Chapter Eight Root Locus Control Design

8.3 Common Dynamic Controllers

Several common dynamic controllers appear very often in practice. They are
known as PD, PI, PID, phase-lag, phase-lead, and phase-lag-lead controllers.
In this section we introduce their structures and indicate their main properties.
In the follow-up sections procedures for designing these controllers by using
the root locus technique such that the given systems have the desired specifications are presented. In the most cases these controllers are placed in the
forward path at the front of the plant (system) as presented in Figure 8.1.

U(s)
+

Gc(s)

G(s)

Y(s)

Figure 8.1: A common controller-plant configuration

8.3.1 PD Controller
PD stands for a proportional and derivative controller. The output signal of
this controller is equal to the sum of two signals: the signal obtained by
multiplying the input signal by a constant gain
and the signal obtained
by differentiating and multiplying the input signal by  , i.e. its transfer
function is given by





This controller is used to improve the system transient response.

8.3.2 PI Controller
Similarly to the PD controller, the PI controller produces as its output a
weighted sum of the input signal and its integral. Its transfer function is




In practical applications the PI controller zero is placed very close to its pole
located at the origin so that the angular contribution of this dipole to the root
locus is almost zero. A PI controller is used to improve the system response
steady state errors since it increases the control system type by one.
8.3.3 PID Controller
The PID controller is a combination of PD and PI controllers; hence its transfer
function is given by







The PID controller can be used to improve both the system transient response
and steady state errors. This controller is very popular for industrial applications.
8.3.4 Phase-Lag Controller
The phase-lag controller belongs to the same class as the PI controller. The
phase-lag controller can be regarded as a generalization of the PI controller.
It introduces a negative phase into the feedback loop, which justifies its name.
It has a zero and pole with the pole being closer to the imaginary axis, that is












 is known as the lag ratio. The corresponding angles  and

where 
 are given in Figure 8.2a. The phase-lag controller is used to improve
steady state errors.

8.3.5 Phase-Lead Controller

The phase-lead controller is designed such that its phase contribution to the
feedback loop is positive. It is represented by













where  and  are given in Figure 8.2b. This controller introduces a
positive phase shift in the loop (phase lead). It is used to improve the system
response transient behavior.
 Im{s}

s2

s1

z1

p1

 Re{s}

p2

z 2

-p2

-p1

-z1

 Im{s}

Re{s}

-z2

(b)

(a)

Figure 8.2: Poles and zeros of phase-lag (a) and phase-lead (b) controllers

8.3.6 Phase-Lag-Lead Controller

The phase-lag-lead controller is obtained as a combination of phase-lead and
phase-lag controllers. Its transfer function is given by





It has features of both phase-lag and phase-lead controllers, i.e. it can be used
to improve simultaneously both the system transient response and steady state
errors. However, it is harder to design phase-lag-lead controllers than either
phase-lag or phase-lead controllers.

8.5 Compensator Design by the Root Locus Method

Sometimes one is able to improve control system specifications by changing
the static gain
only. It can be observed that as
increases, the steady state
errors decrease (assuming systems asymptotic stability), but the maximum
percent overshoot increases. However, using large values for
may damage
system stability. Even more, in most cases the desired operating points for
the system dominant poles, which satisfy the transient response requirements,
do not lie on the original root locus. Thus, in order to solve the transient
response and steady state errors improvement problem, one has to design
dynamic controllers, considered in Section 8.3, and put them in series with
the plant (system) to be controlled (see Figure 8.1).
In the following we present dynamic controller design techniques in three
categories: improvement of steady state errors (PI and phase-lag controllers),
improvement of system transient response (PD and phase-lead controllers), and
improvement of both steady state errors and transient response (PID and phaselag-lead controllers). Note that transient response specifications are obtained
under the assumption that a given system has a pair of dominant complex
conjugate closed-loop poles; hence this assumption has to be checked after
a controller is added to the system. This can be easily done using the root
locus technique.
8.5.1 Improvement of Steady State Errors
It has been seen in Chapter 6 that the steady state errors can be improved
by increasing the type of feedback control system, in other words, by adding
a pole at the origin to the open-loop system transfer function. The simplest
way to achieve this goal is to add in series with the system a PI controller,

