See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264438575

Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding

mode control

Article  in  International Journal of Vehicle Design · October 2011

DOI: 10.1504/IJVD.2011.043269

CITATIONS READS

12 3,061

4 authors, including:

Bo-Chiuan Chen Wei-Feng Hsu

National Taipei University of Technology Fengjia University
67 PUBLICATIONS   1,168 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Min-Fang Lo

6 PUBLICATIONS   110 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bo-Chiuan Chen on 16 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Vehicle Design, Vol. x, No. x, xxxx 1

Design of electronic stability control for rollover

prevention using sliding mode control

Bo-Chiuan Chen*, Cheng-Chi Yu,

and Wei-Feng Hsu
Department of Vehicle Engineering,
National Taipei University of Technology,
1, Sec. 3, Chung-Hsiao E. Rd.,
Taipei, 10608, Taiwan
E-mail: bochen@ntut.edu.tw
E-mail: oil@ntut.edu.tw
E-mail: t5669028@ntut.edu.tw
*Corresponding author

Min-Fang Lo
Chung-Shan institute of science and technology,
15, Shi Qi Zi, Gaoping village,
Taoyuan 325, Taiwan
E-mail: luominfang@gmail.com

Abstract: Electronic Stability Control can be used for rollover

prevention via coupled yaw-roll dynamics. A three-Degree-of-
Freedom yaw plane model is used to design the sliding mode
controller. The sliding surface consists of yaw rate following error,
sideslip angle and lateral acceleration. Three trigger rules are used to
activate the differential braking. CarSim is used to evaluate the
proposed approach under Double Lane Change, FMVSS 126 and
NHTSA Fishhook manoeuvres. Robustness of increased CG height,
mass and inertia due to multi-passenger loading is also investigated.
Simulation results show promising improvement for rollover
prevention while meeting the requirement of yaw motion control.

Keywords: electronic stability control; sliding mode control; rollover

prevention; differential braking.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Chen, B.-C., Yu,

C.-C., Hus, W.-F. and Lo, M.-F. (2010) ‘Design of electronic stability
control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control’, Int. J.
Vehicle Design, Vol. XX, No. X, pp.XXX-XXX.

Biographical notes: Bo-Chiuan Chen received the B.S. degree in

naval architecture and ocean engineering from National Taiwan
University, Taipei, Taiwan in 1994. He received the dual M.S. degrees
in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering and Ph.D. degree
in mechanical engineering from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

Copyright © 200x Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Michigan, U.S.A. in 2000 and 2001, respectively. He is an associate
professor in vehicle engineering and the director of Vehicle
Technology Research Center at National Taipei University of
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan. His main research interests include
vehicle active safety, vehicle dynamics and control, electric vehicle
and hybrid electric vehicle, and engine control.

Cheng-Chi Yu received the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering

from National Taiwan University, Taiwan in 1998. He is an assistant
professor in vehicle engineering at National Taipei University of
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan. His research interests include vehicle
dynamics and handling analysis, and vehicle mechanism analysis and
design.

Wei-Feng Hsu received the B.S. degree in vehicle engineering from

National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan in 2005,
where he is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree. His main
research interests include vehicle active safety, vehicle dynamics and
control, hybrid electric scooter, and suspension analysis and control.

Min-Fang Lo received the B.S. degree and M. S. degree in aeronautics

and astronautics engineering from National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan, Taiwan in 1987 and 1989, respectively. Currently, he is a
collaborative leader of active safety vehicle project at Chung-Shan
institute of science and technology (CSIST). His main research
interests include vehicle active safety, vehicle dynamics and control,
and system engineering.

1 Introduction

In U.S., the percentage of rollover occurrence in all crashes was about 2.7% in 2007
(NHTSA, 2007). However, the percentage of rollover occurrence in fatal crashes was
about 21.5% and was significantly higher than that in injury and property-damage-only
crashes. Untripped rollovers account for less than 5% of rolled passenger vehicles in
single-vehicle crashes which often occur during high-speed collision avoidance
maneuvers (Boyd, 2005). In order to help consumers understand the rollover resistance
of a vehicle, the rollover rating system has been enhanced to include results of the
dynamic maneuvering test, i.e. the NHTSA Fishhook maneuver. The rating is based on
the static stability factor (SSF) which is the ratio of half the track width to the height of
center of gravity (C.G.). As shown in Figure 1, two curves are used to present the
rollover risk. One is labeled as Tip-up and another is labeled as No tip-up. According to
the occurrence of tip-up during the dynamic test, the corresponding curve is used to
obtain the rollover rating.
Approaches proposed by researchers to prevent untripped rollover can be classified
into three types. The first type directly controls vehicle roll motions using active
suspension, active anti-roll bar, or active stabilizer. It can prevent rollover by increasing
the rollover thresholds. Since yaw and roll motions are coupled, the second type
indirectly influences roll motions via controlling yaw motions using differential braking
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

(Wielenga, 1999; Wielenga and Chace, 2000; Winkler et al., 1999; Chen and Peng, 1999a,
1999b; Chen and Peng, 2000; Chen, 2001; Chen and Peng, 2001; Solmaz et al., 2006;
Schofield et al., 2007; Yoon et al., 2007). It can prevent rollover by reducing the lateral
acceleration which is the input of the roll motions. The third type utilizes integrated
chassis control (ICC) which consists of active front steering, electronic stability control
(ESC), and active/semi-active suspension (Carlson and Gerdes, 2003; Chou and
D’andrea-Novel, 2005; Cho et al., 2008; Yoon et al., 2009). ICC has the best
performance among these three types. However, it is more expensive than the other two
types due to multiple actuators.

Figure 1 Final dynamic model using Fishhook maneuver with heavy load (FH) as the
only necessary dynamic variable (Boyd, 2005)

Since 1990s, ESC has been established in automotive industries to provide vehicle
stability and handling predictability for drivers. ESC can utilize differential braking
based on information of steering angle, vehicle sideslip angle, wheel speed, yaw rate, and
lateral acceleration to generate the stabilizing yaw moment, such that the yaw rate
following can be achieved while limiting the sideslip angle within a reasonable range
(Tseng, 1999).
Chung and Yi (2006) proposed a differential braking control strategy for ESC using
sliding-mode control based on a three-degree-of-freedom (3DOF) yaw plane model.
Their sliding surface consists of yaw rate error and sideslip angle. Since the lateral
acceleration can be viewed as the input of roll dynamics, it should be limited for rollover
prevention. Therefore, the sliding surface of our proposed approach consists of not only
yaw rate error and sideslip angle, but also lateral acceleration. A 3DOF model similar to
Chung and Yi's model is used to design the ESC for rollover prevention in this paper.
The longitudinal dynamics is included to release the constant speed constraint of the
standard bicycle model. Three trigger rules are used to activate the control action.
CarSim is used to evaluate the proposed approach under double lane change (DLC),
FMVSS 126, and NHTSA Fishhook maneuvers in Matlab/Simulink. Robustness of
increased C.G. height, mass, and inertia due to multi-passenger loading is also
investigated in this paper.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the 3DOF yaw plane model is
described in Section 2, followed by the proposed controller in Section 3. Simulation
results using three maneuvers are presented in Section 4. Finally, conclusions are made
in Section 5.

2 Model for control design

The 3DOF yaw plane model as shown in Figure 2 is a combination of the bicycle model
and the longitudinal dynamics which is used to accommodate the speed and yaw motion
change resulted from differential braking. In order to simplify the derivation of the
control algorithm, we neglect roll dynamics, and assume linear tire model for lateral force
and small angle in this paper.

Figure 2 3DOF yaw plane model

 Fyf Fyf
f
2 2

Fxl Fxr a
u
2 2
x
v
y r
b
r Fyr Fyr
2 2

Fxl Fxr
2 d
2

Equations of motion of the 3DOF model can be expressed as follows.

m  u  rv   Fxr  Fxl (1)

m  v  ru   Fyf  Fyr (2)

d
I z r  aFyf  bFyr   Fxr  Fxl  (3)
2
where u and v are longitudinal and lateral velocities, respectively; r is yaw rate; m is the
vehicle mass; Iz is the yaw-plane rotational inertia; a and b are distances from C.G. to the
front and rear axles, respectively; d is track width. Fxr and Fxl are total longitudinal
forces for the right and left sides, respectively, and can be expressed as follows.
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

Fxl  Fxlt  Fxlb (4)

Fxr  Fxrt  Fxrb (5)

where the subscripts t and b denotes for the traction and braking forces, respectively. Fxlt
and Fxrt are assumed to be zero, i.e. no traction forces, in this paper. Fyf and Fyr are total
lateral forces for the front and rear axles, respectively, and can be expressed as follows.
Fyf  C f  f (6)

Fyr  C r r (7)

where Cf and Cr are the cornering stiffness of the front and rear axles, respectively; f
and r are tire slip angles of the front and rear axles, respectively, and can be expressed
as follows.
v  ra
f   (8)
u

rb  v
r  (9)
u
where  is the steering angle of the front wheel. Although the liner tire model cannot
give the vehicle model the ability to reduce lateral tire force by braking a wheel, the
braking force can still generate the desired yaw moment for stability control.
We can rewrite equations (1), (2), and (3) into the state-space form as follows.
x  f ( x, u) (10)

where x=[u v r]T and u=[δ Fxlb Fxrb]T are state and input vectors, respectively. f ( x, u)
can be expressed as follows.
 1 
 rv   Fxlb  Fxrb  
 m 
 1  v  ra   rb  v   
f ( x, u)   f     C r     ru  (11)
m 
C
  u   u  
 
