Part a

) 1 1 . 0 )( 1 (
10
) (
) (
) (
0
+ +

s s s V
s w
s G
1
]
1

+ +
sT
s s
s E
s V
s G
c
1
06 . 0 1
) (
) (
) (
As we know
1
]
1

+ +
+ +

sT
s
s s
s G s G s G
c OL
1
06 . 0 1 5
) 1 1 . 0 )( 1 (
10
) ( ) ( ) (
1
]
1

+ +

+ +

sT
T s sT
s s
1 06 . 0
5
) 1 1 . 0 )( 1 (
10
2
sT s s
sT T s
) 1 1 . 0 )( 1 (
) 1 06 . 0 ( 50
2
+ +
+ +

sT s s
sT T s
) 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 (
50 50 3
2
2
+ +
+ +

sT T s T s
sT T s
s G
OL
+ +
+ +

2 3
2
1 . 1 1 . 0
50 50 3
) (
As we know
) ( 1
) (
) (
s G
s G
s G
OL
OL
CL
+

sT T s T s
sT T s
sT T s T s
sT T s
s G
CL
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
+ +

2 3
2
2 3
2
1 . 1 1 . 0
50 50 3
1
1 . 1 1 . 0
50 50 3
) (
50 50 3 1 . 1 1 . 0
50 50 3
2 2 3
2
+ + + + +
+ +

sT T s sT T s T s
sT T s
50 51 1 . 4 1 . 0
50 50 3
) (
2 3
2
+ + +
+ +

sT T s T s
sT T s
s G
CL
1
Characteristics Equation
0 ) ( ) ( 1 + s H s G K
Characteristics Equation 0 50 51 1 . 4 1 . 0
2 3
+ + + sT T s T s
Dividing all terms by sT T s T s 51 1 . 4 1 . 0
2 3
+ +
0
51 1 . 4 1 . 0
50
51 1 . 4 1 . 0
51 1 . 4 1 . 0
2 3 2 3
2 3

+ +
+
+ +
+ +

sT T s T s sT T s T s
sT T s T s
[ ]
0
51 1 . 4 1 . 0
50
1
2 3

+ +
+
s s s T
0
51 1 . 4 1 . 0
50 1
1
2 3

1
]
1

+ +

1
]
1

+
s s s T
T
K
1

Commands
>>sys=tf([50],[0.1 4.1 51 0])
>>rlocus(sys)
Graph 1
From Graph 1 it can be noted:
At damping of 0.7
2
Gain = 6.05 K = 6.05
Therefore
s
K
T 165 . 0
05 . 6
1 1

Pole = -7.51+7.66i
Part b
Put T = 0.165 in G
CL
(s)
50 ) 165 . 0 ( 51 ) 165 . 0 ( 1 . 4 ) 165 . 0 ( 1 . 0
50 ) 165 . 0 ( 50 ) 165 . 0 ( 3
) (
2 3
2
+ + +
+ +

s s s
s s
s G
CL
50 415 . 8 6765 . 0 0165 . 0
50 25 . 8 495 . 0
) (
2 3
2
+ + +
+ +

s s s
s s
s G
CL
Commands
>>sys=tf([0.495 8.25 50],[0.0165 0.6765 8.415 50])
>>step(sys)
Graph 2
From Graph 2:
Rise Time T
r
= 0.0506s
3
% Overshoot = 13.7
Settling Time T
s
= 0.339s
Final Value = 1
From Graph 2: % Overshoot = 13.7
% Overshoot
100
1
exp
2

1
1
]
1

1
1
]
1

2
1
exp
100
7 . 13

2
1
) 137 . 0 ln(

2
2
2
1
) 99 . 1 (
1
1
]
1

2
2 2
1
95 . 3

2 2 2
95 . 3 95 . 3
) 5 . 9 ( 95 . 3
2 2
+
286 . 0
) 95 . 3 (
95 . 3
2
2

Damping ratio:
535 . 0
n
s
t

4
n
s
t

535 . 0
4
Settling time:
s t
s
339 . 0
n

535 . 0
4
339 . 0
4
4 535 . 0 339 . 0
n

Natural frequency:
535 . 0 339 . 0
4

s rad
n
/ 1 . 22
Frequency of oscillation:
2
1
n d
2
) 535 . 0 ( 1 1 . 22
845 . 0 1 . 22
s rad
d
/ 67 . 18
As Final value = 1, so the e
ss
must be zero.
Calculations
Plotting pole -7.51+7.66i on the graph
[ ]
2 2 2
66 . 7 51 . 7 i
n
+
2 2 2
) 66 . 7 ( ) 51 . 7 ( +
n

1 . 115
2

Natural frequency:
s rad
n
/ 72 . 10
Poles can be written as
d n
w w s t
5
n
w 51 . 7
Damping ratio:
7 . 0
% Overshoot
100
1
exp
2

1
1
]
1

100
) 7 . 0 ( 1
7 . 0
exp
2

1
1
]
1

% Overshoot 6 . 4
n
s
t

4
72 . 10 7 . 0
4

s
t
Settling time:
s t
s
533 . 0
Frequency of oscillation:
2
1
n d
2
) 7 . 0 ( 1 72 . 10
71 . 0 72 . 10
s rad
d
/ 66 . 7
( ) [ ] ) ( 1 ) (
lim
0
s G s R s e
CL
s
s s

As the system is step response R(s) =

s
1
1
]
1

,
_

+ + +
+ +

50 415 . 8 6765 . 0 0165 . 0

50 25 . 8 495 . 0
1
1
2 3
2
0
lim
s s s
s s
s
s e
s
ss
50
50
1
ss
e
Steady State Error
0
ss
e
6
The table below shows the results estimated in part b and results from the
calculations.
Discussion and Conclusion
Estimates from Part b Calculation Results
Damping ratio

0.535 0.7
% Overshoot 13.7% 4.6%
Settling Time s
t
0.339s 0.533s
Natural frequency
n

22.1 rad/s 10.72 rad/s

Frequency of oscillation
d

18.67 rad/s 7.66 rad/s

Steady State Error e
ss
0 0
From the table above it can be seen that as the damping ratio is decreased in
part b, this causes and increase in frequency of oscillation of the system causing it to
settle quicker. In calculation results, damping ratio used was restricted not to be any
lesser than 0.7. The reason for this restriction could be to prevent it to oscillate with
higher frequency causing the system to fail. This system shows an under-damped
response which is stable as the function is reaching a steady state value of 1. This is
not sustained oscillation so increase the gain until the point of instability is reached.
7