Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TRANSACTIONS®
ISA Transactions 43 共2004兲 427–443
Abstract
Electronic cam motion involves velocity tracking control of the master motor and trajectory generation of the slave
motor. Special concerns such as the limits of the velocity, acceleration, and jerk are beyond the considerations in the
conventional electronic cam motion control. This study proposes the curve-fitting of a Lagrange polynomial to the cam
profile, based on trajectory optimization by cubic B-spline interpolation. The proposed algorithms may yield a higher
tracking precision than the conventional master-slaves control method does, providing an optimization problem is
concerned. The optimization problem contains three dynamic constraints including velocity, acceleration, and jerk of
the motor system. © 2004 ISA—The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society.
Keywords: Electronic cam; Tracking control; Trajectory generation; Trajectory optimization; Master-slaves
0019-0578/2004/$ - see front matter © 2004 ISA—The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society.
428 Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443
trajectory is generally specified by a cam profile nomial curve. However, the predicted master po-
table, which lists a set of reciprocal coordinates. sition is estimated by the electronic gearing 共E-
Chen 关7兴 applied B-spline 关8,9兴 and polynomial gearing兲 process.
curve-fitting methods to generate a smooth cam
profile curve function. Kim and Tsao 关10兴 devel- 2.1. External disturbance estimator
oped an electrohydraulic servo actuator for use in
electronic cam motion generation, and obtained External disturbances 共or loads兲 applied to the
improved performance. However, some original master may directly impact the efficiency of
performance limits, including velocity, accelera- E-gearing. Therefore disturbances must be sup-
tion, or jerk constraints, must be considered be- pressed. A mathematical model of the disturbance
cause motors have the lower loaded capacity rela- estimator, depicted in Fig. 1共a兲, is used to estimate
tive to the hydraulic actuators. For example, for a and suppress the external loads of the master mo-
highly precise machining tool, chattering must be tor. Fig. 1共b兲 is one practical embodiment for the
avoided, so jerking in motion must be reduced. proposed disturbance suppressed control.
This study proposes an optimization algorithm In Fig. 1共b兲, the external load L is estimated
关11兴 to prevent extremely high velocities, accelera- from the input current i a and the angular velocity
tion, or jerk, yielding smooth motion of the slave , where K a , L̂ f , R̂ f , K̂, Ĵ, and B̂ represent the
motor without loss of precision. The proposed nominal back electromotive force constant, the
tracking method presented here was experimen- nominal armature current inductance, the nominal
tally verified using a real-time program to realize armature current resistance, the nominal torque
the ECAM control system. The master’s system constant, the nominal moment of inertia, and the
uses a disturbance estimator to eliminate external nominal damping coefficient of the motor, respec-
disturbances. This estimator is the prerequisite for tively. Furthermore, V re f , L f , R f , K, J, and B
the Nth-order polynomial tracking control. represent the reference voltage input, the actual
Lagrange polynomial 关9兴 curve-fitting, cubic armature current inductance, the actual armature
B-spline 关9兴 interpolation and a constrained opti- current resistance, the actual 共uncertain兲 torque
mization algorithm are used to determine the po- constant, the actual 共uncertain兲 moment of inertia,
sition of the slaves. Consequently, a tradeoff may and the actual 共uncertain兲 damping coefficient of
exist between precision and constraints, which are the motor, respectively. Consider the dynamics of
imposed in given order of priority. a typical dc motor:
Fig. 1. 共a兲 Mathematical model of the proposed electronic cam system. 共b兲 Block diagram of the proposed disturbance
estimator for one practical embodiment.
disturbance ( ˆ L ) is then fed back to the current specified by Eq. 共2兲. Thus the estimated value for
loop, and the external disturbance is suppressed. low delay time is obtained by reducing the time
In practice, due to the current loop’s bandwidth constant 共I兲 of the low-pass filter. However, the
being much larger than the speed loop’s band- small time constant trades off the estimated preci-
width, the electrical dynamic response 关 1/( L f s sion and robustness because it suffers more on
⫹R f ) 兴 may be ignored from the model of Fig. measurement noise and modeling uncertainty.
1共b兲. Fig. 2共b兲 is equivalently transformed to Fig. 2共c兲
to elucidate the effect of the external disturbance
2.2. Suppressing external disturbance ( L ) . According to Fig. 2共c兲, the effect of L is
that of passing L through the filter Is/ ( Is⫹1 ) .
According to Fig. 3, the pole of the disturbance Accordingly, the external disturbance can be sup-
estimator equals the pole of the low-pass filter, pressed when the disturbance frequency is less
430 Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443
than 1/I rad/s. Thus the smaller time constant I E-gearing system employs only electronic means
yields better efficiency for suppressing high- to achieve the constant input/output velocity ratio.
frequency disturbances. However, a tradeoff exists It is assumed that the output velocity control sys-
between estimated precision and robustness, as de- tem is stiff and the main issue for the electronic
scribed in the above paragraph. E-gearing is to predict the future master velocity
Due to considerations of robustness, the mea- from its past. The velocity of the slave 共output兲
surement noise and the modeling uncertainty must motor is controlled according to the velocity of the
also be considered in determining the time con- master 共input兲 motor.
stant I. The Appendix discusses the sensitivities, The velocity of the master motor varies when
G G G G
S K c , S J c , and S B c to the uncertainties, where S K c , loads or other external disturbances are applied.
G G
S J c , and S B c are the sensitivities of the current Therefore the master velocity is not usually con-
stant and may exhibit harmonics. Even though the
loop transfer function G c to the uncertain param-
amplitudes of the harmonic velocity are greatly
eters K, J, and B, respectively. Moreover, the ef-
reduced by using the proposed disturbance estima-
fect of measurement noise is discussed with refer-
tor, there still exists velocity variations. The pro-
ence to a numerical simulation in Section 5.1.
cedure for estimating the master position and/or
3. Electronic gearing „E-gearing… process velocity is an important step for E-gearing. Meth-
ods of tracking control have been developed in
The electronic gearing 共E-gearing兲 differentiates various fields, and include radar tracking control
itself from the mechanical gearing because the and others 关12兴. This study proposes an Nth-order
polynomial tracking method to perform the
E-gearing process.
According to the Nth-order polynomial, the
master velocity at time t can be expressed as
N
⫽ 兺 c it i. 共4兲
i⫽0
Table 1
An example of cam profile table, both sets of data are scaled by their largest travel distance of one cam cycle.
Master 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
position
x
Slave 0 0.006 45 0.048 63 0.148 63 0.306 45 0.5 0.693 55 0.851 37 0.951 37 0.993 55 1
position
f (x)
4. Predicting the position of the slaves r k⫹1,j 共 u 兲 ⫽F 1,4共 u 兲 p k⫹1,j⫺1 ⫹F 2,4共 u 兲 p k⫹1,j
This study uses Lagrange’s interpolation for- ⫹F 3,4共 u 兲 p k⫹1,j⫹1 ⫹F 4,4共 u 兲 p k⫹1,j⫹2 ,
mula to establish piecewise cam trajectories. If the 共15兲
piecewise reciprocal master-slave’s coordinates
( x i ,y i ) obtained from the given cam profile table where r k⫹1,j ( u ) represents the jth segment of the
specify n⫹1 points, where i⫽0 to n, and x 0 ( k⫹1 ) th time interval; j苸 关 1:4 兴 denotes the
⬍x 1 ⬍¯⬍x n , then the nth-degree Lagrange curve segment number and u⫽0 to 1 within each
polynomial is curve segment. p k⫹1,j⫺1 ⬃p k⫹1,j⫹2 are the control
n points of the spline. F 1,4( u ) ⬃F 4,4( u ) are the
f L共 x 兲 ⫽ 兺 L i共 x 兲 y i , 共12兲 blending functions.
i⫽0 The fourth degree cubic B-spline, as shown in
Fig. 8, exhibits second-order continuity. All the
where
variables of the B-spline are defined below.
lently the fifth control point of the ( k⫹1 ) th time Minimizing the objective error function subject
interval. to the constraints on velocity, acceleration, and
共vii兲 p k⫹1,6关 ⫽ f L ( x̂ k⫹2 ) 兴 denotes the sixth con- jerk yields the one-dimensional constrained opti-
trol point of the ( k⫹1 ) th time interval, where mization problem:
f L ( x̂ k⫹2 ) is derived from the cam profile position
at time ( k⫹2 ) T, as indicated in Eq. 共14兲.
Statements 共i兲–共vii兲 include a total of seven un-
Minimize 储 p k⫹1,5⫺ f 共 x̂ k⫹1 兲 储 22 共19a兲
knowns and six independent equalities. There is an
extra degree of freedom left for the following op-
再
timization problem: The slave’s position error be-
tween the next unknown position command p k⫹1,5 兩 r k⫹1,4
u
共 0 兲 兩 ⭐V max 共 19b兲
and the ideal cam profile position command 兩 r k⫹1,4共 0 兲 兩 ⭐A max
uu
共 19c兲
subject to
f L ( x̂ k⫹1 ) at time ( k⫹1 ) T can be expressed as
兩 r k⫹1,4
uuu
共 0 兲 兩 ⭐Jerkmax. 共 19d兲
e k⫹1 ⫽p k⫹1,5⫺ f L 共 x̂ k⫹1 兲 . 共16兲
The objective error function is defined in quadratic
form as The constrained optimization problem of a qua-
dratic cost function has an easy to find optimal
E k⫹1 ⫽ 储 e k⫹1 储 22 ⫽ 储 p k⫹1,5⫺ f 共 x̂ k⫹1 兲 储 22 . 共17兲 * ⫽ f L ( x̂ k⫹1 ) with zero cost, when
solution, p k⫹1,5
To ensure that the velocity, acceleration, and jerk none of the constraints is violated. According to
do not exceed the maximal values, ( V max , A max , Eqs. 共19a兲–共19d兲, the optimization problem may
and Jerkmax) allowed for the motor’s system, three be reformulated as an unconstrained minimization
inequality constraints are imposed on the optimi- problem as follows:
zation. The first, second, and third differentiation
of the cubic B-spline curve at the start, u⫽0, of
the fourth segment, can be expressed as follows: Minimize 储 p k⫹1,5⫺ f 共 x̂ k⫹1 兲 储 22 ⫹W v g v 共 p k⫹1,5兲
u
r k⫹1,4共 0 兲 ⫽⫺0.5p k⫹1,3⫹0.5p k⫹1,5 , 共18a兲 ⫹W a g a 共 p k⫹1,5兲 ⫹W J g J 共 p k⫹1,5兲 , 共20兲
uu
r k⫹1,4共 0 兲 ⫽p k⫹1,3⫺2p k⫹1,4⫹p k⫹1,5 ,
共18b兲
where W v , W a , and W J are the weighting factors
uuu
r k⫹1,4共 0 兲 ⫽⫺p k⫹1,3⫹3p k⫹1,4⫺3p k⫹1,5⫹p k⫹1,6 . of velocity constraint, acceleration constraint, and
共18c兲 jerk constraint, respectively, and
434 Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443
再
p k⫹1,5⫽2 sgn关 r k⫹1,4
u
共 0 兲兴 •V max⫹p k⫹1,3 ,
兩兩 r k⫹1,4
uu
共 0 兲 兩 ⫺A max兩 , 共22a兲
g a 共 p k⫹1,5兲 ⫽ if 兩 r k⫹1,4
uu
共 0 兲 兩 ⬍A max p k⫹1,5⫽sgn关 r k⫹1,4
uu
共 0 兲兴 •A max⫺p k⫹1,3⫹2p k⫹1,4 ,
0, if 兩 r k⫹1,4
uu
共 0 兲 兩 ⭓A max , 共22b兲
共21b兲
再
p k⫹1,5⫽⫺ 31 sgn关 r k⫹1,4
uuu
共 0 兲兴 Jerkmax⫺ 31 p k⫹1,3
兩兩 r k⫹1,4
u
共 0 兲 兩 ⫺Jerkmax兩 ,
⫹p k⫹1,4⫹ 31 p k⫹1,6 . 共22c兲
g J 共 p k⫹1,5兲 ⫽ if 兩 r k⫹1,4
uuu
共 0 兲 兩 ⬍Jerkmax
The optimal solution process may be depicted in
0, if 兩 r k⫹1,4
uuu
共 0 兲 兩 ⭓Jerkmax .
the flow chart as shown in Fig. 6. According to the
共21c兲
flow chart, the solution of the optimization prob-
In an extreme case that W v ⰇW a ⰇW J , the mini- lem is unique, and thus guarantees to be the global
mization problem implies a constraint violation optimum.
priority that g v is much more important than g a In Fig. 6, all possible cases are enumerated and
and g J . In practice, Eq. 共19兲 is highly nonlinear, categorized as follows. 共i兲 The ideal cam profile
existing techniques to find the global optimization position command violates the velocity constraint,
are not guaranteed. One needs to enumerate all the as shown in Figs. 7共a兲–7共l兲; 共ii兲 the ideal cam pro-
possible cases for the global solution. Fig. 7 shows file position command violates acceleration con-
all the possible optimal solution for the extreme straint and does not violate velocity constraint, as
Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443 435
Fig. 8. 共a兲 Simulated angular velocity of the master. 共b兲 Simulated angular velocity of the master using disturbance estimator
feedback control 共zoom in兲.
Fig. 9. The errors between the fed torque ( L ) and the estimated torque ( ˆ L ) with respect to various time constants I.
Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443 437
Table 2
Experimental specifications of parameters for the ECAM
B̂⫽0.008 N m s/rad, L f ⫽0.046 H, R f ⫽1 ⍀, and
control, last four data are scaled by their largest travel dis- K a ⫽0.55 V s/rad. The sampling time of the cur-
tance of one cam cycle. rent loop is set to 0.001 s in the simulation. Fur-
PC-based Critical thermore, the amplitude of the disturbance load
program- Polyno- Critical slave Critical torque is 4.8773 N m and the torque constant is
ming mial slave accelera- slave 0.55 N m/A, that is, the operating current is about
sampling order velocity tion jerk 8.9 A, the i 2a R f power loss is around 78.6 W 共cal-
time T N (C v ) (C a ) (C j ) culated by the paper reviewer兲. The power loss of
0.01 s 0⬃5 1 10 600 78.6 W in this case is not serious for the applica-
tions with motors up to several kW.
Fig. 10. 共a兲 The tracking error of the master’s position for the zero-order interpolation method. 共b兲 The tracking error of the
master for the third-order polynomial tracking method. 共c兲 The tracking error of the master for the fourth-order polynomial
tracking method. 共d兲 The tracking error of the master for the fifth-order polynomial tracking method.
438 Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443
Fig. 11. The piecewise tracking trajectory of the electronic cam motion: 共a兲 the actual master’s position in real-time; 共b兲 the
reference trajectory corresponding to the electronic cam motion; 共c兲 the actual cam trajectory in real-time. Note that the unit
‘‘counts’’ means the encoder’s pulse counts and the resolution of the encoder is 2000 counts/revolution.
Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443 439
Fig. 12. 共a兲 Cam profile error with the zero-order 共conventional兲 tracking method 共the maximum travel distance: 200 000
encoder’s counts兲. 共b兲 Cam profile error with the third-order polynomial tracking method 共the maximum travel distance:
200 000 encoder’s counts兲. 共c兲 Cam profile error with the fourth-order polynomial tracking method 共the maximum travel
distance: 200 000 encoder’s counts兲. 共d兲 Cam profile error with the fifth-order polynomial tracking method 共the maximum
travel distance: 200 000 encoder’s counts兲.
Table 4
An experimental example for the maximum tracking errors of the slave’s position in the encoder’s counts for the Nth-order
polynomial master tracking control, the maximum travel distance is 200 000 encoder’s counts 共equivalent to 200 rad兲.
Order 0th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Max. error 395 655 83 17 2 1
共encoder’s counts兲
rms error 194.9368 325.6317 45.2338 8.1915 0.9681 0.144 715
Cycle-to-cycle 0.590 083 0.449 440 0.140 121 0.075 427 0.129 316 0.072 357
variation
440 Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443
Fig. 13. 共a兲 The tracking result of the slave velocity, acceleration, and jerk purely based on the Lagrange polynomial
curve-fitting with no optimization. 共b兲 The result of the slave velocity, acceleration, and jerk applying the optimization.
Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443 441
jerk. The master’s speed is generally not constant 5.4. Computational load on the CPU of the
and may be harmonic, as shown in Fig. 7. The proposed ECAM tracking control
speed will exhibit the actual position of the master
and the ideal cam trajectory, as shown in Figs. The selection of N depends on the accuracy de-
11共a兲 and 11共c兲, respectively. This piecewise cam manded. As stated above, tracking using a higher-
trajectory contains 191 points. Three performance order polynomial yields higher precision; how-
indices are used to quantify the accuracy and con- ever, a tradeoff exists between the ‘‘order’’ of the
sistency. The tracking accuracy of the slave mo- polynomial used and the CPU time required. In
G G G
Fig. 14. Magnitudes of the sensitivities: 共a兲 S ¯ c , 共b兲 S¯ c , and 共c兲 S ¯ c , in relation to the input frequency at various time
K J B
constants I.
442 Chung-Shu Liao, Shyr-Long Jeng, Wei-Hua Chieng / ISA Transactions 43 (2004) 427–443