A Robust Intelligent Controller for Autonomous Ground Vehicle Longitudinal Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A Robust Intelligent Controller for Autonomous Ground Vehi- 2 cles Longitudinal Dynamics

Paper Summary:

 

This work presents the idea of a new adjustable sliding mode controller (SMC) based on a robust law For autonomous ground vehicles (AGVs), the bust legislation is taking disruptions and risks into account. Cognitive dynamics. The upper bound is approached in a novel way that makes use of the robust law of uncertainty and upheavals. This lumped uncertainty upper limit was calculated using a The use of neural networks enables its online knowledge. The controller is guided to endure the disruption and to offset the consequences of uncertainty According to Lya, the stability analysis Punov is used to verify the states' asymptotic convergence to the target state. The Models and comparative evaluation are used to examine the efficacy and advantages of the intended method.

studies.

Paper Comments:

 The following statements are some comments about the paper:

 

1.       introduction

2.       in the introduction section, authors can use some recent papers regarding the controller and recent approaches in ai like

for various control :

https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7799654

for using the AI

3.       1. Maniyan, H., and S. A. Eftekhari. "Automatic defect analysis of pumps using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System and Vibrational Features." (2017).

2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2022.06.009

 

I think some titles like: 1.2 Related wok ,  1.4 Paper structure, 1.3 Contribution are not nedded , please remove in all manuscript and check the jornal format

 

4.       Figures:

·         Figure text are very small

·         The figures need more description like figure 2,. The parameter inside the figure should written in the caption section.

·         Beside some plot inside the figure (2, 3, 4, 6) need the better type of line to be visible by black and white print letter.

·         there are two figure 6

·         figure 7 ( the Figure 7: (a) The prototype of ….) need more labelling inside the figure and some text after figure.

 

5.       Tables:

·         Table 1, 2 needs more description also shape is not good .

·         Explain the results shown in the table.

·         Please write the table in clear words.

6.       Equation:

7.       all equations need to describe the parameters and also need the referene .

·          

 

8.       Authors are requested to make typesetting strictly according to the paper template on the conference website.

 This study has merit for publication. However, I would recommend a major revision to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1:

We thank the reviewer for the comment and we appreciate this assessment. We are pleased to respond to your relevant comments.

Regarding the introduction:

• Comment 1: In the introduction section, authors can use some recent papers regarding the controller and recent approaches in ai like

For various control :

• https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7799654

For using the AI :

• Maniyan, H., and S. A. Eftekhari. "Automatic defect analysis of pumps using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System and Vibrational Features." (2017)
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2022.06.009

This is an interesting comment. As per the reviewer's request, we have added the relevant documents mentioned. As for the second document titled '' Automatic defect analysis of pumps using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System and Vibrational Features '' we have not found it on the Internet so that we can visualize it and cite it.

• Comment 2: I think some titles like: 1.2 Related work,  1.4 Paper structure, 1.3 Contribution are not needed, please remove in all manuscripts and check the journal format.

The authors thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. As per the reviewer's request, all subsection headings in the introduction are deleted.

Regarding the Figures:

• Comment 1: The figure text are very small

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The text of the figures is now provided in an appropriate format.

• Comment 2: The figures need more description like figure 2,. The parameter inside the figure should written in the caption section.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. Figure 2 has been redone and its parameters are described

• Comment 3: Beside some plot inside the figure (2, 3, 4, 6) need the better type of line to be visible by black and white print letter.

The reviewer is correct. A version of the figures in an".eps" format will be provided with the revised version to ensure a good quality resolution of the figures

• Comment 4: There are two figure 6

The authors thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention, This error has been corrected in the revised version.

• Comment 5:  Figure 7 ( the Figure 7: (a) The prototype of ….) need more labelling inside the figure and some text after figure.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. Figure 7, now referred to as 8,  has been redone. Labeling inside the figure and some text after the figure are now added.

Regarding the Tables:

• Comment 1: Table 1, 2 needs more description also shape is not good.

The authors thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. Tables 1, and 2 are reshaped.

• Comment 2: Explain the results shown in the table.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. This comment has been taken into consideration. Some explanations are added

• Comment 3:Please write the table in clear words.

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The tables are redone.

Regarding Equations:

• Comment 1: All equations need to describe the parameters and also need the reference.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. All the equation parameters are described. Moreover, The majority of the equations are derived from references 32, 34, and 35 and this is highlighted in yellow on the paper

Regarding the paper template:

• Comment 1: Authors are requested to make typesetting strictly according to the paper template on the conference website.

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We have proceeded to the typesetting that is consistent with the journal template.

Closing comment: This study has merit for publication. However, I would recommend a major revision to improve the quality of the manuscript.

The authors appreciate this assessment, which can only improve the quality of our paper. We have made the suggested changes within the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The document is well organized, the description of the problem is adequate, and the results are presented in a logical manner.

 

To improve this paper, from my point of view, the authors may consider the following:

Change the name of section 3.2

On Figure 6. The control signal is too big. May be a study of the response of the system with saturation on this signal could be useful.

Correct Table II. In the version that I have the number of the lines are over the Table.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2:

Opening comment: The document is well organized, the description of the problem is adequate, and the results are presented in a logical manner.

We thank the reviewer for the comment and we appreciate this assessment. We are pleased to respond to your relevant comments.

Comment 1: Change the name of section 3.2

The authors thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention, the section 3.2 name is now been changed.

Comment 2: On Figure 6. The control signal is too big. May be a study of the response of the system with saturation on this signal could be useful.

The reviewer is correct. We would like to emphasize that this is the range of values that are consistent with those in the literature in studies of the same type.

Comment 3: Correct Table II. In the version that I have the number of the lines are over the Table.

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The tables are redone.

Finally, we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made the change in the revised version according to the reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the present paper an adaptive sliding mode controller is designed. This controller is based upon a robust law considering disturbances and uncertainties. Its field of application is autonomous ground vehicles longitudinal dynamics.

In Eq 1 it is suggested to use a mass factor which can be determined using the moments of inertia of the rotating parts.

In Eqs 3, 4 and 9 is better to use the dynamic tire radius.

You should specify the characteristics of the tires, whose longitudinal forces are presented in Fig.2 (Magic Formula Coefficients). Eq 5 considers pure or combined slip?

In Section 4 you should justify the 50% value of uncertainty.

As far as format is concerned:

1. please change the formatting of Tables I and II in order to make the values visible.

2. Check the captions and the cross referencing of Figures (Fig. or Figure?)

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the comment and we appreciate this assessment. We are pleased to respond to your relevant comments.

Comment 1: In Eq 1 it is suggested to use a mass factor which can be determined using the moments of inertia of the rotating parts.

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for this relevant comment. Equation 1 represents the different forces acting on the vehicle in the longitudinal direction. However, based on research of the same subject that aims to contribute to vehicle control, most of the longitudinal dynamics are expressed in this way with the vehicle mass 'm' as a fixed parameter. Equation 1 is realized by applying The fundamental principle of dynamics on the vehicle COG.

Comment 2: In Eqs 3, 4 and 9 is better to use the dynamic tire radius.

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In this study, the tire radius is considered static. This is intrinsically counted as one of the perspectives since in the last paragraph of the paper we mentioned " testing over other driving conditions" so the consideration of a tire of variable radius, will be among the conditions that we will act in the future study.

Comment 3: You should specify the characteristics of the tires, whose longitudinal forces are presented in Fig.2 (Magic Formula Coefficients). Eq 5 considers pure or combined slip?

The authors thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. It is a pure longitudinal slip, this has been rectified in the document.

Comment 4: In Section 4 you should justify the 50% value of uncertainty.

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for this relevant comment. An uncertainty of 50% on such a parameter means that this parameter can change by 50% of its nominal value. For example, the mass of the vehicle changes as the number of passengers increase ,as expressed in the equation below. So if the controller takes this into account it will be considered as robust. This has been modified in the paper by adding the relevant reference.

Comment 5: Please change the formatting of Tables I and II in order to make the values visible.

The reviewer is correct. As per the reviewer's request, Tables 1, and 2 are reshaped.

Comment 6: Check the captions and the cross referencing of Figures (Fig. or Figure?)

The authors thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention, the cross-referencing is now been checked and corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

please follow all pervious comments some of the comment especially for the introduction part remain which needs the authors to follow carefully one by one 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1:

We thank the reviewer for the 2nd round review comment and we appreciate this assessment. We are pleased to respond to your relevant comments.

As for the improvement of the paper's English. The paper is exposed to a third reading by an English speaker, as well as software, well-known for language correction, has been used to further improve this paper's language quality.

Comment: please follow all pervious comments some of the comment especially for the introduction part remain which needs the authors to follow carefully one by one.

The authors thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. As per the reviewer's request, all subsection headings in the introduction are deleted. We have followed the previous comments point by point and have made the changes requested by the reviewer, especially in the introduction. The following are the previous comments and our updated response.

Previous comments

Regarding the introduction:

Comment 1:  In the introduction section, authors can use some recent papers regarding the controller and recent approaches in ai like

For various control :

• https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7799654

This reference is added; see reference number 16

For using the AI :

• Maniyan, H., and S. A. Eftekhari. "Automatic defect analysis of pumps using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System and Vibrational Features." (2017)

This reference is added; see reference number 29

• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2022.06.009

This reference is added; see reference number 36

As per the reviewer's request, we have added all suggested references.

Comment 2:  I think some titles like: 1.2 Related work,  1.4 Paper structure, 1.3 Contribution are not needed, please remove in all manuscripts and check the journal format.

The authors thank the reviewer for pointing this out. In accordance with the reviewer's request, all subsection headings in the introduction are removed. Thus the introduction is now in the form of a one-section without any sub-sections

 

Finally, we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made the change in the revised version according to the reviewer's comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx