Feasible trajectory planning for minimum time manoeuvring

References

• Veneri M, Massaro M. A free-trajectory quasi-steady-state optimal-control method for minimum lap-time of race vehicles. Veh Syst Dyn. 2019 Apr;58(6):933–954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker K, Gover R, Jazar RN, et al. A comparison of free trajectory quasi-steady-state and transient vehicle models in minimum time manoeuvres. Veh Syst Dyn. 2021;60(11):3897–3929. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2021.1983181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kabzan J, Valls M, Reijgwart V, et al. AMZ driverless: the full autonomous racing system. J Field Robot. 2020 Oct;37(7):1267–1294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ni J, Hu J. Dynamics control of autonomous vehicle at driving limits and experiment on an autonomous formula racing car. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2017 Jun;90(1):154–174.
   Google Scholar
• Novi T, Liniger A, Capitani R, et al. Real-time control for at-limit handling driving on a predefined path. Veh Syst Dyn. 2019;58(7):1007–1036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brayshaw D. Use of numerical optimisation to determine on-limit handling behaviour of race cars [PhD thesis]. Cranfield University; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Perantoni G, Limebeer D. Optimal control for a formula one car with variable parameters. Veh Syst Dyn. 2014;52(5):653–678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lot R, Dal Bianco N. The significance of high-order dynamics in lap time simulations. In: The Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks; Aug; Graz, Austria; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Massaro M, Limebeer DJN. Minimum-lap-time optimisation and simulation. Veh Syst Dyn. 2021;59(7):1069–1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2021.1910718
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherenberg H. 1957. Mercedes Benz racing cars, design and experience. SAE Trans. 580042:414–420.
   Google Scholar
• Brayshaw D, Harrison M. A quasi steady state approach to race car lap simulation in order to understand the effects of racing line and centre of gravity location. Proc Inst Mech Eng D J Automob Eng. 2005;219(6):725–739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brayshaw D, Harrison M. Use of numerical optimization to determine the effect of the roll stiffness distribution on race car performance. Proc Inst Mech Eng D J Automob Eng. 2005 Oct;219(10):1141–1151.
   Google Scholar
• Tremlett AJ, Assadian F, Purdy DJ, et al. Quasi-steady-state linearisation of the racing vehicle acceleration envelope: a limited slip differential example. Veh Syst Dyn. 2014;52(11):1416–1442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovato S, Massaro M. Three-dimensional fixed-trajectory approaches to the minimum-lap time of road vehicles. Veh Syst Dyn. 2021;60:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2021.1969024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velenis E, Tsiotras P. Optimal velocity profile generation for given acceleration limits: theoretical analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2005 American Control Conference, 2005. p. 1478–1483. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Lenzo B, Rossi V. A simple mono-dimensional approach for lap time optimisation. Appl Sci. 2020;10(4):1498.Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/4/1498
   Google Scholar
• Völkl T, Muehlmeier M, Winner H. Extended steady state lap time simulation for analyzing transient vehicle behavior. SAE Int J Passeng Cars Mech Syst. 2013;6(1):283–292.
   Google Scholar
• Lovato S, Massaro M. A three-dimensional free-trajectory quasi-steady-state optimal-control method for minimum-lap-time of race vehicles. Veh Syst Dyn. 2021;60(5):1512–1530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegedüs F, Bécsi T, Aradi S. Dynamically feasible trajectory planning for road vehicles in terms of sensitivity and robustness. Transportation Research Procedia. 2017;27:799–807. 20th EURO Working Group on Transportation Meeting, EWGT 2017, 4–6 September 2017, Budapest, Hungary. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146517310074
   Google Scholar
• Lot R, Biral F. A curvilinear abscissa approach for the lap time optimization of racing vehicles. IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 2014;47(3):7559–7565.
   Google Scholar
• Lovato S, Massaro M. A three-dimensional free-trajectory quasi-steady-state optimal-control method for minimum-lap-time of race vehicles. Veh Syst Dyn. 2021;60(5):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2021.1878242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Limebeer D, Perantoni G. Optimal control of a formula one car on a three-dimensional track. J Dyn Syst Meas Control. 2015;137(5):051019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegler B, Deakin A, Crolla D. Lap time simulation: comparison of steady state, quasi-static and transient racing car cornering strategies. SAE Technical Papers. 2000;2000-01-3563:2575–2581. https://doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-3563.
   Google Scholar
• Analooee A, Kazemi R, Azadi S. Scr-normalize: a novel trajectory planning method based on explicit quintic polynomial curves. Proc Inst Mech Eng K J Multi-body Dyn. 2020;234(4):650–674https://doi.org/10.1177/1464419320924196
   Google Scholar
• Ghani MFM, Taib JM, Dzakaria A. Feasibility study on the implementation of cubic motion curve for vehicle trajectory planning. Adv Mech Eng. 2015;7(2):413847. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/413847
   Google Scholar
• Marzbani H, Khayyam H, To CN, et al. Autonomous vehicles: autodriver algorithm and vehicle dynamics. IEEE Trans Veh Technol. 2019;68(4):3201–3211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapania NR, Subosits JK, Gerdes JC. A sequential two-step algorithm for fast generation of vehicle racing trajectories. CoRR. 2019;abs/1902.00606. http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.00606
   Google Scholar
• Kritayakirana K. Autonomous vehicle control at the limits of handling. Int J Veh Auton Syst. 2012;10(4):271–296.
   Google Scholar
• Funke J, Theodosis P, Hindiyeh R, et al. Up to the limits: autonomous Audi TTS. In 2012 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. 2012: 541–547. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Kritayakirana K, Gerdes JC. Autonomous cornering at the limits: maximizing a G-G diagram by using feedforward trail-braking and throttle-on-exit. In IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 2010;43:548–553.
   Google Scholar
• Li S, Li Z, Yu Z, et al. Dynamic trajectory planning and tracking for autonomous vehicle with obstacle avoidance based on model predictive control. IEEE Access. 2019;7:132074–132086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durali M, Javid G, Kasaiezadeh A. Collision avoidance maneuver for an autonomous vehicle. 9th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, Istanbul, Turkey; 2006. p. 249–254. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Choi J. Kinodynamic motion planning for autonomous vehicles. Int J Adv Robot Syst. 2014;11(6):90. https://doi.org/10.5772/58683
   Google Scholar
• Braghin F, Cheli F, Melzi S, et al. Race driver model. Comput Struct. 2008;86:1503–1516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heilmeier A, Wischnewski A, Hermansdorfer L, et al. Minimum curvature trajectory planning and control for an autonomous race car. Veh Syst Dyn. 2020;58(10):1497–1527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2019.1631455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlmeier M, Müller N. Optimization of the driving line on a race track. AutoTechnology. 2003 Mar;3(2):68–71.
   Google Scholar
• Wischnewski A, Betz J, Lohmann B. A model-free algorithm to safely approach the handling limit of an autonomous racecar. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE); IEEE; 2019. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Heilmeier A, Geisslinger M, Betz J. A quasi-steady-state lap time simulation for electrified race cars. In 2019 Fourteenth International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER); 2019. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl T, Wischnewski A, Betz J, et al. Multilayer graph-based trajectory planning for race vehicles in dynamic scenarios. 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC); 2019. http://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2019.8917032.
   Google Scholar
• Betz J, Wischnewski A, Heilmeier A, et al. A software architecture for the dynamic path planning of an autonomous racecar at the limits of handling. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE), Graz, Austria; 2019. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Cardamone L, Loiacono D, Lanzi PL, et al. Searching for the optimal racing line using genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2010. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Winter C, Ritzer P, Brembeck J. Experimental investigation of online path planning for electric vehicles. In 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2016. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Caporale D, Fagiolini A, Pallottino L, et al. A planning and control system for self-driving racing vehicles. In 2018 IEEE 4th International Forum on Research and Technology for Society and Industry (RTSI), Palermo, Italy; 2018. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Brembeck J, Winter C. Real-time capable path planning for energy management systems in future vehicle architectures. In 2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings, Dearborn, MI, USA; 2014. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Aulinas J, Petillot Y, Salvi J, et al. The slam problem: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Research and Development. 2008;184:363–371.
   Google Scholar
• Barfoot T, Clark C. Motion planning for formations of mobile robots. Rob Auton Syst. 2004;46(2):65–78. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889003001854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X, Sun Z, Cao D, et al. Real-time trajectory planning for autonomous urban driving: framework, algorithms, and verifications. IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron. 2016;21(2):740–753.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domahidi A, Jerez J. FORCES professional. Embotech GmbH; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Zanelli A, Domahidi A, Jerez J, et al. FORCES NLP: an efficient implementation of interior-point methods for multistage nonlinear nonconvex programs. Int J Control. 2017;93(1):13–29.
   Google Scholar