EE-379

LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS

Lecture No 10

CONTROL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

Text Book: Chapter 4 (nn 6th Ed)
System Response with
Additional Poles and Zeroes

Instructor: Dr. Farid Gul

Class: BEE 4A/B
Electrical Engineering Department
1

Second Order System

with Additional Pole

Second Order System with Additional Pole

n2
G ( s) 2
s 2 n s n2

Unity gain 2nd order system

rn2
G ( s)
( s r )( s 2 2n s n2 )

Unity gain 2nd order system

with additional pole at -r

rn2
1
C (s)
s ( s r )( s 2 2n s n2 )

Step response of 2nd order

system with additional pole

A B s n Cd
D
C ( s)

2
2
s
(s r )
s

n
d

where d n 1 2
3

A B s n Cd
D
C (s)

2
2
s
s n d ( s r )
In time domain

c(t ) Au (t ) e nt B cos d t C sin d t De r t

c(t ) Au (t ) e nt B cos d t C sin d t De r t

Example 4.8
(Comparing Responses of Three-Pole System)

Complex poles dominant:

approximate as secon-dorder
system

Real pole dominant:

approximate as first-order system

All three poles dominant:

approximation difficult

The five times rule of thumb can be used as

necessary (but not sufficient) condition for
second order approximation during design.
The completed design should be simulated
before final implementation

Second Order System

with Additional Zero

10

Second Order System with Additional Zero

Unity gain 2nd order system

n2
G ( s) 2
s 2 n s n2

Unity gain 2nd order system with zero at -a

(s a)
G ( s) 2 a
2
( s 2n s n )
2
n

11

n2
G ( s) 2
s 2 n s n2
Adding a zero at -a

Scaled
version of
the response

( s a)n2
G ( s) 2
( s 2n s n2 )

sn2
an2
G ( s) 2
2
2
( s 2n s n ) ( s 2n s n2 )

Derivative of
the response

s1, 2 1 j 2.828
12

Step response with nonminimum-phase zero

Zero is in the right
half of the s-plane

sn2
an2
G ( s) 2
2
2
( s 2n s n ) ( s 2n s n2 )

The response begins to turn toward

the negative direction even though
the final value is positive
A
system
that
exhibits
this
phenomenon
is
known
as
a
nonminimum-phase system

13

Lhp zero will amplify overshoot

Stable system, rhp zero can give

response that starts in opposite
direction from the steady-state
resp

Complex conjugate poles

Dominant:
zero tends to minimize effect
of nearby real pole

Real pole dominant,

zeros tend to minimize
effects of nearby poles

Unstable due to rhp pole,

nearby zero is not useful
in canceling pole

Example 4.9 Transfer Function of a Nonminimum-Phase System

Laplace transform of the response is:

s 10

C ( s)
s s 10

Expanding C(s) into partial fractions

1
1
C ( s)
10
s 10
s s 10
C ( s) sCo ( s ) 10Co ( s )
Co ( s )

1
s s 10

Co(s) is Laplace transform of the response

without zero

Expanding Co(s) into partial fractions

17

1
Co ( s )
s s 10

1 1 10t
co (t ) e
10 10

C (s)

s 10
s s 10

1
1
C ( s)
10

s 10
s s 10

1 1

c(t ) e 10t 10 e 10t 1 2e 10t

10 10

18

C (s)

s z
s s 10

1
0.8
0.6

1
1
C ( s)
z
s s 10
s 10

c(t), co(t)

1 1

c(t ) e 10t z e 10t

10 10

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4

clc;

-0.6

z=10;

-0.8
p=[-10]; k=-1;
[num,den]=zp2tf(z,p,k);
-1
0
t=0:0.01:.5;
[c,x]=step(num,den,t);
zo=[]; po=[-10]; ko=-1;
[numo,deno]=zp2tf(zo,po,ko);
[co,xo]=step(numo,deno,t);
co=-z*co;
plot(t,c, 'b',t,co,'r');
xlabel('time t [sec]');
ylabel('(1):c(t), (2):co(t)');

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25
0.3
time t [sec]

19

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

 s z
s s 10

C ( s)

1
1
z
s s 10
s 10

1 1

c(t ) e 10t z e 10t

10 10

0.5

0
c(t), co(t)

C (s)

-0.5

clc;
z=5; p=[-10]; k=-1;
[num,den]=zp2tf(z,p,k);
-1
0
t=0:0.01:.5;
[c,x]=step(num,den,t);
zo=[]; po=[-10]; ko=-1;
[numo,deno]=zp2tf(zo,po,ko);
[co,xo]=step(numo,deno,t);
co=-z*co;
plot(t,c, 'b',t,co,'r');
xlabel('time t [sec]');
ylabel('(1):c(t), (2):co(t)');

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25
0.3
time t [sec]

20

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

C (s)

s z
s s 10

1
1
z
s s 10
s 10

1 1

c(t ) e 10t z e 10t

10 10

3
c(t), co(t)

C ( s)

clc;

z=50;

p=[-10]; k=-1;
[num,den]=zp2tf(z,p,k);
-1
0
t=0:0.01:.5;
[c,x]=step(num,den,t);
zo=[]; po=[-10]; ko=-1;
[numo,deno]=zp2tf(zo,po,ko);
[co,xo]=step(numo,deno,t);
co=-z*co;
plot(t,c, 'b',t,co,'r');
xlabel('time t [sec]');
ylabel('(1):c(t), (2):co(t)');

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25
0.3
time t [sec]

21

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

C (s)

s z
s s 10

0.6
0.4
c(t), co(t)

C (s)

0.8

1
1
z
s s 10
s 10

0.2
0
-0.2

z=10

-0.4

1 1

c(t ) e 10t z e 10t

10 10

-0.6
-0.8
-1

0.05

0.5

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25
0.3
time t [sec]

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0
c(t), co(t)

c(t), co(t)

z=5
-0.5

z=50

-1

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25
0.3
time t [sec]

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

-1

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25
0.3
time t [sec]

22

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

kill-Assessment Exercise 4.7

PROBLEM: Determine the validity of a second-order stepresponse approximation for each transfer function shown
below.

1 0.89
1.59
0.3
C (s)

s s 20 s 10 s 6.5

Laplace transform of step response is:

A second-order approximation is not

valid.

Laplace transform of step response is:

1 0.98
1.9
0.07
C (s)

s s 20 s 10 s 6.9
A second-order approximation is
valid.
23

Reduced Order Systems

Reduced Order Systems

Example:

T(s)

12600(s 1)
(s 3)(s 10)(s 60)(s 70)

Since the poles at 60 and 70 are far to the left, their contribution to the system
response is negligible (they decay very quickly to zero as e -60t and e-70t)The transfer
function can be formally simplified as follows:
0.25

3(s 1)

T (s) red uced

(s 3)(s 10)
Use MATLAB to compare
the step responses of the
original and reduced-order
systems.
It can be seen from this
figure that step responses for
the original and reducedorder (approximate) systems
almost overlap.

z=-1; p=[-3 -10 -60 -70]; k=12600;

[num,den]=zp2tf(z,p,k);
t=0:0.01:1.2; [y,x]=step(num,den,t);
zr=-1; pr=[-3 -10]; kr=3;
[numr,denr]=zp2tf(zr,pr,kr);
[yr,xr]=step(numr,denr,t);
plot(t,y,t,yr,'--');
xlabel('time t [sec]');
ylabel('(1):y(t), (2):yr(t)');
grid; text(0.71,0.16,'(1)');
text(0.41,0.13,'(2)');

0.2

(1):y(t), (2):yr(t)

12600(s 1)
T (s)
s
s
(s 3)(s 10)60(
1)70(
1)
60
70

(1)

0.15
(2)
0.1

0.05

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8
time t [sec]

Figure : System step responses for the

(1) original (____) and
(2) reduced-order approximate (------)

1.2

???
26