Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

  • Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Somebody please check my thinking. 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

itsmoked

Electrical
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
19,114
Location
US
I'm looking to ease out pneumatics for electronics on part of a machine I'm working on. I'm trying to get in the ballpark with my numbers so I can talk to vendors about a replacement.

It's a transfer head that shuttles back and forth a lot - so far in three months 1.7 million times. The head moves on a two rod slide I intensely dislike. The side is subject to random binding that completely circumvents any attempts to bring the head to smooth stops at the end of travel. This results in nasty slamming.

Here's what it looks like:

75bn669rgo84kw1wv2t8.png


Here are two flavors of the same movie in case you want to get a feel for the motion. If either work for you don't bother looking at the other - they're the same.
Transfer.mov 1.7M Quicktime movie
or
Transfer.wmv 2.4M Windows Media Player movie

With that in mind I did some numbers but I'm not comfortable with them since the final number I got seems about 2 orders of magnitude less than my gut feeling predicts. Anybody see an error in here somewhere?

DATA
------------------
3 sec per cycle (back and forth)

1.5 sec per direction

22" stroke

22"/1.5sec = 14.7in/sec AVERAGE SPEED

Preferred would be 11 inches of acceleration followed by 11 inches of deceleration.

Dynamic hardware weight is approximately 32 lbs.

Mass = 32 lbs/32ft/s^2
Mass = 1 slug

1 slug = 15kg

I need to meet the cycle time of 3 seconds. That's out and back.

But we can focus on just one direction. One direction is going to take 1/2 the time or 1.5 seconds.

This boils down to accelerating half way across then decelerating the second half to a stop.
So half of a stroke is 1.5 sec / 2 = 0.75sec.

We need to make the half stroke 22inches/2 = 11 inches

To make the schedule I need to get 11" in 0.75 secs.

Lets go metric:
11in x 0.0254 = 0.28m

Bring in the kinematics:
d = distance
Vi = initial velocity
a = acceleration
t = time

d = Vi + 1/2at^2
But if the initial velocity is 0
Vi = 0 we have:

d = 1/2at^2
a = 2 x d / t^2

a = (2 x 0.28m) / (0.75s)^2

a = 0.996m/s^2
Call it 1m/s^2

F = ma

m = 15kg
a = 1m/s^2
F = 15Newtons

Work = F x d
F = 15N
d = 0.28m

Power = Work/t
t = 0.75s

P = (15N x 0.28m) / 0.75s
P = 5.6W
This number is giving me pause. A fraction of the energy used in a night-light can't be enough to accelerate 32 lbs up to a meter per second in 3/4 of a second can it?!? This thing is run by a 5hp(3700W) air compressor that runs at a high duty cycle. The lion's share of air is used by this cylinder.

Maximum speed at center of stroke (end of acceleration):
Vf = final velocity.
Vf = Vi + at
Vf = 0 + 1m/s^2 x t
Vf = 1m/s^2 x 0.75
Vf = 0.75m/s 3ft/sec Seems reasonable.


Keith Cress
kcress -
 
Here is my take on it.

The mass (32 lb) will undergo a constant acceleration for 0.75 seconds until 11 inches is reached
then a constant deceleration until 1.5 seconds and 22 inches is reached.

Using this the needed acceleration is.

A=(2*d)/T^2 = 22/(0.75^2) = 39.11 in/sec^2

The peak power would occur when the load is moving the fastest under the constant acceleration.
This would be at the middle with a velocity of

V=39.11(in/sec^2) * 0.75 (sec) = 29.33 in/sec
At this speed the force is still 32 lb.

peak power would be 32*29.33 = 938 ft*lb/sec or
Power= 938 ft*lb * 1.335 (ft*lb/joule) = 1253 joules/sec or 1.68 hp

Not entirely sure about this but is sounds much closer to something that would move the load.



 
Please note that the control scheme that C;pro describes may fix the control issues (somewhat doubtful given the binding condition you describe, and I think MH is right about smaller forces required once that issue is addressed), but the change won't affect air consumption, as the throttling of 90 psi air has simply been shifted from inlet to exhaust side. I like the linear motor idea (no belts or screws), and it was what I'd been thinking of more so than screwjack actuators.
 

Silly error in the prior.

V=39.11(in/sec^2) * 0.75 (sec) = 29.33 in/sec
At this speed the force is still 32 lb.

Force would be 32*(39.11/(12*32)=3.26 lbf

peak power would be 3.26*2.44= 8 ft*lb/sec or
Power= 8 ft*lb * 1.335 (ft*lb/joule) = 10.68 joules/sec or 10.68 watts.

Still seems low..


 
Mike: I wouldn't have thought 2 parallel shafts would be mOrE forgiving than hanging from a rail. Interesting.
I see that off center piston rod! I'll have to ask what the thinking was on that. Thanks for the input.


Compositepro; Indeed this cylinder is controlled by exactly that kind of 3 pos valve. Rate is controlled by restricting the outlets. (Hydraulic input side - pneumatic output side). The pressure is the same on both sides, at least until the rod seals start leaking. This replaced a crank system - I know not why....

Mike: I'll suggest a smaller cylinder if I can get the shuttle happy.


2dye4; You are incorrectly using weight instead of mass..

btrue; I'm trying to get some feel for the cost of linear motor. I haven't yet been successful. I can't believe a linear motor would cost much more than a cylinder and slide assembly.

2dye4; Ahhhhh You caught it. And.. You're getting the same power we got and I agree, it sure looks like too little.

Keith Cress
kcress -
 
you can readily get cost of the linear motor hardware by contacting either the source Jraef gave or - I know from experience they would have someone contact you and give you pricing very readily. My experience with linear motors (we sell about 500 per year) is they cost about 2-3x an equiv servo system, and probably 10-15x more than an air cylinder, but that is just my guess.

I thought your issue was random jambing of mechanics; if it is air supply and control smooothness issues also, then changing from air to servo definitely would help that portion of it.

You are absolutely correct if you compare 2 round shafts to TWO profile rails, shafts are a LOT more forgiving. But I thought you might be able to design with ONE profile rail and hang this down from it; one rail should make misalignment issues go away, no? But may not be robust enough for your application? although I have seen quite a few single larger rails handle some mighty big offset loads.
 
Mike; You say, "offset load". Do you mean the issue of the carried load of product AND the vertical motion cylinder being slung from only the front face of the slide? I guess this could definitely impact binding couldn't it.

Keith Cress
kcress -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top