Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022
2019-01-0693 Published 02 Apr 2019
Robust Model Predictive Control for Path Tracking
of Autonomous Vehicle
Jiaxing Yu, Xuexun Guo, Xiaofei Pei, Zhenfu Chen, Maolin Zhu, and Bian Gong Wuhan University of Technology
Citation: Yu, J., Guo, X., Pei, X., Chen, Z. et al., “Robust Model Predictive Control for Path Tracking of Autonomous Vehicle,”
SAE Technical Paper 2019-01-0693, 2019, doi:10.4271/2019-01-0693.
Abstract
P
ath tracking is one of the critical technologies in the
autonomous vehicle. Its performance may be seri-
ously affected by disturbance resulting from unpre-
dictable environment like changes in road friction coefficient
and parameter uncertainty such as cornering stiffness and
mass caused by errors of measurement. Besides, since the
vehicle system consisting of many systems is an extremely
complex nonlinear system, it is almost impossible for us to
establish a precise model of a vehicle especially when it is
moving. These inevitable factors inf luence the control
accuracy and even threaten the stability and safety of the
vehicle system. This paper proposed a promising solution to
this problem, robust MPC (Model Predictive Control)
combined with the optimal preview controller for path
tracking problems of an autonomous vehicle. The state space
Introduction
R
esearches on autonomous vehicles are steadily thriving
in the recent years, contributing to advanced technolo-
gies in autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicles are
supposed to be widely used in different road conditions such as
a slope and a flat road. Indeed, autonomous vehicle are supposed
to achieve sophisticated tasks in complex environments, whose
performance is affected by disturbance. Path tracking as one of
these tasks plays a fundamental role in the autonomous vehicles.
The highly nonlinear vehicle system with additive disturbance
challenges the performance of path following.
Many methods of path tracking have been proposed in the
previous work. An adaptive fuzzy-sliding control strategy was
presented in [1] to overcome nonlinearities, parametric uncer-
tainties and external disturbances. Saleh [2] proposed
LQ-Preview control law for lateral guidance of a passenger
vehicle. Dadras [3] adopted fractional order extremum seeking
control for path tracking. Furthermore, Model Predictive
Control (MPC) becomes an attractive algorithm for semi-
autonomous vehicles control [4, 5, 6] because of the capability
of dealing with constraints systematically. Nonlinear Model
Predictive Control (NMPC) is limited to the high computa-
tional burden reducing the effectiveness of NMPC. Linear MPC
is proposed in [6, 7] to improve tracking performance.
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
model in tracking error variables of a passenger vehicle used
for path tracking application is established. In order not to
regard road curvature as additive disturbance, the error
dynamics of the vehicle for a given road curvature is trans-
formed to the error model deviating from the steady state
trajectory. A reachable set of the error state is computed
on-line based on bounded disturbance. The constraints of
nominal state and input are obtained, which ensure state
and input constraints are satisfied in presence of distur-
bances and uncertainties. Then the preview controller is
proposed to improve the tracking performance. Simulation
using a passenger vehicle is conducted on different road
friction coefficient, mass uncertainty and road bank angles,
respectively, which are all treated as additive disturbance.
Simulation results show the effectiveness of the proposed
framework under the test of double lane change.
In order to handle model uncertainties and disturbances,
robust MPC is proposed [8]. Reachable sets represent a bound
on deviation of actual states from nominal states [9]. In recent
researches, robust MPC is applied to handle lane change,
adversarial behavior in vehicle platoons and an uncertain
driver model. Reference [10] introduced a robust Model
Predictive Control framework of lane change, consisting of
steering and longitudinal acceleration control law. Reference
[11] analyzed adversarial behavior in automated vehicle
platoons based on reachable set theory. Gray [12] proposed a
robust Model Predictive Controller used to ensure safety
constraints with minimal control intervention. Reference [5]
conducted experiments on slippery road and showed that
robust MPC of nonlinear vehicle model has better disturbance
rejection performance than conventional MPC in presence of
additive disturbance. But higher speed and road slope weren’t
investigated due to the limit of computational burden of
nonlinear MPC.
In this paper, path tracking considering additive distur-
bance is addressed by a framework of robust MPC combined
with a preview controller. To reduce the computational burden
of MPC, linear robust MPC is introduced. Robust MPC with
restricted constraints as a feedback term mainly focus on the
robustness. Lateral dynamics of the vehicle is converted into
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

