Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675

Optimal yaw moment control law for

improved vehicle handling
E. Esmailzadeh *, A. Goodarzi, G.R. Vossoughi
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology,
P.O. Box 11365-9567, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
A new optimal control law for direct yaw moment control, to improve the vehicle handling,
is developed. Although, this can be considered as part of a multi-layer system, for the traction
control of a motorized wheels electric vehicle, but the results of this study are quite general and
can be applied to other types of vehicles. The dynamic model of the vehicle system is initially
developed and, using the well-known optimal control theory, an optimal controller is de-
signed. Two different versions of control laws are considered here and the performance of each
version of the control law is compared with the other one. The numerical simulation of the
vehicle handling with and without the use of the optimal yaw moment controller, and as-
suming a comprehensive non-linear vehicle dynamic model, has been carried out. Simulation
results obtained indicate that considerable improvements in the vehicle handling can be
achieved whenever the vehicle is governed by the optimal yaw moment control.

2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Many researchers in the last decade have reported that direct yaw moment control
is one of the most effective methods of active chassis control, which could consid-
erably enhance the vehicle stability and controllability. They have showed that it is
the most important working principle behind the vehicle dynamic control (VDC)
systems. Direct yaw moment control is the advanced control system used to improve
the dynamic performances of road vehicles under various road conditions [1–3].

*
Corresponding author. Address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria,
Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3P6.
E-mail address: ezadeh@uvic.ca (E. Esmailzadeh).

0957-4158/03/$ - see front matter
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0957-4158(02)00036-3
660 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675

For VDC systems, the yaw moment control is considered as a way of controlling
the lateral motion of a vehicle during a severe driving maneuver. To achieve this goal
a yaw moment control strategy based on the vehicle dynamics state-feedbacks, as
well as an actuation system, is required.
In accordance to the present available technology, the performance of VDC ac-
tuation systems is based on the individual control of wheel braking force known as
the differential braking. The transverse distribution of the vehicle braking force
between the wheels is the most common approach to generate the required yaw
moment. Differential braking can be achieved using the main parts of the common
anti-lock brake systems, which is based on a different and highly sophisticated
control strategy.
In spite of the conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) type vehicles, in
modern concepts of electric vehicles (EVs), known as motorized wheels EVs, the
VDC actuation system can work on the principle of controlling the vehicle traction
force rather than the braking force, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The power train of this
type of vehicles consists of two or four electric motors, which are integrated into each
one of the drive wheels and can be controlled independently [4–6]. In this configu-
ration, the traction force of each individual wheel can be independently controlled
by means of controlling the corresponding electric drive motor.
It must be noted that direct yaw moment control can become highly important
and crucial for EVs when compared with the ICE type vehicles. As a matter of a fact,
with the installation of heavy battery boxes at the rear of an electric car, the mass
center of the vehicle may now be shifted to an undesirable position, making the car

Fig. 1. Two possible ways of having external yaw moment generation.

 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675 661

to be inherently over-steered. This means that the vehicle must require additional
stabilizing external yaw moment in order to improve its overall dynamic road per-
formance.
For the case of the conventional ICE type vehicles, which inherently exhibit an
under-steer behavior, the stabilizing external yaw moment is most appropriate even
when the car performs a critical road maneuver in the non-linear regime.
Regardless of the type of actuation systems, the yaw moment control strategy is
the fundamental part of a VDC system. The improvements that have been carried
out on the yaw moment control laws, are the fundamental design aspect of a VDC
system and, were reported by some researchers [7–10].
In this paper, two versions of a new optimal yaw moment control law are pre-
sented. The control laws are developed as a part of the VDC system designed for a
motorized wheel EV, but in general, other types of vehicles can also make use of
these laws. The performances of the proposed control laws have been compared with
one of the previously developed control law. Finally, numerical simulations were
carried out in order to investigate the dynamic performance of the optimal controller
system.

2. Dynamic modeling of the system

A conventional linear two-degree of freedom model for vehicle handling, shown

in Fig. 2, is developed. The governing equations for the yaw and lateral motions of
the vehicle model, in the state-space form, are derived as [11,12]:

X_ ¼ AX þ BMz þ Ed ð1Þ

Fig. 2. Plan view of the vehicle dynamics model.

662 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675

where

      
v a11 a12 b1 e1
X ¼ ; A¼ ; B¼ ; E¼
r a21 a22 b2 e2

and

cr þ cf ðbcr  acf Þ ðbcr  acf Þ

a11 ¼ 2 ; a12 ¼ 2  u; a21 ¼ 2 ;
mu mu Iu
ðb2 cr þ a2 cf Þ 1 2cf 2acf
a22 ¼ 2 ; b1 ¼ 0; b2 ¼ ; e1 ¼ ; e2 ¼
Iu I m I
For the vehicle model, the lateral velocity v and the yaw rate r are considered as
the two state variables while the yaw moment Mz is the control input, which must be
determined from the control law. Moreover, the vehicle steering angle d is considered
as the external disturbance.
The cornering stiffness coefficients of the front and rear axles are cf and cr , re-
spectively. The mass of the vehicle is m and its mass moment of inertia about Z-axis
is I. The distances of the mass center from the front and rear axles are a and b,
respectively. The vehicle is traveling forward with the constant speed u.

3. Structure of the control law

The control law consists of the disturbance feed-forward signal, which is related
to the input steering angle, and the two state variable feedback terms being those of
the yaw rate and the lateral velocity.

Mz ¼ Kr r þ Kv v þ Kd d ð2Þ

In the above control law, according to the current state of technology, direct
measurements of the yaw rate r and the steering angle d are quite feasible. However,
due to the impracticality of direct measurement of the lateral velocity v, the online
estimation of this state variable is most desirable. As one of the few possible ap-
proaches, this estimation can rely on the measurement of the respective longitudinal
and lateral accelerations ax and ay , respectively. This approach is based on the
integration and filtering of the following well-known equations of the longitudinal
and lateral accelerations:

u_ ¼ ax þ vr; and v_ ¼ ay  ur ð3Þ

In order to obtain further insights into the above-mentioned signals, an analytical

development of the feedback gain and the feed-forward gain needs to be fully ad-
dressed.
 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675 663

4. Optimal handling performance index

It has been stated before that improved steerability and reliable stability are the
two important aspects of the optimum vehicle handling. One could hence define the
performance index for the optimum road handling of a vehicle in the following form
Z tf  
1
J¼ ðr  rd Þ2 dt ð4Þ
to 2

where rd is the desired yaw rate of the vehicle concerned.

Minimization of the performance index must be sought in order to obtain the
optimum handling behavior. The desired value of the yaw rate can be determined by
considering a vehicle moving with a constant forward speed while negotiating a
steady state cornering maneuver. Constant radius turn of a vehicle, being referred to
as the neutral steer behavior, could be achieved when the yaw rate is given by the
following relationship
u
rd ¼ d ð5Þ
l
where u, l and d represent the vehicle longitudinal speed, the vehicle wheel base, and
the steering angle, respectively. The existence of the vehicle drift out (as the under-
steering behavior) and the vehicle spin (being the over-steering behavior) are judged
by whether the actual value of the yaw rate is greater or less than the calculated value
of rd .
It can be noted that in accordance to the above definition, the term (r ) rd ) in the
performance index is a measure of the vehicle steerability. Minimization of this term
leads the vehicle to a neutral steer behavior, and because of the great under-steer
tendency of most vehicles, therefore a stronger steerability is most needed. Although,
this is a good behavior for the case of vehicles driving on low friction roads (specially
for the front-wheel drive vehicles), but in general, the design of controller, based on
the above definition of rd , can influence the vehicle stability particularly at high
speeds.
Therefore, the value of rd can be modified in terms of the longitudinal speed as
u
rd ¼ d ð6Þ
lð1 þ kus u2 Þ
where kus is a positive constant and its increase lead the vehicle to an under-steering
behavior and a more severe stability. Eq. (6) could be rewritten in the following form
rd ¼ fu d ð7Þ
where fu is a general function of the vehicle speed u.
Now let us consider an expression for the yaw rate differential term Dr as
Dr ¼ rd  r ð8Þ
where r is the actual yaw rate. A very good handling performance is characterized by
Dr  0 ð9Þ
664 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675

It is important to note that the control effort Mz must satisfy some physical
constrains due to both the actuation system and the road-tire performance limits. To
satisfy those limits the control effort Mz in the above performance index must be
modified as in the following form
Z tf  
1 2 1
J¼ ðr  rd Þ þ wMz2 dt ð10Þ
to 2 2

where w is a weighting factor that indicates the relative importance of the corre-
sponding term.
By proper selection of the weighting factor in (10) and the appropriate design of
the control law, in order to minimize the performance index, one can not only
achieve an excellent handling behavior, but also satisfy the physical limits of the
dynamic system.

5. Optimal controller design

To determine the values of the feedback and feed-forward control gains, which
are based on the defined performance index and the vehicle dynamic model, a LQR
problem has been formulated for which its analytical solution is obtained, [13].
In that case, the performance index of Eq. (10) may be rewritten in the following
form
Z
1 1 T T
J ðuÞ ¼ ½U RU þ ðXd  X Þ QðXd  X Þ dt ð11Þ
2 0
where
   
0 0 0
U ¼ ½Mz ; R ¼ ½w ; Q¼ ; and Xd ¼
0 1 fu d
The Hamiltonian function, in the expanded form, is therefore given by:
T
H ðuÞ ¼ 12U T RU þ 12ðXd  X Þ QðXd  X Þ þ P T ðAX þ BU þ EW Þ ð12Þ
where
 
p1
P¼ ; and W ¼ ½d
p2
with the parameters p1 and p2 are the Lagrangian multipliers.
The co-state equations can be presented in the following form:
oH
P_ ¼  ¼ QðXd  X Þ  AT P ð13Þ
oX
Moreover, the algebraic relationships that must be satisfied are given by:
oH
¼ RU  BT P ¼ 0 ð14Þ
oU
 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675 665

and in a more simplified form:

U ¼ R1 BT P ð15Þ
Now let us write the matrix P in the following form:
P ¼ KX þ S ð16Þ
where K is a symmetric matrix that includes the state feedback gains, and S being the
feed-forward control effort vector.
Finally, combining Eqs. (15) and (16), the control law could be obtained as:
U ¼ R1 BT ðKX þ SÞ ð17Þ
This equation can now be rewritten in the following form:
1
Mz ¼  ðk12 v þ k22 r þ s2 Þ ð18Þ
Iw
In general, the system of Eqs. (1), (13) and (14) form a system of non-linear or-
dinary differential equations, which can be converted into a non-linear algebraic
system of equations by assuming that the solutions of the equations converge rapidly
to the constant values. Therefore, this would lead to:
K_ ¼ 0; and S_ ¼ 0 ð19Þ
This implies that the time varying gains are replaced by those with the constant
value gains, which makes the control law quite simple and yet in a more practical
form. Using the above assumptions, the following system of algebraic equations
could then be formed:
AT K þ KA þ Q  KBR1 BT K ¼ 0 ð20Þ
and
ðAT þ KBR1 BT ÞS  QXd þ EW ¼ 0 ð21Þ
Due to the symmetry of the matrix K, Eq. (20) can now be expanded into the
following three independent equations:
2
k12
2a11 k11 þ 2a21 k12  ¼0 ð22Þ
I 2w
k12 k22
a11 k12 þ a21 k22 þ a12 k11 þ a22 k12  ¼0 ð23Þ
I 2w
and
2
k22
1 þ 2a12 k12 þ 2a22 k22  2
¼0 ð24Þ
I w
The system of equations given above can therefore be solved analytically in order
to determine the corresponding values of the feedback gains
666 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
k22 ¼ TA þ TA2  2DA þ a þ D2A þ aa211 ð25Þ
a

where
TA ¼ a11 þ a22 ð26Þ
DA ¼ a11 a22  a12 a21 ð27Þ
and
a ¼ 1=I 2 w ð28Þ
The other values of the feedback gains can now be expressed as a function of k22
1 2 
k12 ¼ ak22  2a22 k22  1 ð29Þ
2a12
and
1  
k11 ¼ 2
TA þ ð2DA þ 2a222  aÞk22  aða11 þ 3a22 Þk22
2
þ a2 k22
3
ð30Þ
2a12
Using Eqs. (20), (21), (25), (29), (30) the feed-forward part of the controllers can
therefore be found as:
s2 ¼ kd
d ð31Þ
where
a12 e1 k11 þ ða12 e2  a11 e1 Þk12  a11 e2 k22 þ fu a11
kd
¼ ð32Þ
DA þ aða12 k12  k22 a11 Þ
According to Eqs. (2) and (18), the values of the feedback and feed-forward gains
can hence be expressed as:
1 1 1

Kr ¼  k22 ; Kv ¼  k12 ; and Kd ¼  k ð33Þ

Iw Iw Iw d
where k22 , k12 , and kd
have been defined by (25), (29) and (32), respectively.
The variation of the optimal values of the feedback and feed-forward gains
with the vehicle velocity, for different values of the weighting factor w is shown in
Fig. 3. The vehicle considered here is a motorized wheel electric car with its speci-
fication data presented in Table 1. Due to the installation of a heavy battery box at
the rear of the car, its mass center has been shifted closer to the rear axle, which
makes the car inherently over-steer. As mentioned before, the implementation of
the yaw moment control is considered a way of improving the dynamic behavior
of vehicles from an over-steering behavior to an under-steering one.
It can be seen from Fig. 3 that the yaw rate gain Kr is always negative and its
magnitude increases rapidly with the increase in vehicle speed u. On the other hand,
the magnitude of the yaw rate gain decreases when the value of w increased. The
lateral velocity gain Kv has positive values and the variation of its magnitude with u
and w are quite similar to Kr , but its magnitude is relatively smaller than Kr . The
 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675 667

Fig. 3. Variations of the optimal values of gains with vehicle speed: (a) yaw rate gain, (b) lateral velocity
gain and (c) steer angle gain.

Table 1
Specifications data of the case study vehicle
Parameter Value
a 1.25 m
b 1.20 m
cf 15 000 N/rad
cr 15 000 N/rad
I 2500 kg m2
l 2.45 m
m 1300 kg
kus 0.001
w 2e)8

variation of the steer angle gain Kd with the vehicle speed is completely different from
those of the other two gains. Its magnitude is relatively small and positive for vehicle
speeds of up to about 25 m/s.
For higher speeds and around the critical speed of 53 m/s, the steer angle gain
decreases sharply to a very large negative value. Those large negative values of the
steering angle gain provide the negative yaw moments, which in turn can force the
vehicle to become under-steer.
668 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675

The values of the feedback and feed-forward gains found were then substituted
back into Eq. (2) to obtain the optimal control laws. In order to make the control
law quite practical and much simple to use the following approximate assumption
can be put forward
Kv  0 ð34Þ
Substituting Eq. (34) into (2) would lead us to the semi-optimal control law
Mz ¼ Kr r þ Kd d ð35Þ

6. Regulation of the control law

The remaining challenge in the process of controller design is to determine the

weighting factor w. It has been shown that the dynamic performance of the con-
troller is extremely sensitive to the values of the weighting factor. When the value of
w approaches zero although the best yaw rate convergence is then achieved but the
yaw moment will approach infinity. For practical applications, the power of the
electric motors and the road surface conditions could limit the values of the yaw
moment. Therefore, the weighting factor w should be determined such that the yaw
moment would always remain below the maximum admissible value during every
cornering maneuver.
In other words, this statement can be formulated by the following relationship
MaxðkMz kÞ 6 Mmax ð36Þ
where Mmax is the maximum admissible value of the yaw moment, which can be
defined as
T
Mmax ¼ ðDFtf þ DFtr Þmax ð37Þ
2
where DFt is the traction force difference between the left and the right wheels and T
is the wheel track. The traction force of every wheel is a function of many parameters
including the vehicle forward velocity, the motor control signal, the transmission
system characteristics, the dynamic normal load of the wheel, and the road fric-
tion coefficient. The value of Mmax can then be predicted according to the above-
mentioned parameters [14].
For a specific type of vehicle, Eq. (36) must first be verified with the given value of
Mmax and a known value of the weighting factor, w. This implies that
½u; dðuÞ 2 D; and D ¼ fu 6 umax ; d 6 dmax ðuÞg ð38Þ
where D is referred to as the control law domain of action. dmax ðuÞ is considered the
ultimate value of the steering angle for every speed, which increases the value of kMz k
to the value of Mmax .
The controller domain of action for three specific values of the weighting factor,
based on the given value of Mmax , is illustrated in Fig. 4.
 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675 669

Fig. 4. Effect of weighting factor values on controller domains of action.

The influence of the values of the weighting factor on the performance of the
optimal control law is another important subject that needs to be investigated. The
steady state response of the vehicle to the step steering angle input, at a constant
vehicle speed, is one of the important performance measure when evaluating the
quality of the vehicle stability and its handling. To illustrate the effect of the
weighting factor regulation on the steady state performance of the optimal con-
troller, the yaw velocity gain can be considered as an appropriate measure. Fig. 5
shows the variations of the yaw velocity gain with vehicle speed for different values
of the weighting factor.
It can be seen that due to the over-steer behavior of this vehicle, the yaw velocity
gain increases rapidly when the speed approach to its critical value. In contrast, the
vehicle that is governed by the optimal yaw moment control shows an under-steer

Fig. 5. Yaw velocity gain vs. speed for controlled and uncontrolled vehicles.
670 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675

behavior with its gain value remains limited over the wide speed range of the vehicle.
However, it must be noted that in order to achieve a suitable road performance one
must sufficiently decrease the value of the weighting factor.

7. Comparison of optimal and semi-optimal control laws

In this section, the dynamic performance of both versions of the controller will
be compared in order to validate the approximation put forward. The variations
of the yaw velocity gain with the vehicle speed, for the optimal and the semi-optimal
control laws, are illustrated in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the values of the gain
for both versions of the controllers are very close to each other such that one may say
they are almost identical. One should always remember that the results presented
are valid only for the linear regime of the vehicle dynamics. However, for the non-
linear regime, where the tires exhibit a non-linear stiffness behavior, the lateral ve-
locity would increase rapidly and as shown before the yaw moment control should
not only based on the yaw rate signal but also on the lateral velocity (slip angle)
feedback.
In summary, one could put forward the following important statements:

• The optimal yaw moment control can certainly improve the vehicle handling
when its performance is compared to that of the uncontrolled vehicle.
• Although the performance of the optimal control law is much improved from var-
ious aspects but those obtained with the semi-control law is also acceptable for
this specific application. On the other hand, the optimal control law requires an
additional feedback control loop (lateral velocity) that makes the control system
even more complex and expensive.

Fig. 6. Yaw velocity gain vs. speed for optimal and semi-optimal control laws.
 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675 671

Fig. 7. Yaw velocity gain vs. speed for semi-optimal and non-optimal control laws.

8. Comparison with other control laws

One of the well-known laws for the vehicle yaw moment control, reported in
recent literatures, was developed by Doniselli and others [15]
h u i
Mz ¼ hr r  d ð39Þ
l
where hr is a negative constant coefficient.
Regardless of the structural similarity between the above-mentioned control law
and the semi-optimal control law (both are based on the yaw rate feedback and the
steer angle feed-forward), one can point out a major difference between them. The
optimal values of the gains Kr and Kd , were substituted by a constant term and a
linear function of the vehicle speed, respectively. According to the values of the
gains, presented in Fig. 3, one is not permitted to proceed in this way, since such
simplifications indicate that superior performance cannot be achieved.
To illustrate the difference between the dynamic performance of the optimal
control law and a non-optimal control law, let us consider a case study vehicle that
once governed by the optimum control law and then with the semi-optimal control
laws. Once more in this study, the yaw velocity gain is considered as a measuring
parameter. It can be seen from Fig. 7, that although the non-optimal control law was
able to relatively decrease the yaw velocity gain, but its value is not an acceptable one
yet. On the other hand, the non-optimal law produces approximate neutral steering
characteristics, which is not regarded as completely safe, especially at high speeds.

9. Numerical simulation

The numerical simulation of the vehicle dynamic response during a standard road
maneuver and under different road conditions, when the vehicle is either uncontrolled
672 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675

or is under optimal control, has been carried out. The considered maneuver is a
constant speed cornering, which is performed either on a dry or snow-covered road.
The computer simulation model is based on the case study vehicle with its technical
specification data given in Table 1.
In order to achieve a precise and reliable set of results, the computer simulation
model is assumed as a comprehensive eight degree-of-freedom dynamic model of a
four motorized wheels EV (Fig. 8). This model has been previously developed by the
authors for a detailed dynamic analysis and simulation of an electric car [16].
The longitudinal velocity, lateral velocity, yaw rate, roll rate, and the wheels
rotational speeds are the associated degrees of freedom of the model. The study
includes all the non-linearities that are present in vehicle systems, namely, the non-
linear behavior of tires, the longitudinal and the lateral normal load transfers of tires,
the roll steer effect, and the camber angle changes due to the vehicle roll. It has been
assumed that a separately excited armature controlled DC motor drives each one of
the wheels through a fixed reduction gears. Armature terminal voltage, E of each
motor is controlled through a pulse width modulation controller with the set point e.
The simulation results are obtained for a constant speed cornering road maneu-
ver, performed on a dry surface road (l ¼ 1), as illustrated in Fig. 9. The vehicle
maneuvers on a level road at a constant speed of 35 m/s and the steering angle input
is set at d ¼ 0:01 rad.

Fig. 8. Three-dimensional vehicle dynamic model with eight degree-of-freedom.

 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675 673

Fig. 9. Simulation results of constant speed cornering maneuver on dry-surface roads: (a) lateral accel-
eration, (b) yaw rate, (c) slip angle and (d) yaw moment.

Results obtained from the computer simulation indicate that the vehicle, which
governed by the optimal controller have a superior performance when compared
with the uncontrolled vehicle. Therefore, inclusion of the optimal controller in ve-
hicles can considerably improve the road handling and safety of vehicles. The time
history diagrams of Fig. 9a and b illustrate that the steady state values of the lateral
acceleration and the yaw rate for the optimal controlled vehicle are considerably less
than those for the uncontrolled vehicle as well as for the neutral steering limit. This
means that lower sensitivity of the steering system is achieved at high speeds, which
explains better safety of the vehicle. In other words, the uncontrolled vehicle shows
an inherent over-steer behavior, but a controlled vehicle, with an optimal yaw mo-
ment control, can exhibit an under-steer behavior. Furthermore, Fig. 9c indicates
that reduction in the vehicle slip angle is an important safety criterion, which could
certainly be achieved in the controlled vehicle.
The time responses of the desirable and achievable values of the optimal yaw
moment control are illustrated in Fig. 9d. It can be seen that there is quite a dif-
ference between the desirable value being calculated by the optimal yaw moment
controller, and the achievable value generated by the electric motors. This is due to
674 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675

Fig. 10. Simulation results of constant speed cornering maneuver on snow-covered roads: (a) lateral
acceleration, (b) yaw rate, (c) slip angle and (d) yaw moment.

the performance of the electric motors torque controller being placed in the lowest
level of the control system [16].
The simulation results obtained for a constant-speed cornering maneuver, but
with vehicle travels on a flat snow-covered road (l ¼ 0:2), are presented in Fig. 10.
For the case of the uncontrolled vehicle, the yaw rate response and that of the slip
angle are both oscillatory and in general, one can say that the dynamic behavior of
the vehicle is quite unsafe. On the other hand, by using the optimal yaw moment
control, those oscillatory responses have been rapidly converged to their steady state
constant values and therefore, the vehicle performs a safe and controllable behavior.

10. Conclusion

External yaw moment control is an effective way to improve vehicle handling. For
future cars, due to the fundamental changes in the vehicle power-train technology,
 E. Esmailzadeh et al. / Mechatronics 13 (2003) 659–675 675

this idea will become reality in a much simple and applicable form. In the case of
modern EVs, with an independent drive on every wheel, the ability to generate in-
dependent traction force control will be quite a challenge. Therefore, an accurate
active yaw moment control could be made feasible.
Two versions of a new optimal yaw moment control strategy, based on the op-
timal control theory, have been presented. The structure of the semi-optimal version
is based on the yaw rate feedback and the steer angle feed-forward. However, for the
fully optimal control version one must know the lateral velocity, as well as an ad-
ditional feedback. On the other hand, the performance of the optimal control version
is slightly better than the semi-optimal one. It shows that the performance of the
optimal controller, with its design based on the yaw rate following performance
index and the linear vehicle dynamics model, is not strongly affected by the lateral
velocity feedback. Therefore, it can be concluded that, due to a more simple struc-
ture and a satisfactory performance, the semi-optimal control law in the linear
vehicle dynamics regime can be more appropriate.

References

[1] Van Zanten AT, Erhardt R, Landesfeind K, Pfeff G. VDC system development and perspective. SAE
Technical Paper, #980235, 1998.
[2] Leffler H, Auffhammer R, Roth H. New driving stability control system with reduced technical effort
for compact and medium class passenger cars. SAE Technical Paper, #980234, 1998.
[3] Bauer H. ESP: Electronic stability program. Germany: Robert Bosch GmbH; 1999.
[4] Atkins G, Storey J. Electric vehicles prospects for battery, fuel cell and hybrid-powered vehicles.
USA: Informa Publishing Group; 1998.
[5] Sims R, Bates B. Electric vehicle; driving towards commercialization: special publication. Warrendale,
PA, USA: Society of Automotive Engineers; 1997.
[6] Fukino M, Irie N, Ito H. Development of an electric concept vehicle with a super quick charging
system. SAE Technical Paper, #920442, 1992.
[7] Goodarzi A, Esmailzadeh E, Vossoughi GR. Direct yaw moment control for motorized wheel electric
vehicles. Proceedings of DETC’01 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, USA, September 9–12, 2001.
[8] Ghoneim YA, Lin WC, Sidlosky DM, Chen HH, Chin YK, Tedrake MJ. Integrated chassis control
system enhanced vehicle stability. Int J Vehicle Des 2000;23(1/2):3–14.
[9] Abe M, Ohkubo N, Kano Y. A direct yaw moment control for improving the limit performance of
vehicle handling: comparison and cooperation with 4WS. Vehicle Syst Dyn Suppl 1996;25:3–23.
[10] Furukawa Y, Abe M. Direct yaw moment control with sideslip angle by using on-board-tire-model.
AVEC’ 98, 1998.
[11] Ellis JR. Vehicle handling dynamics. London, England: Mechanical Engineering Publications; 1994.
[12] Gillespie TD. Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics. Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of Automotive
Engineers; 1994.
[13] Kirk DE. Optimal control theory; an introduction. New York, NY, USA: Prentice-Hall; 1970.
[14] Shimada K, Shibahata Y. Comparison of tree active chassis control methods for stabilizing yaw
moments. SAE Technical Paper #940870, 1994.
[15] Doniselli C, Mastinu G, Cal R. Traction control for front-wheel drive vehicle. Vehicle Syst Dyn
1993;23:87–104.
[16] Esmailzadeh E, Vossoughi GR, Goodarzi A. Dynamic modeling and analysis of a four motorized
wheels electric vehicle. Vehicle Syst Dyn 2001;35(3):163–94.