Outline

PD compensation.
PD, PI, PID Compensation PI compensation.
PID compensation.
M. Sami Fadali
Professor of Electrical Engineering
University of Nevada

1 2

PD Control Remarks
= loop gain Graphical procedures are no longer
= desired closed-loop pole location. needed.
Find a controller s.t. or CAD procedure to obtain the design
its odd multiple (angle condition). parameters for specified .
Controller Angle for evalfr(L,scl) % Evaluate L at scl
polyval( num,scl) % Evaluate num at scl
Zero location The complex value and its angle can also
be evaluated using any hand calculator.
3 4
 Procedure:MATLAB or Calculator Procedure 5.2: Given &
1. Calculate
theta = pi angle(evalfr(l, scl) ) 1. Obtain error constant from and
2. Calculate zero location using determine a system parameter that
remains free after is fixed for the
3. Calculate new loop gain (with zero) system with PD control.
Lc = tf( [1, a],1)*L
2- Rewrite the closed-loop characteristic
4. Calculate gain (magnitude condition)
equation of the PD controlled system as
K = 1/abs( evalfr( Lc, scl))
5. Check time response of PD-compensated
system. Modify the design to meet the desired
specifications if necessary (MATLAB).
5 6

Procedure 5.2 (Cont.) Example 5.5

3. Obtain corresponding to the desired closed- Use a CAD package to design a PD controller
loop pole location. As in Procedure 5.1, can for the type I system
be obtained by clicking on the MATLAB root
locus plot or applying the magnitude condition
using MATLAB or a calculator.
4. Calculate the free parameter from the gain .
to meet the following specifications
5. Check the time response of the PD (a) = 0.7 & rad/s.
compensated system and modify the design to (b) = 0.7 & due to a unit ramp.
meet the desired specifications if necessary.

7 8
 (a) & (a) Design (cont.)
MATLAB
a = 10 * sqrt(1-0.7^2)/ tan(theta) + 7
Calculate pole location & corresponding gain
a=
>> scl = 10*exp( j*( pi-acos(0.7) ) )
10.0000
scl =
k =1/abs(evalfr(tf( [1, a],1)*g,scl)) %
7.0000 + 7.1414I
k=
>> g=zpk([ ],[0,-4],1);
10.0000
>> theta=pi( angle( evalfr( g, scl) ) )
theta =
Gain at scl:
1.1731

9 10

RL of Uncompensated System RL of PD-compensated System

Root Locus
Root Locus 8
8 0.7
0.7 System: gcomp
7 6 Gain: 10
Pole: -7.01 + 7.13i
Damping: 0.701
6 4 Overshoot (%): 4.56
Frequency (rad/sec): 10

5 2
Imaginary Axis

Imaginary Axis
4 10
0

3
-2

2
-4
1

-6
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 0.7
Real Axis -8
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

11 Real Axis 12
(b) for unit ramp (b) Design (cont.)
L L

Assume that K varies with K a fixed, then

Closed-loop characteristic equation with

PD RL= circle centered at the origin

13 14

RL of PD-compensated System (b) Design Cont.

fixed
Desired location: intersection of root locus with
radial line.
K = 10, a =10 (same values as in Example 5.3).
MATLAB command to obtain the gain
k = 1/abs( evalfr( tf([1,10],[ 1, 4, 0]), scl) )
k=
10.0000
Time responses of two designs are identical.

15 16
 PI Control
Integral control to improve
(increases type by one) worse
transient response or instability.
Add proportional control controller has
a pole and a zero.
Transfer function of proportional-plus-
integral (PI) controller
PI Remarks
Used in cascade compensation (integral term in
the feedback path is equivalent to a differentiator
in the forward path)
PI design for a plant transfer function is the
same as PD design of .
A better design is often possible by "almost
canceling" the controller zero and the controller
pole (negligible effect on time response).

17 18

Procedure 5.3 Comments

1. Design a proportional controller for the
system to meet the transient response Use PI control only if P-control meets the
specifications, i.e. place the dominant transient response but not the steady-state
closed-loop poles at . error specifications. Otherwise, use
another control.
2. Add a PI controller with the zero location
such that (small angle) Use pole-zero diagram to prove zero
location formula.
or
3. Tune the gain of the system to moved the
closed-loop pole closer to
19 20
Pole-zero Diagram of PI Controller Proof
j
scl tan 180 From Figure

d
p scl
z scl a

a
Controller angle at
n

tan 180
21 22

Proof (Cont.) Controller Angle at

Trig. Identity
3.5

2.5

1.5

Solve for
1

0.5
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Multiplying by gives
23 24
 Example 5.6 Solution
To use the PD procedure for PI design, consider
Design a controller for the position control
system to perfectly track a ramp input with a
dominant pair with . Procedure 5.1 with modified transfer function.
Unstable for all gains (see root locus plot).
Controller must provide an angle 249 at the
desired closed-loop pole location.
Zero at 1.732.
Cursor at desired pole location on compensated
system RL gives a gain of about 40.6.
25 26

RL of System With Integrator RL of PI-compensated System

Root Locus
6

4
Imaginary Axis

3 0.7

4
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Real Axis
27 28
 Analytical Design MATLAB
Closed-loop characteristic polynomial scl = 4*exp(j*(pi acos( 0.7)) )
scl =
-2.8000 + 2.8566i
theta = pi + angle( polyval( [ 1, 10, 0, 0], scl ) )
theta =
1.9285
a = 4*sqrt(1-.7^2)/tan(theta)+ 4*.7
a=
1.7323
k = abs(polyval( [ 1, 10, 0,0], scl )/ polyval([1,a], scl) )
k=
Values obtained earlier, approximately. 40.6400
29 30

Step Response of PI-compensated

Design I Results
System
Closed-loop transfer function for Design I

Zero close to the closed-loop poles

excessive PO
(see step response together with the response for a
later design: Design II). Design I (dotted), Design II (solid).
31 32
 Design II: Procedure 5.3 Compare Designs I & II
For rad/s. Design II dominant poles:
zero location
7.143 rad/s
0.5
0.7 1 0.49/ tan 3 Time response for Designs I and II
Closed-loop transfer function Percentage overshoot for Design II (almost
pole-zero cancellation)
<< Percentage overshoot for Design I (II better)

Gain slightly reduced to improve response.

33 34

PID (proportional-plus-integral-
plus-derivative) Control
Improves both transient & steady-state
response.
proportional, integral, derivative
gain, resp.
Controller zeros: real or complex conjugate.
PID Design Procedures
1. Cancel real or complex conjugate LHP poles.
2. Cancel pole closest to (not on) the imaginary
axis then add a PD controller by applying
Procedures 5.1 or 5.2 to the reduced transfer
function with an added pole at the origin.
3. Follow Procedure 5.3 with the proportional
control design step modified to PD design. The
PD design meets the transient response
specifications and PI control is then added to
improve the steady-state response.

35 36
 Example 5.7 Design I
Cancel pole at 1 with a zero & add an
Design a PID controller for the transfer
integrator
function to obtain zero due to
ramp, and rad/s.

Same as transfer function of Example 5.6

Add PD control of Example 5.6
PID controller

37 38

Design II Design II (Cont.)

Design PD control to meet transient response
specs. Obtain PI zero (approx. same as )
Select rad/s (anticipate effect of adding PI). b =5 /(0.7 + sqrt(1-.49)/tan(3*pi/ 180) ) %
Design PD controller using MATLAB (see book: pdcon) b=
[k,a,scl] = pdcon(0.7, 5, tf(1, [1,11,10,0]))
0.3490
k =
43.0000 Transfer function for Design II (reduce gain to
a = 40 to correct for PI)
2.3256
scl =
-3.5000 + 3.5707i
39 40
 Time response for Design I(dotted)
Conclusions
and Design II (solid)
Compare step responses for Designs I and II:
Design I is superior because the zeros in Design II
result in excessive overshoot.
Plant transfer function favors pole cancellation in
this case because the remaining real axis pole is
far in the LHP. If the remaining pole is at 3, say,
the second design procedure would give better
results.
MORAL: No easy solutions in design, only
recipes to experiment with until satisfactory results
are obtained.
41 42

Example 5.8 Solution

Design a PID controller for the transfer Complex conjugate pair slows down the
function to obtain zero due to step, time response.
Third pole is far in the LHP.
and rad/s
Cancel the complex conjugate poles with
zeros and add an integrator

43 44
 Solution (cont.) Step Response of PID-
Stable for all gains.
compensated System
Closed-loop characteristic polynomial

Equate coefficients with

(meets design specs)

PID controller
In practice, pole-zero cancellation may not occur but near
cancellation is sufficient to obtain a satisfactory time response
45 46