mechatronic-design

Find. Learn. Apply.

"Knowing is not enough; we must apply."

- Leonardo da Vinci

Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe in Bloglines

Coming to grips with compliance

Q. The single issue that causes the most discussion during our motor-sizing process is compliance and stiffness. Is there a typical way of allowing for compliance?

A. When properly sizing a motor, we use a very simple equation: Tpk = a X Jt. This equation tells us the amount of peak torque (Tpk; lb-ft) needed to accelerate a load to a given speed, for a specified acceleration rate (a; ft/sec2), for the total inertia (Jt; lb-ft2) of the system. However, this equation will not explain how the load will react or perform during acceleration. And compliance is the real beast that will reduce system performance.

For all practical purposes, compliance results in a momentary disconnection of the motor from the load. At this point the system gains (when tuned for inertia alone) will make the motor oscillate violently. Even at a standstill the system will be noisy.

The system must be detuned to overcome these oscillations. The tuning of the system is what creates the performance, so detuning effectively reduces system performance. Detuning will stop the oscillations, but at this point the system can become unstable, accelerate up to speed more slowly, and take more time to settle to a stop.

One simple fix is to oversize the motor to reduce JL/JM, your motor's load-to-inertia ratio. However, use of larger-than-necessary motors is costly. In compliant systems you should be seeking a JL/JM of ≤ 5:1.

Another option is to directly couple the inertial load to the motor, which will eliminate the vast majority of system compliance. A directly coupled load permits higher system gains which, in turn, lets the system perform better. It takes less time to accelerate, actual velocity tracks commanded velocity more closely, and the system settles out in minimum time. Reducing or eliminating compliance makes JL/JM less important.

— Gordon Ritchie



Gordon Ritchie is a System Engineer with
Danaher Motion Corp. Got a question about motion control or mechatronics? Ask Gordon via e-mail at contactus@danahermotion.com.

 

An example of how a low-compliance, directly coupled motion system performs. Note close agreement between commanded and realized velocities.

An example of how a low-compliance, directly coupled motion system performs. Note close agreement between commanded and realized velocities.

An example of how a low-compliance, directly coupled motion system performs. Note close agreement between commanded and realized velocities.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.



Videos and Webcasts


The Latest Videos from EngineeringTV.com


Email Newsletter Signup

Stay on top of the intertwined world of mechanical and electronic systems with the new Mechatronics Design newsletter from the editors of Machine Design, Electronic Design and Motion System Design. Each issue, delivered right to your desktop, covers into the latest news and technical articles on topics such as servocontrols and control theory, mechanical drives, information technology, and electronics.

>Click here to Sign Up!
Click here to view our recent eNewsletters

Brought to You By

Machine Design MSD Electronic Design

Back to Top