adrian cooke presentation for sofie ad dscc2012
TRANSCRIPT
IntelligentAssistedBicycles
METHODS TO ASSESS THESTABILITY OF A BICYCLE RIDERSYSTEM
Adrian Cooke (Presenter) November 21, 2012Vera Bulsink, Rosemary Dubbeldam, Bart KoopmanMarc Beusenberg, Maarten Bonnema, Wim PoelmanFunded byPIDON (Overijssel, The Netherlands)
Overview
Introduction
Stability Hypothesis
Computer Model
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Discussion and Future work
Stability Assessment: Adrian Cooke 2 / 14
3 / 14
z
x
y 1
2
3
4
56
7
89
1011
12
1314
15
16
z
yxw c
r1
2
3
4
5
Computer Model Experiments
3 / 14
z
x
y 1
2
3
4
56
7
89
1011
12
1314
15
16
z
yxw c
r1
2
3
4
5
Computer Model ExperimentsBicycle Stability Test Bench
3 / 14
z
x
y 1
2
3
4
56
7
89
1011
12
1314
15
16
z
yxw c
r1
2
3
4
5
Computer Model ExperimentsBicycle Stability Test Bench
Overview
Introduction
Stability Hypothesis
Computer Model
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Discussion and Future work
Stability Assessment: Adrian Cooke 4 / 14
5 / 14
Bicycle Stability Hypothesis
1.Stability Margin Definitions
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
5 / 14
Bicycle Stability Hypothesis
1.Stability Margin Definitions
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
Lateral margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays during normal cycling.
2.Safety Margin
Perceived margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays and the rider feels comfortable and is able to recover.
3.Stability Margin
Margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays that is physically stable, but the rider feels unsafe.
4.Unstable region
Region where the bicycle is unstable and returning to a stable position is not possible.
1.Normal Riding Margin
5 / 14
Bicycle Stability Hypothesis
1.Stability Margin Definitions
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
Lateral margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays during normal cycling.
2.Safety Margin
Perceived margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays and the rider feels comfortable and is able to recover.
3.Stability Margin
Margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays that is physically stable, but the rider feels unsafe.
4.Unstable region
Region where the bicycle is unstable and returning to a stable position is not possible.
1.Normal Riding Margin
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
2.Hypothesis Definitions
The vector determined by the in-plane projection of the frame onto the ground.
CoM
CoP
Heading
Centre of Mass of the system (bicycle and rider)
Center of pressure of the system. CoP is defined as the resultant lateral and vertical forces occurring at the tyre ground contact.
5 / 14
Bicycle Stability Hypothesis
1.Stability Margin Definitions
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
Lateral margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays during normal cycling.
2.Safety Margin
Perceived margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays and the rider feels comfortable and is able to recover.
3.Stability Margin
Margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays that is physically stable, but the rider feels unsafe.
4.Unstable region
Region where the bicycle is unstable and returning to a stable position is not possible.
1.Normal Riding Margin
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
2.Hypothesis Definitions
The vector determined by the in-plane projection of the frame onto the ground.
CoM
CoP
Heading
Centre of Mass of the system (bicycle and rider)
Center of pressure of the system. CoP is defined as the resultant lateral and vertical forces occurring at the tyre ground contact.
3.Margin calculation
Stability hypothesis version 1The maximum difference between the CoM and the Heading in lateral direction determines the margins.
Stability hypothesis version 3The maximum difference between the CoM and the CoP determines the margins, with the CoP as the reference.
Stability hypothesis version 2The maximum difference between the CoP and the Heading in lateral direction determines the margins.
Margin dependent on the rider, forward velocity and cycling scenario.
5 / 14
Bicycle Stability Hypothesis
1.Stability Margin Definitions
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
Lateral margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays during normal cycling.
2.Safety Margin
Perceived margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays and the rider feels comfortable and is able to recover.
3.Stability Margin
Margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays that is physically stable, but the rider feels unsafe.
4.Unstable region
Region where the bicycle is unstable and returning to a stable position is not possible.
1.Normal Riding Margin
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
2.Hypothesis Definitions
The vector determined by the in-plane projection of the frame onto the ground.
CoM
CoP
Heading
Centre of Mass of the system (bicycle and rider)
Center of pressure of the system. CoP is defined as the resultant lateral and vertical forces occurring at the tyre ground contact.
3.Margin calculation
Stability hypothesis version 1The maximum difference between the CoM and the Heading in lateral direction determines the margins.
Stability hypothesis version 3The maximum difference between the CoM and the CoP determines the margins, with the CoP as the reference.
Stability hypothesis version 2The maximum difference between the CoP and the Heading in lateral direction determines the margins.
Margin dependent on the rider, forward velocity and cycling scenario.
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
4.Cycling Scenarios*
Normal Riding Control Present
Straight line cycling.
Steady state corner.
Scenarios
Active control of the stability of the system is being performed.
Perturbation of the system or error in the control has occurred.
Scenarios
CoM and CoP are 'near' to the same line between the two contact points (which is not necessarily on the heading).
CoM is not 'near' to the line between the two contact points.
* Top view of bicycle with the two wheel contacts.
5 / 14
Bicycle Stability Hypothesis
1.Stability Margin Definitions
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
Lateral margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays during normal cycling.
2.Safety Margin
Perceived margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays and the rider feels comfortable and is able to recover.
3.Stability Margin
Margin wherein the CoM/CoP stays that is physically stable, but the rider feels unsafe.
4.Unstable region
Region where the bicycle is unstable and returning to a stable position is not possible.
1.Normal Riding Margin
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
2.Hypothesis Definitions
The vector determined by the in-plane projection of the frame onto the ground.
CoM
CoP
Heading
Centre of Mass of the system (bicycle and rider)
Center of pressure of the system. CoP is defined as the resultant lateral and vertical forces occurring at the tyre ground contact.
3.Margin calculation
Stability hypothesis version 1The maximum difference between the CoM and the Heading in lateral direction determines the margins.
Stability hypothesis version 3The maximum difference between the CoM and the CoP determines the margins, with the CoP as the reference.
Stability hypothesis version 2The maximum difference between the CoP and the Heading in lateral direction determines the margins.
Margin dependent on the rider, forward velocity and cycling scenario.
Stability Margin
Safety Margin
1
2
3
4Unstable region
CoP(t) orHeading(t)
Normal Riding Margin
LateralDirection
4.Cycling Scenarios*
Normal Riding Control Present
Straight line cycling.
Steady state corner.
Scenarios
Active control of the stability of the system is being performed.
Perturbation of the system or error in the control has occurred.
Scenarios
CoM and CoP are 'near' to the same line between the two contact points (which is not necessarily on the heading).
CoM is not 'near' to the line between the two contact points.
* Top view of bicycle with the two wheel contacts.
5.Required Parameters
3-D accelerations of the bicycle and tyre-road contact.
Bicycle lean angle andframe dimensions.
Heading
Bicycle CoMBicycle dimensions, lean and steering angle.Rider CoMDimension of torso, legs, head, arms and their movements.
Bicycle CoP
Torso, legs, head, armsaccelerations.
Rider CoP
Overview
Introduction
Stability Hypothesis
Computer Model
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Discussion and Future work
Stability Assessment: Adrian Cooke 6 / 14
Computer model
I Created using Adams multi-body dynamic simulationsoftware.
I Pacejka tyre model.I Connected to Matlab via Simulink ⇒ create controllerI Fully parametrized.I Used for inverse dynamics ⇒ CoM calulations.I Aid in the design of mechatronic appliances.
Stability Assessment: Adrian Cooke 7 / 14
8 / 14
z
x
y 1
2
3
4
56
7
89
1011
12
1314
15
16
CoM
Rear wheelRear frame
Front wheel
Upper-body
Pelvis
z
y
r1
2
3
4
5
(Left/ right) leg
Front assembly
Measurement point
Computer Model
xw c1. Rear wheel axis2. Seat post3. Bottom bracket4. Steering axis5. Front wheel axis6. Right ankle
7. Left ankle8. Right knee9. Left knee10. Right hip11. Left hip
12. Vertebral joint L4/L513. Right shoulder14. Left shoulder15. Right wrist16. Left wrist
Overview
Introduction
Stability Hypothesis
Computer Model
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Discussion and Future work
Stability Assessment: Adrian Cooke 9 / 14
10 / 14
11 / 14
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
11 / 14
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Data processing back-bone
1
11 / 14
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Data processing back-bone
1
Forward velocity and pedalling cadence
Why?
Technology
bicycle dynamics
commercial sensors,signal processing.
2
11 / 14
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Data processing back-bone
1
Forward velocity and pedalling cadence
Why?
Technology
bicycle dynamics
commercial sensors,signal processing.
2
bicycle dynamics
sensor development, 3D mathematics, mechanical mounts, data-logging
Technology
Why?Lean and steering angle3
11 / 14
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Data processing back-bone
1
Forward velocity and pedalling cadence
Why?
Technology
bicycle dynamics
commercial sensors,signal processing.
2
bicycle dynamics
sensor development, 3D mathematics, mechanical mounts, data-logging
Technology
Why?Lean and steering angle3
rider behaviour and dynamics
3D mathematics, sensor development, rider perception analysis
Why?
4
Technology
Rider behaviour and kinematics
11 / 14
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Data processing back-bone
1
Forward velocity and pedalling cadence
Why?
Technology
bicycle dynamics
commercial sensors,signal processing.
2
bicycle dynamics
sensor development, 3D mathematics, mechanical mounts, data-logging
Technology
Why?Lean and steering angle3
rider behaviour and dynamics
3D mathematics, sensor development, rider perception analysis
Why?
4
Technology
Rider behaviour and kinematics
Why?
Rider bicycle interfaces and rider dynamics
Technology
sensor development, mechanical mounts, signal processing.
5
rider control actions for computer model
Overview
Introduction
Stability Hypothesis
Computer Model
Bicycle Stability Test Bench
Discussion and Future work
Stability Assessment: Adrian Cooke 12 / 14
Conclusion and Future work
ConclusionI SOFIE introduced.I Bicycle instrumentation, computer model briefly described.I Stability hypothesis presented.
Future workI Experiments between elderly and younger cyclists to
investigate the stability hypothesis.I Sensor fusion system developed for sensors on the
bicycle to improve resolution.I Model validated against test data.I Control model developed for the human.
Stability Assessment: Adrian Cooke 13 / 14
IntelligentAssistedBicycles
Thank you for yourattention.
Adrian Cooke
http://mobilitylabtwente.nl/sofieFunded byPIDON (Overijssel, The Netherlands)