Professional Documents
Culture Documents
( )
actuated joint which includes servovalve and rotary actuator 1
dynamics is available in the literature. The paper is L(i, ihys ) = coth µ o (i + αihys ) −
µ o (i + αihys ) (3)
organized as follows: in Section 2 the physical
characteristics of the joint's subsystems are discussed.
System equations are given. Section 3 describes the
δ = sign i˙ ()
experimental setup and discusses the parameters identified The scaling factor, Λ, which is less than unity for minor
and the procedures used. Section 4 compares experimental loop generation depends on the switching point and the
results with simulation results, validating the model. major loop which saturates at is = ±1A. The parameters, µ o,
Finally, conclusions are given in Section 5. α, and k, affect the inclination and width of the hysteresis.
2: System Modelling 2.2: Valve Tip Dynamics
Due to the highly non-linear nature of this hydraulic The servovalve consists of a moving element actuated by
system, the possibility of instability and limited a small torque motor. An input current modulates the
performance in control is high. Thus, a model of each position of the valve tip opening supply and return orifices,
subsystem will allow an accurate characterization of the allowing flow to enter and leave the actuator. The dynamics
system and a good prediction of the system’s behavior. The of the valve tip can be approximated by a second order
hydraulic joint system is composed of a one-stage lumped parameter system with mass, m v, damping
suspension type servovalve, hydraulic lines, a rotary coefficient, b v, and stiffness, k v . Furthermore, as the valve
actuator and a load. Each subsystem is shown in Figure 1. tip moves, flow forces are generated due to a change in the
The bond graph of this system is given in a previous direction of flow of the fluid. For the suspension type
technical article [1]. In this section, the equations describing valve, a suitable physically based characterization of the
the dynamics of these subsystems are discussed. The end flow is not available although an experimentally based
result is a set of first order nonlinear equations of the form model was proposed by [12]. The valve hysteresis is lumped
into ihys as discussed in the previous section. Therefore, the
x˙ = f(x,u), y = g(x,u) (1)
dynamic equations of the valve tip in state space form is
First, consideration is given to the hysteresis effects in the x˙ v = vv
servovalve. Second, the valve tip dynamics are described.
Fluid dynamics are then discussed, along with the vane and
load system equations.
v˙v =
1
mv
(
Bihys + Ff − bv vv − kv x v ) (4)
i˙hys =
( )
Λµ o i˙ is L(i, ihys ) − i leakages within the system. As shown in Figure 1, there is
a clearance between the valve tip and the receiver. Two
( )
(2)
kδ − µ oα is L(i, ihys ) − i stages of leakage are evident. One leakage is from the
supply line, P sv, directly to the return line, P rl, as fluid following
traverses the clearance from supply to the valve tip where Psv 2 = w1 ( Psv , Pp1 , Pp 2 , x v , Qrl ) (11)
the pressure is denoted as Psv2. The second stage occurs
between Psv2 and the two chamber pressures, Pp1 and P p2, as Prl = w2( Psv , Pp1 , Pp2 , xv , Qrl ) (12)
the fluid traverses a second time the gap this time to the It can be noted that differences between this model and
control ports, Pp1 and Pp2. that of [12] include the leakage between chambers of the
The flow through the actuator is related to the vane’s rotary actuator, whereas the focus of the previous work is a
angular velocity through the actuator volumetric linear actuator. Also, there are two stages of leakage in the
displacement, D v. Furthermore, for the rotary actuator, the servovalve as discussed above. In the suspension type valve,
leakage between chambers is taken into account and is the supply flow impinges the valve tip and is redirected to
assumed to be proportional to the load pressure. The leakage the control ports (see Figure 1). In addition, geometrically,
coefficient, or resistance, given as R v, is dependent on fluid the orifice areas as a function of the valve tip position differ
viscosity [2], but it is taken as a constant in this work. from those studied in [12]. The configuration of the orifices
With the notation of Table 1, the dynamic equations of is different due to a difference in servovalve design.
the flow from servovalve to actuator are
A 128µls 2.4: Vane and Load Dynamics
Q̇sv = s Ps − Qsv − Psv (6) The actuator is a rotary vane type. The vane is modelled
ρls πds4
as a second order mechanical rotation system with input
torque related to the load pressure through the actuator
(Qsv − glk ( xv , Psv , Prl ) − gv ( xv , Psv , Psv 2 ))
1
P˙sv = (7) displacement, D v. The friction between the vane and the
CA actuator housing is modelled as Coulomb friction, denoted
β by τ coul, as well as viscous friction. Viscous friction was
P˙p1 =
(Vc1 + Vp1 )
(
g1 ( x v , Psv 2 , Pp1 ) − g4 ( x v , Pp1 , Prl ) lumped into the damping term of the load. The load is
(8) connected via a shaft which is taken as non-rigid. Applying
− Dvω vn − Rv ( Pp1 − Pp 2 ) ) straightforward mechanical system analysis, the equations of
motion for the vane and the load are given as
β
P˙p 2 =
(Vc 2 + Vp 2 )
(
g2 ( x v , Psv 2 , Pp 2 ) − g3 ( x v , Pp 2 , Prl ) ω˙ vn =
1
(
Dv ( Pp1 − Pp 2 ) − τ coul (ω vn ) − bvnω vn
(9) Jv (13)
+ Dvω vn + Rv ( Pp1 − Pp 2 ) ) − ks (θ vn − θ l ) − bs (ω vn − ω l ))
measurement, see Figure 2(b). For the manifold, the For this system, the damping ratio, natural frequency and
pressure transducers and the interface to the robot (middle the DC gain, K dc, will depend on the input current.
right) are evident. By strategically blocking certain ports, a However, for simplicity, it is assumed that the damping
flow rate, such as actuator leakage, may be measured by ratio and the natural frequency are constant. A reasonable
volume measurements over time. The usefulness of the relationship between the DC gain and the valve tip position
equipment is three-fold: (1) identification, (2) validation of was obtained for best correspondence with experimental
the model, and (3) possible use of pressure signals in a data. It is in K dc that any nonlinearities in the servovalve
feedback loop. In addition, the manifold may be installed at parameters or in the discharge coefficients are lumped. The
other joints with similar servovalve/robot interface. gain was determined from experimentally determined Bode
plots. It was found that the DC gain between the load
pressure and input current decreases with increasing
amplitude of current.
3.2.2: Shaft Stiffness. The joint shaft stiffness was
obtained by immobilizing the elbow joint and measuring
torque and angular motor position. Plotting torque versus
angular position an approximate straight line results whose
slope is the angular joint stiffness, given in Figure 3. After
a series of tests, an average joint stiffness was found to be
8.9×104 lb⋅in/rad (10.05×103 N⋅m/rad). Theoretically,
(a) (b)
assuming a solid shaft, the shaft stiffness is approximately
Figure 2.Apparatus: (a) Joint Brace;
given by
(b) Manifold.
GJ lb ⋅ in N ⋅ m
3.2: Experiments ks = = 11.06 × 10 4 12.50 × 10 3 (18)
ls rad rad
Several experiments were performed to identify the key
parameters of each subsystem. For brevity, only the where, G is the shear modulus of the shaft material, J is the
experiments for identification of the servovalve dynamic shaft moment of inertia and ls is the shaft length.
parameters, the volumetric displacement of the actuator and 200
TORQUE vs ANGULAR POSITION
50
3.2.1: Servovalve Parameters. The key parameters of
lb−in
the servovalve are the geometry of the valve tip and the 0
hand, were obtained by isolating the servovalve from the Figure 3. Determination of Shaft
actuator by immobilizing the load with the brace. Since the Stiffness.
valve tip position is not measurable, it is expressed in 3.2.3: Volumetric Displacement. Another key
terms of the load pressure, that is, parameter is the actuator volumetric displacement, D v, since
x v = f ( Pload ) = K v Pload (15) it relates the load flow to the angular velocity and the load
Here, K v , is the inverse of the slope of the load pressure to the joint torque. These relations are given by
pressure/valve tip position static characteristic. The slope is τ
Qload = Dvω vn , and Pload = (19)
taken as constant. Neglecting flow forces, the valve tip Dv
dynamic equation (4) can be rewritten as a relation between
With the manifold installed and the elbow free to rotate, a
the input current after hysteresis and the load pressure
sinusoidal current was sent in open-loop resulting in an
oscillation of the arm. With torque and pressure conditions were set to match those of the experiments.
measurements, the torque vs load pressure was plotted as Before the execution of the experiments, a decaying
shown in Figure 4. Here, the slope of the inclined line sinusoidal current allowed the response to begin with a load
segments is close to the ideal volumetric displacement of pressure of close to zero, resulting in a valve tip position
the rotary actuator, assuming external leakage of the practically at the null.
actuator is small. The slope is found as Dv = 0.288 in3/rad For sinusoidal currents of amplitudes 0.2A and 0.3A and
(4.72 cm3/rad). The horizontal portions of the curve in frequency of 1.0 rad/s, the supply pressure and the two
Figure 4 are due to the friction within the rotary actuator. chamber pressures are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6,
The difference between the measured torque and the applied respectively. The model is able to predict quite well the
torque from pressure measurements was used to identify the pressure response, which is sufficient for control purposes.
Coulomb friction. Since the pressure measurements do not 3000
Pressure (psi)
found, with the elbow immobilized and pressures measured. 1500
2500
−50
−100
2000
−150
Pressure (psi)
−200 1500
−250
−800 −600 −400 −200 0 200 400 600 800
psi 1000
Volumetric Displacement. 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time (s)
As for the load parameters, they were obtained by a least Figure 6.Supply and Chamber Pressures,
squares estimation. In the case of the mass of the load, it Current Amplitude of 0.3 A.
was verified under static conditions also. Parameters that
were not estimated with good certainty include clearance 4.2: Overall Joint Dynamics
between valve tip and receiver. In these cases, these In this section, the overall joint model is verified.
parameters were tuned until a satisfactory correlation Experiments and simulations were done for the case with
between simulation and experiments was obtained. the joint free to rotate. For an input current given as
i = 0.1 sin(0.25t ) (20)
4: Validation
To test how well the model can predict system behavior, the pressures are plotted with respect to time in Figure 7.
experiments and simulations were compared. The s-function Of importance in force control is the load pressure, which is
approach in Matlab with Gear integration method was used. plotted in Figure 8. Results show that the model predicts
Experiments were performed in open loop mode at an 3000
In simulation, the vane and load positions and their Figure 7.Supply and Chamber Pressures:
derivatives were constrained to be zero. Simulation initial No brace.
well the pressure response. The response of the load force controller in order to reduce control effort and to
position, illustrated in Figure 9, compares well to the improve control performance.
experimental load position. As the arm approaches the
highest parts of its trajectory, the stick-slip friction model Acknowledgments
is satisfactory. Overall, the model predicts well the load The support of this work by the Fonds pour la Formation
angular position. de Chercheurs et l’Aide à la Recherche (FCAR), and by the
1000
Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada
800
(NSERC) is gratefully acknowledged.
600
400
References
[1] Bilodeau, G., and Papadopoulos, E., “Development of a
Load Pressure (psi)
200
Hydraulic Manipulator Servoactuator Model: Simula-
0
tion and Experimental Validation,” IEEE Int. Conf. o n
−200
Robot. and Autom., pp. 1547-1552, 1997.
−400
[2] Blackburn, J.F., Reethof, G., and Shearer, J.L., ed.
−600
Fluid Power Control, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1960.
−800 [3] Bluethmann, B., et. al., “Experiments in Dexterous
−1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Hybrid Force and Position Control of a Master/Slave
time (s)
Electrohydraulic Manipulator,” IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. o n
Figure 8.Load Pressure: Experiment and Intell. Robots and Syst., Vol. 3, pp. 27-32, 1995.
Simulation. [4] Boulet, B., et. al., “Characterization, Modeling and
0.6 Identification of a High Performance Hydraulic Actuator
for Robotics,” Centre for Intelligent Machines report
0.4
TR-CIM-93-9, McGill University, March 1993.
0.2 [5] Carpenter, K.H., “A Differential Equation Approach t o
Minor Loops in the Jiles-Atherton Hysteresis Model,”
Load position (rad)
0
IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 4404-
−0.2 4406, 1991.
[6] Dunnigan, M.W., et. al., “Hybrid Position/Force
−0.4
Control of a Hydraulic Underwater Manipulator,” IEE
−0.6 Proc.: Control Theory and Appl., Vol. 143, No. 2, pp.
145-151, March 1996.
−0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (s)
30 35 40 45 50 [7] Habibi, S.R., Richards, R.J., and Goldenberg, A.A.,
Figure 9.Load Position: Experiment and “Hydraulic actuator analysis for industrial robot
multivariable control,” Proc. of the Am. Control Conf.,
Simulation. (Baltimore, Maryland), pp. 1003-1007, 1994.
Some differences between simulation and experiments do [8] Heinrichs, B., Sepehri, N., and Thornton-Trump, A.B.,
exist due to unmodelled effects and due to the lumped “Position-Based Impedance Control of an Industrial
parameter approach in modelling. Some of the these factors Hydraulic Manipulator,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Robot. and
Autom., pp. 284-290, 1996.
include temperature variation of oil properties, and losses in [9] Heintze, J., et. al., “Modeling and control of an
the numerous elbows and fittings in the oil passages. industrial hydraulic rotary vane actuator,” Proc. of the
However, as the above results indicate, they do not seem to 32nd Conf. on Decis. and Control, (San Antonio,
be significant for the purpose of control and therefore no Texas), pp. 1913-1918, December 1993.
further modelling of these effects is required. [10] Kwon, D.S., et. al., “Tracking Control of the
Hydraulically Actuated Flexible Manipulator,” IEEE Int.
5: Conclusions Conf. on Robot. and Autom., pp. 2200-2205, 1995.
An accurate model of a hydraulic joint of a manipulator [11] Laval, L., M’Sirdi, N.K., and Cadiou, J-C., “H∞-Force
has been presented. The model follows closely experimental Control of a Hydraulic Servo-Actuator with
results. The model accounts for the major effects of an Environmental Uncertainties,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Robot.
electrohydraulic actuator such as hysteresis, flow through and Autom., pp. 1566-1571, 1996.
orifices, and line losses. In addition, even though access to [12] McLain, T.W., et. al., “Development, Simulation, and
the servovalve is limited, the model is able to characterize Validation of a Highly Nonlinear Hydraulic
the servovalve dynamics well. The developed model Servosystem Model,” Proc. of the Am. Control Conf.,
(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), pp. 385-391, June 1989.
represents well the behavior of the real system and can be [13] Merrit, H.E., Hydraulic Control Systems, New York:
extended to other joints of the SARCOS slave manipulator John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1967.
as well as the master in such a way as to obtain a complete [14] Unruh, S., et. al., “A hybrid position/force and
model of the hydraulics of the SARCOS manipulator. For positional accuracy controller for a hydraulic
control purposes, a reduced-order model which will capture manipulator,” SPIE Telemanipulator and Telepresence
the major dynamics of the system will be called upon. It is Technol., vol.2351, pp. 207-213, 1994.
expected that this model will be useful in designing a robust