7th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Automotive Control

The International Federation of Automatic Control

September 4-7, 2013. Tokyo, Japan

Development of Integrated Control of Electronic Stability Control,

Continuous Damping Control and Active Anti-Roll Bar for Vehicle Yaw Stability
Hyundong Her*. Kyongsu Yi**.
Jeeyoon Suh***, Chongkap Kim.****


* School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National University,

Seoul, Korea, (e-mail: hhd9@snu.ac.kr)
** School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National University,
Seoul, Korea, (e-mail: kyi@snu.ac.kr)
*** Hyundai-Kia R&D Center
Korea (e-mail: jeey55n@Hyundai.com)
**** Hyundai-Kia R&D Center
Korea (e-mail: ckkim@Hyundai.com)

Abstract: This paper describes an investigation into coordinated control of electronic stability control
(ESC), continuous damping control (CDC) and active roll control system (ARC). The coordinated control
is suggested to improve the vehicle stability and agility features by yaw rate control. At first, the relation of
roll moment distribution and yaw dynamics is analyzed based on simplified tire model. The proposed
integrated chassis control algorithm consists of a supervisor, control algorithms, and a coordinator. The
supervisor monitors the vehicle status and determines desired vehicle motions such as a desired yaw rate
and desired roll motion based on control modes to improve vehicle stability. According to the
corresponding the desired vehicle dynamics, the control algorithm calculated a desired yaw moment and
desired roll moment, respectively. Based on the desired yaw moment and the desired roll moment, the
coordinator determines the brake pressures, the ARC motor torques and damper current based on control
strategies. The ARC motor torque has been calculated to generate the roll moment and yaw moment
simultaneously. Closed loop simulations with a driver-vehicle-controller system were conducted to
investigate the performance of the proposed control strategy using CarSim vehicle dynamics software and
the integrated controller coded using Matlab/Simulink.


NOMENCLATURE lr : distance from C.G. to a rear axle (m)

ay : lateral acceleration (m/s2) m : vehicle total mass (m)
 : tire slip angle (rad) ms : sprung mass (m)
 mu : unsprung mass (m)
: roll angle (rad)
Ws : weight of the vehicle (N)
 : roll rate (rad/s) M : control roll moment acting on a axle generated by
 : yaw angle (deg) an active anti-roll bar (Nm)
Cf : cornering stiffness of a front tire (N/rad) Mf : control roll moment acting on a axle generated by
Cr : cornering stiffness of a rear tire (N/rad) an front active anti-roll bar (Nm)
Fx : longitudinal braking force (N) Mr : control roll moment acting on a axle generated by
Fyf : lateral force of the front tires (N) an rear active anti-roll bar (Nm)
Fyr : lateral force of the rear tires (N) MT : ARC motor torque command (Nm)
g : gravitational acceleration constant (=9.81 m/s2) K : roll stiffness (Nm/rad)
h : height of C.G. from ground (m) Kf : front roll stiffness (Nm/rad)
hs : height of C.G. from a roll center (m) Kr : rear roll stiffness (Nm/rad)
Ix : roll moment of inertia about roll axis (kgm2) 1. INTRODUCTION
Iz : yaw moment of inertial about yaw axis (kgm2)
KB : pressure-force constant (N/MPa) In order to cope with the complicated operation conditions
and to improve vehicle safety, performance and comfort
vx : vehicle longitudinal speed (m/s)
meanwhile, various active control systems, such as ABS,
tf : width (m) 4WS, ESP and semi-active/active suspensions and active
lf : distance from C.G. to a front axle (m) anti-roll bar, were equipped in vehicles one after another

978-3-902823-48-9/2013 © IFAC 83 10.3182/20130904-4-JP-2042.00152

IFAC AAC 2013
September 4-7, 2013. Tokyo, Japan

since the late 1970s. Among the others, the ESC and 4WS Fig. 1 shows the behavior of the vehicle suspension and
are commonly used to control the lateral vehicle dynamics, active roll control system (Ohta et al., 2006). When the
on the other hand, active suspension, semi-active suspension vehicle enters a corner, a rolling force is generated by the
and active roll bar are installed to stabilize the roll motions. centrifugal force. Consequently, the lower arm on one side of
Therefore, if an integrated chassis control system combines the suspension is pulled up, and the other is pulled down.
the whole chassis control device, synergetic effects between
semi-active suspensions and lateral dynamic vehicle systems
stability are expected. There are two possibilities for the
distribution of vertical forces on the wheels on the
stabilization moment of lateral dynamics. The first possibility
is described as shown in (Hac 2000). The basis of this control
of vehicle lateral stability is the nonlinear properties of the
tyres. As a result of this nonlinearity, the unequal
distribution of the vertical tire forces results in an unequal
lateral forces and thus to a production of yaw moment.
However, (Drobny, 2010) devote to the second possibility of Fig 1. Behaviour of active roll bar system
suspension control for the synergy with ESP. The idea is to
increase the vertical forces on the wheels where ESP control The active roll control system controls the torsion angle of
applies braking force. The longitudinal Fx depend on the the stabilizer bar according to the centrifugal force, and the
vertical load Fz and the slip in softening manner. stabilizer bar limits the movement of the lower arm. As a
result, the roll angle of the vehicle can be minimized. Fig. 2
Smakman (Smakman, 2000) integrated the active shows a schematic diagram of the conventional passive
suspension and active braking intervention using the similar stabilizer bar in a cornering motion (Sorniotti, 2006). A and
strategy for active steering and ESP integration, i.e. giving B are the attachment (or bush) connected to the body.
priority to vertical load control of active suspension and the
active braking is enabled only when vertical load control L/2
cannot adequately generate the stability yaw moment Mza. Flod Flod
Similarly, Hac and others studied on the integration of CDC T

damper and ESP system, and pointed out that the acting time b
of active braking can be reduced by using CDC suspension to
M
generate partial Mza. Active anti-roll moment distribution
control can affect the vehicle understeering characteristics
indirectly by changing the lateral transfer magnitude of tire
Fig 2. Active anti-roll bar system
load between front and rear axles. Cooper and Professor
Crolla added a central differential controller in the integration
of active roll moment and active traction moment distribution The relationship between the torsional torque in the middle
to allocate more traction moment to the wheels with larger of the stabilizer bar and the roll moment is expressed by
vertical load (Cooper, 2005). And they concluded that the roll equations (1) and (2).
moment distribution between front and rear axles can only
affect the understeering characteristics slightly. When lateral M MT
Flod   (1)
acceleration is small, the total load transfer is relatively small L b
and thus the contribution of active suspension to yaw stability
is limited. b
MT  M (2)
The proposed integrated chassis control algorithm consists L 
of three steps, i.e, a supervisor, control algorithms, and a
Where, M T is roll moment of vehicle and M  is the
coordinator. The supervisor monitors vehicle status and
determines desired vehicle motions such as a desired yaw rate twisting moment of stabilizer bar. Considering the mounted
and desired roll motion to improve vehicle roll and yaw structure and the actuator specification, the ARC module
stability. The control algorithm calculated a desired yaw model has been composed as Fig.3 and the parameter in
moment and desired roll moment to track the desired vehicle Table 1 has been used. (Shuuichi BUMA, et al, 2010)
dynamics. From the control algorithm, the coordinator ARC MODULE
distributes brake forces, active roll moment, and damping REDUCTION
coefficient based on control strategies. Simulations on GEAR
GEOMETRICAL
vehicle simulation software, CarSim, show the proposed TARGET RATIO EFFICIENCY MOTOR
simulation based optimization is effective for the integrated ROLL TORQUE
MOMENT MOTOR SPEC
chassis control. LIMIT

2. ANALYSIS OF SUSPENSION SYSTEM

Fig 3. ARC module model scheme
2.1 Actuator modelling

84
IFAC AAC 2013
September 4-7, 2013. Tokyo, Japan

Table 1. Specifications of actuator Fig. 6 shows the front view model for calculating the
amount of variation in tire vertical load at each wheel. The
Items Specifications model depicts the vertical load variation Fzf as divided
Front transmission ratio 0.301 between the tire position coil spring reaction force and the
Rear transmission ratio 0.195 stabilizer actuator reaction force. This diagram shows the
Max. Torque 665 (Nm) case of the front suspension, and the suffix “f” should be
Max. Torque rate 1595 (Nm/sec) changed to “r” to represent the rear suspension.

Generally, controllable dampers have been used to reduce

the vibration and roll angle for improving the driver’s
comfort and vehicle stability. Typical characteristics of forces
generated by MR dampers as functions of relative velocities
are illustrated in Fig. 4 for several values of the control
current.

4000

2000
Damping force (N)

0 Fig 6. Vertical load variation of vehicle roll

-2000
The active stabilizer suspension system supports roll
-4000
Soft moment caused by lateral acceleration when cornering using
-6000
Normal
Hard
the roll reaction force obtain from the roll stiffness of the
suspension and the roll reaction force of the electric actuators.
-8000
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 Equation (3) expresses the moment equilibrium around the
Suspension velocity (mm/s)
sprung roll center.

Fig 4. MR-damper characteristics  K f  Kr     M f  Mr  a y Ws  l f  Ws  hs  (3)

Equation (4) express the moment equilibrium around the
2.2 Relation of Lateral and vertical tire force
unsprung roll center.
The relationship between the wheel load distribution and the a y  Ws  l f
lateral tire vehicle dynamics has been examined numerous K f    M  f  Fzf  t f  hr (4)
times in the past. Fig. 5 shows a graphical derivation of the L
resulting lateral force at an axle as a function of the load
distribution over the two wheels. When the resulting wheel The vertical load of front and rear outer wheel can be
load wanders to the outer wheel, such as is the case for front obtained from equation (4) shown as follows:
and rear, then the resulting lateral force at the axle decreases.
From the figure, the result is a decrease of lateral force at the
Fzf ,outer  Fzf 0  

 K f    M  f


a y  Ws  lr 
hr 
rear and an increase of the lateral force at the rear axle. The  tf tf L 
  (5)
different lateral forces will cause a yaw moment on the
vehicle.
Fzr ,outer  Fzr 0  

 K r    M  r
a y  Ws  l f 
hr 
 tf tf L 
 

Fzf0 and Fzr0 are the nominal vertical tire forces of front and
rear. The effect of tire normal load on lateral force is different
in the linear range of tire behaviour and at the limit of
adhesion. In the linear range, the tire lateral force can be
modelled as the following function of normal load (J. C.
Dixon, 1996):

Fz F (6)
Fy  C y ( )[1  k1 ( z )]
Fz 0 Fz 0

Where, Cy is the tire cornering stiffness, Fz0 is the nominal

tire normal load, and k1 is the tire load sensitivity coefficient.
Fig 5. Derivation of the total lateral force on a tire as a Taking into account that during cornering the load transfers
function of the wheel load distribution

85
IFAC AAC 2013
September 4-7, 2013. Tokyo, Japan

for inside and outside tires of the same axle are opposite to  2(C f  Cr ) 2(l f C f  lr Cr ) 
  1
each other, the lateral force per axle is given by 
   mVx mVx 2   

    

   2(  l f f  lr C r )
C 2(l f 2C f  lr 2Cr )    
Fz 2 (10)
Fya  2C y [1  k1 ( ) ] (7)  IZ I Z Vx 
Fz 0
 2C f 
  0 
mVx 
From Equation (5) and (7), the lateral tire force variation   f   1 M
 z
 2l f C f 
generated by load transfer can be expressed as :    I Z 
 I Z 

2C y    k1  2  K f    M  f Wl h  M  (8) The steady state yaw rate of the bicycle model is introduced
Fy , f     2  s r s  ay    f 
Fzf2 0  t L  t  and the maneuverability of a vehicle is considered to reflect
f  f 
the driver’s intention, which is expressed as a function of the
Then, linearized lateral tire force variation is described as: vehicle longitudinal velocity and driver’s steering input as
follows :
2C y    k1  2  K f    M  f ,max Wl h 
Fy , f     2  s r s  a y  M  f (9)  ref _ yaw 
1 vx
 (11)
Fzf 0  t f 
2
tf L  m(l f C f  lr Cr )vx 2
l f  lr
1
2C f Cr (l f  lr ) 2
3. CONTROL ALGORITHM
As shown Fig. 7, the proposed integrated chassis control 3.2 Yaw Control Algorithm
algorithm consists of three parts, a supervisor, control
algorithms, and a coordinator. The supervisor monitors the Control algorithm calculates a desired yaw moment to track
vehicle status and determines desired vehicle motions such as the desired yaw rate. Furthermore, the compensation yaw
a desired yaw rate and roll motion. The control algorithm moment generated by load transfer is calculated to improve
calculated a desired yaw moment and a desired roll moment the ESC algorithm. The main goal of the desired yaw
to track the desired yaw rate and minimize the roll and roll moment is to make the actual yaw rate to follow the target
angle, respectively. Moreover, the yaw and roll stability are yaw rate which is defined from equation (2). To determine
proved by control theory and these dynamics is described as the desired yaw moment, a 2-D bicycle model described in
uncoupled dynamics in (Yim, 2013). From the control Fig. 8 was used. From equation (1), the dynamic equation
algorithm, the coordinator distributes brake pressure and roll about the yaw rate including the direct yaw moment is
moment effectively based on control strategies. presented as follows:
2C f  Cr (l f  lr )2 m(l C  l C ) 2C  C (l  l ) 1 (12)
      f f r r ay  f r  f r  f  M Z
C f  Cr I ZVx (C f  Cr ) I Z C f  Cr IZ IZ

The sliding mode control method is used to determine the

desired yaw moment. The sliding surface and the sliding
condition are defined as follows:

1 d 2
s1     des , s1  s1s1  1 s1 (13)
2 dt
Fig 7. Integrated Chassis Control Algorithm Scheme where, η1 is a positive constant, The equivalent control input
that would achieve is calculated as follows:
3.1 Supervisor  2Cˆ f Cˆ r (l f  lr ) 2 m(l f Cˆ f  lr Cˆ r ) 2Cˆ f Cˆ r (l f  lr )  (14)
M z ,eq  I Z   ay  f 
 Cˆ  Cˆ I V ˆ ˆ
(C f  Cr ) I Z Cˆ f  Cˆ r I Z 
 f r Z x 
To monitor the vehicle status and determine the target
motion of vehicle, the linear bicycle model is used. From Fig. Finally, the desired yaw moment for satisfying the sliding
8, the dynamic equation can be presented as follows: condition regardless of the model uncertainty is determined
as follows:

    des 
M z , des  M z ,eq  k1  sat   (15)
 1 

where, the k1 is a sliding gain which satisfies the sliding

condition. If the uncertainty of the control input is bounded

Fig 8. 2-D Bicycle model

86
IFAC AAC 2013
September 4-7, 2013. Tokyo, Japan

MZ ,des  MZ ,actual  e1 for some e1  0 , and the 1 is J   M  f  M  r  M  ,des   Fx ,Left 2

2
(20-a)

determined as 1  e1 ,    des will converge to zero. Subject to:

IZ
f1  l f  f f  M  f  lr  f r  M  r  t f  Fx ,Left   M z ,des
3.3 Roll Control Algorithm (20-b)
g1  M  f 2  M  f ,max 2
The governing nonlinear equation for the 1-DOF roll g 2  M  r 2  M  r ,max 2
dynamics model shown in Fig. 6 is defined by equation (16).
Sliding-mode control theory is commonly used to design the
where Mf and Mr are the limitation of each actuator, ff and
model-based controller for nonlinear systems (Slotine and Li,
fr are described as follows
1991).

 
I x  ms hs a y  C   K f  K r    ms ghs  M  (16) ff  
2C y    k1  2  K f    M  f ,max

Wl h
 2  s r s  ay 

Fzf 0  t f 
2
tf L  (21)
The sliding surface S and the sliding condition for the ARC 2C    k1  2  K r    M  r ,max Wl h 
system to reduce the roll angle and the roll rate are defined by f r   y2   2  s f s  ay 
equations (17). Fzr 0  t f  tf L 

s2       , s2 s2  2 s2 (17) 4. EVALUATION

λ is the weighting factor, and η is the positive constant. The The proposed integrated chassis control algorithm was
required total motor torque for the ARC system is evaluated through computer simulations using vehicle
represented by equation (18). simulation software, CarSim and Matlab/Simulink.
Simulations for a closed-loop driver-vehicle-controller

M  ,des   ms hs a y  Cˆ  I x     system subject to single lane change were conducted to
validate the improved performance of the proposed algorithm
(18)
     over the ESC/CDC/ARC controller. In this ESC/CDC/ARC
 
 Kˆ   ms ghs   k2 sat 
 2 
 controller, the CDC and ARC are controlled to minimize the
roll and roll rate. In this test, the vehicle is driving on a dry
road at initial velocity 60 kph. Fig 9 shows simulation results
Considering the parameter uncertainties, the sliding mode for a single lane change scenario. Fig 9-(a)-(c) show the
controller gain is determined to satisfy the sliding condition. longitudinal velocity, roll angle, and yaw rate error,
If the uncertainty is bounded M , Actual  M ,des  e2 for some respectively. In this case, the roll RMS value of integrated
control is decreased by 2 % than ESC/CDC/ARC control.
e2  0 , and the 2 is determined as 2  e2 ,    des will Furthermore, the yaw rate error RMS value of integrated
Ix
control is decreased by 22 % than other controller. As shown
converge to zero. in Fig 9-(a), the proposed algorithm uses reduced braking,
and thus the magnitude of the deceleration is also reduced.
C  Cˆ  FC , K  Kˆ   FK Furthermore, the integrated system provides better
(19) performance with respect to vehicle lateral stability.
 
k2  K  Kˆ    C  Cˆ   2
Ix Ix 60
ESC only
ESC/CDC/ARC
Velocity (km/h)

In this paper, ARC actuator generated the roll moment and 55 Integrated Control

yaw moment simultaneously, CDC set-up to improve the roll 50

stability.
45
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (s)
3.4 Coordinator

Coordinator calculated the ARC motor torque and brake (a) Velocity
pressure to generate the desired roll moment and desired yaw
5
moment. The control strategy for ARC and ESP integration, ESC only
ESC/CDC/ARC
giving priority to vertical load control of active suspension
Roll angle (deg)

Integrated Control
and the active braking is enabled only when vertical load 0

control cannot adequately generate the desired yaw moment.

For this purpose, in the case of the positive desired yaw
-5
moment, the optimal problem for the brake forces and roll 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (s)
moments of each wheel can be stated as follows:

87
IFAC AAC 2013
September 4-7, 2013. Tokyo, Japan

(b)Roll angle ACKNOWLEDGMENT

10 ESC only This research was supported by Hyundai motor company,

Yaw rate error (deg/s)

ESC/CDC/ARC
5 Integrated Control SNU-IAMD, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime
0
Affairs, the Korea Institute of Construction and
Transportation Evaluation and Planning (11PTSI-C054118-
-5
03), Basic Science Research Program through the National
-10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry
time (s) of Science, ICT and Future Planning (2009-0083495).

(c) Yaw rate error REFERENCES

K.JEON, H.HWANG, S.CHOI, J.KIM, K.JANG and K.YI
Fig 9. Simulation data – status (2012). Development of an electric active roll control
(ARC) algorithm for a suv. International Journal of
Fig. 10 shows the active roll moment in calculated in this Automotive Technology, Vol 13, No.2, pp. 247-253.
scenario. The black dot line is actuator limitation, red dash Shuuichi BUMA, Yasuhiro OOKUMA, Akiya TANEDA,
line is ESC/CDC/ARC actuator input, and blue line is Katsumi SUZUKI, Jae-Sung CHO, and Masaru
integrated control actuator input. KOBAYASHI (2010). Design and Development of
Electric Active Stabilizer Suspension System. Journal of
System Design and Dynamics, Vol 4, No 1. pp. 61-76.
Rear Active Roll Moment (Nm) Front Active Roll Moment (Nm)

5000
Ohta, Y., Kato, H., Yamada, D., Sato, K., Fukino,
T.,Nobuyama, E. and Buma, S. (2006). Development of
0 an electric active stabilizer system based on robust
design. SAE Paper, No. 2006-01-0758.
-5000
Sorniotti, A. (2006). Electro-mechanical active roll control :
0 0.5 1
time (s)
1.5 2 2.5
A new solution for active suspensions. SAE Paper, No.
5000
2006-01-1966.
Vladislav Drobny and Michael Valasek (2010), Synergy
between Lateral Dynamic Stability Control and Limited-
0
Active Nonlinear Suspension Control, AVEC.
Mark O. Bodie and Aleksander Hac (2000), Closed Loop
-5000 Yaw Control of Vehicles Using Magneto-Rheological
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (s) Dampers, SAE, 2000-01-0107.
J. C. Dixon, Tires, Suspension and Handling, SAE, Inc., 1996.
Fan Yu, Dao-Fei Li, D.A. Crolla (2008). Integrated Vehicle
Fig 10. Control input – active roll moment Dynamics Control – State-of-the Art Review. IEEE
Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference. September
3-5
Smakman H (2000). Functional integration of active
5. CONCLUSION suspension with slip control for improved lateral vehicle
dynamics. AVEC.
An integrated vehicle safety control strategy for vehicle roll Cooper N., Manning W., Crolla D., Levesley M (2005).
and yaw stability has been proposed. The proposed control Integration of active suspension and active driveline to
strategy is designed to optimally coordinate the active roll ensure stability while improving vehicle dynamics. SAE
moment and brake pressures to obtain roll and yaw stability Paper 2005-01-0414
in various driving situation. Therefore, the relation of roll Seongjin Yim, Kwangki Jeon, and Kyongsu Yi. (2013). An
moment distribution and yaw dynamics is analyzed based on investigation into the structures of linear quadratic
simplified tire model. From the relation of roll and yaw controllers for vehicle rollover prevention. Proc IMech
dynamics, the coordinator determines the brake pressures, the Part D:J Automobile Engineering. Vol 227. No 4.
ARC motor torques and damper current by using optimal Pp.472-480
distribution based on control strategies. Closed loop Poussot-Vassal C., C. Spelta, O. Sename, S.M. Savaresi,
simulations with a driver-vehicle-controller system were L.Dugard (2012). Survey and Performance Evaluation on
conducted to investigate the performance of the proposed Some Automotive Semi-Active Suspension Control
control strategy using CarSim and Matlab/Simulink. From Methods: a Comparative Study on a Single-Corner
the simulation, it has been shown that the proposed algorithm Model. Annual Reviews in Control (IFAC-Elsevier),
improved the vehicle roll and lateral safety in severe driving Vol.36, n.1, pp.148-160.
situations.

88