2005-01-1061

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES

Anti-Lock Braking Performance and Hydraulic

Brake Pressure Estimation
Kevin O'Dea
Delphi Corporation

Reprinted From: Virtual Engineering and Development, Digital Modeling,

and Rapid Prototyping
(SP-1917)

2005 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 11-14, 2005

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-772-4891

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2005 SAE International

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 2005-01-1061

Anti-Lock Braking Performance and Hydraulic

Brake Pressure Estimation
Kevin O’Dea
Delphi Corporation

Copyright © 2005 SAE International

ABSTRACT brake pressure and perform the ABS function. Such a

system is the Delco ABSVI system. In this system, the
Anti-Lock Brake Systems use hydraulic valves to control motor current is measured and the brake pressure is
brake pressure and ultimately, wheel slip. The difference estimated from the measured motor current. Since such
in pressure across these hydraulic valves affects their systems essentially measure the brake pressure there is
performance. The control of these valves can be little error in the estimation. These types of systems will
improved if the pressure difference is known and the not be covered within this paper.
valve control altered accordingly. In practice, the delta-
pressure is estimated. Estimating the wheel brake The second type of system uses solenoid valves, a
pressure introduces an error into the control structure of pump/motor assembly, and a master cylinder pressure
the system, i.e. the difference between the actual wheel sensor (Figure 1). In this system, the valves regulate the
brake pressure and the estimated wheel brake pressure. brake pressure, the pump/motor returns hydraulic brake
The effect of this error was investigated at the vehicle fluid that has been relieved from a controlled wheel to
level via simulation, using stopping distance and vehicle the master cylinder, and the master cylinder pressure
yaw rate as evaluation criteria. Even with large errors in sensor measures the pressure being generated by the
the brake pressure estimate, it was found that the driver. The estimation is performed by calculating the
vehicle performance was largely unaffected. volume of fluid flowing through each valve. The amount
of fluid is a function of the delta-pressure across each
INTRODUCTION hydraulic valve and the actuation time of the valve.
Based on the fluid flow and the caliper compliance, the
The goal of Anti-Lock Braking Systems (ABS) is to estimated brake pressure is calculated (Figure 2).
control the tire forces in an effort to optimize vehicle
performance, especially with regard to stopping distance
and vehicle stability, during panic braking. Because the
tire forces are so critical to ABS, it obviously would be
an advantage to know these forces directly.
Unfortunately, there is currently no easy and cost
effective method for measuring tire forces. As a
secondary solution, the brake pressures could be
measured, and the measurement could be used in the
ABS control strategy. This is already done for EHB
systems and could be done for more conventional
systems, but this is expensive. Instead, the brake
pressure can be estimated using a master cylinder
pressure sensor and the characteristics of the hydraulic
modulator, which is used to perform the ABS brake
pressure regulation.

There are two primary methods for estimating the brake Figure 1 – ABS Hydraulic Schematic
pressure in an ABS system. Each of these methods is
linked to a specific type of ABS system.

The first type of ABS system uses a motor/ball screw

assembly to drive a piston, which is used to modulate
 Figure 3 – Simulation Environment
Figure 2 – ABS Hydraulic Pressure Estimation
VEHICLE SELECTION – To improve the overall
Once calculated, the hydraulic brake pressure
applicability of the results of this analysis, two vehicles
estimation is used in the ABS control strategy. As with
were selected for the simulation. The goal was to select
any estimation, there are sources of error in the system
two vehicles with configurations that were different
that cannot be eliminated. The two main sources of error
enough to be significant without requiring a complete
in the estimation are variation in the valve flow-rate and
recalibration of the control algorithms involved.
variation in the caliper displacement to brake pressure
conversion. The valve flow-rate variation can be caused
The vehicles were as follows: a small front drive vehicle
by many factors: fluid temperature, magnetic efficiency,
(Vehicle #1), and a midsized rear drive vehicle (Vehicle
system voltage, etc. The variation in the caliper
#2). The general parameters for these vehicles were as
displacement to brake pressure conversion is caused by
follows:
a change in the overall compliance of the system which
can be caused by wear, temperature, brake lining
Vehicle #1: Mass = 1360 kg; Wheelbase = 2.608 m;
changes, etc.
Track = 1.39 m
These two sources of error were treated via simulation.
Vehicle #2: Mass = 1730 kg; Wheelbase = 2.967 m;
First, they were treated separately, and then in
Track = 1.566 m
combination to study their effects on vehicle stopping
distance and vehicle yaw rate. They were treated as
EVALUATION MATRIX – Once the vehicles were
deviations from the normal system, not taking into
selected evaluation criteria were developed. Two
account individual contributors to each type of error.
parameters were selected for analysis: stopping
distance and vehicle yaw rate.
ABS SIMULATION
To evaluate variation in the selected parameters from
SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT - In performing this the nominal situation, errors were generated in the brake
analysis, the first step was selecting the simulation pressure estimate. Errors in the estimate were thought
environment. CarSim, MatLab/SImulink, and to be capable of influencing both stopping distance and
AMESIM were used to construct the simulation yaw rate because the brake pressure estimate is used to
environment. CarSim was used as the vehicle model; alter the hydraulic valve control times. Therefore,
MatLab/Simulink was used to model the control deviations in the pressure estimate could cause the
algorithm and manage the overall simulation; and actual wheel brake pressures to deviate from the
AMESIM was used to model the hydraulic modulator nominal case and affect both stopping distance and yaw
(Figure 3). rate.

Once these vehicle level parameters were selected, a

test matrix was developed to induce errors in the brake
pressure estimate. First, the caliper compliance was
varied; second, the valve flow-rate was varied; third,
caliper compliance variation and valve flow-rate variation
were combined. The parameter values are shown in the
following tables (Tables 1 and 2). The first line in the first
table is the nominal case where no parameter deviation
was induced in either the caliper compliance or the valve
flow-rate.
LF Caliper RF Caliper LR Caliper RR Caliper LF Caliper RF Caliper LR Caliper RR Caliper
Compliance; Compliance; Compliance; Compliance; Compliance; Compliance; Compliance; Compliance;
Valve Flow Valve Flow Valve Flow Valve Flow Valve Flow Valve Flow Valve Flow Valve Flow

Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal

1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; Nominal Nominal Nominal

Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal

1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; Nominal Nominal Nominal

Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal Low Flow

1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; Nominal Nominal Nominal

High Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow Nominal

1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; Nominal Nominal Nominal

High Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow Low Flow

1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; 1.2*Nominal; Nominal Nominal 1.2*Nominal; Nominal

Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Nominal

1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; 1.4*Nominal; Nominal Nominal 1.4*Nominal; Nominal

Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Nominal

Table 1 – Caliper and Valve Variation for Straight-line Stopping Distance

Nominal Nominal 1.2*Nominal; Nominal
Study Low Flow

Nominal Nominal 1.4*Nominal; Nominal

Low Flow

1.2*Nominal; Nominal 1.2*Nominal; Nominal

Nominal Nominal

1.4*Nominal; Nominal 1.4*Nominal; Nominal

Nominal Nominal

1.2*Nominal; Nominal 1.2*Nominal; Nominal

Low Flow Low Flow

1.4*Nominal; Nominal 1.4*Nominal; Nominal

Low Flow Low Flow

Table 2 – Caliper and Valve Variation for Yaw Rate Study

A 40% increase in caliper compliance is probably

unreasonable but such a large value was selected to
test the extremes of the situation. The variation in valve
flow-rate was taken from the valve flow-rate
specification, using a 3-sigma number for the high and
low flow-rates. This modification was only made to the
apply valves. The release valve flow-rates remained
nominal for all simulations.