i.e. to get




 , the zero should be
Since this controller also introduces a zero at
placed as close as possible to the pole. In that case the pole at
and
act as a dipole, and so their mutual contribution to the
the zero at
root locus is almost negligible. Since the root locus is practically unchanged,
the system transient response remains the same and the effect due to the PI
controller is to increase the type of the control system by one, which produces
improved steady state errors. The effect of a dipole on the system response
is studied in the next example.
Example 8.4: Consider the open-loop transfer functions


and

Note that the second transfer function has a dipole with a stable pole at
.
The corresponding step responses are given in Figure 8.4. It can be seen from
this figure that the system with a stable dipole and the system without a stable
dipole have almost identical responses. These responses have been obtained
by the following sequence of MATLAB instructions.
num1=[1 2]; den1=[1 4 3]; num2=[1 7 10];
d1=[1 1]; d2=[1 3]; d3=[1 5.1]; d12=conv(d1,d2);
den2=conv(d12,d3);

[cnum1,cden1]=feedback(num1,den1,1,1,-1);
[cnum2,cden2]=feedback(num2,den2,1,1,-1);
t=0:0.1:2;
step(cnum1,cden1,t)
step(cnum2,cden2,t)
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

(a)
(b)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure 8.4: Step responses of a system without

a stable dipole (a) and with a stable dipole (b)

It is important to point out that in the case of an unstable dipole the effect
of a dipole is completely different. Consider, for example, the open-loop
transfer function given by
!

Its step response is presented in Figure 8.5b and compared with the corresponding step response after a dipole is eliminated (Figure 8.5a). In fact, the

system without a dipole is stable and the system with a dipole is unstable;
hence their responses are drastically different. Thus, we can conclude that it
is not correct to cancel an unstable dipole since it has a big impact on the
system response.
1
0.9
0.8
(b)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
(a)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure 8.5: Step responses of a system without an

unstable dipole (a) and with an unstable dipole (b)

Both the PI and phase-lag controller use this stable dipole effect. They
do not change the system transient response, but they do have an important
impact on the steady state errors.

PI Controller Design

As we have already indicated, the PI controller represents a stable dipole with

a pole located at the origin and a stable zero placed near the pole. Its impact
on the transient response is negligible since it introduces neither significant
phase shift nor gain change. Thus, the transient response parameters with the
PI controller are almost the same as those for the original system, but the
steady state errors are drastically improved due to the fact that the feedback
control system type is increased by one.
The PI controller is represented, in general, by
"

$ %
&
$('

where # represents its static gain and

origin. Very often it is implemented as
"

)
)
#

is a stable zero near the

"

This implementation is sufficient to justify its main purpose. The design

algorithm for this controller is extremely simple.
Design Algorithm 8.1:
1. Set the PI controllers pole at the origin and locate its zero arbitrarily close
to the pole, say "
or "
.
2. If necessary, adjust for the static loop gain to compensate for the case when
# is different from one. Hint: Use
#
, and avoid gain adjustment
problem.

Comment: Note that while drawing the root locus of a system with a PI
controller (compensator), the stable open-loop zero of the compensator will
attract the compensators pole located at the origin as the static gain increases
so that there is no danger that the closed-loop system may
from to
become unstable due to addition of a PI compensator (controller).
The following example demonstrates the use of a PI controller in order to
reduce the steady state errors.
Example 8.5: Consider the following open-loop transfer function
*

Let the choice of the static gain

produce a pair of dominant poles
on the root locus, which guarantees the desired transient specifications. The
corresponding position constant and the steady state unit step error are given by
+

,-,
+

Using a PI controller with the zero at

( .
), we obtain the
improved values as +
and ,-,
. The step responses of the
original system and the compensated system, now given by
.

are presented in Figure 8.6.

