Vehicle Vibration Damping Control via Priority Weighting
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional vehicle body vibration damping control devices fail to independently suppress pitching and bouncing vibrations effectively, leading to inadequate comfort and increased driver fatigue due to insufficient prioritization and high implementation costs.
Innovation Solution
A vehicle body vibration damping control device that prioritizes the suppression of pitching vibrations over bouncing vibrations, using a system with a vehicle body vibration estimation section, priority level setting section, and damping purpose braking-or-driving force correction quantity calculation section to adjust road wheel braking or driving forces accordingly.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If conventional vibration damping control is used without priority levels, then both pitching and bouncing vibrations are suppressed simultaneously, but the pitching vibration suppression is insufficient leading to large line of sight movement and driver fatigue
Solution Approach 1:
The invention changes the control parameters by introducing priority level weights (Kp for pitching, Kb for bouncing) that adjust the suppression priority dynamically. By modifying the control objective function to include weighted terms for pitching and bouncing vibrations, the system can prioritize pitching suppression (reducing line of sight movement) while still providing bouncing suppression, thereby improving driver comfort without sacrificing vibration damping effectiveness.
2Ease of operation
If priority levels are introduced to suppress pitching vibration first, then driver comfort improves, but the control structure becomes more complex
Solution Approach 1:
Instead of adding complex multi-stage control logic or separate control systems, the invention introduces priority levels by simply modifying the control objective function parameters (weights Kp and Kb). This parameter-based approach allows the control system to prioritize pitching vibration suppression while maintaining a relatively simple unified control structure, avoiding the need for complex segmented control architectures.
3Reliability
If extensive simulations and experiments are conducted to optimize both pitching and bouncing suppression, then optimal suppression is achieved, but development time and cost increase significantly
Solution Approach 1:
The invention establishes a parameterized control framework with priority weights (Kp, Kb) that can be adjusted based on driving conditions and vehicle states. This allows for faster tuning and optimization compared to extensive simulations and experiments, as the priority levels can be modified through parameter adjustment rather than requiring complete control strategy redesign and extensive validation testing.
Data Source
Figure 1~2
Figure 3
Figure 4~5
AI summary
A calculation section 51 calculates a requested braking-or-driving torque Tw from accelerator opening angle APO and brake pedal depression force BPF and a calculation section 52 calculates forward-or-backward direction external disturbances ΔFf, ΔFr from a variation in road wheel speeds Vw. An estimation section 53 estimates vehicle body vibrations along with the variation in Tw (pitching vibration θp and bouncing vibration xb) and other vehicle body vibrations (θp, xb) along with ΔFf, ΔFr. A calculation section 54 calculates a damping purpose braking-or-driving torque correction quantity to suppress these vehicle body vibrations. A calculation section 56 calculates a damping purpose braking-or-driving torque correction quantity command dTw* to suppress vehicle body vibrations (θp, xb) from the torque correction quantity and suppression priority levels set to take the higher priority of the suppression of the pitching vibration with a priority level setting section 55, while the priority levels are satisfied, and the braking-or-driving force of the vehicle is corrected by dTw*.