EE 3CL4, 6

1 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

EE3CL4:
Introduction to Linear Control Systems
Section 6: Design of Lead and Lag Controllers using
Root Locus
Tim Davidson
McMaster University

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Winter 2015

EE 3CL4, 6
2 / 63

Outline

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors

1 Compensators
2 Lead compensation

Design via Root Locus

Lead Compensator example
3 Cascade compensation and steady-state errors

Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

4 Lag Compensation

Design via Root Locus

Lag compensator example
5 Prop. vs Lead vs Lag
6 Concluding Insights

EE 3CL4, 6
4 / 63

Compensators

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors

Early in the course we provided some useful guidelines

regarding the relationships between the pole positions

of a system and certain aspects of its performance
Using root locus techniques, we have seen how the
pole positions of a closed loop can be adjusted by
varying a parameter

Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

What happens if we are unable to obtain that

performance that we want by doing this?

Ask ourselves whether this is really the performance

that we want
Ask whether we can change the system,

say by buying different components

seek to compensate for the undesirable aspects of the

process

EE 3CL4, 6
5 / 63
Tim Davidson

Cascade compensation

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Usually, the plant is a physical process

If commands and measurements are made electrically,

compensator is often an electric circuit

General form of the compensator is

Q
Kc M
(s + zi )
Gc (s) = Qn i=1
j=1 (s + pj )
Therefore, the cascade compensator adds open loop

poles and open loop zeros

These will change the shape of the root locus

EE 3CL4, 6
6 / 63
Tim Davidson

Compensator design

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Where should we put new poles and zeros to achieve

desired performance?
That is the art of compensator design
We will consider first order compensators of the form
c (1 + s/z)
Kc (s + z)
K
c = Kc z/p
Gc (s) =
=
, where K
(s + p)
(1 + s/p)
with the pole p in the left half plane
and the zero, z in the left half plane, too

For reasons that will soon become clear

when |z| < |p|: phase lead network
when |z| > |p|: phase lag network

EE 3CL4, 6
8 / 63

Lead compensation

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors

Kc (s + z)
(s + p)
with |z| < |p|. That is, zero closer to origin than pole
Gc (s) =

Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Let p = 1/p and z = 1/(lead p ). Since z < p, lead > 1.

c = Kc z/p = Kc /lead . Then
Define K
Gc (s) =

c (1 + lead p s)
K
Kc (s + z)
=
(s + p)
(1 + p s)

EE 3CL4, 6
9 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors

Lead compensation

With |z| < |p|, lead > 1, Gc (s) =

Kc (s+z)
(s+p)

Kc (1+lead p s)
(1+p s)

Frequency response:

Gc (j) =

c (1 + jlead p )
K
(1 + jp )

c )
Bode diagram (in the figure, K1 = K

Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

c lead p
Between = z and = p, |Gc (j)| K
What kind of operator has a frequency response with
magnitude proportional to ? Differentiator
Note that the phase is positive. Hence phase lead

EE 3CL4, 6
10 / 63
Tim Davidson

A passive phase lead network

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Homework: Show that

characteristic

V2 (s)
V1 (s)

has the phase lead

EE 3CL4, 6
11 / 63
Tim Davidson

Active lead and lag networks

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Heres an example of an active network architecture.

EE 3CL4, 6
12 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Principles of Lead design via

Root Locus
The compensator adds poles and zeros to the P(s) in

the root locus procedure.

Hence we can change the shape of the root locus.
If we can capture desirable performance in terms of

positions of closed loop poles

then compensator design problem reduces to:
changing the shape of the root locus so that these
desired closed-loop pole positions appear on the root
locus
finding the gain that places the closed-loop pole
positions at their desired positions
What tools do we have to do this?
Phase criterion and magnitude criterion, respectively

EE 3CL4, 6
13 / 63

Root Locus Principles

Tim Davidson
Compensators

The point s0 is on the root locus of P(s) if 1 + KP(s0 ) = 0.

Lead
compensation

In first order compensator design with G(s) =

Design via Root

Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

and Gc =

Kc (s+z)
(s+p) ,

QM
(s+z) Qi=1 (s+zi )
n
(s+p)
j=1 (s+pj )

and

K = Kc KG . We will restrict attention to the case of K > 0

Phase cond. s0 is on root locus if P(s0 ) = 180 + k 360 :
M
X

(angle from zi to s0 )

i=1

n
X

(angle from pj to s0 )

j=1

+ (angle from z to s0 ) (angle from p to s0 )

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

we have P(s) =

Q
(s+zi )
KG M
Qn i=1
j=1 (s+pj )

= 180 + k 360
Mag. cond. If s0 satisfies phase condition, the gain that puts
a closed-loop pole at s0 is K = 1/|P(s0 )|:
Qn
(dist from p to s0 )
j=1 (dist from pj to s0 )
K = QM

(dist from zi to s0 ) (dist from z to s0 )

i=1

EE 3CL4, 6
14 / 63

RL design: Basic procedure

Tim Davidson

Translate design specifications into desired positions of

dominant poles

Sketch root locus of uncompensated system to see if desired

positions can be achieved

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors

If not, choose the positions of the pole and zero of the

compensator so that the desired positions lie on the root
locus (phase criterion), if that is possible

Lag
Compensation

Evaluate the gain required to put the poles there

(magnitude criterion)

Evaluate the total system gain so that the steady-state error

constants can be determined

If the steady state error constants are not satisfactory, repeat

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Design via Root

Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

This procedure enables relatively straightforward design of

systems with specifications in terms of rise time, settling time, and
overshoot; i.e., the transient response.
For systems with steady-state error specifications, Bode (and
Nyquist) methods may be more straightforward (later)

EE 3CL4, 6
15 / 63

Lead Comp. example

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

1
Consider a case with G(s) = s(s+2)
and H(s) = 1.
Design a lead compensator to achieve:

damping coefficient 0.45 and

velocity error constant Kv = lims0 sGc (s)G(s) > 20
swift transient response (small settling time)
What to do?
Can we achieve this with proportional control?
If not we will attempt lead control

EE 3CL4, 6
16 / 63

Attempt prop. control

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Sketch root locus of

1
s(s+2)
1

Sketch rays of angle cos (0.45) 60 to neg. real axis

Are there intersections? Yes
If so, what is the corresponding value of K = KP KG ?
K = d1 d2 = 5
Does that K generate a large enough velocity error const.?
No, Kv = 2.5 :(
Do the closed-loop poles have responses that decay
quickly? No, Ts 4s

EE 3CL4, 6
17 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Prop. control, step response

EE 3CL4, 6
18 / 63
Tim Davidson

Lead compensated design

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Plot poles of G(s).

Where should the closed-loop poles be? cos1 (0.45) 60
Note that the settling time is not specified; it only needs to be
small. This provides design flexibility.
However, we need a large Kv which will require large gain.
Need desired positions far from open loop poles.
Lets start with desired roots at 4 j8

This pair has Ts = 1s and n = 42 + 82 8.9

EE 3CL4, 6
19 / 63
Tim Davidson

Lead Comp. example

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Now where to put the zero and pole? (Centroid denoted ca )

Rule of thumb: put zero under desired root, or just to the left
Determine position of the pole using angle criterion
X
X
angles from OL zeros
angles from OL poles = 180
90 (116 + 104 + p ) = 180
= p 50
Hence pole at p 10.86

EE 3CL4, 6
20 / 63
Tim Davidson

Lead Comp. example

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Gain of compensated system:

d1 d2 dp
Prod. dist. from open-loop poles
=
Prod. dist. from open-loop zeros
dz
8.94(8.25)(10.54)

97.1
8
Hence compensated open loop: Gc (s)G(s) =

97.1(s+4)
s(s+2)(s+10.86)

Velocity constant: Kv = lims0 sGc (s)G(s) 17.9 :(

EE 3CL4, 6
21 / 63

What to do now?

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

We tried hard, but did not achieve the design specs

Lets go back and re-examine our choices
Zero position of compensator was chosen via rule of

thumb
Can we do better?

Yes, but two parameter design becomes trickier.

What were other choices that we made?
We chose desired poles to be of magnitude n 8.9
We could choose them to be further away

(faster transient response)

By how much?
Show that when desired poles have n = 10 as well as

the required 0.45, then the choice of z 4.47,

p 12.5 and KC 125 results in Kv 22.3

EE 3CL4, 6
22 / 63
Tim Davidson

Root Locus, new lead comp.

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Centroid denoted ca

EE 3CL4, 6
23 / 63

New lead comp.

Tim Davidson

Prop.-contr.

Lead contr.

125(s+4.47)
(s+12.5)

OL TF, GC (s)G(s)

5
s(s+2)

125(s+4.47)
1
(s+12.5) s(s+2)

Y (s)
R(s)

5
s(s+2)+5

125(s+4.47)
s(s+2)(s+12.5)+125(s+4.47)

CL poles

1 j2

4.47 j8.94, 5.59

CL zeros

4.47, ,

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Controller, GC (s)

CL TF,

CL TF, again

5
s2 +2s+5

131(1+0.013s)
s2 +8.94s+100

1.71
s+5.59

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Complex conjugate poles still dominate

Closed-loop zero at -4.47 (which is also an open-loop

zero) reduces impact of closed-loop pole at -5.59; see

also slide 48 of Section 3: Fundamentals of Feedback

EE 3CL4, 6
24 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

New lead comp., ramp response

EE 3CL4, 6
25 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

New lead comp., ramp

response, detail

EE 3CL4, 6
26 / 63
Tim Davidson

New lead comp., step response

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Note faster settling time than prop. controlled loop,

However, the CL zero has increased the overshoot a little
Perhaps we should go back and re-design for 0.40
in order to better control the overshoot

EE 3CL4, 6
27 / 63
Tim Davidson

Outcomes

Compensators

Root locus approach to phase lead design was

Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

reasonably successful in terms of putting dominant

poles in desired positions; e.g., in terms of and n
We did this by positioning the pole and zero of the lead

compensator so as to change the shape of the root

locus
However, root locus approach does not provide

independent control over steady-state error constants

(details upcoming)
That said, since lead compensators reduce the DC gain

(they resemble differentiators), they are not normally

used to control steady-state error.
The goal of our lag compensator design will be to

increase the steady-state error constants, without

moving the other poles too far

EE 3CL4, 6
29 / 63
Tim Davidson

Cascade compensation

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Throughout this lecture, and all the discussion on cascade

compensation, we will consider the case in which H(s) = 1.
We will consider first order compensators of the form
Gc (s) =

K (s + z)
(s + p)

with the pole, p, and the zero, z, both in the left half plane
when |z| < |p|: phase lead network
when |z| > |p|: phase lag network

EE 3CL4, 6
30 / 63

Steady-state errors

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

If closed loop stable, steady state error for input R(s):

ess = lim e(t) = lim s
t

Let G(s) =

Q
KG i (s+zi )
Q
j (s+pj )

s0

R(s)
1 + GC (s)G(s)

and consider GC (s) =

KC (s+z)
(s+p)

Consider the case in which G(s) is a type-0 system.

Steady state error due to a step r (t) = Au(t):
ess = 1+KAposn , where
Q
KC z KG i zi
Q
Kposn = GC (0)G(0) =
p
j pj
Note that for a lead compensator, z/p < 1,
So lead compensation may degrade steady-state error
performance

EE 3CL4, 6
31 / 63

Steady-state error

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Now, consider the case

in which G(s) is a type-1
Q

system, G(s) =

KGQ i (s+zi )
s j (s+pj )

Steady-state error due to a ramp r (t) = At: ess = A/Kv ,

where the velocity constant is

Q
KC z KG i zi
Q
Kv = lim sGc (s)G(s) =
p
s0
j pj
Once again, lead compensation may degrade

steady-state error performance

Is there a way to increase the value of these error

constants while leaving the closed loop poles in

essentially the same place as they were in an
uncompensated system? Perhaps |z| > |p|?

EE 3CL4, 6
33 / 63

Lag compensation

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors

Kc (s + z)
(s + p)
with |z| > |p|. That is, pole closer to origin than zero
Gc (s) =

Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Let z = 1/z and p = 1/(lag z ). Since z > p, lag > 1.

c = Kc z/p = Kc lag . Then
Define K
Gc (s) =

c (1 + z s)
K
Kc (s + z)
=
(s + p)
(1 + lag z s)

EE 3CL4, 6
34 / 63

Frequency response

Tim Davidson
Compensators

Gc (j) =

Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

C (1 + jz )
K
(1 + jlag z )

Magnitude
C
Low frequency gain: K
Corner freq. in denominator at p = p = 1/(lag z )
Corner freq. in numerator at z = z = 1/z
p < z

C /lag = KC
High frequency gain: K
Phase
() = atan(z ) atan(lag z )
At low frequency: () = 0
At high frequency: () = 0
In between: negative, with max. lag at =

zp

EE 3CL4, 6
35 / 63
Tim Davidson

c = 1
Bode Diagram, with K

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Note integrative characteristic

EE 3CL4, 6
36 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

A passive phase lag network

EE 3CL4, 6
37 / 63
Tim Davidson

Active lead and lag networks

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Heres an example of an active network architecture.

EE 3CL4, 6
38 / 63

Lag compensator design

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus

Lag compensator: Gc (s) = Kc

s+z
s+p .

with |z| > |p|.

Recall position error constant for compensated type-0

system and velocity error constant for compensated type-1
system:
Q
Q
KC z KG i zi
KC z KG i zi
Q
Q
Kposn =
,
Kv =
p
p
j pj
j pj
where in the latter case the product in the denominator is
over the non-zero poles.

Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Design Principles
We dont try to reshape the uncompensated root locus.
We just try to increase the value of the desired error constant
by a factor lag = z/p without moving the poles (well not
much)
Reshaping was the goal of lead compensator design

EE 3CL4, 6
39 / 63
Tim Davidson

Lag compensator design

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Design principles:
Dont reshape the root locus
Adding the open loop pole and zero from the

compensator should only result in a small change to the

angle criterion for any point on the uncompensated root
locus
Angles from compensator pole and zero to any point on
the locus must be similar
Pole and zero must be close together
Increase value of error constant:
Want to have a large value for lag = z/p.
How can that happen if z and p are close together?
Only if z and p are both small, i.e., close to the origin

EE 3CL4, 6
40 / 63

Lag comp. design via Root

Locus

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus

1
2

Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors

Lag
Compensation

Design via Root

Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Obtain the root locus of uncompensated system

From transient performance specs, locate suitable
dominant pole positions on that locus
Obtain the loop gain for these points, K = KP KG ;
hence the (closed-loop) steady-state error constant
Calculate the necessary increase. Hence lag = z/p
Place pole and zero close to the origin (with respect to
desired pole positions), with z = lag p.
Typically, choose z and p so that their angles to desired
poles differ by less than 1 .
Set KC = KP

What if there is nothing suitable at step 2?

Perhaps do lead compensation first,
then lag compensation on lead compensated plant.
i.e., design a lead-lag compensator

EE 3CL4, 6
41 / 63
Tim Davidson

Example

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

1
Lets consider, again, the case with G(s) = s(s+2)
.
Design a lag compensator to achieve damping coefficient
0.45 and velocity error constant Kv > 20

Note: we will get a different closed loop from our lead

design.
First step, obtain uncompensated root locus, and locate
desired dominant pole locations

EE 3CL4, 6
42 / 63

Example

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Gain required to put closed loop poles in desired position =

prod. distances from open loop poles
That is, K = 2.242 = 5. Therefore KP = K /KG = 5
Velocity error const: Kv ,unc = lims0 sKP G(s) = K /2 = 2.5
The increase required is 20/2.5 = 8
That implies must choose p = z/8, where z is chosen to be
close to the origin with respect to dominant closed-loop poles

EE 3CL4, 6
43 / 63
Tim Davidson

Example

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Lets choose z = 0.1. Hence, p = 1/80.

EE 3CL4, 6
44 / 63

Example

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Root locus of lag compd system with GC (s) =

KC (s+0.1)
(s+1/80)

s: closed-loop poles for prop.-control with KP = 5

s: open-loop poles of lag compd system
: OL zero of lag compd system; also a CL zero
4s: Closed-loop poles for lag-control with KC = 5

EE 3CL4, 6
45 / 63

Example

Tim Davidson

Prop.-contr.

Lag contr.

5(s+0.1)
(s+1/80)

OL TF, GC (s)G(s)

5
s(s+2)

5(s+0.1)
1
(s+1/80) s(s+2)

Y (s)
R(s)

5
s(s+2)+5

5(s+0.1)
s(s+2)(s+1/80)+5(s+0.1)

CL poles

1 j2

0.955 j1.979, 0.104

CL zeros

0.1, ,

Compensators
Lead
compensation

Controller, GC (s)

Design via Root

Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

CL TF,

CL TF, again

5
s2 +2s+5

4.999(1+7104 s)
s2 +1.909s+4.827

0.004
s+0.104

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Complex conjugate poles still dominate

Closed-loop zero at -0.1 (which is also an open-loop

zero) reduces impact of closed-loop pole at -0.104; see

also slide 48 of Section 3: Fundamentals of Feedback

EE 3CL4, 6
46 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Ramp response

EE 3CL4, 6
47 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Ramp response, detail

EE 3CL4, 6
48 / 63
Tim Davidson

Step response

Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Note longer settling time of lag controlled loop,

and slight increase in overshoot, due to CL zero

EE 3CL4, 6
50 / 63

Design Comparisons

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation

For given example: G(s) =

Design via Root

Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

GC (s)

1
s(s+2) ,

0.45, Kv 20.

Prop.-contr.

Lead contr.

Lag contr.

125(s+4.47)
(s+12.5)

5(s+0.1)
(s+1/80)
4.999(1+7104 s)
s2 +1.909s+4.827

Y (s)
R(s)

5
s2 +2s+5

131(1+0.013s)
s2 +8.94s+100

CL poles

1 j2

4.47 j8.94, 5.59

0.955 j1.979, 0.104

CL zeros

4.47, ,

0.1, ,

0.4

0.045

0.05

1/Kv

1.71
s+5.59

0.004
s+0.104

Lag design retains similar CL poles to prop. design,

plus a slow pole

CL poles of lead design quite different
Lead and lag meet Kv specification (1/Kv = ess,ramp )

EE 3CL4, 6
51 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Ramp response

EE 3CL4, 6
52 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Ramp response, detail

EE 3CL4, 6
53 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Step response

EE 3CL4, 6
54 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Step response, detail

EE 3CL4, 6
55 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Anything else to consider?

EE 3CL4, 6
56 / 63

Anything else to consider?

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation

With H(s) = 1,
Y (s) =

Design via Root

Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

E(s) =

Gc (s)G(s)
G(s)
R(s) +
Td (s)
1 + Gc (s)G(s)
1 + Gc (s)G(s)
Gc (s)G(s)

N(s)
1 + Gc (s)G(s)
1
G(s)
R(s)
Td (s)
1 + Gc (s)G(s)
1 + Gc (s)G(s)
Gc (s)G(s)
+
N(s)
1 + Gc (s)G(s)

EE 3CL4, 6
57 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Response to step disturbance

EE 3CL4, 6
58 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Response to step disturbance,

detail early

EE 3CL4, 6
59 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators

Response to step disturbance,

detail late

Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Homework: Show that ess for a step disturbance is 0.2,

0.0225 and 0.025 for prop., lead, lag, resp.

EE 3CL4, 6
60 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Error due to Gaussian sensor

noise

EE 3CL4, 6
61 / 63
Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

Bode diagram of
GC (s)G(s)/(1 + GC (s)G(s))

EE 3CL4, 6
63 / 63

Insights

Tim Davidson
Compensators
Lead
compensation
Design via Root
Locus
Lead Compensator
example

Cascade
compensation
and
steady-state
errors
Lag
Compensation

If we would like to improve the transient performance of

a closed loop
We can try to place the dominant closed-loop poles in

desired positions
One approach to doing that is lead compensator design
However, that typically requires the use of an amplifier

in the compensator, and hence requires a power supply

Broadening of bandwidth improves transient

performance but exposes loop to noise

Design via Root

Locus
Lag compensator
example

Prop. vs Lead
vs Lag
Concluding
Insights

If we would like to improve the steady-state error

performance of a closed loop without changing the

dominant transient features too much
We can consider designing a lag compensator to

provide the required gain

However, that typically produces a weak slow pole that

slows the decay to steady state