Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2022.39.0055 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 39:55–59, 2022 © 2022 The Author(s). Licensed under a CC-BY 4.0 licence Published by the Czech Technical University in Prague VALIDATION OF A LONGITUDINAL MOTORCYCLE RIDING DYNAMIC MODEL FOR A POWERED TWO-WHEELER INTERACTIVE SIMULATOR Josef Svoboda∗, Přemysl Toman, Adam Orlický Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Transportation Sciences, Department of Vehicle Technology, Horská 3, 128 03 Prague 2, Czech Republic ∗ corresponding author: svoboj88@fd.cvut.cz Abstract. Engine or battery powered two-wheeled vehicles are an essential part of a transport system. Its users are however more vulnerable in comparison with personal vehicles. In general, compared to four-wheel vehicles even a small percentage of accidents that include motorcycles causes a significant rate of all fatalities in the Czech Republic. Two-wheelers nowadays face the challenge of electric propulsion and wider user adoption. This fact emphasizes the need to assess rider’s behaviour. One way of examination of rider’s behaviour in safe and scientific environments is an interactive vehicle simulator. In order to develop a complex semi-active motorcycle simulator, a virtual model in Unity platform was created. The main purpose of this paper is to verify the longitudinal dynamics of the physical model for emerging interactive simulator. To achieve this goal, crucial parameters of the model were set. For validation of the model we defined several riding scenarios. Based on the data measured during a track test experiment in a real environment, model parameters further needed were indirectly defined. The results show that the output of the longitudinal dynamics model closely correlates with the real data gathered on a track. Keywords: Riding dynamics, powered two wheelers, vehicle simulator, longitudinal dynamics. 1. Introduction In the Czech Republic (based on Yearbooks of Road Accidents in the Czech Republic and Traffic 2017-2020, published by the Police of the Czech Republic) we observe a steady ratio of number of road accidents caused by motorcycle riders and total number of peo- ple killed in road accidents. It means that 2 % of accidents caused by motorcycle riders stand behind 10 % of people killed. In comparison with cars there is the ratio circa 40-50 % caused road accidents to 60-70 % people killed. This makes us see more than 3 times higher seriousness of accidents caused by motor- cycle riders. Compared with the situation in the EU (European Union) the average fatalities percentage is 15 % of total fatalities from 2010 to 2018 based on European Commission (2020) Facts and Figures Motorcyclists and Moped Riders. Powered Two Wheelers (PTW) are the way to in- crease mobility and accessibility for citizens. This statement presents the ACEM (the European Associ- ation of Motorcycle Manufacturers) in the document Decarbonisation of Transport: Powered Two-Wheelers (PTWs) on the road to 2050. Towards this approach the question of decarbonization and implementation of electric PTW is also mentioned. The similar fore- cast is also reported in paper [1]. As for the transition to electric PTW we also have to be aware of different risks coming from riders facing electric propulsion of PTW [2]. The rider style can differ significantly. As an extreme example of potential risk of easily available electric micro-mobility vehicles nowadays we present e-scooters. As reported in [3] the injury rate per mil- lion miles travelled was 180 times higher than the overall group of motor vehicles. To assess rider style adaptation to electric propul- sion, when using several research methods, it is prefer- able to perform experiments in driving, respectively riding simulators. As the riding itself could be dan- gerous and the consequences of small error could lead to several injuries, the simulators are considered a satisfactory way. Similar effects arise when assess- ing potentially dangerous activities of drivers such as fatigue or aggressive driving styles as documented in [4] and [5]. Concerning motorcycle simulators, the approach turned out to be a successful tool to assess riders’ behaviour as presented in [6]. The development of a motorcycle simulator is spe- cific for several reasons. If we compare it with con- ventional four-wheel simulators, we can determine differences. If we focus on motorcycle riding dynamics from the physical point of view, we can observe several specific effects which we cannot neglect. A motorcycle is a spontaneously unstable vehicle. If we consider the weight ratio between the rider and the bike, it is clear that the rider’s movement af- fects the COG (Centre of Gravity) of the whole rider- motorcycle system. That is why the manoeuvrability (especially leaning) of powered two wheelers is strongly affected by the rider’s changing body position. All of these conditions have to be taken into account when developing a virtual physical model as well as control 55 https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2022.39.0055 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://www.cvut.cz/en J. Svoboda, P. Toman, A. Orlický Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings hardware [7]. In addition to physics, there are other technical challenges such as control and command of the whole motorcycle and its HMI (Human-Machine Interface) system. Another technical specific relate to the visu- alization of virtual scenery projected to a rider. The rider compared to a driver has a potentially wider range of view including the view near the rider’s feet, open rear view or the sky view while looking up. In or- der to improve the feeling of accurate speed adoption and virtual environment perception the visualization is a significant element of the whole simulation and its devices should be designed precisely [8]. The motorcycle riding simulator reveals challenges typical of PTW such as e.g. roll motion height and vehicle motion controlled by a rider [8]. When we design the simulator the motorcycle physical model is an essential part of the whole structure. This phys- ical model can be divided into two main systems of the straight movement and the turning movement system [7]. Straight forward movement or the so-called longitu- dinal riding dynamics includes in general acceleration and braking in the motorcycle riding field even shift- ing gears, recuperation braking and deceleration as a typical feature of each engine or motor type and settings. Based on findings above we see that PTW causes high percentage of fatalities and that they are an integral part of future mobility planning moreover en- larged by the group of electric PTW. It is important to be able to examine accurately rider’s behaviour within the context of electric PTW mobility. It means both the risks and benefits. The safety of testing riders, repeatability and reproducibility is very important. Therefore, we decided to develop a motorcycle simula- tor aiming at problematic issues of electric propulsion of PTW. One of the main sub-systems of such a simu- lator is the longitudinal dynamics model. The primary motivation for creation of an accurate longitudinal model is the possibility of future accurate assessment of riders’ behaviour in safe environment. One of the key factors of the simulator of electric motorcycle is the authenticity of specific riding propulsion character- istics of longitudinal movement associated with such a motorcycle. 2. Method Our approach towards accurate longitudinal motor- cycle dynamic models combine real test track and virtual computational development in the software Unity. The basis for the following work is the archi- tecture (see Figure 1) of the whole simulator system which is divided into two parts – “Set-up geometry” module, where the basic geometry and mass charac- teristic of the bike is defined. The second module (see Figure 2) provides the communication between the individual blocks of the physical model as shown in Figure 1. Module 1 – Motorcycle input parameters. Figure 2. Module 2 – Motorcycle simulator architec- ture. the diagram. This step provides the possibility of a complex view on the whole development and testing. As the whole system is developed according to the presented architecture, we created the first draft ver- sion of the longitudinal dynamic model able to operate within the system. The following step is to validate the output of the simulations according to the real track test data. For the testing and as the first steps in the devel- opment of the simulator we also consider the future possibility of implementation of control hardware and thus we created a simplified handlebar controller (see Figure 3) able to communicate with the model. For the validation we defined three motorcycle-rider system movement scenarios. Acceleration from zero up to 80 km·h−1, emergency braking from 80 km·h−1. The third scenario describes the straight free move- ment from the speed of 80 km·h−1 to a complete halt. In this scenario the motorcycle with a rider stops only due to riding resistances of the whole system motorcycle-rider. Test scenarios are defined ideally with 0 % slope and wind speed 0 km·h−1. In the first longitudinal model parameters set-up we focus on the road motorcycle similar to the cate- gory MOTO3 of the world road racing championship. 56 vol. 39/2022 Validation of a longitudinal motorcycle riding dynamic model Figure 3. Diagram of the simplified motorcycle han- dlebar for simulator. Figure 4. Visualization from the development Unity platform. Virtual development of environment and visualisation of the bike presents Figure 4. The motorcycle is pro- duced by the student team CTU Lions of the Faculty of Transportation Sciences, Czech Technical Univer- sity in Prague. Basic parameters are weight of 165 kg, electric motor with peak power up to 42 kW, torque up to 95 Nm. The rider has testing weight of 75 kg. This particular motorcycle (see Figure 5) was used for the measurement for track tests according to the presented scenarios. For data acquisition we used our self-developed DAQ (Data Acquisition System) verified in a series of previous track tests as presented in [2, 9]. For this application the main parameters were the motorcycle velocity and throttle openings. Data was collected within closed area. The basis for the validation is the learning algo- rithm for the exact bike from which the measured data comes from. In the first step we use the sce- nario of free movement to adjust parameters of riding resistances. Then we use acceleration scenario data. Throttle openings and velocity curves are input to the simulation model. The model afterwards computes the optimal engine power curve to correlate with the input speed curve. Then we tune the parameters of braking to correlate the most with the speed curve in braking scenario. When the learning phase ends we perform the ex- act same testing scenario in the unity through the simplified handlebar controller. The data from the vir- tual testing are stored as the simulation output data and then compared with the input velocity curves. For the evaluation of the accuracy of the longitudi- nal dynamics model we define a final speed difference error. Figure 5. Motorcycle used for track test and DAQ. Figure 6. Free movement scenario speed profiles comparison. 3. Results The results chapter is divided into two parts in compli- ance with the presented method and testing scenario sequence. In each section the results of the final set-up of the longitudinal dynamics model compared to the data from the track test are presented. The first one focuses on the final speed profiles and the second one looks up closely to the absolute speed differences. 3.1. Speed profiles Following Figures 6, 7 and 8 present the speed pro- file within time in the acceleration, braking and free movement testing scenario. We observe very close cor- relation of the track test and simulation output data. The correlation coefficient in the all three scenarios is almost equal to 1. The track test data are represented by blue line and the simulation output data by black line. 3.2. Speed profiles differences When we look closely (see Figure 9, 10 and 11) at the speed profiles or to its differences, we see maximal absolute values 2.8 km·h−1. In all cases the speed difference is calculated as test track data minus simu- lation output data. The total average speed difference values in order of testing scenarios are 0.78 km·h−1, 0.77 km·h−1 and 0.24 km·h−1. When the speed simu- lation output values are higher than test track values the maximal differences are 1.61 km·h−1, 0.57 km·h−1 and 2.80 km·h−1. In the opposite situation the max- 57 J. Svoboda, P. Toman, A. Orlický Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings Figure 7. Acceleration scenario speed profiles com- parison. Figure 8. Braking scenario speed profiles comparison. imal differences are 2.63 km·h−1, 2.30 km·h−1 and 0.76 km·h−1. 4. Discussion We performed validation of our motorcycle longitu- dinal dynamic model. As the result of validation, we see very closely correlating speed profiles of track test and simulation output data. Focusing on the results in the form of speed differences we observe relatively small average values lower than 1 km·h−1. The Maximum speed difference across all scenarios is 2.8 km·h−1 after our validation process. This result we find accurate and in proper dimensions based on other studies e.g. [10] where the maximum speed difference in comparable speed level reaches 7.46 km·h−1. From this point we achieved a very realistic rep- resentation of the longitudinal dynamics motorcycle behaviour. The main limitation is the influence of the rider’s weight and the rider’s aerodynamic position which can cause inaccuracies especially in aerody- namic drag. Both will be subject of further analysis and development. The second main limitation is the fact that this process is oriented on a specific mo- torcycle. On the other hand, we have very precise simulation outputs. From the simulation point of view the validation process is easily repeatable with new data from track tests. Figure 9. Free movement scenario speed profiles deviation. Figure 10. Acceleration scenario speed profiles devi- ation. Figure 11. Braking scenario speed profiles deviation. 5. Conclusion Motorcyclists are relatively vulnerable road users. Ac- cording to the current trends of electromobility, riders are very often facing challenges in form of new propul- sion systems of PTW: On the other hand, these new primarily electric PTW are facing unexperienced users. An important fact is that electric propulsion system has many different aspects compared to petrol ones. Thus, riders may behave in a different way. Rider’s behaviour assessment in scope of new types of PTW is a path towards safe ride. From this point of view an interactive vehicle simulator serves as a tool for safe testing under laboratory conditions. Focusing more on motorcycle and PTW in general, they have several specifics such as e.g. spontaneous instability. In this article we validated the longitudinal dynamic model of the interactive motorcycle simulator. Our val- idation process is designed to reproduce precisely the behaviour of a real motorcycle based on data collected during track tests. We created 3 testing scenarios on which the validation was done. The whole process is 58 vol. 39/2022 Validation of a longitudinal motorcycle riding dynamic model applicable to wide palette of motorcycles so that an accurate database of virtual vehicles could be created. We assessed speed profiles of a track test and of an output of simulation. Afterwards we calculated speed profiles deviations. As the results present, the final virtual model precisely reproduces the longitudinal dynamic behaviour within the simulation with maxi- mal speed deviation of 2.8 km·h−1. The limitation of the study is primarily influenced by rider’s variable positions that will become the subject of our future research. Our next steps will also aim to validation of other parts of our physical motorcycle simulator model. References [1] N. Haworth. Powered two wheelers in a changing world – Challenges and opportunities. Accident Analysis & Prevention 44(1):12–18, 2012. Safety and Mobility of Vulnerable Road Usears: Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Motorcyclists. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.10.031 [2] P. Toman, J. Svoboda, J. Pinkas. Study of riding specifics of the electric and conventional powered two-wheeler users. In 2021 Smart City Symposium Prague (SCSP), pp. 1–6. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/SCSP52043.2021.9447401 [3] K. Rix, N. J. Demchur, D. F. Zane, L. H. Brown. Injury rates per mile of travel for electric scooters versus motor vehicles. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 40:166–168, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.10.048 [4] P. Bouchner, R. Piekník, S. Novotny, et al. Fatigue of car drivers-detection and classification based on the experiments on car simulators. WSEAS Transactions on Systems 6(12):2789–2794, 2006. [5] P. Bouchner, S. Novotny, D. Rozhdestvenskiy, et al. Drivers aggressive behavior experiments on the driving simulator. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Energy and Development, Environment and Biomedicine, pp. 148–153. 2014. [6] D. Crundall, A. Stedmon, E. Crundall, R. Saikayasit. The role of experience and advanced training on performance in a motorcycle simulator. Accident Analysis & Prevention 73:81–90, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.08.009 [7] Y. Miyamaru, G. Yamasaki, K. Aoki. Development of a motorcycle riding simulator. JSAE Review 23(1):121–126, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0389-4304(01)00147-3 [8] K. Nagaseak, A. Yamasaki, H. Ishii. Development of a riding simulator for motorcycles. SAE Technical Paper 2018-32-0031:7, 2018. ISSN 0148-7191, e-ISSN 2688-3627. https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-32-0031 [9] P. Toman, J. Svoboda, A. Orlický. Assessment of the motorcycle rider behaviour – Experimental study on the race track. In 2020 Smart City Symposium Prague (SCSP), pp. 1–6. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/SCSP49987.2020.9133760 [10] L.-T. Hieu, N. X. Khoa, O. Lim. An investigation on the effects of input parameters on the dynamic and electric consumption of electric motorcycles. Sustainability 13(13):7285, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137285 59 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.10.031 https://doi.org/10.1109/SCSP52043.2021.9447401 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.10.048 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.08.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0389-4304(01)00147-3 https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-32-0031 https://doi.org/10.1109/SCSP49987.2020.9133760 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137285 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 39:55–59, 2022 1 Introduction 2 Method 3 Results 3.1 Speed profiles 3.2 Speed profiles differences 4 Discussion 5 Conclusion References