Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
International Conference on Control Applications
WP4-6 5:00 .
Semi-Active Control of the Macpherson Suspension System: Hardware-
in-the-Loop Simulations
Hyun-Chul Sohn*, Kcum-Shik Hong**, and J. Karl Hedrick t
* Department of Mechanical and Intelligent Systems Engineering, Pusan National University, San 30 Changjeon-dong, Kumjeong-ku,
Pusan, 609-735, Korea. Tel: +82(51) 510-1481, Fax: +82 (51) 514-0685, Email: hcson@hyowon.pusan.ac.kr
** School of Mechanical Engineering & Research Institute of Mechanical Technology, Pusan National University, 30 Changjeon-dong,
Kumjeong-ku, Pusan, 609-735, Korea. Tel: +82 (51) 510-2454, Fax: +82 (51) 514-0685, Email: kshong@hyowon.pusan.ac.kr
t Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1740, USA. Tel.: +1 (510) 642-2482, Fax:
+ 1(510) 642-6 ! 63, Email: khedrick@me.berkeley.edu
Abstract
A modified skyhook control for the semi-active Macpherson
suspension system is considered. A new quarter-car model, which
incorporates the rotational motion of the unsprung mass, is
introduced. A feedback control law in the form of a modified
skyhook control is derived. Two filters to estimate the absolute
velocity of the sprung mass and the relative velocity of the rattle
space are designed. By including the actual semi-active damper in
the loop of computer simulation, the nonlinearity, time-delay, and
unmodeled dynamics of the continuously variable damper have
been incorporated. The control performances of the semi-active
system and a passive one have been compared.
1. Introduction
The performance of a suspension system is characterized by the
ride quality, the drive stability or maneuverability, the size of the
rattle space, and the dynamic tire force. The prime purpose of
adopting an active/semi-active suspension system is to improve the
ride quality and the drive stability. To improve the ride quality, it is
important to isolate the sprung mass from the road disturbances
and to decrease the resonance peak of the sprung mass, near 1 Hz,
which is known to be a sensitive frequency to human body. On the
other hand, to improve the drive stability, it is important to keep
the tire in contact with the road surface and therefore to decrease
the resonant peak near 10 Hz, which is the resonant frequency of
the unsprung mass. For a given suspension spring, the better
isolation of the sprung mass from the road disturbances can be
achieved with a soft damping by allowing a larger suspension
deflection. However, the better road contact can be achieved with a
hard damping by not allowing unnecessary suspension deflections.
Therefore, the ride quality and the drive stability are two
conflicting criteria in the control system design of suspension
systems.
Since the skyhook control strategy was introduced by Karnopp
et al. [5], in which an artificial damper was inserted between the
sprung mass and the stationary sky as a tool to suppress the
vibratory motion of the sprung mass and to calculate the desired
damping force, a number of innovative control methodologies
have been proposed to implement this strategy. The skyhook
control can reduce the resonant peak of the sprung mass quite
significantly and thus achieving a good ride quality. But, in order
to improve both the ride quality and the drive stability, both
resonant peaks of the sprung mass and the unsprung mass need to
be reduced. It is known, however, that the skyhook damper alone
cannot reduce both resonant peaks at low level. From this point of
view, Besinger et al. [2] proposed a modification of the skyhook
control, which includes a passive part as well as a skyhook damper
in the process of calculating the desired control input. Novak and
Valasek [8] and Valasek et al. [10] have proposed a groundhook
0-7803-6562-3/00510.0002000 IEEE
Anchorage, Alaska, USA • September 25-27, 2000
control, which assumes an additional artificial damper between the
unsprung mass and the ground besides the skyhook damper, for the
purpose of decreasing the dynamic tire force.
Compared to the control techniques appeared in the literature,
the issues related to the modeling of suspension systems are rare.
Jonsson [12] conducted a finite element analysis for evaluating the
deformations of suspension components. Stensson et al. [9]
proposed three nonlinear models for the Macpherson strut wheel
suspension for the analysis of motion, force, and deformations.
These models would be appropriate for the analysis of mechanics,
but are not adequate for control system design. In the conventional
quarter car model, only the up-down movements of the sprung and
unsprung masses are assumed. In the conventional model, the role
of the control arm is completely ignored. From this point of view,
a new control-oriented model, which considers the rotational
motion of the control arm of the Macpherson strut suspension, has
been introduced by Hong et al. [4].
As an actuator for generating the semi-active control force, a
continuously variable damper (CVD) is used. Hence, control
forces are adjusted by changing the size of an orifice of the CVD
with a solenoid valve. The damping force characteristics of the
CVD are highly nonlinear. The damping force of the extension
motion is much larger than that of the compression motion. It is
also noted that with a semi-active suspension the control action is
applied only when the control force is opposite to the direction of
suspension deflection.
One way of designing a control system for the semi-active
suspension is to figure out all the nonlinearities of the semi-active
actuator and then to design an appropriate control law by
considering both the vehicle dynamics and the actuator dynamics.
For this, the fluid dynamics of the variable damper has to be
investigated. However, it is not simple to know the complete
nonlinear characteristics of the variable damper including the
solenoid valve dynamics. Another way is to isolate the most
significant nonlinear component, which is the variable damper in
our case, and use the real damping force when designing a
controller and evaluating the control performance, which is the
hardware-in-the-loop design and simulation. In this case, the
primary controller is designed by using a linear model in which the
nonlinear component is treated as a linear one with hard
constraints.
Recently, the computer aided control system design (CACSD)
has been the subject of focus. The CACSD is often named as the
rapid control prototyping (RCP) or the hardware-in-the-loop
simulations (HILS) [3]. In the RCP, the plant dynamics and/or the
controller are implemented in a digital signal processing board,
which allows an easy adjustment of various parameters of the plant
and/or the controller. If actual hardwares are used in simulating the
dynamic performance of a controller and/or a plant model, the
word "HILS" is particularly used. Through the CACSD, the total
982
development time and cost can be much reduced. Also, it is easy to displacement of the control arm at a static equilibrium point ( - 2* ).
introduce a new component or a new algorithm because the test
procedure, once it is set up, can be easily repeated. Remark 1: It is remarked that the specific data above are taken
In this paper, a modified skyhook control for the semi-active from a car being produced in Korea. It is also remarked that the
suspension system and the CACSD through the RCP and HILS are semi-active damping force f s in (2) includes both the passive
investigated. First, a new control-oriented model for the semi-
active Macpherson suspension system is introduced. In this new damping force and the control force. In [4], there appears an
model, the rotational motion of the unsprung mass is emphasized. explicit passive damping term as well as a control input term, see
For the purpose of minimizing the cost, only the vertical vibrations equation (9) there.
of the sprung mass are measured. The control law takes the form
of an output feedback control, but two parameters in the controller,
the absolute velocity of the sprung mass and the relative velocity
of the sprung and unsprung masses, are filtered from the sprung
mass acceleration data. o,

2. A New Quarter-Car Model

A schematic diagram of the Macpherson strut suspension

system is shown in Fig. 1. This model admits the rotational motion
of the unsprung mass. If the joint between the control arm and the
car body is assumed to be a bushing and the mass of the control
arm is included, the degree of freedom of the whole system is four.
The generalized coordinates in this case are z s , d , 81 , and 02 .
However, if the mass of the control arm is neglected and the
bushing is assumed to be a pin joint, then the degrees of freedom
becomes two, reducing the generalized coordinates from four to
two: z s and 8 as depicted in Fig. 1. In Hong et al. [4], the Fig. 1 A new model for the semi-active Macpherson suspension•
equations of motion for this model are derived. The detailed
assumptions made for this model are referred to [4]. In this section, Now, define the state variables as IxI x2 x3 x4]/"
the derivation in [4] is first of all modified to fit to the control
problem of the semi-active suspension system with a continuously = [Zs ks O ~. Then, (1)-(2) can be rewritten as follows:
variable damper.
-~1 = x2
For two generalized coordinates ql =- zs and q2 = 0 in Fig.
-~2 = Jq (Xl, x2, x3, x4, f s , Zr )
1, where z s is the vertical displacement of the sprung mass and (3)
X3 = X4
O is the angular displacement of the unsprung mass, the
equations of motion in [4] are modified as: "~4 = f2(Xl,X2,X3,X4,fs,Zr)
where
(m s + m u ) ~ + raul C cos(O - 00)8 - mul C sin(O - 00 )
(1)
fl= l---~, { m u l 2 c s i n ( x 3 - O o ) x ~ - l kssin(a'-x3)
02 + kt {zs + Ic (sin(O - Oo) - sin(Oo)) - z r } = O, gl t,x3 )
mul2 0 + mul C cos(O- 00 )Zs + k t l c cos(O - 00 ){z s C°S(X3 - O0)g3 (x3) - k t l c sin2 (x3 - O0)z(')
+ l c (sin(O - 0o) - sin(-Oo)) - zr } - ½ ks sin(a'-O) (2) + lB f s cos(x3 - 80) },

dl f2 =- 1 {m~12 sin(x3 _ O0)cos(x3 _ a o ) X 2

{bl + t/ } =-IBfs' g2(x3)
(c I - d t cos(a'-8) 72 )
l (ms + mu)ks sin(a'-x3 )g3 (x3) + msktlc
where a I = l A2 + l B2 , b t = 21Al B , or'= ct +00 ,
cos(x 3 - 00)z(.) + (m s + m u ) l B f a },
c I = a~ - alb t cos(o~'), and d I = alb I - b 2 c o s ( a ' ) .
gl (x3) = m s l c + mu Ic sin 2 (x 3 _ O0 ) ,
The definitions of the variables in (1) and (2), with their values in
parentheses, are defined as follows: g2(x3 ) = msmul 2 + rnu2l C2 sina (x 3 _ 00),
Parameters: m s is the sprung mass (453Kg); m u is the dt
unsprung mass (71Kg); k s is the spring constant of the coil g3 (x3) = bl + 1/
(c I _ d l cos(tz,_x3 ))72
spring (17,658 N/m); kt is the spring constant of the tire
z(.) = z(xl, x2, Zr)
(183,887 N/m); fs is the control force generated by a
= x I + 1C (sin(x 3 - 0 o) - sin(-a0 )) - zr
continuously variable damper; l A is the distance from O to A in
Fig. 1 (0.66 m); l B is the distance from O to B in Fig. 1 (0.34 m); The linearization of (3) at an equilibrium point Xe =
lc is the length of the control arm (0.37 m); a is the angle
(Xle , X2e, X3e, X4e) = (0, 0, 00, 0) yields:
between the y -axis and OA in Fig. 1 ( 74* ); Oo is the angular J(t)=Ax(t)+Blfs+B2zr(t), x(0) = x 0 (4)
983
where in which the estimation of Js and ,~l from ~/s is emphasized

[o oi1 o.o> and the forms of F 1 and F 2 are given in Section 3.3.

I
,4= a21 0 a23 BI= 'm m s l c + m u l c0s i n 2 ( _ O 0 ) Remark 4: The discrete state equation of (4) with zero order
' 0 hold is derived as follows:
0 0 0 (ms + mu )IB x(k + 1) = Adx(k ) + Bldfs (k) + B2dZ r (k)
a41 0 a43 msmul2 + mul 2 C2 sin2 (-00) y(k) = Cox(k) + Dldfs (k) + D2azr (k)
where
A 1 Akt k
(ktl- C0sin
0O) k=O
B2 = mslc + m u ~ sin2(-00) , and see [4] for a21, a23 ,
I msk, tc cos(-00) C a = D, Did = DI, D2d = D2, and T is the sampling time.
L msmu 12C+ m212 sin2 (-00)
3. A Modified S k y h o o k Control
a41, and a43. In this paper, the use of only one acceleration sensor for
Remark 2: Comparing the linearized equation (4) with the measuring the sprung mass vertical vibrations and a 16-bit
conventional model, in which only the vertical movement of both microprocessor for implementing the designed control algorithm is
the sprung and the unsprung masses are considered, the transfer assumed. Therefore, control law design focuses on the practicality,
function of the conventional model and that of (4) become implementability, and robustness of the algorithm rather than the
perfection of the algorithm.
identical if l B = 1C, 1B = 1A c o s a , and 00 = 0°. Therefore, the The two control objectives are the improvement of both the ride
conventional model is a special case of the new model in the sense quality and the drive stability. If fixed control gains are used, these
that the same transfer function can be achieved by restricting two conflicting objectives cannot be achieved. However, by
l B = l C and 0 o = 0. For the detailed comparison, Hong et al. [4] adapting the road roughness, i.e., changing control gains at various
is referred. road conditions, both objectives can be achieved.
Now, because £s is measured, the output equation by defining
3.1 Controller Structure
Y -= Jfs is derived as follows: A number of papers investigating advanced control techniques
y(t) = Cx(t) + D i f s + D2z r , (5) such as nonlinear adaptive control, preview control, and robust
where control have appeared in the literature [1,6,7,11]. However, if a
state feedback control strategy is adopted, either sufficient sensors
C = [a21 0 a23 0], D 1 = [ IBC°S(-O0) .] for the whole state variables or an estimate of the state vector is
I- msl C + mul C sin2 (-00) j' required. In this paper, a simple modified skyhook control with

=[. ktlcsin2(-Oo)
gain scheduling, in the form of an output feedback control which
requires a minimal number of sensors, is investigated.
1) Ideal Skyhook Control
D2 L msl c +mulc sin2(-O0)
Among the many control methods developed for the
improvement of ride quality, the skyhook control introduced by
Remark 3: It is remarked that the parameter values required in Karnopp et al. [5] is known most effective in terms of the number
the control law are the absolute velocity of the sprung mass, ks, of sensors and the simplicity of the control algorithm. Their
and the relative velocity of the sprung and unsprung masses A/: original work used only one inertia damper between the sprung
See Section 3.1, where a modified skyhook control strategy is mass and the inertia frame. This control method is applicable for
both a semi-active system as well as an active system. However,
investigated. Both ks and AJ will be filtered from the only this strategy does not pay attention to the unsprung mass vibrations
available signal ~/s: Recall that only one acceleration sensor is and therefore might deteriorate the maneuverability of the vehicle
used in this work. However, during the development stage of due to excessive vibrations of the unsprung mass. In order to
control laws and for the simulations and HILS of the developed overcome the demerits of the original skyhook control, various
control laws, the following formula, equation (5b) of [4], may be modified approaches have been proposed in the literature [8,10].
used. 2) Skyhook-Groundhook Control
The groundhook control, which assumes an additional inertia
AI = bI s i n ( a ' - 0)t7 damper between the unsprung mass and the ground besides the
2(a l - bt cos(a' - 0)) 1/2 (6) skyhook damper, was proposed in order to decrease the dynamic
tire force. This strategy can compromise two conflicting criteria,
---f(O, 0).
the ride quality and the drive stability.
Finally, to complete the feedback control loop, a filtered output From Fig. 1, the control force of the skyhook-groundhook
equation is defined as follows: model becomes
u = -cs~s -cpAl- Cgro(~s + leO) (8)
Yfitter = AI LF2 (~s)J (7)
where Csky is the damping coefficient of the skyhook damper,
984
Cp is the damping coefficient of the passive damper, and Cgro
is the damping coefficient of the groundhook damper. However,
because the value of t~ has to be estimated, this skyhook-
groundhook strategy is not suitable in our case.
3) Modification of Skyhook Control
A modified skyhook control, which proposes the inclusion of a
variable damper besides the skyhook damper, can still achieve
both control objectives by assigning adequate damping coefficients
at different frequency ranges of road inputs to the skyhook damper
and the variable damper. The following law is proposed:
Cmax =--Cp+Csky, q=--Cp/Cmax
u=-Cmax[q'Al + ( 1 - q ) ' k s ] . (9)
where q is a weighting factor with a value between 0 and 1. If
q = 0, the control input becomes u = -csky. ks and therefore the
improvement of ride quality is focused. On the other hand, if
q = 1, the control input becomes u = -Cp •/kl and therefore the
improvement of manipulability is focused. Hence, by varying q ,
a compromising control strategy can be fulfilled. It is remarked
that even though the control input is given by (9), its realization is
carried out by the variable damper. Hence the actual damping
force made by the CVD is limited as follows:
fs=~u, /f fs,<u<fs* (10)
[ f,, V L.>u
where fs* and fs* denote the maximum and the minimum
damping forces available at a given relative velocity.
3.2 Digital Filter Design
In this section, two filters for estimating the absolute velocity of
the sprung mass and the relative velocity of the sprung and
unsprung masses are designed, which are needed to calculate the
skyhook control law as derived in Section 3.1. It is also remarked
that even though the measurement of 0 or 0 is possible, an
estimation method is preferred considering the cost for extra
sensors. A continuous filter which satisfies the design
specifications is first of all designed and then it is transformed to
its discrete form. Because the digital filters in this paper are of the
type of high-pass filter, the bilinear transformation, which has no
limits on bandwidth, no aliasing, and preserves the stability, is
used.
1) Absolute Velocity of the Sprung Mass
The filter to estimate the absolute velocity from the acceleration
data of the sprung mass is suggested as follows:
s unsprung masses is made by the MTS test rig, which consists of a
ks = Fl(zs) = s2 + 2(canS +can2 zs (12)
where ( = 0 . 7 0 7 and COn=O.l Hz. (12) functions as a
differentiator below 0.1 Hz and functions as an integrator above
0.1 Hz. Consequently, this filter will provides a satisfactory
absolute velocity of the sprung mass by excluding a DC offset.
Before the discretization of (12), the frequency transformation is
performed to achieve the same frequency properties. Using the
transformation such that
, 2 conT 2 z-I
can = --tan , s = ----,
T 2 Tz+l
the following discrete transfer function is obtained.
985
Fld (z) =
2T(I - z -2 )
ro'n2T2 +4(m'nT+4+(2m'n2V 2 -8)z -1 + (CO'n2r2 -4(co'nT+4)z -2
2) Relative velocity of the Sprung and Unsprung Masses
The relative velocity of two masses is estimated using the model
of suspension dynamics. Assume that 00 = 0 and 0 is
sufficiently small. Then, the following approximations hold:
Vho, ~ 0 , ku ~ k ~ + l c O , O~+(ku-k~)
and
& -- -tBo = ~ ( k s -ku). (13)
lc
Therefore, the relative velocity of the sprung and unsprung masses
from measurement data is filtered as follows:
A/=F2(~s)=IB (ks ~z kul ~s
lc Zs
1 (14)
==¢' IB msS - - Jrs
1C CpS+k s I+VS
where ms, Cp, and k s are suspension parameters. It is noted
that a low pass filter 1/(1+ rs) has been inserted for eliminating
noises, where r = l / 2 ( c a l , ( = 0 . 7 0 7 , and col =15~ 20 Hz.
Similarly to the previous case, the frequency transformation is
performed to (14) before discretization. By defining C°l - k s / c p
and 6o2 ---1 / r , the following discrete form is derived:
coI = 2 t a n c°lT, co'2 = 2 t a n c°2T, s= 2 z - 1
T 2 T 2 Tz+l
F2d(Z)= IB 2msT(l-z -2)
IC {2 +mlT +(-2 +WlT)z-1}.{2 +m2T + (-2 +o)2T)z -1 }
4. Hardware in-the-loop Simulations
The CVD unit, for which it is difficult to have an accurate
mathematical model, is used in hardware-in-the-simulations.
Therefore, the nonlinear characteristics of the damping force
together with the time-delay and the neglected dynamics of the
solenoid valve can be fully incorporated. MATLAB/SIMULINK
(MathWorks Inc.) is used as a CACSD tool, i.e. a programming
language and a dSPACE board (digital signal processor board of
dSPACE GmbH Inc.) is used as a RCP tool for implementing the
plant dynamics and control laws. The input current, generated by
the PWM voltage signal from TMS320P14, changes the damping
force of the CVD. The relative velocity of the sprung and
hydraulic actuator, a load-cell, a LVDT, etc.
4.1 CVD Characteristics
The two curves in Fig. 2 represent the maximum and minimum
damping force characteristics corresponding to current inputs: 0
ampere, and 1.6 ampere. The intermediate values between the
maximum and the minimum can be continuously adjusted. The
curve with the steepest slope denotes the characteristics of 0
ampere control input, which is the most hard case. Also, it is noted
that at a given relative velocity the damping force of the extension
region is larger than that of the compression region. This is
because there exists a flow rate difference between the
compression and expansion periods of a single rod cylinder. If the
 desired control force exceeds the maximum and the minimum solenoid valve used in this work is about 300Hz.
damping forces available, the actuator is saturated and only the
available damping forces are provided. Therefore, the semi-active
suspension system, compared to the fully active one, may have a 4000
L
limited performance on a rough road. In order to generate the + Max.Damping(lookup) ~ . . . / m , ,
control force required from the modified skyhook controller, the 3OO0
Min.Damping (lookup)
Max.Damping(polynomial)
current input for the desired damping force at a given relative - - Min.Damping(polynomial)
velocity. 2O0O

4.2 Current Generation

The damping force generated in the actual damper depends on 1(300
two things: the size of valve opening, i.e. the current input to the
solenoid valve, and the relative velocity of the rattle space. To 0
determine the current input to the solenoid valve, it is necessary to
know the damping force characteristics of the valve vs. the current
input at given relative velocity. For this, two approaches can be
-1000-1,5 -11.0 .01.5
0.o I
05 1.0 1.5
pursued. One is an analytic approach, which investigates the Velocity[m/sec]
dynamics of the entire hydraulic system including the cylinder and
valves. However, the mechanism of a semi-active system is very Fig. 2 Damping force comparison: lookup table and polynomial.
complicated and the damping force characteristics of expansion
and compression strokes are different because of the one-sided
piston rod. It is also difficult to measure the parameter values of
2,5
the hydraulic system and furthermore these values are time
varying. Another approach is an experimental solution, which is
more or less straightforward. The damping forces for various input N=51
currents at given relative velocity can be measured with a test rig. 2.0
In this paper, the experimental approach is adopted.
The experimental data can be either tabulated as a look-up table
for the purpose of gain-scheduling or approximated as a \
polynomial equation by using the least squares method. After 1.S 1.7033 sec
dividing the relative velocity range into four different sections, the --a-- LookupTable
..........Polynomial
polynomial equations corresponding to individual sections are
tabulated in Table 1. 1°,o 2o ,'0 5;
DataNumber(N)
Table 1 Polynomial representation of damping force.

Maximum Damping Force Minimum Damping Force Fig. 3 Access time comparison: lookup table and polynomial.

0.25< AJ 440 + I 6SOAI + 420AI 2 95 + 405 AI + 402 AI 2

Transformation i
0< A/<0.25 8500A1 - 36500AI 2 + 6 6 4 5 0 A 1 3 37 + 1504A1 - 7284A12 + 17164A13 Algorithm r[ Generatori Pulse Driver

-0.1< At <0 6700{51 + 78000Al 2 + 340000A13 530A1 Fig. 4 Current generation

g.l<-0.[ 4 1 0 A l - 190 370A1 - 16 4.3 H I L S Procedures

As far as final results are concemed, as seen in Fig. 2, there is
no much difference between these two methods. On the other hand,
less calculation time is consumed with the polynomial approach.
This is very important because the entire control algorithm should
be coded in a microprocessor. Fig. 3 compares the access times of
the two methods when the relative velocity ranges within
+!.4 m / s . It is seen that the calculation time of the polynomial
equation is constant, but the access time needed to use the loop-up
table increases as the number of data increases. In this work, the
polynomial approximation approach is adopted.
As seen in Fig. 4, the transformation algorithm block takes two
inputs, the desired control force and the relative velocity of the
rattle space and determines the duty ratio of the PWM generator.
In our case, the duty ratio corresponding to 1.6 Ampere is 0.4 and
that corresponding to 0 Ampere is 0.
In this paper, the time constant of valve dynamics is ignored
under the assumption that the solenoid valve response to a current
input is instantaneous. Actually, the natural frequency of the
986
1) The control algorithm is first of all designed off-line using
MATLAB/SIMULINK.
2) Using the Real-Time-Workshop, a C code of the control
algorithm from its block diagram form is generated. The C code is
again downloaded to the target DSP board using the Real-Time-
Interface. Therefore, the dynamic models developed in the
CACSD stage can be reused easily for the HILS.
3) The PWM voltage signal related to the damping force and the
relmive displacement (stroke) calculated from the dynamic model
in the computer are transmitted to the damper drive unit and the
MTS control unit, respectively, through D/A converters.
4) The damper drive unit transforms the PWM voltage signal
into a current signal from 0 ampere to 1.6 ampere and supplies the
current signal to the CVD. The PWM voltage signal has 2kHz
carrier frequency and the duty ratio of the PWM voltage signal
corresponding to 1.6 ampere is 0.4. The MTS control unit excites
the hydraulic actuator according to the relative displacement
command.
5) The damping force of the CVD and the relative displacement
are measured using a Ioadcell and a LVDT, respectively, and
transferred to the dynamic model in the computer. By varying the demonstrated that the semi-active suspension system can still
control parameters in real time, the procedures 3) -5) can be achieve competitive performance by using road adaptive control
repeated. laws.
The sampling time is set to 0.001 see. This time step should be
larger than the combined time of the calculation time of plant References
dynamics and the input-output communication time between the
external devices. In experiments when the actual calculation time [1] Alleyne, A. and Hedrick, J.K., 1995, "Nonlinear Adaptive
Control of Active Suspensions," IEEE Transaction on
was larger than the step size, small oscillations had occurred in a
valve of the hydraulic actuator. If these oscillations are delivered
Control Systems Technology, Vol.3, No. 1, pp.94-101.
to the CVD, it will be difficult to measure the exact damping force [2] Besinger, F.H., Cebon, D. and Cole, D.J., 1995, "Force
from the loadcell. Hence it may affect the stability of the complete Control of a Semi-Active Damper," Vehicle System Dynamics,
control system. Vol.24, pp.695-723.
Finally, the vertical accelerations of the sprung mass, when [3] Hanselmann, H., 1996, "Hardware-in-the-loop Simulation
passing through a speed bump with ! Hz frequency, for a passive Testing and its Integration into a CACSD Toolset," The IEEE
and a semi-active suspension are compared in Fig. 5. The lower International Symposium on Computer Aided Control System
plot of Fig. 5 shows the current input applied to the CVD. Design, Dearborn, MI, USA, pp.152-156.
[4] Hong, K.S., Jeon, D.S., Yoo, W.S., Sunwoo, H., Shin, S.Y.,
Kim, C.M. and Park, B.S., 1999, "A New Model and an
Optimal Pole-placement Control of the Macpherson
35.
Suspension System," SAE International Congress and
3.o: Exposition, Detroit, MI, SAE paper No. 1999-01-1331,
2.5.
1 !i!: ~=kyhook
I pp.267-276.
20- [5] Karnopp, D.C., Cmsby, M.J. and Harwood, R.A., 1974,
"Vibration Control Using Semi-Active Force Generators,"
10-
ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol.96, No.2,
0.5-
pp.619-626.
0.0.
-0.5 • [6] Kim, H. and Yoon, Y.S., 1995, "Semi-Active Suspension
with Preview Using a Frequency-Shaped Performance
-I .5 • !! ij Index," Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol.24, pp.759-780.
-2.0.
v
[7] Lin, J.S. and Kanellakopoulos, I., 1997, "Nonlinear Design
-2,5.
i / ! i i
of Active Suspensions," IEEE Control System Magazine,
1 2 3 4 5 Vol. 17, No.3, pp.45-59.
time (S©¢) [8] Novak, M. and Valasek, M., 1996, "A New Concept of Semi-
Active Control of Trucks Suspension," Proc. of AVEC 96,
International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control,
1.8 Aachen University of Technology, pp. 141-151.
1•6.
[9] Stensson, A., Asplund, C. and Karlsson, L., 1994, "The
Nonlinear Behaviour of a Macpherson Strut Wheel
14.
Suspension," Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 23, pp.85-106.
1.2-
[10] Valasek, M., Babic, M., Sika, Z. and Magdolen, L., 1997,
1.0. "Development of Semi-Active Truck Suspension," Proc. of
0.8-" the 8th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS Symposium on Transportation
9 0.6-"
Systems, Chania, Greece, pp.470-475.
0.4-
[11] Yi, K., and Hedrick, J. K., 1993, "Dynamic Tire Force
Control by Semi-Active Suspension," ASME Transactions,
0.2 -"
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol.
0.0- 115, No. 3, pp. 465-474.
-02 - [12] Jonsson, M., 1991, "Simulation of Dynamical Behavior of a
1 2 3 4 5 6
Front Wheel Suspension," Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol.20,
time (see)
pp.269-281.
Fig. 5 Vertical acceleration comparison: a passive damper and a
CVD with the skyhook control (1 Hz speed bump).

5. Conclusions
In this paper, a new control-oriented model for the semi-active
Macpherson suspension system, which incorporates the rotational
motion of the unsprung mass, was investigated. Upon the
requirement that only one acceleration sensor for the sprung mass
vibrations should be used, a modified skyhook control, which
utilizes a filtered absolute velocity of the sprung mass and a
tiltcred relative velocity of the sprung and unsprung masses, was
designed. The performance of the proposed controller was
evaluated by means of hardware-in-the-loop simulations. It was
987