BALL ON PLATE BALANCING SYSTEM

Progress Report for ECSE-4962 Control Systems Design

Greg Andrews
Chris Colasuonno
Aaron Herrmann

March 24, 2004

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

 Abstract
The goal of the ball-on-plate balancing system is to create a control system that can accurately balance a
steel ball on a plate. To date, significant strides have been made towards the completion of said goal. The
physical system, including a rebuilt yoke, axle and motor bracket, is nearly complete. The basic controller
has been coded, and is currently capable of gravity compensation, friction compensation, and following a
sine wave input. The ball coordinate system is also complete, and can generate plate coordinates for use in
the controller. With regard to the originally proposed schedule, tasks are continuing to be completed ahead
of schedule.
Contents

1 Introduction 4

2 Preliminary Results 6
2.1 Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Control Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Friction Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Friction & Gravity Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6 Subsystem Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3 Summary of Progress 23
3.1 Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4 Unanticipated Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5 Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 Statement of Contribution 27

A MATLAB Code 29

1
List of Figures

2.1 Simulink Diagram - Complete System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2 State Feedback Control (LQR) - Step Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Simulink diagram for Observer Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 State Feedback Control with Observer - Step Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5 Plate Frequency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6 Ball Control - Root Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7 Ball Control - Step Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.8 Ball Control - Frequency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.9 Ball Position with Time - Circular Trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.10 Absolute Ball Position in Meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.11 Simulink Virtual Reality Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.12 3D Animation of The Ball on Plate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.13 Pan Axis Friction Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.14 Tilt Axis Friction Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.15 Gravity Compensation Torque Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.16 Open Loop Response for 2.1 N-m Torque, Actual and Simulated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.17 Step Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.18 Tracking Error for 1.5 rad/sec sine wave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.19 Tracking Error for 3.0 rad/sec sine wave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.20 xPC Target Touchpad Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.21 xPC Target Touchpad Packet Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.22 Touchpad Ball Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2
List of Tables

2.1 Touchpad Controller Packet composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.1 Remaining schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2 List of parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 List of raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3
Chapter 1

Introduction

The goal of this project is to develop a ball-on-plate balancing system, capable of controlling the position of
a ball on a plate for both static positions as well as smooth paths. We intend that the initially horizontal
plate will be tilted along each of two horizontal axes in order to control the position of the ball. Each tilting
axis will be operated on by an electric motor. Each motor will be controlled using software, with a minimum
of position feedback for control.
After an extensive search, few systems of similar scale were found. The ball-on-beam system, a 1-dimensional
similarity to the ball-on-plate, however, is a classic control problem, and has been studied in great detail,
and solved a great many ways; PID control, optimal control, fuzzy-logic controllers, etc. The fuzzy-logic
controllers would seem to be the current state of the art, however classical approaches using discrete approx-
imations are certainly adequate, if not preferred for their relative ease of implementation. Two ball-on-plate
systems were uncovered during the search: one, developed at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute by Professor
Kevin Craig [6] using a similar method to that which we intend, and another at the University of Newcastle,
Australia, which was developed using image processing techniques in conjunction with a textbook by Pro-
fessors Graham Goodwin, Stefan Graebe and Mario Salgado [7]. While this would seem to be a short list,
the ball and beam system seems to be a more popular and less structurally complex system to implement.
The aim of this project will be to create a ball-plate system using a resistive touch sensor to allow the
movement of a ball by means of automatic control. The system should have accuracy of < 2% in the
placement of the ball on the screen, as well as the ability to move the ball from one end of the plate to the
other in less than 2 seconds (long side). Overshoot should be minimal, to reduce the chances of losing the
ball off of the plate or incurring damage to the touch element due to striking the physical structure of the
system.
Current progress to date has shown great strides towards the creation of a fully modelled, fully controlled
balancing system. The modelling of the dynamics of the system have been completed, and the simulated
model validated by means of comparison to the physical system. The friction of the system has also been
identified through successive trials using varying torque inputs on both axes. A controller with full state-
feedback and an observer has also been designed, and is currently undergoing testing and incremental tuning.
The touchpad sensor interface is also complete, and waiting to be attached to the now completed mechanical
system.

4
Comparing the progress with the proposed initial schedule, work is proceeding as planned. This week is the
integration phase, and work is continuing on that front, with the physical system and sensors being married
together. Then the controller can finally be tested on the complete system, aiming for ball balancing some
time in the next week. The interface for the touchpad did have to be changed to using the serial controller
that came with the touchpad itself, but it all functions as expected. There are concerns that the motor
drivers cannot supply enough torque for our system with the current setup, and therefore might require
tweaking.
The prognosis for the remaining 5 weeks of development looks good. If the controller works as the simulation
shows, the basic objective of balancing a ball seems plausible. Given all present indications, the further goal
of tracing a path also seems possible.

5
Chapter 2

Preliminary Results

2.1 Model Development

In order to design a control system that will accurately control the position of the ball, a highly accurate
model must be developed. As the accuracy of the model increases, the control effort required will be less.
To develop this model, Professor Wens pantilt.m MATLAB script was run to find the equations of motion
for our system. This script returns symbolic values for the mass-inertia matrix, velocity coupling matrix,
gravity loading vector, and the total system energy. A SolidWorks model was developed, and from this,
numeric inertia tensors were found for bodies A and B with respect to our defined coordinate systems.
Unfortunately, using the linear control theory that we have learned thus far, it becomes difficult to develop
a control system for our fully non-linear model. Because of this, the system must be linearized about an
) = (0, d ). By doing this, we are left with the linearized equations of motion:
operating condition, (,

G(d )
M (d ) + ( d ) + Fv = Bu Fc sgn()
(2.1)

The state-space realization of this system becomes [5]:

0 0 1 0

0 0
  0 0 0 1  
x1 x1 0 0

=

1 G + (2.2)
M 1 F

x2 M (d ) x2 1 0

| {z v}
| {z } 2x2 0 1
2x2

  
1 0 0 0 x1
y=
0 1 0 0 x2

Using this linearized system, a controller can be developed for the plate.

6
In addition to the plate system, a model for the ball dynamics must be developed as well. If we ignore
coupling between the two modes of motion, as well as the friction between the ball and plate, a linear model
and transfer function can be determined [3].

J
( x = mb g
+ mb )
rb2

X(s) mg
= 2 J (2.3)
(s) s ( r2 + m)
b

7
Substituting numerical values into this equation results in the transfer function s2 . This double integrator
can be easily controlled with classical control approaches.

2.2 Control Development

The design approach for this control consists of two feedback loops: an inner loop to control the position
of the plate, and an outer loop to control the position of the ball [6]. A Simulink diagram illustrating this
approach can be seen in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Simulink Diagram - Complete System

In order to successfully implement this design, the inner loop must have a much faster response than the
outer loop. Since the inner loop can only be designed to be as fast as physical limitations allow (motor
torque, etc.), we must intentionally design the outer loop to be slower.
From the linearized system in Equation 2.2, a full state-feedback control can be implemented. For our
system we decided to use a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) to determine the feedback gain matrix, K,
such that the control becomes u = Kx. The Q matrix must be chosen to optimize the control to achieve

7
out desired result. Since we are interested in tracking 1 and 2 , we place a high weighting on those states.
In addition, the R function can be adjusted to either promote or penalize the control effort. After several
design iterations, the current Q and R matrices are found to be:

1000 0 0 0  
0 1000 0 0 .5 0
Q= R= (2.4)
0 0 0 0 0 .5
0 0 0 0

resulting in the feedback gain matrix:

 
44.7214 0 9.5625 0
K= (2.5)
0 44.7214 0 9.5625

With this gain matrix, the closed loop eigenvalues (A BK) are placed so that the damping ratio is = .707
and natural frequency is n = 6.68 rad/sec. The step response of this closed-loop system can be seen in
Figure 2.2. However, this response assumes that all states can be measured, when in fact we can only

Figure 2.2: State Feedback Control (LQR) - Step Response

measure position, not velocity. For this reason, we have implemented an observer to estimate the velocity
states of our system [4]. To do this, the plant was first converted to a discrete system using MATLABs
c2d() command using the zero-order hold method for a sampling frequency of 10KHz. Then, observer poles
are placed so that they are roughly five times faster than the closed-loop poles. To do this, we find the time
constant of the closed-loop poles, and calculate our observer poles accordingly. Using MATLABs place()
command, the observer gain matrix L is found to place the poles in these desired locations. The observer is
of the form:
x = Ax(k) + Bu(k) + L(y(k) y(k)) (2.6)

8
 y(k) = C
x(k)
P oles = 1e 3 [.478 .467j .478 + .467j .478 .467j .478 + .467j] (2.7)

2 0
0 2
L= 10000
(2.8)
0
0 10000
where x is the observers estimate of the velocity states, u is the system input, y is the plant output, and
y is the observer output. The L matrix ensures that the observer error, x (k) x(k) converges to zero [2].
This can easily be implemented as a controller of the form [8]:

u(k) = K
x(k)

(k + 1) = (A BK LC)
x x(k) + Ly(k) (2.9)
The Simulink diagram and response for this system can be seen in Figures 2.3 and 2.4. The observer

Figure 2.3: Simulink diagram for Observer Control

estimates the velocity fairly accurately, however this may be able to improve my moving the eigenvalues of
the observer (2.7). The closed-loop frequency response as well as gain and phase margins for this system
can be seen in Figure 2.5. It can be seen from this response that we should be able to track the plate at
a velocity of 6.7 rad/sec, while at the same time suppressing high-frequency sensor noise. This meets our
original specification of 1.36 rad/sec. The gain margin for the closed-loop plate system is 80.6dB at 138
rad/sec. At our desired speed, we should be able to position the plate with very little chance of instability.
It should be noted that in Figure 2.1, that the gravity and friction terms are being added back into the
control effort. This feedback linearization in effect cancels out the nonlinear terms within the plant, making
the control effort required less. However, this does not come without cost. The feedback linearization
increases computation time, as well as the torque requirement, though through both simulation and actual
experimental runs, this does not seem to pose a problem.
For the ball position control, a classical root-locus design methodology was used. Figure 2.6 shows the
locus before and after compensation. It can be seen from the prior that the open-loop system is only
marginally stable, and a purely proportional controller will not be sufficient to compensate for this. Instead
a proportional+integral+derivative (PID) control will be used. A zero is placed at s = 21 , and a pole to the
far right at s = 100 resulting in a derivative gain of Kd = 2. By using MATLABs rltool(), a proportional
gain of Kp =1 was found. In addition, a small integral term was added to improve the steady state response.

9
Figure 2.4: State Feedback Control with Observer - Step Response

Figure 2.5: Plate Frequency Response

10
 Figure 2.6: Ball Control - Root Locus

An integral gain of Kp = 1.05 was used to achieve this. closed-loop response can be seen in Figure 2.7. With
these relatively low gains, our control is sufficiently slow to allow the plate dynamics to respond.

14s2 + 7.073s + 7.34

(2.10)
.01s4 + s3 + 14s2 + 7.073s + 7.35
Equation 2.10 shows the closed-loop transfer function for the ball dynamics. The controller Kp + Kd s +
f racKi s can be converted to a digital controller using MATLABs c2d() command. This emulation design
approach can be used since the sampling time is sufficiently faster than the bandwidth of the closed-loop
system. After the discretization at a rate of 10KHz with a bilinear transform, the digital PID control
becomes:
199z 2 398z + 199
(2.11)
z 2 1.99 + .99
The frequency response and gain and phase margins can be seen in Figure 2.8. It can be seen that with this
control, we should be able to track the ball at 12 rad/sec, and high-frequency noise should be suppressed.
This meets our original design requirements.
Now that controllers have been developed separately for both plate position and ball position, it is desirable
to to combine the two, resulting in the diagram shown in Figure 2.1. By doing this, the plate control is
commanded by the output of the ball control. A simple test is to command a trajectory for the ball, and see
if the plate dynamics respond in such a way to follow that trajectory. For this test, we used two sine waves,
both at 2 rad/sec and amplitude of 0.04, and one inverted and 2 radians out of phase with the other. One
sine wave commanded the balls X position, the other, the balls Y position. By doing this, the ball should
essentially travel in a circle of radius 0.04m. This trajectory was commanded though a Simulink simulation,
and the results were promising. Figure 2.9 shows the balls response in a position vs. time manner. It can

