Clamping force control of electro–mechanical brakes based on driver intentions

Jing Li; Tong Wu; Tianxin Fan; Yan He; Lingshuai Meng; Zuoyue Han

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239608

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 26, 2020
29 Apr 2020 Decision Letter - Chen Lv, Editor PONE-D-20-05557 Clamping force control of electro-mechanical brake ： Based on driver's intentions PLOS ONE Dear Tong Wu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Chen Lv, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: a) The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript b) A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) c) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: "JL received support from the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFB0105900). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: "UISEE(Shanghai) Automotive Technologies Ltd," a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Based on reviewers' comments, a major revision is required. Please carefully address all the points raised by reviewers. Besides, since there are authors being affiliated to UISEE(Shanghai) Automotive Technologies Ltd, based on journal's policy, please declare if there is any potential competing interest. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper gives a good research on clamping force control of EMB system. However, I still have some questions listed as follows. 1. As we all know, EMB has not widely used in vehicle bracking system becaused of its space layout. Now, EHB is an good solution of bracking system for autonomous vehicle. The firgue of EMB in this paper is desigend by the authors? If yes, have you made prototype? It is necessary to give the advantage of the proposed EMB, compared with other EMBs and EHB system. 2. Since the EMB system is a complex mechanical system, can the proposed model for algorithm evaluation simulate the real mechanical system? You should give description. If a prototype is made, HIL test may be more effective. 3. Why do you choose nonlinear PI controller rather than SMC or other control algorithms? SMC is a very good method to deal with nonlinear system. Reviewer #2: There are large amount of articles focusing on the development of EMB and the initial idea of your paper is quite like the development base of BBW (brake by wire) system. Hence, the innovation point should be highlighted in comparison with the current BBW system. Otherwise, the comparison with BBW should be clarified carefully. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239608.r001
Revision 1
15 Jul 2020 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Clamping force control of electro-mechanical brakes based on driver intentions” (Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-05557 and PONE-D-20-05557R1). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. First of all, most text of the previous manuscript has been copyedited. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper, and highlighted by blue in the updated manuscript. Furthermore, we have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are highlighted by red in the updated manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Reviewer #1: This paper gives a good research on clamping force control of EMB system. However, I still have some questions listed as follows. 1. As we all know, EMB has not widely used in vehicle braking system because of its space layout. Now, EHB is an good solution of braking system for autonomous vehicle. The figure of EMB in this paper is designed by the authors? If yes, have you made prototype? It is necessary to give the advantage of the proposed EMB, compared with other EMBs and EHB system. Response: We greatly appreciate your encouraging comments and thank you for your insightful suggestions. For question 1, our reply is as follows: (1) The EMB proposed in this paper is designed by ourselves, and the prototype is being fabricated and matched. Next, we will perform HIL test and road test. (2) We revised Section 1 to reflect the advantages of the proposed EMB compared with other EMBs and EHB systems: 1) First, we revised the 3rd paragraph of Section 1 (line 46~51 and line 54~59) to summarize and compare the structure of current EMBs, and added Fig 1 at the end of this paragraph: “Motors are used as the power source in most schemes, while a screw or bevel gear [6, 11] is used for the motion conversion mechanism. Particularly, the existing EMBs can be divided into two conventional schemes based on the force amplifying mechanism as shown in Fig 1. In scheme A, as shown in Fig 1a, a gear [4–7] or worm [8, 9] is used as the force amplifying mechanism; scheme B, shown in Fig 1b, utilizes the self–increasing effect of wedge mechanisms to increase clamping force [9–12].” And“Contrarily, scheme A is more direct in power transmission and simple in control, but the output capacity of the system is dependent on the motor and reduction ratio, which requires a higher performance of the motor. Although scheme B utilizes the wedge mechanism to increase the force, which demonstrates a flexible arrangement and lower requirements of the motor, the strong nonlinear characteristics of the wedge mechanism increases the control difficulty and decreases the braking stability [12].” 2) Undeniably, several enterprises, institutions and scholars have been investigating on EHB, they proposed many schemes and performed road tests, and even equipped EHB in some mass-produced cars. While, limited by storing and sealing of hydraulic oil, EHB hardly to apply in heavy commercial vehicles. Thus, we revised the 7th paragraph of Section 1 (line 89~91): “Constraints in storing and sealing of hydraulic oil make it difficult to employ EHB in commercial vehicles, particularly in heavy commercial vehicles. Currently, most commercial vehicles are equipped with pneumatic brake systems.” 3) Furthermore, we revised the 8th paragraph of Section 1 (line 104~112), and compared the proposed EMB scheme with existing EMBs to highlight the advantages of the scheme: “Compared with the existing EMB schemes, the proposed EMB is driven by the motor directly, and caliper is equipped with an automatic clearance adjustment device; hence, it has the advantages of direct transmission and simple control as that of scheme A (shown in Fig 1a). In addition, the arm inside the caliper can enlarge the axial thrust force output from the powerplant; thus, the output capacity of the EMB is improved, and the performance requirements of the motor are reduced. The proposed EMB satisfies the brake demand of commercial vehicles and overcomes the control difficulty and high nonlinearity of scheme B (shown in Fig 1b). Furthermore, the pneumatic brake caliper is retained in the proposed EMB, making it simple, flexible, and versatile; this scheme can be conveniently transferred from pneumatic brake to EMB.” 2. Since the EMB system is a complex mechanical system, can the proposed model for algorithm evaluation simulate the real mechanical system? You should give description. If a prototype is made, HIL test may be more effective. Response: For question 2, our reply is as follows: (1) Your question concerns about the accuracy of the established EMB model, we are fully aware that it is necessary. Therefore, we divide the EMB model into two parts: the powerplant and the caliper. For the powerplant, we deduced its model according to electrical fundaments and kinematics based on the designed parameters (listed in Table 1) and references [7], [15] and [16]. Furthermore, owing to the complexity of the caliper, we use the characteristic of the pneumatic disc brake as the caliper model to ensure the accuracy. The original data of the characteristic is provided by the caliper manufacturer, which can simulate the real mechanical system; (2) Hence, we revised Section 2 as follows: 1) Add a paragraph (line 151~156) under the title "EMB System modeling" in Section 2.2 to introduce the general idea of model establishment: “The EMB is a complex mechanical system, and the accuracy of its model affects the control performance. Therefore, according to the scheme, the EMB system model is divided into two parts: powerplant, and caliper. The powerplant model is composed of a BLDC motor and screw mechanism, fabricated according to the electrical fundamentals and kinematics. The caliper model is complex and described using manufacturer specifications and fitted in this study to ensure accuracy and reduce complexity.” 2) Add a paragraph (line 158~159) under the title "Crucial part: Powerplant" in Section 2.2.1 to describe the function of the powerplant: “The powerplant axially extends the screw under the BLDC motor drive, and convert the motor torque into an axial thrust force.” 3) Revised Section 2.2.2 (line 201~214) to describe the functions, composition and establishment ideas of the caliper model: “There are two main functions of the caliper: 1) To amplify the axial thrust force output from the powerplant and transform it into the clamping force through the action between the brake shoes and disc; 2) Simultaneously, the caliper applies the reaction force to the powerplant, according to Newton's third law, for the EMB system to attain a balanced state. At this point, the caliper is equivalent to a "load device". Therefore, the caliper model should accurately reflects the "load". In this study, the characteristic of a pneumatic disc brake is used for the caliper model, which describes the relationship between and . Here, is the axial travel of chamber push rod and is the force between brake shoes and disc. According to the pneumatic brake working principle, corresponds to the screw axial travel distance xa in the proposed EMB, and is equal to the load force FL of the caliper acting on the powerplant. Fig 5 shows the characteristic of a pneumatic disc brake; a series of discrete points in the figure represent the measured data provided by the caliper manufacturer, and the blue dotted line is the fitted characteristic curve. The caliper model is further observed in the figure.” (3) Prototypes are being processed and matched. Next, we will testify the accuracy of the model using the prototype. 3. Why do you choose nonlinear PI controller rather than SMC or other control algorithms? SMC is a very good method to deal with nonlinear system. Response: For question 3, our reply is as follows: (1) Undoubtedly, SMC has many advantages, such as robustness, which is a good method to deal with nonlinear system. However, the chattering of SMC has not been well solved, which also reflected in the literature [18] etc. In this study, if the clamping force chatters during the braking process, an additional longitudinal impact will be generated, which may affect the braking quality even safe driving. Therefore, during the braking process, the clamping force is required to change smoothly, and there is without an overshoot and jitter as much as possible; (2) Unlike the PI, parameters in the nonlinear PI controller can vary with the error nonlinearly, which are not constants. This indicates that the system which uses nonlinear PI algorithm can respond quickly without an overshoot if the parameters appropriately selected. (mentioned in line 488~493); (3) Furthermore, the nonlinear PI controller does not depend on the controlled plant model, and the parameter tuning is relatively easy. These make the proposed EMB and its clamping force control strategy simple, flexible and versatile. Combining (1) ~ (3), these are the main reasons why we choose nonlinear PI algorithm; (4) Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We think it's very meaningful to combine SMC with other intelligent algorithms or optimization theories to