TI Journals
ISSN
International Journal of Engineering Sciences 2306-6474
www.waprogramming.com
1. Introduction
The modern advances in information technology and decision making, as well as the synergetic integration of different fundamental
engineering domains caused the engineering problems to get harder, broader, and deeper. Problems are multidisciplinary and require a
multidisciplinary engineering systems approach to solve them, such approach is called mechatronics approach, and such modern
multidisciplinary systems are called mechatronics systems. Mechatronics is defined as multidisciplinary concept, it is synergistic
integration of precision engineering mechanical engineering, electric engineering, electronic systems, information technology, intelligent
control system, and computer hardware and software to manage complexity, uncertainty, and communication through the design and
manufacture of products and processes from the very start of the design process, thus enabling complex decision making , exceptional
levels of accuracy and speed of high-tech equipment including ability to perform complicated and precise movements of high quality.
Mechatronics systems are supposed to operate with high accuracy and speed despite adverse effects of system nonlinearities and
uncertainties, since achieving and verifying accuracy in Mechatronics systems' performance is of concern, the most critical decision in the
Mechatronics design process is the selection and design of two directly related to each other sub-systems; control unit (physical controller)
and control algorithm.
There are many control strategies options that may be more or less appropriate to a specific type of application each has its advantages and
disadvantages. The designer must select the best one for specific application, most are to introduced and discussed, tested in many texts
including [1-15]. Controllers' options including but not limited to: Microcontroller/microprocessor (e.g. PIC-microcontroller),
Programmable logic controller (PLC), computer control, desktop/laptop, Digital Signal Processing (DSP) integrated circuits. Also,
algorithms options including but not limited to: ON-OFF control, P, PI, PD and PID control, lead, lag intelligent control, Fuzzy control,
adaptive control, Neural network control. In this paper we ill introduce main of them, their structures, indicate their main properties and
their design procedures. There is several control system design and analysis techniques, including; numerical, analytical and graphical, the
three primarily simple and direct graphical methods are Root-Locus, Bode plots and Nyquist diagrams.
The term control system design refers to the process of selecting feedback gains, poles and zeros that meet design specifications in a
closed-loop control system. Most design methods are iterative, combining parameter selection with analysis, simulation, and insight into
the dynamics of the plant [15-16]. The goal of control design is to obtain the configuration, specifications, and identification of the key
parameters of a proposed system to meet and satisfy all the design specifications. Control system design involves the following three steps;
(1) Determine the design specifications.(2) Determine control algorithm, and controller/compensator configuration. (3) Determine the
parameter values of the controller to achieve the design goals, shortly, after formulating the problem and establishing the control goals, the
controller configuration is chosen, were the designer must select a controller and strategy that will satisfy all the design specifications, and
finally, the next task is to select (design) controller parameter values so that all design specifications are achieved.
The accuracy control system design (accuracy of selected gains, poles and zeros) to meet all desired specifications, depends on many
factors including; the accuracy of derived mathematical model, the accuracy and limitations of applied design methodology and tools, and
* Corresponding author.
Email address: salem_farh@yahoo.com
Controllers and Control Algorithms: Selection and Time Domain Design Techniques Applied in Mechatronics Systems … Part I 161
Internat ional Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(5) May 2013
designer's skills and experience, in the following discussion assuming the mathematical model in terms of transfer function is accurate
enough to processed to control design process. The following three primarily graphical methods are available to the control system analysis
and design: (1) The root-locus method, (2) Bode- plot representations, (3) Nyquist diagrams.
The term control system analysis concerns itself with the impact that a given controller has on a given system when they interact in an
applied configurations. The term synthesis refers to the process by which new physical configurations are created, to combine separate
elements or devices and construct controllers with certain properties.
The term design specifications refer to statements that explicitly state and describe what the system should do? How to do it? How well and
accurately it is Done?. The design specifications are unique to each individual application and often include specifications about relative
stability, steady-state accuracy (error), transient-response characteristics, and frequency-response characteristics. In some applications
there may be additional specifications on sensitivity to parameter variations, that is, robustness, or disturbance rejection. Standard
measures of performance used include; Time constant T, Rise time TR, Settling time Ts, Peak time, TP, Maximum overshoot MP, maximum
undershoot Mu, Percent overshoot OS%, Delay time Td, The decay ratio D R , Damping period TO and frequency of any oscillations in the
response, the swiftness of the response and the steady state error ess [17].
Disturbances
ERROR
The actuating signal D(s) Controlled
E(s) variable
U(s)
Reference system to be C(s) Designable controller Fixed Plant
Input command + controlled
- controller Input , R(s) Output , C(s)
G(s) Compensator
R(s) G(s)
Feedback element
Sensor /Transducer
Primary feedback B(s) H(s) H(s)
Designable controller K
Compensator
Feedback
Figure 1(c) Feedback compensation Figure 1(d) State feedback
GH(s)
Figure 1(e) Series-Feedback compensation (2DOF) Figure 1(f) Forward with series compensations
Gf (s)
P-Controller is one of the simplest and widely used methods of control for many kinds of systems, it is always recommended to be selected
and applied first in control system selection and design process . The control action of P-controller is proportional to the error, where P-
controller pushes the system in the direction opposite the error, with a magnitude that is proportional to the magnitude of the error, P-
controller action, provides an instantaneous response to the control error; this action is used to improve the response of the stable system.
The relation between the output of controller, (control Effort), u(t) and the actuating error signal e(t) is given by Eq.(1), taking Laplace-
transform and manipulating Eq.(1), for transfer function gives:
u t K p e t U s E s K p (1)
Gp(s) = U(s )/E(s) = Kp (2)
The output of P-controller is equal to the error, e(t) , multiplied by the constant proportional gain K P, this describes a pure proportional
relationship between input R(s) and output KP *E(s), in effect P-Controller is an amplifier and Kp is simple ratio (non-zero term).
In steady state mode: P-controller will reduce but never eliminate the steady-state error ess, In a proportional controller, steady state error
tends to depend inversely upon the proportional gain, so if the gain is made larger the error goes down, therefore, with only P-controller,
there will always be a small offset-error between the reference input and the measured variable, this is the main disadvantage of P-
controller, to remove this offset-error, integral control has to be used with proportional controller, resulting in (PI- Controller).There are
practical limits as to how large the gain can be made, where very high gains lead to instabilities, but if the process has a low-order
dynamics the proportional gain can be set to a high value in order to provide a fast response and a low steady-state error.
Controllers and Control Algorithms: Selection and Time Domain Design Techniques Applied in Mechatronics Systems … Part I 163
Internat ional Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(5) May 2013
The error e(t ), is the difference between the actual measured output and the desired input , the and the actual measured output is just the
output of the sensor Ks, therefore the error e(t ),is given by:
e(t )= Input – actual measured output
Where: Ks, is sensor constant gain. Substituting in Eq.(4) and solving for the steady state output Nss, gives:
Nss = DC Gain * Kp (R(s) - Ks * Nss)
DC Gain * K p * R (s )
Steady state output, N ss (7)
1 DC Gain * K s * K P
Now, considering the case when Ks=1, (unity feedback), we have the output equal to the input:
n2 K P * n2
G plant (s ) 2 2
G open (s ) 2
s 2n s n s 2n s n2
K P G (s ) K P * n2 K P * n2
T (s ) 2
1 K P G (s )H (s ) s 2n s K P n2 n2 s 2 2n s n2 (K P 1)
Also, for second order plant transfer function, given by Eq.(9), the closed loop TF , damping ratio ζ and undamped natural ωn frequency are
given as follows:
1 K P G (s ) KP n2
G plant (s ) T (s ) 2 2 (9)
s (s 1) 1 K P G (s )H (s ) s 2s K P s 2 n s n2
n2 K P n K P , 2n 2 1 / n 1 / K P
In the closed loop transfer function T(s), the term ω2n is given in terms of proportional gain K p and thus we can potentially make ωn ,very
large by choosing Kp to be very large, thereby speeding up the system, e.g. settling time is given by Ts = 4T = 4/ ζωn, rise time is given by
TR =(2.16 ζ+0.6)/ ωn , the peak time TP = π/ (ωn√1- ζ2 ), where: T: time constant, all these expressions show that the larger the values of ωn
164 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
the faster the system will response, the proportional controller will have the effects of Reducing the rise time Ts, Increases the overshoot
OS% , and Reduce ,but never eliminate, the steady-state error, ess The following MATLAB code, can be used to demonstrate the effect of
increasing proportional gain KP=[ 1 10 100]; for an open loop system given in next code, the resulted responses are shown in Figure 2
>> K =[ 1 10 100]; t=0:0.001:5; for i=1:3 num= K(i); den=[1 3 K(i)]; Gopen
=tf(num,den), Gclosed = feedback(Gopen,1); sys= feedback(Gclosed,1); y(:,i)=step(sys,t);
Gopen =tf(num,den), Gclosed = feedback(Gopen,1), pause (1), end, plot(t,y(:,1),t,y(:,2),'--
',t,y(:,3),':'); legend('K=1','K=10','K=100',-1)
0.7
K=1
0.6 K=10
K=100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
This is the mathematical model of operational amplifier in the form of zeroth order. The proportional gain is given by:
V out R
2 KP
V in R1
Read KP, setpoint // read proportional gain and desired output, setpoint
double error , effort
while ( )
y = ADC_read ( ); // read value of controlled variable from sensor
error = setpoint – y; // compute new error
effort =Kp*error // calculate control effort
end
Controllers and Control Algorithms: Selection and Time Domain Design Techniques Applied in Mechatronics Systems … Part I 165
Internat ional Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(5) May 2013
The purpose of a control system is to reshape the response of the closed loop system to meet the desired response; the response depends on
closed loop poles' location on complex plane, for first and second order systems it is easy to determine the poles of closed loop system.
response of higher order systems is largely dictated by those poles that are the closest to the imaginary axis, i.e. the poles that have the
smallest real part magnitudes, such poles are called the dominant poles, many times, it is possible to identify a single pole, or a pair of
poles, as the dominant poles, based on this most complex higher order systems that have dominant features can be approximated by either a
first or second order system response. In such cases, a fair idea of the control system's performance can be obtained from only time
constant of the dominant pole for first order system and from the damping ratio and undamped natural frequency of the two dominant
poles. The approximation conditions; for dominant one first order pole: the pole closest to the imaginary axis is the one that tend to
dominate the response. For higher-order than second system, if the real pole is five time-constants, 5T, farther to the left than the dominant
poles, we assume that the system is represented by its dominant second-order pair of poles, for example Considering a third order system
with one real root, and a pair of complex conjugate roots given by :
K
G (s )
s s 2
2n s n2
This system can be considered as consisting of two systems; first and second order systems; that it has three poles one real pole ,at pole
= α, and two complex poles, the condition for dominant one first order pole , or two second order poles, is given below:
K / n2
1 0 n A pproximated as first order system
s
K /
10 n A pproximated as sec ond order system
s 2
2n s n2
There are many control methods (techniques) for control system design, including trial and error, gain adjustments, direct pole placement,
comparison technique of standard and obtained transfer function, graphical tools, as well as using computer softwares e.g. MATLAB.
1 KP (10)
G plant (s ) T closed (s ) 2
s (s 1) s 2s K P
s 2 2s K P as 2 bs c s 2 2n s n2
2 2
b b 2 4 * a * c 2n (2n ) 4 n 2n 4n2 ( )2 1
P1,2 n j n 1
2 (11)
2*a 2 2
2 4 4 K P
P1,2 1 1 K P
2
4 4K P 4 4K P 0 4K P 4 K P 1
Figure 5
The response will be underdamped for all values of K P greater than one, taking in consideration that there are practical limits as to how
large the gain can be made.
P-Controller design For desired performance: Based on pole's value, designer can calculate the exact value of proportional gain Kp , that
will result in desired damping ratio ζ, and correspondingly response type, by setting the magnitudes of the real and imaginary parts of the
poles equal to each other and solving , as shown next: based on Eq. (11) and for system given by Eq.(10), for achieving damping of
0.7071, equating real and imaginary parts of the poles, and solve for Kp , gives:
P1,2 n j n 1
2
n n 1
2 2
1 2 2 2 1 0.5 0.7071
By equating real and imaginary parts of system's closed loop pole and knowing that the real and imaginary parts must have equal
magnitude, solving, gives the value of KP
2 4 4K P
P1,2 1 1 K P 1 K P 1 K P 2
2
to select the exact proportional gain Kp value, to achieve desired response, based on desired performance specifications in terms of damping
ratio and undamped natural frequency, the following expression for proportional gain, for second order systems can be proposed
2
b b 2 4ac b b 4aK P b b 2 4aK P
2a
2a
2a
4a 2
n j n 1
2
b b 2 4aK P b 2 4aK P b2
2a
4a 2
n j 2
n n2 2
4a 2
n2 n2 2 K P 2 an2 (1 2 )
4a
For example, for system given by Eq.(10), for achieving damping of 0.7071 and undamped natural frequency of 1.4142 , the proportional
gain is found to be KP=2, resulting in achieving desired response
function. for second order systems, solving the closed loop transfer function given by Eq.(9) for ωn, ζ we have proportional gain Kp in terms
of damping ratio and undamped natural frequency:
n K P , 1/ KP ,
2 ln(%OS / 100) (12)
%OS e ( / 1 )
,
2 ln 2 (%OS / 100)
4 4 4 2 , (13)
Ts = KP KP
n KP Ts T s
In terms of desired steady state error, we can calculate the corresponding proportional gain K p by solving:
R (s ) e (s ) (14)
KP
DC Gain * K s * e (s )
For first order system, the closed loop transfer function, and correspondingly, the pole and time constant T, are given in terms of KP, for
desired time constant we can select KP
1 KP
G s T s P a+K P
s a s a+K P
T 1 / P 1 / a K P 1 / a K P
In terms of desired steady state error; the ess, can be written in terms of proportional gain, then we can calculate the corresponding
proportional gain Kp as shown in both Eqs (14) ,(15)
sR (s ) 1 1 (15)
e () lim e () e ()
s 0 1 G open (s ) 1 K P G (0) 1 K P / a
For higher order systems, root locus or comparison methods can be applied, to select the exact proportional gain K p value, to achieve
desired response. To calculate Kp that will result in ess ≤ 3% , we substitute in Eq.(14) to have Kp= 21.286. Another example, for system
given by transfer function given by Eq.(16) to calculate proportional gain, Kp, that will give a steady state error ess of 5%, can be
accomplished as follows: the DC gain of controlled system is 1/0.5 =2, with unity feedback, Ks =1, and unity step input, substituting in
Eq.(14), gives K p=95, to calculate Kp that will result in overshoot OS% ≤ 10%, we first calculate closed loop transfer function, since this is
second order system, using Eq.(12) from desired overshoot we find damping ratio ζ, we rewrite the denominator in terms of damping ratio
ζ and undamped natural frequency ωn , and by comparison we find the values of gain K p
1 KP
G (s ) T (s )
0.1s 2 0.6s 0.5 0.1s 2 0.6s (0.5 K P )
(16)
0.1s 2 0.6s (0.5 K P ) s 2 2n s n2
0.6 2n , (0.5 K P ) n2
2.5.2.1.2 P-Controller design for desired performance by selection of both or either of gain K P and/or parameter
Rewriting Eq.(10) to have the below form, with undefined system parameter P, both system parameter, and proportional gain K P, can be
selected to meet design specifications e.g. Ts, OS% , as follows: by finding closed loop transfer function and comparing it with standard
second order transfer function , gives
1 KP n2
G plant (s ) T closed (s ) 2 2
s (s P ) s Ps K P s 2n s n2
By comparison both system parameter P, and proportional gain KP, can be designed by:
K P n2 and 2 n P
168 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
Based on Figure 5, the damping ratio line can be found by the following equation:
ζ = cosθ, and θ=cos-1ζ
For desired damping ratio, overshoot or settling time, rise time, the damping ratio can be found and correspondingly damping ratio line and
finally proportional gain K P at intersection point between root locus and damping line, based on Fig 5 , the equations are given next
ln(%OS / 100)
T 1 / n , TS 4 / n ,
2 ln 2 (%OS / 100)
θ = cos-1 ζ
2
Pcl n j d Pcl n n tan n jn (1 )
du t du t
K e t .dt K e t dt (17)
dt dt
u (t ) K I e t dt
Integrals give information concerning the past, that is why integrals provide stability and are always have a tendency to get stuck in the
past, and being late. Taking Laplace transform of Eq.(17) and rearranging for transfer function gives, the transfer function of integral
controller:
1 E s K I (18)
U (s ) K I E s ,
s U (s ) s
Root locus: Adding an I-controller is equivalent to adding open-loop pole at the origin as shown by Eq.(10) (to the right of the right most
pole in the system) in the forward path, in result increasing the system type by one and steady-state error is reduced to zero (ess=0), also
resulting in“shifting” root-locus to the left tending to lower the system's relative stability and slows the response times.
In transient mode: the major disadvantage of I-controller is in that it allows a large deviation at the instant the error is produced , WHERE
based on fact that integration is a continual summing, integration of error over time means summing up the complete controller error
history up to the present time, this means I-controller can initially allow a large deviation at the instant the error is produced allowing the
oscillatory and slow transient behavior that can lead to system instability and cyclic operation, this all means the following; since the error
must accumulate, before a significant response is output from the controller, the integral control is not normally used alone, but is combined
with another control mode, I-control has a tendency to slow the response times by increasing TR , and OS% makes the transient response
worse.
In steady state mode: the major advantage of integral controllers is in that it return the controlled variable back to the exact setpoint, where
the I- control integrates the error and eliminates it (ess =0).
It is important to note the following: (1) large values of the integral gain (KI ) unsterilized the response. (2) The Differential controller in
feedback path is equivalent to an Integral controller in the forward path. (3) The Integral controller in feedback path is equivalent to a
differential controller in the forward path (4) The integral control is not normally used alone, but is combined with another control mode.
To more clearly understand integral control, we can recall integral in math; an integral is really the area under a curve, negative area can
subtract from positive area, lowering the value of an integral, Integration is a continual summing as time goes on, the area accumulates, E.G.
for (ʃAdt= At) , the integrator acts to transform the step change into a gradually changing signal every sample time. Integration of error
Controllers and Control Algorithms: Selection and Time Domain Design Techniques Applied in Mechatronics Systems … Part I 169
Internat ional Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(5) May 2013
over time means that we sum up the complete controller error history up to the present time, this is shown in Figure 6 the integral sum of
error is computed as the shaded areas between the SP and PV traces, At time t = 60 min on the plots, the integral sum is 135 – 34 = 101.
The response is largely settled out at t = 90 min, and the integral sum is then 135 – 34 + 7 = 108 [19]. As note applying only P-controller,
there will always be a small offset-error between the reference input and the measured variable, to remove this offset-error, integral
control has to be used with proportional controller, resulting in (PI- Controller), the offset will be reduced over time until the measured
variable eventually will coincide with the reference input set point and the offset will cease to exist.
1 1 1
RC
V out (t ) V in (t )dt , V out (s ) V in (s )
RC s
1 1 1 1
G (s ) KI , KI
RC s s RC
Figure 7. Operational Amplifier Integrator circuit and formula
Read KI, setpoint // read proportional gain and desired output, setpoint
double error , effort
while ( )
y = ADC_read ( ); // read value of controlled variable from sensor
error = setpoint – y; // compute new error
ErrorInt = ErrorInt + dt*( error);
effort =KI* ErrorInt // calculate control effort
end
A derivative control differentiates the error signal to generate the controller output signal. it is when the signal driving the controlled system
is directly proportional to the rate change of the error with time, (the derivative of the error). The changing of the error indicates where the
error is going to be in the future, that is predicting the error in future, based on the past and current state (e.g. slope) of the error, once the
D-Controller has predicted the future error, it adds an additional control action of controller given by Gain * Future Error. The transfer
function is obtained as follows:
170 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
u t K D de t / dt U s K D s E s
G(s) = K D s (19)
In the transient mode: The D-control action mainly works in transient mode, D-controller will have the effect of improving the stability of
the system, and improving the transient response by providing a fast response; where adding D-control result in reducing the overshoot Mp,
settling time TS, small changes on both rise time TR and steady state error, D-controller predicts, the large overshoot and makes the
adjustment needed.
In steady state mode: If the steady-state error of a system is unchanged, (constant), in the time domain, the derivative control has no effect,
since the time derivative of a constant is zero.
4.2 Remedies for Derivative action; D-controller cascaded with a first-order low-pass filter
The D-controller based on past and present states, extrapolates the current slope of the error (see Figure 11), therefore has very high gain
this means a sudden rapid change in setpoint (and hence error) will cause the derivative controller to become very large, also for high
frequency signals would differentiate high frequency noise (noise is small, random, rapid changes), and thus provide a derivative kick to
the final control, this is undesirable which can cause problems including instability. To implement D-controller, in processes with noise,
Pure differentiator approximation (Pure differentiator cascaded with a first-order low-pass filter, of the next form: (1/τs+1), with small time
constant e.g. shorter than 1/5 of derivative time TD, is recommended this has the effect of attenuating (filtering) the high frequency noise
entering the D-controller.
1 1
filter D _ filter , very smal nuumber e .g . 0.20 or 0.1 T D
s 1 TD s 1
TD s
G D (s )
TD s 1
Since D-controller works on the derivative of the error, derivative action is completely unable to control a process on its own , where if the
error is constant and doesn't change, de/dt =0, derivative will not do anything ,as a result derivative action is always used in conjunction
with one or more of the other control modes, PD, PID. It is important to note the following: (1) The D-controller in feedback path is
equivalent to a I- controller in the forward path, (2) The I-controller in feedback path is equivalent to a D-controller in the forward path,
(3) A Tachometer is an example of differential Control. In order to use the Derivative control the transfer function must be proper, that is
the degree of denominator is greater or equal to the degree of numerator, this is often requires a pole to be added to the controller.
dV in (t )
V out (t ) RC V out (s ) RCV in (s )s
dt
1
G (s ) RCs K I , K I RC
s
Read KD, setpoint // read proportional gain and desired output, setpoint
double error , effort
while ( )
y = ADC_read ( ); // read of controlled variable from sensor
error = setpoint – y; // compute new error
ErrorInt = ErrorInt + (error)/dt
effort =KD* ErrorInt // control effort
end
4.5 Pseudo-Derivative Feedback Control or Rate feedback control; D-Controller as rate feedback (feedback compensation)
As noted, a simple form of control systems is to place the controller in the forward loop ( cascade) in the front of the system to be
controlled. Another configuration is the design procedures for feedback compensation can be more complicated than for cascade
compensation. On the other hand, feedback compensation can yield faster responses. Thus, the engineer has the luxury of designing faster
responses into portions of a control loop in order to provide isolation [8]. a simple controller that is always used in the feedback loop is
known as the rate feedback controller (also called Pseudo-Derivative Feedback), where in 1977 Phelan [20-21] published a book, which
emphasizes a simple yet effective control structure, a structure that provides all the control aspects of PID control, but without system
zeros, and correspondingly removing negative zeros effect upon system response. Phelan named this structure "Pseudo-derivative feedback
(PDF) control from the fact that the rate of the measured parameter is fed back without having to calculate a derivative. The rate feedback
controller is obtained by feeding back the derivative (rate) of the output of a second-order system (or a system which can be approximated
by a second-order system, i.e. a system with dominant complex conjugate poles) according to the block diagram given in Figure 9. The rate
feedback control helps to increase the system damping, decreases both the response settling time and overshoot [22]. The closed loop
transfer function, for system without any controller in the forward loop is given by:
1 n2
G plant (s ) T closed (s ) 2
s (s 1) s 2n s n2
But, the closed loop transfer function, for rate feedback controller is given by:
n2
T closed (s )
s 2 2 0.5K Rate n n s n2
Comparing these two closed loop transfer functions, to find the relation between damping ratios, shows that the damping ratio is increased
applying the rate feedback , and the undamped natural frequency is unchanged, resulting in improving transient response in terms of
reducing in settling time and overshoot
2
KD ( Rate ) (20)
n
This means, based on damping ratio of original system closed loop transfer function without controller; we can design a rate feedback
controller to achieve a desired damping.
R(s) + C(s)
+- - G(s)
Krates
5. Proportional-Derivative, PD-controller
The output control signal of PD-Controller controller u(t),is equal to the sum of two signals (see Figure 10); The signal obtained by
multiplying the error signal by a constant gain KP and the signal obtained by differentiating and multiplying the error signal by gain KD, and
given by Eq.(21), taking Laplace transform and solving for transfer function, gives Eq.(22) :
172 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
de (t ) (21)
u (t ) K P e (t ) K D U (s ) K P E (s ) K D sE (s )
dt
K (22)
G PD (s ) K P K D s K D (s P ) K D (s Z PD )
KD
In the transient mode: PD-controller improves (speed up) the transient response, it will decay faster resulting in less settling time TS, less
time constant T, less peak time TP, and reduced maximum overshoot MP.
In steady state mode: has minimum effect, from a different point of view, the PD controller may also be used to improve the steady-state
error only when error changes with respect to time, because it anticipates the direction of large errors and attempts corrective action before
they with large overshoot occur (see Figure 11).
(noise) Filtering the D-controller: The main disadvantages are in that the PD controller, given by: C(s) = K P + K Ds, is not physically
implementable, since it is not proper, also D-term in D-controller, has very high gain, where for high frequency signals would differentiate
high frequency noise, thereby producing large kicks in output, this means for particular systems, the addition of PD zero may cause
overshoot in the transient response for the closed loop system. In order to avoid this and use PD-controller, three main solutions; (1) To
replaced the PD controller, with lead compensator, which is a soft approximation of PD controller, (2) the D-control the transfer function
must be proper, that is the degree of denominator is greater or equal to the degree of numerator, this is often requires a pole to be added to
the controller correspondingly, Eq.(22) can be manipulated to have the following form:
KD de (t )
G PD (s ) K P K D s K P (1 s ) K P (1 T d s ) u (t ) K P (e (t ) T d )
KP dt
This is not proper transfer function, since the numerator has a higher degree than the denominator, the transfer function is not causal and
can not be realized, and therefore the PD controller is modified through the addition of a lag to the derivative term, to have a proper form
given by:
Td s
G PD (s ) K P (1 ) (23)
1 Td s
Where: Td K D / K P , is the time constants of the derivative actions,(Derivative time) extrapolating the error Td time units into the
future using the tangent to the error curve, this is shown in Figure 11. The approximation acts as a derivative for low-frequency signals and
as a constant gain for the high frequency signals. The transfer function of a PD controller with a filtered derivative term is given by:
Td s
G PD (s ) K P (1 ) (24)
1 T d s / N
N: With the range of 2 to 20, it determines the gain K HF of the PID controller in the high frequency range, the gain KHF must be limited
because measurement noise signal often contains high frequency components and its amplification should be limited.
5.3 PD-Controller with D-Controller as rate feedback (feedback compensation, rate sensor)
This is accomplished according to the block diagram given in Figure 8.22, resulting in improving transient response in terms of reducing in
settling time and overshoot, the closed loop transfer function is given by:
K P G (s )
1 G (s ) K D s K P G (s ) K P G (s )
T (s )
1 G (s ) K D s G (s ) K P 1 G (s )K D s G (s )K P 1 G (s ) K D s K P
1 G (s ) K D s
For a type 1 system, rate feedback decreases the ramp-error constant K v but does not affect the step-error constant KP.
An example of applying PD-Controller with D-Controller as rate feedback, for electric motor output angular position control, where the
measured output is angle and the rate of measured output angle is angular speed, which is to be feedback, this is shown in Figure 13 now, If
we place a tachometer, it will output a voltage proportional to angular speed, this can be feed back to the regulator. Tachometer-feedback
control has exactly the same effect as the PD control shown Figure 10, the response of the system with tachometer feedback is uniquely
defined by the characteristic equation, whereas the response of the system with the PD control also depends on the zero at Z = -KP/KD,
which could have a significant effect on the overshoot of the step response [7].
KDs
KRate
Figure 13 Block diagram for PD-Controller with D- Figure 13 Electric motor controls.
Controller as rate feedback
K
G PD K p K D s K D s P K D s Z o
KD
For example; the forward transfer function of DC motor system, is given by:
(s ) (K p K D s )K t
G forward (s )
V in (s ) ( L a J m )s (R a J m b m La )s 2 ( R ab m K t K b )s
3
174 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
The system overall closed loop transfer function, T(s) , from input signal to sensor , potentiometer, output is given by:
(s ) ( K p K D s )K t
T (s ) 3 2
V in (s ) (L a J m )s ( R a J m b m La )s (R a b m K t K b K D K t K pot )s K p K t K pot
Referring to [13], The controller gains KP and KD depend on the physical parameters of the actuator drives, to determine KP and KD that
yield optimal deadbeat response, the overall closed loop transfer function T(s) is compared with standard third order transfer function given
by below equation, knowing that α =1.9, β =2.2 and ωnTs =4.04 are known coefficients of system with deadbeat response given by table 1,
and choosing TS to be less than 2 seconds, gives the following:
n3
G (s ) , n * 0.5 4.82, n 4.82 / 2 2.41
s n s n2 s n3
3 2
(s ) (K p K D s ) K t / La J m
T (s )
V in (s ) 3 (R a J m bm La ) 2 (R a bm K t K b K D K t K pot ) K p K t K pot
s s s
La J m La J m La J m
( n2 L a J m ) ( R ab m K t K b )
KD
K t K pot
n3 La J m
Kp
K t K pot
The desired Standard second order closed-loop transfer function for achieving desired deadbeat response specifications is given by:
n2
T s
s n s n2
2
α β γ δ ε OS% PU% TR TR TS
2nd 1.82 0.10% 0.00% 3.47 6.58 4.82
3nd 1.90 2.20 1.65% 1.36% 3.48 4.32 4.04
4nd 2.20 3.50 2.80 0.89% 0.95% 4.16 5.29 4.81
5nd 2.70 4.90 5.40 3.40 1.29% 0.37% 4.84 5.73 5.43
6nd 3.15 6.50 7.55 7.55 4.05 1.63% 0.94% 5.49 6.31 6.04
a) Based on desired performance specifications , find desired damping ratio and undamped natural frequency
b) Find overall closed loop transfer function in terms of KP, KD
c) Compare closed loop TF , with standard second order transfer function written in terms of damping ratio and undamped natural
frequency, ( or first order written in terms of time constant), particularly compare both characteristic equations to separate PD
controller gains KP , K D in terms of damping ratio and undamped natural frequency
d) Substitute values , and find KP, KD
e) For example , for transfer function given by below transfer function, to have ζ=1 and ωn=4, the PD controller gains are calculated
as follows:
a a (K P K D )
G (s ) T (s ) 2
s (s a ) s (a aK D )s 2K P
a) Construct an accurate root-locus plot, (or, simply plot pole-zero diagram of the open-loop plant transfer function)
b) Obtain the desired location of the closed loop dominant poles P1,2, from desired transient performance specifications e.g.
damping ratio ζ or OS% ,time constant T or settling time Ts by the following equations:
ln(%OS / 100)
T 1 / n , TS 4 / n ,
2 ln 2 (%OS / 100)
θ = cos-1 ζ and Pcl = − ζ ωn ± jωd
Pcl n n tan n jn (1 2 )
c) Mark the location of the dominant pole P1,in the pole zero diagram.
d) Find the location of the PD controller zero Zo, such that the angle criterion as given by next equation is satisfied (The angles is
measure counterclockwise):
m n
i 1
zi Pi 180r , where r 1, 3......
i 1
d-1) Find the PD zero location using angle criterion by drawing line from the desired location of the dominant closed-loop poles s1 ,to the
real axis ,with the PD controller angle of zero θzo.
d-2) Applying trigonometry, referring to Figure 14, the PD zero location can be obtained using any of the following equation:
d
Z0 n
tan(c )
n
Z0
tan(c )
tan(c ) (1 2 )
Figure 14
a) Find derivative gain KD applying magnitude criterion; estimate the vector lengths from P1 to all poles and zeros and apply the
magnitude criterion to find KD.
b) Find proportional gain KP by:
KP
Z0 KP KDZ0
KD
c) Find PD transfer function : by substituting the value of the Zo or K P and KD in the PD controller transfer function :
K
G PD (s ) K P K D s K D (s P ) K D (s Z 0 )
KD
d) Analyzing the closed loop response with PD controller added, and if necessary, modifies the design to meet the desired
specifications.
e) Speeding up the time response can be done by either or both, 1) Move zero closer to the imaginary-axis, 2) Increase the
proportional gain.
6. Proportional-Integral, PI-controller
The integral of the error as well as the error itself are used for control. The output control action signal u(t), of PI-Controller controller is
proportional to the error and the integral of error. The control action u(t) is equal to the sum of two signals ( see Figure 15(a)); The integral
of the error, e(t), multiplied by the integral gain KI , and the error e(t), multiplied by the proportional gain KP, and given by Eq.(25), taking
Laplace transform, and solving for transfer function gives Eq.(26):
1 K (25)
u (t ) K P e (t ) K I de (t )dt U (s ) K P E (s ) K I E (s ) E (s ) K P I
s s
KI
K P (s )
K K s KI KP K P (s Z PI ) (26)
G PI (s ) K P I P
s s s s
Where: Z PI K I / K P , is the PI-controller zero. Equation (26) can be rewritten, in terms of integral time constant TI, to have the
following given by (333), and implemented as shown in Figure 15(b) :
KI K 1 1
G PI (s ) K P K P (1 I ) K P (1 ) u (t ) K P (e (t ) e (t )dt )
s KPs TI s Ti
e (27)
u (t ) K P (e )
Ti
This means if constant error exists, the controller action will keep increasing, until the error is zero, where: TI =KP/KI, is the time constants
of the integral actions, or integral time , Both K P and TI are adjustable, a change in the value of KP affect both the proportional and integral
parts of control action.
1
R1
V out (s ) sC R 1 1 R 1 1 (28)
2 2
V in (s ) R2 R1 s R 1C R
1 s R1C
Transfer function given by Eq. (26), shows that PI-controller is equivalent to addition of a pole at the origin, P=0, and a stable zero at Z= -
KI / Kp , to the open loop path, (the zero placed near the pole), the addition of zero pulls the root-locus to the left, meanwhile the addition of
pole to the open-loop transfer has the effect of pulling the root locus to the right, resulting in; (1) Lower the system's relative stability, (2)
worse transient response, slow dawn the setting of response, (3) Improve steady-state error.
In transient mode : The presence of zeros in either the system will significantly inversely effect the response and may cause worse
transient response, slows dawn the setting and overshoot of response of the closed loop system, (this means PI control does not perform
well in sluggish systems), the size depending upon the relative position of the zeros and closed loop poles within the complex plane, [21]
some times and depending on controlled system, the transient response parameters with the PI controller are almost the same as those for
the original system.
In steady state mode: PI controller is used to drastically improve or eliminate the steady-state errors, where PI controller zero increases the
system type by one.
It is important to note the following: (1) Integral term in the feedback path is equivalent to a differentiator in the forward path, (2) PI
controller by it self is unstable, pure integrators not easy to physically implement; this is why PI controller is approximated to result in lag
compensator.
KI
U (s ) K P (C (s )) E (s )
s
For plant of first order given by Eq.(30), the over all closed loop transfer function, is given by Eq.(31), this equation is identical to closed
loop equation of PI-control in cascade, the difference being that the PI compensated system contains a zero introduced by the compensator
at Z= - KI / Kp
a (30)
G (s )
s a
C (s ) KI (31)
T (s )
R (s ) s 2 1 K P as K I
Here notice that, there is note zero added, and correspondingly there is no PI-zero effect. However If overshoot response to commanded
input cannot be tolerated in the system, a pre-filter can be used on the system input.
178 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
Figure 17. Systems design with prefilter Figure 18. (a) PI design with Proportional in the Feedback Loop
i 1
zi Pi 180r , where r 1, 3......
i 1
0.1 K I / K P K I 0.1 * K P
d) Find the proportional gain KP , applying angle criterion .
Combining all three controllers, results in the PID controller, the output of PID controller is equal to the sum of three signals: The signal
obtained by multiplying the error signal by a constant gain K P, and The signal obtained by differentiating and multiplying the error signal
by KD and The signal obtained by integrating and multiplying the error signal by K I, and given by Eq.(32), taking Laplace transform, and
solving for transfer function , gives Eq.(33)
de (t ) 1
u (t ) K P e (t ) K D K I e (t )dt U (s ) K P E (s ) K D E (s )s K I E (s )
dt s
K K (32)
U (s ) E (s ) K P I K D s G PID (s ) K P I K D s
s s
This equation can be manipulated to result in the following form
K K
K D s 2 P s I
KI K Ds 2 KPs K I K D K D (33)
G PID (s ) K P K Ds
s s s
Equation (33) is second order system, with two zeros and one pole at origin, and can be expressed to have the following form:
K D s Z PI s Z PD s Z PD (34)
G PID K D s Z PI G PD (s )G PI (s )
s s
Which indicates that PID transfer function is the product of transfer functions PI and PD , Implementing these two controllers jointly and
independently will take care of both controller design requirements.
The transfer function of PID controller, GPID(s) ,can also be expressed as:
K D s Z PI s Z PD K D s 2 Z PI Z PD K D s ( Z PI Z PD K D )
G PID
s s
Rearranging, we have:
K D s 2 Z PI Z PD K D s ( Z PI Z PD K D ) (Z Z K )
G PID Z PI Z PD K D PI PD D K D s
s s s s
180 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
K K
K D s 2 P s I
K K D
K D s 2 2n s n2
G PID (s ) D
(36)
s s
Where: 2 K I and KP
n
2n
KD KD
The transfer function of PID control given by Eq.(32) can, also, be expressed in terms of derivative time and integral time to have the
following form:
1 T T s 2 T I s 1 (37)
G PID K P 1 T D s K P I D
TI s TIs
Where: The integral time, TI K P / K I , The derivative time, T D K D / K P
K I K P / T I , K D K PT D
Since in Eq. (37) the numerator has a higher degree than the denominator, the transfer function is not causal and can not be realized,
therefore this PID controller is modified through the addition of a lag to the derivative term, to have the following form:
1 TDs
G PID K P 1 , TD /N - time constant of the added lag
T I s 1 T D s
N
N: determines the gain KHF of the PID controller in the high frequency range, the gain K HF must be limited because measurement noise
signal often contains high frequency components and its amplification should be limited. Usually, the divisor N is chosen in the range 2 to
20. If no D-controller, then we have PI controller, given by Eq. (38), it is clear that, PI and PD controllers are special cases of the PID
controller.
1 T I s 1 (38)
G PI K P 1 KP
TI s TI s
The addition of the proportional and derivative components effectively predicts the error value at TD seconds (or samples) in the future,
assuming that the loop control remains unchanged. The integral component adjusts the error value to compensate for the sum of all past
errors, with the intention of completely eliminating them in TI seconds (or samples). The resulting compensated single error value is scaled
by the single gain KP.
Filtering PID controller : two way including ; (1) PID introduce a zero into the closed loop transfer function, the presence of zero may
cause overshoot in the transient response for the closed loop system, to filter PID controller and eliminate the overshoot, a prefilter is used,
the same procedure is used; see systems design with prefilter. (2) Since it not be desirable to implement the controller as given above; in
practice, all signals will contain high frequency noise, and differentiating noise (by D-controller) will once again create signals with large
magnitudes. To avoid this, the derivative term K Ds is usually implemented in conjunction with a low-pass filter of the form: (1 /τs+1), with
small time constant e.g. shorter than 1/5 of derivative time TD , for some small τ, this has the effect of attenuating the high frequency noise
entering the D-controller, and produces the following controller proper transfer function:
Controllers and Control Algorithms: Selection and Time Domain Design Techniques Applied in Mechatronics Systems … Part I 181
Internat ional Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(5) May 2013
I TD
G PID (s ) K P 1
T I s 1 D s
The transfer function of a PID controller with a filtered derivative is given by:
I TD
G PID (s ) K 1
TI s 1 D s / N
7.2 PID Control with Derivative in the Feedback Loop, PI-D controller
Derivative kick is very similar in origin to proportional kick, where any change in setpoint causes an instantaneous change in error, this
number is fed into the PID equation which results in an undesirable kick in the output. Since there is always a jump (Kick) in the error
signal, when system is subjected to step input, the derivative term in PID-controller may not be desirable in cascade with controlled system,
and is preferred (to remove the D-term negative effect) to be in the feedback path with controlled system, where PID controller is
restructure, by placing the derivative term, D-Controller, into the feedback path, as shown in figure 19, PI terms is applied on error, while
D terms is applied on controlled variable, this is therefore a standard feature of most commercial controllers, this controller is called PI-D
controller, the simplified transfer function is given by:
K K s
U (s ) K P I E ( s ) D C ( s )
s Ts 1
The PI transfer function in terms of integral time is given by Eq.(40) , The D-controller transfer function in terms of derivative time is
given is given by Eq.(39):
Td s
G D (s ) (39)
1 Td s / N
KI K 1
G PI (s ) K P K P (1 I ) K P (1 ) (40)
s KPs TI s
The controller and feedback transfer functions can be equivalently written as next; moving inner a summing junction in Figure 19(a), to the
left, gives two feedback loops the equivalent to inner loop is given by:
1 Td s Td s
*
1 1 T d s / N 1 Td s
K P (1 ) K P 1 1
TI s T I s N
Further simplification gives, the following in the feedback [24], (see Figure 19(b)):
Kp 2 TD
1 T I T D s K P T I s K P ) (41)
N N
Feedback , H (s )
T s
K P T I s 1 D 1
N
(a) (b)
E P (s ) R (42)
G P (s ) 2
E (s ) R1
E I (s ) 1 (43)
G I (s )
E (s ) RIC I s
E D (s ) (44)
G D (s ) R D C D S
E (s )
E o (s ) R 1 K (45)
G PID (s ) 2 R DC D S K P I K D s
E (s ) R1 R I C I s s
Based on circuit shown in Figure 20(b), the following transfer function can be derived:
R C 1 (46)
G PID (s ) 2 1 R 2C 1S
R
1 C 2 R I C 2s
(a) (b)
Based on P, PD, PI, and PID derived transfer functions in terms of derivative time, and integral time given by Eqs.( 40)( 23)( 37), a
MATLAB code, is written and can be used to demonstrate the effect of changing (decreasing and increasing) one gain in terms of
proportional gain K P, derivative time TD integral time TI , and fixing both others equal to unity , for system given by Eq.(47), the results are
shown in Figure 21, these results show the effect of each term on transient and steady-sate responses.
1
G (s ) 3 2
(47)
s 3s 3s 1
Icreasing Kp, Applying only P-controller Icreasing Ti, Applying only PI-controller
1 2
Amplitude
Amplitude
0.5 1
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 50 100
(sec) (sec)
Icreasing Td, Applying PD-controller Icreasing Td, Applying PID-controller
1 2
Amplitude
Amplitude
0.5 1
0 0
0 5 10 0 10 20 30 40
(sec) (sec)
Icreasing Ti, Applying PID-controller Icreasing Kp, Applying PID-controller
2 2
Amplitude
Amplitude
1 1
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30
Time (sec) Time (sec)
The desired transient and steady state performance specifications for given a control plant, can be achieved using controllers; P, I, D, PI,
PD, and PID, as well as by compensators. a compensator is an additional component or circuit that is inserted into a control system to
compensate for a deficient performance, to improve systems transient and steady state response by presenting additional poles and zeros to
the system, General form of the compensator is given by Eq. (48). As noted, in order to avoid controller disadvantages, controllers are
approximated, where; Lag compensator is soft approximation of PI Controller, Lead Compensator is soft approximation of PD Controller,
Lag-Lead Compensator, is soft approximation of PID Controller. A first-order compensator having equal numbers of poles and zeroes that
is a single zero and pole in its transfer function given by Eq. (49):
n
s Z
i 1
i
(48)
G (s ) K C n
s P
i 1
i
s ZO
G (s ) (49)
s PO
Eq. (49) shows that compensators introduce, a located in the left half s-plane, pole–zero pair into the open loop transfer function.
184 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
1 1
s s
E o R 2 R 4 R1C 1s 1 R 4C 1 R 1C T s ZO
* * K * K
Ei R1 R 3 R 2C 2 s 1 R 3C 2 1 1 s PO
s s
R 2C 2 T
If R1C 1 > R 2C 2 , that is Zo > Po , then the compensator is known as the lag compensator, The transfer function angle given by θc =θZo - θ
Po, is negative .The pole-zero configuration for lag compensator is shown in Figure 22(b)
If R1C 1< R2 C2 , that is Zo < Po , the compensator is known as the lead compensator, the transfer function angle given by θc =θZo - θPo, is
positive, The pole zero configurations for lead compensator is shown in Figure 22(c)
(b) lag compensator R1 C1 < R2C2 pole and zero distribution (c) lead compensator If R1 C1 > R2C2 pole and zero distribution
Lead compensator is a soft approximation of PD-controller, The PD controller given by transfer function, GPD(s) = K P + K Ds , is not
physically implementable, since it is not proper, and it would differentiate high frequency noise, thereby producing large swings in output,
to avoid this, PD-controller is approximated to lead controller of the following form[25]:
Ps
G PD (s ) G Lead (s ) K P K D
s P
The larger the value of P, the better the lead controller approximates PD control, rearranging gives:
Ps K s P K D Ps
G Lead (s ) K P K D P
s P s P
KPP
s
K P K D P s K P P K P K DP
G Lead (s ) K P K D P
s P s P
Controllers and Control Algorithms: Selection and Time Domain Design Techniques Applied in Mechatronics Systems … Part I 185
Internat ional Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(5) May 2013
Now, let K C K P K D P and K P P , we obtain the following approximated controller transfer function of PD controller,
Z
KP KDP
and called lead compensator:
s Z (50)
G Lead (s ) K C
s P
Where : Zo < Po , If Z < P : this controller is called a lead compensator, and If Z > P : this controller is called a lag compensator. Lead
compensator transfer function can be written to be:
P s Z
G Lead (s )
Z s P
Lead controller effect on root locus (transient response): since Zo < Po , Lead compensator basically slightly shift the locus to the left
result in improving (increase) the system's stability and (speeds up) the transient response, raise bandwidth and reduce steady state error.
A typical application of lead compensator is in controlling servos because it will speed up the original response.
V 2 (s ) R2 R2 R1 (s 1)
G Lead (s ) *
V 1 (s ) 1 1 R 1 R 2 R 1R 2
R 2 R1 / R1 Cs 1
Cs Cs R1 R 2
Ts 1 R2
G Lead (s ) , where : 1 , and T R 1C
Ts 1 R1 R 2
s P
K (s ) k
s Z
a) Construct the lead compensator transfer function of the form of K*(s), where:
K = Kc* the multiplication factor of plant numerator
b) Lead zero design ; Find the plant's pole closest to the origin that pushes the root locus to the right and cancel it effect by
designing lead compensator with zero equal to plant's closest pole.
c) Lead pole design ; set the lead pole equal to ten multiplied by plant's pole closest to the origin (Lead pole = plant's pole*10 ), that
is moving this plant's pole far away from origin
186 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
For example: for a system transfer function given by Eq.(51, it is required to design a lead compensator that results in a damping ratio of
0.5.
2 (51)
G (s )
s (s 0.5)(s 2)
The system transfer function shows that the pole at -0.5 is causing a problem of pushing the root locus to the right. To remove its effect we
need to cancel this pole by adding Lead zero at its value (Z0=-0.5) , and move it out at ( pole*10 = -50), to lead pole. The unwanted pole -2
, is cancelled by the added lead controller zero -0.5 , ( and moving it from –0.5 to -5 ). Letting the lead compensator transfer function of the
form of K*(s), where K = Kc* 2, we have:
s 0.5
G lead (s ) K * (s ) K
s 5
And the resulting open loop transfer function, is given by:
2 k (s 0.5) 2k
G open (s )
s (s 0.5)(s 2)(s 5) s (s 2)(s 5)
e) Determine the compensator gain, K at dominant pole such that the magnitude criterion is satisfied.
f) Lead compensator transfer function can be written to have the form given by:
P s Z
G Lead (s )
Z s P
PI controller uses a pure integrator (active network such as amplifiers) to place an open-loop, forward-path pole at the origin, PI-controller
by it self is unstable, pure integrators not easy to physically implement, meanwhile the lag compensator can be built with passive
components only (resistors and capacitors), and thus is easily implemented in analog control systems, by the passive network, a pole cannot
be placed at origin; the pole and zero are moved to the left, close near the origin , this is shown next:
KI K s KI K
G PI (s ) G lag (s ) K P P K P s I / s
s s K P
By approximating the PI controller by introducing value of pole Po that is not zero but near zero; the smaller we make Po , the better this
controller approximates the PI controller, and the approximation of PI controller will have the form:
G lag (s ) K c
s Z o (52)
(s PO )
Where: Zo > Po, and Zo small numbers near zero usually at -0.1, Zo =KI/KP , the lag compensator zero. Po: small number. Lag
compensator transfer function can be written to be:
P s Zo
G Lead (s )
Z s Po
Lag controller effect on root locus: The poles and zeros of the lag compensator were Zo > Po, are placed very closed together, and the
compenation is closed relatevly to the origin , as a result lag controller adds a negative angle to the angle criterion (θc =θZo - θPo, is
negative) and tends to slightly shift to the right, the original root loci from the original location.
Lag controller effect on transient response: Lag compensator has the disadvantage on transient response of producing a decrease in
undamped natural frequency ωn , and correspondingly an increase in settling time. The time constant T of the system is usually increased,
producing a more sluggish system, For large gain values an overshoot and transient oscillation are introduced. Lag compensator is often
designed to minimally change the transient response of system that is the added pole and zero may be manipulated to give better stability,
better performance and general improvement.
Lag controller effect on gain, K: In the design of lag controller, the zero (Zo) must be chosen to be close to the pole at the origin so that the
angular contributions from the zero and the pole cancel out, i.e., (θzc – θpc = 0). Lengths of dominant pole to compensator pole and zero (P
to Zo and P to Po) are allmostly, similar, therefore the effect on gain allmostly unity. Applying magnitude criterion will result in the
following:
s Z o
G lag (s ) K c Kc
(s PO )
Lag controller effect on steady state error: does not drive the steady-state error to zero but yield measurable reduction in steady-state,
where the steady state error constant (K P, K v, or K a), is increased by a factor equal to: Zo/ Po, and the steady-state error will thus decrease
by the same factor. Once we know how much the steady-state error must be reduced, we also know the ratio of compensator zero to pole.
188 Farhan A. Salem
Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013
1
R2
V (s ) Cs R 2Cs 1 1 Ts 1 s Z
G Lag (s ) out *
V in (s )
R 2 R1
1 R1 R 2 Cs 1 1 Ts s P
Cs
R1 R 2
Where : 1 , , T R 2C , Z 1 / T , P 1 / T
R2
By applying Lag compensator, the steady state error constant (KP, K v, or Ka ), is increased by a factor equal to: Zo/ Po, and the steady-
state error will thus decrease by the same factor, therefore it is required to have a large value for Zo/ Po, this Only can be achieved if Z and
P are both small, i.e., close to the origin
i) Determine the lag-controller gain, Kc ,( the lag ratio) using the following equation:
K Gain to satify the desired damping ration
KC 0
K Gain to satify the desired steady state error
j) Select the controller zero, Zo , close to origin, , or 4 to 10 times to the right of the dominant closed-loop poles, e.g.
n
Zo
4to 10
Where : ζωn the desired pole real part.
g) Find the lag controller pole by : Po = Kc Zo, Based on the compensator DC gain of unity
1
K KC 1
K0
h) Check the closed-loop system's specifications and redesign if needed.
The corresponding steady state constants of the compensated system will be given by
In order to increase these constants and reduce the steady state errors, the ratio of Zo/ Po should be as large as possible, Where: z1, z2,..zm,
system zeros, and P1, P2 ,..Pm, system poles
c) Select lag zero Zo close to the origin.
d) Calculate lag pole Po using the following equation
P s Zo
G Lag (s )
Z s Po
A lead-lag compensator combines the effects of a lead compensator with those of a lag compensator, resulting in a system with improved
transient response, stability, and steady-state error. Both analog and digital control systems use lead-lag compensators. The lag-lead
compensator is given by:
P1P2 s Z 1 s Z 2
G Lag _ Lead (s ) G Lag (s ) *G Lead (s )
Z 1Z 2 s P1 s P2
s Z 1 s Z 2
G Lag _ Lead (s ) K , P1 Z 1 and P2 Z 2
s P1 s P2
Lag _ Lead (s ) G Lag (s )G Lead (s )
G
Figure 26
It is a combination of lead compensator and I-control, the lead integral compensator transfer function is given by
1 (s Z o ) (s Z o )
G Lead _ Integral (s ) K C KC (52)
s (s Po ) s (s Po )
Applying the lead Integral compensator will eliminate the steady state error, but the transient response may become worse where settling
time, overshoot may increase, also the system is subject to instability problems as the controller gain increased.
This paper provides simple and user friendly controllers, control algorithms and design guide that illustrates the basics of controllers and
control algorithms, their elements, effects, selection and main design techniques intended for research purposes, application in educational
processes,. Based on this introductory design guide, in part (II) and (III) new conclusions and a proposed simple design approaches are to
be introduced tested and verified.
References
[1] Robert H. Bishop (2006), Mechatronics an introduction , Taylor & Francis.
[2] Devdas Shetty, Richard A. Kolk (1997), Mechatronics systems design, second edition, SI 2011, Cengage Learning.
[3] De Silva, Clarence W., (2005) ,'Mechatronics : An Integrated Approach , CRC Press.
[4] Godfrey C. Onwubolu, (2005), Mechatronics Principles and Applications'', Elsevier.
[5] Ashish Tewari (2002), Modern Control Design with MATLAB and SIMULINK, John Wiley and sons, LTD, England.
[6] Katsuhiko Ogata (1997), Modern control engineering'', third edition, Prentice hall.
[7] Farid Golnaraghi, Benjamin C.Kuo, (2010), ''Automatic Control Systems'', John Wiley and sons INC .
[8] Norman S. Nise, (2011), ''Control system engineering'', Sixth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[9] Gene F. Franklin, J. David Powell, and Abbas Emami-Naeini, (2002) Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems'', 4th ed., Prentice Hall.
[10] Bill Goodwine (2011), Engineering Differential Equations Theory and Applications, Springer.
[11] Dale E. Seborg, Thomas F. Edgar, Duncan A. Mellichamp (2004), Process dynamics and control, second edition, Wiley.
[12] Robert H. Bishop (2008), The Mechatronics handbook'' , second edition, CRC press.
[13] Farhan A. Salem (2013), Precise analytical expressions for mechatronics systems time domain performance specifications and verification using
MATLAB / SIMULINK''' International Journal of Information Technology, Control and Automation ,Vol.3, No.1, January
[14] Farhan A. Salem, Ahmad A. Mahfouz, Modeling and controller design for electric motor, using different control strategies and verification using
MATLAB/Simulink , Submitted and accepted , to I.J. Intelligent Systems and Applications, Submission ID 124 , 2012.
[15] Hedaya Alasooly, Control of DC motor using different control strategies, global journal of technology and optimization 2011 .
[16] D'Azzo, John Joachim, Houpis, Constantine H, “Linear control system analysis and design: conventional and modern“, 1988..
[17] Farhan A. Salem, ' Precise analytical expressions for mechatronics systems time domain performance specifications and verification using '
International Journal of Information Technology, Control and Automation ,Vol.3, No.1, January 2013.
[18] Farid Golnaraghi , Benjamin C. Kuo, Automatic control systems, John wiley &sons, 2000.
[19] Douglas J. Cooper , '' practical process control' http://www. controlguru. com/wp/ p69.html
[20] Richard M. Phelan, Automatic Control Systems, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1977 .
[21] Mike Borrello, '' Controls, Modeling and Simulation '' http://www. Stablesimu lations .com
[22] Zoran Gajic's, personal Home Page , www. ece.rutgers. edu/~gajic/ psfiles/ chap8.pdf
[23] http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/amwiki/index.php/PID_Control
[24] Dingyu Xue, YangQuan Chen, and Derek P , '' Linear Feedback Control" Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 2007.
[25] R.C. Dorf and R.H. Bishop, Modern Control Systems,10th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2008,