You are on page 1of 10


PAPER SERIES 2002-01-0967

Influence of Active Chassis Systems on Vehicle

Propensity to Maneuver-Induced Rollovers
Aleksander Hac
Delphi Automotive Systems

Reprinted From: Vehicle Dynamics and Simulation 2002


SAE 2002 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 4-7, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or
108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

Influence of Active Chassis Systems on Vehicle Propensity to

Maneuver-Induced Rollovers
Aleksander Hac
Delphi Automotive Systems

Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT stability enhancement systems, active steer systems, or

controllable suspensions. This is a very serious limitation
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate through as such systems become quite common.
simulations the effects of active chassis systems on
vehicle propensity to rollover caused by aggressive There are good reasons to believe, as well as significant
handling maneuvers. A 16 degree-of-freedom computer body of evidence indicating that active chassis control
model of a full vehicle is used for this purpose. It systems markedly increase vehicle resistance to
includes models of active chassis systems and the rollover. For example, Marine et al. (1999) have shown
associated control algorithms, and allows for simulation by analyzing vehicle behavior in a lane change
of vehicle dynamic behavior under large roll angles. The maneuvers that a likelihood of two wheel lift off is
controllable chassis systems considered in this increasing with increasing steering angle and vehicle
investigation are active rear steer, brake based vehicle yaw rate. Thus vehicle oversteer is an important factor
stability enhancement system and active anti-roll bar. contributing to rollover. Since brake based stability
The maneuvers used in simulation are the double lane enhancement systems reduce vehicle tendency to
change and the fishhook maneuvers with increasing oversteer and reduce lateral slip velocity of vehicle, they
steering amplitudes. The vehicle represents a midsize can be expected to reduce probability of rollover. This
SUV with a marginal static stability factor of 1.09 and conjuncture was confirmed by a simulation study
aggressive tires. The results of simulations demonstrate performed by Ungoren et al. (2001), in which SUVs were
that the uncontrolled vehicle rolls over in both subjected to aggressive handling maneuvers. While the
maneuvers when the steering angle is sufficiently large. vehicle without the control system experienced two
Each active control system significantly increases wheel lift off in several maneuvers, the vehicle with the
rollover stability either the vehicle cannot be rolled brake based stability enhancement system turned on did
over regardless of the magnitude of the steering angle, not exhibit tipping tendencies in the same maneuvers
or the amplitude of the steering angle necessary to and generally experienced lower roll angles.
rollover the vehicle is markedly increased.
Meanwhile other systems are investigated or are under
INTRODUCTION development, which specifically target the rollover
prevention. For example, Palkovics et al. (1998)
With growing popularity among consumers of vehicles describe a system for commercial trucks, which detects
with high centers of gravity, evaluation of rollover when outside wheels are about to lift off during cornering
propensity of these vehicles becomes an issue of by judicious application of brakes and throttle and
increasing importance. Fundamentally, there exists two observing wheel slip. The system then applies front
classes of tests designed to predict or evaluate vehicle brakes to reduce the lateral acceleration. A similar
tendency to rollover: static tests involving measurements system was proposed by Wielenga (Wielenga, 1999;
of vehicle parameters (usually distances), which are Wielenga and Chace, 2000), in which front brakes are
related to vehicle rollover behavior, and dynamic tests in applied when lateral acceleration of vehicle exceeds a
which vehicle is put through a set of severe handling threshold. Since lateral acceleration alone is a poor
maneuvers, which may induce two wheel lift off. Static predictor of impending rollover (Marine et al., 1999),
tests usually provide a simple indicator, such as a static Eisele and Peng (2000) considered a control algorithm,
stability factor, tilt table ratio, side pull ratio or critical in which brakes were applied when a linear combination
sliding velocity. In most cases these measures do not of roll angle, roll rate and lateral acceleration exceeded a
include the effects of suspension and tire compliance. threshold. This anti-rollover feature was added to the
Worst still, they do not incorporate any effects of existing vehicle stability control algorithm, which
electronically controlled chassis systems, such as primarily controls vehicle motion in the yaw plane.
Ackerman at al. (1999) proposed a system in which the explained for each system. Subsequently, the results of
height of vehicle center of mass was estimated on line, simulations are presented followed by conclusions.
and active steering and braking were applied when the
lateral acceleration approached a threshold value VEHICLE MODEL
derived from a static stability factor. With advent of these
and other active rollover prevention systems, the static The vehicle model used in this study was developed as
measures of rollover stability will become even less a tool for testing of active chassis control systems at the
useful. development stage, as well as for hardware in the loop
simulations. The model has a total of 16 degrees of
Dynamic rollover testing typically consists of aggressive freedom, excluding the dynamics of subsystems. Vehicle
handling maneuvers, involving rapid steering and body is modeled as a rigid body, which can perform
sometimes braking, performed on dry smooth surface three translations and three rotations. In the case of all
(Garrot et al., 1999). In this type of tests, vehicle independent suspensions each wheel has two degrees
behavior is affected by many design variables not of freedom: rotation about the lateral axis and vertical
considered in the static tests, such as the effect of translation. In the case of a rigid axle, the axle has two
suspension and tires, and the influence of active chassis degrees of freedom, corresponding to axis roll and
systems, which significantly affect vehicle behavior at heave. In addition, both front and rear wheels can be
the limit. However, dynamic rollover tests are dangerous steered. There are two types of inputs to the model:
and expensive. Thus only limited number of tests can driver inputs, such as steering wheel angle, brake pedal
realistically be performed and there is always a force and throttle position, and environmental inputs,
possibility that a vehicle, which performed well in a few such as road displacement under each wheel, road
tests, could roll over under slightly modified maneuver. inclination angles, and surface coefficient of adhesion
In addition, it is difficult to achieve consistent results. between each tire and the road.
The main reason is that the vehicle is on the verge of
loosing stability, which by the very definition is a The model features simplified models of brake,
condition when small changes in the inputs, powertrain and steering systems, which relate driver
disturbances, vehicle parameters, or environment can brake, throttle and steering inputs to wheel torques and
result large changes in the output, that is the outcome of front steering angle. The brake system model includes
the test. Therefore there is a need to supplement the master cylinder, modulator, calipers and hydraulic
tests results with the results of simulation. Simulation circuit. It determines brake torque applied to each wheel
can also be a useful tool in predicting rollover propensity from the brake pedal force. The brake model includes
of vehicle at a design stage. ABS and TCS functions in simplified forms. The
powertrain model includes a model of an automatic
In this paper, the influence of three presently available transmission. It uses a map of engine torque and gear
controlled chassis systems on vehicle rollover resistance shift pattern and takes into account inertia of the engine
is investigated. The chassis systems considered in this and the drivertrain to determine the driving torque on the
study are the active rear steer (ARS), the brake based driven wheels. The model of the front steer system
vehicle stability enhancement (VSE) system and the relates the steering wheel angle to the front wheel angle.
active roll bar, referred to as dynamic body control A simple model of the actuator for active rear steer is
(DBC) system. The main purpose of the first two also included. The model also includes simplified
systems is to improve vehicle yaw response, that is the versions of vehicle stability enhancement, active rear
balance between responsiveness and stability in the yaw steer and active roll bars algorithms. The tire model
plane. The DBC system is primarily used to improve the used here is a parametric model, which can be
balance of ride and handling, in particular to reduce considered a modification of Duggoffs model (Bernard
vehicle body roll during cornering maneuvers. The et al., 1977, Wong, 1993). It includes the effects of tire
control algorithms considered here do not include any normal load on tire longitudinal and lateral stiffness
measures specifically targeting rollover prevention. The coefficients and on the surface coefficient of adhesion.
vehicle responses to a double lane change and In addition, the surface coefficient of adhesion is a
Fishhook steering inputs are simulated for a passive function of the velocity of sliding of the wheel with
vehicle and vehicles equipped with each one of the respect to the road. The effect of dynamic delay in
active chassis systems. The maneuvers are repeated building the lateral tire force is modeled by a first order
with increasing amplitude of steering angle until either filter, whose time constant depends on vehicle speed
the vehicle rolls over or the maximum steering angle is and relaxation length of the tire. The model has been
reached. The vehicle parameters represent a midsize validated against vehicle test data.
SUV with all independent suspension and a static
stability factor of 1.09. The model has a number of features, which make it
suitable for simulating vehicle rollover maneuvers up to
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, about 45 degrees of roll angle measured with respect to
the vehicle model used in simulations is briefly road surface. Specifically,
described. The fundamental control objectives are then
1. The model does not use a small roll angle ACTIVE CHASSIS CONTROL SYSTEMS
assumption. This requires additional transformation
of variables between the vehicle body fixed The active chassis systems considered in this paper are
reference frame and the frame attached to the road the brake based vehicle stability enhancement system,
surface, as well as modification of equations of active rear steer system, and active roll bar. In what
motion when two wheels lift off the ground. follows we provide a brief description of their basic
2. The effects of suspension jacking forces are functions. More detailed descriptions can be found in the
included. These are vertical components of the references cited below.
forces in lateral links of suspension. These links are
usually not parallel to the ground, so that during VEHICLE STABILITY ENHANCEMENT (VSE) systems
cornering the forces acting along these links have are active safety systems that control the response of
vertical components, which do not cancel out. As a vehicle to steering inputs at or near the limit of adhesion
result, they have a tendency to lift vehicle center of by selectively applying brakes to individual wheels
gravity during hard cornering. independently of the driver. The main objective of control
3. Nonlinerities in suspension stiffness characteristics, is to make the vehicle more predictable and easier to
including the bushings, and in damping control by the driver in emergency maneuvers by
characteristics are modeled using look up tables. reducing the difference between the vehicle behavior at
The nonlinearities in suspension stiffness the limit and in the linear range of handling behavior.
characteristics are important in modeling rollover This is accomplished by correcting excessive oversteer
events, since suspension stiffness characteristics or understeer through selective application of brakes to
are usually progressive. Consequently during one or more wheels. In order to perform these tasks the
cornering maneuvers compression of outside system must have means to determine the desired
suspension is less than the extension of the inside response of vehicle, compare it with measured or
suspension, which causes upward shift of vehicle estimated response and, if a sufficient discrepancy
center of gravity. The effect of suspension between the two is detected, apply corrective action.
nonlinearities is particularly significant when vehicle
is fully loaded, since in this case the outside
suspension can be fully compressed during heavy
cornering. This generates high jacking forces, which
lift the body up. Concurrently, the normal tire forces
increase, which may increase lateral forces and
lateral acceleration.
4. The model includes the effect of change in vehicle
half-track width during cornering resulting from
lateral deformation of tires, suspension kinematics
and lateral compliance of suspension. The
reduction in vehicle half-track width under dynamic
conditions, combined with increase of vehicle center
of gravity height due to jacking effects of suspension
affects rollover stability.
5. The model permits simulation of vehicle response
with payloads, as long as the mass, location and Figure1. Functional Diagram of Vehicle Stability
inertial properties of payload are known. The model Enhancement System
determines the static suspension deflections and
calculates the variables of interest with respect to A typical control system consists of the following building
the new operating point, while maintaining proper blocks, illustrated in Figure 1.
limits on suspension deflections. This is important
for proper modeling of bottoming out of suspension 1) Sensors, which measure driver inputs and vehicle
as discussed above. response. The measured driver inputs typically
6. The tire model includes the dependency of tire include steering angle, brake pedal force and throttle
longitudinal and lateral stiffness coefficients and the position. The vehicle response is measured in terms
surface coefficient of adhesion on the normal load. of lateral acceleration, yaw rate and wheel speeds,
The character of these relationships has a dramatic from which vehicle reference speed is derived.
influence on the rollover dynamics, because at the There are usually additional sensors within brake
rollover threshold the normal forces of the outside and powertrain subsystems.
tires are about double their static values. In addition, 2) Vehicle reference model, which generates the
the effect of tire camber angle on tire forces is desired vehicle response in terms of the desired yaw
described through extrapolation of existing models, rate and the desired side slip angle or side slip rate,
since the data for very large camber angles is not using primarily driver inputs and vehicle reference
readily available for automotive tires. speed.
3) Estimation block, which provides estimates of speeds, improve stability at high speeds and improve
vehicle reference speed, the surface coefficient of vehicle transient response to steering inputs. The first
adhesion and usually vehicle side slip angle and objective is achieved by steering the rear wheels out of
side slip rate. Other estimation functions may be phase with the front at low speeds, since this reduces
performed by subsystems, for example estimation of the radius of turns. Improving stability requires limiting
driving torque at the driven wheels. vehicle tendency to oversteer. Vehicle oversteer,
4) Vehicle level control block, which compares the followed by a loss of control, is often caused by a rapid
desired values of yaw rate and usually side slip change in sign of the steering angle at high speeds. This
angle with the measured or estimated values and causes a quick change in the direction of the lateral
calculates the necessary correction. The correction force of the front axle, while the rear axle force, which
is typically expressed in terms of corrective yaw lags the front, still acts in the opposite direction. During
moment applied to the vehicle, or desired wheel slip transient, both lateral forces, which are opposite in
correction. To generate these signals, closed loop signs, generate a large yaw moment, which begins to
control of yaw rate and usually side slip angle or rotate the vehicle more rapidly than driver intends,
side slip rate is used. eventually leading to oversteer and possibly spin out. In
5) System level controllers, which include powertrain order to advance the phase of rear lateral force to match
controller and brake modulator. They employ local closer that of the front axle, the rear wheels must be
control loops to achieve the target values of wheel steered in phase with the front ones. This makes the
slips or wheel torques as determined by the vehicle vehicle more stable in quick evasive maneuvers, since
level controller. vehicle yaw rate and its rate of change are reduced.

More detailed descriptions of the vehicle stability It is known that in emergency lane change maneuvers
enhancement systems can be found in van Zanten et al. both objective task performance measures and drivers
(1995) or Hac (1998). An excellent coverage of issues subjective ratings of handling quality improve when the
involved in estimation of sides slip angle is provided by phase lags between the steering angle input and lateral
Nishio et al. (2001). acceleration and yaw rate responses are kept small. In
addition, it is desirable to keep the lags in lateral
What is important from the viewpoint of rollover acceleration and yaw rate approximately equal
resistance, is that the stability enhancement algorithms throughout the entire range of speeds. The lateral
control vehicle response in the yaw plane and acceleration and yaw rate are related via the following
specifically vehicle yaw rate and slip angle or slip rate. kinematic expression
They do not include any explicit considerations of (1)
vehicle roll angle. Nevertheless, by limiting the vehicle
where ay is lateral acceleration, is yaw rate, vx and vy
side slip angle and therefore lateral velocity, they make it
are longitudinal and lateral velocities, respectively. Thus
less likely for a vehicle to roll over either with or without
both ay and are in phase when the derivative of lateral
tripping mechanism. In a tripped rollover a minimum
velocity is kept low, which can be approximately
sliding velocity (about 6 m/s for a typical SUV) is
achieved by keeping the lateral velocity small. It is easy
required to trip the vehicle and tip it over. During
to show (Furukawa et al., 1989) that for a simplified
untripped rollover, maximum lateral forces on both
bicycle handling model, the steady state value of lateral
outside tires are needed to generate peak lateral
velocity can be brought to zero over the entire speed
acceleration necessary to initiate rollover. The maximum
range if the rear wheels are steered in proportion to the
lateral forces are achieved on dry surface at large tire
front wheels, that is
side slip angles, typically in the range of 10-20 degrees.
r = K ff (v x ) f (2)
Such large sideslip angles cannot be achieved at the
rear axle without a large vehicle side slip angle where f and r are and the front and rear steering
(oversteer). This can be confirmed by analyzing the angles, respectively, and the feedforward gain, Kff, is the
rollover data provided by Marine et al. (1999), which following function of velocity:
shows that in maneuvers with two wheel lift off the Ma 2
b+ vx
magnitudes of yaw rate were significantly larger than in Cr l
the maneuvers in which vehicle remained stable, while K ff 0 = (3)
Mb 2
the peak lateral accelerations remained roughly the a+ vx
same. It must be concluded that in the maneuvers with
rollover stability problem, vehicle typically experienced Here a and b denote the distances of vehicle center of
heavy oversteer with large side slip angles, even though mass from front and rear axles, respectively, l=a+b is
the side slip angles were not recorded. vehicle wheelbase, M is total vehicle mass, Cf and Cr are
the cornering stiffness coefficients of front and rear
ACTIVE REAR STEER (ARS) is another type of active axles, respectively. The above gain as a function of
chassis control system, which limits vehicle oversteer vehicle speed is illustrated in Figure 2 for a midsize
and improves handling. The main objectives of this SUV.
system are to enhance vehicle maneuverability at low
Figure 2.Feedforward Gain for Active Rear Steer System

The gain is negative at low speeds and positive at high

speeds, which is consistent with the requirements of Figure 3. Active Roll Bars with Linear and Rotary
vehicle maneuverability at low speeds and stability at Actuators
high speeds The gain computed from equation (3) calls
for a large steering angle at the rear wheels at low In the dynamic body control system, linear or rotary
speeds when the front wheels are steered sharply. It hydraulic actuators act on conventional roll bars to
also yields very low, often subjectively objectionable, provide forces that resist vehicle roll, as shown in Figure
yaw rates in quick transients maneuvers performed at 3. The actuators are controlled by two-way valves, which
high speeds. In practice therefore the gain is scaled determine the chamber of the actuator to which the
down, with the precise shape determined by vehicle hydraulic pressure generated by a pump is supplied.
tuning. Feedforward control of the rear steering angle During normal, straight line driving the actuators are not
according to equation (2) appears to be the most pressurized, so that left and right roll bar assemblies can
commonly used. In addition, a feedback control loop can rotate relatively freely with respect to each other, without
be employed, as described by Fujita et al. (1998). In this generating a significant roll resisting moment. This
study only a feedforward control of rear steering angle is improves vehicle response to road inputs on one side of
assumed, with the gain being a scaled down version of vehicle. During cornering, pressurized fluid is supplied to
that given by equation (3) with the scale factor of 0.4. properly selected chambers of the actuator, creating a
Similarly to the VSE system, the active rear steer system torsional moment in the roll bar that opposes the roll
does not specifically target vehicle rollover, but an motion of vehicle body. The control algorithm uses
improvement in rollover resistance is expected as a measured lateral acceleration of vehicle to determine the
byproduct of limiting vehicle tendency to oversteer, desired pressure in the chambers of front and rear
which is a precondition of most rollovers. actuator (Everett et al., 2000). Depending on the
particular system hardware, sensors, and control
DYNAMIC BODY CONTROL. The third type of active algorithm, the roll resisting moment may be divided
chassis system considered in this paper is an active between front and rear axle in constant or varied
body roll control system, which is here referred to as proportions. In more advanced systems, the proportions
dynamic body control (DBC). This type of system is of the roll moment can be varied in real time as a
particularly beneficial for SUVs. Design of passive function of vehicle yaw response (measured by sensor)
suspensions for this type of vehicle poses significant relative to the desired yaw rate (Everett et al., 2000). In
challenges because of wide spectrum of conditions this study a simpler system responsive to lateral
under which vehicle operates. During off road use acceleration and with fixed roll moment distribution is
vehicle may be subjected to large ground inputs, usually considered.
of low frequency. This calls for large ground clearance
and large axle articulation to maintain traction in these Practical DBC systems operate under a number of
conditions, thus requiring also large suspension travel. constraints of which the limits on the power of the
At the same time, the vehicle must achieve acceptable system (limited by the power of the hydraulic pump) and
handling and ride characteristics during operation on the maximum torque (limited by the size of actuators and
paved roads. This leads to design compromises, often hydraulic pressure) are the most important from the
resulting in large body roll angles during cornering viewpoint of this study. Due to the limit on the magnitude
maneuvers. The purpose of dynamic body control is to of torque, the vehicle body experiences some roll during
improve these trade-offs. The main design goals are to steady-state cornering with large lateral acceleration,
maintain or improve axle articulation over uneven which is considered desirable by virtue of providing
terrain, to improve ride quality during road use and to additional feedback to the driver. The limit of the power
reduce body roll angle during cornering.
supplied influences vehicle response in quick transient
maneuvers, when sudden changes in the magnitude
and/or direction of the lateral acceleration result in fast
roll rates and large power demand to reduce roll angle.
Both of these limitations influence vehicle propensity to
maneuver-induced rollovers.


In order to evaluate the effects of active chassis systems

on vehicle tendency to rollover during emergency
handling maneuvers, a series of simulations were
conducted. The vehicle parameter data used in this
study represents a midsize SUV with all independent Figure 5. Maximum Steering Angle Amplitudes without
suspension and a static stability factor of 1.09. The Rollover for Double Lane Change Maneuver
selected maneuvers discussed here are the double lane
change maneuver and the fishhook maneuver with the The results of simulations performed for the double lane
initial speed of 30 m/s (67 mph). The steering patterns change maneuver are summarized in Figure 5. It shows
for both maneuvers are illustrated in Figure 4. Each of the maximum amplitudes of the steering angle for each
these maneuvers can lead to heavy oversteer, which is vehicle, for which the maneuver could be performed
a contributing factor in rollovers. All simulated without rolling over. The vehicles considered are a
maneuvers were performed as open loop steering passive vehicle with no active control systems, the same
control maneuvers, without any driver model vehicle with vehicle stability enhancement system
representing drivers reaction to vehicle response. Each (VSE), with active rear steer system (ARS), with
of the maneuvers was repeated a number of times with dynamic body control (DBC) system, with both VSE and
the same speed of entry, and the same steering pattern, ARS, and finally with both VSE and DBC systems. The
but with increasing amplitude A of the steering angle. As maximum steering angle amplitude that can be reached
the amplitude increased, the vehicle eventually either without inducing rollover for the passive vehicle is 180
rolled over, or the maximum steering angle of 540 degrees, but at that steering angle vehicle developed a
degrees was reached. The rate of change of the steering very large side slip angle, just over 50 degrees. For the
angle was limited to 1000 deg/s, which approximately vehicle with VSE, the maximum steering amplitude of
corresponds to the maximum rate that can be generated 300 degrees could be achieved without rollover, for the
by human drivers. vehicle with ARS the steering amplitude at the rollover
threshold was 240 degrees, and for vehicle with DBC it
was 200 degrees. The vehicles with two active systems,
either VSE and ARS or VSE and DBC, did not rollover
regardless of the amplitude of the steering angle. The
vehicle with VSE and ARS also exhibited the smallest
side slip angle.

As an example, the results obtained for the vehicle

without control and with VSE system are illustrated in
Figure 6 for the amplitude of the steering angle of 270
degrees. The passive vehicle experiences extreme
oversteer in the second turn and rolls over; the
simulation is terminated when the roll angle reaches 1
radian (57.3 degrees). The vehicle with VSE system
develops smaller peak lateral acceleration and remains
stable, but the peak roll angle is quite large (11.3
degrees) and the vehicle experiences a very brief two
Figure 4. Steering Patterns for a Double Lane Change wheel lift off. Note also that the vehicle side slip angle is
and Fishhook Maneuver rather large, reaching a maximum of 11 degrees. It is
possible that a more aggressive control of side slip angle
in this vehicle would also reduce vehicle tendency to tip
off. None of the control algorithms used here were fine-
tuned for the particular vehicle used in simulations, so it
is possible that the performance could be further The vehicle with ARS displays much higher side slip
improved. angle than the vehicle equipped with VSE; it also has
significantly higher peak lateral acceleration and roll

Figure 6. Vehicle Response in Double Lane Change

Maneuver at Steering Amplitude of 270 Degrees without
Control and with VSE Figure 8. Vehicle Response in Fishhook Maneuver at
Steering Amplitude of 120 degrees with VSE and with
The results obtained for the fishhook maneuver are ARS
illustrated in Figure 7 in terms of the maximum amplitude
of steering angle, which can be applied without causing In Figure 9 the results obtained for vehicles with VSE
rollover. Note that according to the definition of the and DBC systems are compared for the steering angle
amplitude A for the fishhook maneuver (Figure 4), the amplitude of 55 degrees. At steady state, vehicle with
maximum steering angle is actually 2A. Thus the angle DBC system experiences much smaller roll angle, about
of 270 degrees indicates that the vehicle cannot be half of that for vehicle with VSE. However, during rapid
rolled over in this maneuver. The maximum steering reversal of steering angle and lateral acceleration, the
angle amplitude for the passive vehicle was 40 degrees hydraulic DBC system cannot keep up with the quick
and for the vehicle with DBC it was 55 degrees. All the change in roll angle and the roll angle exhibits a
remaining vehicles were able to negotiate this maneuver significant overshoot. For larger steering angle this
without rolling over regardless of the magnitude of the yields to rollover of vehicle. The quickness of response
steering angle. The vehicle with VSE system, however, of DBC system is limited primarily by the power of the
was more stable than the one with ARS. It exhibited pump, which in this study was set to 2 kW. Resistance to
consistently smaller vehicle side slip angles and no maneuver induced rollovers of vehicle with DBC system
wheel lift off, while the vehicle with ARS occasionally can be significantly increased if this design constraint is
experienced one or two wheel lift off. relaxed, e.g. by increasing the size of the pump or by
including an accumulator or another energy storage

Figure 7. Maximum Steering Angle Amplitudes without

Rollover for Fishhook Maneuver
Figure 9. Vehicle Response in a Fishhook Maneuver at
The results in the case of the steering angle amplitude of the Steering Amplitude of 55 Degrees with VSE and
120 degrees for both systems are illustrated in Figure 8. DBC Systems
In the case of fishhook maneuver, further simulations Control, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 18, pp.
were conducted, in which the height of the center of 151-186.
gravity of the controlled vehicle was progressively 7. Garrott, W. R., Howe, J. G. and Forkenbrock, G.,
raised, until the vehicle started to roll over at the same 1999, An Experimental Examination of Selected
steering angle amplitude as the passive vehicle. It was Maneuvers that May Induce On-Road Untripped,
found that presence of active brake control brings about Light Vehicle Rollover Phase II of NHTSAs 1997-
improvement in vehicle resistance to maneuver-induced 1998 Vehicle Rollover Research Program
rollovers that is equivalent to increase in the static 8. Hac, A., Evaluation of Two Concepts in Vehicle
stability factor by 12%. Stability Enhancement Systems, 1998, Proceedings
of 31st ISATA, Automotive Mechatronics Design and
CONCLUSION Engineering, Vienna, pp. 205-212.
9. Marine, M. C., Wirth, J. L. and Thomas, T. M., 1999,
In this paper effectiveness of active chassis systems in Characteristics of On-Road Rollovers, SAE paper
preventing maneuver induced rollovers on smooth roads No. 1999-01-0122.
was evaluated through numerical simulations. The 10. Nishio, A., Tozu, K., Yamaguchi, H., Asano, K.,
systems considered were brake based VSE system ARS Amano, Y., 2001, Development of Vehicle Stability
system and DBC system. All three systems improved Control System Based on Vehicle Sideslip Angle
vehicle resistance to rollovers, but DBC system was the Estimation, SAE paper No. 2001-01-0137.
least effective primarily due to insufficient speed of 11. Palkovics, L., Semsey, A., Gerum, E., 1998, Roll-
response limited by the power of hydraulic pump. In all Over Prevention System for Commercial Vehicles
cases the steering angle necessary to roll over the Additional Sensorless Function of the Electronic
vehicle equipped with one or two of the active chassis Brake System, Proceedings of AVEC, 1998.
systems had to be significantly increased as compared 12. Ungoren, A. Y., Peng, H. and Milot, D. R., 2001,
to the passive vehicle, or the rollover could be avoided Rollover Propensity Evaluation of an SUV Equipped
altogether regardless of the steering angle. The VSE with a TRW VSC System, SAE paper No. 2001-01-
system improved vehicle stability more than the ARS 0128.
system did, and the vehicle with both of these control 13. Van Zanten, A. T., Erhardt, R., and Pfaff, G., 1995,
systems was the most stable of all, showing no tendency VDC, The Vehicle Dynamics Control System by
to rollover and very small side slip angles. It was found Bosch, SAE paper 950759.
that presence of active brake control brings about 14. Wielenga, T. J., 1999, A Method for Reducing On-
improvement in vehicle resistance to maneuver-induced Road Rollovers Anti-Rollover Braking, SAE paper
rollovers that is equivalent to increase in static stability No. 1999-01-0123.
factor by about 12%. 15. Wielenga, T. J. and Chase, M. A., 2000, A Study in
Rollover Prevention Using Anti-Rollover Braking,
REFERENCES SAE paper No. 2000-01-1642.
16. Wong, J., Y., 1993, Theory of Ground Vehicles,
1. Ackerman, J., Bunte, T., and Odenthal, D., 1999, John Wiley Inc., New York.
Advantages of Active Steering for Vehicle
Dynamics Control, Proceedings of 32nd ISATA,
Automotive Mechatronics Design and Engineering,
Vienna, pp. 263-270.
2. Bernard, J. L. , Segel, L., and Wild, R. E., 1977,
The Shear Force Generation During Combined
Steering and Braking Maneuvers, SAE paper No.
3. Eisele, D. D. and Peng, H., 2000, Vehicle Dynamics
Control with Rollover Prevention for Articulated
Heavy Tracks, Proceedings of AVEC, Ann Arbor,
MI, 2000.
4. Everett, N. R., Brown, M. D., Crolla D. A., 2000,
Investigation of a Roll Control System for an Off-
road Vehicle, SAE paper No. 2000-01-1646.
5. Fujita, K., Ohashi, K., Fukatani, Kamai, S., Kagawa,
Y., and Mori, H., 1998, Devolepment of Active Rear
Steer System Applying H - Synthesis, SAE
paper No. 981115.
6. Furukava, Y., Yuhara, N., Sano, S., Takeda, H.,
Matsushita, Y., 1989, A Review of Four Wheel
Steering from Viewpoint of Vehicle Dynamics