Hinfinity Vehicle Control ForwardH∞控制车辆前进.pptVIP

A Comparative, Experimental Study of Model Suitability to Describe Vehicle Rollover Dynamics for Control Design Outline Goals Analytical Vehicle Models Experimental Model Validation Conclusions Goals Examine various vehicle models to determine the effect that different assumptions have on: Model order Model complexity Number and type of parameters required Experimentally validate the models to: Determine model accuracy Relate modeling accuracy to assumptions made Determine the simplest model that accurately represents a vehicles planar and roll dynamics Analytical Vehicle Models Standard SAE sign convention Analytical Vehicle Models Basic Assumptions Common to All Models All models are linear Result: Small angles are assumed making cos(θ)≈1, sin(θ)≈0 Constant longitudinal velocity (along the x-axis) The lateral force acting on a tire is directly proportional to slip angle Longitudinal forces ignored Tire forces symmetric right-to-left Analytical Vehicle Models Model 1 – 2DOF Bicycle Model Analytical Vehicle Models Model 2 – 3DOF Roll Model Assumes the existence of a sprung mass No x-z planar symmetry Originally presented by Mammar et. al., National Institute of Research on the Transportations and their Security (INRETS), Versailles, France in 1999 Analytical Vehicle Models Model 3 – 3DOF Roll Model Assumes the existence of a sprung mass x-z planar symmetry Roll-steer influence Originally presented by Kim and Park, Samchok University, South Korea, 2003 Analytical Vehicle Models Model 3 (continued) As a result of the assumption of roll steer, the external forces acting on the vehicle change accordingly Analytical Vehicle Models Model 4 – 3DOF Roll Model Assumes a sprung mass suspended upon a massless frame x-z planar symmetry No roll steer influence Originally presented by Carlson and Gerdes, Stanford University, 2003 Analytical Vehicle Models Effect of assuming force equivalence Slightly changes plant description (i.e. eigenvalues) Additionally, caus