This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,406 @@
|
||||
+++
|
||||
title = "Simultaneous, fault-tolerant vibration isolation and pointing control of flexure jointed hexapods"
|
||||
author = ["Dehaeze Thomas"]
|
||||
draft = false
|
||||
ref_author = "Li, X."
|
||||
ref_year = 2001
|
||||
+++
|
||||
|
||||
Tags
|
||||
: [Stewart Platforms]({{< relref "stewart_platforms.md" >}}), [Vibration Isolation]({{< relref "vibration_isolation.md" >}}), [Cubic Architecture]({{< relref "cubic_architecture.md" >}}), [Flexible Joints]({{< relref "flexible_joints.md" >}}), [Multivariable Control]({{< relref "multivariable_control.md" >}})
|
||||
|
||||
Reference
|
||||
: (<a href="#citeproc_bib_item_1">Li 2001</a>)
|
||||
|
||||
Author(s)
|
||||
: Li, X.
|
||||
|
||||
Year
|
||||
: 2001
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduction {#introduction}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Flexure Jointed Hexapods {#flexure-jointed-hexapods}
|
||||
|
||||
A general flexible jointed hexapod is shown in [Figure 1](#figure--fig:li01-flexure-hexapod-model).
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-flexure-hexapod-model"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_flexure_hexapod_model.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 1: </span>A flexure jointed hexapod. {P} is a cartesian coordinate frame located at, and rigidly attached to the payload's center of mass. {B} is the frame attached to the base, and {U} is a universal inertial frame of reference" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Flexure jointed hexapods have been developed to meet two needs illustrated in [Figure 2](#figure--fig:li01-quet-dirty-box).
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-quet-dirty-box"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_quet_dirty_box.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 2: </span>(left) Vibration machinery must be isolated from a precision bus. (right) A precision paylaod must be manipulated in the presence of base vibrations and/or exogenous forces." >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Since only small movements are considered in flexure jointed hexapod, the Jacobian matrix, which relates changes in the Cartesian pose to changes in the strut lengths, can be considered constant.
|
||||
Thus a static kinematic decoupling algorithm can be implemented for both vibration isolation and pointed controls on flexible jointed hexapods.
|
||||
|
||||
On the other hand, the flexures add some complexity to the hexapod dynamics.
|
||||
Although the flexure joints do eliminate friction and backlash, they add spring dynamics and severely limit the workspace.
|
||||
Moreover, base and/or payload vibrations become significant contributors to the motion.
|
||||
|
||||
The University of Wyoming hexapods (example in [Figure 3](#figure--fig:li01-stewart-platform)) are:
|
||||
|
||||
- Cubic (mutually orthogonal)
|
||||
- Flexure Jointed
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-stewart-platform"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_stewart_platform.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 3: </span>Flexure jointed Stewart platform used for analysis and control" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
The objectives of the hexapods are:
|
||||
|
||||
- Precise pointing in two axes (sub micro-radians)
|
||||
- simultaneously, providing both passive and active vibration isolation in six axes
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Jacobian matrix, Dynamic model, and decoupling algorithms {#jacobian-matrix-dynamic-model-and-decoupling-algorithms}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Jacobian Matrix {#jacobian-matrix}
|
||||
|
||||
The Jacobian matrix \\(J\\) relates changes in the cartesian pose \\(\mathcal{X}\\) to changes in the strut lengths \\(l\\):
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\delta l = J \delta \mathcal{X}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
where \\(\mathcal{X}\\) is a 6x1 vector of payload plate translations and rotations
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\mathcal{X} = \begin{bmatrix}
|
||||
p\_x & p\_y & p\_z & \theta\_x & \theta\_y & \theta\_z
|
||||
\end{bmatrix}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
\\(J\\) is given by:
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
J = \begin{bmatrix}
|
||||
{}^B\hat{u}\_1^T & [({}^B\_PR^P p\_1) \times {}^B\hat{u}\_1]^T \\\\
|
||||
\vdots & \vdots \\\\
|
||||
{}^B\hat{u}\_6^T & [({}^B\_PR^P p\_6) \times {}^B\hat{u}\_6]^T
|
||||
\end{bmatrix}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
where (see [Figure 1](#figure--fig:li01-flexure-hexapod-model)) \\(p\_i\\) denotes the payload attachment point of strut \\(i\\), the prescripts denote the frame of reference, and \\(\hat{u}\_i\\) denotes a unit vector along strut \\(i\\).
|
||||
To make the dynamic model as simple as possible, the origin of {P} is located at the payload's center of mass.
|
||||
Thus all \\({}^Pp\_i\\) are found with respect to the center of mass.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Dynamic model of flexure jointed hexapods {#dynamic-model-of-flexure-jointed-hexapods}
|
||||
|
||||
The dynamics of a flexure jointed hexapod can be written in joint space:
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hexapod\_eq\_motion}
|
||||
\begin{split}
|
||||
& \left( J^{-T} \cdot {}^B\_PR \cdot {}^PM\_x \cdot {}^B\_PR^T \cdot J^{-1} + M\_s \right) \ddot{l} + B \dot{l} + K (l - l\_r) = \\\\
|
||||
&\quad f\_m - \left( M\_s + J^{-T} \cdot {}^B\_PR \cdot {}^PM\_x \cdot {}^U\_PR^T \cdot J\_c \cdot J\_b^{-1} \right) \ddot{q}\_u + J^{-T} \cdot {}^U\_BR^T(\mathcal{F}\_e + \mathcal{G} + \mathcal{C})
|
||||
\end{split}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
where:
|
||||
|
||||
- \\({}^PM\_x\\) is the 6x6 mass/inertia matrix of the payload, found with respect to the payload frame {P}, whose origin is at the hexapod payload's center of mass
|
||||
- \\({}^U\_BR\\) is the 6x6 rotation matrix from the base frame {B} to the inertial frame of reference {U} (it consists of two identical 3x3 rotation matrices forming a block diagonal 6x6 matrix).
|
||||
Similarly, \\({}^B\_PR\\) is the rotation matrix from the payload frame to the base frame, and \\({}^U\_PR = {}^U\_BR {}^B\_PR\\)
|
||||
- \\(J\\) is the 6x6 Jacobian matrix relating payload cartesian movements to strut length changes
|
||||
- \\(M\_s\\) is a diagonal 6x6 matrix containing the moving mass of each strut
|
||||
- \\(l\\) is the 6x1 vector of strut lengths
|
||||
- \\(B\\) and \\(K\\) are 6x6 diagonal matrices containing the damping and stiffness, respectively, of each strut
|
||||
- \\(l\_r\\) is the constant vector of relaxed strut lengths
|
||||
- \\(f\_m\\) is the vector of strut motor force
|
||||
- \\(J\_c\\) and \\(J\_b\\) are 6x6 Jacobian matrices capturing base motion
|
||||
- \\(\ddot{q}\_u\\) is a 6x1 vector of base acceleration along each strut
|
||||
- \\(\mathcal{F}\_r\\) is a vector of payload exogenous generalized forces
|
||||
- \\(\mathcal{C}\\) is a vector containing all the Coriolis and centripetal terms
|
||||
- \\(\mathcal{G}\\) is a vector containing all gravity terms
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Decoupling {#decoupling}
|
||||
|
||||
Two decoupling algorithms are proposed by combining static input-output transformations with hexapod geometric design.
|
||||
|
||||
Define a new input and a new output:
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
u\_1 = J^T f\_m, \quad y = J^{-1} (l - l\_r)
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
Equation \ref{eq:hexapod\_eq\_motion} can be rewritten as:
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hexapod\_eq\_motion\_decoup\_1}
|
||||
\begin{split}
|
||||
& \left( {}^B\_PR \cdot {}^PM\_x \cdot {}^B\_PR^T + J^T \cdot M\_s \cdot J \right) \cdot \ddot{y} + J^T \cdot B J \dot{y} + J^T \cdot K \cdot J y = \\\\
|
||||
&\quad u\_1 - \left( J^T \cdot M\_s + {}^B\_PR \cdot {}^PM\_x \cdot {}^U\_PR^T \cdot J\_c \cdot J\_b^{-1} \right) \ddot{q}\_u + {}^U\_BR^T\mathcal{F}\_e
|
||||
\end{split}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
If the hexapod is designed such that the payload mass/inertia matrix written in the base frame (\\(^BM\_x = {}^B\_PR \cdot {}^PM\_x \cdot {}^B\_PR\_T\\)) and \\(J^T J\\) are diagonal, the dynamics from \\(u\_1\\) to \\(y\\) are decoupled ([Figure 4](#figure--fig:li01-decoupling-conf)).
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-decoupling-conf"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_decoupling_conf.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 4: </span>Decoupling the dynamics of the Stewart Platform using the Jacobians" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatively, a new set of inputs and outputs can be defined:
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
u\_2 = J^{-1} f\_m, \quad y = J^{-1} (l - l\_r)
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
And another decoupled plant is found ([Figure 5](#figure--fig:li01-decoupling-conf-bis)):
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hexapod\_eq\_motion\_decoup\_2}
|
||||
\begin{split}
|
||||
& \left( J^{-1} \cdot J^{-T} \cdot {}^BM\_x + M\_s \right) \cdot \ddot{y} + B \dot{y} + K y = \\\\
|
||||
&\quad u\_2 - J^{-1} \cdot J^{-T} \left( J^T \cdot M\_s + {}^B\_PR \cdot {}^PM\_x \cdot {}^U\_PR^T \cdot J\_c \cdot J\_b^{-1} \right) \ddot{q}\_u + {}^U\_BR^T\mathcal{F}\_e
|
||||
\end{split}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-decoupling-conf-bis"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_decoupling_conf_bis.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 5: </span>Decoupling the dynamics of the Stewart Platform using the Jacobians" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="important">
|
||||
|
||||
These decoupling algorithms have two constraints:
|
||||
|
||||
1. the payload mass/inertia matrix must be diagonal (the CoM is coincident with the origin of frame \\(\\{P\\}\\))
|
||||
2. the geometry of the hexapod and the attachment of the payload to the hexapod must be carefully chosen
|
||||
|
||||
For instance, if the hexapod has a mutually orthogonal geometry (cubic configuration), the payload's center of mass must coincide with the center of the cube formed by the orthogonal struts.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Simultaneous Vibration Isolation and Pointing Control {#simultaneous-vibration-isolation-and-pointing-control}
|
||||
|
||||
Many applications require simultaneous vibration isolation and precision pointing.
|
||||
|
||||
The basic idea to achieve such objective is to use:
|
||||
|
||||
- acceleration feedback to provide high-frequency vibration isolation
|
||||
- cartesian pointing feedback to provide low-frequency pointing
|
||||
|
||||
The compensation is divided in frequency because:
|
||||
|
||||
- pointing sensors often have low bandwidth
|
||||
- acceleration sensors often have a poor low frequency response
|
||||
|
||||
The control bandwidth is divided as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
- low-frequency disturbances are attenuated and tracking is accomplished by feedback from low bandwidth pointing sensors
|
||||
- mid-frequency disturbances are attenuated by feedback from band-pass sensors like accelerometer or load cells
|
||||
- high-frequency disturbances are attenuated by passive isolation techniques
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Vibration Isolation {#vibration-isolation}
|
||||
|
||||
The system is decoupled into six independent SISO subsystems using the architecture shown in [Figure 7](#figure--fig:li01-vibration-isolation-control).
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-vibration-isolation-control"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_vibration_isolation_control.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 6: </span>Vibration isolation control strategy" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
One of the subsystem plant transfer function is shown in [Figure 7](#figure--fig:li01-vibration-isolation-control)
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-vibration-isolation-control"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_vibration_control_plant.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 7: </span>Plant transfer function of one of the SISO subsystem for Vibration Control" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Each compensator is designed using simple loop-shaping techniques.
|
||||
A typical compensator consists of the following elements:
|
||||
|
||||
- first order lag-lead filter to provide adequate phase margin a the low frequency crossover
|
||||
- a second order lag-lead filter to increase the gain between crossovers and provide adequate phase margin at the high frequency crossover
|
||||
- a second order notch filter to cancel the mode at 150Hz
|
||||
- a second order low pass filter to provide steep roll-off and gain stabilize the plant at high frequency
|
||||
- a first order high pass filter to eliminate DC signals
|
||||
|
||||
The unity control bandwidth of the isolation loop is designed to be from **5Hz to 50Hz**, so the vibration isolation loop works as a band-pass filter.
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="important">
|
||||
|
||||
Despite a reasonably good match between the modeled and the measured transfer functions, the model based decoupling algorithm does not produce the expected decoupling.
|
||||
Only about 20 dB separation is achieve between the diagonal and off-diagonal responses.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="note">
|
||||
|
||||
Severe phase delay exists in the actual transfer function.
|
||||
This is due to the limited sample frequency and sensor bandwidth limitation.
|
||||
|
||||
The zero at around 130Hz is non-minimum phase which limits the control bandwidth.
|
||||
The reason is not explained.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Pointing Control Techniques {#pointing-control-techniques}
|
||||
|
||||
A block diagram of the pointing control system is shown in [Figure 8](#figure--fig:li01-pointing-control).
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-pointing-control"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_pointing_control.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 8: </span>Figure caption" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
The plant is decoupled into two independent SISO subsystems.
|
||||
The decoupling matrix consists of the columns of \\(J\\) corresponding to the pointing DoFs.
|
||||
|
||||
[Figure 9](#figure--fig:li01-transfer-function-angle) shows the measured transfer function of the \\(\theta\_x\\) axis.
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-transfer-function-angle"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_transfer_function_angle.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 9: </span>Experimentally measured plant transfer function of \\(\theta\_x/\theta\_{x\_d}\\)" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
A typical compensator consists of the following elements:
|
||||
|
||||
- a first order low pass filter to increase the low frequency loop gain and provide a slope of -20dB/decade for the magnitude curve at the crossover
|
||||
- two complex zeros with high \\(Q\\) to provide adequate phase margin at the crossover
|
||||
- a pole after the zeros to decrease the excess gain caused by these zeros
|
||||
- a second order notch filter to cancel the mode at 150Hz
|
||||
- a second order low pass filter to provide steep roll off and gain stabilize the plant at high frequency
|
||||
|
||||
The unity control bandwidth of the pointing loop is designed to be from **0Hz to 20Hz**.
|
||||
|
||||
A feedforward control is added as shown in [Figure 10](#figure--fig:li01-feedforward-control).
|
||||
\\(C\_f\\) is the feedforward compensator which is a 2x2 diagonal matrix.
|
||||
Ideally, the feedforward compensator is an invert of the plant dynamics.
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-feedforward-control"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_feedforward_control.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 10: </span>Feedforward control" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Simultaneous Control {#simultaneous-control}
|
||||
|
||||
The simultaneous vibration isolation and pointing control is approached in two ways:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Closing the vibration isolation loop first**: Design and implement the vibration isolation control first, identify the pointing plant when the isolation loops are closed, then implement the pointing compensators.
|
||||
2. **Closing the pointing loop first**: Reverse order.
|
||||
|
||||
[Figure 11](#figure--fig:li01-parallel-control) shows a parallel control structure where \\(G\_1(s)\\) is the dynamics from input force to output strut length.
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-parallel-control"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_parallel_control.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 11: </span>A parallel scheme" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="important">
|
||||
|
||||
The transfer function matrix for the pointing loop after the vibration isolation is closed is still decoupled.
|
||||
The same happens when closing the pointing loop first and looking at the transfer function matrix of the vibration isolation.
|
||||
|
||||
However, the interaction between loops may affect the transfer functions of the **first** closed loop, and thus affect its relative stability.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
The dynamic interaction effect:
|
||||
|
||||
- Only happens in the unity bandwidth of the loop transmission of the first closed loop.
|
||||
- Affect the closed loop transmission of the loop first closed (see [Figure 12](#figure--fig:li01-closed-loop-pointing) and [Figure 13](#figure--fig:li01-closed-loop-vibration))
|
||||
|
||||
As shown in [Figure 12](#figure--fig:li01-closed-loop-pointing), the peak resonance of the pointing loop increase after the isolation loop is closed.
|
||||
The resonances happen at both crossovers of the isolation loop (15Hz and 50Hz) and they may show of loss of robustness.
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-closed-loop-pointing"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_closed_loop_pointing.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 12: </span>Closed-loop transfer functions \\(\theta\_y/\theta\_{y\_d}\\) of the pointing loop before and after the vibration isolation loop is closed" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
The same happens when first closing the vibration isolation loop and after the pointing loop ([Figure 13](#figure--fig:li01-closed-loop-vibration)).
|
||||
The first peak resonance of the vibration isolation loop at 15Hz is increased when closing the pointing loop.
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-closed-loop-vibration"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_closed_loop_vibration.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 13: </span>Closed-loop transfer functions of the vibration isolation loop before and after the pointing control loop is closed" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="important">
|
||||
|
||||
From the analysis above, it is hard to say which loop has more significant affect on the other loop, but the isolation loop adds a second resonance peak at its high frequency crossover in the pointing closed loop transfer function, which may cause instability.
|
||||
Thus, it is recommended to design and implement the isolation control system first, and then identify the pointing plant with the isolation loop closed.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Experimental results {#experimental-results}
|
||||
|
||||
Two hexapods are stacked ([Figure 14](#figure--fig:li01-test-bench)):
|
||||
|
||||
- the bottom hexapod is used to generate disturbances matching candidate applications
|
||||
- the top hexapod provide simultaneous vibration isolation and pointing control
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-test-bench"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_test_bench.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 14: </span>Stacked Hexapods" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
First, the vibration isolation and pointing controls were implemented separately.
|
||||
Using the vibration isolation control alone, no attenuation is achieved below 1Hz as shown in [Figure 15](#figure--fig:li01-vibration-isolation-control-results).
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-vibration-isolation-control-results"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_vibration_isolation_control_results.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 15: </span>Vibration isolation control: open-loop (solid) vs. closed-loop (dashed)" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
The simultaneous control is of dual use:
|
||||
|
||||
- it provide simultaneous pointing and isolation control
|
||||
- it can also be used to expand the bandwidth of the isolation control to low frequencies because the pointing loops suppress pointing errors due to both base vibrations and tracking
|
||||
|
||||
The results of simultaneous control is shown in [Figure 16](#figure--fig:li01-simultaneous-control-results) where the bandwidth of the isolation control is expanded to very low frequency.
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="figure--fig:li01-simultaneous-control-results"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
{{< figure src="/ox-hugo/li01_simultaneous_control_results.png" caption="<span class='figure-number'>Figure 16: </span>Simultaneous control: open-loop (solid) vs. closed-loop (dashed)" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary and Conclusion {#summary-and-conclusion}
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="sum">
|
||||
|
||||
A parallel control scheme is proposed in this chapters.
|
||||
This scheme is suitable for simultaneous vibration isolation and pointing control.
|
||||
Part of this scheme involves closing one loop first, then re-identifying and designing the new control before closed the other loop.
|
||||
|
||||
An investigation into the interaction between loops shows that the order of closing loops is not important.
|
||||
However, only two channels need to be re-designed or adjusted for the pointing loop if the isolation loop is closed first.
|
||||
Experiments show that this scheme takes advantage of the bandwidths of both pointing and vibration sensors, and provides vibration isolation and pointing controls over a broad band.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Future research areas {#future-research-areas}
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="sum">
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed future research areas include:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Include base dynamics in the control**:
|
||||
The base dynamics is here neglected since the movements of the base are very small.
|
||||
The base dynamics could be measured by mounting accelerometers at the bottom of each strut or by using force sensors.
|
||||
It then could be included in the feedforward path.
|
||||
- **Robust control and MIMO design**
|
||||
- **New decoupling method**:
|
||||
The proposed decoupling algorithm do not produce the expected decoupling, despite a reasonably good match between the modeled and the measured transfer functions.
|
||||
Incomplete decoupling increases the difficulty in designing the controller.
|
||||
New decoupling methods are needed.
|
||||
These methods must be static in order to be implemented practically on precision hexapods
|
||||
- **Identification**:
|
||||
Many advanced control methods require a more accurate model or identified plant.
|
||||
A closed-loop identification method is propose to solve some problems with the current identification methods used.
|
||||
- **Other possible sensors**:
|
||||
Many sensors can be used to expand the utility of the Stewart platform:
|
||||
- **3-axis load cells** to investigate the Coriolis and centripetal terms and new decoupling methods
|
||||
- **LVDT** to provide differential position of the hexapod payload with respect to the base
|
||||
- **Geophones** to provide payload and base velocity information
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Bibliography {#bibliography}
|
||||
|
||||
<style>.csl-entry{text-indent: -1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em;}</style><div class="csl-bib-body">
|
||||
<div class="csl-entry"><a id="citeproc_bib_item_1"></a>Li, X. 2001. “Simultaneous, Fault-Tolerant Vibration Isolation and Pointing Control of Flexure Jointed Hexapods.” University of Wyoming.</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user