Case Study

• P-I-D Control Actions • Design of A P-I-D Controller • Case Study

P-I-D Control Actions
Consider a typical control system shown in the following figure:

where, G2(s) is the plant that needs to be controlled, such as motor system, equivalent mass-damping-spring system, etc.; G1(s) is the controller to be designed. Ignoring the sensor dynamics, that is, H(s)=1, the error signal E(s) is obtained by E(s)=R(s)-C(s). The control action is a control actuating signal U(s) generated by G1(s) based on the error signal: U(s)=G1(s)E(s) The controller is supposed to: 1. make sure that the closed-loop transfer function C(s)/R(s) yield satisfied performance as may be specified; 2. eliminate or at least reduce effect of the undesired disturbance signal, if applicable, on the output signal C(s) or the error signal E(s).

P-I-D Control Actions
Classical controller action: Proportional-Integral-Differential

where Kp, Ti and Td are controller parameters to be designed. In general, proportional action------ amplifies the error signal instantaneously; integral action -------- accumulates the error effect so that even the error signal is zero, the regulation action could still last; Differential action ------- predicate the future of the error signal and forward looking regulation.

Design of A P-I-D Controller
Following methods can be applied to design of a PID controller 1. Trial-and-Error 2. Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Rules 3. Frequency Response and Root Locus Trial-and-Error: Key for successful use of the trial-and-error method is thorough understanding of the effect of P-I-D on the system performance, i.e., stability, transient performance, as well as tracking accuracy, which will be illustrated in the Case Study.

Design of A P-I-D Controller
Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Rules: These rules are experiment based and can be used to provide initial guess of controller parameters. They are normally used in conjunction with the trial-and-error approach.

Consider a P-I-D control system R(s) + E(s) Kp(1+1/(Tis)+Tds) Plant P(s) C(s)

Design of A P-I-D Controller
Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Rule-I (Applicable to an over-damped plant): First, obtain the unit-step response of the plant

Second, identify the inflection point graphically, draw a tangent line through this point, and find out the values of L and T

Design of A P-I-D Controller
P-I-D parameters can be determined as specified in the following Table:

Design of A P-I-D Controller
Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Rule-II: First, apply a P-control only to forming a closed-loop system and apply a unit-step signal to the closed-loop system;

Second, increase Kp from 0 to a critical value Kcr such that a sustained oscillation is just observed and find out the period Pcr

Design of A P-I-D Controller
P-I-D parameters can be determined as specified in the following Table:

Case Study
Consider an armature-controlled motor system with a load

Motor and load—schematic diagram Ea(s) + Ia(s) 1/(Ra+sLa) Kt Tm(s) 1/(sJm+Dm) 1/s

Kb

Block transfer function diagram

Case Study
Suppose that the shaft angle is the controlled variable. The shaft angle is measured by either a rotary transformer or an encoder installed on the same shaft and the angle signal (a voltage signal) can be fed back to a comparator to compare with the reference angle signal in voltage form. An angle error signal can then be obtained and will be used to drive the controller to be designed. The control actuating signal is Z(s) the armature voltage. Measured angle from encoder or else vf Zf(s) Zr(s) vr Reference angle Controller Angle v error e vc Ground Ve(s) Vf(s) Vc(s)=Ea(s) To armature

Schematic diagram of comparator and controller Vr(s) + Block Transfer Function Diagram C(s)

Case Study
Combining the block transfer function diagrams of motor and comparator/controller into the block transfer function diagram of the controlled motor system for shaft angle: Ve(s) C(s) Vf(s) Kb Ea(s) + Ia(s) 1/(Ra+sLa) Kt Tm(s) 1/(sJm+Dm) 1/s

Vr(s) +

K(s)

Case Study
Note that, normally, that is, the transient process in the armature circuit can be ignored and the motor transient process is dominated by the mechanical motion. On the other hand, since sensor is also an device with fast transient dynamics , so we can ignore its transient dynamics too and assume that H(s)=1, without loss of generality. Considering that

Case Study
We have the following reduced blocked transfer function diagram Controller Plant

Vr(s) + -

Ve(s) C(s) Vf(s)

Ea(s) 1/s

and, clearly, the controller must be designed such that the performance (stability, transient and tracking error, etc.) of the closed-loop transfer function from Vr(s) to the shaft angle is satisfied.

Case Study
1. P-Control: C(s)=Kp Vr(s) + Vf(s) Ve(s) Kp Ea(s) 1/s

In this case, the closed-loop transfer function is

Case Study
Stability Analysis: From the closed-loop transfer function, Routh Array can be formed So for any Kp>0, the closed-loop system is stable. In other word, a Pcontrol will stabilize the closed-loop system. Transient analysis: So and

This will result in faster oscillation and higher overshoot, whereas, faster response Tracking accuracy: P-Control does not change the type of the system which, in this case, is a type-1 system. Note that the velocity error constant is: Clearly, higher Kp will result in a lower tracking error for a unit-ramp reference signal but no effect on tracking performance for unit-step and unit-acceleration reference signals.

Case Study
2. PI-Control: C(s)=Kp+Kp/(Tis) Vr(s) + Ve(s) Kp+Kp /(Tis) Vf(s) Ea(s) 1/s

Closed-loop transfer function

Case Study
Stability analysis: Note that adding an integral control action increases the order of closed-loop system by 1. Hence, the closed-loop system becomes a conditional stable one. Routh array is formed as:

Integral control usually can not be used without P-control ! Transient analysis: no quantitative result could be given but, in general, a PIcontrol tends to decrease the response time as all poles are tentatively pushed to be close to the imaginary axis. Tracking accuracy: PI-control increase the type of the system from type-1 to type-2 as it adds one more pole at the origin to the open-loop system. Therefore it enhances the tracking performance of the closedloop system. The acceleration error constant is

Case Study
3. PD-Control: C(s)=Kp+KpTds Vr(s) + Vf(s) Ve(s) Kp+Kp Tds Ea(s) 1/s

Closed-loop transfer function:

Case Study
Stability analysis: Routh array is formed as PD-control stabilizes the closed-loop system.

Transient analysis: Comparing with P-control, the D-control increase the damping ratio of the closedloop system without changing the natural frequency, therefore, resulting in lower Overshoot while unchanging oscillation frequency, as well as a longer reponse time. Tracking accuracy: Note that the PD-control yields same tracking performance as that of P-control. Can you analyze the performance of PID-control system ?

Case Study
In summary: 1. P-control: basic control action; stabilizing system; faster response and higher overshoot; improving tracking error if applicable. 2. I-control: cannot be used separately; decrease stability margin; significantly improving tracking performance; normally resulting in slower response. 3. D-control: significantly improving stability margin; lower overshoot; slower response; no effect on tracking performance.

Case Study
Consider the case that there exists disturbance signal: Td(s) Vr(s) + Ve(s) C(s) Vf(s) Kb Ea(s) + Ia(s) Tm(s) + 1/(Ra+sLa) Kt +

1/(sJm+Dm)

1/s

K(s)

Case Study
Still, assume La=0 and H(s)=1, and move the disturbance signal to Ea(s), we have Td(s) Ra / Kt Vr(s) + Ve(s) Ea(s) + + C(s) -

Kt /Ra

1/(sJm+Dm)

1/s

Vf(s) Kb

Case Study
We have already done performance analysis for the case that there is no Disturbance signal. Now to conduct analysis that how controller would affect the closed system response under a disturbance signal, we first derive the closed-loop transfer function from the disturbance signal to the shaft angle assuming that R(s)=0:

Note that stability performance of the system is not changed by the existence of a disturbance signal. The most important performance concerned here is the tracking performance. To illustrate the effect of disturbance signal, let’s assume that a C(s), whatever is used here, stabilize the closed-loop system and a unit-step disturbance signal (Td(s)=1/s) is considered. Then we have:

Case Study
For C(s)=Kp, For C(s)=Kp+Kp /(Tis), For C(s)=Kp+KpTds, Therefore, to address the effect of a unit-step disturbance signal, one has to use a PI-control or a controller with higher gain (Kp) in case there is no integral action in the controller.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful