Timeline for Position Control vs Velocity Control vs Torque Control
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2016 at 12:31 | comment | added | Chuck♦ | @Karnivaurus - In my line of work (industrial drives) we care a lot about precise control of motor speeds - this is in between a position and torque (acceleration) controller. If the forward drive in a metal mill is turning too slow then there's a "cobble" - the metal accumulates somewhere it's not supposed to, which is generally where people stand. Too fast in a paper mill and it breaks the sheet. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 12:28 | comment | added | Chuck♦ | @MarkBooth gives a great example of torque control for robotic hands. In general, these applications are referred to as "compliant actuators" - a position or velocity controller might seed the operating point of a torque controller. Note also that not every application that needs a controller is a robotic arm. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 12:07 | comment | added | Mark Booth | As I say in my answer @Karnivaurus second order effects are notoriously difficult to control. If you need Torque Control it's probably because you want to control Torque as a first order effect. You don't want your robot to start dropping things because someone decided that it should be able to run a bit faster. | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 21:46 | comment | added | Karnivaurus | Thanks very much for your answer. I guess my confusion comes from understanding why you would ever use anything other than position control. For example, with a robot arm, all you need to do is to get it from one position to the next. Why would you care about the actual torque in the joints? Why not just figure out the position which all the joints need to be set at, and then use the position error in your feedback loop? | |
| Jun 9, 2016 at 19:56 | history | answered | Chuck♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |