performance of feedback control systems (stachowicz, 2010)

Upload: stathiss11

Post on 04-Apr-2018

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    1/107

    Performance of Feedback Control

    Systems

    Prof. Marian S. StachowiczLaboratory for Intelligent Systems

    ECE Department, University of Minnesota Duluth

    February 25 March 2, 2010

    ECE 3151 - Spring 2010

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    2/107

    Outline

    Introduction

    Test Input Signals

    Performance of a second-order system Effects of a Third Pole and a Zero on the Second-

    Order System Response

    Estimation of the Damping Ratio

    The s-plane Root Location and the TransientResponse

    2Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    3/107

    References for reading

    1. R.C. Dorf and R.H. Bishop, Modern Control Systems,

    11th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2008,Chapter 5.1 - 5.12

    2. J.J. DiStefano, A. R. Stubberud, I. J. Williams,Feeedback and Control Systems, Schaum's OutlineSeries, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1990Chapter 9

    3Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    4/107

    Test Input Signal

    Since the actual input signal of the systemis usually unknown, a standard test input

    signal is normally chosen. Commonlyused test signals include step input, rampinput, and the parabolic input.

    4Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    5/107

    General form of the standard test

    signals

    r(t) = tn

    R(s) = n!/sn+1

    5Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    6/107

    Test signals r(t) = A tn

    n = 0 n = 1 n = 2

    r(t) = A r(t) = At r(t) = At2R(s) = 2A/s3R(s) = A/s R(s) = A/s2

    6Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    7/107

    Table 5.1 Test Signal Inputs

    Test Signal r(t) R(s)

    Step

    position

    r(t) = A, t > 0

    = 0, t < 0

    R(s) = A/s

    Ramp

    velocity

    r(t) = At, t > 0

    = 0, t < 0

    R(s) = A/s2

    Parabolic

    acceleration

    r(t) = At2, t > 0

    = 0, t < 0

    R(s) = 2A/s3

    7Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    8/107

    Test inputs vary with target type

    parabola

    ramp

    step

    8Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    9/107

    Steady-state error

    Is a difference between input and the

    output for a prescribed test input as

    t

    9Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    10/107

    Application to stable systems

    Unstable systems represent loss ofcontrol in the steady state and are

    not acceptable for use at all.

    10Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    11/107

    Steady-state error:a) step input, b) ramp input

    11Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    12/107

    Time response of systems

    c(t) = ct(t) + css(t)

    The time response of a control system is dividedinto two parts:

    ct(t) - transient response

    css(t) - steady state response

    12Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    13/107

    Transient response

    All real control systems exhibit transientphenomena to some extend before steady

    state is reached.

    lim ct(t) = 0 for t

    13Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    14/107

    Steady-state response

    The response that exists for a long timefollowing any input signal initiation.

    14Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    15/107

    Poles and zeros of a first order system

    Css(t) Ct(t

    ) 15Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    16/107

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    17/107

    A pole on the real axis generate an exponential response

    of the form Exp[-t] where - is the pole location on real axis.

    The farther to the left a pole is on the negative real axis,

    the faster the exponential transit response will decay to zero.

    Effect of a real-axis pole upon transientresponse

    17Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    18/107

    Evaluating response using poles

    C(s) K1

    s

    K2

    s 2

    K3

    s 4

    K4

    s 5

    Css(t) Ct(t

    )

    c(t) K1 K2e2t K3e

    4 t K4e5t

    18Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    19/107

    c(t) 1 eat

    First order system

    19Control Systems

    C(s) R(s) G(s) as(s a)

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    20/107

    First-order system response to a unit step

    Transient response specification:

    1. Time-constant, 1/a

    2. Rise time, Tr

    3. Settling time, Ts

    20Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    21/107

    Transient response specification

    for a first-order system

    1. Time-constant, 1/aCan be described as the time for (1 - Exp[- a t])

    to rise to 63 % of initial value.

    1. Rise time, Tr = 2.2/aThe time for the waveform to go from 0.1 to 0.9of its final value.

    3. Settling time, Ts = 4/aThe time for response to reach, and stay within,2% of its final value

    21Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    22/107

    Transfer function via laboratory testing

    G(s) K

    (s a)

    C(s) K

    s(s a)

    Ka

    s

    Ka

    (s a)

    22Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    23/107

    Identify K and a from testing

    The time for amplitude to reach 63% of its final value:63 x 0.72 = 0.45, or about 0.13 sec , a = 1/0.13 = 7.7

    From equation, we see that the forced response reachesa steady-state value of K/a =0.72 .K= 0.72 x 7.7= 5.54

    G(s) = 5.54/(s+7.7) .

    23Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    24/107

    Exercise

    A system has a transfer function

    G(s)= 50/(s+50).

    Find the transit response specifications

    such as Tc, Tr, Ts.

    24Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    25/107

    25Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    26/107

    Steady-state response

    If the steady-state response of the output does notagree with the steady-state of the input exactly, thesystem is said to have a steady-state error.

    It is a measure of system accuracy when a specific typeof input is applied to a control system.

    26Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    27/107

    Y(s) = R(s) G(s)

    27Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    28/107

    Steady-state error

    T(s) = 9/(s + 10) Y(s) = 9/s(s+10)

    y(t) = 0.9(1- e

    -10t

    )

    y() = 0.9

    E(s) = R(s) - Y(s)

    ess = lim s 0 s E(s) = 0.1

    28Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    29/107

    E(s)

    R(s)

    1K

    E(s)

    R(s)

    1 Ks

    e(t) 1

    1K e(t) eK t

    29Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    30/107

    30Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    31/107

    Control Systems 31

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    32/107

    Performance of a second-order system

    32Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    33/107

    Numerical example of the second-

    order system

    33Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    34/107

    Overdamped

    C(s) 9

    s(s2 9s 9)

    9

    s(s 7.854)(s 1.146)

    c(t) 1 0.171e7.854t 1.17e1.146t

    34Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    35/107

    Underdamped

    C(s) 9

    s(s

    2

    2s 9)

    9

    s(s 1 j 8)(s 1 j 8)

    c(t) 1 et(cos 8t8

    8sin 8t)

    35Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    36/107

    c(t) 1 et(cos 8t8

    8sin 8t)

    36Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    37/107

    Undamped

    C(s) 9s(s

    2 9)

    c(t) 1cos3t

    37Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    38/107

    Critically damped

    C(s)

    9

    s(s2 6s 9)

    9

    s(s 3)2

    c(t) 1 3te3t e3t

    38Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    39/107

    Step response for second order systemdamping cases

    39Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    40/107

    fig_04_11

    40Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    41/107

    Summary

    Overdamped

    Poles: Two real at - 1, - 2

    Underdamped

    Poles: Two complex at - d + jd, - d - jd

    Undamped

    Poles: Two imaginary at + j1, - j1

    Critically dampedPoles: Two real at - 1,

    41Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    42/107

    Performance of a second-order system

    42Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    43/107

    Response to unit step input

    Y(s) G(s)

    1 G(s)R(s)

    )(2)( 22

    2

    sRsssY nn

    n

    )2()(

    22

    2

    nn

    n

    ssssY

    )sin(1

    1)(

    tety ntn

    21

    1cos

    43Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    44/107

    Natural frequency n - the frequency of naturaloscillation that would occur for two complexpoles if the damping were equal to zero

    Damping ratio - a measure of damping forsecond-order characteristic equation

    44Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    45/107

    s2 2ns n 2 0

    s1 n n 2 1

    s2

    n

    n

    2 1

    Characteristic equation

    45Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    46/107

    Finding nand for a second-order

    system

    G(s) n2

    s2 2nsn2

    n2

    362n 4.2

    n 6

    0.35

    s2 2ns n2 0

    s1 n n 2 1

    s2 n n 2 1

    G(s) 36

    s2 4.2s 36

    46Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    47/107

    Second-order responses for

    underdamped

    47Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    48/107

    48Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    49/107

    Transit response

    For step input as

    a function of

    For step input asa function of and nt

    49Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    50/107

    Unit impulse response

    Y(s) n

    2

    (s2 2nsn2

    )R(s)

    y(t) n

    ent sinnt

    R(s)=1 T(s)=Y(s)

    50Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    51/107

    51Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    52/107

    52Control Systems

    Constant real part

    Constant imaginary part

    Constant damping ratio

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    53/107

    Standard performance measures

    Ts(s) 44

    n

    21

    n

    pT

    Peak time

    Mpt1 e

    12

    P.O. 100 e

    12

    Settling time

    Percent overshoot

    Peak response

    53Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    54/107

    fig_04_14

    54Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    55/107

    Settling time

    The settling time is defined as the timerequired for a system to settle within acertain percentage of the input amplitude.

    Ts(s) 44

    n

    55Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    56/107

    Settling time

    Ts(s) 44

    n

    56Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    57/107

    Rise time

    The time it takes for a signal to go from10% of its value to 90% of its final value

    Tr(s) 2.16 0.60

    n0.3 0.8

    57Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    58/107

    Rise time

    58Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    59/107

    Peak time

    Peak time is the time required by a signalto reach its maximum value.

    21

    n

    pT

    59Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    60/107

    Peak time

    21

    n

    pT

    60Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    61/107

    Percent overshoot

    Percent Overshoot is defined as:

    P.O. = [(Mpt fv) / fv] * 100%

    Mpt = The peak value of the time response

    fv = Final value of the response

    P.O. 100 e

    12

    61Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    62/107

    Percent overshoot

    62Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    63/107

    Percent overshoot and normalizedpeak time versus

    63Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    64/107

    Finding transient response

    G(s) 25

    s(s 5)

    64Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    65/107

    T(s) 25

    s2 5s 25

    s2 5s 25

    s2 2nsn2

    n 25 5

    2n 5, 0.5

    Tp

    n 12

    0.726 sec

    P.O. 100 e

    12 16.3%

    Ts(s) 4n

    1.6 sec

    65Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    66/107

    Gain design for transient response

    G(s) K

    s(s 5)

    66Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    67/107

    T(s) K

    s2 5sK

    s2 5sK

    s2 2nsn2

    n K

    2n 5, 5

    2 K

    for P.O.10%

    P.O.100e

    12 10.0%

    0.591, K17.9

    67Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    68/107

    Performance Indices

    Elevator

    Control Systems 68

    Simplified description of a control

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    69/107

    Simplified description of a controlsystem

    69Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    70/107

    Elevator input and output

    When the fourth floor button is pressed on the firstfloor, the elevator rises to the fourth floor with aspeed and floor level accuracy designed for

    passenger comfort.70Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    71/107

    Push of the fourth-floor button is an input thatrepresent a desired output, shown as a stepfunction.

    71Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    72/107

    Transient response

    Passenger comfort and passenger patience are

    dependent upon the transient response.If this response is too fast, passenger comfortis sacrificed; if too slow, passenger patience issacrificed.

    72Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    73/107

    Steady-state error

    Passenger safety and convenience would be

    sacrificed if the elevator is not properly level.

    73Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    74/107

    Performance Indices

    A performance index is a quantitativemeasure of the performance of a

    system and is chosen so thatemphasis is given to the importantsystem specifications.

    74Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    75/107

    Response of the system

    75Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    76/107

    ISE - Integral of Square of Error

    I1 e2(t)0

    T

    dt

    76Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    77/107

    The Integral Squared Error

    I1 e2(t)

    0

    T

    dt

    77Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    78/107

    IAE - Integral of the AbsoluteMagnitude of the Error

    I2 e(t)0

    T

    dt

    78Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    79/107

    ITAE - Integral of Time Multiplied byAbsolute Error

    I3 t e(t)0

    T

    dt

    79Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    80/107

    ITSE - Integral of Time Multiplied bySquared Error

    I4 te2 (t)0

    T

    dt

    80Control Systems

    General form of the performance

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    81/107

    General form of the performanceintegral

    I f[e(t), r(t),c((t), t]0

    T

    dt

    81Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    82/107

    Section 5.9

    T

    dtteISE

    0

    2)(

    T

    dtteIAE

    0

    |)(|

    T

    dttetITAE

    0

    |)(| T

    dttteITSE

    0

    2)(

    T

    dtttytrtefI

    0

    )),(),(),((

    82Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    83/107

    Performance criteria

    T(s) 1

    s2 2s 1

    83Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    84/107

    84Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    85/107

    Optimum system

    A control system is optimum when theelected performance index is minimized.

    The optimum value of the parametersdepends directly upon the definition ofoptimum, that is, the performance index.

    85Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    86/107

    The coefficients that will minimize theITAE performance criterion for a stepinput and a ramp input have beendetermined for the general closed-looptransfer function.

    86Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    87/107

    General closed-loop T(s)

    T(s) Y(s)

    R(s)

    b0

    sn

    bn1sn1

    ... b1s b0

    The T(s) has n poles and no zeros.

    This T(s) has a steady-state error equal zero for a step input.

    87Control Systems

    T bl Th O i

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    88/107

    Table 5.6 The OptimumCoefficients of T(s) Based on the

    ITAE Criterion for a Step Input

    s + n

    s2 + 1.4ns + n2

    s3 + 1.75n s2 + 2.15n2s+ n3

    s4 + 2.1 n s3 + 3.4 n

    2s2 + 2.7 n3s + n

    4

    s5 + 2.8 n s4 + 5.0 n

    2s3 + 5.5 n3s2 + 3.4n

    4s +n5

    s6 + 3.25ns5 + 6.60 n

    2s

    4 + 8.60n3s3 + 7.45 n

    4s2 + 3.95n5s

    +

    n

    6

    88Control Systems

    Step response for optimum coefficients

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    89/107

    Step response for optimum coefficients

    89Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    90/107

    90Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    91/107

    Table 5.7 The Optimum Coefficientsof T(s) Based on the ITAE Criterion

    for a Ramp Input

    s2 + 3.2ns + n2

    s3

    + 1.75

    n s2

    + 3.25

    n

    2

    s

    +

    n

    3

    s4 + 2.41 n s3 + 4.93 n

    2s2 + 5.14 n3s + n

    4

    s5 + 2.19 n s4 + 6.50 n

    2s3 + 6.30 n3s2 + 5.24n

    4s +n5

    91Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    92/107

    T(s) Y(s)

    R(s)

    b1s b0s

    n bn1sn1 ... b1s b0

    T(s) has a steady-state error equal to zero for aramp input.

    T(s) has two or more pure integrations asrequired to provide zero steady-state error.

    92Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    93/107

    A: Simplification of linear system

    G(s) K

    s(s 2)(s 30)

    G(s) K/30s(s 2)

    We can neglect the impact of the pole at s = - 30 ,however we must retain the steady-state responseand reduce the system to

    93Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    94/107

    Impulse response

    94Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    95/107

    95Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    96/107

    B: Simplification of linear systems

    H(s) Kams

    m am1sm1 a1s 1

    bnsn an1s

    n1 b1s 1, m n

    L(s) Kcps

    p c1s 1

    dgsg d1s 1

    , p g n

    96Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    97/107

    )()()(

    sMds

    dsM

    k

    kk

    )()()(

    sds

    ds

    k

    kk

    )!2(!

    )0()0()1()2(2

    02

    kqk

    MMM

    kqkqkq

    kq

    M2q 2q q 1,2...

    97Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    98/107

    Simplified model

    3223)6/1()6/11(1

    1

    6116

    6)(ssssss

    sH

    L(s) 6

    1 d1s d2s2

    2

    211)( sdsdsM

    32 )6/1()6/11(1)( ssss

    2

    21

    )0(1)( sdsdsM M(0)(0) 1

    98Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    99/107

    Example 5.9

    sddsdsdds

    dsM k 21

    2

    21

    )(2)1()(

    1)0()0( M

    1

    )1()0( dM

    2)2( 2)0( dM

    1)0()0(

    6/11)0()1(

    2)0()2(

    1)0()3( 0)0()3( M

    99Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    100/107

    Example 5.9

    2

    )0()0()1(

    1

    )0()0(

    2

    )0()0()1(

    021120

    2

    MMMMMMM

    2

    122

    2

    122 2 dddddM

    36

    49

    2

    )0()0()1(

    1

    )0()0(

    2

    )0()0()1(

    021120

    2

    100Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    101/107

    Example 5.9

    18

    72 d

    22584.260.1

    60.1

    625.0165.11

    1)(

    sssssL

    36

    492

    2

    12 dd

    101Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    102/107

    Example 5.9

    6116

    6)(

    23

    ssssH

    L(s) 1.60

    1.60 2.584s s2

    102Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    103/107

    103Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    104/107

    Impulse response

    104Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    105/107

    105Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    106/107

    Dominant poles of transfer function

    It has been recognized in practice and inthe literature that if the magnitude of thereal part of a pole is at least 5 to 10 times

    of a dominant pole or pair of complexdominant poles, than the pole may beregarded as insignificant insofar as thetransient response is concerned.

    106Control Systems

  • 7/29/2019 Performance of Feedback Control Systems (Stachowicz, 2010)

    107/107

    Thank You.