| Literature DB >> 27681732 |
Francesco Aggogeri1, Alberto Borboni2, Angelo Merlo3, Nicola Pellegrini4, Raffaele Ricatto5.
Abstract
This paper proposes an innovative mechatronic piezo-actuated module to control vibrations in modern machine tools. Vibrations represent one of the main issues that seriously compromise the quality of the workpiece. The active vibration control (AVC) device is composed of a host part integrated with sensors and actuators synchronized by a regulator; it is able to make a self-assessment and adjust to alterations in the environment. In particular, an innovative smart actuator has been designed and developed to satisfy machining requirements during active vibration control. This study presents the mechatronic model based on the kinematic and dynamic analysis of the AVC device. To ensure a real time performance, a H2-LQG controller has been developed and validated by simulations involving a machine tool, PZT actuator and controller models. The Hardware in the Loop (HIL) architecture is adopted to control and attenuate the vibrations. A set of experimental tests has been performed to validate the AVC module on a commercial machine tool. The feasibility of the real time vibration damping is demonstrated and the simulation accuracy is evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: PZT actuators; hardware in the loop; mechatronics; real-time control; vibration
Year: 2016 PMID: 27681732 PMCID: PMC5087366 DOI: 10.3390/s16101577
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Summary of machine tool modal frequency ranges in turning and milling machining [21].
Figure 23D CAD Module overview.
Figure 3Module functional concept.
Figure 4The smart actuator integrated into the mechatronic module.
Kinematic correlation between displacement at the tool tip point and actuation strokes.
| Tool Tip Point (TTP) | Actuation Strokes |
|---|---|
| Δ TTP (X; Y; Z) = (1; 0; 0) | Act (Act1; Act2; Ac3) = (+1.0; 0.0; ‒1.0) |
| Δ TTP (X; Y; Z) = (0; 1; 0) | Act (Act1; Act2; Ac3) = (‒0.5; 1.0; ‒0.5) |
| Δ TTP (X; Y; Z) = (0; 0; 1) | Act (Act1; Act2; Ac3) = (+1.0; 1.0; +1.0) |
Actuators’ technical features.
| Technical Features | Value |
|---|---|
| Length | 60 mm |
| El capacitance | 800 nF |
| Stiffness | 450 N/μm |
| Resonance Frequency | 30 kHz |
| Maximum Load | 35 kN |
| Maximum Force Generation | 25 kN |
| Maximum Tensile Force | 4 kN |
Figure 5The FE modes 1–3 at 19 Hz (a); 24 Hz (b); and 30 Hz (c), respectively.
Comparison between experimental and numerical mode and frequencies. FE stands for Finite Element.
| Mode | FE Model Freq (Hz) | Experimental Freq (Hz) | Damping |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 19 | 21.6 | 0.17 |
| 2 | 24 | 24.3 | 0.09 |
| 3 | 30 | 34.8 | 0.04 |
| 6 | 53 | 49.1 | 0.03 |
| 7 | 61 | 59.3 | 0.02 |
| 8 | 71 | 68.2 | 0.05 |
| 10 | 80 | 84.1 | 0.04 |
State space model variables.
| Inputs | Outputs |
|---|---|
| Forces on the TTP on X, Y, and Z axes | Elongation of the piezo actuators (strain measure) |
| Forces acting on the piezo actuators | Distance between moveable module and fixed plate on three points (located on piezo actuators) |
| Forces acting on the kinematic chains X and Y | Accelerations (X, Y, Z axes) measured |
| Displacement of TTP (X, Y, Z axes) elongation of the kinematic chains |
Figure 6Simulation of activated/deactivate states of control of an unbalanced rotation at 11,500 rpm.
Figure 7Hardware in the loop validation architecture.
Figure 8Experimental test overview.
Figure 9Experimental test of unbalanced spindle at different speeds considering on/off control.
Figure 10Frequency response function (FRF) of X axis with control (red line) and without control (blue line).
Figure 11Residual vibration peak reduction percentage on X axis.
Experimental real time effectiveness.
| Frequency Range (Hz) | Control OFF (Peak Magnitude) | Control ON (Peak Magnitude) | Peak Reduction (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 230–240 | 8.92 | 7.01 | 21.4% |
| 370–380 | 19.36 | 12.98 | 32.9% |
Trade-off comparison of different control approaches (advantage (+)/disadvantage (–)).
| Robust Control | Adaptive Control | Intelligent Control | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disturbance source | H2-LQG Proposed | Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) | Dual Control | Neural Networks Control (NNC) | Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC) | |
| Machining Parameters (Axis position, Spindle RPM, Feed rate, etc.) | (+) | Easy to implement | Negligible response on the system | Low time to reach convergence, process parameters variation is rapid | Simple programming | Based on expert knowledge |
| (−) | One operative range | Difficult to develop | Suboptimal solution needed | Convergence is time consuming | Difficult for MIMO system without adaption | |
| Actuation Parameter Characteristics | (+) | Easy to implement | Negligible response on the system | Process parameters variation is rapid | Simple programming | Extremely simple to implement |
| (−) | One operative range | Convergence is time-consuming | Extremely difficult to implement | Many data to be fitted | Difficult for MIMO system without adaption | |
| Missing Information after FE Model Reduction | (+) | Easy to implement | Negligible response on the system | Low time to reach convergence | Best model uncertainties, simple programming | Based on expert knowledge |
| (−) | One operative range | Convergence is time-consuming | Extremely difficult to implement, suboptimal solution needed | Many data to be fitted | Difficult for MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) system without adaption | |