Original Article

Proc IMechE Part K:

J Multi-body Dynamics
Managing driving disturbances in 2021, Vol. 235(1) 122–133
! IMechE 2020
lateral vehicle dynamics via adaptive Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
integrated chassis control DOI: 10.1177/1464419320977374
journals.sagepub.com/home/pik

Narjes Ahmadian1 , Alireza Khosravi1 and Pouria Sarhadi1,2

Abstract
This paper presents a vehicle stability control method based on a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) model reference
adaptive control (MRAC) strategy as an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) to enhance the handling and yaw
stability of the vehicle lateral dynamics. The corrective yaw moment and additive steering angle are generated using
direct yaw moment control (DYC) and active front steering (AFS) at the upper control level in the hierarchical control
algorithm. A nonlinear term is added to the conventional adaptive control laws to handle parametric uncertainties and
disturbances. The desired yaw moment generated by the upper-level controller is converted to the brake forces and is
distributed to the rear wheels by an optimal procedure at the lower-level. The major contribution of this study is the
introduction of a nonlinear integrated adaptive control method based on a constraint optimization algorithm. To verify
the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy, the nonlinear integrated adaptive controller, and linear time-varying
MRAC are designed and used for comparison. Simulation results are performed for the J-turn and double lane change
(DLC) manoeuvres at high speeds and low tyre-road friction coefficients. The desired performance of the proposed
controller exhibited significant improvement compared to the conventional MRAC in terms of yaw rate tracking and
handling of sideslip limitation.

Keywords
Integrated control, advanced driver assistance system, model reference adaptive control, direct yaw moment control,
active front steering
Date received: 17 April 2020; accepted: 16 October 2020

Introduction can modify the driver’s steering by calculating the

Vehicle handling, stability, safety, and comfort are
important challenges in designing chassis control sys-
tems. These systems include electronic stability control
(ESC),1 anti-lock brake system (ABS),2 active suspen-
sion,3 active front steering (AFS),4 traction control
system (TCS),5 direct yaw moment control (DYC),6
and torque vectoring system,7 which are designed
and manufactured by different suppliers and with var-
ious control technologies. Performance conflict among
different control subsystems such as braking, steering,
and suspension may occur because of the interaction
between longitudinal, lateral, and vertical dynamics.
To manage the problem and reduce the number of
sensors and actuators, integrated control is introduced.
Integrated control of vehicle dynamics is an advanced
method for optimizing the use of different vehicle sub-
systems. This method was proposed around 1990 to
coordinate different chassis control systems in the pres-
ence of conflict and functional interference.8
Active control systems are used for longitudinal
and lateral dynamics control problems. The AFS
extra steering angle. This significantly improves the
lateral dynamics of the vehicle. However, in critical
situations where the vehicle enters an unsafe operat-
ing range, due to its nonlinear tyre characteristics and
saturation, system performance may be disrupted
under a large steering wheel. As a result, the DYC
system is developed. The DYC can apply corrective
yaw moment using different longitudinal forces in the
left and right directions of the car. It also contributes
to vehicle stability and steerability and plays a more
important role in vehicle stability than ABS and TSC.
By applying proper brake torque, DYC adjusts the
1
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Babol Noshirvani
University of Technology, Mazandaran, Iran
2
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Department of
Mechanical Engineering Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Corresponding author:
Alireza Khosravi, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Shariati Av, Babol,
Mazandaran, Iran.
Email: akhosravi@nit.ac.ir
Ahmadian et al.
movement of the vehicle based on information from
the steering wheel angle, thus ensuring vehicle stabil-
ity. However, the external torque produced by DYC
is an expensive control input and should be limited in
emergencies. Overuse of the DYC results in a slower
speed and consequently driver complaint. Also, the
braking force applied by the DYC leads to tyre ero-
sion.9 One effective way to limit the overuse of DYC
is to integrate it with AFS. Under such circumstances,
DYC is activated to offset AFS restrictions.
Numerous papers have discussed the integration of
DYC and AFS. He et al.10 and Chokor et al.11
designed the AFS and DYC control systems separate-
ly and incorporated a switching strategy between
them. However, the internal stability of the system
was questionable due to the switching process, and
the discontinuity of the control signals under consec-
utive switches was undesirable in practical problems.
The use of gain scheduling theory based on the sta-
bility margin of vehicle lateral dynamics has been
investigated in several articles.4,12,13 In these methods,
the stability domain of the vehicle is first determined
by drawing the phase plane strategy. The phase plane
method can be determined using phase portrait draw-
ing of the sideslip angle and its rate,12,13 yaw rate and
lateral velocity,14 or sideslip angle, and tyre-road fric-
tion coefficient.15 A stability index is then determined
based on the permissible area obtained from these
portraits. This index specifies the operating range of
the steering, brake, or both actuators. The use of gain
scheduling methods to coordinate between steering
and brake actuators necessitates several tuning
parameters. Some researchers ignore steering control
in lateral dynamics and focus only on DYC.16,17 In
these papers a sliding mode control strategy is designed
to generate the required yaw moment. Lack of control
on the steering wheel leads to using more braking
forces in a particular manoeuvre, which is not pleasant
for the driver. While the integration of active steering
and braking reduces the requirements of the braking
force. The use of optimal control for the integration of
AFS and DYC has also been suggested in several
articles.9,18 Where for the problem of path following
and integration between actuators many indexes and
tuning parameters should be defined. Guo et al.19
designed a controller with input constraints on brake
and steering actuators. They calculated the permissible
range of input changes in lateral dynamics based on
the permissible range for the yaw rate and sideslip
angle outputs. On the other hand, Hu et al.20 solved
the problem with output constraints on yaw rate and
sideslip angle outputs by providing a method for path
following problems.
This paper presents a nonlinear MRAC
(NLMRAC) method to coordinate AFS and DYC
using an optimization algorithm to the optimal distri-
bution of braking forces on rear wheels. A two-level
control structure is presented. In the first level, a
model reference adaptive controller is designed by
123
adding a saturation function based on the tracking
error to manage the parametric uncertainties and
external disturbances. The output constraint adaptive
control problem with constraints on the sideslip angle
and the yaw rate is solved by defining a barrier func-
tion. In the second level, an optimization algorithm is
used to minimize the longitudinal forces and create
coordination between the brake and the steering
actuators. In this paper, to prevent interference with
the AFS, it is assumed that the brake force is applied
to the rear wheels.4 The major contribution of this
paper is the introduction of an integrated MIMO
NLMRAC algorithm to coordinate between AFS
and DYC based on a constraint optimization
method. There are mainly two contributions; first, a
Lyapunov-based MIMO MRAC method is designed
by adding a nonlinear term to manage parameter
uncertainties such as mass, tyre-road friction coeffi-
cient, longitudinal velocity, and angular stiffness and
eliminate external disturbances. For the first time, the
stability analysis for the nonlinear controller is per-
formed using MIMO equations and the tracking error
convergence is proved without decentralization error
vectors. Second, a two-level integrated strategy is pre-
sented to maintain vehicle handling and stability by
reducing the lateral acceleration and sideslip angle.
One of the advantages of the extended method is
that there is no need to define multiple tuning param-
eters in the integrated control process. On the other
hand, the application of braking force is reduced by
controlling the steering wheel. The simulation results
for the proposed controller are compared to the con-
ventional MRAC method. Better tracking perfor-
mance and keeping lateral stability using lower
control efforts are demonstrated by optimizing the
use of brake and steering forces for two lateral
manoeuvres.
The original contribution of this study is the exten-
sion of the centralized MRAC method. The extended
integrated control strategy has the ability to cope with
different vehicle uncertainties and lateral disturbances
simultaneously.
This article is organized as follows: Section 2
explains the lateral vehicle dynamics model. In
Section 3, the constraint integrated NLMRAC struc-
ture is developed. The simulation results are shown in
Section 4. The conclusions and discussion are pre-
sented in Section 5.
System description
This section explains the vehicle lateral dynamics
model and the parameters used therein. Since the
purpose of this study is to control the yaw and lat-
eral movements, so the roll, jounce, and rebound
dynamics are ignored. Figure 1 shows the single
track (ST) 2 degree-of-freedom (DOF) vehicle
model used for yaw and lateral motion study.
124 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 235(1)

0 1
! L2f Cf þ L2r Cr Lr Cr  Lf Cf
€ B l l C _ !
w B Iz vx Iz C w
¼B
B
C
b_ @ 1 þ l r Cr  Lf Cf
L Cf þ Cr C A b
l
mv2x mvx
0 1
Lf C f 0 1
B I C 1
B z C B C
þB Cd þ @ Iz AMz
@ Cf A
0
mvx
0 1 0 1
1 0
B C
þ @ Iz AMdz þ @ 1 AFdy
Figure 1. ST model of lateral vehicle dynamics. 0 mvx
(4)
The nonlinear yaw and lateral motion equations are
expressed as follows13 where l is the coefficient of friction that depends on
the actual value of the wheel skid and several other
€ ¼ Lf ðFx;f sinðdÞ þ Fy;f cosðdÞÞ
Iz w factors including weather conditions, the material
 Lr Fy;r  DFx;r tr þ Mdz (1) used in the asphalt and wheels, the condition of the
contact point between the wheel and the track (e.g.
mvb_ ¼ Fy;f þ Fy;r þ mvw_ the presence of oil, grease, mud) and slope variations
of the road.
Since the proposed design is achieved in the linear The steering input d ¼ df is obtained from the sum
control framework, the linear ST model, obtained of the two driver command and the AFS controller
from the linearization of (1) for nominal velocity output: d ¼ dd þ d and Mz is the corrective yaw
and assuming, |b | <7 deg, k < 0:1 ( k ¼ Rxvv , where moment control input. The bicycle model is used as
k is the longitudinal slip ratios and x is the angular the reference model with the following assumption,
 
wheel velocity), and cosðdÞ ’ 1. Mz ¼ 0, l ¼ 1, b ¼ tan1 vxy , Mdz ¼ 0, and Fdy ¼ 0.23
v
The vehicle yaw and lateral movement equations
are expressed as follows Note that this model is often used to simplify for
the assessment of different control strategies. And
€ ¼ Lf Fy;f  Lr Fy;r þ M
Iz w that vehicles in lateral motion and cornering are sub-
z
(2) ject to much more complex motions, requiring multi-
mvx ðb_  wÞ
_ ¼ Fy;f þ Fy;r
DOF models.24,25
The index i 2 ff; rg, j 2 fl; rg are used to determine
where w_ is the yaw rate, b is the sideslip angle, vx is the front, rear, left and right positions, respectively.
the longitudinal velocity and is considered to be con-
stant. The Dugoff’s tyre model combined with longi-
tudinal and lateral slips using the above assumptions Hierarchical controller design
of the linearization process is used for the lateral vehi- The structure of the proposed control scheme is
cle dynamics model.4,21,22 Fy;f , Fy;r are the front and shown in Figure 2. The design consists of two upper
rear lateral tyre forces, respectively, and are obtained and lower levels. To facilitate the process of controller
from the following equations. design, it is important to describe the control objec-
tives and design features. The upper-level controller is
w_ a nonlinear MIMO MRAC structure. The goal is to
Fy;f ¼ Cf af ; af ¼ df  b  Lf
vx (3) track the reference yaw rate while the sideslip angle
w_ does not exceed its maximum value. For this purpose,
Fy;r ¼ Cr ar ; ar ¼ dr  b þ Lr
vx two control inputs of ADAS as AFS and DYC in the
first control level are determined using appropriate
af , ar are the front and rear wheel slip angles, adaptive laws. Cornering stiffness, mass, speed, and
respectively. Cf , Cr are the cornering stiffnesses of tyre-road friction coefficient are constantly changing.
the front and rear tyres, respectively. Since AFS is Therefore, a nonlinear term is added to conventional
considered in this paper, so dr ¼ 0. Table 1 summa- adaptive control input to manage these parameter
rizes the parameters used in vehicle equations and uncertainties and external disturbances. This paper
notations. By inserting (2) into (1) and considering assumes that the plant states, reference targets, and
lateral disturbance force Fdy and disturbance plant parameter values are available (the yaw rate w_ is
moment Mdz , equation (1) is rewritten as follows measured through the gyroscope. The sideslip angle b
Ahmadian et al. 125

Table 1. Nomenclature and vehicle parameters.13

Symbols Value Unit Significations

m 1535 kg Vehicle mass

mr 648 kg Vehicle rear mass
Iz 2149 kgm2 Vehicle yaw inertia
Cf 40,000 N/rad Cornering stiffness of front tyres
Cr 40,000 N/rad Cornering stiffness of rear tyres
Lf 1.4 m Distance COG-front axle
Lr 1 m Distance COG-rear axle
tr 1.4 m Rear axle length
l ½0:4 : 1 – Tyre/road contact friction interval
v ½50 : 130 Km/h Vehicle velocity interval
vx ,vy – Km/h Longitudinal and lateral speeds at COG of vehicle respectively
R 0.3 m Effective tyre radius
Fx;f ,Fx;r – N Longitudinal forces on front wheel and rear wheel respectively
Fy;f ,Fy;r – N Lateral forces on front wheel and rear wheel respectively
af ,ar – rad Front and rear wheel sideslip angles respectively
b – rad Sideslip angle at COG of vehicle
bm – rad Desired value of sideslip angle
w_ – rad/s Yaw rate
w_ m – rad/s Desired value of yaw rate
dd – rad Steering angle from driver
d – rad Steering angle of front wheel produced by controller
Mz – Nm Corrective yaw moment produced by controller
Tb – Nm Transmitted wheel torque
Fdy – N lateral disturbance force
Mdz – Nm disturbance moment

Table 2. Abbreviations. laws. The purpose is to minimize the yaw rate track-
ing error between the actual behavior of the vehicle
Abbreviation Description
and the reference model so that the vehicle can bypass
AFS Active front steering a screw well in a specified manoeuvre while maintain-
DYC Direct yaw moment control ing stability. The state-space equations of the refer-
MRAC Model reference adaptive control ence model and the vehicle dynamics in the presence
NLMRAC Nonlinear model reference adaptive control
of uncertainties are as follows
KKT Karush–Kuhn–Tucker
DLC Double lane change
MIMO Multi–input multi–output x_ m ðtÞ ¼ Am xm ðtÞ þ Bm rðtÞ (5)
ESC Electronic stability control
ABS Anti–lock brake system x_ p ðtÞ ¼ ðAp þ DAp Þ xp ðtÞ þ ðBp þ DBp Þ uðtÞ þ GDðtÞ
TSC Traction stability control |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
A p B p
GPS Global positioning system
(6)

can be estimated by designing an observer or using where Ap 2 Rnn and Bp 2 Rnm are known matrices
GPS).13,26,27 and Am 2 Rnn is Hurwitz. Bm 2 Rnm , xp ; xm 2 Rn .
At the lower level, for the coordination between u; r 2 Rm1 are the control inputs and the reference
brake and steering control inputs and the optimal command, respectively and DðtÞ is the perturbation
use of brake forces, a constraint optimization algo- vector. DAp and DBp are time-varying matrices that
rithm based on longitudinal and lateral forces and the contain uncertain parameters of the plant such as lon-
tyre-road friction coefficient is presented. The yaw gitudinal velocity, mass, tyre-road friction coefficient
moment produced in the upper control level is con- and cornering stiffness. For the ST model, described
verted to brake torque and is applied to the wheels. in (4), n ¼ m ¼ 2, and
0 1
MRAC design: Upper-level controller L2f Cf þ L2r Cr Lr Cr  Lf Cf
B l l C
B Iz v x Iz C
In this section, the model reference adaptive control- Ap ¼ B C
@ L r Cr  L f Cf Cf þ Cr A
ler is designed. The upper level consists of a controller 1þl l
in which its parameters are updated through adaptive mv2x mvx
126
Figure 2. Integrated control structure.
0 1
L f Cf 1
B I Iz C
Bp ¼ B @ Cf
z C, where Bp is invertible. xp ¼
A ly. For this reason, an additional term is added to the
0
mvx
 T  T
½ w_ b T , u ¼ d Mz , r ¼ dd 0 , D ¼
 T
Mdz Fdy , and G ¼ diagðI1z ; mv1 x Þ. Note that by
substituting l ¼ 1, Ap ¼ Am , Bp ¼ Bm .
To manage the parametric uncertainties in the con-
troller design, two assumptions are made.
Assumption 1. Assume that the lumped distur-
bance can be written as fðxp ; tÞ ¼ DAp xp ðtÞ þ
DBp uðtÞ þ GDðtÞ that consists of nonlinear terms
resulting from parametric uncertainties and input
disturbances.
Assumption 2. The function fðxp ; tÞ is bounded by
a vector with positive constants f : kf1 ðxp ; tÞk < f1 ,
kf2 ðxp ; tÞk < f2 .
Thus, equation (6) can be written as follows
x_ p ðtÞ ¼ Ap xp ðtÞ þ Bp uðtÞ þ fðxp ; tÞ (7)
To determine f , 30% uncertainty for vehicle
parameters described in (4) is considered.
Furthermore, the maximum values of the yaw rate
and sideslip angle are calculated as follows
  0:085 lg
w_ 
max (8)
vx
bmax ¼ arctanð0:02 lgÞ
By calculating the saturation range for the brake
and steering input actuators, the boundary of fðxp ; tÞ
is obtained. As shown in Figure 2, the controller is
designed hierarchically. The upper-level controller
includes the design of the AFS and DYC inputs,
which are designed to track the yaw rate and sideslip
Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 235(1)
angle variables from ideal values. Given the model
disturbances and parametric uncertainties, the con-
troller must be able to remove disturbances effective-
adaptive control signal obtained through the match-
ing conditions and adaptive laws. The NLMRAC
approach results in improved elimination of pertur-
bations and convergence and removes large oscilla-
tions. Error dynamics are defined as eðtÞ ¼ xp ðtÞ
xm ðtÞ. Applying rðtÞ, the input signal uðtÞ
should be designed so that the tracking error eðtÞ
converges to zero, therefore (7) will be globally
asymptotic stable system. Here a theorem is utilized
for controller design.
Theorem 1. A ssuming fðxp ; tÞ is norm bounded, for
t 2 ½t0 ; tf  the plant (7) is globally asymptotic stable if
the input vector uðtÞ is designed as follows
uðtÞ ¼ uad ðtÞ þ unl ðtÞ (9)
where uad is the MRAC input which is designed as
follows28,29
uad ðtÞ ¼ KTx xp ðtÞ þ KTr rðtÞ (10)
The unknown control gains Kx and Kr have to satisfy
the matching conditions
Ap þ Bp KTx ¼ Am ; Bp KTr ¼ Bm (11)
and unl is the NLMRAC input to handle the system
disturbance which is designed as follows
unl ðtÞ ¼ B1
p ðgsatðeÞjejÞ (12)
where g > 0, is the controller gain, if the following
condition is satisfied
Ahmadian et al. 127

The matrix PðtÞ is chosen to satisfy the Lyapunov If the adaptive laws are selected as
algebraic equation ATm P þ PAm þ Q ¼ P, _ where
_
_ Qb Þ. K^_ x ¼ Cx xp e PBp K^ r ¼ Cr re PBp
1 T 1 T
Q ¼ diagðQw; (20)

Proof : By inserting the input signal into (7) and

using the matching conditions (11), one can write And by inserting (20) into (19), one can write

_ ¼ Am eðtÞ þ Bp ðDKTx xp ðtÞ þ DKTr rðtÞÞ

eðtÞ V_ 1 ¼ eT Qe  0 (21)
(13)
þ Bp unl ðtÞ þ fðxp ; tÞ
V_ 1 becomes globally negative semidefinite. The pro-
where DKx ¼ K^ x  Kx and DKr ¼ K^ r  Kr represents posed NLMRAC can converge the system states to K
the parameter estimation errors. The candidate in finite time under boundary perturbations if
Lyapunov function is defined as (
 1
f þc 2
Vðe; DKx ; DKx Þ ¼ eT P e K¼ e : jej  (22)
(14) g
þ trðDKTx C1
x DKx þ DKTr C1
r DKr Þ

Cx and Cr are positive definite adaptive gain matrices. f > 0 is the upper bound of the lumped disturbance
Taking the derivative of (14) and using (13), gets vector that can be calculated. g > 0 is the controller
gain and positive integer. c ¼ ½c1 ; c2 T > 0 and c1 , c2

V_ ¼ eT ATm P þ PAm þ P_ e are arbitrary small positive values. By inserting
 unl ðtÞ ¼ B1 _
þ 2eT PBp DKTx xp þ eT PBp DKTr r p ðgsatðeÞjejÞ in V 2 , the following equa-
(15) tion can be obtained
þ2trðDKTx C1 ^_ T 1 ^_
x K x þ DKr Cr K r Þ 
 2eT P Bp uns þ f ¼ 2eT PðgsatðeÞjejÞ þ 2eT Pf (23)
þ2eT P Bp unl þ f

Two conditions are then considered

Then (15) can be simplified into the following relation
 Case 1: When kek  1. In this case, the following
V_ 1 ¼ eT ATm P þ PAm þ P_ e inequality can be written

þ 2eT PBp DKTx xp þ eT PBp DKTr r  
^_ _
T 1 ^
(16) V_ 2 ¼ 2geT Pejej þ 2eT Pf  2 gPjej2  Pf jej
þ 2trðDKTx C1x K x þ DKr Cr K r Þ
 (24)
V_ 2 ¼ 2eT P Bp unl þ f
Using the Lyapunov equation ATm P þ PAm þ Q ¼
_ one can write
P, According to Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:30
!  
V_ 1 ¼ eT ATm P þ PAm þ P_ e gPjej2  Pf  kPT k2 gjej2  f (25)
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
Q
h  i
(17)
þ 2eT PBp DKTx xp þ 2tr DKTx C1 K^_ where P is a positive definite matrix obtained from
x x solving the algebraic Lyapunov equation in
h  i
^_ Assumption 1. Using K in (22), and for optional
þ 2eT PBp DKTr r þ 2tr DKTr C1
r Kr
values in e 2 R  K, there are
and then using the trace operator definition as follows
1
f þ c 2
! jej > (26)
eT PBp DKTx xp ¼ tr DKTx xp eT PBp (18) g
|fflfflffl{zfflfflffl} |fflfflffl{zfflfflffl} |fflfflffl{zfflfflffl} |fflfflffl{zfflfflffl}
aT b b aT
Therefore, gjej2  f > c. Based on (24), and since
one can end up with c > 0, so for any e 2 R  K, one can write

 h i V_ 2 < cT jej < 0 (27)

V_ 1 ¼ eT Qe þ 2tr DKTx C1 K^_ þ xp eT PBp
x x
 h i In this section, for the first time, the stability analysis
_
1 ^
þ 2tr DKr Cr K r þ re PBp
T T
is performed for the MIMO version of the plant and
(19) the controller is designed as a centralized form. While
Meng et al.31 prove the error convergence as SISO
128 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 235(1)

terms and two decentralized controllers are designed sideslip angle can be kept in the stability domain
for the steering and braking actuators. determined by the phase portrait.
There are two initial modes of eð0Þ. In the first,
eð0Þ 2 K, therefore it is not necessary to prove the
convergence performance. The other case is the
vector of eð0Þ is outside of K. Because for Efficient yaw moment distribution: Lower-level
eðtÞ 2 R  K, V_ 2 < 0, there exists t1 that eðt1 Þ 2 @K algorithm
where @K is the boundary of K. It can be concluded
The direct yaw moment input produced at the upper
that eðtÞ 2 K for t 2 ½t1 ; þ1Þ. By introducing
control level does not apply directly to the vehicle. In
the lower level, this input is converted to braking torque
U ¼ infjej (28)
e2@K and is optimally distributed between the rear wheels.
The goal of optimal control at the lower level is to min-
imize the use of brake forces to prevent driver com-
and
plaints regarding significant vehicle acceleration drop
  in a specified manoeuvre. In addition, the brake force
u ¼ gjej2  f jej (29) is optimized at the lower control level to prevent exces-
sive tyre wear. The yaw moment obtained at the upper
control level can be written as a function of the front
It can be obtained as
and rear tyre forces. To avoid interference between the

 1 front steering, it is assumed that the brake is only
f þc 2 applied to the rear wheels. The brake force should be
U¼ (30)
g applied to the rear left wheel for Mz > 0. Conversely,
and for Mz < 0, only the rear right wheel will feel the brake.
In both cases, the AFS is activated for both the left and

12 right front wheels. With this in mind, the coordination
f þ c
u ¼ cT ; u>0 (31) between the AFS and DYC is accomplished by present-
g ing a constraint optimization algorithm. Conventional
ECS methods based on brake force are often associated
Note that for each eðtÞ 2 K there exists with high costs in longitudinal perturbation, which
results in reduced acceleration and driver complaints.
V_ 2  u < 0 (32) To resolve this issue, the torque is considered as a com-
bination of brake and steering functions. In this case,
the AFS and rear brakes are synchronized together to
Because of the continuity of V2 and u, it can be con-
achieve the best performance.
cluded that there exists a tf > 0 that eðtÞ 2 K for
Here the integrated control algorithm is presented
t 2 ½t1 ; t1 þ tf . And then for any time, eðti Þ 2 K and
for the case of Mz > 0. The procedure can also be
V_ 2  u < 0 8 t ¼ ti . There exists tf > 0 that leads applied for Mz < 0. For simplicity, the front wheels
to having eðtÞ 2 K for t 2 ½ti ; ti þ tf . This means that are assumed to have the same steering angles
when system state variables reach the boundary, the dfl ¼ dfr ¼ df . The correct yaw moment Mz is written
error dynamics eðtÞ converge to the set K for each as a combination of brake and steering forces
time. Thus, for any ½t1 ; þ1Þ, there is



 1 tf
f þc 2 Mz ¼ cosdf  Lf sindf Fx;fl
jej  (33) 2
g

tr tf
þ Fx;rl þ Lf cosdf þ sindf Fy;fl
2 2 (35)


The case with kek > 1 can be proven in a similar tf
fashion. Therefore, the tracking problem for the þ Lf cosdf  sindf Fy;fr
2
system dynamics (7) is solved. To ensure lateral sta-  Lr Fy;rl  Lr Fy;rr
bility, the adaptive adjustment function Qb is defined
as follows
To reduce the optimization variables, the normal
j load ratios are described as
Qb ¼  n (34)
1  bb Fz;rl Fz;fr
Fx;rl ¼ Fx;fl ; Fy;fr ¼ Fy;fl ;
max

Fz;fl Fz;fl
(36)
Where j is a positive adjustment constant and n is a Fz;rl Fz;rr
Fy;rl ¼ Fy;fl ; Fy;rr ¼ Fy;rl
positive constant. Using this barrier function, the Fz;fl Fz;rl
Ahmadian et al. 129

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where Fz;ij are the normal loads on each wheel. Using l2 F2z;rl Mz 2
(36) Mz is rewritten as Fx;rl ¼ 1 þ 12 þ  (44)
1 þ k ð1 þ k Þb 2

 !
tf Fz;fl tr a 2 aM Fz;fr
Mz ¼ cosdf  Lf sindf þ Fx;rl Where k ¼ b and 1 ¼ ð1þkÞzb2 , and Fy;fr ¼ Fz;fl Fy;fl .
2 Fz;rl 2
0 1 Therefore, the optimum brake and steering forces
tf are obtained. The corrective yaw moment generated
B Lf cosdf þ 2 sindf C
B
 C (37) at the upper control level using NLMRAC is con-
B C
B tf Fz;fr C verted to brake torque at the lower level and applied
þB
B
Lf cosdf  sindf
2
CFy;fl
Fz;fl C to the rear wheels. The same procedure is conceivable
B C
B C for the case of Mz < 0 to obtain Fx;rr .
@  L Fz;rl  L Fz;rr A
r r
Fz;fl Fz;fl
Simulation results
Equation (37) can be rewritten as follows The performance of the proposed method is shown in
this section by studying the simulation results to control
Mz ¼ aFx;rl þ bFy;fl (38) the vehicle lateral dynamics in the J-turn and DLC
manoeuvres. The details of these standard manoeuvres
To design an algorithm for integration between are described in the ISO 3888 and ISO 7401 specifica-
AFS and DYC, the yaw moment distribution is opti- tions, respectively.33,34 To evaluate the effectiveness of
mized via an algorithm to minimize braking force Fx the hierarchical controller described in the previous sec-
on the rear wheels. In this regard, the cost function is tion in the presence of external disturbances and para-
defined as follows metric uncertainties, this method is compared with the
conventional MRAC method. The simulation results
JðFx;rl Þ ¼ F2x;rl (39) are plotted for three uncontrolled cases, controlled by
the conventional MRAC method as well as NLMRAC
with the nonlinear term. The vehicle parameters are
There are two constraints to the optimization described in Table 1. The controller parameters are set
problem. The first is equation (38). The second con- Cx ¼ diagð10; 10Þ, Cr ¼ diagð10; 1Þ, Qw_ ¼ 1, n ¼ 20,
straint, which indicates the physical limitation as well and j ¼ 10. Also Mdz ¼ Asin2pft (Nm) where A ¼
as the vehicle’s lateral stability range for the tyre, is as 1000 and f 2 ½0:1; 3.
follows.23,32
J-turn manoeuvre on a cobblestone road at 98 km/h
F2x;rl þ F2y;fl  l2 F2z;rl  0 (40)
In this scenario, the vehicle performs a J-turn
manoeuvre on a road with l ¼ 0:7. The yaw rate
Using equations (38) to (40), the Lagrange equa- tracking performance is illustrated in Figure 3(a).
tion is defined. The tracking performance of the vehicle using
NLMRAC and MRAC according to this figure is
LðFx;rl þ Fy;fl ; k; qÞ ¼ F2x;rl þ kðaFx;rl þ bFy;fl  Mz Þ much better than the passive vehicle. However, the
þ qðF2x;rl þ F2y;fl  l2 F2z;rl Þ sideslip angle of the controlled car with the extended
(41) method is lower than the uncontrolled and MRAC
cases according to Figure 3(a). Figure 3(b) shows
Where k is the Lagrange multiplier and q is a the AFS and DYC control inputs using conventional
positive quantity. By deriving (41) from its variables MRAC and the proposed nonlinear methods. In this
and applying the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) opti- manoeuvre, the NLMRAC strategy can maintain
mality conditions, two acceptable responses are vehicle handling by reducing the sideslip angle and
derived achieving proper tracking performance at lower
Case 1: k ¼ 0; q ¼ 0; F2x;rl þ F2y;fl  l2 F2z;rl < 0 costs. As can be seen in this particular manoeuvre,
the rear brake actuators for the NLMRAC method
Mz
Fx;rl ¼ 0; Fy;fl ¼ (42) do not participate and only AFS is active. Thus, with-
b out deceleration, the car maintains its handling and
Case 2: F2x;rl þ F2y;fl  l2 F2z;rl ¼ 0; q > 0 stability. Whereas the conventional MRAC method
applies brake torque to keep stability. The lateral
Mz a acceleration is shown in Figure 4(a). As shown in
Fy;fl ¼  Fx;rl (43) this figure, this signal that shows slip and unstable
b b
features of the lateral behavior, for the controlled
Substituting (43) in F2x;rl þ F2y;fl  l2 F2z;rl ¼ 0, gets vehicle using NLMRAC is less than those of the pas-
sive and controlled car with MRAC. Sideslip angle
130
Figure 3. Comparison of the vehicle responses and control
inputs for different control strategies in the J–turn manoeuvre,
(a) yaw rate and sideslip angle, (b) AFS and corrective yaw
moment.
and its rate behavior are illustrated in Figure 4(b) in
the phase plane diagram. As can be seen from this
figure, the vehicle controlled by the proposed control-
ler, without braking, can stay in a safe range with less
steering input compared to the MRAC and stay away
from the stability zone boundary, while the passive
car and the controlled one using MRAC enter the
unstable area.
DLC manoeuvre on a dry road at 105 km/h
In this scenario, the car moves at a desirable speed of
105 km/h on a road with l ¼ 0:9. Figure 5(a) shows
the yaw rate and the sideslip angle tracking perfor-
mance, respectively, for the uncontrolled case and
controlled one using the MRAC and the NLMRAC
method. According to this figure, the uncontrolled
vehicle is far from the reference value, and the con-
trolled one using conventional MRAC does not have
good tracking performance especially when the yaw
angle of the vehicle changes (Around 0.6 and
1.6 seconds) has oscillations. The magnified version
is shown below. While the controlled vehicle using
the proposed NLMRAC method can track the
Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 235(1)
Figure 4. Comparison of lateral stability for different control
strategies in the J–turn manoeuvre, (a) lateral acceleration, (b)
phase–plane b_  b.
reference value with minimum error. The sideslip
angle also decreased compared to the uncontrolled
