Prof. M. M.

Solanki
Electronics Engineering Dept.
B.V.M. Engineering College
 Basics of control design -
Proportional, Integral and Derivative actions.

2
 Proportional, Integral and Derivative actions

𝑅 𝑠 𝐸 𝑠 𝐾𝐼 𝑈𝑝(𝑠) 𝑌𝑠
+- 𝐾𝑝 + 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 + 𝐺(𝑠)
𝑠

𝑡
𝐾𝐼 𝑓
𝑈𝑝 𝑠 = (𝐾𝑝+𝐾𝑑𝑠 + )𝐸 𝑠 ⟷ 𝑢 𝑝 𝑡 = 𝐾𝑝𝑒 𝑡 + 𝐾𝑑𝑒 𝑡 + 𝐾𝑖 ∫ 𝑒 𝑟 𝑑𝑟
𝑠 0

Proportional control Proportional + Derivative Control Proportional + Integral Control

 Simplest to implement  Stability and improved  Perfect tracking of constant

 May not be sufficient to time response reference inputs
meet the design  Provides more control over pole  Rejection of constant disturbance
requirements locations inputs
 Stability
 Control over pole locations
Proportional + Derivative + Integral Control
 Perfect tracking of constant reference inputs
For second order systems
 Constant disturbance rejection
3
 Qualitative understanding of Integral and Derivative actions.

 Issues in the implementation of PID controllers.

 Introduction to Lead – Lag Compensation.

 Performance specification in the time and frequency domains.

4
Consider a plant with no integrator terms with a proportional controller.
1
𝑅 𝑠 = 𝐸 𝑠 𝑈𝑝(𝑠) 𝑌𝑠
𝑠 1
+- 𝐾𝑝 =0.5 𝐺 𝑠 =
𝑠+𝑎

The open-loop system is stable for 𝑎 > 0 and the steady state is at 𝑦 = 0. Through a feedback controller
we are trying to shift the steady state value to 𝑦 = 1.
Let us understand why a proportional controller is incapable of tracking a step input.

Suppose that the error 𝑒 𝑡 has the behaviour-

 𝑒 𝑡 → 0 as 𝑡 → ∞. The steady-state error is zero.

⇒  𝑦 𝑡 tracks 𝑟 𝑡 as 𝑡 → ∞.
Let us now look at the other signals in the loop and see
if they are feasible with the assumed 𝑒 𝑡 .

5
 𝑅 𝑠 =1 𝐸 𝑠 𝑈𝑝 𝑠 𝑌 𝑠
𝑠 𝑒(𝑡)
𝑟 𝑡 = 1𝑢(𝑡) 𝑢𝑝(𝑡) 1 𝑦(𝑡)
+- 𝐾𝑝 = 0.5 𝐺 𝑠 =
𝑠+1

𝑡
𝑦 𝑡 = 𝑒 −𝑡 𝑦 0 + 0.5 ∫ 𝑒 −𝑐 𝑒 𝑡 − 𝑟 𝑑𝑟
0

𝖴 𝖴
𝑦(𝑡) → 𝑟 𝑡 as 𝑡 → ∞ Contradiction 𝑦(𝑡) → 0 as 𝑡 → ∞

Moreover, if the assumed 𝑒(𝑡) was feasible, it would mean that 𝑢𝑝(𝑡) → 0 as 𝑡 → ∞ and the controller applies
no input to the system to maintain the system at the new steady state.

The controller must apply some nonzero input to the plant to maintain the output at some nonzero equilibrium.
Therefore the steady state error cannot be zero in this case with a proportional controller.

6
 𝑅 𝑠 =1
𝑠 𝐸 𝑠 𝑈𝑝 𝑠 𝑌 𝑠
𝑟 𝑡 = 1𝑢(𝑡) 𝑒(𝑡) 𝑢𝑝(𝑡) 𝑦(𝑡)
1
+- 𝐾𝑝 = 9 𝐺 𝑠 =
𝑠+1

With a steady state error of 0.1, note that all the signals are feasible. In this case, the controller drives the plant with
𝑢 𝑝 𝑡 such that lim 𝑢 𝑝 𝑡 = 0.9 𝑢 𝑡 .
𝑡→∞

7
 1
𝑅 𝑠 = 𝐸 𝑠 𝑈𝑝 𝑠 𝑌 𝑠
𝑠
𝑒(𝑡) 𝑢𝑝(𝑡) 𝑦(𝑡)
𝑟 𝑡 = 𝑢(𝑡) 1 1
+- 𝐺 𝑠 =
𝑠 𝑠+1

The controller output 𝑢 𝑝 𝑡 is now the integral of the error signal 𝑒 𝑡 . The controller output is nonzero
even though the error has gone to zero.
A similar analysis shows that when there is a constant disturbance the error due to the disturbance accumulates
and is used to reject the effect of disturbance.
8
 Plants with integrators.

When the plant already has an integrator, integral control may not be essential for zero steady-state error.
However the integrator in the plant does not help in rejecting disturbances. Therefore Integral control is
used for these plants as well.

 Integrator wind up phenomenon.

Note that Integral or Proportional + Integral controllers are not stable. When there is a limit on the
actuation capability, the controller output saturates leading to non-decaying errors. The integrator blindly
accumulates the error and its output can grow to large values.

1
𝑅 𝑠 = 𝑈𝑝 𝑠 𝑌𝑠
𝑠 𝐸 𝑠 1 1
+-
𝑠 𝑠 +1
Saturation

We will not discuss how this situation can be dealt with in this course. For those interested, references
will be posted on the course page.
9
 A few important observations.

 Integral control leads to sluggish closed-loop response for a first order system.

Dominant pole

𝐾 𝐾
𝐺𝑐 𝑠 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝐺𝑐 𝑠 𝐺 𝑠 =
𝑠+3 𝑠(𝑠 + 3)

 Integral control of higher order plants may lead to instability. This point was emphasized in the last lecture
using a second order plant.

10
 𝑅 𝑠 𝐸 𝑠 𝑈𝑝(𝑠) 𝑌𝑠
+- 𝐾𝑝 + 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 𝐺(𝑠)

𝑓
𝑈𝑝 𝑠 = (𝐾𝑝+𝐾𝑑𝑠)𝐸 𝑠 ⟷ 𝑢 𝑝 𝑡 = 𝐾𝑝𝑒 𝑡 + 𝐾𝑑 𝑒 𝑡

 In the last lecture, we saw that a PD controller acts not only on the error but also the rate of change
of error.

 It improves the relative stability as we are effectively adding a zero to the open-loop transfer function
in the left half s-plane.

 We discussed that the derivative term is in some sense anticipatory or predictive and its effect was
explicitly seen in the improved damping in the system.

11
 Note :-

Just the proportional or the derivative term is not sufficient and both the terms are
necessary in most cases.

Consider the following system.

𝑅𝑠 𝐸 𝑠 1 𝑌𝑠
+- 𝐾𝑝 + 𝐾𝑑 𝑠
𝐽𝑠2

The output of the system 𝑌 𝑠 is

𝐾𝑝 + 𝐾𝑑𝑠
𝑌 𝑠 = 𝑅 𝑠
𝐽𝑠2 + 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 + 𝐾𝑝

Note that the term 𝐾𝑑𝑠 influences only the 𝑠1 term and 𝐾𝑝 influences just the 𝑠0 term. Both the terms
are necessary to have complete control over the pole locations.

12
A few important observations.

 PD controller is a non-causal system.

The transfer functions 𝑇1 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 and 𝑇2(𝑠) = (𝐾𝑝+𝐾𝑑 𝑠) are improper transfer functions.
We have seen that systems with such transfer functions are non-causal and cannot be realized in practice
in their pure form.

 Amplification of Noise.

As the derivative term acts on the rate of change of error, it’s output is highly susceptible to noise.
The noise can enter through the output measurement sensors or through the reference signal itself.

When a low noise sensor is available for output measurement the derivative controller can be used in
the feedback path.

𝑅 𝑠 𝐸 𝑠 1 𝑌𝑠
+- The noisy reference signal gets
𝐽𝑠 2
filtered in the forward path before
encountering the differentiator.
𝐾𝑝 + 𝐾𝑑 𝑠

13
To address both the issues the following approximation for the derivative term can be used

𝐾𝑑 𝑠 1
𝑇𝑑 𝑠 = 𝑠 = (𝐾𝑑 𝑠)
𝑠
𝑝+1 𝑝+1

• 𝑇𝑑 𝑠 is causal and as 𝑝 → ∞, 𝑇𝑑 𝑠 → 𝐾𝑑𝑠 and we recover the derivative controller.

• The multiplicative term acts as a low pass filter and eliminates high frequency content in the
signal before passing it to the differentiator. As 𝑝 → ∞, we have an all-pass filter and we get
back a pure differentiator.

14
15
The Proportional + Integral controller (PI) provides perfect tracking of constant reference inputs and helps
in rejecting constant external disturbances.

We have seen that the PI controller is not a stable system leading to issues such as integrator wind up and
also the possibility of destabilizing the closed-loop system.

Moreover, if small steady-state errors are acceptable, perfect tracking may not be necessary.

These observations lead us to the following approximation to a PI controller-

𝐾𝐼 𝐾𝐼 + 𝐾𝑝𝑠 𝐾𝐼 + 𝐾𝑝𝑠
𝐺𝑐 (𝑠) = 𝐾𝑝 + = ≈
𝑠 𝑠 𝑠 +𝑝

with 𝑝 being very close to zero. Further,

𝐾𝐼 + 𝐾𝑝𝑠 𝑠+𝑧
𝐺𝑐 𝑠 ≈ =𝐾
𝑠+𝑝 𝑠+𝑝
𝐾𝐼
where 𝐾 = 𝐾𝑝 and 𝑧 = .
𝐾𝑝

Instead of a pole at the origin and a zero in the LHP, we now have a pole and zero in the LHP and the controller
is stable. This approximation is called a Lag compensator.
16
 𝑅 𝑠 𝐸 𝑠 𝐾𝐼 𝑈𝑝(𝑠) 1 𝑌𝑠
+- 𝐾𝑝 +
𝑠 𝑇𝑠 + 1

Static position error constant for this system is

1
𝐾𝑝 = lim 𝐺 𝑠 𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = ∞ ⇒ steady state error 𝑒 𝑠𝑠 = =0
𝑠→0 1+𝐾𝑝

Consider the same plant with a lag compensator

𝑅 𝑠 𝐸 𝑠 𝑠+𝑧 𝑈𝑝(𝑠) 1 𝑌𝑠
+- 𝐾
𝑠+𝑝 𝑇𝑠 + 1

Static position error constant for this system is

1
𝐾𝑝 = lim 𝐺 𝑠 𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = 𝐾 𝑧 ⇒ steady state error 𝑒 𝑠𝑠 = 𝑧≈ 0
𝑠→0 𝑝 1+𝐾

The steady error will not be zero with a lag compensator. However 𝑧 and 𝑝 can be placed to achieve very small errors.
17
 Figure 1. Effect of a PI controller Figure 2. Effect of the Lag compensator

Lag compensator Proportional + Integral controller

Proportional Controller
Plant 𝑠 + 0.15 𝑠 + 0.15
𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = 2 𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = 2
𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = 2 𝑠 + 0.015 𝑠
1 Dominant closed-loop poles are at Dominant closed-loop poles are at
𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = Closed-loop poles are at
(𝑠 + 0.5)(𝑠 + 1.5) −1 ± 1.3229i −0.9464 ± 1.2857i −0.9406 ± 1.2813i
𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 0.273 𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 0.0380 𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 0

18
We have already found a causal approximation to the derivative controller.

𝐾𝑑 𝑠 𝐾 𝑝𝑠
𝑇𝑑 𝑠 = 𝑠 = 𝑑
+ 1 𝑠+𝑝
𝑝

Under a similar approximation to the Proportional + Derivative controller we have

𝑝 𝐾𝑝 + 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 𝐾 (𝑠 + 𝑧)
𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑝 + 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 ≈ =
𝑠+𝑝 (𝑠 + 𝑝)
𝐾𝑝
where, 𝐾 = 𝑝𝐾𝑑 and 𝑧 = .
𝐾𝑑

We now have a causal and stable controller which is less susceptible to high frequency noise.

Both the pole and the zero are in the left half s-plane with the pole farther away from the origin than the
zero. This approximation is called a Lead compensator.

19
 Figure 1. Effect of a PD controller Figure 2. Effect of the Lead compensator
Proportional + Derivative controller Lead compensator
Plant 𝐾𝑝
1 𝑠+1
𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 + 𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = 𝐾
𝐺𝑐 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑑 𝑠 + 15
𝑠2
= 𝐾 𝑠+𝑧

• The PD through the choice of 𝐾 and 𝑧 allows the placement of the closed-loop poles anywhere in the s-plane.
• For a given 𝑧, both the PD controller and the lead compensator choices for the closed-loop poles that are very close to
each other.
• As the pole of the lead compensator more farther away the match between the two root-loci in Figure 2 becomes closer.
20
Both the approximations derived so far have the same general structure.

𝐾 (𝑠 + 𝑧)
𝐺𝑐 𝑠 =
(𝑠 + 𝑝)

The relative positions of 𝑧 and 𝑝 determine whether the compensator is a lead or a lag compensator.

• With 𝑧 > 𝑝, the compensator is a lag compensator.

• With 𝑝 > 𝑧, the compensator is a lead compensator.

Consider ∠𝐺𝑐 𝑗𝜔 = tan−1 𝜔 − tan−1 𝜔 .

𝑧 𝑝

• When 𝑧 > 𝑝, ∠𝐺𝑐 𝑗𝜔 is negative for all 𝜔. The compensator provides a phase lag to sinusoidal
signals of all frequencies. Hence the name Lag compensator.

• When 𝑝 > 𝑧, ∠𝐺𝑐 𝑗𝜔 is positive for all 𝜔. The compensator provides a phase lead to sinusoidal
signals of all frequencies. Hence the name Lead compensator.

21
 We have provided an approximation to both PD and PI controllers.

What about PID controllers?

Lead and Lag compensators are used in cascade to approximate the PID control action.

22
23
 In the course so far, we have found the description and specification of the closed-loop behaviour in terms of
overshoot, rise time, settling time, steady state errors etc. is very natural and easy.

 These specifications directly translate into the dominant pole locations in the s-plane, which is very helpful in the
design process.

 However, characteristics such as relative stability, noise rejection etc. are better understood in frequency domain.
Moreover, as we shall see, the design in frequency domain is simpler than the design in time-domain.

 Is there a correlation between the time-domain parameters such as rise time, overshoot etc. and frequency
domain characteristics such as resonant peak, resonant frequency, bandwidth, gain & phase margin etc. ?

 Exact correlation exists for first and second order systems. For higher order systems, this correlation holds
approximately when the closed-loop system has a pair of dominant poles.

 When the correlation is used for higher-order systems, extensive simulations must be performed before finalizing
the design.

24
  Consider the closed-loop system :

𝑅 𝑠 𝐸 𝑠 𝜔𝑛2 𝑌𝑠
+- 𝑌(𝑠) 𝜔𝑛2
𝑠(𝑠 + 2𝜁𝜔𝑛) =
𝑅(𝑠) 𝑠2 + 2𝜁𝜔𝑛𝑠 + 𝜔𝑛2

 The time response of this system to a step input is

characterized by
𝜁𝜋
−
1−𝜁 2
 Percentage Overshoot 𝑀 𝑝 = 100𝑒 %

4
 Settling time 𝑡𝑠 = 4𝑟 = (2% tolerance)
𝜁𝜔 𝑛

𝜋−cos −1 𝜁
 Rise time 𝑡𝑟 =
𝜔 𝑛 1−𝜁2

 Steady state error in terms of error constants

Typical step Response of a second order system 𝐾𝑝 , 𝐾𝑣 and 𝐾𝑎 .
25
  The closed-loop frequency response is characterized by the
following parameters

1
Resonant peak 𝑀𝑟 =
2𝜁 1−𝜁 2

Resonant frequency 𝜔𝑟 = 𝜔𝑛 1 − 2𝜁2

Bandwidth 𝜔𝑏 = 𝜔𝑛 1 − 2𝜁2 + 4𝜁4 − 4𝜁2 + 2

• For the system to track inputs quickly, it must have a large

bandwidth. However, this is not desirable from the noise
Closed-loop frequency response perspective. In practice, this trade-off is very important.

26
• 𝑀𝑟 depends only on 𝜁. Therefore, has exact correlation with 𝑀𝑝 and decides the overshoot in
the step response. Just like 𝑀𝑝, 𝑀𝑟 is also indicative of the relative stability.

1
• The resonant peak exists only for 𝜁 ≤ and the
2
1
correlation exists only in the range 0 ≤𝜁≤ .
2

• This is not of much concern as for 𝜁 > 1 2,

𝑀𝑝 < 0.046 and the overshoot in the step
response is very small.

𝑀𝑝 , 𝑀𝑟 v/s 𝜁

• For a given 𝜁, either 𝜔𝑏 or 𝜔𝑟 can be used to specify 𝜔𝑛. Therefore 𝜔𝑏 and 𝜔𝑟 influence the rise
time in the step response. Larger the 𝜔𝑏 or 𝜔𝑟, smaller is the rise time.

27
• It must be emphasized again that the exact correlations hold for second order systems.

• For higher order systems, if the system has a pair of dominant poles and the other poles have little
significance, the correlations can be used in the design process.

• As we are interested in the analysis of the response to aperiodic signals rather than sinusoidal
signals, it is natural and easy to specify the system requirements in the time domain.

• The control system design in the frequency domain is simpler when compared to the design in the time
domain. Therefore the specifications in the time domain and translated to the frequency domain and the
design is carried out.

• The specification in the frequency domain after the design are translated back to time domain to verify
that the requirements are met.

• For higher order system, it is extremely important to verify the design through extensive simulations,
as the correlations are not exact but close.

28