Discrete-Time Controller Design

for Robust Vehicle Traction

Han-Shue Tan and Masayoshi Tomizuka
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a discretetime control algorithm for robust vehicle
traction, which includes antiskid braking and
antispin acceleration. The algorithm is a
nonlinear feedback scheme that can be designed via classical digital control theory.
The algorithm is easy to tune and modify to
incorporate higher-order dynamics, which
may be necessary for a practical hardware
setup. The robust controller in this paper
provides stable and reliable performance under a variety of uncertainties involved in the
vehicle/brake system that are difficult to
measure. The effectiveness of this new
scheme is demonstrated by experiments on
antiskid braking.

Introduction
Vehicle traction control, which includes
antiskid braking and antispin acceleration,
can enhance vehicle performance and handling. The objective of this control is to
maximize tire traction by preventing the
wheels from locking during braking and from
spinning during acceleration. At the same
time, vehicle traction control helps to maintain adequate vehicle stability and steerability. In general, there are two major difficulties involved in the design of a practical
traction control algorithm: (1) the vehicle/
brake system is highly nonlinear with timevarying parameters and uncertainties; (2) the
performance depends strongly on the knowledge of the tire/road surface condition.
Wheel slip, the difference between the vehicle speed and the wheel speed (normalized
by the vehicle speed for braking and the
wheel speed for acceleration), is chosen as
the controlled variable for most of the traction control algorithm because of its strong
influence on the tractive force between the
tire and the road. Typical relationships between the longitudinal adhesion coefficient
(the ratio between the longitudinal tractive
Presented at the 1989 American Control Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 21-23, 1989.
This work was conducted while both authors were
at the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Han-Shue Tan is now with the Missile System
Group, Hughes Aircraft Company, Canoga Park,
CA 91304.

force and the normal load) and wheel slip

( p - h curve) are shown in Fig. 1.
The basic control criteria are suggested
from three perspectives: maximum tractive
force, stability characteristics, and cornering
properties of the tire 111-[3]. The most effective way to accelerate or stop a vehicle is
to regulate the wheel slip where the adhesion
coefficient attains its peak value in the
p - h curve [4]. The stability characteristics
indicate that the vehicle/brake system is
unstable and sensitive to disturbance when
the operating point belongs to a region where
the slope in the p - h curve is negative. Finally, due to the cornering properties of the
tires, it is very easy to lose directional control or lateral stability when the slope of the
p - h curve is negative. Therefore, it is preferable to operate the vehicleibrake system
within the positive p-X slope region and to
regulate the wheel slip at the peak of
adhesion coefficient only when the maximum tractive (braking) force is requested.
To achieve these goals, we need to address

VI:
(1) Design of a traction controller that can
regulate the wheel slip at any desired
value.

(2) Development of an estimation scheme

that identifies the tireiroad surface conditions.
(3) Integration of the two preceding goals to
establish an adaptive control strategy.
In this paper, we will consider the first
issue. The desired control algorithm is characterized by ( I ) not requiring precise system
parameters and states, (2) good disturbance
rejection properties, (3) ability to stabilize
unstable systems, and (4) easy implementation (which includes design, tuning, and
modification). As for the second and third
issues, one way for identifying the tirdroad
adhesion characteristics is by using a
weighted least-squares estimation algorithm
together with a wheel-slip traction control
algorithm [ 11.
Commercial antiskid break systems (ABS)
have been developed and produced by several companies worldwide 121, [ 5 ] , [6]. An
ordinary ABS system consists of sensors, a
control unit, and a brake pressure modulator.
0272 1708 90 0400 0107 $01 00

Apni 1990

I f

Dly Pavement

.Unpacked Snow

Wheel Slip (A)

1 .o

Fig. 1. Adhesion coeficient versus wheel

slip (p-A) curve.
In practice, the skid (or spin) of a tire is
difficult to measure directly; therefore, the
control logic of such a system usually utilizes measurable variables, such as angular
speed and/or angular acceleration of the
wheel. The sensors monitor the specified parameters and generate signals representative
of those parameters. Those signals are then
transmitted to the control unit. The control
unit issues the command signal, which activates the pressure modulator (e.g., solenoid valves). A typical control algorithm
(logic) determines the solenoid command
based on the current estimated slip and wheel
acceleration by dividing the wheel-slip/acceleration phase plane into various sectors,
or blocks, each corresponding to a control
action (APPLY, HOLD, RELEASE, or others). The essence of the design of these algorithms is to produce an optimal limit
cycle in the phase plane. Although these systems work in practice, their design is experimental rather than analytical, and their tuning and calibration rely heavily on trial and
error. The robustness issue has not been explicitly addressed, either.
A mathematical model of the vehicle/brake
system based on one-wheel dynamics is introduced in the next section, followed by a
new discrete-time traction control algorithm
for both antispin and antiskid. The robustness issue and design methodology are discussed, and experimental results are presented. Conclusions are given in the last
section.

1990 IkEE

107

System Dynamics
A simplified vehicle model appropriate for
both vehicle acceleration and deceleration is
described in this section (see Fig. 2). This
model contains one-wheel rotational dynamics and linear vehicle dynamics, as well as
the interaction between them [ 7 ] , [8].
The wheel dynamics is determined by
Newton's law as in Eq. (1). The angular
acceleration of the wheel (&) equals the total torque to the wheel divided by the moment of inertia of the wheel ( J J . The torque
consists of shaft torque from the engine (TJ,
brake torque (TJ,tire tractive force (F,)
timed by the wheel radius (I?,,), and wheel
viscous friction [F,.(w,)], where the overdot
denotes time differentiation, and the variables T, and J,. of the driving wheel change
in accordance with the transmission gear
shifts.

Gl(.
= [(T, - Tb - R,,.F, - F,AU,~.)I/J,,.

When a driving torque (braking torque) is

applied to a pneumatic tire, tractive force
will be developed at the tire-ground contact
patch (31, [9]. At the same time, the tire
tread in front of and within the contact patch
is subject to compression (tension). Consequently, the distance the tire travels when it
is subject to a driving torque (braking torque)
will be less (greater) than when it is in free
rolling. This phenomenon is usually referred
to as the deformation slip (A). The wheel
slips of a driving wheel during acceleration
(qv> a,,)
and deceleration (a,,.
<
are
defined as

The tractive adhesion coefficient p , which

is the ratio between tractive force and normal
load ( N J , can be presented as a function of
the wheel slip of a given tire at a certain
vehicle speed on a road surface (e.g., see
Fig. 1). Surface conditions as well as the
design and construction of a tire are the most
influential factors for this coefficient. Among
the operational parameters, speed and vertical load demonstrate noticeable effects on
the adhesion coefficient-slip characteristics
as well.
The vehicle linear acceleration ( V ) is determined by the total force to the vehicle
[tractive forces from the wheels and the
aerodynamic friction (F,,(V))]and the vehicle mass (M,,),where N , is the number of
driving wheels (during acceleration) or the
total number of wheels (during braking).
V = [N,,.F,- F f , ( V ) ] / M f ,

The tire tractive force is determined by the

normal force of tire NI,and the surface adhesion coefficient p :
F,

Ni,~(h)

(4)

Both parameters depend on variables such as

the vehicle weight, the location of the center
of gravity, and the steering and suspension
dynamics.
To simplify the notations, let xI and x2 be
the equivalent vehicle rotational speed (=
VI?,.)and wheel angular speed, respectively. By defining the following new variables. b l N = (N,J,)/(MJ?,+), b2N= (I?,<,N,,)/
J,., b3 = l/J,,.,and new functions, fi(xl) =
[F,,(R,JI)14Mf,K) hG2) = [F&2)I/Jb4~,
Eqs. (1)-(4) are rewritten in the state-variable form as shown below, where x is the
3

h = (a,)- a,,)/a,,when (a,!> a,,)

