Robust Computer-Aided Tuning of HighPerformance Speed Controlled Digital Servodrives

Guillermo Ramrez Graduate Student Univ. of Concepcin, Dept of EE P.O. Box 160-C Concepcin, Chile Email: guiramir@udec.cl Ricardo Len Graduate Student Univ. of Concepcin, Dept of EE P.O. Box 160-C Concepcin, Chile Email: rileon@udec.cl M. Anbal Valenzuela Senior Member, IEEE Associate Professor Univ. of Concepcin, Dept. of EE P.O. Box 160-C Concepcin, Chile Email: anivalenz@udec.cl

Abstract: This paper presents and evaluates the extension of a robust methodology based on the computation of the figures-ofmerit of the frequency and time responses for the setting of continuous servodrive systems to digital servodrives. The tuning of the hybrid system considers the sampling rate of the speed loop and the delays related to sample-and-hold, computation of control algorithms and speed estimation. The effectiveness of the proposed methodology is evaluated through simulation, showing perfect match between the specified and computed figures-of merit of the hybrid systems.

and to the speed calculation from the pulses coming out from the encoder. The procedure computes the figures-of-merit of the open loop and closed-loop frequency response, and the command and disturbance time responses. This methodology is applied to a 550 (W) digital servodrive, and a comparison to the continuous system response is shown and commented. II. SETTING PROCEDURE FOR CONTINUOUS SERVODRIVES The robust computed-aided setting procedure for continuous systems computes all of the figures-of-merit of the frequency and time responses of the servodrive, using the complete closed-loop transfer function [1]. The figures-of-merit computed are: i. Figures-of-merit of frequency response Crossover frequency of the open-loop frequency response, [Hz] Phase margin of the open-loop frequency response, [] Bandwidth of the closed-loop frequency response, [Hz] ii. Figures-of-merit of time command response Maximum current, [pu] Maximum speed, [pu] Time of maximum speed, [sec] Overshoot, [%] Settling time, [sec] Minimum speed, [%] Time of minimum speed, [sec] Overshoot of speed response (negative), [%] Settling time, [sec] Dynimic precision, [%-sec]

I. INTRODUCCTION Most servodrives in the market use digital control and encoder (or resolver) as mechanical sensors. Although the use of digital control has many advantages, it also introduces delays and quantization that can affect the system response, especially in applications where fast and precise responses are requested. In addition, the speed computation/estimation of the system velocity from the pulses coming out from the encoders, adds a delay in the feedback path that also affects the servosystem response. In applications where the speed loop BW is well below the sampling frequency of the control, it is possible to set the controller gains assuming the servosystem as continuous. Instead, in high demanding applications where the speed BW is around 100-200 Hz, and the overall delay due to the encoder and control algorithm is around one sampling period or more, there is need of including these effects in the setting procedure. In [1] the authors reported a robust computer-aided methodology for the setting of industrial drives assumed as continuous system. This methodology computes all the figuresof-merits of the frequency and time responses using the complete closed-loop transfer function, and therefore including the effect of the controller zero in the responses. As a result, there is a perfect match between the estimated response obtained from the method and the field records using the same gains. Therefore, the use of this information helps to reduce the time spent during field tuning, and/or helps to make a better selection of the controller gains, based on the figures-of-merits that are more relevant for the specific application. This paper presents and evaluates the extension of this robust methodology to digital servodrives including the effects of the sampling rate and the delays due to algorithms computation,

iii. Figures-of-merit of time disturbance response

2.1. Tuning of Continuous Speed Loop

VCMD

K K vp 1 + vi s

KT

1 b + Js

Fig. 1. Speed loop block diagram

978-1-4244-1666-0/08/$25.00 '2008 IEEE

546

Fig. 1 shows the block diagram of the speed loop of the servodrive assumed as a continuous system, and considering an ideal current (torque) loop. From this figure the closed-loop transfer function is:

for K zero between 0 and 0.15. Figs. 3 and 4 show the OS and Ts for this range, and Figs. 6,7 and 8 show the cross-frequency, the phase margin and the closed loop BW.
6

K vp KT V VCMD = J s2 +

K vi K vp KT b + K vp KT s + J J

(1)

