Joint 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and

28th Chinese Control Conference

Shanghai, P.R. China, December 16-18, 2009

ThBIn6.4

Advanced Yaw Control of Four-wheeled Vehicles

via Rear Active Differential Braking
Matteo Corno, Mara Tanelli, Ivo Boniolo, Sergio M. Savaresi
Abstract In this paper, the problem of active lateral dynamics control of four-wheeled vehicles during braking is
addressed. In certain specific conditions, a vehicle may deviate
from straight line trajectory even if the steering wheel is kept
still and straight. By applying a differential brake pressure,
it is possible to generate a yawing moment to recover the
desired trajectory. An analytical model of the vehicle dynamics
of interest is derived and validated against experimental data;
the model dynamic analysis shows that its behavior is strongly
affected by longitudinal velocity and deceleration. Hence, this
dependence is taken explicitly into account by devising an LPV
controller. The performance of the proposed controller is finally
assessed both via simulation and on a test vehicle.

I. I NTRODUCTION AND M OTIVATION

Asymmetries in tire pressure or strong cross winds, among
other exogenous phenomena, can cause lateral disturbances
in the dynamics of four-wheeled vehicles during braking.
These disturbances pose a potential safety hazard. Current
active stability control systems are designed to intervene
only if the lateral stability is compromised, but often lateral
exogenous disturbances do not affect stability, but only
trajectory.
The problem of rejecting these disturbances can be recasted in the lane keeping framework, a well treated subject
in the scientific literature. Most of the available works
deal with the problem of rejecting disturbances at constant
velocity [1], [2] using active steering systems [3] or visual feedback from cameras [4], [5] and other positioning
systems. The results are very promising, but the related
approaches neglect two important aspects: (1) by focusing
on the constant velocity case, load transfer phenomena are
not taken into account; (2) the proposed solutions are not
cost-effective. The lane keeping problem can also be cast in a
more general framework that has been arising in the past few
years. In the Global Chassis Control approach [6], [7], the
vehicle is analyzed as a Multi-Input-Multi-Output (MIMO)
system with several actuators (e.g., semi-active suspensions,
active steering, braking and semi-active differentials) and
several output variables (e.g., yaw rate, side slip angle,
longitudinal velocity). This approach is very promising, but it
suffers from the aforementioned problems of high realization
costs and actuation complexity.
In this paper, a cost-effective approach to the problem
of active yaw control of four-wheeled vehicles is presented.
This work was supported by MIUR PRIN project Identification and
adaptive control of industrial systems.
M. Corno, M. Tanelli, I. Boniolo and S. M. Savaresi
are with the Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione,
Politecnico
di
Milano,
Milan,
Italy
[corno,tanelli,

boniolo,savaresi]@elet.polimi.it

978-1-4244-3872-3/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE

The idea is to rely on brake actuation. In fact, all modern

cars are equipped with ABS systems that can independently
modulate the braking pressure at each wheel: by applying
a differential braking pressure it is possible to generate a
yawing moment. The proposed idea has some similarities
with Electronic Stability Control (ESC), as in ESC systems
individual wheel braking is employed to control the vehicle.
However, while ESC systems are designed to intervene only
when stability is compromised, the proposed control system
is designed to correct even small variations in the yaw rate
which might not cause loss of stability but compromise lane
keeping.
In this paper experimental tests from a test vehicle for
laboratory prototyping are used to derive and validate an
analytical model which serves as a basis to design a gainscheduled LPV yaw rate controller. The control system is
implemented on the test vehicle and its performance is
experimentally assessed.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II is devoted
to the derivation, identification, validation and parameter
sensitivity analysis of the vehicle dynamics analytical model.
In Section III the model is employed to design a Linear
Parameter Varying (LPV) controller and to validate the
design phase. Section IV concludes the paper with some
remarks and an outlook to future work.
II. D OUBLE -T RACK M ODEL
In this Section an analytical nonlinear model of the vehicle
dynamics of interest is derived. Further, some unmeasurable
parameters are identified from data and the model is validated
and discussed. In the literature (see for example [8]) many
vehicle dynamics models have been proposed; in this work,
the attention is focused on describing the dynamic relationship linking a differential braking pressure input applied at
the rear wheels and the resulting lateral vehicle motion.
In order to model all the relevant dynamics, the classical
double-track model has been extended by introducing a
nonlinear tire-road friction description and load transfer phenomena. As the attention is focused on a specific maneuver,
namely braking performed with small steering angle at nearly
constant longitudinal decelerations, some assumptions can
be made. Namely, (A.1) the longitudinal velocity dynamics
varies slowly with respect to heave dynamics. We can hence
model the load transfer as dependent on the longitudinal
deceleration only, neglecting suspensions dynamics. (A.2)
lateral load transfer is neglected as only small steering
angle values are considered. (A.3) rolling and aerodynamic
resistance as well as transmission and engine friction are

5176

ThBIn6.4
neglected, as the forces they generate are smaller than those
generated by the brakes in the braking maneuvers of interest.
(A.4) the braking torque Tb at each wheel is considered
proportional to the local brake pressure pb , i.e., Tb = Kb pb .
Fig. 1 schematically represents the main parameters and
conventions adopted in the analytical derivation of the considered vehicle model. i j , i = { f , r}, j = {l, r} are the wheel

Wheels

i j = 1/Jw (Tb i j rw Fx i j ), i = { f , r}, j = {l, r}.

(4)

The tire longitudinal forces are modeled according to

Burkhardt model, [9]; thanks to the small steering angles
hypothesis (A.2), a linear model has been employed for the
lateral forces.


Fx i j = Fz i j c1 (1 ec2 i j ) c3 i j
Fy i j = Fz i jC ( i j ) i j , i = { f , r}, j = {l, r},

(5)

where c1 , c2 and c3 are the tire-road friction parameters, i j

are the longitudinal wheel slips (defined as positive during
braking). The tire-road friction coefficient, i.e., Fx i j /Fz i j , as a
function of the wheel slip is shown in the left plot of Fig. 2.
For small vehicle side slip angles, the tire side slip angles can
1.4

45
asphalt,dry

Double-track vehicle model nomenclature.

40
35

pressure [bar]

Fig. 1.

friction coefficient

1.2

concrete, dry

0.8
0.6

asphalt,wet

0.4

v = 1/m Fxrl + Fxrr + (Fx f l + Fx f r ) cos( )

+(Fy f l + Fy f r ) sin( )

(1)

u = 1/m Fyrl + Fyrr + (Fy f l + Fy f r ) cos( )

(Fx f l + Fx f r ) sin( ) + rvm

(2)

Lateral

Yaw
r = 1/J((Fyrl + Fyrl )b
+ (Fxrl + Fxrl )w
+ (Fy f l + Fy f r ) cos( )a (Fx f l + Fx f r ) sin( )a
+ (Fx f l + Fx f r ) cos( )w + (Fy f l + Fy f r ) sin( )w)

(3)

25
20

identified response

15

0.2

side-slip angles, is the vehicle side-slip angle, Fx i j , Fy i j ,

Fz i j the longitudinal, lateral and vertical forces, respectively,
the steering angle at the wheels, and r the yaw angle
and yaw rate, v and u the longitudinal and lateral velocity
in body-fixed coordinates. The vehicle geometric parameters
are a, b, w and h, which stand for respectively the
distance from the front axle to the center of mass, the
distance from the rear axle to the center of mass, half the
track width and the height of the center of mass. Other
symbols are J, m, Jw which represent the yaw moment
of inertia of the vehicle, the total vehicle mass and wheel
moment of inertia, respectively; i j are the longitudinal
wheel angular velocities, rw is the wheel radius (assumed
equal for all wheels) and Tb i j the braking torque at each
wheel.
The vehicle model is obtained via force and momentum
balances relative to the model 7 degrees of freedom, i.e., 2
linear (longitudinal and lateral) and 5 rotational (yaw and the
four wheels) degrees of freedom. This yields
Longitudinal

18 bar

30

10
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

25 ms
0

0.05

0.1

0.15 0.2
time [s]

0.25

0.3

Fig. 2. Longitudinal friction coefficient for different surfaces (left plot).

Measured (dot dashed) and simulated pressure (solid) at the brake caliper
in response to a step variation of the set-point (solid line) (right plot).

be written as a function of the state space variable according

to the following expressions

f l = (v sin( ) + ra)/(v cos( ) rw)

f r = (v sin( ) + ra)/(v cos( ) + rw)
rl = (v sin( ) rb)/(v cos( ) rw)
rr = (v sin( ) rb)/(v cos( ) + rw)

(6)

where the vehicle side slip angle can be computed as

u
= atan
.
(7)
v
Note that in the lateral forces expression (5) the cornering
stiffness C ( ) is written as a function of the longitudinal
wheel slip ; thus modeling the loss of lateral force due to
braking.
(8)
C ( ) = C (0) k ,
where k is chosen so as to cause an 80% reduction of the
lateral friction coefficient at = 0.4.
Further, the forces exerted by the tire are a function of the
vertical load (see Equation 5). This dependence is crucial to
correctly study the effects of the braking maneuver on the
lateral dynamics. In view of Assumption (A.1), the vertical
forces can be written as
mg b
hm
Fzi =
v
2 a+b
2(a + b)
where the first term represents the static load distribution and
the second models the dynamic load transfer.

5177

ThBIn6.4
A. Parameters Identification and Model Validation
The proposed dynamic vehicle model depends on several
parameters, which can be grouped into two categories: easily
measurable parameters (such as lengths, widths and masses)
and unmeasurable ones. The second set of parameters must
be identified from data. The identified parameters are the
cornering stiffness C (0) and the yaw inertia J. An accurate
model of the tire longitudinal characteristic is available for
the test vehicle, and thus its parameters do not need to be
identified.
The identification of the two remaining parameters, i.e., J
and C (0) has been performed on runs executed at constant
longitudinal velocity by applying a square wave input pressure excitation at the rear brakes. Note that, even though the
driver was requested to keep the steering wheel straight, i.e.,
with = 0 , it could not be kept always constant. As such,
the resulting identification problem is not genuinely a SISO
one. In fact, two inputs act on the system: a commanded
input (the pressure gradient at the rear wheels) and a non
controllable input (the steering angle ). Hence, in the
identification procedure the measured steering wheel angle
is treated as a measurable disturbance and the vehicle
model using such a as an input. By numerically solving
the yaw rate simulation error minimization on three test runs
carried out at different longitudinal velocities (80, 100 and
120 km/h), a yaw rate moment of inertia J = 1125 kg m2 and
a front and rear cornering stiffness values C f (0) = 12 rad1
and Cr (0) = 15.9 rad1 , respectively, have been found.
The effectiveness of the identification procedure can be
appreciated by inspecting Fig. 3 which shows the results
obtained in two validation tests at constant velocity. It should
simulated yaw rate
P

yaw rate [normalized]

yaw rate [normalized]

steer

simulated yaw rate

measured yaw rate

measured yaw rate

0.5

1
time [s]

1.5

steer

0.5

1.5

order time-invariant linear system with uncertain gain.The

closed loop pressure dynamics natural frequency is 29 Hz
with a damping coefficient of 0.5 and a pure delay of 25 ms.
B. Sensitivity Analysis
Once the vehicle model has been derived and validated,
it is interesting to study how the operating conditions may
affect the vehicle lateral dynamics. This can be done by
linearizing the nonlinear model around some specific trim
conditions. The operating point is defined by longitudinal
velocity and longitudinal acceleration. Thus the trim conditions are found fixing the value of these two variables and
considering zero lateral velocity and zero yaw rate. Note
that, when the longitudinal acceleration value is non-zero
the resulting trim condition is not an equilibrium, so that
the linearization is not carried out around a proper steady
state condition (see also [10]). Recalling the longitudinal
dynamics in (1), it is easy to see that for any given nonzero deceleration value there are infinite trim conditions in
terms of wheel velocities, among which that with equal
longitudinal slips on the four wheels has been selected as
it represents the most balanced braking condition. Fig. 4
shows the Bode diagrams of the transfer function from rear
axle pressure gradient to yaw rate for different values of
longitudinal velocity and acceleration. Inspecting Fig. 4, the
following remarks can be made: (1) the upper bound of
the system bandwidth (defined as the frequency at which
the frequency response magnitude loses 3dB with respect
to the DC gain) is around 3 Hz; (2) the low frequency
gain increases as velocity increases; (3) the damping of the
complex poles decreases as velocity increases. From the
control system design perspective, this causes a loss of phase
margin; (4) the low frequency gain increases as deceleration
increases; (5) as deceleration increases, the poles move
toward the imaginary axis.
These results are experimentally confirmed. For example,
Fig. 5 shows the open-loop yaw rate response to a step variation of the left rear braking pressure at different velocities.
The effect of varying the longitudinal velocity is consistent
with the sensitivity analysis both in terms of magnitude and
damping properties. The overall analysis highlights that both

2.5

time [s]

120 km/h

P set point

be noted that in the identification procedure the actual measured pressure at the brake caliper has been employed. This
measurement is available only for identification purposes,
as in the final production vehicle pressure sensors are not
available. This, as can be seen in the right plot Fig. 2 which
shows the measured pressure at the rear brake caliper in
response to a step variation of the set-point, introduces an
uncertainty in the actuator model. Static errors up to 50%
are to be expected. It should be also noted that the actuated
pressure is always lower than the set-point. The experimental
data also show that the actuator can be modeled by a second

yaw rate [normalized]

Fig. 3. Model Validation. Measured and simulated yaw rate, steering wheel
position and pressure gradient request at constant velocity: 100 km/h (left
plot) and 120 km/h (right plot).

v = 80 km/h

5.5

6.5
time [s]

7.5

Fig. 5. Open loop responses to a step variation of the left rear braking
pressure at a deceleration of 0.4 g.

longitudinal velocity and acceleration play an important role

in determining the dynamic behavior of the system. Hence,
this influence has to be taken into account when designing
the controller.

5178

60

70

magnitude [dB]

magnitude [dB]

ThBIn6.4

70

80

80

increasing velocity

increasing deceleration

90

90

100
100
110
0

10

10

10

120
2
10
0

10

increasing velocity

10

10

10

increasing deceleration

phase []

10

phase []

110
2
10
0

50

50

100
100
150
150
2
10

10

10
frequency [Hz]

10

10

10

10

10
frequency [Hz]

10

10

Fig. 4. Bode diagrams of the transfer function from rear axle pressure difference to yaw rate at constant velocity from 50 to 120 km/h (left), and at
constant acceleration from 0 to -0.8g at 80 km/h.

III. LPV YAW C ONTROLLER D ESIGN

In the previous Section it has been shown that velocity and
acceleration have an important role on the vehicle dynamics.
As such, is it clear that a fixed-structure yaw controller
cannot yield good results in all working conditions. This
Section is devoted to the design of a gain scheduled yaw
controller. In particular, a Linear Parametrically Varying
(LPV) controller is proposed. LPV control system design
techniques, in fact, allow to design gain-scheduled controllers
with a-priori stability and performance guarantees. The
theory of LPV systems has been extensively documented in
e.g., [11][13]. For a review of the specific technique applied
in this work, the Reader may refer to [14].
The main objective of the proposed control system is to
control the yaw rate during straight running braking. As
already mentioned, the proposed controller is intended as
an advanced controller for lane keeping purposes, which
intervenes only if the ABS system is not activated. If the
ABS system is triggered, the yaw controller is switched
off; this allows to take into consideration only situations
where the vehicle dynamics can be regarded as stable. Other
more robust but less precise control logics (for example ESC
systems) will be activated if stability is compromised.
To describe the controller design rationale, refer to Fig.
6, which depicts the interconnections diagram that defines
the design objectives. In devising the interconnections one
has to take into account the fact that the system is strongly
affected by uncertainties. There are mainly two sources of
uncertainty, both graphically depicted in Fig. 2. The former
is due to the sensor-less pressure control loop. Although the
actuator dynamic response to a step variation of requested
pressure is fairly repeatable, the static behavior is not. Static
uncertainties up to 50% are to be accounted for in the
controller design. The second cause of uncertainty is due to
the impossibility to accurately estimate the tire-road friction
coefficient online. Hence, in order to guarantee safety, the
tire-road friction coefficient is treated as an uncertain parameter. Based on these considerations, the weighting functions
have been selected.

Fig. 6.

Yaw control system interconnections.

1) The control problem is formulated as a model matching

problem, and Wmod (s) represents the second order reference
model. A natural frequency of 0.9 Hz and damping coefficient of 0.9 have been chosen so as to guarantee a well
damped response with a settling time of about 1 s. The
settling time has been chosen coherently with the chassis
and actuators dynamics.
2) The model matching error is weighted by an integral-like
weighting function to ensures little or none DC error.
3) An output disturbance model is included in the interconnection to increase the robustness of the closed loop system.
In the synthesis, the weighting function Wn is kept constant
over all frequencies to model white measurement noise.
4) Wact allows to ensure a bounded control action. Specifically, the following actuator weight is used
Wact (s) =

1/(15 2 )s + 1
,
1/(300 2 )s + 1

which penalizes the actuation above 20 Hz. The gain of

the weighting function has been tuned so that the maximum
available control authority results in a peak of approximately
40 bar in the rear braking pressure difference in the face of
a 1 /s step variation in the yaw rate.
5) The ABS pressure control loop is modeled as a second
order low pass filter with a natural frequency of 29 Hz and
a 2nd order Pade approximation of a 25 ms pure delay. In
the scheme of Fig. 6 it is designated A(s).
6) G(s) models the single input - single output yaw dynamics

5179

ThBIn6.4

X(v, ) = X0 + vX1 + aX2 + avX3 + a2 X4

uncontrolled system

yaw rate

fixed controller

0
scheduled controller

14

15

16

17
time [s]

18

fixed controller

19

20

scheduled controller
rear left

rear left

front left
pressure

front left
pressure

adjusted with a scaling and a normalizing factor.

7) Wunc (s) is used to express modeling uncertainty. The input
disturbance weighting function is set to a static gain so as to
model uncertainties of up to 50% which take into account the
effects of both pressure control loop uncertainty and tire-road
friction coefficient variations. Note that the gain of G(s) has
been reduced so that the pressure loop control uncertainty
can be treated as symmetric.
The LPV controller synthesis is the carried out on a grid
of 24 elements: 6 longitudinal velocity values (v=[40, 60, 80,
100, 110, 120] km/h) and 4 longitudinal acceleration values
(a=[-0.2, -0.4, -0.6, -0.8] g). The following basis functions
are employed to approximate the infinite dimensional LPV
problem

rear right

rear right
front right

front right
0

0
14

15

16

17

18

19

14

20

15

16

17

18

19

20

Fig. 7. Closed loop simulation performed at 120 km/h; yaw rate (upper
plot), fixed structure controller brake pressures (lower right) and gainscheduled controller brake pressures (lower left).

Y (v, ) = Y0 + vY1 + aY2 + avY3 + a2Y4 .

between the controlled system and the uncontrolled system
are apparent. The uncontrolled system yaw rate response to a
3 bar difference in the front braking pressure reaches a peak
of 0.9 /s, whereas the controlled system worst case is 0.3 /s,
i.e., a peak reduction of 66%. (2) The LPV controller induces
a lower yaw rate overshoot; in fact, at 120 km/h the gain
of the scheduled controller is higher than that of the fixed
structure controller, thus allowing a faster closed-loop yaw
rate response. (3) The situation in the yaw rate undershoot
is opposite. The scheduled controller causes slightly higher
negative yaw rate values. This is a behavior which was not
predicted by the linear analysis, and it is a consequence of
the time-varying velocity. As far as trajectory following is
concerned, however, this yaw rate behavior is to be preferred
to that achieved by the fixed-structure controller as it is more
symmetric.
Further, Fig. 8 shows the results obtained in the same
type of maneuver, but performed at a longitudinal speed
of 80 km/h and maximum deceleration of -0.5 g. This is
the situation where the LPV controller is expected to yield
significantly better results as compared to the fixed structure
one.
uncontrolled
system

yaw rate

fixed controller

scheduled controller

15

15.5

16

16.5

17
time [s]

17.5

fixed controller

18

18.5

rear left

rear left
front left
pressure

rear right

front left

rear right

front right
0

front right

0
15

16

17
time [s]

19

scheduled controller

pressure

Finally, the following rate bounds on velocity and acceleration have been employed: = [9.8m/s2 , 9m/s3 ]. These
rate bounds have been derived from analysis of experimental
data considering a large number of different braking maneuvers.
Linear analysis of the loop transfer functions at the grid
vertexes confirms that performance and stability are guaranteed pointwise with a bandwidth of 0.5Hz and a phase margin
of 85 meaning that the design goals are successfully met
in the linear domain.
In order to assess the advantages of the LPV controller
, a H fixed structure controller has been also devised
using the same weighting functions. In order to guarantee
stability in all working conditions without loosing too much
performance, the H controller has been designed for the
nominal condition v = 120 km/h and a = -0.4 g. This is
not the worst case condition, but it has been selected to
represent a trade off between robustness and performance.
Furthermore, it represents a realistic condition as even in the
case of a hard braking, a few seconds are needed before
reaching high decelerations and during that span of time the
velocity drops restoring a more favorable vehicle dynamic
behavior.
To validate the proposed control laws a series of closedloop simulations have been carried out and analyzed. The
simulations have been run on the full nonlinear system
derived and validated in Section II augmented with the
full actuator dynamics. In order to simulate realistic driving
conditions, the initial velocity and brake pressures recorded
from track tests are used as inputs for the nonlinear simulator.
The steering action is kept at 0 , as this allows to decouple
the effect of the driver action on the steering wheel and
the yaw control. In the simulations, the reference yaw rate
is kept at 0 and a disturbance is applied to the system
in the form of a pressure offset on the front left wheel
braking pressure. Fig. 7 shows a plot of the yaw rate and
brake pressures for a maneuver performed at the initial speed
of 120 km/h and with a maximum deceleration of -0.8 g.
Inspecting Fig. 7, some remarks are due. (1) The difference

18

19

15

16

17
time [s]

18

19

Fig. 8. Closed loop simulation performed at 80 km/h; yaw rate (upper plot),
fixed structure controller brake pressures (lower right) and gain-scheduled
controller brake pressures (lower left).

5180

ThBIn6.4
The results of Fig. 8 confirm that in this case the maximum yaw rate obtained with the uncontrolled system is
0.55 /s while the fixed controller and the gain-scheduled
controller guarantee a maximum yaw rate deviation of 0.3 /s
and 0.14 /s, respectively. As expected, the gain-scheduled
controller outperforms the fixed structure controller in this
condition which is far from the nominal one used in the
fixed structure controller design.
Finally, Fig. 9 plots the comparison between the controlled
and uncontrolled system on experimental data obtained in a
hard braking maneuver at 120 km/h with a highly unbalanced
vehicle when the driver action is considered. High speed
tests are more meaningful because in this condition the
lateral drift due to the unbalanced load is more evident.
Analyzing Fig. 9, it can be appreciated that the control
system successfully controls the lateral dynamics of the
vehicle, thus counteracting the effects of unbalanced load.
The effectiveness of the control system is also quantified by
the tracking error variance shown in Fig. 9: as can be seen,
a reduction of approximately 90% has been achieved with
respect to the open loop system behavior.

yaw rate [normalized]

1
controlled
system
0.5

0.5
uncontrolled
system

normalized tracking
error variance

0.5

1.5

2.5
time [s]

3.5

4.5

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

uncontrolled

controlled

Fig. 9. Experimental results of a hard braking at v=140 km/h; yaw rate

(upper plot) and tracking error variance (bottom plot).

IV. C ONCLUSIONS AND F UTURE W ORK

In this paper, the problem of cost effective advanced yaw
dynamics control for four-wheeled vehicles via active rear

differential braking has been addressed. An ad-hoc analytical

and experimentally validated double-track model has been
used to design an LPV robust controller. The gain scheduled
controller is shown (both in simulation and experimentally)
to be superior with respect to a fixed-structure controller.
If the disturbances are too intense, the controller may
saturate the actuators. As such, a possible extension of the
work presented herein lies in considering also front wheel
braking pressure modulation. The resulting MISO problem
is currently under investigation.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Ackermann and T. Buente, Automatic Car Steering Control Bridges
over the Driver Reaction Time, Kybernetica, vol. 33, pp. 6174, 1997.
[2] B. Guvenc and L. Guvenc, Robust Two Degree-of-Freedom Add-On
Controller Design for Automatic Steering, Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 137148, 2002.
[3] T. Bunte, D. Odenthal, B. Aksun-Guvenc, and L. Guvenc, Robust
Vehicle Steering Control Design Based on the Disturbance Observer,
Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 139149, 2002.
[4] R. Risack, N. Mohler, and W. Enkelmann, A Video-Based Lane
Keeping Assistant, in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings
of the IEEE, 2000, pp. 356361.
[5] S. Ishida, J. Gayko, H. Ltd, and J. Tochigi, Development, Evaluation
and Introduction of a Lane Keeping Assistance System, in Intelligent
Vehicles Symposium, 2004 IEEE, 2004, pp. 943944.
[6] Y. Shibahata, Progress and Future Direction of Chassis Control
Technology, Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 151158,
2005.
[7] P. Falcone, M. Tufo, F. Borrelli, J. Asgari, and H. Tseng, A Linear
Time Varying Model Predictive Control Approach to the Integrated
Vehicle Dynamics Control Problem in Autonomous Systems, in
Decision and Control, 46th IEEE Conference on, 2007, pp. 2980
2985.
[8] T. Gillespie, Fundamental of Vehicle Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 1992.
[9] U. Kiencke and L. Nielsen, Automotive Control Systems. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2000.
[10] S. Savaresi, M. Tanelli, and C. Cantoni, Mixed Slip-Deceleration
Control in Automotive Braking Systems, ASME Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement and Control, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 2031, 2006.
[11] G. Becker, Quadratic Stability and Performanc of Linear ParameterDependend Systems, Ph.D. dissertation, Mechanical Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, 1993.
[12] F. Wu, Control of linear parameter varying systems, Ph.D. dissertation, Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
1995.
[13] G. J. Balas, Linear, Parameter-Varying Control and its Application
to a Turbofan Engine, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear
Control, vol. 12, pp. 763796, 2002.
[14] M. Corno, S. Savaresi, and G. Balas, On Linear Parameter Varying
(LPV) Slip-Controller Design for Two-Wheeled Vehicles, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, pre-prints.

5181