## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

• 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.

- 88324 - X.Chen -Solution Assignment II
- 88324 Control System Mid Term2005
- 88324 - X.Chen -Solution Assignment IV
- 88324 Control System Mid Term2006
- 88324 - X.Chen - Note 4
- 88324 - X.Chen - Note 1
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note Frequency Response2
- 88324 - X.Chen -Solution Assignment III
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 6
- Note 5
- 88324 Control System Mid Term2008
- 88324 Control System Mid Term2007
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 7
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note Frequency Response1
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 3
- 171067176
- Block Diagrams and Transfer Functions
- 88324 Control System - Solution Assignment 5
- Adaptive nonlinear control using input normalized neural networks.pdf
- acs set 1
- Adaptive Control 2nd. Edt. by Karl.J.astrom - Solution Manuel
- [1]-sdarticle (10)
- LIST OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS 2008
- HW9 Solutions
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 9
- 88324 Control System - Solution Assignment 7 - 2010
- HW01_Guidi_MAIN.pdf
- Single Input Single Output System
- Rssi on Pucch and Pusch Effect Lte
- Process dynamics and Control seborg 2nd ch10 Solutions

Skip carousel

- Position Control of Satellite In Geo-Stationary Orbit Using Sliding Mode Control Algorithm
- tmpEF5E.tmp
- A Review on Model Based Methods to Degrade Nonlinearity Effects for Control Prosthetic Arm
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.001.11f taught by Nicholas Gans (nrg092000)
- Tuning of PI Controller using Integral Performance Criteria for FOPTD System
- tmp4D3F.tmp
- UT Dallas Syllabus for mech4310.002.11s taught by James Hilkert (jmh011500)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.501.09f taught by Gerald Burnham (burnham)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.501.11f taught by Gerald Burnham (burnham)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for mech4310.001.11f taught by James Hilkert (jmh011500)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.002.08s taught by Charles Bernardin (cpb021000)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.001.08s taught by Gerald Burnham (burnham)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for opre7346.001 06s taught by Alain Bensoussan (axb046100)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.001.11f taught by Nicholas Gans (nrg092000)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.501.11s taught by Charles Bernardin (cpb021000)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.0u1.10u taught by James Hilkert (jmh011500)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.5u1.09u taught by (jmh011500)
- tmp5C4F.tmp
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.001.09f taught by Charles Bernardin (cpb021000)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.021.07u taught by (jmh011500)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.001.07s taught by Gerald Burnham (burnham)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.0u1.11u taught by Nicholas Gans (nrg092000)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.001 06f taught by Gerald Burnham (burnham)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.001.07f taught by Louis Hunt (hunt)
- Design And Fabrication Of A.C.V. -A Review
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.5u1.08u taught by (jmh011500)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.501.11f taught by Gerald Burnham (burnham)
- tmp67C0.tmp
- PSO based optimization of a PI controller for a Real time Pressure process
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ee4310.501.08f taught by (jmh011500)

- 88329 Analogue Communication Assignment 6 & 7 2004
- 88329 Analogue Communication Assignment 4
- 88324 Control System - Solution Assignment 5
- Daily News
- 88324 Control System - Solution Assignment 8
- 88329 Analogue Communication Assignment 3
- 88324 Control System Mid Term2008
- 88324 Control System Mid Term2007
- 88324 Control System - Solution Assignment 7 - 2010
- 88329 Analogue Communication Assignment 3 2005
- 88329 Analogue Communication Assignment 2
- 88324 Control System - Solution Assignment 6 - 2010
- 88329 Analogue Communication Assignment 1
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 2
- Solution-Assignment v and VI
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note Frequency Response2
- Solution Assignment I
- 88324 - X.Chen -Solution Assignment III
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 6
- Note 5
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 7
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 9
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note Frequency Response1
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 3

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading