Anda di halaman 1dari 17

# 14 Self-study Topics for WE14

## 14.1. Polynomial model from polynomial models from subsystems

Using polynomial models may be sometimes reasonable, convenient, safe etc. Deriving them directly
from the polynomial models of sub-systems may be useful. This approach can be applied for feedback
connections, series connections, parallel connections as well as for more complicated systems where
the standard connections mentioned appear jointly and even with additional messy details like sharing
points and additions/subtractions there-and-there. To illustrate the possibility consider a closed-loop
control system where the measurement system is assumed to be ideal. Assume a process with output
y , a controller with output u and disturbance input d . Let a(s ) , b(s) , c(s) , d (s ) , p(s) , q(s )
be polynomials such that

## d ( s) U ( s) p (s ) R( s) q ( s) Y ( s) polynomial model of the feedback controller

This forms a linear set of two equations for two unknowns, Y and U . Rewrite the model into a
more standard form, omitting s :

a Y ( b) U c D (1)

q Y d U p R (2)

## Collect (1) and (2) using matrix language:

a b Y cD
(3)
q d U pR
M v w

The necessary condition for a unique solution v without assuming any special properties about the
RHS objects in the wector w is

a b
det(M ) a d ( b) ( q ) a d b q 0 (4)
q d

The roots of

(s) a d b q (5)

violating the condition (4) are the singularities of (3). Outside the roots we may proceed with

1
Y a b cD
U q d pR

## This yields (6)

Y 1 d b cD 1 d cD b pR
(7)
U a d ( b) ( q ) q a pR a d b q q cD a pR

## 181 (Self Study)

Here the dividing polynomial is the characteristic polynomial of the closed-loop system.
Pick the scalar unknowns from (7):

d cD b pR d c b p
Y D R (8a)
a d b q a d b q a d b q

q cD a pR q c a p
U D R (8b)
a d b q a d b q a d b q

If there are no root cancellations in (8ab), then the singularities equal to the roots of a d b q
in (5) form the set of the poles of the tfs in (8ab). The roots are then also the eigenvalues of the
corresponding state-space model.

Cramer formula for solving linear equations implies a possibility get a polynomial model of Y as

a b cD b
Y (9a)
q d pR d

## (ad bq ) Y ( cD ) d b ( pR) (9b)

Here the first det (on the LHS) is det(M ) while the second det for solving the 1st unknown is
obtained by overwriting the 1st column of M with the RHS wector w of (3). For the polynomial
model of the 2nd unknown U use the familiar det(M ) on the left while on the right use a det
obtained by overwriting the 2nd column of M with the RHS wector w of (3),

a b a cD
U (ad bq) U a ( pR) (cD) q (9c)
q d q pR

The results (9bc) and their new presentations (10ab) below are compatible with (8ab):

( a d b q) Y ( cd ) D (bp ) R (10a)

r + e 1 y

_ s

m 1
s 1

## 182 (Self Study)

Denote the Laplace Transform of the feedback signal m with M . Then the polynomial models of
the two subsystems are

forward path: s Y 1 E 1 (R M ) s Y 1 M R

feedback path: ( s 1) M 1Y 1Y ( ( s 1) M 0

## Cramer Rule now implies for Y the polynomial model

s 1 R 1
Y
1 ( s 1) 0 ( s 1)

## Expanding the two determinants yields

( s ( ( s 1)) 1 1) Y R ( ( s 1)) 1 0

## Simplification and multiplication with ( 1 ) now gives

(s2 s 1) Y ( s 1) R

Here the output transform multiplier ( s 2 s 1) is the characteristic polynomial of the closed-
loop system. Its degree is here automatically equal to that predicted for proper sub-system tfs, i.e.
here deg(s 1) deg(s) 1 1 2 . The tf of Page 66 may now be re-identified from

s 1
Y 2
R
s s 1

Re-study Sections 1.9 to 1.13 on pages 9 to 13 of LAB instructions. Read M pages 293-298 (10.1),
306-309 (10.5), too.

## Ideal Proportional Derivative (PD) Control

Start by reading M pages 23-25 and 293-294 as well as LAB page 8. Reading now M pages 71-
75 (3.3) and 308-310 (10.5) may be useful, too.

Lets learn from Spring-Mass-Damper system which we studied in Week 02. Assuming an external
force u the familiar SMD feedback law can be written as

Fnet u b y k y (1)

Here the term k y may be regarded as proportional output feedback (P control) term while the
term b y may be seen as derivative output feedback (ideal D control) term. Hence (1) with its
success may be thought to suggest use of P + ideal D = ideal PD control, at least when the set point
of the process output is zero (e.g. in many regulation problems). So application of the controller
outputs of the form

## 183 (Self Study)

u con k p y k d y u ext (2)

may be reasonable with a suitable external input function uext . For servo control we can rewrite this
using the actuating error e r y so that y r e is substituted in (2) . This implies

## u con k p e k d e (u ext k p r kd r) (3)

However, for a few practical reasons this may be simplified (or adjusted with a suitable choice of
uext ) to yield a control law of the form

u con k p e kd e (4)

There are also practical reasons to replace this by the modified control law

u con k p e k d ( y) (5)

This option will soon be discussed in more details. There exists even more practical variants.

There are other motivations for PD control, too. Some of them are based on pre-compensator design
using (partial) inverse models, and one of them is actually related to what we have on M page 24:

## Motivation 1 for PD control: Compensation of Time-Constant Dynamics

A process with Time Constant T and Gain K has the single equation I/O model

T y (t ) y (t ) K u (t ) (6)

The inverse model (to get the input of the original model from the output of the orig ) of this is

1
u( t ) K ( y (t ) T y ( t ) ) (7)

Now there are two possible uses of the results. First, we may (try to) use the signal processing of (7)
with y replaced by the set point r directly,

1
u( t ) K ( r(t ) T r(t ) ) (8)

## With this tentative pre-compensation or open-loop control we would nominally get

y (t ) r (t ) (9)

However, in practice poorer results would follow due to imprecisions in process modelling and
compensator implementations. Second, (8) may be used with y replaced by a function f which is
the output of a left sub-controller like P, I, PI controller etc. Then the final feedback controller
would be the series connection of the left sub-con and the right sub-con. For both pre-compensation
and feedback control we may say that implementing (8), representing either a complete pre-
compensator or a right sub-controller of a feedback controller, requests signal processing familiar
from the model of an ideal PD controller with Derivative Time Td T and Proportional Gain
KP K 1.

## 184 (Self Study)

Motivation 2 for PD control: Approximate compensation of a Time-Delay model

## Suppose that the process model is a Gain-and-Transport-Delay model,

y (t ) K u (t T ) (10)

## The inverse of this model is

1
u (t ) K y (t T ) (11)

This is a candidate model for a pre-compensator. However, for y coming from a measurement
system this model is non-causal and therefore impractical. If the set points are always known early
enough we could use open-loop compensation

1
u (t ) K r (t T ) (12)

## to produce nominally soon after the system start

y (t ) r (t ) (13)

But this is naive in practice where parameters may drift or be imprecisely estimated. Go back to
feedback control. Approximate y (t T ) using a first order Taylor polynomial,

1
u( t ) K ( y (t ) y (t ) T ) (14)

Use the Right Hand Side of this to propose the use of ideal PD compensator to roughly compensate a
Transport-Delay, even when the process model consists of a series connection of a Transport-Delay
model and another model. Here (14) is proposing a Derivative Time Td equal to the Delay T . Now
you could design a P controller for the compensated system, after which the series connection of it
and the PD compensator would form a PD (feedback) controller.

## Remarks. The model (10) may be replaced by the model

y (t T ) K u (t ) (15)

## Appling first order Taylor approximation on the left gives

y (t ) y (t ) T K u (t ) (16)

## Now the results of Motivation 2 may be invented from those of Motivation 1.

Note that above optimistic ad hoc reasoning was referred. Recall that in real life our models are
inaccurate and that our implementations of pre-compensators are most likely only approximative. In
fact, we typically fail to some extent in e.g. forming or measuring a correct derivative of a function
from data available. Avoiding the use of d/dt operation has been discussed earlier in e.g. LAB
instructions. Moreover, ad hoc ideas should never become implemented before careful and extensive
enough analysis of the entire system where the ideas would be used. Because e.g. the facts mentioned
above success in practical control requires more than the simple things treated above. Such things
have been or will be studied within the course.

## 185 (Self Study)

Yet on simulation of Ideal PD Control

Ideal PD control is often referred. If one wants to estimate the (theoretical) process output due to
(theoretical) ideal PD control using e.g. Simulink-simulation one may be in precision troubles in a
trial use of a differentiator block available. Fortunately, one really can often avoid the use of it. To
illustrate this consider a feedback control system where the forward path system is shown below:

ideal PD controller +
E + 1 W 1 Y
11 s K
s 1 s

The operation of the PD controller can not be simulated accurately because the tf is improper
which induces an impulsive function in the controller output when the differentiator input jumps. No,
do not use the d/dt block of Simulink if you can avoid it. Getting rid of improper transfer functions
becomes possible by suitable block diagram operations. First, we note that we may move a tf block
from behind to front of the summing operation to obtain a new block diagram:

D 1
s 1

+
E 1 + W 1 Y
11 s K
s 1 s

Second, combining the two blocks down-left yields a biproper tf also in down-left:

D 1
s 1

+
E 11 s K + W 1 Y
s 1 s

## Step_d Transfer Fcn2

1
s+1

e 11s+K y' y
1/s
s+1
Step_r Transfer Fcn1 Integrator Scope

## 186 (Self Study)

Above we loose/lost information about the exact behaviour of the PD controller output. Well, to be
honest it should be noted that Matlab is not able to present that function, which contains (in theory)
an impulse function proportional to the Dirac unit impulse, which can not be plotted by Matlab in
a traditional way. In practice, the derivative term included in the controller output is of course not
precisely equal to that proposed by idealized theory, see discussion of PID control in LAB
instructions. In fact, a practical PD controller is at least close to the biproper phase-lead circuit.

## A Modification of the D term

The derivative term due to the actuating error e might still give birth to bad (yet bounded)
controller output function. Therefore the derivative e r y in the controller model is often
replaced by (0 y ) ( y ) where the ad-hoc replacement of r by 0 means approximation in
controller operation only at times of set point changes. The modified response may now be simulated
using e.g. the Simulink block diagram below (as you can verify?):

11
Gain2

Step_d

1 y'=w y
K 1/s
s+1
Step_r Gain1 Transfer Fcn Integrator Scope

In practical control we either can or can not measure w y by ordinary means. In the latter case we
may use software sensors like observers to estimate y . Among them we find state observers of
PC7 session. This topic will be discussed in further details in ASE-5056 of Periods 3-4.

## 14.3. State-Feedback Control

This very important topic is discussed in more details in M Chapters 6-7 with nice background
theory given in Chapters 4-5. There has been many successful applications of the method in
aerospace and space applications, robotics etc. More serious discussion of the topic is postponed to
the spring course ASE-5056. But here you may get an initial touch on the topic by studying carefully
Example 6.4 of M on pages 177-178 and/or by thinking the same thing in terms of the quite
equivalent/analogous SMD (Spring-Mass-Damper) system. In fact, we may introduce a state-space
model of the double integrator system using the states x1 y , x2 v . Now the useful SMD
feedback law for the net force Fnet may be written in the form

Fnet k x1 b x2 u (1)

where we feed back all the states of the process and even form a free linear combination of them to
which we add a contribution from an external input function. Let this propose that for a process with
two states and the set point r of the process output r a trial to use a controller output ucon of (1)
may be reasonable,

## 187 (Self Study)

u con k1 x1 k 2 x 2 kr r (2)

Here the external input is expressed as k r r where k r is introduced to imply y r in the steady-
state when convergence to finite equilibrium values occurs due to successful feedback.

The concept can be generalized to any number of states. For example, for the electrical motor
discussed above we may have a state-space model with states i , and . Therefore we could try
to control the shaft angle using the state-feedback control law

u ki i k k kr r (3)

In the SMD model there is an inner feedback forming the damping force and an outer feedback
forming the spring force. There the inner yields a stable inner system, and the outer one stabilizes the
whole system. Guess from the success of SMD application that joint use of inner feedback and
outer feedback may be reasonable more generally, even when the feedbacks are created by a control
engineer. In fact, sometimes e.g. the position (angle) of a motor shaft is controlled using three
feedbacks where the innermost one should make an inner system better, the middle one should make a
wider system better, and the outermost one should make the whole system better. Then the total
controller forms its output u SP (Set Point) r and measured values of position, (angular) velocity
and current using three successive sub-controllers PC (Position Controller), VC (Velocity
Controller) and CC (Current Controller) as shown in the next figure. Here the three controllers PC,
VC and CC are in a chain vs. series connection vs. tandem connection vs. cascade connection. The
last term is used in a typical literature keyword, Cascade Control. Cascade control is also used in e.g.
some process control applications.

SP position con velocity con current con amplifier current velocity position

r u i
PC VC CC A M
current feedback

velocity feedback

position feedback

Figure. An example use of cascade control in control of the shaft angle of an electrical motor.
Here con = controller, and M represents a sub-system in the motor.

## 14.5. Two-Degree-of-Freedom Control (2DOF)

2DOF is a scheme for flexible simultaneous solution of both servo and regulation problems defined
in L01. It has won popularity especially in computer control where the design and tuning may rely
e.g. on pole placement or eigenvalue assignment and implementation of versatile control laws is
easy enough. However, the approach may of course be applied also for analog control relying on
similar concepts and ideas.

## 188 (Self Study)

The overall controller is here divided into two subsystems, F1 and F2 . Here F1 should be designed
first to provide both nominal and robust stability and good enough regulation with weak enough
disturbance responses. Then the reaction of process output to the set point can yet be adjusted by
proper design and implementation of F2 . Here we may derive the Laplace Transform model

Y G yr R G yd D

## with two transfer functions to be designed/tuned separately in two steps,

G2
G yd Step 1. Design F1 .
1 G2 G1 F1 H

G2 G1 F2 G2 G1
G yr F2 G yd G1 F2 Step 2. Given F1 design F2 .
1 G2 G1 F1 H 1 G2 G1 F1 H

It is common but not necessary to select a F2 to cause root cancellations: Some zeros of F2 may be
selected to cancel some poles of G yd G1 while some poles of F2 may be allowed to cancel some
zeros of G yd G1 . However, there are systems for which a controller for certain cancellations can be
bad in some sence and should therefore not be implemented - recall some problems mentioned within
the L11 discussion of feedforward control and in a few parts of L08.

A more classical block diagram of 2DOF control is given below where Fa and Fb are the two
subsystems of the overall controller:
d

+
r w + + y

Two familiar block diagram or tf results, moving a block from behind subtraction ... followed by
application of the series connection rule may be used to propose the tf relationships

Fa F1 or F1 Fa and Fa Fb F2 or Fb Fa 1 F2 F1 1
F2

## 189 (Self Study)

Example. Denote the tf between r and y with G yr and so on. Ideal equilibrium accuracy for a
constant set point requires G yr (0) 1 . Here G yr ( s ) G yw (s ) Fa ( s ) which provides a unity DC
gain with G yr (0) G yw (0) Fa (0) 1 Fa (0) G yr (0) / Gyw (0) . We may tune a Gain to represent
Fa with the gain equal to Fa (0) . Then we may use one of the 2DOF block diagrams to implements
the solution.

Remark. Some PID propositions found in e.g. M 10.5 are actually at least partial 2DOF tricks.

## 14.6. Implementations of controllers, compensators and filters using analog circuits

Filters, compensators and feedback controllers may be implemented using analog electronics. Read on
this topic from M pages 71-75 (3.3) and 309-311 (10.5) as well as from pages of LAB instructions
24-25. Resistors, capacitors and operational amplifiers may be exploited to convert a voltage
function associated with an application function to another voltage function to be applied in creation
of another application function. Dont worry, a possible exam question is not assuming knowledge of
OpAmp equations or current assumptions behind them etc.

Analog implementations may be cheap and are regarded as safe even for e.g. nuclear power plants and
other safety critical applications. Some analog implementations do not allow later changes of the
system tuning. The circuits can also be sensitive to e.g. external heat and heat created by themselves.

Concerning e.g. PD/PI/PID controllers there are circuits with different/alternate configurations for a
particular controller structure (like PID). Even the number of e.g. resistors may be different in
different variants. Hence there is no unique analogue circuit for implementation of a controller. In a
particular implementation the choice of the resistances of the resistors and the capacitances of the
capacitors to achive the desired tuning is not unique but infinitely many options exist. They could be
compared from e.g. prices, energies, sensitivities etc. point of view. Note that e.g. resistors are sold
with certain tolerances for the resistance

## The transfer function of an ideal PID controller is of the form

1 TI TD s 2 TI s 1 TI TD s 2 TI s 1 KP
F (s) K P (1 TD s ) KP KI , KI
TI s TI s s TI

Here the F requested may have non-real zeros while that in M always has real negative zeros.
To have real zeros one must have small enough a derivative time TD : The zeros of the ideal PID con-
troller are the roots of the equation

(TI TD ) s 2 TI s 1 0

## Real solutions occur if and only if we have a non-negative discriminant,

d TI 2 4 (TI TD ) 1 0

TI
TD TI 4 TD
4

## 190 (Self Study)

14.7. On the use of Functional Blocks and software

Much of the content below may also be applied in Discrete-Time Control where one works with z
transfer functions or pulse transfer functions. Concerning the block diagram shown soon the
integrator block there has the Laplace Transfer Function ( 1 / s ) while in DT models ( 1 / z )
represents the Unit Time Delay model (a transport delay equal to the sampling time)

In implementing tf blocks one should avoid high order transfer functions. It is sometimes possible
using a suitable series connection based on the factored forms of the numerator and denominator
polynomials. Re-study E05P1, even to the revert direction, and pay attention to a remark there. In
some cases the partial fraction expansion (residue) of the tf may be presented using parallel
connection of real-parameter first order tfs. In fact, using CST language, e.g. G1 + G2 equals to
parallel(G1,G2)? When this is not possible, sometimes allowing second order real-parameter tfs
in some paths of the parallel connection may help. In some cases using suitable series connections in
some paths of the parallel connection helps. In some other cases one could use a series connection of a
block and a parallel connection

One should avoid high order and sometimes even low order companion forms like the controllable
canonical form provided by tf2ss and M pages 34-35. It is always possible. To illustrate this
consider an irreducible real-parameter stable tf

0 s2 1 s 2
G( s) 2
, 1 0 , 2 0
s 1 s 2

## It is either biproper ( 0 0 ) or strictly proper ( 0 0 ). In the former case it may be presented in

the parallel connection form, i.e. as a sum of two tfs, here a gain tf and a strictly proper tf,

( 1 0 1 ) s ( 2 0 2 )
G( s) 0 2
s 1 s 2

This presentation can be obtained by polynomial division (deconv). It is also based on the value of
G(s) at the infinity of the positive real axis. In fact, for a real value of s we have

1 1
2
0 s 1 s 2
0 1
s
2
s2 0 1 0 2 0
lim G ( s ) lim lim 0
s s s 2
s s 1 1 1 0 0
1 2 1 1 2
1 2
s s2

## This means that

0 G( )

The second order strictly proper additive term of G(s ) may now be easily found by simplifying the
difference ( G ( s ) 0 ).

Assume from now on that G(s ) has only real coefficients. This assumption is needed below just to
get block diagrams with real coefficients:

## 191 (Self Study)

Case 1. Distinct real poles

Assume first that the two denominator of G(s ) are distinct real numbers p1 and p 2 . For p1 p2
we may exploit the PFE (partial fraction expansion; help residue) of the form

( 1 0 1 ) s ( 2 0 2 ) r1 r2
G( s) 0 2 0
s 1 s 2 s p1 s p2

This may be found a parallel connection implementation where each additive term shown above
serves as the tf of a single path:

## Case 2. Equal real poles

Assume next that the two denominator of G(s ) are equal real numbers equal to p . Then the PFE
(help residue) of G(s ) takes the form

( 1 0 1 ) s ( 2 0 2 ) r1 r2
G( s) 0 2 0
s 1 s 2 (s p) ( s p) 2

## But this may written e.g. in the form

1 1
G( s) 0 ( r1 r2 )
s p s p

This suggests the use of both a parallel connections and series connections to implement G(s ) :

This implementation is related to Jordan (help jordan) form of the state-space model discussed
in M from pdfp. 151 of Chapter 4 on. In fact, letting the outputs of the two 1st order systems
serves as the two states of the system provides the matrix " A" of the state-space model in a Jordan
form. Note that the Jordan form of M assumes a certain mutual order of the state variables.

## 192 (Self Study)

Case 3. Non-real complex conjugate poles

For non-real poles assume stable non-real complex-conjugate poles j and j where
0 (due to BIBO stability) and 0 (due to non-reality and convenience). The tf of the
system may be written in the form

b1 s b2
G(s ) 0 , b1 1 0 1 , b2 2 0 2
(s )2 2

## The characteristic polynomial of G may be written in the determinant form

s s 0 1 0
(s )2 2
s A det( s I A)
s 0 s 0 1

where I is the square identity matrix with two rows appearing above and

For the input function u and the output function y this proposes a state space model of the form

d x1 x1 1
u
dt x2 x2 2

y 1 2 x 0 u

## Removing matrix notation now yields scalar equations of the form

x1 x1 x2 1 u

x2 x1 x2 2 u

y 1 x1 2 x2 0 u

Here the four yet unknown parameters 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 should be selected to make the numerator
polynomial of the corresponding tf equal to (b1 s b2 ) . Here the tf of the state-space model
available is

( 1 1 2 2 ) s 1 ( 2 1 ) 2 ( 1 2 )
Ga ( s ) 2 2 0
(s )

Here two parameter conditions should be satisfied by adjusting the four yet unknown parameters. An
inspired guess proposes that two adjustable parameters are enough if the parameters are chosen in
flexible enough a way. How should we use the freedom to fix two other parameters? An appealing
alternative is to make the output to be a state variable. So lets try to make the output to be the first
state, i.e. y x1 . This occurs for 1 1 & 2 0 which simplifies the tf to the form

1 s ( 2 1 )
Ga ( s ) 2 2 0
(s )

1 b1

2 1 b2

## are satisfied simultaneously. This has a unique solution given by

1 b1

b2 1
2

We now know the coefficients for the elementary block diagram shown below:

+ +
u + x1 x1 + y
1
+

+
+ x2 x2
2
+

The model obtained is very good from computational point of view since the columns of A
represent geometric vectors perpendicular to each other. So A is ideally conditioned with its unity
condition number (cond), the ratio of the largest singular value and the smallest singular value
(svd).

## 194 (Self Study)

14.8. On Nyquist and Nichols Charts

## Consider the feedback system below:

Here L(s ) is the tf of the open loop system. The closed loop tf is here

L( s )
T (s) (1)
1 L( s )

## Within 1DOF control T (s ) could be

the tf from the set point of plant output to the plant output if we had an ideal sensor

the tf from the set point of plant output to the measurement of the plant output

Nevertheless, if the complex number T (s ) is given a target value in terms of desired Re and Im
coordinates or in terms of the desired absolute value and the desired phase angle we can reach it
through the inverse formula

T ( s)
L( s ) (2)
1 T (s)

## This happens to represent the tf of the system below:

In history the engineers wanted to construct sample values and/or graphs of T ( jw) from those of
L( jw) without complicated computations using Nyquist or Nichols Charts, special function papers
prepared for the purpose. The charts were therefore based on the mapping below due to mapping (1),

L( jw)
T ( jw) (3)
1 L( jw)

The charts included pre-computed and pre-plotted contours due to the inverse mapping of mapping
(2) due to mapping (2),

## 195 (Self Study)

T ( jw)
L( jw) (4)
1 T ( jw)

The key question is: Which sample values of the open loop frequency response L( jw) can provide a
desired value for the closed loop frequency response sample T ( jw) ? Below we will study just the
application of the charts for the amplitude gain T ( jw) of the closed loop system. A contour on the
appropriate plane associated with L( jw) will be obtained for a fixed value of T ( jw) by allowing
the rad phase Arg T ( jw) to take all its possible values on the range Arg T ( jw) .

Nyquist Chart contains Open Loop Nyquist Plane (complex plane) contours. Each contour shows
all the points ( Re L( jw) , Im L( jw) ) which would imply T ( jw) a fixed interesting value due
to the mapping (3). Sample points of the contour may be obtained using the inverse mapping (4) with
T ( jw) as fixed but Arg T ( jw) varied as explained.

Nichols Chart contains contours of Nichols Plane where the phase is given in degrees and gain is
represented as the dB gain. Each contour shows points ( arg deg L( jw) , 20 lg( L( jw) ) dB ) which
would imply T ( jw) a fixed value due to the mapping (3). Sample points of the contour may be
obtained using the inverse mapping (4) with T ( jw) as fixed but Arg T ( jw) varied as explained.
This means that the Nichols contours may be concluded from the Nyquist contours.

The contours for 3 dB and 6 dB are shown below for both charts. Conclude from the mapping
formulae which contours belong to 3 dB A Matlab code used to get the charts is shown below,
too. A Nichols Chart produced by CST will also shown below.

## 196 (Self Study)

% Contour of x dB on Nyquist plane and Nichols plane.
TdB = [3,6] ; % two interesting sample values of x here included
n = length(TdB) ; % number of contours
ArgT = (-pi+pi/1000):pi/1000:pi ; % in rad
for k = 1:n
x = TdB(k) ;
absT = 10^(x/20) ; % from dB to magnitude (absolute value)
T = absT*exp(j*ArgT) ;
L = T./(1 - T) ; % inversion of T = L./(1 + L)
subplot(121)
plot(L,'-.')
axis('equal')
hold
title('Nyquist Chart')
xlabel('Re[L(jw)]')
ylabel('Im[L(jw)]')
absL = abs(L) ;
LdB = 20*log10(absL) ;
ArgL = angle(L) ;
ArgL = unwrap(ArgL) ;
ArgLdeg = (180/pi)*ArgL ;
subplot(122)
plot(ArgLdeg,LdB,'r--')
hold
title('Nichols Chart')
xlabel('Open Loop Phase (deg)')
ylabel('Open Loop dB Gain (dB)')
end
subplot(121), grid
subplot(122), grid

Once the Open Loop Nyquist or Nichols Diagram hits (crosses or touches) an appropriate contour at
a sample frequency we know that at that frequency T ( jw) reaches the gain value or
20 lg( T ( jw) ) dB reaches the dB gain value associated with the contour. This fact has enabled
adjusting of Band Width and/or Peak Gain ( H norm) of the closed loop system by manipulating
the open loop frequency response. In this course we adjust the Peak Gain by lifting or dropping the
dB curve of the open loop system in Nichols Plane by an appropriate change of an open loop gain
parameter. A Peak Gain equal to e.g. 2 is reached when the dB curve touches but does not cross
the contour of the amplitude gain 2 or the dB gain 20 lg( 2) 6 dB .