22-Mec-A3 System Analysis and Control · December 2014
Question 6 of 6: Steady-State Errors of a Motor Position Servo
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. National Exams, December 2014 —
07-Mec-A3 System Analysis and Control. Three hours, closed book
(Casio or Sharp approved calculator; semi-logarithmic graph paper is the only permitted aid).
Six questions are printed; the rubric states that any four questions constitute a complete
paper and that all questions are of equal value, so each carries 25 marks.
A two-page table of Laplace transform pairs is appended to the paper.
All six questions are solved here.
Reference texts. K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, 5th ed.
(Prentice Hall); N. S. Nise, Control Systems Engineering, 8th ed. (Wiley);
R. C. Dorf & R. H. Bishop, Modern Control Systems, 13th ed. (Pearson);
G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell & A. Emami-Naeini, Feedback Control of Dynamic
Systems, 8th ed. (Pearson). Section references in the concept panels below follow
Ogata 5th ed. and Nise 8th ed.
Convention used throughout. Angles are quoted in
degrees for phasor results and in radians inside time functions; a lagging phase is written
as a negative angle. "Time constant" always means the reciprocal of the magnitude of the
real part of the governing closed-loop pole.
Question 6: Steady-State Errors of a Motor Position Servo
(25 marks)
and a load disturbance $D$ entering additively at the input of $G$. The reference inputs
are a unit step $r(t)=u_{s}(t)$ and a unit ramp $r(t)=t$, applied in turn to $R$.
Find. The steady-state error $e_{ss}=\lim_{t\to\infty}[r(t)-c(t)]$ for
each reference input, expressed in terms of $K$.
[Figure not reproduced: Figure 4 — redrawn from page 5. The error $E=R-C$ drives $G_{c}$; the disturbance $D$ is summed with the controller output ahead of the motor transfer function $G(s)$, and the loop is closed by unity feedback. See the official exam paper.]
Check: the disturbance input. The question asks
only for errors due to $R$, so $D=0$ is taken throughout by superposition. The printed figure shows that the second summing junction receives only $G_{c}E$ and $D$ — the output $C$ is not returned to it. With the
loop as drawn, the open-loop transfer function is simply $G_{c}G$.
Approach. Identify the system type from the number of open-loop poles at
the origin, compute the relevant static error constant as a limit of the open-loop transfer
function, and apply the standard error formulas. The final-value theorem is legitimate here
only after confirming that the closed loop is stable.
Form the open-loop transfer function and confirm stability. With
$D=0$,
$$L(s) = G_{c}(s)G(s)H(s) = \frac{K}{s(s+1)} .$$
The closed-loop characteristic equation is $s(s+1)+K=0$, i.e. $s^{2}+s+K=0$. Both
coefficients and the constant term are positive for every $K>0$, so the closed loop is stable
for all positive gain and the final-value theorem may be applied. (Comparing with
$s^{2}+2\zeta\omega_{n}s+\omega_{n}^{2}$ gives $\omega_{n}=\sqrt{K}$ and
$\zeta=1/(2\sqrt{K})$: raising $K$ speeds the servo up but reduces its damping.)
Establish the system type. $L(s)$ has exactly one pole at the origin,
so this is a type 1 system. Type-1 loops track a step with zero error and a
ramp with a finite constant error — the classic position-servo behaviour.
Write the error transfer function. For unity feedback,
$$E(s) = \frac{R(s)}{1+L(s)} = \frac{s(s+1)}{s^{2}+s+K}\,R(s),$$
and by the final-value theorem $e_{ss}=\lim_{s\to0}sE(s)$, valid because all closed-loop
poles are in the left half-plane.
Unit step input. The position error constant is
$$K_{p} = \lim_{s\to0}L(s) = \lim_{s\to0}\frac{K}{s(s+1)} = \infty ,$$
because of the free integrator. Hence
$$e_{ss}^{\text{step}} = \frac{1}{1+K_{p}} = \frac{1}{1+\infty}
\;\Longrightarrow\;
\boxed{\;e_{ss}^{\text{step}} = 0\ \text{for every } K>0. \;}$$
Equivalently, substituting $R=1/s$ directly:
$e_{ss}=\lim_{s\to0}s\cdot\dfrac{s(s+1)}{s^{2}+s+K}\cdot\dfrac{1}{s}
=\lim_{s\to0}\dfrac{s(s+1)}{s^{2}+s+K}=0$. The servo eventually reaches any commanded
position exactly, no matter how small the gain.
Unit ramp input. The velocity error constant is
$$K_{v} = \lim_{s\to0}sL(s) = \lim_{s\to0}\frac{sK}{s(s+1)}
= \lim_{s\to0}\frac{K}{s+1} = K .$$
Therefore
$$\boxed{\;e_{ss}^{\text{ramp}} = \frac{1}{K_{v}} = \frac{1}{K}. \;}$$
The direct route confirms it:
$e_{ss}=\lim_{s\to0}s\cdot\dfrac{s(s+1)}{s^{2}+s+K}\cdot\dfrac{1}{s^{2}}
=\lim_{s\to0}\dfrac{s+1}{s^{2}+s+K}=\dfrac{1}{K}$.
Interpret the design trade-off. The ramp error is a steady lag
of $1/K$ units behind a reference moving at unit velocity, so tracking a constant-speed
command requires large $K$. But $\zeta=1/(2\sqrt{K})$ falls as $K$ rises: demanding
$e_{ss}^{\text{ramp}}\le0.05$ forces $K\ge20$ and hence $\zeta\le0.112$, which
corresponds to roughly 70 % overshoot. Proportional gain alone therefore cannot satisfy
a tight accuracy specification and a reasonable damping specification simultaneously; the
standard remedies are a lag or PI controller (which raises the type and drives the ramp error
to zero) or rate feedback / lead compensation to restore damping.