Adaptive Neural Network Control For Semi-Active Ve

2489.
Adaptive neural network control for semi-active

vehicle suspensions
Zhushun Ding1, Feng Zhao2, Yechen Qin3, Cheng Tan4
1Department of Aerospace and Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China
1, 2, 4Beijing
Institute of Aerospace Control Devices, Beijing, China
3Department of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
2Corresponding author
E-mail: 1fsoldier@126.com, 2zhaofeng_win@126.com, 3qinyechenbit@gmail.com,

4tianfangyetanc@163.com
Received 22 November 2016; received in revised form 5 March 2017; accepted 8 March 2017
DOI https://doi.org/10.21595/jve.2017.18045
Abstract. An adaptive neural network (ANN) control method for a continuous damping control
(CDC) damper is used in vehicle suspension systems. The control objective is to suppress
positional oscillation of the sprung mass in the presence of road irregularities. To achieve this, a
boundary model is first applied to depict dynamic characteristics of the CDC damper based on
experimental data. To overcome nonlinearity issues of the model system and uncertainties in the
suspension parameters, an adaptive radial basis function neural network (RBFNN) with online
learning capability is utilized to approximate unknown dynamics, without the need for prior
information related to the suspension system. In addition, particle swarm optimization (PSO)
technique is adopted to determine and optimize the parameters of the controller. Closed loop
stability and asymptotic convergence performance are guaranteed based on Lyapunov stability
theory. Finally, simulation results demonstrate that the proposed controller can effectively regulate
the chassis vertical position under different road excitations. Furthermore, the control performance
is determined to be better than that of the typical Skyhook controller.
Keywords: adaptive neural networks, semi-active suspension system, CDC damper.
1. Introduction
Suspension systems are among the most critical components that ensure ride comfort along
with good road handing and safety in ground vehicles. A vehicle is always subjected to random
excitation due to an irregular road profile. Vehicle suspension systems are designed to absorb the
energy and mitigate uncomfortable vibrations due to this random excitation. These suspension
systems can be broadly classified into three categories based on their energy consumption:
passive, active and semi-active suspension systems. In the case of passive suspension systems,
parameters cannot be changed once fixed [1]. Thus, active and semi-active suspension systems
are the current focus of extensive research for creating adaptive suspensions to improve vehicle
ride comfort and road handing [2]. In active suspension systems, separate actuators are used to
effectively regulate motion of the vehicle body over a wide frequency spectrum. Unfortunately,
the high cost and complexity of such a system limit its commercial applications. Ride comfort
with semi-active suspension is comparatively lower compared to their active counterparts.
However, performance benefits in semi-active systems exceed those of passive systems without
the need for large power supplies and expensive hardware as in the case of active systems [3].
Furthermore, if semi-active suspension fails for any reason, the system functions as a passive
system and remains stable.
A variety of dampers can be used to generate damping force in vehicle suspensions. However,
for semi-active vehicle suspensions, CDC dampers and magneto-rheological (MR) fluid dampers
are mostly utilized as the controllable shock absorbers [4]. A CDC damper varies the size of an
orifice in the hydraulic flow valve, which can give continuously variable damping characteristics
[5]. On the other hand, the MR damper uses magnetic fields to vary viscosities of the MR fluid,
and electro-rheological fluids exhibit rheological changes when an electric field is applied to the
fluid [6-8]. Compared with magneto-rheological and electro-rheological dampers, the CDC
2654 © JVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. JOURNAL OF VIBROENGINEERING. JUN 2017, VOL. 19, ISSUE 4. ISSN 1392-8716
2489. ADAPTIVE NEURAL NETWORK CONTROL FOR SEMI-ACTIVE VEHICLE SUSPENSIONS.
ZHUSHUN DING, FENG ZHAO, YECHEN QIN, CHENG TAN
damper is much simpler in design and less expensive. It also has the advantage of reliability and
durability. The CDC damper made by ZF SACHS has been successfully applied in commercial
vehicles such as VW-Phaeton, Ford-Mondeo, GM-Lacrosse. Several models are discussed in this
paper to characterize the performance of semi-active dampers in terms of their dynamic behavior.
Generally, the dynamic models for CDC dampers can be broadly categorized as parametric and
nonparametric models. The Bouc-Wen hysteresis model [9] and NARX model [10] are parametric
models, whereas, the neural network model [11] and fuzzy model [12] are nonparametric models.
Briefly, parametric models can be identified based on their use of mechanical elements, which are
tested using experimental studies [13]. Non-parametric models use mathematical methods, which
are not correlated to any physical elements. In this paper, constraints for output forces using a
CDC damper are described. Upper and lower bounds are introduced to restrict desired forces in
the controller design.
CDC dampers, used as the actuators in semi-active suspension systems require proper control.
Thus, an increasing number of researches reported in literature have focused on control of semi-
active suspension systems. A wide array of methods has proposed ranging from a simple on-off
control technique to advanced techniques for linear and nonlinear control, such as
LQG/H∞ control [14], LPV control [15], backstepping control [16] and quantitative feedback
theory [17]. The Skyhook control strategy, first proposed by Karnopp [18], is a classical
semi-active control approach, which has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing vertical
oscillations of the chassis. Since then, a number of modified Skyhook control methods [19-21]
have been developed. Groundhook [22] and hybrid control approaches [23] resolve issues due to
unsprung mass vibrations, thereby achieving better road holding ability and improving vehicle
stability. In a previous study [24], a sliding mode control has been proposed to design a sliding
surface, which included sprung mass acceleration and tire deflection. Energy-Flow-Driven [25]
has been proposed as a control method, which allows energy transfer between the vehicle chassis
and tire. Recently, some studies have attempted to combine road estimation and semi-active
suspension system to provide better controller and observer performance [26, 27]. Typically, most
control algorithms aim at evaluating trade-off of semi-active control laws in terms of ride comfort
and road holding. Moreover, with the recent trend of self-driving ground vehicles, which are
equipped with mounted cameras, vertical vibration amplitude of the camera needs to be reduced
to remove unwanted motion from dynamic camera sequences. Therefore, in this paper, larger
emphasis is on vertical body displacement when evaluating performance indices of suspension
systems in unmanned or self-driving ground vehicles.
Recently, intelligence control algorithms based on fuzzy logic control and neural network
control have been proposed. Establishing reasonable fuzzy rules is one of the challenging aspects
in the design of a fuzzy controller. The number of fuzzy rules and parameters for membership
functions is determined automatically using genetic algorithm operations [28]. The controller
design methodology used in previous works did not need accurate models of the suspension
system. Conversely, neural networks have received increasing attention, with application in a
number of research fields [29, 30]. This is mainly due to the advantages associated with
approximating uncertain nonlinear functions in a dynamic system. In a previous study [31], a
neural networks control for semi-active suspension system has been described, which includes an
error back propagation algorithm with quadratic momentum of the multilayer forward neural
networks. A neural networks scheme employed an adaptive tuning law to control a bus suspension
system [32]. A semi-active suspension with the CDC damper is a nonlinear dynamic system, thus
traditional control strategies based on mathematical models with random road roughness cannot
be easily applied. This is due to it is difficulty in obtaining accurate models of vehicle suspension
for practical applications. An adaptive neural network control can be used in this case as prior
system information is not required. This is a promising approach that can guarantee good
performance of semi-active suspension systems.
In this paper, an adaptive neural network control of a quarter-car model of a semi-active
suspension with the CDC damper is developed. The main objective of the algorithm is to suppress
© JVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. JOURNAL OF VIBROENGINEERING. JUN 2017, VOL. 19, ISSUE 4. ISSN 1392-8716 2655
vertical oscillation amplitude of the sprung mass in the presence of road irregularities. For this
purpose, a boundary model with nine straight envelope lines is proposed to depict dynamic
characteristics of the CDC damper based on the experimental data. Next, an adaptive RBFNN is
designed to deal with unknown nonlinear dynamics of the semi-active suspension system. RBFNN
can approximate any continuous function to any desired accuracy with proper weights of neural
networks. Also, the weights of the RBFNN can be adaptively adjusted online. It could improve
the robustness of the closed-loop system. PSO technique is used to optimize parameters of the
control law according to the overall performance indices. Finally, effectiveness of the proposed
control approach is validated by three typical road excitations, and performance of ANN control
is compared with the typical Skyhook control and the passive suspension case in the simulations.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the dynamic model of a
semi-active suspension system with nonlinear stiffness and the friction is described. In Section 3,
the detailed design procedure of the boundary model of CDC damper is given. Section 4 develops
the adaptive neural network controller and describes the PSO algorithm to obtain the control
design parameters. The results of computer simulations of the controller are presented in
Section 5. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the results and presents the conclusions of this work.
2. Nonlinear semi-active suspension system
A quarter-car semi-active suspension model with two degrees of freedom (2-DOF) is shown
in Fig. 1. The term represents the sprung mass of the car body. While the unsprung mass is
given by . Variables , and represent the absolute displacement of the body, wheel
profile and road profile, respectively. The tire is modeled as a linear spring with stiffness .
Suspension damping coefficient is manipulated as a variable of the control system. The
polynomial nonlinear stiffness model of suspension system [33] is given as:
( )= ( − )+ ( − ) + ( − ) . (1)
xb mb Sprung mass
fr fs f CDC Suspension
xw
mw Unsprung mass
kt Tire
xr
Fig. 1. Quarter-car model with the semi-active suspension
Here, suspension nonlinearities including stiffness and the friction force are taken into
consideration. Friction force occurs between the damper’s piston and cylinder. Dynamic friction
force is defined as , and represents critical velocity when the static friction becomes the
dynamic friction. Friction force can be described by the below equation [34]:
−
sin , | − |< ,
= 2 (2)
sgn( − ), | − |≥ .
Nonlinear dynamic equations of the suspension system can be expressed as:
+ + + = 0, (3)
+ ( − )− − − = 0, (4)
where is a function of the relative velocity − and current input. Sprung mass dynamics
can be simplified as:
= ( )+ ( ) , (5)
where ( ) is an unknown bounded function and ( ) is the uncertain parameter, which is easily
varied according to the vehicle load. From Eq. (3), the unknown bounded function can be
given as:
+ 1
( )=− , ( )=− . (6)
In a vehicle system, nonlinearity of suspension model and uncertainties in suspension system

affect the vibration mitigation performance. For example, properties of the damper vary with time
due to the heating of the fluid. Influence of uncertainties should be taken into account in the design
of the controller.
To facilitate the design of proper control schemes, the following assumption and lemma are
used throughout the paper.
Assumption: Road profile disturbance is bounded.
Lemma [35]: Let ( ) be a continuous function, which is defined over a compact set . Then,
there exists a neural networks system ( ) which can approximate ( ) with arbitrary
accuracy, such that:
( )= ( ) + ( ), (7)
where = , ,⋯, is the ideal constant weight vector,

( )= ( ), ( ), ⋯ , ( ) is the RBFs vector, > 1 is the number of neurons, ( ) is
approximation error which is minimized by the ideal vector :
: = argmin sup| ( ) − ( )| .
∈ℝ ∈
∗ ∗
Assuming ( )is bounded, | ( )| < < ∞ with being an unknown constant. ( ) is a
Gaussian function as described below:
−( − ) ( − )
( ) = exp . (8)
With = , ,⋯, is the center of the receptive field and is the width of the
Gaussian function.
3. Boundary CDC damper model
In this work, the CDC damper has a solenoid valve inside, which is used to generate damping
force. The direction of the damping force is opposite to the direction of relative velocity of the
suspension, and it can only produce forces in the first and third quadrants in the force-velocity
graph. In other words, force distribution in the force-velocity graph is the intrinsic passivity
constraint due to characteristics of CDC dampers. Since, this research focuses on the overall
performance evaluation of control strategy for semi-active suspension systems, the hysteresis
effect is not taken into consideration and only peak damping forces at individual peak velocities
in the velocity-force map are recorded. In this case, the boundary model is obtained from
experimental data.
A photograph of the structure containing CDC damper and coil spring is shown in Fig. 2. The
working characteristics of the CDC damper are tested on a MTS load frame. Force and
displacement are measured using a load cell and LVDT sensor. Relative velocities are calculated
using the central difference method [36, 37]. When the control algorithm is applied, the suspension
system state (relative velocity) can be obtained by a variety of observers, such as the high gain
observer [38] and higher order sliding mode observer [39]. Sinusoidal excitations with amplitude
of 50 mm, and calculated frequencies of 0.17 Hz, 0.41 Hz, 0.83 Hz, 1.24 Hz, 1.72 Hz, 2.45 Hz,
3.31 Hz and 4.77 Hz are applied. The resulting peak velocities are 0.052 m/s, 0.13 m/s, 0.26 m/s,
0.39 m/s, 0.54 m/s, 0.77 m/s, 1.04 m/s and 1.5 m/s for each of the frequencies respectively. Control
current is varied from 0 A to 1.8 A at internals of 0.2 A. The velocity-force map for the adopted
CDC damper is shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 2. Photograph of CDC damper and MTS load frame
5000
1.8A
4000 1.6A
1.4A
3000 1.2A
1A
Damping force (N)
2000 0.8A
0.6A
1000 0.4A
0.2A
0 0A
-1000
-2000
-3000
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Velocity (m/s)
Fig. 3. Velocity-force map of CDC damper
Damping force increases with increase in the relative velocity. However, it can be seen that
slope is steeper as the current input decreases. Damping force is determined by the input current
and the input velocity to the CDC damper. This means that there are upper and lower bounds on
the force. The boundary model primarily focuses on the maximum and minimum output force of
CDC damper for each value of − . Boundary force corresponding to the control currents of
0 A and 1.8 A can be fitted piece-wise into nine straight lines, such as:
= ( − )+ , ( = 1, … ,9). (9)
The boundary area and the nine lines of the adopted CDC damper are shown in Fig. 4. The
parameters for each of these nine lines are estimated by the least squares method and tabulated in
Table 1.
5000
4000 f1 f3
max Fd  xb  xw  f2
3000
Damping Force (N)

2000
f4
1000
f5
0 f6
-1000 f8
-2000 min Fd  xb  xw 
f9 f7
-3000
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Velocity (m/s)
Fig. 4. Boundary model of CDC damper
Table 1. Parameters of boundary damper model

−
( − )>0
25154 0 4447 1077 1473 1850 3181 0 587 337
−
( − )≤0
381 0 6592 0 1409 –674 351 –1489
4. Control system
The adaptive neural network controller generates a desired damping force according to the
control law. In order to improve the performance of the semi-active suspension system, PSO
method is used to select parameters of the controller and weighting update laws. Since, the
semi-active damper has upper and lower bounds on the force. The actual force is calculated using
the boundary CDC damper model based on the derivative of suspension deflection. Desired value
of the body displacement _ is set as zero. Then, the CDC damper produces the actual
damping force for the quarter car model of vehicle suspension. The structure diagram of the
semi-active controller for vehicle suspension is depicted in Fig. 5.
xb_desired e
xb xb  xw
Fig. 5. Structure diagram of the semi-active controller for vehicle suspension
4.1. Adaptive neural network full state feedback controller design
A generalized tracking error is used here which is defined as = _ − , where

_ is a reference trajectory, as well as an auxiliary error vector which is given as:
= + . (10)
The derivative with respect to time is given as:
= + = − + . (11)
Using Eq. (11), the subsystem dynamic Eq. (5) can rewritten as:
= − ( )− ( ) + . (12)
However, semi-active suspension systems are complicated by nonlinearities and uncertainties

in the system dynamic. In this case, both ( ) and may not be known exactly. Radial basis
function neural network (RBFNN) is used to approximate parameters in the dynamic model,
according to the Lemma, and can be written as:
( − ( )+ )= ( )+ ( ). (13)
Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (12):
= ( )− + ( )+ ( ). (14)
Now, we propose the following control as:
= + ( )+ , (15)
where, is the estimation of the unknown vector :
= − . (16)
The RBFNN updating law is defined as:
=Γ ( ) + , (17)
̂ =− ̂ + sign( ) , (18)
where, > 0, > 0, > 0, > 0, > 0 are chosen by design, and Γ = Γ ∈ × is the
matrix related to adaption rate, and is the unknown bounded value. A robust term is designed
as = sign( ) ̂ to overcome the effects caused by approximation error.
The adaptive neural network control development can be summarized in the following theorem.
Theorem: Considering semi-active suspension system (3-4) satisfies the assumption, with the
lemma and control input Eq. (15) is governed by the adaptive laws Eqs. (17) and (18), given that
the full state information is available. For bounded initial conditions, , and ̃ in closed loop
system are uniformly ultimately bounded (UUB).
Proof:
Considering the effect of error and ̃ into the system’s stability, a Lyapunov function
candidate can be proposed as:
1 1 1
= + Γ + ̃ . (19)
2 2 2
Taking derivative of with respect to time, the following expression is obtained:
1 1
= + + Γ + ̃ ̂. (20)
2
A closed loop system is obtained by integrating the control law Eq. (15) into Eq. (14):
= − − ( )− sign( ) ̂ + ( ). (21)
Substituting Eq. (21) into Eq. (20):
1
=− − ( ) − sign( ) ̂ + ( ) − + Γ + ̃ ̂. (22)
2
With the updated laws stated in Eq. (16) and Eq. (17), it follows that:
1
=− + + + ( ) − sign( ) ̂ + ̃ ̂
2
=− + + − ̃ ̂ + ( ) − sign( ) ̂ + sign( ) ̃
2
(23)
=− + + − − ̃( ̃ + )+ − sign( )
2
≤− + − − ̃ + ‖ ‖ + − | |− .
2 2 2 2 2
To guarantee closed loop stability, Lyapunov function candidate should be negative. Therefore,
the following expression is satisfied:
‖ ‖ + − | |− ≤ 0. (24)
2 2
It can be rewritten as:
2 | |− −
‖ ‖ ≤ . (25)
Then, the derivative of the Lyapunov function becomes:
≤− + − − ̃ ≤ 0. (26)
2 2 2
Inequality Eq. (26) shows that and ̃ are bounded as → ∞. The proof has been finished.
4.2. Particle swarm optimization
The ANN controller performance discussed in the preceding section is mainly influenced by
the following control parameters: , , , , and . Consequently, PSO is widely used for
optimizing the controller parameters and is believed to perform better than the ‘trial and error’
method [40-42]. This method is a random optimization method based on swarm intelligence.
Control parameters in this method are referred to as the particles, each with their own position and
velocity. Starting with a random initialization, particles efficiently search a space to minimize an
objective function which is also called the fitness function. The operation of the PSO in the th
iteration is described by the following equations [43]:
( + 1) = ℎ ( ) + ( )− ( ) + ( )− ( ) , (27)
( + 1) = ( ) + ( + 1), (28)
where, is the position of the particle, is the present particle velocity, ℎ is the inertia weight,
and are uniform random numbers in the range of [0 1], and are acceleration
coefficients, namely cognitive and social scaling parameters. is the group-best (global)
solution found up to the current iteration and is the personal-best solution found by
individual particles from their search history.
In many applications, a larger inertia weight ℎ is favorable for global search, and a smaller
inertia weight ℎ is suitable for local search. To balance the ability between the global and the local
search, ℎ is proposed [44] as:
(ℎ −ℎ )( − )
ℎ= +ℎ , (29)
where, is the maximum number of iteration, ℎ and ℎ have the typical values of
ℎ = 0.9, ℎ = 0.4.
The objective function for PSO includes different performance criteria, such as
root-mean-square (RMS) value of the vehicle body displacement, suspension deflection, tire
deflection and sprung mass acceleration. It can be shown as:
1 1 1 1
= + ( − ) + ( − ) + , (30)
where, , , and are terms which act as weights for the different system outputs. In the
case of self-driving or unmanned vehicles, vehicle body position stabilization in vertical direction
is more important than ride comfort. Thus, for this study values for the weights are selected as
= 800, = 10, = 100 and = 1. Smaller value of implies better overall
performance of the vehicle suspension.
5. Simulations
To evaluate the efficacy of the proposed control strategy, numerical simulations are performed
for the quarter-car model equipped with CDC damper. The CDC damper used in the experiments
is manufactured by ZF Sachs Company, which develops and produces damper and suspension
strut modules. The suspension deflection should not exceed the limit of CDC damper working
spaces, as it could damage the suspension components when the mechanical displacement
restrictor is working. In this paper, value of the rattle space constraint is set as 120 mm. The
parameters of the vehicle suspension are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Parameter values of the semi-active suspension system

Parameter Description Value
Sprung mass 410 kg
Unsprung mass 39 kg
Linear suspension stiffness 16812 N/m
Nonlinear suspension stiffness –73696 N/m2
Nonlinear suspension stiffness 3170400 N/m3
Tire stiffness 190000 N/m
Passive system damping 1100 N/m/s
Critical velocity 0.01 m/s
The dynamic friction 30 N
The initial condition of the system is set as (0) = 0 0 0 0 , and the number of
neurons in the hidden layer are 16. Initial weighting vectors are selected as
(0) = 0.1 0.1 ⋯ 0.1 and the center of Gaussian function is set as = −1 + 2 ⁄50
and = 5 ( = 1, 2, 3,…, 16). The final parameter values optimized by PSO for the design
controller in three typical cases are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Controller parameters of the ANN

Parameter
Case 1 872.5 3.1 0.097 0.052 3.5 137
Case 2 1353 2.7 0.13 0.037 0.01 215
Case 3 2057 1.2 0.1 0.015 0.017 306
In simulations, a classical semi-active control approach known as the Skyhook controller is

adopted for comparing and validating the performance of the designed controller. The continuous
Skyhook controller defines the desired damping force as:
, ( − ) ≥ 0,
_ = (31)
0, ( − ) < 0,
where, _ is the Skyhook damping force and = 3000 is the Skyhook gain. The
Skyhook control gain selection is important for the controller comparison. Here, the gain is
selected as 3000 Ns/m by weighting 0.5 to 0.5 for ride comfort and road handling. Also, readers
could use the continuously variable skyhook control as a contrast algorithm.
5.1. Model of road profiles and road roughness
To evaluate the performance of the designed controller, three typical cases are considered.
Case 1: As resonance frequency of the car body is about 1 Hz [45-46], an external excitation
close to this frequency may induce unwanted oscillation. Then, to verify control performance near
the system resonance frequency, the road profile is defined as:
( ) = 0.025sin2 . (32)
Case 2: Consider a sinusoidal bump in an otherwise smooth road surface. Mathematical

description of this type of ground displacement is given by:
2
0.5ℎ 1 − cos , ≤ ≤ ,
( )= (33)
0, otherwise,
where, ℎ and are height and length of the bump, and is the vehicle velocity. Suppose,
ℎ = 0.5 m, = 2.5 m and = 20 km/h. The corresponding road excitation is shown in Fig. 6.
0.06
0.05
Road profile (m)
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
time (s)
Fig. 6. Bump road profile
Case 3: Consider road excitation which is consistent and typically specified as a random
process with a ground displacement power spectral density (PSD) given by:
( )= ( ) , (34)
1
( )= ( ), (35)
where, is the spatial frequency in , ( ) stands for PSD in time domain, and is the
reference spatial frequency. Road roughness is given as ( ) = 256×10-6 m3 , = 0.1,
= 2 and = 40 km/h. This PSD indicates that the road profile can be obtained by integrating
white noise in time domain [47]. The resulting displacement of the road excitation in time domain
is shown in Fig. 7.
0.06
0.04
0.02
Road profile (m)
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
Fig. 7. Random road profile
5.2. Comparison of controller performance
The closed-loop system responses for the sinusoidal road excitation are plotted in Fig. 8 to 10,
which show vehicle body displacement, body acceleration and tire deflection, respectively. It can
be clearly seen that body displacement and body acceleration have relatively lower magnitude
with ANN control compared to Skyhook control. Numerically, the RMS value of the body
displacement is 0.021 with ANN control and 0.025 with Skyhook control. In the case of the
former, the RMS decreases by 61 % compared to passive suspension systems. ANN control can
suppress 66 % RMS value of sprung acceleration, which is an improvement of 54 % compared to
Skyhook control. The peak-to-peak value of tire deflection with proposed ANN control is 5.9 mm,
which is smaller than the 6.7 mm obtained using Skyhook control. Thus, ANN control with CDC
damper improves performance over Skyhook control.
0.1 4
ANN ANN
Skyhook 3 Skyhook
Passive Passive
Body acceleration (m/s2)
0.05 2
Body displacement (m)
0 0
-1
-0.05 -2
-3
-0.1 -4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s) time (s)
Fig. 8. Body displacement (Case 1) Fig. 9. Body acceleration (Case 1)
For a vehicle crossing a bumpy terrain, dynamic responses of the sprung mass position, body
acceleration and tire deflection using ANN and Skyhook control are shown in Figs. 11 to 13. It
can be observed that the amplitudes of body displacement and sprung mass acceleration diminish
much faster for both ANN and Skyhook control compared to passive suspension. Maximum value
of body displacement is 29 mm with ANN control, which is significantly lower than 46 mm with
Skyhook control. Peak-to-peak value of the tire deflection is reduced from 8.2 mm to 6.8 mm
compared to Skyhook control. Damping forces produced by CDC damper for both controllers are
compared in Fig. 12. In particular, chattering with Skyhook controller causes undesirable
switching for force outputs, which may affect body acceleration when crossing a bump in the road.
This effect can be seen at around 0.6 s.
-3
x 10 0.06 ANN
8
ANN Skyhook
6 Skyhook Passive
Passive 0.04

4
Tire deflection (m)
2 0.02
0
0
-2
-4
-0.02
-6
-8 -0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time (s) time (s)
Fig. 10. Tire deflection (Case 1) Fig. 11. Body displacement (Case 2)
3 x 10
-3
ANN 8
ANN
2 Skyhook
6 Skyhook
Passive
Passive
Body acceleration (m/s2)
1
4
Tire deflection (m)
0 2
-1 0
-2 -2
-3 -4
-4 -6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time (s) time (s)
Fig. 12. Body acceleration (Case 2) Fig. 13. Tire deflection (Case 2)
Dynamic response of the sprung mass displacement with random excitation is shown in
Fig. 14. For Skyhook control, the RMS value is 0.0182, whereas in the case of ANN control, it is
equal to 0.01. Sprung mass stability is significantly improved using ANN control with RMS
decreasing to approximately 47 %. Peak value of the vertical body displacement is 41 mm using
Skyhook control and is only 31 mm with ANN control. The curve between 6 second and 8 second
dynamic response of the tire deflection is shown in Fig. 15, the RMS value of tire deflection with
ANN control is 0.0032, which is slightly smaller than a value of 0.0035 obtained using Skyhook
control. However it can be seen that the value of tire deflection with Skyhook control has
deteriorated compared to that of the passive suspension. Frequency domain analysis of the PSD
curves of the vehicle body acceleration is shown in Fig. 16. From the figure, it can be seen that
PSD of ANN is considerably lower compared to Skyhook in the body resonance frequency range
(1-1.5 Hz).
0.06 0.02
ANN ANN
Skyhook 0.015 Skyhook
0.04 Passive Passive
0.01
Tire deflection (m)
0.02
0.005
0
0
-0.005
-0.02
-0.01
-0.04 -0.015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8
time (s) time (s)
Fig. 14. Body displacement (Case 3) Fig. 15. Tire deflection (Case 3)
Optimal control design parameters can be obtained using the proposed PSO algorithm, which
allows for significant improvement in the performance of semi-active vehicle suspension.
Parameters for PSO algorithm in case 3 are set as = 1.5 and = 1.5. In Fig. 17, it can be seen
that the fitness function converges after 40 iterations.

The further simulations with senor noise are presented to demonstrate that ANN control
scheme can withstand the additive noise. Sensor noise was added to the measured suspension
stroke and performance is evaluated [48]. The performance of sprung mass displacement, sprung
mass acceleration and tire deflection for random road excitation has been presented in Table 4.
0.6 8
ANN
Skyhook 7.9
0.5 Passive
acceleration ((m/s2)2/Hz)
PSD of vehicle sprung
7.8
0.4 7.7
Fitness
0.3 7.6
7.5
0.2
7.4
0.1
7.3
0 7.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Frequemcy (Hz) Iteration
Fig. 16. PSD of vehicle body acceleration (Case 3) Fig. 17. Convergence of fitness function (Case 3)
Based on the proposed method, further researches can be made with combination of road
estimation and form road adaptive ANN semi-active suspension system for further improvement
under varying road conditions. For road estimation methods, [49] can be used to guideline for
controller parameters tuning.
Table 4. Performance evaluation over senor noise

Sprung mass displacement Sprung mass acceleration Tire deflection
Senor Noise RMS
RMS (m) RMS (m/s2) RMS (mm)
1.1×10-5 0.012 0.92 3.38
3.3×10-5 0.014 0.98 3.32
6. Conclusions
In this paper, an adaptive neural network controller for a nonlinear suspension system using a
CDC damper is proposed. A semi-active control design is considered using a boundary model of
the CDC damper. The boundary model is constructed piece-wise using nine straight lines based
on the experimental data. The adaptive controller is designed to meet control objectives and
RBFNN is used to approximate the nonlinear uncertain part of the suspension system. Moreover,
parameters for control law are optimized using PSO. The closed loop stability along with
asymptotic convergence performance are proved using Lyapunov theory. Finally, the performance
of this controller is validated by numerical simulations under three different road conditions.
Improvement in RMS values is achieved using the proposed controller and values for body
displacement are lower compared to Skyhook controller. These results validate the efficacy of the
proposed controller to achieve better performance for semi-active suspension systems in
comparison to both Skyhook control and passive suspension systems.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. U1564210), Innovative Talent Support Program for Postdoctorate of China (Grant
No. BX201600017), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funded Project (Grant
No. 2016M600934).
References
[1] Hrovat D. Survey of advanced suspension developments and related optimal control applications.
Automatica, Vol. 33, Issue 10, 1997, p. 1781-1817.
[2] Zong L. H., Gong X. L., Guo C. Y., et al. Inverse neuro-fuzzy MR damper model and its application
in vibration control of vehicle suspension system. Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 50, Issue 7, 2012,
p. 1025-1041.
[3] Ren H., Zhao Y., Chen S., et al. State observer based adaptive sliding mode control for semi-active
suspension systems. Journal of Vibroengineering, Vol. 17, Issue 3, 2015, p. 1464-1475.
[4] Tseng H. E., Hrovat D. State of the art survey: active and semi-active suspension control. Vehicle
System Dynamics, Vol. 53, Issue 7, 2015, p. 1034-1062.
[5] Choi J. Y. High tunable control algorithm for semi-active suspension by a normal type CDC damper.
Journal of Institute of Control, Robotics and Systems, Vol. 16, Issue 11, 2010, p. 1096-1103.
[6] Du H., Lam J., Zhang N. Modelling of a magneto-rheological damper by evolving radial basis
function networks. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 19, Issue 8, 2006,
p. 869-881.
[7] Yao G. Z., Yap F. F., Chen G., et al. MR damper and its application for semi-active control of vehicle
suspension system. Mechatronics, Vol. 12, Issue 7, 2002, p. 963-973.
[8] Qin Yechen, Dong Mingming, Zhao Feng, et al. Comprehensive analysis influence of controllable
damper time delay on semi-active suspension control strategies. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics-
Transactions of ASME, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4035700.
[9] Choi S. B., Lee S. K., Park Y. P. A hysteresis model for the field-dependent damping force of a
magnetorheological damper. Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 245, Issue 2, 2001, p. 375-383.
[10] Leva A., Piroddi L. NARX-based technique for the modelling of magneto-rheological damping
devices. Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2002, p. 79-82.
[11] Angulo C., Godo L. Neural network modeling of a magnetorheological damper. Artificial Intelligence
Research and Development, 2007, p. 163-351.
[12] Lepetič M., Škrjanc I., Chiacchiarini H. G., et al. Predictive functional control based on fuzzy
model: magnetic suspension system case study. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
Vol. 16, Issue 5, 2003, p. 425-430.
[13] Bhowmik S., Weber F., Hogsberg J. Experimental calibration of forward and inverse neural networks
for rotary type magnetorheological damper. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 46, Issue 5,
2013, p. 673-693.
[14] Hrovat D. Survey of advanced suspension developments and related optimal control applications.
Automatica, Vol. 33, Issue 10, 1997, p. 1781-1817.
[15] Do A. L., Poussot Vassal C., Sename O., et al. LPV Control Approaches in View of Comfort
Improvement of Automotive Suspensions Equipped with MR Dampers. Robust Control and Linear
Parameter Varying Approaches. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, p. 183-212.
[16] Zapateiro M., Luo N., Karimi H. R., et al. Vibration control of a class of semiactive suspension
system using neural network and backstepping techniques. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing,
Vol. 23, Issue 6, 2009, p. 1946-1953.
[17] Liberzon A., Rubinstein D., Gutman P. O. Active suspension for single wheel station of off-road
track vehicle. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, Vol. 11, Issue 10, 2001,
p. 977-999.
[18] Karnopp D., Crosby M. J., Harwood R. A. Vibration control using semi-active force generators.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Vol. 96, Issue 2, 1974, p. 619-626.
[19] Ahmadian M., Song X., Southward S. C. No-jerk Skyhook control methods for semi-active
suspensions. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, Vol. 126, Issue 4, 2004, p. 580-584.
[20] Song X., Ahmadian M., Southward S. Analysis and strategy for superharmonics with semiactive
suspension control systems. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 129,
Issue 6, 2007, p. 795-803.
[21] Hong K. S., Sohn H. C., Hedrick J. K. Modified Skyhook control of semi-active suspensions: A new
model, gain scheduling, and hardware-in-the-loop tuning. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, Vol. 124, Issue 1, 2002, p. 158-167.
[22] Valášek M., Novak M., Šika Z., et al. Extended ground-hook-new concept of semi-active control of
truck's suspension. Vehicle system dynamics, Vol. 27, Issues 5-6, 1997, p. 289-303.
[23] Qin Y., Dong M., Langari R., et al. Adaptive hybrid control of vehicle semiactive suspension based
on road profile estimation. Shock and Vibration, 2015, p. 636739.
[24] Chen B. C., Shiu Y. H., Hsieh F. C. Sliding-mode control for semi-active suspension with actuator
dynamics. Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 49, Issues 1-2, 2011, p. 277-290.
[25] Liu Yilun, Lei Zuo Energy-Flow-Driven (EFD) semi-active suspension control. American Control
Conference (ACC), 2014.
[26] Wang Z., Dong M., Qin Y., et al. Suspension system state estimation using adaptive Kalman filtering
based on road classification. Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 55, Issue 3, 2017, p. 761-783.
[27] Yechen Qin, Changle Xiang, et al. Road excitation classification for semi-active suspension system
based on system response. Journal of Vibration and Control,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546317693432.
[28] Hashiyama T., Furuhashi T., Uchikawa Y. A study on finding fuzzy rules for semi-active suspension
controllers with genetic algorithm. IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation,
1995.
[29] Tang L., Liu Y. J., Tong S. Adaptive neural control using reinforcement learning for a class of robot
manipulator. Neural Computing and Applications, Vol. 25, Issue 1, 2014, p.135-141.
[30] Lei X., Ge S. S., Fang J. Adaptive neural network control of small unmanned aerial rotorcraft. Journal
of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, Vol. 75, Issue 2, 2014, p. 331-341.
[31] Guo D. L., Hu H. Y., Yi J. Q. Neural network control for a semi-active vehicle suspension with a
magnetorheological damper. Journal of Vibration and Control, Vol. 10, Issue 3, 2004, p. 461-471.
[32] Yildirim Ş. Vibration control of suspension systems using a proposed neural network. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, Vol. 277, Issue 4, 2004, p. 1059-1069.
[33] Kim C., Ro P. I. A sliding mode controller for vehicle active suspension systems with non-linearities.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering,
Vol. 212, Issue 2, 1998, p. 79-92.
[34] Yagiz N., Hacioglu Y., Taskin Y. Fuzzy sliding-mode control of active suspensions. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 55, Issue 11, 2008, p. 3883-3890.
[35] Polycarpou M. M. Stable adaptive neural control scheme for nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, Vol. 41, Issue 3, 1996, p. 447-451.
[36] Lei C., Zhimin F. Study of MR damper with MTS testing machine. Modern Scientific Instruments,
Vol. 6, Issue 14, 2009.
[37] Yu M., Liao C. R., Chen W. M., et al. Study on MR semi-active suspension system and its road
testing. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 17, Issue 8, 2006, p. 801-806.
[38] Levant A. Higher-order sliding modes, differentiation and output-feedback control. International
Journal of Control, Vol. 76, Issue 9, 2003, p. 924-941.
[39] Rath J. J., Defoort M., Karimi H. R., et al. Output feedback active suspension control with higher
order terminal sliding mode. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 64, Issue 2, 2017,
p. 1392-1403.
[40] Tung S. L., Juang Y. T., Lee W. H., et al. Optimization of the exponential stabilization problem in
active suspension system using PSO. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, Issue 11, 2011,
p. 14044-14051.
[41] Pedro J. O., Dangor M., Dahunsi O. A., et al. Intelligent feedback linearization control of nonlinear
electrohydraulic suspension systems using particle swarm optimization. Applied Soft Computing,
Vol. 24, 2014, p. 50-62.
[42] Fateh M. M., Zirkohi M. M. Adaptive impedance control of a hydraulic suspension system using
particle swarm optimisation. Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 49, Issue 12, 2011, p. 1951-1965.
[43] Eberhart R. C., Kennedy J. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. Proceedings of the 6th
International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, Vol. 1, 1995, p. 39-43.
[44] Arumugam M. S., Rao M. V. C., Tan A. W. C. A novel and effective particle swarm optimization
like algorithm with extrapolation technique. Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2009,
p. 308-320.
[45] Savaresi S. M., Poussot Vassal C., Spelta C., et al. Semi-Active Suspension Control Design for
Vehicles. Elsevier, 2010.
[46] Zhao F., Ge S. S., Tu F., et al. Adaptive neural network control for active suspension system with
actuator saturation. IET Control Theory and Applications, Vol. 10, Issue 14, 2016, p. 1696-1705.
[47] Tyan F., Hong Y. F., Tu S. H., et al. Generation of random road profiles. Journal of Advanced
Engineering, Vol. 4, Issue 2, 2009, p. 1373-1378.
[48] Rath J. J., Defoort M., Karimi H. R., et al. Output feedback active suspension control with higher
order terminal sliding mode. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 64, Issue 2, 2017,
p. 1392-1403.
[49] Yechen Qin, Minming Dong, Feng Zhao, et al. Road profile classification for vehicle semi-active
suspension system based on adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. IEEE Control Decision
Conference (CDC), Osaka, Japan, 2015, p. 1533-1538.
Zhushun Ding is received his Master degree from North China Electric Power University.
He is currently the director of gyroscope-stabilized Lab at Beijing Institute of Aerospace
Control Devices. His research areas include mechanical system dynamics, damper design
and modeling gyroscope-stabilized platform.
Feng Zhao received Ph.D. degree in aeronautical and astronautical science and technology
from Beijing Institute of Technology in 2016. Now he works at Beijing Institute of
Aerospace Control Devices. His current research interests mechanical vibration control,
controllable suspension system.
Yechen Qin received Ph.D. degree in aeronautical and astronautical science and
technology from Beijing Institute of Technology in 2016. Now he works at Beijing
Institute of Technology as post-doctorate. His current research interests controllable
suspension system, road estimation and in wheel motor.
Cheng Tan received Ph.D. degree in control theory and control engineering from China
University of Petroleum-Beijing in 2016. Now he works at Beijing Institute of Aerospace
Control Devices. His current research interests system integration control and vehicle
control.

Adaptive Neural Network Control For Semi-Active Ve

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adaptive Neural Network Control For Semi-Active Ve

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adaptive Neural Network Control For Semi-Active Ve

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2489.

Adaptive neural network control for semi-active

E-mail: 1fsoldier@126.com, 2zhaofeng_win@126.com, 3qinyechenbit@gmail.com,

2. Nonlinear semi-active suspension system

Fig. 1. Quarter-car model with the semi-active suspension

Nonlinear dynamic equations of the suspension system can be expressed as:

In a vehicle system, nonlinearity of suspension model and uncertainties in suspension system

where = , ,⋯, is the ideal constant weight vector,

3. Boundary CDC damper model

Fig. 2. Photograph of CDC damper and MTS load frame

Damping Force (N)

Table 1. Parameters of boundary damper model

Fig. 5. Structure diagram of the semi-active controller for vehicle suspension

4.1. Adaptive neural network full state feedback controller design

A generalized tracking error is used here which is defined as = _ − , where

The derivative with respect to time is given as:

However, semi-active suspension systems are complicated by nonlinearities and uncertainties

Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (12):

Now, we propose the following control as:

where, is the estimation of the unknown vector :

The RBFNN updating law is defined as:

Taking derivative of with respect to time, the following expression is obtained:

Substituting Eq. (21) into Eq. (20):

Then, the derivative of the Lyapunov function becomes:

4.2. Particle swarm optimization

Table 2. Parameter values of the semi-active suspension system

Table 3. Controller parameters of the ANN

In simulations, a classical semi-active control approach known as the Skyhook controller is

5.1. Model of road profiles and road roughness

Case 2: Consider a sinusoidal bump in an otherwise smooth road surface. Mathematical

Fig. 6. Bump road profile

Fig. 7. Random road profile

5.2. Comparison of controller performance

Fig. 8. Body displacement (Case 1) Fig. 9. Body acceleration (Case 1)

Body displacement (m)

that the fitness function converges after 40 iterations.

Table 4. Performance evaluation over senor noise

You might also like