2015 Load-Sensing Based Integrated Chassis Control

Load-sensing Based Integrated
Chassis Control
using hierarchical strategy and control allocation
Shiqian Li
Master of Science Thesis
Delft Center for Systems and Control

Load-sensing Based Integrated Chassis
Control
using hierarchical strategy and control allocation
Master of Science Thesis
For the degree of Master of Science in Systems and Control at Delft

University of Technology
Shiqian Li
November 17, 2015
Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE) · Delft University of

Technology
Copyright c Delft Center for Systems and Control (DCSC)
All rights reserved.
Abstract
Evolution of new technologies, market preferences and vehicle safety standards and regula-
tions motivate the automotive industry to contribute to higher quality mobility and safer
transportation for the society. With the compelling development of electronics over the past
few decades, passenger cars are equipped with an increasing number of active safety sys-
tems, and even the fitment of some of those has become mandatory in regulations, such as
ABS (Anti-lock Braking System) and ESC (Electronic Stability Control). As a result, the
integration becomes necessary to meet the fast introduction of new functionality and to super-
vise and manage different variety of controllable vehicle subsystems, attracting the interests
from both the industry and the academia. Numerous studies have proven integrated chassis
controls to have incomparable advantages in multiple-objective performance improvement,
hardware complexity and system costs reduction, interference prevention, system reliability
and fault-tolerant capability. Among the previously explored integrated control architectures,
hierarchical strategy is considered the most proper one, as it allows the cooperated develop-
ment between OEMs and suppliers and make good use of existing subsystems.
Within this context, this study proposes a novel adaptive wheel force feedback control allo-
cation algorithm utilizing SKF load sensing bearing technology, to coordinate ABS, ESC and
AFS (Active Front Steering). It aims to investigate a real-time implementable framework
which is open to the extensions and integration of other load-sensing based control subsys-
tems. The proposed approach is validated and evaluated by open-loop and driver-in-the-loop
tests performed on multi-body vehicle model in Simulink-CarSim co-simulation.
Keywords: Integrated Chassis Control, Load-sensing Bearing, Control Allocation, Hierar-
chical Control Strategy, L1 Adaptive Control
Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

ii
Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ix
1 Introduction 1
1-1 Tyre Force Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1-1-1 Smart Tyres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-1-2 Load Sensing Bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-1-3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1-2 Integrated Chassis Control (ICC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1-3 State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1-3-1 Linear Control Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1-3-2 Non-linear Control Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1-3-3 Intelligent Control Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1-3-4 Optimization-based Control Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1-4 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1-5 Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Vehicle Dynamics Theory 13

2-1 Mathematical Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2-1-1 Body Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2-1-2 Wheel Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2-1-3 Tyre Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2-2 Vehicle Dynamics Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2-3 Control System Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

iv Table of Contents
3 Integrated Chassis Control Design 21

3-1 Force Reference Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3-2 Baseline Controller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3-2-1 Linear-quadratic-integral Feedback Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3-2-2 Anti-windup Loop Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3-3 L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3-3-1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3-3-2 L1 Adaptive Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3-3-3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3-4 Subsystem Controller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3-4-1 AFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3-4-2 ESC/ABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 Simulation Results 31
4-1 Open-loop Steering Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4-1-1 Ramp Steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4-1-2 Sine with Dwell (SWD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4-1-3 Robustness to Vehicle Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4-1-4 Robustness to Road-tyre Friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4-1-5 L1 Performance in Presence of System Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4-2 Closed-loop Steering Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5 Conclusion and Future Work 45

5-1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5-2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A Vehicle Model Parameters 49
B ICC Design Parameters 51
Bibliography 53

List of Figures
1-1 Wheel force transducers on test vehicles (Source: Kistler) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1-2 Bearing deformation model under load (Source: SKF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-3 Bearing unit instrumented with strain gauges (Source: SKF) . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-4 SKF load-sensing bearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1-5 Timeline for the introduction of active safety systems in passenger cars (red cross
shows the time when ICC was first introduced) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1-6 Trade off between CA controller performance and computational efficiency . . . . 9
2-1 Front-wheel-steering planar vehicle model: (left) four-wheel double-track model;

(right) two-wheel bicycle model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2-2 Front tyre side-slip angle geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2-3 A single corner model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2-4 Longitudinal (left) and lateral (right) forces w.r.t the slip and the slip angle . . . 16
2-5 Friction ellipse [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2-6 Vehicle longitudinal and lateral dynamics system in ICC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2-7 Commonly adopted information flow in ICC: (left) model matching; (right) CA . 18
2-8 Proposed information flow chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2-9 Hierarchical ICC structure [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3-1 Block diagram of proposed ICC framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3-2 Illustration of integrator windup [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3-3 Block diagram of LQI baseline control with anti-windup loop . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3-4 L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4-1 Ramp steering wheel input at constant 80 km/h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4-2 Simulation results for SWD manoeuvre coasting from 80 km/h . . . . . . . . . . 34

vi List of Figures
4-3 Simulation results for SWD manoeuvre coasting from 60 km/h . . . . . . . . . . 37

4-4 Simulation results for SWD manoeuvre coasting from 100 km/h . . . . . . . . . 38
4-7 SWD manoeuvre coasting from 80 km/h on low-µ surface, with µ 0.9 in reference
generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4-8 SWD manoeuvre coasting from 80 km/h on low-µ surface, with updated µ in
reference generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4-9 SWD manoeuvre coasting from 80 km/h with braking actuators failure for baseline
and L1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4-10 Double lane change manoeuvre coasting from 120 km/h . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

List of Tables
4-1 SWD manoeuvre evaluation for each algorithm, FMVSS 126 . . . . . . . . . . . 34
A-1 Vehicle Model Parameters, D Class SUV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
B-1 ICC Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

viii List of Tables

Acknowledgements
I am grateful for all the people who have contributed to this thesis.
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof.dr.ir.Edward Holweg and Dr.ir.Mustafa
Ali Arat for their assistance during the writing of this thesis.
I got motivated to devote myself to vehicle dynamics control by Vehicle Mechatronics lectured
by Prof.dr.ir.Edward Holweg. Thanks a lot for giving me enlightenment and constructive
suggestions on my study.
Special thanks to Dr.ir.Mustafa Ali Arat for his insightful ideas and encouragement during
weekly discussions about the topic. I really appreciate his patience and support, which helped
me to overcome the challenges and finish this dissertation.
I would like to thank Dr.ir.Barys Shyrokau for his helpful introduction of the driving simulator.
Furthermore, my sincere thank to Dr.ir.Simone Baldi for accepting to be on my M.Sc. defense
committee.
Finally I would like to thank my family for all their love and support. My parents have been
a constant source of inspiration and this work is specially dedicated to them.
Delft, University of Technology Shiqian Li

November 17, 2015

x Acknowledgements

“Happiness is when you win a race against yourself.”
— Reza N. Jazar, Vehicle Dynamics
Chapter 1
Introduction
Vehicle dynamics design is to guarantee the ride comfort and vehicle’s motion that follows
the driver’s intention, in terms of acceleration, deceleration and cornering. Normal drivers
without racing experience, may never know where the vehicle’s handling limits are all through
his life. Or in other words, most people drive cars only in a linear handling regime. Although
the term "linear handling" relies more on the drivers’ subjective view of handling feel, obvious
nonlinear response makes it an extremely challenging task for normal drivers to correct the
vehicle’s states from unstable regime. It can happen under some critical maneuvers, such as
high speed cornering, which results in large side slip angle and tyre adhesion limitation.
With the development of driver assistance systems (DAS) and the growing role of control
engineering in recent decades, numerous active chassis control systems are developed and
equipped on passenger cars. From the vehicle handling viewpoint, these systems aim to
extend the linear handing regime from different approaches, thus improve handling feel during
normal driving and stability near the limit. Most of these systems are also recognized as active
safety systems, since they help drivers to control the vehicle and avoid accidents. In the past
it has been common for separate active chassis systems to be controlled independently, or
rather in parallel. The parallel vehicle control architecture has largely arisen by default, as
different controlled sub-systems are developed and manufactured by independent suppliers,
or by different groups within a vehicle manufacturer [4]. The foremost concerns regarding
this approach are to do with reducing complexity, improving performance and removing
unnecessary and costly duplication of hardware [5].
To solve all these problems mentioned above, the idea of integrating the active chassis con-
trol systems was introduced. Solutions from both the industry and the academia generally
intended to further improve the vehicles’ drive safety on the tyre force level. Therefore a
common conclusion is stated as that, the ICC system can not only guarantee vehicles’ motion
stability, but also optimize the use of adhesion between tyre and road and keep the vehicle
away from the handling limit to prevent losing control.

2 Introduction
1-1 Tyre Force Information
No matter if a vehicle is accelerating, cornering or braking, all these motions are governed by
the forces generated between tyres and road surface. Tyres are extremely important for vehicle
dynamics since they constitute the only point of interaction with road. As the actuations to
control the vehicle are ultimately applied on the wheels (e.g. wheel steering, wheel driven and
braking torque, etc.), tyre force is not an intrinsic or a final objective and cannot be directly
actuated. So the interest in tyre-road contact forces is mainly control oriented, which is also
proved to be a control engineering challenge. Furthermore, because tyre-force knowledge is
of such considerable significance in design, tune and control of the vehicle, noticeable effort
has been put forth to introduce real-time tyre force measurement for overall use of onboard
systems.
Figure 1-1: Wheel force transducers on test vehicles (Source: Kistler)
In the development phase of new vehicles or onboard systems, wheel force transducers are
widely installed on the test vehicles, see Figure 1-1. Such devices measure strain in the rim
to reconstruct forces and moments in the wheels’ 6 DOFs. However, since the measurement
systems are designed for test vehicles, they are too expensive, complex and unwieldy to
be installed on mass production cars. Real-time tyre force information is a challenge for
production cars and following methods have come forth so far.
Indirect Measurement
• State Estimator
Direct Measurement
• Simplified Rim Measurement Devices

• Smart Tyres
• Load Sensing Bearings

1-1 Tyre Force Information 3
1-1-1 Smart Tyres
The first attempt coming into mind would be the simplification of existing rim measurement
devices [6][7][8] or making the tyre itself "intelligent" and no longer leaving the tyres remaining
as a "passive" object. Vehicles’ interaction with the road surface initiates at the contact patch
of the tyres, transmitting the largest part of external forces acting on the vehicle.
The US Congress legislated the TREAD Act in 2000, mandated the use of a suitable TPMS
(tyre pressure monitoring system) technology in all light motor vehicles for safety reasons [9],
which is the first intelligent tyre system brought into the market and required by automotive
safety regulations. Since then, the concept of "smart tyre" or "intelligent tyre" has emerged,
referring to tyres with embedded sensors and digital-computing capability. As tyre rubber
deformation and stresses contain the most direct information for understanding and modeling
tyre-road interaction forces [10], it led to a large number of studies mainly concerning different
kinds of sensor applications in tyre or rim. But as this field is still in its early stages,
these choices remain open questions [11]. Prototypes include Hall-sensors [12][13], magnetic
sensors [14], acoustic sensors [15][16], optical sensors [17][18][19], piezoelectric sensors [20] and
commonly used accelerometers [11].
1-1-2 Load Sensing Bearings
Figure 1-3: Bearing unit instru-

Figure 1-2: Bearing deformation
mented with strain gauges (Source:
model under load (Source: SKF)
SKF)
Predictably, problems arise when aforementioned systems are applied to production cars: rims
and tyres can be consumable and diversities exist in size, pattern and so on, let alone the
challenge of transmitting signals while rotating. As a result, people turn to seek for solutions
to integrate the sensing technology with fixed and more standardized chassis parts, among
which wheel hub bearings stand out, due to its locational advantages. In addition, since the
widespread use of ABS in production cars, mainstream automotive bearing manufacturers,
like SKF, NSK and Timken, have gathered significant experience to integrate encoders or
other sensors in wheel hub bearing units. Nowadays, the load sensing bearing technology
from SKF [21] and NSK [22] are approaching towards vehicle state estimation in different
ways.

