Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2019, Vol. 11(9) 1–13
Ó The Author(s) 2019
A driver model–based direct yaw DOI: 10.1177/1687814019877319
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
moment controller for in-wheel motor
electric vehicles

Qiguang Wang , Ye Zhuang, Jiannan Wei and Konghui Guo

Abstract
In this article, a driver model–based direct yaw moment controller, selected as the upper controller, is developed, of
which the control target is determined through a reference driver model in accordance with the driver’s intention. The
sliding surface is chosen by the difference between the desired yaw rate and the real output yaw rate. Then, the desired
yaw moment is calculated by the sliding mode control. In the lower controller, a novel control torque distribution strat-
egy is designed based on the analysis of the tire characteristics. In addition, an admissible control set of the control tor-
ques is calculated in real time through an embedded tire model ‘‘UniTire.’’ Finally, a driver-in-the-loop experiment, via
the driving simulator, is conducted to verify the proposed direct yaw moment controller.

Keywords
Direct yaw moment control, sliding mode control, driver model, tire model

Date received: 10 April 2019; accepted: 27 August 2019

Handling Editor: James Baldwin

Introduction
Direct yaw moment control (DYC) representing one
type of the electronic stability control (ESC) is used to
apply the different longitudinal force between the inner
and outer wheels, which can stabilize the vehicle yaw
motion and increase the vehicle maneuverability.1,2
There are now three ways to achieve the DYC function:
braking, driving, or both. Owing to its simple realiza-
tion, braking DYC is widely used as the control type;
quite the opposite, this mandatory deceleration can dis-
tribute the driver’s intention which leads to the acci-
dent. On the contrary, the driving DYC can conquer
this drawback,3 but it is implemented by a costly and
complex electronic differential.
The in-wheel motor electric vehicle (IEV) has four
in-wheel motors, which can independently drive the
wheel. The IEV has inherent advantages over tradi-
tional vehicles in DYC realization. Without any extra-
neous components, the DYC system tends to be more
flexible and efficient due to the IEV in-wheel motors
for which each wheel can be exerted driving and brak-
ing forces.
Some control strategies and algorithms of the DYC
system development have been presented in the current
literature, such as sliding mode control,4 linear quadra-
tic regulator,5 fuzzy control,6,7 and model predictive
control.8 Besides, some integrated control including
DYC and steering was developed.9,10 There may be still
room for improvement as to two points of the current
literature. For one thing, the driver’s intention can
draw conclusion by the way of measuring the steering
wheel angle in the current literature. This method fully
depends on the driver’s maneuver behavior; therefore,
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Control, Jilin
University, Changchun, People’s Republic of China
Corresponding author:
Ye Zhuang, State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Control,
Jilin University, Changchun 130025, People’s Republic of China.
Email: yzhuang_cn@163.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work
without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Table 1. Parameters of the passenger car.
Total mass (kg) 1372.2
Sprung mass (kg) 1201.7
Unsprung mass of front axle (kg) 90.5
Unsprung mass of rear axle (kg) 80
Roll moment of inertia (kg m2) 513.4
Pitch moment of inertia (kg m2) 1318.6
Yaw moment of inertia (kg m2) 2285.6
Steering system ratio (–) 16.61
c. g.: center of gravity.
Figure 1. Driving simulator configuration.
the driver’s reaction delay and incorrect maneuver
directly influence the validity of the control target. For
another, the control torques are mainly distributed in
proportion and coinstantaneously to the wheels. By
this distribution strategy, the potential of the vehicle
stabilization cannot be entirely exploited.
This problem has been preliminarily discussed by
Chen et al. in previous work.11 In this article, a more
comprehensive analysis and a more objective validation
are fulfilled. The contributions of this work can be
listed as follows.
First, the control target is determined by a reference
driver model, which precisely read the driver’s inten-
tion. Therefore, the negative impacts of the driver’s
reaction delay and incorrect maneuver are
counteracted.
Second, a novel control torque distribution strategy
is implemented based on an embedded nonlinear tire
model ‘‘UniTire.’’ UniTire also computes the tire adhe-
sive limit in real time, which provides a control bound-
ary aiming to restrict the magnitude of the control
vector. Finally, a driver-in-the-loop validation experi-
ment is conducted.
This article is set forth as follows: in ‘‘Simulator
development’’ section, the development of a driving
simulator is presented. In ‘‘Controller design’’ section,
the entire control method is described. The driver-in-
the-loop experiment results on the driving simulator
Wheel base (mm) 2650
Track width of front axle (mm) 1540
Track width of rear axle (mm) 1550
Distance from c.g. to front axle (mm) 1017
Distance from c.g. to rear axle (mm) 1633
Height of c.g. (mm) 567
Wheel moment of inertia (kg m2) 1.02
Tire size (–) 185/65R15
are shown in ‘‘Driver-in-the-loop experiment results’’
section. At last, the conclusions are drawn in
‘‘Conclusion’’ section.
Simulator development
A driving simulator was built so as to validate the pro-
posed controller, as shown in Figure 1. The host/target
configuration is adopted in the simulator development.
In the host PC, the commercial vehicle dynamics soft-
ware CarSimÒ12 and the system-design platform
LabVIEWTM13 are applied to set up the software envi-
ronment. In the target PC, the LabVIEW Real-Time
Module provides the real-time operating system. The
driver’s maneuver command is transmitted to the vehi-
cle dynamics model through the NI PCI-6229 data
acquisition board.
A passenger car, with the main parameters listed in
Table 1, is modeled in CarSim for the simulator.
The validation plots of the developed vehicle model are
presented in Figure 2. A double lane change (DLC)
maneuver is selected, with the vehicle velocity of
80 km/h. The validation results show (comes out) that
the CarSim model closely matches the experimental
data; therefore, the driving simulator is further used to
conduct a driver-in-the-loop experiment. (It is apparent
that both the experiment and the CarSim have the
same steering wheel angle diagram. Although there do
exist a little bit deviation in yaw rate, roll angle, and
the lateral acceleration diagrams, the experiment has
similar outlines in general, compared to the CarSim,
which is within the acceptable range and can be used to
conduct a driver-in-the-loop experiment.)
Controller design
Vehicle dynamics model
A 7 DOF reference vehicle model is developed for the
controller design, including longitudinal motion, lateral
motion, yaw motion, and rotational motion of the four
wheels, which are shown in Figure 3.
The equations of the vehicle motion are expressed as
Wang et al. 3

