ARTICLE IN PRESS

Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812

www.elsevier.com/locate/conengprac

Evaluation of a sliding mode observer for vehicle sideslip angle

J. Stephanta,,1, A. Chararaa, D. Meizelb
a

Heudiasyc Laboratory UMR CNRS/UTC 6599, UTC, Centre de Recherches de Royallieu BP20529, 60205 Compie`gne cedex, France
b
XLIM/DMI/MODUMR 6172 - ENSIL - 16 rue Atlantis Parc dEster Technopole, BP 6804, 87068 LIMOGES cedex, France
Received 30 September 2005; accepted 4 April 2006
Available online 5 June 2006

Abstract
This paper presents a sliding mode observer of vehicle sideslip angle, which is the principal variable relating to the transversal forces at
the tire/road interface. The vehicle is rst modelled, and the model is subsequently simplied. This study validates the observer using both
a validated simulator and real experimental data acquired by the Heudiasyc laboratory car, and also shows the limitations of this
method. The observer requires a yaw rate sensor and data about vehicle speed are required in order to estimate sideslip angle. Some
properties of the nonlinear observability matrix condition number are discussed, and relations between this variable and observation
error, vehicle speed and tire cornering stiffness are presented.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Vehicle dynamics; Nonlinear models; State observers; Performance evaluation; Qualitative analysis

1. Introduction
A vehicle is a highly complex system bringing together a
large number of mechanical, electronic and electromechanical elements. To describe all the movements of the
vehicle, numerous measurements and a precise mathematical model are required.
In vehicle development, knowledge of wheel-ground
contact forces is important. This information is useful for
security actuators, for validating vehicle simulators and for
advanced vehicle control systems.
Braking and control systems must be able to stabilize the
car during cornering. When subject to transversal forces,
such as when cornering, or in the presence of a camber
angle, tire torsional exibility produces an aligning torque
which modies the original wheel direction. The difference
Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 (0)5 55 42 37 05;
fax: +33 (0)5 55 42 37 10.
E-mail addresses: stephant@ensil.unilim.fr (J. Stephant),
ali.charara@hds.utc.fr (A. Charara), meizel@ensil.unilim.fr (D. Meizel).
URL: http://www.ensil.unilim.fr/jstephan.
1
Since September 2005, Joanny Stephant was assistant professor at
ENSIL (16 rue Atlantis Parc dEster Technopole BP 6804; 87068
LIMOGES cedex, France) and XLIM/DMI/MOD laboratory, UMR
6172.

0967-0661/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2006.04.002

between a wheels longitudinal axis and wheel speed is

characterized by an angle known as tire sideslip angle
di . The angle between the vehicles longitudinal axis and
the direction of vehicle speed is known as sideslip angle
d. This is a signicant signal in determining the stability
of the vehicle (Mammar & Koenig, 2002), and it is the main
transversal force variable. Measuring sideslip angle would
represent a disproportionate cost in the case of an ordinary
car, and it must therefore be observed or estimated.
The aim of an observer or virtual sensor is to estimate a
particular unmeasurable variable from available measurements and a system model. This is an algorithm which
describes the movement of the unmeasurable variable by
means of statistical conclusions from the measured inputs
and outputs of the system. This algorithm is applicable
only if the system is observable.
This paper presents a sliding mode observer which uses a
simple nonlinear vehicle model along with two measurements (yaw rate and vehicle speed) in order to estimate one
particular unmeasurable variable: sideslip angle. The
literature describes several observers for sideslip angle.
For example, Kiencke and Nielsen (2000) presents linear
and nonlinear observers using a bicycle model. Venhovens
and Naab (1999) uses a Kalman lter for a linear vehicle
model. Stephant, Charara, and Meizel (2003) and Stephant

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Stephant et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812

804

Notations

L1;2

C 1;2
Fd
F 1;2
l

mv
VG
y
b
d
d1;2
c_

F 1;2
t
F 1;2
y
I zz

Front, rear wheel cornering stiffness N rad1

Longitudinal force in the front, rear wheel
frame (N)
Transversal force in the front, rear wheel frame
(N)
Transversal force in the vehicle frame (N)
Second moment of mass about the z axis (kg m2)

(2004) present a comparison of several linear and nonlinear

observers, and also show (Stephant, 2004) that the choice
of statespace model impacts the observer method. Based
on the same (4) model, an extended Kalman lter, an
extended Luenberger observer and a sliding mode observer
give similar results; state trajectories along a vehicles path
are similar. In this paper the sliding mode observer is used
to illustrate the ndings. Performances obtained through
simulation and experimentation using several classical pure
lateral dynamics tests are presented. The nonlinear
observability problem and its relation to vehicle speed
and cornering stiffness is discussed. Finally, the domain of
validity for this observer is specied using the condition
number of an observability matrix as a criterion.
2. Vehicle model
Lateral vehicle dynamics has been studied since the
1950s. Segel (1956) presented a vehicle model with three
degrees of freedom in order to describe lateral movements
including roll and yaw. If rolling movements are neglected,
a simple model known as the bicycle model is obtained.
This model is currently used for studies of lateral vehicle
_ and sideslip). A nonlinear
dynamics (yaw rate c
representation of the bicycle model is shown in Fig. 1.
Notation is explained in Appendix.
A certain number of simplications are used in this
study. Cornering stiffnesses C iF d are taken to be constant.

Center of gravity to front, rear axle distance

(m)
Vehicle total mass (kg)
Speed of center of gravity m s1
Lateral acceleration at center of gravity m s2
Front wheel steering angle (rad)
Vehicle sideslip angle (rad)
Front, rear wheel sideslip angle (rad)
Yaw rate rad s1

But cornering stiffness is modied as a result of vertical

forces on the wheel. Variations in cornering stiffness during
a double lane change maneuver at different speeds are
shown in Fig. 2.
Lateral tire/road forces F iy are highly nonlinear.
Various wheel-ground contact force models are to be
found in the literature, including a comparison of three
different models in Stephant, Charara, and Meizel (2002).
In this paper, transversal forces are taken to be linear. This
assumption is reasonable when vehicle lateral acceleration
is less than 0:4g Lechner (2001). Consequently,
y
transversal forces can be written as
F it C iF d :di ;

i 1; 2.

(1)

When projected into the vehicle coordinate system,

transversal forces shown in Fig. 1 are written
8
< F 1y F 1t cosb;
(2)
: F 2y F 2t ;
where b is the front wheel steering angle.

x 104 Callas : real front tire cornering stiffness (N/rad)

16
14

y0

(N/rad)

12

F1l

10
8

x0

Ft1

VG

L1

2
Fl

Ft

40km/h
90km/h
105km/h

L2

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the bicycle model.

50

100

150

200

posx (m)
Fig. 2. Real front tire cornering stiffness from the Callas simulator.
Double lane change maneuver at 40, 90 and 105 km/h.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Stephant et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812

Rear and front tire sideslip angles are calculated using

_
kinematic relations with vehicle speed V G and yaw rate c:
8
_
>
1
1 c
>
>
<d b  d  L V ;
G
(3)
_
>
>
2
2 c
>

d

L
:
d
:
VG

sign (x) and signeq (x) function

1
0.8

0.4
0.2

-0.2

x_ f NL x; u,

-0.4

_ T , u b F 1 F 2 T and
with x V G d c
l
l
8
1
>
>
u2 cosx2  u1 u3 cosx2
x_ 1
>
>
mv
>
>


>
>
>
1 2
>
2 x3
>

C
x

L
sinx2 ;
>
2
>
mv F d
x1
>
>
>


>
>
1 1
>
1 x3
>
>
C
u

x

L

sinx2  u1 ;
1
2
>
>
mv F d
x1
>
>
>
>
>
1
>
>
_
>
< x2 mv x1 u2 sinu1  x2  u3 sinx2


