Lecture 19
Instructor: G R Jayanth
Department of Instrumentation and Applied Physics
Ph: 22933197
Email: jayanth@isu.iisc.ernet.in
In all the control design techniques we have discussed, the plant that we intend to control took a back
seat. Beyond the fact that it imposed some limits on our ambitions as control engineers, we assumed that
it caused no further inconveniencesthere was a significant bandwidth, viz., the control bandwidth,
which could be made arbitrarily large ,wherein we could maximize the loop gain by any desired amount
and thus achieve the goal of control, namely x(t)=r(t).
The plant was intentionally assumed to be cooperative because we wanted to shine the spotlight on the
different control techniques that could be employed to control a general plant. Cooperative plants possess
all their poles and zeros in the left half of the complex plane and do not possess any delays. However,
there exist a class of linear plants that refuse to be cooperative and demand special attention by virtue of
the inconveniences they cause to conventional controllers: they impose fundamental theoretical limits to
the achievable loop gain and the gain crossover frequency. This lecture is devoted to studying the control
of such plants.
These plants could be afflicted with three types of maladies (a) time delay (b) righthalf plane zeros and (c)
unstable dynamics.
There is not much connecting these three types of plants except that they are all nonminimum phase
plants. For minimumphase plants, when we specify the gain of a plant, we also uniquely fix its phase.
However, a non minimumphase plant possesses lot higher phase lag for the same gain characteristics.
Example: Consider a minimum phase system 1/(j+1) and a nonminimum phase system 1/(j1). The
magnitude bode plots for both are exactly the same: they starts at 0 dB and begin to roll off at
20dB/decade beyond =1rad/s. However, when we look at the phase plots, the former starts at 0 deg and
tends to 90 deg. at higher frequencies, while the latter begins at 180 deg. and ends at 90 deg.
This lecture is devoted to studying the control of plants with delays and with right half plane zeros.
When we are dealing with such weird plants, all our traditional compasses of stability in Bode plot,
namely the gain and phase margins, either break down or may require to be interpreted with care. Hence
in analyzing the control of nonminimum phase systems, we step back and check for stability using Nyquist
stability theory, before we transfer the system to the familiar domain for design proposes, viz., Bode plots.
Timedelay is ubiquitous in process industries and other systems where it takes finite
time for a particular event to reach the sensor. This may be because the eventtobesensed may take time to physically or chemically move to the sensor. For example, in
a steel plant, the thickness of a steel sheet can be measured only after it has cooled
down, but the thickness can be controlled only when it is hot. Thus, there is a finite
time lag between control and measurement during which the sheet cools. Of course,
one may choose to be more philosophical and say that time delays are inescapable
facts of life thanks to Einsteins special theory of relativity. Whether the delay is of r
practical consequence or not is a matter that engineers have to decide.
Assume that a certain system has a time delay T in addition to certain dynamics P0(s).
Since the Laplace transform of a delay is esT, the transfer function of the plant
without delay (P0(s)) gets multiplied by the term esT. Thus, the control blockdiagram
of a 1 DOF control system with delay appears as shown on the right.
It is not intuitively clear from the blockdiagram why the time delay could cause any
inconvenience. Thus, to understand this, we turn to the mathematical tools, in
particular, Nyquist stability theory.
As explained before, we first check if Nyquist stability criterion can be uncritically
applied: the closedloop transfer function is X/R=CP0esT /(1+CP0esT). The
denominator is 1+CG/esT. The zeros of esT which are the poles of the openloop
system exist at Re(s). Thus, if P0 (s) is stable, then there are no openloop poles
CP0e sT 0 . Thus, we can employ the same Nyquist path
on the RHP. Furthermore, lim
s
(C) as we did for ordinary P0 (s) , viz., a semicircle centered at the origin
encompassing the entire RHP. All the points on the curved part of C collapse to the
origin. For stable closedloop system, we need to evaluate CP0esT along s=j.
d
u
C ( s)
P0 (s)e sT
C
R
Since we know how to plot CP0(j), we focus on the effect of eiT. We note that eiT
=cosTisinT. Thus, the magnitude of eiT is one, regardless of frequency. The phase is CP (j )ei T
0
1
1
tan1(sinT/cosT)= T. Since eiT multiplies CP0(j), we see that at each frequency ,
the effect of eiT is to rotate the phasor CP0(j) by an angle T without affecting the
=0
=
gain. At frequencies close to zero, the effect is barely noticeable. At higher frequencies,
0
1
the phasors get rotated by larger angles. For >>2/T, the phasor gets rotated several
CP0 (j)
T
cycles. In particular, we note that the phase of the transfer function CP0 eiT becomes 180 at a lesser frequency 1 than that of CP0 (which is defined to happen at 0). The gain
1
of CP0 at 1 however, is much higher than the gain at 0. Thus, a time delay has the effect
of reducing the gain margin of the overall system. If the delay T is larger, then the phasor
CP0 (j)eiT
at an even lesser frequency gets rotated to align along the negative realaxis. At such a
Bode plot of P0 (s)=100/(s+10)
small frequency, the gain would in general be even greater. If T is sufficiently large, then it
will rotate a phasor at such a small frequency that at that frequency the plant gain is
greater than 1. In this situation the system becomes unstable. Thus, we see that delays can
destabilize closedloop systems that were originally stable.
Since we can apply Nyquist stability principles exactly as before for a system with time
delay, we can safely transfer it to the Bode domain. Here the effect of the delay is to add a
phase lag T without affecting the gain curve (since eiT=1). Since Bode plots are log
plots, we see that the phase of eiT is an negative exponential function.
For the sake of illustrating the influence of this phase lag, we choose a first order system
P0(s)=100/(s+10). We see that the phase of this function tends to 90 as . Thus, this
Bode plot of G(s)=100e0.01s/(s+10)
20
plant possesses no phase crossover and thus can be designed to achieve high gain over
10
arbitrarily large bandwidths.
0
However if we add a delay of just 0.01s, i.e., P0(s)=100e0.01s/(s+10), the phase of the
10
openloop system crosses 180. We now have to ensure that the gain of the open loop
10
10
10
10
0
system is less than 0dB at this frequency . Thus a system which can be designed to possess
100
arbitrarily high bandwidth without delay gets limited in bandwidth due to the delay.
180
200
Bode plots make it abundantly clear how just phase lag addition can limit control
300
performance.
10
10
10
10
Bode Diagram
10
0
10
20
0
Phase (deg)
Magnitude (dB)
20
45
90
1
10
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
1
1
If the delay is small enough that the phase crossover frequency is close to the gain crossover frequency, we
can continue to use the same design tools as for conventional control systems in order to control the plants.
However, since we traditionally deal with rational functions of , and eiT is not a rational function, it would be
convenient to approximate eiT by rational functions for design purposes. However, unlike ei whose phase
tends to negative infinity, the phase of any rational function will settle at some integral multiple of 90. Thus,
we need to note that rational functions can approximate eiT only for finite frequency range.
We note that truncated Taylors series expansion of eiT (as 1 T+(T)2/2!..up to nth degree) will not work
because any truncation will result in polynomial of whose magnitude also varies along with its phase This is
a poor approximation of eiT because the magnitude of eiT is constant.
Pade approximants: The most popular approximants for eiT were proposed by H. Pade. The general nth
degree approximant is given by
sT ( sT ) 2 n(n 1)
( sT )3 n(n 1)(n 2)
1
...
2
2! 2n(2n 1)
3! 2n(2n 1)(2n 2)
P( s )
sT ( sT ) 2 n(n 1)
( sT )3 n(n 1)(n 2)
1
...
2
2! 2n(2n 1)
3! 2n(2n 1)(2n 2)
sT ( sT ) 2
sT
1
2
12 and so on.
2
For n=1, we see that P( s)
. For n=2, we have P( s)
sT
sT ( sT ) 2
1
1
2
2
12
1
We see that Pade approximants, unlike, Taylors series truncation, yield rational functions with unity gain at all
frequencies, and thus, correctly reflect the effect of eiT on the magnitude plots. Depending on the extent of
n
sT
accuracy required, we use one of the approximants in plotting phase plots.
1
It is worth pointing out that other approximants are possible. For example, Q( s) 2n n is another valid nth
sT
degree rational function approximant for eiT.
1
2n
As we noted before, the use of conventional control techniques is fine if the phase
crossover is not seriously affected by the delay. However, if it does get reduced
dramatically, conventional design techniques lead to very poor performance. This is
illustrated below.
Example 1: Suppose in the previous delayfree plant that we chose (P0(s)=100/(s+10))
we incorporate a time delay of 2s, i.e., P0(s)=100e2s/(s+10). We are required to
develop feedback controllers for this plant.
Solution: The bode plot of the openloop system shows that the phase crossover
frequency is significantly less than the gain crossover frequency. We also note that
the gain margin<0. Thus, we need to reduce the gain to less than 1 at the phase crossover frequency.
We can choose to do this using a proportional controller but, in doing so, we will also
sacrifice lowfrequency performance. Thus, we use integral control. This reduces the
phase further by 90. Since the slope of the phase curve at the phase crossover is
large, the addition of 90 does not significantly reduce the phase crossover frequency.
Thus, we do not bother to cut off the integrator characteristic with PIcontrol.
An integral controller with gain 0.041, i.e., C(s)=0.041/s, will ensure that the gain
margin >0. For this controller we see that the phase margin is >0. However, in using
this control, we have dramatically reduced the control bandwidth (by more than a
factor of 100!). Thus, the step response shows very slow transience (transience slower
than the speed of the openloop system). Furthermore, since the closedloop system
is given by X/R={CP0/(1+CP0esT)}esT, we note that we will always have a delay T in the
response of the system.
We see that feedback controllers perform pretty poorly in the presence of delays.
Further, there appears to be no way for us to substantially improve the performance.
We shall soon see that the performance of these systems is theoretically limited.
Gain crossover
20
10
0
10
1
10
10
10
10
0
100
180
200
300
1
10
10
10
10
Phase crossover
50
0
50
100
10
10
0
100
200
PM
300
10
10
Log()
1.4
1.2
1
x(t) 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10
20
Time (s)
30
20Log(Mag.)
A nonminimum phase plant, i.e., one with a right half plane (RHP) zero has the following form: PNMP(s)=(as)P1(s),
where, P1(s) does not contain any nonmimimum phase terms.
The only way to study the effect of a transfer function on closedloop stability is by means of Nyquist plots. We note
the plant PNMP(s) has no poles in the RHP. The presence of a zero of PNMP(s) in the RHP does not in any way cause
problems for applying Nyquist stability theory to search for closedloop poles in the RHP. Thus, the rules remain
unchanged: the system is stable if CPNMP(j) does not encircle 1. Therefore, Bode plots can also be used without any
modification.
The way a nonminimum phase term would affect the closedloop dynamic can be seen by writing PNMP(s)=[(as)/(a+s)][PMP(s)] where, PMP(s)=P1(s)(a+s). We know how to draw the bode plot of the minimum phase part, viz., PMP(s).
We therefore examine the other term (as)/(a+s). This term, and the product of such terms (if there happen to be
multiple RHP zeros) are called Blaschke products.
We note that the gain of this term is 1 at all frequencies. Thus the Blaschke product does not affect the magnitude
characteristics of the plant. However, the phase of this term is given by 2tan1(/a): it starts at 0 at =0, becomes 90
at =a and tends to 180 as . Thus, the term adds a phase lag of 180, with the corner frequency being =a .
Since all causal physical systems display increased phase lag with frequency, a RHP zero mandatorily causes the phase
of the system to cross 180 a bit beyond =a . Thus, an RHP zero affects control performance the same way that timedelay doesit reduces the phase crossover frequency.
Note that we cannot cancel an RHP zero with a controller pole at =a. This is because in practice, the cancellation can
never be perfect. Thus, a branch of the root locus would exist between the zero and the pole, and as the result, the
closedloop system will be unstable.
a
Log()
Slope=20dB/decade
Bode plot of (as)/(a+s)
hase (deg.)
~0.1a
0
90
180
~10a
20log L
 (=20log L )
NMP
MP
In order illustrate fundamental limits to achievable benefits of feedback imposed by the
nonminimum phase plant, we shall consider the design of a control system where we have
40 dB/decade
specified that the loop gain should possess a phase margin of PM radians and a certain gain
log
gc
margin GM dB.
GM
It is assumed first that a minimum phase, i.e., well behaved controller C(s) is used to
control the nonminimum phase plant PNMP(s). The resulting loop gain is given by LNMP=CPNMP.
log
We need to shape LNMP to achieve the desired performance and stability specifications. For
reference, we shall also consider the minimum phase counterpart LMP=CPMP whose only L
NMP
difference from LNMP in that it is not multiplied by the Blaschke product (as)/(a+s). Since the
PM

pc
Blaschke product does not affect the magnitude characteristics, LNMP has the same
magnitude characteristics as that of the minimum phase counterpart. This is sketched on the
right. The phase of the loop gain LNMP at any frequency , however, is lesser than the phase
of LMP by the amount 2tan1(/a), i.e., LNMP LMP 2 tan 1 ( a)
Let LNMP cross 0 dB at gc and let the slope of the magnitude characteristic in the
neighborhood of gc be 40 db/decade. Bodes gainphase relationship tells us that the
LNMP LMP 2 tan( a)
phase of the minimum phase loop gain LMP at any frequency is determined predominantly
by the slope of the magnitude characteristic near alone, regardless of the actual shape of
the magnitude characteristic of LMP at other frequencies. Thus, the phase of LMP at gc is 
rad. Consequently, the net phase of the loop gain LNMP at gc isLNMP (gc ) 2 tan 1 (gc a)
To satisfy the prescribed phase margin PM, we note that LNMP (c ) PM . Equating these
Since cot() is a decreasing function of , we note from the equation above that, for a given
PM, the gain crossover frequency is a decreasing function of . Thus, the highest gain crossover frequency is obtained for the smallest value of . However, since the low frequency
loop gain needs to be greater than 0dB, we require that >0 in order for gain to cross the
0dB line.
Thus, for the given phase margin PM, the absolute maximum gain crossover frequency is obtained when ~0 and is
given by gc a cot PM 2
max
Thus, we see that the maximum possible value of the gain crossover frequency gc is theoretically limited to
a.cot(PM/2) due to the RHP zero at s=a.
Likewise, we can derive the theoretical limit to the maximum gain crossover frequency for which the specified phase
margin PM and the gain margin GM are simultaneously satisfied. This is done below:
GM is the plant gain at the phase crossover frequency pc , i.e., where the phase is . Assuming that the slope of
LNMP remains approximately 40 db/decade between gc and pc, and thus, the phase of LMP remains at , we
have, 2 tan 1 ( pc a) or equivalently, pc a cot( 2)
Since the slope of LNMP remains approximately 40 db/decade between gc and pc, (fig. below right), we have
gc . Using the fact that
GM
pc a cot( 2) and gc a cot ( PM ) 2, we obtain, GM log tan ( PM ) 2
log
40
pc
40
tan( 2)
The last equation above is a transcendental equation in . It is solved numerically to obtain and subsequently used
to evaluate gc. The figure below (left) plots the values of gc (normalized with respect to a) for different phase and
gain margin requirements.
20log LNMP
40 dB/decade
log
gc
gc
GM
a
LNMP

From Ref. [1]
log
pc
20log L
The analysis of the previous page indicates that for a specified stability margin GM
20logLNMP()
and PM, the maximum possible gain crossover frequency is limited, typically to a
small fraction of a, where a is the location of the RHP zero. We shall now examine
the consequences of this limit on the maximum achievable loop gain.
log
We start by noting that if we want the phase margin to be PM, then the maximum
gc
phaselag that we can allow for the loop gain LNMP is +PM for all frequencies
<gc.
The phase lag of the Blaschke product at any frequency is 2tan1(/a). Thus, the
maximum permissible phase lag for LMP therefore is +PM +2tan1(/a). We shall
log
1
express this as a fraction max() of , i.e., max()=+PM +2tan (/a)
LNMP
Given the maximum permissible phase lag for LMP , Bode gainphase relationship
PM
reveals the maximum negative slope that the gain characteristic of LMP can have at

the frequency is 40max()dB/decade, which is the same as that for LNMP .
Maximum permissible
For any frequency , the loop gain LNMP() will be maximum when the gain
phase lag
characteristic has the maximum permissible slope for all frequencies between
and gc. Thus, the maximum permissible value of LNMP() is given by 20log LNMP ( j) max 40 max (u)du
where u=log .
At frequencies <<a, 2tan1(/a)~0, so that max()= 1+PM/. Thus, at low
frequencies, the slope of the gain characteristic reaches its maximum permissible
Low frequency slope =
constant value of 40(1PM/). The schematic of the gain characteristic is shown on
40(1PM/) dB/decade
the right.
The consequences of the limit in maximum achievable loop gain at any given
20log L
Maximum
frequency are profound: for example it is impossible to reject disturbances near the
achievable loop
frequency 2 shown on the right due to the low loop gain there. Even within the
gain
control bandwidth, there is an upper limit to the achievable loop gain at any
frequency 1, and thus an upper limit to the extent to which we can reject
log
disturbances and achieve robustness against plant parameter variations.
gc 2
1
If a RHP zero is slow, i.e., is located close to the origin, the control bandwidth gets
drastically reduced regardless of how fast the plants poles might be.
gc
1 C ( s) P0 ( s) C ( s)[ P0e
P0e
1.5
r +
1
Comparison of
step responses
10
20
30
40
Smith controller
P0 ( s)
50
e sT
z
P0 ( s)
Conventional control
0.5
C ( s)
sT
References
(1) Marcel Sidi, Design of Robust Control systems From Classical to Modern Practical Approaches, Kreiger
Publishing Co. FL, USA, (2001)
(2) G C Goodwin, S E Graebe, M E Salgado, Control System design, PrenticeHall of India (2001)