Please can somebody explain to me the difference between Position Control, Velocity Control, and Torque Control? Specifically, I am thinking in terms of a robot arm. I understand that position control tries to control the position of the actuators, such that the error signal is the difference between the current position and the desired position. Velocity control is then trying to control the velocity of each actuator, and torque control is trying to control the torque of each actuator. Dragon age inquisition update 2 hotfix 3dm crack v2 d. However, I don't understand why these are not all the same thing. If you want to send a robot arm to a certain position, then you could use position control.

But in order to move an actuator to a certain position, you need to give it a velocity. And in order to give it a velocity, you need to give it a torque. Therefore, whether the error is in position, velocity, or torque, it always seems to come back to just the error in torque. What am I missing? Torque is analogous to force for rotating systems, in that: $$ F = m a tau = I alpha $$ Where $ alpha$ is angular acceleration and $I$ is moment of inertia. $m$ and $a$ are mass and linear acceleration, respectively. So, in a way, a position controller, a velocity controller, and an acceleration (torque) controller are all different implementations of each other because each is the of the next - position is the integral of velocity, and velocity is the integral of acceleration.

Where these differ is how you apply the controller. This typically depends on what you're interested in. For instance, are you trying to control position, as in a servo motor? Are you trying to regulate acceleration, as in a hospital elevator?

Typically you will have some specification you are trying to meet. Then, with your specifications, you can use typical to build a controller for that particular aspect.

Views and Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers and the writer will take full responsibility that results from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. See more of Manka on Facebook. Create New Account. See more of Manka on Facebook. Forgot account? Create New Account. View the profiles of people named Marianne Manko. Join Facebook to connect with Marianne Manko and others you may know. Marianna Manka Simon.

It has two piezoelectric transducers glued to both ends of the V-shaped quartz. Authors: Wahid, Fazli Alsaedi, Ahmed Khalaf Zager Ghazali, Rozaida. Keywords: PMLSM, actuator, thrust disturbance, active vibration absorber, PID control. Air-gap field orientation controlled induction motor drive with constant torque. Hafidz Fazli Fauadi; Mohd Hisham Nordin; Zamzuri Mohd Zainon. Fuzzy logic control vs. Conventional PID control of an inverted pendulum robot.

That is, if you work at that particular 'level': position, velocity, or acceleration, then you can design for a particular rise time, overshoot, and damping. The difference being that you're designing acceleration overshoot, or positional overshoot. Generally I would say the output of the controller goes to motor voltage, so while the output of the controller is always the same (motor volts) the input and gains are different, with the desire to achieve a different set of operating parameters. I'll close by pointing out that a motor controller output is terminal voltage because that's how one modulates motor current.

Motor current, in turn, generates torque via the. So, ultimately, every controller regulates motor torque, but with the end goals varying - control motor acceleration, velocity, or position. Again, what you're trying to control depends on the application and will affect the gains you choose. I'm going to take a slightly different tack to.