= (qv- af,)/at,
when (a,,.
< af,)

(3)

(2)

x-2 = -&(XI)

b2Nm

T , - Th

A = (x2 - xJ/x

Discrete-Time Robust Traction

Controller
As described in the preceding section, the
traction control system is nonlinear with
time-varying parameters and uncertainties. It
is desired that the controller is able to track
any desired wheel slip under all road conditions while requiring only minimum measurements. At the present technological
level, neither a detailed model of the vehicle/
brake system nor an accurate forecast of the
timdroad surface conditions is available (or
it is too expensive to obtain). As a result,
complex control schemes requiring considerable knowledge of the system and its environments are not practical. Sliding mode
control [IO], [ l l ] has been investigated for
its ability to handle uncertainties [4].Although sliding mode control is shown to be
robust against parameter uncertainties and to
perform satisfactorily in different operating
environments, chattering resulting from the
delay in digital implementation is inevitable.
Not only is chattering detrimental to the actuator mechanism, but it excites unmodeled
high-frequency dynamics. A new robust discrete-time control algorithm that can deliver
smoother results is, therefore, in demand.
Basic Structure

Deceleration Case We start with the formulation of the antiskid problem (deceleration, h < 0). The corresponding system
equation with respect to h is presented by
Eq. (6).
h =
=

[ji2

- (I

{[-h(xz)

+
-

X)i,]/Xl

h V d N + 47-1

Wheel Speed

Vehicle Speed

'

The friction terms fi and f2 are difficult to

measure; b l Nand b2Nmay change with time;
and the value of p may vary significantly
when either the operating or road condition
changes. All these items are taken as the
uncertainties of the system. By grouping
them together as B2(t),the system equation
for deceleration can be rearranged to be more
straightforward.
B2 = (1

= W(W

+ h ) f i ( x , )-&(xz)

> V/R,

= V / R ( W < V/R,

Fig. 2.

108

Vehicle/brake/road dynamics: one-wheel model.

IEEE Control Systems Magazine

Note that B? is slow-varying in time when X

is kept constant, and it will be bounded when
A is changing. Furthermore, when the engine
torque is not accessible, D2 = B, + b3T,
can be regarded as the grouped uncertainty
of the system.
The second step is to discretize the continuous system [Eq. (7)]. Let f, be the time
at the kth sampling instant. By integrating
Eq. (7) over a sampling period, and assuming that T,, remains constant within that period, we get

1,

li+
I

[B?(T)

+ b3Te(7)1/Xi(7) d7

li 4 I

b3/~1(7)
d7

Tb(fd

(8)

Remembering that xI is the vehicle speed and

will not vary significantly during a small time
interval, and assuming that b3 is constant,
Eq. (8) can be approximated by the following, where the overbar indicates that the
value has been averaged over a sampling period.
A(tk+l) =

VfJ + At([&(fd

M = [

= w(fr-l)
-

Aprii 1990

- [A(?,)

k sgn

form of a state equation, where is the ratio

= bJb3.
between b3 and b3, i.e.,

X(f,-~)l/Af

lW,) - X&)l

k,AfP)lz

+(I -P)=O

(12)

The linear system ( 1 1 ) is asymptotically stable if, and only if, the eigenvalues of Eq.
(12) are inside the unit circle. The permissible ranges of k,, and P for Eq. (11) to be
asymptotically stable are as follows:
O < P < 2

0 < k,At

(1 3 4

< [2(2

P)]/P

+ l ) +~ 1

1I

DEN

Equation (14) indicates that the steady state

X equals X T under the condition that the uncertainty term becomes constant. In addition, it shows that the steady state w equals
-5, under the same condition.
The next task is to choose k,,. First note
AD,)/
that, from Eq. (14), h = At(k,PX,
(2, - [(2 - P ) - k,AtP)Iz-+
( 1 - P)),
where AB, is the change of D , during one
sampling interval. When AD, is bounded and
A, constant, the regulation error ( A - A),
will be bounded asymptotically as t, -+ 00
(i.e., when the transient dies out) as long as
Eq. ( 1 1 ) is asymptotically stable. And this
bound is determined by the magnitude of
AD, as well as the zeros in Eq. (12). By
denoting Xlmpulseas the impulse response from

(1 1 )
This system looks as if it were a linear timeinvariant system with exogenous inputs X T
and D2 = (B2
b3T,)/xl.To guarantee a

(13b)

Equation (13a) implies that the brake control

system is stable as long as b, is not overly
underestimated.
To further understand the closed-loop system, consider the following transfer function
matrix from [h,, 5 2 1 to [ w , XI, where z is
a one-step advance operator.

At(z - 1)

(loa)

-[ X I ( f k ) / ~ 3 1 w ( ~ L )

Equation (loa) is intended to linearize the

vehicle/wheel system with respect to the
brake torque input channel. The control law
in Eq. (lob) evolves from a zeroth-order
sliding mode control: w(fJ = -k sgn [ h(tk)
- hT(tk-l)].For the preceding sliding mode
for all f,, X
control, with k > (b3/b7)ID,(tk)l
will converge to Xj- with chattering proportional to At, k , and l&l. Since D2 depends
strongly on the road condition, k needs to be
large enough to guarantee convergence to the
sliding mode. This creates large trajectory
chattering even when the operating and road
conditions are uniform. To reduce this chattering, an additional feedback loop is added
to the sliding mode control as follows:
tv(frJ

z2 - [(2 - P)

k,(z - 1) -(k,At
k, ArP

b3 Te(ta)l/xl (2,)

The next step is to design a discrete-time

closed-loop control law that is robust and can
regulate h to any target slip A r . By locally
linearizing the system (9), we, propose the
following control law, where b3 is the estimated value of b3 and k, is the feedback gain.

Tdtk)

bounded output from these bounded inputs,

it is sufficient to design the closed-loop linear system ( 1 1) asymptotically stable. The
characteristic equation of the system (1 1) is

Vh+l) - h(rJ
=

The ideas are to employ a minor feedback

to estimate the nominal uncertainty E, and
the sliding mode control k sgn ( X - A), to
overcome the change of D2 (AD,). As long
as Af is small, AD, is much smaller than D,,
and so is the bang-bang gain k needed to
overcome A E 2 . This results in smaller trajectory and control oscillations. To further
reduce the chattering, the control discontinuity [k sgn (A - h7)]can be smoothed out
within a small boundary layer neighboring
(A = A), [12], [13]. For example, k sgn ( X
- AT) can be substituted by k ( h - AT)/+
within the boundary layer, where
is the
boundary-layer thickness. Finally, when the
boundary layer is extended to the whole
space, the control law becomes that which
is described in Eq. (lob).
The schematic block diagram of the proposed discrete-time control structure is given
in Fig. 3 [with GJs) and G&)= 11. Equations (9) and (10) can be rewritten in the

1 - 1 1

VehicleiBrake Dynamics

ZH: Zem-Order Hold

G,,(s): Brake Actuator

Fig. 3. Antiskid control algorithm.

AD2 to X and Db the bound of A&, the

bound of the regulation error can be determined from the following relationship:
k

IW - b l

5 , = o I~lmp"lse(~,)lDb

where X T = X(fo). Xlmpulsedepends on k , . It

can be obtained [ 11 that the best choice of k ,
that minimizes the bound of this regulation
error is

k:

(2 - 0)/(0Ar)

(15)

Furthermore, the corresponding regulation

error bound can be stated as follows:

IW,)

- XTI

and

tk

fi)
for 0 5

IArD,/(l

> ro

( 16a)

Ih(fk) - XI,
5

0) for 0 >

ArDbl(2 and

t,

>

to

( 16b)

The preceding results show that the degrees

of both the trajectory oscillation and the control chattering are parallel to the magnitude
of the changes of uncertainties within one
sampling period. As a result, perfect tracking can be obtained by the smooth control
when the operating and environmental conditions remain unchanged. Notice that the
optimal k,. of Eq. (15) is one-half the stability
limit gain of Eq. (13b). This provides a 6-dB
gain margin.
Acceleration Case For the antispin problem (acceleration, X > 0), the system equation with respect to A can be arranged as
follows, where the uncertainties are grouped
into B , .

= [B,
-

+ (I

- h)b,T,]/x,

[(I - Vb,/x,lT,

(17)

Bl =fi(xl)

(1

(1

NbZNAN

X)J;(xz) - INA AX)

When the engine torque is inaccessible, D ,

= B,
(1 - A) b3T, is recognized to be the
system uncertainty. Following the same arguments described in the deceleration case,
the control law for the acceleration case can
be expressed as

TAfk) = -[x,(rk)/(l -

RtL))&IW(fL)

(1 8 4
M'(fL)

W(fk-1)

- kv[h(tk) -

- [ X ( t k ) - X(fk-l)]/Af

170

(18b)

It has the same feedback structure as the deceleration case (Fig. 3) except for the linearization factor shown in Eq. (18a). In the
acceleration case, the input ratio 0is defined
by [b,X(t,)]/[&,fi(t,)], where is the estimate
with
Eqs. (12)of X. By replacing
(16) are also valid for the acceleration case
provided that the sampling interval is sufficiently small.

o2

oI,

Acruaror Dynamics
Thus far we have not yet considered the
actuator dynamics. The actuator dynamics
has been implicitly assumed to be much
faster than that of the vehicle and wheel,
and, therefore, has been neglected in the
course of model development. However, if
not so, the actuator dynamics needs to be
included together with the other major dynamics mentioned earlier. For such a case,
let G,(s) be the transfer function of the actuator whose input is Tb,.The actuator dynamics can be represented as shown, where
s is the differential operator.
Th(d = GJs) Th,(O

(19)

There are two basic methods that can be

employed when the actuator dynamics cannot be neglected. The first method is to derive a new dynamic equation for X [similar
to Eq. (7) for deceleration, and Eq. (17) for
acceleration] by incorporating Eq. (19) with
the vehicle/wheel dynamics [Eqs. ( 5 ) ] ,and
then repeat the design process previously described in this section. The disadvantage of
such a method is the requirement of measurement from the actuator, which may not
be available. The alternative is based on the
cancellation of actuator dynamics. We will
discuss the cancellation method subsequently.
The main idea is to insert an additional
compensator G i ' ( z ) into the open-loop
transfer function between w and X to cancel
the extra dynamics introduced by the actuator G,(s) (see Fig. 3). The resultant openloop transfer function from w to X will then
become (z-'At)/(l - z-I) [which is the same
as the one without G,(s) and G i ' ( z ) ] .The
desired Gi'(z) is obtained as follows [l]:

G ~ ' ( z=) [ ( l - z-')'/(Atz-')

. z ( L - '(G,(s)/s2))]- I

(20)

where Z is the Z transformation and L-' the

inverse Laplace transformation. Finally, in'
addition to the previous control laws [Eq.
(lob) for deceleration, and Eq. (18b) for acceleration], the actuator inputs are modified
as follows:
For the deceleration case:

For the acceleration case:

Tb,(tk) =

-[x*(rk)/(l - Wk))&I

. G;'(z)

W(tk)

(2 Ib)

This method has two restrictions. First, G,(z)

should be minimum phase (zeros are inside
the unit circle); otherwise, it will result in
unstable pole-zero cancellation. Second, the
pure delay (if it exists) of G,(s) should be
less than the sampling period of the control
scheme. This is to ensure that G i ' ( z ) is realizable. The allowance of imperfect cancellation is determined by the robustness
property of the basic structure. For example,
a poor inverse model G;' may require a
smaller p to increase the gain margin. However, this will slow down the convergent rate
and increase the regulation error under disturbance input.
As a final note, in general, Cf = G;'(z)
can be regarded as a prefilter of the actuator.
Therefore, a perfect cancellation is not necessary. This provides more freedom in the
design of Gf. However, the robustness properties in Eqs. (13) and the choice of k, in
Eq. (15) need to be redetermined for each

Cf.
Comments
This control scheme is robust, well-performing, and easy to design and modify. The
robustness of the scheme can be explained
by Eq. (13a). This condition implies that no
matter how overestimated b, is (which may
also include the gain of the actuator), the
system remains stable. And it is unstable only
when b, is underestimated by 50 percent.
Furthermore, it is observed from Eqs. (16)
that the resultant wheel slip will be smooth
(so as the brake torque) when the uncertainties change insignificantly during sampling
intervals and the steady state error is zero.
This indicates good performance. The system has been linearized, and linear control
theory has been adopted. In addition, cancellation of the actuator dynamics makes the
scheme adaptive to different actuators.
The scheme has an extra advantage. Since
the system is sampled every At, the influences of the uncertainties ( B , or B,) are accumulated over the sampling period. Only
the integrated values of B , and B2 can be
detected from the sampled output. Therefore, the high-frequency components of those
uncertainties are spontaneously filtered out.
Since we are not concerned with the reconstruction of output X ( t ) , the longer the sampling period, the fewer frequency components of the uncertainties (e.g., any
frequency below the Nyquist frequency
1/2Ar) are of consequence. The trade-off ap-

/E Control Systems Magazine

pears only when the control chattering increases as a result of the lengthened sampling period.

Experiment
Experiments conducted in the dynamometer test cell as well as in the vehicle at General Motors Research Laboratories are discussed in this section. Because of the limited
time available for building experimental
hardware, only antiskid brake tests were performed. The results prove successful.
Experimental Setup

The proposed vehicle traction control algorithms are first evaluated in a dynamometer test cell. Mechanically, the test cell contains a large aluminum drum driven by a
dynamometer (see Fig. 4). The inertia of the
drum set is approximately half the inertia of
a midsize car. Pressed against the drum are
two production wheel assemblies, one front
and one rear. The two wheels are thus driven
by the drum, which simulates a road surface.
Each wheel is equipped with production
brake hardware and a toothed wheel for
sensing the wheel speed. A brake pedal, depressed by the person acting as the test
driver, activates the brakes. The drum can
be water-sprayed to simulate a road surface
with a low friction coefficient.
The actuators are solenoid valves, which
control the opening and closing of the brake
orifices (with bandwidth smaller than 50 Hz).
They are pulse width modulated to simulate
the proportional action. When the sampling
period is small (e.g., > 10 msec), the actuator behaves like a slow first-order system
with its gain depending on both the states
of the valves (apply or release) and the pressure inside the hydraulic circuit. Typical values of this gain (go) range from 4 to 24
N-m/msec. G&) was obtained by approximating the actuator as a pure integrator with
g, = 20 N-m/msec. Notice that fi = (b,g,)/
(b,g,) for this case. fi could vary from 0.2
to 1.2 if b, = b3 (6, = 1.4 for the experiments). Although Eq. (15) suggests k: =
0 . 6 7 / A t , experimental results indicated that
k,. could be made as large as 1.25IAt. Therefore, we select & = 20 N-m/msec, b, =
1.4, and k,. = 1.25/At for all the tests documented in this section.
The proposed vehicle traction controller is
then implemented in a Buick C-car. The
brake assemblies and the electronic control
hardware are virtually the same as those used
in the test cell. The difference is that the
accelerometer data are used as an indirect
vehicle speed reference.

Apni 1990

Rear
Pmponioning
valve

6
-

I1

Front

Fmnt

Wheel-slip
controller

Fig. 4. Brake test cell.

Results

Tests were conducted in a test cell under

two different surface conditions: a dry drum
surface and a wet drum surface. The dry
drum simulates the surface with a high peak
coefficient of friction (approximately 0 . 6 ) ,
whereas the wet drum simulates the road surface with a low peak coefficient of friction
(approximately 0.1 as an icy road surface).
In all tests, the brakes were fully applied by
an operator. The brake pedal was depressed

at around 40mph for all cases. The test cell

results are classified into three categories:
dry surface, wet surface, and different sampling periods. These results are shown in
Figs. 5-7, respectively. In each figure, vehicle speed (drum speed), wheel speed,
wheel slip, and the resultant brake pressure
are drawn with respect to time. Unless otherwise specified, all tests were run for a
5-msec sampling period with one-wheel control. And finally, a straight-line vehicle braking test was conducted on a wet concrete

t 4
Time

Time

Fig. 5. Test cell result (dry drum surface, 5-msec sampling

period).

o2

40
I

r_
0

._a

zi

P4
Time
Fig. 6. Test cell result (wet drum surface,
5-msec sampling period).

surface. The brake pedal was fully depressed

by the driver for the entire test starting at
around 35 mph. The vehicle test result is
shown in Fig. 8.
The test result of one-wheel control on the
dry drum surface is shown in Fig. 5 , where
the target slip is chosen to be 0.1. Note that
the response on the dry surface is smooth
and quick. However, wheel-slip oscillation
can be observed when the target slip is increased to 0.3. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that this target slip is
considerably larger than the peak slip (which
is about O.l), and the controlled system is
very sensitive to disturbance when the wheel
slip is larger than the peak slip [ 11 (this implies that the slope of the p-X curve is neg-

ative and that

is fast-changing in this region).
The experimental outcome of one-wheel
control on a wet drum surface is shown in
Fig. 6 with a target slip 0.5. Without traction
control, the wheel locks immediately after
the brake pedal is depressed. Tight control
with smooth brake pressure demonstrates the
effectiveness of the proposed scheme on a
wet surface. The low-frequency fluctuation
of the wheel slip along the target slip is likely
caused by the increased noise/signal ratio of
the wet drum surface, where only a small
amount of brake pressure is required to keep
the wheel slip at any desired value.
Figure 7 illustrates the test result on a dry
drum surface with a target slip of 0.1 during
a 15-msec sampling period. The outcomes
indicate that the proposed scheme could
achieve good performance with a larger sampling period.
Figure 8 shows the resultant speeds of all
four wheels for the straight-line vehicle test
result. All wheels exhibit smooth trajectories
until the vehicle stops. No chassis vibration
is observed. The appearance of the vehicle
test result resembles the test cell results. This
indicates that the performance demonstrated
in the test cell has been extended to the vehicle environment.
Remarks

First, we observe the robustness of the

proposed discrete-time controller. Good performance resulted from constant control parameters for all tests conducted. Of course,
gain scheduling can be designed to accommodate the changing environment to further
improve the performance of the proposed
scheme. An example is to make g, a function
of the current brake status.
Second, the proposed control scheme is
easy to design. For the experimental setup
presented herein, there are only three param-

eters that need to be tuned, and they all have

engineering meanings. Moreover, the linearized structure and simple computations
involved facilitate the design, analysis, and
implementation of this scheme.
Finally, although a hydraulic actuator with
proportional valve (proportional ABS) would
be more suitable for this control algorithm,
the solenoid with pulse width modulation can
also achieve the same task. Performance is
acceptable under the 5-msec delay and the
relatively slow response rate of the solenoid
valve. This is another benefit of the robust
control algorithm.

Conclusion
This paper has proposed a discrete-time
robust vehicle traction control algorithm that
includes both antiskid and antispin actions.
The basic idea of the design methodology is
summarized as follows: group the uncertainties of the vehiclelbrake system together;
compensate this grouped uncertainty by proportional plus integral feedback; locally linearize the system subsequently; and determine the control parameters based on the
linear control theory. The initial test results
of this control algorithm show good performance regardless of vehicle environment. A
disadvantage of the proposed scheme is the
requirement of vehicle speed measurement.
Since this measurement is expensive at
present, antiskid brake system control cannot
be implemented directly (although this paper
demonstrates that good performance can be
achieved by simple feedback if the vehicle
speed is accessible). However, the employment of this scheme in the traction control
problem (i.e., the acceleration case) is fea-

;b,
OS L F W H E E L

0
36

0 6 R F WHEEL

l 0 8 R.R W H,E E L
,

35

' ,

r-.

PJ
=-I
Time

Time

Fig. 7. Test cell result (dry drum surface, 15-msec sampling

period).

00.0

TE7.r

07.9

Fig. 8. Vehicle test result (straight line,

wet concrete, 5-msec sampling period).

/E Control Systems Magazine

Wheel Slip Control System Design, SAE

Trans.,vol. 78, no. 690214, 1969.
J . J . Taborek, Mechanics of Vehicle, Cleveland, OH: Penton, 1957.
V. I. Utkin, Variable Structure Systems
with Sliding Mode: A Survey, IEEE
Trans. Automat. Conrr., vol. AC-22, pp.
212-222, Apr. 1977.
V. I. Utkin, Variable Structure Systems:
Present and Future, Auromar. & Remore
Contr., vol. 44, pp. 1405-1120, Sept. 1983.
J . J . Slotine and S . Sastry, Tracking Control of Non-Linear Systems Using Sliding
Surface with Application to Robot Manipulators, Intl. 1. Contr.,vol. 38, no. 2, pp.
465-492, 1983.
J. J. Slotine, The Design/Modelling/Performance Trade-offs in High-speed Robot
Manipulators, Proc. 1985 Amer. Contr.
Conf., vol. 2, pp. 710-715, 1985.

sible when the vehicle speed can be obtained

from the nondriven wheels.

Acknowledgment
This work was partially supported by the
Electrical Engineering and Electronics Department of the General Motors Research
Laboratories.

References
H. S . Tan, Adaptive and Robust Controls
with Application to Vehicle Traction Control, Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1988.
H. Leiber and A. Czinczel, Four Years of
Experience with 4-Wheel Antiskid Brake
(ABS), SAE 830481, 1983.
J . Y. Wong, Theory of Ground Vehicles,
New York: Wiley, 1978.
H. S. Tan and Y. K. Chin, VariableStructure Vehicle Traction Control, ASME
Winter Annual Meeting, 1988.
J . W. Zellner, An Analytical Approach to
Antilock Brake System Design, SAE
840249, 1984.
H. Schurr and A. Dittner, A New AntiSkid-Brake System for Disc and Drum
Brakes, Braking: Recent Developments,
SAE 840486, May 1984.
H. Leiber et al., Anti-skid System (ABS)
for Passenger Cars, Bosch Technical and
Scientific Report, Feb. 1982.
J . L. Hamed et al., Measurement of Tire
Brake Force Characteristics as Related to

Han-Shue Tan received

the B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from
the National Tsing Hua
University, Taiwan, in
1979, and the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from the
University of California,
Berkeley, in 1984 and
1988, respectively. He
worked for the Electrical

and Electronics Engineering Department at General Motors Research Laboratories for three summers between 1984 and 1987. He presently works
at Missile System Group, Hughes Aircraft Company. Dr. Tans current interests include control
theory research and application for various automotive and manufacturing systems.

hlasayoshi Tomizuka re-

ceived the B.S and M S

degrees in mcchanical cngineering from Kcio University. Tokyo. Japan. in
1968 and 1970. respectively. He received the
Ph.D. degree in mrchanical enginecnng from the
Massachuzetts Institute of
Technology. Canihndgc.
Masachuxtta. in 1971.
He is currently a Professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. His research interests include
digital, optimal, and adaptive control with applications to mechanical systems such as robotic manipulators and machine tools. Dr. Tomizuka currently serves as the Technical Editor of the ASME
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and
Control.

Out of Control

No, sire...not SPR as in strictly positive real. Theyve brought a petition from SPCR,
the society for prevention of cruelty to researchers!
April 1990

173