This paper describes an investigation into rollover prevention systems. Two chassis control systems are compared with respect to rollover prevention. The first system is the unified chassis control system that consists of electronic stability control (ESC) with differential braking, longitudinal speed control, and continuous damping control. The second system is an active anti-roll bar combined with ESC with differential braking. The capabilities of these systems to control lateral acceleration and roll motion are evaluated and investigated through simulations. The lateral acceleration, the roll angle, and the rollover index are adopted as a comparison measure. The simulations are performed to identify the advantages and limitations of these systems.
JangB. C.MarimuthuR. P.Sensitivity analysis of SUV parameters on rollover propensity. Int. J. Automot. Technol., 2006, 7(6), 703–714.
2.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Motor vehicle traffic crash injury and fatality estimates, 2002 early assessment, 2003.
3.
OdenthalD.BunteT.AckermannJ.Nonlinear steering and braking control for vehicle rollover avoidance. In Proceedings of the European Control Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1999.
4.
ChenB.PengH.Differential-braking-based rollover prevention for sport utility vehicles with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Veh. Syst. Dyn.2001, 36(4-5), 359–389.
5.
UngorenA. Y.PengH.Evaluation of vehicle dynamic control for rollover prevention. Int. J. Automot. Technol., 2004, 5(2), 115–122.
6.
YoonJ.KimD.YiK.Design of a rollover index-based vehicle stability control scheme. Veh. Syst. Dyn., 2007, 45(5) 459–475.
7.
JoJ. S.YouS.JoengJ.LeeK.YiK.Vehicle stability control system for enhancing steerability, lateral stability, and roll stability. Int. J. Automot. Technol.2008, 9(5) 571–576.
8.
SchofieldB.HagglundT.Optimal control allocation in vehicle dynamics control for rollover mitigation. In Proceedings of the American control conference, Seattle, Washington, 11–13 June 2008, pp. 3231–3236 (American Automatic Control Council, Dayton, Ohio).
9.
YoonJ.ChoW.KooB.YiK.Unified chassis control for rollover prevention and lateral stability. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 2009, 58(2), 596–609.
10.
GasparP.SzaboZ.BokorJ.The design of an integrated control system in heavy vehicles based on an LPV method. In Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and control Seville, Spain, 12–15 December 2005, pp. 6722–6727 (IEEE Press, Piscataway, New Jersey).
11.
LeeA. Y.Coordinated control of steering and anti-roll bars to alter vehicle rollover tendencies. Trans. ASME, G, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, 2002, 124, 127–132.
12.
YangH.LiuL. Y.A robust active suspension controller with rollover prevention. SAE paper 2003-01-0959, 2003.
13.
YimS.ParkY.YiK.Design of active suspension and ESP for rollover prevention. Int. J. Automot. Technol.2010, 11(2), 147–153.
14.
SorniottiA.MorgandoA.VelardocchiaM.Active roll control: System design and hardware-in-the-loop test bench. Veh. Syst. Dyn.2006, 44(1), 489–505.
15.
CimbaD.WagnerJ.BaviskarA.Investigation of active torsion bar actuator configuration to reduce vehicle body roll. Veh. Syst. Dyn., 2006, 44(9) 719–736.
16.
HacA.Influence of active chassis systems on vehicle propensity to maneuver-induced rollovers. SAE paper 2002-01-0967, 2002.
17.
LevineW. S.AthansM.On the determination of optimal constant output feedback gains for linear multivariable systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control1970, 15, 44–48.
18.
ToivonenH. T.MakilaP. M.Newton's method for solving parametric linear quadratic control problems. Int. J. Control, 1987, 46, 897–911.
19.
BrysonA. E.HoY.Applied optimal control1975 (Hemisphere, New York, New York).
20.
HansenN.MullerS. D.KoumoutsakosP.Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES). Evol. Comput.200311(1), 1–18.
21.
Mechanical Simulation Corporation. CarSim User Manual Version 5, 2001.
