension of the traditionally used RQV controller. The proposed solution offers a possibility to optimize the time needed for a gear shift. With this controller the performance and driveability is improved since vehicle shuffle is reduced. the formulation is natural. it allows efficient solution. and design of a criterion for a controller that drives this torque to zero. and there is currently a strong trend in improving performance by adding functionalities in driveline management systems. and there is a simple tuning of the amount of RQV feeling. the linear model is concluded to be a basis for control design. Furthermore. Furthermore. A criterion for a controller that actively damps wheel speed oscillations with a stationary error characteristic for the RQV controller. utilizing engine controlled gear shifting without using the clutch. A basis for these results is the modeling conclusions drawn from experiments and modeling using a heavy truck. neutral gear can successfully be engaged also when facing critical load disturbances and initial driveline oscillations.

and increases with lower gears. The major part of the difference is explained by a simple sensor model. Different sensors give the same open-loop poles. due to well damped open-loop zeros. Measurement disturbances are better attenuated when the engine speed sensor is used.90 Chapter 7 Conclusions Another important observation from the experiments is the explanation of the difference between the measured engine speed and transmission speed. An investigation of the influence from different sensor locations on the control design shows that when using LQG/LTR. The difference is explained by the dynamic output ratio. A common architectural issue in driveline control is the issue of sensor location. . There are thus issues to be considered in sensor choice. than when using the wheel speed sensor. but different zeros. but the overall conclusion is that the proposed strategies improve performance and driveability in both speed control and gear-shift control. Parameter estimation of a nonlinear model shows that the deviations still left occur when the clutch transfers zero torque. load disturbances are better damped with feedback from the wheel speed.

Gustafsson (1993). A. T. a. Academic Press. Automatica 24. Automatica 21. User’s Guide. To be presented at Reglerm¨tet ’96 in o Lule˚ Sweden. Automotive Handbook. (1992). Stuttgart. J. Bosch (1993).. 117–128. J. Malebranche (1985). T. Pettersson. Nielsen (1996). Meriam. 91 . System Identification Toolbox. (1988). Volume 2 of Engineering Mechanics. Pettersson. G. Dynamics.Bibliography Bj¨rnberg. M. Department of Electrical Engineering. (1995).. and H. Technical Report LiTH-ISY-R-1506. Germany: Robert Bosch GmbH. Kubrusly. M. D. H. Addison-Wesley. Maciejowski. Gillespie. and L. Control Theory 1984-1986. L. Henriksson. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. 573–583.a survey. SAE International. L. J. Ljung. Link¨ping o University. M. Ljung. especially air drag and rolling resistance. Nonlinear driveline oscillao tions at low clutch torques in heavy trucks. Liversidge. Multivariable Feedback Design. L. MathWorks. (1952). (1989). and L. and F. Sensors and controllers location in distributed systems . Kraige (1987). Backlash and Resilience within Closed Loop of Automatic Control Systems. C. An investigation of the longitudinal dynamics of a car. Inc. John Wiley & Sons.

Vidyasagar (1989). and M. M. M. Switzerland . W. Preprint of the IFAC-Workshop on Advances in Automotive Control. Robot Dynamics and Control. John Wiley & Sons. Tozawa (1992). and Y. MathWorks. (1995). A. Pettersson. and N. C. Nielsen (1995). Orehall. . K. Powell (1996). Y.92 Bibliography Mo. J. Ascona. Truck and Commercial Vehicle International ’95. (1993). O. Spong. C. Influence of powertrain torsional rigidity on NVH of 6x4 trucks. Scania opticruise: Mechanical gearchanging with engine control. Sensor placement for driveline control. SAE Paper 922482. SAE Paper 960046. Simulink (1993). Suzuki. and L. Active control of driveability. Nwagboso. Beaumount. Automotive Sensory Systems. Inc. L. Chapman & Hall. N. User’s guide..

reference signal Control signal Performance output State vector Sensor output State disturbance. velocity Measurement disturbance Input disturbance Load Angle Road slope Symbols J i k Mass moment of inertia Conversion ratio Torsional stiffness 93 .Notations Variables r u z x y v e n l θ α Radius.

94 Notations c b m cr1 . cr2 cw ρa Aa Fa Fr M A B C H D G Gw/m S T Kc Kf ϕ a Torsional damping Viscous friction component Vehicle mass Coefficients of rolling resistance Air drag coefficient Air density Vehicle cross section area Air resistance force Rolling resistance force Torque. performance output state matrix State-space matrix Input state matrix Output state matrix Load state matrix Performance output control signal matrix Transfer function Dynamic output ratio Sensitivity function Complementary sensitivity function State-feedback matrix Observer gain Phase margin Amplitude margin Subscripts m c t p f d w fr 0 t1 t2 Engine Clutch Tranmission Propeller shaft Final drive Drive shafts Wheel Friction Stationary value Transmission input Transmission output .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful