EEE325 - Control Systems

Lab # 8 Effect of Zeros on 2nd Order Systems Response, Pole

Zero Cancellation and Stability Analysis via Routh Hurwitz
Criterion.

Name

Registration Number

Class

Instructor’s Name Mr. Muhammad Rizwan Azam

Lab Assessment
Post Lab Total
Pre- In-
Data Data Writing
Lab Lab
Presentation Analysis Style
Introduction :-

The Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion 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").
The Routh-Hurwitz 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.

Pre- Lab Task :-

For the following systems, find the range of K for stability using Routh Hurwitz criterion.
i.
K (s+0.01)(s+6) 10
K ( s )= G ( s )= 2
s ( s+20 ) (s +100) s +10 s +29

From Routh table we find that this system is stable for 50.5<K<163.89 so we choose K=110
Code:
z=[-0.01 -6]; %Zeros
p=[0 -20 -100]; %Poles
k=110;
K=zpk(z,p,k)
G=tf([10],[1 10 29])
t=0:0.1:10;
x=ones(1,length(t));
y=lsim((K.*G)/(1+K.*G),x,t);
plot(t,y,'linewidth',2),grid on

ii.

K (s+0.8)( s+ 103) 7570

K ( s )= G ( s )=
s ( s +62.61 ) (s−62.61)

From Routh table we find out that K> 5.8711*10-4, so we use K=10
 2
7570 (s + 103.8 s+ 82.4)
T (s )= 3 2
s + 7570 s +781846 s+623768
Code:
k=10;
T=[0 7570 785766 623768]
B=[1 7570 781846 623768]
G=tf(T,B)
t=0:0.1:2;
x=ones(1,length(t));
O=lsim(G,x,t);
plot(t,O,'linewidth',2), grid on
1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

iii.
63∗10 6
K ( s )=K G ( s )=
( s +30 ) ( s +140 ) (s+ 2.5)

From routh table we find out that -1.67*10-4 <K <0.0123 lies in this range so we
select K=0.01
Code:
k=0.01;
T=[0 0 0 154980]
B=[1 170 4625 165480]
G=tf(T,B)
t=0:0.1:2;
x=ones(1,length(t));
O=lsim(G,x,t);
subplot(2,1,1)
plot(t,O,'linewidth',2),grid on
subplot(2,1,2)
plot(t,x,'linewidth',3),grid on
 1.5

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

In Lab Tasks:
Task 1:
For the following transfer function study the effect of additional zeros on the response of second
order system, note down the change in Ts, Tr, %OS, damping ratio, un-damped natural frequency
and poles of the system, let
D=s^2+2s+9

i. G1(s)=9/D
ii. G2(s)=((s+3)*9/3)/D
iii. G3(s)=((s+5)*9/5)/D
iv. G4(s)=((s+10)*9/10)/D

Code :-
clc
clear all;
close all;
clc;
s=tf('s');
D=((s^2)+(2*s)+(9));
G1=9/D;
G2=((s+3)*9/3)/D;
G3=((s+5)*9/5)/D;
G4=((s+10)*9/10)/D;
step(G1,G2,G3,G4)
[wn,z,p]=damp(G1)
[wn,z,p]=damp(G2)
[wn,z,p]=damp(G3)
[wn,z,p]=damp(G4)
stepinfo(G1)
stepinfo(G2)
stepinfo(G3)
stepinfo(G4)
wn =
3.0000
3.0000
z=
0.3333
0.3333
p=
-1.0000 + 2.8284i
-1.0000 - 2.8284i
wn =
3.0000
3.0000
z=
0.3333
0.3333
p=
-1.0000 + 2.8284i
-1.0000 - 2.8284
wn =
3.0000
3.0000
z=
0.3333
0.3333
p=
-1.0000 + 2.8284i
-1.0000 - 2.8284i
wn =
3.0000
3.0000
z=
0.3333
0.33333
p=
-1.0000 + 2.8284i
-1.0000 - 2.8284i
ans = RiseTime: 0.4568
SettlingTime: 3.7005
SettlingMin: 0.8916
SettlingMax: 1.3293
Overshoot: 32.9277
Undershoot: 0
Peak: 1.3293
PeakTime: 1.1052

ans =
RiseTime: 0.2665
SettlingTime: 3.4739
SettlingMin: 0.8245
SettlingMax: 1.5328
Overshoot: 53.2824
Undershoot: 0
Peak: 1.5328
 PeakTime: 0.7829
ans =
RiseTime: 0.3552
SettlingTime: 3.5351
SettlingMin: 0.8682
SettlingMax: 1.4005
Overshoot: 40.0506
Undershoot: 0
Peak: 1.4005
PeakTime: 0.8750
ans =
RiseTime: 0.4246
SettlingTime: 3.6071
SettlingMin: 0.8861
SettlingMax: 1.3458
Overshoot: 34.5838
Undershoot: 0
Peak: 1.3458
PeakTime: 1.01
Step Response
1.6
G1
G2
G3
1.4
G4

1.2

1
Amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (seconds)

In this task, I observed that as zeros are moving away from origin, overshoot is decreasing but
rise time is increasing.
Task 2:
Consider the following systems with D=s^2+2s+4, from the step response determine which are
minimum phase and which are non-minimum phase systems. Compare the response of G1 and G2
(find Ts, Tr and Tp) for both, which system is fast and why? Also compare systems G2 and G3, find
pole and zero for both systems and determine why both systems have different responses?
i. G1(s)=(s+4)/D
ii. G2(s)=(-s+4)/D
iii. G3(s)=(s-4)/D
Code :-
clear all;
close all;
clc;
s=tf('s');
D=(s^2+(2*s)+4);
G1=(s+4)/D;
G2=(-s+4)/D;
G3=(s-4)/D;
% figure();
step(G1,G2)
figure();
step(G2,G3)
figure();
pzmap(G1)
hold on
pzmap(G2,'r')
pzmap(G3,'k')
hold off

Step Response
1.2

0.8

0.6
Amplitude

0.4

0.2

-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (seconds)
 Step Response
1.5 Pole-Zero Map
2

1 1.5

0.5

)
-1
0.5

Imaginary Axis (seconds

Amplitude

0
0

-0.5 -0.5

-1
-1

-1.5

-1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-2
Time (seconds) -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Real Axis (seconds -1)

We can observe from step response that for G1 rise time is less but settling time is greater. For
G2, rise time is slow but settling time is fast. For G3, it is inversion of G2.
TASK 3:
Verify the value of “K” for all the systems, calculated in pre-lab task, using Simulink. Also find
open loop stability, total response stability and natural response stability. Also design “K”.
sys= tf('s')
K=-0.000166

% T= (K *(s+0.01)*(s+6))/(s*(s+20)*(s+100))
% G= 10/(s^2+ 10*s+29)
%
% T1= (K *(s+0.8)*(s+103))/s
% G1= 7570/((s+62.61)*(s-62.61))
%
T2= K
G2= (63* 1000000)/((s+30)*(s+140)*(s+2.5))
% f1=series(T,G)
% t1=feedback(f1,1)
% f2=series(T1,G1)
% t2=feedback(f2,1)
f3=series(T2,G2)
t2=feedback(f3,1)
step(t2)
 Step Response Step Response
0 2

1.8

-50 1.6

1.4

-100 1.2
Amplitude

Amplitude
1

-150 0.8

0.6

-200 0.4

0.2

-250 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Post Lab Task :

Consider the following systems and check whether pole zero cancellation possible or not,
justify your answer by some solid arguments.
Code:
 In this task for G1, zero lies on 5 while poles lie on 4.99 and -6 on real axis. For G2, zero lies
on -5 and poles lie on -6 and -4.99 on real axis. For pole zero cancellation, pole and zero must
be located at same location.
Critical Analysis:
In this lab we had learned 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 plane, are called minimum phase systems. If a transfer function has poles and/or
zeros in the right half plane then this system shows non-minimum phase behavior . The
Routh–Hurwitz stability criterion is a necessary and sufficient method to establish the
stability of a single-input, single-output (SISO), linear time invariant (LTI) 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. For the following transfer function study the effect of additional zeros on the
response of second order system, note down the change in Ts, Tr, %OS, damping ratio, un-
damped natural frequency and poles of the system . In the next step we design controller system
gain for obtaining specific characteristics. By using MATLAB, design controllers for stable
systems response and plot the results.