4.7 Article

Energy consumption sensitivity analysis and energy-reduction control of hybrid electromagnetic active suspension

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.106301

关键词

Hybrid electromagnetic active suspension; Electrical energy consumption; Sensitivity analysis; Energy-reduction control; Hardware-in-the-loop comparative test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A hybrid electromagnetic active suspension (HEMAS), which integrates a linear motor and magneto-rheological damper, is considered a potential solution to address the high electrical energy consumption of electromagnetic active suspension. The control objectives of HEMAS for different driving conditions are determined according to the dynamic responses of passive suspension (PS). The sensitivity of dynamic performance and electrical energy consumption of HEMAS to controllable and uncontrollable parameters is analyzed for different control objectives. On this basis, the electrical energy-reduction mechanism and control method are obtained. A new hybrid electromagnetic actuator and its control system are designed. The PS and linear electromagnetic active suspension (LEMAS) are taken as comparison objects. A hardware-in-the-loop comparative test, including dynamic performance and energy-reduction tests, is performed. Test results show that in comparison with PS, the suspension working space and dynamic tire load of HEMAS on Grade B are reduced by 88.1% and 6.6%; the suspension working space and body acceleration on Grade D are reduced by 15.9% and 29.4%; and the body acceleration, dynamic tire load, and suspension working space are reduced by 18.3%, 3.7%, and 43.5% on Grade C, respectively. In comparison with LEMAS, the electrical energy consumption of HEMAS for three different roads is reduced by 45.9%, 44.2%, and 39.9%, which proves the effectiveness of HEMAS in coordinating the system dynamic performance and electrical energy consumption. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据