Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

IN 227 Control Systems Design

Lecture 11

Instructor: G R Jayanth
Department of Instrumentation and Applied Physics
Ph: 22933197
E-mail: jayanth@isu.iisc.ernet.in

1DOF control of systems with some known parameters

Over the last four lectures, we have studied feedback control of general 1 DOF plants. In designing controllers, we
assumed a general plant, i.e., we made bare minimum number of assumptions about the nature of the plant.
Nowhere did we use the parameters of the transfer function of the plant. Likewise, we only assumed the general
region in the frequency domain where our reference signal or the disturbance lie without explicitly assuming the
exact frequency content of these signals. This is generally how control problems present themselves to engineers.
We saw that general knowledge of the plant and its various inputs was itself adequate to design controllers.
However, such a minimal knowledge of the system-to-be-controlled enabled us to achieve good control only in the
low frequency region (low relative to the plants poles) where the gain of a general plant is high enough and the
phase is small enough that our controller can readily maximize the gain adequately without destabilizing the
overall system.
On occasion, we might get a bit more lucky-we may be able to model the plant with sufficient precision. Likewise,
we may know the exact frequency/ transfer function of the disturbance or reference signals. We should, in
principle, be able to exploit this extra knowledge to do better in rejecting disturbances or tracking inputs and
possibly achieve perfect control. This lecture is devoted to highlighting a few techniques that enable us to do this.
Why is perfect control important? If we can use the general knowledge of the plant to design controllers that can
suppress the effect of disturbance to, say, 1% of its actual amplitude, we may ask ourselves, what difference does
it make if this gets suppressed to 0.1% or 0.01% instead? The answer depends on the specific area of engineering
where we apply feedback control. A general process/ dynamic system may already work well with 99% disturbance
rejection. However, there are several exceptions. Precision engineers, for example, generally hate disturbances and
noise, no matter how small their value. Indeed, they make it their mission to minimize all such undesired inputs to
as small a value as possible before starting their experiments. Likewise if the tolerances on the output in a process
industry are very narrow, we would need better disturbance rejection/input tracking than what can be achieved
with general controllers.

Achieving perfect disturbance rejection

Let us revisit an example from an earlier lecture and try to gain insight into how we may be able to reject disturbance
perfectly.
10
Example 1: In lecture#8, we considered the control of a plant given by P(s)
( s 10 1)( s 50 1)( s 300 1)

In example#2 of lecture#8, we stipulated that the disturbance to this plant at 10 rad/s was required to be suppressed
s 1 ( s /170 1)
by 98% and went on to design a PID controller C (s) 6[
][
] to do this. We now desire that the
s ( s /1700 1)
disturbance rejection be perfect, i.e., 100%.
Solution: In order to achieve perfect disturbance rejection, we need to examine the closed-loop plants response to
disturbance and identify what could result in non-ideal rejection. This is given by X (s) {1 [1 C(s) P(s)]}D(s). Since we
designed the gain C(j)P(j)>49 at =10rad/s earlier, we were able to achieve 98% rejection of disturbance. We now
examine what factor might have contributed to persistence of the remaining 2% of disturbance: the overall response
is the product of two functions: the closed-loop transfer function 1/(1+C(s)P(s)) and the disturbance transform D(s).
When we take the inverse Laplace transform by expressing D(s)/[1+C(s)P(s)] as a sum of partial fractions, we see that
all the terms arising from 1/[1+C(s)P(s)] result in exponentially decaying responses with zero steady-state value
because the closed-loop system is stable. However, since D(s) is sinusoidal, it results in a sinusoidal response.
Therefore the non-zero steady state response is exclusively because of the denominator polynomial of D(s). If we can
somehow cancel the denominator polynomial of D(s), then the steady-state value of X will be zero.
In general this cannot be done because the model of the disturbance is now known well. Here however, we know
that the disturbance is a sinusoid of frequency 10 rad/s. So, its Laplace transform is of the form D(s)=(a1s+a2)/(s2+2) ,
where a1 and a2 are constants that determine the magnitude and the phase of the disturbance, both of which may
be unknown. Now, if C(s) is chosen to be of the form C(s)=C1(s)/(s2+2) , i.e., we explicitly include 1/(s2+2) into the
model for the controller, we see that 1/(1+C(s)P(s))=(s2+2)/[s2+2+C1(s)P(s)]. Thus
X (s)

a1s a2
a1s a2
s 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
s C1 ( s) P( s) s
s 2 C1 (s ) P(s )

Now if the controller C1(s) is designed such that s 2 2 C1 (s) P(s) has only stable roots, then we see that the inverse
Laplace transform of X(s), which is the response to the disturbance D(s), would decay exponentially to zero, with the
rate of decay decided by the dominant closed-loop poles.

Achieving perfect disturbance rejection

In order to reject disturbance perfectly in the specific example that was chosen, while retaining the other
characteristics of the controller, we multiply the controller transfer function with the term (s )2 (s 2 2 ) , where is
close to , instead of just 1 (s 2 2 ) . This is done because (s )2 (s 2 2 ) has gain close to 1 and phase close to zero
at all frequencies except around . Near , the dynamics is dominated by 1 (s 2 2 ). This will leave our original control
design intact everywhere other than at . We choose =7. Thus our controller is now chosen to be C(s), where
s 1 ( s /170 1) ( s 7) 2
C ( s ) 6
2
2
s ( s /1700 1) s 10

Bode Diagram
1

Previous

Disturbance
Output

0.5

Disturbance
rejection

400

Present

Disturbance
Output

-0.5

-0.5

200
100
0
-100

-1

0.5

1.5

Time(s)

2.5

-1

0.5

1.5

Time(s)

2.5

Disturbance

300

0.5

Magnitude (dB)

Bode plot of open-loop system


(plant+controller) in lecture# 8

-200
90

Step Response

Step Response

1.5

1.6

0
Phase (deg)

1.4
1.2

Step
response

Amplitude

The figure below compares the response to the disturbance of the controller designed in Lecture#8 with the new
controller. We see that disturbance rejection is indeed perfect!
The bode-plot of the overall open-loop system shows why we can achieve perfect disturbance rejection. The effect of
including the model of the disturbance into the controller is to increase the gain of system at that frequency alone to
infinity. This is what achieves the seemingly miraculous performance. However, we note that the controller changes
phase by 180 about =10rad/s. So, we need to be careful to ensure that this does not result in phase cross-over. The
zero added at =7 partially addresses this issue by adding phase of +90 near =10rad/s.
The step responses demonstrate slightly lesser damping, but the lead compensator can be redesigned to improve this.

Amplitude

0.5

1
0.8
0.6

-180

0.4
0.2

-270
-2
10

0
0

-90

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

-1

10

10

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

10

10

10

Internal model principle

Disturbance rejection: We see that the trick that we employed to completely reject the disturbance earlier was
to incorporate the model of the disturbance dynamics, i.e., the denominator polynomial of the disturbance,
into that of the controller. The applicability of this trick is not confined to sinusoidal disturbances alone. For any
disturbance D(s) (=ND(s)/DD(s)) that the plant may experience, if we include the denominator polynomial of the
disturbance DD(s) as one of the factors of the denominator polynomial of the controller i.e., C(s)=C1(s)/DD(s),
then the closed-loop system will asymptotically reject that disturbance perfectly. The argument to demonstrate
this is exactly the same as before: the denominator polynomial of the controller will be part of the numerator
polynomial of the closed-loop system. Thus, the numerator polynomial would cancel the denominator of the
disturbance input. What remains is a stable transfer function, whose inverse Laplace transform decays to zero
with time. This neat trick is called internal model principle.
Input tracking: We note here that the condition for achieving perfect disturbance rejection is the same as the
condition for ensuring perfect input tracking: namely, high open-loop gain at the signal frequency. Thus, in the
previous example, the same controller that rejects disturbance at 10 rad/s perfectly also tracks an input at 10
rad/s perfectly, i.e., with zero steady state error. Thus, if, instead of wanting to reject a given disturbance
perfectly, we wish to track a given input R(s) (=NR(s)/DR(s)) perfectly, we need to incorporate DR(s) into the
denominator of the controller.
Generalization: More generally, if we have disturbances of know type (i.e., DD(s) is known), and input of known
type (i.e., DR(s) is known and does not share any factor with DD(s)) , and we want to both reject the disturbance
and track the input perfectly, we need to ensure that the denominator of C(s) contains both DD(s) and DR(s), i.e.,
C(s)=C1(s)/[DD(s)DR(s)]. If DD(s) and DR(s) have some factors in common, then the denominator of C(s) should
have the least common multiple of DR(s) and DD(s). Finally, we should design C1(s) such that the closed loop
transfer function has the desired stable response.
Note that internal model principle assumes that we know the denominator polynomials DD(s) or DR(s) of the
input or reference respectively. While the latter is plausible, in general, the former is not. Therefore, the
applicability of internal model principle is not as wide as that of the tools introduced in earlier lectures.
Nevertheless, it is quite general, since we need not know the numerator polynomial of the disturbance and
thus do not require information about the amplitude or phase of the disturbance in order to reject it.

Internal model principle applied to track inputs

Example 2: Suppose we want our system to track an input at =50rad/s. This frequency is not low compared
to the bandwidth of the control system. So, the tracking performance of the controller developed in Lecture 8 is
relatively poor: it shows both amplitude and phase errors. It is not possible to improve the tracking
performance with a general controller any further due to stability constraints.
Solution: Since we know the frequency of the input, we can turn to internal model principle. The denominator
polynomial of the input is s2+2. We now incorporate this into the denominator polynomial of the controller.
As before, to minimize the effect of the new term on the rest of the control design, we employ a controller of
2
the form (s )2 (s 2 2 ) , where ~. We choose the controller to be C (s) 6 s 1 (s /170 1) ( s 35)

s ( s /1700 1) s 2 502

The tracking response, shown below, demonstrates that the input can be tracked perfectly after a brief
transient.

With conventional control

With internal model control


1.5

1.5
Reference
Output

1
0.5

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5

-1.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Reference
Output

0.6

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Truxals rules

Hitherto, we have not assumed that the plant model is known well enough for it to be used for modeling. However, if
we know the plant dynamics G(s) well enough, we can put that too to use to improve control performance. Here we
assume that P(s) is a stable plant with no right half plane zeros or time delays (i.e., a minimum phase plant).
We have Gcl(s)=C(s)P(s)/[1+C(s)P(s)]. Thus, if we want a desired Gcl(s), we note that desired controller should be
C(s)=Gcl(s)/{[1-Gcl(s)]P(s)}. Since 1/P(s) appears as part of the controller, we see that we are, in effect, canceling the
plant dynamics and replacing it with the desired dynamics. This is very good (and absurdly simple!), since we can
directly design our closed-loop dynamics Gcl(s) and use that to calculate the required controller that guarantees it
(Note that this is possible only if we know P(s) well). However, as control engineers, we need to know what Gcl(s) to
select.
Choosing Gcl(s): We remember that the control objective is to ensure that x(t)=r(t). Thus, ideally we would like our
closed-loop transfer function to be Gcl(s)=X(s)/R(s)=1. We will never be able to achieve this ideal, because, for this case,
C(s)=Gcl(s)/{[1-Gcl(s)]P(s)}=. However, we can approach close to the ideal by choosing Gcl(s) to possess unity gain over
as high a bandwidth as possible. This is the first guideline.
The second guideline in choosing Gcl(s) is the physical realizability of the controller, i.e., the controller should be causal.
Since Gcl(s)=C(s)P(s)/[1+C(s)P(s)], we note that if the numerator polynomials of C(s), P(s) are of degrees mc, mG, and
their denominators are of order nc, nG respectively then the numerator of Gcl is of order mGcl= mc+mG, and the
denominator polynomial of Gcl is of order nGcl= nc+nG. Thus the relative degree of Gcl = nGcl mGcl=[nG mG]+[nc mc]. In
order for the controller to be causal, we need nc mc0. Thus, we have the second constraint on Gcl : (nGcl mGcl) (nG
mG), i.e., the relative degree of the closed loop system should at least be equal to that of the open loop system.
The third and final guideline is to choose Gcl such that the controller is stable. There is no easy way to confirm this.
However, we note from the expression of C(s) that it is composed of 3 transfer functions: Gcl(s), 1-Gcl(s), and P(s). Of
these we already know that P(s) and Gcl(s) are stable (the former by assumption and the latter by choice). Thus only
1-Gcl(s) is suspect. Since it occurs in the denominator, we need to ensure that the zeros of this transfer function are not
in the right half plane (RHP). Here we can use the principles of Nyquist stability theory: Since we need to check if the
zeros of 1-Gcl(s) are in the RHP, we plot the Nyquist plot of Gcl(j) and verify if it encircles the +1 point (instead of the -1
point as is usually done). If it does not encircle the +1 point then Nyquist stability logic can be applied to conclude that
there are no RHP zeros for 1-Gcl(s).
If these three simple guidelines are used, we can directly design, i.e., synthesize the controller C(s). These guidelines
are part of truxals rules.

Some comments on Truxals rules

In principle unity gain closed-loop transfer functions of any bandwidth can be realized using Truxals rules.
In practice however, there are a couple of constraints.
Firstly, we notice that design via Truxals rules is dependent on one crucial assumption-the plant model
P(s) is known well over the entire closed-loop bandwidth. It is reasonable to assume that high accuracy is
possible in identifying the plant at low frequencies. This is because the plant gain is high at these
frequencies. However, beyond a few plant poles, the uncertainty in characterizing plant dynamics
becomes increasingly pronounced. This is because the plant gain begins to attenuate and very soon, its
output will be comparable to the measurement noise. Thus, unless we have very good sensors with very
low noise floor (and there do exist a few such sensors!), Truxals rules cannot be used to achieve closedloop bandwidth that is excessively larger than that of the plant itself (maybe a ten-fold improvement in
bandwidth is possible).
Secondly, at frequencies that are much greater than the plant bandwidth, the plant gain would very low. In
order to ensure high overall open-loop gain at these frequencies, so that the closed-loop gain Gcl(j) is
close to unity, the controller itself should have exceedingly large gains. If the gains are too high, then the
output of the controller can saturate easily when tracking a given input. Thus, issues due to controller
nonlinearities begin to dominate the high frequency response.

Before we conclude it is worth mentioning that Truxals rules can also be applied to non-minimum phase
plants. However, more conditions need to be imposed in such cases to avoid instability. This will be
covered in later lectures.

Drawbacks of 1DOF control configuration

We have thus far discussed design of control systems in the one degree of freedom
control configuration. This is the simplest configuration in which to design feedback
systems for single-input-single output (SISO) plants. Despite the impressive range of
benefits, this configuration has its drawbacks.
d
Measurement noise: Since the use of a sensor is central to feedback, one of the
+ x
r
u
P( j)
C ( j)
unintended consequences of feedback control is to bring measurement noise into the
system and cause it to affect the output. The closed-loop transfer function on the right - e
shows that the input-output relationship for reference and noise are the same. Thus,
+
our desired goal to track input perfectly also leads to the undesired result of letting in a
n
1
1
X

N
lot of noise. If the noise is too large, there would be tradeoff between control
1
1
1
1
C
(
j

)
P
(
j

)
C
(
j

)
P( j)
performance and output precision.
1
D
Sensitivity to plant parameter variations: If we hark back to lecture#5 where we laid
1 C ( j) P( j)
the foundation for feedback control, we note that the purpose of feedback is not really
to track references: that can be accomplished with a much simpler open-loop modelinversion based strategy. Rather, it is to cope with uncertainties, such as disturbances
CP
L
T

and variation in the plants parameters (i.e., of DC gain, poles etc). Disturbance
1 CP 1 L
attenuation is achieved by choosing a high loop gain L(j)=C(j)P(j) since the closed
1
dT
dL
loop transfer function for disturbance is 1/(1+C(s)P(s)). Likewise, we need to know how
(1 L)2
feedback facilitates minimization of the effect of plant parameter variations. The
dT
1 dL

T 1 L L
derivation on the right shows that the fractional change (dT/T) in the closed-loop
dL d (CP) CdP dP
transfer function between the output and the reference (T(s)=CP/(1+CP)), also called

L
CP
CP
P
the loop transmission or simply the transmission, is related to the fractional change
in the transfer function of the plant dP/P by the term 1/(1+L).
Therefore,
dT
1
dP
Therefore, having a high loop gain L minimizes sensitivity to plant parameter variations.
( j)
( j)
T

1 L( j) P

-20

140rad/s

S(j)

-40
-60

90
45
0
0

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)
Bode Diagram
10

S(j)

T(j)

0
-10

f-3dB=315 hz

-20
-30
180
0
-180
-360
-1
10

10

10

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)
Step Response
1.5

K=10

Amplitude

-45

Phase (deg)

Bode Diagram

135

Phase (deg)

In view of the central importance of the term 1/(1+L) for achieving the benefits of
feedback, it is given a special name, viz., the sensitivity S. A low sensitivity is desired
in order to minimize the effects of unwanted influences (disturbances) and variations
in plant parameters on the closed-loop system.
The figure on the right plots the sensitivity S(j) for the control system that was
designed using Bode plots in Lecture#8. We note that beyond 140 rad/s the
sensitivity of the closed-loop system to plant parameter variations is greater than 1
(0dB) . Therefore, the closed-loop system T is more sensitive to plant parameter
variations than the plant P itself for reference inputs in this frequency range. This
makes feedback counter productive in this frequency range.
Things would not be so bad if the magnitude of T was small in this frequency range,
i.e., the closed-loop system was anyway ineffective in tracking inputs so that the
heightened sensitivity would not affect tracking performance. However, the second
plot, which plots T(j) along with S(j) , shows that T has a large magnitude in this
frequency range. Indeed, the -3dB frequency (whose value also gives the bandwidth)
of T is about 315 rad/s. Thus, from 140rad/s to 315 rad/s, i.e., over 50% of the
bandwidth of the closed-loop system, feedback is ineffective in minimizing sensitivity
to variation in plant parameters. This is evident in the large variation of the system
transient response when the plant gain varies by 50% (figure right bottom).
Can T be independently reduced to a small value in this range? Another look at the
transmission (T=L/(1+L))and sensitivity functions (S=1/(1+L)) reveals that they satisfy
T+S=1. Thus, it is impossible to independently realize the two functions and thus
achieve low sensitivity to plant parameter variations for a significant range of
frequencies near the -3dB frequency of the closed-loop system. This is another
significant drawback of 1 DOF control configuration.

Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)

Drawbacks of 1DOF control configuration

K=15

0.5

K=5

0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

References
(1) G C Goodwin, S E Graebe, M E Salgado, Control System design, Prentice-Hall of India (2001)
(2) I M Horowitz, Synthesis of Feedback Systems, Academic Press (1963)