Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Proportional & Integral Controllers: S K K S E S U
Proportional & Integral Controllers: S K K S E S U
E(s)
1
+ R2
sC1
U ( s)
=
E (S )
R1
C1 R2
e(t) R1
U(s)
KP
u (t )
R
1
= 1 +
R2 sC1 R1
1
s 2 + 3s + 2
Gc(s)
R(s)
E(s)
+
K P (1 +
1
)
sTI
Gp(s)
U(s)
1
s + 3s + 2
C(s)
Thus:
OLTF = K P ( s +
CLTF =
1 G p (s)
)
TI
s
K P ( s + 1 TI )
C (s)
=
2
R( s) s( s + 3s + 2) + sK P + K P TI
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
Tuning PI Controllers
General approach to tuning:
1. Initially have no integral gain (TI large)
2. Increase KP until get satisfactory response
3. Start to add in integral (decreasing TI) until the steady state error
is removed in satisfactory time
(may need to reduce KP if the combination becomes oscillatory)
Anti-windup in I & PI controllers
Under some operating conditions non-linearities in the plant or
controller can stop an Integral controller from removing the steady
state error. If the Integrator output is not limited, then during this
time the total of the integrated (summed) error {KIe(t)dt} will
continue to build. Once the restrictions are finally removed,
problems can arise because this built up energy must be removed
before the integral control can act normally this can take a long
time. To avoid this, anti-windup circuits are added that place
limits on the integral total. These limits are usually placed on the
summed output of the P&I controller as well.
u(t)
5V
t
C1 R2
R(s)
E(s)
-1
R1
U(s)
Gp(s)
C(s)
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
KI =
KP
TI
1
de(t )
u (t ) = K P e(t ) + e(t )dt + TD
TI
dt
K D = K P TD
KI
K D s 2 + K P s + K I N ( s)
U (s)
= KP +
+ KDs =
=
E (s)
s
s
D( s)
1
U ( s)
1
= KP
+ (1 + sTD )
E ( s)
(1 + sTD )
sTI
e(t)
C2
R3
R1
_
+
C1
R1 +
R1 +
sC
U (s)
1
=
+
E
(
S
)
R
u (t )
3
R2 +
1
sC1
1
sC 2
R
1
C (1 + sC1R1 )
= 1 +
+ 2
R3 sC1 R3 C1 (1 + sC2 R2 )
U (s)
1
sC1 R1
K
sK PTD
K P + P +
1 + 2 +
+
=
E ( s)
sTI 1 + sTD
R3 C1 sC1R3 (1 + sC2 R2 )
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
R C
U (s)
1
= 1 + 2
+
E (s)
R
C
R
C
1
3
sC R 1 + 2
1 3 R3 C1
R
C2 R1 1 + 2
R3
1 + s
R1 C2
+
R3 C1
(1 + sC2 R2 )
Proportional:
1
Gc ( s) = K p 1 +
sTI
1
1 + sTD
Gc ( s ) = K P
+
sTI 1 + s0.1TD
PI:
PID:
1. Set TD = 0 & TI =
2. Increase KP until the system just starts to oscillate (KP = KPO).
The frequency of oscillation here is c and the period is
TO=2/c.
Set controller gains as:
Type
KP
TI
TD
P
PI
PID
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
Notes:
1. Even though first and second order systems cannot in principle
fully oscillate, practical systems always contain transport delays
and non-linearities that make them oscillate if the loop gain is
high.
2. A disadvantage with the Z-N technique is that it really needs to
be performed in real-time in the actual plant. In some cases it
may be undesirable to have the plant/process oscillate even for
tuning purposes.
E(s)
+
U(s)
Tacho Feedback
Km
(s + 1 )
1
s
C(s) =
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
E(s)
K
U(s)
Tacho Feedback
Km
(s + 1 )
KK m
(s + 1 )
=
KK m K
1+
(s + 1 )
E(s)
+
KK m
s + (1 + KK m K )
1
s
C(s) =
KK m
C ( s)
=
= 2
R( s ) ref
s + s (1 + KK m K ) + KK m
and
1 + KK m K
2 KK m
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
ROOT LOCUS
Root locus: is a plot of the paths of the characteristic equation for a
closed loop system (CLTF poles) in the complex plane as a function
of various loop gains.
Plotting Techniques
1. Determine the OLTF of the system.
R(s)
E(s)
Gc(s)
GP(s)
C(s)
G ( s)
CLTF =
1 + G ( s) H ( s)
H(s)
K ( s + z1 ) K
( s + p1 )( s + p2 ) K
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
1 + G (s) H ( s) = 0
3. The characteristic equation is:
so that the roots of this equation must satisfy the expression:
G( s) H ( s) =
K ( s + z1 ) K
= 1
( s + p1 )( s + p2 ) K
G (s) H (s) = 1
(i)
G ( s ) H ( s ) = (1 + 2h)
(ii)
where h=0, 1, 2,
Ex:
G (s) H (s) =
K ( s + z1 )
s ( s + p2 )( s + p3 )
-p3
-z1
-p2
-p1
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
K s + z1
s s + p2 s + p3
=1
K=
s s + p2 s + p3
s + z1
180 o = 1 1 2 3
Further examples:
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
Qualitative analysis
How do zeros and higher order poles in the OLTF (G(s)H(s)) affect
the root locus plot?
In order to answer this we'll first try to obtain a conceptual feel for
the effects of additional zeros and poles on simple and more complex
systems by looking at the following root locus plots.
Observations
1. The addition of a zero to the OLTF - pulls the root locus to the
left. This tends to enable poles to be selected that result in stable
faster response times (ie, the settling time is smaller).
2. The addition of a pole to the OLTF - pulls the root locus to the
right so that slower response times are possible, but the new root
locus paths may cross over into the RHP so that K must be
bounded to avoid instability.
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
Ex fig 7.4
(DAzzo & Houpis Linear Control System Analysis & Design)
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
Ex fig 7.5
(DAzzo & Houpis Linear Control System Analysis & Design)
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
K=
s p
c =1
W
sz
h =1
when: s = pc, K = 0,
and
when: s = zh, K = .
also since for proper systems: N W, then: (NW) poles must exist
such that their root locus branches do not finish on a zero, but rather
go to infinity (s) as K, (this is equivalent to the effect of a
zero).
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
The starting points (K=0) are the poles of the OLTF locus path.
The ending points (K=) are either zeros of the OLTF or points at
s= that are considered equivalent zeros of multiplicity (N-W)).
4. Asymptotes of Locus as s approaches Infinity
N-W branches of the root locus have straight line asymptotes (as
s )emulating from a single point whose angles (w.r.t the real
axis) are given by:
(1 + 2h)
(N W )
h=0,1, 2
Proof:
lim G ( s ) H ( s ) = lim
s
K
s
N W
= 1
G ( s ) H ( s ) = K s N W = (1 + 2h)
( N W )s = (1 + 2h)
where s =
As N and W are constants for a given OLTF then as s
(irrespective of magnitude) the angle constant. Thus the
branches are asymptotic to straight lines.
Examples:
(i) (N-W) = 1
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
(ii) (N-W) = 2
j
(iii) (N-W) = 3
(iv) (N-W) = 4
0 = ( pc ) ( z h ) ( N W )
h =1
c =1
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
Ex fig 7.11
(DAzzo & Houpis Linear Control System Analysis & Design)
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
(iii)a pole and a zero: either pairs of breakaway and break-in points
occur, or none at all.
K
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
z p
c =1
h =1
= 1 + 2 + K 1 2 3 K = (1 + 2 h)
A test point is chosen very close to, but not exactly on, the complex
root of interest (r) so that all angles between the remaining roots
and this test point are equivalent to the angles measured between
these roots and r.
Ex:
G( s) H ( s) =
Given
( s + z1 )
s( s + p 2 )(s + a jb)( s + a + jb)
-z1
-p2
-p1
-p4
Type 1:
Bode:
G ( j ) H ( j ) =
K
(1 + jT1 2 )(1 + jT2 2 )
G ( j ) H ( j ) =
K (1 + jTa 2 )
j (1 + jT1 2 )
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
90
Polar/Nyquist:
180
90
180
90
90
Type 2:
Bode:
(Example)
G ( j ) H ( j ) =
K2
( j ) 2 (1 + jTa )
Ex Fig 8.10
(DAzzo & Houpis Linear Control System Analysis & Design)
Polar:
(stable)
(unstable)
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
However, the poles of B(s) are simply the poles of the OLTF, while
the zeros of B(s) are the poles of the CLTF.
Proof by example:
G ( s) H (s) =
K
s 2 (1 + sT )
CLTF =
K
s 2 (1 + sT ) + K
s 2 (1 + sT ) + K
=0
B( s) = 1 + G ( s ) H ( s ) =
s 2 (1 + sT )
In the frequency domain this test for stability only requires a plot of
B(j) as " < < +" and we need to determine the net number of
rotations about the origin (B(j)=0).
Alternatively since B(j
)
1 = G(j
)H(j
), we can plot G(j
)H(j
)
and look at the net rotations about the 1 point:
Type 0 system stability.
Given: G ( j ) H ( j ) =
k
(1 + jT1 )(1 + jT2 )(1 + jT3 )
180
... (1)
90
90
NR =
from (1): PR(OLTF)= 0,
thus:
PR(CLTF)= 0
k
j (1 + jT1 )(1 + jT2 )
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3
Type 2 examples
k (1 + jTa )
( j ) (1 + jT1 )(1 + jT2 )
where T a > T1 + T2 + T3
G ( j ) H ( j ) =
Ex Fig 8.33
(DAzzo & Houpis Linear Control System Analysis & Design)
Conditionally stable systems can also arise where both increases and
decreases in k will cause instability (as shown below)
Ex Fig 8.34
(DAzzo & Houpis Linear Control System Analysis & Design)
Final notes:
Only the positive part of G(j)H(j) for 0<<+ need be plotted
since the polar plots are symmetrical about the real axis.
If the curve of G(j)H(j) passes through -1, Nyquist fails to tell us
anything since this is equivalent to zeros on the Imaginary axis,
however this also means the CL system will have a term which
produces sustained oscillations. This condition is considered
unstable.
Created by Dr Grant Covic for paper: Systems and Control 1998: Document 2 of 3