Lead compensator for double integrator

  • Thread starter Thread starter zoom1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compensator Lead
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on designing a lead compensator for a double integrator plant, specifically targeting a desired pole location of 4.4 ± 4.4j. The angle condition is analyzed, revealing that the contributions from the poles and zeros must sum to 180 degrees. A proposed zero at -5 does not provide sufficient angle subtraction, resulting in an angle sum that exceeds 180 degrees. The issue lies in the zero placement; it needs to be greater than -4.4 to allow the angle sum to dip below 180 degrees, enabling the pole to compensate appropriately. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the oversight in zero placement affecting the compensator design.
zoom1
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to design a lead compensator for a double integrator plant, which is plant = tf([1],[1 0 0])

I started with the angle condition. So, poles contribute (+) angle and zeros contribute (-) angle and that sums to 180

Desired pole location is 4.4 +- 4.4j

So, 45 + 45 = 90 degrees comes from the poles at the origin, assume that zero of the lead compensator is placed at -5, then atand(4.4/1) = 77.19 contribution from zero of the lead compensator.

45 + 45 - 77.19 + Lp = 180

Where Lp is the pole of the lead compensator. Lp should contribute +167.19 degrees, so tand(167.19) = -0.2274

At this point I wouldn't expect to get a negative number. Anyways, I proceeded and found the location of the Lp as 4.4/0.2274 = 19.3492, so Lp should be located at -19.3492 - 4.4 = 23.75

So the resulting Lead compensator is lead = tf([1 5],[1 23.75])

When I close the loop with unity feedback closedLoop = feedback(plant*lead,1) and check the gain with sisotool(closedLoop), I see that my desired pole location is not reached. at -4.4 I got -+6.84i

What am I doing wrong ?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
zoom1 said:
I started with the angle condition. So, poles contribute (+) angle and zeros contribute (-) angle and that sums to 180
It sums to ##r180^\circ,r = \pm1,\pm3,\pm5,\dots## if the test point is on the root locus.

zoom1 said:
Desired pole location is 4.4 +- 4.4j
Should be ##s = -4.4 \pm j4.4##?

zoom1 said:
So, 45 + 45 = 90 degrees comes from the poles at the origin, assume that zero of the lead compensator is placed at -5, then atand(4.4/1) = 77.19 contribution from zero of the lead compensator.
##\arg(s) = \pm135^\circ##, and ##\arg(s - z) \approx \pm82.2^\circ,z = -5##.

If ##s = -4.4 + j4.4##, then the angle sum is ##135^\circ + 135^\circ - 82.2^\circ = 187.8^\circ##. You want to remove those ##7.8^\circ##, but that's not possible with a single pole (it adds to the angle sum).

The problem is your zero. You want it to subtract more than ##90^\circ##, so the angle sum dips below ##180^\circ##, and the pole makes up the difference, i.e. you should have ##z > -4.4##.
 
milesyoung said:
It sums to ##r180^\circ,r = \pm1,\pm3,\pm5,\dots## if the test point is on the root locus.Should be ##s = -4.4 \pm j4.4##?##\arg(s) = \pm135^\circ##, and ##\arg(s - z) \approx \pm82.2^\circ,z = -5##.

If ##s = -4.4 + j4.4##, then the angle sum is ##135^\circ + 135^\circ - 82.2^\circ = 187.8^\circ##. You want to remove those ##7.8^\circ##, but that's not possible with a single pole (it adds to the angle sum).

The problem is your zero. You want it to subtract more than ##90^\circ##, so the angle sum dips below ##180^\circ##, and the pole makes up the difference, i.e. you should have ##z > -4.4##.

Thank you so much. I was sure that I was missing something.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Back
Top