# International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol. 1, No.

1

Application of Optimal Control Pole-placement and Fuzzy PID Controller in the New Model of the Macpherson Suspension System
1
1

Department of Engineering, Electrical Engineering Faculty, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Email: s.a.ghoreishi@srbiau.ac.ir

Abstract – Suspension performance is expressed by ride quality in driving stability and dynamic tire force. The first goal of active suspension is improved ride quality driving stability. In this paper we will expressed a new model of the Macpherson suspension system that the system includes spring and damper. In this paper select a new model of the Macpherson suspension system and put it alongside the conventional model of the Macpherson suspension system, after introduction of parameters of conventional system we will investigated parameters of the new model and analyze this model with two different methods, that used methods are optimal pole-placement control and fuzzy control for the new model of Macpherson suspension system. In this model we examined vertical displacement of sprung mass is measured, while the angular displacement of the control arm is estimated. It is shown that the conventional model is special case of this model since the transfer function of this new model coincides with that of the conventional one if the lower support point of the damper is located at the mass center of the unsprung mass. It is also shown that the resonance frequencies of this new model agree better with experimental results. An optimal pole-placement control which combines the LQR control and pole-placement technique and also fuzzy logic is investigated using this new model. Eventually we will compare these two methods and expressed simulation results of them. Keywords – PID Control, Optimal Pole Placement Control, LQR, Macpherson Suspension System

1.

Introduction

or near 1 Hz which is known to be a sensitive frequency to the human body. So to achieve this goal we will design compound controllers such as Fuzzy PID Controller to reach better answer [5].

2.

Dynamic analysis and equations of the conventional and new model of Macpherson suspension system

2.1. Conventional Model Figure 1 shows the conventional model that depicts the vertical motions of the sprung and the unsprung masses. All coefficients in Fig 1 are assumed to be linear. The state variables are defined as: x 1 = z s − z u the suspension & deflection, x 2 = z s the velocity of the sprung mass,

& x 3 = z u − z r the tire deflection, x 4 = z u the velocity of the unsprung mass. The equations of motion are:
& & & m s z& = − k s ( z s − z u ) −c p( z s −z u) +f a −f d s & & & mu z& = k s ( z s − z u ) +c p ( z s −z u ) +k t ( z u −z r ) − a f u Then, the state equation is: And, the transfer function from the road input & x = Ax + B 1f a + B 2z& + B 3f d r 1 0 −1  0   − k s −c p 0 c p  ms m s ms A = 0 0 0 1   c p −k t −c p  ks  m s mu m u m u 
T   B 1 =  0 1 0 −1     mu   ms   B 2 = [ 0 0 −1 0 ] T  T    1  B 3 = 0 0 0   ms  

(1)

(2)

1. the sprung mass has only the vertical displacement z s .worldsciencepublisher. For this new model of Macpherson suspension system is assumed that the horizontal movement of the sprung mass is neglected. Let the sprung mass be translated by z s upward and the unsprung mass be rotated by θ in the counter-clockwise direction. Let ( y A . these are: . respectively. when the suspension system is at an equilibrium point. B and C . ( y B . Conventional Quarter Car Model for Macpherson Suspension System (5) The equations of motion of the new model are now derived by the Lagrangian mechanics. V and D denote the kinetic energy. the relative velocity of the damper 2 2 and the deflection of the tire with considering of a1 = lA + lB and b1 = 2l AlB are [2]: (∆l ) 2 = (l − l ' )2 = 2a1 − b1 (cos α ' + cos(α ' − θ )) − 2{a12 − a1b1 . New Model The schematic diagram of the Macpherson type suspension system is shown in Figure 2. The sprung and the unsprung masses are assumed to be particles.e. the following relations are obtained from the triangle OA B : 1 2 2 l = (l A + l B − 2l A l B cos α ' ) 2 (4) l = ' 2 (l A 2 + lB − 2l A l B cos(α ' 1 − θ )) 2 where l is the initial distance from A to B at an equilibrium state. Therefore. Let α ' = α + θ 0 . the deflection of the spring. 1. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher. z A ). The unsprung mass is linked to the car body in two ways. As the mass of the control arm is much smaller than those of the sprung mass and the unsprung mass. United States www. the tire deflection and the damping forces are in the linear regions of their operating ranges. and l ′ is the changed distance from A to B with the rotation of the control arm by θ . A New Quarter Car Model of Macpherson Suspension System yA = 0 zA = zs y B = l B (cos(θ − θ0 − cos( −θ0 )) z B = z s + l B (sin(θ −θ0 ) − sin( −θ0 )) y C = lC (cos(θ − θ0 ) − cos( −θ0 )) z C = z s + lC (sin(θ −θ0 ) − sin( −θ0 )) Where θ 0 is the initial angular displacement of the control arm at an equilibrium point. Then. i. z c )denote the coordinates of point A . respectively.org 2 z& to the acceleration of the sprung mass is: r Ha ( s ) = & z&(s ) k t s (c p + k s ) s = z& (s ) d (s ) r d (s ) = ms mu s 4 + ( m s + mu )c p s 3 + {(m s + mu )k s + m s k t }s 2 + k t c p s + k s k t (3) 2.2. 1 (cos α ' + cos(α ' − θ ) + b12 cos α ' cos(α ' − θ )} 2 & b1 sin(α ' − θ )θ & ∆l = i − i ' = 1 2(a1 − b1 cos(α ' − θ )) 2 z C − z r = z s + lC (sin(θ − θ 0 ) − sin(−θ0 )) − z r Figure 1.2]: Figure 2. Then. One is via the damper and the other is via the control arm The values of z s and θ will be measured from their static equilibrium points. ( y c . In this model the mass of the control arm is ignored and the bushing is assumed to be a pin joint. The coil spring deflection. the potential energy and the damping energy of the system. No.International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol. the following equations hold [1. z B ). Then. it can be neglected and the vertical displacement of the sprung mass z s and the rotation angle of the control arm θ are chosen as the generalized coordinates. Let T .

x4 e ) = (0. R 〉 0 c p b12 sin(α ' − θ 0 )θ& 4(a1 − b1 cos(α − θ )) d1 1 ' For given Q and R . the optimal control law and the optimal closed loop system are: T u = −R −1B 1 M s x @ Kx − T & x = (A − B 1R −1B 1 M s )x @ Fx + k t lC cos(θ − θ 0 )(z s + l C (sin(θ − θ 0) − sin(−θ 0)) − z r) 1 − k s sin(α ' − θ ) [b1 + 2 ] = −l Bf a (11) (c1 − d 1 cos(α ' − θ ) 2 ) (8) variables as where M is the solution of the Riccati equation below: T A T M s + M s A − M s B 1R −1B 1 M s + Q = 0 Now. The closed loop system is designed to have desired characteristics by means of the poleplacement technique. the following relationship is known: X H s Y s X u  X s = Y u  Y s   X u  Λ ( F) 0  (14) Yu   0 Λu    where F is the closed loop system matrix defined in (11). respectively. x3e . Λ ( F ) denotes an eigen matrix in which the eigenvalues T of F appear in diagonal terms.org 1 1 2 2 2 & m s z& + m u ( y C + z& ) s C 2 2 1 1 V = k s ( ∆l )2 + k t (z C − z r ) 2 2 2 . the equations of motion are obtained as follows: 2 & & (m s + mu ) z& + m u l C cos( θ − θ 0) θ& m ul C sin( θ − θ 0) θ& − s 3. introduce a Hamiltonian matrix H as: A H =  −Q  −S   −A T   (13) The Jordan decomposition of H is of the form HX = X Λ where X and Λ contain the eigenvectors and the eigenvalues of H . u ∈R m 1 { x T Qx +uT Ru}dt 2 ∞ ∫ 0 (10) + k t (z s + l C (sin(θ − θ 0) − sin(−θ 0) − z r ) = −f 2& & mu lC θ& m u l C cos(θ − θ 0 )z& + + s d Q ≥0 . x2 e . an optimal pole-placement control which combines the LQR control and the pole placement technique for the new model is presented [1].worldsciencepublisher. with considering of c1 = a1 − a1b1 cos(α +θ 0 ) and 2 d1 = a1b1 − b1 cos(α +θ 0 ) . the resulting linear equation is: The solution of the Riccati equation can be obtained in T another approach as follows. 0. 1. for the two generalized coordinates q1 = z s and 2 q 2 = θ . introduce the state T (12) T & zs and with  x1 x2 x3 x4  =  zs & θ θ      linearization at the equilibrium state where xe = ( x1e . United States www. Let S = B 1R −1B 1 . Optimal Pole-Placement Control In this section. 1. The considered linear time-invariant system and the performance index are [4.13. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher.16]: & x = A x + B1u + B 2 z r . J = x ∈R n . while minimizing the cost function. No. Then. as follows [8]. 0) Then.International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol. 1 2 D = c p ( ∆l ) 2 T = 3 (6) Substituting the derivatives of (4) and (5) into (6) yields: 1 1 2 2 & & ( m s + mu )z& + mu lC θ 2 + mu lC cos θθ z& s s 2 2 1 V = k s [2a1 − b1 (cos α ' + cos(α ' − θ )) − 2(a12 − ab 2 T = cos α + cos(α ' ' − θ )) + b12 cos α cos(α ' ' 1 − θ )) 2   C =   (7) ] 1 + k t [ z s + lC (sin(θ − θ 0 ) − sin(−θ 0 ) − z r ]2 2 & c p b12 sin 2 (α ' − θ )θ D= 8(a1 − b1 cos(α ' − θ )) Finally.12. as defined by the weightings of the input. Λ u = −Λ ( F ) .  X s  YsT   T . state and output of the system. 0.

simulation results of designed fuzzy controller based on fuzzy rules that mentioned in table 2 are Design procedure for optimal pole placement controller are as follows. The ride comfort is improved by means of the reduction of the body acceleration caused by the car body when road disturbances from smooth road and real road roughness [7. 4. At first we Select Q and R and design a LQR controller then Evaluate the performance of the LQR controller. which is now considered to be the influential paper of the subject. body velocity s z& . to obtain the desired closed loop pole locations [6. which will lead to minimize the suspension working space and the dynamic tire load.org consists of the eigenvectors of H corresponding to the T T T T eigenvalues of F . 5 and 6 show the membership functions of the conventional model. Construct the Hamiltonian matrix H and find the eigenvectors of H corresponding to the eigenvalues that need to be shifted. As we seen in figure 7 and 8. Body Acceleration shown in figure 7. The second part. singly can’t have good performance in control of conventional model of suspension .     M s and M u are determined as follows: Furthermore.10]. The table consists of two parts. Interesting point is that applying of fuzzy controller to suspension system with mentioned equations will not obtain acceptable results and states of the system are converging to Figure 4. The fuzzy logic controller used for the conventional & model has three inputs: body acceleration z& . body deflection velocity z& − z& and one output: desired s u s actuator force f a .11. 1. and determine the eigenvalues that need to be shifted. and  X u Yu  = −  X s Ys  .International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher. Let p i be the degree of relative stability of the eigenvalues that are to be shifted: A i = Ai −1 + p i I A0 = A Q i = Q i −1 − 2 p i M i Q0 = Q (16) Figure 3. 4 zero in longer time. Body Velocity Figure 5. The rule base used in the active suspension system showed in Table 2 with fuzzy terms derived by the designer’s knowledge and experience.15]. fuzzy control and applying of fuzzy PID control During the last decades fuzzy logic has implemented very fast hence the first paper in fuzzy set theory. was written by Zadeh [3]. The aim of using fuzzy logic in the paper is to illustrate the application of fuzzy logic technique to the control of a continuously damping automotive suspension system. 4. No. we can conclude that fuzzy controller. Obtain M i = Yi X i−1 where [ X i Yi ] T is the matrix that is composed of the unstable eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues that need to be shifted and the stable eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues that stay in their original locations. Figure 3. 8. the body acceleration has positive or negative values so important to modify the control action to minimize it also.worldsciencepublisher. United States www. the left part has zero body acceleration so the control action was chosen to minimize the relative and the absolute body velocities only. 1. Body Deflection Velocity And eventually Solve the Riccati equation with the modified matrices or try the second method (equetion15).

eMd ù are shown ê ê ú ë û ë û & interval changes of e(t) and e(t) . it’s usually not encountered with significant welcome. 5 0 Figure 8. l ¢ T HEN K p isC . It + e. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher.M . Now we will design fuzzy system in figure 9. e(t) as input. 5 and a must be -2 -2 .K p min K p max . K p max ù and ê ú ë û é K d min .THEN rules as follows: & IF e(t) isAl ande(t) isB l . Kd = K d .5 Control F orc e 0 With this method we normalized interval changes of 0 parameters such as K p and K d to é.org system. 11 and 12.K d max ù then we have: ê ú ë û 1 . Because we know that fuzzy PID controller has appropriate performance and robustness but because of not being easy on selecting the parameters such as ( & determined.K d min K d max . K d . States Response of The Conventional Model after Applying Fuzzy Controller So we have to use compound controller. Fuzzy PID Controller A fuzzy PID controller can be expressed as follows: & u = K pe(t) + K i ò e(t )dt + K de(t) 0 é ù (17) 1 t & ú = K p ê(t) + ò e(t )dt +T de(t)ú e ê Ti 0 ê ú ë û t l l l l Where D .eM ù and éMd.5 ¢ Kp = K p . with considering e(t) .2 (20) K p .K d¢ l .K d min (18) 1 0 . final fuzzy system consists of 3 fuzzy systems.1ù. B .C . PID Controller) Process 5 First-Level Control Second-Level Control Fuzzy Systems Figure 9.worldsciencepublisher. K . and determine the PID parameters by using of equations (18) and (19). in this paper the goal is determination of these parameters by fuzzy logic. . 4. Block Diagram of Fuzzy PID Controller Figure 6.g. We consider the IF. suppose that K interval changes of K p and K d are é p min. 1.+ ú eshould be mentioned that éM . fuzzy sets for membership functions are shown in figure 10. A . K i ). 2 inputs and 1 output. E l are fuzzy sets. using of PID controller that its parameters are set by fuzzy controller recommended..K p min ¢ . K p 10 20 30 40 50 60 T im e (S e c ) 70 80 90 100 2 Kp aK d (19) -1 .5 2 So it’s enough that to give these rules to a fuzzy system till fuzzy system automatically adjust these parameters.International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol. United States www. No. 1. Conventional Controller (e. first we reimburse on how to design these parameters. Force 2 . 5 -1 T i = aTd Þ K i = So parameters such as K d . We assume that: ê ú ë û -0 . a isE l isD l = 1 . In this context.1. Block diagram of fuzzy PID controller is shown in figure 9.

Figure 13 shows the step response of system: output setpoint b 1 c1 d1 a2 b 2 Table 5. K p 0 l l Figure 10. United States www. Fuzzy Sets for C . 1. Therefore we can write fuzzy rule as follows: & IF e(t)isPB ande(t )isZO. B + eM or + eMd & e(t) NB NM B B S S S B B NS B B B S B B B ZO B B B B B B B PS B B B S B B B PM B B S S S B B PB B S S S S S B 1 Small Big NB NM NS B S S S S S B 0 1 l l Figure 11.K d isBig. In ¢ order to have a big control we should increase parameter K p ¢ and decrease K d and also increase the integral gain. ¢ ¢ T HEN K p isBig. D K p or Kd e(t) ZO PS PM PB 1 S MS M B ¢ Table 4. 1.K d isSmall .International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol. Fuzzy sets for E NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB S B B B B B S Now we settle on extraction of fuzzy rules. Therefore we can write fuzzy rule as follows: ¢ Table 3. But integral gain is proportional to a in reverse so we should decrease a .worldsciencepublisher. aisB (22) (21) . No. a & e(t) NB NM 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 NS 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 ZO 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 PS 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 PM 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 PB 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 t 0a1 Figure 13. ¢ ¢ THEN K p isSmall . NB NM NS e(t) ZO PS PM PB 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 At first in point a1 we need a big control in order to reach the system response to the desired point with high speed. aisS & IF e(t)isZO ande(t )isNB . Fuzzy Sets for A . so we have to decrease parameter K p and e(t) or & e(t) eM or eMd ¢ increase K d and a . K d & e(t) NB NM S B B B B B S NS S S B B B S S ZO S S S B S S S PS S S B B B S S PM S B B B B B S PB S B B B B B S a 0 2 3 4 5 e(t) l Figure 12.org 6 NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB Also in point b we need small control in order to escape 1 ¢ from big overshot. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher.

Output for α Q = diag (105 105 10−1 10−1 ) R = 10−2 (23) The closed loop eigenvalues with (24) and values of parameters of table 1 are: λc = {−3. 15. the eigenvalues of the closed loop system are: Figure 15. First Input (error) Figure 17. The damping ratio of the first resonance frequency is increased from 0. −10. 1.For better & & comparison we compare step response of outputs zs and q With controller LQR (closed loop system) and without controller LQR (open loop system) in figure 20. 5. Output for K p . Comparing figure 22 and 23 with figure 7 We can use this method for other points. 5. Thus.04 for open loop system is -49 db and at frequency 9. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher. United States www.4 db . In this section. 4. it is assumed that the main purpose of the control system design is to improve the ride quality. more weights are put on the state variables x 1 and x 2 that correspond to the displacement .org 7 and velocity of the sprung mass. Therefore. figure 24 shows response of the Macpherson suspension system states after applying optimal pole placement controller.2377 i } Figure 18.worldsciencepublisher. 1.1971i . K d q At frequency 5. to the left. Second Input(derivative error) λopt = {−11.International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol.841 by shifting the dominant pole. −10. the damping ratios of the two dominant poles are raised for the purpose of increasing the rise time. the resonance peak near 1HZ of the controlled system is lower. Simulation results of conventional model after applying PID controller which explains on section IV are shown in figure 22 and 23. by −8 . to reduce the vertical acceleration of the sprung mass at the resonance frequency near 1HZ . Simulation results In this paper.2042 ± 7. 19 show the comparison of frequency response with LQR (closed loop system) and without LQR (open & & loop system) controller for outputs zs and q we can compare these two systems in two condition at peak.6 db and also we have peak gain for output ¢ ¢ Figure 16.1971i .K d . as we can see system reaches to steady state faster.2377i } Compared to the open loop system. Figure 14. Figure 20 and 21 show that when we use controller overshot decrease and system reaches to steady state faster.8560 ± 48.8560 ± 48. As we & & can see the peak gain for output zs at frequency 7. 16.09 for closed loop system is -76. a . 17 show membership functions of ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ inputs for K p . The weighting matrices initially selected are: Figure 14. 21.48 for open loop system is and at frequency 2. a and outputs for K p . so fuzzy rules for 3 fuzzy systems are shown in table 3.2042 ± 7.07 for closed loop system is -52.407 to 0.K d . No.

8 0 .9 0 . -40 8 suspension system states that optimized by fuzzy PID controller and optimal pole placement controller that have similar performance. Frequency Response for Output q V e rt ic a l a c c e le ra t io n o f S p ru n g M a s s 10 C lo s e d lo o p O p e n lo o p 5 Figure 23.1 -2 0 0 0 0 .8 1 1 .3 -1 0 0 . United States www. we can see that fuzzy PID controller has better performance than fuzzy controller. step response of new model will be figure 24.4 0 .8 2 & & Figure 20.worldsciencepublisher. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher.3 10 10 10 10 10 10 -0 .2 -0 .6 1 . Step Response for Output zs Figure 25.5 1 1 .4 1 .6 0 .1 -0 . Now according to the considered fuzzy PID controller. Figure 26 shows response of new model control .1 -80 0 .6 0 .5 T im e (S e c ) 2 2. In figure 24 we will see new model of Macpherson For example in figure 25 we can see one of the new model of Macpherson suspension system states that is compared in fuzzy PID controller and optimal pole placement and indicates that it’s similar in both methods and has similar performance. 1.0 5 0 -1 00 -0 .0 5 -1 20 M ag (dB) -1 40 x3 -1 60 -1 80 -2 00 O p e n lo o p C lo s e d l o o p -2 20 -3 10 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -0 .1 5 C lo s e d L o o p O pen Loop O p e n lo o p a n d c lo s e d lo o p s y s t e m b a s e d o n N e w m o d e l ( V e r t i v a l A c c e le r a t io n o f S p r u n g M a s s ) -60 0 . According to these figures we can see that there is little overshot and system reaches to steady state faster.2 0 .2 0 .org and 8. 1.7 P ID F u z z y LQ R 0 0 .5 x 1dotdot x1 0 .International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol.2 5 -0 . A n g u la r D is p la c e m e n t o f C o n t ro l A rm 0 . Step Response for Output q 40 20 -10 0 0 -15 0 -2 0 -20 0 M ag (dB) Control Forc e O p e n lo o p C lo s e d lo o p -4 0 -25 0 -6 0 -30 0 -8 0 -35 0 -40 0 -3 10 10 -2 10 -1 10 Freq 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 -1 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 T im e (S e c ) 70 80 90 100 ( r a d /s e c ) Figure 19.4 0 .3 5 0 0 . In figure 22 we can see that conventional model states are stable when we apply fuzzy PID controller than we use fuzzy controller singly.5 1 F re q ( ra d /s e c ) 1 .1 -1 5 0 -0 .5 T im e ( S e c ) 2 2 . Response of Force Control of Conventional Model of Macpherson Suspension System after Applying Fuzzy PID Controller 0 .5 3 -5 0 .2 T im e (S e c ) 1 . Frequency Response for Output zs O p e n lo o p a n d c lo s e d l o o p s y s t e m b a s e d o n N e w -5 0 m o d e l ( A n g u l a r D is p la c e m e n t ) Figure 21. No.1 5 -0 .5 3 & & Figure 18.

” in Proceedings of International Conference on Control. Lee. PhD thesis. Hong. 2. et al. Wright and D. Vol. “Optimizing LQR and Pole placement to Control Buck Converter by Genetic Algorithm. no. Sirima. But in contrast LQR controller is type of optimal controllers. P. and M. fd lA lB lC [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] . A Course in Fuzzy Systems and Control. Vehicle System Dynamics. “Improvement of Cûk Converter Performance with Optimum LQR Controller Based on Genetic Algorithm. M. "Simulation of Dynamical Behaviour of a Front Wheel Suspension. 5. D. M. 2003. Quarter-Car Model Parameters Parameters Body mass Wheel mass Body roughness factor Wheel roughness factor Damper roughness factor Symptoms ms mu Value 453kg 71kg ks kt cp 17658N / m 183887N / m 1950N . 2007. 1984. Williams. pp. “Parallel Genetic Algorithm Fitness Function Team for Eigenstructure Assignmentvia LQR Designs. "The application of active suspension to high performance road vehicles". and M. P.G. 1.” in International Journal of Computer Science and Applications. So combine PID controllers with fuzzy systems offers a controller with acceptable robustness. A. 2009. 2009. Jonsson (2008).org force after applying both controller and it represents that fuzzy PID controller has better performance.S. D.8 P ID F u z z y LQ R [10] [11] 0 . 4. S. 2008. London. Measurement. March 2008. New Jersey. -Y.” in American Journal of Applied Sciences. 1-9. P.J.worldsciencepublisher. Jeon and H. Sohn. “Modelos e Convergência de um AlgoritmoGenéticoparaAlocação de Auto-estrutura via RLQ. K. J.4 [13] -0 . 2006.” in Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. da Fonseca Neto and C. Journal ofDynamic Systems. but in the case that parameter uncertainty and external disturbances are exist or system model is nonlinear (it’s usually like this). Prentice Hall. Vol. M. Eshtehardiha.66m 0. K. Salem and A. 1 x 10 4 9 [8] [9] 0 . W. BayatiPoodeh. V. Table 1. June 28-30. Chen. da Fonseca Neto. vol. I. no. SEP.” World Academy of Science. will ensure good performance in case system model is linear and well known. United States www. Zaeri. there is no guarantee for optimal performance and even closed loop system stability based on this controller.117-126. and S. 1. X. Liu. Israel. L. Parnichkun. Proceedings of IMecE Conference on Microprocessors in fluid power engineering. 2007. R.A. Engineering and Technology. 4556.6 -0 . Ali. H. Oh (2006). Aly." Vehicle System Dynamics. No. Hassan. Cambridge University. Automation and Systems. and Control. “Application of GA to Design LQR Controller for an Inverted Pendulum System. "A Robust Semi-active Suspension Control Law (withEnglish abstract). Conclusion C. pp.” in Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent and Advanced Systems.34m 0.A. S. Integrated Control of Road Vehicle Dynamics. H. S. 6. No. and T. Mechanical Engineering Publications. “Optimized Eigenstructure Assignment by Ant System and LQR Approaches. Z. pp. M. Bottura.2 C ontrol F orc e [12] 0 -0 . vol. 1. 16:213–225. 6.2 -0 . C.37m References [1] [2] M. J. no. 20. “A New Modeling of the Macpherson Suspension System and its Optimal Pole-Placement Control." Korea Society of Automotive Engineers. C239/84:23–28. “Fuzzy control of a quarter-car suspension system.International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol. pp. August 1996.2005. 127 / 353.” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics. "On the performance capabilities of active automobile suspension systems of limited bandwidth". Hassani. L. Wang. BayatiPoodeh. V. On the other hand fuzzy systems based on defined membership functions have inherent robustness that will ensure the power of these systems against various disturbances and uncertainties. Sun. “Real-Time Optimal Control for Rotary Inverted Pendulum. R. 1999. 269-281. M.8 [14] 1 2 3 4 5 6 T im e ( S e c ) 7 8 9 10 -1 0 [15] [16] Figure 26. vol. Hend. et al.sec/ m 0N 0. 2009.. A. PID controller due to the integral term which increases the system type has ability to remove disturbances and step type uncertainties.4 0 . 6.-Y. Dorling. V. 6. “Application of Constrained H_Controlto Active Suspension Systems on Half-Car Models”. April 1996.” in IEEE Latin America Transactions. Wongsathan and C.” Proceedings of the 7th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED99) Haifa. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher. Sukontanakarn. M. Sharp and S.. 6. Suh.6 0 .

1. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher.org 10 Table 2. Rule Base z& − z& s u & z& s & z& s fa ZE NS NM NM NB ZE NS NS NM NM PS ZE ZE ZE NS PM PS PS ZE PB PM PS ZE NS NM z& − z& s u z& s & z& s fa NS NM NB NB NV NS NM NM NB NB PM PS ZE NS NM PB PB PM PM PS PV PB PB PM PS PM PS ZE NS NM PM PS ZE NS NM PM PS ZE NS NM PM PS ZE NS NM PM PS ZE NS NM PM PM PM PM PM PS PS PS PS PS ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE NS NS NS NS NS NM NM NM NM NM ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE PM PS ZE NS NM PM PS ZE NS NM PM PS ZE NS NM PM PS ZE NS NM PM PS ZE NS NM PM PM PM PM PM PS PS PS PS PS ZE ZE ZE ZE ZE NS NS NS NS NS NM NM NM NM NM P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N P or N . No.International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol. 1.worldsciencepublisher. United States www.

Step response of Conventional Model of Macpherson Suspension System after Applying Fuzzy PID Controller .05 -0.4 0 20 40 60 Time (Sec) 80 100 x2 x1 0.1 0.1 -1 0 20 40 60 Time (Sec) 80 100 -0.2 -0.1 -0.4 0 20 40 60 Time (Sec) 80 100 0.8 0.2 0 20 40 60 Time (Sec) 80 100 Figure 22.5 0.2 -0.1 -0. United States www.2 0.15 0.2 0.1 0 x4 x3 -0.4 0 20 40 60 Time (Sec) 80 100 x4 x3 0.05 0 -0. Step Response of The Conventional Model after Applying Fuzzy Controller 1 0. No.2 0.1 0 -0.6 0.1 -0. 1.2 0.5 0.org 1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol.2 -0.3 0. 1.3 0.15 0 20 40 60 Time (Sec) 80 100 11 -0.worldsciencepublisher.3 0.1 0 -0. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher.15 0.3 -0.2 -0.05 x2 x1 0 0 -0.05 -0.1 0 20 40 60 Time (Sec) 80 100 -0.2 0 -0.15 0 20 40 60 Time (Sec) 80 100 Figure 7.1 -0.3 0.1 0 -0.3 -0.2 0.

United States www.4 0.International Journal in Electrical Engineering Systems and Renewable Energy Vol.8 0.org 12 1.6 x1 0. Response of New Model of Macpherson Suspension System after Applying . 1. March 2012 Copyright © World Science Publisher. 1.2 1 0.2 0 2 4 6 Time (Sec) 8 10 x2 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0 2 PID Fuzzy LQR 100 4 6 Time (Sec) 8 10 1 0 -1 x3 -2 -3 -4 x4 0 2 4 6 Time (Sec) 8 10 50 0 -50 -100 0 2 4 6 Time (Sec) 8 10 Figure 24.2 0 -0. No.worldsciencepublisher.