Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic)

Mechanical Engineering Department

Control System Design Example Set #04

Instructor: Dr. Zareinejad
Date: 1399/03/26

Example 1
Design a lead compensator to satisfy tr < 0.6s and %OS < 10% for
1
G(s) = .
s2 + 2s + 2
Determine the gain needed to achieve the specifications and verify they are met by plotting the
step response.

Note that because the rise time relationship to the natural frequency is an approximation
and also because the compensator adds a zero, if the specifications include rise time or
overshoot measures, it may be necessary to iterate on the design. Also, as with any set of
design specifications, sometimes it just is not possible to meet them all, in which case we
determine a suitable compromise.
For G(s), we determine the steady-state error to a unit step input using the final value
theorem and verify our computation using the MATLAB or step command or something
similar. If the steady-state error is not zero, we design a lag compensator to be placed
in series with the lead compensator that reduces the steady-state error by an order of
magnitude but that does not significantly alter the transient response that was the result
of the lead compensator. Then we verify the compensator is working by plotting the step
response for the system with and without the lag compensator using the MATLAB or step
command.
It is useful to note that
1.8 − √ ζπ (ln OS)2
tr ∼
= OS = e 1−ζ 2 → ζ 2 = 2
ωn π + (ln OS)2
p
After choosing ζ and ωn , the desired pole location is s = −ζωn ± jωn 1 − ζ 2 . Therefore,
the constraints on the damping ratio and natural frequency are
ζ > 0.59, ωn > 3.
Picking ζ = 0.8 and ωn = 2.5 gives a desired pole location of s = −2 ± 1.5j. This is not
exactly within our range, however, the bounds on the natural frequency are based on an
approximation. We will place the zero at −2. This gives the following angles
θp1 = 153.43◦ , θp2 = 111.80◦ , θz = 90◦
Control System Design (Dr Zareinejad): Example Set #4 1399/03/26

which gives a pole angle of

θp = 180◦ − θp1 − θp2 = 4.76◦ .

The location of the pole is found to be at −20. The gain for this lead compensator is found
to be p
(0.52 + 1)(2.52 + 1)(182 + 1.52 )
K= = 36.25.
1.5
The lead compensator is then found to be
s+2
C(s) = 36.25 .
s + 20
The step response of the original system is shown in red the figures below. The compen-
sated system is shown in blue. To help with checking if the design specifications are met, a
zoomed in view of the response is shown in the figures. Note that the steady state value is
0.645 with a peak value of 0.703, which gives an 9.1% overshoot. The value of the response
at 0.6 seconds is 0.612, which is 95% of the steady state. This means that the system has a
faster rise time than 0.6 seconds. Therefore this controller satisfies both design specifica-
tions.
The steady state value is computed by
 
1 C(s)G(s)
yss = lim s = 0.645
s→0 s 1 + C(s)G(s)

This gives a steady-state error of 0.356. Since this does not equal zero, a lag compensator
must be designed. The directions to not alter the transient response can have two different
definitions. This can be seen in the two different output responses. One lag compensator
is
s + 0.1
Clag (s) = ,
s + 0.005
where the gain of the system, K, is left unchanged. The output response is shown in black
in the figures, with a zoomed out plot to show the steady state value. The calculated steady-
state value is 0.973 resulting in a steady-state error of 0.0268. This lead-lag compensated
response matches closely to the original lead compensated response, only deviating to
increase the steady-state value.

Example 1 continued on next page. . . Page 2 of 7

Control System Design (Dr Zareinejad): Example Set #4 1399/03/26

Another lag compensator is

s + 0.1
Clag (s) = 150 ,
s + 0.01
where the gain of the overall system, K is changed to 150. The output response is shown
in black in the figures below, accompanying a zoomed out plot to show the steady state
value. The calculated steady-state value is 0.987 resulting in a steady-state error of 0.0132.
This lead-lag compensated system meets the same design specifications as the lead com-
pensator.

Example 2
A control system with unity feedback has the form shown in the figure below. The overshoot for
a step input should be less than 13%. Use a lead network for C(s) and reduce the settling time
to less than 3 seconds.

When
s + 1.114
C(s) = 82.3
s + 11.46
the closed-loop transfer function would be
s + 1.114
P (s) = 82.3
s4 + 16.46s3 + 61.3s2 + 128.14s + 91.6822
s + 1.114
→ P (s) = 82.3 .
(s + 1.196)(s + 12.26)(s + 1.5 ± j2)
Therefore ζ = 0.6 and the predicted overshoot is P.O. = 9.5% < 13%.

Page 3 of 7
Control System Design (Dr Zareinejad): Example Set #4 1399/03/26

Example 3
The block diagram of a ship-controling system is shown in the figure below. The desired response
of the system to disturbance D(s) due to the presence of waves is a constant-level travel of the
ship. Establish a set of reasonable specifications and design a compensator C(s) so that the per-
formance of the system is suitable. Assume that the disturbance is due to waves with a frequency
ω = 6rad/s.

A small response for a disturbance at 6 rad/sec is desired; therefore, the compensator is

considered as
K(s2 + as + b)
C(s) = .
s2 + 36
The Bode plot of C(s)P (s) is shown below and as desired, the magnitude is large at ω = 6.

Selecting a = 4, b = 10, and K = 10 results in a closed-loop response to a sinusoidal

disturbance at ω = 6 rad/sec as shown in the figure below. It should be noted that the
effect of the disturbance is virtually eliminated in steady-state.

Example 3 continued on next page. . . Page 4 of 7

Control System Design (Dr Zareinejad): Example Set #4 1399/03/26

Example 4
Outline a design for a unity-feedback system with a plant given by
2000
P (s) =
s(s + 5)(s + 10)

and the performance specifications:

(a) P M ≈ 45◦
(b) Kp = 50
(c) The bandwidth BW of the compensated system must be approximately equal to or not much
greater than that of the uncompensated system, because high-frequency "noise" disturbances are
present under normal operating conditions.
(d) The compensated system should not respond sluggishly; that is the predominant time constant τ
of the system must be maintained at a value approximately the same as that of the uncompensated
system.

A simple calculation clearly shows that the uncompensated system is unstable (e.g., try
the Routh test). Therefore compensation is mandatory. But due to the stringent nature of
the specifications, a detailed design for this system using Nyquist techniques requires too
much effort, if done manually. The techniques of the next few chapters provide a much
simpler solution. However, analysis of the problem statement indicates the kind o f com-
pensation needed.
For P (s), Kp = lims→0 sP (s) = 40. Therefore satisfaction of (b) requires a gain compen-
sation of 5/4. But an increase in gain only makes the system more unstable. Therefore
additional compensation is necessary. Lead compensation is probably inadequate due to
(c), and lag compensation is not possible due to (d). Thus it appears that a lag-lead net-
work and an amplifier would most likely satisfy all criteria. The lag portion o f the lag-lead
network would satisfy (c), and the lead portion (d) and (a).

Page 5 of 7
Control System Design (Dr Zareinejad): Example Set #4 1399/03/26

Example 5
The open-loop transfer function of a unity feedback system is given as G(s). Design a compensator
for the plant using Bode plot sketches so that the closed-loop system satisfies the following speci-
fications. Verify and refine your design using MATLAB including a computation of the closed-loop
frequency response to verify all of the mentioned criteria.

(a) The steady-state error to a unit ramp input < 0.01

(b) The steady-state error for sinusoidal inputs with ω < 0.2 rad/sec < 1/250
(c) P M ≥ 45◦
(d) The sensor signal includes noise components at frequencies greater than 200 rad/sec. These
components should be attenuated at the output by at least a factor of 100

The first specification implies Kv ≥ 100 and thus K ≥ 100. The bode plot with K = 1
and D = 1 below shows that there is a negative phase margin, but all the other specs are
met. The easiest way to see this is to hand plot the asymptotes and mark the constraints
that the gain must be ≥ 250 at ω ≤ 0.2 rad/sec and the gain must be ≤ 0.01 for ω ≥ 200
rad/sec.

In fact, the specs are exceeded at the low frequency side, and slightly exceeded on the high
frequency side. But it will be difficult to increase the phase at crossover without violating
the specs. From a hand plot of the asymptotes, we see that a combination of lead and lag
will do the trick. Placing the lag according to

s/2 + 1
Clag (s) =
s/0.2 + 1

Example 5 continued on next page. . . Page 6 of 7

Control System Design (Dr Zareinejad): Example Set #4 1399/03/26

will lower the gain curve at frequencies just prior to crossover so that a −1 slope is more
easily achieved at crossover without violating the high frequency constraint. In addition,
in order to obtain as much phase at crossover as possible, a lead according to

s/5 + 1
Clead (s) =
s/50 + 1

will preserve the −1 slope from ω = 5 rad/sec to ω = 20 rad/sec which will bracket the
crossover frequency and should result in a healthy phase margin. A look at the Bode plot
shows that all specs are met except the P M = 44. Perhaps close enough, but a slight
increase in lead should do the trick. So our final compensation is

s/2 + 1 s/4 + 1
C(s) =
s/0.2 + 1 s/50 + 1

with K = 100. This does meet all specs with P M = 45◦ exactly, as can be seen by
examining the Bode plot below.

Page 7 of 7