Rockwell's Pos & Vel PID Forms

Taylor Turner

Member
Join Date
Sep 2020
Location
Midwest
Posts
78
I've got quite a few questions to fire.



In the velocity form, why does the P term now act like the D term in the positional form?


The D term in the velocity form is a nifty equation, but is this an example of second derivative tuning? Can it be extended to n-3?


I just had a hard time explaining to someone that with this velocity form you have to tune I like P and now P like D and P doesn't exist now, but D now does this cool acceleration thing... etc.
Would the attached have redundant terms or would this keep the classic PID understanding?


Do you guys have any resources that have other error terms or algorithm forms?


(Edit) Just to get it out of the way, I know t should probably be squared in that last term.

PIDD.png
 
Last edited:
With the possible exception of how anti-windup is done, roundoff-error in the sixth or seventh decimal place, and how the tuning is done (e.g. Ki vs. Ti, although that is usually a dependent gains vs. independent gains difference), Rockwell's Positional and Velocity forms of the PID equation are arithmetically, and behave, exactly the same.

Cf. this link.


And this link and this link also.
 
Last edited:
In the velocity form, why does the P term now act like the D term in the positional form?
This works because the P term is being integrated.

The D term in the velocity form is a nifty equation, but is this an example of second derivative tuning? Can it be extended to n-3?
Yes, this is necessary for underdamped hydraulic systems. The RMC has a second derivative gain which is applied to errors between the target and actual accleration.

I just had a hard time explaining to someone that with this velocity form you have to tune I like P and now P like D and P doesn't exist now, but D now does this cool acceleration thing... etc.
Sometimes explaining the difference between the two forms of PID is hard.
drbitboy is correct. The I, P and D gains are tuned the same way and usually provide the same results.

Would the attached have redundant terms or would this keep the classic PID understanding?
Keep the same understanding.

Do you guys have any resources that have other error terms or algorithm forms?
Again, we have a second derivative gain that is multiplied by the difference between the target and actual acceleration. The problem with this is calculating the actual acceleration

(Edit) Just to get it out of the way, I know t should probably be squared in that last term.
??
 

Similar Topics

Hi!! I'm looking for Temperature rise calculation software from Rockwell, I just download "Product selection toolbox 2022" but this software is...
Replies
1
Views
113
Hi all. I'm building my first Grafcet using Logix, but I started from another project. From what we usually do with other PLC's, I was expecting...
Replies
1
Views
55
“The HMI files we cannot open—they were saved in V13—we do not have that—I cannot restore file –please have them save in V11 and send them back to...
Replies
4
Views
135
Working with AB/ Rockwell PLCs How do I get certain outputs to show up like the picture ? The one in the picture was made by a manufacturer, but...
Replies
4
Views
192
I want to program an Exor HMI using a Rockwell controller. However, when exporting the tag list from the controller and importing it into JMobile...
Replies
0
Views
92
Back
Top Bottom