Finite-Time Stabilization of Longitudinal
Control for Autonomous Vehicles via a
Model-Free Approach ?
Philip Polack ∗ Brigitte d’Andréa-Novel ∗ Michel Fliess ∗∗,∗∗∗
Arnaud de La Fortelle ∗ Lghani Menhour ∗∗∗∗

arXiv:1704.01383v1 [cs.SY] 5 Apr 2017

∗

Centre de Robotique, Mines ParisTech, PSL Research University,
60 boulevard Saint-Michel, 75006 Paris, France
(e-mail: {philip.polack, brigitte.dandrea-novel,
arnaud.de la fortelle}@mines-paristech.fr)
∗∗
LIX (CNRS, UMR 7161), École polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau,
France (e-mail: michel.fliess@polytechnique.edu)
∗∗∗
AL.I.E.N., 24-30 rue Lionnois, BP 60120, 54003 Nancy, France
(e-mail: michel.fliess@alien-sas.com)
∗∗∗∗
Centre de Recherche STIC, Université de Reims
Champagne-Ardenne, IUT de Troyes,
9 rue du Québec, 10000 Troyes, France
(e-mail: lghani.menhour@univ-reims.fr)
Abstract: This communication presents a longitudinal model-free control approach for computing the wheel torque command to be applied on a vehicle. This setting enables us to overcome
the problem of unknown vehicle parameters for generating a suitable control law. An important
parameter in this control setting is made time-varying for ensuring finite-time stability. Several
convincing computer simulations are displayed and discussed. Overshoots become therefore
smaller. The driving comfort is increased and the robustness to time-delays is improved.
Keywords: Low-level longitudinal controller, model-free control, finite-time stability, intelligent
controllers, autonomous vehicles
1. INTRODUCTION

Canudas-de wit (2007), Rajamani (2012)) or a Stop-&-Go
system (Villagra et al. (2009)).

Research on autonomous vehicles has gained a growing
interest since the successive DARPA challenges in 2004,
2005 and 2007. They are expected on the one hand to
increase the road safety by taking the human out of
the driving loop, and on the other hand to improve the
efficiency of road transportation.

Model-based low-level controllers have been widely studied
in the literature. A distinction is made between kinematic and dynamic controllers. In the first case, we can
mention Samson (1995), Rajamani (2012), or the purepursuit controller introduced in Coulter (1992), and their
variants. They are very performant but limited to low
speed applications. They assume that the tire do not slip
and skid. These assumptions are rather restrictive in the
perspective of future fully automated autonomous vehicles
running at high speed in an uncertain environment.

Among the robotic fields underlying in an autonomous
vehicle, the low-level control is in charge of generating
throttle/brake and steering commands of the vehicle.
The input of a low-level controller can be either the
output of a motion planner, meaning a list of waypoints
[xref , yref , vref ] to follow, or the output of a higher-level
controller, for example a speed reference and distance to
the preceding vehicle. This work presents a longitudinal
low-level controller where a reference target speed is given.
It can be coupled with a regular motion planner such as
a Rapidly-exploring Random Tree (RRT ) (Kuwata et al.
(2008)) or an A? algorithm (Dolgov et al. (2008)) (see
for example Katrakazas et al. (2015) for a full review on
motion planning techniques), or a High-Level controller
such as an Adapting Cruise Control (see Martinez and
? This work was supported by the international Chair MINES ParisTech - Peugeot-Citroën - Safran - Valeo on ground vehicle automation and the ANR project 15 CE23 0007 (Project Finite4SoS).

Dynamic models are derived from the equations of the
vehicle dynamics and those of the tires. These equations are highly nonlinear. Therefore, the generation of
a control command is rather complicated. Linearisation
assumptions, Linear Parameter Varying (LPV) system and
flatness-based control techniques (Fliess et al. (1995)) have
shown good results for regular driving situations but they
suffer from a lack of robustness with regards to unknown
dynamics such as the non-linear tire efforts or load transfers. In Menhour et al. (2013a), their non-robustness to
a change of parameter value such as mass or cornering
stiffness is shown. Lastly, they are also sensitive to disturbances such as slopes, road-bank angle, aerodynamic
forces or tire-road adhesion.

To bypass the nonlinearities of the dynamic equations,
Model Predictive Control (MPC) is used in Camacho and
Bordons (1999), Falcone et al. (2007). The idea is to
intertwine the planning and control parts by considering
the dynamic equations as a constraint. The control input
to apply is obtained through an optimisation planning
problem.

• The whole dynamics of the car (even the unmodelled
one) and the external disturbances such as wind,
slope, road-bank are taken into account.

In the case of a longitudinal control, we choose the longitudinal speed Vx as control output y and the sum CT of
torque applied at each wheel as control input u, such as in
Menhour et al. (2015). A system of first order was chosen,
To tackle the problems of non-linearity and weak-robustness based on the dynamic analytical model of a vehicle:
to parameter variation, low-level controllers based on
model-free approach are popular. The well-known classic
V̇x = F + αCT
(2)
PID have been widely used (see Åstrom and Hägglund Remark 2.1. The parameter α is nonnegative as the lon(1995)). Although this approach can be satisfying, no proof gitudinal speed of a vehicle is an increasing function of the
of stability can be obtained. A new model-free approach applied torque on the wheels.
coupled with an “intelligent” controller has been therefore introduced in Fliess and Join (2013). It has been 2.2 Estimation of the unmodelled and neglected dynamics
applied successfully to vehicle control in Menhour et al.
(2013b), Menhour et al. (2015) and d’Andréa Novel et al. The unmodeled and neglected dynamics at time t, F (t),
(2016). This method is very promising as it guarantees can be estimated using directly the last applied control
local asymptotic stability without any prior knowledge input u(t − 1) and the last observed output y(t):
of our system. It captures the vehicle dynamics through
Fb(t) = ẏ(t) − αu(t − 1)
(3)
online-estimation. The most rapid and violent movements
which are considered here lead us to employ a recent
important advance on a time-varying approach due to However, the raw signals such as speeds are often rather
Doublet et al. (2016). This improvement leads moreover to noisy. A filter has been derived from Fliess and Sirafinite-time stabilization and allows to tackle severe speed Ramı́rez (2003). Based on operational calculus (see, e.g.,
discontinuities little covered in existing literature (e.g. step Yosida (1984)), it is used in order to estimate Fb:
function).
First, we transform Equation (1) in the operational doThis communication is organized as following. Section 2
presents the model-free approach defined by Fliess and
Join (2013). Section 3 exploits the approach by Doublet
et al. (2016) in order to obtain a finite-time stability. The
7 Degrees of Freedom (DoF) simulation model used to
test our controller is presented in Section 4. Section 5
presents the results obtained and compares them to the
classic model-free control approach without adaptation.
Some concluding remarks and future investigations are
presented in Section 6.

main:
Fs
+ αU (s) + y(0)
(4)
s
where Fs is constant. Getting rid of the initial condition
d
by multiplying by ds
on both sides, multiplying then by
−2
s in order to achieve noise attenuation yields:
sY (s) =

Fs
Y (s) 1 dY
1 dU
= − −4 + α 2
+
s2
s ds
s
s ds
From the above algebraic calculations we get

2. LONGITUDINAL MODEL-FREE CONTROL
2.1 Short review on model-free control
The model-free control approach presented here was introduced by Fliess and Join (2013). It has been applied to the
automation of vehicle in several papers such as Menhour
et al. (2013b), Menhour et al. (2015) and d’Andréa Novel
et al. (2016).
The longitudinal dynamics of the vehicle is approximated
by an ultra-local differential relation of order 1 valid only
on a very short time period (T ≈ 200 ms):
ẏ = F + αu
(1)
where y is the control output, F represents both the
unmodelled and the neglected dynamics, u is the control
input, and α is a parameter chosen by the practitioner
such that αu has the same order of magnitude as F . The
model-free approach has two main assets:
• No prior knowledge of vehicle parameters and tire
characteristics is needed (for ex. lf , lr , MT - see
notation in Table 1),

6
Fb = − 3
T

ZT
0

[(T − 2τ )y(τ ) + ατ (T − τ )u(τ ))] dτ

(5)

(6)

d
There we exploit the connection between ds
and the
multiplication by −t in the time domain. Going from
Equation (6) to a digital filter is done using the last
(bT /∆tc + 1) values of y and u, where ∆t is the sampling
time of the controller, and T the filtering window.

2.3 Intelligent Controller
Lastly, the next control input u(t) to apply at time
t is computed from the estimation Fb(t), the reference
longitudinal speed yr and the error on longitudinal speed
e(t) = y(t) − yr (t):

It yields

u=−

Fb − ẏr + KP e
α

(7)

ė(t) + Kp e(t) = eF = F − Fb
(8)
Choosing KP > 0 is fine if eF is “small”, i.e., if the
estimate Fb is “good”.

3. ADAPTIVE MODEL-FREE CONTROL
The fast and violent movements which are considered here
lead us to introduce an adaptive model-free control setting,
where, according to Doublet et al. (2016), the coefficient α
in Equation (1) becomes a piecewise continuous function
α(t), updated at each time step.
Remark 3.1. The wording “adaptive model-free control” is
encountered elsewhere, but with a different meaning (see,
e.g., Battistelli et al. (2013); Hou and Jin (2016); Roman
et al. (2016), and the references therein).
From Equation (7), the error e(t) may be expressed in the
following way:
e(t) =


1  b
−F + ẏr (t) − α(t)u(t)
Kp

of a car moving on a plane (vertical effects are not taken
into account). The forces that the road applies on each tire
is modelled through Pacejka’s “Magic Tire Formula” (see
Pacejka and Besselink (1997)).

(9)

Choose α(t) such that e(t) = 0 in order to achieve finitetime stability:
−Fb + ẏr (t)
α(t) =
u(t)

Fig. 1. 7 DoF vehicle model used for simulations

(10)

In order to avoid singularities and nonpositive values of
α(t), set
!
−Fb + ẏr (t)
, αnominal
(11)
α
b(t) = max
u(t) + sign(u(t))
where αnominal > 0 is selected by the practitioner manually via trial and error, sign is the sign function (with
sign(0) = +1) and  = 0.01.
Remark 3.2. The filter in Equation (6) remains valid
on [kT ; (k + 1)T ] if we consider the following system:
ẏ(t) = F (t) + V (t) where V (t) = α(t)u(t). This leads to
the constant α case of Equation (1), with α = 1. More
precisely, Algorithm (1) is used.
Algorithm 1. At each time step tk :
Fbk =filter(α = 1, vk−1 = α
bk−1 uk−1 , yk ) given by (6)
ref
b
uk =iP(Fk
,α
bk−1 , yk ) given by (7)

bk +ẏkref
−F
α
bk = max uk +sign(u
,
α
given by (11)
nominal
k)
Remark 3.3. Let us point out that Equation (8) remains
valid with α varying in Equation (7).
4. MODEL FOR SIMULATIONS
In our simulations, several assumptions are made:
• We neglect the external disturbances such as aerodynamic forces, road-bank angle and slope.
• The dynamics of the car engine is not taken into
account.
The notations used are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1.
4.1 7 DoF vehicle model

Vehicle dynamics The 7 DoF of the vehicle model used
for simulation are: longitudinal speed Vx , lateral speed Vy ,
yaw speed ψ̇ and the rotating speed of each wheel ωi .
The equations of the car-body moving on a plane can be
written (see table 1 for notation):
MT (V̇x − ψ̇Vy ) = Fxf + Fxr
MT (V̇y + ψ̇Vx ) = Fyf + Fyr

Iz ψ̈ = lf Fyf − lr Fyr

(13)
(14)

The dynamic of each wheel i can be written:
ω̇i =

Cmi − Cf i − Fxpi × ref f
Iri

(15)

Pacejka tire dynamics
The tire model used in our
simulation is given by Pacejka’s formula in Pacejka and
Besselink (1997). In its easiest form, the longitudinal forces
Fxp depend only on the tire longitudinal slip ratio τx :
Fxp (τx ) = D sin[C arctan(Bτx − E(Bτx − arctan(Bτx )))] (16)

The expression of the longitudinal slip ratio depends on
the velocities of the vehicle and of the tire:
• during propulsion: τx =

ref f ω−Vx
ref f ω

Table 1. Notations
Symbols

Variables

MT
lf , lr

vehicle mass [kg]
distances from the center of gravity to the front and
rear axles [m]
vertical inertia of the vehicle [kg.m−2 ]
wheel inertia [kg.m−2 ]
effective radius of the wheel [m]
longitudinal and lateral speed [m/s]
yaw rate [rad/s] and yaw angle [rad]
wheel torque [Nm]
motor and brake torque applied at wheel i [Nm]
longitudinal forces in the vehicle coordinates of
front and rear wheels [N]
lateral forces in the vehicle coordinates of front and
rear wheels [N]
longitudinal forces applied on wheel i in the tire
coordinates [N]
longitudinal slip ratio

Iz
Ir
ref f
Vx , Vy
ψ̇, ψ
u = CT
Cmi , Cf i
Fxf , Fxr
Fyf , Fyr
Fxpi

A 7 Degrees of Freedom (DoF) vehicle model is used for
designing and testing purposes. This is a suitable model

(12)

τx

In the case where the longitudinal speed Vx and the
rotation of the tire ω are in the opposite direction, the
value of τx is saturated to [−1; 1].
B is called the stiffness factor, C the shape factor, D
the peak value of Fxp and E the curvature factor. These
constants can be computed from the experimental curve
Fxp (τx ) in the following manner:
(1) D is the peak value of Fxp ;
(2) C = 2− π2 arcsin( yDs ) where ys is the asymptotic value
of Fxp ;
(3) B is computed from the initial slope egal to BCD;
π
Bτ
−tan( 2C
)
(4) E = Bτx,mx,m
−arctan(Bτx,m ) where τx,m is the value such
that Fxp (τx,m ) = D.
In reality, they are not real constants but depend on the
friction coefficient µ and the normal reaction Fz of the
road on the tire.
A similar model is used for lateral forces Fyp in the tire
coordinates with regards to slip angle.
Adding Noise Our simulator gives us the “ground truth”
about the states of the vehicle. Therefore, in order to make
our simulations more realistic and test the robustness of
our control law, we added a -6dB white Gaussian noise
to the simulated longitudinal speed Vx . Thus, the speed
signal is closer to the one measured or estimated using
sensors on real vehicles.
5. RESULTS
In order to test our newly introduced adaptive longitudinal controller, three tests were performed with different
speed reference inputs: a step function reference speed, a
sinusoidal function reference speed and a real driver speed
input performed on a track. To the best of our knowledge,
such challenging tests with severe speed discontinuities
have not been frequently studied in the literature. A
comparison is made between the classic model-free control
(Classic MFC) presented in Menhour et al. (2015) and the
proposed adaptive model-free control approach (Adaptive
MFC), using for αnominal the constant value α of the classic
approach.

the first step in target speed, the overshoot is around 8%
and for the second, around 3.9%. Therefore, our adaptive
model-free control approach is more robust to jumps in
target speed compared to existing model-free approaches.
Moreover, the system stabilises itself in finite-time, between 50m and 100m (see Fig. 3), ensuring a smoother
driving. This is confirmed by the control input (see Fig. 4)
that stabilizes itself quickly around the value 0.
Fig. 5 shows the evolution of α
b(s) with respect to the
curvilinear abscissa. We observe that its value increases
strongly when the speed of the vehicle exceeds the target
one: this implies a reduction of the torque input, thus
reducing the overshooting and avoiding oscillations. Please
note that the value of α
b(s) is αnominal = 1 most of the time,
and not 0.
Ref

speed (m/s)

ref f ω−Vx
|Vx |

10
0

0

100

200

300

400

Fig. 2. Comparison of the longitudinal speeds between
classic and adaptive model-free control to successive
steps in target speed
Classic MFC

Adaptive MFC

10
0
−10

0

100

200

300

400

curvilinear abscissa (m)
Fig. 3. Comparison of the longitudinal speed errors
(ground truth) between classic and adaptive modelfree control to successive steps in target speed
Classic MFC

Total torque (Nm)

The results obtained with a tuned classic model-free control approach and an adaptive model-free control approach
are shown on Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. In the classic approach,
we observe that the system is asymptotically stable but
oscillatory and the overshoot is rather important: for the
first step, we have about 19.5% overshoot and for the
second around 9.5%. In comparison, our adaptive modelfree control approach shows better results as the system
is less oscillatory and the overshoot is greatly reduced: for

Adaptive MFC

20

5.1 Response to a step function
In this case, the car is moving on a straight line and the
reference speed is a step function of position. This is a
challenging speed to follow for a longitudinal controller
due to the non regularity of the speed reference.

Classic MFC

curvilinear abscissa (m)

speed error(m/s)

• during braking: τx =

Adaptive MFC

1,000
0

−1,000
0

100

200

300

400

curvilinear abscissa (m)
Fig. 4. Comparison of the computed motor/brake torque
control input for one of the front wheel between the
classic and adaptive model-free approach to successive
steps in target speed

alpha (kg−1 s−1 )

[Vx , Vy , ψ̇] and the time t. The positions of the waypoints
[xref , yref ] were thus obtained by reconstruction using the
following equations:

8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0

0

100

200

300

400

∆y ← yref (i + 1) − yref (i)

(19)

yref ← yref + Vx ∆t sin(ψref ) + Vy ∆t cos(ψref ) (21)

ψref ← ψref + ∆t ψ̇ref ;
q
sref ← sref + ∆2x + ∆2y ;

5.2 Response to a sinusoidal function
In this case, the car is moving on a straight line and the
reference speed is a sinusoidal function of position. This
time, the target speed is smooth but keeps on varying.
Therefore, the fast convergence of the longitudinal error is
important.
We observe on Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 that the classic modelfree control and our adaptive longitudinal control give
approximately the same results. However, the convergence
of our system is quicker on the first oscillation and the
overshooting is almost non-existing.
Classic MFC

0

100

200

300

500

600

Ref

700

20
10
0

0

200

100

200

300

500

600

Classic MFC

Adaptive MFC

400

400

800 1,000 1,200 1,400

600

Fig. 8. Comparison of the longitudinal speeds between
classic and adaptive model-free control on real driver
reference data

700

speed error(m/s)

speed error(m/s)

0

Adaptive MFC

curvilinear abscissa (m)

Fig. 6. Comparison of the longitudinal speeds between
classic and adaptive model-free control to a sinusoidal
target speed

4
2
0
−2
−4

Classic MFC

30

curvilinear abscissa (m)

Classic MFC

(23)

Comparing both models in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, we observe
that the adaptive model-free approach is more stable: the
results are less oscillatory and give smaller longitudinal
errors. Table 2 shows in fact that the controller is able to
follow the reference target speed with a better precision
(smaller root mean square error) and with less oscillations
(smaller standard deviation).

Adaptive MFC

400

(22)

where Vx and Vy were filtered from the raw data (average over 100 points) and sref is the curvilinear abscissa
reference of the waypoints.

speed (m/s)

Ref

(18)

xref ← xref + Vx ∆t cos(ψref ) − Vy ∆t sin(ψref ) (20)

Fig. 5. Evolution of the estimation of α
b(t) with the curvilinear abscissa for successive steps in target speed

speed (m/s)

(17)

∆x ← xref (i + 1) − xref (i)
curvilinear abscissa (m)

20
15
10
5
0

∆t ← t(i + 1) − t(i)

2
1
0
−1
−2

0

200

400

600

Adaptive MFC

800 1,000 1,200 1,400

curvilinear abscissa (m)

curvilinear abscissa (m)
Fig. 7. Comparison of the longitudinal speed errors
(ground truth) between classic and adaptive modelfree control to a sinusoidal target speed

Fig. 9. Comparison of the longitudinal speed errors
(ground truth) between classic and adaptive modelfree control on real driver reference data

5.3 Response to reference speed inputs acquired from real
driver data

Table 2. Comparison between the error of
classic MFC and adaptive MFC on real driver
reference data

Lastly, we used as reference speed input some driver data
recorded on a real track to compare the two model-free
approaches. The recorded data were the state of the vehicle

MFC

Average

Std. dev.

Root mean square

adaptive
classic

-0.02
-0.01

0.35
0.77

0.35
0.78

5.4 Robustness to delays
The results presented in Doublet et al. (2016) suggest that
the adaptive model-free approach presented in this paper is
more robust to delays. This is an important characteristic
of our system as delays could arise from the filter presented
in Equation (6) and the car engine dynamics. Therefore,
we ran simulations with a 250ms time delay on the control
input for both the classic and adaptive MFC on the real
driver data. The results showed that adapting α gives
better results: the root mean square of the error was only
0.68m/s for the adaptive MFC (quite similar to the classic
MFC without delay) and 2.27m/s for the classic MFC.
6. CONCLUSION
We have introduced an adaptive longitudinal model-free
control. The online-line adaptation of the parameter α
enables to stabilize the system in finite time and to smooth
the control input. Adaptation happens when the sign of
the longitudinal error changes. This leads to reduce the
value of the control input as well as the time response
of the closed-loop system. Therefore the comfort of the
driver is improved, especially when the reference speed
changes abruptly. It also drastically reduces the control
input overshoot which is important for respecting speed
limit and maintain safety. Lastly, the adaptive modelfree control is more robust to time delays arising in the
execution of the control input. These delays are very likely
to exist on real vehicles due to the car engine dynamics. In
a future work, we will extend the approach to the lateral
control of the vehicle.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank warmly Cédric Join
and Maxime Doublet for useful discussions concerning the
paper Doublet et al. (2016), and the adaptation of the
control parameter.
REFERENCES
Åstrom, K. and Hägglund, T. (1995). PID Controllers:
Theory, Design, and Tuning. Instrument Society of
America: Research Triangle Park.
Battistelli, G., Hespanha, J.P., Mosca, E., and Tesi, P.
(2013). Model-free adaptive switching control of timevarying plants. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control,
58(5), 1208–1220.
Camacho, E.F. and Bordons, C. (1999). Model Predictive
Control. Springer.
Coulter, R.C. (1992). Implementation of the Pure Pursuit
Path Tracking Algorithm. Technical report, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburg.
d’Andréa Novel, B., Menhour, L., Fliess, M., and Mounier,
H. (2016). Some remarks on wheeled autonomous
vehicles and the evolution of their control design. In
9th IFAC Symp. on Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles,
15, 199–204. Leipzig, Germany.
Dolgov, D., Thrun, S., Montemerlo, M., and Diebel, J.
(2008). Practical search techniques in path planning for
autonomous driving. In 1st Int. Symp. on Search Techniques in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. Chicago,
USA.

Doublet, M., Join, C., and Hamelin, F. (2016). Model-free
control for unknown delayed systems. In 3rd Conf. on
Control and Fault-Tolerant Systems. Barcelona, Spain.
Falcone, P., Borrelli, F., Asgari, J., Tseng, H.E., and
Hrovat, D. (2007). Predictive Active Steering Control
for Autonomous Vehicle Systems. IEEE Trans. on
Control Systems Technology, 15(3), 566–580.
Fliess, M. and Join, C. (2013). Model-free control. Int.
Journal of Control, 86(12), 2228–2252.
Fliess, M., Lévine, J., Martin, P., and Rouchon, P. (1995).
Flatness and defect of non-linear systems: introductory
theory and examples. Int. Journal of Control, 61(6),
1327–1361.
Fliess, M. and Sira-Ramı́rez, H. (2003). An Algebraic
Framework for Linear Identification. ESAIM Control,
Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 16, 176–193.
Hou, Z. and Jin, S. (2016). Model Free Adaptive Control.
CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Katrakazas, C., Quddus, M., Chen, W.H., and Deka,
L. (2015). Real-time motion planning methods for
autonomous on-road driving: State-of-the-art and future
research directions. Transport. Research C, 60, 416–442.
Kuwata, Y., Fiore, G.a., Teo, J., Frazzoli, E., and How,
J.P. (2008). Motion planning for urban driving using
RRT. In IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots
and Systems, IROS, 1681–1686. Nice, France.
Martinez, J.J. and Canudas-de-Wit, C. (2007). A Safe
Longitudinal Control for Adaptive Cruise Control and
Stop-and-Go Scenarios. IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, 15(2), 246–258.
Menhour, L., d’Andréa Novel, B., Fliess, M., Gruyer, D.,
and Mounier, H. (2015). A new model-free design for
vehicle control and its validation through an advanced
simulation platform. In European Control Conf. Linz,
Austria.
Menhour, L., d’Andréa Novel, B., Fliess, M., and Mounier,
H. (2013a). Coupled nonlinear vehicle control: Flatnessbased setting with algebraic estimation techniques. Control Engineering Practice, 22(1), 135–146.
Menhour, L., d’Andréa Novel, B., Fliess, M., and Mounier,
H. (2013b). Multivariable decoupled longitudinal and
lateral vehicle control: A model-free design. In IEEE
Conf. on Decision and Control, 2834–2839. Florence,
Italy.
Pacejka, H.B. and Besselink, J.M. (1997). Magic Formula
Tyre Model with Transient Properties. Vehicle System
Dynamics, 27(1), 234–249.
Rajamani, R. (2012). Vehicle Dynamics and Control.
Springer US.
Roman, R.C., Radac, M.B., Precup, R.E., and Petriu,
E.M. (2016). Data-driven model-free adaptive control
tuned by virtual reference feedback tuning. Acta Polytech. Hungar., 13(1), 83–96.
Samson, C. (1995). Control of Chained Systems Application to Path Following and Time-Varying PointStabilization of Mobile Robots. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 40(1), 64–77.
Villagra, J., d’Andréa Novel, B., Choi, S., Fliess, M., and
Mounier, H. (2009). Robust stop-and-go control strategy: an algebraic approach for non-linear estimation and
control. Int. Journal of Vehicle Autonomous Systems,
7, 270–291.
Yosida, K. (1984). Operational Calculus. Springer.

