Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7, SEPTEMBER 2012
I. I NTRODUCTION
l2 cos1
l2 cos2
+
+ l1
2
2
!
P4 (t)
1
P3 (t)
+
+
b
m Vcgx + bcg
Vcgx 2cg
2
!
CF sin1
Vcgy + l1 cg
1
b
m
Vcgx + 2cg
!
CF sin2
Vcgy + l1 cg
2
b
m
Vcgx cg
Vcgy l2 cg
2 b2
Vcgx
4 cg
g
V cgx = Vcgy cg
L
(1)
V cgy
2Vcgx CR
= Vcgy cg
m
gl2
(sin1 + sin2 )
2L
!
CF cos1
Vcgy + l1 cg
+
1
m
Vcgx + 2b cg
!
Vcgy + l1 cg
CF cos2
2
+
m
Vcgx 2b cg
Fig. 1. Body diagram of a front steering rear traction hybrid eletric passenger
vehicle.
TABLE I
TABLE OF THE VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THE MODEL
Variable
l1
l2
L
g
m
Iz
CF
CT
b
r
1,2
Rcg
Ro
Ri
Vcg
V3
V4
3
4
cg
U1..4
S1..4
P1..4
Description
Distance between center of gravity/mass and front axle (m)
Distance between center of gravity/mass and rear axle (m)
Distance between axles (m)
Coefficient of friction (-)
Gravitational acceleration (m/s2 )
Vehicle mass (kg)
Moment of inertia over z axis (kg m2 )
Slip coefficient of the front wheels (-)
Slip coefficient of the rear wheels (-)
Axles length (distance between wheels) (m)
Tire radius (m)
Steering angles (rad)
Instantaneous maneuver radius (m)
Distance between the curve center and the outside wheel (m)
Distance between the curve center and the inside wheel (m)
Linear velocity of the vehicle at its CG (m/s)
Linear tangent velocity of the left wheel (m/s)
Linear tangent velocity of the right wheel (m/s)
Angular velocity of the left wheel (rad/s)
Angular velocity of the right wheel (rad/s)
Vehicle angular velocity around the turning center (rad/s)
Wheel longitudinal forces (N )
Wheel lateral forces (N )
Power applied to the wheels (W )
(2)
mgbl2
mgl1 l2
cg =
(cos2 cos1 )
(sin1 + sin2 )
4LIz
2LIz
!
b
P3 (t)
P4 (t)
+
b
2Iz Vcgx + bcg
Vcgx 2cg
2
!
CF
Vcgy + l1 cg
b
+
2
l1 cos2 + sin2
b
Iz
2
Vcgx 2cg
!
CF
b
Vcgy + l1 cg
+
l
cos
sin
1
1
1
1
b
Iz
2
Vcgx + 2cg
!
2Vcgx l2 CR Vcgy l2 cg
+
2 b2
Iz
Vcgx
4 cg
(3)
b
Vcg q 2
2
Rcg l2 +
4 =
Rcg r
2
(5)
Kp T
e(k 1)
Ti
(6)
(7)
D(k) =
2Kp Td N
2Td T N
D(k 1) +
(y(k) y(k 1))
2Td + T N
2Td + T N
(8)
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5. Obtained fuzzy control surface (a) the reproduced surface after the
training process of the feedforward ANN.
0.00625s + 50
s + 0.05
(11)
s+1
(12)
0.1s + 9 108
From Eqs. (11) and (12) and all previous described
procedures, the following controller K is achieved:
Wu (s) =
K(s) =
Fig. 6.
Augmented plant of the EDS module, representing the transfer
function Tzw .
(13)
Drivers Inputs
Controller
+
+
Throttle
Input
Acceleration
Steering
HELVIS
Kinematics
Motor
To
Dynamics
Blockset
EDS
HELVIS
Dynamics
Fig. 7. Unsuitable feedback block diagram due to the high ability of noise
rejection by the H controller.
Steering
Angles
T
), since Vx in both equations is represented by
( ld rd
. The states of the speeds are provided by the
dynamics block
c c c c T
i
i
e
e
delivered to the
from both voltage and current
l r r l
motors, which allows the estimation of the power involved
T
[Pl Pr ] for each wheel. As for the IMU data, it provides
the EDS with real measurements regardless of a possible tire
slipping, which turns the overall system more accurate and
robust.
The control loop is then rearranged so that the throttle input
is the signal with highest priority. However, the subtraction of
the desired speeds, provided by the kinematics and based on
the dynamics of the vehicle, ensures that the drivers throttle
command is assured. Thus, in practice, the controller senses
the resulting error:
d
c
e = 2l,r l,r
l,r
Steering
Command
Control
System
Control
System
Driver
Driver
Left
Motor
Right
Motor
Encoder
Encoder
Fig. 8.
(14)
5
4.5
Throttle Input
HELVIS Control Architecture
Conventional Architecture
T
Where lc rc
is the vector with the measured values
for both rear wheels angular speeds.
The efficiency of the the new proposed control architecture
over the conventional one could be attested in a bench test
experiment where the performance of both approaches could
be evaluated. As this paper is related and focused on robust
controllers, both the new architecture and the conventional
one were submitted to such experiment with the optimal
H controller in charge of the EDS, while the driver input
command was subject to observation. Figure 9 shows that,
in fact, the throttle input is rejected as a noise, when the
architecture of Fig. 7 is employed. Indeed, any attempt to
request new acceleration inputs (continuous curve) will be
degraded (dotted curve), since it is considered an external
disturbance. Regardless of the magnitude of the throttle input
command, the H controller always acts in order to minimize
such disturbance, converging the throttle signal to a minimum
value.
That is, the architecture proposed in Fig. 7 cannot be
applied to our case ultimately. The figure still shows that
the proposed architecture in this work preserves the throttle
command imposed by the driver, which is input intact to the
kinematics block (dashed curve).
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
Time (s)
Fig. 9. Behavior of the throttle input signal using the novel proposed HELVIS
control architecture.
DC Motors
IC-Engine
Magnetic
Encoder
Generator
Steering
Mechanism
Fig. 10.
TABLE II
HELVIS CONSTRUCTIVE PARAMETERS .
Variable
mass
wheelbase (distance between axles)
track (distance between wheels)
center of mass (x)
center of mass (y)
radius of the wheels
moment of inertia
Value
4
335
214
107
55
60
0.087475
Unit
Kg
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Kg m2
EDS
Torque &
Wheel Speed
Calculation
Frictional
Forces
HELVIS
Dynamics
Control
Module
Accelerations
Throttle
Motors
Dynamics
HELVIS
Kinematics
Steering
Command
Drivers Inputs
Performance
Analysis
Anti-Slip
Control
EDS Controller
Evaluation
Trajectory
Control
Fig. 14. Expanded view of the HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the
proposed EDS module, adjusted by the modified PID controller, to a constant
speed and steering maneuver.
Fig. 12. General architecture and functional blocks of HELVIS-Sim simulation environment.
Fig. 15. HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the proposed EDS module,
adjusted by the neuro-fuzzy controller, to a constant speed and steering
maneuver.
Fig. 16. Expanded view of the HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the
proposed EDS module, adjusted by the neuro-fuzzy controller, to a constant
speed and steering maneuver.
Fig. 13. HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the proposed EDS module,
adjusted by the modified PID controller, to a constant speed and steering
maneuver.
Fig. 17. HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the proposed EDS module,
adjusted by the optimal H controller, to a constant speed and steering
maneuver.
Fig. 18. Expanded view of the HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the
proposed EDS module, adjusted by the optimal H controller, to a constant
speed and steering maneuver.
Fig. 19. HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the proposed EDS module,
adjusted by the modified PID controller, to a speed on sinusoidal pattern and
steering maneuver.
Fig. 20. Expanded view of the HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the
proposed EDS module, adjusted by the modified PID controller, to a speed
on sinusoidal pattern and steering maneuver.
Fig. 21. HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the proposed EDS module,
adjusted by the neuro-fuzzy controller, to a speed on sinusoidal pattern and
steering maneuver.
TABLE III
C ONTROL P ERFORMANCE Q UANTITATIVE C OMPARISON TABLE IN
S IMULATION (M EAN VALUES ).
Controller
PID
NF
H
Overshoot (%)
0.02
0.034
0.003
Fig. 22. Expanded view of the HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the
proposed EDS module, adjusted by the neuro-fuzzy controller, to a speed on
sinusoidal pattern and steering maneuver.
10
Fig. 23. HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the proposed EDS module,
adjusted by the optimal H controller, to a speed on sinusoidal pattern and
steering maneuver.
Fig. 25. Experimental response for the HELVIS platform EDS module,
adjusted by the modified PID controller, to a constant speed and steering
maneuver.
Fig. 24. Expanded view of the HELVIS-SIM simulation response for the
proposed EDS module, adjusted by the optimal H controller, to a speed on
sinusoidal pattern and steering maneuver.
EDS and the control module was achieved by using a high performance dSpaceTM 1103 optical fiber interface board. Control
of both motors was individually accomplished through two
different PWM channels whose duty cycle is of approximately
12kHz which is reasonable to a real time application such as
the EDS control.
Once again, the following cases were evaluated:
1) Case I: Figure 25 shows the EDS response whereas
the modified PID controller adjusts both rear wheels angular
Fig. 26.
Expanded view of the experimental response for the HELVIS
platform EDS module, adjusted by the modified PID controller, to a constant
speed and steering maneuver.
Fig. 27. Experimental response for the HELVIS platform EDS module,
adjusted by the neuro-fuzzy controller, to a constant speed and steering
maneuver.
11
Fig. 29. Experimental response for the HELVIS platform EDS module,
adjusted by the optimal H controller, to a constant speed and steering
maneuver.
Fig. 30.
Expanded view of the experimental response for the HELVIS
platform EDS module, adjusted by the optimal H controller, to a constant
speed and steering maneuver.
Fig. 28.
Expanded view of the experimental response for the HELVIS
platform EDS module, adjusted by the neuro-fuzzy controller, to a constant
speed and steering maneuver.
Fig. 31. Experimental response for the HELVIS platform EDS module,
adjusted by the modified PID controller, to a speed on sinusoidal pattern and
steering maneuver.
Fig. 32.
Expanded view of the experimental response for the HELVIS
platform EDS module, adjusted by the modified PID controller, to a speed on
sinusoidal pattern and steering maneuver.
Fig. 33. Experimental response for the HELVIS platform EDS module,
adjusted by the neuro-fuzzy controller , to a speed on sinusoidal pattern and
steering maneuver.
12
Fig. 35. Experimental response for the HELVIS platform EDS module,
adjusted by the optimal H controller , to a speed on sinusoidal pattern and
steering maneuver.
Fig. 36.
Expanded view of the experimental response for the HELVIS
platform EDS module, adjusted by the optimal H controller, to a speed
on sinusoidal pattern and steering maneuver.
VI. C ONCLUSION
Fig. 34.
Expanded view of the experimental response for the HELVIS
platform EDS module, adjusted by the neuro-fuzzy controller, to a speed
on sinusoidal pattern and steering maneuver.
approaches.
TABLE IV
C ONTROL P ERFORMANCE Q UANTITATIVE C OMPARISON TABLE D URING
E XPERIMENTS (M EAN VALUES ).
Controller
PID
NF
H
Overshoot (%)
0.032
0.048
0.0045
13
[17] MAGALLAN, G.A.; DE ANGELO, C.H.; BISHEIMER, G.; GARGIA, G.; , A neighborhood electric vehicle with electronic differential
traction control. Industrial Electronics, 2008. IECON 2008. 34th Annual Conference of IEEE , vol., no., pp.2757-2763, 10-13 Nov. 2008.
DOI: 10.1109/IECON.2008.4758395. Accessed in 29/10/2010 at http :
//ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp? tp = arnumber =
4758395isnumber = 4757911
[18] Zhao, Y.E.; Zhang, J.W.; Guan, X.Q.; , Modeling and simulation of
electronic differential system for an electric vehicle with two-motor-wheel
drive Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2009 IEEE , vol., no., pp.12091214, 3-5 June 2009
[19] Tabbache, B.; Kheloui, A.; Benbouzid, M.E.H.; , An Adaptive Electric
Differential for Electric Vehicles Motion Stabilization, Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on , vol.60, no.1, pp.104-110, Jan. 2011
[20] Haddoun, A.; Benbouzid, M.E.H.; Diallo, D.; Abdessemed, R.; Ghouili,
J.; Srairi, K.; , Design and implementation of an Electric Differential for
traction application, Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC),
2010 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-6, 1-3 Sept. 2010
[21] Zhang Jinzhu; Zhang Hongtian; , Vehicle stability control based on
adaptive PID control with single neuron network, Informatics in Control,
Automation and Robotics (CAR), 2010 2nd International Asia Conference
on , vol.1, no., pp.434-437, 6-7 March 2010
[22] Junwei Li; Huafang Yang; , The Research of Double-Driven Electric
Vehicle Stability Control System, Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, 2009. ICMTMA 09. International Conference on ,
vol.1, no., pp.905-909, 11-12 April 2009
[23] Gillespie, T. D., Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, SAE International, 1992
[24] J. C. Doyle.; K. Glover; P. P. K.; A. B. Francis., State-space Solutions
to Standard H2 and H Control Problems, Vol. 34, 1989.
[25] K. Zhou., Essentials of Robust Control, Prentice Hall, 1997.
[26] Zhou, K., Doyle, J. C., Glover, K., Robust and Optimal Control,
Prentice Hall, 1996.
[27] Raymond T. Stefani. 1993., Design of Feedback Control Systems 3rd ed. - Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, NY, USA.
[28] Sampaio, R. C. B., Becker, M., Mechatronic Servo System Applied To
A Simulated-Based Autothrottle Module, 20th International Congress of
Mechanical Engineering, 1-10, 2009
[29] Hang, C.C.; Astrom, K.J.; Ho, W.K.; , Refinements of the ZieglerNichols tuning formula, Control Theory and Applications, IEE Proceedings D , vol.138, no.2, pp.111-118, Mar 1991
[30] Cirstea, M., Dinu, A., Khor, J. G., McCormick, M., Neural and Fuzzy
Logic Control of Drives and Power Systems, 3rd CTA-DLR Workshop
on Data Analysis & Flight Control, 2002
[31] Kurosawa, K., Futami, R., Watanabe, T., Hoshimiya, N., Joint Angle
Control by FES Using a Feedback Error Learning Controller Neural
Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Neural
Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 13, 359-371, 2005
[32] Tamura, S., Tateishi, M., Capabilities of a Four-Layered Feedforward
Neural Network: Four Layers Versus Three, IEEE Transactions on Neural
Networks, Vol. 8, 2, 1997
[33] Hyeoun-Dong Lee; Seung-Ki Sul; , Fuzzy-logic-based torque control
strategy for parallel-type hybrid electric vehicle, Industrial Electronics,
IEEE Transactions on , vol.45, no.4, pp.625-632, Aug 1998