- 78 Views
- Uploaded on

Download Presentation
## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Two d.o.f. Control design: dual loop' - annice

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Two different implementations:

sy

y

PI*PD +0.1s

_

_

-0.1

Standard

PD

+0.1s

y

PI

_

_

-0.1

Alternative

(more overshoot)

Cf(s)

d

+

+

r

+

e

C(s)

y

+

+

_

Suppose C(s) is a lead-lag controller.

Without Cf, what is the system type w.r.t. r?

What is the system type w.r.t. d?

Can Cf affect the type w.r.t. d?

Can Cf affect the type w.r.t. r?

Cf(s)

d

+

+

r

+

e

C(s)

y

+

+

_

Suppose C(s) is a lead-lag controller.

Q:

Find a Cf to achieve 0 ess tracking for ramp input.

Design specs: use PID to achieve

Ess to ramp input = 0

As fast as possible

Overshoot <= 25%

Plant is type 1, so need PI after PD.

25% Mp PM >= 45, but with PI, need PMd 55

PD can contribute a maximum of about 75

So, select max wgc at phase=-200

s=tf('s'); Gp=1/s/(s+1)/(s+5);

figure(2); margin(Gp); grid; V=axis;

Mp=25; PMd = 70 - Mp + 10; %+10 for PI later

DPM=75; PM=PMd-DPM;

hold on; plot([V(1) V(2)],[PM PM]-180,'r:');

[x, y]=ginput(1); wgcd=x;

z_PD = wgcd/tan(DPM*pi/180); %PD control

K = 1/abs(evalfr((s+z_PD)*Gp,j*wgcd));

C=K*(s+z_PD); margin(C*Gp); grid; %Bode with PD

z_PI = wgcd/10; C=C*(s+z_PI)/s; %multiply PI and PD

margin(C*Gp); grid; hold off; %Bode with PID

t=linspace(0, 15/wgcd, 301);

figure(3); step(C*Gp/(1+C*Gp),t); grid;

Figure 8-8 Unit-step response curve of PID-controlled system designed by use of the Ziegler–Nichols tuning rule (second method).

Figure 8-10 Unit-step response of the system shown in Figure 8–6 with PID controller after numerical tuning of PID parameters.

Can shift red bump toward high freq a bit to increase speed

But at higher freq, phase is lower, so PD needs to contribute more DPM

PM=48 can be reduced by about 3

s=tf('s'); Gp=1/s/(s+1)/(s+5);

figure(2); margin(Gp); grid; V=axis;

Mp=25; PMd = 70 - Mp+ 7; %+7 for PI later

DPM=85; PM=PMd-DPM;

hold on; plot([V(1) V(2)],[PM PM]-180,'r:');

[x, y]=ginput(1); wgcd=x;

z_PD = wgcd/tan(DPM*pi/180); %PD control

K = 1/abs(evalfr((s+z_PD)*Gp,j*wgcd));

C=K*(s+z_PD); margin(C*Gp); grid; %Bode with PD

z_PI = wgcd/10; C=C*(s+z_PI)/s; %multiply PI and PD

margin(C*Gp); grid; hold off; %Bode with PID

t=linspace(0, 15/wgcd, 301);

figure(3); step(C*Gp/(1+C*Gp),t); grid;

figure(4); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1),t); grid;

figure(5); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1)/s,10*t);

grid; %ramp response

figure(6); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1)/s/s,10*t);

grid; %acc response

Overshoot became higher, about 33%,

- Significantly more than 25% spec
- Increase PMd
- Increase the PI divide-number

s=tf('s'); Gp=1/s/(s+1)/(s+5);

figure(2); margin(Gp); grid; V=axis;

Mp=25; PMd = 70 - Mp + 10; %+10 for PI later

DPM=85; PM=PMd-DPM;

hold on; plot([V(1) V(2)],[PM PM]-180,'r:');

[x,y]=ginput(1); wgcd=x;

z_PD = wgcd /tan(DPM*pi/180); %PD control

K = 1/abs(evalfr((s+z_PD)*Gp,j*wgcd));

C=K*(s+z_PD); margin(C*Gp); grid; %Bode with PD

z_PI = wgcd/10; C=C*(s+z_PI)/s; %multiply PI and PD

margin(C*Gp); grid; hold off;

t=linspace(0, 15/wgcd,301);

figure(3); step(C*Gp/(1+C*Gp),t); grid;

figure(4); C1=C+5*s; Gp1=1/s/s/(s+6); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1),t); grid;

t=linspace(0, 150/wgcd,3001);

figure(5); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1)/s,t); grid; %ramp response

figure(6); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1)/s/s,t); grid; %acc response

Ess_ramp = 0

Tuning based on desired loop shape:

- We notice the max phase plot bump happens at a frequency lower than wgc
- Reduce K to lower wgc so that max bump closer to wgc
- Reduce PMd since at lower wgc, phase is higher

s=tf('s'); Gp=1/s/(s+1)/(s+5);

figure(2); margin(Gp); grid; V=axis;

Mp=15; PMd = 70 - Mp + 10; %+10 for PI later

DPM=85; PM=PMd-DPM;

hold on; plot([V(1) V(2)],[PM PM]-180,'r:');

[x,y]=ginput(1); wgcd=x;

z_PD = wgcd /tan(DPM*pi/180); %PD control

K = 1/abs(evalfr((s+z_PD)*Gp,j*wgcd))*0.5;

C=K*(s+z_PD); margin(C*Gp); grid; %Bode with PD

z_PI = wgcd/10; C=C*(s+z_PI)/s; %multiply PI and PD

margin(C*Gp); grid; hold off;

t=linspace(0, 15/wgcd,301);

figure(3); step(C*Gp/(1+C*Gp),t); grid;

figure(4); C1=C+5*s; Gp1=1/s/s/(s+6); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1),t); grid;

t=linspace(0, 150/wgcd,3001);

figure(5); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1)/s,t); grid; %ramp response

figure(6); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1)/s/s,t); grid; %ramp response

figure(4); C1=C+5*s; Gp1=1/s/s/(s+6); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1),t); grid;

Ess to ramp and acc still = 0

s=tf('s'); Gp=1/s/(s+1)/(s+5);

figure(2); margin(Gp); grid; V=axis;

Mp=15; PMd = 70 - Mp + 10; %+10 for PI later

DPM=85; PM=PMd-DPM;

hold on; plot([V(1) V(2)],[PM PM]-180,'r:');

[x,y]=ginput(1); wgcd=x;

z_PD = wgcd /tan(DPM*pi/180); %PD control

K = 1/abs(evalfr((s+z_PD)*Gp,j*wgcd))*0.5;

C=K*(s+z_PD); margin(C*Gp); grid; %Bode with PD

z_PI = wgcd/10; C=C*(s+z_PI)/s; %multiply PI and PD

margin(C*Gp); grid; hold off;

t=linspace(0, 15/wgcd,301); t1=linspace(0, 150/wgcd,3001);

figure(3); step(C*Gp/(1+C*Gp),t); grid;

figure(4); C1=C+5*s; Gp1=1/s/s/(s+6); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1),t); grid;

figure(5); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1)/s,t1); grid; %ramp response

figure(6); step(C1*Gp1/(1+C1*Gp1)/s/s,t1); grid; %acc response

Cf=5*s; figure(7); step((Cf+C)*Gp/(1+C*Gp),t); grid;

- This is example 8-2.
- Design specs:
- 10% overshoot in closed-loop unit step response
- The book tries to design a PID controller.
- But with the above specs, a P-controller will do.

But that was “obviously not good”.

- Really? Why or why not?
- Now suppose we change the design specs to:
- 10% overshoot in closed-loop unit step response
- Ess to constant input must be zero
- Limit controller to simple PID
- Achieve as fast response as possible.
- Now it is a valid design problem.

- Zero ess to step requires type 1 system, but plant is only type 0 need PI
- To increase speed and Mp, we will need PD
- So we will do PD followed by PI to get an overall PID
- The upper limit of phase boost by PID is about 80 deg
- To maximize speed, need max wgc, need to find highest freq at which when we add 80 deg we still have enough PM

Gp=1.2/(0.36*s^3+1.86*s^2+2.5*s+1);

figure(1); margin(Gp);

hold on; grid; V=axis;

Mp=10;

PMd = 70 - Mp + 10; %+10 for PI later

DPM=80;

PM=PMd-DPM;

plot(V(1:2),[PM PM]-180,'r:');

wgcd=x;

z_PD = wgcd /tan(DPM*pi/180); %PD control

K = 1/abs(evalfr((s+z_PD)*Gp,j*wgcd));

C=K*(s+z_PD);

margin(C*Gp); %Bode with PD

C=C*(s+z_PI)/s; %PI times PD

margin(C*Gp); hold off;

t=linspace(0,15/wgcd,301);

t1=linspace(0,150/wgcd,3001);

figure(3); step(C*Gp/(1+C*Gp),t); grid;

- Let us reconsider this design problem with specs:
- 10% overshoot in closed-loop unit step response
- Ess to constant input must be zero
- Achieve as fast response as possible.
- But limit controller order (nc and/or dc) to 2
- PID is artificially imposed by the book. But we repeatedly said we should avoid I whenever possible.

- For zero ess to step, if we use an inner loop with a gain of -1.2, we can increase the plant type by 1.
- So don’t need PI, but use dual loop.
- For Mp <= 10%, we need PM >= 60.
- For high speed, need high wgc.
- But plant phase goes to -270 at high freq.
- Need PD or lead to boost PM.
- But order is limited to 2.
- Choices are: two PDs, two leads, one of each
- PD is sensitive to noise, not two PDs
- Let’s do the more complex: PD*lead

s=tf('s'); Gp=1.2/(0.36*s^3+1.86*s^2+2.5*s+1);

figure(1); margin(Gp); hold on; grid; V=axis;

Mp=10; PMd = 70 - Mp + 7;

DPM_PD=80; DPM_lead=70; PM=PMd-DPM_PD-DPM_lead;

plot(V(1:2),[PM PM]-180);[x,y]=ginput(1); wgcd=x;

z_PD = wgcd /tan(DPM*pi/180); %PD control

alpha=(1+sin(DPM_lead*pi/180))/(1-sin(DPM_lead*pi/180));

z_lead=wgcd/alpha^0.5;p_lead=wgcd*alpha^0.5;

C=(s+z_PD)*(s+z_lead)/(s+p_lead);

K = 1/abs(evalfr(C*Gp,j*wgcd)); C=C*K;

margin(C*Gp); hold off; %Bode with PD

t=linspace(0,15/wgcd,301); t1=linspace(0,150/wgcd,3001);

figure(3); step(C*Gp/(1+C*Gp),t); grid;

>> C

Transfer function:

2520 s^2 + 3.439e004 s + 1.173e005

----------------------------------

s + 219.5

First design achieved 10 times faster

Mp is about OK, but a little over

Ess is actually not zero but very small

Dual loop implementation will make ess =0

But before we do that, should reduce Mp

s=tf('s'); Gp=1.2/(0.36*s^3+1.86*s^2+2.5*s+1);

figure(1); margin(Gp); hold on; grid; V=axis;

Mp=10; PMd = 70 - Mp + 10;

DPM_PD=80; DPM_lead=70; PM=PMd-DPM_PD-DPM_lead;

plot(V(1:2),[PM PM]-180);[x,y]=ginput(1); wgcd=x;

z_PD = wgcd /tan(DPM*pi/180); %PD control

alpha=(1+sin(DPM_lead*pi/180))/(1-sin(DPM_lead*pi/180));

z_lead=wgcd/alpha^0.5;p_lead=wgcd*alpha^0.5;

C=(s+z_PD)*(s+z_lead)/(s+p_lead);

K = 1/abs(evalfr(C*Gp,j*wgcd)); C=C*K;

margin(C*Gp); hold off; %Bode with PD

t=linspace(0,15/wgcd,301); t1=linspace(0,150/wgcd,3001);

figure(3); step(C*Gp/(1+C*Gp),t); grid;

>> C

Transfer function:

1254 s^2 + 1.204e004 s + 2.891e004

----------------------------------

s + 154.5

>> C2=-1.2; C1=C-C2; Gcl=C1*Gp/(1+C*Gp);

figure(4); step(Gcl,t); grid

>> C1

Transfer function:

1254 s^2 + 1.204e004 s + 2.91e004

---------------------------------

s + 154.5

Download Presentation

Connecting to Server..