Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress

Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

Nonlinear observer of sideslip angle using a

particle filter estimation methodology
Qi Cheng, Alessandro Correa Victorino and Ali Charara
Laboratoire Heudiasyc, CNRS UMR 6599, Universite de Technologie
de Compi`egne, Centre de recherche Royallieu, 60205 Compi`egne,
France. (e-mail: qi.cheng@hds.utc.fr ).
Abstract: The knowledge of the vehicle dynamic is important to improve the stability control of
modern automotive engineering. Some key variables of the vehicle dynamic, such as the sideslip
angle, are difficult to measure directly for technology or economic reasons. Lots of algorithms
have been proposed to estimate these variables. To the best of our knowledge, most of these
algorithms are based on linearization techniques, among which the extended Kalman filter is
the most frequently used algorithm in the unmeasurable variable estimation for automotive
control. In this paper, we propose two new nonlinear observers which uses the particle filter
and the modified bootstrap filter to estimate the sideslip angle, respectively. These observers
are based on the nonlinear double track model, in which the Dugoff model is used to describe
the relation between the tire road forces and the sideslip angle. The good performances of these
two observers are demonstrated by two classic experiments.
Keywords: Vehicle dynamics, Nonlinear models, Automotive control, State estimation
1. INTRODUCTION
Improving the vehicle security is one of the most important
topics in the modern automotive engineering. It is reported
that losing control is the main reason of the car accidents.
To avoid this emergency situation, lots of electronic control
systems, like Electronic Stability Program (ESP) and
Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) have been equipped in
vehicles. These electronic control systems need the vehicle
motion information to detect and minimize skids. The
sideslip angle, is one of the key variables to understand
the vehicle dynamics, which is the deviation between the
vehicles longitudinal axis and the direction of travel at the
center of gravity. However, it is too expensive to measure
directly the sideslip angle for common vehicles. A low cost
solution which still provides accurate estimation results, is
necessary for the automotive engineering.
A large literature has been devoted to estimate the sideslip
angle from analytical and experimental studies, see Baffet
et al. (2008), Cheli et al. (2007), Doumiati et al. (2010),
Jazar (2008), Kiencke and Nielsen (2005), Vietinghoff et al.
(2005), Kim (2009), Piyabongkarn et al. (2009), You et al.
(2009) and R. Rajamani and Grogg (2006). In Baffet et al.
(2008), the estimation process is separated into two blocks.
In the first block, it assumes that the sideslip angle is
given, and the tire forces are modeled as a random walk
model. In the second block, the sideslip angle is unknown
and estimated by the extended Kalman filter (EKF). The
similar idea is presented by Doumiati et al. (2010), in
which these two blocks are integrated into one block. In
Kim (2009), the vehicle model with four degrees of freedom
is presented and the sideslip angle is estimated by the
extended Kalman filter (EKF). In Vietinghoff et al. (2005),
This work is supported by the French ANR project PERCOIVE.

Copyright by the
International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC)

a nonlinear double track model for the sideslip angle and

the corresponding nonlinear observer with adaption of
a quality function is proposed. Other details about the
vehicle dynamics can be found in some excellent books,
e.g. Kiencke and Nielsen (2005), R. Rajamani and Grogg
(2006) and Jazar (2008).
In You et al. (2009) and Piyabongkarn et al. (2009),
the sideslip angle is calculated directly from the lateral
acceleration, the cornering stiffness and the tire steer
angle and the lateral tire forces are modeled linearly with
the tire sideslip angles. But they use different sideslip
angle estimation methods, the former uses the yaw-ratedynamics-based approach, while the latter employs a new
estimation methodology to estimate the sideslip angle,
which combines the yaw-rate-dynamics estimation and the
kinematics based estimation. The kinematic formula is
applied to obtain the sideslip angle in Cheli et al. (2007).
In Baffet et al. (2008), Kim (2009) and Cheli et al. (2007),
the sideslip angle is modeled by the state space models and
estimated by the EKF. State space models are popular for
the following reasons. The vehicle dynamic models are not
exactly the same as the true physical processes. Generally,
the practical physical processes are more complex than
the supposed models. They contain many incertitudes. In
the state space models, these incertitudes in the physical
processes can be treated as the noises, which makes the
results gotten by the state space models being more flexible
than the one of the direct computation. In this paper, we
estimate the sideslip angle from the nonlinear state spaces
models.
The EKF is widely used to estimate the sideslip angle from
the state space models for its simplicity. The EKF first
uses a first-order Taylor series expansion to approximate

6266

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress

Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

the nonlinear state transition equation as well as the measurement equation. After the approximation, the classical
Kalman filter can be used to estimate the states. When
the nonlinearity of the models is small, the deviation of the
linearisation is not big, the estimation results of the EKF
are acceptable. Therefore the EKF provides an accurate
sideslip angle estimation if the sideslip angle is small. But
the EKF estimation results become more and more biased,
as the sideslip angle increases and the nonlinearity of the
vehicle model is more obvious.
Another successful nonlinear filter is the particle filter
(PF), which can be regarded as an approximation of a recursive Bayesian filter. The principle of PF is to implement
a recursive Bayesian filter by Monte Carlo simulations. The
densities involved in the Bayesian filter are represented by
a set of random samples with associated weights (Arulampalam et al. (2002)). The advantage of PF is its ability to
process the nonlinear model with satisfactory accuracy. An
excellent tutorials of PF is given by Arulampalam et al.
(2002). How to choose the important distribution (ID) is
one of the key problem in the design of a PF. In classic
PF, the transition density is chosen as the ID. This choice
can not use the latest information of the observation and
when the variance of the state noise is large, the transition
density contains little information to predict new state, a
huge number of particles is needed in the PF. To better use
the latest information of the observation in the state space
models, a modified bootstrap filter (MBF), see Cheng and
Bondon (2009) and Cheng and Bondon (2011), is chosen
to estimate the hidden state.

gravity, while L2 is the one between the rear axle and the
center of gravity. E is the vehicle track. Vg is the velocity
at the center of gravity. is the sideslip angle at the center
of gravity. The ij , (i, j = 1, 2) is the sideslip angle at each
wheel.

11
Fy11
Fy11

Fx21

Vg
21

Fy22

12

Fy12

Fx11

12

Fx12

22
L1
Fx22

22
L2

Fig. 1. Double track model

A reduced nonlinear double track model is described by
the following equations:
1
Vg = [Fx11 cos( 11 ) + Fx12 cos( 12 )
m
+ Fx21 cos( 21 ) + Fx22 cos( 22 )
+ Fy11 sin( 11 ) + Fy12 sin( 12 )
+ Fy21 sin( 21 ) + Fy22 sin( 22 )]
1
= [L1 (Fy11 cos(11 ) + Fy12 cos(12 )
Iz
+ Fx11 sin(11 ) + Fx12 sin(12 ))
L2 (Fy21 cos(21 ) + Fy22 cos(22 ))
E
+ (Fy11 sin(11 ) Fy12 sin(12 )
2
+ Fx12 cos(12 ) Fx11 cos(11 )

2. VEHICLE MODEL

An illustration of this nonlinear double model is given in

Fig 1, where the aerodynamic drag force and the rolling
resistance are ignored. Further more, we suppose the road
is plane. Fy11 , Fy12 , Fy21 and Fy22 are the lateral forces
at the front left, front right, rear left and rear right wheel,
respectively. The Fxij , (i, j = 1, 2) is the corresponding
longitudinal force at each wheel. is the yaw rate and
ij , (i, j = 1, 2) are the steering angles at each wheel. L1
is the distance between the front axle and the center of

21

Fy21

In this paper we choose a nonlinear double track model

to describe the vehicle dynamics and use the Dugoff
model to calculate the lateral tire forces. The PF and the
MBF are employed to estimate the sideslip angle in this
nonlinear model. The remainder of this paper is organized
as follows. The vehicle model and the lateral tire forces
models are introduced in Sections 2. In Section 3, we
present two new nonlinear observers which use the PF and
the MBF to estimate the sideslip angle, respectively. The
simulation results are illustrated in Section 4. Finally, some
conclusions are given in Section 5.

The single track model has been widely used to describe

the vehicle dynamics for its simplicity, see Baffet et al.
(2006) and Baffet et al. (2008). However, the single track
model could not provide the detailed information of each
wheel, a sufficient accurate model is needed. Therefore,
we choose the nonlinear double track model which is
more accurate than the single track model. A detailed
presentation of the nonlinear double track model can be
found in Vietinghoff et al. (2005).

11

+ Fx22 cos(22 ) Fx21 cos(21 ))],

1
[Fx11 sin(11 ) + Fx12 sin(12 )
=
mVg
+ Fy11 cos(11 ) + Fy12 cos(12 )
+ Fy21 cos(21 ) + Fy22 cos(22 )

+ Fx21 sin(21 ) + Fx22 sin(22 )] ,

where m is the mass of the vehicle and Iz is the yaw
moment of the inertia. In this model, the velocity Vg and
the yaw rate can be measured by sensors equipped in
most of modern vehicles. These sensors are much cheaper
than the sensors used for detecting the sideslip angle .
The exact model of the tire-road contact forces is complex,
see Pacejka (2005). When the sideslip angle is small, the
lateral force is linear with the wheel slip angle. Fyij =

6267

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress

Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

Cij ij , i, j = 1, 2, where Cij is the cornering stiffness

of each wheel. When the sideslip angle increases, the
lateral force increases nonlinearly with it. After some
threshold, the road-tire forces begin to be saturated. For
the reason of simplicity, the linear model is popular used
in the literatures, see Kiencke and Nielsen (2005) and
Pacejka and Bakker (1993). The Pacejka Model (also called
the magic formula) contains some specific parameters
determined by the tire and the road conditions. When
these specific parameters are unknown, other models like
the Dugoff model (Dugoff et al. (1969)) are expected. In
this paper, we choose the Dugoff model.
The Dugoff model is more complex than the linear model,
defined as
Fyij = Cij tan ij f (),
(1)
where Cij is the cornering stiffness which is assumed to
be known, ij is the sideslip angle at each wheel and is
calculated by
L1
11 = 11
,
Vg
L1
,
12 = 12
Vg
L2
,
21 = +
Vg
L2
.
22 = +
Vg
and f () is a nonlinear function of the sideslip angle and
the vertical force,

(2 ) if < 1,
f () =
1
if 1,
and

Fzij
,
2Cij tan i,j
where is the friction coefficient between the tire and the
road, Fzij is the vertical force on the wheel.
=

3. THE DESIGN OF THE NONLINEAR OBSERVER

3.1 Nonlinear Observers
We propose two nonlinear observers which use the PF and
the MBF to estimate the sideslip angle , respectively. The
state variables, the observation variables and the input
variables are the following:
],
X = [Vg , ,
ay ],
Y = [Vg , ,
(2)
U = [11, 12, 21, 22, Fx11, Fx12 , Fx21 , Fx22 ,
Fz11 , Fz12 , Fz21 , Fz22 ],
where ay is the lateral acceleration measured directly by
inertial sensors. It is calculated by
1
ay = (Fy11 cos(11 ) + Fy12 cos(12 ) + Fy21 cos(21 )
m
+ Fy22 cos(22 ) + Fx11 sin(11 ) + Fx12 sin(12 ))
+ Fx21 sin(21 ) + Fx22 sin(22 ).
All the lateral tire forces are calculated by the Dugoff
model (Equation (1)).

In the following, we use an Euler discretization for all

continuous variables in (2) to obtain a discrete time
system. Then, the state variables can be estimated by the
PF and the MBF, respectively.
3.2 Particle filter
Consider a dynamic nonlinear discrete time system described by the following state-space model
xt = f (xt1 ) + ut ,
(3)
yt = h(xt ) + vt ,
(4)
where xt is the hidden state, yt is the observation, ut
and vt are the state and observation noises. Both noises
are independent and identically distributed sequences and
are mutually independent. When we write (3), we always
assume implicitly that ut is independent of {xtk , k 1}.
This condition is natural when the process (xt ) is generated from the model in the increasing time order. Then,
xt is a homogeneous Markov chain, i.e., the conditional
probability density of xt given the past states x0:t1 =
(x0 , . . . , xt1 ) depends only on xt1 through the transition
density p(xt |xt1 ). The conditional probability density of
yt given the states x0:t and the past observations y1:t1
depends only on xt through the conditional likelihood
p(yt |xt ). We further assume that the initial state x0 is
distributed according to a density function p(x0 ).
The objective of filtering is to estimate the posterior density of the state given the past observations p(xt |y1:t ). A
recursive update of the posterior density as new observations arrive, is given by the recursive Bayesian filter defined
by
Z
p(xt |y1:t1 ) = p(xt |xt1 )p(xt1 |y1:t1 )dxt1 ,
p(yt |xt )p(xt |y1:t1 )
,
p(yt |y1:t1 )
where the conditional density p(yt |y1:t1 ) can be calculated by
Z
p(yt |y1:t1 ) = p(yt |xt )p(xt |y1:t1 )dxt .
p(xt |y1:t ) =

The difficulty to implement the recursive Bayesian filter

is that the integrals are intractable, except for a linear
Gaussian system in which case the closed-form solution of
the integral equations is the well known Kalman filter.
The PF uses Monte Carlo methods to calculate the integrals. The posterior density p(x0:t |y1:t ) is represented by
a set of N random samples xi0:t (particles) drawn from
i
p(x
1:t ) with associated normalized positive weights t
P0:t |y
i
( i t = 1). The posterior density is approximated by the
discrete distribution,
N
X
ti xi0:t ,
p(x0:t |y1:t )
i=1

where is the Dirac function.

In general, it is difficult to sample directly from the full
posterior density. To overcome this difficulty, the method
of importance sampling (Robert and Casella (2004)) is
used. We draw particles xi0:t , i = 1, . . . , N from an easy
sampling ID q(x0:t |y1:t ) and define the non-normalized
weights as

6268

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress

Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

ti =

p(xi0:t |y1:t )
.
q(xi0:t |y1:t )

(2011)) is developed in which a two-stage sampling technique is used :

For the purpose of sequential implementation of the filtering, we suppose that the ID could factorize as
q(x0:t |y1:t ) = q(xt |x0:t1 , y1:t )q(x0:t1 |y1:t1 ),
where the density p(xt |y1:t ) is a marginal of the full
posterior density p(x0:t |y1:t ). Then, the weight could be
updated sequentially as
p(yt |xit )p(xit |xit1 )
i
ti t1
.
(5)
q(xit |xit1 , yt )
We can implement recursively a basic sequential importance sampling (SIS) PF in the following steps (Arulampalam et al., 2002) :
(1) Sample the particles xit q(xt |xit1 , yt );
(2) Update the weights according to (5).
A serious problem of the PF is the degeneracy problem.
After some iterations, only few particles have non negligible weights so that the estimation may become unreliable.
The sampling importance resampling filter has been developed by Gordon et al. (1993) to overcome this drawback.
The objective of resampling is to eliminate samples with
low importance weights and multiply samples with high
importance weights. Several methods of resampling have
been developed, such as the multinomial resampling, the
residual resampling and the systematic resampling. Here,
we use the residual resampling (Cappe et al. (2005)).
3.3 A modified bootstrap filter
Another problem of PF is the ID choice. The optimal ID
should satisfy q(xt |x0:t1 , y1:t ) = p(xt |xt1 , yt ) and fully
exploit the information both in xt1 and yt , see e.g. Liu
and Chen (1998) and Doucet et al. (2000). In practice, this
distribution is unknown for a general nonlinear model and
therefore, it is impossible to sample from it. The second
choice of ID is the transition density, since it is easy to
sample. This choice leads to the standard bootstrap filter
(BF).
The BF just uses the transition density as the ID but omits
the information of the observation. When the likelihood
lies in the tails of the transition density or it is too narrow,
most particles drawn from the transition density have
small weights and the estimation is not reliable. In this
case, the likelihood provides more information than the
transition density does.

(1) For j = 1, . . . , M , draw xti,j p(xt |xit1 ) and

compute the conditional likelihood p(yt |xi,j
t ).
i,j
(2) Select the particle xt whose conditional likelihood

.
is maximum and set xit = xi,j
t
In the first step, the particles move randomly according
to the prior information like in the BF, and in the second
step, the information yt is used to select the particle with
high conditional likelihood.
The corresponding MBF is described in the following
algorithm:
Algorithm: Modified bootstrap filter.
Initialization, t = 0
for i = 0 to N do
Draw particle xi0 p(x0 ) and set t = 1
end for
for t = 1 to T do
for i = 1 to N do
for j = 1 to M do
i
Draw particle xi,j
t p(xt |xt1 )
Compute the conditional likelihood p(yt |xi,j
t )
end for

) is maximum
such that p(yt |xi,j
Select xi,j
t
t

Set xit = xi,j

t
end for
Resample particle from the xit according to the
weights p(yt |xit )
end for

As we mentioned before, the state variables are estimated

by the PF and the MBF. We choose the transition density
as the ID in the design of the PF. The covariances of the
measurement noise and of the state noise are determined
empirically according to the experimental conditions.
The main disadvantage of the PF is that there is no
general rule for choosing the number of particle. To achieve
accurate result, a large number of particles should be
used in the PF and the MBF. At the same time, increasing the number of particles means adding computational
complexity. A compromise between estimation precise and
computational time should be made carefully .
4. SIMULATION RESULTS

To improve the performance of the PF, we have two

choices. The first one is drawing more particles. The second
is using the information of yt and let the particles move
towards the region of high likelihood. In the practical
application, the variance of the state noise is larger than
the variance of the observation noise, the transition density
(prior information) contains little information to predict
the future state. In this case, as pointed out in Van der
Merwe et al. (2000) : It is therefore of paramount importance to move the particles towards the regions of high
likelihood.

In our simulations, all the data are generated by the

CALLAS software, which is a professional vehicle dynamic
simulator developed by OKTAL Company. The CALLAS
can take into account lots of practical influences like vertical suspension, tires type, engine model, kinematics, tire
adhesion and aerodynamics. The simulation environment
given by the CALLAS is very close to the practical experimental environment. To test the performance of different observers, two classic experiments are given by the
CALLAS software: The Chicane test and the Slalom test.

To better use the observation information, the MBF

(Cheng and Bondon (2009) and Cheng and Bondon

The performances of sideslip estimator based on the PF

and the MBF are compared with the one based on the

6269

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress

Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

Filter

RMSE (degree)

EKF
PF
MBF

2.37
1.95
1.33

1
0.8

Table 1. Estimation results of the sideslip angle: Chicane test

0.6

Lateral accleration

0.4

EKF. To measure the performance of the state estimation

xt for t = 1, . . . , T (T is the number of the total sampling
number), we introduce the root mean-squared error
v
u
T
u1 X
RM SE = t
(xt x
t )2 .
T t=1

0.2
0
0.2
0.4

4.1 Chicane test

0.6

First, a Chicane test is doing to compare the performance

of different observers. The road condition is set to be dry
( = 1.1). The initial velocity of vehicle is 80km/h, the
sampling interval is 0.01 second. We use 3000 particles in
the PF and in the MBF. We choose M = 3 in the MBF.
The sideslip angle estimation results are shown in Fig 3.
When the sideslip angle is small ( < 4 degrees), all the
estimators could provide accurate estimation. In Fig 3,
in time interval 0 to 2, the dot line (EKF estimation),
the dash line (PF estimation), dot-dash line (the MBF
estimation) and the solid line (true value) are almost
overlap. When the sideslip angle increases, from time
interval 2 to 6, the four lines diverge obviously, the dotdash line is closer to the solid line than the other two lines,
the dot line deviates from the solid line. So the EKF can
not track the true angle when sideslip angle > 4. The PF
and the MBF give better estimation than the EKF. The
MBF could further improve the performances of the PF.
The RMSE of the different estimators is listed in Table 1.
The MBF has a smallest RMSE among the 3 filters, and its
RMSE is less than 60% of EKFs RMSE. The PF follows
the MBF and its RMSE is 80% of EKFs RMSE. The
g-g diagram of longitudinal and lateral accelerations is
shown in Fig 2. It is clear that the acceleration exceeds the
stability limit of 0.4g. The vehicle is spining and losing of
control.

0.8
1
0.04

0.02

0
0.02
0.04
Longitudinal accleration

0.08

Fig. 2. g-g diagram: Chicane test

12
true
PF
MBF
EKF

10
8

sideslip angle

6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8

4.2 Slalom test

Then, we do a Slalom test. The road condition is set to be
sliding ( = 0.4 and is supposed to be known). The initial
velocity of vehicle is also 80km/h, the sampling interval
is 0.01 second. The sideslip angle estimation results are
presented in Fig 5. We use 2000 particles in the PF and
in the MBF. We set M = 3 in the MBF. When the
sideslip angle is small, see the time interval 0 to 4 in Fig 5,
all the estimators could provide accurate estimation. But
as the sideslip angle increases, see time interval 4 to 10,
the sideslip angle is over-estimated by the EKF. The PF
and the MBF can still provide accurate estimate in this
situation. The performance of the MBF is a little better
than the PF. The RMSEs of the different estimators are
listed in Table 2. The RMSEs of the MBF and the PF are
only 10% of that of the EKF and the MBF has a smaller
RMSE than the PF does. Since the estimation accuracy
of PF is good enough, the MBF can only increase a little

0.06

3
time

Fig. 3. Sideslip angle estimation results: Chicane test

Filter

RMSE (degree)

EKF
PF
MBF

4.121
0.427
0.394

Table 2. Estimation results of the sideslip angle: Slalom test

this accuracy in this experiment compared with the first
one. This means in the cases the PF works well, the MBF
has performance at least as good as the PF does; while
in the cases the PF has medium performance, the MBF
can enhance the estimation precision. The g-g diagram
of the longitudinal and the lateral accelerations is shown
in Fig 4.

6270

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress

Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

REFERENCES
0.6

0.4

Lateral accleration

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8
0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05
0
0.05
Longitudinal accleration

0.1

0.15

Fig. 4. g-g diagram: Slalom test

15
true
PF
MBF
EKF

10

sideslip angle

5
0
5
10
15
20
25

6
time

10

12

Fig. 5. Sideslip angle estimation results: Slalom test

5. CONCLUSIONS
Two nonlinear observers have been proposed to estimate
the sideslip angle . These observers are based the nonlinear
double track model which is more accurate than the single
track model. The Dugoff model has been used to describe
the relation of the slip angle and the tire road forces.
Two nonlinear filters, the PF and MBF are employed
to conveniently process the nonlinearly structure and to
obtain satisfactory results. This is well demonstrated when
the sideslip angle is large. The estimation results given
by the PF and the MBF are more accurate than the one
given by the EKF. Whats more, the MBF can provide
better results than the PF, specially when the PF can not
guarantee precise results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Arulampalam, S., Maskell, S., Gordon, N., and Clapp, T. (2002).

A tutorial on particle filter for on-line nonlinear/non-gaussian
Bayesian tracking. IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 50(2), 174188.
Baffet, G., Charara, A., Lechner, D., and Thomas, D. (2008).
Experimental evaluation of observers for tire-road forces, sideslip
angle, and wheel cornering stiffness. Vehicle Sytem Dynamics,
46(6), 501520.
Baffet, G., Charara, A., and St
ephant, J. (2006). Sideslip angle,
lateral force and road friction estimation in simulation and experiments. In IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, 903908. Munich, Germany.
Capp
e, O., Douc, R., and Moulines, E. (2005). Comparison of resampling schemes for particle filtering. In International Symposium
on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis. Zagreb, Croatia.
Cheli, F., Sabbioni, E., Pesce, M., and Melzi, S. (2007). A methodology for vehicle sideslip angle identification: comparison with
experimental data. Vehicle Sytem Dynamics, 45(6), 549563.
Cheng, Q. and Bondon, P. (2009). A modified bootstrap filter. In
IEEE International Workshop on Robotic and Sensors Enviromments. Lecco, Italy.
Cheng, Q. and Bondon, P. (2011). A new sampling method in particle
filter. Submitted.
Doucet, A., Godsill, S., and Andrieu, C. (2000). On sequential Monte
Carlo sampling methods for Bayesian filtering. Statistics and
Computing, 10(3), 197208.
Doumiati, M., Victorino, A., Charara, A., and Lechner, D. (2010).
On-board real-time estimation of vehicle lateral tire-road forces
and sideslip angle. Unpublished paper.
Dugoff, H., Fancher, P.S., and Segal, L. (1969). Tire performance
characteristics affecting vehicle response to steering and braking
control inputs. Final report, Office of Vehicle System Research,
National Bureau of Standards.
Gordon, N.J., Salmond, D.J., and Smith, A.F.M. (1993). Novel
approach to nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian state estimation.
IEE Proceedings-F, 140(2), 107113.
Jazar, R. (2008). Vehicle Dynamics: Theory and Applications.
Springer, New York, USA.
Kiencke, U. and Nielsen, L. (2005). Automotive Control Systems.
Springer, New York, USA, second edition.
Kim, J. (2009). Identification of lateral tyre force dynamics using an
extended kalman filter from experimental road test data. Control
Engineering Practice, 17(3), 357367.
Liu, J. and Chen, R. (1998). Sequential Monte Carlo methods for
dynamic systems. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 93(443), 10321044.
Pacejka, H.B. (2005). Tire and vehicle dynamics. SAE International,
second edition.
Pacejka, H.B. and Bakker, E. (1993). The magic formula type model.
Vehicle Sytem Dynamics, 21(supplment), 118.
Piyabongkarn, D., Rajamani, R., Grogg, J.A., and Lew, J.Y. (2009).
Development and experimantal evalution of a slip angle estimator
for vehicle stability control. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Tech.,
17(1), 7888.
R. Rajamani, D. Piyabongkarn, J.L. and Grogg, J. (2006). Algorithms for real-time estimation of individual wheel tire road
friction coeficients. In American Control Conference. Minnesota,
USA.
Robert, C.P. and Casella, G. (2004). Monte Carlo statistical
methods. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition.
Van der Merwe, R., de Freitas, N., Doucet, A., and Wan, E. (2000).
The unscented particle filter. In Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems.
Vietinghoff, A.V., Hiemer, M., and Kiencke, U. (2005). Nonlinear
observer design for lateral vehicle dynamics. In IFAC World
Congress. Prague, Czech Republic.
You, S., Hahn, J., and Lee, H. (2009). New adaptive approaches to
real-time estimation of vehicle sideslip angle. Control Engineering
Practice, 17(12), 13671379.

The authors are grateful to two anonymous referees for

their helpful comments.
6271