Coefficient Diagram Method (CDM) has been recently developed and introduced by Prof. Shunji Manabe in 1991.

The CDM is an algebraic approach combining classical and modern control theories and uses polynomial expression for the mathematical representation of a system. The most important properties of the method are adaptation of the polynomial representation for both the plant and controller, use of the two-degree of freedom (2DOF) control system structure, non-existence (or very small) of the overshoot in the step response of the closed loop system, determination of the settling time at the start and to continue the design accordingly, and robustness of the control system with respect to the parameter changes [1, 2]. The most important advantages of the CDM can be listed as follows [3]: 1. The design procedure is easily understandable, systematic and useful. Therefore, the coefficients of the CDM controller polynomials can be determined more easily than those of the PID or the other types of the controller. This creates the possibility of an easy realization for a new designer to control any kind of system. 2. There are explicit relations between the performance parameters specified before the design and the coefficients of the controller polynomials. Therefore, the designer can easily realize many control systems having different performance properties for a given control problem in a wide range of freedom. 3. It is needed to develop different tuning methods for various systems with different properties in PID control. But it is sufficient to use a single design procedure in CDM technique. This is an outstanding advantage [4, 5]. 4. It is particularly hard to design robust controllers realizing the desired performance properties for oscillatory processes having poles near the imaginary axis. It has been reported that successful designs can be achieved even in these cases by using CDM [6]. 5. It is theoretically proven that the CDM design is equivalent to LQ design with proper state augmentation. Thus, CDM can be considered as improved LQG, because order of the controller is smaller and weight selection rules are also given [7]. Although, CDM is a new method, its main principles have been used in the industry over 40 years [1, 8]. CDM design is based on the following four studies [1, 5]: Coefficient Diagram: In CDM, a powerful and useful tool called "Coefficient Diagram" is used for the controller design. As Bode and Nyquist diagrams give information on stability and time response, Coefficient Diagram provides to investigate the stability, time response and robustness characteristics of systems in a single diagram, which is important for systems with large characteristic polynomial degree. Coefficient Diagram is more accurate and easy to use in actual design. A diagram like this, which provides the designer to make a stable decision about the process of the design, cannot be found in other design methods. In coefficient diagram, vertical axis logarithmically shows the coefficients of characteristic polynomial (ai), stability indices (i), stability limits (i*) and equivalent time constant () while the horizontal axis shows the order i values corresponding to each coefficients. The degree of convexity which is obtained from coefficients of the characteristic polynomial gives a measure for stability, while the general inclination of the curve gives a measure for the speed of response. The variation of the shape of the ai curve due to plant parameter variation is a measure of robustness. To give an idea about the coefficient diagram consider the characteristic polynomial
P ( s ) = 0.5s 5 + 1.8s 4 + 2.5s 3 + 2.5s 2 + 1.5s + 0.4

for the following CDM parameters; yi =[2.5, 2, 2, 2], yi*=[0.5, 0.9, 1, 0.5] (i=1~4), =a1/a0= 3.75. Fig. 1 represents the coefficient diagram. If the curvature of the ai becomes larger the system become

more stable, corresponding to larger stability index i. If the ai curve is right down the equivalent time constant, which represents the speed of the system response is fast.

FIGURE 1. The coefficient diagram. Modification of Kessler Standard Form: The studies to find a relation between the coefficients of characteristic polynomial and transient response was first done in 1953 by Graham by proposing Integral Time Absolute Error (ITAE) standard form [9]. The form developed by Kessler in 1960 to decrease the oscillations and overshoots in the ITAE form is interesting. Because in this developed form, comparing with the ITAE, the system is more stable and has only a 8% overshoot [10]. In this form, all stability indices are chosen 2 as seen from Table 1, while in CDM, stability indices are chosen as i=[2.5 2 2 ...] so that a response without overshoot is obtained. This new form is called Standard Manabe Form [1]. The design obtained from this form are quite stable and robust and has the desired system response speed. Design by CDM has a settling time around 2.5-3 and this value gives the smallest settling time obtained from all other design methods. TABLE 1. Stability indices for some standard forms Forms Binomial ITAE Kessler CDM n 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 y4 2.5 1.568 2 2 y3 2 1.624 2 2 y2 3 2 1.424 1.779 2 2 2 2 y1 3 2.5 2.641 2.102 2 2 2.5 2.5

n: degree of characteristic polynomial Lipatov's stability studies: Stability analysis of systems with a third or fourth order characteristic polynomial can easily be done using Routh Stability Criteria. However, the effect of coefficient variations on stability cannot be seen clearly for systems with higher orders. Necessary conditions for stability or instability of systems with higher orders can be found easily using Lipatovs work [11]. These conditions are included in CDM design procedure due to their simplicity and practicality. Also, the robustness of the system can be adjusted using these conditions [12].

Obtaining Characteristic Polynomial: To find a proper characteristic polynomial for any plant, a method similar to pole-placement method is used in CDM. Here, the main difference is the use of Manabe form.

DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR CDM The block diagram of CDM design for a single input-single output (SISO) system is shown in Fig 2. Here y is the output signal, r is the reference input, d is the disturbance and n is the measured output noise. N(s) and D(s) are numerator and denominator of transfer function of the plant, respectively. A(s) is the denominator polynomial of the controller transfer function while F(s) and B(s) are called the reference numerator and the feedback numerator polynomials of the controller transfer function. Since the transfer function of the controller has two numerators, thus it is resembled to a two degree of freedom (2DOF) system structure. Better performance can be expected when using a 2DOF structure, because it can focus on both tracking the desired reference signal and disturbance suppression.

d Plant r F(s) 1 + _ A(s) B(s) Controller

FIGURE 2. A block diagram of CDM control system. The output of the controlled closed-loop system is
y= A( s ) N ( s ) N ( s) F ( s) d r+ P(s) P( s)

+
u

N(s) D(s)

(1)

where P(s) is the characteristic polynomial and given by

P ( s ) = D ( s ) A( s ) + N ( s ) B( s ) =

i =0

ai s i

(2)

The design procedure for choosing controller parameters with design specifications may be summarized as follows [13]:
1. Informations needed before starting the design: 1a. Mathematical representation of the system in polynomial form:

The transfer function of a linear time-invariant plant desired to be controlled is expressed in the form N ( s ) a m s m + a m1 s m1 + ..... + a1s + a0 . = D( s) bn s n + bn1s n1 + ..... + b1 s + b0 (3)

Since CDM is a method using the polynomial representation, the transfer function of the system can be thought of two independent polynomials. These are the numerator polynomial N(s) of degree m and the denominator polynomial D(s) of degree n (m n).
1b. Choice of the controller polynomials A(s) and B(s):

The polynomials A(s), B(s) shown in the controller structure of Fig. 2 should be in the form
A( s ) =

i =0

li s i

and B ( s ) =

i =0

ki s i .

(4)

It is necessary that pq for the practical realization. For a good performance, the degrees of the controller polynomials to be chosen get importance. The most important criterion on this choice is the existence and type of the disturbing signal. The knowledge about the choice of the controller polynomials is given in Table 2. This table is arranged by using Eq. 1 so that the desired time domain response is obtained and the disturbing signal is completely rejected. It is advised in the table that the minimum degree controller polynomial is chosen depending on the type of the disturbance. The conditions on the controller polynomial necessary to suppress the disturbing signal completely is given in the third line of the table. Finally at the last row, the degree of the characteristic polynomial to be obtained at the end of the design is given. In industry, the disturbing signal for a system may not be of a single type. For example, sometimes step-like disturbance, in some other instants a ramp type disturbance may effect a system during the running process. In this case, the designer should choose the controller according to the ramp type disturbance which requires the highest degree polynomial to be able to reject the disturbances completely. TABLE 2. Choice of controller polynomials A(s) and B(s) for different types of disturbance signals. Type of disturbance deg {A(s)} deg {B(s)} condition deg {P(s)} none n-1 n-1 2n-1 n n l0=0 2n Step ramp n+1 n+1 l0=l1=0 2n+1 impulse / sinusoidal n-1 n-1 2n-1

1c. Choice of the key parameters for the design:

- Choice of equivalent time constant: One of the most important properties of CDM is that the desired settling time (ts) is determined at the beginning before starting to design the control system. Hence, the equivalent time constant is chosen to be = ts / (2.5~3) according to the Standard Manabe form. A closed relationship exists between the equivalent time constant and the control signal in CDM. If increases the time response becomes slower and the magnitude of the control signal decreases. If decreases the time response gets faster and the magnitude of the control signal increases accordingly. For this reason and for industrial applications, the value of should be chosen very carefully.

- Choice of stability indices and stability limit indices: Since the Standard Manabe form is used in the design, the stability indices are chosen as

i={2.5, 2, 2,..., 2}
1 1

i=1~n-1, 0=n=.

(5)

The stability limit indices are then determined by

i* =

i 1

i +1

(6)

2. Computation of the coefficients of the controller polynomials during the design:

Pole-placement method is made use of in the computation of the controller polynomials in CDM. According to this, the controller polynomials which are determined by Eq. 4 and using Table 2 as described in Step 1b are replaced in Eq. 2. This way a polynomial depending on the parameters ki and li is obtained. Then, a target characteristic polynomial Ptarget(s) is determined by placing the design parameters determined in Step 1c into n i 1 1 Ptarget ( s ) = a 0 { ( j )(s )i } + s + 1 . i = 2 j =1 i j If these two polynomials are equated, A( s ) D ( s ) + B( s ) N ( s ) = Pt arg et ( s ) (8) (7).

is obtained, which is known to be Diophantine equation. Later, this equation is transformed into the form
i [C ]rxr

k i rx1

= [ai ]rx1

(9)

which is called Sylvester form (r is a constant integer). In this equation, the column vector containing li and ki represents the unknown controller parameters, the matrix C represents the coefficients of the controller parameters, and finally the vector containing ai represents the coefficients of the target characteristic polynomial. Controller parameters are simply obtained by solving this linear algebraic equation. The controller polynomial F(s) which is defined as the pre-controller element is chosen to be
F ( s ) = (P ( s ) / N ( s ) ) s =0 .

(10)

This way, the value of the error that may occur in the steady-state response of the closed loop system is reduced to zero.
3. Tests to be done after the design: 3a. Investigation of the control system performance by using coefficient diagram:

Coefficient diagram is drawn as described in Section 2.3. Whether small adjustments are needed or not is determined by the observations on this single diagram for the stability, time response and robustness properties. In general, such adjustments are not needed since if the Standard Manabe form is used the obtained control system becomes usually sufficiently stable and robust and has a good time response. But when the space, aerodynamic and submarine systems are considered, precise control is required and this

may need some simple adjustments after the first design. In this case, one turns back to Step 1c and modifies the design parameters and repeats the process.
3b. Control of saturation for the control signal:

The variation of the control signal is drawn for the closed loop system, and whether the control signal saturates is observed. If the system saturates one turns back to the item 1c, increases sufficiently and repeats the process. On the contrary, if |u(t)| is very small, the system response can be accelerated as desired by decreasing .
CDM DESIGN EXAMPLE [13]

A radar antenna system is taken as an example. The position/voltage nominal transfer function of the system takes the form G(s) = a0 s ( s + b1 s + b0 )
2

100 s ( s + 0.6s + 100)

2

(11)

The desired performance properties that are to be obtained after the design can be summarized as follows: 1. The rise time must be quite smaller than 1.2 s for the closed loop system. The overshoot must be as small as possible than the maximum allowable value 20%. Further, the settling time must be small. 2. The step type disturbance at the input of the plant must be completely suppressed. 3. The controller to be designed must yield at least 10dB gain margin and 45o phase margin. 4. The system to be designed must retain the robust stability and robust performance properties in the closed loop transfer function with respect to the parameter variations a0 and b1. According to the design procedure described above, CDM starts with the nominal system polynomials N ( s ) = 100 , (12) (13)

D ( s ) = s 3 + 0.6 s 2 + 100 s .

The controller polynomials are chosen to be in the form

A( s ) = l3 s 3 + l 2 s 2 + l1 s , B ( s ) = k 3 s 3 + k 2 s 2 + k1 s + k 0

(14) (15)

The design parameters are chosen as =0.65 and i=2, 3, 4, 1.75, 2 for i=1~5 to satisfy the desired performance properties. The reason for the stability indices are chosen quite different from the Standard Manabe form is that some amount of overshoot is allowed and the rise time has a priority over the settling time. Starting with these parameters, the following characteristic polynomial results
P ( s ) = 0.000000074 s 6 + 0.0000096 s 5 + 0.00062 s 4 + 0.023s 3 + 0.211s 2 + 0.65 + 1 .

(16)

The controller polynomials are found to be

A( s ) = 0.000000074 s 3 + 0.0000095 s 2 + 0.0006 s

(17) (18)

B ( s ) = 0.00022 s 3 + 0.0015 s 2 + 0.006 s + 0.01 ,

F ( s ) = 0.01 .

(19)

For the CDM control system, the step response which expresses the nominal performance characteristics is shown in Fig. 3; the performance values of the time response is presented in Table 3.

It is apparently observed that the CDM design yields the desired time domain performance determined before the design.
1.4

1.2

y(t)

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

t (s.)

FIGURE 3. Unit step responses of the control system designed by three different methods. TABLE 3. Performance values of the time response curves shown in Fig 6. rise time % max overshoot 5 settling time 2.3 s

CDM

0.79 s

The time response curves of the control systems when there is a unit step disturbance at the input of the plant are plotted in Fig. 4. CDM controller remains almost insensitive to the disturbing signal

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2

allowable overshoot

y(t)

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

H standard H loop-shaping CDM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

t (s.)

FIGURE 4. Time response when there is a unit step disturbance at the plant input. The time responses of the closed loop systems designed by three different method with parameter variations in a0 and b1 in steps of 5% up to the range 30% are shown in Fig. 5. It is apparently seen that CDM control system is not very much sensitive to the parameter variations.

1.4 1.2

y(t)

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 2 4 6 8

t (s.)

FIGURE 5. CDM time response with parameter variations in a0 and b1 in steps of 5% up to the range 30%. Finally, the marginal values of gain and phase of the CDM design as in Table 4. Again, it is seen that the CDM controller supplies the closest gain and phase margins to the desired values. TABLE 4. Gain and phase margins associated with the three different methods. GM (dB) CDM 10.16 difference PM (o) 44.8 difference

+0.16

-0.2

REFERENCES

1. S. Manabe, "Coefficient Diagram Method", 14th IFAC Symp. on Automatic Control in Aerospace, Seoul,1998. 2. S.E. Hamamci and M. Koksal, "Robust Controller Design for TITO Systems with Coefficient Diagram Method," Proc. CCA 2003 IEEE Conf. on Control Applications, Istanbul, Vol. II, 1431-1436, 2003. 3. S.E. Hamamci, "A Robust Polynomial-Based Control for Stable Processes with Time Delay," Electrical Engineering, 87(3), 163-172, 2005. 4. S.E. Hamamci, I. Kaya and M. Koksal, "Improving Performance for a Class of Processes Using Coefficient Diagram Method," Proc. MED'01 The 9th Mediterranean Conf. on Control and Automation, Dubrovnik, Crotia, 2001. 5. S.E. Hamamci, I. Kaya and D. P. Atherton, "Smith Predictor Design by CDM," Proc. ECC'01 European Control Conference, Seminrio de Vilar, Porto, Vol. II, 2364-2369, 2001. 6. S. Manabe, A low cost inverted pendulum system for control system education, Proc. of the 3rd IFAC Symposium on advances in Control Education, Tokyo, 1994. 7. S. Manabe, Analytical weight selection for LQ design, Proc. of the 8th Workshop on Astrodynamics and Flight Mechanics, Sagamihara, ISAS, 1998. 8. S. Manabe and Y.C. Kim, "Recent development of Coefficient Diagram Method", ASSC 2000 3rd Asian Control Conference, Shanghai, 2000. 9. D. Graham and R.C. Lathrop, The synthesis of optimum transient response: criteria and standard forms , AIEE Transactions, v.72, pt.II, 273-288, 1953.

10. C. Kessler, Ein Beitrag zur Theorie Mehrschleifiger Regulungen , Regelungst., 8, 8, pp.261-266, 1960. 11. A. Lipatov and N. Sokolov, Some sufficient conditions for stability and instability of continuous linear stationary systems , Automat. Remote Cont., 39, 1285-1291, 1979. 12. S. Manabe, Sufficient condition for stability and instability by Lipatov and its application to the CDM , 9th Workshop on Astrodynamics and Flight Mechanics, Sagamira, ISAS, 1999. 13. M. Koksal and S.E. Hamamci, "A Program for the Design of Linear Time Invariant Control Systems: CDMCAD," Computer Applications In Engineering Education, 12(3), 165-174, 2004.