Integrated control of suspension and front steering to enhance vehicle handling
C March and T Shim* Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, Michigan, USA The manuscript was received on 11 August 2005 and was accepted after revision for publication on 11 December 2006. DOI: 10.1243/09544070JAUTO152

Abstract: Integration of vehicle chassis control system has gained increasing attention since it can improve the vehicle safety and performance through effective coordination of individual control systems. This paper presents the development of an integrated control system of active front steering and normal force control using fuzzy reasoning to enhance the vehicle-handling performance. Individual control systems were first developed, and then their performances were compared with that of the integrated system. The simulation results indicate that the integrated chassis control scheme utilizing the steering and suspension controllers has proven to be more effective in attaining the desired performance that would not be attained individually. Keywords: fuzzy logic, integrated chassis control, active suspension, active steering, normal force control, handling.

1 INTRODUCTION In recent years the use of electronic control systems has become increasingly popular in automotive applications, resulting in significant improvement in vehicle handling and passenger safety. The active vehicle control technologies, which integrate electronic components into existing vehicle hardware, aim to improve the vehicle stability by controlling its components when the vehicle is at the physical limit of manoeuvres. It allows the driver to keep ultimate control of the vehicle and provides great flexibility to make the vehicle adapt to environmental variations as well as emergency manoeuvres to avoid accidents. Various types of active control system have been developed in the past to enhance the stability and handling characteristics of a vehicle [1–6]. Active front steering (AFS), active rear steering, four-wheel steering, and direct yaw moment control (DYC) are some of the options widely explored. With the fast* Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan-Dearborn, 4901 Evergreen Road, Dearborn, Michigan, 48128, USA. email: tshim@umich.edu

growing electric and electronic technologies and the decreasing cost associated with them, electronic control of vehicle dynamics will probably be pervasive in the near future and there has been considerable effort in the integration of individual active control systems known as global chassis control [7–12]. The research reported here addresses the integration of normal force control (NFC) and front steering control to enhance the lateral dynamics of a vehicle. It is well understood that lateral vehicle dynamics are strongly influenced by passive normal load changes during cornering [13–15]. When a car turns to the left, the right-side, or outside, tyres become more loaded and the load decreases on the left, or inside, tyres. Owing to the non-linear behaviour of pneumatic tyres [16], the total lateral force capability of an axle decreases because of this load shift. By adjusting the roll stiffness at the front and rear of the vehicle (using anti-sway bars, active or passive), the loss of cornering capability can be directed towards the front or rear as desired. The result of this adjustment is the ability to influence the oversteer or understeer characteristics of the vehicle. This type of adjustment is made continuously in race situations where drivers pit, complaining that the car ‘pushes’
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007

If a vehicle is equipped with active suspension. 2 VEHICLE MODEL DEVELOPMENT In Fig. and independent wheel braking. based on the moving coordinate system. and Z directions. Automobile Engineering JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 . 221 Part D: J. the motion of the vehicle system is described in terms of a body-fixed (moving) coordinate system with axes in the X. and Z directions represented in the diagram by the velocities U. Integrated chassis control systems typically combine steer modulation. and W respectively.378 C March and T Shim or is ‘loose’. and body roll motion. The tyre and suspension remain normal to the ground during vehicle manoeuvres. 4. The controller development for steering and suspension is discussed in section 5. There are six degrees of freedom at the centre of gravity of the lumped vehicle mass: linear and angular displacements along the X. Y. A fuzzy logic control (FLC) strategy is used in the development of controllers for steering and active suspension systems. 3. The use of FLC in handling enhancement controller design has been successfully utilized in references [8] and [19] to [23]. The effect of unsprung mass is only considered in vertical motion and ignored in the vehicle’s lateral and longitudinal motions. finally. roll. Y. then the capability exists to modulate the normal force at each corner. Using Newton’s laws. This figure represents the 14-degree-of-freedom vehicle system on which the model is based. are considered identical. section 7 draws the conclusions. and yaw) to obviate the need for coordinate transformations. the equations of motion for the lumped mass can be derived as ˙ m(U −Vv +Wv ) y p =F +F +F +F −(F +F )d Lrf Llf Lrr Llr Crf Clf (1) Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the vehicle model Proc. V. The controller output consists of an additional steering angle and the suspension actuation obtained by the integration of the difference between the reference yaw rate value as commanded by the driver and the actual achieved vehicle yaw rate. The steering angles d of both front wheels. In this paper. There are also two degrees of freedom at each of the four corners of the vehicle: unsprung mass travel and wheel spin. A small angle is assumed for the major vehicle motions (pitch. forward velocity at the end of steer manoeuvres. 2. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: sections 2 and 3 show the development of the vehicle model and its validation with measured test data. variable torque distribution. In the development of the vehicle model. IMechE Vol. The research in references [17] and [18] has shown the possible benefits to be attained by modulating normal force through active suspension control during cornering manoeuvres. a novel approach to integrating active suspension with AFS to enhance vehicle handling is introduced. 1. the following assumptions were made. Significant improvements over the passive uncontrolled system and individual controllers are seen in the areas of directional response. Section 6 looks at the simulation results and. 1. Section 4 discusses the reference model to be used in the controller development.

the 14-degree-of-freedom vehicle model was used. 3 MODEL VALIDATION The vehicle parameters of a compact car were used in the vehicle model and a constant-speed variablesteer test. the longitudinal and lateral tyre forces are modelled using a ‘magic formula’ tyre model [16]. This model has been implemented in the MATLAB/Simulink environment to examine its responses. level.5g come from the factors that are not modelled in the development of the vehicle model such as tyre non-linearity. 2 Schematic diagram of the quarter car model. the theoretical neutral car (neutral steer bicycle model). For the reference vehicle. and lateral compliance steer. J is the wheel’s moment of inertia. The discrepancies shown at lateral acceleration levels beyond 0. and force and velocity components at the wheel JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 . 4 REFERENCE VEHICLE It is difficult to determine the desired handling characteristic of a vehicle during a cornering manoeuvre since it is a comprehensive measure of the vehicle–driver combination. suspension effect (roll steer and roll camber). and hard road surface. Figure 3 shows the comparison of the vehicle’s lateral acceleration and yaw rate responses between the vehicle model and actual vehicle test data during a constant-speed test. and the Proc. w and v is the wheel’s angular acceleration. The neutral steer vehicle characteristic is often considered as desirable during the cornering manoeuvres and hence the objective of handling enhancement is generally to reduce the understeer behaviour of a vehicle without allowing it to become oversteer. Automobile Engineering Fig. cornering. B is the braking y torque. the reference vehicle was derived by moving the centre of gravity of the test vehicle model back to the vehicle’s geometrical centre to equalize the static weights on all four suspension corners. A ramp steering wheel input is applied while the vehicle runs at a speed of 60 mile/h. In order to model neutral steer behaviour. the responses of the vehicle model were well matched with the actual vehicle measurements. The vehicle’s moments of inertia and the suspension parameters were also modified in the model to reflect the effects of the equalized axle weights. 221 Part D: J. The test was carried out on a uniform. Figure 2 shows the schematic diagram of the suspension and wheel at one corner of the vehicle. defined in SAE J266 [24]. ˙ w +h(F For simulation purposes. F is Lij the tyre force. Vehicle data were recorded at 200 Hz sampling rate. was performed on it. and F are the longitudinal. Figure 4 shows the comparison of the steering angle at the front wheels versus lateral acceleration during the constant-speed variable-steer test for the uncontrolled (passive) vehicle model. IMechE Vol. F . where the subscript i represents the left (l) or right (r) side and the subscript j represents the front (f) or rear (r). dry.Integrated control of suspension and front steering 379 ˙ m(V −Wv +Uv ) r y =F +F +F +F +(F +F )d (2) Crr Clr Crf Clf Lrf Llf ˙ m (W −Uv +Vv )=F +F +F +F −m g s p r Srf Slf Srr Slr s (3) t J v = (F +F −F −F ) ˙ Slr Srf Srr r r 2 Slf +F +F +F ) (4) Crf Clf Crr Clr J v =b(F +F )−h(F +F +F +F ) ˙ p p Slr Srr Llf Lrf Llr Lrr −a(F +F ) (5) Slf Srf t J v = (F +F −F −F )+a(F +F ) ˙ y y 2 Lrf Lrr Llf Llr Clf Crf −b(F +F ) (6) Clr Crr F . The force generated by the active and passive components of each suspension can be determined by ˙ ˙ =k (X −X )+F +b (X −X ) (7) suspension s u s c s u s The F term in the above equation is the control input c to the system. and Lij Cij Sij suspension forces respectively at each wheel. As shown. R is the effective radius of the wheel. The equations of motion for each wheel can be represented by F M −F R−B=J v (8) ˙ y Lij w w where M is the driving torque. and a positive force causes an upward acceleration on the body while causing a negative acceleration on the wheel.

The understeer gradient K.3Lg/V 2. 5 DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL SYSTEMS In order to achieve the handling characteristics of the reference model. L is the wheelbase (m). Proc. The reference model has an understeer gradient of 0. and g is the acceleration due to gravity (m/s2). IMechE Vol. a fuzzy reasoning control methodology was used in the controller development. 221 Part D: J.17. The control system is designed by using an errorreducing control technique to make the yaw rate of JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 . The line representing theoretical neutral steer behaviour (K=0) is plotted on the steering diagram with a slope of 57. can be determined from the steering gradient using dd 57. which is often used to classify a vehicle’s handling characteristics.380 C March and T Shim Fig. 3 Comparison of lateral acceleration and yaw rate between the vehicle model and test data reference vehicle model represented in the controller.3Lg = +K (9) d(a /g) V2 y where V is the vehicle’s forward velocity (m/s). Automobile Engineering which is similar to that of the neutral steer vehicle and is used for the reference vehicle in the controller development.

Integrated control of suspension and front steering 381 Fig. The yaw rate controller adjusts the normal force F and additional steering c angle d in order to reduce the yaw rate error e c (=V −V) between the reference model and the d actual vehicle. In the case of crisp inputs and outputs. Fuzzy logic controllers were employed for the primary controllers (NFC and AFS). however. the chosen controller models Fig. there are two types of fuzzy logic controller: the Mamdani or ‘linguistic’ fuzzy controllers. the Takagi–Sugeno or functional fuzzy controllers. Automobile Engineering . An input is first fuzzified into a linguistic variable using input membership functions stored in the fuzzy knowledge base. A vast number of choices are available and hence additional membership functions and rules can be added to fuzzify the input and output error further with more resolution. The desired yaw rate V is produced by a d reference model when the steering input U is d applied to the vehicle model. 4 Comparison of the steering diagram during the constant-speed variable-steer test the actual vehicle follow that of the desired model. Figure 5 shows a block diagram for the yaw rate controller. 5 (a) Schematic diagram of the yaw-rate based controller. where only the antecedent conditions are expressed as fuzzy propositions while the consequent results are defined as algebraic (crisp) functions. In general. a fuzzy inference system implements a non-linear mapping from its input space to its output space. 221 Part D: J. The flexibility of this methodology allows controllers to have single or multiple inputs and outputs. Additional logic was also used to control the limits for controller intervention and to work out how the individual controllers interact with each other. where both the antecedent and the consequent parts are formulated as fuzzy propositions. IMechE Vol. (b) integration scheme JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. The Mamdani-type fuzzy models were used in the final stand-alone controllers.

This rule base is shown in Table 1. and to the most positive values ‘PB’ for e and the functions for e partition ‘negative’ values from ˙ ‘positive’ values as well as the ‘OK’ partition at approximately zero. the steering angle u at the tyre is set in part by the driver through the vehicle classical steering mechanism while an additional steering angle d can be set by c the controller using hydraulic or d. 6 Structure of the AFS controller in the MATLAB simulink environment Fig. One such characteristic limits steer addition d to ±3° (±0. The fuzzy models used in the controllers described in this section utilize a ‘centroid of area’ defuzzification method. 7 Input membership functions for the AFS controller Proc.c. 221 Part D: J. The additional logic was designed to limit the intervention of the AFS controller to zero when a cornering manoeuvre has switched from left to right while there is still a positive yaw rate error and vice versa. Figure 6 shows the yaw rate error and its time derivative being fed to the AFS fuzzy controller to determine the controlled steer addition. Automobile Engineering JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 . AFS intervention is also disallowed when the Fig. They have the distinct advantage of being smooth and non-zero at all points [25]. The steering angle is thus u=u +d d c (11) where u is based directly on the driver’s steering d wheel angle input. This c was therefore used for the range of values in the output domain of the AFS controller. A performance tuning approach based on parameterization and optimization of membership functions is used in the design of the fuzzy controllers discussed in this paper. The centroid of area defuzzification method was more representative of the control logic that is to be implemented. z 5. IMechE Vol. The concept of active steering has been around for some time now and some key characteristics that were defined in studies more than 30 years ago by Kasselmann and Keranen [26] are still utilized in steering controllers today. and three for its derivative e. The input domains of the Mamdani steering controller are partitioned with seven membership functions for the yaw rate error e.05 rad) [1]. as illustrated in Fig. motor actuators combined with a differential mechanical device [1]. defined by ∆ m (z)z dz = z A (10) COA ∆ m (z) dz A z where z is the crisp output from the controller COA and m is the respective degree of membership for A the output z of each rule. Gaussian membership functions were used because of their smoothness and concise notation.382 C March and T Shim were found to be adequate for the purposes of this study. to one around zero ‘okay’. For this controller. 7. The membership functions range from ˙ the most negative values ‘NB’.1 Active front steering controller In a typical vehicle active steering system. 7×3=21 fuzzy rules need to be defined to cover all possible combinations of linguistic variables of the two inputs.

to the most positive values. thus this was the saturation force that was used in the control scheme to limit the actuator force. and high speeds with no brake input and no throttle. and three for its derivative e. 8. 4×3=12 fuzzy rules need to be defined to cover all possible combinations of linguistic variables of the two inputs. The following additional guidelines were also used to determine the most effective actuation combination. The output membership functions for the controllers are shown in Fig. With the inclusion of acceleration and brake inputs. 11. it can still be seen that actuation at the front corner opposing the turn yields the best results as far as its effect on cornering force is concerned. In some cases a slightly larger increase is observed when the inner front wheel is actuated than when the outer front wheel JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 is actuated. with respect to the passive vehicle without control. medium. This is illustrated in Fig. yields the undesirable effect of an increase in the body roll angle. Guideline 3. Based on this analysis. During these manoeuvres. The output domains for both NFC modules are normalized to range between the values of 0 and 1. so AFS intervention is phased out as this range is surpassed. The yaw rate errors being fed to the controllers are opposite in sign. From the sensitivity analysis. 221 Part D: J. roll angle). Maximum values of over 5500 N have been observed in previous studies [27]. RR. The abbreviations RF.e. as shown in Fig. The input domains of each control module are partitioned with four membership functions for the yaw rate error e. Additional membership Proc. In the event that guidelines 1 and 2 do not coincide.2 Normal force controller It is important to determine ‘how much’. ‘PB’ for e and the functions for e ˙ partition ‘negative’ values from ‘positive’ values as well as the ‘OK’ partition at approximately zero. however. and left rear corners respectively of the vehicle.Integrated control of suspension and front steering 383 Table 1 Rule table for AFS controller Error for the following Error rate Negative OK Positive NB NB NB NB NM NB NM NM NS NM NS NS okay NM OK PM PS PS PS PM PM PM PM PB PB PB PB PB steer angle becomes zero and e is still non-zero. The membership functions ˙ range from approximately zero. which shows the changes in roll angle and cornering force (based on normal force input from the controller). a sensitivity analysis for the vehicle’s lateral forces was conducted by applying a step steer to the left at low. IMechE Vol. This. ‘when’. For these controllers. actuation at the front corner opposing the turn is deemed the best location for enhancing vehicle handling. This is taken into consideration since for most actuators the actuation force is directly related to the power that is required to produce that force. 10. and ‘where’ suspension actuation should be applied in order to enhance vehicle handling. 9. then choose the actuator combination that yields the best improvement in cornering force with a corresponding roll motion that does not exceed the values for a passive system. Guideline 1. right rear. Previous research [12] indicated that AFS is more effective in the low to medium lateral acceleration range. Minimize body motion (i. it is observed that either or a combination of both front wheels being actuated results in an increase in the transient cornering force of the vehicle. Automobile Engineering . It also yields the lowest roll motion of the combinations tested. Thus. as illustrated in Fig. ‘okay’. left front. Guideline 2. TSAF refers to the sum of all actuator forces being supplied by the active suspension system. The normal force controller ultimately consists of two identical fuzzy controller modules that control the suspension of each of the front wheels. Maximize peak transient cornering force per total supplied actuation force (TSAF). A gain and a saturation block are applied to the normalized output to limit the actuation force being supplied to the vehicle model. LF. 5. the actuator inputs at the four corners of the vehicle have been varied independently and in a few combinations to see which combination yields the desired result of maximum cornering force. This rule base is shown in Table 2. and LR on the x axis indicate the right front.

8 Effect of actuation location on the roll angle and cornering force Fig.3 Integrated control system The purpose of the integrated controller is to combine intuitively the AFS and NFC strategies in order JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 . 221 Part D: J.384 C March and T Shim Fig. IMechE Vol. the above stated rules were found to be adequate for the purposes of this study. 10 Input membership functions for the individual normal force controllers functions and rules can be added to fuzzify the input error further with more resolution. Automobile Engineering 5. 9 NFC structure in the MATLAB simulink environment Fig. however. Proc.

(b) to minimize the influence of the controller on the vehicle’s longitudinal dynamics.Integrated control of suspension and front steering 385 handling dynamics. It is hence also able to match more closely the trajectory of the reference vehicle. (c) to avoid discontinuity and to require seamless transition from one subsystem to the other with a change in the control priorities [12]. (c) to reduce the power absorbed by the respective suspension systems from that observed in the NFC system. The integration strategy is hence obtained through simulation investigation of the vehicle- Fig. The AFS control strategy drives the yaw rate error closer to zero throughout the duration of the lane change manoeuvre than the NFC strategy. 12 Suspension controller look-up table JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. The major objectives of the integrated system are as follows: (a) to improve steering responses or yaw rate tracking performance of the vehicle in normal driving conditions. the lane change manoeuvre with no brake or acceleration inputs was performed and the results examined. (b) to equal or improve the final velocity at the end of the manoeuvre in comparison with the AFS stand-alone system. This is also expected since the AFS control is active for the entire steer manoeuvre while the NFC is active only at the start of steer in either direction. 11 Output membership functions for the individual normal force controllers Table 2 Rule table for normal force controllers Error for the following Error rate Negative OK Positive okay No change No change PM PS PS PS PM PM PM PM PB PB PB PB PB to attain a level of performance that would not otherwise be achievable by either individually. 221 Part D: J. Fig. In order to determine how the strategies were to be combined. Automobile Engineering . It is observed that the NFC strategy exhibits a reduced effect on the longitudinal dynamics of the vehicle since the NFC vehicle ends the manoeuvre with a higher velocity than the AFS-controlled car. Since the system needs to draw on the advantages of the individual controllers the integrated controller can therefore be designed with the following in mind: (a) to track the reference vehicle equally to or better than the AFS stand-alone system.

in an actual controller. Such look-up tables are tunable by the control designer and it is known that. 5. e. 14 Comparison of the vehicle responses for varying levels of control during a 40 mile/h lane change manoeuvre Proc.386 C March and T Shim The integrated control was based primarily on yaw rate error. a multidimensional table which is also dependent on the vehicle’s forward velocity and other parameters can be readily implemented in the controller. As shown in Fig. 5. the yaw moment demand will be shared between the AFS and NFC control strategies. In this system. As seen in the diagram. derived from the difference between the actual and desired yaw rates. 221 Part D: J. It is possible for yaw rate error to be acceptable while the vehicle is in lateral drift. is used by the controller to determine the suspension Fig. which is shown in Fig. IMechE Vol. 12. the difference in the yaw rates from the two models. Automobile Engineering JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 . 60 mile/h. Fig. The block diagram of the proposed integration scheme is also illustrated in Fig. when the yaw rate error is no longer zero. to be added as well as the amount of c additional steer d . 13 Steering wheel input for 40 mile/h. it is known that controlling only this parameter will not be sufficient to ensure that in all cases the desired course is followed. which should be added to the c driver’s steer input. therefore it is desirable also to control another parameter such as the lateral acceleration error. the major means of integration is the use of a look-up table. and 80 mile/h force F . Even though the controller used in this study primarily controls the yaw rate error.

Integrated control of suspension and front steering 387 6 SIMULATION RESULTS The vehicle parameters shown in Table 3 were used in the simulation of the vehicle model. The SLCM represents a changing vehicle path owing to an obstruction ahead. The ratio of the steering to road wheel angle for the test vehicle is 16 to 1.1 2249.7 496 1.1 2324.483 lation.285 1. 6. The static deflection at each corner together with the vehicle’s initial speed. Automobile Engineering . Fig. and the road friction coefficient were used to initialize the model prior to simulation.663 2211. It can hence be regarded as a passing or a collision avoidance manoeuvre. 221 Part D: J.8 46 800 31 800 200 000 1349 1176 0. For any given simuTable 3 Vehicle parameters Symbol a b B sf B sr h J p J r J w J y K sf K sr K t m m s R w t Units m m N/m/s N/m/s m kg m2 kg m2 kg m2 kg m2 N/m N/m N/m kg kg m m Test value 1. the same input is applied to the steering wheel of the vehicle travelling at 40 mile/h in its controlled and uncontrolled state.285 1. a single-lane-change manoeuvre (SLCM) is used. the wheel’s no-slip wheel velocity. driver inputs of the steering wheel angle and wheel torque (accelerating and braking) were also user definable. For the manoeuvre. IMechE Vol.7 496 1.306 2500 2500 0.466 39 300 39 300 200 000 1349 1176 0. The manoeuvre is accomplished by a 2 s sinusoidal steering input.663 2211.1 Single-lane-change manoeuvre To compare the control strategies formulated.483 Reference value 1.559 3000 2000 0. The steering is held constantly at 0° for the remainder of the simulation (shown in Fig.053 1. The lane change manoeuvre is an abbreviated version of the double-lane-change manoeuvre (DLCM) used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Consumer Union in their rollover propensity analyses of vehicles.306 1. 15 Suspension characteristics for a vehicle during a 40 mile/h lane change manoeuvre using NFC and integrated control JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. 13).

integrated controlled.6 per cent respectively. IMechE Vol. and 0.064 m.18 m. It should be noted that the proposed controller is designed to enhance vehicle-handling performance when the vehicle roll motion is in a stable region. This is 53. It is observed that. Thus the proposed controller should be modified to be effective in this region by considering the rollover propensity in the development of the controller.078 m. Fig. and integrated controller strategies yielded respectable increases of 5 per cent. and 0.675 m/s. if a wheel lift-off is detected or a vehicle is in danger of rollover. with all levels of control.784 m/s. the controller which improves the vehicle yaw rate may result in vehicle rollover. The reference vehicle attains an overall lateral position of 4. 0. 0. while the AFS-controlled vehicle reasonably matches the desired vehicle path.78 m/s respectively.072 m respectively. It is shown in the ‘vehicle’s forward velocity’ plot that. Figure 15 shows the suspension behaviour of the vehicle as the suspension is actuated during the NFC and the integrated control modes. All are seen to be well within the range that typical suspension systems are capable of providing. A reasonable actuator power is also seen for both front corners. The peak-to-peak suspension deflections for the NFC and integrated control modes for the right front suspension corner are 0.066 m. AFS controller.079 m respectively. roll angle. Automobile Engineering JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 . forward velocity. 221 Part D: J.388 C March and T Shim Figure 14 compares the performance of the individual baseline controllers with that of the integrated controller in the key areas of vehicle trajectory. and yaw rate error. 48. the overall lateral position of the vehicle is increased at the end of the manoeuvre.68 per cent greater than the lateral position attained by the uncontrolled vehicle.668 m/s and experiences the highest degree of body roll. and the uncontrolled vehicles end the simulation at 17. The normal force controller. The roll behaviours for the normal force controller and integrated controller strategies both indicate reduced body roll during the manoeuvre (compared with the AFS controller). The yaw rate error plot shows that the integrated controller most closely matched the yaw rate of the reference vehicle. The results for the left front corner for the same are 0. 17. it also loses the most momentum during the manoeuvre with a final velocity of 17. 16 Comparison of vehicle responses for varying levels of control during a 60 mile/h lane change manoeuvre Proc.8 per cent and 49.078 m. The normal-force-controlled. and 17. Since a vehicle oversteer tendency makes a vehicle more prone to rollover.

Automobile Engineering .2 Double-lane-change manoeuvre The International Standards Organization (ISO) 3888 Part 2 DLCM is used in this test to observe the vehicle behaviour in response to steering wheel inputs being used in an emergency manoeuvre. as shown in Fig. In order to follow the desired path. 17 [28]. The manoeuvres were conducted on a dry road at an entry velocity of 45 mile/h just before the first steering input. the controlled vehicle and the uncontrolled vehicle had to have the radically different steering inputs illustrated in Fig. IMechE Vol. 18. 18 Vehicle performance for varying levels of control during a 60 mile/h DLCM JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. 16. 17 ISO 3888 Part 2 DLCM Fig. 221 Part D: J. Other key differences to note are the controlled vehicle’s reduced roll angle and the reduced propensity to rollover as demonstrated by the fact Fig. The result from this test is shown in Fig. No throttle input or brake application was simulated during the remainder of the simulation. 6. The test represents a changing vehicle path based on predetermined cone placement in the road. It is observed from these plots that at the higher speed the performance is similar to that achieved previously at 40 mile/h.Integrated control of suspension and front steering 389 To test the robustness of the controller. a similar test was conducted at a speed of 60 mile/h.

13 Mastinu. S. Advantages of active steering for vehicle dynamics control. M... M. M. REFERENCES 1 Ackerman. Veh. Brown. Integrated controls of lateral vehicle dynamics.. 465–481. SAE technical paper 960487. Y. 11 Hac..390 C March and T Shim that the tyres are further from lift-off. Des. Vienna. 21 Abdelhady. 17 Blank. R.. 18 Shim. Y. S. Veh. Study on roll stiffness distribution control in an active suspension system. and Bodie. 357–370. K. IMechE Vol. SAE technical paper 960484.. E. and Caviasso. D. Croydon. JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 . 19 Buckholtz. Y. Integrated control of active rear wheel steering and direct yaw moment control. D. G. SAE technical paper 2002-01-1220.. Trans. 263–270 (Automotive Automation Ltd. 9 Horiuchi. A.. and Crolla. P. J. further attempts at optimization should yield even better results than those shown in this paper. and Margolis. and El-Behiry. H. D. Int. 1–14. Improving Vehicle Handling and Comfort Performance Using 4WS. 1996. Lugner. ASME.. L. System Dynamics. 8 Zeyada. 12 He. 27.. D. 2002. 1993. SAE technical paper 870421. L. W. and AFS is becoming more and more common in modern vehicle design. J. 23. tyre lift-off occurs if and when the tyre tension becomes zero. K. and Inagaki. D. The implementation of NFC is very straightforward.. 4 Naito. J. 23–50. S. 1997. 211–242. K. D. 38(2). A... and Matsumoto. pp.. Inoue... ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Center for Engineering Education and Practice at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. In the tyre deformation plots.Veh. SAE technical paper 928309. T. The use of fuzzy reasoning was also explored and it has been proven to be an effective means of chassis control. J. Dynamic Systems Measmt Control.. E. Use of fuzzy logic in wheel slip assignment – Part I: yaw rate control. and Tomari. 2 Mammar. Veh. 3(1). J. J. 288–295. S. M. and Yamanaka.. Improvements in active safety through braking and traction control. A fuzzy controller for automobile active suspension systems. 2001. and Nohtomi. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on Automotive technology and automation. SAE technical paper 9836464.. 7 CONCLUSIONS NFC and AFS are reasonably efficient methods of enhancing vehicle handling. Proc. K.. M. 6 Pascali. and Margolis. Autonomous Systems Des. SAE technical paper 2004-01-1071. Use of fuzzy logic in wheel slip assignment – Part II: yaw rate control with sideslip angle limitation. The effect of normal force variation on the lateral dynamics of automobiles. A. System Dynamics. Improvements of vehicle handling through integrated control of chassis system. Odenthal. M. given the prevalent use of active suspension systems today. Y. System Dynamics... K. D. Yamamoto. When this is achieved. and Manning. L. 1987.. 15 Tobata. 22. 3 Shibahata. Hirano. SAE technical paper 2001-01-1275. M. K.. L. T. Manning. Automobile Engineering 5 Koibuchi. Integrated active steering and variable torque distribution control for vehicle handling and stability. SAE technical paper 2003-01-1417. 2005. D. M. 1994. M. Austria. Vehicle handling improvement by active steering. 110. H. 1998. 1999. A combined active steering differential braking yaw rate control strategy for emergency maneuvers. R. and Koenig. UK). 14 Hrovat. G.. SAE technical paper 2002-01-1221. G. T. D. D. Integrated control of four wheel steering and wheel torques using nonlinear predictive controller. 358–377. A full-vehicle model was used to demonstrate how the two strategies could be integrated and what the performance benefits that are likely to be derived are. Karnopp. E... 20 Buckholtz. and Fukuyama. 10 Selby. Babbel. and Bunte. 1998.. 16 Bakker. Improvement of vehicle maneuverability by direct yaw moment control. The important result here is that NFC and AFS individually have a significant positive influence on the lateral dynamics of a vehicle and integrating the two showed that both can readily be a part of future global chassis control strategies. 2002. SAE technical paper 2003-01-0961. C. S. Kimura. B. System Dynamics.. J. Crolla. Veh.. P.. SAE technical paper 945151. D. SAE technical paper 980230. Levesley. Akatsu. 1992.. W. Y. Gabrielli. 2003. Nyborg. Fukada. S. 1996. Int. 2002. Vehicle Stability Control in Limit Cornering by Active Brake. El-Arabi. 1988. 2003. 2002. Dynamic normal force control for vehicle stability enhancement. and Pacejka. 7 Nagai. Tyre modeling for use in vehicle dynamics studies. and Margolis. A coordination approach for DYC and active steering. Veh.. 2004. and Hubbard. 29(1/2).. Margolis.. H. The membership functions and rules are tunable and the best combination will probably arise as a result of testing with a real vehicle. Okada. An approach toward the optimal semi-active suspension. 1994. Shimada. 221 Part D: J. T.. M.

P. and Keranen. 25 MATLAB product manual. Massachusetts). Veh. Publication SAE J266-1996. Int. R. J. S. M. System Dynamics. 2004 (The Mathworks Inc. 2003.. R. J. 237–255.. positive upwards (m/s) body’s vertical velocity at suspension. untripped. light vehicle rollover. 26–35. Semi active roll control suspension (SARCS) system on a new modified half car model. J. H. 2003. 27 Hudha.=r denotes right JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc.. SAE technical paper 2003-01-2274. G... and Rahman. Veh.. and Kazemi. 28 Forkenbrock. Garrott. Automobile Engineering . F Lij F Sij g h J p J r J w J y k s k t m m s M y R w t U V W X s longitudinal force at the tyre (N) suspension force (N) acceleration due to gravity (m/s2) centre of gravity height (m) pitch moment of inertia (kg m2) roll moment of inertia (kg m2) wheel’s moment of inertia (kg m2) yaw moment of inertia (kg m2) suspension stiffness (N/m) tyre’s stiffness (N/m) vehicle’s mass (kg) vehicle’s sprung mass (kg) driving torque applied to the wheels (N m) effective radius of the tyre (m) track width (m) vehicle’s forward velocity..=r denotes rear =l denotes left. Farhangi. Warrendale. 24 Steady state directional control test procedures for passenger cars and light trucks. K. T. 221 Part D: J. Steering and suspension system of a full car model using fuzzy reasoning based on single input rule modules. C. Pennsylvania).. Heitz. Samin.. Des. Natick. M. positive to the front (m/s) vehicle’s lateral velocity. 2004. Adaptive steering. positive upwards (m/s) road–wheel angle (rad) pitch angular velocity (rad/s) roll angular velocity (rad/s) wheel’s rotational speed (rad/s) yaw angular velocity (rad/s) yaw rate of the actual vehicle yaw rate of the neutral steer vehicle APPENDIX Notation a b b s B F Cij distance from the centre of gravity to the front axle (m) distance from the centre of gravity to the rear axle (m) suspension damping (N/m s) brake torque applied to wheels (N m) cornering force at the tyre (N) d v p v r v w v y V V d i j Subscript =f denotes front. Y. An experimental examination of double lane change maneuvers that may induce on-road. B. F. A fuzzy logic direct yaw-moment control system for allwheel-drive electric vehicle. 1(2). IMechE Vol. SAE technical paper 2003-01-1009. R.. T. 1969. 23 Tahami. 2003. 26 Kasselmann. 2. and Emoto. and O’Harra. positive to the left (m/s) vehicle’s vertical velocity.Integrated control of suspension and front steering 391 22 Yoshimura. 203–221. 41(3). Bendix Tech. 1996 (SAE International.. W. Jamaluddin.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful