Automatic Control With MatLab

1
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF SANTA MARIA

SCHOOL OF PHYSICS AND FORMAL SCIENCES
PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM OF ELECTRONICS
ENGINEERING
Automatic Control III
HOMEWORK
STUDENT:
Portugal Vargas, Stephanie Patricia
TEACHER:
Eng. Lucy Angela Delgado Barra
2012

Stephanie Portugal Vargas
CONTROL AUTOMTICO III

LABORATORY-HOMEWORK
I.
ACTIVITIES
Using MatLab, Simulink and Sisotools:

1. Design a PI controller for de plant
G ( s)
2(1 15s )
(1 20s )(1 s )(1 0.1s )2
Can you get a closed-loop settling time less than 50 sec and M>20o?
As we can see in the following image this system has a stable loop and
even if we do have the phase margin requested, the time response is
really slow as shown in the step response figure.
15
Root Locus Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)
10
-40
-60
-5
-80
-10
If we place a PI
controller, we have:
-20
-20
Open-Loop Bode Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)
-15
-10
-5
G.M.: 61.6 dB
Freq: 10.9 rad/sec
Stable loop
-100
Bode Editor for Closed Loop 1 (CL1)
-120
0
-50
-45
-100
-90
-150
0
-135
-180
-180
-360
-4
10
-2
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
-225 P.M.: Inf

Freq: NaN
-270
10

-4
10
-2
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
15
100
10
50
5
0
-5
-10
-50
-20
-15
-10
-5
100
G.M.: 11 dB
Freq: 8.1 rad/sec
Stable loop
0
-100
-90
0
-135
-100
-200
0
-180
-225
-180
-360
-2
10
-270
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
P.M.: 26.9 deg

Freq: 3.79 rad/sec
-4
-2
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
Step Response
1.6
1.4
System: Closed Loop r to y

I/O: r to y
Time (sec): 3.66
Amplitude: 1
1.2
Amplitude
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
Time (sec)
After having added the PI controller we can now have a faster response
and analyzing the bode diagrams we can be sure that our controller is
fulfilling the requests we were given.

2. Design a PD controller for de plant
K ( s 10)
( s 1)( s 2)( s 12)
G ( s)
Can you get a closed-loop settling time less than 1.5 sec and overshoot
less than 10%?
System response without the PD controller
-10
10
-20
-30
-40
-5
-50
-10
-60
-15
-15
-10
-5
G.M.: Inf
-70 Freq: Inf
Stable loop
-80
0
-50
-45
-100
0
-90
-135
-90
-180
-2
10
-1
10
-180
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
P.M.: Inf
Freq: NaN
-2
10
-1
10
3.5
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
Step Response
0.35
0.3
Amplitude
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.5
1.5
2.5
Time (sec)
Adding the PD controller we have a new response and a new bode

diagram as shown below and as well see, we are now designing around
the parameters given and we add a real zero at -2.73 and adjust the gain
just by the limit to make sure we have the response requested.

Step Response
0.8

I/O: r to y
Time (sec): 1.02
Amplitude: 0.778
0.7
0.6
Amplitude
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Time (sec)
20
10
2
1
-10
-1
-2
-20
-3
-7
0
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
G.M.: Inf
Freq: NaN
Stable loop
-30
-1
-40
0
-10
-45
-20
-30
0
-90
-135
-45
-90
-1
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
-180
10
P.M.: 103 deg

Freq: 2.82 rad/sec
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
3. Use the plant (SISOTOOL)
G ( s)
30
s 11s 30
2
This is a second order system. Our goal is to speed up the closed-loop

response so that the setting time is less than 1 second, produce a
position error of 0.1, and percent overshoot less than 10%.

6
At first glance, given the step response, it seems impossible to move the
gain value of the system to warrantee getting the values were looking
for, we can move the pair of complex roots to their limit and still we
couldnt reach the values requested as it will be proven here:
10
10
0
-10
-20
0
-30
-40
-5
-9
0
-8
-7
-6
-5
G.M.: Inf
-60 Freq: Inf
Stable loop
-70
0
-4
Step Response
0.8
-50
-10
0.7
0.6
-45
-100
0
-90
Amplitude
0.5
-50
0.3
0.2
-135
-90
-180
-1
10
10
-180
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
0.4
P.M.: 93.7 deg

Freq: 5.13 rad/sec
-1
10
10
0.1
1
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Time (sec)
a) Proportional (P) Control

With a proportional control, looks the step response as the gain
increases. What do you see about this? And how is the error? Is the
system unstable to any value of Kp?
As the gain increases we can observe that oscillations begin to
increase as well as it will be shown in the pictures below.
At first the error is quite big and as we change the value of gain our
response begins to show too many oscillations that ultimately tend to
the value of 1.
This system is stable for any value of K, however it has lots of
oscillations before reaching the stability we look for.
Step Response
0.7
0.6
Amplitude
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
Time (sec)

0.8
1.2
Gain value of 1
7
Step Response
1.4
1.2
Amplitude
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Gain value of 10
Time (sec)
Step Response
1.8
1.6
1.4
Amplitude
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Gain value of 50
Time (sec)
Step Response
1.8
1.6
1.4
Amplitude
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Gain value of 100
Time (sec)
Step Response
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Amplitude
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Time (sec)
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Gain value of 1000
b) Proportional + Derivative (PD) Control

Edit your compensator and add a real zero. Note that in this PD
design that you can select where you place this real zero along the
real axis. Take a moment to explore what happens to the root locus,
the step response, and the control effort as you move the zero.

As we move the zero along the real axis we can observe that at first
the complex roots that the system has, become simple roots. As we
keep moving the zero further from the origin, the roots become
complex again and the step response shows more stability and the
time of response becomes faster, however the error is still
considerably big.
Now move the zero between 1 and 4. Find a configuration with a

position error less than 0.5. Save the step response and control effort
figure and the controller that produced it.
The zero is placed at 3.94 and it gives us an error of 0.093, in the
following images we can observe the step response as well as the
bode
diagrams.
20
5
15
10
Magnitude (dB)
Imag Axis
-5
-10
-5
-4
-3
Real Axis
-2
-1
-10 G.M.: Inf

Freq: NaN
Stable loop
-15
0
-10
-20
-45
-30
Phase (deg)
Magnitude (dB)
0
-5
-15
-40
0
Phase (deg)
-135
-45
-90
-90
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10

10
-180
P.M.: 95.3 deg

Freq: 75.9 rad/sec
-1
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
10
Amplitude
1
I/O: r to y
Time (sec): 0.0572
Amplitude: 0.907
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Pole-Zero Map
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Time (sec)
Imaginary Axis
0.5
-0.5
-1
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Real Axis
Next move the zero between 7 and 9. What happens to the root
locus? Are we likely to get a faster response of the closedloop system
with this design than the previous one? Specify a controller with a
zero in this range that produces a settling time of 0.1 seconds or less.
(Dont forget that k<10) Save the step response and control effort
figure and the controller that produced it.
In the root locus, the pole that is further from the origin keeps moving
away from it, we dont seem to be able to provide a faster response to
the system.
Were choosing a zero value of -8.79 as shown below and weve
obtained a settling time of 0.1.

10
20
10
15
10
Magnitude (dB)
Imag Axis
-5
0
-10
-12
-10
-9
Real Axis
-8
-5 G.M.: Inf
Freq: NaN
Stable loop
-7
-10
0
-10
-45
-20
Phase (deg)
Magnitude (dB)
-11
Phase (deg)
-30
0
-135
-45
-90
-90
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
-180
10
P.M.: 94.3 deg

Freq: 30.9 rad/sec
-1
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
Amplitude
1
I/O: r to y
Time (sec): 0.1
Amplitude: 0.887
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Pole-Zero Map
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Time (sec)
Imaginary Axis
0.5
-0.5
-1
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Real Axis
c) Proportional + Integral (PI) Control

Edit your compensator by adding a real pole at zero (adding the
integral element). Note that in this PI design that you can select

11
where you place this real zero along the real axis, but that the real
pole must remain at zero.
Place the zero between 0 and 5. Find a controller that produces a
settling time of less than 0.8 seconds, a percent overshoot of less
than 2%, and a position error of zero. Save the step response and
control effort figure and the controller that produced it. Are all your
poles inside the design region?
The poles are not inside the design region, I used a gain of 7 which
gave me the closest response requested in this section.
10
20
-5
-4
-3
Real Axis
-2
-60 G.M.: Inf

Freq: Inf
Stable loop
-1
20
-80
-90
0
-20
-40
-120
-60
Phase (deg)
Magnitude (dB)
-20
-40
-5
-80
0
Phase (deg)
40
Magnitude (dB)
Imag Axis
15
-150
-45
-90
P.M.: 53.7 deg

Freq: 6.37 rad/sec
-135
-180
-1
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
10

-180
-1
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
10
12
Now set the real zero to the left of 6. This type of configuration is not
likely to get a faster response than with just a P controller. Why?
We need to place or find a configuration where the zero is really close
to the pole in order to get ourselves the fastest response possible,
although this may mean we need to change the gain value and by
doing this were very likely to change the parameters weve been
given.
d) Proportional + Integrative + Derivative (PID) Control

Lets start by making a PID controller with complex conjugate zeros.
Edit the previous compensator by deleting the real zero and adding
complex conjugate zeros at -77j and look at the root locus plot.
Find a gain value of K on this root locus so that the step response has
less than 10% percent overshoot and a settling time less than 0.5
seconds. Save the step response and control effort figure and the
controller that produced it. Are all your poles and zeros within the
design region? Would you call this a second order dominant system?

13
Keeping the real part of the zeros at 7, reduce the imaginary part of
the zeros as much as possible while keeping the same basic shape of
the root locus. At some point, as you reduce the imaginary part, the
root locus will take a very different shape. Find a value of K on this
root locus so that the step response has a percent overshoot of less
than 2%, settling time less than 1 second, and a position error of less
than 0.01. (Remember to keep K<10) Save the step response and
control effort figure and the controller that produced it.

14
Now lets make a PID controller with real zeros at 7 and 8.

Determine the root locus for this system. Find a value of K on this root
locus so that percent overshoot is less than 2% and the settling time

15
is less than 1 second. (Remember to keep K< 10) Save the step
response and control effort figure and the controller that produced it.
I/O: r to y
Time (sec): 0.493
Amplitude: 1.06
Amplitude
1.4
1.2

I/O: r to y
Time (sec): 0.923
Amplitude: 1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Pole-Zero Map
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Time (sec)
Imaginary Axis
-5
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Real Axis
40
25
20
30
15
20
Magnitude (dB)
Imag Axis
10
0
-5
-10
-15
10
0
-10
-20
-10
-6
Real Axis
-4
-2
-20 G.M.: Inf

Freq: NaN
Stable loop
10
-30
-90
0
-10
-120
-20
Phase (deg)
Magnitude (dB)
-8
Phase (deg)
-30
0
-150
-45
-90
-1
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)

10
-180
P.M.: 72.3 deg

Freq: 6.92 rad/sec
-1
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
10
16
II.
CONCLUSIONS
After designing these controllers we are able to make a comparison

between the PI controller and a lag compensator given the fact that
they both increase speed of response and accuracy; however we
sacrifice stability shown in the form of many oscillations.
The PD controller can be compared with a fast forward compensator,
it adds stability but we sacrifice speed of response and also accuracy.
We have been able to prove that controllers can only be used when
the system is stable and we just want to improve certain
characteristics such as speed of response, maximum overshoot,
settling time.
Comparing controllers with compensators we can find that the use of
the first ones is much easier to develop since we dont have to make
arrangements to warrantee a stable response.
We can apply these controllers to systems that are already built since
were only looking to improve certain parameters, they are more
suitable to be introduced in factories due to their easy adding to the
large amount of equipment that each plant has.


Automatic Control With MatLab

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Automatic Control With MatLab

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF SANTA MARIA

Automatic Control III

CONTROL AUTOMTICO III

Using MatLab, Simulink and Sisotools:

Root Locus Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Open-Loop Bode Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Bode Editor for Closed Loop 1 (CL1)

-225 P.M.: Inf

Automatic Control III

Root Locus Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Open-Loop Bode Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Bode Editor for Closed Loop 1 (CL1)

P.M.: 26.9 deg

System: Closed Loop r to y

Automatic Control III

2. Design a PD controller for de plant

Open-Loop Bode Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Bode Editor for Closed Loop 1 (CL1)

Adding the PD controller we have a new response and a new bode

Automatic Control III

System: Closed Loop r to y

Root Locus Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Open-Loop Bode Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Bode Editor for Closed Loop 1 (CL1)

P.M.: 103 deg

3. Use the plant (SISOTOOL)

This is a second order system. Our goal is to speed up the closed-loop

Automatic Control III

Open-Loop Bode Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Bode Editor for Closed Loop 1 (CL1)

P.M.: 93.7 deg

a) Proportional (P) Control

Automatic Control III

Gain value of 100

Gain value of 1000

b) Proportional + Derivative (PD) Control

Automatic Control III

Now move the zero between 1 and 4. Find a configuration with a

Root Locus Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Open-Loop Bode Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

-10 G.M.: Inf

Bode Editor for Closed Loop 1 (CL1)

Automatic Control III

P.M.: 95.3 deg

Automatic Control III

Root Locus Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Open-Loop Bode Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

Bode Editor for Closed Loop 1 (CL1)

P.M.: 94.3 deg

c) Proportional + Integral (PI) Control

Automatic Control III

Root Locus Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

-60 G.M.: Inf

Bode Editor for Closed Loop 1 (CL1)

Open-Loop Bode Editor for Open Loop 1 (OL1)

P.M.: 53.7 deg

Automatic Control III

d) Proportional + Integrative + Derivative (PID) Control

Automatic Control III

Automatic Control III

Now lets make a PID controller with real zeros at 7 and 8.

Automatic Control III