Nonlinear Dyn (2022) 108:3467–3484
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-022-07210-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Adaptive constrained antilock braking control under
unknown time-varying slip-friction characteristics
Yanan Qiu · Zhiyong Dai
Received: 8 May 2021 / Accepted: 4 January 2022 / Published online: 10 April 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022
Abstract It is clear that the unknown and uncertain
slip-friction characteristics arose difficulties in both
determining the optimal wheel slip and adopting the
accurate friction forces for the ABS. In this study,
the authors presented a nonlinear control strategy with
adaptive ability under the time-varying but unknown
friction conditions while adopting wheel slip range as
time-domain constraints. Three fundamental issues are
addressed in this study: the judgement of the wheel slip
region, the estimation of the uncertain friction and the
actuator dynamics. In this research, a range of operat-
ing wheel slip is resolved as a control target area and
an asymmetric barrier Lyapunov function is adopted to
cast constraints while tracking a reference wheel slip.
An observer is developed seamlessly into the backstep-
ping procedure to estimate the unknown friction coeffi-
cient. The motor dynamics is fully considered to inves-
tigate the practical behavior under the physical satura-
tions of the actuation system. The proposed controller
guarantees the boundedness of output constraints and
the asymptotic stability with a thorough mathematical
proof. Simulation results confirms the effectiveness of
the constraints on wheel slip, the accuracy of the esti-
Y. Qiu (B)
School of Aerospace Science of Technology, Xidian
University, Xi’an 710126, Shaanxi, China
e-mail: ynqiu@xidian.edu.cn
Z. Dai
School of Mechano-Electronic Engineering, Xidian University,
Xi’an 710071, Shaanxi, China
mation and the robustness against uncertainties under
time-varying friction conditions.
Keywords Time-varying friction estimation ·
Nonlinear adaptive control · Antilock braking system
(ABS) · Constrained control
1 Introduction
The anti-lock braking system (ABS) is a safety-critical
mechanism that prevents wheel locking during brak-
ing. Two basic objectives of ABS are to maximize
braking forces to achieve efficient performance, and
to preserve acceptable lateral forces simultaneously
to maintain adequate steerability and stability of the
vehicle [13]. Hereby, two primary issues are focused
toward the design of ABS: what is the optimal oper-
ating region with high efficiency, and how to ensure
ABS work robustly subject to unknown and possibly
changing road conditions. In this study, instead of reg-
ulating the wheel slip at an optimal point (λ → λ∗ ), a
range of operating wheel slip (λ ∈ [λl , λh ]) is resolved
as a control target area to cast output constraints on
tracking a reference wheel slip, which can ensure the
wheel slip stay with a safe region to avoid wheel lock-
ing as well as to guarantee the stability of the system.
Moreover, incorporating estimation of friction coeffi-
cient can ensure the robustness of the braking perfor-
mance against the unknown time-varying friction in the
realm.
123
3468
Three fundamental issues that determine the per-
formance of ABS are addressed in this study: (1) the
judgement of the wheel slip range with consideration
of internal coupling between longitudinal forces and
lateral forces; and (2) the robustness against the fric-
tion uncertainty of the tire-road adhesion; (3) the actu-
ator dynamics with the formalization of the demanding
torque.
Both the first factor and the second factor are related
to the unknown and uncertain slip-friction characteris-
tics, which vary widely along with many factors, such
as different road conditions and wheel loads. In other
words, the tire-road adhesion is highly dependent on
both the wheel slip and the road conditions [18], in
turn, the optimal wheel slip correspondent to the max-
imum friction is linked to the slip-friction character-
istics. Thus, it is clear that the maximization of tire-
road adhesion at an optimum wheel slip is not easy
to achieve and cannot always be satisfactory. Unfortu-
nately, the misjudgment of the optimal wheel slip will
bring difficulty in judging the proper braking torques on
the brake mechanism. Insufficient braking torques will
result in a comprised braking efficiency, while exces-
sive braking torques will cause further increase in the
wheel slip beyond its optimum value. Moreover, the
latter case will lead to less generation of the longitu-
dinal forces and dramatic decrease in the lateral force
[7]. Consequently, the reduction in tire-road adhesion
can result in the loss of lateral steerability and stability
via blocking of the tire rotation [9], thereby may lock
the wheel.
Addressing the first factor, this work is paying atten-
tion to cast output constraints on the wheel slip to ensure
that the ABS should only operate within a region, such
that the excessive wheel torques can be controlled to
decrease to the level where the lateral forces are not
jeopardized as well as the longitudinal forces stay close
to the maximum values. In addition, the nonlinearities
and the uncertainties in the slip-friction characteristics
arose challenges to make ABS work robustly under
changing road conditions. An estimation of the tire-
road friction coefficient during the braking maneuver
is adopted to address the second factor.
In the last few decades, numerous advanced control
methods has been investigated to address the aforemen-
tioned two issues primarily in three scopes. In the first
type, as given in [19,20,22,27,31,36], the slip-friction
characteristics were considered to be known a priori,
where ABSs were designed to regulate the wheel slip
123
Y. Qiu, Z. Dai
at a priori optimal point based on the look-up tabular
approaches. These tables have been calibrated through
iterative laboratory experiments and engineering field
tests under specified road conditions, and were widely
used in most commercial cars [18]. However, these
methods may not be adaptive or robust when the road
conditions are not consistent with the priori model. In
the second type, as given in [1,17,24], the dynamic
behavior of the tire-road adhesion was considered in
advance and was resolved with an estimation of friction
coefficient, while the wheel slip have been set to track
one reference value which was appropriate for the road
condition, where both the accuracy and the responding
time of the estimation procedure are crucial to the sys-
tem. In the third type, as given in [9,10,34,37], both
optimal wheel slip or road conditions were unknown,
the online estimation friction coefficient was utilized to
seek the peak point of μ − λ curves with respect to the
unknown and possibly changing road conditions. This
group of methods highly relied on the computing unit
and required feasible measurements with sensors.
However, issue related to the third factor is relatively
new and have recently received attention because elec-
tric motors are increasingly used in electric vehicles
(EVs) along with the needs of the market and the envi-
ronment [7,12,29]. The ABS function for full EVs can
be realized using both traditional friction forces and
negative torques from motors. So far, the majority of the
relevant research is focused on exploiting regenerative
torques (such as electro motive force, EMF) and also
blended composition with frictional braking to improve
the performance of ABS [8,13,25], where the opera-
tional condition and the braking dynamics determine
the involvement of regenerative torques. However, in
practice, the pure regenerative torques can hardly arrive
the torque demands, while the conjunction of motion
will complicate the ABS control strategy and risk the
vehicle safety. As such, in almost all existing EVs, it
is common to disengage the regenerative torque dur-
ing the activation of ABS and decelerate the vehicle
entirely by the frictional braking [6].
The electro-mechanical brakes (EMB) with thor-
ough consideration of direct current (DC) motor dynam-
ics are investigated in this work. It is clear that the
performance and the stability of the vehicle heavily
depend on the proper operation of the motors. Since
the electric motors can be controlled more precisely
and significantly efficient with inexpensive and mature
control methods, the EMBs can continuously achieve
Adaptive constrained antilock braking control
fast and accurate torque responses comparing with the
