Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mic 2010 4 2
Mic 2010 4 2
net/publication/47657460
CITATIONS READS
17 2,598
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Hansen on 20 January 2016.
1
Aalborg University, Dept. of Mech. Engineering, DK-9220, Aalborg Ø, Denmark. E-mail: mmp@me.aau.dk
2
University of Agder, Dept. of Engineering, NO-4876, Grimstad, Norway. E-mail: michael.r.hansen@uia.no
3
Højbjerg Maskinfabrik A/S, Oddervej 200, DK-8720 Højbjerg, Denmark. E-mail: mba@hmf.dk
Abstract
This paper describes the implementation of an interactive real-time dynamic simulation model of a hy-
draulic crane. The user input to the model is given continuously via joystick and output is presented
continuously in a 3D animation. Using this simulation model, a tool point control scheme is developed for
the specific crane, considering the saturation phenomena of the system and practical implementation.
Keywords: Interactive real-time dynamic simulation, hydraulic crane, tool point control.
doi:10.4173/mic.2010.4.2
c 2010 Norwegian Society of Automatic Control
Modeling, Identification and Control
134
Pedersen et al., “Developing a Tool Point Control Scheme for a Hydraulic Crane...”
main boom
3.2 Reduction to a minimum set
Y
(1) column The vector of joint velocities is defined as
θ1 X T
θ̇ = θ̇1 θ̇2 θ̇3 θ̇4 θ̇5 θ̇6 . (5)
(0) base Z
Transformation between the Cartesian and joint space
Figure 3: Mechanical model. is handled by the transformation matrix B as follows
X DB = 0. (8)
Z
Thus, by inserting eq. (7) into eq. (1) and pre-
Figure 4: Joint and body definitions.
multiplying with BT we get
Here, D and λ are the Jacobian of the constraints and The distance vectors dij = ri − rj are illustrated in
a vector of Lagrange multipliers. Figure 5, where it should be noted that dii = 0. Com-
This equation system can be solved for the acceler- bining the block matrices of two revolute joints yields
ations and Lagrange multipliers by inverting a system a Universal joint (U).
135
Modeling, Identification and Control
136
Pedersen et al., “Developing a Tool Point Control Scheme for a Hydraulic Crane...”
-1 2 β
x10
4
ṗr,i = (Qr,i + ċi · Ar,i ). (20)
Vr0,i + (cmax,i − ci )Ar,i
Jyy,Jzz [kg·m2]
-2 1.5
These are then integrated to get the pressures on both
ρ [m]
Z Z
-4 CAD 0.5
fit pp,i = ṗp,i dt and pr,i = ṗr,i dt (21)
-5 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
θ6 [m] θ6 [m] The flow into the circuit Qin is determined from the
valve rated flow and the control signal ui and saturates
Figure 7: Fitted location of COM and moments of in- at maximum valve flow Qv,max
ertia for the extension system.
ui · Qv,max,i f or Qin,i < Qv,max,i
Qin,i = (22)
Qv,max,i f or Qin,i ≥ Qv,max,i
All cylinders on the crane are mounted with over-
center valves (OCVs) due to practical and legislative The flow out of the circuit is governed by the OCV.
reasons. OVCs serve a number of purposes, includ-
ing leak tight load holding, shock absorbtion, cavita- Qout,i = −QOCV,i (23)
tion protection during lowering and load holding at
Finally, the cylinder force can be determined from the
pipe/hose bursts. Their influence on the system is sig-
pressure and area differences and friction.
nificant, and their effect is included in a simple and
efficient manner. F =p ·A −p ·A −F (24) c,i p,i p,i r,i r,i µ,i
cmax
Vp0 c Vr0 Nielsen (2005) obtained good results using the follow-
Fc ing simple cylinder friction model, which has also been
Fc pp pr implemented here. The tanh is continous and crosses
Qp Ap Ar through the origin, thus ignoring stick-slip effects.
Qr
pp ċi
pcr Fµ,i = tanh( ) · |pp,i · Ap,i − pr,i · Ar,i | · (1 − η) (25)
Μ pr ċη
137
Modeling, Identification and Control
Kocv
Kocv,max
T2
T2
c2 m
pp+ψpr n
șm h
șl
pcr pcr+p l
șc
Figure 9: Assumed OCV discharge characteristic. c2
a [m]
m · sin θm sin θc
a2 (θ2 ) = (32) Figure 11: Effective torque arms of cylinder 2 and 3.
sin θl
138
Pedersen et al., “Developing a Tool Point Control Scheme for a Hydraulic Crane...”
execute very fast, since their content is automatically Input Control Virtual crane 3D animation
pre-compiled in the background prior to execution of rTP rTP
the Simulink model. u u θ θ
Using the fixed step Runge-Kutta integrator y
(ODE4), real time performance is achieved with a time
Feedback
step of 2.5ms on a standard 2GHz laptop computer.
The Simulink 3D animation toolbox includes a Figure 13: Overview of the simulation.
source block for joystick input. This is used as in-
teractive reference input to the model, and resembles
the input device typically used for controlling the real crane, as shown in Figure 13.
crane.
139
Modeling, Identification and Control
The elements of W is given as the partial derivative of typically used in some sort of optimization, e.g. in the
a performance criterion, e.g. gradient projection method, but here it is controlled
directly by the operator.
4
1 (θmax,i − θmin,i )2
θ̇ s = (I − J+ J)z.
X
H(θ) = . (39) (43)
i=1
4 (θmax,i − θ i )(θ i − θ min,i )
The first term is the null space projection matrix of
The value of H increases exponentially when a joint the Jacobian and z is an arbitrary vector in the null
approaches its limit. The partial derivative of H is space. Then θ̇ s can be added to eq. (36) without
then used as weights in W. interfering with the tool point motion. Since there is
only on degree of redundancy, choosing
∂H (θmax,i − θmin,i )2 (2θi − θmax,i − θmin,i )
= . (40) z = 0 ϕ̇s 0 0 , (44)
∂θi 4(θmax,i − θi )2 (θi − θmin,i )2
and taking ϕ̇s as input from joystick, the operator can
1 + | ∂H ∂H
∂θi | f or ∆| ∂θi | ≥ 0 control the configuration online. This is possible, even
wi = (41)
1 f or ∆| ∂Hi∂θ | < 0. while simultaneously controlling the tool point motion.
The ith weight will go towards infinity, when the ith
joint approaches its limit, thus effectively stopping the 6.4 Deflection compensation
joint motion. On the other hand when moving away The total deflection of the tool point is due to; 1) struc-
from a limit, the joint is not penalized. Here, ∆| ∂H∂θi |
tural flexibility, 2) deformation of sliding pads between
is the rate of change of the partial derivative. It can segments in the extension system, 3) mechanical slack
be shown, that the weights are continuous, also when between segments and 4) compression of hydraulic fluid
∆| ∂H
∂θi | changes sign, Chan and Dubey (1993). in cylinders.
In a practical implementation, the joint angles of the
6.3 Configuration control main and jib joints would be measured using inclinome-
ters, i.e. relative to horizontal. This means that these
Experience shows that it is feasible to maximize the joint angles would be measured in the deflected state.
effective joint torque arm of the main joint, i.e. a2 in
Figure 11. This can be achieved by modifying the asso- Stiff
Actual
ciated weight w2 by adding the following penalization,
i.e. when moving away from the maximum.
(
Ka | da da2
dθ2 | f or θ̇2 · | dθ2 | < 0
2
w2 = (42) 6
0 f or θ̇2 · | da
dθ2 | ≥ 0.
2
r refTP
d
w
In some cases it might also be necessary for the opera- real
rTP
tor to control the configuration of the crane, as shown L
in Figure 14. This will override the above maximiza- P
tion of the main joint torque arm and can be used to
avoid obstacles or fine-tuning the lifting capacity. Figure 15: Tool point velocity deviation due to
deflection.
140
Pedersen et al., “Developing a Tool Point Control Scheme for a Hydraulic Crane...”
Determining ẇ is difficult in practise, since the deflec- ureq f or kv > 1
ureq,v = (53)
tion contribution caused by 2), 3) and 4) is difficult to kv ureq f or kv < 1
isolate and quantify. Hence, a simplified approach is The total requested flow is determined by summation
used here; P
P|Qreq,i | f or kv > 1
0 Qtot = (54)
|k v · Q req,i | f or kv < 1
ẇ = −Kc sin(ϕd )θ̇6 . (47)
0 Flow sharing is applied again if the total requested flow
Qtot exceeds the maximum pump flow Qpump :
Only the vertical deflection is considered and the total
deflection velocity is assumed to be proportional to the Qpump
kp = (55)
telescope extension velocity θ̇6 . The deflection angle of Qtot
an inclined cantilever beam with a load P at the free
kp ureq,v f or Qtot ≥ Qpump
end can estimated as follows u= (56)
ureq,v f or Qtot < Qpump
cos(ϕ6 )P L2 It is then ensured, that neither the valve flow limit nor
ϕd = (48)
2EI the pump flow limit are exceeded.
where ϕ6 = θ2 + θ3 is the inclination angle of the ex-
tension system relative to horizontal. Thus, only the 7 Results
scaling factor Kc in eq. (47) needs to be determined
from experiments. Figure 16 shows the overall control scheme developed.
Practically, this deflection compensator adds a small All motion is directly proportional to the input given
upwards velocity to the tool point reference velocity, by the operator, i.e. no closed loop control has been
when extending, which cancels out due to the deflec- applied, in order to leave the operator in complete con-
tion. trol.
Deflection
compensation
w
6.5 Flow setpoint calculation rTP c u
+- comp JW+ ++ A Flow-
sharing
The requested cylinder velocities are calculated using r&TP θ&
eq. (29) and the flow request Qreq is determined by Maximize joint Joint limit θ&s
2 torque arm avoidance
the piston or rod side area, depending on the direction ϕs Configuration
of the requested cylinder velocity control
Ap,i · ċi f or ċi ≥ 0 Figure 16: Overview of the control scheme.
Qreq,i = (49)
Ar,i · ċi f or ċi < 0
The following working cycle is established, in order
Two saturation phenomena need to be included; firstly to illustrate the advantages of real-time versus non-
the valve flow limit and secondly the pump flow limit. real-time simulation, see Figure 17.
The set flow is different from the requested flow if any Traditionally, in a non-real-time simulation, the op-
of the two limits are exceeded in order to maintain the erator will be modelled, e.g. as a set of predefined tra-
tool point velocity and only violate the speed. jectories which should follow a reference. This is exem-
The requested set point signal ureq,i is determined plified as the “predefined operator”. Using the simple
from the requested flow normalized by the maximum feedforward joint controller, the tool point speed will
valve flow generally be slightly lower than the reference, which
Qreq,i
ureq,i = (50)accumulates to a position error. This is due to pres-
Qv,max,i
sure build-up time in the hydraulics and acceleration
of the mechanics.
6.6 Flow sharing In real-time simulation, an actual operator controls
The requested flow is limited to the valve flow limit, the crane tool point (hook) such that it follows the
typically 40-100 l/min. If one valve limit is exceeded, same trajectory. This is shown as the “active opera-
all requested flows are scaled down by kv . tor”. In this case, the operator uses visual feedback to
close the loop and adjust the input through the joy-
(51) stick, until he/she finds that the reference position is
ureq = u1 u2 u3 u4
sufficiently achieved. Since the direction of the tool
1 point is always maintained, and only the speed is vio-
kv = (52) lated, it is not noticed by the operator.
max(|ureq |)
141
Modeling, Identification and Control
1993. 3:395–402.
3.5
142
Pedersen et al., “Developing a Tool Point Control Scheme for a Hydraulic Crane...”
Nikravesh, P. E. Systematic reduction of multi- Pedersen, H. C. and Nielsen, B. Resolved Motion Con-
body equations of motion to a minimal set. Int trol of Flexible Hydraulic Manipulators. Master The-
J Nonlinear Mechanics, 1990. 25(2/3):143–151. sis, Aalborg University, Denmark, 2002.
doi:10.1016/0020-7462(90)90046-C.
Yuan, Q., Lew, J., and Piyabongkarn, D. Motion con-
Nikravesh, P. E. Computational Methods in Multi-body trol of an aerial work platform. In Proc. American
Systems. Notes, COMETT, DTH, Lyngby, Den- Control Conference. St. Louis, MO, USA, 2009.
mark, 1991.
143