MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407349494 · doi:10.3390/a18020100

Performance Investigation of Active, Semi-Active and Passive Suspension Using Quarter Car Model

2025· article· en· W4407349494 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration Control and Rheological Fluids
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive suspensionCar modelQuarter (Canadian coin)Suspension (topology)Computer scienceAutomotive engineeringMathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligenceGeographyActuator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a semi-active and fully active suspension system using a PID controller were designed and tuned in MATLAB/Simulink to achieve simultaneous optimisation of comfort and road holding ability. This was performed in order to quantify and observe the trends of both the semi-active and active suspension, which can then influence the choice of controlled suspension systems used for different applications. The response of the controlled suspensions was compared to a traditional passive setup in terms of the sprung mass displacement and acceleration, tyre deflection, and suspension working space for three different road profile inputs. It was found that across all road profiles, the usage of a semi-active or fully active suspension system offered notable improvements over a passive suspension in terms of comfort and road-holding ability. Specifically, the rms sprung mass displacement was reduced by a maximum of 44% and 56% over the passive suspension when using the semi-active and fully active suspension, respectively. Notably, in terms of sprung mass acceleration, the semi-active suspension offered better performance with a 65% reduction in the passive rms sprung mass acceleration compared to a 40% reduction for the fully active suspension. The tyre deflection of the passive suspension was also reduced by a maximum of 6% when using either the semi-active or fully active suspension. Furthermore, both the semi-active and fully active suspensions increased the suspension working space by 17% and 9%, respectively, over the passive suspension system, which represents a decreased level of performance. In summary, the choice between a semi-active or fully active suspension should be carefully considered based on the level of ride comfort and handling performance that is needed and the suspension working space that is available in the particular application. However, the results of this paper show that the performance gap between the semi-active and fully active suspension is quite small, and the semi-active suspension is mostly able to match and sometimes outperform the fully active suspension n in certain metrics. When considering other factors, such as weight, power requirements, and complexity, the semi-active suspension represents a better choice over the fully active suspension, in the author’s opinion. As such, future work will look at utilising more robust control methods and tuning procedures that may further improve the performance of the semi-active suspension.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it