6.

3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA jgg

unnecessarily high. The torque required to drive the antenna is

Torque = J8(t)
where I is the moment of inertia of the antenna and 8(r) is its angular displacement.
The power needed to drive the antenna is
Power = Torque X Velocity = 78(i)8(/)
This equation shows that the larger the acceleration and the velocity, the larger the
power needed. Let 8p„ and 8p„ be the maximum acceleration and velocity. Then
the required power is
Power = 7(8„, ,a )(8p„ ) (6
1)
In this computation, the moments of inertia of motor and gear trains, which are not
yet determined, are not included. Also, we consider neither the power required to
overcome static, Coulomb, and viscous frictions nor disturbances due to gusting.
‘ Therefore, the horsepower of the motor should be larger than the one computed in
(6.1). After the size of a motor is determined, we must select the type of motor: dc,
ac, or hydraulic. The choice may depend on availability at the time of design, cost,
reliability, and other considerations. Past experience may also be used in this
choice. For convenience of discussion, we choose an armature—controlled dc
motor to drive the antenna. A dc generator is also chosen as a power amplifier, as
shown in Figure
6.1. This collection of devices, including the load, is called the plant of the control
system. We see from the foregoing discussion that the choice of a plant is not

(a)

(b)
Figure 6.1 (a) Plant. (b) Its block diagram.
192 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

Exercise 6.3.1

Find the range of Q so that the position error of the following transfer function is
smaller than 5%.

G( )

(Answer: 1.9 < Qb < 2.1.]

Inputs
If the reference signal is a ramp function or r(t) — at, for t 0 and a > 0, then the
steady-state output y(t) of the overall system, as computed in (4.26), is

y (t) — G,(0) at + G (0) n = — at +‘ 0’

(ó.5)

where G',(0) = dG p(s)cds) _ . The percentage steady-state error due to a ramp

function is defined as

Velociiy error : = ep(t) : = lim

a a
= ¡(1 — G,(0)) — G¡‹0)

This error will be called the velocity error, because ramp functions correspond to
velocities. We see that if G,(0) Q /a s 1, then r(t) and ys(i ) have different
slopes, as shown in Figure 6.3(a), and their difference approaches infinity as t --+ .
Thus the velocity error is infinity. Therefore, in order to have a finite velocity error,
we must have G,(0) = 1 or Q = at. In this case, r(t) and y (t) have the same

G (0)a

0
(a) (b)
Figure ó.3 Velocity errors.
 ó.3 PERFORMANCE CRITEPIA

slope, as is shown in Figure 6.3(b), and the velocity error becomes finite and equals

Velocity error = ep(t) = (ó.

7)

Thus the conditions for having a zero velocity error are nd = Qo and a, = Q , or
G„(0) = 1 and GJ(0) = 0. They are independent of a, and Q„ for i 2.
The preceding analysis can be extended to acceleration reference inputs or any
inputs that are polynomials of t. We will not do so here. We mention that, in
addition to the steady-state performances defined for step, ramp, and acceleration
functions, there is another type of steady-state performance, defined for sinusoidal
functions. This specification is used in frequency-domain design and will be
discussed in Chapter 8.
The plant output y(t) is said to track as ymptoticall5’ the reference input r(t) if

' lim y(t) — r(t) = 0

If the position error is zero, then the plant output will track asymptotically any step
reference input. For easy reference, we recapitulate the preceding discussion in the
following. Consider the design problem in Figure 6.2. No matter how the system is
designed or what configuration is used, if its overall transfer function G„(s) in (6.2)
is stable, then the overall system has the following properties:

1. If G (0) = 1 or aq = Q , then the position error is zero, and the plant output
will track asymptotically any step reference input.
2. If G,(0) = 1 and G’(0) = 0, or of — Q and • Q„ then the velocity error
is zero, and the plant output will track asymptotically any ramp reference input.
3. If G,(0) = 1, G’(0) = 0, and G§(0) = 0, or at Qb, a, Q„ and a, - fi
then the acceleration error is zero, and the plant output will track asymptotically
any acceleration input.

Thus, the specifications on the steady-state performance can be directly translated

into the coefficients of G (s) and can be easily incorporated into the design.
The problem of designing a system to track asymptotically a nonzero
reference signal is called the tracking problem. The more complex the reference
signal, the more complex the overall system. For example, tracking ramp
reference inputs im- poses conditions on nd, n„ Q , and ,;tracking step
reference inputs imposes con- ditions only on at and Q . If the reference signal is
zero, then the problem is called the regulating problem. The response of
regulating systems is excited by nonzero initial conditions or disturbances, and
the objective of the design is to bring such nonzero responses to zero. This
objective can be achieved if the system is designed to be stable; no other
condition such as G 0) —— 1 is needed. Thus, if a system is designed to track a
step reference input or any nonzero reference input, then the system can also
achieve regulation. In this sense, the regulating problem is a special case of the
tracking problem.
jg4 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

. -
3.
The conditions for the steady-state performance in the preceding section are stated
for overall closed-loop transfer functions. Therefore, they are applicable to any con-
trol configuration once its overall transfer function is computed. In this subsection,
we discuss a special case in which the conditions can be stated in terms of open-
loop transfer functions. Consider the unity-feedback configuration shown in Figure
6.4(a), where G(s) is the plant transfer function and C(s) is a compensator. We
define
G (s) — G(s)C(s)
and call it the loop transfer function. A transfer function is called a type i transfer
function if it has i poles at s = 0. Thus, if G (s) is of type i, then it can be expressed
as

s"D (s)
with N (0) Z 0 and Dt(0) 0. Now we claim that if Gt(s) is of type 1, and if the
unity-feedback system is stable, then the position error of the unity-feedback system
is 0. Indeed, if Gt(s) is of type 1, then the overall transfer function is
N (s)
sD¡(s) N¡(s)
+ N (s) sD;(s) + N;(s)
sD (s)
Therefore we have
Nt(0) N
G,(0) (0) = 1
0 x Dt(0) + Nt(0)
N
which implies that the position error is zero. Thus, the plant output will track
asymp- totically any step reference input. Furthermore, even if there are variations
of the parameters of N,(s) and D;(s), the plant output will still track any step
reference input so long as the overall system remains stable. Therefore, the tracking
property is said to be robust. Using the same argument, we can show that if the loop
transfer function is of type 2 and if the unity—feedback system is stable, then the
plant output will track asymptotically and robustly any ramp reference input
(Problem 6.7).

“ I
C(s)

(a) (b) (c)

6 . (a) Unity-feedback system. (b) Unity-feedback system with a forward gain.
(c) Nonunity-feedback system.
 6.3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA j
p5
If G;(s) is of type 0, that is, G (s) = N (s)/D (s) with N,(0) 0 and D,(0) 0,
then we have
N (s) Nt(0)
G (s) and G,(0) i
D¡(s) + N (s) D (0) + N,(0)
and the position error is different from zero. Thus, if the loop transfer function in
Figure 6.4(a) is of type 0, then the plant output will not track asymptotically any
step reference input. This problem can be resolved, however, by introducing the
forward gain
Dt(0) + N (0)
k ——
Nt(0)
as shown_in Figure 6.4(b). Then the transfer function G p(s) from °r to y has the
property G,(0) = 1, and the plant output will track asymptotically any step reference
input °r. In practice, there is no need to implement gain k. By a proper calibration or
setting of r, it is possible for the plant output to approach asymptotically any desired
value.
There is one problem with this design, however. If the parameters of G (s) -—
G(s)C(s) change, then we must recalibrate or reset the reference input r. Therefore,
this design is not robust. On the other hand, if G (s) is of type 1, then the tracking
property of Figure 6.4(a) is robust, and there is no need to reset the reference input.
Therefore, in the design, it is often desirable to have type 1 loop transfer functions.
We mention that the preceding discussion holds only for unity-feedback sys- tems.
If a configuration is not unity feedback, such as the one shown in Figure 6.4(c),
even if the plant is of type 1 and the feedback system is stable, the position error is
not necessarily zero. For example, the transfer function of Figu•e 6.4(c) is
1
s 1
G (s)
2' s+2
i+—

Its position error, using (6.3), is

2
ep —— — 0.5 = 50'7o
2
The position error is not zero even though the plant is of type 1. Therefore, system
types are useful in determining position or velocity errors in the unity-feedback
configuration, but not necessarily useful in other configurations.

6. of Response
3.3
Transient performance is concerned with the speed of response or the speed at
which the system reaches the steady state. Although the steady-state performance is
defined for step, ramp, or acceleration reference inputs, the transient performance is
defined
jg$ CHAPTER 6 DESIGN , 7 7, FEEDBACK

0 9 y,

0
(a) (b)
Figure 6.5 Transient performance.

only for step reference inputs. Consider the outputs due to a unit-step reference
input shown in Figure 6.5, in which yr denotes the steady state of the output. The
transient response is generally specified in terms of the rise time, settling time, and
overshoot. The rise time can be defined in many ways. We define it as the time
required for the response to rise from 0 to 90% of its steady-state value, as shown
in Figure 6.5. In other words, it is the smallest t such that

) —— 0.9y,
The time denoted by t in Figure 6.5 is called the settling time. It is the time for the
response to reach and remain inside + 2% of its steady-state value, or it is the
smallest t such that
y(t) — y 0.02 for all t t
Let yp, a be the maximum value of y(t)), for t 0, or

Qmax ' max y(t)

Then the overshoot is defined as

Overshoot : = " a
" X 1009c
‘ ys
For the response in Figure 6.5(a), if y„, ,a = 1.3y„ then the overshoot is 30%. For
the response in Figure 6.5(b), because yp, - the overshoot is zero or there is
a no overshoot.
Control systems are inherently time-domain systems, so the introduced speci-
fications are natural and have simple physical interpretations. For example, in point-
ing a telescope at a star, the steady-state performance (accuracy) is the main
concern; the specifications on the rise time, overshoot, and settling time are not
critical.
ever, in How—
aiming missiles at an aircraft, both accuracy and speed of response are
important. In the design of an aircraft, the specification is often given as shown in
Figure 6.6. It is required that the step response of the system be confined to the
region shown. This region is obtained by a compromise between the comfort or
 ó.4 NOISE AND DISTURBANCES 197

Figure ó.ó Allowable step response.

physical limitations of the pilot and the maneuverability of the aircraft. In the
design of an elevator, any appreciable overshoot is undesirable. Different
applications have different specifications.
A system is said to be slug gish if its rise time and settling time are large. If a
system is designed for a fast response, or to have a small rise time and a small
settling time, then the system may exhibit a large overshoot, as can be seen from
Figure 4.7. Thus, the requirements on the rise time and overshoot are often conflict-
ing and must be reached by compromise.
The steady-state response of G p(s) depends only on a number of coefficients
of G (s),- thus the steady—state performance can easily be incorporated into the
design. The transient response of G (s) depends on both its poles and zeros. Except
for some special cases, no simple relationship exists between the specifications and
pole-zero locations. Therefore, designing a control system to meet transient
specifications is not as simple as designing one to meet steady-state specifications.

6.4 NOISE AND DISTURBANCES

Noise and disturbances often arise in control systems. For example, if a potentiom-
eter is used as a transducer, noise will be generated (because of brush jumps, wire
irregularity, or variations of contact resistance). Motors and generators also generate
noise because of irregularity of contact between carbon brushes and commutators.
Shot noise and thermal noise are always present in electronic circuits. Therefore,
noise, usually high-frequency noise, exists everywhere in control systems.
Most control systems will also encounter external disturbances. A cruising air-
craft may encounter air turbulence or air pockets. A huge antenna may encounter
strong or gusting winds. Fluctuations in power supply, mechanical vibrations, and
hydraulic or pneumatic pressure will also disturb control systems.
Variation of load is also common in control systems. For example, consider a
motor driving an audio or video tape. At the beginning and end, the amounts of tape
on the reel are quite different; consequently, the moments of inertia of the load are
not the same. As a result, the transfer function of the plant, as can be seen from
(3.17), is not the same at all times. One way to deal with this problem is to choose
 y CHAPTER ó DESIGN CRITERIA, , FEEDBACK
gg

‘3 n2

r + e —(s +1) v ii s
s+2 + v+1 “

(a) (b)

Figure 6.7 Systems with noise or disturbance entering at every block.

the average moment of inertia or the largest moment of inertia (the worst case),
compute the transfer function, and use it in the design. This transfer function is
called the nominal transfer function. The actual transfer function may differ from
• the nominal one. This is called plant perturbation. Aging may also change plant
transfer functions. Plant perturbations are indeed inevitable in practice.
One way to deal with plant perturbation is to use the nominal transfer function
in the design. The difference between actual transfer function and nominal transfer
function is then considered as an external disturbance. Thus, disturbances may arise
from external sources or internal load variations. To simplify discussion, we assume
that noise and/or disturbance will enter at the input and output terminals of every
block, as shown in Figure 6.7. These inputs also generate some responses at the
plant output. These outputs are undesirable and should be suppressed or, if possible,
eliminated. Therefore, a good control system should be able to track reference
inputs and to reject the effects of noise and disturbances.

6.5 PROPER COMPENSATORS AND WELL-POSEDNESS

In this and the following sections we discuss some physical constraints in the design
of control systems. Without these constraints, design would become purely a math-
ematical exercise and would have no relation to reality. The first constraint is that
compensators used in the design must have proper transfer functions. As discussed
in the preceding chapter, every proper transfer function can be realized as a state-
variable equation and then built using operational amplifier circuits. If the transfer
function of a compensator is improper, then its construction requires the use of pure
differentiators. Pure differentiators built by using operational amplifiers may be un-
stable. See Reference [18]. Thus compensators with improper transfer functions
cannot easily be built in practice. For this reason, all compensators used in the
design will be required to have proper transfer functions.
In industry, proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers or compensators
are widely used. The transfer functions of proportional and integral controllers are
kp and k,/s; they are proper transfer functions. The transfer function of derivative
controllers is kd s, which is improper. However, in practice, derivative controllers
 6.5 PROPER COMPENSATORS AND WELL-POSEDNESS jgg

are realized as
kd
s
1+—s
N
for some constant N. This is a proper transfer function, and therefore does not
violate the requirement that all compensators have proper transfer functions. In the
remain- der of this chapter, we assume that every component of a control system
has a proper transfer function. If we encounter a tachometer with improper transfer
function ks, we shall remodel it as shown in Figure 3.10(c). Therefore, the
assumption remains valid.
Even though all components have proper transfer functions, a control system so
built may not have a proper transfer function. This is illustrated by an example.

Example
Consider the system shown in Figure 6.7(a). The transfer functions of the plant and
the compensator are all proper. Now we compute the transfer function Gp r(s)
from r to y. Because the system is linear, in computing Gpr(s), all other inputs
shown (n„ i = 1, 2, and 3) can be assumed zero or disregarded. Clearly we have
— (s + 1) s —s
s + 2 ‘ s+ I s+ 2
= — 0.5s
— (s + 1) s s s+2—s
1 + s + 2 s + 1 1 s+ 2
It is improper! Thus the properness of all component transfer functions does not
guarantee the properness of an overall transfer function.

Now we discuss the implication of improper overall transfer functions. As dis-

cussed in the preceding section, in addition to the reference input, noise and dis-
turbance may enter a control system as shown in Figure 6.7(a). Suppose r(t) —— sin
t and n (i) = 0.01 sin 10,000a where r(t) denotes a desired signal and n (t) denotes
a high-frequency noise. Because the transfer function G„(s) is — 0.5s, the plant
output is simply the derivative of r(t) and n,(i), scaled by — 0.5. Therefore, we have
d
y(t) ( — 0.5) (sin t + 0.01 sin 10,000a)
—— d
— — 0.5 cos i — 0.5(0.01) x 10,000 x cos 10,000a
= — 0.5 cos t — 50 cos 10,000a
Although the magnitude of the noise is one-hundredth of that of the desired signal
at the input, it is one hundred times larger at the plant output. Therefore, the plant
20 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS. AND FEEDBACK
0
output is completely dominated by the noise and the system cannot be used in
practice.
In conclusion, if a control system has an improper closed-loop transfer
function, then high-frequency noise will be greatly amplified and the system cannot
be used. Thus, a workable control system should not contain any improper closed—
loop trans- fer function. This motivates the following definition.

o Definition 6.1
A system is said to be well-posed or closed-loop proyer if the closed-loop
transfer function of every possible input/output pair of the system is proper. ■

We have assumed that noise and disturbance may enter a control system at the
input and output terminals of each block. Therefore, we shall consider not only the
transfer function from r to y, but also transfer functions from those inputs to all
variables. Let Gp denote the transfer function from input q to output p. Then the
system in Figure 6.7(a) or (b) is well posed if the transfer functions Gen G r G
G„ G„ , G , „G , G„ „G„ G„ , G , are all proper. These transfer
functions G„
are clearly aall closed-loop transfer functions and, strictly speaking, the
adjective closed-loop is redundant. lt is kept in Definition 6.1 to stress their
difference from open-loop transfer functions.
The number of possible input/output pairs is quite large even for the simple
systems in Figure 6.7. Therefore, it appears to be difficult to check the well-posed-
ness of systems. Fortunately, this is not the case. In fact, the condition for a
feedback system to be well posed is very simple. A system that is built with blocks
with proper transfer functions is well posed if and only if
(6.8)

where A is the characteristic function defined in (3.37). For the feedback systems
in
Figure 6.7, the condition becomes
A(m) = 1 + C(m)G(m) Z 0 (6.9)

For the system in Figure 6.7(a), we have C(s) = — (s + 1)/(s + 2) and G(s) —
s/(s + 1) which imply C( ) = — 1, G( ) = 1 and 1 + C(m)G(m) —— 0. Thus the
system is not well posed. For the system in Figure 6.7(b), we have
— (s + 1) 2s
1+ + — 1 + ( — 1)(2) = — 1 0
s+2 s+1

Thus the system is well posed. As a check we compute the closed-loop transfer
functions from n to u, y, e, and u in Figure 6.7(b). In this computation, all other
inputs are assumed
z zero. The application of Mason’s formula yields
1 1 1 s+2
2s — (s + l) 2s s + 2 — 2s —s+2
1+
s+1 (s + 2) s+2 s+2
 6.5 PROPEP COMPENSATORS AND WELL- 201
POSEDNESS

2s
(s + 1) 2s(s + 2)
+ 2s — (s + 1) (s + 1)( — s + 2)
s + 1 s+ 2
— 2s(s + 2)
(s + 1)( — s + 2)
and
2s — (s + 1) 2s
s + 1 s + 2 s+ 2 2s $
+ 2s — (s + 1) s + 2 — 2s —s+2 '’'
s+1 s+2 s+ 2

. They are indeed all proper. Because the condition is (6.8) can easily be met, a
control system can easily be designed to be well posed. We remark that if a plant
transfer function G(s) is strictly proper and if C(s) is proper, then the condition in
(6.9) is automatically satisfied. Note that the conditions in (6.8) and (6.9) hold only
if the transfer function of every block is proper. If any one of them is improper, then
the conditions cannot be used.
To conclude this section, we discuss the relationship between well-posedness
and properness of compensators. Properness of compensators is concerned with
open-loop properness, whereas well-posedness is concerned with closed-loop prop-
erness. Open-loop properness does not imply closed-loop properness, as is demon-
strated in the system in Figure 6.7(a). It can be verified, by computing all possible
closed-loop transfer functions, that the system in Figure 6.8 is well posed. However,
the system contains one improper compensator. Thus, well-posedness does not
imply properness of compensators. In conclusion, open-loop properness and closed-
loop properness are two independent concepts. They are also introduced for
different reasons. The former is needed to avoid the use of differentiators in
realizing com- pensators; the latter is needed to avoid amplification of high-
frequency noise in overall systems.

‘2

r+ .i + 2

4s +
?

Figure 6.8 Well-posed system with an improper compensator.

202 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

6.6 TOTAL STABILITY

In the design of control systems, the first requirement is always the stability of
transfer functions, G,(s), from the reference input r to the plant output y. However,
this may not guarantee that systems will work properly. This is illustrated by an
example.

Example 6.6. 7
Consider the system shown in Figure 6.9. The transfer function from r to y is
s — 1 1 1
s + 1 s— 1 s + 1 2
G() 2 - 2 (6.1
1)
s — 1 1 1 s+2
1 + 1 + s+1
It is stable. Because G,(0) — 1, the position error is zero. The time constant of the
system is 1/2 = 0.5. Therefore, the plant output will track any step reference input
in about 5 X 0.5 = 2.5 seconds. Thus the system appears to be a good control
system.
A close examination of the system in Figure 6.9 reveals that there is a pole-
zero cancellation between C(s) and G(s). Will this cause any problem? As was
discussed earlier, noise or disturbance may enter a control system. We compute the
transfer function from n to y in Figure 6.9:
1 1
G yn ’)
s — 1 s — 1 s + 1 (6.1
2)
s — 1 1 1 (s — 1)(s + 2)

i + - 1 +
s + 1 s — 1 s + 1

+ e ,*
2
i+1 s—1

C(s) G(s)

Figure 6.9 Feedback system with pole-zero cancellation.

It is unstable! Thus any nonzero noise, no matter how small, will excite an un-
bounded plant output and the system will bum out. Therefore the system cannot be
used in practice, even though its transfer function from r to y is stable. This
o Definition 6.2
A system is said to be totally stable if the closed-loop transfer function of every
possible input-output pair of the system is stable. ■

/ / , ro
be totally stable. Otherwise, noise will drive some variable of the system to infinity
and the system will disintegrate or bum out. From Example 6.6.1, we see that if a
plant has an unstable pole, it is useless to eliminate it by direct cancellation.
Although the canceled pole does not appear in the transfer function G (s) from r to
y, it appears in the transfer function from n to y. We call the pole a missing pole or a
hidden pole from G (s). Any unstable pole-zero cancellation will not actually
eliminate the un- stable pole, only make it hidden from some closed-loop transfer
functions.
We now discuss the condition for a system to be totally stable. Consider a
system that consists of a number of subsystems. Every subsystem is assumed to be
com- pletely characterized by its proper transfer function. See Section 2.5. Let G (s)
be the overall transfer function. If the number of poles of G (s) equals the total
number of poles of all subsystems, then the system is completely characterized by
G p(s). If not, the system is not completely characterized by G„(s) and G (s) is said
to have missing poles. Missing poles arise from pole-zero cancellation' and their
number equals
Number of poles of G p(s) — [Total number of poles of all subsystems]
With this preliminary, we are ready to state the condition for a system to be
totally stable. The condition can be stated for any closed-loop transfer function and
its missing poles. A system is totally stable if and only if the poles of any overall
transfer function and its missing poles are all stable poles. For example, consider
the system shown in Figure 6.9. Its overall transfer function G,(s) from r to y is
computed in (6.11). It has 1 pole, which is less than the total number of poles of
G(s) and C(s). Therefore, there is one missing pole. The pole of G,(s) is stable, but
the missing pole s — 1 is unstable. Therefore, the system is not totally stable. The
same conclusion can also be reached by using the transfer function G„, from n to y
computed in (6.12). The number of poles of Gas equals the total number of poles of
G(s) and C(s). Therefore, G„ has no missing pole. The system in Figure 6.9 is
totally
stable if and only if all poles of G yn are stable poles. This is not the case.
6 .6 .1
As discussed in the preceding section, a system cannot be totally stable if there is
any unstable pole-zero cancellation. In fact, it is impossible to achieve exact pole-

f lu addition to pole-zero cancellations, missing poles may also arise from parallel connection and
other situations. See Reference (15, pp. 436—437]. In this text, it suffices to consider only pole-
zero cancellations.
 2W CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

zero cancellation in practice. For example, suppose we need a 10-kIl resistor to

realize C(s) —— (s — 1)/(s + 1) in Figure 6.9. However, the resistor we use may
not have a resistance exactly equal to 10 kIl. Furthermore, because of change in
temperature or aging, the resistance may also change. Thus, the compensator we
realize may become C’(s) = (s — 0.9)/(s + 1.1), rather than the intended
(s — 1)/(s + 1), as shown in Figure 6.10, and the unstable pole (s — 1) will not
be canceled. Even if we can realize C(s) —— (s — 1)/(s + 1) exactly, the plant
transfer function 1/(s — 1) may change due to load variations or aging. Again, exact
pole-zero cancellation cannot be achieved. In conclusion, because of inexact imple-
mentation of compensators and plant perturbations due to load variations and aging,
all we can achieve is imperfect pole-zero cancellation. In this section, we study the
effect of imperfect cancellations. The transfer function from r to y in Figure 6.10 is

s — 0.9 1
+ 1.1 s — 1 _ 2(s — 0.9)
‘ G (s) — 2 x
s — 0.9 1 s' + 0.1s — 1.1 + s — 0.9
1+
s + 1.1 s — 1 (ó. J
2(s — 0.9) 2(s — 0.9) 3)
s2 + 1.1s — 2 (s + 2.0674)(s — 0.9674)

It is unstable! Thus, its step response y(i) will approach infinity and is entirely
different from the one in Figure 6.9. In conclusion, unstable pole-zero cancellations
are permitted neither in theory nor in practice.
Stable pole-zero cancellations, however, are an entirely different matter. Con-
sider the system shown in Figure 6.11(a). The plant transfer function is G(s)
3/( + 0.1s + 100), and the compensator transfer function is C(s)
s 2 + 0.1i + 100)/i(i + 2). Note that C(s) is of type 1, therefore the position error
(i'
of the unity feedback system is zero. The overall transfer function from r to y is
s2 + 0.1s + 100 3
s(s + 2) s + 0.1s + 100
s' + 0.1s + 100 i 3
i +
+ 2) + 0.1 + 100 (5.14
3 )

_ s(s + 2) 3
s' + 2s + 3
1 +
2)

The number of the poles of G (s) is 2, which is 2 less than the total number of poles
of G(s) and C(s). Thus, G,(s) has two missing poles; they are the roots of s' + 0.1s
+ 100. Because the poles of G (s) and the two missing poles are stable, the system
is totally stable. The unit-step response of G (s) is computed, using MATLAB, and
plotted in Figure 6.11(b) with the solid line.
Now we study the effect of imperfect pole-zero cancellations. Suppose the
com-becomes
pensator ‘
 a.a iorAL sTaeiun' 205

Figure 6 .10Feedback system with an imperfect

cancellation.

s2 + 0.09s + 99
s(s + 2)
due to aging or inexact realization. With this C’(s), the transfer function of Figure
• 6.11(a) becomes
s' + 0.09s + 99 3
+ 2) ' + 0. l + 100
G (s) =
s' + 0.09s + 99 3
1
+ s(s + 2) s 2 + 0.1s + 100

3(s' + 0.09s + 99) $

s(s + 2)(st + 0.1s + 100) + 3(s' + 0.09s + 99) '
3s2 + 0.27s + 297
s + 2.1s' + 103.2s2 + 200.27s + 297
"

r+ s’ + 0.15 + 100
s(s + 2) “ s’ + 0.15 + 100

(b)
Figure 6.1 I (a) Feedback system. (b) Its step response.
20 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND
6
Its unit-step response is plotted in Figure 6.11(b) with the dotted line. We see that
the two responses in Figure 6.11(b) are hardly distinguishable. Therefore, unlike
unstable pole-zero cancellation, imperfect stable pole-zero cancellations may not
cause any serious problem in control systems.

6.6.2 Design Involving Pole-Zero Concellotions

Unstable pole-zero cancellations are not permitted in the design of control systems.
How about stable pole-zero cancellations? As was discussed earlier, pole-zero can-
cellations do not really cancel the poles. The poles become hidden in some closed-
loop transfer functions, but may appear in other closed-loop transfer functions. For
example, the transfer function from disturbance p to the plant output y in Figure
6.11(a) is given by
3
s' + 0.1s + 100
’" s t + 0.1s + 100 3
'+ ( + 2) s + 0.1s + 100
3 ’
_ s' + 0.1s + 100 _ 3s(s + 2)
3 ‹s’ + 2 + 3)( ' + 0.1 + 100)
' + s(s + 2)
We see that the complex—conjugate poles st + 0. 1s + 100 = (i + 0.05 + y9.999)
(s + 0.05 — j9.999), which do not appear in G p(s), do appear in G,p. Because the
poles have a very small real part and large imaginary parts, they will introduce high-
frequency oscillation and slow decay. Indeed, if the disturbance is modeled as a
unit- step function, then the excited output is as shown in Figure 6.12. Even though
the response eventually approaches zero, it introduces too much oscillation and
takes too long to decay to zero. Therefore, the system is not good, and the stable
pole— zero cancellation should be avoided.
Can pole-zero cancellations be used in the design? Unstable pole-zero cancer
Nations are not permitted, because the resulting system can never be totally stable.

Figure 6 .12 Effect of step

disturbance.
 ó.7 SATURATION—CONSTRAINT ON SIGNALS 20
7

Figure ó. l3 Permissible pole cancellation region.

A system can be totally stable with stable pole-zero cancellations. However, if can-
, celed stable poles are close to the imaginary axis or have large imaginary parts, then
disturbance or noise may excite a plant output that is oscillatory and slow decaying.
If poles lie inside the region C shown in Figure 6.13, then their cancellations will
not cause any problems. Therefore, perfect or imperfect cancellation of poles lying
inside the region C is permitted in theory and in practice. The exact boundaiy of the
region C depends on each control system and performance specifications, and will
be discussed in the next chapter.
There are two reasons for using pole-zero cancellation in design. One is to
simplify design, as will be seen in the next chapter. The other reason is due to
necessity. In model matching, we may have to introduce pole-zero cancellations to
insure that the required compensators are proper. This is discussed in Chapter 10.

6.7 SATURATION- - -CONSTRAINT ON ACTUATING SIGNALS

In the preceding sections, we introduced the requirements of well-posedness and

total stability in the design of control systems. In this section, we introduce one
more constraint. This constraint arises from modeling and from devices used, and is
prob- ably the most difficult to meet in design.
Strictly speaking, most physical systems are nonlinear. However, they can often
be modeled as linear systems within some limited operational ranges. If signals
remain inside the ranges, the linear models can be used. If not, the linear models do
not hold, and the results of linear analyses may not be applicable. This is demon-
strated by an example.

Exemple 6.7.1
Consider the system shown in Figure 6.14. The element A is an amplifier with gain
2. The overall transfer function is
20 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK
8

(ay (bJ
6 .14 Amplifier with
saturation.

s+2
s(s — 1) 2(s + 2) 2(s + 2)
G p(s)
—— s+2' s' — s + 2s + 4 ' s' + s + 4 "’' "
1+2
s(s — 1)
Because G,(0) — 4/4 — 1, the system has zero position error and the plant output
will track any step reference input without an error. The plant outputs excited by
r —— 0.3, 1.1, and 1.15 are shown in Figure 6.15 with the solid lines.
In reality, the amplifier may have the characteristic shown in Figure 6.14(b).
For ease of simulation, the saturation is approximated by the dashed lines shown.
The responses of the system due to r —— 0.3, 1.1, and 1.15 are shown in Figure 6.15
with the dashed lines. These responses are obtained by computer simulations. If
r — 0.3, the amplifier will not saturate and the response is identical to the one
obtained by using the linear model. If r —— 1.1, the amplifier saturates and the re-
sponse differs from the one obtained by using the linear model. If r — 1.15, the

Fie ure 6 .15 Effect of

saturation.
 6.8 OPEN-LOOP AND CLOSED-LOOP CONFIGURATIONS 209

response approaches infinity oscillatorily and the system is not stable, although the
linear model is always stable for any r. This example shows that linear analysis
cannot be used if signals run outside the linear range.

This example is intentionally chosen to dramatize the effect of saturation. In

most cases, saturation will make systems only more sluggish, rather than unstable.
In any case, if a control system saturates, then the system will not function as de-
signed. Therefore, in design, we often require
u(t) M (6.18)

for all t 0, where u(t) is the actuating signal and M is a constant. This constraint
arises naturally if valves are used to generate actuating signals. The actuating
signals reach their maximum values when the valves are fully open. In a ship
steering the constraint exists because the rudder can turn only a finite number of
system,
” degrees. In electric motors, because of saturation of the magnetic field, the
constraint also exists. In hydraulic motors, the movement of pistons in the pilot
cylinder is limited. Thus, the constraint in (6.18) exists in most plants. Strictly
speaking, similar constraints should also be imposed upon compensators. If we were
to include all these constraints, the design would become very complicated. Besides,
compared with plants, compensators are rather inexpensive, and hence, iL saturated,
can be replaced by ones with larger linear ranges. Therefore, the saturation
constraint is generally imposed only on the plant.
Actuating signals depend on reference input signals. If the amplitude of a ref-
erence signal is doubled, so is that of the actuating signal. Therefore, in checking
whether or not the constraint in (6.18) is met, we shall use the largest reference
input signal. However, for convenience, the constraint M in (6.18) will be
normalized to correspond to unit-step reference inputs. Therefore, in design, we
often require the actuating signal due to a unit—step reference input to have a
magnitude less than a certain value.
To keep a plant from saturating is not a simple problem, because in the process
of design, we don’t know what the exact response of the resulting system will be.
Hence, the saturation problem can be checked only after the completion of the de-
sign. If saturation does occur, the system may have to be redesigned to improve its
performance.

6.8 OPEN-LOOP AND CLOSED-EOOP CONFIGURATIONS

In this section we discuss the configuration of control systems. Given a control

problem, it is generally possible to use many different configurations to achieve the
design. It is therefore natural to compare the relative merits of various
configurations. To simplify the discussion, we compare only the two configurations
shown in Figure
6.16. Figure 6.16(a) is an open-loop configuration, Figure 6.16(b) a closed-loop or
feedback configuration.
 210 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

(a) (b)
Figure 6.16 Open- and closed-loop systems.

In order to compare the two configurations, we must consider noise and

dis- turbances as discussed in Section 6.4. If there were no noise and
disturbances in control systems, then there would be no difference between
‘ open-loop and closed- loop configurations. In fact, the open—loop configuration
may sometimes be prefer- able because it is simpler and less expensive.
Unfortunately, noise and disturbances are unavoidable in control systems.
The major difference between the open-loop and feedback configurations is that
the actuating signal of the former does not depend on the plant output. It is
pre- determined, and will not change even if the actual plant output is quite
different from the desired value. The actuating signal of a feedback system
depends on the reference signal and the plant output. Therefore, if the plant
output deviates from the desired value due to noise, external disturbance, or
plant perturbations, the de- viation will reflect on the actuating signal. Thus, a
properly designed feedback sys- tem should perform better than an open—loop
system. This will be substantiated by examples.

Exemple 6.8.1
Consider the two amplifiers shown in Figure 6.17. Figure 6.17(a) is an open-loop
amplifier. The amplifier in Figure 6.17(b) is built by connecting three identical
open- loop amplifiers and then introducing a feedback from the output to the input
as shown, and is called a feedback amplifier. Their block diagrams are also shown
in Figure 6.17. The gain of the open—loop amplifier is A —— — 10a/fi = — 10. From
Figure 6.17(b), we have

e= — 10

Thus the constant Q in the feedback loop equals Note that the feedback is
positive feedback. The transfer function or the gain of the feedback amplifier
is
A
(ó.19)
1 — pA'
 6.8 OPEN-LOOP AND CLOSED-LOOP CONFIGURATIONS 21
I
f 10.101 R

10 10 10 fi 10
R fi A

(a) (b)
” Figure 6.17 Open- and closed-loop amplifiers.

In order to make a fair comparison, we shall require both amplifiers to have the
same gain—that is, A — A —— — 10. To achieve this, Q can readily be computed as Q
= 0.099, which implies fiy = 10.101a.
The feedback amplifier needs three times more hardware and still has the same
gain as the open—loop amplifier. Therefore, there seems no reason to use the
former. Indeed, this is the case if there is no perturbation in gain A.
Now suppose gain A decreases by 10% each year due to aging. In other words,
the gain becomes — 9 in the second year, — 8.1 in the third year, and so forth. We
compute
(— 9)'
A —— = — 9.96
1 — 0.099(— 9)3

( — 8.
1) 3
A — = —
, — 1 — 0.099( — 8.1)3 9.91
and so forth. The results are listed in the following:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

— 10 9.0 8.1 7.29 6.56 5.9 5.3 4.78 4.3 3.87

A
— 10 9.96 9.92 9.84 9.75 9.63 9.46 9.25 8.96 8.6
A

We see that although the open—loop gain A decreases by 10% each year, the
closed- loop gain decreases by from 0.4'7o in the first year to 4.1% in the tenth year.
Thus the feedback system is much less sensitive to plant perturbation.
 212 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

If an amplifier is to be taken out of service when its gain falls below 9, then the
open—loop amplifier can serve only one year, whereas the closed-loop amplifier
can last almost nine years. Therefore, even though the feedback amplifier uses three
times more hardware, it is actually three times more economical than the open—
loop amplifier. Furthermore, the labor cost of yearly replacement of open—loop
amplifiers can be saved.

Example 6.8.2
Consider a speed control problem in an aluminum factory. Heated aluminum ingots
are pressed into sheets through rollers as shown in Figure 6.18(a). The rollers are
« driven by armature-controlled dc motors; their speeds are to be kept constant in
order to maintain uniform thickness of aluminum sheets. Let the transfer function of
the motor and rollers be
10
(6.20)
+i
Its time constant is 5; therefore it will take 25 seconds (5 X time constant) for the
rollers to reach the final speed. This is very slow, and we decide to design an
overall system with transfer function
2
Gp(s) (6.21)
s+2
Its time constant is 1/2 = 0.5; therefore the speed of response of this system is
much faster. Because G,(0) = 2/2 = 1, the plant output of G (s) will track any
step reference input without an error.
Now we shall implement G p(s) in the open-loop and closed-loop
configurations shown in Figure 6.18(b) and (c). For the open-loop configuration, we
require

10
5s + 1

(b)

(a)

Figure 6.18 Speed control of rollers.

 6.8 OPEN-LOOP AND CLOSED-LOOP CONFIGURATIONS 213

G (s) = G(s)C (s). Thus the open-loop compensator C,(s) is given by

G (s) 2 5s + 1 5s + 1
(ó.22)
G(s) s + 2‘ 10 5(s + 2)
For the closed-loop configuration, we require
C (s)G(s)
(ó.23)
1 + C (s)G(s)
or

Thus the closed—loop compensator is given

by
G (s) 2/(s + 2) _ 2/(s + 2)
G(s)(1 — G p(S)) io 2 io *
1 5À + À
5s + 1 s+2 ' i6.24)
5s + 1 1 +

It consists of a proportional compensator with gain 1 and an integral compensator

with transfer function 1/5s; therefore it is called a PI compensator or controller. We
see that it is a type 1 transfer function.
If there are no disturbances and plant perturbation, the open-loop and closed-
loop systems should behave identically, because they have the same overall transfer
function. Because G,(0) = 1, they both track asymptotically any step reference input
without an error. In practice, the load of the rollers is not constant. From Figure
6.18(a), we see that before and after the engagement of an ingot with the rollers,
the load is quite different. Even after the engagement, the load varies because of
nonuniform thickness of ingots. We study the effect of this load variation in the
following.

Plant Perturbation
The transfer function of the motor and rollers is assumed as G(s) —— 10/(5s + 1)
in (6.20). Because the transfer function depends on the load, if the load changes, so
does the transfer function. Now we assume that, after the design, the transfer
function changes to
9
G(s) — (6 .
(4.5s + 1) 25)
This is called plant perturbation. We now study its effect on the open-loop and
closed-loop systems.
After plant perturbation, the open-loop overall transfer function becomes
5s + 1 9
G„(s) = Ci (s)G(s) —— (6.2ó)
5(s + 2) ‘ (4.5s + 1)
214 CHAPTER é DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

Because G„(0) = 9/10 1, this perturbed system will not track asymptotically
any step reference input. Thus the tracking property of the open—loop system is
lost after plant perturbation.
Now we compute the overall transfer function of the closed-loop system with
perturbed G(s) in (6.25). Clearly, we have

5s + 1 9
C2(s)G(x) _ 5s 4.5s + 1
G„(s)
1 + C (s)G(s) + 5s + 1 9
—— 1
5s 4.5s + 1 (d.27)
9(5s + 1) 45s + 9
5s(4.5s + 1) + 9(5s + 1) 22.5s2 + 50s + 9
Because G„.(0) = 1, this perturbed overall closed-loop system still track any step
reference input without an error. In fact, because the compensator is of type I, no
matter how large the plant perturbation is, the system will always track asymptoti-
cally any step reference input, so long as the overall system remains stable. This is
called robust tracking. In conclusion, the tracking property is destroyed by plant
perturbation in the open—loop system but is preserved in the closed-loop system.

Disturbance Rejection
One way to study the effect of load variations is to introduce plant perturbations as
in the preceding paragraphs. Another way is to introduce a disturbance p(t) into the
plant input as shown in Figure 6.18(b) and (c). Now we study the effect of this
disturbance in the open-loop and closed-loop systems. From Figure 6.18(b), we see
that the transfer function from p to y is not affected by the open-loop compensator
C (s). If the disturbance is modeled as a step function of magnitude a, then it will
excite the following plant output

(6.28)

Its steady-state output, using the final-value theorem, is

10 a
lim = lim -s = 10a
5s + 1 s
sYp(s)
In other words, in the open-loop configuration, the step disturbance will excite a
nonzero plant output; therefore, the speed of the rollers will differ from the desired
speed. For example, if the disturbance is as shown in Figure 6.19(a), then the speed
will be as shown in Figure 6.19(b). This differs from the desired speed and will
cause unevenness in thickness of aluminum sheets. Thus, the open-loop system is
not satisfactory.
 6. - - 215
8

75 100
0 25 50 25 50 75 100 25 50 75 100

(a) (c)
6 .19 Effects of
disturbance.

Now we study the closed-loop system. The transfer function from p to y is,
using Mason’s formula,
G(s) _ 10/(5s + 1) 10s
(6.29)
1 + G(s)Cz(*)
i 10 5s + 1 (5s + 1)(s + 2)

Now if the disturbance is P(s) —— a/s, the steady-state output yp due to the
disturbance
is
a

--+ + 1)(s + 2)
This means that the effect of the disturbance on the plant output eventually
vanishes. Thus, the speed of the rollers is completely controlled by the reference
input, and thus, in the feedback configuration, even if there are disturbances, the
speed will return, after the transient dies out, to the desired speed, as shown in
Figure 6.19(c). Consequently, evenness in the thickness of aluminum sheets can be
better maintained.
We remark that in the closed—loop system in Figure 6.18(c), there is a pole-
zero
cancellation. The canceled pole is 1/5, which is stable but quite close to the
jm—axis. Although this pole does not appear in G,(s) in (6.21), it appears in G,q(s)
in (6.29). Because of this pole (its time constant is 5 seconds), it will take roughly
25 seconds (5 X time constant) for the effect of disturbances to vanish, as is shown
in Figure 6.19(c). It is possible to use different feedback configurations to avoid this
pole—zero cancellation. This is discussed in Chapter 10. See also Problem 6.14.

From the preceding two examples, we conclude that the closed-loop or feedback
configuration is less sensitive to plant perturbation and disturbances than the
open- loop configuration. Therefore, in the remainder of this text, we use only
closed-loop configurations in design.
 216 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

6.9 TWO BASIC APPROACHES IN

DESIGN
With the preceding discussion, the design of control systems can now be stated as
follows: Given a plant, design an overall system to meet a given set of
specifications. We use only feedback configurations because they are less sensitive
to disturbances and plant perturbation than open-loop configurations are. Because
improper com- pensators cannot easily be built in practice, we use only
compensators with proper transfer functions. The resulting system is required to be
well posed so that high- frequency noise will not be unduly amplified. The design
cannot have unstable pole- zero cancellation, otherwise the resulting system cannot
be totally stable. Because of the limitation of linear models and devices used, a
constraint must generally be imposed on the magnitude of actuating signals. The
following two approaches are available to carry out this design:
1. We first choose a feedback configuration and a compensator with open param-
, eters. We then adjust the parameters so that the resulting feedback system will
hopefully meet the specifications.
2. We first search for an overall transfer function G (s) to meet the specifications.
We then choose a feedback configuration and compute the required
compensator.
These two approaches are quite different in philosophy. The first approach
fromstarts
internal compensators and works toward external overall transfer functions.
Thus, it is called the outward approach. This approach is basically a trial—and-
error method. The root—locus and frequency—domain methods discussed in
Chapters 7 and 8 take this approach. The second approach starts from external
overall transfer func- tions and then computes internal compensators, and is called
the inward approach. This approach is studied in Chapters 9 and 10. These two
approaches are independent and can be studied in either order. In other words, we
may study Chapters 7 and 8, and then 9 and 10, or study first Chapters 9 and 10,
and then Chapters 7 and 8.
To conclude this chapter, we mention a very important fact of feedback. Con-
sider a plant with transfer function G(s) —— N(s)]D(s) and consider the feedback
configuration shown in Figure 6.20. Suppose the transfer function of the
compensator is C(s) —— B(s)/A(s). Then the overall transfer function is given by

C(s)G(s) B(s) N(s)

A(s) D s) B(s)N(s)
1 + C(s)G(s) B(s) N(s) A(s)D(s) + B(s)N(s)
+ A(s) D(s)

Figure 6 .20Feedback
system.
 PROBLEMS 217

The zeros of G(s) and C(s) are the roots of N(s) and B(s)-, they remain to be the
zeros of G (s). In other words, feedback does not affect the zeros of G(s) and C(s).
The poles of G(s) and C(s) are the roots of D(s) and A(s); after feedback, the poles
of G (s) become the roots of A(s)D(s) + B(s)N(s). The total numbers of poles before
feedback and after are the same, but their positions have now been shifted from
D(s) and A(s) to A(s)D(s) + B s)N s). Therefore, feedback affects the poles but not
the zeros of the plant transfer function. The given plant can be stable or unstable,
but we can always introduce feedback and compensators to shift the poles of G(s) to
desired position. Therefore feedback can make a good overall system out of a bad
plant. In the outward approach, we choose a C(s) and hope that G (s) will be a good
overall transfer function. In the inward approach, we choose a good G (s) and then
compute C(s).

PROBLEMS
Find the ranges of Q, so that the following transfer functions have position
errors smaller than 10%.

a. i 0
s' + 2s + 2

s3 + 3s' + 2s +3

C
’ s’ + 2s 2 9s + 68
+
6.2. Find the ranges of Q; so that the transfer functions in Problem 5.1 have
velocity errors smaller than 10%.
6.3. Consider the three systems shown in Figure P6.3. Find the ranges of k so that
the systems are stable and have position errors smaller than 10%.
6.4. Repeat Problem 6.3 so that the systems have velocity errors smaller than 109a.
6.5. n. Find the range of ko such that the system in Figure P6.5 is stable. Find the
value of kg such that the system has a zero position error or, equivalently,
such that y will track asymptotically a step reference input.
b. If the plant transfer function in Figure P6.5 becomes 5. I /(s — 0.9) due to
aging, will the output still track asymptotically any step reference input? If
not, such a tracking is said to be not robust.
6.6. Consider the unity feedback system shown in Figure 6.4(a). We showed there
that if the loop transfer function Gt(s) = C(s)G(s) is of type 1 or, equivalently,
can be expressed as

where 0 and D (0) 0, and if the feedback system is stable, then the
Nt(0)
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CPITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

r +
k

r + 2
k

(b)

r+ s+1
k
, s(s + 2)

kg
s

(c) 6.
3

6.
5

plant output will track asymptotically any step reference input. Now show that
the tracking is robust in the sense that, even if there are perturbations in N(s)
and D(s), the position error is still zero as long as the system remains stable.
6.7. o. Consider the unity feedback system shown in Figure 6.4(a). Show that if
G (s) is of type 2 or, equivalently, can be expressed as
N,(s)
s2D (s)
with Nt(0) 0 and Dt(0) 0, and if the unity feedback system is stable,
then its velocity error is zero. In other words, the plant output will track
asymptotically any ramp reference input.
b. Show that the tracking of a ramp reference input is robust even if there
are perturbations in N (s) and D (s) as long as the system remains
stable. Note that Gt(s) contains 1/s', which is the Laplace transform of
the ramp refer- ence input. This is a special case of the internal model
principle, which states that if Gt(s) contains R(s), then y(t) will track
r(t) asymptotically and the tracking is robust. See Reference [15].
 PROBLEMS 219

6.8. Consider the system shown in Figure P6.8. Show that the system is stable.
The plant transfer function G(s) is of type 1, is the position error of the
feedback system zero? In the unity feedback system, the position and velocity
error can be determined by system type. Is this true in nonunity feedback or
other con- figurations?

G(s
)

+2
Figure P6.8

” 6.9. Show that if a system is designed to track th , then the system will track any
reference input of the form rd + r e +
f
6.10. The movement of a recorder’s pen can be controlled as shown in Figure
P6.10(a). Its block diagram is shown in Figure P6.10(b). Find the range of
such that the position error is smaller than 1%.

(b)

6.
10
220 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS, AND FEEDBACK

Consider the systems shown in Figure P6.11. Which of the systems are not
well posed? If not, find the input-output pair that has an improper closed-loop
transfer function.

r + r+ s—
1

(a) (b)

(d)

Figure

.12. Discuss the total stability of the systems shown in Figure P6.11.
Consider the speed control of rollers discussed in Figure 6.18. We now model
the plant transfer function as 10/( + 1), with z ranging between 4 and 6.
Use the compensators computed in Figure 6.18 to compute the steady-state
outputs of the open-loop and feedback systems due to a unit-step reference
input for the following three cases: (a) z equals the nominal value 5, (b) z —
4, and (c) z = 6. Which system, open-loop or feedback system, is less
sensitive to parameter variations?
o. Consider the plant transfer function shown in Figure 6.18. Find a k in
Figure P6.14, if it exists, such that the overall transfer function in Figure
P6.14 equals 2/(s + 2).
b. If the plant has a disturbance as shown in Figure 6.18, find the steady-state
output of the overall system in (a) due to a unit-step disturbance input.
c. Which feedback system, Figure 6.18(c) or Figure P6.14, is less sensitive to
plant perturbations? The loop transfer function in Figure 6.18(c) is of type
1. Is the loop transfer function in Figure P6.14 of type 1?

“ + 10

Figure 6 .14
 PROBLEMS 221

6 .15. Consider the system shown in Figure P6.15. The noise generated by the
am- plifier is represented by n. If r —— sin t and n = 0.1 sin 10a, what are the
steady- state outputs due to r and n? What is the ratio of the amplitudes of the
outputs excited by r and n?

Amplifier
r+
2

6.
15
6.16. Consider the systems shown in Figure P6.16. (a) If the plant, denoted by P,
, has the following nominal transfer function
i
s(s’ + 2s + 3)
show that the two systems have the same steady-state output due to r(t) —— sin
0.1i. (b) If, due to aging, the plant transfer function becomes
1
s(s’ + 2.1s + 3.06)
what are the steady-state outputs of the two systems due to the same r?
(c) Which system has a steady-state output closer to the one in (a)?

3.i (s2 + 2s + 3) o r+ 3(s' + 2s + 3)

s3 + 3.5s' + 5s + 3 s' + 3.5s + 5

(a) (b)

Figure P6.16

6 .17 . The comparison in Problem 6.16 between the open-loop and closed-loop sys-
tems does not consider the noise due to the transducer (which is used to intro-
duce feedback). Now the noise is modeled as shown in Figure P6.17.
o. Compute the steady-state y, due to u(i) — 0.1 sin 10a.
b. What is the steady-state y due to r(t) —— sin 0.1i and n(t) —— 0.1 sin 10a?
c. Compare the steady-state error in the open-loop system in Figure P6.16(a)
with the one in the closed-loop system in Figure P6.17. Is the reduction in
the steady-state error due to the feedback large enough to offset the
increase of the steady-state error due to the noise of the transducer?
222 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CRITERIA, CONSTRAINTS. AND FEEDBACK

r+ 3(s’ + 2s + 3)

6.
17

6 .18. n. Consider the feedback system shown in Figure P6.18. The nominal values
of all k, are assumed to be 1. What is its position error?
b. Compute the position error if = 2 and k —— k3 = 1. Compute the position
k 1. Compute the position error if k —— 2 and
error
k — ifk k————1. 2 and k — k, =

r+
‘I
50

Figure P6.18