2 ROBUST MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR PATH TRACKING OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE

deviations from the steady state trajectory [13], reducing the  FIGURE 1   Bicycle model
conservatism in the robust MPC. In addition, the multi-points
preview controller as a feed-forward term modifies steering
angle of road wheels, hence improving the tracking perfor-
mance of robust MPC.
The paper is organized as follows. First, the lateral
dynamic model for path tracking is established. Second, lateral

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

dynamic model is transferred into error model deviating from
the steady state and disturbance analysis is conducted. Third,
reachable sets and restricted constraints are computed.
Fourth, the multi-points preview controller is established.
Finally, the comparing results between nominal MPC and
Robust MPC are presents.

Vehicle Model
This section introduces the bicycle model of front steering in
Figure 1, which has two degrees of freedom (DOF) such as lateral
and yaw dynamics. For path tracking application, the bicycle  FIGURE 2   Lateral dynamics
model is extended to four states with lateral position error, yaw
angle error, the ratio of change of lateral position error and yaw
rate error between the center of gravity of the vehicle and the
centerline. The model is described by the equation (1).
( )
ma y = m V y + Vxw = Fyf cos d + Fxf sin d + Fyr (1a)

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

I zw = Fyf l f cos d + Fxf l f sin d - Fyr lr (1b)
where f, r denote the front and rear axles, respectively. lf
and lr refer to distances of front and rear axles from the center
of gravity. m is mass of the vehicle. δ is front wheel steering
angle. Iz is moment of inertia about yaw axis. w is yaw rate. Vy
and Vx are lateral velocity and longitudinal velocity, respec-
tively. Fx and Fy are the components of tire forces along longi-
tudinal and lateral axles, respectively.
Based on the small angle approximation (sinδ = 0 and
cos δ = 1), the equation (1) can be rewritten as follows:
The equations (2), (3) are compactly rewritten
é1 1 ù
éV y ù é0 -Vx ù éVy ù ê m m ú é Fyf ù é Cf ù
ê ú=ê +ê ú (2) éV y ù ê m ú
ë w û ë0 0 úû êë w úû ê l f lr ú êë Fyr úû ê ú = êC l údF
-
êë I Z I Z úû ë w û ê f f ú
êë I zúû
Assumptions are made that lateral acceleration is less (4)
than 0.4g, vertical tire load is constant and slip angles are no é C f + Cr Cr lr - C f l f ù
more than 4°. The lateral tire forces can be written as follows: ê - mV -Vx +
mVx ú éVy ù
+ê úê ú
x

Fyf = C f a f (3a) ê Cr lr - C f l f Cr lr2 + C f l 2f ú ë w û

ê - ú
ë I zVx I zVx û
Fyr = Cra r (3b)
The states in vehicle model are defined, which mainly
focus on the lateral position error and the yaw angle error.
lfw
af =d - - b (3c) 2
( V
)
¨
Vx e y = V y + Vxy - x = V y + Vx (y -y des ) = V y + Vx ey (5a)
R
a r = - b + lrwr / Vx (3d)
ey = y -y des (5b)
V V
b = tan -1 y = y (3e) where, ey is the distance of the center of gravity from the
Vx Vx center line of the lane and e ψ denotes the error orientation
where, β is vehicle slip angle. Cf and Cr are front cornering relative to road centerline, which are shown in Figure 2. ψdes
stiffness and rear cornering stiffness, respectively. is desired orientation of the vehicle.
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

 ROBUST MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR PATH TRACKING OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE 3

The equations (4), (5) are compactly rewritten as Substituting equation (6) into equation (6), the close-loop
system is given by
x = Ax + B1d + B2y des (6a)
T x = ( A - B1K ) x + B1d ff + B2y des (7)
x = éëe y ,e y ,ey ,ey ùû and matrix Α, B1, B2 are given by
Steady state equilibria of the close-loop system (7) can
be obtained when derivatives of states in (7) equal to zero,
é0 1 0 0 ù i.e. x = 0.
ê ú
ê0 - f + 2Cr
2C 2C f + 2Cr -2C f l f + 2Cr lr ú ( A - B1K ) x ss + B1d ff + B2y des = 0 (8)
ê mVx m mVx ú
A=ê ú (6b) Then steady states of the vehicle model can be obtained.
ê0 0 0 1 ú
ê 2C f l f - 2Cr lr 2C f l f - 2Cr lr 2C f l 2f + 2Cr l 2f ú é1 mVx2 l ù
ê0 - - ú ê (d ff - [ r ú
ë I zVx Iz I zVx û ê k1 R ( l f + lr ) 2C f ú
ê lf lf 1 ú
ê- + k 3 ] - ( l f + l r - l r k 3 ))ú
é 0 ù ê 2Cr 2Cr R ú
ê 2C ú ê ú (9)
ê f
ú x ss = 0
ê ú
ê m ú ê 1 ú
B1 = ê ú (6c) [-2C r l f l r -
ê
0
ú
ê 2RCr ( l f + l r ) ú
ê ú
ê 2C f l f ú ê 2C r l r2 + l f mVx2 ] ú
ê I ú ê ú
ë z û 0
ë û
é 0 ù where, xss are the steady states of state space model (5)
ê 2C l - 2C l ú and K = [k1, k 2, k 3, k4].
ê- f f r r
- Vx ú From xss shown in (9), we can find that the steady state of
ê mVx ú
B2 = ê ú (6d) lateral position ey equals to zero by appropriately choosing δff
ê 0 ú but error orientation with respect to the centerline eψ can’t
ê 2C f l 2f + 2Cr lr2 ú be made zero. Consequently, the steady states and control
ê - ú input are given as follows:
ë I zVx û
é 0 ù
ê 0 ú
ê ú
Zero Steady-State Error
ê
x ss = ê
1
(-2C r l r l f
ú
- ú (10a)
ê 2RCr ( l f + l r )
Model and Disturbance ê2C r l r2 + l f mVx2 )
ú
ú
Analysis ê
êë 0
ú
úû

This section introduces steady state tracking errors of the L Vx2 æ lr m lf m ö

extended bicycle model with the steering input composed
of state feedback and a feed-forward term [14]. The error
model with zero steady state errors can be obtained when
differential equations of the vehicle model subtract steady
tracking errors of extended bicycle model. Furthermore, the
disturbance and model uncertainty are treated as
additive disturbance.
Steady State and Zero
Steady-State Error Model
It is investigated in [14] that steady states are non-zero
because of ratio of desired orientation y des when state
feedback is applied to the vehicle model presented in the
previous section. 
To attenuate the effects of y des , steady output composed
of a feed-forward term and the state feedback is defined
as follows:
d ss = - Kx ss + d ff (6)
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
d ss = - Kx ss + d ff = + ç - ÷ (10b)
R R çè 2C f ( l f + l r ) 2Cr ( l f + l r ) ÷ø
where, R is radius of the centerline.
The equations (6), (8) and (10) can be transformed into
zero steady-state error model deviating from the steady state
in a state space form.
Dx = ADx + B1Dd (11)
where, Δx = x − xss and Δδ = δ − δss.Remark 1.The vehicle
model (6) can be used in Robust MPC. But in that case, ψdes
appears as an external disturbance, which causes extremely
conservative control [13].
Disturbance Analysis
Bounded addictive disturbances in the Robust Model
Predictive Control not only can serves as model uncertainty
but also represent external disturbance. In order to reduce the
complexity of robust control, external disturbance and model
uncertainty are regarded as bounded additive disturbances.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022
4 ROBUST MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR PATH TRACKING OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE
Zero steady-error model mentioned above is rewritten
as follows:
Dx = ADx + B1Dd + w (12)
where, w ∈ R is addictive disturbance. This distur-
4 × 1
bance w is unknown but bounded i.e. w ∈ W. By analyzing
the disturbance in the zero steady-state error model, w is
interpreted as lateral force and model uncertainty in the
vehicle model.
Lateral Force Disturbance Lateral force can be often
treated as external disturbance because of its nonlinear char-
acteristics influencing the vehicle handling properties. Lateral
force is related to slip angle, vertical tire load, longitudinal
slip ratio and surface friction coefficient, which is given by
Fy = f y (a ,s,h ,Fz ) (13)
where, Fy is lateral force. α is wheel slip angle. s is the
longitudinal slip ratio. μ is surface friction coefficient and Fz
is vertical load supported by individual tire.
Lateral force in this paper is simply computed as an affine
function of slip angle in (3a) (3b). The lateral tire forces error
are derived as follows:
e yf = C f a f - f y1 (a1 ,s1 ,h1 ,Fz1 ) - f y 2 (a 2 ,s2 ,h2 ,Fz 2 ) (14a)
e yr = Cra r - f y 3 (a 3 ,s3 ,h3 ,Fz 3 ) - f y 4 (a 4 ,s 4 ,h4 ,Fz 4 ) (14b)
where, fy1, fy2, fy3 and fy4 are referred to lateral forces of
front left wheel, front right wheel, rear left wheel and rear right
wheel, respectively. Since friction coefficient isn’t estimated
all the time, the lateral forces error always exist and change
according to friction coefficient and vertical load. This distur-
bance can be bounded.
 wey ¥ < e (15)
Vehicle Model Uncertainty Parametric uncertainty
can be  treated as additive disturbance, whose boundary
depends on the model uncertainty of the original system [15].
Consider parametric uncertainty in zero steady-state
error model[10]
Dx = A l Dx + B1l Dd + w (16a)
{
éë A l B l ùû Î Conv éë A1 B11 ùû ,¼, éë AL
B1L ùû (16b)
( ) (
w = A - A l x + B - Bl u (16c) ) satisfies the following assumption: (1) ( A + BK ) X f Ì X f ,
where, w in the state space model (16a) lies in the set W V f ( ( A + BK ) x ) + l ( x ,Kx ) £ V f ( x ) , "x Î X f .
defined as follows:
˜ ì
ï ( ) (
A - A l x + B - Bl u )
ü
ï
W =í ý (16d)
ïî| éë A
l
B ùû Î W, ( x,u ) Î X ´ U ï
l
þ
Robust MPC
Robust MPC as the feedback term is introduced in this section.
Reachable set and terminal constraints are both computed
online for robust MPC approach. Robust MPC problem is
formulated subsequently.
Reachable Set and Terminal
Constraint
Several definitions in set invariance theory are provided.
Two important set operations for following discussions
are the Pontryagin difference and the Monkowski sum. Given
two sets A, B, then the Monkowski sum of two polytopes A
and B is a polytope.
A Å B = {a + b|,a Î A|,b Î B} (17a)
and Pontryagin difference is
A  B = {a|a Å B Í A} (17b)
The close-loop system mentioned in zero steady-state
error (11) perturbed by a bounded, additive disturbance is
discretized, whose reachable set is calculated in the
following discussion.
x k +1 = A k x k + w (18)
where, Ak = AT + BTK, AT = AT + I,BT = B1Tand uk = Kxk.
T refers to sample time. The disturbance rejection controller
K is chosen such that Ak = Al + BlK is Hurwitz.
System (18) is subject to the constraints
x k Î X Í R 4´1 , Kx k Î U Í R ,
(19)
w k Î W Í R 4´1
The reachable set Zi, i  =  1, 2,  …  , N (N is prediction
horizon) of close-loop system (18) at each time step is
computed as follows:
Z i +1 = Ak Z i Å W
(20)
for"i ³ 0 and" ( x - x ) Î Z i
where, Z0 = {0} and x is the state of nominal system (11).
Restricted constraints and additional terminal constraints
of nominal system (11) are adopted in robust MPC. To reduce
the computational burden and complexity of the robust MPC,
restricted constraints are given as follow:
X = X - Z N ,U i = U - KZ N (21)
where, Xi and U i are restricted constraint sets for the
}
state and input of nominal system. Additionally, the
algorithm for the terminal set X f is presented in [16], which
X f Ì X  ZN , KX f Ì X  KZ N , and (2)
The computation of polytopic is implemented using
MPT-toolbox[17].
Robust MPC Formulation
Path tracking application as a Model Predictive Control
Problem (MPC) is formulated in this section. The zero steady-
state error system is discretized at each sample time. An
optimal control input is obtained by solving a constrained
finite time control problem based on current states. At next
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

 ROBUST MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR PATH TRACKING OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE 5

time step, the optimal control problem repeated the solving  FIGURE 3   Preview in steady circling motion
process using new measurement.
Given a fix sample time and the discrete linear system
(11), the nominal state equation can be written as (22).
Dx k +1 = AT Dx k + BT Dd k (22)

© 2019 SAE International.

Where AT = AT + I and BT = BT.

All Rights Reserved.

The cost function and constraints are presented as follows:

å( Dx QDx + Dd ) (23a)
N -1

min VN ( Dx,u ) =
T T
i i i R Dd i
i =0
T
+ Dx N P Dx N + e T He

Dx i +1 = A l Dx i + Bl Dd i "i = 1,¼, N (23b) é C f + Cr lrCr - l f C f ù é Cf ù

ê - mV -Vx +
mVx ú éVyss ù ê m ú
ê úê ú = ê
x
- ú d circless (27)
Dx 0 Î Dx0 Å ( -Z N ) (23c) ê lrCr - l f C f l 2f C f + lr2Cr ú ë w ss û ê l f C f ú
ê - ú êë I z úû
ë I zVx I zVx û
Dx i Î X, Dd i ÎU
(23d) It can be seen from equation (27) that
"i = 0,1,¼, N - 1
æ l mVx2 ö
x f Î X f (23e) Vyss = ç l r - f ÷ w ss (28)
ç
è Cr ( l f + l r ) ÷ø
where, N is predictive horizon and Δx 0  =  x  −  x ss.
 T
Where Vyss and wss are steady states of Vy and w, respectively.
é  ù Steady velocity Vss of the vehicle is given as follows
x = êe y , e y ,ey , ey ú is current state measured by sensors.
ë û
The MPC problem is addressed by using CVXGEN[18]. Vss = Rwss = Vxss
2
+ Vyss
2
(29)
Lateral position error is given in figure 3.

Control Policy oss = hss - R (30)

The state feedback policy in [19] is adopted for (23) in Vyss

hss = d 2 + R 2 - 2Rd (31)
this section. Vss
( ) (
Dd = K Dx 0 - Dx 0 + Dd 0 = K x 0 - x ss - Dx 0 + Dd 0 (24) ) From equations (27)-(31), it can be seen that
1 æ m ( aC f - bC r ) ö
where, Δxk and Dx k represent current state and nominal çç a + b - ÷
state respectively and Dd 0 is the first input of optimal input d circless R -T è
2 2
( a + b ) C f Cr ÷ø
= (32)
sequence obtained by solving (23). oss d 2 + R 2 + 2dT - R
The feedback control input of the vehicle system (6) is
given by l f mVx2
where, T = lr - , d is look ahead distance.
Cr ( l f + lr )
( )
d feedback = Dd + d ss = d ss + K x 0 - x ss - Dx 0 + Dd 0 (25)
Several assumptions are made in [20], and equation (32)
is transferred to
æ m ( l f C f - lr C r ) ö
2ç lr + l f -
Multi-Points Preview
d circless
=
ç
è
÷
( l r + l f ) CrC f ÷ø
(33)
Controller oss d ( d + 2T )

