Pmwedlnptof the

Amerlcan Conhol Conlemnci

&die, Warhlnplon June 1995
TM6 2:35 -
REAL-TIME DETERMINATION OF ROAD COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
FOR IVHS AND ADVANCED VEHICLE CONTROL

Laura R. Ray
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Christian Brothers University, Memphis, TN 38104
lray@bucs.cbu.edu

ABSTRACT the methods presented here provide real time feedback signals and
This paper presents methods for estimating road coefficient of control setpoints that enable AVCS implementation. Sensing and
friction (p) in real time using an extended Kalman filter (EKF) modeling requirements for obtaining reliable state estimates and
and Bayesian decision making. The EKF estimates the motion road coefficient of friction are given.
and tire forces of an eight degree-of-freedom vehicle based on VEHICLE MODEL
vehicle-mounted sensors. The filter requires no a priori
knowledge of p and does not require a tire force model. The An eight degree-of-freedom vehicle model [6] and analytic tire
resulting tire force, slip, and slip angle estimates are compared force model [7] simulate true motion from which noisy
statistically with those that result from a nominal tire model to measurements are constructed. The equations of motion are
select the most likely coefficient of friction from a set of 1
hypothesized values. The p identification and EKF tasks are
V x = vyr + ;;;(-m,hrp f Fxf +Fxr) (1)
separate; therefore, EKF state estimates can be used for feedback 1
control while p is identified. p identification results can be used
V = - vxr + m (msh p + Fyf + Fyr) (2)
for IVHS decision making and for determining controller
setpoints. Simulation results show excellent convergence and
accuracy of the p estimates. Computation and sensor
requirements, and robustness of the p identification algorithm are
considered.

INTRODUCTION
Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS) for automation or
emergency intervention require dynamic information concerning
stopping distances, safe following distances, and vehicle
maneuverability during each driving situation; the system must
know whether a vehicle is capable of performing maneuvers
required to maintain safety before making decisions. If estimates
of these variables are conservative, an IVHS may fail to choose
the safest maneuvers that a vehicle can perform. The dynamic
characteristics depend largely on the external tire forces, or forces
that cause deceleration and traction and that prevent lateral
instability. The tire forces are nonlinear, and they depend on
uncontrollable factors, such as road surface, tire pressure and
wear, and vehicle load. While the latter parameters can be
measured using standard sensors, there is currently no good The state vector x(t) components are longitudinal and lateral
method of determining road coefficient of friction (p). This paper velocity, yaw and roll rate, four wheel angular velocities, and roll
presents methods of estimating p for use in real time IVHS angle. u(t) = [sfl sfi sII 8, T, T, TII T,IT represents the steer
decision making and control. angles and braking torques at each wheel. Components of the
Previous research has shown that tire force models can be force vector F(t) = Fxfl F,, FXI1F, F F F F MJ are
constructed by applying an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) and longitudinal and lateral tire forces at g c h %hee?an?? total tire
regression analysis to vehicle motion data [l]. The EKF also restoring moment about the yaw axis. Sign conventions are
provides state estimates that can be used for advanced feedback defined in Fig. 1; the remaining parameters are given in Table 1.
control. Nevertheless, even when a tire model is known, p is The analytic tire model generates tire forces and moments F(t) as
needed to use the model for making driving decisions. In this a function of velocity, p, and normal tire force, given a set of tire
paper, the EKF of [l] is expanded to estimate four longitudinal parameters [7]. A proportioning valve supplies 70% of Tb, the
forces and per axle lateral forces of an eight degree of freedom total brake torque, to the front wheels and 30% to the rear wheels.
vehicle. Estimated force histories are then compared with those First-order braking dynamics are included. The model also
from a nominal tire force model to determine the most probable includes roll and compliance steer [5].
road coefficient of friction from a set of hypothesized values. The
friction coefficient can then be used by IVHS to predict NONLINEAR TIRE FORCE ESTIMATION
maneuvers that the vehicle is able to perform safely. Equations 1-9 are integrated numerically, adding process noise,
There have been numerous studies of advanced vehicle control and measurement histories are constructed for the EKF. The
systems (AVCS),such as anti-lock braking, four-wheel steering, nonlinear measurement equation is
and controllers for avoidance maneuvers, for increasing safety and
aiding drivers in maintaining stability. These studies have defined ~ (=0[r aflafrarla, 5 pIT = h[x(W(t),u(Ol+ 4 0 (14)
important feedback signals and have shown, by simulation, gains where and 5 are the longitudinal and lateral accelerations,
over operational vehicle control systems. AVCS such as those respectively, and n(t) is Gaussian, white measurement noise. In
proposed in [2-51 demonstrate performance gains, but their addition, the control inputs (wheel steering angle sfo and total
implementation requires the ability to measure, or otherwise know brake line pressure) are measured.
such signals as slip, slip angle, and p. In addition to providing p,
2133
Table 1 Vehicle simulation parameters [from 51
Parameter Value
Distance: cg to front and rear axle, Lf, Lr 1.2, 1.5 m
Distance: sprung mass cg to vehicle cg, e 0.198 m
Distance: roll axis to sprung mass cg, h 0.183 m
Front & rear track width, tf, tr 1.56, 1.54 m
Wheel radius, Rw (=huf, bur) 0.32 m
Front & rear roll center height, hf, hr 0.277, 0.017 m
The estimation model includes the equations of motion, but
requires no tire force model or knowledge of p. Instead, the tire
forces are treated as parameters to be estimated, and the state
vector x(t) is augmented to include differential equations for each
force to be estimated, as in Ref. 1. Careful study of eq. 1-9 shows
that all four longitudinal forces and per-axle lateral forces can be
determined using a sensor set that does not require direct
measurement of tire forces. Tire restoring moment Mz is
neglected in the estimation model. Equations 3 and 10-13 are
modified to replace the individual lateral forces by per-axle
forces, and a random walk model is appended to model each force
to be determined [I]. Appending second-order random walk
models for six forces results inAa 2lst-order estimation model.
Denoting estimated variables as ( . ) and the nonlinear function of
eq. 1-9 as f(x(t),F(t),u(t)), the augmented nonlinear differential
equatioyhat yodels the vehicle in the estimator is
where A is a klock-diagonal matrix, 2 A(t) is the augmented state
vector, and y ( t ) is the output reconstructed based on the
estimation model and the state estimate. A discrete-time extended
Kalman filter is implemented by integrating eq. 15 and a
continuous-time matrix Riccati equation to propagate the state and
error covariance estimates, computing the filter gain matrix, and
updating the state and covariance estimates based on the
measurement residual [l]. Tire force estimates and steer angle
measurement are used to estimate individual wheel steer angles.
In the estimator model, the moment contribution to compiiaye
%teeris neglected. Slip, slip angle, and velocity estimates (s , a ,
v ) at each wheel are derived from the state estimate.
DETERMINING ROAD COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
A nominal tire force model can be constructed off-line from
EKF data by regressing force vs slip at fixed normal force and
road surface [l]. Such a model provides longitudinal and lateral
forces as functions of slip, slip angles, normal force, p, and wheel
velocities. With a nominal tire force model available, p can be
estimated recursively by statistically comparing the forces
estimated by the EKF to those that result from the tire force model
for a particular p. Given a tire model and its inputs, the outputs,
