You are on page 1of 24

DOUBLE ARM JUGGLING SYSTEM

Progress Presentation
ECSE-4962 Control Systems Design
Group Members:

John Kua
Trinell Ball
Linda Rivera
Introduction
Where are we?
Bulk of Design and Build Complete
Testing and Tuning Phase
Preliminary Results
Physical Design
Model Development
Control Systems Development
Camera Development
Physical Design
Additions:
Camera Mounting
Overall System Mounting
Other physical modifications
Shaft Mounting
Cable extensions
Challenges:
Net Design
Material
Building
Possible solutions:
Foil wrapping current nets
Replacing nets









h
Camera Mounting
Shaft Mounting
System Mounting
Model Development
Lagrange-Euler Model


Single Joint
) ( ) ( ) , ( ) ( u u u u u u u t G F C M + + + =

) (
s c s v s L
m a
m
sign F F nJ
n
J J
u u u t

+ +
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
=
Simulink Model - Nonlinear
1
theta
-K-
Vi scous Fri cti on
Si gn
Scope3
Scope1
Motor Speed Saturati on
f(u)
Mass^-1
1
s
Integrator1
1
s
Integrator
-K-
Coul omb Fri cti on
1
tau
Accel Position Velocity
Step
tau theta
Si ngl e Joi nt Physi cs
Scope
-K-
Motor Torque Constant
MATLAB
Functi on
DAC to Current DAC Output Saturati on
theta
DAC to Current Model
Digital to Analog Conversion
Tested voltage over a range
Fit curve to data found slope, offset
Voltage to Current Conversion
Adjusted gain to approximately 0.1A/V
Tested current over a range
Applied load to system for accurate
measurement
0072 . 0 x 005 - -3.4197e + =
tilt
I
0043 . 0 x 005 - 3.4696e - + =
pan
I
Friction Identification
Identify Viscous and Coulomb Friction
Apply constant torque and measure steady state
velocity
Automate with LabVIEW
Process data with MATLAB
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Velocity vs. Time - Tilt
Time (s)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
r
a
d
/
s
)
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
Digital Output vs. Steady State Velocity - Tilt
D
i
g
i
t
a
l

O
u
t
p
u
t
Velocity (rad/s)
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
Shaft Torque vs. Steady State Velocity - Tilt
S
h
a
f
t

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
*
m
)
Velocity (rad/s)
Other Parameters
Inertia/Mass
Calculated with SolidWorks
Shaft Spring Constant
Possible cause of oscillations
Experimentally measured
Found to be very stiff - k=4600N/m
Model Linearization
Discard Coulomb Friction
State Space Equations





Transfer Function

u u

= =
2 1
, x x u u

= =
2 1
, x x
eff eff
v
J
u
x
J
F
x + =
2 2

1
x y =
s s s R
s Y
2709 . 0
3687
) (
) (
2
+
=
2 1
x x =
Model Verification
Compare Friction ID results to simulated
Friction ID







Compare simulated controlled output to
implemented output
Potentially apply chirp ID methods
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Velocity vs. Time - Tilt
Time (s)
V
e
l o
c
i t
y

(
r
a
d
/
s
)
Velocity Estimation
Finite difference method 10ms
Minimum velocity of 0.1534 rad/sec
Maximum motor speed of 21 rad/sec
Designed peak velocity of 15 rad/sec
Overflow problem
Seeing large velocity pulse in data
Limited position to +/- 180 degrees
Corrected velocity when over limits (153
rad/sec)
Trajectory Calculation
Drag force on the ball


Trajectory deviates
from standard
projectile motion
equation
Differential Equation
Iterative vs. Simulink
ODE Solver
0 0.5 1 1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Projectile Motion of a Ping Pong Ball
x (meters)
y

(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
d
AC v D
2
2
1
=
Control Systems Development
Two methods for designing controllers used

MATLAB rltool (Pole Placement method)

1. Obtain transfer function
2. Import transfer function to rltool
3. Convert continuous model to discrete model (sampling time 10ms)
4. Define design constraints, such as rise time and settling time
5. Place gain constant at the crossings of design constraints
6. Export controller to simulink model of system
7. Run simulation to test

PID block MATLAB (simulink)

Kp = Proportional
Ki = Integral
Kd = Derivative

Pole Placement Methods
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
31.4
62.8
94.2
126
157
188
220
251
283
314
31.4
62.8
94.2
126
157
188
220
251
283
314
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Tilt Root Locus
Real Axis
I
m
a
g

A
x
i s
Tilt-System Root Locus
Closed Loop poles Stable
Locate system poles at the
intersection of
n
and

Design Criteria

n
= 62.8
rad/s
= .7
Non-Linear System Step Response
To different controllers
rltool controller PID controller
Overshoot: 28.7% Overshoot: 0%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
X: 0.1
Y: 0.1654
X: 0.23
Y: 1.287
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
X: 0.1
Y: 0.7048
X: 0.69
Y: 0.9993
Kp = 800
Ki = 20
Kd = 40
Camera Development
Vision Module Familiarization:
Use of NI Vision Assistant
Acquire Preliminary data
Carry out a number of tests
Image Processing Examples:
Projectile motion launch







Upward vertical launch






Processing Challenges:
Blurred images of the ball
Colored backgrounds similar to balls
color

Image 9/30 Image 12/30
Ball blur

1.



2.




3.
Background similar to ball color






Possible solutions:
Blur Take average of circles
Background Create uniform dark
background

Data Verification:
Verify if height prediction data is valid
Run new experiment
Compare results
If results from script seem reasonable
Use Overhead camera only
If results form script are unreliable
Add Additional camera on the side
Next Steps:
Running Trajectory Prediction
Integration of Vision Development with
Control System
Continue to validate data
Summary of Progress
Schedule
On track, only a few items outstanding
Costs
10% overbudget, 20% under estimates
Did not purchase motor, built support
structures
Plan of Action
No deviations
New Difficulties

You might also like