See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237899633

Pole location control design of an active suspension system with

uncertain parameters

Article in Vehicle System Dynamics · August 2005

DOI: 10.1080/0042311042000266702

CITATIONS READS

19 1,474

2 authors, including:

Valter J. S. Leite
Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Minas Gerais
153 PUBLICATIONS 1,669 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Valter J. S. Leite on 27 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vehicle System Dynamics
Vol. 43, No. 8, August 2005, 561–579

Pole location control design of an active suspension

system with uncertain parameters
VALTER J. S. LEITE† and PEDRO L. D. PERES*‡
†UnED Divinópolis – CEFET/MG, R. Monte Santo, 319 – 35502-036, Divinópolis – MG, Brazil
‡School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Campinas, CP 6101, 13081-970,
Campinas – SP, Brazil

This paper addresses the problem of robust control design for an active suspension quarter-car model
by means of state feedback gains. Specifically, the design of controllers that assure robust pole location
of the closed-loop system inside a circular region on the left-hand side of complex plane is investigated.
Three sufficient conditions for the existence of a robust stabilizing state feedback gain are presented as
linear matrix inequalities: (i) the quadratic stability based gain; (ii) a recently published condition that
uses an augmented space and has been here modified to cope with the pole location specification; (iii) a
condition that uses an extended number of equations and yields a parameter-dependent state feedback
gain. Unlike other parameter-dependent strategies, neither extensive gridding nor approximations are
needed. In the suspension model, the sprung mass, the damper coefficient and the spring constant are
considered as uncertain parameters belonging to a known interval (polytope type uncertainty). It is
shown that the parameter-dependent gain proposed allows one to impose the closed-loop system pole
locations that in some situations cannot be obtained with constant feedback gains.

Keywords: Active suspension control; Linear matrix inequalities; Robust control; Parameter dependent
control; Robust pole location; Uncertain systems

1. Introduction

The control strategies for active suspension systems are major topics of interest in control
conferences as well as in the automobile industry. A lot of effort has been made to develop
realistic models for suspension systems and to define the design specifications that reflect the
main objectives to be taken into account. In this sense, ride comfort, associated with the vertical
acceleration, and road-holding ability, associated with the tyre deflection, are important factors
to be addressed by any control scheme.
A suspension system has some parameters that are inherently uncertain, such as the sprung
mass, whose value depends on the total load of the vehicle. Moreover, dampers and springs
may lose efficiency very slowly during their lifetime. A good way to incorporate all these
influences is to consider uncertain parameters in the system model, and one of the most useful
representations for this is undoubtedly the polytopic uncertainty [1].

*Corresponding author. Email: peres@dt.fee.unicamp.br

Vehicle System Dynamics

ISSN 0042-3114 print/ISSN 1744-5159 online © 2005 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0042311042000266702
562 V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres

In the literature it is possible to find many results that deal with a precisely known system and
also with uncertain models in the context of active suspension design. Among the approaches
that consider some kind of uncertainty in the model plant, it is worth mentioning the results of
optimal control which has dominated this area of application in the last decades [2–8]. Optimal
control techniques have been widely investigated, providing good results in many situations.
However, besides optimizing the suspension system with respect to some criteria such as the
sprung mass acceleration or the suspension and tyre deflections, the optimal state feedback
gains cannot cope with more stringent specifications, since the gains are fixed independently
of the operating conditions, and do not take into account uncertain parameters. In [5], a good
discussion about the necessity of improving the dynamic behaviour of suspension systems
in the presence of uncertainty can be found. Issues that must be taken into account, such as
robustness, disturbance rejection and practical implementation, and the perspective of using
new techniques such as optimal adaptive control or gain-scheduling are pointed out. This later
strategy is directly related to the parameter-dependent feedback gain which is the main result
of this paper.
Also, there are several results based on robust control synthesis and guaranteed cost state
feedback gains like the H2 and H∞ norms available for active suspension control design [9],
with some extensions to static output feedback [10]. Recently, an approach based on genetic-
algorithm and fuzzy proportional-integral/proportional-derivative controllers [11] appeared
in the literature. Another design, based on quantitative feedback theory, has been recently
addressed in [12] in which a nonlinear suspension model is used. Nonlinear controllers have
been investigated in [13, 14] to improve suspension performance when the uncertain param-
eters are time-varying. An approach based on controllers with non-integer order is presented
in [15]. In [16] the interested reader can find control simulations of semi-active suspension
systems that consider hardware implementation effects with road adaptive control laws. The
main objective of all of those works is to deal with the uncertainty inherent to the model and
to synthesize a control law that assures a minimal performance level of specifications such as
user comfort and road-holding ability.
In the context of linear systems with uncertain parameters described by state space equa-
tions, many robust control approaches are based on quadratic Lyapunov functions [17]. In fact,
quadratic stabilizability conditions have been largely used for robust state feedback control
in several contexts including performance indices such as H2 and H∞ norms. These prob-
lems, in most cases, are formulated as convex linear matrix inequality (LMI) optimization
procedures [18–20]. Extensions of these conditions for robust output feedback control can
also be encountered in the literature [21]. Although being specially adequate for arbitrarily
fast time-varying parameters, methods based on quadratic stability can produce conservative
results since the same parameter-independent Lyapunov function must be used to assure the
closed-loop stability for the entire uncertainty domain.
One way to overcome this conservativeness is to consider a parameter-dependent Lyapunov
function, which can be used to derive a robust feedback control law independent of the uncer-
tainty or a controller which depends on the vector of uncertain parameters (gain scheduling).
However, the conditions for the existence of a gain-scheduled control are, in general, difficult to
solve, sometimes requiring an extensive gridding on the uncertain parameter space, matching
conditions or a linear fractional structure of the uncertainty [22–24]. For a gain-scheduled
approach to active suspension systems see [13, 14]. Note that, in general, the controller
obtained through a gain-scheduling strategy assures the desired closed-loop properties only
at the gridding points since an approximation is used for all other points.
The aim here is to analyse robust control techniques that can be applied to the active
suspension system with uncertain parameters assuring to the closed-loop system a desired
dynamical behaviour. For this, three conditions that assure a robust pole location by means of
 Pole location of a suspension system 563

a state feedback control law are presented. The state variables are supposed to be available for
feedback, and thus the state estimation is not addressed in this paper (see [25–27] for details
on different approaches for estimators and [28] for an active suspension system application).
To cope with the design specifications, a circular region located inside the left-hand side of
the complex plane is imposed. As discussed in [29], the system modes damp asymptotically
at desired rates if the circle centre and radius are adequately chosen.
All three conditions presented here are formulated in terms of LMIs and can be applied to
linear systems with uncertain parameters, in both dynamic and control matrices, belonging
to a convex bounded domain (polytope type uncertainty). The main purpose of this paper
is to apply these conditions for the control design of an uncertain active suspension system
and to compare the closed-loop eigenvalue location that can be achieved by each method. The
uncertain parameters are supposed to vary slowly enough to allow for the definition of a linear
time-invariant system for each evaluation of the parameters.
The first condition uses the well-known concept of quadratic stability [30], where a static
state feedback gain can be obtained from the fixed Lyapunov matrix that assures the closed
loop pole location for the entire uncertain system. Besides being capable of handling arbitrarily
fast time varying parameters, the quadratic stability based results are in general conservative.
The second result presented is based on a recently developed approach that uses an aug-
mented variable space to compute a fixed state feedback gain and a parameter-dependent
Lyapunov matrix [31], yielding less conservative results than the ones obtained through
quadratic stability.
Finally, a condition based on an augmented number of linear matrix inequality equations
is given. From a LMI feasibility test, a parameter-dependent Lyapunov function, as well as a
parameter-dependent state feedback control assuring the desired pole location, are obtained.
This condition exhibits less conservative results than the former two, allowing one to impose
on the closed-loop system more stringent design specifications, which in many cases cannot
be implemented by means of a constant feedback gain.
Differing from other gain-scheduling strategies, the parameter-dependent feedback gain
proposed here does not require an exhaustive gridding on the uncertain parameter space. Only
the vertices are used to compute off-line the controller matrices. The on-line controller is
obtained by means of an analytical formula involving the uncertain parameter (which needs to
be measured or estimated) and the matrices already computed off-line. Therefore, no approx-
imation is used and the specified closed-loop properties are assured for the entire uncertainty
domain. Note that standard linear parameter varying or gain-scheduling techniques usually
interpolate among controllers computed off-line for a fixed number of grid points, and the
on-line controller cannot assure the desired behaviour outside these grid points.
The three conditions presented in this paper are applied to the control design of an active
suspension quarter-car model. The sprung mass, the damper coefficient and the spring constant
are considered as uncertain parameters. The design options provided by these three different
techniques are analysed and results showing the pole location limits of each technique are
presented.

2. Vehicle model and definitions

A simple two-degree-of-freedom model is used in this paper to represent a quarter-car suspen-

sion system which is borrowed from [2]. Other works consider more sophisticated actuators in
the system, as in [32, 33], and more complex vehicle suspension models can be found in [5],
but the aim here is to investigate the pole location capabilities of different control techniques
564 V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres

Figure 1. Schematic quarter-car model.

applied to a simpler model. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the suspension sys-
tem which combines the classical passive system with the active one. This kind of structure
assures a minimal level of performance and safety. In this configuration, the power demand
from the active device is usually smaller than in a scheme with no passive elements. The
quarter-car model consists of a sprung mass m1 , an unsprung mass m2 , a damper c, a linear
spring k and an active device that controls the force u. The tyre is modeled as a linear spring
kt and the model has as exogenous input the vertical velocity w imposed by the road.
The state-space model is given by [2]

ẋ = Ax + Bu + Ew (1)

with A ∈ Rn×n , B ∈ Rn×m and E ∈ Rn×1 . For the model depicted in figure 1, x ∈ R4 (x1 is
the suspension deflection, x2 is the tyre deflection, x3 is the sprung mass velocity and x4 is the
unsprung mass velocity), u ∈ R and w ∈ R. With the inclusion of an extra state, x5 , which is
the integral of x1 , matrices A, B and E are given by

 
0 0 −1 1 0
 
 0 0 0 −1 0
 
 k c c 
 0 − 0
A =  m1 m1 m1 , (2)
 
 k kt c c 
− − 0
 m m2 m2 m2 
2
1 0 0 0 0
 
1 1 
B= 0 0 − 0 ; E= 0 1 0 0 0 . (3)
m1 m2

The inclusion of an integral action is usually performed, in order to avoid steady-state error in
the suspension deflection. The nominal parameters (typical for passenger cars) of this model,
obtained from [8], are shown in table 1.
 Pole location of a suspension system 565

Table 1. Nominal parameter values for

quarter-car model.

Parameter Nominal value Unit

m1 288.9 kg
m2 28.58 kg
k 10000 N m−1
kt 155900 N m−1
c 850 N s m−1

Consider that matrices A and B in (1) have uncertain parameters, in such a way that the
pair (A, B)(α) belongs to a polytope type uncertain domain D given by

 
 
N 
N 
D = (A, B)(α):(A, B)(α) = αj (A, B)j ; αj = 1; αj ≥ 0 . (4)
 
j =1 j =1

Any matrix pair inside the domain D can be written as a convex combination of the vertices
(A, B)j of the uncertainty polytope. It is assumed that the vector of uncertain parameters α does
not depend explicitly on the time variable. The aim here is to determine a parameter-dependent
state feedback control law

u(t) = K(α)x(t) (5)

with K(α) ∈ R5×1 such that the closed-loop uncertain system

Acl (α) = A(α) + B(α)K(α)

has all eigenvalues inside the circle at (−σ, 0) with radius r, shown in figure 2, for all
(A, B)(α) ∈ D. The case K(α) = K (constant state feedback gain) is also addressed with
two approaches: one is based on quadratic stability (fixed Lyapunov function) and the other
based on an augmented space and a parameter-dependent Lyapunov function.
Note that the conditions stated in Lemma 2 and Theorem 1 presented in the section remain
valid if the parameter variation is slow enough to be accommodated by the dynamics of the
system under control [34].

Figure 2. Circular region for pole location.

566 V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres

3. Conditions for robust pole location

For a precisely known autonomous system, a necessary and sufficient condition such that all
the eigenvalues of Acl lie inside the circular region depicted in figure 2 is given by the existence
of a positive definite symmetric matrix W such that (see [29])

1
(Acl + dI)W + W (Acl + dI) + (Acl + dI)W (Acl + dI) < 0 (6)
r

with

d = σ − r. (7)

If Acl belongs to an uncertain polytope D described by its vertices, a sufficient condition

assuring the desired pole location for all Acl ∈ D is given by the existence of a common
matrix W = W  > 0 satisfying (6) at the vertices of D, which can be viewed as an extension
of quadratic stability.

LEMMA 1 (Quadratic Stabilizability) If there exists a symmetric positive definite matrix

W ∈ Rn×n and a matrix Z ∈ Rm×n such that
 
(Aj W + W Aj + Bj Z + Z  Bj + 2dW ) Aj W + Bj Z + dW
< 0; j = 1, . . . , N
W Aj + Z  Bj + dW −rW
(8)

then K = ZW −1 assures for the uncertain closed-loop system the pole location specified in
figure 2 for all (A, B)(α) ∈ D.

Proof In fact, equation (8) comes from (6) with (Aj + Bj K) replacing the system matrix
Acl , Z = KW and applying the Schur complement [35].

In the literature, several extensions of the quadratic stability condition have been used
for robust control and filter design including pole location specifications [36–38]. However,
quadratic stabilizability can be sometimes conservative, in the sense that there are pole location
specifications that cannot be attained by means of a quadratic stabilizing state feedback gain.
Recently, sufficient conditions for robust stabilizability by means of a state feedback gain
and a parameter-dependent Lyapunov function have appeared in the context of discrete-time
uncertain systems [31]. These conditions are here modified in order to cope with the pole
location specification discussed in this paper. Note that the use of a parameter-dependent
Lyapunov function W (α) = W (α) > 0 such that

1
(Acl (α) + dI)W (α) + W (α)(Acl (α) + dI) + (Acl (α) + dI)W (α)(Acl (α) + dI) < 0
r
(9)

can provide less conservative results than the ones that impose a fixed matrix W .
 Pole location of a suspension system 567

LEMMA 2 (Augmented space) If there exist N positive definite matrices Pj ∈ Rn×n and
matrices L ∈ Rm×n and G ∈ Rn×n such that
 
−rPj Aj G + B j L + σ G
< 0; j = 1, . . . , N, (10)
G Aj + L Bj + σ G r(Pj − G − G )

then K = LG−1 is a robust state feedback gain and P (α), given by


N 
N
P (α) = αj P j ; αj ≥ 0; αj = 1, (11)
j =1 j =1

is a parameter-dependent Lyapunov matrix assuring the uncertain closed-loop system pole

location specified in figure 2 for all (A, B)(α) ∈ D.

Proof Note that with L = KG, (10) is equivalent to

 
−Pj (Aj + Bj K + σ I)G/r
< 0; j = 1, . . . , N, (12)
G (Aj + Bj K + σ I) /r Pj − G − G 

which multiplied on the left by T = [I (Aj + Bj K + σ I)/r], on the right by T  and summing
on j (see [31] for details) yields

1
(A(α) + B(α)K + σ I)P (α)(A(α) + B(α)K + σ I) − P (α) < 0. (13)
r2

Now, multiplying (13) by r, with σ = r + d and W (α) = P (α)/r, it is possible to write

(A(α) + B(α)K + dI) W (α) + W (α) (A(α) + B(α)K + dI)

1
+ (A(α) + B(α)K + dI) W (α) (A(α) + B(α)K + dI) < 0, (14)
r

which assures, with the parameter-dependent Lyapunov function W (α), the pole location
specified in figure 2 (see equation (9)).

Lemmas 1 and 2 presented two LMI based solutions for the problem of robust pole location
imposing a fixed (constant) state feedback gain. The results of Lemma 2 are less conserva-
tive, since a parameter-dependent Lyapunov function is used, encompassing the conditions of
Lemma 1 as a particular case. However, there are uncertain systems that cannot be stabilized
by means of a fixed robust gain or, sometimes, the desired closed-loop pole location requires
a parameter-dependent feedback control to be attained. The following theorem presents suf-
ficient conditions for the existence of a parameter-dependent state feedback gain assuring the
robust pole location for uncertain continuous-time systems in convex bounded domains. The
conditions are formulated in terms of a set of LMIs described at the vertices of the uncertainty
polytope D as in Lemmas 1 and 2. Despite the larger number of LMIs, the feasibility of the
entire set can be solved in polynomial time by interior point based algorithms [39].
568 V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres

THEOREM 1 If there exist positive definite matrices Wj = Wj ∈ Rn×n , j = 1, . . . , N and

matrices Zj ∈ Rn×m , j = 1, . . . , N such that

   
Ad j Wj + Wj Ad j + Bj Zj + Zj Bj  −I 0
< ; j = 1, . . . , N, (15)
Wj Ad j + Zj Bj −rWj 0 0
 
Ad j Wj + Wj Ad j + Bj Zj + Zj Bj
 + Ad j Wk + Ad k Wj + Wj Ad k + Wk Ad j   
  
 + Bj Zk + Bk Zj + Zj Bk + Zk Bj  1 I 0
  < ,
  (N − 1)2 0 0
 Wj Ad j + Zj Bj + Wj Ad k 
−r(2Wj + Wk )
+ Wk Ad j + Zj Bk + Zk Bj

j = 1, . . . , N; k = 1, . . . , N; k = j, (16)
 
Ad j Wk + Ad k Wj + Wj Ad k + Wk Ad j + Bj Zk + Zj Bk
 + Zj Bk + Zk Bj + Ad j W + Ad  Wj + Wj Ad  + W Ad j 
  
 + Bj Z + B Zj + Zj B + Z Bj + Ad  Wk + Ad k W 
 
 + W Ad k + Wk Ad  + B Zk + Bk Z + Z Bk + Zk B 
 
 Wj Ad k + Wk Ad j + Wj Ad  + W Ad j + Wk Ad  + W Ad k 
−2r(Wj + Wk + W )
+ Zj Bk + Zk Bj + Zj B + Z Bj + Zk B + Z Bk
 
6 I 0
< , j = 1, . . . , N − 2; k = j + 1, . . . , N − 1;
(N − 1)2 0 0
 = k + 1, . . . , N (17)

with  replacing symmetric terms in the LMIs and Adj = Aj + dI, then, the parameter-
dependent state feedback control gain given by

K(α) = Z(α)W (α)−1 (18)

with


N 
N 
N
Z(α) = αj Z j ; W (α) = αj W j ; αj = 1; αj ≥ 0 (19)
j =1 j =1 j =1

assures for the uncertain closed-loop system the pole location specified in figure 2; that is, the
parameter-dependent Lyapunov function W (α) satisfies (9) for all (A, B)(α) ∈ D.

Proof It is clear that W (α) given by (19) is a positive definite parameter-dependent

Lyapunov matrix. From equation (9), using the Schur complement and the change of variables
 Pole location of a suspension system 569


Z(α) = K(α)W (α), it is possible to write (by multiplying the right-hand side by N j =1 αj = 1)
 
A(α)W (α) + W (α)A(α)
 +B(α)Z(α) + Z(α) B(α) + 2dW (α)  
A(α)W (α) + B(α)Z(α) + dW (α) −rW (α)
 
 N
Ad j Wj + Wj Ad j + Bj Zj + Zj Bj 
+ αj3
Wj Ad j + Zj Bj −rWj
j =1
 
Ad j Wj + Wj Ad j + Bj Zj + Zj Bj
 + A W + A W + W A + W A 
 N N  dj k dk j j dk k dj  
  
+ B j Z k + B k Z j + Z j B k + Z k Bj  
+ 2
α j αk  
 
j =1 k =j,k=1  Wj Ad j + Zj Bj + Wj Ad k 
−r(2W + W )
+ Wk Ad j + Zj Bk + Zk Bj j k

 
Ad j Wk + Ad k Wj + Wj Ad k + Wk Ad j
 +Bj Zk + Zj Bk + Zj Bk + Zk Bj 
 
 +A W + A W + W A + W A 
 dj  d j j d  dj 
      

N −2 N −1  N  +Bj Z + B Zj + Zj B + Z Bj 
 
+ αj αk α  +Ad  Wk + Ad k W + W Ad k + Wk Ad  .
 
j =1 k=j +1 =k+1  +B Zk + Bk Z + Z Bk + Zk B 
 
 Wj Ad k + Wk Ad j + Wj Ad  + W Ad j 
       −2r(W + 
 +Wk Ad  + W Ad k + Zj Bk + Zk Bj j

W + W )
+Zj B + Z Bj + Zk B + Z Bk
k 

(20)
Using conditions (15)–(17) and taking into account that αj ≥ 0 one has
 
A(α)W (α) + W (α)A(α)
 + B(α)Z(α) + Z(α) B(α) + 2dW (α)  
A(α)W (α) + B(α)Z(α) + dW (α) −rW (α)
 N  N N 
N −2 N−1  N 
1 6
− αj −
3
α j αk −
2
α j αk α
j =1
(N − 1)2 j =1 (N − 1)2 j =1 k=j +1 =k+1
k =j ;k=1
 
I 0
× ≤ 0. (21)
0 0
This last inequality can be verified by noting that (N − 1) +  ≥ 0 with  and  defined
as

N 
N 
N 
N 
N
 αj (αj − αk )2 = (N − 1) αj3 − αj2 αk ≥ 0,
j =1 k=1 j =1 j =1 k =j ;k=1


N 
N −1 
N
 αj (αk − α )2
j =1 k =j ;k=1  =j,k;=2


N 
N 
N −2 N
 −1 
N
= (N − 2) αj2 αk − 6 αj αk α ≥ 0.
j =1 k =j ;k=1 j =1 k=j +1 =k+1

This concludes the proof of the theorem.

570 V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres

Theorem 1 provides an easy-to-test sufficient LMI condition for the desired pole location
by means of a parameter-dependent state feedback gain. It can be viewed as an extension of
the recently developed robust stability conditions based on parameter-dependent Lyapunov
equations [40, 41].

4. Active suspension control design

The aim now is to apply the preceding results in the design of a state feedback control law for
system (1). The parameters associated with the sprung mass, m1 , the damper coefficient, c, and
the spring constant, k, of the quarter-car model (1) are assumed to be uncertain, i.e. the values
of these parameters can vary 20% around their nominal values (shown in table 1). Furthermore,
it is supposed that the parameters c and k vary as a function of a common mechanical device
which is affected by age (represented by the parameter β). Note that these parameters affect
both the dynamical and input matrices. The numerical intervals are given by

231.12 kg ≤ m1 ≤ 346.68 kg,

850 − 17β Ns m−1 ≤ c ≤ 850 + 17β Ns m−1 ,
(22)
1000 − 20β N m−1 ≤ k ≤ 1000 + 20β N m−1 ,
0 ≤ β ≤ 10.

Initially, the limits of the closed-loop performance associated with the circle specification
for pole location of the uncertain active suspension system (1) are investigated. Using Lemmas
1, 2 and Theorem 1, the aim is to determine, for each centre value −σ as depicted in figure 2,
what is the minimum radius such that a feasible state feedback exists.
The maximum percentage ratio d/σ attained by each method is shown in figure 3, where
only m1 is considered as an uncertain parameter, and in figure 4, with m1 , c and k belonging to
the intervals given by (22). Note that d/σ = 100% means that r = 0 (all eigenvalues assigned
to the same point (−σ, 0)) and d/σ = 0 means d = 0 and r = σ (i.e. the circle touches the
imaginary axis). Greater values of d/σ indicate that a more stringent pole location can be
specified (smaller circles located far from the imaginary axis), while negative values imply
that the circle has passed into the unstable right-hand side of the complex plane. In both figures,
it can be noted that the behaviour of the results of Lemmas 1 and 2 is quite similar, while the
results of Theorem 1 provide the more stringent pole locations.

Figure 3. Percentage ratios d/σ as a function of the centre −σ , for Lemmas 1 (dotted line) and 2 (dashed line) and
Theorem 1 (solid line). Only m1 has been considered as an uncertain parameter.
 Pole location of a suspension system 571

Figure 4. Percentage ratios d/σ as a function of the centre −σ , for Lemmas 1 (dotted line) and 2 (dashed line) and
Theorem 1 (solid line). The uncertain parameters m1 , c and k are limited as in (22).

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the capabilities of each method regarding closed-loop pole location
specifications. In the sequel, the methods are applied for the control design of systems (1)–(4)
with the uncertain parameters m1 , c and k given by (22), which yields a four vertices uncertain
system given by the matrices
   
0 0 −1 1 0 0
 0 0 0 −1 0  0 
   
A1 =   1.00 0 −1.00 1.00 0  ; B1 =  0.0043  ,
   (23)
−8.09 5454.86 8.09 −8.09 0 −0.0350
1 0 0 0 0 0
   
0 0 −1 1 0 0
 0 0 0 −1 0  0 
   

A2 =  1.50 0 −1.50 1.50  
0 ; B2 =  0.0043  (24)
,
−12.13 5454.86 12.13 −12.13 0 −0.0350
1 0 0 0 0 0
   
0 0 −1 1 0 0
 0 0 0 −1 0  0 
   

A3 =  0.67 0 −0.67 0.67 0 ; B3 =  0.0029 
  (25)
,
−8.09 5454.86 8.09 −8.09 0 −0.0350
1 0 0 0 0 0
   
0 0 −1 1 0 0
 0 0 0 −1 0  0 
   
A4 =   1.00 0 −1 1 0  ; B4 =  0.0029  .
   (26)
−12.13 5454.86 12.13 −12.13 0 −0.0350
1 0 0 0 0 0

First of all, a traditional pole placement technique has been used to compute a state feedback
gain for the nominal system. A set of real poles has been chosen as: −36, −38, −40, −42 and
−44 assuring no oscillatory modes and fast enough dynamics. The control gain is given by

Kn = [0.6628 0.4386 −0.0220 0.0026 5.3556] × 106 . (27)

Besides providing a precise pole location specification for the nominal system, the control
gain (27) is not able to cope with the parameter variations. Figure 5 shows the closed-loop
poles for the uncertain system A(α) + B(α)Kn , far away from their nominal specifications. A
572 V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres

Figure 5. Eigenvalues of A(α) + B(α)Kn with Kn given in (27) and the vertices of the uncertain system given by
(23)–(26). The eigenvalues of the closed-loop system vertices are represented by .

circle centred at (−40, 0) with radius r = 31 has been included, since this is the smallest circle
attained by the parameter-dependent control through the results of Theorem 1 (see figure 4).
The robust pole location inside a circle centred at (−40, 0) with radius r = 31 (d = 9) can
be attained by means of a parameter-dependent state feedback control gain K(α) obtained
from the results of Theorem 1. This circular region has been chosen in order to provide good
rates of damping and oscillatory behaviour to the controlled system. Note that other design
specifications can be imposed and thus different trade-offs between road-holding ability and
passenger comfort could be achieved (see figure 4). The feasibility test of the conditions of
Theorem 1 yield matrices Wi , Zi , i = 1, . . . , 4 given by
 
0.0123 −0.0021 0.1184 −0.0166 −0.0010
−0.0021 0.0011 −0.0272 0.0219 0.0001 
 
W1 = 
 0.1184 −0.0272 1.2893 −0.1850 −0.0084 × 10 ,
5
(28)
−0.0166 0.0219 −0.1850 1.0229 −0.0003
−0.0010 0.0001 −0.0084 −0.0003 0.0001
 
0.0122 −0.0021 0.1176 −0.0163 −0.0010
−0.0021 0.0011 −0.0271 0.0221 0.0001 
 
W2 = 
 0.1176 −0.0271 1.2795 −0.1788 −0.0084 × 10 ,
5
(29)
−0.0163 0.0221 −0.1788 1.0463 −0.0003
−0.0010 0.0001 −0.0084 −0.0003 0.0001
 Pole location of a suspension system 573

 
0.0936 −0.0183 0.8735 −0.1426 −0.0078
−0.0183 0.0091 −0.2249 0.1704 0.0007 
 
W3 =  0.8735 −0.2249 9.0984 −1.8987 −0.0606

 × 10 ,
4
(30)
−0.1426 0.1704 −1.8987 7.5338 −0.0028
−0.0078 0.0007 −0.0606 −0.0028 0.0008
 
0.0930 −0.0184 0.8716 −0.1424 −0.0077
−0.0184 0.0092 −0.2266 0.1718 0.0007 
 
W4 = 
 0.8716 −0.2266 9.1022 −1.9003 −0.0602  × 104 ,
 (31)
−0.1424 0.1718 −1.9003 7.4344 −0.0029
−0.0077 0.0007 −0.0602 −0.0029 0.0008
Z1 = −0.2860 0.1555 −3.6196 3.8670 0.0110 × 108 , (32)
Z2 = −0.2706 0.1515 −3.4467 3.7909 0.0100 × 10 , 8
(33)
Z3 = −0.2703 0.1448 −3.3264 3.4226 0.0099 × 10 , 8
(34)
Z4 = −0.2611 0.1424 −3.2319 3.3102 0.0093 × 108 . (35)

Figure 6 shows the eigenvalues of the uncertain closed-loop system for K(α) given by

K(α) = (α1 Z1 + α2 Z2 + α3 Z3 + α4 Z4 )(α1 W1 + α2 W2 + α3 W3 + α4 W4 )−1 (36)

Figure 6. Eigenvalues of the uncertain closed-loop system A(α) + B(α)K(α), with vertices given by (23)–(26)
and K(α) given by (36). The eigenvalues of the closed-loop system vertices are represented by .
574 V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres

4
with αi ≥ 0, i = 1, . . . , 4 and i=1 αi = 1. To have an idea of the magnitudes of the
parameter-dependent control gain K(α) elements (which are similar to the ones of Kn given
by (27)), the following gains have been computed at the vertices:

K1 = [0.6559 0.7284 −0.0509 0.0244 2.8367] × 105 , (37)

K2 = [0.7042 0.7048 −0.0533 0.0240 3.0563] × 10 ,
5
(38)
K3 = [1.1116 0.7485 −0.0863 0.0296 4.8480] × 105 , (39)
K4 = [1.0841 0.7652 −0.0830 0.0283 4.7389] × 105 . (40)

As can be inferred from figure 4, both Lemmas 1 and 2 fail to provide a solution for the
circle centred at (−40, 0) with radius r = 31. If the pole location specification is somewhat
relaxed, for instance, imposing the radius r = 33.6, Lemma 2 yields a robust static feedback
gain given by

K33.6 = 0.5293 0.5968 −0.0515 0.0256 1.8121 × 105 .

A feasible solution is provided by Lemma 1 for a slightly larger radius, r = 33.7, yielding

K33.7 = 0.5159 0.5960 −0.0506 0.0255 1.7530 × 105 .

The results of Theorem 1 allow a more stringent pole location specification, at the price
of knowing the uncertain parameter α. As in other similar scheduled control strategies, the
uncertain parameter α must be measured or estimated on-line; differently from other schemes,
the vertices matrices Wj , Zj , j = 1, . . . , N can be off-line computed and easily stored in a
digital memory. The actual gain K(α) is computed as an explicit function of α through equation
(36), by means, for example, of a cheap standard microprocessor.
Besides providing more stringent design specifications than fixed gains, the strategy pro-
posed in this paper is cheaper than, for instance, computing on-line a standard LQR (linear
quadratic regulator) or carrying out with parameter-dependent matrix equations the require-
ment to evaluate for every incremental change on α (in a gain-scheduling technique without
approximations).
Note that Theorem 1 guarantees that the specified pole location is preserved for any
occurrence of the uncertain parameter α. If a standard pole placement were used, even an
infinitesimal change in the parameter value could cause the closed-loop poles to move out of
the desired region. In many gain-scheduling strategies, a few controllers are computed off-line
and an approximation is done to construct the on-line controller as a function (usually linear)
of the uncertain parameter and, therefore, the design specifications cannot be assured outside
the grid points.
Of course, the closed-loop stability with the desired pole location can be assured only if the
parameter variation is slow enough to be accommodated by the dynamics of the system or if
the changes on α are not time dependent (changes in operating conditions, load, etc.). This
is exactly the case for the active suspension system analysed here, since the sprung mass m1
varies due to load conditions (where changes occur from time to time) and the parameters c
and k are supposed to vary as a function of β (which can be interpreted as an aging factor).
Finally, to obtain the parameter α different techniques can be used. For instance, the sprung
mass m1 can be directly measured by means of a sensor. The values of k and c are both related
to the parameter β (aging factor) (22), and can be easily inferred from the displacements
x2 and x1 . Other methods could be used, or combined with direct measures, such as, for
instance, ARMAX estimation [42]. The value of α is obtained from a simple linear equation
 Pole location of a suspension system 575

involving the actual values of m1 and β (i.e. c and k) and the vertices of the uncertainty
polytope.
Two important factors for evaluating suspension systems are the vehicle stability (which
can be associated with the tyre deflection x2 ) and the passenger ride comfort (related to the
sprung mass velocity and acceleration). The time response of the states xi , i = 1, . . . , 4 and
acceleration of the sprung mass (ẋ3 ) for a unitary step of vertical velocity is shown in figure 7
for several values of the uncertain parameters inside the intervals given in (22). As can be
seen, the settling time (always smaller than 0.5 s) as well as the magnitudes are quite good for
an active suspension system with uncertain parameters (for a comparison, see [2, 13, 14]).
Figure 8 shows the impulse response of x2 (tyre deflection), x3 (sprung mass velocity) and ẋ3
(sprung mass acceleration) for several values of the uncertain parameters inside the intervals
given in (22). Again, the closed-loop time behaviour provided by the parameter-dependent
feedback gain is very good despite the presence of uncertainty.
A frequency diagram for each of the state variables with respect to the exogenous input
is shown in figure 9. The sprung mass acceleration in weighted rms values, according to
ISO2631 [43], is shown in figure 10 for two frequency ranges: from 1 to 80 Hz (top) and
from 0.1 to 0.63 Hz (bottom). In the latter range of frequencies, associated with symptoms
such as motion sickness, it can be seen that the rms values obtained are far below the severe
discomfort boundaries for an exposure time of 30 min [43]. Once again, good behaviour can
be seen, due to the pole location that was chosen and, in this case, can be achieved only by
the parameter-dependent feedback gain proposed in this paper. Of course, other pole location
could be implemented with fixed gains, at the price of greater values of magnitude in the
frequency diagram and also greater settling times and overshoots.

Figure 7. Time-response of states xi , i = 1, . . . , 4 and acceleration of the sprung mass ẋ3 for a unitary step applied
in w for several values of the uncertain parameters inside the intervals given by (22).
576 V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres

Figure 8. Impulse response of states x2 , tyre deflection, x3 , sprung mass velocity and acceleration of the sprung
mass ẋ3 for several values of m1 , c and k inside the uncertainty intervals given by (22).

Figure 9. Frequency magnitude diagram of states xi , i = 1, . . . , 4 with respect to the exogenous input for several
values of m1 , c and k inside the uncertainty intervals given by (22).
 Pole location of a suspension system 577

Figure 10. Acceleration of the sprung mass ẋ3 with respect to the exogenous input in weighted RMS values
according to the ISO2631 [43] for frequency ranges from 1 to 80 Hz (top) and from 0.1 to 0.63 Hz (bottom).

Finally, note that different centres and radii could be chosen in order to cope with other
design specifications concerning road-holding ability and passenger comfort. However, only
the parameter-dependent control strategy can be applied for circles with centre σ < 13 (see
figure 4).

5. Conclusion

Three conditions for pole location of uncertain continuous-time systems in polytope domains
have been applied for the control design of an active suspension system. A circular region
inside the left-hand half of the complex plane has been used, imposing on the closed-loop
system the desired damping and oscillatory behaviour. In all three cases, the state feedback
gain is obtained from a LMI feasibility test which also provides the Lyapunov condition
assuring the desired pole location. The first condition is based on fixed gain and the Lyapunov
function; the second condition provides a fixed gain and a parameter-dependent Lyapunov
matrix; the third condition furnishes a parameter-dependent gain and a parameter-dependent
Lyapunov function. It has been shown that a parameter-dependent control law can cope with
more stringent specifications which cannot be imposed by fixed gains, being an effective
alternative technique for the design of active suspension systems. Differing from other gain-
scheduling strategies, the parameter-dependent control proposed in this paper assures the
desired dynamic behaviour for all values of parameters inside the uncertainty domain, as no
approximation is used since the actual control gain is computed on-line by means of a simple
analytical expression.
578 V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres

Acknowledgements

This work is partially supported by the Brazilian agencies CAPES, CNPq, FAPEMIG (TEC
1233/98) and FAPESP. The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their help-
ful suggestions on this paper. Many thanks also to Professor Alberto Luiz Serpa, from
DMC/FEM/UNICAMP, for his help on mechanical vibration standardizations.

References
[1] Barmish, B.R., 1994, New Tools for Robustness of Linear Systems (NewYork: Macmillan Publishing Company).
[2] ElMadany, M.M. and Al-Majed, M.I., 2001, Quadratic synthesis of active controls for a quarter-car model.
Journal of Vibration and Control, 7, 1237–1252.
[3] Hrovat, D., 1990, Optimal active suspension structures for quarter-car vehicle models. Automatica, 26, 845–860.
[4] Hrovat, D., 1993, Applications of optimal control to advanced automotive suspension design. ASME J. Dynamic
Systems, Measurement and Control, 115, 328–342.
[5] Hrovat, D., 1997, Survey of advanced suspension developments and related optimal control applications.
Automatica, 33, 1781–1817.
[6] Thompson, A.G., 1976, An active suspension with optimal linear state feedback. Vehicle System Dynamics, 5,
187–203.
[7] Thompson, A.G., 1984, Optimal and suboptimal linear active suspensions for road vehicles. Vehicle System
Dynamics, 13, 61–72.
[8] Thompson, A.G. and Davis, B.R., 1988, Optimal linear active suspensions with derivative constraints and output
feedback control. Vehicle System Dynamics, 17, 179–192.
[9] Camino, J.F., Zampieri, D.E., Takahashi, R.H.C. and Peres, P.L.D., 1997, H2 and LQR active suspension
control schemes with uncertain parameters: a comparison, presented at the Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Dynamic Problems in Mechanics, Vol. 1, Angra dos Reis, RJ, March, 1997, pp. 226–228.
[10] Hayakawa, K., Matsumoto, K., Yamashita, M., Suzuki, Y., Fujimori, K. and Kimura, H., 1999, Robust H∞ -
output feedback control of decoupled automobile active suspension systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 44, 392–396.
[11] Kuo, Y. and Li, T.S., 1999, GA-based fuzzy PI/PD controller for automotive active suspension system. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 46, 1051–1056.
[12] Liberzon, A., Rubinstein, D., and Gutman, P.O., 2001, Active suspension for single wheel station of off-road
track vehicle. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 11, 977–999.
[13] Fialho, I. and Balas, G.J., 2002, Road adaptive active suspension design using linear parameter-varying gain-
scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 10, 43–54.
[14] Fialho, I.J. and Balas, G.J., 2000, Design of nonlinear controllers for active vehicle suspensions using parameter-
varying control synthesis. Vehicle System Dynamics, 33, 351–370.
[15] Oustaloup, A., Moreau, X. and Nouillant, M., 1997, From fractal robustness to non integer approach in vibration
insulation: the CRONE suspension, presented at the Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Vol. 5, San Diego, CA, December, pp. 4979–4984.
[16] Sohn, H.-C., Hong, K.-S. and Hedrick, J.K., 2000, Semi-active control of the Macpherson suspension system:
hardware-in-the-loop simulations, presented at the Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on
Control Applications, Anchorage, Alaska, September, pp. 982–987.
[17] Bernussou, J., Peres, P.L.D. and Geromel, J.C., 1989, A linear programming oriented procedure for quadratic
stabilization of uncertain systems. Systems & Control Letters, 13, 65–72.
[18] Boyd, S., El Ghaoui, L., Feron, E. and Balakrishnan, V., 1994, Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control
Theory, SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics (Philadelphia: SIAM).
[19] Geromel, J.C., Peres, P.L.D. and Souza, S.R., 1993, H2 guaranteed cost control for uncertain discrete-time
linear systems. International Journal of Control, 57, 853–864.
[20] Khargonekar, P.P. and Rotea, M.A., 1991, Mixed H2 /H∞ control, a convex optimization approach. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 36 824–837.
[21] Scherer, C., Gahinet, P. and Chilali, M., 1997, Multiobjective output-feedback control via LMI optimization.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 42, 896–911.
[22] Feron, E., Apkarian, P. and Gahinet, P., 1996, Analysis and synthesis of robust control systems via parameter-
dependent Lyapunov functions. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 41, 1041–1046.
[23] Gahinet, P., Apkarian, P. and Chilali, M., 1996, Affine parameter-dependent Lyapunov functions and real
parametric uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 41, 436–442.
[24] Trofino, A., 1999, Parameter dependent Lyapunov functions for a class of uncertain linear systems: an LMI
approach, presented at the Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 1, Phoenix,
AZ, December, 1999, pp. 2341–2346.
[25] Daafouz, J., Bara, G.I. Kratz, F. and Ragot, J., 2000, State observers for discrete-time LPV systems: an inter-
polation based approach, presented at the Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
Sydney, Australia, December, 2000, pp. 4571–4572.
 Pole location of a suspension system 579

[26] Lyshevski, S.E., 1998, State-space model identification of deterministic nonlinear systems: nonlinear mapping
technology and application of the Lyapunov theory. Automatica, 34, 659–664.
[27] Xiong, Y. and Saif, M., 2000, Sliding-mode observer for uncertain systems part I: linear system case, presented
at the Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 1, Sydney, Australia, December,
2000, pp. 316–321.
[28] Alleyne, A. and Hedrick. K., 1995, Nonlinear adaptive control of active suspensions. IEEE Transactions on
Control Systems Technology, 3, 94–101.
[29] Haddad, W.M. and Bernstein, D.S., 1992, Controller design with regional pole constraints. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 37, 54–69.
[30] Barmish, B.R., 1985, Necessary and sufficient conditions for quadratic stabilizability of an uncertain system.
Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 46, 399–408.
[31] de Oliveira, M.C., Bernussou, J. and Geromel, J.C., 1999, A new discrete-time robust stability condition.
Systems & Control Letters, 37, 261–265.
[32] Rajamani, R. and Hedrick, J.K., 1995, Adaptive observers for active automotive suspensions: theory and
experiment. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 3, 86–93.
[33] Yokoyama, M., Hedrick, J.K. and Toyama, S., 2001, A model following sliding mode controller for semi-active
suspension systems with MR dampers, presented at the Proceedings of the 2001 American Control Conference,
Vol. 5, Arlington, VA, June, 2001, pp. 2652–2657.
[34] Dahleh, M. and Dahleh, M.A., 1991, On slowly time-varying systems. Automatica, 27, 201–205.
[35] Albert A., 1969, Conditions for positive and nonnegative definiteness in terms of pseudoinverses. SIAM Journal
on Applied Mathematics, 17, 434–440.
[36] Chilali, M., Gahinet, P., and Apkarian, P., 1999, Robust pole placement in LMI regions. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 44, 2257–2270.
[37] Garcia, G. and Bernussou, J., 1995, Pole assignment for uncertain systems in a specified disk by state-feedback.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 40, 184–190.
[38] Palhares, R.M. and Peres, P.L.D., 1999, Robust H∞ filtering design with pole placement constraint via LMIs.
Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 102, 239–261.
[39] Gahinet, P., Nemirovski, A., Laub, A.J. and Chilali, M., 1995, LMI Control Toolbox for Use with Matlab. User’s
Guide (The Math Works Inc: Natick, MA, USA).
[40] Ramos, D.C.W. and Peres, P.L.D., 2001,A less conservative LMI condition for the robust stability of discrete-time
uncertain systems. Systems & Control Letters, 43, 371–378.
[41] Ramos, D.C.W. and Peres, P.L.D., 2002, An LMI condition for the robust stability of uncertain continuous-time
linear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 47, 675–678.
[42] Ljung, L., 1999, System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd Edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
[43] International Organization of Standardization, 1997, Mechanical Vibration and Shock-Evaluation of
Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration, ISO2631 (Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization of
Standardization).
View publication stats