Figures (7)  Tables (2)

    • Figure 1. 

      Vehicle dynamics model.

    • Figure 2. 

      Driving performance of distracted drivers.

    • Figure 3. 

      The framework of a proposed shared control system.

    • Figure 4. 

      Stable envelope constraints.

    • Figure 5. 

      Fuzzy surfaces of fuzzy rules.

    • Figure 6. 

      Experimental results of the curved road scenario.

    • Figure 7. 

      Experimental results of a curved road scenario.

    • Cona Lonr Lr
      S MS M MD D
      S S S S S S S
      MS S S S S S
      M S S S S S
      MD S S S S MS
      D S S S MS MS
      MS S S S S MS MS
      MS S S S MS MS
      M S S MS MS M
      MD S S MS M M
      D S MS MS M MD
      M S S S S S MS
      MS S MS MS M M
      M S MS MS M M
      MD S M M MD MD
      D MS M M MD MD
      MD S S S MS M M
      MS S MS M M M
      M MS M M M M
      MD MS M M MD M
      D M M M MD MD
      D S MS MS MS M M
      MS MS MS M M M
      M MS M M M M
      MD MS M M MD MD
      D MS M M MD MD

      Table 1. 

      Fuzzy rules.

    • Notation Meaning Value
      m Vehicle mass 1,624 (kg)
      Iz Yaw moment of inertia 2,059.2 (kg·m2)
      a Distance to front axle 1.05 (m)
      b Distance to rear axle 1.61 (m)
      Sf Front slip ratio 0.2
      Sr Rear slip ratio 0.2
      Ccf/Clf Front cornering stiffness ratio 66,900 (N/rad)
      Ccr/Clr Rear cornering stiffness ratio 62,700 (N/rad)
      yL Preview distance 14.5 (m)
      tp Driver preview time 0.9 (s)
      th Driver reaction time 0.6 (s)
      td Neural time delay 0.3 (s)
      Vy Longitudinal velocity 60 (km/s)
      T Sampling time 0.025 (s)
      Np Prediction horizon 30
      Q Output weighting matrix diag (250, 200, 100, 10)
      R Control weight 100
      H Driver weight 2

      Table 2. 

      Parameters in the experiment.