6 views

Uploaded by Diego Narea

sobre wwe 2017

sobre wwe 2017

© All Rights Reserved

- Design and Flight Control of Miniature Air Vehicle
- Ship Maneuvering
- Design and Flight Control of Miniature Aerial Vehicle
- Ship Dynamics
- IFAC_CEP
- Flight Control Backstepping
- Combined AFS and DYC Control of Four-Wheel-Independent-Drive Electric Vehicles over CAN Network with Time-Varying Delays
- pres5
- Development and Control of 6-DOF Fully Autonomous Flying Robot
- Motion Control of a Quadrotor Aircraft via Singular Perturbations
- Thesis Draft
- Linear and Nonlinear Control of Small-Scale Unmanned Helicopters.pdf
- Aircraft Parameter Estimation, A Tool for Development of Aerodynamic Databases
- Analysis of Missile Threat for Adaptive Closed-Loop ECM (1981)
- Design of a VDC System for All-Wheel
- Application of Classical Control
- Ryan Navion Reporte Final
- 034_Chapter 7_L24
- eth-8447-01
- Control Bien Explicado de Un Avionn

You are on page 1of 12

Paper N 12

Registration Code: S-E1451415963

Bradford K. Thoen

MTS Systems Corporation

brad.thoen@mts.com

Abstract

Many considerations factor into the decision of what type of shake table to purchase: capacity, cost, operation,

and fidelity. One aspect of fidelity that is seldom considered or understood is the dynamic cross-coupling that

occurs between degrees-of-freedom (DOFs). A table with low cross-coupling has a natural tendency to move in

the desired DOF without causing motion in the other DOFs. Cross-coupling is greatly influenced by actuator

geometry. Most shake tables fall into one of five categories depending on their actuator configuration. In this

paper, these five configurations are analyzed, compared, and ranked from a cross-coupling standpoint. Both for

buyers of new shake tables and owners of existing tables, this analysis may promote a deeper understanding of

fidelity limitations that arise due to actuator configuration.

Keywords: shake table; degree-of-freedom; cross-coupling; MDOF dynamic systems; servo-hydraulic actuator

Actuator Configurations

The five actuator configurations consist of three orthogonal configurations (balanced, unbalanced, and

pinwheel) and two non-orthogonal configurations (vee and stewart):

orthogonal in the X, Y, and Z directions and is

symmetric with respect to all three Cartesian

axes, hence the name balanced. This

configuration is used in high force/acceleration

testing, which requires that the large forces

generated be distributed among many horizontal

actuators. Its primary disadvantage is its large

footprint, consuming a large amount of

laboratory floor space. Due to its orthogonality

and symmetry, this configuration is believed to

have minimal cross-coupling.

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

smaller footprint than the balanced orthogonal

configuration and is used when lab floor space is

limited. It is orthogonal but not symmetric due

to the lack of actuators on two sides of the table,

hence the name unbalanced. The lack of

actuators on two sides offers lab personnel better

access for mounting and instrumenting the

specimen. However, it also results in unequal

distribution of horizontal actuator mass among

the table corners, so that translational motion

generates reaction moments that result in cross-

coupling into the rotational DOFs.

orthogonal and antisymmetric with respect to X

and Y axes. Unlike the unbalanced orthogonal

configuration, its horizontal actuator mass is

equally distributed at the table corners, so that

translational motion does not generate reaction

moments that result in rotational cross-coupling.

The number of horizontal actuators is half that of

the balanced orthogonal configuration, reducing

complexity and cost. Its primary disadvantage is

its large footprint.

orthogonal. The mechanical advantage provided

by the angled horizontal actuators reduces

actuator stroke and velocity requirements by

30%. The shorter stroke results in shorter

actuators, which mitigates actuator bowstring

resonance problems, and results in a smaller

footprint. The presence of two unobstructed

sides improves table access, and makes it

possible to join two tables together into a larger

one. A disadvantage is that because of angled

actuators, X and Y capacities are coupled and

cannot be dissimilar, unlike the orthogonal

configurations.

2

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

is an old design that has been used in motion

simulators for many years, but has not been

used much in seismic applications due to a

prevailing belief that (rightly or wrongly) it

suffers from high cross-coupling. It is neither

orthogonal nor symmetric. It can be mounted to

a strong-floor instead of a more expensive

foundation pit, but the elevated table surface

makes access more difficult. Because of the

lack of orthogonality, X, Y, Z capacities are

coupled and it is difficult to design a table with

different capacities, unlike the orthogonal

configurations.

In the following sections, each of the five actuator configurations is represented by a hypothetical table design

that is compared against the others for cross-coupling under a variety of test conditions.

Cross-coupling is influenced by factors other than actuator geometry: table dynamics, offset from home

position, location of the center of gravity (CG), specimen dynamics, and closed-loop control also play significant

roles.

To facilitate a meaningful comparison of the five actuator configurations, key physical properties such as natural

frequency, maximum displacement, maximum velocity, and maximum force are matched to the best extent

possible:

Natural Frequency

Balanced Unbalanced Pinwheel Vee Stewart

X 13 13 13 13 13 Hz

Y 13 13 13 13 13 Hz

Z 23 23 23 23 22 Hz

Roll 21 21 21 21 21 Hz

Pitch 21 21 21 21 21 Hz

Yaw 21 21 21 21 21 Hz

3

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Maximum Displacement

Balanced Unbalanced Pinwheel Vee Stewart

X 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.41 0.73 m

Y 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.41 0.67 m

Z 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.58 m

Roll 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.85 24.16 deg

Pitch 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.85 21.24 deg

Yaw 7.24 7.24 10.72 5.27 25.80 deg

Maximum Velocity

Balanced Unbalanced Pinwheel Vee Stewart

X 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 m/s

Y 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 m/s

Z 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 m/s

Roll 60 60 60 60 68 deg/s

Pitch 60 60 60 60 65 deg/s

Yaw 63 63 63 29 78 deg/s

Maximum Force

Balanced Unbalanced Pinwheel Vee Stewart

X 814 814 814 814 838 kN

Y 814 814 814 814 797 kN

Z 1279 1279 1279 1279 1922 kN

Roll 2239 2239 2239 2239 1639 kN-m

Pitch 2239 2239 2239 2239 1452 kN-m

Yaw 3418 3418 3418 3743 2425 kN-m

4

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Each tables displacement controllers are tuned for reasonable flatness and a magnitude peak of 1.10, using only

displacement error and force feedback stabilization gains. Resulting closed-loop bandwidths are remarkably

similar:

Balanced Unbalanced Pinwheel Vee Stewart

X 12 12 12 13 11 Hz

Y 12 12 12 13 12 Hz

Z 22 22 22 22 21 Hz

Roll 20 20 20 20 21 Hz

Pitch 20 20 20 20 21 Hz

Yaw 22 22 22 22 20 Hz

With regard to the influences of offset from home position, CG location, and specimen dynamics, there are

countless cases that could potentially be examined. Of these, five cases are chosen as instructive:

{X Y Z} {X Y Z}

Case 1: Home position, minimal OTM {0 0 0} {0 0 0}

Case 2: Home position, significant OTM {0 0 0} {0 0 1}

Case 3: X-only position offset {0.2 0 0} {0 0 0}

Case 4: X, Y, and Z position offsets {0.2 0.2 0.1} {0 0 0}

Case 5: Lightly-damped resonant specimen (100% of table mass, 5 Hz, 5% damping, 1m CG)

The nonzero offsets above have units of meters, and represent 67% of displacement capacity for each respective

translational DOF of the orthogonal tables, less for the non-orthogonal tables. The CG location of each table, to

which the CG offset is added, is chosen to be the sweet spot, i.e., the location that minimizes overturning-

moment (OTM) effects. For the balanced, unbalanced, pinwheel, and vee configurations, this location lies in the

plane of the attachment points of the horizontal actuators, and results in identically zero OTM. For the stewart

configuration, there is no location that results in identically zero OTM, but there is a location where OTM is

minimized.

These five cases were analyzed with the tables under closed-loop control. However, the amount of cross-

coupling in a closed-loop system depends greatly on the particular system tuning, and because there are

countless possible tunings, comparisons require judgment.

5

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Cross-coupling plots for each of the five cases are shown on the following pages. The plots are velocity

frequency response functions (FRFs) from the on-diagonal DOF output to each off-diagonal DOF output. Note

that the on-diagonal DOF output is used as the reference rather than the input, the reason being that relative

output motion is a better indicator of cross-coupling than absolute output motion. With this reference

convention, on-diagonal FRFs are of course unity for all frequencies.

The units of the velocity FRF plots are fraction of full-scale so that cross-coupling percentage values can be

determined directly by inspection. For example, suppose that the X-to-Pitch FRF peaks at a value of 0.5. This

means that for X motion at 100% of maximum X velocity, the peak cross-coupling on pitch will be 50% of

maximum pitch velocity. Because the FRFs are scaled according to DOF maxima, and to facilitate comparison,

care is taken to assure that all five actuator configurations have approximately the same maximum velocity.

To reduce visual clutter, only FRFs that have at least one curve above 5% cross-coupling are shown. Also note

that in the plots, Rx, Ry, and Rz are shorthand for roll, pitch, and yaw, respectively.

Mathematics

A full treatment of the mathematics used to compute the FRFs is beyond the scope of this paper. A brief

description is as follows: Actuator geometry, stiffness, and damping are combined to form the DOF stiffness

matrix K T and damping matrix CT , which along with the mass matrix MT form the equation describing the

motion state x T in response to force fT

M T xT + CT x T + K T x T = fT

The closed-loop controller equation describing the relationship between command r , feedback y , and

controller output u given gain matrix K C is given by

u = r KCy

The motion and controller equations are combined and converted to state-space form using lengthy but

straightforward analysis (details omitted)

x = Ax + Bu

y = Cx + Du

The state-space equations are then transformed into a matrix of Laplace transfer function polynomials using

MATLAB function ss2tf, and evaluated on a frequency grid using MATLAB function freqs.

6

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Observations

As can be seen in the plots on the following pages, all actuator configurations experience cross-coupling,

differing only in amount, bandwidth, and test conditions in which it manifests itself. It is useful to determine in

general which configuration has the least cross-coupling and which one has the most, and which ones lie in-

between. This can be accomplished by ranking the actuator configurations for each test case, then tallying how

many times a particular configuration appears at a given rank. Doing so results in the following ranking:

#1 (in 3 out of 5 test cases): vee

#2 (in 4 out of 5 test cases): balanced orthogonal

#3 (in 3 out of 5 test cases): unbalanced orthogonal

#4 (in 4 out of 5 test cases): pinwheel orthogonal

#5 (in 5 out of 5 test cases): stewart

Conclusions

All actuator configurations have dynamic cross-coupling to some degree, with the vee configuration having the

least amount and the stewart configuration having the most. The issue is to what degree it degrades test fidelity.

Most seismic tests are centered at the home position, and only occasionally and briefly does the table move to a

large nonzero position where cross-coupling due to position offset may be significant; in such cases the impact

on test fidelity may be minimal. Cross-coupling due to CG offset is more of a concern, since it exists at the

home position where the table operates most of the time. Whether or not significant cross-coupling is a problem

depends on the extent to which the frequency content of the test acceleration record overlaps the frequency

response of the cross-coupling (which in the test cases presented in this paper becomes significant near 10 Hz

and above). The earthquake acceleration records used in full-scale model testing typically have frequency

content below 10 Hz, where cross-coupling is generally low. However, the acceleration records used in scaled

model testing or equipment qualification testing often have frequency content exceeding 10 Hz. In such cases

cross-coupling may be quite noticeable. Advance control techniques exist that mitigate cross-coupling effects,

but at a cost of complexity or requiring multiple test runs. Owners of existing tables have no choice but to rely

on such methods, but buyers of new tables may find it preferable to purchase a table whose geometry has

inherently low cross-coupling.

7

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

X -> X

2

0

0 10 20 30

Y -> Y

2

0

0 10 20 30

X -> Z Y -> Z Z -> Z

0.06 0.06 2

0.04 0.04

1

0.02 0.02

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

Y -> Rx Z -> Rx

1 0.2

0.5 0.1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Ry Z -> Ry

1 0.2

0.5 0.1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Rz Y -> Rz

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

8

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

X -> X

2

0

0 10 20 30

Y -> Y

2

0

0 10 20 30

X -> Z Y -> Z Z -> Z

0.2 0.2 2

0.1 0.1 1

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

Y -> Rx Z -> Rx

3 0.1

2

0.05

1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Ry Z -> Ry

3 0.1

2

0.05

1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Rz Y -> Rz

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

9

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

2 0.1 0.2

1 0.05 0.1

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Y Y -> Y

0.1 2

0.05 1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Z Y -> Z Z -> Z

1 0.1 2

0.5 0.05 1

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Rx Y -> Rx Z -> Rx

0.06 1 0.2

0.04

0.5 0.1

0.02

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Ry Z -> Ry

1 0.2

0.5 0.1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Rz Y -> Rz

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

10

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

2 0.4 0.1

1 0.2 0.05

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Y Y -> Y Z -> Y

0.4 2 0.2

0.2 1 0.1

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Z Y -> Z Z -> Z

0.4 0.4 2

0.2 0.2 1

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Rx Y -> Rx Z -> Rx

0.1 1 0.2

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Ry Y -> Ry Z -> Ry

1 0.1 0.1

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Rz Y -> Rz

1 0.4

0.5 0.2

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

11

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

(100% of table mass, 5 Hz, 5% damping, 1m CG)

X -> X

2

0

0 10 20 30

Y -> Y

2

0

0 10 20 30

X -> Z Y -> Z Z -> Z

0.06 0.06 2

0.04 0.04

1

0.02 0.02

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

Y -> Rx Z -> Rx

1.5 0.2

1

0.1

0.5

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Ry Z -> Ry

2 0.2

1 0.1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

X -> Rz Y -> Rz

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

12

- Design and Flight Control of Miniature Air VehicleUploaded bySunil Kumar
- Ship ManeuveringUploaded bysnhz555
- Design and Flight Control of Miniature Aerial VehicleUploaded bysunila0
- Ship DynamicsUploaded bythenavaler
- IFAC_CEPUploaded byAmit Dev
- Flight Control BacksteppingUploaded byAnoop Sree
- Combined AFS and DYC Control of Four-Wheel-Independent-Drive Electric Vehicles over CAN Network with Time-Varying DelaysUploaded byPsyBaba
- pres5Uploaded byAnonymous qTKCWlx
- Development and Control of 6-DOF Fully Autonomous Flying RobotUploaded byanaffira
- Motion Control of a Quadrotor Aircraft via Singular PerturbationsUploaded byAurel GS
- Thesis DraftUploaded bysunila0
- Linear and Nonlinear Control of Small-Scale Unmanned Helicopters.pdfUploaded byflausen
- Aircraft Parameter Estimation, A Tool for Development of Aerodynamic DatabasesUploaded byconda0001
- Analysis of Missile Threat for Adaptive Closed-Loop ECM (1981)Uploaded byturannahmet
- Design of a VDC System for All-WheelUploaded bybagha2011
- Application of Classical ControlUploaded byjohnsamvlb
- Ryan Navion Reporte FinalUploaded byRaul Paz
- 034_Chapter 7_L24Uploaded bynanduslns07
- eth-8447-01Uploaded byAlexandreSidant
- Control Bien Explicado de Un AvionnUploaded byElias Valeria
- Elgayar%2CIbrahimUploaded byDileneDuarcadas
- 10.1.1.701.9404Uploaded bypourayvaz_danial
- Med 213Uploaded byfox m
- Adaptive Dynamic Surface Control for Integrated Missile Guidance and AutopilotUploaded bysayyedfarhad
- 2010ACTI1577Uploaded byChu Duc
- NDI_NASAUploaded byP_lee
- ControlLawDevelopmentForTheLateralAxisOfAFighterAircraft_Banda92Uploaded bycmpmarinho
- Lateral Carrier Landing Performance Affecting Factors of Small Carrier-Based UAVUploaded byAli Yasin
- TP-2014-287Uploaded bynlrlibrary
- COB-2015-1373Uploaded byKarad Karadias

- 2350_TM2012_UK___2_tempi_250_300Uploaded bymatmarcantonio
- e2296c29-cdbf-4667-905e-ace2d9d4dd5f-150321092042-conversion-gate01Uploaded bychaitu_alhad
- 04 ChapterUploaded byLK AnhDung
- Watch ManualUploaded byGagandeep Singh
- Programming in System RPL - Kalinowski 1998Uploaded byAnonymous kdqf49qb
- Properties of Concrete2, 5th EditionUploaded byUsman Ilyas
- 12 Jeyapalan Et Al 1981 Analysis of Flow Failure of Mine Tailing DamsUploaded byDiego Narea
- Páginas DesdeGeotechnical Earthquake Engineering (Kramer 1996)Uploaded byDiego Narea
- Zdn - Perfiles O - AsUploaded byDiego Narea
- Manual de InglésUploaded byDiego Narea
- FinePix J38Uploaded byDiego Narea
- Tutorial Programacion USER RPL (HP50g)Uploaded byLuis Mejia
- Valmonts AASHTO Training Manual 12-2004Uploaded byDiego Narea
- Bt Eco4 Primove BombardierUploaded byDiego Narea

- Elementary Block MethodUploaded byBoris Miranda
- Multirate Digital Signal Processing ViaUploaded byValdiviaCasaAlvaro
- Motor Drive and Control SolutionsUploaded bythietdaucong
- 10.1.1.116Uploaded byusah84
- 6878834-Robot-ChristopherUploaded byThomas Marioman
- Dsa 8060Uploaded byrncc2011
- SAEP-1624Uploaded byAnonymous 4IpmN7On
- Semester 4 Lab 2 Experiment 1Uploaded byChan Chun Yuan
- Mechatronics EngineeeringUploaded byN.S
- HUAWEI WCDMA Power Control & ParametersUploaded byমোহাম্মাদ নাবিল নূর
- 1 DSP FundamentalsUploaded byshankar
- Chapter 1 Introduction to Control SystemUploaded byazharsamah
- Fir Filters ReportUploaded byGaneshVenkatachalam
- Mohd Fadzli Mohd NorisUploaded byLao Zhu
- VMA1420Uploaded byjclaramunt
- Laser Target Systemaccv1.0.1.1Uploaded byShoumik Roychoudhury
- ee3304Uploaded byvkubendran
- Journal on Robust Design of PID Controller Using IMC Technique for Integrating Process Based on Maximum SensitivityUploaded bynilu
- ^Pulse CycloUploaded byJeeva J
- Process Control Lab ManualUploaded byAkash Sundar
- Paper RC ServomotorUploaded byabc1000
- Temp. Control LoopUploaded byPravin Mahadik
- VTU 8th Sem Cse Qb With AnswersUploaded byvmscse
- FAQ-6RA70-6ds22Uploaded byreza2131
- McMaster - Intro to Linear Control SystemsUploaded byAndre Gomes
- Grafcet Step-By StepUploaded byGisele Camargo
- AGCUploaded byTitipong Pulbunroj
- DCS Upgrade_ How to Reduce Stress During ExecutionUploaded byWaqas Bashir
- Pendulum PaperUploaded byapi-3832828
- Gefran Manual UserUploaded byJhon Syalfiandy