Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 549–554 | Cite as

On the derivative constraints of input shaping control

Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Conventionally, derivative constraints have been added to the input shaper to increase robustness to modeling error in natural frequency and damping ratio, and the robustness of input shaping has been evaluated from the ratio of residual vibration amplitude with input shaping to that without input shaping. However, the derivative constraints used for the ZVD shaper and the derivative of the ratio of residual vibration amplitude are mathematically confused in the previous literatures, even if the conceptual explanation for both derivatives therein is generally acceptable. In this paper, the relationship of the derivative constraints used for ZVD shaper and the zero derivative of the ratio of residual vibration amplitude are derived and clarified mathematically, and the relationship between them is demonstrated using an example.

Keywords

Input shaping Residual vibration Derivative constraint ZVD input shaper Necessary and sufficient condition 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Q. H. Ngo, K.-S. Hong and I. H. Jung, Adaptive control of an axially moving system, J. of Mechanical Science and Technology, 23(11) (2009) 3071–3078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J.-H. Park and S. Rhim, Experiments of optimal delay extraction algorithm using adaptive time-delay filter for improved vibration suppression, J. of Mechanical Science and Technology, 23(4) (2009) 997–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    O. J. M. Smith, Posicast control of damped oscillatory systems, Proceedings of the IRE, 45 (1957) 1249–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    N. C. Singer and W. P. Seering, Preshaping command inputs to reduce system vibration, J. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, 112 (1990) 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. L. Sorensen, W. E. Singhose and S. Dickerson, A controller enabling precise positioning and sway reduction in bridge and gantry cranes, Control Engineering Practice, 15 (2007) 825–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. A. Ahmad, R. M. T. R. Ismail, M. S. Ramli, R. E. Samin and M. A. Zawawi, Robust input shaping for anti-sway control of rotary crane, Proc. of TENCON 2009 - IEEE Region 10 Conference, pp. 1039–1043, Nov. 23–26, 2009, Singapore.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    W. E. Singhose, N. C. Singer and W. Seering, Time-optimal negative input shapers, J. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 119 (1997) 198–205.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. Gorinevsky and G. Vukovich, Nonlinear input shaping control of flexible spacecraft reorientation maneuver, AIAA J. of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 21(2) (1998) 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    L. Y. Pao and W. E. Singhose, Verifying robust timeoptimal commands for multi-mode flexible spacecraft, AIAA J. of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 20(4) (1997) 831–833.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Park, P. H. Chang, H. S. Park and E. Lee, Design of learning input shaping technique for residual vibration suppression in an industrial robot, IEEE/ASME Trans. on Mechatronics, 11(1) (2006) 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. G. Kang, K. S. Woo, J. W. Kim, D. J. Lee, K. H. Park and H. C. Kim, Suppression of residual vibrations with input shaping for a two-mode mechanical system, Proc. of Int. Conf. on Service and Interactive Robotics, Taipei, Taiwan (2009) 1–6.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Jones and A. Ulsoy, An approach to control input shaping with application to coordinate measuring machines, J. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 121 (1999) 242–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Kapucu, G.. Alici and S. Baysec, Residual swing/vibration reduction using a hybrid input shaping method, Mech. Mach. Theory, 36 (2001) 311–326.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. S. Gurleyuk and S. Cinal, Robust three-impulse sequence input shaper design, Journal of Vibration and Control, 13(12) (2007) 1807–1818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    S. S. Gurleyuk, R. Hacioglu and S. Cinal, Three-step input shaper for damping tubular step motor vibrations, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 221(1) (2007) 1–9.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. S. Gurleyuk, O. Bahadir, Y. Turkkan and H. Usenti, Improved three-step input shaping control of a crane system, WSEAS Transactions on Systems, 7(6) (2008) 652–661.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    W. E. Singhose, E. A. Crain and W. P. Seering, Convolved and simultaneous two-mode input shapers, IEE Control Theory and Applications, 144(6) (1997) 515–520.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    L. Y. Pao, and M. A. Lau, Robust input shaper control design for parameter variations in flexible structures, J. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 122 (2000) 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    W. E. Singhose and N. C. Singer, Effects of input shaping on two-dimensional trajectory following, IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation, 12(6) (1996) 881–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    J. Fortgang and W. E. Singhose, Concurrent design of vibration absorbers and input shapers, J. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 127 (2005) 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. S. Gurleyuk, Optimal unity-magnitude input shaper duration analysis, Archive of Applied Mechanics, 77(1) (2007) 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    H. Kojima and W. E. Singhose, Adaptive deflection limiting control for slewing flexible space structure, J. of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 30 (2007) 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    N. C. Singer, Residual vibration reduction in computer controlled machines, Ph.D. Thesis(1989), Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    W. E. Singhose, Command generation for flexible systems, Ph.D. Thesis(1997), Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    W. E. Singhose, W. Seering and N. C. Singer, Residual vibration reduction using vector diagrams to generate shaped inputs, J. of Mechanical Design, 116 (1994) 654–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    W. E. Singhose, S. Derezinski and N. C. Singer, Extrainsensitive input shapers for controlling flexible spacecraft, J. of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 19(2) (1996) 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    K. Sorensen, K. Hekman and W. E. Singhose, Finite-state input shaping, IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, 18(3) (2010) 664–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    W. E. Singhose, E. Biediger and Y.-H. Chen, Reference command shaping using specified-negative-amplitude input shapers for vibration reduction, J. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 126 (2004) 210–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    T. Singh and W. E. Singhose, Tutorial on input shaping/time delay control of maneuvering flexible structures, American Control Conference Tutorial, Anchorage, 2002.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    K. Kozak, W. Singhose and I. Ebert-Uphoff, Performance Measures for Input Shaping and Command Generation, J. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, 128 (2006) 731–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    J. Vaughan, A. Yano and W. E. Singhose, Comparison of robust input shapers, J. of Sound and Vibration, 315 (2008) 797–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    J. Vaughan, A. Yano, and W. E. Singhose, Robust negative input shapers for vibration suppression, J. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, 131 (2009) 031014- 031014-9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringKonkuk UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations