0% found this document useful (0 votes)
25 views

Introduction To Automatic Control Week8-Slides

This document discusses lag compensators and their frequency response characteristics. It introduces lag compensators as having the form C(s) = K/(1+s/ω1)/(1+s/ω2) with ω2 < ω1, making them similar to proportional-integral controllers. The bode plot of a lag compensator shows a low frequency gain boost that saturates at ω2 rather than continuing to increase, and a low frequency phase lag that is attenuated at ω2 rather than continuing down to -90 degrees. Lag compensators can provide many of the same benefits as PI control in regulating steady-state error while avoiding some of the limitations.

Uploaded by

jonah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
25 views

Introduction To Automatic Control Week8-Slides

This document discusses lag compensators and their frequency response characteristics. It introduces lag compensators as having the form C(s) = K/(1+s/ω1)/(1+s/ω2) with ω2 < ω1, making them similar to proportional-integral controllers. The bode plot of a lag compensator shows a low frequency gain boost that saturates at ω2 rather than continuing to increase, and a low frequency phase lag that is attenuated at ω2 rather than continuing down to -90 degrees. Lag compensators can provide many of the same benefits as PI control in regulating steady-state error while avoiding some of the limitations.

Uploaded by

jonah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 37

Introduction to Automatic

Control
8 - Compensator Design
Dr Sebastian East
Contents

1. Overview

2. Lag Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

3. Lead Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

4. Lead-Lag Compensators

2 / 37
Intro
• Last week we developed a control theoretic understanding of
the principles of PID controller design.

• There is nothing (theoretically) ‘special’ about PID control


I The same theory can be used to propose, analyse, and design any
LTI controller.

• This week we will investigate compensators


“ ”
1
!1
s +1
C(s) = K “ ”
1
!2
s + 1

and their benefits/limitations relative to PI, PD, and PID control.

• As with last week, these slides will generally be conceptual.

3 / 37
Why ‘Compensators’?

• Why are these form of controllers called ‘compensators’ as


opposed to ‘controllers’?

• No good answer
I Just think of them as a particular form of LTI control structure.

R(s) + Y (s)
C(s) G(s)

• Beware - an internet search for this question will yield some


absolute nonsense.

4 / 37
Contents

1. Overview

2. Lag Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

3. Lead Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

4. Lead-Lag Compensators

5 / 37
Compensator Structure

• The general compensator structure is


“ ”
1
!1
s + 1
C(s) = K “ ”
1
!2
s +1

• The type of compensator is determined by the relative values of


!1 and !2 :
I !2 < !1 : Lag compensator.
I !1 < !2 : Lead compensator.

• This talk will focus on Lag compensators


I Spoiler: integral-type controller.

6 / 37
Proportional Integral Recap
• Recall the bode plot of the PI controller:
C(s) = kp + ksi = K (s+!
s
1)

20 log10 |C(i!)|
Low frequency magnitude
PI
boost (0 steady state error for
20 stable systems)
20 log10 K
!
!1 !1
10

90 \C(i!) Accompanying -90◦ phase lag


45
!
!1 !1 10!2
−45 10
−90 PI

7 / 37
Lag Compensator Frequency Response
• Lag compensator given by
“ ”
1
!1
s +1
C(s) = K “ ”
1
!2
s +1

with !2 < !1 .

• The characteristics of compensators are most easily interpreted


in frequency domain

• Compensator consists of three components:


„ «
1 1
K ד
C(s) = |{z} ”× s +1
1
s +1 !1
gain !2 | {z }
| {z } First Oder Lead
First Oder Lag

8 / 37
First Order Lag/Lead Bode Plot
• Bode plots of first order lag and first order lead:

20 log10 |C(i!)|
( !11 s + 1)
20
!
!2 !1
−20
−40 1
( !1 s+1)
2

90 \C(i!)
45 ( !11 s + 1) !
1
!2 ( !1
!1
−45 2
s+1)

−90

9 / 37
Combined Bode Plot
• The two previous Bode plots combine to:

20 log10 |C(i!)|
( !11 s + 1)
20
!
( !1 s+1)
1
!2 !1
−20 ( !1 s+1)
2

−40 1
( !1 s+1)
2

90 \C(i!)
45 ( !11 s + 1) !
1
( !1 s+1) !2 ( !1
!1
−45 1
2
s+1)
( !1 s+1)
−90 2

10 / 37
Fixed Gain
• Relation to PI control (discussed later) made easier by
introducing fixed gain !!12 :

40 20 log10 |C(i!)|
( !11 s + 1)
20
!1 ( !1 s+1) !
1
!2 (1!1 s+1)
( ! 2s+1)
1
!2 !1
−20 ( !1 s+1)
2

−40 1
( !1 s+1)
2

90 \C(i!)
45 ( !11 s + 1) !
1
1 !2 !1
−45 !1 ( !1 s+1) ( !1
2
s+1)
!2 ( !1 s+1)
−90 2

11 / 37
Chosen Gain
• Arbitrary gain boost then provided by chosen value of K̂ (so that
K = K̂ !!21 :

20 log10 |C(i!)|
40
( 1
s+1) ( !11 s + 1)
20 log10 K̂ K̂ !!21 ( !11 s+1)
!2 !
( !1 s+1) !2 !1
-20 ( !1
1
s+1)
-40
2
1
( !1 s+1)
2

90 \C(i!)
45 ( !11 s + 1) !
1
1 !2 !1
−45 K̂ !1 ( !11 s+1) ( !1
2
s+1)
!2 ( ! s+1)
−90 2

12 / 37
Comparison with PI
• Lag Compensator is similar to PI controller, except two
differences:

20 log10 |C(i!)|

PI Low frequency magnitude


40 boost saturates at !2
Lag Comp.
20 log10 K̂
!
!2 !1

90 \C(i!) Low frequency phase lag is


45 attenuated at !2
!
! !1
−45 Lag Comp. 2
−90
PI

13 / 37
Effect of !2
• Design process for Lag Compensator is the same as for PI, with
the exception of also choosing !2
I 0 s.s. error no longer guaranteed.

14 / 37
Lag Compensator vs PI

• Why would one want to use a Lag Compensator instead of PI?

• General (but not very helpful) answer:

When the characteristics of the controller help you achieve


given design requirements.

• Possible case:
I PI introduces phase lag, and increases gain at frequencies ! < !1
I Both of these changes can reduce margins, so Lag Comp. could
be preferable.
I But, you could just make !1 lower...

• Internet is again riddled with nonsense.

15 / 37
A Possible Use Case

• Recall that for PI, |C(i!)| → ∞ as ! → 0

• In practice this is generally impossible


I Output of controller circuit will saturate.
I Control input will saturate.

• Therefore, |C(i!)| will saturate anyway


I But, this isn’t reflected in either the Bode plot or root locus

• A lag compensator allows you to design you controller with the


knowledge of where the gain will saturate.

16 / 37
Contents

1. Overview

2. Lag Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

3. Lead Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

4. Lead-Lag Compensators

17 / 37
Root Locus Interpretation
• Recall that PI controller equivalent to

1 (s − –1 )
C(s) = ki + kp ⇔ K
s s
• Recall that the root locus process of designing a PI controller is
1. Place open-loop pole at 0
2. Choose open-loop zero at s = –1
3. Choose gain K that places dominant poles in desired region.

• For lag compensator, we can now choose open loop pole on


real axis. “ ”
1
!1
s + 1 (s − –1 )
C(s) = K “ ” ⇔L
1
s +1 (s − –2 )
!2

• Generally, we want to place –2 as close as possible to zero


I Limited by the performance of hardware.

18 / 37
Conclusion

• Lag compensator is an integral type controller.


I Low frequency magnitude boost reduces steady-state errors.
I 0 steady state error no longer guaranteed.
I Lag compensator explicitly accounts for input saturation (can be
used as part of an anti integral-windup strategy)

• Root locus now requires the choice of open loop pole

• Next we will look at the Lead compensator


I Spoiler: it’s a saturated PD controller!

19 / 37
Contents

1. Overview

2. Lag Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

3. Lead Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

4. Lead-Lag Compensators

20 / 37
Lead Compensation

• Recall that the general compensator structure is


“ ”
1
!1
s + 1
C(s) = K “ ”
1
!2
s +1

• We will now take a look at Lead Compensators:


I !2 < !1 : Lag compensator.
I !1 < !2 : Lead compensator.

• Principles are generally the same as for lag compensators -


won’t go through in as much detail.

21 / 37
PD Controller Recap
• Recall the bode plot of the PD controller:
C(s) = kp + kd s = K( !11 s + 1)

20 log10 |C(i!)|
High frequency
20 magnitude boost
PD
20 log10 K
!
!1 10!1

90 \C(i!)
45 PD !
!1 10!1
−45
+90◦ phase lead
−90

22 / 37
Lead Compensator Lead/Lag
• When !1 < !2 , the first order lead occurs before the first order
lag:

20 log10 |C(i!)| ( !11 s + 1)


20
!
!1 !2
−20 1
( !1 s+1)
−40 2

90 \C(i!)
45 ( !11 s + 1)
!
1
!1 !2( !1 s+1)
−45 2

−90

23 / 37
Combined Response
• Following the same steps as before, this results in the same
response, reflected in vertical axis:

20 log(101 |C(i!)|
s+1)
40 K ( !11 s+1) ( !11 s + 1)
!2
20 log10 K
!
( !1 s+1) !1 !2
-20 1
( !1 s+1) 1
-40
2 ( !1 s+1)
2

90 \C(i!)
45 ( !11 s + 1)
!
( !1 s+1) 1
K 1 !1 !2( !1 s+1)
−45 ( !1 s+1) 2
2
−90

24 / 37
Comparison with PD
• Lead compensator is similar to PD controller, except two
differences:

20 log10 |C(i!)|
High frequency magnitude PD
boost saturates at !2
40 Lead Comp.
20 log10 K
!
!1 !2

90 \C(i!) PD
45
!
!1 !2 Lead Comp.
−45
High frequency phase lead is
−90
attenuated at !2

25 / 37
Lead Compensator vs PD

• Why would one want to use a Lead Compensator instead of PD?

• Same (and still not very helpful) answer as before:

When the characteristics of the controller help you achieve


given design requirements.

• Possible case:
I Previously discussed how derivative gain amplifies noise
I This effect is automatically reduced by saturating the PD amplitude
ratio at a given value.

26 / 37
Alternative Interpretation

• Recall that a method for noise attenuation in derivative control is


to prefilter the derivative action:

1
Error Signal fi s+1 kd s Derivative Action

• Lead compensator can be interpreted as a prefiltered PD


controller:

1 ”
“ ”

Error Signal 1
!2 s+1 K 1
!1
s +1 Lead Comp.

27 / 37
Example
• Consider the nominal system G(s) = 0.1s+1
s 2 +2s+1

20 log10 |G(i!)| !
10−1 100 101 102 103 104
−40

−80
G(s)

\G(i!) !
10−1 100 101 102 103 104
−45
−90 G(s)
−135

28 / 37
PD Control
• Consider PD control C(s) = 0.01s + 1:

20 log10 |G(i!)| !
10−1 100 101 102 103 104
−40
PD
−80
G(s)

\G(i!) PD !
−1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 104
−45
−90 G(s)
−135

29 / 37
Lead Compensator
• Consider lead compensator C(s) = 0.01s+1
0.001s+1
:

20 log10 |G(i!)| !
10−1 100 101 102 103 104
−40
PD
−80 Lead
G(s)

\G(i!) PD !
10−1 100 101 102 103 104
−45 Lead
−90 G(s)
−135

30 / 37
Contents

1. Overview

2. Lag Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

3. Lead Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

4. Lead-Lag Compensators

31 / 37
Root Locus Interpretation
• Same as lag: PD design but can now choose pole on real axis.
• Pole and zero generally chosen further to left than system
dynamics, and !2 > !1
• Zero ‘pulls’ the root locus, pole ‘pushes it’
• Order of system stays the same, so do number of asymptotes.

32 / 37
Conclusion

• Lead compensator is a derivative type controller.


I High frequency boost helps improve damping (rejects high
frequency disturbances).
I Can be interpreted as a pre-filtered PD controller

• Next we will look at the Lead-lag compensator


I Spoiler: it’s a saturated PID controller!

33 / 37
Contents

1. Overview

2. Lag Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

3. Lead Compensators
Frequency Domain
Root Locus

4. Lead-Lag Compensators

34 / 37
Lead-lag Compensation
• Final piece in the puzzle is the lead-lag compensator

• Nothing more than a cascade of a lead compensator and a lag


compensator (or vice versa):
“ ” “ ”
1 1
s+1 s+1
Error Signal Lead-lag Comp.
! !
K1 “ 1
1
” K2 “ 3
1

!2 s+1 !4 s+1

• Equivalent to
“ ”“ ”
1 1
!1
s +1 !3
s +1
C(s) = K “ ”“ ”
1 1
!2
s +1 !4
s +1

• Five parameters to choose: K, !1 , !2 , !3 , and !4 .

35 / 37
Comparison with PID
• Can be interpreted as a PID controller with saturation on both
amplitude boosts and attenuation of phase lead/lag:

20 log10 |G(i!)|

PID

Lead-lag
!

90 \G(i!)
Lead-lag !

−90 PID

36 / 37
Conclusion
• We have introduced compensators as an alternative form of
controller

• Lag compensator is equivalent to PI with the amplitude gain


saturated, and phase lag attenuated.

• Lead compensator is equivalent to PD with the amplitude gain


saturated, and phase lead attenuated.

• Lead-lag compensator is equivalent to PID with both.

− Much more common for the limitations of PID to be addressed


with alternative methods.
• Next week: state-space - the basis of all modern control
methods
I Optimal control (and estimation)
I Robust control
I Model predictive control
I ...
37 / 37

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy