Friction-Compensating Command Shaping for Vibration Reduction

[+] Author and Article Information
Jason Lawrence, William Singhose

Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering,  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA

Keith Hekman

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt

J. Vib. Acoust 127(4), 307-314 (Sep 03, 2004) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1924637 History: Received June 25, 2003; Revised September 03, 2004

Fast and accurate point-to-point motion is a common operation for industrial machines, but vibration will frequently corrupt such motion. This paper develops commands that can move machines without vibration, even in the presence of Coulomb friction. Previous studies have shown that input shaping can be used on linear systems to produce point-to-point motion with no residual vibration. This paper extends command-shaping theory to nonlinear systems, specifically systems with Coulomb friction. This idea is applied to a PD-controlled mass with Coulomb friction to ground. The theoretical developments are experimentally verified on a solder cell machine. The results show that the new commands allow the proportional gain to be increased, resulting in reduced rise time, settling time, and steady-state error.

Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Friction model used in this study

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Comparison of step response with and without Coulomb friction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Effect of proportional gain on final steady-state error

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Effects of proportional and derivative gain on overshoot and rise time

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Using a ZVS input shaper to eliminate vibration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Strategy for designing the ZVC shaper

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Simulated step and ZVC responses

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of residual vibration and rise time for step, ZVS and ZVC responses

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Sample step response showing peaks and troughs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Experimental data: Comparison of step, ZVS, and ZVC responses

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Experimental data: Performance measures for various two-step commands at different proportional gains

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of ZVS and ZVC commands with experimentally determined optimal two-step commands

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Average steady-state error across all two-step commands at each proportional gain

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Applying the ZVC shaper to improve system response




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In