Now that we have version 2.9 and inertial primary control for the Z axis and soon to have it for X and Y axes as well it is necessary to take vibration dampening and isolation of the flight control board much more seriously.
Primary improvements can certainly be made by balancing the props and motors.
So far it seems that the more rigid the frame the better because frame flex introduces undesirable mechanical delay (hysteresis) in translating motor induced actions to the centrally located flight control board. (Do NOT shock mount the motor Arms).
It may be reasonable to somewhat vibration damp the motor mounts themselves because they are on one end of the mechanism.
However, primary damping gains will be made by vibration isolating and or dampening the flight control board itself.
So far we have undertaken this process simply by trial and error sticking on of Foam or Gel pads or using O-ring suspension of the board to outboard standoffs.
This has achieved (barely) acceptable results, but is certainly by no means optimum.
The crucial fact that we have not properly addressed is that the amount and type of dampening medium needs to be matched to the weight (mass) of the item we are trying to isolate.
In fact we are trying to isolate a flight control board that weighs under an ounce or less than 2 ounces in its case which is a very small mass.
Our current "solutions" are actually designed for much larger masses and are not nearly as effective for the light mass of our flight control board as they ought to be.
I have done some on line research which did fully verify this inadequacy.
Virtually all off the shelf solutions (either pad or stud type) basically require a suspended mass that would weigh at a minimum 5 to 10 times what an APM or PX4 / IO board(s) weigh or more for optimal effectiveness.
This includes all pre-made Sorbothane, Alpha gel, memory foam or other silicone or urethane gel or foam mounts including Lord Micro mounts.
However, Alpha Gel or 30 durometer Sorbothane or Kyosho Zeal Gel double sided tape do appear to be the best possible solutions at this time so long as you use small enough pieces of them.
Simply putting a double sided pad under the entire board as we normally do now is entirely inappropriate for maximum vibration isolation and it is amazing it works at all.
Optimally you would use pads of them smaller than 1/2" square (possibly even 1/4" square) on each corner of the board or APM enclosure box. (smaller for the bare board than the board in the box obviously).
You could also improve isolation somewhat by sandwiching the board / enclosure between pads on both sides in slight compression.
So far we have done a dismal job of approaching this like engineers, but the reality is that with the massive excess quantities of vibration absorbing materials that we are using versus the mass of the APM (or PX4) has produced better results than not using them, but no where near what could be achieved by using the proper weight and size of dampening / isolation material.
The basic solution is to reduce the actual isolation medium to the 4 smallest pads you can get by with on each corner and using the softest commercially available dampening materials you can find.
A further gain can be made by placing the item to be damped in 10 to 20 percent compression between 2 pieces of the dampening material.
Thickness of the dampening material does improve dampening and isolation but is not nearly as important as selecting the right material and the right size of the supports made from it.
I believe that Kyosho Zeal tape is 2/10 of an inch thick and that is probably plenty for our use and the frequency range we are trying to damp.
I would very much like to see 3D Robotics produce a APM (and PX4 / IO board for that matter) case with proper internal shock mounting of the board(s) with dampening data for it.
I actually suspected this result from the start of my investigation and a little thoughtful research has completely confirmed it.
Another significant gain in vibration isolation can be had by using a high flex wire and strain relief approach to all wires connected to the Flight control board (and using the minimum number of wires necessary as well.)
I have used the concept of vibration isolation and dampening somewhat interchangeably in this discussion.
Isolation is simple undamped (spring or rubber band support) which allows the movement of the isolated object largely separate from the containing object.
Dampening is the conversion of vibration into heat energy by a shock absorbing medium (car shock absorber for instance.)
Our ultimate goal here is to provide the most high and medium frequency reduction while still allowing low frequency actual board movement to take place with a minimum of delay.
So realistically our methods embody both Dampening and Isolation.
I have covered a lot of ground here, but this is at least a good start for designing some real world vibration solutions that are bound to work better for us than what we have done so far.
Please try your own experiments and kick in your own thoughts here, that's how we get better and this is just a launching point.
Here is an excellent link to some definitive research and testing that will help:
http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?4251-Vibration-Dampening-amp-Isolation-Solutions-Guide
Replies
Hi Bill and Nicholas,
Bill, the BeastX foam is interesting.
I dont know the density, but my guess is the soft foam is what would work best because the board / case is such low mass.
But the dual system can provide a 2 frequency compensation which is better than either by itself.
I would use the soft on the APM side and the hard on the frame side and still stick to 1/2" to 3/4" pads at each corner.
Cant wait to see your raw Accels on whatever works best at hover throttle.
Nicholas, frame isolation can definitely really help.
There is a retrofit frame for the F450 Flamewheel that has vibration damping built in as well.
I'd still stick some 1/2" to 3/4" Kyosho Zeal or Moon Gel pads under each corner of the flight controller too though.
I've been crawling through RCGroups recently and found this interesting frame. It basically isolates the whole frame from the arms, allowing use of the weight of all onboard equipment for the dampening material.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1872854
OR, I could sandwhich the board between to layers( easy to do do on a Quad C) and stick some mass to the bottom of the APM case?
Or should I get some Zeal Tape and skip the DuBro?
Is there some advice that is, try this and you be in the zone, or is it all so trial and error?
Thx
Hi guys,
I use four Alpha Gel Chips (15x15x10; http://docs-europe.electrocomponents.com/webdocs/0b52/0900766b80b52...) plus four pieces of velco between the Alpha Gel and the frame. I am not sure about the results. Accel X and Y seem to be very good, but how do you consider Accel Z? At the end I gave some throttle bursts (not full throttle because of the lamp in my room ;))
All the best,
Markus
My new APM mount for the MkII ‘H’ frame quad.
The previous one was similar but the pink foam covered the whole of the 62g aluminium block. This one has 4 20x20mm pads. Not sure what the foam is but it feels a bit like skin.
I will epoxy the APM to the carbon pad which is then screwed to the ali. Its a shame the APM case doesn’t have mounting lugs anyway.
I am a newbie(just got into this hobby a couple of months ago..). How about making the APM enclosure a bit heavy by mounting sensors like the gps, LED controller boards, battery low volt alarm, reciever, etc on it? This will increase the mass of the board and help in vibration dampening.
I'm looking at trying to reduce the vibrations caused by my motors and props. I've balanced the APC 10x4.7 props using a Dubro balancer and balanced the motors with a seismic app on my android phone and separately, everything is pretty clean. When I put the props on the motors, there is a large amount of vibration. The hubs are the ones included with the motors. Does anyone have a recommendation for other hubs that will work?
There are references to using grommets to isolate and dump the vibrations from the motors, but I been unable to find anything specific as to which grommets. Grommets that I've found seem to be too large to fit around each individual screw that screws into the motors.
Hi,
First of all,Thanks to Gary for starting this thread, I agree that this is an area that requires some improvement.
I have just finished building and tuning my first 3DR Arducopter with a mostly standard config
850kV Motors
10x4.7 Props
4C 3200mA LiPoly Battery
Sonar/Opticflow installed
GoPro Black and 600mW transmitter installed- no gimble
Total operational weight = 1.5Kg
I had to make some small adjustments to my rate and stab PIDs to deal with the extra power from my 4C pack but nothing major, I found the tuning guides very helpful here.
I was pretty happy with my setup until upgraded to 2.91, from there I started to experience some very bad behavior in Loiter and Altitude mode. Basically my motors were pulsing and would not hold altitude and would either climb or fall depending on my momentum. I found I had to make the following changes form the defaults
Alt_hold_P - 2 to 1.05
Alt_rate_P - 6 to 3.5
Alt_rate_d - 0.200 to 0.120 - helped a lot
Throttle_accel_p - 0.75 to 0.5
Throttle_accel_i - 1.5 to 1
With these settings I was achieving similar results to what I was getting with 2.8.1 but my Alt Hold was still oscillating more than I was comfortable with.
I suspected that my problems were due to noise on my accelerometer Z axis and a log confirmed this. I had not yet balanced my props as I was interested to see if I could reduce the noise though some other techniques first. I was going to get some vibration foam and play around with some different configurations but I thought I would try some 1.5mm rubber mounted under my motors first and much to my delight it made a fair improvement. My test flights have confirmed the better performance, I had really good results yesterday in 20Kph wind. I didn't notice a loss of performance in any other modes. My attachment shows the before and after results
I am now comfortable to try our my first FVP in Alt Hold Mode.
Hope this helps someone out there...
Motor Rubber Results.png
Gary,
Have you considered a cam tensioner arrangement for your testing (or maybe even as a final) mount?
It would allow you to play around with the pre-tension very easily. You could eliminate the variable induced by the fold over threading through the mount hole.
Gary, have you tried silicone O rings? I have ‘acquired’ some and they feel much better than the standard ones. More stretchy but slow to ‘twang’ back. The ones I have are not the right size for my arms but I have suspended the gopro from them.
Mine are orange, I think that’s the normal colour of them.