Steady-State Error Steady-State Error

Steady-State Error for Closed-Loop Systems Steady-State Error for Closed-Loop Systems
Steady-State Error for Unity Feedback Systems Steady-State Error for Unity Feedback Systems
Steady-State Error for Disturbances Steady-State Error for Disturbances
Steady-State Error for Nonunity Feedback Systems Steady-State Error for Nonunity Feedback Systems

1 Steady-State Error

Unit 6: Steady-State Error 1 Steady-State Error for Closed-Loop Systems

1 Steady-State Error for Unity Feedback Systems

Engineering 5821: Examples
Control Systems I
System Type

Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science Integral Control

Memorial University of Newfoundland
1 Steady-State Error for Disturbances
March 3, 2010
1 Steady-State Error for Nonunity Feedback Systems

ENGI 5821 Unit 6: Steady-State Error ENGI 5821 Unit 6: Steady-State Error

Steady-State Error
Steady-State Error
Steady-State Error for Closed-Loop Systems
Steady-State Error for Unity Feedback Systems
Steady-State Error for Disturbances
Steady-State Error for Nonunity Feedback Systems

Control systems are judged according to their performance in three

areas:

Transient response
Stability We will be interested in the steady-state error in response to
Steady-state error different inputs: step functions, ramps, and parabolas. These
particular inputs are important because they represent common
Clearly we desire systems with zero steady-state error. We will real-world control inputs for control of position, velocity, and
obtain the steady-state part of the total response simply by letting acceleration respectively.
t → ∞ and determining e(∞). Hopefully it will tend to zero, or at
least some small number.
Important: A prerequisite to our analysis is that the system is
stable. For an unstable system e(∞) = ∞.

ENGI 5821 Unit 6: Steady-State Error

 Steady-State Error
Consider the total responses shown below for step and ramp Steady-State Error for Closed-Loop Systems
Steady-State Error for Unity Feedback Systems
inputs. Steady-State Error for Disturbances
Steady-State Error for Nonunity Feedback Systems

Steady-state error can occur because of nonlinearities in our

system, but this is beyond our scope. We consider error that arises
because of the system itself and its input.
For example, consider a system with a step input and pure gain, K ,

The steady-state error cannot be reduced to zero for such a

system. If e(t) is zero then so to must c(t). The best we can do is
increase the gain. This will tend to minimize the steady-state error
esteady −state for a particular steady-state output, csteady −state .
1
esteady −state = csteady −state
K

ENGI 5821 Unit 6: Steady-State Error

Steady-State Error for Closed-Loop Systems

Steady-State Error
Steady-State Error for Closed-Loop Systems
Steady-State Error for Unity Feedback Systems
Steady-State Error for Disturbances
Steady-State Error for Nonunity Feedback Systems
Consider a general closed-loop system. The error
E (s) = R(s) − C (s) can be shown as an output:
If the forward-path gain is replaced by an integrator zero
steady-state error becomes possible.

We have the following two facts:

E (s) = R(s) − C (s)

The difference is that an integrator can have a constant output
without any input. C (s) = R(s)T (s)

A motor can be considered a form of integrator. Consider a We eliminate C (s) to obtain,

position-control application (e.g. Lab 2). With a non-zero voltage
input, the shaft will turn. When the desired position is reached E (s) = R(s)(1 − T (s))
e(t) will be reduced to zero. Still the motor maintains position
without any input. Given T (s) and a particular input R(s) we could take the ILT and
let t → ∞ to obtain the steady-state error e(∞). However, there
is a more direct way that also yields more insight...
ENGI 5821 Unit 6: Steady-State Error
 The Final Value Theorem (item 11 in table of LT theorems)

f (∞) = lim sF (s) Continuing with our analysis of steady-state error for a closed-loop
s→0
system...
Derivation: Start with the differentiation theorem, E (s) = R(s)(1 − T (s))
Z ∞ 
d We apply the Final Value Theorem to obtain e(∞).
f (t) e −st dt = sF (s) − f (0)
dt
Z0 ∞   e(∞) = lim sE (s) = lim sR(s)(1 − T (s))
d s→0 s→0
lim f (t) e −st dt = lim [sF (s) − f (0)]
s→0 0 dt s→0
Z ∞  e.g. What is the steady-state error for R(s) = 1/s and
d
f (t) dt = T (s) = 5/(s 2 + 7s + 10). First we obtain E (s),
0 dt

∞ s 2 + 7s + 5
f (t) = E (s) =
0 s(s 2 + 7s + 10)
f (∞) − f (0) =
f (∞) − f (0) = lim sF (s) − f (0) Applying the Final Value Theorem yields e(∞) = 1/2.
s→0
f (∞) = lim sF (s)
s→0

Steady-State Error for Unity Feedback Systems R(s)

Given a unity feedback, or any other kind of linear system, we can E (s) =
1 + G (s)
apply the previous method to determine the steady-state error. We
Apply the Final Value Theorem:
consider here unity feedback systems in particular so that we can
draw a direct relationship between the transfer functions for such sR(s)
systems and their steady-state error. The existence of this e(∞) = lim
s→0 1 + G (s)
relationship aids in analysis and design.
We now determine e(∞) for step, ramp, and parabolic inputs.
Start with a general unity feedback system:
Step input: R(s) = 1/s:

s(1/s)
estep (∞) = lim
s→0 1 + G (s)
1
We will establish E (s) in terms of the system and its input. =
1 + lims→0 G (s)
E (s) = R(s) − C (s)
The quantity lims→0 G (s) is the DC gain of G (s). It is known as
C (s) = E (s)G (s)
the position constant Kp .
R(s)
E (s) = To achieve estep (∞) = 0 the position constant must equal ∞.
1 + G (s)
If lims→0 G (s) = ∞ what does this imply about G (s)? G (s) must
have at least one pole at s = 0. That is, G (s) must have the
following form,

(s + z1 )(s + z2 ) · · · To eliminate steady-state error lims→0 G (s) = ∞. What does this

G (s) =
s n (s + p1 )(s + p2 ) · · · imply about G (s)? Again, it must have the following form,
where n ≥ 1. This means that this system must have at least one (s + z1 )(s + z2 ) · · ·
pure integration in the forward path. Otherwise, we will be stuck G (s) =
s n (s + p1 )(s + p2 ) · · ·
with some finite value for estep (∞).
only now n ≥ 2. The system must have at least two integrations in
Ramp input: R(s) = 1/s 2 : the forward path in order to eliminate steady-state error. With one
s(1/s 2 ) integration Kv would be finite, and therefore so would eramp . With
eramp (∞) = lim no integrations Kv = 0 and eramp = ∞.
s→0 1 + G (s)
1
=
lims→0 sG (s)

The quantity lims→0 sG (s) is known as the velocity constant Kv .

To achieve eramp (∞) = 0 it must equal ∞.

Examples
Parabolic input: R(s) = 1/s 3 :
e.g. Determine the steady-state error for the system below and the
s(1/s 3 ) following inputs: 5u(t), 5tu(t), 5t 2 u(t). Firstly, we should assess
eramp (∞) = lim for stability (not shown).
s→0 1 + G (s)
1
=
lims→0 s 2 G (s)

The quantity lims→0 s 2 G (s) is known as the acceleration constant

Ka . To achieve eramp (∞) = 0 we must have Ka = ∞. Again this
requires the form, sR(s) 5 5
estep = lim = =
(s + z1 )(s + z2 ) · · ·
s→01 + G (s) 1 + lims→0 G (s) 21
G (s) = s(5/s 2 ) 5
s n (s + p1 )(s + p2 ) · · · eramp = lim = =∞
s→0 1 + G (s) lims→0 sG (s)
with n ≥ 3. Otherwise the system will exhibit finite steady-state s(5 · s23 ) 10
error (n = 2) or infinite steady-state error (n = 0 or n = 1). eparabola = lim = 2
=∞
s→0 1 + G (s) lims→0 s G (s)
 e.g. Find the value of K so that the system below exhibits 10%
steady-state error for an appropriate input.
e.g. As above, but now the system has one integration.

