0
Research Papers

The Udwadia–Kalaba Trajectory Control Applied to a Cantilever Beam—Experimental Results

[+] Author and Article Information
Raphael Pereira Spada

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
São Carlos School of Engineering,
University of São Paulo,
Trabalhador São-Carlense 400,
São Carlos 13566-590, Brazil
e-mail: spadaeu@yahoo.com.br

Rodrigo Nicoletti

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
São Carlos School of Engineering,
University of São Paulo,
Trabalhador São-Carlense 400,
São Carlos 13566-590, Brazil
e-mail: rnicolet@sc.usp.br

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received December 2, 2015; final manuscript received March 3, 2017; published online June 5, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Tarunraj Singh.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 139(9), 091002 (Jun 05, 2017) (6 pages) Paper No: DS-15-1606; doi: 10.1115/1.4036236 History: Received December 02, 2015; Revised March 03, 2017

The Udwadia–Kalaba methodology is a possible way of explicitly obtaining the equations of motion of constrained systems. From these equations of motion, one can estimate the necessary forces in the constraint to keep the system in a given motion. Hence, the Udwadia–Kalaba methodology can also apply to active tracking control of subsystems or the control of points of a structure. In this work, one investigates experimentally the benefits and drawbacks of such control strategy by applying it to the control of out-of-plane vibrations of a cantilever beam. The beam is excited by a shaker mounted near the clamped end of the beam. A second shaker applies the control forces in the free end of the beam, where an accelerometer is used for feedback. The vibration behavior of the beam under excitation/control is measured by a laser vibrometer. Results show that the methodology changes the dynamic behavior of the structure by changing its boundary conditions at the point of control, thus shifting natural frequencies and mode shapes. Results also show that the successful implementation of the method experimentally is sensitive to the quality of modeling of the structure.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Zhao, H. , Zhen, S. , and Chen, Y. H. , 2013, “ Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Multi-Body Systems Using the Udwadia–Kalaba Theory,” Chin. J. Mech. Eng., 26(5), pp. 839–850. [CrossRef]
Udwadia, F. E. , and Kalaba, R. E. , 1992, “ A New Perspective on Constrained Motion,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 439(1906), pp. 407–410. [CrossRef]
Sun, H. , Zhao, H. , Zhen, S. , Huang, K. , Zhao, F. , Chen, X. , and Chen, Y. H. , 2016, “ Application of the Udwadia–Kalaba Approach to Tracking Control of Mobile Robots,” Nonlinear Dyn., 83(1), pp. 389–400. [CrossRef]
Huang, J. , Chen, Y. H. , and Zhong, Z. H. , 2013, “ Udwadia–Kalaba Approach for Parallel Manipulator Dynamics,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, 135(6), p. 061003. [CrossRef]
Pennestri, E. , Valentini, P. P. , and Falco, D. , 2010, “ An Application of the Udwadia–Kalaba Dynamic Formulation to Flexible Multibody Systems,” J. Franklin Inst., 347(1), pp. 173–194. [CrossRef]
Zhang, B. Z. , Zhen, S. C. , Zhao, H. , and Chen, Y. H. , 2015, “ Why Can a Free-Falling Cat Always Manage to Land Safely on Its Feet?,” Nonlinear Dyn., 79(4), pp. 2237–2250. [CrossRef]
Udwadia, F. E. , and Koganti, P. B. , 2015, “ Dynamics and Control of a Multi-Body Planar Pendulum,” Nonlinear Dyn., 81(1–2), pp. 845–866. [CrossRef]
Udwadia, F. E. , and Wanichanon, T. , 2013, “ Control of Uncertain Nonlinear Multibody Mechanical Systems,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 81(4), p. 041020. [CrossRef]
Lam, T. , Schutte, A. , and Udwadia, F. E. , 2006, “ Constraint Based Control Method for Precision Formation Flight of Spacecraft,” AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Tampa, FL, Jan. 22–26, pp. 343–359.
Cho, H. , and Udwadia, F. E. , 2013, “ Explicit Control Force and Torque Determination for Satellite Formation-Keeping With Attitude Requirements,” J. Guid., Control, Dyn., 36(2), pp. 589–605. [CrossRef]
Mylapili, H. , and Udwadia, F. E. , 2012, “ A Constrained Motion Approach to the Synchronization of Multiple Coupled Slave Gyroscopes,” 13th ASCE Aerospace Division Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments, and the 5th NASA/ASCE Workshop On Granular Materials in Space Exploration, Pasadena, CA, Apr. 15–18, pp. 1349–1360.
Spada, R. P. , and Nicoletti, R. , 2015, “ Application of the Udwadia–Kalaba Methodology to the Active Control of Shaft Vibration,” J. Vib. Control (epub).
Peters, J. , Mistry, M. , Udwadia, F. E. , Nakanishi, J. , and Schaal, S. , 2008, “ A Unifying Framework for Robot Control With Redundant DOFs,” Auton. Rob., 24(1), pp. 1–12. [CrossRef]
Braun, D. J. , and Goldfarb, M. , 2009, “ A Control Approach for Actuated Dynamic Walking in Biped Robots,” IEEE Trans. Rob., 25(6), pp. 1292–1303. [CrossRef]
Udwadia, F. E. , 2008, “ Optimal Tracking Control of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 464(2097), pp. 2341–2363. [CrossRef]
Thomson, W. T. , and Dahleh, M. D. , 1998, Theory of Vibration With Applications, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Maia, N. M. M. , and Silva, J. M. M. , 1997, Theoretical and Experimental Modal Analysis, Research Studies, Taunton, UK.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Beam under study: measuring points, excitation point, and control point

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Experimental setup: (1) cantilever beam, (2) excitation shaker (with load cell), (3) control shaker, (4) laser vibrometer, and (5) accelerometer (control loop feedback)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Vibration modes of the system in the frequency range of 2–350 Hz (comparison between the updated model and the experiment): (a) first mode, (b) second mode, (c) third mode, (d) fourth mode, and (e) fifth mode

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Frequency response function of the shaker + amplifier system used as control actuator (experiment)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Block diagram of the controller implemented experimentally (matlab simulink and NI PCI 6229 acquisition board)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

First vibration mode of the beam: comparison between the controlled system (experiment) and the clamped-simply supported beam (model): (a) C1 = C2 = 2500 and (b) C1 = C2 = 5000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Second vibration mode of the beam: comparison between the controlled system (experiment) and the clamped-simply supported beam (model): (a) C1 = C2 = 2500 and (b) C1 = C2 = 5000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Third vibration mode of the beam: comparison between the controlled system (experiment) and the clamped-simply supported beam (model): (a) C1 = C2 = 2500 and (b) C1 = C2 = 5000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fourth vibration mode of the beam: comparison between the controlled system (experiment) and the clamped-simply supported beam (model): (a) C1 = C2 = 2500 and (b) C1 = C2 = 5000

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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