Integration Project Systems and Control 2013 Group 1: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
|'''Apr 1 - Apr 7'''|| | |'''Apr 1 - Apr 7'''|| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| - | | - optimazation of the trajectory | ||
|- | |- | ||
| - work on the presentation | | - work on the presentation | ||
Latest revision as of 22:10, 4 April 2013
Group Members
| Name: | Student id: | Email: |
| Abhishek Bareja | 0825433 | a.bareja@student.tue.nl |
| Ioannis Kokkinakis | 0832282 | i.kokkinakis@student.tue.nl |
| Evangelos Stamatopoulous | 0827743 | e.stamatopoulos@student.tue.nl |
| Donatella De Cesare | 0821444 | d.de.cesare@student.tue.nl |
Planning
| Week: | |
|---|---|
| Feb 18 - Feb 24 | |
| Literature Study regarding the following aspects: | |
| - matlab files provided | |
| - inputs/output variables regarding the given model | |
| - different types of controller | |
| - design Criteria | |
| Lab activity: | |
| - meeting the robot | |
| - how the robot moves | |
| Feb 25 - Mar 3 | |
| Literature study regarding the following aspects: | |
| - non-linearities | |
| - friction model | |
| - coupled phenomena | |
| - design a PID feedback controller(preparation for the lab) | |
| - system identification procedures | |
| - FRF measurement(preparation for the lab) | |
| Lab activity: | |
| - design the stabilizing(PID) controller | |
| - get the FRF measurements | |
| Mar 4 - Mar 10 | |
| Literature study regarding the following aspects: | |
| - feedforward Controller | |
| - design criteria (bandwidth, margins, sensitivity, steady state error, time response) | |
| - work with shapeit to design optimal controllers for each axis (prepare the controllers to test them during the lab) | |
| - reference trajectory(preparation for the lab) | |
| Lab activity: | |
| - get the FRF measurements for the left robot | |
| - test the controllers that we construct on shapeit | |
| - get the reference trajectory | |
| Mar 11 - Mar 17 | |
| - feedforward Controller | |
| - design criteria (bandwidth, margins, sensitivity, steady state error, time response) | |
| - work with shapeit to design optimal controllers for each axis (prepare the controllers to test them during the lab, for the left robot this time) | |
| - reference trajectory | |
| - test the controllers for the left robot | |
| Mar 18 - Mar 24 | |
| - tune the feedforwrd and feedback controllers for the left robot | |
| - improve the trajectory regarding the design criteria for the left robot | |
| Mar 25 - Mar 31 | |
| - FRF measurements for the right robot | |
| - work on shapeit to improve the feedback controllers for the right robot | |
| - tune feedforward/feedback controllers for the left robot | |
| - improve the trajectory | |
| - work on the presentation | |
| Apr 1 - Apr 7 | |
| - optimazation of the trajectory | |
| - work on the presentation |
Progress
Feb 18 - Feb 24
Regarding our planning for the first week we came up with the following conclusions:
| -making a literature research, we realized that PID controller is used in most industrial robots, and since it is the type of controller with which we are more familiar with, we will use PID. |
| -we can control the move of each axis (and so each motor) separately cause they are independent. So it is needed to construct 4 PID controller, since we can handle the problem as a 4 SISO systems problem. |
| -the design of PID controller is based on the fact that is should follow the setpoint trajectory. |
| -we will use as inputs for each motor sine wave, and to represent the disturbance we will use white noise. |
| -regarding the design criteria we need total time to transfer the pizzas at about 15 secs(less than that if it is possible), as high as possible velocity and acceleration (we have to take care that the pizzas should not fall down from the fork during the movement of the robot) and also the fork should not touch the holding brackets of the pizzas. Also, the controller should work with sampling frequency of 500 Hz, because this is the sampling frequency of the system. |
Feb 25 - Mar 3
Regarding our planning for the second week we came up with the following conclusions:
| -we designed the stabilizing controller for our plant (PID controller) |
| -regarding the system identification procedures, we decided to perform FRF measurements.We took the FRF measurements applying both sine waves and white noise in order to avoid the non-linearities since FRF method refers to linear models-systems. |
| -about the friction model, we will check it on a later stage together with the feedforward control. |
Mar 4 - Mar 10
| -we have to move the pizzas with maximum acceleration and velocity without pizzas fall down |
| -the robot should follow the trajectory in less than 20 sec |
| -testing the controllers we realized that only PID controllers need to be used (no notch filters etc) |
| -Design of feedforward controller |
| -measurements which will help us with the reference rtajectory |
Mar 11 - Mar 17
| -we improved the feedforward controller for vertical and horizontal axis |
| -we tried to tune the error on these axis |
| -we found the reference trajectory |
Mar 18 - Mar 24
| -we improved the feedforward controllers for all axis, achieving a very small error ( about 10^-3 - 10^-4 ) |
| -tune again the feedback controllers |
| -improve more the trajectory |
Mar 25 - Mar 31
| -based on the results of FRF measurements for the right robot we built the feedback controllers |
| -Built feedforward controllers for the right robot - tuning the gains to achieve very small errors |
| -we worked in the left robot to improve it more |
| -we worked on the report |