Browse > Article

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

Kim, D.S. (R&D Center, Mando Corporation)
Hwang, I.Y. (R&D Center, Mando Corporation)
Publication Information
International Journal of Automotive Technology / v.7, no.2, 2006 , pp. 201-208 More about this Journal
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
Stability; Oversteer; Understeer; Robustness; Fault diagnosis; Fault tolerant control;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
Times Cited By Web Of Science : 3  (Related Records In Web of Science)
Times Cited By SCOPUS : 3
연도 인용수 순위
1 Patton, R. (1993). Robustness issues in fault-tolerant control. Fault Diagnosis and Control System Reconfiguration, IEE Colloquium, 1/1-1/25
2 Wong, J. Y. (1993). Theory of Ground Vehicles. John Wiley and Sons. New York. USA
3 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
4 Nakashima, H., Hamada, T. and Mihara, J. (1999). US Patent No. 5,931,546, USPTO. Arlington. VA. USA
5 Ehret, T. and Hartman, U. (1995). US Patent No. 5,402,342, USPTO. Arlington. VA. USA
6 PR Newswire, Jan. (2005). New York. 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 Strategy Analytics, July (2004). Newton Ctr. MA. USA
10 Isermann, R. (2000). Diagnosis Methods for electronic controlled vehicles. 5th Int. Symp. Advanced Vehicle Control, Ann Arbor, Michigan
11 Blanke, M., Staroswiecki, M. and Wu, N. E. (2001). Concepts and methods in fault-tolerant control. Proc. American Control Conf., 2606-2620
12 Millikan, W. and Millikan, D. (1995). Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. SAE. Warrendale. PA. USA
13 Chen, Jie and Patton, R. J. (1999). Robust Model-Based Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Norwell. MA. USA
14 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
15 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   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Hartmann, U. and van Zanten, A. (1994). US Patent No. 5,332,300, USPTO. Arlington. VA. USA
17 Wanke, P. (1998). US Patent No. 5,711,024, USPTO. Arlington. VA . USA