76

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

A Trajectory Tracking Steer-by-Wire Control System

for Ground Vehicles
Pradeep Setlur, John R. Wagner, Darren M. Dawson, and David Braganza

AbstractThe application of multi-disciplinary automotive

technologies to hybrid vehicles has resulted in the integration of
alternative propulsion sources and drive-by-wire components for
enhanced ground vehicle performance, fuel economy, and occupant safety. The integration of steer-by-wire systems in vehicles
facilitates autonomous and semi-autonomous operations, better
lateral vehicle behavior, an adjustable steering feel, and elimination of problems arising due to potential engine cycling. In this
paper, a continuous time-varying tracking controller is designed
for the vehicles position/orientation using a simplified vehicle description and reference model for tracking. The tracking error is
globally, exponentially forced to a neighborhood of about zero by
transforming the system into a flat input-state system and then
fusing a filtered tracking error transformation with the dynamic
oscillator design. Mathematical models are presented for a steerby-wire rack and pinion unit, vehicle chassis, and tire/road interface dynamics. Representative numerical results are discussed
to demonstrate the vehicles transient response for a prescribed
trajectory profile.
Index TermsControl system, nonlinear trajectory control,
steer-by-wire, vehicle tracking controller.

NOMENCLATURE
BM 1,M 2
Brack
Bsc
Bx
Caf , Car
C
CG
FD
Ffr,rack
Fxf , Fxr
Fyf , Fyr
Fxwf , Fxwr
Fywf , Fywr
g

Motor damping (N-m-s/rad).

Rack damping (N-m-sec/rad).
Steering column damping (N-m-sec/rad).
Suspension roll damping (N-m-rad/s).
Front, rear total tire cornering stiffness (N/rad).
Lateral tire stiffness (N/rad).
Center of gravity.
Aerodynamic drag force (N).
Rack/piston friction (N-m).
Longitudinal tire force along the vehicle axis
from front (rear) wheels (N).
Lateral tire force along the vehicle axis from
front (rear) wheels (N).
Longitudinal tire force in wheel plane (N).
Lateral tire force in the wheel plane (N).
Acceleration constant (m/s 2 ).

Manuscript received January 16, 2004; revised September 29, 2004 and
February 8, 2005. This work was supported in part by two DOC Grants, an
ARO Automotive Center Grant, a DOE Contract, a Honda Corporation Grant,
and a DARPA Contract. The review of this paper was coordinated by Dr. M. S.
Ahmed.
P. Setlur is with the Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department,
California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819 USA.
J. R. Wagner is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson
University, Clemson, SC 29634-0915 USA (e-mail: jwagner@clemson.edu).
D. M. Dawson and D. Braganza are with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 USA.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2005.861189

h
ia1,a2
IM 1,M 2
IRoll
Isw
Izz
kb1,b2
KS 1
KS 2
k 1, 2
Kx
L1,2
lf
lr
m
mrack
ms
N
r
R
R1,2
rL
rp
Tdriver
Tfr,c
TM 1,M 2
u, ui
v, vi
VS 1,S 2
x, y
xr , yr
x1 , y1
xr 1 , yr 1
yrack

F
M 1,M 2
sw

0018-9545/$20.00 2006 IEEE

Center of gravity height (m).

Armature current (A).
Lumped inertia of motor (kg-m 2 ).
Vehicle moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis (kg-m 2 ).
Steering wheel lumped inertia (kg-m 2 ).
Vehicle moment of inertia about the yaw axis
(kg-m 2 ).
Motor emf constant (V-s/rad).
Lumped compliance due to steering column
and torque sensor stiffness (N-m/rad).
Lumped compliance due to motor shaft and
torque sensor stiffness (N-m/rad).
Motor torque constant (N-m/A).
Suspension roll stiffness (N-m/rad).
Motor electrical inductance (H).
Distance from CG to front axle (m).
Distance from CG to rear axle (m).
Total vehicle mass (kg).
Rack/pinion lumped mass (kg).
Sprung mass (kg).
Normal tire load (N).
Vehicle yaw velocity (rad/s).
Radius of the tire (m).
Motor electrical resistance ().
Offset of king pin axis at applied force (m).
Pinion gear radius (m).
Torque produced by driver (N-m).
Steering column friction (N-m).
Torque produced by motors (N-m).
Longitudinal vehicle, wheel center speeds
(m/s).
Lateral vehicle, wheel center speeds (m/s).
Source voltage (V).
Global vehicle Cartesian position (m).
Reference vehicle Cartesian position (m).
Vehicle shifted Cartesian position (m).
Reference vehicle shifted Cartesian position
(m).
Rack lateral displacement (m).
Tire side slip angle (rad).
Steer angle of the wheel (rad).
Actual front wheel steer angle (rad).
Motor angular displacement (rad).
Steering wheel and column deflection (rad).
Coefficient of friction.
Vehicle yaw angle (rad).
Reference vehicle yaw angle (rad).

SETLUR et al.: TRAJECTORY TRACKING STEER-BY-WIRE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR GROUND VEHICLES

Subscripts:
i
f, r

Vehicle roll angle (rad).

Wheel angular velocity (rad/s).
ith wheel and axle location.
Front, rear axles.
I. INTRODUCTION

HE MECHANICAL and hydraulic subsystems in passenger and light-duty ground vehicles are being upgraded
with drive-by-wire components in order to boost overall performance, reduce power consumption, and enhance passenger
safety. For example, the electrical equivalents for traditional mechanical linkages and/or hydraulic power assist systems include
brake-by-wire, steer-by-wire, and throttle-by-wire [11],
[23], which offer less environmental concerns due to the removal of hydraulic fluids and continual engine parasitic losses.
A wealth of research has been conducted on hydraulic power
steering systems (e.g., [20], [21], and [26]), electric power steering systems, which maintain a mechanical linkage between the
driver and steering mechanism but replace the hydraulics with
an electric motor (e.g., [12], [13], and [17]), and most recently
steer-by-wire (e.g., [8] and [16]). In a steer-by-wire system,
dual servo-motors are introduced to control the driver interface
and the steering mechanism; the direct connection between the
driver and wheel assembly is removed. A variety of control architectures have been proposed for enhanced vehicle steering
characteristics and automatic tracking in steer-by-wire vehicles.
Furthermore, the development of reliable positioning systems
has made accurate trajectory generation very practical.
Vehicle steering systems translate the drivers steering commands into the rotation of the front wheels about their kingpin axes. The effort required to steer the vehicle must be balanced between power assistance to facilitate vehicle turning
and road feel for driver feedback. Servo-motor-based steering
systems offer improved lateral vehicle responsiveness, weight
reduction, and occupant safety (e.g., [18]). To effectively analyze a steering system, mathematical models that consider the
steering and various chassis subsystems must exist. In [16],
the authors presented a detailed steer-by-wire system model
with accompanying platform dynamics to describe the vehicles
motion.
A vehicle following a prescribed path (or trajectory) is a challenging problem due to the fact that the system is under-actuated.
In [2], the authors developed linear and nonlinear controllers for
the steering system. However, the controller required the forward velocity to be constant and non-zero. In [14], the authors
attempted to predict the vehicles path for prescribed driving
conditions in the presence of disturbances. However, they did
not address the issue of vehicle control. In [19], the vehicles cornering instability was studied and a robust controller to protect
the vehicle from spin was proposed. Their work did not discuss
the trajectory-following problem. On similar lines, in [1] the authors proposed a controller to stabilize disturbance yaw forces
in the vehicle. As in previous works, it was assumed that the
vehicles longitudinal velocity is constant so that the trajectory
following has to be performed as a separate control task.

77

In this paper, the problem of tracking a reference trajectory

with respect to a fixed, global coordinate frame is considered.
The model used in the control development is a simplified
form of the vehicle dynamics. A set of transformations based
on differential flatness is applied to the simplified, vehicle
and reference model. This manipulation of the system into a
suitable form allows a Lyapunov-based nonlinear controller to
be designed for the transformed Cartesian dynamics. The controller ensures globally uniformly ultimately bounded (GUUB)
tracking (i.e., state tracking with respect to a reference signal
generator) to be designed in a similar manner to [3] and [5].
The controller uses an embedded dynamic oscillator to provide
additional design flexibility. The paper is organized as follows:
In Section II, the low-order vehicle dynamics are presented
along with the controller model and reference signal generator.
The tire-road interface reaction forces are also discussed in this
section. The open-loop tracking dynamics are then transformed
to facilitate the subsequent controller development and stability
analysis. Section III defines the control problem. In Section IV,
the design of the proposed GUUB tracking controller is
presented. The corresponding closed-loop error system and the
stability analysis are presented. Numerical results are presented
in Section V. Section VI contains the concluding remarks.
II. MATHEMATICAL MODELS
The mathematical modeling of the steering system components permits the vehicles lateral responsiveness for various
design configurations and control algorithms to be studied. A
series of analytical models will be presented for the steering system and chassis dynamics, as well as the tracking controller and
its trajectory generator. The steering and chassis dynamics offer
insight into the controller derivation for the simplified vehicle
model. The dynamic models presented in this section are used
in the numerical simulations to estimate the vehicles behavior.
A. Steering System
The steer-by-wire system is comprised of the driver interface and the directional control assembly. The driver interface
includes the steering wheel and column, a torque sensor, and
a low torque dc servo-motor. The differential equation for the
haptic interface unit [16] becomes
1
[Tdriver Bsc (sw M 1 )
sw =
Isw
Ks1 (sw M 1 ) Tfr,c ].

(1)

The motor shaft rotational dynamics are expressed as

M 1 = (1/IM 1 )[BM 1 M 1 Bsc (sw M 1 )
Ks1 (M 1 sw ) + TM 1 ]

(2)

where the motor torque is TM 1 = k 1 ia1 . The electrical current

differential equation becomes
dia1
= (1/L1 )(R1 ia1 kb1 M 1 + Vs1 ).
(3)
dt
The applied voltage for the servo-motor Vs1 , is a function of
both the driver interface and the directional control assembly.

78

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

The directional control assembly uses a high torque servomotor to displace the rack. The rack dynamics reflect the direct
application of the motor torque, so that
yrack = (1/mrack )[2KL (yrack rL F ) Brack y rack
(Ks2 /rp )((yrack /rp ) M 2 ) Ffr,rack ].

(4)

Then, the motor displacement M 2 differential equation becomes

M 2 = (1/IM 2 )[BM 2 M 2 Ks2 (M 2 yrack /rp ) + TM 2 ]
(5)
where, TM 2 = k 2 ia2 . The armature current ia2 may be expressed as
dia2
= (1/L2 )(R2 ia2 kb 2 M 2 + Vs2 )
dt
where Vs2 is the supply voltage for this motor.

(6)

B. Chassis and Tire/Road Interface Dynamics

The vehicle model used for the numerical simulation within
the study has four degrees of freedom: longitudinal velocity u,
lateral velocity v, yaw rate r, and body roll . Heydinger et al.
[10] and Wong [25] provide a detailed derivation of the equations
of motion. The longitudinal acceleration for the vehicle may be
expressed as

(u vr) = (1/m)(2Fxf + 2Fxr ms hr).

(7)

The vehicles lateral acceleration is influenced by the longitudinal velocity, the yaw, and the roll in the following manner:

(v + ru) = (1/m)(2Fyf + 2Fyr ms h).

(8)

The vehicles yaw rate is a function of the distance from the

vehicles center of gravity (CG) to the tires, as well as the front
and rear tire lateral forces, such that
r = (1/Izz )(2lf Fyf 2lr Fyr ).

(9)

The vehicles roll angular acceleration may be expressed as

= (1/IRoll )[Bx (Kx ms gh) ms h(v + ru)].
(10)
The differential equations for the lateral and roll accelerations
are coupled; however, they are inherently more useful if stated
explicitly. If (8) is inserted into (10), then the roll expression
becomes
1
=
IRoll m2s h2 /m
[Bx (Kx ms gh) (ms h/m)(2Fyf + 2Fyr )].
(11)
Conversely, if (10) is substituted into (8), then the lateral acceleration maybe expressed as
v =

1
m

m2s h2 /IRoll

[2Fyf + 2Fyr + (ms h/IRoll )

(Bx + (Kx ms gh)) ru] (12)

Fig. 1.

Vehicle with local and global coordinates.

The dynamics of the tires interaction with the road can be

defined using the front and rear tire slip angles. The tire slip
angle is given by
i = tan1 (vi /ui ) i .

(13)

If the longitudinal velocity is assumed quasi-constant, then

the longitudinal tire forces may be neglected. Although a series of tire models exist to describe the longitudinal and lateral
forces, as well as the aligning torques for various road surfaces
and operating conditions, the tire dynamics are simplified to a
front and rear cornering stiffness. Consequentially, the front and
rear tire lateral forces are
Fyf = Caf f ,

Fyr = Car r .

(14)

C. Controller Model Development

The kinematic equations of motion of the vehicles center of
mass (COM) can be written as (refer to Fig. 1)
q = S(q)V

(15)

T 3 represents the time

where q(t)
= [x(t)

y(t)

(t)]
derivative of q(t) = [x(t)y(t)(t)]T 3 . The variables,
x(t), y(t), and (t) 1 denote the Cartesian position and orientation, respectively, of the vehicles COM. The transformation
matrix S(q) 33 is defined as

cos() sin() 0
S(q) = sin() cos() 0
(16)
0
0
1
the velocity vector V (t) 3 is V = [u v r]T , where
u(t), v(t), and r(t) 1 denote the vehicles longitudinal, lateral, and yaw velocities, respectively. Under the assumptions

SETLUR et al.: TRAJECTORY TRACKING STEER-BY-WIRE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR GROUND VEHICLES

that i) the body-fixed coordinate axis coincides with the CG;

ii) the mass distribution is homogeneous; iii) the heave, pitch,
and roll modes can be neglected since the controller should be
robust enough to handle these effects; and iv) the half tread of
the vehicle is small (i.e., bicycle model), the vehicle model can
be expressed similar to [9], as
u = (1/m)[2(Fxf + Fxr ) + mvr FD (u)]

and y(t)
given in (15) may be used with (16) and (24) to obtain
x
= ut cos() sin()um

(25)

y = ut sin() + cos()um

(26)

= r

(27)

r = (m/Izz )(um g()/).

(28)

The function g(u, v, r) 1 and the parameter 1 are

defined as

v = (1/m)[2(Fyf + Fyr ) mur]

r = (1/Izz )[2(lf Fyf lr Fyr )]

79

(17)

g(u, v, r) = 2[(lf + lr )/m]Fyr

(29)

where FD represents the retarding force due to aerodynamic

drag.
The front wheel longitudinal and lateral forces are related to
the tire forces by

As presented in [15] and [22], a set of transformations based

on differential flatness are defined as

Fxf = Fxwf cos(f ) Fywf sin(f )

x1 = x (Izz /m) cos()

(31)

y1 = y (Izz /m) sin()

(32)

Fyf = Fxwf sin(f ) + Fywf cos(f ).

(18)

The front and rear tire forces, Fxwf (t), Fywf (t), Fxwr (t), and
Fywr (t) 1 may be explicitly written as
Fxr = Fxwr = N tanh[(u Rr )/Rr ]

(19)

Fyr = Fywr = C tanh{arctan[(v lr r)/u]}

(20)

Fxwf = N tanh{(u Rf )/Rf }

(21)

Fywf = C tanh{arctan[(v + lf r)/u] f }.

(22)

Remark 1: It has been assumed that the vehicle is front-wheel

driven and steered.
Remark 2: The tire model represented in (19)(22) was observed to closely fit the experimental data given in [7]. However,
other models may be used to calculate these tire forces.
Remark 3: For purposes of this paper, we consider Fxf (t) and
Fyf (t) to be the control inputs. In an actual system, the desired
trajectory signals for f (t) and f (t) must be generated on-line
and supplied to low level wheel speed and steering controllers,
respectively. The system of nonlinear equations representing the
tire forces (19)(22), together with the designed control signals
for Fxf (t) and Fyf (t), can be solved by numerical, on-line,
iterative methods to obtain desired trajectory signals for f (t)
and f (t).
The system dynamics may be rewritten in a more convenient
form if the control inputs Fxf (t) and Fyf (t) are designed in the
following manner:
Fxf =

1
m
FD (u) Fxr + ut
2
2

Fyf =

m
um Fyr
2lf

(23)

where ut (t) and um (t) 1 are subsequently designed control

inputs. After substituting the control given in (23) into (17), the
system dynamics can be rewritten as
u = ut + vr, v = um /lf ur,
 

m
(lf + lr )
Fyr .
r =
um 2
Izz
m

(24)

To develop a system model using the Cartesian position and

orientation of the vehicles COM, the time derivative of x(t)

= 1/lf .

(30)

where x1 (t), y1 (t) 1 represents the shifted Cartesian position. After taking the second time derivatives of (31) and (32),
substituting (25)(28), and canceling common terms, the shifted
Cartesian dynamics become
x
1 = (ut + (Izz /m) 2 ) cos() g() sin()

(33)

(34)

y1 = (ut + (Izz /m) ) sin() + g() cos().

D. Reference Model Development

A reference model based on the structure of the system dynamics given by (25) and (26) will be designed to facilitate the
tracking controller with
x
r = urt cos(r ) sin(r )urm

(35)

yr = urt sin(r ) + cos(r )urm

(36)

r = rr

(37)

rr = (m/Izz )urm

(38)

where xr (t), yr (t), r (t) 1 denote the reference Cartesian position and orientation, respectively. The signal rr (t)
1 is an auxiliary reference state variable used to facilitate the analysis, urt (t), urm (t) 1 denote the reference input signals. It is assumed that the reference signals urt (t)
and urm (t) are selected such that urt (t), urm (t), u rt (t), and
u rm (t) are bounded and xr (t), yr (t), r (t) and their first
two time derivatives remain bounded at all times (i.e.,
r (t), yr (t) and r (t)
xr (t), yr (t), r (t), x r (t), y r (t), r (t), x
L ). A transformation similar to the one given in (31) and (32)
is applied to the reference system, (35)(38), as follows:
xr 1 = xr (Izz /m) cos(r )

(39)

yr 1 = yr (Izz /m) sin(r )

(40)

where xr 1 (t), yr 1 (t) 1 represents the shifted reference

Cartesian position. After taking the second time derivatives of
(39) and (40), substituting (35) and (36), and then canceling
common terms, the shifted reference Cartesian dynamics can be

80

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

written as,

x
r 1 = urt + (Izz /m) 2r cos(r )


yr 1 = urt + (Izz /m) 2r sin(r ).

(41)
(42)

Remark 4: The inputs to the reference generator, urt (t) and

urm (t) are analogous to the throttle and steering torque inputs,
respectively, for a vehicle equipped with a conventional steering
system. These reference inputs can be selected appropriately to
generate the position and orientation reference signals.

1 is defined
In addition, the orientation tracking error (t)
as
= r .

(47)

To write the open-loop error system in a more convenient

form, the following globally invertible transformation is introduced


sx
cos 2 sin sin + 2 cos 0
w
z1 =
0
0
1 sy
z2
cos
sin
0

(48)

III. CONTROL PROBLEM STATEMENT

To address vehicle platooning and trajectory-tracking issues,
it is essential for the independent operation of the forward thrust
and steering mechanism. However, the control algorithm must
holistically integrate these two functions. Thus, a nonlinear control algorithm, which simultaneously adjusts the steer angle
f (t) and the rotational speed of the wheel f (t) while monitoring the position velocity variables with reference to the global
coordinate frame, will be designed for a front-wheel driven and
steered vehicle with a steer-by-wire mechanism. The controller
must force the vehicle position coordinates [i.e., x(t), y(t), and
(t)] to track the corresponding coordinates of a reference
vehicle (i.e., xr (t), yr (t), and r (t)). To validate the control
algorithms performance, a standard vehicle maneuver (e.g.,
J-turn) will be executed and the performance analyzed.
IV. CONTROLLER DESIGN PROCESS
The power-train control module (PCM) regulates the engine
and transmission operations so that the torque applied to the
drive wheels permits the desired vehicle motion. The steering
control unit (SCU) provides the steering control authority to the
vehicle via a high-torque motor that displaces the rack. These
two controllers facilitate semi-autonomous and autonomous operating scenarios. From a hardware perspective, global positioning sensors (GPS) can provide the necessary position and
velocity signals with respect to the world frame. Similarly,
on-board sensors will provide the velocities in the body-fixed
frame. The nonlinear control algorithm will now be designed to
ensure trajectory tracking. A detailed stability analysis will be
presented to validate the design.
A. Open-Loop Tracking Error System Formulation
To quantify the control objective, the filtered tracking error
signal s(t) = [sx sy ]T 2 is defined as
1 + r x
1
sx = x

(43)

sy = y 1 + r y1

(44)

where r  represents a constant positive control gain. The

variables x
1 (t), y1 (t) 1 denote the shifted Cartesian tracking error signals, which are
1

x
1 = x1 xr 1

(45)

y1 = y1 yr 1 .

(46)

where w(t) 1 , z(t) = [z1 (t) z2 (t)]T 2 are auxiliary

tracking-error variables. After taking the time derivative of (54)
and using (27), (28), (33), (34), (37), (38), and (41)(47), the
open-loop tracking-error dynamics can be rewritten as
w = uTc J T z + f + 2g()

(49)

z = uc

(50)

u 1 = (m/Izz )[um + urm + (1/)g()]

(51)

where the auxiliary control signal uc (t) = [u1 (t) u2 (t)]T 2

is related to the open-loop signals ut (t) and r(t) according to
the following globally invertible transformation:

u
1 ut
(52)
uc = T
t = T (uc + ).
r
r
The matrix T () 22 and the auxiliary measurable signal
() 2 are defined as

sx sin() + sy cos() 1
T =
(53)
1
0

rr

r 1 cos() + yr 1 sin() (54)
= (Izz /m)r2 + x

1 cos() + y 1 sin())
r (x
with f () 1 denoting an auxiliary signal defined as
f = 2[
xr 1 sin() yr 1 cos() + rr z2 ]
2r (x
1 sin() y 1 cos()).
The skew symmetric matrix J 22 is defined as

0 1
J=
.
1 0

(55)

(56)

Remark 5: Based on the definition of sx (t) and sy (t) given in

(43) and (44), standard arguments [4] can be made to prove that i)
1 (t), y1 (t), x
1 (t), y 1 (t) L , and
if sx (t), sy (t) L , then x
1 (t) and y1 (t) are GUUB.
ii) if sx (t) and sy (t) are GUUB, then x
Remark 6: As illustrated above, the open-loop error system
has been formulated for the shifted Cartesian signals denoted
by, x1 (t), y1 (t), xr 1 (t), and yr 1 (t), which were originally introduced in (31), (39), and (40). To illustrate the significance of
the shifted tracking-error signals, the actual Cartesian tracking
error, denoted by x
(t) and y(t), are defined as
x
= x xr

y = y yr .

(57)

SETLUR et al.: TRAJECTORY TRACKING STEER-BY-WIRE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR GROUND VEHICLES

Equation (57) along with (31), (32), (39), (40), (45), and (46)
can now be used to show that actual Cartesian tracking error can
be written in terms of the shifted Cartesian tracking error as
x
=x
1 + [sin() sin(r )]
y = y1 [cos() cos(r )].

(59)

(60)

| cos() cos(r )| ||.

(61)

Hence, (58)(61), can be used to show that

B. Control Development
The control objective is to design a controller that exponentially forces the Cartesian/orientation tracking error to
a neighborhood of about zero that can be made arbitrarily small (i.e., GUUB). It will be assumed that the signals
x(t), y(t), (t), x(t),

y(t),

and r(t) are available for measurement. To achieve this objective, we define an auxiliary error
signal z(t) 2 as the difference between the subsequently designed auxiliary signal zd (t) 2 and the transformed variable
z(t) defined in (54) as
(63)

In addition, an auxiliary error signal (t) 1 is defined

as the difference between the subsequently designed auxiliary
signal, ud1 (t) 1 and the auxiliary signal u(t) defined in (52)
as
= ud1 u1 .

C. Closed-Loop Error System Development

To facilitate the closed-loop error system development for
w(t), the auxiliary control input ud1 (t) is injected by adding
and subtracting the term ud1 z2 to the right-side of the open-loop
dynamic expression for w(t) given in (49) and then utilizing (64)
to obtain

(64)

w = [ud1

u2 ]T = ua k2 z

(65)

where k2 1 is a positive, constant control gain, and the auxiliary control signal ua (t) 2 is


ua = (k1 w + f )/d2 Jzd + 1 zd .
(66)
The dynamics of the auxiliary control signal denoted by zd (t)
2 are defined by the following oscillator-like relationship [3]:


zd = (d /d )zd + (k1 w + f )/d2 + w1 Jzd
(67)
zdT (0)zd (0) = d2 (0).

(68)

u2 ]J T z z2 + f + 2g().

(71)

After substituting (65) for [ud1 u2 ], adding and subtracting

uTa Jzd to the resulting expression, and utilizing (63), the dynamics for w(t) can be rewritten as
w = uTa Jzd + uTa J z z2 + f + 2g()

(72)

where the fact that J T = J has been applied. Finally, by substituting (66) for only the first occurrence of ua (t) in (72), exploiting the skew symmetry of J defined in (56), and observing
that J T J = I2 (Note that I2 denotes the standard 2 2 identity
matrix), the final expression for the closed-loop error system for
w(t) becomes
w = k1p w 4kn 1 w + uTa J z z2 + 2g()

(73)

where k1p , kn 1  are chosen to satisfy k1 = k1p + 4kn 1 .

To determine the closed-loop error system for z(t), the time
derivative of (63) is taken, (67) is substituted for zd (t), and (50)
is substituted for z(t),

so that


z = (d /d )zd + (k1 w + f )/d2 + w1 Jzd
1

[ud1 u2 ]T + [ 0]T

(74)

where the auxiliary control input ud1 (t) was injected by adding
and subtracting [ud1 0]T to the right-side of (74) and then (64)
was applied. The final expression for the closed-loop error system for z(t) is obtained by following a similar procedure to [3]
as

Based on the subsequent stability analysis and the structure of

the open-loop error system given in (49) and (50), the auxiliary
signal ud (t) is designed as
[ud1

(70)

with k1 , 0 , 1 , 1  being positive, constant design parameters, and f () defined in (55).

(62)

are GUUB, then

From (62), it is clear that if x
1 (t), y1 (t), (t)
x
(t) and y(t) are GUUB.
Remark 7: During the subsequent section, the open-loop
tracking-error system given in (49)(51) will be utilized to design the control inputs for the signals u2 (t) and um (t). It may be
noted that the actual control input ut (t) can then be calculated
by using (52).

z = zd z.

d = 0 exp(1 t) + 1

(69)

| sin() sin(r )| ||

|
y | |
y1 | + ||.

The auxiliary terms 1 (t), d (t) 1 are defined as



1 = k2 + (d /d ) + (k1 w2 + wf )/d2

(58)

In addition, it may be noted that as a direct consequence of the

mean-value theorem [24], it can be shown that

|
x| |
x1 | + ||

81

z = k2 z + wJua + [

0]T .

(75)

Based on the subsequent stability analysis, um (t) is designed

as
um = k3 z1 + wz2 (Izz /m)u d1 + urm + (1/)g()
(76)
where k3 1 is a positive constant control gain, and the explicit definition for u d1 (t) is given in the Appendix. To develop
the closed-loop error system for (t), the time derivative of (64)
is taken and then the control input is substituted as defined in
(76) such that
(Izz /m) = k3 + wz2 z1
where (51) has been substituted for u 1 (t).

(77)

82

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

D. Stability Analysis
Theorem 1: Given the closed-loop system of (73), (75), and
(77), the position/orientation tracking error signals defined in
(47) and (57) are GUUB in the sense that

|
x(t)|, |
y (t)|, |(t)|
4 exp(4 t) + 4

(78)

where 4 , 4 , and 4  are positive constants that are explicitly defined in the subsequent stability proof.
Proof: To prove Theorem 1, a non-negative, scalar function, denoted by V (t) 1 , is defined as
1

1 2 Izz 2 1 T
w +
+ z z.
(79)
2
2m
2
After taking the time derivative of (79) and making the appropriate substitutions from (73), (75), and (77), the following
expression may be obtained:


V = w k1p w + uTa J z z2


+ zT k2 z + wJua + [ 0]T


+ [k3 + wz2 z1 ] + 4kn 1 w2 + 2g()w . (80)
V =

After utilizing the fact that J T = J, canceling common terms,

and utilizing (79), V (t) can be upper bounded as


V 2 min{k1p , k2 , k3 }V + 4kn 1 w2 + 2g()w . (81)
Applying the nonlinear damping argument to the bracketed
terms in (81), the following upper bound for V (t) is
|g()|2
V 2 min{k1p , k2 , k3 }V +
.
(82)
kn 1
After completing the squares and utilizing (79), the solution for
the differential inequality given by (82) can be upper bounded
as
V (t) V (0) exp(4 t)
 t
+ (1/kn 1 )
exp(4 (t ))(|g()|2 ) d

(83)

where 4 is some positive scalar constant. It is easy to see that

(83) can be rewritten in the following manner by using (79):



(84)
(t)2 02 exp(24 t) + |g()|2 4 kn 1
where (t) 4 is defined as
= [w

zT ]T .

(85)

The constants 0 , 4  are defined explicitly as follows:

1

0 = (0),

4 = min{k1p , k2 , k3 }.

L . Based on the fact

to conclude that sx (t), sy (t), (t)

that sx (t), sy (t), (t) L and the fact that the reference trajectory is selected so that xr 1 (t), yr 1 (t), r (t), x r 1 (t),
r 1 (t), yr 1 (t) L , (43)(47) can be utilized
y r 1 (t), r (t), x
to conclude that x
1 (t), y1 (t), x 1 (t), y 1 (t), x1 (t), y1 (t), (t)
L , as mentioned in Remark 6. Using the fact

y(t)
L , and from the fact
that sx (t), sy (t), (t), x(t),
that g() L , it is concluded that f (), T () L
from (55) and (53). Based on these facts, (54), (64),
(65), (66), (69), and (70) can now be utilized, to show
that ud1 (t), ua (t), zd (t), 1 (t), u1 (t), u2 (t), () L . From
(52), it can now be concluded that ut (t), r(t) L . Based on
the previous facts, it is easy to show that u d1 (t) L (see the
Appendix for the explicit expression for u d1 (t)). After utilizing
(76), it can now be shown that the control input, um (t) L .
Standard signal-chasing arguments can now be employed to
conclude that all of the remaining signals in the control and the
system remain bounded during closed-loop operation. To prove
(78), it is first shown that z(t) defined in (54) is GUUB by
applying the triangle inequality to (63), and hence, obtain the
following bound for z(t):
z 
z  + zd  1 exp(1 t) + 2

(88)

where (70), (84), and (85) have been utilized, and the positive
constants 1 , 1 , 2 1 are some constants of analysis. Equations (43), (44), (84), (85), (87), (88), and Remark 6 may now
be employed to obtain the following tracking-error bounds:

y1 (t)|, |(t)|
3 exp(3 t) + 3
|
x1 (t)|, |

(89)

where 3 , 3 , and 3 1 are constants of analysis. Utilizing

the observation made in Remark 6, and making use of (89), it
can easily be seen that (78) is valid, where 4 , 4 , and 4 1
are positive constants.
Remark 8: From (78), it is clear that the tracking error vari
ables, x
(t), y(t), and (t),
can be made arbitrarily small by
reducing the design parameter, 1 . Further, the rate of convergence of the errors to this arbitrarily small neighborhood around
zero, can be controlled by proper choice of the design parameters, k1 , k2 , k3 , 1 , and r .
Remark 9: It is easy to show that the proposed controller can
be used to develop a set-point control strategy for the Cartesian
position and orientation of the COM of the vehicle (see [3], for
more details).

(86)

From (84) and (85), it is clear to see that w(t), (t), z(t)
L . After utilizing (63) and the fact that z(t), d (t) L , it is
concluded that z(t), zd (t) L . From the fact that z(t), w(t)
L , the inverse transformation of (54) can be used, which is
explicitly given as

1
1
sx
w
2 sin 0
2 sin + 2 cos
1
z1
sy = 1 cos
0

cos

2
sin

2
2
z2
0
1
0

(87)

V. NUMERICAL RESULTS
The controller design presented in Section IV was implemented on a passenger/light-duty vehicle model [16], per the
governing dynamics discussed in Section II. In this case, the
reference signals that generated the required maneuver were
determined by trial and error. The path-planning problem is
not addressed in this work. In practical applications, the desired
trajectories may be obtained from a lead vehicle or operator. To
demonstrate the general tracking performance, a representative
J-turn was chosen as the desired maneuver and the reference

SETLUR et al.: TRAJECTORY TRACKING STEER-BY-WIRE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR GROUND VEHICLES

Fig. 2.

83

Vehicle reference path for a J-turn maneuver.

Fig. 4.

Vehicle position and angular tracking errors.

The control gains that resulted in the best performance were

k1 = 0.02,
0 = 5,

k2 = 2000,

1 = 0.1,

k3 = 5000,

1 = 0.1

r = 0.1.

All the reference vehicle states were initialized to zero for the
purpose of this simulation. The initial states of the vehicle were
also initialized to zero with the exception of
x(0) = 2 m,

Fig. 3.

Computed reference trajectories.

trajectory was generated by defining urt (t) and urm (t) as

urt = 10t exp(t)
urm = 10 exp(0.05t)(1 exp(0.00905t)).
The generated reference path is displayed in Fig. 2. The reference trajectories xr (t), yr (t), and r (t) that are calculated and
supplied to the controller are presented in Fig. 3. The auxiliary
signal zd (t) was initialized as
zd (0) = [0

1.1]T .

The required function g() in the control signal (76) is calculated from (20), (29), and (30). The vehicle parameters used for
the simulation were
m = 788 kg,
lf = 1 m,

Izz = 1126 kg m2 ,

lr = 2 m,

IRoll = 171 kg m2

C = 6510 N/rad.

(0) = 0.3 rad,

u(0) = 0.1 m/s.

The vehicle dynamics, with integrated steering tracking algorithms, were numerically simulated for t = 150 s. The position
and orientation tracking errors for the maneuver are shown in
Fig. 4. Clearly, the vehicle path closely follows the reference
trajectory. As shown in Fig. 4, the controller quickly compensated for the initial errors and during the transient phase,
the maximum errors were 4.5 m and 1.2 m along the x
and y directions, respectively. The orientation error initially increased to 0.03 radians ( 1.7 ) before reaching a steady
state value close to zero. The steady state position errors x
(t)
and y(t) were within 0.09 m and 0.002 m, respectively.
All errors were within 0.1% of the reference trajectory generated, thus validating the performance of the control algorithm.
The vehicles longitudinal, lateral, and yaw velocities are shown
in Fig. 5.
Remark 10: The controller designed in (76) requires exact
model knowledge (i.e., the exact vehicle parameters such as the
sprung mass of the vehicle, inertia of the vehicle about the yaw
axis, distance from the front axle to the COM and distance from
the rear axle to the COM must be known a priori). In the actual
operating environment, the calculation of these parameters may
be difficult which could result in vehicle model uncertainties.
In such scenarios, robust high gain, high frequency, or adaptive

84

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

and





f = 2 urt + Im 2r cos()



u rt + 2Imr r + urt + Im 2
sin()
r
x
r (
1 cos() + y 1 sin()) + rr z2

+ mIurm z2 + r g() .
REFERENCES

Fig. 5.

Vehicle velocities. Longitudinal u, lateral v, and yaw r.

control techniques similar to those discussed by Dixon et al. [6]

could be employed to deal with parametric uncertainty.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, an exact model knowledge nonlinear tracking controller has been presented to force a vehicles trajectory
to follow a given reference path (or trajectory). A complete
stability analysis, using Lyapunov-based techniques, has been
presented to demonstrate that i) the position and orientation
tracking errors are globally, exponentially forced to a neighborhood of about zero, which can be made arbitrarily small (this
type of stability result is often referred to as practical tracking or GUUB), and ii) a unified framework is developed that
solves the regulation problem and the tracking problem. Representative numerical results were presented to demonstrate the
efficacy of the controller in enabling the vehicle to track a given
trajectory.
APPENDIX
CALCULATION OF u d1
To calculate u d1 (t), the time derivative of (65) is computed
and then the time derivative of ua (t) defined in (66) is substituted
to obtain


u d1 = k1 w + f/d2 zd2 + 2((k1 w + f )d /d3 )zd2 + 1 zd1


+ 1 zd1 k1 w + f /d2 zd2 k2 z1
where the time derivatives of 1 (t) and f (t) are explicitly
given by the following expressions:


k1 w2 + wf d
d
d2
(2k1 w + f )w + wf

1 =
2+
2
d
d
d2
d3

[1] J. Ackermann and W. Sienel, Robust yaw and damping of cars with front
and rear wheel steering, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol, vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 1520, Mar. 1993.
[2] J. Ackermann, J. Guldner, W. Sienel, R. Steinhauser, and V. Utkin,
Linear and nonlinear controller design for robust automotive steering,
IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 132143, Mar.
1995.
[3] A. Behal, W. Dixon, D. Dawson, and Y. Fang, Tracking and regulation
control of an underactuated surface vessel with nonintegrable dynamics,
IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 495500, Mar. 2002.
[4] D. Dawson, J. Hu, and T. Burg, Nonlinear Control of Electric Machinery.
New York: Marcel Dekker, 1998.
[5] W. Dixon, D. Dawson, E. Zergeroglu, and F. Zhang, Robust tracking
and regulation control for mobile robots, Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Contr.:
Special Issue on Control of Underactuated Nonlinear Systems, vol. 10,
no. 4, pp. 199216, 2000.
[6] W. Dixon, D. Dawson, E. Zergeroglu, and A. Behal, Nonlinear Control
of Wheeled Mobile Robots, Lecture Notes in Control and Information
Sciences, Springer-Verlag, 2001.
[7] J. Dugoff, P. Fanches, and L. Segel, An analysis of tire traction properties
and their influence on vehicle dynamic performance, SAE, Paper No.
700377, 1970.
[8] W. Harter, W. Pfeiffer, P. Dominke, G. Ruck, and P. Blessing, Future
electrical steering systems: Realizations with safety requirements, SAE,
Paper No. 2000-01-0822, 2000.
[9] J. Hendrikx, T. Meijlink, and R. Kriens, Application of optimal control
theory to inverse simulation of car handling, Vehicle System Dynamics
Int. J. Vehicle Mechanics Mobility, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 449461,
1996.
[10] G. J. Heydinger, W. R. Garrott, J. P. Chrstos, and D. A. Guenther, A
methodology for validating vehicle dynamics simulations, SAE, Paper
900128, 1990.
[11] M. Jordan, Drive-by-wire will end the era of the handbrake turn, Electron. Eng., vol. 71, no. 875, pp. 2830, 1999.
[12] T. Kohno, S. Takeuchi, M. Momiyama, H. Nimura, E. Ono, and S. Asai,
Development of electric power steering (PS) system with h infinity control, SAE, Paper No. 2000-01-0813, 2000.
[13] M. Kurishige, K. Fukusumi, N. Inoue, T. Kifuku, and S. Otagaki, A
new electric current control strategy for EPS motors, SAE, Paper No.
2001-01-0484, 2001.
[14] C. Lin, G. Ulsoy, and D. LeBlanc, Vehicle dynamics and external disturbance estimation for vehicle path prediction, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst.
Technol., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 508518, May 2000.
[15] P. Martin, S. Devasia, and B. Paden, A different look at output tracking:
Control of a VTOL aircraft, Automatica, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 101107,
1996.
[16] V. Mills, J. Wagner, and D. Dawson, Nonlinear modeling and
analysis of steering systems for hybrid vehicles, in Proc. ASME
IMECE, Design Engineering Division, vol. 112, New York, Nov.
2001, pp. 173180.
[17] S. Millsap and E. Law, Handling enhancement due to an dutomotive
variable ratio electric power steering system using model reference robust
tracking control, SAE, Paper No. 960931, 1996.
[18] T. Nakayama and E. Suda, The present and future of electric power
steering, Int. J. Vehicle Design, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 243254, 1994.
[19] E. Ono, S. Hosoe, H. Tuan, and S. Doi, Bifurcation in vehicle dynamics
and robust front wheel steering control, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol.,
vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 412420, May 1998.
[20] J. Post and E. Law, Modeling, characterization and simulation of automobile power steering systems for the prediction of on-center handling,
SAE, Paper No. 960178, 1996.

SETLUR et al.: TRAJECTORY TRACKING STEER-BY-WIRE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR GROUND VEHICLES

[21] L. Segel, On the lateral stability and control of the automobile as influenced by the dynamics of the steering system, J. Eng. Ind., vol. 88, no. 3,
pp. 283295, 1966.
[22] P. Setlur, D. Dawson, Y. Fang, and B. Costic, Nonlinear tracking control
of the VTOL aircraft, in Proc. 39th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control,
vol. 5, Orlando, FL, 2001, pp. 45924597.
[23] N. Stanton and P. Marsden, Drive-by-wire systems: Some reflections
on the trend to automate the driver role, in Proc. Institut. Mechanical
Engineers, Part D: J. Automobile Eng., vol. 211, no. D4, 1997, pp. 267
276.
[24] M. Stoll, Introduction to Real Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
1997.
[25] J. Wong, Theory of Ground Vehicles. New York: Wiley, 1978.
[26] T. Wong, Hydraulic power steering system design and optimization simulation, SAE, Paper No. 2001-01-0479, 2001.

Pradeep Setlur received the B.E. degree in instrumentation technology from the University of Mysore,
India, in 1995 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
in electrical engineering from Clemson University,
Clemson, SC, in 1999 and 2003, respectively.
He worked as a Post-Doctoral Researcher at
the Biomimetic and Cognitive Robotics Laboratory,
Brooklyn College, The City University of New York,
in 2004. His research interests include modeling and
nonlinear control of robotic and automotive systems.
Dr. Setlur is currently an Assistant Professor in
the Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department, the California State University, Sacramento.

John R. Wagner received the B.S. and M.S. degrees

in mechanical engineering from the State University
of New York , Buffalo, and the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN, in 1983, 1985, and 1989, respectively.
He worked for Delco Electronics and Delphi Automotive Systems from 1989 to 1998. In August 1998,
he joined the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University, Clemson, SC, where he
currently is an Associate Professor. His research interests include nonlinear control theory, behavioral
modeling, diagnostic/prognostic strategies, and mechatronic system design with

85

application to transportation systems. He has established the multi-disciplinary

Automotive Research Laboratory and started the Rockwell Automation Mechatronics Educational Laboratory.

Darren M. Dawson received the B.S. degree in

electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, in 1984. He then worked for
Westinghouse as a control engineer from 1985 to
1987. In 1987, he returned to the Georgia Institute of
Technology, where he received the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering in March 1990.
In July 1990, he joined the Electrical and
Computer Engineering Department at Clemson
University, Clemson, SC, where he currently holds
the position of McQueen Quattlebaum Professor. His
research interests are nonlinear control techniques for mechatronic applications such as electric machinery, robotic systems, aerospace systems, acoustic
noise, underactuated systems, magnetic bearings, mechanical friction, paper
handling/textile machines, flexible beams/robots/rotors, cable structures, and
vision-based systems. He also focuses on the development of real-time hardware and software systems for control implementation.

David Braganza received the B.E. degree from the

University of Pune, India, in 2002 and the M.S.
degree, from Clemson University, Clemson, SC, in
2004, both in electrical engineering. He is currently
pursuing the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering at
Clemson University.
His research interests include modeling and nonlinear control of robotic and autonomous systems and
the development of real-time software for control applications.