Original Article

Proc IMechE Part D:

J Automobile Engineering
226(6) 779794
A robust road bank angle estimation IMechE 2012
Reprints and permissions:
based on a proportionalintegral HN sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954407011430919

filter pid.sagepub.com

Jihwan Kim1, Hyeongcheol Lee1 and Seibum Choi2

Abstract
This paper presents a new robust road bank angle estimation method that does not require a differential global position-
ing system or any additional expensive sensors. A modified bicycle model, which is less sensitive to model uncertainties
than is the conventional bicycle model, is proposed. The road bank angle estimation algorithm designed using this model
can improve robustness against modelling errors and uncertainties. A proportionalintegral HN filter based on the game
theory approach, which is designed for the worst cases with respect to the sensor noises and disturbances, is used as
the estimator in order to improve further the stability and robustness of the bank estimation. The effectiveness and per-
formance of the proposed estimation algorithm are verified by simulations and tests, and the results are compared with
those of previous road bank angle estimation methods.

Keywords
Road bank angle estimation, proportionalintegral HN filter, modified bicycle model, observer-based disturbance
estimation

Date received: 24 January 2011; accepted: 14 October 2011

Introduction manoeuvring in which most rollover accidents actually

Various vehicle chassis control systems have been
developed for modern automobiles to meet increased
performance and safety requirements.17 Since the road
variables, such as the slipperiness, roughness, grade
angle and bank angle, directly affect the vehicle
dynamics, vehicle chassis control systems can benefit
significantly by using information about the road vari-
ables in real applications, in terms of improved control
accuracy, robustness and environmental adaptiveness.
Among the road variables, the road bank angle has a
direct influence on the lateral and roll dynamics of the
vehicle. Therefore, estimation of the road bank angle
has been a significant research topic for vehicle stability
control,8,9 rollover prevention1012 and fault manage-
ment.12,13 The availability of accurate road bank angle
information not only improves the accuracy of lateral
speed estimation, which in turn improves the accuracy
of stability control,1,2,8,9 but also prevents unnecessary
activation of vehicle stability control systems when the
vehicle is on a banked road.2,8 Road bank angle estima-
tion is an essential part of vehicle rollover prevention
systems, because significant road bank angles can create
different vehicle roll behaviours during the transient
occur.10,12 Road bank angle estimation is also necessary
for model-based sensor fault detection.12,13
The road bank angle is difficult to measure directly
with commercially available sensors, because it is often
coupled with other vehicle dynamics in sensor measure-
ments, such as the lateral acceleration and the roll and
pitch angles of the vehicle. For example, the lateral
accelerometer measurement includes not only the accel-
eration of gravity due to the road bank angle but also
the lateral acceleration.8 In other words, it is difficult
to distinguish driving on a banked road from cornering
on a flat low-m surface, by using only the lateral accel-
erometer measurement.
Several studies have been conducted to explore the
estimation of the road bank angle. The road bank
1
Department of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, Hanyang
University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Corresponding author:
Hyeongcheol Lee, Department of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering,
Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Republic of Korea.
Email: hclee@hanyang.ac.kr
780
angle and modelling errors are defined as uncertain
parameters and they are estimated using a disturbance
observer10 and the adaptive control theory.14 These
estimation methods require the side-slip angle, which
can be estimated using the differential global position-
ing system (DGPS) measurement. Different from the
one-antenna global positioning system (GPS), which is
generally used in automotive navigation systems, the
DGPS with two antennae is too expensive to be used in
passenger cars and is frequently unreliable in urban
environments.9 Even though these methods can guar-
antee an acceptable accuracy of estimation, they are
not practical solutions owing to the cost and reliability
issues related to the DGPS. A road bank angle estima-
tion using a vertical accelerometer is proposed.9
However, the vertical accelerometer measurement
also cannot provide an acceptable accuracy of the
road bank angle because the vertical accelerometer is
almost insensitive to the narrow range of vehicle tilts
owing to the non-linearity of the arccosine functional
relation between the vertical acceleration and the vehi-
cle tilt.15
The road bank angle has been estimated using the
differences between the lateral tyre force estimate and
the lateral accelerometer measurement,16 or the differ-
ences between the lateral acceleration measurement and
the products of the yaw rate and the longitudinal
speed17 in the linear observer framework. However,
these methods tend to be inaccurate under transient
driving conditions because they neglect the derivative
term of the lateral velocity of the vehicle. A road bank
angle estimation method based on the transfer function
and dynamic filter compensation (DFC), which is
related to the model uncertainty of the lateral dynamics,
was previously introduced.8,12 This method illustrated
the robustness issues of the road bank angle estimation;
however, the physical meaning of the DFC term was
not explicitly explained in the papers.
Disturbance observers based on the unknown input
observer (UIO), which is a well-known solution for
the state and disturbance estimation of linear systems,
were proposed to estimate the road bank angle.13,18
This method can guarantee the stability and conver-
gence of the estimation error, but estimation by this
method is sensitive to the output changes because of
the derivative term of the output in the observer.
More complex methods that consider the roll
dynamics of vehicles19,20 were developed in order to
estimate the roll angle of the vehicle and the road
bank angle individually. On the other hand, non-lin-
ear modelling and table-based estimation methods21
were developed in order to improve the accuracy of the
state estimation of the lateral dynamics. However, most
of the previous road bank angle estimation methods
explained above did not address the robustness issue of
the estimation due to uncertainties and disturbances,
such as the cornering stiffnesses of the tyres and the
changes in the vehicle mass.
This paper presents a new robust road bank angle
estimation method that does not require DGPS or any
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 226(6)
additional expensive sensors. A modified bicycle model,
which is less sensitive to model uncertainties such as
the cornering stiffnesses of the tyres than is the conven-
tional bicycle model, is proposed in this paper.
Therefore, the road bank angle estimation algorithm
designed using this model can be more robust against
modelling errors and uncertainties than using the con-
ventional bicycle model. A proportionalintegral HN
filter (PIF) based on the game theory approach, which
is designed for the worst cases with respect to the sen-
sor noises and disturbances, is used as the estimator in
order to improve further the stability and robustness of
the bank estimation. The effectiveness and performance
of the proposed estimation algorithm are verified by
simulations and tests, and the results are compared
with those of previous road bank angle estimation
methods.
Vehicle dynamics model
Figure 1 shows the schematic diagrams of the target
system. As shown in Figure 1(a), by assuming the
bicycle model (i.e. by assuming that the dynamics of
the left and right sides of the vehicle are identical) and
no pitch motion, the lateral motion of the vehicle22,23
can be expressed by
may = Fyf + Fyr
= Lf Fyf  Lr Fyr
Iz c 1
The lateral accelerometer measurement consists of three
components, namely the linear motion term, the lateral
motion term and the gravity term, according to22
ay = v_y + vx c_ + g sin (fb + f) 2
where fb is the road bank angle and f is the roll angle
of the vehicle. By equation (2), it is shown that the lat-
eral acceleration measurement includes not only the
dynamic component v_y + vx r of the vehicle motion but
also the gravity component g sin (fb + f) of the road
bank angle and the roll angle. By assuming that the lat-
eral forces of the tyres are linearly proportional to the
cornering stiffnesses of the tyres and that the slip angles
of the tyres are very small, the lateral force of each tyre
can be expressed as22,23
Fyf Cf af = Cf (bf  df )
Fyr Cr ar = Cr br
 _  vy + Lf c_
1 vy + Lf c
bf = tan
vx vx
 
v y  Lr
_
c v y  Lr c_
br = tan1
vx vx
 
Fyf  Fyr 
Cf = , Cr =
af af = 0 ar ar = 0 3
For simplification, let u = fb + f. From equations (1),
(2) and (3), the lateral and yaw motions of a vehicle are
expressed by the state equations
Kim et al. 781

The mathematical model expressed by equations (4)

Lr Lf does not fully agree with the actual system owing to the
f inevitable model uncertainties. Specifically, the modelling
 x axis
error in the cornering stiffnesses Cf and Cr, which results
r vx from the linear lateral force assumption and the small-
ay F yf
F yr f side-slip-angle assumption, is one of the major causes of
y axis the model uncertainties. Moreover, the lateral forces of
(a) the front tyres of a front-wheel-drive vehicle are affected
not only by the side-slip angles but also by the traction
z axis forces. Therefore, the cornering stiffness of the front tyres
of a front-wheel-drive vehicle may incur more model inac-
CG curacies than that of the rear tyres during the traction. A
modified vehicle model describing more accurate vehicle
b lateral and yaw motions can be obtained by eliminating
the cornering stiffness terms of the front tyres from the
mg ay vehicles lateral equations of motion. From equation (2)
h
y axis and the second equation of equation (1), the equations
which do not include the Fyf term can be obtained as

b v_y = ay  vx c_  g sin u
= Lf may  (Lf + Lr )Fyr
Iz c 5
(b)
From equations (5) and (3), the state equations of the
modified vehicle dynamic model can be obtained as
vx x axis x axis

f r vx x_ = Am x + Bm um + Em w
ym = Cm x 6
where
f  
vy
x= , um = ay , w = sin u
c_
Front tyre Rear tyre !
0 vx
Am = (Lf + Lr )Cr (Lf + Lr )Lr Cr
(c) Iz vx  Iz vx
!
Figure 1. Schematic diagrams of the target system: (a) bicycle 1
Bm = Lf m
model of a vehicle; (b) rear view of a vehicle; (c) tyre diagram. Iz
CG: centre of gravity.  
g
Cm = 0 1 , Em =
x_ = Ao x + Bo uo + Eo w 0
yo = C o x + D o uo 4 As shown in equations (6), the modified model is not
affected by the cornering stiffness of the front tyres.
where
Therefore, it can be said that the modified model is less
    sensitive to variations in the cornering stiffnesses of the
vy ay
x= , yo = tyres than is the conventional bicycle model, and the road
c_ c_
bank angle estimation designed using the modified model
uo = df , w = sin u can be more robust against the uncertainties. Similar
0 Lf Cf Lr Cr
1
C +C
 fmvx r   vx analyses can be conducted for rear-wheel-drive vehicles
mvx
Ao = @ L2f Cf + L2r Cr
A by eliminating the cornering stiffness terms of the rear
Lf Cf Lr Cr
 I z vx  I z vx
tyres from the equations of motion of the vehicle.
Cf !
m
Bo = Lf C f Robustness analysis of the estimation
Iz
! methods
Cf + Cr Lf Cf Lr Cr
 mvx  mvx As commented in the previous section, variations in the
Co =
0 1 cornering stiffnesses of the tyres exist under real driving
!  
Cf
g conditions and they make the parameters of the vehicle
Do = m , Eo = model uncertain. For this reason, the effects of the
0 0
parameter uncertainties on the estimation errors should
782 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 226(6)

be analysed in order to improve the robustness of the where

estimation.
In this section, four estimation methods derived DFC(s) = Haw sin u
^ a (s)  sin u ^ v (s)
from equations (4) or equations (6) are explained and + vx Hrw sin u ^ r (s)  sin u ^ v (s)
analysed in order to compare the robustness of the esti- ^ a (s) = Haw 1 Ay (s)  Hau Uo (s)
sin u
mation methods against modelling errors and uncer-
sin u _
^ r (s) = Hrw 1 C(s)  Hru Uo (s)
tainties and, in particular, the modelling error in the
 
cornering stiffnesses Cf and Cr . Hau
For clarity, the uncertainties in the cornering stiff- = Co (sI  Ao )1 Bo + Do
Hru
nesses are denoted DCf and DCr in this paper. The  
Haw
uncertainties in the system matrices of the original vehi- = Co (sI  Ao )1 Eo
cle dynamic model (4) can be expressed by using DCf Hrw
and DCr as If the model uncertainties do not exist, Ay (s) =
0 1 _
Hau Uo (s) + Haw W(s) and C(s) = Hru Uo (s) + Hrw W(s).
DC + DC L DCf Lr DCr
 fmvx r  f mv This yields
DAo = @ A
x

Lf DCf Lr DCr L2f DCf + L2r DCr

 I z vx  Iz vx DFC(s) = Haw W(s) + vx Hrw W(s)
DCf !
_
(Haw + vx Hrw )Ay (s)  vx C(s)
m
DBo = 
Lf DCf g
Iz
! _
(Haw + vx Hrw )gW(s) + Ay (s)  vx C(s)
DCf + DCr Lf DCf Lr DCr
  =
DCo = mvx mvx g
0 0 (Haw + vx Hrw )sVy (s)
 DC  =
f g
DDo = m 7
0 11

On the other hand, for the modified vehicle dynamic In equation (11), (Haw + vx Hrw )=g is a form of
model (6), the uncertainties in the system matrices can second-order low-pass filter and therefore DFC can be
be expressed as considered as an estimation of v_y . If the model uncer-
! tainties exist, the transfer functions of equations (4) can
0 0 be expressed as
DAm = (Lf + Lr ) DCr (L + L )L DC
Iz vx  f Izrvx r r   
Hau
= (Co + DCo )(sI  Ao  DAo )1 (Bo + DBo )
DBm = 0 H ru
 
0 0 + Do + DDo
DCm =   
0 0 Haw
  = (Co + DCo )(sI  Ao  DAo )1 Eo
0 H rw
DDm = 8
0 12
Then, the uncertainties in the transfer functions are
Dynamic filter compensation method  au  Hau ,
DHau = H  ru  Hru
DHru = H
If the derivative of the lateral speed is zero (i.e. v_y = 0),  aw  Haw ,
DHaw = H  rw  Hrw
DHrw = H 13
the road bank angle estimation can be derived from
equation (2) as In this case, the DFC can be obtained as

ay  vx c_ DFC(s) = Haw W(s) + vx Hrw W(s)

sin u
^v = 9 _
(Haw + vx Hrw )Ay (s)  vx C(s)
g 
g
Estimating the road bank angle based on equation (9) + DHau Uo (s) + DHaw W(s) + vx DHru Uo (s)
simplifies the calculation of the estimation,
  but the esti- + vx DHrw W(s)
mation becomes more inaccurate as v_y  becomes larger. (Haw + vx Hrw )sVy (s)
The DFC method8 was proposed to relieve this problem =
g
+ (DHau + vx DHru )Uo (s)
by compensating equation (9) with the DFC term, + (DHaw + vx DHrw )W(s)
according to
   14
d 
^dfc = sin u
w 
^ v max 0, 1  jDFCj   sin u ^ v  Equation (14) implies that the model uncertainties
dt
make the DFC inaccurate from the viewpoint of the v_y
10 estimation because DHau +vx DHru and DHaw +vx DHrw
Kim et al. 783

are non-zero even if the system is in a steady state. For order to make equation (18) asymptotically stable (i.e.
this reason, w^dfc has steady state errors if uo or w are limt! (x  x^uio ) = 0), the equations that should be
not zero. valid are
It was proposed by Tseng8 that the steady state val-
ues of the transfer functions Haw and vx Hrw are actually Euio = Eo (Co Eo ) + Quio I  Co Eo (Co Eo ) 
implemented for the actual automotive applications to Nuio = (I + Euio Co )Ao  Muio Co
mitigate the computational burden, according to Luio = Nuio Euio + Muio
g(Lf + Lr ) Guio = (I + Euio Co )Bo 19
lim Haw = 
s!0 (Lf + Lr ) + Kus v2x
Quio is a constant matrix, which consists of design
gKus v2x parameters and (Co Eo ) is the left inverse of Co Eo
lim vx Hrw =
s!0 (Lf + Lr ) + Kus v2x 15 (i.e. (Co Eo )T Co Eo 1 (Co Eo )T ). The estimation of
w based on the UIO was proposed by Imsland et al.18
where as
Lr m Lf m
Kus =  ^uio = E
w o Luio yuio  Euio y_ uio
(Lf + Lr )Cf (Lf + Lr )Cr
(Luio Co  Euio Co Ao )^
xuio + Euio Co Bo uo  20
If the model uncertainties do not exist,
Unknown input observer method
Eo (w  w
^uio ) = Eo w  Luio Co x + Euio Co (Ao x + Bo uo + Eo w)
The UIO is a state observer designed to decouple the + (Luio Co  Euio Co Ao )^xuio  Euio Co Bo uo
state estimation error from the disturbance.24 The dis- = (Euio Co Ao  Luio Co )(x  x^uio ) + (I + Euio Co )Eo w
turbance can be estimated by using the state estima-
= (Euio Co Ao  Luio Co )(x  x^uio )
tion of the UIO. The form of the UIO13,18 is expressed
by 21
This shows that equation (20) was designed to achieve
z_uio = Nuio zuio + Luio yuio + Guio uo
^uio = w by using limt! (x  x^uio ) = 0 but, if the
limt! w
x^uio = zuio  Euio yuio 16 model uncertainties exist, the derivative of x^uio is chan-
ged to
where

yuio = yo  Do uo
Nuio , Luio , Guio and Euio can be designed by the fol-
lowing steps. The derivative of x^uio can be derived from
equations (4) and (16) as
x^_ uio = z_uio  Euio Co x_
= Nuio zuio + Luio yo + (Guio  Luio Do )uo
 Euio Co (Ao x + Bo uo + Eo w)
If the model uncertainties do not exist, the dynamics of
the estimation error are given by
x_  x^_ uio = (I + Euio Co )(Ao x + Bo uo + Eo w)  Nuio zuio  Luio yo
 (Guio  Luio Do )uo
= (I + Euio Co )Ao  Muio Co (x  x^uio ) + Muio Co x
+ (I + Euio Co )Ao  Muio Co ^xuio + (I + Euio Co )Bo uo
+ (I + Euio Co )Eo w  Nuio zuio  Luio yo  (Guio  Luio Do )uo
= (I + Euio Co )Ao  Muio Co (x  x^uio )
+ (I + Euio Co )Ao  Muio Co  Nuio zuio
+ (I + Euio Co )Ao Euio + Muio Co Euio + Muio  Luio yo
+ f(I + Euio Co )Ao  Muio Co Euio Do + (Luio  Muio )Do
+ (I + Euio Co )Bo  Guio guo + (I + Euio Co )Eo w
where Muio is a constant matrix, which should be
selected to make (I + Euio Co )Ao  Muio Co stable. In
x^_ uio = z_uio  Euio (Co + DCo )x_  Euio DDo u_ o
= Nuio zuio + Luio yo + (Guio  Luio Do )uo
 Euio (Co + DCo )(Ao x + DAo x + Bo uo
+ DBo uo + Eo w)  Euio DDo u_ o 22
Then, the error dynamics of the UIO are given by
17 x_  x^_ uio = (I + Euio Co + Euio DCo )(Ao x + DAo x
+ Bo uo + DBo uo + Eo w)
 Nuio zuio  Luio yo  (Guio  Luio Do )uo
+ Euio DDo u_ o
= Nuio (x  x^uio ) + Muio Co x + Nuio x^uio
 Nuio zuio  Luio yo + Luio Do uo
+ Euio DCo (Ao x + DAo x + Bo uo + DBo uo + Eo w)
+ (I + Euio Co )(DAo x + DBo uo ) + Euio DDo u_ o
= Nuio (x  x^uio ) + Euio DCo Eo w + Euio DDo u_ o
+ (I + Euio Co ) DAo  Muio DCo
+ Euio DCo (Ao + DAo )x
+ (I + Euio Co ) DBo  Muio DDo
+ Euio DCo (Bo + DBo )uo
18 23
This means that limt! (x  x^uio ) 6 0 if the model
^uio is
uncertainties exist. The error of w
784 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 226(6)

   1
Eo (w  w
^uio ) = Eo w  Luio (Co + DCo )x  Luio DDo uo x  x^po Ao  Kpo1 Co Eo
lim =
+ Euio Co (Ao x + DAo x + Bo uo t! w  w ^po Kpo2 Co 0
  
+ DBo uo + Eo w) Kpo1 I DCo x + DDo uo
3 29
+ (Luio Co  Euio Co Ao )^ xuio  Euio Co Bo uo Kpo2 0 DAo x + DBo uo
= (Euio Co Ao  Luio Co )(x  x^uio )
It is possible to select Kpo1 and Kpo2 to minimize equa-
+ (Euio Co DAo  Luio DCo )x
tion (29) at the cost of reducing the freedom of the
+ (Euio Co DBo  Luio DDo )uo observer design (e.g. pole placement methods should be
24 modified in order to minimize equation (29)). However,
variations in the other vehicle parameters are ignored
Therefore, it is concluded that the model uncertain- in equation (29) and they can amplify the steady state
ties make both x^uio and w ^uio inaccurate and w ^uio has error of the estimation even if equation (29) is mini-
steady state errors if x or uo are not zero. mized by the gain selection.
Because differentiating the output amplifies the
effect of the sensor noise, a low-pass filter is used in this
paper according to PIO of the modified vehicle dynamic
model
s
y^_uio (s) = yuio (s) 25
t uio s + 1 A PIO can be derived from the modified vehicle
dynamic model (6) according to
where t uio is the time constant of the filter.
x^_ pm = Am x^pm + Bm um + Kpm1 (ym  y^m ) + Em w
^pm
w ^_ pm = Kpm2 (ym  y^ ), y^ = Cm x^pm
Proportionalintegral observer of the original m m

vehicle dynamic model 30

The proportionalintegral observer (PIO) is a state where Kpm1 and Kpm2 are the observer gain matrices. If
observer designed to reduce the steady state error by the model uncertainties exist, the error dynamics of the
using one or more integration terms of the estimation PIO of the modified model are given by
error.25,26 A PIO can be derived from the original vehi-
cle dynamic model (4) as x_  x^_ pm = (Am  Kpm1 Cm )(x  x^pm ) + Em (w  w
^pm ) + DAm x
w_  w _
^pm =  Kpm2 Cm (x  x^pm ) + w_
x^_ po = Ao x^po + Bo uo + Kpo1 (yo  y^o ) + Eo w
^po 31
^_ po = Kpo2 (yo  y^o ),
w y^o = Co x^po + Do uo 26
If the time goes to infinity
where Kpo1 and Kpo2 are the observer gain matrices. If  1
the model uncertainties do not exist, the dynamics of Am  Kpm1 Cm Em
lim (w  w
^pm ) = 0 I
the estimation error are given by t! Kpm2 Cm 0
 
DAm x
x_  x^_ po = (Ao  Kpo1 Co )(x  x^pio ) + Eo (w  w
^po ) 3 =0 32
0
w_  w _
^po = Kpo2 Co (x  x^po ) + w_
Therefore, it is concluded that the PIO of the modi-
27 fied model can eliminate the steady state error of w ^pm
even if DAm exists. It is notable that the steady state
This means that Kpo1 and Kpo2 should be selected
error remains zero even if variations in the other vehicle
to make Ao  Kpo1 Co and Kpo2 Co stable. If the
parameters exist owing to the structure of equations
model uncertainties exist, the error dynamics of the
(6).
PIO derived from the original model are changed
to
Proposed road bank angle estimation
x_  x^_ po = (Ao  Kpo1 Co )(x  x^po ) + Eo (w  w
^po ) method
+ (DAo x + DBo uo )  Kpo1 (DCo x + DDo uo )
The results of the previous section show that the PIO
w_  w _
^po = Kpo2 Co (x  x^po ) + w_  Kpo2 (DCo x derived from the modified model is the best solution
+ DDo uo ) from the viewpoint of the robust performance of the
28 steady state error. This paper proposes to apply the
PIO algorithm to the bank angle estimation using the
If the time goes to infinity, the error dynamics of the modified vehicle model (6). By assigning w = sin u as a
PIO become new state, equations (6) can be modified as
Kim et al. 785

x_ w = Aw xw + Bw um + Ew n where e = n v xw (0)  x^w (0)T . The robustness of

ym = Cw xw + v the estimation can be achieved by ensuring that kew k
is less than a certain value.30 The system N-norm of
w = Lw xw 33 Gerr is defined as31
where v
u t f
u kew k dt
0 1 kGerr k = sup t 0 tf
vy
d
e60 0 kek dt
B C v
xw = @ c_ A, n= sin u u tf
dt u ^T
0 (w  w) (w  w) dt
^
w = sup t T t
0 1 e60 xw (0)  x^w (0) xw (0)  x^w (0) + 0f (nT n + vT v) dt
0 vx g
B C 39
Aw = @ (Lf +
Iv
Lr )Cr

(Lf + Lr )Lr Cr
I z vx 0 A
z x

0 0 0 where sup stands for supremum. Because the goal of

0 1 the H filter is to make kGerr k less than a certain value,
1
BL mC the cost function of the H filter is defined as2830
Bw = @ Ifz A, Cw = 0 1 0
0 Jw =
0 1 tf
0 0 (w  w)^ T S(w  w)
^ dt
B C T 1
t
E w = @ 0 A, Lw = 0 0 1 xw (0)  x^w (0) P0 xw (0)  x^w (0) + 0f (nT Q1 n + vT R1 v) dt
1 40

and v is the noise in the yaw rate measurement such as
offset and stiction.27 It is notable that the Luenberger
observer derived from equations (33) is the same as the
PIO in equations (30).
Because the rank of the observability matrix of the
system described by equations (33) is
 T
rank Cw Cw Aw Cw A2w =3
the system described by equation (34) is observable.
In order to make the observer derived from equa-
tions (33) robust against a set of disturbances including
the disturbance term n and the noise term v, this paper
proposes to use a continuous-time HN filter based on
the game theory approach.2830 The error of the road
bank angle estimation is
ew = w  w
^ 35
where w
^ is the estimation of the road bank angle term.
Because the input um and the output ym are the only
known terms, the estimate of the road bank angle term
should be derived from them. Let
w^ = Lw x^w
x^w = fest (um , ym , x^w (0))
where fest (um , ym , x^w (0)) is the estimation function, which
should be determined. From equations (33), (35) and
(36), the estimation error at time 0 can be derived as
ew (0) = w(0)  w(0)
^ P(0) = P0
= Lw xw (0)  x^w (0)
On the basis of equations (33), (35), (36) and (37), it can
be said that the estimation error ew is a function of n, v
and xw (0)  x^w (0). Therefore, ew can be expressed as
ew (s) = Gerr (s)e(s)
where P0 , Q, R and S are positive definite matrices that
depend on the performance requirements. Because all
the state equation matrices of equations (33) are contin-
uous, the system N-norm kGerr k is finite.31 This means
that there exists a positive scalar u such that the optimal
estimation w^ satisfies
1
34 sup Jw 4 41
e60 u
Conditions of the existence of a bound on the
system N-norm kGerr k and the lower bound of the
N-norm can be derived using theorems given by
Burl;31 therefore the upper bound of u can also be
derived.30 The derivation of the upper bound of u is
omitted because it is beyond the scope of this paper.
The continuous-time H filter can be derived from
equation (41) as
x^_ w = Aw x^w + Bw um + PCTw R1 (ym  Cw x^w ) 42
where
^ = Lw x^w ,
w x^w (0) = x^w0
36 and as
P_ = Aw P + PATw + Ew QETw
P(CTw R1 Cw  uLTw SLw )P 43
where
37
and P is a symmetric positive definite matrix if the
solution of equation (43) exists 8t 2 0, tf . The
detailed derivations of equations (42) and (43) can be
found in the papers by Banavar and Speyer28 and de
Souza et al.29 It is notable that the solution of the
38 algebraic Riccati form of equation (43) can be used as
786 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 226(6)

Table 1. Parameters of the test vehicle.

Symbol Quantity Value

m Mass of the vehicle 1687 kg

Iz Yaw moment of inertia 3401 kg m2
Lf Distance from the front axle to the centre of gravity 1.15 m
Lr Distance from the rear axle to the centre of gravity 1.47 m
Cf ss Cornering stiffness of the front tyres 115,000 N/rad
Cr ss Cornering stiffness of the rear tyres 396,820 N/rad

P0 in order to reduce the calculation complexity of Table 2. Parameters of the UIO method.
equation (43) by taking the risk of increasing the esti-
mation errors due to the initial state xw (0).30 In this Symbol Quantity Selected value
case, the steady-state HN filter can be obtained from  
Muio Weight matrix for the outputs 10 10
equations (42) and (43) as
 10 10
Quio Weight matrix for Euio 1 1
x^_ w = Aw x^w + Bw um + P0 CTw R1 (ym  Cw x^w ) 1 1
Aw P0 + P0 ATw + Ew QETw t uio Time constant of the filter 1/9

P0 (CTw R1 Cw  uLTw SLw )P0 = 0 44

where Table 3. Parameters of the PIO method.
T
^ = Lw x^w , x^w (0) = 0 0
w 0 Symbol Quantity Selected value
Since w = sinfb + f, the roll angle estimation f is !
Kpo1 Gain matrix for ^xpo 1  v2x
necessary in order to separate the road bank angle esti- Cf L2f + Cr L2r
0  2Iz vx
mation from w.^ The roll angle can be estimated using a
Kpo2 ^ po
Gain matrix for w 0 2
vehicle-dynamics-based roll estimation method.32

Simulation results
Simulations were performed in order to verify the effec-
tiveness and performance of the proposed estimation
algorithm. A front-wheel-drive sport utility vehicle
(SUV) model in CarSim was selected as the vehicle
model, and the proposed estimation algorithm was
implemented by MATLAB/Simulink using the para-
meters shown in Table 1. The cornering stiffnesses Cf ss
and Cr ss used for the estimator design were calculated
by using the results of steady state cornering simula-
tions and experiments. The lateral acceleration, the
yaw rate and the longitudinal speed are assumed to be
known in the simulations. These signals are normally
available through the in-vehicle network of modern
vehicles equipped with an electronic stability program
(ESP).
In order to assess the performance and robustness of
the proposed algorithm, the DFC method,8 the UIO
method13,18 and the PIO method,25,26 which do not
require DGPS or any additional expensive sensors,
were also implemented and simulated in this paper.
The estimation parameters of the methods are carefully
tuned to produce the best results. The estimation para-
meters for the UIO, the PIO and the PIF methods are
decided by hand tuning processes based on the results
of various simulations and experiments. The para-
meters identified through the processes are shown in
Tables 2,3 and 4.
Table 4. Parameters of the PIF method.
Symbol Quantity Selected value
Q Weight matrix for the 0.1
disturbances
R Weight matrix for the noises 0.0035
S Weight matrix for the 1
estimation errors 0 1
P0 Initial value of the Riccati equation 0 0 0
@0 0 0 A
0 0 0:5
u Parameter for the cost function 1
Straight road with a constant bank angle
Figure 2 shows simulation results when the vehicle tra-
vels on a straight road with a constant bank angle
(30% = 16.7). The vehicle was driven for 15 s with a
constant longitudinal speed (80 km/h) and maintained a
straight direction on the banked road. The purpose of
this simulation is to compare the performance of the
road bank angle estimation methods during steady state
cornering on the banked road. Simulations were con-
ducted for several different driving conditions with dif-
ferent types of modelling error and uncertainty in order
to examine the robustness of the bank angle estimation
methods. Figure 2(b) shows the simulation results when
the driving condition is the same as the driving
Kim et al. 787

30 10
Throttle Angle Steering Wheel Angle
25
5

Steering Wheel Angle (deg)

Throttle Angle (deg)

20
0
15

-5
10

-10
5

0 -15
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (s) Time (s)

(a)
0 0
Reference Reference
PIF Method PIF Method
PIO Method PIO Method
-5 -5
Estimated Angle (deg)

Estimated Angle (deg)

DFC Method DFC Method
UIO Method UIO Method

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (s) Time (s)

(b) (c)
0 0
Reference Reference
PIF Method PIF Method
PIO Method PIO Method
-5 -5
Estimated Angle (deg)

