IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 4, NO.
3, SEPTEMBER 1999
The Development of Vehicle Stability Control at Ford
Hongtei Eric Tseng, Behrouz Ashrafi, Member, IEEE, Dinu Madau,
Todd Allen Brown, and Darrel Recker, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper addresses realistic subjects encountered
in the challenge of achieving technology improvement in a vehicle
stability control system. They include driver intent recognition,
vehicle status measurement and estimation, control target gen-
eration, system actuation efficiency and smoothness, road bank
angle detection, system development and evaluation, and fault
detection.
Index Terms—Relative steering sensor, road bank estimation,
side slip observer, yaw control.
NOMENCLATURE
Distance from center of gravity (c. g.) to front
axle.
Distance from c. g. to rear axle.
Wheelbase.
Tire steer angle, positive counterclockwise
(CCW).
Road bank or crown angle, positive as car left
side up.
Front tire slip angle.
Rear tire slip angle.
Mass of the vehicle.
Vehicle lateral velocity estimate, positive toward
right.
Estimate of tire lateral force.
Front tire lateral force.
Rear tire lateral force.
Vehicle longitudinal velocity, positive forward.
Yaw rate, positive CCW.
Lateral acceleration, positive toward right.
Yaw rate, measured value from sensor.
Lateral acceleration, measured value from sensor.
Understeer coefficient.
Vehicle’s moment of inertia about yaw axis.
Yaw rate sensor’s drift or dc offset.
Lateral accelerometer’s drift or dc offset.
Normal ground reaction force.
Vehicle’s body side slip angle.
Front tire cornering stiffness.
Rear tire corning stiffness.
Acceleration due to force of gravity.
Manuscript received December 21, 1998; revised May 5, 1999. Recom-
mended by Guest Editor H. Peng.
H. E. Tseng and T. A. Brown are with Ford Motor Company, Dearborn,
MI 48121 USA.
B. Ashrafi, D. Madau, and D. Recker are with Visteon Automotive Systems,
Dearborn, MI 48121 USA.
Publisher Item Identifier S 1083-4435(99)07433-5.
1083–4435/99$10.00 © 1999 IEEE
223
I. INTRODUCTION
I N THE PAST two decades, as technology has evolved, the
use of electronic control in automotive applications has
spread from powertrain to chassis systems. Active systems
have been developed to improve vehicle control and safety.
Among them, anti-lock brake systems (ABS’s), traction con-
trol (TC), and vehicle stability control systems (VSC’s) have
already found their way into production passenger vehicles
[1], [2].
VSC’s provide vehicle stability and handling predictability
through the interaction of multiple chassis actuators. Cur-
rently, the external inputs to a vehicle stability controller
generally consists of a steering wheel angular sensor, yaw
rate sensor, lateral accelerometer, and wheel speed sensors.
A VSC applies vehicle yaw torque through individual wheel
braking integrated with the existing ABS/TC technology.
These advanced technologies of interactive vehicle dynamics
have been developed at Ford in the pursuit of increased safety,
improved performance, and cost efficiency.
The challenges encountered are categorized in this paper
as driver intent recognition, control development philosophy,
vehicle side slip estimation, road bank angle detection, system
evaluation and development, and fault detection.
II. DRIVER INTENT RECOGNITION
Since the stability control system has the ability to affect
the vehicle’s attitude and motion, a function normally reserved
for the driver, it needs to accurately interpret what the driver
intends for the vehicle motion in order to provide added
directional control (within physical limitations) as a driver’s
aid. Responsiveness, consistency, and smoothness are essential
for a driver’s confidence and comfort with the system. These
are the guiding principles for our development.
A driver typically expresses directional intent through the
steering wheel. The angular position of the steering wheel is
the first measure of driver intent.
A. Steering Wheel Angle (SWA) Estimate
The SWA estimate is a measure of the angle of the steering
wheel with respect to the steering wheel position when the
vehicle is being driven straight. Two types of SWA sensors
exist: absolute sensors, which through the use of added hard-
ware provide an estimated SWA soon after ignition key-on,
and relative sensors, which use software to “learn” the position
of the steering wheel after each ignition key-on. Both absolute
and relative steering sensor systems have to determine the true
center position of the steering wheel.
224 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 4, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 1999
Fig. 1. Relative steering wheel signal.
In the relative sensor system, a centering algorithm is
required to estimate the SWA for each ignition key-on cycle.
The system must first determine the “on-center” position of
the steering wheel which corresponds to the vehicle being
driven straight in order to estimate the SWA. The VSC will not
function until an accurate center position has been established.
Therefore, the operational constraints for the algorithm are
greater than those of an absolute sensor system. Specifically,
the algorithm must determine the center position shortly after
ignition on and/or shortly after the driver reaches the velocity
that enables system function, otherwise the system will be
temporarily disabled and the driver alerted.
In the absolute sensor system, a centering algorithm is used
to validate the absolute SWA and to adjust for small changes
in the center position of the steering wheel. Although this
system usually knows the SWA immediately after ignition, it
may take longer to readjust itself if the alignment of the vehicle
has changed between ignition cycles. The centering algorithm
would have to detect the change and relearn the absolute
center. If the error is significant, system function would then
be inhibited during the adjustment period to avoid nuisance
activation. An absolute steering sensor also costs notably more
(on the order of four to five times the cost of a relative sensor.)
Because of the service concerns and the significant financial
impact of using an absolute sensor, the challenge (to improve
customer value) is to use a relative sensor and develop an
algorithm that would determine quickly and accurately the
angular position of the steering wheel after each ignition cycle.
The relative SWA sensor used in our development is a stan-
dard quadrature-encoded (i.e., gray code) two-channel digital
sensor which provides both relative position and direction. By
design, only one bit of the two-bit code is allowed to change
at any transition (Fig. 1).
At key-on, an uncentered SWA count (SWA_Uncentered)
variable is initialized to zero and incremented or decremented
based on the position and direction of motion of the sensor.
All calculations are relative to the zero point of the uncentered
steering wheel position. By design, the yaw rate sensor signal
and the estimated SWA will have the same sign with minor
exceptions. These exceptions are caused by the lag between
vehicle yaw rate and SWA that occurred during the true center
crossing. Zero degrees SWA will be approximately equal to
zero yaw rate under stable conditions. Once the SWA center
is “learned,” the SWA is estimated by
where
SWA estimate;
SWA relative to zero, the position at
ignition key-on;
estimate of the steering wheel center
position relative to zero.
After the driver turns the ignition on, there are three general
types of driving maneuvers that cover all possible stable
driving scenarios. The vehicle can be turning for a period of
time without crossing the true center position of the steering
wheel, the vehicle can be turning while crossing the true center
position of the steering wheel (i.e., similar to a slalom), or the
vehicle could be driving straight. The goal is to determine the
SWA center position of the steering wheel for each one of the
cases defined above.
1) Turning Maneuver: If the steering wheel never crosses
the true center position after key-on, the algorithm estimates
the SWA center position by use of the yaw rate gain equation
which estimates the average steer angle of the front wheels,
given the variable inputs of vehicle longitudinal velocity
and yaw rate
Once is calculated, the SWA can be estimated directly by a
predetermined dynamic steering gear ratio which accounts for
both the kinematics and compliance in a steering mechanism.
2) Slalom Maneuver: By definition, a slalom maneuver
contains an instant of directional change in vehicle yaw
rate that is typically accompanied by the steering wheel
crossing the true center with a nonzero steering wheel angular
velocity. Under stable conditions, the yaw rate response always
lags the steering wheel input. The lag time is related to
the velocity of the steering wheel as it passes through the
true center. By monitoring the yaw rate sensor signal for
the directional changes in both directions and capturing the
corresponding steering wheel positions when the changes
occur, the two captured steering wheel positions, Max_Center
and Min_Center, will be on opposite sides of the true center
position (see Fig. 2). The steering wheel center estimate is
then given by
3) Driving Straight: When a vehicle is driven straight for
the first time after ignition key-on, the current steering wheel
position is captured and filtered to determine the SWA center
relative to the key-on position. The algorithm further allows
long-term adjustment while the vehicle is being driven straight.
The following criteria are used to determine when the
vehicle is “driven straight.”
1) Longitudinal velocity (forward or reverse) of the vehicle
must be greater than a predefined limit, in order to guar-
TSENG et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF VEHICLE STABILITY CONTROL AT FORD 225

