Yaw Stability Control

Licensed to Brunel University
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2010 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Monday, October 25, 2010 12:08:22 PM
Yaw Stability Control and Emergency Roll Control 2010-01-1901

Published
for Vehicle Rollover Mitigation 10/05/2010
Brad Hopkins, Saied Taheri and Mehdi Ahmadian

Virginia Tech
Alexander Reid
US Army RDECOM-TARDEC
Copyright © 2010 SAE International
vehicle equipped with just the yaw stability controller and

ABSTRACT also compared to an uncontrolled vehicle. Vehicle lateral
In this paper a yaw stability control algorithm along with an acceleration, lateral velocity, yaw rate, and roll angle were
emergency roll control strategy have been developed. The observed for the three cases. It was found that during a
yaw stability controller and emergency roll controller were potential untripped rollover situation the yaw stability
both developed using linear two degree-of-freedom vehicle controller can significantly improve the vehicle yaw stability
models. The yaw stability controller is based on Lyapunov which leads to improved vehicle roll stability. It was also
stability criteria and uses vehicle lateral acceleration and yaw found that the addition of the emergency roll control further
rate measurements to calculate the corrective yaw moment improves the vehicle roll stability. The results also showed
required to stabilize the vehicle yaw motion. The corrective that during a potential tripped rollover in which a vehicle
yaw moment is then applied by means of a differential strikes an object while moving laterally the likelihood of
braking strategy in which one wheel is selected to be braked rollover is decreased for a vehicle equipped with yaw
with appropriate brake torque applied. The emergency roll stability control, while the addition of the emergency roll
control strategy is based on a rollover coefficient related to control does not do much to help prevent tripped rollovers.
vehicle static stability factor. The emergency roll control
strategy utilizes vehicle lateral acceleration measurements to INTRODUCTION
calculate the roll coefficient. If the roll coefficient exceeds
Vehicle rollover is a problem for vehicles performing severe
some predetermined threshold value the emergency roll
maneuvers. The vehicle is prone to both untripped rollovers
control strategy will deploy. The emergency roll strategy
due to inertial forces, and tripped rollovers due to the vehicle
consists of actuators located near the vehicle suspension that
striking an obstacle. [1] discusses a rollover prevention
apply an upward force to the vehicle body to counter the roll
system that utilizes wheel speed sensors and the electronic
direction.
brake system (EBS) for roll-over prevention in commercial
vehicles. A differential braking based rollover prevention
This paper also incorporates the yaw stability control
system for use in sport utility vehicles has been proposed [2].
algorithm and the emergency roll control strategy in vehicle
The proposed system uses lateral acceleration feedback to
simulation software to test their performance. The vehicle
generate a braking strategy for preventing vehicle rollover.
simulation software includes non-linear, multiple degree of
[3] introduces the use of a model regulator that coordinates
freedom models for several vehicle components, including
the use of front steering and wheel braking for achieving
tires, suspension, steering, and aerodynamics. Simulations
better vehicle yaw stability. [4] presents a combined active
have been run on a simulated vehicle performing severe
front steering (AFS) and direct yaw control (DYC) strategy
emergency manoeuvres on various driving surfaces for
based on fuzzy logic to increase system yaw stability. Ford
potential tripped and untripped rollover incidents. The
Motor Company has developed the Roll Stability Control
performance of a vehicle equipped with both the yaw stability
(RSC) system [5]. The system utilizes a roll rate sensor with
controller and emergency roll controller was compared to a
information from the electronic stability control (ESC)
Author:Gilligan-SID:13246-GUID:38835388-134.83.1.243
hardware to detect impending rollovers. The system responds by implementing them into commercially available vehicle
accordingly with brake control and engine torque reduction to simulation software. The vehicle simulation software consists
help prevent rollovers. [6] and [7] present a yaw stability of non-linear, multiple degree of freedom models for several
control algorithm based on Lyapunov stability criteria to vehicle components, including tires, suspension, steering,
enhance vehicle yaw and lateral stability. [8] proposes a chassis, and aerodynamics effects.
rollover coefficient based on Static Stability Factor (SSF) that
can be estimated using lateral acceleration measurements to VEHICLE MODEL FOR DIRECT YAW
detect an impending vehicle rollover. A rollover index (RI)
based vehicle stability control (VSC) algorithm has been CONTROL
presented that uses estimated roll rate, estimated roll angle, Figure 1 shows a diagram of the two degree of freedom
and measured lateral acceleration to generate a differential model used to develop the control law and adaptation law for
braking control signal to prevent vehicle rollover [9]. A the direct yaw control algorithm. Since the controller is
rollover threat detection system based on a time-to-rollover designed to stabilize yaw moment, the two states of interest
metric (TTR) for heavy-duty vehicles has been proposed are vehicle lateral velocity, v, and vehicle yaw rate, r. Both
[10]. The system uses active suspension to generate a force are measured from the vehicle center of gravity.
that reduces the vehicle roll angle. Active suspension has also
been used with electronic stability program (ESP) to prevent
rollovers [11].
While providing roll stability, commercially available active

