2015 American Control Conference
Palmer House Hilton
July 1-3, 2015. Chicago, IL, USA
Robust Guaranteed Cost State-delayed Vehicle Lateral Stability
Control with Applications to In-Wheel-Motor-Driven Electric
Vehicles
Xianjian Jin, Guodong Yin, Chentong Bian, Pu Li
Abstract—This paper presents a robust guaranteed cost
state-delayed control design with applications to
in-wheel-motor-driven electric vehicles equipped with active
front steering system. The main control objective is to deal with
the time delay problem of steering system for improving vehicle
lateral stability and handling performance. To address the
challenging problem of time delay, the time delay of steering
system is assumed to be concentrated in vehicle state. By
constructing the Lyapunov-Krakovskii functional, sufficient
condition for the existence of robust guaranteed cost
state-delayed controller is given and solved via a set of linear
matrix inequalities (LMIs).Simulations using a high-fidelity
CarSim full-vehicle model are implemented to evaluate the
performance of the proposed controller in the platform of
Matlab/Simulink-Carsim®. It is confirmed from the simulation
results that the proposed controller can effectively attenuate the
delayed effect of steering system and preserve vehicle lateral
stability and handling performance.
I. INTRODUCTION
Emerging electric vehicles have appeared as promising
vehicle architectures based on several advantages in terms of
high energy efficiency and advanced vehicle dynamics control
[1,2]. In contrast to conventional engine vehicles, the
mechanical link between the driver's action and actuator of
in-wheel-motor-driven electric vehicles (IWMD-EVs) has
been removed and replaced with X-by-wire system (e.g.,
drive-by-wire and brake-by-wire), and IWMD-EVs utilize
in-wheel motors to drive the wheels such that the torque of
each wheel can be controlled independently, which
significantly simplify the traditional vehicle structures and
provide more flexibilities in vehicle dynamics control [2,3].
The active front steering system (AFS) provided by
steer-by-wire technique, together with the direct yaw control
system, possesses potentiality to improve vehicle handling
stability and safety performance [3-8].
As for vehicle yaw stability control of IWMD-EVs, a great
deal of research has been conducted concerning the AFS [4-9].
For instance, based on the real-time lateral tire forces
information from the measurements of multisensing hub
(MSHub) units, a new vehicle yaw stability control method is
*Resrach supported by NSFC (51105074), Foundation of State Key
Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy (KF14192), and Southeast
University Excellent Doctor degree Thesis Training Fund and the Scientific
Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University
(No.YBJJ1429).
X. Jin, G. Yin and P. Li are with the School of Mechanical Engineering,
Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, P.R.China. (e-mail:
jinxianjian@yeah.net, ygd@seu.edu.cn, bianchentong@163.com,
seulp@seu.edu.cn).
978-1-4799-8684-2/$31.00 ©2015 AACC
presented for enhancing the vehicle maneuverability of
in-wheel-motor-driven electric vehicles (IWMD-EVs) with
AFS [4].A robust decoupling control algorithm of yaw
stability was designed for vehicle equipped with AFS and the
steer-by-wire system, the results illustrates the benefits of
designed controller [6]. A mixed linear quadratic regulator
and robust H fault-tolerant controller was designed to
preserve lateral stability of the FWID-EVs with AFS in spite
of three different in-wheel motor faults [8].
Although the aforementioned research achievements were
successful, these existing investigations seldom tackle
time-delay problem in the vehicle yaw stability control system
of IWMD-EVs. Nevertheless, time delay is commonly
encountered in various engineering systems [10]. For vehicle
dynamics systems, unavoidable time delays may appear in the
controlled channel, the time delay may be related to real-time
data acquisition from different vehicle sensors and signal
filtering, especially for the digital controller as it carries out
the calculations associated with complex control law of
integrated vehicle dynamics systems. Though the time delay
may be short, neglecting the time delay may degrade the
control performance of vehicle lateral dynamics control
system and even induce oscillation and instability in the close
control system [7,11]. To address the time delay effect of
vehicle lateral dynamics control system, the time delay of
steering system is assumed to be concentrated in vehicle state.
In order to overcome the time delay problem, the design
process of the controller is need to include the existing state
delay into the controller that not only can guarantee robust
stability of the vehicle system but also can obtain the expected
system control performance.
Robust control theory has been proved to be a powerful
technique in dealing with the time-delay, and the robust
control designs and synthesis analysis for time-delay system
has been widely discussed in the literatures [12,13,15-18]. In
this paper, a novel robust guaranteed cost state-delayed
controller is proposed for IWMD-EVs possessing the AFS
with considerations of state delay. The remainder of the paper
is organized as follows. Section Ⅱ presents vehicle dynamics
state-delayed system. In Section Ⅲ, robust guaranteed cost
state-delayed controller is designed. In Section Ⅳ, simulation
results are presented and discussed. Finally, conclusions are
offered in section Ⅴ.
5408
 Fy11
x (t )    , r  , u (t )    f
T
Fy 21 Fx11
11 f
Fx 21
 2 a 01 2 a 02   2 a 04 2 a 05   2C f 
 21
 mV mV
2
 1  mb V m b1V  2 
mVx

Fyr
Vy
V Fyf A0  
x x
,A  
1 x
,B  
x 
f

f
 2 a 02 2 a 03 
d0
 2 a 05 2 a 06 
0
 2l C 
CG
      
f f

r Vx
 Iz I zV x   Iz I z b1V x   I z 
Fy 22 r
Fx12 2 2
Fy12
12 f a 01  C f  C r , a 02  l r C r  l f C f , a 03  l f C f  l r C r , a 04  l f C f  l r C r
Fx 22
2 2 3 3
 22 Y a 05  l r C r  l f C f , a 06  l f C f  l r C r , b1  l f  l r
lr lf
X
f is the front-wheel steering angle that is controlled by the
AFS controller. Normally, most research papers assume that
Figure 1. Yaw model of vehicle lateral dynamics tire cornering stiffness is constant, it is appropriate for small
tire slip angles to use the fixed tire cornering stiffness[7],[14].
II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS STATE-DELAYED SYSTEM Whereas, when vehicle undergoes high accelerations under
In this section, a yaw plane model shown in Figure 1 is extreme driving maneuvers, the tire slip angle continues to
introduced to describe the motions of a IWMD electric ground grow large, and the tire cornering stiffness begins to change,
vehicle. Assuming that only the front wheel can be steered, calculating lateral forces with the fixed tire cornering stiffness
and neglecting the roll, vertical and pitch motions. The vehicle may not be accurate. In this study, the tire cornering stiffness
dynamic motion of the three-degree-of-freedom model are of tire model can be handled using the uncertain tire cornering
derived as equation (1), which includes the longitudinal, stiffness, which are represented via the norm-bounded
lateral and yaw motion, respectively. uncertainty as follows:
 m (V x  V y r )  F xr  F xf cos  f  F yr sin  f C f  C fm  N f ( t ) C fn , C r  C rm  N r ( t ) C rn (5)


 m V x (   r )  F yr  F yf cos  f  F xf sin  f (1) where
 C fm  ( C f  C f m in ) / 2, C rm  ( C r m ax  C r m in ) / 2
 I r  F xf sin  f l f  F yf cos  f l f  F yr l r m ax
 z
C fn  ( C f  C f m in ) / 2, C rn  ( C r m ax  C r m in ) / 2
where r and β are vehicle yaw rate and vehicle side slip angle m ax

at center of gravity (CG), respectively. Vx,Vy are vehicle N f ( t ), N r ( t ) satisfy N f ( t )  1, N r ( t )  1 .

