Original Article

Proc IMechE Part D:

J Automobile Engineering
1–11
Enhancement of vehicle stability Ó IMechE 2015
Reprints and permissions:
through integration of direct sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954407015596255

yaw moment and active rear pid.sagepub.com

steering

Bin Li1, Subhash Rakheja1 and Ying Feng2

Abstract
Coordination of chassis control systems can contribute to an improved overall performance of a vehicle. In this paper, a
novel vehicle stability control scheme is proposed that integrates both the direct yaw moment control and active rear
steering. The controller is synthesized via an upper-level control structure and a lower-level control structure. The
required yaw moment and rear steering angle are generated using a sliding-mode controller in the upper-level control.
The stability of a sliding-mode controller is proved using a Lyapunov function. The yaw moment is subsequently realized
by distributing the braking torque between appropriate wheels in the lower-level control using a braking torque distribu-
tion scheme. The effectiveness of the proposed controller is demonstrated through open-loop and closed-loop simula-
tions of a non-linear vehicle model, in terms of selected vehicle handling and control performance measures, namely yaw
rate and side-slip angle tracking. The results obtained for different manoeuvres suggest that the proposed two-level con-
trol scheme can help to achieve substantial enhancements in the handling performance and the stability performance of
the vehicle.

Keywords
Vehicle simulation and modelling, vehicle dynamics, vehicle control systems, vehicle chassis, passenger vehicles

Date received: 10 November 2014; accepted: 16 June 2015

Introduction improved handling and stability of a vehicle under

Active chassis control systems are increasingly being
applied to enhance the handling, stability and control
performances of a vehicle. An anti-lock braking system,
four-wheel steering, active front steering and an elec-
tronic stability program are some of the examples of
such active systems.1–5 Each chassis control system,
however, is generally designed and optimized to achieve
a particular safety dynamic performance measure and
may thus be considered effective only within specific
handling regions.6–8 Interference between different
chassis control systems is inevitable owing to the cou-
pling between different dynamic measures and the con-
trol systems, which may lead to potential conflicts in
terms of control goals. Consequently, integrated con-
trol may be a practical solution, which can integrate
multiple control systems in a coordinated manner and
avoid interference between them, in order to improve
the overall dynamic performance of the vehicle.
A number of studies have explored the integration
of two or more chassis control systems so as to achieve
severe driving conditions in a more effective manner
through coordinated control.9–19 Two main active con-
trol approaches for improving the yaw stability of the
vehicle are direct yaw moment control (DYC) using
differential braking and active steering control by con-
trolling the front-wheel steering angle or the rear-wheel
steering angle. Abe and Mokhiamar9 and Mokhiamar
and Abe10 proposed integrated vehicle motion control
for a full drive-by-wire vehicle. An analytical approach
was used to control the steering angles of the wheels
and the torques of the wheels independently. The
1
CONCAVE Research Centre, Department of Mechanical & Industrial
Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
2
School of Automation Science and Engineering, South China University
of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China
Corresponding author:
Bin Li, CONCAVE Research Centre, Department of Mechanical &
Industrial Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Email: l_bin18@encs.concordia.ca

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
2 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering
proposed methodology for optimally distributing the
longitudinal forces and the lateral forces between the
tyres revealed good robustness with variations in the
road friction and the amplitude of the steering angle.
Manning et al.11 proposed a sliding-mode controller
for controlling the vehicle motion by coordinating the
drivetrain, the steering and the active suspension con-
trols. The simulation results showed that the controller
could provide an excellent target tracking performance,
although the control scheme required accurate estima-
tion of the vehicle states, which poses complex chal-
lenges in implementation.
Cherouat et al.13 proposed an integrated control
strategy using a combination of a feedforward compen-
sator and a feedback compensator using the measured
lateral acceleration and yaw rate of the vehicle.
Simulation results suggested that the controller yields
an improved performance for the directly measurable
lateral acceleration compared with the side-slip angle of
the vehicle. Li et al.14 investigated integrated control of
the chassis based on DYC, active steering and an active
stabilizer using a main loop for computing the desired
forces and a servo-loop for optimally distributing the
forces between the tyres. While integration of DYC
and active steering revealed a satisfactory performance,
individually applied DYC or active steering resulted in
poor tracking of the desired states. The use of an active
stabilizer revealed further improvement in the handling
performance of the vehicle under high-lateral-
acceleration manoeuvres, while the control torque
demands of DYC and active steering were also reduced
significantly. March and Shim15 developed a control
system which integrated active front steering and an
active suspension using fuzzy logic to enhance the han-
dling performance of the vehicle. The proposed inte-
grated chassis control scheme proved to be more
effective in attaining the desired performance than
those schemes realized with individual controls.
Doumiati et al.16 investigated coordination of active
front steering and rear braking in a driver assist system
aimed at yaw control of a vehicle using a suitable gain-
scheduled linear-parameter-varying controller. The
results showed that both steering and braking collabo-
rate together to ensure the stability of the vehicle, when
the vehicle approaches its handling limits. Park et al.18
investigated a control algorithm for lane-change assist
systems using integrated control of differential braking
and an electric power steering system, in which braking
control is used to produce as much as possible of the
required yaw moment, and power steering is an auxili-
ary to minimize the driver’s annoyance by unexpected
automatic intervention of steering motion. The perfor-
mance of integrated control was validated to be effec-
tive in collision avoidance, and the steering effort can
be reduced by about 20% compared with that of a
steering-only system.
From the aforementioned studies, it is evident that
coordinated control of different chassis controller
designs is meritorious compared with individual
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
controls. Well-established methodologies and control
strategies, however, have yet to evolve. Because active
rear steering provides a beneficial performance,5,20 it
can help to improve the stability and the response at
high speeds and to reduce the driver’s workload at low
speeds. Moreover, it can make corrective action less
noticeable to the driver. Moreover, relatively fewer
efforts have been made to explore the potential perfor-
mance benefits of rear-wheel steering coupled with yaw
moment control. Owing to the wide variations in the
operating conditions (the speed, the road friction and
the load) of road vehicles which cause uncertainties in
the dynamic responses, it is vital to ensure the robust-
ness and the stability of the controller. The robustness
values of both the individual controller and the coordi-
nated controllers have been generally presented using
either a parametric uncertainty analysis or a non-
parametric uncertainty analysis.10,16
This paper proposes a novel vehicle stability control
scheme to realize enhanced handling and stability per-
formances of the vehicle through integration of the
direct yaw moment and active rear steering. The con-
trol objective is to track the desired yaw rate and the
side-slip angle of the vehicle derived from the two-
degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) reference vehicle model.
The proposed controller is realized through a two-level
control structure, where the upper-level control is
synthesized to generate the required yaw moment and
rear steering angle using a sliding-mode controller by
considering the non-linearity and saturation of the
tyres. Then the stability of the sliding-mode control law
is proved using the Lyapunov function which ensures
the robustness of the proposed stability control against
disturbances and parameter variations. To distribute
the braking torque optimally between the wheels, a
braking torque distribution scheme is formulated to
achieve the yaw moment in the lower-level control. The
potential performance benefits of the integrated con-
troller are evaluated using co-simulations in CarSim
and MATLAB/Simulink under different driving condi-
tions. The obtained results suggest that the proposed
two-level control structure is effective.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The
vehicle model integrating a non-linear tyre model,
which is developed for controller synthesis, is presented
in the second section. The synthesis of the proposed
control scheme is subsequently described in the third
section, together with detailed formulations for the
upper-level control and the lower-level control. The
simulation results are presented and discussed in the
fourth section, while the key findings of the study are
summarized in the fifth section.
Vehicle model
On the assumption that yaw moment control can be
conveniently and practically realized through the distri-
bution of the braking force, a non-linear yaw-plane
Li et al.
Figure 1. Vehicle modelling.
C.G.: centre of gravity.
vehicle model is considered for synthesis of the upper-
level controller, as shown in Figure 1. The model incor-
porates both the longitudinal forces and the lateral
forces of the tyres which are derived from a simple non-
linear tyre model based on the Burckhardt method.21
The governing equations of motion of the simplified
model are given by
      Controller synthesis
mvx b_ + g = Fy1 + Fy2 cos df + Fy3 + Fy4 cos dr
+ ðFx1 + Fx2 Þ sin df + ðFx3 + Fx4 Þ sin dr
  
Iz g_ = Fy1 + Fy2 cos df + ðFx1 + Fx2 Þ sin df a
  
 Fy3 + Fy4 cos df + ðFx3 + Fx4 Þ sin df b
 
+ 0:5d ðFx1  Fx2 Þ cos df + ðFx3  Fx4 Þ cos dr
    
 0:5d Fy1  Fy2 sin df + Fy3  Fy4 sin dr
ð1Þ
where m is the vehicle total mass, Iz is the yaw moment
of inertia, g is the yaw rate, vx and vy are the longitudi-
nal velocity and the lateral velocity respectively of the
vehicle, Fxi and Fyi (i = 1, ., 4) are the longitudinal
forces and lateral forces respectively, developed by tyre
i (i = 1, ., 4), a and b are the distance from the centre
of gravity of the vehicle to the front axle and the dis-
tance from the centre of gravity of the vehicle to the
rear axle respectively, d is the wheel track and df and dr
are the front-wheel steering angle and the rear-wheel
steering angle respectively.
A simple non-linear tyre model based on the
Burckhardt method21 is incorporated in the vehicle
model, where the longitudinal force F‘ and the lateral
force Fs of the tyres are expressed as functions of the
longitudinal slip and the lateral slip respectively of the
tyres, according to
s‘ Fz mres
F‘ =
sres
ð2Þ
ss Fz mres
Fs =
sres
where Fz is the vertical load of the tyres, s‘ , ss and sres
are the longitudinal slip, lateral slip and the resultant
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
3
slip respectively and mres is the resultant friction
coefficient.
The resultant slip of the tyres is subsequently
obtained from
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sres = s2‘ + s2s ð3Þ
The resultant friction coefficient mres is obtained from
the resultant tyre slip sres as
mres = c1 ð1  ec2 sres Þ  c3 sres ð4Þ
where c1, c2 and c3 are the model parameters of the
tyres determined from the measured data.21
The tyre forces estimated from the Burckhardt tyre
model are expressed in the wheel coordinate system
using the transformation
    
Fx cos a sin a F‘
= ð5Þ
Fy sin a cos a Fs
where Fx and Fy are the tyre forces developed along the
body-fixed axis system (x, y), as shown in Figure 1.
Control structure
The structure of the proposed stability control scheme
consists of two levels, namely the upper-level control
and the lower-level control, as shown schematically in
Figure 2. In the upper-level control, the desired han-
dling performance of the vehicle is obtained on the
basis of a 2-DOF reference vehicle model. Both the yaw
moments and the rear steering angles required to track
the reference model are computed using a sliding-mode
controller within the upper level. In the lower-level con-
trol, the brake torque distribution scheme is subse-
quently designed to follow the required yaw moment
determined from the upper-level control.
Reference model
The reference model is formulated upon further simpli-
fications of the non-linear vehicle model presented in
the second section. On the assumption of constant cor-
nering stiffnesses of the front tyres and the rear tyres, a
linear 2-DOF reference model is obtained by consider-
ing only the front-wheel steering; this has been widely
reported.22–24 In this model, the linear cornering stiff-
nesses of the tyres are estimated using the Burckhardt
tyre model with a zero longitudinal slip ratio. The 2-
DOF linear reference model can be described in the
state-space form, as
x_ = Ax + Bu ð6Þ
with
x=½b g T
u = df
4 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the proposed two-level yaw moment and rear steering controller.

2 3
Caf + Car aCaf  bCar
6  1  7
mvx mv2x
A=6 4 aCaf  bCar
7
a Caf + b Car 5
2 2
 
Iz I z vx
2 C C 3
af ar
6 mvx mv x 7
B = 4 aC bCar 5
af
Iz Iz
where Caf and Car in the above matrices are the corner- Figure 3. Block diagram of the sliding-mode controller.
2DOF: two-degree-of-freedom.
ing stiffness of the front-axle tyres and the cornering
stiffness of the rear-axle tyres respectively. The desired
handling performance of the vehicle can be described
variations in the vehicle design parameters and tyre
by the minimum side-slip angle bd of the body, which is
characteristics.26,27 The controller is synthesized to gen-
typically equal to zero, together with the desired yaw
erate the yaw moment and the rear steering-wheel
rate g d, which is the steady-state yaw response of the
angles to track the reference model responses. The
linear model; these are given by
inputs for the sliding-mode controller are the yaw rate
bd = 0 error and the side-slip angle error. The controller is
v x =ð a + bÞ designed using the non-linear vehicle model, which is
gd =  . df ð7Þ further expressed as
1 + v2x m aCaf  bCar Caf Car ða + bÞ2
2 3
The above desired yaw rate, however, is not necessarily 6 Caf + Car aCaf  bCar 7
achievable under all possible driving conditions. For " # 66  1 
7
7 
instance, tyre saturation on a low-friction road may not b_ 6
6
mvx mv2x 7 b
7
=6   2  2  7 g
support a high yaw rate demand owing to the limited g_ 6 aCaf  bCar a Caf þ b Car 7
6  7
tyre forces. Thus, the desired yaw rate must be bounded 4 Iz I z vx 5
as a function of the road friction coefficient m, such |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
fð x Þ
that25 2 3 2 3
mg 6 C 7 6  7
gd 40:85 ð8Þ 6 7 6 Caf 7
vx 6
ar
07   6 7
6 mvx 7 dr 6 mvx 7
+6 7 +6  7
6
7df
where g is the acceleration due to gravity. 6 bCar 1 7 M 6 aCaf 7
6 7 6 7
4 Iz Iz 5 4 Iz 5
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflffl{zfflffl}
Sliding-mode controller hðxÞ gðxÞ

The sliding-mode controller, which is shown in ð9Þ

Figure 3, is used in the upper level since it can effec-
tively address the many uncertainties in the dynamic In the above equation, Caf is the cornering stiffness of
responses of the vehicle, such as those caused by the front-axle tyres and Car is the cornering stiffness of

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
Li et al. 5

the rear-axle tyres, obtained from the Burckhardt tyre Combining equations (11) to (13) and differentiation of
model according to the sliding surface yield

∂Fyi S_ i = e_i + y i ei
Cai = ð15Þ
∂ai = fðxÞi + hðxÞi ui + gðxÞi df  x_ di + y i ei
∂F‘i ∂Fsi
= sin ai + cos ai To achieve S_ i = 0, the approximation of the control
∂ai ∂ai
law u^i , which can be interpreted as the best estimate of
+ F‘i cos ai  Fsi sin ai , i = f, r ð10Þ
the equivalent control, is defined as
Equation (9) may be rewritten as h i
u^i = h^ðxÞ1
i  ^ðxÞ gðxÞ df + x_ di  y i ei
f i i ð16Þ
x_ = fðxÞ + hðxÞu + gðxÞdf ð11Þ
The control law which satisfies the sliding condition is
where x is the state vector to be controlled so that it can subsequently formulated as
follow a desired trajectory xd, u = ½ dr M T is the con-
trol, where M is the desired yaw moment, gðxÞdf is the ui = u^i  h^ðxÞ1
i ½k1i sgnðSi Þ + k2i Si  ð17Þ
disturbance term caused by the front steering-angle input
where k1i and k2i are the positive control parameters
and is upper bounded and fðxÞ and hðxÞ are functions of and sgn() is a signum function.
the system parameters including the uncertainties, which
are assumed to satisfy proper boundedness, such that26
Stability analysis. The stability of the sliding motion gov-
fðxÞ  f^ðxÞ 4FðxÞ . 0, 8x erned by the above control law can be proved using the
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Lyapunov function V given by26
ð12Þ
1 hðxÞmax
04hðxÞh^ðxÞ 4 , 8x V = 12S2i ð18Þ
hðxÞmin
Upon substituting for Si from equations (15) and (17),
where f^ðxÞ and h^ðxÞ are the nominal values of fðxÞ and the time derivative of V is obtained as

V_ = S_ i Si
nh i h i o
= hðxÞi h^ðxÞ1
i 1 h ð xÞ u
^
i i + f ð xÞ i  ^
fð x Þi  h ð xÞ i
^
h ð xÞ 1
i k 1i sgnð Si Þ Si

 hðxÞi h^ðxÞ1 i k2i Si

2
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
ffl}
50
8 9
> > ð19Þ
>
> >
>
<h i h i =
^ 1 ^ ^ 1
4 hðxÞi hðxÞi 1 hðxÞi u^i + fðxÞi fðxÞi hðxÞi hðxÞi k1i sgnðSi Þ
>
> |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} >
>
>
: >
;
jfðxÞf^ðxÞj4FðxÞ
nh i o
Si 4 hðxÞi h^ðxÞ1 i 1 hðxÞi u^i + FðxÞi hðxÞi h^ðxÞ1 i k1i sgnðSi Þ jSi j

By choosing k1i to be sufficiently large, such that

  h i
hðxÞ respectively and FðxÞ is a function of the state k1i 5h^ðxÞi hðxÞ1
i FðxÞi + hi + h^ðxÞi hðxÞ1
i 1 u^i ð20Þ
variables.
equation (19) is simplified to
The sliding surface is selected to reduce the errors in
the yaw rate and the side-slip angle with respect to the h i
hðxÞi h^ðxÞ1 1 u^i + FðxÞi hðxÞi h^ðxÞ1
i k1i 4  hi
desired values, such that27 i

ð21Þ
Si = ei + y i ji ð13Þ
where hi is a strictly positive constant. From equations
where ei = xi  xdi defines the yaw rate error and the (19) to (21), it follows that
side-slip angle error, y i is a positive weighting coefficient
and ji is the integrated error given by V_ = S_ i Si
ð 4  hi jSi j ð22Þ
ji = ei ðt Þ dt ð14Þ
\0

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
6 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering

The above suggests that the sliding surfaces are (b) the braking torque applied to the rear inner wheel
reachable by the control law described in equation (17). only;
The control law, however, is discontinuous during the (c) the braking torque applied to both the front outer
sliding motion because of the switching function wheel and the rear outer wheel.
sgnðSi Þ. This discontinuity could result in chattering in
the controller output that may excite the high-frequency The required yaw moment in each strategy can be
dynamics. This undesirable effect of the switching func- generated by adjusting the longitudinal forces and lat-
tion can be reduced by replacing it with a continuous eral forces of the tyres as follows: for the front outer
switching function such as a saturation function sat(). wheel,
The continuous control law can thus be obtained as  
  d DFx2 cos df  DFy2 sin df
Si M= 
^ 1
ui = u^i  hðxÞi k1i sat ð23Þ 2 ð25Þ
+ k2i Si  
ei a DFx2 sin df + DFy2 cos df
where ei is the boundary layer thickness, while the for the rear inner wheel,
saturation function sat(  ) is defined as24  
d DFx3 cos dr  DFy3 sin dr
Si sgnðSi Þ, jSi j5ei M=
sat = ð24Þ 2 ð26Þ
ei
Si
, jSi j \ ei  
ei + b DFx3 sin dr + DFy3 cos dr

and, for the front outer wheel and the rear outer wheel,
Lower-level control  
d DFx2 cos df  DFy2 sin df
The lower-level control is synthesized to generate the M= 
 2 
required yaw moments and rear-wheel steering angles  a DFx2 sin df + DFy2 cos df
computed from the sliding-mode controller in the upper   ð27Þ
level, as described in equation (23). The desired yaw d DFx4 cos dr  DFy4 sin dr

moment can be generated by appropriately distributing  2 
the brake torque between some wheels or all the wheels. + b DFx4 sin dr + DFy4 cos dr
The effective yaw moments generated by the individual
wheels, however, tend to differ considerably even when where DFxi and DFyi are the variations in the longitudi-
subjected to identical brake torques.28,29 The optimal nal forces and the lateral forces respectively of tyre i,
distribution of the brake torque between the wheels which are obtained from the Burckhardt tyre model21
thus constitutes a challenge for the synthesis of the according to
lower-level control. ∂Fxi
The brake torque distribution scheme is formulated DFxi = Ds‘i
∂s‘i
considering two different situations corresponding to a ð28Þ
∂Fyi
potential yaw instability, denoted as understeer and DFyi = Ds‘i
∂s‘i
oversteer. For the understeer situation, the brake tor-
que should be applied to the rear inner wheel whereas, The desired braking pressure to be applied to the
for the oversteer situation, the brake torque should be wheels can also be determined from the desired yaw
applied to the front outer wheel. Note that, if the vehi- moment and the brake system design. In this study, the
cle turns towards the left, the front outer wheel, the brake pressure increment DP is derived using a simple
front inner wheel, the rear outer wheel and the rear proportional–integral–derivative control based on var-
inner wheel are the front right wheel, the front left iations in the longitudinal slip ratio.
wheel, the rear right wheel and the rear left wheel For generating the desired rear-wheel steering angles,
respectively. In a limiting driving situation, however, it is assumed that the variations in the slip ratio are
the vehicle responses may not follow the driver’s inten- small. The variations in the lateral force of the tyres due
tion. For instance, during a left turn, the vehicle to braking corrections are thus considered to be much
response will lag the driver’s steering input if the driver smaller than those caused by the steering. For simpli-
suddenly turns the vehicle towards the right side. In city, the rear-wheel steering angles obtained from the
this case, the brake torque needs to be applied to the upper-level control in equation (23) is directly applied
front outer wheel and the rear outer wheel simultane- to the rear wheels. Furthermore, identical angles are
ously in order to reduce the lag and to make the vehicle assumed for both the rear wheels.
follow the driver’s intended action.
For a vehicle undertaking a left turn, the brake tor-
que distribution is determined using three strategies:
Results and discussion
The vehicle model in the yaw plane was well reported
(a) the braking torque applied to the front outer in the lateral dynamic analysis of the vehicle and the
wheel only; controller design.16,22–24 In this study, the yaw plane

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
Li et al.
Figure 4. Lateral accelerations: comparison of the yaw plane
model responses (a) yaw rate and (b) lateral acceleration with
those obtained from the CarSim model at 70 km.
Figure 5. Steering-wheel angle input.
model incorporating a non-linear tyre model is used for
the upper-level controller design. The validity of the
vehicle model is illustrated for a 5° front-wheel step-
steering input on a dry road by comparing the vehicle
model responses with those obtained from the CarSim
vehicle model, as shown in Figure 4.
The performance characteristics of the proposed
two-level stability controller are investigated for differ-
ent steering manoeuvres through co-simulations in the
CarSim platform and MATLAB/Simulink. The
responses are also obtained for the vehicle without the
controller so as to assess the potential performance
benefits of the proposed controller. The manoeuvres
adopted in the simulations include the following: first,
a 1 Hz open-loop sinusoidal steering manouevre
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
7
Figure 6. Comparisons of (a) the yaw rate responses and (b)
the side-slip angle responses of the vehicle with and without the
controller (1 Hz sinusoidal steering manoeuvre at 100 km/h).
W/o: without.
applied for a duration of 2 s following a lapse time of
1 s, as shown in Figure 5; second, a 0.5 Hz open-loop
sinusoidal steering manoeuvre applied for a duration of
4 s; third, a closed-loop double-lane-change manoeuvre,
which is a CarSim standard test.30 The double-lane-
change manoeuvre employs the driver model available
in the CarSim software. The simulation results are pre-
sented for an initial vehicle speed of 100 km/h and a
road adhesion coefficient of 0.5.
Sinusoidal steering manoeuvres
Figure 6 compares the yaw rate and side-slip angle
responses of the vehicle model with and without the
proposed controller under the higher-frequency steering
input (1 Hz). Although both the vehicles with and with-
out the controller exhibit stable responses, the vehicle
with the proposed controller tracks the desired yaw rate
and side-slip closely. Both the yaw rate and the side-slip
angle of the vehicle without the controller are substan-
tially larger than the desired responses. The proposed
controller tends to suppress effectively the side-slip
angle response of the vehicle, as seen in Figure 6(b).
Furthermore, the yaw rate of the vehicle without the
controller significantly lags the desired yaw rate, and it
takes nearly 1 s to approach steady values compared
with the controlled vehicle.
Figure 7 illustrates the time histories of the proposed
two-level controller outputs in terms of the brake pres-
sure at each wheel and the rear-wheel steering angle.
8 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering
Figure 7. Time histories of the control outputs: (a) brake
pressures; (b) rear-wheel steering angles (1 Hz sinusoidal
steering manoeuvre at 100 km/h).
F: front; R: rear.
The results show that both the front outer wheel and
the rear outer wheel are braked around t = 1.6 s (in the
first cycle) and t = 2.6 s (in the second cycle), when the
steering command causes the vehicle to change its turn
direction from left to right. This corresponds to the
above brake torque distribution strategy (c) involving
brake torque applications to both the front outer wheel
and the rear outer wheel, as described in the section on
the lower-level control. Similarly, both the front inner
wheel and the rear inner wheel are braked when the
vehicle is steered quickly from the right to the left.
Furthermore, the braking inputs to the front wheels
lead those to the rear wheels, with a nearly steady lead
time of 0.25 s. This is probably due to the response lag
of the vehicle under the relatively higher-frequency
steering input. In order to reduce the response lag, the
braking torque is applied to the wheels on the same
side. It can be further seen that the duration of the
braking pulse applied to the front wheels is substan-
tially longer than that applied to the rear wheels.
During the second cycle, only the front wheel is braked
around t = 3 s when the steering wheel is turned from
the right side to the neutral position.
Figure 8 compares the yaw rate and side-slip angle
responses of the vehicle model without and with the
proposed controller when subject to the lower-
frequency steering input (0.5 Hz). It can be seen that
the vehicle with the proposed controller tracks the
desired yaw rate and side-slip angle well, while the yaw
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
Figure 8. Comparisons of (a) the yaw rate responses and (b)
the side-slip angle responses of the vehicle with and without the
controller (0.5 Hz sinusoidal steering manoeuvre at 100 km/h).
W/o: without.
rate and side-slip angle responses of the vehicle without
the controller increase rapidly as the steering direction
is reversed during the first cycle. Furthermore, the
responses of the vehicle without the controller tend to
stabilize nearly t = 2 s after the steering input decreases.
The controlled vehicle, on the other hand, approaches
the stable solution very rapidly.
