Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Insights
Winter 2013
Outline
1 Compensators 2 Lead compensation
Insights
Compensators
Early in the course we provided some useful guidelines
regarding the relationships between the pole positions of a system and certain aspects of its performance Using root locus techniques, we have seen how the pole positions of a closed loop can be adjusted by varying a parameter
Insights
that we want
Ask whether we can change the system,
process
Cascade compensation
Usually, the plant is a physical process If commands and measurements are made electrically,
Insights
Gc (s) =
Kc
n j =1 (s
M i =1 (s
+ zi ) + pj )
poles and open loop zeros These will change the shape of the root locus
Compensator design
Where should we put new poles and zeros to achieve desired performance? That is the art of compensator design We will consider rst order compensators of the form c (1 + s/z ) Kc (s + z ) K c = Kc z /p Gc ( s ) = = , where K (s + p) (1 + s/p)
with the pole p in the left half plane and the zero, z in the left half plane, too
Insights
For reasons that will soon become clear when |z | < |p |: phase lead network when |z | > |p |: phase lag network
Lead compensation
K c (s + z ) (s + p ) with |z | < |p|. That is, zero closer to origin than pole Gc (s) =
Insights
Let p = 1/ and z = 1/(lead ). Since z < p, lead > 1. c = Kc z /p = Kc /lead . Then Dene K Gc (s) = c (1 + lead s) K Kc (s + z ) = (s + p ) (1 + s )
Lead compensation
Kc (s+z ) (s+p)
Kc (1+lead s) (1+ s)
Gc (j ) =
Bode diagram
c (1 + j lead ) K (1 + j )
Insights
c lead Between = z and = p , |Gc (j )| K What kind of operator has a frequency response with magnitude proportional to ? Differentiator
Note that the phase is positive. Hence phase lead
Insights
V2 (s) V1 (s)
Insights
Insights
we have P (s) =
and
K = Kc KG . We will restrict attention to the case of K > 0 Phase cond. s0 is on root locus if P (s0 ) = 180 + k 360 :
M n
(angle from zi to s0 )
i =1 j =1
(angle from pj to s0 )
+ (angle from z to s0 ) (angle from p to s0 ) = 180 + k 360 Mag. cond. If s0 satises phase condition, the gain that puts a closed-loop pole at s0 is K = 1/|P (s0 )|: K =
n j =1 (dist M i =1 (dist
Insights
from pj to s0 ) from zi to s0 )
Translate design specications into desired positions of dominant poles Sketch root locus of uncompensated system to see if desired positions can be achieved If not, choose the positions of the pole and zero of the compensator so that the desired positions lie on the root locus (phase criterion), if that is possible Evaluate the gain required to put the poles there (magnitude criterion) Evaluate the total system gain so that the steady-state error constants can be determined If the steady state error constants are not satisfactory, repeat
Insights
This procedure enables relatively straightforward design of systems with specications in terms of rise time, settling time, and overshoot; i.e., the transient response. For systems with steady-state error specications, Bode (and Nyquist) methods may be more straightforward (later)
Consider a case with G(s) = s(s1 +2) and H (s ) = 1. Design a lead compensator to achieve: damping coefcient = 0.5 and velocity error constant Kv = lims0 sGc (s)G(s) > 20 swift transient response (small settling time) What to do? Can we achieve this with proportional control? If not we will attempt lead control
Insights
Insights
Sketch rays of angle cos (0.5) = 60 to neg. real axis Are there intersections? Yes If so, what is the corresponding value of K = KP KG ? K = d1 d2 = 5 Does that K generate a large enough velocity error const.? No, Kv = 2.5 :( Do the closed-loop poles have responses that decay quickly? No, Ts 4s
1 s(s+2) 1
Insights
Insights
Plot poles of G(s). Where should the closed-loop poles be? cos1 (0.5) = 60 Note that the settling time is not specied; it only needs to be small. This provides design exibility. However, we need a large Kv which will require large gain. Need desired positions far from open loop poles. Lets start with desired roots at 4 j 8 This pair has Ts = 1s and n = 42 + 82 8.9
Now where to put the zero and pole? (Centroid denoted ca ) Rule of thumb: put zero under desired root, or just to the left Determine position of the pole using angle criterion angles from OL zeros angles from OL poles = 180 90 (116 + 104 + p ) = 180 = p 50 Hence pole at p 10.86
Insights
Gain of compensated system: d1 d2 dp Prod. dist. from open-loop poles = Prod. dist. from open-loop zeros dz 8.94(8.25)(10.54) 97.1 8 Hence compensated open loop: Gc (s)G(s) =
97.1(s+4) s(s+2)(s+10.86)
Insights
What to do now?
We tried hard, but did not achieve the design specs Lets go back and re-examine our choices Zero position of compensator was chosen via rule of
thumb
Can we do better?
Insights
the required = 0.5, then the choice of z 4.47, p 12.5 and KC 125 results in Kv 22.3
Insights
Centroid denoted ca
Lead contr.
125(s+4.47) (s+12.5) 125(s+4.47) 1 (s+12.5) s(s+2) 125(s+4.47) s(s+2)(s+12.5)+125(s+4.47)
5
5 s(s+2) 5 s(s+2)+5
1 j 2 ,
5 s2 +2s+5
1.71 s+5.59
Insights
Complex conjugate poles still dominate Closed-loop zero at -4.47 (which is also an open-loop
zero) reduces impact of closed-loop pole at -5.59; see also slide 48 of Section 3: Fundamentals of Feedback
Insights
Insights
Insights
Note faster settling time than prop. controlled loop, However, the CL zero has increased the overshoot a little Perhaps we should go back and re-design for = 0.45 in order to better control the overshoot
Outcomes
Root locus approach to phase lead design was
reasonably successful in terms of putting dominant poles in desired positions; e.g., in terms of and n
We did this by positioning the pole and zero of the lead
Insights
(they resemble differentiators), they are not normally used to control steady-state error.
The goal of our lag compensator design will be to
increase the steady-state error constants, without moving the other poles too far
Cascade compensation
Throughout this lecture, and all the discussion on cascade compensation, we will consider the case in which H (s) = 1. We will consider rst order compensators of the form Gc (s) = K (s + z ) (s + p)
Insights
with the pole, p, and the zero, z , both in the left half plane when |z | < |p|: phase lead network when |z | > |p|: phase lag network
Steady-state errors
If closed loop stable, steady state error for input R (s): ess = lim e(t ) = lim s
t s0
R (s ) 1 + GC (s)G(s)
KC (s+z ) (s+p)
Let G(s) =
Q KG i (s+zi ) Q j (s +pj )
Insights
Consider the case in which G(s) is a type-0 system. Steady state error due to a step r (t ) = Au (t ): A , where ess = 1+K posn Kposn = GC (0)G(0) = KC z KG i zi p j pj
Note that for a lead compensator, z /p < 1, So lead compensation may degrade steady-state error performance
Steady-state error
Now, consider the case in which G(s) is a type-1 Q
system, G(s) =
KC z KG i zi p j pj
Insights
constants while leaving the closed loop poles in essentially the same place as they were in an uncompensated system? Perhaps |z | > |p|?
Lag compensation
K c (s + z ) (s + p ) with |z | > |p|. That is, pole closer to origin than zero Gc (s) =
Insights
Let z = 1/ and p = 1/(lag ). Since z > p, lag > 1. c = Kc z /p = Kc lag . Then Dene K G c (s ) = c (1 + s ) K Kc (s + z ) = (s + p) (1 + lag s)
Frequency response
Gc (j ) = Magnitude C Low frequency gain: K Corner frequency in denominator at p = p = 1/(lag )
Corner frequency in numerator at z = z = 1/ p < z
C (1 + j ) K (1 + j lag )
Insights
zp
Bode Diagram
Insights
Insights
Insights
Recall position error constant for compensated type-0 system and velocity error constant for compensated type-1 system: Kposn = KC z KG i zi , p j pj Kv = KC z KG i zi p j pj
where in the latter case the product in the denominator is over the non-zero poles. Design Principles We dont try to reshape the uncompensated root locus. We just try to increase the value of the desired error constant by a factor lag = z /p without moving the poles (well not much) Reshaping was the goal of lead compensator design
Insights
compensator should only result in a small change to the angle criterion for any point on the uncompensated root locus Angles from compensator pole and zero to any point on the locus must be similar Pole and zero must be close together Increase value of error constant: Want to have a large value for lag = z /p . How can that happen if z and p are close together? Only if z and p are both small, i.e., close to the origin
Insights
4 5
Insights
Obtain the root locus of uncompensated system From transient performance specs, locate suitable dominant pole positions on that locus Obtain the loop gain for these points, K = KP KG ; hence the (closed-loop) steady-state error constant Calculate the necessary increase. Hence lag = z /p Place pole and zero close to the origin (with respect to desired pole positions), with z = lag p. Typically, choose z and p so that their angles to desired poles differ by less than 1 . Set KC = KP
What if there is nothing suitable at step 2? Perhaps do lead compensation rst, then lag compensation on lead compensated plant. i.e., design a lead-lag compensator
Example
Lets consider, again, the case with G(s) = s(s1 +2) . Design a lag compensator to achieve damping coefcient = 0.5 and velocity error constant Kv > 20 Note: we will get a different closed loop from our lead design. First step, obtain uncompensated root locus, and locate desired dominant pole locations
Insights
Example
Insights
Gain required to put closed loop poles in desired position = prod. distances from open loop poles That is, K = 2.242 = 5. Therefore KP = K /KG = 5 Velocity error const: Kv ,unc = lims0 sKP G(s) = K /2 = 2.5 The increase required is 20/2.5 = 8 That implies must choose p = z /8, where z is chosen to be close to the origin with respect to dominant closed-loop poles
Example
Insights
Example
Insights
KC (s+0.1) (s+1/80)
s: closed-loop poles for prop.-control with KP = 5 s: open-loop poles of lag compd system : OL zero of lag compd system; also a CL zero s: Closed-loop poles for lag-control with KC = 5
Example
Prop.-contr. Controller, GC (s) OL TF, GC (s)G(s) CL TF,
Y (s ) R (s )
Lag contr.
5(s+0.1) (s+0.9) 5(s+0.1) 1 (s+1/80) s(s+2) 5(s+0.1) s(s+2)(s+1/80)+5(s+0.1)
5
5 s(s+2) 5 s(s+2)+5
1 j 2 ,
5 s2 +2s+5
0.004 s+0.104
Insights
Complex conjugate poles still dominate Closed-loop zero at -0.1 (which is also an open-loop
zero) reduces impact of closed-loop pole at -0.104; see also slide 48 of Section 3: Fundamentals of Feedback
Ramp response
Insights
Insights
Step response
Insights
Note longer settling time of lag controlled loop, and slight increase in overshoot, due to CL zero
Insights
If we would like to improve the transient performance of
a closed loop
We can try to place the dominant closed-loop poles in
desired positions
One approach to doing that is lead compensator design However, that typically requires the use of an amplier
in the compensator, and hence requires a power supply If we would like to improve the steady-state error
Insights