0 Votes +0 Votes -

16 vues25 pagesNice

Feb 16, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Nice

© All Rights Reserved

16 vues

Nice

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 25

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered

office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and

Mobility

Publication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nvsd20

vehicle handling and stability based on

optimal guaranteed cost theory

a

Shandong University , Jinan City, People's Republic of China

Published online: 31 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Xiujian Yang , Zengcai Wang & Weili Peng (2009) Coordinated control of AFS

and DYC for vehicle handling and stability based on optimal guaranteed cost theory, Vehicle

System Dynamics: International Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and Mobility, 47:1, 57-79, DOI:

10.1080/00423110701882264

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00423110701882264

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the

Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,

our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to

the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions

and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,

and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content

should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources

of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,

proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising

out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any

substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Vol. 47, No. 1, January 2009, 5779

handling and stability based on optimal guaranteed

cost theory

Xiujian Yang*, Zengcai Wang and Weili Peng

Vehicular Institute of Mechanical Engineering Department, Shandong University, Jinan City,

Peoples Republic of China

(Received 16 July 2007; final version received 21 December 2007 )

Considering the uncertainty of tyre cornering stiffness due to the frequent variation of running conditions, a new coordination scheme is proposed based on optimal guaranteed cost control technique

by coordinating active front steering and direct yaw moment control. A general procedure to develop

an optimal guaranteed cost coordination controller (OGCC) is presented, and the effect of uncertainty

deviation magnitude on the control system is discussed. An optimal coordination (OC) scheme based

on LQR is also presented. Many simulations are carried out on an 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model

for a slalom manoeuvre and a lane-change manoeuvre, respectively. The simulation results show that

the OGCC scheme has superior stability and tracking performances at different running conditions

compared with the OC scheme.

Keywords: active front steering; direct yaw moment; vehicle stability control; optimal guaranteed

cost control; coordinated control; vehicle dynamics

1.

Introduction

In the past two decades, vehicle chassis control system as the important part of vehicle active

safety control has made great progress, such as four wheel steering (4WS), vehicle stability

control system (VDC/ESP/VSC), active front steering (AFS), etc. All the systems can improve

the handling or the stability performance obviously in a certain region. The vehicle stability

relies on the balance of the front and rear tyre cornering forces. In detail, when the front tyre

cannot provide the cornering force, the vehicle will lead to drift out and loss of steerability; and

when the rear tyre cornering force reaches saturation, the vehicle will lead to spin out and loss

of stability. When the lateral acceleration is small, the tyre cornering force is approximately

proportional to the tyre slip angle; but when the lateral acceleration increases to a certain

value, the proportional relationship will no longer exist because of the saturation property of

2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/00423110701882264

http://www.informaworld.com

58

X. Yang et al.

the tyre. Therefore, 4WS and AFS, which depend on the lateral tyre force greatly, are mainly

effective in the linear region of the tyre. Vehicle stability control systems such as VDC, ESP

or VSC mainly use the active yaw moment generating from the difference of the longitudinal

tyre forces by driveline or braking to keep the vehicle stable, which is also called direct yaw

moment control (DYC). 4WS and AFS can effectively improve the steerability performance

in the linear region of the tyre. However, DYC can keep the vehicle stable in critical situations

where the tyre cornering force reaches saturation [15]. Therefore, each individual chassis

control system has a certain operating region. The vehicle handling and stability performances

can be enhanced in all driving conditions by coordinating the individual chassis control systems

exerting the advantage of each subsystem.Along with the developments ofAFS and DYC, some

researchers investigate the integration of steering and braking to enhance vehicle dynamics.

Nagai et al. [6,7] propose a coordination scheme that is composed of a steering angle-based

feedforward controller and an optimal state feedback controller. Boada et al. [8] design a

control scheme by integrating front steering and front wheel braking using fuzzy logic control.

In [9], steering and braking are coordinated by rules designed beforehand based on a model

regulator to enhance the yaw dynamics. In [10], the vehicle lateral dynamics control is regarded

as a multi-input and multi-output system control problem and an integration of steering and

braking scheme is presented using feedback linearisation technique.

As an important parameter in the vehicle dynamic control system, tyre cornering stiffness is

affected by many aspects (e.g. vehicle weight, adhesion coefficient, etc.), which is a disadvantage for a model-following based vehicle stability controller. From the open-public literature, it

is easy to find that most of the model-following based vehicle stability controllers are designed

using a certain constant for the tyre cornering stiffness parameter [7,11,12]. Though some

researchers considered the uncertainty of the parameter in the controller design, the robustness or stability performance of the closed-loop system is the primary objective [1316]. Ono

[3,13] and Mammar [14] design a robust steering controller based on H theory to reduce the

influence of the tyre cornering stiffness uncertainty on the system performance. Since robust

performance is the design objective for a robust controller, some other performances of the

system may not be guaranteed. In [15], an uncertain TS fuzzy model is founded to handle

the tyre cornering stiffness uncertainty when designing a 4WS stability controller. Though

quadratic optimal control based vehicle stability controller considers the tracking error and

the control input simultaneously, which is more suitable for realistic application, it may lose

stability and cannot obtain the optimal performance when the tyre cornering stiffness varies

in a large range for the change of running conditions. Fortunately, optimal guaranteed cost

control theory that can obtain a relative optimal performance for a system with norm-bounded

time-varying parameter uncertainties provides a good means to solve the problem. For all

the norm-bounded time-varying parameter uncertainties, optimal guaranteed cost control can

not only keep the closed-loop system stable but maintain the given quadratic cost function

within a certain bound [16]. In the past, the solution of the optimal guaranteed cost problem

was difficult, but the situation has been changed since linear matrix inequality (LMI) toolbox of Matlab appeared. Thus the solution of optimal guaranteed cost problem is equivalent

to the solution of a set of LMIs. In this paper, the coordination of AFS and DYC based on

optimal guaranteed cost control theory is presented to reduce the influence of the variation

of tyre cornering stiffness uncertainty on vehicle dynamic control for the change of driving

conditions.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, an 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle

model and tyre model are described briefly. Section 3 gives an analysis of control logic and

the distribution of brake forces. An optimal guaranteed cost coordination control scheme

(OGCC) for the upper controller is presented in Section 4 in detail. Some simulation results

are carried out in Section 5. Section 6 presents the conclusions of the paper.

Figure 1.

2.

59

8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model. (a) XY plane; (b) Y Z plane; (c) ZX plane.

Nonlinear vehicle model (Figure 1ac) reflecting the actual vehicle characteristics is used to

test the control schemes proposed in the paper. The 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model with front

wheel driving and front wheel steering includes longitudinal, lateral, roll, yaw dynamics and

four wheels rotational dynamics. The notations are described in Appendix 1.

2.1. Vehicle model

Equations (1)(4) represent the longitudinal, lateral, yaw and roll dynamics, respectively:

mt (Vx Vy ) ms hs =

4

4

Fxi ,

(1a)

i=1

(1b)

i=1

4

Fyi

mt (Vy + Vx ) + ms hs + (lf muf lr mur ) =

i=1

4

i=1

(2)

60

X. Yang et al.

Izz =

tw

(Fx1 + Fx3 Fx2 Fx4 ) + lf (Fy1 + Fy2 ) lr (Fy3 + Fy4 ).

2

(3)

(4a)

The longitudinal and lateral forces of the ith wheel in the vehicle coordinates have the following

relationships with the tyre forces:

Fxi = Fxwi cos i Fywi sin i

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4).

(4b)

Fyi = Fxwi sin i + Fywi cos i

For a front steering vehicle:

1 = 2 = f ,

3 = 4 = 0.

For the variation of the tyre normal force has significant effects on the vehicle handling and

stability performance [17], the tyre normal force model includes the load transfers due to the

longitudinal and lateral accelerations:

ay ms lrs hfroll

1

mt glr

1

F z1 =

(5a)

Fl +

+ muf huf + (Kf Cf ),

2l

2

tw

l

tw

ay ms lrs hfroll

1

mt glr

1

F z2 =

(5b)

Fl

+ muf huf (Kf Cf ),

2l

2

tw

l

tw

ay ms lfs hrroll

mt glf

1

1

F z3 =

+ Fl +

+ mur hur + (Kr Cr ),

(5c)

2l

2

tw

l

tw

ay ms lfs hrroll

1

mt glf

1

(5d)

+ Fl

+ mur hur (Kr Cr ),

F z4 =

2l

2

tw

l

tw

where

Fl = (muf huf + ms hs + mur hur )

ax

.

l

Slip angle for each wheel is defined as

V y + lf

Vy + lf

1 = f arctan

, 2 = f arctan

,

Vx + (tw /2)

Vx (tw /2)

Vy + lr

Vy + lr

3 = arctan

, 4 = arctan

.

Vx + (tw /2)

Vx (tw /2)

(6)

i =

Rw wi Vx

,

max(Rw wi , Vx )

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4).

(7)

Tyre model for the 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model needs to express the interaction between

longitudinal and lateral tyre forces. Considering the situation where the combination of steering

and braking is referred in this paper, Dugoff tyre model [18] is selected here, which can be

defined as follows:

61

Fxwi =

Cx i

f (S),

1 i

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4),

(8a)

Fywi =

Ci tan i

f (S),

1 i

C1 = C2 = Cf ,

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4),

C3 = C4 = Cr ,

(8b)

where

F zi (1 r Vx 2i + tan2 i )

S=

(1 i ),

2 Ci2 2i + Ci2 tan2 i

1

S>1

f (S) =

S(2 S) S < 1.

The corrective yaw moment is only from brake torque regardless of the driveline without

affecting the validation of the proposed coordination scheme. The wheel rotational dynamics

can be expressed as

Jw wi = Tbi Rw Fxwi ,

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4).

(9)

Tbi = Kb Pbi ,

3.

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4).

(10)

Model-following technique is often used in vehicle dynamic control systems. The yaw rate

and slip angle of the reference model are the desired responses tracked by the actual vehicle.

However, following both variables simultaneously is more effective than following only one

variable of the two [7,19,20], since the yaw response reflects more handling performance and

the slip response reflects more stability performance. So both yaw rate and slip angle are

controlled in this paper. The two inputs for the coordination controller are the yaw rate error

and slip angle error and the two outputs are active steer angle and corrective yaw moment.Yaw

rate can be measured by a sensor but the slip angle is often estimated, which is not discussed

here. About slip angle estimation algorithms, the readers can refer to [1,21,22]; however, it is

assumed that the slip angle can be obtained directly in this paper.

The reference model to produce the desired state responses (yaw rate and slip angle) is a

well-known 2-DOF bicycle model. The responses of yaw rate and slip angle to the front wheel

steering input are second order system problem in fact. In the procedure of controller design,

however, for the consideration of convenience, a first order yaw rate response model is chosen,

62

X. Yang et al.

d =

K

f ,

1 + T s

(11)

where

K =

Vx / l

.

1 + (mt / l 2 )((lf /Cr ) (lr /Cf ))Vx2

The value of time constant T can be obtained by the following formula [7]:

T =

Iz Vx

.

2Cf lf (lf + lr ) + mt lr Vx2

For the desired slip angle response, it is not uniform. A steady state desired slip angle (see

Equation (12)) is deduced based on a 2-DOF vehicle model in [23]. However, a zero slip angle

is selected for the desired response in [7,24].

ss =

fss .

l + (mt Vx2 (lr Cr lf Cf )/2Cr Cf l)

(12)

As mentioned above, the slip angle response to the front wheel steering angle is also a second

order problem. In this paper, for the consideration of convenience, a first order model is also

used in the controller reasoning, which can be formulated as

d =

K

f ,

1 + T s

(13)

equal to T .

The desired yaw rate response and slip angle response cannot always be obtained when the

tyre force goes beyond the adhesion limit of the tyre. Thus, the desired yaw rate and slip angle

both have an upper bound, which can be expressed as follows, respectively [23]:

d_bound =

g

,

Vx

(14)

The desired yaw rate and slip angle responses for controller design can be rewritten as

K f d_bound

f ,

d =

1 + T s

,

(15)

d_bound sgn (K f )

, K f > d_bound

d =

1 + T s

K f d_bound

f ,

d =

1 + T s

.

(16)

d_bound sgn (K f )

, K f > d_bound

d =

1 + T s

3.2. Analysis of control scheme

Figure 2 shows the whole structure of the optimal guaranteed cost based coordination scheme

including an upper controller and a lower controller. In detail, the upper controller that is the

key part studied in this paper calculates the active steer angle and the corrective yaw moment

needed to track the desired yaw rate and the desired slip angle. Note that when the vehicle

Figure 2.

63

is in the linear region, only steering is used to follow the desired response; and when the

vehicle reaches the handling limit, steering and braking work together. Since vehicle stability

is directly related to the sideslip motion, sideslip angle is often bounded to keep the vehicle in

the linear region [2,25,26]. In this paper, we partition the stable and the unstable region by the

phaseplane method about slip angle, which is described in [25,26]. A stability bound defined

in [28] is used here, which is formulated as

2.4979 + 9.549 < 1,

(17)

when the inequation (17) is satisfied, the vehicle is considered to be stable and AFS is used to

enhance the handling performance; otherwise, it is considered to have exceeded the handling

limit and DYC is also used with AFS to keep the vehicle stable. For a detailed description

of phaseplane, refer to [2]. In this paper, we call the left term of inequation (17)

stability index. The lower controller determines the distribution of brake torques on the four

wheels in order to realise the corrective yaw moment. There are many ways to generate the

corrective yaw moment by braking force either by an individual wheel braking or by multiwheel braking. Superior performance can be obtained by multi-wheel braking compared with

an individual wheel braking [25]; however, multi-wheel braking also induces some problems

that are complex to handle, such as redundancy control, optimisation of the brake force and so

on. Since the objective of this paper is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the OGCC scheme,

single wheel braking is used here. It is more effective by braking the rear inward wheel to

correct the case where the course trace becomes difficult due to the saturation of front wheel

cornering force and by braking the front outward wheel to correct the case where the vehicle

becomes unstable with the sudden increase of side slip angle [25,27].

The relationship between the generated active steer angle, corrective yaw moment and yaw

rate response, slip angle response needs to be analysed first. The comparison of actual yaw

rate response with the desired response can be reduced to six cases shown in Figure 3. The

error between the actual yaw rate response and the desired response is defined as

= d .

Active steer angle and corrective yaw moment are described by

f and

M, respectively.

For each case in Figure 3, the sign of

,

f and

M as well as the braking wheel are

defined in Table 1. It is easy to find from Table 1 that active steer angle

f and corrective

64

X. Yang et al.

Table 1.

Control decision.

Status

(a) d 0, > 0, d <

(b) d > 0, 0, d >

(c) d 0, < 0, d >

(d) d < 0, > 0, d <

(e) d < 0, 0, d <

(f) d < 0, < 0, d >

Braking wheel

+

+

+

+

+

+

FL

RR

FR

FL

RL

FR

yaw moment

M both have the same sign with the yaw rate response error

. The error

between the actual slip angle response and the desired response is defined as

= d .

Similarly, we can find that active steer angle

f and corrective yaw moment

M both have

the opposite sign with the slip angle response error

. From the analysis mentioned above,

it is concluded that there exist straightforward relationships between

,

and

f ,

M.

Therefore, the upper controller can be realised by a static state feedback control law that is

given in detail in Section 4. The steady state braking pressure decided by the lower controller

is defined as

PFL =

2

MRw

,

Kb tw cos f

PFR =

2

MRw

,

Kb tw cos f

PRL =

2

MRw

,

Kb tw

PRR =

2

MRw

,

Kb tw

Kb = Aw b Rb ,

where PFL , PFR , PRL and PRR are brake pressures at the front left, front right, rear left and

rear right wheels, respectively; Aw is the brake area of the wheel; b is the brake friction

coefficient; Rb is the brake radius.

4.

4.1.

65

Optimal guaranteed cost control for uncertain systems

x(t)

= (A +

A)x(t) + (B +

B)u(t)

x(0) = x0 ,

(18)

where x(t) R n is the system state vector, u(t) R n is the control input vector, A and B are

known constant real matrices of appropriate dimensions,

A and

B are real-valued matrix

functions representing time-varying parameter uncertainties of the system model. The parameter uncertainties considered here are assumed to be norm-bounded and have the following

form:

[

A

B] = DF (t)[E1 E2 ],

(19)

where D, E1 and E2 are known constant real matrices of appropriate dimensions and F (t)

R ij is an unknown matrix satisfying

F T (t)F (t) I.

Consider a quadratic cost function associated with system (18) as:

J =

[x T (t)Qx(t) + uT Ru(t)]dt,

(20)

where Q and R are given positive-definite symmetric matrices. For system (18) with cost

function (20), if the state feedback control law u (t) = Kx can make the closed-loop system

asymptotically stable and the upper bound of the closed-loop system cost function value J

is no more than a positive value J , J is an upper bound of the cost function and u (t)

is a quadratically guaranteed cost controller. Especially, u (t) is an optimal guaranteed cost

controller if u (t) = Kx can bring a minimum upper bound of the cost function. A guaranteed

cost controller can make the uncertain closed-loop system not only asymptotically stable but

robust with respect to parameter uncertainties. Theorem 1 gives the solution of the optimal

guaranteed cost problem for uncertain system (18) with cost function (20).

By defining

= [1 , 2 , . . . , l ], k > 0,

k = 1, 2, . . . , l,

N = diag{11 Ii1i1 , 21 Ii2i2 , . . . , l1 Iilil },

Equation (19) can be denoted as

(t)[N E1 N E2 ].

DF (t)[E1 E2 ] = D MF

THEOREM 1 For system (18) and cost function (20), u (t) = W X 1 x(t) is an optimal state

M)

for the following optimisation

feedback control law, if there exists a solution ( , W , X,

66

X. Yang et al.

problem:

min

,W,X,M

(AX + BW )T + AX + BW

E1 X + E2 W

(i)

X

W

T

MD

M I

(ii)

> 0.

I X

Trace(M), s.t.

(E1 X + E2 W )T

N 1

0

0

0

X

0

Q1

0

0

WT

0

0

R 1

0

D M

0

0

< 0,

0

M 1

In this section, two optimal guaranteed cost controllers are designed. The first one is the

coordination of DYC and AFS based on optimal guaranteed cost theory and the other is an

optimal guaranteed cost AFS controller. When the vehicle is in the linear region, only the AFS

controller (the second one) is active; and when the vehicle enters the nonlinear region, the

coordination controller (the first one) begins to work.

Though the tyre cornering stiffness is affected by many aspects, the surface adhesion coefficient is the primary aspect. Therefore, the variation of tyre cornering stiffness is treated as the

variation of the surface adhesion coefficient in this paper. The actual tyre cornering stiffness

can be described as

Cf = Cf0 , Cr = Cr0 ,

where Cf0 , Cr0 are the nominal cornering stiffness of the front and rear tyres; Cf , Cr are the

actual cornering stiffness of the front and rear tyres. A 2-DOF vehicle model is selected to

design the controller and the actual response dynamic equation can be expressed as follows:

xac = A0 xac + B10 u1 + B20 u2

with

xac =

(21)

f

.

u1 = f ,

u2 =

Choose d , d as the state variables and f as the system input. Then the desired response

dynamic equation can be derived from Equations (11)(14):

xd = Ad xd + Bd u1 .

(22)

The error dynamic equation can be deduced by Equations (21) and (22) as

e = xac xd = A0 (xac xd ) + (A0 Ad )xd + (B10 Bd )f + B20 u2 .

In Equation (23), let

A0 =

a011

a021

a012

,

a022

Ad =

ad11

ad21

ad12

ad22

(23)

(24)

with Equations (11) and (13), then the term (A0 Ad )xd in Equation (23) can be expressed

as

T

f

(A0 Ad )xd = a 1 a 2 f = A

(25)

with a 1 = (a011 ad11 )K + (a012 ad12 )K , a 2 = (a021 ad21 )K + (a022 ad22 )K .

67

e = A0 e + (A + B10 Bd )f + B20 u2 .

(26)

For dynamic system (26), f can be viewed as the reference input. When analysing the effect

of the control input on the system, the reference input can be set to zero. With f = 0,

Equation (26) can be rewritten as

x = A0 x + B20 u

with

x=e=

,

(27)

f

u=

.

As mentioned above, the tyre cornering stiffness is not constant but varies with road adhesion coefficient. Considering the variation, the uncertainty of tyre cornering stiffness can be

expressed as follows:

Cf = Cf0 (1 +

f f ), f 1

,

(28)

Cr = Cr0 (1 +

r r ), r 1

where

f and

r are the deviation magnitude of the cornering stiffness for the front and rear

tyre, respectively, from the nominal values Cf0 ,Cr0 and f , r are perturbations. Then similar

to the uncertain form of Equation (18), Equation (27) can be written as:

x = (A0 +

A)x + (B0 +

B)u,

(29)

where

2(Cf0 + Cr0 )

m t Vx

A0 =

2(Cf0 lf Cr0 lr )

Iz

2(Cf0 lf Cr0 lr )

1

mt Vx2

2

2

2(Cf0 lf + Cr0 lr )

Iz V x

A = DFE1 ,

B = DFE2 ,

2C

2Cr0

r

f0 f

m t Vx

mt V x

D=

, F = f

0

2Cf0

f lf

2Cr0

r lr

Iz

Iz V x

lf

1

Vx

, E2 = 1 0 .

E1 =

0 0

lr

1

Vx

2C

f0

mt V x

B0 =

2Cf0 lf

Iz

,

1

Iz

0

,

r

The reasoning for the design of optimal guaranteed cost based AFS controller is similar

to that of the coordination controller presented above. The uncertain equation is the same

as Equation (29) except that the control input matrix B0 and matrix E2 should be set to

B0 = [2Cf0 /(mt V ) 2Cf0 lf /Iz ]T and E2 = [1 0]T , respectively.

When designing the guaranteed cost controller, the uncertainty deviation magnitudes

f

and

r should be selected first. It is obvious that the choice of uncertainty deviation magnitude

affects the controller performance. From Figure 4, we can find that for both the coordination

68

Figure 4.

X. Yang et al.

controller (AFS+DYC) and the AFS controller, the guaranteed cost increases with the increment of uncertainty deviation magnitude, and furthermore the guaranteed cost increases more

rapidly when the deviation magnitude exceeds 0.7. In other words, the existence of system

uncertainty leads to the degradation of the system performance. The guaranteed cost can be

interpreted as the performance of the system with parametric uncertainties being guaranteed to

be not more than this bound. The bigger the deviation magnitude, the worse performance can

be guaranteed. Both the front tyre cornering stiffness deviation magnitude

f and the rear one

f and

r , which is like the selection of the front and

rear tyre cornering stiffness, affects the vehicle dynamic response greatly. It relies on the experience to a certain degree. The effects of deviation magnitude on the vehicle dynamic response

can be referred to Section 5 (Figure 7). Without loss of generality, we assume the front and

rear tyre cornering stiffness have the same deviation magnitude here, that is

f =

r =

.

For the OGCC

k

f 1 k

f 2

Kcorrd =

,

(30)

k

M1 k

M2

the active steer angle

f and corrective yaw moment

M are formulated as, respectively,

f = k

f 1

+ k

f 2

,

M = k

M1

+ k

M2

f 1 , k

f 2 and corrective yaw moment

gains k

M1 , k

M2 versus the uncertainty deviation magnitude are shown in Figure 5. We find

that the control gains increase with the increment of the deviation magnitude on the whole.

69

The increment of the control gains means that much more control effort is needed that is not

desired. On the other hand, bigger deviation magnitude that means more model parameter

uncertainties being considered in the controller design has much advantage when the driving condition varies in a large range. In short, the selection of deviation magnitude is also

conflictive. By trade-off, we choose

= 0.5 in this paper.

The parameters for controller design are listed in the following [2]:

mt = 1704 kg,

lf = 1.135,

lr = 1.555 m,

Vx = 33.33 m/s,

Iz = 3048.1 kg m2 ,

= 0.8.

For the design of control laws, the following weights are selected for coordination scheme

and AFS, respectively:

80000

0

80000

0

Qgc =

, Rgc =

0

8000

0

0.0001

80000

0

Qga =

, Rga = 80000.

0

8000

Then for performance index (20), optimal guaranteed cost control laws can be obtained by

solving a set of LMIs according to Theorem 1.

The optimal guaranteed cost controller for coordination of AFS and DYC is

0.6624

0.7342

ugc (t) =

x(t),

(31)

5172.2567 5464.0043

where ugc = [

f

M]T , and the optimal guaranteed cost controller for AFS is

uga (t) = 0.6699

0.7610 x(t),

(32)

where uga =

f .

Since the AFS controller is used with the coordinated controller in the OGCC scheme,

in the sequel, we will call the combination of the two controllers optimal guaranteed cost

coordinated control, i.e. OGCC, which will be compared with the optimal coordination (OC)

scheme based on LQR.

4.3. Optimal coordination controller design

There are two optimal controllers introduced in this section, both of which are designed based

on LQR. The first controller coordinates DYC and AFS simultaneously and the second one

controls AFS only. The two controllers are combined in the OC scheme.

For system (27), define performance index as

T

Joc =

[xoc

(t)Qoc xoc (t) + uToc Roc uoc (t)]dt,

(33)

0

where xoc = [

]T , uoc = [

f

M]T . For the reason of comparison, the weights are

selected as same as those used in the design of the OGCC scheme in Section 4.2, i.e.

80000

0

80000

0

Qoc =

, Roc =

,

0

8000

0

0.0001

70

X. Yang et al.

then an LQR problem can be formulated. A minimal performance index can be obtained by

solving Riccati equation

P A + AT P PBR1 BP + Q = 0.

(34)

(35)

With the parameters used for OGCC design, the OC law and the optimal AFS control law are

calculated as, respectively:

0.0925

0.2558

uoc (t) =

x(t), uoa (t) = 0.0972 0.2583 x(t).

1542.5643 1137.3698

Similarly, in the sequel, we will call the combination of the two controllers optimal coordinated

control, i.e. OC, that will be compared with the OGCC scheme.

In addition, from Sections 4.2 and 4.3, we can find that the OGCC scheme and OC scheme

each have two controllers, i.e. the coordination (AFS+DYC) controller and the AFS controller.

It is noted that the AFS controllers are not derived from the coordinated controller directly but

designed all alone.

4.4. Response analysis

For system (27), taking the initial state x0 = [0.01 0.1]T and the adhesion coefficient =

0.2, the state response and control input comparisons between OGCC and OC are shown in

Figure 6.

State and control input response comparisons for the closed-loop system.

71

Figure 6. It is noted that the OGCC scheme presents faster response than the OC scheme,

but the control input is also much bigger than OC. If the control input dose not exceed the

saturation limit of the actuator, OGCC maybe a good method.

5.

Simulation analysis

In this section, a number of simulations are carried out on an 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model

platform presented in Section 2 to analyse and evaluate the OGCC scheme proposed in

Section 4. Two different manoeuvres are considered here. The first manoeuvre is related

to the sinusoidal with increasing amplitude steering input, which is often used in the vehicle

handling performance test, and we call this manoeuvre slalom in the sequel. The second one

is a single lane-change manoeuvre with a single sinusoidal steering input. In all simulations,

the initial longitudinal velocity is 120 km/h and the values of vehicle parameter are listed in

Table 2 [2].

In order to present the effects of uncertainty deviation magnitude on the control performance, Figure 7 shows the vehicle response comparisons at different uncertainty deviation

Table 2. Value of vehicle model parameters in simulation.

mt

ms

muf

mur

lf

lr

lfs

lrs

Figure 7.

1704.7 kg

1526.9 kg

98.1 kg

79.1 kg

1.135 m

1.555 m

1.115 m

1.675 m

hfroll

hrroll

hs

huf

hur

tw

Izz

Ixx

0.130 m

0.110 m

0.445 m

0.313 m

0.313 m

1.535 m

3048.1 kg m2

744 kg m2

Kf

Kr

Cf

Cr

Cx

Cf

Cr

g

65,312 Nm/rad

32,311 Nm/rad

3823 Nm/rad/s

2653 Nm/rad/s

50,000 N/unit slip

105,850 N/rad

79,030 N/rad

9.81 m/s2

72

Figure 8.

X. Yang et al.

magnitude (

= 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7) for a slalom manoeuvre with the steering input signal

shown in Figure 8. It is noted that with the increment of deviation magnitude, the slip angle

and yaw rate error both become smaller. The reason is likely that much tyre cornering stiffness

error exists between the control model and the real vehicle (nonlinear vehicle model), and

the error becomes smaller with the increment of deviation magnitude. It is also noted that the

corrective yaw moment and the active steer angle both become bigger with the increment of

deviation magnitude that is consistent with the solution shown in Figure 5.

Figures 911 show the response comparisons for a slalom manoeuvre with the steering

input shown in Figure 8 on a dry road with the adhesion coefficient of 0.9. Figure 9 shows the

response comparisons from different points of view, including lateral dynamics and longitudinal dynamics. We can easily find that compared with the OC scheme, the OGCC scheme

presents superior tracking performance to the reference response. The uncontrolled vehicle

will lose stability and even turn over. Figure 10 shows the variations of stability index of the

two schemes that can be used for analysis and evaluation combining with the control effort

comparisons shown in Figure 11. As stated before, when the stability index is below one,

only AFS system is active to enhance the handling performance; and when the stability index

exceeds one, the braking system begins to work with the active steering system to keep the

vehicle stable. It also observed that the control effort for the OGCC scheme is bigger than that

of the OC scheme, the phenomenon of which is consistent with the fact stated in Figure 5.

Similarly, Figures 1214 show the response comparisons for a slalom manoeuvre with the

steering input shown in Figure 8 on an icy road with the adhesion coefficient of 0.2. It is

observed that the OGCC scheme is still stable and presents satisfying tracking performance

to the drivers intent but the OC scheme is unstable. It can be explained that the running

condition has deviated greatly on the icy road from that on the dry road where the controller is

designed and the tyre cornering stiffness has changed greatly. Fortunately, the OGCC scheme

considers the uncertainty of the tyre cornering stiffness beforehand (with the uncertainty

deviation magnitude of 0.5); however, the OC scheme is not. From the comparison of stability

index shown in Figure 13, it is also easy to find that the OGCC scheme can achieve good

stability performance when performing the slalom manoeuvre on the icy road at high speed.

A familiar phenomenon can be found in the control effort comparisons shown in Figure 14,

that is more control effort is needed for the OGCC scheme. However, it is still satisfying for

its good stability and tracking performance, if the control effort does not exceed the actuators

limit because stability is always the primary objective for a vehicle steering at high speed.

There are also some methods for the optimal guaranteed cost control theory to handle the

actuators saturation in the literature [30]. In fact, actuators saturation is a common problem

not only for optimal guaranteed cost control but for all the control methods.

Figure 9.

73

Figures 1518 show the response comparisons for a single lane-change manoeuvre with

the steering input shown in Figure 15 on a dry road with the adhesion coefficient of 0.8.

Single sinusoidal steering input is often used to imitate the single lane-change and roadblock

avoiding manoeuvres in vehicle dynamics test. Note that the condition in this test is the same

as that where the controller is designed. The tyre cornering stiffness uncertainty is small in

Figure 10.

74

X. Yang et al.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

75

76

X. Yang et al.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Comparisons of stability index for single lane-change manoeunvre on dry road ( = 0.8).

Figure 18.

Control effort comparisons for single lane-change manoeuvre on dry road ( = 0.8).

77

this condition, so small response difference between OC and OGCC is achieved though the

OGCC presents superior performance. The uncontrolled vehicle cannot track the reference

response. From the time histories of stability index, we can find that both OGCC and OC are

stable, so braking is not used (Figure 18).

6.

Conclusions

Vehicle chassis coordinated control is one of the main trends of vehicle active safety control.

Since handling and stability can be effectively improved by AFS and DYC, respectively, in

order to exert the advantages of the two subsystems, a coordination scheme is selected here.

Unlike the conventional OC scheme that is conservative because of the frequent variation

of tyre cornering stiffness, an OGCC scheme is proposed in this paper, which considers the

uncertainty of tyre cornering stiffness beforehand.

A number of simulations are conducted on an 8-DOF nonlinear vehicle model for a slalom

manoeuvre and a lane-change manoeuvre to illustrate the effects of the OGCC scheme by

comparing with the responses of the OC scheme and the passive vehicle. From the simulation

results, we can find that when the vehicle is on a dry road at high speed, the response difference

of the two coordination schemes is small but the difference becomes very large when the

vehicle is on an icy road at high speed, in which condition the OGCC scheme is still stable

and presenting good tracking performance to the drivers intent but the OC scheme will lose

stability. In other words, the change of running conditions has more influence on the OC

scheme. The problem for the OGCC scheme is the control effort. More control effort is needed

for OGCC compared with OC. However, OGCC scheme is still satisfying if the control effort

does not exceed the actuators saturation limit because to keep the vehicle stable is always

more important. Therefore, the OGCC scheme can also be interpreted as the improvement of

control effect being realised by exerting the ability of the actuator, which is not made the best

use of for the OC scheme. The research in the future will consider the actuators saturation for

the OGCC scheme.

Open-loop evaluation is conducted in this paper only. The driver characteristic will be

included and the effectiveness of OGCC will be evaluated in the drivervehicleroad closedloop system in the future.

References

[1] M. Abe, Vehicle dynamics and control for improving handling and active safety: from four-wheel steering to

direct yaw moment control, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. K. J. Multibody Dyn. 213 (1999), pp. 87101.

[2] J.J. He, D.A. Crolla, M.C. Levesley, and W.J. Manning, Coordination of active steering, driveline, and braking

for integrated vehicle dynamics control, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D. J. Automob. Eng. 220 (2006), pp. 14011421.

[3] E. Ono, S. Hosoe, K. Asano, M. Sugai and S. Doi, Robust stabilization of the vehicle dynamics by gain-scheduled

H control, in Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, Hawaii, USA,

1999.

[4] Y. Shibahata, K. Shimada, and T. Tomari, Improvement of vehicle maneuverability by direct yaw moment control,

Vehicle Syst. Dyn. 22 (1993), pp. 465481.

[5] Y. Tohru, A. Tomohiko, B. Tetsuro O. Haruki and M. Hirotaka, Application of sliding-mode theory to direct

yaw-moment control, JSAE Rev. 20 (1999), pp. 523529.

[6] M. Nagai, S. Yamanaka, and Y. Hirano, Integrated control of active rear wheel steering and yaw moment control

using braking forces, Trans. JSME Int. J. 42 (1999), pp. 301308.

[7] M. Nagai, M. Shino, and F. Gao, Study on integrated control of active front steer angle and direct yaw moment,

JSAE Rev. 23 (2002), pp. 309315.

[8] M.J.L. Boada, B. L. Boada, A. Munoz, and V. Diaz, Integrated control of front-wheel steering and front braking

forces on the basis of fuzzy logic, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D. J. Automob. Eng. 220 (2006), pp. 253267.

[9] B.A. Gveng, T. Acarman, and L. Gveng, Coordination of steering and individual wheel braking actuated

vehicle yaw stability control, IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Ohio, USA, 2003.

78

X. Yang et al.

[10] G. Burgio and P. Zegelaar, Integrated vehicle control using steering and brakes, Int. J. Control 79 (2006),

pp. 534541.

[11] E. Esmailzadeh, A. Goodarzi, and G.R. Vossoughi, Optimal yaw moment control law for improved vehicle

handling, Mechatronics 13 (2003), pp. 659675.

[12] M. Abe, Y. Kano, Y. Shibahata and Y. Furukawa, Improvement of vehicle handling safety with vehicle side-slip

control by direct yaw moment, Vehicle Sys. Dyn. 33 (2000), pp. 665679.

[13] E. Ono, S. Hosoe, K. Asano, H.D. Tuan and D. Shunichi, Bifurcation in vehicle dynamics and robust front wheel

steering control, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 6 (1998), pp. 412420.

[14] S. Mammar and D. Koenig, Vehicle handling improvement by active steering, Vehicle Syst. Dyn. 38 (2002),

pp. 211242.

[15] A.E. Hajjaji, M. Chadli, M. Oudghiri and O. Pages, Observer-based robust fuzzy control for vehicle lateral

dynamics, in Proceedings of the 2006 American Control Conference, Minnesota, USA, 2006.

[16] I.R. Petersen and D.C. McFarlane. Optimal guaranteed cost control and filtering for uncertain linear systems,

IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 39 (1994), pp. 19711977.

[17] E.W. Daniel and M.H. Wassim, Nonlinear control of roll moment distribution to influence vehicle yaw

characteristics, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 3 (1995), pp. 110116.

[18] H. Dugoff, P. S. Fancher, and L. Segal, Tyre performance characteristics affecting vehicle response to steering

and braking control inputs, Final Report, Contract CST-460, Office of Vehicle Systems Research, US National

Bureau of Standards, 1969.

[19] K.R. Buckholtz, Use of fuzzy logic in wheel slip assignment-part I: yaw rate control, SAE Paper, 2002, 200201-1221.

[20] , Use of fuzzy logic in wheel slip assignment-part II: yaw rate control with sideslip angle limitation, SAE

Paper, 2002, 2002-01-1220.

[21] F. Yoshiki, Slip-angle estimation for vehicle stability control, Vehicle Syst. Dyn. 32 (1999), pp. 375388.

[22] D. Piyabongkarn, R. Rajamani, J.A. Grogg and J.Y. Lew, Development and experimental evaluation of a slip

angle estimator for vehicle stability control, in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, USA, 2006.

[23] R. Rajamani, Vehicle Dynamics and Control, Springer, New York, 2006.

[24] B.L. Boada, M.J.L. Boada, and V. Dfaz, Fuzzy-logic applied to yaw moment control for vehicle stability, Vehicle

Syst. Dyn. 43 (2005), pp. 753770.

[25] K. Koibuchi, M. Yamaoto, Y. Fukada and S. Inagaki, Vehicle stability control in limit cornering by active brake,

SAE Paper, 960487, 1996, pp. 555565.

[26] S. Inagaki, Analysis on vehicle stability in critical cornering using phase-plane method, in Proceedings of the

International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control (AVEC94), Tsukuba, Japan, 1994.

[27] A. Hac, M.O. Bodie, Improvements in vehicle handling through integrated control of chassis systems, Int. J.

Vehicle Design 29 (2002), pp. 2350.

[28] D.P. Wang et al., Simulation study of vehicle dynamics stability control [in Chinese], Automobile Technology

30 (1999), pp. 810.

[29] L. Yu, Robust Control-LMI Method [in Chinese], Tsinghua University Press, Beijing, 2002.

[30] H.C. Choi et al., Guaranteed cost control of uncertain systems subject to actuator saturation, SICE-ICASE

International Joint Conf. 1821 October, Susan, Korea, 2006.

m t , ms

muf , mur

l

lf , lr

lfs , lrs

hfroll , hrroll , hs

huf , hur

tw

a x , ay

V x , Vy

,

Fxi , Fyi

Fxwi , Fywi

Izz , Ixx

Kf , Kr

Cf , Cr

f

C x , Cf , Cr

i , i

F zi

front, rear unsprung mass

wheel base

distance between centre of gravity (CG) and the front, rear axle

distance between CG and the front, rear axle

height of front, rear roll centre, sprung mass CG to roll centre

height of front, rear unsprung mass CG

wheel track width

vehicle longitudinal, lateral acceleration

vehicle longitudinal velocity, lateral velocity

yaw rate about z axis, roll angle about x axis

longitudinal, lateral force of the ith wheel in the vehicle coordinates, i = 1, 2, 3, 4

longitudinal, lateral tyre force, i = 1, 2, 3, 4

vehicle moment of inertia about yaw axis, roll axis

front, rear suspension roll stiffness

front, rear suspension roll damping

steer angle of front wheel

longitudinal tyre stiffness, cornering stiffness of the front wheel, rear wheel

the ith wheel slip angle, slip ratio, i = 1, 2, 3, 4

normal force of the ith wheel, i = 1, 2, 3, 4

R w , Jw , w

g

Tbi , Pbi

Kb

gravity acceleration

friction coefficient between tyre and road

active brake torque, pressure of the ith wheel, i = 1, 2, 3, 4

brake gain

79

- Relative Gain Array (RGA).Transféré parAbu Hussein
- Assignment ATransféré parKarl Attard
- Essay- Top-down, Bottom Up FinalTransféré parMarek Carny
- Thesis DraftTransféré parsunila0
- 2012 - R Duma - Embeddedapplicationoffractionalordercontrol[Retrieved-2016!03!14]Transféré parMiguel D. Diaz H.
- Report ControlTransféré parGiovanniCásares
- A Fuzzy Proportional-Derivative Controller for Constraint-Bound Engineering Optimization ProblemsTransféré parpaula
- mark3Transféré parArjun Gulati
- IJSCMCTransféré parijscmc
- Observer Pole PlacementTransféré parrostamkola1229
- ICUAS14KendallSalvapantulaStolTransféré parSomefun Oluwasegun
- PID Explained for Process Engineers- Part 1 - The Basic Control Equation.pdfTransféré parCristian Urrego
- The International Journal of Applied Control, Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IJACEEE)Transféré parijaceee
- Case Study CompleteTransféré parPamela Kaye F. Herana
- Pd WrittenTransféré parGrazel MD
- articulo 1.pdfTransféré paraliegh12
- 3 Sneha Seminar.docxTransféré parNamrta Deokate
- Wind Turbines- Novel Control Algorithm in Region IITransféré parVigneshRamakrishnan
- Load Frequency Control of Multi-Area Restructured Power System (4)Transféré parChetan Kotwal
- steady_quad.pdfTransféré parsayed Tamir jan
- Adaptive Control for a First-Order SystemTransféré parBogdan Andrei
- Control SystemTransféré parEr Rajdeep Saha
- App Ofv TheoTransféré parMicah
- Challenge Fast Load Change RequirementsTransféré parbigsteve9088
- bip7Transféré parJoshua Nessus Aragonès Salazar
- 1908.10920v1Transféré parRod March
- Introduction to PITOPSTransféré parAnjolaoluwa Omolola Oyebanji
- 3BHS360926_E01_-_O.pdfTransféré parcuongnv_19
- EHTC-JHARLITransféré parRakesh Bagri
- Robust Controller Design for Speed Control of an Indirect Field Oriented IM DriveTransféré parsajs201

- Resume (AC Technician)Transféré parkhushwinder86
- fitriahTransféré paraisyah mohd noor
- Experiments TransistorDesignTransféré parUsman034
- Crayola Creativity PresentationTransféré parhora56
- Air Dan LarutanTransféré parSitiNorashimah
- ALM_BRIEFTransféré parMohammad Noor Alam
- Mechanical 2000 TutorialTransféré parvarshasdm1987
- compressor washingTransféré parsamil68
- Dotnet ImpTransféré parSrikanth Yerramsetti
- Swift is Like KotlinTransféré parfoufoutos73
- Annual Report 2011Transféré parhortalemos
- 1.SCIENCE-DLL-Q2-WK1Transféré parJay Silvosa Ayap
- Aerodef India Manufacturing 2018, MumbaiTransféré parLuv Shroff
- Exploration_Accessing_WAN_Chapter5.pptTransféré parMckentaru IPacs
- Complete Bam SyllabusTransféré parPrasenjit Adak
- INTEGRATED DIGITAL SYSTEMS DESIGN METHODOLOGYTransféré parrrdl7894
- ICLEI Report - Financing the Resilient City-FinalTransféré parPRMurphy
- 4921240193Transféré parSergio Calero
- Fo BasicsTransféré parMohamed Ali
- Voltage Regulation of Transformer _ Electrical4uTransféré parsaurav
- aquanoxTransféré parGabriel Diniz
- UntitledTransféré parGenability
- IntraFrequency NCL Planning AlgorithmTransféré parKwangrok Chang
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentTransféré parmananbrahmbhatt
- 3.Operating Systems Lab 1Transféré parVive Kowsal Yaniss
- ArresterFacts 027 Arrester Reference VoltageTransféré parDaniel Ferreira
- ZUBER ResumeTransféré paranon-35050
- Flyback Transformer ABL PinTransféré parisosica
- Estimating Soil Permeability From the CPTTransféré pargeoscan
- Ball Mill DesignTransféré parBùi Hắc Hải

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.