Motorcycel 5496

Improving a tyre model for
motorcycle simulations
W.D. Versteden (s479891)
DCT 2005.65
Master's thesis
Supervisor and member of graduation committee:

Dr.Ir. I.J.M. Besselink (Eindhoven University of Technology / TNO Automotive)
Prof. Dr. H. Nijmeijer (Eindhoven University of Technology)
Member of graduation committee:
Dr.Ir. W.J. Witteman (Eindhoven University of Technology)
Ir. P.A.J. Ruijs (TNO Automotive)
Eindhoven University of Technology

Department Mechanical Engineering
Dynamics and Control Group
Eindhoven, June, 2005

Samenvatting
Met de rekencapaciteit van huidige computers wordt het simuleren van het gedrag van voertu-
igen steeds belangrijker. Vooral bij motorfietssimulaties speelt het bandmodel een belangrijke rol
in het gedrag van het voertuig. Door TNO Automotive is daarom een bandmodel voor motor-
fietssimulaties ontwikkeld, MF-MCTyre. Ondanks het belang van een nauwkeurig bandmodel,
zijn bepaalde onderdelen van het MF-MCTyre model afgeleid van een autobandmodel. Daarom is
vooral de invloed van de camberhoek, die voornamelijk aanwezig is tijdens het rijden door bochten,
op deze onderdelen onderbelicht gebleven. Het doel van dit onderzoek is dan ook om het stationair
gedrag in bochten van het MF-MCTyre model te verbeteren.
Om vertrouwd te raken met het stationair gedrag van het bandmodel en een motorfiets in
een bocht, is een simulatiemodel van een motorfiets ontwikkeld aan de hand van het model van
Cornelis Koenen. Door middel van simulaties met dit model en het bestaand bandmodel is het
stationair gedrag van beide geanalyseerd. Een literatuurstudie toont aan dat het model van
Koenen een van de meest complete modellen is. Tevens laat deze literatuurstudie zien dat de
Magic Formula algemeen geaccepteerd wordt. Daarom wordt aangenomen dat het MF-MCTyre
model dat gebaseerd is op deze Magic Formula in staat moet zijn om het stationair gedrag van
een motorfietsband in een bocht correct weer te geven.
Tijdens de analyse van het bandmodel komen er drie problemen naar voren die de nauwkeurigheid
van het model reduceren. Ten eerste worden er vereenvoudigde aannames gemaakt voor de ver-
ticale stijfheid en de bandcontour. Dit leidt tot een onnauwkeurige hoogte van het wielcentrum
en de belaste bandstraal gedurende simulaties. Omdat de belaste bandstraal ook tijdens metin-
gen onnauwkeurig wordt bepaald zijn de transformaties van de momenten tussen het contactpunt
en het wielcentrum ook onnauwkeurig. Ten tweede wordt ook de effectieve rolstraal incorrect
bepaald door het bandmodel. De bandcontour wordt buiten beschouwing gelaten en het effect van
de verticale belasting wordt overgenomen van een autobandmodel. Daardoor zijn de rotatiesnel-
heden van de wielen onnauwkeurig tijdens voertuigsimulaties. Tenslotte wordt er ook een sterk
vereenvoudigde aanname gemaakt voor de rolweerstand. Als gevolg hiervan is weergave van de
langskracht en het terugstelmoment onnauwkeurig tijdens simulaties.
Een uitgebreid meetprogramma is opgezet, om bepaalde specifieke aspecten van een motorfiets-
band te bepalen. Door middel van deze metingen zijn de bandcontour, verticale stijfheid, effectieve
rolstraal en rolweerstand bepaald. Deze resultaten zijn gebruikt om de eerder genoemde problemen
van het bandmodel op te lossen en een verbeterd bandmodel te ontwikkelen. Uit tests blijkt dat
dit nieuwe model voornamelijk bij grote camber hoeken de krachten en momenten nauwkeuriger
representeert. Tevens is aangetoond dat het verbeterde bandmodel een duidelijke invloed heeft of
het stationair gedrag van het motorfietsmodel. Parameters als de camberhoek, het stuurkoppel,
de leunhoek van de bestuurder, de rotatiesnelheden van de wielen en de hoogte van de wielcentra
veranderen significant als het nieuwe bandmodel wordt gebruikt in plaats van het oude.
i
Abstract
With the computational capacity of computers available nowadays, simulating the behaviour of
vehicles becomes more and more important. Especially for motorcycle simulations, the tyre model
has a significant influence on the vehicle behaviour. TNO Automotive has therefore developed
a tyre model for motorcycle simulations, MF-MCTyre. Although the importance of an accurate
tyre model, several aspects of the MF-MCTyre model are derived from an automobile tyre model.
Therefore, especially the influence of the camber angle on these aspects has been underexposed.
The goal of this research is therefore to improve the steady state cornering behaviour of the
MF-MCTyre model.
To get familiar with the tyre model and motorcycle steady state cornering behaviour, a mo-
torcycle simulation model is developed for which the model of Cornelis Koenen is used as a basis.
From simulations with the motorcycle model and the existing tyre model the steady state behaviour
of the motorcycle model and its tyres is analyzed. A literature study shows that the model of
Koenen is one of the most complete models. Furthermore, this literature study shows that the
Magic Formula is broadly accepted. Therefore, it is believed that the MF-MCTyre model, which
is based on this Magic Formula, should be able to represent the steady state cornering behaviour
of a motorcycle tyre correctly.
If the tyre model is analyzed, three main problems are found which decrease the accuracy of the
tyre model. First of all, simplified assumptions are made for the motorcycle tyre contour and the
vertical tyre stiffness. Therefore the wheel center height and loaded radius during the simulations
are inaccurate. As the loaded radius is also inaccurately determined during measurements, the
transformation of the moments between the wheel center and the contact point are also inaccurate.
Secondly, the effective rolling radius is incorrectly determined by the model. The tyre contour is not
taken into consideration and the effect of the vertical load is copied from an automobile tyre model.
During vehicle simulations, this leads to inaccurate rotational velocities of the wheels. Finally, a
simplified assumption is made for the rolling resistance. During simulations, this assumption leads
to an inaccurate representation of the longitudinal force and the self aligning moment.
An extensive measurement program is conducted, in order to determine the behaviour of specific
motorcycle tyre aspects. Moreover, the tyre contour, vertical stiffness, effective rolling radius
and rolling resistance are determined within this measurement program. The results of these
measurements are used to overcome the problems mentioned above and to develop an improved
tyre model. From simulations it is learned that this new tyre model represents the forces and
moments more accurately, especially under large camber angles. Furthermore, it is shown that
the improved tyre model has a significant influence on the steady state cornering behaviour of
the motorcycle model. Moreover, parameters as the camber angle, steer torque, rider lean angle,
wheel rotational speeds and wheel center heights show significant differences if the improved tyre
model is used instead of the present one.
ii
Contents
Samenvatting i
Abstract ii
Sign conventions and symbols v
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Research layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Literature study 3
2.1 Motorcycle modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1 Model structure and features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.2 Mass and inertial parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.3 Stabilizing controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Motorcycle tyre modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 A motorcycle simulation model 10

3.1 Model structure and features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Stabilization and velocity controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Tyre model implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4 Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.1 Equilibria of forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.2 Camber angle γ and steer torque Ms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4 Problems of the MF-MCTyre model 20

4.1 Explanation of the tyre model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 Problems with the determination of the contact point and the vertical load, Fzw . 22
4.2.1 The wheel axle height, h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.2 The tyre loaded radius, Rl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3 Problems with the determination of the effective rolling radius, Re . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4 Errors in the rolling resistance assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5 Motorcycle tyre measurements 29

5.1 Determination of the motorcycle tyre contour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2 Vertical tyre stiffness measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3 The effect of the vertical load on the effective rolling radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4 Effective rolling radius reference measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.5 Rolling resistance factor fr measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
iii
CONTENTS iv
6 Improvements to the MF-MCTyre model 37

6.1 Improving the contact point and vertical load determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.1.1 The wheel axle height, h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.1.2 The tyre loaded radius, Rl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.2 Improving the effective rolling radius determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.3 Improving the rolling resistance description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.3.1 Definition of the rolling resistance moment, Mrr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.3.2 The rolling resistance coefficient, fr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7 Analysis of the improved tyre model 47

7.1 Summary of the improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.2 Analysis by means of test rig simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.3 Analysis by means of motorcycle simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8 Conclusions and recommendations 57

8.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2 Recommendations for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
A The MF-MCTyre model 62

A.1 Contact routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
A.1.1 The contact point C and the normal load Fz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
A.1.2 The effective rolling radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
A.1.3 Tyre slip quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A.2 The Magic Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A.2.1 Longitudinal force (pure slip) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.2.2 Lateral force (pure slip) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A.2.3 Aligning moment (pure slip) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A.2.4 Overturning moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A.2.5 Rolling resistance moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
A.2.6 Additional features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
A.3 Tyre model parameter determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
B Motorcycle model parameters 70
C Processing measurement data 72

C.1 Left measurement tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
C.2 Right measurement tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
C.3 Conversion from C-axis system to W-axis system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
C.4 Conversion from W-axis system to C-axis system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
SIGN CONVENTIONS AND SYMBOLS v
Sign conventions
Throughout this report the ISO sign convention for force, moment and wheel slip of a tyre is used.
This sign convention is depicted in figure 1.
x
V a F x z
g
F z
y F y
M z
y F y
M x
T o p v ie w R e a r v ie w
Figure 1: The ISO sign conventions
The MF-MCTyre model is in accordance with the standard TYDEX conventions. Two TYDEX
coordinate systems with ISO orientation are particularly important, the C- and W-axis systems as
depicted in figure 2. The C-axis system is fixed to the wheel carrier with the longitudinal xc -axis
Z
nr
nr
X
Zc Y
Zw Zc
Vx
Zw
Vc
Xc
Xc
O Xw
Xw Yc
-γ
Yc
Yw
Yw
C
C
Figure 2: C- and W -axis systems used in MF-Tyre
parallel to the road and in the wheel plane (xc -zc -plane). The origin O of the C-axis system is
the wheel center. The origin of the W-axis system is the road contact point C defined by the
intersection of the wheel plane, the plane through the wheel spindle and the road tangent plane.
The xw -yw -plane is the tangent plane of the road in the contact point C, and it defines the camber
angle γ together with the normal nr to the road plane (xw -yw -plane). Furthermore, in chapter 6
the T -axis system is introduced. This axis system is defined in the contact and therefore it has
the same origin as the W -axis system. However, the T -axis system rotates with the camber angle
and is therefore parallel to the C-axis system.
SIGN CONVENTIONS AND SYMBOLS vi
Symbols
Symbol Description Unit
Capitals
A Actual contact point
B Magic Formula factor [−]
C Magic Formula factor [−]
C Fictitious tyre-road contact point
D Magic Formula factor [−]
N
Cz Vertical tyre stiffness [m ]
D Magic Formula factor [−]
E Magic Formula factor [−]
E Relative fitting error [−]
F Magic Formula factor [−]
Fa Centrifugal force [N ]
Fd Aerodynamic drag force [N ]
Fg Gravitational force [N ]
Fl Aerodynamic lift force [N ]
Fx Longitudinal force [N ]
Fy Lateral force [N ]
Fz Vertical force [N ]
Fzo Nominal vertical load [N ]
J Moment of inertia [kgm2 ]
cm J Inertia tensor with respect to the center of mass [kgm2 ]
oJ Inertia tensor with respect to an arbitrary point O [kgm2 ]
K Gain [−]
Kz Vertical tyre damping [ Nms ]
Mrr Rolling resistance moment magnitude [N m]
Ms Steering torque [N m]
Mx Overturning moment [N m]
My Rolling resistance moment [N m]
Mz Self aligning moment [N m]
O Wheel center position [m]
O Origin of motorcycle inertial frame
R Cornering radius [m]
Re Effective rolling radius [m]
Reo Effective rolling radius of an undeformed tyre [m]
Rl Loaded radius [m]
Ro Unloaded radius [m]
SH Horizontal shift in the Magic Formula
SV Vertical shift in the Magic Formula
V Velocity [m
s ]
Vo Reference velocity [m
s ]
Vr Linear rolling velocity [m
s ]
Vsx Longitudinal slip speed [m
s ]
Vsy Lateral slip speed [m
s ]
Vx Longitudinal velocity [m
s ]
Vy Lateral velocity [m
s ]
Ym Measurement point
Yf Description of the measurement point
Yn Parameter obtained by simulating the improved tyre model
Yo Parameter obtained by simulating the existing tyre model
SIGN CONVENTIONS AND SYMBOLS vii
Normal
a Ellipse parameter with respect to the x-direction [−]
b Ellipse parameter with respect to the y-direction [−]
d Relative difference [−]
fr Rolling resistance coefficient [−]
g Gravitational constant [ sm2 ]
g1x Distance from mass m1 to steer axis [m]
g1ux Distance from mass m1u to steer axis [m]
h Height of the wheel center [m]
m Mass [kg]
nr Normal to the road
pdz Vertical position of the aerodynamic application point [m]
plx Horizontal position of the aerodynamic application point [m]
qc Camber influence on vertical stiffness [−]
qf cx Longitudinal force influence on vertical stiffness [−]
qf cy Lateral force influence on vertical stiffness [−]
qf z1 Vertical deflection influence on vertical stiffness [−]
qf z2 Quadratic influence of vertical deflection on stiffness [−]
qsy1 Initial rolling resistance moment Mrr [−]
qsy5 Camber influence on Mrr [−]
qsy6 Fzw influence on Mrr [−]
qv2 Vertical stiffness increase with speed [−]
rcm
~ Vector from an arbitrary point O to the center of mass [m]
rt Tyre cross section radius [m]
t Time [s]
t Mechanical trail [m]
u Distance [m]
yM x Distance between actual and fictitious contact point [m]
Greek
Ω Tyre rotational velocity [ rad
s ]
α Side slip angle [rad]
β Twist angle [rad]
δ Steerangle [rad]
² Rake angle [rad]
γ Camber angle [rad]
κ Longitudinal slip [−]
λ Magic Formula scaling factor [−]
ω Yaw velocity [ rad
s ]
ρ Vertical tyre deformation [m]
ρd Dimensionless vertical tyre deflection [−]
ρF z0 Nominal tyre deformation [m]
σκ Longitudinal relaxation length [m]
σα Lateral relaxation length [m]
ξ Rotational tyre deformation [rad]
SIGN CONVENTIONS AND SYMBOLS viii
Numbers
1 Steerbody
1s Twistbody
1u Front unsprung part
1w Frontwheel
2 Mainbody
2s Swingarm
2w Rearwheel
3 Rider upper body
Subscript
f Front tyre parameter
r Rear tyre parameter
u With respect to the u-direction
v With respect to the v-direction
x With respect to the x-direction
y With respect to the y-direction
z With respect to the z-direction
c With respect to the c-axis system
t With respect to the t-axis system
w With respect to the w-axis system
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
With the computational capacity of computers available nowadays, simulating the dynamic be-
haviour of vehicles has become more and more important. During its development process, sim-
ulations with a model of the vehicle make it possible to accurately predict its dynamic behaviour
without building a prototype. With this so-called ’virtual prototyping’ both design times and
costs are reduced. Already in the early years of vehicle modelling it has been concluded that
the behaviour of a vehicle is strongly depending on the tyre behaviour. This holds especially for
motorcycles, as single track vehicles are inherent to instabilities which are partly governed by the
tyre behaviour. Therefore, the quality of a motorcycle model strongly depends on the accuracy of
the tyre model that is implemented.
In 1987 the first version of the Magic Formula has been presented [1], which is able to represent
the stationary slip characteristics of an automobile tyre. However, from figure 1.1 it can be learned
that motorcycles have different camber and slip angle ranges than automobiles. Therefore the
Magic Formula has been adapted in 1997 [28], to be able to describe the stationary motorcycle
tyre characteristics for large camber angles. The improved description of the slip characteristics
4 5
M o to r c y c le s
3 0
C a m b e r a n g le [d e g ]
1 5 A u to m o b ile s
5 1 0
S lip a n g le [d e g ]
Figure 1.1: Comparison between the slip and camber angle of automobiles and motorcycles
by the adapted Magic Formula is implemented in a tyre model (MF-MCTyre) which is used for
motorcycle simulations. Although that the effect of large camber angles is introduced in the Magic
Formula, it is insufficiently incorporated in other aspects of the MF-MCTyre model and in the
processing of measurement data.
During tyre measurements forces and moments are determined in the wheel center. However,
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2
the Magic Formula is developed to describe the forces and moments in the tyre-road contact
point. Therefore, the measured forces and moments are transformed from the wheel center to the
contact point. Furthermore, during simulations the Magic Formula is evaluated in the contact
point and the forces and moments are applied to the vehicle in the wheel center, so again a
transformation is required. Although the tyre loaded radius Rl plays an important role during
this transformation, it is not unambiguously defined during the processing of the measurements and
simulations. Furthermore, also the rolling resistance moment plays a role in these transformations.
Currently little is known about the rolling resistance of a motorcycle tyre, and it is therefore
assumed to be constant at any condition. Finally, during simulations the contact point, vertical
load and the effective rolling radius are determined without taking into account motorcycle tyre
features as the typical tyre contour and a camber dependent vertical tyre stiffness. All these
facts are expected to introduce considerable errors in the representation of the steady-state tyre
behaviour by the MF-MCTyre model.
1.2 Problem statement

The goal of this master thesis is to improve and validate the MF-MCTyre model. The improved
model should be able to correctly represent the behaviour of a motorcycle tyre for its complete
working area at steady-state conditions. A motorcycle simulation model is developed to get famil-
iar with the steady-state cornering behaviour of both motorcycle and tyre models. Afterwards the
MF-MCTyre model is thoroughly analysed to find its deficiencies. With the aid of measurements
the following aspects of the tyre model are improved:
• The transformations of the forces and moments during both measurements and simulations
• The determination of the contact point and vertical load during simulations
• The determination of the effective rolling radius, Re , during simulations
• The description of the rolling resistance of a motorcycle tyre
1.3 Research layout

To get familiar with the tyre model and motorcycle cornering behaviour, a motorcycle simulation
model is developed for which the comprehensive model of Koenen [10] is used as a basis. In
chapter 2 a compact literature study is presented, which has a two-sided goal. First of all the
study is performed to get an idea of the quality of the motorcycle model of Koenen. Secondly,
the developments within motorcycle tyre modelling are present to get a comparison with the MF-
MCTyre model. The description of the motorcycle model is presented in chapter 3. The model is
made operational for computer simulations and an elementary controller is developed which makes
it possible to simulate the steady-state cornering behaviour under large camber angles. Both the
motorcycle and the tyre model are analysed for steady state cornering situations to get familiar
with their behaviour.
In chapter 4 the error sources of the tyre model and their origin are described. Furthermore
possible solutions to the present problems are discussed. In chapter 5, the results of an extensive
measurement program are presented, with which typical motorcycle tyre features are determined.
Moreover, these results are discussed in chapter 6 and used to elaborate and check the possible
solutions to the problems presented earlier. With the improvements found from this research, an
updated tyre model is generated and presented in chapter 7. The model will be compared to the
existing MF-MCTyre model during simulations with two models. First of all, a tyre test-rig is
simulated to test the model under extreme circumstances. With this test rig, the output of both
models can be compared with actual tyre measurements. Furthermore, the motorcycle model
developed earlier is used to compare the models under ’real-life’ circumstances. With these results
conclusions are drawn and recommendations for future research are given in chapter 8.
Chapter 2
Literature study
In order to get a better idea of the quality of the motorcycle model developed by Koenen and of
the MF-MCTyre model, the history of both multi-body motorcycle modelling and motorcycle tyre
modelling is investigated. First of all the history of motorcycle models is discussed chronologically.
It becomes clear that, especially the last ten years, a lot of motorcycle research is being conducted
at the department of Mechanical Engineering of the University of Padua. Furthermore also a
section at the Imperial College of Science in Londen under leadership of Prof. Robin S. Sharp
has made important contributions. The basis of the motorcycle model described in chapter 3 is
formed by the PhD thesis of Cornelis Koenen [10]. Both the degrees of freedom (DoF’s) and the
mass and inertial parameters used in other models are compared with this model of Koenen. The
need for a stabilizing controller is explained and the controller types used in history are listed.
Secondly the modelling of motorcycle tyres over the years is investigated. The behaviour of a
vehicle strongly depends on the performance of the tyres. Therefore a lot of research has been
conducted to describe the behaviour of an automobile tyre, but surprisingly the motorcycle tyre
always has been underexposed, until the last decade.
2.1 Motorcycle modelling

2.1.1 Model structure and features
One of the main researchers on the subject of motorcycle dynamics is Prof. Robin S. Sharp. Al-
ready in 1971 he developed a pioneering work [17] in which a relatively simple motorcycle model is
described. This model only comprises two rigid bodies that are joined via a conventional steering
joint and two wheels. In particular, this model has been used to investigate the sensitivity of
the dynamic behaviour with respect to several design parameters as steering damping, mechanical
trail and other geometrical parameters. The work of Sharp [20] and Verma [26] from 1980 show
independently that frame compliance should be included in the multi-body description of a mo-
torcycle. This in order to correctly describe the eigenmodes of the motorcycle in straight running.
One year later, this has been confirmed for the compliance of the front frame, by the research
of Spierings [22] at the University of Eindhoven. During his PhD work, Koenen has published a
paper [11] in which the importance of frame elasticity and simple rider body dynamics on the free
vibrations are described. Next to the two DoF’s representing the front frame elasticity and the
rider upper body lean, Koenen has also introduced aerodynamic effects and front and rear suspen-
sion in the motorcycle model. The final motorcycle model with its degrees of freedom can be seen
in figure 2.1. The most remarkable about this model is the method with which the rear suspension
is has been included. While almost all others use a swing arm and a translational spring/damper
system, Koenen uses a joint around which the mainbody can rotate with respect to the rear wheel
(see figure 2.2). By using this joint, no swing arm is needed which makes the system somewhat
less complicated which is favorable as Koenen has analysed the motorcycle model without the aid
of a computer. From his complicated model he has determined the dynamic behaviour both when
3
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE STUDY 4
g S te e r
B o d y le a n
T w is t
P itc h
P itc h
z
y
O x
Figure 2.1: The degrees of freedom of the motorcycle model of Koenen
running straight ahead and when cornering. Especially the analysis of the dynamic behaviour of
the cornering motorcycle has given new insights. Moreover, it has been concluded that during
cornering the in-plane and out-of-plane modes of motion start to influence each other. Therefore,
the in- and out of plane motion cannot be decoupled and the eigenmodes during cornering contain
both. Next to this, Koenen he has also investigated the influence of several design parameters
on this dynamic behaviour. In 1985 Sharp has written a paper [18] with a review of the state
P itc h P itc h
O th e rs K o e n e n
Figure 2.2: Different methods of introducing a rear suspension
of knowledge and understanding of the steering behaviour of single-track vehicles. This with the
main accent on vehicle design, vehicle design analysis and behaviour prediction. In this paper, the
model of Koenen is referred to as the most comprehensive motorcycle model, which represents a
step change in the technology. As the model of Koenen is so comprehensive, little to no changes
in the modelling of motorcycles can be seen until nowadays.
The major breakthrough after this period has been the development of computers with more
and more memory and computational capacity. This leaded to the development of software pack-
ages with which it is possible to analyse complicated multi-body models with relatively little effort.
In recent history, a lot of research is conducted at the department of Mechanical Engineering of the
University of Padua. Next to modelling of motorcycles also a lot of measurements are performed
to confirm the results gained by modelling. In 2000 a paper [3] has been presented in which a
multibody simulation model of a motorcycle is present. The model contains the same DoF’s as
Koenen, only again a swing arm is modelled for the rear suspension and no frame compliance
was taken into account. With this model, the motorcycle handling is evaluated and the results
obtained by simulation show very good similarity with measurements. Two years later, an im-
proved model has been presented by Cossalter [6]. In this paper also tyre modelling has been
improved, as will be discussed later. The results of slalom simulations have again been compared
with measurement results, and show very good correspondence. Recently Cossalter [7] has shown
that this model (with again some changes) can also be used for modal analysis of a motorcycle.
The results for the frequency of the eigenmodes are similar to those obtained from measurements,
however the damping is of worse quality, for which no exact reason has been found.
In 2001 again the confidence of Sharp in Koenen’s work has been shown as the motorcycle
model has been used to develop a motorcycle model for computer simulations. In this research [21]
the Koenen model is build with the automated model-building platform AutoSim, with the only
difference that a swing arm is used. The striking part of this research is that the results obtained
by the AutoSim model only partly match the results of Koenen’s research. The explanation for
this is two-folded. By checking the AutoSim code of Sharp, it appears that the inertial parameters
of Koenen are generally misinterpret. Secondly, Koenen has analyzed the 28th order motorcycle
model completely by hand, which is almost impossible to do without minor mistakes. In the same
year Sharp has presented a complete sensitivity and stability analysis of the same model [19]. In
this paper, also the power of present multibody software has been discussed.
Concluding, it can be said that the model of Koenen is still one of the most comprehensive
motorcycle models. Frame compliance is taken into account by a twist degree of freedom, the rider
behaviour is partly modelled as well as the aerodynamic effects. The only doubtful point is the
way in which the rear suspension is modelled. The results of Koenen show good comparison to the
results of others, especially for the dynamic behaviour when running straight ahead. Some doubt
remains about the dynamic behaviour while cornering, but also some errors might be present in
his work because the complexity of the analysis.
2.1.2 Mass and inertial parameters

The parameters that are used by Koenen are measured from a motorcycle, except for the rider’s
parameters. The masses are to be trusted on their validity, but the moments of inertia are
much harder to measure. Especially the moments of inertia of bodies that are introduced in the
model because of frame compliance are difficult to determine. Therefore, the parameters used
by Koenen are compared to the parameters used in the work of others. The main problem with
such a comparison are the differences between both the measured motorcycles and the motorcycle
models used. First of all, data is found in a time span of 23 years in which motorcycles have
undergone significant changes. Secondly, there exists a large variety of motorcycles which all have
their specific geometrical and inertial properties. Finally, different researchers have built their
own models which all have their own DoF’s. In table 2.1, the masses used in several models are
listed. If models divide certain bodies into submasses, those are specified. Later those submasses
are added to make a correct comparison. As can be concluded from table 2.1, the masses used
Masses [kg] Koenen [10] [8] [9] [5] [22] [20] [20] [20] [20]
mmain 209.6 170.3 154.5
mrider 44.5 50.0 44.0
mrearwheel 25.6 25.0 16.5
mmaintotal 279.7 245.3 215.0 153.4 355.0 245.3 218.0 221.5 273.9
mf rontsprung 13.1 15.5 18.0

mf rontunsprung 17.5 10.4 28.0
mf ronttotal 30.6 40.6 25.9 18.0 46.0 40.6 30.7 35.1 36.9
Table 2.1: Comparison of body masses used in several motorcycle models

in the model of Koenen are in good agreement with the masses of other models. For a modern
motorcycle, the entire motorcycle mass would be somewhat large, but the model is already 20 years
old. Especially the distribution of masses over the separate bodies seems good in comparison with
other models.
Next to the masses, also the moments of inertia of the bodies have an important role in the
dynamic behaviour of the motorcycles. The inertias of the models mentioned above are found
in table 2.2. All inertias are given in the local center of mass of each body, with respect to the
local axis system. Furthermore, the axis system is defined as in figure 2.1, with the x-axis in
longitudinal direction, the y-axis in lateral direction and the z-axis in vertical direction. In the
nominal situation all bodies are assumed to be symmetrical with respect to the vehicle center
plane. Because the local y-axis of each body is directed perpendicular to this plane, the product
of inertia Jxy , Jyx , Jyz and Jzy are all zero. The models of [10], [8] and [9] all assume the rider
Inertias [kgm2 ] Koenen [10] [8] [9] [5] [22] [20] [20] [20] [20]
JmainX 37.75 38.40 23.00 22.46 30.61 34.20 31.20 32.35 34.34
JmainY 42.65 32.90 18.90 36.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
JmainZ 22.69 8.26 26.00 17.36 19.78 22.53 21.00 19.84 22.81
JmainXZ -7.89 -3.00 -3.70 -4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
JriderX 1.30 0.00 2.90

JriderY 2.10 11.60 1.50
JriderZ 1.40 7.40 1.00
JriderXZ 0.30 3.97 0.00
JsteerX 4.80 3.97 4.00 1.80 1.58 3.97 3.70 3.45 3.58
JsteerY 4.10 0.00 2.31 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
JsteerZ 0.49 0.00 0.65 0.35 1.00 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.41
JsteerXZ -0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jf rontwheelY 0.58 0.58 0.46 0.49 1.04 0.58 0.72 0.57 0.68
JrearwheelY 0.74 0.41 1.67 0.71 1.04 1.06 1.06 1.13 1.25
Table 2.2: Comparison of body inertias used in several motorcycle models
to be non-rigidly attached to the mainframe. Therefore, the moments of inertia of the rider are
separately defined. As the other models assume a rigidly attached rider, the moments of inertia
of the main-bodies of those three models need to be compensated in order to make a correct
comparison. For this comparison the rider upper bodies are assumed to be rigidly attached for
those models. From [25] it is learned that the formula of Huygens-Steiner can be used to write
the inertia tensor of a certain mass m with respect to an arbitrary point O if the vector between
both points rcm
~ is known.
oJ =cm J + m(rcm
~ .rcm
~ I − rcm
~ rcm
~ ) (2.1)
This equation tells us that the inertia matrix with respect to an arbitrary reference point o J equals
the inertia matrix with respect to the center of mass cm J plus the inertia matrix with respect to
the arbitrary point of the the mass m concentrated at the center of mass. With this known it
is possible to translate the inertia tensor of the rider upper body to the center of mass of the
main-body. At this point it is added to the inertia tensor of the main-body. The same has been
done for the moments of inertia of the steer body of the models of [10] and [9]. Those models
define separate bodies that rotate around the steering axis, which have been defined as if they
were one body to make a fair comparison. With some exceptions, also the moments of inertia are
in good correspondence with other models. In general the moments of inertia used are somewhat
higher than those used by others, which is in agreement with the higher masses in the motorcycle
of Koenen. Some doubt is present towards the parameters of the rider upper body. The moments
of inertia of [9] are in the same order as those of Koenen, those of [8] are much higher. The
problem with the rider upper body is of course how to define the division between the lower and
upper body of a rider and how to determine the moments of inertia of the upper body.
2.1.3 Stabilizing controller

From both literature and practice it becomes clear that motorcycles are inherent to stability
problems at different velocities. In order to be able to simulate a motorcycle a controller needs to
be developed to remove those instabilities. In motorcycle dynamics a lot of eigenmodes are present,
but three main instability modes are distinguished. First of all there is the non-vibrational capsize
mode, where the motorcycle rolls over and falls down to the ground. Secondly, a so-called wobble
mode is present at velocities between approximately 40-100 [km/h], dependent on the design of
the motorcycle and the front tyre. This mode comprises a high frequent (8-10 [Hz]) vibration of
the front frame around the steering axis. Finally, also a weave mode is present at very low (≤
20 [km/h]) and at very high (≥ 170 [km/h]) velocities. In this mode the complete motorcycle is
vibrating in the sideways direction.
To be able to simulate the motorcycle under several circumstances a controller needs to be
developed, which removes the instability of these three modes. This controller should therefore
take over some of the tasks that are normally fulfilled by the driver. Moreover, motorcycles
are typically steered by prescribing the steer torque which is in contradiction to automobiles,
for which the steer angle is prescribed. As the modes are different for different speeds and for
driving straight out or cornering, the controller differs from situation to situation. In the literature
only little information can be found on controlling a motorcycle, but some references show some
thoughts about stabilization and path control. First of all Berritta [3] uses a so-called ’look ahead’
path follower in order to follow a certain trajectory. Starting from the motorcycle’s actual position
and velocity, the controller calculates in which position with respect to the prescribed trajectory
the motorcycle should be after a certain time t. This distance u, its derivative, the camber angle
γ and the roll speed are then used to calculated the steering torque that is needed to follow the
trajectory. This is being done with the proportional gains K1 , K2 , K3 and K4 :
Tδ = K1 γ + K2 γ̇ + K3 u + K4 u̇ (2.2)
Both Sharp [21] and Kamata [9] only use the camber angle of the mainframe to stabilize the
motorcycle. Where Sharp uses a hand-tuned PID-controller, Kamata uses a more sophisticated
method. System identification is applied in order to design a stabilizing H∞ -controller. Finally,
also Ruijs [16] conducted research to the stability of motorcycles. As he is the successor of Koenen,
his research is based on the motorcycle model of Koenen. To stabilize this model, not only the
feedback of again camber and its time-derivative are needed but also the time derivative of the
steer angle. With Nyquist plots it is explained that feedback of the camber angle is needed to
stabilize the capsize mode, its time-derivative is needed to stabilize the weave mode and the time
derivative of the steering angle is needed to stabilize the wobble mode.
2.2 Motorcycle tyre modelling

For the history of tyre modelling before 1985 is again referred to the review of Sharp [18]. In
the very first beginning (1869) tyres are not viewed as producers of forces and moments. The
tyre/road contact is treated as constraining the bicycle to move in the direction in which the
wheels pointed [14]. Much later, in 1942, the knowledge of tyre behaviour is greatly improved and
the rolling wheel is regarded as a force producer [27]. In this time it has also been concluded that
for motorcycle tyres sideslip angles are small and cornering is mainly possible by camber thrust.
It has been usual to describe tyres giving side forces linearly dependent on slip angle and camber
angle. In 1971 Sharp [17] has introduced lag in the tyre side force by a first order relaxation model,
which seems of large influence on the dynamic behaviour of a motorcycle. Only two years later,
also non-linear tyre forces have been introduced in motorcycle models [15].
Next to the comprehensive motorcycle model Koenen has also developed a sophisticated tyre
model. The tyres are modelled as radially flexible, and their cross-sectional shape is accounted for
to some extent. Inputs for the tyre model are the slip-angle, camber angle, turn-slip and vertical
load. As the vertical load is depending on the lateral force and the lateral force on its turn is
depending on the vertical load, the equations are solved with a Newton-Raphson iteration. Also
the non-stationary tyre behaviour is taken into account with a first order relaxation model.
In 1987 the first version of the Magic Formula tyre model has been presented [1]. This model
with an empirical background contains a set of mathematical formulae, which are partly based
on a physical background. Those formulae are able to accurately approximate the typical force
characteristics that are generated by a pneumatic tyre. At first, the Magic Formula only considers
passenger car and truck tyres, i.e. tyres with relatively large slip angles and camber angles which
only exceptionally exceed 10 degrees. First developments of a Magic Formula tyre model applicable
for motorcycle tyres by De Vries are seen in 1997 [28]. The results show that the adapted model
is able to accurately describe the stationary lateral force and aligning torque. Some doubts are
present about the correctness of the first-order relaxation model at high (≥ 100 [ km h ]) velocities.
At high velocities the model is not capable of taking into account the gyroscopic effects on the tyre
belt. A year later De Vries has investigated the influence of tyre modelling on the stability analysis
of a motorcycle [29]. The root loci of a motorcycle model which is equipped with different tyre
models are analyzed. First of all, the motorcycle is equipped with a front and a rear tyre which
have a constant relaxation length. Secondly, the rear tyre is replaced with a rigid-ring tyre model,
while the front tyre is left unchanged. The first impression is that the implementation of the rigid
ring model does not give large differences in the weave mode of a motorcycle in comparison to
the constant relaxation length model. At high speeds stabilizing contributions of the gyroscopic
couple can be found in this mode if the rigid ring tyre model is used. At moderate speeds (80
[km/h]) this tyre model gives little less damping than the constant relaxation length model. It is
mentioned that the effect of the rigid ring tyre model of a front tyre still has to be studied, and
that its influence on the wobble mode is expected to be larger. The general acceptance of the
Magic Formula tyre model is shown by the use of the model by several researchers [23] [3].
S p in d le a x is
T y re c o n to u r
C A R o a d s u rfa c e
y M x
Figure 2.3: Different contact point definitions
In the meanwhile, a tyre model is developed at the University of Padua to overcome several
problems of the first-order relaxation model. The first signs of this model are seen in the work of
Cossalter in 1999 [5]. The Magic Formula is adapted in such a way that it is suitable to act in
the ’actual’ contact point (A). The original Magic Formula is used in the ’fictitious’ contact point
(C) defined by the wheel-plane and the road surface, as can be seen in figure 2.3. One of the
advantages of moving the contact point is that the overturning moment Mx in this point can be
neglected. This model is further extended by Cossalter [4] with the elastic modelling of the tyre
carcass. In order to describe the contact point accurately two linear models are developed. The
simpler model has two DoF’s, the lateral and radial displacements of the tyre with respect to the
hub. The tyre stiffness is modelled by linear springs, which are aligned with the radial and lateral
direction. The second model has one extra DoF with respect to the first model; the rotation of the
tyre. By measurements all parameters needed for the description of such models were gained. The
graphical representation of those models can be seen in figure 2.4. In 2002 Cossalter has extended
Figure 2.4: Different tyre models developed by Cossalter
the two DoF model with rotational deformation in the wheel spin direction (See figure 2.5) and
implemented it in a multi-body motorcycle model. It is proven that such a model represents the
dynamic tyre behaviour in a way equivalent to the relaxation tire models. However, this approach
has several advantages. First of all, it explains the physical behaviour of the tyre in a more
realistic manner. Furthermore, only static and steady state experimental tests are required to
characterize the tyre behaviour in both static and dynamic conditions. The latest developments
tir e
r im
Figure 2.5: Rotational tyre deformation with respect to the rim
to this tyre model are recently presented by Lot [12]. Again the three elastic deformations of the
tyre are taken into account. However one should interpret the determined tyre stiffnesses critically,
as the measurement range of the applied force is limited (0-300 [N]). In this model a very good
approximation of the tyre geometry is introduced. The tyre cross section is photographed and
the contour of the tyre is fitted. Finally, the presented model is compared with the relaxation
model finding that both models are equivalent in absence of camber angle. When a camber angle
is introduced the new model is able to properly fit experimental tests, while the relaxation model
is not. The phase lag of the relaxation model is too large in comparison with the new model.
Chapter 3
A motorcycle simulation model
In the year 1983 Cornelis Koenen has published his PhD work in the report ’The dynamic be-
haviour of a motorcycle’ [10]. In this report a physical model of a motorcycle is described with
a multibody approach. In order to get a better understanding of the dynamics of both a motor-
cycle and its tyres, Koenen’s work is made operational by developing a model in the multibody
toolbox of Matlab/Simulink, SimMechanics. The model of Koenen is explained in this chapter,
the parameters used in this model can be found in Appenix B.
3.1 Model structure and features

The multibody model is build with respect to an orthogonal axis system (O,x,y,z). The origin
O of this axis system lies in the contact point between the rear tyre and the ground plane.
The gravity g is pointing in the −z direction. The multibody model is composed of eight rigid
parts, interconnected by kinematic constraints. This model, together with its sign conventions, is
depicted in figure 3.1. All the joints in the model are one degree of freedom revolute joints, except
for the front suspension which is a one degree of freedom translational joint.
g 3 S te e r
B o d y le a n
T w is t
1 s
P itc h
2
2 s 1 u
1 w
z
2 w
y
O x
Figure 3.1: Motorcycle model components
10
CHAPTER 3. A MOTORCYCLE SIMULATION MODEL 11
All parts that are shown in figure 3.1 are assumed to be infinitely stiff. The most relevant
elasticity property of the frame is accounted for in the ’twist’ degree of freedom. The main frame
(2) of the motorcycle forms the basis part of the model. In the SimMechanics model, the connection
to the ground plane is made with this body by means of a 6 DoF joint i.e. the motorcycle can
freely with respect to the inertial frame. In some studies concerning motorcycle dynamics the
rider body is assumed to be rigid and rigidly connected to the main frame, which gives a poor
representation of the reality. To avoid too large differences between the model and reality, in this
case the rider body is split up in two parts. The lower segment of the rider body is assumed
to be rigidly attached to the main frame (2), the upper part (3) to rotate about an axis which
is horizontal in the initial condition, see figure 3.1. This rotation is both sprung and damped.
Furthermore, the rear wheel (2) is connected to the main mass with a sprung and damped swing
arm. This massless swing arm makes it possible for the rear wheel to rotate around a point on
the main body and in the plane of symmetry, the ’pitch’ movement. This is the only point at
which the SimMechanics model differs from the Koenen model because Koenen uses a different
joint for the pitch motion, as explained in section 2.1.1. As this joint is difficult to model in the
SimMechanics environment the choice is made to use a swing arm, which is normally used in
motorcycle models. The rear wheel (2w) is of course also given a DoF in such a way that it is
able to rotate around its own axle. At the front end of the main mass the steer pivot is located.
The steer body (1), twist body (1s), front unsprung mass (1u) and front wheel (1w) together
rotate as a whole relative to the main mass, about an inclined steering axis. As said, the main
elastic property of the frame has been accounted for in the twist degree of freedom. The twist
axis, which is perpendicular to the steering axis, allows the twist body (1s), front unsprung mass
(1a) and front wheel (1w) to rotate out of the plane of symmetry of the motorcycle. Also this
rotation is sprung and damped. The front suspension is modelled as a translatory movement of
the front unsprung mass (1u) and front wheel (1w) perpendicular to the steering axis if no twist
angle is present. Again this movement is both sprung and damped. Finally, the front wheel (1w)
is given one DoF, to be able to rotate around its spindle. All parameters considering this model
are documented in Appendix B, together with a geometrical figure of the model.
F d
P d z
P lx
F l
Figure 3.2: Aerodynamic forces acting on the motorcycle
Additional to the parts of the model that are depicted in figure 3.1, the environment of the
motorcycle needs to be modelled. This comprises the road surface and the air through which
the vehicle moves. The road surface is assumed to be a flat and even plane perpendicular to the
direction of the local gravitational field. The air surrounding the vehicle is assumed to be initiallly
still relative to this ground plane. The motion of the vehicle will give rise to both stationary
and non-stationary forces acting on it. From these forces only two components are regarded, the
stationary drag and lift forces. The direction and lines of application of these forces can be seen
in figure 3.2. The motorcycle is modelled in such a way that the aerodynamic forces act at a
specified point of the main mass (2).
3.2 Stabilization and velocity controllers

In the literature survey (Chapter 2) it is stated that two-track vehicles are inherent to stability
problems. In real life, the driver of the motorcycle acts as a controller, in order to remove the
instabilities of the motorcycle. This is done by both moving the upper body in order to move the
center of gravity and by giving a certain torque on the handle bars. As no driver model which
steers the motorcycle is present in the model of Koenen also this two-track vehicle will be unstable,
so a stabilizing controller needs to be developed.
In section 2.1.3 it is explained that the three main instabilities of a motorcycle are capsize,
weave and wobble. It is also shown that Ruijs [16] has developed a stabilizing controller for
motorcycles, based on the model of Koenen [10]. From this research it can be learned that three
separate feedback loops are required and each feedback signal needs its own gain. First of all, the
angular velocity with which the front fork rotates around the steering axis is needed, to stabilize
the wobble mode. Secondly, the capsize mode is stabilized with the feedback of the camber angle
of the motorcycle. Finally, the time derivative of this camber angle is used to stabilize the weave
mode. The schematic representation of this controller is depicted in figure 3.3.
d
g
S te e r to rq u e
M o to r c y c le m o d e l
g
K d
0
K g
0
K g
re f
Figure 3.3: Stabilizing feedback controller
In order to steer the motorcycle into a corner, the reference of the camber angle γ is changed
from 0 [rad] to a certain value. The references of the camber velocity and the steer angle velocity
remain 0 [rad/s]. The feedback gains of the controller are depending on the forward speed of the
motorcycle. For several forward velocities, these gains are determined empirically.
Next to the stabilizing controller, also a controller needs to be developed to keep the forward
velocity constant during a simulation. The controller therefore needs to compensate for the rolling
resistance of the tyres and the aerodynamic drag. To overcome this problem a PD-controller is
implemented, with the feedback of the actual forward velocity of the motorcycle. The output of
this controller is a driving torque that is applied at the rear wheel.
3.3 Tyre model implementation

In order to describe the behaviour of the motorcycle tyres, of course the MF-MCTyre model is
used in the motorcycle model. A short description of the implementation is given here, more
information about the model can be found in Appendix A. The tyre behaviour is implemented
by means of the Standard Tire Interface which needs eight input signals, as can be seen in figure
3.4. In this figure only a wheel of the vehicle model is depicted. This wheel body is connected
Figure 3.4: Implementation of the MF-MCTyre model in the motorcycle simulation model
to the rest of the vehicle by means of the ’Vehicle model connection’. The first input of the
tyre model (road) defines the road profile during the simulation. The height of the road and
the slope of the road in both the x and y direction are specified. As only flat road surfaces are
considered, all three input variables will remain 0. The second input dis is defined as the x, y
and z position of the wheel in the global axis system. This position is measured by means of a
SimMechanics element; the wheel sensor. This sensor also defines the input tramat, which is a
9 component transformation matrix defined in the global plane. Both vel and omega are also
defined by a sensor connected to the wheel center. This sensor defines the global velocity (vel)
and the global angular velocity (omega) of the wheel center with respect to the wheel’s local
axis system. The signals angtwc and omegar give the rotation angle and the relative rotational
velocity between the tyre belt and the wheel body. As this motion is not taken into consideration
within the simulations within this research, both signals remain 0. Finally, seven coefficients to
scale several Magic Formula coefficients are introduced. For example the longitudinal and lateral
peak friction coefficients and the pneumatic trail coefficients can be adapted. The output of the
interface consists of the forces (force) and torques (torques) defined in the local axis system of
the wheel. By means of the actuators those forces and moments are fed back to the center of the
wheel. The third output varinf contains 40 signals representing the tyre behaviour. In this signal
for example the forces and moments in the contact center, the longitudinal slip κ, the side slip
angle α and the camber angle γ are given.
3.4 Simulation results

The main purpose of this research is to investigate the steady-state behaviour of both the motor-
cycle and tyre model. More specifically, cornering at large camber angles is of particular interest
as this operation area is typical for motorcycles. Therefore, several simulations are conducted at
different cornering conditions. In this section the results of a simulation with a forward velocity
of 100 [km/h] are presented. Within the first five seconds the motorcycle is running in a straight
line at a camber angle of 0 degrees. At exactly five seconds, the camber angle reference of the
controller is gradually changed to 48 degrees. Therefore, the motorcycle drives into a right-hand
corner where it reaches a steady state. To make sure that a steady state is reached, the motorcy-
cle remains cornering until the end of the simulation at 100 [s]. The trajectory of the motorcycle
during this simulation is depicted in figure 3.5. Although the fact the steady state behaviour is of
interest during in this research, first of all a short remark is made about the non-stationary steer
−20
−40
−60
Y−distance [m]
−80
−100
−120
−140
−160
−180
50 100 150 200 250
X−distance [m]
Figure 3.5: Trajectory of the motorcycle model during a cornering simulation
torque. In figure 3.6 the camber angle and the steering torque during the simulation are depicted.
If one examines the steering torque while the motorcycle is driving into the corner, one sees the
50
Camber angle, γ [deg]
40
30
20
10
−10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10
0
Steer torque [Nm]
−10
−20
−30
−40
−50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time [s]
Figure 3.6: Camber angle and steering torque response during a simulation
typical paradox in the motorcycle steering behaviour. When the motorcycle needs to drive into
a right hand corner (γ ≥ 0), first a steering impulse to the left is needed. The origin of this
behaviour, called gyroscopic precession, lies in the inertia of the rotating front wheel. A spinning
wheel has a very stable axis of rotation, i.e. a strong tendency to maintain its plane of rotation.
If a twisting moment is applied which tries to change this plane of rotation (as happens when the
wheel is steered) this leads to a tilting moment around an axis at 90 degrees to that of the twisting
moment. If, for example, a spinning wheel is steered to the left this results in a moment which
tilts the wheel to the right. Therefore, a large steering torque to the left is needed for an instant
to steer the motorcycle into a right hand corner.
Once the motorcycle is cornering in a steady state, several equilibriums of forces and moments
are present which can be analysed. The signals used for the analysis of these equilibriums are
averaged over the last 10 seconds of the simulation. The tyre in- and output quantities can be
found in table 3.1 and the variables measured from the motorcycle are presented in table 3.2.
Note that the tyre parameters are given an extra index f of r to define the difference between
the front and rear tyre respectively. Furthermore, note that the front and rear suspension have a
pretension, so the forces and moments cannot be directly derived from the deformation and the
stiffness. The pretension is of such magnitude that when the motorcycle is in an upright position
with no forward velocity, the geometrical parameters of the motorcycle that are given in Appendix
B are present. Moreover, the suspension deflection and the pitch angle are given with respect to
this initial state.
Front tyre Rear tyre

κf [-] 0.003 κr [-] 0.004
αf [deg] 0.27 αr [deg] 1.37
γf [deg] 48.46 γr [deg] 48.26
Fxwf [N] -101.7 Fxwr [N] 332.0
Fywf [N] -1126.4 Fywr [N] -1635.9
Fzwf [N] 1310.3 Fzwr [N] 1758.2
Mxwf [Nm] -67.8 Mxwr [Nm] -197.3
Mywf [Nm] -5.9 Mywr [Nm] -8.6
Mzwf [Nm] -38.4 Mzwr [Nm] -27.6
Table 3.1: The tyre in- and output for the front and rear tyre during steady state cornering
Camber angle, γ [deg] 48.26

Aerodynamic drag, Fd [N] -187.1
Aerodynamic lift, Fl [N] -43.7
Pitch angle [deg] 0.62
Pitch torque [Nm] -714.6
Suspension deflection [m] -0.02
Suspension force [N] 1359.6
Rider lean angle [deg] 0.81
Rider lean torque [Nm] -14.12
Twist angle [deg] 0.21
Twist torque [Nm] -113.2
Steer angle [deg] 0.03
Steer torque [Nm] -4.9
Table 3.2: Motorcycle behaviour during steady state cornering
In figure 3.7 the deformation of the motorcycle during steady state cornering is graphically
represented. As can be seen from the rear view, the positive rider lean angle leads to the rider
upper body leaning into the right hand corner. Furthermore, also the twist angle is positive due
to which the front fork and the front wheel are rotated with respect to the main body. Therefore,
the camber angle of the front wheel is larger than the camber angle of the rear wheel. From the
gr
B o d y le a n a x is
3 S te e r
B o d y le a n
T w is t a x is 1
T w is t
g
1 s
b 2
1 u
fro n t ty re 2 s
P itc h
2 w 1 w
re a r ty re
Figure 3.7: Rear view(left) and side view(right) of motorcycle deformations during steady state
cornering
side view the deformation of the rear suspension (pitch) and the front suspension can be seen. The
front suspension is somewhat compressed and therefore the front suspension deflection is negative.
Finally, the pitch angle is positive, so the wheel is rotated towards the main body and the rear
suspension is compressed.
3.4.1 Equilibria of forces

The equilibria of forces in the global x, y and z direction are analysed. With this analysis it can
be explained which tyre forces are present and why they have their specific magnitude during
this steady state cornering situation. The equilibrium in the longitudinal direction is formed by
the tyre forces and the aerodynamic drag. The only force which is driving the motorcycle is the
longitudinal force of the rear wheel. The longitudinal force of the front wheel (due to the rolling
resistance) and the drag force are negative. Furthermore, the combination of the negative lateral
forces and the positive slip angles also lead to a negative longitudinal force. Therefore it should
hold that:
Fxwr + Fd + Fxwf + Fywr sin αr + Fywf sin αf = 0 (3.1)
If this equilibrium is computed a residual force of -1.3 [N] is present most probably due to averaging
and rounding. With respect to the 332 [N] of the rear tyre, this residual force is only 0.4% which
is negligible.
The overall vertical force of both tyres balances the overall gravitational force and the compo-
nent of the aerodynamic lift in the z-direction.
Fzwf + Fzwr + Fl cos γ + g(m1 + m1u + m2 + m2u + m3 ) = 0 (3.2)
When the equilibrium is determined with the averaged forces, a residual force of 4.6 [N] is present.
Again this is a negligible 0.15% with respect to the overall vertical tyre force of 3068.5 [N].
The lateral tyre forces are negative (pointing inwards the corner) and for an equilibrium in the
lateral direction they need to compensate for the centrifugal forces (pointing outwards the corner)
that are acting on each body. Moreover, these centrifugal forces Fa can be calculated for each
individual body.
Fa = mω 2 R (3.3)
with m the mass of the body, ω the rotational velocity and R the cornering radius of the center
of gravity of the body. Therefore the equilibrium is formed by:
n
X
Fyf + Fyr + Fai = 0 (3.4)
i=1
n
X
Fyf + Fyr + ω 2 mi Ri = 0 (3.5)
i=1
If this equilibrium is determined, a residual force of -26.85 [N] is present, which means that the
total of the tyre forces is 0.97% larger than the total centrifugal force.
3.4.2 Camber angle γ and steer torque Ms

During steady state cornering, several other equilibria exist within the simulation model. For ex-
ample, equilibria of the rider upper body, the equilibrium around the pitch axis and the equilibrium
around the twist axis are present. Two parameters that are also determined by such equilibria
are the camber angle γ and the steer torque Ms . The specific equilibria that determine these
parameters are analysed. With this analysis, it is possible to determine which specific motorcycle
tyre parameters have a significant influence on them.
S m
S F a
H S F g
S M x w
D R
Figure 3.8: Equilibrium of moments of the complete motorcycle around its local x-axis
The camber angle that is present during steady state cornering can be obtained from the
equilibrium of the moment around the local x-axis. This equilibrium is schematically depicted in
the left part of figure
P 3.8. The center of gravity of the
P motorcycle is depicted in which the sum
of the centrifugal ( Fa ) and gravitational forces ( Fg ) act. Together with the height of the
centers of gravity of the bodies, the centrifugal forces lead to a moment which tries to decrease
the camber angle γ. Due to the camber angle, the bodies are cornering on a different radius than
the contact points of the tyres. Therefore, the gravitational forces lead to a moment which tries to
increase the camber angle. Finally, there is an overturning moment Mxw in the contact point of
each tyre which has already been explained with the aid of figure 2.3. The equilibrium is formed
by:
n
X n
X
Mxwf + Mxwr + Fgi ∆Ri = Fai Hi (3.6)
i=1 i=1
n
X n
X
Mxwf + Mxwr + gmi (Rf − Ri ) − ω 2 mi Ri Hi = 0 (3.7)
i=1 i=1
For the determination of this equilibrium, the cornering radius of the front tyre Rf is used. With
this assumption, the residual torque is 2.6 [Nm]. Again, this is relatively small as the total moment
around the local x-axis is around 1135 [Nm]. It is shown that the camber angle is determined by
he overturning moments of the front and the rear wheel. Therefore, if these moments would be
altered also the camber angle will change.
g 1 x
m
M s
s te e r a x is 1
tw is t a x is
F a 1 m 1
F g 1
g
e g
m
1 u x
F a 1 u
1 u
m 1 u
M z c
F y c F g 1 u
R o
w h e e l c e n te r
Figure 3.9: A side view(left) and a rear view(right) of the equilibrium of moments around the
steer axle
The equilibrium of the steer torque is somewhat more complicated. As can be seen from
figure 3.9, several components are present which have an influence on the equilibrium. For the
determination of the equilibrium the twist angle and the steer angle are not taken into consideration
as they are negligibly small (See table 3.2). Furthermore, the tyre forces and moments are firstly
transformed to the C-axis system which has its origin in the wheel center. With the forces and
moments in this axis system, the equilibrium is somewhat easier to explain and understand. In
figure 3.10 the forces and moments in the tyre road contact point O and the wheel center C are
depicted. As the forces in the tyre road contact point are known from table 3.1, the forces in the
wheel center can be derived with this figure.
Fyc = Fyw cos γ + Fzw sin γ = 234.1[N ] (3.8)
Fzc = −Fyw sin γ + Fzw cos γ = 1712.0[N ] (3.9)

It is important to notice that the lateral force at the wheel center Fyc is relatively small. The
tyre forces are balanced in such a way that the major part of the force is present in the plane
of symmetry of the wheel, namely in Fzw . As will be shown, this force has no influence on the
equilibrium of the steer torque. Furthermore, the front wheel is freely rolling and therefore the
moment around the spindle axle Myc remains zero. The moment Mzc can again be derived with
the aid of figure 3.10.
Mzc = −Myw sin γ + Mzw cos γ = −21.0 (3.10)

F y c = 2 3 4 .1 [N ] F z c = 1 7 1 2 .0 [N ] M y c = 0 [N m ] M z c = -2 1 .0 [N m ]
O O
F z w = 1 3 1 0 .3 [N ] M z w = -3 8 .4 [N m ]
g g
R l R l
C C
F y w = -1 1 2 6 .4 [N ] M y w = -5 .9 [N m ]
Figure 3.10: The forces (left) and moments (right) in the W and C-axis system of the front wheel
Next to the tyre forces and moments, also the gravitational (Fg1 and Fg1u ) and centrifugal
(Fa1 and Fa1u ) forces of the masses m1 and m1u influence the equilibrium. The force of each mass
that effectively influences the steer torque equilibrium are calculated by:
Fm1 = R1 m1 ω 2 cos γ − gm1 sin γ (3.11)
Fm1u = R1u m1u ω 2 cos γ − gm1u sin γ (3.12)

for masses m1 and m1u respectively.
With this known, the equilibrium can be derived.
Ms − Fyc t − Fm1 g1x − Fm1u g1ux − Mzc cos ² + Mxc sin ² = 0 (3.13)
If the equilibrium is determined a residual torque of 0.3 [Nm] is present which is again negligible.
Most probably, this residual torque is caused by the fact that the twist angle and the steer angle
are neglected. Moreover, it is remarked that the largest contribution in this equilibrium are the
moment caused by the force Fyc in combination with the mechanical trail t and the moment caused
by Mzc in combination with the rake angle ². With -15.4 [Nm] and 18.0 [Nm] these torques are
relatively large and opposite to each other. Therefore if one of both would be altered, a significant
change in steer torque would be seen. Moreover, with this equilibrium it is also proven that the
mechanical trail t and the rake angle ² have a significant influence on the steering behaviour of a
motorcycle.
Chapter 4
Problems of the MF-MCTyre

model
The basis of the MF-MCTyre model is the Magic Formula. Research [28] proves that the mo-
torcycle version of this formula is able to accurately describe the characteristics of the forces and
moments generated by a motorcycle tyre. The model surrounding the Magic Formula has been
derived from an automobile tyre model, which is therefore suited especially for the slip and cam-
ber angle range of these tyres. As the camber angle range is significantly larger for motorcycle
tyres than for automobile tyres, the model is known to be less accurate when it is evaluated under
large camber angles. Furthermore, for the processing of the measurements several assumptions are
made which negatively influence the accuracy. In this chapter the weak points and error sources
of the MF-MCTyre model are revealed and possible solutions are mentioned. In this chapter the
results of an elaborate measurement program are presented. These measurement results are used
to elaborate the solutions presented in this chapter and to evaluate their correctness. In this
chapter only several aspects of the MF-MCTyre model are discussed. For more information about
the tyre model the reader is referred to Appendix A.
4.1 Explanation of the tyre model

In the present and the following chapters the axis systems of the tyre model play an important
role. Therefore the definitions of the most important axis systems are again given, with the aid
of figure 4.1. The C-axis system is fixed to the wheel carrier with the longitudinal xc -axis parallel
Z
nr
nr
X
Zc Y
Zw Zc
Vx
Zw
Vc
Xc
Xc
O Xw
Xw Yc
-γ
Yc
Yw
Yw
C
C
Figure 4.1: C- and W -axis systems used in MF-MCTyre
to the road and in the wheel plane (xc -zc -plane). The origin O of the C-axis system is the wheel
20
CHAPTER 4. PROBLEMS OF THE MF-MCTYRE MODEL 21
center. The origin of the W-axis system is the road contact point C defined by the intersection of
the wheel plane, the plane through the wheel spindle and the road tangent plane. The xw -yw -plane
is the tangent plane of the road in the contact point C, and it defines the camber angle γ together
with the normal nr to the road plane (xw -yw -plane). Furthermore, the forces and moments are
described in both axis systems. Therefore all forces and moments have a c or w index, which
points out with respect to which reference axis system they are defined.
In section 3.3 the implementation of the MF-MCTyre model by means of the Standard Tyre
Interface (STI) is described. Each time step, several kinematic parameters are retrieved from
the wheel center (the C-axis system) and used as an input for this interface. Furthermore the
interface returns the forces and moments in the C-axis system as a feedback to the wheel center.
The processing of the input parameters within the STI is schematically depicted in figure 4.2.
First of all the contact routine uses the position and orientation of the wheel and the road profile
K in e m a tic s F o rc e s & M o m e n ts
C - a x is C - a x is
V e h ic le m o d e l
W - a x is W - a x is
C o n ta c t r o u tin e M a g ic F o r m u la C o n v e r s io n
S ta n d a rd T y re In te rfa c e
T y r e p r o p e r ty file
M F -to o l
W - a x is
M -ty re C o n v e r s io n
C - a x is
M e a s u re m e n ts (D T T )
Figure 4.2: Schematic representation of the MF-MCTyre model
to determine the exact position of the contact point. This point is used as the origin of the W-
axis system. In this origin the input variables of the Magic Formula, the vertical load Fzw , the
longitudinal slip κ, the side slip angle α and the camber angle γ are determined by this routine.
With these input parameters known, the Magic Formula is evaluated and the forces and moments
in the contact point are determined. As these forces and moments are applied to the vehicle model
at the wheel center, they are converted from the W - to the C-axis system. As said, the loop with
the vehicle model and the STI is evaluated at each time step of the vehicle simulation.
Next to the simulation loop, also the measurement line is depicted in figure 4.2. In contra-
diction to the simulation loop this line is only evaluated once. First of all, the tyre behaviour is
experimentally determined by the Delft-Tyre Test Trailer (DTT). During tests the test trailer has
a certain forward velocity and the tyre is pushed against the road at various loads, orientations
and motion conditions. During these tests, all forces and moments are measured at the wheel
center (the C-axis system). As the Magic Formula is evaluated in the W -axis system, the M-Tyre
software is used to convert the measurements to the contact center. Finally, the MF-Tool software
is used to fit the Magic Formula parameters to the measured forces and moments. This leads to
a set of parameters that represents one single tyre. This set of parameters and some general tyre
parameters are captured in a tyre property file which is used by the STI during each time step of
a vehicle simulation, in order to describe the momentary tyre behaviour.
4.2 Problems with the determination of the contact point

and the vertical load, Fzw
Within the STI, first of all the fictitious contact point C of the tyre with the road is determined.
To do this, the road profile is approximated by its tangent plane at the point on the road below
the wheel center O (See figure 4.3). This approximation is justified by the assumption that the
radius of curvature of the road profile is considered large as compared to the radius of the tyre.
Therefore, the difference between the actual road and its approximation remains small. With this
road tangent plane, the wheel plane and the plane through the wheel spindle form one intersection
point which is used as the origin of the W system of axis, point C. As the contact point is now
O
R
l R o
g
h
ro a d ta n g e n t
p la n e
r t
C
r
r o a d p r o file
Figure 4.3: Determination of the contact point C and the vertical compression ρ
known, also the vertical deformation ρ of the tyre can be determined. In order to do this the
tyre contour is approximated by a circle with radius rt . With the aid of figure 4.3, the normal
compression of the tyre can be determined.
ρ0 = rt + (R0 − rt ) cos γ − h (4.1)
ρ = max(0, ρ0 ) (4.2)
As the tyre is assumed to have a constant vertical stiffness Cz and damping Kz , the normal load
Fzw can then be calculated as:
Fzw = Cz ρ + Kz ρ̇ (4.3)
with ρ̇ the deflection velocity. If during a time step the vertical load is for example higher than the
calculated Fzw , the axle height will slightly decrease. In the next time step the vertical compression
and therefore also the vertical load will increase and the vehicle load is again supported. With
this ’loop’ the equilibrium between tyre load and calculated vertical force is constantly balanced
during a simulation.
4.2.1 The wheel axle height, h

The determination of both the contact point and the vertical load calculation have a significant
influence on the correctness of the tyre model. First of all, they determine the height of the
wheel axle h during a simulation, which plays an important role in the dynamic behaviour of the
simulated vehicle. If the axle height is incorrect, also the positions of the centers of gravity of
parts of the vehicle will be incorrect. The axle height is especially critical for motorcycles as these
vehicles are very sensitive to mass distribution. Moreover, motorcycles are inherent to instabilities
which are partly governed by the positions of the centers of gravity of several parts. Despite the
importance of an accurate axle height, the contact routine contains assumptions which decrease
the accuracy of the axle height during simulations. First of all, the approximation of the road by
a tangent plane at the point on the road below the wheel center introduces an error. Especially
when the tyre model is evaluated under a large camber angle the distance between the point below
the wheel center and the contact point becomes rather large. Therefore, the road profile at the
contact point may be different from the estimated tangent plane. Furthermore, the tyre contour
is assumed circular which is not the case in practice. Each tyre has its individual shape which
should be taken into consideration if a correct axle height is requested. Finally, the vertical tyre
stiffness Cz is modelled as a linear spring that is independent of the camber angle and the vertical
compression ρ, which is not validated.
To overcome these problems a new contact routine should be developed. First off all, this
routine should contain a more accurate determination of the contact point. Therefore, the actual
contact point should be determined without the approximation of the tangent road plane. Fur-
thermore, also an accurate description of the tyre contour is needed. Finally the assumption of a
constant vertical tyre stiffness should be replaced with an accurate description of the vertical load
as a function of the vertical compression. To be able to make these improvements, first of all the
vertical tyre contour and the vertical tyre stiffness should be measured.
4.2.2 The tyre loaded radius, Rl

In the previous section it has been shown that the forces and moments are converted several times
between both axis system during measurements and simulations. In Appendix C the processing
of the measurement data and the conversions between the axis systems are described. For the
conversion of the moments the distance between the axis systems, the loaded radius Rl , of course
plays an important role. To obtain correct conversions it is important to accurately determine
the loaded radius during both measurements and simulations. Moreover, if the circumstances
are similar also similar loaded radii should be present during measurements and simulations to
guarantee equal conversions of the moments.
As can be concluded from figure 4.3, the loaded radius Rl during simulations is determined
by the contact point and the vertical force calculations. Due to the incorrect assumptions of the
tangent road plane, circular tyre cross section and constant vertical tyre stiffness the loaded radius
is inaccurate. Furthermore, also the loaded radius that is used to convert measurement data is
incorrect. The measurement truck with which tyre measurements are performed contains two
measurement towers, each with its own measurement hub. For the right tower it is impossible to
measure the loaded radius and a rough estimation is made. For the left tower it is possible to
measure the loaded radius, but with an ultrasonic sensor which has a very poor accuracy.
The overturning moment Mxw is especially sensitive to the loaded radius, which can be shown
with the measurement signals depicted in figure 4.4. The minimum sideslip angle α is around −7.5
degrees and is reached at approximately 55 seconds. At this point the force Fyc is approximately
1750 [N] and the moment Mxc is approximately 460 [Nm]. With the conversion described in
Appendix C and the loaded radius determined during this measurement, the overturning moment
is determined as:
Mxw = Mxc − Fyc Rl = 460 − 1750 × 0.302 = −68.5[N m] (4.4)
During measurements, the loaded radius is determined with an accuracy of approximately 5 [mm]
and relatively much noise is present. Combined with the force Fyc , the loaded radius error leads
to an absolute error of 8.75 [Nm], which is more than 12% of the actual overturning moment
computed with (4.4). Due to this error and the large amount of noise, the Magic formula fit is of
a low quality.
Furthermore, the loaded radius used during the conversion of the measurements differs signifi-
cantly from the loaded radius used during simulations. As a result, different conversions between
10
α [deg]
0
−10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2000
1000
Fyc [N]
−1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
500
Mxc [Nm]
−500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time [s]
Figure 4.4: Measured signals during an α-sweep under 50 degrees camber
the axis systems are present and the the tyre model will produce incorrect moments on the wheel
axle during a simulation. The obvious solution to this problem is to use similar parameters which
determine the loaded radius during both the processing of the measurements and simulations. If
this is done, the loaded radius can be unambiguously defined and is always equal during equal
circumstances.
4.3 Problems with the determination of the effective rolling

radius, Re
Within the contact routine another input parameter of the Magic Formula is determined, namely
the longitudinal slip κ. From the signals that are retrieved from the vehicle model the linear rolling
velocity of a tyre is defined by the rotational speed of the tyre Ω and the effective rolling radius
Re (See also figure 4.5).
Vr = ΩRe (4.5)
The longitudinal slip of a tyre is defined as the relative difference between this linear rolling velocity
and the actual longitudinal velocity Vx .
Vr − Vx
κ= (4.6)
Vx
As becomes clear from (4.5) and (4.6), the effective rolling radius Re of a tyre is of considerable
importance for the correct determination of this slip. This radius determines the ratio between
the forward velocity Vx and the rotational speed Ω when no longitudinal slip is present. Therefore,
if the effective rolling radius is incorrectly implemented the rotational speed of the wheel will be
incorrect during a simulation.
For automobile tyres the effective rolling radius has a specific dependency on the vertical load
Fzw which is depicted in figure 4.6. At first, an increase in vertical load will decrease the effective
R o
W
V x
R l
R e
Figure 4.5: Effective rolling radius and longitudinal slip
rolling radius in an almost similar way as the loaded radius Rl . The vertical load will deform the
tyre rubber, the circumference of the tyre will decrease and with that also Re decreases. As the
vertical load further increases the tyre will be compressed but the effect on the rolling radius is
getting smaller. This is explained by the fact that the steel carcass of a tyre is radially flexible,
but in the circumferential direction very stiff. Therefore at increasing vertical load the tyre still
deforms, but its circumference remains almost equal. As the circumference does not alter, also the
effective rolling radius will not decrease significantly. Although this effect is thoroughly checked
for automobile tyres, little information is present on this effect for motorcycle tyres. In the present
tyre model the behaviour of an automobile tyre is therefore implemented.
304
Effective rolling radius Re
302 Loaded radius R
l
300
298
Radius [mm]
296
294
292
290
288
286
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Vertical force, Fzw [N]
Figure 4.6: The effective rolling radius and loaded radius as a function of the vertical load
For the estimation of the effective radius Re as a function of the vertical load Fzw a Magic
Formula approach is used.
Re = Ro − ρFz0 (D arctan(Bρd ) + F ρd ) (4.7)
In this formula, Ro is the unloaded free radius when no camber is present. The nominal tyre
deflection ρFz0 is defined by the vertical tyre stiffness Cz and the nominal wheel load Fz0 .
Fz0
ρFz0 = (4.8)
Cz
Finally the dimensionless radial tyre deflection ρd can be calculated with the momentary tyre
deflection ρ, which is calculated with (4.1)-(4.2) in the previous section.
ρ
ρd = (4.9)
ρFz0
The factor B in (4.7) determines the slope at Fzw = 0, the factor D defines the height of the asymp-
tote at high wheel loads and the factor F defines the ratio between the tyre radial deformation
and the effective tyre deformation.
It has been proven that this method describes the effective rolling radius of an automobile
tyre with sufficient accuracy. Therefore it has also been implemented in the present motorcycle
tyre model, without any adaptations. However, several assumptions that are made specifically for
automobile tyres negatively affect the accuracy. First of all, it has already been said that little
information is known on the effect of the vertical load on the effective rolling radius for motorcycle
tyres. Copying the parameters B, D and F from automobile tyre measurements is doubtful as the
construction of a motorcycle tyre is completely different. Therefore, motorcycle tyre measurements
are needed to determine these parameters accurately. Furthermore, no attention is paid to the tyre
contour and its effect on the effective rolling radius when the wheel is cambered. The unloaded free
radius Ro is used in (4.7) instead of the effective rolling radius of a cambered and undeformed tyre,
Reo . In figure 4.7 an idea is given of the impact of this assumption. Especially under large camber
R o
R e o = R o
g
R e o
Figure 4.7: Effect of camber on the effective rolling radius
angles the effect is considerable. The effective rolling radius is estimated too large and therefore
the longitudinal slip is determined too small during vehicle simulations under high camber angles,
which affect the rotational velocity of the wheel. Furthermore, the vertical stiffness used in (4.8)
is again assumed as being independent from the camber angle.
Summarizing, several types of measurements are needed to correctly implement the effective
rolling radius in the tyre model. The Magic Formula coefficients that describe the influence of the
vertical load need to be determined from measurements at different vertical loads. Furthermore
a correct description of both the tyre contour and the vertical tyre stiffness are needed to include
the camber dependency of the effective rolling radius. When these changes are implemented, an
extensive measurement program is needed to check the correctness of the new description of the
effective rolling radius.
4.4 Errors in the rolling resistance assumption

When the MF-MCTyre model is evaluated under a large camber angle, it shows an unexpected
behaviour. If a so-called α-sweep is simulated, significant fluctuations of the longitudinal force
Fxw are present. This is in contradiction with measurements where fluctuations of this force are
10
Slip angle, α [deg]

5
−5
−10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
100
MF−MCTyre
0 Measurements
Fxw [N]
−100
−200
−300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time [s]
Figure 4.8: Fluctuating Fxw during an α-sweep under 50 degrees camber
negligible. The difference between the output of the MF-MCTyre model and measurements results
is depicted in figure 4.8.
The cause of this problem can be found in the processing of the measurement data. During
testing the moment around the wheel axle (Myc ) cannot be measured and therefore an assumption
has to be made. To overcome this problem an estimation is made for the rolling resistance moment
Myw . In the past, tests have been performed with a non-cambered freely rolling automobile tyre.
As the wheel is freely rolling the rotational velocity Ω is almost constant, which leads to the
conclusion that there is no effective moment around the wheel axle (2nd law of Newton). With
this assumption, the equilibrium of a non-cambered wheel can be formulated.
Myc = Myw − Fxw Rl = 0 (4.10)
A schematic representation of this equilibrium can be seen in the left part of figure 4.9. As the
F z c
F y c
M z c
M y c
M y c O
O F x c
g
F z w
R l
M z w R l
M y w
C F x w F y w M y w C
Figure 4.9: Equilibrium of a freely rolling wheel
longitudinal force Fxw and the loaded radius Rl can be determined from test results an estimation
of the rolling resistance Myw has been made. This estimation has been defined as:
Myw = −Fzw fr Rl (4.11)
with fr the rolling resistance coefficient of the tyre. Despite the good results with this assumption
for automobile tyres, problems arise with motorcycle tyres. More specifically, the problems shown
in figure 4.8 arise due to the large camber angle range of a motorcycle tyre. The problem can
be explained with the equilibrium of moments around the spindle axle for a freely rolling and
cambered wheel. In the right part of figure 4.9 the forces and moments of a cambered wheel in
the (y-z)-plane are depicted, from which the equilibrium is derived.
Myc = Myw cos γ + Mzw sin γ − Fxw Rl (4.12)
From an α-sweep, the specific characteristic of the self aligning moment Mzw as a function of the
slip angle is determined and fitted with the Magic Formula. It is therefore known that this self
aligning moment fluctuates during an α-sweep. In contradiction, the measured longitudinal force
and the estimated rolling resistance do remain almost constant during the same measurement. If
the forces and moments in the contact point are determined with the current rolling resistance
assumption and the equilibrium of 4.12 is determined, the calculated Myc cannot remain constant.
In figure 4.10 the fluctuations of the calculated Myc are shown for a measurement that is processed
with the current rolling resistance assumption and a rolling resistance coefficient fr of 1.5 %.
However, in practice Myc ≈ 0 as the wheel has an almost constant rotational speed during an
α-sweep.
10
Slip angle, α [deg]
−5
−10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
−20
−40
Myc [Nm]
−60
−80
−100
−120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time [s]
Figure 4.10: Myc during an α-sweep with the present rolling resistance estimation
As all measurements are processed with this incorrect rolling resistance assumption, also the
fluctuations in the longitudinal force Fxw of figure 4.8 can be explained. The MF-MCTyre model
contains information about the forces and moments in the W -axis system which lead to a fluctu-
ation Myc during simulations. Due to this moment, the wheel is accelerated while the rest of the
vehicle has a constant forward velocity. Therefore, longitudinal slip is generated which affects the
longitudinal force Fxw . To solve these problems, measurements of a cambered and freely rolling
motorcycle wheel need to be analysed. With this analysis a new axis system can be introduced in
the contact point in which the rolling resistance can be defined correctly. Furthermore, the camber
angle is expected to have an effect on the rolling resistance factor fr which is nowadays considered
to be constant. Therefore, the measurements are also used to describe the camber dependance of
the rolling resistance coefficient fr .
Chapter 5
Motorcycle tyre measurements
In the previous chapter some deficiencies of the MF-MCTyre model are revealed. It is shown that
several important motorcycle tyre parameters should be measured to be able to include them in the
tyre model. Therefore, an elaborate measurement program is conducted in order to get a better
understanding of the tyre contour, vertical tyre stiffness, effective rolling radius and the rolling
resistance of motorcycle tyres. Especially the effect of the camber angle on these parameters will
be investigated. The results of the measurements are presented in this chapter and in the following
chapter they are used to improve the tyre model.
In order to be as consistent as possible the research within this master thesis has been performed
with one single type of motorcycle tyres. Of this type a front and a rear tyre are taken and their
properties are determined. TNO Automotive has recently executed an extensive measurement
program with the Delft Tyre Test trailer in order to determine the Magic Formula parameters
of these tyres. The results of these measurements are also used within this research, but in a
later stadium. Additional to the measurements conducted by TNO a measurement program was
set-up for this master thesis. Vertical stiffness and effective rolling radius measurements have been
conducted on the Flatplank Tyre Tester at the Eindhoven University of Technology. The Flatplank
Tyre Tester has been chosen for these measurements as the road surface disturbances are negligible
in comparison to the disturbances measured with the Delft Tyre Test trailer. Furthermore the
forward velocity and rotational velocity are measured with a higher accuracy compared to the test
trailer, which is especially favourable for the effective rolling radius measurements.
5.1 Determination of the motorcycle tyre contour

In the previous chapter the importance of an accurate representation of the tyre contour was
emphasized. The tyre contour is needed for an accurate determination of the contact point and
the effective rolling radius during simulations. Each tyre has its individual shape and to represent
the tyre behaviour with a tyre model, this shape needs to be measured and described. To determine
the tyre contour a strip of lead is used. This strip can be bent over the tyre and as it easily deforms
plastically it takes the form of the tyre. From the lead strip a print is made on cardboard and the
contour is cut out of this cardboard. Finally, the cardboard contour is scanned and from this scan
the contour can be determined digitally. In figure 5.1 the measured tyre contour of a front and a
rear tyre are depicted. Furthermore, they are compared to the approximation of the round tyre
contour which is presently implemented in the tyre model for the determination of the vertical
load. It can be seen that the round approximation is only moderately correct for these tyres.
In order to correctly represent different tyre shapes a better and more flexible solution is needed
which is developed in the next chapter.
29
CHAPTER 5. MOTORCYCLE TYRE MEASUREMENTS 30
60 100
Round contour Round contour
Measured contour 90 Measured contour
50
80
70
40
60
Height [mm]
Height [mm]
30 50
40
20
30
20
10
10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100
Width [mm] Width [mm]
Figure 5.1: The round and measured tyre contour of a front(left) and a rear(right) tyre
5.2 Vertical tyre stiffness measurements

In order to determine the vertical tyre stiffness a measurement procedure has been set up for both
a rear and a front tyre. To exclude tyre damping effects the choice has been made to perform all
measurements with a constant wheel center height. At several camber angles the tyre is pushed
against the road with three different vertical deformations of 3, 6 and 10 [mm]. For each different
combination of camber angle and vertical displacement the measurement is repeated three times
to reduce the influence of random errors. The tyre is marked at one point on its circumference, so
that the measurement are always started at an equal point. A trigger is present on the flatplank
road surface which is used to start recording all measurement channels. Furthermore, the main
steps of the measurement procedure are:
• Inflate the tyre to the prescribed pressure

• Apply a prescribed camber angle by a combination of road and wheel camber
• Rotate the tyre to the marked point on its circumference
• Place the tyre exactly against the road so that there remains zero vertical load
• Remove all offsets by zeroing the measurement channels
• Apply a prescribed vertical displacement perpendicular to the road
• Start moving the road surface and the trigger starts the measurement
The vertical tyre stiffness is desired during steady state conditions. Tyres are known to show
a relaxation effect and only reach a steady state condition after a certain travelled distance. To
exclude this transient tyre behaviour measurements are conducted over approximately two tyre
rotations. As three different vertical displacements are measured for each camber angle and each
measurement is repeated three times, nine measurements are conducted for each camber angle.
With the measured Fzw and ρ the vertical stiffness is defined as:
Fzw
Cz = (5.1)
ρ
The stiffness measurements are conducted from 0 to 50 degrees with intervals of 5 degrees, for the
front tyre. For the rear tyre, the same procedure is followed but now the largest camber angle is
45 degrees due to limitations of the measurement equipment.
During a measurement significant fluctuations in the measured vertical force Fzw are present
although the vertical deformation ρ is almost constant. This can be declared by the un-roundness
of the rolling tyre which is confirmed by the fact that the vertical force reaches its minimum and
maximum at the same points of the tyre circumference. This is shown in figure 5.2 where the
measured vertical displacement and force are depicted of a front tyre which is cambered over 25
degrees. To exclude the influence of this fluctuation both Fzw and ρ the signals measured over
the last complete tyre rotation are used.
6.01
Deformation, ρ [mm]
5.99
5.98
5.97
5.96
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
1000
950
900
850
800
750
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Rotation angle [deg]
Figure 5.2: Fluctuating Fzw over the tyre circumference of a front tyre
For the graphical representation of the vertical tyre stiffness, the vertical load Fzw and the
vertical deformation ρ are averaged over the last complete tyre rotation. From these averages
an average vertical tyre stiffness can be determined for each measurement, which is depicted in
figure 5.3. The results of the stiffness measurements of both tyres generally show a consistent
behaviour for the influences of the camber angle. As the camber angle rises, the overall vertical
stiffness is decreasing which is in consistence with the known behaviour of automobile tyres. For
automobile tyres it is known that without camber the lateral stiffness is significantly smaller
than the vertical stiffness. Therefore, the overall vertical tyre stiffness perpendicular to the road
decreases with an increasing camber angle. For both the front and rear motorcycle tyres this effect
is also present. Moreover, also the effect of the vertical deformation ρ on the vertical tyre stiffness
Cz is in consistence with the behaviour of automobile tyres. Especially for the front tyre, the
vertical stiffness increases with an increase of the vertical deformation. However, for the rear tyre
this effect is not consistent over the camber angle range and overall it can be concluded that is
has less influence than on the stiffness of the front tyre.
The vertical load Fzw during simulations is defined from the calculated vertical deformation ρ.
From (5.1) it is learned that the relationship between both is given by the vertical tyre stiffness.
Therefore, the vertical tyre stiffness measurements presented in this section are used in chapter 6
to describe the relationship between the vertical deformation and the vertical tyre force. As the
results show, this description should be a function of at least the camber angle γ and the vertical
deformation ρ.
170
ρ = 3 [mm]
ρ = 6 [mm]
ρ = 10 [mm]
160
Vertical stiffness, Cz [kN/m]
150
140
130
120
110
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
225
ρ = 3 [mm]
220 ρ = 6 [mm]
ρ = 10 [mm]
215
210
Vertical stiffness, Cz [kN/m]
205
200
195
190
185
180
175
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 5.3: Measured vertical stiffnesses for a front(top) and a rear(bottom) tyre
5.3 The effect of the vertical load on the effective rolling

radius
302
Measurements
MF−MCTyre
300
298
Effective rolling radius [mm]
296
294
292
290
288
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Figure 5.4: Effect of the vertical load on the effective rolling radius of a front tyre
In the previous chapter it has been explained that the influence of the vertical load on the
effective rolling radius is nowadays copied from automobile tyres. To correctly introduce the effect
of the vertical load in the new motorcycle tyre model, this effect needs to be measured. Therefore
measurements have been performed on the Flatplank Tyre Tester with an un-cambered freely
rolling wheel. The procedure for these measurements is similar to the procedure used for the
vertical stiffness measurements. During these measurements both the forward velocity Vx and the
rotational velocity Ω are determined, and as no driving or braking torque is applied the effective
rolling radius Re can be determined as:
Vx
Re = (5.2)
Ω
Furthermore, the measurements are again performed over two complete tyre rotations and the
measured signals during the last complete tyre rotation are used. For the graphical representation,
the results are obtained by averaging the signals over this last complete tyre rotation. Figure 5.4
shows the measured relationship between the rolling radius and vertical load and the relationship
which is presently implemented in the tyre model. As one can see large differences are present
between the model and the measurement results. The results of these measurements will therefore
be used in the next chapter to correctly implement the effect of the vertical load on the effective
rolling radius.
5.4 Effective rolling radius reference measurements

In a further stage of this thesis, a new description of the effective rolling radius for motorcycle
tyres will be generated and needs to be thoroughly checked by comparing it with measurements.
Therefore a set of reference measurements are conducted at various orientations and vertical
loads. On the Flatplank Tyre Tester an air spring is present, which makes it possible to perform
measurements with an almost constant vertical load Fzw . For each camber angle two different
vertical loads of approximately 750 [N ] and 1500 [N ] are applied. For each combination of the
camber angle and vertical load the measurements are again repeated three times, in order to reduce
the influence of random errors. Furthermore, the main steps of the measurement procedure are:
• Inflate the tyre to the prescribed pressure
• Apply a prescribed camber angle
• Place the tyre exactly against the road so that there remains zero vertical load
• Remove all offsets by zeroing the measurement channels
• Apply a prescribed vertical load with the air spring

• Start the measurement
780
Measurement
Vertical load, Fzw [N]
Average
760
740
720
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.32
Effective roll.rad., Re [m]
0.31
0.3
0.29
0.28
0.27
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Rotation angle [deg]
Figure 5.5: Effective rolling radius measurement of a front tyre under 30 degrees camber
Similar to the measurements described earlier, the measurements are performed over two com-
plete tyre rotations. In figure 5.5 the measured vertical load Fzw and the effective rolling radius
calculated with (5.2) are depicted for one measurement. From this figure it can be concluded that
especially the vertical load fluctuates with the tyre circumference. Therefore, the results are again
averaged over the last complete tyre rotation, from which the results are also shown.
Equal measurements have been performed for the front and rear tyre from 0 to 50 degrees
camber with intervals of 5 degrees. The results of these measurements and therefore the effect of
camber on the effective rolling radius are depicted in figure 5.6. Furthermore, also the effective
rolling radius that is calculated by the present tyre model is depicted and as one can see, large
differences are present between both. These differences can be clarified by the fact that the tyre
contour is not taken into account by the tyre model. The effect that cannot be explained are the
large differences between the effective rolling radius at low and high vertical load. At high camber
angles (45 and 50 degrees) the difference between both is suddenly much larger than it is a lower
camber angles. Most probably, the unreliable results at high camber angles are caused by the lack
of grip on the Flatplank surface. As the camber angle of the tyre increases, also the lateral force
of the tyre increases. At a certain point, the grip in the contact patch of the tyre is not sufficient
anymore and the tyre partly begins to slide over the surface. With the sliding, a lot of stick-slip
appears which can be noticed during the measurements by its specific sound. Most probably, this
stick slip effect negatively influences the measurements and therefore the results at large camber
angles are not completely trusted on their validity.
300
295
Effective rolling radius, R [mm]
290
e
285
280
275
270
Measured
MF−MCTyre
265
0 10 20 30 40 50
330
320
Effective rolling radius, R [mm]
310
e
300
290
280
Measured
MF−MCTyre
270
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 5.6: Measured and calculated effective rolling radius for a front(top) and a rear(bottom)
tyre
5.5 Rolling resistance factor fr measurements

Little is known about the camber dependence of the rolling resistance coefficient fr of motorcycle
tyres. As the rolling resistance can best be measured with a freely rolling wheel, the effective rolling
radius measurements are perfectly suited. In section 6.3 a new description of the rolling resistance
will be defined, with which the measurements described in this section are already processed. It
will be explained that with this new definition for a freely rolling wheel it follows that:
Fxw = Fzw fr (5.3)
With this known, the measured longitudinal force Fxw and vertical force Fzw can be used to
obtain the rolling resistance coefficient fr at different circumstances. For each measurement, the
average rolling resistance coefficient is determined to give an impression of its dependence on
the vertical force and camber angle. If the measurement results that are depicted in figure 5.7
are studied, the strong camber dependence of the rolling resistance becomes clear. For both the
front and rear tyre, the rolling resistance is approximately quadrupled over the camber range.
Furthermore, also the vertical load plays an important role. The influence of the vertical load also
increases with the camber angle, especially for the rear tyre. With these results it is shown that
the present assumption of a constant rolling resistance factor fr of 1.5% should be replace with
a more sophisticated description. Therefore, in section 6.3, these measurement results are used
to generate an accurate description of the rolling resistance which takes the effects of camber and
vertical load into account.
0.09
Fzw = 750 [N]
Fzw = 1500 [N]
0.08
Roll. resistance coefficient [−]
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.07
Fzw = 750 [N]
Fzw = 1500 [N]
0.06
Roll. resistance coefficient [−]
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 5.7: Rolling resistance coefficients for both a front and a rear tyre
Chapter 6
Improvements to the MF-MCTyre

model
In chapter 4 the deficiencies of the MF-MCTyre model have been discussed, and possible solutions
are proposed. These solutions are further elaborated in this chapter and their correctness is
checked. To do so, the results of the measurements presented in the previous chapter are used.
Moreover, they are used to improve the determination of the contact point and the vertical load,
the description of the effective rolling radius and the description of the rolling resistance moment.
Throughout the present and the following chapter it is attempted to describe the results of
several measurements. The accuracy of these descriptions is indicated with the relative error E in
percentages. For each measurement and its description, this relative error is determined as:
sP
n
(Y − Ymi )2
E = 100 Pn f i
i=1
2
(6.1)
i=1 (Ymi )
with n the number of measurement points, Yf the description and Ym the measurement.
6.1 Improving the contact point and vertical load determi-

nation
For a correct determination of the contact point and the vertical load, the tyre contour is needed.
As this contour has been measured, it can now be described. To represent the tyre contour
mathematically an ellipse with parameters a and b can be used.
u2 v2
+ =1 (6.2)
a2 b2
In this case the ellipse is described with respect to its local axis system, with axis u representing
the direction of the tyre width and the v axis describing the tyre height direction. Within this axis
system the tyre contour is described independent from its orientation, due to which it is easier to
implement the tyre contour in the contact routine. The ellipse equation is used to describe the tyre
contour and the error definition of (6.1) is used to calculate the error made by this description.
This error can be minimized for the ellipse parameters a and b, which is done with the Matlab
built-in function f minunc.m. In figure 6.1 a fit of the rear tyre contour is depicted from which it
can be seen that an elliptic fit represents the tyre contour very well. The minimal fitting errors
are 2.14% and 3.46% for respectively the front and rear tyre contour. Moreover, these errors are
21.24% and 22.58% if the tyre contours are describe with a circle, which used to be done. Large
improvements are therefore made and the major advantage is that this fit is described only by the
two ellipse parameters a and b. As the tyre contour is accurately described it is possible to correctly
37
CHAPTER 6. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MF-MCTYRE MODEL 38
80
Measured curve
500 Fitted ellipse
70
60
400
50
Height [mm]
Height [mm]
300 40
30
200
20
100 10
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
−100 0 100
Width [mm] Width [mm]
Figure 6.1: Ellipse fitted through the rear tyre contour
determine the contact point between an undeformed tyre and the road. For simplicity, the contact
routine developed in this research is limited to simulations with a flat road surface. With a flat
road surface, the problem with the inaccurate assumption of the tangent wheelplane beneath the
wheel center is avoided. In a further stage, the new contact routine should be improved in such a
way that it can handle non-flat road surfaces.
During a simulation the [3 × 3] rotation matrix which defines the orientation of the wheel with
respect to the global axis system is known. At each simulation time-step, the camber angle γ is
defined from this matrix. Next to the camber angle, the tyre contour is described in the already
introduced (u, v)-axis system which rotates with the camber angle. With these parameters known
it is possible to calculate the actual contact point A, which is the point at which the tyre touches
the road if no deformation is present, see figure 6.2. This point is computed with the derivative
v
u v
u a
z z
g
y
R o
y
b R o
ro a d
r
A A
Figure 6.2: Rotated undeformed tyre ellipse

of the ellipse equation in the (u,v)-axis system:
u2 v2
+ =1 (6.3)
a2 b2
r
u2
v 2 = ±b 1− (6.4)
a2
du b2 u u b
=− 2 q = − ( )2 (6.5)
dv a b 1− u2 v a
a2
The point at which this derivative equals tan γ is the contact point A(uA ,vA ) of the undeformed
tyre.
uA b 2
− ( ) = tan γ (6.6)
vA a
a( ab ) tan γ
uA = − q (6.7)
1 + ( ab )2 tan2 γ
b
vA = − q (6.8)
1+ ( ab )2 tan2 γ
As the height of the wheel center h is also retrieved from the vehicle model, also the vertical
deformation of the tyre at point A can be determined. With the aid of figure 6.2 it follows that:
ρ = −uA sin γ + (Ro − b − vA ) cos γ − h (6.9)
Now that the vertical deformation ρ of the tyre is known, also the vertical force Fzw can be
determined. The relationship between these parameters is known as the vertical tyre stiffness,
which has been measured. Therefore, an accurate description of these measurements would be
sufficient to describe the vertical tyre force during a simulation. At TNO automotive, also the
MF-Swift tyre model is developed with which the tyre dynamic behaviour can be simulated.
Within this model, the relationship between the vertical tyre force and the vertical compression
is described as:
ΩRo qF cx Fx 2 qF cy Fy 2 ρ ρ
Fz = {1 + qv2 | |−( ) −( ) }.{qF z1 + qF z2 ( )2 }.Fzo (6.10)
Vo Fzo Fzo Ro Ro
From this formula it can be observed that:
• a parabolic approximation is used to describe the load-deflection curve
• the vertical stiffness increases almost linearly with the angular velocity
• a reduction of the vertical stiffness appears when longitudinal and/or lateral forces are ap-
plied in the contact patch
In order to make the different tyre models as consistent as possible, this formulation is also used
within this research to describe the vertical stiffness measurements presented in the previous
chapter. When the parameters are fitted to the measurements, it appears that the effect of the
longitudinal and lateral force on the vertical stiffness are negligible. Furthermore, the flatplank
measurements are performed at a very low and constant velocity, so also the effect of the rotational
velocity is negligible. As appears from the measurements the camber angle does have a significant
influence on the vertical stiffness which should be included in the description. Therefore (6.10) is
rewritten to:
ρ ρ
Fz = (1 − qc |γ|).(qf z1 + qf z2 ( )2 ).Fzo (6.11)
Ro Ro
with which the flatplank measurements are described. Following the error description of (6.1)
the fitting errors for the front and rear tyre are 7.3% and 5.0%. If the camber dependence is
neglected during the fit procedure, the fit errors increase to 7.9% and 5.2% for the front and rear
tyre respectively. Although this effect is smaller then expected, it is still significant and therefore
the choice is made to remain the inclusion of the camber dependence by means of factor qc . In
the tyre property file the vertical stiffness Cz at the nominal load is specified instead of qF z1 . It
can be calculated as:
Fzo q 2
Cz = qf z1 + 4qf z2 (6.12)
Ro
With this description of the vertical force the contact routine fulfills the demands. The contact
point is determined as a function of the tyre contour, and the vertical load is accurately determined.
Therefore, the effects of this method on the wheel axle height h and the tyre loaded radius Rl can
be discussed.
6.1.1 The wheel axle height, h

In chapter 4 it has been pointed out that the axle height h is of large importance, especially
during motorcycle simulations. With the new contact routine, the problems causing inaccuracy
are overcome and the axle height is correct over the complete camber range. First of all the
tyre contour is taken into account by the ellipse. Therefore, the camber dependence of the axle
height caused by the tyre contour is correct. Secondly, also the camber dependency of the vertical
stiffness is taken into consideration. As the vertical tyre stiffness is decreasing with the camber
angle, the axle height will be smaller at large camber angles.
6.1.2 The tyre loaded radius, Rl

In section 4.2.2 the importance of the loaded radius Rl during the conversions of forces and
moments has been pointed out. The loaded radius determined during measurements has a poor
accuracy which especially has a large effect on the accuracy of the Magic Formula fit of the
overturning moment Mxw . Furthermore, it has been stated that the transformations during both
simulations and the processing of the measurements should be unambiguously defined. At first,
it has been suggested to determine the loaded radius with the tyre contour, the camber angle
and the vertical load Fzw . During measurements, the camber angle and the vertical load are
measured and together with a predefined vertical stiffness and tyre contour, the loaded radius
can be defined. During a simulation the same approach can be used. If equal tyre contour and
stiffness parameters are used, the loaded radius is also equal under similar circumstances. The
problem with this method is that both the vertical stiffness and the tyre contour should be defined
before the measurements can be processed. This brings along a relatively large effort to be able to
process the measurements and therefore this method is not used. To overcome all problems with
the loaded radius without too large effort, the choice is made to define the free rolling radius Ro as
the distance between the axis system. With this conversion the loaded radius measurements are
avoided and the conversion is unambiguously defined. The only complication with this assumption
is that the overturning moment Mxw is relatively sensitive to the length of the loaded radius, and
therefore its shape as a function of the slip angle may change. As this shape changes, it is possible
that the Magic Formula is not suited anymore to be fitted to the moment Mxw . Therefore the
overturning moments of front and rear tyre measurements have been fitted with the loaded radius
and the free rolling radius. Due to the large spreading on the loaded radius Rl , the errors in
the Mxw fits following the definition of (6.1) are 20.5% and 29.4% for the front and rear tyre
respectively. With the free rolling radius Ro these errors are reduced to 14.9% and 11.9%. The
use of Ro for the transformation of the forces and moments is therefore trusted on its validity and
will be used in further research.
6.2 Improving the effective rolling radius determination

For a large part, the determination of the longitudinal slip κ is governed by the effective rolling
radius Re . In section 4.3 it has been pointed out that the method of describing this radius needs
some adaptations to overcome several problems. First of all, the effect of the vertical load Fzw
needs to be introduced correctly. Therefore, the measurements presented in section 5.3 have been
conducted and the results are introduced in the new description of the effective rolling radius. To
do this, the Magic Formula approach presented in the previous chapter is being used.
Re = Ro − ρFz0 (D arctan(Bρd ) + F ρd ) (6.13)
With the actual measurements as an input, (6.13) is used to calculated the effective rolling radius
at each measurement point. The relative error defined by (6.1) is determined and minimized for the
parameters B, D and F with the Matlab built-in function f minunc.m. In this way, the effective
rolling radius can be represented accurately with as can be seen for a front tyre in figure 6.3.
0.304
Fit
Measurements
0.302
0.3
Effective rolling radius, Re [mm]
0.298
0.296
0.294
0.292
0.29
0.288
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Figure 6.3: Measurements and fit of the effect of the vertical load on the effective rolling radius
Next to the correct Magic Formula parameters, also the effective rolling radius of an undeformed
tyre Reo is needed to determine the actual effective rolling radius. In section 6.1 the coordinates
of the actual contact point A have been determined with the tyre contour described by an ellipse.
With these coordinates, the free rolling radius Ro and the aid of figure 6.4, Reo can be defined.
Reo = Ro − b − vA (6.14)
The effect of the tyre contour can now be taken into account by using Reo instead of the free
rolling radius Ro in 6.13. Furthermore, the vertical tyre deformation only partly affects the
effective rolling radius because of the camber angle of the wheel. This effect is also taken into
account by multiplying the deformation term with cos(γ).
Re = Reo − ρFz0 (D arctan(Bρd ) + F ρd ) cos(γ) (6.15)

u v
z
b g
R o
y
R
R e o
A
Figure 6.4: Effect of camber on the effective rolling radius of an undeformed tyre
For the determination of the nominal tyre deflection ρFz0 the constant stiffness described in (6.12)
is used.
Fz0
ρFz0 = (6.16)
Cz
Finally the dimensionless radial tyre deflection ρd is calculated with the momentary tyre deflection
ρ. With the improvements in the determination of the contact point and the vertical load Fzw that
have been shown in the previous section, also the momentary tyre deflection is determined more
accurately. Of course, this also positively influences the accuracy of the effective rolling radius.
ρ
ρd = (6.17)
ρFz0
As the determination of the effective rolling radius is now expected to be correct, its accuracy
can be checked. The effective rolling radius of both the front and rear tyre have been determined
with measurements, from which the results have been presented in section 5.4. These measure-
ments are now used as a reference, and will be compared with the new description of the effective
rolling radius. The camber angle γ and the vertical load Fzw are averaged over the last complete
tyre rotation and used as input parameters for the calculation method. By subtracting the cal-
culated average radius from the measured one, the error of the calculation method is determined.
In figure 6.5 the absolute errors made by the new effective rolling radius calculation method are
depicted for both the front and rear tyre.
The results obtained by the new calculation method are very promising from 0 up to 30
degrees camber. Within this range the absolute error remains around 1 [mm], which corresponds
to relative errors within 0.5 % for both the front and rear tyre. However, at higher camber angles
the error strongly increases to an unacceptable magnitude. The reason for this rising error can
most probably be found in the measurement results. In section 5.4 it has already been observed
that the measurements at larger camber angles were inconsistent and not completely trusted on
their validity. Unexpected sudden jumps of the effective rolling radius are seen, although the
deformation and the vertical force remain almost constant. Therefore, the calculation method is
trusted on its validity and the increasing error at larger camber angle is expected to be caused by
the measurements.
2
Fzw = 1500 [N]
1 Fzw = 750 [N]
−1
Error [mm]
−2
−3
−4
−5
−6
−7
0 10 20 30 40 50
5
Fzw = 1500 [N]
Fzw = 750 [N]
−5
Error [mm]
−10
−15
−20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 6.5: Error in calculated Re for a front(top) and a rear(bottom) tyre
6.3 Improving the rolling resistance description

In section 4.4 the problems with the rolling resistance definition for motorcycles have been ex-
plained. When a freely rolling wheel is cambered the equilibrium around the spindle axle cannot
be guaranteed. To overcome these problems a new description of the rolling resistance moment is
generated, which is done in two steps. In first instance, the magnitude of the rolling resistance is
left unchanged but the direction in which it is defined is altered. When its direction is correctly
defined, also a new description of the magnitude of the rolling resistance is developed.
6.3.1 Definition of the rolling resistance moment, Mrr

First, the magnitude of the rolling resistance moment is assumed to be correct. The problem is
therefore reduced to the fact in which direction the rolling resistance should be defined. In order
to solve this question, first of all the magnitude of the rolling resistance moment Mrr is defined
independent from any direction. It is shown that in the present model this magnitude is described
by the vertical load Fzw , the loaded radius Rl and the rolling resistance coefficient fr . As the
loaded radius Rl for the conversion of the moments is changed to the free tyre radius Ro , this is
also done for the magnitude of the rolling resistance. Moreover, the rolling resistance coefficient
is assumed as a contant 1.5% which is also done for automobile tyres.
Mrr = −Fzw fr Ro (6.18)
To define the direction of this moment a new axis system is generated in the tyre-road contact
point, the T -axis system. In contradiction to the W -axis system the T -axis system is rotated with
the camber angle with respect to the road plane. Therefore, this new axis system is perpendicular
to the C-axis system. All three axis systems are depicted in figure 6.6. In chapter 4 it has been
F z c
F y c
M z c
M y c
g
F z w
M M R
y t z w M z t l
F y w M y w C
Figure 6.6: Rolling resistance defined in the wheel-plane
shown that for automobile tyres the assumption has been made to define the rolling resistance
Mrr in the W axis system, moreover to define that:
Myw = Mrr = −Fzw fr Ro (6.19)
For motorcycle tyres this assumption has been copied, and it has been shown that this leads to
the fluctuating moment around the spindle axis of a freely rolling wheel. As the camber angles
remain small for automobile tyres, the difference between the W - and T -axis system remains
small. For motorcycles though, camber angles become significant and large differences are present
between both axis systems. To overcome the problems it is therefore suggested to define the rolling
resistance moment Mrr in the T -axis system. With this definition, the moments in the T -axis
system are defined as:
Myt = Mrr = −Fzw fr Ro (6.20)
Mzt = Mzc (6.21)

With this assumption, the moments in the W-axis are derived by rotating the T -axis system over
the camber angle.
Myw = Myt cos γ − Mzt sin γ (6.22)
Mzw = Myt sin γ + Mzt cos γ (6.23)

Now both definitions of the rolling resistance can be compared on their correctness. To do this,
first of all the equilibrium around the spindle axle of a freely rolling motorcycle wheel is stated.
Myc = Myw cos γ + Mzw sin γ − Fxw Rl = 0 (6.24)

In the previous chapter it has been shown that assuming the rolling resistance in the W -axis system
leads to fluctuations in the moment Myc . This is because of the fact that with this assumption a
fluctuating Mzw is present during measurements, while all other variables are almost constant. If
the rolling resistance definition in the T -axis system is now examined, it appears from equations
(6.22)-(6.23) that the fluctuating moment Mzc is present in both Myw and Mzw . Therefore, this
might lead to a more constant Myc , which is expected from the 2nd Law of Newton. With both
rolling resistance definitions a large number of test trailer measurements with a freely rolling wheel
under several camber angles have been analyzed. Significant improvements were found with the
new definition, with the difference between both definitions increasing with the camber angle. The
result of a representative α-sweep under a camber angle of 50 degrees is shown in figure 6.7. This
10
Side slip angle, α[deg]
−5
−10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
100
Mrr defined in T
50 Mrr defined in W
Myc [Nm]
−50
−100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time [s]
Figure 6.7: Difference in Myc for different definitions of the rolling resistance
figure clearly shows the large differences between both methods. A large and fluctuating residual
moment on the wheel axle is present when the rolling resistance is defined in the W -axis system.
When the rolling resistance is defined in the T -axis system the moment Myc is very close to zero,
as expected with a freely rolling wheel. Therefore, the rolling resistance is from now on defined in
this axis system.
However, the definition of the rolling resistance in the T -axis system also affects the description
of the moment Mz in the contact point. This moment is nowadays fitted in the W -axis system,
but with the definition of the rolling resistance in the T -axis system it would be more convenient
to fit the moment Mzt . If this is possible no transformation of the moment Mz is needed anymore,
following (6.21). Therefore the measurements of a front and a rear tyre are processed with the new
rolling resistance definition and the moments Mzw and Mzt are fitted with the Magic Formula. For
the rear tyre, the fit error of Mzw is 7.6% which decreases to 6.7% for the moment Mzt . For the
front tyre though, the fit of the moment Mzw is more accurate than the fit of the moment Mzt as
the fitting errors are 7.1% and 8.0% respectively. Although the fit of the front tyre is less accurate
in the T -axis system, the choice is made to fit all moments in this axis system. The increase in the
error percentage is relatively small, and for the rear tyre even a smaller fit percentage is achieved
with fits in the T -axis system. Moreover, the advantage of a more convenient definition of the
moments in the T -axis system is decisive.
6.3.2 The rolling resistance coefficient, fr

For automobile tyres the rolling resistance coefficient fr has always been assumed to be 1.5%. For
motorcycles, the idea exists that this resistance is a function of at least the camber angle γ. For
a freely rolling wheel this can be checked with (6.24). With the definition of the rolling resistance
moment in the T -axis system, this equilibrium can be reduced to:
Mrr − Fxw Ro = Fzw Ro fr − Fxw Ro = 0 (6.25)
Fzw fr = Fxw (6.26)

As the forces Fzw and Fx are registered during measurements, the rolling resistance coefficient
fr can be determined for each measurement point. In section 5.5 the average rolling resistance
coefficient has been determined for a set of Flatplank measurements that have been processed with
the rolling resistance defined in the T -axis system. The results of these measurements showed an
increasing rolling resistance over the camber range. Moreover, the influence of the camber angle is
getting larger as the camber angle increases which suggests at least a quadratic camber dependence.
Furthermore, a larger vertical load Fzw also leads to a larger rolling resistance, especially for the
rear tyre. Where the difference in rolling resistance at high or low loads is negligible at small
camber angles, the effect of the vertical load is strongly increasing with the camber angle. With
this known, a formula has been derived that describes the rolling resistance magnitude and takes
the effects of the camber angle γ and vertical load Fzw into account.
Mrr = −Fzw Ro λmy fr (6.27)
Fzw 2
Mrr = −Fzw Ro λmy {qsy1 + qsy5 γ 2 + qsy6 ( )γ } (6.28)
Fz0
The factor λmy is introduced to give the tyre model users the freedom to scale the rolling resistance
with little effort. The Flatplank measurements have been used to determine the correct parameters
qsy1 , qsy5 and qsy6 for the front and rear tyre. With (6.28) it is possible to fit the rolling resistance
moment of the front tyre measurements with an error percentage of 13.28%, following the definition
of (6.1). The error when fitting the rolling resistance of the rear tyre is 11.08%. With an optimal
but constant rolling resistance coefficient these percentages are 44.84% and 42.28%. Therefore,
it is now possible to describe the rolling resistance of a tyre sufficiently accurate with only three
parameters.
Chapter 7
Analysis of the improved tyre

model
In the previous chapter a number of improvements to the tyre model are developed. These
improvements are implemented in an updated version of the MF-MCTyre model which can be
used during simulations. In this chapter, several simulations are used to show the accuracy of the
improved tyre model and the effect of the improvements. To give an idea of the differences and
their cause, first of all a short summary of the improvements to the tyre model are given. Then
the improved and the old tyre model will be used in a SimMechanics simulation which mimics
the tyre measurements performed with the Delft Tyre Test trailer. With this model it is possible
to compare accuracy of the models with respect to the actual measurements. Finally, also the
motorcycle simulation model of chapter 3 is used. The results of simulations with this model are
used to determine the effect of the improvements to the tyre model on the steady state cornering
behaviour of a motorcycle.
7.1 Summary of the improvements

To give a correct impression of the results gained with the improved tyre model, first of all the
improvements that are made are listed below.
• The free tyre radius Ro is used for the conversions between the contact point and the wheel
center:
– The unreliable loaded radius measurements of the Delft Tyre Test trailer are avoided
– The loaded radius is unambiguously defined during the processing of the measurements
and simulations
• The contact routine is made robust for large camber angles:
– An ellipse is used to correctly describe the tyre contour
– The vertical load is described as a function of the deflection ρ and the camber angle γ
• The effective rolling radius Re is accurately determined for the complete camber range:
– The effect of the vertical load Fzw on the effective rolling radius is correctly implemented
– The effect of the tyre contour on the effective rolling radius is implemented
• The moments My and Mz in the contact point are defined in the T -axis system:
– The moment Mz is fitted by the Magic Formula in the T -axis system.
– The influences of the camber angle and the vertical load Fzw are introduced in the
description of the rolling resistance coefficient fr
47
CHAPTER 7. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPROVED TYRE MODEL 48
7.2 Analysis by means of test rig simulations
Figure 7.1: The SimMechanics model which mimics the Delft Tyre Test trailer measurements
First of all, a model made in SimMechanics is being used to evaluate the different tyre models.
This simulation model (which is depicted in figure 7.1 has the same DoF’s as the testing tower
of the Delft Tyre Test trailer. As can be seen, the forward velocity Vx , the side slip angle α, the
longitudinal slip κ, the camber angle γ and the vertical load Fzw are input parameters for the
simulation. These parameters are also determined during measurements and these signals can be
used as an input for the simulation. In this way, a tyre measurement can be accurately represented
by the simulation model.
The forces and moments during measurements and simulations used to be compared in the
W -axis system. However, both the output of the forces and moments by the tyre model as
measured forces and moments are in the C-axis system. The representation of the forces and
moments in this axis system by the tyre model therefore determines its accuracy. Therefore, in
this section the results of the simulations are compared with the measurements in the C-axis
system, which is much more logical. It should be remarked that for these specific simulations,
the rolling resistance moment measured with the Delft Tyre Test trailer is used. It is known
that during measurements an incorrect amplification factor is used for the longitudinal force Fxw .
However, the signal cannot be corrected as the the correct amplification factor is not known.
Although the longitudinal force is incorrect in magnitude, the effects of the camber angle are still
seen in the rolling resistance. In order to compare the simulation results with the measurements,
therefore the incorrect measurements are used in the improved tyre model.
First of all, an α-sweep at 5 degrees of camber and a nominal load Fzw of 2000 [N] is used
to check the correctness of the tyre models. In figure 7.2 the forces and moments in the C-axis
system during this simulation are depicted. Moreover, in table 7.1 the relative errors made by
both models during this simulation can be found. For the determination of these errors, again the
definition of (6.1) is used.
The error percentage of the forces Fyc and Fzc made by the existing and improved tyre model
are small and only differ tenths of percents. These forces are determined by the lateral and
vertical forces in the W -axis system (Fyw and Fzw ), which are rotated over the camber angle. As
the vertical force Fzw is prescribed for the simulation and the description of the lateral force is
similar for both tyre models, these forces are also expected to show large correspondence. As the
simulation results are almost equal and the differences between these results and the measurements
are very small, the differences can hardly be seen in the graphical representation of figure 7.2. It
is clear that the major difference lies in the longitudinal force Fxc . In paragraph 4.4 it has been
explained that the old rolling resistance assumption leads to the large and fluctuating longitudinal
force which can also be seen in figure 7.2. Moreover, these fluctuations are known to increase
with the camber angle which will also be shown in this paragraph. With the definition of the
moments in the T -axis system and the improved description of the rolling resistance factor fr
these problems are overcome. The results presented in figure 7.2 show that the longitudinal force
10
Measurements
Alpha [deg]
5 Improved model
Existing model
0
−5
−10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
Fxc [N]
−20
−40
−60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2000
1000
Fyc [N]
−1000
−2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2400
Fzc [N]
2200
2000
1800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
500
Mxc [Nm]
−500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
50
Mzc [Nm]
−50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time [s]
Figure 7.2: Measured and simulated forces and moments in the C-axis system during an α-sweep
under 5 degrees camber
is much more constant, which is also the case during measurements. The noise on the longitudinal
force generated by the improved model is declared by the fact that the new rolling resistance
coefficient fr is dependent on the vertical force Fzw . The vertical force is used as an input for
the simulation and the noise level on this signal is significant. As the longitudinal force of a
freely rolling wheel is determined by the rolling resistance, the noise can also be seen on this
force. Therefore, the relative error is still 57.0% for the improved model. In comparison with the
relative error of 148.9% with the existing model, this is a significant improvement but if the noise
level is lower during the simulation (which is normally the case), the relative error will decrease
significantly.
Next to the forces, also the moments Mxc and Mzc are depicted in figure 7.2. Due to the small
camber angle, the differences between both models and the differences with the measurements
remain relatively small. The moment Mxc is determined by the moment Mxw , the lateral force
Fyc and the distance between the wheel center and the contact point. It is already explained
that the difference in Fyc is negligible. Furthermore, the moment Mxw generated by the tyre
models under a small camber angle is comparable. As the loaded radius of the existing model
is reasonably accurate under a small camber angle and Ro is used by the improved tyre model,
the difference in the relative error in moment Mxc is only 0.1%. The moment Mzc in the contact
point is fitted in the T -axis system by the improved tyre model. With this definition no conversion
between the wheel center and the contact point is needed anymore, which increases the accuracy
of the improved tyre model. The error made in Mzc therefore decreases from 11.1% to 8.7% for
the existing and improved tyre model respectively, as depicted in table 7.1.
Existing model Improved model

Fxc 148.9 % 57.0 %
Fyc 4.5 % 4.4 %
Fzc 1.1 % 1.1 %
Mxc 5.9 % 6.0 %
Mzc 11.1 % 8.7 %
Table 7.1: Errors made by the existing and improved tyre model during an α-sweep simulation
under 5 degrees camber, following the definition of (6.1)
The forces and moments during a measurement and simulations with the two tyre models
during an α-sweep under a camber angle of 50 degrees can be found in figure 7.3. As expected,
the difference in the longitudinal force between both models strongly increases. As the camber
angle is much larger, also the difference between the W - and T -axis system increases. Therefore,
the error made by the old rolling resistance assumption is increasing. As the tyre model uses the
longitudinal force Fxw to remain the equilibrium around the spindle axle of a freely rolling wheel,
the error of this force is increasing with the camber angle. The error made in Fxc by the existing
tyre model is now 582.4%, while the error of the improved model is only 36.2%. The error made
by the improved model decreases with respect to the error made with the simulation at 5 degrees
camber, which can be declared by two facts. First of all, the noise level on the vertical load Fzw is
relatively smaller than during the measurement at 5 degrees camber. Also less noise is therefore
present on the rolling resistance coefficient fr , which also leads to less noise on the longitudinal
force Fxw . Furthermore, the rolling resistance coefficient increases quadratically with the camber
angle. As the influence of the vertical load on the rolling resistance coefficient increases only
linearly with the camber angle, the relative influence of the vertical load is decreasing with the
camber angle. Therefore, the relative effect of the noise on the vertical load is also decreasing with
the camber angle and the relative error decreases.
During the simulation with the existing tyre model, large differences arise in the moment Mxc as
can also be seen in figure 7.3. The cause of this can be found in the inaccurately and unambiguously
defined loaded radius Rl . By substituting the loaded radius with the undeformed tyre radius Ro ,
these problems are overcome. The conversions are ambiguously defined and accurate, which also
10
Measurements
Alpha [deg]
5 Improved model
Existing model
0
−5
−10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
−100
Fxc [N]
−200
−300
−400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1500
Fyc [N]
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
3000
2500
Fzc [N]
2000
1500
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
600
Mxc [Nm]
400
200
0
−200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
Mzc [Nm]
−50
−100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time [s]
Figure 7.3: Measured and simulated forces and moments in the C-axis system during an α-sweep
under 50 degrees camber
leads to an accurate representation of the overturning moment by the Magic Formula fit. As
a result, the relative error of 41.7% made by the existing model decreases to 8.8% with the
improved model. Next to the improvements in Mxc , also significant improvements are made with
the representation of the moment Mzc . The new rolling resistance assumption has a significant
influence, especially when the camber angle increases. Furthermore, it seemed that the Magic
Formula is better suited to fit the moment Mzt than the moment Mzw . Therefore, the error
percentage made by the improved tyre model is 8.7% instead of 11.1% with the existing model.
Existing model Improved model

Fxc 582.4 % 36.2 %
Fyc 8.8 % 8.9 %
Fzc 3.8 % 3.8 %
Mxc 41.7 % 8.8 %
Mzc 12.0 % 8.5 %
Table 7.2: Errors made by the existing and improved tyre model during an α-sweep simulation
under 50 degrees camber, following the definition of (6.1)
7.3 Analysis by means of motorcycle simulations

Next to the simulations with the SimMechanics model of the test rig, also the motorcycle simulation
model presented in chapter 3 is used. With this model it is possible to determine the effects of
the improvements to the tyre model on the steady state behaviour of a motorcycle. To do this,
the motorcycle is turned into a right hand corner with a constant velocity of 100 [km/h]. As the
steady state behaviour is of interest, the motorcycle is cornering for a relatively long period in
order to make sure that a steady state is reached. Moreover, the controller is tuned in such a way
that the motorcycle is cornering on an equal radius for both the existing and the improved tyre
model. As the forward velocity is also constant during both simulations, the motorcycle is in a
similar state and the results can be compared to each other. In figure 7.4, the trajectories of the
simulations with both tyre models are depicted. Although the trajectories are not exactly equal,
the steady state cornering radius during both simulations is 47.5 [m].
During steady state cornering several parameters of both simulations are compared. To be sure
that no transient behaviour is present anymore, the signals are averaged over the last 10 seconds
of the simulation. To make the comparison, a relative difference is calculated with the existing
tyre model as a reference. This relative difference d percentage is defined as:
Yn − Yo
d = 100 (7.1)
Yo
with Yn and Yo the parameters obtained from the simulation with the improved and the existing
tyre model respectively. First of all, the tyre input and output parameters for the front and rear
tyre are compared. In table 7.3 these parameters and their relative differences are depicted. First
of all, it should be said that the forces are compared in the contact point (W -axis system). Both
the improved and existing tyre model determine the forces in the W -axis system, so they can easily
be compared. As the existing model uses the W -axis system and the improved model uses the
T -axis system to determine the moments, it is hard to make a correct comparison. The moments
are therefore compared in the wheel center (C-axis system).
As the motorcycle is driving on the same cornering radius with the same velocity, the lateral
acceleration is almost equal during both simulations. Therefore, the lateral force Fyw and vertical
force Fzw of the front and rear wheel only differ tenths of percents between both simulations. The
main differences can be seen in the moments Mxc and Mzc . The negative moment Mxc is trying
to get the motorcycle in an upright position. As the overal moment Mxc generated by both the
0
Existing model
Improved model
−20
−40
−60
Y−distance [m]
−80
−100
−120
−140
−160
0 50 100 150 200

X−distance [m]
Figure 7.4: Motorcycle trajectory during simulations with the existing and improved tyre model
Existing model Improved model Rel. diff. d

Frontwheel
κ [-] -0.003 -0.003 0.9%
α [deg] 0.265 0.097 -63.5%
γ [deg] 48.46 50.36 3.9%
Fxw [N] -101.72 -102.06 0.3%
Fyw [N] -1125.40 -1123.30 -0.3%
Fzw [N] 1310.30 1317.20 0.5%
Mxc [Nm] 7.97 -0.42 -111.4%
Myc [Nm] 0 0 0%
Mzc [Nm] -20.74 -27.48 32.5%
Rearwheel
κ [-] 0.004 0.004 -2.3%
α [deg] 1.37 1.35 -1.5%
γ [deg] 48.26 50.16 3.9%
Fxw [N] 331.98 328.59 1.0%
Fyw [N] -1635.90 -1639.00 -0.2%
Fzw [N] 1758.20 1749.60 0.5%
Mxc [Nm] -115.96 -144.02 -24.2%
Myc [Nm] 146.38 152.54 -4.2%
Mzc [Nm] -17.51 -15.78 9.9%
Table 7.3: Comparison between tyre in- and output for the front and rear wheel
front and rear tyre is larger with the improved tyre model, the camber angle is also larger to
obtain a steady state cornering situation. The slip angle of the front wheel is mainly determined
by the moment Mzc . The negative Mzc which is present is turning the wheel into the corner. A
positive side slip angle is turning the wheel out of the corner. As the moment Mzc is 32.5% smaller
with the existing tyre model, the tyre sideslip angle is larger during the simulation with this tyre
model. Finally, the rolling resistance of the existing and the new front tyre are comparable as
the longitudinal forces are almost similar. As the front wheel is freely rolling the moment Myc of
the front wheel is zero during the simulations. The driving torque Myc of the rear tyre is 4.2%
larger during the simulation with the improved tyre model. This moment is present in order to
overcome the rolling resistance of both tyres and the aerodynamic drag. The forward velocity is
equal during both simulations, and therefore also the aerodynamic drag is equal. As the rolling
resistance of the front tyre is also almost similar, the difference is caused by the rolling resistance
of the rear tyre.
Next to the tyre in- and output, also the response of the motorcycle can be compared. The
results of this comparison can be found in table 7.3. It has already been explained that the camber
Existing model Improved model Rel. diff. d

Camber, γ [N] 48.26 50.16 -3.9%
Steer torque [Nm] -5.24 -3.21 38.7%
Steer angle [deg] 0.03 -0.04 225.8%
Twist angle [deg] 0.21 0.25 -20.1%
Suspension deflection [m] -0.02 -0.02 1.2%
Rider lean angle [deg] 0.81 1.04 -29.0%
Pitch angle [deg] 0.62 0.57 9.0%
Front wheel rot. speed [deg/s] 5357.10 5860.00 -9.4%
Rear wheel rot. speed [deg/s] 4968.30 5788.80 -16.5%
Front wheel axle height [m] 0.2129 0.2013 5.5%
Rear wheel axle height [m] 0.2407 0.2338 2.9%
Table 7.4: Comparison between the geometrical response of the motorcycle
angle of both wheels is 3.9% larger due to the larger moment Mxc . The overall camber angle is
therefore of course also 3.9% larger. The steer torque on the other hand is much smaller with
the improved tyre model than with the existing one. The systems which cause a torque around
the steering axle have been explained in section 3.4. As the lateral force and the mechanical trail
are similar during both simulations, the smaller steering torque is mainly caused by the moment
Mzc . Although the steering torque is significantly larger, the steer angle is almost unaltered.
Although the fact that a relatively large difference is present (225.8%), the absolute steer angle
is too small to be significant. As the camber angle is larger with the improved tyre model, the
equilibrium around the twist angle also changes. With a larger camber angle the vertical force
Fzw gets more influence on the twist equilibrium, while the lateral force Fyw gets less influence.
As the vertical force is larger than the lateral force, the twist angle increases with the improved
tyre model. Within table 7.3 it has been shown that the overal moment Mxc and therefore also
the camber angle are larger with the improved tyre model. The equilibrium of the motorcycle
around its local x-axis therefore changes which leads to a larger rider lean angle.
The introduction of the tyre contour and the correct effect of the vertical load, should lead to
significant changes in the effective rolling radius during simulations. If the front wheel is taken into
consideration, it is learned from table 7.3 that the longitudinal slip κ does not change significantly.
This is also expected as there is no effective driving or braking torque around the wheel axle.
In figure 7.5, the effective rolling radius of the front wheel during both simulations is depicted.
Already in the first simulation seconds, there is a significant difference between the effective rolling
radius of the existing and improved tyre model. Research shows that the difference, which is in
the order of 10 [mm], is caused by the different Magic Formula parameters that introduce the
Existing model
Improved model
0.295
Effective rolling radius, Re [m]
0.29
0.285
0.28
0.275
0.27
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time [s]
Figure 7.5: The effective rolling radius Re of the front wheel during the simulations
effect of the vertical load. Furthermore, after 10 seconds the motorcycle drives into the corner
and the difference increases significantly. This can be explained by the fact that the tyre contour
is implemented in the improved model, while this contour was absent in the determination of the
effective rolling radius in the existing model. In section 4.3 the definition of linear rolling velocity
Vr and the longitudinal slip κ has already been presented:
Vr = ΩRe (7.2)
Vr − Vx
κ= (7.3)
Vx
As the longitudinal slip κ and the forward velocity Vx are almost constant during the simulation,
also the linear rolling velocity Vr has to be almost constant. As the effective rolling radius strongly
decreases with the camber angle, the rotational velocity needs to increase to obtain an almost
constant linear rolling velocity. From table 7.3 it is learned that the rotational velocity of the
front wheel is 9.4% larger during steady state cornering with the improved tyre model. For the
rear tyre this increase is even larger, namely 16.5%. Moreover the rotational velocity of the wheels
is known to have a significant influence on the handling behaviour of motorcycles. Together with
the inertia of the wheel around the spindle axis, the rotational velocity of the wheel determines the
gyroscopic precession which has been explained in chapter 3. This effect not only has a significant
influence on the steering behaviour of a motorcycle, it also partly defines the instabilities of the
motorcycle.
Finally also the wheel center height is investigated. In table 7.3 it is shown that the difference in
wheel center height during steady state cornering is 5.5% for the front and 2.9% for the rear wheel.
However, those differences are also caused by the different camber angles during the simulations
with the existing and improved tyre model. To get the effect of the changes in the tyre model on
the wheel center height in the right perspective, also a simulation with a constant camber angle of
50 degrees is conducted. The axle height of the front wheel during these simulations can be seen
in figure 7.6. With the implementation of the improved description of the tyre contour and the
vertical tyre stiffness, the axis height is known to be more accurate in the improved tyre model.
Due to the tyre contour implementation and the decreasing vertical stiffness with an increasing
camber angle, a smaller axle height is present with the improved tyre model than with the existing
tyre model. The difference during steady state cornering is around 6 [mm], which is in the order of
3.1% of the total axis height. In section 4.2.1, it has been explained that the motorcycle behaviour
is partly governed by the height of the wheel axles. Therefore, an accurate axle height is of large
importance and a difference of 3.1% is significant.
Existing model
0.29 Improved model
0.28
0.27
axle height, h [m]
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [s]
Figure 7.6: Front wheel center height during simulations with the existing and improved tyre
model
Chapter 8
Conclusions and recommendations
8.1 Conclusions
The goal of this master thesis is to improve and validate the motorcycle tyre model, MF-MCTyre.
An improved model should be able to correctly represent the behaviour of a motorcycle tyre for its
complete working area at steady-state conditions. Therefore, deficiencies of the model have been
localized and solutions are developed. It appears that the MF-MCTyre model has to be improved
in three areas:
1. Forces and moments representation

The accuracy of the representation of the forces and moments has been improved, for which
two steps are taken. First of all, the free rolling radius Ro is used to convert the moments be-
tween the contact point and the wheel center. Therefore, the conversions are unambiguously
and accurately defined. During simulations with the tyre model, this leads to a decrease
in the relative error in the moment Mxc . Secondly, the description of the rolling resistance
is improved. It is more convenient to define the rolling resistance moment Mrr in the new
T -axis system. Furthermore, the influence of the camber and vertical load dependence of the
rolling resistance coefficient fr are measured and described. Both rolling resistance adap-
tations lead to a more accurate force Fxc and moment Mzc during simulations. During a
simulation with a motorcycle model it is shown that these improvements influence the equi-
librium state. Moreover, important parameters as the camber angle and the steer torque
show relatively large differences.
2. Wheel center height
The tyre contour and the vertical tyre stiffness are measured and new descriptions are devel-
oped which represent them more accurately than before. A new contact routine is generated
which uses the tyre contour to determine the contact point between the tyre and the road.
With the assumption of a flat road surface and the new vertical tyre stiffness definition, the
vertical tyre deformation and vertical load can be determined. Due to these improvements,
the wheel center height during motorcycle simulations is more accurate. With the wheel cen-
ter height also the positions of the centers of gravity of the motorcycle components change,
which influences the dynamic behaviour of the model.
3. Effective rolling radius
The adapted description of the effective rolling radius Re leads to correct rotational velocities
of the wheels during simulations. The effect of the vertical load on the effective rolling
radius is measured and described. Furthermore, the effect of the tyre contour is taken
into consideration, which leads to significant improvements. Reference measurements are
conducted and although these measurements seem unreliable at large camber angles, the
new effective rolling radius description is trusted on its validity. A steady state cornering
simulation with the motorcycle model shows a large increase in rotational velocity of the
57
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 58
wheels. Not only does this have an impact on the dynamic behaviour of the motorcycle, the
rotational speed of the wheels also play an important role if for example the driveline of the
motorcycle is modelled.
As an overall conclusion it can be said that the motorcycle tyre model MF-MCTyre has un-
dergone significant improvements. Due to these improvements, this tyre model is now able to
accurately represent the steady state cornering behaviour of a motorcycle tyre.
8.2 Recommendations for future research

For future research on the area of motorcycle tyre modelling and motorcycle simulations, the
following recommendations are given:
• Contact routine
The contact routine which is presently implemented in the tyre model only works with a flat
road surface. This routine should be expanded to a 3-dimensional routine, which can take
an uneven road into consideration. Within the old contact routine, the road is approximated
by its tangent plane underneath the wheel center. Especially at large camber angles this
assumption introduces an error which leads to an incorrect contact point determination.
This can be overcome by developing a new routine which iteratively determines the contact
point at each time step.
• Overturning moment Mxw
In section 4.2.2 it is shown that the overturning moment is very sensitive to the transforma-
tion from the C- to the W -axis system. Due to the fact that the loaded radius Rl used in
transformations is substituted with the free rolling radius Ro , the overturning moment Mxw
changes significantly if the camber angle increases. The overturning moment of the tyre
measurements that are used in this research can be represented accurately by the present
Magic Formula. Though, it is possible that if other tyres are measured the shape of the over-
turning moment curve changes in such a way that it cannot be represented by the present
Magic Formula. Therefore, further research should be conducted to identify the robustness
of the present overturning moment description in the Magic Formula.
• Measurements
Within the measurement results of the vertical tyre stiffness and effective rolling radius,
unexpected jumps are seen. Most probably, these jumps are caused by a lack of grip on the
Flatplank tyre tester due to which stick-slip effects are present. To overcome this problem,
two possible solutions are present. First of all, the road surface on the Flatplank tyre
tester can be adapted in such a way that it represents an asphalt road. This would not only
positively influence the measurements performed in this research, also all other measurements
would represent the behaviour of a tyre on an asphalt road more accurate. The second
solution would be to conduct the measurements with the Delft Tyre Test trailer on asphalt.
Recently, the trailer has been adapted and the accuracy of the measured wheel rotational
speed and wheel center height are increased. The only problem which is left is that the
level of noise on the measured signals is much higher than during measurements with the
Flatplank tyre tester.
• Tyre dynamics
Within this research, the steady state cornering behaviour of a motorcycle tyre has been
investigated and modelled. In the literature study presented in chapter 2, it has already
been explained that a motorcycle is inherent to stability problems at different velocities.
Research has shown that these instabilities are partly governed by the tyres. Therefore, the
logical next step in the development of the tyre model is to determine and model the dynamic
behaviour of a motorcycle tyre. In resent research Lot [12] has presented a tyre model which
contains aspects that incorporate parts of the dynamic tyre behaviour. Moreover, TNO
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59
Automotive has developed a model which is able to represent the dynamic behaviour of an
automobile tyre up to 100 [Hz]. It is therefore recommended that the present knowledge
on tyre dynamics is extended and combined with the improved MF-MCTyre model. This
combination can lead to a model which is able to correctly represent both the dynamic and
steady state behaviour of a motorcycle tyre.
• Motorcycle model parameters
The motorcycle simulation model which is developed in this research is derived from the
model of Koenen [10]. His research has been completed in 1983 and since then motorcycles
have undergone significant developments. Within the literature study presented in chapter 2
the correctness of the range of parameters used in the Koenen model is shown. However, these
parameters should be updated in such a way that they represent a nowadays motorcycle.
To do so, too little information is present in the available literature. Therefore, an elaborate
measurement program is needed to find the geometrical, mass and inertial parameters of a
recent motorcycle.
• Motorcycle dynamics full scale testing

Motorcycle simulations that contain a combination of a sophisticated dynamic tyre model
and an elaborate motorcycle model have not been found in the literature research. However,
with a tyre model that correctly incorporates motorcycle tyre dynamics and an update of
the motorcycle model of Koenen, it will be possible to simulate the dynamic behaviour of a
motorcycle. It is therefore suggested that such research can lead a more accurate prediction
of the dynamic behaviour of a motorcycle. Moreover, it is strongly recommended to validate
the results of such research with dynamic motorcycle measurements. However, this validation
would require a motorcycle that is equipped with measurement devices for the registration
of its dynamic behaviour.
Bibliography
[1] E. Bakker, L. Nyborg, and H.B. Pacejka. Tyre modelling for use in vehicle dynamic studies.
SAE paper, (870421), 1987.
[2] P. Bayle, J.F. Forissier, and S. Lafon. A new tire model for vehicle dynamics simulations.
Automotive Technology International, pages 193–198, 1993.
[3] R. Berritta, F. Biral, and S. Garbin. Evaluation of motorcycle handling with multibody
modelling and simulation. High tech engines and cars, 6th international conference, May
25th-26th 2000.
[4] V. Cossalter and A. Doria. Model simulation: The latest dynamic simulation developments
for motorcycle tires. Tire Technology International, pages 38–41, September 2001.
[5] V. Cossalter, A. Doria, and R. Lot. Steady turning of two-wheeled vehicles. Vehicle System
Dynamics, 31:157–181, 1999.
[6] V. Cossalter and R. Lot. A motorcycle multi-body model for real time simulations based on
the natural coordinates approach. Vehicle System Dynamics, 37(6):423–447, 2002.
[7] V. Cossalter, R. Lot, and F. Maggio. The modal analysis of a motorcycle in straight running
and on a curve. Meccanica, 39(1):1–16, 2004.
[8] S. Evangelou and D.J.N. Limebeer. Lisp programming of the ’sharp 1994’ motorcycle model,
March 28th 2004. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College of
Science, Technology and Medicine.
[9] Y. Kamata and H. Nishimura. System identification and attitude control of motorcycle by
computer aided analysis. JSAE Review, 24(4):411–416, October 2003.
[10] C. Koenen. The dynamic behaviour of a motorcycle when running straight ahead and when
cornering. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 1983.
[11] C. Koenen and H.B. Pacejka. The influence of frame elasticity, simple rider body dynamics
and tyre moments on free vibrations of motorcycles in curves. Vehicle System Dynamics,
pages 53–65, 1982. Proceedings of IAVSD symposium.
[12] R. Lot. A motorcycle tire model for dynamic simulations: Theoretical and experimental
aspects. Meccanica, 39:207–220, 2004.
[13] H.B. Pacejka. Tyre and vehicle dynamics. Butterworth Heinemann, 2002.
[14] J.S. Rankine. Dynamical principles of the motion of velocipedes. The Engineer, 28, 1869.
[15] R.D. Roland. Computer simulation of bicycle dynamics. ASME symposium on mechanics
and sport, pages 1115–1121, 1973.
[16] P.A.J. Ruijs and H.B. Pacejka. Recent research in lateral dynamics of motorcycles. Vehicle
System Dynamics, 15:467–480, 1985. Proceedings of IAVSD symposium.
60
BIBLIOGRAPHY 61
[17] R.S. Sharp. The stability and control of motorcycles. Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Science, 13(5):316–329, 1971.
[18] R.S. Sharp. The lateral dynamics of motorcycles and bicycles. Vehicle System Dynamics,
14:265–283, 1985.
[19] R.S. Sharp. Stability, control and steering response of motorcycles. Vehicle System Dynamics,
35(4-5):291–318, 2001.
[20] R.S. Sharp and C.J. Alstead. The influence of structural flexibilities on the straight-running
stability of motorcycles. Vehicle System Dynamics, 9:327–357, 1980.
[21] R.S. Sharp and D.J.N. Limebeer. A motorcycle model for stability and control analysis.
Multibody System Dynamics, 6(2):123–142, September 2001.
[22] P.T.J. Spierings. The effects of lateral front fork flexibility on the vibrational modes of straight
running single-track vehicles. Vehicle System Dynamics, 10:21–35, 1981.
[23] Y. Tezuka, H. Ishii, and S. Kiyota. Application of the magic formula tire model to motorcycle
manoevrability analysis. JSAE Review, 22(3):305–310, July 2001.
[24] TNO Automotive. Tyre models users manual; Using the MF-MCTyre model, May 2002.
[25] N. van de Wouw. Multibody dynamics, lecture notes, 2003. page 25.
[26] M.K. Verma, R.A. Scott, and L. Segel. Effect of frame compliance on the lateral dynamics
of motorcycles. Vehicle System Dynamics, 9(4):181–205, 1980.
[27] B. von Schlippe and R. Dietrich. Zur mechanik des luftreifens. Zentrale fur wissenschaftliches
Berichtwesen Berlin Adlershof, 1942.
[28] E.J.H. De Vries and H.B. Pacejka. Motorcycle tyre measurements and models. In Proceedings
of the 15th IAVSD Symposium, pages 280–298, 1997.
[29] E.J.H. De Vries and H.B. Pacejka. The effect of tire modelling on the stability analysis of a
motorcycle. In Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on advanced vehicle control,
pages 063/1–063/6, 1998.
Appendix A
The MF-MCTyre model
This master thesis has been devoted to improve the MF-MCTyre model. In this appendix, its main
features will be explained on the basis of the user manual of the model [24]. For the description
of the Magic Formula also the book ”Tyre and vehicle dynamics” of Pacejka [13] is used. For a
more comprehensive description of the tyre model and the Magic Formula the reader is therefore
referred to those works. The implementation of the tyre model into a vehicle model has been
discussed in paragraph 3.3.
A.1 Contact routine

As said, the model uses the Magic Formula for the description of the stationary slip. For the
Magic Formula the longitudinal and/or lateral slip (α,κ), wheel camber (γ) and the vertical force
(Fz ) are used as input quantities. Those quantities are derived from the vehicle model by means
of a contact routine.
A.1.1 The contact point C and the normal load Fz

The radius of curvature of the road profile is considered large as compared to the radius of the tyre.
The tyre is assumed to have only a single contact point (C) with the road profile. Furthermore,
for calculating the motion of the tyre relative to the road, the road is approximated by its tangent
plane at the point on the road below the wheel center (See the left side of figure A.1). The tangent
plane is an accurate approximation of the road, as long as the road radius of curvature is not too
small (≥ 2[m]). With the aid of the right side of figure A.1, the normal compression ρ of the tyre
on the road can be derived by the tyre free radius R0 , the cross section tyre radius rt and the axle
height h to the road tangent plane;
ρ0 = rt + (R0 − rt ) cos γ − h (A.1)
The normal load Fz is then calculated with the tyre vertical stiffness Cz and damping Kz ;
Fz = Cz ρ + Kz ρ̇ (A.2)
with ρ̇ the deflection velocity.
A.1.2 The effective rolling radius

The effective rolling radius Re (at free rolling of the tyre) is defined by the forward velocity Vx
and the rotational velocity of the wheel Ω;
Vx
Re = (A.3)
Ω
62
APPENDIX A. THE MF-MCTYRE MODEL 63
Z
nr
O
X
Zc Y
Zw
R0 Rcs
Vx
Xc γ
ha
tyre cross
Xw section
Yc rt
Mx
Yw
C Fy C
ρ road tangent
plane
Fz
Figure A.1: The contact point C and tyre compression ρ in this point
304
Effective rolling radius Re
302 Loaded radius Rl
300
298
Radius [mm]
296
294
292
290
288
286
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Figure A.2: The effective rolling radius as a function of the load
This radius decreases with increasing vertical load at low loads, but around its nominal load the
influence of the vertical load is small as can be seen in figure A.2 for a tyre with a nominal load
of 1475 [N]. When assuming a constant vertical tyre stiffness Cz , the radial tyre deflection can be
calculated with;
Fz
ρ= (A.4)
Cz
For the estimation of the effective radius Re a Magic Formula approach is chosen;
Re = R0 − ρFz0 (D arctan(Bρd ) + F ρd ) (A.5)
in which R0 is the unloaded free radius and the nominal tyre deflection ρFz0 is defined by the
vertical tyre stiffness Cz and the nominal wheel load Fz0 ;
Fz0
ρFz0 = (A.6)
Cz
and the dimensionless radial tyre deflection ρd can be calculated with;

ρ
ρd = (A.7)
ρFz0
Factor B in equation A.5 determines the slope at Fz = 0, factor D defines the height of the
asymptote at high wheel loads and factor F defines the ratio between the tyre radial deformation
and the effective tyre deformation.
A.1.3 Tyre slip quantities
Vx Vsx
Vy α
V Vr Vs Vsy
Figure A.3: Slip quantities of a tyre
With figure A.3 the tyre slip quantities can be derived. The longitudinal slip speed is defined
as;
Vsx = Vx − ΩRe (A.8)
and the lateral slip speed;
Vsy = Vy (A.9)
With these slip speeds the practical slip quantities (κ and α) that are used as an input for the
Magic Formula are defined as;
Vsx
κ=− (A.10)
Vx
Vsy
α = arctan( ) (A.11)
|Vx |
With Vsx and Vsy the components of the slip speed that may be defined as the velocity of point
S in the W -axis system (see figure A.3). With Ω denoting the rotational speed of the tyre, the
linear rolling speed becomes;
Vr = R e Ω (A.12)
A.2 The Magic Formula

For a given pneumatic tyre and road condition, the tyre forces due to slip follow a typical charac-
teristic. These characteristics can be accurately approximated by a mathematical formula known
as the ’Magic Formula’. The parameters in the Magic Formula depend on the type of the tyre
and the road conditions. These parameters can be derived from experimental data obtained from
tests. The tyre is rolled over a road at various loads, orientations and motion conditions.
The Magic Formula tyre model is mainly of an empirical nature and contains a set of mathemat-
ical formula, which are partly based on a physical background. The Magic Formula generates the
forces (Fx ,Fy ) and moments (Mx ,My ,Mz ) acting on the tyre at pure and combined slip conditions,
using longitudinal and/or lateral slip (α,κ), wheel camber (γ) and the vertical force (Fz ) as input
quantities. An extension has been provided that describes transient and oscillatory tyre behaviour
for limited frequencies lower than 8 [Hz ] and wavelengths larger than the tyre circumference.
The original form of the formula that holds for given values of vertical load and camber angle
reads;
y(x) = D sin[C arctan{Bx − E(Bx − arctan Bx)}] (A.13)
with
Y (X) = y(x) + SV (A.14)
x = X + SH (A.15)
This original form is still being used for the representation of both the longitudinal (Fx ) and
lateral forces (Fy ) of automobile tyres. For motorcycle tyres the original formula is only used for
the longitudinal force. The Magic Formula y(x) typically produces a curve that passes through the
origin, reaches a maximum and subsequently tends to a horizontal asymptote. For given values
of the coefficients B, C, D and E the curve shows an anti-symmetric shape with respect to the
origin. To allow the curve to have an offset with respect to the origin, two shifts SH and SV are
introduced. A new set of coordinates Y (X) arises as shown in figure A.4. The formula is capable
of producing characteristics that closely match measured curves for the longitudinal force as a
function of the longitudinal slip κ with the effect of load Fz and camber angle γ included in the
parameters.
Figure A.4 illustrates the meaning of some of the factors used in the formula. Obviously,
coefficient D represents the peak value (for C ≥ 1) and the product BCD corresponds to the
slope at the origin. The shape factor C controls the limits of the range of the sine function
appearing in formula A.13. Thereby it determines the shape of resulting curve as also the height
of the horizontal asymptote ya . The factor B is left to determine the slope at the origin and is
called the stiffness factor. The factor E is introduced to control the curvature at the peak and at
the same time the horizontal position of the peak, xm .
y Y
X m
S H
D
y a
S V a rc ta n (B C D )
Figure A.4: Curve produced by the original Magic Formula
A.2.1 Longitudinal force (pure slip)

As said, the original form of the Magic Formula is still used for motorcycles to represent the
longitudinal force, Fx for which the input κx is the longitudinal slip.
Fx0 = Dx sin[Cx arctan{Bx κx − Ex (Bx κx − arctan(Bx κx ))} + SV x (A.16)
Next to κ, also the momentary vertical load Fz and camber angle γ are used as an input as the
coefficients are determined dependently on those parameters.
A.2.2 Lateral force (pure slip)

In 1997 de Vries and Pacejka adapted the Magic Formula in order to make it suitable for use at large
camber ranges [28]. In the automobile Magic Formula, the camber contribution was introduced
at the horizontal and vertical shift. The disadvantage of this method is the strong interaction
between camber angle and side slip angle which will not be included directly. To account for this
interaction, the camber angle appears in the coefficients of the slip angle for the automobile tyre
model. Next to this, also a camber force introduced in the vertical shift will generate extra forces
even if the peak value of the slip angle characteristic has already been reached. The peak coefficient
D then loses its physical and quantitative meaning. To properly cover the characteristics also at
large camber angles therefore a new approach was chosen. The maximum possible side force is
the leading factor Dy in the basic Magic Formula. If all force contributions appear within the
brackets of the sine function, they will all respect the friction limit. Introduction of a completely
independent arctangent function for the camber contribution in the formula, with its own stiffness
factor Bγ , shape factor Cγ , and curvature factor Eγ provides sufficient freedom to describe the
pure camber characteristics accurately. The camber force will respect the friction limit, and strong
interaction between camber and slip angle contributions are inherently build in.
Fy0 = Dy sin(Cα arctan(Bα α − Eα (Bα α − arctan(Bα α)))+

Cγ arctan(Bγ γ − Eγ (Bγ γ − arctan(Bγ γ)))) (A.17)
A.2.3 Aligning moment (pure slip)

In the nowadays motorcycle Magic Formula a part of the aligning moment Mz is obtained by
multiplying the pneumatic trail t with the side force that is attributed to the side slip and not to
the camber angle, Fy,γ=0 . This part of the side force is obtained form the side force calculations
by setting γ = 0. The other part of the aligning moment consists of the residual torque;
Mz0 = −t.Fy,γ=0 + Mzr0 (A.18)
The pneumatic trail on its turn is represented by the cosine version of the magic formula;
t0 = Dt cos(Ct arctan(Bt αt − Et (Bt αt − arctan(Bt αt )))) cos(α) (A.19)
With;
αt = α + SHt (A.20)
This version of the Magic Formula is able to produce the characteristic hill shaped curve, which
can be seen in figure A.5. In this figure the basic properties of the cosine based curve have been
indicated. Again, D is the peak value, C is a shape factor determining the level ya of the horizontal
asymptote and now B influences the curvature at the peak (illustrated with the inserted parabola).
Factor E modifies the shape at larger values of slip and governs the location x0 of the point where
the curve intersects the x-axis.
A.2.4 Overturning moment

The overturning moment for a motorcycle tyre has contributions of both the lateral force Fy and
the camber angle γ. Therefore it is implemented as;
Fy
Mx = R0 Fz (qsx1 λV mx + (−qsx2 γ + qsx3 )) (A.21)
Fz0
Y
y
-S h
-y a
X x
2 -x 0
B C
Figure A.5: Curve produced by the cosine version of the Magic Formula
S p in d le a x is
T y re c o n to u r
C A R o a d s u rfa c e
y M x
Figure A.6: Difference between actual and used contact point
with qsx1 the factor with which a vertical offset can be introduced at 0 sideslip and camber.
Furthermore qsx2 and qsx3 are the factors introducing the overturning couple induced by camber
and lateral force respectively. Both λ values are scale factors. The main contribution of the
overturning moment while cornering will be induced by the camber factor. This is because of the
fact that the forces and moments are not exactly applied in the contact center A, but in the point
C, as can be seen in figure A.6. The moment introduced by this lateral shift, Fz .yM x , therefore
needs to be taken into account. As can be seen in figure A.6, this moment is considerable at large
camber angles.
A.2.5 Rolling resistance moment

With the measurement equipment which is presently used it is not possible to measure the moment
around the y-axis in the wheel center (Myc ). As therefore only two moments are measured and
three moments need to be known in the contact center, an assumption is made for the rolling
resistance;
My = −Fz Rl fr (A.22)
The vertical load and the loaded radius are determined in the contact routine, the rolling resistance
coefficient is determined as a function of the longitudinal force Fx and the longitudinal velocity
Vx . This in contradiction to the processing of the measurements, where fr is taken as 1.5%.
φ V
elastic foundation
a α
a
σ
v2 v1
path of
contact points stretched string
Mz
Fy
Figure A.7: Stretched string model for transient tyre behaviour
A.2.6 Additional features

The effect of combined slip was introduced into the Magic Formula tyre model in a purely empiric
way by Bayle [2]. This method describes the effect of combined slip on the lateral force and on
the longitudinal force characteristics. Weighting functions G have been introduced which, when
multiplied with the original pure slip functions, produce the interaction effects of κ on Fy and of
α on Fx . The weighting functions have a hill shape. They take the value 1 in the special case of
pure slip (κ or α equal to zero). When, for example, at a given slip angle a from zero increasing
brake slip is introduced, the relevant weighting function for Fy may first show a slight increase in
magnitude (becoming larger than 1) but will soon reach its peak after which a continuous decrease
follows. The cosine version of the Magic Formula (which is also used in equation A.19) is used to
represent this hill shaped function for the longitudinal and lateral force Fx and Fy and the aligning
moment Mz . The rolling resistance moment My is not affected by any slip, so no combined slip
effect needs to be introduced. The overturning moment Mx is only indirectly affected by the
weighing functions, as it depends on the lateral force Fy .
Next to the combined slip an extension has been provided that describes transient and oscilla-
tory tyre behaviour for limited frequencies lower than 8 [Hz ] and wavelengths larger than the tyre
circumference. First-order lag of tyre longitudinal and lateral deformations u and v are introduced
through relaxation lengths σκ and σα , as depicted in figure A.7:
du
σκ + |Vx |u = −σκ Vsx (A.23)
dt
dν
σα + |Vx |ν = −σα Vsy (A.24)
dt
These differential equations are based on the assmuption that the contact points near the leading
edge remain in the adhesion with the road surface (no sliding). The relaxation lengths are functions
of the vertical load and camber angle. The practical tyre deformation are defined as;
u
κ0 = sign(Vx ) (A.25)
σκ
ν
α0 = arctan (A.26)
σα
The longitudinal and lateral force and the self-aligning moment are now determined with κ0 and
α0 instead of the longitudinal and lateral wheel slip quantities κ and α.
Fx = Fx (α0 , γ, κ0 , Fz ) (A.27)
Fy = Fy (α0 , γ, κ0 , Fz ) (A.28)
Mz = Mz (α0 , γ, κ0 , Fz ) (A.29)
A.3 Tyre model parameter determination

As seen in the previous paragraph, several Magic Formula parameters need to be defined to obtain
a correct representation of the tyre behaviour. These parameters can be derived from experimental
data obtained from tests. The tyre is rolled over a road at various loads, orientations and motion
conditions. During these tests the forces (Fx , Fy , Fz ) and moments (Mx , Mz ) are measured
with respect to the C-axis system in the wheel center. Next to the forces and moments also
several other parameters are being measured, for example the camber angle, slip angle, forward
velocity, rotational velocity and wheel center height. All data is recorded in a Matab *.mat file.
The process from measurement data to a so-called tyre property file which contains all Magic
Formula parameters is depicted in figure A.8. With the measurement data in the *.mat files,
F o r c e s & M o m e n ts in C F o r c e s & M o m e n ts in W M a g ic F o r m u la p a r a m e te r s
* .m a t file s * .td x file s * .tir file s
M -ty re M F -to o l
Figure A.8: Determination of the Magic Formula parameters
the program M-tyre generates TYDEX (*.tdx) files. These files contain the forces and moments
that are converted to the contact point C. Next to these forces and moments also other variables
derived from the measurements are present, for example the loaded radius, longitudinal slip etc.
On their turn all TYDEX files are loaded in MF-Tool, which is a fitting program. In this program
all Magic Formula parameters are fitted to the measurement data and saved in a *.tir file. This
file is used by the MF-MCTyre model to read the Magic Formula parameters during simulations.
Appendix B
Motorcycle model parameters
To be able to implement the Koenen motorcycle model in SimMechanics all parameter values
need to be specified. In ’The dynamic behaviour of a motorcycle’ [10] all parameters are specified
in Appendix G (p. 162-163). These parameters are listed in this Appendix, together with a
geometrical figure of the motorcycle.
s te e r a x is
g 2 x g 1 x m
g
1
tw is t a x is
1 z
d x
m 3 g 1 s z
a 1 z
g 1 s x
g 1 u z
r id e r le a n a x is g 3 z m 1 s
m 2
fz e g 1 u x
r
d m
z g 2 z
1 u
m 2 w m 2 u m 1 w
p itc h a x is
R o r R o f
s x m
s x j
a 1 x
f x
Figure B.1: Motorcycle model components
In figure A.1 eight masses can be distinguished which are;

m1 = 13.1 [kg] m2 = 209.6 [kg]
m1s = 0 [kg] m2u = 25.6 [kg]
m1u = 17.5 [kg] m2w = 0 [kg]
m1w = 0 [kg] m3 = 44.5 [kg]
For these eight masses the moments of inertia that are being used are;
Jx1 = 0.46 [kgm2 ] Jx1s = 0.0 [kgm2 ]
2
Jy1 = 1.2 [kgm ] Jy1s = 0.0 [kgm2 ]
70
APPENDIX B. MOTORCYCLE MODEL PARAMETERS 71
Jz1 = 0.21 [kgm2 ] Jz1s = 0.0 [kgm2 ]

Jxz1 = 0.0 [kgm2 ] Jxz1s = 0.0 [kgm2 ]
Jx1u = 0.29 [kgm2 ] Jx1w = 0.0 [kgm2 ]

Jy1u = 0.0 [kgm2 ] Jy1w = 0.58 [kgm2 ]
Jz1u = 0.29 [kgm2 ] Jz1w = 0.0 [kgm2 ]
Jxz1u = 0.0 [kgm2 ] Jxz1w = 0.0 [kgm2 ]
Jx2 = 15.23 [kgm2 ] Jx2u = 0.37 [kgm2 ]

Jy2 = 32.0 [kgm2 ] Jy2u = 0.0 [kgm2 ]
Jz2 = 19.33 [kgm2 ] Jz2u = 0.37 [kgm2 ]
Jxz2 = -1.4 [kgm2 ] Jxz2u = 0.0 [kgm2 ]
Jx2w = 0.0 [kgm2 ] Jx3 = 1.3 [kgm2 ]

Jy2w = 0.74 [kgm2 ] Jy3 = 2.1 [kgm2 ]
Jz2w = 0.0 [kgm2 ] Jz3 = 1.4 [kgm2 ]
Jxz2w= 0.0 [kgm2 ] Jxz3 = -0.3 [kgm2 ]
The following geometrical parameters hold for the motorcycle model;

a1x = 0.066 [m] g1uz = 0.632 [m]
a1z = 0.632 [m] g2x = 0.680 [m]
dx = 0.600 [m] g2z = 0.211 [m]
dz = 0.679 [m] g3z = 0.190 [m]
fx = 1.168 [m] Rof = 0.319 [m]
fz = 0.513 [m] Ror = 0.321 [m]
g1x = 0.015 [m] sxj = 0.400 [m]
g1z = 0.032 [m] sxm = 0.100 [m]
g1sx = 0.000 [m] ² = 0.520 [rad]
g1sz = 0.000 [m] pLx = 0.770 [m]
g1ux = 0.066 [m] pDz = 0.900 [m]
The front suspension vertical spring stiffness and damping are;

N
Cs = 9000 [ m ] Ks = 550 [ Nms ]
The rear suspension (pitch movement) rotational stiffness and damping are;
Cp = 10280 [ N m
rad ] Kp = 440 [ Nrad
ms
]
The twist movement rotational stiffness and damping are;
Cβ = 34100 [ N m
rad ] Kβ = 99.7 [ Nrad ms
]
The rider upper body lean rotational stiffness and damping are;
Cr = 10000 [ N m
rad ] Kr = 85.2 [ Nrad ms
]
Finally, an aerodynamic drag force FD and lift force FL are acting on the motorcycle. These forces
are determined as:
1
FD = ρCDA v 2 (B.1)
2
1
FL = ρCLA v 2 (B.2)
2
with ρ the density of air, v the forward velocity and CDA and CLA the effective drag and lift areas
respectively. These areas are;
CDA = 0.488 [m2 ] CLA = 0.114 [m2 ]

Appendix C
Processing measurement data
With the Delft Tyre Test Trailer, the forces and moments that are generated by a tyre can be
measured. This can be done at two different measurement towers on the right and left side of the
test trailer. The tyre forces and moments are measured in the hub of the wheel (in the C-axis
system) and transformed to the forces and moments in the tyre road contact point (the W -axis
system). Furthermore, the tyre model converts the forces and moments from the contact point to
the wheel center. Therefore, in this Appendix the conversions will be given.
C.1 Left measurement tower

The measurement hub of the left tower consists of two measurement crosses at a defined distance
that measure the forces in xc and zc direction. The forces in yc direction are measured with an
axial support, see figure C.1.
G y
G z 1 G z 2
G x 2 G x 1
b a
Figure C.1: Measurement hub with five strain gauges
With the output of the strain gauges, the forces and moments in the C-axis system can be
determined. With the distances a and b known, the forces (Fc ) and moments (Mc ) are defined as:
Fxc = Gx1 + Gx2 (C.1)
Fyc = Gy (C.2)
72
APPENDIX C. PROCESSING MEASUREMENT DATA 73
Fzc = Gz1 + Gz2 (C.3)

Mxc = −Gz1 (a + b) − Gz2 b (C.4)
Mzc = Gx1 (a + b) + Gx2 b (C.5)
The moment Myc cannot be measured by the measurement hub. To be able to describe all
moments in the C- and W -axis systems, some assumptions will be made later on.
C.2 Right measurement tower

In the right measurement tower, the forces and moments are measured with piezo electric trans-
ducers. When looking at the measurement hub from the wheel, the piezo electric transducers are
positioned as depicted in figure C.2.
3 2
4 1
Figure C.2: Positioning of the piezo electric transducers
All four of these cells measure a force in the x-, y- and z-direction. These forces are sometimes
combined and all measurement data is given in 7 measurement channels. The output of these
channels are defined as:
Fx1234 = Fx1 + Fx2 + Fx3 + Fx4 (C.6)
Fy1 = Fy1 (C.7)

Fy2 = Fy2 (C.8)
Fy3 = Fy3 (C.9)
Fy4 = Fy4 (C.10)
Fz12 = Fz1 + Fz2 (C.11)
Tz34 = Fz3 + Fz4 (C.12)
In figure C.3 two views of the wheel connected to the measurement hub are depicted. On the
left side the rear view of the wheel is shown, on the right side the top view is shown. With the
known distances b, h and v the forces and moments in the C-axis system can be computed. It
should be mentioned that also with the right tower, it is impossible to measure the moment Ty .
As was done for the left measurement hub, the equilibria of forces and moments are examined
from which the forces and moments can be defined. One last fact should be taken into consideration
before the forces and moments can be determined. The zero measurement that removes all biases
from the measurement signals is performed with the hub at the zero camber position. At that
position, the measured wheel weight is zeroed. When the measurement is performed at a predefined
camber angle, the effect of the hanging mass must be compensated. With this compensation, the
forces and moments become:
Fxc = −Fx1234 (C.13)
Fyc = −Fy1 − Fy2 − Fy3 − Fy4 + mwheel g sin(γ) (C.14)

b b
F z 1 2 3 4 F x 1 2 3 4
F y 2 3 F y 1 2
F z C F x C
F y F y
v C
h C
M x C M z C
F y 1 4 F y 3 4
Figure C.3: Positioning of the piezo electric transducers
Fzc = −Fz1 − Fz2 − mwheel g(1 − cos(γ)) (C.15)

1
Mxc = v((Fy2 + Fy3 ) − (Fy1 + Fy4 )) + Fzc b (C.16)
2
1
Mzc = h((Fy3 + Fy4 ) − (Fy1 + Fy2 )) − Fxc b (C.17)
2
C.3 Conversion from C-axis system to W-axis system

With the forces in the center of the axle known, the forces in the tyre road contact point can
also be derived. The easiest way to do this is to evaluate the equilibrium of forces. The forces
and moments in the y-z plane are depicted in figure C.4. The x-axis of both systems of axes are
perpendicular, the y-axis and z-axis of the C-axis system are rotated around the x-axis by the
inclination angle γ.
F z c
F y c
M z c
M y c
g
F z w
M z w R lo a d
F y w M y w C
Figure C.4: Forces and moments in the y-z plane

The equilibrium of forces is formulated with figure C.4 and from this equilibrium the forces in
the W -axis system are defined as:
Fxw = Fxc (C.18)
Fyw = Fyc cos(γ) − Fzc sin(γ) (C.19)

Fzw = Fyc sin(γ) + Fzc cos(γ) (C.20)
From the equilibrium of moments, the moments in the W -axis system are defined as:
Mxw = Mxc − Fyc Rl (C.21)
Myw = Myc cos(γ) − Mzc sin(γ) + Fxc Rl cos(γ) (C.22)

Mzw = Myc sin(γ) + Mzc cos(γ) + Fxc Rl sin(γ) (C.23)
As the moment Myc is unknown, an assumption is required to be able to describe all the
moments in the W -axis system. With measurement results and experience, the assumption is
made for the rolling resistance to be:
Myw = −Fzw fr Rl (C.24)
The friction factor fr is estimated to be 1.5 %. With this assumption, the moments in the W -axis
system become:
Mxw = Mxc − Fyc Rl (C.25)
Myw = −Fzw fr Rl (C.26)

Mzc
Mzw = + Myw tan(γ) (C.27)
cos(γ)
C.4 Conversion from W-axis system to C-axis system

In the MF-MCTyre model, the Magic Formula is evaluated in the W -axis system. The tyre
forces and moments in a vehicle model though are requested in the C-axis system. This means
that after the Magic Formula evaluation another conversion needs to take place. Therefore both
the equilibrium of forces and the equilibrium of moments around point O are used. With these
equilibria, the forces (Fc ) and moments (Mw ) in the W -axis system are given by:
Fxc = Fxw (C.28)
Fyc = Fyw cos(γ) + Fzw sin(γ) (C.29)

Fzc = −Fyw sin(γ) + Fzw cos(γ) (C.30)
Mxc = Mxw + Fyw Rl cos(γ) + Fzw Rl sin(γ) = Mxw + Fyc Rl (C.31)
Myc = Myw cos(γ) + Mzw sin(γ) − Fxw Rl (C.32)
Mzc = −Myw sin(γ) + Mzw cos(γ) (C.33)

Motorcycel 5496

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motorcycel 5496

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving a tyre model for

W.D. Versteden (s479891)

Supervisor and member of graduation committee:

Eindhoven University of Technology

Eindhoven, June, 2005

Sign conventions and symbols v

3 A motorcycle simulation model 10

4 Problems of the MF-MCTyre model 20

5 Motorcycle tyre measurements 29

6 Improvements to the MF-MCTyre model 37

7 Analysis of the improved tyre model 47

8 Conclusions and recommendations 57

A The MF-MCTyre model 62

B Motorcycle model parameters 70

C Processing measurement data 72

Figure 1: The ISO sign conventions

Figure 2: C- and W -axis systems used in MF-Tyre

Symbol Description Unit

Symbol Description Unit

1.2 Problem statement

1.3 Research layout

2.1 Motorcycle modelling

Figure 2.1: The degrees of freedom of the motorcycle model of Koenen

Figure 2.2: Different methods of introducing a rear suspension

2.1.2 Mass and inertial parameters

mf rontsprung 13.1 15.5 18.0

Table 2.1: Comparison of body masses used in several motorcycle models

JriderX 1.30 0.00 2.90

Table 2.2: Comparison of body inertias used in several motorcycle models

2.1.3 Stabilizing controller

2.2 Motorcycle tyre modelling

Figure 2.3: Different contact point definitions

Figure 2.4: Different tyre models developed by Cossalter

Figure 2.5: Rotational tyre deformation with respect to the rim

A motorcycle simulation model

3.1 Model structure and features

Figure 3.1: Motorcycle model components

Figure 3.2: Aerodynamic forces acting on the motorcycle

3.2 Stabilization and velocity controllers

Figure 3.3: Stabilizing feedback controller

3.3 Tyre model implementation

3.4 Simulation results

Figure 3.5: Trajectory of the motorcycle model during a cornering simulation

Front tyre Rear tyre

Camber angle, γ [deg] 48.26

Table 3.2: Motorcycle behaviour during steady state cornering

3.4.1 Equilibria of forces

Fxwr + Fd + Fxwf + Fywr sin αr + Fywf sin αf = 0 (3.1)

Fzwf + Fzwr + Fl cos γ + g(m1 + m1u + m2 + m2u + m3 ) = 0 (3.2)

3.4.2 Camber angle γ and steer torque Ms

Fyc = Fyw cos γ + Fzw sin γ = 234.1[N ] (3.8)

Fzc = −Fyw sin γ + Fzw cos γ = 1712.0[N ] (3.9)

Mzc = −Myw sin γ + Mzw cos γ = −21.0 (3.10)

Fm1 = R1 m1 ω 2 cos γ − gm1 sin γ (3.11)

Fm1u = R1u m1u ω 2 cos γ − gm1u sin γ (3.12)

Problems of the MF-MCTyre

4.1 Explanation of the tyre model

Figure 4.1: C- and W -axis systems used in MF-MCTyre

Figure 4.2: Schematic representation of the MF-MCTyre model

4.2 Problems with the determination of the contact point

ρ0 = rt + (R0 − rt ) cos γ − h (4.1)

4.2.1 The wheel axle height, h

4.2.2 The tyre loaded radius, Rl