Tire–road friction coefficient estimation based on designed braking pressure pulse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of tire–road friction coefficient (TRFC) is valuable for autonomous vehicle control and design of active safety systems. This paper investigates TRFC estimation on the basis of longitudinal vehicle dynamics. A two-stage TRFC estimation scheme is proposed that limits the disturbances to the vehicle motion. A sequence of braking pressure pulses is designed in the first stage to identify desired minimal pulse pressure for reliable estimation of TRFC with minimal interference with the vehicle motion. This stage also provides a qualitative estimate of TRFC. In the second stage, tire normal force and slip ratio are directly calculated from the measured signals, a modified force observer based on the wheel rotational dynamics is developed for estimating the tire braking force. A constrained unscented Kalman filter (CUKF) algorithm is subsequently proposed to identify the TRFC for achieving rapid convergence and enhanced estimation accuracy. The effectiveness of the proposed methodology is evaluated through CarSim™-MATLAB/Simulink™ co-simulations considering vehicle motions on high-, medium-, and low-friction roads at different speeds. The results suggest that the proposed two-stage methodology can yield an accurate estimation of the road friction with a relatively lower effect on the vehicle speed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".