EEE325 - Control Systems

Lab # 7 Effect of Zeros on 2nd Order Systems

Response, Pole Zero Cancellation and Stability
Analysis via Routh Hurwitz Criterion.

Name Muhammad Daniyal Akram

Muhammad Zuhair

Registration Number FA21-BEE-233

FA21-BEE-142

Class BEE-5C

Instructor’s Name Dr. Muhammad Rizwan Azam

Lab Assessment
Post Lab Total
In-Lab
Data Presentation Data Analysis Writing Style
Objectives
• To observe the effect of zeros on responses of second order systems in time domain and
to analyze situations in which pole-zero cancellation is possible.
• To design controller system, gain for obtaining specific characteristics. Using
MATLAB, design controllers for stable systems response and plot the results.

Pre-lab:
In-Lab Tasks:
Task 1:

Code:
Output:

G1 =

RiseTime: 0.4568

TransientTime: 3.7005

SettlingTime: 3.7005

SettlingMin: 0.8916

SettlingMax: 1.3293

Overshoot: 32.9277

Undershoot: 0

Peak: 1.3293

PeakTime: 1.1052
 Pole Damping Frequency Time Constant

(rad/seconds) (seconds)

-1.00e+00 + 2.83e+00i 3.33e-01 3.00e+00 1.00e+00

-1.00e+00 - 2.83e+00i 3.33e-01 3.00e+00 1.00e+00

G2 =

RiseTime: 0.2665

TransientTime: 3.4739

SettlingTime: 3.4739

SettlingMin: 0.8245

SettlingMax: 1.5328

Overshoot: 53.2824

Undershoot: 0

Peak: 1.5328

PeakTime: 0.7829

Pole Damping Frequency Time Constant

(rad/seconds) (seconds)

-1.00e+00 + 2.83e+00i 3.33e-01 3.00e+00 1.00e+00

-1.00e+00 - 2.83e+00i 3.33e-01 3.00e+00 1.00e+00

G3 =

RiseTime: 0.3552

TransientTime: 3.5351

SettlingTime: 3.5351

SettlingMin: 0.8682

SettlingMax: 1.4005

Overshoot: 40.0506

Undershoot: 0
 Peak: 1.4005

PeakTime: 0.8750

Pole Damping Frequency Time Constant

(rad/seconds) (seconds)

-1.00e+00 + 2.83e+00i 3.33e-01 3.00e+00 1.00e+00

-1.00e+00 - 2.83e+00i 3.33e-01 3.00e+00 1.00e+00

G4 =

RiseTime: 0.4246

TransientTime: 3.6071

SettlingTime: 3.6071

SettlingMin: 0.8861

SettlingMax: 1.3458

Overshoot: 34.5838

Undershoot: 0

Peak: 1.3458

PeakTime: 1.0131

Pole Damping Frequency Time Constant

(rad/seconds) (seconds)

-1.00e+00 + 2.83e+00i 3.33e-01 3.00e+00 1.00e+00

-1.00e+00 - 2.83e+00i 3.33e-01 3.00e+00 1.00e+00

Comment:
In this task we were given 3 transfer functions in which we found their step response using the
step() command, found Ts, Tr, %OS using the stepinfo() command and found damping ratio, un
damped natural frequency, and poles using the damp() command. When we observe the damping
ratio, un damped natural frequency, and poles of each TF, we see that they are the exact same
that exact same and that is because the denominator is the same for each of them.
Task 2:

Code:
Output:
G1=
RiseTime: 0.6876
TransientTime: 3.8416
SettlingTime: 3.8416
SettlingMin: 0.9026
SettlingMax: 1.1910
Overshoot: 19.1001
Undershoot: 0
Peak: 1.1910
PeakTime: 1.5197
G2=
RiseTime: 0.7398
TransientTime: 4.2307
SettlingTime: 4.2918
SettlingMin: 0.9187
SettlingMax: 1.1778
Overshoot: 17.7762
Undershoot: 9.1047
Peak: 1.1778
PeakTime: 2.0263

G2
Pole Damping Frequency Time Constant
(rad/seconds) (seconds)
-1.00e+00 + 1.73e+00i 5.00e-01 2.00e+00 1.00e+00
-1.00e+00 - 1.73e+00i 5.00e-01 2.00e+00 1.00e+00
G3
Pole Damping Frequency Time Constant
(rad/seconds) (seconds)
-1.00e+00 + 1.73e+00i 5.00e-01 2.00e+00 1.00e+00
-1.00e+00 - 1.73e+00i 5.00e-01 2.00e+00 1.00e+00
Explanation:
G1 is faster than G2, this is due to G1’s zero being negative (s = -4) which accelerates the signal
to reach the steady state response and G2’s zero being positive (s = 4) which slows the response
causing it to reach steady state at a slower pace. We can also see this when we look at both of
their rise time’s with G1 being faster than G2.

Even though both G2 and G3 have the exact same poles and zeros, their responses are different
due to G2 and G3 having opposite signs. When we observe their graphs, they look identical but
the only difference is that they are inverted and this is due to them having opposite signs.

Task 3:

Calculations:
for the case of K> -0.0016:
 The open-loop system is stable.
 The closed-loop system is expected to be stable
 The natural response is stable due to the negative real parts of the poles.

for the case of K< -0.0016:

 The open-loop system is stable.
 The closed-loop system is expected to change due to poles being affected
 The natural response is stable due to the poles being the exact same as the open-loop
case
Post Lab Task 1:

Explanation:
G1
This system has a zero at s = 5 and poles at s = 4.99, -6. If we think logically, we could cancel
the zero with the pole at s = 4.99 but the issue is that both of them exist within the right half
plane of the s-plane and even if we do cancel them out, there is a very small portion of the pole
that is left over within the right half plane which after some time will cause our system to
become unstable so therefore, no we cannot cancel any poles and zeros in this case
G2
This system has a zero at s = -5 and poles at s = -4.99, -6. In this case we can cancel out the zero
with the pole at s = -4.99 and that is because the residual portion of the pole that is left over after
cancellation will exponentially decay at such a fast rate that we wont even be able to notice it. So
therefore, yes pole zero cancellation is possible in this case.

Critical Analysis
In this lab we learned about the effect of poles and zeros on transfer function. We learned that
whether positive or negative they will always affect the output in some way. We learned how to
use the Routh Hurwitz stability criterion when we have a feedback system that we have reduced
and we also learned about how we can cancel the effect of poles through pole zero cancellation
and whether it was applicable on positive poles or negative poles