ME 102B Report
ME 102B Report
Prithvi Akella, Carl Canteenwala, Phillip Downey, and Michael White
(Dated: 7 May 2018)
This report details Group Thirteen’s efforts to realize a self-stable monowheel. Briefly speaking, we exploited
the effects of Gyroscopic Precession to inform our system design, and controlled it with saturated PI control.
I. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
Gyrosopic Precession denotes the precession of the ro-
tation axis of a system due to outside torques (usually
imposed by gravity). Without loss of generality, we can
define the rotation of our outer wheel to be in the +j
direction, translation in the +i direction, and gravity in
the −k direction as in Figure 1. Furthermore, we can
FIG. 1. Orientation of our system
also define the moment of inertia of our system about
it’s geometric center to be Iyy , it’s mass to be m, and it’s
radius to be ro . With this setup, if our system rotates
about an axis that coincides with the point of contact
at the ground and is parallel to the +i direction, it fol-
lows that the center of mass of the system will cease to
remain above the contact point. For future purposes we
will call this phenomena destabilization and account for
it through the destabilization angle, θ, as measured from
an axis perpendicular to the ground plane that coincides
with the ground contact point. Once the system is un-
stable, gravity’s action at the center of mass, displaced
by ro sin θj from the contact point, will apply a torque to
the system in the −i direction about the contact point
at the ground. From this point, Euler Balance equations
apply wherein,
M = Ḣ, F = ma. (1)
Noting that our system originally had H = Iyy ω where ω
denotes the rotation rate of the wheel in the +j direction,
the resulting gravitational torque identifies the change
in that predefined rotation. Assuming frictional contact
with the ground will not retard the rotation of the wheel,
gravitational torque will ensure that every subsequent
H rotates slightly more towards the −i direction (with
respect to the wheel), the proof for which is as follows:
Mg = ro sin θj × − mgk = Ḣ (2)
Ho + Ḣdt = Iyy ωj − mgro sin θdti. (3)
The latter half of Euler’s equations implies that the nor-
mal force at the contact point with the ground is equal
and opposite to the gravitational force. In other words,
gravitational torques acting on a rotating and translating
system only serves to rotate the system in the direction
of its tilt - very much like a top precessing when it tips
in a direction. We exploited this phenomena to help us
turn in the direction we would like, and attempted to
upright our system by providing a torque in the +k di-
rection so as to shift the angular momentum vector in
the +k direction as well.
II. MECHANICAL DESIGN
At a high level, the monowheel consists of an in-
ternal ring gear and brushless DC motor drive system
with servo-actuated stabilizing wheels and a brushed DC
motor actuated flywheel. Three primary considerations
drove the mechanical design of the monowheel: manufac-
turabilty, location of center of mass and overall aesthet-
ics.
To ensure that each component could be readily pro-
duced, we kept the intended manufacturing process in
mind throughout the design cycle. We considered the
limitations and capabilities of the resources and work
spaces available to us. For parts requiring tight toler-
ances, we utilized machined aluminum, while for those
not requiring tight tolerances, we leveraged the rapidity
of 3D printing and laser cutting.
Given that the overarching fabric of our project re-
volved around stabilizing an inherently unstable system
in the vertical position, we designed and placed parts
in the system such that the center of mass of the en-
tire wheel was centered both laterally, and in the fore
and aft directions. We achieved lateral balance by sim-
ply designing each component to be symmetrical about
the ik plane of the wheel. For the fore and aft stabil-
ity, we located each part within the wheel in such a way
that both allowed the individual elements to function as
needed and evenly distributed the mass throughout. Due
ME 102B Report
to the presence of the stabilizing wheels when the system
is at low speed, we actually wanted the center of mass to
be slightly behind the vertical diameter of the wheel so
that the stabilizing wheels would engage with the driving
surface.
As with any product, we wanted to fuse aesthet-
ics with functionality. To this end, we chose component
designs and materials with the overall look of the final
product in mind, making sure to round off any harsh
edges and maintain design uniformity. As with any good
project, form followed function, and to a certain extent,
the aesthetics of the project fell in to place simply by
ensuring that each component functioned properly both
on its own and within the context of the whole.
III. CONTROL THEORY
In order to meet the constant speed assumption pre-
sented in the Theoretical Foundations section, we re-
quired that our system always translate at a consistent
velocity. Given that our resulting system only had one
brushless motor coupled to a shaft, we only required one
speed control system. We estimated that the since the
encoder speed measurement would be highly noisy, that
we would proceed with a simple PI control system. We
also noted that for safety reasons, we would like to control
max speed (max duty cycle) and max acceleration (max
change in duty cycle). To achieve this, we constructed
a simple control system wherein our input at every time
step k was constructed as,
uk = Kp (r − y) + uk−1 .
If we note that at k = 0, our input, u = 0, then at every
successive time step, the input could be reconstrued as,
k The project succeeded in creating a self-stable
X
6 0
uk = Kpn (r − y[n]) Kp0 =0 Kp=
n=0
In continuous time, our Open Loop Transfer Function,
L, becomes,
P Kp G significantly better ability to deliver torque to our system
G= L= , (6)
1 − e−sτ 1+G
where τ is our sample time. Note that this setup achieves
integral control while only requiring one gain, and the
choice of that gain affects rise time, settling time, and
overshoot. Noting that our plant, the brushless motor,
has inherent high-frequency rolloff, we noted that having
a low sample time, thereby funneling values to the motor
at high frequency, would counteract the effect of sensor
noise on our output. Finally, we chose the appropriate Kp
for speed control by noting nominal encoder speed values
2
for given duty cycles, choosing an initial Kp as a factor
of 10, and iterating from there. Eventually we settled on
Kp = 2 × 10−5 which yielded a startup time of roughly
one second, with minimal overshoot and oscillation.
Flywheel stabilization hinged on simple bang-bang
control wherein if we measured a destabilization by ro-
tation of the system in the −i direction, we provided the
max torque possible to the flywheel in the −k so as to
provide a torque to our system in the +k direction to sta-
bilize our system. Automatic training wheel retraction
mechanisms hinged on a case structure associated with
whether or not the system was translating fast enough.
If the system surpassed a predefined minimal speed, then
the training wheels retracted automatically. If not, they
remained on the ground in perpetuity. Finally, for each
control system (speed, flywheel stabilization, and train-
ing wheel retraction) we implemented an override button
so as to ensure safety of our system through repeated
tests.
IV. ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
Our final system consisted of one 12V battery which
powered all the motors. Regulating the supply down to
5V provided power for the ESC computation systems,
servo motors for the stabilization wheels, encoder, and
IMU. The myRio is powered by its own battery pack and
shared a ground with the actuator 12V battery so as to
shield the Rio from any unwanted current spikes. Having
two battery packs was also beneficial from a mechanical
design standpoint as we were able to shift significant mass
fore and aft to correctly balance the tilt about the j axis.
(4)
V. RESULTS
monowheel, capable of driving up to about 2 m/s. The
= Kp . (5)
system design came together well as a proper and thor-
ough 3D model was developed. Upon assembly, it became
evident that the brushed motors initially selected to drive
the system were insufficient to overcome the friction in
the ring gear. As a result, a new brushless motor with a
was selected. The new motor had little trouble overcom-
ing the friction in the gears and was never operated at
more than 20 percent of its operating capability.
Another realization upon assembly was that the motor
selected to turn the flywheel could not generate enough
torque to meaningfully affect our system once it was at
speed. A future iteration of the project would attempt
to reduce mass of the entire system, and select a motor
with a larger torque output.
For more text, images and videos, please visit
www.wheeltime2018.weebly.com.