Modern vehicles are increasingly being equipped with active and semi-active chassis systems. Anti-lock-braking system (ABS), dynamic stability control (DSC), continuous damping control (CDC), active front steering (AFS), active roll control (ARC), and active differential control (ADC) are examples of such systems. However, until recently, these sub-systems have been developed for specific objectives without considering the dynamic coupling between these systems. Hence, their potential has not been fully exploited. In this paper, we examined two distinct control strategies, the MIMO control method and optimisation strategy, for integration of an E-Diff with an ARC. The control structure for each method is discussed and the performance and robustness characteristics of the proposed strategies are examined with several standard manoeuvres. The optimisation strategy is developed as part of a functional architecture (Webers and Busch, 2003) proposed for integrated vehicle dynamics control (IVDC) strategies. Although the implementation is more involved, it offers reusability and modularity, as addition of new input requests and actuators are easily performed. As observed in the manoeuvres, it is able to effectively utilise the actuators to prevent operation close to the actuator saturation limits. Based on the current hardware used in production vehicles, it is a computationally relatively intensive method, as the actuator allocation problem is solved online and at each time step. In the investigations done so far, the optimiser does not offer robustness to parameter changes with the currently implemented (proportional) body controller. It's robustness characteristics and nominal stability are the current topics of research. On the other hand, the MIMO control method offers simplicity and low computation overheads, as the controllers gains, which are derived around one operating point (25 m/s and 0.45 g), are not changed in the simulation results that are presented here. There are mathematical concepts to describe the robustness characteristics and the nominal stability of the proposed method. With some additional gain scheduling, it can be shown that it could be as effective as the optimisation method in the minimisation of the actuators' efforts. However, the MIMO controller, as it stands, does not, as easily as the optimisation, provide reusability and modularity. It is foreseeable to develop a method that utilises a combination of the both methodologies. In this way, it is possible to maximise the benefits that each strategy offers, while minimising their drawbacks.


    Zugriff

    Zugriff über TIB

    Verfügbarkeit in meiner Bibliothek prüfen

    Bestellung bei Subito €


    Exportieren, teilen und zitieren



    Titel :

    Two distinct methods for integration of active differential and active roll control systems


    Beteiligte:
    Assadian, F. (Autor:in) / Aneke, Edo (Autor:in)

    Erschienen in:

    Erscheinungsdatum :

    2006


    Format / Umfang :

    22 Seiten, 16 Bilder, 9 Quellen




    Medientyp :

    Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)


    Format :

    Print


    Sprache :

    Englisch




    Two distinct methods for integration of active differential and active roll control systems

    Assadian,F. / Aneke,E. / Ford Motor,US | Kraftfahrwesen | 2006



    Robust yaw control design with active differential and active roll control systems

    Gerhard, Johannes / Laiou, Maria-Christina / Mönnigmann, Martin et al. | Tema Archiv | 2005


    ACTIVE ROLL CONTROL APPARATUS

    SEONG JUN HO / JANG JAE HOON / KIM CHANG JUN | Europäisches Patentamt | 2017

    Freier Zugriff

    ACTIVE ROLL CONTROL APPARATUS

    KIM CHANG JUN | Europäisches Patentamt | 2018

    Freier Zugriff