View Single Post
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2011, 14:34
Manoel's Avatar
Manoel Manoel is offline
Registered User
FRC #0383 (Brazilian Machine)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Posts: 608
Manoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond reputeManoel has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Manoel Send a message via MSN to Manoel
Re: PID Loop Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson View Post
But for speed control instead of position control, you probably don't need to care about I.
Quite the contrary! In order to achieve perfect tracking in steady state in speed control, it is imperative that integral control is used - when considering position control, there's no need for it, except if deadzone compensation is of interest.

This is explained by the internal model principle: the unstable modes of the reference signal must be included in the loop in order to achieve perfect tracking; a step change's Laplace transform is 1/s (an unstable pole at the origin), so we must include this pole in the loop. A position control system already has a pole at the origin (because position is speed integrated over time), so there's no need for integral control. That isn't true for a speed control system, which is why we must add integral control to cancel the unstable mode of the reference signal. If you were using a sine source as the reference things would be different, of course.

More info than you'd ever like to know (in a seminal academical paper, though): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...search type=a
__________________
Manoel Flores da Cunha
Mentor
Brazilian Machine
Team # 383