Northeastern University Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering

ME 4555: System Analysis and Control

Term Project

Design and Analysis of a Controller Implementation

for a Flexible Mechatronic System

𝑥$ 𝑥"
𝐵&
𝑚$ 𝑚"

𝐾&

Abstract: The development of flexible mechatronic systems is an important area in the fields
of underactuated robotics and non-collocated control. In the following work, the disciplines of
mechanical, electrical, and controls engineering are combined to design and test a control
system for a flexible two-mass vehicle. To begin, a linear model of the system is developed
from the fundamentals of the electrical and mechanical engineering disciplines. Classical
control theory is utilized to develop a suitable linear proportional-derivative controller to
meet a set of performance requirements. The system performance is investigated through
physical modeling techniques and simulations of increasing complexity, approaching a
virtual implementation of the complete system. Response data from each implementation is
used to compare the performance of the increasingly realistic systems to the original design-
oriented idealization. Special thanks go to Dr. Nicholas Candelino and Prof. Nader Jalili
who invested intensive amount of time to craft this term project.
 Control of Flexible Mechatronic Systems
𝑥$ 𝑥"
𝐵&
𝑚$ 𝑚"

𝐾&

Contents

I. Project Timeline
II. Problem Statement
III. Laboratory Equipment
IV. Mathematical Modeling
V. QUARC Real-time Implementation
VI. Assignments
a. Open-Loop Modeling
b. Linear Controller Design
c. Physical and Advanced Modeling
d. System Analysis
Appendices
A. Electromechanical Parameter Values

Learning Objectives

• Design of non-collocated control systems

• Rigid body dynamics and 2-DOF vibrations
• Development of system transfer functions
• MATLAB based implementation and simulation
• Real-time control of the mechatronic control system
• Use engineering judgment to draw conclusions
• Acquire new knowledge if needed to execute the goals toward
delivering a complete project

1
Project Timeline
The term project will be carried out according to the following schedule.

1. Submit Project Part 1 By 11:59 PM on 04/02/2021

Submit via Gradescope by the above deadline.

Submission must be a single PDF file containing all relevant information, derivations, plots,
handwritten notes, and relevant MATLAB/Simulink files as screen shots. The report does
not need to be typed and can be scanned from handwritten notes.

All solutions must be justified concisely; solutions without supporting derivations,

discussions, computations, will not receive points.

Please submit only your answers to the questions in Part 1 of Section VI.

2. Submit Project Part 2 By 11:59 PM on 04/23/2021

Submit via Gradescope by the above deadline.

Submission must be a single PDF file containing all relevant information, derivations, plots,
handwritten notes, and relevant MATLAB/Simulink files as screen shots. This report does
not need to be typed and can be scanned from handwritten notes.

All solutions must be justified concisely; solutions without supporting derivations,

discussions, computations, will not receive points.

Please submit your answers only to the questions in Part 2 of Section VI and please provide
responses to the following questions:

Q1) Please develop a flowchart of the modeling and control design process of this project
(Parts 1-2), including the sequence of approaches taken, which steps had to be repeated (if
any), what assumptions were made in what parts of this process.
Q2) In this particular project, in what areas of the project did you have more and less
difficulty?
Q3) Did you need to acquire new knowledge (including mathematical or computational tools)
to be able to solve the project?
Q4) We could not run the experiments due to COVID19 this term. How would you then argue
that your results make sense and could inform future experiments?
Q5) If more than two carts were attached to each other with springs and you would be asked
to actuate the first cart but control the position of the last cart, in what ways do you think
your approach in this project would be similar and different?
Please fit your responses to Q1-5 to a max of two pages.

2
 Passive Active

Figure 1: Experimental Flexible Two-Mass System (Built on Quanser IP02 and LFJ Platforms)

I. Problem Statement
In this laboratory, we would like to develop and implement a controller for positioning
the passive mass in a flexible two-mass system shown in Figure 1 above. This system is
representative of a class of non-collocated industrial control problems in which the actuators
are separated from the desired control target. These problems are ubiquitous in applications
involving flexible joints, and present nontrivial challenges in controller design. The
experimental system may be represented schematically as depicted by Figure 2.

𝑥$ 𝑥"
𝐵&
𝑚$ 𝑚"

𝐾&

Figure 2: Example Flexible Two-Mass System

In the first part of this laboratory, you will need to derive the complete linear system
dynamics by determining the equations of motion for the electrical, mechanical and combined
systems.

Following this, you will be tasked with using these dynamic equations to use course tools
along with MATLAB to design a controller that is capable of solving the non-collocated control
problem and bringing the passive cart of the experimental system to the desired position. To
this end, the closed-loop system will be subject to several performance requirements,

1) Passive Cart settling time less than 5 seconds

2) Passive Cart set-point overshoot less than 10%
3) Steady-State error less than 5%

3
 In the sections to follow, an overview of the equipment and operating principles
of the experimental system are provided, along with simplified equations
describing the overall system dynamics.

All of the necessary parameter values required to perform controller design and
system simulations are provided in Appendix A.

II. Laboratory Equipment

The list of major components in the experimental system is provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Major components in the experimental system

ID # Description Manufacturer Part #

1 IP02 Cart Quanser IP02
2 Stainless Steel Shaft
3 Rack
4 Cart Position Pinion
5 Cart Motor Pinion
6 Cart Motor Pinion Shaft
7 IP02 Cart Encoder US Digital S1-1024-250-N-B-D
8 IP02 Cart Encoder Connector
9 Compression Spring Ashfield Springs Limited S.618
10 LFJ Cart Quanser LFJC-E
11 Motor Connector
12 Coreless DC Motor Faulhaber 2338S006
13 Planetary Gearbox Faulhaber Series 23/1 23/1 3,71:1
14 Linear Bearing
15 IP02 Weight
16 Power Amplifier Quanser UPM-1503
17 Terminal Block Quanser Q4
18 PCI Data Acquisition Card Quanser Q4

IP02 Cart

The IP02 cart is the attachment point for the majority of the components, including the
DC motor and all of the encoders. The cart itself is weighed down by the additional IP02
weight, and is constrained to move parallel to the rack by a pair of linear bearings guided by
the stainless steel shaft (shown in Figure 1, but omitted from Figure 3).

The Quanser IP02 cart used in this laboratory are shown in Figure 3 below.

4
 15. IP02 Weight

1. IP02 Cart

5. Cart Motor Pinion

4. Cart Position
Pinion

3. Rack

Figure 3: Quanser IP02 motorized (active) cart

Coreless DC Motor

Mounted behind the ‘Cart Motor Pinion’ in Figure 3, the system is driven by a coreless
DC motor with nominal properties shown in Table 2. The voltage to this motor circuit is our
control input.
Table 2: Nominal properties of coreless DC motor

Property Value
Nominal Voltage 6 [V]
Back-EMF Constant, 𝐾! 0.804 [mV/rpm]
Torque Constant, 𝐾" 1.088 [oz-in/A]
Resistance, 𝑅# 2.6 [Ω]
Inductance, 𝐿# 180 [µH]
Rotor Inertia, 𝐽$ 5.523e5 [oz-in-s2]
Efficiency, ηm (will be neglected) 69 %
Mass 2.47 [oz]
Recommended Max Speed 6000 [rpm]
Recommended Max Torque 0.566 [oz-in]
Recommended Max Current 1 [A]

Note, this motor does not directly drive the cart motor pinion gear, but does so through the
planetary gearbox.

Planetary Gearbox

The planetary gearbox is fixed to the coreless DC motor, resulting in both reduced speed
and increased torque at the cart motor pinion gear. This provides the torque increase
necessary for the motor to drive the system. In our modelling the motor-planetary gearbox
combination will be described by a single DC-motor actuator. For reference, the properties of
this planetary gearbox are shown in Table 3 below.

5
 Table 3: Planetary Gearbox Properties

Property Value
Gear Ratio (N) 3.71
Efficiency, ηg (will be neglected) 88 %
Mass 2.12 [oz]
Max Torque 28.32 [oz-in] Continuous
56.65 [oz-in] Intermittent

Compression Spring

The compression spring located between the two carts is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Flexible Joint Compression Spring

The properties of this spring, as observed by the system are provided in Table 4.
Table 4: Equivalent Compression Spring Properties

Property Value
Spring Stiffness, 𝐾% 142 [N/m]
Spring Assembly Mass, 𝑀% 0.145 [Kg]
Spring Length, 𝐿% 0.29 [m]

Linear Flexible Joint (LFJ) Cart

Figure 5: Linear Flexible Joint Cart with additional Weights

In the flexible two-mass system, the additional cart shown in Figure 5 is used as the
second mass. This cart is passive and has no motor but is equipped with the same cart
position encoder and gear as the IP02. The LFJC-E properties are given in Table 5.

6
 Table 5: LFJC-E Properties

Property Value
Cart Mass, 𝑀&'& 0.22 [Kg]
Weights Mass, 𝑀(' 0.125 [Kg]
Cart Damping Coefficient, 𝐵)* 2.2 [N-s/m]
Encoders

All of the encoders in this system are ball bearing guided incremental optical encoders
with 4096 counts (or pulses) per revolution. Each of these pulses represents an incremental
position change of 2π/4096 radians. The encoders in the IP02 and LFJ systems utilize a
quadrature signal, and their resolution may alternatively be specified by the number of lines,
or cycles (of quadrature) per revolution on the encoder (1024 in this case). A simple
quadrature signal, such as the one shown in Figure 6, is composed of two digital signals offset
by a quarter cycle.

1 2 3 4

A
High

Low

High

B
Low

Figure 6: Example quadrature signal

The phasing in these signals is accomplished by the encoder grating and read head design
and allows a digital resolution of 4x the physical grating resolution (or line count). Further,
rotational direction may be inferred from the order of rising/falling edges in signal A
compared to B.

The properties of the encoders in the IP02 and LFJ systems are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Properties of IP02 and LFJ encoders

Encoder Resolution Mass

Cart Encoder 1024 cycles per revolution 2.275e-5 [m/count] 0.7 [oz]
(4096 counts per revolution)

Gears and Rack

The rotational power of the motor is converted to linear motion by a rack and pinion
system. In this project, it will be assumed that the gear inertias are negligible and only the
gear ratios are relevant. Further, we will make the assumption that the gear mesh is
assumed to be a pure rolling (without slip) contact.

7
The properties of the gears and rack are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Properties of gears and rack

Gear Radius Number of Teeth

Motor Pinion Gear 6.35e-3 [m] 24
Encoder Pinion Gear 0.01482975 [m] 56
Rack Pitch Rack Length Cart Travel
1.664e-3 [m/tooth] 0.990 [m] 0.814 [m]

Power Amplifier

After all of the calculations have been made by the control system on the computer to
determine a proper control action (motor voltage), a proportional signal will be generated on
one of the analog outputs of the PCI card. These analog output signals are almost always low
voltage and low current and would be insufficient to drive the DC motor. These signals must
be amplified before being connected to the load (DC motor). For this reason, the analog output
from the PCI card is sent (via the terminal block) to the power amplifier onboard the Quanser
Universal Power Module shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Universal Power Module UPM-1503 connected as Power Amplifier

The Universal Power Module UPM-1503 has a ±12V power supply, 4 Analog Sensor
Inputs, and 1 Analog Power Amplified Output. The amplification applied by this power
module is provided by resistors built into the cable connecting the motor to the ‘To Load’
port. Depending on the cable used, there may be a 1x, 3x, or 5x gain.

8
 The power amplifier circuit may be approximated by the diagram shown in Figure 8. The
values of the resistors are listed in Table 8.
𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑇𝑜 𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟
+
Table 8: Resistances for built-in cable op-amp circuit 𝐷/𝐴 −
𝑅"
Gain 𝑹𝒇 𝑹𝟏
1 “Short” “Open”
3 10 [KΩ] 5 [KΩ] 𝑅#

Figure 8: Cable op-amp circuit

Note that in this experiment, the motor has a maximum voltage of 6V, so in this case, the
amplifier does not multiply the voltage, but provides extra current to drive the load torque.
PCI Data Acquisition Card

A Quanser Q4 PCI Data acquisition card has been installed in each of the laboratory
computers.

Figure 9: Quanser Q4 PCI data acquisition card

The Q4 includes all of the I/O shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Quanser Q4 PCI card I/O

Number Resolution Voltage Range Comments

Analog Inputs 4 14-bit ±10 V AI and Encoders
(A/D) sampled
simultaneously
Analog Outputs 4 12-bit ±10 V, ±5 V, 0-10 Samples all AO
(D/A) V configurable simultaneously
Encoder Inputs 4 24-bit count AI and Encoders
values sampled
(Quadrature and simultaneously
others)
Counters 2 32-bit max PWM from 0.008Hz
(PWM) (varies with to 16.7MHz
frequency)
Digital I/O 16

9
Terminal Block

Typically, PCI Cards receive and transmit all of their signals over ribbon style cables.
This is inconvenient and unreliable for making repeated connections, so the PCI card I/O is
passed via ribbon cable to the terminal board, which is used to interface with the cables
carrying signals to/from our sensors, actuators, and signal conditioners.

The terminal board for the Quanser Q4 PCI card is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Q4 Terminal Board

III. Mathematical Modeling (Project Part 1)

Please complete the modeling of the dynamics.

Figure 11: DC motor schematic diagram relating applied voltage to position of the motor pinion
gear, 𝜃!

i. DC Motor Current
By using Kirchhoff’s Voltage Law on the circuit diagram in Figure 11,
-.! (")
𝑅# 𝑖# (𝑡) + 𝐿# + 𝑣!123 (𝑡) = 𝑣4 (𝑡) (1)
-"

10
Here, the constants 𝑅# and 𝐿# represent the armature resistance and inductance, and the
variables 𝑖# (𝑡), and 𝑣4 (𝑡) represent the motor current draw and the applied voltage
respectively. The voltage fed back into the circuit, as a result of the motion of wires in a
magnetic field is called the back electromotive force, or 𝑣!123 , and can be determined from
the equation,

𝑣!123 (𝑡) = 𝑁𝐾! 𝜃5̇ (2)

where 𝑁 is the gear ratio of the planetary gearbox, 𝐾! is the motor speed coefficient, and 𝜃5̇
is the rotational velocity of the motor pinion gear.

ii. DC Motor Gear Angle

The sum of the moments about the rotor of the DC motor gives the second equation,

𝐽$ 𝑁𝜃5̈ + 𝐵$ 𝑁𝜃5̇ = 𝜏$ + 𝜏6 (3)

Here, 𝐽$ is the rotor inertia, 𝐵$ is the damping acting on the rotor, 𝜏$ and 𝜏6 are the torques
on the motor due to the magnetic field and the external load applied via the interactions of
the rack and motor pinion gear respectively. The equations for these torques are given by the
following relations,

𝜏$ = 𝐾" 𝑖# (𝑡) (4a)

7"
𝜏6 = −𝑓& ∙ 8
(4b)

where 𝐾" is the motor torque constant provided by the manufacturer, 𝑓& is the reaction force
applied to the motor pinion gear by the rack, and 𝑟5 is the radius of the motor pinion gear.

iii. IP02 Cart Position

Consider the two carts with their respective free body diagrams in Figure 12.
𝒙𝟐 𝒙𝟏

𝑩𝟐 𝒙̇ 𝟐 𝑩𝟏 𝒙̇ 𝟏

𝑲𝒇 (𝒙𝟏 − 𝒙𝟐 )

𝑴𝟐 𝒙̈ 𝟐 𝑴𝟏 𝒙̈ 𝟏

𝑳𝑭𝑱 𝑪𝒂𝒓𝒕 𝑰𝑷𝟎𝟐 𝑪𝒂𝒓𝒕

𝑩𝒇 (𝒙̇ 𝟏 − 𝒙̇ 𝟐 ) 𝜽𝒈

𝒇𝒄

Figure 12: Linearized external and inertial forces affecting both carts

The third equation can be obtained from the sum of the forces in the x-direction on the IP02
cart as,

𝑀9 𝑥̈9 + 𝐵: (𝑥̇9 − 𝑥̇ ' ) + 𝐾: (𝑥9 − 𝑥' ) + 𝐵9 𝑥̇ 9 = 𝑓& (5)

11
Here, 𝑀9 is combined mass of the IP02 cart, weight and additional ‘mass’ due to the IP02
cabling, 𝐵9 is the additional damping observed by the active cart, 𝐵: is the damping caused
by the linear flexible joint between the two-masses, 𝐾: is the stiffness due to the compression
spring, 𝑥9 is the position of the IP02 cart in the x-direction, 𝑥' is the position of the LFJ cart
in the x-direction, 𝑓& is the external force applied to the IP02 cart at the motor pinion, and ċ
represents time derivatives of the respective variables.

iv. LFJ Cart Position

The fourth and final equation of motion can be obtained from the sum of the forces on the
LFJ cart as,

𝑀' 𝑥̈ ' + 𝐵: (𝑥̇ ' − 𝑥̇ 9 ) + 𝐵' 𝑥̇ ' + 𝐾: (𝑥' − 𝑥9 ) = 0 (6)

where 𝑀' is combined mass of the LFJ cart and weights, and 𝐵' is the additional damping
observed by the passive cart.

12
IV. Proportional-Derivative Controller Design (Project
Part 2)
Now, by utilizing the Laplace domain transfer function of the simplified electrical and
mechanical dynamics of the form shown in Eq. 9, a variety of classical and modern control
techniques may be used to guide the design of a closed loop control system using feedback of
the sensed cart position as depicted in Figure 13. In this figure, the transfer function inside
the “plant” block, 𝐺(𝑠), represents the open loop voltage Va to passive cart position dynamics
x2 of the flexible joint system, the sensor block contains any sensor dynamics (if they are
significant), and controller block will be assumed to take the form of a Proportional-
Derivative controller which may be described by,
!! "!" #
𝐶(𝑠) = 𝐾; + 𝐾< 𝑠 ≈ (10)
$#"%
where 𝜏 = 1/200 sec is the time constant of the filter used to make the derivative controller
realizable. The PD controller is a variant of Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) control,
one of the most well-known and commonly applied controller design strategies. In this style
controller, the coefficients 𝐾; and 𝐾< which should be designed to stabilize the closed loop
system may be determined with a number of techniques, e.g., through pole placement ideas,
and can also be further tuned mathematically, numerically, or graphically, e.g., using
MATLAB PID tuner, to achieve the desired performance.

Controller Plant
𝑹(𝒔) 𝒀(𝒔)
𝑪(𝒔) 𝑮(𝒔)
Reference Output

Sensor

𝑯(𝒔)

Figure 13: Block Diagram of Closed Loop Flexible Two-Mass Control System. In your control design
efforts please make sure you set H(s) = 1.

13
V. Assignments

PART 1:
Modeling and Open Loop Transfer Function (due Apr. 02, 2021 at 11:59 PM)

(BONUS) Using the Laplace Transform on the system equations, obtain the transfer
function G1(s) relating the position of the passive cart 𝑥' to the voltage 𝑉# applied to the motor
and G2(s) relating the velocity of the passive cart to the voltage 𝑉# applied to the motor.

Show that G1(s) is given by

𝑋" (𝑠) 𝑏! 𝑠 + 𝑏$
𝐺! (𝑠) = =
𝑉# (𝑠) 𝑎% 𝑠 + 𝑎& 𝑠 + 𝑎' 𝑠 ' + 𝑎" 𝑠 " + 𝑎! 𝑠
% &

from voltage 𝑉# to position 𝑋' , where the numerator coefficients, 𝑏. , and the denominator
coefficients, 𝑎. , are expressed in MATLAB notation as

n = [106604.95, 6880865.21]
d = [1.0, 14456.76, 280415.99, 7100018.02, 55372388.44, 0]
Notice that the leading coefficient of the denominator is normalized. When comparing your
computations in the Bonus question with the above result, please normalize this coefficient first. A
detailed solution and screen shot of MATLAB code must be submitted to claim bonus points.

In case you opted not to solve the Bonus question, please continue with the transfer function
G1(s) given above in numerical form:

1) What are the poles and zeros of the open loop transfer functions G1(s) and G2(s)?
Without computing the residues, please describe how you would interpret the step
response of the “velocity” dynamics G2(s) in relation to the open-loop poles? How
do these poles determine the response?
2) Using the STEPINFO command in MATLAB, obtain the overshoot% and settling
time of the velocity dynamics V2 for a step input voltage.
3) Please discuss which of the open-loop pole(s) is(are) associated with the settling
time found in Step 2).
4) Simulate the step response of the velocity V2 in MATLAB and/or in Simulink and
compare the results with the information obtained in Step 3).
5) Are the poles found in Step 1) favor energy dissipation in the velocity dynamics?
Why/Why not?

14
PART 2: Controller Design – (due Apr. 23, 2021 at 11:59 PM)
In the closed loop case, the input to the loop is the reference position and the output
from the loop is the passive cart position x2.
7) Assuming the controller will fit the form of a Proportional-Derivative controller
(with filter) Eq. (10), determine the transfer function of the closed loop system.
In all your control design efforts please make sure you set sensor transfer function
to H(s) = 1.
8) For the range of 𝐾; from -200 to 200 and 𝐾< from -10 to 10 with an appropriately
selected grid size, please scan the plane of 𝐾; -𝐾< and obtain the regions where the
system is stable. You can write a MATLAB script that checks whether all the poles
have negative real parts for each pair of 𝐾; -𝐾< , or use the MATLAB script is
stable (TF) to produce a logic 1 or 0 indicating respectively stability or instability.
9) In the stable regions obtained in Question 8, compute the settling time for each
pair of 𝐾; , 𝐾< gains, and draw a 3D plot of settling time with respect to 𝐾; , 𝐾<
gains. Here stepinfo command will be useful.
10) In the stable regions obtained in Question 8, compute the overshoot percentage for
each pair of 𝐾; , 𝐾< gains, and draw a 3D plot of damping ratio with respect to 𝐾; ,
𝐾< gains. Here stepinfo command will be useful.
11) In the stable regions obtained in Question 8, use the Final Value Theorem to
compute the steady-state error (SSE) of the system against a unit step input. Show
that SSE is always zero for any selection of 𝐾; , 𝐾< pairs.

The steady state value of a variable x(t) is given by lim 𝑥(𝑡). On the other hand, in most cases,
"→$
x(t) is not available, only X(s) is available. Should we inverse Laplace X(s) to find x(t) and to
then find this limit? No, there is an easier way.

As long as we know that the system is stable, we can use the Final Value Theorem. FVT states
that the same limit can also be obtained directly by using X(s):
lim 𝑥(𝑡) = lim(𝑠𝑋(𝑠))
"→$ %→&
Notice that X(s) must be multiplied by s before taking the limit s goes to zero.

12) Using your results in the previous steps, obtain the feasible range of 𝐾; and 𝐾<
such that
a. Cart settling time is less than 5 seconds
b. Cart position overshoot is less than 10%
c. Steady-State error is less than 5%

15
 Next, select a pair of (𝐾; , 𝐾< ) from the feasible region and show via Simulink
simulations indeed the closed-loop system, with this controller gain pair, satisfies
settling time, overshoot and steady state error requirements.
13) In your Simulink diagram in Step 12), plot with respect to time the control input
voltage applied to the DC motor, the amount of current that flows in motor
windings, and the power the motor draws.

The project Parts 1-2 combined is worth 200 points, where each step (1-13) is
equally weighted.
Bonus question in Part 1 will add max of 20 more points (10% bonus).

16
Appendix A: Electromechanical Parameter Values
Parameter Symbol Values Units
Mass of the active cart + weights + wires 𝑀1
0.96 kg
(approx.)
Mass of the passive cart + weights 𝑀2 0.47 kg
Radius of the motor pinion gear 𝑟𝑔 0.00635 m
Maximum cart travel length 𝐿𝑡 0.814 m
Internal gear ratio 𝑁 3.71:1 -
Motor torque constant 𝐾𝑡 0.00767 Nm/Amp
Back emf constant 𝐾𝐵 0.00767 V.sec/rad
Motor input voltage range 𝑣𝐴 ±5 Volts
Motor armature resistance 𝑅𝑎 2.6 Ω
Motor armature inductance 𝐿𝑎 180x10-6 H
Cart encoder resolutions 𝐾𝐸𝐶 2.275x10-5 m/count
Gravitational constant of earth g 9.81 m/sec2
Stiffness of the flexible joint 𝐾𝑓 142 N/m
Viscous friction coefficient of the flexible joint 𝐵𝑓 2.2 N.sec/m
Viscous friction of the active and passive carts 𝐵1 and 𝐵2 0.002 N.sec/m
Viscous friction of the motor shaft 𝐵𝑚 0.000018 N.sec/(m.rad)
Motor shaft moment of inertia 𝐽𝑚 3.90x10-7 kg.m2

17