SPRUHJ1I January 2013 – October 2021 TMS320F2802-Q1 , TMS320F28026-Q1 , TMS320F28026F , TMS320F28027-Q1 , TMS320F28027F , TMS320F28027F-Q1 , TMS320F28052-Q1 , TMS320F28052F , TMS320F28052F-Q1 , TMS320F28052M , TMS320F28052M-Q1 , TMS320F28054-Q1 , TMS320F28054F , TMS320F28054F-Q1 , TMS320F28054M , TMS320F28054M-Q1 , TMS320F2806-Q1 , TMS320F28062-Q1 , TMS320F28062F , TMS320F28062F-Q1 , TMS320F28068F , TMS320F28068M , TMS320F28069-Q1 , TMS320F28069F , TMS320F28069F-Q1 , TMS320F28069M , TMS320F28069M-Q1
SpinTAC Position Control features less settling time for step responses. This results in the system being more responsive to control changes. The system will spend more time at the goal position, which results in less delay. Both controllers have been tuned with zero overshoot, but in situations with changing dynamics, SpinTAC will respond better and will continue to have minimal overshoot when compared with a PI controller.
Figure 13-23 compares the step response of SpinTAC Position Control with a traditional PI position control system. From the plot you can see that the traditional PI position control system has a much longer settling time than SpinTAC Position Control. Longer setting time means that it will take longer for the application to reach the goal position.