PID Control action and its design

Presented By - Arnab Banerjee (MCSE Roll-001910804004)

Contents

Steady state error reduction using Ideal Integral control action

Transient response improvement using Ideal derivative control
action
Transient response improvement and steady state error
reduction using PID control action
Designing a PID controller to achieve a prescribed response
Validating the design using MATLAB
Introduction to Hermite Biehler theorem
1
Steady state error reduction using Ideal Integral Control Action

Fig 1 Pole at A on the root locus without compensator

Reference : Control System Engineering Norman S Nise

2
Steady state error reduction using PI control action

Fig 2 Pole at A not on the root locus with compensator pole added
Reference : Control System Engineering Norman S Nise

3
Steady state error reduction using PI control action

Fig 3 : A approximately on the root locus with compensator pole and zero added
Reference : Control System Engineering Norman S Nise

4
Designing PI Controller for reduction of Steady state error

Fig 4 : Third order system before compensation

Reference : “Control System Engineering” Norman S Nise

System to operate with a damping ratio of 0.174

1. Value of K ?
2. Validity of the second order system approximation
5
Designing PI Controller for reduction of Steady state error

Fig 5 : Root locus for the system in Fig 4

6
Designing PI Controller for reduction of Steady state error
[k,p]=rlocfind(sys)

k=168.7
p(1)=-11.6
p(2)=-0.67+3.9j
P(3)=-0.67-3.9j

Fig 6 : Finding the gain and the closed loop poles

7
Designing PI Controller for reduction of Steady state error

1 ⋅ 4 − 0 ⋅ 89
%OS = = 57.3%
0 ⋅ 89

− ln %OS/100
𝜁= = 0.1745
𝛱 2 +ln2 ሺ%𝑂𝑆/100)

8 Fig 7 : Step response for the system in Fig 4 with K=168

Designing PI Controller for reduction of Steady state error

Fig 8 : Choosing the zero location for the ideal integral compensator
Reference : Control System Engineering Norman S Nise

9
Designing PI Controller for reduction of Steady state error

Fig 9 : Root locus for the PI compensated plant

10
Designing PI Controller for reduction of Steady state error

Fig 10 : Step response for the PI compensated plant

11
Designing PD Controller for improved transient response

1. Step response needs to have 16% Overshoot

2. Threefold reduction in Settling time

Fig 11 : Plant requiring transient response improvement

Reference : Control System Engineering Norman S Nise
12
Designing PD Controller for improved transient response

4 4 − ln 16/100
𝑇𝑠 = =
𝜁𝜔𝑛 1.2
= 3.3 𝜁= = 0.504
𝛱 2 +ln2 ሺ16/100)

Fig 12 : Finding uncompensated dominant closed loop poles for plant in Fig 11
13
Designing PD Controller for improved transient response

𝑇𝑠 4
= 1.1 =
3 𝜁𝜔𝑛
𝐴𝐵 𝐴𝐵 4
𝜁𝜔𝑛 = = 3.6
tan 59.74 = = 1.1
𝐵C 3.6
AB=6.19

Compensated Dominant poles = -3.6 ±6.19j

Fig 13 : Finding compensated dominant closed loop poles

14
Designing PD Controller for improved transient response

Total angular contribution due to all the open loop poles

120.26+86.3+68.8 = 275.36

Angular contribution required by the compensator zero

275.36 – 180 = 95.3

6.19
= tan 180 − 95 ⋅ 3
3 ⋅ 6 − 𝑧𝑐
𝑧𝑐 = 3.006

Fig 14 : Finding compensator zero location

15
Designing PD Controller for improved transient response

PD =s+3.006

Fig 15 : Root Locus of the compensated system

16
PID Controller design

1. Zero Steady state error

2. Two third peak time of the uncompensated system
3. 20% overshoot

Fig 16 : Plant to be compensated using PID controller

Reference : Control System Engineering Norman S Nise
17
PID Controller design

𝜋 𝜋
𝑇𝑝 = = = 0 ⋅ 29
𝜔𝑑 10.6

Fig 17 : Uncompensated root locus for plant in Fig 16

18
PID Controller design

𝜋
= 0 ⋅ 29 ×(2/3)
𝜔𝑑
𝜔𝑑 = 15 ⋅ 87

𝐴𝐵
= tan 62.870
𝐵𝐶

𝐵𝐶 = 8.17
Compensated Dominant poles = -8.17±15.87j

Fig 18 : Compensated dominant pole location

19
PID Controller design

Total angle contribution for poles and zeroes

108.33+97.78-90.7+83.42 = 198.83

Compensator zero contribution required

198.33 -180 = 18.83

Fig 19: Compensated dominant pole location

20
PID Controller design

15 ⋅ 87
= tan 18 . 83
𝑧𝐶 − 8.13

𝑧𝐶 = 55.92

Fig 20 : Compensated dominant pole location

21
PID Controller design

s+55⋅92 𝑠+0⋅1
PID =
𝑠

Fig 21 : PID Controller transfer function and compensated root locus

22
Introduction to the Hermite Biehler theorem

Fig 22 : Hermite-Biehler representation of a seventh order polynomial

Reference : Ho, M.T., Datta, A. and Bhattacharyya, S.P., 1999. Generalizations of the Hermite–Biehler theorem

23
Introduction to the Hermite Biehler theorem

Fig 23 : Interlacing property for Hermite Polynomials

Reference : Ho, M.T., Datta, A. and Bhattacharyya, S.P., 1999. Generalizations of the Hermite–Biehler theorem
24
References

[1] Norman S Nise “Control System Engineering”

[2] Honghai Wang, Jianchang Liu, Feisheng Yang, Yu Zhang “Proportional-

Integral Controller for Stabilization of Second-Order Delay Processes”
International Journal of Control, Automation, and Systems (2014) 12

[3] Ho, M.T., Datta, A. and Bhattacharyya, S.P., 1999. Generalizations of the
Hermite–Biehler theorem. Linear Algebra and its Applications

25