Unidad 4

UNIDAD 4:
ANÁLISIS DE SISTEMAS EN EL DOMINIO DEL TIEMPO

ASIGNATURA TEORÍA DE CONTROL 1
PROF. MARIELA CERRADA LOZADA
4.1 Introducción
En esta unidad de estudiará el comportamiento de los sistema control en el dominio del tiempo. En
particular se estudiará:
Señales típicas de prueba, para estudios de sistemas de control
Análisis del error en estado estacionario.
Respuesta de sistemas de primer orden. Respuesta al escalón unitario y especificaciones en el
tiempo.
Respuesta de sistemas de segundo orden. Respuesta al escalón unitario y especificaciones en el
tiempo.
Efectos de introducir polos (sistemas de orden superior) y ceros a la función de transferencia.
Aproximaciones de un sistema de orden mayor a uno de menor orden.
Estabilidad entrada-salida de los sistemas de control.
Criterio de Routh-Hurwitz para verificación de la condición de estabilidad en SLIT
4.1 Introducción
Chapter 7
Chapter 4
4.1 Introducción
4.1 Introducción
r(t) Error en estado estable

4.1 Introducción
The poles of a transfer function are (1) the values of the Laplace transform variable, s, that cause the transfer
function to become infinite or (2) any roots of the denominator of the transfer function that are common to roots of
the numerator
The zeros of a transfer function are (1) the values of the Laplace transform variable, s, that cause the transfer function
to become zero, or (2) any roots of the numerator of the transfer function that are common to roots of the
denominator.
4.1 Introducción
Examples:
Zero at s=-3
Zero at s=-2 Poles at s=-2, s=-4, s=-5
Pole at s=-5
4.2 Señales típicas de prueba
Test inputs are used for analyzing

steady-state error analysis and
transient response. They are
summarized in the following table.
Ejemplos:
Sistemas de control de nivel

Sistemas de control de temperatura
Sistemas de control de velocidad de motores
Ejemplos:
Sistemas de control de nivel
Sistemas de control de temperatura
Sistemas de control de velocidad de

un motor
q2
q1
4.4 Análisis del error en estado
estacionario.
We are going to analize the signal e(t)= r(t)-c(t)
of the feedback system
Since we are concerned with the difference between the input and the output of a feedback control system after
the steady state has been reached, our discussion is limited to stable systems, where the natural response
approaches zero as t→∞.
Highlights:
Unstable systems represent loss of control in the steady state and are not acceptable for use at all. The expressions we
derive to calculate the steady-state error can be applied erroneously to an unstable system.
The engineer must check the system for stability while performing steady-state error analysis and design.
However, in order to focus on the topic, we assume that all the systems in examples and problems in this section are
stable.
estacionario.
Let us examine the concept of steady-state errors.
In the Figure, a step input and two possible

outputs are shown. Output 1 has zero steady-
state error, and output 2
has a finite steady-state error, e2(∞).
estacionario.
Let us examine the concept of steady-state errors.
The ramp input is compared with output 1, which

has zero steady-state error.
In case of output 2, it has a finite steady-state
error, e2(∞), as measured vertically between the
input and output 2 after the transients have died
down.
If the output’s slope is different from that of the
input, then output 3 results. Here the steady-state
error is infinite as measured vertically between
the input and output 3 after the transients have
died down, and t approaches infinity.
estacionario.
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 voltage exceeds a threshold, saturation in valves, among
others. Nonlinear behavior as a source of steady-state errors, although a
viable topic for study is beyond the scope of a text on linear control
systems.
The steady state errors we study here are errors that arise from the
configuration of the system itself and the type of applied input
estacionario.
the steady-state
the steady-state value
value of the output
of the error
Aditionally:
𝑅(𝑠)
𝐸 𝑠 =
(1 + 𝐾)
If r(t) is a step of magnitude R,
then e(t)= R/(1+K) The conclusion we can draw is that with a pure gain in the forward path, there will
always be a steady-state error for a step input.
This error diminishes as the value of K increases.
estacionario.
𝐾
𝐶 𝑠 = 𝐸 𝑠 For an input step, and under stability
𝑆 condition e(t) goes to zero when c(t) goes to a
1 𝑑𝑐(𝑡)
e 𝑡 = 𝐾 𝑑𝑡 constant value
Therefore, a system similar to Figure (b), can have zero steady-

state error for a step input.
estacionario.
Let us now look at the error from the perspective of the most general block diagram.
Steady-state error can be calculated:
✓ from a system’s closed-loop transfer function, T(s)
✓ or the open-loop transfer function, G(s), for unity feedback systems.

.
estacionario.
Since the error is the difference between the input and the output of a system, we assume a closed-loop transfer
function, T(s), and form the error, E(s), by taking the difference between the input and the output, as shown in
Figure. Here we are interested in the steady-state, or final, value of e(t).
We are interested in the final value of the error, e(∞). Applying the final value theorem we obtain
estacionario.
Figure 1
(7.5)
estacionario.
Many times we have the system configured as a unity feedback system with a forward transfer function, G(s).
Although we can find the closed-loop transfer function, T(s), and then proceed as in the previous subsection, we find more
insight for analysis and design by expressing the steady-state error in terms of G(s) rather than T(s).
We now substitute several inputs for R(s) and

Applying the final value theorem we obtain: then draw conclusions about the relationships
that exist between the open-loop system, G(s),
and the nature of the steady-state error, e(∞)
estacionario.
The term is the dc gain of the forward transfer function, since s, the frequency variable, is
approaching zero (t is approaching infinity in time domain)
In order to have zero steady-state error,
for the limit to be infinite, the

denominator must be equal to zero as s
goes to zero. Thus, n≥1; that is, at least
one pole must be at the origin
estacionario.
estacionario.
estacionario.
In other words, there must be at

least two integrations in the
G(s) must take on the following form with forward path.
e(∞) is finite and

If only one integration exists in the forward path, then constant
e(∞) is infinite
If there are no integrations in the forward path, then
estacionario.
In order to have zero steady-state error for a parabolic input, we must have
G(s) must take on the following form with
e(∞) is finite
If only two integration exists in the forward path, then and constant
If there are one or less integrations in the forward path, then e(∞) is infinite
estacionario.
estacionario.
The values of the static error constants, again, depend
upon the form of G(s), especially the number of pure
integrations in the forward path.
A system with:
We define system type to be the value of n in the n=0 is a Type 0 system
denominator or, equivalently, the number of pure integrations n=1 is a Type 1 system
in the forward path. n=2 is a Type 2 system
estacionario.
Table summarizes together the concepts of steady-state error, static error constants, and system type.
estacionario.
estacionario.
estacionario.
This is the steady-state error due to R(s), which we

have already obtained.
This is the steady-state error due to the disturbance
If we assume a step disturbance,

we must make some assumptions about D(s)=1/s.
D(s), the controller, and the plant.
estacionario.
Note that the existence of the

disturbance yields a finite steady
state error, even in case of having a
type 1 system in the forward path.
estacionario.
A general feedback system is shown in Figure
The first step is to show

explicitly E(s)=R(s)-C(s)
on the block diagram.
For this case we call the signal at the output of the

summing junction the actuating signal, Ea(s)
estacionario.
estacionario.
This is a unity feedback system All the results obtained for a unity feedback apply in
this case!!
Note that, this is the same result if we compute:
E(s)=R(s)-C(s) = [1-T(s)]R(s)
where T(s) is the close loop transfer function in the

figure:
and T(s)=C(s)R(s)=G(s)/(1+G(s)H(s))
estacionario.
Problem (Example 7.8, pag 359):
For the system shown in Figure, find the system

type, the appropriate error constant associated
with the system type, and the steady-state error
for a unit step input.
By applying the previous results, we have:

estacionario.
The system is Type 0, since there are no pure integrations on

the feed forward path.
The appropriate static error constant is then Kp, whose value is:
The steady-state error is:

estacionario.
take the Laplace

transform assuming Solving for X(s)
zero initial conditions
Substituting in Y(s)
estacionario.
Applying the final value

theorem, we have
estacionario.
4.3 Respuesta al escalón unitario y especificaciones en el
tiempo
The output response of a system is the sum of two responses: the forced response and the natural response.
Although many techniques, such as solving a differential equation or taking the inverse Laplace transform,
enable us to evaluate this output response, these techniques are laborious and time-consuming.
Productivity is aided by analysis and design techniques that yield results in a minimum of time.
If the technique is so rapid that we feel we derive the desired result by inspection, we sometimes use the
attribute qualitative to describe the method.
The use of poles and zeros and their The concept of poles and zeros, fundamental to
relationship to the time response of a the analysis and design of control systems,
system is such a technique simplifies the evaluation of a system’s response.
tiempo
𝑁(𝑠)
𝐷(𝑠)
The poles of a transfer function are (1) the values of the Laplace transform variable,
s, that cause the transfer function to become infinite or (2) any roots of the
denominator of the transfer function that are common to roots of the numerator.
The roots of D(s) are the poles of the transfer function
The zeros of a transfer function are (1) the values of the Laplace transform variable,
s, that cause the transfer function to become zero, or (2) any roots of the numerator
of the transfer function that are common to roots of the denominator.
The roots of N(s) are the zeros of the transfer function
tiempo
To show the properties of the poles and zeros, let us find the unit step response of the
system in the figure: Notation
Poles and zeros on

the complex plane
By applying the
Laplace Transform
tiempo
A pole on the real axis generates an
exponential response of the form
where a is the pole location on the real axis
The farther to the left a pole is on the negative

real axis, the faster the exponential transient
response will decay to zero
The zeros and poles generate the amplitudes for

both the forced and natural responses
tiempo
Qualitative Analysis of the Time
Response due to a Step Input
4.5 Respuesta de sistemas de primer orden
If the input is a unit step, where R(s)=1/s, the Laplace
transform of the step response is C(s), where:
Laplace inverse
𝑨 𝑩 transform 𝐴=1
A model for a first order system: = + 𝒄 𝒕 = 𝑨 + 𝑩𝒆−𝒂𝒕
𝒔 𝒔+𝒂 𝐵 = −1
the forced response the natural response
Let us examine the significance of parameter

a, the only parameter needed to describe
the transient response
1
0.37
0
0.63
Transient response parameter
We call 1/a the time constant of the response and it is

denoted as t
The time constant can be described as the time for
to decay to 37% of its initial value
We can call the parameter a the exponential frequency
a is the initial rate of change of c(t) at t=0
𝑑𝑐(𝑡)
ቤ =𝑎
𝑑𝑡 𝑡=0
Transient response specification
is defined as the time for the waveform

to go from 0.1 to 0.9 of its final value.
Rise time is found by solving
for the difference in time at c (t)=0.9 and c(t)=0.1

ln(0.1)
c (t)=0.9 𝑡2 = −
𝑎
ln(0.9)
c (t)=0.9 𝑡1 = −
𝑎
𝑇𝑟 = 𝑡2 − 𝑡1
Transient response specification

is defined as the time for the response
to reach, and stay within, 2% of its
final value. Other criterion takes 5% of
its final value
ln 0.02 3,9120
c (t)=0.98 𝑡𝑠 = − =
𝑎 𝑎
c(t)
What does it happen in case of:
R(s)=1/s
Laplace inverse
transform
𝐾 𝐾 −𝑎𝑡
𝑐 𝑡 = − 𝑒 time
𝑎 𝑎
Suppose the systems response is given by
Find the values of K and a to describe the

transfer function:
based on the meaning of the rise time and

the DC gain.
See page 168 of autor Norman Nise and

Skill-Assessment Exercise 4.2
4.6 Respuesta de sistemas de segundo orden
Poles and zeros and transient
response to second order systems
(Sobre-amortiguado)
(Sub-amortiguado)
(No-amortiguado u oscilatorio)
(Críticamente amortiguado)
Poles −1 ± 8 𝑗
General transfer Time response
function
Based on the previous
𝑐 𝑡 = 1 + 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒
results, we have that
forced response
We define the following natural responses and found their characteristics:
Real poles
Real part Imaginay part
Imaginay part
poles
We define two physically meaningful specifications for second-order systems. These quantities can be used to
describe the characteristics of the second-order transient response just as time constant describe the first-order system
response.
The natural frequency of a second-order

system is the frequency of oscillation of the
system without damping.
w1 is wn
Note that wn is the square root of
(Frecuencia Natural de oscilación) the imaginary part
The poles of this system are on the jw-axis at ± 9 𝑗

This is a measure to quantitatively describe the damped

oscillation regardless of the time scale.
a=2
Real part of the poles 𝑎

2
Real part of the poles
Summarizing: Consider the general system
Undamped system is defined for the poles to be

purely imaginary, a = 0. Hence,
Assuming an underdamped system, the complex

poles have a real part, s, equal to a/2
Our general second-order transfer function finally

looks like this:
Poles of the system

Poles of the system

Poles of the system

Poles of the system

assuming underdamped
response
Parameters associated with the underdamped response:
Parameters associated with the
underdamped response:
By using Laplace By using inverse

Transform Laplace Transform
Zero crossing depends on the t

according to this equation
=0
The first peak, which

occurs at the peak time,
Tp, is found by letting n=1
the numerator varies from 3.91 to 4.74 as z

varies from 0 to 0.9.
A precise analytical relationship between rise time
and damping ratio, z, cannot be found
Graphical behaviour of the normalized variable

wnTr regarding z by using c(t):
A precise analytical relationship between rise time
and damping ratio, z, cannot be found
(Error less than 0.5 % )
(Error less than 5 % )
For
Pole plot for an underdamped
second-order system
inversely proportional to the
imaginary part of the pole
inversely proportional to the

real part of the pole
radial lines are lines of constant z

second-order system
second-order system
second-order system
second-order system
4.7 Efectos de introducir polos y ceros a la
función de transferencia.
1 Without zeros
First orden system 𝐺 𝑠 =
𝜏𝑠 + 1 Only one pole
Second orden system Without zeros

Only two poles
Once we justify this approximation, the formulas

Under certain conditions, a system with more than two poles
for percent overshoot, settling time, and peak
or with zeros can be approximated as a second-order system
time can be applied to these higher-order
that has just two complex dominant poles. systems by using the location of the dominant
poles.
(Underdamped case)
Consider a three-pole system

with complex poles and a third Two complex poles
pole on the real axis.
One real pole
Third real pole

placement
(Underdamped case)
By considering
input step u(t)
After applying inverse Laplace

transform
The pure exponential will die out much more rapidly than
the second-order underdamped step response.
If the pure exponential term decays to an insignificant value

at the time of the first overshoot, such parameters as
percent overshoot, settling time, and peak time will be
generated by the second-order underdamped step response
component (CASE III).
(Underdamped case)
(Underdamped case)
The real pole’s transient response will not decay to insignificance at the
peak time or settling time generated by the second-order pair. In this
case, the exponential decay is significant, and the system cannot be
represented as a second-order system.
Question How much farther from the dominant poles does the third pole have to be for its
effect on the second-order response to be negligible?
The answer of course depends on the accuracy for which you are looking !!!!
(Underdamped case)
Assumption The exponential decay is negligible after five time

constants.
Thus, if the real pole is five times farther to the left than
the dominant poles, we assume that the system is
represented by its dominant second-order pair of poles.
5
What about the magnitude of the exponential decay?
Questions
Can it be so large that its contribution at the peak time is not
negligible?
(Underdamped case) Third pole
Assume a step response, C(s),

of a three-pole system:
It can be demostrated
that:
the residue of the nondominant pole and its response,

becomes zero as the nondominant pole approaches infinity.
(Underdamped case)
(Underdamped case)
c1(t)
c2(t)
c3(t)
15 > 5x2=10
4 < 5x1=5
We saw that the zeros of a response affect the residue,

or amplitude, of a response component but do not
affect the nature of the response
We add a real-axis zero to a two-pole system:
✓ The zero will be added in the left half-plane

Its effects are noted
✓ The zero will be added in the right half- and analyzed!!!
plane
Finally:
✓ Pole-zero cancellation
Let us considers the close loop transfer function T(s), and we add a cero in
the Laplace transform
of the response will be
Then, the result is
The response of a system

with a zero consists of two
parts the derivative of the a scaled version of the
original response original response
✓ If a, the negative of the zero, is very large, the Laplace transform of the response is approximately aC(s)
✓ If a is not very large, the response has an additional component consisting of the derivative of the original response
✓ As a becomes smaller, the derivative term contributes more to the response and has a greater effect.
aT(s)
Second
orden roots
And we add a zero in (s+20) sT(s)

T(s)
sT(s)
aT(s)
Second
T(s)
orden roots
And we add a zero in (s+2)

función de transferencia.zero in (s+20)
For small values of a, we can expect more

overshoot in second order systems
because the derivative term will be
additive around the first overshoot. zero in (s+2)
zero in (s+0.1)
Zero (s-0.1)
Zero (s-2)
Zero (s-20)
We add a zero in the righ half-plane

(s-a)
(s-1)
We add a zero in the righ half-plane (s-10)

(s-a)
(s-20)
Second order system
From another perspective, if the zero at z is very close to the pole at p3, then the residue of the
exponential decay is much smaller than the amplitude of the second-order response.
función de transferencia. Note the magnitud
difference
partial-fraction
expansion
partial-fraction
expansion
approximation
about two orders of
magnitude below any of
the other residues

Unidad 4

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Unidad 4

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UNIDAD 4:

ANÁLISIS DE SISTEMAS EN EL DOMINIO DEL TIEMPO

r(t) Error en estado estable

Zero at s=-2 Poles at s=-2, s=-4, s=-5

Test inputs are used for analyzing

Sistemas de control de nivel

Sistemas de control de nivel

Sistemas de control de temperatura

Sistemas de control de velocidad de

In the Figure, a step input and two possible

The ramp input is compared with output 1, which

Therefore, a system similar to Figure (b), can have zero steady-

Steady-state error can be calculated:

✓ from a system’s closed-loop transfer function, T(s)

✓ or the open-loop transfer function, G(s), for unity feedback systems.

We now substitute several inputs for R(s) and

In order to have zero steady-state error,

for the limit to be infinite, the

In other words, there must be at

e(∞) is finite and

G(s) must take on the following form with

This is the steady-state error due to R(s), which we

This is the steady-state error due to the disturbance

If we assume a step disturbance,

Note that the existence of the

A general feedback system is shown in Figure

The first step is to show

For this case we call the signal at the output of the

Note that, this is the same result if we compute:

where T(s) is the close loop transfer function in the

Problem (Example 7.8, pag 359):

For the system shown in Figure, find the system

By applying the previous results, we have:

The system is Type 0, since there are no pure integrations on

The steady-state error is:

take the Laplace

Applying the final value

The roots of D(s) are the poles of the transfer function

Poles and zeros on

The farther to the left a pole is on the negative

The zeros and poles generate the amplitudes for

the forced response the natural response

Let us examine the significance of parameter

Transient response parameter

We call 1/a the time constant of the response and it is

We can call the parameter a the exponential frequency

a is the initial rate of change of c(t) at t=0

is defined as the time for the waveform

for the difference in time at c (t)=0.9 and c(t)=0.1

Transient response specification

What does it happen in case of:

Suppose the systems response is given by

Find the values of K and a to describe the

based on the meaning of the rise time and

See page 168 of autor Norman Nise and

Real part Imaginay part

The natural frequency of a second-order

The poles of this system are on the jw-axis at ± 9 𝑗

This is a measure to quantitatively describe the damped

Real part of the poles 𝑎

Undamped system is defined for the poles to be

Assuming an underdamped system, the complex

Our general second-order transfer function finally