OS-V [%]

( s + K vi )

4 2 0

0.05 K zero

0.1

0.15

Ts -V [sec]

According to eqn. (1), the closed-loop transfer function of the speed loop corresponds to a second order system with a zero. The effect of the zero in the system response depends on the location of the zero related to the location of the complex poles. Its effect is best seen using the general canonical form of a second order system with a zero.
T (s) =
2 ( n 2

Fig. 3. Overshoot of speed loop as a function of

0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.05 K zero

K zero

/ a) ( s + a )
2 + n

s + 2 n s

(2)

0.1

0.15

Defining:

Fig. 4. Settling time of speed loop as a function of

K zero

K zero =

(3)
CF-V [Hz]

600 400 200 0

and evaluating the effect of the zero in terms of K zero it is found that for values greater than 3 to 5, the effect of the zero on the system response is marginal. But, for K zero around one or less, the zero produces large increases in the overshoot [2]. Unfortunately, for the speed loop of the servodrive the location of the zero and complex poles are related through K vi and K vp , and therefore is not possible to adjust K zero without changing both the natural frequency and damping of the system response. So, the robust computer-aided procedure computes all the figures-of-merit of the frequency and time responses of the speed loop using eqn. (1), and therefore including the crosscoupling between the zero and poles location. These evaluations are done over a range of values of K zero . Fig. 2 shows the overshoot of the servoloop response for K zero varying between (0, 1), for the 550 (W) servodrive used in the evaluations.
30 20 10 0

0.05 K zero

0.1

0.15

Fig. 5. Cross-frequency of speed loop as a function of

100

K zero

PM-V []

50

0.05 K zero

0.1

0.15

Fig. 6. Phase margin of speed loop as a function of

600 BW-V [Hz] 400 200 0

K zero

OS-V [%]

0.05 K zero

0.1

0.15

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5 K zero

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Fig. 7. Bandwidth of speed loop as a function of

K zero

Fig. 2. Overshoot of speed loop as a function of

K zero

According to Fig. 2, for K zero over 0.15, the overshoot of the speed response is higher 5 %, and the range of interest is

If, for instance, the maximum allowed OS is limited to 4%, according to Fig. 3, the selected K zero should be around 0.1. Then, looking to the others figures-of-merit of interest, this value can be considered as a good decision or changed. In this

547

example, for K zero equal 0.1, the settling time is 0.025 (sec) and the BW is 135 (Hz), and therefore the setting is confirmed. III. COMPUTER-AIDED TUNING FOR SERVODRIVES WITH DIGITAL CONTROL The servodrive modelled as an hybrid system needs to consider a digital PI speed controller, the sample-and-hold of the controller output signal, and the speed computation from the pulses of the encoder. Fig. 8 shows the corresponding block diagram. The current loop, although it uses a digital controller, is modelled as a continuous system because of its much higher sample rate (around 20 kHz). Quantization errors are also neglected assuming that control algorithms are calculated using 12 or 16 bits resolution. TD 1 TCMD Current TEM P V VCMD + 1 Tz 1 Reg. K vp K vi Servo b + Js s z-1 + Drive
VFB z-1 Tz
Fig. 8. Servodrive with digital control

instantaneous computation of the control algorithm and an ideal speed feedback. ii). Evaluation of the servosystem with digital PI controller and including a computation delay expressed in terms of the sample time. Speed feedback is assumed ideal. iii). Evaluation of the servosystem with digital PI Controller and including the effect of speed calculation from the encoder pulses. Calculation delay is assumed equal to zero. iv). Evaluation of the servosystem including all the effects. This last code is used for the final selection of the controller gains. IV. INITIAL SETTING OF CONTROLLERS The proposed methodology is applied to a 550 (W), 3000 (rpm) servodrive. Table I tabulates main data and parameters of the servo system. Current loop uses a sample rate of 20 (kHz) and it is assumed as a continuous system. The sample frequency of the velocity loop is assumed to be equal to 4 (kHz), and the effect of using 3 and 2 (kHz) is shown. Requested velocity loop specifications are:

PFB

Resolver/ Encoder

The proposed computed-aided setting methodology for servodrives with digital control is an extension of the methodology developed for industrial drives assumed as continuous systems [1]. The fundamentals of this methodology were summarized in section II. Specifically, the methodology for digital servodrives computes the same figures-of-merit used for continuous systems and listed in section II. The open and closed-loop frequency responses of the servodrive with digital control are computed adding the delays of the digital blocks of the hybrid systems. The following continuous equivalent models of digital blocks of the hybrid system, are used [3]: - Sample-and-hold:

Speed loop BW around 150 Hz Overshoot of the speed response to a step command 4%
TABLE I: SERVO SYSTEM PARAMETERS Parameter Rated Output Rated Voltage Rated Speed Motor Inertia Load Inertia Gear Box Ratio Value 550 [W] 160 [Vdc] 3000 [RPM] 4.6510-4 [Kg m2] 4.19410-3 [Kg m2] 3

4.1 Effect of the sample rate First, the effect of different sample rate of the velocity loop is evaluated. In this evaluation, the calculation time is assumed zero and the speed feedback ideal. Block diagram is shown in Fig. 9. (switch 1 in position 1)
VCMD

GS / H ( s ) 1 180 F Tsample
- Computation time:

(4)

GTC ( s ) = 1 360 F TC
Speed estimation:

(5)

K vi

Tz z-1
Sw1

+ +

TD TCMD Current TEM

K vp
delay

Reg. Servo Drive

1 b + Js

1 s

VFB

1 2

GS , Est ( s ) 1 180 F Tsample

(6)

z-1 Tz

Figures-of-merit of the command and disturbance step changes are computed using the same definitions, but now applied to the time response of the hybrid system. In order to allow a separate evaluation of the effects of the different blocks related to the digital implementation, four different codes were developed. These are: i). Evaluation of the servosystem with digital PI controller and different sample frequencies, and assuming

Fig. 9. Servodrive with digital control

Figs. 10, 11 and 12 show the overshoot, settling time and phase margin respectively, of the sensitivity analysis for sample rates of 4 (kHz), 3 (kHz) and 2 (kHz), and for the continuous system. For K zero over 0.07, all the responses are very close and give almost the same values of the OS and settling time. As expected, the different sampling rates affect the phase margin of the open loop frequency response. Instead,

548

for K zero below 0.05, the system loose PM and the OS of the responses grow to unacceptable values.
OS-V [%]

6 4 2 0

6 4 2 0

Continuous delay = 0*Tsample delay = 0.5*Tsample delay = 0.9*Tsample 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

OS-V [%]

Continuous fs = 4 kHz fs = 3 kHz fs = 2 kHz 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

Fig. 13. Sensitivity analysis of speed loop overshoot for different computation delays
0.03 0.02 0.01 0

Ts -V [sec]

Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis of speed loop overshoot for different sample rates
0.04 0.03 Ts -V [sec] 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 Continuous fs = 4 kHz fs = 3 kHz fs = 2 kHz 0.15

Continuous delay = 0*Tsample delay = 0.5*Tsample delay = 0.9*Tsample 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

Fig. 14. Sensitivity analysis of speed loop settling time for different computation delays
100

Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysis of speed loop settling time for different sample rates
100
PM-V []

50

Continuous delay = 0*Tsample delay = 0.5*Tsample delay = 0.9*Tsample 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

PM-V []

50

Continuous fs = 4 kHz fs = 3 kHz fs = 2 kHz 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

Fig. 15. Sensitivity analysis of speed loop phase margin for different computation delays

Fig. 12. Sensitivity analysis of speed loop phase margin for different sample rates

Again results confirm that for high-performance servosystems operating with large BWs, the effect of the digital implementation need to be considered. 4.3 Effect of Speed Estimation. Most simple algorithm for the computation of the servodrive speed is counting pulses received during the sample period and dividing by the time interval. For this method, the computed speed is in fact the average speed in the last sample period, and the time delay is equal to one-half the sample period. Evaluation of this effect is done for the servodrive operating with a velocity sample frequency of 4 (kHz). Figs. 16, 17 and 18 show the effects of this delay over the OS, Ts and PM. According to these figures, the delay due to the speed algorithm can produce unacceptable OS for K zero below 0.04
6 4 2 0 Continuous w/o speed estimation w/ speed estimation 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

4.2 Effect of Calculation Time. Calculation time is directly related to the complexity of the control code. In the case of servodrives that also uses the same processor for the computation of the protection algorithms, the code lines related to the protection algorithms should also be included. For the purpose of the evaluation of the effect of the computation time, the related delay is expressed in terms of the sample rate. For a simple controller, without additional filtering, observers or feedforward compensations, time delay can be around 0.2Tsample 0.3Tsample. More complex codes can increase this value up to 0.6Tsample - 0.7Tsample. A more precise determination of the delay can be done counting the summing and product operation involved in the code. In the evaluation of the effect of the calculation delay, two values were considered: 0.5Tsample and 0.9Tsample. For these values, the overshoot, setting time and phase margin are plotted in Figs. 13, 14 and 15. According to these figures, the computation delay can have a major effect in the system response. Specifically, for K zero equal 0.05, without delay the overshoot reaches 2.1 %; and considering a delay of 0.5Tsample, the OS increases up to 4.2 %.

Fig. 16. Sensitivity analysis of speed loop overshoot with and without velocity estimation

549

OS-V [%]

0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Continuous w/o speed estimation w/ speed estimation 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

100

Ts -V [sec]

PM-V []

50 Continuous w/o delays w/all delays 0 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

Fig. 17. Sensitivity analysis of speed loop settling time with and without velocity estimation
100

Fig. 21. Evaluation of all delays on speed loop phase margin

600 BW-V [Hz] 400 200 0 Continuous w/o delays w/all delays

PM-V []

50

Continuous w/o speed estimation w/ speed estimation 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

0.05 Kzero

0.1

0.15

Fig. 18. Sensitivity analysis of speed loop phase margin with and without velocity estimation

Fig. 22. Evaluation of all delays on speed loop bandwidth

V. EVALUATION. Final step of the setting procedure is the evaluation of the servodrive responses to a command step and to a rapid disturbance. These evaluations are done using the setting accepted in section 4.4 and shown in Figs 19 to 22. 5.1 Time response to a 5% step command.
6 VCMD, V, VFB [%] 4 2 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 time [sec] 0.04 0.05 0.06

4.4 Evaluation including all the effects. Finally, the combined effects of all delays are presented in Figs. 19 to 22. According to Fig. 22, in order to get a BW of 150 Hz, K zero should be 0.08. For this value, the OS is greater than 4%, reaching 6.15 %, which is considered to high. Instead, for a continuous system without delays, the use of K zero = 0.08, give an OS of 3.23 %, which is considered acceptable. In conclusion, it is not possible to obtain for the hybrid system a BW of about 150 (Hz) and a OS below 4 %, and the option is to accept a lower BW. If a BW of 135 (Hz) is considered, selecting a K zero = 0.1 will allow to get this BW, and the related OS is 5 %, which although higher than 4 % is consider acceptable.
6 4 2 0 Continuous w/o delays w/all delays 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

Fig. 23. Speed response to a step command without load torque.

Two evaluations are shown. Fig 23 shows the time response to a 5% step command with the servosystems unloaded and initially at rest. Fig 24 shows the response to a 5% step command with de servosystem running initially at 80% of rated speed and a load torque of about 20%. The figures-ofmerit abtained from these plots are tabulated in Table II.
86 VCMD, V, VFB [%] 84 82 80 0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 time [sec] 0.34 0.35 0.36

Fig. 19. Evaluation of all delays on speed loop overshoot

0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Continuous w/o delays w/all delays 0 0.05 K zero 0.1 0.15

Ts -V [sec]

OS-V [%]

Fig. 20. Evaluation of all delays on speed loop settling time

Fig. 24. Speed response to a step command with load torque

It can be seen that these values agree with the values of figures 19 to 21 for the selected K zero .

550

TABLE II: FIGURES-OF-MERIT FOR 5 % STEP COMMAND. Figure-of-merit Step command Step command 0 to 5% 80 to 85% OS 5.27 [%] 5.27 [%] Ts 0.0247 [sec] 0.0247 [sec] BW 135.15 [Hz] 135.15 [Hz] PM 52.29 [] 52.29 []

According to them, a +10% variation in the servomotor resistance produces a moderate increase in the speed overshoot, keeping the settling time unchanged. As expected, the variation of the system inertia affects both the settling time and OS. Specifically a -10% variation in the inertia produces 6.82% OS, and a +10% increase, rises the settling time up to 0.0272 [sec]. VI. CONCLUSIONS. Servodrives with digital control that need to be set for fast and precise responses must consider the effects of the digital implementation. These effects are the digital nature of PI controllers, the calculation time of the control (and protection) algorithms, and the delay due to the speed calculation from encoder pulses. The robust computed-aided methodology initially developed for continuous insdustrial drives can be adapted and extended to the setting of servodrives with digital control. This is done including code sections that simulate digital PI controllers operating at specific sample rate, a delay block of the calculation time, and the velocity computation using the rate of the number of pulses received in the sample period. The use of this code, combined with sensitivity analysis of each separate digital effect, allows the startup engineers to make the appropriate selection of controller gains, as well as the requested sample rate, that fulfill the requirements of the application expressed in terms of figures-of-merit. The effectiveness of the proposed methodology was evaluated in a 550 (W) digital servodrive, with 4 (kHz) sample frequency, obtaining a strong correlation between the specified figures-of merit and the servosystem responses to rapid command and load distrurbances. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper has been supported by CONICYT-Chile, through the Fondecyt Project N 1050945. REFERENCES
[1] M.A. Valenzuela, J.M. Bentley, R.D. Lorenz, Computed-Aided Controller Setting Procedure for Paper Machine Drive Systems, Conf. Reocords of 2007 IEEE Pulp and Paper Technical Conf., Williamsburg, Virginia, USA, June 24-29, 2007, pp: 197-208. [2] [3] [4] R. N. Clark, Introduction to Automatic Control System, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962. G. Ellis, Control System Design Guide, Elsevier Academic Press, London, 2004. G. Ellis, R. D. Lorenz, Comparison of Motion Control Loops for Industrial Applications, Conf. Record of the 1999 IEEE IAS Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, October 3-7, 1999, pp: 2599 2605 [5] B. T. Boulter, Applying Drive Performance Specifications to systems Applications Part I: Speed Performance, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 37. NO 4, July/August 2001

5.2 Response to a 10% load disturbance. Although for the reported application it is assumed that the response to rapid commands define the controller settings, it is of interest to check the servosystem behavior to fast load disturbances. Evaluation is done for the system running at 80% of rated speed and about 60% of initial load torque. Then, at t= 0.01 (sec) a 20% fast load disturbance is applied to the motor shaft. Fig 25 shows the speed response and Table III displays the values of interest.
81 V CMD, V, V FB [%] 80.5 80 79.5 79 0.3

0.31

0.32

0.33

0.34 time [sec]

0.35

0.36

0.37

0.38

Fig. 25. Speed response to a 10% load disturbance. TABLE III FIGURES-OF-MERIT FOR 10 % LOAD DISTURBANCE. Figure-of-merit Value Maximun Speed Variation 0.14 [%] Recovery Time (band 0.1%) 0.011 [sec] Dynamic Precision 0.00154 [%-sec]

The maximun speed drop reaches 0.7985 (pu) which is equivalent to a 0.14% of speed variation, and the recovery time is 0.011 (sec) (band = 0.1%), with a dynamic precision of 0.0154 [%-sec]. These values are considered acceptable and the setting confirmed. 5.3 Sensivity to parameter variation. The parameter that have a greater effect on the system response are the servomotor resistance and the servosystem inertia. The effect of parameter variatons is evaluated assuming a 10% variation of base values due eventually to the effect of temperature or errors in parameters measurements or estimation. Evaluation is done for 5% step command starting from rest and results are presented in Table IV.
TABLE IV FIGURES-OF-MERIT FOR PARAMETER VARIATION. Figureof-merit OS [%] Ts [sec] Base values 5.27 0.0247 Resist. +10% 5.35 0.0247 Resist. -10% 5.2 0.0247 Inertia +10% 4.92 0.0272 Inertia -10% 6.82 0.022

551