deatbeat controller

why generally deadbeat controller is not robust? any suggestions?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sunnewton wrote:

Techniques that require pole-zero cancellation are generally not robust.
fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred Stevens wrote:

Unless you can eyeball the system and know what pole locations are safe -- and that doesn't really count.
--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sunnewton wrote:

Because it generally requires absurdly high gains, and loop closing frequencies well above the points where the plant model is no longer reliable.
You may be able to make a very high-order deadbeat controller that's robust, by padding it's response enough to bring the loop closure frequencies down -- this would be an interesting research topic. Keeping it deadbeat in real life would undoubtedly require an adaptive controller.
--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.