1 / 21

Simulation and Experimental Verification of Model Based Opto-Electronic Automation

Simulation and Experimental Verification of Model Based Opto-Electronic Automation. Shubham K. Bhat , Timothy P. Kurzweg, and Allon Guez. Drexel University Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. skb25@drexel.edu , kurzweg@ece.drexel.edu , guezal@drexel.edu. Overview.

Download Presentation

Simulation and Experimental Verification of Model Based Opto-Electronic Automation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Simulation and Experimental Verification of Model Based Opto-Electronic Automation Shubham K. Bhat, Timothy P. Kurzweg, and Allon Guez Drexel University Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering skb25@drexel.edu, kurzweg@ece.drexel.edu, guezal@drexel.edu

  2. Overview • Motivation • Current State-of-the-Art Photonic Automation • Our Technique: Model Based Control • Optical Modeling Techniques • Learning Model Identification Technique • Conclusion and Future Work

  3. Motivation Automation is the key to high volume, low cost, and high consistency manufacturing ensuring performance, reliability, and quality. • No standard for OE packaging and assembly automation. • Misalignment between optical and geometric axes • Packaging is critical to success or failure of optical microsystems • 60-80 % cost is in packaging

  4. Stop Stop Current State-of-the-Art “Hill-Climbing” Technique Assembly Alignment Task Parameters Visual Inspect and Manual Alignment ApproximateSet Point=Xo Initialization Loop Move to set point (Xo) Measure Power (Po) • LIMITATIONS: • Multi-modal Functions • Multi-Axes convergence • Slow, expensive Off the shelf Motion Control (PID) (Servo Loop) Stop motion Fix Alignment

  5. Model Based Control Correction to Model Parameter Learning Algorithm Model Parameter Adjustment FEED - FORWARD Set Point=Xo Visual Inspect and Manual Alignment Assembly Alignment Task Parameters Optical Power Propagation Model {Xk}, {Pk} Initialization Loop Move to set point (Xo) Measure Power (Po) • ADVANTAGES: • Support for Multi-modal Functions • Technique is fast • Cost-efficient Off the shelf Motion Control (PID) (Servo Loop) Stop motion Fix Alignment

  6. R(s) Pr(s) Pd(s) Kp E(s) + + + - Kp If = P, Model Based Control Theory

  7. Optical Modeling Technique • Use the Rayleigh-Sommerfeld Formulation to find a Power Distribution model at attachment point • Solve using Angular Spectrum Technique • Accurate for optical Microsystems • Efficient for on-line computation Spatial Domain Spatial Domain Fourier Domain

  8. Inverse Model • For Model Based control, we require an accurate inverse model of the power • However, most transfer functions are not invertible • Zeros at the right half plane • Unstable systems • Excess of poles over zeros of P • Power distribution is non- monotonic (no 1-1 mapping) • Find “equivalent” set of monotonic functions

  9. Inverse Model: Our Approach • Decompose complex waveform into Piece-Wise Linear (PWL) Segments • Each segment valid in specified region • Find an inverse model for each segment

  10. Need for Learning Model • The structure of the system and all of its • parameter values are often not available. • Noise, an external disturbance, or inaccurate • modeling could lead to deviation from the actual • values. • Adjust the accuracy on the basis of experience. Real System Input Output + Adjustment Scheme Error - Estimated model Model

  11. Learning Model IdentificationAlgorithm Step 1: Assume system to be described as , where y is the output, u is the input and is the vector of all unknown parameters. Step 2: A mathematical model with the same form, with different parameter values , is used as a learning model such that Step 3: The output error vector, e , is defined as Step 4: Manipulate such that the output is equal to zero. Step 5: It follows that and

  12. Learning Model Identification Technique Real System Input Output + Estimated model of unknown parameters Output Error - Model Sensitivity equations

  13. Learning Model Identification example We present a two unknown system having input-output differential equation ( a and K are unknown ) The variables u, y, and are to be measured { } Step 1: and Step 2: { Assume estimated model and } Step 3: The Sensitivity coefficients are contained in where , and

  14. Learning Loop of PWL Segment . Input Power + Displacement - (P) (u) (x) K For each PWL Segment: L-1

  15. : Updated Model Learning for 2 Unknown Variables (PWL Segment) S: Sensitivity matrix • a and K have initial estimates of 0.1 and 4 • Actual values of a and K are 1.44 and 5.23 e: error matrix Q: weighting matrix e: tracking parameter

  16. Example: Laser Diode Coupling Aperture = 20um x 20um Fiber Core = 4 um Prop. Distance = 10 um Edge Emitting Laser Coupled To a Fiber Distance = 10um No. of. Peaks = 10 NEAR FIELD COUPLING

  17. 1.5 1.3 1.1 20 0.9 18 0.7 16 14 12 Model Based Control System Fiber Position (12.6 um) Inverse Model Received Power + Derivative (1.41 ) + Nominal Model Desired Power Proportional Gain + + K (1.41) - Motor Dynamics Plant Model 1.5 1 K 0.5 Proportional Gain Time Taken = 7 seconds 0

  18. Experimental Setup of Laser-diode example

  19. Test bed for Verification X-Y Stage Laser Diode Driver Optical Power Sensor Optical Source Motion Control Card X Amplifier Y Amplifier Pre-amplifiers, encoders We acknowledge Kulicke and Soffa, Inc. for the donation of the XY Table

  20. Test bed for Verification Optical Power Sensor Laser Diode Driver X-Y Stage

  21. Conclusions and Future Work • Model based control leads to better system performance • Inverse model determined with PWL segments • Learning loop can increase accuracy of model • Shown increased performance in simulated systems • Hardware implementation • Evaluate other learning techniques • Error prediction in models

More Related