Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.

MECHATRONIC MODEL-BASED DESIGN APPLIED

TO AN H-BOT ROBOT

Kevin Craig

Department of Engineering, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA

ABSTRACT
Mechatronic system design is multidisciplinary and integration among the mechanical, sensor, actuator,
electronic, computer, and control elements is essential. The integration is done simultaneously from the
start of the design process and the design is model-based. Modeling, physical and mathematical, is the key
in modern engineering practice. Accurate motion control and energy efficiency in industrial machines
heavily depend on trajectory planning and the appropriate selection of the motors controlling the axes of
the machine. A model-based design approach is proposed for (1) trajectory planning that leads to
accurate positioning and energy efficiency and (2) optimized selection of motors prior to building a
prototype. As planar positioning is an important task in industrial applications, a two-axis, single-belt-
driven, H-frame planar positioning robot called an H-Bot was built. The proposed approach is
demonstrated via modeling, analysis, control-design simulation using MatLab / Simulink, and hardware
implementation using the Arduino and LabVIEW MyRIO.

KEYWORDS
Mechatronic Design Process, Mechatronic System Design, H-Bot Robot, XY Positioning, Motor Selection,
Trajectory Planning in Industrial Machines

1. INTRODUCTION
Mechatronics is the best practice by engineers driven by the needs of industry and human beings.
It is technology integration to achieve optimal system functionality, the synergistic integration of
physical systems, electronics, controls, and computers through the design process, from the very
start of the design process, thus enabling complex decision making. Integration is the key
element in mechatronic design as complexity has been transferred from the mechanical domain to
the electronic and computer software domains. Mechatronics is an evolutionary design
development that demands horizontal integration among the various engineering disciplines, as
well as vertical integration between design and manufacturing, and is what modern mechanical
engineering needs to be [11].

As a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute from 1989-2008, I created the mechatronics

undergraduate and graduate programs there, and, in 1995, created the Mechatronics diagram
(Figure 1) now used around the world to illustrate this multidisciplinary field. Figure 2 shows
the model-based Mechatronic System Design Process I created [2]. In model-based design,
computer simulation without experimental verification is, at best, questionable, and, at worst,
useless [3].

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2

Model-Based Mechatronic System Design (Figure 2) re-engineers the traditional development

process from one which is paper-based to one that uses an executable model that is the repository
for all information about the concept, design, and implementation. The model is used throughout
2

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
the four stages of development: research, design, implementation, and verification and validation.
At each stage of development, the model is updated and elaborated ensuring continuity and
traceability throughout the evolution of the design. In its most basic form, model-based system
design is the use of models to describe the specifications, operation, and performance of a
component or system of components.

Characteristics of model-based system design include: the capability to inexpensively design and
test multiple approaches without costly commitment to prototype hardware early in the
development process; a collaborative design environment using common executable
specifications that connect to requirement documents and lets all multiple engineering disciplines
communicate in a common language; the ability to reduce development costs by easily finding
and correcting errors during an early simulation stage; and the capability to develop complex
embedded systems that provide customer value, product quality, and sophistication in
multidisciplinary systems.

Model-based system design has been of fundamental importance for industrial development
during the past few decades as the needs for energy efficiency, reliability, flexibility, and
accuracy have increased to satisfy a market that is demanding higher productivity at reduced
costs in a sustainable manner [10]. Tighter, more complex, and challenging specifications need
to be achieved. As machines become more complex, model-based design has helped engineers
overcome the challenges in mechatronic system design. In a mechatronic system design
approach, many stages of the design process overlap and all disciplines including mechanical,
electrical, control and computer systems are fully integrated to enhance the synergy among them.
This is leveraged by virtual prototyping and modeling that allows the integration, evaluation, and
simulation of various scenarios before a system is built.

A critical issue that machine builders face in the design stage is the selection of motion profiles,
motors, transmission systems, and electronics to control each axis of a machine. To overcome
this challenge, a model-based design approach to properly select motion profiles and motors for a
machine prior to building a prototype is presented in this paper [1, 7, 8]. In this approach, the
inverse kinematics of the system, in conjunction with trajectory planning, is used to compute the
motion profiles of the motors. These motion profiles feed the inverse kinetic model of the system
that is simulated in open loop to compute the required motor torque vs. speed curves. These are
used to select candidate motors. After selecting candidate motors, the inertia and losses of the
motor and transmission system are included with the control design in a closed-loop simulation to
validate the solution and stability of the system. This approach allows simulating not only the
mechanical system, but also the control scheme of the system in an integrated manner. This
approach can also help uncover issues before building the prototype, in addition to closing the
gap between the mechanical and control designs.

The proposed motion profile and motor selection process is demonstrated in this paper by
selecting the motion profile and motors for a planar robot called an H-Bot, which consists of two
motors, a timing belt, and rails mounted to form the shape of an H [5, 6, 14, 15]. The physical
system of this robot is shown in Figure 3. An H-bot is a two-dimensional robot extensively used
in industry in applications such as pick-and-place, sorting, gluing, and inspection. This type of
robot is particularly attractive for machine builders due to the relatively ease of manufacturing.
Although this motion profile and motor selection process will be demonstrated with a robot, it is
a generic method that can be applied to any industrial machine.

An appropriate motion profile is not only critical for the motor selection process, but also for the
overall performance of the system. However, motion systems often use jerky motion profiles that
3

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
stress the machine and motors, and produce unwanted vibrations and wear, which result in poor
performance and shortened life. This is due to the use of inappropriate motion profiles or poor
trajectory planning. A typical type of motion profile is the trapezoidal profile, which consists of
an acceleration segment, a constant-speed segment, and a deceleration segment. Theoretically,
infinite jerk occurs at the beginning and end of the acceleration and deceleration segments of a
trapezoidal profile. This type of profile is often used because industrial controllers used to
program machines provide readily available and easy-to-use tools to build simple motion profiles,
such as trapezoidal profiles. Meanwhile, the process of building a more complex and efficient
profile is more involved, requiring more programming and knowledge. This results in an easy
choice for the less-efficient motion profiles. Additionally, some types of trajectories are
particularly difficult to accurately follow, e.g., square shapes. This can yield large positioning
error even if a well-tuned control scheme is used with a well-designed mechanical system. The
difficulty with square shapes resides in accurately tracing the corners, which can result in
imperfections to the actual product. This issue is mitigated by trajectory planning, which is a
method to calculate the position reference for each axis of a mechanism in such a way that
position-following error and jerk are reduced. A trajectory planning approach to mitigate
undesirable positioning errors is described in this paper and demonstrated with both simulation
and hardware results from the H-Bot robot.

Figure 3. H-Bot Planar Robot

What does optimal performance mean? Suppose the requirement is to move a load from rest to a
specified angle θ f in a specified time t f. This task can be designed for optimal performance by
selecting the commanded motion profile, the transmission connecting the motor and load, and the
motor with amplifier. Optimal performance could mean minimum hardware cost, minimum
operating cost, minimum energy consumption, minimum operating temperature, etc. Let’s
consider energy consumption of a brushed dc motor driving a load [9, 12, 13]. The fundamental
electrical and mechanical equations of motion are:

di
e  iR  L  K e
dt
d
J  B  K t i  Td
dt

The input voltage is e, i is the armature current, ω is the motor shaft angular velocity, R is the
motor resistance, L is the motor inductance, Keω is the speed-dependent voltage called back-emf,
Kti is the electromagnetic torque, J is the motor rotor inertia, B is the motor viscous damping
4

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
coefficient, and Td is the disturbance torque from the load and Coulomb friction.Ke and Kt are the
motor back-emf and motor torque constants, respectively. Assume that B is small, as viscous
damping is often negligible in practice. The instantaneous power dissipated is i2R. Solving for i
and integrating i2R from 0 to tf gives the energy dissipated per cycle, E.

d
J  Td
d
tf

J  K t i  Td i  dt E   R i 2 (t) dt
dt Kt 0
2
R  d  d
tf tf t
2R R f 2
E  2 J  dt  2  Td J dt  2  Td dt
K t 0  dt  Kt 0 dt Kt 0

If the motor starts and stops at rest and T d is constant, then the only term that depends on the
motion profile chosen is:
2
RJ 2 f  d 
t

E  2   dt
K t 0  dt 

What is the optimal velocity profile to minimize motor energy dissipation assuming that Td is
constant? Calculus of variations tells us that the optimum profile is a parabola. The problem
then is to find ω(t) to minimize E subject to several constraints (shown below), but also to be able
to trace out shapes with accuracy and without excessive vibration and stress. The solution is a
trade-off.
2
RJ 2 f  d 
t tf

E  2   dt (0)  0 (t f )  0  (t) dt   f

K t 0  dt  0

However, this simple approach allows one to compare different motion profiles and assess energy
efficiency. In the case of the H-Bot robot and tracing a square, zero velocity and zero
acceleration at the start and end of each square side are essential. The 5 th-order polynomial has
that capability, while more common profiles, e.g., trapezoidal, do not.

2. TRAJECTORY PLANNING, MOTOR SELECTION, AND CONTROL DESIGN

PROCESS
The proposed trajectory planning / motor selection / control design process employs model-based
design to improve the process of choosing trajectories and motors for motion applications. Since
this method allows selection while in the design stage of the system, trial-and-error tests and
physical prototyping are avoided. This reduces the design costs and allows faster delivery of the
system.

Each step of this proposed selection process is shown in Figure 4. These steps are described and
demonstrated next by creating the trajectory profile, selecting motors, and designing a controller
for an H-bot tracing a square shape.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2

Figure 4. Trajectory Planning, Motor Selection, and Control Design Process

The system requirements define the minimum functionalities and indices of performance that the
system needs to achieve. This may include the envelope of motion, trajectory, maximum
positioning accuracy, machine cycle time, pay load, and maximum allowable level of vibration
and noise. The system requirements are, in general, contained in the functional specifications of
the machine. For the H-Bot, the system requirements consist of performing the square shape
shown in Figure 5 with diagonal of 0.4 meters in 2 seconds with a maximum position error of 1
mm.

Figure 5. Square Shape Specification

The end-point trajectory is defined here as the motion of the end-effector. Depending on the type
of mechanism, the end-point trajectory can be defined in reference to different points on a
machine, e.g., at the end-effector for robots, at the platen for presses, and at the load for
6

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
conveyors. The end-point or end-effector trajectory is defined for the worst-case trajectory that
the end-effector must perform. This worst-case trajectory is identified from the functional
specifications of the machine. The worst-case trajectory is, in general, defined as a function of
the application requirements and not in terms of the maximum capability of the mechanism. This
may allow selecting smaller motor sizes. It is essential to define the end-point trajectory first,
because the required torque vs. speed curve used to size the motor depends on it.

If the system needs to perform multiple types of trajectories, designing motors and drives for the
worst case is enough. If it is not obvious which trajectory is the worst case, either all, or the most
likely worst cases, must be evaluated to identify which one requires the greatest motor and drive
utilization. When the mechanism can perform an infinite number of different trajectories, such as
a pick-and-place mechanism with a vision system to locate products in random orientation and
location, the boundary conditions of the worst-case trajectory need to be determined in order to
estimate the worst-case trajectory to be used in the motor selection process.

For this case-study of an H-Bot, the square path with a diagonal of 0.4 meters, traced in 2
seconds, was identified from the functional specification of the machine as the worst-case
trajectory for this particular system.

Trajectory planning is the computation of motion profiles for the actuators of automatic
machines, e.g., packaging machines, machine tools, assembly machines, metal-forming
machines, and industrial robots. Such motion profiles need to be defined in a way to avoid or
reduce the amount of mechanical vibration, stress on mechanical and electronic components,
electrical and audible noise, stress on motors and actuators, as well as to reduce overshoot
response and excessive position error during motion.

The information necessary to compute the trajectory planning is the end-point trajectory and
inverse kinematics of the mechanism. Since kinetic models are not necessary at this point, the
trajectory planning can be defined at the early stages of the design from sketches with the main
dimensions of the moving mechanism. Thus, there is no need for information about masses and
mass moments of inertia of the system for trajectory planning.

Trajectory planning is particularly important to reduce position tracking errors in machines such
as machine tools while performing certain types of profile. This includes profiles with sharp
corners in coordinated-motion systems. A typical example of such a profile is a square shape.
The difficulty with square shapes resides in accurately tracing the corners without overshoots or
distortions that can cause imperfections to the final product.

A trajectory planning / motor selection / control design approach that can be applied to general
types of industrial machines is given next. This approach is demonstrated with an H-Bot tracing
a square shape and consists of the following steps.

(1) Identify points in the end-point trajectory at which the velocity changes direction. These
are the points in which at least one axis from the same coordinated motion system changes
the direction of motion. In the case of the square shape, shown in Figure 5, this occurs at
the corners. In corners A and C, the Y axis changes direction, while in corners B and D, the
X axis changes direction.
(2) Define the master command.The master command or master reference is used to
synchronize the motion of the axes in the system. In industrial applications, this master
reference is, in general, a virtual axis, i.e., an axis that only exists in the machine code
without any hardware (e.g., drives, motors) associated with it. Its purpose is the
7

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
synchronization of the physical axes via a common reference command. The master
reference needs to be defined as a profile that helps reduce vibration, mechanical and
electrical stresses, and noise on the physical axes. However, the master reference is in
general set to constant speed which can yield trapezoidal profiles on the physical axes for
certain types of end-point trajectories, and consequently cause these undesirable effects.
Thus, the master reference needs to be defined as a motion profile that mitigates these
effects. Motion profiles with zero acceleration at the beginning and end of the move yield
smoother motion for physical systems. Although various types of profiles could be used to
build the master reference, the 5th-order polynomial profile yields a good tradeoff between
smoothness and peak velocity. The master reference will consist of segments located
between every two consecutive points of the end-effector trajectory that has a change in
polarity on the velocity profile. Thus, the master position command (SM) can be defined for
each one of these segments as a 5th-order polynomial profile as follows:

3 4 5
t t t [1]
SM  10    15    6  
T T T

T is the desired time to complete each segment and t is the instantaneous time. The master
command for the H-Bot contains four segments ( AB, BC, CD, DA ) located between each corner
of the square shape. The master position command has unitary increment from segment to
segment. This unitary increment continues until it completes the entire end-point trajectory.
Then the master command can either continue the unitary increment into the next machine cycle
or be reset back to zero. The duration of each segment is given by T. The desired time T depends
on the time to perform each segment, which may not be the same for all segments.

In the design of a single-axis system, Eq. (1) can be used directly to define the command position
of the motor. In case of coordinated systems (i.e., resulting motion depends on two or more axes,
such as in a H-Bot), Eq. (1) defines the master command that in used with the geometric
equations to calculate the command position of the motors, as described next.

(3) Identify geometric equations. The geometric equations describe the end-point trajectory as
coordinates in the Cartesian space. The number of geometric equations is given by the
degree of freedom of the end-point trajectory. In the H-Bot case, the end-point trajectory is
in the XY plane. Thus, there are two geometric equations, one to describe the motion in X
and one in Y. The geometric equations of the H-Bot performing the square shape shown in
Figure 5 are as follows:

  X MAX  X MIN  2  1  SM   X MIN AB


 X MAX  X MIN  2   1  SM   X MIN BC
X [2]
  X MAX  X MIN  2   1  SM   X MIN CD

  X MAX  X MIN  2   5  SM   X MIN DA
  YMAX  YMIN  2  SM  YMIN AB, BC
Y
  YMAX  YMIN  2   4  SM   YMIN CD, DA

XMAX, XMIN, YMAX and YMIN are the maximum and minimum displacements in the X and Y
directions, respectively. The resulting profiles for X and Y obtained from Eq. (2), with X MIN and
8

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
YMIN equal to zero and the master command (SM) defined in Eq. (1) for the H-Bot tracing a square
shape with diagonal of 0.4 meters in 2 seconds, is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. X and Y Position Commands for H-Bot Square Shape

The values of X and Y defined in Eq. (2) from the master command SM defined in Eq. (1) can now
be applied to the inverse kinematics of the system to compute the motor motion profiles.

(4) Inverse Kinematics. The inverse kinematics (geometry of motion) of the mechanism
converts the end-point trajectory described in the Cartesian space into the motion profiles
that control the motors. In the case of a mechanism with redundant degrees of freedom,
e.g., a 7-degree-of-freedom manipulator, infinite possibilities of motion profiles of the
motors can be defined to yield the same end-point trajectory. In this case, one of the
possible inverse kinematic solutions needs to be chosen to perform the motor selection.

The diagram of an H-Bot is shown in Figure 3 and it works as follows. If one motor stays
stationary and the other one rotates, the end effector moves diagonally. If both motors rotate at
the same speed in the same direction, the end effector moves left or right. If both motors spin at
the same speed in opposite directions, the end effector moves up or down. Accordingly, the
inverse kinematics of this type of robot, for an inextensible belt, can be derived and results in Eq.
(3).

[3]

θA is the angular position of motor shaft A (ccw+), θBis the angular position of motor shaft B
(ccw+), X and Y define the position of the end effector in the Cartesian space given by the
trajectory planning in Eq. (2), and r is the radius of the driving pulley connected to each motor.
The resulting profile from the inverse kinematics in Eq. (3) with X and Y computed from the
trajectory planning defined in Eq. (1) and (2) is shown in Figure 7.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2

Figure 7. θA and θB Motor Position Commands for H-Bot Square Shape

(5) Forward and Inverse Kinetics. The inverse kinetic model (geometry plus all torques and
mass moments of inertia) is used to compute the torque that each motor needs to apply to
the system to follow the required motor motion profile given by the inverse kinematics.
Thus, the input of the inverse kinetic model is the motor angular position profile while the
output is the motor torque. The inverse kinetic model is obtained from the kinetic model
that can be derived by methods such as Newton-Euler and Lagrange.

The kinetic model of the H-Bot was developed with the following assumptions: horizontally
mounted, massless, rigid belt with no slip, rigid bodies, frictionless joints and slides, and
inertialessidler-pulleys. By employing the Lagrange Method, the equations of motion are
obtained. Lagrange’s Equations are as follows:

d  T  T V [4]
    Qi
dt  qi  qi qi

T is kinetic energy, V is the potential energy, and Qi are the generalized forces / torques for each
generalized coordinate, qi. See equation [5]. The generalized coordinates are q1 = θA and q2 =
θB. IA and IB are the mass moments of inertia of the driving pulleys, r is the radius of each driving
pulley, m1 is the horizontal-moving mass, m2 is the vertically-moving mass, A and B are the
motor torques, and g is the acceleration of gravity.

q1  A q 2  B
1 1 1 1
T I A A2  I BB2  m1x 2  m 2 y 2
2 2 2 2
2 2
1 r  1 r 
1 1
 
 I A A2  I BB2  m1  A  B   m 2  A  B 
2 2 2 2  2 2 
 
V0
[5] Q1  QA   A
Q 2  Q B   B

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
The Lagrange Equations of Motion are:

 r2 r2 
4  m1  m 2   I A  m1  m 2        
 2 4  A   A
 r   
 m1  m 2   IB   B   B 
2
r
 4  m1  m 2  4 
 m11 m12   A   A   m11s m12s 2   A   A 
2

m       2  
 21 m 22   B   B   m 21s m 22s   B   B 
2

 m12 m 21  2 m12
 m11   s A  A  B
 m 22  m 22
 m12 m 21  2 m 21
[6]  m 22   s B  B  A
 m11  m11
IA  IB m11  m 22 m12  m 21
 Js  
2
A  A  KB

 Js  
2
B  B  KA

The inverse kinetic model obtained from these equations was implemented in MatLab to obtain
the required motor torques. The motor command positions θA and θBwere obtained from the
inverse kinematics defined in Eq. (3). For higher fidelity of the results, more complete equations
of motion can be derived by including effects such as belt compliance, idler-pulley inertia, and
friction. The load mass and any external forces / torques can be added to the equations of motion
at this point. The level of complexity included in the model of a mechanism is in general
associated with the risk of the design. The risk can be measured in terms of the experience with
similar mechanisms, importance to the overall process or machine, amount of innovation in the
design, safety concerns, etc. High-risk designs require more complete and accurate models. In
this particular case study, the model in Eq. (6) was considered complete enough for purposes of
this paper.

(6) Motor Torque vs. Speed Curves. The open-loop simulation is used to estimate the torque
vs. speed curves (Figure 8) that will be required from the motors to drive the system
through the end-point trajectory. The model for this simulation consists of the motion
profile obtained from inverse kinematics and trajectory planning applied to the inverse
kinetic model of the system.

If a motor database with the rotor inertia and motor losses is available, these parameters can be
added to the inverse kinetic model at this point of the motor selection process, instead of adding
these parameters after selecting a motor. Automatic iterations can then be performed with this
motor database to better select a motor without significant extra computational requirements. At
each iteration loop, the torque vs. speed curve, calculated from the inverse kinetics that now
includes the effect of the motor, would be compared to the motor torque vs. speed curve and
evaluated.

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2

Figure 8. Motors A and B Torque (N-m) vs. Speed (rpm) Curves with RMS Torque and Speed

The open-loop simulation is used to determine the torque vs. speed requirement that each motor
must develop for a given motion profile obtained from the worst-case end-point trajectory. The
selection of the appropriate motors for the simulated system relies on this estimated torque vs.
speed curve. The torque vs. speed curves of the candidate motors must enclose the required
torque vs. speed curve of the system. The other condition that needs to be satisfied is that the
RMS torque given at the RMS speed of the application must be located below the continuous
torque curve of the motor. Otherwise, the motor will overheat and potentially be damaged. The
RMS torque (rms) and the RMS speed (vrms)are calculated as follows:

1 T 2 1 T 2
  t  dt v  t  dt
T 0 T 0
 rms  vrms 
[7]

is the instantaneous torque, v is the instantaneous velocity, and T is the total time of the data
sample. The resulting rms torque-speed point is shown by the solid red dot in the speed-torque
curves (Figure 8).

(7) Selecting a Motor. The candidate motors (e.g., brushed dc, brushless dc, step) are
identified by comparing the required torque vs. speed curve and the rms torque at the rms
speed with the torque vs. speed curve obtained from the motor datasheets. The candidate
motors are those that enclose the required torque vs. speed curve. The inertia mismatch
between the load and motor is, in general, preferred to be kept low (typically less than
10:1) to obtain higher system bandwidth. To keep the inertia ratio low, a gear box or a
gearing mechanism may be necessary. Additional requirements, e.g., cost, voltage, energy
efficiency, motor size and mounting orientation, will shorten the list of candidate motors.

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
The manufacturers of the motors are, in general, limited to those that already supply parts
to the machine builder.
The type of motor is also part of the motor selection. Torque density, rotor inertia, power,
maximum speed, voltage, torque loses, frame type, operating temperature, are some of the
characteristics that need to be considered while deciding for a particular motor technology.

The chosen motor becomes an integral part of the system, and its properties, including rotor
inertia and torque losses, must be included in the model of the system. Any flexible couplings or
gearing contained in the system should also be included in the model. If a gearbox or a
transmission mechanism is added to the system to reduce the inertia ratio between the load and
motor or increase available torque, not only the gear ratio, but also the losses and inertia of this
additional component, must be included in the system.

(8) Control Design Overview. Control is a hidden, enabling technology that is present in
almost every engineered system today. Despite this fact, control system design is still
mysterious and often falls in the domain of a specialist. Today, every engineer must know
how to design, implement, and integrate a control system into a design from the start of the
design process. An engineer needs to understand how to balance performance, low cost,
robustness, and efficiency to effectively accomplish these goals. Evaluating a design
concept is best done through modeling, not by building and testing, as modeling provides
true insight on which to base design decisions. There is a hierarchy of models possible of
varying complexity and fidelity, but a simple design model which captures essential
attributes is the most useful, i.e., dominant dynamics. An integrated control system can
enhance a design through stabilization, command following, disturbance and noise
rejection, and robustness. All of this can be accomplished through a combined approach,
rather than trying to accomplish all with a single feedback controller, as is too often the
case. This is shown in Figure 9. The design model is typically used for both feedback and
feedforward controller design. However, in practice, the physical system will deviate from
that design model.

Figure 9. 21st-Century Control Design

A disturbance observer regards any difference between the physical system and the design model
as an equivalent disturbance applied to the model. It estimates the disturbance and uses it as a
cancellation signal. So, in addition to enhancing disturbance rejection, the disturbance observer
makes the physical system behave like the design model over a certain frequency range, thereby
simplifying the design of the feedback and feedforward controllers. Since the design model
inverse is not realizable, a unity-gain, low-pass filter, specifying the observer bandwidth, is
added. Next, the feedback controller is designed solely to force dynamic consistency by
mitigating the effects of model uncertainty and disturbances, usually with high gain and integral
13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
control. A common mistake is made in designing the feedback controller for desired output with
no regard for robustness, only to find poor performance when applied to the physical system.
However, once consistency is enforced, the desired output can be augmented with a feedforward
controller, typically the dynamic model inverse, to recover the dynamic delay of the closed-loop
system with no effect on stability or properties of the closed-loop system [4].

(9) Control Design Specifics. A typical control scheme for motor control consists of a
cascaded control with an inner velocity PI (Proportional-Integral) control and an outer
position PI control, as shown in Figure 10. A feedforward velocity loop (FFv) is used to
reduce position-following error, while the acceleration feedforward loop (FFa) can be used
to reduce velocity-following error. The velocity loop feeds the current loop that controls
the energy delivered to the motor to move according to the commanded position profile and
feedback response. Two filters are placed between the velocity and current loops to be
used as needed: a low pass filter (LPF) to reduce high frequency noise feeding the current
loop and a notch filter (NF) to reduce the effect of resonant frequencies. The tuning
process must start with the PI gains of the position and velocity loops to make the system
robust to load disturbances. Then, the velocity feedforward and acceleration feedforward
gains can be used to reduce tracking errors.

For simplicity in simulation and hardware implementation, a PD controller was implemented on

each motor of the H-Bot to trace out a square profile. The Simulink block diagram is shown in
Figure 11.

Figure 10. Mechatronic Industrial Control System Architecture

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2

Figure 11. H-Bot PD Feedback Control for Each Motor to Trace a Square Profile

(10) Final Torque vs. Speed Requirements. If the following requirements are met, the selected
motor is a valid solution: (a) torque vs. speed curve of the system (including gearbox or
transmission, if any) still resides within the torque vs. speed curve of the motor after
including the rotor inertia and motor losses and tuning the closed-loop system; (b) the
RMS torque and RMS speed are still under the continuous torque curve of the gear-motor;
and (3) the system develops a stable response.

If some of these requirements are not met with the selected motor, iterations are needed, i.e.,
different motors and/or gear boxes need to be evaluated until a valid solution is found. However,
in applications where the torque vs. speed requirement is too high, a valid motor/gear box
solution may not exist. In this case, the mechanism or the application requirements need to be
reevaluated.

3. HARDWARE IMPLEMENTATION WITH ARDUINO / LABVIEWMYRIO

Planar positioning is an important task in industrial applications. The H-Bot uses one long timing
belt to transmit the rotation of two stationary motors to end-effector motion. Due to less-moved
masses, this system is capable of fast acceleration, and therefore, faster positioning than stacked
systems. The use of an elastic transmission element also causes the biggest disadvantage of the
system, which is an uncertainty of end-effector position due to stretching in the belt.

In the H-Bot positioning system shown in Figure 12, there are two parallel tracks along which a
bridge is lead through on linear ball-bearing blocks. On the bridge there is a third track mounted,
which is perpendicular to the first two tracks, on which a cart slides. These tracks form a
capitalized H. On each end of the two parallel tracks sits one pulley, where the ones at the lower
end are directly attached to the motor shaft. On each end of the track on the bridge, there are also
two pulleys. An open timing belt is guided around these eight pulleys. The open ends are both
attached to the cart, which runs on the bridge. The system forms a parallel drive configuration,
meaning that the actuator drive system is not an open kinematic chain. This parallel drive setup
enables the rotational motion of the two stationary motors to transform into a linear y-motion of
the bridge and a linear x-motion of the cart relative to the moving bridge. The overlapping of
these two linear motions creates the XY-motion of the end effector. Step motors were chosen for
this application because of availability.

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2

Figure 12. H-Bot Hardware SystemFesto Hybrid Bipolar Step Motor with 500 cpr Encoder

Shown in Figure 13 is the real-time control Simulink diagram for X and Y motion profiles of the
end effector which is auto-code-generated for the Arduino. Also shown is the circuit diagram for
the Arduino / L298 dual full-bridge driver chip. The National Instruments MyRIOwas used to
easily decode the encoder signals and generate the required plots.

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2

Figure 13. Real-Time Simulink Control Diagram and Bipolar Step Motor Circuit Diagram

4. CONCLUSION
Accurate motion control in industrial machines heavily depends on trajectory planning and the
appropriate selection of the motors controlling the axes of the machine. A model-based design
approach was presented for (1) trajectory planning that leads to accurate positioning and (2)
optimized selection of motors prior to building a prototype. As planar positioning is an important
task in industrial applications, a two-axis, single-belt-driven, H-frame planar positioning robot
called an H-Bot was built. The proposed approach was demonstrated via modeling, analysis,
control-design simulation using MatLab / Simulink, and hardware implementation using the
Arduino and LabVIEW MyRIO to follow a demanding square profile. As shown below, the
choice of the 5th-order polynomial motion profile, together with selection of bipolar step motors,
met the desired accuracy with smooth torques delivered by the motors.

REFERENCES

[1] K. Craig, “Modeling and Simulation for Motor Selection,” Design News, June 2011.
[2] K. Craig, “Mechatronics System Design Process,” Design News, July 2011.
[3] K. Craig, “Modeling: Essential Key to Mechatronic Design,” Design News, January 2007.
[4] K. Craig, “Control Design: Pervasive and Perplexing,” Design News, October 2010.
[5] K. Craig, “Mechatronify Common Mechanisms,” Design News, August 2012.
[6] K. Craig, “So You Want To Build An H-Bot,” Design News, May 2011.
[7] K. Craig, “Trajectory Planning with Electronic Cams,” Design News, November 2010.
[8] A. M. d. Silva, P. A. Voglewede, and K. C. Craig, "Integrated Trajectory Planning, System Modeling,
and Control Design for Optimized Motor Selection," presentation at the ASME 5th Annual Dynamic
Systems and Control Conference, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2012.
[9] Y. Wang, Y. Zhao, S. Bortoff, and K. Ueda, “A Real-Time Energy-Optimal Trajectory Generation
Method for a Servomotor System,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 62, No. 2,
February 2015.
[10] R. Isermann, "Modeling and Design Methodology for Mechatronic Systems," IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 1, p. 13, March, 1996 .
[11] C. W. d. Silva, Mechatronics: A Foundation Course. New York: CRC Press, 2010.
[12] William Palm, Modeling, Analysis, and Control of Dynamic Systems, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 1999.
[13] Aderiano DaSilva, “Mechatronics Design Process with Energy Optimization for Industrial
Machines,” Ph.D. Dissertation, May 2015, K. Craig Advisor, Marquette University.
17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978

 Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 2, No.2
[14] A. AbdelHamid, M. Abdeldayem, and M. Mabrouk, “Low-Cost X-Y Positioning System Using
Stepper Motor,” 18th International Conference on Applied Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering,
April, 2018, Vol. 18.
[15] K.S. Sollmann, M.K. Jouaneh, and D. Lavender, “Dynamic Modeling of a Two-Axis, Parallel, H-
Frame-Type XY Positioning System,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 15, No. 2,
pp. 280-290, 2010.

AUTHOR

Kevin Craig attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY, earned
varsity letters in football and baseball, and graduated with a B.S. degree and a
commission as an officer in the U.S. Army. After serving in the military, he attended
Columbia University and received the M.S., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees. While in
graduate school, he worked in the mechanical-nuclear design department of Ebasco
Services, Inc., a major engineering firm in NYC, and taught and received tenure at both
the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and Hofstra University. While at Hofstra, he
worked as a research engineer at the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development,
and Engineering Center (ARDEC) Automation and Robotics Laboratory. He received the 1987 ASEE
New Engineering Educator Excellence Award, a national honor. In 1989, he joined the faculty at
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). At RPI, he served as Director of Core Engineering, the first two
years of the School of Engineering, and as Chair of the Engineering Science Interdisciplinary Department.
As a tenured full professor of mechanical engineering, he taught and performed research in the areas of
mechatronic system design and the modeling, analysis, and control of multidisciplinary engineering
systems. With significant continuous funding from both industry and government, he developed the
Mechatronics Program at RPI, which included an extensive teaching and research laboratory and several
undergraduate and graduate courses in mechatronics. He collaborated extensively with the Xerox
Mechanical Engineering Sciences Laboratory (MESL), an offshoot of Xerox PARC, during this time.
During his 18 years at RPI, he graduated 37 M.S. students and 20 Ph.D. students. While at RPI, he
authored over 30 refereed journal articles and over 50 refereed conference papers. Emphasis in all his
teaching and research was on human-centered, model-based design, with a balance between theory and best
industry practice. At RPI, he received the two highest awards conferred for teaching: the 2006 School of
Engineering Education Excellence Award and the 2006 Trustees’ Outstanding Teacher Award. From 2007
to 2014, he wrote a monthly column on mechatronics for practicing engineers in Design News magazine.
Over the past 30 years, he has conducted hands-on, integrated, customized, mechatronics workshops for
practicing engineers nationally and internationally, e.g., at Xerox, Procter & Gamble, Rockwell
Automation, Johnson Controls, Brady Corp., Pitney Bowes, and Siemens Health Care in the U.S., and at
Fiat and Tetra Pak in Italy. He is a Fellow of the ASME and a member of the IEEE and the ASEE. After a
national search, in January 2008, he was chosen to be the Robert C. Greenheck Chair in Engineering
Design, a $5 million endowed chair, at Marquette University. His mission was to integrate
multidisciplinary design and discovery learning throughout the entire college, in all years and in all
departments. He transformed students, faculty, curricula, and facilities throughout the college and created
a new engineering education mindset and culture for innovation. He was given the 2013 ASEE North-
Midwest Best Teacher Award and the 2014 ASME Outstanding Design Educator Award, a society award.
He graduated his 21st Ph.D. In the fall of 2014, he returned to the Hofstra University School of
Engineering and Applied Science as a tenured full professor of mechanical engineering. He is the Director
of the Mechatronics Laboratory, which he created with $1M funding from NYS / Hofstra, and also the
Director of the Center for Innovation, a new center he created to collaborate with business and industry to
foster innovation, where all intellectual property (IP) belongs to the sponsor. Recent clients include
ThermoLift, P&G, and Toro. He has taught graduate courses as an Adjunct ME Professor at both Stony
Brook University and NYU Tandon School of Engineering.

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3875978