Parameters for Root Locus Method using Lead Compensator

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on designing a lead compensator using the root locus method for a unity feedback control system with specific parameters. The user aims for a settling time of 0.06s and an overshoot of 16%, but consistently achieves an overshoot of 46%. They detail their calculations for the desired pole and the angles from the original system's singularities, attempting to adjust for the required overshoot. Despite following the method and adjusting poles and zeros, the expected results are not met. The user seeks clarification on how to accurately factor overshoot into their calculations for the new poles.
hurliehoo
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone, I would please like some suggestions regarding where my error is, designing a lead compensator with the root locus method for a unity feedback control system where G = [12.5] / [2.5 1 2500]. I want to set the overshoot zeta = 0.5 for an overshoot of 16%, and settling time Ts = 0.06s.

Using these parameters I get a desired pole at -66.665 + j115.467.

I think I understand the application of the root-locus method, ie summing the angles of the poles and zeros with the new pole etc, and I've tried it with a couple of different values for compensator poles and zeros using these parameters (eg a = 66.665, b = 290.65). I always get the correct Ts, but an overshoot of 46% instead of 16%.
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
how are you factoring in the overshoot into your calculation for the new poles?
 
swraman said:
how are you factoring in the overshoot into your calculation for the new poles?

Hi, thanks for the reply.

Basically I'm using this formula to find roots at

roots_lead.jpg


and Ts = 4 / ( zeta * w(0) ) = 0.06

using w(0) = 133.33 because zeta = 0.5 for a 16% overshoot due to

M_lead.jpg


Then I calculate the angle to the desired pole at -66.665 + j115.467 from the first singularity at -0.2+j31.362 (original system) = -128.41

From the second singularity -0.2-j31.362 = -114.32

This gives a total of -242.73. It needs to adjust by +62.73 to get an odd multiple of 180. I then add for example a zero at -66.665 on the real axis, to add 90.

-242.73 + 90 = -152.73 so a pole of angle 27.27 will produce an odd multiple of 180. Putting a pole at -290.65 on the real axis does this.

... At least I think it should do ... the system doesn't give an overshoot anywhere near 16% though, and I can't understand why.
 
Last edited:
What mathematics software should engineering students use? Is it correct that much of the engineering industry relies on MATLAB, making it the tool many graduates will encounter in professional settings? How does SageMath compare? It is a free package that supports both numerical and symbolic computation and can be installed on various platforms. Could it become more widely used because it is freely available? I am an academic who has taught engineering mathematics, and taught the...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
94
Views
12K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K