CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN BY FREQUENCY RESPONSE

INTRODUCTION :
It is indicated that the stability of a control system can usually be determined from the Bode diagram of its open-loop transfer
function. Then methods are presented for rational selection of controller parameters based on this Bode diagram. The material
presented here is one of the more useful design aspects of the subject of frequency response.

TANK TEMPRATURE CONTROL SYSTEM :

The control system of Fig. 16–1 might offer

stability problems because of excessive phase lag. To review,

this system represents proportional control of tank temperature
with a delay in the feedback loop. The factor 1 600 is the
process sensitivity 1/( wC ), which gives the ultimate change in
tank temperature per unit change in heat input Q.
 The proportional gain K c , in Btu per minute per degree of temperature error, is to be specified by the designer.
The open-loop transfer function for this system is

The Bode diagram for G ( s ) is plotted in Fig. 16–2 . As usual, the constant factor K c /600 is included in the definition of the ordinate for AR.

Fig. 16.2 Bode diagram for open-loop transfer function of control system for stirred-tank heater

THE BODE STABILITY CRITERION :

It is tempting to generalize the results of the analysis of the tank temperature control system to the following rule. A control
system is unstable if the open-loop frequency response exhibits an AR exceeding unity at the frequency for which the phase lag is
180 ° . This frequency is called the crossover frequency. The rule is called the Bode stability criterion.
GAIN AND PHASE MARGINS :

Let us consider the general problem of selecting G c ( s ) for the system of F ig. 16–5. Suppose the open-loop frequency response, when a
particular controller G c ( s ) is tried, is as shown in the Bode diagram . The crossover frequency, at which the phase lag is 180° , is noted as
wco on the Bode diagram. At this frequency, the AR is A. If A exceeds unity, we know from the Bode criterion that the system is unstable
and that we have made a poor selection of Gc ( s ). In Fig. 16–6 it is assumed that A is less than unity and therefore the system is stable.

To assign some quantitative measure to these considerations, the concept of

gain margin (GM) is introduced.

Typical specifications for design are that the gain margin should be greater than 1.7. This
means that the AR at crossover could increase by a factor of 1.7 over the design value before
the system became unstable.

So, for GM =.7, AR =0.59 at the crossover frequency. The design value of the gain margin is really a safety factor that maintains the AR a “safe
distance” away from AR = 1 at w.
As such, its value varies considerably with the application and designer. A gain margin of unity or less indicates an unstable system
Another margin frequently used for design is the phase margin. As
indicated in Fig. 16–6 , it is the difference between 180° and the
phase lag at the frequency for which the gain is unity .

The phase margin therefore represents the additional amount

of phase lag required to destabilize the system, just as the
gain margin represents the additional gain for destabilization.
Typical design specifications are that the phase margin
must be greater than 30 ° .

A negative phase margin indicates an unstable system.

ZIEGLER-NICHOLAS CONTROLLER SETTINGS :
 Consider selection of a controller G c for the general control system of Fig. 16–5 . We first plot the Bode diagram for the
final control element, the process, and the measuring element in series G1 G2 H ( jw ). It should be emphasized that the
controller is omitted from this plot. As noted on the figure, the crossover frequency for these three components in series is w
co . At the crossover frequency, the overall amplitude ratio is A, as indicated. According to the Bode criterion, then, the gain of
a proportional controller which would cause the system of Fig. 16–5 to be on the verge of instability is 1/ A. We define this
quantity to be the ultimate gain K u . Thus ,

* The ultimate period P u is

defined as the period of the
sustained cycling that would
occur if a proportional controller
with gain Ku were used.
 Transient Responses :

For instructive purposes, the two-tank reactor system of Fig. 16–15 was simulated using MATLAB. Responses of C ( t ) to a unit-
step change in R ( t ) are shown in Fig. 16–18 . These responses were obtained using the Ziegler-Nichols controller settings
determined .

 The responses to a step load change were also obtained using MATLAB. These are the curves of Fig. 9–9 that were discussed in
Chap. 9 to illustrate the function of the various modes of control. A load change for this system corresponds to a change in the
inlet concentration of reactant to tank 1 (refer to Fig. 10–1). As process control engineers, we would be more interested in
controlling against this kind of disturbance than against a set point change because the set point or desired product concentration
is likely to remain relatively fixed. In other words, this is a regulator problem and the curves of Fig. 9–9 are those we would use
to determine the quality of control
• However, the step change in set point is frequently used to test control systems despite the fact that the system will be primarily
subject to load changes during actual operation.

It can be seen from Fig. 16–18 and Table 16.4 that addition of integral action eliminates offset at the expense of a more
oscillatory response. When derivative action is also included, the response is much faster (lower rise time) and much less
oscillatory (lower response time). The large overshoots realized in all three cases are characteristic of systems with relatively
large time delays. In this case the controller is receiving information about the concentration in the second reactor that was true
1 2 min ago. This is to be compared with the reactor time constants of 1 and 2 min. Hence, it is not surprising that the system
overshoots before the controller can take sufficient action.
Figure 16–19 is presented for two purposes: (1) to illustrate that the
Ziegler- Nichols controller settings should be regarded as first guesses rather than
fixed values and (2) to show the effects of changing the various controller settings
.These figures are transient responses to step changes in set point for the
three-mode PID control. They show the effects of individually varying the three
control parameters

As an example of the use of these figures, suppose that it is decided that the
maximum overshoot that can be tolerated is 25 percent. Figure 16–19 a shows
that overshoot may be reduced by decreasing K c at the expense of a considerably
more sluggish response. From Fig. 16–19 b, we see that overshoot may be
reduced by increasing Ti (decreasing integral action) at a lesser expense in speed
of response. Thus, for Ti =5 min, the overshoot is reduced to 20 percent without
a serious sacrifice in speed. The overshoot cannot be significantly reduced by
changing Td , as can be seen from Fig. 16–19 c. However, the speed of
response may be significantly increased by increasing the derivative action
(sometimes at the expense of greater oscillation before the response has settled, as
indicated by a higher decay ratio and a lower period). From this brief study of
these figures, it may be concluded that, to decrease overshoot without seriously
slowing the response, a combination of changes should be made.