A UNIFIED APPROACH FOR TEACHING ROOT LOCUS
AND BODE COMPENSATOR DESIGN
Richard T. O’Brien Jr. and John M. Watkins
Systems Engineering Department
The United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, MD
ABSTRACT
In an undergraduate controls course taught with a standard
textbook. students often lose sight of the “forest” of control
systems design because they struggle to master the numerous
control system algorithm “trees” found in this textbook. As an
alternative, the authors of this paper propose a design approach
that is common for a large variety of compensators using both the
more intuitive root locus design and the more practical Bode
design methods. This approach is based on a simple procedure for
root locus Proportional-Derivative (PD) design. In this paper, the
Bode design procedures for three compensators: lead, PI, and
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) are developed from this
simple PD design. Procedures for rate feedback, lag and PI-lead
(practical PID) compensators have also been developed using this
approach. The proposed Bode design procedures are very similar
to the procedures developed for root locus design published
previously. An example of a lead design from an undergraduate
control system laboratory demonstrating this approach is
presented.
1. INTRODUCTION
In controls education today, there seems to be gap between the
theory taught in the typical undergraduate classroom and what
students are able to apply to practical systems. One obvious
reason for this is the lack of undergraduate control system
laboratories. The control systems community has recognized this
need [1,2.3]. In oui department, as well as many departments
around the world, undergraduate control system laboratories are
being developed [4,51.
A less o h i o u s reason for this gap is the “cookbook approach to
compensator design found in typical classical control textbooks
[6,7,8]. For example,’aquick comparison reveals significant
differences in the procedures for root locus lead design and root
locus Proportional-Integral (PI) design. Even more importantly,
there are significant differences in the procedures for lead
compensator design using root locus techniques and Bode
techniques. Furthermore, for even fairly simple systems, these
design procedures may yield poor results [9]. As a consequence,
students end up concentrating on the different “recipes”, which
may or may not yield satisfactory results, and as a consequence,
tend to m i s s the big picture.
As an alternative, the authors of this paper recommend an
approach where the design procedures are similar for different
types of compensators, such as lead and PI. More importantly, the
design procedures are similar for both root-locus and Bode. There
is some debate among the controls community as to whether root
locus should continue to be taught in today’s classroom. One
justification for teaching root locus is that it is more intuitive than
design in the frequency domain. However, with the significant
dfferences in design procedures found in classical control
02003 IEEE
0-7803-7896-2/03/$17.00
Authorized licensed use limited to: Isidro Lazaro. Downloaded on December 11, 2009 at 00:16 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
textbooks, it is difficult for the students to carry this intuition
forward as they move from root locus to Bode.
The approach in this paper is based on a simple procedure for root
locus Proportional-Derivative (PD) design [6]. In this paper, the
Bode design procedures for three compensators: lead, PI, and
Proponional-Integral-Derivative(PID) are developed from this
simple PD design. Procedures for rate feedback, lag and PI-lead
(practical PID) compensators have also been developed using this
approach and can be found in [IO]. The proposed Bode design
procedures are very similar to the procedures developed for root
locus design in [l I]. The goal in developng the unified root locus
and Bode design procedures is for the students to be able to apply
a common design approach for all compensators. Computations
required will depend on the form in which the system information
is presented. For example, in root locus design, the computational
procedures are based on the open-loop transfer function whereas,
in Bode design, the computational procedures are based on the
magnitude and phase of the open-loop frequency response. With
this simple unified approach, students can concentrate on the
larger control system design issues, such as compensator selection,
rather than the intricacies of a particular design procedure. ThGe
are analytical techniques for lag and lead design that calculate the
compensators using similar mathematics [ 12,131. However, these
methods are not presented in a manner that is easily generalized to
other compensators or design domains.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. A review of
Bode design and the general compensator design problem is
presented in Section 2. A PD compensator design procedure is
presented in Section 3. To illustrate the common design approach,
this Bode design procedure is compared to the root locus PD
design procedure found in [I I]. In Section 4, a lead compensator
design procedure is presented and the limits of its performance are
evaluating using a comparable PD compensator design. A design
procedure for the PI compensator is presented in Section 5 and
design procedures for the PID are presented in Section 6 . An
example of a lead design from an undergraduate control system
laboratory is presented in Section 7. Concluding remarks are
presented in Section 8.
2. COMPENSATOR DESIGN USING BODE PLOTS
.
TE?!$p?I-
RIB1
%14 %(el
Figure 1: Closed-loop black diagram
0.lS
Piweedings ol the American Conlrol Conference
645 Denver. Colorado June 46,2003
The methods for compensator design using Bode plots are well
known and well documented. The block diagram of a feedback
control system is shown in Figure 1 where G,(s) represents the
plant, G,(s) represents the actuator. C,(s) represents the
compensator, and H(s) represents the sensor. The desired
closed-loop transfer function can he determined from the
specifications on the transient performance. Using a Znd order
assumption, these specifications can be converted into desired
values for 5 and w, . For the closed-loop block diagram in
Figure I . design rules are established to relate the frequency
response of the open loop transfer function KG,(s)G,,(s) and the
closed-loop step response where C,,,(s) = G,(s)Gp(s)H(s).A
connection is established between the phase margin and gain
crossover frequency of the open loop Bode plot and the closed-
loop damping ratio and undamped natural frequency.
For a standard 20dorder system, the phase margin ( P M ) of
KG,(s)C,(s) and the closed-loop damping ratio are related by
Using a linear, least squares approximation, a simplified linear
formula can be obtained
PM =[ lOOC OSCS0.6
45C + 33 0.65 C S 1.0
For a standard 2" order system, the ratio of the gain crossover
.
freauencv to the undamned natural freauencv is eiven bv
=>rm
I -
wgrn . Using this ratio. the expression for
ph=e margin in (1) can be rewritten as PM =tan-'
[ -
2o):r
As a result, the desired wZccan be determined from the desired
and o, because the phase margin PM is determined from
(2).
Using the above results, the specifications are stated in terms of
the desired phase margin PM and gain crossover frequency 0,.
If the specifications cannot he achieved using proportional control
(C,(s) = 1 ), a compensator must he added to the system. Given
the desired phase margin PM and gain crossover frequency arc,
the requirements on the compensator and the control gain can be
written in terms of the magnitude and phase of C,(s) as
8, = LG,(jw8,) = +l80" t PM - LG,,(~o,,)
3. PD COMPENSATOR DESIGN
The PD compensator is the most basic compensator that improves
the transient response and has a transfer function C,(s)= s + z
Authorized licensed use limited to: Isidro Lazaro. Downloaded on December 11, 2009 at 00:16 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The zero location is chosen to improve the phase margin and the
control gain K is chosen to achieve the desired crossover
frequency.
The phase angle of the PD compensator is given by
LG.(jw)=tan-'(;) (6)
The required compensator phase at the gain crossover frequency
8, is computed using (4). The phase margin and gain crossover
frequency specifications are achieved if
LG,(jw,J =8, (7)
Using (6)and (7), the PD zero is computed as
After G,(s) has been determined, the control gain K is
computed using ( 5 ) .
There is a limit to the improvement that a PD compensator can
(1)
deliver. The PD compensator can add at most 90' of phase.
Therefore, if 0 < 6,c 90" , a PD compensator can be used to
achieve the specifications.
In [l 11. a PD design procedure was presented using rmt locus
techniques. Given a design point, sd = -U, t jo,, the general
requirements on the compensator are 8, = f180"- LGv(s,)
The compensator zero Z is computed from z = ud +A
and
fan (e)
the control gain K is computed using the magnitude criterion.
The angle and magnitude requirements and the compensator
computations are very similar for the root locus and Bode design
procedures. Table 1 summarizes the comparison between the root
locus and Bode design procedures. This common design approach
5 helps to bridge the gap between the more intuitive mot locus
using methods and the more practical Bode methods.
4. LEAD COMPENSATOR DESIGN
The lead (or phase lead) compensator performs the same function
as the PD compensator without the noise amplification problems.
StZ
The lead compensator has a transfer function G.(S)=-
S+P
where z < p. The compensator improves the transient response by
increasing the phase margin and/or the gain crossover frequency.
As in the root locus design, the PD design provides limits on the
performance of the lead compensator. Specifically, the lead zero
must be smaller than the PD zero ,z(, < zpD ) [10,1I].
(4)
Given the Bode plot of the open loop system G,,(s), the desired
compensator angle (4), and the desired gain crossover frequency,
the lead compensator design can be completed using the following
procedure
Proceedings of the American Control Conference
646 Denver, Colorado ~ u n 46,2003
e
 - Design process steps Root locus Bode

1) Plant information Transfer function C,, (5) Frequency response information C,,(jm)

2) Specifications Design point sd =-U, + jo, Desired phase margin (PM) and gain
crossover frequency (Ugc
)
3) Compensator requirements 6, = t180" - LG,,(s,) 8c= +180" + PM - LG,, (j m r c )
4) Compensator poles and zeros
z=udt- U d ' z=obi
tan (ec) tan (8, )
5 ) Gain 1 1
K= K=
. ]G. (")G,, ( 5 4 (ion.]
l~c(j~8<)G ,,

Compute the PD zero location, zp,, and the transformed compensator C,(s) = s + z is a PD
Identify the pole, p i , , of G,(s) as the frequency where compensator. It follows that the compensator zero can be
the slope of the Bode magnitude plot decreases to calculated by applying the PD compensator design procedure in
-4OdBldec . If G , ( s ) has no zeros, psi is the 2'Id Section 3 to C,?,(s)
most dominant pole.
Choose the lead compensator zero pII S ziron < zp,, The required compensator angle for the transformed problem is
computed using (4) and takes the form
Compute the phase added by the compensator zero,
8, = t180 t PM - LGm,(jmtJ (12)
Note that the phase of G,(s) at the gain crossover frequency oz,
Compute the phase added by the compensator pole, can be computed from the plant Bode phase plot using
8, =Oz-8< (9) L6,y,(jo8J
= i G , ( j m J -90" (13)
Compute the compensator pole because the integrator has a phase angle of -90" for all
frequencies. As a result, the original compensator angle ,
6, := $180" + PM - LGm,(ju,c)
Compute the control gain using ( 5 ) is related to iC by fl, = 8. -90'. The PI compensator zero is
computed using
The given specifications are feasible for a lead compensator if and
only if the specifications are feasible for a PD compensator
(0' < 8,< 90"). If the lead zero is chosen near the pole p 2 < this
,
helps to ensure that the slope of the Bode magnitude plot is The control gain K can be computed using ( 5 ) and the original
-2OdBldec at the gain crossover frequency. For a discussion of open loop information G,",( jo) and the actual compensator
loop shaping near the gain crossover frequency, see [14]. This G,(5).
procedure is completely analogous to the lead compensator design
procedure using root locus [I I]. The PI compensator design problem is feasible if and only if
0 < ip <90° or, equivalently, -90" < 8, < 0" . This result follows
5. PI COMPENSATOR DESIGN
Without loss of generality, assume that the closed-loop system in directly from the fact that any achievable specifications for a PI
Figure 1 has unity feedback. The proportional-plus-integral (PI) compensator must reduce the gain crossover frequency or the
s+z phase margin.
compensator has a transfer function Gc(5)= - where z > 0 .
S
6. PID COMPENSATOR DESIGN
The integrator (open loop pole at s = 0) increases the system type
To simultaneously improve the transient response and the steady-
number by one. state error, the PD and PI compensators are combined to form the
PID compensator. The PID compensator has a transfer function
As with the root locus design [I I], the PI-compensated system can
be transformed into a PD-compensated system by absorbing the G,(s)= (' ")('
+ + ") and improves the steady-state error by
compensator pole (the integrator) in the plant. The transformed
plant is increasing the system type number and improves the transient
response by increasing the phase margin and/or the gain crossover
C,Js)=C,,(s)'(I/r) (11) frequency.

As with the PI compensation, the synthesis of the PID

Proceedings of the American Control Conference

647 Denver, Colorado June 4-6,2003

Authorized licensed use limited to: Isidro Lazaro. Downloaded on December 11, 2009 at 00:16 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 compensator can he transformed to a PD compensator synthesis
problem. If the integrator is absorbed into the plant, the plant
6,y,(s)defined as in (11) and the compensator
+
Cc(s) = (s + q)(s zi) represent the PID-compensated system.
Using this representation, the PID-synthesis problem is equivalent
to two PD-synthesis problems. If the compensator zeros are set
equal ( := z, = z2 ), the design can he accomplished in one step.
Given the desired phase margin and gain crossover frequency
w b r ,the required compensator angle for the transformed
problem is given by (12). The achieved compensator angle for
:.
cc(s) at mzcis determined by the location, of the compensator
zeros and is given by 6+= 2tan-' . From this expression,
the compensator zero is given by z = . The control
tan ( 9 1 2 )
gain K is computed as in ( 5 ) using the actual plant information
Cw(jw) and the actual compensator C,(s) . It follows that the
PID design is equivalent to a PD design for half the desired
compensator angle in (12).
Given a design point, the PID compensator design problem is
feasible if and only if the transformed problem is feasible. Each
compensator zero contributes at most 90" of phase. As a result,
the compensator angle at the design point is limited by
0 < 6<< 180" or, equivalently, -90" < 8, c90" .
7. LEAD EXAMPLE
yl
mmwn
40 J Bode magnitude plot decreases to -4OdUdec identifies the plant
-F I-=)
Figure 2: Bode plot of DC motor
In this example, a lead compensator is designed to regulate the
shaft position of a SRV-02 DC motor from Quanser Consulting,
Incorporated. This example is inmcative of students' designs in a
junior-level control system laboratory course. The closed loop
system takes the form in Figure 1 where the open loop information
G,,(s) = G,(s)Gp(s)H(s) is represented by the Bode plot in
Figure 2. The Bode plot describes the relationship between the
input voltage and the shaft position (in degrees). The closed loop
step response is specified to have and overshoot of less than 5%
and a settling time of less than 0.1 seconds.
648
Authorized licensed use limited to: Isidro Lazaro. Downloaded on December 11, 2009 at 00:16 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The specifications yield a desired closed loop damping ratio of
5 = 0.69 and a desired closed loop undamped natural frequency
OF 0.= 58 rud/sec. Using (21, the desired phase margin is
determined from 5 and, in this example,
PM = 45(0.69) + 33 = 64' . Using (3). the desired gain crossover
frequency is determined from the desired values of ( and m.
and, in this example, -
25% -
___= 39rad/sec.
tan(PM) tan(640)
From the Bode plot in Figure 2, these specifications cannot he
achieved using proportional control. If the gain is computed to
achieve = 39 md/sec. the uncompensated phase margin is
PM = 39'. If the gain is computed to achieve PM = 64".the
gain crossover frequency will be less than 39 radfsec.
Given the desired phase margin and gain crossover frequency, the
feasibility of the PD compensator design problem is determined.
The required compensator angle at the gain crossover frequency is
determined from the open loop Bode plot as shown in Figure 2.
Given the phase margin, the desired phase at the gain crossover
Frequency is -180" + 64" = -1 16' . From the Bode plot. the actual
phase at the gain crossover Frequency is
LG, (jw,,)C, (jw,, ) H (j m Z r )= - 141' and
0, = -116" -(-I4la) = 2 5 " . Therefore, the PD compensator
design problem is feasible because 0 < 0, < 90" . The PD zero is
computed from (8) and z , = 84 .
The design of a lead compensator uses information from the PD
compensator design. The lead compensator zero should be chosen
between the PD zero and the plant pole pnz (i.e.,
pz15 :,- < i, ). Finding the frequency where the slope of the
pole p l Z . For this example, pIz 35 . Therefore.
35 5 z- < 8 4 .
The lead zero is chosen as z , =~40 . From (9) and (IO), the lead
compensator pole is p,cd = 112 and the lead compensator is
s+40
Gc(s)=- . Using (51, the control gain is computed from the
s+112
magnitudes of the plant and compensator at the gain crossover
frequency. From the open-loop Bode plot,
IG.[j39)G,(j39)H(j39)1= 2 . Using the compensator transfer
function, lGC(j39)l=O.34.ItfollowsthatK= 1.1.
R e closed loop step response is shown in Figure 3 and has 1.2%
overshoot and a settling time of 0.084seconds. The response
meets both specifications. It is interesting to note that at the end
of the control systems laboratory course, where this method was
used extensively, that the students preferred Bode design over root
locus methods.
Proceedings 01 the American Control Conference
Denver, Colorado June 4 - 6 2 W 3
 [7] K. Ogata, Modern Conrrol Engineering, 4’ Edition. Prentice-
Hall, New Jersey, 2002.

[8] R.C. Dorf and R.H. Bishop, Modern Control Systems, 9”

Edition, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 2001.

191 R.C. Garcia and B.S. Heck, “An Interactive Tool for Classical
Control Design Education,” Proceedings of rhe American
Conrrol Conference, pp. 1460-1464, San Diego, CA, June
1999.

[IO] R.T. OBrien, Jr. and 1.M. Watkins, ES307 CIossroom Notes,

5L
‘0 005 01 015 02 025

Tlme (recl
03 035 04 045 05
United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, 2001

1111 R.T. OBrien. 11. and 1.M. Watkins, “A Streamlined

Approach for Teaching Root Locus Compensator Design,”
Proceedings of the Cotference on Decision and Conrrol,
Figure 3: Step response of lead-compensated DC motor Orlando, FL, December 2001

1121 G. Marro and R. Zanasi, “New Formulae and Graphics for

8. CONCLUSION Compensator Design,” Proceedings of rhe 1998 IEEE
Classical Bode compensator design methods have been Intemarional Conference on Control Applications, pp.
streamlined with the objective of moving the students’ focus from 129.133, Trieste, Italy, September, 1998.
the computational procedures of the algorithms to the more
important issues of control system design. Established classical 1131 C. Phillips and R. Harbor, Feedback Control Sysrcnis. 4‘‘
control concepts were presented in a logical progression that edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2000.
facilitates comprehension for students in a first course in classical
control. The design procedures From three compensators: lead, PI, 1141 H. Ozbay, lntroducrion IO Feedback Control Theory, CRC
and PID were developed from a design procedure for the PD Press, Florida, 1999.
compensator. These procedures are very similar to the root locus .. .
design procedures presented in [ill. This common design
approach helps to bridge the gap between the more intuitive r w t
locus methods and the more practical Bode methods.

REFERENCES

[I] P. Dorato. “Undergraduate Control Education in the U.S.,”

IEEE Control Sysrems Magazine, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 38-39,
1999.

[Z] D. Bernstein, “Enhancing Undergraduate Control Education,”

IEEE Control Sysrems Magozine, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 40-43,
1999.

[31 P. Antsaklis, T. Basar, R. DeCarlo, N.H. McClamroch. M.

Spong, and S . Yurkovich, “Repon on the NSFICSS
Workshop on New Directions in Control Engineering
Education,” IEEE Conrrol Systems Muguzine. vol. 19, no.
5, pp. 53-58, 1999.

[41 B. Armstrong and R. Perez, “Controls Laboratory Program

with an Accent on Discovery Learning,” IEEE Conrrol
Systems Magazine, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 14-21,2001.

[SI M. Spong, “Control Education Crossing Department

Boundaries,” Proceedings of the American Control
Conference. pp. 992-996, San Diego, CA, lune 1999.

[6] N.S. Nise, Control Systems Engineering, 3“‘ Edition, John

Wiley & Sons, New York. 2000.

Proceedings of the Amencan Contiol Conference

649 Denver, Colorado June 4-6.2003

Authorized licensed use limited to: Isidro Lazaro. Downloaded on December 11, 2009 at 00:16 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.