International Journal of Automotive Technology

The Korean Society of Automotive Engineers (한국자동차공학회)
권호 표지

CONTROL PHILOSOPHY AND ROBUSTNESS OF ELECTRONIC STABILITY PROGRAM FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF VEHICLE STABILITY

  • Published : 2006.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper describes the control philosophy of ESP(Electronic Stability Program) which consists of the stability control the fault diagnosis and the fault tolerant control. Besides the functional performance of the stability control, robustness of control and fault diagnosis is focused to avoid the unnecessary activation of the controller. The look-up tables are mentioned to have the accurate target yaw rate of the vehicle and obtained from vehicle tests for the whole operation range of the steering wheel angle and the vehicle speed. The wheel slip control with a design goal of wheel slip invariance is implemented for the yaw compensation and the target wheel slip is determined by difference between the target yaw rate and actual yaw rate. Since the ESP has a high severity level and the robust control is required, the robustness margin for the stability control is determined according to several uncertainties and the robust fault diagnosis is performed. Both computer simulation and test results are shown in this paper.

Keywords

References

  1. Blanke, M., Staroswiecki, M. and Wu, N. E. (2001). Concepts and methods in fault-tolerant control. Proc. American Control Conf., 2606-2620
  2. Chen, Jie and Patton, R. J. (1999). Robust Model-Based Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Norwell. MA. USA
  3. Chow, E. and Willsky, A. (1984). Analytical redundancy and the design of robust failure detection systems. IEEE Trans. Auto. Contr. AC-29, 7, 603-614
  4. Chung, T., Kim, J. and Yi, K. (2004). Human-in-the-loop evaluation of a vehicle stability controller using a vehicle simulator. Int. J. Automotive Technology 5, 2, 109-114
  5. Emami-Naeini, A., Akhter, M. M. and Rock, S. M. (1988). Effect of model uncertainty on failure detection ? the threshold selector. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 33, 1106-1115 https://doi.org/10.1109/9.14432
  6. Ehret, T. and Hartman, U. (1995). US Patent No. 5,402,342, USPTO. Arlington. VA. USA
  7. Frank, P. M. (1995). Residual evaluation for fault diagnosis based on adaptive fuzzy thresholds. IEE Colloquium on Qualitative and Quantitative Modeling Methods for Fault Diagnosis, 4/1-4/11, London, UK
  8. GDV - German Insurance Association (2004). Berlin. Germany
  9. Hartmann, U. and van Zanten, A. (1994). US Patent No. 5,332,300, USPTO. Arlington. VA. USA
  10. Isermann, R. (2000). Diagnosis Methods for electronic controlled vehicles. 5th Int. Symp. Advanced Vehicle Control, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  11. Millikan, W. and Millikan, D. (1995). Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. SAE. Warrendale. PA. USA
  12. Nakashima, H., Hamada, T. and Mihara, J. (1999). US Patent No. 5,931,546, USPTO. Arlington. VA. USA
  13. Patton, R. (1993). Robustness issues in fault-tolerant control. Fault Diagnosis and Control System Reconfiguration, IEE Colloquium, 1/1-1/25
  14. PR Newswire, Jan. (2005). New York. USA
  15. Strategy Analytics, July (2004). Newton Ctr. MA. USA
  16. Wanke, P. (1998). US Patent No. 5,711,024, USPTO. Arlington. VA . USA
  17. Wong, J. Y. (1993). Theory of Ground Vehicles. John Wiley and Sons. New York. USA