Diseño por medio del lugar

geométrico de las raíces

Controladores P, PD, PID

Luis Sánchez
Objetivos para la respuesta deseada

1. Improving transient response

Percent overshoot, damping ratio, settling
time, peak time

2. Improving steady-state error

Steady state error
1. Con solo ajuste de la ganancia

• Higher gain, smaller steady stead

error, larger percent overshoot.

• Reducing gain, smaller percent

overshoot, higher steady state error.
Repaso:
Mejoramiento de la respuesta transitoria

• Point A and B have

the same damping
ratio.
• Starting from point
A, cannot reach a
faster response at
point B by adjusting
K.
• Compensator is
preferred.
 2. Compensator

• Allows us to meet transient and steady

state error.
• Composed of poles and zeros.
• Increased an order of the system.
• The system can be approx. to 2nd order
using some techniques.
 3.Types of compensator
1. Active compensator
– PI, PD, PID use of active components, i.e., OP-AMP
– Require power source
– ss error converge to zero
– Expensive
2. Passive compensator
– Lag, Lead use of passive components, i.e., R L C
– No need of power source
– ss error nearly reaches zero
– Less expensive
 Configuraciones del compensador

Cascade
Compensator

Feedback
Compensator

The added compensator can change a pattern of root locus

4. Mejoramiento del error en estado estable
Placing a pole at the origin to increase system order; decreasing
ss error as a result!!
The pole at origin
affects the transeint
response  adds a
zero close to the pole
to get an ideal
integral compensator
Controlador PI

 K1 

K1  s  
Gc ( s)  K1 
K2
  K2 
s s
 Ejemplo
Dado el sistema de la figura, que opera con un factor de
amortiguamiento relativo de 0.174, demuestre que la adición de un
compensador integral ideal reduce a cero el error en estado estable
para una entrada escalón, sin afectar de manera apreciable la
respuesta transitoria.
Choose zero at -0.1
• Draw root locus
without
compensator
• Draw a straight line
of damping ratio
• Evaluate K from
the intersection
point
• From K, find the
last pole (at -11.61)
• Calculate steady-
state error
• Draw root locus with
compensator (system order is
up by 1--from 3rd to 4th)
• Needs complex poles
corresponding to damping
ratio of 0.174 (K=158.2)
• From K, find the 3rd and 4th
poles (at -11.55 and -0.0902)
• Pole at -0.0902 can do phase
cancellation with zero at -0.1
(3th order approx.)
• Compensated system and
uncompensated system have
similar transient response
(closed loop poles and K are
aprox. The same)
Comparación de la respuesta a una entrada
escalo de los dos sistemas
5. Mejorando la respuesta transitoria

• Objective is to
– Decrease settling time
– Get a response with a desired %OS
(damping ratio)
• Techniques can be used:
– PD controller (ideal derivative
compensation)
– Lead compensator
 Ideal Derivative Compensator

• So called PD controller
• Compensator adds a zero to the system at –Zc
to keep a damping ratio constant with a faster
response.

GC  s  zc
 Ejemplo
Muestre que la compensación derivativa ideal acelera la
respuesta del sistema cuyo LGR se muestra en la figura:

G(s) =

Sistema No Compensado
Compensator zero at -2
Compensator zero at -3
Compensator zero at -4
Características pronosticadas
 (b) (c) (d)
(a)

• Settling time & peak time: (b)<(c)<(d)<(a)

• %OS: (b)=(c)=(d)=(a)
• ss error: compensated systems has lower value than
uncompensated one cause improvement in transient response
always yields an improvement in ss error.
 Ejemplo

design a PD controller to yield 16%

overshoot with a threefold reduction in
settling time.
• Step I: Draw the LGR, calculate a
corresponding damping ration (16%
overshoot = 0.504 damping ratio)
• Step II: Search along the damping ratio
line for an odd multiple of 180 (at -
1.205±j2.064) and corresponding K
(43.35)
• Step III: Find the 3rd pole (at -7.59)
which is far away from the dominant
poles  2nd order approx. works?!!!
• Step IV: evaluate a desired settling time:
4 4
4
uncompensa ted system : Ts     3.320 sec
 n  1.205
3.320
compensate d system : Ts   1.107 sec
3

• Step V: get corresponding real and imagine

number of the dominant poles
(-3.613 and -6.193)
4 4
   3.613
Ts 1.107

 d  3.613 tan(cos1(0.504))  6.193

Location of poles
as desired is at
-3.613±j6.192
• Step VI: summation of angles at the desired pole
location, -275.6, is not an odd multiple of 180 (not on
the root locus) need to add a zero to make the sum of
180.
• Step VII: the angular contribution for the point to be on
root locus is +275.6-180=95.6  put a zero to create
the desired angle

6.192
 tan(180  95.607  )
3.613  
  3.006
Compensator: (s+3.006)

Might not have a pole-zero cancellation for

compensated system
Características de sistema no compensado y compensado
del ejemplo
Controlador PD

K1
Gc  K 2 s  K1  K 2 ( s  )
K2
Improving Both Steady-State Error and
Transient Response

• PI, Improve steady-state error

• PD, Improve transient response
• PID, Improve both
(PID = Proportional plus Intergal plus
Derivative controller)
 PID Controller

K1 K2
K 3 (s 
2
s )
K K s  K 2  K3s 2
K3 K3
Gc ( s)  K1  2  K 3 s  1 
s s s
 PID controller design
1. Evaluate the performance of the uncompensated
system
2. Design PD controller to meet transient response
specifications
3. Simulate and Test, redesign if necessary
4. Design PI controller to get required steady-state
error
5. Find K constant of PID
6. Simulate and Test, redesign if necessary
 Example

Design PID controller so that the system can operate

with a peak time that is 2/3 of uncompensated system,
at 20% OS, and steady-state error of 0 for a step input
 Step 1
• %OS = 20%  damping ratio = 0.456
 Ѳ = 62.87
• Search along the line to find a point of 180
degree (-5.415±j10.57)
• Find a corresponding K=121.51
• Then find the peak time
 
Tp    0.297 sec
d 10 .57
 Step 2
• Decrease peak time by a factor of 2/3  get
imaginary point of a compensator pole:
 
d    15 .867
Tp (2 / 3)( 0.297 )

• To keep a damping ratio constant, real part of the pole

will be at
d
 
 8.13
tan(62 .87 )

• The compensator poles will be at -8.13±j15.867

• Sum of the angles from uncompensated poles and
zeros to the test point (-8.13±j15.867) is
-198.37
• The contribution angle for the compensator zero is
then 180-198.371 = 18.37

15 .87
 tan(18 .37  )
z c  8.13
z c  55 .92

PD controller is (s+55.92)
 Step 3
• Simulate the PD compensated system to see if
it reduces peak time and improves ss error
 Step 4
• design PI compensator (one pole at origin and
a zero near origin; at -0.5 in this example)
s  0.5
GPI ( s ) 
s
• Find a new point along the 0.456 damping
ratio line (-7.516±j14.67), with an associate
gain of 4.6
 Step 5
• Evaluate K1, K2, K3 of PID controller
K ( s  55 .92 )( s  0.5)
GPID ( s) 
s
4.6( s  55 .92 )( s  0.5)

s
4.6( s 2  56 .42 s  27 .96 )

s
K1s  K 2  K 3 s 2
• Compare to Gc ( s) 
s

K1 = 259.5, K2 = 128.6, K3 = 4.6

Step 6