MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387124674 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2023-0031

Anti-slip regulation method for electric vehicles with four in-wheel motors based on the identification of slip ratio

2023· article· en· W4387124674 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiping Chen, Wuhao Xu, Zongyu Lv, Dequan Zeng, Chengping Zhong, Xiaochun Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKey Research and Development Program of Jiangxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSlip ratioSlip (aerodynamics)Control theory (sociology)Slip angleElectric vehicleIdentifierAutomotive engineeringTorqueComputer scienceEngineeringPower (physics)Control (management)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve the stability and acceleration of electric vehicles with four in-wheel motors under various road conditions, an anti-slip regulation method considering the identification of slip ratios is proposed. In this paper, the model of the whole vehicle is built, and the road identifier based on the tire model established by Burckhardt is designed. Then, an anti-slip controller that utilizes the variable universe fuzzy proportional integral derivative (PID) algorithm is established to adjust the driving torques of the four in-wheel motors according to the road conditions. The simulation results show that the designed control strategy can quickly and accurately identify the optimal slip ratio under each typical road condition and make the tire slip ratio approach the optimal slip ratio in a short time, so as to effectively improve the driving stability and dynamic performance 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicVehicle Dynamics and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207