Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25

This article was downloaded by: [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee]

On: 22 December 2014, At: 03:46


Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Vehicle System Dynamics: International


Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and
Mobility
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nvsd20

Coordinated control of AFS and DYC for


vehicle handling and stability based on
optimal guaranteed cost theory
a

Xiujian Yang , Zengcai Wang & Weili Peng

Vehicular Institute of Mechanical Engineering Department ,


Shandong University , Jinan City, People's Republic of China
Published online: 31 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Xiujian Yang , Zengcai Wang & Weili Peng (2009) Coordinated control of AFS
and DYC for vehicle handling and stability based on optimal guaranteed cost theory, Vehicle
System Dynamics: International Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and Mobility, 47:1, 57-79, DOI:
10.1080/00423110701882264
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00423110701882264

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE


Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

Vehicle System Dynamics


Vol. 47, No. 1, January 2009, 5779

Coordinated control of AFS and DYC for vehicle


handling and stability based on optimal guaranteed
cost theory
Xiujian Yang*, Zengcai Wang and Weili Peng
Vehicular Institute of Mechanical Engineering Department, Shandong University, Jinan City,
Peoples Republic of China
(Received 16 July 2007; final version received 21 December 2007 )
Considering the uncertainty of tyre cornering stiffness due to the frequent variation of running conditions, a new coordination scheme is proposed based on optimal guaranteed cost control technique
by coordinating active front steering and direct yaw moment control. A general procedure to develop
an optimal guaranteed cost coordination controller (OGCC) is presented, and the effect of uncertainty
deviation magnitude on the control system is discussed. An optimal coordination (OC) scheme based
on LQR is also presented. Many simulations are carried out on an 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model
for a slalom manoeuvre and a lane-change manoeuvre, respectively. The simulation results show that
the OGCC scheme has superior stability and tracking performances at different running conditions
compared with the OC scheme.
Keywords: active front steering; direct yaw moment; vehicle stability control; optimal guaranteed
cost control; coordinated control; vehicle dynamics

1.

Introduction

In the past two decades, vehicle chassis control system as the important part of vehicle active
safety control has made great progress, such as four wheel steering (4WS), vehicle stability
control system (VDC/ESP/VSC), active front steering (AFS), etc. All the systems can improve
the handling or the stability performance obviously in a certain region. The vehicle stability
relies on the balance of the front and rear tyre cornering forces. In detail, when the front tyre
cannot provide the cornering force, the vehicle will lead to drift out and loss of steerability; and
when the rear tyre cornering force reaches saturation, the vehicle will lead to spin out and loss
of stability. When the lateral acceleration is small, the tyre cornering force is approximately
proportional to the tyre slip angle; but when the lateral acceleration increases to a certain
value, the proportional relationship will no longer exist because of the saturation property of

*Corresponding author. Email: 123yxjpmsl@mail.sdu.edu.cn

ISSN 0042-3114 print/ISSN 1744-5159 online


2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/00423110701882264
http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

58

X. Yang et al.

the tyre. Therefore, 4WS and AFS, which depend on the lateral tyre force greatly, are mainly
effective in the linear region of the tyre. Vehicle stability control systems such as VDC, ESP
or VSC mainly use the active yaw moment generating from the difference of the longitudinal
tyre forces by driveline or braking to keep the vehicle stable, which is also called direct yaw
moment control (DYC). 4WS and AFS can effectively improve the steerability performance
in the linear region of the tyre. However, DYC can keep the vehicle stable in critical situations
where the tyre cornering force reaches saturation [15]. Therefore, each individual chassis
control system has a certain operating region. The vehicle handling and stability performances
can be enhanced in all driving conditions by coordinating the individual chassis control systems
exerting the advantage of each subsystem.Along with the developments ofAFS and DYC, some
researchers investigate the integration of steering and braking to enhance vehicle dynamics.
Nagai et al. [6,7] propose a coordination scheme that is composed of a steering angle-based
feedforward controller and an optimal state feedback controller. Boada et al. [8] design a
control scheme by integrating front steering and front wheel braking using fuzzy logic control.
In [9], steering and braking are coordinated by rules designed beforehand based on a model
regulator to enhance the yaw dynamics. In [10], the vehicle lateral dynamics control is regarded
as a multi-input and multi-output system control problem and an integration of steering and
braking scheme is presented using feedback linearisation technique.
As an important parameter in the vehicle dynamic control system, tyre cornering stiffness is
affected by many aspects (e.g. vehicle weight, adhesion coefficient, etc.), which is a disadvantage for a model-following based vehicle stability controller. From the open-public literature, it
is easy to find that most of the model-following based vehicle stability controllers are designed
using a certain constant for the tyre cornering stiffness parameter [7,11,12]. Though some
researchers considered the uncertainty of the parameter in the controller design, the robustness or stability performance of the closed-loop system is the primary objective [1316]. Ono
[3,13] and Mammar [14] design a robust steering controller based on H theory to reduce the
influence of the tyre cornering stiffness uncertainty on the system performance. Since robust
performance is the design objective for a robust controller, some other performances of the
system may not be guaranteed. In [15], an uncertain TS fuzzy model is founded to handle
the tyre cornering stiffness uncertainty when designing a 4WS stability controller. Though
quadratic optimal control based vehicle stability controller considers the tracking error and
the control input simultaneously, which is more suitable for realistic application, it may lose
stability and cannot obtain the optimal performance when the tyre cornering stiffness varies
in a large range for the change of running conditions. Fortunately, optimal guaranteed cost
control theory that can obtain a relative optimal performance for a system with norm-bounded
time-varying parameter uncertainties provides a good means to solve the problem. For all
the norm-bounded time-varying parameter uncertainties, optimal guaranteed cost control can
not only keep the closed-loop system stable but maintain the given quadratic cost function
within a certain bound [16]. In the past, the solution of the optimal guaranteed cost problem
was difficult, but the situation has been changed since linear matrix inequality (LMI) toolbox of Matlab appeared. Thus the solution of optimal guaranteed cost problem is equivalent
to the solution of a set of LMIs. In this paper, the coordination of AFS and DYC based on
optimal guaranteed cost control theory is presented to reduce the influence of the variation
of tyre cornering stiffness uncertainty on vehicle dynamic control for the change of driving
conditions.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, an 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle
model and tyre model are described briefly. Section 3 gives an analysis of control logic and
the distribution of brake forces. An optimal guaranteed cost coordination control scheme
(OGCC) for the upper controller is presented in Section 4 in detail. Some simulation results
are carried out in Section 5. Section 6 presents the conclusions of the paper.

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

Vehicle System Dynamics

Figure 1.

2.

59

8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model. (a) XY plane; (b) Y Z plane; (c) ZX plane.

8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model

Nonlinear vehicle model (Figure 1ac) reflecting the actual vehicle characteristics is used to
test the control schemes proposed in the paper. The 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model with front
wheel driving and front wheel steering includes longitudinal, lateral, roll, yaw dynamics and
four wheels rotational dynamics. The notations are described in Appendix 1.
2.1. Vehicle model
Equations (1)(4) represent the longitudinal, lateral, yaw and roll dynamics, respectively:

mt (Vx Vy ) ms hs =
4


4


Fxi ,

(1a)

i=1

Fxi = (Fxw1 + Fxw2 ) cos f + (Fxw3 + Fxw4 ) (Fyw1 + Fyw2 ) sin f ,

(1b)

i=1

4


Fyi
mt (Vy + Vx ) + ms hs + (lf muf lr mur ) =
i=1

4


Fyi = (Fxw1 + Fxw2 ) sin f + (Fyw1 + Fyw2 ) cos f + (Fyw3 + Fyw4 ),


i=1

(2)

60

X. Yang et al.

Ixx + ms (Vy + Vx )hs cos = ms ghs sin (Kf + Kr ) (Cf + Cr ),

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

Izz =

tw
(Fx1 + Fx3 Fx2 Fx4 ) + lf (Fy1 + Fy2 ) lr (Fy3 + Fy4 ).
2

(3)
(4a)

The longitudinal and lateral forces of the ith wheel in the vehicle coordinates have the following
relationships with the tyre forces:

Fxi = Fxwi cos i Fywi sin i
(i = 1, 2, 3, 4).
(4b)
Fyi = Fxwi sin i + Fywi cos i
For a front steering vehicle:
1 = 2 = f ,

3 = 4 = 0.

For the variation of the tyre normal force has significant effects on the vehicle handling and
stability performance [17], the tyre normal force model includes the load transfers due to the
longitudinal and lateral accelerations:

ay ms lrs hfroll
1
mt glr
1

F z1 =
(5a)
Fl +
+ muf huf + (Kf Cf ),
2l
2
tw
l
tw

ay ms lrs hfroll
1
mt glr
1

F z2 =
(5b)
Fl
+ muf huf (Kf Cf ),
2l
2
tw
l
tw

ay ms lfs hrroll
mt glf
1
1

F z3 =
+ Fl +
+ mur hur + (Kr Cr ),
(5c)
2l
2
tw
l
tw

ay ms lfs hrroll
1
mt glf
1

(5d)
+ Fl
+ mur hur (Kr Cr ),
F z4 =
2l
2
tw
l
tw
where
Fl = (muf huf + ms hs + mur hur )

ax
.
l

2.2. Tyre model


Slip angle for each wheel is defined as

V y + lf
Vy + lf
1 = f arctan
, 2 = f arctan
,
Vx + (tw /2)
Vx (tw /2)

Vy + lr
Vy + lr
3 = arctan
, 4 = arctan
.
Vx + (tw /2)
Vx (tw /2)

(6)

Longitudinal wheel slip ratio can be described as


i =

Rw wi Vx
,
max(Rw wi , Vx )

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4).

(7)

Tyre model for the 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model needs to express the interaction between
longitudinal and lateral tyre forces. Considering the situation where the combination of steering
and braking is referred in this paper, Dugoff tyre model [18] is selected here, which can be
defined as follows:

Vehicle System Dynamics

61

longitudinal tyre force


Fxwi =

Cx i
f (S),
1 i

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4),

(8a)

lateral tyre force

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

Fywi =

Ci tan i
f (S),
1 i

C1 = C2 = Cf ,

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4),

C3 = C4 = Cr ,

(8b)

where

F zi (1 r Vx 2i + tan2 i )
S=
(1 i ),

2 Ci2 2i + Ci2 tan2 i

1
S>1
f (S) =
S(2 S) S < 1.
The corrective yaw moment is only from brake torque regardless of the driveline without
affecting the validation of the proposed coordination scheme. The wheel rotational dynamics
can be expressed as
Jw wi = Tbi Rw Fxwi ,

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4).

(9)

The relationship between braking torque and braking pressure is defined as


Tbi = Kb Pbi ,

3.

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4).

(10)

Realisation of the control scheme

3.1. Desired state response


Model-following technique is often used in vehicle dynamic control systems. The yaw rate
and slip angle of the reference model are the desired responses tracked by the actual vehicle.
However, following both variables simultaneously is more effective than following only one
variable of the two [7,19,20], since the yaw response reflects more handling performance and
the slip response reflects more stability performance. So both yaw rate and slip angle are
controlled in this paper. The two inputs for the coordination controller are the yaw rate error
and slip angle error and the two outputs are active steer angle and corrective yaw moment.Yaw
rate can be measured by a sensor but the slip angle is often estimated, which is not discussed
here. About slip angle estimation algorithms, the readers can refer to [1,21,22]; however, it is
assumed that the slip angle can be obtained directly in this paper.
The reference model to produce the desired state responses (yaw rate and slip angle) is a
well-known 2-DOF bicycle model. The responses of yaw rate and slip angle to the front wheel
steering input are second order system problem in fact. In the procedure of controller design,
however, for the consideration of convenience, a first order yaw rate response model is chosen,

62

X. Yang et al.

which can be described as


d =

K
f ,
1 + T s

(11)

where
K =

Vx / l
.
1 + (mt / l 2 )((lf /Cr ) (lr /Cf ))Vx2

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

The value of time constant T can be obtained by the following formula [7]:
T =

Iz Vx
.
2Cf lf (lf + lr ) + mt lr Vx2

For the desired slip angle response, it is not uniform. A steady state desired slip angle (see
Equation (12)) is deduced based on a 2-DOF vehicle model in [23]. However, a zero slip angle
is selected for the desired response in [7,24].
ss =

lr (lf mt Vx2 /2Cr l)


fss .
l + (mt Vx2 (lr Cr lf Cf )/2Cr Cf l)

(12)

As mentioned above, the slip angle response to the front wheel steering angle is also a second
order problem. In this paper, for the consideration of convenience, a first order model is also
used in the controller reasoning, which can be formulated as
d =

K
f ,
1 + T s

(13)

where K can be obtained from Equation (12), that is K = ss /fss ; T is assumed to be


equal to T .
The desired yaw rate response and slip angle response cannot always be obtained when the
tyre force goes beyond the adhesion limit of the tyre. Thus, the desired yaw rate and slip angle
both have an upper bound, which can be expressed as follows, respectively [23]:
d_bound =

g
,
Vx

d_bound = tan1 (0.02 g).

(14)

The desired yaw rate and slip angle responses for controller design can be rewritten as

K f d_bound

f ,
d =
1 + T s
,
(15)

d_bound sgn (K f )

, K f > d_bound
d =
1 + T s

K f d_bound

f ,
d =
1 + T s
.
(16)

d_bound sgn (K f )

, K f > d_bound
d =
1 + T s
3.2. Analysis of control scheme
Figure 2 shows the whole structure of the optimal guaranteed cost based coordination scheme
including an upper controller and a lower controller. In detail, the upper controller that is the
key part studied in this paper calculates the active steer angle and the corrective yaw moment
needed to track the desired yaw rate and the desired slip angle. Note that when the vehicle

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

Vehicle System Dynamics

Figure 2.

63

Block diagram of the coordination control scheme.

is in the linear region, only steering is used to follow the desired response; and when the
vehicle reaches the handling limit, steering and braking work together. Since vehicle stability
is directly related to the sideslip motion, sideslip angle is often bounded to keep the vehicle in
the linear region [2,25,26]. In this paper, we partition the stable and the unstable region by the
phaseplane method about slip angle, which is described in [25,26]. A stability bound defined
in [28] is used here, which is formulated as


2.4979 + 9.549 < 1,
(17)
when the inequation (17) is satisfied, the vehicle is considered to be stable and AFS is used to
enhance the handling performance; otherwise, it is considered to have exceeded the handling
limit and DYC is also used with AFS to keep the vehicle stable. For a detailed description
of phaseplane, refer to [2]. In this paper, we call the left term of inequation (17)
stability index. The lower controller determines the distribution of brake torques on the four
wheels in order to realise the corrective yaw moment. There are many ways to generate the
corrective yaw moment by braking force either by an individual wheel braking or by multiwheel braking. Superior performance can be obtained by multi-wheel braking compared with
an individual wheel braking [25]; however, multi-wheel braking also induces some problems
that are complex to handle, such as redundancy control, optimisation of the brake force and so
on. Since the objective of this paper is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the OGCC scheme,
single wheel braking is used here. It is more effective by braking the rear inward wheel to
correct the case where the course trace becomes difficult due to the saturation of front wheel
cornering force and by braking the front outward wheel to correct the case where the vehicle
becomes unstable with the sudden increase of side slip angle [25,27].
The relationship between the generated active steer angle, corrective yaw moment and yaw
rate response, slip angle response needs to be analysed first. The comparison of actual yaw
rate response with the desired response can be reduced to six cases shown in Figure 3. The
error between the actual yaw rate response and the desired response is defined as

= d .
Active steer angle and corrective yaw moment are described by
f and
M, respectively.
For each case in Figure 3, the sign of
,
f and
M as well as the braking wheel are
defined in Table 1. It is easy to find from Table 1 that active steer angle
f and corrective

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

64

X. Yang et al.

Figure 3. Yaw rate response comparisons for all cases.

Table 1.

Control decision.

Status
(a) d 0, > 0, d <
(b) d > 0, 0, d >
(c) d 0, < 0, d >
(d) d < 0, > 0, d <
(e) d < 0, 0, d <
(f) d < 0, < 0, d >

Braking wheel

+
+

+
+

+
+

FL
RR
FR
FL
RL
FR

yaw moment
M both have the same sign with the yaw rate response error
. The error
between the actual slip angle response and the desired response is defined as

= d .
Similarly, we can find that active steer angle
f and corrective yaw moment
M both have
the opposite sign with the slip angle response error
. From the analysis mentioned above,
it is concluded that there exist straightforward relationships between
,
and
f ,
M.
Therefore, the upper controller can be realised by a static state feedback control law that is
given in detail in Section 4. The steady state braking pressure decided by the lower controller
is defined as
PFL =

2
MRw
,
Kb tw cos f

PFR =

2
MRw
,
Kb tw cos f

PRL =

2
MRw
,
Kb tw

PRR =

2
MRw
,
Kb tw

Kb = Aw b Rb ,
where PFL , PFR , PRL and PRR are brake pressures at the front left, front right, rear left and
rear right wheels, respectively; Aw is the brake area of the wheel; b is the brake friction
coefficient; Rb is the brake radius.

Vehicle System Dynamics

4.
4.1.

65

Upper coordination controller design


Optimal guaranteed cost control for uncertain systems

Consider the following linear uncertain systems [29]:

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

x(t)
= (A +
A)x(t) + (B +
B)u(t)

x(0) = x0 ,

(18)

where x(t) R n is the system state vector, u(t) R n is the control input vector, A and B are
known constant real matrices of appropriate dimensions,
A and
B are real-valued matrix
functions representing time-varying parameter uncertainties of the system model. The parameter uncertainties considered here are assumed to be norm-bounded and have the following
form:
[
A
B] = DF (t)[E1 E2 ],

(19)

where D, E1 and E2 are known constant real matrices of appropriate dimensions and F (t)
R ij is an unknown matrix satisfying
F T (t)F (t) I.
Consider a quadratic cost function associated with system (18) as:

J =

[x T (t)Qx(t) + uT Ru(t)]dt,

(20)

where Q and R are given positive-definite symmetric matrices. For system (18) with cost
function (20), if the state feedback control law u (t) = Kx can make the closed-loop system
asymptotically stable and the upper bound of the closed-loop system cost function value J
is no more than a positive value J , J is an upper bound of the cost function and u (t)
is a quadratically guaranteed cost controller. Especially, u (t) is an optimal guaranteed cost
controller if u (t) = Kx can bring a minimum upper bound of the cost function. A guaranteed
cost controller can make the uncertain closed-loop system not only asymptotically stable but
robust with respect to parameter uncertainties. Theorem 1 gives the solution of the optimal
guaranteed cost problem for uncertain system (18) with cost function (20).
By defining
= [1 , 2 , . . . , l ], k > 0,

k = 1, 2, . . . , l,

M = diag{1 Ii1i1 , 2 Ii2i2 , . . . , l Iilil },


N = diag{11 Ii1i1 , 21 Ii2i2 , . . . , l1 Iilil },
Equation (19) can be denoted as
(t)[N E1 N E2 ].
DF (t)[E1 E2 ] = D MF
THEOREM 1 For system (18) and cost function (20), u (t) = W X 1 x(t) is an optimal state
M)
for the following optimisation
feedback control law, if there exists a solution ( , W , X,

66

X. Yang et al.

problem:
min

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

,W,X,M

(AX + BW )T + AX + BW

E1 X + E2 W

(i)
X

W
T
MD


M I
(ii)
> 0.
I X

Trace(M), s.t.

(E1 X + E2 W )T
N 1
0
0
0

X
0
Q1
0
0

WT
0
0
R 1
0

D M
0

0
< 0,
0
M 1

4.2. Optimal guaranteed cost controller design


In this section, two optimal guaranteed cost controllers are designed. The first one is the
coordination of DYC and AFS based on optimal guaranteed cost theory and the other is an
optimal guaranteed cost AFS controller. When the vehicle is in the linear region, only the AFS
controller (the second one) is active; and when the vehicle enters the nonlinear region, the
coordination controller (the first one) begins to work.
Though the tyre cornering stiffness is affected by many aspects, the surface adhesion coefficient is the primary aspect. Therefore, the variation of tyre cornering stiffness is treated as the
variation of the surface adhesion coefficient in this paper. The actual tyre cornering stiffness
can be described as
Cf = Cf0 , Cr = Cr0 ,
where Cf0 , Cr0 are the nominal cornering stiffness of the front and rear tyres; Cf , Cr are the
actual cornering stiffness of the front and rear tyres. A 2-DOF vehicle model is selected to
design the controller and the actual response dynamic equation can be expressed as follows:
xac = A0 xac + B10 u1 + B20 u2
with
xac =

 

(21)

f
.


u1 = f ,

u2 =

Choose d , d as the state variables and f as the system input. Then the desired response
dynamic equation can be derived from Equations (11)(14):
xd = Ad xd + Bd u1 .

(22)

The error dynamic equation can be deduced by Equations (21) and (22) as
e = xac xd = A0 (xac xd ) + (A0 Ad )xd + (B10 Bd )f + B20 u2 .
In Equation (23), let


A0 =

a011
a021


a012
,
a022


Ad =

ad11
ad21

ad12
ad22

(23)


(24)

with Equations (11) and (13), then the term (A0 Ad )xd in Equation (23) can be expressed
as
T

f
(A0 Ad )xd = a 1 a 2 f = A
(25)
with a 1 = (a011 ad11 )K + (a012 ad12 )K , a 2 = (a021 ad21 )K + (a022 ad22 )K .

Vehicle System Dynamics

67

Then Equation (23) can be rewritten as


e = A0 e + (A + B10 Bd )f + B20 u2 .

(26)

For dynamic system (26), f can be viewed as the reference input. When analysing the effect
of the control input on the system, the reference input can be set to zero. With f = 0,
Equation (26) can be rewritten as

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

x = A0 x + B20 u
with

x=e=
,

(27)

f
u=
.

As mentioned above, the tyre cornering stiffness is not constant but varies with road adhesion coefficient. Considering the variation, the uncertainty of tyre cornering stiffness can be
expressed as follows:

Cf = Cf0 (1 +
f f ), f  1
,
(28)
Cr = Cr0 (1 +
r r ), r  1
where
f and
r are the deviation magnitude of the cornering stiffness for the front and rear
tyre, respectively, from the nominal values Cf0 ,Cr0 and f , r are perturbations. Then similar
to the uncertain form of Equation (18), Equation (27) can be written as:
x = (A0 +
A)x + (B0 +
B)u,

(29)

where

2(Cf0 + Cr0 )

m t Vx

A0 =
2(Cf0 lf Cr0 lr )

Iz

2(Cf0 lf Cr0 lr )

1
mt Vx2

2
2
2(Cf0 lf + Cr0 lr )

Iz V x

A = DFE1 ,
B = DFE2 ,
2C

2Cr0
r
f0 f

m t Vx
mt V x

D=
, F = f

0
2Cf0
f lf
2Cr0
r lr

Iz
Iz V x

lf
1



Vx
, E2 = 1 0 .
E1 =

0 0
lr
1
Vx

2C
f0
mt V x
B0 =
2Cf0 lf
Iz

,
1

Iz


0
,
r

The reasoning for the design of optimal guaranteed cost based AFS controller is similar
to that of the coordination controller presented above. The uncertain equation is the same
as Equation (29) except that the control input matrix B0 and matrix E2 should be set to
B0 = [2Cf0 /(mt V ) 2Cf0 lf /Iz ]T and E2 = [1 0]T , respectively.
When designing the guaranteed cost controller, the uncertainty deviation magnitudes
f
and
r should be selected first. It is obvious that the choice of uncertainty deviation magnitude
affects the controller performance. From Figure 4, we can find that for both the coordination

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

68

Figure 4.

X. Yang et al.

Effect of uncertainty deviation magnitude on guaranteed cost.

controller (AFS+DYC) and the AFS controller, the guaranteed cost increases with the increment of uncertainty deviation magnitude, and furthermore the guaranteed cost increases more
rapidly when the deviation magnitude exceeds 0.7. In other words, the existence of system
uncertainty leads to the degradation of the system performance. The guaranteed cost can be
interpreted as the performance of the system with parametric uncertainties being guaranteed to
be not more than this bound. The bigger the deviation magnitude, the worse performance can
be guaranteed. Both the front tyre cornering stiffness deviation magnitude
f and the rear one

r conform to this law. The selection of


f and
r , which is like the selection of the front and
rear tyre cornering stiffness, affects the vehicle dynamic response greatly. It relies on the experience to a certain degree. The effects of deviation magnitude on the vehicle dynamic response
can be referred to Section 5 (Figure 7). Without loss of generality, we assume the front and
rear tyre cornering stiffness have the same deviation magnitude here, that is
f =
r =
.
For the OGCC


k
f 1 k
f 2
Kcorrd =
,
(30)
k
M1 k
M2
the active steer angle
f and corrective yaw moment
M are formulated as, respectively,

f = k
f 1
+ k
f 2
,

M = k
M1
+ k
M2

and the variations of the active steer angle gains k


f 1 , k
f 2 and corrective yaw moment
gains k
M1 , k
M2 versus the uncertainty deviation magnitude are shown in Figure 5. We find
that the control gains increase with the increment of the deviation magnitude on the whole.

Figure 5. Variation of controller gains with the uncertainty deviation magnitude.

Vehicle System Dynamics

69

The increment of the control gains means that much more control effort is needed that is not
desired. On the other hand, bigger deviation magnitude that means more model parameter
uncertainties being considered in the controller design has much advantage when the driving condition varies in a large range. In short, the selection of deviation magnitude is also
conflictive. By trade-off, we choose
= 0.5 in this paper.
The parameters for controller design are listed in the following [2]:

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

mt = 1704 kg,
lf = 1.135,

Cf0 = 63,224 N/rad,


lr = 1.555 m,

Cr0 = 84,680 N/rad,

Vx = 33.33 m/s,

Iz = 3048.1 kg m2 ,

= 0.8.

For the design of control laws, the following weights are selected for coordination scheme
and AFS, respectively:




80000
0
80000
0
Qgc =
, Rgc =
0
8000
0
0.0001


80000
0
Qga =
, Rga = 80000.
0
8000
Then for performance index (20), optimal guaranteed cost control laws can be obtained by
solving a set of LMIs according to Theorem 1.
The optimal guaranteed cost controller for coordination of AFS and DYC is


0.6624
0.7342
ugc (t) =
x(t),
(31)
5172.2567 5464.0043
where ugc = [
f
M]T , and the optimal guaranteed cost controller for AFS is

uga (t) = 0.6699


0.7610 x(t),

(32)

where uga =
f .
Since the AFS controller is used with the coordinated controller in the OGCC scheme,
in the sequel, we will call the combination of the two controllers optimal guaranteed cost
coordinated control, i.e. OGCC, which will be compared with the optimal coordination (OC)
scheme based on LQR.
4.3. Optimal coordination controller design
There are two optimal controllers introduced in this section, both of which are designed based
on LQR. The first controller coordinates DYC and AFS simultaneously and the second one
controls AFS only. The two controllers are combined in the OC scheme.
For system (27), define performance index as

T
Joc =
[xoc
(t)Qoc xoc (t) + uToc Roc uoc (t)]dt,
(33)
0

where xoc = [

]T , uoc = [
f
M]T . For the reason of comparison, the weights are
selected as same as those used in the design of the OGCC scheme in Section 4.2, i.e.




80000
0
80000
0
Qoc =
, Roc =
,
0
8000
0
0.0001

70

X. Yang et al.

then an LQR problem can be formulated. A minimal performance index can be obtained by
solving Riccati equation
P A + AT P PBR1 BP + Q = 0.

(34)

Then the analytical solution for the control input is formulated as

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

uoc (t) = R 1 B T P x(t).

(35)

With the parameters used for OGCC design, the OC law and the optimal AFS control law are
calculated as, respectively:




0.0925
0.2558
uoc (t) =
x(t), uoa (t) = 0.0972 0.2583 x(t).
1542.5643 1137.3698
Similarly, in the sequel, we will call the combination of the two controllers optimal coordinated
control, i.e. OC, that will be compared with the OGCC scheme.
In addition, from Sections 4.2 and 4.3, we can find that the OGCC scheme and OC scheme
each have two controllers, i.e. the coordination (AFS+DYC) controller and the AFS controller.
It is noted that the AFS controllers are not derived from the coordinated controller directly but
designed all alone.
4.4. Response analysis
For system (27), taking the initial state x0 = [0.01 0.1]T and the adhesion coefficient =
0.2, the state response and control input comparisons between OGCC and OC are shown in

Figure 6.

State and control input response comparisons for the closed-loop system.

Vehicle System Dynamics

71

Figure 6. It is noted that the OGCC scheme presents faster response than the OC scheme,
but the control input is also much bigger than OC. If the control input dose not exceed the
saturation limit of the actuator, OGCC maybe a good method.

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

5.

Simulation analysis

In this section, a number of simulations are carried out on an 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model
platform presented in Section 2 to analyse and evaluate the OGCC scheme proposed in
Section 4. Two different manoeuvres are considered here. The first manoeuvre is related
to the sinusoidal with increasing amplitude steering input, which is often used in the vehicle
handling performance test, and we call this manoeuvre slalom in the sequel. The second one
is a single lane-change manoeuvre with a single sinusoidal steering input. In all simulations,
the initial longitudinal velocity is 120 km/h and the values of vehicle parameter are listed in
Table 2 [2].
In order to present the effects of uncertainty deviation magnitude on the control performance, Figure 7 shows the vehicle response comparisons at different uncertainty deviation
Table 2. Value of vehicle model parameters in simulation.
mt
ms
muf
mur
lf
lr
lfs
lrs

Figure 7.

1704.7 kg
1526.9 kg
98.1 kg
79.1 kg
1.135 m
1.555 m
1.115 m
1.675 m

hfroll
hrroll
hs
huf
hur
tw
Izz
Ixx

0.130 m
0.110 m
0.445 m
0.313 m
0.313 m
1.535 m
3048.1 kg m2
744 kg m2

Kf
Kr
Cf
Cr
Cx
Cf
Cr
g

65,312 Nm/rad
32,311 Nm/rad
3823 Nm/rad/s
2653 Nm/rad/s
50,000 N/unit slip
105,850 N/rad
79,030 N/rad
9.81 m/s2

Slalom manoeuvre responses versus different uncertainty deviation magnitude ( = 0.8).

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

72

Figure 8.

X. Yang et al.

Steer angle for slalom manoeuvre with increasing magnitude.

magnitude (
= 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7) for a slalom manoeuvre with the steering input signal
shown in Figure 8. It is noted that with the increment of deviation magnitude, the slip angle
and yaw rate error both become smaller. The reason is likely that much tyre cornering stiffness
error exists between the control model and the real vehicle (nonlinear vehicle model), and
the error becomes smaller with the increment of deviation magnitude. It is also noted that the
corrective yaw moment and the active steer angle both become bigger with the increment of
deviation magnitude that is consistent with the solution shown in Figure 5.
Figures 911 show the response comparisons for a slalom manoeuvre with the steering
input shown in Figure 8 on a dry road with the adhesion coefficient of 0.9. Figure 9 shows the
response comparisons from different points of view, including lateral dynamics and longitudinal dynamics. We can easily find that compared with the OC scheme, the OGCC scheme
presents superior tracking performance to the reference response. The uncontrolled vehicle
will lose stability and even turn over. Figure 10 shows the variations of stability index of the
two schemes that can be used for analysis and evaluation combining with the control effort
comparisons shown in Figure 11. As stated before, when the stability index is below one,
only AFS system is active to enhance the handling performance; and when the stability index
exceeds one, the braking system begins to work with the active steering system to keep the
vehicle stable. It also observed that the control effort for the OGCC scheme is bigger than that
of the OC scheme, the phenomenon of which is consistent with the fact stated in Figure 5.
Similarly, Figures 1214 show the response comparisons for a slalom manoeuvre with the
steering input shown in Figure 8 on an icy road with the adhesion coefficient of 0.2. It is
observed that the OGCC scheme is still stable and presents satisfying tracking performance
to the drivers intent but the OC scheme is unstable. It can be explained that the running
condition has deviated greatly on the icy road from that on the dry road where the controller is
designed and the tyre cornering stiffness has changed greatly. Fortunately, the OGCC scheme
considers the uncertainty of the tyre cornering stiffness beforehand (with the uncertainty
deviation magnitude of 0.5); however, the OC scheme is not. From the comparison of stability
index shown in Figure 13, it is also easy to find that the OGCC scheme can achieve good
stability performance when performing the slalom manoeuvre on the icy road at high speed.
A familiar phenomenon can be found in the control effort comparisons shown in Figure 14,
that is more control effort is needed for the OGCC scheme. However, it is still satisfying for
its good stability and tracking performance, if the control effort does not exceed the actuators
limit because stability is always the primary objective for a vehicle steering at high speed.
There are also some methods for the optimal guaranteed cost control theory to handle the
actuators saturation in the literature [30]. In fact, actuators saturation is a common problem
not only for optimal guaranteed cost control but for all the control methods.