Fig. 2. Captured cross-zero SWA position.

antee that the yaw rate signal-to-noise ratio is adequate

for processing.
2) The vehicle must be stable.
3) The sensor must be initialized.
4) The filtered yaw rate must be less than a vehicle speed
dependent yaw rate limit.
5) The filtered yaw acceleration must be less than a vehicle
speed-dependent yaw acceleration limit.
When the previous criteria is satisfied for a predetermined
length of time, a high confidence exists that the vehicle is
“being driven straight.”
It was shown, through a variety of vehicle tests and fleet
vehicle evaluations, that the relative steering angle sensor
system performance is comparable to absolute steering angle
sensor systems and more robust to banked road disturbances.
A typical example of such vehicle test is shown in Fig. 3.
More details on the algorithms are available in U.S. Patents
5 790 966 and 5 787 375.

B. Driver-Desired Yaw Rate Fig. 3. Example of steering wheel estimation at key-on.

The basic approach to determining the driver’s directional

intent is to determine a desired yaw rate based upon a
simplified vehicle “bicycle” model with appropriate limitations
within physical constraints. The controller will then use this
information to determine when it needs to intervene and try to
control the vehicle to this target while maintaining reasonable
limits to the side slip of the vehicle. It is essential for the
target yaw rate to be responsive to the driver’s commands, to
be dynamically consistent with the base vehicle (under normal
operation), to be smooth, and to be reasonably constrained by
the physical limits of the vehicle and road surface. We take a
two-stage approach to this problem: 1) determine a yaw rate
target based upon a dynamic bicycle model appropriate for the
vehicle and 2) smoothly limit the target yaw rate based upon
the lateral acceleration of the vehicle.
The bicycle model is a dynamic model based upon the
equations of motion of a rigid body described in Fig. 4. The Fig. 4. Bicycle model.
equations of motion are

With the assumptions that the longitudinal velocity is

known via wheel speeds, the lateral tire forces can be
approximated as where is the tire slip angle and
is the tire cornering compliance. The front slip angle can be
226
approximated as
by using small angle approximations as the lateral velocity at
the tire divided by the longitudinal velocity at the tire.
Likewise, the rear slip angle can be approximated as
A yaw rate target can then be dynamically calculated based
on the driver’s steering input and vehicle speed using Euler
approximation of the equations of motion with a hard limit
(in magnitude) of the yaw rate. This limit is experimentally
determined based upon high- vehicle performance.
Note that the following vehicle parameters are required
to tune the bicycle model: vehicle mass, c. g. location with
respect to the front and rear axle, rotational moment of inertia
in the yaw axis, the front and rear cornering compliances,
and the maximum high- vehicle yaw rate. Also note that we
assume that a separate function has determined the average
front steer angle from the SWA. This will allow the target
yaw rate determination to be decoupled from steering rack and
steering geometry changes that may take place in the vehicle
development.
The modification of the target yaw rate is to smoothly limit
the target yaw rate based upon the tire/road condition using the
lateral acceleration and longitudinal velocity of the vehicle. In
steady state, stable side slip condition
This provides a theoretical limit to the yaw rate that is
achievable at the current tire/road condition without gener-
ating excessive sideslip. Based upon a filtered version of the
difference between the nonlimited target yaw rate,
and the yaw rate limit, a washout delta
calculated and subtracted from the nonlimited target yaw rate
to get the final target yaw rate. The basic idea is to low-pass
filter the yaw rate target that is in excess of the theoretical limit
and then subtract the filtered excess value from the nonlimited
target yaw rate. Thus, in steady-state low- conditions, the
final target yaw rate will approach the theoretical limit, but
in dynamic conditions, the vehicle will still have a smooth
response to the driver inputs. The calculation for this washout
delta is as follows:
if
else
where is the low-pass filter time constant.
Note that the final target yaw rate is then limited as
The use of the washout delta provides a smooth transition
of the target yaw rate under road surface transitions, while
still making the target yaw rate responsive to the driver’s
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 4, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 1999
steering wheel changes. Note that the target yaw rate does
not need to be accurate at the vehicle limits of operation,
since the controller also uses vehicle side slip information in
determining the system actuation output. In other words, the
vehicle stability controller is robust to target yaw rates that are
beyond the physical limits of the vehicle and road surface.
Note that nowhere in this target yaw rate determination is
the theoretical road surface coefficient directly calculated.
Although the use of the washout delta is related, it only is
used when the vehicle limits are exceeded by the high- de-
veloped bicycle model. Calculation of road surface coefficient
under conditions where the vehicle is not at the limits of
adhesion is very difficult and simply not necessary.
III. CONTROL DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY
To provide the best customer value, the development of
stability control systems must involve on-going subjective and
objective evaluations, as well as persisting control refinement
based on a sound system development philosophy. Target
lateral response, system transparency, and actuation efficiency
and smoothness outline our development philosophy.
A. Target Lateral Response
The primary objective of a stability control system is to
provide vehicle stability and handling predictability. This can
be achieved by preventing excessive deviations between the
intended and actual lateral response of the vehicle.
While the driver intent recognition is described in the
previous section and a target/reference yaw rate is illustrated
in detail, the target lateral response is discussed here in a more
general form. The desired lateral response, in general, includes
vehicle yaw rate, side slip angle, side slip gradient, and path
radius of curvature.
is During normal driving, a driver relies on a mental model of
the vehicle’s response to his/her input developed from previous
driving experience. The vehicle response of a mental model is
referred to as a nominal vehicle response in Fig. 5.
The target response generated for stability control may be
different from the nominal response, depending on vehicle dy-
namics/road conditions. This difference is essential to inform
the driver about vehicle/road variations so that the driver can
adjust his/her command/feedback during driving.
Determining the magnitude of deviations from the “nomi-
nal” vehicle response allowed by the controller is an important
aspect in achieving the desired active vehicle handling char-
acteristics under a variety of maneuvers and disturbances.
Considerations must be given to the rejection of disturbances
such as road bank angles, wind gusts, and sensor noises, as
well as to the actuation effort in optimizing driver, system,
and vehicle interactions (Fig. 6).
The target response of the combined vehicle and system
was established early in the stability control development
at Ford. While a deliberate but small deviation in lateral
response was set as the most direct and effective form of driver
feedback during a stability control event, the final magnitude of
deviation is fine tuned during the development process based
on the following philosophy.
TSENG et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF VEHICLE STABILITY CONTROL AT FORD
Fig. 5. Total vehicle dynamics control/feedback.
Fig. 6. Driver/system/vehicle interaction.
The target vehicle response should allow the driver to
observe and respond to the driving conditions (which implies
a deliberate and controlled driver response) and minimize the
need for the driver to react to the driving conditions (which
implies a panic and uncontrolled driver reaction.)
The challenge is to strike a good balance between informing
drivers of the limit of road/vehicle cornering capability and
providing vehicle stability and similar handling characteristics,
regardless of whether the limit has been reached. On one
hand, the target deviation (from nominal response) needs to be
small and progressive to prevent provoking a panic reaction
by the driver. On the other hand, the target deviation needs to
be sufficiently large to inform the driver that the cornering
capability of the vehicle has been approached or adverse
driving conditions exist. Without sufficient vehicle feedback,
the driver is deprived of critical information necessary for
adapting to the driving conditions.
Other forms of feedback, such as induced deceleration,
steering kickback, noise, and pitch or roll oscillations, should
227
be minimized. They are viewed as counterproductive, as they
divert driving focus from the most critical task at hand, the
task of controlling the vehicle.
This development philosophy focuses at normal driving
because a lateral deviation of 1–2 m from the desired course
can often result in leaving the designated lane of travel. Further
compounding this is the human response delay associated
with the possible, if not probable, lack of focus on the
task of driving at the onset of stability control events (e.g.,
daydreaming, conversing, or gazing at the countryside).
This development philosophy has the added benefit of
appealing to the driving enthusiast by preserving the “fun-
to-drive” quality for those times when the driver wishes to
explore the outer envelope of the vehicle’s handling capability.
The skilled driver is given sufficient vehicle feedback to
correct for oversteer or understeer before the system activates.
B. System Transparency
Some have contemplated that, for an active system, the
actuation effort should be distinct and apparent to a driver,
so that the driver is warned of the tire/road limitations and
would appreciate the system’s effort during a stabilizing
event. During public road evaluations, however, we observed
that design philosophy often leads to an excessive warning
and intrusive actuation that may panic a driver, despite the
stabilizing effort.
A transparent and progressive stability control concept
was proposed. The design based on the transparent system
concept focuses on the total vehicle handling response and
the optimization of driver, system, and vehicle interactions.
We found that, with a transparent system, a driver can be
given sufficient vehicle feedback to be aware of the cornering
capability limit without an intrusive actuation. Additionally,
228 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 4, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 1999
this approach can enhance the driver’s perception of the
vehicle’s total handling characteristics.
Being transparent, progressive, and nonintrusive, the system
can increase its sensitivity in stability control without annoying
or disturbing the driver. This provides significant benefits for
subtle maneuvers, as will be discussed in Section VI.
To achieve system transparency, we need to optimize system
actuation efficiency and smoothness.
C. System Actuation Efficiency and Smoothness
Stability control systems rely on the manipulation of the
brake pressure distribution and engine/drivetrain torque for
control authority. Application of brake pressure in the attempt
to induce an understeering or oversteering moment on the
vehicle is highly effective, and the relative effectiveness of
applying braking and traction forces at each corner of the
vehicle has been well addressed in the literature [1]–[4]. This
means of imposing control authority on the vehicle results in
an induced deceleration that could be considered as a negative
attribute by the driver. This induced deceleration and the
associated longitudinal jerk has resulted in comments for some
systems as “heavy handed” or “intrusive,” indicating there is
opportunity for improving the driving experience associated
with vehicles equipped with stability control systems. To
maximize system smoothness, it is important to distribute the
desired oversteer/understeer torque through the corners of the
vehicle with the greatest yaw torque efficiency.
Actuation sensitivities and smoothness can minimize the
actual and perceived deceleration/jerk without compromising
stability. Several factors such as banked and rough roads,
vehicle loading and production variability, sensor errors, and
system actuation noises, however, work against system sensi-
tivities. These factors push for increases in activation thresh-
olds. In the development process of vehicle stability control at
Ford, strategies have been developed and system tuning was
executed to reduce the impact of such factors. Among them,
vehicle side slip angle and road bank angle estimation are
discussed in this paper.
Also working against the stability performance and re-
finement are the actuator delays associated with physical
limitations on the rate at which the brake pressure can be
built. Implementations of strategies (such as event anticipation)
which compensate for these time delays can lead to significant
improvements in the performance and refinement [5].
It is noted that the driver observes more harshness (and
perceives more deceleration) if more jerky chassis pitch/roll
motions are created during the longitudinal and lateral ac-
celerations/decelerations. Therefore, while certain accelera-
tions/decelerations are necessary for stabilizing effort, careful
placement of the phasing between the pressure build and
the directional change in lateral acceleration can successfully
blend the two accelerations/decelerations together and reduce
the chassis motions and perceived harshness.
With these in mind, we showed through development and
tuning effort that actuation efficiency and smoothness can
be accomplished to provide a transparent, progressive, and
nonintrusive system. The developed system reduces both the
actual and perceived deceleration.
IV. VEHICLE SIDE-SLIP ANGLE ESTIMATION
The main function of a vehicle stability system is to
limit a vehicle’s yaw dynamics and body side slip angle to
values manageable by average drivers. While the yaw rate
sensor provides the necessary information on yaw dynamics
of the vehicle, the vehicle’s body side slip angle cannot
be directly measured and is estimated using vehicle state
variables measured from vehicle motion sensors. Often times,
the output of these sensors drift with changes in temperature, or
contain a floating dc offset. In addition, a conventional lateral
accelerometer cannot distinguish between the acceleration due
to curvilinear motion of the vehicle and the acceleration
due to gravity. Since vehicle side slip angle is one of the
controlled variables, an accurate estimation of a vehicle’s side
slip angle that is insensitive to sensor dc offset, drift, or
environmental conditions, such as banked road, is necessary
for robust control.
One of the first challenges is to remove the bias in sensor
measurement induced from environmental disturbances, such
as road bank angle and temperature variation.
One sensor compensation strategy may include a static and
a dynamic algorithm. The static algorithm is intended for
situations where the vehicle is standing still, and the dynamic
algorithm compensates for sensor drift and gravity effects of
banked roads while the vehicle is moving.
While the vehicle is at rest, the static compensation algo-
rithm utilizes the output of the yaw rate and lateral acceleration
sensors to compensate the sensor’s dc offset. While the vehicle
is in motion, the dynamic offset compensation algorithm of
yaw rate sensor signal utilizes the SWA and the vehicle’s
yaw rate gain equation to compute a nominal yaw rate of
the vehicle. This nominal yaw rate is then compared with the
measured value and the difference is filtered to compute a
sensor offset. Of course, this comparison is performed only
under certain vehicle maneuvers and conditions where the
model is deemed valid. After sensor offset is computed, the
output of the sensor is compensated, namely,
A similar approach is used to compensate the lateral accel-
eration sensor signal for dc offset, drift, and effect of gravity
on banked roads. Under certain maneuvers and conditions, the
equation of lateral motion of the vehicle is used to compute a
nominal lateral acceleration and, hence, an offset, for sensor
compensation, namely,
A full description of the above algorithms can be found in
U.S. Patents 5 809 434 and 5 742 918.
Another challenge is to construct a robust estimator of vehi-
cle lateral velocity in the presence of road surface coefficient
uncertainty, vehicle model uncertainty, as well as sensor noise
and bias. The estimation of vehicle lateral velocity involves
estimation of tire lateral forces, tire slip angles, normal ground
reaction forces, and coefficient of friction at the tire–ground
interface. In order to estimate vehicle lateral velocity, the
dynamic equation of lateral motion of a simplified vehicle
TSENG et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF VEHICLE STABILITY CONTROL AT FORD 229

model is used

From the theory of asymptotic observers, the vehicle’s

lateral velocity is estimated from the following relationship:

where and is an observer gain, with

Note that, when the above equation reduces
to

which represents an open-loop integration of the equation of

lateral motion of the vehicle. In the above equations,
and represent, respectively, the yaw rate and lateral
acceleration sensor signals compensated for dc offset and
sensor drift. The lateral acceleration sensor signal is also
compensated for the effect of gravity on the sensor’s output
while the vehicle is traveling on, or is in a transition to, a
banked road. The longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, , is
estimated by the anti-lock brake algorithm using individual
wheel speeds of the vehicle.
Selection of a suitable observer gain is the key to obtaining
accurate estimates of vehicle lateral velocity under various
maneuvers and driving conditions. In our strategy, the observer
gain is adaptive and varies with the coefficient of friction
available at the tire–ground interface and the behavior of
vehicle dynamics. This way, depending on the on-line vehicle
dynamics, the observer will balance the emphasis on the
measured signal and the estimated tire lateral force
approximated by

Since is known, this estimate of tire lateral force is

bounded by a maximum value defined by

Fig. 7. Slalom maneuver on ice.

where and are experimentally determined and is an
approximation of the coefficient of friction at the tire–ground
interface using the magnitude of the vehicle lateral acceleration
compared with other sensor measurements.
Once vehicle lateral velocity has been estimated, vehicle
body side slip angle can be computed as
The above strategy for estimating vehicle lateral velocity
and body side slip angle has been extensively tested and
verified for a wide variety of maneuvers and road conditions,
including banked roads, dry asphalt, wet asphalt, snow, and
ice. Fig. 7 shows the measured and estimated vehicle lateral
velocity and body side slip angle during a slalom maneuver
on ice.
A full description of the lateral velocity observer strategy
can be found in U.S. Patent 5 742 919.
V. ROAD BANK ANGLE ESTIMATION
Road bank angles have a direct influence on vehicle dynam-
ics and lateral acceleration measurement. To minimize possible
modeling and estimation error, it is important for a vehicle
stability controller to know the road bank angle experienced
by the vehicle. Due to operating concerns on banked roads, a
controller incapable of knowing road bank angle may sacrifice
its control sensitivity or alternatively turn off the control
230 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 4, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 1999
system entirely under these conditions. Although this road
disturbance is neglected in the majority of academic literature
discussing vehicle stability systems [6]–[9], the detection of a
banked road has been shown to deliver considerable operating
advantages for real-world applications.
For a laterally steady-state vehicle where its lateral velocity
remains constant, i.e., the road bank angle experienced
can be determined from the equation of motion for a rigid body
where represents the lateral acceleration measured by
the sensor that includes the influence from the road bank angle
However, for a control system designed to activate during
vehicle dynamic/extreme lateral maneuvers, it is not appropri-
ate to use an estimate based on a laterally steady-state vehicle.
It is also not appropriate to use an estimate collected prior
to the dynamic maneuver, as it is conceivable that the road
bank angle experienced by a vehicle may change rapidly. (For
example, a vehicle under an accident avoidance maneuver on
a highway ramp or a vehicle negotiating mountain roads may
experience large bank angle variation.)
The major challenge in both the estimation of road bank
angle and the estimation of vehicle lateral velocity is to
differentiate the road disturbance (road bank angle) component
from vehicle lateral dynamics component (derivative of lateral
velocity). The differentiation is difficult because the vehicle
measurement is effected by both components, and and
both components can change rapidly.
The definite advantage of a VSC that differentiates the
influence of road bank angle disturbances from vehicle lateral
dynamics is the capability to avoid false/nuisance activation,
even on a highly banked road, while maintaining the desired
control sensitivity during extreme dynamic maneuvers on low-
surfaces.
A bank angle estimation algorithm was developed at Ford
to achieve the optimization in both control sensitivity for
extreme maneuvers and control robustness for road bank angle
variations. Evaluation of a fleet of competitive systems showed
that the Ford stability control system is best in class in handling
banked road/curve disturbances.
Using the measurements of SWA, yaw rate, and lateral
acceleration, three bank angle estimates are calculated
where denotes the transfer function relating bank angle to
vehicle lateral acceleration, denotes the transfer function
relating SWA to vehicle lateral acceleration, denotes the
transfer function relating bank angle to vehicle yaw rate,
denotes the transfer function relating SWA to vehicle yaw
rate, is the bank angle estimate assuming
is the bank angle estimate using lateral acceleration
information assuming no model uncertainty, and is the
bank angle estimate using yaw rate information assuming no
model uncertainty. Since all three estimates contain error/bias
induced either from vehicle transient dynamics or incorrect
vehicle reference model, these estimates are not very useful
yet.
We then use the second and third estimates, and
to assess the magnitude of the transient lateral dynam-
ics inherently contained in the model reference errors affecting
both estimates
DFC
where DFC denotes a dynamic factor coefficient related to the
transient lateral dynamics.
The DFC information is then used in the final estimation as
a multiplicative factor to reduce the bias in the estimate
assuming no transient lateral dynamics
DFC
Effectively, this function eliminates the possible bias intro-
duced by lateral dynamics. As the change in lateral dynamics
grows more excessive, the final bank angle estimated becomes
progressively conservative. This is a practical assumption that
a vehicle usually does not experience excessive low- lateral
dynamics change when experiencing large bank angles.
Algorithm verifications have been performed by operating
vehicles under a wide variety of road conditions. The evalu-
ations showed that the bank angle estimates provided allow
the controller to maintain both the desired control sensitivity
for low- extreme maneuvers and control robustness for large
road bank angle variations.
Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the obtained estimation during slalom
maneuvers of a base vehicle on a banked high- surface, as
well as a low- flat ice surface. The vehicle had its VSC
system manually turned off to observe extreme dynamics.
Fig. 8 shows the bank angle estimated is fairly accurate
during a slalom maneuver on a parabolic banked roadway.
Actual bank angle experienced by the vehicle was measured
in the test track. Despite the fact that the vehicle went
up and down on the roadway and experienced bank angle
variations during the maneuver, the algorithm was able to offer
a good estimate by differentiating the two components, and
lumped in the sensor measurements, where
In other words, the algorithm detected the bank angle not
the lateral velocity derivative was the significant contributor
in and obtained the final estimate
Although the estimate assuming steady state, i.e., also
had a good estimation performance in Fig. 8, only the pro-
posed estimate, maintained its estimation performance
in a different maneuver, as shown in Fig. 9. That is, only the
proposed algorithm has robust performance.
As discussed earlier, the challenge is to maintain accuracy,
even when experiencing nonlinear tire dynamics.
Fig. 9 shows the bank angle estimated during a slalom
maneuver on an ice surface. Large tire slip angles and lat-
eral velocity derivatives were experienced. We see that the
steady-state estimate was heavily contaminated due to
TSENG et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF VEHICLE STABILITY CONTROL AT FORD
Fig. 8. Estimation during slalom on parabolic bank.
the contribution of On the other hand, our estimate
remained close to the true bank angle (which was zero in this
example) despite the dynamic maneuver.
Note that the driver maneuver in Fig. 9 was actually slower
than the one in Fig. 8. This illustrates that the algorithm did
not rely on driver maneuver alone to detect the magnitude
of vehicle lateral dynamics (which depends on both driver
maneuver and road surfaces).
Also worth noting is that the proposed bank angle estimation
algorithm does not use any lateral velocity estimation infor-
mation, since an estimate is subjected to the influence of road
bank angles and may be contaminated.
VI. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
As previously discussed, the intervention of a VSC is
desired when excessive deviations between actual and driver-
intended lateral response exist or are developing. These de-
viations can be induced by driver inputs, adverse driving
conditions, or the combination of both. Inappropriate driver
231
Fig. 9. Bank estimation during slalom on ice.
input in steering, braking, or throttle and disturbances such as
road surface transitions, split driving, or road undulations
can all perturb vehicle dynamics and result in undesirable
deviations.
We expect a stability control system to provide significant
benefit, by preventing excessive deviation between actual
and driver intended vehicle lateral response, in the presence
of inappropriate driver inputs, as well as in the presence
of external disturbances. To ensure the developed system
functions as intended and provides significant benefit over the
base vehicle, the following is a list of example maneuvers
to evaluate vehicle stability control. Note that this heuristic
list provides maneuvers essential for vehicle development and
evaluation, but is by no means inclusive.
A. Oversteer Events Provoked by Steering Input
Dynamic oversteer occurs in the presence of steering input
with large amplitudes, quick rates, or periodic content typi-
232 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 4, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 1999
cally accompanying aggressive transitional maneuvers. These
maneuvers include single and double lane changes, panic lane
changes, j-turns, and slaloms. These maneuvers can induce
excessive side slip angles, lag in yaw rate response, and
yaw rate overshoot when the driver applies excessive steering
amplitudes and rates, overcorrects with countersteer, or inputs
a delayed steering correction.
B. Stability Events Provoked by Braking Input
When the driver feathers off the brakes too slowly while
entering a turn or lightly brakes during limit cornering in a
decreasing radius or constant radius turn, the base vehicle can
respond with excessive side slip angles. Sudden and aggressive
application of the brakes during limit cornering can result in
an unintended increase in path radius of curvature. Braking
too deeply or too aggressively at the initiation of a turn can
adversely affect turn-in and the ability of the base vehicle to
negotiate the turn.
C. Stability Events Provoked by Throttle Input
An abrupt lift-off of the throttle can result in a base
vehicle response with excessive slip angles, in particular, on
manual transmission vehicles or on rear-wheel-drive vehicles.
Although traction control significantly mitigates oversteer on
rear-wheel-drive vehicles and understeer on front-wheel-drive
vehicles in the presence of excessive throttle, stability control
systems have an opportunity to further improve the vehicle
response in this situation.
D. Stability Events Provoked by External Perturbations
Road surface transitions can significantly impact the base
vehicle response. A transition to a lower surface while
cornering may result in a significant increase in path radius
of curvature. A transition to a higher surface during limit
cornering can impose a large oversteering moment on the
vehicle and can result in excessive yaw rate and side slip
angle responses. The accidental placement of an outside rear
tire on a lower shoulder of the road during limit cornering
can also induce large yaw rates and vehicle slip angles.
Variations in fore–aft normal load distribution associated with
road undulations, such as cornering over the crest of a hill,
can result in undesired base vehicle response.
E. System Robustness Under External Disturbances
For vehicle maneuvers under substantial yet realistic ex-
ternal disturbances, such as road bank angles, wind gusts,
bump and ditches, and sensor bias drift, the system should be
able to reject these disturbances to avoid nuisance activation
and provide similar performance improvement under nominal
road/vehicle conditions. Nuisance activation under these real-
istic conditions not only distracts the driver, but also casts a
negative image to the customer.
F. Public Road Evaluation
In the above, several situations have been discussed in which
the stability control system can provide significant benefit over
the base vehicle response. Stability control events encountered
in the real world are likely to be comprised of a combination
of the above situations.
While the benefit of a stability control system is clear
in extreme events, it is not limited to extreme events. A
significant portion of the system value resides in more subtle
events which are likely to be much more frequent than the
extreme events. Discussed below is an example oftentimes
encountered during adverse weather conditions.
G. Nonextreme Maneuvers with Perturbation
Consider a driver experiencing a lateral wind gust while
traversing a straight road covered with ice. The driver corrects
through steering for the initial lateral deviation induced by
the wind gust. When the gust quickly subsides, the driver’s
initial steering correction causes the vehicle to deviate (in
the opposite direction of the gust-induced deviation.) The
driver then steers in the opposite direction (of initial steering
correction). If each successive steering correction is slightly
too delayed, and slightly too large in amplitude, the driver
will soon feel uncomfortable in handling the adverse road
conditions.
Subtle maneuvers such as the above example can be used
to evaluate a VSC because the driver steering correction effort
can be minimized through stability control.
The above example showed a vehicle stability system can
deliver its value not only under a rare evasive maneuver.
A VSC can and should provide significant benefit over a
broad spectrum of disturbance amplitudes and driver input
severities. These observations echo the development philoso-
phy we proposed regarding system transparency and actuation
smoothness.
VII. MOTION SENSOR FAULT DETECTION
As in any active system, fault management is necessary
to the robust operation of VSC’s. In a VSC, in addition to
the existing failsafe features for ABS and TC subsystems, a
supervising level is established to monitor all signals to the
on-board system controller. Besides the standard electronic
diagnosis and self-test for individual sensors, each sensor is
cross checked with other measurements whenever analytical
redundancy is available.
In this paper, we focus on the fault detection of vehicle
motion sensors in a VSC (i.e., yaw rate sensor and lateral
accelerometer.) These sensors provide feedback information
for vehicle stability control. Due to the wide variation of
vehicle dynamics under a vast operating range, such as various
tire/road contact conditions, road bank angles, and evasive
maneuvers, the detection of an in-range fault signal within
these sensors is particularly challenging.
Functional redundancy using the relationship among sensors
is generally used in stability control systems to detect an “in-
range” signal fault. Because the dynamics relationship used
may not be valid for all vehicle maneuvers, the challenge is
to design a proper tolerance (used in verifying the functional
redundancy among sensors) that avoids both false negative
(undetected fault) and false positive (false warning).
TSENG et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF VEHICLE STABILITY CONTROL AT FORD
TABLE I
Note: The subscript denotes the measured value.
Table I lists the nominal functional redundancies (or dy-
namic relationship) versus the true relationship under realistic
vehicle dynamics. We see that significant deviation can occur
through transient vehicle dynamics or road disturbances. For
example, it is conceivable (and has been experimentally ver-
ified) that all three nominal relationships are violated when
a vehicle is experiencing snowplowing during a tire-limit
turning/sliding maneuver.
During the development of vehicle stability control at Ford,
the bias terms induced in various operating conditions were
analyzed and simulated. The final design tolerance are fine-
tuned throughout vehicle verifications.
Another challenge, in addition to the robustness issue, is to
quickly detect an in-range vehicle motion sensor signal fault. A
vehicle motion sensor signal fault, without prompt detection,
not only may cause the controlled vehicle to deviate from
the driver’s intended path, but also could induce disturbances
to deter/delay fault detection. A “fault signature recognition”
algorithm was developed at Ford to promote prompt detection.
This approach relies on the detection of a specific failure
mode/effect. Failure mode effect and analysis (FMEA) is used
jointly to ensure various sensor failure modes (fault signatures)
have been considered.
This “signature recognition” algorithm is composed of five
steps. The first step checks if the vehicle is not in an extreme
maneuver using sensors other than the one being inspected for
fault signature. This is to prevent false detection in the rare
cases when the signals behave anomalously due to extreme
maneuvers. The second step generates a reference signal
from other sensors. The third step converts the difference
between the inspected signal and the reference signal into a
“normalized” quantity defined as “residue.” The fourth step
processes the normalized residue through a bandpass filter to
capture the fault signal with certain frequency content. The
fifth step further scrutinizes the signal to ensure the detected
frequency is not induced by vehicle vibrations.
To determine if a maneuver is excessive, the algorithm
monitors the front-to-rear tire slip angle difference and its rate
for maneuver differentiation. This methodology is by design
insensitive to road disturbances, since the front-to-rear slip
angle difference
233
is independent of an estimated vehicle lateral velocity that may
be disturbed by sensor signal fault or sensor noise and bias.
In the third step, the algorithm maps the difference be-
tween the measured and referenced signal into a “normalized
residue.” Conceptually, these residues are road bank angle
estimates. For example,
where the and subscripts denote the measured and
referenced values, respectively.
This normalization feature allows the designer to incorpo-
rate the influence of various road disturbances, vehicle speed,
and steering position into a calibrated threshold.
Simulated fault insertions on a vehicle under a variety of
driving conditions showed that the algorithm delivers prompt
detection for stable driving vehicles robustly.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
A vehicle stability system provides stability enhancement
and handling predictability of a vehicle. Not unlike ABS and
TC systems, the system requires a driver’s command to assist
the driver in achieving the desired maneuver safely under a
variety of driving conditions. For the system to be valuable
to the driver/customer, it is important for the active system
to recognize the driver’s intention and assist the driver in a
nonintrusive manner. It is also important for the system to be
cost effective.
This paper addressed these practical concerns in vehicle
stability systems. It described a vehicle stability system de-
veloped at Ford which utilizes a relative steering wheel sensor
in the attempt to optimize the system performance and value.
It showed that accurate and robust driver input recognition
can be accomplished with a relative steering wheel sensor.
It described how vehicle status can be robustly estimated
with an adaptive hybrid integrator/Luenberger observer. It
also showed how road bank disturbances can be dynamically
and robustly estimated. It proposed the concept of event
anticipation, control smoothness, and system transparency
in the application of control action. It listed a variety of
maneuvers under which vehicle stability systems can provide
significant benefit over their base vehicles.
234 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 4, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 1999
IX. OUTLOOK
Rapid technology improvement in sensor/actuator technol-
ogy [10], in particular, in microelectromechanical systems
(MEMS), will substantially reduce sensor/actuator cost and
allow more built-in safety features, such as more extensive
electronic self-check and sensor hardware redundancy. The
cost reduction in sensor/actuator not only will make VSC’s
widely available, but also enable the integration of other
vehicle electronic systems. On one hand, vehicle dynamics
under vehicle stability control can be further enhanced if sys-
tems such as advanced steering [11] and suspensions [12] are
integrated with vehicle stability controllers. On the other hand,
other systems can benefit from VSC by refining their control
algorithms with the vehicle dynamics information available.
Furthermore, future VSC’s may be integrated with matur-
ing technologies, such as global positioning system (GPS)
guidance, lane following/lane departure warning, to provide
additional safety features and further improve driver/vehicle
interaction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank their colleagues in the Ad-
vanced Interactive Vehicle Dynamics Section, Ford Advanced
Vehicle Technology, for their invaluable input during the
development process. They also appreciate the management
support of this program from L. M. Brown (Ford) and K.
Lehmann (Continental Teves).
REFERENCES
[1] A. T. Van Zanten et al., VDC, the Vehicle Dynamics Control System of
Bosch, SAE 950759, 1995.
[2] K. Koibuchi et. al., Vehicle Stability Control in Limit Cornering by Active
Brake, SAE 960487, 1996.
[3] S. Motoyama, H. Uki, K. Isoda, and H. Yuasa, “Effect of traction force
distribution control on vehicle dynamics,” in Proc. 1992 Int. Symp.
Advanced Vehicle Control (AVEC’92), Yokohama, Japan, pp. 447–451.
[4] T. Pilutti, G. Ulsoy, and D. Hrovat, “Vehicle steering intervention
through differential braking,” in Proc. American Control Conf., Seattle,
WA, June 1995, pp. 1667–1671.
[5] D. Yanakiev, J. Eyre, and I. Kanellakopoulos, “Longitudinal control
of heavy vehicles with air brake acutation delays,” in Proc. American
Control Conf., Albuquerque, NM, June 1997, pp. 1613–1617.
[6] K. H. Senger and W. Kortum, “Investigations on state observers for the
lateral dynamics of four-wheel steered vehicles,” in Proc. 11th IAVSD
Symp., Kingston, Ont. Canada, Aug. 1989, pp. 515–527.
[7] L. R. Ray, “Nonlinear state and tire force estimation for advanced
vehicle control,” IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 3, pp. 117–124,
Mar. 1995.
[8] C. S. Liu and H. Peng, “A state and parameter identification scheme for
linearly parameterized systems,” ASME J. Dynam. Syst., Meas. Contr.,
vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 524–528, Dec. 1998.
[9] J. Farrelly and P. Wellstead, “Estimation of vehicle lateral velocity,” in
Proc. 1996 IEEE Int. Conf. Control Applications, Dearborn, MI, Sept.
1996, pp. 552–557.
[10] W. Kortuem, R. M. Goodall, and J. K. Hedrick, “Mechatronics in
ground transportation—Current trends and future possibilities,” in An-
nual Reviews in Control, vol. 22. Exeter, U.K.: Elsevier, 1998, pp.
133–144.
[11] H. Peng and J. S. Hu, “Traction/braking force distribution for optimal
longitudinal motion during curve following,” Veh. Syst. Dynam., vol.
26, no. 4, pp. 301–320, Oct. 1996.
[12] H. E. Tseng and J. K. Hedrick, “Performance of a semi-active suspension
with leading system information,” in Proc. 1994 Int. Mechanical Engi-
neering Congr. and Exposition, DSC Transportation Systems, Chicago,
IL, Nov. 1994, vol. 54, pp. 115–126.
Hongtei Eric Tseng received the B.S. degree from
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.,
in 1986 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the
University of California at Berkeley, in 1991 and
1994, respectively, all in mechanical engineering.
In 1994, he joined Ford Motor Company, Dear-
born, MI, where he is currently a Technical Special-
ist in the Ford Research Laboratory. His areas of
interest are vehicle dynamics modeling and control.
Behrouz Ashrafi (S’90–M’91) received the B.S.,
M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering
from Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, in 1983,
1985, and 1991, respectively.
In 1992, he joined Ford Motor Company, Dear-
born, MI. He is currently a Technical Specialist in
the Advanced Product and Manufacturing Depart-
ment of the Chassis Division, Visteon Automotive
Systems (an enterprise of Ford Motor Company),
Dearborn, MI. He is the holder of five patents
relating to vehicle controls and steering systems.
His current interests include vehicle dynamics, vehicle stability control, and
application of estimation and control theory to advanced automotive vehicles.
Dinu Madau received the B.S. degree in electrical
engineering from Oakland University, Rochester,
MI, in 1986 and the M.S. degree in electrical
computer controls systems engineering from Wayne
State University, Detroit, MI, in 1992.
In 1989, he joined Ford Motor Company. He
is currently a Software Engineer in Chassis Steer-
ing and Suspension Software Development, Visteon
Automotive Systems (an enterprise of Ford Motor
Company), Dearborn, MI. He is the holder of two
patents in fuzzy logic technology, two patents re-
lated to steering systems, and four patents pending in vehicle dynamics. His
areas of interest are vehicle dynamics and suspension controls with emphasis
on algorithm development.
Todd Allen Brown received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees in mechanical engineering from Michigan
State University, East Lansing, in 1989 and 1991,
respectively.
In 1991, he joined Ford Motor Company, Dear-
born, MI, where he is currently a Technical Special-
ist in Vehicle Dynamics Control Systems, Ford Re-
search and Vehicle Technology. His areas of interest
are vehicle dynamics and control with emphasis on
limit handling and control system interactions.
Darrel Recker (S’85–M’88) received the B.S.E.E.
degree from Iowa State University, Ames, in 1988
and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from the University of Illinois,
Urbana–Champaign in 1991 and 1993, respectively.
In 1992, he joined Ford Motor Company, where
he has worked in vehicle controls, motor controls,
and software development. He is the holder of four
patents relating to vehicle and motor controls. He
is currently a Supervisor of Software Development
for Chassis Electronics with Visteon Automotive
Systems (an enterprise of Ford Motor Company), Dearborn, MI.
Dr. Recker is a member of the IEEE Control Systems Society.