longitudinal velocity and vehicle lateral vehicle velocity at
Thus, the vehicle state-delayed system can be written as
CG, respectively. δf is the front steering angle, and the front
follows:
steering angles on left and right wheel are assumed to be equal
x ( t )  ( A   A ( t )) x ( t )  ( Ad   Ad ( t )) x ( t   )  ( B   B ( t )) u ( t )
(δfl=δfr=δf). Fxf and Fyf are the longitudinal tire force and
lateral tire force of front wheels, Fxr and Fyr are the (6)
longitudinal tire force and lateral tire force of rear wheels. m where
and Iz are the sprung mass and vehicle moment of inertia about  2 a 07 2 a 08   2 a10 2 a11 
yaw axes, respectively. The lateral tire forces can be modeled  mV mVx
2
 1  mV mVx 
2

A   ,  A (t )   
x x
as [6]:  2 a 08 2 a 09   2 a11 2 a12 
F yf   2 C f  f , F yr   2 C r  r (2)      
 Iz I zV x   Iz I zV x 
where Cf and Cr are the tire cornering stiffness for front and
 2 a13 2 a14   2 a16 2 a17 
rear tires, respectively. αf and αr are the tire slip angle for front  
m b1V x  m b1V x 
2 2
m b1V x m b1V x
and rear tires, respectively. In this paper, the state delay Ad    ,  A (t )  
d

includes the communication delay of the control signals  2 a14 2 a15   2 a17 2 a18 
     
between the controller and the actuator and the delay taken by  Iz I z b1V x   Iz I z b1V x 
processing the calculations in the digital controller. According a 07  C fm  C rm , a 08  l r C rm  l f C fm , a 09  l f C fm  l r C rm
2 2

to [10,15], this amount of time-delay are assumed known with

80ms, and then Considering the state delay  for vehicle a10  N f ( t ) C fn  N r ( t ) C rn , a 11  l r N r ( t ) C rn  l f N f ( t ) C fn
system gives 2
a12  l f N f ( t ) C fn  l r N r ( t ) C rn
2

2 2 3 3
 f  (V y  l f r ) / V x   f  l f (V y ( t   )  l f r ( t   )) / ( l f  l r )V x
 a13  l f C fm  l r C rm , a14  l r C rm  l f C fm , a15  l f C fm  l r C rm
 (3)
 r  (V y  l r r ) / V x  l r (V y ( t   )  l r r ( t   )) / ( l f  l r )V x
2 2
 a16  l f N f ( t ) C fn  l r N r ( t ) C rn , a 17  l r N r ( t ) C rn  l f N f ( t ) C fn
3 3
a18  l f N f ( t ) C fn  l r N r ( t ) C rn
If the vehicle is running at a constant speed, combining
all the previous equations gives the state-space representation B   2 C fmV / m , 2 l f C fm / I z 
T

of the vehicle state-delayed system for vehicle lateral T

dynamics control as follows:  B ( t )   2 N f ( t ) C fnV / m , 2 l f N f ( t ) C fn / I z 
 
x ( t )  A0 x ( t )  Ad 0 x ( t   )  B 0 u ( t ) (4)
Based on the fact that the road conditions are usually uniform
where for the front and rear tires in most cases, we assume
N f ( t )  N r ( t )  N e ( t ) , and the vehicle state-delayed system can

be further written as

5409
 x ( t )  ( A  Aa N a  a ) x ( t )  ( Ad  Ad N d  d ) x ( t   )  Ad H  1 Aa  2 Ad Za
T
0  3 Bu (  uW )
T
Z W
T
Z 
(7)  T 
 ( B  Bu N u  w )u (t )  H 0 0 0 H d 0 0 0 0 0 
   1I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
where     2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 2 a19 2 a 20   2 a 22 2 a 23   
     1I 0 0 0 0 0 0
 mV mVx 
2  mb V m b 01V x 
2
 
      2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aa   ,A   
x 01 x
 
 2 a 20 2 a 21 
d
 2 a 23 2 a 24         3I 0 0 0 0 
              3I 0 0 0 
 Iz I zV x   Iz I z b 01V x   1

        Q 0 0 
 N e (t ) 0           R
1
0 
Na  Nd    , a   d  Ia  
 0 N e (t )              H 

B u   2 C fnV x / m , 2 l f C fn / I z 
  where   Z  Z ,   ( AZ  BW )  ( AZ  BW )
T
, and the
2
a19  C fn  C rn , a 20  l r C rn  l f C fn , a 21  l C fn  l C rn
f
2
r
guaranteed cost control law
2 2 3
a 22  l f C fn  l r C rn , a 23  l r C rn  l f C fn , a 24  l f C fn  l r C rn
3 u (t )  W Z
1
x (t) (14)
and
N u  N e ( t ),  u  I u 0

J   (0) Z  (0) 
T 1
 
T 1
( ) H  ( ) d  (15)


III. ROBUST GUARANTEED COST STATE-DELAYED Proof. Construct the following Lyapunov-Krasovskii
CONTROLLER DESIGN
functional as
t
T
V ( x t )  x ( t ) Px ( t )   x ( )Sx ( ) d 
T
(16)
To improve lateral stability control and handling t 

performance of the vehicle, the main control objective is to Then, taking the time derivative of V ( xt ) along the
track the desired references. Associated with the delay system closed-loop system (10) trajectory gives
(6) is the following cost function: L ( x t , t )  2 x ( t ) P  ( A  Aa N a  a )  ( B  B u N u  u ) K  x ( t )  2 x ( t )
T T

  
J    x ( t ) Qx ( t )  u ( t ) Ru ( t ) 

T T
 (8)
P [ Ad  Ad N d  d ] x ( t   )  x ( t ) Sx ( t )  x ( t   ) Sx ( t   )
T T
0

where Q and R are given constant matrices.   (t )   (t )

T
(17 )
Now, consider the guaranteed cost memoryless
state-feedback control law for the state-delayed system where
u ( t )  K x (t) (9)  ( t )   x ( t )
T T
x ( t   )  , x ( t )   ( t ), t    , 0 
T

Then, the resulting state-space representation of the

  11  12 
closed-loop system can be obtained as   
T
 ,  11    Q  K R K
x ( t )  A c x ( t )  A d x ( t   ) (10)   21  22 
T
where   [( A  Aa N a  a )  ( B  B u N u  u ) K ] P  P [( A  A a N a  a )
A c  A  B K , A  A  Aa N a  a , B  B  B u N u  u  ( B  Bu N u  u ) K ]  Q  K R K  S
T

T
A d  Ad  Ad N d  d  12  P [ Ad  Ad N d  d ],  21  [ Ad  Ad N d  d ] P
To design the controller, we introduce the following lemmas.  22   S
Lemma 1 [16]. Let    T ,  and  are real matrices with
It implies that
compatible dimensions, and N (t) satisfying N (t)  1 .Then the T
L ( x t , t )  x ( t )(  Q  K RK ) x ( t )  0
T
(18)
following condition: Therefore, the closed-loop system (10) is asymptotically
   N ( t )   N ( t )   0
T
(11) T
stable, we integrate for both sides of the inequality (18) from 0
holds if and only if there exists a positive scalar ε> 0 such that to T as
T
  
T
   x ( t )(  Q  K RK ) x ( t )dt  x (T ) Px (T )  x (0) Px (0)
T T T T

  0

  I 0 0 (12) T 0

 x ( ) Sx ( )d   x ( ) Sx ( )d  (19)
T T
 
    I  T  

We first present the sufficient condition of the existence As the closed-loop system (10) is asymptotically stable, when
for robust guaranteed cost state-delayed controller in the T,
vehicle state-delayed system (10),the the sufficient condition T

is given via a set of linear matrix inequalities (LMIs).

T
x (T ) Px (T ) 0, T  x T ( ) Sx ( )d  0 (20)
Theorem 1: For the closed-loop system (10) with the cost Then, we get
function (8), the robust guaranteed cost state-delayed T 0
(21
 x ( t )(  Q  K RK ) x ( t )dt   (0) P (0)    ( ) S  ( )d 
T T T T

controller (9) exists such that the closed-loop system is 0 

asymptotically stable, if and only if there exist εi, Q,R,W and In terms of Schur complement, the  in Eq.(17) can be
symmetric positive definite matrices Z and H that satisfy the rewritten as
following matrix inequalities (13):    1   1 N 1 ( t )1  1 N 1 ( t )  1
T T
(22)
where

5410
 1 P Ad I K 
T
 P Aa P Ad  Remark: The above theorems present the robust guaranteed
    cost state-delayed controller (RGCSC) design for close
 S 0 0  0 0  Na 0 
1   , 1   , N 1 (t )    vehicle state-delayed system. If the state delay cannot be
  Q
1   
0 0 0  0 Nd 
considered in the close system, i.e., vehicle lateral dynamics
 1
  
     R   0 0  system are conventional system without the state delay, and
 a 0 0 0 the close control system Eq. (10) can be expressed as
1    x ( t )  A c x ( t )
 0 d 0 0 (27)
T  A x ( t )  B  K x ( t )
 1   A  ( B  B u N u  u ) K  P  P  A  ( B  B u N u  u ) K   S
where A  A  Aa N a  a , B  B  B u N u  u
Then, by applying the Lemma 1,we have
and then, the robust guaranteed cost controller (RGCC) can be
1 P Ad  1 P Aa  2 P Ad a
T
0 I K
T
 also designed, whereas the design process is different from the
 
  S 0 0 0 
T
d
0 0  above theorems, the controller design without considering the
    1I 0 0 0 0 0  state delay only need using the Lyapunov function rather than
  the Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional and the state
     2 I 0 0 0 0 
 
0 (23) transformation. Here the objective of designing the RGCC is
     1I 0 0 0
  to make a comparison with the proposed controller.
       2 I 0 

0

Therefore, the specific process is omitted in this paper.
1
       Q 0 
       
1 
R  IV. SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS

Similarly, repeate the above procedure one using the
Schur complement and the Lemma 1 , since this proved Simulation results are presented in this section to
process of this step is very similar to the above procedure, demonstrate the capability of dealing with the state delay of
here the detailed process is omitted, and then performing a the proposed controller. It is worth noting that CarSim is a
widely used dynamic software where incorporates a
congruence transformation with diag  Z , H , I ...I  .
27-degree-of-freedom vehicle model equipped with virtual
Thereby, we can obtain matrix inequalities (13). and the sensors as a standard feature, which can simulate and analyze
proof is completed. the dynamic handling behavior of different vehicles under
In the following, to obtain the optimal guaranteed cost diversiform driving conditions. According to the parameters
control for the closed-loop system, we solve the certain of the experimental electric vehicles in our laboratory (Table
optimization problem by the following theorem. 1), the simulation model of the high-fidelity CarSim
Theorem 2: For the closed-loop system (10) with the cost full-vehicle model was obtained using CarSim, utilizing
function (8), if the following optimization problem: Carsim® and co-simulation between Carsim® and Simulink,
m in   tr ( M ) two different maneuvers including step turning and single lane
 ,  ,W , H , M
change maneuver are implemented to verify and evaluate the
s .t . ( a ). (1 3) effectiveness of the proposed controller. In the simulations,
   (0 ) 
T the robust guaranteed cost state-delayed controller (RGCSC)
( b ).  0
(24)
and the robust guaranteed cost controller (RGCC) are
  (0 ) Z 
compared and analyzed simultaneously for vehicle lateral
 M N T
dynamics system with the state delay. For the time response
( c ).  0
 N H  simulations, it is worth noting that the references of yaw rate
has a solution ε,,W,H,M, then the control law of form (14) is are defined in terms of vehicle parameters, and the desired
an optimal memoryless state feedback guaranteed cost control yaw rate can be expressed as follows [1,7]:
0
law ,where   ( ) T ( ) d   NN T , and tr(M) denotes the Vx
 rref  2
f (28)
trace of the matrix M. ( l f  l r )(1  k usV x )
Proof. By Theorem 1, the control law (14) constructed in
where kus is a stability factor.
terms of any feasible solution ,,W,H,M,Z is a guaranteed
cost controller of system (10). Reference the methods of proof Table 1 The parameters for the experimental electric vehicles
in [12, 16], and based on the Schur complement, the (b) in Eq. Parameter Value
(24) is equivalent to  T (0) Z  1 (0)   . The (c) in Eq. (24) is
Sprung mass ms 1000kg
equivalent to N T H  1 N  M , On the other hand, Distance,the CG to front 1.1m,1.3m
0
1
0
1 and rear axle,Lf, Lr
  ( ) H  ( ) d     tr ( ( ) H  ( ))d 
T T

 
Vehicle moment of inertia 781.6 kgm2
 tr ( N N H
T 1
) (25) about yaw axis Iz
 tr ( N H
1 T
N )  tr ( M ) Front and rear tires 25325 N/rad,27280N/rad
and then it follows from Eq. (15) that cornering stiffness Cf ,Cr
J    tr ( M ) (26)
Thus, the proof is finished.

5411
A. Step turning 100km/s). As shown in Fig.4 (a), the single lane change
Firstly, the step turning test was performed under low maneuver is more severe than the step turning, which is
vehicle longitudinal velocity (about 30km/s). The simulation applied to further verify the performance of the proposed
results are shown in Figs.2-3, where Fig. 2 shows the steering controller. Fig.4 (b) displays vehicle longitudinal velocity for
wheel angle and vehicle the longitudinal velocity, Fig. 3 single lane change maneuver. From the Fig.4 (a) and (b), we
shows the comparison of yaw rate for RGCSC and RGCC can see that the vehicle undergoes the heavy steering demands
under step turning. As can be seen from Fig.3, the proposed with high vehicle velocity. The tracking performance of yaw
RGCSC can track the desired yaw rate well for vehicle lateral rate between the proposed RGCSC and the RGCC is
dynamics state-delayed system, whereas the RGCC generates compared in Fig.5. Similarly, significant oscillations of
oscillations in the transient process and error in steady state. tracked yaw rate when using the RGCC controller can be
For instance, during the time interval (2-4s), large oscillations observed again, and the greater oscillations still exist even
can be observed. The phenomenon can be clearly explained when the steering wheel angle returns to zero in the last 4 s
due to the time delay that leads to the weak tracking (6-10s), which indicates the RGCC without considerations of
performance of the RGCC because the RGCC controller state delay may degrade the control performance and even
design does not consider the delay of vehicle lateral dynamics induce the instability of vehicle lateral dynamics control
system. system. On the contrary, the RGCC controller can effectively
track the desired yaw rate and always keeps good tracking
20 performance under extreme single lane change maneuver.
40
Steering wheel angle (deg)

15 30

Steering wheel angle (deg)

20
10 10

0
5 -10

-20
0 -30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
-40
0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Time (s)
31.2 (a)
31 101.5
Longitudinal speed (km/h)

30.8 101
Longitudinal speed (km/h)

30.6 100.5

30.4 100

30.2 99.5

30 99

29.8 98.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
98
0 2 4 6 8 10
(b) Time (s)
Figure 2. (a) Steering wheel angle and (b) vehicle longitudinal (b)
velocity for step turning Figure 4. (a) Steering wheel angle and (b) vehicle longitudinal
10
velocity for single lane change maneuver
Reference
15
GGCC
8 RGCSC
10
Yaw rate (deg/s)

5
6
Yaw rate (deg/s)

0
4
-5

2 -10
Reference
-15 RGCC
0 RGCSC
0 2 4 6 8 10 -20
Time (s) 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Figure 3. Comparison of yaw rate for RGCC and RGCSC under
Figure 5. Comparison of yaw rate for RGCC and RGCSC under
step turning single lane change maneuver
B. Single lane change maneuver
The single lane change maneuver is carried out to evaluate V. CONCLUSION
vehicle yaw stability under extreme single-lane change In this paper, a robust guaranteed cost state-delayed
maneuvers with high vehicle longitudinal velocity (about

5412
controller is proposed to improve lateral stability and handling
of IWMD-EVs through the AFS system with the state delay.
Two different maneuvers including step turning and single
lane change maneuver are implemented to evaluate the
performance of the proposed controller. The simulation
results show that the proposed controller is capable of dealing
with the time delay problem of vehicle lateral dynamics
system. Furthermore, this study also reveals that the time
delay may degrade the control performance of vehicle lateral
dynamics system, thus the time delay effect for vehicle
dynamics system should be further researched in future works.
[16] Y.Lee, Y.Moon, W.Kwon and P. Park, "Delay-dependent robust H
control for uncertain systems with a state-delay,” Automatica, vol. 40,
no. 1, pp.65-72,2004.
[17] L.Yu and J. Chu. "An LMI approach to guaranteed cost control of linear
uncertain time-delay systems." Automatica, vol. 35, no. 6,
pp.1155-1159, 1999.
[18] L. Wu and W. X. Zheng, “Passivity-based sliding mode control of
uncertain singular time-delay systems,” Automatica, vol.45, no.9,
pp.2120–2127, 2009.

REFERENCES
[1] J.Wang and R.G.Longoria, “Coordinated and reconfigurable vehicle
dynamics control,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol.17, no.3,
pp.723–732,May 2009.
[2] Y. Hori, “Future vehicle driven by electricity and control-research on
four-wheel-motored ‘UOT Electric March II’,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron.,vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 954–962, 2004.
[3] J. Yamakawa, A. Ko jimaa, and K. Watanabe, “A method of torque
control for independent wheel drive vehicles on rough terrain, ”J.
Terramech.,vol.44,no.5,pp.371–381, 2007.
[4] K.Nam,H.Fujimoto and Y.Hori,"Advanced motion control of electric
vehicles based on robust lateral tire force control via active front
steering,"IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.
289-299, 2014.
[5] X.Jin,G.Yin and N.Chen,“Gain-scheduled Robust Control for Lateral
Stability of Four-Wheel-Independent-Drive Electric Vehicles via
Linear Parameter-Varying Technique,” Mechatronics,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2014.12.008.
[6] B. Zheng and S. Anwar, “Yaw stability control of a steer-by-wire
equipped vehicle via active front wheel steering,” Mechatronics, vol.
19,no. 6, pp. 799–804, 2009.
[7] Z. Shuai, H. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Li, and M. Ouyang, "Combined AFS
and DYC Control of Four-Wheel-Independent-Drive Electric Vehicles
over CAN Network with Time-Varying Delays,”IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 591–602, 2014.
[8] R. Wang and J. Wang, “Fault-tolerant control with active fault
diagnosis for four-wheel independently-driven electric ground
vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 4276–4287,
Nov. 2011.
[9] K. Gu and S. Niculescu,“Survey on recent results in the stability and
control of time-delay systems,”ASMETrans.J.Dyn.Syst., Meas.,
Control , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 158–165,2003.
[10] C. Choi and W. Lee "Analysis and compensation of time delay effects
in hardware-in-the-loop simulation for automotive PMSM drive
system,” IEEE Trans.Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 3403-3410, Apr.
2012.
[11] H. Du and N. Zhang, " H control of active vehicle suspensions with
actuator time delay,” J. Sound Vibrat., vol. 301, no. 1/2, pp.
236–252,Mar. 2007.
[12] H.Karimi and H.Gao,“New delay-dependent exponential
synchronization for uncertain neural networks with mixed time
delays,”IEEE Trans.Syst, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B:
Cybernetics.,vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 173-185,2010.
[13] X.Jin and G.Yin, “Estimation of lateral tire-road Forces and sideslip
Angle for electric Vehicles using interacting multiple model filter
approach, ”Int. J. Franklin Inst., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfra
nklin.2014.05.008.
[14] L.Mianzo and H.Peng,“Output Feedback H Preview Control of an
Electro-Mechanical Valve Actuator,”IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol.,vol.15, No. 3, pp.428-437.2007.
[15] H. Zhang, Y. Shi, and J. Wang, “Observer-based tracking controller
design for networked predictive control systems with uncertain Markov
delays,” Int. J. Control, vol. 86, no. 10, pp. 1824-1836, 2013.

5413