Coordinated control for path-following of an autonomous four in-wheel motor drive electric vehicle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordination of Active Front Steering (AFS) and Direct Yaw Moment Control (DYC) has been widely used for non-autonomous vehicle lateral stability control. Recently, some researchers used it (AFS/DYC) for path-following of autonomous vehicles. However, current controllers are not robust enough with respect to uncertainties and different road conditions to guarantee lateral stability of Autonomous Four In-wheel Motor Drive Electric Vehicles. Thus, a coordinated control is proposed to address this issue. In this paper, a two-layer hierarchical control strategy is utilized. In the upper-layer, a self-tunable super-twisting sliding mode control is utilized to deal with parametric uncertainties, and a Model Predictive Control (MPC) is used in order to allocate the control action to each AFS and DYC. Parametric uncertainties of tires' cornering stiffness, vehicle mass and moment of inertia are considered. Simulations with different road conditions for path-following scenario have been conducted in MATLAB/Simulink. An autonomous vehicle equipped with Four In-wheel Motor and two degrees of freedom vehicle dynamics model is used in this study. In the end, the performance of the proposed controller is compared with the MPC controller. Simulation results reveal that the proposed controller provides better path-following in comparison with the MPC controller.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".