1   v  ra   rb  v   d 
 I z  aC f      bC r      Fxlb  Fxrb  
  u   u  2I z
Parameters of the 3DOF model are shown in Tabel 1. The geometry, mass and inertia
specifications of the vehicle are obtained from CarSim directly. The cornering stiffness
of the front and rear wheels are obtained by minimizing the cost function J, which is the
summation of the normalized errors of longitudinal speed, body side slip angle, lateral
acceleration and yaw rate between CarSim and the 3DOF model, as shown below.
u  u3 DOF    3 DOF a y ,CarSim  a y ,3 DOF r r 
J    CarSim  CarSim   CarSim 3 DOF  (12)
 max( uCarSim ) max(  CarSim ) max( a y ,CarSim ) max( rCarSim ) 
 
where β is body side slip angle; ay is lateral acceleration; subscripts CarSim and 3DOF
denote for the responses of CarSim and the 3DOF model, respectively. The cost function
map is shown in Figure 3. The minimum J can be obtained with C f  1200 N/deg and
C r  1300 N/deg.
Simulation results of CarSim and the 3DOF model under the input pattern, which
consists of steering and differential braking as shown in Figure 4(a), are shown in Figure
4(b). The responses of the 3DOF model are very close to the CarSim responses. We can
then use the 3DOF for control design.

Table 1 Parameters for the 3DOF vehicle

Symbol Values

a 1.18 m
b 1.77 m
m 1592 kg
Iz 2488 kg-m2
d 1.575 m
Cαf 1200 N/deg
Cαr 1300 N/deg

Figure 3 Cost function map

4
x 10

1.5
cost function J

0.5

0 2000
2000
1500
1500
1000 1000

500 500
Cr (N/deg) Cf (N/deg)
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

Figure 4 Comparison between CarSim and the 3DOF model: (a) Input pattern; (b)
Dynamic responses
6 0
steering angle (deg)

braking force (N)

-500
4
-1000 Fx l
2 Fx r
-1500

0 -2000
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
time (sec) time (sec)
(a)
20 1

side-slip angle (deg)

long. speed (m/s)

0.5

15 0
CarSim
-0.5
3 DOF
10 -1
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

8 30
lateral acc (m/s 2)

yaw rate (deg/s)

6
20
4
10
2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
time (sec) time (sec)
(b)

3 Control algorithm
The proposed ESC which consists of desired yaw rate generator, sliding mode control,
brake pressure distribution, trigger rule and extended Kalman filter is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Schematic diagram of the proposed ESC

Desired yaw rate generator ESC

rd
r
Steering 
input Sliding
mode ˆ , uˆ , vˆ Extended u , r , ax , a y
control Kalman
filter
Fxlb , Fxrb
ˆ
Brake pressure on/off r, ay , 
distribution Trigger
rule
P
Braking PLF , PRF , PLR , PRR
input ABS Vehicle

Sliding mode control is used to design the proposed controller in this paper. Chung
and Yi's sliding surface only considers yaw rate following error and sideslip angle for
pure yaw motion control. The lateral acceleration can be viewed as the input of roll
dynamics and should be limited for rollover prevention. In order to achieve rollover
prevention at the same time, the sliding surface s is modified to include lateral
acceleration as follows.
1 1 1
s  rd  r   1  2   2 a y2
2
(13)
2 2 2
where 1  0.15 and 2  0.0061 are positive weighting factors; β and ay are sideslip
angle and lateral acceleration, respectively, and can be expressed as follows.
v v
  tan 1    (14)
u u

 C f  C r  v  C f a  C r b  r C f
ay         (15)
 m u  m u m

rd is the desired yaw rate which is determined by the yaw rate gain and can be expressed
as follows.
u
rd   (16)
L  K us u 2
where L is wheelbase; Kus is the understeer coefficient and can be calculated using
vehicle parameters as follows.

m b a 
K us     (17)
L  C f C r 

In order to satisfy the sliding condition, we need

Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

ss   s (18)

where  is a positive real number. The derivative of the sliding surface s along the
trajectories of equation (10) is given by
s   rd  r  rd  r   1  2 ay ay (19)

where rd ,  and a y can be expressed as follows.

1  1 
rd  u  B  rv   Fxlb  Fxrb   (20)
A  m 

1   v  ra   rb  v   rv 2 v
      r       Fxrb  Fxlb  (21)
mu 
C f C r
 u   u 
2
u mu 2

u   v  ra   rb  v   v 
a y  C   C f     C r     ru  rv   Fxrb  Fxlb  
2 2

m   u   u  m 
u   v  ra   rb  v   du
 D   aC f      bC r      Fxrb  Fxlb   r 2 v (22)
 z
I  u   u  2 I z

r  C
  Fxrb  Fxlb   
f

m  m
where A, B, C, and D can be expressed as follows.
C f  C r C f a  C r b
2 
A  2 K us u 2   , C  
1
A  L  Kus u 2 , B  2
, D (23)
A mu mu 2
Equation (19) can be further simplified as follows.
s  Nb  Dlb Fxlb  Drb Fxrb (24)

where Nb , Dlb , and Drb can be expressed as follows.

1 1   v  ra   rb  v   
N b  er  u  Brv   aC f     bCar   
 A I z   u   u  
 v  1   v  ra   rb  v   rv 2
 
 1    C f     C r    r  2 
 u  mu   u   u  u  
  C f  C r  v  C f a  C r b  r C f  (25)
  2        
  m u  m u m 
 u   v  ra   rb  v   2
    C r     ru  rv 
2
C   C f
  m   u   u  
u   v  ra   rb  v   2  C f  
D  aC f     bC r     r v   
 Iz   u   u   m  
  B d   v2    C f  C r v
Dlb  er     1  3 
  2    
 m 2I z   mu    m u
(26)
 C f a  C r b  r C f   Cv  du r   
       D   
 m u m   m  2 I z m   

 B d   v2    C f  C r v
Drb  er     1  3    2    
 m 2I z   mu    m u
(27)
 C f a  C r b  r C f   Cv   du r   
       D   
 m u m   m  2 I z m   

where er  rd  r is the yaw rate error. During severe maneuvers, the nonlinear behavior
can be modeled using the uncertainties of the linear model. As long as the uncertainties
are bounded, there exists a sliding controller gain K to satisfy the sliding surface as
follows such that the stability can be achieved.
s   Ksat  s,     sgn( s ) (28)
where Φ is the boundary layer thickness; sat(s,Φ) is the saturation function used to
smooth the chattering of control actions, and can be expressed as follows.
 1, s  

sat  s,     s  ,  s   (29)
 1, s  

Since differential braking is used in this paper, Fxrb and Fxlb cannot be activated at the
same time. By assuming Fxrb  0 , we can obtain the control action from equations (24)
and (28) as follows.
Fxlb    Nb  Ksat  s,   Dlb (30)

By assuming Fxlb  0 , we can obtain the control action as follows.

Fxrb    Nb  Ksat  s,   Drb (31)

Positive values of Fxrb and Fxlb denote for total braking forces on the right and left
sides, respectively. Both Fxrb and Fxlb are saturated such that they cannot become
negative, because negative values would correspond to traction forces which cannot be
generated via braking..

If we implement the proposed sliding mode control directly, the vehicle is not
drivable due to continuous differential braking resulted from non-zero vehicle lateral
motions. A general cut-off speed is used to deactivate the control for low speed
maneuvers, e.g. parking maneuver. Three rules similar to those proposed by Chen (2004)
are used to activate control actions for yaw rate following, sideslip angle limitation, and
lateral acceleration limitation as shown below.

r  rd  rth   a y (32)
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

   th and   0 (33)

a y  a y ,th and a y  0 (34)

where the subscript th denotes for the threshold values;  is roll rate;   25 rad-sec/m
is a positive scaling factor. rth , th , and a y ,th are set to be 10 deg/s, 5 deg, and 4.9 m/s2
(0.5 g), respectively.
In general, ESC reference models calculate both desired yaw rate and desired sideslip
angle. The main objective of the proposed control is tracking the desired yaw rate.
Sideslip angle limitation is used to prevent the vehicle from being oversteer or understeer.
Lateral acceleration limitation is used to prevent the vehicle from rolling over due to
large lateral acceleration. Instead of strictly regulating the sideslip angle and lateral
acceleration to zero, the proposed control with the trigger rules actually regulates the
sideslip angle and lateral acceleration within the threshold values for yaw and roll
stabilities.
Equation (32) ensures that the control is not activated for normal driving when the
yaw rate error is small. Lateral acceleration is used to relax the threshold of yaw rate
error. γ can be adjusted to achieve different weightings between yaw rate following and
rollover prevention. Equation (33) ensures that the control is not activated for normal
driving when the sideslip angle deviation is small. If  is larger than zero, it indicates
possible directional instabilities. Equation (34) ensures that the control is not activated
for normal driving when ay is small. Large ay only indicates possible large roll angle. If
the roll angle is increasing in the same direction of ay, possible rollover might happen for
large roll angles. If any one of these rules is triggered, lower threshold value is used to
turn it off to prevent frequent on-off switch actions.
Koibuchi et al. (1996) showed that when the vehicle is cornering: (1) if inward
moment is desired, differential braking should be applied on the rear-inner wheel; (2) if
outward moment is desired, differential braking should be applied on the front-outer
wheel. In this paper, we follow the guide line to apply brake pressure on the specified
wheel as shown in Table 2. The brake pressure command P to be applied can be
expressed as follows.
rw
P  max  Fxlb , Fxrb  (35)
Kb
where rw is the wheel radius, Kb is the brake gain of the specified wheel.
Each wheel is equipped with an anti-lock brake system (ABS) to prevent wheel lock-
up and retain a sufficient lateral tire force for directional control. The brake pressure is
equal to the driver’s brake input plus the brake pressure command from equation (35),
while modulated by the ABS.

Table 2 Brake pressure distributions

Fxlb > Fxrb Fxlb < Fxrb

δ>0 Left Rear Wheel Right Front Wheel

δ<0 Left Front Wheel Right Rear Wheel
4 Simulation
The proposed algorithm is evaluated using CarSim in Matlab/Simulink. CarSim (see
Figure 6) is a software program developed by the Mechanical Simulation Corporation to
simulate and analyze vehicle dynamic responses. The E-class SUV model with front
independent suspensions and rear solid axles is selected to verify the proposed control in
this paper. The gear ratio of the steering system is 20.5:1. It is a nonlinear model
mathematically described by 109 ordinary differential equations. Default tires in CarSim
are replaced with performance tires which have better road gripping properties to increase
the possibility of rollover occurrence. In order to investigate the effect of including the
lateral acceleration in the sliding surface, we include a baseline ESC to be compared with
the proposed algorithm. The baseline ESC is designed without the lateral acceleration, i.e.
2  0 , and 1 is retuned to be 1.2 to maintain the similar performances for yaw motion
control.

Figure 6 Graphical user interface of CarSim

In order to consider the effect of sensor noises, the approximated speed from
transmission is used as the vehicle speed measurement. Sensor noise levels for the
accelerometers, angular rate gyro, and steering angle sensor are set to be 0.06 m/s 2, 0.2
deg/s, and 0.1 deg, respectively. The extended Kalman filter proposed by Chen and
Hsieh (2008) is used to obtain the estimations of u, v, and .  can be approximated as
follows.
  k     k  1
 k   (36)
T
where k denotes for the kth sampled data; T is the sample time which is 40 ms in this
paper. Estimation results of the extended Kalman filter (EKF) with the same input
pattern in Figure 4(a) are shown in Figure 7. The EKF can produce estimations very
close to the CarSim responses.
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

Figure 7 Estimated dynamics responses

18 1

side-slip angle (deg)

long. speed (m/s)

0.5
16
0
14 CarSim
-0.5
EKF
12 -1
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
time (sec) time (sec)

DLC and FMVSS 126 maneuvers are used to evaluate the performance of yaw
motion control. NHTSA fishhook maneuver is used to evaluate the performance of
rollover prevention. The lateral load transfer ratio (LLTR) is used as the index to assess
rollover threat in this paper and can be expressed as follows.
Fzl  Fzr
LLTR  (37)
Fzl  Fzr
where Fzl and Fzr are the sum of vertical forces at left and right tires, respectively. LLTR
ranges from –1 to 1. If the driver is driving straight, LLTR is 0. For extreme conditions,
the absolute value of LLTR is 1 when either right or left side of tires lifts off the ground.
Robustness of increased C.G. height, mass, and inertia due to multi-passenger loading is
also investigated in this paper.

4.1 Double Lane Change

A DLC test track (Howe et al., 2001) as shown in Figure 8 is established in CarSim. The
built-in UMTRI preview driver model which represents the average normal driver in
CarSim is used to generate the steering action for trajectory tracking.

Figure 8 DLC test track

7.32m Path of Vehicle

2.31m 3.66m 2.69m

15.24m 18.29m 18.29m 15.24m

Figure 9 Trajectory responses for DLC on high  road surface
8
no ESC
baseline
6
proposed
cone
4
Y axis(m)

-2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
X axis(m)

With the entrance speed of 16.67 m/s (60 km/h) and the road friction coefficient of
0.85, i.e. high  road surface, the trajectory responses are shown in Figure 9. Vehicles
with baseline ESC and proposed algorithm can pass the test track within the boundary
defined by the cone positions. Without control, the vehicle shows more oscillatory
responses, runs out of the boundary, and finally spins out.
Detailed dynamic responses are shown in Figure 10. The legend “desired” denotes
for the yaw rate desired by the proposed control. The proposed algorithm can track the
desired yaw rate while maintaining the sideslip angle within a certain range. The
performance of yaw motion control of the baseline ESC is similar to that of the proposed
algorithm. Since the proposed algorithm can also limit the lateral acceleration which is
the input to the roll motion, it can achieve smaller LLTR and roll angle responses around
2.5 sec.
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

Figure 10 Dynamic responses for DLC on high  road surface

100 100
yaw rate (deg/s)

50 50

LTR (%)
0 0

-50 -50
desired
-100 no ESC -100
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
baseline
proposed
1
20
side-slip angle (deg)

0.5

10 lateral acc. (g)

0

0 -0.5

-10 -1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

1500 5
1000
steering angle (deg)

roll angle (deg)

500

0 0
-500

-1000

-1500 -5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time (sec) time (sec)

Figure 11 Trajectory responses for DLC on low  road surface

8
no ESC
6 baseline
proposed
4 cone
Y axis(m)

-2

-4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
X axis(m)

For the low road friction coefficient of 0.5, i.e. low  road surface, the entrance speed
is reduced to 12.5 m/s (45 km/h) for vehicles with baseline ESC and proposed control to
pass the DLC test. The trajectory responses are shown in Figure 11. Detailed dynamic
responses are shown in Figure 12. Similar to the DLC test on high  road surface, the
vehicle without control shows more oscillatory responses, runs out of the boundary, and
finally spins out. The proposed algorithm can track the desired yaw rate while
maintaining the sideslip angle within a certain range. The baseline ESC can stay within
the boundary with yaw motion responses slightly more oscillatory than the proposed
algorithm. Due to the low  road surface, i.e. less lateral force input, the maximum
magnitudes of LLTR and roll angle are about the same for these controllers.

Figure 12 Dynamic responses for DLC on low  road surface

100
50
yaw rate (deg/s)

50

LTR (%)
0
0

-50 -50

desired
no 15
ESC -100
0 5 10 0 5 10 15
baseline
proposed
40 1
side-slip angle (deg)

0.5
lateral acc. (g)

20

0
0
-0.5

-20
-1
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15

1500 4
1000
steering angle (deg)

2
roll angle (deg)

500

0 0
-500
-2
-1000

-1500 -4
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
time (sec) time (sec)

4.2 FMVSS 126 maneuver

FMVSS 126 maneuver (NHTSA, 2006) is used for evaluating the dynamic stability
propensity. First, the slowly increasing steer (SIS) maneuver with the steering rate of
13.5 deg/sec is used to obtain the steering angle  0.3 g which can achieve lateral
acceleration of 0.3 g at the vehicle speed of 80 km/h. Next, two series of sine with dwell
tests, which are left-to-right and right-to-left maneuvers, are conducted with a steering
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

pattern of a sine wave at 0.7 Hz frequency with a 500 ms delay beginning at the second
peak amplitude as shown in Figure 13. The  0.3 g is multiplied with a steering scalar gain
to obtain the amplitude  . The initial gain is 1.5 and is increased for each test by an
increment of 0.5 until the final run, which has the amplitude  greater than 270°.
The success or failure of each sine with dwell test in the series is determined based on
lateral stability criteria and responsiveness criterion. The lateral stability criteria can be
expressed as follows.
rt0 1.00 rt0 1.75
 100  35% and  100  20% (38)
rpeak rpeak

where rpeak is the peak yaw rate generated by the sine with dwell steering and t0 is the end
time of the steering input. It is anticipated to achieve at least 95% probability to prevent
spinout by satisfying the lateral stability criteria. The responsiveness criterion is defined
using the lateral displacement at 1.07 seconds after the initiation of steering input. The
displacement should be larger or equal to 1.83 meters (6 feet) to ensure the ability of a
vehicle to respond to the driver’s inputs during ESC intervention.

Figure 13 Sine with dwell steering profile

δ
steering angle

t0

500 ms time

δ

Vehicles with baseline ESC and proposed algorithm can complete FMVSS 126
maneuver successfully. Without control, the vehicle cannot satisfy the lateral stability
criteria and failed the 8th test before the final run. Detailed dynamic responses of the 8th
test are shown in Figure 14. Similar to the DLC test, the proposed algorithm can track
the desired yaw rate while maintaining the sideslip angle within a certain range. The
performance of yaw motion control of the baseline ESC is similar to that of the proposed
algorithm. Since the proposed algorithm can also limit the lateral acceleration which is
the input to the roll motion, it can achieve smaller LLTR and roll angle responses around
44.2 sec and 45.4 sec.
Figure 14 Dynamic responses for FMVSS 126
40 100

20
50
yaw rate (deg/s)

LTR (%)
0
0
-20
-50
-40

-60 -100
43 44 45 46 47 48 43 44 45 46 47 48

desired
20 no ESC 1
baseline
side-slip angle (deg)

0.5
proposed

lateral acc. (g)

10
0

-0.5
0
-1

-10 -1.5
43 44 45 46 47 48 43 44 45 46 47 48

10 5
steering angle (deg)

5
roll angle (deg)

0
-5
-5

-10 -10
43 44 45 46 47 48 43 44 45 46 47 48
time (sec) time (sec)

4.3 NHTSA Fishhook maneuver

NHTSA proposed to use the Fishhook maneuver for evaluating the dynamic rollover
propensity (Forkenbrock et al., 2004). First,  0.3 g obtained from the SIS maneuver is
multiplied with a steering scalar SS 5.5 to obtain the maximum steering angle A for the
Fishhook maneuver. The steering angle is reversed to the opposite direction when the
first zero crossing of roll rate between 1.5 deg/sec is detected as shown in Figure 15. A
steering robot is established to execute this maneuver using CarSim in Simulink.
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

Figure 15 NHTSA Fishhook maneuver

A = SS  0.3g
A

steering angle (deg)

steering rate at
720 deg/sec

time

-A
3 sec 2 sec
pause
roll rate (deg/sec)

1.5
-1.5 time

First zero crossing

Detailed dynamic responses with the entrance speed of 22.22 m/s (80 km/h) are
shown in Figure 16. Vehicles with baseline ESC and no ESC roll over around 5 sec and
4.5 sec, respectively. Brake responses for each wheel are shown in Figure 17. Braking
actions around 1.4 sec and 1.7 sec are mainly for yaw motion control. The brake
pressures applied to the right front wheel around 1.3 sec and the left front wheel around 2
sec are mainly for rollover prevention. As can be seen from Figure 16, it results in large
reductions of LLTR and lateral acceleration around the same time. Consecutive peaks of
brake pressure are resulted from the intervention of anti-lock brake system to prevent
wheel lock-up, which can also be confirmed from the responses of the longitudinal tire
slip ratios.
Figure 16 Dynamic responses for NHTSA Fishhook
100
40
yaw rate (deg/s)

20 50

LTR (%)
0
desired 0
-20
no ESC
-40 baseline -50
-60 proposed
-100
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

40 1.5
1
side-slip angle (deg)

30

lateral acc. (g)

20 0.5

0
10
-0.5
0
-1
-10
-1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

300 10
200
steering angle (deg)

0
roll angle (deg)

100

0 -10

-100
-20
-200

-300 -30
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time (sec) time (sec)
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

Figure 17 Brake responses for NHTSA Fishhook

15
LF
brake pressure (Mpa) LR
10 RF
RR

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4

20

0
tire slip ratio (%)

-20

-40

-60
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
time(sec)

4.4 Robustness study

In order to verify the robustness of the proposed algorithm for rollover prevention, the
multi-passenger loading (Forkenbrock et al., 2004) is used for the SUV model. The
vehicle mass and the rotational inertia for the principal axes are increased 15% of the
original value in CarSim. The resulted C.G. height change is increased 4.5%. The
distance change from C.G. to the front axis is increased 15%.
Detailed dynamic responses with the entrance speed of 22.22 m/s (80 km/h) are
shown in Figure 18. Vehicles with baseline ESC and no ESC roll over around 4 sec and
3 sec, respectively. Although the proposed algorithm functions as designed, yaw rate
following error and sideslip angle are larger than those in Figure 16 due to the increased
vehicle mass and inertia. Brake pressures for each wheel are shown in Figure 19.
Similar to Figure 17, braking actions around 1.4 sec and 1.7 sec are mainly for yaw
motion control. The brake pressures applied to the right front wheel between 1.3 sec and
1.5 sec, and the left front wheel around 2 sec are mainly for rollover prevention. As can
be seen from Figure 18, it results in large reductions of LLTR and lateral acceleration
around the same time. Consecutive peaks of brake pressure are resulted from the
intervention of anti-lock brake system to prevent wheel lock-up, which can also be
confirmed from the responses of the longitudinal tire slip ratios.
Figure 18 Dynamic responses for robustness study
100
40
yaw rate (deg/s)

20 50

LTR (%)
0
0
-20 desired
no ESC
-40 baseline -50
-60 proposed
-100
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

40 1.5

1
side-slip angle (deg)

30

lateral acc. (g)

20 0.5
0
10
-0.5
0
-1
-10
-1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

300 10

200
steering angle (deg)

0
roll angle (deg)

100
0 -10

-100
-20
-200

-300 -30
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time (sec) time (sec)
Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

Figure 19 Brake responses for robustness study

15
LF
brake pressure (Mpa) LR
10 RF
RR

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4

20

0
tire slip ratio (%)

-20

-40

-60

-80
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
time(sec)

5 Conclusion
An ESC using sliding mode control is proposed for rollover prevention in this paper. It is
designed based on 3DOF yaw plane model, which includes the longitudinal dynamics to
release the constant speed constraint of the standard bicycle model. The sliding surface
consists of not only yaw rate following error and sideslip angle for yaw motion control,
but also lateral acceleration for rollover prevention. Brake pressure distribution and
trigger rules for activating the control actions are also presented in this paper. CarSim is
used to evaluate the proposed approach under DLC, FMVSS 126, and NHTSA Fishhook
maneuvers in Matlab/Simulink. Without control, the vehicle cannot pass all tests. Both
the baseline ESC and the proposed algorithm can track the desired yaw rate while
maintaining the sideslip angle within a certain range for DLC test track and FMVSS 126
maneuver. Since the proposed algorithm can also limit the lateral acceleration which is
the input to the roll motion, it can achieve smaller LLTR and roll angle responses for
these two tests. As for the NHTSA Fishhook maneuver, only the proposed algorithm can
pass the test. The baseline ESC cannot pass the test due to the lack of the ability to limit
lateral acceleration for possible rollover conditions. Robustness of increased C.G. height,
mass, and inertia due to multi-passenger loading is also investigated in this paper. The
proposed algorithm can handle these parameter variations and reduce the rollover
propensity.

Acknowledgement
This project was supported partly by the Chung-Shan Institute of Science and
Technology and partly by the National Science Council in Taiwan under the contract No.
of NSC 98-2218-E-027-015.
References
Boyd, P.L. (2005) ‘NHTSA’s NCAP rollover resistance rating system’, Proc. 19th
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, June.
Carlson, C.R. and Gerdes, J.C. (2003) ‘Optimal rollover prevention with steer by wire
and differential braking’, ASME, Dynamic Systems and Control Division
(Publication), DSC 72(1), pp. 345-354.
Chen, B.C. (2001) Warning and Control for Vehicle Rollover Prevention, PhD
Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Chen, B.C. (2004) ‘Human-in-the-loop optimization of vehicle dynamics control with
rollover prevention’, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 41, SUPPL., pp. 252-261, June.
Chen, B.C. and Hsieh, F.C. (2007) ‘Sideslip angle estimation using extended Kalman
filter’, Proc. of the 20th IVASD Symposium.
Chen, B.C. and Peng, H. (1999a) ‘A real-time rollover threat index for sports utility
vehicles’, Proc. American Control Conference, San Diego, CA, Vol. 2, June,
pp.1233-1237.
Chen, B.C. and Peng, H. (1999b) ‘Rollover warning for articulated vehicles based on a
time-to-rollover metric’, Proc. ASME International Mechanical Engineering
Conference and Exhibition, November.
Chen, B.C. and Peng, H. (2000) ‘Rollover prevention for sports utility vehicles with
human-in-the-loop evaluations’, 5th International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle
Control, August.
Chen, B.C. and Peng, H. (2001) ‘Differential-braking-based rollover prevention for sport
utility vehicles with human-in-the-loop evaluations’, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol.
36, No. 4-5, pp. 359- 389.
Cho, W., Yoon, J., Kim, J. and Yi, K. (2008) ‘Development of a unified chassis control
system for vehilce stability and maneuverability’, AVEC 2008, 9th International
Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control, October.
Chou, H. and D’andrea-Novel, B. (2005) ‘Global vehicle control using differential
braking torques and active suspension forces’, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 43,
No. 4, pp. 261- 284.
Chung, T. and Yi, K. (2006) ‘The development of vehicle stability control at Ford’, IEEE
Transactions on control systems technology, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 224-234.
Forkenbrock, G.J., O’Harra, B.C. and Elsasser, D. (2004) A demonstration of the
dynamic tests developed for NHTSA’s NCAP rollover rating system - Phase VIII of
NHTSA’s light vehicle rollover research program, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration Rollover Resistance, DOT HS 809 705.
Howe, J.G., Garrott, W.R., Forkenbrock, G., Heydinger, J. and Lloyd, J. (2001) An
Experimental examination of selected maneuvers that may induce on-road,
untripped light vehicle rollover – phase I-A of NHTSA’s 1997-1998 vehicle rollover
research program, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 809
357.
Koibuchi, K. Yamamoto, M. Fukada, Y. and Inagaki, S. (1996) ‘Vehicle stability control
in limit cornering by active brake’, SAE Paper 960487.
NHTSA (2006) Proposed FMVSS No. 126 electronic stability control systems, August.
NHTSA (2007) Traffic safety facts 2007: A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from
the fatality analysis reporting system and the general estimates system, DOT HS
811 002.
Schofield, B., Hagglund, T. and Rantzer, A. (2007) ‘Vehicle dynamics control and
controller allocation for rollover prevention’, Proc. of the IEEE International
Conference on Control Applications, art. No. 4067243, pp. 149-154.
 Design of electronic stability control for rollover prevention using sliding mode control

Solmaz, S., Corless, M. and Shorten, R. (2006) ‘A methodology for the design of robust
rollover prevention controllers for automotive vehicles: part 1-differential braking’,
Proc. of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, art. No. 4178035, pp. 1739-
1744.
Tseng, H.E. (1999) ‘The development of vehicle stability control at Ford’, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 223-234.
Wielenga, T.J. (1999) ‘A method for reducing on-road rollovers – anti-rollover braking’,
SAE Paper 1999-01-0123.
Wielenga, T.J. and Chace, M.A. (2000) ‘A study of rollover prevention using anti-
rollover braking’, SAE Paper 2000-01-1642.
Winkler, C.B., Fancher, P. and Ervin, R. (1999) ‘Intelligent systems for aiding the truck
driver in vehicle control’, SAE Paper 1999-01-1301.
Yoon, J. Cho, W. Koo, B. and Yi, K. (2009) ‘Unified chassis control for rollover
prevention and lateral stability’, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol.
58, No. 2, pp. 596-609.
Yoon, J., Kim, D. and Yi, K. (2007) ‘Design of a rollover index-based vehicle stability
control scheme’, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 459- 475.

View publication stats