Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

Master Team Project R.M.R. Bruns 0534792 J.F.P.B. Diepstraten 0529909 X.G.P. Schuurbiers 0529176 J.A.G. Wouters 0529393

DCT number: 2006.075 August 29, 2006

Contents
Summary Introduction 1 Previous Work Done 1.1 Backlash Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Physical Model for Backlash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Deadzone Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Modeling with Describing Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Linear Controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Describing Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Adaptive and Non-Linear Control from the Motor Side . . 1.2.4 Adaptive Control and Non-Linear Control State Feedback 2 Analysis 2.1 Analysis Torque Observer . . . . 2.2 Describing Function Methodology 2.3 Stability of Limit Cycles . . . . . 2.4 Describing Function of Backlash v vii 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 9 9 10 13 13 14 16 21 21 23 24 25 29 35 37

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

3 Simulations 3.1 Dierent Backlash models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 PI-Controller with Torque Observer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Soft Switching Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Experiments 4.1 Experimental Set-up . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Design of a Shaft with Backlash . . . . 4.3 Implementation of the Two Controllers 4.4 Designed Controller . . . . . . . . . . A M-les B Simulink Models C Shaft Design

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

iii

Summary
Backlash in systems is a non-linear behavior that can aect the set-up in two ways: 1. stability, backlash may cause (high frequent) limit cycles; 2. performance, the load is for some time autonomous, which aects the absolute value of the error. The major part of systems with backlash has to do with gears and transmissions. Speed control, which is important, in such systems is investigated in this report. After some research in the existing literature, two major control strategies for this kind of systems, are recognized. On one hand, there is a strategy, which is designed to keep the time that the load is in the backlash, as small as possible. This methodology is called "strong action in the backlash gap". On the other hand we have "weak action in the backlash gap", which contains two controllers: one for stability, when the system is in the backlash gap and one for performance, when the backlash gap is closed. Switching between these two modes is based upon the value of the motor torque. For each of these two general control strategies, one example is analyzed further. For the "strong action in the backlash gap" we have the PI-controller with a torque observer, whereas for the "weak action in the backlash gap", a soft switching method is examined. Both controllers are tested with respect to the prediction of limit cycles, based on the describing function theory. These theoretical results are also examined using simulations in Simulink. We aim at a constant velocity on the motor, when a step-disturbance on the load side of the system, is added. Some congurations of the system indeed give rise to limit cycles, which are a serious problem in gears. In experiments, speed control appeared to be impossible, due to the absence of speed sensors on the experimental set-up. Numerical dierentiation of the position was not good enough to determine a well-measured FRF. So position control was done, using a ramp as a reference trajectory. Implementation however of the two example controllers gave some drawbacks, because were designed on speed control and due to the non-linearity of the controllers they can not be simply integrated. So only a manually tuned PD-controller was well tested on the experimental set-up. A special shaft with backlash was designed to perform these experiments. To do actual experiments using both example controllers, some remarks are made to improve the experimental set-up. This boils down to be able to do speed control on the experiments.

Introduction
Backlash is a common phenomenon in many systems. Especially in gear systems this is a problem which very often occurs, and is a drawback when constant angular velocity is desired. In the past many kinds of mechanical solutions are thought of, but it seems impossible to completely reduce backlash in a mechanically way. Another solution to deal with the backlash is by controlling the movement in a clever way. With the right control strategy it would be very nice, if the existing backlash partly or even completely could be deleted from the system. For a long time this problem was strictly avoided by control-engineers. The common approach was to control the system with backlash, like a system without any backlash. When the backlash is very small, no problems will occur, but when high performance is desired, this approach is not good enough. In the control world several, approaches exists to tackle the backlash problem.

In Chapter 1 of this report a research of backlash and several approaches are examined. Dierent control strategies in backlash problems are studied; whereas two control strategies are analyzed further. The stability of those controllers are mentioned in Chapter 2, where also a prediction of limit cycles is given. The two control strategies are compared by simulation in a Simulink environment in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4 the control strategies are implemented in an experimental set-up which contains backlash. Followed by some recommendations which would lead to satisfying results.

vii

Chapter 1

Previous Work Done

When backlash occurs in a system, the stability (in the form of limit cycles) and the performance can change. There are dierent models and controllers mentioned in the literature to counteract these phenomena. Here is a summary given of these techniques. Starting with the models, there are three dierent models of backlash considered, three possibilities of the position of the backlash. It can be situated at the input of the plant, i.e. at the motor side, at the output of the plant, i.e. at the load side or between the motor and the load which is called "sandwich backlash", [1]. Concerning the controllers, there are dierent methods, with various results in performance and stability. These are given in a short form. There is a distinction made between three control methods; linear control, control using describing functions and adaptive and non-linear control from the motor side, from load side and from both sides. But rst three methods of modeling backlash are discussed. A motor tracking experiment with the PATO and a tuned controller, see section 4.4, shows the performance limitations when backlash enters the system. Here the major oscillations are due to the backlash and the performance is decreased with a factor of 1.8 when a simple sinusoid is applied to the system, see Fig. 1.1. Between 0.17 and 0.27 seconds the system is in the backlash gap and the performance is decreased. Because it is a repetitive input signal, this phenomenon will also be repetitive.

Figure 1.1: Position error of a system with backlash 1

1.1. BACKLASH MODELS

CHAPTER 1. PREVIOUS WORK DONE

1.1

Backlash Models

Backlash models or gear play is a common non-linear behavior in mechanical systems. According to the place where the backlash occurs, it will behave dierently in the system. Depending on the mechanical surroundings and the machines operating conditions, dierent mathematical models must be used.

1.1.1

Physical Model for Backlash

A physical system, that consists of an inertia-free shaft with a backlash gap 2, a spring with elasticity ks and viscous damping cs , is modeled, see Fig. 1.2, [2].

Figure 1.2: Two mass rotating system The exact expression for the torque T is given by: T s s = ks (d b ) + cs ( d b ) = ks s + cs = d b (1.1) (1.2)

Where s represents the shaft twist, d is the dierence angle of the motor and the load side and b represents the backlash angle, b | |. There are three dierent cases, contact at a backlash angle of , no contact (T = 0) and contact at a backlash angle of . When there is no contact, Eq. 1.1 gives: d b = k (d b ) cs (d b (t0 )) exp
ks (tt0 ) cs

(1.3)

which solution is: d b = (1.4)

Since the shaft twist is given, or measured, Eq. 1.4 constructs the backlash angle. When the derivative of the backlash angle is computed, the torque can be computed using Eq. 1.1. This results in a non-linear dynamical system that gives the torque with given shaft twist angle and its derivative. The expression for the derivative backlash angle is: d + ks (d b )), if b = ; max(0, cs k s d + (d b ), b = if |b | < ; c s min(0, d + ks (d b )), if b = . cs Master team project 2

(1.5)

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

CHAPTER 1. PREVIOUS WORK DONE

1.1. BACKLASH MODELS

1.1.2

Deadzone Model

This model is a simplication of the exact physical model. It neglects the inner shaft damping which leads to a simpeler model, but it is only a valid model if there is no or small damping in the shaft. The dead zone model is the most common used model in practice, [2]. In this model, the shaft torque Ts , is proportional to the shaft twist s : Ts = ks s = ks D (d ) The deadzone function d , 0, D = d + , D is then dened as: if d > ; if |d | ; if d < . (1.7) (1.6)

In this case, the shaft is modeled as a pure spring having no internal damping and no inertia. When there is no backlash contact, the shaft is assumed to be in steady state, see Fig. 1.3.

Figure 1.3: Deadzone model If the inner shaft damping is neglectable, this model can be used for adaptive backlash inverse. The parameters of the deadzone model (ks1 , ks2 and b ) can be estimated using an adaptation law. This approximation for the deadzone model can be used as a compensation for the real backlash and the system can be controlled in a linear way.

1.1.3

Modeling with Describing Functions

In case of modeling a non-linear system, the system can be divided into two parts; a linear part and a non-linear part [18]. This non-linearity, like backlash, can be described with a describing function. To derive describing functions the following steps are taken: rst at the input of a non-linear element a sine wave is given with constant oset B:

d = B + A sin(t + )

(1.8)

Then the output of the non-linear element is approximated by constant oset NB B at the rst Master team project 3 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

1.2. CONTROLLERS harmonic NA A: s = NB B + NA A sin(t + ) NA (A, B, ) = NP (A, B, ) + jNq (A, B, ) NB = NB (A, B, )

CHAPTER 1. PREVIOUS WORK DONE

(1.9) (1.10) (1.11)

These two parameters are called the dual input describing functions, DIDFs. The DIDF can also be reproduced as: d ) = NB B + NP A sin(t) + Nq A sin(t) Ts (d , The operation condition can be described as: T0 = BNB (A, B, ) With the unique solution: B (A, T0 , ) (1.14) (1.13) (1.12)

When T0 = 0, the describing functions reduces to a sinusoidal input describing function, SIDF. In most cases the backlash is described with a SIDF (see section 1.2.2), so the only describing function is the following: N (X, ) = Y1 expj1 X (1.15)

X = Amplitude of input sine With: Y1 = Amplitude of the rst harmonic component F1 = Phase shift of the rst harmonic component The describing function can be dependent of the frequency but this is not necessary. For the nonlinear control system, we have a limit cycle if the sinusoid at the nonlinearity input regenerates itself in the loop, that is: G= 1 N (X, ) (1.16)

1.2

Controllers

The suggested controllers dier a lot in usability and have dierent results. There are not many solutions for the backlash control problem that will work perfectly. But still there is a lot of eort done, trying to solve this problem with various control strategies.

1.2.1

Linear Controllers

Backlash introduces nonlinearity in the system. If a linear controller must control this system, it is necessary that the controller must be robust enough to handle the non-linearity, [3]. If there is no backlash in the system, a simple PID-controller can be used to control the system. To increase the performance a higher bandwidth is needed. This is realized by adding two notches, see section 2.4. Without backlash this gives no problem, but when the backlash is introduced the high bandwidth controller causes large limit cycles for an operating point with no load torque. The PID-controller does not have limit cycles, however the performance is worse, [4]. A solution for this problem is to switch between these two controllers, a better performance is realized and the limit cycles do not exist. The controller, "weak action", is now non-linear and has Master team project 4 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

CHAPTER 1. PREVIOUS WORK DONE

1.2. CONTROLLERS

a tremendous performance, this controller, [4], will be analyzed and discussed further in chapter 2. Another way of designing a controller is proposed in [5], especially in gears with backlash. They started with the assumption that only the position and the velocity of the driving gear are available for feedback. The controller used was a simple PD-controller. With the Lyapunov stability theorem they simply could prove stability of the position and angular velocity of the motor and the angular velocity of the shaft, but they needed Lasalles theorem to prove stability for the position of the driven gear. However the results were not conrm the theory; the position of the driving gear did go to zero, but the position of the driven gear did not. It converges to a small, but non-zero value. Another linear control method is composed of a PID-controller and a feedback compensation of the load torque, "strong action". This load torque is estimated by a torque observer. When there is no load torque, the backlash gap is opened and the compensation inuences the PID-controller. Without this inuence limit cycles will occur. The controller with feedback compensation can suppress the vibrations of the system well, [6], however the performance of the system is worse. To improve this, a feed-forward compensation is added. Now the performance can be improved well, [7]. In [3] is shown that linear controllers increase the torque when the backlash is entered, which results in an impact, and is obviously not wanted. Therefore linear control is not a great solution to the backlash control problem.

1.2.2

Describing Functions

A logical way to integrate a non-linear element into a linear control design problem is to describe this non-linear part by a describing function, [8]. Such a non-linear element can be for example backlash or coulomb friction. It expresses how it depends on certain values like position or velocity. A describing function is always an approximation of the real situation. Often, the non-linearity must be described by a set of describing functions and can contain dynamics, which makes the describing function frequency dependent, [9]. With an inverse of the describing function the backlash can be neutralized. The control strategy is the following: the linear part of the open loop must not intersect with the negative inverse of any of the describing functions, then no limit cycles are predicted, see section 2.3. Furthermore a describing function approach can be used for two purposes: limit cycles can be analyzed and the input/output behavior of a non-linear plant can be characterized, [10]. Describing functions can be divided in two parts, the memoryless element describing function and the integrated plant/backlash describing function. The memoryless element has no internal state, only real numbers and is never frequency dependent. The integrated plant/backlash is the opposite of the memoryless element. It gives an approximation of inuence of the whole plant state on the backlash. And can therefore be imaginary and frequency dependent, [11].

1.2.3

Adaptive and Non-Linear Control from the Motor Side

Many industrial drive systems can be reasonably well modeled as a two mass system with backlash. In this report this model will also be used. The rst mass corresponds to that part of the machine that contains the engines, whereas the second mass corresponds to the load side. To model the actuator dynamics we include non-minimum phase dynamics. The control problem in this case, is the speed regulation of the motor with torque disturbances on the driven load. In [13] a model reference adaptive controller (MRAC) is proposed to do this job: Master team project 5 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

1.2. CONTROLLERS

CHAPTER 1. PREVIOUS WORK DONE

a PI controller that is only active when a disturbance occurs and it compensates for steadystate speed errors. This PI-controller suces to use a linear speed controller of P-type in stead of PI-type, which makes that the order of the system is reduced and thus creating a faster response. In [4] it is stated that it was possible to get almost the same performance for a system without backlash when something smart was done. Backlash has two major drawbacks: 1. Performance the load is for some time autonomous. 2. Stability backlash introduces (high frequent) limit cycles. The idea was to make two separate linear controllers that counteract these two drawbacks. So one controller was tuned optimally for the system without backlash, and one for robust performance. By smart switching it was possible to get almost the same performance as for the system without backlash. This switching was done by looking at the controller-output, the motor torque reference, in stead of the current backlash angle, [14], [15]. The reason for this was very simple; it is far easier to measure the control-output, than the exact value of the current backlash gap. Something almost the same, was done by [16], in stead of switching between two linear controllers, two linear observers, one for the system with backlash and the other one for the system without backlash were used. Switching in this case is done by looking at the state of the backlash element. Two non-linear schemes were also proposed, which dier with the amount of sensors available: 1. When only a motor sensor is available, a compensation of the steady state error is proposed by using special elements in the controller; 2. If there is also a sensor at the load side and the system is in the backlash, a trajectory is predicted which ensures that the gap is closed smoothly.

1.2.4

Adaptive Control and Non-Linear Control State Feedback

Another way of computing a controller for systems with backlash is the state-dependent algebraic Riccati equation for optimal control, SDARE method, proposed by [15]. This method has several advantages; it is easy to implement, secondly it does not require that the backlash (and other parasitic eects) are smooth functions and the underlying theory is intuitive. To use the SDARE method, it is important that the model have a non-zero slope at the origin. If the slope in the model is zero, the system is not locally controllable and many design methods, including the SDARE fail. The SDARE method leads to a two gain state feedback control law. Similar to the section 1.2.3, switching is needed to change the controller but here switching is applied if the dierence angle between the motor and the load is larger then the backlash angle. In [15] an observer to construct the backlash angle, if it is not possible to measure it, was proposed. Simulation show that the switched gain control law achieves a rapid response without overshoot and eliminates limit cycles. The performance of this controller, if an observer is used to determine the backlash gap does not dier much, only a high frequency oscillation is added to the response.

Master team project

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

Chapter 2

Analysis
In the previous chapter two main strategies for controlling backlash are proposed. The rst strategy is the strong action, in the backlash gap, based on [3], which is meant to close the backlash gap as fast as possible by applying an increase in torque (strong action) while the system is in the backlash gap. When the system is in the backlash gap the load behaves autonomously, the strong action strategy is meant to minimize this autonomous time. The second strategy is the weak action, in the backlash gap, based on [4], which is a method that deals with the two major drawbacks of backlash: stability; performance. The weak action has a high performance controller when the backlash gap is closed, but switches to a controller that provides stability, when the backlash gap is opened. In this chapter one example of both methods is analyzed: the PI-controller with load torque observer for the strong action strategy and the soft switching controller for the weak action strategy. When the linear system is stable, the stability problem of the system with backlash is restricted to limit cycles, [20] and [19]. Describing function techniques are used to investigated the limit cycle behavior of the non-linear system. The describing function analysis is an approximate method that is best suited for the discontinuous non-linearities in control systems. The method gives a reliable prediction concerning limit cycle behavior, [18].

2.1

Analysis Torque Observer

To handle the backlash in a system a torque disturbance, estimated by the observer, is added. This torque disturbance enters the system on the location of the backlash. An observer is used to estimate the state of the system. In the gure, 2.1, the layout of the system is showed. The input of this is motor torque Tm . It also contains motor velocity m , shaft torque Ts , disturbance torque Td , load torque Tl and load velocity l . The torque observer has two inputs; the motor velocity and motor torque. The equations in the torque observer are: T Ucomp Tm J m m s tf ilt s + 1 1 = K0 T tf ilt s + 1 = 7 (2.1) (2.2)

2.1. ANALYSIS TORQUE OBSERVER

CHAPTER 2. ANALYSIS

Figure 2.1: Layout of the system

In the rst equation, the so called shaft torque estimate is calculated. The m s term represents the angular acceleration. When the system drives at constant speed this term does not contribute to this equation. When the system enters the backlash, the velocity changes and therefore also has an acceleration. So the term m s does contribute to the equation. This term, multiplied with Jm , the motor inertia, leads to a virtual torque, and is compared with the motor torque in Eq. 2.1. So when the system enters the backlash gap, an acceleration is present and and extra torque is given to the system. This leads to a shorter time in the backlash gap. With the parameter tf ilt the engine dynamics is taken into account.

Figure 2.2: Frf of Ucomp over T

In Eq. 2.2 the control signal is calculated. The compensator gain K0 has to be manually tuned. The frf of this equation can be seen in Fig. 2.2. The system can now be analyzed as a linear system and therefore can be linear controlled with a PI controller. By this strategy a strong control is desired, this means that the backlash must be traveled as quickly as possible. So that the motor side and load side are disconnected for the shortest possible time. Master team project 8 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

CHAPTER 2. ANALYSIS

2.2. DESCRIBING FUNCTION METHODOLOGY

2.2

Describing Function Methodology

The presented system is a single-input-single-output nonlinear system represented by the feedback connection of Fig. 2.3.

Figure 2.3: feedback connection The linear part, g(s), is the system without backlash and the non-linear part, f() is the backlash which is modeled as a deadzone backlash, see section 1.1.2. For simplicity the input r(t) is set to 0. The existence of periodic solutions, limit cycles, needs to be proved. A periodic solution satises y (t + 2 ) = y (t) for all t, where is the frequency of oscillation. The condition for harmonic balance can be derived through Fourier analysis with the trial solution of Eq. 2.3. e(t) = A sin(t) (2.3)

This results in the condition for harmonic balance, Eq. 2.4. With the describing function, Eq. 2.5, the condition for harmonic balance is written into Eq. 2.6. This condition has an interesting graphical interpretation. Let the Nyquist diagram g (j ) of the linear system be plotted in the 1 complex plane, with in the same diagram the describing function N ( A) . = g (j )(U1 + jV1 ) + A U1 + jV1 N (A) = A 1 g (j ) = N (A) A limit cycle is predicted if there is an intersection of the two functions. 0 (2.4) (2.5) (2.6)

2.3

Stability of Limit Cycles

The stability of the limit cycles are not jet predicted, therefore the similarity between the above Eq. 2.6 and the Nyquist criterion for limit cycles is used. In Fig. 2.4 a ctitious system (G) with 1 is plotted, where Gd is the non-linear backlash part of the system. describing function criterium G d Here are two limit cycles with characteristics (MA , A ) and (MB , B ) with MA < MB , where M 1 represents the amplitude A. Consider the intersection A of G(j ) and G and assume a small d decrease in amplitude MA . The representative point on the describing function criterium will move to a new point, D. This point is not encircled by the system, the system will move further and further away from the intersection and the oscillations will eventually stop. Therefore, point A has divergent characteristics and is an unstable limit cycle. A similar analysis can be made with respect to point B, with the dierence that B has convergent characteristics and is a stable limit cycle. In general, the limit cycle is predicted to be stable or unstable depending on the direction of crossing with respect to the linear system function in the Nyquist diagram. Master team project 9 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

2.4. DESCRIBING FUNCTION OF BACKLASH

CHAPTER 2. ANALYSIS

Figure 2.4: Stability of limit cycles

2.4

Describing Function of Backlash

To predict the limit cycles and their stability, the non-linear part of the system is modeled as a describing function. The dierent backlash models (section 1.1) have dierent describing functions. Here a classical (deadzone) model, section 1.1.2, is chosen to predict the existence of limit cycles with the describing function analysis, [21]. The result of this backlash describing function with the controlled systems, total system with performance and with stability controller, is presented in Fig. 2.6. N (A) = 0, N (A) = k 1 Ns where: Ns (z ) = 2 1 arcsin z + 1 1 cos arcsin z z (2.8)
A

if |x| ; , if x . (2.7)

To illustrated the prediction of limit cycles, the later on used controllers Ghigh and Glow , see section 3.3, of the switching controller are used. These controllers have a similar form, see Eq. 2.9, but dierent parameters, [4] and appendix A. G(s) = kp sTi + 1 sTi
2 s2 /1 + 2/1 + 1 2 + 2/ + 1 s2 /2 2 2 s2 /3 + 2/3 + 1 2 + 2/ + 1 s2 /4 4

(2.9)

In this equation three elements can be analyzed. First a PI controller is used to increase the performance of this system. Due to the fact that it is a speed controlled system and thus low frequent a -1 slope in amplitude and -90 degrees in phase and a anti-resonance and resonance which lead to a phase lead of 135 degrees, a PI controller can be used. The rst notch-lter is used to decrease the phase between the anti-resonance and resonance, in order to decrease the amplitude after the resonance. This prevents the system to become unstable, because the Master team project 10 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

CHAPTER 2. ANALYSIS

2.4. DESCRIBING FUNCTION OF BACKLASH

cross-over frequency after the resonance occurs at a lower frequency, where there is still some phase advance, see Fig. 2.5. The second notch-lter is needed to gain more phase in that frequency region. This is a notch with a phase lead after a phase lag.

(a) With and without notch 1

(b) With and without notch 2

Figure 2.5: System with and without one of the notches In Fig. 2.6 the high performance controlled system, Ghigh , there is an intersection with the describing function. The controller with high stability properties doesnt has this intersection and therefore doesnt predict a limit cycle. The describing function goes to zero with increase of amplitude of the sinusoidal input. Thus the predicted limit cycle is stable. The describing function depends on the shaft stiness, another value for the stiness result in a change and it might be inevitable to get limit cycles with this type of controller. The system has still an intersection with the backlash describing function, but this is at a very low amplitude and such a high frequency that it is neglectable.

Figure 2.6: Prediction of limit cycles

Master team project

11

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

Chapter 3

Simulations
The two main backlash models, the exact and the deadzone model, are simulated with the soft switching controller to verify the output of both models w.r.t each other. The deadzone model behavior should be close to the exact model behavior when there is no or small damping in the shaft (section 1.1.2). In simulation this damping can be adjusted easily by changing a constant value. Furthermore, the two controllers analyzed in Chapter 2 are implemented in Simulink and tested with a constant angular velocity and disturbance.

3.1

Dierent Backlash models

The dierence between a deadzone and exact backlash model is evaluated with a simulation. The used controller is a PI controller with relative low bandwidth. In theory the deadzone model represents the exact model if the shaft damping is low. The results show indeed huge dierences when the shaft damping is high.

(a) Angular velocity

(b) Motor torque

Figure 3.1: Simulated results with low shaft damping In Fig. 3.1 it can be seen that the deadzone model behaves like the exact model. The main error occurs when there is no load disturbance torque (after 2 seconds) and the system jumps through its backlash. Fig. 3.2 shows, like predicted, that with large shaft damping the dierences between the two models are huge.

13

3.2. PI-CONTROLLER WITH TORQUE OBSERVER

CHAPTER 3. SIMULATIONS

(a) Angular velocity

(b) Motor torque

Figure 3.2: Simulated results with high shaft damping

3.2

PI-Controller with Torque Observer

To simulate, the system is built in Simulink and tested. The model contains a two mass-system with backlash. Further more, it contains a block with actuator dynamics, the controller-block and torque observer-block. The motor velocity is controlled, and the load torque is added as disturbance. The used parameters are given in PI-torqueParameters.m and the simulink model in Appendix B. The simulation is done by controlling the motor velocity at a constant 10 rad/s. The input torque at the motor side is 10 Nm. At 5 sec a load torque, disturbance, of 400 Nm is applied on the system. In Fig. 3.3 a comparison between a system with and without torque observer. The system with observer has a slightly better performance.

Figure 3.3: Motor velocity for system with and without observer

In Fig. 3.4 the motor velocity and load velocity are plotted. Because of the disturbance the load velocity decreased and also the motor velocity decreased. This disturbance is not big enough to get the load through the backlash, so the gap remains closed. The load velocity decreases, because of this disturbance and through the stiness of the shaft and the motor velocity decreases also, but with a time delay. The controller tries to get the velocity back up to 10 rad/s, so it sends out Master team project 14 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

CHAPTER 3. SIMULATIONS

3.2. PI-CONTROLLER WITH TORQUE OBSERVER

Figure 3.4: Motor velocity and load velocity a torque to speed-up the motor velocity to the correct value. The backlash stays closed and the motor and the load velocity are increased at almost the same time. At t = 7s the load torque is set to zero. The load and the motor accelerate, because of the extra available torque. The magnitude of the step is not big enough to open the backlash. The controller decreases the motor velocity whereas the load maintains its velocity. The backlash gap now opens. At t = 7.3 s the backlash gap is closed again on the other side. Here the load has a higher velocity, so the motor velocity is increased again. Then the controller sets both motor and load speed to the steady state value of 10 rad/s. Between t = 7.7s and 8s the situation is precisely the other way around, but the system does not jump completely through the backlash.

Figure 3.5: Backlash gap In Fig. 3.5 the backlash gap is shown. The shifted position in the backlash can be seen. From 7.3s till 7.7s the backlash is closed on the other side. Also the dierence between a system with- and without observer is shown. The desired approach of a strong controller is to be in the backlash gap as short as possible. A strong controller (with observer) runs faster through the backlash gap Master team project 15 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

3.3. SOFT SWITCHING CONTROLLER then a normal controller (without observer).

CHAPTER 3. SIMULATIONS

Figure 3.6: Shaft torque and motor torque In Fig. 3.6 the shaft torque and the motor torque are shown. From 5s to 7s nothing special happens, the backlash gap remains closed. When the backlash gap opens a small increase or decrease in torque appears. This is caused in the same way explained earlier. When the load torque is set to zero, with a step, the backlash gap opens two times. At the moment the position of the backlash is shifted, the torque changes.

3.3

Soft Switching Controller

The soft switching controller has three parts: two controllers and a switching function. These two controllers have dierent properties. The rst controller Ghigh is a controller with high performance, but this controller causes limit cycles around the backlash, see section 2.4. This Ghigh is the controller with the highest performance. The second controller, Glow is globally stable, but has reduced performance. These two linear controllers are combined into one non-linear controller using switching such that the system has the performance of Ghigh when the system is not in the backlash and it has the stability of Glow , when the system is around the backlash. Like stated before, the motor angular velocity, subject to a load disturbance, needs to be controlled. When the plant with the backlash gap is closed, due to a large load torque Td , the plant behaves like a linear plant without backlash. For this linear system, the transfer function between the input Tm and output m , the transfer function in which we are interested, can be computed. The bode diagram of this system with actuator dynamics (modeled as a delay of 10 ms) and without backlash is presented in Fig. 3.7. The controllers Ghigh and Glow are suggested as a PI controller with two notches, this results in a bandwidth of 18 rad/s for the high performance controller and a bandwidth of 12 rad/s of the low performance controller Glow . The closed loop specications are: 1. Global stability (for the linear system the controller Ghigh is globally stable, but with backlash the controlled system will show limit cycles when the backlash gap is open). 2. Minimal speed error of the system subjected to a load torque step. 3. Sensitivity modulus < 6 dB. Master team project 16 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

CHAPTER 3. SIMULATIONS

3.3. SOFT SWITCHING CONTROLLER

Figure 3.7: Bode diagram of system with and without controllers Both systems do not exceed the 6 dB criterion, the performance of the high performance controller is indeed better, then the stability controller, see Fig. 3.8. And both controlled systems are globally stable for the linear case.

Figure 3.8: Sensitivity of controlled system with both controllers

Some simulations are made to verify and predict results of the Soft Switching controller. The used parameters are given in SystemParameters.m and SoftSwitchingController.m. Speedcontrol is desired at an angular velocity of 10 rad/s. There is a switching between the two controllers that is based on the motor torque. When the torque is high, the backlash gap is closed and the high performance controller is used. When the torque is zero, the backlash gap is open and the stability controller is used. In between the value for which the high performance controller Master team project 17 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

3.3. SOFT SWITCHING CONTROLLER

CHAPTER 3. SIMULATIONS

is used, dependant of upper bound Tmax , and a motor torque of zero (or a lower bound, Tmin ) there is a soft switching. This is done by the following equation: if |T | Tmin ; 0, |T |Tmin v (T ) = (3.1) , if Tmin < |T | < Tmax ; Tmax Tmin 1, if Tmax |T |. For this simulation the values for Tmin and Tmax are respectively 0 and 165. These can be specied experimentally. A load disturbance of 400 Nm is initially put on the system and after two seconds this value is set to 0. And thus switching is needed after two seconds. Because the system does not start up in steady state, there is some switching in the rst two seconds. First the two controllers separately are considered, it can be seen that there occurs limit cycles when there is no load disturbance applied to the system for the GHigh system, see Fig. 3.9 and 3.10, like predicted. The results of the GLow system, Fig. 3.11, show, like predicted, no limit cycles, Fig. 3.12. In initialization fase, the rst 2 seconds, the performance of this controller is less than GHigh . It takes more time and with a larger error to achieve the convergence. When the motor torque of the two systems are compared, it can be seen that the controller with the best performance demands more torque. After the two seconds of initialization with a load torque of 400 Nm, the limit cycles occur and the GLow is desirable. These simulation results are expected, there are limit cycles when only GHigh is applied.

(a) Angular velocity and applied load torque

(b) Motor torque

Figure 3.9: GHigh controlled system with applied load disturbance

When the soft-switching controller is applied, the following results are simulated. In Fig. 3.13 the controlled m with the same disturbance as in the previous results is shown. Here the error in initialization fase is roughly the same as in Fig. 3.9, but when the disturbance is taken of the load there are no limit cycles like predicted, Fig. 3.14, and the performance tends to the stability controller. The main dierence in this area are some oscillations in the time interval from 2 to 2.5 seconds. This can be explained with the switching parameter v, Fig. 3.14. Here between 2 and 2.5 seconds there is a huge switch from 0 to 1 and back. This because the motor slows to much down and is shifting from one side of the backlash gap to the other. The constant value of v at the of the simulation is a result of the low value for Tmin . Because the value of the motor torque with only the second mass as load is higher than this parameter. The nal controller in rest is thus a combination of the two controllers.

Master team project

18

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

CHAPTER 3. SIMULATIONS

3.3. SOFT SWITCHING CONTROLLER

Figure 3.10: Phase diagram of GHigh controlled system

(a) Angular velocity and applied load torque

(b) Motor torque

Figure 3.11: GLow controlled system with applied load disturbance

Figure 3.12: Phase diagram of GLow controlled system

Master team project

19

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

3.3. SOFT SWITCHING CONTROLLER

CHAPTER 3. SIMULATIONS

(a) Angular velocity and applied load torque

(b) Motor torque

Figure 3.13: Soft Switching controlled system with applied load disturbance

(a) Value of switching parameter v

(b) Phase diagram of switching controller

Figure 3.14: Soft switching controller v and phase diagram

Master team project

20

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

Chapter 4

Experiments
To test the controllers and to verify the simulation results, experiments are done. The PATO set-up is used to track a reference. Due to problems with dierentiating, position control is the strategy. To introduce backlash into the system a special shaft is designed. Where after the two discussed controllers are implemented. Because of the occurring problems the results will dier from the expectations. To encounter the problems that occur when a system has backlash and to compare dierent methods of control using one backlash model a manually tuned controller is analyzed within a experimental set-up.

4.1

Experimental Set-up

To test the two controllers that were selected in chapter 1 and simulated in chapter 3, a simple experimental set-up is used. This set-up is used many times in literature and it is also chosen here. It contains two masses of dierent weight, connected with a shaft. In this shaft a special design is mounted to create the necessary backlash. This design is discussed in section 4.2 of this report. The set-up contains two position encoders, the rst one to measure the position on the motor side, the second one to measure on the load side. The input of the test system is torque, created through a current. The output of the system is the position in radians. Because this report is about speed control, the output of the system needs to be dierentiated using a 8th order butterworth-lter to suppress the inuence of the obtained high frequencies due to the numerical dierentiated.

(a) PSD of the output signal

(b) PSD of the dierentiated output signal

Figure 4.1: Power spectral density of output and dierentiaited output With the knowledge of the power spectral densities of the output and the dierentiated output, 21

4.1. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTS

Fig. 4.1, a butterworth lter with cut-o frequency of 300 Hz is constructed, see Fig. 4.2. The high magnitude at the low frequencies present in the output signal y, is still present in the dierentiated signal, therefore it is not necessary to lter this low frequency of the measured signal. The noisepeak at 350 Hz, present because of numerical dierentiation of the output y, is the lowest frequency that should be ltered out of the signal. Therefore fc is chosen at 300 Hz.

Figure 4.2: Butterworth lter The results of the frf-measurement of the linear system without backlash are plotted in Fig. 4.3. The coherence of the process-sensitivity is by far not sucient to achieve a reliable frf of the plant with this measurement. The measurement of this transfer-function of the angular velocity over the torque is therefore not useful with this experimental set-up. To analyse the inuence of backlash with this experimental set-up, position control is used. The reference trajectory however will be a ramp, so although position control is done, also some conclusions can be drawn about speed control for systems with backlash.

(a) Sensitivity

(b) Process-sensitivity

Figure 4.3: Measurement of angular velocity over torque Another frf-measurement is made to determine the transfer-function of the position over the torque. Here, it is not necessary to dierentiate the output and thus is the coherency of the sensitivity and process-sensitivity, Fig. 4.4, much better. The achieved frf, Fig. 4.5, is therefore reliable (in the frequency domain of the high coherence).

Master team project

22

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTS

4.2. DESIGN OF A SHAFT WITH BACKLASH

(a) Sensitivity

(b) Process-sensitivity

Figure 4.4: Measurement of position over torque

Figure 4.5: Frf of the system; position over torque

4.2

Design of a Shaft with Backlash

To test the soft-switching and PI-controller with torque observer an experiment will be done. For this experiment the already existing PATO-machine will be used. In this PATO a exible shaft connects the motor and load with each other. This exible shaft must be replaced by a new shaft with backlash. This new shaft has to t in the PATO-machine and contains a backlash gap of 2 degrees. It is in favorite that the shaft has also a little exibility in it. The design is attempted to be as easy as possible, so that the production of it takes as little time as possible. The design consists of two parts that can be slide into each other. Each part has a solid rod in the middle. This rod is the same as in the old shaft, so the exibility of the shaft is partly maintained. At the end of this rod a tube is glued around it. This tube has a diameter of 2.5 mm and a wall thickness of 0.5 mm. The end of this tube is cut in longitudinal direction and one half of the tube is cut o. Because part one has a cut o of 180 degrees and part two (see Fig. B.2) has a cut o of 178 degrees, a backlash gap of two degrees has been created. To make sure that the two parts stay in line with each other, a second tube is tted around it. This tube has a diameter of 3 mm and a wall-thickness of 0.25 mm and is glued to part one.

If the two parts slide into each other, the shaft contains a backlash gap of 2 degrees. If Master team project 23 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

4.3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TWO CONTROLLERS

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTS

(a) Part 1 of the shaft

(b) Part 2 of the shaft

(c) Assemblage of the two parts

Figure 4.6: Shaft design for experimental setup part two is replaced by another part that has a cut o of 180 degrees instead of 178 degrees, the backlash gap is set to zero. In this way it is possible to do a comparison between the shaft with and without backlash. The total drawing of the shaft is visible in appendix C. Although the design of the shaft is made as simple as possible it took to much time to produce the shaft. Therefore another, less favorite, solution has been used. The already existing shaft in the PATO is loosen a little bit. This is done by putting a small tube around the shaft which is xed in the mass. This tube has a larger diameter than the shaft so that the shaft is not xed to the mass; this tube also makes sure that the shaft does not come out of the mass. The main disadvantage of this solution is that the backlash gap is not constant, because of the fact that the xation of the tube is not robust. Due to the vibrations, which occur during the experiments the tube can come loose a little bit, which will result in a larger backlash gap. Another disadvantage of this solution is the position of the shaft xation, because the tube has a larger diameter than the shaft, the center line of the shaft is not aligned with the center line of the motor anymore.

4.3

Implementation of the Two Controllers

The implementation of both suggested controllers in the experimental set-up lead to some problems. In order to apply the torque observer controller the angular acceleration is needed, which is a problem, because the encoder only measures angular position and as stated in section 4.1 it is impossible to dierentiate the position to velocity numerically, and therefore also from position to acceleration. So the contribution of the angular acceleration can not taken into account. Master team project 24 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTS

4.4. DESIGNED CONTROLLER

The second problem of the torque observer implementation is the input from motor torque. The desired input is not available, so the assumption is made that the torque is proportional with the voltage, whereas actually the torque is more or less proportionally with the current. It is uncertain if the remaining torque observer is still able to detect the state of the system, and therefore still can be used in the experimental set-up with backlash. In the experiment a ramp in position, a constant velocity, is set as input. On a certain time (10 sec) a negative step in position is put on the ramp. This causes the opening of the backlash gap. The parameters of the implemented torque observer need to be (manually) tuned. In Fig. 4.7 the error of the system with and without observer can be seen. These results show that the system with observer has almost the same error values than the system without observer.

Figure 4.7: Experimental results of Torque Observer controller It seams clear that the observer cannot be used in this system. The system with observer should be more damped than the system without backlash, this is not the case. So maybe too much information is lost in the remaining of the original torque observer. The acceleration term is omitted, and also the motor torque is not the exactly right value. This means that it is not possible to implement a torque observer in this system, with this layout. With the usage of a velocity encoder the angular velocity of the motor can be measured. Still the angular acceleration is needed to observe the torque, which makes another numerical dierentiation needed. Another problem is the motor torque estimation, this could be done by measuring the ingoing current to the motor. The current is proportional with the torque because a DC-motor is used in the experimental set-up. The soft switching controller can not be implemented because the control is based upon position and not upon speed. Therefore an extra 90 degrees phase lag is "added", which causes the system to become unstable with the type of used control. To gain 90 degrees phase the PI is substituted with a PD controller. The result is a controller which does not behave at all like our expectations. In order to investigate the inuence of backlash in our experimental set-up, a manually tuned controller is implemented, section 4.4.

4.4

Designed Controller

To design the manually tuned controller, the frf-measurement is used. In order to actually see the dierence between the error of a system with and without backlash, a controller needs to be tuned, which leaves a small error. In Fig. 4.5, the frf-measurement of the experimental Master team project 25 Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

4.4. DESIGNED CONTROLLER

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTS

set-up, without backlash, is plotted, which is the basics of loop-shaping of the controller. The bandwith of the controller needs to be as high as possible, to suppress as many disturbances as possible. Theoretically the bandwith of a second order system can be placed anywhere, but in this experiment it is not the case. Due to the noise, present from 1000 Hz and the phase lag it contains, the maximum bandwith is 30 Hz. When the bandwith is increased from that point, the slope -2 after the antiresonance and the resonance and the phase lag in that region, gets the system unstable. Implementing this controller leads to a error of 0.1 rad. This amount of error is not enough to see the backlash in the error signal. So a acceleration feedforward is added to increase the performance. The "mass" is calculated using the data of the frf measurement, see Fig. 4.4. Where the coherence is high the mass can be determined in a point of the -2 slope. Using this mass feedforward the error decreases to 0.04 rad. In Fig. 4.8, the error is plotted for the system with and without backlash. This controller and the mass feedforward is now also implemented in the system with backlash. In this gure it is wel seen that the system has backlash:

Figure 4.8: Position error of a system with and without backlash In Fig. 4.8, the error signal of a sinus-wave scaled reference signal is shown. The backlash occurs each time the motor is decelerating. This is at the moment the reference signal is going through zero. At this point the load is getting a higher angular velocity than the motor, due to the inertia of the load. Consequently the backlash gap is entered. At t = 0.17 the load reaches the other side of the backlash gap, which results in an impact. This impact causes the sudden increase of the error signal, of a factor 1.8. Only 0.02 seconds later another impact is visible, here the load reaches the side of the backlash again. This process of impact repeats itself one more time, but whit smaller amplitude, because of the friction of the system. At t = 0.27 no more impacts appear and the load remains at the other side of the backlash gap.

Master team project

26

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

Conclusion and Recommendations

In this report it has been shown that backlash indeed gives a problem when only a PID controller has been used. In general the backlash will result in a performance limiting eect. To prevent this eect two controllers are investigated, one example from each of the two major control strategies. The PI-controller with a torque observer for the "strong action in the backlash gap" and the soft switching controller for the "weak action in the backlash gap". Both controllers were analyzed theoretically whether limit cycles did occur. Also both controllers were simulated in Simulink using a constant velocity and a load disturbance. The soft-switching controller had the best performance, because it has the ability to switch between a stability and a performance mode. Also the impact of closing the backlash gap is much smaller in the soft switching controller, which leads to a better performance and less wear. The implementation of both controllers however did not succeed, due to the dierences between speed and position control. Our PATO set-up did only have position encoders, so no speed control could be done. Also a manually controller was designed, which uncovered the eect of backlash in the total error behavior. A few recommendations exist to avoid the problem in this set-up. The encoder should become an acceleration encoder. The velocity can be calculated by integration, this would not lead to any problem. Another way of dealing with the problem is to think of a clever way to dierentiate the position signal to velocity and acceleration signals. Also the motor torque should be well estimated. This could be done by measuring the ingoing current to the motor. The current is more or less proportional to the torque. So from the current the motor torque could be calculated and the torque observer would work better. When there will be more experiments the new shaft design should be used. In this case, the backlash gap would be a constant so better results would be expected. In the future, research should be done in getting a reliable and easy way in implementing the two proposed controllers. Secondly there should be a more accurate test set-up where such a high bandwith can be achieved, that limit cycles experimentally occur.

27

Appendix A

M-les
SystemParameters.m
clear all ; close all ; clc % Defining parameters for SoftSwitching simulation . Jm = Jl = cm = cl = ks = cs = td = te = alfa 0.4; 5.6; 0.1; 1; 3300; 1; 0.004; 0.006; = 0.05; % % % % % % % % % Motor moment of inertia [ kgm2 ] Load moment of inertia [ kgm2 ] Viscous motor friction [ Nm /( rad / s )] Viscous load friction [ Nm /( rad / s )] Shaft elasticity [ Nm / rad ] Inner damping coefficient of the shaft [ Nm /( rad / s )] Time delay , from reference to motor torque [ s ] Time coefficient actutor [ s ] Backlash angle [ rad ] 0.05 % Initial backlash angle [ rad ] % Initial motor speed [ rad / s ]

Initialangle = 0.05; Initialspeed = 10;

29

APPENDIX A. M-FILES

SoftSwitchingController.m
% Softswitching parameters Tmin = 0; Tmax = ks * alfa ; % Controllers % For PI - controller Kp = 26; Ti = 0.2; % Parameters of G_high Kph = 160; Tih = 0.2; z1h z2h z3h z4h w1h w2h w3h w4h = = = = = = = = 0.25; 0.55; 0.2; 0.25; 80; 80; 85; 45;

% Parameters of G_low Kpl = 80; Til = 0.2; w1l w2l w3l w4l z1l z2l z3l z4l = = = = = = = = 100; 100; 45; 35; 0.15; 0.35; 0.45; 0.5;

Master team project

30

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

APPENDIX A. M-FILES

Analytic.m
clear all ; clc % Defining parameters using Syste m P a r a m e t e r s . m and % SoftSwitchingController .m Syste mParameter s SoftSwitchingController % Determing the transfer function between Tm and w_m den = [ Jm * Jl ( Jl *( cm + cs )+ Jm *( cm + cs )) (( Jl + Jm )* ks + cm * cl + cm * cs + cl * cs )... ( cm + cl )* ks ]; num = [ Jl ( cl + cs ) ks ]; G_tm Act SYS = tf ( num , den ); = tf ([1] ,[ te 1]); = Act * G_tm ;

num = [ cell2mat ( SYS . num )]; den = [ cell2mat ( SYS . den )]; [A ,B ,C , D ] = tf2ss ( num , den ); % State - space re pres enta tio n of linear % system % Inputdelay -> Actuator dynamics

sys = ss (A ,B ,C , D ); sys . inputd = 0.008; figure bode ( G_tm , sys , g ,{1 ,1000}) grid set ( gcf , color ,[1 1 1]);

% G_high controller : i_act_high = tf ([ Tih 1] ,[ Tih 0]); notch_1_high = tf ([1/ w1h ^2 2* z1h / w1h 1] ,[1/ w2h ^2 2* z2h / w2h 1]); notch_2_high = tf ([1/ w3h ^2 2* z3h / w3h 1] ,[1/ w4h ^2 2* z4h / w4h 1]); G_high = Kph * i_act_high * notch_1_high * notch_2_high ; % G_low controller : i_act_low = tf ([ Til 1] ,[ Til 0]); notch_1_low = tf ([1/ w1l ^2 2* z1l / w1l 1] ,[1/ w2l ^2 2* z2l / w2l 1]); notch_2_low = tf ([1/ w3l ^2 2* z3l / w3l 1] ,[1/ w4l ^2 2* z4l / w4l 1]); G_low = Kpl * i_act_low * notch_1_low * notch_2_low ; % PI - controller , strong action : PI = 0.75* Kp * tf ([ Ti 1] ,[ Ti 0]); % Making a system of gain 1 with the same delay as our system . one = ss (0 ,0 ,0 ,1); one . inputd = 0.008; % Plotting the results figure bode ( G_high , G_low , PI ) legend ( G_ { high } , G_ { low } , PI , Location , NorthWest ) grid set ( gcf , color ,[1 1 1]); figure bode ( G_high * sys , G_low * sys , PI * sys ) legend ( G_ { tot high } , G_ { tot low } , G_ { PI } , Location , Best ) grid set ( gcf , color ,[1 1 1]); figure bodemag ( one /( one + G_high * sys ) , one /( one + G_low * sys ) , one /( one + PI * sys )) legend ( G_ { tot high } , G_ { tot low } , G_ { PI } , Location , Best ) grid set ( gcf , color ,[1 1 1]); figure nyquist ( G_high * sys , G_low * sys , PI * sys ,{2 ,10^15})

Master team project

31

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

APPENDIX A. M-FILES
legend ( G_ { sys high } , G_ { sys low } , G_ { PI } , Location , Best ) grid set ( gcf , color ,[1 1 1]);

Master team project

32

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

APPENDIX A. M-FILES

PI-torqueParameters.m
clear all ; clc ; % Parameters for Backlash model . Jm = 0.4; % Motor moment of inertia [ kgm2 ] Jl = 5.6; % Load moment of inertia [ kgm2 ] cm = 0.1; % Viscous motor friction [ Nm /( rad / s )] cl = 1; % Viscous load friction [ Nm /( rad / s )] ks = 3300; % Shaft elasticity [ Nm / rad ] cs = 1; % Inner damping coefficient of the shaft [ Nm /( rad / s )] td = 0.0006; % Time delay , from reference to motor torque [ s ] te = 0.0008; % Time coefficient actuator alfa = 0.05; % Backlash angle [ rad ] % % Parameters PI controler Kp = 40; % P - action Kv = 400; % I - action % % Parameters for torque obserever Ko = 0.1; Tfilt = te ; % Compensation gain % Time delay compensation

Master team project

33

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

Appendix B

Simulink Models
Soft Switching Model

(a) Upper model

(b) Controller part

(c) Backlash model

(d) Model

(e) Actuator dynamics

Figure B.1: Soft switching model

35

APPENDIX B. SIMULINK MODELS

Torque Observer Model

(a) Upper model

(b) Controller part

(c) Backlash model

Figure B.2: Torque observer model

Master team project

36

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash

Appendix C

Shaft Design

Figure C.1: Assembly of the shaft, part 1

Figure C.2: Assembly of the shaft, part 2

37

List of Figures
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Position error of a system with backlash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two mass rotating system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deadzone model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layout of the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frf of Ucomp over T feedback connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stability of limit cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . System with and without one of the notches Prediction of limit cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 8 8 9 10 11 11 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 25 26 35 36 37 37

Simulated results with low shaft damping . . . . . . . . . . . . Simulated results with high shaft damping . . . . . . . . . . . . Motor velocity for system with and without observer . . . . . . Motor velocity and load velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Backlash gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaft torque and motor torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bode diagram of system with and without controllers . . . . . . Sensitivity of controlled system with both controllers . . . . . . GHigh controlled system with applied load disturbance . . . . . Phase diagram of GHigh controlled system . . . . . . . . . . . . GLow controlled system with applied load disturbance . . . . . Phase diagram of GLow controlled system . . . . . . . . . . . . Soft Switching controlled system with applied load disturbance Soft switching controller v and phase diagram . . . . . . . . . . Power spectral density of output and dierentiaited output Butterworth lter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measurement of angular velocity over torque . . . . . . . . Measurement of position over torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frf of the system; position over torque . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaft design for experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental results of Torque Observer controller . . . . . Position error of a system with and without backlash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B.1 Soft switching model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.2 Torque observer model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1 Assembly of the shaft, part 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2 Assembly of the shaft, part 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

Bibliography
[1] Adam Lagerberg A literature survey on control of automotive powertrains with backlash 2001: Chalmers University of technology. [2] Nordin Galic and Gutman, New models for backlash and gear play 1997. [3] Adam Lagerberg and Egardt B. Evaluation of control strategies for automotive trains with backlash 2002: Hiroshima. [4] Nordin M. Non linear backlash compensation for speed controlled elastic systems 2000: Stockholm [5] Indri M. and Tornamb A. Application of a PD controller on two mating gears with elasticity and backlash 1997: San Diego [6] Odai M. and Hori Y. Speed control of 2-inertia system with gear backlash using gear torque compensator 1998 [7] Nakayama Y., Fujikawa K. and Kobayashi H. A torque control method of three-inertia torsional system with backlash 2000 [8] Gelb A. and Vander Velde W.E. Multiple-input describing functions and nonlinear system design 1968: New York [9] Mees A. and Bergen A. Describing functions revisited 1975: University of California, Berkeley [10] Taylor J. and Wilson B. A frequency-domain model-order-deduction algorithm for nonlinear systems 1995: New Brunswick University [11] Armstrong B. and Amin B. PID control in the presence of static friction: A comparison of algebraic and describing function analysis 1996: Milwaukee [12] Armstrong B. and Amin B. PID control in the presence of static friction: Exact and describing function analysis 1994: Milwaukee [13] Brandenburg G. and Schfer U. Inuence and partial compensation of backlash for a position controlled elastic two-mass system 1987: Grenoble [14] Boneh R. and Yaniv O. Control of an elastic two-mass system with large backlash 1999: Tel Aviv [15] Friedland, B. Feedback control of systems with parasitic eects 1997: Albuquerque [16] Shfer U. Entwicklung von nichtlinearen Drezahl- und lageregelungen zur Kompensation von Coulomb-Reibung und Lose bei einem elektrisch angetriebenen, elastischen Zweimassensystem 1993: Mnchen [17] Lin C., Yu T. and Feng Xu Fuzzy control of a nonlinear pointing testbed with backlash and friction 1996: Kobe 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY [18] Smith M.C. Nonlinear and predictive control: Describing functions 2004

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[19] Brandenburg G. and Schfer U. Inuence and adaptive compensation of simultaneously acting backlash and coulomb friction in elastic two-mass systems of robots and machine tools 1989: Mnchen [20] Dhaouadi R., Kubo K. and Tobise M. Analysis and compensation of speed drive systems with torsional loads 1994 [21] HSU J. and Meyer A. Modern Control Principles and Applications 1968: McGraw-Hill, New York

Master team project

42

Motion Control of Systems with Backlash