Lateral position error of preview points are weighted sum

Robust MPC mainly focus on the current lateral position of deviations ei(i = 1, 2) of preview points in Figure 4.
error, but it doesn’t take reference path ahead into account. The coordinate of preview points (xpp, i, ypp, i) are computed
Multi-points Preview controller in the other hand consider as follows:
the road ahead, which improves the tracking performance.
In order to calculate front steering angle in the preview x pp,i = x + K id cos (y ) (34a)
controller, the transfer function between the lateral position
y pp,i = y + K id cos (y ) (34b)
error of preview points shown in Figure 3 and front steering
angle is established. According to current lateral position error where, d is look ahead distance. (x, y) is the current coor-
of preview points, front steering angle in the preview controller dinate of the center gravity.
is obtained. Deviations of preview points and Lateral position error
Given a fix road curvature, steady states in (4) are given. are obtained.
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sunday, September 11, 2022

6 ROBUST MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR PATH TRACKING OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE

 FIGURE 4   Lateral position error of preview points TABLE 1  Parameters used in simulations.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

Nominal Mass 1412kg
Yaw Inertia 1523kg m2
Distance From CG to Front 1.016m
Axle

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

Distance From CG to Rear Axle 1.562m
Front Cornering Stiffness 60000N/rad
Rear Cornering Stiffness 110000N/rad
Sample Time 0.02s
Predictive Horizon 4
Additive Disturbance |w| ≤ [0.03,0.01,0.02,0.01]T

 FIGURE 5   Tracking path at 60km/h (22.2m/s) on a slippery

road (μ=0.4). Dot lines refer to conventional MPC while solid
lines represent robust MPC.
ei = ( y R ,i - y pp,i ) cos (y ) - ( x R ,i - x pp,i ) sin (y ) i = 1, 2, 3 (35a)
2

oss = å(G e ) i = 1,2,3 (35b)

i =1
i i

where, Gi is weighted coefficient.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

Front Steering Angle
As mentioned above, the steering control is composed of
robust MPC as a feedback term and multi-points preview
controller as a feed-forward term. The overall steering output
can be obtained as follows:
d = l1d feedback + l2d circless (36)
Where λ1, λ2 are weighted coefficients. δfeedback is calculated
by robust MPC and λcircless is computed by multi-points
preview controller.
δ and its change rate d are both bounded due to physical
limit of road wheel and steering motor.  FIGURE 6   Lateral position error at 60km/h (22.2m/s) on a
d <= 25 (37a)
 slippery road (μ=0.4). Dot lines refer to conventional MPC
while solid lines represent robust MPC.
d <= 15deg/ s (37b)

Simulation Results
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

The proposed framework is investigated in this section. As

mentioned in the disturbance analysis section, lateral force
disturbance and vehicle model uncertainty are both consid-
ered as additive disturbances. In the following, the proposed
strategy is tested through double lane change at different entry
speeds on different surfaces. In addition, mass difference of a
passage car is also included in simulations. Table 1 lists param-
eters used in simulations.
In the following figures, robust MPC and conventional
MPC are both equipped with multi-points preview controller.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

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

 ROBUST MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR PATH TRACKING OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE 7

 FIGURE 7   Front steering angle at 60km/h (22.2m/s) on a  FIGURE 9   Tracking path at 80km/h (22.2m/s) on an
slippery road (μ=0.4). Dot lines refer to conventional MPC asphalt road (μ = 0.6). Dot lines refer to conventional MPC
while solid lines represent robust MPC. while solid lines refer to robust MPC.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

 FIGURE 10   Changes of lateral position error at 80km/h

 FIGURE 8   Lateral acceleration at 60km/h (22.2m/s) on a (22.2m/s) on an asphalt road (μ = 0.6). Dot lines refer to
slippery road (μ=0.4). Dot lines refer to conventional MPC conventional MPC while solid lines refer to robust MPC.
while solid lines represent robust MPC.
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

In Figure 9, tracking performances of these two controller

are presented when the vehicles travels on an asphalt road
In Figure 5, the reference path is double lane change. The (μ = 0.6) at the speed of 80km/h. Red lines represent that mass
solid line shows the tracking performance of robust MPC uncertainty (smaller mass is 1100kg) is tested. Olive lines
on a slippery road while dot line represents that of conven- represent the vehicle travels across a road bank (tanϕ = 0.1).
tional MPC under different disturbances. Red lines represent Blue lines represent the vehicle travels on a flat road. Figure 10
that mass uncertainty (smaller mass is 1100kg) is tested. shows that changes of lateral position error of these three tests.
Olive lines represent the vehicle travels across a road bank Figure 12 depicts lateral acceleration during the tests. Since a
(tanϕ = 0.1). Blue lines represent the vehicle travels on a flat slack variable exists in robust MPC formulation, large lateral
road. Figure 7 shows the front steering angle under different acceleration during a small period is acceptable. Although
working conditions and Figure 8 reveals that the lateral changes of lateral position error of conventional MPC in a red
acceleration is less than 0.4g. It can be seen from Figure 6 line is less than that of robust MPC, lateral acceleration of
that lateral position error of robust MPC is less than that of conventional MPC is much bigger than 0.4g during 2 seconds
conventional MPC and the vehicle with robust MPC has and thus linear tire model may not be suitable for this test.
better tracking performance of the reference path than And it sacrifices the driving comfort because of
conventional MPC. large acceleration.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

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

8 ROBUST MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR PATH TRACKING OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE

 FIGURE 11   Front steering angle at 80km/h (22.2m/s) on an mass uncertainty and different friction coefficient. It has been
asphalt road (μ = 0.6). Dot lines refer to conventional MPC shown that the proposed framework under different distur-
while solid lines refer to robust MPC. bances has better disturbance rejection property than the
conventional MPC with preview controller. This framework
can be extended to collision avoidance considering distur-
bances. Hardware-in-the-loop is further topic of this study.
The real-time application of this framework will be developed
further to guarantee robustness.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

References
1. Guo, J., Li, L., Li, K., and Wang, R., “An Adaptive Fuzzy-
Sliding Lateral Control Strategy of Automated Vehicles
Based on Vision Navigation,” Vehicle System Dynamics
51(10):1502-1517, 2013, doi:10.1080/00423114.2013.811789.
2. Saleh, L., Chevrel, P., and Lafay, J.-F., “Optimal Control with
Preview for Lateral Steering of a Passenger Car: Design and
Test on a Driving Simulator,” in: Time Delay Systems:
Methods, Applications and New Trends, edited by Sipahi, R.,
Vyhlídal, T., Niculescu, S.-I., and Pepe, P. (Berlin,
 FIGURE 12   Lateral acceleration at 80km/h (22.2m/s) on an Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012), 173-85.
asphalt road (μ = 0.6). Dot lines refer to conventional MPC 3. Dadras, S., “Path Tracking Using Fractional Order
while solid lines refer to robust MPC. Extremum Seeking Controller for Autonomous Ground
Vehicle,” SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-0094, 2017,
doi:10.4271/2017-01-0094.
4. Ercan, Z., Carvalho, A., Tseng, H.E., Gökaşan, M. et al., “A
Predictive Control Framework for Torque-Based Steering
Assistance to Improve Safety in Highway Driving,” Vehicle
System Dynamics 56(5):810-831, 2018, doi:10.1080/00423114.
2017.1337915.
5. Gao, Y., Gray, A., Tseng, H.E., and Borrelli, F., “A Tube-Based
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

Robust Nonlinear Predictive Control Approach to

Semiautonomous Ground Vehicles,” Vehicle System
Dynamics 52(6):802-823, 2014, doi:10.1080/00423114.2014.90
2537.
6. Falcone, P., Borrelli, F., Tseng, H.E., Asgari, J. et al., “Linear
Time-Varying Model Predictive Control and Its Application
to Active Steering Systems: Stability Analysis and
Experimental Validation,” International Journal of Robust
and Nonlinear Control 18(8):862-875, 2008, doi:10.1002/
rnc.1245.
7. Falcone, P., Borrelli, F., Asgari, J., Tseng, H.E. et al., “Low
Complexity Mpc Schemes for Integrated Vehicle Dynamics
Summary/Conclusions Control Problems,” in 9th International Symposium on
Advanced Vehicle Control, 2008.
Robust Model Predictive Control combined with multi-points 8. Mayne, D.Q., Seron, M.M., and Raković, S.V., “Robust Model
preview controller is proposed for path tracking in this paper. Predictive Control of Constrained Linear Systems with
First, in order not to arise extremely conservative control, the Bounded Disturbances,” Automatica 41(2):219-224, 2005,
lateral dynamics is transferred into zero steady-state error doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2004.08.019.
model. Robust MPC as a feedback term takes additive distur- 9. Gonzalez, R., Fiacchini, M., Alamo, T., Guzman, J.L. et al.,
bance into account, which endows the overall controller with “Online Robust Tube-Based Mpc for Time-Varying Systems:
disturbance rejection property. Preview controller as a feed- A Practical Approach,” International Journal of Control
forward term modifies the front steering angle according to 84(6):1157-1170, 2011, doi:10.1080/00207179.2011.594093.
the remote curvature of the reference path. This framework 10. Seo, J. and Yi, K., “Robust Mode Predictive Control for Lane
is validated through simulations conducted on double lane Change of Automated Driving Vehicles,” SAE Technical
change with external disturbance such as road bank angle, Paper 2015-01-0317, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-0317.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

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

 ROBUST MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR PATH TRACKING OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE 9

11. Dadras, S., Dadras, S., and Winstead, C., “Reachable Set
Analysis of Vehicular Platooning in Adversarial
Environment,” Paper presented at the in 2018
Annual American Control Conference (ACC), June, 27-29 2018.
12. Gray, A., Gao, Y.Q., Hedrick, J.K., Borrelli, F. et al. “Robust
Predictive Control for Semi-Autonomous Vehicles with an
Uncertain Driver Model,” in 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium, 2013, doi:10.1109/IVS.2013.6629472.
13. Bujarbaruah, M., Zhang, X., Eric Tseng, H., and Borrelli, F.,
“Adaptive Mpc for Autonomous Lane Keeping,” in AVEC’18,
Beijing, China, 2018.
14. Rajamani, R., Vehicle Dynamics and Control, Mechanical
Engineering Series (2012) doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1433-9.
15. Rawlings, J.B. and Mayne, D.Q., Model Predictive Control:
Theory and Design, 2009.
16. Balandat, M., “Constrained Robust Optimal Trajectory
Tracking: Model Predictive Control Approaches,” Master’s
thesis, Technische Universitat Darmstadt, 2010.
17. Herceg, M., Kvasnica, M., Jones, C.N., and Morari, M..
“Multi-Parametric Toolbox 3.0,” in 2013 European Control
Conference (ECC), July 17-19, 2013, doi:10.23919/
ECC.2013.6669862.
18. Mattingley, J. and Boyd, S., “Cvxgen: A Code Generator for
Embedded Convex Optimization,” Optimization and
Engineering 13(1):1-27, 2012, doi:10.1007/s11081-011-9176-9.
19. Kouvaritakis, B. and Cannon, M., Model Predictive Control
(Springer, 2016).
20. Tingyou, M., “Research on Trajectory Tracking Control for
Intelligent Vehicles,” Mater’s thesis, Jilin University, 2016.
Contact Information
Jiaxing Yu, Ph.D.
jiaxingyu@whut.edu.cn
Acknowledgments
This work was financial supported in part by the National
Natural Science Foundation of the People’s Republic of China
(grant number:51505354). The authors would like to thank
the reviewers and the Associate Editor for their helpful and
detailed comments, which have helped to improve the presen-
tation of this paper.

© 2019 SAE International. 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 work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. Responsibility for the content of the work lies
solely with the author(s).

ISSN 0148-7191