I also found while working with the servo tuning (last summer)... FF1 (I think that is the non-zero FFn parameter in my .ini file) is VERY effective in improving following error, and is, in fact, BETTER than a PID could do, because, of course, it knows IN advance what is GOING to happen at a velocity change! I was able to get following error down to under .001" under practically all circumstances by setting FF1 to a small value, somewhere between 4 and 7.5 or so. You can see my graph at http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~jmelson/servo.html showing a jog move at 90 IPM. Oh, yes, one other thing, the acceleration parameters in the default EMC .ini file are ridiculous. I had been ignoring jerky motion when manually jogging when I started working with EMC, until I broke a brand new toothed belt on my Y axis. This led me to realize the system was demanding much too much acceleration, and I slowed it down quite a bit. No belts have broken since then.
Jon
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:38:00 -0500
From: Jon Elson <jmelson@artsci.wustl.edu>
-2-
JohnDRoc@aol.com wrote:
> Yes, it's fast, it's definitely an industrial-strength milling center.
It's
> not a humming sound it's more like a grinding or laboring sound.
It runs in
> my mind that it ran more "freely" before, but
it might just be a result of
> the compensation - maybe I didn't notice when it was slamming back
and forth.
Well, I still think it is what I saw, but maybe not. Does the sound change at different jog speeds? What is your P parameter in the axis setup, in fact what are all your parameters in there? If the P gain is set too high, it could cause rough operation. Yes, it could be tuning of the servo amp, too. I found it was best to run with a conservative P, I and D set to zero, and a small value on FF1, about 5.0 This gave me really minute following error and quite solid position holding, without any instability.
> I think the next step is going to be working with the logging program,
to
> determine the fine tuning of the amps. Then, I think I saw in a
post from
> Fred, that there is supposed to be a program that helps come up
with the PID
> values.
Unless they've done some serious repair in the PID department, the I and D are programmed wrong, and do not do anything useful. Unfortunately, the controls theory used in EMC gave a steady-state, or at least one quadrant, definition of PID algorithms. The problem is this is a motion control problem in all FOUR quadrants. And, Integral history from when you were in a different quadrant is not only irrelevant, but makes your solution MORE inaccurate, instead of reducing error. But, pedantically, because you are SUPPOSED to use the entire history of the system, EMC holds that you MUST use the entire history, even if it fails to perform the necessary goal.
The Derivative term probably works, in the general sense, but since this is a quantized system, and in slow motion there are so few encoder counts per servo cycle, the Derivative term from each encoder cycle has WAY too much quantization noise to perform well. It needs to be smoothed a bit. Fortunately, they put in the FF0, FF1 and FF2 terms, which are both mathematically pure, and of great use. FF1 is actually better than some combination of I and D, because it can respond BEFORE error develops, as in a rapid acceleration of the system from rest. The I term won't know what is going on for minutes, because it is taking the average of millions of tiny errors past, and due to the quantization, you can't set the D term very high, or the system gets unstable. As long as the servo amps are well behaved, just using P and FF1 has worked VERY well for me.
So, I don't know what the auto-tune program will do with those parameters. If good, it will also find them to be unhelpful, and leave them close to zero.
Jon
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:23:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jon Elson <jmelson@artsci.wustl.edu>