4.5 Article

Group delay induced instabilities and Hopf bifurcations, of a controlled double pendulum

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2010.01.001

关键词

Time delay; Double pendulum; Hopf bifurcation; Digital filter; Group delay

资金

  1. National Natural Foundation of China [10532050, 10702024, 10702025]
  2. MOE of China [20070287029]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Digital filters, frequently used in active control of mechanical systems, enable one to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and the control performance, but introduce group delays into the control loops simultaneously. In order to gain an insight into the effects of a digital filter on a controlled mechanical system, this paper presents the stability switches and the corresponding Hopf bifurcations of a double pendulum system with the linear quadratic control having a digital filter via theoretical analysis, numerical simulations and experiments. In this study, the digital filters are used to remove the undesired noise of high frequency, which is embedded in the control signal, and are modeled as the components of pure time delay during the theoretical analysis and numerical simulations. The study shows that a digital filter with moderate specifications can not only improve the vibration reduction effectively, but also save the energy consumption of the servo-motor remarkably. However, over demanding specifications will make the group delay of the filter exceed a critical value and cause either a divergent motion or a self-excited vibration through a Hopf bifurcation, the occurrence of which depends on both the stability and the size of the basin of attraction of the bifurcating periodic motion. The experimental results well coincide with the theoretical and numerical ones, and strongly support the simplification of the digital filters as the components of pure time delay. Finally, some suggestions are made to avoid the group delay induced instability. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据