Nonlinear Dyn
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-018-4060-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Adaptive robust control methodology for active roll control
system with uncertainty
Hao Sun · Ye-Hwa Chen · Han Zhao
Received: 19 January 2017 / Accepted: 6 January 2018
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract The active roll control system (ARCS) can
impose anti-roll moment quickly to prevent the vehicle
rolling when the vehicle generates the roll tendency and
effectively enhance the vehicle dynamic performance
without sacrificing the ride comfort. In the dynamic
model of the ARCS, the sprung mass of the vehicle
is considered to be the uncertain parameter, which is
(possibly) fast-varying. However, what we know about
the uncertainty is just that it is bounded. Furthermore,
the bound is unknown. The target roll angle is regarded
as the constraint when the vehicle equipped with the
ARCS is running under a given case. Taking the param-
eter uncertainty and possible initial condition deviation
from the constraint into account, an adaptive robust
control scheme based on the Udwadia and Kalaba’s
approach is proposed to drive the ARCS to follow the
pre-specified constraint approximately. The adaptive
law is of leakage type which can adjust itself based
on the tracking error. Numerical simulation shows that
by using the adaptive robust control scheme, the error
between the actual roll angle and the desired roll angle
H. Sun (B) · H. Zhao
School of Mechanical Engineering, Hefei University of
Technology, Hefei, Anhui 230009, People’s Republic of
China
e-mail: sunhao.0806@163.com
Y.-H. Chen · H. Sun
The George W Woodruff School of Mechanical
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,
GA 30332, USA
e-mail: yehwa.chen@me.gatech.edu
converges to zero quickly in 0.3 s from initial error
0.287 deg, and the final error is of the order of 10−7 .
Thus, the control design renders the ARCS practically
stable and achieves constraints following maneuvering.
Keywords Active roll control system · System
uncertainty · Initial condition deviation · Adaptive
robust control
1 Introduction
When a vehicle is cornering, the vehicle body leans
toward outside due to the centrifugal force and this roll
motion degrades the driving comfort that the passen-
ger feels. Most passenger vehicles today are equipped
with the torsion bars, called stabilizer bars, which are
attached at the front and rear axles so as to reduce the
roll motion. But these conventional passive stabilizer
bars are difficult to satisfy the requirements of ride com-
fort and handling stability at the same time, and cannot
adjust the roll stiffness of the suspension in real time.
When the vehicle is cornering in high speed, it is prone
to roll. Too much roll will make the driver feel insecure
and fatigue.
The active roll control system (ARCS) can impose
anti-roll moment quickly to prevent the vehicle rolling
when the vehicle generates the roll tendency. It can
also reduce the roll angle and roll angle velocity of
the vehicle body greatly, increase the tire normal force
of the independent suspension, and improve the adhe-
123

sion conditions of the wheels and the road. Hence, the
ARCS can effectively enhance the vehicle dynamic per-
formance without sacrificing the ride comfort [1,2].
There are distinctions that can be made in ARCS
according to the actuator types and the actuator loca-
tions [3]. The most popular actuator in ARCS is hydro-
pneumatic and hydraulic system [4–8]. An active anti-
roll bar system called dynamic drive with hydraulic
system has been developed by BMW [9]. However,
the obvious drawbacks of these hydraulic actuators
are manufacturing cost, power consumption, and their
slow responses on various roads and steering inputs.
As an alternative, electric ARCS [10–15] is more fuel
efficient, energy saving, and environmentally friendly
than conventional hydraulic ARCS. And this electric
ARCS is more suitable for today’s new energy vehi-
cles, including hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), fuel-
cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), and pure electric vehi-
cles (EV).
In this paper, we aim to deal with the active roll con-
trol problem in the view of constraint following with
system uncertainty. The target roll angle is regarded
as the constraint when the vehicle equipped with the
ARCS is running under a given case. Unlike many
other research works, the sprung mass of the vehicle
is considered to be the uncertain parameter, which is
(possibly) fast-varying. However, what we know about
the uncertainty is just that it is bounded. Furthermore,
the bound is unknown. Since the presence of uncer-
tainty and possible initial condition deviation from the
constraint, it is only realistic to expect the constraint to
be approximately followed.
The main contributions of this paper are threefold.
First, the dynamic model of the electric ARCS is estab-
lished, where the sprung mass is considered to be the
uncertain parameter which is (possibly) fast-varying.
Second, a nominal control obtained from the Udwadia–
Kalaba equation [16–22] is employed to address the
system dynamics of the ARCS when no uncertainty
is involved. Third, taking the system uncertainty and
possible initial condition deviation from the constraint
into account, an adaptive robust control scheme based
on the Udwadia and Kalaba’s approach is proposed to
drive the ARCS to follow the pre-specified constraint
(i.e., the target roll angle) approximately. The adaptive
law is of leakage type which can adjust itself based on
the tracking error.
The advantages of the adaptive robust control can be
summarized as follows: (i) The adaptive robust control
123
H. Sun et al.
is able to deal with nonlinear time-varying systems. (ii)
The uncertainty could be (possibly fast) time-varying.
It is bounded. The bound is, however, unknown. We
use an adaptive law to emulate a constant parameter
vector which may be relevant to the bounding set (so
not the uncertainty itself, as in many other adaptive
controls). Our control design is not based on a priori
bound, which may be rather conservative and render-
ing excessively large control effort. (iii) The adaptive
law is of leakage type, which can adjust the magnitude
of the adaptive parameter based on the system perfor-
mance. This helps to regulate the control effort. As a
result, the adaptive law renders a modest choice of the
adaptive parameter; thereby, the control effort is also
kept moderate. (iv) This control design is applicable to
a wide range of tasks (which we summarize as con-
straint following), including trajectory following and
set-point regulation.
2 Description of constrained mechanical system
with no uncertainty
2.1 Description of mechanical system
First, we consider a mechanical system that can be
described by [23,24]:
M(q(t), t)q̈(t) + C(q(t), q̇(t), t)q̇(t) + G(q(t), t)
= τ (t), (1)
where t ∈ R is the time, q ∈ Rn is the coordinate,
q̇ ∈ Rn is the velocity, q̈ ∈ Rn is the acceleration, and
τ ∈ Rn is the control input. Furthermore, M(q, t) is
the inertia matrix, C(q, q̇, t) is the Coriolis/centrifugal
force, G(q, t) is the gravitational force. The matri-
ces/vector M(q, t), C(q, q̇, t) and G(q, t) are of appro-
priate dimensions. The functions M(·), C(·), and G(·)
are assumed to be continuous. Here it should be noted
that the coordinate q does not need to be the gener-
alized coordinate. It can be chosen by the designer for
convenience based on the specifications of the problem.
2.2 Description of constraints
Then, we introduce two different kinds of constraints in
the mechanical system: the passive constraints and the
servo constraints. The former ones usually depend on
the environment or structure of the mechanical system
Adaptive robust control methodology for active roll control…

to supply the required constraint forces. However, in d  ∂cl (q, t)

n
∂cl (q, t)
cl (q, t) = q̇k + . (12)
terms of the latter ones, the control input of the system dt ∂qk ∂t
k=1
could be designed to generate the appropriate constraint
Let
forces to meet the constraint requirements. In this study, n 
 
d d
we shall focus on the latter ones. bl (q, q̇, t) := cl (q, t) − Ali (q, t) q˙i ,
Consider the following servo constraints: dt dt
i=1

n (13)
Bli (q, t) = dl (q, t), l = 1, . . . , m, (2) then Eq. (10) can be written as
i=1
n
where Bli (·) and dl (·) are both C 1 , m ≤ n. The con- Ali (q, t)q¨i = bl (q, q̇, t), (14)
straints in (2) are holonomic in general. The constraints i=1
can be put in the matrix form which is the second-order form of the constraints.
We will represent (9) and (14) in the matrix form as
B(q, t) = d(q, t), (3)
A(q, t)q̇ = c(q, t), (15)
where B = [Bli ]m×n , d = [d1 d2 · · · dm ]T .
Taking the derivative of Eq. (2) with respect to t A(q, t)q̈ = b(q, q̇, t), (16)
yields where A = [Ali ]m×n , c = [c1 c2 · · · cm ]T and b =

n [b1 b2 · · · bm ]T .
d d
Bli (q, t) = dl (q, t), (4) Remark For a given configuration, the first-order form
dt dt
i=1
constraint (15) governs the possible velocity q̇, while
where the second-order form constraint (16) governs the pos-
d  ∂ Bli (q, t)
n
∂ Bli (q, t) sible acceleration q̈. As was demonstrated in [25], var-
Bli (q, t) = q̇k + , (5)
dt ∂qk ∂t ious control problems, including stabilization, trajec-
k=1
tory following, and optimality, can be cast into the form
d  ∂dl (q, t)
n
∂dl (q, t) (16).
dl (q, t) = q̇k + . (6)
dt ∂qk ∂t
k=1
Let 2.3 Constraint force

n
∂ Bli (q, t) 
n
∂dl (q, t)
Ali (q, t) = − , (7) We now introduce the constraint force in mechanical
∂qk ∂qk system which is subject to the d’Alembert’s virtual
k=1 k=1
work principle. Suppose that the following assumptions
∂dl (q, t) ∂ Bli (q, t)
cl (q, t) = − . (8) are imposed.
∂t ∂t
Equation (4) can be rewritten as Assumption 1 For each (q, t) ∈ Rn × R, the inertia
matrix is positive definite: M(q, t) > 0.

n
Ali (q, t)q̇i = cl (q, t), (9) Assumption 2 The constraint Aq̈ = b is consistent
i=1 (i.e., A A+ b = b, where ‘+’ is the Moore-Penrose gen-
which is the first-order form of the constraints. eralized inverse [26]). That is, for given A and b, there
Differentiating the first-order form of constraints (9) exists at least one solution q̈.
with respect to t yields Theorem 1 (Udwadia and Kalaba [17]) Consider the
n   n
d d mechanical system (1) and the constraint (16). If the
Ali (q, t) q˙i + Ali (q, t)q¨i = cl (q, t),
dt dt Assumptions 1, 2 are satisfied, then the constraint force
i=1 i=1
is given by
(10)
Q c (q, q̇, t)
where
= M 1/2 (q, t)(A(q, t)M −1/2 (q, t))+ [b(q, q̇, t)
d  ∂ Ali (q, t)
n
∂ Ali (q, t)
Ali (q, t) = q̇k + , (11) + A(q, t)M −1 (q, t)(C(q, q̇, t)q̇ + G(q, t))].
dt ∂qk ∂t
k=1
(17)

123

Remark Udwadia and Kalaba have verified that the
constraint force enables all the constraints to be exactly
satisfied at every instant of time with minimum control
cost [17]. Based on this theorem, one could apply the
control input τ = Q c to drive the mechanical system
to meet the constraint (16).
2.4 Control input with possible initial condition
deviation
However, it should be noted that the constraints must
be satisfied at each instant of time during the operation
including the initial time (t = 0) when we directly
apply the Udwadia–Kalaba approach (i.e., Theorem 1)
to design the control input. But in real life, it is usually
quite difficult to satisfy these constraints at the initial
time due to various reasons. Hence, in order to deal
with the possible initial condition deviation from the
constraints, the control design needs to be extended.
Assumption 3 For each (q, t) ∈ Rn × R, A(q, t) is
of full rank and A(q, t) is bounded. This means
A(q, t)AT (q, t) is invertible.
Theorem 2 (Chen [27]) Consider the system (1) and
the constraint (16) with the possible initial condition
deviation. Under the provision of Assumptions 1, 2, 3,
for given P ∈ Rm×m , P > 0, the control input can be
designed as
τ (t) = p1 (q(t), q̇(t), t) + p2 (q(t), q̇(t), t), (18)
with
p1 (q, q̇, t) = M 1/2 (q, t)(A(q, t)M −1/2 (q, t))+ [b(q, q̇, t)
+ A(q, t)M −1 (q, t)(C(q, q̇, t)q̇
+ G(q, t))], (19)
p2 (q, q̇, t) = − κ M(q, t)AT (q, t)(A(q, t)AT (q, t))−1 P −1
× β(q, q̇, t), (20)
where κ is a positive constant.
Remark The tracking constraint error β(q, q̇, t) can be
derived based on the given constraints. If the constraints
are of the first-order form (i.e., Eq. 15), β(q, q̇, t) can
de defined as β(q, q̇, t) := A(q, t)q̇ − c(q, t). If the
constraints are of the zero-order form (i.e., Eq. 3), then
β(q, q̇, t) can de defined as β(q, q̇, t) := A(q, t)q̇ −
c(q, t) + k(B(q, t) − d(q, t)) = Â(q, t)q̇ − ĉ(q, t).
123
H. Sun et al.
3 Adaptive robust servo control design with system
uncertainties
We now consider that there exist uncertainties in the
mechanical system while designing the control and
rewrite Eq. (1) as
M(q(t), σ (t), t)q̈(t) + C(q(t), q̇(t), σ (t), t)q̇(t)
+ G(q(t), σ (t), t) = τ (t), (21)
with
M(q, σ, t) = M(q, t) + M(q, σ, t),
C(q, q̇, σ, t) = C(q, q̇, t) + C(q, q̇, σ, t),
G(q, σ, t) = G(q, t) + G(q, σ, t).
Here M, C and G are the ‘nominal’ portions with
M > 0, M, C and G are the uncertain
portions. The functions M(·), M(·), C(·), C(·),
G(·) and G(·) are all continuous. Let D(q, t) :=
−1 −1
M (q, t), D(q, σ, t) := M −1 (q, σ, t)− M (q, t),
E(q, σ, t) := M(q, t)M −1 (q, σ, t) − I , hence we can
get D(q, σ, t) = D(q, t)E(q, σ, t).
Assumption 4 Under the provision of Assumption 3,
for given P ∈ Rm×m , P > 0, let
W (q, σ, t)
:= P A(q, t)D(q, t)E(q, σ, t)M(q, t)AT (q, t)
×(A(q, t)AT (q, t))−1 P −1 . (22)
There exists a (possibly unknown) constant ρ E > −1
such that for all (q, t) ∈ Rn × R,
1
min λm (W (q, σ, t) + W T (q, σ, t)) ≥ ρ E . (23)
2 σ∈
Assumption 5 (1) There exists an unknown constant
vector α ∈ (0, ∞)k and a known function (·) :
(0, ∞)k × Rn × Rn × R → R+ such that for all
(q, q̇, t) ∈ Rn × Rn × R, σ ∈ ,
(1 + ρ E )−1 max[P A(q, t)D(q, σ, t)
σ∈
×(− C(q, q̇, σ, t)q̇ − G(q, σ, t) + p1 (q, q̇, t)
+ p2 (q, q̇, t)) − P A(q, t)D(q, t)(C(q, q̇, σ, t)q̇
+ G(q, σ, t))]
≤ (α, q, q̇, t). (24)
(2) For each (α, q, q̇, t), the function (α, q, q̇, t) can
be linearly factorized with respect to α: There exists a
function ˜ (·) : Rn × Rn × R → R+ k such that
(α, q, q̇, t) = α T ˜ (q, q̇, t). (25)
Adaptive robust control methodology for active roll control…

We now propose the control error of the system is large, the adaptive parameter α̃
should increase quickly so as to effectively compensate
τ (t) = p1 (q(t), q̇(t), t) + p2 (q(t), q̇(t), t)
the uncertainty. Hence, the first term on the RHS of Eq.
+ p3 (α̃(t), q(t), q̇(t), t), (26) (32) should be large, while the leakage term should be
with small. When the system performance is satisfactory, the
adaptive rate α̃˙ needs to be negative and α̃ decreases.
p1 (q, q̇, t) This helps to prevent the estimated uncertainty bound
1/2 −1/2
:= M (q, t)(A(q, t)M (q, t))+ [b(q, q̇, t) to be unnecessary large which in turn prevents the con-
−1 trol magnitude to be too large.
+ A(q, t)M (q, t)(C(q, q̇, t) + G(q, t))],
(27) Theorem 3 (Chen [27]) Let δ := [β T (α̃ − α)T ]T ∈
Rm+k . Consider the mechanical system (1) and sup-
p2 (q, q̇, t) pose Assumptions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are met. The control
:= − κ M(q, t)AT (q, t)(A(q, t)AT (q, t))−1 P −1 (26) renders the following performance:
(i) Uniform boundedness: For any r > 0, there is a
× β(q, q̇, t), (28)
d(r ) < ∞ such that if ||δ(t0 )|| ≤ r , then ||δ(t)|| ≤ d(r )
p3 (α̃, q, q̇, t) for all t ≥ t0 .
(ii) Uniform ultimate boundedness: For any r > 0
:= − [M(q, t)AT (q, t)(A(q, t)AT (q, t))−1 P −1 ] with ||δ(t0 )|| ≤ r , there exists a d > 0 such that
× γ (α̃, q, q̇, t)μ(α̃, q, q̇, t) (α̃, q, q̇, t), (29) ||δ(t)|| ≤ d for any d > d as t ≥ t0 + T (d, r ), where
where T (d, r ) < ∞.

⎧ Remark Due to the presence of uncertainty and possi-

⎪
⎨
1
||μ(α̃,q,q̇,t)|| i f ||μ(α̃, q, q̇, t)|| > ε̂,
γ (α̃, q, q̇, t) =
⎪
⎩ only reasonable to expect the constraints to be approx-
1
i f ||μ(α̃, q, q̇, t)|| ≤ ε̂,
ε̂
μ(α̃, q, q̇, t) = β(q, q̇, t) (α̃, q, q̇, t),
and κ is a positive constant.
The parameter α̃ is governed by the following adap-
tive law:
α̃˙ = k1 ˜ (q, q̇, t)||β(q, q̇, t)|| − k2 α̃,
α̃i (t0 ) > 0 (where α̃i is the i − th component of the
vector α̃, i = 1, . . . , k), k1,2 ∈ R, k1,2 > 0.
Remark In this study, the uncertainty could be (pos-
sibly fast) time-varying. It is bounded. The bound is,
however, unknown. We use an adaptive law to emulate a
constant parameter vector which may be relevant to the
bounding set (so not the uncertainty itself, as in many
other adaptive controls). Our control design is not based
on a priori bound, which may be rather conservative
and rendering excessively large control effort.
Remark The adaptive law (32) which governs the adap-
tive parameter α̃ is of leakage type. The second term
of the right-hand side (RHS) is the leakage term. Note
that if the initial condition α̃i (t0 ) is chosen to be strictly
positive, then α̃i (t) > 0 for all t ≥ t0 . If the tracking
ble initial condition deviation from the constraints, it is
(30)
imately followed. The control τ (t) consists of three
portions. Each of them performs its own function. (i)
(31) The control p1 is the nominal action which gets rid of
the components that are not constrained in the deter-
ministic model so as to prompt the system toward the
pre-specified constraints. (ii) The control p2 deals with
the possible initial condition deviation from the con-
(32) straints and drives the system toward the pre-specified
constraints. (iii) The control p3 is the adaptive robust
action which is based on the adaptive parameter α̃. It
aims to tackle the uncertainty in the model and ensure
that the system does not deviate from the pre-specified
constraints with the influence of uncertainty.
4 Dynamic model of the active roll control system
Figure 1 shows the behavior of the active roll control
system. When the vehicle enters a corner, a rolling force
is generated by the centrifugal force. Consequently, the
lower arm on one side of the suspension is pulled up,
and the other is pulled down. The active roll control sys-
tem aims to control the torsion angle of the stabilizer
bar so as to offset the roll moment caused by lateral

123
 H. Sun et al.

Fig. 1 Behavior of the active roll control system
acceleration. It is realized by utilizing the roll reaction
force generated by the actuators and the roll reaction
force obtained from the roll stiffness of the suspension.
Figure 2 illustrates the dynamic model of the ARCS.
Key variables and parameters of the ARCS are listed
in Table 1. Equation (33) expresses the moment equi-
librium around the sprung roll center.
Is φ̈ + Cφ φ̇ + K φ φ + Maf + Mar
= m s h s a y + m s gh s φ, (33)
where
Is = m s h 2s , (34)
Cφ = Cφ f + Cφr = 2Ccφ f
+ 2Ccφr , (35)
K φ = K φ f + K φr = 2K cφ f + 2K tφ f + 2K cφr
+ 2K tφr . (36)
Remark In this paper, we consider the sprung mass of
the vehicle is uncertain parameter: m s = m s + m s (t),
due to the variation in the vehicle load. Here m s (t) is
unknown, possibly time-varying variation of m s , with
the possible bound of the variation is unknown.
The required compensating roll moment can be dis-
tributed to the front and rear components as given by
Eqs. (38) and (39), respectively, using the roll stiffness
distribution to the front axle ration of Eq. (37)
Maf
α= , (37)
Maf + Mar
Maf = α(m s h s a y + m s gh s φ − Is φ̈ − Cφ φ̇ − K φ φ),
(38)
Mar = (1 − α)(m s h s a y + m s gh s φ − Is φ̈
− Cφ φ̇ − K φ φ). (39)
The active torque m af and m ar for the actuator posi-
tions in the active suspension system can be obtained
by conversion using Eqs. (40) and (41)
m af = γ f Maf , (40)
m ar = γr Mar . (41)
Remark γ f and γr are constants related to the geometry
of the front and rear stabilizer bars, respectively. Due to
the limit of the space layout of the vehicle, the structure
of the front and rear stabilizer bars is usually different.
Hence, γ f and γr are correspondingly different.

Fig. 2 Dynamic model of

the active roll control
system

123
Adaptive robust control methodology for active roll control…

Table 1 Nomenclature of the active roll control system with

ms Sprung mass
G(q, t) = (2K cφ f + 2K tφ f + 2K cφr + 2K tφr
Is Moment of inertia of sprung mass − m s gh s )φ − m s h s a y ,
Cφ Total roll damping G(q, t) = (2K cφ f + 2K tφ f + 2K cφr + 2K tφr
Cφ f Front roll damping − m s gh s )φ − m s h s a y ,
Cφr Rear roll damping
and
Ccφ f Front coil spring damping
Ccφr Rear coil spring damping τ = − (Maf + Mar ).
Kφ Total roll stiffness Following the dynamics of the ARCS (i.e., Eq. 42)
Kφ f Front roll stiffness with the parameter uncertainty, the controller design
K φr Rear roll stiffness will be presented in the next section to render the vehi-
K cφ f Front coil spring rate cle equipped with the ARCS to achieve the target roll
K cφr Rear coil spring rate angle in a given driving condition.
K tφ f Front torsion spring rate
K tφr Rear torsion spring rate
φ Roll angle 5 Controller design
φ̇ Roll rate
φ̈ Roll acceleration
5.1 Target roll angle of the ARCS
hs Distance from roll axis to CG of sprung mass
The roll angle is used as an evaluation index in the
g Gravity constant
development of a vehicle equipped with the ARCS.
ay Lateral acceleration
Based on the results of roll attitude angle and a sub-
α Front roll stiffness ratio
jective evaluation, a target roll angle of 1 degree for a
Maf Front active roll moment
lateral acceleration of 5 m/s2 is set, which is half that of
Mar Rear active roll moment
a vehicle equipped with conventional passive stabilizer
γf Front transmission ratio bar system for the same lateral acceleration. Figure 3
γr Rear transmission ratio shows the relationship between the target roll angle
m af Front actuator active torque according to the lateral acceleration.
m ar Rear actuator active torque

5.2 Constraint
Now we define q = φ and rewrite Eq. (33) in the
The vehicle equipped with the ARCS is assumed to run
form of Eq. (21) as
under the given case with a y = 6 sin 0.5t m/s2 . From
M(q(t), σ (t), t)q̈(t)
+ C(q(t), q̇(t), σ (t), t)q̇(t)
+ G(q(t), σ (t), t) = τ (t), (42)
where
M(q, σ, t) = M(q, t) + M(q, σ, t),
with
M(q, t) = m s h 2s , M(q, σ, t) = m s h 2s ,
C(q, q̇, σ, t) = C(q, q̇, t) + C(q, q̇, σ, t),
with
C(q, q̇, t) = 2Ccφ f + 2Ccφr , C(q, q̇, σ, t) = 0,
G(q, σ, t) = G(q, t) + G(q, σ, t), Fig. 3 Target roll angle of the ARCS

123
 H. Sun et al.

Fig. 3, we can obtain the target roll angle according to given constraint. The numerical integration throughout
this lateral acceleration as this paper is done in the MATLAB environment [28–
33], using a variable time step ode 15i integrator.
φd = 0.2 ∗ a y = 1.2 sin 0.5t deg
π The nominal system parameters of the vehicle are
= sin 0.5t rad. (43) estimated as follows:
150
Differentiating Eq. (43) with respect to time once m s = 1762 kg, h s = 0.452 m,
and twice, respectively, yields Ccφ f = Ccφr = 3000 Nm/(rad/s),
0.5π K cφ f = K cφr = 10440 Nm/rad,
φ̇d = cos 0.5t rad/s, (44)
150 K tφ f = K tφr = 14760 Nm/rad,
and
g = 9.8 m/s2 , α = 0.52,
0.25π
φ̈d = − sin 0.5t rad/s2 . (45) γ f = 0.301, γr = 0.195. (50)
150
Hence, if Eqs. (43)–(45) are written in the zeroth- The initial conditions of the constraints are given as
order form, first-order form, and second-order form, follows:
respectively, we can get
φ(0) = 0.287deg, φ̇(0) = 0.573deg/s. (51)
A = 1,
π It should be noted that these initial conditions for the
d= sin 0.5t, vehicle do not satisfy the given constraint.
150
0.5π For simulation, the control parameters are chosen as:
c= cos 0.5t, κ = 1, k1 = 4, k2 = 0.2, ε = 0.0001, P = 1 and the
150
0.25π uncertainty is chosen as: m s = 40 sin 0.1t. Note that
b=− sin 0.5t. (46) the terms in M, C q̇ and G are either constant, linear in
150
position, or linear in velocity. As a result, Assumption 5
is met by choosing
5.3 Control inputs of the front and rear actuators
(α, q, q̇, t) = α1 q̇ + α2 q + α3
Considering the sprung mass of the vehicle in the ≤ α(q̇ + q + 1)
dynamic model (i.e., Eq. 42) is the uncertain param- =: α ˜ (q, q̇, t), (52)
eter: m s = m s + m s (t), the adaptive robust control
methodology proposed in Sect. 3 is utilized to deal with where α1,2,3 > 0 are unknown constant parameters,
the constraint following control problem of the ARCS. α = max{α1 , α2 , α3 }.
The control torques of the front electric actuator and For performance demonstrations, the area enclosed
the rear electric actuator can be derived as Eqs. (48) by β(t) and t is addressed:
and (49), respectively, T
S= β(t)dt. (53)
τ = p1 (q, q̇, t) + p2 (q, q̇, t) + p3 (α̃, q, q̇, t), (47) 0
This stands for the accumulative tracking constraint
m af = − αγ f τ, (48) error.
Similarly, the control cost of the front actuator and
m ar = − αγr τ. (49)
rear actuator can be defined as
T
Sf = |m af |dt, (54)
6 Numerical simulations 0
and
In this section, numerical simulations will be done T
to evaluate the performance of the proposed adaptive Sr = |m ar |dt. (55)
robust control methodology to deal with the approxi- 0
mate constraint following of the ARCS with parame- In comparison with [34], the major difference
ter uncertainty and initial condition deviation from the between our works is that our control design is for

123
Adaptive robust control methodology for active roll control…

Fig. 4 Roll angle actual roll angle with adaptive robust controll
2.5 desired roll angle
1.2 actual roll angle with LQR control
2 1.1
1
1.5 0.9

roll angle φ (deg)

14 16 18

0.5

−0.5

−1

−1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
times (s)

Fig. 5 Error of roll angle 0.3

error of roll angle with adaptive robust control
error of roll angle with LQR control
0.25
error of roll angle eθ (deg)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
times (s)

Fig. 6 Roll angle versus 2.5

actual roll angle−lateral accerelation with adaptive robust control
lateral acceleration desired roll angle−lateral acceleration
2 actual roll angle−lateral accerelation with LQR control
1
1.5
0.95
roll angle φ (deg)

1
0.9

0.5
0.85

0 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

−0.5

−1

−1.5

−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
2
lateral acceleration a (m/s )
y

123
 H. Sun et al.

0.25
1.2
adaptive robust control
1 LQR control 100%
0.2
0.8

Area (||β||)
0.15 0.6
34.1%
α̃

0.4
0.1
0.2

0.05 0
1
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
times (s) Fig. 9 Comparison of the accumulative tracking constraint error
β
Fig. 7 Adaptive parameter α̃ history

nonlinear time-varying systems, while [34] is for lin-
ear time-varying system. To demonstrate the effec-
tiveness of the adaptive robust control, LQR (linear
quadratic regulator) control is applied for comparison.
The robustness measures attributed to the LQR include
a one-half gain reduction in any input channel, an infi-
nite gain amplification in any input channel, or a phase
error of plus or minus sixty degrees in any input chan-
nel.
Figures 4 and 5 show the actual roll angle of the vehi-
cle and its error by using the adaptive robust control
methodology. The error between the actual roll angle
and the desired roll angle that converges to zero quickly
in 0.3 s as time progresses from initial error 0.287deg
is shown in Fig. 5, and the final error is of the order
of 10−7 . From Fig. 5, it is easy to see that the error
between the actual roll angle and the desired roll angle
with LQR control converges to zero more slowly with
some fluctuations. Figure 6 presents the relationship
between the roll angle according to the lateral acceler-
ation. Figure 7 shows the adaptive parameter α̃ history.
α̃ increases quickly from the initial value α̃(0) = 0.02
to the max value α̃max = 0.2074 to effectively com-
pensate the uncertainty at first. Then, the adaptive rate
α̃˙ needs to be negative and α̃ decreases to prevent the
estimated uncertainty bound to be unnecessary large
which in turn prevents the control magnitude to be too
large. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the comparison of the
tracking constraint error β between the use of the
adaptive robust control p1 + p2 + p3 and the LQR con-
trol. The accumulative tracking constraint error with
LQR control is nearly 3 times of that with adaptive
robust control. Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13 present the

Fig. 8 Comparison of the 0.03

constraint error with adaptive robust control
tracking constraint error −3
x 10 constraint error with LQR control
2
β 0.025
1

0.02 0

−1
||β||

0.015 14 16 18 20 22

0.01

0.005

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
time (s)

123
Adaptive robust control methodology for active roll control…

Fig. 10 Comparison of the 400

front actuator active torque with adaptive robust control
control input of the front

front actuator active torque maf (Nm)

front actuator active torque with LQR control
actuator 300

200

100

−100

−200

−300

−400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
time(s)

1.2

control cost of the rear actuator

1.2
control cost of the front actuator

adaptive robust control adaptive robust control

LQR control
LQR control
100% 100%
1 1

69.4% 0.8 69.4%

0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
1
1 2
2
Fig. 13 Comparison of the control cost of the rear actuator
Fig. 11 Comparison of the control cost of the front actuator

comparison of the control inputs of the front and rear tor S f with LQR control is nearly 1.45 times of that
electric actuators, respectively. From Fig. 11, we can with adaptive robust control. From Fig. 13, we can find
find that the control cost of the front electric actua- that the control cost of the rear electric actuator Sr with

Fig. 12 Comparison of the 250

rear actuator active torque with adaptive robust control
control input of the rear rear actuator active torque with LQR control
rear actuator active torque mar (Nm)

200
actuator
150

100

50

−50

−100

−150

−200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
time(s)

123

Fig. 14 α̃max versus k1 and
k2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
αmax
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
k 2.5
2 0.1
LQR control is also nearly 1.45 times of that with adap-
tive robust control. Figure 14 shows the influence of
the adaptive law parameters k1 and k2 on α̃max . α̃max
gradually increases, subject to the increasing of k1 and
decreasing of k2 .
According to the obtained results, we know that
when the vehicle equipped with the ARCS is assumed
to run under the given case with a y = 6 sin 0.5t m/s2 ,
the proposed adaptive robust control scheme will
ensure the ARCS quickly responds to the desired roll
angle d = 1.2 sin 0.5t deg, which is half that of a
vehicle equipped with conventional passive stabilizer
bar system. Thus, the ARCS could reduce the roll angle
of the vehicle body quickly to make the passengers feel
comfort.
7 Conclusion
In this paper, we successfully deal with the active roll
control problem in the view of constraint following with
system uncertainty. The target roll angle is regarded
as the constraint to follow when the vehicle equipped
with the ARCS is running under a given case. In the
dynamics of the ARCS, the sprung mass of the vehi-
cle is considered to be the uncertain parameter, which
is (possibly) fast-varying. However, what we know
about the uncertainty is just that it is bounded. Fur-
thermore, the bound is unknown. An adaptive robust
control scheme on the basis of Udwadia and Kalaba’s
approach is proposed to deal with the system uncer-
tainty and possible initial condition deviation from the
constraint. The adaptive law is of leakage type which
123
H. Sun et al.
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2 k
1
can adjust itself based on the tracking error. Numerical
simulations demonstrate that the adaptive robust con-
trol renders the ARCS to follow the pre-specified con-
straint better in comparison with LQR control. It should
be noted that the choices of the control parameters are
not unique, many options satisfied the assumptions are
available which is based on the specific of the problem.
The flexibility of the adaptive robust control scheme
broadens the applicability in many systems.
Acknowledgements The research is supported by the China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2016M590563), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51505116),
and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(No. JZ2016HGTB0716).
References
1. Cronje, P.H., Els, P.S.: Improving off-road vehicle handling
using an active anti-roll bar. J. Terramechanics 47, 179–189
(2010)
2. Gosselin-Brisson, S., Bouazara, M., Richard, M.J.: Design
of an active anti-roll bar for off-road vehicles. Shock Vib.
16, 155–174 (2009)
3. Zulkarnain, N., Imaduddin, F., Zamzuri, H., et al.: Applica-
tion of an active anti-roll bar system for enhancing vehicle
ride and handling. In: IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Sci-
ence and Engineering (CHUSER), pp. 260–265 (2012)
4. Konik, D.: Development of the dynamic drive for the new
7 series of the BMW group. Int. J. Veh. Des. 28, 131–149
(2002)
5. Kim, S., Park, K., Song, H.J., et al.: Development of control
logic for hydraulic active roll control system. Int. J. Automot.
Technol. 13, 87–95 (2012)
6. Sename, O., Dugard, L., Gaspar, P.: Active anti-roll bar con-
trol using electronic servo valve hydraulic damper on single
unit heavy vehicle. IFAC Pap. Line 49, 418–425 (2016)
Adaptive robust control methodology for active roll control…
7. Vu, V.T., Sename, O., Dugard, L., et al.: Enhancing roll sta-
bility of heavy vehicle by LQR active anti-roll bar control
using electronic servo-valve hydraulic actuators. Veh. Syst.
Dyn. 55, 1405–1429 (2017)
8. Vu, V.T., Sename, O., Dugard, L., et al.: H∞ active anti-roll
bar control to prevent rollover of heavy vehicles: a robustness
analysis. IFAC Pap. Line 49, 99–104 (2016)
9. Strassberger, M., Guldner, J.: BMW’s dynamic drive: an
active stabilizer bar system. IEEE Control Syst. 24, 28–29
(2004)
10. Kim, H.J., Lee, C.R.: Hybrid roll control using electric ARC
system considering limited bandwidth of actuating module.
Int. J. Automot. Technol. 3, 123–128 (2002)
11. Ohta, Y., Kato, H., Yamada, D., et al.: Development of an
electric active stabilizer system based on robust design. SAE
Technical Paper, 2006-01-0758 (2006)
12. Buma, S., Ookuma, Y., Taneda, A., et al.: Design and devel-
opment of electric active stabilizer suspension system. J.
Syst. Des. Dyn. 4, 61–76 (2010)
13. Jeon, K., Hwang, H., Choi, S., et al.: Development of an
electric active rollcontrol (ARC) algorithm for a SUV. Int.
J. Automot. Technol. 13, 247–253 (2012)
14. Muniandy, V., Samin, P.M., Jamaluddin, H.: Application of
a self-tuning fuzzy PIPD controller in an active anti-roll bar
system for a passenger car. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 53, 1641–1666
(2015)
15. Kong, Z., Pi, D., Wang, X., et al.: Design and evaluation of a
hierarchical control algorithm for an electric active stabilizer
bar system. Stroj. vestn. J. Mech. Eng. 62, 565–576 (2016)
16. Udwadia, F.E., Kalaba, R.E.: A new perspective on con-
strained motion. Proc. R. Soc. 439, 407–410 (1992)
17. Udwadia, F.E., Kalaba, R.E.: Analytical Dynamics: A New
Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)
18. Udwadia, F.E., Kalaba, R.E.: Explicit equations of motion
for mechanical systems with non-ideal constraints. J. Appl.
Mech. 68, 462–467 (2001)
19. Udwadia, F.E.: On constrained motion. Appl. Math. Com-
put. 164, 313–320 (2005)
20. Udwadia, F.E., Kalaba, R.E.: On the foundations of ana-
lytical dynamics. Int. J. Non-linear Mech. 37, 1079–1090
(2002)
21. Udwadia, F.E., Kalaba, R.E.: What is the general form of
the explicit equations of motion for constrained mechanical
systems? J. Appl. Mech. 69, 335–339 (2002)
22. Udwadia, F.E., Phohomsiri, P.: Explicit equations of motion
for constrained mechanical systems with singular mass
matrices and applications to multi-body dynamics. Proc. R.
Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 462, 2097–2117 (2006)
23. Pars, L.A.: A Treatise on Analytical Dynamics. Heinemann
Press, London (1965)
24. Rosenberg, R.M.: Analytical Dynamics of Discrete Sys-
tems. Plenum Press, New York (1977)
25. Chen, Y.H.: Constraint-following servo control design for
mechanical systems. J. Vib. Control 15, 369–389 (2009)
26. Noble, B., Daniel, J.W.: Applied Linear Algebra. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1988)
27. Chen, Y.H., Zhang, X.R.: Adaptive robust approximate
constraint-following control for mechanical systems. J.
Frankl. Inst. 347, 69–86 (2010)
28. Valipour, M., Montazar, A.A.: An evaluation of SWDC and
WinSRFR models to optimize of infiltration parameters in
furrow irrigation. Am. J. Sci. Res. 69, 128–142 (2012)
29. Viero, D.P., Valipour, M.: Modeling anisotropy in free-
surface overland and shallow inundation flows. Adv. Water
Resour. 104, 1–14 (2017)
30. Valipour, M.: Ability of Box–Jenkins models to estimate
of reference potential evapotranspiration (a case study:
Mehrabad Synoptic Station, Tehran, Iran). IOSR J. Agric.
Vet. Sci. 1, 1–11 (2012)
31. Valipour, M.: Application of new mass transfer formulae for
computation of evapotranspiration. J. Appl. Water Eng. Res.
2, 33–46 (2014)
32. Valipour, M., Sefidkouhi, M.A.G., Raeini, M.: Selecting
the best model to estimate potential evapotranspiration with
respect to climate change and magnitudes of extreme events.
Agric. Water Manag. 180, 50–60 (2017)
33. Valipour, M.: How much meteorological information is nec-
essary to achieve reliable accuracy for rainfall estimations?
Agriculture 6, 1–9 (2016)
34. Liu, C., Sun, Z., Shi, K., et al.: Robust non-fragile state
feedback attitude control for uncertain spacecraft with input
saturation. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J. Aerosp. Eng.
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410016679194
123