SEMI ACTIVE SUSPENSION CONTROL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FOR A LIGHT

COMMERCIAL VEHICLE

Bilin Aksun Güvenç1, Emre Kural1, Bülent Keşli2, Kemal Gülbudak2, Serdar Güngör2, Ahmet Kanbolat2
1
Automotive Control and Mechatronics Research Center
Department of Mechanical Engineering, İstanbul Technical University, Gümüşsuyu, İstanbul, Turkey
2
Ford Otosan,Gölcük, Kocaeli, Turkey

Abstract: A semi active suspension system for a light commercial vehicle, based on four
shock absorbers with continuously adjustable damping characteristics is treated in this
paper. Quarter car, half car and full car simulation models are developed. These models
are used to develop and test the low level and high level suspension controllers. Several
different low level control algorithms like: skyhook, groundhook and hybrid control were
considered. The higher level supervisory controller coordinates the operation of the four
low level suspension controllers during acceleration/braking, entering curves or evasive
maneuvers. The experimental vehicle that is used to test the developed controllers is also
presented along with experimental results. Copyright © 2006 IFAC

Keywords: Automotive control, Vehicle suspension, Semi-active suspension, Hardware,

Implementation

1. INTRODUCTION
The primary function of the suspension system is to
keep the tires in contact with the road at all times by
making the tires follow the road profile (road
holding) and to isolate the vehicle body from
undesired higher frequency road disturbances (ride
comfort). The limit on passive suspension system
performance has resulted in growing interest in semi-
active and active suspensions. In active suspensions,
an actuator is added to each suspension (Weeks et
al., 1999; Appleyard and Wellstead, 1995). A lower
cost, intermediate solution is to use a semi-active
suspension. Most of the applications of semi-active
suspensions use an adjustable damper.
Karnopp et al. (1974) introduced a two-state skyhook
control algorithm to a passenger vehicle.
Groundhook semi-active suspension control strategy
was studied by Valasek et al. (1997) with the
objective of minimizing tire road forces. Savaresi et
al. (2003) introduced a linear skyhook control
strategy and compared the results with two-state
skyhook control.
This paper is on the development of a semi-active
suspension control system for a light commercial
vehicle equipped with adjustable dampers called
Continuous Damping Control (CDC) dampers. The
organization of the rest of the paper is as follows.
The quarter car, half car and full car models used in
simulation and design are presented in the next
section. The low level suspension controllers based
on the skyhook, groundhook and hybrid control
concepts are treated next, followed by a section on
high level supervisory control. The instrumented
vehicle developed for experimental testing is
described and experimental results are reported. The
paper ends with conclusions.
2. MODELING
2.1 Quarter Car Model
In the quarter car model, only one quarter of the
vehicle is modelled as seen in Figure 1. It consists of
two masses connected by a spring and a CDC
damper. The first mass m2 represents the tire and is

391
Fig. 1. Quarter car model

Fig. 3. Variable damping tire displacement frequency responses

Fig. 2. Variable damping body displacement frequency responses

called the unsprung mass and the other mass m1

represents one quarter of the vehicle body supported
by that suspension and is called the sprung mass. The Fig. 4. Half car model
equations of motion for this system are given by
m1&x&1 + c1 x&1 + k1 x1 = c1 x&2 + k1 x2 (1) M b &x& = −2k f ( x − θ L f − x2 ) − 2c f ( x& − θ& L f − x& 2 ) − 2k r ( x
m2 &x&2 + (c1 + c 2 ) x& 2 + ( k1 + k 2 ) x2 = c1 x&1 (2) + θ Lr − x4 ) − 2cr ( x& + θ& Lr − x& 4 ) (10)
+ k1 x1 + c 2 w& + k 2 w mtf &x&2 = kf (x −θ Lf − x2) + cf (x& −θ& Lf − x&2) − ktf (x2 − wf )
(11)
c1 = c1 (i ) (3)
Equation (3) represents the dynamics of the CDC
mtr&x&4 = kr (x +θ Lr − x4 ) +cr (x& +θ& Lr − x&4 ) −ktr (x4 − wr )
damper where i is the current sent by the controller to (12)
the solenoid that controls the damping restriction. I yyθ&& =[2k f (x −θ Lf − x2 ) + 2cf (x& −θ& Lf − x&2 )]Lf −[2kr (x +θ Lr
The input to the model is road vertical displacement − x4 ) + 2cr (x& +θ& Lr − x&4 )]Lr
and the outputs are sprung mass displacement and (13)
acceleration and unsprung mass displacement. The half car model is useful for high level controller
studies where it is desired to investigate the effect of
Figure 2 displays the low frequency comfort pitch dynamics in maneuvers like sudden braking or
magnitude transfer function from road to sprung acceleration.
mass displacement. Two resonant peaks around 1 Hz
and 9 Hz that correspond to the body and tire, 2.3 Full Car Model
respectively are seen in that plot. Fig. 3 displays the
road holding frequency response magnitude from The full car model shown in Figure 5 has
road input to tire displacement. The magnitude of the independent front suspensions and a solid axle rear
resonant mode in Figure 3 around 9 Hz is attenuated suspension. In the notation used subscript ij means
by increasing the CDC damping coefficient. 11: front left, 12: front right, 21: rear left and 22: rear
right. The equations of motion of the full car model
2.2 Half Car Model are
M b &z&s = − Fs11 − Fs12 − Fs 21 − Fs 22 (14)
The half car model shown in Figure 4 treats one half
Lw L (15)
of the vehicle divided through its centerline. The I xx φ&& = ( Fs12 + Fs 22 ) − w ( Fs11 + Fs 21 )
2 2
equations of motion governing the dynamics of the
half car model are I yyθ&& = L f ( Fs11 + Fs12 ) − Lr ( Fs 21 + Fs 22 ) (16)
Mb &x& = −2k f (x1 − x2 ) − 2c f (x&1 − x&2 ) − 2kr (x3 − x4 ) − 2cr (x&3 − x&4 ) (4) Fs11 =K s11( xs11 − x11 ) + C s11 ( x& s11 − x&11 ) (17)
mtf &x&2 = k f ( x1 − x2 ) + c f ( x&1 − x&2 ) − ktf ( x2 − wf ) (5) Fs12 =K s12 ( x s12 − x12 ) + C s12 ( x& s12 − x&12 ) (18)
mtr &x&4 = kr (x3 − x4 ) + cr ( x&3 − x&4 ) − ktr ( x4 − wr ) (6) Fs 21 =K s 21( xs 21 − x21 ) + Cs 21 ( x& s 21 − x& 21 ) (19)
Iyyθ&&=[2kf (x1 −x2) +2cf (x&1 − x&2)]Lf −[2kr (x3 −x4) +2cr (x&3 − x&4)]Lr (7) Fs 22 =K s 22 ( x s 22 − x22 ) + C s 22 ( x& s 22 − x& 22 ) (20)
(8) m11 &x&11 = Fs11 − K t11 ( x11 − w11 ) (21)
x1 = x −θ Lf
(9) m12 &x&12 = Fs12 − Kt12 ( x12 − w12 ) (22)
x3 = x + θ Lr
Using (8) and (9) in (4) to (7) results in M ur &x&ur = Fs 21 + Fs 22 − Kt 21 ( x21 − w21 ) − Kt 22 ( x22 − w22 ) (23)

392
Fig. 5. Full car model with solid axle rear suspensions

Fig. 7. Sprung mass response with skyhook control

Fig. 6. Skyhook damping

I urφ&&ur = [ Fs 21 − K t 21 ( x21 − w21 )]
Lw L
− [ Fs 22 − K t 22 ( x22 − w22 )] w
(24)
2 2
x11 = x s11 − L f θ +
Lw
φ (25)
2
L (26)
x12 = xs12 − Lfθ − w φ
2
Lw (27) Fig. 8. Unsprung mass response with skyhook control
x21 = xur + φur
2

x22 = xur −
Lw
φur
(28)
2

3. LOW LEVEL CONTROL

The control architecture used consists of low level

controllers at each of the four suspensions that
control the individual CDC currents. Coordination
and correction for pitch and roll transient oscillations
is provided by the higher level supervisory
controller. Three different control algorithms were
investigated for the low level controllers. The
simulations in this section are based on the quarter
Fig. 9. Sprung Mass Response with different α values
car model.

3.1 Skyhook Control
Skyhook control is based on the fact that better
damping of the vehicle body oscillations would be
achieved if the sprung mass were connected to a
damper that is connected to the ground. The
parameter α in Figure 6 is used to adjust the level of
skyhook control. Skyhook damping control law
requires the use of the damper force
Fdamper = − (1 − α ) csky x&1 − αc sky ( x&1 − x& 2 ) = − c sa ( x&1 − x& 2 ) .
The corresponding damping coefficient is
(1 − α )csky x&1 + αcsky ( x&1 − x& 2 )
csa =
( x&1 − x& 2 )(30)
The ideal skyhook control law in Equations (29) and
(30) has limitations in the case of a CDC semi-active
suspension due to the passivity constraint. The CDC
damper cannot provide force in the same direction as
damper relative velocity and its force output vanishes
when there is no damper motion. This means that
skyhook control will not be fully achieved for semi-
active suspensions. In order to help with the road
holding ability, the switching logic
(1 − α )c sky x&1 + αc sky ( x&1 − x& 2 )
x&1 ( x&1 − x& 2 ) ≥ 0 ⇒ c sa =
( x&1 − x& 2 ) (31)
x&1( x&1 − x&2 ) < 0 ⇒ csa = cmin(32)
is used in the implementation of skyhook control to
apply the minimum amount of damping when the tire
(29) is moving in the right direction that will help road
holding. The parameter α in the skyhook control law
can be used to adjust the level of desired skyhook
action (α = 0 for full skyhook action, α =1 for no
skyhook action). The skyhook control simulation
results in Figures 7 and 8 show that skyhook control
improves sprung mass response while slightly
deteriorating unsprung mass response. For

393
Fig. 10. Unsprung Mass Response with different α values
Fig. 11. Groundhook damping
Fig. 12. Unsprung mass response with groundhook control
simulations, a pure sinusoidal signal is used. For
sprung mass displacement, the inputs are selected at
4 Hz with 15mm road disturbance and for unsprung
mass displacement the inputs are at 10 Hz with 1 mm
magnitude. The simulation results in Figures 9 and
10 show that α =0.5 provides a good compromise
solution for both road holding and ride comfort.
3.2 Groundhook Control
The virtual skyhook concept can also be applied to
the tire as shown in Figure 11 by attaching it to a
virtual groundhook to improve the tire damping and
hence road holding. The groundhook control CDC
damper force and damping coefficient are
⎧ − x& 2 ( x&1 − x& 2 ) ≥ 0
Fgrnd = c gr ( x&1 − x& 2 ) ⇒ ⎨
⎩ − x& 2 ( x&1 − x& 2 ) < 0
in two state groundhook control. The simulation
results in Figures 12 and 13 show that groundhook
control improves unsprung mass response while
slightly deteriorating sprung mass response.
3.3 Hybrid Control
In the hybrid control strategy, the skyhook and
groundhook concepts are combined to achieve both
Fig. 13. Sprung mass response with groundhook control
Fig. 14. Sprung mass response with Hybrid control
road holding and comfort by trying to apply virtual
sky/ground-hook damping to both the sprung and
unsprung masses. The CDC damper forces are
distributed to the vehicle body and tire according to
⎧ (1−α)cskyx&1 +αcsky(x&1 − x&2 ) (35)
⎪x&1(x&1 − x&2 ) ≥ 0 csa =
Fsky = csa( x&1 − x&2 ) ⇒⎨ (x&1 − x&2 )
⎪⎩x&1(x&1 − x&2 ) < 0 csa = cmin
⎧x& ( x& − x& ) ≥ 0 csa = cmax
Fgrnd = csa ( x&1 − x&2 ) ⇒ ⎨ 2 1 2
⎩x&2 ( x&1 − x&2 ) < 0 csa = cmin
(36)
Fhyb = β Fsky + (1 − β ) Fgrnd
(37)
As seen in Figures 14 and 15, hybrid control
improves both sprung and unsprung mass
displacements. However, the quantity of the
improvement for sprung mass with respect to the
previous skyhook control is lessened. The same
observation can be made for the unsprung mass with
respect to groundhook control.
4. HIGH LEVEL SUPERVISORY CONTROL
While all the low level controllers will help in
improving vertical dynamics, they should work in a
coordinated fashion to help reduce the undesired
oscillations that occur in the presence of pitch and
c gr = c max ( 33)
roll motions of the vehicle body. Uncomfortable
c gr = c min ( 34 ) pitch motions like dive and squat accompany sudden
braking and acceleration maneuvers. Undesired roll
motion accompanies fast turning maneuvers or
excessive steering reversals. In such cases, a higher
level controller should intervene and command the
low level controllers to provide the damping force
configuration that will alleviate the effect of the pitch
or roll disturbance. It is not possible to affect the
steady state pitch or roll angles with a semi-active
suspension. However, it is possible to improve
394
Fig. 15. Unsprung mass response with Hybrid control
Fig. 17. Simulation result: roll transient response compensation

Fig. 16. Simulation result: pitch transient response compensation

transient performance significantly. High level

control changes the hybrid control parameter β
within the low level controllers. Fig. 18. Sensors used in the experimental vehicle

Figures 16 and 17 compare the pitch angle and roll

angle in case of braking and cornering maneuvers,
respectively. To obtain these results, a moment of
1000 Nm around the y axis and a moment of 500 Nm
around the x axis are applied to the CG of the
vehicle. The High Level Supervisory Control
(HLSC) algorithm compares computed angles with
the threshold value and assigns a current value for
the required dampers. For example, if pitch angle is
positive, it sends to the front dampers a
compensatory damping level current. Consequently,
the performance of the controller is better than the
Hybrid Control without the HLSC and that of the
passive suspension system.
5. THE INSTRUMENTED VEHICLE
A schematic representation of the experimental test
vehicle is shown in Figure 18. It is a short wheel base
Ford Transit Connect light commercial vehicle. Its
suspension system was modified by replacing its
dampers with four CDC (continuous damping
control) dampers. A tire level and body level vertical
accelerometer was placed on each suspension. The
damper relative position is being measured by plastic
contact surface linear potentiometers for each
damper. The vehicle speed is collected from the
engine power control module connector. dSpace
microautobox and Rapidpro units with dSpace rapid
prototyping software are used to convert Simulink
controllers into real time control code. A laptop PC is
used to download Simulink control code to the
dSpace controller and to upload collected
experimental data. The dSpace control units located
in the back of the vehicle are shown in Figure 19.
Fig. 19. The locations of the control units in the back of the car
6.EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
During the early phase of the reported work, the
original vehicle without any semi-active suspension
installation modification was tested on a squeak and
rattle test machine where all four wheels were
excited with pre-recorded road profiles. This
experimental result is compared with the simulated
result in Figure 20 for one quarter of the vehicle. The
experimental and simulated results in Figure 20
match each other closely.
The experimental vehicle is currently being road
tested. A typical road test comparison of the body
vertical acceleration with and without skyhook semi-
active suspension control is shown in Figure 21.
Testing is carried out on a gravel road. The results in
Figure 21 illustrate the improved performance
achieved using the skyhook controller. Various
different road surfaces were used for comfort
assessment. Sudden acceleration, braking and slalom
maneuvers were used to test the higher level
supervisory controller and the road holding

395
 Valasek, M., M. Novak, Z. Sika, O. Vaculin (1997).
Extended Groundhook – New Concept of Semi-
Active Control of Truck’s Suspension. Vehicle System
Dynamics. 29, 289-303.
Weeks, D.A., D.A. Bresie, J.H. Beno, A.M. Guenin.
(1999). The Design of an Electromagnetic Linear
Actuator for an Active Suspension. SAE Int.
Conference and Exposition.

Table 1 Quarter Car Model Parameters

Parameter Symbol Unit
Sprung Mass m1 kg
Unsprung Mass m2 kg
Spring Coefficient k1 N/m
Fig. 20. Experimental and simulated body acceleration Tire Stiffness k2 N/m
Power Spectral Density
Damping Coefficient c1 N-s/m
-10 Tire Damping Coefficient c2 N-s/m
Sprung Mass Displacement x2 m
-20
Unsprung Mass Displacement x1 m
Power / Frequency [dB/Hz]

-30 Road Input w m

-40
Table 2 Half Car Model Parameters
-50
Parameter Symbol Unit
Sprung Mass Mb kg
-60
Front Unsprung Mass mtf kg
-70 PassiveSuspension
Rear Unsprung Mass mtr kg
Linear Skyhook Front Spring Coefficient kf N/m
0 1
Rear Spring Coefficient kf N/m
10
Frequency [Hz]
10
Front Suspension Damping cf N-s/m
Fig. 21. Acceleration Power Spectral Density of the Sprung Mass Coefficient
Rear Suspension Damping cr N-s/m
Coefficient
capability. Fine tuning of the controllers is still in Mass Moment of Inertia around –y IYY kg-m2
progress but the test results achieved demonstrate the Axis
improved suspension performance due to the use of Distance between COG and Front Axis Lf m
Distance between COG and Rear Axis Lr m
the semi-active suspension system. Displacement of COG x m
Displacement of Front Sprung Mass x1 m
7. CONCLUSIONS Displacement of Front Unsprung Mass x2 m
Displacement of Rear Sprung Mass x3 m
Displacement of Rear Unsprung Mass x4 m
Work in progress on developing a semi active Pitch Angle θ rad
suspension system for a light commercial vehicle Road Input (front tire) wf m
was reported in this paper. Low level and high level Road Input (rear tire) wr m
controller design was presented using simulation
Table 3 Full Car Model Parameters
results. The experimental demonstration vehicle
prepared to test the designed controllers was Parameter Symbol Unit
presented. Successful experimental results were i = 1,2 Æ Front, Rear
j = 1,2 Æ Left, Right
reported.
Sprung Mass Mb kg
Suspension Force Fsij N
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Spring Coefficient Ksij N/m
Tire Stiffness Ktij N/m
The authors from İstanbul Technical University Damping Coefficient Csij N-s/m
acknowledge the support of Ford Otosan through Front Left Unsprung Mass m11 kg
project ÜR-GE 03.016 and the European Union FP6 Front Right Unsprung Mass m12 kg
project INCO-16426. Rear Unsprung Mass Mur kg
Mass Moment of Inertia around –x axis IXX kg-m2
REFERENCES Mass Moment of Inertia around –y axis IYY kg-m2
Mass Moment of Inertia of Rear Iur kg-m2
Appleyard, M, and P.E. Wellstead (1995). Active Unsprung Mass around –y axis
suspensions: Some Background. IEEE Proc. of Distance between COG and Front Axis Lf m
Control Theory Applications, 142, no.2, 123-127. Distance between COG and Rear Axis Lr m
Karnopp, D., M.J. Crosby and R.A. Harwood (1974). Axle Width Lw m
Vibration Control Using Semi-Active Force Displacement of COG xs m
Generators. Trans. of the ASME Journal of Displacement of Sprung Masses xsij m
Engineering for Industry, 96, 619-626. Displacement of Unsprung Masses xij m
Savaresi, S., E. Silani, S. Bittanti, N. Porciani (2003). On Displacement of Rear Unsprung Mass xur m
Performance Evaluation Methods and Control Road Inputs wij m
Strategies for Semi-Active Suspension Systems. Pitch Angle Θ rad
Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Roll Angle Ф rad
Decision and Control. Angle About –y Axis of the Rear Axle Фur rad

396