Heavy-Duty Vehicle Braking Stability Control and HIL Verification for Improving Traffic Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The braking failure of heavy vehicles under long downhill or curved conditions may cause traffic crash and reduce road traffic efficiency. Therefore, to improve the traffic safety and braking stability of vehicles under special road conditions, a braking dynamic model and control system based on the interval uncertainty analysis are proposed, and the safety of the active control model is verified by experiments (HIL). Firstly, the interval uncertain dynamic model is established based on the Monte Carlo method, and the braking failure simulation analysis of the right front wheel of heavy vehicles is carried out in the set of three uncertain intervals. Secondly, the fuzzy PID and sliding mode controller based on yaw and centroid error are designed to find the optimal control strategy from the two kinds of control strategies for HIL experiments. Finally, the actual control effect and feasibility of these control algorithms for heavy vehicle braking under special road conditions are verified by HIL experiments. The experimental results show that under the action of the fuzzy PID control strategy, the running stability of the vehicle is significantly improved compared with no control, which effectively reduces the risk of vehicle braking failure and improves the active safety and stability of the vehicle.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".