Curious about some links posted for "Understand PID control"

Pole-positioning -- blech. I can only make that work if I know ahead of time what pole locations are "safe". I think it was overenthusiastic pole positioning that led to the whole field of robust control.

Reply to
Tim Wescott
Loading thread data ...

- lots of back and forthing snipped -

I think the real item of interest here is that Peter's system is using a form of integrator bounding that ends up working the same as Jerry's circuit. The difference is that Jerry's way is easier to implement but more obscure in its operation for a beginner. Peter's way looks, with the exception of a rather complicated integrator limit, like a PID that you may see in a textbook.

I suspect that the two forms are essentially, if not exactly, the same behaviorally because of the way that Peter's method limits the integrator.

Reply to
Tim Wescott

I'm tempted to believe that, but if Peter's PID-style integrator has the same time constant as a classical PID integrator, then it's not equivalent to Phelan's. By time constant, I mean the time constant of an equivalently performing op-amp integrator; namely, the R-C consisting of the input resistor and the feedback capacitor.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Avins

Consider placing the closed loop poles on the real axis. That is safe. Then the response is either critically damped or over damped. However, one must be mindful of the location of the zeros since they are not placed.

Peter Nachtwey

Reply to
Peter Nachtwey

I don't understand this comment at all. However, I am not claiming that that the integrator limit I use makes a PID equivalent to Phelan's. I am just claiming and demonstrated that a PID doesn't need to overshoot and its response will be faster because a PID has zeros which extend the bandwidth. This contradicts the advantages the pages on your webpage. BTW, the incremental ( velocity ) form of PID doesn't need to overshoot either.

By time constant, I mean the time constant of an

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ The digital world allows one to do things that can't be done in the analog world.

Peter Nachtwey

Reply to
Peter Nachtwey

I have gotten into trouble even with that, in the case of a system consisting of two integrators and an adjustable low-pass stage. Anything with three poles on top of each other ended up with a poorly behaved controller (I _think_ it wasn't minimum phase, but I can't remember). I had to go to a pole-placement rule that put one pole closer to z = 1 than the other two, then everything was fine.

The point being that while I could make a pole-placement rule that worked, I had to do it by working backwards from a few example controllers that I reviewed for robustness using other means.

Reply to
Tim Wescott

I have had a lot of success with pole placement. If you check my equations you will see it is very simple.

Peter Nachtwey

Reply to
Peter Nachtwey

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.