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

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Email me when people reply –

Replies

          • I'm guessing that spikes will be seen at 43 & 86Hz (2500rpm) but maybe not at the other Hz. I don't know whether the amps will change though. I will need to test. Do youthink the amps look about right at 2000 & 2500rpm?

            • MR60

              my database on rotor combinations has been focused on thrust versus watts.  so i rarely recorded rpm. you are exploring new ground.  on rpm measurement, use the system you are using to estimate it but verify your estimation system once using a meter that reads a reflective dot on one blade.

              • Hi all

                       I Have Had big improvements with a simple change in orientation of kyosho gel pads.

                I realized that the biggest vibration amplitude was on the z axis ( Gel in compression /tension) mean vib 28 on v3.3   ,   and x =9  ,y=13   gel in shear.

                so now the same jell pads are on the sides of the pixhawk case.   with no gel underneath. just a 1mm gap  (z in shear)  don't know if x is fore/aft orl left /right)

                I now get these readings x=4mean  y=14  z= 16  . this has reduced the z vibrations by  nearly 1/2.  and no clipping during aggressive flight.

                frame is a y6 at auw of 3kg with noticeable inter prop vibrations in high G maneuvers

                I realize that the gel may sag over time so I will use a cardboard "keeper" under the pixhawk  to relive the weight when not flying

                I hope you find this idea interesting    Tim Painter

                • MR60

                  interesting. but to be truly interesting, you should compare that to attaching the FMU directly to the ship using double sided tape. a test report showing x, y, z for none, under, side placement of the gel would be quite interesting.

                  • Hi Forrest,

                    I have today tested vibrations with rigid mount vs vertical gell(x and z in shear)

                    mean vibs in hover rigid= x=6 y=11 z=30

                    mean vibs in hover vertical jel x=4 y=14 z=13

                    mean vibs full aggressive flight

                    with vertical gel x=4 y=16 z=18

                    (attached are logs and jpegs of the beast)

                    all up weight 3Kg with verrigid frame motors are bedded on a thin (fully compressed) foam tape . frame size=motors on a 22 inch pitch circle diameter Y6.

                    odd that the y axis seems worse ?? may be over compression with my quick and dirty rearrangement of the gel pads?

                    I am considering building some 45 deg brackets pointing to the center point so that all axis are equalized regrades shear /compression ( imagine the faces of an inverted pyramid suporting the corners of the pixhawk) ???

                    Tim3702948570?profile=original

                    2015-12-18 14-10-54.bin

                    2015-12-18 14-13-43.bin

                    https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3702948420?profile=original
                  • MR60

                    yes. extreme caution there. if the craft is small (300ish) then this is a real possibility as the natural frequency of such a craft is about what it takes to fool the FMU. it can happen in any mode that requires altitude control. it is my belief that this is what happens (someone more knowledgable please chime in here):

                    - errant or harmonic z-vibrations cause the FCU to think the ship is dropping (it's not)

                    - the FCU applies power increasing z-vibrations

                    - this magnifies the issue

                    - a fly-away as the ship thinks it's dropping

                    So i'd recommend the following:

                    - turn on the following parameters in the log

                      ... IMU

                      ... CTUN

                      ... GPS

                      ... ATT

                      ... CURR

                    - hover the ship for 3 minutes manually in stabilize mode as best you can

                    - land, turn off the FMU (saves the log file)

                    - make the change to the isolation of the FMU from side supported to fixed

                    - repeat the flight

                    - send me both logs so i can look at the behavior of your ship

                    during these tests, stay in stabilize mode.

                     

                    if your ship is stiffer than the one that flew away, then it might not be impacted by a rigid fixing and fly better because of it.  

                    A photo of your ship showing it's structure might also help.

                    Good luck. Only try this if you are interested in supporting science.

                  • Hi forrest

                                    I will do as you suggest later ( its set to rain for the next few days in U.K.)  I an a little concerned as I once used an APM with inertial guidance 

                    and  a rigidly fixed imu  resulted in zoom climb  when switched to loiter!!

                    Tim

      • Very interesting Jon

  • Hi everyone, Hi Forrest.

    I have been absent from this site for a while as was working away in Vilnius. Have found some time to start a new copter project, hopefully building on the previous low vibration designs.

    It is a heavylift quad design, which is currently lifting a sony NEX5 for 30 minutes.

    I have incorporated sorbothane  isolation between the motor arms and the frame. The frame itself will fold very small in a matter of seconds.

    Anyway here are the results of a loiter in the rain this morning.

    I would prefer not to disclose the full details of the design at the moment.

    3702002018?profile=original

    • MR60

      Whatever you are doing Vince ... keep it up.  Well done.  The z (really good but higher than x/y) would be consistent with heavy lift when keeping your stability tight.  Excellent.

      Looking forward to seeing what you've done once you've protected the design.

This reply was deleted.

Activity

Jose Araujo liked Jose Araujo's profile
Aug 29
spencer harvey liked spencer harvey's profile
Jul 9
More…