Experimental Evaluation of a New Braking System for Use in

Passive Haptic Displays

S.Munir, L. Tognetti and W.J.Book
George W.Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute Of Technology
Atlanta, GA, 30332
Abstract
Passive haptic displays have several advantages when
compared to active devices. Safety elements associated with
active haptic displays may make them undesirable for
certain applications. One method of actuation for passive
haptic robots is through the use of brakes and clutches.
Traditionally, friction brakes have undesirable behavior,
such as stiction and delay in response time due to
mechanical motion.
In this study a new brake concept is proposed. The
performance of this brake is evaluated and quantified
through a series of controlled experiments. Particular
attention is given to the phenomenon of stiction in Delrin,
dynamic response of the new brake, and effectiveness of
feedback control for braking torque.
1. Introduction
A
B
C
D
1
2
3
4
Figure 1: Passive Trajectory Enhancing Robot (PTER)
Haptic interfaces have various applications ranging
from training devices to super joysticks for remotely
operated robots. These interfaces relay tactile information
back to the user with regards to the mechanism being tele-
operated or virtual environment being simulated. Existing
marketed haptic interfaces rely on powered actuators to
resist motion or apply force to the user, simulating desired
virtual boundaries or other haptic features. Due to the size
or nature of a specific application, it may not be desirable to
use a haptic interface with capabilities of overpowering the
human's input. This has opened the area for passive haptic
interfaces. Passive haptic interfaces do not use actuators
capable of adding energy to the system, but rather utilize
actuators that dissipate or redirect user supplied energy.
The device pictured in Figure 1 is an existing two-
degree of freedom passive haptic robot called PTER
(Passive Trajectory Enhancing Robot). PTER is a test bed,
utilizing brakes to dissipate or redirect user supplied energy
in order to simulate virtual boundaries. The brakes are
labeled 1, 2, 3, & 4 in Figure 1. PTER has been used in past
research to simulate virtual walls, circular paths, and
corridors [1, 2, 3, 4, & 5]. One such corridor can be seen in
Figure 2. In this example the user is allowed to move
(PTERs handle) freely within the shaded area only.
Figure 2: A virtual corridor simulated on
PTER.
Presently PTER uses slightly modified magnetic
friction clutches from Dynacorp. These clutches utilize an
electromagnet to generate a normal force between the
friction material and armature plate (see Figure 3). The
armature plate is mounted to the hub through pins. When
engaged, the armature plate is attracted by the
electromagnet, sliding on the pins to engage with the
frictional material. Torque is transmitted from the friction
material assembly to the hub via the armature plate and
pins.
Figure 3: Existing brake on PTER (cross section view)
These clutches are off-the-shelf units originally
intended for industrial use and are not ideal for our
application. They were not intended for rapid modulation of
desired torque transmission and do not have provisions for
measuring actual torque transmitted. In addition, the sliding
action of the armature plate along the pins introduces
unpredictable frictional forces against the plate's movement
while engaging and disengaging.
When previous tests were performed on PTER it
became clear that stiction in the brakes was very relevant
and must be both reduced and better modeled. Stiction is the
stick-slip characteristic caused by the transition from static
to dynamic friction when the brake begins to slip. This
transition causes the transmitted torque to suddenly drop
once the brake slips, resulting in a discontinuity of braking
torque.
At first it was intended to replace the existing Dynacorp
clutches with better suited off-the-shelf units. The goal was
to incorporate torque-measuring capability, increase the
dynamic response of the clutches, and reduce stiction. After
an exhaustive search it was found that none of the available
industrial clutches would suit our needs. For example,
hysteresis clutches exhibit cogging when switching
directions or stopping while the clutch is engaged. Magnetic
particle clutches must turn a full revolution to realign the
particles. Pneumatic and electromagnetic friction clutches
have the same problems as the existing Dynacorp units. In
addition, none of the available clutches incorporate a way to
measure torque for feedback control and all require
modification to PTER. Therefore, it was determined that the
existing clutches would be modified or new units designed
in house to meet our requirements. Our goal is to explore
and better model potential friction materials, possible
actuation methods, and the benefits of torque feedback
control in efforts to design a better clutch for PTER.
Dupont literature claims that Delrin has a higher
dynamic coefficient of friction than kinetic coefficient of
friction [6]. If this is true, Delrin will make a very desirable
material for use in friction brakes, potentially eliminating
the stick-slip phenomenon. To better understand the
frictional properties of Delrin and explore a new brake
configuration, a test set up was designed and fabricated.
Figure 4: Side view of the new brake setup.
2. Experimental Setup
The new brake consists of a steel shaft mounted
between two bearing supports as shown in Figure 4. The
shaft is rotated by a geared electric motor on one end, while
an optical encoder on the other end measures resulting
rotation. Braking torque is applied to the steel shaft by the
piezo-electric brake (See Figure 4). A piezo-electric
actuator was chosen because of its quick dynamic response
and high force capabilities. However, one drawback is that
the piezo-electric actuator only has a total travel of 40
microns.
The brake consists of an aluminum clamp assembly
with a compliant lower jaw, which is deflected by the piezo-
electric actuator (See Figure 5). Movement of the lower jaw
squeezes a thin Delrin ring between the clamp and rotating
shaft, inducing a torque. Once torque is induced on the
rotating steel shaft, the clamp assembly tilts clockwise or
counter-clockwise, depending on the direction of rotation of
the shaft. This tilting causes the supporting (aluminum)
plates to bend and the resulting strain is measured by two
strain gages.
Figure 5: Front view of the piezo-electric brake.
The clamp assembly was machined as one piece to
prevent misalignment of the lower jaw and utilize the
elasticity of the aluminum to release the brake. The actuator
was positioned off center to provide a longer range of travel
for the jaw. Because the shaft is supported by two bearings,
any misalignment of the brake and shaft will cause binding
in the system. To minimize this, only the flexible plates
supported the clamp assembly, allowing it to float over the
shaft.
An Analog Devices 3B18 amplifier is used to condition
the strain gage bridge voltage, a Kepco ATE150-1.5M
linear power supply is used to power the actuator, and an
IMEC 400 series controller is used to control the Pacific
Scientific brushless servo motor. Interface with the PC is
accomplished through a National Instruments PCI data
acquisition board and LabView.
Though the strain gage bridge voltage was not
calibrated to specific torques, it is assumed to be linear with
braking torque. From here forward, strain gage bridge
voltage will be analogous to braking torque.
3. Test Results
Several tests were performed to characterize the
friction properties of Delrin on steel. For comparing static
friction to dynamic, the motor velocity was varied by
supplying a triangular wave motor command voltage as
shown at the bottom of Figure 6. The middle graph of
Figure 6 shows the resulting motor velocity measured with
the optical encoder. The jagged velocity profile is due to
the encoders low resolution (1024 counts per revolution).
The interval during which the motor is not turning is a result
of the motor command voltage not being above the required
threshold to overcome braking torque.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-5
0
5
Time [sec]
B
r
id
g
e
V
o
lt
a
g
e
[
v
o
lt
s
]
Bridge Voltage, Motor Velocity & Motor Command Voltage
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-2
-1
0
1
2
Time [sec]
A
n
g
u
la
r
V
e
lo
c
it
y
[
r
a
d
/
s
]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Time [sec]
M
t
r
C
o
m
m
a
n
d
V
o
lt
a
g
e
[
v
o
lt
s
]
Figure 6: Stiction behavior in Delrin.
The top graph of Figure 6 shows braking torque
measured in volts from the strain gage bridge. As motor
torque is increased (by increasing the motor command
voltage), the braking torque continues to rise until the shaft
begins to slip. A discontinuity is seen in the braking torque
where the shaft begins to spin, signifying the transition from
static to dynamic friction. Therefore, it is apparent that
Delrin has a lower dynamic than static coefficient of
friction.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Actuator Deflection [microns]
B
r
i
d
g
e
V
o
l
t
a
g
e
[
v
o
l
t
s
]
Static and Dynamic Torques Vs Actuator Deflection
y=0.0675x + 2.6802
y=0.0483x + 1.5792
Figure 7: Static and Dynamic Torques vs
Actuator Voltage
Figure 7 shows how static and dynamic torques vary
with actuator deflection. For this test motor command
voltage was slowly increased until the shaft began to slip.
Once the shaft slipped, motor command voltage was held
constant so that dynamic braking torque could be
determined. Braking torque just before the slippage point is
the break away (static) torque, and that after slippage is the
dynamic (kinetic) torque. Several data points were taken for
different actuation levels.
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Average Velocity versus Average Bridge Voltage profiles
Angular Velocity (rad/sec)
B
r
id
g
e
V
o
lt
a
g
e
[
v
o
lt
s
]
0 Microns
6.67 Microns
13.33 Microns
20 Microns
33.33 Microns
38.67 Microns
Figure 8: Variation of torque with motor speed
and actuator
From Figure 7 it can be seen that both static and
dynamic torques vary linearly with actuator deflection,
while the slope of the static torque profile is greater than
dynamic.
Figure 8 shows how the braking torque varies linearly
with actuator deflection and angular velocity of the shaft.
This relation can be approximated by the following
equation:
V 0.4469 + 0.044+ 1.1712
V = bridge voltage (proportional to torque),
= angular velocity of the shaft (rad/sec)
= actuator deflection (microns).
Each line was constructed from six or seven data
points, where each data point is obtained by averaging the
torque measured from running the motor for three
revolutions at a given motor command voltage and actuator
deflection.
Notice that the motor torque is not zero for zero
actuation. In order to obtain a significant change in torque
with the limited movement of the actuator, the clamp
assembly, Delrin ring, and steel shaft had to be machined to
very tight tolerances. The interference fit between these
three components leads to slight binding, resulting in
residual braking torque with zero actuation torque.
4. Torque Feedback
Figure 9: Block Diagram
.
Machining imperfections do not allow the shaft and
Delrin ring to exactly align, causing the braking torque to
fluctuate as the shaft rotates. Hence the open loop braking
torque varies with angular position of the shaft (see top
graph of Figure 10). Notice that torque varies between 1 and
2.5 volts for no deflection of the actuator. This is from the
fluctuating residual torque. A simple proportional feedback
control law was implemented to determine if a constant
torque could be commanded (See Figure 9).
The controller was updated at a frequency of 43.7 hz
and a control gain (Kp) of 80 was used. It should be noted
that the level of the commanded torque had to be above the
maximum residual torque so that the actuator would not
saturate in the lowest position.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Time[sec]
B
r
i
d
g
e
V
o
la
t
a
g
e
[
v
o
lt
s
]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2
2.5
3
3.5
Time[sec]
B
r
id
g
e
V
o
l
a
t
a
g
e
[
v
o
lt
s
]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1
1.5
2
2.5
Open-Loop Constant, Closed-Loop Constant, Closed-Loop Sinusoidal Torques
Time[sec]
B
r
id
g
e
V
o
la
t
a
g
e
[
v
o
lt
s
]
Figure10: Open Loop Constant , Closed Loop Constant,
& Sinusoidal Commanded Torques.
The result of this constant commanded feedback torque
is shown in the middle graph of Figure 10. The feedback
control law was able to achieve a fairly constant torque. The
noise seen in the measurement is the result of
electromagnetic interference generated by the controller
board used to drive the electric motor. The bottom graph is
the result when a sinusoidal braking torque was
commanded.
5. Dynamic Response
A step change in the commanded braking torque was
applied (from 2.5 to 3.2 volts) to determine the brakes
dynamic response (see Figure 11).
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
Step Change in Commanded Torque
Time[sec]
B
r
i
d
g
e
V
o
l
a
t
a
g
e
[
v
o
l
t
s
]
Figure 11: Step change on commanded torque
It appears that the piezo-electric brake assembly with
proportional feedback can be approximated as a first order
system. A time constant of roughly 0.10 seconds was
calculated from the dynamic response. The brakes dynamic
response is highly dependent on the voltage dynamics of the
power supply used to power the piezo-electric actuator.
When connected to an oscilloscope, the Kepco power
supply ramped to its full voltage with an approximate time
constant of 0.1 seconds. It was further determined that the
time constant for a step drop in commanded braking torque
was significantly slower then a step increase. Again, this
can be attributed to the fact that the Kepco power supply
was able to ramp up the voltage from 0 to 150 volts seven
times quicker than it could drop the voltage back to 0 volts.
Considering that the piezo-electric actuator has a rise time
of 20 microseconds, the power supply appears to be the
limiting dynamic factor in the system. Had the power
supply been faster, it is believed that the limiting factor
would have been the dynamics of the compliance in the
system and that a much quicker time constant would result.
6. Conclusion
In this study a new brake design and friction material
was explored in hopes of overcoming several undesirable
effects found in conventional friction brakes. A series of
experiments were conducted to evaluate and quantify the
performance of this brake concept and the frictional
behavior of Delrin.
It was determined that Delrin does have a higher static
coefficient of friction than dynamic. Therefore, switching to
Delrin will not eliminate stick-slip problems. An empirical
linear equation was determined for relating Delrins friction
properties with angular velocity and actuator deflection for
the given brake configuration.
It was determined that simple proportional torque
feedback control could successfully be implemented to
reject disturbances and track a desired torque command.
Though the peizo-electric actuator has a fairly quick
dynamic response, the power supply appeared to be the
weak link in our system. In addition, the feasibility of using
peizo-electric actuators for such applications remains low
due to high cost and very tight machining tolerances that
have to be maintained.
7. Future Work
Other friction materials are to be subjected to the same
tests as performed on Delrin. In addition, the power supply
will be configured for fast mode in an attempt to improve
the Piezo-Electric Brakes dynamic performance.
Concurrently, the existing brakes on PTER are being
modified to eliminate undesirable sliding affects over the
pins (during engagement) and incorporate torque measuring
capabilities. Information from the friction material tests will
be used to determine new material for PTERs redesigned
brakes. The torque sensing capabilities will be used for
torque feedback control. Stick-slip information determined
from these tests and future tests, along with torque feedback
control, will be used to improve past passive haptic
algorithms programmed on PTER.
References
[1] Charles, R. A., The Development of the Passive
Trajectory Enhancing Robot , MS Thesis, Dept of
Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
March 1994.
[2] Davis, H.T., An Investigation of Passive Actuation for
Trajectory Control , MS Thesis, Dept of Mechanical
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, June 1996.
[3] Gomes, M.W., An Examination of Control Algorithms
for a Dissipative Passive Haptic Interface , MS Thesis,
Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, March 1997.
[4] Gomes, M. W. and W. J. Book, Control Approaches for
a Dissipative Passive Trajectory Enhancing Robot , 1997
IEEE / ASME International Conference on Advanced
Intelligent Mechatronics, June 16-20, 1997, Tokyo, Japan.
[5] Davis, Hurley and W. J. Book Passive Torque Control
of a Redundantly Actuated Manipulator , American
Control Conference, June 4-6, 1997, Albuquerque, NM.
[6] Dupont, Delrin, Product and Properties Guide. Dupont
Engineering Polymers, U.S.A.