What is an ‘appropriate input’ ? A system with one integration will

sR(s) 5 exhibit 0 error step response, finite error ramp response, and
estep = lim = =0 infinite parabolic response. Since we are expecting finite error, we
1 + G (s)
s→0 1 + lims→0 G (s)
assume a ramp input.
s(5/s 2 ) 5 5 1
eramp = lim = = =
s→0 1 + G (s) lims→0 sG (s) 100 20 s(1/s 2 ) 1
eramp = lim = = 0.1
s(5 · s23 ) 10 s→0 1 + G (s) lims→0 sG (s)
eparabola = lim = =∞
s→0 1 + G (s) lims→0 s 2 G (s)
K ×5
=⇒ lim sG (s) = = 10
s→0 6×7×8
Therefore K = 672 satisfies the specification. One should also
ensure that the system is stable for this value of K (it is).

System Type Integral Control

The simplest form of feedback control systems have a pure gain
component acting as the controller:
We characterize unity feedback systems by the number of
integrations in their forward path. The most common types are
Type 0, 1, and 2. The type is given by the number of integrations:

(s + z1 )(s + z2 ) · · ·
G (s) = This is known as a Proportional Control. The system type is
s n (s + p1 )(s + p2 ) · · ·
completely governed by G (s).
where the type is given by n. The following table summarizes the
We often wish to increase the system type to achieve zero
steady-state error obtained by inputting different inputs into
steady-state error for step inputs (as well as improving the
different types of systems:
response to other inputs). An integrator can be added to serve as
Input Type 0: e(∞) Type 1: e(∞) Type 2: e(∞) a compensator and increase the system type by 1.
1
Step, u(t) 1+Kp 0 0
1
Ramp, tu(t) ∞ Kv 0
1
Parabola, t 2 u(t) ∞ ∞ Ka

This is known as Integral Control. The combination of

proportional and integral control is known as PI Control.
Steady-State Error for Disturbances
Apply the Final Value Theorem to obtain e(∞),
Feeback systems can compensate for disturbances.
s sG2 (s)
lim sE (s) = lim R(s) − lim D(s)
s→0 s→0 1 + G1 (s)G2 (s) s→0 1 + G1 (s)G2 (s)

Call the first term eR (∞), the steady-state error due to R(s). This
is what we have considered already. The second term is eD (∞),
the steady-state error due to the disturbance.
C (s) = E (s)G1 (s)G2 (s) + D(s)G2 (s) To analyze eD (∞) we need to know D(s). Assume the disturbance
C (s) = R(s) − E (s) is the unit step. We obtain,

We eliminate C (s) and solve for E (s), 1

eD (∞) = − 1
lims→0 G2 (s) + lims→0 G1 (s)
1 G2 (s)
E (s) = R(s) − D(s)
1 + G1 (s)G2 (s) 1 + G1 (s)G2 (s) To minimize eD (∞) we can increase the dc gain of G1 (s) or
decrease the dc gain of G2 (s).
We can think of part of this error as being attributable to the input
and the rest as being from the disturbance.

Steady-State Error for Nonunity Feedback Systems

G2 (s)
ED (s) = − D(s)
1 + G1 (s)G2 (s)
Another way of looking at this situation is to draw the block
diagram relating D(s) as an input to E (s) as an output.
Often the feedback path has something other than unity gain.
There may be an output transducer and/or a compensating
component in the feedback path. Our approach is simply to
transform such a system into an equivalent unity feedback
representation...

If D(s) and G1 (s)E (s) are close then the error will be small. This
can occur by increasing G1 (s) (all for s → 0). Similarly, we can
reduce E (s) by decreasing G2 (s) (for s → 0).
e.g. Determine the steady-state error for the system below for a
step input.

G (s) 100(s + 5)
Ge (s) = = 3
1 + G (s)H(s) − G (s) s + 15s 2 − 50s − 400
s(1/s)
e(∞) = lim = −4
s→0 1 + Ge (s)