4 Introduction
Figure 1-4: SKF load-sensing bearing
SKF developed Load Sensing Bearing (LSB) units based on its profound knowledge of the
bearings. Over the years, extremely precise models have been employed to analyze the bear-
ings’ mechanical characteristics, like deformation and wear, under a specific working load,
see Figure 1-2. Due to the high potential additional value, SKF came up with the idea of
building LSB with the inverse use of bearing models. Six strain gauges, placed along the
circumference of the outer ring, measure the elastic deformation as the inputs to the model,
and then loading forces and moments are reconstructed. The accuracy on current prototypes
achieved by SKF is already very promising. The RMS noise is maintained under the 2% and
the bias is maximum 10% in real automotive conditions [23].
1-1-3 Summary
Eager to know what is going on between the tyre and road, researchers keep investigating
new approaches towards measuring real time tyre force information besides state estimator.
Various initiatives have been changing the state of art, with prototypes that can be easily
inserted into production vehicles. Meanwhile, tyre force information opens a door to new
topics of research in the vehicle dynamics control field.
Considering the challenges of simplified rim measurement devices and smart tyres, load-
sensing bearings are thought to be the most promising solution in the near future. Therefore,
with the leading technology from SKF, a novel force based control algorithm is investigated
in this study.
1-2 Integrated Chassis Control (ICC)
The chassis technology had been generally considered a topic within mechanical engineer-
ing framework until 1980s [24]. In order to improve vehicle dynamics performance, various
active chassis systems (see Figure 1-5) were developed and control engineering started to
play an increasingly significant role since then. The term "chassis control technology" came
from this new historical stage, during which the most iconic event was the development and
implementation of four-wheel steering (4WS).

1-2 Integrated Chassis Control (ICC) 5
Figure 1-5: Timeline for the introduction of active safety systems in passenger cars (red cross
shows the time when ICC was first introduced)
As a result, it was only the late 1980s when the concept of "integrated chassis controls"
first arose, as shown in Figure 1-5. By then, it has been the only common practice for
separate vehicle functions to be controlled "independently", or rather in parallel [4]. Still today
each control system is developed and supplied by different suppliers or different groups in
OEMs, which means hardware, sensor information and control demands operating in parallel
processes. With the increasing electronically controlled functions and actuators acting on
the car’s six rigid body motion modes, both the industry and academia concerned about the
potential issues of interactions or conflicts caused by the coupling of sub-systems, mainly from
the following two aspects.
• Each active chassis system has different control targets. For example, active suspension
aims to improve the ride comfort, but 4WS is mostly responsible for handling stability.
Such two systems acting on a same car could conflict with each other, especially in
handling limit conditions.
• One actuator could be controlled by different control systems, like braking system re-
ceives control inputs from the driver, ABS and ESC. Conflicts may occur without co-
ordination.
Other than such concerns, there are also high expectations, since system redundancy with
respect to sensors and actuators offer more degrees of freedom from control viewpoint. Au-
tomakers in the world’s Big Three regions in automotive industry, Japan [25], Europe [26]
and the US [27], almost came up with similar ideas in the same time, though various ex-
pressions are named, such as "Integrated Chassis Control" (General Motors), "Integrated
Vehicle Dynamics Control" (Ford), "Complete Vehicle Control" (Volvo), "Vehicle Dynamics
Integrated Management" (Toyota), or "global chassis control" or "unified chassis control" as
used in academia.
Overall, the aim of ICC is to combine and supervise all controllable active chassis sub-systems
to [4]:
• Improve multiple-objective performance from available actuators, by removing the im-

plicit constraint of a one-to-one link between control objectives and particular sets of
sensors and actuators
• Reduce or contain complexity, as the number of control components increases

6 Introduction
• Improve safety and comfort
• Reduce or contain system costs, by avoiding unnecessary duplication of components and

by information sharing between sensors
• Improve flexibility by
– permitting a modular and distributed design process,

– moving towards "plug-and-play" extensibility,
– incorporating diagnostics and condition monitoring,
– improving system reliability, and
– allowing fault-tolerant and failure management capability.
1-3 State of the Art
Due to the diversity of various families of control algorithms, previous research efforts have
shown numerous possibilities from different approaches. Control algorithm plays a comple-
mentary role in ICC, as it supports a specific control system structure to achieve its functions
and regulates the system dynamics in a desired manner.
It should be noted that, although control algorithms may vary from one to the other, the
target response is defined mostly the same in all ICC frameworks, as derived from steady
state cornering [28]. Another remarkable feature in common is that, the active steering angle
∆δf and stability yaw moment ∆M are generally taken as two independent control inputs,
i.e. assuming ∆M can be obtained only by the differential value between the left and right
sides tire longitudinal forces, while ignoring the yaw moment generated by steering.
Control algorithms in ICC design can be classified into four categories:
• Linear Control Techniques
• Non-linear Control Techniques
• Intelligent Control Techniques
• Optimization-based Control Techniques
1-3-1 Linear Control Techniques
Linear control algorithms refer to the control system design with linear tire and vehicle dynam-
ics assumption. Masao Nagai proposed a 2 DOF model-matching control technique combining
both feed-forward and feedback control law, regulating yaw rate and side slip angle, to track
an ideal response [29][30][31]. For the state feedback design, LQR, pole-placement, H2 /LQG
or H∞ control theory can be applied [32].
Since model-matching requires accurate plant model to guarantee robustness margin, some
researchers advocated robust control techniques. The non-linearity of tyre dynamics, as well

1-3 State of the Art 7
as tyre-road contact conditions, are treated as plant uncertainties. Sam-Sang You proposed
a multi-objective control synthesis on integration of 4WS and DYC, which simultaneously
minimizes the upper bound of H2 performance cost subjected to H∞ constraint and pole
assignment [33]. Other researches explore the application of new robust control techniques,
such as µ-synthesis [34][35]. The frequency response of robust design guarantees a given level
of disturbance (or noise) attenuation and robustness in both low and high frequency ranges,
but it leads to rather high order controllers. Thus the controller should be reduced to a
reasonable order for implementation [34].
A common problem among linear control algorithms is that, due to the linearized vehicle
model, tyre lateral forces are in proportion to tyre side-slip angle, without consideration of
longitudinal and lateral tyre forces coupling and grip limits. As a result, the control input set
may not be feasible under certain conditions and cannot generate a desired force distribution
generated by tyres.
1-3-2 Non-linear Control Techniques
The insufficient performance of linear control systems has spurred great advances in the theory
and applications of nonlinear control. G. Burgio and P. Zegelaar proposed feedback lineariza-
tion for steering (AFS, SBW) and braking (or equivalently traction) system integration [36].
Feedback linearization amounts to canceling the nonlinearities in a nonlinear system so that
the closed-loop dynamics is in a linear form. However, certain feedback linearization control
system design is under very critical assumption, e.g. the tyre model can always be inverted,
which may not be true in real cases.
Mokhiamar and Abe adopted the sliding mode technique [37], controlling the vehicle’s states
to stay confined to the sliding surface. However, real implementations of sliding mode control
approximate this theoretical behavior with a high-frequency and generally non-deterministic
switching control signal that causes the system to "chatter" in a tight neighborhood of the
sliding surface. As chattering may cause unpleasant driving experience, saturation functions
are introduced in control system design to eliminate the chattering.
Besides, adaptive control become popular in resent years, working together with other control
techniques, such as model predictive control (MPC) and other optimization based control
allocation [38][39][40][41]. Nenggen Ding and Saied Taheri proposed an adaptive integrated
algorithm for AFS/DYC based on direct Lyapunov method. Variation of cornering stiffness
is considered through adaptation laws to ensure robustness of the integrated controller [42].
Other adaptation laws are designed in ICC systems for tire-road maximal friction coefficients
adaptation [43], mass and mass moment of inertia adaptation [40], the weighting coefficients
adaptation in control allocation cost function [41], respectively.
1-3-3 Intelligent Control Techniques
Regardless of which kind of linear or nonlinear control technique, or namely "model-based

control" proposed in ICC, the dynamic model’s accuracy of physical vehicle in control system
design largely influences the control performance. As a result, "model free" intelligent control
techniques, such as fuzzy logic control, are commonly adopted.

8 Introduction
Published researches using fuzzy logic control include the integration of AFS/DYC [44], AR-
S/DYC [45][46] and DYC of 4WD EVs [47]. Fuzzy logic control is a knowledge-based control
approach which can mimic human experience in controlling complex systems. The major ad-
vantage in comparison with conventional mathematical models is the possibility of elaborating
them on the basis of far less amounts of information about a system. Another advantage is
that, the controller is described in vague linguistic terms that suit the subjective nature of ve-
hicle stability and handling. However, the fuzzy logic control design requires a lot of expertise
and effort for tuning, especially when making the fuzzy rules.
1-3-4 Optimization-based Control Techniques
Optimization based control techniques are playing an increasingly significant role in mod-
ern controller design. High-level controllers such as MPC or control allocation (CA) employ
mathematical optimization. These algorithms run online and repeatedly determine values
for decision variables, such as force or torque distribution generated by tyres, by iteratively
solving a mathematical optimization problem including constraints and a vehicle dynamics
model to be controlled. Another motivation to use optimization is the importance of consid-
ering the tyre limit in higher level control for safety reasons. The optimization-based control
techniques can essentially include the tyre force constraints in the optimization formulation,
which provides a promising approach in foreseeable future.
F. Borrelli, P. Falcone and their research group carried out many studies on the non-linear
optimization problem in the MPC framework [48][49][50][51][52]. An integration of braking
and steering was proposed for an autonomous vehicle path following nonlinear MPC (NMPC)
formulation scheme [50]. In order to fully capture the interaction between longitudinal brak-
ing/slip ratio and lateral force/slip angle, the NMPC utilises a full four wheels vehicle model
where individual wheel dynamics are included. Nevertheless, because of high computational
burden, the NMPC formulation is not real-time implementable yet, as it is based on a tenth
order vehicle model with five control inputs.
After reducing the complexity of the NMPC formulation from tenth order to sixth order,
it is observed that the simplified NMPC controller fails to stabilize the vehicle along the
desired path when entry speed exceeds certain value. So in their following research efforts,
the first of all tasks is to make a proper compromise between the controller performance and
computational load. Solutions include to employ a NMPC formulation with a better-balanced
trade off [51], or sub-optimal MPC controller, based on successive online linearization of the
non-linear vehicle model [53].
min E
S
s.t. Fc = Fcd
(1-1)
Tyre constrains, i ∈ (1, 4)
Actuator constrains
Besides MPC, CA can also be represented as an optimization problem in ICC framework, see
Eq. (1-1). Cost functions are normally defined to minimize the energy consumption (control
effort) or more commonly, to minimize the working load at each tyre. The physical meaning

1-3 State of the Art 9
behind the minimization is to maintain the tyre forces as far as possible from their grip
limits. Challenges of this optimization formulation lie in the non-linear time-varying tyre
grip constrains, and known actuator rate constraints.
Although the computational efficiency of CA is much higher than MPC, real-time implemen-
tation is extremely challenging, due to the dynamics being as fast as 20-50 Hz in automotive
applications. Still, CA controller design today struggles with the trade-off between control
performance and computational loads. As shown in Figure 1-6, research efforts in this field
can be grouped into three categories.
Figure 1-6: Trade off between CA controller performance and computational efficiency
The simplest case is unconstrained linear CA, as shown on left side of Figure 1-6, which
ignores the tyre and actuator constraints. Mokhiamar and Abe studied how to distribute
tire forces by optimization in this simple approach [54][55][56]. The objective of optimum
tire forces distribution control is to find out how to tune the entire set of longitudinal and
lateral forces to be generated at the four tires to obtain the target total lateral force and yaw
moment. However, the constraint friction circle of each tyre is not considered, so that the
algorithm does not guarantee the tyre can generate enough force as desired.
To avoid solving complex non-linear optimization online, while considering tyre and actuators’
constrains, simplified linear CA methods are adopted, as shown in the middle of Figure 1-6.
Andreasson solves the optimization problem based on a linearised model at each sampling time
and then the computational complexity is decreased to the level of quadratic programming
[57]. Another rather simple approach is to approximate the time varying tyre ellipse by a
rhombus [58].
However, both these two approaches can be problematic. Andreasson’s approach is motivated
by the assumption that the dynamics of the system should not vary too much between two
iterations, which is not always true since tyres are known to have fast dynamics and strong
non-linearities. On the other hand, linearization loses the model accuracy, so researchers
today combine the parameter adaptation laws with such constrained linear control allocation,
to compensate the uncertainties.
As be can seen on right side of Figure 1-6, the non-linear CA performs the best, while it
requires the highest computational power. Since it is not real-time implementable, following
approaches are adopted to decrease the computational load to an acceptable level.

10 Introduction
• Updating quadratic approximation instead of linear, for more accurate approximations

compared with constrained linear CA and higher computational efficiency [59]
• Solving the optimization off-line and saving in look-up tables [60]
• Development of new optimization algorithms with higher computational efficiency. [61][62][63][64]
1-4 Problem Statement
Today we have seen most of the these active safety systems well-established on production
vehicles, and even the fitment of some has become mandatory in regulations (e.g. ABS, ESC,
etc.), while some others still "on the way", such as the steering by wire (SBW) technology,
implemented in first production vehicle Infiniti Q50 in 2013.
Anti-lock Braking System, ABS, prohibits driver to lock the wheels while braking. The
wheel brake torques requested are limited by ABS in a way that each individual wheel’s
longitudinal slip stays within a certain range. The purpose of ABS is to avoid losing vehicle
brake force due to that the tyre force curve drops at high slips and to leave some friction for
steering and cornering [65].
Electronic Stability Control, ESC , directs the vehicle to match a desired yaw behaviour,
when the deviation from desired behaviour becomes above certain thresholds. ESC typically
uses friction brakes as actuator and generates an additional yaw moment to reduce the yaw
rate error. For vehicles with controllable distribution of propulsion between the left and right,
such as 4WD EV, it can intervene also with a request for redistribution of the propulsion
torque. For example, if over-steering, the propulsion should be redistributed towards inner
side and opposite for under-steering, which is also known as "Torque Vectoring" [65].
Active Front Steering, AFS, more generally speaking, provides an electronically controlled
superposition to alter the relationship between the driver’s steering input and the angle of
the steered road wheels continuously and intelligently. Some of AFS are developed with
still mechanical connection between steering wheel and road wheels, utilising planetary gear
systems for superposition , e.g. BMW’s Active Steering. Others are based on SBW (Steering
by Wire), meaning there’s no mechanical connection in between, and the control of the wheels’
direction is fully determined by ECU and actuated through electric motors, such as Infiniti
Q50.
This thesis aims to investigate a novel ICC design to supervise and manage AFS, ESC and
ABS, with the following features:
• Organizing ICC, including sub-system controllers, in an architecture to accord with the

nature of vehicle dynamics, well utilizing existing sub-systems’ control algorithms and
permitting a modular design process
• Improving multiple-objective performances by removing the implicit constraint of a

one-to-one link between control systems and objectives
• Ensuring proposed ICC’s capability to tackle system uncertainties such as vehicle speed
and road conditions in adaptive model-based design approach

1-5 Thesis Outline 11
• Exploring the possibilities to make better use of tyre force information
• Moving towards "plug-and-play" extensible framework design, open to other load-sensing

based control system design, e.g. load-sensing based ABS/ESC
• Allowing real-time implementation
• If possible, allowing fault-tolerant and failure management capability
Force sensing is considered as the basis for implementing an Integrated Chassis Control ap-
proach where longitudinal, lateral and vertical dynamics are combined, with additional focus
on driver interaction. Force information can generally be utilized in two ways. One is to
contribute to more precise estimation and re-create other vehicle dynamics indicators, which
can not be directly measured, for instance, body side-slip angle and tyre stiffness. The other
option, as the highlight of this study, is that tyre force signals from load-sensing bearings run
through the feedback loop on high-level controller and dominate the control decision making
process.
1-5 Thesis Outline
This section is intended to give a brief overview of the contents of this paper. In Chapter
1, a framework for Integrated Chassis Control is presented. The emergence, development
and current state of art of the ICC researches and its industrial applications are reviewed. It
further discusses possibilities provided by load-sensing technology from SKF, which opens the
door to novel research topics in force-sensing based vehicle dynamics control system design.
The motivation and goals of this study are analysed and explained in the end.
The rest of this paper is organized in the sequential fashion:
Chapter 2 introduces the basis for related vehicle dynamics and its multi-layer structure
in nature. Analysis of current information flow bottlenecks and corresponding ICC system
structure build a solid foundation of the proposed ICC framework with a properly organized
information flow to take advantage of load-sensing.
Chapter 3 proposes an on-target high level control algorithm including Force Reference Gen-
erator and allocation strategy to supervise AFS, ESC and ABS. And in Chapter 4 validation
results as well as performance/robustness comparisons with conventional ESC are listed and
analysed.
Chapter 5 winds up this thesis with conclusions and future works based on the findings during
implementation procedure and in numerical simulation results.

12 Introduction

Chapter 2
Vehicle Dynamics Theory
In Chapter 1, basic motivations and targets of this thesis are introduced. This chapter
describes vehicle dynamics modeling, which is crucial for further analysis as it also dictates
the control scheme to be implemented. Since the proposed ICC is mainly concerning vehicle
lateral stability, planar vehicle dynamics is emphatically analyzed. Meanwhile, as ABS is also
integrated in ICC design, the involved longitudinal dynamics is briefly introduced.
2-1 Mathematical Modeling
2-1-1 Body Dynamics
Figure 2-1 illustrates the forces in the xy-plane acting at the tyre-prints of a front-wheel-
steering four-wheel vehicle. Ignoring the roll motion of the vehicle, the chassis remains parallel
to the road plane and left and right wheels can be presented by a single equivalent wheel in
the axle center, also called a "bicycle model".
Equations of motion in a bicycle model are established under certain assumptions, such as
constant forward velocity and small angle approximation.
m(v̇ + ur) = Fyf + Fyr (2-1)

I ṙ = aFyf − bFyr + ∆M (2-2)
It should be noted that, the yaw moment ∆M indicates a direct yaw moment control input,
which can be generated by differential braking or torque vectoring.
∆M = c(Fx2 − Fx1 )cosδ + c(Fx4 − Fx3 ) (2-3)
Introducing the geometry relationship, yaw rate and body side-slip angle yields to

14 Vehicle Dynamics Theory
Figure 2-1: Front-wheel-steering planar vehicle model: (left) four-wheel double-track model;
(right) two-wheel bicycle model
V
r= (2-4)
R
v v
β = arctan( ) = (2-5)
u u
Then Equation (2-1) can be re-written as
mu(β̇ + r) = Fyf + Fyr (2-6)
where the parameters are defined as follows:

m: the mass of vehicle
I: yaw moment of inertia of vehicle body
u: vehicle longitudinal velocity
v: vehicle lateral velocity
r: the yaw rate
δ: Wheel steering angle
a/b/c: distance from c.g. to front/rear axle/ half track width
Cf /Cr : front/rear axle cornering stiffness

2-1 Mathematical Modeling 15
2-1-2 Wheel Dynamics
Lateral Motion
The slip angle of a tyre is the angle between the orientation of the tyre and the orientation
of the velocity vector of the wheel. Figure 2-2 also shows the geometry relationship of (front)
wheel side-slip angle, and similarly for the rear,
v + ar
αf = δ − (2-7)
u
−v + br
αr = (2-8)
u
Figure 2-2: Front tyre side-slip angle

Figure 2-3: A single corner model
geometry
Longitudinal Motion
The single corner model is often enough to describe the main phenomena affecting the lon-
gitudinal wheel dynamics, as demonstrated in Figure 2-3. Equations of wheel motion are as
follows.
J ω̇i = Ref f Fxi − Tbi (2-9)

mi V̇i = −Fxi (2-10)
Similar to side-slip angle, slip ratio λ is defined as,
Vi − ωi Ref f
λi = (2-11)
Vi
where the corresponding parameters are

mi : quarter car (single corner) mass
J: yaw moment of inertia of wheel
Ref f : effective wheel radius

Vi : longitudinal speed of the single corner

ωi : angular speed of the wheel
Tbi : braking torque (control/input variable)
2-1-3 Tyre Forces
Forces and moments from the road act on each tyre of the vehicle and highly influence the
dynamics of the vehicle. Several types of mathematical models exist for describing these tyre
forces and moments, from empirical to theoretical models. One constitutive assumption for
most vehicle dynamics design today is that, the longitudinal/lateral force generated by a tyre,
is dependent on slip ratio λ/side-slip angle α that is proportional to the slip-ratio/side-slip
for small λ and α. This is also known as "linear tyre model", proved by experimental results.
Lateral
Fyf = Cf αf (2-12)
Fyr = Cr αr (2-13)
Longitudinal
Fxi = Cx λi (2-14)
Combined Lateral and Longitudinal Tyre Force
Figure 2-4: Longitudinal (left) and lateral (right) forces w.r.t the slip and the slip angle
Aforementioned linear tyre force models are good approximations when slip ratio and side-
slip angle are small respectively. A more sophisticated model, such as Magic Formula [66],
is required for large slip angles and large slip ratios. As shown in Figure 2-4, nonlinear tyre
behaviors can be observed in the presence of both significant side-slip angle and longitudinal
slip ratio. Besides, in the combined tyre force case, wheel locking/large side-slip angle not

2-1 Mathematical Modeling 17
Figure 2-5: Friction ellipse [1]
only lead to the performance loss of braking/corning, but harm the tyre potential to generate
force in the other direction, due to the coupled dynamics.
Assuming an isotropic tyre adhesion properties in both lateral and longitudinal direction, the
fact that the total vector sum of the generated force cannot exceed µFzi , shown in Figure 2-5.
2 2
Fxi + Fyi ≤ (µFzi )2 (2-15)
Dynamic Tyre Model
As a force generator, tyre experiences a time delay to reach the steady-state tyre force. A
typical way to model this relaxation phenomena in lateral tyre force dynamics is by using a
first order delay [28] represented by
τlag Ḟylag + Fylag = Fy (2-16)
Lrelax Lrelax
τlag = = (2-17)
u V
where Fy is the tyre lateral force from quasi-static models described in previous sections, Fylag
is the dynamic or lagged lateral force, τlag is the relaxation time constant, and Lrelax is the
approximate relaxation length to build up tyre forces.

2-2 Vehicle Dynamics Structure
As described in Section 2-1 and illustrated by Figure 2-6, the vehicle dynamics system itself is
hierarchical in nature. Although vehicle’s motion is directly governed by the forces generated
between tyres and road surface, the intermediate links from the driver to tyre forces are
important as well. From the top level, driver’s inputs, including the steering wheel, throttle
and braking pedal, are interpreted into vehicle body motion indicators, which reflect the
driver’s intention to control the vehicle. Even in the case of automated driving, which is
upcoming fast in near future, on-board computers are expected to generate a similar path
following information adopting a steady state cornering maneuver to calculate desired vehicle
motion, as it refers to a linear vehicle behavior that is most familiar to average drivers.
Figure 2-7: Commonly adopted informa-

Figure 2-6: Vehicle longitudinal and lateral tion flow in ICC: (left) model matching;
dynamics system in ICC (right) CA
By substituting Equations (2-1)(2-2)(2-4)-(2-7)(2-12)(2-13) and assuming steady-state cor-

nering with fixed radius (i.e. δ̇ = ṙ = r̈ = 0 and ∆M = 0), the yaw rate and body side-slip
reference can be derived as,
V
rref = mV 2 (aCf −bCr )
δ (2-18)
l− Cf Cr l
amV 2
b− Cr l
βref = mV 2 (aCf −bCr )
δ (2-19)
l− Cf Cr l
where l = a + b represents the wheelbase.

On the next layer, previous studies (see Section 1-3) propose two different information flow
schemes. As revealed by Figure 2-7, model matching ICC schemes determine control inputs
at the wheel level by the tracking error of vehicle body motion w.r.t. the model reference,
such as yaw rate. However, a major drawback is due to the lack of any onboard system to
provide tyre force measurements, therefore the set of control inputs, i.e direct yaw moment
∆M , might be infeasible if the tyre forces are already saturated.
Optimization based ICC design tackles this problem by involving friction circle as a constraint
in optimization formulation. CA allocates the total control effort to each tyre for tracking a

2-3 Control System Structure 19
desired behavior directly at the ground level, while satisfying all tyres and actuators’ satu-
ration constraints and taking the tyre as a "force generator" in the loop. Finally actuators
on the wheel level control each wheel’s dynamics to achieve the individual target tyre forces.
But as mentioned in Chapter 1, solving an optimization problem with non-linear constraints
is not always real-time achievable.
Figure 2-8: Proposed

information flow chart Figure 2-9: Hierarchical ICC structure [2]
Considering the shortages in former ICC designs, a novel information flow is proposed in this
study, as shown in Figure 2-8, to take advantage of onboard tyre force information. The
drivers intention is directly interpreted into force references, which meanwhile lives up to
the linear vehicle behavior as defined in a typical reference model. Then the load-sensing
feedback makes it possible to form a closed loop on force level, capturing significantly faster
dynamics than vehicle body motion and ensuring an achievable target without having to solve
optimization problems online. Finally the controller computes the required set of inputs based
on both force tracking and penalizing undesired vehicle body dynamics, such as large body
side-slip.
2-3 Control System Structure
The term "control system structure" refers to the relationships among controllers, actuators,
sub-system dynamics and sensors/observers inside the close-loop control system. This struc-
ture not only largely influences the choice of control algorithms, but also the control system
development process from the project management point of view.
As illustrated in previous sections, the vehicle dynamics structure is multi-layered in nature, so
a hierarchical control structure is believed to better fit the system dynamics, when compared
with a decentralized/centralized control structure [2]. By adding a higher level coordinate
controller to the former, or inserting a local level controller to the latter, the development
process can be re-organized as well. From the commercial perspective, the design and devel-
opment of subsystems can be completely subcontracted to suppliers and OEMs can benefit
from suppliers’ fundamental strengths. Meanwhile, OEMs can take the charge of design and

development of higher level controller on top of subsystems, or in another words, the "inte-
gration". In this way, by modifying existing sub-systems and co-development, time pressure
during development progress is released.
The general structure of the hierarchical control considered in this report is as follows. The
high-level controller first calculates the total control effort according to the vehicle’s current
states and driver’s intention, and then allocates the total control effort to available sub-
systems’ local controllers. Local controllers are responsible for tracking and regulation of
set-point offered by the high-level controller. The highlight of this research was then picked
to design the allocation strategy for integrating AFS, ESC and ABS.

Chapter 3
Integrated Chassis Control Design
The aforementioned findings regarding the vehicle control algorithms (Chapter 1), ICC frame-
work information flow (Section 2-2) and ICC system structure (Section 2-3), build a solid
foundation of the proposed ICC design in this study. Figure 3-1 illustrates the block diagram
of the overall ICC framework given in a modular approach as follows.
Figure 3-1: Block diagram of proposed ICC framework
• A novel Force Reference Generator interprets drivers’ steering command into force ref-
erence.
• A linear-quadratic-integral (LQI) controller is designed to track the force reference with
desired performance. An anti-windup loop is added in baseline to avoid large transients
caused by integral action, in case of actuator saturation.
• Baseline controller is augmented by L1 adaptive control [67] to compensate for vehicle
characteristic changes due to model variations caused by vehicle speed and road-tyre
friction, and to reject undesired disturbances.
• The conventional ESC algorithm is modified to track a target yaw moment and inte-
grated with ABS to prevent wheel locking.

22 Integrated Chassis Control Design
3-1 Force Reference Generator
As the basic idea of proposed ICC is based on load-sensing and force tracking, the reference
force generation defines a desired linear vehicle behavior, which is derived from steady state
cornering. Referring back to Eq.(2-18)(2-19) and substituting for r and β, yields to the
following reference force equations,
b
Fyf _r = l2 a b
δw (3-1)
mV 2
− Cr + Cf
a
Fyr_r = l2 a b
δw (3-2)
mV 2
− Cr + Cf
1
δw = δsw (3-3)
n
where the parameters are defined as follows
Fyf _r /Fyr_r : reference lateral force for front/rear axle
δsw : steering wheel angle commanded by driver
δw : wheel steering angle correspond to driver’s command
n: equivalent gear ratio of steering system
Due to the existence of grip limit of each tyre, Fyf _r and Fyr_r are saturated by instantaneous
maximum lateral force of equivalent tyre on each axle, that is
q
|Fyf _r | ≤ (µFzf )2 − Fxf 2 (3-4)
q
|Fyr_r | ≤ (µFzr )2 − Fxr 2 (3-5)
Where
Fzf = Fz1 + Fz2

Fzr = Fz3 + Fz4
(3-6)
Fxf = Fx1 + Fx2
Fxr = Fx3 + Fx4
3-2 Baseline Controller Design
3-2-1 Linear-quadratic-integral Feedback Design
A baseline controller is designed to stabilize the dynamics and provide adequate reference
command tracking under nominal conditions. A control oriented state space model is given
by Eq.(2-2)(2-5)-(2-7)(2-12)(2-13)(2-16)(2-17) in the following state space form with system
h iT h iT
states x = Fyf Fyr β r and control input u = δcmd ∆Mcmd .

3-2 Baseline Controller Design 23
ẋ = Ax + Bu
(3-7)
y = Cx
With
C V aCf
   Cf V
−V − Lff

0 − 0
 Lf Lf 
 f
L
A= 0 − LVr − CLrrV bCr 

= 0 0
 
Lr  , B (3-8)

 1 1

0 −1   0 0

 mV mV
a 1
I − Ib 0 0 0 I
" #
1 0 0 0
C= (3-9)
0 1 0 0
where Lf /Lr represents the front/rear tyre relaxation length.

A PI based control is preferred to eliminate the steady state error. As a common approach
in industrial application, the integral error are built as additional states into the system
dynamics, written as
e(t) = Fy_r (t) − y(t) (3-10)

Z t
eI (t) = e(τ )dτ (3-11)
0
where " #
F (t)
Fy_r (t) = yf _r (3-12)
Fyr_r (t)
so that with the addition of these states, system dynamics described in Eq.(3-7) can be
re-written as
" # " #" # " # " #
e˙I 0 −C eI 0 I
= + u + 2 Fy_r (3-13)
ẋ 0 A x B 0
A linear-quadratic state-feedback regulator is designed to achieve stabilization and asymptotic

track of Fy_r , which also minimizes the cost function of form as shown in Eq.(3-14)
Z ∞ h i h iT
J= ( eI x Q eI x + uT Ru)dt (3-14)
0
where the values for weighting matrices in this work are defined as
Q = diag([10−3 5 · 10−3 10−12 10−10 104 80])

2 −6
(3-15)
R = diag([5 · 10 4 · 10 ])
Then the optimal baseline feedback control law is given by
u = Kp x + KI eI (3-16)

3-2-2 Anti-windup Loop Design
A steering wheel has a maximum turning angle to both sides, which indicates for automo-
tive actuators and sub-systems there are always physical limitations or pre-defined operation
range. So it may happen that the control inputs reach these limits, leading to integral signals’
windup.
Figure 3-2 shows that, when the control signal uout increases to its upper bound umax and
tracking error continues to be integrated, the integral part of control signal keeps increasing,
which means the integral term "winds up". Thus the feedback loop is broken and the system
runs as an open loop because the actuator will remain at its limit independently of the control
signal u. Then it requires a long period before the controller is able to eliminate the large
integrated error and control action returns to normal, which causes undesired large transients
and delayed response [3].
Figure 3-2: Illustration of integrator windup [3]
An anti-windup loop is designed based on back-calculation methods, as shown in Figure 3-3.

The integral is recomputed to give a new output at the saturation limit. It is advantageous
not to reset the integrator instantaneously but dynamically with a time constant. When the
output saturates, an extra feedback path is generated by measuring the error signal eT as
the difference between the constrained/unconstrained control signal. Then eT is fed to the
integrator through a gain, KT .
Note that eT is zero when there is no saturation, thus no effect on the normal operation. When
saturated, anti-windup loop drives the integrator input towards zero, which means integral
term stops growing and control signal settles on a value slightly outside of the saturation
limit. Therefore, the control signal can react as soon as the error changes sign, preventing
the integrator from winding up.

3-3 L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation Design 25
Figure 3-3: Block diagram of LQI baseline control with anti-windup loop
3-3 L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation Design
L1 adaptive control can be viewed as a modified model reference adaptive control (MRAC)
scheme where a reference model defining desired closed-loop performance is incorporated. It
can also be extended to multi-input multi-output (MIMO) nonlinear systems in the presence
of general unmatched uncertainties and unmodeled dynamics or, alternately, unknown time-
and state-dependent nonlinear cross-coupling, which cannot be controlled by conventional
adaptive (backstepping-type) design methods [67]. This MIMO architecture has been applied
to NASA’s Generic Transport Model (GTM), which is part of the AirSTAR system, and to
Boeing’s X-48B blended wing body aircraft [68][69].
The biggest challenge in MRAC is to tune adaptation parameters, since control signal oscilla-
tions can occur with improperly tuned gains. Fast adaptation is needed from the estimation
perspective, but as estimated parameters are used in control gains, the resulting controls are
often high gain, which contain high frequency modes that excite system vibration modes. In
other words, attempts to improve performance could result in decreased robustness. Com-
pared with MRAC, the main benefit of the L1 adaptive control methodology is its fast and
robust adaptation by separation of adaptation and robustness through the use of low-pass
filters.
The main features of L1 adaptive control are summarized below [69]:
• Decoupling between the rate of adaptation and robustness
• Guaranteed fast adaptation, limited only by hardware constraints
• Guaranteed transient performance for a system’s input and output signals, without high
gain feedback or enforcing persistent excitation type assumptions
• Guaranteed, bounded away from zero time-delay margin
• Uniform, scaled transient response dependent on changes in initial conditions, unknown

parameters, and reference commands

3-3-1 Problem Formulation
Next the theoretical framework for the development of the L1 adaptive augmentation system is
presented. The L1 adaptive control scheme utilized in this study implements a fast estimation
scheme based on a piecewise constant adaptive law, which updates the parametric estimate
at a rate associated with the sampling rate of the available CPU. By increasing the rate of
sampling, one can reduce the influence of the residual term on the performance bounds, which
assumes partial cancellation of uncertainties within the bandwidth of the control channel [67].
The resulting closed-loop system including aforementioned baseline controller is given as:
ẋ(t) = Am x(t) + Br rg (t) + Bm (uad (t) + f1 (x(t), z(t), t)) + Bum f2 (x(t), z(t), t)
z(t) = go (xz (t), t)
ẋz (t) = g(xz (t), x(t), t)
(3-17)
y(t) = Cm x(t)
x(0) = x0
xz (0) = xz0
where x(t) ∈ Rn is the system state vector (measured); uad (t) ∈ Rm is the adaptive control
signal (n > m); y(t) ∈ Rm is the regulated output; rg (t) ∈ Rm is the prefiltered control
reference signal, rg (s) = Kg (s)r(s), with Kg (s) being an m × m stable and proper baseline
feed-forward gain that can be designed to achieve desired decoupling properties, and r(t) ∈ Rm
being the bounded reference signal to be tracked.
Am ∈ Rn×n is a known Hurwitz n × n matrix that defines the desired dynamics for the closed-
loop system; Br ∈ Rn×m is a known command control matrix; Bm ∈ Rn×m is the known
full-rank constant matrix; Bum ∈ Rn×(n−m) is a constant matrix such that Bm TB
um = 0 and
rank([Bm Bum ]) = n; Cm ∈ R m×n is the known output matrix; (Am , Bm ) is controllable
and (Am , Cm ) is observable; z(t) and xz (t) are the output and the state vector of internal
unmodeled dynamics; f1 (·), f2 (·), go (·) and g(·) are unknown nonlinear functions. In this
problem formulation, f1 (·) represents the matched component of the uncertainties, whereas
Bum f2 (·) represents the unmatched (cross-coupling) component.
With the above formulation, the control objective is to design an adaptive state-feedback
control signal uad (t) to ensure that the output y(t) tracks the output response of the desired
system reference model given by
ẋm (t) = Am xm (t) + Br rg (t)

(3-18)
ym (t) = Cm xm (t)
to a given bounded reference signal r(t) both in transient and steady-state, while all other
signals remain bounded. In particular, if the baseline feed-forward gain Kg is chosen to be
Kg = −(Cm A−1 −1
m Br ) , then the diagonal elements of the transfer matrix M (s) = C(sI −
−1
Am ) Bm Kg have DC gain equal to one, while the off-diagonal elements have zero DC gain,
which indicates M (s) = Im .

3-3 L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation Design 27
3-3-2 L1 Adaptive Controller
The philosophy of the L1 adaptive controller is to introduce separation between adaptation

and robustness. It obtains the estimate of both the matched, f1 (·), and unmatched, Bum f2 (·),
uncertainties via a fast estimation scheme and defines the control signal, uad (t), as the output
of a low-pass filter, which compensates for the effect of these uncertainties on the system
output, y(t), within the bandwidth of the control channel. This low-pass filter guarantees that
the control signal stays in the low-frequency range even in the presence of fast adaptation,
leads to separation between adaptation and robustness, and defines the trade-off between
performance and robustness. Adaptation is based on a piecewise constant adaptive law, and
uses a state predictor to update the estimate of the uncertainties. The L1 adaptive control
architecture is introduced next [67].
Figure 3-4: L1 Adaptive Control Augmentation architecture
State Predictor
The state predictor replicates the above system structure and is given by
˙
x̂(t) = Am x̂ + Br rg (t) + Bm (uad (t) + σ̂1 (t)) + Bum σ̂2 (t)), x̂0 = x0 (3-19)
where σ̂1 (t) ∈ Rm and σ̂2 (t) ∈ Rn−m are the adaptive estimates of the matched and unmatched
uncertainties respectively.

Adaptive Law
Given a rate of adaptation Ta > 0, the uncertainty estimates σ̂1 (t) and σ̂2 (t) are updated
with a piecewise constant adaptive law shown below
" # " #
σ̂1 (t) σ̂ (iT )
= 1 a , t ∈ [iTa , (i + 1)Ta ]
σ̂2 (t) σ̂2 (iTa )
" # " # (3-20)
σ̂1 (iTa ) I 0 h i−1
=− m Bm Bum Φ−1 (Ta )eAm Ta x̃(iTa )
σ̂2 (iTa ) 0 In−m
where
Φ(Ta ) = A−1
m e
Am T a
− In (3-21)
for i = 0, 1, 2, ...,, and x̃(t) = x̂(t) − x(t) is the state prediction error signal.
Control Law
The control law is generated from the uncertainty estimates and is given by
uad (t) = uadm (t) + uadum (t) (3-22)
where
uadm (s) = −C1 (s)σ̂1 (s)

(3-23)
uadum (s) = −C2 (s)H1−1 (s)H2 (s)σ̂2 (s)
and
H1 (s) = Cm (sI − Am )−1 Bm

(3-24)
H2 (s) = Cm (sI − Am )−1 Bum
The stable and strictly proper low-pass filters C1 (s) and C2 (s) which also define a proper
stable transfer matrix C2 (s)H1−1 (s), are designed to attenuate high frequencies in the adap-
tive control signals, and thus define the performance-robustness trade-off. By reducing the
bandwidth of the filters, the time-delay margin of the system can be systematically increased
at the cost of reduced performance, while increasing the bandwidth of the filters leads to
improved performance of adaptive closed-loop system with reduced robustness. The proofs
of stability and performance bounds for the L1 adaptive controller presented in this section
can be found in [70].

3-4 Subsystem Controller Design 29
3-3-3 Implementation
A reference model of augmented 6th-order closed-loop system including the plant and baseline
controller dynamics in Eq.(3-13)-(3-16), which corresponds to Eq.(3-18), can be written as
" # " #" # " #
e˙I 0 −C eI I
= + 2 Fy_r (3-25)
ẋ Br KI A + Br K p x 0
where the nominal closed-loop baseline dynamics define the reference model dynamics (Am , Br )
as shown with the reference model output given by
" #" #
0 0 1 0 0 0 eI
ym = (3-26)
0 0 0 1 0 0 x
Within this framework, the controller is designed based on the specifications of a 15 DOFs
D-Class SUV multi-body model at V = 80 km/h from CarSim simulation package [71]. More
1
details are listed in Appendix A. The sampling time for over-all ICC is set as Ts = 100 s and
in the implementation of L1 controller, we set
1
Ta = s, Kg = I2
500
1
C1 (s) = s s I2 (3-27)
( 55 + 1)( 60 + 1)
1
C2 (s) = s s s 2 1.8s
I2
( 10 + 1)( 12 + 1)( 40 2 + 40 + 1)
where the low-pass filters are of 36.85 rad/s and 6.78 rad/s for the matched and unmatched
uncertainties respectively. For more details of control system parameters, see Appendix B.
3-4 Subsystem Controller Design
This study is mainly contributing to a novel load-sensing based ICC framework and its high-
level control part (including reference generation and allocation strategy), and as explained in
Section 2-3, proposed framework allows the best use of existing subsystems and efforts from
suppliers. In this sense, the control system design for AFS, ESC and ABS is not the emphasis
in this study. So for subsystem controller, default algorithms in CarSim are adopted and
modified accordingly, in order to complete the over-all ICC framework.
3-4-1 AFS
The AFS subsystem is modelled as a first-order system with 100 Hz cutting frequency. Besides,
AFS control signal is converted to driver’s steering wheel angle signal and then fed to CarSim
vehicle model, which keeps the CarSim steering system dynamics still in the loop. From this
point of view, the driver’s steering wheel input is assumed to be disconnected mechanically
from the steering system, or namely "steering by wire".

3-4-2 ESC/ABS
The ESC demo in CarSim is designed to direct the vehicle to match a desired yaw rate (i.e.
Eq.(2-18)), by applying brakes on one side, for which the applied braking pressure is propor-
tional to the yaw rate error. Based on this demo, a modified ESC to track a desired differential
yaw moment ∆Mcmd is adopted in this study, by properly re-scaling the proportional gain in
original design. Feedback signal of differential yaw moment is reconstructed by Eq.(2-3).
The ABS provided in CarSim is integrated with ESC to prevent locking of all wheels. Braking
actuators dynamics is modeled as first order system with 0.06s time constant.

Chapter 4
Simulation Results
The proposed ICC framework is implemented using MATLAB/Simulink and simulated with
CarSim vehicle model. CarSim is a commercial software package that simulates vehicle dy-
namics response to driver control inputs. CarSim simulations are done in a predefined envi-
ronment with road geometry, coefficient of friction, wind, etc, which creates the possibility
to simulate vehicle tests as on a real test track.The vehicles built in CarSim are multi-body
models with a total of 27 DOFs, which also provides a large diversity of flexible subsystem
combinations. The vehicle selected for this study is a D-Class (Mid-Size) SUV, such as Toyota
RAV4 and Honda CRV.
The ICC is designed and tuned at 80 km/h on a high µ (0.9) road surface. As a comparison,
the default ESC and ABS algorithms in CarSim is integrated as described in Section 3-4,
which functions in a same way as ESC subsystem in proposed ICC. Several experiments are
carried out to demonstrate its effectiveness. First, open-loop steering tests, including ramp
steering input and Sine with Dwell (SWD) manoeuvre are performed to assess its performance
and robustness. Then a closed-loop steering test with driver model in the loop, is simulated
to study the closed-loop behavior.
It should be noted that, all the figures from this chapter, "Steering Wheel Angle" refers to the
steering input to CarSim model, which is the equivalent SBW input and determines the road
wheel steering dynamics together with the actuators in default CarSim steering system. As
for "DYC ∆M Measurement", is the real DYC moment, reconstructed by longitudinal force
measurements and Eq.(2-3).
4-1 Open-loop Steering Tests
4-1-1 Ramp Steering
In this simulation experiment, the vehicle goes at a constant speed of 80 km/h and the steering
wheel input is increased from 0 to 200 degrees in 6 seconds. After t = 8 s, the steering wheel

32 Simulation Results
0.9 30
No Control No Control
0.8 ESC ESC
25
Baseline Baseline
Lateral Acceleration [g]
L1 L1
Yaw Rate [deg/s]

0.6 20
15
0.4
10
0.2
5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [s] Time [s]
Direct Yaw Moment Measurement [Nm]

2000
No Control No Control
200
ESC ESC
Steering Wheel Angle [deg]
Baseline 1500 Baseline

160 L1 L1
1000
120
500
80
40 0
0 −500
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 4-1: Ramp steering wheel input at constant 80 km/h
input is kept constant at 200 deg. The vehicle is simulated for baseline controller design with
and without L1 , and compared with ESC and no control.
From Figure 4-1, the following observations can be made.
• With the baseline and L1 control, the vehicle’s lateral motion responses a perfect linear
behavior up to tyre grip limit, as shown from lateral acceleration and yaw rate. After
the tyre enters its non-linear region, the lateral acceleration maintains at the maximum
possible value without performance loss, meanwhile yaw rate converge to its steady-
state. Due to the help of Force Reference Generator, the actual road wheel steering
angle is kept in its linear region, hence avoids the nonlinear vehicle response.
• When the requested steering angle is increased from its threshold (at 6.0 sec), the
lateral performance for ESC and no control reduces. For an increasing steering angle,
the larger performance loss can be expected as the front tyre enters its nonlinear region
considerably further. Such a situation can happen when an average driver applies
steering higher than a certain threshold, assuming that the vehicle would response
more lateral acceleration.
• A larger steady-state yaw rate is achieved by L1 , when compared with baseline design.
However, baseline shows a smoother control inputs set, because LQI is known to have
a satisfied performance when the operating point is reflected accurately be the model.
4-1-2 Sine with Dwell (SWD)
As many countries require ESC safety equipment on new vehicles starting with the 2012 model
year, performance requirements for the controls are defined in the USA regulation FMVSS

4-1 Open-loop Steering Tests 33
126 [72] and have been since copied into international regulations such as Global Technical
Regulation No. 08 Electronic Stability Control Systems. These regulations require that ESC
performance be demonstrated in a driving maneuver known as the Sine with Dwell.
In a SWD manoeuvre, the vehicle goes at a coasting speed of 80 km/h with the driver steering
wheel input of "a sine wave at 0.7 Hz frequency with a 500 ms delay beginning at the second
peak amplitude", as shown in Figure 4-2 the steering profile of ESC (green). The SWD
manoeuvre is known to excite the vehicle’s nonlinearities as the tyre forces could reach their
nonlinear operating region.
There are two criteria in FMVSS No.126: lateral stability and responsiveness. For stability
criteria in Eq.4-1, Criterion 1 means that, after 1.0 s of the completion of steering, instant
yaw rate must be 35% or less of the peak rate produced by the steering reversal. Criterion 2
means that, 1.75 s after the completion of steering, the instant yaw rate must be 20% of the
peak rate or less. For responsiveness, at 1.07 secs after the start of the SWD (δ ≥ 5 · A0.3g ),
the lateral displacement of the vehicle C.G must be at least 1.83 m relative to the start of
the test.
rt0 +1
Criterion 1 × 100% ≤ 35%
rpeak
rt0 +1.75 (4-1)
Criterion 2 × 100% ≤ 20%
rpeak
A0.3g refers to calibrated steering wheel angle associated with a lateral acceleration of 0.3 g at
C.G, when ramp steering at 13.5 deg/s until a lateral acceleration of 0.5 g is performed. The
calibrated A0.3g for selected D-SUV in this study is 40.1◦ , and according to [72], the severest
case with 7 · A0.3g is performed in this section, which means the amplitude of SWD maneuver
is 280.7◦ . Figure 4-2 and Table 4-1 show the evaluation results for ESC, baseline controller
and L1 augmentation, respectively. One can observe that
• All three control algorithms satisfy the FMVSS 126, while ESC is shown the best by
the evaluation criteria in Table 4-1. However, more details in Figure 4-2 prove that L1
is regulating the vehicle in a more reasonable manner.
• Lateral acceleration and DYC ∆M shows that ESC is suffering from the saturated rear
tyre and vehicle remains drifting even after the SWD maneuver, because ESC fails to
bound the body side-slip well during the test. At the same time, L1 manages to bound
the side-slip angle and generate an almost equivalent lateral acceleration.
• A driver expects a corresponding lateral motion when steering goes back to zero. Both
L1 and baseline are able to correct the vehicle’s states once steering finishes at 3.35
secs, by a timely race driving style steering correction. Less braking intervention can be
found, indicating an optimal allocation strategy between steering and braking, yielding
a better driving experience.
• As both baseline and L1 are designed at speed of 80 km/h, coasting motion causes
model uncertainties and leads to sole LQI’s poor performance, such as large side-slip
and yaw rate overshoot. LQ regulators are known to be sensitive to model accuracy
since there are none guaranteed margins [73].

Table 4-1: SWD manoeuvre evaluation for each algorithm, FMVSS 126
Algorithm Criterion 1 (%) Criterion 2 (%) Responsiveness (m) Results

ESC 2.11 0.01 2.99 Pass
Baseline 6.03 0.28 2.76 Pass
L1 augmentation 3.57 0.2 2.69 Pass
0.9 ESC 40
0.6 Baseline Yaw Rate [deg/s]

0.3 L1
0
0
−0.3 −40 ESC
−0.6 Baseline
−0.9 L1
−80
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
80
15 ESC ESC
Side−slip Angle [deg]
Baseline Baseline
10
L1 L1
Vx [km/h]
5
60
0
−5
−10 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
400
ESC
∆M Measurement [Nm]
4000
200 Baseline
L1
0 0
−200 −4000 ESC

Baseline
−400 L1
−8000
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 4-2: Simulation results for SWD manoeuvre coasting from 80 km/h

4-1-3 Robustness to Vehicle Speed
In this section, all three control algorithms are tested with the same SWD steering at a
range of coasting speeds, varying from 60 km/h to 150 km/h. Since both baseline and L1
are designed and tuned at speed of 80 km/h, these tests can give an overall assessment for
the controller’s robustness to uncertainties caused by speed variations. It should be noted
that, the force reference generator adopts speed dependent algebraic calculation to generate
force reference, therefore it guarantees the effectiveness and accuracy in this case. Results are
shown from Figure 4-3 to Figure 4-6, and following observations can be made.
• All three control algorithms are able to stabilize the vehicle. However, in 120 km/s
and 150 km/h cases, ESC has a peak side-slip angle of 40 deg, which may lead to roll
over of the SUV in real tests. Baseline controller bounds the side-slip within 20 deg
in the worst scenario. As for L1 , it manages to bound the side-slip angle within 10
deg in all tests, and a smooth yaw rate response with a small over-shoot. It indicates
that L1 guarantees robustness and uniformly achievable performance, in the present of
uncertainties caused by speed.
• Lateral acceleration and DYC ∆M show that ESC suffers from the saturated rear
tyre and the higher the speed, the longer the vehicle remains drifting after the SWD
maneuver. At the same time, L1 manages to bring back lateral acceleration once steering
finishes at 3.35 secs in all cases.
• L1 adopts the least braking in all cases, and less steering effort compared with baseline,
demonstrating a guaranteed optimal usage of control inputs as defined by desired system
reference model in Eq.3-18.
4-1-4 Robustness to Road-tyre Friction
In this section, simulation experiments are performed to study the closed-loop robustness to
different peak road-tyre friction. Both baseline and L1 are designed and tuned on a high µ
0.9 road surface. Tests are designed as using the same SWD steering input, coasting from 80
km/h, but on a low µ 0.5 road surface.
It should be noted that, the force reference generator adopts µ knowledge to generate force
reference, therefore its awareness/unawareness of the road surface changes influence the force
reference’s achievability. Eq.2-15 shows that, force reference is bounded by the grip limit and
an unmatched knowledge of µ may lead to a too large reference for baseline/L1 to track. But
the structure of proposed ICC makes it possible and easy to be extended. Since µ only appears
in algebraic equation, µ can be updated by other model-based or rule-based estimation thus
guarantees an achievable force reference.
Results are shown in Figure 4-7 for Reference Generator unaware of the road surface change
from 0.9 to 0.5, and Figure 4-8 for updated µ from 0.9 to 0.5 (also for ESC). In both cases,
baseline and L1 are not re-tuned in order to assess their robustness to different peak road-tyre
friction. Following observations can be made.

• Figure 4-7 shows baseline design fails to stabilize the vehicle when Force Reference
Generator unaware of the road surface change. Both baseline and L1 turn the steering
to its maximum, attempting to track the unachievable force reference and resulting in
less lateral acceleration and longitudinal force potential. However, L1 starts to convert
its priority from force tracking to stabilization at 2.7 sec, in order to penalize large
side-slip angle and yaw rate, which saves the vehicle from losing control.
• As increasing DYC moment up to its physical limit does not push the vehicle to unstable
region, ESC performs relatively better in yaw rate, but its capability to suppress side-slip
is less efficient.
• When µ is updated in reference generator in three algorithms, L1 is able to tackle with

the model uncertainties caused by µ, yielding a better performance among all.
4-1-5 L1 Performance in Presence of System Failure
In L1 adaptive control, fast adaptation without sacrificing robustness allows recovery from
system failures, which were validated by many cases [67]. So in this section, a braking system
failure scenario is tested, which means for baseline and L1 , steering is the only actuator. Both
controller are not re-tuned and well-functioning ESC is presented for performance comparison.
Results are shown in Figure 4-9.
From the figure we can see that, with only steering system, baseline is losing performance
dramatically, although it stabilizes the vehicle finally. L1 controller adapts quickly enough to
preserve overall stability and prove effective in regaining the desired performance, as predicted
by theory.

50
0.9 ESC ESC
Baseline Baseline
Yaw Rate [deg/s]

0.6 25
0.3 L1 L1
0
0
−0.3 −25
−0.6 −50
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
10
ESC 60 ESC
Baseline Baseline
5
L1 L1
Vx [km/h]
0 45
−5
−10 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
400
ESC 5000 ESC

200 Baseline Baseline

L1 2500 L1
0
0
−200 −2500
−400 −5000
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]

0.9 ESC
40
Baseline
Yaw Rate [deg/s]

0.6
0.3 L1
0
0
−0.3 ESC
−40
−0.6 Baseline
−0.9 L1
−80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s] Time [s]
30 100
ESC ESC
Baseline Baseline
20
L1 80 L1
Vx [km/h]
10
60
0
40
−10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s] Time [s]
400
ESC
Baseline 4000
200
L1
0 0
ESC
−200
−4000 Baseline
L1
−400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s] Time [s]

0.9 ESC
40
Baseline
Yaw Rate [deg/s]

0.6
0.3 L1
0
0
−0.3 ESC
−40
−0.6 Baseline
−0.9 L1
−80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s] Time [s]
40 120
ESC
30 Baseline
100
L1
Vx [km/h]
20
80
10
ESC
60
0 Baseline
L1
−10 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s] Time [s]
400
ESC
4000
Baseline
200
L1
0
0
−4000 ESC
−200
Baseline
L1
−400 −8000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s] Time [s]

0.9
ESC
40
Yaw Rate [deg/s]

0.6 Baseline
0.3 L1
0
0
−0.3 ESC
−40
−0.6 Baseline
−0.9 L1
−80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s] Time [s]
150
ESC
40 Baseline
30 L1
Vx [km/h]
120
20
10 90 ESC
0 Baseline
L1
−10 60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s] Time [s]
400
ESC
4000
Baseline
200 L1
0
0
−4000 ESC
−200 Baseline
L1
−400 −8000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s] Time [s]

0.6 40
ESC
Baseline
Yaw Rate [deg/s]

20
0.3
L1
0
0
−20
ESC
−0.3
−40 Baseline
L1
−0.6 −60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time [s] Time [s]
30 80
ESC ESC
Baseline Baseline
20 L1 L1
60
Vx [km/h]
10
40
0
−10 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time [s] Time [s]
4000
700
350 2000
0 0
ESC ESC
−350 −2000
Baseline Baseline
−700 L1 L1
−4000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 4-7: SWD manoeuvre coasting from 80 km/h on low-µ surface, with µ 0.9 in reference
generator

0.6
ESC
20
Baseline
Yaw Rate [deg/s]

0.3
L1
0
0
−20 ESC
−0.3
Baseline
L1
−0.6 −40
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
15 80
ESC ESC
Baseline Baseline
10
L1 L1
Vx [km/h]
70
5
60
0
−5
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
4000
300 ESC ESC

Baseline Baseline
150 2000
L1 L1
0 0
−150 −2000
−300
−4000
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 4-8: SWD manoeuvre coasting from 80 km/h on low-µ surface, with updated µ in
reference generator

80
0.9 ESC ESC
Baseline Baseline
Yaw Rate [deg/s]

0.6
40
0.3 L1 L1
0 0
−0.3
−40
−0.6
−0.9
−80
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
ESC 80
Baseline
20
L1
Vx [km/h]
10 60 ESC
Baseline
0
L1
−10 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
600
ESC
400 4000
Baseline
200 L1
0 0
−200
−4000 ESC
−400 Baseline
−600 L1
−8000
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 4-9: SWD manoeuvre coasting from 80 km/h with braking actuators failure for baseline
and L1

4-2 Closed-loop Steering Tests
High Speed Double Lane Change
A MacAdam driver model [74] provided in CarSim is involved in the closed-loop to perform
this "driver in the loop" test. According to CarSim Technical Memo, a realistic value for the
preview time is about 1.5 seconds. The preview interval of this study was set to 1 sec, which
means an inexperienced driver with certain aggressive steering input. Under this condition,
the simulations are performed at speed of 120 km/h with a double lane change maneuver.
Figure 4-10 shows that, baseline and L1 behave in a uniform way while L1 ’s attempt to adapt
the control causes chattering in steering wheel input, because the linear driver model tends to
"correct" the small adaptation from L1 and causes observable chattering. For more human-
machine interaction studies, real "driver in the loop" simulator experiments are recommended
for further research.
0.9
ESC ESC
Yaw Rate [deg/s]
0.6
L1 L1
0.3
0 0
−0.3
−0.6 −10
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Time [s] Time [s]
2 120
ESC
1 Baseline
L1
Vx [km/h]
0
110
−1
ESC
−2 Baseline
L1
−3 100
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Time [s] Time [s]
100 1500
ESC ESC
50 L1 L1
500
0
0
−500
−1000
−50
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 4-10: Double lane change manoeuvre coasting from 120 km/h

Chapter 5
Conclusion and Future Work
5-1 Conclusion
The motivation to investigate a novel Integrated Chassis Control emerges from the recently
available onboard tyre force information utilizing SKF load sensing bearing technology. Cur-
rent state of the art in ICC research efforts mainly suffer from two bottlenecks: the lack of
credible tyre force information and insufficient computational power. The former is of great
significance in ICC design since tyre force governs vehicles’ motion and determines the fea-
sibility of control inputs and corresponding desired response. An alternative to guarantee a
feasible vehicle response is to adopt constrained optimization algorithms, which confront the
latter issue. So force sensing is considered as the basis for implementing an ICC as it elimi-
nates the bottleneck in conventional model-matching design and contributes to more precise
vehicle states estimation.
The focus of this study contains two parts
• A novel hierarchical ICC framework with a properly organized information flow to take
advantage of load-sensing
– The drivers’ intention is directly interpreted into desired tyre force references.
– Tyre force feedback control on high-level controller, capturing significantly faster
dynamics.
– Low level control is open to the extensions and integration of other load-sensing
based control design for better use of existing subsystems.
• An on-target high level control algorithm including Force Reference Generator and
allocation strategy to supervise AFS, ESC and ABS
– Force reference is derived from commonly used steady-state yaw rate reference
model, which lives up to the linear vehicle behavior and offers an achievable force
reference bounded by tyre grip limit.

46 Conclusion and Future Work
– A linear-quadratic-integrator (LQI) controller is designed track the force reference

with desired performance. An anti-windup loop is added to avoid large transients
caused by integral action, in case of actuator saturation.
– L1 adaptive control is augmented to baseline controller design, to guarantee the
desired performance and robustness.
As the outcomes of implementation procedure and numerical simulation results, following

conclusions can be drawn
• The vehicle responses linear behavior in a larger region with the proposed ICC. Once
the vehicle enters its nonlinear region, ICC gives priority to stabilize it by penalizing
undesired vehicle dynamics, such as large body side-slip.
• Due to the mechanism of bounded force reference tracking, lateral tyre force is main-
tained in its linear region, thus guarantees a larger longitudinal tyre force potential.
• L1 adaptive controller can tackle system uncertainties such as vehicle speed (60-150
km/h) with guaranteed performance. The ICC’s robustness to road surface change is
split into two parts: L1 handles the resulting uncertainty in the model, while Force Ref-
erence Generator adopts µ in simple algebraic calculation, which can be easily updated
by µ estimation extensions.
• Proposed ICC allows fault-tolerant operation in the presence of braking system failure.
• Proposed ICC allows real-time implementation by tuning L1 adaptive rate to fit the
hardware’s computational power.
• L1 adaptive control provides a viable alternative to commonly used gain scheduling,

saving considerable tuning effort.
5-2 Future Work
Since the proposed ICC framework is developed towards a "plug-and-play" extensible frame-
work design, this section presents recommendations that can be performed to extend the
results obtained in this study.
Integration of Active Rear-wheel Steering (ARS)
The control-oriented model chosen in proposed ICC allows an easy integration of ARS. Cur-
rent design tends to behave over-steering in aggressive maneuvers, due to the fact that the
closed-loop bandwidth for Fyf tracking is much larger than Fyr and leads to a faster tracking
in the front. The physical reasoning behind is that the front wheels are directly actuated
while for the rear, the generation of the side-slip angle is only dependent on vehicle body
motion, whose dynamics are much slower than that of the tyres.

5-2 Future Work 47
Low Level Controller
The proposed ICC framework is open to other load-sensing based control system design, such
as ESC. For instance, by utilizing load-sensing signals of lateral forces, the DYC yaw moment
∆M can be distributed to individual tyre longitudinal forces in an optimization formulation
with only linear constraints in this framework, whose computational power already decreases
to Quadratic Programming level, yielding a better performance.
Road-tyre Friction Estimation
As mentioned in last section, Force Reference Generator adopts the knowledge of µ in simple
algebraic calculation which can be easily updated. The road surface knowledge is crucial in
the proposed ICC framework because it guarantees an achievable force reference within tyre’s
linear region.
Human-machine Interaction Study
A "driver in the loop" manoeuvre refers to the case when human driver feedback via driver con-
trols is included so that real-world driving conditions are represented accurately. In a driving
simulator test, the driver’s response in various scenarios are recorded which enables quanti-
fying the drivers’ subjective experience, understanding driver response to different feedback,
and expressing it in mathematical descriptions. The HMI is an active and rapidly growing
area of research, particularly for driver support functions, therefore a driving simulator test
of the proposed ICC would give an overall subjective evaluation [65].

48 Conclusion and Future Work

Appendix A
Vehicle Model Parameters
Table A-1: Vehicle Model Parameters, D Class SUV
Symbol Description Value Unit

m the mass of vehicle 1600 kg
I yaw moment of inertia of vehicle 2490 kgm2
a distance from c.g. to front axle 1.1 m
b distance from c.g. to rear axle 1.5 m
c half track width 0.75 m
L Wheel base 2.6 m
Cf front axle cornering stiffness 60484 N/rad
Cr rear axle cornering stiffness 44439 N/rad
n equivalent gear ratio of steering system 20
Lf /Lr front/rear tyre relaxation length 780 mm

50 Vehicle Model Parameters

Appendix B
ICC Design Parameters
Table B-1: ICC Design Parameters
Symbol Description Value Unit

V0 initial vehicle speed for controller design and tuning 80 km/h
µ0 initial road friction coefficient for controller design and tuning 0.9
1
Ts sampling rate of ICC 100 s
1
Ta adaptation rate of L1 adaptive controller 500 s
KT integrator anti-windup loop gain 100

52 ICC Design Parameters

Bibliography
[1] R. N. Jazar, Vehicle dynamics: theory and application. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2013.
[2] F. Yu, D.-F. Li, and D. Crolla, “Integrated vehicle dynamics control-state-of-the art
review,” in Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, 2008. VPPC’08. IEEE, pp. 1–6,
IEEE, 2008.
[3] K. J. Åström and T. Hägglund, Advanced PID control. ISA-The Instrumentation, Sys-
tems, and Automation Society; Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 2006.
[4] T. Gordon, M. Howell, and F. Brandao, “Integrated control methodologies for road
vehicles,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 40, no. 1-3, pp. 157–190, 2003.
[5] E. Coelingh, P. Chaumette, and M. Andersson, “Open-interface definitions for automo-

tive systems application to a brake by wire system,” tech. rep., SAE Technical Paper,
2002.
[6] M. Gobbi and G. Mastinu, “Wheels with integrated sensors for measuring tyre forces
and moments,” in AVEC conference, 2004.
[7] G. Mastinu and M. Gobbi, “Device and method for measuring forces and moments,”
Feb. 23 2010. US Patent 7,665,371.
[8] F. Ballo, M. Gobbi, G. Mastinu, and G. Previati, “Advances in force and moments
measurements by an innovative six-axis load cell,” Experimental Mechanics, vol. 54,
no. 4, pp. 571–592, 2014.
[9] N. H. T. S. Administration, “Federal motor vehicle safety standards; tire pressure mon-
itoring systems; controls and displays,” tech. rep., NHTSA-2000-8572, 2000.
[10] Y. Zhang, J. Yi, and T. Liu, “Embedded flexible force sensor for in-situ tire-road inter-
action measurements,” IEEE Sensors J, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1756–1765, 2013.

54 Bibliography
[11] S. M. Savaresi, M. Tanelli, P. Langthaler, and L. del Re, “New regressors for the direct
identification of tire deformation in road vehicles via in-tire accelerometers,” Control
Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 769–780, 2008.
[12] B. Breuer, U. Eichhorn, and J. Roth, “Measurement of tyre/road-friction ahead of the

car and inside the tyre,” in International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control, 1992,
Yokohama, Japan, 1992.
[13] O. Yilmazoglu, M. Brandt, J. Sigmund, E. Genc, and H. Hartnagel, “Integrated inas/gasb

3d magnetic field sensors for "the intelligent tire",” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical,
vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 59–63, 2001.
[14] J. M. Giustino, “System and method for predicting tire forces using tire deformation
sensors,” Apr. 22 2003. US Patent 6,550,320.
[15] A. Pohl, R. Steindl, and L. Reindl, “The "intelligent tire" utilizing passive saw sensors
measurement of tire friction,” Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1041–1046, 1999.
[16] B. Breuer, U. Eichhorn, and J. Roth, “Measurement of tyre/road-friction ahead of the

car and inside the tyre,” in International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control, 1992,
Yokohama, Japan.
[17] A. J. Tuononen, “Optical position detection to measure tyre carcass deflections,” Vehicle
System Dynamics, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 471–481, 2008.
[18] A. Tuononen, “On-board estimation of dynamic tyre forces from optically measured
tyre carcass deflections,” International journal of heavy vehicle systems, vol. 16, no. 3,
pp. 362–378, 2009.
[19] A. J. Tuononen, “Laser triangulation to measure the carcass deflections of a rolling tire,”
Measurement Science and Technology, vol. 22, no. 12, p. 125304, 2011.
[20] G. Erdogan, L. Alexander, and R. Rajamani, “Estimation of tire-road friction coefficient

using a novel wireless piezoelectric tire sensor,” Sensors Journal, IEEE, vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 267–279, 2011.
[21] J.-O. Bankestrom, “Load sensing bearing,” Apr. 2 1996. US Patent 5,503,030.
[22] K. Ono, T. Takizawa, and M. Aoki, “Preload measuring device for double row rolling
bearing unit,” Mar. 9 2007. US Patent App. 12/282,340.
[23] M. Gerard, Global chassis control and braking control using tyre forces measurement.
PhD thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, 2011.
[24] Y. Shibahata, “Progress and future direction of chassis control technology,” Annual Re-
views in Control, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 151–158, 2005.
[25] R. Kim, H. Harada, and H. Minabe, “Electronic control of car chassis present status and
future perspective,” in Transportation Electronics, 1988. Convergence 88. International
Congress on, pp. 173–188, IEEE.

55
[26] G. Roppenecker and H. Wallentowitz, “Integration of chassis and traction control sys-
tems what is possible–what makes sense–what is under development*,” Vehicle System
Dynamics, vol. 22, no. 5-6, pp. 283–298, 1993.
[27] J. R. RD Fruechte, AM Karmel, “Integrated vehicle control,” IEEE 39th, 1989.
[28] R. Rajamani, Vehicle dynamics and control. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011.
[29] M. Nagai, “Active 4-wheel-steering system by model following control,” Vehicle System
Dynamics, vol. 18, pp. 428–439, 1989.
[30] M. Nagai, Y. Hirano, and S. Yamanaka, “Integrated control of active rear wheel steering
and direct yaw moment control,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 27, no. 5-6, pp. 357–370,
1997.
[31] M. Nagai, M. Shino, and F. Gao, “Study on integrated control of active front steer angle
and direct yaw moment,” JSAE review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 309–315, 2002.
[32] M. Nagai, S. Yamanaka, and Y. Hirano, “Integrated control of active rear wheel steering
and yaw moment control using braking forces.,” JSME International Journal Series C,
vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 301–308, 1999.
[33] S.-S. You and Y.-H. Chai, “Multi-objective control synthesis: an application to 4ws
passenger vehicles,” Mechatronics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 363–390, 1999.
[34] S.-S. You and S.-K. Jeong, “Controller design and analysis for automatic steering of
passenger cars,” Mechatronics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 427–446, 2002.
[35] E. Ono, K. Takanami, N. Iwama, Y. Hayashi, Y. Hirano, and Y. Satoh, “Vehicle in-
tegrated control for steering and traction systems by µ-synthesis,” Automatica, vol. 30,
no. 11, pp. 1639–1647, 1994.
[36] G. Burgio and P. Zegelaar, “Integrated vehicle control using steering and brakes,” Inter-
national Journal of Control, vol. 79, no. 05, pp. 534–541, 2006.
[37] O. Mokhiamar and M. Abe, “Active wheel steering and yaw moment control combination
to maximize stability as well as vehicle responsiveness during quick lane change for active
vehicle handling safety,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D:
Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 216, no. 2, pp. 115–124, 2002.
[38] M. A. Arat, K. B. Singh, and S. Taheri, “An intelligent tyre based adaptive vehicle
stability controller,” International Journal of Vehicle Design, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 118–143,
2014.
[39] T. Fukao, S. Miyasaka, K. Mori, N. Adachi, and K. Osuka, “Active steering systems
based on model reference adaptive nonlinear control,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 42,
no. 5, pp. 301–318, 2004.
[40] J. Ahmadi, A. K. Sedigh, and M. Kabganian, “Adaptive vehicle lateral-plane motion

control using optimal tire friction forces with saturation limits consideration,” Vehicular
Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 4098–4107, 2009.

56 Bibliography
[41] M. Naraghi, A. Roshanbin, and A. Tavasoli, “Vehicle stability enhancement-an adap-

tive optimal approach to the distribution of tyre forces,” Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 224, no. 4,
pp. 443–453, 2010.
[42] N. Ding and S. Taheri, “An adaptive integrated algorithm for active front steering and
direct yaw moment control based on direct lyapunov method,” Vehicle System Dynamics,
vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1193–1213, 2010.
[43] J. Tjonnas and T. A. Johansen, “Stabilization of automotive vehicles using active steering
and adaptive brake control allocation,” Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 545–558, 2010.
[44] M. Boada, B. Boada, A. Munoz, and V. Diaz, “Integrated control of front-wheel steer-
ing and front braking forces on the basis of fuzzy logic,” Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 220, no. 3,
pp. 253–267, 2006.
[45] B. Li and F. Yu, “Design of a vehicle lateral stability control system via a fuzzy logic con-
trol approach,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal
of Automobile Engineering, vol. 224, no. 3, pp. 313–326, 2010.
[46] J. Song, “Integrated control of brake pressure and rear-wheel steering to improve lateral
stability with fuzzy logic,” International Journal of Automotive Technology, vol. 13, no. 4,
pp. 563–570, 2012.
[47] F. Tahami, S. Farhangi, and R. Kazemi, “A fuzzy logic direct yaw-moment control system
for all-wheel-drive electric vehicles,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 203–
221, 2004.
[48] F. Borrelli, P. Falcone, T. Keviczky, and J. Asgari, “Mpc-based approach to active

steering for autonomous vehicle systems,” International Journal of Vehicle Autonomous
Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 265–291, 2005.
[49] P. Falcone, F. Borrelli, J. Asgari, H. E. Tseng, and D. Hrovat, “A model predictive

control approach for combined braking and steering in autonomous vehicles,” in Control
& Automation, 2007. MED’07. Mediterranean Conference on, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2007.
[50] P. Falcone, H. Eric Tseng, F. Borrelli, J. Asgari, and D. Hrovat, “Mpc-based yaw and
lateral stabilisation via active front steering and braking,” Vehicle System Dynamics,
vol. 46, no. S1, pp. 611–628, 2008.
[51] P. Falcone, F. Borrelli, J. Asgari, H. Tseng, and D. Hrovat, “Low complexity mpc schemes
for integrated vehicle dynamics control problems,” in 9th international symposium on
advanced vehicle control, 2008.
[52] J. V. Frasch, A. Gray, M. Zanon, H. J. Ferreau, S. Sager, F. Borrelli, and M. Diehl,

“An auto-generated nonlinear mpc algorithm for real-time obstacle avoidance of ground
vehicles,” in Control Conference (ECC), 2013 European, pp. 4136–4141, IEEE, 2013.
[53] P. Falcone, “Nonlinear model predictive control for autonomous vehicles,” 2007.

57
[54] O. Mokhiamar and M. Abe, “Simultaneous optimal distribution of lateral and longitu-
dinal tire forces for the model following control,” Journal of dynamic systems, measure-
ment, and control, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 753–763, 2004.
[55] O. Mokhiamar and M. Abe, “Experimental verification using a driving simulator of
the effect of simultaneous optimal distribution of tyre forces for active vehicle handling
control,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of
Automobile Engineering, vol. 219, no. 2, pp. 135–149, 2005.
[56] O. Mokhiamar and M. Abe, “How the four wheels should share forces in an optimum
cooperative chassis control,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 295–304,
2006.
[57] J. Andreasson and T. Bünte, “Global chassis control based on inverse vehicle dynamics
models,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 44, no. sup1, pp. 321–328, 2006.
[58] B. Schofield, T. Hagglund, and A. Rantzer, “Vehicle dynamics control and controller
allocation for rollover prevention,” in Computer Aided Control System Design, 2006 IEEE
International Conference on Control Applications, 2006 IEEE International Symposium
on Intelligent Control, 2006 IEEE, pp. 149–154, IEEE, 2006.
[59] E. Ono, Y. Hattori, Y. Muragishi, and K. Koibuchi, “Vehicle dynamics integrated control
for four-wheel-distributed steering and four-wheel-distributed traction/braking systems,”
Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 139–151, 2006.
[60] P. Tondel and T. A. Johansen, “Control allocation for yaw stabilization in automotive
vehicles using multiparametric nonlinear programming,” in Proceedings of the American
Control Conference, vol. 1, p. 453, 2005.
[61] M. Gerard, B. De Schutter, and M. Verhaegen, “A hybrid steepest descent method for
constrained convex optimization,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 525–531, 2009.
[62] M. Gerard and M. Verhaegen, “Global and local chassis control based on load sensing,”
in American Control Conference, 2009. ACC’09., pp. 677–682, IEEE, 2009.
[63] J. Wang, J. M. Solis, and R. G. Longoria, “On the control allocation for coordi-
nated ground vehicle dynamics control systems,” in American Control Conference, 2007.
ACC’07, pp. 5724–5729, IEEE, 2007.
[64] J. Wang and R. G. Longoria, “Coordinated and reconfigurable vehicle dynamics control,”
Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 723–732, 2009.
[65] B. Jacobson, “Vehicle dynamics,” Compendium for Course MMF062. Chalmers Univer-
sity of Technology, 2012.
[66] H. Pacejka, Tire and vehicle dynamics. Elsevier, 2005.
[67] N. Hovakimyan and C. Cao, L1 adaptive control theory: guaranteed robustness with fast
adaptation, vol. 21. Siam, 2010.
[68] I. M. Gregory, C. Cao, E. Xargay, N. Hovakimyan, and X. Zou, “L1 adaptive control
design for nasa airstar flight test vehicle,” in AIAA guidance, navigation, and control
conference, vol. 5738, 2009.

58 Bibliography
[69] T. J. Leman, E. Xargay, G. Dullerud, N. Hovakimyan, and T. Wendel, L1 adaptive

control augmentation system for the X-48B aircraft. PhD thesis, University of Illinois,
2010.
[70] E. Xargay, N. Hovakimyan, and C. Cao, “L1 adaptive controller for multi-input multi-
output systems in the presence of nonlinear unmatched uncertainties,” in American Con-
trol Conference, pp. 874–879, 2010.
[71] C. U. Manual, “Mechanical simulation corp,” Ann Arbor, MI, 2009.
[72] N. H. T. S. Administration et al., “Proposed fmvss no. 126 electronic stability control
systems,” Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, 2006.
[73] I. J. Conrr, “Guaranteed margins for lqg regulators,” 1972.
[74] C. C. MacAdam, “Application of an optimal preview control for simulation of closed-loop

automobile driving,” 1981.

2015 Load-Sensing Based Integrated Chassis Control

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 Load-Sensing Based Integrated Chassis Control

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Load-sensing Based Integrated

Delft Center for Systems and Control

Master of Science Thesis

For the degree of Master of Science in Systems and Control at Delft

November 17, 2015

Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE) · Delft University of

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

2 Vehicle Dynamics Theory 13

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

3 Integrated Chassis Control Design 21

5 Conclusion and Future Work 45

A Vehicle Model Parameters 49

B ICC Design Parameters 51

Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

1-1 Wheel force transducers on test vehicles (Source: Kistler) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2-1 Front-wheel-steering planar vehicle model: (left) four-wheel double-track model;

3-1 Block diagram of proposed ICC framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4-1 Ramp steering wheel input at constant 80 km/h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

4-3 Simulation results for SWD manoeuvre coasting from 60 km/h . . . . . . . . . . 37

Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

4-1 SWD manoeuvre evaluation for each algorithm, FMVSS 126 . . . . . . . . . . . 34

A-1 Vehicle Model Parameters, D Class SUV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

B-1 ICC Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

Delft, University of Technology Shiqian Li

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

1-1 Tyre Force Information

Figure 1-1: Wheel force transducers on test vehicles (Source: Kistler)

• Simplified Rim Measurement Devices

Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

1-1-1 Smart Tyres

1-1-2 Load Sensing Bearings

Figure 1-3: Bearing unit instru-

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

Figure 1-4: SKF load-sensing bearing

1-2 Integrated Chassis Control (ICC)

Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

• Improve multiple-objective performance from available actuators, by removing the im-

• Reduce or contain complexity, as the number of control components increases

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

• Improve safety and comfort

• Reduce or contain system costs, by avoiding unnecessary duplication of components and

– permitting a modular and distributed design process,

1-3 State of the Art

• Linear Control Techniques

• Non-linear Control Techniques

• Intelligent Control Techniques

• Optimization-based Control Techniques

1-3-1 Linear Control Techniques

Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

1-3-2 Non-linear Control Techniques

1-3-3 Intelligent Control Techniques

Regardless of which kind of linear or nonlinear control technique, or namely "model-based

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

1-3-4 Optimization-based Control Techniques

Shiqian Li Master of Science Thesis

Master of Science Thesis Shiqian Li

• Updating quadratic approximation instead of linear, for more accurate approximations