hydraulic-based friction brakes [2,7], and can supply
higher torque comparing with pure electric brakes [8].
This, on the one hand, reduces or even eliminates the
coupling between motors and vehicles with its higher
bandwidth frequency of motors (above 10 Hz compar-
ing to 3–10 Hz with conventional ones) [7,13], and on
the other hand allows ABS control to be formulated as
a classical regulation problem due to the accurate con-
tinuous adjustment of the clamping forces during the
braking process [34]. Although more research needs
be carried on to downsize EMB and to reduce its high
energy consumption, the mentioned advantages pro-
vide DC motors to be a good candidate for low-cost
EVs in this extremely cost-sensitive market [5].
In this study, the first factor is transformed into
nonlinear constrained control philosophy, where the
wheel slip operating region is thoroughly analyzed with
respect to different or even changing road conditions,
and both the upper bound and lower bound of wheel
slip are achieved as constraints. The second factor is
resolved to an online estimation by adopting friction
coefficient as a time-varying unknown parameter in
a traditional nonlinear system, where the controller
robustness to model uncertainty is investigated through
theoretical proof and simulation study. The dynamics
of electrical motors are fully taken into account to han-
dle with the third factor, such as the bandwidth and the
physical saturation of the motor in the operating status,
where the implementation of electric motor dynamics
construct the braking system as a high-order system.
From the perspective of control methods, the bar-
rier Lyapunov function (BLF) [21] has been well-
studied to handle with nonlinear constrained sys-
tem control without explicit solutions of the systems
recently [28,35]. Unlike the original Lyapunov func-
tions, this special Lyapunov candidate grows infin-
ity whenever any function arguments approach certain
limiting values, which ensures the constraints not be
transgressed along the system trajectories. However,
most of the mentioned methods borrowed backstep-
ping technology [16], where the problem of ‘explosion
of complexity’ grows as the system order n increases.
Thereby, dynamic surface control (DSC) [33] is intro-
duced to eliminate repeated differentiation induced
from employing the dynamics of the electric motors
in this work.
In this paper, the authors develop a low conser-
vatism nonlinear control strategy with adaptive ability
3469
to tackle with the unknown slip-friction characteristics
while considering the wheel slip range as time-domain
constraints based on BLFs and DSC. Our algorithm
presents several new interesting points. First, it copes
with the wheel slip operating region directly by using
constrained control so as to improve the braking effi-
ciency in the longitudinal direction as well as to avoid
the loss of control and stability in the lateral direction.
Second, the method does not require any knowledge
either of the current road conditions or of the instanta-
neous value of the normal force exerted on the tire.
Third, the global asymptotic stability to the desired
set point is proved mathematically with giving precise
bounds on the gains of the control laws. Fourth, the
simulation results confirm the interests of the method.
The outline of this paper is organized as follows: a
quarter car model together with the actuator dynamics
are discussed in Sect. 2. The preliminaries of the barrier
Lyapunov function are formulated in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4,
the adaptive constrained control strategy incorporating
with an online estimation of friction coefficient is pre-
sented and its stability is demonstrated. The simulation
study under different road conditions and road transi-
tions are given in Sect. 5. The conclusions are drawn
in the last section.
2 Formulation of ABS
A relatively simple but effective mathematical model
has been built for the system analysis, design and test-
ing study of the control law. It is pertinent to dis-
cuss some principal assumptions that are practically
considered in this work. First, the modeling and con-
trol design are primarily presented under the braking
maneuver, but extended applications under accelera-
tion are briefly discussed in Sects. 3 and 4. Second, it
is assumed that the control unit has an access to the
system states through sensors or observers, followed
by elaboration in each subject.
2.1 Single-corner model
The single-corner model is widely used in the ABS
design for its simple but proper description of the longi-
tudinal vehicle braking dynamics [14,31,36]. To appro-
priately describe the model, it is assumed that the ver-
tical load of the vehicle is uniformly distributed, the
123
3470
Fig. 1 Quarter car forces
and torques
braking torque is symmetrically applied and both the
lateral forces and the interaction between wheels are
neglected. It is also assumed that the vehicle can main-
tain the correct heading under asymmetric disturbance
by using the steering system. In addition, the speed
information is assumed to be available to the control
unit by well-investigated methods in this work, such
as measuring speed of non-driving wheels [7], imple-
menting observers [11] or installing a fifth wheel [15].
The linear and the rotational motion of the wheel
during the braking process is shown in Fig. 1, and the
dynamics can be described as Eq. (1) [36].
m V̇x = − F f
(1)
Jw ω̇w = rw F f − Tb ,
where m is the mass of a quarter vehicle, Jw is the wheel
inertia, rw is the tire rolling effective radius, Vx is the
longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, ωw is the angu-
lar velocity of the wheel, F f is the tire-ground adhe-
sion force, Tb is the braking torque generated by the
actuation system. Furthermore, the tire-ground adhe-
sion force F f is often modeled as:
F f = Fn μ(λ, Vx ), (2)
where Fn is the normal tire reaction force that depends
on the mass, location of the center of gravity, and the
steering and suspension dynamics, and Fn = mg is
denoted in this work; μ is a nonlinear factor defined
as the ground-contact friction coefficient depending on
the road condition, the wheel slip λ and other parame-
ters, such as the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle Vx .
It is worthy mentioned here the value of μ is estimated
through an observer developed in the control algorithm.
The wheel slip ratio λ during braking is formalized
as:
Vx − ωw rw
λ= . (3)
Vx
According to Eq. (3), 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1 can be obtained. λ = 0
represents the pure rolling condition (Vx = ωw rw ),
while λ = 1 corresponds to the pure slip condition
(ωw = 0), namely locked.
123
Y. Qiu, Z. Dai
Table 1 Denotations of DC dynamics
Name Description
ωm Motor angular velocity
im Motor armature current
e Applied armature voltage
eb Back-EMF voltage
Te Motor electromagnetic torque
TL Motor friction torque
Jm Moment of inertia of motor
R Resistance of motor
L Inductance of motor
ke Back-EMF constant
kt Motor electromagnetic torque constant
2.2 Actuator dynamics
The actuation system consists of the DC motor con-
trolled with a variable armature voltage and a gearbox
transmission to utilize the friction force on the pedal.
To simplify the model, it is assumed that the motor is at
the idle state or the reverse state. The dynamics of the
DC motor can be described as Eq. (4) with parameters
depicted in Table 1.
Jm ω̇m = Te − TL = kt i m − TL
(4)
e = L i̇ m + Ri m + eb = L i̇ m + Ri m + ke ωm .
Due to the fluctuation of the friction coefficient
between the brake pad and the brake disk, it is acknowl-
edged that a typical displacement versus pressure curve
is not linear, where hysteresis is an attribute of the
majority of EMBs [30]. In this paper, the braking torque
is assumed to be proportional to brake pressure [23],
while the brake pressure is assumed to be proportional
to the relative angle of the motor θm . Thereby, the brak-
ing torque Tb can be formalized by the relative angle of
the motor θm through a torque constant kω with a func-
tion Tb = kω θm , where the braking torque is assumed
to be linear for small values of the relative angle and
safely saturates at higher levels [3,32]. Thus, the brak-
ing torque coupled with the DC motor can be formal-
ized as Equation (5),
Ṫb = kω ωm . (5)
where kω is determined by the gear ratio and the tor-
sional spring constant. Note that an observer-based tor-
sional spring constant can be adopted to the control unit
Adaptive constrained antilock braking control 3471

in a realm. However, a normal spring constant is used where

in this simulation study. x1 = λ; x2 = Tb ; x3 = ωm ; x4 = i m ; u = e
rw
f 1 = φ1 (x1 )μ; g1 =
Vx Jw
2.3 Vehicle braking system dynamics f 2 = 0; g2 = kω
TL kt
Substitute Eq. (2) into (1) to calculate V̇x and ω̇w , f3 = − ; g3 =
Jm Jm
R ke 1
V̇x = −gμ f 4 = − i m − ωm ; g4 = .
(6) L L L
mgμrw Tb
ω̇w = − . Here, x i = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xi ]T , i = 1, . . . , 4 represents
Jw Jw
the states, f i , gi are smooth functions. u and y are the
Taking the time derivative of Eq. (3), we obtain input and output, respectively. μ ∈ Rl is an unknown
time-varying parameter, with its dynamics depicted as
(1 − λ)V̇x − rw ω̇w
λ̇ = . (7) μ̇ = (t); φ1 (x1 ) ∈ Rl is the regressor vector, whose
Vx
elements are previously known functions of the states.
Substituting Eqs. (6) into (7), it follows:
(1 − λ) rw
λ̇ = − gμ − (mgrw μ − Tb ) 3 BLF formulation and main assumptions
Vx Vx Jw
(1 − λ) r2 rw Definition 1 [35] Barrier Lyapunov function is a con-
=−[ g + w mg]μ + Tb (8)
Vx Vx Jw Vx Jw tinuously differentiable and positive definite scalar
rw function V (x), defined with respect to the system ẋ =
= f 1 (λ, μ) + Tb ,
Vx Jw f (x) on an open region D containing the origin. It has
where continuous first-order partial derivatives at every point
of D, has the property V (x) → ∞ as x approaches
  the boundary of D, and satisfies V (x(t)) ≤ b, ∀t ≥ 0
(1 − λ) r2
f 1 (λ, μ) = φ1 (λ)μ, φ1 (λ) = − g + w mg . along the solution of ẋ = f (x) for x(0) ∈ D and some
Vx Vx Jw
positive constant b.
It is clear that φ1 (λ) is a smooth function, and μ is
The following Assumptions and Lemmas are useful for
the unknown time-varying friction coefficient related
establishing constraint satisfaction and performance
to the wheel slip λ and the road conditions.
bounds.
By incorporating the actuation system, we can
acquire the model of the vehicle braking system as Eq. Assumption 1 There exist positive constants k c1 , k c1 ,
(9). Yl0 , Yh0 , Y1 , Y2 , such that the desired trajectory yd (t)
rw and its time derivatives satisfy k c1 ≤ −Yl0 ≤ yd (t) ≤
λ̇ = f 1 (λ, μ) + Tb Yh0 ≤ k c1 and | y˙d (t)| ≤ Y1 , | y¨d (t)| ≤ Y2 , ∀t ≥ 0,
Vx Jw
implying that they are continuous and available in a
Ṫb = kω ωm
compact set  yd := {yd ∈ R : yd2 + ẏd2 + ÿd2 ≤ δ yd } ⊂
kt TL (9) R.
ω̇m = im −
Jm Jm
R ke 1 Assumption 2 The functions gi are positive, and there
i̇ m = − i m − ωm + e. exists a class of positive constants gi min and gi max such
L L L
that 0 < gi min ≤ gi (x i ) ≤ gi max for x1 ∈ (k c1 , k c1 ).
Rewrite Eq. (9) into a standard single-input single-
output (SISO) strict feedback nonlinear system, Assumption 3 The unknown time-varying parameter
μ(t) and its first-order derivative (t) are smooth and
ẋi = f i (x i ) + gi (x i )xi+1 , i = 1, 2, 3 bounded, there exist positive constants and
such
ẋ4 = f 4 (x 4 ) + g4 (x 4 )u (10) that μ(t) ∈ L∞ with
μ(t)
∞ ≤ , (t) ∈ L∞ with
y = x1 ,
(t)
∞ ≤
for all t ≥ 0.

123
3472 Y. Qiu, Z. Dai

Lemma 1 [28,35]. For any positive constants ka1 and

kb1 , let Z := {s1 ∈ R : −ka1 < s1 (t) < kb1 } ⊂ R
and N := Rl × Z ⊂ Rl+1 be open sets. Consider the
system
η̇ = h(t, η),
where η := [ω, s1 ]T ∈ N , and h : R+ × N → Rl+1
is piecewise continuous in t and locally Lipschitz in s1 ,
uniformly in t, on R+ × N . Suppose that there exist
functions U : Rl → R+ and V1 : Z → R+ , con-
tinuously differentiable and positive definite in their
respective domains, such that
V1 (s1 ) → ∞ as s1 (t) → −ka1 or s1 (t) → kb1
Fig. 2 Relationship between μ and λ
γ1 (
ω
) ≤ U (ω) ≤ γ2 (
ω
),
where γ1 and γ2 are class K ∞ functions. Let V (η) :=
V1 (s1 )+U (ω), and s1 (0) ∈ (−ka1 , kb1 ). If the inequal- [5]. In the left zone of the λ∗ (0 ≤ λ ≤ λ∗ ), when the
ity increased braking torque Tb is employed to the wheel,
λ increases to λ∗ , while μ grows to its maximum value
∂V
V̇ = h ≤ −cV + υ μmax . At this point, the friction force generated from the
∂η tire-road adhesion is maximized, which will give birth
holds in the set η ∈ N , and c, υ are positive constants, to the reduction of Vx with high efficiency. Thereby,
then ω remains bounded, and s1 ∈ (−ka1 , kb1 ), ∀t ∈ the braking system operates in the stable region. Once
[0, ∞). the wheel slip falls to the right of the λ∗ (λ∗ ≤ λ ≤ 1),
2
kb1 s12
the friction coefficient μ decreases as the wheel slip
Lemma 2 [28]. The inequality log k 2 −s 2 ≤ 2 −s 2
kb1 λ grows. Unfortunately, any increase of the braking
b1 1 1
holds for all |s1 | < kb1 , . torque in this region would result in further increase
in the wheel slip λ due to the reduction in the longi-
tudinal friction coefficient μ (according to Eq. (8) in
4 Main results Sect. 2.3). This will finally lead to wheel locking when
λ grows to 1. Meanwhile, the dramatical drop of the
4.1 Control objective lateral friction force will be insufficient to sustain the
lateral steering capability and the lateral stability. Thus,
From μ−λ curves in Fig. 2, it is clear that both longitu- the slip dynamics are open loop unstable in this region.
dinal and lateral friction coefficients are highly depen- The control objective in this work is to design an
dent on the wheel slip ratio λ. Moreover, Fig. 2 shows adaptive constrained control law such that: (1) the
a coupling phenomenon that the lateral and the longi- wheel slip can operate within a predetermined bound-
tudinal forces interact with each other : the longitudi- ary (λl ≤ λ ≤ λh as the operating region) to avoid
nal friction coefficient curve has a single peak value severe wheel self-locking and loss of the lateral steer-
μmax and a corresponding optimum wheel slip value ability and the stability; (2) the output of wheel slip
λ∗ , while the lateral friction coefficient decreases con- y(t) = λ can track a desired value yd close to the opti-
siderably to a low magnitude as λ keeps increasing mum value so as to generate longitudinal tire-road fric-
(μ y = 0 when λ = 1). Acknowledging this, it is of tion close to its peak value with efficient braking; (3)
important significance to achieve a reasonable tradeoff ABS has an adaptive ability to work robustly on differ-
between the longitudinal friction μ and the lateral fric- ent road conditions and changing road conditions; (4)
tion μ y by specializing a wheel slip operating region all the closed-loop signals are bounded.
(λl ≤ λ ≤ λh ).
Usually, two regions are identified as the stable Remark 1 Denoted the initial wheel slip ratio as λ(0)
region and the unstable region at each side of the λ∗ and y(0) = λ(0).

123
Adaptive constrained antilock braking control 3473

1. The desired wheel slip yd = λd is chosen for differ- It is clear that the barrier function is smoothly
ent value close to its optimum wheel slip λ∗ accord- extended by a suitable penalty term outside of the cor-
ing to road surface because λ∗ varies corresponding responding constraints set. V (s1 ) is positive, piecewise
to different road conditions. smooth and continuously differentiable in terms with
2. k c1 = 0.3 is selected as λh to be the upper output the fact that lims1 →0+ dV1 /ds1 = lims1 →0− dV1 /ds1 =
constraint on the wheel slip to prevent ABS from 0 in the set −ka1 < s1 (t) < kb1 . Thus, V (s1 ) belongs
operating in deep slip region. to C 1 in the set Z and is a valid Lyapunov Function
3. The initial wheel slip y(0) may be outside the candidate.
operating region at the activation of ABS, such as
y(0) < 0 while the vehicle is under acceleration. To
accommodate these practical applications within 4.3 The observer of the time-varying friction μ(t)
this control framework, the lower output constraint
λl is selected as k c1 = y(0) − 0.05 to be slightly Let μ̂ be the estimation of the unknown friction coef-
less than y(0), which ensures any starting value of ficient μ, such that μ̃ = μ − μ̂ denotes the estimation
y(0) within augmented constraint and extends the error. The following nonlinear algorithm is designed to
effectiveness of the algorithm. observe the unknown parameter μ:
γ kμ
In other words, the objective of this algorithm is to μ̂˙ = γ ϑs1 φ1 (x1 ) + (ẋ1 − fˆ1 − g1 x2 ), (13)
φ1 (x1 )
specify a compact set  y := {y ∈ R : k c1 < y(t) <
k c1 , k c1 > k 0 + Yh0 + |yd (0)|, k c1 < k 0 + Yl0 + in which
|yd (0)|} ⊂ R, ∀t > 0 for any initial compact set to fˆ1 (x1 , μ) = μ̂φ1 (x1 ). (14)
which y(0) belongs 0y := {y ∈ R : k 0 ≤ y(0) ≤
Hence, the error dynamics of the observer can be given
k 0 } ⊂ R. Based on an asymmetric barrier Lyapunov by
function and dynamic surface control technique, an
adaptive constrained control is derived in the follow- μ̃˙ = μ̇ − μ̂˙
ing subsections to address the asymmetric output con- = (t) − γ ϑs1 φ1 (x1 )
straints on wheel slip and the time-varying friction γ kμ (15)
coefficient. − ( f 1 + g1 x2 − fˆ1 − g1 x2 )
φ1 (x1 )
= (t) − γ ϑs1 φ1 (x1 ) − kμ γ μ̃,
4.2 The adoption of asymmetric barrier Lyapunov
function 4.4 Controller synthesis

Denote s1 = x1 − yd as the tracking error, then the fol- Similar to the traditional backsteeping, denote a change
lowing asymmetric barrier Lyapunov function (ABLF) of coordinates: s1 = x1 − yd as the tracking error and
is introduced, si = xi − z i , i = 2, 3, 4 as the virtual errors of step i,
1 − q(s1 ) k2 where z i is the filtering output of the stabilizing func-
V (s1 ) = log 2 a1 2
2 ka1 − s1 tion αi−1 developed at step (i-1). For i = 2, 3, 4, the
following first-order filters with time constant τi are
q(s1 ) k2
+ log 2 b1 2 (11) introduced to generate z i and its derivative ż i :
2 kb1 − s1
τi ż i + z i = αi−1 , z i (0) = αi−1 (0). (16)
where
 We can obtain the dynamic surface errors χi = z i −
1 s1 > 0
q(s1 ) = (12) αi−1 with χi (0) = 0, and ż i = −χi /τi with ż i (0) = 0.
0 s1 ≤ 0.
Consider a Lyapunov candidate comprising the
ka1 and kb1 are the lower and upper error constraints
quadratic Lyapunov functions and an ABLF with
on the tracking error s1 , which are chosen as ka1 =
reduced order.
yd −k c1 , kb1 = k c1 − yd corresponding to the choice of
n
1 2  1 2 μ̃2
n
yd , respectively. q(s1 ) was abbreviated as q throughout V = V (s1 ) + si + χ + , (17)
the paper. 2 2 i 2γ
i=2 i=2

123
3474 Y. Qiu, Z. Dai

1−q q
Denote ϑ = 2 (t)−s 2
ka1
+ 2 (t)−s 2 ,
kb1
and then take the Substitute the observer (13) with its error dynamics
1 1
time derivative of V , (15) , the stabilizing function and control law (19) and
  the derivatives of χi (20) into (18), it follows that
1−q q
V̇ = 2 + 2 s1 ṡ1 V̇ = ϑs1 (−k1 s1 + g1 s2 + g1 χ2 + f 1 − μ̂φ1 ) + χ2 χ̇2
ka1 (t) − s12 kb1 (t) − s12
+s2 (−k2 s2 + g2 s3 + g2 χ3 − ϑg1 s1 ) + χ3 χ̇3
  μ̃μ̃˙
4 4
+ si ṡi + χi χ̇i + +s3 (−k3 s3 + g3 s4 + g3 χ4 − g2 s2 ) + χ4 χ̇4
γ
i=2 i=2 μ̃μ̃˙
+s4 (−k4 s4 − g3 s3 ) +
=ϑs1 [ f 1 + g1 (s2 + χ2 + α1 ) − ẏd ] (18) γ

3 = ϑ(−k1 s12 + g1 s1 χ2 + μ̃φ1 s1 )
+ si [ f i + gi (si+1 + χi+1 + αi ) − ż i ] 
1
i=2 +χ2 − χi + ζ2
τ2
 μ̃μ̃˙
4
1
+ s4 ( f 4 + g4 u − ż 4 ) + χi χ̇i + . +(−k2 s22 + g2 s2 χ3 ) + χ3 (− χ3 + ζ3 )
γ τ3
i=2
1
Design the stabilizing functions and control law in the +(−k3 s3 + g3 s3 χ4 ) + χ4 (− χ4 + ζ4 )
2

modified backstepping procedure as, τ4

μ̃
1 −k4 s42 + ((t) − γ ϑs1 φ1 − kμ γ μ̃)
α1 = (−k1 s1 − μ̂φ1 (x1 ) + ẏd ), γ
g1
 χ2
1 χ2 = ϑ(−k1 s12 + g1 s1 χ2 ) − 2 + χ2 ζ2
α2 = −k2 s2 − f 2 − ϑg1 s1 − , τ2
g2 τ2
 (19) χ 2
1 χ3 −k2 s22 + g2 s2 χ3 − 3 + χ3 ζ3
α3 = −k3 s3 − f 3 − g2 s2 − , τ3
g3 τ3
 χ2
1 χ4 −k3 s32 + g3 s3 χ4 − 4 + χ4 ζ4
u= −k4 s4 − f 4 − g3 s3 − , τ4
g4 τ4
(t)μ̃
where ki , i = 1, . . . , 4 and τi , i = 2, 3, 4 are strictly −k4 s42 + − kμ μ̃2 . (21)
γ
positive constants, μ̂ is the estimate of the time-varying
friction coefficient at time t by adopting the observer Suppose i ∈ R2i−1 be a given compact set
(13). as i := {[s1 , . . . , si−1 , χ2 , . . . , χi , μ̃]T : 1−q
2 log
2
ka1 q
2
kb1
i−1 1 2
i 1 2
Remark 2 By incorporating the DSC technique, the k 2 −s 2
+ 2 log k 2 −s 2 + k=2 2 sk + k=2 2 χk +
a1 1 b1 1
order of the asymmetric barrier Lyapunov function 1
2γ μ̃2 ≤ δi , δi > 0}. Under the Assumptions 1 ,2 and
is reduced from 2n to 2, the repeated differentiations 3 , ζi and (t)have maximum absolute values Mi and
of α1 , α2 , α3 and yd are eliminated, and the control
in a compact set  yd × i , respectively. According
scheme is largely simplified in this high-order system. to Young’s inequality, we obtain these inequalities for
i = 2, 3, 4
For i = 2, 3, 4, take the time derivative of χi
χi2 ζi2 υi M2 υi
χ̇i = ż i − α̇i−1 |χi ζi | ≤ + ≤ i χi2 + , υi > 0
χi 2υi 2 2υ 2
= − + ζi (x i−1 , yd , ẏd , ÿd ),
(20)  i 
τi χi |(t)μ̃|
2
gi−1 si−1 χi ≤ gi−1 max si−1 +
2
where 4 γ
∂αi ∂αi ∂αi (t)2 2 υμ
2 υμ
ζi (x i−1 , yd , ẏd , ÿd ) = − ẋ i−1 − ẏd − ÿd ≤ μ̃ + ≤ μ̃2 + , υμ > 0.
∂ x i−1 ∂ yd ∂ ẏd 2υμ γ 2 2 2υμ γ 2 2
is a continuous function. (22)

123
Adaptive constrained antilock braking control 3475

Table 2 Model parameters of the braking system

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Jm 0.0001 kg m2 m 425 kg
R 0.2  Jw 2 kg m2
L 0.01 H rw 0.325 m
ke 0.05 V/rad/s kw 50 N m/rad
kt 0.1 N m/amp

Table 3 Friction model parameters [4]

Surfaces conditions c1 c2 c3 c4

Dry asphalt 1.2801 23.990 0.52 0.02–0.04

Wet asphalt 0.857 33.822 0.347 0.02–0.04
Snow 0.1946 94.129 0.0646 0.02–0.04

Table 4 Braking distance and MFDD in each scenario

Parameter Method Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5
Dry surface Wet surface Dry to wet Wet to dry Wet to snow
λd = 0.12 λd = 0.1 λd : 0.12–0.1 λd : 0.1–0.12 λd : 0.1–0.05

Braking distance (m) This work 57.3707 80.0519 69.5853 65.6788 231.6998
SMC 59.7144 81.6787 73.2011 67.4081 239.5460
MFDD (m/s2 ) This work 10.019 7.1058 7.7592 9.1817 2.1171
SMC 9.7914 7.0256 7.5245 9.0375 2.0770

Substitute the inequalities (22) into (21), it follows Thereby, we have

    
χ22 χ2 1 ϑ M22
V̇ ≤ ϑ −k1 s1 + g1 max s1 +
2 2
− 2 V̇ ≤ −ϑ(k1 − ϑg1 max )s12
− − g1 max − χ22
4 τ2 τ2 4 2υ2
   
M22 2 υ2 χ32 1 1 M32
+ χ + − k2 s2 + g2 max s2 +
2 2 −(k2 − g2 max )s2 −
2
− g2 max − χ32
2υ2 2 2 4 τ3 4 2υ3
 
χ32 M2 υ3 1 1 M42
−(k3 − g3 max )s3 −
2
− g3 max − χ42
− + 3 χ32 + − k3 s32 τ4 4 2υ4
τ3 2υ3 2
  
χ32 χ2 M2
2  4
υi υμ
+g3 max s3 +
2
− 4 + 4 χ42 −k4 s42 − kμ − μ̃ 2
+ + .
4 τ4 2υ4 2υμ γ 2 2 2
i=2

υ4
2 υμ (24)
+ − k4 s42 + μ̃2 + − kμ μ̃2 . (23)
2 2υμ γ 2 2

123
3476 Y. Qiu, Z. Dai

0.14
1600

0.12 1400

0.1 1200

0.08 1000

0.06 800

600
0.04
400
0.02
200
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(a) Slip Ratio (b) Braking Torque

1
100
0.8

0.6

0.4 50

0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

1
100
0.8

0.6
50
0.4

0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(c) Friction Coefficient (d) Vehicle Velocity and Wheel Velocity

Fig. 3 Performances under dry asphalt surface (λd = 0.12)

 
4
Remark 3 In order to guarantee the closed-loop sta-
(t)2 υi υμ
μ = kμ − , υ = + .
bility, the control gains ki should be limited to k1 > 2υμ γ 2 2 2
i=2
ϑg1 max , k2 > g2 max , k3 > g3 max , k4 > 0, the time
(25)
constants τi should be limited to τ12 > ( ϑ4 g1 max +
 
M22 g2 max M32 g3 max M42
2υ2 ), 1
τ3 > 4 + 2υ3 , 1
τ4 > 4 + 2υ4 , It is clear that K i > 0, i = 1, · · · , 4, i > 0, i =
and the observer gain should be limited to kμ γ2 > 2, 3, 4 and μ > 0 by the precise restrictions on

2 gains selections. Then, a positive definite matrix Q is
2υμ ,respectively.
described as Q=diag(K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , K 4 , 2 , 3 , 4 , μ ).
For clarity, denote a change of gain parameters: According to Lemma 2, we can have the following
K 1 = k1 − ϑg1 max , K 2 = k2 − g2 max , K 3 = k3 − g3 max , inequality which holds in the set Z
 
1 η M22
K 4 = k4 , 2 = − g1 max − ,
τ2 4 2υ2 V̇ ≤ −cV + υ, (26)
 
1 g2 max M32
3 = − − ,
τ3 4 2υ3 where
 
1 g3 max M42
4 = − − ,
τ4 4 2υ4 c = 2λmin (Q) > 0. (27)

123
Adaptive constrained antilock braking control 3477

0.12 1200

0.1
1000

0.08
800

0.06
600

0.04
400
0.02
200
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

(a) Slip Ratio (b) Braking Torque

0.8

100
0.6

0.4
50
0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

0.8

100
0.6

0.4
50
0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

(c) Friction Coefficient (d) Vehicle Velocity and Wheel Velocity

Fig. 4 Performance on wet asphalt surface (λd = 0.1)

