P. 1
Bond Graph Modeling and Simulation of a Full

|Views: 1|Likes:

See more
See less

03/28/2015

pdf

text

original

# BOND GRAPH MODELING AND SIMULATION OF A FULL CAR MODEL WITH ACTIVE SUSPENSIONN

1. Introduction
The bond graph method has been attracted considerable attention in modeling and simulation of dynamic systems [11]. Arguably the biggest advantage of this method is its ability to model systems with elements from different energy domains. Also, sub models of varying complexity can be built for different automotive subsystems or components, and then easily combined. Visual inspection of a bond graph can reveal the presence of algebraic loops and dependent states which create implicit or differentialalgebraic equations. Moreover, combining bond graphs with block diagrams, iconic diagrams, and interfacing with MATLAB makes the bond graph method a powerful tool for modeling, simulation and control of dynamic systems. In the proper modeling literature there are many model reduction methods that can simplify a model systematically. Some are based on power flow, and bond

670-046

and roll inertia respectively. and the 0-junctions represent velocity constraint equations. the whole model is partitioned to three sub. 3. and a random profile.1. pitch inertia. and suspension and tire (which contains the unsprung K States from body (sprung mass) U3 MSe U4 MSe Actuators Forces p2 p1 p Figure 4: Extended model of the Controller . 2. The transformer (TF) moduli are the geometric parameters shown in Fig. 3 represents a force or moment summation (Newton’s Law). Fig.2). Model development 2. the road irregularities of the right hand side are two times higher than the left hand side. controller for active suspension. mass motion in each corner). The road profile is delayed for rear wheels by 0. and “1” (common flow) junctions as summarized in Appendix B.2. 4. Fig. 6 respectively. Bond graph model The proposed model is a linear full car model with seven degrees-of-freedom (DOF). As mentioned earlier. Also. both active and passive models are evaluated simultaneously. The main body (sprung mass) has three DOF (bounce. “Controller”. generates four actuator forces as the controller’s outputs. to compare the results directly. Each of the outputs is an applied force parallel to the suspension damper and spring at each corner. which is implemented based on the optimal control method (see Section 2. consists of four parts: “sprung” (sprung mass).”Suspension&Tire” (unsprung). controller. Each 1junction in Fig. 5 and Fig. Bounce_Acc d/dt I Ms ∫ 1 0 TF d/dt a Front-Right corner p1 Bounce_Displacement I JTH TF Tf/2 Front-Left corner Pitch_Acc ∫ Pitch_Angle 0 1 TF a Rear-Right corner p2 TF Tf/2 0 p3 Figure 1: Schematic full car model [5] Roll_Acc d/dt TF b The bond graph model. The main strategy in simulating the model with bond graphs is to use”0” (common effort).models: sprung mass (which contains the bounce. The TF elements multiply angular velocities by moment arms to generate relative velocity components defining the suspension velocities. six signals related to the three sprung mass DOF. JTH and JPH represent the sprung mass. and to show the significant effect of a roll motion. pitch. and roll). The model was implemented in the 20-sim bond graph software environment [12] Two types of road profiles are used: a single bump. and roll motion). the controller. pitch. and “Road Profile”. Moreover. 1. Therefore. the model is asymmetric in its response due to the road profile as well as the location of the center of mass. Controller sprung ∫ Roll_Angle 1 TF Tr/2 Rear-Left corner TF I JPH b 0 p TF Tr/2 Figure 3: Extended model of the sprung mass Active Vehicle Suspension&Tire The I elements Ms. as shown in Fig.01 seconds. and each suspension system has one DOF (vertical motion of the unsprung mass mu). States from suspension & tire Road Profile s13 s12 MSe S1 K s11 s10 s9 s8 s6 p3 s7 U1 MSe U2 sprung Passive Vehicle Suspension&Tire s2 S5 K K Figure 2: Bond graph sub models S6 s3 s4 K The extended bond graph model of the sprung mass. and eight signals from the unsprung mass DOF come to the controller box (sub-model) as inputs. and suspension-tire is shown in Fig. the schematic model is shown in Fig. Then. 1.

z u4 ] T Q = diag ([ 10 . • X = AX + Bu ∞ J = ∫ (X 0 T QX + u T Ru)dt 3. 0 . and tire force variation are competing objectives. z s.505 {m} 0. 0 . z u3 . The feedback gain (K) is obtained by solving the Riccati Equation. thus the overall number of states in the model is 14. and R. and random road profile. and the designer must choose to weight one more heavily at the expense of the others. and the vertical axis is the magnitude of the frequency response. for Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) design is employed for this purpose. the MATLAB command “lqr” is used to generate the feedback gain. to improve the body acceleration (ride comfort). The horizontal axis shows the logarithmic form of frequencies. This indicates that an explicit set of ordinary differential equations can be written for the vehicle model. Table 1: System parameters [5] Parameters Sprung mass (Ms) Pitch moment of inertia (Ip) Roll moment of inertia (Ir) Unsprung mass (Mu) Suspension damping (b) Suspension stiffness (ks) Tire stiffness (kt) Distance from c. z u2 . 2. φ .g to front wheel (a) Distance from c. The matrices Q.2. The matrix A is related to system parameters. z u3 .output2 output4 output3 output7 p3 p7 Front p6 p2 States to controller input Road Profile p5 Rear p1 input1 p p4 output5 output1 output States to controller output6 Figure 5: Sub models of Suspension and Tire output3 output1 Suspension system ∫ R p p 1 R p p2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 C I 1 I C ∫ ∫ Tyre_Def_F_R C 0 1 MSf C 1 The LQR method is used to optimize the performance index (J) of the model. suspension travel. B. The matrix X is delegated the system state vector which has.1. R) u = − KX X = [zs. z u1 .1 e − 8 .1. z u4 . As described in [11]. 0 . φ .557 {m} ∫ Sus_Def_F_L output2 ∫ ∫ Integrate1 Tyre_Def_F_L Output Figure 6: Extended model of the suspension and tire Inspection of the bond graph model shows that all inertia (I) and compliance (C) elements are in integral causality (see Appendix B). based on feedback gain. z u1 . As can be seen in the equation sets.1.1e − 8 . 7. 0 . and the matrix B is related to actuator forces. and algebraic loops can also be spotted with a quick visual inspection of the bond graph. Minimizing sprung mass acceleration.15 {m} 1. suspension deflection or road holding when designing the active suspension.65 {m} 0. The results are shown in power spectral density (PSD). Tire Stiffness MSf K Roll_Effect Input 3. 0 . each degree of freedom can be shown with a second order system. the weight matrices. θ . 14 elements. The height of the bump is 20 (cm) on the right flank of the road and 40 (cm) on the left flank. . [10]. in this model. z u2 .1. 0 .g to rear wheel (b) Front track width (Tf) Rear track width (Tr) Values 1136 {kg} 2400 {kg m2} 400 {kg m2} 60 {kg} 3924 {N/m/s} 36294 {N/m} 182470 {N/m} 1. Optimal Control Method In this paper. derivative causality (implicit equations due to dependent states). the main purpose of the controller is generating the actuator forces. are chosen based on the desired improvement in the system parameters. 0 ]) R = diag ([ 1 e − 8 .1 e − 8 ]) • • • • • • • The optimal control method.1. In other words. K = lqr(A. The results have been evaluated for two types of road profile: single bump profile. θ . Results The system parameters are listed in Table 1. Different weighting factors can be used to emphasize either ride quality. Single bump profile The single bump is shown in Fig. 0 . 20 . Q.

0. 11. Random Profile The random road profile is shown in Fig. Road_Profile (m) 0.2 Figure 7: Single bump as a road profile FFT 4000 0 1 2 Time {s} 3 4 5 Active Passive Figure 11: Random road profile FFT 4000 Active Passive 3000 2000 3000 1000 2000 0 1000 1 Frequency [Hz] 10 100 0 1 Frequency [Hz] Figure 8: Bounce acceleration (PSD) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 1 Frequency [Hz] 10 10 100 FFT Active Passive Figure 12: Bounce acceleration (PSD) FFT 1500 Active Passive 1000 500 100 0 Figure 9: Pitch acceleration (PSD) 1 FFT Active Passive Frequency [Hz] 10 100 Figure 13: Pitch acceleration (PSD) 150 100 15000 FFT Active Passive 50 10000 0 1 Frequency [Hz] 10 5000 100 0 Figure 10: Roll acceleration (PSD) 3.1 3 4 5 -0. Also.1 0 0 0.1 0 1 2 Time {s} -0.1 0.2 0. The random road is distributed from zero (cm) height to maximum 1 Frequency [Hz] 10 100 Figure 14: Roll acceleration .2.3 Road_Profile (m) value of around 20 (cm). the left flank of road is two times higher than the right part.2 0.

“Modeling and analysis of an active suspension (1/4) of vehicle with bond graph”. actuators. 271-292. and L. Ould. 189 (5). [11] D.G. G. 4. John Wiley & Sons Inc. “A full-car model for active suspension – some practical aspects”.S. S.4.I. 124.As can be seen in the preceding plots. [5] Ch. Bouamama.v. pp. the pitch acceleration of the sprung mass is reduced for low frequencies (especially at the sprung mass resonance frequency of 2 Hz). A. Latreche. Stribrsky. pp. Karnopp. ElBeheiry. [10] K. 2004. 2009. if complex hydraulic or electric actuator models were built and incorporated into the system. “Bond graph model incorporating sensors. [8] D. Michigan. [4] A. “Optimal control of vehicle random vibration with constrained suspension deflection”. 2006. then algebraic loops or state dependencies might arise. Harbin. R. thesis. “Development and verification of a series car Modelica / Dymola multibody model to investigate vehicle dynamics systems”. Controllab Products b. Ogata. Knobel. & B. Enschede. Louca. Journal of sound and vibration. Modern control engineering. China. and the roll acceleration is slightly improved. Karnopp. Moreover. Rosenberg. pitch. 21-34. 2002. However. pp. pp. Turkey. 1996. Proceeding of the IEEE International conference on Mechatronics. Khemliche. A. J. the sprung mass acceleration. Journal of Mechanical Design. Kazemi. which solves the Riccati equation numerically. [2] E. 2002. U.0. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory. D. [9] L. 338 (1). 2004. R. 47 (1).S. The control matrix elements are chosen to reduce the sprung mass acceleration (bounce.. can be instantly seen in bond graphs. 697-705. pp. “An accurate full car model using model reducing techniques”. Hammimet.. References [1] M. Dif. is reduced significantly compared to the passive model. 2001. Journal of the Franklin Institute. [12] 20-sim v. Tunisia. 547-564. and their effect on ease of equation formulation.L. Heilongjiang. Woodruff. and vehicle dynamic for developing controllers for vehicle safety”. .S. Kruczek. 167-173. The use of one of many available software environments for modular bond graph model construction and block diagram controller implementation improves the efficiency with which such a modeling exercise can be executed. 2006. Proceedings of the 25th Chinese control conference.C. a bond graph model is an ideal candidate for subsequent application of model reduction methods such as [9]. and roll) and consequently improve ride comfort of passengers as well as road holding (less variation in tire deflection). Conclusion This paper has presented the bond graph method to simulate an active suspension system based on a full car model. Rideout. 811814.v.D. Kim. The Modelica Association. S. Istanbul. The bond graph method gives a visual means of predicting the presence of explicit system equations and the absence of numerical computation problems. [7] Ch. with the most significant reduction at the sprung mass resonance frequency around 2 Hz. P. Margolis. Netherlands.C. Janin. especially the bounce acceleration. Ro. Stein. the property of combining different sub systems from different domains facilitates building the system. Farazandeh. Only one software environment is required in addition to Matlab. Modeling and Simulation of Mechatronic Systems. communication and signal processing.C. Modelica Symposium. Ph. The causal relationships at component connection points.M. Elsevier b. [3] D. Taehyun. “Extension and application of an algorithm for systematic identification of weak coupling and partitions in dynamic system models”. Finally. An energy-based model reduction methodology for automated modeling. International symposium on control. 41-45. [6] A. D. Louca. Prentice Hall Inc. 2006. The model in this paper has explicit state equations due to the independence of the mass velocities and spring deflections. Margolis. I. Moreover. University of Michigan Ann Arbor. “Fuzzy control for active suspension in ADAMS/Car full vehicle”.

Dynamic equations of full car model with 7 (DOF) • •• • • B. Bond graph elements CONSTITUTIVE LAW (LINEAR) CAUSALITY CONSTRAINTS Body (sprung mass) equations: • • • • • • SYMBOL SOURCES ms z s + bf (z s1 − zu1) + bf (z s2 − zu2 ) + br (z s3 − zu3 ) + br (z s4 − zu4 ) + k f (zs1 − zu1 ) + k f (zs2 − zu2 ) + kr (zs3 − zu3 ) + kr (zs4 − zu4 ) = u1 + u2 + u3 + u4 •• • • • • • • • • Flow Effort Sf Se f = f(t) e = e(t) fixed flow out fixed effort out I p θ+bf a(zs1 − zu1) +bf a(zs2 − zu2 ) −brb(zs3 − zu3 ) −brb(zs4 − zu4 ) + k f a(zs1 − zu1) + k f a(zs2 − zu2 ) −krb(zs3 − zu3 ) −krb(zs4 − zu4 ) = au + au2 −bu −bu4 1 3 •• • • • • • • • • ENERGETIC ELEMENTS Inertia I I f = 1 e dt I ∫ df dt preferred integral I p φ+bf t f (zs1−zu1) −bf t f (zs2 −zu2) +brtr (zs3− zu3) −brtr (zs4 −zu4) +kf t f (zs1 −zu1) −kf t f (zs2 −zu2) +krtr (zs3 −zu3) −krtr (zs4 −zu4) =t f u1 −t f u2 +tru3 −tru4 e= I e= Capacitor C C 1 ∫ f dt C de dt preferred integral • •• Suspension(s) equations: f =C e = Rf f = Resistor • • R R none m uf z u 1 − b f ( z s 1 − z u 1 ) − k f ( z s 1 − z u 1 ) + k tf z u 1 = − u 1 + k tf z r 1 •• • • 1 e R m uf z u 2 − b f ( z s 2 − z u 2 ) − k f ( z s 2 − z u 2 ) + k tf z u 2 = − u 2 + k tf z r 2 •• • • 2-PORT ELEMENTS Transformer m ur z u 3 − b r ( z s 3 − z u 3 ) − k r ( z s 3 − z u 3 ) + k tr z u 3 = − u 3 + k tr z r 3 •• • • 1 TF n θ MTF n(θ) 2 e2 = n e1 f1 = n f2 e2 = n(θ) e1 f1 = n(θ) f2 effort in-effort out or flow inflow out m ur z u 4 − b r ( z s 4 − z u 4 ) − k r ( z s 4 − z u 4 ) + k tr z u 4 = − u 4 + k tr z r 4 Modulated Transformer z s1 = t f φ + a θ + z s zs2 = − t fφ + aθ + zs z s 3 = t rφ − b θ + z s z s 4 = − t rφ − b θ + z s Gyrator 1 GY n θ MGY n(θ) 2 e2 = n f1 e1 = n f2 e2 = n(θ) f1 e1 = n(θ) f2 flow in-effort flow in-flow out or effort inout or effort flow out out in-effort Modulated Gyrator CONSTRAINT NODES 1-junction 1 1 3 2 e 2 = e1 – e 3 f1 = f2 f3 = f2 f2 = f1 – f3 e 1 = e2 e 3 = e2 one flow input 0-junction 1 0 3 2 one effort input .Appendix A.

scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->