Vehicle Control Strategy Evaluation Based on the Driving Stability Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

К статье имеются следующие комментарии:

 

-            чем обосновано использование системы уравнений (4) на стр. 3 с пятью степенями свободы? насколько значимо каждое из уравнений для решения задачи?

-            насколько адекватно система уравнений (6) на странице 4 описывает комбинированную поперечную силу? В таблице 1 показана только одна строка с комбинированным поправочным коэффициентом проскальзывания шин, этого недостаточно для таблицы с разными значениями, это просто примерный параметр;

-           figure 1a with phase trajectory (6) is not very clear for demonstrating a three-dimensional dependence, and usually a reference to the figures in the text is given before the figure itself is shown, and not then the parameters are described;

-          what is the reason for the value of time within 15 seconds in figures 10-12, 15-17, is this time interval sufficient? how to explain the amplification of control instability with the proposed algorithm in figures 15b and 15d;

-          section 4.2 p.16 describes the simulation of the vehicle stability zone using the CarSim program, why was this program chosen? was it possible to use other programs like TruckSim?

-          проводились физические эксперименты за рулем автомобиля с предложенным алгоритмом управления? или результаты были только смоделированы?

-          габариты автомобиля могут существенно влиять на процесс управления и устойчивость движения, не только на параметры дороги, как учитывались эти случаи? какие диапазоны тангажа и крена допустимы?

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article, a vehicle control strategy evaluation method based on driving stability region is proposed. The driving stability regions of 5DOF vehicle dynamics model with DYC and 4WS control strategies have been solved. The control effectiveness of DYC and 4WS is evaluated by driving stability regions. Algorithms, models and simulations are well-developed, and the elaboration of their results is adequate. The data are presented in tables, figures and equations correctly valued and interpreted in the paper. The results are clearly presented. The conclusions are supported by the results.

The topic of the paper is attractive and fits well with the journal's scope.

This research has important value. However, before publication, there are still some areas in the article that need to be improved. Below is my comment:

- In the introduction, the authors in some lines abuse citations (see line 35) 6 citations for a sentence! This is not acceptable unless the authors give full credit to each reference or reduce them to a reasonable number. Please check this issue elsewhere in the article.

- There are no citations for [32, 33] in the text.

- Figure 3. should be cross-referred in the text in lines 261-262.

- You shouldn't start a section (4.3, line 457) with a figure.

- Please check the paper for English editing and typos!

In general, the article makes a good impression and is devoted to an interesting and topical problem of driving stability.

Please check the paper for English editing and typos!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Following are the comments on the basis of my review of the manuscript. I recommend the manuscript to be published after a revision.

 

 1. English of research paper needs to be improved in whole paper.

2. Incorporate the list of abbreviations and symbols etc.

3. Introduction should gain depth and they should support the results presented in the article.

4. What are the novelties/contributions of the study? 

5. The results must be discussed with proper physical phenomena.

6. Improved figures quality.

7.  Results are not cited properly in presented study.

8. The Authors must be rearranged of Conclusion.

9. The authors should be properly written of references.

 English of research paper needs to be improved in whole paper.

Author Response

 Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1.     The most significant quantitative results are preferred in the abstract of the manuscript.

2.     Drawing shows the parameters of the dynamic characteristics such as the lateral velocity, Yaw rate, and longitudinal velocity essential.

3.     The flowchart in Figure 3 uses only the initial value of longitudinal velocity as input. Please show the start and end of the flowchart.

4.     Comparison with other related results is missed.

5.     The equilibrium point of the vehicle dynamics does not clearly show in the results section.

6.     I couldn’t find an explanation of why there is a similarity between the two driving stability regions.

 

7.     The limitations of the proposed approach are preferred to be included in the conclusion section of the manuscript.

8. How to compare your work with the following study:

https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3143620

Figure 8. Simulation program diagram of driving stability region of vehicle with 4WS.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept.

Accept.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks to the authors for considering all the comments