Nonlinear Output Robust Regulation of

Ground Vehicles in Presence of

Disturbances and Parameter Uncertainties 
C. Acosta Lua B. CastilloToledo and S. Di Gennaro

Centro de Investigaci
on y de Estudios Avanzados CINVESTAV del
IPN, Unidad Guadalajara, Av. Cientifca, Col. El Bajo, Zapopan,
45010, Jalisco, Mexico. E.mail: {cacosta, toledo}@gdl.cinvestav.mx

Department of Electrical and Information Engineering and Center

of Excellence DEWS, University of LAquila, Poggio di Roio, 67040
LAquila, Italy. E.mail: digennar@ing.univaq.it

Abstract: In this paper a controller based on the socalled robust or structurally stable
regulation theory is designed. The ground vehicle motion control is reformulated as a tracking
problem of a desired reference, generated by an external system. Moreover, the disturbance
acting on the vehicle is supposed to be modeled, i.e. unknown but with a known structure, as
happens in many typical situations. The use of immersion techniques eliminates the dependence
of the controller on parameters, so obtaining a controller ensuring zero tracking error. Since an
immersion for the designed control law can not be easily determined, in this paper we consider
the immersion of an approximate expression of the control, so obtaining a bounded tracking
error.
Keywords: Ground vehicles, Trajectory tracking, Regulator problem.
1. INTRODUCTION
Vehicle motion control has become an important problem in automotive control applications and established solution in the practical, theorical and simulation framwork.
Such a control is made possible thanks to the introduction
of various subsystems such as brakes alone and the some
bywire subsystems and, such as steerbywire, brakebywire,
etc. These represent the electronic equivalent of existing
mechanical and hydraulic subsystems.
In the brake stand-alone case there are in the literature
case of lineal or nonlinear systems. In the case of linear
brake alone systems, the most common control approach
is a lineal Proportional Derivative Controller which guaranties simplicity guarantees simplicity of design, aordable
in vehicle tuning and robustness, but these controllers are
dicult the integration with other system due to their
local validation Zanten et al. (1998). In the case of brake
alone nonlinear there are many types, such as Adaptive
Braking systems [], Anti-lock Braking System (ABS), etc.
An anti-lock brake system (ABS) has been developed for
improving vehicular steerability and stability by preventing wheel lock in critical circumstances such as for slippery
road conditions during braking. Mauer (1995).
Now, in a steerbywire subsystem, dual servomotors
are used as steering mechanism and drive interface, so
 Work partially supported by CONACYT (Project 46069) and
Secreteria de Relaciones Exteriores (S.R.E.), Mexico, and by
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (C.N.R.) and Ministero degli
Aari Esteri (M.A.E.), Italy.

eliminating the connection between the driver and the

wheel assembly. This decoupling allows the introduction of
actuators such as the active front steer (AFS) or steer by
wire (SBW), that impose to the wheels a steer angle given
by the sum of the steer angle imposed by the driver and
that imposed by a controller, in order to track a desired
vehicle reference path. Analogously, the brakebywire subsystem allows the active use of brakes in order to impose
to the vehicle a negative longitudinal force. This force
determine a yaw moment which can be used to improve
the reference tracking. Clearly, servomotorbased steering
systems may help to improve lateral vehicle responsiveness
and, principally, occupant safety.
Various control architectures have been proposed with
the purpose of enhancing vehicle steering. In Ackermann
et al. (1995) linear and nonlinear controls were developed
for the steering system.
In Setlur et al. (2006) the problem of tracking a reference trajectory was solved using a Lyapunovbased control
design. In Burgio et al. (2006), inputoutput linearizing
feedback was proposed for the design of a based integrated
vehicle controller, with steering (AFS, SBW) and brakes
actuator. In Acosta et al. (2007) is showed that ground
vehicle motion control can be reformulated as a tracking
problem of a desired reference, generated by an external
system. In this case the disturbance is assumed like constant.
The control problem is particularly challenging due to
the presence of parameter uncertanties/variation and the
presence of disturbances (wind, etc.) acting on the vehicle

due a strong crosswind will deect a vehicle. This type of

disturbance can be aecter the stability of the vehicle and
generate danger of collisions with peripheries (for example
crash barriers, curbstones) or other road users. Hanke et al.
(2001), Bosch (1996)
In this paper we addressed the design of a controller in
presence of disturbances like a crosswind and parameter
uncertainties by using the so-called robust or structurally
stable regulation theory Isidori et al. (1990), Huang et al.
(1992). The motion control can be naturally recast as a
tracking problem of a desired reference, generated by an
external system. Moreover, in many typical situations and
with a desired order of approximation, the disturbance
acting on the vehicle can be assumed to be modeled
with a known structure. This allows the use of immersion
techniques in order to eliminate the dependence of the controller on parameters which are uncertain or slowly varying
Isidori (1995). This brings to the design of a controller
ensuring zero tracking error. However, the immersion is
the weak point of the design process using the regulation
theory. In fact, very often this immersion is dicult or
even impossible to nd. For this reason in this paper we
consider the immersion of an approximated expression of
the control law ensuring the exact tracking, so obtaining
a bounded tracking error.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II the
mathematical model of a ground vehicle and disturbance is
recalled, and the control problem is formulated. In Section
III some aspects of robust regulation are recalled, while in
Section IV the control problem is solved. Simulations are
presented in Section V, while some comments conclude the
paper.

=


J = Ff (f , Nf , kf )lf Fr (r , Nr , kr )lr
+ Mb + d


m(v y + vx ) = Ff (f , Nf , kf ) + Fr (r , Nr , kr )

(1)

where
m
J
lf , lr
vx , vy
,

kf , kr
Nf , Nr
d , r

Vehicle mass
Vehicle Inertia momentum
Front and rear vehicle lengths
Vehicle longitudinal and lateral velocities
Yaw angle and yaw rate
Maximum tyre-road friction coecient
Vectors of the left and right tyre longitudinal slips
Vectors of the left and right tire vertical forces
Road wheel angles due to the driver and to
controller
Mb Yaw moment
d External disturbance (typically due to the wind).

Finally, the tyre front and rear lateral forces Ff , Fr

depend on the longitudinal slips, the tyre slip angles
(f , r ), and the tyre vertical forces
f = d + c
r =

vy + lf

vy lf
vx

vx
.

It is common to assume that Ff (x, d + r , Fzf , kf ) is

invertible with respect a c , namely the solution of
Ff (x, d + r , Fzf , kf ) = Ff
for a xed Ff is unique and given by

2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF THE

VEHICLE DYNAMICS
The mathematical model of a ground vehicle can be
obtained considering a rigid body connected to the ground
trough tyres. The essence of the vehicle dynamics can be
summarized by the yaw and lateral dynamics, as described
in the socalled Single track model or Bicycle model so
considering only three degrees of freedom. Following (Burgio et al. (2006)), (Setlur et al. (2006)), we considered as
actuator an active front steer (AFS) and steer by wire
(SBW), which can force an incremental steer angle c and
active brakes, which impose negative longitudinal force,
determining a resulting yaw momentum Mb .
Under the following assumptions
(H.1) Roll and pitch dynamics are neglected;
(H.2) The motion takes place on an horizontal surface;
(H.3) The longitudinal velocity vx is piecewise constant;
(H.4) The system is rigid;
(H.5) The tyre are not saturated;
the vehicle dynamics are given by the following model
(Burgio et al. (2006))

c = d +

vy + lf w
vx



+ Ff1 Ff 0 , Nf , kf .

Under this hypothesis of invertibility, Ff can be regarded

as an input, since it is possible to determine the c = c
necessary to impose a desired force Ff .
Here with x, y, z we denote the axes of a reference
frame xed with the vehicle. In order to consider the
external disturbance d, we will introduce a reference frame
xed with respect to the road. Let X, Y , Z denote the axes
of this frame. The yaw angle determines the attitude of
the reference frame xed with the vehicle with respect to
that xed with the road.
The external disturbance d is typically due to the
wind. Blasts of lateral wind, or crosswind, can determine
dangerous situations (Hanke et al. (2001)). It is usual
to consider 12 ranges of wind force, dependent on wind
velocity, according to the socalled Beaufort scale (Bft).
The occurrence of wind blasts can be dangerous with
regard to automobile safety, and the consequent lateral
oset has to be reduced by the control system in order
to reduce the number of vehicle accidents. Let us consider
a wind with respect to the ground with constant velocity

T
vW = vw,X vw,Y 0
in the (X, Y, Z) frame. In the
frame (x, y, z) xed with the vehicle the wind velocity
components are

In (3) the rear tyre lateral force Fr has been expanded up

to the third order

vw,x = vw,X cos + vw,Y sin

vw,y = vw,X sin + vw,Y cos
vw,z = 0.
The resulting wind velocity vw is a combination of the
apparent wind velocity vx due to the vehicle forward
motion plus the component vw,x , and the apparent wind
velocity vy due to the vehicle lateral motion plus the
crosswind velocity vw,y , namely
2
vw
= (vx + vw,x )2 + (vy + vw,y )2 .
The crosswind induces a pitching moment, around the y
direction, a roll moment in the x direction, and a yaw
moment d (Bosch (1996), Hanke et al. (2001)). Since
we suppose that the roll and pitch dynamics can be
neglected (assumption (H.1)), we will considered only the
disturbance d. In terms of the front surface of the vehicle
As , the overall length lf + lr of the vehicle, the air density
, and the aerodynamic coecient c , the expression of d
is
1
2
d = As (lf + lr )c vw
.
2

In the following, it will be useful to consider a change

of coordinates, where in the place of vy one considers the
lateral velocity
vy,ns = vy lns ,

lns =

(2)

mlf

with lns the distance between the vehicle center of mass

and the neutral steer point. Typically, this point is close
to rear axle. Hence,
d=

2
0 vw
=

1 +

2 Vy2

+ 3 sin + 4 cos

vy,ns

As (lf + lr )c
lns
2
2
2
2
1 = 0 (vx2 + vw,X
+ vw,Y
)2 = 0 lns
0 =

3 = 20 vx vw,Y

4 = 20 vx vw,X

5 = 20 vw,X lns

6 = 20 lns vw,Y .

Considering

vy lr
vx

2
= C + C 3 + C r ,
3




Ff
, u=
x=

Mb
vy,ns
as state and input vectors, from (1),(2) one obtains the
mathematical model of a vehicle
=


= C tanh arctan
=

vy,ns (lr lns )

vx

with C the lateral tire stiness and r the higher order

terms in the expansion of the function tanh arctan().
However, note that no approximations of Fr has been
considered. Moreover, the parameter expressions are
a1 = (lr lns )a2 ,

a2 = C

2(lr lns )3

a3 =
a5 =

3vx2
2(lr lns )2
vx4

a2 ,

a4 =

a2 ,

a6 =

a7 = (lr lns )a8 ,

a9 =
a11 =
b1 =
b3 =

2(lr lns )
3vx2

2(lr lns )2
vx2
f lf
J
1

a10 =

a8 , a12 =

lr f
Jvx

a2
3vx2
2(lr lns )

a8 = C

a2
vx2
f (lf + lr )
mlf vx

a8
3vx2
2(lr lns )
vx2

a8

b2 =

b4 = C

mlf
lf + lr
b5 = C
lf m

5 Vy sin + 6 Vy cos
Vy = +

Fr = C tanh arctan

lr
J

aj+12 = j /J, aj+18 = j /(mlf ), j = 1, , 6. In the

following we suppose that these parameters are uncertain,
and their nominal values will be denoted by ai0 , bj0 ,
i = 1, , 24, j = 1, , 5.
The output to be controlled is the yaw angle y = ,
and the control aim is to design a controller such that,
in presence of parameter uncertainties, globally tracks
a reference yaw angle r , with a desired yaw rate ,r ,
while the lateral velocity vy,ns is required to tend to zero
asymptotically. This has a clear physical interpretation. In
the context of the regulator theory, this means to consider
the tracking error e = r and to determine a controller
which force this error to zero. As already stated, also vy,ns
is required to tend to zero.

3
= a1 + a2 vy,ns + a3 3 a4 vy,ns
a5 2 vy,ns
2
+ a6 vy,ns
+ a13 + a14 Vy2 + a15 sin + a16 cos

+ a17 Vy sin + a18 Vy cos + b1 Ff + b2 Mb

+ b4 r

(3)

3
v y,ns = a7 a8 vy,ns a9 3 + a10 vy,ns
+ a11 2 vy,ns
2
a12 vy,ns
a19 a20 Vy2 a21 sin a22 cos

a23 Vy sin a24 Vy cos b3 Mb b5 r .

Remark 1. If the parameters which appear in the definition (2) can be considered known, it is possible to
suppose vy,ns a further output of the system. Hence, one
can consider a reference vr,y,ns , that in our case is a
generic function tending asymptotically to zero, and the
error vy,ns vr,y,ns . This would simplify the following
developments, which will be carried out in the general
case in which vy,ns can not be considered known, due to
parametric uncertainties.

As anticipated, the design procedure approach will

follow the regulation theory, briey recalled in the next
section.
3. RECALLS ON ROBUST OUTPUT
REGULATION
In this section we review some known facts about the
robust (or structurally stable) regulation, which will be
applied hereinafter. Let us consider the nonlinear time
invariant system described by
x = f (x, w, u)
w = s(w)
(4)
e = h(x, w)
where the rst equation describes the dynamics of the
plant, with state x IRn and control input u IRm , subject
to the inuence of a set of exogenous input variables
w IRr , generated by an external system, given by the
second equation of (4), which include the disturbances to
be rejected and/or the references to be tracked. Usually it
is required that the exosystem be neutrally stable Isidori
(1995). Finally, the third equation of (4) describes the
output tracking error e IRm , usually given by the
dierence between the plant output y and the reference
yr = r(w).
The Robust Output Regulation Problem (RORP) for
(4) consists of having the outputs of the plant asymptotically tracking the desired references and asymptotically
rejecting any perturbation generated by the exosystem,
despite perturbations in the parameters of the system.
The problem of structurally stable regulation can be
formulated as follows Isidori (1995).
Definition 1. Given a nonlinear system of the form and a
neutrally stable exosystem as in (4) nd, if possible, two
mappings () and (, e) and a neighborhood P of = 0
in IRp such that, for each P
1. Stability: The equilibrium (x, ) = (0, 0) of
x = f (x, 0, (), )
= (, h(x, 0, ))

and, for some set of q real numbers a0 , a1 , , aq1 ,

Lqs (w, ) = a0 (w, ) + a1 Ls (w, ) + aq1 Lq1
(w, )(7)
s
for all (w, ) W P, and moreover the matrix


A0 I
B0
C0
0
is nonsingular for every which is a root of the polynomial
p() = q + aq1 q1 + + a1 + a0 having nonnegative
real part.

The mapping xss = (w, ) represents the steady
state zero output submanifold and uss = (w, ) =

T
1 (w, ) m (w, )
is the steady state input
which makes invariant the steady state zero output submanifold. Condition (7) expresses the fact that this steady
state input can be generated, independently of the values
of the parameter vector, by the dynamical system
2 = 2
uss = H2
where for i = 1, , m
T

2 = 1,2 2,2 m,2

T
i,2 = i (w, ) Ls i (w, ) Lqsi 1 i (w, )


H = diag H1 H2 Hm


Hi = 1 0 0
1qi

and

is asymptotically stable in the rst approximation;

2. Regulation: There exists a neighborhood U of (0, 0, 0)
such that, for each initial condition (x(0), (0), w(0))
U , the solution of
x = f (x, w, (), )
= (, h(x, w, ))
w = s(w)
satises lim e(t) = 0.

Proposition 1. The SSRP is solvable by means of a linear

controller if the pair (A0 , B0 ) is stabilizable, the pair
(A0 , C0 ) is detectable, there exist mappings xss = (w, )
and uss = (w, ), with (0, ) = 0 and (0, ) = 0, both
dened in a neighborhood W P of the origin, satisfying
the socalled regulator equations
(w, )
s(w) = f ((w, ), w, (w, ), )
(6)
w
0 = h((w, ), w, )

Hereinafter we assume that the matrices


f
f
h
A0 =
B0 =
C0 =
(5)
x (0,0,0,0)
u (0,0,0,0)
x (0,0,0)
stand for the nominal values of the linear part of the
system, assumed at = 0. The following result gives
sucient conditions for the existence of a solution to the
SSRP, in terms of the existence of a linear immersion
Isidori (1995).


= diag 1

0
..
.
i =
0

0
..
..

.
.
.

1
ai,0 ai,1 ai,qi 1
Finally, the controller which solves the SSRP is given by
1 = (A0 + B0 K G1 C0 )1 + G1 e
1
..
.

2 = G2 C0 1 + 2 + G2 e
u = K1 + H2

(8)

where K and G1 , G2 make stable the matrices (A0 +B0 K)

and



G1
A0 B0 H

( C0 0 ) .
G2
0

4. THE ROBUST REGULATION PROBLEM

FOR GROUND VEHICLES
The exosystem in (4) generates the reference signal

w = s(w)

L2s r = a1 Ls r + a2 vy,ns + a3 (Ls r )3 a4 v3y,ns

(9)

r = r (w).

Using Proposition 1, we need to check the stabilizability of the pair (A0 , B0 ) and detectability of the pair
(A0 , C0 ) where in our case




0
1
0
0
0
A0 = 0 a10 a20
, B0 = b10 b20
0 a70 a80
0 b30


C0 = 1 0 0 .

a5 (Ls r )2 vy,ns + a6 (Ls r )v2y,ns + a13

+ a14
V2 y + a15 sin r + a16 cos r
+ a17
Vy sin r + a18
Vy cos r + b1 Ff
+ b2 Mb + b4 r
vy,ns
w

s(w) = a7 Ls r a8 vy,ns a9 (Ls r )3 + a10 v3y,ns

+ a11 (Ls r )2 vy,ns a12 (Ls r )v2y,ns a19

It is easy to check that the reachability and observability

matrices are full rank, so that matrices K,
 G1 can be
designed so that A0 +B0 K and A0 G1 C0 are Hurwitz.
The next step is to determine the center manifold


(w, )
(w, )
xss = (w, ) =
vy,ns (w, )
and the steadystate control
uss = (w, ) =

Ff (w, )
Mb (w, )


where
Vy = Ls r + vy,ns /lns and r = r 

s(w) = a1 + a2 vy,ns + a3 3 a4 v3y,ns

condition w(0). Once vy,ns has been xed, one gets

1 + b2

1 
1
2
b1 b2
1
b1 b3
b
(w, ) =
= 1

1
0 b3
2
2
b3
where
1 = L2s r + a1 Ls r a2 vy,ns a3 (Ls r )3 + a4 v3y,ns

a5 2 vy,ns + a6 v2y,ns + a13

+ a5 (Ls r )2 vy,ns a6 (Ls r )v2y,ns a13

+ a14 V2 y + a15 sin + a16 cos

a14
V2 y a15 sin r a16 cos r

+ a17 Vy sin + a18 Vy cos + b1 Ff

a17
Vy sin r a18
Vy cos r b4 r

(10)

2 =

s(w) = a7 a8 vy,ns a9 3 + a10 v3y,ns

+ a23
Vy sin r + a24
Vy cos r + b5 r .
It is clear that this control does not ensure the fulllment
of the regulation requirements in presence of parameter
perturbations of the parameter vector . For, an appropriate immersion of (w, ) has to be determined.

a23 Vy sin a24 Vy cos b3 Mb

b5 r
0 = r

4.1 Approximate Solution to the Robust Regulation Problem

=

vy,ns =vy,ns

From the last and the rst equations of (10) one easily
gets
= r
r

s(w) a7 Ls r + a8 vy,ns + a9 (Ls r )3

+ a19 + a20
V2 y + a21 sin r + a22 cos r

a20 V2 y a21 sin a22 cos

s(w) = Ls r
w
where Ls f represents the Lie derivative of f in the direction of s (Isidori (1995)). From the remaining equations
=

vy,ns

a10 v3y,ns a11 (Ls r )2 vy,ns + a12 (Ls r )v2y,ns

+ a11 2 vy,ns a12 v2y,ns a19


+ vy,ns /lns , and r = r 

t0

s(w) =

with Vy =

=Ls r
vy,ns =vy,ns

one easily works out the steady state control components

Ff , Mb . For, from the second equation note rst that
vy,ns always exists since a8 > 0. Then, consider that the
control requirements are fullled considering a function
vy,ns (w) such that lim vy,ns (w(t)) = 0 for every initial

