Week7&8

© All Rights Reserved

19 views

Week7&8

© All Rights Reserved

- Block Diagram Reduction
- Complex Analysis Saff Snider Solutions
- Control Systems Tutorial
- 2012_Book_ResetControlSystems.pdf
- MITRES_6_007S11_hw05
- Proof of Small Gain Theorem
- control systems basics
- Cs Upld4scribd
- REMOTE HEALTH MONITORING SYSTEM USING HEALTHY PI
- Assignment.pdf
- ch25
- MEC 421
- FBCT_MQ2
- Feedback Control of Unsupported Standing in
- Notes Chapter 1
- MN21
- Model-based Tuning.pdf
- Matlab Control Function
- CS.pdf
- Adaptive Control 2nd. Edt. by Karl.J.astrom - Solution Manuel

You are on page 1of 51

Response Analyzes

Lecture outline

In these lectures you will learn the following:

How to determine stability of a system represented as a transfer function

How to determine stability of a system represented in state-space form

How to design system parameters to yield stability

How to find the steady-state error for a unity feedback system

How to specify a systems steady-state error performance

How to find the steady-state error for nonunity feedback systems

How to find the steady-state error for systems represented in state-space form

How to design system parameters to meet steady-state error performance

315

Introduction - - Transient response stability definition - The design of a control system involves three specifications: transient response, stability,

and steady-state error. Stability is the most important system specification since that

transient response and steady-state error are moot points when a system is unstable.

As you might expect, the time response at the output of a control system that is

c(t) = cforced (t) + cnatural (t)

can be controlled through the forced response, which depends on the input poles, only if the

natural response vanishes as time approaches infinity. This helps define stability of linear

time-invariant system as

A linear time-invariant system is stable if the natural response approaches zero as time

approaches infinity.

A linear time-invariant system is unstable if the natural response grows without bound

as time approaches infinity.

A linear time-invariant system is marginally stable if the natural response neither

decays nor grows but remains constant or oscillates as time approaches infinity.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

316

Introduction - - Bounded-input bounded-output stability definition - Sometimes, it is difficult to separate the natural response from the forced response in the

time response. Here, stability can have another form of definition (called bounded-input,

bounded-output stability):

A linear time-invariant system is stable if every bounded input yields a bounded output.

A linear time-invariant system is unstable if any bounded input yields an unbounded

output.

The following remarks are in order:

BIBO stability definition is indeed practical to check stability.

Instability by BIBO stability definition includes the marginal stability by transient

response stability definition.

Physically, an unstable system whose natural response grows without bound can cause

damage to the system or to human life. Usually, systems are designed with limit stops

to prevent total runaway.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

317

How do we know if a system is stable?

As you have seen before, system poles in the left half-plane yield either pure exponential

decay or damped sinusoidal natural responses. Thus, stable systems have closed-loop

transfer functions with poles only in the left half-plane.

Poles in the right half-plane yield pure exponentially increasing or exponentially increasing

sinusoidal natural responses. Also, poles of multiplicity greater than one on the imaginary

axis lead to the sum of natural responses of the form At n cos(t + ). Thus, unstable systems

have closed-loop transfer functions with at least one pole in the right half-plane and/or

poles of multiplicity greater than one on the imaginary axis.

Finally, imaginary axis poles and/or poles at zeros of multiplicity one yield pure sinusoidal

oscillations and/or constants as natural responses. Thus, marginally stable systems have

closed-loop transfer functions with only imaginary axis poles and/or poles at zeros of

multiplicity one, and possibly poles in the left half-plane.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

318

How do we know if a system is stable?

319

Stability example

320

Practical testing of stability

It is not a simple matter to determine if a feedback control system is stable. A typical example is

that shown below, for which only the poles of the forward transfer function are known. We do not

know the poles of the equivalent closed-loop transfer function without factoring or otherwise solving

for the roots, which is a tedious task without using a computer program or some handheld

calculators.

There is a method to test for stability without having to solve for the roots of the characteristic

polynomial: The Routh-Hurwitz criterion for stability.

321

Routh-Hurwitz criterion

This method tells us how many closed-loop system poles are in the left half-plane, in the right

half-plane, and on the j-axis, without giving their coordinates (exact locations). Method requires

two steps: generate a table, and interpret it to conclude about stability.

Routh-Hurwitz criterion for stability states that the number of roots of the characteristic polynomial

that are in the right half-plane is equal to the number of sign changes in the first column.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

322

Routh-Hurwitz criterion: Standard Routh-Hurwitz table

Problem: Make the Routh table for the system shown below and draw conclusion about its stability.

Solution: We first form the Routh table as shown below. Note that, a row can be multiplied by a

positive constant without altering the stability conclusion. The system has two sign changes in the

first column. Thus, the system is unstable since two poles exist in the right half-plane. The

remaining third pole is in the left-half plane.

323

Routh-Hurwitz criterion - - Special cases: zero in first column - Problem and its solution: Make the Routh table for the closed-loop transfer function shown below and

draw conclusion about stability

T (s) =

1

2s5 + 3s4 + 2s3 + 3s2 + 2s + 1

A zero appears in the first column at the s3 row. We simply replace the zero with a small quantity

(supposed to be positive) and continue the table. There are two sign changes in the first column and

the system is unstable with two poles exist in the right half-plane. The remaining 3 poles are in the

left half-plane.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

324

Routh-Hurwitz criterion - - Special cases: row of zeros - Problem: Find the number of poles in the left half-plane, in the right half-plane, and on the j-axis

for the system shown below. Draw conclusion about its stability.

T (s) =

128

s8 + 3s7 + 10s6 + 24s5 + 48s4 + 96s3 + 128s2 + 192s + 128

Using the characteristic polynomial at the denominator, we form the Routh table as shown next.

325

Routh-Hurwitz criterion - - Special cases: row of zeros - A row of zeros appears in the s5 row. Thus, the characteristic polynomial of the closed-loop transfer

function must have an even polynomial as a factor. Return to the s6 row to form the even

polynomial as P(s) = s6 + 8s4 + 32s2 + 64. Differentiate this polynomial with respect to s to form the

coefficients that will replace the zero terms at the s5 row: dP(s)/s = 6s5 + 32s3 + 64s + 0. Then

complete the table.

326

Routh-Hurwitz criterion - - Special cases: row of zeros - There are two sign changes from the even polynomial at the s6 row down to the bottom of the table.

Then, the even polynomial has two right half-plane poles. Because of symmetry about the origin,

the even polynomial must have an equal number of left half-plane poles. The two remaining poles

for the even polynomial must be on the j-axis. There are no sign changes from the beginning of

the table down to the even polynomial at the s6 row. Therefore, the rest of the system characteristic

polynomial has no right half-plane poles. The two poles are in the left half-plane. Table below

summarizes the findings.

327

Routh-Hurwitz criterion: Some important remarks

The following remarks are in order:

A sufficient condition for instability is that coefficients of the characteristic polynomial do not

have the same sign.

If powers of s are missing, the system is either unstable, or at best marginally stable. Il all the

coefficients are positive (or negative) and not missing, we do not have definitive information

about stability.

A row of zeros in the Routh table means that the system characteristic polynomial has an even

polynomial (or odd polynomial, thus even) as a factor.

Only j-axis poles are possible when a row of zeros is present in the Routh table.

A row of zeros means that the system is at best marginally stable.

In case of Routh table with row of zeros, we can always check the j-axis poles (if any) by

looking at the even polynomial.

328

Stability design via Routh-Hurwitz

Problem Find the range of K that will cause the system shown below to be stable, unstable, and

marginally stable. Assume K > 0.

Solution First we find the closed-loop transfer function as T (s) = K/(s3 + 18s2 + 77s + K). Next we

form the Routh table, as shown below

329

Stability design via Routh-Hurwitz

Solution (Contd) Since K > 0, we see that all terms in the first column are always positive except the

s1 row. This term can be positive, negative, or zero depending upon the value of K:

If K < 1386, all terms will be positive, and since there are no sign changes, the system will have

3 poles in LHP and be stable.

If K > 1386, the s1 term is negative. There are two sign changes, indicating that the system has

2 RHP poles and one LHP pole, which makes the system unstable.

If K = 1386, we have an entire row of zeros. We form the even polynomial as P(s) = 18s2 + 1386.

Differentiating it with respect to time, we have dP(s)/ds = 36s + 0. Replacing the row of zeros

with the coefficients of the last polynomial, we obtain the following Routh table. Since there

are no sign changes from the even polynomial (s2 row) down to the bottom of the table, the

even polynomial has its two roots on the j-axis, which are purely imaginary. Sine there is no

sign change above the even polynomial, the remaining root is in the LHP. Therefore, the

system is marginally stable.

330

Routh-Hurwitz criterion: Stability in state space

Problem Given the system in the following state-space form

10

0

3

1

x

+

x =

8

1

0 u

2

0

10 5 2

y

[1 0 0]x

find out how many poles are in the LHP, in the RHP, and on the j-axis.

Solution The system poles are the eigenvalues of the system matrix A, which are

polynomial det(sI A). First, we form (sI A):

s 0 0

0

3

1

s

3

1

sI A =

8

1

1

= 2 s 8

0 s 0 2

0 0 s

10 5 2

10

5

s+2

besides. Since there is one sign change in the first column,

the system has 1 RHP pole and 2 LHP poles. It is therefore

unstable.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

331

Additional examples

Problem Find out how many poles are in the LHP, in the RHP, and on the j-axis for the system

shown below:

Solution First the closed-loop transfer function is T (s) = 200/(s4 + 6s3 + 11s2 + 6s + 200). We then form

the Routh table,

There are two sign changes in the first column. Thus, the system is unstable, since it has two RHP

poles, and two LHP poles. The system cannot have j-axis poles since a row of zeros did not appear

in the Routh table.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

332

Additional examples

Problem Factor the polynomial s4 + 3s3 + 30s2 + 30s + 200.

Solution We form the Routh table, and find that the s1 row is a row of zeros. Now form the even

polynomial at the s2 row, P(s) = s2 + 10. This polynomial is differentiated with respect to s in order

to complete the table. Since this polynomial is a factor of the original polynomial, then by diving

the last polynomial by the even polynomial we find the other factor as

s4 + 3s3 + 30s2 + 30s + 200

333

Additional examples

Problem For the transfer function

T (s) =

20

s8 + s7 + 12s6 + 22s5 + 39s4 + 59s3 + 48s2 + 38s + 20

tell how many poles are in the right half-plane, in the left half-plane, on the j-axis.

Solution We use the denominator of the transfer function to form the Routh table as shown below.

334

Additional examples

Solution (Contd) We have a row of zeros at s3 row. Moving back one row to extract the even

polynomial as P(s) = s4 + 3s2 + 2. Taking the derivative with respect to s, that is

dP(s)/ds = 4s3 + 6s + 0, to obtain the coefficients that replace the row of zeros in the s3 row. Finally,

continue filling the table to the s0 row, as doing in the standard procedure. There are no sign

changes from the even polynomial (at s4 row) to the bottom of the table. Thus, the even polynomial

does not have right half-plane poles, and therefore left half-plane poles because of the requirement

of symmetry. Hence, the even polynomial must have all the 4 poles on the j-axis. By looking

above the even polynomial, we observe two sign changes, thus the other polynomial has 2 poles in

the right half-plane and the 2 remaining poles are in the left half-plane. The following table

summarizes the findings. The system is unstable because of the 2 poles in the right half-plane.

335

Introduction

Steady-state error is the difference between the input and the output as time approaches infinity.

Test inputs, as given below, are used to determine steady-state errors.

336

Introduction

Step inputs represent constant-position inputs to a position control system. These waveforms

can be used to test the systems ability to track a constant position target such as an antenna

tracking a satellite in geostationary orbit.

Ramp inputs represent constant-velocity inputs to a position control system by their linearly

increasing amplitude. These waveforms can be used to test the systems ability to track a

constant velocity target such as an antenna that tracks a satellite moving in the sky at a

constant angular velocity.

Parabolas, whose second derivatives are constant, represent constant-acceleration inputs to

position control systems and can be used to represent accelerating targets, such as the missile

in figure above, to determine the steady-state error performance.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

337

Introduction

In a number of important control applications, the reference input will not be one of the test

inputs but can be approximated by one of them for time span long enough for the system to

reach steady state. For example, when an antenna is tracking the elevation angle to a satellite ,

the time history as the satellite approaches overhead is the S-shaped curve shown in figure

above. This signal may be approximated by a ramp function for a large portion of the signal

and a step function for the remaining of the signal.

The general method to deal with reference input, which is not one of the test inputs is to

approximate the input as a polynomial in time and then consider the steady-state tracking

errors that result for polynomial of different degrees.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

338

Introduction

Figures below show steady-state errors to step and ramp input waveforms. Note that, steady-state

errors may be zero, constant (finite nonzero), or infinite. Note also that, discussion about

steady-state error is limited to stable systems only.

339

Sources of steady-state errors

Many steady-state errors in control systems arise from nonlinear sources, such as backlash in gears

or a motor that will not move unless the input exceeds a threshold. Steady-state errors can also be

attributed to changes in the reference input and imperfection in the system components due for

example to aging and deterioration. Study of these kinds of errors are beyond the scope of this

course.

The steady-state errors we study here are errors arise from:

1. The system configuration (or system type).

2. The waveform of the applied input.

340

Introduction

Control system for studying steady-state error comes into two configurations: A general system with

a closed-loop transfer function (figure on the left) and a negative unity feedback system (figure on

the right).

Here, E(s) = L[e(t)] is the difference between the input R(s) = L[r(t)] and the output C(s) = L[c(t)].

Steady-state error is the error e(t) as time approaches infinity, that is

e() = lim e(t).

t

In the case of negative unity feedback system, E(s) giving the steady-state error is also the so-called

the actuating signal. Because determination of system type is easiest, this configuration is used to

specify steady-state error characteristics of control systems. A system which is not in such a

configuration can always be transformed into it, provided that output and input have the same unit.

341

Steady-state error for a systems closed loop transfer function

We have,

E(s) = R(s) C(s)

But,

C(s) = R(s)T (s)

Then,

E(s) = R(s)[1 T (s)]

Applying the final value theorem to the relationship above, we get the steady-state error as

e() = lim e(t) = lim sE(s) = lim sR(s)[1 T (s)]

t

s0

s0

Here, the final-value theorem is valid only if (1) E(s) has poles only in the left half-plane and at the

origin, and (2) the system is stable.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

342

Steady-state error for a systems closed loop transfer function: Remarks on FVT

For finite steady-state errors, the final-value theorem is valid only if E(s) has poles only in the left

half-plane and, at most, one pole at the origin. However, correct results that yield steady-state

errors that are infinite, can be obtained if E(s) has more than one pole at the origin. If E(s) has

poles in the right half-plane or poles on the imaginary axis other than at the origin, the final-value

theorem is invalid.

Since poles of the closed-loop transfer function T (s) are also poles of E(s), the final theorem value is

valid only if the system is at least marginally stable. But steady-state error is meaningless with

marginally stable systems, thus the system should be stable.

To summarize, the final-value theorem for the steady-state error is valid if

E(s) has poles only in the left half-plane and at the origin (could be more than one pole at the

origin).

The system, or the closed-loop transfer function T (s), is stable.

Practically, since the poles of E(s) are the poles of T (s) and those introduced by the input R(s),

which are at origin for the test inputs, system stability is sufficient for the final-value theorem to be

applied.

343

Steady-state error for a systems closed loop transfer function

Now let us assume that the reference input is a polynomial of order k, that is

tk

r(t) = 1(t)

k!

whose Laplace transform is

R(s) =

sk+1

If k = 0, the input is a step function of unit amplitude; if k = 1, the input is a ramp function with a

unit slope; if k = 2, the input is a parabola with a unit second derivative, and so on.

With the polynomial reference input, the steady-state error is

e() = lim sR(s)[1 T (s)] = lim s

s0

s0

1 T (s)

s0

sk

[1 T (s)] = lim

k+1

Before continuing evaluation of the steady-state error, let us define the system type. For this,

assume the closed-loop transfer function given as

bm sm + bm1 sm1 + . . . + b2 s2 + b1 s + b0

T (s) =

,

sn + an1 sn1 + . . . + a2 s2 + a1 s + a0

mn

where denominator parameters ai s are to be all nonzero and of the same sign. Those are necessary

conditions for the system to be stable.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

344

Steady-state error for a systems closed loop transfer function

System type is defined via the closed-loop transfer function T (s) as

The system is Type 1 if b0 = a0 .

The system is Type 2 if b0 = a0 and b1 = a1 .

The system is Type 3 if b0 = a0 , b1 = a1 , and b2 = a2 .

And so on.

Based on the above definitions of system type and the steady-state error expression calculated, we

get the following:

Type 0 system has constant steady-state error due to a step input, and infinite steady-state

errors due to ramp and parabola inputs.

Type 1 system has zero steady-state error due to a step input, constant steady-state error due

to a ramp input, and infinite steady-state error due to a parabola input.

Type 2 system has zero steady-state errors due to step and ramp inputs, and constant

steady-state error due to a parabola input.

And so on.

In a system that is Type 1 or higher, the transfer function T (s) will have a DC gain of unity; that

is T (0) = 1.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

Principles of Control Systems Academic year 2013-2014 345

Steady-state error for unity-feedback control systems

We have,

E(s) = R(s) C(s)

But,

C(s) = E(s)G(s)

Then,

E(s) =

R(s)

1 + G(s)

Applying the final value theorem to the relationship above, we get the steady-state error as

sR(s)

s0 1 + G(s)

e() = lim

Now, let us use test signals to establish specifications for a control systems steady-state error

characteristics.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

346

Steady-state error for unity-feedback control systems

Steady state error is given by:

sR(s)

s0 1 + G(s)

e() = lim

Step input: Using R(s) = 1/s, we find that

e() = estep () =

1

1 + lims0 G(s)

1

1 + Kp

Ramp input: Using R(s) = 1/s2 , we find that

e() = eramp () =

1

lims0 sG(s)

1

Kv

Parabolic input: Using R(s) = 1/s3 , we find that

e() = e parabola () =

1

1

=

lims0 s2 G(s)

Ka

K p , Kv , and Ka are the static error constants of the control system. Like settling time, peak time, and

percent overshoot for transient response characteristics, these parameters can be used to

specify the steady-state error characteristics of control systems.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

347

Steady-state error for unity-feedback control systems

Suppose that the forward transfer function G(s) has the following form:

G(s) =

K(s + z1 )(s + z2 )

where n = 0, 1, 2,

sn (s + p1 )(s + p2 )

n is the number of pure integrations in G(s). Similarly, the value of n determines the so-called system

type. For example, a system with n = 0 is Type 0 system, with n = 1 is Type 1 system, and so on.

Step input:

estep () =

1

1 + lims0 G(s)

1

1 + Kp

In order to have zero steady-state error for the step input, K p = lims0 G(s) = . Thus, G(s) should

have at least one pure integration (i.e., n 1 or at least Type 1 system).

Ramp input:

1

1

lims0 sG(s)

Kv

In order to have zero steady-state error for the ramp input, Kv = lims0 sG(s) = . Thus, G(s) should

have at least two pure integrations (i.e., n 2 or at least Type 2 system).

eramp () =

Parabolic input:

e parabola () =

1

1

=

lims0 s2 G(s)

Ka

In order to have zero steady-state error for the parabola input, Ka = lims0 s2 G(s) = . Thus, G(s)

should have at least three pure integrations (i.e., n 3 or at least Type 3 system).

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

348

Steady-state error for unity-feedback control systems

Let us summarize our findings through the following table. The table shows that steady-state errors

are functions of input waveform and system type.

As the type number is increased, accuracy is improved; however, increasing the type number

(by adding integrators to the feedforward path) aggravates the relative stability problem. A

compromise between steady-state accuracy and relative stability is always necessary.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

349

Gain design to meet a steady-state error specification

Problem Given the control system shown below, find the value of K so that there is 10% error in the

steady state.

Solution Since the system is Type 1, the error stated in the problem must apply to a ramp input;

only a ramp yields a finite nonzero error in a Type 1 system. Thus,

e() =

1

= 0.1

Kv

Therefore,

Kv = 10 = lim sG(s) =

s0

which yields

K 5

678

K = 672

Applying the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, we see that the system is stable at this gain.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

350

Steady-state error for nonunity feedback systems

Control systems often do not have unity feedback because of feedback compensation used to

improve the performance or because of the physical model of the system. Actually, the feedback

path can be a pure gain other than unity or have some dynamic compensation.

Next we see that the derived parameters used to characterize the steady-state error of unity

feedback systems can be expanded to nonunity feedback systems, by simply converting the nonunity

feedback system into a unity feedback system.

A general feedback system is typically as shown in the figure above, in which G1 (s) is the input

transducer, G2 (s) is the controller with the plant, and H1 (s) is the feedback. It can be converted into

a unity feedback system either by an analytic method or geometrically by moving some of the

system blocks past the summing junction and pickoff points.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

351

Steady-state error for nonunity feedback systems

The system block diagram can be shown to be converted to the unity feedback below through

simple block displacements. This procedure requires that the input and output units be the same.

352

Steady-state error for nonunity feedback systems

Ge (s) =

G(s)

1 + G(s)H(s) G(s)

353

Steady-state error for nonunity feedback systems: An example

Problem For the system shown below, find the system type, the appropriate error constant associated

with the system type, and the steady-state error. Assume input and output units are the same.

Solution First we convert to unity feedback system. The equivalent forward transfer function is

Ge (s) =

100(s + 5)

G(s)

= 3

1 + G(s)H(s) G(s)

s + 15s2 50s 400

Since the system is Type 0, the appropriate static error constant is K p whose value is given as

K p = lim s 0Ge (s) =

The steady-state error e() is then

e() =

5

100 5

=

400

4

1

1

=

= 4

1 + Kp

1 5/4

The negative value for steady-state error implies that the output step is larger than the input step.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

354

Steady-state error for systems in state-space form

Next we see how to determine the steady-state error for systems given in state-space form. Two

methods can be used: (1) analysis via final value theorem and (2) analysis via input substitution.

For the sake of time constraint, we focus only on the first method.

Analysis via final value theorem Suppose that the closed-loop system is given by the following

state-space form:

x

Ax + Br

Cx

We know that E(s) = R(s) Y (s) = R(s)[1 T (s)], where T (s) is the closed-loop transfer function.

Using the relationship between T (s) and the elements of the state-space form, we have

E(s) = R(s)[1 C(sI A)1 B]

Applying the final value theorem, we have

e() = lim sE(s) = lim sR(s)[1 C(sI A)1 B]

s0

s0

355

Steady-state error for systems in state-space form: An example

Problem Evaluate the steady-state error for the system given below, for unit-step and unit-ramp

inputs. Use the final value theorem.

0

5

1

0

;

B

=

A=

2 1

0 ; C = [1 1 0]

0

1

20 10 1

Solution The steady-state error is given as

e()

=

=

lim sR(s) 1

s+4

s0

s3 + 6s2 + 13s + 20

3

s + 6s2 + 12s + 16

lim sR(s) 3

s0

s + 6s2 + 13s + 20

For a unit step, R(s) = 1/s, and e() = 4/5. For a unit ramp, R(s) = 1/s2 , and e() = . Notice that

the system behaves like a Type 0 system.

356

Additional examples

Problem A unity feedback system has the following transfer function:

G(s) =

1000(s + 8)

(s + 7)(s + 9)

b. Find the steady-state errors for the standard step, ramp, and parabolic inputs.

Solution

a. The system is stable, since

T (s) =

G(s)

1000(s + 8)

1000(s + 8)

=

= 2

1 + G(s)

(s + 9)(s + 7) + 1000(s + 8) s + 1016s + 8063

K p = lim G(s) =

s0

b.

1000 8

= 127, Kv = lim sG(s) = 0, Ka = lim s2 G(s) = 0

s0

s0

79

estep ()

eramp ()

eparabola ()

1

= 7.8e 03

1 + 127

1 + lims0 G(s)

1

1

= =

lims0 sG(s)

0

1

1

=

=

lims0 s2 G(s)

0

357

Additional examples

Problem What information is contained in the specification K p = 1000?

Solution The system is stable. The system is Type 0, since only a Type 0 system has a finite K p .

Type 1 and Type 2 systems have K p = . The input test signal is a step, since K p is specified.

Finally, the error per unit is

1

1

1

=

=

e() =

1 + Kp

1 + 1000

1001

358

Additional examples

Problem Find the steady-state actuating signal for the system of figure below for a unit step input.

sR(s)

s0 1 + G(s)H(s)

ea () = lim

where G(s) = 100/(s(s + 10)) and H(s) = 1/(s + 5).

For a unit step input, R(s) = 1/s and the corresponding steady-state actuating signal is

ea () = lim

s0

s( 1s )

100

1

1 + ( s(s+10)

)( s+5

)

=0

Note that steady-state actuating signal is used rather than the steady-state error in case when input

and output units are not the same.

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

359

Additional examples

Problem The unity feedback system with a forward transfer function

G(s) =

K(s + )

s(s + )

is to be designed to meet the following requirements: The steady-state error for a unit ramp input

equals 1/10; the closed-loop poles will be located at 1 j1. Find K, , and in order to meet the

specifications.

Solution The closed-loop transfer function is

T (s) =

K(s + )

G(s)

= 2

1 + G(s)

s + (K + )s + K

Hence, K + = 2, K = 2n = (12 + 12 ) = 2.

Also,

e() =

= 0.1

=

Kv

K

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

360

Additional examples

Problem Given the unity feedback system with a forward transfer function

G(s) =

K

sn (s + a)

find the value of n, K, and a in order to meet specifications of 10% overshoot and Kv = 100.

Solution Kv is constant means that system type is n = 1. The closed-loop transfer function is

T (s) =

K

G(s)

= 2

1 + G(s)

s + as + K

On the other hand, for 10% overshoot, = 0.6. Therefore, 2n = a, and

2n

= K. Hence, a = 1.2 K.

But a = K/100. Solving simultaneously gives K = 1.44 104 and a = 1.44 102 .

361

Additional examples

Problem For each of the systems shown below, find the following:

a. The system type

b. The appropriate static error constant

c. The input waveform to yield a constant error

d. The steady-state error for a unit input of the waveform found in (c)

e. The steady-state value of the actuating signal

Solution

System 1: Forming a unity feedback system, the equivalent forward transfer function is

Prof. K. Melhem (Qassim University)

362

Additional examples

Solution

Ge (s) =

10(s+10)

s(s+2)

10(s+10)(s+3)

s(s+2)

1+

10(s + 10)

11s2 + 132s + 300

a. Type 0 system; b. K p = lims0 Ge (s) = 1/3; c. step input; d. e() = 1/(1 + K p ) = 3/4. e.

s( 1s )

sR(s)

=0

eastep () = lim

= lim

s0 1 + G(s)H(s)

s0 1 + 10(s+10)(s+4)

s(s+2)

System 2: Forming a unity feedback system, the equivalent forward transfer function is

Ge (s) =

10(s+10)

s(s+2)

1 + 10(s+10)s

s(s+2)

10(s + 10)

s(11s + 102)

a. Type 1 system; b. Kv = lims0 sGe (s) = 0.98; c. ramp input; d. e() = 1/Kv = 1.02. e.

s( s12 )

sR(s)

1

= lim

=

eastep () = lim

s0 1 + G(s)H(s)

s0 1 + 10(s+10)(s+1)

50

s(s+2)

363

Suggested problems

Students are suggested to solve the following problems of the textbook:

E 4.3, E 4.4, E 4.12, P 4.10, E 6.1, E 6.6, E 6.15, E 6.17, E 6.22, E 6.24,

P 6.10, P 6.11

Students are encouraged to solve the assigned problems in hand before seeking help

from classmates or the teacher. Subsequently, the accompanying solutions can be

checked for confirmation.

364

- Block Diagram ReductionUploaded byJamal Mesidor
- Complex Analysis Saff Snider SolutionsUploaded byStephan Caamano
- Control Systems TutorialUploaded bySumi Srianand
- 2012_Book_ResetControlSystems.pdfUploaded bydmkjss7151
- MITRES_6_007S11_hw05Uploaded byLenin Kumar
- Proof of Small Gain TheoremUploaded byAsim Khan Niazi
- control systems basicsUploaded byKaushal Faujdar
- Cs Upld4scribdUploaded byKiran Zoro
- REMOTE HEALTH MONITORING SYSTEM USING HEALTHY PIUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Assignment.pdfUploaded byNajeeb Ullah
- ch25Uploaded bygatzke
- MEC 421Uploaded byNarendra Appikonda A
- FBCT_MQ2Uploaded byCristelle Juare
- Feedback Control of Unsupported Standing inUploaded bynaserrazavi
- Notes Chapter 1Uploaded byMohd Hafiz Zainol Abidin
- MN21Uploaded bypham hoang quan
- Model-based Tuning.pdfUploaded byCecep Atmega
- Matlab Control FunctionUploaded byanyany111111
- CS.pdfUploaded byMurugesan Praba Karan
- Adaptive Control 2nd. Edt. by Karl.J.astrom - Solution ManuelUploaded byAji Brahma Nugroho
- ie8006165Uploaded byjanurang
- Chapter5.pptUploaded byFaraz Humayun
- 06402354Uploaded byAlex Simiz
- 1002S.pdfUploaded byMohsan Bilal
- ch01aUploaded byjunaidkhattak10
- onoff (3)Uploaded byscualoboy2010
- Guide Lines for the Tuning and the Evaluation of Decentralized and Decoupling Controllers for Processes With RecirculationUploaded byRosas Angel
- ctrltheoriUploaded byRakeeb Baloch
- SEE_2113_NOTES_-_Ch01Uploaded byandee_syazana
- Conte Trombetti EESD 2000Uploaded byAhmet A. Yurttadur

- Alg Exam FlowchartUploaded byDylan Wu
- Power Electronics Based ProjectsUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- Learn Japanese EasilyUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- ItraconazoleUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- Sample Cost Estimate Worksheets TemplateUploaded byCalvin Wong, Jr.
- CoE Course DescriptionUploaded byYanyan Jalea
- Harrist_Thesis_072804Uploaded byVinci Chang
- Grammar in Use_Reference and Practice for Intermediate Students of EnglishUploaded bygg
- 39367966Uploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- ProblemUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- LOVE JESUS WAY.docxUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- 2 Process Hazard AnalysisUploaded bySHANZAY21111111
- Sun Fit and Well Advantage Proposal Bryan VillarosaUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- tx-628.pdfUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- Documentary Requirements for Mooe LiquidationUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- A-48 Index of PaymentUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- 1interscisamUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- Guide_COA Data SheetUploaded byurggh!!!!!!!!!
- Oral Communication AssessmentUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- Mth 110 Proficiency Test Practice Exam June 2009Uploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- 1.2 ( Properties of Materials)Uploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- Prose for Choral ReadingUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- 0910-ComputerSystemOverview02Uploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- 8x8 Tiny HouseUploaded byCrystal Trask Conklin
- 5varKMUploaded byPutut Kriswanto
- Wisdom of SolomonUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- Activity 8 GleeUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- Laplace Transforms Handout 2x2Uploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- 2P0Lecture02Uploaded byMichael Vincent Montero
- 2 Channel 5v 10a Relay ModuleUploaded byMichael Vincent Montero

- 0046352920c5292a4e000000Uploaded bymariomato
- [Andrzej_Lasota,_Michael_C._Mackey]_Chaos,_Fractal.pdfUploaded byAngel Leon Geronimo
- Nonlinear_PSPI.pdfUploaded byacajahuaringa
- Perturbation Theory for Diffusion EquationUploaded bypopperland
- Lyapunov Stab Closed Loop for linear system theoryUploaded bySyed Kamran Musanna
- Methods for systematic generation of Lyapunov functionsUploaded bysantiagowiedmann
- Nework Analysis and SynthesisUploaded bysaurabh
- Mathematical Modeling of CSTR for Polystyrene ProductionUploaded bydwb5307
- Algorithmic Construction of Lyapunov FunctionsUploaded bytennis1949
- an_part1Uploaded byCarlos
- FLIGHT SIMULATION OF A HIGH WING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLEUploaded byamir
- Dynamical Systems FinalUploaded byBob
- Power-Systems-Control-and-Stability-2nd-anderson.pdfUploaded byEasy Energy SAC
- Control Systems EEEUploaded bySathya Narayanan
- am04_ch4-17oct04Uploaded byThuy Linh
- Tos (theory of structures)Uploaded byJohn Paul Kevin Boo
- Yedavalli Ieee Taes 1989Uploaded byAlex Vlad
- Control of Nonlinear Dynamic SystemsUploaded byGopikaramanan007
- John Bay-Fundamentals of Linear State Space Systems-McGraw-Hill _1998Uploaded byRoohullah khan
- Pedlosky_12_824_Ch5_9426Uploaded bytuananhf14
- Act.bank.Newformat.jan6 - 1230Uploaded byVijay Raju
- VSAT-Voltage Security Assessment ToolUploaded bylets_share_sth
- E. L. Ruden- The polarity dependent effect of gyroviscosity on the flow shear stabilized Rayleigh–Taylor instability and an application to the plasma focusUploaded byCola7890
- 5 th semester.docUploaded byAparna Anuj Pandey
- Analytical studies of fronts, colonies, and patterns- Combination of the Allee effect and nonlocal competition interactions.pdfUploaded byMati Ger
- Stability AnalysisUploaded byphmferreira
- a new control law of bilinear DC-DC converter developed by Direct application of Lyapunov.pdfUploaded byvargil
- geometric design paper.pdfUploaded byElectrónicas Oro
- IJEART03104Uploaded byerpublication
- ODE-notesUploaded byChernet Tuge