EVS26

Los Angeles, California, May 6-9, 2012

Torque Vectoring for Electric Vehicles with Individually

Controlled Motors: State-of-the-Art and Future
Developments
Leonardo De Novellis1, Aldo Sorniotti1, Patrick Gruber1, Leo Shead1,
Valentin Ivanov2, Kristian Hoepping2
1

Aldo Sorniotti (corresponding author) University of Surrey, Guildford - United Kingdom, [email protected]
2
Ilmenau University of Technology, Ilmenau - Germany

Abstract
This paper deals with the description of current and future vehicle technology related to yaw moment
control, anti-lock braking and traction control through the employment of effective torque vectoring
strategies for electric vehicles. In particular, the adoption of individually controlled electric powertrains
with the aim of tuning the vehicle dynamic characteristics in steady-state and transient conditions is
discussed. This subject is currently investigated within the European Union (EU) funded Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7) consortium E-VECTOORC, focused on the development and experimental
testing of novel control strategies. Through a comprehensive literature review, the article outlines the stateof-the-art of torque vectoring control for fully electric vehicles and presents the philosophy and the
potential impact of the E-VECTOORC control structure from the viewpoint of torque vectoring for vehicle
dynamics enhancement.
Keywords: Electric Vehicle, Vehicle Performance, Braking, Traction Control, European Union

Introduction

Over the last decades, the environmental

problems related to greenhouse and polluting
gases emissions have stimulated the research of
alternative energy sources for automotive vehicle
propulsion [1, 2]. In recent years, the focus of
attention has moved into the development of
fully electric vehicles (FEVs), which promise to
provide a personal mobility solution with zero
emissions. Moreover, owing to significant
advancements in energy storage units and electric
motors in terms of power density, this promise of
modern FEVs may become a viable option for
the mass market.
With these prospects, novel concepts of electric
vehicle layouts are gaining more and more

importance. The first generation of fully electric

vehicles was based on the conversion of internal
combustion engine driven vehicles into electric
vehicles, by replacing the drivetrains, while
keeping the same driveline structure; that is, one
electric motor drive, which is located centrally
between the driven wheels, and a single-speed
mechanical transmission including a differential.
Such a design solution is going to be gradually
substituted by a novel vehicle architecture, based
on the adoption of individually controlled electric
powertrains, with the unique possibility to improve
the vehicle dynamics control because of their
intrinsic high and independent controllability. The
active control of electric powertrains allows the
regulation of the distribution of the driving torques
in order to achieve desired steady-state and

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

transient vehicle dynamics characteristics. At the

same time, if implemented through in-wheel
motors, these architectural solutions allow an
improvement of the overall vehicle packaging as
less space is required by the powertrain.
Current electric vehicle research is investigating
different powertrain configurations, constituted
by one, two, three or four electric motors with
different performance in terms of vehicle
dynamic behaviour and energy saving targets [3,
4].
This paper presents an extensive review of torque
vectoring and torque modulation techniques for
the improvement of the dynamic performance of
fully electric vehicles. Also, these techniques are
subject of the research work carried out within
the European Union funded Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7) E-VECTOORC (ElectricVehicle Control of Individual Wheel Torque for
On- and Off-Road Conditions) project.

The project E-VECTOORC

The potential advantage of individual motor

control for vehicle propulsion to enhance safety,
comfort and fun-to-drive in both on- and off-road
driving conditions is investigated by the threeyear long E-VECTOORC project that started on
1st September 2011. The E-VECTOORC project
brings together eleven complementary partners
from industrial and research backgrounds to
address the following key objectives:
Development and demonstration of yaw rate
and sideslip angle control algorithms based
on the combination of front-to-rear and leftto-right torque vectoring to improve overall
vehicle dynamic performance.
Development and demonstration of novel
strategies for the modulation of the torque
output of the individual electric motors to
enhance brake energy recuperation, anti-lock
brake (ABS) and traction control (TC)
functions. The benefits of these strategies
include reductions in: i) vehicle energy
consumption, ii) stopping distance, and iii)
acceleration times.

Figure 1: Front electric axle architecture of the Land

Rover Evoque vehicle demonstrator

To achieve these targets, advanced torque

vectoring control strategies for vehicle layouts
characterised by one (in case of adoption of a
torque vectoring differential) to four individually
controlled electric motors are being developed for
an optimal distribution (with respect to vehicle
dynamics and energy efficiency targets) of the
required driving torque between the two vehicle
axles and within the individual axles.
The activity is carried out using vehicle dynamics
simulations and Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL)
testing of vehicle components and subsystems. At
full vehicle scale, experimental testing of the entire
system will be performed using a highly versatile
vehicle demonstrator (see Fig. 1) that can represent
drivetrain architectures with one, two, three or four
electric motors. The demonstrator vehicle will
provide
comprehensive
information
for
quantifying the benefits of the proposed control
system in both on-road and off-road driving
conditions.

Torque vectoring control in

steady-state conditions

3.1

The variation of the understeer

characteristic

An extensive body of scientific literature presents

and thoroughly discusses theoretical and
experimental investigations on the cornering
characteristics of automotive vehicles in steadystate conditions [5-10]. An overview of the
important findings and insights is provided here.

Figure 2: Potential modifications of the vehicle

understeer characteristic achievable through torque
vectoring with individually controlled powertrains

The evaluation of the vehicle cornering

performance is carried out through the analysis of
the trend of the steering-wheel angle, as a
function of the vehicle lateral acceleration, ay (see
Fig. 2). In particular, the vehicle response to a
steering input is linear within a certain lateral
acceleration threshold, which is usually about 0.5 g
at constant vehicle velocity. Beyond this threshold

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

value, the response becomes and remains nonlinear until the maximum lateral acceleration of
the vehicle, i.e. its steady-state cornering limit, is
reached (see the black solid curve in Fig. 2). The
two dashed curves in Fig. 2 represent possible
targets that can be achieved through the
implementation of individual electric motor
control. For instance, the linear region can be
extended above the lateral acceleration limit of
0.5 g (see the green dashed curve in Fig. 2). Also,
the understeer gradient can be reduced in order to
enhance vehicle responsiveness (see the blue
dashed curve in Fig. 2). In addition, the
maximum level of lateral acceleration can be
increased as is shown for both the controlled
vehicles of Fig. 2.

Figure 3: The steering-wheel angle [] as a function

of the lateral acceleration ay [m/s2], considering a
constant torque distribution for different values of the
longitudinal acceleration ax [m/s2], from ax = -5 m/s2
to ax = 5 m/s2 in steps of 2.5 m/s2

A possible further implication of such individual

motor control is that the variation of the
cornering behaviour while accelerating or
braking can be reduced. In doing so, robustness
of vehicle response against vehicle longitudinal
dynamics can be achieved.
The variation of the vehicle understeer
characteristic as a function of longitudinal
acceleration is highlighted in Fig. 3 by showing
the understeer characteristics for a four-wheeldrive (4WD) vehicle with a constant traction
force distribution (50% front/total, 50%
left/front, 50% left/rear in traction, 75%
front/total, 50% left/front, 50% left/rear in
braking) at five different values of longitudinal
acceleration. These simulations show that, for the
specified
vehicle
parameters,
positive
longitudinal acceleration reduces the linear
vehicle response region, and increases vehicle
understeer. During braking, the linear response
region is reduced as well, but the vehicle

behaviour changes to oversteer in the non-linear

region.

3.2

The E-VECTOORC approach

The authors of this paper have developed an ad

hoc 4WD vehicle model simulator employing a
quasi-static approach [5] and non-linear tyre
characteristics. Three different torque vectoring
strategies which summarise the strategies
explained in [5] and [11] have been implemented:
i) constant torque distribution (referred to as
baseline vehicle); ii) torque proportional to the
wheel vertical load; iii) torque distribution which
allows achieving the same longitudinal slip ratio
on each wheel.

Figure 4: The steering-wheel angle [] as a function of

the lateral acceleration ay [m/s2] for the three torque
distribution strategies, evaluated at a value of the
longitudinal acceleration ax = 5 m/s2. The solid curve
refers to strategy i), the dashed curve refers to strategy
ii), and the dot-dashed curve refers to strategy iii).

Figure 5: The steering-wheel angle [] as a function of

the lateral acceleration ay [m/s2] for the three torque
distribution strategies, evaluated at a value of the
longitudinal acceleration ax = -5 m/s2. The solid curve
refers to strategy i), the dashed curve refers to strategy
ii), and the dot-dashed curve refers to strategy iii).

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

The results show that strategies ii) and iii)

effectively reduce the variation of the understeer
gradient with the longitudinal acceleration and
increase the linear region of the characteristics
with respect to the baseline vehicle. However,
vehicle understeer is increased in braking
conditions and reduced in acceleration in
comparison with strategy i) with the parameters
of Fig. 3 (see Figs. 4 and 5). Therefore, in
traction conditions, the vehicle dynamic
behaviour achieved through strategies ii) and iii)
could yield significant oscillations during
transients, which are not acceptable for a normal
driver. As a remedy for these oscillations, a
feedforward controller in the frequency domain,
together with feedback control, is necessary.
Recently, the authors of this article have
developed a novel algorithm for the automated
design of the torque vectoring strategy in steadystate conditions, which is based on an
optimisation technique. This approach consists of
the definition of a target understeer
characteristic, which can be usually achieved
with an infinite set of alternative wheel torque
distributions in case of vehicle architectures with
multiple electric motor drives. The selection of
the most suitable wheel torque distribution for
achieving the desired understeer characteristic
can be carried out by solving an optimisation
problem, by calculating the set of torque
vectoring factors that minimises a defined
objective function. In particular, the numerical
procedure requires the following steps:
1 choice
of
the
desired
understeer
characteristic parameters (e.g., understeer
gradient in the linear region, extension of the
linear region and maximum lateral
acceleration);
2 definition of the objective function: for the
purpose of energy efficiency, the authors
have chosen to minimise the overall input
motor power, which is computed by the
simulation model considering the efficiency
and inertial characteristics of the drivetrain
components. Tyre slip losses are included in
the calculation;
3 start of the optimisation routine by means of
an algorithm based on the interior-reflective
Newton method [12];
4 the outputs of the numerical procedure are
the torque distribution factors which satisfy
the assigned constraints and minimise the
objective function.

Figure 6: The understeer characteristic of the baseline

vehicle (dashed line) and the desired understeer
characteristic (solid line) evaluated at V=90 km/h and
ax=2 m/s2

As an example of the developed optimisation

methodology, we have considered a case study
4WD vehicle, equipped with four individually
controlled electric motors, which travels at a
velocity V = 90 km/h, and accelerates in the
longitudinal direction at a constant value of
ax = 2 m/s2. The understeer characteristic of the
baseline vehicle in these conditions is shown with
dashed line in Fig. 6: the understeer gradient in the
linear part Kg is equal to Kg = 18 deg/g and the
linear part of the characteristic ends at a value of
lateral acceleration of about a*y = 0.2 g. Then the
trend of the characteristic deviates from the linear
behaviour up to the asymptotic maximum lateral
acceleration achievable, which is aymax = 0.87 g.
Thus the authors have defined a target understeer
characteristic (solid line in Fig. 6) with the same
value of the understeer gradient as the baseline
vehicle, but with an increased linear part (a*y =
0.6 g) and a higher maximum lateral acceleration
(aymax = 1 g).

Figure 7: The overall motor input power P [kW] as a

function of lateral acceleration ay [m/s2], evaluated for
the baseline vehicle (dashed line) and for the vehicle
with torque vectoring (solid line) at V=90 km/h and
ax=2 m/s2

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

The results of the numerical iterations are shown

in Fig. 7: the dashed line represents the overall
input motor power evaluated for the baseline
vehicle, whereas the solid line represents the
overall motor input power of the vehicle
provided with the torque vectoring distribution
that allows achieving the desired cornering
behaviour. The vehicle with torque vectoring
requires less power than the baseline vehicle.
This result is remarkable as the outlined torque
vectoring strategy not only allows achieving the
desired vehicle dynamic behaviour, but also
allows optimal use of the battery energy for
vehicle propulsion.

4
4.1

Torque vectoring control in

transient conditions
Torque vectoring principles

The fundamental physical principles of effective

torque vectoring systems are outlined in [5, 6],
where the so-called -method is explained in
detail. This method is based on the analysis of
the variation of the available vehicle yaw
moment as a function of vehicle sideslip angle .
The authors of [5, 6] have focused their analysis
on the compensation of vehicle dynamic
response variation induced by longitudinal
acceleration and braking. For the condition of
zero yaw moment (i.e., Mz = 0), the gradient
dMz/d represents the static margin of the
vehicle. It follows that the vehicle tends to
understeer if dMz/d > 0, and tends to oversteer if
dMz/d < 0.
Fig. 8 shows the trend of the stabilizing yaw
moment Mz as a function of the sideslip angle
at zero steering-wheel angle and with constant
vehicle velocity (green dashed line), for the
conditions of longitudinal acceleration (black
dashed line) and deceleration (red solid line) for
a baseline vehicle. The controllability limits in
the direction of understeer increase are
represented by the red dot-dashed line and the
blue dot-dashed line in case of acceleration and
deceleration respectively. The target of the
torque vectoring control is to reduce the offset
between the curves of the yaw moment at
different longitudinal acceleration values (taking
into account the controllability limits), in order to
reduce the variation of the vehicle dynamic
response induced by the longitudinal dynamics.
In deceleration conditions, the effect of the yaw
moment variation cannot be fully compensated
because the steady-state curve intersects the

controllability limit during braking (see the blue

dot-dashed line in Fig. 8).
According to [5], such a compensation can be
achieved by means of three different actuations: i)
a differentiation of the wheel torques within the
rear axle (left-to-right torque vectoring technique);
ii) an active roll control system capable of varying
the lateral load transfer distribution between the
two axles; and iii) a four-wheel-steering (4WS)
system. The conclusions of the analysis are that the
in-axle torque vectoring methodology (for the
specific case study vehicle) is able to fully
compensate the load transfer and the tyre
longitudinal/lateral interaction effects due to
vehicle acceleration/deceleration (a range of +/-2
m/s2 is considered in the reference). Also, this
method proves to be much more effective in the
compensation than the Active Roll Control system
and the 4WS system described in [5]. In particular,
for the case study presented in [5], Active Roll
Control is effective only for sideslip angle values
of more than 5 in deceleration and 3 in
acceleration. Below this threshold, the system is
unable to compensate the effect of vehicle
acceleration/deceleration. In contrast, the 4WS
system is capable of generating the required
compensation effect only for low values of .
Mz
Limit of perfect compensation
with torque vectoring