car, indicating a decrease in lateral slip. The additive
steering angle and the yaw moment control signal in
the DLC manoeuvre are shown in Figure 5(b). As can
be seen from Figure 5(b), there is less control effort in
applying the AFS as well as the continuous control
signal resulting from the extended control method.
This is while the control signal in the MRAC
method has undesirable oscillations.
Note that the yaw moment is converted to brake
2M R
torque according to DT ¼ Tb;left  Tb;right ¼ trz in
the lower layer and the braking forces are optimally
applied to the wheels according to (44).
The lateral acceleration in the DLC manoeuvre is
shown in Figure 6(a). As can be seen from this figure,
the lateral acceleration of the controlled vehicle using
the proposed method has smaller peaks than the con-
ventional adaptive controller. This means that using
the proposed integrated controller results in manag-
ing vehicle handling and stability. Figure 6(b) illus-
trates the sideslip dynamics changes in the phase
plane. As can be seen from this figure, integrated
adaptive control without the use of the extended
Ahmadian et al.
Figure 5. Comparison of the vehicle responses and control
inputs for different control strategies in the DLC manoeuvre,
(a) yaw rate and sideslip angle, (b) AFS and corrective yaw
moment.
control strategy fails to maintain the lateral stability
of the vehicle and, like the uncontrolled vehicle, enters
the unstable and unsafe area. While the extended
optimal control method has been able to keep the
system stable.
As indicated in Figures 3 to 6, it has been shown
that optimal tracking performance is achieved by
reducing the sideslip angle and lateral acceleration.
The correct coordination between the brake and
steering actuators has allowed the controlled car in
the simulation scenarios to remain stable. Another
achievement seen in the effectiveness of the optimal
integrated NLMRAC design is its ability to eliminate
external disturbances, quickly and accurately track
the yaw rate from the reference value, and reduce
the sideslip angle and lateral acceleration by optimal-
ly applying braking forces and steering.
Conclusion
A hierarchical control strategy to improve vehicle lat-
eral stability and manoeuvreability is presented in this
study. The proposed controller implies optimized
131
Figure 6. Comparison of lateral stability for different control
strategies in the DLC manoeuvre, (a) lateral acceleration, (b)
phase–plane b_  b.
coordination of AFS and DYC individual driving
assistant control modules. A NLMRAC method is
designed at the upper control level to generate the
additive steering angle and corrective yaw moment.
A constraint optimization algorithm using KKT con-
ditions in the lower control level is utilized to attain
the optimum control laws as longitudinal and lateral
tyre forces. To illustrate the merits of using the non-
linear controller and efficient yaw moment distribu-
tion, a comparative simulation is conducted. The
results show that, in the case of two J-turn and
DLC manoeuvres, the proposed control system can
maintain a better tracking performance with lower
tracking error compared to the case with no nonlinear
terms added and stabilize the vehicle in terms of
reducing the sideslip angle and lateral acceleration.
The proposed integrated control system is a potential
method to effectively control the lateral vehicle
dynamics encountered with external disturbances
and uncertainties. The main finding of this paper is
that the extended MRAC method improves handling
performance to a large extent and ensure lateral sta-
bility. The idea of coordination between AFS and
DYC and the optimal brake force distribution results
132
to perform lateral driving manoeuvres with spending
less control efforts. The control algorithm proposed
in this study can also be utilized for other vehicle
models. The practical implementations will be studied
and in our future research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Narjes Ahmadian https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4608-5914
Alireza Khosravi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3342-4144
References
1. Lutz A, Schick B, Holzmann H, et al. Simulation meth-
ods supporting homologation of electronic stability
control in vehicle variants. Vehicle Syst Dynam 2017;
55: 1432–1497.
2. Aghasizade S, Mirzaei M and Rafatnia S. Novel con-
strained control of active suspension system integrated
with anti-lock braking system based on 14-degree of
freedom vehicle model. Proc IMechE, Part K: J
Multi-body Dynamics 2018; 232: 501–520.
3. Huang D, Chen C, Huang T, et al. An active repetitive
learning control method for lateral suspension systems
of high-speed trains. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn
Syst 2020; 31: 4094–4103.
4. Doumiati M, Sename O, Dugard L, et al. Integrated
vehicle dynamics control via coordination of active
front steering and rear braking. Eur J Control 2013;
19: 121–143.
5. Kim TU, Cheon S and Yang SY. A study on develop-
ment of real-time simulator for electric traction control
system. J Drive Control 2019; 16: 67–74.
6. Asiabar AN and Kazemi R. A direct yaw moment con-
troller for a four in-wheel motor drive electric vehicle
using adaptive sliding mode control. Proc IMechE, Part
K: J Multi-body Dynamics 2019 ; 233: 549–567.
7. Jaafari SM and Heidari Shirazi K. A comparison on
optimal torque vectoring strategies in overall perfor-
mance enhancement of a passenger car. Proc IMechE,
Part K: Journal of Multi-Body Dynamics 2016; 230:
469–488.
8. Fruechte RD, Karmel AM, Rillings JH, et al.
Integrated vehicle control. In: Proceedings of the 39th
IEEE vehicular technology conference, San Francisco,
CA, 1989, Vol. 2, pp.868–877. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
9. Goodarzi A, Sabooteh A and Esmailzadeh E.
Automatic path control based on integrated steering
and external yaw-moment control. Proc IMechE, Part
K: J Multi-body Dynamics 2008; 222: 189–200.
10. He J, Crolla DA, Levesley MC, et al. Coordination of
active steering, driveline, and braking for integrated
vehicle dynamics control. Proc IMechE, Part D: J
Automobile Engineering 2006; 220: 1401–1420.
Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 235(1)
11. Chokor A, Talj R, Doumiati M, et al. A global chassis
control system involving active suspensions, direct yaw
control and active front steering. IFAC-PapersOnLine
2019; 52: 444–451.
12. Mirzaeinejad H, Mirzaei M and Kazemi R.
Enhancement of vehicle braking performance on split-
l roads using optimal integrated control of steering and
braking systems. Proc IMechE, Part K: J Multi-body
Dynamics 2016; 230: 401–415.
13. Ahmadian N, Khosravi A and Sarhadi P. Integrated
model reference adaptive control to coordinate active
front steering and direct yaw moment control. ISA
Trans 2020;
14. Huang Y, and and Chen Y. Integrated AFS and ARS
control based on estimated vehicle lateral stability
regions. In: 2018 Annual American Control Conference
(ACC), Wisconsin Center, 27 June 2018, pp. 5516–
5521. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
15. Xu W, Fu ZJ, Xie WD, et al. Optimal torque vectoring
control for distributed drive electric vehicle. IJMIC
2019; 31: 124–138.
16. Abe M. Vehicle dynamics and control for improving
handling and active safety: from four-wheel steering
to direct yaw moment control. Proc IMechE, Part K:
J Multi-body Dynamics 1999; 213: 87–101.
17. Abe M, Kano Y, Shibahata Y, et al. Improvement of
vehicle handling safety with vehicle side-slip control by
direct yaw moment. Vehicle Syst Dynam 1999; 33:
665–679.
18. Goodarzi A and Ghajar M. Integrating lane-keeping
system with direct yaw moment control tasks in a
novel driver assistance system. Proc IMechE, Part K:
J Multi-body Dynamics 2015; 229: 16–38.
19. Guo Y, Guo H, Yin Z, et al. Vehicle lateral stability
controller design for critical running conditions using
NMPC based on vehicle dynamics safety envelope. In:
2019 IEEE international symposium on circuits and sys-
tems (ISCAS), Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, 26 May
2019, pp. 1–8. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
20. Hu C, Wang R, Yan F, et al. Output constraint control
on path following of four-wheel independently actuated
autonomous ground vehicles. IEEE Trans Vehicle
Technol 2016; 65: 4033–4043.
21. Gipser M. FTire—the tyre simulation model for all
applications related to vehicle dynamics. Vehicle Syst
Dyn 2007; 45: 139–151.
22. Mavros G, Rahnejat H and King P. Analysis of the
transient handling properties of a tyre, based on the
coupling of a flexible carcass—belt model with a sepa-
rate tread incorporating transient viscoelastic frictional
properties. Vehicle Syst Dynam 2005; 43: 199–208.
23. Ahmadian N, Khosravi A and Sarhadi P. Adaptive yaw
stability control by coordination of active steering and
braking with an optimized lower-level controller. Int J
Adapt Control Signal Process 2020; 34: 1242–1258.
24. Hegazy S, Rahnejat H and Hussain K. Multi-body
dynamics in full-vehicle handling analysis. Proc
IMechE, Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 1999; 213:
19–31.
25. Liao YG and Du HI. Cosimulation of multi-body-
based vehicle dynamics and an electric power steering
control system. Proc IMechE, Part K: Journal of Multi-
Body Dynamics 2001; 215: 141–151.
Ahmadian et al.
26. Doumiati M, Charara A, Victorino A, et al. Vehicle
dynamics estimation using Kalman filtering: experimen-
tal validation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2012.
27. Yoon JH, Li SE and Ahn C. Estimation of vehicle side-
slip angle and tire-road friction coefficient based on
magnetometer with GPS. Int Automot Technol 2016;
17: 427–435.
28. Ahmadian N, Khosravi A and Sarhadi P. Adaptive
control of a jet turboshaft engine driving a variable
pitch propeller using multiple models. Mech Syst
Signal Process 2017; 92: 1–2.
29. Ahmadian N, Khosravi A and Sarhadi P. A new
approach to adaptive control of multi-input multi-
output systems using multiple models. J Dynam Syst
Meas Control 2015; 137
30. Nam K, Fujimoto H and Hori Y. Lateral stability con-
trol of in-wheel-motor-driven electric vehicles based on
133
sideslip angle estimation using lateral tire force sensors.
IEEE Trans Vehicular Technol 2012; 61: 1972–1985.
31. Meng Q, Zhao T, Qian C, et al. Integrated stability
control of AFS and DYC for electric vehicle based on
non-smooth control. Int J Syst Sci 2018; 49: 1518–1528.
32. Lu S, Cen S, Hu X, et al. J. Integrated control of brak-
ing and steering subsystems for autonomous vehicle
based on an efficient yaw moment distribution. IEEE
Trans Industrial Electron 2017; 99: 1–1.
33. Jalali K, Uchida T, McPhee J, et al. Development of an
advanced fuzzy active steering controller and a novel
method to tune the fuzzy controller. SAE Technical
Paper 2013-01-0688, 2013.
34. Mastinu G, Gobbi M, and Miano C. Optimal Design of
Complex Mechanical Systems: With Applications to
Vehicle Engineering. In: Springer Science & Business
Media, 2007, pp.191–214.