1
(b)

0.9
0.8
0.7

(a)
Amplitude

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5
3
Time (secs)

3.5

4.5

Figure 8.6: Step responses of the original (a)

and compensated (b) systems for Example 8.5

The closed-loop poles of the original system are given by

/

02143

For the compensated system they are

/-5

0651735

Having obtained the closed-loop system poles, it is easy to check that the
dominant system poles are preserved for the compensated system and that
the damping ratio and natural frequency are only slightly changed. Using
information about the dominant system poles and relationships obtained from

Figure 6.2, we get

8
8

and
:

8;:

9
8 :
<

9
9

9
8 :
<

In Figure 8.7 we draw the step response of the compensated system over a
long period of time in order to show that the steady state error of this system
is theoretically and practically equal to zero.
Figures 8.6 and 8.7 are obtained by using the same MATLAB functions
as those used in Example 8.4.
The root loci of the original and compensated systems are presented in
Figures 8.8 and 8.9. It can be seen from these figures that the root loci are
almost identical, with the exception of a tiny dipole branch near the origin.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

Amplitude

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

15

20

25
30
Time (secs)

35

40

45

50

Figure 8.7: Step response of the compensated system for Example 8.5

20

15

10

Imag Axis

10

15

20
20

15

10

0
Real Axis

10

15

20

Figure 8.8: Root locus of the original system for Example 8.5

20

15

10

Imag Axis

10

15

20
20

15

10

0
Real Axis

10

15

20

Figure 8.9: Root locus of the compensated system for Example 8.5
Phase-Lag Controller Design

The phase-lag controller, in the context of root locus design methodology, is

also implemented as a dipole that has no significant influence on the root locus,
and thus on the transient response, but increases the steady state constants and
reduces the corresponding steady state errors. Since it is implemented as a
dipole, its zero and pole have to be placed very close to each other.
The lag controllers impact on the steady state errors can be obtained from
the expressions for the corresponding steady state constants. Namely, we
know that
=

>6?A@
D

B
>-?E@

>C?A@

and
G-GCHJILKNM

GCGQPSRUTVM
O

GCG MXRYPSRQZJ[]\_^L`
W

For control systems of type zero, one, and two, respectively, the constants
O
W , and
a are all given by the same expression, that is
c
b

d
c

Consider, first, a phase-lag compensator of the form

e
e

e
e

If we put this controller in series with the system, the corresponding steady
state constants of the compensated system will be given by
c

be
c

d
e
d

b
e

e
e

In order to increase these constants and reduce the steady state errors, the
e should be as large as possible. Since at the same time e must
ratio of e
e can be
be close to e (they form a dipole), a large value for the ratio e
achieved if both of them are placed close to zero. For example, the choice of
e
and e
increases the constants b
ten times
and reduces the corresponding steady state errors ten times.
Now consider a phase-lag controller defined by (8.18), that is
e
e

e
e

f ,
This controller will change the value of the static gain
by a factor of f
which will produce a movement of the desired operating point along the root
locus in the direction of smaller static gains. Thus, the plant static gain has
to be adjusted to a higher value in order to preserve the same operating point.
The consequence of using this phase-lag controller is that the same (desired)
operating point is obtained with higher static gain. We already know that
by increasing the static gain, the steady state errors are reduced. In this
case, the static gain adjustment has to be done by choosing a new static gain
f
f . Note that the effects of both phase-lag controllers are exactly
the same, since the gain adjustment in the case of controller (8.18) in fact
cancels its lag ratio f
f .
The following simple algorithm is used for phase-lag controller design.
Design Algorithm 8.2:

1. Choose a point that has the desired transient specifications on the root locus
branch with dominant system poles. Read from the root locus the value
for the static gain
at the chosen point, and determine the corresponding
steady state errors.
2. Set both the phase-lag controllers pole and zero near the origin with the
f obtained such that the desired steady state error requirement
ratio f
is satisfied.
3. In the case of controller (8.18), adjust for the static loop gain, i.e. take a
new static gain as
f
f .

Example 8.6: The steady state errors of the system considered in Example
8.5 can be improved by using a phase-lag controller of the form
g

Since g

, the position constant is increased ten times, that is

hg

g
g

so that the steady state error due to a unit step input is reduced to
i-ikjmlonmp

hg

It can be easily checked that the transient response is almost unchanged; in fact,
the dominant system poles with this phase-lag compensator are
, which is very close to the dominant poles of the original system
(see Example 8.5).
Example 8.7: Consider the following open-loop transfer function
q

Let the choice of the static gain

produce a pair of dominant poles on
the root locus that guarantees the desired transient specifications. The system
closed-loop poles for
are given by
rstq

so that for this value of the static gain

the dominant poles exist, i.e. the
absolute value of the real part of the dominant poles (0.5327) is about six times
smaller than the absolute value of the real part of the next pole (2.9194), which
is in practice sufficient to guarantee poles dominance. Since we have a type
one feedback control system, the steady state error due to a unit step is zero.
The velocity constant and the steady state unit ramp error are obtained as
w

xCxQySzU{<|

( }

Using the phase-lag controller with a zero at

at
( }
), we get
w }

}
}

) and a pole

xCx } ySzY{V|

It can be easily shown by using MATLAB that the ramp responses of the
original and the compensated systems are very close to each other. The same
holds for the root loci. Note that even smaller steady state errors can be
} , e.g. to }
}
obtained if we increase the ratio }
.

8.5.2 Improvement of Transient Response

The transient response can be improved by using either the PD or phase-lead
controllers.
PD Controller Design
The PD controller is represented by
~

which indicates that the compensated system open-loop transfer function will
have one additional zero. The effect of this zero is to introduce a positive phase
shift. The phase shift and position of the compensators zero can be determined
by using simple geometry. That is, for the chosen dominant complex conjugate
poles that produce the desired transient response we apply the root locus angle
rule. This rule basically says that for a chosen point,  , on the root locus the
difference of the sum of the angles between the point  and the open-loop
zeros, and the sum of the angles between the point  and the open-loop
poles must be
. Applying the root locus angle rule to the compensated
system, we get

~


~


which implies



the location of the compensators zero is
From the obtained angle
obtained by playing simple geometry as demonstrated in Figure 8.10. Using
this figure it can be easily shown that the value of is given by

Im{s}

sd
n 1 2

-zc

Re{s}
n

|zc|

Figure 8:10 Determination of a PD controllers zero location

Design Algorithm 8.3:

1. Choose a pair of complex conjugate dominant poles in the complex plane
that produces the desired transient response (damping ratio and natural
frequency). Figure 6.2 helps to accomplish this goal.
2. Find the required phase contribution of a PD regulator by using the
corresponding formula.
3. Find the absolute value of a PD controllers zero by using the corresponding
formula; see also Figure 8.10.
4. Check that the compensated system has a pair of dominant complex
conjugate closed-loop poles.

Example 8.8: Let the design specifications be set such that the desired
maximum percent overshoot is less than 20% and the 5%-settling time is
. Then, the formula for the maximum percent overshoot implies

We take
so that the expected maximum percent overshoot is less
than 20%. In order to have the 5%-settling time of
, the natural frequency
should satisfy

The desired dominant poles are given by

Consider now the open-loop control system

The root locus of this system is represented in Figure 8.11a.

25
20

(a)
(b)

15
10

Imag Axis

5
(a)
0
(b)

(b)

(b)

5
10
15
20
25
50

45

40

35

30

25
20
Real Axis

15

10

Figure 8.11: Root loci of the original (a) and compensated (b) systems

It is obvious from the above figure that the desired dominant poles do not
belong to the original root locus since the breakaway point is almost in the
middle of the open-loop poles located at
and
. In order to move the
original root locus to the left such that it passes through , we design a
PD controller by following Design Algorithm 8.3. Step 1 has been already
completed in the previous paragraph. Since we have determined the desired
operating point, , we now use the formula for the angles to determine the
phase contribution of a PD controller. By MATLAB function angle (or just
using a calculator), we can find the following angles

Note that MATLAB function angle produces results in radians. Using the
formula for the angles, we get

Having obtained the angle , the location of the controllers zero is

, so that the required PD controller is given by

The root locus of the compensated system is presented in Figures 8.11b and
lies
8.12b. It can be seen from Figure 8.12 that the point
on the root locus of the compensated system.
5
4

(b)

(a)

3
2

Imag Axis

1
0
1
2
3
4
5
3

2.5

1.5
Real Axis

0.5

Figure 8.12: Enlarged portion of the root loci in the neighborhood of the
desired operating point of the original (a) and compensated (b) systems

At the desired point, , the static gain , obtained by applying the root
. This value can be obtained
locus magnitude rule, is given by
either by using a calculator or the MATLAB function abs as follows:
d1=abs(sd+p1); d2=abs(sd+p2); d3=abs(sd+p3);
d4=abs(sd+z1); d5=abs(sd+zc);
K=(d1*d2*d3)/(d4*d5)
For this value of the static gain , the steady state errors for the original
CC
and compensated systems are given by -
. In
addition, since the controllers zero will attract one of the system poles for
large values of , it is not advisable to choose small values for since it may
damage the transient response dominance by the pair of complex conjugate
poles closest to the imaginary axis.
The closed-loop step response for this value of the static gain is presented
in Figure 8.13.
1.2
ymax = 1.0772
1
ts = 1.125
0.8926

Amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
tp = 0.75
0
0

0.5

1.5
Time (secs)

2.5

Figure 8.13: Step response of the compensated system for Example 8.8

It can be observed that both the maximum percent overshoot and the settling
time are within the specified limits. The values for the overshoot, peak time,
and settling time are obtained by the following MATLAB routine:
[yc,xc,t]=step(cnumc,cdenc);
% t is a time vector of length i=73;
% cnumc = closed-loop compensated numerator
% cdenc = closed-loop compensated denominator
plot(t,yc);
[ymax,imax]=max(yc);
% ymax is the function maximum;
% imax = time index where maximum occurs;
tp=t(imax)
essc=0.1074;
yss=1essc;
os=ymax-yss
% procedure for finding the settling time;
delt5=0.05*yss;
i=73;
while abs((yc(i)-yss))<delt5;
i=i-1;
end;
ts=t(i)
and
Using this program, we have found that
. Our starting assumptions have been based on a model of the secondorder system. Since the second-order systems are approximations for higherorder systems that have dominant poles, the obtained results are satisfactory.

Finally, we have to check that the system response is dominated by a

pair of complex conjugate poles. Finding the closed-loop eigenvalues we get

27
, which indicates that the
presented controller design results are correct since the transient response is
dominated by the eigenvalues 27 .
Phase-Lead Controller Design
The phase-lead controller works on the same principle as the PD controller. It
uses the argument rule of the root locus method, which indicates the phase shift
that needs to be introduced by the phase-lead controller such that the desired
dominant poles (having the specified transient response characteristics) belong
to the root locus.
The general form of this controller is given by

By choosing a point for a dominant pole that has the required transient
response specifications, the design of a phase-lead controller can be done in
similar fashion to that of a PD controller. First, find the angle contributed
by a controller such that the point belongs the root locus, which can be
obtained from

that is

Second, find locations of controllers pole and zero. This can be done in many
ways as demonstrated in Figure 8.14.
sd
c

Im{s}

Re{s}
-zc3

-pc3

-pc2

-zc2

-zc1

-pc1

Figure 8.14: Possible locations for poles and zeros of

phase-lead controllers that have the same angular contribution

All these controllers introduce the same phase shift and have the same impact
on the transient response. However, the impact on the steady state errors is
. Since this ratio for a phasedifferent since it depends on the ratio of
lead controller is less than one, we conclude that the corresponding steady
state constant is reduced and the steady state error is increased.
Note that if the location of a phase-lead controller zero is chosen, then
simple geometry can be used to find the location of the controllers pole. For
Q be the required zero, then using Figure 8.14 the pole
C
example, let
is obtained as
-

where

- . Note that
.
An algorithm for the phase-lead controller design can be formulated as
follows.

Design Algorithm 8.4:

1. Choose a pair of complex conjugate poles in the complex plane that produces the desired transient response (damping ratio and natural frequency).
Figure 6.2 helps to accomplish this goal.
2. Find the required phase contribution of a phase-lead controller by using
the corresponding formula.
3. Choose values for the controllers pole and zero by placing them arbitrarily
such that the controller will not damage the response dominance of a pair of
complex conjugate poles. Some authors (e.g. Van de Verte, 1994) suggest
.
placing the controller zero at
4. Find the controllers pole by using the corresponding formula.
5. Check that the compensated system has a pair of dominant complex
conjugate closed-loop poles.
Example 8.9: Consider the following control system represented by its
open-loop transfer function

It is desired that the closed-loop system have a settling time of

and
a maximum percent overshoot of less than
. From Example 8.8 we
know that the system operating point should be at
. A
controllers phase contribution is

Let us locate a zero at

(
), then the compensators pole is at

. The root loci of the original and compensated systems

are given in Figure 8.15, and the corresponding step responses in Figure 8.16.
5
4
(b)

(a)

3
2

Imag Axis

1
(a)

(b)

(b)
1
2
3
4
5
16

14

12

10

8
6
Real Axis

Figure 8.15: Root loci for the original (a) and compensated (b) systems

It can be seen that the root locus indeed passes through the point
.
For this operating point the static gain is obtained as
; hence
the steady state constants of the original and compensated systems are given

by
and 
, and the steady
state errors are C
. Figure 8.16 reveals that
-X
for the compensated system both the maximum percent overshoot and settling
time are reduced. However, the steady state unit step error is increased, as
previously noted analytically.
With a zero set at
, we have
. The root locus of the
compensated system with a new controller is given in Figure 8.17.

1.5

(a)

(b)

0.5

K = 101.56

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3 sec

Figure 8.16: Step responses of the original (a) and compensated (b) systems
10
8
6
4

Imag Axis

2
0
2
4
6
8
10
16

14

12

10

8
Real Axis

Figure 8.17: Root locus for the compensated system with the second controller

The static gain at the desired operating point

is
-C
and hence the steady state errors are -
step responses of the original and compensated systems, for
are presented in Figure 8.18.

,
. The
,

1.5

(a)

(b)

0.5

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Figure 8.18: Step responses of the original (a) and compensated

(b) systems with the second controller for Example 8.9

It can be seen that this controller also reduces both the overshoot and settling
time, while the steady state error is slightly increased.
We can conclude that both controllers produce similar transient characteristics and similar steady state errors, but the second one is preferred since the
smaller value for the static gain of the compensated system has to be used.
The eigenvalues of the closed-loop system for
are given by
C

67

which indicates that the response of this system is still dominated by a pair
of complex conjugate poles.
Remark: In some applications for a chosen desired point, , the required
phase increase, , may be very high. In such cases one can use a multiple
phase-lead controller having the form

so that each single phase-lead controller has to introduce a phase increase of

.
8.5.3 PID and Phase-Lag-Lead Controller Designs
It can be observed from the previous design algorithms that implementation
of a PI (phase-lag) controller does not interfere with implementation of a
PD (phase-lead) controller. Since these two groups of controllers are used
for different purposesone to improve the transient response and the other to
improve the steady state errorsimplementing them jointly and independently
will take care of both controller design requirements.
Consider first a PID controller. It is represented as
2

which indicates that the transfer function of a PID controller is the product of
transfer functions of PD and PI controllers. Since in Design Algorithms 8.1

and 8.3 there are no conflicting steps, the design algorithm for a PID controller
is obtained by combining the design algorithms for PD and PI controllers.
Design Algorithm 8.5: PID Controller
1. Check the transient response and steady state characteristics of the original
system.
2. Design a PD controller to meet the transient response requirements.
3. Design a PI controller to satisfy the steady state error requirements.
4. Check that the compensated system has the desired specifications.
Example 8.10: Consider the problem of designing a PID controller for the
open-loop control system studied in Example 8.8, that is

In fact, in that example, we have designed a PD controller of the form

such that the transient response has the desired specifications. Now we add a
PI controller in order to reduce the steady state error. The corresponding steady
state error of the PD compensated system in Example 8.8 is CC
.
Since a PI controller is a dipole that has its pole at the origin, we propose
the following PI controller

PID controller with

-
.
The corresponding root locus of this
system compensated by a PID controller is represented in Figure 8.19.

We

are

in

fact

using

25
20
15
10

Imag Axis

5
0
5
10
15
20
25
45

40

35

30

25
20
Real Axis

15

10

Figure 8.19: Root locus for the system from

Example 8.8 compensated by the PID controller

It can be seen that the PI controller does not affect the root locus, and
hence Figures 8.11b and 8.19 are almost identical except for a dipole branch.
On the other hand, the step responses of the system compensated by the
PD controller and by the PID controller (see Figures 8.13 and 8.20) differ in
the steady state parts. In Figure 8.13 the steady state step response tends to
C
, and the response from Figure 8.20 tends to since due to the
presence of an open-loop pole at the origin, the steady state error is reduced
to zero. Thus, we can conclude that the transient response is the same one as
that obtained by the PD controller in Example 8.8, but the steady state error
is improved due to the presence of the PI controller.

1.2

yss = 1

Amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10

15
Time (secs)

20

25

30

Figure 8.20: Step response of the system from

Example 8.8 compensated by the PID controller

Similarly to the PID controller, the design for the phase-lag-lead controller
combines Design Algorithms 8.2 and 8.4. Looking at the expression for a
phase-lag-lead controller given in formula (8.20), it is easy to conclude that
N J6

J6

The phase-lag-lead controller design can be implemented by the following

algorithm.

Design Algorithm 8.6: Phase-Lag-Lead Controller

1. Check the transient response and steady state characteristics of the original
system.
2. Design a phase-lead controller to meet the transient response requirements.
3. Design a phase-lag controller to satisfy the steady state error requirements.
4. Check that the compensated system has the desired specifications.
Example 8.11: In this example we design a phase-lag-lead controller for
a control system from Example 8.9, that is

such that both the system transient response and steady state errors are
improved. We have seen in Example 8.9 that a phase-lead controller of the
form
k

improves the transient response to the desired one. Now we add in series with
the phase-lead controller another phase-lag controller, which is in fact a dipole
near the origin. For this example we use the following phase-lag controller

so that the compensated system becomes

The corresponding root locus of the compensated system and its closed-loop
step response are represented in Figures 8.21 and 8.22. We can see that the
addition of the phase-lag controller does not change the transient response,
i.e. the root loci in Figures 8.17 and 8.21 are almost identical. However, the
phase-lag controller reduces the steady state error from C6
to C_N6J6
since the position constant is increased to
_J6

N2

so that
C_N J6

6J6

10
8
6
4

Imag Axis

2
0
2
4
6
8
10
16

14

12

10

8
Real Axis

Figure 8.21: Root locus for the system from Example

8.9 compensated by the phase-lag-lead controller

1.2

yss = 0.9866

Amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10

15
Time (secs)

20

25

30

Figure 8.22: Step response of the system from Example

8.9 compensated by the phase-lag-lead controller

8.6 MATLAB Case Studies

In this section we consider the compensator design for two real control
systems: a PD controller designed to stabilize a ship, and a PID controller
used to improve the transient response and steady state errors of a voltage
regulator control system.
8.6.1 Ship Stabilization by a PD Controller
Consider a ship positioning control system defined in the state space form in
Problem 7.5. The open-loop transfer function of this control system is

The root locus of the original system is presented in Figure 8.23a.

1
0.8
(a)

(b)
0.6
0.4

Imag Axis

0.2
(a)
0

(b)

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
2

1.5

0.5

0.5

Real Axis

Figure 8.23: Root loci for a ship positioning control

problem: (a) original system, (b) compensated system

It can be seen that this system is unstable even for very small values of
the static gain. Thus, the system transient response blows up very quickly
due to the systems instability. Our goal is to design a PD controller in
order to stabilize the system and improve its transient response. Let the
desired operating point be located at

, which implies

and
. We find that the required phase

shift is 
, and the location of the compensator zero is obtained

at

. Thus, the PD compensator sought is of the form



It can be seen from Figure 8.23 that the root locus of the compensated system
indeed passes through the point 
and that the compensated
system is stable for all values of the static gain. The static gain at the desired
and the corresponding closedoperating point is given by  
 
loop eigenvalues at this operating point are

. In Figure 8.24 the unit step response of the compensated
system is presented.

1.4
ymax = 1.2863
1.2
ts = 12.7826s

yss = 1

Amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
tp = 7.3043s
0
0

10

15
Time (secs)

20

25

30

Figure 8.24: Step response of a ship positioning compensated control system

It is found that 

, 
, and 
.
From the same figure we observe that the steady state error for this system
is zero, which also follows from the fact that the system open-loop transfer
function has one pole at the origin.
8.6.2 PID Controller for a Voltage Regulator Control System
The mathematical model of a voltage regulator control system is given in
Section 6.7. The open-loop transfer function of this system is

The corresponding root locus is presented in Figure 8.25. Since one of

the branches goes quite quickly into the instability region, our design goal
is to move this branch to the left so that it passes through the operating
point selected as 
. For this operating point, we have

and
so that the expected maximum percent
overshoot and the 5%-settling time of the compensated system are

. In addition, the design objective is to reduce the steady
state error due to a unit step to zero.

10
8
6
4

Imag Axis

2
0
2
4
6
8
10

25

20

15

10
Real Axis

Figure 8.25: Root locus for a voltage regulator system

We use a PID controller to solve the controller design problem defined

above. The required phase improvement for
the selected operating point is

found as 
. The location of the compensators zero is obtained as
, so that the PD part of a PID

compensator is


The branches of the root loci in the neighborhood of the desired operating
point of the original and PD compensated systems are presented in Figure
8.26. It can be seen that the compensated root locus indeed passes through
the point
.

6
(b)
4
(a)

Imag Axis

2
(b)

8
3

2.5

1.5

1
Real Axis

0.5

0.5

Figure 8:26: Root loci of the original (a) and PD (b) compensated systems

The closed-loop unit step response of the system compensated by the PD

controller is represented in Figure 8.27. Using the MATLAB programs given
in Example 8.8, gives
, !
, and "
,
which is quite satisfactory. However, the steady state unit step error is
. Note that the static gain at the operating point, obtained
"#"#$&%
by applying the root locus rule number 9 from Table 7.1, is "('
.
The closed-loop eigenvalues at the operating point are
)#*,+

-*,+

.*,+

/1032*,+

which indicates that the system has preserved a pair of dominant complex
conjugate poles.

In order to reduce this steady state error to zero we use a PI controller

of the form
4&5

Since the compensated system open-loop transfer function now has a pole at
the origin, we conclude that the steady state error is reduced to zero, which
can also be observed from Figure 8.27.
1.2

PID

PD
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Figure 8.27: Step responses of PD and PID compensated systems

The transient response specifications for the system compensated by the

proposed PID controller are
, 6
, and
7
. Thus, the proposed PI controller has slightly worsened the
transient response characteristics. It can be checked that the transient response
specifications of the compensated system obtained by using PI controllers that
have zeros located at
and
are improved.