 Original Article
 Open Access
 Published:
An Energy Efficient Control Strategy for Electric Vehicle Driven by InWheelMotors Based on Discrete Adaptive Sliding Mode Control
Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering volumeĀ 36, ArticleĀ number:Ā 58 (2023)
Abstract
This paper presents an energyefficient control strategy for electric vehicles (EVs) driven by inwheelmotors (IWMs) based on discrete adaptive sliding mode control (DASMC). The nonlinear vehicle model, tire model and IWM model are established at first to represent the operation mechanism of the whole system. Based on the modeling, two virtual control variables are used to represent the longitudinal and yaw control efforts to coordinate the vehicle motion control. Then DASMC method is applied to calculate the required total driving torque and yaw moment, which can improve the tracking performance as well as the system robustness. According to the vehicle nonlinear model, the additional yaw moment can be expressed as a function of longitudinal and lateral tire forces. For further control scheme development, a tire force estimator using an unscented Kalman filter is designed to estimate realtime tire forces. On these bases, energy efficient torque allocation method is developed to distribute the total driving torque and differential torque to each IWM, considering the motor energy consumption, the tire slip energy consumption, and the brake energy recovery. Simulation results of the proposed control strategy using the coplatform of Matlab/Simulink and CarSimĀ® demonstrate that it can accomplish vehicle motion control in a coordinated and economic way.
1 Introduction
Electric vehicles (EVs) have been considered as a substitution for the traditional vehicle with an internal combustion engine for the advantages of clean energy sources and emissions [1,2,3]. EVs driven by inwheelmotors (IWMs) have been considered as a promising architecture for their noticeable advantages compared with other kinds of EVs [4, 5]. Firstly, the elimination of the transmission mechanism can save the producing cost and make more space for drivers and passengers. Secondly, the application of motorized wheels can improve motordrive operation efficiency [6,7,8].
Besides the merits mentioned above, another significant advantage of EV driven by IWMs is that comprehensive performance can be elevated because the independent driving approach makes it possible to accomplish integrated optimization and control, then obtain more flexible responses under different driving conditions [9, 10]. Some prior researches have been done in this area. Yang et al. [11] proposed a current distribution control for dual directly driven wheel motors for EVs. They considered the status difference between two IWMs caused by fabricating qualities and different aging rates and so on, and then developed an internal controller that serves to distribute the current, instead of torque, to the driving wheels, thereby enhancing the robustness and stability of the system. Demirci et al. [12] proposed a control method for IWM drive EV based on the direct yawmoment control, giving the optimized wheel force distribution as well as the coordination control of the hydraulic braking and the motor torque, which improves the stability of the fourwheeldrive electric vehicle effectively. Wu et al. [13] presented a layered vehicle dynamic control system, which is composed of an adaptive optimal control allocation method using neural networks for optimal distribution of tire forces and the sliding mode yaw moment observer for robust control of yaw dynamics to solve the stability control problem. Hu et al. [10] utilized the frontwheel differential driveassist steering to achieve pathfollowing control for independently actuated electric autonomous ground vehicles. The differential torque between the left and right wheels can be utilized to actuate the front wheels as the sole steering power when the regular steering system fails, avoiding dangerous consequences.
Moreover, torque distribution, namely distributing the IWM torque properly to accomplish the given targets such as high dynamic demand, driving stability demand or good energy efficiency is also an important issue. A lot of reports on this subject and relevant studies have been published. Li et al. [14] presented an ideal force distribution control method for the EV based on the friction circle of tire force, making the front and rear wheels reach the adhesion limits at the same time in different conditions. Another optimal torque distribution for EV driven by IWMs was introduced by Zhang et al. [15]. The linear quadratic regulator via a weighted least square method was used to calculate the required longitudinal force of each wheel. Then the IWM torques were obtained by a tire slip ratio controller because they considered the longitudinal force of each wheel was decided by the tire slip ratio. To increase the cruising range of EVs equipped with front and rear inwheelmotors, an optimal torque distribution algorithm for longitudinal motion by considering the transfer of weight between front and rear axles and motor losses was proposed by Wang et al. [16]. The EV was modeled as a lineartimeinvariant system with generalized frequency variables and then the output power of IWM was modeled as a convex function of the distribution ratio, providing an added value for frontrearindependentdrive EVs. Li et al. [17] proposed a coordinated control algorithm of vehicle dynamics performance and energy consumption for an EV driven by four IWMs and steered by two steerbywire systems. In their study, multi controllers were designed for each subsystem at first and then a rulebased coordinated control scheme is developed according to vehicle driving states to accomplish the whole control target.
According to the abovementioned studies, an energy efficient control strategy for the electric vehicle driven by inwheelmotors is designed in this paper. The overall control scheme is displayed in Figure 1. Different from previous research studies, we are aiming to obtain a good comprehensive vehicle performance in both dynamic motion control and energy efficiency. The overall control scheme consists of three parts. The first part is the vehicle motion controller using adaptive discrete sliding mode control (ADSMC) algorithm to calculate the longitudinal and yaw control efforts, guaranteeing good dynamics performance and stability. The second part is the lateral tire force estimation. Rather than linear tire force calculation, an unscented Kalman filter (UKF) is applied considering the tire nonlinear characteristics because the yaw moment is closely related to the tire lateral force, so precise estimation can contribute to further torque allocation. In the third part, the longitudinal and yaw control efforts will be distributed to each IWM considering the energy efficiency. More specifically, the optimal allocator is designed considering IWM energy consumption, tire slip energy consumption and brake energy recovery.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The vehicle nonlinear model and IWM model are built in Section 2, followed by the details about proposed control for IWM driven EV based on optimal torque allocation are presented in Section 3. Then the cosimulation results based on Matlab/Simulink and CarSimĀ® are presented in Section 4, together with the related analyses. Finally, the conclusion will be summarized in Section 5.
2 Modeling
The vehicle nonlinear dynamic model, tire model and IWM model are constructed for further analysis and subsequent control strategy design.
2.1 Vehicle Dynamic Model
In this study, only longitudinal, lateral and yaw dynamics are concerned. A schematic diagram of the vehicle three degreeoffreedom nonlinear model [18] with four independently driven IWMs is shown in Figure 2.
The longitudinal, lateral and yaw motions of this model can be expressed as
where v_{x}, v_{y} and Ī³ are the longitudinal velocity, lateral velocity, and yaw rate of the vehicle, respectively; \(m\) is the vehicle total mass; I_{z} is the vehicle yaw inertia; Ī£F_{x} is the total longitudinal tire force; Ī£F_{y} is the total lateral tire force; M_{z} is the total yaw moment provided by four wheels; F_{w} and F_{f} are the aerodynamic resistance and rolling resistance, respectively, which can be expressed as
where C_{d} is the aerodynamic resistance coefficient; Ļ is the air density; A is the windward area; f is the rolling resistance coefficient; g is the gravity acceleration.
According to Figure 2, Ī£F_{x}, Ī£F_{y} and M_{z} can be written as
where Ī“_{f} is the steering wheel angle; F_{xi} is the longitudinal tire force of the ith wheel (i = f l, f r, rl, rr); F_{yi} (i = f l, f r, rl, rr) represents the lateral tire force of the ith wheel; a and b are the distances from the front and the rear axle to the center of gravity, respectively; c is half of the track width. The longitudinal tire force can be calculated by the wheel rotational dynamics equation, which is
where T_{i} and Ļ_{i} are the driving torque and the angular speed of the ith wheel; I_{w} and R_{w} are the wheel moment of inertia and tire rolling radius, respectively. T_{i} is the ith IWM output torque.
2.2 Tire Model
The tire forces can be expressed by a Dugoff tire model [19] as follows
where \(k_{x}\) is the longitudinal stiffness; \(k_{y}\) is the lateral stiffness; \(\mu\) is the road adhesion coefficient; \(\alpha_{i}\) is the sideslip angle; \(\lambda_{i}^{{}}\) is the longitudinal slip rate; \(F_{zi}\) is the vertical load of the tire. More specifically, \(\alpha_{i}\), \(\lambda_{i}^{{}}\) and \(F_{zi}\) can be written as
2.3 IWM Model
Four permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) are applied as the driving motor [20]. Based on power invariant requirement, the dq equivalent circuit of a PMSM is displayed as Figure 3.
In Figure 3, i_{d} and i_{q} denote the d and qaxis components of armature current, respectively; u_{d} and u_{q} denote the d and qaxis components of terminal voltage, respectively; R_{a} is the armature winding resistance per phase; R_{c} is the iron loss resistance; Ļ_{f} is the flux linkage generated by permanent magnets; L_{d} and L_{q} denote the d and qaxis components of armature selfinductance, respectively; Ļ_{e} is the rotor angular velocity, Ļ_{e}=Ļ_{pn}; p_{n} is the number of pole pair.
The voltages of equivalent circuit are derived as
The electromagnetic torque equation can be expressed as
where \(L_{d} = L_{q}\) and the daxis current can be controlled to be zero. Subsequently,
Then the input power to a PMSM can be calculated by the following equation:
3 Control Design for IWM Driven EV
The control method design is proposed in this section, including vehicle motion controller design, lateral tire force estimation and the optimal energy torque allocation.
3.1 Vehicle Motion Controller Design
Road interferences and parameter uncertainties are not considered in the modeling in Section 2. In order to preserve system stability as well as maintain good system robustness, the ADSMC is applied for vehicle motion control design [21].
Assuming \(\sin \delta_{f} \approx \delta_{f} ,\cos \delta_{f} \approx 1\), because of the small magnitude of front wheel steering angle, and substituting Eqs. (2)ā(5) into Eq. (1), then Eq. (1) can be derived as
where \(u_{1} = T_{fl} + T_{fr} + T_{rl} + T_{rr}\) and \(u_{2} =  T_{fl} + T_{fr}  T_{rl} + T_{rr}\) are the virtual control inputs to this nonlinear system; d_{1} and d_{2} are considered as modeling errors, which can be expressed as
In real industrial applications, the control process is discrete. Furthermore, the real vehicle system is a nonlinear system and the longitudinal and yaw motion control problem proposed in our study is nonlinear. For these reasons, the discrete sliding mode control algorithm was adopted here. To reduce the chattering effect of discrete sliding mode control, the adaptive reaching law was introduced in the discrete sliding mode control. In summary, the most significant advantage of DASMC is that it can deal with the discrete nonlinear control problem and reduce the chattering effect of sliding mode control in the meantime. The vehicle model can be discretized as
The reference longitudinal velocity and yaw rate are defined as \(v_{x}^{*}\) and \(\gamma^{*}\). Errors between the reference values and the actual values are given as \(e_{1} = v_{x}^{*}  v_{x}\) and \(e_{2} = v_{\gamma }^{*}  v_{\gamma }\). To realize \(e_{1} \to 0\) and \(e_{2} \to 0\), the sliding faces are defined as \(S_{1} (k) = \rho_{1} e_{1} (k)\) and \(S_{2} (k) = \rho_{2} e_{2} (k)\), where \(\rho_{1}\) and \(\rho_{2}\) are positive defined.
The Lyapunov function candidates are chosen as:
and then
According to the Lyapunov theorem of asymptotic stability, \(S_{j} = 0,(j = 1,2)\) is the system asymptotic stability surface, which means any starting state will eventually reach the switching surface \(S_{j} = 0,(j = 1,2)\). The reaching condition is taken as
When sampling time t_{s} is small enough, the existing and reaching condition can be derived as
The exponential reaching law is chosen for this discretized sliding mode control problem, which is
where \(\varepsilon_{j}\)>0, q_{j}>0, 1āq_{j}t_{s}>0.
For Eq. (25), it can be derived as
Meanwhile, when sampling time t_{s} is small enough, \(2  q_{j} t_{s} \gg 0\), then
Thus, the reaching condition Eq. (23) can be achieved. Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (25), the control laws can be derived as
where
From Eq. (25),
Then,
Based on Eq. (31), there are three circumstances: ā when \(\left {S_{j} (k)} \right > {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} } {(2  q_{j} t_{s} }}} \right. \kern0pt} {(2  q_{j} t_{s} }})\), there is \(p_{j} > 1  q_{j} t_{s}  {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} (2  q_{j} t_{s} )} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} (2  q_{j} t_{s} )} {\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} }}} \right. \kern0pt} {\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} }} =  1\), then \(\left {p_{j} } \right < 1,\left {S_{j} (k + 1)} \right < \left {S_{j} (k)} \right,\) which means \(\left {S_{j} (k)} \right\) is decreasing; ā” when \(\left {S_{j} (k)} \right < {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} } {2  q_{j} t_{s} }}} \right. \kern0pt} {2  q_{j} t_{s} }}\), there is \(p_{j} < 1  q_{j} t_{s}  {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} (2  q_{j} t_{s} )} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} (2  q_{j} t_{s} )} {\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} }}} \right. \kern0pt} {\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} }} =  1\), then \(\left {p_{j} } \right > 1,\left {S_{j} (k + 1)} \right > \left {S_{j} (k)} \right,\) which means \(\left {S_{j} (k)} \right\) is increasing; ā¢ when \(\left {S_{j} (k)} \right = {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} } {(2  q_{j} t_{s} )}}} \right. \kern0pt} {(2  q_{j} t_{s} )}},\) there is \(p_{j} = 1  q_{j} t_{s}  {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} (2  q_{j} t_{s} )} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} (2  q_{j} t_{s} )} {\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} }}} \right. \kern0pt} {\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} }} =  1,\) which means \(\left {S_{j} (k)} \right\) is chattering. Thus, it can be concluded that the sufficient condition of \(\left {S_{j} (k)} \right\) decrease is \(\left {S_{j} (k)} \right > {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\varepsilon_{j} t_{s} } {(2  q_{j} t_{s} }}} \right. \kern0pt} {(2  q_{j} t_{s} }})\). To achieve this, it is required that
If we take \(\varepsilon_{j} = \left {S_{j} (k)} \right/2\) and the sampling time meets the requirement of \(t_{s} < 4/(1 + 2q_{j} )\), Eq. (32) can be guaranteed. The hyperbolic tangent function tanh(S_{j}(k)/Ļ_{j}) is used to replace the sign switching function sgn(S_{j}(k)) in Eq. (28) to avoid the chattering effects in practical implementation. Here, Ļ_{j} is the boundary layer thicknesses.
3.2 Lateral Tire Force Estimation
According to the control low designed in Eq. (28), tire forces are critical to accomplishing the control target. Tire forces are hard to measure directly by sensors in practice. Analytical estimation is a practical way to obtain realtime tire forces and tireroad adhesion information [22, 23]. Based on the Dugoff tire model introduced in Section 2, an unscented Kalman filter is employed to estimate the realtime tire forces. According to the Dugoff tire model, the factors that determine the tire forces are road adhesion coefficient, tire vertical load, tire lateral stiffness, tire sideslip angle, and wheel slip ratio. Among all these factors, the road adhesion coefficient is the only one that can not be measured or calculated directly. Here we define nominal longitudinal and lateral tire forces \(F_{xi}^{0}\) and \(F_{yi}^{0}\) to describe the computable part of them, which are expressed as
Then the measurement equations used for estimating are derived as
The details of UKF are displayed in Figure 4, where system states are the four tire road adhesion coefficients, namely \({\varvec{x}} = [\mu_{fl} ,\mu_{fr} ,\mu_{rl} ,\mu_{rr} ]^\text{T}\); the inputs to the system are eight nominal ire forces, namely \({\varvec{u}} = [F_{yfl}^{0} ,F_{yfr}^{0} ,,F_{yrl}^{0} ,F_{yrr}^{0} ,F_{xfl}^{0} ,F_{xfr}^{0} ,F_{xrl}^{0} ,F_{xrr}^{0} ]^\text{T}\); the system outputs are \({\varvec{z}} = [a_{x} ,a_{y} ,\dot{\gamma }]^\text{T}\).
After obtaining the estimated road adhesion coefficients, the lateral tire forces can be calculated by the Dugoff model. The estimation results of the front left tire are shown in Figure 5.
In Figure 5, the blue curve is the tire force obtained by the linear tire model, which can be expressed as tire slip angle times tire lateral stiffness; the black curve is the reference value output by CarSimĀ®; the red curve is the estimation result based on the method aforementioned. The result obtained by the linear model is larger than the reference because the lateral stiffness will decrease with the increase of the tire slip angle. It can be shown in Figure 5 that the estimation value matches the reference curve pretty well so it can be applied in the whole control strategy.
3.3 Optimal Energy Efficiency Torque Allocation
According to the former definition, the two virtual control inputs of the vehicle motion control are combinations of four IWM torque outputs. The optimal torque allocation is designed to complete the following tasks: ā minimizing the power consumption; ā” satisfying the control requirements.
The inverter power consumption and the mechanical friction power consumption are considered uncontrollable, so the total power consumption can be described as
where P_{out} is the motor mechanical output; P_{iron} is the motor iron loss; P_{copper} is the motor copper loss. More specifically,
In Section 2, it is assumed that \(L_{d} = L_{q}\). According to Ref [20],
Then the object function of motor power consumption is derived as
The tire slip energy is considered to be important dissipation energy from driving axles to wheels [24]. To make the most use of driving torque, an objective function is introduced to minimize the tire slip energy, which is
The IWM can work in both driving and braking modes, while under certain conditions the IWM braking will not be enough. To fully use the braking recovery energy, a parallel braking energy recovery strategy based on feedback braking is applied where the mechanical braking system will start to work when the IWM braking force is saturated. This can be described as
where \(T_{t}\) is total torque provided by IWMs; \(T_{e\max }\) is IWM output saturation; \(T_{bm}\) is braking torque provided by mechanical braking system.
IWM torque output \(T_{e}\) complies with its physical saturation, which is
where P_{max} and T_{max} are max power and max torque output of the IWM; \(\omega\) is IWM rotational speed.
The first task can be accomplished by distributing the IWM torque to meet the following constraints:
where J_{3} is the motion control cost function, which is to convert the hard constraints in Eq. (47) into the soft constrain in Eq. (48).
Then the overall costfunction of the optimal allocation is defined as
where Ī¾_{1}, Ī¾_{2} and Ī¾_{3} are weights.
In summary, the optimal torque allocation problem can be reformulated as: minimizing the cost function Eq. (49) under the constraints of Eqs. (43)ā(45).
This problem can be solved by the Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) proposed in Ref. [25] which can be summarized as follows. For optimal problem:
The Lagrange function is defined as
And then \({\varvec{A}}^{{\varvec{E}}} {\mathbf{(}}{\varvec{x}}{\mathbf{)}} = \nabla h(x)^\text{T}\), \({\varvec{A}}^{{\varvec{I}}} {\mathbf{(}}{\varvec{x}}{\mathbf{)}} = \nabla g(x)^\text{T}\), \({\varvec{A}}{\mathbf{(}}{\varvec{x}}{\mathbf{)}} = [A^{E} ;A^{I} ]\), \(W(x,\mu ,\lambda ) = \nabla_{xx}^{2} L(x,\mu ,\lambda )\).
Initialization step, given initial pair \((x_{0} ,\mu_{0} ,\lambda_{0} ) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{l} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{m}\) and symmetric positive definite matrix \(B_{0} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}\), calculate \({\varvec{A}}_{{\mathbf{0}}}^{{\varvec{E}}} {\mathbf{(}}{\varvec{x}}{\mathbf{)}} = \nabla h(x_{0} )^\text{T}\), \({\varvec{A}}_{{\mathbf{0}}}^{{\varvec{I}}} {\mathbf{(}}{\varvec{x}}{\mathbf{)}} = \nabla g(x_{0} )^\text{T}\), \(A_{0} = [A_{0}^{E} ;A_{0}^{I} ]\). Choose parameter \(\eta \in (0,1/2)\) and the allowable errors \(0 \le \varepsilon_{1} ,\varepsilon_{2} \ll 1.\) Set \(k: = 0\).

Step 1, solve the subproblem
$$\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\min } & {\frac{1}{2}d^\text{T} B_{k} d + \nabla f(x_{k} )^\text{T} d,} \\ \text{s.t.} & \begin{gathered} h(x_{k} ) + A_{k}^{E} d = 0, \hfill \\ g(x_{k} ) + A_{k}^{I} d \ge 0, \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \\ \end{array} } \right.$$(52)to get the optimal solution d_{k}.

Step 2, if \(\left\ {d_{k} } \right\_{1} \le \varepsilon_{1}\) and \(\left\ {h_{k} } \right\_{1} + \left\ {(g_{k} )_{\_} } \right\_{1} \le \varepsilon_{2}\), stop and get an approximate KT point of the original problem \((x_{k} ,\mu_{k} ,\lambda_{k} )\).

Step 3, for a certain cost function \(\phi (x,\sigma )\), choose a penalty parameter \(\sigma_{k}\) to make d_{k} is in the falling direction of \(\phi (x,\sigma )\) at the point of x_{k}.

Step 4, Armijo searching. Make m_{k} be the minimum nonnegative integer m satisfying the following inequality:
$$\phi (x_{k} + \rho^{m} d_{k} ,\sigma_{k} )  \phi (x_{k} ,\sigma_{k} ) \le \eta \rho^{m} \phi^{^{\prime}} (x_{k} ,\sigma ;d_{k} ),$$(53)then choose \(\alpha_{k} : = \rho^{{m_{k} }}\),\(x_{k + 1} : = x_{k} + \alpha_{k} d_{k}\).

Step 5, calculate
\({\varvec{A}}_{{\user2{k + }{\mathbf{1}}}}^{{\varvec{E}}} = \nabla h(x_{k + 1} )^\text{T},\) \({\varvec{A}}_{{\user2{k + }{\mathbf{1}}}}^{{\varvec{I}}} = \nabla g(x_{k + 1} )^\text{T}\), \({\varvec{A}}_{{\user2{k + }{\mathbf{1}}}} = [A_{k + 1}^{E} ;A_{k + 1}^{I} ]\) and the leastsquares multiplier
$$\left[ \begin{gathered} \mu_{k + 1} \hfill \\ \lambda_{k + 1} \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \right] = [A_{k + 1} A_{k + 1}^\text{T} ]^{  1} A_{k + 1} \nabla f_{k + 1} .$$(54) 
Step 6, correct B_{k} to B_{k+1}. Set
$$s_{k} = \alpha_{k} d_{k} ,y_{k} = \nabla_{x} L(x_{k + 1} ,\mu_{k + 1} ,\lambda_{k + 1} )  \nabla_{x} L(x_{k} ,\mu_{k + 1} ,\lambda_{k + 1} ),$$(55)$$B_{k + 1} = B_{k}  \frac{{B_{k} s_{k} s_{k}^\text{T} B_{k} }}{{s_{k}^\text{T} B_{k} s_{k} }} + \frac{{z_{k} z_{k}^\text{T} }}{{s_{k}^\text{T} z_{k} }},$$(56)where
$$z_{k} = \theta_{k} y_{k} + (1  \theta_{k} )B_{k} s_{k} ,$$(57)$$\theta_{k} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {1,} & {f \, s_{k}^\text{T} y_{k} \ge 0.2s_{k}^\text{T} B_{k} s_{k} ,} \\ {\frac{{0.8s_{k}^\text{T} B_{k} s_{k} }}{{s_{k}^\text{T} B_{k} s_{k}  s_{k}^\text{T} y_{k} }},} & {if \, s_{k}^\text{T} y_{k} \ge 0.2s_{k}^\text{T} B_{k} s_{k} {. }} \\ \end{array} } \right.$$(58) 
Step 7, update k as k+1, then switch to step 1.
4 Simulation Results and Analyses
Simulations are conducted to verify the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy based on the cosimulation platform of CarSimĀ® and Matlab/Simulink. The model is established based on a highfidelity fullvehicle model in CarSimĀ® and all the powertrain components are replaced by four IWMs. Meanwhile, simulation results by the torque distribution method shown in Eq. (59) are used as comparisons to validate the improvement of integrated optimal torque allocation. The parameters of the vehicle used in simulations are shown in Table 1.
Double line change and new European driving cycle (NEDC) are conducted in simulations to verify the motion control performance and the economic efficiency of the proposed control. The results are shown in the subsequent sections.
4.1 Double Line Change
The control target of this study is to coordinate the motion control of EVs driven by IWMs in an effective way. The first simulation is the double line change with longitudinal velocity increase. The vehicle is set to accelerate from 15 to 20 m/s in 40 s and the double line change track is shown below. The air density is set as 1.206 kg/m^{3} during the simulation. Two comparison simulations are also conducted; one is conducted by using the normal sliding mode control with proposed torque optimal allocation, and the other is conducted by using the DASMC and the allocation method based on tire load. Simulation results are displayed in Figures 6 and 7.
From Figures 6 and 7, it can be concluded that the proposed control method can accomplish the longitudinal and yaw motion control successfully. Moreover, the ADSMC outperforms the DSMC in suppressing chattering according to Figure 7.
The loadbased allocation (LBA) method in Eq. (50) is applied as a comparison to the optimal allocation (OA) method. The results are shown in Figure 8.
In Figure 8, it can be seen that the yaw motion control is accomplished by differential torques between left and right IWMS in both two allocation methods. While the allocation ratios between front and rear IWMs are different. To quantitatively illustrate the improvement of the proposed control strategy more specifically, Table 2 shows the performances under different control strategies.
The evaluation results are obtained based on the aforementioned simulations. It can be concluded that with the ADSMC, the tracking performance has been improved compared with the DSMC for its better chattering suppression performance. Furthermore, the power consumption is also decreased by ADSMC according to Table 2, because the frequent torque changes will cause more power consumption. According to the second and third rows of Table 2, the power consumption by OA is decreased as expected but the tracking performances of yaw rate and longitudinal velocity are slightly worse than LBA. Combining with the Eqs. (48)ā(50), it can be concluded that the OA sacrifices the tracking performance to obtain lower energy consumption.
4.2 NEDC
Although the above simulation results can verify the coordinated motion control of the proposed control strategy, they are still not enough to demonstrate energy efficiency in such a short time interval. To fully prove the control performance of the proposed strategy, the NEDC is conducted. The vehicle is set to drive in a single line without steering. Similarly, simulations using the abovementioned control strategy ADSMC+LBA are conducted as the comparisons. The simulation results are shown in Figures 9 and 10. The control performance is displayed in Table 3.
In Figure 9, it can be seen that both control strategies can track the reference longitudinal velocity in the wholetime range. While in Figure 10, the torque outputs with OA meet the torque output limit requirement and also have fewer sharp changes. According to Table 3, the control strategy with LBA shows better tracking performance at the cost of more power consumption and less energy efficiency. While even the control strategy with OA shows a bigger tracking error, it is still effective for the maximum absolute tracking error is 0.4960 which is totally acceptable. This indicates that the proposed control strategy can generate a proper control input to the system in an energyefficient way, precisely to track the reference outputs to accomplish vehiclecoordinated motion control.
Based on all the simulation results exhibited above, the effectiveness of such an energyefficient control strategy for EVs driven by IWMs based on DASMC is demonstrated.
5 Conclusions
An energyefficient control strategy for EVs driven by IWMs based on DASMC is proposed in this study. Models are established firstly to demonstrate the operation mechanism of the whole system and two virtual control variables are used to describe the longitudinal and yaw control efforts to complete the vehicle coordinate motion control. Then DASMC method is applied to calculate the required total driving torque and yaw moment. A tire force estimator using UKF is designed to estimate realtime lateral tire forces used in the control scheme. Based on all the abovementioned factors, energy efficient torque allocation method is developed to distribute the total driving torque and differential torque to each IWM. Simulation results of the proposed control strategy using the coplatform of Matlab/Simulink and CarSimĀ® demonstrate that this study can accomplish the vehicle motion control in a coordinated and economic way and improve the tracking performance as well as the system robustness.
Availability of Data and Materials
The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article.
References
Shuai Zhang, Mingzhou Chen, Wenyu Zhang. A novel locationrouting problem in electric vehicle transportation with stochastic demands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 221: 567581.
C Lv, Y Liu, X Hu, et al. Simultaneous observation of hybrid states for cyberphysical systems: A case study of electric vehicle powertrain. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2018, 48(8): 2357  2367.
Lei Zhang, Zhiqiang Zhang, Zhenpo Wang, et al. Chassis coordinated control for full xbywire vehiclesA review. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2021, 34: 42.
C Pan, L Chen, L Chen, et al. Research on motor rotational speed measurement in regenerative braking system of electric vehicle. Mechanical Systems & Signal Processing, 2015, 66(2): 829839.
B Li, H Du, W Li. Faulttolerant control of electric vehicles with inwheel motors using actuatorgrouping sliding mode controllers. Mechanical Systems & Signal Processing, 2016, s72ā73: 462485.
Y Wang, H Fujimoto, S Hara. Driving force distribution and control for EV with four inwheelmotors: A case study of acceleration on splitfriction surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2017, 64(4): 33803388.
D B Lu, M G Ouyang, J Gu, et al. Instantaneous optimal regenerative braking control for a permanentmagnet synchronous motor in a fourwheeldrive electric vehicle. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 2014, 228(8): 894908.
W Z Zhao, C Y Wang, P K Sun, et al. Integration optimization of differential assisted steering of electric vehicle with motorized wheels based on quality engineering. Science China (Technological Sciences), 2011, 54(11): 3047ā3053.
Yunwu Li, Xueyan Huang, Dexiong Liu, et al. Hybrid energy storage system and energy distribution strategy for fourwheel independentdrive electric vehicles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 220: 756770.
C Hu, R Wang, F Yan, et al. Robust composite nonlinear feedback pathfollowing control for independently actuated autonomous vehicles with differential steering. IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, 2016, 2(3): 312321.
Y P Yang, C P Lo. Current distribution control of dual directly driven wheel motors for electric vehicles. Control Engineering Practice, 2008, 16(11): 12851292.
M Demirci, M Gokasan. Adaptive optimal control allocation using Lagrangian neural networks for stability control of a 4WSā4WD electric vehicle. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 2013, 35(8): 11391151.
D Wu, H Ding, K Guo, et al. Stability control of fourwheeldrive electric vehicle with electrohydraulic braking system. SAE, 2014012539, 2014.
Y Li, J Zhang, K Guo, et al. A study on force distribution control for the electric vehicle with four inwheel motors. SAE, 2014012379, 2014.
X Zhang, K Wei, X Yuan, et al. Optimum torque distribution for stability improvement of fourwheel distributed driven electric vehicle using coordinated control. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 2016, 11(5): 051017.
Y Wang, H Fujimoto, S Hara. Torque distributionbased range extension control system for longitudinal motion of electric vehicles by LTI modeling with generalized frequency variable. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2016, 21(1): 443452.
Y Li, J Zhang, C Lv, et al. Coordinated control of the steering system and the distributed motors for comprehensive optimization of the dynamics performance and the energy consumption of an electric vehicle. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 2017, 231(12): 16051626.
H Zhang, W Zhao, J Wang. Faulttolerant control for electric vehicles with independently driven inwheelmotors considering individual driver steering characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2019, 68(5): 45274536.
L Chen, M Bian, Y Luo, et al. Maximum tire road friction estimation based on modified dugoff tire model. 2013 International Conference on Mechanical and Automation Engineering, Jiujang, 2013: 5661.
S Morimoto, Y Tong, Y Takeda, et al. Loss minimization control of permanent magnet synchronous motor drives. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2002, 41(5): 511517.
Jinkun Liu. Sliding mode control design and matlab simulation. Beijing: Tsinghai University Press, 2005. (in Chinese)
Yan Wang, Chen Lv, Yongjun Yan, et al. An integrated scheme for coefficient estimation of tireāroad friction with mass parameter mismatch under complex driving scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2022, 69(12): 1333713347.
Yan Wang, Jingyu Hu, Faan Wang, et al. Tire road friction coefficient estimation: review and research perspectives. Chin. J. Mech. Eng., 2022, 35: 2.
B Zhao , X Nan , C Hong , et al. Stability control of electric vehicles with inwheel motors by considering tire slip energy. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2019, 118: 340359.
Jorge Nocedal, Stephen J Wright. Numerical optimization. New York: Springer, 2006.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Supported by Jiangsu Provincial Key R&D Plan (Grant No. BE2022053), Youth Fund of Jiangsu Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. BK20200423) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 5210120245).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
WZ and CW were in charge of the whole trial; HZ wrote the manuscript and executed the research plan; CZ assisted with data processing and analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authorsā Information
Han Zhang received her PhD degree in vehicle engineering from Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China, in 2020. She is currently a lecturer with the Department of Vehicle Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China. Her research interests include vehicle system dynamics and control systems.
Changzhi Zhou is currently a master candidate at Department of Vehicle Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China.
Chunyan Wang, received the PhD degree in mechanical engineering from Jilin University, China, in 2008. She is currently a Professor and the director with the Department of Vehicle Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China. Her research interest includes vehicle system dynamics.
Wanzhong Zhao received the PhD degree in vehicle engineering from Beijing Institute of Technology, China, in 2009. He is currently a professor in the Department of Vehicle Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China. His research interests include vehicle system dynamics.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, H., Zhou, C., Wang, C. et al. An Energy Efficient Control Strategy for Electric Vehicle Driven by InWheelMotors Based on Discrete Adaptive Sliding Mode Control. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 36, 58 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10033023008786
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10033023008786
Keywords
 Electric vehicle
 Energy optimization
 Motion control
 Discrete adaptive sliding mode control