Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering International Congress

31st Annual Conference of the Computational Fluid Dynamics Society of Canada

CSME/CFD2024
May 26–29, 2024, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Alternative Method to FMVSS-126 Recommended Testing Procedure for

Electronic Stability Control Systems

Pierson McGillivray, Daniel Medina, Giacomo Corvi, Yuping He

Department of Automotive and Mechatronics Engineering, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
pierson.mcgillivray@gmail.com, daniel.j_2000@hotmail.com, giacomo.corvi@hotmail.com

Abstract—This paper presents a benchmark between two
testing methods for evaluating light-weight vehicles’
lateral/yaw stability with and without electronic stability
control (ESC) systems. To date, the open-loop test method,
i.e., Sine with Dwell testing maneuver, recommended by
FMVSS-126 is widely applied to objectively evaluate the
lateral/yaw stability of road vehicles with and without ESC.
On the other hand, the closed-loop approach, that is, Double
Lane-Change testing maneuver, suggested by ISO-3888-1 is
commonly used to subjectively assess the lateral/yaw
dynamics of conventional passenger cars. To identify potential
correlation between these two testing methods, an attempt is
made to compare these two methods using numerical
simulations. Simulation results disclose distinct features of
each testing methods.
Keywords-testing methods for lateral/yaw stability; sine
with dwell testing maneuver; double lane-change maneuver;
numerical simulation
I. INTRODUCTION
To increase safety of light-weight vehicles (e.g., passenger
cars), the US Government has established FMVSS-126, which
is a vehicle standard that requires all passenger cars sold in
North America to include an electronic stability control (ESC)
system starting in 2012 [1]. An ESC system has the ability to
produce a yaw moment for enhancing the lateral stability of
the vehicle without driver intervention [2]. Simulations and
tests demonstrate that vehicle stability and path-following
performance under emergency maneuvers at high lateral
accelerations can be improved with ESC systems [3].
To objectively assess the lateral/yaw stability of passenger
cars with and without ESC, an open-loop testing method, i.e.,
Sine with Dwell testing procedure, was recommended by
FMVSS-126, and it is widely applied [4]. On the other hand,
to subjectively evaluate the lateral/yaw stability of
light-weight vehicles, a closed-loop testing approach, that is,
Double Lane-Change maneuver, is recommended by
ISO-3888 [5]. Both testing methods are executed on proving
ground with in-vehicle tests.
Nowadays, vehicle modeling and simulation is important
for active safety systems development [6,7]. Simulations are
increasingly used in the designs and tests of ground vehicles in
virtual environments prior to physical prototypes being
fabricated [8]. In the Australia performance-based standards
for articulated heavy vehicles, both in-vehicle test and
simulation are permitted to evaluate the directional
performance of these large vehicles [9]. The open-loop testing
procedure by FMVSS-126 has been well-specified in the
commercial software package, CarSim [10], for assessing the
lateral/yaw stability of light-weight vehicles [11].
If numerical simulation is allowed to assess the lateral/yaw
stability of light-weight vehicles, the gap between the
objective and subjective testing methods (i.e., those by
FMVSS-126 and ISO-3888) may be shortened due to the
following facts: 1) a well-established driver model may be
selected for the virtual closed-loop test (i.e., the Double
Lane-Change maneuver); 2) the fine-tuned driver model is
uniformly used to evaluate all testing vehicles under various
operating conditions. To identify the gap between the open-
and closed-loop testing methods and find the root causes for
shortening the gap between the objective and subjective
testing procedures, we compare these two testing methods
through the evaluation of the lateral/yaw stability of a sport
unit vehicle (SUV) with and without ESC using numerical
simulations based on CarSim software. The objective of this
research is to find an effective alternative to the open-loop
testing method by FMVSS-126 for effectively evaluating the
lateral/yaw stability of light-weight vehicles.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
introduces the open- and closed-loop testing methods. Section
III describes the selected testing vehicles. Section IV presents
the simulation results of the SUVs based on the objective and
subjective testing approaches. Section V compares the two
testing methods based on the attained simulation results.
Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section VI.
II. TESTING METHODS
This section briefly introduces the open- and closed-loop
testing methods recommended by FMVSS-126 [4] and
ISO-3888 [5], respectively.

1
A. Sine with Dwell (Open-loop) Testing Method Lateral acceleration at 1.07 seconds after initial steering input,
To validate ESC systems, FMVSS-126 recommends an can be calculated as follows,
open-loop test procedure, i.e., Sine with Dwell test as shown
in Fig. 1. The test procedure uses a sinusoidal steering wheel
input with a frequency of 0.7 Hz. The initial speed of the
vehicle is 80 km/h.
where the lateral displacement should be larger than 1.83m,
when GVWR ≥ 3,500 kg, while the lateral displacement needs
to be larger than 1.22m, when GVWR <3,500 kg. Note that
t0 = Steering wheel input starting time,
AC.G. = Lateral acceleration, corrected for the effect of roll
angle and sensor offset from vehicle C.G. position.
B. Double Lane Change Testing Method
Figure 1: Sine with Dwell steering input [4]. The double lane change test procedure outlined in
ISO-3888-1 is a method to subjectively evaluate the
Three separate tests are performed, where the vehicle is lateral/yaw stability of light-weight vehicles. Fig. 2 shows the
travelling at 80 km/h, and the steering angle is increased at specific test course layout. The track dimensions of the
13.5 deg/sec until lateral acceleration of 0.5 g is met. This test Double Lane Change are as follows; Section 1 length is 15m,
is also done in the opposite direction, with a steering angle with a width of 1.1 x vehicle width + 0.25m. Section 2 length
increased at -13.5 deg/sec until -0.5 g lateral acceleration is is 30m. Section 3 length is 25m, lane offset of 3.5m, with a
met [4]. width of 1.2 x vehicle width + 0.25m. Section 4 length is 25m.
The lateral stability for the Sine with Dwell test is defined Section 5 length is 15m, with a width of 1.3 x vehicle width +
as a ratio of vehicle yaw at a specific time, to the first local 0.25m. Section 6 length is 15m, with a width of 1.3 x vehicle
peak yaw rate at 0.7 Hz. A typical ESC-equipped vehicle has width + 0.25m [5].
less than 5 percent likelihood of satisfying the NHTSA’s
spinout definition if it meets the required lateral criteria. Two
lateral stability criteria tests are done to see if the ESC meets
the requirements. One second after completing the Sine with
Dwell manoeuvre, the yaw rate cannot be more than 35% of
the first local peak yaw rate. 1.75 seconds after completing the
Figure 2: Double lane change track sections [5].
manoeuvre, the yaw rate cannot be more than 20% of the first
local peak yaw rate. ISO states that the initial test should have an entry speed of
80 +-3 km/h. The secondary test run should be taken at the
maximum possible speed that allows the vehicle to
successfully complete the test [5]. A test will be deemed
successful if the vehicle is able to make the double lane
change within the prescribed path.
where,
III. TESTING VEHICLES
ψt = Yaw rate at time t (in seconds),
ψPeak = First local peak yaw rate generated by the 0.7 Hz Sine The vehicle model chosen to be used throughout all
with Swell steering input, simulations is the standard CarSim E-Class SUV. The specific
t0 = Time to completion of steering input. details of the vehicle model are listed in Table I.
The responsiveness criterion measures the ability of a TABLE I. E-CLASS SUV VEHICLE PARAMETERS
vehicle's responsiveness to the driver's inputs while ESC is
Table Column Head
intervening. The lateral displacement of the vehicle's centre of Variable
gravity with respect to the initial straight path during the Sine Term Value Units
with Dwell manoeuvre, prior to the steering dwell, defines the hC.G. Height of centre of gravity 720 mm
criterion. It’s important that the acceptable lateral stability l Wheelbase 2950 mm
threshold does not compromise the driver’s manoeuvrability a Distance from CG to front axle 1180 mm
of the vehicle. The limit of an ESC-equipped vehicle with a
b Distance from CG to rear axle 1770 mm
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 3,500 kg has a
minimum lateral displacement of 1.83 metres at 1.07 seconds Wt Track width 1575 mm
after initial steering input. If the GVWR is greater than 3,500 hf Front ride height 390 mm
kg, the minimum lateral displacement is 1.22 metres [3]. hr Rear ride height 380 mm
h Height of vehicle body 1714 mm

2
 Table Column Head
Variable
Term Value Units
m Sprung mass 1590 kg
IXX Roll inertia 984.4 kg-m2
IZZ Yaw inertia 2687.1 kg-m2
IYY Pitch inertia 2687.1 kg-m2
mfu Front unsprung mass 102.2 kg
Figure 5: Yaw rate over the entire test procedure.
kf Front spring rate 146 N/mm
mru Rear unsprung mass 115 kg Fig. 5 more clearly illustrates where the ESC Off vehicle
kr Rear spring rate 46 N/mm
fails the Sine with Dwell test. The yaw rate continually
increases, to the point where the vehicle no longer satisfies the
In this research, the SUV with and without ESC is modeled lateral stability criterion.
in CarSim. For simplicity, ESC On denotes the SUV with
ESC, while ESC Off represents the SUV without ESC. Using
both the open- and closed-loop testing methods, numerical
simulation based on CarSim is used to evaluate the lateral/yaw
stability of the SUV with and without ESC. Note that in the
closed-loop testing, the built-in driver model in CarSim is
used.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
C. Sine with Dwell Figure 6: Vehicle roll with resetting time.
This section outlines the CarSim results for the Sine with
Dwell procedure. Due to the nature of the procedure, test Fig. 6 illustrates the impact of yaw control on the ESC On
results are overlaid between consecutive runs with varying vehicle. As ESC is activated, the body roll will be controlled,
steering inputs. represented by the sharp and sudden decline in roll angles.

Figure 3: Steering wheel angle with resetting time.
Fig. 3 displays the steering wheel angle for the Sine with
Dwell procedure with increasing amplitudes. This is similar to
Fig. 2, only with multiple iterations, with both left- and
right-hand turns being conducted.
Figure 7: Lateral acceleration with resetting time.
Fig. 7 demonstrates how the ESC system interacts with the
vehicle under large lateral acceleration forces. The rapid
adjustments in the graph are moments the ESC is engaged.
TABLE II. SINE WITH DWELL ESC OFF FAILURE

Speed, Yaw Rate Roll Angle Lateral

ESC
[km/h] [deg/s] [deg] Acceleration [g]

ESC OFF 77.5 25.22 2.47 0.64

ESC ON 77.5 23.1 2.55 0.54

Figure 4: Yaw rate with resetting time.
Fig. 4 shows the yaw rates for ESC On and ESC Off. Fig.
5, shown below, depicts the yaw rates for both vehicles plotted
over the entire test procedure, with no overlay.
Table II shows the data at the point where the ESC Off
vehicle fails the Sine with Dwell test and compares it with the
ESC On vehicle at the same instance. It should be noted that
the ESC On vehicle passes every iteration of the Sine with
Dwell procedure.
Up to the point of ESC Off failure, the ESC On vehicle
experiences lower yaw rates.

3
D. DOUBLE LANE CHANGE
1) Double Lane Change, Test 1, 80km/h
Similar to Sine with Dwell, various output parameters
were recorded in CarSim, depicted below.
Figure 8: Steering wheel angle at 80 km/h.
Fig. 8 shows the steering wheel angle for ESC On and Off.
The graph indicates a lower steering angle in all parts of the
test. This is expected as the differential braking from the ESC
system will provide more steering stability with less steering
angle.
Figure 9: Yaw rate comparison at 80 km/h.
As seen in Fig. 9, the ESC Off vehicle control experienced
higher yaw rates. The ESC On vehicle experienced smoother
transition and settling of yaw rates, denoted by the lesser
number of peaks and troughs in the graphs.
Figure 10: Lateral distance to path comparison at 80 km/h.
The lateral distance to the path when ESC is On and Off
have similar results. With a speed of 80 km/h, the output path
does not have any significant changes as speed is too low.
Figure 11: Roll angle comparison at 80 km/h.
The ESC On has a couple tenths of a second delay until the
roll angle begins to rise. It is also observed that the peaks and
troughs of the data show that the maximum in both directions
comes from the ESC Off test.
Figure 12: Lateral acceleration comparison 80 km/h.
Like the results of the roll angle comparison, the ESC On
has a delay of a few tenths of a second before engaging. It is
also observed that the peaks and troughs of this data are
greater for the ESC Off. The graph displays sudden and rapid
adjustments. This demonstrates when the ESC system is
actively engaged with the vehicle during intense manoeuvres.
2) Test 2, Preview Distance 0.5s, 113 km/h
Figure 13: Steering wheel angle at 113 km/h.
Similar to the 80 km/h test, the steering angle is less for the
ESC On test. This again is expected due to differential braking
causing less steering input.
Figure 14: Yaw rate comparison at 113 km/h.
At the failure speed of 113 km/h, there is a large difference
from ESC On and Off. All the rapid adjustments and
significant differences from the ESC Off are due to the
stability control system being engaged. This demonstrates that
the ESC is being correctly utilised during this manoeuvre.
Figure 15: Lateral distance to path comparison at 113 km/h.
Comparing the data shown in Fig. 15 to Fig. 10, there is an
increase along the path of approximately 10 metres from peak
values. This shows that the increase of speed causes less
predictability for the path, and more likely to lose control.
4
 Figure 16: Roll angle comparison at 113 km/h.
At the failure speed, there is no delay from when the roll Figure 18: Double lane change max yaw rate ESC On/Off.
angle increases for either ESC On or Off. At approximately
Yaw rate plays an important role when determining the
2.25 seconds into the test, the ESC begins engaging which is
stability of a vehicle during extreme manoeuvres. At the
demonstrated by the rapid movements of the roll angle output.
failure speed of 113 km/h, the maximum yaw rate for ESC
Even at the maximum speed, the roll angle has lower
enabled was 19.47 deg/s, and without ESC was 26.27 deg/s.
maximum values demonstrating its effectiveness.
Without an ESC controller, there is an increase of peak yaw
rate by 35%. A lower yaw rate helps maintain control of the
vehicle is one of the most important aspects to investigate
when determining the stability of a vehicle. This demonstrates
that the test applies the ESC system under extreme
manoeuvres.

Figure 17: Lateral acceleration comparison 113 km/h.

Like the results as the roll angle, the lateral acceleration
begins simultaneously for both ESC On and Off. Near the 2.25
second mark, the ESC system engages causing rapid
adjustments in the lateral acceleration outputs. Overall, when
the ESC On test provides less lateral acceleration on the
vehicle.
Figure 19: Double lane change roll angle sprung mass ESC On/Off.
TABLE III. DOUBLE LANE CHANGE ESC ON
The roll angle of the vehicle for both ESC on and off have
Maximum Values for ESC On
Speed, identical outputs. This demonstrates that at the specific failure
[km/h] Roll Angle Lateral Acceleration
Yaw Rate [deg/s]
[deg] [g]
point of 113 km/h, there is minor variability within the testing,
which displays identical test procedures.
80 19.56 2.287 0.591
90 20.47 2.410 0.625
100 20.81 2.366 0.691
110 19.74 2.462 0.694
113 19.47 2.460 0.694
TABLE IV. DOUBLE LANE CHANGE ESC OFF
Maximum Values for ESC Off
Speed,
[km/h] Roll Angle Lateral Acceleration
Yaw Rate [deg/s]
[deg] [g]
80 21.63 2.460 0.635 Figure 20: Double lane change lateral acceleration ESC On/Off.

90 25.52 2.414 0.626

At 113 km/h, the lateral acceleration with the ESC On is
100 27.73 2.460 0.635 0.694 g, and ESC Off is 0.65 g. This is as expected as the car
110 26.15 2.482 0.650 can maintain more stability with increased lateral acceleration
113 26.27 2.455 0.650 forces.
V. COMPARISON OF THE TWO TESTING METHODS
The following table shows the values obtained during each
of the maximum test runs, for the ESC On vehicle. The ESC
On vehicle passed every iteration of Sine with Dwell, whereas
it failed at 113 km/h for the Double Lane change. The two
runs are compared below.

5
 TABLE V. SINE WITH DWELL AND DOUBLE LANE CHANGE, ESC ON VI. CONCLUSIONS
Maximum Run Values Obtained During
Each Test, ESC On For the SUV without ESC, in the failure cases as shown in
Test Speed, Table IV, both the open- and closed-loop testing methods
Lateral
Procedure [km/h] Yaw Rate Roll Angle
Acceleration achieve excellent agreement in terms of the vehicle
[deg/s] [deg]
[g] performance measures of yaw rate, roll angle, and lateral
Sine with acceleration. This implies that using numerical simulations
Dwell 77.2 38.90 2.45 0.367 and well-established driver models, the open- and closed-loop
Double Lane 113 19.47 2.46 0.694 testing methods can attain a direct correlation. Compared with
Change the open-loop testing method, the closed-loop testing method
is more time efficient. However, for the SUV with ESC, in the
failure cases shown in Table V, the two testing methods
TABLE VI. SINE WITH DWELL AND DOUBLE LANGE, ESC OFF
exhibit significant differences in terms of vehicle performance
Maximum Run Values Obtained During
Each Test, ESC Off
measures, except for the roll angle. This may be attributed to
Test Speed,
Lateral the fact that the open-loop testing method emphasizes yaw rate
Procedure [km/h] Yaw Rate Roll Angle control with very rigid limitation, whereas the closed-loop
Acceleration
[deg/s] [deg]
[g] method only specifies loose path boundary violation criteria.
Sine with It’s expected that if equivalent yaw rate control limitation is
Dwell 77.5 25.22 2.47 0.640 predefined for the closed-loop testing method, both methods
Double Lane 113 26.27 2.46 0.650 may be in good agreement of vehicle performance measures.
Change This prediction will be validated in the future research.
The Sine with Dwell test is an open-loop manoeuvre, while ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Double Lane Change is a closed-loop. This posed a challenge
We would like to thank Connor Stephens and Philip Moore
to compare them as the results may be interpreted much
for their assistance with CarSim initialization and research.
differently. It was decided upon that the comparison would be
based on how much the ESC system would be engaging
REFERENCES
during a range of speeds, up until the point of failure. As the
results will be displayed much differently, this allows us to see [1] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Final
how much the ESC system is being applied and tested. Regulatory Impact Analysis: FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability
Control Systems. Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation,
For the Double Lane Change manoeuvre, it was determined National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2007.
that the failure of the test would be once the vehicle exits the [2] E. Lee, S. Kapoor, T. Sikder, and He, Y. He, “An optimal robust
controller for active trailer differential braking systems of car-trailer
track dimensions. Using the maximum values obtained from combinations,” Int. J. Vehicle Systems Modelling and Testing, Vol. 12,
the results, it can be determined that reducing a speed by a Nos. 1/2, pp.72–93.
calculated amount will provide set regulations for the [3] S. Zhu, and Y. He, “A driver-adaptive stability control strategy for sport
investigated parameters. Comparing the results can prove to utility vehicles,” Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 55, No. 8, pp:
1206-1240.
be difficult, as the Sine with Dwell test has maximum limit
values for the lateral acceleration and yaw rate. The Double [4] US Department of Transportation, “Laboratory test procedure for
Lane Change only has physical track dimensions to determine FMVSS 126, electronic stability control systems,” National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC 20590, USA.
whether the test is successful or not. However, determining the
[5] International Organization for Standardization, Passenger cars – Test
difference between ESC On and Off values for each test can track for a severe lane-change manoeuvre – Part 1: Double lane-change,
determine how active the stability control system is, providing ISO-3888-1, Second edition. Geneva: International Organization for
insight as to whether it’s a suitable test. Standardization; 2018.
[6] J. Yu, and Y. He, “A model-based design synthesis method for
Table V shows the results of both tests with ESC On. For autonomous articulated vehicles,” Applied Mathematical Modelling,
Sine with Dwell, the yaw rate exceeded the maximum value. 127: 803-822, 2024.
For the Double Lane Change, the maximum lateral [7] S. Zhu, Z. Ni, A. Rahimi, and Y. He, “On dynamic stability evaluation
acceleration was found. Table VI shows the results of both methods for long combination vehicles,” Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol.
tests with ESC Off. For Sine with Dwell, the lateral 60, No. 12, pp:3999-4034, 2022.
acceleration exceeded the maximum value. For the Double [8] B. Duprey, M. Sayers, and T. Gillepie, “Using TruckSim to test
performance based standards,” SAE paper 2012-01-1919, 2012.
Lane Change, the maximum yaw rate was found. This
[9] National Transport Commission, Performance-based standards scheme –
demonstrates that the Sine with Dwell test utilizes the ESC the standards and vehicle assessment rules. National Heavy Vehicle
more for the yaw rate of the vehicle, while the Double Lane Regulator, Australian, November 2022.
Change method utilizes the ESC for lateral acceleration. This [10] M. Sayers, and P. Mather, “FMVSS 126 Electronic Stability Test and
information is useful as each test will provide different data CarSim,” Technical Memo, Mechanical Simulation, 2008.
regarding vehicle handling and ESC efficiency. Due to testing [11] S. Zhu, and Y. He, “Design and validation of differential braking
time being less for the Double Lane Change compared to the controllers for sport utility vehicles considering the interactions of driver
Sine with Dwell, this will result in less cost. and control system,” Ergonomics International Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp:
1-15, 20018.