Date

2022-01-01

Author

Bayar, Kerem
Büyüker, Banu Çiçek

Metadata

Show full item record

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Item Usage Stats

61
views

0
downloads

Cite This

Despite the ever-increasing studies on active suspensions, most of which illustrate significant improvements over the conventional suspension systems, there have been only a few recent real-life applications in modern production vehicles. The drawbacks of high cost, added weight, added power requirement, and difficulty of maintenance which require specialized tools and technicians, have constrained these applications to the luxury vehicles. This work focuses on comparing the performance of three different active suspension architectures with each other: Linear motors at the front suspensions, linear motors at the rear suspensions, and linear motors at both front and rear suspensions in an attempt to see if a compromise solution can be found. The aim is to investigate if, in view of the benefits of decreased weight, power requirement, and increased cost efficiency, the somewhat reduced but still achievable improvements in the cases of front or rear-only active suspensions can still be a viable solution. In the comparison of the three alternatives, state feedback control considering signal delays and control allocation techniques have been used. The control objectives are set as ride comfort improvement on straight-line driving, braking distance improvement during ABS braking and roll angle mitigation during high-speed steering. Simulation results are assessed and quantified with respect to decisive vehicle dynamics variables, such as sprung mass acceleration, braking distance, reference yaw rate tracking, sideslip angle and roll angle, and conclusions are drawn on benefits of using each three architecture considered. The all active suspension comes out to be the best in ride comfort improvement, braking distance improvement and roll angle mitigation as expected, but the improvements provided by front and rear active suspension architectures in braking distance improvement and roll angle mitigation respectively, are still satisfactory.

Subject Keywords

Active suspension, Linear electric motor, Roll, Sprung mass acceleration, Active suspension, Sprung mass acceleration, Roll, Linear electric motor

URI

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85136953312&origin=inward
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/101533

Collections

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Conference / Seminar