Acta Mechanica

, Volume 230, Issue 5, pp 1891–1905 | Cite as

SHAVO control: the combination of the adjusted command shaping and feedback control for vibration suppression

  • Petr BenešEmail author
  • Michael Valášek
  • Zbyněk Šika
  • Jan Zavřel
  • Jan Pelikán
Original Paper


The fast and precise positioning of flexible mechanical structures is often corrupted by the unwanted dynamics in the form of a residual vibration. Therefore, we would like to find an appropriate control strategy that is capable to suppress this effect. The control strategies can be basically divided into two main groups: feedback control and feedforward control. The feedback control with the information from integrated sensors is capable to ensure the stability and robustness, but it may require large actuator effort, and it may be difficult to design satisfactory controllers for rapid movements. The feedforward methods including command/input shaping are based on the model of the system and usually require no additional sensors. They can significantly eliminate residual vibration, but feedforward methods cannot deal with disturbances, and the quality of their performance is strongly determined by the precision of the used model on which they are based. This paper proposes the novel solution to these problems, the so-called SHAVO (SHAper \(+\) serVO control) strategy that combines advantages of both approaches. Compared to other methods combining command shaping and feedback controller, the SHAVO approach differs in two key features. Firstly, it uses a different structure, the model of the system is used not only for shaper synthesis but also for predicting system outputs and states. Secondly, the shaper itself is highly optimized with arbitrary adjustable time length, not an impulse series, not limited by the system’s natural frequency.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The work has been supported by the Czech Science Foundation, Project GAP101/11/2110 “Advanced input shaping control for precise positioning of mechanisms” and Project GA16-21961S “Mechatronic structures with heavily distributed actuators and sensors”.


  1. 1.
    Valášek, M.: Position and velocity control of gantry crane. Mechatronics 96(1), 203–208 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, P., Park, H.: Time-varying input shaping technique applied to vibration reduction of an industrial robot. Control Eng. Pract. 13, 121–130 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Park, J., Chang, P.: Vibration control of a telescopic handler using time delay control and commandless input shaping technique. Control Eng. Pract. 12, 769–780 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beneš, P., Marek, O., Valášek, M.: Input shaping control of electronic cams with adjusted input profile. Bull. Appl. Mech. 7(29), 114–118 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith, O.: Posicast control of damped oscillatory systems. Proc. IRE 45, 1249–1255 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sugiyama, S., Uchino, K.: Pulse Driving Method of Piezoelectric Motors. In: Sixth IEEE International Symposium on Applications of Ferroelectrics, pp. 637–640 (1986).
  7. 7.
    Aspinwall, D.: Acceleration profiles for minimizing residual response. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 102, 3–6 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdullahi, A.M., Mohamed, Z., Selamat, H., Pota, H.R., Zainal Abidin, M., Ismail, F.S., Haruna, A.: Adaptive output-based command shaping for sway control of a 3D overhead crane with payload hoisting and wind disturbance. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 98, 157–172 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vyhlídal, T., Kučera, V., Hromčík, M.: Input shapers with uniformly distributed delays. In: Proceedings of 10th IFAC Workshop on Time Delay Systems, vol. 1, pp. 91–96 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singh, T., Vadali, S.: Robust time-delay control. ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 115, 303–306 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maghsoudi, M., Mohamed, Z., Tokhi, M., Husain, A., Abidin, M.: Control of a gantry crane using input-shaping schemes with distributed delay. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 39, 361–370 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhat, S., Miu, D.: Solutions to point-to-point control problems using Laplace transform technique. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 113, 425–431 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beneš, P.: Input shaping control with generalised conditions, Ph.D. Thesis. ČVUT v Praze, Praha (2012) (in Czech) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singer, N., Seering, W.: Preshaping command inputs to reduce system vibration. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 112, 76–82 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singhose, W., Seering, W.: Generating vibration reducing inputs with vector diagrams. In: Proceedings of 8th IFToMM World Congress, pp. 315–318 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singhose, W.: Command Generation for Flexible Systems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mar, R., Goyal, A., Nguyen, V., Yang, T., Singhose, W.: Combined input shaping and feedback control for double-pendulum systems. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 85, 267–277 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiederrich, J., Roth, B.: Design of low vibration cam profiles. In: Conference on Cams and Cam Mechanisms, Liverpool (1974)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lau, M., Pao, L.: Input shaping and time-optimal control of flexible structures. Automatica 39, 893–900 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Staehlin, U., Singh, T.: Design of closed-loop input shaping controllers. In: American Control Conference, pp. 5167–5172 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yan, A.-Z., Wang, G.-Q., Xu, H., Sheng, Y.: Reduction of residual vibration in a rotating flexible beam. Acta Mech. 171, 137–149 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huey, J.: The intelligent combination of input shaping and PID feedback control, Ph.D. Thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schroedter, R., Roth, M., Janschek, K., Sandner, T.: Flatness-based open-loop and closed-loop control for electrostatic quasi-static microscanners using jerk-limited trajectory design. Mechatronics 56, 318–331 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, Z., Wu, Y., Huang, J.: Differential-flatness-based finite-time antiswing control underactuated crane system. Nonlinear Dyn. 87, 1749–1761 (2017)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, W., Won, H., Tomizuka, M.: Flatness-based nonlinear control for position tracking of electrohydraulic systems. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 20(1), 197–206 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Connor, W.J.: Wave-echo position control of flexible systems: towards an explanation and theory. In: American Control Conference: Proceedings of the 2004, pp. 4837–4842. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marek, O.: Servo control using wave-based method. In: Advances in Mechanisms Design: Proceedings of TMM 2012, pp. 531–536. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhou, J., Zhang, K., Hu, G.: Wave-based control of a crane system with complex loads. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 139(8), 081016–081016-11 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beneš, P., Valášek, M.: Optimized re-entry input shapers. J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 54(2), 353–368 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lewis, F.: Applied Optimal Control and Estimation. Prentice-Hall Inc, Upper Saddle River (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miu, D.: Mechatronics, Electromechanics and Contromechanics. Springer, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mohamed, Z., Ahmad, M.: Hybrid input shaping and feedback control schemes of a flexible robot manipulator. IFAC Proc. Vol. 41(2), 11714–11719 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Irschik, H., Krommer, M., Vetyukov, Y.: On the use of piezoelectric sensors in structural mechanics: some novel strategies. Sensors 10(6), 5626–5641 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Halim, D., Moheimani, S.O.R.: Spatial resonant control of flexible structures-application to a piezoelectric laminate beam. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 9(1), 37–53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanics, Biomechanics and Mechatronics, Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations