ROBT303Lecture24 PDF

ROBT303 Linear Control Theory with Lab
Controller synthesis via Bode diagrams

Tohid Alizadeh
Academic year 2016-2017
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
1 / 44
Part I
General procedure
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
2 / 44
General concepts
Using Bode diagrams we can synthesize controllers, as we did using the root
locus
However, there are some dierences, and in particular:
We can only synthesize controllers for open-loop systems without poles in

the RHP, which is a limitation w.r.t. the root locus methods
We can consider the attenuation of process disturbances and sensor noise,

which was not possible using the root locus method (since we must
explicitly use the information about the spectral components of these terms)
In order to proceed with the synthesis, we rst write
Gp (s )
in Bode form:

20i
1 2
Gp i (1 + s i ) i 1 + 0ni s + 0 2ni s
Gp ( s ) = h
2
s p j (1 + sTj )
j 1 + njj s + 12 s 2
nj
where
Gp
is the generalized gain of
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
Gp (s )
and
hp
is the system type
3 / 44
General concepts (cont'ed)

The controller will also be written as a transfer function in Bode form:

20i
1 2
Gc i (1 + s i ) i 1 + 0ni s + 0 2ni s
Gc (s ) = h
2
s c j (1 + sTj )
j 1 + njj s + 12 s 2
nj
where
Gc
is the generalized controller gain of and
Depending on the structure of
Gc (s ),
hc
is the controller type
we can obtain dierent controllers. In
particular:
As a rst choice, we can use
If
Gc (s )
Gc (s ) = Gc ,
i.e., a proportional controller
is a rst-order system, as particular cases we have PI controllers,
lag compensators, and lead compensator
If
Gc (s )
is a second-order system, as particular cases we have practical PID
controllers, lag-lead compensators, and notch lters
These particular cases are not a limitation: one could also use a controller
with only one real pole if this could be enough to meet the specications
In general, one can design controllers of order higher than 2, if needed, but
remember that simple solutions must always be considered rst
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
4 / 44
Requirements
L(s ) = Gc (s )Gp (s ):

20i
1 2
1
+
s
+
s
0
2
ni
0 ni
L i (1 + s i ) i
L(s ) = h
2j
s j (1 + sTj )
j 1 + nj s + 12 s 2
The listed requirements are checked directly using
nj
Closed-loop stability:
under the assumptions for the applicability of the Bode
principle, closed-loop stability can be simply imposed by obtaining

case some degree of robustness is needed, we can impose that
than a given threshold (e.g.,
PM > 30 ).
Also
GM
PM
PM > 0.
In
be larger
can be used as a robustness
indicator.
2
Steady-state behavior:
L(s )
e for any polynomial

hc . We can then write

20i
1 2
i (1 + s i ) i 1 + 0ni s + 0 2ni s
Gc
Gc (s ) = Gc 1 (s )Gc 2 (s ), Gc 1 (s ) = h , Gc 2 =
2
s c
j (1 + sTj )
j 1 + njj s + 12 s 2
being
written in Bode form,
reference or disturbance input only depends on
Gc
and
nj
and solve for the steady-state requirements by designing

Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
Gc 1 (s )
5 / 44
Requirements (cont'ed)
Transient behavior:
how to relate the Bode plot of
L(s )
to transient
specications?
A possible indicator of the speed of the closed-loop system in tracking

time-varying reference is
and
which is related to the bandwidth of
T (s )
Ts ,5%
Mp )
c and PM
Gc 1 (s ) is dened, the designer denes Gc 2 (s ) such that
c and/or PM suciently large, according to the specications
can be approximately related to
Therefore, once
L(s )
4
c ,
Also, we know that given requests on step response parameters (e.g.,
has
Attenuation of the eect of unknown inputs:
as additional requests, one can
d (t ) and/or n(t ) on the controlled output c (t ),

which are obtained by shaping L(s ) such that it avoids the forbidden areas.
Notice that meeting the specication of the attenuation on d (t ) can require
revising Gc 1 (s )
require a given attenuation of
Controller realizability:
since controllers with more zeros than poles are not
realizable in practice, and they cause amplication of high-frequency terms on

the control variable
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
u (t )
we impose that
Gc (s )
must be a proper transfer function
6 / 44
Part II
First-order controllers for minimum-phase
systems
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
7 / 44
Example 1
Example 1
Consider a standard feedback loop, with
Gp (s ) =
by sketching the Bode diagram of
the order of
e 1%
Gc (s )
L(s ),
10
(1 + s )2
design a controller, such that
is smaller or equal than 1
for a step reference
the crossover frequency
is at least 1 rad/s
the phase margin PM is at least 20
N = 0.1 (n(t )
attenuated 10 times) for
N > 10
D = 0.1 (d (t )
D < 0.1
rad/s
rad/s
Then, verify the results using Matlab, and modify the controller if necessary
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
8 / 44
Example 1: solution
Solution:
First, sketch the Bode diagram of
L(s )
in case
Gc (s ) = 1,
and dene the
forbidden areas
Looking at the steady-state requirement, there is no need to add an integrator:
if
Gc (s )
is Type-0 with
Gc 10,
e =
then, for a unit step,

1
c
1 + 10G
However, a proportional controller

on the attenuation of
0.0099 0.01
Gc (s ) = 10
would not satisfy the requirements
n (t )
Then, we need to increase
|L(j )|
only for low frequencies, and leave the
high-frequency zone as it is
Only
must be improved w.r.t. the proportional controller
the associated transient behavior (here given by
Gc (s ) = 1,
because
and PM) would be ok
As in root locus synthesis, use a lag compensator or a PI controller
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
9 / 44
Example 1: solution (cont'ed)

0 dB
System dynamics and modeling - Semilog paper
60 dB
40 dB
20 dB
0 dB
-20 dB
-40 dB
-60 dB
Original system with Gc(s)=1
0
-90
-180
-270
10-2
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
10-1
X
X
100
103
O
10-3
101
102
10 / 44
A lag compensator can be dened with a pole at
Gc 1 (s ) = 10,
Gc 2 (s ) =
1 + 5s
2 102
and a zero at
Gc (s ) = 10
1 + 50s
2 101
1 + 5s
1 + 50s
Looking at the Bode diagram all the requisites are clearly satised, but PM is
not visible from the plot
It seems that
c ' 3 .5
rad/s, then,
L(j c ) = atan
3.5
0.02
+ atan
3.5
0.2
2 atan
3 .5
= 89.67 + 86.73 2 74.05 = 151.05

from which
PM = 180 + L(j c ) = 28.95 20
The lag compensator is therefore satisfying all the requisites
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
11 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
12 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
13 / 44

As an alternative, we can use a PI controller. In this case,
e = 0
for a step reference, and
Gc
L(s )
becomes Type-1,
becomes again a free parameter
Gc = 1, and then we add a zero at 101 , such that for > 0.1
diagram of L(j ) remains approximately the same as for Gc (s ) = 1:
We set
Gc 1 ( s ) =
Gc 2 (s ) = 0.1(1 + 10s )
Gc (s ) = 0.1
the Bode
1 + 10s
Looking at the Bode diagram all the requisites are clearly satised, but again
PM is not visible from the plot
It seems that
c ' 3 .5
rad/s, then,
L(j c ) = 90 + atan
3.5
0.1
2 atan
3 .5
= 90 + 88.36 2 74.05 = 149.75

from which
PM = 180 + L(j c ) = 30.25
The PI controller is therefore satisfying all the requisites
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
14 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
15 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
16 / 44
Example 2
Example 2
Consider a standard feedback loop, with
Gp (s ) =
by sketching the Bode diagram of
the order of
e = 0
Gc (s )
L(s ),
1 + 10s
s (1 + s )2
is smaller than or equal to 1
for a step reference
is no less than 10 rad/s
N = 1 (n(t )
not amplied) for
D = 0.1 (d (t )
N > 10
rad/s
D < 0.1
rad/s
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
17 / 44
Example 2: solution
Solution:
L(s )
in case
Gc (s ) = 1,
and dene the
forbidden areas
Looking at the steady-state requirement, it is already satised because
Type-1, and then
e = 0
We can try to use a proportional controller
Gc (s ) = 10,
requirements on disturbance/noise attenuation and on

Being
c ' 10
Gp (s )
is
for a unit step reference

which satises the
rad/s, then,
L(j c ) = 90 + atan
10
0.1
2 atan
10
= 90 + 89.43 2 84.29 = 169.15

from which
PM = 180 + L(j c ) = 10.85 < 75
The value of PM is too small

As an alternative, we can avoid increasing the DC gain of the controller, and use
a lead compensator
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
18 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
19 / 44
We need to add a zero before the desired value of

bandwidth compared to using
Gc (s ) = 1,
c ,
which will increase the
and at the same time it will increase
PM
We need to add a pole but at higher frequency, for sure after the new value of
This worsens the value of PM with respect to using an ideal PD controller (zero
only): the more the pole is in high frequency, the better it is for PM
What are the problems if the pole is too much in high frequency?
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
20 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
21 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
22 / 44

Now, to make the cross over frequency equal to 10 rad/s, we can introduce a
1+s /1.7
proportional controller with the gain equal to 4.72dB , or Gc (s ) = 1.72 1+s /57
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
23 / 44
Part III
Second-order controllers for minimum-phase
systems
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
24 / 44
Example 3
Example 3
Gp (s ) represents the transfer
Vu (t ) driving a DC motor, and
Consider a standard feedback loop, in which
function
between the input of the voltage amplier
the angular
velocity
(t )
of the motor itself:
Gp ( s ) =
By sketching the Bode diagram of
the order of
e < 0.1
if
Gc (s )
10
(1 + 10s )(1 + 5s )(1 + s )

L(s ),
r (t ) = R step(t ),
with
|R | 3,
and
d (t ) = D step(t ),
with
|D | 7
is larger than 0.2 rad/s
N = 0.1
for
N > 2
D = 0.1
for
D < 0.01
rad/s
rad/s
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
25 / 44
Example 3: solution
Solution:
L(s )
in case
Gc (s ) = 1,
and dene the
forbidden areas
e is obtained as

E (s ) R

E (s ) D
e = lim s
+
= S (s )R S (s )D = S (s )|R D | 10S (s )
s 0
R (s ) s
D (s ) s
Looking at the steady-state requirement,
Substituting the expression of
S (s ),
10
c
1 + 10G
we obtain
0.1 Gc 9.9
We can choose one of the following
Type-0 controller: in this case, set, for instance,
Type-1 controller: obtainable with
Gc 1 (s ) =
where
Gc
Gc 1 (s ) = 10
Gc
s
is still a free parameter
We decide to use this second approach, which usually makes the design simpler
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
26 / 44

We start designing a PI controller, canceling the low-frequency pole of
Gp ( s )
at
0.1
By setting
Gc = 0.1
we get
diagram of the system with
Gc ( s ) =
L = 1, leading
Gc (s ) = 1 for
0.1(1 + 10s )
to perfect superposition with the Bode

frequencies above 0.1 rad/s:
L( s ) =
s (1 + 5s )(1 + s )
This controller satises the requirements on disturbance and noise attenuation,

and
e ,
but we are pushing
at 0.4 rad/s, beyond the required frequency of
0.2 rad/s
To avoid the reduction of PM due to the large bandwidth, we shift the
magnitude Bode diagram down until
To approximately obtain
Gc
c = 0.2
rad/s
in this case, dene the part of
L(j )
including all
the singularities strictly to the left of 0.2 rad/s, as
L1 (j ) =
We want
|L1 (j )| = 1

10Gc

j 0.2 =
c
10G
0.2
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
for
= c = 0.2
c
10G
s
rad/s, i.e.
0.02(1 + 10s )
0.2
= 1 Gc = 0.02 Gc (s ) =
L(s ) =
s
s (1 + 5s )(1 + s )
27 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
28 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
29 / 44
We compute PM:
L(j c ) = 90 atan
from which
0.2
0.2
atan
0 .2
1
90 45 11.31 = 146.31
PM = 180 + L(j c ) = 33.69 < 60
The value of PM is too small: we need to increase the phase of

To this aim, we add a lead compensator (with zero at
0.1
L( j )
at
and a pole at
c
0.38)
to the existing PI controller, obtaining a practical PID controller:
Gc (s ) =
0.02884(1 + 10s )(1 + 10s )
s (1 + 2.6316s )
L(s ) =
0.2884(1 + 10s )
s (1 + s )(1 + 5s )(1 + 2.6316s )
Once again, this controller satises the requirements on disturbance and noise
attenuation, and
e ,
but we need to check PM and cross over frequency.
Referring to the Bode plot, we can see that the cross over frequency is bigger
than 0.2 and the phase margin is less than expected.
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
30 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
31 / 44
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
32 / 44

Now, if we shift the amplitude graph by
5.91dB = 0.5,
the cross over frequency and
PM requirements will be satised.
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
33 / 44
Part IV
Nonminimum-phase systems and transport
delay
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
34 / 44
Example 4
Example 4
between the angle of the elevators
e (t )
Gp (s ) =
the order of
e = 0
if
Gc (s )
Gp ( s )
represents the transfer function
of an airplane, and the airplane altitude
h(t ):
0.1(1 2s )
s (1 + 10s )(1 + 0.1s )
L(s ),
r (t ) = R step(t ), R [1, +4]

as large as possible, while satisfying the other
requisites
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
35 / 44
Example 4: solution
Solution:
L(s )
in case
Gc (s ) = 1,
noticing that this is a
nonminimum-phase system
The static requirement is automatically satised, since
Gp (s )
is Type-1
Using a proportional controller, we see that we cannot go beyond

rad/s, obtainable for
To increase
c ,
Gc (s ) = 1,
c ' 0 .1
without violating the requisite on PM
we can use a lead compensator, adding a zero at lower
frequency than 0.5 rad/s (we place it at -0.1) and a pole at higher frequency
than 0.5 (we place it at 10 rad/s), obtaining
Gc (s ) =
L(j )
Looking at the shape of

be kept such that
c (1 2s )
Gc (1 + 10s )
0.1G
L(s ) =
1 + 0.1s
s (1 + 0.1s )2
for a generic value of
Gc ,
we notice that
Gc
must
does not exceed 0.5 rad/s
If this value is exceeded,
immediately moves up to about 10 rad/s, making
the closed-loop system unstable
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
36 / 44

To approximately obtain
L(j )
Gc
in the limit case
c = 0 .5
rad/s, dene the part of
including all the singularities strictly to the left of 0.5 rad/s, as
L1 ( j ) =
We want
|L1 (j )| = 1
for
c
0.1G
s
= c = 0.5 rad/s, i.e.

0.1Gc Gc

j 0.5 = 5 = 1 Gc = 5
Choosing a value that is slightly smaller than 5, e.g.,
Gc (s ) =
4.2(1 + 10s )
1 + 0.1s
L(s ) =
which satises all the requisites (c
= 0.42
Even using higher-order controllers,
rad/s
Gc = 4.2,
we obtain
0.42
s (1 + 0.1s )2
PM
= 45.16 )
cannot be signicantly improved
Nonminimum-phase systems automatically limit the achievable bandwidth, even

when no limits on
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
are imposed by the noise attenuation requirement

37 / 44

0 dB
60 dB
40 dB
20 dB
slightly below 0 dB
0 dB
-20 dB
-40 dB
-60 dB
-80 dB
-100 dB Original
system with Gc(s)=1
0
-90
-180
-270
-360
X -2
10
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
O
X
10-1
100
bad zero
103
10-3
X
X
101
102
38 / 44
Transport delay
In system dynamics, we have seen that adding transport delay of
transfer function
G (s )
seconds to a
is done by writing
Gd (s ) = e s G (s )
For
s = j ,
we notice that
|e j | = 1, and e j = ,
e j = ( 180/)
by properties of
complex numbers: in degrees,
Therefore, the magnitude diagram is not inuenced, while the phase diagram is
Bode Diagram
0
90
Phase (deg)
180
270
360
450
540
630
2
10
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
=0.1
=0.01
=0.05
1
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
39 / 44
Transport delay (cont'ed)
This means that the value of PM will always be worst than for the same system
without transport delay
Trying to increase the bandwidth too much means that we don't want to wait
until the control action starts to aect the system dynamics, dangerously
decreasing PM
As positive zeros, transport delays limit the maximum achievable bandwidth that
a control system can reach
We can solve problems as we did so far, not drawing the phase contribution of
the transport delay directly on the Bode diagram, but taking it into account
when computing PM
Transport delays cannot be directly taken into account when drawing the root
locus: however, it is possible to approximate the transport delay eect by using a
rational transfer function obtained by the so-called Pad approximation
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
40 / 44
Example 5
Example 5
between the input heat ow
(t )
T (t ):
Gp (s ) =
the order of
e = 0
if
Gc (s )
Gp ( s )
represents the transfer function
into a room, and the temperature of the room itself
L(s ),
e 4s
(1 + s )2
r (t ) = R step(t ),
and
d (t ) = D step(t ), R , D > 0

is at least 0.2 rad/s
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
41 / 44
Example 5: solution
Solution:
L(s )
in case
Gc (s ) = 1,
remembering that the
phase contribution of the transport delay must always be added when computing
PM
To satisfy the requirement on
zero at
we must insert an integrator, we also add a
rad/s, obtaining the PI controller
Gc ( s ) =
If we want to have
part of
L(j )
c = 0.2
Gc (1 + s )
s
rad/s, to approximately obtain
Gc ,
we dene the
including all the singularities strictly to the left of 0.2 rad/s, as
L1 (j ) =
Gc
s
|L1 (j )| = 1 for = c = 0.2 rad/s, i.e.

4s
Gc
0.2(1 + 10s )
Gc
0.2 e

L( s ) =
j 0.2 = 0.2 = 1 Gc = 0.2 Gc (s ) =
s
s (1 + s )
We want
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
42 / 44
Solution:
We need to check PM:
L(j c ) = 90 atan
0.2
4 0.2 180/
= 90 11.31 45.84 = 147.15

from which
PM = 180 + L(j c ) = 32.85 30
The PI controller satises all the requirements

Notice that, without transport delay, at the same value of
c ,
the value of PM
would have been equal to 78.69
In such a case, the same controller would have led to better stability margins
and smaller overshoot for step response
Or, the designer could have increased the gain, leading to a larger bandwidth
with the same PM of 30
Instead, the presence of the transport delay strongly reduces the achievable
performance
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
43 / 44

0 dB
60 dB
40 dB
20 dB
0 dB
-20 dB
-40 dB
-60 dB
-80 dB
-100 dB Original
system with Gc(s)=1

System with PI controller
0
-90
-180
-270
-360
X -2
10
Tohid Alizadeh (NU)
10-1
X
X
O
100
103
10-3
101
102
44 / 44

ROBT303Lecture24 PDF

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

ROBT303Lecture24 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ROBT303 Linear Control Theory with Lab

Controller synthesis via Bode diagrams

Academic year 2016-2017

Tohid Alizadeh (NU)

ROBT303 Linear Control Theory with Lab

Academic year 2016-2017

Tohid Alizadeh (NU)

ROBT303 Linear Control Theory with Lab

Academic year 2016-2017

We can only synthesize controllers for open-loop systems without poles in

We can consider the attenuation of process disturbances and sensor noise,

In order to proceed with the synthesis, we rst write

is the generalized gain of

Tohid Alizadeh (NU)

is the system type

ROBT303 Linear Control Theory with Lab

Academic year 2016-2017

General concepts (cont'ed)

is the generalized controller gain of and

Depending on the structure of

is the controller type

we can obtain dierent controllers. In

As a rst choice, we can use

i.e., a proportional controller

is a rst-order system, as particular cases we have PI controllers,

lag compensators, and lead compensator

is a second-order system, as particular cases we have practical PID

controllers, lag-lead compensators, and notch lters

Tohid Alizadeh (NU)

ROBT303 Linear Control Theory with Lab

Academic year 2016-2017

The listed requirements are checked directly using

under the assumptions for the applicability of the Bode

principle, closed-loop stability can be simply imposed by obtaining

can be used as a robustness

e for any polynomial

written in Bode form,

reference or disturbance input only depends on

and solve for the steady-state requirements by designing

ROBT303 Linear Control Theory with Lab

how to relate the Bode plot of

A possible indicator of the speed of the closed-loop system in tracking

which is related to the bandwidth of

Also, we know that given requests on step response parameters (e.g.,

Attenuation of the eect of unknown inputs:

as additional requests, one can

d (t ) and/or n(t ) on the controlled output c (t ),

since controllers with more zeros than poles are not

realizable in practice, and they cause amplication of high-frequency terms on

Tohid Alizadeh (NU)

must be a proper transfer function

ROBT303 Linear Control Theory with Lab

Academic year 2016-2017

Tohid Alizadeh (NU)

ROBT303 Linear Control Theory with Lab

Academic year 2016-2017

design a controller, such that

is smaller or equal than 1

for a step reference

the crossover frequency

the phase margin PM is at least 20

attenuated 10 times) for

attenuated 10 times) for

In order to proceed with the synthesis, we rst write

we can obtain dierent controllers. In

As a rst choice, we can use

is a rst-order system, as particular cases we have PI controllers,

controllers, lag-lead compensators, and notch lters

Attenuation of the eect of unknown inputs:

realizable in practice, and they cause amplication of high-frequency terms on

and dene the

A lag compensator can be dened with a pole at

not amplied) for

and dene the