+ b2 Mb + b4 r
vy,ns

a23
Vy sin r a24
Vy cos r b3 Mb
b5 r

solution of the regulation equation (6), which in our case

become

a20
V2 y a21 sin r a22 cos r

Unfortunately, in the case under study the term r ,

due to Fr , renders dicult the determination of such an
immersion. It is hence natural to consider the following
approximation

1 + b2


a,1
a,2
a,1
b1 b3

b
a (w, ) =
= 1
(11)

1
a,2
a,2
b3
where

a,1 = L2s r + a1 Ls r a2 vy,ns a3 (Ls r )3 + a4 v3y,ns

i.e.
a,1 = 0 1 w1 + 2 w2 + 3 w22 + 4 w23

+ a5 (Ls r )2 vy,ns a6 (Ls r )v2y,ns a13

+ 5 sin w1 + 6 cos w1 + 7 w2 sin w1

a14
V2 y a15 sin r a16 cos r

+ 8 w2 cos w1

a17
Vy sin r a18
Vy cos r
a,2 =

vy,ns
w

a,2 = 0 + 1 w2 2 w22 3 w23 4 sin w1

5 cos w1 6 w2 sin w1 7 w2 cos w1

s(w) a7 Ls r + a8 vy,ns + a9 (Ls r )3

with

a10 v3y,ns a11 (Ls r )2 vy,ns + a12 (Ls r )v2y,ns

0 =

+ a19 + a20
V2 y + a21 sin r + a22 cos r

1  b2
b1 b3

2 =

+ a23
Vy sin r + a24
Vy cos r .
Using this approximated control, with a (w, ) = 0,
equations (6) are not veried anymore, since
(w, )
s(w) = f ((w, ), w, a (w, ), )
w
0 = h((w, ), w, )
namely (w, ) is not rendered invariant by a (w, ).
Hence, once the control u will force the system trajectory
on (w, ), the ow will not remain on it, and a nonzero
error will be determined. Nevertheless, the nal control
u = K1 + 2 , given by (8), renders (w, ) attractive,
so that eventually the system trajectory will make tend
the tracking to zero. In fact, as it will be clearer in the
following, the error 1 = x (w, ) will go exponentially
to zero. Since when x = (x, ) the tracking error is
zero, the control objectives will be reached. The dierence
with classical regulation control schemes is that the control
u = 2 on the center manifold does not ensure anymore
that the system trajectory x will remain on (w, ). Hence,
at steady state the contribution of the term K1 in u will
be nonzero and will force the system trajectory to remain
on (w, ).
4.2 A Case study
For the sake of clarity, in the following we determine
an immersion for a (w, ) for a specic reference path,
corresponding to r = r sin t = w1 with r = 1/6 and
w 1 = w2
w 2 = w1 .
Moreover, it is convenient choose vy,ns = 0. This is
congruent with the constraints previously commented on
vy,ns . Therefore, (11) become

b2
1


a,1
a,2
a,1
b1 b3

b
a (w, ) =
= 1

1
a,2

a,2
b3

a,1 = a13 2 w1 + a1 w2 2 a14 w22 3 a3 w23

a15 sin w1 a16 cos w1 a17 w2 sin w1

b1

8 =

a20 w22

a9 w23

(a1 a7

1
b1

(a9

(a22
1

4 = a21

b3

b3

b1
1
0 = a19
b3

2 = 2 a20

b2

b2

(a24

b2
b3

1 = 2
3 = 2

a19 )

a19 a3 )

a19 a16 )

b2
b3

1
b1

1
b1
1
b1

(a20

(a21
1

b1

b2
b3

(a23

b2
b3

a19 a14 )

a19 a15 )

b2
b3

a19 a17 )

a19 a18 )
1 = a7

1
b3
1

3 = 3 a9

b3

5 = a22

b3

6 = a23

5 =

7 =

1
1

b3

1
b3

7 = a24

.
b3
b3
Finally, the determination of an immersion is easier if
a,i (w, ), i = 1, 2, are polynomials in w1 , w2 . Hence,
we will assume the approximations sin w1  w1 1 w13 ,
3!
cos w1  1 1 w12 . Therefore, (11) become
2!
a,1 = 0 1 w1 + 2 w2 + 3 w22 + 4 w23 + (5


1
1
+ 7 w2 ) w1 w13 + (6 + 8 w2 ) 1 w12
3!
2!
a,2 = 0 + 1 w2 2 w22 3 w23 (4


1
1
+ 6 w2 ) w1 w13 (5 + 7 w2 ) 1 w12
3!
2!
and their immersions are given, respectively, by
0 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

a,1

0
0
0
=
0
0
0


+ a21 sin w1 + a22 cos w1 + a23 w2 sin w1

+ a24 w2 cos w1

b1

a18 w2 cos w1

a,2 = a19 a7 w2 +

4 = 3
6 =

a19 a13

1 =

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1 0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
576 8

0 0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
820 6

0 0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
273 4

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
30 2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

and a,1 = a,2 , 1 = 2 . A diculty arises from the fact

that a,1 , a,2 have the same eigenvalues. The consequence
is that the pair

A0
0

B0

, ( C0

0)

is not observable, and it is not possible to use the classical controller (8). Therefore, an alternative controller is
hereinafter proposed (Acosta et al. (2007)). For, rst we
consider




0
0
B10 = b10 , B20 =
.
b20
0
b30
Hence, the controller is
11 = (A0 + B10 K1 G11 C0 )11 + B20 u2 + G11 e
12 = G12 C0 11 + 1 12 + G12 e
21 = (A0 + B20 K2 G21 C0 )21 + B10 u1 + G21 e
22 = G22 C0 21 + 2 22 + G22 e

(12)

where Tnl denotes the nonlinear terms. Considering the

new variables
e1 = x 11
e2 = x 21
1 = 12
2 = 22
one gets
x = Ac x B10 K1 e1 B10 1 1 B20 K2 e2 B20 2 2
+ Tnl,0
e 1 = (A0 G11 C0 )e1 B10 1 1 + Tnl,11
1 = G12 C0 e1 + 1 1 + Tnl,21
e 2 = (A0 G21 C0 )e2 B20 2 2 + Tnl,12

i = 1, 2. Let us show that the proposed controller solves

the RORP. For, note that the controlled dynamics are
x = A0 x + B10 u1 + B20 u2 + f0 (x, u, w, )

2 = G22 C0 e2 + 2 2 + Tnl,22
with Ac given by (13) and Tnl the nonlinear terms in the
new coordinates. The dynamic matrix of the linear part is

B10 K1
B10 1
B20 K2
B20 2
Ac

0 A0 G11 C0 B10 1
0
0

G12 C0
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
A0 G21 C0 B20 2
0
0
0
G22 C0
2
whose eigenvalues are those of Ac Ad,1 Ad,2 which are
Hurwitz. This proves that the stability property is ensured.
It remains to check the regulation property. As already
mentioned, the center manifold is not rendered invariant
by the approximate steady state control but, as remarked
in Section 4.1, the attractive term in u will force the system
trajectory to remain on (w, ), so ensuring a zero tracking
error in a practical sense (ultimate boundedness of the
trajectories).

11 = (A0 + B10 K1 G11 C0 )11 + G11 e + B20 K2 21

5. SIMULATION RESULTS

u1 = K1 11 + 1 12
u2 = K2 21 + 2 22
where K1 , K2 are such that the matrix
Ac = A0 + B10 K1 + B20 K2
= A0 + B0 K

K=

K1
K2

(13)

is Hurwitz, and G11 , G12 G21 , G22 make stable the

matrices



A0 Bi0 i
Gi1
Ad,i =
(14)

( C0 0 )
0
i
Gi2

+ B20 2 22
12 = G12 C0 11 + 1 12 + G12 e
21 = (A0 + B20 K2 G21 C0 )21 + G21 eB10 K1 11
+ B10 1 12
22 = G22 C0 21 + 2 22 + G22 e
u1 = K1 11 + 1 12
u2 = K2 21 + 2 22 .
Considering that e = C0 x + h0 (x, w), and setting
w = 0, = 0 (since the solution (w, ) exists for every
value of in a neighborhood of = 0) one works out
x = A0 x + B10 K1 11 + B10 1 12 + B20 K2 21
+ B20 2 22 + Tnl,0
11 = (A0 + B10 K1 G11 C0 )11 + G11 C0 x + B20 K2 21
+ B20 2 22 + Tnl,11
12 = G12 C0 11 + 1 12 + G12 C0 x + Tnl,21
21 = (A0 + B20 K2 G21 C0 )21 + G21 C0 x + B10 K1 11
+ B10 1 12 + Tnl,12
22 = G22 C0 21 + 2 22 + G22 C0 x + Tnl,22

We considered simulations based on data from a prototype vehicle Setlur et al. (2006), Lee et al. (2004). The
nominal parameters are
m0 = 1500 Kg
J0 = 2830 Kg m2
lf 0 = 1.3 m
lr0 = 1.5 m
l0 = lr0 + lf 0 Ca0 = 6510 N/rad
f 0 = 0.66
vx0 = 28 m/s
lns0 = J0 /0 lf 0
while the real ones are
m= 1.1 m0
J = 1.05 J0
lr = lr0
lf = lf 0
Ca = 0.8 Ca0 vx = vx0
f = 0.6 f 0
l = lr + lf
lns = J/lf .
The results are summarized in Figures 1, 2, 3, and show the
eectiveness of the proposed control scheme. In particular,
the tracking error r is of the order of 104 rad, while
the absolute lateral velocity |vy,ns | is less than of 5.5 m/s.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents an approach to the vehicle dynamics control based on the robust, or structurally stable, regulation. Such a controller takes into account the presence of

parametric uncertainties in the control law. The dynamic

controller is derived considering an approximation of the
exact controller. Such an approximated controller ensures
a zero tracking error in a practical sense (ultimate boundedness of the trajectories) of the yaw angle reference, and
small lateral velocities.

0.4

0.3

0.2

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
0.1

The authors thank Fernando Tiefensee for the useful

discussion during the preparation of this paper.

REFERENCES
J. Ackermann, J. Guldner, W. Sienel, R. Steinhauser,
and V. Utkin, Linear and Nonlinear Controller Design
for Robust Automotive Steering, IEEE Transactions on
Control System Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 132-143,
1995.
C. AcostaLua, B. CastilloToledo, S. Di Gennaro, and A.
Toro, Nonlinear Robust Regulation of Ground Vehicle
Motion, 46th CDC, New Orleans, Louisiana USA. 2007.
G. Burgio, and P. Zegelaar, Integrated Vehicle Control
using Sterring and Brakes, International Journal of
Control, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 162169, 2006.
C. I. Byrnes, F. Delli Priscoli, and A. Isidori, Output
Regulation of Uncertain Nonlinear Systems, Birkh
auser,
Boston, 1997.
R. Bosch, Automotive Handbook, 4th. edition, Robert
Bosch Gmbh, Stuttgart, Germany, 1996.
J. Carr, Applications of Centre Manifold Theory,
SpringerVerlag, New York, 1981.
O. Hanke, T. Bertram, and M. Hiller, Analysis and Control of Vehicle Dynamics Under Crosswind Conditions,
IEE/ASME 6-12 July 2001 Como, Italy.
J. Huang, and W. J. Rugh, An approximation method for
the nonlinear servomechanism problem, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 37, No. 9, pp. 1395
1398, 1992
A. Isidori, C. I. Byrnes, Output Regulation of Nonlinear
Systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol.
35, pp. 131140, 1990.
A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems, Third edition,
SpringerVerlag, London, 1995.
C. Lee, K. Hedrick, and K. Yi, RealTime SlipBased
Estimation of Maximum Tire-Road Friction Coecient,
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 9, No.
2, pp. 454458, 2004.
G. F. Mauer, A Fuzzy Logic Controller for an ABS Braking
System, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 3 3818. 1995.
P. Setlur, and J. R. Wagner, D. M. Dawson and D. Braganza, A Trajectory Tracking SteerbyWire Control
System for Ground Vehicles, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 7685, 2006.
A. van Zanten, R. Erhardt, K. Landesfeind, and G. Pfa,
VDC system development and perspective, SAE, 1998.

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

10

Fig. 1. Yaw angle and reference r [rad]

-4

x 10

-1

-2

-3

-4

10

Fig. 2. Tracking error r [rad]

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4

Fig. 3. Lateral velocity vy,ns [m/s]

10