377

Integrated control of suspension and front steering to

enhance vehicle handling
C March and T Shim*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, Michigan, USA

The manuscript was received on 11 August 2005 and was accepted after revision for publication on 11 December 2006.

DOI: 10.1243/09544070JAUTO152

Abstract: Integration of vehicle chassis control system has gained increasing attention since
it can improve the vehicle safety and performance through effective coordination of individual
control systems. This paper presents the development of an integrated control system of active
front steering and normal force control using fuzzy reasoning to enhance the vehicle-handling
performance. Individual control systems were first developed, and then their performances
were compared with that of the integrated system. The simulation results indicate that the
integrated chassis control scheme utilizing the steering and suspension controllers has proven
to be more effective in attaining the desired performance that would not be attained
individually.

Keywords: fuzzy logic, integrated chassis control, active suspension, active steering, normal
force control, handling.

1 INTRODUCTION growing electric and electronic technologies and the

In recent years the use of electronic control systems
has become increasingly popular in automotive
applications, resulting in significant improvement
in vehicle handling and passenger safety. The
active vehicle control technologies, which integrate
electronic components into existing vehicle hardware,
aim to improve the vehicle stability by controlling
its components when the vehicle is at the physical
limit of manoeuvres. It allows the driver to keep
ultimate control of the vehicle and provides great
flexibility to make the vehicle adapt to environmental
variations as well as emergency manoeuvres to avoid
accidents. Various types of active control system have
been developed in the past to enhance the stability
and handling characteristics of a vehicle [1–6]. Active
front steering (AFS), active rear steering, four-wheel
steering, and direct yaw moment control (DYC) are
some of the options widely explored. With the fast-
* Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan-Dearborn, 4901 Evergreen Road, Dearborn,
Michigan, 48128, USA. email: tshim@umich.edu
decreasing cost associated with them, electronic con-
trol of vehicle dynamics will probably be pervasive
in the near future and there has been considerable
effort in the integration of individual active control
systems known as global chassis control [7–12]. The
research reported here addresses the integration of
normal force control (NFC) and front steering control
to enhance the lateral dynamics of a vehicle.
It is well understood that lateral vehicle dynamics
are strongly influenced by passive normal load
changes during cornering [13–15]. When a car turns
to the left, the right-side, or outside, tyres become
more loaded and the load decreases on the left, or
inside, tyres. Owing to the non-linear behaviour of
pneumatic tyres [16], the total lateral force capability
of an axle decreases because of this load shift. By
adjusting the roll stiffness at the front and rear of the
vehicle (using anti-sway bars, active or passive), the
loss of cornering capability can be directed towards
the front or rear as desired. The result of this adjust-
ment is the ability to influence the oversteer or
understeer characteristics of the vehicle. This type of
adjustment is made continuously in race situations
where drivers pit, complaining that the car ‘pushes’

JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
378 C March and T Shim
or is ‘loose’. If a vehicle is equipped with active
suspension, then the capability exists to modulate
the normal force at each corner. The research in
references [17] and [18] has shown the possible
benefits to be attained by modulating normal force
through active suspension control during cornering
manoeuvres.
Integrated chassis control systems typically com-
bine steer modulation, variable torque distribution,
and independent wheel braking. In this paper, a
novel approach to integrating active suspension
with AFS to enhance vehicle handling is introduced.
A fuzzy logic control (FLC) strategy is used in the
development of controllers for steering and active
suspension systems. The use of FLC in handling
enhancement controller design has been successfully
utilized in references [8] and [19] to [23]. The con-
troller output consists of an additional steering
angle and the suspension actuation obtained by the
integration of the difference between the reference
yaw rate value as commanded by the driver and
the actual achieved vehicle yaw rate. Significant
improvements over the passive uncontrolled system
and individual controllers are seen in the areas of
directional response, forward velocity at the end of
steer manoeuvres, and body roll motion.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
sections 2 and 3 show the development of the vehicle
model and its validation with measured test data.
Section 4 discusses the reference model to be used
in the controller development. The controller develop-
ment for steering and suspension is discussed in
section 5. Section 6 looks at the simulation results
and, finally, section 7 draws the conclusions.
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the vehicle model
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
2 VEHICLE MODEL DEVELOPMENT
In Fig. 1, the motion of the vehicle system is
described in terms of a body-fixed (moving) coordi-
nate system with axes in the X, Y, and Z directions
represented in the diagram by the velocities U,
V, and W respectively. This figure represents the
14-degree-of-freedom vehicle system on which the
model is based. There are six degrees of freedom at
the centre of gravity of the lumped vehicle mass:
linear and angular displacements along the X, Y, and
Z directions. There are also two degrees of freedom
at each of the four corners of the vehicle: unsprung
mass travel and wheel spin.
In the development of the vehicle model, the
following assumptions were made.
1. A small angle is assumed for the major vehicle
motions (pitch, roll, and yaw) to obviate the need
for coordinate transformations.
2. The steering angles d of both front wheels, are
considered identical.
3. The effect of unsprung mass is only considered in
vertical motion and ignored in the vehicle’s lateral
and longitudinal motions.
4. The tyre and suspension remain normal to the
ground during vehicle manoeuvres.
Using Newton’s laws, based on the moving coordi-
nate system, the equations of motion for the lumped
mass can be derived as
m(U̇−Vv +Wv )
y p
=F +F +F +F −(F +F )d (1)
Lrf Llf Lrr Llr Crf Clf
JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007
 Integrated control of suspension and front steering 379

m(V̇−Wv +Uv ) For simulation purposes, the longitudinal and

r y
lateral tyre forces are modelled using a ‘magic formula’
=F +F +F +F +(F +F )d (2)
Crr Clr Crf Clf Lrf Llf tyre model [16]. This model has been implemented
m (Ẇ−Uv +Vv )=F +F +F +F −m g in the MATLAB/Simulink environment to examine its
s p r Srf Slf Srr Slr s
responses.
(3)
t
J v̇ = (F +F −F −F ) 3 MODEL VALIDATION
r r 2 Slf Slr Srf Srr

+h(F +F +F +F ) (4) The vehicle parameters of a compact car were used

Crf Clf Crr Clr
J v̇ =b(F +F )−h(F +F +F +F ) in the vehicle model and a constant-speed variable-
p p Slr Srr Llf Lrf Llr Lrr steer test, defined in SAE J266 [24], was performed
−a(F +F ) (5) on it. Figure 3 shows the comparison of the vehicle’s
Slf Srf
t lateral acceleration and yaw rate responses between
J v̇ = (F +F −F −F )+a(F +F ) the vehicle model and actual vehicle test data during
y y 2 Lrf Lrr Llf Llr Clf Crf
a constant-speed test. The test was carried out on a
−b(F +F ) (6) uniform, dry, level, and hard road surface. A ramp
Clr Crr
steering wheel input is applied while the vehicle runs
F , F , and F are the longitudinal, cornering, and
Lij Cij Sij at a speed of 60 mile/h. Vehicle data were recorded
suspension forces respectively at each wheel, where
at 200 Hz sampling rate. As shown, the responses of
the subscript i represents the left (l) or right (r) side
the vehicle model were well matched with the actual
and the subscript j represents the front (f) or rear (r).
vehicle measurements. The discrepancies shown at
Figure 2 shows the schematic diagram of the
lateral acceleration levels beyond 0.5g come from the
suspension and wheel at one corner of the vehicle.
factors that are not modelled in the development
The force generated by the active and passive
of the vehicle model such as tyre non-linearity,
components of each suspension can be determined
suspension effect (roll steer and roll camber), and
by
lateral compliance steer.
F =k (X −X )+F +b (Ẋ −Ẋ ) (7)
suspension s u s c s u s
The F term in the above equation is the control input
c 4 REFERENCE VEHICLE
to the system, and a positive force causes an upward
acceleration on the body while causing a negative
It is difficult to determine the desired handling
acceleration on the wheel.
characteristic of a vehicle during a cornering
The equations of motion for each wheel can be
manoeuvre since it is a comprehensive measure of
represented by
the vehicle–driver combination. The neutral steer
M −F R−B=J v̇ (8) vehicle characteristic is often considered as desirable
y Lij w w
during the cornering manoeuvres and hence the
where M is the driving torque, B is the braking
y objective of handling enhancement is generally to
torque, R is the effective radius of the wheel, F is
Lij reduce the understeer behaviour of a vehicle without
the tyre force, J is the wheel’s moment of inertia,
w allowing it to become oversteer.
and v̇ is the wheel’s angular acceleration.
w For the reference vehicle, the 14-degree-of-freedom
vehicle model was used. In order to model neutral
steer behaviour, the reference vehicle was derived by
moving the centre of gravity of the test vehicle model
back to the vehicle’s geometrical centre to equalize
the static weights on all four suspension corners. The
vehicle’s moments of inertia and the suspension
parameters were also modified in the model to reflect
the effects of the equalized axle weights.
Figure 4 shows the comparison of the steering
angle at the front wheels versus lateral acceleration
during the constant-speed variable-steer test for the
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of the quarter car model, uncontrolled (passive) vehicle model, the theoretical
and force and velocity components at the wheel neutral car (neutral steer bicycle model), and the

JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
380 C March and T Shim

Fig. 3 Comparison of lateral acceleration and yaw rate between the vehicle model and test data

reference vehicle model represented in the controller. which is similar to that of the neutral steer vehicle
The understeer gradient K, which is often used to and is used for the reference vehicle in the controller
classify a vehicle’s handling characteristics, can be development.
determined from the steering gradient using
dd 57.3Lg
= +K (9)
d(a /g) V2
y 5 DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
where V is the vehicle’s forward velocity (m/s), L
is the wheelbase (m), and g is the acceleration due In order to achieve the handling characteristics of
to gravity (m/s2). The line representing theoretical the reference model, a fuzzy reasoning control
neutral steer behaviour (K=0) is plotted on the methodology was used in the controller development.
steering diagram with a slope of 57.3Lg/V 2. The The control system is designed by using an error-
reference model has an understeer gradient of 0.17, reducing control technique to make the yaw rate of

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007
 Integrated control of suspension and front steering 381

Fig. 4 Comparison of the steering diagram during the constant-speed variable-steer test

the actual vehicle follow that of the desired model.
Figure 5 shows a block diagram for the yaw rate
controller. The desired yaw rate V is produced by a
d
reference model when the steering input U is
d
applied to the vehicle model. The yaw rate controller
adjusts the normal force F and additional steering
c
angle d in order to reduce the yaw rate error e
c
(=V −V) between the reference model and the
d
actual vehicle.
Fuzzy logic controllers were employed for the
primary controllers (NFC and AFS). Additional logic
was also used to control the limits for controller
intervention and to work out how the individual
controllers interact with each other. In general, there
are two types of fuzzy logic controller: the Mamdani
or ‘linguistic’ fuzzy controllers, where both the
antecedent and the consequent parts are formulated
as fuzzy propositions; the Takagi–Sugeno or functional
fuzzy controllers, where only the antecedent con-
ditions are expressed as fuzzy propositions while the
consequent results are defined as algebraic (crisp)
functions. The Mamdani-type fuzzy models were
used in the final stand-alone controllers. In the case
of crisp inputs and outputs, a fuzzy inference system
implements a non-linear mapping from its input
space to its output space. An input is first fuzzified
into a linguistic variable using input membership
functions stored in the fuzzy knowledge base. The
flexibility of this methodology allows controllers to
have single or multiple inputs and outputs. A vast
number of choices are available and hence additional
membership functions and rules can be added to
fuzzify the input and output error further with more
resolution; however, the chosen controller models

Fig. 5 (a) Schematic diagram of the yaw-rate based controller; (b) integration scheme

JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
382 C March and T Shim

were found to be adequate for the purposes of this
study.
The fuzzy models used in the controllers
described in this section utilize a ‘centroid of area’
defuzzification method, defined by
∆ m (z)z dz
z = z A (10)
COA ∆ m (z) dz
z A
where z is the crisp output from the controller
COA
and m is the respective degree of membership for
A ‘okay’, and to the most positive values ‘PB’ for e and
the output z of each rule. The centroid of area
defuzzification method was more representative of
the control logic that is to be implemented. A per-
formance tuning approach based on parameterization
and optimization of membership functions is used
in the design of the fuzzy controllers discussed in
this paper. Gaussian membership functions were
used because of their smoothness and concise
notation. They have the distinct advantage of being
smooth and non-zero at all points [25].
5.1 Active front steering controller
In a typical vehicle active steering system, the steer-
ing angle u at the tyre is set in part by the driver
through the vehicle classical steering mechanism
while an additional steering angle d can be set by
c The additional logic was designed to limit the
the controller using hydraulic or d.c. motor actuators
combined with a differential mechanical device [1].
The steering angle is thus
u=u +d
d c
where u is based directly on the driver’s steering
d
wheel angle input.
Figure 6 shows the yaw rate error and its time
derivative being fed to the AFS fuzzy controller to
determine the controlled steer addition.
The input domains of the Mamdani steering
controller are partitioned with seven membership
functions for the yaw rate error e, and three for its
derivative ė. The membership functions range from
the most negative values ‘NB’, to one around zero
the functions for ė partition ‘negative’ values from
‘positive’ values as well as the ‘OK’ partition at
approximately zero, as illustrated in Fig. 7.
The concept of active steering has been around for
some time now and some key characteristics that
were defined in studies more than 30 years ago by
Kasselmann and Keranen [26] are still utilized in
steering controllers today. One such characteristic
limits steer addition d to ±3° (±0.05 rad) [1]. This
c
was therefore used for the range of values in the
output domain of the AFS controller.
For this controller, 7×3=21 fuzzy rules need to
be defined to cover all possible combinations of
linguistic variables of the two inputs. This rule base
is shown in Table 1.
intervention of the AFS controller to zero when a
cornering manoeuvre has switched from left to right
while there is still a positive yaw rate error and vice
(11) versa. AFS intervention is also disallowed when the

Fig. 6 Structure of the AFS controller in the MATLAB simulink environment

Fig. 7 Input membership functions for the AFS controller

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007
 Integrated control of suspension and front steering
Table 1 Rule table for AFS controller
Error for the following
Error rate NB NM
Negative NB NB
OK NB NM
Positive NB NM
steer angle becomes zero and e is still non-zero.
Previous research [12] indicated that AFS is more
effective in the low to medium lateral acceleration
range; so AFS intervention is phased out as this range
is surpassed.
5.2 Normal force controller
It is important to determine ‘how much’, ‘when’, and
‘where’ suspension actuation should be applied in
order to enhance vehicle handling. Thus, a sensitivity
analysis for the vehicle’s lateral forces was conducted
by applying a step steer to the left at low, medium,
and high speeds with no brake input and no throttle.
During these manoeuvres, the actuator inputs at
the four corners of the vehicle have been varied
independently and in a few combinations to see
which combination yields the desired result of
maximum cornering force.
The following additional guidelines were also
used to determine the most effective actuation
combination.
Guideline 1. Minimize body motion (i.e. roll angle).
Guideline 2. Maximize peak transient cornering
force per total supplied actuation force (TSAF).
TSAF refers to the sum of all actuator forces being
supplied by the active suspension system. This is
taken into consideration since for most actuators
the actuation force is directly related to the power
that is required to produce that force.
Guideline 3. In the event that guidelines 1 and 2 do
not coincide, then choose the actuator combination
that yields the best improvement in cornering
force with a corresponding roll motion that does
not exceed the values for a passive system.
From the sensitivity analysis, it is observed that
either or a combination of both front wheels being
actuated results in an increase in the transient
cornering force of the vehicle. In some cases a slightly
larger increase is observed when the inner front
wheel is actuated than when the outer front wheel
JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007
383
NS okay PS PM PB
NM NM PS PM PB
NS OK PS PM PB
NS PM PM PB PB
is actuated. This, however, yields the undesirable
effect of an increase in the body roll angle. This is
illustrated in Fig. 8, which shows the changes in roll
angle and cornering force (based on normal force
input from the controller), with respect to the passive
vehicle without control. The abbreviations RF, RR, LF,
and LR on the x axis indicate the right front, right
rear, left front, and left rear corners respectively of
the vehicle. Based on this analysis, actuation at the
front corner opposing the turn is deemed the best
location for enhancing vehicle handling.
With the inclusion of acceleration and brake
inputs, it can still be seen that actuation at the front
corner opposing the turn yields the best results as
far as its effect on cornering force is concerned. It
also yields the lowest roll motion of the combinations
tested.
The normal force controller ultimately consists of
two identical fuzzy controller modules that control
the suspension of each of the front wheels, as shown
in Fig. 9. The yaw rate errors being fed to the con-
trollers are opposite in sign. The input domains of
each control module are partitioned with four
membership functions for the yaw rate error e, and
three for its derivative ė. The membership functions
range from approximately zero, ‘okay’, to the most
positive values, ‘PB’ for e and the functions for ė
partition ‘negative’ values from ‘positive’ values as
well as the ‘OK’ partition at approximately zero, as
illustrated in Fig. 10.
The output domains for both NFC modules are
normalized to range between the values of 0 and 1.
A gain and a saturation block are applied to the
normalized output to limit the actuation force
being supplied to the vehicle model. Maximum
values of over 5500 N have been observed in previous
studies [27]; thus this was the saturation force that
was used in the control scheme to limit the actuator
force. The output membership functions for the
controllers are shown in Fig. 11.
For these controllers, 4×3=12 fuzzy rules need
to be defined to cover all possible combinations
of linguistic variables of the two inputs. This rule
base is shown in Table 2. Additional membership
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
384 C March and T Shim

Fig. 8 Effect of actuation location on the roll angle and cornering force

Fig. 9 NFC structure in the MATLAB simulink environment

Fig. 10 Input membership functions for the individual normal force controllers

functions and rules can be added to fuzzify the input 5.3 Integrated control system
error further with more resolution; however, the
above stated rules were found to be adequate for the The purpose of the integrated controller is to com-
purposes of this study. bine intuitively the AFS and NFC strategies in order

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007
 Integrated control of suspension and front steering 385

handling dynamics. The major objectives of the

integrated system are as follows:
(a) to improve steering responses or yaw rate track-
ing performance of the vehicle in normal driving
conditions;
(b) to minimize the influence of the controller on
the vehicle’s longitudinal dynamics;
(c) to avoid discontinuity and to require seamless
transition from one subsystem to the other with
a change in the control priorities [12].
The AFS control strategy drives the yaw rate error
closer to zero throughout the duration of the lane
Fig. 11 Output membership functions for the indi- change manoeuvre than the NFC strategy. It is hence
vidual normal force controllers also able to match more closely the trajectory of the
reference vehicle. This is also expected since the AFS
Table 2 Rule table for normal force control is active for the entire steer manoeuvre while
controllers the NFC is active only at the start of steer in either
direction. It is observed that the NFC strategy exhibits
Error for the following a reduced effect on the longitudinal dynamics of the
Error rate okay PS PM PB vehicle since the NFC vehicle ends the manoeuvre
with a higher velocity than the AFS-controlled car.
Negative No change PS PM PB
OK No change PS PM PB
Since the system needs to draw on the advantages
Positive PM PM PB PB of the individual controllers the integrated controller
can therefore be designed with the following in mind:
(a) to track the reference vehicle equally to or better
to attain a level of performance that would not than the AFS stand-alone system;
otherwise be achievable by either individually. In (b) to equal or improve the final velocity at the end
order to determine how the strategies were to be of the manoeuvre in comparison with the AFS
combined, the lane change manoeuvre with no brake stand-alone system;
or acceleration inputs was performed and the results (c) to reduce the power absorbed by the respective
examined. The integration strategy is hence obtained suspension systems from that observed in the
through simulation investigation of the vehicle- NFC system.

Fig. 12 Suspension controller look-up table

JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
386 C March and T Shim
The integrated control was based primarily on yaw
rate error, derived from the difference between the
actual and desired yaw rates. As shown in Fig. 5, the
difference in the yaw rates from the two models, e,
is used by the controller to determine the suspension
Fig. 13 Steering wheel input for 40 mile/h, 60 mile/h,
and 80 mile/h
Fig. 14 Comparison of the vehicle responses for varying levels of control during a 40 mile/h
lane change manoeuvre
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
force F , to be added as well as the amount of
c
additional steer d , which should be added to the
c
driver’s steer input. In this system, when the yaw rate
error is no longer zero, the yaw moment demand will
be shared between the AFS and NFC control strategies.
The block diagram of the proposed integration
scheme is also illustrated in Fig. 5. As seen in the
diagram, the major means of integration is the use
of a look-up table, which is shown in Fig. 12. Such
look-up tables are tunable by the control designer
and it is known that, in an actual controller, a multi-
dimensional table which is also dependent on the
vehicle’s forward velocity and other parameters can
be readily implemented in the controller.
Even though the controller used in this study pri-
marily controls the yaw rate error, it is known that
controlling only this parameter will not be sufficient
to ensure that in all cases the desired course is
followed. It is possible for yaw rate error to be accept-
able while the vehicle is in lateral drift; therefore it
is desirable also to control another parameter such
as the lateral acceleration error.
JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007
 Integrated control of suspension and front steering 387

6 SIMULATION RESULTS lation, driver inputs of the steering wheel angle and
wheel torque (accelerating and braking) were also
The vehicle parameters shown in Table 3 were used user definable.
in the simulation of the vehicle model. The static
deflection at each corner together with the vehicle’s
initial speed, the wheel’s no-slip wheel velocity, and 6.1 Single-lane-change manoeuvre
the road friction coefficient were used to initialize To compare the control strategies formulated, a
the model prior to simulation. For any given simu- single-lane-change manoeuvre (SLCM) is used. The
lane change manoeuvre is an abbreviated version of
Table 3 Vehicle parameters the double-lane-change manoeuvre (DLCM) used by
Symbol Units Test value Reference value
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
and the Consumer Union in their rollover propensity
a m 1.053 1.306 analyses of vehicles. The SLCM represents a changing
b m 1.559 1.306
B N/m/s 3000 2500 vehicle path owing to an obstruction ahead. It can
sf
B
sr
N/m/s 2000 2500 hence be regarded as a passing or a collision
h m 0.663 0.663
J kg m2 2211.7 2211.7
avoidance manoeuvre.
p The manoeuvre is accomplished by a 2 s sinusoidal
J kg m2 496 496
r
J kg m2 1.1 1.1 steering input. The steering is held constantly at
w
J kg m2 2324.8 2249.466
y 0° for the remainder of the simulation (shown in
K N/m 46 800 39 300
sf
K
sr
N/m 31 800 39 300 Fig. 13). For the manoeuvre, the same input is
K N/m 200 000 200 000
m
t
kg 1349 1349
applied to the steering wheel of the vehicle travelling
m kg 1176 1176 at 40 mile/h in its controlled and uncontrolled state.
s
R m 0.285 0.285 The ratio of the steering to road wheel angle for the
w
t m 1.483 1.483
test vehicle is 16 to 1.

Fig. 15 Suspension characteristics for a vehicle during a 40 mile/h lane change manoeuvre using
NFC and integrated control

JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
388 C March and T Shim
Figure 14 compares the performance of the indi-
vidual baseline controllers with that of the integrated
controller in the key areas of vehicle trajectory, roll
angle, forward velocity, and yaw rate error. It is
observed that, with all levels of control, the overall
lateral position of the vehicle is increased at the end
of the manoeuvre. The reference vehicle attains an
overall lateral position of 4.18 m. This is 53.68 per
cent greater than the lateral position attained by the
uncontrolled vehicle. The normal force controller,
AFS controller, and integrated controller strategies
yielded respectable increases of 5 per cent, 48.8 per
cent and 49.6 per cent respectively.
The roll behaviours for the normal force controller
and integrated controller strategies both indicate
reduced body roll during the manoeuvre (compared
with the AFS controller). It is shown in the ‘vehicle’s
forward velocity’ plot that, while the AFS-controlled
vehicle reasonably matches the desired vehicle
path, it also loses the most momentum during the
manoeuvre with a final velocity of 17.668 m/s and
experiences the highest degree of body roll. The
normal-force-controlled, integrated controlled, and
the uncontrolled vehicles end the simulation at
17.784 m/s, 17.675 m/s, and 17.78 m/s respectively.
Fig. 16 Comparison of vehicle responses for varying levels of control during a 60 mile/h lane
change manoeuvre
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
The yaw rate error plot shows that the integrated
controller most closely matched the yaw rate of the
reference vehicle.
It should be noted that the proposed controller is
designed to enhance vehicle-handling performance
when the vehicle roll motion is in a stable region.
Since a vehicle oversteer tendency makes a vehicle
more prone to rollover, if a wheel lift-off is detected
or a vehicle is in danger of rollover, the controller
which improves the vehicle yaw rate may result in
vehicle rollover. Thus the proposed controller should
be modified to be effective in this region by consider-
ing the rollover propensity in the development of the
controller.
Figure 15 shows the suspension behaviour of the
vehicle as the suspension is actuated during the NFC
and the integrated control modes. The peak-to-peak
suspension deflections for the NFC and integrated
control modes for the right front suspension corner
are 0.078 m, 0.066 m, and 0.072 m respectively. The
results for the left front corner for the same are
0.078 m, 0.064 m, and 0.079 m respectively. All are
seen to be well within the range that typical suspen-
sion systems are capable of providing. A reasonable
actuator power is also seen for both front corners.
JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007
 Integrated control of suspension and front steering 389

To test the robustness of the controller, a similar
test was conducted at a speed of 60 mile/h. The result
from this test is shown in Fig. 16. It is observed from
these plots that at the higher speed the performance
is similar to that achieved previously at 40 mile/h.
6.2 Double-lane-change manoeuvre
The International Standards Organization (ISO) 3888
Part 2 DLCM is used in this test to observe the vehicle
behaviour in response to steering wheel inputs being
used in an emergency manoeuvre. The test represents
a changing vehicle path based on predetermined
cone placement in the road, as shown in Fig. 17 [28].
The manoeuvres were conducted on a dry road at
an entry velocity of 45 mile/h just before the first
steering input. No throttle input or brake application
was simulated during the remainder of the simu-
lation. In order to follow the desired path, the con-
trolled vehicle and the uncontrolled vehicle had to
have the radically different steering inputs illustrated
in Fig. 18. Other key differences to note are the con-
trolled vehicle’s reduced roll angle and the reduced
propensity to rollover as demonstrated by the fact

Fig. 17 ISO 3888 Part 2 DLCM

Fig. 18 Vehicle performance for varying levels of control during a 60 mile/h DLCM

JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
390 C March and T Shim
that the tyres are further from lift-off. In the tyre
deformation plots, tyre lift-off occurs if and when the
tyre tension becomes zero.
7 CONCLUSIONS
NFC and AFS are reasonably efficient methods of
enhancing vehicle handling. The implementation
of NFC is very straightforward, given the prevalent
use of active suspension systems today, and AFS
is becoming more and more common in modern
vehicle design. A full-vehicle model was used to
demonstrate how the two strategies could be inte-
grated and what the performance benefits that are
likely to be derived are.
The use of fuzzy reasoning was also explored and
it has been proven to be an effective means of chassis
control. The membership functions and rules are
tunable and the best combination will probably arise
as a result of testing with a real vehicle. When this is
achieved, further attempts at optimization should
yield even better results than those shown in this
paper. The important result here is that NFC and AFS
individually have a significant positive influence on
the lateral dynamics of a vehicle and integrating the
two showed that both can readily be a part of future
global chassis control strategies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial
support of the Center for Engineering Education and
Practice at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.
REFERENCES
1 Ackerman, J., Odenthal, D., and Bunte, T.
Advantages of active steering for vehicle dynamics
control. In Proceedings of the 32nd International
Symposium on Automotive technology and auto-
mation, Vienna, Austria, 1999, pp. 263–270 (Auto-
motive Automation Ltd, Croydon, UK).
2 Mammar, S. and Koenig, D. Vehicle handling
improvement by active steering. Veh. System
Dynamics, 2002, 38(2), 211–242.
3 Shibahata, Y., Shimada, K., and Tomari, T.
Improvement of vehicle maneuverability by direct
yaw moment control. Veh. System Dynamics, 1993,
22, 465–481.
4 Naito, G., Inoue, H., and Matsumoto, S. Improve-
ments in active safety through braking and traction
control. SAE technical paper 945151, 1994.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
5 Koibuchi, K., Yamamoto, M., Fukada, Y., and
Inagaki, S. Vehicle Stability Control in Limit
Cornering by Active Brake. SAE technical paper
960487, 1996.
6 Pascali, L., Gabrielli, P., and Caviasso, G. Improving
Vehicle Handling and Comfort Performance Using
4WS. SAE technical paper 2003-01-0961, 2003.
7 Nagai, M., Hirano, Y., and Yamanaka, S. Integrated
control of active rear wheel steering and direct yaw
moment control. Veh. System Dynamics, 1997, 27,
357–370.
8 Zeyada, Y., Karnopp, D., El-Arabi, M., and
El-Behiry, E. A combined active steering differential
braking yaw rate control strategy for emergency
maneuvers. SAE technical paper 980230, 1998.
9 Horiuchi, S., Okada, K., and Nohtomi, S. Integrated
control of four wheel steering and wheel torques
using nonlinear predictive controller. SAE technical
paper 9836464, 1998.
10 Selby, M., Manning, W. J., Brown, M. D., and
Crolla, D. A. A coordination approach for DYC and
active steering. SAE technical paper 2001-01-1275,
2001.
11 Hac, A. and Bodie, M. Improvements of vehicle
handling through integrated control of chassis
system. Int. J. Veh. Des., 2002, 29(1/2), 23–50.
12 He, J., Crolla, D. A., Levesley, M. C., and
Manning, W. J. Integrated active steering and vari-
able torque distribution control for vehicle handling
and stability. SAE technical paper 2004-01-1071,
2004.
13 Mastinu, G., Babbel, E., Lugner, P., and Margolis,
D. L. Integrated controls of lateral vehicle dynamics.
Veh. System Dynamics, 1994, 23, 358–377.
14 Hrovat, D., Margolis, D. L., and Hubbard, M. An
approach toward the optimal semi-active suspension.
Trans. ASME, J. Dynamic Systems Measmt Control,
1988, 110, 288–295.
15 Tobata, H., Kimura, T., Akatsu, Y., and Fukuyama, K.
Study on roll stiffness distribution control in an
active suspension system. SAE technical paper
928309, 1992.
16 Bakker, E., Nyborg, L., and Pacejka, H. B. Tyre
modeling for use in vehicle dynamics studies. SAE
technical paper 870421, 1987.
17 Blank, M. and Margolis, D. The effect of normal
force variation on the lateral dynamics of auto-
mobiles. SAE technical paper 960484, 1996.
18 Shim, T. and Margolis, D. Dynamic normal force
control for vehicle stability enhancement. Int. J.Veh.
Autonomous Systems Des., 2005, 3(1), 1–14.
19 Buckholtz, K. R. Use of fuzzy logic in wheel slip
assignment – Part I: yaw rate control. SAE technical
paper 2002-01-1221, 2002.
20 Buckholtz, K. R. Use of fuzzy logic in wheel slip
assignment – Part II: yaw rate control with sideslip
angle limitation. SAE technical paper 2002-01-1220,
2002.
21 Abdelhady, M. A fuzzy controller for automobile
active suspension systems. SAE technical paper
2003-01-1417, 2003.
JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007
 Integrated control of suspension and front steering 391

22 Yoshimura, T. and Emoto, Y. Steering and suspen- F longitudinal force at the tyre (N)
sion system of a full car model using fuzzy reasoning Lij
F suspension force (N)
based on single input rule modules. Int. J. Veh. Des., Sij
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
2003, 1(2), 237–255.
h centre of gravity height (m)
23 Tahami, F., Farhangi, S., and Kazemi, R. A fuzzy
logic direct yaw-moment control system for all- J pitch moment of inertia (kg m2)
p
wheel-drive electric vehicle. Veh. System Dynamics, J roll moment of inertia (kg m2)
r
2004, 41(3), 203–221. J wheel’s moment of inertia (kg m2)
w
24 Steady state directional control test procedures for J yaw moment of inertia (kg m2)
passenger cars and light trucks, Publication SAE
y
k suspension stiffness (N/m)
J266-1996, 1996 (SAE International, Warrendale, s
k tyre’s stiffness (N/m)
Pennsylvania). t
m vehicle’s mass (kg)
25 MATLAB product manual, 2004 (The Mathworks
m vehicle’s sprung mass (kg)
Inc., Natick, Massachusetts). s
26 Kasselmann, J. and Keranen, T. Adaptive steering. M driving torque applied to the wheels (N m)
y
Bendix Tech. J., 1969, 2, 26–35. R effective radius of the tyre (m)
w
27 Hudha, K., Jamaluddin, H., Samin, P. M., and t track width (m)
Rahman, R. Semi active roll control suspension U vehicle’s forward velocity, positive to the
(SARCS) system on a new modified half car model. front (m/s)
SAE technical paper 2003-01-2274, 2003. V vehicle’s lateral velocity, positive to the left
28 Forkenbrock, G., Garrott, W. R., Heitz, M., and
(m/s)
O’Harra, B. C. An experimental examination of
double lane change maneuvers that may induce W vehicle’s vertical velocity, positive upwards
on-road, untripped, light vehicle rollover. SAE (m/s)
technical paper 2003-01-1009, 2003. X body’s vertical velocity at suspension,
s
positive upwards (m/s)

d road–wheel angle (rad)

APPENDIX v pitch angular velocity (rad/s)
p
v roll angular velocity (rad/s)
Notation r
v wheel’s rotational speed (rad/s)
w
a distance from the centre of gravity to the v yaw angular velocity (rad/s)
y
front axle (m) V yaw rate of the actual vehicle
b distance from the centre of gravity to the V yaw rate of the neutral steer vehicle
d
rear axle (m)
Subscript
b suspension damping (N/m s)
s
B brake torque applied to wheels (N m) i =f denotes front;=r denotes rear
F cornering force at the tyre (N) j =l denotes left;=r denotes right
Cij

JAUTO152 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering