Detail publikace

Vliv doby odezvy MR tlumiče na efektivitu řízení semiaktivního odpružení

STRECKER, Z. MAZŮREK, I. ROUPEC, J. KLAPKA, M.

Originální název

Influence of MR damper response time on semiactive suspension control efficiency

Český název

Vliv doby odezvy MR tlumiče na efektivitu řízení semiaktivního odpružení

Anglický název

Influence of MR damper response time on semiactive suspension control efficiency

Typ

článek v časopise

Jazyk

en

Originální abstrakt

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.

Český abstrakt

Semiaktivní algoritmy mají velký potenciál pro zlepšení vlastností odpružení závěsu kola automobilu. Simulace odpružení automobilu řízeného jedním ze semiaktivních algoritmů ukazují, že je možné dosáhnout výrazně lepšího komfortu či přítlaku než u pasivního závěsu kola. Reálné měření kvality odpružení na čtvrtinovém modelu závěsu kola automobilu vybaveného magnetoreologickým tlumičem ale neprokázalo navzdory simulaci přínos v kvalitě odpružení za pomocí semiaktivního algoritmu modifikovaný groundhook. Jednou z možných příčin se zdá být příliš dlouhá časová odezva MR tlumiče, která bývá ve většině simulací semiaktivních systémů s MR tlumiči zanedbávána. Pokud se do modelu tlumiče implementuje časová odezva MR tlumiče, výsledky simulace a měření se začnou shodovat. Simulace ukazují, že ze současnými MR tlumiči s časovou odezvou řádově v desítkách milisekund není možné dosáhnout výrazného zlepšení přítlaku kola na vozovku oproti pasivnímu nastavení. Nejrychlejší současná MR zařízení jsou schopna změnit charakteristiku za méně než 1.5 ms. Simulace ukazují, že pokud bude v semiaktivním závěsu použit takto rychlý MR tlumič, kvalita odpružení bude oproti pasivní variantě výrazně vylepšena.

Anglický abstrakt

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.

Rok RIV

2015

Vydáno

11.03.2015

Nakladatel

Springer

Místo

Netherlands

Strany od

1949

Strany do

1959

Strany počet

11

URL

BibTex


@article{BUT113303,
  author="Zbyněk {Strecker} and Ivan {Mazůrek} and Jakub {Roupec} and Milan {Klapka}",
  title="Influence of MR damper response time on semiactive suspension control efficiency",
  annote="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.",
  address="Springer",
  chapter="113303",
  doi="10.1007/s11012-015-0139-7",
  howpublished="print",
  institution="Springer",
  number="8",
  volume="50",
  year="2015",
  month="march",
  pages="1949--1959",
  publisher="Springer",
  type="journal article"
}