JDMS

Technology

Journal of Defense Modeling and

Simulation: Applications,
Modeling, validation and firing-on- Methodology, Technology
2016, Vol. 13(2) 253–267

the-move control of armored vehicles Ó The Author(s) 2015

DOI: 10.1177/1548512915612601
dms.sagepub.com
using active front-wheel steering

Zulkiffli Abd Kadir1,2, Khisbullah Hudha1, Hairi Zamzuri2,

Saiful Amri Mazlan2, Muhamad Murrad1 and Fitrian Imaduddin2

Abstract
It is a well-known fact that an armored vehicle will lose its directional stability when firing a large-caliber gun while mov-
ing. The instability is caused by the impulse force from firing, acting at the center of a weapons platform that produces a
yaw moment at the center of gravity of the armored vehicle. In order to improve the stability, this paper introduces a fir-
ing-on-the-move technology for armored vehicles using an active front-wheel steering (AFS) system. The AFS system is
proposed to maintain the directional stability of the armored vehicle by providing an electronically controlled correction
to the steering mechanism. The steering correction is designed to reject the unwanted yaw motion and bring the vehicle
back to its intended direction of travel after firing. The proposed control strategy of the AFS system in this study con-
sists of yaw rate feedback with lateral force rejection control. The AFS system controller is developed on a validated
10-degrees-of-freedom armored vehicle. The results indicate that the developed control strategy can effectively maintain
the directional stability, in terms of yaw and lateral motions, of the armored vehicle after firing. The superiority of the
proposed AFS system controller is also evaluated by comparing its performance to an AFS system without lateral force
rejection control as well as to a conventional armored vehicle without AFS.

Keywords
10-degrees-of-freedom armored vehicle model, firing on the move, active front-wheel steering, lateral force rejection
control

1. Introduction
From a vehicle dynamics point of view, vehicle yaw
motion can be divided into two categories, the desired yaw
motion and the unwanted yaw motion. Desired yaw motion
occurs when the direction of travel of the vehicle follows
the steering input from the driver, for example in a corner-
ing maneuver. In contrast, an unwanted yaw motion occurs
when a vehicle begins to move out of its lane without any
steering action from the driver. Side wind force, uneven
braking or throttle torques in all four wheels as well as
non-uniform tire grip in all four tires are the major factors
causing the vehicle to yaw unintentionally. Unwanted yaw
motion can cause vehicle accidents, as the directional sta-
bility of the vehicle decreases abruptly and the driver may
lose control of the vehicle. Considering the importance of
yaw stability in a vehicle, research on the development of
unwanted yaw rejection mechanisms has been conducted
in both academic communities and automotive indus-
tries.1–3 Various methods and actuators in yaw stability
systems have been developed, such as the traction-control
system,4,5 anti-lock braking system,6,7 four-wheel steering
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti
Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia, Malaysia
2
Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Malaysia
Corresponding author:
Zulkiffli Abd Kadir, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia, Kem Sungai Besi,
57000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Email: zulkiffli@upnm.edu.my

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

254 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 13(2)
Figure 1. Armored vehicle during firing on the move.
controls,8–11 electronic stability program12,13 and active
front-wheel steering (AFS) system.14
In an armored vehicle, unwanted yaw motion can be
caused by the firing impulse acting on the center of the
weapon platform. The firing impulse will generate yaw
moment and lateral force at the body center of gravity
(CG), causing the armored vehicle to move out of its
intended path, as shown in Figure 1. The technology that
is used in most armored vehicles requires static condition
during firing because it is unable to maintain the vehicle
directional stability if firing is executed during moving
condition. Unfortunately, firing in static condition during
battle reduces agility and potentially makes the armored
vehicle an easy target for a counterattack. Therefore, in
order to improve the mobility of the armored vehicle, the
involvement of yaw stability control that makes the vehi-
cle able to shoot during moving is a necessity. This paper
investigates a firing-on-the-move method using an AFS
system in order to reject the unwanted yaw motion and lat-
eral motion subject to gun disturbance. The goal of imple-
menting the AFS system is to maintain the handling
quality and directional stability of the armored vehicle by
retaining the armored vehicle in its direction of travel dur-
ing firing on the move.
The AFS system maintains the conventional mechani-
cal link between the front wheels and the steering wheel.
A planetary gear set, which has two input shafts connected
to the steering shaft and a stepper motor, is the one that
delivers the variation of the steering ratio in the AFS sys-
tem. The final steering ratio of the AFS system is basically
the superposition between the driver input delivered via a
steering shaft and the steering input actuated by the step-
per motor. The AFS system is also able to generate a cor-
rective steering response, directly enhancing the vehicle
yaw motion. The basic concept of AFS for firing on the
move in an armored vehicle is to provide an immediate
steering correction to reject the unwanted yaw motion due
to firing force. The steering correction, which is electroni-
cally controlled using a direct current (DC) motor, is then
overlapped with the conventional steering input via the
planetary gear set.
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016
In this study, the proposed control strategy of the AFS
system for firing on the move consists of an outer loop
controller and inner loop controller. The aim of designing
the outer loop controller is to reduce the magnitude of
unwanted motions due to firing force, namely, the yaw
and lateral motions. The inner loop controller is used to
provide a steering correction angle using the stepper motor
based on the instruction obtained from an outer loop con-
troller. The proposed control strategy is developed using a
validated 10-degrees-of-freedom (10-DOF) four-wheeled
armored vehicle (4WAV) model. The developed model of
the armored vehicles comprises of the 3-DOF 4WAV han-
dling model engaged with a nonlinear tire model—the
Calspan tire model and the 7-DOF 4WAV ride model.
Validation was performed using a Ferret Scout Car for
several driving conditions such as the step steer test,
single-lane change test and double-lane change test. The
responses obtained from actual handling tests are used as a
benchmark for model validation of the 10-DOF armored
vehicle model. Then, the proposed control strategy for fir-
ing on the move, namely, the yaw rate feedback with lat-
eral force rejection control (LFRC), is developed on this
validated model.
This paper is structured as follows: the next section
focuses on the mathematical derivation of the 10-DOF
4WAV model. Section 3 shows the development of the
proposed control strategy for firing-on-the-move technol-
ogy with AFS. Section 4 discusses the model validation
results of the 10-DOF 4WAV model, followed by the ben-
efits of the proposed AFS system in an armored vehicle in
Section 5. Overall conclusions are discussed in Section 6.
2. The 10-degrees-of-freedom armored
vehicle model
The 10-DOF model of a 4WAV presented in this study
contains the 7-DOF 4WAV ride model and the 3-DOF
4WAV handling model. The 7-DOF 4WAV ride model
contains the 3-DOF armored vehicle body motions, which
allow the vehicle to pitch, roll and heave. The armored
Abd Kadir et al. 255

pitch and roll. Another 4-DOF is the vertical motions of

the four-wheels system at each corner of the armored vehi-
cle. The dynamic behavior of the armored vehicle body in
the vertical motion is obtained using Newton’s second law
and is presented as follows:

ms Z€s = Fsfl + Fdfl + Fsfr + Fdfr + Fsrl + Fdrl + Fsrr + Fdrr ð1Þ

where
Figure 2. A two-dimensional view of a four-wheeled armored
vehicle. ms = weight of sprung mass;
Z€s = vertical acceleration of sprung mass at the CG;
Fsfr = front right spring force = Ksfr (Zufr  Zsfr );
Fsrl = rear left spring force = Ksrl (Zurl  Zsrl );
Fsrr = rear right spring force = Ksrr (Zurr :
 Zsrr);
:
Fdfl = front left damper force = Csfl ( Z ufl :
 Z sfl);
:
Fdfr = front right damper force = Csfr:( Z ufr : Z sfr);
Fdrl = rear left damper force = Csrl ( Z url :
 Z srl);
:
Fdrr = rear right damper force = Csrr ( Z urr  Z srr);
Ksfl , Ksfr , Ksrl , Ksrr = spring stiffness at the front left,
front right, rear left and rear right;
Csfl , Csfr , Csrl , Csrr = damping stiffness at the front left,
front right, rear left and rear right;
Zsfl , Zsfr , Zsrl , Zsrr = sprung masses displacement at the
front left, front right, rear left and rear right;
Figure 3. A 7-degrees-of-freedom four-wheeled armored
vehicle ride model.
Zufl , Zufr , Zurl , Zurr = unsprung masses displacement at
the front left, front right, rear left and rear right;
vehicle body is mounted to four unsprung masses at each Z_ sfl , Z_ sfr , Z_ srl , Z_ srr = sprung masses velocity at the front
corner. Each unsprung mass is permitted to heave in the left, front right, rear left and rear right;
vertical direction. The 3-DOF 4WAV handling model con- Z_ ufl , Z_ ufr , Z_ url , Z_ usrr = unsprung masses velocity at the
siders the vehicle longitudinal, lateral and yaw motions at front left, front right, rear left and rear right.
the respective axes. The equation of motion for roll moment is given as
 w
2.1 Ride model for armored vehicle € = Fsfr + Fsrr + Fdfr + Fdrr
Ir u
2 ð2Þ
 w
The 4WAV considered in this study, as illustrated in  Fsfl + Fsrl + Fdfl + Fdrl + ms ay hCG
Figure 2, is based on a category of a movable weapon sys- 2
tem that has four wheels and can fire a 75-mm projectile where
from the gun turret, while the 4WAV ride model is shown
in Figure 3. There are several assumptions that need to be u
€ = angular acceleration of roll at the body CG;
considered in developing the 7-DOF 4WAV ride model. Ir = moment inertia of the roll axis;
The first assumption is that the suspensions system is hCG = distance from the roll axis to the CG;
modeled simply as a combination of spring and damper w= vehicle track width;
elements. The second assumption is that the effect of the ay = lateral acceleration.
passive anti-roll bar for vehicle rolling resistance is taken Similarly, the moment balance equation for pitch
into account in the mass moment of inertia in the x-axis. motion is given as
The tire behavior is also assumed as a linear spring and
the vehicle remains grounded at all times so that each tire Ip θ€ = (Fsrl + Fdrl + Fsrr + Fdrr )b
is constantly touching the road surface during maneuver- ð3Þ
 (Fsfl + Fdfl + Fsfr + Fdfr )a + ms ax hCG
ing. The last assumption is that the position of the suspen-
sion system is always in vertical direction. where
The 4WAV ride model contains the armored vehicle
body, four suspension systems and the corresponding tires. θ€ = angular acceleration of pitch at the body CG;
The 3-DOF body motions are the armored vehicle heave, Ip = moment inertia of the pitch axis;

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

256 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 13(2)

a = distance of front tire to the body CG;

b = distance of rear tire to the body CG;
ay = longitudinal acceleration.
The displacements and velocities of sprung masses for
front right, front left, rear right and rear left can be derived
in terms of heave, pitch and roll as follows:

w w
Zsfr = Zs + u  aθ Z_ sfr = Z_ s + u_  aθ_
2 2
w w
Zsfl = Zs  u  aθ Z sfl = Z s  u_  aθ_
_ _
2 2 ð4Þ
w w
Zsrr = Zs + u + bθ Z_ srr = Z_ s + u_ + bθ_
2 2
w w
Zsrl = Zs  u + bθ Z srl = Z s  u_ + bθ_
_ _
2 2
where u and θ are armored vehicle roll angle and body Figure 4. Armored vehicle handling model with firing
pitch angle at the CG, respectively. The equation of motion disturbance.
for unsprung masses at each corner can be obtained using
force balance analysis as follows: surface where the gradient is equal to zero. Secondly, the
military vehicle is assumed to capable of moving along the
mufl Z€ ufl = Ftfl  Fsfl  Fdfl longitudinal and lateral directions and to rotate in the
z-axis. Thirdly, the steering wheel angle and the wheel
mufr Z€ ufr = Ftfr  Fsfr  Fdfr steer angle are modeled as a constant ratio, while the steer-
ð5Þ
murl Z€ url = Ftrl  Fsrl  Fdrl ing inertia is neglected in the model. Lastly, the effect of
murr Z€ urr = Ftrr  Fsrr  Fdrr aerodynamic in the horizontal direction is ignored and the
armored vehicle is assumed to travel with constant speed,
where while the effect of longitudinal slip is ignored. The longi-
  tudinal acceleration and lateral acceleration in the x- and
Ftfl = tire force at the front left = Ktfl Zrfl  Zufl ;  y-axes are written as ax and ay, respectively, and the yaw
Ftfr = tire force at the front right = Ktfr Zrfr  Zufr ; acceleration as €r. Acceleration in the longitudinal direction
Ftrl = tire force at the rear left = Ktrl ðZrrl  Zurl Þ; is written as
Ftrr = tire force at the front left = Ktrr ðZrrr  Zurr Þ;
Ktfr , Ktfl , Ktrr , Ktrl = tire stiffness at the front right, front v_ x = ax + vy r_ ð6Þ
left, rear right and rear left;
mufr , mufl , murr , murl = unsprung masses at the front The longitudinal acceleration can be obtained by con-
right, front left, rear right and rear left. sidering the forces acting at each tire in the x-axis as

Fxrr + Fxrl  Fyfr sin δ + Fxfr cos δ  Fyfl sin δ

2.2 Handling model for armored vehicle ð7Þ
+ Fxfl cos δ  Fe cos β = max
with firing disturbance
In addition, acceleration in the lateral direction is
Figure 4 illustrates the 4WAV handling model, which con-
written as
sists of 3-DOF motions: lateral motion, longitudinal
motion and yaw motion of an armored vehicle. The firing
v_ y = ay  vx r_ ð8Þ
force (Fe) acting at the center of the weapon platform is
located at the distance of c ahead from the location of the Similarly, the lateral acceleration is obtained by consid-
CG. The firing force creates unwanted yaw disturbance ering the forces acting at each tire in the y-axis:
due to the distance between the center of the weapon plat-
form on the armored vehicle body and the location of the Fyrr + Fyrl + Fxfr sin δ + Fyfr cos δ + Fxfl sin δ
CG. The angle of the firing forces (β) also influences the ð9Þ
+ Fyfl cos δ + Fe sin β = may
magnitude of the unwanted yaw moment around the z-axis,
lateral acceleration at the y-axis and longitudinal accelera- The yaw angular acceleration acting on the armored
tion at the x-axis. There are some assumptions considered vehicle handling model is also based on the effects of tire
in this model. Firstly, it is assumed that the vehicle is tra- forces, namely, the lateral force and longitudinal force. It
veling without any road disturbances and with a level can be derived as

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

Abd Kadir et al. 257

0 1
 w2 Fxfr cos δ + w2 Fxfl cos δ  w2 Fxrr + w2 F xrl + w2 Fyfl sin δ
@ w Fyfr sin δ  bFyrl  bFyrr + aFyfl cos δ + aFyfr cos δ  aFxfl sin δ A = Iz€r ð10Þ
2
aFxfr sin δ + cFe sin β

where
where Mp is the mass of the projectile, vo is the initial
I z = moment of inertia around the z-axis; speed of the projectile, vf is the speed of the projectile
δ = wheel steer angle; leaving the muzzle and t is the time required by the pro-
m = armored vehicle mass. jectile to obtain its maximum speed at the muzzle. To
After obtaining the three main vehicle dynamic para- evaluate the performance of the proposed control strategy,
meters of the military vehicle (i.e., longitudinal accelera- the firing force is defined as a step function produced by a
tion, lateral acceleration and yaw angular acceleration), the 75-mm caliber gun, as shown in Figure 5. In this study,
parameters are then used to estimate the slip angle of front the firing angles are set in 30°, 60° and 90° to the right-
tire (αf ) and rear tire (αr ) as follows: hand side of the armored vehicle.
 
vy + a_r
tan αf = δ ð11Þ 3. Basic configuration and proposed
vx
control strategy of active front-wheel
and steering for a four-wheeled armored
  vehicle
vy  b_r
tan αr = ð12Þ The AFS for a 4WAV is built by retaining the conven-
vx
tional mechanical parts, such as the steering wheel, the
where vx , vy and r_ are the longitudinal velocity, the lateral steering shaft, the recirculating ball gearbox, the pitman
velocity and the yaw rate of the armored vehicle, arm and the steering arms. In AFS, there are two angles
which are obtained by the integration of v_ y , v_ x and €r, that need to be evaluated: the steering wheel input given
respectively. by the driver and steering correction angle produced by
the controller and actuated by the AFS actuator, as illu-
2.3 Firing force model strated in Figure 6. There is an additional gearbox between
The firing force acting at the gun platform can be the steering shaft and AFS actuator to superimpose the
explained using the relationship of impulse and momen- steering wheel angle obtained from the driver and angle of
tum. Impulse can be used as a basic concept to estimate steering correction from the AFS actuator. The combina-
the linear momentum of firing force obtained from tions of both angles provide a correction angle for wheel
the projectile based on the mass and velocity of the steer angle through the pitman arm.
projectile.15 The correlation between the impulse and The control strategy is developed using a validated 10-
momentum of the projectile leaving a muzzle can be writ- DOF 4WAV model by assuming that the armored vehicle
ten as travels in a straight direction without any steering input
given by the driver. The control strategy of AFS consists
(vf  vo ) of an inner loop controller and an outer loop controller, as
Fe = M p ð13Þ
t

15000
Firing force

10000

5000

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s)

Figure 6. Configuration of active front steering using pitman

Figure 5. Firing force produced by a 75-mm caliber gun. steering.

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

258 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 13(2)

Figure 7. Control strategy of the active front-wheel steering for a four-wheeled armored vehicle.

shown in Figure 7. The outer loop controller is used for

rejecting the unwanted yaw motion and preventing lateral
movement of the armored vehicle using a LFRC. In devel-
oping the outer loop controller, the desired yaw rate (yd) is
compared to the actual yaw rate feedback (ya) obtained
from the validated armored vehicle model. A proportional-
integral-derivative (PID) controller is used in the yaw rate
feedback controller to process the yaw rate error and pro-
ducing the desired lateral force (Fyd) to be used for the next
controller loop, namely, the LFRC loop. The desired lat-
eral force is defined as
 
Kiy
Fyd = Kpy + + Kdy s (yd  ya ) ð14Þ
s Figure 8. Armored vehicle with imaginary lateral wall and
K imaginary damper.
where Kpy , spy and Kdy s are vehicle controllers for yaw rate
response. To estimate the desired angle of steering correc-
tion (δd) in rejecting the firing disturbance acting at the where y_ GC is the lateral velocity of the armored vehicle.
weapon platform, Fyd is compared with the estimated lat- The response of the lateral velocity can be obtained by dif-
eral force (Fye). δd is estimated as ferentiating the global coordinate of lateral displacement
(yGC ) of the armored vehicle. The LFRC needs lateral dis-
 
Kil placement of yGC in a global coordinate system in order to
δd = Kpl + (Fyd  Fye ) ð15Þ retain the desired path of travel of the armored vehicle
s
after firing. The lateral displacement of yGC is defined as
where Kpl and Ksil are vehicle controllers for lateral force.
The proposed LFRC loop is used to obtain the estimated ð
lateral force (Fye) in eliminating the unwanted lateral yGC = yo + vy cos r + vx sin r ð17Þ
motion due to firing impact. The LFRC focuses on reduc-
ing the lateral motion of the armored vehicle body after where
firing. The configuration of estimated lateral force is
shown in Figure 8, which consists of an imaginary lateral yo = local lateral displacement;
damper (Clateral) with a reference of imaginary lateral wall. r = armored vehicle yaw angle;
The proper tuning of Clateral can be used to reduce the vx = armored vehicle longitudinal velocity;
unwanted lateral motion after firing. vy = armored vehicle lateral velocity.
The estimated lateral force (Fye) is defined as The output produced by the outer loop controller, that
is, the desired steering correction angle (δd), will be used
Fye = Clateral y_ GC ð16Þ as the reference for inner loop controller. The purpose of

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

Abd Kadir et al.
the inner loop controller is to monitor the AFS actuator
that uses a stepper motor as the torque-generator device.
The stepper motor should be able to track the desired steer-
ing correction angle of δd and provide the ideal steering
correction angle (δ) for the steering shaft. In this study,
modeling of the AFS actuator using the stepper motor in
providing the ideal steering correction angle is directly
related to the stepper motor model developed by Morar.16
4. Validation of the 10-degrees-of-freedom
four-wheeled armored vehicle model
In order to validate the 10-DOF 4WAV model, actual han-
dling tests are conducted using an actual armored vehicle.
Several transducers are installed in the armored vehicle to
sense the vehicle’s behavior (i.e., lateral acceleration, roll
angle, yaw rate and steering input) from the driver input.
Validation of the developed armored vehicle model can be
defined as an assessment of the developed model’s beha-
viors with the actual armored vehicle’s behaviors. The
validation of the armored vehicle model is done by com-
paring the behaviors obtained from the simulation model
with actual responses obtained from the experimental
armored vehicle using the similar handling test. The
experimental results are also used to evaluate whether the
vehicle parameters for the model development are
acceptable.
4.1 Instrumented experimental military vehicle
The ArduIMU V3 and direct interface with microcontrol-
ler, namely, the USB-to-UART converter, are mounted
into the actual armored vehicle to analyze the armored
vehicle’s behavior (i.e., body yaw rate, body roll angle and
body lateral acceleration). The ArduIMU V3 consists of
two types of sensors: the tri-axial accelerometer to sense
linear accelerations at the CG and the tri-axial gyroscope
for the angular rate. In order to obtain the steering wheel
angle, a transducer, namely, the rotary encoder, is con-
nected to the MCC DAQ as a real-time data collector. The
installation of the ArduIMUV3, the USB-to-UART con-
verter, the MCC DAQ and the rotary encoder into the
armored vehicle are illustrated in Figure 9.
4.2 Model validation procedures
The performance of the armored vehicle model can be
validated by benchmarking with the experimental data of
an armored vehicle maneuvering in the step steer test,
single-lane change test and double-lane change test. The
step steer test is used to investigate the transient handling
behavior of the armored vehicle. In this study, the transient
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016
259
Figure 9. Four-wheeled armored vehicle equipped with
sensors.
response of the armored vehicle is investigated through
the step steer test with steering input of 90° clockwise at
20 km/h. On the other hand, the single-lane change and
double-lane change tests are conducted to evaluate the
road holding capability of the armored vehicle in avoiding
an obstacle. In this study, the armored vehicle speeds are
set at 30 km/h for the single-lane change test and 40 km/h
for the double-lane change test.
4.3 Results of model validation
All the actual results obtained from the experimental tests
are filtered using a low-pass Butterworth filter. The steer-
ing input from the driver is recorded by a rotary encoder
and will be used as the steering input in the simulation of
the armored vehicle model in the simulation. The armored
vehicle specifications are measured from the actual specifi-
cation of the armored vehicle; however, several parameters
are assumed and obtained from the previous works. The
results of the armored vehicle model validation for steep
steer, single-lane change and double-lane change tests are
demonstrated in Figures 10–12.
Figure 10(a) illustrates steering input from the driver
during the step steer test, which is set as the steering input
for the developed armored vehicle model. Figures
10(b)–(d) illustrate the validation results of the armored
vehicle: yaw rate response, lateral acceleration response
and roll angle response, respectively. From the validation
result for the step steer handling test, it is clear that the
behaviors and magnitudes between simulation results and
actual data obtained from experimental work show good
similarity with minor errors, particularly for the roll angle
response. The minor error of the roll angle is due to the
assumption in development of the armored vehicle model
where the stabilizer bar was not considered. In a real-world
application, the purpose of the stabilizer bar is used to
260 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 13(2)

100
Experiment
80 Simulation
Steering angle (deg)

0.1

Yaw rate (rad/s)

60

40 0.05
20

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) Steering wheel angle (b) Yaw rate response

Experiment 0.025 Experiment

Lateral acceleration (g)

0.06 Simulation Simulation

0.02

Roll angle (rad)

0.04 0.015

0.01
0.02
0.005

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) Lateral acceleration respons e (d) Roll angle response

Figure 10. Validation results for 20 km/h step steer test.

reduce the roll motion response of the armored vehicle
body. For yaw rate and lateral acceleration responses, bet-
ter similarity in the responses are shown starting from the
initial phase until the steering input is introduced to the
armored vehicle. It also can be seen that the data of the
experimental results contains some chattering caused by
the effect of the actual road profile and the engine vibra-
tions. Noise and data chattering from experimental works
can be removed using a correct filtering technique.
To ensure that the developed model is valid in repre-
senting the actual 4WAV, the model validation is also
performed for the 30 km/h single-lane change test and
40 km/h double-lane change test. The results of the valida-
tion for the single-lane change and double-lane change
tests show that the results from actual data and the simula-
tion results have good correlation, as can be seen in
Figures 11 and 12, respectively. Figures 11(a) and 12(a)
show the actual steering input delivered by the driver in
single-lane change and double-lane change tests. The vali-
dation results for the single- and double-lane change tests
(i.e., the lateral acceleration, yaw rate and roll angle
responses) show that the results obtained from simulation
are able to track the actual maneuver results with similar
trends and magnitudes, as demonstrated in Figures 11(b)–
(d) as well as 12(b)–(d), respectively. The small deviations
in the validation results might be caused by the problem of
the driver in maintaining a constant speed for both actual
handling tests. It also can be due to the assumption in
simulation where the steering inertia is neglected. For the
overall validation results, it is clear that the behaviors
obtained from the simulation works and the experimental
works for the three tests have similar responses with
acceptable error. The validated armored vehicle model is
then used to assess the performance of the proposed con-
trol strategy of the AFS system in Section 5.
5. Performance evaluation of the proposed
control strategy for active front-wheel
steering
The investigation on the performance of the proposed con-
trol strategy for AFS with an additional LFRC loop is pre-
sented in this section. Responses obtained from the passive
armored vehicle are set as the basic benchmark for perfor-
mance evaluation of the proposed control strategy. To
evaluate the benefit of additional LFRC, comparison
between the behaviors of the proposed control strategy and
AFS without a LFRC loop is made. This section starts by
explaining the selection of the parameters of the armored
vehicle and proposed control strategy parameter used in
the simulation work, as well as demonstrating the AFS

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

Abd Kadir et al. 261

0.3 Experiment
100 Simulation
Steering angle (deg) 0.2

Yaw rate (rad/s)

0.1
0
0
-0.1
-100
-0.2
-0.3
-200
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) Steering wheel angle (b) Yaw rate response

0.1
0.2 Experiment Experiment
Lateral acceleration (g)

Simulation Simulation
0.1 0.05

Roll angle (rad)

0 0
-0.1
-0.05
-0.2
-0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)

(c) Lateral acceleration response (d) Roll angle response

Figure 11. Validation results for 30 km/h single-lane change test.

0.4
100 Experiment
Steering angle (deg)

0.2 Simulation
Yaw rate (rad/s)

50
0 0
-50 -0.2
-100 -0.4
-150
-0.6
-200
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) Steering wheel angle (b) Yaw rate response

0.2
0.4 Experiment Experiment
Lateral acceleration (g)

Simulation 0.1 Simulation

0.2
Roll angle (rad)

0 0
-0.2
-0.1
-0.4
-0.6 -0.2

-0.8 -0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) Lateral acceleration response (d) Roll angle response

Figure 12. Validation results for 40km/h double-lane change test.

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

262 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 13(2)
Table 1. Armored vehicle model parameters.
m (kg) a (m) b (m) w (m)
4000 1 1.3 1.5
Iz (kg/m2) Jw (kg/m2) Ir (kg/m2) Csfl, Csfr, Csrl, Csrr (N/ms − 1)
5000 3 500 800
Table 2. Controller parameters.
Yaw rate controller Kpy = 20 Kiy = 2 Kdy = 0.75
Lateral force Kpy = 1.5 Kiy = 0.02 —
controller
performance in various firing angles at a constant speed of
40 km/h. The proposed control strategy for AFS is tested
for its performance in enhancing both lateral motion and
yaw motion of the armored vehicle after firing in terms of
several performance characteristics: lateral acceleration,
lateral position, yaw rate and yaw angle.
5.1 Parameters of the developed armored
vehicle model
The performance of the proposed control strategy is mea-
sured for the duration of 2.5 seconds. The parameters of
the vehicle controller (i.e., yaw rate feedback and lateral
force controllers) are tuned using the Ziegler–Nichols
method. The armored vehicle parameters (i.e., the 10-DOF
4WAV model parameters, vehicle yaw rate controller
and vehicle lateral force controller) are shown in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
5.2 Performance of the AFS with firing angles of
30°, 60° and 90°
Figure 13 shows the simulation results of the steering cor-
rection angle actuated by the stepper motor for firing
angles of 30°, 60° and 90° at 40 km/h. The magnitude of
the steering correction angle must be complied with to
ensure that the proposed control strategy can maintain the
desired direction of travel after firing.
The simulation results of the lateral motions (i.e., lat-
eral acceleration and lateral position at the CG of the
armored vehicle at the speed of 40 km/h for firing angles
of 30°, 60° and 90°) are demonstrated in Figures 14(a)–(f),
respectively. It is observed that the proposed control strat-
egy of both AFS with LFRC and AFS without LFRC can
improve the performance as compared to the passive
armored vehicle. In terms of the lateral acceleration
responses of these three firing angles, AFS with LFRC
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016
hcg (m) Mp (kg)
0.5 6.6
Ksfl, Ksfr, Ksrl, Ksrr (N/m) vf (m/s)
10,000 600
steering correction angle (deg)
0
-5
30 deg
-10 60 deg
90 deg
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (s)
Figure 13. Steering correction angles for 30°, 60° and 90°.
shows a slight improvement in reducing the magnitude of
lateral acceleration against the AFS without LFRC. In
terms of lateral position responses, it can be seen that the
lateral position for both AFS without LFRC and the pas-
sive armored vehicle are increasing relative to time after
firing. In terms of lateral displacement, it is very clear that
the benefit of AFS with additional LFRC can effectively
improve the armored vehicle performance in terms of
maintaining the military vehicle to travel in the straight
direction after firing compared to its counterparts, namely,
AFS without LFRC and a passive armored vehicle.
Improvement in the lateral position response after firing
can increase the mobility performance of the armored
vehicle. It can be said that the proposed AFS with the con-
trol strategy has the potential to be used for firing-on-the-
move technology for armored vehicles.
The performances of the proposed control strategy in
eliminating the unwanted yaw motions at 40 km/h and
firing angles of 30°, 60° and 90° are indicated in
Figures 15(a)–(f), respectively. The yaw rate response of
AFS with LFRC is compared to AFS without LFRC and
an armored vehicle with a passive steering system. For the
yaw rate response, it is perceived that the proposed control
strategy of AFS with LFRC is very effective in reducing
the magnitude of yaw rate error compared to its counter-
parts. The proposed control strategy managed to reject the
magnitude of yaw rate error almost 80% over the armored
vehicle equipped with a passive steering system. The
major improvement of yaw rate response has the potential
Abd Kadir et al. 263

0.2 AFS without LFRC

Lateral displacement (m)

Lateral acceleration (g) AFS without LFRC
AFS with LFRC 0.25
AFS with LFRC
0.1 Passive System Passive system
0.2

0 0.15

0.1
-0.1
0.05
-0.2 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) Lateral acceleration for 30deg firing angle (b) Lateral position for 30deg firing angle
0.5
AFS without LFRC AFS without LFRC

Lateral displacement (m)

0.3
Lateral acceleration (g)

AFS with LFRC 0.4 AFS with LFRC

0.2 Passive System
Passive System
0.1 0.3
0
0.2
-0.1
-0.2 0.1
-0.3
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) Lateral acceleration for 60deg firing angle (d) Lateral position for 60deg firing angle

0.4 0.6
AFS without LFRC AFS without LFRC
Lateral displacement (m)
Lateral acceleration (g)

AFS with LFRC 0.5 AFS with LFRC

0.2 Passive System Passive System
0.4

0 0.3

0.2
-0.2
0.1
-0.4 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(e) Lateral acceleration for 90deg firing angle (f) Lateral position for 90deg firing angle

Figure 14. Lateral motion responses of active front-wheel steering (AFS) for various firing angles.

to increase the target accuracy as well as decrease the per- angle error for AFS with LFRC is very small and can be
centage of human faults during firing on the move. neglected. The capability of AFS with LFRC to retain the
For yaw angle response, the performance of AFS with directional stability after firing with various firing angles
LFRC shows an excellent response compared to AFS is also observed. The ability of the proposed control strat-
without LFRC and the armored vehicle equipped with a egy in cancelling out the magnitude of the yaw angle can
passive steering system by canceling out the yaw angle enhance the handling quality of the armored vehicle in the
error, which has the capability to return back to its desired presence of firing disturbances while moving. Since the
direction of travel after firing. From the results obtained, it yaw rate and yaw angle responses of AFS with LFRC
also can be seen that the maximum magnitude of yaw show better improvement using the proposed control

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

264 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 13(2)

0.025 0.012
AFS without LFRC AFS without LFRC
0.02 AFS with LFRC 0.01 AFS with LFRC

Yaw angle (rad)

Yaw rate (rad/s)

Passive System Passive System

0.015 0.008

0.01 0.006
0.004
0.005
0.002
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) Yaw rate for 30deg firing angle (b) Yaw angle for 30deg firing angle

AFS without LFRC AFS without LFRC

0.04 0.02
AFS with LFRC AFS with LFRC
Yaw rate (rad/s)

Yaw angle (rad)

Passive System Passive System
0.03 0.015

0.02 0.01

0.01
0.005
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) Yaw rate for 60deg firing angle (d) Yaw angle for 60deg firing angle

0.05 AFS without LFRC 0.025 AFS without LFRC

AFS with LFRC AFS with LFRC
Yaw rate (rad/s)

Yaw angle (rad)

0.04 Passive System 0.02 Passive System

0.03 0.015
0.02 0.01
0.01
0.005
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(e) Yaw rate for 90deg firing angle (f) Yaw angle for 90deg firing angle

Figure 15. Yaw motion responses of active front-wheel steering (AFS) for various firing angles.

strategy, the possibility of the developed control strategy
improving the target accuracy during firing on the move
also can be achieved.
Figures 16 (a)–(d) show the detailed responses of the
proposed control strategy, namely, AFS with LFRC, in
enhancing the dynamic qualities of an armored vehicle for
firing at angles of 30°, 60° and 90° at 40 km/h. The com-
parison of armored vehicle responses is used to demon-
strate the usefulness of the developed control strategy to
reduce unwanted yaw motion and unwanted lateral motion
in any firing angles. It is very clear that the proposed con-
trol strategy can improve the armored vehicle dynamic

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

Abd Kadir et al. 265

0.4 0.2
30 deg

Lateral displacement (m)

30 deg
Lateral acceleration (g)

60 deg 60 deg
0.2 90 deg 0.15 90 deg

0 0.1

-0.2 0.05

-0.4 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) Lateral acceleration response (b) Lateral displacement response
-3 -3
x 10 x 10
2
30 deg 30 deg
4
Yaw rate (rad/s)

Yaw angle (rad)

60 deg 60 deg
90 deg 1.5 90 deg
2
1
0
0.5
-2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) Yaw rate response (d) Yaw angle response

Figure 16. Active front-wheel steering with lateral force rejection control responses.

qualities during firing with various firing angles. The max-
imum unwanted yaw moment acting on the weapon plat-
form occurs at the 90° firing angle.
6. Conclusion
A 10-DOF 4WAV model has been developed using
MATLAB-Simulink and validated experimentally through
the step steer, single-lane change and double-lane change
handling tests. The validation results of yaw rate response,
lateral acceleration response and roll angle response show
that the responses of the developed armored vehicle model
are able to track the behaviors of an actual armored vehi-
cle measured by several sensors. From the model valida-
tion results, it can be said that the developed armored
vehicle model can be used to simulate armored vehicle
responses in any maneuvering tests. In terms of armored
vehicle responses of the proposed control strategy, it can
be concluded that the performance of the AFS with LFRC
is able to reduce and eliminate the unwanted yaw and
lateral motions in all the selected firing angles compared
with the armored vehicle equipped with the passive
steering system. The need of LFRC to the yaw rate feed-
back is strongly proven compared to AFS without LFRC.
Overall, it can be said that AFS with LFRC of the armored
vehicle application in firing-on-the-move technology sig-
nificantly improves the stability level of the armored vehi-
cle by lowering the magnitudes of lateral acceleration,
lateral displacement and yaw rate, as well as eliminating
the yaw angle after firing. Enhancement of armored vehi-
cle stability will reduce the risk of the driver losing control
caused by firing action, as well as increase the firing
accuracy.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Malaysian Ministry of
Education through LRGS (LRGS/B-U/2013/UPNM/
DEFENCE & SECURITY-P1), the Institut Kejuruteraan
Tentera Darat (IJED)and the Malaysia-Japan
International Instituteof Technology (MJIIT) for the use
of their research facilitiesfor this research.
Declaration of conflicting interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016

266 Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 13(2)
Funding
This work was supported by the Malaysian Ministry of
Education through LRGS (LRGS/B-U/2013/UPNM/
DEFENCE & SECURITY-P1), RAGS (RAGS/2012/
UPNM/TK01/4), the Institut Kejuruteraan Tentera Darat
(IJED) and the Malaysia-Japan International Institute of
Technology (MJIIT).
References
1. Cho W, Yoon J, Kim J, et al. An investigation into unified
chassis control scheme for optimised vehicle stability and
manoeuvrability. Int J Veh Mech Mobility 2008; 46: 87–105.
2. Ghoneim YA. Active roll control and integration with elec-
tronic stability control system: simulation study. Int J Veh
Des 2011; 56: 317–340.
3. Jinlai M, Bofu W, Jie C, et al. Comparisons of vehicle stabi-
lity controls based on 4WS, brake, brake-FAS and IMC tech-
niques. Int J Veh Mech Mobility 2012; 50: 1053–1084.
4. Park JH and Kim CY. Wheel slip control in traction control
system for vehicle stability. Int J Veh Mech Mobility 1999;
31: 263–278.
5. Kang M, Li L, Li H, et al. Coordinated vehicle traction con-
trol based on engine torque and brake pressure under com-
plicated road conditions. Int J Veh Mech Mobility 2012; 50:
1473–1494.
6. Yazicioglu Y and Unlusoy YS. A fuzzy logic controlled
anti-lock braking system (ABS) for improved braking per-
formance and directional stability. Int J Veh Des 2008; 48:
299–315.
7. Kai Z, Xu-dong W, Chao Z, et al. System design of ABS
dynamic simulation test stand. Int J Veh Syst Model Test
2010; 5: 197–212.
8. You SS and Chai YH. Multi-objective control synthesis: an
application to 4WS passenger vehicle. Mechatronics 1999;
9: 363–390.
9. Marino R, Scalzi S and Cinili F. Nonlinear PI front and rear
steering control in four wheel steering vehicles. Int J Veh
Mech Mobility 2007; 45: 1149–1168.
10. Akar M and Kalkkuhl JC. Lateral dynamics emulation via a
four wheel steering vehicle. Int J Veh Mech Mobility 2008;
4: 803–829.
11. Canale M and Fagiano L. Stability control of 4WS vehicles
using robust IMC techniques. Int J Veh Mech Mobility 2008;
46: 991–1011.
12. Pan W and Papelis YE. Real-Time dynamic simulation of
vehicles with electronic stability control: modelling and vali-
dation. Int J Veh Syst Model Test 2005; 1: 143–167.
13. Chen BC, Yu CC, Hsu WF, et al. Design of electronic stabi-
lity control for rollover prevention using sliding mode con-
trol. Int J Veh Des 2011; 56: 224–245.
14. Dinga N and Taheri S. An adaptive integrated algorithm for
active front steering and direct yaw moment control based on
direct Lyapunov method. Int J Veh Mech Mobility 2010; 48:
1193–1213.
15. Hudha K, Jamaluddin H and Samin PM. Disturbance rejec-
tion control of a light armoured vehicle using stability
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016
augmentation based active suspension system. Int J Heavy
Veh Syst 2008; 15: 152–169.
16. Morar A. Stepper motor model for dynamic simulation. Acta
Elect 2003; 44: 117–122.
Author biographies
Zulkiffli Abd Kadir received his BEng and MSc from
the Department of Automotive Engineering at Universiti
Teknikal Malaysia Melaka. He is currently attached with
the Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia. His research
interests include tire modeling, evaluation of vehicle
dynamics and control.
Khisbullah Hudha received his BEng in mechanical
design from Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB)
Indonesia; his MSc in the Department of Engineering
Production Design from Technische Hoogeschool Utrecht
in the Netherlands; and his PhD in intelligent vehicle
dynamics control using a magnetorheological damper
from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). His research
interests include modeling, identification and force track-
ing control of semi-active damper, evaluation of vehicle
ride and handling, electronic chassis control system design
and intelligent control. He is currently with the Universiti
Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (UPNM).
Hairi Zamzuri is an academic staff member at the
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). He received his B
Electrical Eng in control systems from UTM, his master’s
degree in electrical engineering at the same university,
and his PhD in the field of artificial intelligence and con-
trol design from Loughborough University. His research
interest is integrated vehicle dynamic control and active
safety technology for ground vehicles. He currently heads
a research lab under a collaboration between UTM and
Perusahaan Otomobile Nasional SdnBhd (Proton), a
Malaysia National car manufacturer.
Saiful Amri Mazlan received his bachelor of engineer-
ing (mechanical and materials) and master of engineering
(manufacturing systems) from the National University of
Malaysia in 1998 and 2002, respectively. He obtained a
PhD in engineering in 2008 from Dublin City University,
Republic of Ireland. At present, he is working with UTM.
His research interests are on magnetorheological fluids,
semi-active suspensions and anti-roll bars.
Muhamad Murrad received his BEng, MEng and PhD
from UTM. He was commissioned into the Malaysian
Army in 1981. He has had wide range of regimental logis-
tics experience and held a variety of command positions
in areas including Commander Light Aid Detachment
of Artillery School, Officer-in-Command 34thArmoured
Abd Kadir et al.
Regimental Workshop and Commanding Officer 73rd
Divisional Workshop. He has also held various staff posi-
tions in areas including EME Staff Officer 12th Infantry
Brigade, EME Staff Officer Grade One 2nd Infantry
Division, Engineering Staff Officer Grade One of Policy
Division, Defence Logistics Department in Ministry of
Defence, Malaysia, and is currently seconded from the
Malaysian Armed Forces to the UPNM. His research
interests include armored vehicle vibrations and dynamics
modeling.
Fitrian Imaduddin received his bachelor’s degree in
engineering physics from Institut Teknologi Sepuluh
Downloaded from dms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on May 12, 2016
267
Nopember (ITS), Indonesia in 2007 and his master’s
degree in mechanical engineering from Universiti
Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), Malaysia in 2010. He
obtained his doctorate in the field of smart materials and
actuator design from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM) in 2015. He is currently a researcher in the
Vehicle System Engineering Research Laboratory of the
Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology at
UTM. His research interests are in the area of advanced
actuator and intelligent system designs.