World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol.

6 - ISSN 2032-6653 - © 2013 WEVA Page Page 0186

EVS27
Barcelona, Spain, November 17-20, 2013

Comparison of Braking Performance by

Electro-Hydraulic ABS and Motor Torque Control
for In-wheel Electric Vehicle
Sungyeon Ko1, Chulho Song1, Jeongman Park1, Jiweon Ko1, Inbeom Yang2, Hyunsoo Kim1
1
School of Mechanical Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon-si, Republic of Korea
hskim@me.skku.ac.kr
2
Korea Automotive Technology Institute (KATECH), Cheonan, Korea

Abstract
In this study, a slip control algorithm using motor torque control during the braking of the in-wheel electric
vehicle was proposed and an anti-lock brake system (ABS) simulator was developed on the basis of the test
results for electro-hydraulic ABS. The slip control algorithm using motor torque control limits the in-wheel
motor torque according to road friction coefficient and slip ratio while the ABS prevents locking of the
wheel by lowering or raising the brake pressure through solenoid valve control. A MATLAB/Simulink
model and a CarSim vehicle model were developed, and the motor torque control and ABS simulator were
applied to the MATLAB/Simulink-CarSim co-simulator and compared braking performance.

Keywords: in-wheel, motor torque control, electro-hydraulic ABS

motor cannot be used alone in braking due to some

1 Introduction
In-wheel system installs a motor inside a wheel
and directly delivers the driving force of the
motor to the wheel [1]. Through the independent
control of the in-wheel motor, the in-wheel
electric vehicle can implement active safety
systems such as traction control system (TCS),
anti-lock brake system (ABS), and electronic
stability control (ESC) [2]. In conventional
vehicles, the active safety control is performed
by electro-hydraulic actuator [3]. However an in-
wheel electric vehicle does not require additional
devices such as hydraulic actuator because it uses
the in-wheel motor which has a 10 to 100 times
faster response than the hydraulic actuator [4].
Various studies on the in-wheel motor control
have been conducted, including the control of the
wheel slip to satisfy the optimal slip ratio [5], and
the in-wheel motor control by estimating the road
friction coefficient [6]. However, the in-wheel
limitations such as motor characteristics, battery
SOC, etc.
In this study, the braking performance using the in-
wheel motor torque control was compared with
that of the electro-hydraulic ABS to investigate the
advantages and disadvantages of the in-wheel
motor torque control. For this purpose, an ABS test
environment and an ABS simulator were
developed. Performance of the in-wheel and ABS
were evaluated through a MATLAB/Simulink-
CarSim co-simulator.
2 In-wheel Motor Torque Control
Figure 1 shows the structure of the in-wheel
electric vehicle. 35kW in-wheel motors with
maximum torque of 75Nm and reduction gear ratio
of 8.45 are installed in front, 16kW in-wheel
motors with maximum torque of 123Nm and
reduction gear ratio of 4 are installed in rear.

EVS27 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 1
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 6 - ISSN 2032-6653 - © 2013 WEVA Page Page 0187

errors in the estimations of the road friction

coefficient, normal force, and lateral force. For
improved control performance, a feedback control
based on the slip ratio was added. The following
equation represents the motor torque limit with the
added feedback control [6]:

(3)

The desired slip ratio (λdes) is defined as the slip

ratio that shows maximum friction coefficient in
the non-linear tire model in Figure 3 [7].
Icy Snowy Rainy Dry

Friction coefficient(μ)
1
1 Icy
Figure 1: Structure of the in-wheel electric vehicle
Snowy
Rainy
Fy 0.5 0.8

Friction coefficient(μ)
μFz Dry

0.6
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.4 Slip ratio(λ)

Fx 0.2

0
0 λdes 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Slip ratio(λ)

Figure 3: Non-linear tire model (slip ratio vs friction

Figure 2: Friction circle
The in-wheel motor torque control is performed
based on the friction characteristics between the
tire and the road. Figure 2 shows a friction circle.
In the friction circle, the vector sum of the lateral
force and the longitudinal force must be equal to
or less than the product of the normal force and
the road friction coefficient, which is
summarized as follows:
coefficient)
3 ABS Experiment and Simulator
Figure 4 shows the structure of a conventional
vehicle with electro-hydraulic ABS. When the
driver steps on the brake pedal, pressure is
generated in the master cylinder, which is
delivered to the cylinder of each wheel through the
ABS.

√ (1)

In this case, only the force that corresponds to the

friction circle is transmitted to the road, and the
remaining force spins the wheels. To prevent the
generation of a driving or braking force larger
than that in the friction circle, Equation (1) is
converted to the following driving force limit
equation:

√ (2)

The motor torque control using only the friction

circle, however, cannot guarantee vehicle
Figure 4: Structure of a conventional vehicle with
stability in various driving conditions due to the electro-hydraulic ABS

EVS27 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 2
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 6 - ISSN 2032-6653 - © 2013 WEVA Page Page 0188

Figure 5 shows the ABS test environment, which A B

Voltage(V),Current(A)
30
consists of a dSPACE main board, CAN board, Voltage

AD/DA converter, controller, DC power supply 1, 20

Current

2, ABS, and a pressure sensor. The solenoid

valve of ABS is controlled by the current input of 10

controller, and the motor that plays the role of a

0
pump is controlled by the DC power supply 2. 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5
Time (sec)
1500
TCV

Current(mA)
FLIV
1000 FLOV

500

0
24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5
Time (sec)
100
Pexperim ent
Psim ulation

Pfl(bar)
50

0
24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5
Time (sec)
Figure 5: Experimental environments of ABS 100
Prr(bar)

Figure 6 shows the ABS simulator. The ABS 50

simulator was modeled based on the ABS test Pexperim ent
Psim ulation
results, considering each solenoid valve and
0
dynamic motor-pump characteristics. 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5
Time (sec)

Figure 7: Experimental results

4 Simulation results
Figure 8 shows the co-simulator integrated with
the CarSim vehicle model and MATLAB/Simulink
model which consists of motor torque controller
and ABS simulator. The braking performances of
the in-wheel motor torque control and ABS are
compared using the co-simulator.

Figure 6: ABS simulator

In Figure 7, ABS test results and simulator

results are compared. The solenoid valve was
controlled via the current of controller. The ABS < CarSim vehicle model > < MATLAB/Simulink model >

system calculates the slip ratio by measuring the

wheel speed, and performs the brake pressure
control according to the slip ratio to prevent the
wheel lock. It is seen from Figure 7 that the
simulation results are in close agreement with the
test results, which demonstrates the validity of
the simulator.
Figure 8: MATLAB/Simulink-CarSim co-simulator
Figure 9 shows the in-wheel motor torque control
results when full braking was performed at the
initial speed of 60 kph on a road with a road
friction coefficient μ = 0.2. The slip ratio was kept
at 10% or lower through the in-wheel motor torque
control in a section with a vehicle speed of 10 kph

EVS27 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 3
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 6 - ISSN 2032-6653 - © 2013 WEVA Page Page 0189

or higher, and at 15-20% in a section with a vehicle stop section, it was greater than that of the
vehicle speed of less than 10 kph. The total in-wheel motor torque control. It is found that the
braking distance was 64.1 m and the deceleration in-wheel motor torque control showed better
was maintained around 0.24 g. braking performance than ABS.

60 60
V
V
Vehicle velocity

Vehicle velocity
Vw fl Vw fl
(km/h, front)

(km/h, front)
Vw Vw
fr fr

0 0
60 60
V V
Vehicle velocity

Vehicle velocity
Vw rl Vw rl
(km/h, rear)

(km/h, rear)
Vw Vw
rr rr

0 0
0 Friction brake 0
Motor torque

torque(Nm)
Tfl
(Nm)

Tfl
T Tfr
fr
Trl Trl

T Trr
rr
-1000 -1500
0 0
Deceleration (g)
Deceleration (g)

-0.4 -0.4
0.5 1 Slip ratio
Slip ratio fl
fl
Slip ratio
Slip ratio

Slip ratio

Slip ratio fr
fr
Slip ratiorl
Slip ratio
rl
Slip ratiorr
Slip ratio
rr

0 0
0 10 0 10
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 9: Results of the in-wheel motor torque control,
μ=0.2
Figure 10 shows the results of the control of each
wheel pressure using ABS when full braking was
performed at the same condition as that in Figure
9. ABS controls the solenoid valve based on the
slip ratio and prevents the wheel slip by
increasing or decreasing the pressure of each
wheel cylinder. However, the total braking
distance was 77.7 m, which was longer than that
of the in-wheel motor torque control. The
deceleration was more variable than the in-wheel
motor torque control because of the pressure
variation in the wheel cylinder. Although the slip
ratio was controlled to 20-25% except in the
Figure 10: Results of ABS, μ=0.2
Figure 11 shows the in-wheel motor torque control
results when full braking was performed at the
initial speed of 60 kph on a road with a road
friction coefficient μ = 0.4. In the case of the in-
wheel motor torque control, the wheel slip did not
occur due to insufficient braking force which
comes from the in-wheel motor characteristics.
The total braking distance was 47.1 m. The
braking deceleration was initially 0.27 g because
the motor torque was limited by the motor
characteristics, but as the speed decreased, the
motor torque increased and the maximum
deceleration reached 0.35 g.

EVS27 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 4
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 6 - ISSN 2032-6653 - © 2013 WEVA Page Page 0190

60
V
during high-speed driving. To overcome these
Vehicle velocity

limitations, the motor capacity must be increased,

(km/h, front)
Vw fl
Vw
fr
but it raises many problems such as higher costs
and motor size limits in the wheel. Thus,
cooperative control of the in-wheel system and
friction braking is required
0 60
60 V

Vehicle velocity
V

(km/h, front)
Vw fl
Vehicle velocity

Vw rl
(km/h, rear)

Vw
fr
Vw
rr

0
0 60 V

Vehicle velocity
0 Vw rl

(km/h, rear)
Motor torque

Vw
rr
Tfl
(Nm)

T
fr
Trl
0
T
-1000
rr 0 T
Friction brake fl
0 torque(Nm) T
Deceleration (g)

fr
Trl
T
rr

-2000
0
Deceleration (g)

-0.6
0.5 Slip ratio
fl
Slip ratio
Slip ratio

fr
Slip ratiorl
Slip ratiorr
-0.6
1 Slip ratio
fl
0 Slip ratio
fr
0 8
Slip ratio

Time (sec) Slip ratiorl

Slip ratiorr
Figure 11: Results of the in-wheel motor torque control,
μ=0.4
0
Figure 12 shows the results of the control of each 0 8
wheel pressure using ABS when full braking was Time (sec)
performed at the same condition as in Figure 11.
The ABS results demonstrated that it prevented Figure 12: Results of ABS, μ=0.4
the wheel slip by increasing or decreasing the
pressure of each wheel cylinder according to the 5 Conclusions
slip ratio. The maximum braking deceleration
In this study, braking performance of the in-wheel
was 0.5 g, and the total braking distance was 39.8
motor was compared with that of the electro-
m, which was shorter than that of the in-wheel
hydraulic ABS. To implement the ABS operation
motor torque control.
environment, an ABS simulator was developed
It is seen from the simulation results that the in-
based on the ABS test results. The in-wheel motor
wheel motor torque control shows better braking
torque control and ABS simulator were applied to
performance than ABS in a section where the in-
the MATLAB/Simulink-CarSim co-simulator. The
wheel motor provides sufficient braking force,
simulation results showed that the in-wheel motor
but the desired braking performance cannot be
torque control showed better performance with a
obtained where the braking force of the in-wheel
smaller slip ratio and a shorter braking distance
motor is insufficient, that is, where the road
compared with the ABS. However, the in-wheel
friction coefficient is high or for quick braking
motor torque control may have the problem of

EVS27 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 5
World Electric Vehicle Journal Vol. 6 - ISSN 2032-6653 - © 2013 WEVA Page Page 0191