Add figures for the control section
1
.gitignore
vendored
@ -1 +1,2 @@
|
|||||||
figs/*.svg
|
figs/*.svg
|
||||||
|
.auctex-auto/
|
||||||
|
BIN
figs/control_architecture_dvf.png
Normal file
After Width: | Height: | Size: 8.3 KiB |
BIN
figs/control_architecture_hac_dvf_pos_L.png
Normal file
After Width: | Height: | Size: 16 KiB |
BIN
figs/control_architecture_hac_lac_one_input.png
Normal file
After Width: | Height: | Size: 21 KiB |
BIN
figs/opt_stiff_primary_control_L_senbility_dist.png
Normal file
After Width: | Height: | Size: 261 KiB |
BIN
figs/opt_stiff_primary_loop_gain_L.png
Normal file
After Width: | Height: | Size: 117 KiB |
BIN
figs/opt_stiff_primary_plant_L.png
Normal file
After Width: | Height: | Size: 116 KiB |
BIN
figs/opt_stiff_primary_plant_damped_L.png
Normal file
After Width: | Height: | Size: 164 KiB |
BIN
figs/opt_stiff_sensibility_dist_dvf.png
Normal file
After Width: | Height: | Size: 250 KiB |
BIN
figs/opt_stiff_soft_granite_Dw.png
Normal file
After Width: | Height: | Size: 204 KiB |
136
index.org
@ -690,6 +690,8 @@ Then, using the model, we can
|
|||||||
- include a multi-body model of the nano-hexapod and closed-loop simulations
|
- include a multi-body model of the nano-hexapod and closed-loop simulations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
** Wanted position of the sample and position error
|
** Wanted position of the sample and position error
|
||||||
|
<<sec:pos_error_nass>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
For the control of the nano-hexapod, we need to now the sample position error (the motion to be compensated) in the frame of the nano-hexapod.
|
For the control of the nano-hexapod, we need to now the sample position error (the motion to be compensated) in the frame of the nano-hexapod.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To do so, we need to perform several computations (summarized in Figure [[fig:control-schematic-nass]]):
|
To do so, we need to perform several computations (summarized in Figure [[fig:control-schematic-nass]]):
|
||||||
@ -804,7 +806,7 @@ The sensibilities to ground motion in the Y and Z directions are shown in Figure
|
|||||||
We can see that above the suspension mode of the nano-hexapod, the norm of the transmissibility is close to one until the suspension mode of the granite.
|
We can see that above the suspension mode of the nano-hexapod, the norm of the transmissibility is close to one until the suspension mode of the granite.
|
||||||
Thus, a stiff nano-hexapod is better for reducing the effect of ground motion at low frequency.
|
Thus, a stiff nano-hexapod is better for reducing the effect of ground motion at low frequency.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
It will be further suggested that using soft mounts for the granite can greatly lower the sensibility to ground motion.
|
It will be suggested in Section [[sec:soft_granite]] that using soft mounts for the granite can greatly lower the sensibility to ground motion.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_sensitivity_Dw
|
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_sensitivity_Dw
|
||||||
#+caption: Sensitivity to Ground motion to the position error of the sample
|
#+caption: Sensitivity to Ground motion to the position error of the sample
|
||||||
@ -998,44 +1000,139 @@ This show how the dynamics evolves with the stiffness and how different effects
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
** Conclusion
|
** Conclusion
|
||||||
#+begin_important
|
#+begin_important
|
||||||
In Section [[sec:optimal_stiff_dist]], it has been concluded that a nano-hexapod stiffness
|
In Section [[sec:optimal_stiff_dist]], it has been concluded that a nano-hexapod stiffness below $10^5-10^6\,[N/m]$ helps reducing the high frequency vibrations induced by all sources of disturbances considered.
|
||||||
Section [[sec:optimal_stiff_plant]]
|
As the high frequency vibrations are the most difficult to compensate for when using feedback control, a soft hexapod will most certainly helps improving the performances.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
A stiffness of $10^5\,[N/m]$ will be used.
|
In Section [[sec:optimal_stiff_plant]], we concluded that a nano-hexapod leg stiffness in the range $10^5 - 10^6\,[N/m]$ is a good compromise between the uncertainty induced by the micro-station dynamics and by the rotating speed.
|
||||||
#+end_important
|
Provided that the samples used have a first mode that is sufficiently high in frequency, the total plant dynamic uncertainty should be manageable.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Thus, a stiffness of $10^5\,[N/m]$ will be used in Section [[sec:robust_control_architecture]] to develop the robust control architecture and to perform simulations.
|
||||||
#+begin_important
|
|
||||||
It is preferred that *one* controller is working for all the payloads.
|
|
||||||
If not possible, the alternative would be to develop an adaptive controller that depends on the payload mass/inertia.
|
|
||||||
#+end_important
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
A more detailed study of the determination of the optimal stiffness based on all the effects is available [[https://tdehaeze.github.io/nass-simscape/uncertainty_optimal_stiffness.html][here]].
|
A more detailed study of the determination of the optimal stiffness based on all the effects is available [[https://tdehaeze.github.io/nass-simscape/uncertainty_optimal_stiffness.html][here]].
|
||||||
|
#+end_important
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
* Robust Control Architecture
|
* Robust Control Architecture
|
||||||
<<sec:robust_control_architecture>>
|
<<sec:robust_control_architecture>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
** Introduction :ignore:
|
** Introduction :ignore:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
https://tdehaeze.github.io/nass-simscape/optimal_stiffness_control.html
|
https://tdehaeze.github.io/nass-simscape/optimal_stiffness_control.html
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
stiffness 10^5
|
stiffness 10^5
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It is preferred that *one* controller is designed such that it will give acceptable performance for all the payloads that will be used.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This is quite challenging as the plant dynamics does depend quite a lot on the payload's mass.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It is difficult to design a
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
As there is a trade-off robustness/performance, the bigger the plant dynamic change, the lower the attainable performance.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If not possible to develop a robust controller that gives acceptable performance, an alternative would be to develop an *adaptive* controller that depends on the payload mass/inertia.
|
||||||
|
This would require to measure the mass/inertia of each used payload and
|
||||||
|
adaptive control is generally difficult to use in practice.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
HAC-LAC
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+begin_quote
|
||||||
|
The HAC/LAC approach consist of combining the two approached in a dual-loop control as shown in Figure [[fig:control_architecture_hac_lac_one_input]]. The inner loop uses a set of collocated actuator/sensor pairs for decentralized active damping with guaranteed stability ; the outer loop consists of a non-collocated HAC based on a model of the actively damped structure. This approach has the following advantages:
|
||||||
|
- The active damping extends outside the bandwidth of the HAC and reduces the settling time of the modes which are outsite the bandwidth
|
||||||
|
- The active damping makes it easier to gain-stabilize the modes outside the bandwidth of the output loop (improved gain margin)
|
||||||
|
- The larger damping of the modes within the controller bandwidth makes them more robust to the parmetric uncertainty (improved phase margin)
|
||||||
|
#+end_quote
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+name: fig:control_architecture_hac_lac_one_input
|
||||||
|
#+caption: HAC-LAC Architecture with a system having only one input
|
||||||
|
[[file:figs/control_architecture_hac_lac_one_input.png]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
** Active Damping and Sensors to be included
|
** Active Damping and Sensors to be included
|
||||||
Ways to damp:
|
Active Damping can help with two things
|
||||||
- Force Sensor
|
|
||||||
|
#+begin_quote
|
||||||
|
Active damping is very effective in reducing the settling time of transient disturbances and the effect of steady state disturbances near the resonance frequencies of the system; however, away from the resonances, the active damping is completely ineffective and leaves the closed-loop response essentially unchanged.
|
||||||
|
Such low-gain controllers are often called Low Authority Controllers (LAC), because they modify the poles of the system only slightly.
|
||||||
|
#+end_quote
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
There are three main ways to actively damp a system:
|
||||||
|
- force Sensor
|
||||||
- Relative Velocity Sensors
|
- Relative Velocity Sensors
|
||||||
- Inertial Sensor
|
- Inertial Sensor
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Because of the rotation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
https://tdehaeze.github.io/rotating-frame/index.html
|
https://tdehaeze.github.io/rotating-frame/index.html
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Sensors to be included:
|
Thus, relative motion sensors should be included in each of the nano-hexapod's leg.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The decentralized direct velocity feedback control architecture is shown in figure [[fig:control_architecture_dvf]] where:
|
||||||
|
- $\bm{\tau}$: Forces applied in each leg
|
||||||
|
- $\bm{\tau}_m$: Force sensor located in each leg
|
||||||
|
- $\bm{\mathcal{X}}$: Measurement of the payload position with respect to the granite
|
||||||
|
- $d\bm{\mathcal{L}}$: Measurement of the (small) relative motion of each leg
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The controller $\bm{K}_{\text{DVF}}$ is a diagonal
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+name: fig:control_architecture_dvf
|
||||||
|
#+caption: Low Authority Control: Decentralized Direct Velocity Feedback
|
||||||
|
[[file:figs/control_architecture_dvf.png]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_primary_plant_damped_L
|
||||||
|
#+caption: Primary plant in the space of the legs with (dashed) and without (solid) Direct Velocity Feedback
|
||||||
|
[[file:figs/opt_stiff_primary_plant_damped_L.png]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
As shown in Figure [[fig:opt_stiff_sensibility_dist_dvf]], the use of the DVF control lowers the sensibility to disturbances in the vicinity of the nano-hexapod resonance but increases the sensibility at higher frequencies.
|
||||||
|
This is probably not the optimal gain that could be used, and further analysis and optimization will be performed.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_sensibility_dist_dvf
|
||||||
|
#+caption: Norm of the transfer function from vertical disturbances to vertical position error with (dashed) and without (solid) Direct Velocity Feedback applied
|
||||||
|
[[file:figs/opt_stiff_sensibility_dist_dvf.png]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
** Motion Control
|
** Motion Control
|
||||||
|
The complete control architecture is shown in Figure [[fig:control_architecture_hac_dvf_pos_L]] where an outer loop is added to the decentralized direct velocity feedback loop.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The block =Compute Position Error= is used to compute the position error of the sample with respect to the nano-hexapod's base platform $\bm{\epsilon}_{\mathcal{X}_n}$ from the actual measurement of the sample's pose $\bm{\mathcal{X}}$ and the wanted pose $\bm{r}_\mathcal{X}$.
|
||||||
|
The computation done in such block was explained briefly in Section [[sec:pos_error_nass]].
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
From the position error express in the frame of the nano-hexapod, $\bm{J}$
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
$\bm{\epsilon}_\mathcal{L}$ thus express the length error of each of the nano hexapod's leg such that it position the sample at the correct position.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Then, a diagonal controller $\bm{K}_\mathcal{L}$ generates the required force in each leg such that
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+name: fig:control_architecture_hac_dvf_pos_L
|
||||||
|
#+caption: Cascade Control Architecture. The inner loop consist of a decentralized Direct Velocity Feedback. The outer loop consist of position control in the leg's space
|
||||||
|
[[file:figs/control_architecture_hac_dvf_pos_L.png]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_primary_plant_L
|
||||||
|
#+caption: Diagonal elements of the transfer function matrix from $\bm{\tau}^\prime$ to $\bm{\epsilon}_{\mathcal{X}_n}$ for the three considered masses
|
||||||
|
[[file:figs/opt_stiff_primary_plant_L.png]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_primary_loop_gain_L
|
||||||
|
#+caption: Loop gain for the primary plant
|
||||||
|
[[file:figs/opt_stiff_primary_loop_gain_L.png]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_primary_control_L_senbility_dist
|
||||||
|
#+caption: Sensibility to disturbances when the HAC-LAC control is applied
|
||||||
|
[[file:figs/opt_stiff_primary_control_L_senbility_dist.png]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
** Simulation of Tomography Experiments
|
** Simulation of Tomography Experiments
|
||||||
<<sec:tomography_experiment>>
|
<<sec:tomography_experiment>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The obtained performances for all the three considered masses are very similar.
|
||||||
|
That shows the robustness of the system.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_hac_dvf_L_psd_disp_error
|
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_hac_dvf_L_psd_disp_error
|
||||||
#+caption: Amplitude Spectral Density of the position error in Open Loop and with the HAC-LAC controller
|
#+caption: Amplitude Spectral Density of the position error in Open Loop and with the HAC-LAC controller
|
||||||
[[file:figs/opt_stiff_hac_dvf_L_psd_disp_error.png]]
|
[[file:figs/opt_stiff_hac_dvf_L_psd_disp_error.png]]
|
||||||
@ -1053,11 +1150,22 @@ Sensors to be included:
|
|||||||
[[file:figs/closed_loop_sim_zoom.gif]]
|
[[file:figs/closed_loop_sim_zoom.gif]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
** Conclusion
|
** Conclusion
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
* Further notes
|
* Further notes
|
||||||
Soft granite
|
<<sec:further_notes>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
** Using soft mounts for the
|
||||||
|
<<sec:soft_granite>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+name: fig:opt_stiff_soft_granite_Dw
|
||||||
|
#+caption: Change of sensibility to Ground motion when using a stiff Granite (solid curves) and a soft Granite (dashed curves)
|
||||||
|
[[file:figs/opt_stiff_soft_granite_Dw.png]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This means that above the suspension mode of the granite (here around 2Hz), the granite
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Sensible to detector motion?
|
Sensible to detector motion?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
** Others
|
||||||
Common metrology frame for the nano-focusing optics and the measurement of the sample position?
|
Common metrology frame for the nano-focusing optics and the measurement of the sample position?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Cable forces?
|
Cable forces?
|
||||||
|
12
ref.bib
@ -18,3 +18,15 @@
|
|||||||
url = {https://doi.org/10.1541/ieejjia.7.127},
|
url = {https://doi.org/10.1541/ieejjia.7.127},
|
||||||
tags = {favorite},
|
tags = {favorite},
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@book{preumont18_vibrat_contr_activ_struc_fourt_edition,
|
||||||
|
author = {Andre Preumont},
|
||||||
|
title = {Vibration Control of Active Structures - Fourth Edition},
|
||||||
|
year = {2018},
|
||||||
|
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
|
||||||
|
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72296-2},
|
||||||
|
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-72296-2},
|
||||||
|
pages = {nil},
|
||||||
|
series = {Solid Mechanics and Its Applications},
|
||||||
|
tags = {favorite, parallel robot},
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|