Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Gamble^
Fluid Power Centre, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY United Kingdom
Introduction The use of electrohydraulic systems is becoming more widespread in industry accompanied by a growing interest in digital control. The control valve forms a vital component of any such system since it has to perform both power conversion and amplification functions. Flapper-nozzle type valves have traditionally been used where fast dynamic response is required. The latest generation of high speed direct acting proportional solenoid valves provide a cost effective, less contamination sensitive alternative for many applications. Such a valve is shown in Fig. 1. The valve spool is driven by a proportional direct acting d.c. solenoid mounted on the end of the valve block. Both the dynamic and static characteristics of this type of valve can be improved by operating the valve as a closed loop system. Spool position is sensed (using an LVDT or inductive position transducer), and fed back to an electronic controller which modulates the solenoid current in response to a spool position demand signal. However, nonlinear dynamic behaviour of the solenoid makes controller design difficult, and has historically resulted in the use of less sophisticated manually tuned controllers. The dynamic response of the valve/controller combination has therefore often been limited by the controller rather than physical limitations in the valve. Thus the development of improved controllers for direct acting solenoid valves is attractive since it would enable such valves to be used in more demanding applications. The development of an accurate solenoid model formed the initial stage of a project aimed at developing an improved controller for a prototype valve supplied by Vickers Systems Ltd. As such, a "good" model was one which gave an accurate representation of spool position to a given solenoid drive voltage. Clearly from a simulation point of view, a "black-box" model would have been suitable in many applications. However, the nonlinearities inherent in the solenoid meant that each energy conversion process had to be modeled separately in order to achieve the required accuracy. The model structure was established analytically and experimental data used to determine the required coefficients. The resultant model faithfully reproduces the valve characteristics in a form suitable for use in the dynamic simulation of valve controllers.
' Now with Sun Hydraulics Corp. Sarsota, FL. Contributed by tlie Dynamic Systems and Control Division for publication in
the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript
Flow force effects have been ignored in this investigation. In practice, the flow forces acting on the spool will be significant. However, from a control viewpoint, these are unmeasurable disturbance forces which can be approximated by simple step disturbance functions for the purpose of controller evaluation. 2 Solenoid Model
The solenoid operates on the same principle as a reluctance motor (Bolton, 1986). Current through the coil generates a magnetic potential difference across the air gap. This magnetic potential difference produces an attractive force between the opposing stator and armature pole pieces. The armature therefore moves to close the air gap and minimise the reluctance in the magnetic circuit. A push pin extending from the center of the armature acts directly on the spool. The solenoid used in this valve is termed "proportional" because the pole pieces have been shaped in order to produce a more linear force/ displacement characteristic. Even so, linearity can only be maintained for a portion of full solenoid stroke (Hardwick, 1984). Previous work on modeling of solenoids for valve applications has either assumed that the solenoid can be accurately represented by a linear first-order lag (Prest and Vaughan, 1987) or has concentrated on predicting the flux patterns within the solenoid core using finite element methods (Lequesne, 1987 and Yamada et al., 1976). The former approach does not accurately describe the hysteresis and saturation effects due to losses in the iron core, and the latter, while accurately describing the magnetic characteristics, is not in a form which can be used for controller design studies. The simplest form of solenoid model is a resistor in series with a linear inductor as shown in Fig. 2. The voltage/current relationship can easily be derived by equating the voltage in the circuit:
VS=VR+ VL
r di iR + L
(1)
received by the DSCD March 23, 1996; revised manuscript received February 1994. Associate Technical Editor: A. Akers.
There is no need to model the magnetic characteristics of this circuit since the flux in a linear inductor is proportional to the current. The constant of proportionality can be incorporated into a current/force relationship. In reality, the inductance of the solenoid is not linear; losses in the iron core produce magnetic saturation and hysteresis effects. A lumped parameter hysteresis model has been proposed by Chua and Stromsmoe (1970). This model consists of Transactions of the ASME
Return Spring
Sleeve j
Non-magnetic Section
V,
^ ^
> V.
r
y
1 s
\i
Id = giVt)
- r
dt
(6)
a resistor in series with a nonlinear inductor where the current can be described by:
i = i,+ i=f{\)
+ g(V,)
(2)
where X is the flux linkage in the inductor, a n d / ( \ ) and giV^) are strictly monotonic functions. These functions can be thought of as energy restoring and dissipation terms, which together define the magnetic characteristics of the solenoid as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore (, represents a measure of the energy stored in the magnetic circuit, and i^ represents a measure of the energy lost due to hysteresis. Note that the magnetic characteristics of a solenoid are normally expressed as a plot of magnetic flux density B versus magnetic field intensity H, but in practice these quantities are difficult to obtain. For a simple coil however:
The works of Chua and Stromsmoe (1970) and Chua and Bass (1972) were directed at modelling nonlinear inductance effects, rather than solenoids or other electromechanical devices. Therefore Eq. (6) only describes the electrical characteristics and a flux/force relationship must be added to the model. It can be shown that the force generated by an ideal solenoid is proportional to the square of flux density (Hawes, 1972). Investigation of the solenoid, however, revealed that due to fringing effects, the square law did not hold for low values of flux. Again measurement of flux density is difficult, so from Eq. (4) the flux/force relationship was modeled in terms of flux linkage giving Eq. (7), where h(\^) is the nonlinear flux/ force gain.
h{\^) // = ^
(3) (4)
(7)
5= A
AN
For a solenoid; A'', /, and A will be constant; but difficult to measure. Therefore the k/i curve is a scaled version of the B/ H magnetization curve. In addition, unlike B and //, X . and i can be readily obtained; ;' can be measured directly and \ can be obtained from Faraday's law: (5)
Figure 4 shows the elements in a block diagram form, giving the complete solenoid model. Note that the armature displacement, X, has been introduced into both the flux/force relationship, and the restoring function. Displacement of the spool/ armature changes the air gap between the pole piece and hence changes the characteristics of the magnetic circuit. In a linear solenoid model, the effects of changing the air gap can be simulated by including the rate of change in inductance in Eq. (1). The new equation is (Prest and Vaughan, 1987): Vs = iR + L di dt
+ I
dL dt
(8)
dt
dt
Equation (2) only applies when the solenoid is subjected to continuous voltage inputs. When discontinuous input voltages are applied, Eq. (2) allows the dissipation function to increase instantaneously. This cannot occur in practice. Chua and Bass (1972) have proposed a generalised version of Eq. (2) which is valid for all inputs and can be used to model non-electrical hysteresis effects. A simplified version of this is used here by including a time constant, T, in the dissipation function giVi) giving:
However, in the nonlinear model described by Eq. (2), L is implicitly contained within the restoring and dissipation functions; this can be seen by comparing Fig. 4 with Fig. 2. Thus the restoring, dissipation and flux/force functions all had to be made dependent on spool displacement. Having determined the structure of the solenoid model, the modeling procedure was reduced to identifying suitable coefficients for Eqs. (6) and (7). Due to the complex effects of material and physical construction on these magnetic characteristics, the identification method had to be based on empirical curve fitting techniques (Chua and Stromsmoe, 1970). A series
Nomenclature
A = area of magnetic circuit B = magnetic flux density c = coulomb friction coefficient F = force generated by solenoid /(X) = restoring function / = ith restoring function coefficient giVt) = dissipation function gi = ith dissipation function coefficient H = magnetic field intensity h(\^) = force/flux linkage relationship hi = ith force/flux relationship coefficient i = current ir = restoring current id = dissipation current k = spool return spring stiffness L = inductance / = length of magnetic circuit M = mass of spool/armature N = number of turns on solenoid coil p = spool return spring preload R = resistance Vt = inductive component of supply voltage VR = resistive component of supply voltage Vs = supply voltage X = spool displacement V = viscous friction coefficient X = flux linkage r = dissipation time constant # = magnetic flux MARCH 1996, Vol. 118 / 121
Fig. 3
of experiments were conducted in order to obtain the transient magnetic characteristics of the solenoid. However, the latest finite element methods (Yamada et al., 1976) allow transient analysis to be carried out. It would therefore also have been possible to obtain the necessary model coefficients by applying the same curve fitting techniques to finite element simulation results. 2.1 Experimental Results. In order to minimise temperature effects, all experiments were conducted at a constant temperature of 30C. The solenoid was heated to this temperature prior to each experiment by passing a constant current through the coil. The three functions in Eqs. (6) and (7) were identified by locking the armature in position and applying a step voltage input to the solenoid coil. A transputer based data acquisition system was used to sample and store the voltage, current and solenoid force with a sample rate of 3 kHz. A piezoresistive load cell was used to measure the force generated by the solenoid. The step voltage was limited by the range of the data acquisition system to a maximum of 10 V; a nominal value of 8 V was used. This step test was conducted for 11 different armature displacements over the 2 mm stroke length. In addition, step tests were also conducted with the armature locked in the zero position, using 4 different nominal step voltages from 2 V to 8 V in order to confirm that the model was valid for different voltage inputs. Note that zero displacement of the armature corresponded to the spool centre position. Both positive and negative displacements either side of this position being possible. The voltage, current, and force data for the zero position step test are shown in Fig. 5. Also shown in this figure are the results obtained using the completed solenoid model; estimation of the coefficients used is described below. Note that the input voltage is not constant, but decreases as the current increases. This volt
200
- Simulation results
drop was due to the output impedance of the power supply. Simulation errors were avoided by using the actual voltage measured across the solenoid rather than the nominal input voltage step. The solenoid coil resistance could have been measured before conducting the experiments; but to remove any spurious temperature effects this was calculated from the steady state voltage and current values collected during each experiment. The average coil resistance was found to be 2.95 fi. This value was used in subsequent simulation work. The magnetization curve for each displacement was produced by calculating the flux Unkage using Eq. (5) and plotting this against current. The magnetization curves for the two extreme armature positions are shown in Fig. 6. The restoring function
0.3
F.hW,x) Vs * 0 V,
^ irfO-,x) i','8(V,) ^
(1+ST)
^
iU
- Simulation results
0.25 0.2
S 0.15
0 Experimental Results
1y
i
0 2 Inductor Voltage, V^ (V)
Experimental results
for each displacement was then obtained by fitting a mean magnetization curve representing the centre of the hysteresis loop using a least squares curve fitting technique. The best fit was obtained using a function of the form:
F = hk^ + hiX'+
hiX^
(12)
ir=f3\'
+fA
(9)
The effects of armature position were again incorporated by plotting the coefficients hi, h2 and h} against spool displacement giving functions of the form:
hi hnx^ I112A -r hux iiiiA + - r f(iQ + hu
where /i and /2 are displacement dependent coefficients. The effect of armature/spool displacement on Eq. (9) was quantified by plotting /i and Ji against displacement. Polynomials were fitted to these points giving Eq. (10). The complete restoring function/(\, x) was obtained by combining equations (9) and (10).
/ i fi\X + f\o
(13)
The regression coefficients for Eqs. (10), (11), and (13) are given in Table 1. 3 Spool Model The armature/spool arrangement shown in Fig. 1 was modelled as a lumped parameter spring/mass/damper system as shown in Fig. 10. M is the lumped mass of the spool and armature, and k and p are the combined stiffness and preload respectively of the spool and armature return springs. The friction is modelled as a viscous damping term v, and a coulomb friction term c. F is the solenoid force, and x is the armature/ spool displacement both as previously defined. This gives a relationship of the form: ^.dx dx F = M r + V V c sen dr dt + kx + p (14)
(10)
fi = h^x^ + fiix'^ + hix + fio The next stage in the identification procedure was to estimate the dissipation function g(Vt). It can be seen from Fig. 6, however, that the main effect of moving the armature is to bend the magnetization curve rather than to change the width of the hysteresis loop. It was therefore decided to ignore the effects of armature displacement on the dissipation function. Using the restoring function previously identified, /,, was calculated from the experimental data using Eq. (2). A curve was then fitted to the plot of ia vs V/, giving the dissipation function. The best fit was obtained using a piecewise function of the form: g|yz,l*'^sgn(VJ:
g(VL) =
ft,|V,|-sgn(VJ:
This function is shown in Fig. 7 and although there is scatter in the experimental data, it compares well with similar dissipation functions obtained by Chua and Stromsmoe (1970). The time constant of the dissipation function was estimated by simulating the voltage/current relationship using the ACSL simulation package, and adjusting r to give a good fit with the experimental results. The simulated magnetization curves, with r = 2 ms, are plotted together with the experimental results in Fig. 6. The response of the solenoid model to voltage inputs of varying magnitude was also simulated. These results are plotted together with the experimental results in Fig. 8. Figure 9 shows the experimental and modelled flux/force relationship for the two extreme armature positions. The slight hysteresis effect shown in the experimental results was attributed to static friction in the armature bearings and was thus ignored at this stage. Using a similar procedure to that used for the restoring function, a polynomial of the form given in Eq. (12) was fitted to the flux/force data for each displacement. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control
90807060504030-
/ / x^-lxam
,^v^a:=+lnim
y//^-\ ) ^y^ t
^ss^
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 Flux Linkage', ^^ (Wb")
- Simulation results
f
/i /3
/i,2 2.67
fm
4.15 97.3
5.55
gx ft
0.10 0.14
J^^^TTrHTr:^.-..
,.J....^
K,
8.55 X 10' -124 X 10'
h,2
/!,,,
- 1 . 0 2 X 10' 7.70 X 1 0 ' 49.1 X 1 0 '
ht,a
except the friction terms can be obtained by direct measurement. In addition, a measure of the coulomb friction was obtained from the hysteresis effect exhibited in the flux/force plot shown in Fig. 9. The identification process was therefore reduced to estimating a suitable value for the viscous friction coefficient. 3.1 Experimental Results. An 8 V step voltage was applied to the solenoid, and the voltage, current and spool displacement were sampled as the spool moved from one end stop to the other. Time plots of current voltage and displacement are shown in Fig. 11. A measure of the solenoid force was required in order to estimate the viscous friction coefficient. However, the piezoresistive load cell used for static load measurement was found to be unsuitable for measuring the force whilst itself moving with the armature. It was therefore decided to estimate the force using the solenoid model previously identified by substituting the measured voltage and current into Eqs. (5), (9), and (10). Next, velocity and acceleration had to be derived from the spool displacement data. A nonrecursive digital differentiating filter was used to estimate (off-fine) a noise free velocity signal. Such filters avoid the introduction of phase errors associated with traditional analogue differentiation techniques, and the roll-off can be made arbitrarily steep to prevent the amplification of high frequency measurement noise (Hamming, 1989). A 51 coefficient filter with a bandwidth of 500 Hz was used. The velocity at each sample point was estimated using the 25 preceding and 25 succeeding displacement samples, and thus had the disadvantage of losing the first and last 25 velocity points. A similar double differentiator was used to estimate spool acceleration from the displacement data. Finally, the viscous friction coefficient wa.s chosen to minimise the sum of forces given by Eq. (14). This value was
50
100
200
250
300
Experimental results
- Simulation results
incorporated into the valve model which was then used to simulate the original step response test. These results are also shown in Fig. 11 and can be seen to give very good agreement with the experimental results. The spool model coefficients were as follows: spool/armature mass, spring stiffness, spring preload, viscous friction, coulomb friction, 4 M = 101 g k = 19 N/mm p = 40 N z/ = 6 Ns/m c = 2N
n"
h,p
a) Schematic Diagram
b) Block Diagram
Conclusions A dynamic simulation model has been developed which accurately predicts the spool displacement of a proportional solenoid valve to a voltage input. In addition, the model also simulates the magnetic saturation and hysteresis properties of the solenoid. Although these have been modelled using empirical methods, the physical structure of the solenoid dynamics is accurately represented. Thus each empirical relationship can be related to a physical process. This has the advantage that the model can easily be modified to take account of changes in valve design. Further, with the use of sophisticated finite element methods, the transient magnetic characteristics required to form the model can be obtained by simulation. Thus the development of a new valve can progress from valve design to performance evaluation before the manufacturer of a prototype. The model has successfully been used in later work to develop improved valve controllers. The main advantage over linear simulation models in this case is that the model accurately Transactions of the ASME
References
Bolton, B., 1986, Electromagnetism and its Applications, Van Nostrand, pp,
methods.
N o e d d y c u r r e n t effects w e r e o b s e r v e d d u r i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a r, , . , . IT , , . , 1 tion described i n this paper. U n d e r n o r m a l conditions, the solenoid is driven from a 2 4 V supply, and this coupled with the
98-101.
Chua, L. O., and Stromsmoe, K. A 1970 ''Lumped Circuit Models for Nonlinear Inductors Exhibiting Hysteresis Loops, / rranracrionj on Orcm; r a o^y, Vol. CT-17, No, 4, pp. 564-574. Chua, L, O., and Bass, S. C , 1972, "A Generalized Hysteresis Model," IEEE
fact that neither the armature or the solenoid frame are laminated, may give rise to eddy current losses in practice. If found to be significant, a simple eddy current model could be included
(Prest and Vaughan, 1987).
Transactions on circuit Theory, Voi. CT-19, NO. 1, pp. 36-48. HaZick,' D^\9%A^-hSJ^Z'i'^opio^^^^^ Pneumatics, Aug., pp. 58-60.
&
Hawes, M . A., 1972, Electromagnetic Machines, Vol. 1, Collins, pp. 51-52. Lequesne, B., 1987, "Finite Element Analysis of a Constant Force Solenoid for Fluid Flow Control," Proc. IEEE Industrial Applications Society Annual Mtg., pp. 46-51. Prest, P., and Vaughan, N. D., 1987, "Drive Circuits for Pulse Width Modulated Valves," Proc. international Conference on Fluid Power, March 24-26, Tampere Finland, pp. 217-225. Yamada, S., Kanamaru, Y., and Bessho, K., 1976, "The Transient Magnetiza^ion Process and Operations in the Plunger Type Electromagnet," IEEE Transac-
and Vickers Systems Ltd for their assistance with this project,