Influence of MR damper response time on semiactive suspension control efficiency
- 600 Downloads
This paper tries to find the reasons of differences between results from semiactive suspension simulations and from real measurements. Simulations of semiactive algorithms which have already been published in many scientific papers have showned a great potential for improvement of the suspension quality. However, experiments with suspension controlled by semiactive algorithms which are supposed to improve grip did not bring any benefits. The reason of algorithm failure seems to be the response time of the damper used in the suspension. This paper compares the quality of suspension using three different semiactive algorithms (Skyhook, Groundhook, modified Groundhook) and passive settings for different damping levels. All the simulations were conducted for three different response times of MR damper: 1.5, 8 and 20 ms. Response time 20 ms is usual for commercial MR dampers control. Response time 8 ms corresponds to commercial MR dampers which are controlled by the newly developed PWM controller. Response time 1.5 ms corresponds to the fastest available MR devices. Simulations show a significant influence of the MR damper response time on the suspension quality if semiactive algorithms are used. The simulations are confirmed by measurements on a quarter car suspension controlled by modified Groundhook algorithm using MR damper with response time 8 and 20 ms.
KeywordsMR damper Response time Semiactive algorithm Modified Groundhook
This work is an output of cooperation between FSI-S-14-2329, GAČR 13-31834P and NETME Centre, regional R&D centre built with the financial support from the Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovations within the project NETME Centre (New Technologies for Mechanical Engineering), Reg. No. CZ.1.05/2.1.00/01.0002 and, in the follow-up sustainability stage, supported through NETME CENTRE PLUS (LO1202) by financial means from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports under the “National Sustainability Programme I”.
- 1.Ahmadian M, Goncalves FD, Sandu C (2005) An experimental analysis of suitability of various semiactive control methods for magneto-rheological vehicle suspensions. In: Smart structures and materials, international society for optics and photonics, pp 208–216Google Scholar
- 3.Eslaminasab N, Golnaraghi M (2007) The effect of time delay of the semi-active dampers on the performance of on-off control schemes. In: Proceedings of IMECE2007, ASMEGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kim RK, Hong KS (2007) Skyhook control using a full-vehicle model and four relative displacement sensors. In: International conference on control, automation and systems, 2007. IFCCAS’07. IEEE, pp 268–272Google Scholar
- 7.Koo JH, Ahmadian M, Setareh M (2003) Experimental evaluation of magnetorheological dampers for semi-active tuned vibration absorbers. In: Smart structures and materials, international society for optics and photonics, pp 83–91Google Scholar
- 9.Maas J, Güth D (2011) Experimental investigation of the transient behavior of mr fluids. In: ASME (2011) conference on smart materials. ASME, adaptive structures and intelligent systemsGoogle Scholar
- 13.Strecker Z, Mazůrek I (2012) Semiactive damper in an experimental trolley suspension. In: Proceedings of the 53rd international conference of machine design departments, pp 281–286Google Scholar
- 14.Sulaiman S, Samin PM, Jamaluddin H, Rahman RA, Burhaumudin MS (2012) Groundhook control of semi-active suspension for heavy vehicle. Int J Res Eng Technol 1(3):146–152Google Scholar
- 17.Wang W, Song Y (2012) Nonlinear vibration semi-active control of automotive steering using magneto-rheological damper. Meccanica 47(8):2027–2039. doi: 10.1007/s11012-012-9572-z