Abstract
Anti-jerk controllers actively suppress the torsional oscillations of automotive drivetrains, caused by abrupt variations of the traction torque. The main benefits are: i) enhanced passengers’ comfort; and ii) increased component life. Extensive literature deals with the design of anti-jerk controllers for electric powertrains with on-board motors, i.e., in which the electric motor is part of the sprung mass of the vehicle, and transmits torque to the wheels through a transmission, half-shafts and constant velocity joints. Nevertheless, a complete and structured comparison of the performance of the different control options is still missing. This study addresses the gap through the assessment of six anti-jerk controllers – five exemplary formulations from the literature, and one novel formulation based on explicit nonlinear model predictive control (eNMPC). All proposed control structures have the potential to be implemented on production vehicles. A set of objective performance indicators is defined to assess the controllers, which are tuned through an optimization-based routine. Results show that the wheel speed input is critical to enhance controller performance, but may lead to reduced robustness.
Highlights
A BRUPT traction torque variations can induce mechanical resonance and oscillations in vehicle drivetrains in the 5-50 Hz frequency range [1]
Internal combustion engine (ICE) drivetrains are usually fitted with additional inertias and mechanical dampers to mitigate the intrinsic unevenness of the Manuscript received November 18, 2019; revised April 10, 2020; accepted May 10, 2020
Compared to test scenario 1, this test adds: i) band-limited white noises on TEM, θEM and θw, according to the values measured on the demonstrator vehicle; and ii) an uncompensated 15 ms pure time delay on θw, as the signal is usually provided by the vehicle stability control unit, through the CAN bus [1]
Summary
A BRUPT traction torque variations can induce mechanical resonance and oscillations in vehicle drivetrains in the 5-50 Hz frequency range [1]. Anti-jerk controllers mitigate such behavior, by applying corrections to the traction torque requested by the driver or a higher level controller, Tref This control action may have a counterproductive effect on the acceleration performance and/or vehicle responsiveness. Category 2 controllers, i.e., feedback controllers based on the oscillating component of the EM speed (indicated as θEM,vib in the remainder), or ICE speed, which is fed to the controller to calculate the corrective torque. I.e., feedback controllers based on the drivetrain torsion rate, Δθ, calculated from the measured EM or ICE speed, and driven wheel speed, θw. The first study compares a novel category 4 controller with a tachometric controller, while the latter proposes a new technique to design a linear multiparametric feedforward controller, which is contrasted with a simple rate limiter on the motor torque request.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
