Executives at MAG recently announced what they claim to be the “industry’s fastest VEC system,” the MAG VEC, which analyzes and corrects positioning errors in all machine-tool axes simultaneously reducing the time needed to determine error compensations from days to hours, and integrating both linear and rotary axes into the tool point compensation process, noted Jim Dallam, MAG’s VEC product manager.

Developed and proven by a government/industrial consortium, multi-axis VEC was developed to improve machining accuracies on large machine tools used to produce today’s large, monolithic and complex-shaped parts. The MAG system received a Defense Manufacturing Excellence Award from the National Center for Advanced Technologies (NCAT) in December 2009. A Boeing official called it a “groundbreaking process” that will dramatically reduce assembly and fitting costs — $100 million a year on large programs like the F-18 or 700 aircraft series.

“It gives you a practical and affordable way to raise a machine’s process capability, typically in less than a day, to meet the tighter accuracies required on new parts and programs in the aerospace industry,” said Dallam. “It’s one thing to hold tight tolerances over short distances along a linear axis, but it’s far more difficult along all arbitrary contours and orientations within a volume encompassing several meters.”

Multi-axis VEC collectively treats all of a machine’s degrees of freedom that affect tool point positioning, unlike conventional calibration methods that sequentially examine machine motion one axis at time. Conventional approaches to volumetric compensation are generally limited to three linear axes and the associated total of 21 potential motion error sources. However, a typical five-axis machine with linear and rotary axes can have 43 potential error sources, not just 21. The multi-axis VEC system compensates for all these.

“Dallam said. “The MAG VEC considers the full interrelated effects from the kinematic stack-up of the machine tool axes. This holistic methodology enables volumetric error compensation for every point orientation and path combination inside the work volume.”

To operate, an NC program positions the Active Target to a cloud of some 200 points representing a series of statistically random multi-axis “poses” within the work envelope. The same NC program is run three times, first with the Active Target at a long tool length, then twice again at a short tool length. The 200 commanded and measured positions from the first two runs are mathematically combined to establish each tool axis vector orientation and the third run gives a measure for repeatability. Automated software processes all pose/point data as simultaneous polynomial equations to determine volumetric compensation based on the kinematic error model of the machine.

The compensation solution is then entered into the control, where “compile cycle” technology integrates the compensations into real-time CNC path control algorithms. The volumetric accuracy compensations work in conjunction with, and on top of, traditional, underlying single axis and cross-axis comps.

Measurements are automated within a single coordinate system using laser tracker technology, a simple metrology tool that does not require extensive training to use. Calibration is performed in just a few hours in a single setup, compared to conventional methods that require multiple setups and several days of time, yet fail to capture volumetric axis interactions.

Boeing, MAG, API and Siemens were members of the industry/government consortium that developed the VEC under the program for Volumetric Accuracy of Large Machine Tools (VALMT). Other participants were the National Center for Manufacturing Science, U.S. Air Force Logistics Center, Naval Foundry and Propeller Center, U.S. Navy Fleet Readiness Center, East, and U.S. Army Anniston Depot. The system was tested and proved out on three large machine tools offering different axis configurations.

MAG
www.mag-ias.com

Ovid Bell Press in Fulton, Mo. specializes in print runs from 5,000 to 125,000 copies and works for a variety of multi-color magazine and journal publishers. Recently, B&L needed to help this customer perform shorter-run production work as well as meet the critical make-ready time reductions. Make-ready, in this case, is defined as the period from deceleration after a print run through the time required to remove components as well as the set-up configuration from the previous job. It also covers the installation of new components and set-up on the next job and, finally, the time needed to accelerate the press back up to adequate speed and production of the new forms, all with comparable print quality. A productive press under these short-run conditions must have faster changeover times than traditional presses in the commercial sector, where the runs are considerably longer.

According to Jim Strange, manufacturing manager and electrical engineering supervisor at B&L, “I would say that the shaftless printing implementation on this particular Harris M-1000 press was the biggest part of our challenge. We had determined a shaftless design was the best solution to provide the flexibility of options needed for our core base of printing equipment, in order to compete in this new short run arena.” Strange explained that the press infeed system was converted to a belt drive, eliminating the need for gear trains and oil baths. All the web tension controls were moved to the servo motion processor, thereby further reducing component count.

B&L redesigned the entire gear train, from a standard line shafted unit, to accept dual motor servo control. By doing this, over 60 components were eliminated by a circumferential register control for all new motor mounts, plate and blanket gearing and servo positioning. The engineers, both mechanical and electrical, at B&L also produced an accurate and reliable plate loading system that enabled plate changes in a fraction of the time required on shafted presses, while leaving the web stationary on the press. This was made possible by the accuracy and flexibility of the servo drive system, according to Strange.

Finally, the folder section of the press was rotated, creating a smaller footprint and improving the folder use, which enabled this customer to install another similar press that can feed either the existing folder or new one. This solution created a more flexible pressroom for better response to market conditions and job flow.

To help with this conversion, B&L contacted three of the largest suppliers of servo control systems for its industry. Each candidate was supplied a press layout, specifics on each piece of required equipment and print quality goals needed to achieve a successful project. A 30-day window was allotted for proposals. When all the proposals had been received and reviewed, the project was awarded to Siemens. Larry Hines, president and owner of B&L, attributed this decision to the vendor’s design assistance, technical competence, service support and current installed base on similar equipment.

The Siemens solution included a Simotion D445 motion controller, Sinamics S120 drives and 1PH7 servo motors. B&L utilized the Simotion Shaftless Standard, a pre-configured application that implements the basic operations for a coordinated motion system and includes rudimentary HMI screens. This software is provided at no charge and saves a great number system engineering hours.

An all-servo design enabled B&L to eliminate drive lines and gave this remanufacturer considerable flexibility in the reconfiguration of existing equipment. Rod Davidson, senior mechanical engineer for B&L, said, “The servo drives enabled us to redesign the entire infeed, and we integrated an absolute encoder to control web tension for smoother operation. Furthermore, the servo drives in the print units let us remove a large number of existing components. Being able to access all the motor position information and scale it to our needs made it easy to build intelligent HMI screens for setting up the phasing, plate positioning and register control.” Finally, he noted the servo drive in the chill unit facilitated further reduction of component count and simplified belt drive configurations. All the mechanical and electrical reconfiguration was accomplished without the need for costly clutch components, according to Davidson.

“The make-ready time was the area most affected by the servo system. It was cut by at least 50 percent,” said Jim Strange. “The servo system provides the accuracy we required to make the overall process work with dependable, repeatable results.” He also commented that the servo-controlled circumferential register control increased the press accuracy and provided savable print more quickly. Scrap reduction savings have been in the 20 percent range, as well as a corresponding time savings achieved by a faster time-to-good print output.

Overall install time on the press was cut by over 25 percent, due to less drive line construction required, while manufacturing time was reduced by 20 percent, thereby benefiting B&L and its customer alike.

MECHATRONICS IDENTIFIES PROBLEM DURING COMMISSIONING, HELPING CUSTOMER COMPLETE PROJECT

During the commissioning process on this Ovid Bell printing press rebuild at B&L, a mechatronics analysis and optimization protocol was conducted by Razvan Panaitescu, engineering manager for mechatronics standards and regulations at Siemens, working in tandem with his Siemens counterparts in application engineering and installation. Mechatronics is the integration of electronics and mechanical engineering, relating to the performance or the design of equipment and machinery. Razvan Panaitescu is a leading authority in this discipline for Siemens.

A problem had surfaced during the test runs on the rebuilt shaftless Harris M-1000 offset press, involving an out of tolerance registration issue. The registration points were visibly oscillating, and the cause was initially thought to lie with the controllers or drives installed as part of the new Siemens product suite onboard.

However, Panaitescu and his team determined the problem resulted from gaps between both the plate and blanket cylinders on the press. When the controllers were finely tuned in a damping optimal setting of higher integrator times and lower proportional gains, the print quality was significantly improved and the registration problems seemed to subside. Not convinced the goal had yet been met, Panaitescu did further vibration testing. A thorough vibration and modal analysis was conducted, using the sophisticated instruments of the Siemens Mechatronics department. The problem was still evident, though to a lesser degree. As he explained, “A resonant frequency remained detectable and that led us to believe there were further mechanical problems in the gear train on two print units, as both continued to reflect unacceptable vibration conditions.” The suggestion was made to check the mechanical accuracy of the gear train and possibly the gear teeth dimensions.

As Panaitescu mused, “Just as a doctor uses the stethoscope on patients, we listen to the drives and press cylinders. From our analysis, we determined the mesh frequency was indicating a sprocket/gear problem.”

In the end, it was determined by B&L and its supplier that an off-normal angle bore on a gear and sprocket assembly was indeed the root cause of the registration problems. Replacements were installed and the press is running well, the result of the mechatronics applied here.

www.blmachinedesign.com

The use of mechatronics principles should make new product/device design faster, easier, and deliver fabulous and inexpensive products. But many engineering groups grapple with this design approach. Why do some groups work while others struggle?

We’ve heard about the promise of mechatronics for many years. Off-the-record, we hear comments about the “problems with mechatronics.” Some engineering groups get it and apply it with great success. Others don’t even want to hear the term. But there is no denying that whatever you call it, this approach to design is necessary in today’s world of multifunction, multitasking equipment and systems.

You don’t have to refer to this approach as mechatronics. Said Kevin C. Craig, Ph.D., Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Marquette University, “I define mechatronics as multidisciplinary engineering system design.” This definition is much more descriptive.

A number of engineers and managers are looking into why this approach appears to either not deliver on its promises or why it only works for some. Their research so far indicates that there are three main problems: Education, corporate structure, and the lack of truly collaborative design tools.

Education should break down the walls, but …
Years ago, the wall between manufacturing and engineering had to come down before industry realized measureable improvements in productivity. A similar situation faces those who wish to implement mechatronics, only this time the walls that must come down are those between engineering disciplines.

Education has played a role in building those walls, partly in response to demands of last century’s corporations and labor unions who segregated engineering manpower into separate functions; mechanical, electrical, and others. Today, inertia maintains the status quo with many universities and colleges continuing to segregate engineering disciplines. Even the professors don’t collaborate with each other! The result is mono-functional engineers (a new term that you may hear more of soon).

This singular focus has created engineers who speak a different engineering language from each other. Noted John Pritchard, global product manager, Kinetix Motion Control, Rockwell Automation, “At a recent workshop with 50 engineers pulled from all areas of a company, the language discrepancies were clear. We were discussing how to take a mechatronic approach to robot design. In the conversation, the mechanical engineers spoke about their struggles with reverse dynamics. The control guys said their biggest challenge was Cartesian to joint transforms. This conversation went on for ten minutes before they realized they were talking about the same thing, just using different words. The control guys were thinking about math while the mechanical guys were thinking about links, angles, and so on. For this group, the solution was to speak mathematics.”

More collaborative software tools are coming that will move mechanical, electrical, and controls design information in both directions among the engineering groups.

A few educators are aware of this issue and are initiating a profound change, which we will go into shortly.

Another educationally based problem involves awareness; the decisions any engineer makes can affect other engineers’ choices for a design. “Lack of such awareness trips up many projects,” agreed Pritchard. “The choice of material is a fairly common decision that causes problems. For example, in the design of a reciprocating mechanism controlled by a servo system, a mechanical engineer may choose steel over aluminum. The steel may be more readily available, less expensive, standard practice, and so on. The control engineer, however, is now confronted by several constraints because of this choice. The servo motor must have three times the peak torque to accelerate at the same rate it would have needed had the mechanical engineer gone with aluminum. In addition, the design will need a bigger motor, bigger drive and circuit breaker, heavier wiring, bigger amp supply, bigger everything.

“The mechanical engineer may have no idea how the design of one part impacts the overall machine. A 10¢ per part saving may really result in up to $10,000 additional cost in order for the control engineer to deal with the larger inertia. And there are many choices like this; couplings, compliance, gearbos backlash, and so on,” continued Pritchard. “And the control engineers and the electrical engineers do the same thing; trapezoidal acceleration, for example, can excite resonances which can frustrate the mechanical engineers. Another example is the common practice of putting acceleration at 100% rather than a lower percentage, which can impact wear.”

Here’s an example of a mechanically oriented motion analyzer, the result of collaboration between Solidworks and Rockwell Automation.

“And control systems is one of the more important disciplines for mechanical and electrical engineers to have some knowledge of,” added Razvan Panaitescu, manager of Engineering for Mechatronics, Siemens. “It stands in between mechanical and electrical. You don’t need to know electronics deeply, just enough to model.”

A few professors have witnessed this lack of awareness and are developing programs that will not only solve it, but that will create shifts in the traditional engineering labor pool.

A change is coming
Ken Ryan, Director of the Center for Applied Mechatronics at Alexandria Technical College in Minn., spoke about what educational institutions can do to resolve these issues. He sees the engineering role shifting into two main categories: the specialist engineer (which is probably most of you) and the cross functional engineer.

The Specialist or mono-functional engineer is the traditional Mechanical Engineer (ME), Electrical Engineer (EE), Controls Engineer (CE) and so on. These individuals are experts in their chosen field. “Industry will always need these individuals,” said Ryan, “but not in the numbers that they have hired previously. I see a day when a company’s engineering labor force will consist of about 20% of these specialists.”

The Cross-Functional engineer is essentially the mechatronics engineer. This individual has more of a breadth of training, learning much about multiple engineering disciplines but typically not to the depth of the specialist engineer. These are the people corporations need to make mechatronics programs successful. Noted Ryan, “I think these people will make up about 40% of the engineering labor pool in a typical corporation.”

The cross-functional engineer can be further divided into two categories:

The Technologist: This individual is meant to be the functional extension of the traditional engineer; they implement the designs of the specialist. She/he is a member of a mechatronics team and will often function as a liaison among the specialists. This individual’s role is coordinative and integrative, both vertically and horizontally.

The Technician: This individual does what an engineer tells him/her to do. They are responsible for installation, service, and maintenance of mechatronically designed equipment. The remaining 40% of a corporation’s engineering pool will likely consist of these skills.

Mechatronics requires that either you master more than one or two engineering disciplines, or you develop a group of generalists to support the specialists. The cross-functional engineer will never replace the specialist engineer because they do not have a comparable depth of knowledge.

At Alexandria Technical College, the program is very successful. The college is in the middle of a huge packaging machinery area. By developing a cross-functional engineering program, graduate students find placement in all kinds of industry including transportation, mining, marine, automation, and other areas. “Once we took ourselves out of the packaging box,” said Ryan, “then we started finding lots of people interested in our students because these fields are all trans-functional fields.”

Corporate structure needs to nurture collaboration, not impede it
Global locations and engineers grouped by discipline do more to create miss-communications than solve it. “The biggest problem is interaction among disciplines,” noted Panaitescu. “Many corporations still physically group engineering disciplines so that engineers either work only with other engineers of their discipline, or they work in isolation.” The most successful companies have an open culture and nurture it.

Then there is the issue of cooperation, which can be sidetracked by corporate structure. “Engineers are naturally competitive,” said Panaitescu.

NI is also working on developing more collaborative design tools.

“But companies with more successful mechatronic design programs leverage the competitiveness between project-focused cross-functional engineering groups rather than having individual engineers competing against each other,” noted Pritchard. “The strategy of ‘which group will produce the best machine’ works well.”

Successful users of mechatronics also use a common design process that everyone sticks to. “One goal of a common design process is to ensure engineers check with each other throughout, ensuring that one decision does not impede future decisions from other engineers involved in the design,” said Panaitescu. “Corporations do not need to mandate that engineers attend communication classes; that is not the issue.”

Part of this common process involves the creation of a requirements document. It lays out in the beginning, what the design must do. Noted Panaitescu, “it is not often used because its not very interesting paperwork. But it can help speed product development.”

“The first step is to sit with the customer and decide what the device must do,” continued Panaitescu. “It will not significantly differ among projects. But if you define soundly, thoroughly, then everyone thrives. Naturally, the requirements will include performance, precision, timing, vibration and so on. But the requirements should also include how a system performs and how it will be designed; did you optimize that machine, reduce its carbon footprint? How much material did you put into the machine? These factors should be part of the mechatronics concept. The requirements change as we change. If you have such a process that incorporates physical mechatronics concepts with requirements concepts, then you have everyone in the team looking at the same goal, a common perspective.”

Proctor & Gamble, for example, has resolved many of these issues. Said Craig, “P&G has developed internal programs that have broken down the silos, embraced mechatronics, developed integrated design, and offer in-house courses that look at the mechanical, electrical, and controls. It’s doable.”

The need for truly interoperable software tools
The biggest issue with the various CAD and other product-development tools is that they do not offer the required level of interoperability that lets a controls engineer interact with the design of an electrical engineer.

“At first glimpse,” said Craig Therrien, product manager, Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp., “it might appear that a simple movie of a machine in operation is all that is necessary for a collaborative mechatronics approach.

However, although a 3D-based mechanical CAD animation of intended machine function is a huge improvement over 2D drawings – and can help pinpoint potential collisions – it does not convey important engineering information that electronics and controls engineers need to select, size, and program the appropriate system. Nor can an animation alone help engineers factor the effect of their decisions into the mechanical design.”

Something more than moving pictures is needed to take advantage of mechatronics. Programs should provide control engineers access to mechanical engineering information, such as mass, material properties, moments of inertia, and force/torque requirements, to choose the most suitable electronic control mechanism. Mechanical engineers need to combine the loads created by specific electronic controls with the output of dynamics analyses to validate a system’s structural integrity. Controls programmers need to be sure the system functions as intended without any mechanical or electronics systems issues. In short, everyone involved needs an integrated mechatronics design environment that moves mechanical and controls design information in both directions. This helps the team to make important decisions and design modifications during the design cycle rather than as a result of costly prototyping.

Two soon-to-be-released examples of such a mechatronics environment are the integration between SolidWorks® Motion kinematics and dynamics analysis software and controls automation packages LabVIEW® from National Instruments and Motion Analyzer® from Rockwell Automation.

“With these integrated tools,” continued Therrien, “the mechanical engineer can model a machine in SolidWorks 3D CAD software and conduct kinematics and dynamics analyses in SolidWorks Motion software. Then, electronic systems engineers and control programmers can access the entire motion simulation from either LabVIEW or Motion Analyzer, including pertinent engineering data such as force, torque, and friction requirements, to design and program the control system. Finally, the mechanical engineer can access detailed controls information, such as the type of device or the size of the motor, to conduct additional stress and vibration analyses.

Noted Marc Monaghan, engineering systems manager at Hartness International, a manufacturer of packaging systems, “We are constantly looking for ways to reuse our design data, and the merging of mechatronic control simulation with mechanical design is an excellent approach. This integration extends the benefits of kinematic simulation into the arena of control programming, allowing the initial concepts of control logic to be designed and tested simultaneously with the mechanical function that it needs to control.

“Project timelines are more aggressive than ever, giving us much less time to develop designs with iterations of physical prototyping,” Monaghan added. “The integration of 3D modeling, analysis, and control development allows us to identify potential issues and opportunities for innovation long before the first part is produced. It is another step towards getting more problems solved during the design phase of a project, when cost savings and efficiency improvements deliver the most benefit.”

Engineers at NCR Ltd., a leading manufacturer of ATM machines, also desire and require better product design tools. According to Dr. John White, chief engineer at NCR, “We use mechatronics to optimize performance. An interoperable program, such as the SolidWorks and LabVIEW connection, gives our R&D teams the ability to develop a digital prototype in advance of a physical build. LabVIEW controls the motion trajectories while SolidWorks is used to calculate the driving forces, power requirements, and stresses. Connecting the control software to the mechanical assembly provides our engineers with the data needed for full design analysis and optimization. For us, it’s all about reliability through optimization.”

Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp.
www.solidworks.com

National Instruments
www.ni.com

Rockwell Automation
www.rockwellautomation.com

The Mikron Multistep™ XT-200 has up to 54 NC axes and can be extended as required.

In a production environment, fractions of a second count and can accumulate to the extent that they affect cycle times. Automated transfer systems play a key role in many industries, particularly when metal parts must be processed using a number of different machining sequences. Suppliers to the automotive industry, for example, machine a number of items considerably more economically using intelligent transfer units. The machines pick up workpieces in clamping devices and transfer them automatically to the individual machining stations where they are drilled, milled, turned, chamfered or de-burred. Threads are cut and knurled profiles applied. Even peripheral processes such as installation operations or checks can be integrated into these transfer operations. With the transfer concept, all parts can be machined simultaneously.

The Multistep™ XT-200 is setting new standards for transfer systems – especially for the control speeds and the drives used for the various functions. The system makes precision manufacturing possible in non-stop operation. At the same time, the individual stations work practically hand in hand.

Extremely short chip-to-chip times ensure nearly continuous machining, and the system can even be used for high speed cutting. A key advantage is that it combines the productivity of a linear transfer machine with the flexible re-tooling capability of a machining center.

The concept is based on individual interlinked dual spindle modules, which can be used on a stand alone basis, or spread over up to four modules. Five interpolating CNC axes and up to 144 tools machine complex small and medium series parts on five and a half sides without remounting. If the parts are automatically re-mounted in-process, it is possible to machine six sides. The Multistep™ can be adapted to the production volume at any time. In addition, a loading and unloading station can assume the component feed function.

Without a break
While the main advantage of this machine is precision manufacturing almost without a break, further advantages come from the short chip-to-chip time of less than a second and the unusual dynamics. Accelerating the Rexroth CKK linear systems up to 1.4 g to 52 m per minute and spindles with speeds up to 40,000 rpm make for short machining cycles. This is where drive technology from Rexroth comes in: rodless pneumatic cylinders from the BRP Rexmover Series with a diameter of 50 mm and a stroke of 400 mm, as well as a linear axis Type CKK20-145 for strokes of up to 1,100 mm. The maximum force on this axis is around 72 kN in the direction of movement.

“At the end of the day it’s the number of milliseconds that we gain from a number of different points that is the decisive factor,” said Held.

The chuck for the C-axis in the loading and unloading station is pneumatically activated.

In the standard version, the Multistep™ is fitted with a high-speed CNC Rexroth IndraMotion MTX. Up to 64 axes can be operated in twelve CNC channels independently of one another. The maximum extended version features 54 axes that are required to work in parallel. “Using any other approach would mean that we would need at least two controls and we would have to combine these with each other,” said Held.

The PLC can process 1,000 instructions in 60 ms. At the same time the CNC offers, when controlling eight axes, an interpolation cycle time of 1 ms maximum. The Rexroth IndraDrive servo drives have integrated safety functions for secure hold and safe movement. “Also of interest is the so-called feedback capability, with which the generator capacity of the motors is fed back into the network during the braking operation,” noted Held. Mikron uses the force of hydraulic components for clamping the direct drive B/C axes. The tool clamping mechanisms in the motor spindles that close by means of spring assemblies are opened hydraulically. Here the valve blocks are the same for all spindle variations.

Movement of the Z-axis for the loading and unloading station is activated by a Rexroth IndraDrive Servo drive. In addition, the pneumatics ensure rapid, safe workpiece handling. Control is through a field bus.

When it comes to workpiece handling in the loading and unloading station as well as workpiece transfer, it is pneumatics that takes care of speed and safety. With the HF03-LG “light generation,” Mikron uses a light and compact variant of the HF valve series. It has a narrow valve width, yet can flow up to 700 standard liters. By using plastic plates, the weight can be reduced even further. The pneumatic and electric controls are located towards the front and arranged in one direction, thus offering increased installation potential, compactness and the possibility of adapting to the space available. By way of an alternative to the traditional multi-pole connection, a field bus connection is used.

Problem-free commissioning of Rexroth IndraDrive in the Mikron Multistep™ XT-200 control cabinet.

From a single source
When it comes to compressed air treatment, Series AS2 maintenance units feature a modular structure. The individual air treatment processes are brought together in maintenance units made from high quality plastic. Filtering, closed-loop control, lubricating and draining – the configuration is geared to user requirements. With the patented oil-fill system, the oil is directly extracted from the storage tank by suction using a hose. This means that the maintenance unit is protected against fouling by oil.

The maintenance units for the pneumatics are located, like the hydraulic power unit and the master control, in a separate control cabinet. The cabinet also houses the central lubrication, power connection and the fire extinguishing system. This arrangement corresponds to the modular structure of the Multistep™ and, by ensuring simple and rapid access to central components, guarantees that the unit is maintenance friendly.

Bosch Rexroth Group
www.boschrexroth-us.com

But ironically, most motor manufacturers are predominately mechanical engineering centered.  And most drive electronics companies are electronics centered.  And they have very little in common with each other.  Except that their products must work together.  And oftentimes, that’s where the trouble starts.

The drive manufacturer warrants that his drive will produce current and voltage.  But the the motor can have very complex constraints to deal with in response to the excitation of the electronics.  How accurately a 6 step approximation of the sine wave performs, for example, can result in overheating in the motor depending on the loading of the system.  And as the motor winding heats up, the resistance in the motor can change dramatically, especially in the low inductance windings that are common in many specialty motors available today.

Then there are the cabling issues for connecting the motor and drive electronics.  The ac drive industry found out quickly that long wire runs can result in stored energy in the wires themselves.  Standing wave phenomena could cause higher voltages than expected and blow holes in the winding insulation in the motor.

Power semiconductor prices have fallen considerably in the last few years creating situations where it is sometimes cheaper and more reliable to put in parallel devices than to attached single power devices to large heat sinks.  This leads to some serious new options for packaging the electronics.  How about drive circuits in the end bell or junction box attached to the motor?  Actually, some models of the GE ECM motor (now owned by Beloit) are ac fan motors with variable frequency drives and intelligent controls built directly into the motor end bell.  You may have one in your main air handler in the air conditioning system of your home.  I was surprised to find out that I did.

I used to think that thermodynamics of these systems would be impossible to manage.  But the fact is that the drive efficiencies are getting really good.  One team I worked with was producing a 500 Watt brush drive that only shed about 20 Watts of loss at full load.  That’s some incredible efficiency.  So the notion of integrating motors and drive electronics is much more reasonable than it used to be.  And there are stepping motor packages that have been doing it for years.

So where is this all heading?

The fact is that the motor and drive electronics must work together as a package.  There is an increasing need, and an opportunity to create further performance enhancements, by the two technologies working more closely together.  More innovation will lead to better energy efficiency and new design opportunities and a chance to recharge (pun intended) an industry that has been losing share to offshore competition in the last few years.

John Kowal and Tom Jensen are respected, well-known members of the packaging automation community. Over the years they have contributed greatly to the establishment of industry wide standards, the expansion of mechatronics education, and the adoption of advanced control technologies and competitive strategies for packaging system providers and users. They will lead B&R’s Packaging Group as Market Development Managers.

Tom Jensen brings with him more than 20 years of experience in machine development, motion control, and robotics. He is a longtime member of the OMAC Packaging Workgroup, PMMI Education Committee and Institute of Packaging Professionals. Jensen’s expertise lies in engineering management and business development within the realm of packaging automation.

Over the past 17 years John Kowal has successfully established technology companies and standards in vertical markets worldwide. His main career focus has been in the packaging industry. Kowal helped form the OMAC Packaging Workgroup. He is an active member of the PMMI Trade Show Strategy Committee, IoPP, ISA and BMA, and also hosts a popular Packaging Machinery LinkedIn Group.

Joe Krogman, Project Manager, and Marcel Voigt, Application Expert, are the technology experts within the packaging group. Krogman has more than 8 years experience in sales and engineering. Voigt has been working in the field of motion control for the past 6 years. Their extensive knowledge in packaging machine development will contribute greatly to the success of the B&R Packaging Expert Group.

B&R Automation
www.br-automation.com

::Design World::

In addition, the Magnetics 2010 Conference will be running concurrently at the same venue.  Magnets are a strategic material without which many motors would simply not operate.  In the ever-changing motor industry, there is always a new design that seeks to make an enhancement over previous solutions, or introduce a new solution to old problems.  Declining prices for Neodymium Iron Boron magnets over the last few years have created a number of novel design shifts which have been instrumental in bringing more varieties of permanent magnet machines into the forefront of motion control and mechatronic technology.  To the point where over the last two years a resurgance of permanent magnet rotor designs have been created to improve the energy denisty and lower the cost of specialty motors in washing machines and air conditioning compressors.

This last development, combined with the forecast increase of hybrid electric car sales coming this year, are expected to increase the sale of permanent magnets by 10-15 percent by 2011.  That’s a staggering jump in a market that is almost exclusively supplied by China.  And there is no assurance that China can meet the forecast production.

The US Department of Commerce usually has a say in the sale of products or businesses to foreign countries that are deemed to be strategic or sensitive technology.  In fact, I got stuck in a situation where my employer was told specifically that we could not sell a CNC controller to a Korean customer.  That’s pretty small potatoes compared to controlling the supply of permanent magnets which influences billions of dollars worth of electric motors manufactured and sold all over the world.  So it strikes me as a little odd that the sale of Magnequench to its current owners, Neo Materials, was completed without a much discussion. leaving the US without a domestic magnet supplier.

There will surely be a lot of discussion about this situation at the conference, and I will be in attendance to get the latest information on the subject.  So look forward to a review of the conference in an upcoming post.

The new multi-touch controller detects up to ten simultaneous touches with fingers, nails or stylus, enabling application designers to replace complex menu sequences with more direct and natural user controls. Actions made easier with multi-touch capabilities include browsing and selecting options, handwriting and data entry, arranging and sizing windows, picking up and dragging images, and fast and intuitive game play. Other abilities include drawing pictures, using touch pressure to adjust line thickness.

Employing resistive touch-panel technology, the STM32TS60 controller offers customers a real alternative and complements the recent industry trend for using capacitive touch technology. Resistive technology is a cost effective and mature high-volume solution that has seen dramatically improved performance over the past few years in terms of durability and display transparency. In addition, it easily overcomes EMI (electromagnetic interference) noise issues, which can be an inherent limitation with alternative touch technologies. Resistive technology is already widely used in PDAs and similar touch-enabled devices and the screens are readily available in standard LCD sizes and at competitive prices.

The new chip combines the company’s STM32 microcontroller architecture with PMatrix^TM Multi-Touch technology from ST‘s partner Stantum to achieve fast response times while minimizing system complexity and component count.

The STM32TS60 single-core microcontroller is an added-value solution compared to other expensive multi-core processor or digital signal processors (DSPs) requiring specialized programming expertise.

The STM32TS60’s high EMI immunity makes it suitable for use in multi-function wireless products such as cellphones, notebook PCs, netbooks and mobile Internet devices. Moreover, its low power consumption helps to maximize operating times and recharge intervals, and is a direct benefit of the STM32’s energy-saving design features and ARM® Cortex™-M3 processor conceived for power-sensitive embedded applications. In addition, very-low-power idle mode with ‘wake-up on touch only’ helps further extend mobile battery life.

The STM32TS60 is housed in a 7 x 7mm 144-pin UFBGA package, and is now sampling to lead customers. Volume production is expected for Q2 2010.

www.st.com

As an experienced user of early version of the Motion Analyzer, I used the software as a tool to analyze tradeoffs between time, torque and inertia to optimize customer machinery and processes in motion control applications.  Good motion control starts with good mechanical design, and there are so many variables and tradeoffs, that it’s often difficult to navigate your way to the best solution.  A good motion analysis tool automates the process so that you can examine an axis requirement and explore several options for how the axis can be optimized.

The results of the Motion Analyzer can be directly integrated into the PLC editor RSLogix.  This is usually an area where there is a major duplication of effort, since everything that you have to program in the control system is data that you have worked with in the Motion Analyzer.  So kudos to the Rockwell team for getting this feature added to the RSLogix suite.

The Motion Analyzer uses information about the Rockwell Automation motors and amplifiers to match inertias to loads and duty cycle requirements to the thermal capability of the equipment.  This is an often overlooked subltety of the equipment, but at the end of the day, it’s all about the amount of heat you can get rid of.  And the duty cycle contains all the critical information about how much energy you need, when you need it, and how long you have to dissipate it.  In addition, I have found that everyone’s idea of thermal modeling is different.  So it pays to do the simulation work at the front end of the design.

But, we always used to joke that we were doing solid modeling anyway.  Everything was a cylindrical object of a certain diameter, length, material density, etc.  So it stands to reason that integration with a 3D modeling system would make sense.  After all, a little step up in capability could lead to a lot better design work from the start. And the ability to link mechanical design at the earliest part of the design cycle, directly to the output at the motor and control system, makes for better outcomes every time.