+++ title = "Sensors and control of a space-based six-axis vibration isolation system" author = ["Thomas Dehaeze"] draft = false +++ Tags : [Stewart Platforms]({{< relref "stewart_platforms" >}}), [Vibration Isolation]({{< relref "vibration_isolation" >}}), [Cubic Architecture]({{< relref "cubic_architecture" >}}) Reference : (Hauge \& Campbell, 2004) Author(s) : Hauge, G., & Campbell, M. Year : 2004 **Discusses**: - Choice of sensors and control architecture - Predictability and limitations of the system dynamics - Two-Sensor control architecture - Vibration isolation using a Stewart platform - Experimental comparison of Force sensor and Inertial Sensor and associated control architecture for vibration isolation {{< figure src="/ox-hugo/hauge04_stewart_platform.png" caption="Figure 1: Hexapod for active vibration isolation" >}} **Stewart platform** (Figure [1](#org342e642)): - Low corner frequency - Large actuator stroke (\\(\pm5mm\\)) - Sensors in each strut (Figure [2](#orge1d3dcd)): - three-axis load cell - base and payload geophone in parallel with the struts - LVDT {{< figure src="/ox-hugo/hauge05_struts.png" caption="Figure 2: Strut" >}} > Force sensors typically work well because they are not as sensitive to payload and base dynamics, but are limited in performance by a low-frequency zero pair resulting from the cross-axial stiffness. **Performance Objective** (frequency domain metric): - The transmissibility should be close to 1 between 0-1.5Hz \\(-3dB < |T(\omega)| < 3db\\) - The transmissibility should be below -20dB in the 5-20Hz range \\(|T(\omega)| < -20db\\) With \\(|T(\omega)|\\) is the Frobenius norm of the transmissibility matrix and is used to obtain a scalar performance metric. **Challenge**: - small frequency separation between the two requirements **Robustness**: - minimization of the transmissibility amplification (Bode's "pop") outside the performance region **Model**: - single strut axis as the cubic Stewart platform can be decomposed into 6 single-axis systems {{< figure src="/ox-hugo/hauge04_strut_model.png" caption="Figure 3: Strut model" >}} **Zero Pair when using a Force Sensor**: - The frequency of the zero pair corresponds to the resonance frequency of the payload mass and the "parasitic" stiffness (sum of the cross-axial, suspension, wiring stiffnesses) - This zero pair is usually not predictable nor repeatable - In this Stewart platform, this zero pair uncertainty is due to the internal wiring of the struts **Control**: - Single-axis controllers => combine them into a full six-axis controller => evaluate the full controller in terms of stability and robustness - Sensitivity weighted LQG controller (SWLQG) => address robustness in flexible dynamic systems - Three type of controller: - Force feedback (cell-based) - Inertial feedback (geophone-based) - Combined force/velocity feedback (load cell/geophone based) > The use of multivariable and robust control on the full 6x6 hexapod does not improve performance over single-axis designs.
| | **Load cell** | **Geophone** | |-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Type | Relative | Inertial | | Relationship with voice coil | Collocated and Dual | Non-Collocated and non-Dual | | Open loop transfer function | (+) Alternating poles/zeros | (-) Large phase drop | | Limitation from low-frequency zero pair | (-) Yes | (+) No | | Sensitive to payload/base dynamics | (+) No | (-) Yes | | Best frequency range | High (low-freq zero limitation) | Low (high-freq toll-off limitation) | **Ability of a sensor-actuator pair to improve performance**: General system with input \\(u\\), performance \\(z\\), output \\(y\\) disturbance \\(u\\). Given a sensor \\(u\\) and actuator \\(y\\) and a controller \\(u = -K(s) y\\), the closed loop disturbance to performance transfer function can be written as: \\[ \left[ \frac{z}{w} \right]\_\text{CL} = \frac{G(s)\_{zw} + K(G(s)\_{zw} G(s)\_{yu} - G(s)\_{zu} G(s)\_{yw})}{1 + K G(s)\_{yu}} \\] In order to obtain a significant performance improvement is to use a high gain controller, _provided_ the term \\(G(s)\_{zw} + K(G(s)\_{zw} G(s)\_{yu} - G(s)\_{zu} G(s)\_{yw})\\) is small. We can compare the transfer function from \\(w\\) to \\(z\\) with and without a high gain controller. And we find that for \\(u\\) and \\(y\\) to be an acceptable pair for high gain control: \\[ \left| \frac{G(j\omega)\_{zw} G(j\omega)\_{yu} - G(j\omega)\_{zu} G(j\omega)\_{yw}}{K G(j\omega)\_{yu}} \right| \ll |G\_{zw}(j\omega)| \\] **Controllers**: **Force feedback**: - Performance limited by the low frequency zero-pair - It is desirable to separate the zero-pair and first most are separated by at least a decade in frequency - This can be achieve by reducing the cross-axis stiffness - If the low frequency zero pair is inverted, robustness is lost - Thus, the force feedback controller should be designed to have combined performance and robustness at frequencies at least a decade above the zero pair - The presented controller as a high pass filter at to reduce the gain below the zero-pair, a lag at low frequency to improve phase margin, and a low pass filter for roll off **Inertial feedback**: - Non-Collocated => multiple phase drops that limit the bandwidth of the controller - Good performance, but the transmissibility "pops" due to low phase margin and thus this indicates robustness problems **Combined force/velocity feedback**: - Use the low frequency performance advantages of geophone sensor with the high robustness advantages of the load cell sensor - A Single-Input-Multiple-Outputs (SIMO) controller is found using LQG - The performance requirements are met - Good robustness {{< figure src="/ox-hugo/hauge04_obtained_transmissibility.png" caption="Figure 4: Experimental open loop (solid) and closed loop six-axis transmissibility using the geophone only controller (dotted), and combined geophone/load cell controller (dashed)" >}} # Bibliography Hauge, G., & Campbell, M., *Sensors and control of a space-based six-axis vibration isolation system*, Journal of Sound and Vibration, *269(3-5)*, 913–931 (2004). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-460x(03)00206-2 [↩](#f9698a1741fe7492aa9b7b42c7724670)