Time Response

Ref: Control System Engineering

Norman Nise Chapter 4,
Sections 4.1 through 4.8
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Chapter objectives :
 How to find the time response from the transfer function
 How to use poles and zeroes to determine the response of a
control system
 How to describe quantitatively the transient response of
first and second order systems.
 How to approximate higher-order systems as first or
second order.

Time Response - 2
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Deducing Time Response via Parametric Form

of Transfer Functions

 Effect of Poles & Zeros on Time Response

 First-Order Systems: Gain/Time-Constant Format
 Second-Order Systems:
Damping Ratio/Natural Frequency Format
 Higher-Order Systems:
 Effect of Additional Zeros

 Effect of Additional Poles

Time Response - 3
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Poles, Zeros & System Response

 Poles: The poles of a transfer function are those

values of s for which the function is undefined
(becomes infinite).
 Zeros: The zeros of a transfer function are those
values of s for which the function is zero.

Time Response - 4
TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Example of the Effect of Pole/Zero Locations

1. Input pole generates form

of forced response.
2. Transfer function pole
generates form of natural
response.
3. Real axis pole generates
exponential character of
natural response.
4. Location of zero affects
the amplitude (magnitude of
residues) of each term of the
response.

Time Response - 5
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

First-Order System Format

K
G ( s) 
s  1
where
K  system "gain", and
  system " time constant".

The response of a first-order system can be

approximately deduced from its gain and time
constant.

Time Response - 6
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Impulse Response & Step Response of First-Order System

K K / K  t
Impulse Response:   e u( t )
s + 1 s  1 /  

K K / K K   
t
Step Response:     K  1  e   u( t )
ss  1 s s  1 /   s s 1/   

The step response is shown on the following slide. Note that the
steady-state value of the step response is K. Thus, K is interpreted
as the system’s gain. For convenience, it is common to plot the step
response with a gain of unity (K=1).

Time Response - 7
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Response of a Unity-Gain, First-Order System to a Step Input

Rise Time,Tr : The time for the response

to go from 10% to 90% of its final value.
Tr  2.2 * 

Settling Time,Ts : The time for the response

to reach, and stay within,  2% of its final value.
Ts  4 * 

Time Response - 8
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Experimental Determination of Gain & Time Constant

Input = 1u(t)
Gain = 0.72/1=0.72
Time Constant = 0.13

Time Response - 9
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Second-Order System Format

K n
2
K
G(s)   2
s2 s  2 n s   n
2
s
 2 1
n 2
n
where
K  system" gain" ,
 n  system" natural frequency", and
  system" damping ratio".

The response of the system can be approximately

deduced from its gain, natural frequency, and
damping ratio.

Time Response - 10
TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Second-Order
Systems

pole plots and step

responses

Time Response - 11
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Step Response of Second-Order System with Various

Damping Ratios

  0  Undamped
0    1  Underdamped
  1  Critically damped
  1  Overdamped

Time Response - 12
TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

S-Plane for Various Damping Ratios

Note: The
overdamped
case can be
considered to be
two first-order
systems. One
with a slow time
constant and
one with a fast
time constant.

Time Response - 13
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Example : characterizing response from the value of 

Time Response - 14
TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Time Response - 15
TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Time Response - 16
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Pole Plot of Underdamped Second-Order System

s1,2   n  j 1   2  n   n  j d

where
 d is the "damped natural frequency".

Time Response - 17
TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Step Response for Various Damping Ratios

Time Response - 18
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Second-Order Underdamped Response Specifications

1. Peak Time, Tp: Time to

reach first, or maximum,
peak.
2. Percent Overshoot, %OS:
Amount response overshoots
steady-state value, expressed
as a percentage.
3. Settling Time, Ts: Same as
for first-order system.
4. Rise Time, Tr: Same as for
first-order system.

Time Response - 19
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Peak Time & Settling Time

  4
Tp   Ts 
d n 1   2  n
Percent Overshoot

  
 
 1 2 
 
% OS  e  100
 ln % OS / 100

 2  ln 2 (% OS / 100)

Time Response - 20
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Rise Time

See footnote on
p. 196 for
approximate
analytic
expression of
normalized rise
time as a
function of
damping ratio.

Time Response - 21
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Pole plot for an underdamped

second-order system

Lines of constant peak time,Tp ,

settling time,Ts , and percent
overshoot, %OS
Note: Ts < Ts ; Tp < Tp ; %OS1 <
%OS2 2 1 2 1

Time Response - 22
TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Effect of Pole Locations

a. Constant real part;

b. Constant imaginary
part;
c. Constant damping
ratio

Time Response - 23
TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Example 4.6, p. 200

 n  3
d  7  n 1   2
Therefore,
 n  3 2 9
      49  9 2  9
n 1   2 1  2 7 1  2
49
3
  0.394
58
3
n   58  7.616

3 / 58 

Tp   0.449
7
 0.394*
1  0.394 2
% OS  e  100  26%
4
Ts   1333
.
3
Time Response - 24
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Effect of Additional Poles

Consider the impulse response of a system with two real poles:

 1    1  
t t
1
G ( s)   g (t )     e  e  2  for 1   2
1 s  1 2 s  1  1   2   

How much smaller (faster) must the second time constant be for it to be
negligible? Let t equal the slow time constant and the slow time constant be
k times the fast time constant. Then,
   
   
 e  e     e 1 1  e (1 k ) 
1 1
g ( 1 )   1 k

 (1  1 )   (1  1 ) 
 k 1  k 1

Time Response - 25
 TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Effect of Additional Poles (continued)

Examine the term exp(1-k).

How large must k be for this term to be negligible?
K exp (1-k) If the fast time
constant is 4 to
4 0.0498 6 time faster
5 0.0183 than the slow
one, the effect of
6 0.0067 the fast time
constant is only
7 0.0025 5 to 1%.

Nise (p.203) assumes that the exponential decay due to an

additional pole is negligible after 5 time constants, I.e., if the pole
is 5 time farther to the left of the dominant (slower) poles.
However, he warns on p.205 that this is an approximation that
should always be checked by simulation in a final design.

Time Response - 26
TM 091351 – DYNAMIC SYSTEMS & AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Extension to Higher-Order Systems

Component responses of a
three-pole system:
a. Pole plot;
b. Component responses:
nondominant pole is near
dominant second-order
pair (Case I), far from the
pair (Case II), and at
infinity (Case III)

Time Response - 27