22-Elec-B2 Advanced Control Systems · December 2013
Question 1 of 6: Gain limit, phase margin and steady-state tracking of a non-minimum-phase plant
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. National Examinations, 07-Elec-B2 Advanced Control
Systems, December 2013 — 3 hours, closed book. Six questions; the rubric states that
“any four questions constitute a complete paper” and that “all questions are of
equal value”, so each is worth 25 marks. Tables of Laplace and z-transforms are appended to
the paper. Only a Casio FX-991 or Sharp EL-540 calculator is permitted.
Reference texts. G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell and A. Emami-Naeini,
Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems, 7th ed., Pearson (Routh–Hurwitz, stability
margins, steady-state error, frequency response); K. J. Åström and R. M. Murray,
Feedback Systems: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers, 2nd ed., Princeton
(sensitivity function, loops with transport delay, non-minimum-phase limitations); K. Ogata,
Modern Control Engineering, 5th ed., Pearson (state-space realisations, controllability
and observability, pole placement); G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell and M. L. Workman,
Digital Control of Dynamic Systems, 3rd ed., Ellis-Kagle (zero-order-hold equivalents,
deadbeat design, discrete identification). These are the works listed by Engineers Canada / EGBC
for the Elec-B2 syllabus.
Scope of this solution. Although the paper is marked on four questions, all
six are worked here so that the set serves as a complete study resource. Every boxed number is
recomputed from the question’s own data for this paper.
Check: two printing defects in the source paper. In Question 3 the leading
entry of the second row of the system matrix is missing from the print — the row reads
“0 −1” with the first column blank — and the
equation is typeset as “$\dots x + B = [0\ 1\ 1]^{\mathsf T}u$” rather than
$\dot x = Ax + Bu$. Reading the column alignment against rows 1 and 3, the missing entry is
$a_{21}=0$; that reading is adopted throughout and makes the system controllable, so the design
asked for is well posed. In Question 4(b) the paper asks for “$T(z)$ that relates $X(z)$ to
$R(z)$”, but no signal $X$ is defined anywhere in the question or its figure; $X(z)$ is read
as $Y(z)$.
Question 1: Gain limit, phase margin and steady-state tracking of a non-minimum-phase plant (25 marks)
Given. A single-loop system whose forward path is an integrating controller
followed by a first-order plant carrying a right-half-plane zero, with the disturbance summed at
the plant output.
Given data — Question 1
Quantity
Value
Plant
$P(s) = \dfrac{3(10-s)}{(10+s)(3+2s)}$ (zero at $s=+10$, poles at
$s=-10$ and $s=-1.5$)
Controller
$C(s) = K/s$, $K \gt 0$
Loop structure
unity negative feedback; $d$ subtracted at the plant
output, so $y = P(s)u - d$
Error definition
$e(t) = r(t) - y(t)$
Plant DC gain
$P(0) = 30/30 = 1$
Find. (a) the gain $K_{max}$ at which the loop oscillates and that oscillation
frequency; (b) the phase margin at half that gain; (c) the steady-state error to a unit-slope ramp
with a unit step disturbance; (d) the steady-state error to $r(t)=2\sin 3t$.
Figure Q1.1 — unity-feedback loop of Question 1. The disturbance d is summed at the plant OUTPUT with a minus sign, so y = P(s)u − d and the tracking error obeys E = (R + D)/(1 + PC).
Approach. Write the error in terms of the sensitivity function, apply the
Routh–Hurwitz test to the closed-loop characteristic polynomial for parts (a), then read the
margins off the open-loop frequency response for (b), and finish with the final-value theorem for
(c) and the sinusoidal-steady-state gain of the sensitivity function for (d).
Reduce the loop to one error equation. Around the outer summing junction
$e = r - y$, and around the inner one $y = P(s)u - d$ with $u = C(s)e$. Eliminating $u$ and $y$,
$$e = r - P(s)C(s)e + d \quad\Longrightarrow\quad E(s) = \frac{R(s)+D(s)}{1+L(s)},
\qquad L(s) = C(s)P(s).$$
Both the reference and the disturbance therefore act on the error through the same sensitivity
function $S(s) = 1/[1+L(s)]$; only their spectra differ. The open loop is
$$L(s) = \frac{3K(10-s)}{s(10+s)(3+2s)}.$$
Form the closed-loop characteristic polynomial. Setting $1+L(s)=0$ and
clearing denominators, $s(10+s)(3+2s) + 3K(10-s) = 0$. Expanding
$s(10+s)(3+2s) = s(2s^{2}+23s+30)$ gives
$$2s^{3} + 23s^{2} + (30-3K)s + 30K = 0.$$
Note how the right-half-plane zero enters: it makes the $s$-coefficient decrease with
gain, which is what will eventually destabilise the loop.
Apply the Routh test. The array is
$$\begin{array}{c|cc}
s^{3} & 2 & 30-3K\\
s^{2} & 23 & 30K\\
s^{1} & \dfrac{23(30-3K)-2(30K)}{23} = \dfrac{690-129K}{23} & 0\\
s^{0} & 30K &
\end{array}$$
The $s^{0}$ row requires $K \gt 0$ and the $s^{2}$ row is always positive, so the binding
condition is the $s^{1}$ row. Sustained oscillation occurs when it vanishes:
$$690-129K = 0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \boxed{K_{max} = \frac{690}{129} = 5.3488}$$
(The condition $30-3K \gt 0$, i.e. $K \lt 10$, is satisfied at this gain and is therefore not the
active limit.)
Read the oscillation frequency from the auxiliary polynomial. At
$K = K_{max}$ the row above the vanishing row supplies the auxiliary polynomial
$23s^{2}+30K_{max}=0$, whose roots are the imaginary-axis pair. Keeping the $s^{2}$ pivot,
$$\omega_{osc} = \sqrt{\frac{30K_{max}}{23}} = \sqrt{\frac{30(5.3488)}{23}} = \sqrt{6.9767}
\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \boxed{\omega_{osc} = 2.6414\ \text{rad/s}}$$
As a check, the cubic factors at this gain into $2(s+11.5)(s^{2}+6.9767)$, and evaluating the
open loop directly gives $L(j2.6414) = -1.000 + j0.000$, exactly the sustained-oscillation
condition.
Halve the gain and locate the new gain crossover. With
$K = K_{max}/2 = 2.6744$ the magnitude of the open loop is
$$|L(j\omega)| = \frac{3K\sqrt{100+\omega^{2}}}{\omega\sqrt{100+\omega^{2}}\sqrt{9+4\omega^{2}}}
= \frac{3K}{\omega\sqrt{9+4\omega^{2}}},$$
the $\sqrt{100+\omega^{2}}$ factors of the right-half-plane zero and the left-half-plane pole
cancelling exactly because they are mirror images. Setting this to unity and solving numerically,
$\omega_{cg} = 1.7440$ rad/s.
Evaluate the phase there. The numerator factor $10-j\omega$ has a positive
real part, so the right-half-plane zero contributes $-\arctan(\omega/10)$ — phase
lag, exactly as much as the mirror-image pole at $s=-10$ — and
$$\angle L(j\omega) = -\arctan\frac{\omega}{10} - 90^\circ
- \arctan\frac{\omega}{10} - \arctan\frac{2\omega}{3}.$$
At $\omega_{cg}=1.7440$ this evaluates to $-159.09^\circ$, hence
$$\boxed{\text{PM} = 180^\circ - 159.09^\circ = 20.9^\circ \ \text{at}\ \omega_{cg}=1.744\
\text{rad/s}}$$
The gain margin is exactly $20\log_{10}2 = 6.02$ dB, because halving a gain that was critical
leaves the phase crossover where it was and drops the magnitude there by a factor of two.
Figure Q1.2 — Bode plot of the open loop at K = K_max/2. Halving the gain from K_max moves the 0 dB crossing down to ω = 1.744 rad/s while the −180° crossing stays at ω = 2.641 rad/s, leaving PM = 20.9° and GM = 6.02 dB.
Parts (c) and (d) are both steady-state questions, and both are answered from the same
sensitivity function, evaluated at $s\to 0$ for the polynomial inputs and at $s=j3$ for the
sinusoid.
Steady-state error to the ramp plus the step disturbance. With
$R(s)=1/s^{2}$ and $D(s)=1/s$,
$$e_{ss} = \lim_{s\to 0} sE(s) = \lim_{s\to 0}\frac{s\left(\dfrac{1}{s^{2}}+\dfrac{1}{s}\right)}
{1+L(s)}.$$
Near the origin $L(s)\to K/s$, so $1+L(s)\to (s+K)/s$ and the two contributions separate:
$$\underbrace{\lim_{s\to 0}\frac{1/s}{1+L(s)} = \frac{1}{K_{v}}}_{\text{ramp}}
\;+\; \underbrace{\lim_{s\to 0}\frac{1}{1+L(s)} = \lim_{s\to 0}\frac{s}{s+K} = 0}_{\text{step
disturbance}},\qquad K_{v}=\lim_{s\to 0}sL(s)=\frac{3K(10)}{(10)(3)}=K.$$
The integrator in $C(s)$ rejects the constant disturbance completely, so only the ramp survives.
At $K=K_{max}/2=2.6744$,
$$\boxed{e_{ss} = \frac{1}{K} = \frac{1}{2.6744} = 0.3739}$$
Steady-state error to the sinusoid. A stable linear loop driven by
$r(t)=2\sin 3t$ settles to a sinusoid of the same frequency, scaled and shifted by the
sensitivity function evaluated on the imaginary axis:
$$e_{ss}(t) = 2\,|S(j3)|\,\sin\!\big(3t + \angle S(j3)\big),\qquad
S(j3) = \frac{1}{1+L(j3)}.$$
Substituting $K=2.6744$ gives $L(j3) = -0.3958 + j0.0474$ (magnitude $0.3987$, phase $-186.83^\circ$), hence
$S(j3) = 1.6501\angle{-4.49^\circ}$ and
$$\boxed{e_{ss}(t) = 3.3003\,\sin\!\big(3t - 4.49^\circ\big)}$$
The error is larger than the reference itself: $|S(j3)| = 1.65 \gt 1$ because $3$ rad/s
sits just above the gain crossover and close to the $2.64$ rad/s resonance the $20.9^\circ$ phase
margin implies. Feedback amplifies rather than attenuates disturbances in this band, which is
exactly what a small phase margin means physically.
Check: the right-half-plane zero is the real limitation here. $P(s)$ is
non-minimum phase, with a zero at $s=+10$. That zero adds phase lag without adding attenuation, so
increasing $K$ buys speed only until the phase runs out — which is precisely the
$K_{max}=5.35$ found above. No amount of proportional gain will give this loop a well-damped
response beyond roughly a decade below the zero; a genuinely faster design would need the zero
addressed by a different actuator or sensor placement, not by retuning.