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.
Two distinct methods for integration of active differential and active roll control systems
International Journal of Vehicle Design ; 42 , 3/4 ; 348-369
2006
22 Seiten, 16 Bilder, 9 Quellen
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Englisch
Two distinct methods for integration of active differential and active roll control systems
Kraftfahrwesen | 2006
|Two distinct methods for integration of active differential and active roll control systems
Online Contents | 2006
|Robust yaw control design with active differential and active roll control systems
Tema Archiv | 2005
|