1 / 22

Position Control using Lead Compensators

Position Control using Lead Compensators. Bill Barraclough. Sheffield Hallam University. Technology considered. A small d.c. motor actually to drive the system Torque (and therefore acceleration) depends on applied voltage Back e.m.f. of the motor means the T.F. is of the form K/[s(1 + Ts)]

donagh
Télécharger la présentation

Position Control using Lead Compensators

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Position Control using Lead Compensators Bill Barraclough Sheffield Hallam University

  2. Technology considered • A small d.c. motor actually to drive the system • Torque (and therefore acceleration) depends on applied voltage • Back e.m.f. of the motor means the T.F. is of the form K/[s(1 + Ts)] • So it inherently contains integration !

  3. Possible Controllers • Proportional + Derivative (Stability problems will arise if we include integration) • Velocity feedback using a tachogenerator • Lead Compensator • We will concentrate on the lead compensator but we will also mention the other possibilities

  4. The lead compensator • These controllers often provide good performance without some of the drawbacks of the p.i.d. • We will obtain the transfer function of a suitable lead compensator for a small d.c. motor used to control position ... • ... and produce a digital version.

  5. The Motor • We will base the work on a motor type which we have in the laboratory ... • ... and on which you will have the opportunity to try out the resulting controllers !

  6. The Lead Compensator • Its transfer function (and that of the lag compensator) is of the form

  7. The Motor • The laboratory motors have a transfer function approximately

  8. The Procedure • Obtain the TF in “s” of the lead compensator • Digitise it • Implement it !

  9. Two Approaches • Decide to replace the motor’s “pole” by a faster one. This determines “a” ... • ... and use trial and error to find “K” and “b”. • Or decide the closed-loop T.F. we require and deduce the controller T.F. needed to achieve it.

  10. Method 1: “Trial and Error” • Controller transfer function:

  11. MATLAB/SIMULINK to the rescue! • Use of MATLAB and SIMULINK suggested that good performance would result from the following controller:

  12. We have two methods of digitising this T.F. • The “simple” method • The “Tustin” method

  13. Which is better ? • The simple method is easier algebraically • but ... • The Tustin method leads to a controller which performs more nearly like the analogue version.

  14. The Simple Method • We will do the conversion by the simple method using an interval Ts of 0.1 s. • 1.33(s+2.5)/(s+7) becomes ... • 1.33[(1-z-1)/0.1 + 2.5]/[(1-z-1)/0.1 + 7] • which by algebra gives • (0.9782 - 0.7824z-1)/(1 - 0.5882z-1)

  15. The Tustin Method • Now the sum becomes (since 2/Ts = 20) • 1.33[20(1-z-1)/(1+z-1)+2.5]/[20(1-z-1)/(1+z-1) + 7] • giving by unreliable Barraclough mathematics • (1.1085 - 0.8619z-1)/(1 - 0.4815z-1)

  16. How do the controllers perform ? • Both digital versions have slightly more overshoot than the analogue version. • The Tustin one is nearer to the analogue version than is the “simple” one. • Both digital versions give a reasonably good performance.

  17. Designing for a particular closed-loop performance • Suppose we decide we require an undamped natural frequency of 5 rad/s ... • ... and a damping ratio of 0.8. • This means that the closed-loop transfer function needs to be • 25/(s2 + 8s + 25)

  18. The required controller T.F. ? • We have: • So forward path = D(s) x G(s) .. • and the CLTF is D(s)G(s)/[1 + D(s)G(s)] D(s) G(s) + _

  19. The sum continues ... • This means that • D(s)G(s)/[1 + D(s)G(s)] = 25/(s2 + 8s + 25) • and as G(s) = 12/[s(s + 2.5)] • we will show that • D(s) must be 2.08(s + 2.5)/(s + 8) • to produce the required performance.

  20. Your turn ! • If we use a sampling interval of 0.1 s again • What will the digitised transfer functions be • using the simple method ... • ... and the Tustin method ? • We can check the Tustin one by MATLAB • using the “c2dm” command.

  21. “Your Turn” continued • The syntax is • [nd,dd]=c2dm(num,den,ts,’tustin’) • num and den represent the T.F. in s • ts is the sampling interval • nd and dd represent the T.F. in z.

  22. Summary • Lead compensators are often useful in position control systems using a d.c. motor • with a “Type 1” transfer function. • We have examined two methods of doing the digitisation. • The Tustin method gives the best approximation to the analogue performance for a given sampling interval.

More Related