22-Elec-B2 Advanced Control Systems · December 2018
Question 1 of 5: Multiple choice — seventeen items
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. 16-Elec-B2 Advanced Control Systems, December 2018 — a
three-hour open-book examination. The cover page states “Any four questions
constitute a complete paper. Only the first four questions as they appear in your answer book
will be marked” and “All questions are of equal value (25%)”. This sitting prints
five questions, so each carries 25 marks and a candidate answers four; Question 1
is a seventeen-item multiple-choice block whose per-item weights are printed in the margin as
[1] or [2] and total exactly 25. Tables of inverse Laplace transforms and of Laplace/z
transforms are appended to the paper. All five questions are worked below, because this set is a
study resource rather than a timed sitting.
Reference texts. N. S. Nise, Control Systems Engineering, 8th ed.
(Ch. 4 time response and the rise-time/peak-time/settling-time relations, Ch. 6 Routh–Hurwitz
stability, Ch. 7 steady-state error and system type, Ch. 8 root-locus sketching rules, Ch. 9
root-locus design of cascade compensators, Ch. 10 frequency response and stability margins);
R. C. Dorf and R. H. Bishop, Modern Control Systems, 13th ed. (Ch. 5, 6, 7, 9);
K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, 5th ed. (Ch. 5 transient response, Ch. 6
root-locus design, Ch. 7 frequency-response design); G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell and
A. Emami-Naeini, Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems, 8th ed. (Ch. 3, 5, 6). These are
the references listed for exam code 16-Elec-B2 in the Engineers Canada syllabus, and this
paper’s vocabulary (percent overshoot, settling time, asymptote intercept, “summation
of the angles”) follows Nise closely.
Check — two source readings that were checked against the printed paper.
(1) Question 1, item e. The Routh table is confirmed from the printed paper, because the \(\varepsilon\)-row entries are the whole content of the
item. The paper prints the \(s^2\) first-column entry as \((1-4\varepsilon)/\varepsilon\), which is
exactly what the Routh–Hurwitz recursion gives, and the printed \(s^1\) entry
\((2\varepsilon^2+1-4\varepsilon)/(1-4\varepsilon)\) is derivable only from that value — so the
table is correct and internally consistent, and the two rows cross-check each other. The count of sign changes, and hence the answer, is the same
for \(\varepsilon\to0^+\) and \(\varepsilon\to0^-\).
(2) Question 4. The block diagram prints the plant as
\(10/[s(s+2)(s+10)]\) with no \(K\) shown, while part (a) says “the open-loop transfer
function when \(K = 20\)”. This solution takes the direct reading, \(G(s)=K/[s(s+2)(s+10)]\)
with \(K = 20\), so the printed 10 is one sample value of the same numerator gain. The
alternative reading — a fixed plant gain of 10 multiplied by \(K\), i.e.
\(G(s)=10K/[s(s+2)(s+10)]\) — is carried through in a callout under part (b) so that both
mark schemes are covered.
compensator zero at \(-3.0\), closed-loop pole at \(-3.001\)
9
1
four poles, Bode magnitude slope
10
1
pure transport delay \(T\), Bode magnitude
11
2
\(G_c=K(s+1)\), \(G=1/[(s+2)(s-1)]\), \(K=1.10\) and \(K=3\)
12
1
four candidate pole–zero sketches
13–16
2,2,2,1
open-loop poles \(-1,-2,-3\); 20% overshoot demanded
17
1
forward-path gain \(K\) in a unity-feedback loop
Find. The single best option for each of the seventeen items, with the
calculation or the structural argument that settles it.
Approach. Each item is decided by one standard result — system type and
static error constants for 1, 7 and 17; the second-order pole/damping relations for 2, 3, 4 and
13–16; Routh–Hurwitz sign counting for 5, 6 and 11; and the asymptotic Bode rules for
9 and 10 — so the work below applies the governing relation item by item and boxes the
letter.
Item (a) — system type for a finite parabolic error. For a unity-feedback
loop the steady-state error to \(r(t)=\tfrac12 A t^2\) is \(e_{ss}=A/K_a\) with the acceleration
error constant \(K_a=\lim_{s\to 0} s^2 G(s)\). \(K_a\) is finite and non-zero only when \(G(s)\)
carries exactly two poles at the origin, which is the definition of a Type 2 loop: a Type 0 or
Type 1 loop gives \(K_a=0\) and an infinite error, and a Type 3 loop gives \(K_a=\infty\) and zero
error. Hence \(\boxed{\text{(c) Type 2 system}}\).
Item (b) — gain for a critically damped second-order loop. The loop is
unity feedback around \(k/[(s+1)(s+5)]\):
Item b: unity-feedback loop with forward path \(k/[(s+1)(s+5)]\).
Item (b) (continued) — close the loop and set the discriminant to zero.
The characteristic polynomial is
$$(s+1)(s+5)+k = s^2 + 6s + (5+k).$$
Critical damping means a repeated real root, i.e. a vanishing discriminant:
$$6^2 - 4(5+k) = 0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad 36 = 20 + 4k \quad\Longrightarrow\quad
\boxed{k = 4 \text{ — option (b)}}$$
The repeated root is then \(s = -3\) (twice), which is in the open left half-plane, so the loop is
stable as the item requires. Equivalently \(\omega_n=\sqrt{5+k}=3\) and
\(\zeta = 6/(2\omega_n) = 1\).
Item (c) — what the real part of a pole contributes. A conjugate pair
\(s = -\sigma \pm j\omega_d\) produces the time function
\(e^{-\sigma t}\!\left(C\cos\omega_d t + D\sin\omega_d t\right)\). The real part \(\sigma\) appears
only in the exponential envelope, whose time constant is \(1/\sigma\); the imaginary part
\(\omega_d\) sets the radian frequency and the residues set the amplitude. So the real part
generates the \(\boxed{\text{(a) time constant of an exponential response}}\). This is the same
decomposition used in the inverse-Laplace table appended to the paper.
Item (d) — rise time of \(T(s)=16/(s^2+3s+16)\). Matching the standard
second-order form \(\omega_n^2/(s^2+2\zeta\omega_n s + \omega_n^2)\):
$$\omega_n = \sqrt{16} = 4\ \text{rad/s}, \qquad
\zeta = \frac{3}{2\omega_n} = \frac{3}{8} = 0.375 .$$
Rise time has no closed form, so use Nise’s normalised curve fit for the 0–100%
rise time of an underdamped second-order step response,
$$\omega_n T_r = 1.76\zeta^3 - 0.417\zeta^2 + 1.039\zeta + 1 .$$
Substituting \(\zeta = 0.375\) gives \(\omega_n T_r = 0.09281 - 0.05864 + 0.38963 + 1 = 1.4238\),
so
$$\boxed{T_r = \frac{1.4238}{4} = 0.356\ \text{s — option (a)}}$$
The distractor 2.33 s is roughly the settling time \(4/(\zeta\omega_n)=2.67\) s, which is what a
candidate who confuses the two relations would report.
Item (e) — reading pole locations from the printed Routh array. The first
two rows carry the coefficients of the original quintic, alternating:
\(s^5:[1,\,4,\,3]\) and \(s^4:[-1,\,-4,\,-2]\), so the polynomial is
$$P(s) = s^5 - s^4 + 4s^3 - 4s^2 + 3s - 2 .$$
The \(s^3\) first-column entry vanished and was replaced by the small quantity \(\varepsilon\)
(the standard epsilon method for a zero in the first column with a non-zero row). Counting sign
changes down the first column with \(\varepsilon\to 0^{+}\):
Item (e) (continued) — count the sign changes. The sequence
\(+,-,+,+,+,-\) contains three sign changes, so three roots lie in the right
half-plane and the remaining two lie in the left half-plane. Repeating the count with
\(\varepsilon\to 0^{-}\) gives \(+,-,-,-,+,-\), again three changes, which is the consistency
check the epsilon method requires. The \(s^0\) entry is non-zero and no row of zeros occurred, so
there are no roots on the imaginary axis. Numerically the roots of \(P(s)\) are
\(0.6180\pm j1.6180\), \(0.3820\), \(-0.5000\pm j1.3229\) — three in the right half-plane,
two in the left — confirming
$$\boxed{\text{(b) 3 rhp, 2 lhp}}$$
Item (f) — range of \(K\) for
\(G(s)=K(s+6)/[s(s+1)(s+4)]\). Closing the unity-feedback loop,
$$T(s) = \frac{K(s+6)}{s(s+1)(s+4) + K(s+6)}
= \frac{K(s+6)}{s^3 + 5s^2 + (4+K)s + 6K}.$$
For a cubic \(s^3+a_2s^2+a_1s+a_0\) the Routh conditions collapse to the familiar pair
\(a_0>0\) and \(a_2a_1>a_0\) — which is what “without forming the Routh
table” is asking for. Here
$$6K > 0 \;\Longrightarrow\; K > 0, \qquad
5(4+K) > 6K \;\Longrightarrow\; 20 + 5K > 6K \;\Longrightarrow\; K < 20,$$
so the closed loop is stable exactly for
$$\boxed{0 < K < 20}$$
At \(K = 20\) the loop is marginally stable with an imaginary-axis pair at
\(s = \pm j\sqrt{4+K} = \pm j4.899\). Spot checks confirm the interval: \(K = 19.5\) gives all
roots in the left half-plane, \(K = 20.5\) gives a right-half-plane pair.