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

Vehicle System Dynamics

Figure 9.

73

Slalom manoeuvre response comparisons on dry road ( = 0.9).

Figures 1518 show the response comparisons for a single lane-change manoeuvre with
the steering input shown in Figure 15 on a dry road with the adhesion coefficient of 0.8.
Single sinusoidal steering input is often used to imitate the single lane-change and roadblock
avoiding manoeuvres in vehicle dynamics test. Note that the condition in this test is the same
as that where the controller is designed. The tyre cornering stiffness uncertainty is small in

Figure 10.

Comparisons of stability index for slalom manoeunvre on dry road ( = 0.9).

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

74

X. Yang et al.

Figure 11.

Control effort comparisons for slalom manoeuvre on dry road ( = 0.9).

Figure 12.

Slalom manoeuvre response comparisons on icy road ( = 0.2).

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

Vehicle System Dynamics

Figure 13.

Comparison of stability index for slalom manoeunvre on icy road ( = 0.2).

Figure 14.

Control effort comparisons for slalom manoeuvre on icy road ( = 0.2).

Figure 15.

Steer angle for single lane-change manoeuvre.

75

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

76

X. Yang et al.

Figure 16.

Single lane-change manoeuvre response comparisons on dry road ( = 0.8).

Figure 17.

Comparisons of stability index for single lane-change manoeunvre on dry road ( = 0.8).

Figure 18.

Control effort comparisons for single lane-change manoeuvre on dry road ( = 0.8).

Vehicle System Dynamics

77

this condition, so small response difference between OC and OGCC is achieved though the
OGCC presents superior performance. The uncontrolled vehicle cannot track the reference
response. From the time histories of stability index, we can find that both OGCC and OC are
stable, so braking is not used (Figure 18).

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

6.

Conclusions

Vehicle chassis coordinated control is one of the main trends of vehicle active safety control.
Since handling and stability can be effectively improved by AFS and DYC, respectively, in
order to exert the advantages of the two subsystems, a coordination scheme is selected here.
Unlike the conventional OC scheme that is conservative because of the frequent variation
of tyre cornering stiffness, an OGCC scheme is proposed in this paper, which considers the
uncertainty of tyre cornering stiffness beforehand.
A number of simulations are conducted on an 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model for a slalom
manoeuvre and a lane-change manoeuvre to illustrate the effects of the OGCC scheme by
comparing with the responses of the OC scheme and the passive vehicle. From the simulation
results, we can find that when the vehicle is on a dry road at high speed, the response difference
of the two coordination schemes is small but the difference becomes very large when the
vehicle is on an icy road at high speed, in which condition the OGCC scheme is still stable
and presenting good tracking performance to the drivers intent but the OC scheme will lose
stability. In other words, the change of running conditions has more influence on the OC
scheme. The problem for the OGCC scheme is the control effort. More control effort is needed
for OGCC compared with OC. However, OGCC scheme is still satisfying if the control effort
does not exceed the actuators saturation limit because to keep the vehicle stable is always
more important. Therefore, the OGCC scheme can also be interpreted as the improvement of
control effect being realised by exerting the ability of the actuator, which is not made the best
use of for the OC scheme. The research in the future will consider the actuators saturation for
the OGCC scheme.
Open-loop evaluation is conducted in this paper only. The driver characteristic will be
included and the effectiveness of OGCC will be evaluated in the drivervehicleroad closedloop system in the future.
References
[1] M. Abe, Vehicle dynamics and control for improving handling and active safety: from four-wheel steering to
direct yaw moment control, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. K. J. Multibody Dyn. 213 (1999), pp. 87101.
[2] J.J. He, D.A. Crolla, M.C. Levesley, and W.J. Manning, Coordination of active steering, driveline, and braking
for integrated vehicle dynamics control, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D. J. Automob. Eng. 220 (2006), pp. 14011421.
[3] E. Ono, S. Hosoe, K. Asano, M. Sugai and S. Doi, Robust stabilization of the vehicle dynamics by gain-scheduled
H control, in Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, Hawaii, USA,
1999.
[4] Y. Shibahata, K. Shimada, and T. Tomari, Improvement of vehicle maneuverability by direct yaw moment control,
Vehicle Syst. Dyn. 22 (1993), pp. 465481.
[5] Y. Tohru, A. Tomohiko, B. Tetsuro O. Haruki and M. Hirotaka, Application of sliding-mode theory to direct
yaw-moment control, JSAE Rev. 20 (1999), pp. 523529.
[6] M. Nagai, S. Yamanaka, and Y. Hirano, Integrated control of active rear wheel steering and yaw moment control
using braking forces, Trans. JSME Int. J. 42 (1999), pp. 301308.
[7] M. Nagai, M. Shino, and F. Gao, Study on integrated control of active front steer angle and direct yaw moment,
JSAE Rev. 23 (2002), pp. 309315.
[8] M.J.L. Boada, B. L. Boada, A. Munoz, and V. Diaz, Integrated control of front-wheel steering and front braking
forces on the basis of fuzzy logic, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D. J. Automob. Eng. 220 (2006), pp. 253267.
[9] B.A. Gveng, T. Acarman, and L. Gveng, Coordination of steering and individual wheel braking actuated
vehicle yaw stability control, IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Ohio, USA, 2003.

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

78

X. Yang et al.

[10] G. Burgio and P. Zegelaar, Integrated vehicle control using steering and brakes, Int. J. Control 79 (2006),
pp. 534541.
[11] E. Esmailzadeh, A. Goodarzi, and G.R. Vossoughi, Optimal yaw moment control law for improved vehicle
handling, Mechatronics 13 (2003), pp. 659675.
[12] M. Abe, Y. Kano, Y. Shibahata and Y. Furukawa, Improvement of vehicle handling safety with vehicle side-slip
control by direct yaw moment, Vehicle Sys. Dyn. 33 (2000), pp. 665679.
[13] E. Ono, S. Hosoe, K. Asano, H.D. Tuan and D. Shunichi, Bifurcation in vehicle dynamics and robust front wheel
steering control, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 6 (1998), pp. 412420.
[14] S. Mammar and D. Koenig, Vehicle handling improvement by active steering, Vehicle Syst. Dyn. 38 (2002),
pp. 211242.
[15] A.E. Hajjaji, M. Chadli, M. Oudghiri and O. Pages, Observer-based robust fuzzy control for vehicle lateral
dynamics, in Proceedings of the 2006 American Control Conference, Minnesota, USA, 2006.
[16] I.R. Petersen and D.C. McFarlane. Optimal guaranteed cost control and filtering for uncertain linear systems,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 39 (1994), pp. 19711977.
[17] E.W. Daniel and M.H. Wassim, Nonlinear control of roll moment distribution to influence vehicle yaw
characteristics, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 3 (1995), pp. 110116.
[18] H. Dugoff, P. S. Fancher, and L. Segal, Tyre performance characteristics affecting vehicle response to steering
and braking control inputs, Final Report, Contract CST-460, Office of Vehicle Systems Research, US National
Bureau of Standards, 1969.
[19] K.R. Buckholtz, Use of fuzzy logic in wheel slip assignment-part I: yaw rate control, SAE Paper, 2002, 200201-1221.
[20] , Use of fuzzy logic in wheel slip assignment-part II: yaw rate control with sideslip angle limitation, SAE
Paper, 2002, 2002-01-1220.
[21] F. Yoshiki, Slip-angle estimation for vehicle stability control, Vehicle Syst. Dyn. 32 (1999), pp. 375388.
[22] D. Piyabongkarn, R. Rajamani, J.A. Grogg and J.Y. Lew, Development and experimental evaluation of a slip
angle estimator for vehicle stability control, in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, USA, 2006.
[23] R. Rajamani, Vehicle Dynamics and Control, Springer, New York, 2006.
[24] B.L. Boada, M.J.L. Boada, and V. Dfaz, Fuzzy-logic applied to yaw moment control for vehicle stability, Vehicle
Syst. Dyn. 43 (2005), pp. 753770.
[25] K. Koibuchi, M. Yamaoto, Y. Fukada and S. Inagaki, Vehicle stability control in limit cornering by active brake,
SAE Paper, 960487, 1996, pp. 555565.
[26] S. Inagaki, Analysis on vehicle stability in critical cornering using phase-plane method, in Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control (AVEC94), Tsukuba, Japan, 1994.
[27] A. Hac, M.O. Bodie, Improvements in vehicle handling through integrated control of chassis systems, Int. J.
Vehicle Design 29 (2002), pp. 2350.
[28] D.P. Wang et al., Simulation study of vehicle dynamics stability control [in Chinese], Automobile Technology
30 (1999), pp. 810.
[29] L. Yu, Robust Control-LMI Method [in Chinese], Tsinghua University Press, Beijing, 2002.
[30] H.C. Choi et al., Guaranteed cost control of uncertain systems subject to actuator saturation, SICE-ICASE
International Joint Conf. 1821 October, Susan, Korea, 2006.

Appendix 1. Description of vehicle model parameters


m t , ms
muf , mur
l
lf , lr
lfs , lrs
hfroll , hrroll , hs
huf , hur
tw
a x , ay
V x , Vy
,
Fxi , Fyi
Fxwi , Fywi
Izz , Ixx
Kf , Kr
Cf , Cr
f
C x , Cf , Cr
i , i
F zi

total mass, sprung mass of the vehicle


front, rear unsprung mass
wheel base
distance between centre of gravity (CG) and the front, rear axle
distance between CG and the front, rear axle
height of front, rear roll centre, sprung mass CG to roll centre
height of front, rear unsprung mass CG
wheel track width
vehicle longitudinal, lateral acceleration
vehicle longitudinal velocity, lateral velocity
yaw rate about z axis, roll angle about x axis
longitudinal, lateral force of the ith wheel in the vehicle coordinates, i = 1, 2, 3, 4
longitudinal, lateral tyre force, i = 1, 2, 3, 4
vehicle moment of inertia about yaw axis, roll axis
front, rear suspension roll stiffness
front, rear suspension roll damping
steer angle of front wheel
longitudinal tyre stiffness, cornering stiffness of the front wheel, rear wheel
the ith wheel slip angle, slip ratio, i = 1, 2, 3, 4
normal force of the ith wheel, i = 1, 2, 3, 4

Vehicle System Dynamics

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 03:46 22 December 2014

R w , Jw , w
g

Tbi , Pbi
Kb

wheel rolling radius, moment of inertia, angular speed


gravity acceleration
friction coefficient between tyre and road
active brake torque, pressure of the ith wheel, i = 1, 2, 3, 4
brake gain

79