Duet3D Logo Duet3D
    • Tags
    • Documentation
    • Order
    • Register
    • Login

    [3.4b7+7] Chamber Heater faults

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved
    Beta Firmware
    3
    11
    547
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • oozeBotundefined
      oozeBot
      last edited by oozeBot

      We continue to experience Chamber heater faults when initially heating up our printers with any of the 3.4 betas. Our M307 is as follows. I don't think we can "dumb" it down much further. We never had issues with 3.3.

      M307 H2 B1 C1800 D350 R0.02
      

      @dc42 WIll this be addressed before 3.4 final? It's pretty critical that this is corrected. As explained in previous posts, the chamber temp can and does swing negative momentarily when initially heating - and the current algorithm is reading this as a fault. Thanks

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • oozeBotundefined
        oozeBot
        last edited by

        Here is the error logged when it faults:

        Error: Heater 0 fault: temperature rising too slowly: expected -0.00°C/sec measured -0.01°C/sec
        
        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • oozeBotundefined oozeBot marked this topic as a question
        • oozeBotundefined
          oozeBot
          last edited by oozeBot

          As an additional test, we adjusted M307 to the following, but it resulted in the same fault.

          M307 H2 B1 C3600 D350 R0.01
          

          The documentation on the M307 parameters are a bit sparse - if anyone knows something we are missing that might resolve this, please speak up. Maybe our understanding of deadtime is inaccurate?

          Stephen6309undefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • Stephen6309undefined
            Stephen6309 @oozeBot
            last edited by

            @oozebot D is the dead time;
            https://duet3d.dozuki.com/Wiki/Tuning_the_heater_temperature_control#Section_Setting_the_model_parameters_manually

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • oozeBotundefined
              oozeBot
              last edited by oozeBot

              When this was first discovered, our testing determined the maximum D value was around 350. On 3.4b7+1, it accepted D1000. I will test this change as soon as an available printer cools down.

              Current M307 settings:

              Heater 2: heating rate 0.010, cooling rate 0.028, dead time 1000.00, max PWM 1.00, mode bang-bang
              

              edit - adjusting the dead time to 1000 appears to have been helpful. I have now adjusted all our printers to the new settings and will continue testing over the next few days.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • oozeBotundefined
                oozeBot
                last edited by oozeBot

                Further testing with the following M307 still results in a chamber heater fault in the 3.4 betas. This was never an issue in 3.3. It appears the current algorithm simply won't let the temperature dip negative, which can and does happen when heating a chamber.

                M307 H2 B1 C3600 D1000 R0.01
                Heater 2: heating rate 0.010, cooling rate 0.028, dead time 1000.00, max PWM 1.00, mode bang-bang
                Predicted max temperature rise 36°C
                
                Error: Heater 0 fault: temperature rising too slowly: expected -0.00°C/sec measured -0.01°C/sec
                
                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • oozeBotundefined
                  oozeBot
                  last edited by

                  @dc42 - I just dug through the recent RRF code changes and see several (hopefully) related modifications that have been made. I am in hopes the information we've provided helped identify the issue. Can you confirm this was targeted in those changes? Thanks

                  dc42undefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • dc42undefined
                    dc42 administrators @oozeBot
                    last edited by

                    @oozebot the problem was that prior to the 3.4beta series, if the M307 R parameter was low enough then the heater fault detection didn't work at all. So I've been trying to come up with a solution that works for slow heaters; but it's proving difficult. You may find RRF 3.4b7+4 better, and I hope to make that available later today.

                    Duet WiFi hardware designer and firmware engineer
                    Please do not ask me for Duet support via PM or email, use the forum
                    http://www.escher3d.com, https://miscsolutions.wordpress.com

                    oozeBotundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                    • oozeBotundefined
                      oozeBot @dc42
                      last edited by

                      @dc42 Thank you. We'll definitely test it right away and report back with our findings.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • oozeBotundefined
                        oozeBot
                        last edited by oozeBot

                        After spending the weekend on this, I believe we may have been able to stabilize the tuning to stop the heater faults by further raising the C value to 200x the actual time it takes to fully heat our chambers. As mentioned, this was never an issue prior to the 3.4 betas. We understand a defect was addressed to better protect against heater faults, but it feels way to restrictive for chamber heaters.

                        We will continue to test and provide results. If our current settings continue to provide success, I guess we'll consider this resolved, but it does not feel as if we are properly setting the values for how our heaters work. Instead, it feels as if we are working around a software issue.

                        oozeBotundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                        • oozeBotundefined
                          oozeBot @oozeBot
                          last edited by

                          @dc42 - After several more days of testing, we are going to mark this as solved, however something still feels wrong as the only way to reliably stop the heater faults was to raise the C value to 200x the actual time it takes to fully heat our chambers. That isn't how the documentation describes the C parameter, but we'll run with it unless we're told additional changes are made in the firmware.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                          • oozeBotundefined oozeBot has marked this topic as solved
                          • Phaedruxundefined Phaedrux has marked this topic as unsolved
                          • oozeBotundefined oozeBot has marked this topic as solved
                          • jay_s_ukundefined jay_s_uk referenced this topic
                          • oozeBotundefined oozeBot referenced this topic
                          • oozeBotundefined oozeBot referenced this topic
                          • jay_s_ukundefined jay_s_uk referenced this topic
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          Unless otherwise noted, all forum content is licensed under CC-BY-SA