Department of Electrical Power &

Machine Engineering
Automatic Control Systems (2)
(EPM 353)

Project coordinators: Prof. Ahmed Abdelbaset

& Prof. Hatem Seoudy

(Suspension system of a vehicle)

Student Name: [Ahmed Emad Mohamed Ahmed]
Student ID: [127230011]
SEC:2
Date:2024-2025

1
 Table of Contents
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................3
Task 1: Modeling of the System ..........................................................................................................................................3
1. System Parameters .........................................................................................................................................................3
2. Governing Equation ........................................................................................................................................................4
3. Laplace Transform ..........................................................................................................................................................4
4. Transfer Function ............................................................................................................................................................4
Task 2: Drawings of the Root Locus and Bode Diagram .......................................................................................5
1. Bode plot .........................................................................................................................................................................5
2. Root locus .......................................................................................................................................................................6
3. Stability interpretation ...........................................................................................................................................6
Task 3: Designs of the Different Types of Controllers ...........................................................................................7
System Model Recap: ...........................................................................................................................................................7
-Ziegler-Nichols Step Response Method ...................................................................................................................9
1-p controller ..........................................................................................................................................................................9
2-PI controller ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
3-PD controller .................................................................................................................................................................... 11
4-PID controller .................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Task 4: Compare Between the Responses ................................................................................................................. 12
1. P Controller Analysis................................................................................................................................................... 13
2. PI Controller Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 13
3. PD Controller Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 13
4. PID Controller: Optimal Choice ............................................................................................................................. 13
Justification for PID Selection ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

2
 Abstract
This project models and controls a quarter-car suspension system to improve
ride comfort and stability. Using state-space and transfer function methods, the
system is analyzed through root locus and Bode plots. Various controllers (P, PI,
PD, PID) are implemented in MATLAB/Simulink, with results showing the PID
controller offers the best performance in minimizing vibrations and enhancing
vehicle response.

Introduction
Suspension systems play a vital role in ensuring vehicle stability and passenger
comfort by isolating the body from road irregularities. This study focuses on
improving suspension performance through modern control strategies.

A simplified quarter-car model is developed to represent the system dynamics

accurately. The analysis includes evaluating system stability using tools like
Root Locus and Bode plots. To enhance ride quality, four classical controllers (P,
PI, PD, and PID) are designed and tested.

MATLAB/Simulink is used to simulate system behavior and assess how each

controller improves vibration control. The findings offer valuable guidance for
refining suspension designs in automotive applications.

Task 1: Modeling of the System

A simplified mass-spring-damper system, called the quarter-car model, is used

to represent the vehicle suspension dynamics.

1. System Parameters
• m: Sprung mass (1/4 of vehicle mass)
• k: Spring stiffnes
• c: Damping coefficient
• x(t): Vertical displacement of the vehicle body (output)
• r(t): Road disturbance input (input)

3
2. Governing Equation
Using Newton’s second law:

m¨x (t)+c( x˙ (t)− r˙(t))+k(x(t)−r(t))=0

Rewriting:
m¨x(t)+cx˙(t)+kx(t)=cr˙(t)+kr(t)

3. Laplace Transform
Assuming zero initial conditions:

Ms X(s)+csX(s)+kX(s)=csR(s)+kR(s)

4. Transfer Function
𝑪𝑺 + 𝑲 𝑿(𝑺)
= = 𝑮(𝑺)
𝑴𝑺𝟐 + 𝑪𝑺 + 𝑲 𝑹(𝑺)

m = 300 Sprung mass (kg)

c = 1800 Damping coefficient (Ns/m)

k = 18000 Spring constant (N/m)

(𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎𝑺 + 𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎𝟎)/(𝟑𝟎𝟎𝑺^𝟐 + 𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎𝑺 + 𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎𝟎 ) = (𝑿(𝑺))/(𝑹(𝑺)) = 𝑮(𝑺)

4
 Task 2: Drawings of the Root Locus and Bode Diagram
1. Bode plot

5
 2. Root locus

3. Stability interpretation
" The Root Locus and Bode Plot analyses confirm the system's stability,
indicated by a positive phase margin and pole locations confined to the left half
of the complex plane.

6
 Task 3: Designs of the Different Types of Controllers

"To enhance the dynamic performance of the vehicle’s suspension

system, various classical controllers—including Proportional (P),
Proportional-Integral (PI), Proportional-Derivative (PD), and
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID)—were designed and tuned
based on the system’s transfer function and step response
characteristics."

System Model Recap:

(𝑪𝑺 + 𝑲)/(𝑴𝑺^𝟐 + 𝑪𝑺 + 𝑲 ) = (𝑿(𝑺))/(𝑹(𝑺)) = 𝑮(𝑺)

The model is used for all controller design and simulation

7
8
 -Ziegler-Nichols Step Response Method
• L = Dead Time=0.03s
• T = Time Constant=0.15s

Controller Kp Formula Ti Formula Td Formula Kp Value Ki Value Kd Value

Type
P K p = L/T ------------- ------------ 5 ------ ---------

PI KP= 0.9*T/L Ti=L/0.3 ------------- 4.5 Kp/ti=4.5/0.1=45 --------

PD KP=1.2*T/L ------------- Td=0.5*L 6 ------------- Td*kp=6*0.015=0.09
PID 1.2*T/L Ti=2L Td=0.5*L 6 Kp/ti=6/0.06=100 Td*kp=6*0.015=0.09

1-p controller
Kp=L/T=0.15/0.03=5

9
2-PI controller
Kp=4.5
Ki=45

10
3-PD controller
Kp=6
Kd=0.09

11
 4-PID controller
Kp=6
Ki=100
Kd=0.09

Task 4: Compare Between the Responses

After analyzing and comparing the performance of all designed
controllers (P, PI, PD, PID) for your quarter-car suspension system, the
PID controller proved to be the optimal choice. Below is a detailed
justification:

12
 Controller Performance Evaluation for Suspension System
1. P Controller Analysis
• Speed: Provides acceptable response time due to direct proportionality to
error.
• Steady-State Error: Shows noticeable persistent error (cannot eliminate
offset completely).
• Best For: Systems where temporary error is acceptable and simplicity is
prioritized.

2. PI Controller Analysis
• Steady-State Error: Perfectly eliminates steady-state error through
integral action.
• Overshoot: Introduces higher overshoot (~20-30%) due to aggressive
integral correction.
• Best For: Systems requiring zero steady-state error but can tolerate
moderate oscillations.

3. PD Controller Analysis
• Stability: Improves damping and reduces overshoot significantly.

• Steady-State Error: Fails to remove steady-state error (lacks integral

action).

• Best For: Noisy systems where overshoot must be minimized, and small
steady-state error is acceptable.

4. PID Controller: Optimal Choice

• Speed: Fast response from proportional action (tuned Kp=6).

• Accuracy: Zero steady-state error via integral action (tuned K i=100).

• Stability: Minimal overshoot (~8-10%) and smooth settling due to

derivative action (tuned K d =0.09).
• Best For: Suspension systems requiring balance between comfort (low
overshoot), responsiveness (fast correction), and precision (no steady-
state error).

13
 Justification for PID Selection

Criterion P PI PD PID (Your

Tuning)
Rise Time Moderate Fast Fast Fastest
Overshoot Low High (~30%) Very Low Low (~10%)
Steady-State High None Moderate None
Error
Stability Good Poor Excellent Excellent
(Oscillates)

Conclusion
In this project, we analyzed the quarter-car suspension system, which
represents a simplified model of one wheel of a vehicle, including its
spring, damper, and the supported mass. We derived the system's
transfer function using realistic physical parameters and examined its
stability and frequency response using Bode and Root Locus plots.

To enhance the system's dynamic behavior, we designed and tested

four different controllers: P, PI, PD, and PID. Their performance was
compared based on key metrics such as rise time, overshoot, and
settling time.

The PID controller delivered the best performance, offering fast

response, minimal overshoot, and good stability. Therefore, it was
selected as the most suitable controller for improving the quarter-car
suspension system's performance, with potential application in real
vehicle systems.

14