This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. , NO. , ... 1

Mitigation of Fatigue Damage and Vibration

Severity of Electric Drivetrains by Systematic
Selection of Motion Profiles
Witold Pawlus, Student Member, IEEE, Michael R. Hansen, Martin Choux, Member, IEEE, and Geir Hovland,
Member, IEEE

Abstract—The offshore drilling industry is among the most
demanding markets for electrical equipment. Heave motion,
irregular cyclic loads, harsh weather conditions, and vibrations
are causing accelerated deterioration of drilling equipment. One
of the most common solutions to these problems is to design
actuation systems of such machinery overly conservative to gain
additional safety, which results in too high initial investment
and maintenance costs. To mitigate the fatigue damage and
vibration severity of rotating elements of electric drivetrains
operating offshore, the current paper presents a comparative
analysis of four popular input functions used in motion control
of industrial systems. We evaluate them not only by using
well known performance indicators, such as maximum load or
velocity, but also by assessing their influence on fatigue life and
vibration severity of electric drivetrains. The rainflow counting
algorithm is used to assign amplitudes and mean values of
distinguished cycles from random loading history. Then, the
Palmgren-Miner rule together with S-N curves are applied to
determine the total damage for cycles with varying amplitudes.
In addition, we quantify the cumulative effect of vibrations and
jerk on machine damage by using the metric based on the
jerk energy. Importance of the current work is illustrated on
a full-scale offshore pipe handling machine by benchmarking
simulation results with the field data. The outcomes demonstrate
not only a serious decrease in damage caused by vibrations for
smooth motion profiles, but also provide for a basis to formulate
rules of thumb for selection of the most suitable motion profile
for certain applications.
Index Terms—Motion control, fatigue life, vibration mitigation,
electric actuation system, offshore drilling.
I. I NTRODUCTION
I NDUCTION motor failure analysis is a topic which is
particularly relevant now for oil and gas industry, since it is
moving towards electrification of offshore drilling equipment
and reliability-based maintenance. According to surveys pre-
sented in [1] and [2], stator winding and bearing are identified
to be the components of an induction motor which are most
prone to failures - see Fig. 1. Damages to the stator winding
are mainly caused by overheating and deterioration of thermal
insulation, whereas fatigue and vibration are primary reasons
for bearing faults. The current paper focuses on bearing faults
Manuscript received ...; revised ...
The authors are with the Department of Engineering Sciences, Faculty of
Engineering and Science, University of Agder, PO Box 509, N-4898 Grimstad,
Norway (e-mail: witold.p.pawlus@ieee.org).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
and proposes a method to evaluate, and possibly reduce, dam-
age caused to bearings in drivetrains equipped with induction
motors.
Bearing
51% (fatigue and
vibration)
Shaft /
Coupling
Rotor Bars
Stator Winding
(overload, water,
voltage, etc.) Unknown
External
(environment)
Fig. 1. Distribution of failed components in an induction motor - reproduced
from [1].
There are many studies in the literature concerned with dam-
age of structures, actuators fatigue and vibration mitigation -
see for instance [3], [4], [5] and references therein. Particu-
larly, evaluating an influence of motion profiles and associated
loads on drivetrain components has been popular in automotive
applications [6], [7], [8]. Similar efforts are pursued nowadays
with a special emphasis on propulsion systems and charging
strategies for electric vehicles, as explained in [9] and [10].
Experiences from the renewable energy market, especially
from the energy conversion systems [11], fault diagnostics and
prognostics [12], and fatigue estimation methods [13] of wind
turbines are also relevant for the offshore drilling equipment.
Some techniques and methods could easily be adopted from
both the automotive and wind energy applications and imple-
mented to solve similar problems experienced by drivetrains
of offshore drilling machines. There is evidence that selection
of appropriate motion profile for a drivetrain can either solve
or partially mitigate problems associated with fatigue damage
and vibrations without the need to implement costly condition
monitoring systems or redesigning drivetrains [14], [15], [16].
Hence, this work presents a comparative analysis of four
popular motion profiles and benchmarks their influence on

1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
2 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. , NO. , ...

both fatigue damage and vibration severity. The aim is to

formulate guidelines for systematic selection of reference input Rs Ls i sR
signals for motion control systems of industrial equipment.
Even though the proposed methods and tools are well known, i ss isM
according to the authors’ knowledge they are not frequently
used when designing drivetrains for offshore drilling applica- u ss LM RR
tions. +
jwr Ψ sR
There are five contributions of this paper:
-
1) Fatigue life of drivetrain components is monitored in
the presence of changing cyclic loads. This is especially
relevant for offshore applications characterized by vary- Fig. 2. A dynamic inverse-Γ-equivalent circuit of the induction motor [18].
ing heave motions and irregular load patterns. Heave
motions must be compensated for when equipment is dΨsR

RR

located on a floating vessel and it is interacting with = RR iss − − jωr ΨsR (2)
dt LM
structures fixed to the seafloor or located on another
vessel. with the electromagnetic torque being equal to (∗ denotes
2) The levels of fatigue and vibration severity of a driv- complex conjugate and p is the number of pole pairs):
etrain can be explicitly assessed depending on applied 3 3
motion control signals. p Im{Ψs∗
Tem = s
s is } = p Im{ΨR is }
s∗ s
(3)
2 2
3) Some machine specifications, such as operating speed or 3
Tem = p(ψrd isq − ψrq isd ) (4)
permissible load, do not have to be specified a priori, 2
often without enough information to describe working where Ψss is the stator flux space vector, ΨsR is the transformed
conditions, but their maximum allowable limits can be rotor flux, iss is the stator current, isR is the transformed rotor
obtained as a result of fatigue or vibration severity current, uss is the stator voltage, Rs is the stator resistance per
minimization. phase, RR is the transformed rotor resistance per phase, LM is
4) Selection of the optimal motion profile can be included the transformed magnetizing inductance per phase, Lσ is the
in the drivetrain design process. This is crucial when total leakage

inductance per phase referred to the stator side,
designing tailor made actuation systems by quantifying


ψrd , ψrq are rotor fluxes, isd , isq are stator currents, both
additional design requirements and moving closer to the in (d, q)-coordinates (rotating frame) and ωr is the electrical
specification constraints. rotor angular speed. The equation of motion of the induction
5) Results of the presented comparative analysis are con- motor is:
fronted with the field data acquired during regular oper- dωm
ation of the full-scale offshore pipe handling machine. Ta = J = Tem − Tl − Tf rict (5)
dt
This is done with a view to evaluate the effectiveness
and impact of the presented analysis. where Ta denotes the accelerating torque, J is the shaft
ωr
The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents a moment of inertia, Tl is the external load torque, ωm = is
p
dynamic model of an induction motor together with its control the mechanical rotor speed and Tf rict is the friction torque.
system. Section III describes four popular profiles used in Fig. 3 shows the configuration of the studied Direct Field
motion control applications and compares their kinematic fea- Oriented Control (DFOC). According to [21], the rotor flux
tures. Methods to assess vibration severity and fatigue damage is estimated using the stator currents and rotor speed. The
based on a selected duty cycle are presented in Sections IV and
V, respectively. A case study machine - the vertical pipe racker Outer control loop
- is introduced in Section VI. The associated experimental Inner control loop
validation results are summarized in Section VII. The last  rref ref ΨRs ,ref u qref
dq  abc u ref
a, b, c i a,b,c / ua,b,c
Speed T Reference Flux P
Section outlines the conclusions. controller flux controller
ref
W
M
M
u d
s
Ψ̂ R
II. I NDUCTION M OTOR M ODELING AND C ONTROL iq / uq
abc  dq Encoder /
pole pairs
Observer and
motor model
In this study we consider an induction motor model, rep- θr id / ud

resented by the inverse-Γ-equivalent circuit illustrated in Fig.

r ∫
2. Its advantage over a popular T-equivalent circuit is that it
utilizes the minimal number of parameters to provide sufficient
control over the induction motor [17]. According to [17] and Fig. 3. DFOC scheme of an induction motor.
[19], its dynamic model is formulated as (uppercase subscripts
denote the transformed quantities from T-equivalent to inverse- presented torque control scheme (inner control loop) is inte-
Γ-equivalent circuit and superscripts s stand for space vectors grated with the speed control scheme (outer control loop). A
- see [20]): standard PI controller is used in the speed control loop. It
dis is tuned by selecting the desired bandwidth ω0 and damping
 
RR
Lσ s = uss − (Rs + RR )iss + − jωr ΨsR (1) factor ζ for the system. The output of the speed controller
dt LM

1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
PAWLUS et al.: MITIGATION OF FATIGUE DAMAGE AND VIBRATION SEVERITY OF ELECTRIC DRIVETRAINS BY SYSTEMATIC SELECTION OF MOTION PROFILES3

becomes the required torque value which is converted into the III. M OTION P ROFILES
required rotor flux as [22]: A. Motion Profile Selection
s
  2T ref When selecting a motion profile, one of the aims is to
 s,ref 
ΨR  = (6) minimize dynamic forces experienced by the machine, and
3pω2
thus minimize the magnitude of the acceleration and keep it
where ω2 is the slip velocity assumed to be equal to the continuous. Also, one should minimize stored kinetic energy,
RR (LM + Lσ ) and, as a consequence, be concerned with the magnitude of
magnitude of the critical slip ω2 = , according
LM Lσ the velocity as well. In addition, the goal should be to mitigate
to [22] and [23]. Measured currents and voltages are converted vibrations in the machine as well as to prevent fatigue dam-
to (d, q)-reference frame (and vice versa) using Park trans- age. Hence, selection of the appropriate motion control input
formation. Stator currents and voltages are mapped using the signal becomes not a trivial task. Therefore, in this paper we
rotor position θr as the transformation angle, according to [24] analyze and compare four motion profiles which are typically
and [25]. Hence, the transformation angle for rotor quantities applied in industrial actuation systems. According to [30], the
becomes zero. Therefore, the q-axis rotor flux component ψrq following functions, which either minimize peak acceleration,
remains different than zero (contrary to the case of perfect velocity or remove jerk discontinuities, are examined: 1)
field orientation) and is used together with the d-axis rotor flux constant acceleration, 2) modified trapezoidal acceleration, 3)
component ψrd to control the torque, as shown in (4). Desired modified sinusoidal acceleration, and 4) trigonometric jerk, to
voltage levels are supplied to the switching logic section such judge which of them provides for the best performance of the
that the required voltage is achieved by the motor. equipment given the above objectives.
The basis of the DFOC is to directly estimate and control
the rotor flux space vector [17]. According to [20], in order
B. Constant Acceleration
to estimate the rotor flux ΨsR , a reduced-order observer is
applied, which is a simulation of (2) only, with a voltage error One of the most commonly used signals is a simple constant
used for corrective feedback and scaled with the observer gain acceleration function expressed as:
k:
(
amax if t0 ≤ t ≤ t3
bs
! ac (t) = (10)
dΨ R s R
bR
b s + k (us − u −amax if t3 < t ≤ t7 .
=R bR i −
s − jωr Ψ R s b ss ) (7)
dt LbM
It provides for a minimum peak value of acceleration, resulting
where b ss
uis obtained by solving for uss
in (1), replacing true in fast motions. However, it is discontinuous and excites
parameters and flux with those of the model: vibrations which, among other drawbacks, makes it difficult
! for the final position to be reached with a desired precision.
s s diss R
bR
bs
u
b s = (Rs + RR )is + Lσ
b b b − − jωr Ψ R (8)
dt L
bM C. Modified Trapezoidal Acceleration
where iss = isd + jisq , uss = usd + jusq , ΨsR = ψrd + jψrq . The discontinuities in the square acceleration wave are
This is justified, since stator current iss is measurable and it is removed by smoothing its corners. The removed area is
not necessary to compute its estimate. Of course, as current replaced by increasing the peak magnitude as compared to
measurement is normally noisy and it is differentiated in (8), the constant acceleration profile to satisfy requirements on
it has to be appropriately filtered before it can be used in the final position and duration. To avoid jerk discontinuities which
observer formula. One of the solutions is to apply a smooth are associated with a simple trapezoidal acceleration profile,
noise-robust differentiation technique presented for instance an improvement is made where linear ramp portions of the
in [26] (based on Savitzky-Golay filter [27]), which offers signal are replaced by pieces of sine waves. The most common
improved noise suppression and computational performance. approach, according to [30], is to assume that the acceleration
In the current work, the order and window width of the filter ramp time is equal to t1 = 81 T (this assumption is valid for
are adjusted in the trial and error method so that the phase the other examined profiles as well). The modified trapezoidal
delay which might be introduced by filtering is minimized. acceleration function is then described as:
  
Hence, the final equation to estimate the rotor flux becomes:  8π h t
 2 + π · T 2 sin 4π T if t0 ≤ t ≤ t1


bs

dΨ   

R
= kuss + R bs iss
bR (1 − k) − kR 
(9) 
 8π h
dt 
 · 2 if t1 < t ≤ t2
2+π T
! 

s
di R

bs .
bR   
s  8π h t
− kL
bσ + (k − 1) − jωr Ψ R amt (t) = · 2 sin 4π − π if t2 < t ≤ t5
dt L
bM
 2 + π T T


For the state estimator to converge, its observability property

 8π h

 − · 2 if t5 < t ≤ t6
2+π T

is essential. For the induction motor model, sufficient observ- 

  
8π h t

ability conditions and techniques to find the observer gain k 
− 2 + π · T 2 sin 4π T − 3π if t6 < t ≤ t7



are provided in the literature - see [28] and [29] and references
therein. (11)

1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
4 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. , NO. , ...

where h is the final position and T is the duration of the F. Summary

profile. This function has the advantage of relatively low Fig. 4 shows the comparison of the normalized shapes and
theoretical peak acceleration, and reasonably rapid, smooth relative magnitudes of the four considered motion profiles. For
transitions at the beginning and end of the interval [30]. (10-14) the period of signal T is divided into such portions:
D. Modified Sinusoidal Acceleration 1
ti = i T where i = 0, 1, 4, 5 (15)
Combination of two sinusoid curves of different frequencies 8
1 1
allows to retain smooth characteristics of the cycloid and ti = i T + T where i = 2, 6, 7 (16)
reduce peak acceleration, as compared to the case of a single 8 8
frequency sine function. In addition, the peak velocity of this t3 = t4 . (17)
profile is lower than for the constant and modified trapezoidal In addition, (10-14) can easily be adapted to include a period
accelerations. The equations for the modified sine curve are of constant velocity at t3 , as stated in [30]. For the sake of
as follows: brevity, the detailed derivation is omitted here, however such

8π 2
 
 h t an exemplary profile is illustrated in Fig. 5. According to
· sin 4π if t0 ≤ t ≤ t1


2(4 + π) T2 T



∞ ∞

Jpeak

 8π 2
 
h 4π t π

ams (t) = 2(4 + π) · 2 cos − if t1 < t ≤ t6
 T 3 T 6

Jerk

 !
8π 2
 
h t


· 2 sin 2π 2 − 1 if t6 < t ≤ t7 .



 2(4 + π)
 T T
(12) −∞ Const. acc.
Mod. trap. acc.
E. Trigonometric Jerk Mod. sin. acc.
The trigonometric jerk model removes all jerk discontinu- amax Trig. jerk
Acceleration

ities (at the cost of increased jerk peak value) by introducing

the following smooth function [20]:
  !

 J peak  2π π
1 − sin t+ if t0 ≤ t ≤ t1

 
2 tj 2







0 if t1 < t ≤ t2


vmax

 

 !
 J 2π π 
peak 
jt (t) = − 1 − sin t+ if t2 < t ≤ t5
Velocity


 2 tj 2



0 if t5 < t ≤ t6





  !


 Jpeak  2π π 
1 − sin t+ if t6 < t ≤ t7 .


 2 tj 2


(13) h
Equation (13) can be expressed as the following acceleration
Position

function of the trigonometric jerk profile (refer to [16] and

[20]): T
  !
64 h  2π 


2πt − tj sin t if t0 ≤ t ≤ t1


 3π T 3 t0 t1 t2 t3 = t4 t5 t6 t7


 tj




 16 h
if t1 < t ≤ t2

 Fig. 4. Comparison of motion profiles without a constant velocity period.
3 T2 



 

 !
 64 h 2π  [30], by expressing (10-14) in terms of the total displacement
at (t) = − 2πt − tj sin t if t2 < t ≤ t5

 3π T 3 tj h and duration of motion T , it becomes straightforward to


 formulate their maximum values of velocity, acceleration, and

 16 h jerk, which are summarized in Table I. By doing so, it becomes

 − if t5 < t ≤ t6
3 T 2




 !  clear that the jerk peak value of the trigonometric jerk profile


 64 h  2π  has the largest finite value and that this profile yields smooth
2πt − tj sin t if t6 < t ≤ t7 .


 3π T 3

 tj jerk during entire motion; the modified sinusoidal function has
the highest peak acceleration and the lowest peak velocity; and
(14) the peak acceleration of the modified trapezoid is between that
1
where the jerk period is a parameter being equal to tj = T . of the constant acceleration and trigonometric jerk.
8

1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
PAWLUS et al.: MITIGATION OF FATIGUE DAMAGE AND VIBRATION SEVERITY OF ELECTRIC DRIVETRAINS BY SYSTEMATIC SELECTION OF MOTION PROFILES5

where j(t) is the variable jerk value over time. According to

∞ Jpeak ∞ [35], this method is suitable for evaluating damage severity
of rotating machine elements and, as compared to other vi-
bration monitoring techniques, it offers an advantage of semi-
Jerk

linear behavior for all fault types and at different operating

conditions.
−∞ −∞ Const. acc.
Mod. trap. acc. V. FATIGUE E STIMATION M ETHOD
Mod. sin. acc.
A. Fatigue Life Assessment
amax Trig. jerk
Acceleration

A popular approach for estimation of fatigue damage based

on S-N curve assumes perfectly cyclic loads. In reality,
typically we deal with varying amplitude loads which have
to be converted first into the cyclic ones. For this purpose,
according to [13] and [36], cycle counting methods are applied
which identify fatigue cycles by combining and extrapolating
information from extrema in a time series. Cumulative damage
vmax
is then determined as a sum of particular damages caused by
distinguished cycles. The so-called rainflow counting method
Velocity

is among the most popular ways of fatigue cycles identification

[37]. Together with the Palmgren-Miner rule of linear damage
accumulation it is used to calculate the expected damage - see
[38] and [39]. The picture illustrating the proposed procedure
for damage estimation is shown in Fig. 6.
h
Position

t0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7
Structural Time History Cycle Counting
Model
Fig. 5. Comparison of motion profiles with a constant velocity period.

TABLE I
FACTORS FOR PEAK VELOCITY, ACCELERATION , AND JERK OF SELECTED
FUNCTIONS

Function Max. Veloc. Max. Accel. Max. Jerk

Constant accel. 2.000 h/T 4.000 h/T 2 ∞
Mod. trap. accel. 2.000 h/T 4.888 h/T 2 61 h/T 3 Load Range Damage Fatigue Life
Mod. sin. accel. 1.760 h/T 5.528 h/T 2 69 h/T 3 Histogram Accumulation
Trig. jerk 2.000 h/T 5.333 h/T 2 85 h/T 3

Fig. 6. Fatigue damage estimation procedure based on rainflow counting [36].

IV. V IBRATION S EVERITY E VALUATION

It is recognized that the jerk (the slope or time derivative B. Rainflow Counting
of acceleration) is mainly responsible for vibrations induced
The rainflow algorithm allows to assign amplitudes and
by the reference trajectory [31]. In general, the smoother the
mean values of distinguished cycles from random loading
motion profile, the less residual vibrations in the machine.
history [36]. Load signals are discretized to a certain num-
There are different techniques to quantify damage related to
ber of levels and for each identified cycle a corresponding
vibrations and jerk and to classify ”smoothness” of motion
value of amplitude and mean load is found. It is a common
profiles - see [32] and [33] and references therein. In this paper
assumption to neglect the time of the cycle occurrence and
we are interested in finding the cumulative effect of jerk on
its period, as their effect does not contribute significantly to
machine damage, hence we use the metric which is based on
fatigue life. Hence, the considered signal is analyzed in terms
the jerk energy [34]:
of detected local extrema, instead of time. This allows to
Z t
represent distinguished cycles as the rainflow matrix which
JE(t) = j(t)2 dt (18) contains information about the number of counted cycles
t0

1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
6 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. , NO. , ...

with the given amplitude and mean value detected in the accumulation damage law from [38] and [39], the total damage
considered load history [40]. There are different rainflow for cycles with different amplitudes is determined to be:
algorithms proposed in the literature. In this paper we use the m m
X ni 1X
toolbox described in [41]. An exemplary signal subjected to DS = = ni Sib (20)
the rainflow counting algorithm is shown in Fig. 7. According i
Ni c i

where ni is the number of cycles with stress amplitude Si .

15 According to [44] and [45], torque is roughly proportional to
Signal
Local extrema average stress by a constant r. This is an assumption, as in
10
reality stress may also depend on speed and / or present a
y [−]

5
non-proportional relation to the torque. Since proportionality
does not affect the use of fatigue damage accumulation for
0 comparative purposes, constants c and r can be set to unit
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time [s] values. Therefore, when the load is considered in the form
15 of torque instead of stress, the following damage equation is
Peak values arrived at [44]:
Half−cycle ↓ Half−cycle ↓
10 Half−cycle ↓ m m
rb X
y [−]

X
DT = ni Tib = ni Tib . (21)
5 c i i
Cycle ↑
Cycle ↑ Half−cycle ↑ Half−cycle ↑ S-N curves can be applied only for completely reversed loads.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 Therefore, when mean stress is present in loads, it has to be
Local extrema
taken into account when finding an equivalent cyclic load.
(a) Signal with turning points and equivalent cycles and half-cycles.
One of the most common approaches is to use the so-called
1.5
Goodman relation, which has the following form:
1.4 σamp
m
σamp = (22)
1.5 1.3

1 − σmean
σu
Number of cycles

1.2
1 m
where σamp is the modified stress amplitude, σamp and σmean
1.1
are amplitude and mean value of stress in a given cycle,
0.5 1 respectively, and σu is the ultimate strength. According to [46],
0.9 (22) is applicable to torque loads as well. Of course, loading
0 cycles less than the endurance limit do not contribute to fatigue
0.8
2.4 in stress-based fatigue analysis. Therefore, to determine the
2.6 0.7
critical number of cycles that a component can withstand, it
1.8 0.6
2.8 is essential to analyze only those stress levels that correspond
1.6
3 1.4 0.5 to its S-N curve. However, knowledge of the S-N curve is not
Mean [−]
Amplitude [−] required if one’s goal is to asses only the relative magnitude
(b) Resulting rainflow matrix. of cumulative damage that a given motion profile results in -
which is the very goal of the current paper.
Fig. 7. Exemplary signal subjected to the rainflow algorithm [41].

to [42], the so-called half-cycles, i.e. a series of unmatched
peaks and valleys, are also included in the cycle count, since
they might carry information about the most damaging events
(the largest cycles) which are not counted by the classical
formulation of the rainflow algorithm. What is recommended
in the IEC standard [43], is to treat all unclosed cycles as
half-cycles, and this is the approach followed in this paper.
C. Cumulative Damage
The well known S-N (or Wöhler) curve defines relation
between the number of cycles to failure and cycle amplitude
for a given material [13]. In log-log scale this curve is given
as [44]:
Ni = cSi−b (19)
where Ni is the number of cycles with stress amplitude Si
needed to cause failure, c is the material specific parameter,
and b is the fatigue exponent. Using the Palmgren-Miner linear
VI. O FFSHORE P IPE H ANDLING E QUIPMENT
During drilling operation drill pipes are supplied to the
well center so that the drill string with the drill bit at its
end can achieve larger depths. A machine that automates this
process is the vertical pipe racker (VPR) shown in Fig. 8.
Its role is to deliver, handle, and assemble pipes which are
portions of the drill string. The upper and lower arms are
designed to guide a pipe being in operation. The middle arm
is the so-called gripper arm which holds pipes in secure grip.
These arms are connected to a 45 m tall column supported at
the top and bottom by tracks and a rack and pinion system
[47]. The rotation of the machine about its vertical axis is
achieved by slew motors mounted on the lower trolley. The
gripper arm is hoisted / lowered by the winch drivetrain and
wire-sheave mechanism. The drivetrain is composed of two
induction motors and drives, hydraulic brake, and planetary
gearbox connected to the winch drum and hoisting wire. The
hoisting wire is linked to the dead anchor at the top of the

1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
PAWLUS et al.: MITIGATION OF FATIGUE DAMAGE AND VIBRATION SEVERITY OF ELECTRIC DRIVETRAINS BY SYSTEMATIC SELECTION OF MOTION PROFILES7

column via the sheave, located on the lower dolly, which 90

allows vertical motion of the machine. The geometry of the
gripper arm ensures that the gripper head moves in a straight 90 80
horizontal line from the column during extension / retraction
of the hydraulic cylinders mounted between lower and upper 70
80

d / dn [%]
dollies. This paper considers the gripper arm and its drivetrain
as a case study for testing the influence of different motion 10 15
profiles on the machine fatigue and vibration damage. 70

Drivetrain
60
VFD + 0 20 40 60 150 80 100
Drum
Tel Motor #1 Time [s]
Gearbox 100
VFD + 200
Wire Motor #2 50
100 0

n / nn [%]
Upper dolly
10 15
0
Gripper arm
Lifting arm
−100
Sheave 300
Gripper head −200
0 20 40 60 200 80 100
Time [s]
Lower dolly 100
Full-scale Vertical Pipe Racker
400
Gripper Arm
0
300 10 15
Fig. 8. The gripper arm of MH VPRTM - courtesy of MHWirth.
Tel / Tn [%]

200

VII. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION 100

A. Vibration Severity 0
100
As illustrated in Fig. 8, there are two induction motors
−100
that actuate the gripper arm winch drivetrain. The reference 0 20 40 60 50 80 100
Time [s]
data used for benchmarking simulation results for different 0
motion profiles was acquired on the machine during hoisting −50
200
and lowering a drill pipe for a simple constant acceleration
−100
input signal. Variable frequency drives (VFDs) control the 100
motors and allow to measure torque and speed signals of the 10 15
j / jn [%]

drivetrain. The remaining three motion profiles are tested in 0

a virtual simulation environment to reproduce operation of
the full-scale machine in a pipe handling sequence. Details −100
on model validation are presented in [47]. For each motion Const. acc. (VPR)
profile we determine the corresponding jerk signal (using −200 Mod. trap. acc.
smooth differentiation techniques from [26] and [27]) and 0 20 40 60 80 sin. acc.100
Mod.
Time [s]
the associated jerk energy, according to (18). The obtained Trig. jerk
results are illustrated in Fig. 9. They are normalized either 25
with respect to the rated motor parameters, nominal vertical
travel of the gripper arm or to the associated nominal jerk 20
JE / JEn [%]

values. Signal noise is neglected in the simulation, since it is 15

justified for the purpose of comparative analysis. Acceleration
ramp up / down periods are equal to 1/8 of the time provided 10
to achieve a certain position (recall Section III). The maximum
5
allowable vertical acceleration of the gripper arm is selected
to be amax = 5% · dn /s2 , according to specifications of 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
the real machine for a constant acceleration function. The Time [s]
remaining three motion profiles are determined based on
this requirement, as explained in Section III (they follow Fig. 9. Influence of motion profiles on drivetrain kinematics, torque, and jerk
relationships summarized in Table I). energy.

1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
8 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. , NO. , ...

The resulting vertical travel of the machine is identical for 5

each examined motion profile. The highest accumulated jerk
energy is obtained for the constant acceleration profile (nor- 4.5

malized value JE = 23.5%). On the other hand, the profile 5

4

Number of cycles
which offers the lowest damage due to jerk discontinuities 4
3 3.5
and vibrations is the modified trapezoidal one (normalized
value JE = 12.7%). The modified sinusoidal acceleration 2 3
function gives lower value of the steady velocity at the cost of 1
2.5
higher jerk energy. An interesting observation is made for the 0
50
trigonometric jerk profile. Even though it is continuous, its jerk 2
100 150
energy is relatively high, leading to potentially higher damage 100 1.5
caused by vibrations. In the considered example the increase in 150 50
1
vibration severity for the examined motion profiles follows the Tmean / Tn [%] Tamp / Tn [%]
relationships for the maximum jerk values presented in Table
(a) Constant acceleration (VPR).
I. It is well known that flexibility in a system (caused not 5
only by its structural properties but also by controllers action)
4.5
smooths the actual velocity signal and mitigates the dynamic
load on the machine, which is similar to using motion profiles 5 4

Number of cycles
derived from smooth acceleration functions. Therefore, the 4
3.5
combined effect of suitable motion control pattern selection 3
3
2
and control system design might further reduce the jerk energy
1 2.5
experienced by the machine.
0 2

B. Fatigue Damage 80
1.5
100
120 150
For the period of machine operation shown in Fig. 9 we 100
1
140
perform assessment of the fatigue damage caused by the 160 50 0.5
Tmean / Tn [%] Tamp / Tn [%]
examined motion profiles. We apply the rainflow algorithm
as explained in Section V-B to each torque signal to de- (b) Modified trapezoidal acceleration.
termine mean values and amplitudes of the corresponding 5
cyclic loads. The results are shown in Fig. 10. The equivalent 4.5
cyclic amplitudes are found using the Goodman relation (22)
5 4
and applied to determine the level of cumulative damage on
Number of cycles

4
drivetrain bearings. To improve clarity, an absolute damage 3.5
3
(21) is expressed as the damage normalized with respect to 3
2
the rated motor torque Tn : 2.5
1
m
0 2
ni Tib
P
50
i 1.5
DT N = P m . (23) 100 200
ni Tnb 150 1
i 150 100
50 0.5
Since this study is focused on the relative damage rather than Tmean / Tn [%] Tamp / Tn [%]
the absolute damage, material properties (fatigue exponent b (c) Modified sinusoidal acceleration.
and ultimate load Su ) of the considered drivetrain are selected 5
according to [48] for a typical roller bearing. The normalized
4.5
cumulative damage caused by each of the four examined
5 4
motion profiles is summarized in Table II. As expected, since
Number of cycles

4
3.5
3
TABLE II 3
C UMULATIVE DAMAGE BENCHMARK FOR EACH MOTION PROFILE 2
1 2.5

Motion profile Cumulative damage DT N 0 2

Constant accel. (VPR) 0.2963 60
Mod. trapezoidal accel. 0.5682 80 1.5
100
Mod. sinusoidal accel. 0.8138 120 150 1
Trigonometric jerk 0.6707 140 100
160 50 0.5
Tmean / Tn [%] 180 Tamp / Tn [%]
the constant acceleration profile offers the lowest value of (d) Trigonometric jerk.
maximum acceleration (recall Table I), it causes the lowest cu-
Fig. 10. Rainflow counting for examined motion profiles.
mulative damage among the investigated functions. Although

1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
PAWLUS et al.: MITIGATION OF FATIGUE DAMAGE AND VIBRATION SEVERITY OF ELECTRIC DRIVETRAINS BY SYSTEMATIC SELECTION OF MOTION PROFILES9
the maximum acceleration of the trigonometric jerk profile
is just slightly lower than that of the modified sinusoidal
acceleration, the cumulative damage caused by the latter one
is significantly higher. Therefore, even though the effect of
torque on the cumulative damage is significant - power of b
in (23) - it is still the number of identified cycles that plays
an important role. Hence, in some cases, a profile that causes
more oscillations of the machine but with lower amplitudes
might be more severe to its life than a smooth, steady profile
characterized by higher loads.
Simulation results show that the popular constant accelera-
tion profile gives the lowest cumulative damage at the cost of
high jerk energy. Hence, if there is enough flexibility in the
machine (e.g. elasticity or dynamics changed by the control
system) which could compensate for high jerk values, this
profile is a justified choice. However, as soon as we deal with
systems where the effect of vibrations cannot be disregarded, it
becomes necessary to use profiles which provide for finite jerk
shapes. The modified trapezoidal acceleration function gives
both the lowest cumulative damage and jerk energy which
makes it a reasonable choice for such applications.
VIII. C ONCLUSION
This study deals with comparative analysis of motion pro-
files used in actuation systems of offshore drilling equipment.
Contrary to previous works, the proposed approach allows not
only to benchmark which function gives the highest or lowest
performance specifications (such as torque or speed) but also
to explicitly assess levels of both fatigue and vibration severity
of the system. In addition, it allows to estimate fatigue life
of drivetrain components in the presence of changing loads.
This could be applied to determine with a higher degree
of confidence when a failure in rotating drivetrain elements
might occur and schedule maintenance tasks well in advance
to avoid machine downtime and high replacement costs. As
a consequence, the current approach facilitates the drivetrain
design process. Information about the estimated fatigue life of
a given component related to a certain motion pattern is now
made available to a design engineer early enough. This makes
it possible not only to treat fatigue minimization as one of the
design objectives, but also to incorporate selection of the most
appropriate motion profile into the drivetrain design procedure
itself.
In the future, it is suggested to numerically evaluate the
optimal selection of motion profiles, as it might lead to reduced
conservatism when designing actuation systems. This should
involve studying the absolute effect of full-scale stress profiles
on machine components’ life, in order to validate / reject
the assumption of torque-stress proportionality. In addition,
high levels of torque experienced at low speeds are typically
dangerous for induction motors, due to the lack of proper
cooling. It is obvious that from such a perspective the constant
acceleration profile is the worst, as it requires the full torque to
be instantaneously available. Therefore, it is recommended to
investigate the influence of various motion profiles on motor
thermal behavior as well.
1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Bonnett, “Root cause methodology for induction motors: a step-by-
step guide to examining failure,” Industry Applications Magazine, IEEE,
vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 50–62, 2012.
[2] O. Thorsen and M. Dalva, “A survey of faults on induction motors
in offshore oil industry, petrochemical industry, gas terminals, and oil
refineries,” Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 31, no. 5,
pp. 1186–1196, 1995.
[3] G. Nelson, R. Rajamani, A. Gastineau, S. Wojtkiewicz, and A. Schultz,
“Bridge life extension using semiactive vibration control,” Mechatronics,
IEEE/ASME Transactions on, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 207–216, 2015.
[4] R. Robinson, C. Kothera, R. Sanner, and N. Wereley, “Nonlinear
control of robotic manipulators driven by pneumatic artificial muscles,”
Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, 2015, in Press.
[5] D. Zhang, C. DeVore, and E. Johnson, “Response modification to
improve the parameter identification of shear structures: an experimental
verification,” Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, vol. 18, no. 6,
pp. 1683–1690, 2013.
[6] T. Chakravarty, A. Chowdhury, A. Ghose, C. Bhaumik, and P. Bala-
muralidhar, “Statistical analysis of road-vehicle-driver interaction as an
enabler to designing behavioural models,” Journal of Physics: Confer-
ence Series, vol. 490, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2014.
[7] S.-H. Lee, J.-H. Lee, S.-H. Goo, Y.-C. Cho, and H.-Y. Cho, “An
evaluation of relative damage to the powertrain system in tracked
vehicles,” Sensors, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1845–1859, 2009.
[8] A. Myklebust and L. Eriksson, “Modeling, observability, and estimation
of thermal effects and aging on transmitted torque in a heavy duty truck
with a dry clutch,” Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, vol. 20,
no. 1, pp. 61–72, 2015.
[9] A. Kodali, Y. Zhang, C. Sankavaram, K. Pattipati, and M. Salman, “Fault
diagnosis in the automotive electric power generation and storage system
(EPGS),” Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, vol. 18, no. 6, pp.
1809–1818, 2013.
[10] M. Musio, M. Porru, A. Serpi, I. Marongiu, and A. Damiano, “Optimal
electric vehicle charging strategy for energy management in microgrids,”
in Electric Vehicle Conference (IEVC), 2014 IEEE International, 2014,
pp. 1–8.
[11] M. Malinowski, A. Milczarek, R. Kot, Z. Goryca, and J. Szuster, “Op-
timized energy-conversion systems for small wind turbines: renewable
energy sources in modern distributed power generation systems,” Power
Electronics Magazine, IEEE, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 16–30, 2015.
[12] S. T. Kandukuri, A. Klausen, H. R. Karimi, and K. G. Robbersmyr,
“A review of diagnostics and prognostics of low-speed machinery
towards wind turbine farm-level health management,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 53, pp. 697 – 708, 2016.
[13] J. de Jesus Barradas-Berglind, R. Wisniewski, and M. Soltani, “Fatigue
damage estimation and data-based control for wind turbines,” Control
Theory Applications, IET, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1042–1050, 2015.
[14] P. Meckl, “Optimized s-curve motion profiles for minimum residual
vibration,” in American Control Conference, 1998. Proceedings of the,
vol. 5, 1998, pp. 2627–2631.
[15] K. D. Nguyen, I.-M. Chen, and T.-C. Ng, “Planning algorithms
for s-curve trajectories,” in Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, 2007
IEEE/ASME International Conference on, 2007, pp. 1–6.
[16] ——, “On algorithms for planning s-curve motion profiles,” Interna-
tional Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 99–106,
2008.
[17] L. Harnefors, Control of Variable-Speed Drives. Västerås, Sweden:
Mälardalen University, 2003.
[18] W. Pawlus, M. Choux, G. Hovland, and V. K. Huynh, “Parameters iden-
tification of induction motor dynamic model for offshore applications,”
in Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), 2014
IEEE/ASME 10th International Conference on, 2014, pp. 1–6.
[19] B. K. Bose, Power Electronics and AC Drives. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
[20] W. Pawlus, M. R. Hansen, G. Hovland, and M. Choux, “Torque peak
reduction and overload monitoring of induction motors in offshore
drilling operations,” in ACEMP-OPTIM-ELECTROMOTION, 2015 IEEE
Joint Conference, 2015, pp. 393–398.
[21] Y. Murphey, M. Masrur, Z. Chen, and B. Zhang, “Model-based fault
diagnosis in electric drives using machine learning,” Mechatronics,
IEEE/ASME Transactions on, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 290–303, 2006.
[22] SimulationX 3.6, User Manual, ITI GmbH, 2013.
[23] C.-M. Ong, Dynamic Simulation of Electric Machinery Using Mat-
lab/Simulink. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2573587, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics
10
[24] M. Popescu, “Induction Motor Modelling for Vector Control Purposes,”
Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Electrical and Com-
munications Engineering, Laboratory of Electromechanics, Technical
Report 63, 2000.
[25] G. Fouad, AC Electric Motors Control - Advanced Design Techniques
and Applications. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley, 2013.
[26] P. Holoborodko, “Smooth Noise Robust Differentiators,”
http://www.holoborodko.com/pavel/numerical-methods/numerical-
derivative/smooth-low-noise-differentiators/, 2008.
[27] J. Luo, J. Bai, P. He, and K. Ying, “Axial strain calculation using a
low-pass digital differentiator in ultrasound elastography,” Ultrasonics,
Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 51,
no. 9, pp. 1119–1127, 2004.
[28] F. Alonge, T. Cangemi, F. D’Ippolito, A. Fagiolini, and A. Sferlazza,
“Convergence analysis of extended Kalman filter for sensorless control
of induction motor,” Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 2341–2352, 2015.
[29] C. C. D. Wit, A. Youssef, J. P. Barbot, P. Martin, and F. Malrait,
“Observability conditions of induction motors at low frequencies,” in
Decision and Control, 2000. Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference
on, vol. 3, 2000, pp. 2044–2049.
[30] R. L. Norton, Design of Machinery: An Introduction to the Synthesis
and Analysis of Mechanisms and Machines. Worcester, Massachusetts:
McGraw-Hill, 1999.
[31] R. Béarée, “New damped-jerk trajectory for vibration reduction,” Con-
trol Engineering Practice, vol. 28, pp. 112–120, 2014.
[32] S. Foulard, S. Rinderknecht, M. Ichchou, and J. Perret-Liaudet, “Auto-
motive drivetrain model for transmission damage prediction,” Mecha-
tronics, vol. 30, pp. 27–54, 2015.
[33] Y. An, B. F. Spencer, and J. Ou, “Real-time fast damage detection of
shear structures with random base excitation,” Measurement, vol. 74,
pp. 92–102, 2015.
[34] R. Nataraj, C. Pasluosta, and Z.-M. Li, “Online kinematic regulation
by visual feedback for grasp versus transport during reach-to-pinch,”
Human Movement Science, vol. 36, pp. 134–153, 2014.
[35] M. A. Ismail, N. Sawalhi, and T.-H. Pham, “Quantifying bearing fault
severity using time synchronous averaging jerk energy,” in Sound and
Vibration, 22nd International Congress on, 2015, pp. 1–8.
[36] A. Niesłony, “Determination of fragments of multiaxial service loading
strongly influencing the fatigue of machine components,” Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 2712–2721, 2009.
[37] T. Endo, K. Mitsunaga, and H. Nakagawa, “Fatigue of metals subjected
to varying stress prediction of fatigue lives,” in Preliminary Proceedings
of the Chugoku-Shikoku District Meeting, 1967, pp. 41–44.
[38] A. Palmgren, “Die Lebensdauer von Kugellagern,” Zeitschrift des Vere-
ins Deutscher Ingenieure, vol. 68, no. 14, pp. 339–341, 1924.
[39] M. Miner, “Cumulative damage in fatigue,” Journal of Applied Mechan-
ics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 159–164, 1945.
[40] ASTM, ASTM E 1049-85 (Reapproved 1997), Standard practices for
cycle counting in fatigue analysis, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Philadelphia, 1999, vol. 03.01, pp. 710–718.
[41] A. Niesłony and C. Sonsino, “Calculating the fatigue crack initiation
in machine parts under random multiaxial loading,” in COMSOL Multi-
physics Konferenz 2006 - Neue Wege der Multiphysik Simulation, 2006,
pp. 106–111.
[42] H. J. Sutherland, On the Fatigue Analysis of Wind Turbines. Albu-
querque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories, 1999.
[43] IEC, “Wind turbine generator systems - part 13: Measurement of
mechanical loads,” IEC 61400-13, 1998.
[44] S. I. McNeill, “Implementing the fatigue damage spectrum and fatigue
damage equivalent vibration testing,” in Shock and Vibration, 79th
Symposium, 2008, pp. 1–20.
[45] S.-H. Lee, J.-H. Lee, D.-K. Kang, and S.-H. Goo, “A study on the
evaluation technique of quantified damage for powertrain system on trav-
eled courses,” Journal of the Korean Society for Precision Engineering,
vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 74–81, 2007.
[46] DNV, Type approval of composite drive shafts and flexible couplings,
Standard for Certification, no. 2.9 Approval Programmes, 2014, Type
Approval Programmes, no. 1-501.16.
[47] W. Pawlus, M. Choux, G. Hovland, S. Øydna, and M. R. Hansen,
“Modeling and simulation of an offshore pipe handling machine,” in
Simulation and Modeling, 2014 SIMS 55th Conference on, 2014, pp.
277–284.
[48] E. V. Zaretsky, D. G. Lewicki, M. Savage, and B. L. Vlcek, “Determina-
tion of turboprop reduction gearbox system fatigue life and reliability,”
Tribology Transactions, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 507–516, 2007.
1083-4435 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. , NO. , ...
Witold Pawlus received BSc and MSc degrees in
Mechatronics from the AGH University of Science
and Technology in Kraków, Poland, in 2011 and
from the University of Agder in Grimstad, Norway,
in 2013, respectively.
He was a Research Assistant with the University
of Agder from 2010 to 2012. Since 2012, he has
been with MHWirth, a global provider of solutions
and services for petroleum drilling industry. Mr.
Pawlus has been working since September 2013
towards his PhD degree in Mechatronics with the
Department of Engineering Sciences, University of Agder. The project is
carried out in cooperation with MHWirth and supported by the Research
Council of Norway under the Industrial PhD scheme. In 2015, Mr. Pawlus
was a Visiting PhD Student with the Automatic Control Laboratory, ETH
Zürich, Switzerland.
His current research interests include AC drives, control systems, design
optimization, modeling and simulation, and drilling technologies applications.
Michael R. Hansen took his MSc (1989) and PhD
(1992) at the Institute of Mechanical Engineering at
Aalborg University where he also held a position
as an Assistant Professor in 1992-1995 and an
Associate Professor in 1995-1997 and in 1999-2008.
He has several years of experience from industry
including spells at Danfoss Mobile Hydraulics (part
of Danfoss A/S), 1997-1999 and Aker Maritime
Hydraulics (part of Aker Solutions AS), since 2009.
He is currently holding a position as a Professor
in Fluid Power in the mechatronics group within the
Department of Engineering Sciences at the University of Agder since 2009.
His main research interests lie within design optimization, modeling and time
domain simulation of hydraulically and electrically actuated machinery, and
dynamics of hydraulically and electrically actuated machinery.
Martin Choux was born in 1981 in France. He
received the double M.Sc. degrees in Mechatronics
from the University of Queensland, Australia and
Ecole National des Arts et Metiers, France, in 2006
and the PhD degree in Automatic Control from the
Technical University of Denmark (DTU) in 2011.
In 2012 he was appointed as an Associate Pro-
fessor in the mechatronics group at the University
of Agder, Norway, where he is currently teaching
Control Theory and Electric Motor Drives. His re-
search interests include identification and control of
nonlinear systems, fault detection, estimation and fault prognosis, and design
methods for electric actuation. His personal application interests include
offshore drilling equipment.
Geir Hovland has a MSc degree in Engineering
Cybernetics from the Norwegian University of Sci-
ence and Technology (1993) and a PhD in Robotics
from the Australian National University (1997). He
has worked as a research engineer in ABB (1997-
2003) and took part in the development of ABB’s
control system for industrial robots. He was a Se-
nior Lecturer in Mechatronics at the University of
Queensland (2004-2006) and has been a Professor
in Robotics and Control Systems at the University
of Agder since 2007.
He is currently the director of the Centre for Research-based Innovation
Offshore Mechatronics (https://sfi.mechatronics.no), technical manager of the
Norwegian Motion Lab (http://www.motion-lab.no), chief editor of the MIC
journal (http://www.mic-journal.no), and the technical expert in robotics in
the Norwegian Association of Automation (http://www.nfaplassen.no).