You are on page 1of 83

Feedback Control of Linear SISO systems

Process Dynamics and Control

Open-Loop Process

The study of dynamics was limited to open-loop systems

Observe process behavior as a result of specific input signals

Closed-Loop System

In study and design of control systems, we are concerned with the dynamic behavior of a controlled or Closed-loop Systems

Feedback Control System

Feedback Control

Control is meant to provide regulation of process outputs about a reference, , despite inherent disturbances



Feedback Control System

The deviation of the plant output, ,from its intended reference is used to make appropriate adjustments in the plant input,

Feedback Control

Process is a combination of sensors and actuators Controller is a computer (or operator) that performs the required manipulations
Computer Actuator

+ Process


e.g. Classical one degree-of-freedom feedback control loop


Closed-Loop Transfer Function

Block Diagram of Closed-Loop Process
Computer Actuator

+ Process


- Open-Loop Process Transfer Function - Controller Transfer Function - Sensor Transfer Function - Actuator Transfer Function

Closed-Loop Transfer Function

For analysis, we assume that the impact of actuator and sensor dynamics are negligible

Closed-loop process reduces to the block diagram:

Feedback Control System

Closed-loop Transfer Functions

The closed-loop process has

Two inputs The reference signal The disturbance signal Two outputs The manipulated (control) variable signal The output (controlled) variable signal We want to see how the inputs affect the outputs Transfer functions relating , and

Closed-loop Transfer function

There are four basic transfer functions

They arise from three so-called sensitivity functions Highlights the dilemma of control system design Only one degree of freedom to shape the three sensitivity functions

Closed-loop Transfer Functions

Sensitivity functions:
The sensitivity function:

The complementary sensitivity function:

The control sensitivity function:


Closed-loop Transfer Functions

Overall transfer function for the output:



Servo response is the response of the output to setpoint change Regulatory response is the response of the output to disturbance changes


Closed-loop Transfer Functions

Servo mechanism requires that:

Regulatory response requires that:


The two objectives are complementary


Closed-loop Transfer Functions

Note that


requires that the controller

is large

This leads to large control sensitivity


PID Controller
Most widespread choice for the controller is the PID controller

The acronym PID stands for: P - Proportional I - Integral D - Derivative PID Controllers: greater than 90% of all control implementations dates back to the 1930s very well studied and understood optimal structure for first and second order processes (given some assumptions) always first choice when designing a control system

PID Control
PID Control Equation Proportional Action Derivative Action

Integral Action PID Controller Parameters

Kc Proportional gain Integral Time Constant Derivative Time Constant Controller Bias

Controller Bias


PID Control
PID Controller Transfer Function


numerator of PID transfer function cancels second order dynamics denominator provides integration to remove possibility of steady-state errors


PID Control
Controller Transfer Function:


Many variations of this controller exist Easily implemented in MATLAB/SIMULINK each mode (or action) of controller is better studied individually


Proportional Feedback

Transfer function: or,

Closed-loop form:


Proportional Feedback
Given first order process:

for P-only feedback closed-loop dynamics:

Closed-Loop Time Constant


Proportional Feedback
Final response:

for zero offset response we require

Tracking Error

Disturbance rejection

Possible to eliminate offset with P-only feedback (requires infinite controller gain) Need different control action to eliminate offset (integral)


Proportional Feedback
Servo dynamics of a first order process under proportional feedback

increasing controller gain eliminates off-set


Proportional Feedback
High-order process e.g. second order underdamped process

increasing controller gain reduces offset, speeds response and increases oscillation


Proportional Feedback
Important points:
proportional feedback does not change the order of the system started with a first order process closed-loop process also first order order of characteristic polynomial is invariant under proportional feedback speed of response of closed-loop process is directly affected by controller gain increasing controller gain reduces the closed-loop time constant in general, proportional feedback reduces (does not eliminate) offset speeds up response for oscillatory processes, makes closed-loop process more oscillatory


Integral Control
Integrator is included to eliminate offset
provides reset action usually added to a proportional controller to produce a PI controller PID controller with derivative action turned off PI is the most widely used controller in industry optimal structure for first order processes

PI controller form

Transfer function model


PI Feedback
Closed-loop response

more complex expression degree of denominator is increased by one

Assuming the closed-loop system is stable, we get


PI Feedback
PI control of a first order process

Closed-loop transfer function

Note: offset is removed closed-loop is second order


PI Feedback
Example (contd)
effect of integral time constant and controller gain on closed-loop dynamics (time constant) natural period of oscillation

damping coefficient

integral time constant and controller gain can induce oscillation and change the period of oscillation

PI Feedback
Effect of integral time constant on servo dynamics

Small integral time constant induces oscillatory (underdamped) closed-loop response


PI Feedback
Effect of controller gain on servo dynamics

affects speed of response increasing gain eliminates offset quicker


PI Feedback
Effect of integral action of regulatory response

reducing integral time constant removes effect of disturbances makes behavior more oscillatory


PI Feedback
Important points:
integral action increases order of the system in closed-loop PI controller has two tuning parameters that can independently affect speed of response final response (offset) integral action eliminates offset integral action should be small compared to proportional action tuned to slowly eliminate offset can increase or cause oscillation can be de-stabilizing


Derivative Action
Derivative of error signal
Used to compensate for trends in output measure of speed of error signal change provides predictive or anticipatory action P and I modes only response to past and current errors Derivative mode has the form

if error is increasing, decrease control action if error is decreasing, decrease control action Usually implemented in PID form


PID Feedback
Transfer Function

Closed-loop Transfer Function

Slightly more complicated than PI form


PID Feedback
PID Control of a first order process

Closed-loop transfer function


PID Feedback
Effect of derivative action on servo dynamics

Increasing derivative action leads to a more sluggish servo response


PID Feedback
Effect of derivative action on regulatory response

increasing derivative action reduces impact of disturbances on controlled variable 36 slows down servo response and affects oscillation of process

PD Feedback

PD Controller

Proportional Derivative Control is common in mechanical systems

Arise in application for systems with an integrating behaviour

Example : System in series with an integrator


PD Feedback
Transfer Function

Closed-loop Transfer Function

Slightly more complicated than PI form


PD Feedback

DC Motor example:
In terms of angular velocity (velocity control)

In terms of the angle (position control)


PD Feedback

Closed-loop transfer function


Notice that

Same effect as a PID controller.


Derivative Action
Important Points:
Characteristic polynomial is similar to PI derivative action does not increase the order of the system adding derivative action affects the period of oscillation of the process good for disturbance rejection poor for tracking the PID controller has three tuning parameters and can independently affect, speed of response final response (offset) servo and regulatory response derivative action should be small compared to integral action has a stabilizing influence difficult to use for noisy signals usually modified in practical implementation

Closed-loop Stability
Every control problem involves a consideration of closed-loop stability General concepts: Bounded Input Bounded Output (BIBO) Stability:
An (unconstrained) linear system is said to be stable if the output response is bounded for all bounded inputs. Otherwise it is unstable. Comments: Stability is much easier to prove than instability This is just one type of stability


Closed-loop Stability
Closed-loop dynamics

Let then,

The closed-loop transfer functions have a common denominator

called the characteristic polynomial


Closed-loop stability
General Stability criterion:
A closed-loop feedback control system is stable if and only if all roots of the characteristic polynomial are negative or have negative real parts. Otherwise, the system is unstable. Unstable region is the right half plane of the complex plane. Valid for any linear systems.


Closed-loop Stability
Problem reduces to finding roots of a polynomial (for polynomial systems, without delay)
Easy (1990s) way : MATLAB function ROOTS (or POLE) Traditional: 1. Routh array: Test for positivity of roots of a polynomial 2. Direct substitution Complex axis separates stable and unstable regions Find controller gain that yields purely complex roots 3. Root locus diagram Vary location of poles as controller gain is varied Of limited use

Closed-loop stability
Routh array for a polynomial equation



Elements of left column must be positive to have roots with negative real parts 46

Example: Routh Array

Characteristic polynomial
2.36s5 + 149 s4 ! 0.58s3 + 121s2 + 0.42 s + 0.78 = 0 . .

Polynomial Coefficients
a5 = 2.36, a4 = 149, a3 = !0.58, a2 = 121, a1 = 0.42, a0 = 0.78 . .

Routh Array
a5 (2.36) a3 ( !0.58) a1(0.42) a4 (149) a2 (121) a0 (0.78) . . b1( !2.50) b2 ( !0.82) b3 (0) c1(0.72) c2 (0.78) d1(189) . d 2 (0) e1(0.78)

Closed-loop system is unstable


Direct Substitution

Technique to find gain value that de-stabilizes the system. Observation: Process becomes unstable when poles appear on right half plane Find value of that yields purely complex poles

Start with characteristic polynomial

Write characteristic equation:

Substitute for complex pole

Solve for



Example: Direct Substitution

Characteristic equation

Substitution for

Real Part

Complex Part

System is unstable if

Root Locus Diagram

Old method that consists in plotting poles of characteristic polynomial as controller gain is changed e.g.

Characteristic polynomial


Stability and Performance

Given plant model, we assume a stable closed-loop system can be designed Once stability is achieved - need to consider performance of closedloop process - stability is not enough All poles of closed-loop transfer function have negative real parts - can we place these poles to get a good performance S

C Space of all Controllers

S: Stabilizing Controllers for a given plant P: Controllers that meet performance


Controller Tuning
Can be achieved by
Direct synthesis : Specify servo transfer function required and calculate required controller - assume plant = model Internal Model Control: Morari et al. (86) Similar to direct synthesis except that plant and plant model are concerned Pole placement Tuning relations: Cohen-Coon - 1/4 decay ratio designs based on ISE, IAE and ITAE Frequency response techniques Bode criterion Nyquist criterion Field tuning and re-tuning

Direct Synthesis
From closed-loop transfer function


For a desired trajectory given by

and plant model

, controller is

not necessarily PID form inverse of process model to yield pole-zero cancellation (often inexact because of process approximation) used with care with unstable process or processes with RHP zeroes

Direct Synthesis
1. Perfect Control

cannot be achieved, requires infinite gain

2. Closed-loop process with finite settling time

For 1st order open-loop process, For 2nd order open-loop process,

, it leads to PI control , get PID control

3. Processes with delay

requires again, 1st order leads to PI control 2nd order leads to PID control

IMC Controller Tuning

Closed-loop transfer function

In terms of implemented controller, Gc


IMC Controller Tuning

1. Process model factored into two parts

where to 1. 2. Controller

contains dead-time and RHP zeros, steady-state gain scaled


is the IMC filter

The constant is chosen such the IMC controller based on pole-zero cancellation

is proper


PID Design using IMC and Direct synthesis for the process

Process parameters: 1. Direct Synthesis: (Taylor Series) (Pad)

Servo Transfer function



IMC Tuning:
a) Taylor Series: Filter Controller (PI)

b) Pad approximation: Filter Controller (Commercial PID)



Servo Response



Regulatory response


IMC Tuning

For unstable processes,

Must modify IMC filter such that the value of Usual modification


is 1

Strategy is to specify

and solve for

such that



Consider the process

Consider the filter


then solve for

Yields a PI controller



Servo response


Pole placement

Given a process model

a controller of the form,

and an arbitrary polynomial

Under what condition does there exist a unique controller pair and such that


Pole placement

We say that and any common factors

are prime if they do not have

Assume that and are (co) prime. Let be an arbitraty polynomial of degree . Then there exist polynomials and of degree such that


Pole Placement


This is a second order system The polynomials and are prime The required degree of the characteristic polynomial is The degree of the controller polynomial and are

Controller is given by


Pole Placement

Performance objective: 3rd order polynomial

Characteristic polynomial is given by

Solving for and coefficients on both sides

by equating polynomial

Obtain a system of 4 equations in 4 unknowns


Pole Placement

System of equations

Solution is Corresponding controller is a PI controller


Tuning Relations
Process reaction curve method:
based on approximation of process using first order plus delay model

Manual Control
1. Step in U is introduced 2. Observe behavior 3. Fit a first order plus dead time model


Tuning Relations
Process response
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4. Obtain tuning from tuning correlations Ziegler-Nichols Cohen-Coon ISE, IAE or ITAE optimal tuning relations

Ziegler-Nichols Tunings
Controller P-only PI PID
- Note presence of inverse of process gain in controller gain - Introduction of integral action requires reduction in controller gain - Increase gain when derivation action is introduced


Ziegler-Nichols Tunings: Servo response


Regulatory Response

Z-N tuning
Oscillatory with considerable overshoot Tends to be conservative

Cohen-Coon Tuning Relations

Designed to achieve 1/4 decay ratio
fast decrease in amplitude of oscillation
Controller P-only




(1 / K p )(! / " )[1 + " / 3! ] (1 / K p )(! / " )[ 0.9 + " / 12! ] 3" + 16! (1 / K p )(! / " )[ ] 12!

" [30 + 3(" / ! )] 9 + 20(" / ! ) " [32 + 6(" / ! )] 13 + 8(" / ! )

4" 11 + 2(" / ! )


Example: PI: PID: Kc=10.27 Kc=15.64

I=18.54 I=19.75 d=3.10


Tuning relations
Cohen-Coon: Servo

More aggressive/ Higher controller gains Undesirable response for most cases


Tuning Relations
Cohen-Coon: Regulatory

Highly oscillatory Very aggressive


Integral Error Relations

1. Integral of absolute error (IAE)
IAE = ! e(t ) dt
0 "

2. Integral of squared error (ISE)

ISE = ! e(t ) 2 dt
0 "

penalizes large errors

3. Integral of time-weighted absolute error (ITAE)

ITAE = ! t e(t ) dt
0 "

penalizes errors that persist ITAE is most conservative ITAE is preferred


ITAE Relations
Choose Kc, I and d that minimize the ITAE:
For a first order plus dead time model, solve for:
! ITAE ! ITAE ! ITAE = 0, = 0, =0 ! Kc !" I !" d

Design for Load and Setpoint changes yield different ITAE optimum

Type of Input Load Load Set point Set point

Type of Controller PI PID PI PID

Mode P I P I D P I P I D

A 0.859 0.674 1.357 0.842 0.381 0.586 1.03 0.965 0.796 0.308

B -0.977 -0.680 -0.947 -0.738 0.995 -0.916 -0.165 -0.85 -0.1465 0.929


ITAE Relations
From table, we get
Load Settings:
B Y = A ! " = KKc = " " = " d " I

( )

Setpoint Settings:
B Y = A ! " = KKc = " d " ,

( )


! "I = A+ B "

( )



ITAE Relations
Example (contd) Setpoint Settings
KKc = 0.965 9 30 = 2.6852 Kc = 2.6852 K = 2.6852 0.3 = 8.95

( )


9 . ! I = 0.796 " 01465 30 = 0.7520 ! I = ! 0.7520 = 30 0.7520 = 39.89 0.929 !d = 0.308 9 30 = 01006 . ! ! d = 01006! = 3.0194 .

( )

( )

Load Settings:

KKc = 1357 9 30 . = 4.2437 Kc = 4.2437 = 4.2437 = 14.15 K 0.3

( )


"0.738 = 0.842 9 30 = 2.0474 !I ! I = ! 2.0474 = 30 2.0474 = 14.65 0.995 !d = 0.381 9 30 = 01150 . ! ! d = 01150! = 3.4497 .

( )

( )


ITAE Relations
Servo Response

design for load changes yields large overshoots for set-point changes

ITAE Relations
Regulatory response


Tuning Relations

In all correlations, controller gain should be inversely proportional to process gain Controller gain is reduced when derivative action is introduced Controller gain is reduced as ! " increases Integral time constant and derivative constant should increase as increases In general, !


! I = 0.25

Ziegler-Nichols and Cohen-Coon tuning relations yield aggressive control with oscillatory response (requires detuning) ITAE provides conservative performance (not aggressive)