Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress

Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

Steering control and road bank angle

estimation to evaluate the vehicle
behaviour under high dynamic loads:
Experimental evaluation
L. Menhour , D. Lechner A. Charara

INRETS-MA Laboratory, Chemin de la Croix Blanche, 13300 Salon
de Provence, FRANCE (lghani.menhour@inrets.fr,
daniel.lechner@inrets.fr)

Heudiasyc Laboratory, CNRS UMR 6599, Universite de Technologie
de Compi`egne, FRANCE (lghani.menhour@hds.utc.fr,
ali.charara@hds.utc.fr)

Abstract: Driving safely can be ensured by a better understanding of the risk and critical
situations. This can be achieved by a good knowledge of road attributes and vehicle dynamic
behaviors. This paper proposes two algorithms: the first one is dedicated to a new estimation
process which was designed to estimate the vehicle roll and road bank angles, in order to make
the road trajectory more realistic. This estimator is based on an unknown input sliding mode
observer and a LPV model. The second concerns a robust LPV state output feedback control
designed via LMI optimization and gain-scheduling method. The steering control strategy is
designed to simulate the non linear four wheel vehicle model under higher dynamic demands.
The steering vehicle control and the observer developed here have been validated experimentally
using the data acquired on the laboratory vehicle Peugeot 307 developed by INRETS-MA.
These algorithms were developed for an application known as Itinerary Rupture Diagnosis:
to evaluate the physical limits of a vehicle negotiating a bend.

1. INTRODUCTION The proposed investigation is separated in two parts (see

During the last years, studies on road safety show that
the huge part of vehicle road accidents are a consequence
of driving errors and vehicle loss of control (Page et al.
[2006]). Several aid systems were designed to help the
driver to cope with critical situations, such as Anti-
lock Bracking System and Electronic Stability Programs.
However, a better knowledge of the vehicle dynamic states
and road geometry would improve the safety systems.
Among the road attributes that have an influence on
vehicle dynamics, one can find the bank angle, which
can not be measured by low cost embedded sensors. To
overcome this limitation, an unknown input sliding mode
observer as those used in (Corless et al. [1998], Hui et al.
[2005], Imsland et al. [2007], Edwards et al. [2000]) was
designed to estimate the road bank angle. The second main
goal of this work is to predict the extreme behaviour of the
vehicle using the speed extrapolation concept and steering
control. This control law will be designed using LMI
optimization (Boyd et al. [1994]) and a gain-scheduling
method (Stilwell et al. [1999], Bett [2005]). It should
be pointed out that the speed increasement concept is
executed to extrapolate moderate behaviours of the vehicle
in curve in order to predict the physical limits of the vehicle
(Lechner et al. [2010]).
This work was partially supported by the SARI project in the
French PREDIT initiative
the blue and red boxes of the figure 1) which work in paral-
lel: The first part estimates the road bank angle assumed
as an unknown input of the sliding mode observer. The
bank angle estimated value will be used as an essential
input for the second part. This observer allows us take into
account the road geometry and its influence on the vehicle
dynamic under higher dynamic demands. When the bank
angle exists it has two main consequences:
the maximal achievable speed is increased by a good
bank angle and reduced if the bank angle sign is
opposite.
it influences a lateral accelerometer signal. This low
cost sensor, in combination with a yaw rate gyrome-
ter, is commonly used in most lateral stability devices.
The second part proposes steering control strategy in order
to simulate the limit of handling situations where strong
lateral accelerations are present. The control strategy
proposed here is based on a linear parameter variant state
feedback robust control. Recently, the steering control
problem was treated in some publications such as (Cerone
et al. [2009], Marino et al. [2009], Edelmann et al. [2007]).
This paper is outlined as follows. In section 2 we describe
the nonlinear vehicle model used to perform the speed
extrapolation tests. Section 3 and 4 describe an estima-
tion unknown input observer and gain-scheduling state
feedback robust control methods. In section 5 observers
and control results are compared to real experimental

Copyright by the 650

International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC)
Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress
Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

data and discussed, then the speed extrapolation tests are
presented. Section 6 presents some concluding remarks.
Note that the experimental data used here were acquired
from the laboratory vehicle Peugeot 307 developed by
INRETS-MA see (Lechner et al. [2008]). Some measure-
ments performed by the VANI vehicle (a high efficiency
tool developed by the French Public Works network to
record road attributes) were also used as a reference for
the bank angle (Dupre et al. [1998]).
of the vehicle. This vehicle model take advantage of the
main suspension compliances (i.e. toe in/out with lateral
forces), and all the parameters of the tyre Pacejka model
which are obtained on test bed.
3. ROAD BANK ANGLE ESTIMATION USING
UNKNOWN INPUT SLIDING MODE OBSERVER
In this part of the work, a LPV model and an unknown
input sliding mode observer are presented as follows:
3.1 First model used to design unknown input observer

The bicycle lateral model used in this application is com-

posed of three degrees-of-freedom: Sideslip, yaw and roll
movements. This model is obtained by using the assump-
tion of longitudinal symmetry axis of the vehicle and is
sufficiently accurate to give an approximation of the lateral
dynamics. Lateral tyre forces can be modelled as propor-
tional to the slip angles of each axle. The longitudinal
speed is variable and this model becomes LPV. The state
space representation of the four-state is as follows:
x = A(t)x(t) + B1 (t)u1 (t) + B2 (t)u2 (t)
v (t)]T
(2)
Fig. 1. Block diagram of the steering control and road bank Y = [(t), (t),
angle observer coupled with nonlinear vehicle model
where:
Ieq C,0 Ieq C,1 hr C,3 hr Lr

1
2. VEHICLE MODELS USED Ix mVx Ix mVx2 Ix Vx Ix Vx
C,1 C,2
0 0
A(t) =

Iz Iz Vx
This study is focused on the designing of an unknown input 0 0 0 1


observer and steering vehicle control. These algorithms are C,0 hr C,1 hr C,3 br

synthesized using two LPV vehicle models (LPVM) which
Ix Ix Vx Ix Ix
are presented in section III and IV respectively. A third I
e Cf /Ix mVx
g/V
x 1/mVx

non linear four wheel vehicle model (NL4WM) is used to lf Cf /Iz 0 lg /Iz
do an extrapolation tests. The bank angle estimated by an B1 (t) = 0
, B2 (t) =
0 0

unknown input observer will be used to run the NL4WM, Cf /Ix 0 0
and steering controls will be used for driving the same
model under the higher lateral acceleration using the speed
extrapolation tests.

2.1 Nonlinear vehicle model

The non-linear model consists of 4DOF which are the three

planar motions of the vehicle (longitudinal, lateral, yaw
and roll). In this model the wheel rotation speeds are sup-
posed to be known, they are introduced as external inputs, Fig. 2. Road bank and roll vehicle angles
and this will allow the calculation of the longitudinal slip
and thus the longitudinal forces. The 4DOF are given by lg is the distance between the center of gravity and
the following equations: the point of application of the lateral wind force. The

y ) ms h
v=
X parameters from C,0 , to C,3 and Ieq are given by the
m(V x V Fxi Faerox


X following equations:
x ) + ms hv =
m(V y + V

Fyi Fbank 2
Ieq = Ix + mhr , C,0 = Cf + Cr , C,1 = Lf Cf Lr Cr
X (1) C,2 = L2f Cf + L2r Cr , C,3 = (mghr Kr )

Iz Ixz v = Mzi


X
Ixz =
Ixx + ms h(V y + Vx ) Mx The state space x(t) and the input u(t) of the model are:
T T
P4 P4 x(t) = [ (t) (t) v (t) v (t) ] , u1 = , u2 = [ r fg ]
where: i=1 Fxi = Fx1 +Fx2 +Fx3 +Fx4 , i=1 Fyi = Fy1 +
P4 Sb Unknown inputs considered here are road bank angles
Fy2 + Fy3 + Fy4 , i=1 Mzi = 2 [(Fx1P + Fx3 ) (Fx2 +
Fx4 )] + Lf (Fy1 + Fy2 ) Lr (Fy3 + Fy4 ), Mx = [ms gh r and the lateral wind force fg . Note that the system
(Kf + Kr )] (Cf + Cr ), Fbank = mgsin(r ) formed by the pair (A, C) is observable Vx (t) 6= 0. The
different parameters of the model are considered known.
The forces were calculated using the magic formula of The method also assumes that the steering angle is known.
(Pacejka et al. [1994]), with the coupling of longitudinal The input vector is composed of m1 known inputs and m2
and lateral slip, in order to to simulate the limit behavior unknown inputs m2 = m m1 .

651
Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress
Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

3.2 Unknown input sliding mode observer 4. STEERING VEHICLE CONTROL

In this approach, we assume that the components of the The steering vehicle control proposed here is designed in
unknown inputs u2 (t) are bounded, and that there is a two steps: the first is performed by solving a convex LMI
positive real number such as: optimization problem to design state feedback using the
ku2 (t)k f or all t (3) equation (6) (see gray boxes of the figure 4)). The second
step concerns the interpolation of the state feedback gains
Let x
(t) be an estimation of x(t), and e(t) be the estima- calculated in the first step using the Gain-Scheduling
tion error e(t) = x
(t) x(t). method (Stilwell et al. [1999], Bett [2005]) (see blue boxes
of the figure 4)).
The observability of pair (A, C) implies the existence of a
L np , such as the eigenvalues of (A LC) are located
in the open left half plane. The dynamical equation of the
estimated states x(t) using unknown input observer (see
figure 3) can be written as follows:
= A
x x + B1 (t)u1 + L(t)(y y) B2 (t)E (
y , y, ) (4)
where is a design parameter and k.k denotes the
standard Euclidean norm. The function E (e(t), ) is an
important element of the unknown input observer.
  ( F (Ce(t))
if F Ce(t) 6= 0
E (e(t), ) = r = kF (Ce(t))k (5)
fg
0 if F Ce(t) = 0
Fig. 4. Diagram block of steering vehicle control

4.1 Second model used to design steering control

The vehicle model used to design steering control is com-

posed of two degrees of freedom (lateral and yaw move-
ments). It was obtained by making the same assumptions
used to obtain the model given by the equation (2), and the
roll motion is not considered. The state representation of
this model, considered with a variable speed, is as follows:

X(t)
= A(t)X(t)
+ B(t) (6)
T
With: X(t) = [ Y (t), (t), Y (t), (t) ]
2C a0 a1 a0
Fig. 3. Diagram block unknown input sliding mode ob- f
0
m mV (t) mV (t) m
server couple with the experimental vehicle 2Lf Cf

a1
x
a2
x
a1
=
B ,

A(t) = Iz Vx (t) Iz Vx (t) Iz 0
The necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence Iz

0 1 0 0 0

of this observer are described in (Corless et al. [1998], Hui 0 1 0 0
0
et al. [2005]). The matrices L and F of the equations (4)
and (5) are calculated using the Q-R decomposition (Hui a0 = 2Cf + 2Cr , a1 = 2Cf Lf 2Cr Lr , a2 = 2Cf L2f + 2Cr L2r
et al. [2005]). For the model given by the equation (2),
these matrices are calculated in function of the values of 4.2 Steering control
the longitudinal speed (see the first row of the table 1). The
second and third rows of the table 1 show three values of Consider the state feedback tracking control problem for
the matrices L and F that correspond to the three value an linear Model with variant parameters of the equation
of the longitudinal speed. (6). To design a control law we assume that all state vari-
Table 1. some values of matrices L and F ables of the model are available. The robust state feedback
control law can be formulated in an H optimization
90 108 126 scheme using the change of state variables. For this let
75.81 0 0 76.33 0 0 77.1 0 0
e(t) = X(t) r(t) the state tracking error and r(t) be
0 75.81 0 0 76.33 0 0 77.1 0
0 0 14.69 0 0 14.69 0 0 14.6
the reference signal. The model of the equation (6) can be
0 0 81.95 0 0 81.95 0 0 81.5 redefined as:
0.39 0 0 0.32 0 0 0.24 0 0 e(t)
= A(t)e(t)
+ B(t) +B w w (7)
0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0
where B w = I and w = A(t)r(t) r is bounded by
It should be pointed out that for our case study the perturbations to minimize its effect on the tracking of the
observability of pair (A, C) is verified whatever the value of reference signal with the following objective function:
longitudinal speed. The interpolation gains of this observer Z
j e + T R
eT Q j 1 wT w


can be carried out using the method proposed in Stilwell J(e, ) = j (8)
et al. [1999] t0

652
Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress
Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

The quadratic cost (8) can be replaced by the following 2

Gains of the state feedback obtained with two methods

minimum quadratic cost: K(Vx)dy/dt

1.5 K(Vx)d/dt
Jmin = xT (0)Pj x(0) (9) K(Vx)y
1 K(Vx)

The new cost function (9) is replaced by a constraint that 0.5

minimizes the specified upper bound (Boyd et al. [1994]) 0
as follows: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Switching Index between the LMI and the interpolation methods
xT (0)Pj1 x(0) (10) 10
K5
9
K4 Variable
8 Gains
where Pj = Pj1 . Using the Shur complements the LMI 7 Variable
K(4,5)(Vx)

Gains K3 Variable
formulation of the inequality (10) is: 6 K(2,3)(Vx) Gains
K(3,4)(Vx)
  5 Variable
xT (0) Gains K2

x(0) P
0 (11) 4 K(1,2)(Vx)
j 3
K
2 1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
For the LPV model (6) and cost function (8), if there is Longitudinal speed [m/s]

a positive definite symmetric matrix Pj > 0 and level of

attenuation j > 1 that satisfy the following LMI: Fig. 5. Gains of the state feedback obtained with two
" T
Aj Pj + Pj Aj + Qj Pj #
Pj B
methods and switching Index
Pj j1 I 0 <0 (12) by the equation (14). Note that the interpolation method
T Pj
B 0 j
R provides a continuous passage between the gains of the
method given by the equation (13).
then = K j e(t) is the H control law with Kj =
1 T 1 th
Rj B (Pj ) . For j speed value, the feedback control The results in Figure 5 are obtained by choosing five
speed intervals in which the state feedback gains are
vector Kj based on Lyapunov function can be obtained as
constant (from K1 to K5 ), these intervals correspond to
a result of the following LMI optimization problem.
]Vxbj , Vxcj ], four intervals in which the state feedback gains
minimize are calculated in function of longitudinal speed (from
subject to Eq. (11) and Eq. (12).
(13)
K(1,2) to K(4,5) )
In the model of the equation (6), the longitudinal speed In our case study the all vehicle parameters are known,
is considered variable. In order to design a state feedback however, in general the knowledge of these parameters is
gain scheduling control and to reduce the calculation of not guaranteed, to overcome this problem, we replace the
the gains K j for each speed value, speed intervals are de- matrices (Aj , B)
in the LMI of the equation (13) by the
fined and for each interval these gains are considered con- =B
new matrices (Aj = Aj Aj ) and (B B)
which
stant. In the following paragraph we introduce the Gain- take into account the uncertainties Aj and B.

Scheduling method (Stilwell et al. [1999], Bett [2005]) to
interpolate the gains K j in function of the speed values.
5. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
For A(V x ) and B as in equation (6), Vx [Vx =
min
5, Vxmax = 45m/s], we assume that the gains of the state This section presents an experimental evaluation of the
feedback K 1, K
2, , K
M which corresponds to speeds sliding mode observer 1 and steering control (see figure 1).
Vx1 < Vx2 < < VxM [5, 45m/s] and satisfied Experimental data used here come from the laboratory
the stability condition. If there exist positive definite vehicle shown in Figure 1, that is to say the Peugeot
symmetric matrices P1 < P2 < < PM such as 307 test car belonging to the INRETS-MA Laboratory.
the optimization problem (13) is satisfied. For Vx This vehicle is equipped with a number of sensors in-
[Vxjmin , Vxjmax ], j = 1, , M , so here is exist an interval cluding gyrometers, accelerometers, steering angle sensors,
[Vxbj , Vxcj ] [Vxj , Vxj+1 ], such that the continuous state wheel force transducers and CORREVIT, that measure
feedback gain (Stilwell et al. [1999]) can be obtained as the longitudinal and lateral speeds. 100Hz is the sampling
follows: frequency of the acquisition device.
(
Kj if Vx [Vxj , Vxbj [ Gray curves of Figures 6 and 8 show the experimental
x) = K
K(V
(j,j+1) (Vx ) if Vx [Vxbj , Vxcj ] (14)
j+1
data used to validate the sliding mode observer such as
K if Vx ]Vxcj , Vxj+1 ]
sideslip angle, yaw rate, roll rate, the longitudinal speed
and steering angle.
The expression of the continuous state feedback is given
by the following equation: Figure 6 shows a good experimental evaluation of the
x )e(t)
(t) = K(V (15) sliding mode observer. All dynamic estimated states are
close to those measured such as sideslip angle, yaw rate,
The figure 5 shows the state feedback gains and switching roll angle and roll rate. Finally, estimation results of the
Index between two methods. In this figure the pair index road bank angle is shown in figure 7. Additional work will
(2, 4, 6, 8 and 10) correspond to the gains calculated by be done to also validate the lateral wind force estimation,
solving of the optimization problem given by the equation 1 In order to reduce the calculation of the matrices L and F of the
(13), and the impair index (3, 5, 7 and 9) correspond to observer for each value of speed, speed intervals are defined and for
the gains calculated by the interpolation method given each interval the observer gains are considered constant.

653
Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress
Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

Switching index between the two methods

Sideslip angle at the CoG Yaw rate 8
0.5 15
7.5
0 10 LMI method

Index
[Deg.s1]
7
[Deg]

0.5 5
6.5
1 Measured 0 Interpolation method
Estimated 6
1.5 5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 Distance travelled [m]

Roll angle Roll rate

4 4
Fig. 9. Switching index of the steering control
2
2
[Deg.s1]
[Deg]

Trajectories (X,Y) Lateral deviation error

0 90 0.04
Reference path
0
2 Control law + LPVM 0.02
80
Control law + NL4WM
2 4 0

[m]
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 70
Distance travelled [m] Distance travelled [m] 0.02
60
0.04

Fig. 6. Dynamic parameters: measured and estimation 50

0.06
0 200 400

Y [m]
40
since the laboratory vehicle is fitted with a 3D sonic Yaw angle error
0.4
30
anemometer.
20 0.2

Road bank angle

[Deg]
2 10 0

0 0 0.2
[Deg]

2 10 0.4
0 100 200 300 400 0 200 400
X [m] Distance travelled [m]
4
Measured by VANI
Estimated
6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Distance travelled [m] Fig. 10. Trajectories: reference and tracking errors
Figures 11 compare performances of the system composed
Fig. 7. Road bank angle: estimated and measured of the two models (LPM and NL4WM) and steering
control: the main dynamic parameters are much close
The results shown in figures 8 to 14 were obtained using to the measurements for this trial involving high loads
the block diagram of the figure 1, and the road bank (lateral acceleration up to 6 m/s2 at the some bends).
estimated angle with unknown input sliding mode observer
Lateral acceleration Lateral speed
is considered in this trial. The Figures 8 and 10 show the 10 Measured 2

experimental validation of the continuous state feedback 5

MLPV
0
[m.s2]

[km/h]

MNL4R
control using the LPV (dotted line) and the NL4W (solid 0 2
line) models in terms of trajectory tracking: the latter, 5 4
providing a more realistic vehicle behavior, produces fewer 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Yaw rate Longitudinal acceleration
errors than the LPV bicycle model in relation to lateral 20 2

displacement and yaws angle (figure 10), and yields a

[Deg/s]

[m.s2]

10 0

steering input very close to the actual driver steering angle 0 2 Measured

measured on the vehicle (figure 8). Figure 9 shows three 10 4

MNL4R
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
switching indexes between the two methods. Index equal Distance travelled [m] Distance travelled [m]

to 7 corresponds to the use of the interpolation method,

while the indexes 6 and 8 correspond to the use of the LMI Fig. 11. States of the vehicle : measured and those calcu-
method gains. lated by the vehicle models coupled control law
Figures 12 to 14 show simulation results of the speed
Longitudinal speed
120 extrapolation: three instances of the NL4W model coupled
115 with sliding mode observer and the steering control (see
110 figure 1) were used with increased speed, respectively
[km/h]

105 +9km/h,+18km/h and +27km/h (figure 12). This kind of

Measured
100
Control law + NL4WM
test also proves the robustness and stability of the control
95
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 proposed here, since tracking errors remain moderate: even
Steering angles: Measured and Control law for the model run with increased speed, when some values
40
Measured of the lateral acceleration reaches 9.1 m/s2 (figure 13), and
Control law + LPVM
20 Control law + NL4WM front sideslip angles 6.2 deg. Figure 14 shows that the tyres
[Deg]

are operating here in the nonlinear area, and have reached

0
their physical limits, since lateral forces are saturated,
20
on this figure we can remark that the understeer driving
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance travelled [m] situation is produced, and the understeer driving situation
is described by front sideslip angles higher compared to
Fig. 8. Longitudinal speeds and steering angles the rear sideslip angles. This character is caused by high
lateral accelerations. From the results shown by the above

654
Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress
Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

figures the vehicle model run with speed increment equal these two algorithms were presented. These two algorithms
to +27 km/h is in understeer situation. are used simultaneously to performe speed extrapolation
trials and explore the limit of behavior of the vehicle in
160
Longitudinal speed : Measured and NL4WM + Control law critical situations under high dynamic loads. The different
tests performed and the experimental tests highlight the
140
robustness of the algorithms developed here. These algo-
[km/h]

120 rithms and speed extrapolation tests have allowed us the

100 explored the physical limits of the vehicle and the detection
80
of the dangerous situations as the understeer situation.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Steer angles : Measured Control law REFERENCES

80
Measured = Vx
60 Vx + 9 km/h
Y. Page and S. Cuny. Is electronic stability program effec-
40 Vx + 18 km/h tive on French roads? Accident Analysis and Prevention,
[Deg]

20
Vx + 27 km/h vol. 38, 2006, pp 357-364.
0 M. Corless and J. Tu. State and input estimation for a
20 class of uncertain systems Automatica, vol. 34, 1998, pp
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance travelled [m] 757-764.
S. Hui and S. H. Zak. Observer design for systems with
Fig. 12. Speed extrapolation tests of the NL4WM coupled unknown inputs, Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., vol.
with steering control: Extrapolated speed profiles and 15, 2005, pp 431-446.
steering angles L. Imsland, H. F. Grip, T. A. Johansen, T. I. Fossen, J. C.
Kalkkuhl and A. Suissa. On non-linear unknown input
10
NL4WM + Control law: Lateral Accelerations observers: applied to lateral vehicle velocity estimation
8
Measured = Vx
Vx + 9 km/h
on banked roads Int. Jour. of Cont., vol. 80, pp. 1741-
Vx + 18 km/h 1750, 2007.
6 Vx + 27 km/h
C. Edwards, S. K. Spurgeon and R. J. Patton. Sliding
4
mode observers for fault detection and isolation Auto-
[m.s2]

2
matica, vol. 36, pp. 541-553, 2000.
0 S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron and V. Balakrishnan. Lin-
2 ear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory
4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
SIAM, Philadelphia, 1994.
Distance travelled [m] D. J. Stilwell and W. J. Rugh. Interpolation of Observer
State Feedback Controllers for Gain Scheduling IEEE
Fig. 13. Speed extrapolation tests of the NL4WM coupled Trans. aut. cont., vol. 44:6, pp. 1225-1229, June 1999.
with steering control: Lateral accelerations C. J. Bett. The electrical engineering handbook: controls
NL4WM + Control law: Lateral forces in function of wheel Sideslip angles
and systems: Gain-Scheduled Controllers Elsevier Aca-
In reference Pacejka model (black) Vertical Load: 1, 3, 5 and 7 KN demic, pp. 1107-1114, 2005.
5000 5000 V. Cerone, M. Milanese and D. Regruto. Combined
Fy Right Front [N]
Fy Left Front [N]

Automatic Lane-Keeping and Drivers Steering Through

0 0 a 2-DOF Control Strategy IEEE Trans. Cont. Syst.
Tech., vol. 17, pp. 135-142, Jan. 2009.
5000 5000 R. Marino and F. Cinili. Input-output decoupling control
10 5 0 5 10 10 5 0 5 10 by measurement feedback in four wheel-steering-vehicles
Sideslip Left Front [Deg] Sideslip Right Front [Deg]
IEEE Trans. Cont. Syst. Tech., Vol. 17, pp. 1163-1172,
Vx + 9 km/h
2009.
Vx + 18 km/h
5000 5000
J. Edelmann and M. Plochl and W. Reinalter and W.
Fy Right Rear [N]
Fy Left Rear [N]

Vx + 27 km/h
Tieber. A passenger car driver model for higher lateral
0 0
accelerations Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 45, no. 12,
pp. 1117-1129, 2007.
5000 5000
D. Lechner Embedded laboratory for vehicle dynamic
10 5 0 5
Sideslip Left Rear [Deg]
10 10 5 0 5
Sideslip Right Rear [Deg]
10 AVEC 2008, Kobe, Japan, 5-9 October 2008.
D. Lechner, C. Naude and L. Menhour DIARI: An em-
bedded application to determine the maximal achievable
Fig. 14. Speed extrapolation tests of the NL4WM coupled speed in a bend. Proc. of AVEC, UK, August 2010.
with steering control: tire lateral operating points G. Dupre, P. Flachat, G. Gratia, M. Latorre and J. C.
Olivier Detection dalerte securite liees `a des dysfonc-
6. CONCLUSION tionnements de linfrastructure routi`ere Bulletin des
Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, vol. 213, 1998.
This paper addresses steering control and road bank angle L. B. Walcott and S. Zak State observation of nonlinear
observer. Steering control is based on a LMI optimiza- uncertain dynamical systems IEEE Trans. Automat.
tion and gain-Scheduling methods. The road bank angle Contr., vol. 32, pp. 166-170, 1987.
estimation is based on an unknown input sliding mode H. B. Pacejka. Tire and vehicle dynamics Elsevier,
observer. The most important steps in the designing of Netherlands, 2005.

655