International Journal of Reasearch in Engineering and Technology 1 (3), 146-152
Groundhook Control of Semi-Active
Suspension for Heavy Vehicle
Syabillah Sulaiman, Pakharuddin Mohd Samin, Hishamuddin Jamaluddin, Roslan Abd Rahman,
Mohammad Safwan Burhaumudin
Abstract—Active vibration isolation systems are not commonly
used due to their associated cost and power requirements. In
principle, semi-semi active isolation systems can deliver adaptability,
good performance and less power consumption compared with fully
active control. This paper presents a semi-active concept of a 7-
degree of freedom (DOF) full vehicle model for heavy vehicle. To
develop suspension control system that can improve road holding and
improve ride comfort, dynamic modeling of passive and semi-active
suspension for heavy vehicle model was constructed. The simulation
model was developed using MATLAB Simulink software. Passive
heavy vehicle model was validated using vehicle dynamics
simulation software known as TruckSim. The validation was done by
comparing the simulation results. The primary focus of this paper is
on ride quality control and road holding. The paper investigates
analytically, the use of passive and semi-active suspension for ride
quality and road holding on heavy vehicle. The control scheme of the
semi-active suspension system is based on the groundhook control. A
ride test was conducted at constant speed, and the simulation results
of passive and semi-active suspension consist of roll, pitch, vehicle
body heave and tire forces are compared and analyzed. The results
show that the semi-active system controlled by groundhook strategy
provides better isolation than a conventional passive damped system.
Keywords—Heavy vehicle, semi active, groundhook control, ride
comfort, road holding
Syabillah Sulaiman, is with the Department of Automotive Engineering,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM),
81300, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia (corresponding author, phone:
+60162405589; e-mail: syabillahsulaiman@gmail.com).
Pakharuddin Mohd Samin, is with the Department of Automotive
Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM), 81300, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia (e-mail:
pakhar@fkm.utm.my).
Hishamuddin Jamaluddin, is with the Department of System Dynamics and
Control, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM), 81300, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia (e-mail: hishamj@fkm.utm.my).
Roslan Abd Rahman, is with the Department of System Dynamics and
Control, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM), 81300, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia (e-mail: roslan@fkm.utm.my).
Mohammad Safwan Burhaumudin, is with the Department of Automotive
Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM), 81300, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia (e-mail:
safwan_burhaumudin@yahoo.com).
I. INTRODUCTION
A heavy military vehicle that transports troops needs high
vehicle stability, ride comfort and road friendliness [1],
[2]. This heavy vehicle is regularly driven on different terrains
146
[3], and thus the stability of the vehicle needs to be studied to
improve the vehicle ride performance [4], [5]. This simulation
model was validated with vehicle simulation software to
represent the vehicle’s ride behavior. This approach has
similarly been adopted by other researchers [6]-[10].
There are three types of model commonly used to represent
vehicle suspension behavior. These are quarter-vehicle model
[11], half vehicle model [12], [13] and full vehicle model [14]-
[16]. In this paper, a full car model was used to investigate the
ride performance behavior of passive and semi-active
suspension of heavy vehicle.
The design of a good suspension system is concerned with
isolation of the disturbances from the vehicle’s body. A
conventional passive suspension system has either low or high
damping characteristic. To insulate against load disturbance,
the damper needs to cover the full range of damping
characteristic. Therefore, suspension design is a compromise
between these two goals. There are two main categories of
suspension systems, namely passive and active suspension
system [17]. Passive suspension, which means there is no
external energy source in the system compared with active
suspensions, it is incorporated with external energy source to
achieve the required damping characteristic. Semi-active
suspension typically consists of controllable dampers and
passive spring. The performance of semi-active suspension
typically lies between active and passive suspension system
In suspension design, a full vehicle model is found to be
advantageous in studying a real vehicle performance. The full
vehicle model is a linear 7-degree of freedom consists of a
sprung mass that is connected to unsprung masses. Unsprung
mass consists of four suspensions and four tires located at
each corner of the body. The sprung mass has 3-degree of
freedom representing body bounce, roll and pitch movements,
while the unsprung masses has 4-degree of freedom in vertical
motions [18], [19].
The heavy vehicle simulation model was constructed using
MATLAB Simulink and was validated by using heavy vehicle
simulation software known as TruckSim.
This paper presents the ride performance of a passive and
semi-active suspension systems of a heavy vehicle based on
the developed 7-degree of freedom full vehicle model.
II. MATHEMATICAL MODELING
A.Passive Suspension Model
The heavy vehicle ride model in this study is based on a
 International Journal of Reasearch in Engineering and Technology 1 (3), 146-152
four wheels vehicle. The ride model has 7-degree of freedom
which involves bounce, pitch, roll of the vehicle body, and
four wheels vertical motions. Fig. 1 shows the vehicle ride
model.
Fig. 1 Seven degree of freedom of vehicle ride model
There are some assumptions made in this study. The vehicle
aerodynamic effect is neglected and the road is assumed to be
level except for road disturbance. The vehicle is also assumed
to be rigid where the load transfer from one point to another is
one hundred percent effective. Parameters of the vehicle are
also assumed to be constant throughout the simulation process
such as tire stiffness, spring stiffness, and damper coefficient.
Based on the 7-degree of freedom model in Fig. 1, the
dynamic of the sprung mass is defined by:
m B ZB   FSFL  FDFL  FSFR  FDFR  FSRL  FDRL (1)
 FSRR  FDRR
where mB is the mass of the vehicle, ZB is the body
acceleration and F is the forces acting on vehicle model(S for
spring, D for damper, FL for front left, FR for front right, RL for
rear left, RR for rear right). The spring forces, FSij (i for front or
rear and j for left or right) that act on the suspensions are given
by:
FSij  K Sij ( Z Bij  ZUij ) (2)
where Z Bij is the sprung vertical displacement, Z Uij is the
unsprung mass vertical displacement and KSij is the suspension
spring stiffness. Then the damper forces, FDij of the
suspensions are given by:
FDij  CDij (Z Bij  ZUij ) (3)
where Z Bij is the sprung vertical velocity, ZUij is the unsprung
mass vertical velocity and C Dij is the suspension damper
coefficient. Acceleration at unsprung mass is given by:
147
  F  F  F
mUij Z (4)
Uij Sij Dij Tij
where mUij is the unsprung mass, ZUij is the vertical
acceleration at unsprung mass and FTij is the dynamic tire
forces. Dynamic tire forces, FTij is defined as:
FTij  KTij (ZUij  Z Rij ) (5)
where K Tij is the tire stiffness and Z Rij is the road profile
acting as the disturbance. The pitch effect of the vehicle is
given by:
J y  ( F SFL  FDFL  FSFR  FDFR )a (6)
 ( FSRL  FDRL  FSRR  FDRR )b
where J Y is the moment of inertia about y-axis and  is the
pitch acceleration, while a is the length of vehicle from the
center of gravity to the front end and b is the length of vehicle
from the center of gravity to the rear end of the vehicle. The
roll effect of the vehicle is given by:
J x
  ( F SFL  FDFL  FSRL  FDRL )c
(7)
 ( FSFR  FDFR  FSRR  FDRR )d
where J X is the moment of inertia about x-axis and  is the
roll acceleration, while c is the length of the vehicle from the
center of gravity to the right end and d is the length of vehicle
from the center of gravity to the left end of the vehicle.
B.Semi-Active Suspension Model
The mechanical model used for simulation uses a method
known as ideal ‘groundhook’ control. It adopts a
hypothetical damper, Cgrd connected between the unsprung
mass and the fixed fictitious frame on the ground.
Theoretically, groundhook control will improve the
responses of the unsprung system [18]. Fig. 2 shows the
ideal groundhook control on a quarter vehicle model
Cgrd
Fig. 2 Ideal groundhook control
The groundhook control is given by:
 International Journal of Reasearch in Engineering and Technology 1 (3), 146-152

if v t v st  0 then f  c gndvt (8)

if v t v st  0 then f  0

where vt is unsprung mass velocity, vst is relative velocity

between sprung mass and unsprung mass, f is semi active
suspension force and cgnd is groundhook damping coefficient.
The forces generated by the semi active controller are added to
the passive vehicle model. The equation of the semi active
suspension control is given by:

mUij ZUij  FSij  FDij  FTij  f (9)

Fig. 4 Pitch angle response at 36 km/h

III. PASSIVE MODEL VALIDATION

A ride test conducted for Simulink and TruckSim is
presented. The model was tested using two different speeds
which are 36 km/h and 43 km/h for both simulations and the
results of the simulations are compared and discussed.
A. Simulation: 36 km/h
The performances of the simulation models in terms of
pitch, roll, and vertical displacement responses are compared
between Simulink and TruckSim simulation models. The
speed of the vehicle model is kept constant throughout the Fig. 5 Body displacement response at 36 km/h
simulation that is 36 km/h.
Figs. 3 to 5 show the simulation results of both Simulink B. Simulation: 43 km/h
and TruckSim performances in the presence of external The results of the simulation at 43 km/h show similar
disturbance. The vehicle hits the first bump at 5 second on the trend of roll angle, pitch angle, and body displacement
left side and hit the second bump at 5.6 second on the right between Simulink and TruckSim. These are shown in Figs.
side. 6 to 8.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the Simulink and TruckSim simulations The different vehicle speed used in the simulations is to
have similar trend but slightly different in magnitude. Fig. 8 show that the trend of the output of the simulink model is
also shows the simulation result of Simulink body consistent and independent of speed. Figs. 6 to 8 show
displacement has the same trend as TruckSim simulation but a similar trends as Figs. 3 to 5 for the speed at 36 km/h.
slight different in magnitude. This error maybe due to
simplified model used in Simulink, while TruckSim model is
based on an actual tested vehicle simulation process.

Fig. 6 Roll angle response at 43km/h

Fig. 3 Roll angle response at 36 km/h

148
 International Journal of Reasearch in Engineering and Technology 1 (3), 146-152

direction of disturbance occurs instantaneously.

Vehicle movement

Fig. 7 Pitch angle response at 43km/h

Fig. 10 Ride test road profile

A. Passive Suspension Model

Fig. 11 shows the passive suspension Simulink block
diagram of the ride model. The road profile disturbance acts
on the unsprung mass system. The signal from the unsprung
mass block diagram namely suspension tire forces are
transmitted to the sprung mass, pitch, and roll block diagram
to compute the output variable. Then the output from sprung
mass, pitch, and roll are fed back to the unsprung system.

Fig. 8 Body displacement response at 43km/h

Zb 1
Body Displacement

IV. MODEL SIMULATION Zb Fzfl

Suspension Forces Zb dot 2
Body Velocity
teta (pitch )
Zb dot dot 3
The simulation of passive and semi-active suspensions of phi (roll) Fzfr
Sprung Mass (Ms)
Body Acceleration

heavy vehicle model was performed using Simulink. A ride Zrfl Zrfl

Pitch Angle 4
test was conducted for both simulations. The road profile as Zrfr Zrfr Fzrl
Suspension Forces Pitch Angle
Zrrl Zrrl Pitch Rate 6
disturbance was applied on the left tires followed by the right Zrrr Zrrr Fzrr Pitch (teta )
Pitch Rate

tires for both simulations. The height and length of the bumps Road profile unsprung
are 0.1 m (incremental elevation) and 5 m (station) Roll Angle (phi) 5
respectively for both sides, as shown in Fig. 9. Suspension Forces
Roll Rate (phi dot)
Roll Angle
7
Roll Rate
Roll (phi )

Fig. 11 Passive Simulink block diagram

The output variables namely roll, pitch, body heave and tire
forces are recorded and compared with semi-active simulation
results. All parameters of the vehicle are assumed constant
throughout simulation.

B. Semi-Active Suspension Model

Fig. 9 Road disturbance profile
Fig. 10 shows graphically the arrangement of the bumps
and the vehicle movement when it hits the bumps. The left and
the right bumps were arranged such that the change in the
149
The same source of road disturbance applied in passive
simulation is used by the semi-active vehicle. The semi-active
suspension model used the same model as the passive system
except the extra forces are added to each suspension, these
forces are generated by the semi-active suspension control.
Fig. 12 shows the semi-active suspension Simulink block
diagram. The diagram shows the addition of four forces from
groundhook control.
 International Journal of Reasearch in Engineering and Technology 1 (3), 146-152

80000
60000
Zb 1
Body Displacement
40000

Tire Force (N)

Zb
Fsf l
Sus Forces Zb dot 2

20000
Body Velocity
Zb dot dot 3
teta (pitch) Fsf r Body Acceleration
Sprung Mass (Ms)

phi (roll)
Fsrl

Sus Forces
Pitch Angle 4 0
Pitch Angle

-20000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Fsrr
Pitch Rate 6
1 Zrf l Pitch Rate
Pitch (teta)
Zrfl
Fzf l 8
2 Zrf r Fzfl
Zrfr
Fzf r 9 Roll Angle (phi) 5 -40000
3 Zrrl Fzfr Sus Forces
Roll Rate (phi dot)
Roll Angle
7
Semi Active
Zrrl

4 Zrrr
Fzrl 10
Fzrl Roll (phi)
Roll Rate
-60000 Passive
Zrrr Fzrr 11

5 Fsa
VusFL
Fzrr

12
-80000 Time (s)
Fsa
Vus FL
6 Fsa1
Fsa1
VusFR 13
Vus FR Fig. 14 Tire force
7 Fsa2 VusRL 14
Fsa2 Vus RL

8
Fsa3
Fsa3
VusRR 15
Vus RR Figs. 15 and 16 show the body vertical displacement and
unsprung

performance of body velocity respectively. It clearly shows

the improvement of the semi-active suspension system
Fig. 12 Semi-active Simulink block diagram compare with passive system. Semi-active suspension system
has lower body displacement and body velocity and 0.5
Fig. 13 shows the groundhook control constructed in second faster settling time compared to passive suspension.
Simulink. The velocities of sprung mass and unsprung masses This situation occurs because semi-active suspensions slow
are link as an input of the control algorithm. The outputs of the down the vehicle body as it slows down tire displacement.
groundhook control are the forces applied to the suspension. Semi-active suspension improves about 6.9 percent in body
vertical displacement and 26 percent in body velocity.
If Action
Subsystem2

Vu Out1
if { }

If Action
Subsystem3
F
Merge 1
0 In1 Out1
else { } Fsa
Merge1
1 Vs-Vu
V1
if (u1 > 0)
2 u1
V2 -Vu else
-1
If1

Fig. 13 Groundhook control

V. RESULTS OF SIMULATION AND DISCUSSION

The performances of the simulation models are roll, pitch,
body heave and tire forces responses where comparison Fig. 15 Body vertical displacement
between passive and semi-active suspension simulation
models are made. The road profile as shown in Fig. 9 was
used as the road disturbance. The speed of the vehicle model
is kept constant throughout the simulation that is 36 km/h.
Fig. 14 shows the tire force produced by passive and semi-
active suspensions. Both graphs show the same trend but in
semi-active graph it produces less force compared with
passive, with improvement of about 5.9 percent. The
improvement occurs by controlling the velocity of the tire as
appeared in the control algorithm equation. The fictitious
damper slows down the tire velocity by absorbing the force, so
the tire force is dependent on the groundhook damping
coefficient of the semi active suspension.
Fig. 16 Body velocity

Figs. 17 and 18 show the comparison between passive and semi-

150
 International Journal of Reasearch in Engineering and Technology 1 (3), 146-152

active suspension of roll angle and roll rate respectively. Both semi-
active suspension results show an improvement compared to passive
suspension. Similar as before, the semi-active suspension control the
velocity between the sprung mass and unsprung mass. Roll angle of
the semi-active suspension improve about 4 percent and roll rate
improved higher than roll angle that is about 13.6 percent. This
happen by controlling the velocity of the vehicle movement.

Fig. 20 Pitch rate

Table 1 shows the summary of the improvement of the semi-active

suspension system compared to passive suspension. The entire
variable is based on groundhook control. It shows that groundhook
control reduce the heavy vehicle tire force and improve ride comfort.
Fig. 17 Roll angle

TABLE 1
RMS VALUE OF PASSIVE AND SEMI ACTIVE SUSPENSION SYSTEM

Variable Improvement (%)

Tire force 5.9

Body heave 6.9
Body velocity 26.0
Roll angle 4.0
Roll rate 13.6
Fig. 18 Roll rate Pitch angle 3.4
Figs. 19 and 20 show the pitch angle and pitch rate of the heavy Pitch rate 6.1
vehicle body respectively. Pitch response also show an improvement
compared to passive suspension. But the improvement is less than the
roll response. The settling time of the pitch angle and pitch rate are
faster than passive suspension. The improvement of semi-active
suspension is about 3.4 percent in pitch angle and about 6.1 percent VI. CONCLUSION
in pitch rate. A heavy vehicle ride model with passive suspension system
consists of 7-degree of freedom has been developed and
validated. This passive vehicle simulation model was
constructed using Simulink and compared with multi body
dynamics software known as TruckSim. These comparisons
were made to validate the Simulink model.
The passive model is then compared with a semi-active
suspension system. Both passive and semi-active suspensions
were simulated for ride test with the vehicle speed of 36 km/h.
The semi-active suspension was controlled using groundhook
control algorithm.
Graph of roll, pitch, body and tire responses of the heavy
vehicle were recorded from the simulations. The simulation
results module semi-active suspension responses for all
Fig. 19 Pitch angle
variables. The significant observation is, the trend of the
vehicle movement when it hits the bumps, the semi-active
suspension resulted with better isolation compared to passive
suspension.

151
 International Journal of Reasearch in Engineering and Technology 1 (3), 146-152

The results indicate that semi-active suspension can reduce Intelligence (ICI), 2011 First International Conference, pp.106-111,
Bandung, Indonesia, 12-14 Dec. 2011.
road damage by reducing the vehicle tire forces and also [16] R. Darus, Y.M. Sam, "Modeling and Control of Active Suspension
improved ride comfort. System for A Full Car Model," Signal Processing & Its Applications,
2009. CSPA 2009. 5th International Colloquium, pp.13-18, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 6-8 March 2009.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
[17] T.D. Gillespie, “Active Suspension,” In: Fundamental of Vehicle
The authors wish to thank the Ministry of Higher Education Dynamics, Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers Inc.,
(MOHE) and the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for 1993, pp. 269-271.
providing the research facilities and support especially all [18] E. Guglielmino, T. Sireteanu, C.W. Stammers, G. Ghita, M. Giuclea,
"Dampers and Vehicle Modelling," Semi-active Suspension Control:
staff’s of Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Improved Vehicle Ride and Road Friendliness, London: Springer, 2008,
Teknologi Malaysia. This research is supported using a pp. 27-36.
research grant, Vote No.78608. [19] F.F. Ling, “Design and Analysis of Passive Automotive Suspension," In:
R. Rajamani, Vehicle Dynamics and Control, London: Springer, 2006,
pp. 287-323.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Chen, J. He, W. Zhang, "System Optimization to Improve Ride
Comfort and Road Friendliness," International Conference on
Mechanical and Electrical (ICMET 2010), Singapore, 10-12 Sept. 2010.
[2] T.R.M. Rao, G.V. Rao, K.S. Rao, A. Purushottam, "Analysis of Passive
and Semi Active Controlled Suspension System for Ride Comfort in an
Omnibus Passing Over a Speed Bump," Analysis of Passive & Semi
Active Controlled Suspension Systems, Vol. 5, pp. 7-17, 2010.
[3] S.A. Pazooki, D. Cao, "Modeling and Validation of Off-Road Vehicle
Ride Dynamics," Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 28,
pp. 679-695, 2012.
[4] K. Hudha, H. Jamaluddin, P.M. Samin, "Disturbance Rejection Control
of a Light Armored Vehicle Using Stability Augmentation Based Active
Suspension System," International Journal Heavy Vehicle Systems, vol.
15, pp. 152-169, 2008.
[5] D.J.M Sampson, G. McKevitt, D. Cebon, "The Development of an
Active Roll Control System for Heavy Vehicles," Proc. 16th IAVSD
Symposium on the Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, Pretoria,
South Africa, 30 Aug. – 3 Sept. 1999, pp. 704-715.
[6] S.A.A Bakar, R. Masuda, H. Hashimoto, T. Inaba, H. Jamaluddin, R.A.
Rahman, P.M. Samin, “Ride Comfort Evaluations on Electric Vehicle
Conversion and Improvement Using Magnetorheological Semi Active
Suspension System,” SICE Annual Conference, Waseda University,
Tokyo, 13-18 Sept. 2011.
[7] P.M. Samin, H. Jamaluddin, R.A. Rahman, S.A.A. Bakar, K. Hudha,
"Modeling and Validation of a 7-DOF Full Car for Ride Quality,"
CADME07, Putra Brasmana Hotel, Kuala Perlis, Malaysia, 25-26 Oct.
2007.
[8] J.D. Setiawan, M. Safarudin, A. Singh, "Modeling, Simulation and
Validation of 14 DOF Full Vehicle Model," Instrumentation,
Communications, Information Technology, and Biomedical Engineering
(ICICI-BME), 2009 International Conference, Bandung, 23-25 Nov.
2009.
[9] G. Schade, "Vehicle Ride Analysis of a Tractor-Trailer," 2000
International ADAMS User Conference, pp. 1 – 13, Orlando, Florida,
June 2000.
[10] A. Forsén, "Heavy Vehicle Ride and Endurance– Modelling and Model
Validation," Department of Vehicle Engineering, Royal Institute of
Technology, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Stockholm, 1999.
[11] A. W. Burton, A. J. Truscott and P. E. Wellstead, "Analysis, Modeling
and Control of an Advanced Automotive Self-Leveling Suspension
System," IEEE Proc. on Control Theory Appl., vol. 142, No. 2, pp. 129-
139, 1995.
[12] W. Can, W. Weirui, "Chaotic Behaviors of Half Car Model Excited by
the Road Surface Profile," Information Science and Engineering
(ICISE), 2009 1st International Conference, pp.3752-3755, Nanjing,
China, 18-20 Dec. 2009.
[13] C.Y. Tang, G.Y. Zhao, H. Li, S.W. Zhou, "Research on Suspension
System Based on Genetic Algorithm and Neural Network Control,"
Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, 2009. ICICTA '09.
Second International Conference, pp.468-471, vol.1, Zhangjiajie, China,
10-11 Oct. 2009.
[14] C.P. Cheng, C.H. Chao, T.H Li, "Design of Observer-Based Fuzzy
Sliding-Mode Control for An Active Suspension System With Full-Car
Model," Systems Man and Cybernetics (SMC), 2010 IEEE International
Conference, pp.1939-1944, 10-13 Oct. 2010.
[15] P.S.A. Singh, I.Z.M. Darus, "Enhancement of SUV Roll Dynamics
Using Fuzzy Logic Control," Informatics and Computational

152