longitudinal and per axle lateral forces, are nondimensionalized
by their respective normal forces:
Denoting; as the EKF estimate of the_ true tire forces, the
conditional probability density function of F given p is
Equatiog 18 expresses the probability density of obtaining the
forces F given a particular value of p. P is an n x n covariance
matrix, and n is the size of vector F . The EKF estimates of slip,
2134
Parameter Value
Sprung mass, ms 1702 kg
Front and rear unsprung mass, muf, mur 81.2, 91.6 kg
Moment of inertia about yaw axis, Izz 2526 kg-m2
Moment of inertia about roll & yaw axes, Ixz 61.7 kg&!
Wheel moment of inertia, I, 1.07 kg-m2
ms moment of inertia about roll axis, I, 489 kg-m2
slip angle, and wheel velocity, along with estimates of the normal
force at each wheel serve as inputs to the tire force model given
an hypothesized p to compute the probability in eq. 18. Given J
hypothesized values of p, the most likely value is computed at
each sample time using Baye's p l e [SI. At time tk, the
conditional probability of pi given F k is
j=l
The most likely value of p from among the hypothesized values is
then given by a weighted sum:
j=l
The algorithm starts by specifying set of hyp2thesized values
and the initial conditional probab s Pr[q IF O]. The most
likely value is determined by updating the probabilities at each
sample time using eq. 18-20.
Using the method above, p estimation is separate from the
EKF, and p estimation results do not affect state estimates
directly. The EKF provides state estimates for feedback control
and for determining p . One p is estimated, information such as
peak slip, minimum stopping distance, and lateral maneuverability
can be determined for IVHS decisions. However, because the two
tasks are separate, state estimates can be used for feedback before
the p estimate converges. This scenario is vital for good stability
and robustness properties. Figure 2 shows a block diagram of the
proposed scenario.
RESULTS
Evaluation of the Extended Kalman Filter
Pure steering, pure braking, and combined steering and braking
maneuvers involving both linear and nonlinear tire forces were
simulated for evaluation of the EKF. Tracking ability was
determined by simulating a combined maneuver on a road with
several sudden changes in p. Figure 3 shows the results; here, Tb
= 3000 N-m, sfo = 0.15 rad, and p = 0.3, 0 5 t < 0.5 sec, p =
0.5 5 t < 1.5 sec, p = 0.3, 1.5 5 t < 2.25 sec, and p = 0.5, 2.25
3.0 sec. The EKF slip, slip angle, and force estimates
approximate the actual trajectories well, even in the face of abrupt
changes in p and severely nonlinear tire forces. These force and
slip trajectories are used below, along with the static normal force
estimates to determine p.
Evaluation of the p Identification Procedure
The identification procedure requires a covariance matrix, P, a
hypothesjs set, and initial estimates of conditional probabilities,
Pr[? )I;k 1. Diagonal components of P serve as weighting
factors, enabling the user emphasize particular components of the
tire force vector in the selection algorithm. In the results that
follow, P = diag([O.Ol 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.125 0.125]), for pure
braking and combined brakindsteering maneuvers, placing equal
emphasis on each on the longitudinal forces and slightly less
emphasis on the per-axle lateral forces. P = diag([l 1 1 1 0.005
0.00SJ) for pure steering maneuvers, placing more emphasis on
lateral forces. The hypothesis set is p = [0.25 to 0.851 in 0.05
increments. Computation burden per hypothesis is small, and a
hypothesis set with small increments produced good results.
Equal probability of each hypothesis being true was selected at t
= 0, i.e., there is no a priori knowledge of p. The conditional
probabilities where not allowed to drop below E = 0.00001,
enabling the algorithm to respond quickly to sudden changes in p.
Figure 4 shows the road coefficient of friction estimate, normal
forces and Pr[,j IF k ] histories for the trajectory of Fig. 3.
Trackiqg of the actual road coefficient of friction is excellent. The
Pr[ry IF k ] histories show that the algorithm quickly converges to
two hypotheses around the actual p, while the remaining
probabilities become small. The algorithm responds instantly
when p changes suddenly. Figure 5 shows the road coefficient of
friction response for a variety of steering and braking maneuvers
where actual values of p match one of the hypothesized values
(Fig. 5a-d) and where actual values of p do not match one of the
hypothesized values (Fig. 5e-f). In Fig. 5a-d, the estimated p
converges to the actual value in all except one case, and the worst
case 5% settling time is 0.73 sec. In Fig. 5e-f, p settles to a
hypothesized value just greater than or just less than the actual
value; hence, the estimated p is always within 20.05 of the actual
p. The single case that does not converge can be explained in the
context of the tire force curves. In Fig. 5% Tb = 3000 N-m and sfo
= 0 rad gives a p estimate that approaches the actual value of p,
but does not converge to 0.85. The corresponding slip ratios are
very small (below 0.04). The longitudinal tire force curves for a
normal force corresponding to the front wheels are given in Fig.
6a as a function of p and slip, for zero slip angle. Figure 6a
shows that it is extremely difficult to distinguish curves of
different p at very small slip ratios, such as those in this
maneuver; for slip ratios below approximately 0.04, the force-slip
relationship is linear and is nearly independent of p. Small
"signal to noise" ratios in the state estimates in this region hinders
p identification. At slightly higher slip ratios that are still below
that corresponding to peak longitudinal force, the algorithm
performs well. The 5% settling time for the p estimate
corresponding to Tb = 3000 N-m and sfo = 0.2 rad is 0.35 sec,
well before slip ratios exceed peak slip value. p identification for
the pure steering maneuver exhibits the largest settling time
largely because the corresponding slip angle response is slow.
Figure 6b shows that for small slip angles, it is also difficult to
distinguish between p hypotheses.
Modeling Requirements and Robustness
The p identification procedure requires a vehicle model (for the
EKF) and tire force model. The tire force model is likely to be
uncertain, as it depends on experimental and/or analytic modeling,
and it can change over time with uncertain tire pressure and wear.
In the results presented above, the tire force model used in the p
identification procedure was identical to the tire force model used
to simulate vehicle motion. A simple robustness study was
conducted by mismatching these two tire models. The tire force
model of [7] includes parameters for several types of tires.
Significant mismatch was introduced by selecting a tire for the p
identification procedure that did not match that of the actual
vehicle. In addition, the vehicle load assumed in the estimation
model and actual vehicle were mismatched. Figure 7 shows the
results for the trajectory of Figure 3 when the tire models and
vehicle load model contain error. Even in the face of uncertainty,
the p estimates converge to within one hypothesis of the actual
value.
Peak Slip Identification
Figure 8 gives an example of the type of information that can
be derived knowing p. Here, the value of slip corresponding to
peak longitudinal force, or "peak slip" is derived from a look up
table given the EKF slip and slip angle estimates, the static normal
forces, and the p estimate. The actual peak slip value and the
estimated value are shown for each wheel. This information can
2135
be provided for an anti-lock braking system or for an avoidance-
maneuver control system. Note also, that it is possible in some
instances to determine peak slip directly from the EKF force and
slip estimates without a p estimate or tire force model. This is
possible when the applied braking is severe enough to cause
longitudinal forces to exceed their peak values, as in Figure 3.
Here, the longitudinal force histories show peaks as slip ratios
pass through the peak slip values. These data provide a means of
verifying and/or updating the tire force model used in the p
identification procedure.
COMPUTATION AND SENSING REQUIREMENTS
The EKF requires 131K floating point operations (FLOPS) per
sample time to propagate the state estimate (9 nonlinear and 12
linear equations) and the 21 x 21 covariance matrix using fourth-
order Runge Kutta integration. The p identification algorithm
requires 600 FLOPS per sample time per hypothesis, including
calls to the analytic tire force model to evaluate eq. 18. For 13
hypotheses, a total of approximately 139K FLOPS per sample
time are required to implement the EKF and p identification
procedure. Sample times of 0.025 and 0.03 sec were used to
generate the results in this paper, and sample times up to 0.1
seconds did not cause integration instability or unacceptable
degradation in the state estimates or p identification results. For
such sample times and computation speeds, a 1.4 to 5.6 MFLOP
processor is required. The computation burden was determined
without attempting to introduce efficient algorithms in the EKF;
since the covariance matrix is symmetric, the covariance
propagation can be modified to incorporate computation reducing
algorithms and computation burden can be reduced.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of extended Kalman filtering and road coefficient of
friction identification for an eight degree-of-freedom vehicle show
excellent tracking and robustness properties. The EKF state
estimates follow the actual state well, even in the face of abrupt
changes in road conditions. Tracking of the p estimate is
excellent, and the p identification procedure gives excellent
convergence for a broad range of inputs. Sensor requirements are
reasonable, and computation requirements suggest that the
algorithms can be implemented in real time using current
technology. The robustness study indicates that the p
identification procedure can accommodate reasonable uncertainty
in the tire force and vehicle models. The methods presented here
give state estimates that can be used for advanced feedback
control and road coefficient of friction estimates that can be used
to determine controller setpoints and to make intelligent driving
decisions.
Throughout the results presented, the difference between tire
forces and wheel slip from right to left is small, indicating that it
is possible to use a per-axle vehicle model [I] in the EKF. This
would further reduce computation burden. Also, the results
indicate that for severe maneuvers, it is possible to identify peak
slip from force and slip estimates without knowing p. This
provides a means of verifying and/or updating the tire force model
used in the p identification procedure. With minor modification,
the eight degree-of-freedom vehicle model and p estimation
procedure can also be used to determine when a vehicle is on a
split-p surface. These variations, along with additional robustness
studies and use of the algorithm in feedback control systems are
the subject of future research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is supported by the National Research Council
Transportation Research Board under the IDEA program, contract
NO. IVHS-14.
REFERENCES
[l] Ray, L.R., "Nonlinear Estimation of Vehicle State and
Tire Forces,' Proc. of the 1992 American Control Conference
Chicago, Ill., pp. 526-530, June 1992..
[2] Taheri, S., and Law, E.H., "Investigation of a combined
slip control braking and Closed Loop Four Wheel Steering
System for an Automobile during Combined Hard Braking and
Severe Steering," Proc. of the 1990 American Control
Conference, San Diego, CA, May 1990..
[3] Kimbrough, S., "A Brake Control Strategy for
Emergency Stops that Involve Steering." Proc. of the 1990
ASME Symposium on Transportation Systems, Dallas, TX,pp.
117-129, NOV1990.
[4] Margolis, D.L., and Tran, M., "Integrated Torque and
Steering Control for Improved Vehicle Handling," Proc. of the
1991 ASME Symposium on Advanced Automotive Technologies ,
Atlanta, GA. pp. 267-290, Dec 1991.
[5] Bowman, J.E., A Feasibility Study of Slip Control
Braking Systems, M.S.E. Thesis, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Clemson University. May 1992..
[6] Constantine, C.J., Bowman, J.E., and Law, E.H.,
"Development of Models and Computer Programs for Lateral
Dynamics of Automobiles During Combined Steering and
Braking Maneuvers," TR-90-132-ME-MMS Mechanical
Engineering Department, Clemson University, June 1991..
[7] Szostak, H.T., Allen, R.W., Rosenthal, T.J., "Analytical
Modeling of a Driver Response in Crash Avoidance
Maneuvering Vol 11: An Interactive Tire Model for
DriverNehicle Simulation," U.S. Department of Transportation,
Report No. DOT HS 807-271, April 1988..
[8] Stengel, RF., Stochastic Optimal Control: Theory and
Application, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1986.

Vehicle Sensor noise and

Measurement noise

static normal forc

Figure 2 Procedural block diagram.

Figure 1 Sign conventions and parameter definitions

for the 8 degree-of-freedom vehicle model.

30 1
0.8

-
.%0.6
v)

z04
K
2 .
> 0. .3~.2
- 0
I I I I I
-IOL
1 0.81 1

-i
-0.2; 1time (sec) 2 4' L o o 1
. time (sec)
2 3
time (sec)
Figure 3 Actual motion (solid ) and state estimates (dashed ) for T b = 3000 N-m, 6fo = 0.15 rad on a road surface with
p = 0 , 3 , O < t c O S s e c , ~ = 0 . 8 5 , 0 . 5 c t < 1 . 5 s e c ,p=0.3,1.5<t<2.25sec,and p=00.5,2.25<:t<3.0sec..

2136

Figure 4 Actual (solid) and estimated (dashed) p and normal
foices for the steering and braking inputs and road surface
variations of Figure 3. Conditional probabilities are given for
each hypothesis 1 to 13,( p = 0.25to p = 0.85).
slip angle (rad)
Figure 6 Normalized tire forces for p = 0.3 to 0.85
(increments of 0.05).
a) Longitudinal forces for Fz = 5600 N, a = 0 rad.
b) Lateral forces for Fz = 3500 N, slip = 0.

' . 0.2 '

0.2
p = 0.52
, (e) Sf, = 0 rad
0
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
time (sec) time
....--(sec)
\---,

Figure 5 Road coefficient of friction estimates for a variety of steering and braking inputs and actual road coefficients of friction.
In a -d. the actual p matches one of the hypotheses. In e-f. the actual p does not match one of the hypotheses.
0.8

-
.%.6
-3
89.4
%.2
I
1 2 1 2 3
time (sec) time (sec) time (sec)
Figure 7 Actual and estimated p for the inputs and Figure 8 Actual (solid) and estimated (dashed) peak slip for
road surface of Figure 3 when the vehicle estimation the inputs and road surface variations of Figure 3.
model does not match the actual vehicle.
2137