Qualitative cases:
Maximum limit with
Torque Vectoring

in deceleration
in acceleration

Vehicle
characteristics

desired = steady-state
in deceleration
in acceleration

Figure 8: Stabilizing yaw moment as a function of

vehicle sideslip angle in conditions of constant velocity
and vehicle acceleration / deceleration (torque vectoring
on the rear axle)

In [11] the authors describe the principles of the

Mitsubishi Super-All-Wheel-Control, which is a
direct yaw moment control (DYC) strategy
obtained through the distribution of longitudinal
forces and lateral forces among the four tyres. This
torque-vectoring strategy is implemented through
the employment of torque-vectoring differentials,
comprising planetary gears and two clutches or

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

brakes, in order to transfer torque from the left

wheel to the right wheel and vice-versa,
independently from the location of the faster
wheel (within limits relating to the differential
layout). According to the Mitsubishi algorithm,
depending on the variation of the traction
coefficient, a more balanced distribution of
longitudinal and lateral forces between the left
and right wheels can be achieved during
cornering.

4.2

Torque vectoring control during

emergency manoeuvres

According to the ISO and SAE regulations,

vehicle dynamic performance can be evaluated
through dynamic tests such as step steer or
double step steer manoeuvres.
Figs. 9 and 10 show simulation results obtained
by the authors for the dynamic response (in terms
of sideslip angle) of a 4WD vehicle to a step
input of the steering-wheel angle (0-100). The
4WD is simulated with two different torque
distribution strategies: a constant torque
distribution, as explained in Section 3.1
(indicated by the dashed line in Figs. 9 and 10
and referred to as the baseline vehicle) and a
torque vectoring strategy, where the wheel torque
is proportional to the wheel vertical load
(denoted by the solid line in Figs. 9 and 10 and
referred to as the torque vectoring vehicle).
During acceleration (see Fig. 9), large sideslip
angles are experienced by the torque vectoring
vehicle. Clearly, the dynamic response of the
torque vectoring vehicle is not acceptable for a
passenger car.

Figure 9: Step steer response (0-100) evaluated at

ax=3 m/s2 and V=90 km/h. The dashed curve refers to
a vehicle with a constant torque distribution whereas
the black curve refers to a torque vectoring strategy
that consists in the torque distribution proportional to
the vertical load acting on the wheel

In braking conditions (see Fig. 10), the torquevectoring strategy improves the dynamic
behaviour of the vehicle, since the overshoot of the
sideslip angle is strongly reduced with respect to
the baseline vehicle. The important conclusion that
can be drawn from our simulations is that the
distribution of the wheel torques proportionally to
the wheel vertical load is effective in braking
conditions. However, in traction conditions, an
advanced feedforward controller in the frequency
domain is required (in addition to a commonly
used feedback controller) in order to generate the
desired yaw moment dynamics during the
manoeuvre.
The subject of feedback yaw moment control has
been addressed previously, e.g., in [13, 14]. In
particular in [13], the authors have shown that, by
employing a sliding-mode control approach to a
single-track vehicle model and defining a sliding
surface, direct yaw moment control combined with
active wheel steering can maximise the stability
limit for quick lane changes.

Figure 10: Step steer response (0-100) evaluated at

ax=-3 m/s2 and V=90 km/h. The dashed curve refers to a
vehicle with a constant torque distribution whereas the
black curve refers to a torque vectoring strategy that
consists in the torque distribution proportional to the
vertical load acting on the wheel

Sliding-mode control is a useful control design

technique to deal with non-linearities and
uncertainties of the plant model. Therefore, it has
been largely adopted in vehicle dynamics control.
A good comparison of the performance obtained
with the different types of sliding surfaces can be
found in [15]. In [16] feedback yaw moment
control is designed using a differential braking
strategy for vehicle stability control. The controller
has been developed using a three degree-offreedom non-linear vehicle model. The
performance of the sliding mode controller has
been compared with that of a direct yaw moment
controller (DYC), where vehicle motion is

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

regulated by a yaw moment generated by the

distribution of the tyre longitudinal forces [14].
Simulation results have shown that the proposed
controller can provide a vehicle with superior
performance with respect to brake actuation and
system smoothness, and can minimise the
acceleration and jerk without compromising
stability at high speed and large steering angle
inputs. Also, improved robustness to road
conditions was reported [16].

4.3

Torque vectoring control in offroad conditions

The E-VECTOORC project addresses not only

the on-road but also the off-road mobility of
electric vehicles. In this context, an advanced
torque vectoring strategy can significantly
improve power efficiency and cross-country
performance of FEVs while driving on various
deformable surfaces, such as dry and wet ground
or snow.
Off-road conditions impose several issues to be
taken into account during the development of the
torque vectoring controller. A first factor is the
tyre rolling resistance coefficient Cr. For
instance, average values of Cr are of about 0.01
on a conventional highway surface, 0.015 on
snow, 0.02 on gravel road, 0.08 on wet earth
road, and up to 0.3 on sand [17]. As a result, the
rolling resistance losses can influence the power
flows between the driveline and the wheels and
must be taken into account for the development
of the torque vectoring control strategy. A second
source of tyre power loss is constituted by the
slip ratio, which can reach particularly high
values in off-road conditions, in comparison with
on-road conditions. In off-road, values of slip
ratio up to 0.4-0.5 are quite common [18]. Hence,
the off-road torque vectoring control should
achieve a trade-off between traction capability
and the power losses due to wheel slip and
rolling resistance.
Several preliminary investigations [19, 20] point
out an essential positive effect of torque
vectoring on the off-road performance of frontwheel-drive electric vehicles: the vehicle with
torque vectoring control achieves a reduction of
tyre friction power dissipation in conditions of
rough terrain.

Torque modulation in ABS

and TC

A further innovative feature of the

E-VECTOORC project is the enhancement of the

performance of ABS and TC systems. This

enhancement is achieved through the adoption of
wheel slip ratio control carried out by the electric
motor drives and based on estimated friction
conditions, rather than through the modulation of
the hydraulic brake pressures and friction brake
torques as implemented in conventional solutions
currently found on FEVs.
The target for the development of these two
systems is to increase the frequency range and
precision of torque modulation, which is
achievable through the use of electric drives. This
high frequency would permit a reduction of the
amplitude of slip ratio oscillations during ABS and
TC interventions, which are detrimental to system
performance (in terms of stopping distance and
vehicle acceleration times).
The interaction between regenerative braking and
friction brakes in ABS systems for fully electric
vehicles is linked to the brake torque modulation
rate, which, for typical commercial ABS systems,
ranges between 3 and 7 Hz. Recently, an ABS
modulation strategy based on the fluctuation of the
electric motor torque generated by in-wheel motors
has been presented [21]. This system achieves a
frequency of ABS torque fluctuations of at least
10 Hz and a delay in the actuation of the desired
torque of only a few milliseconds. The main
benefit of the increase in torque actuation response
is the reduction of the stopping distance of the
vehicle of approximately 7%.
Common strategies for actuating ABS in electric
vehicles include: i) a reduction of the regenerative
braking torque as a function of the coefficient of
friction of the surface on which the vehicle is
travelling, or ii) regulation of regenerative braking
in relation to the rate at which wheel slip is
changing. Also, if it is sensed that the wheel is on a
low-friction surface, regenerative braking is
commonly removed as soon as ABS is activated
[22].
Actuation of the ABS function through the electric
motors requires development of the control
algorithm, which is traditionally based on strict
on/off rules. A significant body of literature deals
with optimal ABS control algorithms based on the
combination of wheel acceleration control and slip
ratio control. For example, [23] describes a Linear
Quadratic Regulator (LQR) applied to ABS control
with vehicle velocity used as the look-up variable
for gain scheduling within the controller. A strong
set of experimental results for different friction
conditions is presented based on an internal
combustion engine driven test vehicle equipped
with electro-mechanical brake callipers, which

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

have an actuation bandwidth of 72 rad/s. The

article does not provide details on two of the
major issues in ABS control systems: i) the slip
ratio setpoint, and ii) the estimation of vehicle
velocity. These two characteristics can
potentially be determined by keeping the on/off
ABS cycling algorithm for the rear axle active,
which, however, may have a small negative
impact on the overall stopping distance.
The authors of [24] present a composite ABS
control based on a simplified model, similar to
the one in [23]. Here, the vehicle speed is
assumed to be an input to the controller, which is
supplied independently from the ABS control
system. The composite controller consists of a
robust controller that governs wheel dynamics
when the slip ratio is between specified
thresholds, and a rule-based controller (similar to
the controllers implemented in the commercial
systems) that is active when the values of the slip
ratios are outside of the specified boundaries. In
[25], the authors have addressed the problem of
slip estimation and the setup of the optimum slip
ratio in an integrated slip control structure based
on the actuation of a conventional hydraulic ABS
unit, without an a-priori knowledge of tyre
characteristics. However, the paper does not
provide detailed experimental results of the
implementation of the designed control system.
Particularly interesting is [26], which presents a
pragmatic approach that is being followed for the
development of the electric motor based ABS
control of E-VECTOORC. Indeed, this article
describes the use of standard observers adopted
within commercial ABS control units to subject
the rear wheels to a sequence of pressure
increase/decrease/maintenance phases (as in
conventional ABS systems) in order to correctly
estimate the vehicle velocity. Front wheel speeds
and slip ratios are continuously monitored
through a Proportional Derivative (PD)
controller. This simple control structure has
undergone extensive vehicle testing, and a
comparison with conventional ABS algorithms is
presented in terms of the average vehicle
deceleration and the brake fluid flow rates
through the ABS control unit (these two
quantities are an objective index for measuring
the quality of tyre slip control).

Actuation problems

In conventional road cars, vehicle dynamics

control and ABS/TC are actuated through an
electro-hydraulic brake unit, which generates
friction brake torques independently from the

driver input. This method introduces actuation

delays, which can deteriorate the system
performance. In particular, Figs. 11 and 12
demonstrate that for the case of extreme step steer
manoeuvres the effect of the experimentally
measured (for a vehicle with a conventional brake
system with vacuum booster) actuation delays is
very relevant to the overall vehicle dynamics [27,
28]. These delays are related to several factors,
including the limited volume displacement of the
piston pump, the pressure drops in the valves and
the compliances in the hydraulic system. Better
actuation performance should be provided by the
modern electro-hydraulic brake system units
(EHB), which substitute the brake booster with a
pump and a high pressure accumulator [29].

Figure 11: Comparison of vehicle response (vehicle

sideslip angle) during step steer for a passive vehicle, a
vehicle including an ideal VDC without delays in the
actuation system, and a vehicle actuated by a
commercial VDC unit (HIL test)

Figure 12: Comparison of vehicle response (yaw rate)

during step steer for a passive vehicle, a vehicle
including an ideal VDC without delays in the actuation
system, and a vehicle actuated by a commercial VDC
unit (HIL test)

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

The actuation solution that is being developed in

the E-VECTOORC project relies on the
individual control of the electric motor drive
units to generate the target yaw moment,
employing highly responsive (and characterised
by low moment of inertia) switched reluctance
electric motors.
The benefits of the high frequency range of
torque modulation achievable with electric drive
units may be compromised by the adopted
drivetrain layout. In general, the design of FEVs
is evolving towards the adoption of individually
controlled electric motors, which can be
configured as (i) in-wheel motors or (ii) in-board
motors. In-wheel motors are particularly
interesting for exploring new concepts for the
layout of the passenger compartment [30].
However, they present immediate technical
limitations because of problems related to
packaging and increased unsprung mass, which
restrict their potential vehicle dynamics
capability, due to the increased vertical force
oscillations that would occur on an uneven road
profile, affecting the tyre-road contact.
Moreover, current motor technology is limited in
terms of power and torque density, which makes
in-wheel powertrains, with their motor drive unit
incorporated into the vehicle unsprung mass, a
viable solution only for small and medium size
cars, with relatively low performance [2, 30].
Therefore, a possible solution for the
implementation
of
individual
electric
powertrains, without being subjected to the
limitations of the in-wheel layout, is the adoption
of in-board electric powertrains. Because of the
physical offset of the motors from the wheels,
half-shafts have to be employed to transmit
torque to the wheels. The main disadvantage of
this kind of choice arises from the torsional
dynamics of the half-shaft and the subsequent
first torsional mode of the drivetrain, together
with the dynamics of the electric powertrain
mounting system. Moreover, the torsional
dynamics of the system is significantly affected
by the slip ratio dynamics of the tyres, due to the
combination of tyre steady-state non-linear
characteristics and relaxation length. All these
phenomena could interfere with vehicle
drivability by affecting jerk dynamics (for
internal combustion engines the first natural
frequency of the powertrain is between 4 and 7
Hz) and could also reduce the effectiveness of
ABS and TC actuation.
The E-VECTOORC consortium is well aware of
this issue and a detailed analysis of the design

specifications for the half-shafts, the powertrain

mounting system and the drivetrain of FEVs with
in-board motors (in order to achieve a dynamic
response target compatible with effective ABS/TC
actuation) is currently being carried out [31].
In [31] a very interesting dynamic analysis of inboard electric powertrains in both the time and
frequency domains is presented. A feedback
control system, incorporating state estimation
through an extended Kalman filter has been
implemented in order to compensate the effect of
half-shaft dynamics and generate a smooth halfshaft torque profile. The effectiveness of the new
controller is demonstrated through the analysis of
the performance improvement of a traction control
system based on direct slip control. The
comparison of the performance of the passive
vehicle, the vehicle equipped with the TC and the
vehicle equipped with the TC and the half-shaft
torque control system is shown in Fig. 13 for a tipin test from an initial speed of 50 km/h. The wheel
torque level during the first part of the tip-in
manoeuvre is beyond the friction limit of the tyres,
which implies significant wheel spinning for both
the passive vehicle and the vehicle with TC only.
The TC without half-shaft torque control achieves
a more irregular slip control dynamics in
comparison with the system including the halfshaft torque control loop. In contrast, the vehicle
equipped with the novel controller and a basic
proportional TC is characterised by the absence of
any significant wheel spinning (maximum slip
ratio of about 16%) and a higher velocity profile
than the other three vehicles.

Figure13: Wheel (continuous line) and vehicle velocities

(dashed line) during a tip-in manoeuvre. Vehicle
without control system (); vehicle with traction
control based on a proportional gain (*); vehicle with
traction control based on a PID (Proportional-Integralbased on a proportional gain and the novel half-shaft
torque control (o)

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

Thanks to the enhancement of the performance

of the traction control system, this methodology
is being implemented into the E-VECTOORC
vehicle demonstrator.

[4]

S. Rinderknecht, T. Meier, Electric Power

Train Configurations and Their Transmission
Systems, International Symposium on Power
Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation
and Motion, 2010

[5]

K. Shimada, Y. Shibahata, Comparison of

Three Active Chassis Control Methods for
Stabilizing Yaw Moments, SAE Technical
Paper 940870

[6]

Y. Shibahata, K. Shimada, T. Tomari,

Improvement of Vehicle Maneuverability by
Direct Yaw Moment Control, Vehicle System
Dynamics, 22(1993), 465-481

[7]

M. Abe, A Theoretical Analysis on Vehicle

Cornering Behaviors in Acceleration and in
Braking, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol.
15(1986)

[8]

A. Higuchi, H. Sakai, Objective Evaluation

Method
of
On-Center
Handling
Characteristics, SAE Technical Paper 200101-0481, 2001

[9]

A. Naude, J. Steyn, Objective Evaluation of

the Simulated Handling Characteristics of a
Vehicle in a Double Lane Change
Manoeuvre, SAE Technical Paper 930826,
1993

[10]

H. B. Pacejka, Tyre and vehicle dynamics,

SAE International, 2005

[11]

K. Sawase, Y. Ushiroda, T. Miura, Left-Right

Torque Vectoring Technology as the Core of
Super All Wheel Control (S-AWC), Mitsubishi
Motors Technical Review, 18(2006)

[12]

T. F. Coleman, Y. Li, An Interior, Trust

Region Approach for Nonlinear Minimization
Subject to Bounds, SIAM Journal on
Optimization, 6(1996), 418445

[13]

O. Mokhiamar, M. Abe, Active wheel steering

and yaw moment control combination to
maximize stability as well as vehicle
responsiveness during quick lane change for
active vehicle handling safety, Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 2002

[14]

O. Mokhiamar, M. Abe, Effects of model

response on model following type of
combined lateral force and yaw moment
control performance for active vehicle
handling safety, JSAE Review 23 (2002)
473480

[15]

K. Uematsu, J. C. Gerdes, A Comparison of

Several Sliding Surfaces for Stability Control,
Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Advanced Vehicle Control, (AVEC), 2002

Conclusions

Fully electric vehicles allow an implementation

of sophisticated torque vectoring strategies.
The subject of individual motor control is
currently investigated by the EU-funded FP7
project E-VECTOORC. This project is aimed at
the development and experimental testing of
novel control algorithms. The first results of the
E-VECTOORC research activity have shown
that the steady-state and transient dynamic
characteristics of a fully electric vehicle can be
designed through the active control of the
electric powertrains, rather than indirectly tuned
via the common chassis parameters such as mass
distribution and suspension elasto-kinematics.
Furthermore, the low response time and high
controllability of electric motor drives can bring
significant benefits for the feedback control of
vehicle yaw rate and sideslip angle in emergency
conditions. However, the advantages of the high
frequency range of torque modulation achievable
with electric drive units may be compromised by
the adoption of in-board motors, since the
influence of the torsional dynamics of the
powertrain and its mounting system should be
taken into account for the implementation of
TC/ABS systems.

Acknowledgments
The research leading to these results has received
funding from the European Union Seventh
Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under
grant agreement n 284708.

References
[1]

Proceedings of the IEA Advanced Vehicle

Leadership Forum, Electric Vehicles
Initiative Launch and Roundtable Event,
Paris
Motor
Show
(Mondial
de
lAutomobile), 2010, http://www.iea.org.

[2]

Proceedings of the Joint EC/EPoSS Expert

Workshop Smart Systems for the Full
Electric Vehicle, Brussels 25-26 June 2008

[3]

L. De Novellis, A. Sorniotti, P. Gruber,

Torque Vectoring Control of Fully Electric
Vehicles: a Comparison of Different Vehicle
Architectures, FISITA 2012, submitted

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

10

[16]

K. Yi, T. Chung, J. Kim, S. Yi, An

investigation into differential braking
strategies for vehicle stability control,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile
Engineering, 2003

[17]

J. Y. Wong, Theory of Ground Vehicles,

John Wiley & Sons, 2001

[18]

M. Schreiber, H. D. Kutzbach, Comparison

of different zero-slip definitions and a
proposal to standardize tire traction
performance, Journal of Terramechanics,
44(2007), 75-79

[19]

J. Yamakawa, K. Watanabe, A method of

optimal wheel torque determination for
independent wheel drive vehicles, Journal of
Terramechanics, 43(2006), 269-285

[20]

J. Yamakawa, A. Kojima, K. Watanabe, A

method of torque control for independent
wheel drive vehicles on rough terrain,
Journal of Terramechanics, 44(2007), 371381

[21]

S. Murata, Innovation by In-Wheel-Motor

Drive Unit, Keynote Presentation, AVEC 10
Conference, 2010

[22]

K. S. Kidston, General Motors Corporation,

Electric Vehicle with Regenerative and Antilock Braking, US Patent 5615933, 1997

[23]

T. A. Johansen, I. Petersen, J. Kalkkuhl, J.

Ldemann, Gain-Scheduled Wheel Slip
Control in Automotive Brake Systems, IEEE
Transactions
on
Control
Systems
Technology, 11( 2003)

[24]

H. Lv, Y. Jia, J. Du, Q. Du, ABS Composite

Control Based on Optimal Slip Ratio, 2007
American Control Conference

[25]

S. Drakunov, U. Ozguner, B. Ashrafi, ABS

Control Using Optimum Search via Sliding
Modes, IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, 3(1995), 79-85

[26]

S. B. Choi, Anti-lock Brake System with

Continuous Wheel Slip Control to Maximize
the Braking Performance and the Ride
Quality, IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, 16(2008), 996-1003

[27]

A. Sorniotti, Hardware-In-the-Loop for

Braking Systems with ABS and ESP, SAE
Technical Paper 2004-01-2062

[28]

M. Velardocchia, A. Sorniotti, HardwareIn-the-Loop to Evaluate Active Braking

Systems Performance, SAE Technical Paper
2005-01-1580

[29]

W. D. Jonner, H. Winner, L. Dreilich, E.

Schunck, Electrohydraulic Brake System

The First Approach to Brake-By-Wire

Technology, SAE Technical Paper 960991
[30]

D. A. Crolla, Automotive Engineering Powertrain, Chassis System and Vehicle

Body, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2009

[31]

F. Bottiglione, A. Sorniotti, L. Shead, The

Effect of half-shaft torsion dynamisc on the
performance of a traction control system for
electric vehicles, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D,
Journal of Automobile Engineering, accepted
for publication, 2012

Authors
Leonardo De Novellis received an
M.Sc.
degree
in
mechanical
engineering and a Ph.D. degree in
mechanical and biomechanical design
from Politecnico di Bari, Bari (Italy),
in 2006 and 2010, respectively. Since
2011 he is research fellow at the
University of Surrey, Guildford (UK).
His main research interests are in the
areas of continuously variable
transmissions and vehicle dynamics.

Aldo Sorniotti received an M.Sc.

degree in mechanical engineering and
a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics
from Politecnico di Torino, Torino
(Italy), in 2001 and 2005, respectively.
Since 2007 he is lecturer in advanced
vehicle engineering at the University
of Surrey, Guildford (UK).
His main research interests are in the
areas of automotive transmissions for
electric vehicles and vehicle dynamics
control.
He is the E-VECTOORC project
coordinator.
Patrick Gruber received an M.Sc.
degree in motorsport engineering and
management
from
Cranfield
University (UK), and a Ph.D. degree
in mechanical engineering from the
University of Surrey, Guildford (UK)
in 2005 and 2009, respectively.
Since 2009 he is lecturer in advanced
vehicle systems engineering at the
University of Surrey.
His current research is in the field of
tyre dynamics and in the development
and the validation of novel tyre
models.

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

11

Leo Shead received an M.Sc. degree

in mechanical engineering and a Ph.D.
degree in control systems engineering
from the University of Sheffield,
Sheffield (UK), in 2002 and 2009,
respectively.
Since 2009 he is lecturer in advanced
vehicle systems engineering at the
University of Surrey, Guildford (UK).
His current research interest is the
development of model predictive
control theory and its application to
vehicle dynamics and powertrain
management, space systems and
UAVs.
Valentin Ivanov (MechEng, Ph.D.,
D.Sc.), is an active member of
professional committees including
SAE International, JSAE, IFAC and
ISTVS.
In the Green Mobility area he held
key research positions in projects for
electric drivelines of heavy vehicles,
active safety systems for hybrid buses,
and intelligent systems for rolling
resistance control.
He is professor in automotive
engineering
at
the
Technical
University of Ilmenau, Ilmenau
(Germany).
Kristian Hoepping received a
Dipl.-Ing. degree in mechanical
engineering in 2010 from the Ilmenau
University of Technology, Germany.
Since 2010 he is working as a research
fellow at the Department of
Automotive Engineering at the
Ilmenau University of Technology.
His main research interests are in the
areas of power train and electric drive
trains.

EVS26 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium

12