SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2002-01-1221

Use of Fuzzy Logic in Wheel Slip

Assignment – Part I: Yaw Rate Control
Kenneth R. Buckholtz
Delphi Automotive Systems

Reprinted From: Vehicle Dynamics and Simulation 2002

(SP–1656)

SAE 2002 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 4-7, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or
108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for
resale.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 2002-01-1221

Use of Fuzzy Logic in Wheel Slip Assignment – Part I:

Yaw Rate Control
Kenneth R. Buckholtz
Delphi Automotive Systems

Copyright © 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT cite three points that an active safety system must

address:
This paper describes the use of logic-based control for
the purpose of determining and assigning desired wheel (1.) A vehicle must provide good controllability by
slips for each corner of a vehicle. The control objective responding quickly and accurately (i.e. with the right
is to track overall desired vehicle dynamics, such as amount of change) to the driver's operational inputs.
tracking a desired vehicle yaw rate, Ω d , by assigning an
appropriate wheel slip, λ , to each corner of the vehicle. (2.) A vehicle must provide good stability, with little
Each of these wheel slips is used as reference input change in behavior in relation to changes in driving
conditions.
wheel slip, λ r , for a wheel dynamics control system.
This setup can be thought of behaving like a hierarchical (3.) There must be an effective control loop between the
control system (higher-level control system interacting driver and the vehicle for conveying operational inputs
with a lower level control system). This paper focuses and the vehicle response in order to ensure that the
on developing the higher-level logic based controller. driver can easily recognize present operating conditions
The logic controller uses fuzzy logic control techniques. and also predict vehicle behavior.
In conventional fuzzy logic control, a two-dimensional
rule table is created based on the error between the There are various ways to address this control issue.
desired and actual signals, and on the change in the Shavrin [24] investigates the use of independent rear
error. The fuzzy logic controller presented in this paper wheel drive to control the vehicle to track a desired
is based on the work performed by Choi, et.al. [5]. This lateral velocity, v yd . The most prevalent method is by
method combines the two controller inputs into a single
input. The rule table elements are filled in, and adjusted combining the control of vehicle yaw rate, Ω , and the
based on the expertise of the designer. A rule table is vehicle sideslip angle, β . Regulation of the engine
created for each wheel based on how a wheel is torque and the wheel brake pressures to minimize the
classified in relationship to the turn of the vehicle (i.e. difference between the actual and the desired motions is
inside front, outside rear). These classifiers are then presented by van Zanten, et.al. [28]. Hać [9]
assigned to the appropriate wheel online. An investigates two strategies: pure yaw rate, Ω , control
emergency lane change simulation is performed to show and trading yaw control against control of vehicle
the effectiveness of the control. sideslip angle, β . Inagaki, et.al. [10] incorporate the
sideslip angle, β , and its angular velocity, β& , phase
INTRODUCTION
plane into their analysis of vehicle stability when
designing the control. Manning, et.al. [18] and
The incorporation of vehicle stability enhancement
Smakman [26] present their views on combining various
systems into production vehicles is growing in popularity.
chassis subsystems (braking, suspension, steering) to
The purpose of these systems is to actively control the
implement vehicle dynamics control. Kimbrough [11]
vehicle under emergency situations where the car is at
presents a method by using a rule based controller to
the physical limit of adhesion between the tires and the
assign a wheel slip, λ , at each corner to enhance
road. These emergency situations are those that the
normal driver usually cannot handle, and often loses vehicle stability. The work presented in this paper is
control of the vehicle [28]. A system, which based on that particular concept.
automatically intervenes in such situations, allows the
driver to keep control of the vehicle and enhances the The brake system is a challenging control problem
chance of avoiding an accident [27]. Naito, et.al. [22] because the vehicle-brake dynamics are highly
nonlinear with uncertain time-varying parameters [21].
Intelligent controllers, such as fuzzy or neural, overcome
these issues. Fuzzy controllers have the benefit of not
requiring a mathematical model of the plant [20], while
still being highly robust [19]. Also, certain fuzzy control
designs can be implemented that have the ability to
learn [13] or to adapt [16] themselves to improve its
performance. Because of these features, fuzzy
controllers have been successfully implemented in the
automotive field for controlling both wheel dynamics [13],
[19], [20], and vehicle dynamics [7], [14].
Figure 1. Definition of vehicle oversteer and vehicle understeer
This paper investigates the use of a fuzzy control to
assign wheel slips, λ , to each corner of a vehicle. The amount of change needed to correct the yaw rate
These wheel slips are used as reference input wheel error, e , is based on a concept implemented by Choi,
slips, λ r , for another control system. This setup is a et.al. [5]. In the yaw rate error phase plane, ( e, ∆e ), a
two-layered control architecture with multiple slave switching function, s , is defined. It is desired to drive
controllers (wheel dynamics controllers) as lower level the system state ( e, ∆e ) to s = 0 . Define a switching
modules, and a fuzzy controller (vehicle dynamics
function, s , as
controller) acting as a higher level, supervisory module.
The idea is for the fuzzy controller to supervise the lower
s = ∆e + γe (2)
layer controllers to maintain good overall operation of
the controlled system over changing environment [8],
[15]. Since conventional control theories are not where γ > 0 is a design parameter representing the
intelligent enough to tackle complicated tasks [16], by orientation of s = 0 in the ( e, ∆e ) phase plane. Figure 2
designing the overall control system in this manner, the shows the surface s = 0 in the ( e, ∆e ) phase plane.
intelligence is handled by the supervisory controller.
This allows the lower level controllers to be designed
simply as tracking controllers using the reference signals
generated by the supervisory controller. This, in turn,
enables the vehicle dynamics to track desired vehicle
dynamics. In this paper, the focus is on the vehicle yaw
rate, Ω , as the control variable, while ignoring the
affects of the vehicle sideslip angle, β , to prove to
concept. A potential lower-level tracking controller is
presented in [3].

PROBLEM SETUP

Define a yaw rate error, e , as Figure 2. ( e, ∆e ) phase plane

e = Ω − Ωd (1) At an operating point P, where s > 0 , the control should

be such as to drive the system operating point to s = 0 .
where Ω is the vehicle yaw rate, and Ω d is the desired The line segment length, d , represents the shortest
distance from P to s = 0 . The same can be said for the
vehicle yaw rate. If e > 0 , then the vehicle is in
point Q, where s < 0 .
oversteer, and the vehicle yaw rate, Ω , needs to be
reduced. If e < 0 , then the vehicle is in understeer, and
To correct the yaw rate error, e , the controller is to
the vehicle yaw rate, Ω , needs to be increased. These
definitions are depicted in Figure 1. determine and assign a wheel slip, λ , to each corner of
the vehicle. Each of these wheel slips are to be treated
as a reference input wheel slip, λ r , at their respective
corner. A unique set of wheel slips, {λ1 , λ 2 , λ3 , λ 4 } ,
cannot be easily determined as a solution. This is due
to a formal mathematical model of the system is too
complex, and the set of wheel slips is not unique (a set
of four wheel slips to control one variable). Fuzzy
control has the advantage over conventional control
theories because a mathematical model is not required
[20]. A typically designed fuzzy controller, for this
problem, would have two inputs: the yaw rate error, e ,
and the change in error, ∆e . However, this could make
for an extensive design process. Choi, et.al. [5] present
a method that only requires a single controller input.
This input is based on the distance, d , in Figure 2.
Define the signed distance, d s , as
Figure 5. Assigning logic portion of the supervisory controller
d s = sgn (∆e + γ e ) ∆e + γ e (3)
d s = ∆e + γ e (4) The assigning logic assigns each wheel slip in the set
as the fuzzy controller input. {λOF , λ IF , λOR , λ IR } to the correct wheel slip on each
wheel, {λ1 , λ 2 , λ3 , λ 4 } .

Figure 3 shows the functionality of the fuzzy controller. The control objective can be thought of as trying to
generate a corrective yaw moment by assigning the
proper wheel slip, λ , to each wheel. If the vehicle is in
an oversteer condition, then it is desired to generate a
corrective yaw moment in the opposite (contra) direction
to the vehicle turn (cornering). Likewise, if the vehicle is
in an understeer condition, then it is desired to generate
a corrective yaw moment in the same (pro) direction to
Figure 3. Fuzzy controller portion of the supervisory controller
the vehicle turn. Smakman [26] defines a table on which
There is a fuzzification membership function acting on wheel best delivers a contra-corner or pro-corner
the fuzzy controller input, d s . The rule table is created moment.
based upon how a wheel is classified with respect to the
Tire Inside Outsid Inside Outside
direction the vehicle is rotating in the lateral plane.
Force Front e Front Rear Rear
Increase Pro- Contra- Pro- Contra-
There are four sets of defuzzification membership
Fx cornering cornering cornering cornering
functions, that resolve a wheel slip, λ , for a wheel each.
Decrease Contra- Contra- Pro- Pro-
These defuzzification membership functions are all the
same. The difference from wheel to wheel is in the Fy cornering cornering cornering cornering

elements of each rule table. This logic is responsible for Table 1. Corrective Yaw Moment Table
associating the correct inside/outside classifier to each
front and rear wheel, based on the sign of the vehicle From the table, the inside rear is the most suitable to
yaw rate, Ω , and the sign of the vehicle lateral generate a corrective yaw moment in the same direction
acceleration, a y . Figure 4 shows the classifiers on the of the vehicle rotation in the lateral plane. The outside
front is the most suitable to generate a corrective yaw
vehicle with a clockwise yaw rate, Ω . moment in the opposite direction of the vehicle turn.
These statements can be made since both elements for
these two wheels are the same. The control formulation
in this paper does the following to the remaining wheels.
The outside rear could be designed to assist the inside
rear in generating a pro-cornering moment. Likewise,
the inside front could be designed to assist the outside
front in generating a contra-cornering moment.

There are two ways to generate a corrective yaw

moment on a wheel; either increase the longitudinal tire
Figure 4. Wheel classifiers in relationship to vehicle turn
force, Fx , or decrease the lateral tire force, F y . Figure
In this scenario, the left front (LF) wheel would be 6 shows the tradeoff between the longitudinal tire force,
assigned to the outside front rule table, etc. For a Fx , and the lateral tire force, F y .
counterclockwise yaw rate, Ω , the inside/outside
identifiers would switch sides of the vehicle. Figure 5
shows the functionality of the assigning logic.
 Figure 8. Defuzzification into λ membership functions

The rule table, for each wheel, is set up using the

following cases.
Figure 6. Braking and cornering coefficients vs. wheel slip, λ
CONTROLLER INPUT, d s > 0
The comparisons are made between the normalized
braking coefficient, Fx Fz , and the normalized
A contra-cornering moment has to be generated for this
cornering coefficient, F y Fz , where Fz is the wheel
case. The outside front is the primary wheel to
normal force. The wheel slip, λ , is chosen as the accomplish this task. If the fuzzy controller input, d s , is
variable of interest, since the wheel slip, λ , gives a fuzzified into the P2, P3 or P4 range, then the inside
unique longitudinal tire force, Fx , and lateral tire force, front is to be used to assist. The wheel slip, λ , on the
Fy . remaining two wheels are set to CE to allow the wheel to
have the most potential response in the longitudinal
CONTROL DESIGN direction (for increased braking) and in the lateral
direction (for better steering response).
Figure 7 shows the fuzzification membership functions
assigned to each wheel for the fuzzy controller input, d s . CONTROLLER INPUT, d s < 0
The width of each membership function is designed to
give good system resolution for the rule table to A pro-cornering moment has to be generated for this
determine the wheel slip outputs. case. The inside rear is the primary wheel to
accomplish this task. If the fuzzy controller input, d s , is
fuzzified into the N2, N3 or N4 range, then the outside
rear is to be used to assist. The wheel slip, λ , on the
remaining two wheels are set to CE to allow the wheel to
have the most potential response.

RULE TABLE

Using the above statements, the rule table for the

wheels is shown in Table 2.

Wheel Outside Outside Inside Inside

Figure 7. Fuzzification of d s membership functions
ds Front Rear Front Rear
N4 CE HI CE HI
Figure 8 shows the defuzzification membership functions N3 CE HI CE MH
to determine the value of the wheel slip, λ , to assign to N2 CE HI CE MD
each wheel. N1 CE CE CE LO
CE CE CE CE CE
P1 LO CE CE CE
P2 MD CE HI CE
P3 MH CE HI CE
P4 HI CE HI CE
Table 2. Fuzzy Controller Rule Table

A mathematical methodology is not used in filling in the

elements of the rule table. These elements are entered
based on the expert knowledge of the designer.
Now, with the rule tables determined for each of the dynamics model and the vehicle model. The lower level
wheels, the inside/outside classifiers need to be control modules contain the following: controllers to track
assigned to the proper wheels. This task is the fuzzy supervisory controller outputs, an actuator
accomplished by the inclusion of some additional logic. dynamics model, a wheel model and a tire model.
The logic initializes the left side of the vehicle as the
outside, and the right side of the vehicle as the inside. SIMULATION
In order for the inside/outside classifiers to switch sides
of the vehicle, the vehicle yaw rate, Ω , and the vehicle This simulation involves tracking a desired yaw rate,
lateral acceleration, a y , must have the same sign. If the Ω d , for an emergency lane change maneuver. Chee
signs are not the same, then the inside/outside and Tomizuka [4] present various methods to implement
classifiers do not switch sides of the vehicle. By using desired vehicle dynamics for a lane change maneuver.
this logic formulation, false switching of the The steering angle, δ , used is a sinusoidal waveform of
inside/outside classifiers is minimized during transient magnitude 0.1 radians. The parameters for γ , in the
conditions. calculation of the fuzzy controller input, d s , are γ = 2 on
the inside front and outside rear wheels, and γ = 5 on
CONTROL SYSTEM LAYOUT
the outside front and inside rear wheels. The surface
The layout of the entire control system is shown in index used, µ = 0.9 , is consistent throughout the lane
Figure 9. change. Figure 10 shows the vehicle yaw rate, Ω , the
desired vehicle yaw rate, Ω d , and the vehicle sideslip
angle, β .

Figure 9. Control system layout

The driver generates a steering angle, δ , for the front

wheels, and a desired longitudinal acceleration, a xd ,
through braking and throttle. A nonlinear vehicle
dynamics model calculates the longitudinal dynamics Figure 10. Yaw rate, Ω , (rad/sec) desired yaw rate, Ω d , (rad/sec)
and the lateral dynamics of the vehicle based on inputs
and sideslip angle, β (rad) for emergency lane change
from the driver and the lower level control modules. The
desired vehicle dynamics model calculates various
desired vehicle dynamics that would have the vehicle It is seen that in the beginning of the second half of the
respond linearly to the commands from the driver. The maneuver, the tracking of the desired vehicle yaw rate,
fuzzy supervisory controller determines the wheel slips, Ω d , becomes inaccurate. This is due to the vehicle
{λ1 , λ 2 , λ3 , λ 4 } , for each lower level control module. having to overcome the vehicle sideslip angle, β , as the
These wheel slips are treated as a reference input wheel vehicle tries to change the direction of its turn. Once the
slip, λ r , for each wheel. By having the lower level sideslip angle, β , nears zero, the yaw rate error, e ,
control modules track their individual reference input reaches its maximum. This is due to a build up in
wheel slip, λ r , the overall vehicle dynamics track the corrective yaw moment prior to the vehicle being able to
respond. This is seen in the spiking of the fuzzy
calculated desired vehicle dynamics.
controller input, d s . The fuzzy controller input, d s , is
SIMULATIONS shown in Figure 11.

The simulation involves an emergency lane change

maneuver, with no braking or throttle input ( a xd = 0 )
from the driver. The simulation setup is the same that
appears in Figure 9. Hać [9] and van Zanten, et.al. [27]
present methods to determine the desired vehicle
 to the calculation of d s ). No attempt is made at
analyzing the stability of the fuzzy supervisory controller,
or the entire hybrid control system. Although theories
exist to perform stability analyses on these systems [1],
[6], [12], [23], [25], [29], [30], these theories require a
mathematical formulation to the control.

In the control design presented, the design is based on

the expert knowledge of the designer. Both the upper
level (vehicle) and the lower level control modules
(wheels) are simulated using the same sampling rate.
Since vehicle dynamics react slower than wheel
dynamics to changes at the wheel level, decreasing the
sampling rate of the fuzzy supervisory controller could
result in improved control performance, and a more
Figure 11. Fuzzy controller input, d s , for emergency lane change stable overall system.

The spiking of the input is clearly seen. Hence, pure ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

yaw rate control, without addressing the vehicle sideslip
angle, β , may not be an acceptable method. The author would like to thank Dr. Aleksander Hać of
Delphi Automotive Systems, Dayton, Ohio, for his help in
By limiting (or directly controlling) the vehicle sideslip the preparation of this paper.
angle, β , improved performance in desired vehicle yaw
rate, Ω d , tracking can be expected. Part II of this work REFERENCES
investigates the inclusion of limiting the vehicle sideslip
angle, β , into the control [2]. [1] M. S. Branicky. Stability of hybrid systems: state of
the art. Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Decision
& Control, 1997.
CONCLUSION [2] K. R. Buckholtz. Use of fuzzy logic in wheel slip
assignment – Part II: yaw rate control with sideslip angle
This paper investigates the design of a single-input limitation. SAE World Congress, 2002. (TBP)
multiple-output fuzzy supervisory controller. The task is [3] K. R. Buckholtz. Reference input wheel slip tracking
to have the fuzzy supervisory controller generate a using sliding mode control. SAE World Congress, 2002.
wheel slip, λ , for each wheel of a vehicle. These wheel (TBP)
slips are treated as reference input wheel slips, λ r , for [4] W. Chee and M. Tomizuka. Lane change maneuver
lower level control modules. When these lower level for AHS applications. Proceedings of the International
wheel controllers track their respective reference input Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control, 1994.
wheel slip, λ r , the vehicle yaw rate error, e = Ω − Ω d , [5] B.-Y. Choi, S.-W. Kwak and B. K. Kim. Design and
stability analysis of single-input fuzzy logic controller.
can be reduced. The fuzzy controller input, d s , is
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics –
calculated based on the yaw rate error, e , and the Part B: Cybernetics, 30(2), April 2000.
change in the error, ∆e . The control design is not [6] R. A. Decarlo, M. S. Branicky, S. Pettersson and B.
dependent of the calculation of the desired vehicle yaw Lennartson. Perspective and results on the stability and
rate, Ω d , and the calculation of the vehicle yaw rate, Ω . stabilizability of hybrid systems. Proceedings of the
IEEE, 88(7), July 2000.
A simulation for an emergency lane change is also [7] A. Diaβ and U. Kiencke. Estimation of vehicle speed
performed. The results show that there is a slight fuzzy-estimation in comparison with Kalman-filtering.
deficiency in the tracking performance of the desired Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Conference on Control
vehicle yaw rate, Ω d , if the vehicle sideslip angle, β , Applications, 1995.
becomes too large. With a large sideslip angle, β , the [8] T. Furuta and K. Tomiyama. A hybrid control
architecture with a fuzzy supervisory controller and slave
vehicle responds sluggishly if the desired vehicle yaw controller modules. AMC ’96 – MIE Proceedings, 4th
rate, Ω d , changes sign. International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control,
Vol. 1, 1996.
It is recommended that a modification to the control is [9] A. Hać. Evaluation of two concepts in vehicle stability
made to limit the amount of the vehicle sideslip angle, enhancement systems. ASME, 1998.
β . This is investigated in [2]. A modification to the [10] S. Inagaki, I. Kshiro and M. Yamamoto. Analysis on
calculation of the fuzzy controller input, d s , may also vehicle stability in critical cornering using phase-plane
improve the control performance (add in integral action
method. Proceedings of the International Symposium on [27] A. T. van Zanten, R. Erhardt, K. Landesfeind and G.
Advanced Vehicle Control, 1994. Pfaff. VDC systems development and perspective. SAE
[11] S. Kimbrough. Rule based wheel slip assignment for World Congress, 1998.
vehicle stability enhancement. SAE International [28] A. T. van Zanten, R. Erhardt and G. Pfaff. VDC, the
Congress & Exposition, 1999. vehicle dynamics control system of Bosch. SAE
[12] H. K. Lim, F. H. F. Leung and P. K. S. Tam. An International Congress and Exposition, 1995.
improved stability analysis and design of fuzzy control [29] L.-X. Wang. Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control:
systems. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems Design and Stability Analysis. PTR Prentice Hall, 1994.
Conference Proceedings, 1999. [30] P. V. Zhivoglyadov and R. H. Middleton. On stability
[13] J. R. Layne, K. M. Passino and s. Yurkovich. Fuzzy in hybrid systems. Proceedings of the 37th IEEE
learning control for antiskid braking systems. IEEE Conference on Decision & Control, 1998.
Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 1(2),
June 1993.
[14] G. D. Lee, Y. U. Yim, S. H. Oh, S. W. Kim, J. H.
Jung and B. S. Kim. Longitudinal and lateral control
system development for a platoon of vehicles.
Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE/IEE/JSAI International
Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 1999.
[15] H.-X. Li and S. Guan. Hybrid intelligent control
strategy: supervising a DCS-controlled batch process.
IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21(3), June 2001.
[16] S.-T. Lin and A.-K. Huang. Hierarchical fuzzy force
control for industrial robots. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 45(4), August 1998.
[17] W.-S. Lin and C.-H. Tsai. Robust discrete-time fuzzy
control of composite nonlinear systems by tuning
consequent membership functions. Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, 1999.
[18] W. Manning, D. Crolla, M. Brown and M. Selby. Co-
ordination of chassis control systems for vehicle motion
control. Proceedings of AVEC 2000: 5th International
Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control, 2000.
[19] G. F. Mauer. A fuzzy logic controller for an ABS
braking system. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems,
3(4), November 1995.
[20] G. F. Mauer, G. F. Gissinger and Y. Chamaillard.
Fuzzy logic continuous and quantizing control of an ABS
braking system. SAE International Congress &
Exposition, 1994.
[21] S. K. Mazumdar and C. C. Lin. Investigation of the
use of neural networks for antiskid brake system design.
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Neural Networks, 1995.
[22] G. Naito, H. Inoue and S. Matsumoto. Improvement
in active safety through braking and traction control. 5th
FISITA Congress: Automobile in Harmony with Human
Society, 1994.
[23] K. M. Passino and S. Yurkovich. Fuzzy Control.
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 1998.
[24] P. A. Shavrin. Control of independent rear wheel
drive vehicle. Proceedings of the 34th Conference on
Decision & Control, 1995.
[25] R. N. Shorten and K. S. Narendra. Investigating the
stability of a class of hybrid system. Computing &
Control Engineering Journal, April 1998.
[26] H. Smakman. Functional integration of active
suspension with slip control for improved lateral vehicle
dynamics. Proceedings of AVEC 2000: 5th International
Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control, 2000.