Controllable Suspension Design

Using Magnetorheological Fluid

Public Defence October 2013

Student: Anria Strydom

Supervisor: Prof Schalk Els
Co-Supervisor: Dr Sudhir Kaul
 1

Outline

Project background
MR damper characterization
Vehicle modeling and model validation
Suspension control
Ride comfort simulation and results
Handling simulation and results
Suspension control results summary
Conclusion
Recommendations and future work
 2

Project Background
Ride comfort and Handling Trade-off

Handling
Sudden swerve
manoeuvres
Hard spring
High damping
Minimize pitch and
roll movement

Ride Comfort
Minimize driver
fatigue
Soft spring
Low damping
Minimize vertical
acceleration
 3

Project Background
Passive, Active & Semi-active Magnetorheological (MR) Fluid
Damping

Active
 4

Project Background
Baja Vehicle Study Purpose:
Mitigate ride comfort and handling
compromise of Baja vehicle
Semi-active suspension control of MR
dampers

Tasks:
MR damper modeling
Vehicle model development and validation
Implementation of skyhook- and
groundhook control
Determination of suspension control
settings:
Rough Belgian paving track
Single lane change
 5

MR Damper Characterization
MR Damper Characteristic
 6

MR Damper Characterization
MR Damper Models
Force-displacement relationship of M R damper Force-velocity relationship of M R damper
3000 3000
2tan1
= + + 0 0.50A M easured
0.50A Predicted
2000 2000
1.75A M easured
1.75A Predicted
= + + + 0
1000 1000
1
= +

Force ; F MR ; [N]

Force ; F MR ; [N]
0 0

= tanh + sgn
-1000 -1000

= 0 + 1 + 2
= -2000
0 0 1 + 1 -2000

= 1 + -3000
2 tanh 3 + 4 + 5 -3000
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.5 0 0.5
Displacement ; x ; [m] Velocity ; x' ; [m/s]

= +
=0
 7

Baja Model Overview

Spring-Damper Data Centre of Mass CAD Moments of Inertia

Pneumatic Spring Hydraulic Damper Pacejka 89 Baseline

ADAMS Model
Characteristic Characteristic Tyre Model Testing Inputs

Test Vehicle Baseline

Preparation Testing
RESULTS RESULTS
Model Verified
 8

Baja Vehicle Modeling and Model Validation

Bump Test

Non-linear
Slalom Test

20 Moving bodies
12 unconstrained DOF
Contains experimentally
determined properties
Validated using bump
and slalom tests
 9

Bump Test Simulation Results (1)

Suspension deflection
Front left damper displacement Front right damper displacement
30 30
; [m]

; [m]
20 20
su4

su3
10 10
Displacement ; Z

Displacement ; Z
0 0

-10 -10
Measured
-20 Simulation -20

-30 -30
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T ime ; t ; [s] T ime ; t ; [s]
Rear left damper displacement Rear right damper displacement
30 30
; [m]

; [m]
20 20
su2

10 su1 10
Displacement ; Z

Displacement ; Z

0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20

-30 -30
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T ime ; t ; [s] T ime ; t ; [s]
 R
-50
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
10
T ime ; t ; [s]
Pitch rate of sprung mass
100

Bump Test Simulation Results (2)

Pitch rate ; ' ; [ /s]

50

Sprung mass angular rates

-50

-100
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T ime ; t ; [s]
Roll rate of sprung mass Yaw rate of sprung mass
50 40
Roll rate of sprung mass

Yaw rate ; ' ; [ /s]

Roll rate ; ' ; [ /s]

50 20
Roll rate ; ' ; [ /s]
0 0
Measured
0 -20
Simulation
-50 -40
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T ime ; t ; [s] -50 T ime ; t ; [s]
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Pitch rate of sprung mass
100 T ime ; t ; [s]
Pitch rate of sprung mass
Pitch rate ; ' ; [ /s]

50 100
Pitch rate ; ' ; [ /s]

0 50

-50 0

-100 -50
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T ime ; t ; [s] -100
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Yaw rate of sprung mass
40 T ime ; t ; [s]
Yaw rate of sprung mass
; ' ; [ /s]

20 40
[ /s]

0 20
 11

Slalom Test Simulation Results (1)

Suspension deflection
Front left damper displacement Front right damper displacement
40 40
; [m]

; [m]
20 20
su4

su3
Displacement ; Z

Displacement ; Z
0 0

-20 Measured -20

Simulation2
-40 Simulation1 -40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T ime ; t ; [s] T ime ; t ; [s]

Rear left damper displacement Rear right damper displacement

40 40
; [m]

20 ; [m] 20
su2

su1
Displacement ; Z

Displacement ; Z

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T ime ; t ; [s] T ime ; t ; [s]
 12

Skyhook- and Groundhook Control

Ideal Skyhook Ideal Groundhook Control
Implementation

Passive
damping

= + 1
 13

Ride Comfort Simulation: Belgian Paving

Passive
Skyhook Control

damping: 0%

Skyhook gain:
1200 Ns/m
 14

Ride Comfort Results

Weighted RMS vertical acceleration of sprung mass
Weighted RM S acceleration of sprung mass

Skyhook Control Ride Comfort

X: 0.075 Optimal Passive
Y: 0
X: 1 Z: 0.9533 X: 0
Ride Comfort
Acceleration ; Z s,cm '' ; [m/s 2]

2.5 Y: 0 Y: 1200
Z: 2.047 Z: 0.8827
2
Optimal Controlled
1.5

0.5 Passive
0 Baseline
0
1000 0.2

2000 0.4
0.6
3000
0.8
4000 1 Passive damping factor ; c fac ; [-]
Skyhook gain ; G ; [Ns/m]
 15

Ride Comfort Results

Prescribed damping forces and damper current

Skyhook Control Front left M R damper force

800
Front left prescribed current Front right prescribed current
2.5 2.5 FSA

2 400

Force ; F MR4 ; [N]

2 FMR
Current ; I 4 ; [A]

Current ; I 3 ; [A]
1.5 1.5
1 1 0
0.5 0.5
0 0-400
-0.5 -0.5
7 8 9 10 7 8 9 10
-800
Time ; t ; [s] -0.6 -0.4Time-0.2
; t ; [s] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Rear left prescribed current Rear right prescribed current
Velocity ; x' ; [m/s]
2.5 2.5
2 2 Rear left M R damper force
]

800
 16

Handling Simulation: Single Lane Change

Passive damping:
Skyhook Control

50%

Skyhook gain:
4000 Ns/m
Groundhook Control

Passive damping:
50%

Groundhook gain:
4000 Ns/m
 Sprung
Sprungmass
masspitch
pitchangle
rate
15
50 17

; []
; '; ;[/s]
10
25

Handling Results

Angle
50

PitchRate
cfac = 100%
0

Pitch
-25
cfac = 50%

Vehicle
-5
-50
1.5
1.5 22 body
2.5 roll
2.5 33 angle
3.5
3.5 and
44 yaw 55rate5.5
4.5
4.5 5.5
cfac
66 = 20%6.5
6.5
Time
Time ;; tt ;; [s]
[s] cfac = 50% ; G = 4000
Sprung
Sprung mass rollangle
mass roll rate
15
150 cfac = 50% ; G = 8000

Groundhook
cfac = 20% ; G = 4000
; []
; '; ;[/s]

100
0 cfac = 20% ; G = 8000
Control
Location on grid
50 60
Angle
RollRate

-150
ccfac = 100%

; [m]
fac = 100%
Roll

58
-50
ccfac = 50%
fac = 50%

cm
-30
-35

Lateral displacement ; Y
-100
1.5 22 2.5 33 3.5 44 4.5 56 55 5.5 ccfac
fac
66
=
= 20%
20%6.5
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5
Time
Time ;; tt ;; [s]
[s] ccfac
fac
=
= 50% ;;GG==4000
50% 4000
Sprung
Sprungmass
massyaw yawangle
rate
60
100
54 ccfac = 50% ; G = 8000
fac = 50% ; G = 8000

cfac = 20%
20% ;;GG==4000
4000
; []
; '; ;[/s]

fac
40
50 52
c fac = 20%
20% ;;GG==8000
8000
Angle

200
YawRate

50
0 2 4 6 8 10
Yaw

0
-50 Longitudinal displacement ; X cm ; [m]

-20
-100
1.5
1.5 22 2.5
2.5 33 3.5
3.5 44 4.5
4.5 55 5.5
5.5 6 6.5
Time
Time ;; tt ;; [s]
[s]
 18

Handling Results
Road-tyre contact
Front left tyre vertical force Front right tyre vertical force Location on grid
4000 4000 60
Vertical force ; F t,z4 ; [N]

Vertical force ; F t,z3 ; [N]

cfac = 100%
Groundhook

; [m]
3000 3000 58
cfac = 50%
Control

cm
Lateral displacement ; Y
2000 2000 cfac = 20%
56
cfac = 50% ; G = 4000
1000 1000
54 cfac = 50% ; G = 8000

0 0 cfac = 20% ; G = 4000

2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 52 5 6
Time ; t ; [s] Time ; t ; [s] cfac = 20% ; G = 8000

Rear left tyre vertical force Rear right tyre vertical force
50
4000 4000 0 2 4 6 8
Longitudinal displacement ; X cm ; [m]
Vertical force ; F t,z2 ; [N]

Vertical force ; F t,z1 ; [N]

3000 3000

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
Time ; t ; [s] Time ; t ; [s]
 Sprung
Sprungmass
masspitch
pitchangle
rate
15
50 19

Pitch Rate ; ' ; [/s]

Pitch Angle ; ; []
10
25

Handling Results 05
cfac = 100%
-250
cfac = 50%
-5
-50
1.5
1.5
Vehicle
22
body
2.5
2.5
roll 3.5
3
angle
4
and
4.5
yaw
5
rate
5.5
5.5
cfac
66 = 20%6.5
6.5
Time ; t ; [s] cfac = 50% ; G = 4000
Sprung
Sprungmass
massroll
rollangle
rate
15
150 cfac = 50% ; G = 8000

Skyhook cfac = 20% ; G = 4000

Roll Angle ; ; []
Roll Rate ; ' ; [/s]

100
Control 0
50
c
Location
= 20% ; G = 8000
fac on grid
60
0
-15 cfac
c = =100%
100%

; [m]
fac
-50 58
cfac
c = =50%
50%

cm
fac
-30
-100

Lateral displacement ; Y
1.5 cfac
c 6= =20%
1.5 22 2.5
2.5 33 3.5
3.5 44 4.5
4.5 56 55 5.5
5.5 fac6
20% 6.5 6.5
Time ;; tt ;; [s]
Time [s] cfac
c = =50%
50%; G; G
= 4000
= 4000
Sprung
Sprungmass
massyaw yawangle
rate fac
60
100 54 cfac
c = =50%
50%; G; G
= 8000
= 8000
fac
Yaw Angle ; ; []

cfac
c = =20%
20%; G; G
= 4000
Yaw Rate ; ' ; [/s]

40 fac
= 4000
50 52
cfac
c = =20%
20%; G; G
= 8000
= 8000
fac
20
0
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
-500 Longitudinal displacement ; X cm ; [m]

-20
-1001.5
1.5 22 2.5
2.5 33 3.5
3.5 44 4.5
4.5 55 5.5
5.5 66 6.5
6.5
Time ; t ; [s]
Time ; t ; [s]
 20

Handling Results
Road-tyre contact
Front left tyre vertical force Front right tyre vertical force Location on grid
3000 3000 60
Vertical force ; F t,z4 ; [N]

Vertical force ; F t,z3 ; [N]

cfac = 100%
Skyhook
2500 2500

; [m]
58
2000 2000 cfac = 50%
Control

cm
Lateral displacement ; Y
1500 1500 cfac = 20%
56
1000 1000 cfac = 50% ; G = 4000

500 500 54 cfac = 50% ; G = 8000

0 0
cfac = 20% ; G = 4000
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 52 5 6
Time ; t ; [s] Time ; t ; [s]
cfac = 20% ; G = 8000

Rear left tyre vertical force Rear right tyre vertical

50 force
3000 3000 0 2 4 6 8
Longitudinal displacement ; X cm ; [m]
Vertical force ; F t,z2 ; [N]

Vertical force ; F t,z1 ; [N]

2500 2500

2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
Time ; t ; [s] Time ; t ; [s]
 21

Suspension Control Results Summary

Passive Baseline
Control Gain Result
Level Result
0.88m/s2 RMS
58%
Skyhook 1200Ns/m 0% vertical
2.1m/s2 RMS
acceleration.
Ride Comfort vertical
0.95m/s2 RMS
acceleration.
Optimal Passive 7.5% vertical
55%
acceleration.
Handling Up to 6%
Up to 12%
(Conventional contact loss at
Skyhook 8000Ns/m 50% contact loss at 3
off-road 1 wheel. Body
wheels.
vehicles) roll reduced.
Yaw rate of 42% Yaw rate of
Handling
Optimal Passive 20% 88/s
(Test vehicle) 62/s obtained.
obtained.
 22

Conclusion

12 DOF full vehicle model developed using ADAMS View

software and validated
Various MR damper models developed and superior
model combined with vehicle model
Ride comfort improved using skyhook control
Directional response of test vehicle improved using low
passive damping
Body roll and road-tyre contact of conventional off-road
vehicle improved using skyhook control and high passive
damping
 23

Recommendations & Future Work

Recommendations Future Work

Recursive MR damper Combined ride comfort

modeling with force and handling
feedback Suspension control
Vehicle model algorithms: focus on
improvement vehicles without
Suspension differentials
characteristics for other Hardware-in-the-Loop
handling manoeuvres tests to measure MR
damper force
Thank You