A worst-case evaluation method is presented in this paper. The objective of this method is to identify worst-case disturbances so that the performance of dynamic systems under extreme conditions can be evaluated. Depending on the dynamics and information structure of the system, the worst-case evaluation problems are classified into four cases. Classical optimal control and game theories are used to construct algorithms to obtain linear solutions analytically. Numerical schemes to solve nonlinear worst-case problems are also presented. Two case study examples are then presented—a truck rollover problem and a vehicle stability controller evaluation problem. In both cases, a combined analytical-numerical method is used. The nonlinear plant is first linearized. The analytical solution of the linearized plant is then used as the initial guess for the numerical scheme. The final worst-case disturbance is then obtained iteratively from the numerical scheme. It was found that the proposed worst-case evaluation method is able to produce much larger unwanted plant motions (roll/side slip in the two case studies) compared with traditional evaluation maneuvers.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Topics:
Dynamic systems, Evaluation methods, Algorithms, Control equipment, Dynamics (Mechanics), Optimal control, Stability, Trucks, Vehicles
1.
Bakker, E., Nyborg, L., Pacejka, H. B., 1987, “Tyre Modelling for Use in Vehicle Dynamic Studies,” SAE Paper No. 870421.
2.
Basar, T. and Bernhard, P., 1995, H∞-Optimal Control and Related Minimax Design Problems—A Dynamic Game Approach, 2nd edition, Birkhauser.
3.
Bryson, A. E., Ho, Y. C., 1975, Applied Optimal Control: Optimization, Estimation, and Control, Hemisphere, New York.
4.
Dahleh, M. A., and Pearson, B., 1987a, “l1-Optimal Feedback Controllers for MIMO Discrete-Time Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. AC-32, No. 4, Apr.
5.
Dahleh, M. A., and Pearson, B., 1987b, “L1-Optimal Compensators for Continuous-Time Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. AC-32, No. 10, Oct.
6.
Dorato, P., and Drenick, R. F., 1964, “Optimality, Insensitivity, and Game Theory,” Sensitivity Methods in Control Theory, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sensitivity Analysis, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
7.
Dugoff, H., Ervin, R. D., and Segel, L., 1970, “Vehicle Handling Test Procedures,” Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan, Report Contract No. FH-11-7297, Nov.
8.
Isidori
A.
, and
Astofi
A.
,
1992
, “
Disturbance Attenuation and H∞ Control via Measurement Feedback in Nonlinear Systems
,”
IEEE Trans. Auto. Contr.
, Vol.
37
, pp.
1283
–
1293
.
9.
Jayasuriya
S.
,
1995
, “
On the Determination of the Worst Allowable Persistent Bounded Disturbance for a System with Constraint
,”
ASME JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL
, Vol.
117
, pp.
126
–
133
.
10.
Lu, W. M., and Doyle, J. C., 1993, “H∞ Control of Nonlinear System via Output Feedback: A Class of Controllers,” Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 166–171.
11.
Ma, W., and Peng, H., 1996, “Worst-case Evaluation Methods for Vehicle Control Systems,” Proceedings of the 1996 ASME International Congress and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, Nov.
12.
Ma, W., and Peng, H., 1998, “Worst-Case Vehicle Evaluation Methodology—Examples on Truck Rollover/Jackknifing and Active Yaw Control Systems,” Proceedings of the Advanced Vehicle Control Conference, Nagoya, Japan.
13.
Peng, H., and Ma, W., 1998, “Solutions of Two-Player Differential Games Under Preview Information Structure,” to appear in the ASME JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL.
14.
Peng
H.
, and
Tomizuka
M.
,
1993
, “
Preview Control for Vehicle Lateral Guidance in Highway Automation
,”
ASME JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL
, Vol.
115
, No.
4
, Dec., pp.
679
–
686
.
15.
Quintana
V. H.
, and
Davison
E. J.
,
1972
, “
Two Numerical Techniques to Solve Differential Game Problems
,”
International Journal of Control
, Vol.
16
, No.
3
, pp.
465
–
474
.
16.
Tomizuka, M., and Whitney, D. E., 1975, “Optimal Discrete Finite Preview Problems (Why and How is Future Information Important?)” ASME JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL, Dec., pp. 319–325.
17.
Tomizuka
M.
,
1975
, “
Optimal Continuous Finite Preview Problem
,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
, Vol.
AC-20
, No.
3
, pp.
362
–
365
, June.
18.
Tomizuka
M.
,
1976
, “
The Continuous Optimal Finite Preview Control Problem
,”
Transactions of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers
, Vol.
12
, No.
1
, pp.
7
–
12
, Feb.
19.
Van der Schaft
A. J.
,
1992
, “
L2-Gain Analysis of Nonlinear Systems and Nonlinear State Feedback H∞ Control
,”
IEEE Trans. Auto, Contr.
, Vol.
37
, No.
6
, pp.
770
–
784
, June.
20.
Van Zanten, A., Erhardt, R., and Pfaff, G., “CDV, The Vehicle Dynamics Control System of Bosch,” SAE paper 950759, ABS-TCS-VDC, Where Will the Technology Lead Us?, SAE PT-57, Warrendale, PA, pp. 497–516.
21.
Vidyasagar, M., 1991, “Further Results on the Optimal Rejection of Persistent Bounded Disturbances,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 36, No. 6, June.
22.
Von Glasner, E-C., 1994, “Active Safety of Commercial Vehicles,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control (AVEC), pp. 9–14.
23.
Witsenhausen, H. S., 1968, “A Minimax Control Problem for Sampled Linear Systems,” IEEE Transactions for Automatic Control, AC-13:5–21, Feb.
24.
Yaesh, I., and Shaked, U., 1989, “Minimum H∞-norm Regulation of Linear Discrete-time Systems and its Relation to Linear Quadratic Difference Games,” Proceedings of the 29th IEEE Conference of Decision and Control, pp. 942–947.
This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright © 1999
 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
You do not currently have access to this content.