Axxom Software AG
M unchen, Germany
Uwe.Rettig@axxom.com

vehicle
eld strength damping force
state x(t)
perturbations w
sensors/
estimates
u(t)
control
ERFdamper
sensors/
estimates
w(t)
Figure 1. Control, perturbation, and state variables for the semi
active vehicle suspension system using ERF shock absorbers.
namics. Damping of vibrations in active or semiactive
suspensions is such a subject for research in control and
highly relevant for vehicle comfort and safety.
Conventional, passive shock absorbers exhibit a given
damping characteristic, i.e., the damping force as a
given function of the piston rod velocity. Thus, they
can only represent a compromise between different ob
jectives as comfort, safety or speed. A signicant im
provement of the vehicles suspension can be obtained
by adding active components as hydraulic or electro
magnetic actuators. However, generation of the addi
tional forces requires an additional energy supply. Us
ing electronically controlled active dampers the damp
ing characteristic can be adapted to the actual dynamic
state of the vehicle to improve ride comfort or safety.
Here, we consider the protoype of a continuously con
trollable shock absorber on the basis of electrorheolog
ical uids (ERF). The viscosity of the synthetic ERF
can be changed by an applied electrical eld within
milliseconds. By controlling an electrical eld applied
to one or several valves of a shock absorber equipped
with an ERF the damping characteristic can be adapted
within milliseconds to the current ride state. Unlike
hydraulic systems the ERF shock absorber does not re
quire signicant additional space for installation. As it
does not add energy to the overall system such a sus
pension is semiactive. However, for investigating suit
able controls a dynamic model of the ERF shock ab
sorber must be developed which describes the relation
between applied electric eld strength, damper posi
Preprint of the paper which appeared as paper no. 20316 in:
Proc. 5th EUROMECH Nonlinear Dynamics Conference (ENOC 2005), Eindhoven, The
Netherlands, August 712, 2005.
tion and velocity and the resulting damping force (Sect.
2.1). One of the most common control concepts for ac
tive and semiactive vehicle shock absorbers is the so
called skyhook damping control (e.g., [Valasek et al.,
1997]), which controls heuristically the movements of
the vehicle body. Analogously the groundhook con
trol concept takes into account wheel oscillations (e.g.,
[Valasek et al., 1997]). Investigations by [Alleyne and
Hedrick, 1995] consider a nonlinear adaptive control
scheme, due to unknown observerbased parameters.
The concept of linear quadratic optimal regulators for
active damping control is common in scientic litera
ture, e.g., in [Ha c, 1992] in the context of active pre
view control.
To evaluate different strategies for active or semi
active control, mathematical models of objectives for
ride comfort and safety are required (Sect. 2.3). But
ride safety (e.g. provided by large contact forces be
tween tire and road) and ride comfort (e.g., provided
by small vertical accelerations of the vehicle body) are
mainly antagonistic. Furthermore, the design of opti
mal active suspension controls must consider the rele
vant properties of the vehicle dynamics (Sect. 2.2) as
well as the usually unknown disturbances from an un
even road. As the road properties cannot be predicted
accurately and economically enough by onboard sen
sors robustness of the active damping control with re
spect to unknown disturbances is important to guaran
tee a certain performance of the ride.
2 Optimal Control Problems for Optimal Semi
Active Suspension
The investigation of optimal semiactive suspension
on the basis of ERF shock absorbers requires to con
sider the dynamic behavior of the vehicle as well as of
the ERF shock absorber (Fig. 1).
2.1 Dynamic Model of a Continuously Control
lable ERF Shock Absorber
+ + + + +
+
+ +
+ + + + + +      
    


#
#
c
c
2.5 2.5 [m/s]
3
3
[kN]
k
1
k
0
c
1
c
0
Figure 2. The variable viscosity of the ERF ow through a valve
between two electrodes (left) enables a broad bandwidth of force
velocity characteristic of the shock absorber (middle) which can be
described by an augmented BoucWen dynamic model (right).
Conventional, passive damping behavior is usually de
scribed by a xed damping characteristic dened by the
forcevelocity rate. But in general, dampers exhibit a
nonlinear behavior. Depending on the actual damper
design, the damping rates are different in the bump and
rebound phases while within each phase the system is
best described by a progressive damping characteristic.
For a more realistic simulation model, piecewise linear
or higher order polynomial approximations of realistic
tabular data may be used.
Measurements of ERF dampers indicate strong non
linear behavior and characteristic with hysteresis. The
dynamics of the characteristic depends upon the damp
ing velocity and on the applied electrical eld. De
tailed computations of ER uid ow models within the
valve are not well suited for the purpose of control de
sign because of the high computational and analytical
efforts involved in deriving proper models and obtain
ing numerical solutions [Hoppe et al., 2000]. However,
a sufciently accurate and fast computable model of
the dynamic behavior of an ERF shock absorber can
be obtained, e.g., using parameterized, phenomenolog
ical models. Here the approximation of the ERF ef
fects is usually induced by friction elements or nonlin
ear spring or damper elements [Stanway, Spronston and
ElWahed, 1995; Butz and von Stryk, 2002]. The aug
mented BoucWen model by [Spencer et al. 1996b] (see
also [Butz and von Stryk, 2002; Hoppe et al., 2000] and
Fig. 2 (right)) is one of the most exible models which
take into account the dependency on a variable elec
trical eld. It describes a dynamic system depending
on x
D
, the velocity of the piston rod. The state vari
able of the dynamic ERF damper model is denoted by
s = (s
1
, s
2
, s
3
)
T
s
1
=
1
c0+c1
(c
1
x
D
s
2
k
0
s
1
)
s
2
= (A (1 + sgn( s
1
s
2
))s
2
2
) s
1
.
(1)
The output function
F = c
1
( x
D
s
1
) +k
1
(x
D
x
0
) (2)
denotes the damping force and depends on x
D
and
x
D
, the relative displacement of the damper. The sys
tem (1) describes a hysteresis operator, and its proper
ties are parameterized with respect to the applied elec
trical eld. Thus
s
3
= (u
D
s
3
) (3)
results with control u
D
as the applied eld strength and
c
0
= c
01
+s
3
c
02
c
1
= c
11
+s
3
c
12
=
1
+s
3
2
.
(4)
For modeling the dynamic behavior of a particular ERF
damper prototype the 11dimensional parameter vector
p = (c
11
, c
01
,
1
, A, , c
11
, c
02
,
2
, k
0
, k
1
, x
0
, )
T
must be optimized numerically in such a way that the
simulated trajectories t a set of measured damper tra
jectories best using a nonlinear least squares objective
[Rettig, 2003].
s
x
FR
FSD
kR
m
spring/damper
element
xs
Fs
ms
sr
xr
FRr
FSDr
kRr
mr
spring/damper
element r
s
f
x
f
FRf
FSDf
kRf
m
f
spring/
damper
element f
lr l
f
xs
Fs
x
, T
ms, I
variable denotation
xs, x
t
f
0
L(x(t), u(t)) dt, where
L(x, u) =
safety
i=f,r
F
dyn.load,i
F
stat.load,i
2
+
x
,max
. .. .
safety criteria
+
comfort
x
s
x
s,max
2
+
x
,max
. .. .
comfort criteria
. (6)
with F
stat.load,i
= g(m
s
+ m
i
), F
dyn.load,i
=
(k
Ri
x
Ri
+ c
Ri
x
Ri
), i = f, r. For an example of
the state and control variables x and u, we refer to
the half car model of Fig. 3. For a full vertical vehi
cle dynamics model one can extend the functional by
variables depending on the second angle. The vari
ables F
dyn.load,i
, x
s
, x
, x
L
comfort
s.t.
L
safety
L
safety,max
, (7)
and vice versa. This approach usually yields satis
factory results. A third approach is to maximize the
distance from each objective from an respective upper
bound using a positive slack variable
max s.t.
L
i
L
i,max
, i = 1, 2. (8)
(a) (b)
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
(c) (d)
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 4. The results for optimal semiactive damping control of
a quarter car model (Sect. 2.2.1) for different objectives are dis
played which have been obtained using the method of Sect. 4.1 and
t
f
= 0.4 s. The objectives used in the columns are (a) optimal safety,
comfort ignored, (b) optimal comfort with constrained wheel load as
in Eq. (7), (c) optimal comfort, safety ignored, (d) objective of Eq. (8)
with a slack variable. The rows in each column depict in the rst row
the wheel displacement x (bright, green line) and the vehicle body
displacement x
s
(dark, red line), in the second row the vehicle body
acceleration [m/s
2
/g], and in the third row the wheel load F
R
[kN].
Fig. 4 shows the behavior of the state variables of a
quarter car model for the resulting optimal controlled
semiactive suspension which has been computed using
the method of Sect. 4.1. The last optimization congu
ration using a slack variable yields high gain damping.
However, the weight selection may depend on the par
ticular vehicle or ride purpose. Active suspensions for
race or sports cars, ambulance vehicles or passenger
cars have to be designed by different requirements.
3 Optimal and Robust Optimal Linear Quadratic
Controls
The goal of the control problem for controllable ERF
shock absorbers integrated into a semiactive vehicle
suspension is a combination of optimal safety and opti
mal comfort of the ride. In comparison to a xed damp
ing characteristic or a manual selection between a few,
alternative characteristics, the new technology of ERF
shock absorbers permits continuous control. This sug
gests the calculation of suitable (if possible optimal)
controls taking into account the possible nonlinear dy
namics of the vehicle and of the damper (Section 2.2)
and further constraints.
3.1 State Feedback Control Based on LQR and
H
Techniques
In order to investigate the capability of semiactive
damping with ERF shock absorbers, state feedback
controls can be derived for various linear vehicle dy
namics models (cf. Sect. 2.2) written as
x =
0
nq,nq
I
nq,nq
M
1
A
k
M
1
A
c
. .. .
A
x +
0
nq,nu
M
1
B
m
. .. .
B
u (9)
with the state x = (q, q) R
nx
and the control
u R
nu
, where q R
nq
denotes the generalized co
ordinates, e.g., q = (x
s
, x) for the quarter car model
and q = (x
s
, x
, x
r
, x
f
) for the half car model of
Sect. 2.2.1. The further elements of Eq. (9) denote the
zero matrix 0, the unit matrix I, the mass matrix M,
the stiffness matrix A
k
, the damping matrix A
c
, the
control matrix B
m
. The state x is controlled by u. n
0
x
T
Qx + 2u
T
Sx +u
T
Ru dt (10)
a weighted criterion for safety and comfort is chosen
which consists of oscillations of contact forces repre
senting the fundamental safety criterion, and vehicle
body accelerations representing a relevant comfort cri
terion
Q =
comfort
states
vehicle body
1
x
2
i,max
A
T
e
i
e
T
i
A
+
safety
wheels
kRi
F
stat.load,i
2
(e
i
e
T
i
)
+. . . +
states
i,state
1
x
2
i,max
(e
i
e
i
T
)
R =
comfort
states
vehicle body
1
x
2
i,max
B
T
e
i
e
T
i
B
+
costs
wheels
1
ui,max
B
T
e
i
e
T
i
B
S =
comfort
states
vehicle body
1
x
2
i,max
B
T
e
i
e
T
i
A
(11)
with weights
= R
1
(S +B
T
P)x (12)
with Pas the solution of the algebraic Riccati equation
(cf., e.g., [Dorato, Abdallah and Cerone, 1994])
A
T
P+PA+Q (PB+S
T
)R
1
(B
T
P+S) = 0
corresponding to the cost functional of Eq. (10). The
optimal solution exists, if the system is stabilizable,
R is positive denite, and Q S
T
R
1
S is positive
semi denite. The last two properties hold, if the ob
jective (10) contains the quadratic penalty terms of the
state and control variables as in Eq. (11).
Furthermore, we may consider robustoptimal con
trols, regarding unknown perturbations w, e.g. by the
ground. Then, the dynamic equations (9) include a per
turbation term
x = Ax +Bu +
0
nq,nw
M
1
D
m
. .. .
D
w (13)
with the perturbation matrix D
m
. Perturbations include
impacts caused by an uneven ground as well as forces
and moments acting on the vehicle body caused by
driving maneuvers. Let us nowconsider the augmented
objective
J
[u, w] =
0
x
T
Qx + 2u
T
Sx +u
T
Ru
2
w
T
w dt 0
(14)
with the attenuation bound > 0. Then the robust
optimal H
R
nxnx
of the augmented algebraic
Riccati equation
A
T
P
+P
A+Q
B D
S
T
0
T
R
1
0
0
1
2
B
T
D
T
S
0
= 0
(15)
exists (cf., e.g. [Basar and Bernhard, 1991; Basar and
Olser, 1995]). The robustoptimal control u
rob
then
follows from Eq. (12).
xs 0.0
2.5
cm
0 3 s
x
0.01
0.01
0 3 s
F
Rf
8
4
0
kN
0.36 1.5 s
F
Rr
8
4
0
kN
0.36 1.5 s
xs 0.2
0.2
g
0.36 1.5 s
  F
Df
F
Dr 3
3
kN
2.5 2.5 m/s
passive suspension LQR control H
control
Figure 5. Comparison of some of the state variables of a (linear)
single track model for a ride over a step of 2.5 cm height at a speed
of 100 km/h for LQR and H
controlled suspensions.
For > 0 and optimal u
0
= u
0
(w) we have
J
u
0
; w
/w
2
2
, w, i.e. the disturbance of
the system is bounded. The optimal disturbance atten
uation is related to a lower bound
is not guar
anteed, suboptimal solutions for =
+
j
may be
computed iteratively for a series of decreasing small
j
> 0 [Helton and James, 1999; Hoppe et al., 2000].
3.2 SemiActive Control of ERF Shock Absorber
Please note that the linearquadratic optimal control
merely provides an optimal damping force, but not an
optimal damping rate or optimal electrical eld to be
applied at the valve within the semiactively working
shock absorber (Sect. 2.1). Such an active damping
system would provide (bounded) forces like an actua
tor. Whereas semiactive shock absorbers only control
damping forces, always regarding the direction of mo
tion of the damping element. They can not add but only
extract energy from the system.
A practical semiactive damping rate is now predicted
on the basis of the optimal (or robustoptimal) damp
ing force F
D,opt
obtained in Sect. 3.1, e.g., by the LQR
or H
u
min
, for F
D,opt
F
D,cur
< 0
min
u
max
, max{u
min
, u
D,cur
+
(F
D,opt
 F
D,cur
) K}
, otherwise
(16)
which is similar to a clipped optimal control algo
rithm as suggested by [Spencer et al., 1996]. F
D,cur
is
assumed to be known and the constant K depends on
the scaling of u
D
and the selected sampling rate.
3.3 Numerical Results
In Fig. 5 the results are depicted for some of the state
variables of a (linear) single track model for a ride over
a step of 2.5 cm height at a speed of 100 km/h for semi
active suspension with LQR or H
control resulting
for a large weight of comfort and compared with a pas
sive suspension. Depending on the value of the H
(17)
numerically to low or moderate accuracies, e.g., [Betts,
2001]. In the direct collocation method [von Stryk,
2001] a discretization of x by piecewise cubic Hermite
polynomials x(t) =
k
x
k
(t) and of u by piece
wise linear functions u(t) =
k
u
k
(t) is applied
[von Stryk, 2003] on a discretization grid t
a
= t
1
<
t
2
< . . . < t
nt
= t
f
, see Fig. 7. The equations of mo
tions (17) are pointwise fullled at the grid points and
6
0
6
100 200 300
[m]
[m]
target trajectory of the vehicle
6
0
6
100 200 300
[m]
[m]
resulting vehicle trajectories
0
4
8
10 14 18
[kN]
[s]
wheel load: front left
0
4
8
10 14 18
[kN]
[s]
wheel load: front right
target path cones controlled passive
Figure 6. The double lane change maneuver (path through the
cones depicted in the upper row) on a very uneven road, simulated
with the full vehicle dynamics model of a passenger car in realtime.
The car with a conventional passive suspension skids off the road.
Whereas the car with an (sub) optimally controlled semiactive sus
pension follows the target trajectory for the vehicles center of mass.
The gures in the lower row show wheel loads on the right and left
front wheels of the full vehicle dynamics model for a passive and a
clipped semiactively controlled ride during the critical phase of the
maneuver.
u
~
i i+2
t t
f
...
n
t
...
t
i+1/2
t
i+1
f(x,u,t )
i+1/2
t = t
x
~
.
x
~
t =t
1 a
Figure 7. Direct collocation parameterization of continuous state
and control variables.
at their respective midpoints resulting in a set of non
linear NLP equality constraints a(y) = 0 (collocation).
Any control or state variable inequality constraints are
to be satised at the grid points resulting in set of non
linear NLP inequality constraints b(y) 0. Here, y
denotes the n
y
parameters of the parameterization. The
resulting nonlinearly constrained optimization problem
(NLP) basically reads as
min
y
(y) subject to a(y) = 0, b(y) 0,
y = (
1
,
2
, ...,
1
,
2
, ..., t
f
)
T
.
(18)
Please note that an objective involving an integral term
as in Eq. (10) can easily be transformed into a problem
with a Mayertype objective as in Eq. (17) introducing
one additional state equation. The gradients and Jaco
bians of the NLP exhibit a sparse structure which can
be exploited by the largescale SQP method SNOPT
[Gill, Murray and Saunders, 2002] resulting in com
putational speedups by two orders of magnitude [von
Stryk, 2003] compared to standard NLP solvers. Usu
ally a sequence of related NLPs with rened time grids
is solved successively to obtain a good approximation.
In addition, the method provides reliable estimates of
the adjoint or costate variables of the optimal control
problem.
4.2 Extension to Nonlinear Robust Optimal Semi
Active Control Strategies
Control of shock absorbers must account for unknown
disturbances. For vehicle rides in particular these are
changes of the road height or inertial forces and mo
ments caused by unexpected driving maneuvers like
braking, accelerating etc. In recent years H
control
theory gained increased scientic interest (cf. [Helton
and Ball, 1989; Helton and Ball, 1995; Basar and Bern
hard, 1991; Kwakernak, 1985; Schaft, 1991; Schaft,
1996; Soravia, 1996; Helton and James, 1999]). Here
robustoptimal controls optimize the gain of the system
under worst excitations. Consider the extended non
linear state space system and optimal control problem
with suitable functions f , l
x = f (x, u, w) , x(t
0
) = x
0
,
J(u, w) =
t
f
t0
l(x, u, w)dt min !
(19)
where u U R
nu
, w L
2
(R
nw
). In order to
treat robustness of nonlinear systems, suitable terms of
stability have to be dened. The system (19) with xed
control u = u(x) and operator T
u
: w x is said to
be nitegain Lstable if there are , 0 with
T
u
(w)
L2
w
L2
+, w L
2
(R
nw
) .
(20)
The value
is the
H
t1
t0
s(w, v)dt (21)
holds with x(t
1
) = x(t
1
; x
0
, t
0
, w); i.e. the dissipa
tion inequality (21) has to be satised along all trajec
tories with free initial value x
0
(cf. [Willems, 1972]).
With particular supply rate s(w, v) =
2
w
2
v
2
a dissipative system yields nitegain stability, cf.
[Schaft, 1996]. Stability of the undisturbed system was
shown in [Schaft, 1996] assuming that a continuously
differentiable energy function exists; for the discontin
uous case cf. [Soravia, 1996].
Considering the differential dissipation inequality
with l = v
2
, the solution of the saddlepoint problem
min
uU
max
wL2
S/x f (x, u, w)+l(x, u, w)
2
w
2
0
(22)
provides existence of an energy function and hence dis
sipativity, cf. [Helton and Ball, 1989]. The saddle
point (u
, w
, w
(u, w) =
t
f
t0
l(x, u, w)
2
w
2
dt (23)
and dynamic equations (19). Note that necessarily
J
(u
, w
= argmin
uU
H(x, , u, w) ,
w
= argmax
wL2
H(x, , u, w) .
(24)
Characteristic solutions of the partial differential equa
tion (22) are represented by timedependent optimal
trajectories x
(t), satisfy
ing the boundary value problem
x = f (x, u
, w
) ,
= (H(x, , u
, w
)/x)
T
(25)
and corresponding boundary conditions for x and .
For numerical solution we use the direct collocation
method described in Sect. 4.1. In the case of opti
mal control problems we do not need to consider the
dynamic equations of the adjoint variables explicitly.
for decreasing values of
perturbations w
0.6
0.6
cm
0 0.4 s
damping control ucs
0.2
5.0
kNs
m
0 0.4 s
oscillating variables
xs, xR and disturbance w
10
6
cm
0 0.4 s
velocity variables xs, xR
2
4
m/s
0 0.4 s
adjoint variables of xs, xR
0.6
0.4
0 0.4 s
adjoint variables of xs, xR
0.01
0.10
0 0.4 s
Figure 8. Numerical solutions for a robustoptimal control problem
obtained by the approach outlined in Sect. 4.2. Upper left: Growth
of the worst perturbation obtained for different, decreasing values of
the attenuation bound which displays a constant frequency. Upper
right: Comparison of the damping control  solution of discretized
problem with piecewise linear control approximation (solid), subse
quently calculated by the minimum principle using the computed tra
jectories of state and adjoint variables (dashed). Please note the com
plex switching structure. Second row, left: Trajectories of oscillating
variables x
s
(light, green line) and x
R
(dark, red line) compared to
the calculated worst perturbation w (left, black) with respect to the
corresponding attenuation level . Second row, right: correspond
ing velocity variables x
s
, x
R
. Third row: Comparison of adjoint
variables as estimated by the method of Sect. 4.1.
For the robustoptimal control problem (23)(25) we
have to take into account the unknown disturbance
w(t). As originally suggested by [Horie and Con
way, 2000] we discretize both, the state and adjoint
differential equations (25) and minimize (23) directly
for the discretized damping control u(t) and compute
the disturbance w(t) from (24). Fig. 8 shows the re
sults of such a procedure. The mentioned discretization
scheme was applied to a quarter car model subject to
the boundary condition from (19) and the constraints
0.2 u
cs
0.5 on the damping control which sub
sumizes spring and damper elements.
Usually the discretization of the transformed opti
mal control problem with extended dynamic equations
(25) provides comparatively accurate solutions for the
undisturbed system and for large values of . Numeri
cal difculties arise with decreasing
, possibly
caused by the structure of the extended adjoint equa
tions with respect to the transformed optimal control
problem, whose solutions are supposed to be damped
for large values of only. In order to make a com
promise one has to calculate with lower accuracy. An
automation of socalled strategies in order to nd so
lutions for close to attenuation bound
are possi
ble, e.g. by a bisection or continuation method. The
desired accuracy may be determined by a consistency
check between the calculated discretized adjoint vari
ables and the according estimates by the discretization
method (cf. Fig. 8, third row). Please note, that the
chosen discretization and direct optimization scheme
enables the computation of controls with a priori un
known complex switching structures. On the other
hand new difculties arise in the context of singular
surfaces, which play an important role in differential
game theory [Isaacs, 1967]. Particularly surfaces with
discontinuities of the value function, socalled barriers,
are not detected by the proposed numerical method.
Hence one has to check a posteriori if calculated tra
jectories intersect such barriers [Breitner, Pesch and
Grimm, 1993].
5 Conclusions
The problem of optimal semiactive suspension of ve
hicles using the new technology of electrorheological
uid dampers has been investigated. For the formu
lation of the corresponding optimal control problems,
several models of the vehicle dynamics, of the ERF
shock absorber dynamics and of objectives for safety
and comfort have been presented and investigated. Re
duced, linear vehicle dynamic models permit the appli
cation of LQR and H
control
for nonlinear plants: connections with differential
games. Proc. 28th Conf erence on Decision and Con
trol, Tampa, Florida, pp. 956962.
Ball, J.A., and Helton, J.W. (1995). Viscosity solu
tions of HamiltonJacobi equations arising in non
linear H
Optimal Con
trol and Related Minimax Design Problems. A Dy
namic Game Approach. Birkh auser, Boston, Basel,
Berlin.
Basar, T. and Olsder, G.J. (1995). Dynamic Nonco
operative Game Theory. Academic Press, London,
San Diego, New York.
Betts, J.T. (2001). Practical Methods for Optimal Con
trol Using Nonlinear Programming. Advances in De
sign and Control 3. SIAM. Philadelphia.
Breitner, M.H., Pesch, H.J. and Grimm, W. (1993)
Complex Differential Games of PursuitEvasion Type
with State Constraints, Part 1: Necessary Conditions
for Optimal OpenLoop Strategies, Part 2: Numerical
Computation of Optimal OpenLoop Strategies. J. of
Optimization Theory and Applications 78:3, pp. 419
441, 443463.
Butz, T. and von Stryk, O. (2002). Modelling and
simulation of electro and magnetorheological uid
dampers. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 82:1, pp. 320.
Butz, T. and von Stryk, O. (2005). Optimal control
based modeling of vehicle driver properties. In So
ciety of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 2005 World
Congress, Detroit, MI, U.S.A., April 1114, SAE Pa
per 2005010420.
Chucholowski, C., V ogel, M., von Stryk, O. and
Wolter, T.M. (1999). Real time simulation and on
line control for virtual test drives of cars. In: H.J.
Bungartz et al. (eds.): High Performance Scientic
and Engineering Computing. Vol. 8 of Lecture Notes
in CSE. SpringerVerlag, Berlin. pp. 157166.
Dorato, P., Abdallah, C. and Cerone, V. (1994). Linear
Quadratic Control: An Introduction. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Genta, G. (1997). Motor Vehicle Dynamics, Modelling
and Simulation. Series on Advances in Mathematics
for Applied Sciences 43, World Scientic, London.
Gill, P., Murray, W. and Saunders, M. (2002). SNOPT:
An SQP algorithm for largescale constrained opti
mization. SIAM J. Optimization, 12, pp. 9791006.
Ha c, A. (1992). Optimal linear preview control of ac
tive vehicle suspension. Vehicle System Dynamics,
21, pp. 167195.
Helton, J.W. and James, M.R. (1999). Extending H
con
trol. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 37(6), pp.
770784.
van der Schaft, A.J. (1996). L
2
Gain and Passivity
Techniques in Nonlinear Control. Springer, Berlin.
V ogel, M., von Stryk, O., Bulirsch, R., Wolter, T.M.
and Chucholowski, C. (2003). An optimal control ap
proach to realtime vehicle guidance. In: W. J ager,
H.J. Krebs (eds.): Mathematics Key Technology for
the Future, SpringerVerlag, pp. 84102.
von Stryk, O. (2001). Users Guide for DIRCOL Ver
sion 2.1: a direct collocation method for the nu
merical solution of optimal control problems. SIM,
Technische Universit at Darmstadt. World Wide Web:
http://www.sim.informatik.tudarmstadt.de/sw/dircol
von Stryk, O. (2003). Numerical Hybrid Optimal Con
trol and Related Topics. Habilitationsschrift, Technis
che Universit at M unchen.
Willems, J.C. (1972). Dissipative dynamical systems,
part I: General theory. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.,
45, pp. 321351.