-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refine Spring #102
Refine Spring #102
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're showing off a little with those sick graphs, nice job! Shortly here I'll provide some test data from an at-sea deployment, it may be worth tuning to that at some point as the larger heat-sink of the ocean could be relevant. Also the usual behaviors at sea have a lower frequency content than the friction moves in the lab. Approved in any event.
Hah! plotjuggler deserves most of the credit ;-p |
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Anderson <[email protected]>
The spring model was causing some jitter in the piston position, spring pressures, as well as the force-torque sensor. This was due to a discontinuity in pressures in the implementation of hysteresis in the spring. This agitation in forces occurred for very small velocities (based on changes of sign). A dead-band was added to checking velocity to fix this. Also, pressure now evolves continuously across the hysteresis rather than a step change.
Additionally, to better model the thermal decay of pressure at low speeds, a cooling law has been implemented within the velocity dead-band.