IN 227 Control Systems Design

Lecture 9

Instructor: G R Jayanth
Department of Instrumentation and Applied Physics
Ph: 22933197
E-mail: jayanth@isu.iisc.ernet.in

Design of 1 DOF Control Systems

Thus far, we laid out the general guidelines for designing control systems. The emphasis was on describing what each
kind of control technique can accomplish, rather than on providing formulas with which the controllers could be
designed. This is because there is generally no such thing as a unique design that exactly fits the specifications, and
more often than not, designs developed with a sound understanding of the requirements and constraints, with
controllers skillfully employed to dodge the constraints, fares far better than cook-book recipes.
This lecture continues the discussion of control system design in the same spirit as the previous one and illustrates
them through numerical examples.
10

Example: Consider a plant whose transfer function is given by P(s) (s 10 1)( s 50 1)( s 300 1) . Although the nominal
gain of the plant is 10, this could change by a factor of 2, i.e., it could drift (very slowly of course) to any value between
5 and 20. The plant is forced by an input r(t)=sin(0.1t) and experiences a disturbance d(t)=sin(0.2t) (Note that
disturbances are not generally known this precisely. Here, for the sake of calculation, we pretend to have the
knowledge). It is required to track the input and to suppress the disturbance at the output to about 2% of its value.
Solution: The problem, as stated above, is generally how control problems present themselves to control engineers:
there is no specification even about what kind of control to employ, let alone adequate data that will help identify the
parameters for a particular kind.
The goal of control is to achieve x(t)=r(t) even in the presence of disturbances. The simplest way to achieve this is to
cancel the plant dynamics using open-loop control. For example, an open-loop controller of the kind
1 ( s 10 1)( s 50 1)( s 300 1) would do admirably well in canceling all the existing nominal characteristics of the
C ( s)
10

( s 1000 1)3

1
plant, so that the overall input-output transfer function would be C (s) P(s)
which will do a very good job of
( s 1000 1)3
tracking r(t)=sin(0.1t).
However there are a couple of issues: firstly, the disturbance may not be separately measurable for us to cancel its
effect. Secondly, since the gain of the plant changes, the controller will track the input well only when the gain is close
to the nominal value. Otherwise, the actual output will be dramatically different from what is desired.
Thus, it is seen that open-loop control, although desirable, is not adequate to solve this specific problem.

Design of 1 DOF Control Systems

C ( j)

P( j)

1
1
1
C ( j) P( j)

Input

Disturbance
Bode Diagram
20
0

Magnitude (dB)

Thus we have to resort to feedback control. The Bode plot of the

original plant is shown below for this purpose.
We see that the plant has a nominal phase margin of 37 and a
nominal gain margin of 13dB. In order for the closed-loop system to
have adequate damping, we decide that the phase margin of the
open-loop system should be about =40. The phase margin of the
plant, as it exists, is 3 off from what is desired, but we shall live with
this (for reasons that would be explained later).
The gain margin of 13dB is adequate to ensure that the closed-loop
system would not become unstable if the plant gain varies by a factor
of 2 (i.e., by 3dB).
Now we need to choose what kind of control we want to employ from
the tool-kit presented in the previous lecture.
In doing this, we note that the frequencies of the input and
disturbance (0.1 and 0.2 rad/s respectively) are much less that the
slowest pole of the plant, viz., 10 rad/s. Thus, the input and
disturbance are of very low frequency relative to the plant dynamics.
Since there are no other constraints to worry about, we choose the
simplest controller that achieves high gain at low frequencies, viz., an
integrator: C(s)=K1/s.
To achieve a disturbance rejection of 98%, the equation reveals that
CG(j)49 at =0.2. This implies K1=1.
The bode plot of CG (next slide) reveals that for K1=1, providentially,
the phase margin =41meets our requirements. Thus, our design
ends here.
If the phase margin was significantly lesser, we would have had to
reduce K1. For this case, disturbance rejection would have been
poorer than required. Thus, integral control would have been
inadequate.

GM=13dB

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
0
-45

Phase (deg)

-90
-135

PM=37

-180
-225
-270
-1
10

10

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

10

Bode plot of C(j)

C ( s)

Bode plot of [CP](j)

C ( s ) P( s )
Input
Disturbance

1
s

Bode Diagram
50

Bode Diagram

Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)

5
0
-5
-10
-15

C ( j) P( j)

-100
-150

-20
-89

-200
0

-89.5
-90
-90.5
-91
0
10

10
Frequency (rad/sec)

Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)

P( j)

-50

-90
-180

PM=41

-270
-360
-1
10

10

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

10

10

Design of 1 DOF Control Systems

Amplitude

The response of the closed-loop system to a unit step input is shown on the right. We see
that the steady-state error goes to zero and the system does not demonstrate highly under
damped response. However, what we get paid is not for producing a satisfactory step
response. Our goal was to track the specified input and reject a specific kind of disturbance.
These are shown below. We see that the input is tracked quite well even in the face of plant
uncertainty. The nominal disturbance rejection is adequate (at 98%) but can vary from 96%
to 99%.
Why plot the step response?: When we look at the input and disturbance to our system and
notice that both are slow varying signals that do not contain any step-like character, it is a
bit baffling that we should take step responses so seriously. Indeed, what deserves attention
is what we get paid for, namely tracking of the specified reference an rejecting the existing
disturbance. However, there is one reason why a step response may be relevant even for the
current system apart from the fact that a step is a standard input: if for some unintended
reason such as electronic malfunction, r(t) suddenly drops to zero, the closed-loop system
would experience a step input. We want to ensure that for such a worst case scenario, the
system does not oscillate wildly (and thus damage some component) before settling down.
Thus, except as a preparation for the worst case, we see that phase margin itself is of
secondary importance for the specified input/disturbance and we shall be a bit tolerant if
our design were to transgress the specified margin a bit.

1.5

Input tracking performance

Input
Output

1
0.5

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8
Time (sec)

Disturbance rejection performance

Input
tracking with plant uncertainty
1.5

Input
K=10
K=5
K=20

Step Response
1.4

disturbance
Output

0.5

-0.5

-1.5

20
Time(s) 40

60

-1
0

10

20

30

40

Time(s)

50

60

70

20

Time(s) 40

60

1.2

1.4

1.6

Design of 1 DOF Control Systems

Example 2: Suppose, in the previous design, the disturbance had a frequency

10rad/s instead of 0.2 rad/s. This is near the edge of the control bandwidth of
the integrator-based control system. For this reason, we see that the response of
the plant to the disturbance is larger than the disturbance itself! If we recall that
we wanted it to be suppressed to 2% of its magnitude, we see how urgent is the
need to change the characteristics of the controller.
The chief reason this is happening is because the open-loop gain at 10 rad/s is
low. If we increase the control bandwidth, we stand a chance of increasing the
open-loop gain to a high enough value in order to reject the disturbance
adequately.
Thus, we cutoff the integrator characteristic when the gain of C(j) drops below
0dB (i.e., 1). In the present case this happens as =1 rad/s. To do this we add a
zero at this frequency. The controller is now given by C(s)=(s+1)/s, which is a PI
controller.
The Bode plot of the controller and the overall system is shown in the next slide.
We see that adding a zero at =1 rad/s restores the characteristics of the plant
beyond this frequency: the gain of the overall system at =10 rad/s is the same
as that of the plant, and the phase margin of the system is almost exactly that of
the plant (36).
The response to a disturbance input is shown on the right. It is seen that the
disturbance is suppressed to 13% of its value. Although this is a major
improvement, it is nearly 6-fold lesser than what we actually desire. The step
response, however, shows that PI control results in much faster transient than
just Integral control.
However, we see that we can do no better that what we have presently done. If
we try to increase the gain at =10 rad/s, the phase margin drops well below the
set minimum. In order to suppress the disturbance to 1/6th of the current value,
we need to increase the gain by a factor of 6. However, for this case, the phasemargin drops to -7, indicating that the system would be unstable.

2
Disturbance
Output

-1

-2

Time(s)

1
disturbance
output
0.5

-0.5

-1

0.5

1.5

Time(s)

2.5

Step Response
1.4
1.2
1

Amplitude

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0.5

1.5

Time (sec)

2.5

Bode plot of C(j)

s 1
C (s)
s

Bode plot of [CP](j)

Bode Diagram
100

Disturbance

Bode Diagram
50

Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)

50
40
30
20
10

-50
-100

With integratorbased control

-150

0
0

-200
0

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

-90

PM=36

-180
-270
-360
-2
10

-1

10

10

10

10

Comparison of Bode plots of [CP](j) (in blue) and P(j) (in red)
Bode Diagram
100

Disturbance

50
0
-50
-100
-150
0
-45
-90
-135
-180
-225
-270
-2
10

10

10

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

Magnitude (dB)

-90
-2
10

Phase (deg)

-45

Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)

C ( j) P( j)

10

Design of 1 DOF Control Systems

In order to increase disturbance rejection by a factor of six, we need to add

pure phase so that the phase margin improves from -7 to something
positive. The gain cross-over frequency (around which the phase should be
added)is 0=158 rad/s.
Thus, we add a zero slightly to the right of 158 rad/s because that would
ensure that we can add a phase of nearly 45 at 0 without significantly
changing the gain.
We choose this zero to be at 170 rad/s. In order to achieve causal
implementation, we add a pole sufficiently far away so that it does not
diminish the phase added by the zero. This pole is chosen to be at 1700
rad/s. Thus the controller is now given by
C(s)=6(s+1)(s/170+1)/[s(s/1700+1)]. This is PID control.
The Bode plot of the overall system is shown in the next page. We see that
the effect of adding a zero is to pull up the phase response and increase the
phase margin from -7 to 30. This rescues the overall system from possible
instability when the open loop gain gets increased by a factor of 6.
The graph on the right shows that the disturbance is now rejected by about
98%, exactly as we had desired.
The step response, which verifies the response for the worst-case input,
shows slightly lesser damping since the phase margin is now 30 and not 40.
Whether this is acceptable depends on its effect on the components of the
control system. Here we assume that this is acceptable.
This completes the design.
The next slide also compares the speed of response of I, PI and PID control
schemes. The progressive increase in control bandwidth translates to
greater speed of response from one to the next.

1
Disturbance
Output

0.5

-0.5

-1

0.5

1.5

Time(s)

2.5

Step Response
1.5

Amplitude

0.5

0.02

0.04

0.06
Time (sec)

0.08

0.1

0.12

Bode plot of [CP](j)

Bode plot of C(j)

s 1 ( s /170 1)
][
]
s ( s /1700 1)
Bode Diagram

Magnitude (dB)

50
40
30

Bode Diagram

Disturbance

50

20

C ( j) P( j)

-50
-100

With PI- control whose

gain is increased by 6

10
0
90

-150
0

45

-45

0
-45
-90
-2
10

10

Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)

C ( s ) P( s )

100

Magnitude (dB)

C ( s) 6[

Input

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

-90
-135

PM=30

-180
-225
-270
-2
10

-1

10

10

10

10

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

Comparison of I, PI and PID control

Gain crossover=158 rad/s

Phase margin=-7

Step Response

Amplitude

1.5

0.5

0.5

Time(s)
Time (sec)

1.5

10

Design of 1 DOF Control Systems

Although the design is practically complete, we can try to improve the phase margin a bit
more. If, instead of adding just a single zero at 170 rad/s, we add two zeros at 170 rad/s (as
Magnitude
shown by the schematic on the right) , we can add potentially twice the phase without
adding any gain. Thus, we stand a chance of improving the phase margin even more. (This
0dB
Log()
was originally suggested by one of the students, Ms. Priyadarshini).
158 rad/s
+90 170 rad/s
Of course we cannot add too many zeros because for each zero added, we reduce the gain
+45
Phase
margin and at one point, our gain margin will become negative and result in instability.
For the present problem however, adding another zero results in a phase margin of 68 and
a gain margin still remains healthy, at 20dB (Bode plot, below right).The resulting controller
is given by C (s) 6[ s 1][ ( s /170 1)2 ]
( s /1700 1)2

The step response, shown below is much better and significantly faster than before. This
extension of the design was meant to underscore the fact that there is room for
improvement even of PID. Our previous design was a bit simpler but involved trade-off on
the transient response. The current design is a bit more complex, but achieves excellent
overall response. Which one to choose is an decision that the engineer has to make by
considering other factors such as cost of controllers, fragility of components etc
Bode plot of [CP](j)
Bode Diagram

100

Step Response
1.5

Previous
1

Present

Amplitude

50
0

GM=20dB

-50
-100
-150
0
-45

Phase (deg)

Magnitude (dB)

0.5

-90
-135

PM=68

-180
-225

0.02

0.04

0.06
Time (sec)

0.08

0.1

0.12

-270
-2
10

10

10

10

A list of useful MATLAB Commands

b1s 2 b2 s b3
(1) To define a transfer function that is expressed as a ratio of two rational polynomials G(s) 2
a1s a2 s a3

num=[ b1 b2 b3]; (define the vector of coefficients for numerator polynomial)

den=[ a1 a2 a3]; (define the vector of coefficients for denominator polynomial)
G=tf(num,den); (the command tf is used to define a transfer function that is a ratio of
polynomials with coefficients given by num and den respectively).

(2) To define a transfer function that is factored into its roots and is of the form G(s) K0 (s z1 )(s z2 )..(s zm )
( s p1 )( s p2 )..( s pn )
Z=[ -z1 -z2 ..-zm]; (define the vector of roots for numerator polynomial)
P=[ -p1 -p2 ..-pn]; (define the vector of roots for denominator polynomial)
K=K0; (define the constant in the expression of G)
G=ZPK(Z,P,K); (the command ZPK is used to define a transfer function given the values of the
zeros (through the vector Z), poles(through the vector P) and the constant K).
(3) Command to draw bode plot of a given open-loop transfer function G: bode(G) or margin (G)
(4) Command to draw Nyquist plot of a given open-loop transfer function G: nyquist(G)
(5) Command to draw step response of a given transfer function G: step(G) (note that the
command step does not assume that the system is closed-loop. If you want to plot the step
response of a closed loop system whose open-loop transfer function is G, you need to define
the closed-loop transfer function (say, Gcl=G/(1+G)) and use step(Gcl)