Control Systems 2

Lecture 5: RHP poles and zero limitations

& how to design and ride a bike

Annika Eichler
Roy Smith

2017-3-22 5.1

Non-minimum phase behaviour (stable systems)

Right-half plane zeros

Can arise from fast and slow responses of opposite sign:

1 2 3−s
G(s) = − = .
s+1 s+5 (s + 1)(s + 5)

Amplitude
1.0
 
1
step s+1

step (G(s))
0.5

time
0 (sec)
1 2 3 4
 
2
− step s+5

−0.5

2017-3-22 5.2
Non-minimum phase behaviour
Can also be interpreted as a negative derivative response:
3 s
G(s) = −
(s + 1)(s + 5) (s + 1)(s + 5)

   
1 −t −1 −5t d 1 −t −1 −5t
g(t) = 3 e + e − e + e
4 4 dt 4 4

Amplitude
1.0

 
1
3 step (s+1)(s+5)
0.5
step (G(s))

1 2 3 4 time
0 (sec)
 
d 1
− dt step (s+1)(s+5)

−0.5

2017-3-22 5.3

Non-minimum phase systems in feedback

Non-minimum phase response in closed-loop

NG (s) NK (s) NG (s)NK (s)

G(s) = , K(s) = , L(s) =
DG (s) DK (s) DG (s)DK (s)

L(s)
T (s) =
1 + L(s)

NG (s) NK (s)
DG (s) DK (s)
= NG (s) NK (s)
1 +D G (s) DK (s)

NG (s)NK (s)
=
DG (s)DK (s) + NG (s)NK (s)

2017-3-22 5.4
Non-minimum phase systems: r.h.p. zeros

Magnitude log ω
1 (rad/sec)
1 10 100
(s+10)
0.1 Gmp (s) = (s+1)(s+50)

(10−s)
Gnmp1 (s) = (s+1)(s+50)
0.01

0.001

1 10 100 log ω
0 (rad/sec)

(s+10)
−90 Gmp (s) = (s+1)(s+50)

−180

(10−s)
−270 Gnmp1 (s) = (s+1)(s+50)
Phase (deg.)

2017-3-22 5.5

Non-minimum phase systems: delays

Magnitude log ω
1 (rad/sec)
1 10 100
(s+10)
0.1 Gmp (s) = (s+1)(s+50)

(10−s)
Gnmp1 (s) = (s+1)(s+50)
0.01
e−0.05s (s+10)
Gnmp2 (s) = (s+1)(s+50)
0.001

1 10 100 log ω
0 (rad/sec)

(s+10)
−90 Gmp (s) = (s+1)(s+50)

e−0.05s (s+10)
−180 Gnmp2 (s) = (s+1)(s+50)

(10−s)
−270 Gnmp1 (s) = (s+1)(s+50)
Phase (deg.)

2017-3-22 5.6
Non-minimum phase systems in feedback

Delays in feedback

NG (s) NK (s) NG (s)NK (s)

G(s) = e−θs , K(s) = L(s) = e−θs
DG (s) DK (s) DG (s)DK (s)

L(s)
T (s) =
1 + L(s)

NG (s) NK (s)
e−θs D G (s) DK (s)
= NG (s) NK (s)
1 + e−θs DG (s) DK (s)

 
−θs NG (s)NK (s)
=e
DG (s)DK (s) + e−θs NG (s)NK (s)

2017-3-22 5.7

Performance limitations from delays

If G(s) contains a delay, e−θs , then T (s) also contains e−θs .

Under these circumstances the ideal T (s) ≈ e−θs ,

Magnitude
5

log ω
1 (rad/sec)
1/θ

0.1
 
 
|S(jω)| = 1 − e−jθω 

0.01

Which implies that we must have ωc < 1/θ.

2017-3-22 5.8
Controllability (summary)

Actuation constraints: from disturbances

|G(jω)| > |Gd (jω)| for frequencies where |Gd (jω)| > 1.

Actuation constraints: from reference

|G(jω)| > R up to frequency: ωr .

Disturbance rejection
ωc > ω d
or more specifically |S(jω)| ≤ |1/Gd (jω)| for all ω.

Reference tracking
|S(jω)| ≤ 1/R up to frequency: ωr .

2017-3-22 5.9

Controllability (summary)

Right-half plane zeros

For a single, real, RHP-zero: ωB < z/2.

Time delays
Approximately require: ωc < 1/θ.

Phase lag
Most practical controllers (PID/lead-lag): ωc < ω180
G(jω180 ) = −180 deg.

Unstable real pole

Require ωc > 2p.
Also require |G(jω)| > |Gd (jω)| up to ω = p.

2017-3-22 5.10
Example: controllability analysis

d
Gd (s)

y u r
+ G(s) K(s) +
−

n
+ ym

e−θs e−θd s
G(s) = k Gd (s) = kd , |kd | > 1.
1 + τs 1 + τd s
What are the requirements on k, kd , τ , τd , θ and θd in order to obtain good
performance. And how good is it?

2017-3-22 5.11

Example: controllability analysis

Objective:
|e| ≤ 1 for all |u| < 1, |d| < 1.

Disturbance rejection (satisfying actuation bound)

|G(jω)| > |Gd (jω)| for all ω < ωd .
=⇒ k > kd and k/τ > kd /τd .

Disturbance rejection
ωc > ωd ≈ kd /τd .

Delay constraints
ωc < 1/θ (assuming θ is the total delay in the loop).

2017-3-22 5.12
 Example: controllability analysis
Delay and disturbance rejection requirements.
θ < τd /kd .
Plant requirements:
k > kd and k/τ > kd /τd
θ < τd /kd .
Required/achievable bandwidth
kd /τd < ωc < 1/θ.
2017-3-22
Bicycle dynamics
U R E
Karl J. Åström, Adapted bicycles for
hard E. Klein, and education and research
ders Lennartsson
T
his article analyzes the dynamics of bicy-
cles from the perspective of control.
IEEE Control Systems Magazine Models of different complexity are pre-
sented, starting with simple ones and
ending with more realistic models gener-
vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 26–47, ated from multibody software. We con-
sider models that capture essential behavior such as
self-stabilization as well as models that demon-
2005. strate difficulties with rear wheel steering. We
relate our experiences using bicycles in control
education along with suggestions for fun and
thought-provoking experiments with proven
student attraction. Finally, we describe bicycles
and clinical programs designed for children with
disabilities.
The Bicycle
Bicycles are used everywhere—for transportation, exer-
cise, and recreation. The bicycle’s evolution over time
has been a product of necessity, ingenuity, materials, and
industrialization. While efficient and highly maneuverable,
the bicycle represents a tantalizing enigma. Learning to
ride a bicycle is an acquired skill, often obtained with some
difficulty; once mastered, the skill becomes subconscious
and second nature, literally just “as easy as riding a bike.”
Bicycles display interesting dynamic behavior. For
example, bicycles are statically unstable like the invert-
ed pendulum, but can, under certain conditions, be sta-
ble in forward motion. Bicycles also exhibit nonminimum
phase steering behavior.
Bicycles have intrigued scientists ever since they appeared in
the middle of the 19th century. A thorough presentation of the
history of the bicycle is given in the recent book [1]. The papers
[2]–[6] and the classic book by Sharp from 1896, which has
recently been reprinted [7], are good sources for early work.
Notable contributions include Whipple [4] and Carvallo
[5], [6], who derived equations of motion, linearized around the
2017-3-22
CLELLAN/THOMPSON-MCCLELLAN PHOTOGRAPHY
1066-033X/05/$20.00©2005IEEE
IEEE Control Systems Magazine August 2005
F E A T U R E 5.13
By Karl J. Åström, Adapted bicycles fo
Richard E. Klein, and education and researc
Anders Lennartsson
T
his article analyzes the dynamics of b
cles from the perspective of cont
Models of different complexity are
sented, starting with simple ones
ending with more realistic models ge
ated from multibody software. We
sider models that capture essential behavior suc
self-stabilization as well as models that dem
strate difficulties with rear wheel steering.
relate our experiences using bicycles in con
education along with suggestions for fun
thought-provoking experiments with pro
student attraction. Finally, we describe bicy
and clinical programs designed for children
disabilities.
The Bicycle
Bicycles are used everywhere—for transportation, e
cise, and recreation. The bicycle’s evolution over
has been a product of necessity, ingenuity, materials,
industrialization. While efficient and highly maneuvera
the bicycle represents a tantalizing enigma. Learnin
ride a bicycle is an acquired skill, often obtained with s
difficulty; once mastered, the skill becomes subconsc
and second nature, literally just “as easy as riding a bik
Bicycles display interesting dynamic behavior.
example, bicycles are statically unstable like the inv
ed pendulum, but can, under certain conditions, be
ble in forward motion. Bicycles also exhibit nonminim
phase steering behavior.
Bicycles have intrigued scientists ever since they appeare
the middle of the 19th century. A thorough presentation of
history of the bicycle is given in the recent book [1]. The pa
[2]–[6] and the classic book by Sharp from 1896, which
recently been reprinted [7], are good sources for early w
Notable contributions include Whipple [4] and Carv
[5], [6], who derived equations of motion, linearized around
LOUIS MCCLELLAN/THOMPSON-MCCLELLAN PHOTOGRAPHY
1066-033X/05/$20.00©2005IEEE
26 IEEE Control Systems Magazine August
5.14
 considered explicitly, but we often assume that the forward shaped so that the contact
the forces
velocity is acting between
constant. ground and
To summarize, we wheel.
simply Since
assumewethat
do Geometry
the road is behind the exten
not consider extreme conditions and tight
the bicycle moves on a horizontal plane and that the turns, we The parameters
defined that descr
as the horizontal di
Bike parameter assume
definitionsthat the
wheels always bicyclecontact
maintain tire rolls
withwithout longitudinal or
the ground. are defined in Figure
point and the steer axis wh1. The k
lateral slippage. Control of acceleration and braking is not head angle λ, and trail
zero steer angle. The riding c.
considered explicitly, but we often assume that the forward shaped so
strongly that the
affected bycontact
the tra
velocity is constant. To summarize, we simply assume that improves stability but exten
the road is behind the make
the bicycle moves on a horizontal λ plane and that the definedfor
values asc the
range horizontal
0.03–0.08dm
wheels always maintain contact with the ground. point and the steer
Geometrically, it axis wh
is conv
zero steer angle. The
composed of two hinged pla riding
strongly
front forkaffected
plane. The by theframetr
improves stability but
frame plane, while the fron mak
λ for c planes
values The range 0.03–0.08 m
C1 plane. are joined
h C2 P1 Geometrically,
and P2 are the itcontact is convp
composed of two hinged
horizontal plane, and the po pl
front axis
steer fork with
plane.theThe frame
horizonta
frame plane, while the fron
CP11 P2 P3
Coordinates
plane. The planes are joined
h C2 P1 and
The P2 are theused
coordinates contactto anp
a
horizontal plane, and
low the ISO 8855 standard, the po
b c steer
is an axis with system
inertial the horizontawith
coordinate system xyz has
P1 P2 P3
Coordinates
P1 of the rear wheel and the
Figure 1. Parameters defining the bicycle geometry. The The coordinates used
a is aligned with the line toof ac
points P1 and P2 are the contact points of the wheels with the low horizontal
the ISO 8855 standard,
the plane. The x
ground, the point P3 is the intersection
b of the steer axis with
c the is an inertial
point P3 , which system
is thewithinte
horizontal plane, a is the distance from a vertical line through
coordinate
axis and the system xyz has
horizontal pl
the center of mass to P1 , b is the wheel base, c is the trail, h is
P1 ofwheel
rear the rear wheel
plane and th
is defined
the height
Figure 1. of the centerdefining
Parameters of mass,the
andbicycle
λ is thegeometry.
head angle.
The
is aligned with the
angle between the ξ -axis line of ca
2017-3-22 points P1 and P2 are the contact points of the wheels with the 5.15
the horizontal
vertical, and y is plane.
perpendicThe
ground, the point P3 is the intersection of the steer axis with the
point P
left side3 of the bicycle int
, which is the so
horizontal plane, a is the distance from a vertical line through
ζ ϕ axis and
obtained. the
The horizontal
roll angle ϕp
the center of mass to P1 , b is the wheel base, c is thef trail, h is
Reference frame definitions
the height of the center of mass, and λ is the rear wheel
when leaning plane
to the is defined
right. T
η head angle.
z angle
plane between
is ϕ f . The the
steer ξ -axis
anglea
ϕ vertical, and
between y is perpendic
the rear and front
left left.
ing sideThe of the bicycle
effective so
steer
ζ ϕf obtained.
the lines ofThe roll angleofϕt
intersection
the horizontal plane.
when leaning to the right. T
η
z C2 δf plane is ϕf . The steer angle
C1 x
ϕ Simple
between the Second-Ord
rear and front
P
P2 3 Second-order
ing left. The models will
effective steerno
P1 ψ tional
the lines simplifying
of intersection assumpt of t
bicycle rolls onplane.
the horizontal the horizon
C2 δf ξ fixed position and orientati
C1 x
Simple
that Second-Ord
the forward velocity at
For simplicity,models
Second-order we assume will nt
Figure 2. Coordinate systems. The orthogonal P2 P3 system ξ ηζ is
P
fixed to inertial space, and the ψ is vertical. The orthogo-
1 ζ -axis which implies that
tional simplifying assumpt the hea
nal system xyz has its origin at the contact point of the rear trail c is rolls
bicycle zero. on Wethe alsohorizo
assum
wheel with the ξ η plane. The x axis passes through the points ξ control variable. The
fixed position and orientati rotatio
P1 and P3 , while the z axis is vertical and passes through P1 . ated withforward
that the the frontvelocity
fork then at
Figure 2. Coordinate systems. The orthogonal system ξ ηζ is For simplicity, we assume
fixed to inertial space, and the ζ -axis is vertical. The orthogo- which implies that the hea
28 IEEE Control Systems Magazine
nal system xyz has its origin at the contact point of the rear trail c is zero. We also assum
wheel with the ξ η plane. The x axis passes through the points control variable. The rotatio
P1 and P3 , while the z axis is vertical and passes through P1 . ated with the front fork then

2017-3-22 28 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 5.16

 Naı̈ve analysis
only degree of freedom. All
ll so that the equations can
y z

cycle are shown in Figure 3. O

ates around the vertical axis
Vδ/b, where b is the wheel
coordinate system xyz expe-
eleration of the coordinate ϕ
e.
f the system. Consider the
wheels, the rider, and the
o the rear frame with δ = 0,
inertia of this body with
δ
D = − Jxz denote the inertia
axes. Furthermore, let the x P1 P2 x y
r of mass be a and h, respec- a
of the system with respect b

(a) (b)
dϕ VD
= J − δ. Figure 3. Schematic (a) top and (b) rear views of a naive
dt b
(λ = 0) bicycle. The steer angle is δ, and the roll angle is ϕ.
tem are due to gravity and
ngular momentum balance
2017-3-22
typographical error: λ = 90. 5.17
It follows from (1) that the transfer function from steer
angle δ to tilt angle ϕ is
DV dδ mV 2h
+ Naı̈ve
δ. analysis:
(1) simple second order models
b dt b
V(Ds + mVh)
G ϕδ (s) =
generated by gravity. The b( Js2 − mgh)
of (1) are the torques gen- mVh V
VD s + D aV s + a
first term due to inertial = ≈ (4) .
b J 2 mgh bh s2 − g
due to centrifugal forces.angle, δ, to tilt
Steering angle, sϕ,−transfer function
J h
verted pendulum model
the linearized equation for
dϕ Notice that both
2 and
dϕ theVgain
D and the zero of this transfer func-
t of inertia as J ≈Lmh
x = J −
tionDωdepend
= J on −
the δ V. Angular momentum about x
velocity
, the model becomes
dt dt b
The model (4) is unstable and thus cannot explain why
it is possible to ride with2no hands. The system (4), howev-
d2 ϕ er, can
DV dδ mV h
V dδ V2 J 2 − mghϕ = be stabilized
+ by active δ control
Torque using the propor-
balance
+ δ. dt b dt
tional feedback law b
h dt bh
J ≈ mh2 and D ≈ mah Inertia approximations
δ = −k2 ϕ, (5)
d [21], is a linear dynamical
wo real poles d2 ϕ g aV dδ V2
− ϕ= + δ Simplified model
dt2 h which
bh yields
dt thebhclosed-loop system
!
gh g
≈± (2)
J h " #
d2 ϕ DVk2 dδ mV 2hk2
J 2 + + − mgh ϕ = 0. (6)
dt b dt b

h V 2017-3-22
This closed-loop system is asymptotically stable if and only 5.18
≈− . (3)
a if k2 > bg/V 2 , which is the case when V is sufficiently large.
Naı̈ve analysis: simple second order models

Steering angle, δ, to tilt angle, ϕ, transfer function

Transfer function:
ϕ(s) V (Ds + mV h) aV (s + V /a)
Gϕδ (s) = = 2
≈
δ(s) b(Js − mgh) bh (s2 − g/h)

r r
mgh g
poles: p1,2 = ± ≈±
J h
mV h V
zero: z1 = − ≈−
D a

the forces acting between ground and wheel. Since we do Geometry

not consider extreme conditions and tight turns, we The parameters that descri
assume that the bicycle tire rolls without longitudinal or are defined in Figure 1. The ke
lateral slippage. Control of acceleration and braking is not head angle λ, and trail c. T
2017-3-22
considered explicitly, but we often assume that the forward shaped so that 5.19
the contact
velocity is constant. To summarize, we simply assume that the road is behind the exten
the bicycle moves on a horizontal plane and that the defined as the horizontal di
Bike parameter definitions
wheels always maintain contact with the ground. point and the steer axis wh
zero steer angle. The riding
strongly affected by the tra
improves stability but make
λ values for c range 0.03–0.08 m
Geometrically, it is conv
composed of two hinged pla
front fork plane. The frame
frame plane, while the fron
C1 plane. The planes are joined
h C2 P1 and P2 are the contact p
horizontal plane, and the po
steer axis with the horizonta

P1 P2 P3
Coordinates
a
The coordinates used to an
low the ISO 8855 standard,
b c is an inertial system with
coordinate system xyz has
P1 of the rear wheel and the
Figure 1. Parameters defining the bicycle geometry. The
is aligned with the line of c
points P1 and P2 are the contact points of the wheels with the
the horizontal plane. The x
ground, the point P3 is the intersection of the steer axis with the
point P3 , which is the inte
horizontal plane, a is the distance from a vertical line through
the center of mass to P1 , b is the wheel base, c is the trail, h is axis and the horizontal pl
the height of the center of mass, and λ is the head angle. rear wheel plane is defined
angle between the ξ -axis a
2017-3-22 5.20
vertical, and y is perpendic
left side of the bicycle so
Front fork model

Handlebar torque, T , to tilt angle, ϕ, transfer function

Model the actuation as a torque to the handlebars, T .

d2 ϕ DV g dϕ mg 2 (bh cos λ − ac sin λ)

J 2 + 2 + ϕ
dt V sin λ − bg cos λ dt V 2 sin λ − bg cos λ

DV b dT b(V 2 h − acg)
= + T
acm(V 2 sin λ − bg cos λ) dt ac(V 2 sin λ − bg cos λ)
√
The system is stable if V > Vc = bg cot λ and bh > ac tan λ

Gyroscopic effects could be included (giving additional damping).

2017-3-22 5.21

Front fork model

Torque to steering angle transfer function

With a stabilizable bicycle going at sufficiently high speed, V ,

δ k1 (V )
= GδT (s) = ,
T 1 + k2 (V )Gϕδ (s)

V (Ds + mV h) aV (s + V /a)
where, as before, Gϕδ (s) = 2
≈
b(Js − mgh) bh (s2 − g/h)
 
2 mgh
k1 (V ) s − J
So, GδT (s) =
k2 (V )DV k2 (V )V 2 mh mgh
s2 + s + − J
bJ bJ

2017-3-22 5.22
Front fork model

Torque to path deviation transfer function

If η is the deviation in path,

 
2 mgh
k1 (V ) V 2 s − J
GηT (s) =   
b k 2 (V )DV mgh V 2
s2 s2 + s + J − 1
bJ Vc2

2017-3-22 5.23

Non-minimum phase behaviour

Counter-steering
“I have asked dozens of bicycle riders how they turn to the
left. I have never found a single person who stated all the
facts correctly when first asked. They almost invariably
said that to turn to the left, they turned the handlebar to
the left and as a result made a turn to the left. But on
further questioning them, some would agree that they first
turned the handlebar a little to the right, and then as the
machine inclined to the left they turned the handlebar to
the left, and as a result made the circle inclining inwardly.”
Wilbur Wright.

2017-3-22 5.24
Non-minimum phase behaviour

Counter-steering

2017-3-22 5.25

Non-minimum phase behaviour

Aircraft control
“Men know how to construct airplanes. Men also know
how to build engines. Inability to balance and steer still
confronts students of the flying problem. When this one
feature has been worked out, the age of flying will have
arrived, for all other difficulties are of minor importance.”
Wilbur Wright, 1901.

2017-3-22 5.26
Rear-wheel steered bicycles

Klein’s Ridable Bike

c K. J. Åström, Delft, June, 2004

! 32

2017-3-22 5.27

Rear-wheel steered bicycles

Stabilization: simple model

The sign of V is reversed in all of the equations.

 
2 −s + mV h
−V Ds + mV h VD D
Gϕδ (s) = =  
2
b(Js − mgh) bJ mgh
s2 − J

aV (−s + V /a)
≈
bh (s2 − g/h)
This now has a RHP pole and a RHP zero.
r s
z mV h J V h
The zero/pole ratio is: = ≈
p D mgh a g

2017-3-22 5.28
Rear-wheel steered motorbikes

NHSA Rear-steered Motorcycle

I 1970’s research program sponsored by the US National Highway Safety
Administration.
I Rear steering benefits: Low center of mass.
Long wheel base.
Braking/steering on different wheels
I Design, analysis and building by South Coast Technologies, Santa
Barbara, CA.
I Theoretical study: real(p) in range 4 – 12 rad/sec. for V of 3– 50 m/sec.
I Impossible for a human to stabilize.

2017-3-22 5.29

Rear-wheel steered motorbikes

The NHSA
NHSA Rear-steered Rear
Motorcycle Steered Motorcycle

c K. J. Åström, Delft, June, 2004

! 37

2017-3-22 5.30
 Rear-wheel steered motorbikes

gned based about what knowledge is required to avoid this trap,

ount for sta- NHSA Rear-steered
emphasizing Motorcycle
the role of dynamics and control. You can
of studying spice up the presentation with the true story about the
“The outriggers were essential; in fact, the only way to
NHSA rear-steered motorcycle. You can also briefly men-
on design
at an early
keep
tion that poles and theinmachine
zeros upright
the right-half plane areforcrucial
any measurable period of time
ccessfully in was to start
concepts for understanding out down
dynamics on one
limitations. outrigger,
Return to apply a steer input
a discussion of tothe generate
rear-steeredenough yawinvelocity
bicycle later the courseto pick up the outrigger,
a recumbent when more material and hasthen attempt
been presented.toTell
catch it as
students how the machine approached
on that has a important it is tovertical.
recognize Analysis
systems thatofarefilm data
difficult indicated that the longest
to con-
ave students trol because of stretchinherentlyonbadtwodynamics.
wheelsMake was sure
about that2.5 seconds.”
y, “I have a everyone knowsRobert that the presence
Schwartz, of poles
Southand zeros
Coastin Technology,
the 1977.
e and try it.” right-half plane indicates that there are severe difficulties in
with the rear- controlling a system and also that the poles and zeros are
The riding influenced by sensors and actuators.
verly coura- This approach, which has been used by one of the authors
te of repeat- in introductory classes on control, shows that a basic knowl-
ed attempts, edge of control is essential for all engineers. The approach also
a discussion. illustrates the advantage of formulating a simple dynamic
a static point model at an early stage in a design project to uncover potential
problems caused by unsuitable system dynamics.
a discussion2017-3-22 5.31

Rear-wheel steered
aligns with the bicycles
frame when the speed is sufficiently large.
the bicycle, Another experiment is to ride a bicycle in a straight path
mple experi- on a flat surface, lean gently to one side, and apply the
le and lean steer torque to maintain a straight-line path. The torque
he front fork required can be sensed by holding the handlebars with a
experiment UCSB
light bike
fingered grip. Torque and lean can also be measured
e front fork with simple devices as discussed below. The functions The UCSB Rideable Bike
KARL ÅSTRÖM

This bicycle
ravity and Figure 20. The UCSB rear-steered bicycle. This bicycle is rid-
ass of the able as demonstrated by Dave Bothman, who supervised the
heel with construction of the bicycle. Riding this bicycle requires skill
and dare because the rider has to reach high speed quickly. c K. J. Åström, Delft, June, 2004
!

2017-3-22 5.32
IEEE Control Systems Magazine 41
Rear-wheel steered bicycles

An unridable bike
Klein’s Unridable Bike

2017-3-22 5.33

c K. J. Åström, Delft, June, 2004

! 31

Rear-wheel steered bicycles

Yet to be determined ...

2017-3-22 5.34
Notes and references

Skogestad & Postlethwaite (2nd Ed.)

Control limitations: sections 5.7 – 5.11
Practical controllability examples: sections 5.13 – 5.15.

More on bicycles
TU Delft: http://bicycle.tudelft.nl/schwab/Bicycle/index.htm
Article: Karl J. Åström, Richard E. Klein & Anders Lennartsson,
“Bicycle dynamics and control,” IEEE Control Systems
Magazine, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 26–47, 2005.

2017-3-22 5.35