Controller Design using

Frequency Response Methods

Prof. Ketul M. Patel
Assistant Professor
Electrical Engineering Department
Dr. S. & S. S. Ghandhy G. E. C., Surat
 Gain Margin and Phase Margin
 For frequency response methods, we define two
quantitative measures of how stable a system is. These
quantities are called gain margin and phase margin.
 Systems with greater gain and phase margins can
withstand greater changes in system parameters before
becoming unstable.
 Gain margin: It is the change in open-loop gain,
expressed in decibels (dB), required at 180˚ of phase
shift, to make the closed-loop system unstable.
 Phase margin: The phase margin is the change in open-
loop phase shift required at unity gain to make the
closed-loop system unstable.
 Introduction
 To meet the performance specifications, we may make
suitable modifications in plant.
 This, however, may not be possible as the plant may be
fixed and not modifiable.
 Then we must adjust parameters other than those in the
fixed plant.
 The root-locus plot of a system may indicate the gains for
which desired performance cannot be achieved. In some
cases, the system may not be stable for all values of gain.
 Then it is necessary to reshape the root loci to meet the
performance specifications.
 The design problems, therefore, become those of
improving system performance by insertion of a
 Introduction
 The design by the root-locus method is based on
reshaping the root locus of the system by adding poles
and zeros to the system’s open-loop transfer function
and forcing the root loci to pass through desired closed-
loop poles in the s - plane.
 The compensated system has a root locus that goes
through the desired pole location for some value of gain.
 The compensating poles and zeros can be generated with
a passive or an active network.
 Commonly used compensators are:
 Ideal Integral (PI) and Lag compensators
 Ideal Derivative (PD) and Lead compensators
 PID controllers
 Compensators
 Effects of the Addition of Poles: The addition of a pole to
the open-loop transfer function has the effect of:
 Pulling the root locus to the right, tending to lower
the system’s relative stability and
 To slow down the settling of the response.

Root locus plot of a) Single pole system; b) Two pole

system; c) Three pole system
 Compensators
 Effects of the Addition of Zeroes: The addition of a zero
to the open-loop transfer function has the effect of:
 Pulling the root
locus to the left,
tending to make the
system more stable
and
 To speed up the
settling of the
response.
 Improving Steady State Error
Via Cascade Compensation
 Objective here is to improve the steady-state error
without appreciably affecting the transient response.
 The possible techniques for the same are:
 Ideal Integral Compensation: uses a pure integrator
to place an open-loop, forward-path pole at the
origin, thus increasing the system type and reducing
the error to zero.
 Lag Compensation: This technique places the pole
near the origin, and although it does not drive the
steady-state error to zero, it does yield a measurable
reduction in steady-state error.
 Ideal Integral Compensation
 Steady-state error can be improved by placing an open-
loop pole at the origin, because this increases the system
type by one.
 We know that a Type 0 system, responding to a step
input with a finite error, responds with zero error if the
system type is increased by one.
 Active circuits can be used to place poles at the origin.
Ideal Integral Compensation
 Ideal Integral Compensation
 Here we have a system operating with a desirable
transient response generated by closed-loop poles at A.
 If we add a pole at the origin to increase the system type,
the angular contribution of the open-loop poles at point
A is no longer 180˚, and the root locus no longer goes
through point A.
 To solve the problem, we also add a zero close to the pole
at the origin, so that the angular contribution of the
compensator zero and compensator pole cancel out.
 Point A is still on the root locus, and the system type has
been increased.
 A compensator with a pole at the origin and a zero close
to the pole is called an ideal integral compensator.
Ideal Integral Compensation
Ideal Integral Compensation
Ideal Integral Compensation
 Ideal Integral Compensation
 The compensated system’s closed-loop poles and gain
are approximately the same as the uncompensated
system’s closed-loop poles and gain
 This indicates that the transient response of the
compensated system is about the same as the
uncompensated system.
 However, the compensated system, with its pole at the
origin, is a Type 1 system; unlike the uncompensated
system, it will respond to a step input with zero error.
 Ideal Integral Compensation
 The step response of the ideal integral compensated system
approaches unity in the steady state, while the
uncompensated system approaches 0.892. Ideal integral
compensated system responds with zero steady-state error.

The transient response of

both the uncompensated
and the ideal integral
compensated systems is
the same up to
approximately 3 seconds.
 Lag Compensation
 Ideal integral compensation, with its pole on the origin,
requires an active integrator.
 If we use passive networks, the pole and zero are moved
to the left, close to the origin.
 Lag Compensation
 If the lag compensator pole and zero are close together,
the angular contribution of the compensator to point P is
approximately zero degrees.
 Hence, even after the compensator has been added,
point P is still at approximately the same location on the
compensated root locus.
 Lag Compensation
 A lag compensator with a pole that is not at the origin
will improve the static error constant by a factor equal to
zc/pc.
 There also will be a minimal effect upon the transient
response if the pole-zero pair of the compensator is
placed close to the origin.
Ideal Integral Compensation
Ideal Integral Compensation
 Lag Compensation
 The transient responses of the uncompensated and lag-
compensated systems are the same.
 However, the lag-compensated system exhibits less
steady-state error than the uncompensated system.

The transient response of

both the uncompensated
and the ideal integral
compensated systems is
the same up to
approximately 3 seconds.
 Improving Transient Response
Via Cascade Compensation
 Objective here is to design a response that has a
desirable percent overshoot and a shorter settling time
than the uncompensated system. two ways to improve
the transient response of a feedback control system by
using cascade compensation :
 Ideal Derivative Compensation: In this type of
compensation, a pure differentiator is added to the
forward path of the feedback control system. result of
adding differentiation is the addition of a zero to the
forward-path transfer function
 Lead Compensation: This technique does
approximates differentiation with a passive network
by adding a zero and a more distant pole to the
forward-path transfer function.
 Ideal Derivative Compensation
 The transient response of a system can be selected by
choosing an appropriate closed-loop pole location on the s-
plane.
 If the closed-loop pole location is not on the root locus, then
the root locus must be reshaped so that the compensated root
locus goes through the selected closed-loop pole location.
 In order to accomplish this task, poles and zeros can be added
in the forward path to produce a new open-loop function
whose root locus goes through the design point on the s-
plane.
 One way to speed up the original system is to add a single
zero to the forward path.
 This zero can be represented by a compensator whose
transfer function is Gc ( s)  s  zc
 Ideal Derivative Compensation
 This function Gc ( s)  s  zc , the sum of a differentiator and a
pure gain, is called an ideal derivative controller.
 Proper choice of the position of the compensator zero
can quicken the response over the uncompensated
system.
 We consider now, uncompensated systemoperating with
a damping ratio of 0.4, which is then compensated by
the addition of a compensating zero at various points: -2,
-3 and -4.
 For each compensated case, the dominant, second-order
poles are farther out along the 0.4 damping ratio line
than the uncompensated system.
Ideal Derivative Compensation
Ideal Derivative Compensation
 Ideal Derivative Compensation
 All of the compensated systems will have smaller peak
times than the uncompensated system, as the imaginary
parts of the compensated systems are larger.
 The compensated, dominant, closed-loop poles have
more negative real parts than the uncompensated,
dominant, closed-loop poles.
 Hence, we predict that the settling times for the
compensated cases will be shorter than for the
uncompensated case.
 Ideal Derivative Compensation
 Each of the compensated cases has dominant poles with
the same damping ratio as the uncompensated case.
Thus, we can say that the percent overshoot will be the
same for each case.
 Thus, the addition of ideal derivative compensation
shortened the response time in each case while keeping
the percent overshoot the same.
 An added benefit is the improvement in the steady-state
error though no lag compensation was used.
 Lead Compensation
 An active ideal derivative compensator can be
approximated with a passive lead compensator.
 When passive networks are used, a single zero cannot be
 produced; rather, a compensator zero and a pole result.
 However, if the pole is farther from the imaginary axis
than the zero, the angular contribution of the
compensator is still positive and thus approximates an
equivalent single zero i.e. the net angular contribution is
positive.
 The advantages of a passive lead network over an active
PD controller are that (1) no additional power supplies
are required and (2) noise due to differentiation is
reduced.
 Lead Compensation
 If we select a desired dominant, second-order pole on
the s-plane, the sum of the angles from the
uncompensated system’s poles and zeros to the design
point can be found.
 The difference between 180˚ and the sum of the angles
must be the angular contribution required of the
compensator.
 Lead Compensation
We realize that an infinite
number of lead compensators
could be used to meet the
transient response requirement.

However, the differences are in the values of static error

constants, the gain required to reach the design point on the
compensated root locus and the resultant transient response.
 Proportional, Integral,
Derivative Controllers
 An
Physical Realization
of Compensation
Physical Realization
of Compensation
Physical Realization
of Compensation