1. By: Andrew Hovingh & Matt Roon Project # ME1207-05 Faculty and Industrial Mentor: Dr. James Kamman Industrial Sponsor: Parker Hannifin Corporation

2. Agenda  Introduction  Analysis  Physical System Design  Control Implementation  Physical Results  Limitations  Recommendations  Acknowledgments  Questions

3. Introduction  Parker Hannifin Motion and Control Laboratory  Established to enhance students’ knowledge of hydraulics, pneumatics, and electromechanical engineering

4. Background  “Balancing a Broomstick” and Control Theory

5. Background  Stability and the Inverted Pendulum Normal Pendulum (Stable) (Easy to Control θ) Inverted Pendulum (Unstable) (Difficult to Control θ) Classic Problem in Control Labs

6. Background  Why is control important?

7. Project Objectives  Design and simulate control logic and system response  Design and construct inverted pendulum assembly  Keep the pendulum balancing for approximately a 15 second duration

8. Analysis  Process begins by describing the physics of the system

9. Analysis  Control theory was applied to develop a potential type of controller and tune its specific components  Example Types: P, PD, or PID Phase Lead, Phase Lag, or Phase Lead-Lag Others

10. Analysis  Simulations and software tools were developed in MATLAB and Simulink to predict the response of the system for different parameters

11. Analysis

13. Angle Sensor Selection  Manipulating the simulations, it was apparent a high resolution sensor was necessary  Both analog and digital sensors were considered, however a digital sensor was chosen based on its relative insensitivity to electronic interference (noise)  A rotary incremental encoder was the best option for this particular application

14. Angle Sensor Selection  Turck Digital Encoder  Resolution: 36000 counts/revolution  Accurate to 1/100 th of one degree

15. Physical System Design  Physical system constraints were analyzed and brainstorming sessions were conducted  Design Factors Low Cost Modularity Reliability  Ideas mapped out via Pro-Engineer

16. Physical System Design  Potential suppliers were sought after and justified based on capabilities to accommodate specific machining requirements  Supplier part consistency, effective communication, and lead time were crucial to ensuring a trouble-free physical system build

17. Physical System Design

18.  Stack-ups and GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing)

19. Final Physical System

21. Control Implementation  Control flow chart

22. Control Implementation  LabVIEW, a graphical software programming package used in data acquisition and control, was used to implement the control logic in the physical system

23. Control Implementation  Front panel interface with user controls  Provides monitoring of signals  Provides configurable settings for rapid control execution

24. Physical Results

27. Limitations  Difficult to define the vertical position of the pendulum, which changes from day to day  Sled position drift limits the duration of angle control  Variation in the real system makes accurate simulation predictions challenging

28. Recommendations  Longer pendulum  Control sled position and pendulum angle simultaneously  Place strings on ends of stroke to keep the sled in range  Attempt other system configurations Angle velocity and sled velocity feedback Different controller types  Achieve better initial conditions with release mechanism

29. Acknowledgments  Parker Hannifin Corporation  Dr. James Kamman  Dr. Kapseong Ro  Glenn Hall

30. Thank You!