Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T06:44:23.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Software position and velocity limiting for a synergistic six degree-of-freedom motion system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

D. R. Campbell
D. R. Campbell*
Affiliation:
Dept of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Paisley College of Technology, Scotland
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Hardware and software limiting of the velocity and displacement of motion platform hydraulic jacks is an important source of spurious cue generation in the important frequency range below 2 Hz. Until recently the cross-coupling effect of such limiting has been ignored in motion-drive-software. By setting software limits and scaling jack demands with respect to this limit and the maximum jack demand, a limiting strategy which maintains the directional fidelity of the acceleration cue is achieved. This simple scheme includes a soft limiting approach to reduce motion jerks. In addition the scheme requires negligible extra computing time or storage over the traditional schemes.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 90 , Issue 894 , April 1986, pp. 121 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1986 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. McRuer, D, and Krendel, E., Mathematical models of human pilot behaviour. AGARD ograph No 188, January 1974.Google Scholar
2. Van Cott, H. P. and Kinkade, R. G. (Eds.) Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, US Government Printing Office, 1972.Google Scholar
3. Shirachi, D. and Shirley, R. The effect of a visual/motion display mismatch in a single axis compensatory tracking task. NASA CR-2921, 1977.Google Scholar
4. Shirley, R. and Young, L. Motion cues in man-machine control. IEEE Trans on Man/Machine Systems, December 1968, p 121–128.Google Scholar
5. Stapelford, et al. Experiments and a model for pilot dynamics with visual and motion inputs. NASA CR-1325.Google Scholar
6. Fidelity of simulation for pilot training. AGARD AR-159, December 1980.Google Scholar
7. Gundry, A. J. Man and motion cues. Third Flight Simulation Symposium Proceedings, London, GB. Royal Aeronautical Society, April 1976.Google Scholar
8. Staples, K. J. Motion, visual and aural cues in piloted flight simulation. AGARD CP-79, March 1970.Google Scholar
9. Hall, J. R. Motion versus visual cues in piloted flight simulation. RAE Tech Memo FS-161, February 1978.Google Scholar
10. Lewis, D. J. G. Analysis and design of a smooth hydraulic drive for simulator motion systems. E&C Tech Memo No 4, Cranfield Institute of Technology, 1976.Google Scholar
11. Baarspul, M. and Den Hollander, J. G. Measurement of the motion quality of a moving base flight simulator. Memo M264, Delft University of Technology, 1977.Google Scholar
12. Six degree of freedom motion system requirements for aircrew training simulators. MIL STD 1558, 1974.Google Scholar
13. Gundry, A. J. Thresholds of perception for periodic linear motion. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, May 1978.Google Scholar
14. Henn, V., Cohen, B. and Young, L. R. (Eds) Neurosciences, Research programme bulletin, September 1980, 18, No 4.Google Scholar
15. Parrish, R. V. et al. Motion software for a synergistic six degree-of-freedom motion base. NASA TN D-7350. December 1973.Google Scholar
16. Campbell, D. R. Rediffusion Simulation Limited, Motion Limiting System, UK Patent, GB 2 120 622, August 1985.Google Scholar
17. Dieudonne, , Parrish, and Bardusch, . An actuator extension transformation for a motion simulation: and an inverse transformation using the Newton-Raphson method. NASA TN D-7067.Google Scholar