Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Pre Lab Tasks:: Task 1

    Uploaded by

    Hammad Satti
    This lab document summarizes tasks completed to analyze system stability and response. Key steps included using the Routh-Hurwitz criterion to determine stability ranges for different values of K, simulating step responses for various second-order systems, and analyzing the effects of pole-zero cancellation. The conclusion recaps that the lab covered using Routh-Hurwitz to assess stability, examining time domain responses for different zero locations, and analyzing situations where pole-zero cancellation is possible for linear time-invariant systems.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pre Lab Tasks:: Task 1

    Uploaded by

    Hammad Satti
    22 views13 pages
    This lab document summarizes tasks completed to analyze system stability and response. Key steps included using the Routh-Hurwitz criterion to determine stability ranges for different values of K, simulating step responses for various second-order systems, and analyzing the effects of pole-zero cancellation. The conclusion recaps that the lab covered using Routh-Hurwitz to assess stability, examining time domain responses for different zero locations, and analyzing situations where pole-zero cancellation is possible for linear time-invariant systems.

    Original Title

    Lab8

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This lab document summarizes tasks completed to analyze system stability and response. Key steps included using the Routh-Hurwitz criterion to determine stability ranges for different values of K, simulating step responses for various second-order systems, and analyzing the effects of pole-zero cancellation. The conclusion recaps that the lab covered using Routh-Hurwitz to assess stability, examining time domain responses for different zero locations, and analyzing situations where pole-zero cancellation is possible for linear time-invariant systems.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    22 views13 pages

    Pre Lab Tasks:: Task 1

    Uploaded by

    Hammad Satti
    This lab document summarizes tasks completed to analyze system stability and response. Key steps included using the Routh-Hurwitz criterion to determine stability ranges for different values of K, simulating step responses for various second-order systems, and analyzing the effects of pole-zero cancellation. The conclusion recaps that the lab covered using Routh-Hurwitz to assess stability, examining time domain responses for different zero locations, and analyzing situations where pole-zero cancellation is possible for linear time-invariant systems.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 13

    LAB 8:

    PRE LAB TASKS:

    TASK 1:
    From Routh table we find that this system is stable for 50.5<K<163.89 so we choose K=110. So,

    clc
    clear all
    close all

    zeros=[-0.01 -6];
    poles=[0 -20 -100];
    K=110;
    k=zpk(z,p,K)
    G=tf([10],[1 10 29])
    t=0:0.01:10;
    x=ones(1,length(t));
    y=lsim((k.*G)/(1+k.*G,x,t);

    %plotting the y and t


    plot(t,y)

    OUTPUT:
    TASK 2:
    From Routh table we find out that K> 5.8711*10 -4, so we use K=10. So,
    clc
    clear all
    close all
    K=10;
    q=[0 7570 785766 623768]
    w=[1 7570 781846 623768]
    G=tf(q,w)
    t=0:0.1:2;
    x=ones(1,length(t));
    z=lsim(G,x,t);
    plot(t,z)
    OUTPUT:
    For t=0:0.01:2;

    For t=0:0.1:2;
    TASK 3:
    we use K=0.01. So,
    clc
    clear all
    close all

    K=0.01;
    q=[0 0 0 154980]
    w=[1 170 4625 165480]
    G=tf(q,w)
    For t=0:0.01:2;
    x=ones(1,length(t));
    z=lsim(G,x,t);
    subplot(2,1,1)
    plot(t,z)
    subplot(2,1,2)
    plot(t,x)

    OUTPUT:
    For t=0:0.01:2;

    For t=0:0.1:2;
    IN LAB TASKS:
    TASK 1:

    Part1

    num = [9];
    denum = [1 2 9]; %coefficent of D
    s1 = tf(num,denum);
    pole(s1)

    subplot(2,1,1)
    pzmap(s1)
    subplot(2,1,2)
    step(s1)
    stepinfo(s1)
    [wn,z,p] = damp(s1)

    OUTPUT

    RiseTime: 0.4568
    SettlingTime: 3.7005
    SettlingMin: 0.8916
    SettlingMax: 1.3293
    Overshoot: 32.9277
    Undershoot: 0
    Peak: 1.3293
    PeakTime: 1.1052

    wn =
    3.0000
    3.0000
    z=
    0.3333
    0.3333
    p=
    -1.0000 + 2.8284i
    -1.0000 - 2.8284i
    Part 2

    syms s;
    num1 = [3 9];
    denum = [1 2 9];
    s2 = tf(num1,denum);
    pole(s2)
    pzmap(sys2)
    subplot(2,1,1)
    step(s2)
    subplot(2,1,2)

    OUTPUT:
    RiseTime: 0.2665
    SettlingTime: 3.4739
    SettlingMin: 0.8245
    SettlingMax: 1.5328
    Overshoot: 53.2824
    Undershoot: 0
    Peak: 1.5328
    PeakTime: 0.7829
    wn =
    3.0000
    3.0000

    z=
    0.3333
    0.3333
    p=
    -1.0000 + 2.8284i
    -1.0000 - 2.8284i

    Part3
    num2 = [9/5 9];
    denum = [1 2 9];
    s3 = tf(num2,denum);
    pole(s3)

    subplot(2,1,1)
    pzmap(s3)
    subplot(2,1,2)
    step(s3)
    stepinfo(s3)
    [wn,z,p] = damp(s3)

    OUTPUT:

    RiseTime: 0.3552
    SettlingTime: 3.5351
    SettlingMin: 0.8682
    SettlingMax: 1.4005
    Overshoot: 40.0506
    Undershoot: 0
    Peak: 1.4005
    PeakTime: 0.8750
    wn =
    3.0000
    3.0000
    z=
    0.3333
    0.3333

    Part 4
    syms s
    num3 = [9/10 9];
    denum = [1 2 9];
    s4 = tf(num2,denum1);
    pole(s4)
    subplot(2,1,1)
    pzmap(s4)
    subplot(2,1,2)
    step(s4)
    stepinfo(s4)
    [wn,z,p] = damp(s4)

    OUTPUT:

    RiseTime: 0.4246
    SettlingTime: 3.6071
    SettlingMin: 0.8861
    SettlingMax: 1.3458
    Overshoot: 34.5838
    Undershoot: 0
    Peak: 1.3458
    PeakTime: 1.0131
    wn =
    3.0000
    3.0000
    z=
    0.3333
    0.3333
    p=
    -1.0000 + 2.8284i
    -1.0000 - 2.8284i

    TASK 2
    syms s;
    denum = [1 2 4];
    %Part 1
    s1 = tf([1 4],denum);
    subplot(3,2,1)
    pzmap(s1)
    subplot(3,2,2)
    step(s1)
    stepinfo(s1)
    [wn,z,p] = damp(s1)
    %Part 2
    s2 = tf([-1 4],denum);
    subplot(3,2,3)
    pzmap(s2)
    subplot(3,2,4)
    step(s2)
    stepinfo(s2)
    [wn,z,p] = damp(s2)
    %Part 3
    s3 = tf([1 -4],denum);
    subplot(3,2,5)
    pzmap(s3)
    subplot(3,2,6)
    step(s3)
    stepinfo(s3)
    [wn,z,p] = damp(s3)

    Output:
    For Part 1

    RiseTime: 0.6876
    SettlingTime: 3.8416
    SettlingMin: 0.9026
    SettlingMax: 1.1910
    Overshoot: 19.1001
    Undershoot: 0
    Peak: 1.1910
    PeakTime: 1.5197
    wn =

    2.0000
    2.0000
    z =

    0.5000
    0.5000
    p =

    -1.0000 + 1.7321i
    -1.0000 - 1.7321i

    For Part 2

    RiseTime: 0.7398
    SettlingTime: 4.2307
    SettlingMin: 0.9187
    SettlingMax: 1.1778
    Overshoot: 17.7762
    Undershoot: 9.1047
    Peak: 1.1778
    PeakTime: 2.0263

    wn =

    2.0000
    2.0000

    z =

    0.5000
    0.5000

    p =

    -1.0000 + 1.7321i
    -1.0000 - 1.7321i

    For Part 3

    RiseTime: 0.7398
    SettlingTime: 4.2307
    SettlingMin: -1.1778
    SettlingMax: -0.9187
    Overshoot: 17.7762
    Undershoot: 9.1047
    Peak: 1.1778
    PeakTime: 2.0263
    wn =
    2.0000
    2.0000

    z =
    0.5000
    0.5000
    p =
    -1.0000 + 1.7321i
    -1.0000 - 1.7321i

    COMBINED OUTPUT RESULTS:

    TASK 3
    PART 1
    PART 2
    PART 3

    POST LAB:
    g=tf([-1 5],[1 1.01 -29.94]);
    G=tf([1 5],[1 10.99 29.94]);
    subplot(2,1,1)
    pzmap(g)
    subplot(2,1,2)
    pzmap(G)
    CONCLUSION:

    In this lab we have learnt about the Routh-Hurwitz stability which provides a simple algorithm to decide
    whether or not the zeros of a polynomial are all in the left half of the complex plane (such a polynomial
    is called at times "Hurwitz").This criteria is comprised of three separate tests that must be satisfied. If
    any single test fails, the system is not stable and further tests need not be performed. For this reason,
    the tests are arranged in order from the easiest to determine to the hardest. In addition, we have learnt
    the effect of zeros on responses of second order systems in time domain and to analyze situations in
    which pole-zero cancellation is possible. Stable systems without dead time, which are described by the
    transfer function and do not have zeros in the right half “s” plane, are called minimum phase systems.
    The Routh–Hurwitz stability criterion is a necessary and sufficient method to establish the stability of a
    single-input, single-output and linear time invariant control system. It can be performed using either
    polynomial divisions or determinant calculus. A tabular method can be used to determine the stability
    when the roots of a higher order characteristic polynomial are difficult to obtain. In the lab tasks we had
    find the range of K for stability using Routh Hurwitz criterion.

    You might also like