EEL6936.

703S14 Control Systems Engineering

Cruise Control System

Modeling and
Controller Evaluation

B y:
Howard Hawks

[2]

Table of Contents

Sections by page number

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
Summary of the Research Paper .......................................................................................... 4
Detailed Process Description ................................................................................................ 5
Mathematical Model .............................................................................................................. 6
(KPIs) Implemented Control Strategy ................................................................................... 7
System Dynamic Analysis (open-loop) .................................................................................. 7
Closed-Loop System Design ................................................................................................. 9
Parameter Optimization & Closed-loop System Stability Analysis ........................................ 10
Simulations & Verification .................................................................................................... 11
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 16
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 18
Appendix A: MATLAB/SIMULINK Files ............................................................................... 19
Appendix B: Copy of the Paper ........................................................................................... 21

Introduction
Automobile cruise control has become a very common feature in todays
automobiles. With this feature a driver no longer has to sit with his or her foot
appropriately positioned over the accelerator to maintain a steady speed over long
periods of time and potentially hundreds of miles of road. Utilizing cruise control a
driver can sit in relative comfort for longer durations than was previously possible.
The modern idea of cruise control was credited to inventor Ralph Teeter who
received his first patent for an automotive speed control device in 1945 [3]. The name
cruise control, however, wasnt coined until several years later when Chrysler adopted
it in 1958 [3]. Today, cruise control is a standard feature on many vehicle models.
Advances in this technology have created an adaptive form of cruise control that
couples speed adjustment with radar sensing, which can adapt speed based on the
locations of other vehicles on the road.
The purpose of this project is to conceptually design a vehicle cruise control
system that can react to variations in input stimulus and maintain a constant vehicle
speed. There are a plethora of external factors that can be taken into consideration.
Some of these factors can be simplified to produce an accurate working model of the
system. External inputs such as drag due to wind speed, changing co-efficient of
friction, spring damping of vehicle suspension, gravitational forces due to slope
changes, vehicle momentum, brake drag and vehicle lift are all factors to that can affect
control performance in varying degrees.
In this paper the system model is designed conceptually and then the
conceptual design is transferred to Simulink to verify that the system output is as
predicted. MATLAB is another software tool that is used to aid in system design and is
used to help develop the system model transfer functions. Key performance indicators
such as response time, percent overshoot and steady state error are measured and
compared to the target values contained herein. Additionally, variations of the input
conditions such as different vehicle masses, changing friction dynamics and their
effect on the control paradigm are studied.

Summary of the Research Paper

A great deal of literature exists on the subject of cruise control for automobiles as
it is one of the classic control models in contemporary control theory. In the research
paper entitled Modeling and Controller Design for a Cruise Control System, authors
Osman, Rahmat and Ahmad approach the subject by comparing three key controller
schemes: Intelligent (Fuzzy) control, State Space and PID.
They begin by modeling the control system mathematically using Newtons law
and include the vehicle mass and inertia force, the aerodynamic drag and the climbing
resistance all related to the engine drive force. To simplify the model, all initial
conditions were set to zero, meaning there was no wind gusts and the vehicle was on
a flat grade. By taking the ratio of output velocity to input drive force in the Laplace
domain, the following transfer function was developed [2]:

Figure 1: Linearized Transfer Function

The two KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) for this system were chosen as
Ts<5sec and %OS (Overshoot) less than 10%. Based on this information the three
control schemes were developed along with their respective transfer functions. Of
these three controllers the Fuzzy Logic offered an advantage of a feed-forward design
that could minimize the effects of external disturbances by taking appropriate action
before these effects affected the system. The performances of each controller were
categorized in a table and showed the following results [2]:
1) Fuzzy Logic- Obtained the best %OS and Ts (Settling Time) at 1.91% and
3.37s respectively, but had the worst Tr (Rise Time) of the three at 2.21s.
2) PID- Had a better Tr than the Fuzzy Logic controller at 1.7s and as a result
took the longest time to settle at 5.5 seconds.
3) State Space- Had the best Peak Time (Tp) at 2.97s and Rise Time at 1.38s
with Ts and Percent Overshoot (%OS) slightly better than the PID at 2.21s
and 10% respectively.

Steady state error was 0.01% in all three cases as external disturbances had
been minimized in the initial conditions. When external disturbances were modified, the
KPIs of %OS, Tp and Ts were re-evaluated without the steady state error calculation.
The results of these tabulations can be seen in Appendix B.
In the Parameter Optimization section I will present how varying input conditions
affect the KPIs of Rise Time, Percent Overshoot and Steady State Error. Through
simulation modeling I will then optimize the PID response to meet the three KPIs listed
above. By modifying the base parameter values I will attempt to improve upon the system
response presented in the original research paper.

Detailed Process Description

The transfer function listed in Figure 1 above takes into account the following initial
conditions and constants: CI=743, T=1s, =0.2s, M=1500kg, Ca=1.19N/(m/s)^2,
Fdmax=3500N, Fdmin=-3500N and the force of gravity equal to g=9.8m/s^2. CI
represents an initial velocity input constant at initial time T. represents the time lag of the
engine response and M is simply the vehicle mass. Ca is the dynamic drag coefficient
present in the air resistance to the vehicle movement. Fdmin and Fdmax are simply the
drive force constraints imposed upon the system. These values are used in the dynamic
model description presented in Figure 2 [1] below:

Figure 2: Dynamic System Model

By simplifying the model and choosing M, Ca, CI, v and to remain constant,
the mathematical model becomes much more manageable. By representing the
system mathematically it allows it to be modeled by a state space equation, a transfer
function or even an integral convolution [5]. In this paper we will focus on modeling via
transfer function as it models itself well to the cruise control process.

Mathematical Model
Vehicle speed dynamics are governed by Newtons Law of Motion and can be
represented by the following equation: Fd=Mdv/dtv + Fa + Fg where Fd is the engine
drive force, M is the vehicle mass, dv/dtv is the inertia force of mass and velocity, Fa is
the aerodynamic drag and Fg is the climbing resistance and downgrade force.
The derivation of the transfer function is taken from the linearized model. By taking
the above listed constants and differentiating both sides of the state space equations,
the generalized transfer function becomes the ratio of dV/dU, where V is the vehicle
velocity input of the system and U is the speed response. This ratio is show below in
figure 3 [1]:

Figure 3: Input/Output Ratio Transfer Function.

By using a power series expansion for e^-s and substituting back into the plant
transfer function the expression becomes easier to work with and is shown in Figure 4a
below [1]:

Figure 4a: 3rd Order Cruise Control System Transfer Function.

After substituting the values of the constants listed above, the general cruise
control system transfer function listed in Figure One is obtained. As we will see later,
this form can be used to model our system in a feedback controlled environment using
a PID controller. Next we will set forth the Key Performance Indicators to be used.
These are important parameter limits that will show if our system is meeting the
requirements and these KPIs can be used to compare subsequent system models as
we make changes to both the vehicle parameters and the external input conditions.

(KPIs) Implemented Control Strategy

For this system model, we will choose a reasonable set of design
requirements that can apply to a real world driving situation. Granted, the
magnitudes of the requirements are of a subjective nature, they shall still represent
an overall system model that is both realistic and realizable at the same time. Table
I below shows the main system variables of interest that shall be determined to be
primary control tolerances. This set of Key Performance Indicators shall be used
throughout the system design and modeling phase.

It is reasonable to expect that a settling time of less than five seconds,

which is the time for the vehicle to settle to a set cruising speed, can be obtained
with a PID feedback controller. Similarly, the percent overshoot in this model is
realizable in this control system. Although a percent overshoot of 10% may be
considered excessive in an actual driving situation it is considered to be adequate
for the purpose of accurately constraining the performance of the cruise controller.
Lastly, the steady state error, which equates to the variations in vehicle speed
while under cruise control, is not set forth as a KPI in the referenced research
paper [1], but later I will present some options on the control scheme that can
help achieve a steady state error within two percent.

Performance Indicator
Target Design Value KPI priority
Settling Time (Ts)
< =5 seconds
One
Overshoot (%)
<=10%
Two
Table I: Key Performance Indicators for Cruise Control

System Dynamic Analysis (open-loop)

The open loop block diagram of the system is shown in Figure 4b. Without any
feedback control, the system response to a step input represents a vehicle that is not
under cruise control. The authors of the research paper referenced [1] do not perform
an open loop system response. Nevertheless, it is important to the design process to
first formulate an open loop step simulation as it will guide us in verifying the closed
loop system response.

Figure 4b: Open Loop System Block Diagram

From the cruise control transfer function in Figure One, we can expand the
denominator and obtain the characteristic equation: s^3+6.0476s^2+5.2856s+0.2380.
See the MATLAB file section for this calculation.
Creating an open loop plant in Simulink provides us with some insight. Figure 5
shows the open loop system model response. The actual open loop model is included
for reference in the Simulink file section in the appendix. Note that since this is an open
loop response that the system is bounded by the transfer function gain and takes over
100 seconds to approach a steady state value. The fact that the system output is
basically exponential in form is a good indication that the transfer function will model
the natural system accurately once a feedback loop is established.

Figure 5: Open Loop Step Response of Plant

Closed-Loop System Design

In order to facilitate automatic control we need to implement a feedback loop. A
unity gain feedback loop is added to the system simulation and the response shown in
Figure 6a is obtained. Note that with feedback we obtain an output response that is
proportional to the input step. There is no overshoot, but the undershoot is about 5%.
Notice that the settling time is roughly 15 seconds, which is much longer than our KPI
of Ts<=5 seconds. Although we are not concerned with steady state error at this time,
it appears to be close to 10%.
During the optimization phase detailed in a later section I will add an additional
KPI for stead state error and optimize performance based on the observed output. This
additional KPI will give us a very good indication of overall cruise control response.

Figure 6a: Closed Loop System Response

Parameter Optimization & Closed-loop System Stability Analysis

In order to implement a PID controller, which will help to improve the system
response, we must utilize special tuning methods that entail calculating values for the
proportional, integral and derivative portions of the controller. Without using one of
these special tuning methods we could waste hours on trial and error pole placements
that may or may not result in a desirable system output. Several of these methods are
well established and the one I chose to use is the Ziegler and Nichols open loop
method. First we must obtain details about the open loop output to a unit step
response. Figure 6b shows a zoomed in scope display of the open loop response that
can be used to calculate the PID parameters.

Figure 6b: Unit Step Response of Open Loop Plant

Using the Ziegler Nichols Open Loop Method and interpolating the base values
from the scope display in Figure 6b, I obtained the following values for each parameter:
K=9.4, =19.995 sec, L=1.545 sec. Simulinks nomenclature for these values is slightly
different, but it can be calculated from the knowledge that P=Kp, I=Kp/Ti, D=Td and
N=1/( * Td) where is assumed to be 0.05 and is the generalized relationship
between coefficients.
10

Table II below shows the resulting values for the traditional Ziegler Nichols Open
Loop Response PID calculation as well as the Simulink nomenclature and calculation.
Based on the values obtained from the open loop response, I calculated N=25.88997
assuming the relationship between the coefficients to be 0.05.

Controller
Model

Kp

Ti

Td

PID

(1.2/K)*(/L)=1.6517

L/0.5=3.09

L/2=0.7725

P=Kp=1.6517

I=Kp/Ti=0.53453

D=Td

1/( * Td)
=25.88997

Simulink
Equivalent

Table II: Ziegler Nichols Open Loop PID Tuning Calculations

Simulations & Verification

Using the calculated values shown in Table II above with Simulinks PID block
displayed an output response that we shall compare to our KPIs in Table I. Recall that
we wanted the settling time to be less than five seconds and the percent overshoot
less than ten percent.

Figure 7: Simulink Cruise Control PID Schematic

Figure 7 shows the Simulink schematic of the PID controlled system. This, in
effect, demonstrates how a PID controller would be used as a cruise control on an
automobile. Note that for this simulation I increased the value of the step input to
represent 65 miles per hour, which equates to 29.057 meters per second.
11

Figure 8 below shows the resulting system output response. The vertical axis
represents meters per second and the horizontal axis represents time in seconds.
From the scope display we can see that the overshoot is about 24.7%, which exceeds
our KPI of %OS<10%. There was no window established in the referenced research
paper for settling time, which is the tolerance band on the vertical axis. Assuming this
tolerance to be +/-2%, which is the standard for DAC settling time measurements [6],
we can see that the response settles within this error band within 13.5 seconds. The
settling time exceeds our KPI by 8.5 seconds.

Figure 8: System Output Response Using Ziegler Nichols Pole Values

In order to optimize the response to meet our KPI goals we can try to fine tune the
PID controller parameters. Since there was no KPI for Tr, which represents the rise
time of the system, we can consider changing the proportional and integral portions of
the control. By reducing the integral control value we should see the overshoot
decrease, but we will need to monitor the settling time to ensure that it does not
increase.

12

By decreasing the proportional controller setting the maximum amplitude attained

by the PID output was reduced. Likewise, by reducing the value of the integral
controller parameter, the overshoot was also reduced. The derivative controller was
able to remain unchanged to obtain the target KPIs. Figure 9 shows the system
response when the proportional controller was set to a value of 1.9 versus the original
value of 1.65. Notice that the rise time has improved by 0.8 seconds; however the
percent overshoot is still above the target value.

Figure 9: System Response with P=1.9.

The settling time of figure nine as well as the percent overshoot is still not within
our KPI target values of 5 seconds and 10% respectively. Additional fine tuning of the
PID controller parameters ultimately resulted in the system output response shown in
Figure 10 presented on the next page.

13

Figure 10: Fine Tuned PID System Output Response.

Figure 11 shows a zoomed view of Figure 10 around the KPI target value of five
seconds. In order to obtain Ts<=5 with the step magnitude of 29.2 meters per second
and a 2% error band, the settling time needs to be within 28.616 seconds and 29.784
seconds.
For the percent overshoot to fall within 10% of the input its maximum amplitude
must be less than 32.12 meters per second. Careful zooming of the scope display
allowed me to verify that both of these KPIs were now within the target values. You
can see in the zoomed in view of Figure 11 on the next page that the KPIs of Table I
have now been met.

14

Figure 11: Zoomed View of Figure 10 around 5 seconds.

As previously mentioned, we are also interested in the steady state error of the
system. Although this KPI was not identified in the referenced research paper, it is
important to cruise control systems since it dictates how much speed fluctuation can
occur. Figure 11 shows 100 second duration of the output response. Setting a new KPI
of steady state error less than 1% against a steady state target speed of 29.2 meters
per second yields a target speed error band of 28.908 to 32.12 meters per second. The
new KPI is added and identified in Table III.

Performance Indicator
Target Design Value KPI priority
Settling Time (Ts)
< =5 seconds
One
Overshoot (%)
<=10%
Two
Steady State Error (%)
<=1%
Three
Table III: Additional KPI of S.S.E. %)
We can see from the scaled output shown in Figure 12 that the steady state error
of the system is less than 0.5% at t=90 seconds. The steady state error is less than 1%
in less than 60 seconds, so this additional KPI has been met.

15

Figure 12: Steady State Error of System Output Response less than 0.5%.

Conclusion
It was demonstrated that a PID controller can help optimize the system response
of a cruise control system. Without PID control the Key Performance Factors of Settling
Time, Percent Overshoot and ultimately Steady State Error could not be met. Utilizing
a PID tuning methodology, such as the Ziegler Nichols method herein, drastically
reduces the time required to tune each of these controller variables as it gives an
optimal response curve for most general constraints. The new controller values
obtained through iterations of fine tuning the Ziegler Nichols calculated values are
shown in Table IV. These values were used to meet all of the KPI requirements set
forth in Table III above.

16

Controller
Model
Simulink Fine
Tune Values

Kp

Ti

Td

P=Kp=1.5

I=Kp/Ti=0.05

D=0.7725

1/( * Td)
=25.9

Table IV: Final PID Controller Values After Fine Tuning.

Fine tuning the PID takes patience as changing one controller variable affects all
of the KPI parameters in varying degrees. The modeling process however retains the
same basic form wherein a real world application is modeled mathematically; target
Key Performance Indicators are identified, a control scheme is identified and tuned to
meet the system requirements. Upon completion of these steps, the system can be
simulated and studied before ultimately realizing a fully functional physical system that
will perform to expectations in real world applications.
The cruise control PID system that was studied and presented in this paper has
shown how a physical system, such as an automobile, can be mathematically modeled
and simulated. It was also shown that through tuning a controller scheme, such as a
PID controller, certain KPI targets can be met. The KPI target values set forth in Table
III represent realistic KPIs for a modern automobile. It was shown that through
calculation and iterative tuning the KPI goals of the cruise control system were
achieved.

17

Bibliography
[1] Khairuddin Osman, Mohd Fuaad Rahmat, Mohd Ashraf Ahmad Modeling and
Controller Design for Cruise Control in 2009 5th International Colloquium on
Signal Processing and Its Applications (CSPA), pp. 254-258.

[2] Carnegie Mellon. 1997. Control Tutorial for MATLAB, Website of University of
Michigan. http://www.engin.umich.edu/group/ctm/examples/cruise/ccSS.html

[3] Wikipedia. July 2013. Ralph Teetor, Wikipedia Website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Teetor

[4] Lie, Karen Cruise Control System in Vehicle Calvin College, 2004.
[5] Chen, Chi-Tsong Linear System Theory and Design 4th Edition,
Oxford University Press 2013.
[6] Williams, Jim Application Note 120 Linear Technology, March 2010.

18

Appendix A: MATLAB/SIMULINK Files

EDU>> syms s
EDU>> (s+0.0476)*(s+1)*(s+5)
ans =
(s + 1)*(s + 5)*(s + 119/2500)
EDU>> cctf=(s+0.0476)*(s+1)*(s+5)
cctf =
(s + 1)*(s + 5)*(s + 119/2500)
EDU>> expand (cctf)
ans =
s^3 + (15119*s^2)/2500 + (6607*s)/1250 + 119/500
EDU>> 15119/2500
ans =
6.0476
EDU>> 6607/1250
ans =
5.2856
EDU>> 119/500
ans =
0.2380
EDU>> num=[2.4767];den=[1 6.0476 5.2856 0.2380];
EDU>> cctf=tf(num,den)
cctf =

19

2.477
--------------------------------s^3 + 6.048 s^2 + 5.286 s + 0.238

Continuous-time transfer function.

EDU>> ccss=tf2ss(num,den)

ccss =

-6.0476 -5.2856 -0.2380

1.0000
0

20

1.0000

Appendix B: Copy of the Paper

The research paper entitled Modeling and Controller Design for a Cruise Control
System by Osman, Rahmat and Ahmad is reproduced here for convenience with
permission from the I.E.E.E. It was a great motivation in assembling this work and
provides for further reading on this subject matter.

21

22

23

24

25

26