Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
(1)
Xi = [zi - Z2 ZiV,
Xi = A | | X i + A12X2 + BiM
/LiS2 = A22X2 + B2M + D2W
where
AH
"0 r
.0
'0
0
A,2 =
-1"
,
0
0
,
l/mi
B2 = A*
-l/m2.
A22 = M
0
k2/rn2
D2 = At
-1"
0
(4)
Mo(0 = -R~'B'^{K\
+ r)
(10)
(11)
and /.t is a small positive constant (singular perturbation coeffi- and r(r) satisfies the following linear equation
cient). Salman et al. (1990) recommend selecting the value of
r = - A j ' r - KDw, T{t + tp) = 0
(12)
fj, that is close to the ratio between the natural frequencies of
the slow and fast subsystems, i.e., /x >= 0.1. The system (3) can
where A^ = A - B/?''B^K is the closed-loop system matrix.
also be represented as the state equation:
All eigenvalues of A^ have negative real parts if the pair (A,
Q ' " ) is detectable.
X = Ax + BM + Dw
(5)
The control law (10) consists of a feedback part,
-/?^'B'^Kx(0,
which is the same as in the corresponding probwith
lem without preview, and a feedforward part, /J"'B'^r(/)While the (constant) feedback gain matrix can be found off"A A|2
=
, A
line, integration of equation (12) in real time is necessary to
0
-X2_
A22/M_
obtain the preview term. The term r{t) can be expressed as
0
B,
B
D =
(6)
r(f)
KDw(r + T)dT.
(13)
1
.D2/M.
j^
Jo
lim
-f
[z1 +
P l ( Z l - Z2)'
2TJO
^r^''^^^
X 4- Ru^)dt
(8)
where
Q,
0
Q
Q2
"Pi
0
Q2.
Qi =
'
"0
C) '
p2_
0"
Decentralized Control
Consider the singularly perturbed form of the system representation given by equation ( 3 ) . The difference between this
system and the one considered by Chow and Kokotovic (1976)
or Salman et al. (1990) is the presence of the disturbance w(t).
Assuming that p ^ 0, the slow subsystem can be described by
Xj = AQXJ -t- BcMj + D Q W
where Ao = A
__11, Bo = _
B .i A12AJ2B2 and Do =
-Ai2A22'D2. For the case of the suspension system considered
here A12AJ2 B2 = 0 and hence Bo = B], while Do = [ - 1 0] '^.
The fast subsystem is given by
pXf
R =
1/m?.
T-*w 2,1
(9)
(15)
Physically, Eq. (14) represents the 1-DOF vehicle model without the wheel mass and the fast subsystem represents the dynamics of the wheel. These models are shown in Fig. 1. Following
the approach of Chow and Kokotovic (1976) and Salman et al.
(1990), we extract from the total index of performance (8) two
quadratic indices that correspond to the slow and fast subsystems and optimize each of these systems independently by minimizing the appropriate measures of performance.
Bearing in mind that for the slow subsystem (14) Ao = An
and Bo = Bi, we assume that the triple (An, Bi, Qj'^) is
stabilizable and detectable. Then the problem of minimizing the
performance index
hm
(14)
(xjQiX, + Rul)dt
(16)
Jo
(17)
Table 1
Controller
Control gains
Damping ratios
Optimal soft
Decentralized soft
Optimal firm
Decentralized firm
4.141; 59.49
4.033; 61.02
4.144; 56.26
4.155; 56.10
0.6753; 0.1417
0.6767; 0.1358
0.6746; 0.3520
0.6745; 0.3529
IJK2
(36)
Inserting (36) into (11) and using notation (6) we obtain the
following set of equations:
Wrfz+e ( - ? f
K,(A - -B.R-'h^Kl)
and
Aijuj)
K,
K =
Zo(;'w)
+ (A - B , ^ - ' B [ K D %
- K,B|i?-'B[K| - KzBz^-'BjKj + Q, = 0
= [(-w'
+ 47,) +
juj^pl"]
K2(A22 - B2R~'BlK,)
(37a)
-(^/^+ia;^/^)(/^^-jwV2pl"). (35)
(37c)
Ki = K j ,
K2 = K,(-Ai2 + B,R-'BlKf)(\22
5 Relationship Between Decentralized and Optimal
Control
~ B2R'^'BlKf)-'.
(38)
K,
V2pr - i/p^
_{7x~^p\"ip'2
0
0_
(39)
+ BlKj)x2
+ Bj(r2//x)]
(40)
Table 2 Relative performance of various suspensions for a random road input; the optimal active suspension without
preview is taken as 100 percent
Type of suspension
Optimal soft
Decentralized soft
Optimal firm
Decentralized firm
Variances of
Preview
time [s]
Body ace.
Susp. defl.
Tire defl.
Total index
r.m.s. power
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
100
99.1
74.2
54.5
95.9
94.9
71.9
54.6
100
94.6
52.8
51.1
100.5
94.6
54.1
51.3
100
101.0
65.4
49.7
103.4
103.3
67.4
50.2
100
109.8
96.8
61.4
99.7
105.4
93.4
60.3
100
91.4
43.2
44.6
99.9
96.2
50.8
53.4
100
72.3
46.6
46.3
100.2
81.0
53.6
53.4
100
97.1
62.3
51.4
100.8
98.8
64.0
53.6
100
88.8
54.1
50.5
100.0
90.5
55.4
51.5
100
95.2
36.8
29.4
100.1
97.3
42.0
32.6
100
85.1
31.5
28.5
100.0
88.7
34.7
29.9
117/481
Table 1
Controller
Control gains
Damping ratios
Optimal soft
Decentralized soft
Optimal firm
Decentralized firm
4.141; 59.49
4.033; 61.02
4.144; 56.26
4.155; 56.10
0.6753; 0.1417
0.6767; 0.1358
0.6746; 0.3520
0.6745; 0.3529
IJK2
(36)
Inserting (36) into (11) and using notation (6) we obtain the
following set of equations:
Wrfz+e ( - ? f
K,(A - -B.R-'h^Kl)
and
Aijuj)
K,
K =
Zo(;'w)
+ (A - B , ^ - ' B [ K D %
- K,B|i?-'B[K| - KzBz^-'BjKj + Q, = 0
= [(-w'
+ 47,) +
juj^pl"]
K2(A22 - B2R~'BlK,)
(37a)
-(^/^+ia;^/^)(/^^-jwV2pl"). (35)
(37c)
Ki = K j ,
K2 = K,(-Ai2 + B,R-'BlKf)(\22
5 Relationship Between Decentralized and Optimal
Control
~ B2R'^'BlKf)-'.
(38)
K,
V2pr - i/p^
_{7x~^p\"ip'2
0
0_
(39)
+ BlKj)x2
+ Bj(r2//x)]
(40)
Table 2 Relative performance of various suspensions for a random road input; the optimal active suspension without
preview is taken as 100 percent
Type of suspension
Optimal soft
Decentralized soft
Optimal firm
Decentralized firm
Variances of
Preview
time [s]
Body ace.
Susp. defl.
Tire defl.
Total index
r.m.s. power
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
100
99.1
74.2
54.5
95.9
94.9
71.9
54.6
100
94.6
52.8
51.1
100.5
94.6
54.1
51.3
100
101.0
65.4
49.7
103.4
103.3
67.4
50.2
100
109.8
96.8
61.4
99.7
105.4
93.4
60.3
100
91.4
43.2
44.6
99.9
96.2
50.8
53.4
100
72.3
46.6
46.3
100.2
81.0
53.6
53.4
100
97.1
62.3
51.4
100.8
98.8
64.0
53.6
100
88.8
54.1
50.5
100.0
90.5
55.4
51.5
100
95.2
36.8
29.4
100.1
97.3
42.0
32.6
100
85.1
31.5
28.5
100.0
88.7
34.7
29.9
117/481
Table 3 Relative suspension performances for a bump input; the optimal active suspension without preview corresponds
to 100 percent
Variances of
Type of suspension
Body ace.
Susp. defl.
Tire defl.
Total index
r.m.s. power
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.30
100
96.6
77.8
58.2
96.0
94.3
74.7
58.6
100
87.0
64.4
65.9
100.5
89.9
66.0
67.7
100
91.1
56.2
59.5
102.7
96.7
59.3
60.9
100
88.2
69.2
61.0
99.8
89.3
67.5
59.7
100
82.3
33.5
40.3
99.7
89.1
42.2
51.0
100
53.1
32.9
34.6
100.3
64.2
40.6
43.2
100
91.6
59.7
52.9
100.7
95.3
61.4
55.9
100
77.0
50.5
50.2
100.0
81.0
51.7
51.6
100
89.0
39.8
35.8
99.6
92.7
43.9
39.4
100
72.0
33.2
32.0
99.9
77.7
35.3
34.2
Optimal soft
Decentralized soft
Optimal firm
Decentralized firm
law (26). To demonstrate that the feedforward of slow and fast subsystems. When jj,-> 0, it follows from Eq.
same, one needs to show that ri = r^ and Vilfi = (41b) that Tj = -(Ar22)~'[Ari2ri + K^Daiv] and the slow
0 with r^ and r^ defined by Eqs. (19) and (24), subsystem reduces to
It follows from Eqs. (12), (6), and (36) that
(43)
f, = -AJor, - K0D2W, ri(r + t,) = 0
- A j r i - A?2ir2 - K2D2W r,(? + fp) = 0 (41fl)
ized control
parts are the
tf && jjL ^
respectively.
1*1 =
1^2
r^it + f^) = 0
(41/.)
where ra/ytt = r2, A^u and Ac22 are the closed-loop system
matrices for the slow and fast subsystem, respectively, Ac2i =
-B2/f~'B[K, and A2 = A^ - B^R^BlKf. Specifically,
OT|
A,2i =
m2
" 0
"
.V^
^p\'\ , Kn = _o v^_
"0 - 1 "
(42)
'
<
A
'I
a
'A'
2.5 '-
0.0
<V
r-^
"
\l
Z| optimal
z, decentralizedZQ (road input)
>
0.2
0.4
0.0
Zi o p t i m a l
z, d e c e n t r a l i z e d
Zo (road input)
'
-5.0
0.6
0,4
time [sec]
2.5
0.6
Z2 optimal
Zj d e c e n t r a l i z e d
z (road i n p u t )
z, optimal
Z2 d e c e n t r a l i z e d
ZQ (road i n p u t )
2.5
o.
t i m e [sec]
0.0
0.4
0.6
time [sec]
Fig. 2 Response of the vehicle model to a bump input. The vehicle Is
equipped with soft suspension and optimal and decentralized controllers
with preview time tp = 0.1 s. (a) Body acceleration; (/>) vertical displacement of the wheel
0,4
0.6
time
[sec]
6 Results of Simulations
To compare the performances of the suspension systems with
truly optimal and decentralized controllers, the response of the
vehicle model to two types of road disturbances was simulated.
The first input, used to reveal the transient response characteristic, is a single bump described by
{c[l - cos 207r(f - 0.3)]
[^ 0
otherwise
zo(0 = ]
(44)
(45)
TT w^ H- (av)
ing the total index of performance for firm suspensions that are
designed with more emphasis on road holding properties.
The body acceleration and the wheel vertical displacement
resulting from the bump input are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 for
the soft and firm suspensions, respectively. The preview time
was t,, = 0.1 s. The soft suspension, with a weakly damped
wheel mode, provides isolation of the body that is superior to
that achieved with firm suspension, but the wheel vibrations
reach higher amplitudes and the vibrations persist for a longer
period of time. For the firm suspension, transient responses are
quickly damped but the peak values of the body acceleration
are quite high. The differences between the suspension systems
with the decentralized and optimal controllers are small but
noticable. In both figures, anticipative actions of active suspensions can be observed before the bump is traversed.
7 Conclusions
In this paper, the problem of preview control of an active
vehicle suspension was considered. It was shown that the decentrahzed control strategy developed earlier for deterministic control problems can be applied to the synthesis of preview controllers that utilize preview information about the road disturbances
ahead of the vehicle. By taking advantage of the separation
between the natural frequencies of the body and the wheels,
preview controllers for the body and the wheel can be designed
independently and then combined into one composite controller.
In this approach, an analytical solution can be obtained, from
which the effects of various parameters of the system and the
weighting constants in the cost function on the system dynamics
can be deduced. Since preview control requires on-Une integration to obtain the feedforward part of the control input, the
reduction of data processing requirements brought about by
decentralized control is of particular importance. The results of
both analysis and simulations show that the proposed controller
achieves performance that is close to that of the optimal controller.
References
Bender, E. K., 1968, "Optimum Linear Preview Control with Application to
Vehicle Suspension," ASME Journal of Basic Engineering, Vol. 90, No, 2, pp.
213-221.
Chow, J. H., and Kokotovic, P. V., 1976, "A Decomposition of Near-Optimum
Regulators with Slow and Fast Modes," IEEE Trans, on Automatic Control, Vol.
AC-21, No. 5, pp. 701-705.
Had, A., 1992, "Optimal Linear Preview Control of Active Vehicle Suspension," Vehicle Systems Dynamics, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 167-195.
Hrovat, D., 1993, "Applications of Optimal Control to Advanced Automotive
Suspension Design," ASME JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT,