Abstract Methods of estimating key vehicle states for roll

stability control systems, including roll rate, roll angle, and

lateral velocity, are investigated in this paper. Roll angle and
roll rate estimators based on the two different vehicle models,
3-DOF (degree-of-freedom) and 1-DOF models, are evaluated
and compared in both linear and non-linear regions using
CarSim, a non-linear simulation software for vehicle dynamics
control and integration. The effects of using roll rate sensor
measurement in estimation are discussed. This paper also
presents a new scheme of lateral velocity estimation, which
compensates for errors in lateral acceleration and longitudinal
speed measurements.
I. INTRODUCTION
EHICLE roll stability has become an important issue
in recent years for vehicles with relatively high center
of gravity (CG), such as sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and
trucks [1]-[3]. According to a recent NHTSA study (2004),
non-collision rollover accidents account for approximately
11% of vehicle fatalities in USA even though non-collision
rollover accidents constitute only 2.3% of all vehicle
accidents [4],[5]. In order to reduce the number of these fatal
accidents, impending vehicle rollover can be warned to
drivers or can be mitigated by activating adequate chassis
control systems with knowledge of vehicle roll stability
conditions [6],[7]. Vehicle rollover mitigation systems can
show satisfactory performance when the roll stability
conditions are accurately known to the systems. To identify
vehicle roll stability conditions precisely, it is advantageous
to know the vehicles roll rate and roll angle since they are
the most important states in vehicle roll dynamics.
Current vehicles, however, are not equipped to sense
vehicle roll angle directly, and roll rate sensors are not
standard vehicle equipment yet. Therefore, it is desirable to
develop appropriate methods of vehicle roll angle and roll
rate estimation for roll stability enhancement systems.
This paper presents methods of estimating vehicle roll
angle and roll rate. Several roll angle and roll rate estimators
are constructed using two different vehicle models, 3-DOF
(degree-of-freedom) and 1-DOF models. The estimators are
then evaluated and compared in both linear and non-linear
regions using CarSim, which is a non-linear simulation
software for vehicle dynamics and control [8]. The effects of

Manuscript received September 15, 2006.
J. Ryu is with General Motors R&D, Warren, MI 48090 USA (phone:
586-986-0203; fax: 586-986-3003; e-mail: jihan.ryu@gm.com).
N. K. Moshchuk is with General Motors R&D, Warren, MI 48090 USA
(e-mail: nikolai.moshchuk@gm.com).
S. Chen is with General Motors R&D, Warren, MI 48090 USA (e-mail:
shih-ken.chen@gm.com).
using roll rate measurement in estimation are also studied.
The effect of lateral acceleration and longitudinal speed
measurement errors on lateral velocity estimation is then
described, and a new algorithm for estimating lateral
velocity is proposed, which compensates for errors in the
lateral acceleration and longitudinal speed measurements.
II. VEHICLE MODELS
Two vehicle models are used for the state estimator
described in this paper: 1) 3-DOF model which represents
yaw, lateral, and roll motions of a vehicle, and 2) 1-DOF
model which represents only roll motion of a vehicle.
A. 3-DOF Vehicle Model
Yaw-roll 3-DOF linear vehicle model is employed in this
study for estimating lateral velocity, yaw rate, roll rate, and
roll angle [1],[2],[9]. This model is typically valid for
moderate maneuvers (up to 0.4g) [1],[9]. As shown in Fig.
1, the vehicle is considered to be a two-mass system
consisting of a sprung mass, M
s
, and an unsprung mass, M
u
.
The sprung mass is constrained to roll about the roll axis
(O
s
) and has three degrees of freedom lateral velocity (v
y
),
yaw rate (r), and roll (|). The unsprung mass is constrained
in roll and has two degrees of freedom lateral velocity and
yaw rate.
Assuming constant or slowly varying forward speed, v
x
,
the equations of motion are written as:
| | | |
|
| | s s u y s s xz x
r y f y xz z
r y f y s y s u y u
gh M a h M c k r I I
bF aF I r I
F F a M a M
+ = + + +
= +
+ = +
,
, ,
, , , ,

(1)
where a
y,u
and a
y,s
are lateral accelerations of the unsprung
Vehicle State Estimation for Roll Control System
Jihan Ryu, Nikloai K. Moshchuk, and Shih-Ken Chen
V

f
o
f
o
r
o
|
r y
F
,
f y
F
,
r
x
y

a) Top View
Z
|
Y
s
h
y
F
y
F
s
O

b) Rear View
Fig. 1 3-DOF Vehicle Model
Proceedings of the 2007 American Control Conference
Marriott Marquis Hotel at Times Square
New York City, USA, July 11-13, 2007
WeC06.3
1-4244-0989-6/07/$25.00 2007 IEEE. 1618



mass and the sprung mass, F
y,f
and F
y,r
are lateral forces at
the front and rear axles, I
z
is the moment of inertia about its
yaw axis, I
xz
is the product of inertia about its roll and yaw
axes, a and b are longitudinal distances from the CG to the
front and rear axles, I
x
is the moment of inertia about its roll
axis, h
s
is the sprung mass CG height above the roll axis, k
|

is the roll stiffness, and c
|
is the roll damping coefficient.
From the kinematic relationship, shown in Fig. 1, the
lateral accelerations, a
y,u
and a
y,s
, are given by:
|

s u y s y
x y u y
h a a
r v v a
=
+ =
, ,
,
(2)
Adopting the linear tire model, the lateral forces at the
front and rear axles, F
y,f
and F
y,r
, become:
r r r y
f f f y
C F
C F
o
o
=
=
,
, (3)
where C
f
and C
r
represent the effective front and rear
cornering stiffness at the front and rear axles, and o
f
and o
r

are the front and rear tire slip angles. o
f
and o
r
are given by:
| o o
| o o
r x y r r
f x y f f
v br v
v ar v
+ =
+ + =
/ ) (
/ ) (
(4)
where o
f
and o
r
are the front and rear road wheel angles, and

f
and
r
represent the front and rear roll-steer coefficients.
B. 1-DOF Vehicle Model
In addition to the 3-DOF vehicle model, the following 1-
DOF vehicle model is used for estimating vehicle roll angle
and roll rate [5]. This model considers only vehicle roll
motion as opposed to the 3-DOF model, which takes into
account vehicle lateral and yaw motions as well as roll
motion. However, the 1-DOF model provides more robust
results in non-linear maneuvers since it is less sensitive to
non-linear tire dynamics than the 3-DOF model. In [5], the
roll angle is first estimated by integration of roll rate
information from a gyro and then is estimated by a static
function of measured lateral acceleration. The final roll
angle estimation is a combination of these two based on the
1-DOF model.
The inertial force, M
s
a
y
, due to lateral acceleration
produces the roll moment, M
s
a
y
h
s
, on the vehicle sprung
mass. The roll moment then generates the vehicle roll, |.
Taking into account the gravity effect, the equation of
vehicle roll motion is then:
( )
s m y s s s x
h a M k c h M I
,
2
= + + + | | |
| |
(5)
where a
y,m
is measured lateral acceleration (a
y,m
= a
y
+gsin|).
III. ROLL ANGLE AND ROLL RATE ESTIMATION
A. Estimation with Roll Rate Measurement
Assuming roll rate measurement is available, two
estimators based on the Kalman filter are implemented to
estimate vehicle states. The first estimator is based on the 3-
DOF vehicle model with yaw rate and roll rate
measurements. In this estimator, the states are lateral
velocity (v
y
), yaw rate (r), roll angle (|), and roll rate (p),
and the inputs are the measured front steering angle (o
f
) and
longitudinal speed (v
x
). The state feedbacks are the
measured yaw rate (r
m
) and roll rate (p
m
).
The second estimator is based on the 1-DOF vehicle
model with roll rate measurement. The states are roll angle
(|), and roll rate (p), and the input is the measured lateral
acceleration (a
y,m
). The state feedback is the measured roll
rate (p
m
).
The proposed estimators are then examined in both linear
and non-linear ranges using CarSim simulation. CarSim is a
multi-DOF nonlinear simulation software for vehicle
dynamics control and integration [8]. CarSim provides an
integrated development environment to quickly conduct
vehicle simulation and control algorithm design, especially
chassis/driveline modeling and simulation.
The vehicle model used in this paper corresponds to a
typical SUV. The model is based on the vehicle handling
facility (VHF) data and is validated with test data from
frequency response and control response test data. The
parameters used for the 3-DOF and 1-DOF vehicle models
are calibrated using the VHF data and CarSim simulation. In
addition, all simulated sensor signals for the Kalman filters
contain white noise which simulates the sensor noise in the
real world.
1) Estimation Results in Linear Range
First, the estimation methods are tested under normal
driving conditions, i.e. in the linear range. Fig. 2 illustrates
the vehicle speed and lateral acceleration of the maneuver.
Note that the lateral acceleration does not exceed 0.5g.
Under this linear range maneuver, vehicle lateral velocity
and yaw rate are estimated using the estimator based on the
3-DOF vehicle model. Fig. 3 shows estimated lateral
velocity and yaw rate compared with actual values from the
CarSim simulation. The estimates show very good accuracy.
The nominal error is less than 5%. Since the estimator
utilizes yaw rate measurement information, yaw rate
estimation shows better accuracy than lateral velocity
estimation.
The vehicle roll angle and roll rate can be estimated from
either the estimator based on the 3-DOF model or the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
5
10
15
20
25
v
x

(
m
/
s
)
Vehicle Speed
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
5
0
5
a
y

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (sec)
Lateral Acceleration

Fig. 2 Vehicle Speed and Lateral Acceleration from Linear Range
WeC06.3
1619



estimator based on the 1-DOF model. Fig. 4 shows the
simulation results using these two estimators. Roll angle
estimates from both estimators show great accuracy
compared with the actual CarSim value. There is very little
difference in accuracy for these two estimators while some
error exists in lateral velocity estimation compared with
actual CarSim Values. This is because the roll dynamics of
vehicle is quite decoupled with the lateral/yaw dynamics and
the roll motion of the vehicle can be represented very well
with the mass-spring-damper system, which is used to
describe the vehicle roll dynamics in the 3-DOF and 1-DOF
models.
2) Estimation Results in Non-Linear Range
The estimators are then examined under a sumulated
fishhook maneuver to verify their effectiveness in the non-
linear region since the simulation results in the previous
section suggest that both estimators provide good state
estimates in the linear range. Fig. 5 shows the vehicle speed
and lateral acceleration from the fishhook maneuver. Note
that the measured lateral acceleration from the fish-hook
maneuver is significantly larger than 0.5 g and thus the
vehicle is in the non-linear range.

Lateral velocity and yaw rate is estimated using the
estimator based on the 3-DOF model. The estimation result
is presented in Fig. 6.
While the estimated yaw rate shows good accuracy
because the estimator uses of the yaw rate measurement, the
estimated lateral velocity shows very large deviation from
the actual lateral velocity. Since the 3-DOF model is based
on the linear tire model as described in (3), the 3-DOF
model becomes inadequate in the non-linear region. The
estimator based on the 3-DOF model, consequently, does
not provide reliable results under the fishhook maneuver,
which is in the highly non-linear region.
Similarly to the lateral velocity estimation, the roll angle
estimation using the 3-DOF model is affected by this linear
tire model assumption in the non-linear region. Fig. 7
illustrates the roll angle estimation using the 3-DOF and 1-
DOF models, respectively. There exists larger estimation
error using the 3-DOF model than using the 1-DOF model.
The 3-DOF model cannot capture the tire non-linearity and,
as a result, the estimator based on the 3-DOF model fails to
accurately estimate the vehicle states in the non-linear range.
The 1-DOF model, on the other hand, does not rely on
the linear tire model but uses the lateral acceleration directly.
Therefore, the 1-DOF model is less sensitive to the non-
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
v
y

(
m
/
s
)
Lateral Velocity Estimation
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
Y
a
w

R
a
t
e

(
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
)
Time (sec)
Yaw Rate Estimation
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim

Fig. 6 Lateral Velocity and Yaw Rate Estimation using 3-DOF Model
Fishhook Test
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
v
y

(
m
/
s
)
Lateral Velocity Estimation
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
20
10
0
10
20
Y
a
w

R
a
t
e

(
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
)
Time (sec)
Yaw Rate Estimation
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim

Fig. 3 Lateral Velocity and Yaw Rate Estimation using 3-DOF Model
in Linear Range
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
2
0
2
4
R
o
ll
A
n
g
le

(
d
e
g
)
Roll Angle Estimation
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
2
0
2
4
R
o
ll
A
n
g
le

(
d
e
g
)
Time (sec)
Estimator 1DOF
VehSim

Fig. 4 Roll Angle Estimation using 3-DOF and 1-DOF Models in
Linear Range
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
0
5
10
15
20
v
x

(
m
/
s
)
Vehicle Speed
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
15
10
5
0
5
10
a
y

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (sec)
Lateral Acceleration

Fig. 5 Vehicle Speed and Lateral Acceleration from Fishhook Test
WeC06.3
1620



linear tire dynamics and the corresponding estimator
provides better estimation results in the nonlinear range.
B. Estimation without Roll Rate Measurement
While roll angle and roll rate are estimated using roll rate
measurement in the previous section, roll rate sensors are
not standard vehicle equipment yet, and thus the roll rate
measurement is not always available. Therefore, two more
estimators are designed without using roll rate
measurements to examine its effect on the vehicle state
estimation. The first estimator utilizes the 3-DOF vehicle
model while the second estimator utilizes the 1-DOF vehicle
model. Similarly to the estimators described in the previous
sections, the key difference between the two estimators is
the vehicle model they use.
The estimator based on the 3-DOF vehicle model uses the
state feedback of yaw rate measurement (r
m
). This estimator
uses yaw rate feedback only. The estimator based on the 1-
DOF vehicle is an open-loop estimator without any state
feedback. Since it is an open-loop estimator, the estimator
can be represented as the following transfer function with
the lateral acceleration measurement, which is derived from
(5):
) ( ) (
,
2 1
2
1
s A
c s c s
d
s
m y
r r
r
+ +
= u
(6)
To compare the new estimators performance with those
from the previous sections, the estimators are evaluated
under the exact same two simulated maneuvers: the normal
maneuver in the linear range as shown in Fig. 2, and the
fishhook maneuver in the non-linear range as shown in Fig.
5. CarSim simulation is again used for this evaluation.
1) Estimation Results in Linear Range
Fig. 8 shows the roll angle estimation results from the two
estimators under the linear-range maneuver (shown in Fig.
2). The results clearly show that the two estimators perform
equally well. Comparing with the estimation results in Fig.
4, the accuracy of the estimation without roll rate
measurements is almost the same as that of the estimation
with roll rate measurements in the linear range. This is
because both vehicle models capture the vehicle dynamics
very well in the linear range, and the estimators perform
with good accuracy even without roll rate measurement.
Similar observation can be made from the roll rate
estimation results. Both estimators estimate roll rates very
accurately in this linear-range maneuver.
2) Estimation Results in Non-linear Range
The estimators without roll rate measurement are
evaluated under the same fishhook maneuver as shown in
Fig. 5. Fig. 9 shows the roll angle estimates from the two
estimators without roll rate measurement compared with the
actual roll angle from the CarSim simulation. It is evident
that there exist large estimation errors from the estimator
based on the 3-DOF model. The estimator based on the 1-
DOF model shows better estimation results even though it
still shows significant errors.
Similar observation can be made for the roll rate
estimation. Fig. 10 presents the roll rate estimation results
from the two estimators. Large estimation errors exist from
both estimators. It is especially evident for the estimator
based on the 3-DOF model.
The large estimation errors for both roll angle and roll rate
estimates from the estimator based on the 3-DOF model
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
10
5
0
5
10
R
o
ll
A
n
g
le

(
d
e
g
)
Roll Angle Estimation
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
10
5
0
5
10
R
o
ll
A
n
g
le

(
d
e
g
)
Time (sec)
Estimator 1DOF
VehSim

Fig. 7 Roll Angle Estimation using 3-DOF and 1-DOF Models
Fishhook Test
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
15
10
5
0
5
10
R
o
ll
A
n
g
le

(
d
e
g
)
Roll Angle Estimation without Roll Rate Measurement
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
15
10
5
0
5
10
R
o
ll
A
n
g
le

(
d
e
g
)
Time (sec)
Estimator 1DOF
VehSim

Fig. 9 Roll Angle Estimation without Roll Rate Measurement Linear
Range
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
2
0
2
4
R
o
ll
A
n
g
le

(
d
e
g
)
Roll Angle Estimation without Roll Rate Measurement
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
2
0
2
4
R
o
ll
A
n
g
le

(
d
e
g
)
Time (sec)
Estimator 1DOF
VehSim

Fig. 8 Roll Angle Estimation without Roll Rate Measurement Linear
Range
WeC06.3
1621



result from the linear model assumption of the 3-DOF
model, especially the linear tire model assumption. Non-
linearity in vehicle roll stiffness and damping is also no
longer negligible under the fishhook maneuver.
Furthermore, wheel-lift may occur during the fishhook
maneuver, and this changes the vehicles dynamics and adds
more non-linearity to the system. In addition, the roll angle
and roll rate estimates cannot be corrected using true roll
rate information since the estimator does not use roll rate
measurement. As a result, the estimator using the 3-DOF
linear model does not estimate the vehicle states accurately
without roll rate measurement.
For the estimation using the 1-DOF model, even though
the estimation error is not as large as that from the
estimation using the 3-DOF model, the error is nonetheless
significant for the roll rate estimation. This error is mainly
from the non-linearity of the vehicle roll dynamics.
However, the estimation using the 1-DOF model is more
robust in the non-linear region than the estimation using the
3-DOF model. This is because the 1-DOF model directly
uses the lateral acceleration measurement which already
includes effects of tire and suspension non-linearity. In
summary, to estimate roll angle and roll rate accurately in
non-linear reigion, it is advantageous to have a roll rate
sensor. Other sensors such as GPS or suspension sensors can
also be potentially used to provide the roll rate information.
In terms of choosing a proper vehicle model for the Kalman-
filter-based estimator, the 1-DOF model performs better
than the 3-DOF model.
IV. LATERAL VELOCITY ESTIMATION
In the previous section, it is shown that the Kalman-filter-
based estimators can provide good estimates of vehicle roll
angle and roll rate even in the non-linear region when the
roll rate measurement is available. However, the lateral
velocity estimation shows a big error in the non-linear
region as shown in Fig. 6. In fact, one of the primary
challenges in developing vehicle dynamics control systems
is to sense or estimate lateral velocity of a vehicle. Current
vehicles are not equipped to measure the lateral velocity
directly, and thus most vehicle stability enhancement
systems in the market do not include lateral velocity
feedback control.
As an alternative, lateral velocity can be estimated using
available sensors, such as yaw rate and lateral acceleration
sensors. One common estimation method is to integrate the
time derivative of lateral velocity, which can be calculated
from sensor measurements of yaw rate and lateral
acceleration. A limited-bandwidth integration technique has
been shown to avoid undesirable effects of sensor drift and
bias on the integration [10].
The integration is based on the kinematic relationship
between lateral acceleration and lateral velocity, which can
be described as:
|
|
sin
sin
,
,
g rv a v
g rv v a
x m y y
x y m y
=
+ + =

(7)
where gsin| represents the gravitational component
resulting from the vehicle roll angle, |. Note that the effect
of vehicle pitch and vertical velocity is neglected in (7).
Although the lateral velocity, v
y
, can be estimated by
integrating (7), v
x
and | are not directly available. As a
common solution to this, the average speed of un-driven
wheels is used instead of v
x
, and gsin| is ignored assuming
its effect is small.
Fig. 11 shows the lateral velocity estimation result using
this integration scheme under the same fishhook simulation
shown in Fig. 5. Comparing this estimation result to the
estimation result using the 3-DOF model, it is obvious that
the lateral velocity estimation from the integration is better
than the estimation using the 3-DOF model. However, the
estimation error from the integration is still significant.
While using wheel speed as v
x
and ignoring the term, gsin|,
is generally acceptable near the linear region, it degrades the
lateral velocity estimation under certain conditions, such as
large rolling motion, spin-out, etc., where wheel speeds do
not accurately represent the true longitudinal speed and
vehicle roll angle is not small enough to ignore its effect.
These effects cause the estimation error in the fishhook
maneuver as shown in Fig. 11.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
60
40
20
0
20
40
R
o
ll
R
a
t
e

(
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
)
Roll Rate Estimation without Roll Rate Measurement
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
60
40
20
0
20
40
R
o
ll
R
a
t
e

(
d
e
g
/
s
e
c
)
Time (sec)
Estimator 1DOF
VehSim

Fig. 10 Roll Rate Estimation without Roll Rate Measurement
Fishhook Test
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2
0
2
4
6
8
v
y

(
m
/
s
)
Lateral Velocity Estimation
Estimator 3DOF
VehSim
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2
0
2
4
6
8
v
y

(
m
/
s
)
Time (sec)
Lateral Velocity Estimation by Integration
Estimation by Int.
VehSim

Fig. 11 Lateral Velocity Estimation Fishhook Test
WeC06.3
1622



However, even in such situations, processing the speed
from un-driven wheels (with steering wheel angle if rear-
wheel drive) in an appropriate manner as well as estimating
gsin| from the lateral acceleration measurement will
increase the accuracy of lateral velocity estimation.
First, the speed of un-driven wheel is converted to the
longitudinal velocity taking into account the steering angle.
This process is necessary especially for large steering angles
because the test vehicle is rear-wheel-driving and the speed
of un-driven wheel is coming from the front wheels. The
conversion is made as follows:
f wh x m x
v v o cos
, ,
=
(8)
where v
x,m
represents the measured longitudinal velocity,
and v
x,wh
is the wheel speed from the un-driven front wheels.
The measured longitudinal velocity (v
x,m
) is then filtered
using the following vehicle-dependant filter:
) ( ) (
,
2 1
2
2 1
, ,
s V
c s c s
d s d
s V
m x
v v
v v
flt m x
+ +
+
=
(9)
The wheel speeds, even from un-driven wheels, do not
represent the true vehicle velocity when a vehicle is
skidding or has excessive longitudinal or lateral slip, or ABS
is active. The filter in (9) takes care of these situations. This
filter is employed to estimate the vehicle speed from the
wheel speeds using the fact that vehicle longitudinal
dynamics are closely related to wheel speeds and vehicle
body dynamics are much slower than wheel and tire
dynamics. The filter coefficients are determined so that the
filter represents the vehicle longitudinal dynamics. The filter
coefficients also can be determined empirically through
simulation or vehicle tests. This is not a rigorous way but an
ad hoc method to estimate the longitudinal velocity from the
wheel speeds. Nonetheless, this improves the accuracy of
the lateral velocity estimation significantly. However, more
theoretical and systematic approach to determine the
longitudinal velocity should be developed and applied.
In addition to processing the wheel speed to get the true
vehicle longitudinal speed, the gravity term, gsin|, in (7) is
estimated to reduce the estimation error. While the term,
gsin|, or the roll angle, |, cannot be directly measured, the
roll angle, |, can be estimated using measured lateral
acceleration as shown in Section III. Assuming the roll rate
measurement is not available, which is the case for most
production vehicles, the roll angle, |, is estimated using (6)
with the lateral acceleration measurement. Note that the roll
angle estimation with roll rate measurement is more accurate
than the estimation without roll rate measurement. If the
vehicle has a roll rate sensor, the roll angle estimation
described in Section III Part A can be used instead of (6).
Using (6) and (9), (7) is rewritten as:
( )
m y r f m x m y y
a f g rv a v
, , , ,
sin =
(10)
where f
r
(a
y,m
) is derived from (6). The lateral velocity, v
y
,
can be then estimated by integrating (10). Lateral velocity
estimation result from this new estimation method is shown
in Fig. 12 with the estimation result from the old integration
method. It clearly shows that the estimation error is
significantly reduced using the new method of (10).
V. CONCLUSION
This paper presents methods of estimating vehicle states
for roll stability enhancement and warning systems. The
estimator based on the 1-DOF vehicle model is more robust
than the estimator based on the 3-DOF vehicle model in the
non-linear region because the 1-DOF model is less sensitive
to non-linear dynamics. In addition, the accuracy of roll
angle and roll rate estimation is significantly degraded
without roll rate measurement in the non-linear region. It is
also shown that the lateral velocity estimation, which is
based on the integration of inertial sensor measurements, can
be improved by including the effect of roll motion and better
estimation of vehicle speed.
REFERENCES
[1] R. W. Goldman, M. El Gindy, and B. T. Kulakowski, Rollover
Dynamics of Road Vehicles: Literature Survey, Heavy Vehicle
Systems, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2001, pp. 103-141.
[2] B. Chen and H. Peng, Differential-Braking-Based Rollover
Prevention for Sport Utility Vehicles with Human-in-the-loop
Evaluations, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 4/5, 2001, pp.
359-389.
[3] D. J. M. Sampson and D. Cebon, Active Roll Control of Single Unit
Heavy Road Vehicles, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 40, No. 4,
2003, pp. 229-270.
[4] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts
2004, 2005, NHTSA Annual Report.
[5] A. Hac, T. Brown, and J. Martens, Detection of Vehicle Rollover,
2004, SAE Paper No. 2004-01-1757.
[6] C. R. Carlson and J. C. Gerdes, Optimal Rollover Prevention with
Steer By Wire and Differential Braking," ASME Dynamic Systems
and Control Division (Publication) DSC, Vol. 72, 2003, pp. 345-354,
Washington, D.C.
[7] B. Chen and H. Peng, Rollover Warning of Articulated Vehicles
Based on a Time-to-Rollover Metric, ASME Dynamic Systems and
Control Division (Publication) DSC, Vol. 67, 1999, pp. 247-254,
Nashville, TN.
[8] CarSim User Manual, Mechanical Simulation Corporation.
[9] S. Takano, M. Nagai, T. Taniguchi, and T. Hatano, Study on a
Vehicle Dynamics Model for Improving Roll Stability, JSAE
Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2003, pp. 149-556.
[10] S. Chen and W. C. Lin, Vehicle Stability Enhancement Control,
2004, US Patent Published Application US2004199321 AA.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2
0
2
4
6
8
v
y

(
m
/
s
)
Lateral Velocity Estimation by Integration Existing Method
Estimation by Int.
VehSim
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2
0
2
4
6
8
v
y

(
m
/
s
)
Time (sec)
Lateral Velocity Estimation by New Method
New Estimator
VehSim

Fig. 12 Enhanced Lateral Velocity Estimation Fishhook Test
WeC06.3
1623