Nyquist stability. Vector addition. Bad diagram?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of the Nyquist stability criterion as presented in the TI/Unitrode app note "Control Loop Cookbook." The user expresses confusion regarding the stability of control loops at frequencies below the crossover frequency, particularly in relation to vector addition depicted in figures 3a and 3b. The figures are criticized for potentially misrepresenting vector relationships, leading to misunderstandings about phase lag and gain. The user seeks clarification on the concepts and suggests that the figures may be misleading.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Nyquist stability criterion
  • Familiarity with control theory concepts
  • Knowledge of vector addition principles
  • Experience with frequency response analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the TI/Unitrode app note "Control Loop Cookbook" for detailed insights on control loops
  • Study the Nyquist stability criterion in-depth, including its application in control systems
  • Examine vector addition in the context of control theory to clarify misconceptions
  • Explore alternative textbooks or resources on control theory for better explanations
USEFUL FOR

Control engineers, students of control theory, and anyone involved in the design and analysis of control systems will benefit from this discussion.

schlunk
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
This isn't exactly coursework, since I am no longer in school, but I think this may be the most appropriate forum to post in. This link is for a TI/Unitrode app note, "Control Loop Cookbook", which is about control loops for switching converters.
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ml/slup113a/slup113a.pdf

I have been trying to read it, but I cannot understand a concept which he starts talking about on page 5-3. He seems to be saying that at frequencies below the crossover frequency (point where open loop gain =1), the system is always stable, even with 180 of phase lag (i.e. in-phase) an greater than unity gain. He admits that it seems counter-intuitive, and then points to a figure which explains it using vector addition (fig 3).

I think the figure must simply be a bad figure, because it doesn't seem to follow any rules of vector addition that I'm aware of. In 3a and 3b he has the two vectors meeting head to head. In figure 3b it seems to show a right triangle with a hypotenuse shorter than a leg.

Is this a bad graphic, or am I not getting it? Could someone please explain to me what he is trying to say?

Thank you for your help!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
bump?
 
Tbh I've studied some control theory, and I don't have a clue what he's trying to show with the vectors. Somehow he's using the Nyquist stability criterion without a Nyquist plot, hmmmm.

I'd find a better textbook to explain it, if you can. Or at least take a look here: http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/eControlHTML/Freq/Nyquist3.html

I've actually got some good lecture notes in pdf form on basic control theory, so if you like then PM me with your email address and I'll send you them.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K