没有合适的资源?快使用搜索试试~ 我知道了~
伺服运动控制的基本概念在过去50年中没有发生重大变化。与开环系统相比,使用伺服系统的基本原因包括需要提高瞬态响应时间、减少稳态误差和降低对负载参数的敏感性。 提高瞬态响应时间通常意味着增加系统带宽。更快的响应时间意味着更快的沉降,从而实现更高的机器吞吐量。减少稳态误差与伺服系统的精度有关。最后,降低对负载参数的敏感性意味着伺服系统可以容忍输入和输出参数的波动。输入参数波动的一个例子是输入电力线电压。输出参数波动的例子包括负载惯性或质量的实时变化和意外的轴扭矩扰动。 伺服控制一般可分为两类基本问题。第一类处理命令跟踪。它解决了实际运动在多大程度上遵循命令的问题。旋转运动控制中的典型命令是位置、速度、加速度和扭矩。对于线性运动,使用力而不是扭矩。伺服控制中直接处理这一问题的部分通常被称为“前馈”控制。它可以被认为是需要什么内部命令,从而在没有任何错误的情况下遵循用户的运动命令,当然假设电机和负载的足够精确的模型是已知的。
资源推荐
资源详情
资源评论
Parker Hannifin – Electromechanical Automation Div. / 800-358-9070 / www.parkermotion.com
Fundamentals of Servo Motion Control
The fundamental concepts of servo motion control have not changed significantly in the last 50
years. The basic reasons for using servo systems in contrast to open loop systems include the need
to improve transient response times, reduce the steady state errors and reduce the sensitivity to
load parameters.
Improving the transient response time generally means increasing the system bandwidth. Faster
response times mean quicker settling allowing for higher machine throughput. Reducing the steady
state errors relates to servo system accuracy. Finally, reducing the sensitivity to load parameters
means the servo system can tolerate fluctuations in both input and output parameters. An example
of an input parameter fluctuation is the incoming power line voltage. Examples of output
parameter fluctuations include a real time change in load inertia or mass and unexpected shaft
torque disturbances.
Servo control in general can be broken into two fundamental classes of problems. The first class
deals with command tracking. It addresses the question of how well does the actual motion follow
what is being commanded. The typical commands in rotary motion control are position, velocity,
acceleration and torque. For linear motion, force is used instead of torque. The part of servo
control that directly deals with this is often referred to as “Feedforward” control. It can be thought
of as what internal commands are needed such that the user’s motion commands are followed
without any error, assuming of course a sufficiently accurate model of both the motor and load is
known.
The second general class of servo control addresses the disturbance rejection characteristics of the
system. Disturbances can be anything from torque disturbances on the motor shaft to incorrect
motor parameter estimations used in the feedforward control. The familiar “P.I.D.” (Proportional
Integral and Derivative position loop) and “P.I.V.” (Proportional position loop Integral and
proportional Velocity loop) controls are used to combat these types of problems. In contrast to
feedforward control, which predicts the needed internal commands for zero following error,
disturbance rejection control reacts to unknown disturbances and modeling errors. Complete servo
control systems combine both these types of servo control to provide the best overall performance.
We will examine the two most common forms of disturbance rejection servo control, P.I.D. and
P.I.V. After understanding the differences between these two topologies, we will then investigate
the additional use of a simple feedforward controller for an elementary trapezoidal velocity move
profile.
P.I.D. Control
The basic components of a typical servo motion system are depicted in Fig.1 using standard
LaPlace notation. In this figure, the servo drive closes a current loop and is modeled simply as a
linear transfer function G(s). Of course, the servo drive will have peak current limits, so this linear
model is not entirely accurate; however, it does provide a reasonable representation for our
analysis. In their most basic form, servo drives receive a voltage command that represents a
Parker Hannifin – Electromechanical Automation Div. / 800-358-9070 / www.parkermotion.com
desired motor current. Motor shaft torque, T, is related to motor current, I, by the torque constant,
K
t
. Equation (1) shows this relationship.
≈
t
TKI
(1)
For the purposes of this discussion the transfer function of the current regulator or really the torque
regulator can be approximated as unity for the relatively lower motion frequencies we are
interested in and therefore we make the following approximation shown in (2).
()1
≈
Gs
(2)
The servomotor is modeled as a lump inertia, J, a viscous damping term, b, and a torque constant,
K
t
. The lump inertia term is comprised of both the servomotor and load inertia. It is also assumed
that the load is rigidly coupled such that the torsional rigidity moves the natural mechanical
resonance point well beyond the servo controller’s bandwidth. This assumption allows us to model
the total system inertia as the sum of the motor and load inertia for the frequencies we can control.
Somewhat more complicated models are needed if coupler dynamics are incorporated.
The actual motor position, θ(s), is usually measured by either an encoder or resolver coupled
directly to the motor shaft. Again, the underlying assumption is that the feedback device is rigidly
mounted such that its mechanical resonant frequencies can be safely ignored. External shaft torque
disturbances, T
d
, are added to the torque generated by the motor’s current to give the torque
available to accelerate the total inertia, J.
Figure 1. Basic P.I.D. Servo Control Topology.
Around the servo drive and motor block is the servo controller that closes the position loop. A
basic servo controller generally contains both a trajectory generator and a P.I.D. controller. The
trajectory generator typically provides only position setpoint commands labeled in Fig.1 as θ*(s).
The P.I.D. controller operates on the position error and outputs a torque command that is
sometimes scaled by an estimate of the motor's torque constant,
ˆ
t
K
. If the motor’s torque constant
is not known, the P.I.D. gains are simply re-scaled accordingly. Because the exact value of the
motor's torque constant is generally not known, the symbol ^ is used to indicate it is an estimated
value in the controller. In general, equation (3) holds with sufficient accuracy so that the output of
Parker Hannifin – Electromechanical Automation Div. / 800-358-9070 / www.parkermotion.com
the servo controller (usually +/-10 volts) will command the correct amount of current for a desired
torque.
ˆ
≈
tt
KK
(3)
There are three gains to adjust in the P.I.D. controller, K
p
, K
i
and K
d
. These gains all act on the
position error defined in (4). Note the superscript * refers to a commanded value.
(
)
(
)
()
∗
=θ−θ
errorttt
(4)
The output of the P.I.D. controller is a torque signal. Its mathematical expression in the time
domain is given in (5).
( ) ( ) ( )
...()()()()
=++
∫
pid
d
PIDoutputtKerrortKerrortdtKerrort
dt
(5)
We now look at how one selects the gains, K
p
, K
i
and K
d
.
Tuning the P.I.D. Loop
There are two primary ways to go about selecting the P.I.D. gains. Either the operator uses a trial-
and-error or an analytical approach. Using a trial-and-error approach relies significantly on the
operator’s own experience with other servo systems. The one significant downside to this is that
there is no physical insight into what the gains mean and there is no way to know if the gains are
optimum by any definition; however, for decades this was the approach most commonly used. In
fact, it is still used today for low-performance systems usually found in process control.
To address the need for an analytical approach, Ziegler and Nichols [1] proposed a method based
on their many years of industrial control experience. Although they originally intended their tuning
method for use in process control, their technique can be applied to servo control. Their procedure
basically boils down to these two steps.
Step 1: Set K
i
and K
d
to zero. Excite the system with a step command. Slowly
increase K
p
until the shaft position begins to oscillate. At this point, record
the value of K
p
and set K
o
equal to this value. Record the oscillation
frequency, f
o
.
Step 2: Set the final P.I.D. gains using equation (6).
( )
( )
.6,/
2,/sec
,//sec
8
=
=⋅
=
Po
ioP
P
d
o
KKNmrad
KfKNmrad
K
KNmrad
f
(6)
Loosely speaking, the proportional term affects the overall response of the system to a position
error. The integral term is needed to force the steady state position error to zero for a constant
position command and the derivative term is needed to provide a damping action, as the response
becomes oscillatory. Unfortunately, all three parameters are inter-related so that by adjusting one
parameter will affect any of the previous parameter adjustments.
剩余11页未读,继续阅读
资源评论
初心不忘产学研
- 粉丝: 3552
- 资源: 140
上传资源 快速赚钱
- 我的内容管理 展开
- 我的资源 快来上传第一个资源
- 我的收益 登录查看自己的收益
- 我的积分 登录查看自己的积分
- 我的C币 登录后查看C币余额
- 我的收藏
- 我的下载
- 下载帮助
安全验证
文档复制为VIP权益,开通VIP直接复制
信息提交成功