Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
International Conference on Control Applications
MA4-6 11:10
Time-Efficient Input Shaping Control of Container Crane Systems
Bae-Jeong Park*, Keum-Shik Hong**, and Chang-Do Huh*
*Department of Mechanical and Intelligent Systems Engineering, Pusan National University, San 30 Changieon-dong, Kumjeong-ku,
Pusan, 609-735, Korea. Tel: +82-51-510-1481, Fax: +82-51-514-0685, Email: {bj park, cdhuh }@hyowon .pusan.ac. kr
** School of Mechanical Engineering and Research Institute of Mechanical Technology, Pusan National University, San 30 Changjeon-
dong, Kumjeong-ku, Pusan, 609-735, Korea. Tel: +82-5 I-510-2454, Fax: +82-51-514-0685, Email: kshong@hyowon.pusan.ac.kr
Abstract
Time-efficient feedforward controls of input shaping are
proposed for reducing the residual vibrations for container crane
systems. Considering the change of rope length by the hoist,
several versions of input shaping control are evaluated and
compared over a wide range of parameters. As a result, the
proposed time-efficient input shapers for container cranes are more
effective than conventional shapers in maneuver time and
insensitivity range. Also, the time-efficient input shapers relax the
tradeoff relationship in maneuver time and insensitivity range. The
proposed input shaping control for container cranes modeled as
linear time-varying (LTV) systems does not yield exactly zero
residual vibration; however, when the change of rope length by the
hoist is small, the method yields essentially zero residual vibration.
Simulation results are provided.
1. Introduction
Vibration is a serious problem in mechanical systems that are
required to perform precise motion in the presence of structural
flexibility. Examples of such systems range from the positioning of
a disk drive's head to large space structures, flexible manipulators
and container cranes. In most cases, the residual vibration at the
end of a move is the most detrimental and the extent of the
residual vibration limits the performance of the system. The
effective use of such systems can only be achieved when such
vibration can be properly handled. As a result, there is active
research interest in finding methods that will eliminate vibration
for a variety of mechanical and structural systems [4, 6].
Since a large swing of the container load during the transfer is
dangerous, the problem is to transfer a container to the desired
place as quickly as possible while minimizing the swing of the
container during transfer as well as the swing at the end of transfer.
If the oscillation of the container load is ignored, time-optimal
rigid-body (TORB) commands can be easily calculated.
Unfortunately, TORB commands will usually result in large
amplitude oscillations. When the swing is considered, the time-
optimal flexible-body (TOFB) commands that result in zero
residual vibration can be generated. Hoisting of the load during the
motion increases the difficulty of generating the control because
the system is nonlinear. If the system model is linearized, then the
associated frequency is time-varying. Optimal controls based on a
nonlinear model can be difficult to generate. One method for
developing optimal controls divides the motion into fundamental
sections [1]. The control for each section is then derived and
pieced together. Even when optimal commands can be generated,
implementation is usually impractical because the boundary
conditions at the end of the maneuver (move length) must be
known at the start of the move.
In this paper, time-efficient input shaping control methods are
