Design via Root Locus

William J. Murphy
Washington University in St. Louis
Reference: Nise (2000): Chapter 9
06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

Topics
Improving Steady-State Error
Improving Transient Performance
Improving both Steady-State and Transient Performance
Special-Purpose Compensators: Notch Filters
Feedback Compensation

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

Design Configurations

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

Improving Steady-State Error

Ideal Integral Compensation:Increase system
type by adding open-loop, forward-path pole(s)
at origin.
Proportional plus Integral Compensation:
Integral action improves steady-state error.
Proportional action maintains desired transient
performance.
Lag Compensation: Increase gain without
changing location of dominant pole(s) by
introducing pole/zero pair near origin.
06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

Proportional plus Integral (PI)

Compensator

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

PI Compensation Method
(a) Point A
provides good
transient
performance but
gain is too small
for good steadystate
performance.
(b) Adding pole at
origin (Integral
Controller)
distorts root locus.
Operation at Point
A no longer
possible.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

PI Compensation Method
Adding zero reshapes root
locus restoring point A as
a viable solution; thereby
restoring transient
performance.
Integral action has
increased system type;
thereby improving steadystate performance.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

Lag Compensator
Gc =

K ( s + zc )

(s+

pc )

Compensator Gain = K * z c / pc
1) Select K to obtain desired closed - loop poles without compensator.
2) Select z c / pc ratio large so that steady - state performance is met.
3) Select p c close to origin and z c slightly to left (dipole) so that locus
is unchanged in vicinity of dominant pole pair.
06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

Before & After Lag

Compensation

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

Example 9.1
Problem: Given the gain
compensated system (a),
show that the PI
compensation reduces the
steady-state error without
significantly affecting the
transient response.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

10

Example 9.1:
Gain Compensated System
K is selected to obtain a
damping ratio of 0.174.
K=164.6
Kp = 164.6/(1*2*10) = 8.23
e_steady-state = 1/
(1+8.23) = 0.108

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

11

Example 9.1:
PI Compensated System
Insert pole at s=0 and compute
angle from positive real axis to
desired closed-loop pole location.
Insert zero so that angle from
zero to desired dominant pole
location approximately equals that
of the added pole.
Calibrate (find value of K) that
establishes desired dominant
closed-loop poles.
Check closed-loop poles and
zeros to make sure desired poles
are dominant.
06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

12

Example 9.1:
Performance Comparison
Transient
performances are
nearly identical.
PI compensated
system has zero
steady-state error for
step input - Type 1
performance.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

13

Example 9.2: Lag Compensation

Problem: Improve the steady-state error by a factor of
10 for the Gain Compensated System of Example 9.1.
Solution: With K = 164.6, Kp = 8.23 and
Steady-state error = 1/(1+8.23) = 0.108.
For a ten-fold improvement:
Steady-state error = 0.0108 = 1/(1+Kp)
1+Kp = 1/0.0108 = 92.59
Kp = 91.59
So, gain must increase by 91.59/8.23 = 11.13
06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

14

Example 9.2: Lag Compensator

Compensator Gain = K * z c / pc
1) Select K to obtain desired closed - loop poles without compensator.
K = 164.6
2) Select z c / pc ratio large so that steady - state performance is met.
z c / pc = 1113
.
3) Select p c close to origin and z c slightly to left (dipole) so that locus
is unchanged in vicinity of dominant pole pair.
pc = 0.01 zc = 1113
. 0.01 0111
.
4) Redraw root locus including lag compensator. Adjust K as necessary.
06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

15

Example 9.2: Lag Compensated

Root Locus

K adjusted to
158.1 to retain
desired damping
ratio. Kp=87.75
Steady-state
error = 0.011.
06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

16

Example 9.2:
Step Response Comparison

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

17

Improving Transient Response

A: Design point available via
gain adjustment.
B: Design point not available via
simple gain adjustment.
Solution:
Compensate the system with
additional poles and zeros so
that locus goes through desired
closed-loop poles.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

18

Compensators for Improving

Transient Response
Proportional-plus-Derivatrive (PD) Compensation:
Add pure differentiator to forward-path; thereby adding
zero to forward-path transfer function.
Lead Compensation: Approximate differentiation by
adding:
1) a zero in region of dominant pole pair to reshape root
locus and
2) a pole far to the left of the zero to assure physical
realizability with affecting dominant pole pair.
06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

19

Proportional-plus-Derivative
(PD) Compensator

G c ( s ) = K1 + K 2 s = K 2 ( s +

K1
) = K ( s + zc )
K2

K2
= K1 (1 +
s)
K1
06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

20

Using PD Compensation

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

21

Step Response Comparison

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

22

Predicted Response Comparison

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

23

Lead Compensation
( s + zc ) Kc ( s + zc )
1
G c ( s) = K c
=
K ( s + z c ) for
small.
( s + pc )
pc 1
pc
( s + 1)
pc

Choose K and zc using PD design procedure.

Choose pole at -pc far enough to left so that dominant
closed-loop poles are not affected. A rule of thumb is
pc~ (5 to 10) times zc.
Kc = K*pc

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

24

Example 9.3
Lead Compensator Design
Problem: Given the feedback control system

below,
design a lead compensator to yield a 16%
overshoot with
a threefold reduction in settling time.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

25

Example of Lead Compensation

Problem: Solve Example 9.3 using a lead compensator.
Solution:
From previous example, K=43 and zc=3.1.
Using the rule of thumb, 15<pc<30.
For pc=15, plot of root locus indicates damping is too low.
So, gain must be lowered using rlocfind to callibrate the
locus.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

26

First-cut Root Locus

20

MATLAB Code:

pc=15;Gc=zpk(-zc,pc,43.35*pc),
Gp=zpk([],[0 -4 -6],1);G=Gc*Gp

15

10

Zero/pole/gain:
650.25 (s+3.064)
-------------------s (s+15) (s+6) (s+4)
rlocus(G),hold,
rlocus(G,1),sgrid

Im a g A x is

-5

-1 0

-1 5

-2 0
-1 8

-1 6

-1 4

-1 2

-1 0

-8

-6

-4

-2

R e a l A x is

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

27

Gain adjusted root locus

[gain_adjustment,clpoles]=rlocfind(G)
Select a point in the graphics window
selected_point =
-2.6406 + 4.3275i
gain_adjustment = 0.5835
clpoles = -17.1314
-2.5924 + 4.3086i
-2.5924 - 4.3086i
-2.6838
20

15

10

Im a g A x is

-5

-1 0

-1 5

-2 0
-1 8

-1 6

-1 4

-1 2

-1 0

-8

-6

-4

-2

R e a l A x is

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

28

Lead Compensator
Step Response
S te p R e s p o n s e
F ro m : U (1 )
1 .4

MATLAB Code::

1 .2

Gc=gain_adjustment*Gc

T o : Y (1 )

A m p lit u d e

0 .8

Zero/pole/gain:
379.3989 (s+3.064)
-----------------(s+15)

0 .6

0 .4

0 .2

0
0

0 .5

1 .5

2 .5

T im e (s e c . )

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

29

Improving Steady-State Error

and
Transient
Response
Proportional-plus-Integral-plus Derivative (PID)
Compensation

KI
KP
KI
2
G c ( s) = K p +
+ K D s = K D (s +
s+
)/s
s
KD
KD
Lag-lead Compensation
G c ( s) =

06/04/09

1
1
s
+
s
+

T
T

1
2

1

s+
s+

T1
T2

where < 1

EE/ME/CHE 431

30

Basic Approach to
PID & Lag-Lead Compensation

Combine the previous design techniques to improve

steady-state error and transient response independently.
Nises Approach: If we first improve transient response
using PD (or lead compensation) and then use PI (or lag
compensation) to improve steady-state error, it can result
in a high-bandwidth system sensitive to sensor noise.
Alternative Approach: If, on the other hand, we first
improve steady-state error using PI (or lag compensation)
and then use PD (or lead compensation) to improve transient
response, it can result in a low-bandwidth system
overdesigned with respect to steady-state performance
but tolerant to sensor noise.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

31

Example 9.5
Problem: Given the system below, design a PID controller
so that the system can operate with a peak time two-thirds that
of the uncompensated system at 20% overshoot and with zero
steady-state error for a step input.

Solution: See Nise pp. 528-533.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

32

Example 9.5: Results

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

33

Example 9.6
Problem: Design a lag-lead compensator for the system
below so that it will operate with 20% overshoot and a
twofold reduction in settling time. Also, the compensated
system should exhibit a tenfold improvement in steady-state
error for a ramp input.

Solution: See Nise pp.533-538.

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

34

Example 9.6: Results

06/04/09

EE/ME/CHE 431

35