EEEE 414 – Classical Control

Engineering Lab Report

EEEE 414

Classical Control

Lab 6 Report

Performance of First-order and second-order systems

Fall 2024

Done by:

Ahmad Zahran – ([email protected])

Moath Shalabi – ([email protected])

Ahmed Atif – ([email protected])

Date Performed: 04/10/2024

Date Submitted: 30/10/2024

Introduction - Ahmad Zahran:

EEEE 414 – Classical Control

Engineering Lab Report

This lab focuses on understanding the performance characteristics of first- and second-
order control systems using MATLAB. These systems, fundamental in engineering, help
illustrate how dynamic models respond over time, including aspects like stability and response
speed. Using MATLAB, we’ll analyze system behaviors such as step and time responses and
observe how changes in parameters affect stability and performance. The lab report will include
MATLAB code, results from exercises, and a summary of key insights, supported by references
to "Modern Control Systems" by Dorf and Bishop.

Theory - Ahmad Zahran:

In control systems, first- and second-order systems provide foundational insight into how
systems respond to inputs over time. A first-order system, such as an RC circuit, is characterized
by its time constant τ =RC , which defines the rate at which the system’s output—specifically,
the voltage across a capacitor Vc (t)❑approaches its steady-state value. Due to its passive nature,
the RC circuit is inherently stable, as the voltage will not increase indefinitely. The time constant
𝜏 is the time required Vc (t)❑to reach 63% of its final steady-state value. The primary
performance measures for a first-order system include its time constant and steady-state
response.

A second-order system, such as a mass-spring-damper model, incorporates parameters

like spring constant K, friction coefficient B, and applied force F(t). This system's behavior is
described by a second-order differential equation, which, when transformed into the Laplace
domain, yields a transfer function that defines system response characteristics. A second-order
system is distinguished by its response to various damping ratios (ζ ), which influence transient
behavior and performance characteristics such as rise time, peak time, overshoot, and settling
time.
EEEE 414 – Classical Control

Engineering Lab Report

For a second-order system, the performance measures are typically based on its response to a
step input:

Rise Time (Tr): The time required for the system’s output to reach a specific percentage of the
input magnitude.

Peak Time (Tp): The time at which the output reaches its maximum value.

Overshoot (P.O): The extent to which the output exceeds the desired final value. The formula of
Mp−fv
is P .O .= ∗100 %
fv

Settling Time (Ts): The time for the output to remain within a specified tolerance (commonly
2%) of the final value.

These metrics describe how quickly and accurately the system reaches a steady state after a
disturbance, illustrating key dynamic characteristics of both first- and second-order systems.

Equipment List - Ahmad Zahran:

● MATLAB

Procedure - Moath Shalabi:

1. Ensure MATLAB software is available and set up.

2. Simulate the response of a first-order system using an electrical RC circuit model:
○ Construct the RC circuit with appropriate resistor and capacitor values.
○ Input the initial conditions where the capacitor starts uncharged.
EEEE 414 – Classical Control

Engineering Lab Report

○ Run the MATLAB simulation to observe how the voltage across the capacitor
rises and decays, verifying the time-constant τ =RC
3. Analyze the system's behavior:
○ Record how the voltage reaches approximately 63% of the supply voltage,
signifying the time constant.
○ Validate the steady-state behavior and stability of the system.
4. Set up a second-order system simulation using a Mass-Spring model:
○ Define parameters such as the spring constant K, friction coefficient B, and
applied force F (t).
○ Implement the differential equation governing the system and convert it to its
transfer function in MATLAB.
5. Apply a step input to the second-order system and simulate its response:
○ Identify key performance metrics including rise, peak, overshoot, and settling
times.
○ Document how the response varies for different damping ratios ζ between 0 & 1.
6. Interpret the transient response data:
○ Plot the results showing variations in system response characteristics with
different damping ratios.
○ Highlight the differences in performance metrics and how they impact system
stability and accuracy.
7. Summarize findings and include MATLAB codes and plots in the final report.

Results & Discussion – Ahmed Atif:

Part 1: First Order System Response

EEEE 414 – Classical Control

Engineering Lab Report

Fig. 1.A: Response with R=1K Ohm

The curve in Fig. 1.A shows a rapid increase in the amplitude of the Step Response initially, and
then levels off as it comes to the region of steady state value, reaching 63% of the final value
within one time constant, as per discussion in the lab handout.

This is a result of the first-order RC circuit with resistance set to 1k Ohms having an exponential
increase in voltage across the capacitor in the circuit.
EEEE 414 – Classical Control

Engineering Lab Report

Fig. 1.B: Response with R=2K Ohm

Fig. 1.B shows the Step Response for the RC circuit with resistance set to 2k Ohms, which
reaches steady-state value or the amplitude of 1 slower than that compared to Fig. 1.A. This
occurs due to the increase in the value of resistance which increases the time delay to reach the
steady state value.
EEEE 414 – Classical Control

Engineering Lab Report

Fig. 1.C: Steady State Analysis

Fig. 1.C showcases the graphs of both Fig. 1.A and Fig. 1.B. Both RC circuits reach a steady
state output value of 1 over time, except the value of resistances directly affect the value of time
delay.
This steady-state behavior shown in Part 1 matches the final step response of a first-order
system, that is in par with Lab 6 handout.

Part 2: Second Order System Response

EEEE 414 – Classical Control

Engineering Lab Report

Fig. 2.A: Underdamped Response with Damping Coefficient set to 2

Fig. 2.A shows a second-order system. The damping coefficient is changed for trials ranging for
Damping Coefficient set from 0.1 to 2 as shown in Fig. 2.B.

Fig. 2.B: System’s behavior on varying Damping Coefficient

As per Fig. 2.B, by varying the damping coefficients of a second-order system, the damping
effects are shown as the response of a system to a step input.

Setting damping coefficients to values below 0.7 gave underdamped second-order responses, and
high values of the damping coefficient gave overdamped responses with minimal overshooting
but with a large settling time.

Finally, it is considered a critically damped system whose coefficient was 1; the response didn’t
oscillate, it served its response faster but took more time to respond.
EEEE 414 – Classical Control

Engineering Lab Report

The overdamped system (higher damping coefficient) was characterized by slowly rising time
response curve with no oscillation or overshoot and reaching steady state.

This experiment proved that lower damping rates equal faster though less stable responses and
higher damping equals response stability at the cost of having slower responses; a theoretical
prediction of the behavior of second order systems.

Conclusion – Ahmed Atif:

Damping was seen to influence the response of first and second order systems from the
experiment. From the first-order RC circuit it was established that increase in resistance reduces
the response time which supports the theory. In the second-order mass-spring-damper system,
varying the damping coefficient revealed a range of behaviors: values of damping coefficients
below 0.7 led to quicker, but oscillating and oscillating beyond the set value (under-damped)
while those above gave slow, stable and non-oscillating responses and never overshoot the set
value (over-damped). The last case, critically damped system, offered an optimal balance
between the absence of oscillations and a faster approach to the final value. In summary, the
outcome of the experiment corroborated theoretical expectations because lower damping
increases velocity at a cost of stability or greater stability reduces response velocity. These
findings are useful when implementing control systems that specify a level of responsiveness and
stability required by an application.