4.7 Article

An Energy-Saving Torque Vectoring Control Strategy for Electric Vehicles Considering Handling Stability Under Extreme Conditions

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
卷 69, 期 10, 页码 10787-10796

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TVT.2020.3011921

关键词

Four-wheel independently actuated electric vehicles; energy savings; vehicle stability; model predictive control; torque distribution

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [61790564, 61703176, U19A2069]
  2. Funds for Joint Project of Jilin Province and Jilin University [SXGJSF2017-2-1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four-wheel independently actuated electric vehicles (FWIA EVs) allow variable distributions of driving torques among individual wheels to improve vehicle performance. To reduce energy consumption while ensuring handling stability, we propose an optimal torque vectoring control strategy based on a twolevel distribution formula. This strategy can naturally decouple front/rear axle torque vectoring from left/right torque vectoring and avoid the contradiction between stability and energy saving. First, considering the motor efficiency, the vehicle's total torque is optimally distributed to the front and rear axles based on model predictive control. Then, based on the front/rear axle distribution ratio, the left/right torque vectoring is revised to produce a suitable additional yaw moment to improve the handling stability. A sliding mode controller is designed to track the reference yaw rate calculated from a nonlinear reference model. The nonlinear reference model is more suitable for extreme conditions due to the accurate reflection of the nonlinear characteristics. A suitable additional yaw moment can ensure vehicle stability and avoid excessive energy consumption due to vehicle instability. The simulation and hardware-in-the-loop experimental results demonstrate that the proposed control strategy can reduce energy consumption while ensuring vehicle stability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据