Comparison between Genetic Programming and Dynamic Models for Compact Electrohydraulic Actuators
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Dynamic Modeling
2.1. Compact Electrohydraulic Actuator (C-EHA)
2.2. Equation of Motion for Arm Manipulator
3. Genetic Programming and Its Application for Hydraulic Actuator Problem
3.1. Encoding and Initial Population
3.2. Function Library
3.3. Fitness Function
3.4. Operations
3.5. Termination
4. Experiment, Result, and Discussion
4.1. Friction Parameter Identification
4.2. GP Dataset
4.3. Dynamic Model Validation
4.4. Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Milecki, A.; Rybarczyk, D. Modelling of an Electrohydraulic Proportional Valve with a Synchronous Motor. Stroj. Vestn. J. Mech. Eng. 2015, 61, 517–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Detiček, E.; Kastrevc, M. Design of Lyapunov Based Nonlinear Position Control of Electrohydraulic Servo Systems. Stroj. Vestn. J. Mech. Eng. 2016, 62, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Detiček, E.; Župerl, U. An Intelligent Electro-Hydraulic Servo Drive Positioning. Stroj. Vestn. J. Mech. Eng. 2011, 57, 394–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishak, N.; Julaihi, F.; Yusof, N.M.; Tajuddin, M.; Adnan, R. Load effect studies on ARX model parameters of vertical position Electro-Hydraulic Actuator. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 12th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and Its Applications (CSPA), Melaka, Malaysia, 4–6 March 2016; pp. 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiralkar, A.; Kurode, S.; Gore, R.; Tamhane, B. Robust output feedback control of electro-hydraulic system. Int. J. Dyn. Control 2019, 7, 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousef, M.; El-Sanabawy, M.; Rabie, G.; Rateb, R. Modeling, simulation and controller design for a typical bent axis electrohydraulic servo motor. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Aerospace Sciences and Aviation Technology, Cairo, Egypt, 6–8 April 2021; Volume 19, pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Hagen, D.; Padovani, D.; Ebbesen, M.K. Study of a Self-Contained Electro-Hydraulic Cylinder Drive. In 2018 Global Fluid Power Society PhD Symposium (GFPS); IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, T.G.; Rahmat, M.F.; Husain, A.R. System identification and control of an Electro-Hydraulic Actuator system. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 8th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and its Applications, Malacca, Malaysia, 23–25 March 2012; pp. 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nie, Y.; Liu, J.; Lao, Z.; Chen, Z. Modeling and Extended State Observer-Based Backstepping Control of Underwater Electro Hydrostatic Actuator with Pressure Compensator and External Load. Electronics 2022, 11, 1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gendrin, M.; Dessaint, L. Multidomain high-detailed modeling of an electro-hydrostatic actuator and advanced position control. In Proceedings of the IECON 2012—38th Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Montreal, QC, Canada, 25–28 October 2012; pp. 5463–5470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, S.; Cho, S.G. An Intelligent Process to Estimate the Nonlinear Behaviors of an Elasto-Plastic Steel Coil Damper Using Artificial Neural Networks. Actuators 2022, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiangang, Y. Modelling and analysis of step response test for hydraulic automatic gauge control/Modeliranje in analiza odziva sistema samodejnega hidravlicnega krmiljenja debeline na stopnico. Stroj. Vestn.-J. Mech. Eng. 2015, 61, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cus, F.; Zuperl, U.; Kiker, E. A model-based system for the dynamic adjustment of cutting parameters during a milling process. Stroj. Vestn.-J. Mech. Eng. 2007, 53, 524–540. [Google Scholar]
- Nie, S.; Gao, J.; Ma, Z.; Yin, F.; Ji, H. An artificial neural network supported performance degradation modeling for electro-hydrostatic actuator. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2022, 44, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.M.; Park, S.H.; Lee, J.M.; Kim, J.S. A robust control of electro hydrostatic actuator using the adaptive back-stepping scheme and fuzzy neural networks. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2010, 44, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sette, S.; Boullart, L. Genetic programming: Principles and applications. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2001, 14, 727–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, G.J.; Murray-Smith, D.J.; Li, Y.; Sharman, K.C.; Weinbrenner, T. Nonlinear model structure identification using genetic programming. Control Eng. Pract. 1998, 6, 1341–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- dos Santos Coelho, L.; Pessôa, M.W. Nonlinear model identification of an experimental ball-and-tube system using a genetic programming approach. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2009, 23, 1434–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beligiannis, G.N.; Skarlas, L.V.; Likothanassis, S.D.; Perdikouri, K.G. Nonlinear model structure identification of complex biomedical data using a genetic-programming-based technique. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2005, 54, 2184–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Jack, L.B.; Nandi, A.K. Fault detection using genetic programming. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2005, 19, 271–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeun, Y.S.; Suh, J.C.; Yang, Y.S. Function approximations by superimposing genetic programming trees: With applications to engineering problems. Inf. Sci. 2000, 122, 259–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez, J.L.; Cladera, A.; Rabu nal, J.R.; Martínez-Abella, F. Optimization of existing equations using a new Genetic Programming algorithm: Application to the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2012, 50, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamshad, H.; Jegal, M.; Yang, H.S. System Identification Using Genetic Programming for Electro-Hydraulic Actuator. J. Autom. Control Eng. 2015, 3, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Márton, L.; Fodor, S.; Sepehri, N. A practical method for friction identification in hydraulic actuators. Mechatronics 2011, 21, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiani-Oshtorjani, M.; Ustinov, S.; Handroos, H.; Jalali, P.; Mikkola, A. Real-Time Simulation of Fluid Power Systems Containing Small Oil Volumes, Using the Method of Multiple Scales. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 196940–196950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong-Helouvry, B. Control of Machines with Friction; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 128. [Google Scholar]
- Barricelli, N.A. Numerical testing of evolution theories. Acta Biotheor. 1962, 16, 69–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cramer, N.L. A representation for the adaptive generation of simple sequential programs. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 24–26 July 1985; pp. 183–187. [Google Scholar]
- Angeline, P.J. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; ISBN 0-262-11170-5. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, W.; Fox, E.A.; Pathak, P.; Wu, H. The effects of fitness functions on genetic programming-based ranking discovery for Web search. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2004, 55, 628–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deb, K. An introduction to genetic algorithms. Sadhana 1999, 24, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madar, J.; Abonyi, J.; Szeifert, F. Genetic programming for system identification. In Proceedings of the Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA 2004) Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 26–28 August 2004. [Google Scholar]
Parameter | Symbol | Unit | Value |
---|---|---|---|
Extra mass | kg | 46.7 | |
Mass of arm | kg | 1.64 | |
Length of arm up to weight | L | m | 0.488 |
Length of arm up to actuator head pin | l | m | 0.225 |
Cross-section area of piston with rod | m | ||
Cross-section area of piston without rod | m | ||
Initial length of hydraulic actuator | m | 0.3055 | |
Volumetric capacity of the pump | m/rad | ||
Effective bulk modulus of the oil | Pa | ||
Kinetic friction coefficient | N | 1.87 | |
Static friction coefficient | N | 13.15 | |
Viscous friction coefficient | Ns/m | 741.36 | |
Stribeck velocity | m/s | 0.0028 |
Set | Dynamic Model | GP Solution 1 |
---|---|---|
Validation 1 | 1.355 | 0.735 |
Validation 2 | 1.048 | 0.556 |
Validation 3 | 1.217 | 0.715 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bamshad, H.; Jang, S.; Jeong, H.; Lee, J.; Yang, H. Comparison between Genetic Programming and Dynamic Models for Compact Electrohydraulic Actuators. Machines 2022, 10, 961. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10100961
Bamshad H, Jang S, Jeong H, Lee J, Yang H. Comparison between Genetic Programming and Dynamic Models for Compact Electrohydraulic Actuators. Machines. 2022; 10(10):961. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10100961
Chicago/Turabian StyleBamshad, Hamid, Seongwon Jang, Hyemi Jeong, Jaesung Lee, and Hyunseok Yang. 2022. "Comparison between Genetic Programming and Dynamic Models for Compact Electrohydraulic Actuators" Machines 10, no. 10: 961. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10100961