Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Autonomous vehicle model.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Dynamic parameters.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Plot of the target tracking error of the autonomous vehicle.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Diagram of the traditional LOS guidance strategy.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Block diagram of the active disturbance rejection controller.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Structural block diagram of the 2OSMD-ADRC.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

Parameters used in this simulation of the autonomous vehicle.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 6.

Comparison between the target tracking before and after the odometry compensation was applied.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

ESO disturbance observation curve.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Tracking error diagram for before and after applying the odometry compensation.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 3.

Error evaluation index with and without odometry compensation.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 9.

Target tracking graph for a circular trajectory.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Plot comparing the circular tracking errors of the three algorithms.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Plot comparing the circular angle tracking performances of the three algorithms.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Table 4.

Results for the error evaluation indices of the three strategies.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 12.

Chart showing the target tracking performances of the three control algorithms under noise.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Graph showing the tracking errors of the three control algorithms under noise.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Table 5.

Error evaluation indices for the three kinds of differentiators.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 14.

Diagram showing the double newline target tracking for the three control methods.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Diagram showing the double newline tracking errors for the three control methods.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Table 6.

Error evaluation indices for the three methods.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Computation time per control step for the three methods.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 16.

The unmanned vehicle experiment platform.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

Experimental setup of the actual vehicle test.

(A) Experimental vehicle. (B) Circuit board control. (C) Power detection devices.

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Fig 18.

Anti-skid driving experiment.

More »

Fig 18 Expand

Fig 19.

Trajectory deviation in anti-skid driving experiment.

More »

Fig 19 Expand

Fig 20.

Driving experiment under uneven load conditions.

More »

Fig 20 Expand

Fig 21.

Trajectory deviation in uneven load driving experiment.

More »

Fig 21 Expand

Fig 22.

Results of the straight-line driving experiment.

More »

Fig 22 Expand

Fig 23.

Trajectory deviation in the straight-line driving experiment.

More »

Fig 23 Expand

Table 8.

Trajectory deviations in the straight-line driving experiment.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Fig 24.

Results of the curved-path driving experiment.

More »

Fig 24 Expand

Fig 25.

Trajectory deviations in the curved-path driving experiment.

More »

Fig 25 Expand

Table 9.

Trajectory deviations in the curved-path driving experiment.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Fig 26.

Sharp turn driving experiment.

More »

Fig 26 Expand

Fig 27.

Sharp turn driving experiment.

More »

Fig 27 Expand

Table 10.

Error evaluation metrics for sharp turn driving experiment.

More »

Table 10 Expand