4.5 Stability analysis together with V̇ ≤ −cV + υ, it can be shown that

Theorem 1 Consider the closed-loop system consist-
ing of the plant (Eq. (10)), the adaptation law (Eq.
(13)), the dynamic surface filters (Eq. (16)), the stabi-
lizing functions and the control law (Eq. (19)) under
Assumptions 1–3. For bounded initial conditions, sat-
isfying k c1 ≤ y(0) ≤ k c1 , V (0) ≤ δ, there exist
constants within the selected range for control gains
and time constants depicted in Remark 3, such that
υ  −ct υ υ
the close-loop system is semi-globally stable in the
sense that the output constraints are never violated,
i.e., k c1 < y(t) < k c1 , ∀t ≥ 0, all of the closed-loop
signals are bounded, and the output tracking error con-
verges to a neighborhood of zero as t → ∞.
Proof With respect to k c1 ≤ y(0) ≤ k c1 and the
choices of ka1 , kb1 , we have ka1 < s1 (0) = y(0)−yd <
kb1 . Denotes η = [s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 , ξ2 , ξ3 , ξ4 , μ̃]T ∈ R8 ,
η̇ = h(η, t) satisfy the conditions in Lemma 1, we
infer that −ka1 ≤ s1 (t) ≤ kb1 , ∀t > 0. Because
y(t) = s1 (t) + yd (t), we obtain that −ka1 + yd <
y(t) < kb1 + yd . From the choices of ka1 , kb1 , we can
conclude that k c1 < y(t) < k c1 , ∀t ≥ 0.
Multiply V̇ ≤ −cV + υ by ect , and then integrate
both sides
0 ≤ V (t) ≤ V (0) − e + ≤ V (0) + .
c c c
(28)
Because V (0) ≤ δ, then V (t) ≤ δ + υc , ∀t > 0.
Thus, all the error signals, such as si , i = 1, · · · , 4,
z i , i = 2, 3, 4 and μ̃ are semi-globally, uniformly ulti-
mately bounded. Furthermore, u(t) and αi , i = 1, 2, 3
are bounded.

123
3478 Y. Qiu, Z. Dai

0.25 1500

0.2

1000
0.15

0.1
500

0.05

0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

(a) Slip Ratio (b) Braking Torque

0.8 100

0.6

0.4 50

0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

0.8 100

0.6

0.4 50

0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

(c) Friction Coefficient (d) Vehicle Velocity and Wheel Velocity

Fig. 5 Performances under road transition from dry asphalt surface (λd = 0.12) to wet asphalt surface (λd = 0.1) at t = 1s

From (28), we have: 5 Simulation results

(1 − q) k2 q k2 The objective of the proposed controller is to maintain

log 2 a1 2 + log 2 b1 2
2 ka1 − s1 2 kb1 − s1 the wheel slip not only at a desired level but also within
υ  −ct υ
≤ V (0) − e + . (29) a predetermined range in the presence of unknown fric-
c c tion. The properties and performances of the proposed
Taking exponentials on both sides of Eq. (29) and control scheme were investigated via a simulation study
rearrange the inequality with respect to the fact that by using MATLAB.
2 − s 2 > 0 and k 2 − s 2 > 0, it leads to the following
ka1 In this simulation, the vehicle velocity and the angu-
1 b1 1
inequality: lar velocity of the wheels are assumed to be measured
by sensors, thus the slip ratio can be calculated from
|s1 (t)| ≤ [(1 − q)ka1 + qkb1 ] these measurements. From Eq. (14) in Sect. 4, these

−ct measurements can be fairly enough to estimate the tire-
1 − e−2[(V (0)−υ/c)e +υ/c] , (30)
  road friction.
ka1 1 − e−2υ/c ≤ s1 (∞) ≤ kb1 1 − e−2υ/c . The initial velocity conditions are given as Vx (0)
=33.33 m/s (120 km/h), ωw (0) =102.56 rad/s, resulting
Therefore, s1 (t) can be made arbitrarily small as t →
in λ(0) = 0. Considering the reality, simulation studies
∞ by appropriate selection of the design parameters.
are conducted up to the point when the vehicle is slowed



123
Adaptive constrained antilock braking control 3479

0.14
1600
0.12 1400

0.1 1200

0.08 1000

0.06 800

600
0.04
400
0.02
200
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(a) Slip Ratio (b) Braking Torque

1
100
0.8

0.6

0.4 50

0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

1
100
0.8

0.6
50
0.4

0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(c) Friction Coefficient (d) Vehicle Velocity and Wheel Velocity

Fig. 6 Performances under road transition from wet asphalt surface (λd = 0.1) to dry asphalt surface (λd = 0.12) at t = 1s

to about 1 m/s (3 km/h) as ABS deactivation velocity .
A 240W DC motor is used in this study, and the
state constraints of the motor are fully considered as
i m max = ±20 A, em max = ±24V , ωm max = ±5000
rpm according to its physical saturations. TL is related
to the viscous friction between the torsional spring and
the motor, which is usually proportional to the nor-
mal force. In this simulation, TL is achieved through
observers developed from our previous work. In addi-
tion, the maximum braking torque that can be generated
from the actuation system is limited to 2000 Nm. The
values of the parameters in the single-corner model and
the DC motor are given in Table 2.
A ground-contact model in [4] is introduced to sim-
ulate the tire-road friction forces for different road con-
ditions in this work. This model provides the longitudi-
nal friction coefficient μ(λ, Vx ) with a function of the
wheel slip λ, the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle
Vx and the corresponding road condition vector C as
Eq. (31), where the parameters c1 , c2 , c3 and c4 of the
vector C used in this study are given in Table 3.
μ(λ, Vx ) = [c1 (1 − e−c2 λ ) − c3 λ]e−c4 λVx . (31)
It is clear critical to select the setpoints of wheel
slip under different road conditions. On the one hand,
the optimal wheel slip differs under many factors, such
as the characteristics of tire-road contact, slip angle,
etc., which can be time-varying in some senses. On the
other hand, a loss of performances (such as decreases of
the bandwidth ) may occur if the setpoint of λd moves
further left of the peak, while the braking system will
become difficult to be stabilized if the setpoint of λd
moves sufficiently far to the right of the peak of μ − λ
curves. λ ∈ (0.05, 0.15) is often used as the control
target area by many manufactures, and has been vali-
dated as a good compromise for all road condition. In
this study, the desired wheel slip λd is selected as 0.12

123
3480 Y. Qiu, Z. Dai

0.35
1200
out of the stable region
0.3
1000
0.25 0.3
800
0.2 0.2
600
0.15
0.1

0.1 400
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
0.05 200

0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 5 10 15

(a) Slip Ratio (b) Braking Torque

0.8

100
0.6

0.4
50
0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15

0.8

100
0.6

0.4
50
0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15

(c) Friction Coefficient (d) Vehicle Velocity and Wheel Velocity

Fig. 7 Performances under road transition from wet asphalt surface (λd = 0.1) to snow surface (λd = 0.05) at t = 1s

for dry asphalt surface, 0.1 for wet asphalt surface and employed to replace the utilization of barrier function
0.05 for snow surface, by maximizing the friction force while both the estimation of the friction coefficient
under the tire-road model of Eq. (31). and the DSC are incorporated into SMC in the same
As given in Sect. 4, we choose λh = 0.3 as the way as the proposed controller. Additionally, a satura-
upper constraint on the wheel slip, λl = λ(0) − 0.05 tion is employed in SMC to reduce the chattering phe-
as the lower constraint, respectively. Based limitations nomenon, and the parameters are tuned to minimize
on the gains in Sect. 4 (see Remark 3), the control the tracking error. In this study, SMC is designed as
gains not only determine the convergence of the algo- Eq. (32) with ks = 0.5, ε = 0.01, while other gains
rithm, but also be limited by the physical saturations remain the same as the proposed controller.
of the actuator, which are determined as k1 = 15, 1
k2 = 100, k3 = 80000 and k4 = 30. The time constants α1 = (−ks sε − μ̂φ1 (x1 ) + ẏd ),
g1
are chosen sufficiently small positive real constants as 
1 χ2
τ2 = τ3 = τ4 = 0.001. γ = 0.05 and kμ = 3000 are α2 = −k2 s2 − f 2 − g1 s1 − ,
g2 τ2
chosen for the estimation of the tire-road friction. It is  (32)
1 χ3
worth noting that same controller parameters are used α3 = −k3 s3 − f 3 − g2 s2 − ,
for five different scenarios. g3 τ3

Sliding-mode control (SMC) is adopted for a com- 1 χ4
u= −k4 s4 − f 4 − g3 s3 − ,
parison study. It has to be clarified that SMC is just g4 τ4

123
Adaptive constrained antilock braking control 3481

0.14 1600

0.12 1400

0.1 1200

0.08 1000

0.06 800

600
0.04
400
0.02
200
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(a) Slip Ratio (b) Braking Torque

1.2 140
16
14
1 120
12
100 10
0.8
8
2.9 2.95 3 3.05
80
0.6
60
0.4
40

0.2
20

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(c) Friction Coefficient (d) Vehicle Velocity and Wheel Velocity

Fig. 8 Performances on dry asphalt surface (λd = 0.12) with sensor noise added to measurements of Vx and ωw

where
⎧
⎨1 s1 > ε
sε = sε1 |s1 | ≤ ε
⎩ locking is avoided, which can be observed in Figs. 3d
−1 s1 < −ε.
Five simulation scenarios under two unchanging road
surface and three road transitions (depicted in Table 4)
are conducted, respectively, with regard to dry asphalt
surface (Fig. 3), wet asphalt surface (Fig. 4), road tran-
sitions from dry asphalt surface to wet asphalt surface
(Fig. 5), from wet asphalt surface to dry asphalt surface
(Fig. 6), and from wet asphalt surface to snow surface
(Fig. 7).
Under unchanging road surfaces (Figs. 3, 4), 3c
and 4c illustrate that the estimated friction coefficient
remains close to its true value with no oscillations
during the whole braking maneuver, while the fric-
tion coefficient varies wildly and fast along with the
wheel slip and the velocity of the vehicle under differ-
ent road conditions. With the help of the accurate esti-
mation of the friction coefficient, the adaptive control
can maintain the desired wheel slip in a short period of
time with a small residual set around the origin; at the
same time, the wheel slip operates in the predetermined
range shown in Figs. 3a and 4a. Correspondingly, self-
and 4d showing that the wheel angular velocity follows
the vehicle velocity closely without oscillations. It also
shows that the braking torque is smooth and stable dur-
ing the braking process in Figs. 3b and 4b.
The performances under different road transitions
are well-investigated (Figs. 5, 6 and 7). The road tran-
sitions are stimulated at t = 1s for each scenario by
adopting the μ − λ model (Eq. 31), while the ref-
erence wheel slip ratio λd is switched corresponding
to the changing road surface. Figures 5c, 6c and 7c
show that an accurate estimation of friction coefficient
can be achieved in the presence of model uncertain-
ties regardless of abrupt changes of road surfaces. Fig-
ures 5a, 6a and 7a shows that the wheel slip reaches
its new reference value in less than 0.3s, the refer-
ence wheel slip ratios have been accurately tracked
without producing drastic oscillations. In addition, the

123
3482
transient responses for the road transition have been
adapted robustly within the operating region at each
scenario even when the road has been changed into
the snow surface. The braking torques have changed
quickly to compensate as the road condition changes.
Tb decreased significantly ( Figs. 5b and 7b) when mov-
ing from high friction surface to lower friction one to
avoid locking; Tb increased significantly when mov-
ing from lower friction surface to higher friction one to
avoid rolling (Fig. 6b ). This advantage can also be seen
from Figs. 5d, 6d and 7d that both the vehicle velocity
and the wheel velocity do not experience characteristic
oscillations during the braking maneuvers.
The braking distance and the mean fully developed
deceleration (MFDD) are depicted in Table 4, where
the MFDD is the mean of V̇x in a time interval from
the vehicle decelerates from 0.9V0 to 0.05V0 [26]:
 0.9V
MFDD = V̇x 0.05V0 .
0
Compared with SMC, the proposed method has
achieved faster transient responses with shorter brak-
ing distances and higher deceleration. In addition, the
braking system can operate in the predetermined sta-
ble region with the proposed controller while wheel slip
may move out of the region under a sharp transition,
such as from wet surface to snow surface with SMC
(Fig. 7a), which confirms the effectiveness of casting
constraints on wheel slip under the proposed control
scheme.
Figure 8 shows the performances with uniform white
noises that added to the measurements of Vx and ωw ,
which can be seen in Fig. 8d. It is observed that the
transient response of wheel slip oscillate at low speeds
due to respective low signal-to-noise ratio, which may
result in an increasingly inaccurate calculation of wheel
slip (Fig. 8a) . However, the estimation of friction coef-
ficient shows great accuracy regardless of sensor noise
(Fig. 8c) and the controller shows robust ability with
fast response. A set of simulation subject to the five sce-
narios have been completed with similar results, which
are omitted here for the space limitation.
It is worthy explaining that the braking torque Tb
increases stably because the friction coefficient μ keeps
increasing (according to Eq. 31) as the vehicle deceler-
ates if λ is at its desired value (after the wheel slip are
accurately tracked).
123
Y. Qiu, Z. Dai
It can be concluded that satisfactory performance
and fast convergence are achieved with smooth tran-
sient responses under each scenario no matter how the
road condition changes, which can be considered as a
significant enhancement of driving comfort.
6 Conclusion
We in this paper present a simple yet effective adap-
tive constrained ABS control for cars equipped with
electro-mechanical brakes with the following notable
features. Firstly, an ABLF incorporating with DSC is
introduced to ensure wheel slip operate in the prede-
termined region as well as to track the wheel slip ref-
erence with a steady state error in a small neighbor-
hood. Secondly, an estimation of the friction is devel-
oped with excellent accuracy and fast convergences,
which provided the system an adaptive capability to
perform robustly against different road conditions and
even changing road conditions. Thirdly, the physical
characteristics of the actuation system are fully inves-
tigated both in the controller formulation and simula-
tion study. The boundedness of the output constraints
on wheel slip and the asymptotic stability are proven
mathematically. The simulation results have been pro-
vided to confirm the sufficient adaptive properties of
the proposed controller.
It is important to stress that our aim was not to invent
a class of ABS that would be more efficient than those
that already exist in the literatures. Our aim was to
investigate, through a simplified but robust algorithm,
the practical behaviors during the braking maneuver,
such as the driving safety with a thorough consideration
of wheel slip boundary and the driving adaptivity under
uncertainties. However, some practical issues have not
been taken into full account at this stage. Thereby, con-
trol design based on advanced model subject to sys-
tem uncertainties and physical couplings is the focus of
our future work, such as (1) more sophisticated vehicle
model including its load distribution, latitude dynamics
and active suspensions, (2) the coupling from longitu-
dinal and latitude dynamics , (3) information fusion to
improve data accuracy.
Adaptive constrained antilock braking control
Acknowledgements This work is supported by the National
Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) Under Grant
11802217.
Data availability Data sharing not applicable to this article as
no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no con-
flict of interest.
References
1. Ahn, C., Peng, H., Tseng, H.E.: Robust estimation of road
frictional coefficient. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
21(1), 1–13 (2011)
2. Ahn, J., Jung, K., Kim, D., Jin, H., Kim, H., Hwang, S.:
Analysis of a regenerative braking system for hybrid electric
vehicles using an electro-mechanical brake. Int. J. Automot.
Technol. 10(2), 229–234 (2009)
3. Bogdanovic, G., Meurk, A., Rutland, M.W.: Tip friction: tor-
sional spring constant determination. Colloids Surf. B 19(4),
397–405 (2000)
4. Burckhardt, M.: Fahrwerktechnik: Radschlupf-
regelsysteme. Vogel-Verlag, Germany (1993)
5. Dadashnialehi, A., Bab-Hadiashar, A., Cao, Z., Kapoor,
A.: Intelligent sensorless abs for in-wheel electric vehicles.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 61(4), 1957–1969 (2013)
6. Dadashnialehi, A., Bab-Hadiashar, A., Cao, Z., Kapoor, A.:
Intelligent sensorless antilock braking system for brushless
in-wheel electric vehicles. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 62(3),
1629–1638 (2014)
7. De Castro, R., Araújo, R.E., Freitas, D.: Wheel slip control
of EVs based on sliding mode technique with conditional
integrators. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 60(8), 3256–3271
(2013)
8. De Castro, R., Araujo, R.E., Tanelli, M., Savaresi, S.M.,
Freitas, D.: Torque blending and wheel slip control in evs
with in-wheel motors. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 50, 71–94 (2012)
9. Dinçmen, E., Güvenç, B.A., Acarman, T.: Extremum-
seeking control of abs braking in road vehicles with lat-
eral force improvement. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
22(1), 230–237 (2012)
10. Drakunov, S., Ozguner, U., Dix, P., Ashrafi, B.: Abs con-
trol using optimum search via sliding modes. IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Technol. 3(1), 79–85 (1995)
11. Fujii, K., Fujimoto, H.: Traction control based on slip ratio
estimation without detecting vehicle speed for electric vehi-
cle. In: 2007 Power conversion conference-Nagoya, pp.
688–693. IEEE (2007)
12. Gao, Y., Ehsani, M.: Electronic braking system of ev and
hev–integration of regenerative braking, automatic braking
force control and abs. SAE Trans. 110, 576–582 (2001)
13. Ivanov, V., Savitski, D., Shyrokau, B.: A survey of traction
control and antilock braking systems of full electric vehicles
with individually controlled electric motors. IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol. 64(9), 3878–3896 (2014)
3483
14. Johansen, T.A., Petersen, I., Kalkkuhl, J., Ludemann, J.:
Gain-scheduled wheel slip control in automotive brake sys-
tems. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 11(6), 799–811
(2003)
15. Kim, J., Park, C., Hwang, S., Hori, Y., Kim, H.: Control algo-
rithm for an independent motor-drive vehicle. IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol. 59(7), 3213–3222 (2010)
16. Krstic, M., Kanellakopoulos, I., Kokotovic, P.V.: Nonlinear
and Adaptive Control Design. Wiley, Hoboken (1995)
17. Lee, C., Hedrick, K., Yi, K.: Real-time slip-based estima-
tion of maximum tire-road friction coefficient. IEEE/ASME
Trans. Mechatron. 9(2), 454–458 (2004)
18. Lin, C.M., Hsu, C.F.: Neural-network hybrid control for
antilock braking systems. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks
14(2), 351–359 (2003)
19. Mi, C., Lin, H., Zhang, Y.: Iterative learning control of
antilock braking of electric and hybrid vehicles. IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol. 54(2), 486–494 (2005)
20. Mirzaeinejad, H., Mirzaei, M.: A novel method for nonlinear
control of wheel slip in anti-lock braking systems. Control.
Eng. Pract. 18(8), 918–926 (2010)
21. Ngo, K.B., Mahony, R., Jiang, Z.P.: Integrator backstepping
using barrier functions for systems with multiple state con-
straints. In: Decision and control, 2005 and 2005 European
Control Conference. CDC-ECC’05. 44th IEEE Conference
on, pp. 8306–8312. IEEE (2005)
22. Oniz, Y., Kayacan, E., Kaynak, O.: A dynamic method to
forecast the wheel slip for antilock braking system and its
experimental evaluation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.
Part B 39(2), 551–560 (2008)
23. Pasillas-Lépine, W.: Hybrid modeling and limit cycle analy-
sis for a class of five-phase anti-lock brake algorithms. Veh.
Syst. Dyn. 44(2), 173–188 (2006)
24. Patil, A., Ginoya, D., Shendge, P., Phadke, S.: Uncertainty-
estimation-based approach to antilock braking systems.
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 65(3), 1171–1185 (2015)
25. Peng, D., Zhang, Y., Yin, C.L., Zhang, J.W.: Combined con-
trol of a regenerative braking and antilock braking system
for hybrid electric vehicles. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 9(6),
749–757 (2008)
26. Pretagostini, F., Ferranti, L., Berardo, G., Ivanov, V., Shy-
rokau, B.: Survey on wheel slip control design strategies,
evaluation and application to antilock braking systems.
IEEE Access (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.
2020.2965644
27. Qiu, Y., Liang, X., Dai, Z.: Backstepping dynamic surface
control for an anti-skid braking system. Control. Eng. Pract.
42, 140–152 (2015)
28. Ren, B., Ge, S.S., Tee, K.P., Lee, T.H.: Adaptive neural con-
trol for output feedback nonlinear systems using a barrier
Lyapunov function. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 21(8),
1339–1345 (2010)
29. Savitski, D., Ivanov, V., Augsburg, K., Emmei, T., Fuse,
H., Fujimoto, H., Fridman, L.M.: Wheel slip control for the
electric vehicle with in-wheel motors: variable structure and
sliding mode methods. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 67(10),
8535–8544 (2020)
30. Shyrokau, B., Wang, D., Augsburg, K., Ivanov, V.: Vehicle
dynamics with brake hysteresis. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part
D J. Autom. Eng. 227(2), 139–150 (2013)
123
3484 Y. Qiu, Z. Dai

31. Subudhi, B., Ge, S.S.: Sliding-mode-observer-based adap- 36. Unsal, C., Kachroo, P.: Sliding mode measurement feedback
tive slip ratio control for electric and hybrid vehicles. IEEE control for antilock braking systems. IEEE Trans. Control
Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 13(4), 1617–1626 (2012) Syst. Technol. 7(2), 271–281 (1999)
32. Sulzer, J.S., Peshkin, M.A., Patton, J.L.: Marionet: An 37. Zhang, C., Ordóñez, R.: Numerical optimization-based
exotendon-driven rotary series elastic actuator for exerting extremum seeking control with application to ABS design.
joint torque. In: Rehabilitation robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 52(3), 454–467 (2007)
9th International conference on, pp. 103–108. IEEE (2005)
33. Swaroop, D., Hedrick, J.K., Yip, P.P., Gerdes, J.C.: Dynamic
surface control for a class of nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
Autom. Control 45(10), 1893–1899 (2000) to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil-
34. Tanelli, M., Astolfi, A., Savaresi, S.M.: Robust nonlinear iations.
output feedback control for brake by wire control systems.
Automatica 44(4), 1078–1087 (2008)
35. Tee, K.P., Ge, S.S., Tay, E.H.: Barrier Lyapunov functions for
the control of output-constrained nonlinear systems. Auto-
matica 45(4), 918–927 (2009)

123