Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 29, 2 (2007) pp.

117–135

A review of yaw rate and sideslip

controllers for passenger vehicles
W.J. Manning1 and D.A. Crolla2
1
Faculty of Science and Engineering, Department of Engineering and Technology,
John Dalton Building, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M1 5GD, UK
2
University of Sunderland, School of Computing and Technology, Sunderland SR6
ODD, UK

The development of chassis control schemes has been a major area of study for automotive
control engineers over the past 30 years. The volume of published literature is large, exceeding
1000 papers. Of this literature, there are 250 examining yaw and sideslip control. Here is a
comprehensive review of this field of study to identify the current state of the art and research
in yaw rate and sideslip control. The survey shows that there is still a significant research effort
needed to address the subjective performance of handling systems, and more research is
needed to develop schemes that integrate systems to achieve high-level performance objectives.

Key words: braking; driveline; integration; sideslip; steering; suspension; yaw rate.

Nomenclature
0s Total steer angle
s Driver input steer angle
m Additional active steer angle
Kc Proportional gain
rd Desired yaw rate
r Actual yaw rate
Nm Newton-metre
g Gravitational constant – 9.81 m/s2
V Vehicle forward velocity
f Front steer angle
r Rear steer angle

Address for correspondence: W.J. Manning, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Department of
Engineering and Technology, John Dalton Building, Manchester Metropolitan University,
Manchester M1 5GD, UK. E-mail: W.Manning@mmu.ac.uk
Figure 2 appears in colour online: http://tim.sagepub.com

ß 2007 The Institute of Measurement and Control 10.1177/0142331207072989

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

118 Yaw rate and sideslip controllers

Predictable Steering
Yaw rate
Conventional Vehicle Braking
High level Sideslip motion
criteria objectives
Consistent Driveline
Forward speed
Controllable Suspension
Roll and pitch
Stable Ride
Ride
Affective

Criteria Systems

Figure 1 Criteria and systems for vehicle handling

K1, K2, K3 Feedforward and feedback gains

Fn Normal force at the tyre
m Tyre-road coefficient of friction
FB Longitudinal tyre force
Fn Lateral tyre force

1. Introduction

This study reviews a selection of 68 papers from around 250 in the field of lateral
handling control. The 68 papers have been selected because they have validated their
approach, offered opportunity for further work and, in some cases, gave a practical
edge in a largely theoretical field.
Taxonomy of the field of study is challenging. Mapping the active vehicle
systems to the objective control criteria is challenging, but more difficult is mapping
these control objectives to the more subjective criteria. Figure 1 shows the flow from
high-level criteria to the systems for controlling vehicle motion. While criteria such
as stable and controllable can be expressed in very objective terms, whether its yaw
rate or sideslip, other criteria such as predictable and affective are much more
subjective.
The lack of published work that maps the high-level criteria to vehicle motion
objectives simplifies taxonomy to either that of systems or control objectives.
By focusing on the control objectives, this review maintains a top-down analysis of
the control approaches. The review focuses on work done with three control objectives:

yaw rate control

sideslip control

combined yaw and sideslip control.

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 Manning and Crolla 119

There are other control lateral objectives but these three are chosen as they exemplify
vehicle lateral handling. The yaw rate control objective is primarily concerned with
improving steering feel. Most studies employ a yaw rate tracking approach, where the
target yaw rate is usually generated from a first-order lag on the steering input.
Sideslip control relates more to the vehicle stability and is important near the limit of
vehicle handling. The combined approach is usually employed with two systems, eg,
braking and steering, and should offer the benefits of improved handling feel as well
as increased stability near the limit.

2. Yaw rate control

Yaw rate following studies are dominated by the application of active steering
systems, with some work on active driveline, steering and suspension. Overall, there
are two quite separate regions in which active systems may offer benefits:
(1) limiting conditions – where vehicle stability may be lost because the tyres are close to
their limit of adhesion;
(2) normal driving – implying modest lateral accelerations and good surfaces.

2.1 Limit handling studies

The retention of stability under severe manoeuvres has been studied extensively.
Kramer and Hackl (1996) from Bosch gives a good overview of yaw control by Active
Front Steering (AFS). The underlying principle of this study is that the resultant steer
angle may be expressed as
0s ¼ s þ m ð1Þ
where 0s is the total steer angle, s is the driver input steer angle and m is the
additional active steer angle.
In practice, the additional steer angle m is actuated through a motor that drives the
ring gear of a planetary gear connected in line with the steering column (Figure 2). This
is the basis of recent commercial systems from Bosch and Continental. Feedforward and
feedback control approaches are suggested for yaw control under steering manoeuvres,
and an additional control approach is presented for lateral stability under braking on
split-m surfaces. The feedforward control scheme (Figure 3) has the effect of transiently
increasing the resultant steer angle, 0s , and tends to reduce the time lag between steer
angle input and vehicle reaction, eg, yaw rate or lateral acceleration. The yaw rate
following scheme (Figure 4) uses a simple two-degree-of-freedom (2dof) model to
generate an ideal yaw rate, which is then fed through a first-order lag to generate
the demand yaw rate. The controller is then a simple proportional gain, ie,

m ¼ Kc ðrd  rÞ ð2Þ

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

120 Yaw rate and sideslip controllers

Planetary
Gearbox

Motor

Figure 2 Active front steering

d TL
dt
dm

ds + + d ′s Yaw rate
Vehicle lateral
acceleration

Figure 3 Feedforward yaw control by AFS

+ d ′s yaw rate, w
ds Vehicle
+
wd
demand dm
yaw rate
Reference Controller
model −
+

Figure 4 AFS – yaw rate feedback control

Under a severe lane change, both systems are an improvement on the uncontrolled
vehicle, but the feedback control scheme requires less driver control effort and
maintains good adequate sideslip behaviour on icy surfaces. Yaw stability compensa-
tion (Figure 5) involves intervention under limiting conditions – and thus it can be
viewed as additional to controllers (i) and (ii). The idea is that the control system

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 Manning and Crolla 121

ds + d ′s
Vehicle
+

dm

Controller

Braking-based stability
control programme
e.g. DYC, ESP

Figure 5 AFS – addition of yaw stability compensation term

automatically generates an additional steer angle, m, to assist the braking-based

stability control system on the vehicle. This can, in principle, be advantageous in
split-m braking conditions, where the conventional stability control system has an
inevitable compromise between maximizing retardation and maintaining yaw control.
While these experimental tests show the controller has significant benefits, it is not
clear how the hardware compares with that used in the current Bosch systems.
In particular, the power of the steering actuator is key to performance and has clear
implications on fuel consumption.
Ackermann et al. (Ackermann, 1992, 1997; Ackermann and Bunte, 1997; Ackermann
and Sienel, 1993; Ackermann et al., 1996) carried out separate studies on both Active
Front (AFS) and Active Rear Steering (ARS) to decouple the vehicle yaw motion from
the lateral acceleration. The aim of this decoupling law is to allow the driver
to complete path-following tasks while the control will reject disturbances due to
crosswinds or split-m road surfaces. The more recent work on AFS has been evaluated
through both simulation and road tests on a BMW 735i. The controller concept is
similar to Figure 4 with an additional positive feedback element from the yaw rate to
the steer angle. It is this feedback element that removes the yaw dynamics from the
driver’s control and gives direct lateral acceleration response to steer angle inputs.
While this system is successful at dealing with unexpected yaw disturbances such as
crosswinds and split-m surfaces, its performance in severe lateral handling
manoeuvres is questionable. In these studies, Ackermann (1997) highlights the
steering actuator bandwidth and saturation as the key limiting factor in achieving the
desired yaw dynamics. In contrast to Kramer and Hackl (1996), this work used a
hydraulic cylinder that actuated the steering rack. As little detail is given on either
actuator, it is difficult to infer which will give the best overall performance in yaw rate
response for given constraints on weight and power demand.
Segawa et al. (2000) extended same concepts as in Figures 3 and 4 to include
feedforward and feedback control of yaw rate (Figure 6). The approaches were
experimentally tested on real vehicles under severe manoeuvres, including high-
speed slalom tests and lane changes on packed snow, and split-m braking.

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

122 Yaw rate and sideslip controllers

Feed uff
forward
controller

rdes ufb r
ds Reference Feedback
Vehicle
model controller

Figure 6 Feedforward–feedback control of yaw rate

The feedforward part is a Variable Gain Steering (VGS) ratio, scheduled with speed.
Two strategies are proposed for feedback control: the conventional approach in
Figure 4 and a D* strategy where the lateral acceleration and yaw-speed component of
lateral acceleration are feedback under separate gains. Experimental results show that
the yaw rate feedback attenuates the yaw response best; however, the D* feedback
does reduce the lag in the system and does improve the path following on
low-m surfaces.
The feedforward–feedback tracking control in Figure 6 is more common in other
yaw rate stability studies that use braking, driveline and suspension systems.
Matsumoto et al. (1992) describes Nissan’s early work on Brake Force Distribution
(BFD) control and validates their approach with some experimental results. There
have been various other papers that corroborate this work. There is significant detail
on how the systems are implemented on the BMW direct stability control systems
(Donges, 1996; Leffler, 1996; Leffler et al., 1998a,b; Straub, 1996). While there are clear
advantages of using braking for yaw control, it should be made clear that longitudinal
performance is compromised due to the braking action. If the aim of the controller is
to expand the envelope in which the vehicle handles with good feel and stability, then
braking systems will cause problems. If safety and stability are the only objectives
then braking systems are best; however, they are usually used in this capacity to
bound sideslip and not for following yaw rate.
Other papers have used the feedforward–feedback control principle but with
different actuators. Naito et al. (1992) present a front/rear four-wheel drive (4WD)
torque split mechanism for improving cornering performance. This Electronic Torque
Split (E-TS) system developed by Nissan features in the company’s Skyline vehicle.
When a vehicle accelerates, load is transferred from the front wheel to the rear wheels.
This decrease in load and increase in tractive force reduces cornering forces, hence
promoting understeer. By increasing torque at the rear wheels (promoting oversteer),

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 Manning and Crolla 123

a balance can be reached by which the vehicle cornering performance is improved.

Experimental results show that the system offers improvements over other 4WD
systems and is equally effective on low friction surfaces. When combined with
the system above, it is noted that cornering and tractive force is improved on both
low- and high-m surfaces during subtle and rapid acceleration/deceleration. A similar
system is presented by Matsuno et al. (2000). The aim is to improve handling on dry
roads and stability on slippery roads. The Variable Torque Distribution (VTD) system
varies the torque transfer between front and rear axles depending on a number of
conditions, such as the estimated road surface coefficient of friction. Results show
good yaw rate control, but are rather limited. The control methods of the VTD are not
presented in this paper, although a method of m estimation is presented that uses
lateral acceleration of the vehicle (the most common method being through the
longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle). Results are accurate despite the need for steer
inputs to be present before estimation occurs.
A paper presented by Motoyama et al. (1993) shows the effect of left/right torque
split on both axles for a 4WD vehicle. Yaw moment control is implemented through
identical left/right torque distribution in both axles. Multi-plate clutches are installed
at all wheels to control the torque transfer. Results show improved yaw rate
tracking behaviour over conventional 4WD systems. The paper also compares the
relative effectiveness of both left/right and front/rear torque split, showing that
left/right shows the greater potential for improving vehicle turning characteristics.
With both simulation and actual test results showing good yaw rate tracking and
increased turning limit, conclusions as to the effectiveness of such a system are
justified.
Smakman (2000) investigates inverse model control of wheel load response for yaw
rate tracking. The system works well until actuator limits are imposed and it is clear that
while wheel load control can offer some benefits, it does not offer the power of brake-
based systems. Key to choosing the correct actuator is identifying the available yaw
moment by that actuator. Smakman (2000), Hac and Bodie (2002) and He (2005) have all
produced results from ARS, AFS, BFD, Roll Moment Distribution (RMD) and Magneto-
Rheological (MR) suspensions, and judged them with a mixture of criteria that included
maximum yaw moment available and invasiveness to driving performance. These are
all excellent papers for analysing actuators based on operating regime.

2.2 Linear handling studies

Work on VGS has been proposed as the gain of the yaw rate response varies
significantly with speed. Millsap and Law (1996) describe an early system developed
by Delphi. They concentrate on on-centre handling performance and use two
particular measures, which previous work (based on passive steering systems) has
shown to be important: steering sensitivity at 0.1 g lateral acceleration and steering
wheel torque gradient at 0 g. Steering sensitivity is a measure of how much the vehicle

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

124 Yaw rate and sideslip controllers

g/100 deg dsw

2

1.4

0 100 180
Vehicle speed (km/h)

Figure 7 Desirable characteristic of steering sensitivity with

speed – according to Millsap and Law (1996)

responds to a steer angle input. The authors claim that a desirable characteristic of
steering sensitivity versus speed is that shown in Figure 7. Typical values of torque
gradient should be in the range 18–25 Nm/g. They studied the performance of their
Variable Ratio Electric Steering system (VRES) using a detailed model of the steering
system with a 3dof model. The outcome was that the VRES offered the opportunity of
overcoming the compromise in passive systems between steering sensitivity and
torque gradient throughout the speed range. The authors recognized that the
performance measures on which they based their work are quasi-steady-state
measurements, whereas steering feel is also strongly influenced by the transient
phase involving a phase lag between steering input and vehicle response.
A later study by Abe et al. (2000) measured the performance of a prototype VGS
system against optimum response parameters (Figure 8), collated in an earlier study
by Weir and Di Marco (1978). The results showed that too much change in steering
gain pushes the yaw response outside the optimum bounds. However, there is no
account for the subjective nature of drivers in this study. Akita et al. (2000) describe the
Aisin Seiki system, which they installed and tested on a prototype vehicle. From
measured handling results with a range of drivers – both professional and
inexperienced – they claimed to confirm user benefits of improved vehicle stability
and reduced workload. They also carried out some interesting failure mode
experiments – by setting the system to fail by reverting to a fixed ratio suddenly
during a manoeuvre. However, it is not clear that these results, relating to measured
deviations from some prescribed path, generalize to other manoeuvres. Kojo et al.
(2002) describe the practical implementation of a Toyota VGS system. Driving
simulator and field tests show there are different optimal steering ratios for
disturbance rejection and course tracking. The authors use the VGS to add some
derivative steer (Figure 3) and show that less corrective steer is needed by the driver to
reject disturbances.

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 Manning and Crolla 125

0.5
Yaw rate
Optimum yaw rate gain at
gain
V=80 km/h for expert driver
(1/s)
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 for typical driver

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time constant (s)

Figure 8 Optimum yaw response parameters

There are a number of other studies that examine how active steering wheel torque
control affects the vehicle handling. McCann (2000) presents some simulations of a
Delphi torque feedback concept, where the steering wheel torque is a function of the
driver input torque and some lead compensated yaw rate feedback. Takehara and
Sakamoto (2002) have studied a Mazda prototype that tracks yaw rate by Hinf control
of an Electronic Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system. These studies do not address
the human factor issues of intervening directly and noticeably in the driver’s demand.

2.3 Critical view of yaw rate stability studies

Yaw rate tracking algorithms have been used to improve stability near the limit and
handling feel during normal driving. However, a recurrent problem throughout the
literature is that this distinction is commonly either muddled or blurred. It is fair to
observe that whereas the retention of stability is a clear performance objective, it is
much less clear what constitutes a performance improvement under normal driving
conditions. Inevitably, this latter goal involves a strong element of subjective
assessment and interpretation.
The studies of yaw rate stability are dominated by the use of model reference
feedback control of yaw rate. Here the controller attempts to push the non-linear
behaviour towards a linear bicycle model response. As the vehicle behaviour
approaches limiting conditions, the actuation power needed to reduce the tracking
error becomes larger and beyond the bounds of active steering, active wheel load
control and active driveline. Active braking systems offer the most power for

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

126 Yaw rate and sideslip controllers

generating corrective yaw moments, but these systems are not without their own
problems. Braking achieves the required yaw response at the expense of the
longitudinal acceleration demand. For steerability, this is counter-productive.
It is interesting that feedback control only is the norm in active steering studies
while a combination of feedforward and feedback is used in most braking, driveline
and wheel-load studies. One would expect the phase advance characteristics of a
feedforward–feedback strategy to be beneficial regardless of the system. Indeed, the
one piece of work that stands out is by Segawa et al. (2000), who clearly demonstrates
the benefit of a feedforward–feedback strategy. This work also includes a variable gain
steer algorithm that would be useful for linear handling feel studies. The drawback of
the study is the requirement of a steer-by-wire capability. However, this idealized
work is an excellent benchmark on which to develop steering systems that use active
planetary gear sets.
The linear handling studies rely less on actuation power and more on understand-
ing the driver’s subjective view of handling feel. While desirable characteristics for
lateral acceleration response and yaw rate response to steer angle have been found in
separate studies, the complete dynamic response, including transient phases of yaw
rate and lateral acceleration, at different speeds are not clear from the research.
Further experiments like those carried out by Crolla et al. (1998) are required to
correlate the subjective handling feel with objective measures of vehicle handling.

3. Sideslip stability

Early studies on sideslip minimization were dominated by linear feedforward control

of ARS systems (Senger and Schwartz, 1987; Whitehead, 1998, 1990; Xia and Law,
1990). Figure 9 shows the basic concept. The control algorithm is calculated by solving
the 2dof bicycle model equations for zero sideslip at steady state.
Some practical applications of this work are given in Sato et al. (1991, 1992),
Kawakami et al. (1992) and Tanaka et al. (1992) describing the production system used
on Toyota’s 91 Soarer. The control principle follows that in Figure 9, however, the
algorithm to represent the control is modified to Equation (3):

r ¼ K1 ðVÞ
f þ K2 ð_f , VÞ
K3 ðVÞ
r ð3Þ

ds df r
df = K1 ds + K2r Vehicle

Figure 9 Steady-state zero-sideslip control

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 Manning and Crolla 127

The steer gain is scheduled with velocity to overcome the actuator lag. Many of these
early studies examined the performance of the vehicle in the linear range of handling.
However, sideslip stability is more critical near the limit. Shibahata et al. (1992)
presented a non-linear analysis of the steady-state performance of Direct Yaw-moment
Control (DYC) systems, which they termed the beta-method. The beta-method gives
an indication of stabilizing yaw moment and stability margin for different sideslip
angles and front steer angles, Figure 10. This method allowed the evaluation of a
feedforward DYC control (Shimada and Shibihata, 1994). The DYC algorithm
decouples the roll motion from the lateral dynamics. It is actuated by three different
methods: differential braking left to right, RMD control and active rear wheel steering.
The conclusions of this study summarize where these three systems have an effect on
vehicle handling:
(1) Left–right differential braking can control sideslip over a full range of vehicle
motions;
(2) RMD is only effective for when the lateral acceleration is 44 m/s2;
(3) ARS is effective at only small sideslip angles, and near the limit reduces available
yaw moment to control the vehicle.
The Honda Active Torque Transfer System (ATTS), described by Kuriki and Shibihata
(1998), is used to implement DYC control on the front wheel drive Honda Prelude Type
SH. Results show improved handling performance during combined cornering and
acceleration/deceleration and improved stability. Torque steer in front wheel drive
vehicles is also reduced by ATTS leading to a reduction in steering effort. An additional
benefit is a reduction in tyre side force, which will reduce tyre wear during cornering.
These conclusions are true for steady-state behaviour only. The beta-method
assumes there are no dynamics in the jump from one vehicle state to another.
To increase the fidelity of the analysis, researchers suggested the beta-phase plane
analysis (Inagaki et al., 1994), where the rate of sideslip angle is plotted against the

6
d = −4°
d = −3°

Yaw
moment
(KNm)
0
d = +2° 10 b (°)

d = +4°
−4

Figure 10 The beta-method to analyse sideslip stability

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

128 Yaw rate and sideslip controllers

b (°/s)

Unstable

Unstable Control
boundaries

Stable
b (°)

Figure 11 The -phase plane control

sideslip angle (Figure 11). Analysis of these plots gives much more information on the
dynamic response, such as sideslip damping and natural frequency. In addition,
the beta-phase plane is further used for feedback control that ensures the sideslip
behaviour stays within defined bounds.
The phase plane tool can be used to determine the necessary control action for a
given sideslip and sideslip rate. This is done by measuring how far the state is from
the stable region and scaling the control action accordingly; the control action is then
mapped to an appropriate brake action. Yasui et al. (1996a,b) shows some
experimental results of this approach on a prototype Aisin Seiki system that uses
active braking.
Several researchers are now studying the effect of integrating several vehicle
controller subsystems for sideslip control. For example, Smakman (2000) compares the
performance of a braking intervention system and an integrated braking and wheel
load control system for lateral vehicle motion control. This work shows that braking
intervention has the most significant effect on the lateral dynamics of the vehicle,
though it is invasive to driving demands. In comparison, wheel load control has little
effect on the longitudinal dynamics but cannot generate the high moments required.
The integrated approach splits the yaw moment demand from the DYC into separate
demands for the brake controller and the wheel load controller. The co-ordination
block applies wheel load control until it reaches saturation and then applies brake
intervention. The work in the paper also examines the effect of different loads at
different lateral accelerations, and shows that until the lateral acceleration is greater
than 0.3 g, the effect of wheel load variation is minimal. Konik et al. (2000) reports that
the frequency their drivers reach 0.3 g and beyond is no more than 6–7% of all lateral
manoeuvres.
A previous study by Alleyne (1997) shows that a performance enhancement of
5–9% can be seen in longitudinal deceleration with an integrated Anti-lock Braking
System (ABS) and active suspension system. However, it is questionable as to whether

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 Manning and Crolla 129

both these works go far enough in exploiting the interaction between braking and
suspension systems. Selby et al. (2002) and He et al. (2004) examined the integration of
active braking/driveline systems with an AFS system to delay the onset of braking.
In both cases, it was clear that the integrated approach delayed intervention in the
longitudinal dynamics significantly.
There is a body of work motivated towards robust control to allow for non-linearities,
mismodelling and parameter variations. Abe et al. (1999, 2000a,b, 2001) and
Furukawa and Abe (1996) used sliding mode control to track a desired sideslip
response. As the desire for increased robustness increases, the controller requirements
increase also. In particular, there becomes a strong need to estimate vehicle sideslip
angle. These studies estimate the vehicle sideslip angle by estimating the rate of
change of lateral velocity and from a tyre model. By integrating this and monitoring
the vehicle speed through wheel speed sensors, the estimation is more robust.

3.1 Critical view of sideslip control studies

The large number of studies on sideslip control using ARS resulted in little uptake in
production vehicles. The benefits of ARS on stability and safety are just not significant
when compared with braking. For stability and safety, the invasive braking is not an
issue. The large amount of production vehicles with active safety via DYC with
braking is testament to its ability. There are arguments that brake-based stability
controllers intervene too early in the longitudinal dynamics of the vehicle. Work
carried out by Selby (2003) and He (2005) have shown that an integrated approach can
delay the onset of braking.
A number of non-linear control concepts for sideslip stability have been examined.
To be commercially viable, these systems require an estimate of sideslip to operate.
There is little in the literature explaining how sideslip is estimated in commercial
systems. In the theoretical literature, there are three approaches:

integration of the lateral acceleration measurement

on-board tyre model

a combination of integration and tyre model.
Integrating the lateral acceleration measurement is prone to drift and the on-board
tyre model would rely on an accurate measure of the road surface coefficient of
friction. The work in Abe et al. (2001) and Furukawa and Abe (1996) on combining
integration and the on-board tyre model gives the most likely approach to obtaining a
reliable and accurate measurement.

4. Integrated yaw rate and sideslip stability control

There are two main approaches to this problem: systems that use only one actuator
and systems that use two or more. The principle of controlling two values with only

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

130 Yaw rate and sideslip controllers

uff
FF

bdes b
ds rdes ufb
r
REF FB VEH

Figure 12 Feedforward and feedback control of both sideslip and

yaw rate

one actuator is dealt with using Hinf control. The first process is to shape the vehicle
yaw–sideslip response to first-order dynamics. Following this, the sideslip is
controlled using the convention zero-sideslip law. Mammar and Baghdassarian
(2000) and Mammar and Koenig (2002) present a comprehensive theoretical study on
this work on AFS. Some experimental studies are presented by Hirano and Fukutami
(1996) on a Toyota vehicle. Yoshioka et al. (1998, 1999) have adopted two sliding
surfaces, where the target yaw rate is calculated from the output of a sideslip sliding
surface.
Integrated control of two or more actuators for combined yaw and sideslip control
has been applied with both linear and non-linear control strategies. Nagai et al. (1996,
1997, 1998, 2002) present the control concept in Figure 12. The feedforward control
calculates the actuator demands from an inverse model; the feedback control is a state
feedback gain that can be calculated using Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR), Linear
Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) or Hinf schemes. The aim is similar to earlier works of
Ackermann (1997), to decouple the disturbance rejection and steering tasks. Here,
though, there is active control of the braking and front steering, Kleine and Van
Niekerk (1998) follows a similar approach using 4-wheel steering (4WS) with both
AFS and rear wheel steering.
Smakman (2000) adopts an integrated approach that uses internal model control
for yaw rate tracking and the phase-plane approach for sideslip stability. The
integration strategy is heuristic and involves a gradual shift of authority between
wheel-load control and brake control. Selby (2003), He (2005) and Cooper et al.
(2004) adopt a similar approach for braking–steering control, driveline–steering and
driveline–wheel load control. In all cases, the integrated strategy performs better
than the combined stand-alone controllers. These studies were carried out in
simulation, with idealized actuators and assumptions on the availability and
accuracy of measurements such as sideslip and longitudinal speed. It is not clear if

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 Manning and Crolla 131

the model-based control algorithms used in these studies will perform satisfactorily
on a real vehicle.
The best practical application of the studies on sideslip and yaw rate control is by
Van Zanten et al. (1995, 1996, 1998) and Van Zanten (2000). They adopt the strategy in
Figure 12 and realize it through ABS and Traction Control Systems (TCS). However,
the key importance is in the observation of sideslip angle and estimation of the road
surface coefficient of friction. The sideslip angle is observed through solving the
lateral dynamics and applying it to a Kalman Filter. The coefficient of friction is found
by calculating the longitudinal and lateral forces from slip estimates, and by using the
relationship below.

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fn m ¼ FB2 þ FS2 ð4Þ

This estimation of m is used in the reference model to ensure the desired yaw rate is
not too large.

4.1 Critical view of combined yaw rate following and sideslip stability studies

The work on integrated control can be summarized as

(1) good theoretical work with no indication of the practical implications;
(2) excellent practical work with little indication of control algorithms used.
It is evident from the theoretical approaches that a switching style of integration is
preferred where control authority is gradually moved from one actuator to the next.
While this methodology clearly works for the systems investigated, it is not clear how
it will be extended to incorporate:
(1) additional actuators;
(2) additional control objectives – vehicle ride, roll control, speed control, path tracking.
There is a concern that as the number of control objectives increases, and the number of
systems increases, then the bottom-up integration approach will be more difficult to
design and predict. Manning et al. (2002) and Gordon et al. (2003) have both proposed
methodologies for integrating any number of vehicle systems. It is of the view that
approaches like these offer better solutions in the long-term for system integration.
The real value from the experimental work is the detail on the practical
implementation of the Bosch Electronic Stability Program (ESP) (Van Zanten, 2000;
Van Zanten et al., 1995, 1996, 1998), particularly in understanding the control and
details on sideslip and m-estimation. However, there is no indication as to (1) the
accuracy of the estimates and (2) the controller sensitivity to errors in the estimated
values.

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

132 Yaw rate and sideslip controllers

5. Conclusions

A survey of 68 key papers from the 250 available on yaw and sideslip control has been
completed. From this review the following conclusions can be drawn:

There is obvious potential of using active steering and VGS to improve the yaw rate
response in the linear handling regimes. Subjective evaluations are needed to justify the
approaches and further work is needed to embed the subjective nature of drivers in the
overall design methodology. Overall, there is little research that examines how the high-
level performance criteria in Figure 1 map down to the vehicle motion objectives.
Studies in affective design may allow criteria such as sporty and classic to be engineered
into the handling design.

AFS, driveline and wheel-load control can push the yaw rate performance envelope
further towards limit handling but the bandwidth and saturation levels of these
actuators make them unsuitable for more severe stability manoeuvres. Studies by He
et al. (2004), Hac and Bodie (2002) and Smakman (2000) give the best analysis of which
systems are most appropriate for different regimes of handling.

The selection and comparison of actuators for lateral motion control systems have not
been clearly addressed in terms of the wider issues such as power consumption, cost
and weight. This is clearly more important for systems that operate frequently in the
linear handling regime.

Brake-based systems offer the best solution for pure safety and stability, yaw rate or
sideslip but do interfere in the driver’s longitudinal speed demand.

More advanced sideslip stability controllers require an estimate of sideslip. A combined
approach using the vehicle model and integration of the lateral acceleration sensor gives
the best results. An estimate of the road surface coefficient of friction is necessary to
adjust the reference model demands for different surfaces. This is more straightforward
where a sideslip estimate is already available. There is little work examining the
sensitivity of the controllers to errors in the estimates of sideslip angle and road surface
coefficient of friction.

Integrated approaches that use different systems in different areas of the vehicle
handling regime offer the best solution. These studies have shown how an integrated
approach can be used to delay the onset of braking for stability control. A bottom-up
approach is preferred in the published literature. However, it is not clear how this
methodology can be extended to include additional control objectives and/or actuators.

References

Abe, M., Kano, Y., Shibihata, Y. and for a loss of stability due to nonlinear tyre
Furukawa, Y. 1999: Improvement of vehicle characteristics. Proceedings of Proceedings of
handling safety with vehicle sideslip control AVEC 2000, August, Ann Arbor, MI.
by direct yaw moment. Proceedings of the 16th Abe, M., Kano, Y., Suzuki, K., Shibihata, Y.
IAVSD. and Furukawa, Y. 2001: Side-slip
Abe, M., Kano, Y., Suzuki, K., Shibihata, Y. control to stabilize vehicle lateral motion
and Furukawa, Y. 2000a: An experimental to direct yaw moment. JSAE Review 22,
validation of side-slip control to compensate 413–19.

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016


Abe, M., Shibihata, Y. and Shimuzu, Y. 2000b:
Analysis of steering gain and vehicle hand-
ling performance with variable gear-ratio
steering system (VGS). Proceedings of FISITA
2000, 12–15 June, Seoul.
Ackermann, J. 1990: Robust car steering by
yaw rate control. Proceedings of the 29th
Conference on Decision and Control, 2033–34.
Ackermann, J. 1992: Robust yaw damping of
cars with front and rear steering. Proceedings
of 31st Conference on Decision and Control,
2586–90.
Ackermann, J. 1997: Robust control prevents
car skidding. IEEE Control Systems Magazine
17, 23–31.
Ackermann, J. and Bunte, T. 1997: Actuator
rate limits in robust car steering control.
Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Decision
and Control, San Diego, CA, 4726–30.
Ackermann, J. and Sienel, W. 1993: Robust
yaw damping of cars with front and rear
steering. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology 1, 15–20.
Ackermann, J., Bunte, T., Sienel, W., Jeebe, H.
and Naab, K., 1996: Driving safety by robust
steering control. Proceedings of AVEC96, June,
Aachen, 377–94.
Akita, T., Satoh, K., Kurimoto, M. and
Yoshida, T. 2000: Development of the active
front steering control system. Proceedings of
FISITA 2000, 12–15 June, Seoul.
Alleyne, A. 1997: Improved vehicle perfor-
mance using combined suspension and
braking forces. Vehicle System Dynamics 27,
235–65.
Cooper, N.J., Manning, W.J., Crolla D.A. and
Levesley, M.C. 2004: Study of the integration
of roll control and torque distribution.
Proceedings of AVEC 2004, 23–27 August,
Arnhem, 513–18.
Crolla, D.A., Chen, D.C., Whitehead, J.P. and
Alstead, C.J. 1998: Vehicle handling assess-
ment using a combined subjective–objective
approach. Proceedings of the Society of
Automotive Engineers Congress 1998, Detroit,
MI.
Donges, E. 1996: Supporting drivers by chassis
control systems. In Pauwelussen, J.P. &
Pacejka, H.B., editors. Smart vehicles. Swets
and Zeitlinger, pp. 276–96.
Furukawa, Y. and Abe, M. 1996:
On-board-tire-model reference control for
cooperation of 4WS and direct yaw moment
control for improving active safety of vehicle
Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
Manning and Crolla 133
handling. Proceedings of AVEC 1996,
September, Aachen, 507–26.
Gordon, T., Howell, M. and Brandao, F. 2003:
Integrated control methodologies for road
vehicles. Vehicle System Dynamics 40, 157–90.
Hac, A. and Bodie, M.O. 2002: Improvements
in vehicle handling through integrated con-
trol of chassis systems. International Journal of
Vehicle Design 29, 23–50.
He, J. 2005: PhD thesis, School of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Leeds.
He, J., Crolla D.A., Levesley, M.C. and
Manning, W.J. 2004: Integrated chassis con-
trol through coordination of active front
steering and intelligent torque distribution.
Proceedings of AVEC 2004, 23–27 August,
Arnhem, 333–41.
Hirano, Y. and Fukatani, K. 1996:
Development of Robust active rear steering
control. Proceedings of AVEC96, September,
Aachen, 359–76.
Inagaki, S., Kshiro, I. and Yamamoto, M. 1994:
Analysis on vehicle stability in critical
cornering using the phase-plane method.
Proceedings of AVEC94, September, Tsukuba,
287–92.
Kawakami, H., Sata, H., Tabata, M., Inoue, H.
and Itimaru, H. 1992: Development of
integrated system between active control
suspension, active 4WS, TRC and ABS.
Proceedings of SAE 1992, Detroit, MI.
Kleine, S. and Van Niekerk, J.L. 1998:
Modelling and control of a steer-by-wire
vehicle. Vehicle System Dynamics Supplement
28, 114–42.
Kojo, T., Suzumara, M., Fukui, K., Sugawara,
T., Matsuda, M. and Kawamuro, J. 2002:
Development of front steering control
system. Proceedings of AVEC 2002,
September, Hiroshima.
Konik, D., Bartz, R., Barnthol, F., Bruns, H.
and Wimmer, M. 2000: Dynamic drive – the
new active roll stabilization system from
BMW – system description and functional
improvements. Proceedings of AVEC 2000,
August, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kramer, W. and Hackl, M. 1996: Potential
functions and benefits of electronic steering
assistance. Proceedings of FISITA96 World
Congress, 17–21 June, Prague.
Kuriki, N. and Shibihata, Y. 1998:
Development of active torque transfer sys-
tems. Proceedings of FISITA 1998, September,
Paris.
134 Yaw rate and sideslip controllers
Leffler, H. 1996: Electronic brake management
EBM – a possible approach for brake and
control system integration. Proceedings of
FISITA96 World Congress, 17–21 June, Prague.
Leffler, H., Auffhammer, R., Heyken, R. and
Roth, H. 1998a: New driving stability control
system with reduced technical effort and
medium class passenger cars. Proceedings of
SAE 1998, Detroit, MI.
Leffler, H., Krusche, H., Auffhammer, R.,
Roth, H. and Vieler, H. 1998b: Accident
prevention by driving stability control for
compact passenger cars. Proceedings of FISITA
1998, September, Paris.
Mammar, S. and Baghdassarian, V.B. 2000:
Two-degree-of-freedom formulation of vehi-
cle handling improvement by active steering.
Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
105–109.
Mammar, S. and Koenig, D. 2002: Vehicle
handling improvement by active steering.
Vehicle System Dynamics 38, 211–42.
Manning, W.J., Brown, M.D., Crolla, D.A. and
Selby, M.A. 2002: IVMC: Intelligent vehicle
motion ccontrol. SAE Journal of Passenger
Cars: Electronic and Electrical Systems 111,
408–16.
Matsumoto, S., Yamaguchi, H., Inoue, H. and
Yasuno, Y. 1992: Braking force distribution
control for improved vehicle dynamics.
Proceedings of AVEC 92, September,
Yokohoma, 441–46.
Matsuno, K., Nitta, R., Inoue, K., Ichikawa, K.
and Hiwatashi, Y. 2000: Development of a
new all-wheel-drive control system.
Proceedings of FISITA 2000, 12–21 June, Seoul.
McCann, R. 2000: Variable effort steering for
vehicle stability enhancement using an
electric power steering system. Proceedings
of SAE 2000, Detroit, MI.
Millsap, S.A. and Law, E.H. 1996: Handling
enhancement due to an automotive variable
ratio electric power steering system using
model reference robust tracking control.
Proceedings of SAE 1996, Detroit, MI.
Motoyama, S., Uki, H., Isoda, K. and Yuasa,
H. 1993: Effect of traction force distribution
control on vehicle dynamics. Vehicle System
Dynamics 22, 455–64.
Nagai, M., Hirano, Y. and Yamanaka, S. 1997:
Integrated control of active rear wheel steer-
ing and direct yaw moment control. Vehicle
Systems Dynamics 27, 357–70.
Nagai, M., Hirano, Y. and Yamanaka, S. 1998:
Integrated robust control law of active rear
Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
wheel steering and direct yaw moment
control. Vehicle Systems Dynamics Supplement
28, 416–21.
Nagai, M., Shino, M. and Gao, F. 2002: Study
on integrated control of active front steer
angle and direct yaw moment. JSAE Review
23, 309–15.
Nagai, M., Yamanaka, S. and Hirano, Y. 1996:
Integrated control law of active rear wheel
steering and direct yaw moment control.
Proceedings of AVEC96, September, Aachen,
451–70.
Naito, G., Yaguchi, E. and Ozaki, K. 1992:
Improving vehicle dynamics by torque split
control system. Proceedings of AVEC 92,
September, Yokohoma, 458–463.
Sato, H., Inoue, H., Tabata, M. and Inagaki, S.
1992: Integrated chassis control system for
improved vehicle dynamics. Proceedings of
AVEC 92, September, Yokohoma, 413–18.
Sato, H., Kawai, H., Isikawa, M., Iwata, H.
and Koike, S. 1991: Development of four
wheel steering system using yaw rate feed-
back control. Proceedings of SAE 1991,
Detroit, MI.
Segawa, M., Nishizaki, K. and Nakano, S.
2000: A study of vehicle stability control by
steer by wire system. Proceedings of AVEC
2000, Ann Arbor, MI.
Selby, M.A. 2003: PhD thesis, School of
Mechanical Engineering, University of
Leeds.
Selby, M.A., Manning, W.J., Crolla, D.A. and
Brown, M.D. 2002: A comparison of the
relative benefits of active front steering and
active rear steering when co-ordinated with
direct yaw moment control. ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition. New York, 2001.
Senger, K.-H. and Schwartz, W. 1987: The
influence of a four wheel steering system on
the stability behaviour of a vehicle–
driver system. Vehicle System Dynamics
Supplement 17.
Shibihata, Y., Shimida, K. and Tomari, T. 1992:
Improvement of vehicle maneuverability
by direct yaw moment control. Proceedings
of AVEC 92, September, Yokohoma.
Shimada, K. and Shibihata, Y. 1994:
Comparison of three active chassis control
methods for stabilising yaw moments.
Proceedings of the SAE 1994, Detroit, MI.
Smakman, H. 2000: Functional integration of
active suspension with slip control for
improved lateral vehicle dynamics.

Proceedings of AVEC 2000, August, Ann
Arbor, MI.
Straub, A. 1996: DSC (dynamic stability con-
trol) in BMW 7 series cars. Proceedings of
AVEC96, June, Aachen, 547–57.
Takehara, S. and Sakamoto, K. 2002: Control
logic design and development of electric
power-assisted steering (EPAS). Proceedings
of AVEC 2002, September, Hiroshima.
Tanaka, H., Inoue, H. and Iwata, H. 1992:
Development of a vehicle integrated
control system. Proceedings of the IMECHE
1992, 63–74.
Van Zanten, A.T. 2000: Bosch ESP systems: 5
years of experience. Proceedings of the SAE
2000, Detroit, MI.
Van Zanten, A.T., Erhardt, R., Landesfeind, K.
and Pfaff, G. 1998: VDC the Vehicle
dynamics control system of Bosch.
Proceedings of the SAE 1998, Detroit, MI.
Van Zanten, A.T., Erhardt, R., Pfaff, G., Kost,
F., Hartmann, U. and Ehret, T. 1996: Control
aspects of the Bosch-VDC. Proceedings of
AVEC96, September, Aachen.
Van Zanten, A.T., Erhardt, R. and Pfaff, G.;
VDC. 1995: The vehicle dynamics control
system of Bosch. Proceedings of the SAE 1995,
Detroit, MI.
Weir, D.H. and Di Marco, R.J. 1978,
Correlation and evaluation of driver-vehicle
directional handling data. Proceedings of the
SAE 1978, Detroit, MI.
Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
Manning and Crolla 135
Whitehead, J.C. 1988: Four wheel
steering: maneuverability and high speed
stabilisation. Proceedings of the SAE 1988,
Detroit, MI.
Whitehead, J.C. 1990: Rear wheel steering
dynamics compared to front steering.
Transactions of the ASME 112, 88–93.
Xia, X. and Law, E.H. 1990: Nonlinear
dynamic response of four wheel steering
automobiles to combined braking and
steering commands in collision avoidance
maneuvers. Proceedings of SAE 1990,
Detroit, MI.
Yasui, Y., Tozu, K., Hattori, N. and Nishii, M.
1996a: Vehicle stability enhancement using
brake control. Proceedings of FISITA 1996,
June, Prague.
Yasui, Y., Tozu, K., Hattori, N. and
Sugisawa, M. 1996b: Improvement of vehicle
directional stability for transient maneuvers
using active brake control. Proceedings of SAE
1996, Detroit, MI.
Yoshioka, T., Adachi, T., Butsuen, T.,
Okazaki, H. and Mochizuki, H. 1998:
Application of sliding-mode control to con-
trol vehicle stability. Proceedings of AVEC 98,
September, Nagoya, 455–60.
Yoshioka, T., Adachi, T., Butsuen, T.,
Okazaki, H. and Mochizuki, H. 1999:
Application of sliding-mode theory to direct
yaw-moment control. JSAE Review 20,
523–29.