Figure 2. CarSim model validation: (a) steering wheel angle, (b) yaw rate, (c) roll angle, and (d) lateral acceleration.

The four wheels’ rotational dynamics are

Iw v_ fl = Tfl  rFxfl ð4Þ

Iw v_ fr = Tfr  rFxfr ð5Þ

Iw v_ rl = Trl  rFxrl ð6Þ

Iw v_ rr = Trr  rFxrr ð7Þ

Among which the first subscript of ()ij is on belf of

the front and rear axles, and the second represents the
left and right sides of the vehicle.
In order to describe the vehicle characteristics more
Figure 3. 7 DOF vehicle model.
accurately, a semi-physical nonlinear tire model
    ‘‘UniTire,’’ by Guo and colleagues,14,15 is adopted for
m V_ x  gVy = Fxfl + Fxfr cos d
  ð1Þ the controller design in this article.
 Fyfl + Fyfr sin d + Fxrl + Fxrr The slip ratios of the longitudinal and the lateral in
    UniTire are defined as
m V_ y + gVx = Fxfl + Fxfr sin d
  ð2Þ
+ Fyfl + Fyfr cos d + Fyrl + Fyrr vr  vx
Sx = ð8Þ
      vr
Iz g_ = a Fxfl + Fxfr sin d + a Fyfl + Fyfr cos d  b Fyrl + Fyrr
c  c c  vy
+ Fxfr  Fxfl cos d + ðFxrr  Fxrl Þ + Fyfl  Fyfr sin d Sy = ð9Þ
2 2 2 vr
ð3Þ
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 4. UniTire tire model: (a) longitudinal force with slip ratio and (b) lateral force with slip angle.

where v is the angular velocity, r represents the effective

rolling radius, vx is the longitudinal speed of the wheel
center, and vy is the lateral speed of the wheel center.
The relationships of the normalized slip ratio, the
lateral, and the longitudinal are expressed as

Kx S x
fx = ð10Þ
Fxm
Ky S y
fy = ð11Þ
Fym
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f = f2x + f2y ð12Þ
Figure 5. Block diagram of driver/vehicle system.
where Kx is the longitudinal slip stiffness, Ky represents
the cornering stiffness, Fxm is the potential extreme
value of the longitudinal force, and Fym is the potential to different vertical forces Fz is shown in Figure 4(a),
extreme value of the lateral force. while the relationship between lateral force Fy and the
The normalized resultant force has an exponential slip angle a with respect to different Fz values is shown
equation, expressed as in Figure 4(b).
    Referred to the tire model, the following expressions
1 can represent the relationship between the longitudinal
F = 1  exp f  E1 f2  E12 + f3 ð13Þ
12 tire force and lateral tire force
Furthermore, we can get the longitudinal force and  
Fxij = ftxij Vx , Vy , g, vij , Tij ð16Þ
the lateral force by following equation
 
Fyij = ftyij Vx , Vy , g, vij , Tij ð17Þ
 fx
Fx = F m Fz ð14Þ
f x Thus, equations (1) to (7) can be compactly rewritten
as
fy

Fy = F m Fz ð15Þ
f y G_ = f7 ðG, uÞ ð18Þ
where Fz is the vertical load, and mx and my are the where the vehicle state vector G and control input vec-
longitudinal and lateral friction coefficients, tor u are defined below
respectively.
The tire force comparisons of the passenger car G = ½ Vx Vy g vfl vfr vrl vrr T
between the UniTire output and the experiment data
are presented in Figure 4. The relationship between u = ½ Tfl Tfr Trl Trr T
longitudinal force Fx and the slip ratio k with respect
Wang et al.
Figure 6. Structure of control system.
Outline of proposed controller design
A control target plays a key role in a control system. In
a DYC controller, the control target is generally related
to the driver’s intention. Therefore, precisely under-
standing the driver’s intention plays a crucial role in
the DYC controller development. Since the driver
model is established on the human driver and can, con-
siderably, respond to the human driver’s behavior, the
human driver’s intention can be read, which is of great
advantage.
A preview driver model in a driver/vehicle system is
illustrated in Figure 516: P(s) is the driver’s preview
strategy; H(s) is the driver’s control transfer function,
in which C(s) is the driver’s regulation and calculation
block and M(s) is the maneuver transfer function,
which mainly represents the driver’s delay; B(s) is the
feedback block; G(s) is the vehicle response; f is the cur-
rent road information; fa is the road information ahead;
e is the path error; dSW  represents the desired steering
wheel angle; dSW represents the actual steering wheel
angle, and y is the vehicle state vector.
According to the driver model, the driver’s intention
can be directly reflected by the desired steering wheel
angle dSW  . However, the actual steering wheel angle
dSW is the only measurable variable in the driver model.
Therefore, the current literatures approximately esti-
mate the driver’s intention through the measured steer-
ing wheel angle dSW . The control target, desired yaw
rate, is set by
Gay
g SW = dSW ð19Þ
Vx
where Gay is the steady state cornering gain.
In fact, it seems impossible that dSW will always
approximate to dSW  , which can reflect the driver’s
intention. For instance, in some conditions, the vehicle
runs into its nonlinear region, and its response changes
greatly compared with normal driving. The driver may
not get used to this change and make an incorrect man-
euver due to panic. In such cases, using dSW to estimate
5
the driver’s intention is meaningless. Another possible
scenario is due to the driver’s reaction delay, the con-
troller may miss the opportunity of controlling the vehi-
cle and thus fail to stabilize it. Therefore, it is important
to employ dSW  to predict the driver’s intention. This
can clarify the control target and enhance the control
effect.
Unfortunately, dSW  cannot be easily derived from
dSW , since in the inverse transfer function of M(s), the
output dSW  is ahead of the input dSW in the time
domain; this is a noncausal and unrealizable process.
Nevertheless, owing to the more and more advanced
image recognition and satellite navigation, detecting
the road information ahead based on modern sensors is
no longer a problem. Therefore, dSW  is obtained from
the road information fa rather than dSW in the control-
ler design. The road information is considered known
in this article, and the acquisition algorithm would not
be discussed.
A hierarchical control architecture is utilized in this
article1 as illustrated in Figure 6. In the upper control-
ler, the desired yaw moment is determined by the refer-
ence driver model according to the road information.
In the lower controller, the actuator inputs are calcu-
lated according to the desired yaw moment. Moreover,
a control boundary is computed in real time through an
embedded tire model ‘‘UniTire.’’
Upper controller
Figure 7 is a single point block diagram of the optimal
preview acceleration driver model,16 and the expression
of the optimal lateral acceleration can be represented
by
2
€y = eðT P Þ ð20Þ
TP 2
with the lateral error e(TP ) defined by
e = f ðt + TP Þ  yðtÞ  TP y_ ðtÞ ð21Þ
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 7. Single point optimal preview acceleration driver model.

where TP is the preview time and f (t + TP ) is the desired maneuver in the time domain. This advantage will fur-
path after TP . ther help the proposed system act earlier and timelier.
According to the driver model theory by Guo and Thus, the control target, desired yaw rate gdes , is
Fancher,17 the term 1 + Tc s is represented as the driv- related to dSW  , by
er’s anticipation of the vehicle response information,
then Gay is the steady state cornering gain, expressed by Gay
g des = dSW  ð26Þ
Vx
2
Vx
Gay =   ð22Þ An approximate upper limit of the yaw rate can be
Li 1 + Ks Vx 2 written as
where i represents the steering system ratio and Ks is the mg
understeer gradient, defined by gdes ł ð27Þ
Vx
 
m a b This upper boundary of the control target is to guar-
Ks = 2  ð23Þ antee the desired yaw rate realization. Furthermore,
L Cr Cf
the precise control boundary is realized through a tire
The desired steering wheel angle dSW  is thus related model in the lower controller.
to the lateral error e(TP ) by In order to get the vehicle yaw rate to track the con-
  trol target more rapidly and accurately, sliding model
 2Li 1 + Ks Vx 2 ð1 + Tc sÞ control is employed to deal with this control problem.
dSW = eðT P Þ ð24Þ Let the sliding surface be
Vx 2 TP 2

Furthermore, dSW  can be adapted as a function of s = g  g des ð28Þ

TP and Vx by
Differentiating equation (28) and combining equa-

dSW = K ðTP , Vx ÞeðTP Þ ð25Þ tion (18) yields

where K represents the steering wheel gain. s_ = g_  g_ des = f ðG Þ + g ðG Þ  Myaw des ðG, uÞ  g_ des ð29Þ
Figure 8 illustrates the relationships of K with with Myaw defined by
des
respect to Vx , K with respect to TP , and K with respect
to TP and Vx . Since the vehicle velocity Vx is always c  c
Myaw des = Fxfr  Fxfl cos d + ðFxrr  Fxrl Þ ð30Þ
measured or estimated, and the preview time TP is 2 2
approximately a constant to a certain driver, K(TP , Vx )
where Fxij represents the longitude forces produced by
can be obtained in real time during driving. Therefore,
four wheels, s represents the steer angle, and c is the
dSW  can be computed through the lateral error e(TP )
track width.
and the steering wheel gain K(TP , Vx ), as presented in
Therefore, the most ideal value of the desired yaw
equation (25). ^ yaw des that can satisfy s_ = 0 is
moment approximation M
The human driver’s steering wheel angle and the
controller prediction are compared on a certain path in 1
Figure 9. The human driver’s steering wheel angle is ^ yaw
M des = ½f ðG Þ  g_ des  ð31Þ
g ðG Þ
measured through the developed driving simulator. It
shows that the proposed method can precisely predict Here, we adopt the continuous relaxed condition to
the driver’s maneuver. Moreover, the predictive steer- avoid the shudder, and the desired yaw moment is
ing wheel angle is slightly ahead of the driver’s actual expressed by18
Wang et al. 7

Figure 8. Connections of steering wheel gain, preview time, and velocity: (a) K vs Vx at different TP values, (b) K vs TP at different
Vx values, and (c) K vs TP and Vx .

1 2
V= s ð33Þ
2
L
!
  
V = s s = s f ðGÞ + g ðGÞ  Myaw des ðG, uÞ  g des hs

= hs2 ł 0 ð34Þ

From equations (33) and (34), the system is asymptoti-

cally stable.
Furthermore, the effect of the parameter uncertainty
can be avoided by adding a switch gain to the control
system; therefore, the differentiation of the sliding sur-
face and the Lyapunov function can be rewritten as
  
s = g  g  esignðsÞ ð35Þ
des
 
V = ss
L
!
Figure 9. Comparison of driver behavior and controller 
= s f ðGÞ + gðGÞ  Myaw des ðG, uÞ  g des hs  esign(s)
prediction.

= hs2  ejsj ł 0
Myaw des
^ yaw
=M des  hs ð32Þ ð36Þ

Here, we consider the Lyapunov function as Some vehicle states, including slip angle, tire forces,
and friction coefficient, required by the control law, can
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 10. Tire longitudinal force influence on lateral force.
be obtained indirectly. Hence, there comes some meth-
ods to estimate the variables, such as state observer,
smart tire technology, and so on. However, in this arti-
cle, these detailed methods would not be expounded.
Lower controller
Figure 10 is one of the illustrations of the typical tire
characteristic under the circumstance of the tire linear
region. It shows that if the tire longitudinal force is
x , the lateral force will decrease
increased from 0 to F
from point A to point B. In this case, the slip angle has
to be increased from a1 to a2 when the lateral force is
supposed constantly, leading to the lateral force stand-
ing from point A to point C. Therefore, the slip angle
will be raised by exerting the longitudinal force.
Equation (23) can be rewritten as
Figure 11. Control torque distribution sequence: (a) understeer scenario and (b) oversteer scenario.
1  
Ks = af  ar ð37Þ
ay L
That is to say, the vehicle steady cornering character-
istic is influenced by the tire longitudinal forces. The
vehicle is more inclined to be understeer when the longi-
tudinal forces are impacted on the front wheels. The
vehicle has the intention to oversteer when the longitu-
dinal forces are exerted on the rear wheels. On the basis
of this principle, the DYC controller effect can be
improved by means of reasonably choosing the control
sequence, as shown in Figure 11. In an understeer sce-
nario, the control torques are applied on the rear wheels
first; in an oversteer scenario, the control torques are
exerted on the front wheels first.
The control torque is supposed to guarantee the
resultant force of each tire to be always in the adhesive
limit; otherwise, the vehicle stability will even deterio-
rate. Therefore, another function of the lower control-
ler is to define an admissible control set for the control
vector T. In the lower controller, the instantaneous
maximums of the longitudinal force Fx and the lateral
force Fy are computed in real time by the embedded
UniTire according to the tire friction eclipse. In the
worst case, the control boundary of the torque on each
wheel can be expressed by
ð38Þ
Tij max ł rFxij limit
It is noted that the control boundary of each wheel
is individually calculated in the lower controller, which
means the entire potential of each tire can be separately
exploited. In this case, the stable region of the full
Wang et al.
Figure 12. Flow chart of the control torque distribution
strategy of lower controller.
vehicle is maximized, and thus, the control effect of the
proposed controller can be greatly improved.
The proposed control torque distribution strategy of
the lower controller can be summarized and illustrated
in Figure 12.
By subtracting the equation (33) from equation (30),
the difference value can be obtained, which could be
rewritten as
c  c
DM = DFxfr  DFxfl cos d + ðDFxrr  DFxrl Þ ð39Þ
2 2
In the control method, we consider that the distribu-
tions of the right side tire force and the left side tire
force are of same value but in different directions, such
as when the left side tires exerted driving torque, the
right side tires would exert the braking torque. And the
direction can be judged by the steering wheel angle and
the difference value between the real yaw rate and the
desired yaw rate.
Driver-in-the-loop experiment results
Closed loop objective evaluation methods for vehicle
handling stability are listed below:
9
The synthesis of multiple experiments
The overall evaluation of task performance JT is deter-
mined by individual task evaluation indexes Jn , such as
line shifting, snake, line holding, obstacle crossing, and
avoidance
X
JT = bn Jn ð40Þ
where bn is related to the characteristics of the vehicle,
determined by the type of vehicle.
The synthesis of multiple vehicle response
parameters
Jn should be a comprehensive evaluation index includ-
ing vehicle response parameters and driver operating
burden
X
Jn = q i Ji ð41Þ
where qi is the weight coefficient of single evaluation
index, which is determined by the standardized thresh-
old value, and Ji is each single evaluation index.
The synthesis of the entire test section
Ji adopts the total variance evaluation method pro-
posed by Professor Guo Konghui of Jilin University,19
and the total variance is defined as
ð‘  
x ðt Þ y ðt Þ 2
Ji =  dt ð42Þ
x0 y0
0
where x0 and y0 are the steady state values of input x(t)
and output y(t), respectively.
A driver-in-the-loop validation experiment is con-
ducted on the driving simulator. The procedure that
the ‘‘real’’ driver maneuvers the ‘‘virtual’’ vehicle can
take the human factor into account, and evaluate the
proposed DYC system more objectively than a simula-
tion validation. The DLC maneuver is selected for the
driver-in-the-loop experiment, with a road friction coef-
ficient of 0.5. For the sake of increasing the persuasive-
ness of the experiment results, every condition on the
simulator is maneuvered three times.
The vehicle without DYC system loses stability at
70 km/h, as shown in Figure 13.
We can ensure that the vehicle without control will
lose stability, and the comparison of the vehicle with
and without the controller is not given. Instead, in
order to illustrate the improved effect of the proposed
driver model based DYC system (DMbDYC), it is
compared with a steering wheel based DYC controller
(SWbDYC), of which the desired yaw rate is expressed
by equation (19) or g SW . On the basis of equivalence of
10
Figure 13. Response of vehicle without control: (a) path, (b) steering wheel angle, (c) yaw rate, and (d) slip angle.
the other parameters, the comparison results are shown
in Figure 14, and the vehicle velocity is set as 120 km/h.
During this DLC maneuver, both DMbDYC and
SWbDYC stabilize the vehicle to pass the DLC path.
However, as shown in Figure 14, the DMbDYC
approach is obviously much better than the SWbDYC
method.
As shown in Figure 14(a), it is obvious that
DMbDYC provides a much better control effect and
the vehicle with the help of DMbDYC tracks the DLC
path accurately. The vehicle with the SWbDYC system,
however, has already slid out of the road.
The impact of the controller on the driver is
shown in Figure 14(b): the driver steers the vehicle
under the control of SWbDYC with a larger steering
wheel angle, which will probably bring the vehicle
response out of its linear region. In fact, during the
simulator driving, it is very hard to maneuver the vehi-
cle with the SWbDYC system, and the driver becomes
panic due to the unfamiliar vehicle response. Under
panic, it is possible for a driver to perform an incorrect
maneuver, which may lead to a very harmful and dan-
gerous result. In this sense, DMbDYC can reduce the
possibility of an accident due to the small steering
wheel angle.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 14(c) and (d) provides further evidence of the
superiority of the proposed DMbDYC system. The
yaw rate of the vehicle with DMbDYC is smooth and
the slip angle is small. By comparison, the SWbDYC
approach fails to stabilize the vehicle. The yaw rate
changes sharply, and the slip angle is relatively large.
This means the vehicle is already somewhat unstable.
To sum up, the basic DYC controller is designed by
the difference between the 2° model and the vehicle
model, which means that the error is not accurately
enough due to its simplicity, compared to the
SWbDYC and the DMbDYC, which would lead the
control target a large fluctuation. Thus, the control sys-
tem could not follow the desired yaw rate well and get
the worse response. And the SWbDYC choose the
steering wheel angle to calculate the desired yaw rate,
which can present the driver’s intention. The
DMbDYC desired the steering wheel angle to calculate
the desired yaw rate, which can compensate the driver’s
misoperation.
Conclusion
In the proposed controller, the reference driver model is
introduced to predict the driver’s intention according to
Wang et al.
Figure 14. Comparisons of driver model–based and steering wheel–based system: (a) path, (b) steering wheel angle, (c) yaw rate,
and (d) slip angle.
the road information. Since the control target is inde-
pendent of the driver’s maneuver, the negative impacts
by the driver’s reaction delay and incorrect maneuver
are reduced and counteracted. The driver-in-the-loop
experiment results show that a much better control
effect is achieved by the proposed DMbDYC system
than the SWbDYC system.
The longitudinal forces exerted in cornering alter the
vehicle steady state cornering characteristic. Taking
advantage of this point, the distribution strategy of the
proposed controller reasonably determines the control
sequence to enhance the control effect and to reduce
the control power. Besides, the structure of IEV enables
the distribution strategy to be more flexible. The IEV is
not mandatorily accelerated or decelerated.
The tire model UniTire is embedded in the proposed
controller to provide the real-time tire adhesive limit.
Since the tire forces can be always guaranteed to be in the
friction eclipses, the DYC system can be always ensured
to be effective. In addition, the entire potential of each
tire is separately exploited, such that the stable region of
the full vehicle is maximized. Therefore, the control effect
of the proposed controller can be greatly improved.
11
When we drive on the low friction coefficient road,
the tire friction ellipse will shrink significantly.
Therefore, any control method can only provide a very
limit control effect. If possible, the most practical way
to stabilize the vehicle is by decelerating it in advance.
Once foreseeing the vehicle unstability caused by driv-
er’s maneuver, the driver model based controller
decelerates the vehicle before the maneuver happens.
The integrated control with the longitudinal control
added into the DYC system will be a subject of future
work.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: This paper is funded by the National
key research and development projects (Grant No.
2018YFB0104804).
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

ORCID iDs 19. Zong C and Guo K. Objective quantitative evaluation

Qiguang Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5635-8170 index of vehicle handling stability. Nat Sci J Jilin Univ
Jiannan Wei https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5661-5923 2000; 30: 6–11.

References Appendix
1. Rajamani R. Vehicle dynamics and control. New York: Notation
Springer Science + Business Media, 2006.
2. Nagai M, Hirano Y and Yamanaka S. Integrated control a distance from center of gravity to front
of active rear wheel steering and direct yaw moment con- axle
trol. Vehicle Syst Dyn 1997; 27: 357–370. ay lateral acceleration at center of gravity
3. Osborn RP and Shim T. Independent control of all- b distance from center of gravity to rear axle
wheel-drive torque distribution. SAE paper 2004-01- c track width
2052. Cf front tire cornering stiffness
4. Yoshioka T, Adachi T, Butsuen T, et al. Application of Cr rear tire cornering stiffness
sliding-mode theory to direct yaw-moment control.
Fx =Fxij longitudinal tire force
JSAE Rev 1999; 20: 523–529.
Fxm tire longitudinal force potential extreme
5. Park K, Heo S and Baek I. Controller design for improv-
ing lateral vehicle dynamic stability. JSAE Rev 2001; 22:
value
481–486. Fy =Fyij lateral tire force
6. Boada BL, Boada MJL and Dı́az V. Fuzzy-logic applied Fym tire lateral force potential extreme value
to yaw moment control for vehicle stability. Vehicle Syst Fz tire vertical load
Dyn 2005; 43: 753–770. g standard gravity
7. Davoudi M, Menhaj MB and Davoudi M. A fuzzy based Gay steady state gain of vehicle
vehicle dynamic stability control (FDSC). SAE paper i steering system ratio
2006-01-3483. Iw rotational moment of inertia of wheel
8. Falcone P, Tseng HE, Borrelli F, et al. MPC-based yaw Iz yaw moment of inertia of vehicle
and lateral stabilisation via active front steering and K steering wheel gain
braking. Vehicle Syst Dyn 2008; 46: 611–628. Ks understeer gradient
9. Yoon J, Yim S, Cho W, et al. Design of an unified chas-
Kx tire longitudinal slip stiffness
sis controller for rollover prevention, manoeuvrability
Ky tire cornering stiffness
and lateral stability. Vehicle Syst Dyn 2010; 48:
1247–1268. L wheel base
10. Song J. Enhanced braking and steering yaw motion con- m total mass of vehicle
trollers with a non-linear observer for improved vehicle Myaw des desired yaw moment
stability. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering r wheel effective radius
2008; 222: 293–304. s sliding surface
11. Chen Y, Hedrick JK and Guo K. A novel direct yaw Sx tire longitudinal slip ratio
moment controller for in-wheel motor electric vehicles. Sy tire lateral slip ratio
Vehicle Syst Dyn 2013; 51: 925–942. td neural delay time
12. Mechanical Simulation Corporation. CarsimÒ reference Tc driver correction time constant
manual, Version 8.02. Ann Arbor, MI: Mechanical Simu- Tij torque on wheel
lation Corporation, 2009.
Tn physical delay time constant
13. National Instruments Corporation. LabVIEWTM 2011
TP preview time
help. Austin, TX: National Instruments Corporation,
2011.
u vehicle control inputs
14. Guo K, Lu D, Chen S, et al. The UniTire model: a non- vx longitudinal velocity of wheel center
linear and non-steady-state tyre model for vehicle vy lateral velocity of wheel center
dynamics simulation. Vehicle Syst Dyn 2005; 43: 341–358. Vx longitudinal velocity of vehicle at center of
15. Guo K and Lu D. UniTire: unified tire model for vehicle gravity
dynamic simulation. Vehicle Syst Dyn 2007; 45: 79–99. Vy lateral velocity of vehicle at center of
16. Guo K and Guan H. Modelling of driver/vehicle direc- gravity
tional control system. Vehicle Syst Dyn 1993; 22: €y optimal lateral acceleration
141–184.
17. Guo K and Fancher P. Preview-follower method for af front tire slip angle
modelling closed-loop vehicle directional control. In: Pro- ar rear tire slip angle
ceedings of the 19th annual conference on manual control, g yaw rate
Cambridge, MA, 1 January 1983; pp.159–186. g des desired yaw rate
18. Slotine J-JE and Li W. Applied nonlinear control. Engle- g SW desired yaw rate with driver delay
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.
Wang et al. 13

d tire steering angle my lateral friction coefficient

dSW actual steering wheel angle G vehicle states
dSW  desired steering wheel angle f tire normalized combined slip ratio
e lateral distance to desired path at the fx tire normalized longitudinal slip ratio
preview point fy tire normalized lateral slip ratio
h sliding mode control (SMC) constant v=vij angular velocity of wheel
m friction coefficient
mx longitudinal friction coefficient