Item (f) (continued) — none of the printed options is this range. The four
choices offered are \(K>-2\), \(0<K<1\), \(K>-1\) and \(1<K<2\); none of them is
\(0<K<20\). The option set is the one that belongs to a second-order plant —
for example \(K/[(s+1)(s+2)]\) has the characteristic polynomial \(s^2+3s+(2+K)\) and is stable
precisely for \(K>-2\), which is choice (a), and \(K/(s+1)^2\) gives \(K>-1\), which is
choice (c). That is also the only kind of system for which the instruction “without forming
the Routh table” is literally true, since a quadratic needs only all-positive coefficients.
The item as printed therefore appears to pair a third-order plant with a second-order answer key.
If a letter must be entered, (b) \(0<K<1\) is the only choice every member
of which is genuinely a stabilising gain, and its lower limit \(K=0\) is the true lower limit; it
is nonetheless a proper subset of the real answer, not the answer.
Item (g) — gain for a specified parabolic error. The input is
\(r(t)=10t^2u(t)\), so \(R(s) = 10\cdot 2/s^3 = 20/s^3\). Writing the parabolic input as
\(A/s^3\) gives \(A = 20\). The plant \(G(s)=K(s+3)/[s^2(s+7)]\) is Type 2, so the acceleration
error constant is
$$K_a = \lim_{s\to 0} s^2 G(s) = \lim_{s\to 0}\frac{K(s+3)}{s+7} = \frac{3K}{7},$$
and the steady-state error is \(e_{ss} = A/K_a = 20\cdot 7/(3K) = 140/(3K)\). Setting this equal
to the required 0.061,
$$\boxed{K = \frac{140}{3(0.061)} = \frac{140}{0.183} = 765.0\ \text{— option (d)}}$$
Back-substituting, \(K_a = 3(765.03)/7 = 327.87\) and \(e_{ss}=20/327.87 = 0.0610\), as demanded.
The trap is dropping the factor 2 from \(\mathcal{L}\{t^2\}=2/s^3\), which halves \(A\) and
returns roughly 382 — not an offered option, which is itself a hint that the factor is
needed. Because 765.03 is printed exactly as choice (d), the fifth option
(e) “None of the above” is not required for this item; it is present
only as a guard against the three arithmetic distractors (a), (b) and (c), none of which any
consistent reading of the question produces.
Item (h) — is a pole at \(-3.001\) cancelled by a zero at \(-3.0\)? The
residue of a closed-loop pole \(p\) in \(T(s)=N(s)/D(s)\) is proportional to \(N(p)\), and a zero
distant \(\delta\) from the pole makes that residue proportional to \(\delta\). Here
\(\delta = 0.001\), some three orders of magnitude smaller than the spacing to any other
singularity, so the residue of the \(-3.001\) mode is negligible and the pair behaves as a
cancellation for every practical purpose. Nise’s working rule is that a pole and zero
within about a factor of 0.1 of the neighbouring pole spacing may be treated as cancelling;
0.001 is far inside that. Hence \(\boxed{\text{(a) Yes}}\).
Item (i) — total Bode magnitude slope of four poles. Each simple pole
contributes an asymptotic slope of \(-20\) dB/decade above its corner frequency, because
\(|1/(1+j\omega/p)| \to p/\omega\) and \(20\log_{10}(1/\omega)\) falls 20 dB per decade. Four
poles therefore contribute
$$4 \times (-20\ \text{dB/dec}) = \boxed{-80\ \text{dB/dec — option (d)}}$$
The sign matters: poles subtract magnitude, zeros add it, so the \(+80\) distractor is the
four-zero answer.
Item (j) — effect of a pure delay on the Bode magnitude plot. A transport
delay has the frequency response \(e^{-j\omega T}\), whose magnitude is
$$\left|e^{-j\omega T}\right| = 1 \quad\text{for every }\omega ,$$
i.e. \(0\) dB at all frequencies: a delay is all-pass. Its entire effect is on phase, a lag of
\(\omega T\) radians growing without bound. So the magnitude plot shows
\(\boxed{\text{(d) No change at all}}\). Options (a) and (b) describe the phase curve, not the
magnitude curve. This all-pass property is what makes the delay questions elsewhere in the B2
series tractable: the gain crossover keeps its delay-free value while only the phase crossover
moves.
Item (k) — stability of \(G_c=K(s+1)\) around
\(G=1/[(s+2)(s-1)]\). The plant already has a right-half-plane pole at \(s=+1\). Closing
the loop,
$$(s+2)(s-1) + K(s+1) = s^2 + s - 2 + Ks + K = s^2 + (1+K)s + (K-2).$$
For a quadratic all coefficients must be positive, so \(1+K>0\) and \(K-2>0\), i.e.
\(K>2\). Therefore \(K = 1.10\) leaves the loop unstable (roots
\(-3.766\) and \(+0.266\), one still in the right half-plane) while \(K = 3\) makes it
stable (roots \(-3.303\) and \(-0.697\)):
$$\boxed{\text{(c) Unstable for } K=1.10 \text{ and stable for } K=3}$$
The structural point is that gain alone can pull a single unstable pole into the left half-plane
here, because the compensator zero at \(-1\) bends the locus leftward.
Item (l) — which sketch can be a root locus. Test each candidate against
the two rules that any locus must satisfy: the number of branches running to infinity is
\(n-m\) (poles minus zeros) and they leave along asymptotes at \((2k+1)180^\circ/(n-m)\); and a
real-axis point lies on the locus only if the number of real poles and zeros strictly to its right
is odd.
(b) shows three poles and one zero, so \(n-m=2\) and the two infinite branches must
leave at \(\pm 90^\circ\) — yet the sketch runs a real-axis branch off to
\(-\infty\), and it puts that branch to the left of the leftmost zero, where the odd-count rule
fails. Rejected twice over.
(c) shows a double pole at the origin and two real zeros, so \(n=m=2\) and
no branch may reach infinity; the sketch nevertheless draws the real-axis locus
running to \(-\infty\), and it leaves the segment between the two zeros — the one stretch
that does satisfy the odd-count rule — off the locus. Rejected.
(d) shows a single unpaired complex pole with a vertical locus segment. A real
rational transfer function has conjugate-symmetric poles and a conjugate-symmetric locus, so no
such diagram can arise. Rejected.
(a) shows a conjugate pole pair on the \(j\omega\) axis and two real zeros, so
\(n=m=2\): no infinite branch, which the sketch respects. The two branches leave the imaginary
axis, curve left, meet on the real axis at a break-in point between the two zeros, and then split
along that segment into the zeros — and the segment between the zeros is exactly where the
odd-count rule puts the real-axis locus. Every rule is satisfied.
Hence \(\boxed{\text{(a)}}\). Redrawing (a) from an actual transfer function of that
pole–zero pattern confirms the shape:
Item l: the admissible sketch (a), computed for
\(K(s+1)(s+2.5)/(s^2+4)\). Two branches leave the \(j\omega\)-axis poles, break in on the real
axis between the zeros, and terminate on them — no branch runs to infinity, because
\(n=m=2\).
Items (m)–(p) — damping ratio demanded by 20% overshoot. Percent
overshoot fixes \(\zeta\) through
$$\%OS = 100\,e^{-\pi\zeta/\sqrt{1-\zeta^2}}
\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad
\zeta = \frac{-\ln(\%OS/100)}{\sqrt{\pi^2 + \ln^2(\%OS/100)}} .$$
With \(\%OS = 20\), \(\ln 0.20 = -1.6094\) and
$$\zeta = \frac{1.6094}{\sqrt{9.8696 + 2.5903}} = \frac{1.6094}{3.5299} = 0.4559 ,$$
so the design point lies on the ray at \(\theta = \cos^{-1}(0.4559) = 62.87^\circ\) from the
negative real axis.
Item (m) — find the point where that ray meets the locus. Test the four
offered coordinates against \(\zeta = -\sigma/|s|\):
\(-1.25\pm 0.8j\) gives \(\zeta = 1.25/1.484 = 0.842\); \(-1\pm 1.25j\) gives \(0.625\);
\(-0.5\pm 2.5j\) gives \(0.196\); and
$$-0.86 \pm 1.69j:\quad |s| = \sqrt{0.86^2+1.69^2} = 1.8965,\qquad
\zeta = \frac{0.86}{1.8965} = 0.4535 \approx 0.4559 .$$
Only the third matches. Confirming with the angle condition for
\(K/[(s+1)(s+2)(s+3)]\) at \(s=-0.86+1.69j\), the pole angles are \(85.28^\circ\),
\(54.03^\circ\) and \(40.70^\circ\), summing to \(180.01^\circ\) — the point is on the locus
to within the rounding of the printed coordinates. Hence
$$\boxed{s = -0.86 \pm 1.69j \text{ — option (c)}}$$
Item (n) — gain at that point. The magnitude condition
\(|K G(s)| = 1\) gives \(K\) as the product of the distances from the poles to the design point:
$$K = |s+1|\,|s+2|\,|s+3|
= |0.14+1.69j|\;|1.14+1.69j|\;|2.14+1.69j| = 1.6958 \times 2.0383 \times 2.7268 ,$$
$$\boxed{K = 9.398 \text{ — option (b)}}$$
Cross-check with the coefficient relations for \(s^3+6s^2+11s+(6+K)\): the root sum must be
\(-6\), so the third closed-loop pole is at \(-6-2(-0.86) = -4.28\), and the root product must be
\(-(6+K)\), giving \((0.86^2+1.69^2)(4.28) = 3.5957 \times 4.28 = 15.39 = 6+K\), i.e.
\(K = 9.39\). The two routes agree.
Item (o) — peak time. Peak time depends only on the damped natural
frequency, i.e. on the imaginary part of the dominant pair:
$$T_p = \frac{\pi}{\omega_d} = \frac{\pi}{1.69} = \boxed{1.86\ \text{s — option (c)}}$$
Item (p) — settling time. The 2% settling time depends only on the real
part:
$$T_s = \frac{4}{\zeta\omega_n} = \frac{4}{|\sigma|} = \frac{4}{0.86}
= \boxed{4.65\ \text{s — option (c), 4.6}}$$
The third closed-loop pole at \(-4.28\) is five times faster than the dominant pair, which is what
licenses treating the response as second order for items o and p. The locus and the design point
are shown below.
Items m–p: root locus of \(K/[(s+1)(s+2)(s+3)]\). The dashed ray is
\(\zeta = 0.456\) (20% overshoot); it meets the locus at \(-0.86 \pm 1.69j\), where
\(K = 9.398\) and the third closed-loop pole has been pushed out to \(-4.28\).
Item (q) — what a forward-path gain moves. With unity feedback,
\(T(s) = KG(s)/[1+KG(s)]\). Writing \(G = N/D\) gives \(T = KN/(D+KN)\): the numerator of \(T\) is
\(KN\), so the closed-loop zeros are the open-loop zeros for every \(K\) —
scaling the numerator by \(K\) does not move its roots. The denominator \(D+KN\) is precisely the
root-locus polynomial, so the closed-loop poles move with \(K\); that is what a
root locus is. Statement 1 is false and statement 2 is true:
$$\boxed{\text{(c) Only 2 is true}}$$