11
 Figure 2.7: Ball Control - Step Response

Figure 2.8: Ball Control - Frequency Response

12
 Figure 2.9: Ball Position with Time - Circular Trajectory

be seen that initially, the ball has a 0.04m position error since its initial position is at (0,0). This does not
cause the system to go unstable, however there is some lag and overshoot while the ball tries to catch up to
the commanded position. Once the ball has caught up to the desired position, it tracks it with very little
error. Figure 2.10 shows the balls spatial position in an X vs. Y position plot. The ball initially overshoots
the desired trajectory as mentioned before, but then settles into a near perfect circular trajectory in roughly
3 seconds.
To better visualize this, a 3D animation has been created using MATLABs Virtual Reality Toolbox. The
model created in SolidWorks was exported as a VRML file, and a VR block was created in Simulink to move
the model in accordance with the simulation results. The Simulink block diagram and a sample frame from
the animation are shown in Figures 2.11 and 2.12. A video file of this animation is available upon request.

2.3 Friction Identification

Identification of the friction in the system was performed as prescribed in the design proposal. A Simulink
model capable of measuring the encoder and outputting constant voltages was used in conjunction with a
MATLAB script to repeatedly estimate the velocity of each joint. For each of 200 voltage increments from
minus two volts to plus to volts, the motor was allowed to turn for ten seconds so that it would reach steady
state velocity. The last four seconds were then averaged to obtain a single value for steady state velocity
for that particular torque (voltage). In addition, a one second ten volt spike was added in the beginning of
each run in order to overcome the stiction of the system. By plotting this data and finding a least squares
approximation for the data, the coulomb and viscous friction were found as the intercept and slope of the
regression line, respectively. The plots for each axis are shown in Figures 2.13 and 2.14.

13
Figure 2.10: Absolute Ball Position in Meters

Figure 2.11: Simulink Virtual Reality Diagram

14
Figure 2.12: 3D Animation of The Ball on Plate System

15
Figure 2.13: Pan Axis Friction Data

Figure 2.14: Tilt Axis Friction Data

16
2.4 Friction & Gravity Cancellation
Following the identification of the friction and gravity, a Simulink diagram was created to cancel out both
within the system. When the program was run, the system could be positioned by hand at any position
without falling and was very easy to move. A fairly light touch could rotate the system about an axis several
times before it settled at a location and remained there.
Through some simple hand calculations, the amount of torque required to cancel gravity in the system was
found to be about 0.4 N-m. This value matched the torque value in both the model and the value recorded
from running gravity cancellation on the actual system. The torque plot can be seen in Figure 2.15.

Figure 2.15: Gravity Compensation Torque Data

2.5 Validation
Having completed the identification of the systems inertia from the SolidWorks model, friction, and gravity
loading, the model of the system was completed. In order to verify the validity of this model, several
experiments were run on the system. These experiments included testing of the open loop response, step
response, and position tracking, for both the actual system and a simulation using the developed model.
The results were very promising.
The open loop response for both the actual system and simulation for an input of a 2.1 N-m torque are
shown in Figure 2.16. The plots for both are nearly identical.
With a preliminary control system running, the systems pan axis was commanded to a 0.5 radian position
using a step function input. The actual, desired, and simulated responses are shown in Figure 2.17. While

17
 Figure 2.16: Open Loop Response for 2.1 N-m Torque, Actual and Simulated

there is some variation between the actual and simulated responses including rise time and error, they are a
fairly close match as well.
In addition to a step response, several sine wave inputs were made to the controlled system and several
promising plots were generated. Sine waves with amplitude of one radian and for 1.5 rad/s and 3.0 rad/sec
frequency were used as input. Upon viewing the plots it is easy to see that while some further work is required
on the controller, the model is highly accurate when compared to the actual system. Some slight bumping
occurs on the downward stroke on one portion of the sine wave. By doing such things as increasing the speed
of the observer by moving its poles, this bumping effect can be removed. The plots are shown in Figures
2.18 and 2.19.
A simple tolerance analysis test to verify the gain and phase margins (qualitatively) is to give the system
a disturbance while in operation. While the system was being commanded to follow a sine wave input, we
held the yoke from moving by hand. After letting go, the system sped up to catch up with the desired
trajectory, and then fell back into sync. No tolerance analysis has yet been done as far as sensor noise,
however according to the frequency responses of both controllers, high-frequency noise should be sufficiently
attenuated.

2.6 Subsystem Development

The touchpad interface relies entirely on the capabilities of the 3M Dynapro SC3 serial interface controller
for its operation. The touchpad is composed of 90 offset plates. Voltage is applied across one plate while
reading voltage information from the other plane. When pressure is applied to the surface, an electrical

18
 Figure 2.17: Step Response

Figure 2.18: Tracking Error for 1.5 rad/sec sine wave

19
 Figure 2.19: Tracking Error for 3.0 rad/sec sine wave

connection is made, which results in a change of voltage at the output. This change corresponds to the
distance between the contacts on the plate. One reading is made from each of the two plates to create an
X-Y coordinate pair.
The SC3 controller takes these X-Y coordinate pairs it generates and converts them into sets of three 8-bit
packets which can be converted into coordinate pairs. The actual coordinate values are 10-bit values, that
are actually spread across the three separate packets as shown in Table 2.1. Note that in the table, the P
bit refers to the status of the pen, or the object touching the pad: 1 is pen down, 0 is pen up. Also note
that x9 refers to the 10th bit of the 10-bit x coordinate number, and so forth for all xk and yk . [1]

Table 2.1: Touchpad Controller Packet composition

Packet/Bit # 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
#1 (sync) 1 P x9 x8 x7 y9 y 8 y7
#2 (data) 0 x6 x5 x4 x3 x2 x1 x0
#3 (data) 0 y6 y 5 y4 y 3 y2 y 1 y0

All of these packets are sent asynchronously and without prompting: as soon as the touchpad receives
sufficient pressure for the controller to register a touch, the system begins to send data. In order to process
this data, and get the resultant coordinate information into the real-time computer, a serial interface needs
to be created in MATLAB Simulink that can be compiled for the xPC Target system.
The basic overall system utilizes the binary receive block in Simulink to retrieve data as sets of three 1-byte
packets as described in the manual. The RS232 Setup block sets the link parameters as 2400 bps, and 8-N-1 -
8 bits per packet, no parity, and 1 stop bit. Normally, Simulink is unable to utilize binary numbers, however,

20
the communications toolbox allows conversion to and from binary. This makes possible the individual bit
manipulation necessary to move the 8-bit packets from the controller into the 10-bit binary words that the
controllers A/D converter creates. The Simulink diagrams can be seen in figures 2.20 and 2.21.

Figure 2.20: xPC Target Touchpad Interface

Figure 2.21: xPC Target Touchpad Packet Conversion

Testing of the system in real time using the steel ball as a touch source as well as the rubber membrane on
the surface of the touch screen yields clear coordinate plots such as the one seen in Figure 2.22. Further
testing will have to wait until the physical system is completed, including approximated error calculations
due to quantization and signal noise.

21
Figure 2.22: Touchpad Ball Test

22
Chapter 3

Summary of Progress

3.1 Plan
The basic project plan remains unchanged: upon completion, the system should autonomously balance a
ball on a plate. To that end, the system has been modelled and linearized, and a controller designed around
the dynamics of the ball and the two-axis pan-tilt mechanism.
Plans also remain in place to allow the system to put the ball into different planned paths, including for
example a circle or a figure-eight shape. Further development could also involve a graphical user interface.

3.2 Schedule
To date, progress has been as scheduled with only minor glitches or setbacks during the construction and
development. Of note is the construction of the physical system in the RPI Student Machine Shop, which took
significantly longer than originally thought. The end result is acceptable for our system, though it remains
to be tested as a complete system. Other steps, however, proceeded as planned: model development, friction
id, validation and control system development all on schedule, as evidenced by the results detailed previously
in this report.
The remainder of the schedule remains as originally planned, shown in Table 3.1. This week is devoted
to sensor integration and control system testing and development. The real work now is focused on the
completion of the physical system with sensors, and the testing of the simulated control system against a
fully working real system. If things proceed as desired, ball balancing should occur within the next week or
two, proceeding thus to planned ball trajectories.

23
 Table 3.1: Remaining schedule
Week Task Member
Week 10 Integration of sensors Aaron
Control system testing Greg
Sensor testing Chris
Week 11 Static ball balancing Team
Week 12 Complex path following Team
Week 13 Work on final report Team
Final demonstration Team
Week 14 Work on final report Team
Final presentation Team
Week 15 Final report Team

3.3 Cost
Costs have remained as originally planned, mostly due to a large allowance for aluminum usage during
construction of the yoke and axis. This previously conceived overestimate turned out to be quite accurate,
due to errors made during machining. In fact, several pieces of the yoke and axle had to be completely
remade due to errors.
One item of mention not previously introduced in the project proposal is a Lexan panel. The touch pad
sensor is constructed with a glass substrate, and while stiff, glass is not shatterproof. It was the consensus
of the team members that during testing, a Lexan panel stand in as the sensor plate, so that the expensive
and difficult to source touch sensor was not damaged. This plate will also serve as protection for the touch
sensor during operation, and perhaps as a stiffener, providing structural support to the sensor.
A new tilt axis belt was also purchased because of the changes made to the dimensions of the yoke. Due to
the uncertainty of the outcome of the machining process, the belt purchase was put off until recently, to be
certain of choosing the correct size. The new belt ties directly into the new tilt drive system, made possible
by using a remanufactured tilt motor bracket from last years project. This also saved significant machining
time.

3.4 Unanticipated Challenges

Several unanticipated challenges have come up during system development. Of particular concern involves
the required torque for normal system operation. During testing, it was realized that the magnitude of torque
required by the system was larger than expected, approaching or exceeding the saturation point of the motor
drivers. Further testing is planned to ascertain if the system is feasible with the drivers configured as they
are currently, or if the D/A+Motor driver system might have to be tweaked to generate more amperage.
A further controller-related challenge is related to the observer design. Several initial implementations failed
to work as well as the basic finite difference. This is obviously a problem related to the placement of the
poles or the implementation in Simulink, and should be corrected upon further discussion on the topic with
Professor John Wen.

24
 Table 3.2: List of parts
Item Qty Cost Total Source
1 1/4 diam. 440C stainless ball 1 $9.17 $9.17 McMaster-Carr
Dynapro 95640 10.4 8-wire resistive touch pad 1 $39 $39 Ebay
Pittman motor GM9234S017 (pan) 1 $97.59 $97.59 Supplied
Pittman motor GM9234S017 (tilt) 1 $97.59 $97.59 Supplied
Pan gear A 1 $9.97 $9.97 Supplied
Pan gear B 1 $22.02 $22.02 Supplied
Tilt gear A 1 $7.95 $7.95 Supplied
Tilt gear B 1 $22.02 $22.02 Supplied
Pan belt 1 $3.92 $3.92 Supplied
Tilt belt 1 $3.55 $3.55 www.sdp-si.com
Misc screws $5.00 $5.00 Home Depot
Total $269.61

Table 3.3: List of raw materials

Item Qty Cost Total Source
1/2 aluminum stock 5 lb $4/lb $20 RPI Machine Shop
1/16 latex rubber membrane 1 $9.38 - 12x12 $9.38 McMaster-Carr
.093 Lexan panel 1 $5.00 - 8x10 $5.00 Home Depot
Total $34.38

Table 3.4: Labor costs

Description Hours Cost Total
Andrews, Greg (engineer) 300 $35/hr $10,500
Colasuonno, Chris (engineer) 300 $35/hr $10,500
Herrmann, Aaron (engineer) 300 $35/hr $10,500
Caskey, Ryan (machinist) 30 $35/hr $1,050
Total 930 $32,550

25
An unanticipated challenge presented itself during the machining of the yoke and axle. Despite a strict
attention to detail for all of the dimensions of the parts, a simple detail was misunderstood with regard
to the axle bearings. Upon discussion with TA Benjamin Potsaid, it became apparent that the holes for
the axle bearings needed to be slightly smaller than needed, so as to press fit the bearings. However, the
holes made are in fact exactly to size, yielding a loose fit. This isnt expected to impact the performance of
the system simply because the system is not meant to spin, merely to rotate back and forth through small
angular displacements.
In the area of subsystem development, the expectation was that A/D conversion for the generation of touch
pad coordinates would be done by the analog inputs of the xPC Target computer. However, comprehending
the outputs from the touch pad itself proved difficult at best. Since the controller included with the purchased
touch pad worked, an xPC Target based serial port interface system was created to interface with the
controller and generate ball coordinates for the control system.
Another challenge related to the touchpad is the configuration of the serial controller. Several attempts have
been made to change the averaging, settling time and baud rate settings of the controller with zero success.
Though the timing and format of the messages are known, the controller seems to ignore the settings. It
is not yet known whether this is merely an error in the controller, or merely a failure to understand the
message formats. However, successfully configuring the controller could yield a significant improvement in
the sampling period of the ball coordinate generation system.
A challenge that has recently come to light is the zeroing of the axes upon system startup. Simplicity
dictates that development forego the usage of inclinometers, simply to make the work easier. However, it
has proven difficult to get the axes initially perfectly zeroed for just a test of the pan axis. Once the system
is physically completed and testing of the balancing system commence, finding a zero point could prove to
be difficult. And if that measurement isnt correct, the error trickles through all of the systems: gravity
compensation is wrong, encoder angles are wrong. Ultimately, the answer might very well be to create a jig
for the inclinometers that allows a quick startup configuration and then the subsequent removal of the jig
during a test.

3.5 Forecast
A reasonable forecast for the remainder of the project suggests that at the very least, we will complete the
balancing problem. Whether or not the system can be made to overcome the present challenges and track
out a ball path is still unknown, though the group is willing to put in the time to make certain it can. All
that remains to be seen is what the controller is capable of, and what it can be made to do with proper
testing and tuning.

26
Chapter 4

Statement of Contribution

For the progress report document:

Greg completed the following sections:
Model development
Controller development
Chris completed the following sections:
Validation
Friction Identification
Friction & Gravity Cancellation
Aaron completed the following sections:
Abstract
Introduction
Subsystem Development
Summary of Progress

Greg Andrews Chris Colasuonno Aaron Herrmann

x x x

27
Bibliography

[1] 3M Touch Systems. SC3 Touch Screen Controller: Users Guide, 2nd edition, 2003.
[2] Dr. Murat Arcak. Discrete time systems - lecture notes. 2003.
[3] No Author Available. Control tutorials for matlab: Modeling the ball and beam experiment. Available
WWW: http://wolfman.eos.uoguelph.ca/jzelek/matlab/ctms/examples/ball/ball.htm.
[4] No Author Available. Control tutorials for matlab: State space tutorial. Available WWW: http:
//www.engin.umich.edu/group/ctm/state/state.html.
[5] No Author Available. Digital control example: Inverted pendulum using state space method. Available
WWW: http://wolfman.eos.uoguelph.ca/jzelek/matlab/ctms/examples/pend/diginvss.htm.
[6] S. Awtar, C. Bernard, N. Boklund, A. Master, D. Ueda, and K. Craig. Mechatronic design of a ball-on-
plate balancing system. Technical report, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2002.
[7] Graham Goodwin, Stefan Graebe, and Mario Salgado. Control system design - ball-on-plate tutorial.
Available WWW: http://csd.newcastle.edu.au/control/simulations/ball sim.html, 2001.
[8] C. Phillips and H. Nagle. Digital control system analysis and design, third edition. Technical report,
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1995.

28
Appendix A

MATLAB Code

% Greg Andrews
% System Linearization and Control System setup
% March 15, 2004
% Control System Design

%Symbolic Variables
syms mA mB g t1 t2 lcA1 lcA2 lcA3 lcB1 lcB2 lcB3 Im1 Im2 N1 N2
syms IA11 IA12 IA13 IA21 IA22 IA23 IA31 IA32 IA33 syms IB11 IB12
IB13 IB21 IB22 IB23 IB31 IB32 IB33

%Gravity Vector
G1=
-mA*g*sin(t1)*lcA1-mA*g*cos(t1)*lcA2-mB*g*sin(t1)*cos(t2)*lcB1-mB*g*cos(t1)*lcB2-mB*g*sin(t1)*sin(t2)*lc
G2= -mB*g*cos(t1)*sin(t2)*lcB1+mB*g*cos(t1)*cos(t2)*lcB3;

%Gradient of the Gravity Vector

partial_G=[diff(G1,t1) diff(G1,t2); diff(G2,t1)
diff(G2,t2)];

%Mass-Inertia Matrix
M11=
IA33+mA*lcA1^2+mA*lcA2^2+Im1*N1^2+IB11-IB11*cos(t2)^2+mB*lcB2^2+mB*lcB3^2-mB*lcB3^2*cos(t2)^2-2*sin(t2)*
M12=
-sin(t2)*IB12+sin(t2)*mB*lcB1*lcB2+cos(t2)*IB23-cos(t2)*mB*lcB2*lcB3;
M21=
-sin(t2)*IB12+sin(t2)*mB*lcB1*lcB2+cos(t2)*IB23-cos(t2)*mB*lcB2*lcB3;
M22= IB22+mB*lcB1^2+mB*lcB3^2+Im2*N2^2;

29
M=[M11 M12; M21 M22];

%---------------------------------------------------
% Numerical Parameters
g=9.81; Im1=11.5; Im2=11.5;

mA = 0.9690; % mass of link A in Kg

lcA1 = .0016; % distance to COM
lcA2 = -.0401; lcA3 = -.1367;

mB = 0.3872; lcB1 = -.0028; lcB2 = -.0406; lcB3 = .0003;

N1=2*11.5; % total gear ratio

N2=4*11.5;

IA11 = .027716; % inertia

IA12 = -.000122; IA13 = -.000253; IA21 = -.000122; IA22 = .020929;
IA23 = .006546; IA31 = -.000253; IA32 = .006546; IA33 = .007022;

IB11 = .004464; IB12 = 0; IB13 = -.000001; IB21 = 0; IB22 =

0.001030; IB23 = 0; IB31 = -0.000001; IB32 = 0; IB33 = .003540;

fc1 = .097; % friction

fv1 = .0019; fv2 = 0.00784; fc2 = 0.00784;

t1=0; t2=0;

G_lin=vpa(subs(partial_G)); M_lin=vpa(subs(M)); Fv=[fv1 0; 0 fv2];

Astuff1=-inv(M_lin)*G_lin; Astuff2=-inv(M_lin)*Fv;

% State space representation

A=[0 0 1 0; 0 0 0 1; Astuff1(1,1) Astuff1(1,2) Astuff2(1,1)
Astuff2(1,2); Astuff1(2,1) Astuff1(2,2) Astuff2(2,1)
Astuff2(2,2)]; A=subs(A); B=[0 0; 0 0; 1 0; 0 1]; C=[1 0 0 0; 0 1
0 0]; D=[0 0; 0 0]; sys_c=ss(A,B,C,D); sys_d=c2d(sys_c,.0001);

% LQR
w1=1000; w2=1000; w3=1; w4=1; Q=[w1 0 0 0;
0 w2 0 0;
0 0 w3 0;
0 0 0 w4];

R=.5*eye(2);

30
K=lqr(A,B,Q,R);

% Observer
PL=[-1000 -1001 -1002 -1003]; L=place(A,C,PL);
Aobs=(A-B*K-L*C); Bobs=L; Cobs=K; Dobs=D;
Obs=ss(Aobs,Bobs,Cobs,Dobs); Ts=.0001; Obs=c2d(Obs,Ts);

31