suspension systems have the drawback of possibly causing
ride discomfort. Many of the mentioned available differential
braking based roll prevention strategies are therefore used to
provide yaw and roll stability of the vehicle. This paper
proposes a control system for increased roll stability and
rollover prevention for a vehicle performing severe
maneuvers. The combined system includes a Direct Yaw
Control (DYC) strategy to stabilize vehicle yaw moment and
an Emergency Roll Control (ERC) strategy to reduce vehicle
roll angle. The DYC increases vehicle yaw stability and helps Figure 1. Two degree of freedom vehicle model used for
the driver to maintain control of the vehicle. It also reduces development of direct yaw control algorithm
high lateral velocities and lateral accelerations which can
contribute to vehicle rollover. The ERC decreases the vehicle
The following assumptions are made in deriving the
roll angle by applying an upward force to the vehicle body
equations of motion:
via actuators located in the vehicle suspension. Since the
studied vehicle is performing severe maneuvers, driver • no lateral load transfer, i.e., same cornering stiffness for
comfort is not a serious issue. Therefore the ERC adequately both of the front tires and both of the rear tires
serves its purpose in rollover prevention.
• same steer angle on both front wheels
This paper first introduces the vehicle models that were used • no rear wheel steer angle
to derive the control strategies. Next, the derivation of the
control strategies is presented. Lastly, vehicle simulation • small steer angles
results are shown for the vehicle equipped with the proposed • small slip angles
yaw and roll stability control algorithms and are compared to
the results of the uncontrolled vehicle. Potential tripped and • constant vehicle forward speed, u
untripped rollover situations were studied. • neglect forces due to inertial effects
VEHICLE MODELS With the assumption of small slip angles, we can write:
A two degree-of-freedom vehicle model was used to derive
the control algorithm for direct yaw control. The two degrees
of freedom used were lateral velocity and yaw rate about the
vehicle center of gravity. A simple model that treats the
(1)
vehicle as a rigid body (no tire or suspension deflections) was
used to derive the control law for the emergency roll control. where Fy-i is the lumped lateral force on the front or rear
After the control algorithms were developed, they were tested tires, Cα-i is the lumped cornering stiffness on the front or
rear tires, and αi is the slip angle on the front or rear tires. The Table 1. Vehicle parameter values used in two DOF
slip angles for the front and rear tires, respectively, are: model
(2)
where δf is the steer angle of the front tires, u is the forward

velocity of the vehicle, v is the lateral velocity of the vehicle,
r is the yaw rate of the vehicle, a is the distance from the
front axle to the vehicle center of gravity, and b is the
distance from the rear axle to the vehicle center of gravity.
We can now obtain the equations of motion by summing the
forces in the y direction and summing the moments about the
vehicle center of gravity:
VEHICLE MODEL FOR EMERGENCY

ROLL CONTROL
Figure 2 shows a diagram of the model used to develop the
emergency roll control algorithm. The model treats the
(3) vehicle as a rigid body and assumes no tire or suspension
deflections. In the figure, ay is the vehicle lateral acceleration,
g is the acceleration due to gravity, hCG is the height of the
vehicle center of gravity, and tw is the track width. The static
stability factor (SSF) can be defined as:
(4)
These can be written in the form:

(6)
(5) When ay = SSF × g it is expected that the vehicle will begin

to roll over.
YAW AND ROLL STABILITY

CONTROL DESIGN
Chassis control strategies such as anti-lock brakes (ABS),
direct yaw control (DYC), and active front steering (AFS) are
valuable for stabilizing a vehicle during emergency
maneuvers. This section shows the development of a DYC
algorithm that determines the vehicle's desired stable yaw rate
and provides a corrective moment to stabilize the vehicle yaw
behavior. This is achieved by implementing a differential
braking strategy in which one of the four wheels is braked to
provide the corrective yaw moment. Stabilizing vehicle yaw
motion is helpful in preventing both tripped and untripped
rollovers. This section also shows the development of an
emergency roll control (ERC) strategy that is designed to
provide further rollover protection to the DYC equipped
The parameters used in the two DOF vehicle model are vehicle. The ERC utilizes a rollover coefficient to predict an
shown in Table 1. impending rollover and counters the roll motion through the
application of an upward force to the vehicle body by

actuators located near the vehicle suspension.
(9)
where , and the

adaptation law is:
(10)
H can be determined by
(11)
Furthermore, the control gain matrix, Λ, must be a positive

diagonal matrix and the adaptation gain matrix, Γ, must be a
positive definite matrix to ensure asymptotic stability of the
vehicle. Cornering stiffness is chosen as the vehicle adaptive
parameter, which gives .
Figure 2. Vehicle model used for development of For the current control algorithm, the correction inputs will
emergency roll control algorithm be actuated by means of a differential braking strategy. Since
the braking cannot generate a pure lateral force, we assume
the control vector to be of the form U = [0 Ms]T. By inserting
YAW CONTROLLER DESIGN this into equation (9), we can arrive at an approximate value
Using the equations of motion previously developed, adding for the desired lateral velocity, vd. The desired yaw rate is:
an extra term, U, to the right hand side of Eq. (5) provides for
the forces and moments to stabilize the system. This gives the
equation
(12)
(7) where Kus is the understeer gradient.
Where U = [Fs Ms]T, and Fs and Ms are the force and EMERGENCY ROLL CONTROLLER
moment required to stabilize the system, respectively. DESIGN
The emergency roll controller (ERC) is designed to
A control algorithm based on Lyapunov Direct Method as
complement the DYC and further improve the vehicle roll
proposed in [6] has been used to develop the control law and
stability. The ERC utilizes a rollover coefficient that is
adaptation law for DYC. The following Lyapunov function
presented in [8], which uses lateral acceleration
was considered:
measurements to detect an impending vehicle rollover. By
observing figure 2 the rollover coefficient can be
approximated by:
(8)
where .
(13)
It is necessary that the function V(x,t) is always positive and
By comparing this to equation (6) it can be seen that the
its derivative, , is always negative to ensure system rollover coefficient, R, is the ratio of the lateral acceleration
asymptotic stability. It is shown in [6] that this is the case
when the control law is: in g's to the SSF. Therefore, when , it is expected that
the vehicle will begin to roll over. A value for the rollover
coefficient reference value, , is chosen with a safety margin
such that when the control strategy is activated. The

control strategy consists of applying an upward force to the
vehicle body via actuators located near the vehicle
suspension. If and the vehicle is rolling to the left,

the ERC will activate actuators near the front left and rear left
suspension that each apply a 6000 N upward force to the
vehicle body. Likewise, if and the vehicle is rolling Figure 3. Implementation of the rollover mitigation
to the right, the ERC will activate actuators near the front strategy, including DYC and ERC
right and rear right suspension that each apply a 6000 N
upward force to the vehicle body. The application of the
vertical load to the vehicle body does not significantly affect SIMULATIONS
the vertical load on the tires, therefore the same load can be
applied to both the front and rear suspensions without The DYC and ERC control algorithms were implemented
affecting the tire cornering stiffness and thus not altering the into commercially available vehicle simulation software to
vehicle lateral dynamics. simulate the vehicle response to an emergency maneuver
during a potential tripped and untripped rollover situation.
The vehicle simulation software used includes nonlinear
CONTROL STRATEGY multiple degree of freedom models for various vehicle
IMPLEMENTATION components, including tires, suspension, aerodynamics,
The implementation of the DYC and ERC control strategies steering, and chassis deformation. The potential untripped
is shown in figure 3. It is important to note that the DYC and rollover situation was simulated by driving the vehicle at 90
ERC operate completely independently of one another, i.e., km/h and giving it a 140 degree fishhook steer input (NHTSA
one control system does not take into account the control standard) as shown in figure 4. The fishhook steer input was
signal applied by the other control system. The DYC operates chosen because it represents a severe vehicle maneuver that
on vehicle lateral velocity and yaw rate measurements to could potentially result in a vehicle rollover. The potential
apply brakes such that the vehicle yaw rate is stabilized. The tripped rollover situation was simulated by driving the
ERC operates on lateral acceleration measurements to vehicle at 75 km/h, applying a 140 degree fishhook steer
determine if the vehicle is in a potential rollover situation and input, and applying a lateral force on the front left and rear
applies an upward force to the vehicle body to counter the left tires from 4 s to 6 s to simulate the vehicle sliding
roll. It is possible for both the DYC and ERC to be active at laterally into an obstacle.
the same time, just the DYC active, just the ERC active, or
neither active. The purpose of the DYC is to provide vehicle
yaw stability, thus decreasing the likelihood of potential
tripped and untripped rollovers, while the purpose of the ERC
is to provide an extra layer of roll protection that might not
otherwise be achieved by the DYC. The potential usefulness
of the ERC is especially demonstrated in the case where the
DYC is already applying full braking and the vehicle is still
approaching a near rollover situation. In such a case, the ERC
can potentially prevent a rollover. However, as mentioned
before, the ERC and DYC operate independently of one
another and it is possible for the ERC to deploy regardless of
the braking being applied by the DYC.
Figure 4. 140 degree fishhook steer input used for

tripped and untripped rollover simulations
For both the untripped and tripped simulations, the vehicle

was equipped in three different ways: uncontrolled, DYC
equipped, and DYC + ERC equipped. The vehicle was driven
on a simulated dry asphalt driving surface (µ = 0.8). The
DYC gain matrices were chosen to be:
A conservative rollover coefficient reference value of

was chosen because of the expected severe
maneuvers of the vehicle.
Figure 5, 6, and 7 show the vehicle yaw rate, lateral Figure 5. Vehicle yaw rate vs. time for untripped rollover
acceleration, and roll angle responses, respectively, for the simulation
untripped rollover simulation. Figure 5 shows that the DYC
helps to decrease the yaw rate of the vehicle. The effects of
the decreased yaw rate are shown in figure 6, where the
vehicle lateral acceleration is decreased because of the
presence of DYC. Figure 7 shows that the uncontrolled
vehicle begins to roll over due to inertial forces around 4.5 s.
The DYC controlled vehicle begins to roll over around 6 s.
This shows that the decreased yaw rate due to DYC can help
to lower the vehicle roll angle. This is, however, an
emergency maneuver and the DYC equipped vehicle does not
prevent the vehicle from rolling over altogether. Figure 7
shows that the further addition of ERC to the DYC equipped
vehicle prevents the vehicle from rolling over during this
maneuver.
Figure 8, 9, and 10 show the vehicle yaw rate, lateral

velocity, and roll angle, respectively, for the tripped rollover Figure 6. Vehicle lateral acceleration vs. time for
simulation. Figure 8 shows that the DYC reduces the vehicle untripped rollover simulation
yaw rate to a safer level. The effects of this are seen in figure
9, where both vehicles equipped with DYC maintain a lower
lateral velocity than the uncontrolled vehicle. When the
vehicle strikes the obstacle laterally at 4 s, the uncontrolled
vehicle has a lateral velocity of 3.2 m/s and both vehicles
equipped with DYC have a lateral velocity near 1.5 m/s. As a
result of the uncontrolled vehicle's high lateral velocity, when
it strikes the obstacle the vehicle rolls over as shown in figure
10. Both DYC equipped vehicles do not roll over during the
tripped rollover simulation. Observation of figure 10 also
shows that the further addition of ERC to the DYC equipped
vehicle helps to reduce the roll angle after the vehicle has
struck the obstacle. Table 2 gives a summary of the
simulation results.
Figure 7. Vehicle roll angle vs. time for untripped

rollover simulation
Table 2. Summary of simulation results
CONCLUSIONS
Simulation results show that the vehicle equipped with Direct
Yaw Control (DYC) is able to maintain a lower yaw rate and
Figure 8. Vehicle yaw rate vs. time for tripped rollover therefore lower lateral velocity and lower lateral acceleration
simulation during severe maneuvers. The further addition of ERC to the
DYC controlled vehicle helps to reduce the vehicle roll angle
and helps prevent vehicle rollover. The combined DYC and
ERC control system can help prevent untripped rollovers
(rollovers due to inertial forces) during severe emergency
maneuvers. A vehicle equipped with DYC is also less likely
to roll over than an uncontrolled vehicle when a lateral
obstacle is encountered. ERC can also help decrease the
vehicle roll angle after an obstacle has been encountered.
REFERENCES
1. Palkovics, L., Semsey, A., Gerum, E., “Roll-over
prevention system for commercial vehicles - additional
sensorless function of the electronic brake system.” Vehicle
System Dynamics, Vol. 32, p. 285-297, 1999.
2. Chen, B-C., Peng, H., “Differential-braking-based rollover
Figure 9. Vehicle lateral velocity vs. time for tripped prevention for sport utility vehicles with human-in-the-loop
rollover simulation evaluations.” Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 36 (4-5), p.
359-389, 2001.
3. Guvenc, B.A., Acarman, T., Guvenc, L., “Coordination of
steering and individual wheel braking actuated vehicle yaw
stability control.” IEE Conf., 2003.
4. Karbalaei, R., Ghaffari, A., Kazemi, R., Tabatabaei, S.H.,
“A new intelligent strategy to integrated control of AFS/DYC
based on fuzzy logic.” International Journal of Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences 1; 1, p. 47-52, 2007.
5. Lu, J., Messih, D., Salib, A., “Roll rate based stability
control - the Roll Stability Control ™ system.”
6. Tamaddoni, S.H., Taheri, S., “A new control algorithm for
vehicle stability control”, ASME Proc. Of 10th Intl. Conf. on
Advanced Vehicle and Tire Technologies (AVTT), NY,
USA, 2008.
Figure 10. Vehicle roll angle vs. time for tripped rollover 7. Tamaddoni, S.H. and Taheri, S., “Yaw Stability Control of
simulation Tractor Semi-Trailers,” SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-2595,
2008, doi:10.4271/2008-01-2595.
8. Odenthal, D., Bunte, T., Ackerman, J., “Nonlinear steering Fz

and braking control for vehicle rollover avoidance”, in Vertical force on tire
European Control Conference. 1999.
9. Yoon, J., Kim, D., Yi, K., (2007) “Design of a rollover
index-based vehicle stability control scheme”, Vehicle g
System Dynamics, 45: 5, 459-475 Acceleration due to gravity
10. Yu, H., Güvenç, L., Özgüner, Ü. (2008) “Heavy duty
vehicle rollover detection and active roll control”, Vehicle hCG
System Dynamics, 46: 6, 451-470 Height of vehicle center of gravity with respect to
11. Kim, S.J., Park, Y.J., Park, Y.S. “Design of active ground
suspension and ESP for rollover prevention,” KSAE Spring
Conference, 2005.
H
Adaptation matrix
CONTACT INFORMATION
Brad Hopkins is a Graduate Research Assistant in the
Mechanical Engineering Department at Virginia Tech Iz
(bmhop08@vt.edu). Dr. Saied Taheri is an Associate Vehicle yaw moment of inertia
Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director of the
Intelligent Transportation Laboratory at Virginia Tech m
(staheri@vt.edu). Dr. Mehdi Ahmadian is a Professor of Vehicle mass
Mechanical Engineering at Virginia Tech, Director of the
Center for Vehicle Systems and Safety at Virginia Tech, and
Director of the Railway Technologies Laboratory at Virginia P
Tech (ahmadian@vt.edu). Dr. Alexander Reid is an Electrical Vehicle parameters vector
Engineer for U.S. Army RDECOM-TARDEC
(alexander.a.reid@us.army.mil). r
Vehicle yaw rate
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was supported in part by a grant from the Tank rd
and Automotive Command (TACOM) of the U.S. Army, Vehicle desired yaw rate
with Dr. Alexander Reid as Program Manager. The views
expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and not the R
U.S. Government, the U.S. Army, or TACOM. Rollover coefficient
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
a Rollover coefficient reference
Distance between vehicle CG and front axle
tw
ay Vehicle track width
vehicle lateral acceleration
u
b Vehicle longitudinal velocity
Distance between vehicle CG and rear axle
U
Cα Corrective force and moment vector
Tire cornering stiffness
v
Fy Vehicle lateral velocity
Tire lateral force
x
State vector
xd
Desired value of states
Estimated states
State error: difference between actual and estimated

values
δf
Front steer angle
Γ
Adaptation gain matrix
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. SAE Customer Service:
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Fax: 724-776-0790
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191 SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA
doi:10.4271/2010-01-1901

Yaw Stability Control

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yaw Stability Control

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Licensed to Brunel University

Yaw Stability Control and Emergency Roll Control 2010-01-1901

Brad Hopkins, Saied Taheri and Mehdi Ahmadian

Copyright © 2010 SAE International

vehicle equipped with just the yaw stability controller and

While providing roll stability, commercially available active

where δf is the steer angle of the front tires, u is the forward

VEHICLE MODEL FOR EMERGENCY

These can be written in the form:

(5) When ay = SSF × g it is expected that the vehicle will begin

YAW AND ROLL STABILITY

application of an upward force to the vehicle body by

where , and the

Furthermore, the control gain matrix, Λ, must be a positive

parameter, which gives .

such that when the control strategy is activated. The

suspension. If and the vehicle is rolling to the left,

Figure 4. 140 degree fishhook steer input used for

For both the untripped and tripped simulations, the vehicle

A conservative rollover coefficient reference value of

Figure 8, 9, and 10 show the vehicle yaw rate, lateral

Figure 7. Vehicle roll angle vs. time for untripped

Table 2. Summary of simulation results

8. Odenthal, D., Bunte, T., Ackerman, J., “Nonlinear steering Fz

State error: difference between actual and estimated

You might also like