Experiment 3

Time domain response and control

characteristics

Objectives
The objective of this lab is to analyze the system performance in terms of
time domain parameters like Rise time, Settling time, Percentage overshoot
for 2nd order under-damped system.

Theory
Rise time, peak time, and settling time yield information about the speed of
the transient response. This information can help a designer determine if the
speed and the nature of the response do or do not degrade the performance
of the system. For example, the speed of an entire computer system depends
on the time it takes for a hard drive head to reach steady state and read
data; passenger comfort depends in part on the suspension system of a car
and the number of oscillations it goes through after hitting a bump. Lets
review Tp ,%OS, andTs as functions of ζ and ωn for
π π
Tp = √ = (3.1)
ωn 1−ζ 2 ωd
4 π
Ts = = (3.2)
ζωn σd
Where ωd is the imaginary part of the pole and is called the damped fre-
quency of oscillation, and σd is the magnitude of the real part of the pole
and is called the exponential damping frequency.

18
 Percent overshoot (%OS) is defined as:
The amount that the waveform overshoots the steady state, or final, value
at the peak time, expressed as a percentage of the steady-state value.

− √ ζπ (3.3)
%OS = e 1−ζ 2

Equation 5.1 shows that Tp is inversely proportional to the imaginary

part of the pole. Since horizontal lines on the s-plane are lines of constant
imaginary value, they are also lines of constant peak time.

Figure 3.1: Lines of constant peak time, settling time, percent OS

Similarly, Eq. 5.2 tells us that settling time is inversely proportional to

the real part of the pole. Since vertical lines on the s-plane are lines of
constant real value, they are also lines of constant settling time.
Finally, since ζ = cos θ, radial lines are lines of constant ζ. Since percent
overshoot is only a function of ζ, radial lines are thus, the lines of constant
percent overshoot as shown in Fig. 3.1
At this point, we can understand the significance of Figure 3.1 by examining
the actual step response of comparative systems.
Depicted in Figure 3.2 are the step responses as the poles are moved in
a vertical direction, keeping the real part the same. As the poles move in
a vertical direction, the frequency increases, but the envelope remains the

19
same since the real part of the pole is not changing. The figure shows a con-
stant exponential envelope, even though the sinusoidal response is changing
frequency. Since all curves fit under the same exponential decay curve, the
settling time is virtually the same for all waveforms. Note that as overshoot
increases, the rise time decreases.

Figure 3.2: Step responses of second-order underdamped systems as pole

moves

Let us move the poles to the right or left. Since the imaginary part is now
constant, movement of the poles yields the responses of Figure 3.2, part b.
Here the frequency is constant over the range of variation of the real part.
As the poles move to the left, the response damps out more rapidly, while
the frequency remains the same. Notice that the peak time is the same for
all waveforms because the imaginary part remains the same.
Moving the poles along a constant radial line yields the responses shown
in Figure 3.2, part c. Here the percent overshoot remains the same. Notice

20
also that the responses look exactly alike, except for their speed. The farther
the poles are from the origin, the more rapid the response.

System Response with Additional Poles

If a system has more than two poles or has zeros, we cannot use the formulas
to calculate the performance specifications that we derived. However, under
certain conditions, a system with more than two poles or with zeros can be
approximated as a second-order system that has just two complex dominant
poles, Once we justify this approximation, the formulas for percent overshoot,
settling time, and peak time can be applied to these higher-order systems by
using the location of the dominant poles.
If real part of a new added pole is not much greater than ζωn (Case I),
the real pole’s transient response will not decay to insignificance at the peak
time or settling time generated by the second-order pair.

Figure 3.3: a. pole plot, b. component responses of a three-pole

In this case, the exponential decay is significant, and the system cannot
be represented as a second-order system. But, 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.

21
The control systems engineer can use the Five times rule of thumb as
a necessary but not sufficient condition to increase the confidence in the
second-order approximation during design, but then simulate the completed
design.

System Response With Zeros

Let us add a zero to the second-order system. Starting with a two-pole
system with poles at (−1 ± 2.828i), we consecutively add zeros at - 3 , - 5 ,
and —10. The results, normalized to the steady-state value, are plotted in
Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Effect of adding a zero to a two-pole system

We can see that the closer the zero is to the dominant poles, the greater its
effect on the transient response. As the zero moves away from the dominant
poles, the response approaches that of the two-pole system. An interesting
phenomenon occurs if a is negative, placing the zero in the right half-plane.
If we add a zero to the transfer function, yielding (s + a)T (s), the Laplace
transform of the response will be

(s + a)C(s) = sC(s) + aC(s) (3.4)

we see that the derivative term, which is typically positive initially, will be
of opposite sign from the scaled response term. Thus, if the derivative term,

22
sC(s), is larger than the scaled response, aC(s), the response will initially
follow the derivative in the opposite direction from the scaled response.

Figure 3.5: Step response of a nonminimum-phase system

The result for a second-order system is shown in Figure 3.5, where the
sign of the input was reversed to yield a positive steady-state value. No-
tice that 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. If a motorcycle or airplane was
a nonminimum-phase system, it would initially veer left when commanded
to steer right.

23
Lab Tasks
1. Given the transfer function
90
G(s) =
s2 + 10s + 90
(a) Find Tp , %OS, Ts
(b) Given the pole plot shown in Figure 3.6, find ζ, ωn , Tp , %OS, Ts

Figure 3.6: Task one part two

24
2. If the transfer function of the system is

1/J
G(s) =
s2 + (D/J)s + K/J

(a) Find J and D to yield 10% overshoot and a settling time of 4

seconds for a step input and spring constant is 5 N-m/rad
(b) Find the transfer function of a general second-order system
that yields a 12.3 % overshoot and a settling time of 1 second

25
3. For each pair of second-order system specifications that follow, find the
location of the second-order pair of poles.

(a) %OS = 12%; Ts = 0.6second

(b) %OS = 10%; Tp = 5second
(c) Tp = 3second ; Ts = 7second

26
4. Use the MATLAB’s Simulink to obtain the step response of a system
1
G(s) =
s2 + 3s + 10
(a) The system is linear and driven by an amplifier whose gain is 10
(b) The amplifier saturates at ±0.25 volts, Describe the effect of the
saturation on the system’s output.
(c) The system drives a 1:1 gear train that has backlash. The dead-
band width of the backlash is 0.02 rad. Describe the effect of
backlash on the system’s output.

NOTE: Simulink has built in blocks for saturation, dead zone and
backlash. Use mux block to compare the original system with the
nonlinear term included

27
Student’s Comments

Lesson Learnt

28