Unit 8: Part 2: PD, PID, and Feedback Compensation: Engineering 5821: Control Systems I
Uploaded by
Nikhil PanikkarUnit 8: Part 2: PD, PID, and Feedback Compensation: Engineering 5821: Control Systems I
Uploaded by
Nikhil PanikkarIdeal Derivative Compensation (PD)
Lead Compensation
PID Controller Design
Feedback Compensation
Physical Realization of Compensation
Unit 8: Part 2: PD, PID, and Feedback
Compensation
Engineering 5821:
Control Systems I
Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science
Memorial University of Newfoundland
March 28, 2010
ENGI 5821 Unit 8: Design via Root Locus
Ideal Derivative Compensation (PD)
Lead Compensation
PID Controller Design
Feedback Compensation
Physical Realization of Compensation
1 Ideal Derivative Compensation (PD)
1 Lead Compensation
1 PID Controller Design
1 Feedback Compensation
1 Physical Realization of Compensation
ENGI 5821 Unit 8: Design via Root Locus
Ideal Derivative Compensation (PD)
Generally, we want to speed up the transient response (decrease Ts
and Tp ). If we are lucky then a system’s desired transient response
lies on its RL. However, if no point on the RL corresponds to the
desired transient response then we must compensate the system. A
derivative compensator modifies the RL to go through the
desired point.
A derivative compensator adds a zero to the forward path.
Gc (s) = s + zc
Notice that this transfer function is the sum of a differentiator and
a pure gain. Thus, we refer to its use as PD control (proportional
+ derivative).
We consider various settings for zc when compensating the system
with the following RL:
zc = −4
zc = −3
zc = −2
As the zero is moved we get changes in Ts and Tp . In this case,
when the zero is moved to −2 we get the fastest response. All the
while, we are maintaining %OS.
We show how to best place the zero by example...
e.g. Design an ideal derivative compensator for the following
system. The ideal transient response has 16% overshoot and a
threefold reduction in Ts .
The RL for the uncompensated system:
4 4
Ts = = = 3.320
ζωn 1.205
We desire Ts = 3.320/3 = 1.107 for the compensated system.
Thus, the real part of the compensated complex pole,
ζωn = 4/Ts = 4/1.107 = 3.613
The angle made with the positive real-axis must be the same as
before (120.26o ) to maintain 16% overshoot. Therefore we can
determine the imaginary part ωd by trigonometry.
ωd
tan(180o − 120.26o ) =
3.613
ωd = 3.613 tan(180o − 120.26o ) = 6.193
We must now solve for the zero that will place the desired point on
the new RL. At the desired point the sum of angles from the
open-loop poles is −275.6o . To achieve a point on the RL we
require a zero positioned so that the sum of angles equals an odd
multiple of 180o .
−275.6o + θzc = −180o
θz c = 94.6o
What is the coordinate of a zero that makes an angle of 95.6o with
the desired complex pole at −3.613 + j6.193?
6.193
tan(180o − 95.6o ) =
3.613 − σ
σd = 3.006
The RL for the compensated system is as follows:
Notice that the 2nd -order approximation is not as good for the
compensated system. We can determine from simulation that the
following quantities differ from their ideal values:
Ideal Simulated
%OS 16 11.8
Ts 1.107 1.2
Tp 0.507 0.5
A PD controller can be implemented in a similar manner to the PI
controller by placing the proportional and derivative compensators
in parallel:
The overall compensator transfer function is as follows:
K1
Gc (s) = K2 s + K1 = K2 (s + )
K2
Lead Compensation
An ideal derivative compensator has two main disadvantages:
Differentiation tends to enhance high-frequency noise
Implementing a differentiator requires an active circuit
A lead compensator is, roughly speaking, an approximation to an
ideal derivative compensator that can be implemented with a
passive circuit. Its transfer function is as follows:
s + zc
K
s + pc
The RL design technique for lead compensators is rather
ambiguous, therefore we will not cover it. The frequency response
technique (covered later) is more definitive.
PID Controller Design
A PID controller utilizes PI and PD control together to address
both steady-state error and transient response. There are two ways
to proceed:
Design for transient response, then design for steady-state
eror
Con: May slightly decrease response speed when designing for
steady-state error.
Design for steady-state eror, then design for transient
response
Con: May increase (or possibly decrease) steady state error
when designing for transient response.
We choose to design for transient response first.
The transfer function for a PID controller is as follows:
K2 K3 (s 2 + K
K3 s +
1 K2
K3 )
Gc (s) = K1 + + K3 s =
s s
Notice that this function has two zeros and one pole. The location
of one zero will come from the transient response design, the other
zero will come from the steady-state error design.
e.g. Design a PID controller for the following system which
reduces Tp by two thirds, has 20% overshoot, and zero
steady-state error for a step input.
First consider the RL for the uncompensated system at 20%
overshoot...
We search to find the current operating point with 20% overshoot:
At this point Tp = ωπd = 0.297. We desire
Tp = (2/3)0.297 = 0.198.
π
ωd = = 15.87
0.198
ωd = 15.87
We can then determine the real-part of the complex pole by
trigonometry:
15.87
tan(180o − 117.13o ) =
σd
15.87
σd = = 8.13
tan(180o − 117.13o )
We must now determine the location of the PD compensator’s
zero such that this pole lies on the new RL. The current angular
sum at −8.13 + j15.87 is −198.37o . Therefore, the angle that the
zero makes with the real-axis should be 18.37o .
15.87
tan 18.37o = zc −8.13
Thus, the location of this zero is at 55.92. The transfer function
for the PD-compensated system is,
GPD (s) = s + 55.92
This is the RL for the PD-compensated system. Searching along
the zeta = 0.456 line we find the gain is 5.34.
We now compensate this system for steady-state error by adding a
pole at the origin and a nearby zero:
s + 0.5
GPI (s) =
s
The following is the RL for the PID-compensated system:
We must search again along the zeta = 0.456 line to find that the
gain at the desired operating point is 4.6
We should now determine the appropriate constants of the PID
compensator. The compensator will subsume the gain K which is
4.6. We added a zero at -55.92 for the PD component, and a pole
at the origin and a zero at -0.5 for the PI component:
4.6(s + 55.92)(s + 0.5) 4.6(s 2 + 56.421s + 27.96)
GPID (s) = =
s s
Recall the general form:
K2 K3 (s 2 + K
K3 s +
1 K2
K3 )
Gc (s) = K1 + + K3 s =
s s
Hence K3 = 4.6, K1 = 259.5, and K2 = 128.6.
The system’s step response shows both the improvement in speed
and in reduction of steady-state error:
Since the second-order approximation is no longer valid, it is
important to simulate the response to verify that requirements are
met. In this case the desired reduction in Tp of 2/3 was not
achieved (uncompensated: 0.297, PID-compensated 0.214). If this
is deemed significant, we could re-design the PD component, for a
greater than 2/3 reduction in Tp . Alternately we could move the
PI component’s zero further from the origin to yield a faster
response.
Feedback Compensation
We have focussed on the addition of compensators in the forward
path. It is also possible to add compensators in the feedback path:
Feedback compensators can yield faster responses than cascade
compensators. They also tend to require less amplification since
the compensator’s input comes from the high-power output of the
system, rather than from the low-lower actuating signal. Reduced
amplification is preferred in noisy systems where we want to avoid
amplifiying the noise.
Design techniques for feedback compensators are related to the
design techniques for cascade compensators, but we will not study
them in this course.
Physical Realization of Compensation
Utilizing op-amps we can implement all of the compensators
studied. Recall the circuit for an inverting amplifier:
The transfer function for this circuit is:
Vo (s) Z2 (s)
=−
Vi (s) Z1 (s)
We can achieve a great variety of transfer functions by inserting
different components for these impedances...
We can implement lag and lead compensators with both op-amps
and with passive circuits (see text).
e.g. Recall the transfer function for our example PID compensator.
K1 K2
K3 (s 2 + K3 s + K3 )
Gc (s) =
s
K1 K2 1
= K3 s + +
K3 K3 s
1
= 4.6s + 56.42 + 27.96
s
We can relate this to the transfer function for a PID controller on
the previous slide:
R2 C1 1 1
Gc (s) = + + R2 C1 s +
R1 C2 R 1 C2 s
We can establish three equations in four unknowns (R1 , R2 , C1 ,
C2 ). Choosing an arbitrary value for one component, we can then
solve for the other three.