Figure 9(a) illustrates the time histories of the brake
pressure applied to each wheel by the proposed two-
level controller. Unlike the braking action applied to
wheels on the same track under the high-frequency
steering input, the braking input in this case is applied
to the front wheels only. The time history of the rear-
wheel angle is also shown in Figure 9(b).
Double-lane-change manoeuvre
Figure 10 illustrates the yaw rate and side-slip responses
of the vehicles with and without the two-level controller,
together with the reference responses to a double-lane-
change manoeuvre at 100 km/h. The vehicle without the
controller exhibits divergent yaw rate and side-slip angle
responses. The yaw rate tends to increase sharply near
t = 8 s and the side-slip angle exceeds 0.2 rad (about
11°) for t 5 6.5 s. The resulting side-slip angle is too
large for the driver to control the vehicle. The proposed
two-level stability controller, however, exhibits a super-
ior performance during the double-lane-change man-
oeuvre. It closely tracks the reference yaw rate of the
Li et al.
Figure 9. Time histories of the control outputs: (a) brake
pressures; (b) rear-wheel steering angles (0.5 Hz sinusoidal
steering manoeuvre at 100 km/h).
F: front; R: rear.
Figure 10. Comparisons of (a) the yaw rate responses and (b)
the side-slip angle responses of the vehicle with and without the
controller (double-lane-change manoeuvre at 100 km/h).
W/o: without.
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
9
Figure 11. Time histories of the control outputs: (a) brake
pressures; (b) rear-wheel steering angles (double-lane-change
manoeuvre at 100 km/h).
F: front; R: rear.
Figure 12. Comparison of the steering-wheel angle rate
responses of the vehicle with and without the controller
(double-lane-change manoeuvre at 100 km/h).
W/o: without.
vehicle, while the peak side-slip angle remains below
0.03 rad throughout the manoeuvre.
The corresponding variations in the controller out-
puts in terms of the brake pressures applied to each
wheel and the rear-wheel angles are presented in Figure
11. The vehicle is first braked near t = 4.8 s by applying
brake pressures to the inner wheels as the vehicle begins
to return to the original lane, as seen in Figure 11(a).
The vehicle subsequently brakes near t = 6.2 s by apply-
ing a brake pressure to the front outer wheel alone, i.e.
when the vehicle returns to its original lane. The braking
10
inputs at the noted instants are applied since the vehicle
becomes vulnerable to losing stability when it starts to
leave the adjacent lane and when it is restored to the
straight-line path in the original lane. The rear-wheel
angles also approach the peak values near these instants
to ensure stability of the vehicle, as seen in Figure 11(b).
Figure 12 compares the steering-wheel angle responses of
the vehicle with and without the controller, suggesting
instability of the vehicle in the absence of the controller
even if the driver imposes a large steering-wheel input. It
is evident that the proposed controller requires a rela-
tively small steering angle to maintain stability of the
vehicle and thereby substantially reduces the steering
effort demand on the driver. Consequently, the proposed
controller yields improved handling and stability perfor-
mance of the vehicle.
Conclusions
The main contributions of this paper are the develop-
ment and analysis of a novel vehicle stability control
scheme involving integration of the direct yaw moment
and the active steering angle to improve the stability
performance of the vehicle. A two-level control struc-
ture is formalized: first, the upper-level sliding-mode
controller establishes the required yaw moment and
rear steering angle; second, the lower-level controller
realizes the required yaw moment and the rear-wheel
steering angle and, using a brake torque distribution
approach, decides which wheel(s) should be braked to
generate the required yaw moment. A sliding-mode
controller is adopted in the upper-level control to track
the desired yaw rate and side-slip angle of the vehicle
derived from a 2-DOF reference model considering the
non-linearity of the tyres. The stability of the sliding-
mode controller is also analysed to guarantee its robust-
ness. Based on the frequency of the driver’s steering
input in open-loop manoeuvres, the performance of the
brake torque distribution approach is verified and it
can switch automatically between different distribution
strategies. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed
control scheme is demonstrated by the simulation
results in various manoeuvres, which shows that the
proposed vehicle stability scheme can significantly
enhance the handling and stability of a vehicle.
In future work, estimation of the vehicle states, e.g.
the side-slip angle of the vehicle, and fine tuning of the
control parameters for different driving situations need
to be carried out.
Declaration of conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any fund-
ing agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering
References
1. Trachtler A. Integrated vehicle dynamics control using
active brake, steering and suspension systems. Int J Veh
Des 2004; 36(1): 1–11.
2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: electronic stabi-
lity control systems. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25801,
RIN: 2127-AJ77, US Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washiington, DC, USA, 2006.
3. Mammar S and Koenig D. Vehicle handling improve-
ment by active steering. Veh System Dynamics 2002;
38(2): 211–242.
4. Van Zanten AT, Erhardt R, Pfaff G and Kost F. Con-
trol aspects of the Bosch-VDC. In: 3rd international sym-
posium on advanced vehicle control, Aachen, Germany,
24–28 June 1996, pp. 574–607. Tokyo: JSAE.
5. Pascali L, Gabrielli P and Caviasso G. Improving vehicle
handling and comfort performance using 4WS. SAE
paper 2003-01-0961, 2003.
6. Furukawa Y and Abe M. Advanced chassis control sys-
tems for vehicle handling and active safety. Veh System
Dynamics 1997; 28(2): 59–86.
7. Yu F, Li D and Crolla D. Integrated vehicle dynamics
control: state-of-the art review. In: IEEE vehicle power
and propulsion conference, Harbin, People’s Republic of
China, 3–5 September 2008, pp. 1–6. New York: IEEE.
8. He J. Integrated vehicle dynamics control using active
steering, driveline and braking. PhD Thesis, University of
Leeds, Leeds, UK, 2005.
9. Abe M and Mokhiamar O. An integration of vehicle
motion controls for full drive-by-wire vehicle. Proc IMechE
Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 2007; 221: 116–127.
10. Mokhiamar O and Abe M. Simultaneous optimal distri-
bution of lateral and longitudinal tire forces for the model
following control. Trans ASME, J Dynamic Systems,
Measmt Control 2004; 126(4): 753–763.
11. Manning W, Crolla D, Brown M and Selby M. Co-ordi-
nation of chassis subsystems for vehicle motion control.
In: 5th international symposium on advanced vehicle con-
trol, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 21–25 August 2000, pp.
313–319. Tokyo: JSAE.
12. Shino M, Raksincharoensak P and Nagai M. Vehicle
handling and stability control by integrated control of
direct yaw moment and active steering. In: 6th interna-
tional symposium on advanced vehicle control, Hiroshima,
Japan, 9–13 September 2002, pp. 25–31. Tokyo: JSAE.
13. Cherouat H., Lakehal-Ayat M and Diop S. An integrated
braking and steering control for a cornering vehicle. In:
7th international symposium on advanced vehicle control,
Arnhem, The Netherlands, 23–27 August 2004, pp. 341–
346. Tokyo: JSAE.
14. Li D, Du S and Yu F. Integrated vehicle chassis
control based on direct yaw moment, active steering and
active stabilizer. Veh System Dynamics 2008; 46(1):
341–351.
15. March C and Shim T. Integrated control of suspension
and front steering to enhance vehicle handling. Proc
IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2007; 221(4):
377–391.
16. Doumiati M, Sename O, Dugard L et al. Integrated vehi-
cle dynamics control via coordination of active front
steering and rear braking. Eur J Control 2013; 19(2): 121–
143.
Li et al.
17. Boada MJL, Boada BL Muñoz A and Dı́az V. Integrated
control of front-wheel steering and front braking forces
on the basis of fuzzy logic. Proc IMechE Part D: J Auto-
mobile Engineering 2006; 221(3); 253–267.
18. Park M, Lee S, Kim M et al. Integrated differential brak-
ing and electric power steering control for advanced lane-
change assist systems. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile
Engineering 2015; 229(7): 924–943.
19. Tjonnas J and Johansen TA. Stabilization of automotive
vehicles using active steering and adaptive brake control
allocation. IEEE Trans Control Systems Technol 2010;
18(3): 545–558.
20. Ozatay E, Unlusoy S and Yildirim A. Enhancement of
vehicle handling using four wheel steering control strat-
egy. SAE paper 2006-01- 0942, 2006.
21. Kiencke U and Nielsen L. Automotive control systems: for
engine, driveline and vehicle. Berlin: Springer, 2000.
22. Li B and Yu F. Design of a vehicle lateral stability control
system via a fuzzy logic control approach. Proc IMechE
Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2010; 224(3): 313–326.
23. Boada BL, Boada MJL and Dı́az V. Fuzzy-logic applied
to yaw moment control for vehicle stability. Veh System
Dynamics 2005; 43(10): 753–770.
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on September 19, 2015
11
24. Goodarzi A and Daneshmand V. A novel algorithm for
optimum distribution of tire forces in an integrated
chassis control system. In: 21st international sympo-
sium on dynamics of vehicles on roads and tracks,
IAVSD09 paper P117, Stockholm, Sweden, 17–21
August 2009.
25. Rajamani R. Vehicle dynamics and control. New York:
Springer, 2006.
26. Slotine JJ and Li W. Applied nonlinear control. Engle-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.
27. Yoerger D and Slotine J. Robust trajectory control of
underwater vehicles. IEEE J Oceanic Engng 1985; 10(4):
462–470.
28. Koibuchi K, Yamaoto M and Fukada Y. Vehicle
dynamics control in limit cornering by active brake. SAE
paper 960487, 1996.
29. Guo KH and Ding HT. The effect of yaw moment
through differential braking under tire adhesion limit.
Automot Engng 2002; 24(2): 101–104.
30. CarSim 8.0Ò reference manual. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Mechanical Simulation Corporation.