## 3 Simulation and Verification
### Effectiveness Comparison of the DS-MPC Method under 0% and 5% Slopes  
Considering both driving style and slope in the predictive control of the model can further reflect the interaction between the driver and the driving environment. In different driving environments, drivers will adjust their driving behavior in real time according to the changing environment and the influence of driving style will make some difference. Figure 15 shows the speed tracking of different driving styles on different slopes. It can be seen that during acceleration, acceleration was faster on flat ground (0% slope) and slower on longitudinal slopes. Similarly, during deceleration, the deceleration was smoother on flat ground. When a smooth speed was reached, the change in speed was smoother on the flat ground than on a 5% slope, with no jumps occurring. The distribution of driving styles is more similar on the flat ground, while on a 5% slope there is a clearer distinction, indicating that the influence of the driving environment on the driver's handling of the vehicle should not be ignored.  
Figure 14: Brake cylinder pressure change curve for drivers with different driving styles.  
Figure 15: Variation of speed tracking for drivers with different slopes and different driving styles.  
Figures 16 and 17 show the variation curves of throttle opening and brake cylinder pressure corresponding to different slope and different driving styles. Combined with the graphs, it can be seen that the same speed control strategy can be achieved with a smaller throttle opening on flat ground, with less variation between driving styles. Similarly, for braking, the behavior of the different driving styles on flat ground tends to be similar and smoother with a 5% slope, and there was no jump in the braking process. In the case of a single driving environment, the influence of driving style on driving behavior is weaker, and the main influence comes from the change in speed.  
Table 2 shows the simulated fuel consumption for different driving styles under 0% and 5% slope conditions. From the table, it can be seen that there was a significant difference in fuel consumption under different slope conditions, but the difference in fuel consumption was relatively small under different driving styles. This is because the control method used in this article has a high accuracy in identifying driving style and controlling speed, allowing the required speed to be achieved at a low throttle opening. Therefore, the cumulative fuel consumption standard deviation is 0.010, which is less than 0.089 on a 5% slope, and the difference is not significant. In addition, the control method used in this article incorporates the rate of change in acceleration and speed indicators in the fuzzy inference of control weights to measure the changes in driving behavior and environment between the current driving state and the next moment. Its control weights are also related to real-time change indicators, resulting in small differences in fuel consumption between different driving styles. At the same time, it also indicates that the control method proposed in this article has universality, causing the fuel consumption under the different driving styles to tend to be similar to ecological driving.  
Figure 16: Different slope, different driving style vehicle throttle opening change curve.  
Figure 17: Different slope, different driving style vehicle brake cylinder pressure changes.