Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

Published 03/28/2017
Copyright © 2017 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2017-01-1584

Robust Control of a Four-Wheel-Independent-Steering Electric Vehicle

for Path Tracking
Peng Hang, Xinbo Chen, Fengmei Luo, and Shude Fang
Tongji University

ABSTRACT
Compared with the traditional front-wheel- steering (FWS) vehicles, four-wheel-independent-steering (4WIS) vehicles have better
handing stability and path-tracking performance. In view of this, a novel 4WIS electric vehicle (EV) with steer-by-wire (SBW) system
is proposed in this paper. As to the 4WIS EV, a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) optimal controller is designed to make the vehicle
track the target path based on the linear dynamic model. Taking the effect of uncertainties in vehicle parameters into consideration, a
robust controller utilizing μ synthesis approach is designed and the controller order reduction is implemented based on Hankel-Norm
approximation. In order to evaluate the performance of the designed controllers, numerical simulations of two maneuvers are carried
out using the nonlinear vehicle model with 9 degrees of freedom (DOF) in MATLAB/Simulink. Simulation results show that the robust
controller is superior to the LQR optimal controller in tracking accuracy in terms of the nominal vehicle model. Furthermore, the
robust controller can make the vehicle track the target path well under the circumstances of different vehicle velocities and road
friction coefficients, which indicates the robust controller has strong robust stability and good robust performance against parametric
perturbations.

CITATION: Hang, P., Chen, X., Luo, F., and Fang, S., "Robust Control of a Four-Wheel-Independent-Steering Electric Vehicle for Path
Tracking," SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH 1(2):2017, doi:10.4271/2017-01-1584.

INTRODUCTION steady-state errors in the path tracking and reject the impacts caused
by the system uncertainties and time-varying reference. Wang et al.
During recent years, automatic driving technology has become an
[6] studied the robust H∞ state-feedback controller for AGVs with
emerging research focus for intelligent transportation systems to
delay and data dropout to achieve the path tracking and vehicle lateral
reduce traffic problems. Path tracking is the rudimentary capability
control simultaneously. You et al. [7] designed a robust controller via
and primary task for the autonomous ground vehicle (AGV). The
μ synthesis approach for active front steering (AFS) vehicles and
designed path-tracking controller is required to make the vehicle
carried out performance comparisons between full-order controller
track the target path with small tracking errors including the lateral
and reduced-order controller. Yakub et al. [8] proposed the model
offset and the heading error [1].
predictive control (MPC) with proportional-integral (PI) controller
for coordination of AFS and DYC maneuvers for path-tracking
Numerous studies have been carried out regarding the control
control in a AGV and verified that the proposed control methods are
strategies of path tracking on traditional FWS vehicles. For optimal
useful to maintain and enhance vehicle stability along the desired
controller design, Goodarzi et al. [2] proposed a control strategy for
path and have the ability to eliminate the effect of crosswind.
automatic path control that integrates the active steering control
(ASC) and direct yaw moment control (DYC) utilizing the optimal
Four-wheel-steering (4WS) vehicles have superior maneuverability,
control theory. Based on backstepping and LQR method, Hu et al. [3]
handing stability and path-tracking capability than FWS vehicles [9,
designed the path-following controller which can make the lateral
11], and they are more suitable for regarding as AGVs. Since the
offset and heading error converge to zero simultaneously, even in
path-tracking problem of the 4WS vehicle is more complex than that
large-curvature roads. Salehpour et al. [4] used the particle swam
of the FWS vehicle, the control strategies of path tracking for 4WS
optimization (PSO) method to optimize the LQR controller so as to
vehicles are still relatively limited. Mashadi et al. [10] applied the
improve the path-tracking capability of passenger vehicles. Though
LQR technique to 4WS vehicles for path-tracking controller design
these optimal controllers designed aforementioned have good
and drew the conclusion that the 4WS vehicle shows potential for
path-tracking capability, they are only suitable for nominal models
path-tracking control of an AGV. An automatic path-tracking
without parametric perturbations and external disturbances. To solve
controller of a 4WS vehicle based on SMC theory is proposed in [11],
the problem of controller design for perturbed models, sliding mode
and the controller has a more precise path-tracking capability than
control (SMC), robust control, model predictive control (MPC) etc.
2WS controller and has robust capability against system
have been applied. Hu et al. [5] proposed the composite nonlinear
uncertainties. Yakub et al. [12] studied the MPC approach of 4WS
feedback (CNF) and SMC algorithm for AGVs to eliminate the
307
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

308 Hang et al / SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH / Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 2017)

AGVs for path-tracking control and demonstrated that MPC is useful Table 1. Structural parameters of 4WIS EV.
to maintain vehicle stability along the desired path and has an ability
to eliminate the crosswind effect. An integrated 4WS+DYC robust
control system for AGVs is designed in [13], and simulation results
show that the controller has a profound ability to make the vehicle
track the desired path in the presence of uncertainties.

In this paper, a novel 4WIS EV with steer-by-wire (SBW) system is

proposed and two controllers are designed for path tracking. The
comparative study of LQR+4WIS+DYC and μ
synthesis+4WIS+DYC for path tracking is implemented via
numerical simulations in MATLAB/Simulink. The aim is to design an
advanced controller to improve path-tracking capability and obtain
good robust performance against parametric perturbations and
external disturbances.

CONFIGURATION OF 4WIS EV
A novel 4WIS EV is proposed and manufactured as shown in Figure
1. To realize four wheels steering independently, the 4WIS EV
consists of four SBW systems. From Figure 2, we can clearly see that
the SBW system is an integrated design of steering system and
suspension system, and it is mainly composed of steering motor,
worm and gear reducer, shock absorber, wheel steering angle sensor,
etc. The wheel can rotate around the kingpin that is actuated by the
steering motor through reducer, upper sliding column, upper swing
arm, lower swing arm and lower sliding column. The wheel steering
angle sensor is used to measure the real-time steering angle signal of
each wheel for path-tracking control. Structural parameters of the
4WIS EV are displayed in Table 1.
MODELING
Dynamical Model of 4WIS EV
In this section, the dynamical model of the 4WIS EV is simplified as
a single track model with 2 DOF. As shown in Figure 3, only lateral
and yaw motions are taken into consideration to minimize the
complexity of modeling with the assumption of constant longitudinal
velocity u. The single track model has three inputs: the front steering
angle δf, the rear steering angle δr and the external yaw moment ΔMz.
The nonlinear dynamical equations of the signal track model can be
derived as follows [14]
(1)

where v is the lateral velocity of vehicle, r is the yaw rate of vehicle,

Fyf and Fyr are the lateral tire forces of the front and rear, respectively.

Based on the Dugoff tire model, the lateral tire force can be expressed
as

(2)

where the subscript i denotes the front (f) and rear (r) tires, αi denotes
Figure 1. 4WIS EV. the tire slip angle which can be written as

(3)

f(λi) is a nonlinear function and it is given as

Figure 2. SBW system. 1, worm and gear reducer; 2, steering motor; 3, upper (4)
swing arm; 4, shock absorber; 5, spring; 6, lower swing arm; 7, lower sliding
column; 8, upper sliding column; 9, wheel steering angle sensor.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

Hang et al / SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH / Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 2017) 309

where the state vector X =[v r Δy Δψ]T, control input vector U =[δf δr
ΔMz]T and external input vector W = 1/ρ, coefficient matrices A, B, C,
(5)
D and E are given by

where μi is the friction coefficient between the tire and road, Fzi is the
vertical load on the tire.

For controller design, assuming that the tire slip angle is much small,
the tire force has a linear relationship with respective to the tire slip
angle and Equation (2) can be rewritten as

(6)

Substituting Equation (6) into Equation (1), the linear dynamical

equations of the signal track model can be expressed as

(7)

Path Tracking
The path-tracking model of the 4WIS EV is illustrated in Figure 3.
The xy body coordinate frame denotes the vehicle direction on its
actual path, and xdyd coordinate frame denotes the vehicle direction
on its target path. In this paper, the problem of path tracking is
equivalent to minimize the lateral position error Δy and yaw angle
error which can be expressed as

(8)

Taking a derivative with respect to time, Equation (8) can be

rewritten as
Figure 3. Dynamical model of 4WIS EV for path tracking.

(9)
where ρ is the radius of curvature of the target path.
The derivation of lateral position error Δy can be derived as
OPTIMAL CONTROL
An optimal controller utilizing LQR approach is designed in this
section, which aims to minimize the tracking error so as to make the
4WIS EV obtain the best path-tracking performance. The tracking
error can be defined as

(10) (12)

Combining Equations (7), (9) and (10), the dynamical equations of where Xd is the desired value.
the 4WIS EV for path tracking can be written in the state-space form.

(13)
(11)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

310 Hang et al / SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH / Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 2017)

After taking a derivative with respect to time, Equation (12) can be

transformed into the following form.
(23)

And ξ can be solved as follows.

(14)

The performance index of the 4WIS EV for path tracking can be

(24)
expressed as
Eventually, control vector U can be expressed as

(15)
(25)
where Q and R are diagonal weighting matrices, Q is a positive
semidefinite matrix and R is a positive definite matrix. where

To achieve the performance index, a Hamilton function is K1 = -R-1BTP, K2 = R-1BT(AT - PBR-1BT)-1PA,

constructed.
K3 = -R-1BT(AT - PBR-1BT)-1P and

K4 = R-1BT(AT - PBR-1BT)-1PE.
(16)

where λ(t) is a Lagrange multiplier vector.

ROBUST CONTROL
Thus, the control equation can be written as In the process of path tracking, vehicle parameters including velocity
and tire cornering stiffness cannot keep constant at all times. Besides,
the external disturbances such as side wind and varying path
curvature are inevitable. As a result, the path-tracking performance of
(17) the 4WIS EV can be deteriorated badly. Thus, it is necessary to
design a controller which has good robust performance against
After transformation, U can be solved as parametric perturbations and external disturbances. Then, a robust
controller utilizing μ synthesis approach is designed in this section.

Besides, Euler equation can be expressed as
λ(t) and its derivative can be written as
Under steady state, considering Ṗ(t) = 0 and
the aforementioned equations, the following Riccati equation is
derived.
(18)
Robust Control Closed-loop System
The robust control closed-loop system of the 4WIS EV for path
tracking is shown in Figure 4. The system mainly consists of model
G, controller K and other elements about performance objects. Model
G is a perturbed plant model which combines nominal model Gnorm
(19) and uncertain block Δ. G can be expressed as G = FU(Gnorm, Δ) in the
form of upper linear fractional transformation (LFT). The uncertain
block reflects the parametric uncertainties of velocity and tire
cornering stiffness, and it is a diagonal matrix and norm bound ‖Δ‖ <
1. The closed-loop system has three inputs: the path information W,
(20) the external disturbance d and the measurement noise n. Outputs eU
and eY are used to evaluate the robust performance of the closed-loop
system. Weighting functions WU and WP represent the performance
(21) outputs of U and Y, and weighting function Wn represents the impact
of the different frequency domain with regard to measurement noise
, and combining
n. To achieve the desired robust performance, appropriate weighting
functions are chosen and they are expressed as follows.

(22)

where Q is the stable solution to Equation (22). Moreover,

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022
Hang et al / SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH / Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 2017)
Figure 4. Robust control closed-loop system of 4WIS EV for path tracking.
μ Synthesis and D-K Iteration
For μ synthesis, the open-loop structure of Figure 4 is displayed as
follows. In Figure 5, P(s) denotes the transfer function matrix of the
nineteen-input and seventeen-output open-loop system consisting of
the nominal model and weighting functions. The generalized system
of the 4WIS EV for path tracking is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 5. Robust control open-loop system of 4WIS EV for path tracking.
Figure 6. Generalized system of 4WIS EV for path tracking.
311
For robust performance analysis, a block structure of uncertainty ΔP
is defined as
(26)
The first uncertain block Δ is used to describe the parametric
perturbations, and the second uncertain block ΔP is a fictitious
uncertainty block which is proposed to represent the robust
performance requirement utilizing the μ synthesis approach. The
inputs to the block ΔP are eU and eY, and the outputs from ΔP are d, n
and W.
To achieve the robust performance requirements, it aims to find a
stabilizing controller K(s) so that for each frequency ω∈(0, ∞), the
structured singular value satisfies the following condition.
(27)
where FL(P, K) is a lower LFT of P and K.
To solve the problem in Equation (27), the D-K iteration method is
utilized. Considering that
(28)
where DΔP is the set of matrices that follow DΔP = ΔPD for any D ∈
DΔP and ΔP ∈ ΔP .
Then, the problem in Equation (27) is equivalent to
(29)
Controller Order Reduction
The D-K iteration results are shown in Table 2. After ten iterations, a
44-order stabilizing controller is solved to achieve the robust
performance requirements, which is a high-order controller and
difficult for the implementation in practice. Therefore, it is necessary
to realize controller order reduction. In this section, a controller order
reduction method called Hankel-Norm approximation is used, which
is applicable for stable system only, and it proves that this method
performs better at high frequency [15]. The reduced-order controller
can be solved utilizing the Robust Control Toolbox in MATLAB.
With the reduced-order controller, the closed-loop system can still
maintain the robust stability and achieve the robust performance. The
robust performance is evaluated using Equation (27). After that, the
smallest-order controller for which is
selected, which is a 10-order controller.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

312 Hang et al / SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH / Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 2017)

Table 2. Summary of D-K iteration.

(a).

SIMULATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

Based on the designed controllers, numerical simulations of the 4WIS
EV for path tracking are carried out using a nonlinear vehicle model
with 9 DOF in MATLAB/Simulink. The structure diagram of
simulation is depicted in Figure 7. Four steering angles of four
wheels δfl, δfr, δrl and δrr are derived from δf and δr of the single track
model based on the Ackerman steering geometry relationship. Two
maneuvers including the single-lane change and the double-lane
change are conducted in simulations to evaluate the path-tracking
performance of the proposed controllers. The vehicle nominal (b).
parameters are listed in Table 1.

Figure 7. Structure diagram of simulation.

(c).

Comparison of Optimal and Robust Controllers

In this simulation case, the 4WIS EV is supposed to carry out a
single-lane change maneuver at the speed of 20 m/s with the optimal
and robust controllers without considering parametric perturbations.
The nominal parameters of the 4WIS EV in Table 1 are utilized
herein.

The outputs of the optimal and robust controllers are depicted in

Figure 8 (a), (b) and (c), from which we can see that both the front
wheel steering angle and rear wheel steering angle of the robust (d).
controller are smaller than that of the optimal controller. However,
their external yaw moment curves show the similar varying trend and
magnitude. It can be inferred that the magnitude of the controller
outputs will have important impacts on the accuracy of path tracking
later. Figure 8 (d) and (e) show the vehicle states lateral velocities
and yaw rates. The lateral velocity of the robust controller is much
smaller than that of the optimal controller, but there is little difference
in yaw rates. The path-tracking results of the two controllers are
shown in Figure 8 (f), (g) and (h). It can be found that path-tracking
errors of both the yaw angle and the lateral position obtain faster
responses with lower overshoots and lower steady-state errors using (e).
the robust controller than using the optimal controller, which Figure 8.
indicates that the path-tracking performance of the robust controller
is superior to that of the optimal controller for the nominal model.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

Hang et al / SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH / Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 2017) 313

larger than that in high friction coefficient road condition. The actual
paths under different road conditions are compared in Figure 9 (h). It
is obvious that the 4WIS EV has better path-tracking performance
under high friction coefficient road condition. However, we can also
find that the path-tracking absolute errors are very small in spite of
existing in low friction coefficient road condition, which means the
designed controller has strong robust stability and good robust
performance against different road conditions.

(f).

(a).

(g).

(b).

(h).

Figure 8 (cont.). Simulation results for single-lane change maneuver: (a) front
wheel steering angle, (b) rear wheel steering angle, (c) external yaw moment,
(d) lateral velocity, (e) yaw rate, (f) yaw angle error, (g) lateral position error,
(h) path-tracking results.

Robust Performance
In this simulation case, it aims to evaluate the robust performance of
the proposed robust controller. The 4WIS EV is supposed to conduct (c).
a double-lane change maneuver under different longitudinal
velocities and friction coefficients.

Figure 9 illustrates the simulation results for double-lane change

maneuver on different road conditions (icy road μ=0.3, wet road
μ=0.6, dry road μ=0.9). From Figure 9 (a), (b) and (c), one can find
that the peak values of the controller outputs under high friction
coefficient are lower than that under low friction coefficient, and the
fluctuations under low friction coefficient are more remarkable. The
lateral velocities and yaw rates under different road conditions are
shown in Figure 9 (d) and (e), respectively. It can be observed that the (d).
amplitudes of both lateral velocity and yaw rate reduce with the
Figure 9.
increase of friction coefficient. Figure 9 (f) and (g) display the
path-tracking errors of yaw angle and lateral position, from which we
can clearly see that the path-tracking errors in icy road condition are
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

314 Hang et al / SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH / Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 2017)

under different longitudinal velocities (u=10 m/s, u=20 m/s, u=30

m/s). Considering that different longitudinal velocities lead to
different pass times through the target path, the simulation results in
this case are adjusted with respect to the longitudinal displacement
rather than time for better display.

Figure 10 (a), (b) and (c) show the control signals generated by the
robust controller, from which we can observe that high longitudinal
velocity results in high peak value and large fluctuation. In terms of
(e). lateral velocity and yaw rate, we can draw the similar conclusion
from Figure 10 (d) and (e). One can find that there are several
fluctuations in the vehicle states, which are caused by the system
disturbances. Figure 10 (f) and (g) illustrate the path-tracking errors
of yaw angle and lateral position, which indicates that the path-
tracking errors rise with the increase of longitudinal velocity. The
actual paths under different longitudinal velocities are compared in
Figure 10 (h). Though the vehicle longitudinal velocity undergoes
changes, the path-tracking performance does not deteriorate badly.

(f).

(a).

(g).

(b).

(h).

Figure 9 (cont.). Simulation results for double-lane change maneuver

considering different friction coefficients: (a) front wheel steering angle, (b)
rear wheel steering angle, (c) external yaw moment, (d) lateral velocity, (e)
yaw rate, (f) yaw angle error, (g) lateral position error, (h) path-tracking
results.

Before controller design, vehicle longitudinal velocity is assumed to

be constant. However, it cannot be realized in actual fact. To solve the (c).
problem, the parametric perturbation of longitudinal velocity is
Figure 10.
considered in the procedure of robust controller design. Figure (10)
displays the simulation results for double-lane change maneuver
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

Hang et al / SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH / Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 2017) 315

Overall, the comparison of the optimal and robust controllers for

improving path-tracking performance shows that the robust controller
has better path-tracking capability compared with the optimal
controller. Furthermore, the robust performance of the robust
controller is validated in the presence of parametric perturbations of
longitudinal velocity and tire cornering stiffness.

CONCLUSIONS
(d). In this paper, a novel 4WIS EV with SBW system is proposed. To
deal with the path-tracking control issue for the 4WIS EV, the optimal
and robust controllers are designed utilizing LQR and μ synthesis
approaches respectively. In the procedure of robust controller design,
the parametric perturbations, varying path curvature and
measurement noise are taken into consideration. The controller order
reduction of robust controller is realized by means of Hankel-Norm
approximation. Based on nominal model, the path-tracking
performance comparisons of the optimal and robust controllers are
carried out via a single-lane change maneuver and the robust
controller shows better path-tracking capability. To evaluate the
(e). robust performance of the robust controller, a double-lane change
simulation case under different road conditions and longitudinal
velocities is conducted. Simulation results show that the designed
robust controller has excellent path-tracking performance, sufficient
robust stability and good robust performance against serious
parametric perturbations and external disturbances. The best way to
verify the designed controller’s performance is to implement
experiments, so our future work focus on actual tests of the 4WIS EV
shown in Figure 1, and the tests of control hardware and sensors are
under way.
(f).
REFERENCES
1. Zakaria, M. A., Zamzuri, H., Mamat. R. and Mazlan, S. A., “A Path
Tracking Algorithm Using Future Prediction Control with Spike
Detection for an Autonomous Vehicle Robot,” International Journal of
Advanced Robotic Systems, 10:1-9, 2013, doi:10.5772/56658.
2. Goodarzi, A., Sabooteh, A. and Esmailzadeh, E., “Automatic Path
Control Based on Integrated Steering and External Yaw-moment
Control,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Part K Journal of Multi-body Dynamics, 222(2):189-200, 2008,
doi:10.1243/14644193JMBD120.
3. Hu, C., Wang, R., Yan, F. and Chen, N., “Should the Desired Heading
in Path Following of Autonomous Vehicles be the Tangent Direction
(g). of the Desired Path?” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, 16(6):1-11, 2015, doi:10.1109/TITS.2015.2435016.
4. Salehpour, S., Pourasad, Y. and Taheri, S. H., “Vehicle Path Tracking
by Integrated Chassis Control,” Journal of Central South University,
22(4):1378-1388, 2015, doi:10.1007/s11771-015-2655-y.
5. Hu, C., Wang, R. and Yan, F., “Integral Sliding Mode-based Composite
Nonlinear Feedback Control for Path Following of Four-Wheel
Independently Actuated Autonomous Vehicles,” IEEE Transactions
on Transportation Electrification, 2(2):221-230, 2016, doi:10.1109/
TTE.2016.2537046.
6. Wang, R., Jing, H., Hu, C., Yan, F. et al., “Robust H∞ Path Following
Control for Autonomous Ground Vehicles With Delay and Data
Dropout,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
17(7):2042-2050, 2016, doi:10.1109/TITS.2015.2498157.
7. You, S. S. and Jeong, S. K., “Controller Design and Analysis For
(h).
Automatic Steering of Passenger Cars,” Mechatronics, 12(3):427-446,
2002, doi:10.1016/S0957-4158(01)00005-8.
Figure 10 (cont.). Simulation results for double-lane change maneuver 8. Yakub, F. and Mori, Y., “Enhancing Path Following Control Performance
considering different longitudinal velocities: (a) front wheel steering angle, (b) of Autonomous Ground Vehicle through Coordinated Approach under
rear wheel steering angle, (c) external yaw moment, (d) lateral velocity, (e) Disturbance Effect,” IEEJ Transactions on Electronics Information and
Systems, 135(1):102-110, 2015, doi:10.1541/ieejeiss.135.102.
yaw rate, (f) yaw angle error, (g) lateral position error, (h) path-tracking
results.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

316 Hang et al / SAE Int. J. Veh. Dyn., Stab., and NVH / Volume 1, Issue 2 (July 2017)

9. Yin, G., Chen, N. and Li, P., “Improving Handling Stability Performance
of Four-Wheel Steering Vehicle via μ-Synthesis Robust Control,”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 56(5):2432-2439, 2007, This study is supported by National Nature Science Foundation of
doi:10.1109/TVT.2007.899941.
China (51375344), (U1564207) and (5150051692). The authors
10. Mashadi, B., Ahmadizadeh, P. and Majidi, M., “Integrated Controller
Design for Path Following in Autonomous Vehicles,” SAE Technical would like to express their sincere thanks to them for providing
Paper 2011-01-1032, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-1032. research funding.
11. Hiraoka, T., Nishihara, O. and Kumamoto, H., “Automatic Path-tracking
Controller of a Four-wheel steering Vehicle,” Vehicle System Dynamics,
47(47):1205-1227, 2009, doi:10.1080/00423110802545919.
12. Yakub, F., Abu, A., Sarip, S. and Mori, Y., “Study of Model Predictive
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
Control for Path-Following Autonomous Ground Vehicle Control under FWS - front-wheel- steering
Crosswind Effect,” Journal of Control Science and Engineering, 2016:1-
18, 2016, doi:10.1155/2016/6752671. 4WIS - four-wheel-independent-steering
13. Mashadi, B., Ahmadizadeh, P., Majidi, M. and Mahmoodi-Kaleybar, M.,
“Integrated Robust Controller for Vehicle Path Following,” Multibody EV - electric vehicle
System Dynamics, 33(2):207-228, 2015, doi:10.1007/s11044-014-9409- LQR - linear quadratic regulator
8.
14. Yin, G., Wang, R. and Wang, J., “Robust Control for Four Wheel AGV - autonomous ground vehicle
Independently-actuated Electric Ground Vehicles by External Yaw-
moment Generation,” International Journal of Automotive Technology, DYC - direct yaw moment control
16(5):839-847, 2015, doi:10.1007/s12239-015-0086-2. PSO - particle swam optimization
15. Samar, R., Postlethwaite, I. and Gu, D., “Model Reduction with
Balanced Realizations,” International Journal of Control, 62(1):33-64, ASC - active steering control
1995.
SMC - sliding mode control
CONTACT INFORMATION MPC - model predictive control
Xinbo Chen CNF - composite nonlinear feedback
austin_1@163.com AFS - active front steering
PI - proportional-integral
Mailing address: No.4800 Cao’an Road
School of Automotive Studies, Tongji University 4WS - Four-wheel-steering
Jiading District, Shanghai, China. 201804 SBW - steer-by-wire
CG - center of gravity
DOF - degree of freedom
LFT - linear fractional transformation

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.