conduct in-depth research on its chattering problem. Reviewer #2: There are large amount of articles focusing on the development of EMB and the initial idea of your paper is quite like the development base of BBW (brake by wire) system. Hence, the innovation point should be highlighted in comparison with the current BBW system. Otherwise, the comparison with BBW should be clarified carefully. Response: We greatly appreciate your encouraging comments and valuable suggestions. For your suggestion, our reply is as follows: (1) Undoubtedly, we have to acknowledge that there are many articles about EMB, which give us a meaningful reference in our research. So, we have listed some representative articles as references; (2) Owing to the behavior of the proposed EMB (8th paragraph of section 1, line 112~117), it is time–consuming for the EMB to eliminate the brake clearance, which affects the clamping force response performance for safe driving. Thus, the original idea of this study is to improve the clamping fore response time without changing the structure and size of the EMB. The original text is as follows: “However, we observed a problem during the process of research: although the force arm inside the caliper can magnify the axial thrust force output from the powerplant and act on the brake shoes, it enlarges the axial displacement of the brake shoes into the screw, according to the leverage principle (shown in Fig 2a). Limited by the ultimate performance of the motor, it is time–consuming to eliminate brake clearance, which affects the EMB performance and driving safety, which is unfavorable.”（8th paragraph of Section 1，line 112~117） And “To minimize the scheme’s adverse effects, the primary focus of this study is to improve the clamping force response performance without changing the structure and size of the EMB.”（9th paragraph of Section 1, line 122~123） (3) As the reviewer’s request, we revised Section 1 to reflect the innovation of the proposed EMB compared with the current BBW system: 1) First, we revised the 3rd paragraph of Section 1 (line 46~51 and line 54~59) to summarize and compare the structure of current EMBs, and add Fig 1 at the end of the paragraph for explanation: “Motors are used as the power source in most schemes, while a screw or bevel gear [6, 11] is used for the motion conversion mechanism. Particularly, the existing EMBs can be divided into two conventional schemes based on the force amplifying mechanism as shown in Fig 1. In scheme A, as shown in Fig 1a, a gear [4–7] or worm [8, 9] is used as the force amplifying mechanism; scheme B, shown in Fig 1b, utilizes the self–increasing effect of wedge mechanisms to increase clamping force [9–12].” And“Contrarily, scheme A is more direct in power transmission and simple in control, but the output capacity of the system is dependent on the motor and reduction ratio, which requires a higher performance of the motor. Although scheme B utilizes the wedge mechanism to increase the force, which demonstrates a flexible arrangement and lower requirements of the motor, the strong nonlinear characteristics of the wedge mechanism increases the control difficulty and decreases the braking stability [12].” 2) Second, we revised 7th paragraph of Section 1 (line 89~91 and line 94~95) to explained the reason why EHB is difficult to be applied in commercial vehicles, and the brilliant prospect of EMB in commercial vehicles is pointed out by comparing it with pneumatic brake system: “Constraints in storing and sealing of hydraulic oil make it difficult to employ EHB in commercial vehicles, particularly in heavy commercial vehicles. Currently, most commercial vehicles are equipped with pneumatic brake systems. Compared with the pneumatic brake, the EMB does not require large and complicated pneumatic pipelines and components. Furthermore, the EMB could effectively reduce the body weight and complexity of the braking system, eliminate the exhaust noise during braking, and realize more accurate control and distribution of the braking force. Therefore, the EMB demonstrates broader prospects than the pneumatic brake in the applications of commercial vehicles.” 3) Furthermore, we revised the 8th paragraph of Section 1 (line 104~112) and compared the proposed EMB with current EMBs to highlight the innovation of the proposed scheme: “Compared with the existing EMB schemes, the proposed EMB is driven by the motor directly, and caliper is equipped with an automatic clearance adjustment device; hence, it has the advantages of direct transmission and simple control as that of scheme A (shown in Fig 1a). In addition, the arm inside the caliper can enlarge the axial thrust force output from the powerplant; thus, the output capacity of the EMB is improved, and the performance requirements of the motor are reduced. The proposed EMB satisfies the brake demand of commercial vehicles and overcomes the control difficulty and high nonlinearity of scheme B (shown in Fig 1b). Furthermore, the pneumatic brake caliper is retained in the proposed EMB, making it simple, flexible, and versatile; this scheme can be conveniently transferred from pneumatic brake to EMB.” We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239608.r002
10 Sep 2020 Decision Letter - Chen Lv, Editor Clamping force control of electro-mechanical brakes based on driver intentions PONE-D-20-05557R1 Dear Dr. Tong Wu, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Chen Lv, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239608.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Sep 2020 Acceptance Letter - Chen Lv, Editor PONE-D-20-05557R1 Clamping force control of electro–mechanical brakes based on driver intentions Dear Dr. Wu: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Chen Lv Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239608.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .