Design with Root Locus
-
Upload
anika-salas -
Category
Documents
-
view
140 -
download
16
description
Transcript of Design with Root Locus
![Page 1: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Design with Root Locus
Lecture 9
![Page 2: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Objectives for desired response
1. Improving transient response Percent overshoot, damping ratio,
settling time,
peak time
2. Improving steady-state error Steady state error
![Page 3: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Gain adjustment
• Higher gain, smaller steady stead error, larger percent overshoot
• Reducing gain, smaller percent overshoot, higher steady state error
![Page 4: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Improving transient response
• Point A and B have the same damping ratio.
• Starting from point A, cannot reach a faster response at point B by adjusting K.
• We have pole at A on the root locus, but we want response like at B.
• Compensator is preferred.
![Page 6: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
CascadeCompensator
FeedbackCompensator
The added compensator can change a pattern of root locus
Compensator configulations
![Page 7: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
compensator
Method of implementing compensator:
1. Proportional control systems: feed the error forward to the plant.
2. Integral control systems: feed the integral of the error to the plant.
3. Derivative control systems: feed the derivative of the error to the plant.
![Page 8: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Types of compensator1. 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
![Page 9: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Improving steady-state error (PI)Placing a pole at the origin to increase system order; decreasing ss error as a result!!
(a) Original system without compensation(b) Add a pole at the origin but angular contribution at point A is no longer 180
![Page 10: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Also add a zero close to thepole at the origin. As angularcontribution of thecompensator zero and polecancels out, point A is stillon the root locus, and thesystem type has beenincreased.
Improving Steady-State Error (PI)
![Page 11: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Improving Steady-State Error (PI):Example
Damping ratio = 0.174 in both uncompensated and PI cases
Choose zero at -1
![Page 12: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
>> z=[1];>> n=conv([1 3 2],[1 10]);>> sys=tf(z,n)
>> sgrid(0.174,[2,10])>> [k p]=rlocfind(sys)
Improving Steady-State Error (PI)
![Page 13: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Improving Steady-State Error (PI)
![Page 14: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
As shown in the figure, the step response of the PI compensated system approaches unity in the steady-state, while the uncompensated system response approaches 1−0.108 = 0.892. The simulation shows that it takes 18 seconds for the compensated system to reach and stay within ±2% of the final value of unity, while the uncompensated system takes about 6 seconds to settle to within ±2% of its final value of 0.892. This is because there is no pole-zero cancelation and the pole not canceled is very close to the origin.
Improving Steady-State Error (PI)
![Page 15: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
164.6
(s+1)(s+2)(s+10)
Zero-Pole2
158.2(s+0.1)
s(s+1)(s+2)(s+10)
Zero-Pole
Step1
Step
Scope
Improving Steady-State Error (PI)
![Page 16: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Finding an intersection between damping ratio line and root locus
• Damping ratio line has an equation:
where a = real part, b = imaginary part of the intersection point,
• Summation of angle from open-loop poles and zeros to the point is 180 degrees
mab
18010
tan2
tan1
tan 111
a
b
a
b
a
b
))(tan(cos 1 m
![Page 17: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Arctan formula
AB
BABA
1tan)(tan)(tan 111
AB
BABA
1tan)(tan)(tan 111
![Page 18: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
• Use the formula to get the real and imaginary part of the intersection point and get
• Magnitude of open loop system is 1
0.6936 -1.5893,a
3.9255- b
1321 ppp
K No open loop zero
53.164
1
1021 222222
bababa
K
![Page 19: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
• 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 cacellation with zero at -1 (3th order approx.)
• Compensated system and uncompensated system have similar transient response (closed loop poles and K are aprrox. The same)
![Page 20: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
PI Controller
s
K
KsK
s
KKsGc
2
11
21)(
A compensator with a pole at the origin and a zero close tothe pole is called an ideal integral compensator, or PIcontroller
![Page 21: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Lag CompensatorIdeal integral compensation: pole is in the origin, requires active network (costly).Real (passive) integral compensation: pole is close to origin (not in the origin), cheaper.
Type is not increased. What about steady-state error
(a) Type 1 uncompensated system(b) Type 1 compensated system
![Page 22: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![Page 23: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Example
With damping ratio of 0.174, add lag Compensator to improve steady-state error by a factor of 10
![Page 24: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Step I: find an intersection of root locus and damping ratio line (-0.694+j3.926 with K=164.56)
Step II: find Kp = lim G(s) as s0 (Kp=8.228)
Step III: steady-state error = 1/(1+Kp)= 0.108
Step IV: want to decrease error down to 0.0108[Kp = (1 – 0.0108)/0.0108 = 91.593]
Step V: require a ratio of compensator zero to poleas 91.593/8.228 = 11.132
Step VI: choose a pole at 0.01, the corresponding Zero will be at 11.132*0.01 = 0.111
01.0
111.0
s
s
![Page 25: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
3rd order approx. for lag compensator (= uncompensated system) makingSame transient response but 10 timesImprovement in ss response!!!
![Page 26: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
If we choose a compensator pole at 0.001 (10 timescloser to the origin), we’ll get a compensator zero at 0.0111 (Kp=91.593)
001.0
0111.0
s
sNew compensator:
4th pole is at -0.01 (compared to -0.101) producing a longer transient response.
![Page 28: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
SS response improvement conclusions
• Can be done either by PI controller (pole at origin) or lag compensator (pole closed to origin).
• Improving ss error without affecting the transient response.
• Next step is to improve the transient response itself.
![Page 29: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Improving Transient Response
• 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
![Page 30: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
PD controller: Improving transient response
System above controlled by a pure gain (P controller) in the forward path has its root locus going through point A for some value of gain K.• Our goal is to speed up the response at A to that at B, while keeping the percent overshoot unchanged.• The above root locus with a P controller cannot go through point B (sum of angles from the open-loop finite poles and zeros to point B is not an odd multiple of 180◦). A solution is to add a (nonzero) zero to the forward path (e.g., PD controller).
![Page 31: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
PD controller: Improving transient response
• Transfer function of the PD controller Gc(s) = K2 s + K1 = K2(s+K1/K2) = K(s+zc) introduces a zero at −zc Into the forward path.• Effect of the added zero: The added zero will contribute to make the sum of angles from the open-loop finite poles and zeros to the desired point (point B) be an odd multiple of 180◦. Note: an added zero has the effect of pushing the root locus to the left while an added pole has the effect of pushing it to the right.• The new root locus can meet the specific transient response (with shorter settling time) by going through point B for some value of gain K.
![Page 32: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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
cC zsG
![Page 33: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
(a) Uncompensated system, (b) compensator zero at -2 (d) compensator zero at -3, (d) compensator zero at -4
Indicate settling time
Indicate peak time
![Page 34: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
• 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
![Page 35: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Example
design a PD controller to yield 16% overshoot with a threefold reduction in settling time
![Page 37: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
• Step I: 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!!!
![Page 38: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
0)()2()2(
0))(06.22.1)(06.22.1(
02410
222223
23
bacsbacascas
csjsjs
Ksss
Kgainandpolethirdthegettosolve)(
10222
Kbac
ca
More details in step II and III
Characteristic equation:
![Page 39: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
613.3107.1
44
sT
• Step IV: evaluate a desired settling time:
• Step V: get corresponding real and imagine number of the dominant poles
(-3.613 and -6.193)
sec107.13
320.3:systemdcompensate
sec320.3205.1
44:systemteduncompensa
s
ns
T
T
193.6))504.0(tan(cos613.3 1 d
![Page 40: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Location of polesas desired is at-3.613±j6.192
![Page 41: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
006.3
)607.95180tan(613.3
192.6
• 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
![Page 42: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Compensator: (s+3.006)
Might not have a pole-zero cancellation for compensated system
![Page 43: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
PD Compensator
)(2
1212 K
KsKKsKGc
![Page 45: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Lead Compensation
Zeta2-zeta1=angular contribution
• A PD controller can be approximated with a lead compensator, which is implemented with a passive network.
• If the lead compensator pole is farther from the imaginary axis than the compensator zero, the angular contribution of the compensator is still positive and thus approximates an equivalent single zero.
• The advantages of a passive lead compensator over an active PD controller are that (1) no additional power supplies are required and (2) noise due to differentiation is reduced.
![Page 46: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Lead Compensation
Zeta2-zeta1=angular contribution
• The concept behind lead compensation: the difference between 180◦ and the sum of the angles from the uncompensated system’s poles and zeros to the design point (desired pole location) must be the angular contribution required of the compensator. That is, 2 −1 −3 −4 +5 = (2k+1)180◦
where 2 −1 = c is the angular contribution of the lead compensator.
![Page 47: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
• The angular contribution c can be determined from the rays originating from the desired closed-loop pole and terminating at the compensator pole and zero. These rays can be rotated about the desired closed-loop pole and thus different pairs of compensator pole and zero can be used to meet the transient response requirement.
• Different possible lead compensators: differences are in the values of the static error constants, the static gain, the difficulty in justifying a second-order approximation when the design is complete, and the ensuing transient response.
• For design we arbitrarily select either a lead compensator pole and zero and find the angular contribution at the design point of this pole or zero with the uncompensated system’s open-loop poles and zeros. The difference between this angle and 180◦ is the required contribution of the remaining compensator pole or zero.
![Page 48: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Example
Design three lead compensators for the systemthat has 30% OS and will reduce settling time downby a factor of 2.
![Page 49: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
sec972.3007.1
44
nsT
212.63K
• Step I: %OS = 30% equaivalent to damping ratio = 0.358, Ѳ= 69.02
• Step II: Search along the line to find a point that gives 180 degree (-1.007±j2.627)
• Step III: Find a corresponding K ( )• Step IV: calculate settling time of uncompensated
system
• Step V: twofold reduction in settling time (Ts=3.972/2 = 1.986), correspoding real and imaginary parts are:
014.2986.1
44
sT
253.5))358.0(tan(cos014.2 1 d
![Page 50: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
• Step VI: let’s put a zero at -5 and find the net angle to the test point (-172.69)
• Step VII: need a pole at the location giving 7.31 degree to the test point.
96.42
31.7tan014.2
252.5
c
c
p
p
![Page 51: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
)96.42(
)5(rcompensatolead
s
s
![Page 52: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Note: check if the 2nd order approx. is valid for justify our estimates of percent overshoot and settling time– Search for 3rd and 4th closed-loop poles
(-43.8, -5.134)– -43.8 is more than 20 times the real part of
the dominant pole– -5.134 is close to the zero at -5
The approx. is then valid!!!
![Page 53: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
![Page 54: Design with Root Locus](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022042500/56813097550346895d9674c6/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)