SIMULATION RESULTS

STOPPING DISTANCE RESULTS – The stopping

distance results were compiled for both vehicles on both
a high coefficient (0.9g) and a low coefficient surface release) and remains active is very close to that of the
(0.2g). All of the simulation runs began at zero time with nominal case (Figure 7) which explains, at least in part,
a master cylinder pressure application to 150 bars at 0.2 why the stopping distance is increased by less than one
seconds. No steering was allowed during any run. For meter. The deviation in pressure estimation has little or
the high coefficient runs, all of the stops were made from no effect in this case during the ABS stop. The cause of
100 kph, and for the low coefficient runs, all of the stops the stopping distance increase is due to the initial
were made from 70 kph. response of the system: the hydraulic response due to
the increased compliance, and the early activation of the
High Coefficient Stopping Distance – The variation in ABS apply ramp prior to the first ABS release.
stopping distance on the high coefficient surface is
discussed below. In the plots through out this paper, ‘pest’ refers to the
estimated pressure and ‘press’ refers to the actual wheel
Caliper compliance variation and nominal valves - For pressure. A full list of names used in the figures can be
vehicle #1, there was a 0.46 m increase in stopping found at the end of the paper.
distance on the 0.9g surface: from 48.35m to 48.81m.
As expected, the baseline runs were the shortest and
the stops with the caliper compliance increased by 40%
were the longest. The following plots show the variation
in the actual brake pressure and the brake pressure
estimate for two cases: 140% of nominal and nominal
(Figures 6 and 7). The maximum error in the pressure
estimate is about 25 bars with the error decreasing to
about 10 bars by the end of the stop for the case when
the caliper compliance is increased by 140%. For the
nominal case, there is an initial error of about 5 bars,
which decreases to about 2 bars.

The convergence between the pressure estimate and

the actual pressure can be explained by the action that
the ABS algorithm takes based on a lower estimated
delta-pressure. With a lower estimated delta-pressure
(master cylinder pressure minus estimated wheel Figure 4 – High Coefficient 1.4*Nominal Compliance, LF Wheel Pressure
pressure for the apply valve), the apply valves are and Estimate, Vehicle #1
commanded to flow fluid longer than they would be
commanded at a higher estimated delta-pressure. The
algorithm takes this action to produce the same pressure
change in the wheel brake across the range of possible
delta-pressures that the hydraulic valve might
experience. Due to this increased flow time and an
underestimated delta-pressure, the actual pressure will
increase more than the estimated pressure. This causes
the estimated pressure and actual pressure to move
closer together with regard to the apply valve.

Similarly, the release valves will command shorter flow

times because they are at high estimated delta-
pressures (wheel pressure for the release valve), and
thus, the algorithm will calculate a larger reduction in
estimated brake pressure than will actually occur. Both
of these effects help the estimate converge with each
release and apply cycle. Obviously, this can’t cause a
Figure 5 – High Coefficient Nominal Compliance, LF Wheel Pressure
complete convergence, but it does limit the estimate to and Estimated, Vehicle #1
reasonable values under most conditions.

In the first plot (Figure 6), the estimate is significantly
elevated due to the change in caliper compliance while
the actual pressure is slightly reduced from nominal
during the initial apply which is caused by the ABS
algorithm. Despite this error in the estimated pressure,
the pressure at which ABS activates (performs its first
For vehicle #2, there was a 2.75 meter increase in
stopping distance on the 0.9g surface: from 42.95m to
45.70m. As expected, the baseline runs were the
shortest and the stops with the 40% increase in caliper
compliance were the longest. Although the increase in
stopping distance is larger in this vehicle than in the first
vehicle, it is obvious that the difference comes from the
initial pressure cycle (Figure 8). ABS is entered too
early. If the early ABS activation is eliminated, the
increase in stopping distance is similar to that of vehicle
#1.
With the ABS entry recalibrated (Figure 9), the data for
vehicle #2 showed almost the exact same results as the
data for vehicle #1. The nominal stopping distance was
42.34 m, which was a 0.61 m reduction from the original
stopping distance under nominal conditions. The
stopping distance with the 40% larger calipers was 42.77
m, which was only a 0.43 m increase in stopping
distance. This number is in line with the vehicle #1
results. For both vehicles, the results show that it is
possible to influence the initial ABS apply by increasing
the caliper compliance. This can lead to an increase in
stopping distance. However, if the ABS entry is
calibrated properly, the increase in stopping distance is
small.
Figure 6 – High Coefficient 1.4*Nominal Compliance, LF Brake Pressure
and Estimate, Early ABS entry due to Pressure Estimate, Vehicle #2
Figure 7 – High Coefficient 1.4*Nominal Compliance, LF Brake Pressure
and Estimate, ABS entry re-calibrated, Vehicle #2
Nominal caliper compliance and valve flow-rate variation
– It was discovered that the wheel brake pressure
estimate is largely unaffected by changing the valves to
the high flow-rate valves (Figure 10). Due to this lack of
variation, the rest of the high flow-rate valve runs will not
be shown. Instead, the focus will be shifted to the low
flow-rate valves, which did show a change in the
estimated brake pressure and in stopping distance
(Figure 11).
Figure 8 – High Flow Valve LF with Pressure Estimate, Vehicle #1
Figure 9 – Low Flow Valve LF with Pressure Estimate, Vehicle #1
For vehicle #1, the stopping distance increased by 0.87
meters when the lower flowing valves were used. This
can be seen in the first ABS cycle, which is longer than
the same cycle with the nominal valves (Figures 10 and
11). After the first cycle, the wheel brake pressures are
basically the same for the nominal and the low flow case
despite 20 bars of error in the estimated brake pressure.
For vehicle #2, the results were the same as vehicle #1.
There was a 0.8 m increase in stopping distance when
using the lower flowing valves. The cause is the same
as with vehicle #1: a slow pressure apply after the initial
ABS release of pressure, especially on the front wheels.
Caliper compliance and valve flow-rate variation – For change in both the controlled and estimated wheel brake
vehicle #1, there was a 0.83 m increase in stopping pressures explains why the stopping distance is
distance with the low flowing valves and the 40% larger changed by only 0.01 m.
calipers. The increase was 0.46 m with the caliper
compliance increase alone and 0.86 m with the valve
change alone. This indicates that the errors are not
cumulative when the two types of variation are
combined.

The increased compliance causes the estimated brake

pressure to be overestimated. As discussed above, the
overestimation causes the valve control to be modified
for a low delta-pressure case. These valve adjustments
(longer fluid flow times for the apply valves) compensate
for the lower flowing apply valves, which explains why
the increases in stopping distance are not additive when
the two sources of error are combined (Figure 12).

Figure 11 – Low Coefficient Wheel Speed and Nominal Calipers and

Valves, Vehicle #1

Figure 10 – LF Pressure for all cases, Vehicle #1

For vehicle #2, the results were the same as for vehicle
#1. (All subsequent tests for vehicle #2 were run with the
appropriate calibrations for ABS entry.) It was found that
the stopping distance increased by 0.61 m with a 40%
increase in caliper compliance and lower flowing valves. Figure 12 – Low Coefficient Nominal Compliance, LF Wheel Pressure
The increase in stopping distance was 0.8 m with just and Estimated Pressure Vehicle #1
the lower flowing valves, and 0.43 m with just the caliper
compliance increase. This again shows that the change
in stopping distance is not cumulative as was seen with
vehicle #1.

Low Coefficient Stopping Distance – The variation in

stopping distance on the low coefficient surface is
discussed below. The lower flowing valves created the
largest error in the brake pressure estimate so only the
analysis of the lower flowing valves will be shown.

Caliper compliance variation and nominal valves - For

vehicle #1, the low coefficient runs showed an even
lower variation than the high coefficient runs: from
100.14m to 100.15m. There is also very little error in the
estimated pressure for this case (Figures 13 and 14).
Even with the 40% larger calipers, the estimated Figure 13 – Low Coefficient 1.4*Nominal Compliance, LF Wheel
pressure converged quite closely to the actual pressure Pressure and Estimated, Vehicle #1
throughout the stop (Figures 15 and 16). This lack of
 three or more for the rear wheels. This requires more
apply pulses during each subsequent apply cycle and
reduces brake pressure efficiency.

It is true that the wheel brake pressure estimate has an

influence on the calculated apply and release times for
the valves and as the pressure estimate increases the
apply time increases and the release time decreases.
Could this be the cause of the increased number of
release pulses? The answer is no. For the pressure
estimate to have an effect, the estimate would have to
exceed 60 bars (this value is a tunable parameter within
the algorithm and is set based on valve characteristics
with regard to delta-pressure and valve flow-rate), which
it doesn’t for this case. So the cause of the reduced
pressure efficiency must be due to the increased caliper
compliance alone.
Figure 14 – Low Coefficient with Nominal Valves and 1.4*Nominal
Calipers, Vehicle #1

For vehicle #2, the results were a bit different. The

stopping distance increased by 4.02 m from 89.67 m for
the nominal case to 93.69 m for the case with 40%
larger calipers and nominal valves. The main
differences, as compared to vehicle #1, are the
degradation in rear wheel brake pressure and wheel slip
control, and front wheel slip control. For vehicle #1, there
was almost no change in the wheel pressure and wheel
slip control (Figures 13 and 16). This explains why the
stopping distance was almost unaffected for vehicle #1.
For vehicle #2, both wheel pressure and wheel slip
control were degraded (Figures 17 and 20). This can be
seen especially in the rear brake pressure and front
wheel speed. There are 5 instances where the rear
brake pressure is released almost all the way to zero
bars with the 40% larger calipers where as this same
event only occurred 2 times with the nominal calipers. Figure 15 – Low Coefficient Nominal Pressure and Wheel Speeds
This indicates a loss of braking efficiency at the rear of Vehicle #2
the vehicle. Although the front brake pressure doesn’t
appear to be very different between the nominal case
and 40% larger caliper case for vehicle #2, there are
three places where the wheel slip was significantly
higher for the 40% more compliant calipers than it ever
was for the nominal case. These losses in wheel slip
and brake pressure control result in longer stopping
distances.

The next question that must be asked is whether or not

these changes in control were caused by the pressure
estimate or not. For the front wheels, the answer is
clearly no. The pressure estimate is as accurate in this
case as it was for the nominal case (Figures 18 and 19).
For the rear wheels, the answer is also no. The pressure
estimate is quite close in this case as well. The
difference is that the control algorithm has to perform
Figure 16 – Low Coefficient Nominal Pressure, Vehicle #2
more pressure releases to reduce wheel slip each time
for both the front and rear pressures. In the nominal
case, the pressure drops in one or two small steps for
the front and in two small pressure steps for the rear.
With the 40% larger calipers, two or more pressure
releases are required each time for the front wheels and
Figure 17 – 1.4*Caliper Low Coefficient, Vehicle #2
Figure 18 – Low Coefficient 1.4*Nominal Compliance, Wheel Speeds
and Pressure, Vehicle #2
Nominal caliper compliance and valve flow-rate variation
– For vehicle #1 with the low flow valves, the stopping
distance increased from 100.14 m to 100.29 m. There is
a significant error in the pressure estimate for this case
(Figure 21), up to 40 bars, but the stopping distance is
largely unaffected. This is due to the fact that the error
isn’t large enough to affect valve times for either release
or apply. This is the case because the delta-pressure
across the apply valves is still calculated as being large
(above 90 bar) and the valve times are not significantly
altered for this type of delta-pressure. Also, the
algorithm is closing the control loop on wheel slip rather
than an estimated brake pressure (Figure 22).
Figure 19 - LF Pressure with Low Flow Valves, Vehicle #1
Figure 20 - Wheel Speeds and Pressure for Low Flow Valves and
Nominal Calipers, Vehicle #1
For vehicle #2, the results were slightly different than the
results for vehicle #1. The stopping distance increased
for both vehicles, but it increased by more in vehicle #2.
There was an increase of 3.4 m for vehicle #2 when low
flow valves were used for the ABS regulation. As was
the case with the increased caliper compliance for
vehicle #2, the pressure efficiency has been affected by
going to the lower flowing apply valves. This can be
seen on both the front and rear pressures (Figures 23
and 24). The front pressures require more pressure
steps before going to release, indicating an increase in
the time to reach peak slip values and a reduction in
braking efficiency (Figure 25). The change in the rear
control is small although there are several releases to
lower pressures than were seen in the nominal case
(Figures 24 and 25). These changes in the front and rear
brake pressure control indicate a loss in braking
efficiency as compared to the nominal case.
Could this loss of efficiency be caused by the pressure
estimate? As was discussed above, the pressure
estimate would have to reach 60 bars for the apply or
release control times to be affected. It can be seen
below that the front pressure estimate reaches this value
but that the rear estimate does not. Thus the rear is
unaffected and the front may be affected. However, the
front pressure estimate is below 60 bars at the beginning
of the event and climbs to 60 bars about one third of the
way through the event. There is no change in the
pressure releases between the front pressure releases
prior to reaching 60 bars and those after reaching 60
bars. The wheel speeds appear to be better controlled
after the pressure estimate has reached 60 bars with no
excursions to high slip levels. Thus, the pressure
efficiency reduction is caused by the valve change itself
and not the change in control due to the pressure
estimate.
Figure 21 – LF Low Flow Pressure Estimate Vehicle #2
Figure 23 – LR Low Flow Pressure Estimate Vehicle #2
Figure 23 – Pressure and Wheel Speeds for Nominal Calipers and Low
Flow Valves, Vehicle #2
Caliper compliance and valve flow-rate variation – For
vehicle #1 with lower flowing valves and increased
caliper compliance, the stopping distance decreased
from 100.14 m to 100.10 m. The change in stopping
distance was reduced despite having a large error
between the estimated brake pressure and the actual
brake pressure (Figure 26). This is similar to what
occurred in the case with lower flowing valves and
nominal caliper compliance. In the case with lower
flowing valves and nominal compliance, the error
between estimated and actual wheel pressures was also
large (Figure 21) and the stopping distance was very
similar to the baseline case with nominal valves and
nominal compliance. The fact that the stopping distance
didn’t change on the low coefficient surface despite
variation in the valve and caliper can be accounted for
by the fact that the actual wheel pressures were very
similar in all three cases, especially for the rear wheels
(Figures 27 and 28).
Figure 24 – Pressure and Pressure Estimate for Low Flow valve and
1.4*Caliper, Vehicle #1
Figure 25 – LF Pressure for nominal case and 1.4*caliper low flow-rate
case, Vehicle #1
Figure 26 – LR Pressure for nominal case and 1.4*caliper low flow-rate
case, Vehicle #1
However, even though the stopping distance for vehicle
#1 was not greatly affected on the low coefficient
surface for the different cases, it must be noted that the
slip control was dramatically affected (Figure 29). The
wheel speeds show that there are several instances
when different wheels have high slip values during the
ABS stop as compared to the nominal case where the
slip is well controlled throughout the stop (Figure 13).
This doesn’t have a large effect on the stopping distance
of the vehicle for two reasons. First, for the reason
stated in the paragraph above, which was that the
operating pressure during ABS didn’t change from case
to case. Second, low coefficient surfaces have a
relatively flat relationship between slip and longitudinal
force once a certain level of slip is reached so the fact
that higher slip values were reached didn’t have much of
an effect on stopping distance.
Figure 27 – Pressure and Wheel Speeds for Low Flow Valve and
1.4*Caliper, Vehicle #1
For vehicle #2, the increase in stopping distance over
the nominal case was 5.2m. This is an increase of 1.8m
over the case with lower flowing valves and nominal
calipers. This is different from what was seen in vehicle
#1 where the stopping distance didn’t really change.
Again, there is degradation in the pressure control for
this case (Figures 30 and 31). The front pressure
spends more time at a low value and two of the rear
pressure releases spent an extended amount of time at
low pressure (Figure 32). Thus, the same reasons that
explained the degradation for the caliper change by itself
and the low flow change by itself apply here when the
two are combined. The rear pressure is less well
controlled due to the increased caliper compliance, and
the front wheel pressures are reduced in efficiency by
the valve flow change. These two factors combine to
produce an overall longer stopping distance than any of
the other cases. However, it appears that this increase
is not substantially caused by errors in the estimated
brake pressure, but rather by the valve and compliance
changes themselves. This can be concluded for the
same reasons that were stated above. The estimated
brake pressures do not reach high enough values for the
valve control to be affected. Thus, the changes in
pressure control must be due to the changes in
compliance and valve flow-rate.

Figure 28 – LF Pressure and Estimate with Low Flow Valves and
1.4*Caliper, Vehicle #2
Figure 29 – LR Pressure and Estimate with Low Flow Valves and
1.4*Caliper, Vehicle #2
Figure 30 – Pressure and Wheel Speeds for Low Flow and 1.4*Caliper,
Vehicle #2
High Coefficient Yaw Rate – The brake pressure
estimate was induced to have an error on one side of
the vehicle with the error being applied either to the front
brake only or the front and rear brake as stated above.
All the runs were performed as follows. No steering was
allowed during any run. All of the stops were performed
at 100 kph on a high coefficient surface (0.9g) with valve
flow-rates and caliper compliances being modified on
only one side of the vehicle. Only one side of the vehicle
was used in an effort to generate the worst-case yaw
rates.
Caliper compliance variation with nominal valves - The
results showed an initial yaw rate deviation due to the
different initial wheel pressures. This pressure difference
was cause by the difference in compliance that was
used to produce wheel pressure estimate errors. After
this initial phase, the yaw rate is reduced. This can be
seen clearly in the following plots which show first the
yaw rate of the base run and the worst case run which
was a 40% compliance change on the front and rear
calipers on the left side of the vehicle (Figure 33). The
plots after that show the wheel pressures and estimates
for these wheel brakes (Figures 34 - 38). It should be
noted that normal drivers can easily accommodate these
yaw rates.
Figure 31 – Nominal Yaw Rate and Worst Case Yaw Rate, Vehicle #1
Figure 32 – LF and LR Pressure and Estimated Pressure for Nominal Figure 35 – Four Wheel Pressures for Nominal Case, Vehicle #1
Case, Vehicle #1

Figure 36 – Four Wheel Pressures for 140% Case on LF and LR,

Figure 33 – LF Pressure and Estimate for 140% Case, Vehicle #1 Vehicle #1

It is clear from these plots that the estimate is not the

cause of the vehicle yaw rate deviations from the
nominal case. The estimates converge (Figures 35 and
36) and the yaw rate is reduced throughout the stop
(Figure 33). It is the difference in pressure or braking
force at the beginning of the event due to the modified
caliper compliance side-to-side that causes this yaw rate
to develop.

The same conclusions can be made for vehicle #2. The

data shows the same results as can be seen in the plot
below (Figure 39).

Figure 34 – LR Pressure and Estimate for 140% Case, Vehicle #1

Figure 37 – Yaw Data for Vehicle#2 with 1.2*Compliance Calipers on RF
and RR
Nominal compliance and valve flow-rate variation – The
results with low flow valves on one and two wheels were
similar to the results with the compliance change for one
and two wheels on one side of the vehicle (Figures 40
and 41). The initial yaw rate of the vehicle was increased
over the nominal case as would be expected but was
then controlled back to zero. This was the case for both
vehicle #1 and vehicle #2.
Figure 38 – Yaw Vehicle #1 with low flow valves and nominal calipers
Figure 39 – Yaw Vehicle #2 with low flow valves and nominal calipers
Caliper variation and valve flow-rate variation – Valve
variation and caliper variation have very little additional
effect on the yaw rate of the vehicle over the caliper
change alone. The main effect is to prolong the yaw rate
that occurs at the beginning of the ABS event (Figures
42 and 43). It isn’t much different than the yaw rate that
was seen with the compliance change alone. The
change due to the valve alone was small as seen in the
previous section. It can be concluded therefore that a
change in caliper compliance is the largest factor in
inducing yaw. It should be noted that the apply valves
that were used had the same flow-rate during the
pressure build prior to ABS. There is possible variation
in this flow-rate, and if that were taken into account, this
result might need to be modified.
Figure 40 – Yaw Vehicle #1 with low flow valves and 1.4*Compliance on
LF and LR

Figure 41 – Yaw Vehicle #2 with low flow valves and 1.4*Compliance on
LF and LR
CONCLUSION
There are four conclusions that we can make with
regard to the effect of estimated wheel brake pressure
on ABS system performance.
First, and perhaps the most important, the usage of the
estimated pressure to improve ABS entry must be
calibrated wisely. As was seen with vehicle #2, if the
entry is not calibrated properly, a significantly longer
stopping distance can result.
Second, deviations in the estimated brake pressure on
high coefficient surfaces had little or no effect on
stopping distances on this surface. The largest factor
was having low flowing apply valves at all four wheel
brakes.
Third, deviations in the estimated brake pressure on low
coefficient surfaces had little or no effect on stopping
distance. This was due to the lack of change in actual
brake pressures and the relatively flat relationship
between longitudinal force and wheel slip on this
surface.
Fourth, deviations in the estimated brake pressure on
high coefficient surfaces had little or no effect on vehicle
yaw rate. The largest factor in changes in the vehicle
yaw rate was the change in caliper compliance or the
difference in wheel brake pressures prior to ABS entry.
It can be concluded from the above that the ABS
algorithm, as tested, was robust to deviations in the
estimated wheel brake pressure for all of the tested
conditions. This is true because the main control
parameter in the ABS algorithm is wheel slip, and the
control is only augmented with reference to the
estimated brake pressure. Therefore, the control was
largely unaffected by errors in the estimated wheel brake
pressure. If the estimated brake pressure was more
heavily relied upon, a similar investigation might produce
different results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to the following people:
Rebecca Wang, Andrew Mooradian, and Margaret
Richards for all of their help with the simulations.
Ruth O’Dea, and Deron Littlejohn for their proofreading
of the paper.
REFERENCES
1. Steve Loudon, and Bryan Fulmer, Delphi
Corporation, ‘Using Mathworks Tools for Co-
Simulation of Chassis Control Systems,’ The
MathWorks International Automotive Conference
2003.
2. Institute for Industrial Information Systems,
Karlsruhe Univ., Germany, ‘Model based calculation
of friction curves between tyre and road surface,’
Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Conference on Control
Applications(Cat.No.95CH35764) 1995, ISBN- 0
7803 2550 8
3. Akihito Kusano and Tetsuya Kuno, Advics Co., Ltd.,
‘Hydraulic Brake System for Vehicles,’ US Patent
6,709,072, 2004
4. Leppek; Kevin G.; Hogan; Martin A.;Spadafora;
Peter J.; Lee; Alan J., ‘Antilock brake system with
motor current control of the pressure modulator’
General Motors Corporation; Delco Electronics
Corporation, US Patent 5,102,207, 1990
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS
ABS - Anti-Lock Brake System
EHB - Electro-Hydraulic Braking
lfpest – left front estimated brake pressure
lfpest40 – left front estimated brake pressure on a
caliper with 1.4 times the nominal caliper compliance
lfpress – left front brake pressure
lfpress40 – left front brake pressure on a caliper with 1.4
times the nominal caliper compliance
lfws – left front wheel speed
lfpress40lowflow – left front brake pressure with 1.4
times nominal caliper compliance and low flow apply
valves
lfpresslowflow – left front brake pressure with low flow
apply valves
lrpest – left rear estimated brake pressure
lrpress – left rear brake pressure
lrpress40 – left rear brake pressure on a caliper with 1.4
times the nominal caliper compliance
lrws – left rear wheel speed
mcpress – master cylinder pressure
rfpest – right front brake pressure estimate
rfpress – right front brake pressure
rfws – right front wheel speed
rrpest – right rear brake pressure estimate
rrpress – right rear brake pressure
rrws – right rear wheel speed
yaw_base – vehicle yaw rate for the nominal vehicle
setup
yaw_lf_low_flow_cal_nom – vehicle yaw rate with a low
flow apply valve at the left front wheel and all calipers
nominal
yaw_lowflow_lf_cal40 – vehicle yaw rate with a low flow
apply valve at the left front wheel and a 1.4 times
nominal caliper at the left front brake
yaw_lf_lr_low_flow_cal_nom – vehicle yaw rate with a
low flow apply valve at the left front and left rear wheel
and all calipers nominal
yaw_lf_lr_low_flow_cal40 – vehicle yaw rate with a low
flow apply valve at the left front and left rear wheel and
1.4 times nominal calipers at the left front and left rear
brakes
yaw_rf20rr2040 – vehicle yaw rate with 1.2 times
nominal caliper compliance on the right front and right
rear calipers of the vehicle
yaw_4040 – vehicle yaw rate with 1.4 times nominal
caliper compliance on both calipers on one side of the
vehicle