Estimated Angle (deg)

DFC Method DFC Method

UIO Method UIO Method

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (s) Time (s)

(d) (e)
Figure 2. Simulation results (constant road bank angle): (a) driver inputs; (b) estimated u (m = 0:85); (c) estimated u (m = 0:3); (d)
estimated u (ay = ay real cos (108 )); (e) estimated u (Cf = 1:2Cf ss ).
PIF: proportionalintegral HN filter; PIO: proportionalintegral observer; DFC: dynamic filter compensation; UIO: unknown input observer.

condition used for the estimation algorithm design.
Figure 2(c) shows the simulation results when the road
surface condition becomes more slippery (i.e. low m).
Figure 2(d) shows the simulation results when the lat-
eral acceleration is measured incorrectly owing to the
misaligned installation of the accelerometer and Figure
2(e) shows the simulation results when the actual cor-
nering stiffness Cf is different from the cornering stiff-
ness Cf ss used for designing the estimation algorithm in
Table 1, owing to the changes in the vehicle mass (e.g.
more passengers). Simulation results were obtained by
using the PIF method based on the modified vehicle
788 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 226(6)

30 60
Throttle Angle Steering Wheel Angle
25
40

Steering Wheel Angle (deg)

Throttle Angle (deg)

20
20
15

0
10

-20
5

0 -40
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (s) Time (s)

(a)

40 40
Reference Reference
30 PIF Method 30 PIF Method
PIO Method PIO Method
Estimated Angle (deg)

DFC Method Estimated Angle (deg) DFC Method

20 20
UIO Method UIO Method

10 10

0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (s) Time (s)

(b) (c)

40 40
Reference Reference
30 PIF Method 30 PIF Method
PIO Method PIO Method
Estimated Angle (deg)

Estimated Angle (deg)

DFC Method DFC Method

20 20
UIO Method UIO Method

10 10

0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (s) Time (s)

(d) (e)

Figure 3. Simulation results (double lane change on a flat road): (a) driver inputs; (b) estimated u (m = 0:85); (c) estimated u
(m = 0:3); (d) estimated u (ay = ay real cos (108 )); (e) estimated u (Cf = 1:2Cf ss ).
PIF: proportionalintegral HN filter; PIO: proportionalintegral observer; DFC: dynamic filter compensation; UIO: unknown input observer.

model, and by the PIO method, the DFC method and CarSim. As shown in the figures, because of the integral
the UIO method based on the original model (4). The state in the observers, the PIF and the PIO methods
curves labelled Reference in Figure 2(b),(c),(d) and (e) yield better performances on estimating the bank angle
are calculated as the difference between the absolute without the steady state errors than the DFC and the
heights of the left and the right wheels provided by UIO methods do.
Kim et al. 789

30 400
Throttle Angle Steering Wheel Angle
300
25

Steering Wheel Angle (deg)

200
Throttle Angle (deg)

20
100

15 0

-100
10
-200
5
-300

0 -400
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s) Time (s)

(a)
20 20
Reference Reference
15 PIF Method 15 PIF Method
PIO Method PIO Method
10 10
Estimated Angle (deg)

DFC Method Estimated Angle (deg) DFC Method

5 UIO Method 5 UIO Method

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s) Time (s)

(b) (c)
20 20
100% Cf 100% Cf
15 150% Cf 15 150% Cf
50% Cf 50% Cf
10 10
Estimated Angle (deg)

Estimated Angle (deg)

5 5

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s) Time (s)

(d) (e)
Figure 4. Simulation results (S-curve manoeuvre on a flat road): (a) driver inputs; (b) estimated u (m = 0:85); (c) estimated u
(m = 0:3); (d) robustness of PIF with the modified vehicle model (m = 0:85); (e) robustness of PIF with the original vehicle model
(m = 0:85).
PIF: proportionalintegral HN filter; PIO: proportionalintegral observer; DFC: dynamic filter compensation; UIO: unknown input observer.
790
 olution, 6 0.3 deg/s; sensitivity, 18 mV/(deg/s)) and a


 
/DQH /DQH /DQH /DQH
Figure 5. Test lanes and road bank angle status.
Bank angle change on a straight road
Figure 3 shows the simulation results when the vehicle
travels on a straight road with two lanes, flat and
banked (25% = 14) lane, and changes lanes. Figure
3(a) shows the driving manoeuvre. The purpose of this
simulation is to compare the performances of the road
bank angle estimation methods when the road bank
angle is changed. Similar to the constant-bank-angle
case, simulations were conducted for several different
driving conditions with different types of modelling
error and uncertainty. The simulation results show that
the modified-model-based PIF method yields the best
performance and robustness in estimating the road
bank angle and maintains its accuracy even in the pres-
ence of the model uncertainties.
S-curve manoeuvre on a flat road
Figure 4 shows the simulation results when the vehicle
travels on a flat road during an S-curve manoeuvre
( 6 360) at 60 km/h. The purpose of this simulation is
to compare the values of the performance and robust-
ness of the road bank angle estimation methods when
the steering-wheel angle is large and the driving condi-
tions are severe.
Figure 4(b) and (c) shows the estimation results of
the reference, the PIF, the PIO, the DFC and the UIO
methods. Among these, the PIF method shows the best
estimation performance. Figure 3(d) and (e) shows
simulation results when the actual cornering stiffness Cf
differs from the cornering stiffness Cf ss used for design-
ing the estimation algorithm in Table 1 by 150% or
50% (m = 0:85). The results show that the PIF method
based on the modified vehicle model yields better per-
formance and robustness against the model uncertain-
ties (Cf changes) than does the PIF method based on
the original vehicle model.
Test validation
In order to verify the effectiveness and performance of
the proposed method, vehicle tests were conducted
under several different driving conditions. The test vehi-
cle is an SUV equipped with an ESP and the test track
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 226(6)
is a high-speed circuit at the Korea Transportation
Safety Authority. The ESP system contains several sen-
sors, such as a yaw rate sensor (range, 6 100 deg/s; res-
lateral accelerometer (range, 6 1.8 g; resolution,
6 0.005 g; sensitivity, 1 V/g), which are also used in the
bank angle estimation algorithm.
The test track consists of two straight courses and
two cornering courses, and each course has four lanes,
as shown in Figure 5. All the lanes are asphalt lanes
and 16.2 m wide. Since the same vehicle is used in the
simulations and vehicle tests, the same estimation algo-
rithms and parameters used in the simulations are
applied to the vehicle tests.
To mitigate the effect of the sensor noise on the road
bank angle estimation, the reference bank angle and the
bank angle estimation by the DFC method are filtered
by a first-order low-pass filter (time constant, 2/3). The
reference value of the bank angle is calculated from
 
1 ay  v_y  vx c_
ureference = sin 45
g
and assumed to be the actual bank angle in the test.
The lateral acceleration v_y is calculated from the lateral
velocity signal which is measured using a Corrsys SCE
optical two-axis velocity sensor from Corrsys-Datron
Co.
Straight driving on lane 1
Figure 6 shows the experimental results when the vehi-
cle travels in lane 1, which is similar to the constant-
steering-angle test in the simulation. As shown in
Figure 6(a), the vehicle was driven for 15 s with a nearly
constant longitudinal speed (about 143 km/h) and a
nearly constant steering angle with only small adjust-
ments. The results shown in Figure 6(b) and (c) are
similar to the simulation results shown in Figure 3(b)
and (e). The DFC and UIO methods cause steady state
errors in Figure 6(b), and the errors are increased in
Figure 6(c) owing to the model uncertainties regarding
the cornering stiffness of the front tyres. Similar to the
simulation results, the proposed PIF and PIO methods
show good accuracy in the sense of the r.m.s. error and
robustness against the model uncertainties.
Lane change between lanes 2 and 3
Figure 7 shows the experimental results when the vehi-
cle travelled between lanes 2 and 3. As shown in Figure
7(a), the vehicle was driven for 25 s with several lane
change manoeuvres. As shown in Figure 7(c) and (d),
the proposed PIF with the modified vehicle model
shows better robustness against the model uncertainties
(Cf changes) than does the PIF with the original vehicle
model.
Kim et al. 791

150
Long. Vehicle Speed

v (kph)
145

x
140

10
Steering Wheel Angle
5
f (deg)

-5

5
ay (m/s 2), (deg/s)

Lateral Acceleration
Yaw Rate
0

-5

0 5 10 15
Time (s)

(a)
70 70
Reference w/ LPF Reference w/ LPF
60 PIF Method 60 PIF Method
PIO Method PIO Method
Estimated Angle (deg)

Estimated Angle (deg)

50 DFC Method w/ LPF 50 DFC Method w/ LPF

UIO Method w/ LPF UIO Method w/ LPF
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (s) Time (s)

(b) (c)
Figure 6. Test results (lane 1): (a) vehicle states from sensors; (b) estimated u (Cf = Cf ss ); (c) estimated u (Cf = 1:2Cf ss ).
Long.: longitudinal; w/ LPF: with a low-pass filter; PIF: proportionalintegral HN filter; PIO: proportionalintegral observer; DFC: dynamic filter
compensation; UIO: unknown input observer.

Conclusion
on the game theory approach, which is designed for
This paper presents a new robust road bank angle the worst cases with respect to the sensor noises and
estimation method that is based on a PIF and does disturbances, is used as the estimator in order to
not require expensive sensors such as the DGPS. In improve further the stability and robustness of the
this work, the robustness of the estimation was bank estimation. Simulations and actual vehicle tests
enforced by the use of a more robust system model are conducted for various road and vehicle driving
and a robust estimation algorithm. A modified bicycle conditions. The simulation and vehicle test results
model, which reduces the model uncertainty by elimi- showed that the proposed PIF method provides the
nating the lateral force term of the front tyre from the best accuracy and robustness against the model uncer-
system equation, was derived and used to design a tainties compared with the previous methods, such as
road bank angle estimation algorithm. A PIF based the DFC and the UIO methods.
792 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 226(6)

160
Long. Vehicle Speed
150

v (kph)
140

x
130

120

100 Steering Wheel Angle

f (deg)

-100

40
ay (m/s2), (deg/s)

Lateral Acceleration
20 Yaw Rate

-20

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)

(a)
60 60
Reference w/ LPF Reference w/ LPF
50 PIF Method 50 PIF Method
PIO Method PIO Method
40 40
Estimated Angle (deg)

Estimated Angle (deg)

DFC Method w/ LPF DFC Method w/ LPF

30 UIO Method w/ LPF 30 UIO Method w/ LPF

20 20

10 10

0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 15 20 25
Time (s) Time (s)

(b)
60 60
100% Cf 100% Cf
50 150% Cf 50 150% Cf
50% Cf 50% Cf
40 40
Estimated Angle (deg)

Estimated Angle (deg)

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20
15 20 25 15 20 25
Time (s) Time (s)

(c) (d)

Figure 7. Test results (lane 2 $ lane 3): (a) vehicle states from sensors; (b) estimated u; (c) robustness of PIF with the modified
vehicle model; (d) robustness of PIF with the original vehicle model.
Long.: longitudinal; w/ LPF: with a low-pass filter; PIF: proportionalintegral HN filter; PIO: proportionalintegral observer; DFC: dynamic filter
compensation; UIO: unknown input observer.
Kim et al.
Funding
This work was supported by Industry Source
Foundation Establishment Project (grant no. 10037355)
from the Korea Institute for Advancement of
Technology, funded by the Ministry of Knowledge
Economy, Republic of Korea, and the research fund of
Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
References
1. Van Zanten AT, Erhardt R and Pfaff G. VDC, the vehicle
dynamic control system of Bosch. SAE paper 950759, 1995.
2. Tseng HE, Ashrafi B, Madau D, et al. The development
of vehicle stability control at Ford. IEEE/ASME Trans
Mechatronics 1999; 4(3): 223234.
3. Yoon J, Cho W, Koo B and Yi K. Unified chassis con-
trol for rollover prevention and lateral stability. IEEE
Trans Veh Technol 2009; 58(2): 596609.
4. Park J-I, Yoon J-Y, Kim D-S and Yi K-S. Roll state esti-
mator for rollover mitigation control. Proc IMechE Part
D: J Automobile Engineering 2008; 222(8): 12891311.
5. Cetin AE, Adli MA, Barkana DE and Kucuk H. Imple-
mentation and development of an adaptive steering-
control system. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2010; 59(1):
7583.
6. Zheng B and Anwar S. Yaw stability control of a steer-
by-wire equipped vehicle via active front wheel steering.
Mechatronics 2009; 19(6): 799804.
7. Sankaranarayanan V, Emekli ME, Guvenc BA, et al.
Semiactive suspension control of a light commercial
vehicle. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatronics 2008; 13(5):
598604.
8. Tseng HE. Dynamic estimation of road bank angle. Veh
System Dynamics 2001; 36(45): 307328.
9. Piyabongkarn D, Rajamani R, Grogg JA and Lew JY.
Development and experimental evaluation of a slip angle
estimator for vehicle stability control. IEEE Trans Con-
trol Systems Technol 2009; 17(1): 7888.
10. Ryu J and Gerdes JC. Estimation of vehicle roll and road
bank angle. In: 2004 American control conference, Boston,
MA, USA, 30 June2 July 2004, vol 3, pp. 21102115.
New York: IEEE.
11. Rajamani R, Piyabongkarn D, Tsourapas V and Lew
JY. Real-time estimation of roll angle and CG height for
active rollover prevention applications. In: 2009 Ameri-
can control conference, St Louis, MO, USA, 1012 June
2009, pp. 433438. New York: IEEE.
12. Xu L and Tseng HE. Robust model-based fault detection
for a roll stability control system. IEEE Trans Control
Systems Technol 2007; 15(3): 519528.
13. Mammer S, Glaser S and Netto M. Vehicle lateral
dynamics estimation using unknown input proportional-
integral observers. In: 2006 American control conference,
Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1416 June 2006, pp. 4658
4663. New York: IEEE.
14. Hahn JO, Rajamani R, You SH and Lee KI. Real-time
identification of road bank angle using differential GPS.
IEEE Trans Control Systems Technol 2004; 12: 589599.
15. Luczak S, Oleksiuk W and Bodnicki M. Sensing tilt with
MEMS accelerometers. IEEE Sensors J 2006; 6(6): 1669
1675.
16. Fukada Y. Estimation of vehicle slip-angle with combi-
nation method of model observer and direct integration.
793
In: 4th international symposium on advanced vehicle con-
trol, Nagoya, Japan, 1418 September 1998, pp. 375388.
Tokyo: JSAE.
17. Nishio A, Tozu K, Yamaguchi H, et al. Development of
vehicle stability control system based on vehicle sideslip
angle estimation. SAE paper 2001-01-0137, 2001.
18. Imsland L, Grip HF, Johansen TA and Fossen TI. On
nonlinear unknown input observers applied to lateral
vehicle velocity estimation on banked roads. Int J Control
2006; 80(11): 17411750.
19. Hsu L-Y and Chen T-L. Estimating road angles with the
knowledge of the vehicle yaw angle. Trans ASME, J
Dynamic Systems, Measmt, Control 2010; 132(3): 31004.
20. Sebsadji Y, Glaser S and Mammar S. Vehicle roll and
road bank angles estimation. In: 17th IFAC world con-
gress, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 611 July 2008, pp.
70917097. Oxford: Elsevier.
21. Grip HF, Imsland L, Johansen TA, et al. Estimation of
road inclination and bank angle in automotive vehicles.
In: 2009 American control conference, St Louis, MO,
USA, 1012 June 2009, pp. 426432. New York: IEEE.
22. Rajamani R. Vehicle dynamics and control. New York:
Springer, 2005.
23. Jazar RN. Vehicle dynamics: theory and applications. New
York: Springer, 2008.
24. Chen J and Patton RJ. Robust model-based fault diagnosis
for dynamic systems. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1999.
25. Soffker D, Yu TJ and Muller PC. State estimation of
dynamical systems with nonlinearities by using
proportionalintegral observer. Int J Systems Sci 1995;
26(9): 15711582.
26. Jiang G-P, Wang S-P and Song W-Z. Design of observer
with integrators for linear systems with unknown input
disturbances. Electron Lett 2000; 36(13): 11681169.
27. Marek J, Trah H-P, Suzuki Y and Yokomori I. Sensors
for automotive technology. Weinheim: WileyVCH, 2003.
28. Banavar RN and Speyer JL. A linear-quadratic game
approach to estimation and smoothing. In: American con-
trol conference, Boston, MA, USA, 2628 June 1991, pp.
28182822. New York: IEEE.
29. de Souza CE, Shaked U and Fu M. Robust H filtering
for continuous time varying uncertain systems with deter-
ministic input signals. IEEE Trans Signal Processing
1995; 43(3): 709-719.
30. Simon D. Optimal state estimation: Kalman, HN, and non-
linear approaches. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2006.
31. Burl JB. Linear optimal control. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley Longman, 1999.
32. Kamnik R, Boettiger F and Hunt K. Roll dynamics and
lateral load transfer estimation in articulated heavy
freight vehicles: a simulation study. Proc IMechE Part D:
J Automobile Engineering 2003; 217(11): 985997.
Appendix
Notation
ay lateral acceleration of the vehicle (m/s2)
A state matrix
Am state matrix for the modified bicycle
model
Ao state matrix for the original bicycle model
Aw state matrix for the bicycle model based
on the proportionalintegral observer
794 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 226(6)

B input matrix P Riccati solution

C output matrix Q weight matrix for the disturbances
Cf cornering stiffness of the front tyres R weight matrix for the noises
(N/rad) s Laplace variable
Cr cornering stiffness of the rear tyres S weight matrix for the estimation errors
(N/rad) t time (s)
D input-to-output coupling matrix tf final time (s)
e estimation error u system input
E input matrix for the disturbance input v measurement noise
Fyf front lateral force (N) vx longitudinal speed of the vehicle (m/s)
Fyr rear lateral force (N) vy lateral speed of the vehicle (m/s)
g acceleration due to gravity w disturbance input
G transfer function matrix x system state
h distance from the centre of gravity to the x^ estimate of x
roll centre (m) x0 initial state
H transfer function X(s) Laplace transform of x
I identity matrix y system output
Iz yaw moment of inertia of the vehicle z transformed state
(kg m2)
af front-tyre side-slip angle (rad)
J cost function
ar rear-tyre side-slip angle (rad)
K gain matrix
b vehicle side-slip angle (rad)
Kus understeer gradient of the vehicle
bf global front-tyre sideslip angle (rad)
L observer output matrix
br global rear-tyre sideslip angle (rad)
Lf distance from the front axle to the centre
df steering-wheel angle (rad)
of gravity (m)
u parameter for the cost function
Lr distance from the rear axle to the centre of
m tyreroad friction coefficient
gravity (m)
f roll angle of the vehicle (rad)
m mass of the vehicle (kg)
fb road bank angle (rad)
M weight matrix for the outputs
c yaw angle of the vehicle (rad)
n disturbance input for the bicycle model
based on the proportionalintegral observer