You are on page 1of 15

# CN4227R Project 1

Group 06

Group members:
TIMOTHY YEO YU JIN

A0101826N

## YEO JUN WEN

A0100521H

Submission Date:

Question 1

The objective of experiment 1 is to find the extreme positive parameters for the uncertain process
Gm
Gp
models given the nominal model,
and uncertainty weighting function,
as shown
below.
G m=

l m=

1
s+1

s +0.2
0.4 s+1

The 2 uncertain processes assigned to the group are b) and f) as shown below, where and n are
parameters to be found.
Gb=Gm .

Gf =Gm .

1
s+1

1
0.01 s+1

## and m is given a value of 1 as this gives

the worst possible perturbation which allows the extreme positive parameters to be obtained.
Therefore,

As

lm

and

Gm

have been given, the objective of this question is to use trial and error to

find the maximum positive value of the unknown parameter that when substituted into

Gp

l
will result in the value of () being less than or equal to the magnitude of m for the
entire frequency range.
To do this, the magnitude of
figure 1 below.

lm

## Figure 1: Plot of the uncertainty weight,

Next, the graph of various values of
the initial guess for the value of
of

l m

Gb

in
Gm

## was 0.04 with increments of 0.01 until any point of graph

Gb
1 exceeded that of the uncertainty weight. The value of
Gm

Gb

## 1 is at its maximum possible value and

found to be 1.23. At this point, the value of
Gm
increasing

Gb
any further will result in Gm 1 exceeding

|l m|

## at the region where

the arrow is pointing. A close-up of this region can be found in figure 3. The code required to
produce this graph can be found in appendix A1.

Gb

1
Figure 2: Plot of
Gm

and

l m

in

Gb

## Figure 3: Close-up of the arrowed region in figure 2

The graph of various values of n in

Gf

Gf

## 1 can be found in figure 4. For Gf

for
Gm

, the initial guess for the value of n was 1 with increments of 1 until any point of graph of

Gf
1 exceeded that of the uncertainty weight. The value of n at this point was
Gm

Gf

## 1 is at its maximum possible value and

found to be 89. At this point, the value of
Gm
Gf

## 1 exceeding l m at the region at

n
increasing
any further will result in
Gm
which the arrow is pointing in figure 4. A close-up of this region can be found in figure 5. The
code required to produce this graph can be found in appendix A2.

Gf

1
Figure 4: Plot of
Gm

and

l m

Gf
with varying values of n in

## Figure 5: Close-up of the arrowed region in figure 4

Question 2a)
This question requires a PI controller,

C3

## to be designed based on the Cohen-Coon tuning

method and to compare the performance of this controller with 2 other controllers,
C2

C1

and

designed based on the ITAE performance index for load and set-point respectively. The

equations for

C1

and

1
6.48 s

1
7.39 s

C1 =0.42 1+

C2 =0.28 1+

C2

is shown below.

G m=

Gm

## which is shown below.

4 3.5s
e
7 s +1

Cohen-Coon tuning makes use of the nominal model parameters to design the controller via the
following equations.
K C=

(0.9+
)
K
12

I =
20
9+

30+

Where,
K Nominal process gain=4
Nominal process time constant =7
Nominal process time delay=3.5

Kc

and

C3

as shown below.

## are found to be 0.471 and 5.803

C3 =0.471(1+

1
)
5.803 s

Next, the performance of the controllers is compared to each other for a unit step change in the
set-point using Simulink. A simple feedback loop is designed in Simulink as shown in figure 6.

Figure 6: Simple Feedback loop to simulate unit step set-point changes for

C1 , C2 and C3

The resulting graph is plotted in matlab via the code found in Appendix A3 and is shown in figure 7.

Figure 7: Graph showing the reponses for the 3 different controllers to a unit step set-point change

To determine which controller has the fastest servo response, 2 criteria will be looked at, 1) time
taken for the curves to cross the set point and 2) time taken to reach the first peak. Just by
looking at the graph in figure 7, it is obvious that the Cohen-Coon design gives the fastest servo
response.
Table 1 below shows the specific values for the 2 criteria mentioned above.
Table 1: 1) Time taken for curves to cross set-point and 2) time taken for curves to reach the first
peak for the 3 different controllers.
Controller
Criteria

## Time taken to reach

first peak/s
Time taken to cross
set-point /s

C1 (Load)

C2
(Set-Point)

C3
(Cohen-Coon)

16.3

19.6

15.85

12.65

16.55

12.05

From the 2 criteria mentioned above, it can be seen from table 1 that the shortest times to achieve
C3
these criteria belongs to
, the controller designed using the Cohen-Coon tuning method.
Therefore

C3

## However, the faster speed of servo response for

while the slower speed of servo response for

C1

C1

C3

## has the slowest servo response.

is not indicative of good performance

## is not indicative of poor performance. There

are other factors that determine performance such as peak related criteria. An example of peak
related criteria is the maximum overshoot, the higher the overshoot, the worse the performance
and vice versa. Another example of peak related criteria is the decay ratio which is linked to the
oscillatory nature of the curve. A small decay ratio improves the performance as it reduces the
oscillatory nature of the curve while a large decay ratio worsens performance as it increases the
oscillatory nature of the curve.

Question 2b)
There are 3 equations available to determine the frequency response based robust stability
criteria. These equations are different forms of each other and they are shown below. The
equation that will be used in this section is equation (3).

Equation 3 states that the amount of tolerable uncertainty must be more than the actual
uncertainty in order for a controller to be robustly stable. From this equation, we can also imply
that the greater the amount of tolerable certainty a controller is able to provide given a fixed
Gm
, the more robustly stable a controller is as it can accept a greater actual uncertainty. Figure
1

1

than T 2

1

## has better performance than T 1

as it remains

closer to the value of 1 over a larger range of frequencies. This is indicative of good set-point
1
tracking which can be in turn be interpreted as a fast servo response. Therefore, the closer T
remains to the value of 1 for a larger range of frequencies, the faster the servo response is.
1
It should also be noted that for PI controllers, the values of T
for each of the 3 controllers

tends towards 1 when the frequency goes to 0. This means that at the steady state condition, there
is no offset which is to be expected when using a PI or PID controller.

## Figure 8: Graphical representation of equation (3)

1
Using the code found in appendix A4, a similar graph of T was plot for the 3 different

## controllers. Figure 9 shows this graph.

y-

1
Figure 9: T graph for the 3 controllers

From figure 9, it can be seen that the Cohen-Coon controller has the least tolerable uncertainty,
and hence is the least robust stable. However, it remains closest to the value of 1 over the largest
range of frequencies, giving it the fastest servo response as found in question 2a). Likewise, the
ITAE (set-point) designed controller has the largest tolerable uncertainty and therefore is the

most robust stable. However, it deviates from 1 faster than the other 2 controllers, giving it the
slowest servo response as found in question 2a). The ITAE (load) designed controller is in
between these 2 controllers.
The evaluation of 2a) is consistent with the frequency response based robust stability criterion as
explained above. This also concurs with the theory that robust stability and performance both
cannot be achieved at the same time. It is a problem inherent in feedback control and one will be
achieved at the expense of the other. Therefore, it is up to the designer to decide which is of
greater importance in the process to be controlled and from there decide the parameters for the
controller.

Question 2c)
Assuming the process/model mismatch is entirely due to uncertainty in the process gain, the
Gp
process model
can be represented by the equation shown below.
G p=

K 3.5s
e
7 s +1

Where,
K=unknown process gain
To determine the range of K that each controller can accept, it is important to first note that the
controller gain is positive, therefore the process gain must be positive as well. This acts as the
lower bound for the process gain. The upper bound of the process gain will be determined from
1
l m
equation (3) in section 2b. Equation (3) states that T must be more than
for
all frequencies. Hence the approach to solving this question revolves around finding the

(|T 1|)min

## |l m|< (|T 1|)min

To solve the inequality above, an expression for
below.

lm

## must be found via the equation shown

Gp
Gm
In this question, the expression for () , after substituting in the
and
defined
above, is shown below.
( )=

K
1
4

l
Finally, equating () to m the final expression to solve for the upper bound of K is
shown below.
K
1< (|T 1|)min
4

## K <4 (|T 1|) min +1

Table 2 shows

(|T 1|)min

(found from Matlab), the calculated upper limits of K and finally, the

range of K for which the controller can tolerate based on the frequency response robust stability
criteria

## Table 2: Values of |T-1|min, Upper bound of K and Range of K

Controller

C1 (Load)

C2 (SetPoint)

C3 (CohenCoon)

|T-1|min
Upper bound of
K
Range of K

0.573

1.00

0.404

6.292

5.616

0<K<6.29

0<K<8.00

0<K<5.62

From the ranges of K shown for each controller, it can be seen that the most aggressive
controller, the Cohen-Coon controller, provides the least robust stability while the ITAE (set-

point) designed controller which is the most conservative controller provides the most robust
stability.

Question 2d)
To find out the upper limit of the K is tolerable for each controller, the simulink set-up shown in
figure 6 will be used. For each controller, the value of the process gain, K ,will be increased,
from the upper bound of K found via the robust stability criterion until the time-based response
shows sustained oscillations as shown in figure 10 which is indicative of marginal stability. The
new upper bound value, K* is then noted down for each controller and the results have been
recorded in table 3.

## Figure 10: Sustained oscillations indicative of the marginal stability condition

Table 3: Upper bound of K as determined by the feedback loop response
Controller

C1
(Load)

C2 (SetPoint)

C3
(CohenCoon)

Upper bound of K* as
determined by feedback loop
response

7.31

11.37

6.27

Upper bound of K as
determined by frequency
response robust stability
criterion (2c)

6.292

5.616

From the values shown in table 3, it can be seen that the values obtained from the feedback loop
response is higher than the values obtained from the frequency response robust stability criterion.