1
1
>
1 x3
>
C
u 1  x2  L
cosu1  x2

>
>
mv x1 F d
x1
>
>
>


>
>
1
x3
>
>
C 2F d x2 L2

cosx2  x3
>
>
>
m
x
x1
v 1
>
>



>
>
>
1
>
1
2 2
2 x3
>
_

L
u
sinu


L
C
x

L
x
>
3
2
1
2
Fd
>
I zz
x1
>
>
>


>
>
1
x3
>
>
>
L1 C 1F d u1  x2  L1
cosu1 :
:
I zz
x1

sign()
atan(1*x)
atan(10*x)*2/pi

0.6

The vehicle model can be expressed in terms of a nonlinear

statespace formulation using Newtonian theory, based on
Fig. 1, as follows:
(4)

805

-0.6
-0.8
-1
-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0
x

10

Fig. 4. Sign functions for sliding mode observer.

(5)

The state comprises the speed of the center of gravity V G ,

_ Inputs are the
the sideslip angle d and the yaw rate c.
front wheel steering angle b and the longitudinal forces
applied to the front F 1l and rear F 2l wheels.
3. Sliding mode observer
From Perruquetti and Barbot, 2002 it is clear that this
kind of observer is useful when working with reduced
observation error dynamics and when seeking a nite time
convergence for all observable states, as well as robustness
when confronted with parameter variations (with respect to
conditions). Fig. 3 presents the sliding mode observer
method applied to a nonlinear vehicle model (4).
In this paper two measurements are used to estimate the
vehicle sideslip angle: the yaw rate and the speed of the

center of gravity. The rst measurement is available from

the ESP control unit, and the second can be calculated
from the ABS sensors. The observation equation can be
written
z hNL x h1NL x h2NL xT
_ T.
x1 x3 T V G c
The sliding mode observer equations are
(
b_ f NL b
x
x; u L signeq z  bz;
bz hNL b
x;

(7)

where L is the observer gain matrix in R32 . To cover

chattering effects (Perruquetti & Barbot, 2002), the
function signeq used in this paper is
signeq x arctanl  x  2=p.
Coefcient l is a design parameter to adjust the slope of the
arctan function as shown in Fig. 4. The greater the l
coefcient, the greater the slope of the signeq function, and
the greater the chattering.
For all tests presented in this paper, l 1, and errors in
the different statespace variables are below 0:03 m s1 as
regards speed and 3:3  s1 as regards yaw rate.

4. Observability

Fig. 3. Sliding mode observer method.

Using the nonlinear state space formulation, the

observability denition is local and uses the Lie derivative
(Nijmeijer & Van der Schaft, 1990). It is a function of
estimated state trajectory and inputs applied to the model.
For the system described by Eq. (7) and sensor set (6) the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Stephant et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812

806

observability function is
1
0
^
h1NL x
C
B
^ u C
B Lf h1NL x;
C
B
C
B L2 h1 x;
f NL ^ u C
B
^ u B
ox;
C,
^
C
B
h2NL x
C
B
C
B Lf h2 x;
NL ^ u A
@
2 2
^ u
Lf hNL x;

the smallest. The condition number and its inverse have no

units.
condO

5. Simulation results

(9)

The observability function is therefore expressed as

1
0
h1NL
C
B
C
B
f 1NL
C
B
 1 
C
B
3
P qf NL i
C
B
:f NL
C
B
C
B
qx
i
i1
C
B
C
B
2
hNL
oB
C.
C
B
2
C
B
3
P qhNL i
C
B
:f NL
C
B
C
B
i1 qxi
C
B
3

2
C
BP
3 q P
qhNL i
i A
@
:f NL :f NL
i1 qxi i1 qxi

(10)

If the o function is invertible at the current state and input,

the system is observable. This function is invertible if its
Jacobian matrix O has a full rank. This Observability
matrix is dened as
d
^ u.
ox;
dx

(11)

It is also possible to give an observability indicator with the

inverse of the Jacobian matrix condition number. This
gives a measure of the sensitivity of the solution to the
observation problem. The condition number of a matrix O
is dened as the ratio of the largest singular value of O to

The Callas simulator provides simulations which can be

used to study the performance of the sliding mode observer
of vehicle sideslip angle. This software is a realistic
simulator validated by car manufacturers and research
institutions including INRETS (Institut national de
recherche sur les transports et leur securite). The Callas
model takes into account vertical dynamics (suspension,
tires), kinematics, elasto-kinematics, tire adhesion and
aerodynamics. This vehicle simulator was developed by
SERA-CD (http://www.sera-cd.com).
The performance of the observer is evaluated on an ISO
double lane change and a slalom. This kind of test is
representative of the transient lateral behavior of a vehicle.
The double lane change is performed at three different
speeds: 40, 90 and 105 km/h. The difference between the
three tests is the level of lateral acceleration. At 105 km/h
the level is so high that the simulators virtual driver loses
control of the car. The slalom is performed at 50, 80 and
90 km/h. The virtual driver in the Callas simulator
increases the frequency applied to the steering wheel from
0.01 to 0.2 Hz. All tests are performed on a dry track, with
the friction coefcient between ground and tire assumed to
be at its maximum possible value of one.
5.1. Observer results
Fig. 5 presents results of the calculation of vehicle
sideslip angle for a double lane change (Fig. 5(a)) and a
slalom (Fig. 5(b)) by the sliding mode observer (7).
Stephant (2004) presents some similar results. An extended
Kalman lter, an extended Luenberger observer and this
sliding mode observer are compared. These three kinds of
observer applied to the same model 4 give similar results.

sideslip angle 80km/h

Callas

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

SMO

()

()

sideslip angle 90km/h

0
(a)

(12)

(8)

with
8
>
^
dhjNL x
j
>
>
^
^ u;
L
f NL x;
h

< f NL
dx
>
^
dLif hjNL x
> Li1 hj x
>
^ u:
f NL x;
: f NL ^
dx

lmax O
.
lmin O

4 5 6
time (s)

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25

Callas
SMO

9
(b)

10

20

30

40

50

time (s)

Fig. 5. Sideslip angle by sliding mode observer. (a) ISO double lane change at 90 km/h; (b) slalom at 80 km/h.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Stephant et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812

20

10

10

0
40 90 105

mean %|error|

20
15
10
5
0
40 90 105

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
40 90 105
0.04

0.02

0.01

40 90 105

40 90 105

20
10

0.03

40 90 105

0
50 80 90

50 80 90

0.04
0.02
0
50 80 90

50 80 90

10

1.5

0.03

0.02

0.5

0.01

4
5
0

40 90 105

CG speed
0.06

4
3
2
1
0

lateral
acceleration

yaw rate
10

30

40 90 105

sideslip angle

CG speed
max %|error|

15

30

lateral
acceleration

yaw rate

mean %|error|

max %|error|

sideslip angle

807

50 80 90

50 80 90

0
50 80 90

50 80 90
x 10-5

x 10-4

(a)

10

20
40 90 105

20

15

40

var %|error|

var %|error|

60

10

1
0

0
40 90 105

40 90 105

60

10

(b)

40
20

0.5

4
2

0
40 90 105

50 80 90

50 80 90

0
50 80 90

50 80 90

Fig. 6. Normalized error by the observer. Errors in sideslip angle, yaw rate, lateral acceleration and vehicle speed. (a) ISO double lane change at 40, 90 and
105 km/h; (b) slalom at 50, 80 and 90 km/h.

Fig. 6 summarizes the performance of the observer in

estimating different variables; Fig. 6(a) for the three double
lane changes and Fig. 6(b) for the three slaloms.
The three rows of each histogram present the normalized
error attributable to the observer. The normalized error of
a variable z is dened by
z j^zSMO  zCallas j

100
,
maxjzCallas j

(13)

where z^SMO is the variable calculated by the observer, zCallas

is the variable calculated by the Callas simulator and
maxjzCallas j is the absolute maximum value of the variable
given by the simulator during the test maneuver.
The rst row shows the maximum normalized error
during the course of the maneuver. The second row shows
the mean, and the third row the variance. The leftmost
column presents the results for sideslip angle observation,
the second column the yaw rate estimation, the third the
lateral acceleration, and the rightmost column the vehicle
speed.
The black, gray and white blocks in Fig. 6(a) represent
the double lane change maneuver at 40, 90 and 105 km/h,
respectively, and similarly in Fig. 6(a) regarding the slalom
maneuver at 50, 80 and 90 km/h.
The lateral acceleration is calculated by
b
y


C 1F d
b
mv

!


C 2F d L2  C 1F d L1 b_
C 1 C 2F d b
d,
c  Fd
cG
mv
mv V
(14)

where variables marked ^: are estimated by the observer.

As shown in the last column of Figs. 6(a) and (b), the

vehicle speed is calculated precisely by the sliding mode
observer.
5.1.1. Double lane change maneuver
All the variables are correctly estimated for the
maneuver at 40 km/h. On average the sideslip angle error
is around 2%, the yaw rate error 1% and the lateral
acceleration error 0.5%. As regards the different lateral
variables, the higher the speed, the greater the maximum
normalized error, and the greater the error variance. The
same applies to yaw rate and to lateral acceleration. The
level of error is around 6.5% for the sideslip angle
estimation at 90 and 105 km/h. It should be noted that
for this kind of path, lateral forces applied are directly
linked to the speed.
5.1.2. Slalom maneuver
Same remarks can be made regarding the slalom tests.
The higher the speed, the greater the normalized error in the
estimation of yaw rate and lateral acceleration. In the case of
sideslip angle the error behavior may be explained by phase
shift between the simulators and the observers variables.
5.1.3. Remark
Using several nonlinear observers based on the (4) mode
gives estimated statespace variable trajectories which are
similar. Results presented in the next section are available
for observers based on this model.
5.2. Observability results
The rank of the observability matrix (11) is 3 along the
three different paths. The model is observable.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Stephant et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812

808

inverse of condition number (-)

x 10-3
2.63

3.52
3.515
3.51
3.505

40km/h

2.62
2.61
2.6
0

10

12

14

16

x 10-3
6.45
6.4
6.35
6.3
6.25

7.4
90km/h

7.2
1

50km/h

18

7.6

x 10-3

80km/h

9
x 10-3

x 10-3
10.5

7.4

10

7.3
105km/h

7.2

9.5

90km/h

7.1
0
(a)

inverse of condition number (-)

x 10-3

0.5

1.5

2
2.5
time (s)

3.5

10

20

(b)

30
time (s)

40

50

Fig. 7. Inverse of condition number of observability matrix. (a) ISO double lane change at 40, 90 and 105 km/h; (b) slalom at 50, 80 and 90 km/h.

As discussed in Section 4, the condition number of an

observability matrix is used to obtain an indicator of
observability quality. Fig. 7 presents the inverse of the
condition number of matrix O for the six different
maneuvers.
In the following two sections the relation between the
condition number of the observability matrix and vehicle
speed and tire cornering stiffness is discussed.
5.2.1. Speed and observability matrix
Two conclusions may be drawn about the relation of the
observability matrix to vehicle speed. First, Fig. 9(a)
illustrates that the greater the speed, the smaller the
condition number. At 40 km/h the condition number is
around 380, at 90 km/h it is 135, and at 105 km/h it
is 100.
The curve of the inverse of the condition number is
related to the curve of vehicle speed, as shown in Fig. 8, in
particular for the double lane change maneuver at 40 km/h.
The correlation coefcient is close to 0.9 for this test path,
as shown in Fig. 9(b). At higher speeds the correlation
between the two variables is not signicant (below 0.6). The
inuence of speed variations is also visible in the slalom
maneuver at 50 km/h, when abrupt speed variations appear
such as at time t 12 s, which is highlighted by a light
gray box in Figs. 7(b) and 8(b).
5.2.2. Real tire cornering stiffness and observability matrix
The second conclusion can be drawn by comparing the
shape of the tire cornering stiffness curve, shown in Fig. 10,

with the curve for the condition number of the observability matrix, shown in Fig. 7. Variations in both variables
are similar.
As shown in Fig. 11, the correlation coefcient between
the real tire cornering stiffness and the inverse of the
observability matrix is above 0.9, except in the case of the
double lane change maneuver at 40 km/h. This can be
explained as follows: in the model, tire cornering stiffness is
assumed to be constant throughout all tests, as shown in
Fig. 10. The greater the variation in actual cornering
stiffness, the greater the condition number of the observability matrix, and the less accurate the model.
5.2.3. Conclusion
The analysis of the evolution of the observability matrix
condition number has shown that this variable is inuenced
by the speed of the vehicle and, to an event greater extent,
by real variations in tire cornering stiffness.
6. Experimental results
In order to study experimentally the performance of the
vehicle sideslip angle sliding mode observer, data were
collected using the Heudiasyc Laboratory vehicle (to be
presented in the following section). The test was a slalom
performed at high speed (80 km/h). While the car is being
controlled by a driver, the steering angle amplitude and
frequency increase. With this kind of path, the lateral
acceleration applied depends on the steering input. The
rst aim of this test was to determine the level of lateral

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Stephant et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812

speed of center of gravity (m/s)

11.18
11.16
11.14
11.12

809

speed of center of gravity (m/s)

13.888
13.886

40km/h

50km/h

13.884
13.882
0

10

12

14

16

18

25

22.23

24.99

22.22

24.98

22.21

90km/h

80km/h

22.2

24.97
7

9
25.02

29.4

25

29.3
105km/h

29.2

24.98
90km/h

0.5

1.5

(a)

2
2.5
time (s)

3.5

0
(b)

10

20

30
time (s)

40

50

Fig. 8. Vehicle speed along the different paths. (a) ISO double lane change at 40, 90 and 105 km/h; (b) slalom at 50, 80 and 90 km/h.

Correlation coefficient between speed and inverse

of condition number

speed and condition number

350

300
Slalom 50km/h

250

200
Slalom 80km/h

ISO Double Lane Change 40km/h

0.8
0.6

ISO Double Lane Change 105km/h

0.4
ISO Double Lane Change 90km/h

0.2
Slalom 50km/h
Slalom 80km/h

Slalom 90km/h

150

100
10
(a)

1.2
ISO Double Lane
Change 40km/h

Correlation coefficient (-)

condition number of observability matrix (-)

400

0
ISO Double Lane
Change 90km/h

ISO Double Lane

Change 105km/h

15
20
25
30
average speed on the test path (m/s)

Slalom 90km/h

-0.2

35
(b)

Maneuver

Fig. 9. Speed and condition number of observability matrix: (a) condition number of the observability matrix as a function of speed; (b) correlation
coefcient between the condition number of the observability matrix and speed.

pressure at which the results yielded by the sliding mode

observer become too high. The second aim was to conrm
conclusions regarding the properties of the observability
matrix presented in Section 5.2.




lateral accelerometer y m ,
odometry: rotational speeds of the four wheels (ABS
sensors) V Gm ,
_ ,
yaw rate gyrometer c
m
steering angle bm ,
correvit Sensor dm .

6.1. Experimental vehicle





STRADA is the Heudiasyc Laboratorys test vehicle: a

Citroen Xantia station wagon equipped with number of
sensors, shown in Fig. 12. The following were used in the
tests described in this paper:

The speed of the center of gravity is calculated as the mean

of the longitudinal speeds of the two rear wheels calculated
from their rotational speed (ABS sensor) and their radius.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Stephant et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812

810

x 105

Front cornering stiffness (N/rad)

x 105

Front cornering stiffness (N/rad)

1.55

1.56

1.5

1.54

40km/h Callas

Hypothesis for model

x 105
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8

1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1

90km/h Callas

Hypothesis for model

x 104

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8

15
10
Hypothesis for model

105km/h Callas

5
0

0.5

1.5

(a)

2
2.5
time (s)

3.5

50km/h Callas

Hypothesis for model

1.45

1.52

x 105

Hypothesis for model

80km/h Callas

x 105

90km/h Callas

10

(b)

20

Hypothesis for model

30
time (s)

40

50

Fig. 10. Front cornering stiffness. Simulator calculation and hypothesis used for constructing the observer: (a) ISO double lane change at 40, 90 and
105 km/h; (b) slalom at 50, 80 and 90 km/h.

Correlation coefficient between tyre cornering stiffness

and inverse of condition number

Correlation coefficient (-)

ISO Double Lane

Change 90km/h

ISO Double Lane

Change 105km/h

0.8

Slalom
90km/h

Slalom
50km/h
Slalom
80km/h

0.6
ISO Double Lane
Change 40km/h

0.4
Fig. 12. STRADA: the Heudiasyc Laboratorys experimental vehicle.

0.2

6.2. Observer results

0
Maneuver
Fig. 11. Correlation coefcient between the condition number of the
observability matrix and tire cornering stiffness.

The Correvit S-400 is a noncontact optical sensor

mounted at the rear of STRADA on the sprung mass of
the car. The S-400 sensor provides highly accurate
measurement of distance, speed and acceleration, sideslip
angle, drift angle and yaw angle. The S-400 sensor uses
proven optical correlation technology to ensure the most
accurate possible signal representation. This technology
incorporates a high intensity light source that illuminates
the test surface, which is optically detected by the sensor
via a two-phase optical grating system.

Fig. 13 presents the estimation of sideslip angle using

the sliding mode observer (7) and the vehicles lateral
acceleration calculated using (14). It was shown that the
linear approximation for tire/road transversal forces is
valid when the lateral acceleration does not exceed 0:4g,
and that a linear vehicle bicycle model using linear tire
force is representative when the lateral acceleration does
not exceed 0:3g (Lechner, 2001). In this model, cornering is
performed at constant speed. The speed over the slalom
test was approximately constant at 80 km/h, as shown in
the upper part of Fig. 14. Given these conditions, the
nonlinear model (4) shows the same characteristics as the
linear bicycle model.
From Fig. 13(a) it can be seen that the error in sideslip
angle estimation attributable to the sliding mode observer

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Stephant et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812
lateral acceleration at correvit position (m/s/s)

(m/s/s)

m/s/s

lateral acceleration at correvit position (m/s/s)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
0

10

12

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
64

14

66

Sideslip angle at correvit position ()

5

811

68

70

72

Sideslip angle at correvit position ()

Correvit

Correvit

SMO

SMO

4
()

()

2
0

-5

-2
-4
-6

-10
0

(a)

10

12

14

64

66

68

(b)

time (s)

70

72

time (s)

Fig. 13. Measured lateral acceleration and sideslip angle (sideslip angle estimated by the sliding mode observer): (a) slalom at 80 km/h; (b) VDA double
lane change at 50 km/h.

speed of center of gravity

normalized observation error on sideslip angle || (%)

21.8
50
(m/s)

21.6

SMO

45
21.4
40
21.2
35
21
2

x 10-3

10

12

30

14
(%)

inverse of condition number (-)

20

10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7

15
10
5
0

(a)

25

8
time (s)

10

12

14

0
(b)

10

15

time (s)

Fig. 14. Inverse of the observability matrix condition number and sideslip angle observation error for experimental slalom maneuver at 80 km/h: (a) speed
and condition number; (b) normalized observation error for sideslip angle.

is less than 0:5 during the rst 6.8 s, and then 1

between 6.8 and 12.5 s. Subsequently the error increases.
On the three last peaks the error is 1:7 , 2:8 and 5 .
This error level can be linked to the lateral acceleration.
Between 0 and 6.8 s the lateral acceleration remains
less than 0:57g at peak values. Between 6.8 and 12.5 s
lateral acceleration is between 0:6g and 0:8g. After 12.5 s
lateral acceleration exceeds 0:8g at peak values, which
means that the observer can no longer estimate the sideslip

angle correctly. The same conclusions may be drawn

in relation to the sideslip angle estimation error for the
VDA double lane change maneuver at 50 km/h shown in
Fig. 13(b).
If a vehicle sideslip angle error of less than 0:5 is
acceptable, then it is possible to use the observer presented
in this paper when lateral acceleration does not exceed 0:6g.
However, when the lateral acceleration exceeds 0:6g, this
observer is not sufciently accurate.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Stephant et al. / Control Engineering Practice 15 (2007) 803812

812

(m/s)

speed of center of gravity(m/s)

14.5
14.4
14.3
14.2
14.1
14
13.9
64

66

68

70

72

inverse of condition number (-)

x 10-3
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
64

66

68

70

72

time (s)
Fig. 15. Speed and inverse of the observability matrix condition number
for experimental double lane change maneuver at 50 km/h.

nonlinear bicycle vehicle model. The rst conclusion is that

with a lateral acceleration not exceeding 0:6g, observer
results are quite good. The model used is valid for lateral
acceleration less than 0:4g because of the assumption of
linear lateral tire forces.
The second conclusion is that the condition number of
the observability matrix provides an indicator regarding
the quality of the estimation. This methodology has been
applied, in this paper, with a sliding mode observer. But
similar results may be obtained using any nonlinear
observer based on the same vehicle model.
Since the condition number is directly related to the
variations in speed and cornering stiffness, and given that
the speed is known, it would appear possible to identify the
real cornering stiffness from the calculation of this
condition number, as shown in (Stephant & Charara,
2005).Since the condition number is directly related to the
variations in speed and cornering stiffness, and given that
the speed is known, it would appear possible to identify the
real cornering stiffness from the calculation of this
condition number, as shown in (Stephant & Charara,
2005).

6.3. Observability result

References
The rank of the observability matrix is 3 throughout the
slalom and the double lane change tests. Using this
criterion, the model is observable. Figs. 14(a) and 15
present the inverse of observability condition number for
the experimental slalom and double lane change maneuvers. As it has been shown in relation to the validation by
simulation, the condition number is directly linked to the
real cornering stiffness. In actual slalom tests the resulting
cornering stiffness (by axle) decreases with each cornering.
The decreasing peaks of the condition number curve
correspond to the peaks of the vehicle sideslip angle curve.
The greater the sideslip angle estimation error, the higher
the condition number, which can be seen if one compares
Fig. 14(a) and (b). As discussed in Section 5.2, the inverse
of the condition number is related to the vehicle speed. This
result is conrmed by the experimental double lane change
maneuver and can be illustrated clearly by comparing the
two graphics of Fig. 15. The singularity in the vehicle speed
at 70.5 s is also found in the inverse of observability matrix
condition number.
7. Conclusion
This paper has presented in detail the properties of a
vehicle sideslip angle sliding mode observer applied to a

Kiencke, U., & Nielsen, L. (2000). Automotive control system. Berlin:

Springer.
Lechner, D. (2001). Analyse du comportement dynamique des vehicules
routiers legers: developpement dune methodologie appliquee a` la securite
primaire. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole centrale de Lyon, Octobre.
Mammar, S., & Koenig, D. (2002). Vehicle handling improvement by
active steering. Vehicle System Dynamics, 38, 211242.
Nijmeijer, H., & Van der Schaft, A. J. (1990). Nonlinear dynamical control
systems. Berlin: Springer.
Perruquetti, W., & Barbot, J.-P. (2002). Sliding mode control in
engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Segel, M. (1956). Theoretical prediction and experimental substantiation
of the response of the automobile to steering control. In Proceedings of
the automobile division of the institute of mechanical engineers (Vol. 7,
pp. 310330).
Stephant, J., & Charara, A. (2005). Observability matrix and parameter
identication: Application to vehicle tire cornering stiffness. Proceedings of the ECC-CDC2005, Sevilla, Spain.
Stephant, J., Charara, A., & Meizel, D. (2002). Force model comparison
on the wheel-ground contact for vehicle dynamics. Proceedings of the
IEEE intelligent vehicle symposium, Versailles, France.
Stephant, J., Charara, A., & Meizel, D. (2003). Vehicle sideslip angle
observers. Proceedings of the European control conference (ECC2003),
Cambridge, UK.
Stephant, J. (2004). Contribution a` letude et a` la validation experimentale
dobservateurs appliques a` la dynamique du vehicule. Ph.D. thesis,
Universite de Technologie de Compie`gne, December.
Venhovens, P., & Naab, K. (1999). Vehicle dynamics estimation using
Kalman lters. Vehicle System Dynamics, 32, 171184.