proposed for container crane systems whose frequencies change as
the payload is hoisted. The proposed methods are easier to derive
and implement than the time-optimal control schemes and do not
require the feedback of robust controllers. Rather than attempt to
0-7803-6562-3100510.0002000 IEEE
Anchorage, Alaska, USA ,, September 25-27, 2000
obtain exactly zero residual vibration, which is practically
impossible, the techniques yield non-zero, but low levels of
vibration. The input shaping techniques investigated here are
feedforward techniques that generate a command signal that is
self-canceling. Input shaping is implemented in real time by
convolving the command signal with an impulse sequence.
In this paper, time-efficient input shaping controls of container
crane systems are investigated. The design of input shaping
controls are based on the following principles:
1) Robustness to Modeling Uncertainty: Most of the input shaping
techniques will be made robust to modeling errors. Without
robustness, input shaping control has limited utility for most real
systems.
2) Decision of Acceptable Performance Specification: Input
shapers are designed based on a set of desired performance
specifications. These specifications include constraints on
quantities such as residual vibration amplitude, rise time, settling
time, etc. Another concept that appears frequently in this paper is
the idea that the performance specifications should be acceptable
in practice. For example, real systems always exhibit some level
of residual vibration. Therefore, when a constraint is placed on
the residual vibration amplitude, it is better to limit the vibration
to some low level rather than require the vibration to be
identically zero. To achieve the theoretical possibility of zero
residual vibration, some other performance criteria must be
sacrificed.
3) Equivalence Near Optimal Solutions: In the engineering
pursuit, we are continually faced with tradeoffs. One such tradeoff
in the design of input shapers is the relationship between rise time
and residual vibration amplitude. Throughout this paper, we
attempt to relax the tradeoffrelationship.
4) Modification of Performance Specifications: To exploit the
possible flatness of the solution space, we often need to modify
the performance specifications.
The paper has the following structure. In Section 2, control
problem for applying input shaping control to a container crane
system is formulated. In Section 3, a basic input shaping control
theory is investigated with some different point of view. In section
4, the time-efficient input shaping control algorithms are
introduced. Concretely, the skewed shaper with maximum
insensitivity, frequency sampling method, the optimization
procedures for obtaining a specified level of robustness, and the
feedback of rope length are derived. In sections 5, the simulation
results are provided. Finally, conclusions are described.
2. Control Problem Formulation
2.1. Crane System Modeling
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of container crane systems
with hoisting of the load. In this section, three different equations
of motion about the crane system depicted in Fig. 1 are introduced.
These are a nonlinear time-varying system, a linear time-varying
system (LTV), and a linear time-invariant system (LTI). The detail
procedure of modeling is omitted here.
80
1) Nonlinear Time- Varying System Table ! Specifications of the Container Crane.
l(t)O(t) + 2i(t)O(t) + g sin(Off)) = cos(O(t))u(t) (1) Rated Load
(1 ton) Empty Load
where l(t) is the rope length (m), 0(t) is the sway angle (rad), g Speed 70 m/min 70 m/min
is the gravitational acceleration, and u(t) is acceleration of the Acceleration
Trolley time 3.0 see 3.0 see
trolley. Deceleration
2) Linear Time- Varying System time 3.0 see 3.0 see
If the sway angle O(t) is small enough, sin(0(t))~ O(t) and Speed 23 m/min 55 m/min
Acceleration
cos(O(t)) = l , then (1) can be linearized as follows: Hoist time 1.5 see 0.7 see
l(t)~(t) + 2l(t)0(t) + gO(t) = u(t) . (2) Deceleration
time 1.5 see 0.7 see
Remark: For a sway angle of + 0.1745 (rad) (well above the Therefore, the performance specification can be changed at
normal deflection of a container crane), the error in using the other acceptable level. In this paper, the control performance
linearized model is about + 0.5%. Therefore, in this paper, (2) is specifications are to maintain the traveling time of the trolley
mainly used. within one cycle and to bring the spreader to a stop within + 30
3) Linear Time-lnvariant System mm at terminal rope length.
In this model, the hoist is not considered. That is, the rope Four Stages of Operation Cycle
length is fixed at a certain value. And then, the simplest model of
the container crane is derived as follows:
l~(t) + gS(t) = u(t) . (3)
2.2. Path Planning: Four Stages of Operation Cycle
The cycle is divided into four paths as shown in Fig. 2. The
c~ c!..,...!g,!..........
four paths are described separately for the purpose of facilitating
understanding of the semi-automatic modes. In actual semi-
automatic operation mode, the four paths are continuous and at I~1 I I I I
times overlapping. (AB-movement between the safe height and the ........E..~i ...............
final landing on the trailer, BC-movement between crane's sea side A~
legs and the safe height, CD-movement between crane's sea side Chlsis Lane
legs and the target cell location, DE- movement between the clear
height above vessel and the final landing)
2.3. Specifications of the Container Crane System Fig. 2 Path planning: Four stages of operation cycle.
Specifications of the Container Crane are summarized in Table
1. In this paper, the case with rated load is considered. And, 3. Conventional Input Shaping Control
simulation parameters are as follows:
3.1. Basic Constraints for Solving Input Shaper
The traveling distance from B point to D point: 40m
1) Residual Vibration Constraints: If we assume the system is a
The rope length at A point: 30m
second-order harmonic oscillator, or can be decomposed into a set
The rope length at B point: 20m
of second-order systems, then the vibration ratio can be
The rope length at C point: 12m
determined from the expression for residual vibration amplitude
2.4. Control Performance Specification from an impulse. The vibration resulting from an input shaper is
Generally, the anti-sway system (with feedback loop) shall the superposition of the vibration resulting from the individual
bring the spreader to a stop within __. 30 mm at rope length of 25.0 impulses that compose the input shaper. The constraint on residual
meters. It shall be capable of bringing of the spreader to a stop to vibration amplitude can be expressed conveniently as the ratio of
within 2 swings or three seconds after the trolley is brought to a residual vibration amplitude with input shaping to that without
halt from full speed. However, since the input shaping control is shaping.
feedforward technique, the control action after the trolley is
V(oJ,()=e -@~" ~/(C(co,~'))2 + (S(co,())2 (4)
brought to a halt is nothing.
where,
/ C(ra, ( ) = ~, Aie (~i cos(col - ~ ' ~ t i ) (4a)
i=1

bolt
S(co, ( ) = ~ Aie(~' sin(co~/l - ( 2 t,). (4b)
i=l
rail i x 'I
motor At and ti are the amplitudes and time locations of the impulse
sequences, a9 is the system natural frequency, ( is the damping
ratio, and n is the number of impulses in the input shaper. When
l~///"f~ .......................................
V is set equal to zero, (4) is referred to as the zero vibration (ZV)
constraint.
2) Robustness Constraints: The earliest form of robust input
shaping was achieved by setting the derivative with respect to the
(xI'Yl) ~ i: ; / iii/i] TargelPo~don
frequency of the residual vibration equal to zero [2[. That is,
mg

Fig. 1 A schematic diagram of the container crane system.

81
(4) and (5) is referred to as the zero vibration and derivative
(ZVD) constraint. The price that is paid for the improved
robustness of the ZVD shaper is an increase in the shaper duration
and, therefore, a decrease in the rise time of system.
3) Requirement of Time Optimality: Given the transcendental
nature of the preceding equations (4) and (5), there will always be
multiple solutions to the constraint equations. To make the solution
time optimal (time efficient) subject to the residual vibration and
robustness constraints, the shaper must be made as short as
possible. Therefore, the time optimality constraint is
min(t/7) (6)
where t/7 is the time of the final impulse.
4) Amplitude Constraints: If the shaping process is to have unity
gain, then the impulse amplitudes must sum to one:
17
At = 1. (7)
(=1
If the amplitudes sum to a value other than one, then the shaped
command will not reach the same final setpoint as the unshaped
command. Also, if the amplitudes of each individual impulse are
not constrained, then their values are driven to positive and
negative infinity by the time optimality constraint. There are two
possible solutions to this problem: limit the magnitude of the
impulses to a specific value or require all the impulse amplitudes
to have positive values. The requirement of positive amplitudes
will be used in this paper.
5) Deflection Constraints: In (4)-(7), the deflection of the system
during the slew is uncontrolled. In some cases, if the deflection is
large, the system may be damaged, or the endpoint may deviate
considerably from an intended trajectory. To control the level of
deflection during the slew, an expression for the deflection as a
function of the input shaper must be obtained. However, this
constraint is not considered in container crane systems, because of
the time-optimality constraint.
3.2. Description of Keywords
1) Sensitivity curve: A sensitivity curve is a plot of the percentage
residual vibration (vibration with shaping divided by vibration
without shaping) versus the normalized frequency (the actual
frequency divided by the modeling frequency), i.e. (4) plotted as a
function of co.
2) Robustness measure (insensitivity range): To quantify the
robustness of shapers, a robustness measure (insensitivity range) is
defined as the width of the sensitivity curve at a specific level of
acceptable vibration. For example, the 5% level insensitivity is
expressed as 15 .
3) Time-penalty (shaper duration): The price of the increased
robustness is an increase in rise time. The additional insensitivity
usually requires increasing the length of the input shaper, i.e.
shaper duration. This time-penalty is typical in the input shaper
design process.
4) Time-efficiency: Time-efficiency is equivalent to time-optimality
in the sense of satisfying all additional constraints.
3.3. Assumptions for Applying Input Shaping Control to
Crane Systems
It requires the following assumptions to apply the input
shaping control to a container crane system.
1) Initial conditions are all zeros: This assumption means that if
initial conditions are not all zeros, it doesn't need to operate the
crane system.
2) There is no external disturbances: Even if external
disturbances exist, those do not change the system dynamics.
3) No feedback loop is present to account for unmodeled
82
dynamics: Only feedforward controller is applied to the crane
system.
3.4. Conventional Input Shapers based on an Average Natural
Frequency
If the hoist motion in BC interval is considered as like Fig. 2,
then the conventional input shapers based on the initial natural
frequency at B point result in the large swing amplitudes at D
point. Better results can be obtained by using a shaper designed
based on the average natural frequency. Here, two average
schemes are investigated. The first scheme uses the average of the
initial frequency at B point and the final frequency at C point. The
second method uses the frequency corresponding to the average
rope length, i.e. if the initial length is 20m at B point and a 12m
hoist to C point is performed, then the frequency corresponding to
16m is used. Because the frequency does not change linearly with
rope length, these two average frequencies are not equal. However,
the shapers designed for the average of the initial and final
frequencies do slightly better than the shapers designed for the
frequency of the average rope length. Therefore, the first scheme is
used in this paper. The input shapers based on the average natural
frequency 0.802 (rad/sec) as follows:
1) ZVshaper: (4), (6), (7) are used to solve ZV shaper.
2) ZVD shaper: (4), (5), (6), (7) are used to solve ZVD shaper [2].
3) E1 shaper: If the vector diagram is introduced, El shaper can be
easily solved. In this case, the constraint (4) is not equal to zero
but a specific level. The constraints (6) and (7) are also used to El
shaper [5].
4) Acceleration Profile Shaping using Step Response: An
acceleration profile satisfying ZVD constraint is derived from the
step response unlike input shapers. Absolutely, its profile is based
on the average natural frequency. Since t9 is assumed to be small
such that Ax = lsinO~ 10, with the damping effect incorporated,
(3) can also be written as
+ 2 ¢ o ~ . ~ + co~ax = u(t) (8)
where ~" is the damping coefficient and co, = ~ is the natural
frequency of the system. (8) is the general equation of motion of a
time-invariant second order linear system excited by a forcing
function u(t). Now, the problem is to design the acceleration
profile that will move the cart from one operating point to another
in the shortest time possible. The system is assumed to be at rest
initially. In addition, it is also desirable that there should be little or
no vibration during the movement. Generally, the acceleration
profile can be chosen as a non-uniform piecewise step sequences
given by
u(t) = ~_~ai • Us(t- ti) (9)
i=l
where t i > ti_ 1 , i = 2,3,---,n, Us(t - t i ) is equal to 1 for t > tt and
0 otherwise, and a t is a constant amplitude. The response of the
time-invariant second order linear system given by (8) is as
follows
I n~ [. 1
Ax(t) = --~-2..,ai.~1 - - e
-
-(o~.(,-tDcos(~od(t -
}
t~) 5) . Us(t ti)
- -
co.,:l [ ~]1-( 2
(lo)
where 8 = t a n - l ( ( / 1 - ~ - ' ~ 1 and cod =°)/7~]1-( 2 is the damped
natural frequency of the system. In order to achieve zero residual
vibration, for all t > tn, the following conditions must be satisfied:
 " (11) conventional input shapers are determined by integer
Ea i =0,
l=l
multiplication of the half cycle of the system. Therefore, if the
/i input shaper has the robustness constraints, then the shaper
Aeos = ~ a i e -¢c°n(tn-ti) coscod(t n - ti) = O, (12) duration cannot be determined within one cycle. The main object
/=1
of time-efficient input shaping control strategies is to maintain the
Asin = ~ at e-(oJ n (t,-ti) sin co d (t n - t i ) = 0. (13) shaper duration within one cycle and to relax the tradeoff
i=1 relationship in maneuver time and residual vibration amplitude.
(11)-(13) are known as the zero vibration (ZV) constraint in the 4.1. SkewedShaper
impulse shaping method. Note that these constraints depend on The skewed shaper concept is introduced from vector diagram
precise knowledge of con and ( . In order to make the system [5]. The insensitivity of conventional shapers can be widened by
more robust, and hence less sensitive to variations in the natural displacing the vectors from the horizontal axis. When the vectors
frequency of the system, additional constraints are obtained by are located off the horizontal axis, the sensitivity curve is skewed;
setting the partial derivatives of (12) and (13) with respect to con it is not symmetrical about the normalized natural frequency. In
this case, our goal is to find the maximum insensitivity range of
to be equal to zero. This means that
11
the skewed shaper. The skewed shaper with the maximum
c~Ac°s = ~'. aj ( t - t i )e -¢~°" (t. -t, ) { ( cos cod (tn - t~ ) insensitivity range is shown in Fig. 4. An interesting feature to
Omn J=l note is that the sensitivity curve is skewed to the right, i.e., it is
1

more insensitive to errors that arc higher in frequency than the

+1~-( 2 sincoa(t n -ti)} = 0 (14) modeling frequency. This may be a desirable property of an input
n function if the system being moved increases its natural frequency
OAsin = ~ a~(t - ti )e -g'o,.(t.-t,) {_( sin coa (b, - t~)
during some part of its operation. Especially, in the crane system
c3°9n ~=l
1
case, since its natural frequency is increased in B-C interval as
+il-( 2 coScoa(t,-tD}=O. (15) shown in Fig. 2, the skewed shaper is applicable to the crane
system effectively.
Similarly, for robustness to variations in the damping ratio, the Skewed Shapers
partial derivatives of (12) and (13) with respect to damping ratio 25
can be found and equated to zero. This is useful, because it means
that when the input sequence is insensitive to error in natural 2o.
frequency estimates, it is also insensitive to error in damping ratio g
estimates. Now, the acceleration profiles are selected as shown in
Fig. 3. The six-pulse acceleration profile will result in zero
"~ maadmumfrequeocy rwlge
.~ tO.
residual vibration with robustness when k = e -(e°n(L-O5)T , with or
without damping in the system. If ( = 0, At = Vmax/2ama x , and
then the next relations are satisfied:
0
L = i n t ( Vmax +i.5] (16) 0.7 OJI 0~9 1.0 1,1 1.2 1,3 1A 1.5
~ 2Tama x nomlalized frequency (¢o, / o)~
Fig. 4 Sensitivity curve: locally optimized skewed shaper.
k = e -(°J" (/;-°5)T = 1, (17)
At = Vmax
4.2. FrequencySamplingMethod
amax(l+2k+k2 ) , if 2k <1. (18) The most straightforward method for generating a shaper with
specified robustness is to use the technique of frequency sampling
Since the distance traveled, x d = Vmaxto~, therefore method [3]. This method requires repeated use of the expression
too = X d/Vma x (19) for residual vibration (4). In each case, the residual vibration is set
less than or equal to a specified level of vibration, called a
t f = toj + 2(L - 0.5)T + At. (20)
tolerable vibration, Vtot :
In our case, con = coave = 0.802 (rad/sec).
e -(°x" i(C(co,()) 2 +(S(co,()) 2 < Vto I (21)
acceleration
where the C and S functions are given in (4). For example, if a
5% frequency insensitivity of 15 =0.4 is desired ( + 2 0 %
frequency errors), then the constraint equations limit the vibration
to below VtoI at specific frequencies between 0.8com and 1.2com .
:_~.z)r 5)r ~~ 1'-' ~ ~ [ .... ~ time In effect, the amplitude of residual vibration is constrained at a
regular sampling period over the frequency interval of interest.
2 The set of equations that must be satisfied consists of (6), (7), and
-a -k a
M versions of (21), where M is the number of frequency
-2ka
sampling points. Each of the M equations is enforced at a
different value of 09. This procedure is illustrate in Fig. 5 for
Fig. 3 Acceleration profile using step shaper.
Vto t = 5% and 15 = 0.4. In most cases, the shapers designed with
4. Time-EfficientInputShapingControlStrategies this procedure will have sensitivity curves that slightly exceed
In this section, several time-efficient input shaping control VtoI during some portion of the frequency range being suppressed.
strategies are introduced. Generally, the shaper durations of For a given frequency range, the number of constraint equations

83
increases with M , but the result approaches the exact solution. feasible solution. In these cases, the technique of frequency
That is, the maximum value of the sensitivity curve within the sampling can still be used to generate an approximate solution.
frequency range of interest approaches Vtot . Now, let us apply this optimization algorithm to the container
crane system depicted in Fig. 1. However, the insensitivity of the
shaper that has one hump is always wider than 0.204. Therefore, in
~. ResidualVibratic~aMay11 1 this case, it is the better way to obtain approximate solution using
+++\ ExceedDesiredLevel I I / the frequency sampling.
40It
\ I LimitVibrati°na! 1 / / Limit Vibration at Edges- ~7
~ LSpecificFrequent" I y / 3o~\'t SetVibration a,d Slope atiHumps- 17
i ~t ~re~ Vibration:~Between Edg.... dHumps-O

+ + ++

OO.6 " 0.8 " 10 " 12 " ,

normalized frequency (to, I ~ )

Fig. 5 Input shaper design using frequency sampling.

4.3. Systematic optimization procedure
Frequency sampling method is a useful technique for
generating shapers that limit vibration amplitude to Vtol over most
of the frequency space of interest. However, limiting vibration to
less than Vtot over the entire range would, in theory, require
satisfying an infinite number of equations. Instead of enforcing
only limitations on the amplitude of residual vibration, the method
places constraints on the slope of the sensitivity curve by
incorporating (5). The process will be demonstrated for obtaining
frequency robustness only. The method consists of five steps:
Step 1: Determine the minimum required number of sensitivity
curve humps, H .
Step 2: Limit the residual vibration amplitude to below VtoI at the
edges of the frequency range to be suppressed.
e -(°Tern ~/(C(O)e,~')) 2 +(S(O)e,~')) 2 <_Viol, (De = ( I + 1/2)(o m (22)
where the C and S functions are given in (4).
Step 3: Set the residual vibration to I/toI and the slope of the
sensitivity curve to zero at the H unknown hump frequencies
where the sensitivity curve reaches a local maximum.
e-¢Co*/"~(C(~ohj,())z +(S((ahj,(')) 2 =V,o,, j=I,...,H
d [e-((o.t.J(C((Oe,())2+(S((Oe,())21=O, j=I,'",H
dcohj L " J
where O)hj are the unknown frequencies at which the peeks of the
sensitivity curve humps occur.
Step 4: Limit the residual vibration to zero at H + 1 unknown
frequencies. These frequencies must alternate between the edge
and hump frequencies where the vibration is set to VtoI .
e-(~*t" ~/(C(aTzk, ( ) ) 2 + (S(COzk, ( ) ) 2 = 0, k = 1,-.., H + 1 (25)
0.4 0.6 0.8 10 1.2 1.4
normalized frequency ( ( % / . ~ )
Fig. 6 Systematic optimization prpocedure: 2 humps shaper case.
4.4. Feedback of rope length: Continuous ZV shaper
Section 4.2 and 4.3 discussed input shapers that had a specified
robustness to modeling errors. Now, by specifying the shaper
duration, we specify the rise time of the system. If input shaping is
used to filter commands being generated in real time by a human
operator, then it may be desirable to set the lag time to a length
with which the operator is comfortable. An example of this
situation is the control of container cranes like the one sketched in
Fig. !. For this type of problem, the input shaping design process
must be modified. For the previous input shapers, the length of
shaper was minimized subject to a set of constraint equations that
limited residual vibration, established robustness to modeling
errors, etc. In this case, the shaper duration is specified as half
cycle of the system, i.e. ZV shaper duration. Now, let us apply the
continuous ZV shaper through the feedback of rope length to the
container crane depicted in Fig. 1 that varies its rope length from
20 m down to 12 m. As shown in Fig. 7, the sensitivity curve has
zero vibration in the frequency range interval.
However, in the interval that the rope length becomes shorter,
since the natural frequency is increased, the problem that the
(23)
shaped input cannot reach the setpoint of the original unshaped
input is occurred. In addition, the acceleration interval is not
(24) symmetrical to the deceleration interval. Therefore, to solve the
problem that the shaped input cannot reach the setpoint, a little bit
larger setpoint is induced than desired setpoint. Therefore, the
original traveling distance 40m is modified as 41.8m. But, in this
paper, 'a little bit' was not decided quantitatively.
Feedback of Rope Length
', ; ~ i i / +
.........i ;, .......... +.............~....... ! .........~: ' .....i........
30 . . . . . . . . . ........... )~ . . . . . . : .................... : . . . . . . . '~ .......... , .....

where COzk are unknown frequencies that interlace the edge and ~ 25 ...... i ...............",;. ; ........... ~............ i...... ~ + ......... ;

hump frequencies. That is, (1 - 1/2)(o < a~zl < a~hl < COz2 <.... +, 2o ........ i........... r. i ......... :.......... i ] ........ i ........ i .......

Step 5: Solve the constraint equations generated by Step l-4

combined with (6) and (7).
Steps 2-4 for generating constraint equations for the exact
solution with H = 2 and Vtot = 5% are shown graphically in Fig.
12. When the optimization is performed, the unknown frequencies,
:t i
04 05 06 07 OB 09 5 1
+
1.2
natural frequency (rad/sec)
as well as the amplitudes and time locations of the impulse
sequence are obtained. If the problem is posed with an untenable Fig. 7 Sensitivity curve: Continuous ZV shaper.
set of parameters, then the optimization simply fails to find a
84
 5. Simulations Table 2 Summary: The control performances of the input shapers.
3__~% 5%
In this section, simulations are performed with the parameters duration insensitiw W insensitivity
introduced in section 2.3. First, the original input must be ZV shaper 3.9172 sac 0.031 0.051
determined, which will be convolved by the input shapers ZVD shaper 7.8344 sec 0.177 0.231
provided in this paper. If the oscillatory nature of the payload 5% El Shaper 7.8344 sec 0.320
response is neglected, then time-optimal input based on the 3% El Shaper 7.8344 sac 0.249 0.289
maximum acceleration, amax and the maximum velocity, Vmax , of Skewed 7.2605 sac 0.082 0.309
the system can be calculated. The maximum values of the 0.307
acceleration and the velocity are same as in section 2.3. The
acceleration input is bang-bang or bang-off-bang (trapezoidal 0.255
velocity) if the velocity limit is reached. For the bang-bang region,
the command switch time, t s , is
6. Conclusions
ts = J Xd (26) In this paper, time-efficient input shaping control strategies of
Y amax the container crane systems, considering the change of rope length
where x d is the move distance. The command is bang-off-bang by the hoist, were investigated. Also, the procedures were
presented that produce time-efficient input shapers with a specified
when x d > V2maxlamax . In this case, the pulse duration, t p , is level of robustness to modeling errors. The proposed time-efficient
input shapers were more effective than the conventional input
tp = Vm----~ax (27) shapers in maneuver time and the residual vibration amplitude.
amax Concretely, the shorter shaper duration and the smaller residual
and the coast period, t c , is vibration were obtained. In this point of view, the proposed time-
efficient input shaping control strategies relaxed the tradeoff
tc = x~a Vmax (28) relationship in maneuver time and the residual vibration.
Vmax amax The drawback of the proposed time-efficient input shapers is
This T O R B input is convolved with the proposed input shapers. that only approximate solutions in optimization procedure can be
Then, the shaped input is generated. The control performances of obtained. Also, the proposed time-efficient input shaping controls
the input shapers are summarized in Table 2. for the container cranes modeled as linear time-varying (LTV)
The comparison results of the input shapers are shown in Fig. 8 systems didn't yield exactly zero residual vibration; however,
and Fig. 9, respectively. The proposed time-efficient input shaper when the change of rope length by the hoist is small, the method
is effective in reduction of the transient vibration as well as the yields essentially zero residual vibration.
residual vibration. Also, the tradeoff relationship is a little bit
relaxed. References
I ......... ZV Shaper {la=0.031 ) [1] Sakawa, Y. and Shindo, Y., "Optimal Control of Container
l ZVD Shaper 0==0.231) Cranes," Automatica, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 257-266, 1982.
40. ~ ...... El Shaper (1==0.249) "-"7

/ [2] Singer, N. C. and Seering, W. P., "Preshaping Command

Inputs to Reduce System Vibration," A S M E Journal of
Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 112, pp.
76-82, 1990.
~N 20.
[3] Singer, N. C. and Searing, W. P., "An Extension of Command
Shaping Methods for Controlling Residual Vibration Using
15-
Frequency Sampling," Proceedings o f the 1992 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. I,
5- pp. 800-805, 1992.
[4] Kwon, D. S., Hwang, D. H., Babcock, S. M., and Burks, B. L.,
0.4 0.5 08 0.7 0,8 O,D 1.0 11 1.2 "Input Shaping Filter Methods for the Control of Structurally
natural frequency (radlsec)
Flexible, Long-Reach Manipulators," Proceedings o f 1EEE
Fig. 8 Sensitivity curves: Comparison of the input shapers. Conference on Robotics and Automations, pp. 3259-3264,
1994.
shaped pulse profile | [5] Singhose, W., Seering, W., and Singer, N., "Residual
0.7 j ~ El shaper r'--- Vibration Reduction Using Vector Diagrams to Generate
o.e~ f/~ • Skewed Shaper I" Shaped Inputs," A S M E Journal o f M e c h a n i c a l Design, vol.

ooy
°'51 I.--~ ' ' • Optimized Shaper |
04
• 1 { ' 1 , ~ """\ ~ Rope Length Feedback / 116, pp. 654-659, 1994.
g 0.3 . J [6] Chang, P. H. and Park, J., "Use of Input Shaping Technique
0.2 ~ • •

0.1 . . . . i
with a Robust Feedback Control and Its Application to The
Position Control of the Surface Mount Machine,"
-0 1 ..... Proceedings o f the IEEE International Conference on Control
-02 Applications, pp. 397-402, 1996.
-03
[7] Pan, L. Y. and Singhose, W. E., "On the Equivalence of
Minimum Time Input Shaping with Traditional Time-Optimal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Control," Proceedings o f the 4th IEEE Conference on Control
time (SSC) Applications, pp. 1120-1125, 1995.
Fig. 9 Comparison of simulation results.
85