MENG 476 - Spring 2013

Assignment three solutions

Question 1
For the translational mechanical system with a nonlinear spring shown below, find the
( )
transfer function, ( )
, for small excursionsaround ( )=1.The spring is
( )
defined by ( )
spring force.

( )

, where

( )is the spring displacementand

( ) is the

Hint:In the systems differential equation, replace ( ) with ( ( )

) and replace
( )with (
), where is the equilibrium point of the system when ( )
.
Then linearise any nonlinear term.

The free body force diagram is:

So,
(
)

( )
The force of the spring depends on extension. Under steady state conditions, the
inertia and damping terms will cancel as they are derivative terms. Further if the
Steady State position is assumed to be Xo, then the spring equation can be used to
work out the steady state displacement at f(t)=1.
(
)
( )

( )
( )

( )

( )

So we will linearize the system about x=0.632 when f(t) is 1.

Now,
( )
( )
( )
( )

( ))
(
( )
The linearization around equilibrium point using Taylor series is:
( )

( ))

)
( )

It was shown previously that:

So,

So the linearized equation is:

( )
The dynamic equation of the system is:
(
)

Substituting:
(
)

( )

( )

( )

C=1 m=1

( )
( )

Therefore,
( )
( )

Question 2
For the system shown below:
a. Use Matlab command roots to find the closed loop poles. Mention how
many are in the LHP, RHP and on the jw-axis.
b. Use Routh criterion to verify your findings in part a.

Part (a):

The system shown in figure 1 below is a non-unity feedback system. The roots of the
closed loop polynomial are to be found using the MATLAB command roots.
G(s)

H(s)

Figure 1: system under consideration for question 2.

First we need to find the closed loop transfer function. Using CLTF equation,
( )
( ) ( )

By looking at the denominator of the closed loop function, we see the polynomial:

Therefore, the coefficients of this polynomial were fed into MATLAB and stored in
variable a. The command roots was then used and the result stored in r.
MATLAB commands:
1- G=tf([507],[1 3 10 30 169])
2- H=tf([1],[1 0])
3- T=feedback(G,H)
4-a=[1 3 10 30 169 507]%this polynomial is characteristic
equation
5-r= roots(a)
In the Matlab command Window the following results appeared.
The results obtained were (in command window):

So this CLTF transfer function has got 2 imaginary poles on the right hand plane, two
imaginary poles in the left hand plane, and one real pole on the X-axis. The system is
unstable.

Question 2; Part (b):

To construct the Routh array consider the denominator of the CLTF.

An array is constructed starting with s5 to s0 as a column in the table. The first row is
filled by writing the coefficient of s5 and then skipping one power of s and so on. The
second row is filled in exactly the same manner but starting with the coefficient of s 4.
For the remaining rows they are filled by finding the determinant of matrix made by
above rows and divided by the first entity in the above row. Therefore, applying
these rules to the Routh array will yield the following result:
S5

10

169 0

S4

30

507

S3

S2
S1
S0
As can be seen, there is an entire row of zeroes with which the array cannot be
continued. To overcome this, an auxiliary equation is formed by reading the
coefficients in the row above the row of zeroes. In this case it starts with s 4 and has
coefficients of 3, 30, and 507. So,

This equation is differentiated with respect to s to yield:

The coefficients of the differentiated equation are substituted in the Routh array at
the row of S3 instead of the zeroes and the table is filled as normal.
S5

10

169 0

S4

30

507

S3

12

60

S2

15

S1

-345.6 0

S0

507

507

The number of sign changes is equal to the number of poles in the right hand plane.
Further, the auxiliary polynomial is an even polynomial and hence must be
symmetrical about the X-axis. From s5 to s4 is the case of other polynomial and there
is no sign change indicating that there is no pole in the right hand plane. From s4 to
s0 is the case of the auxiliary polynomial two sign changes can be noticed from s 2 to
s1, and from s1 to s0. This means that the auxiliary polynomial has got two roots in
the right hand plane. From symmetry, this means that the other two roots of the
polynomial lie in the left hand plane. Since the auxiliary polynomial has 4 roots two
in the LHP and 2 in the RHP, we conclude that there are no roots on the Y-axis (j
omega axis).
To summarise,
Location of poles
Right half-plane
Left half-plane
J

Even poly (fourthorder)

2
2 (symmetry)
0

Other (first order)

Total (Fifth order)

0
1
0

2
3
0

Question 3:
For the network shown below, find:
a. A state space representation for the network where the output is the
voltage ( ).
b. Use the state space model obtained to get the transfer function ( )
( ) ( ).

Part (a):
A state space model is not unique for a particular system as more than one
representation can be used. However, it is common to use differentiated quantities
as states of the system. First draw arrows for the currents on the circuit. As follows:

Now write the voltage current relation for all components. For resistors this is
straight forward. For inductors one and two these are:

We can see that the currents one and two through the inductors are differentiated.
We choose these as our states. Therefore, we need to express Vl1 and Vl2 in terms
of our states i.e. iL1, iL2, and V (t).
By looking at the circuit, we conclude that the voltage across the third branch is the
same as that across the second branch with resistor 1 (parallel) i.e.
( )
Investigating currents at a node we get the following relations for the three currents:

Therefore, the voltage across resistor one is:

(

Therefore, VL1 can be expressed in terms of V (t) and iL as:

( )

( )

It was said previously that the second branch and third branch (last on the right) are
parallel so we can relate R1 voltage to R1 and L2 as:

But earlier we have shown that:

( )

So:
( )
And VL1 was found to be:
( )
So,
( )

( )

And:

Our state space is expressed by the state equation:

Our states are the two currents through the two inductors i.e.:
[

So the derivative is:

Hence:
[

To find these matrices, rearrange the equations for the two states i.e. eq1 and eq2:

( )

So,
( )

In matrix form this is:

[
[

[ ] ( )

The desired state to measure is the voltage across inductor two. This has to be
expressed in terms of the two states i.e. iL1 and iL2.

) [

Question 3 Part (b):

Here the state space representation is to be converted to transfer function form. The
equation for converting is given by:
( )
( )

( )

In our case D=0. So to work out the TF we have to substitute our state space
matrices in this equation:

[
[

A matrix

[ ] ( )

B matrix/vector

) [

C vector

( )

( )
( )

[
(

[ ]
[

])

This equation can be solved by hand, or we could use symbolic operations in

MATLAB to solve it fast. Let the following variables represent our symbols:

Our (SI-A) matrix in symbols is:

[

MATLAB code is as follows but we first declare the symbols:

syms
syms
syms
syms
syms
syms
syms

s % Declare symbol s
a % Declare symbol a
b % Declare symbol b
c % Declare symbol c
R1 % Declare symbol R1
R2 % Declare symbol R2
L1 % Declare symbol L1

A=[s+a -a; -b s+b+c]% SI-A matrix

C=[R1

-(R1+R2)]% C matrix

B=[1/L1 ;0]% B matrix

Z=C*inv(A)*B %workout TF
simplify(Z)%simplify it for convenience
MATLAB produces the following TF:
(

Substituting for the values that represent these symbols we get:

Substituting the values for components (1, 1, 1, 1) we get the TF:

Question 4:
The following plant is to be remodelled to have an overshoot of 15% and a settling
time of 0.75 seconds. It is assumed that this is the closed loop i.e. T.

)(

)(

The percent overshoot is given by the relation:

Therefore, for an overshoot of 15% the damping ratio is given by:

The damping ratio is graphically related to a line with an angle, , with respect to the
negative real axis of X:

Therefore:

The settling time is given by:

Where

is the distance on the real axis. Therefore,

So the desired point lies on the intersection of the previous two lines. For stability,
its X-axis value is -5.33 while the y-axis is conveniently calculated from the angle as:

This point exists in the complex plane and so to create two dominant poles that
approximate second order, a conjugate pole is needed. Therefore, the two poles are:

An alternative way of finding the second order poles is to work out the natural
frequency given the damping ratio. It was shown earlier:

Therefore:

So the second order TF is:

So the roots are:

A third pole is needed as the system is a third order. However, the calculations are
based on the assumption of second order behaviour. To minimise the error, a third
real pole is chosen to be 10 times as far as the dominant pair i.e. at -53.3. The
denominator of the desired system is:
(

))(

))(

Expanding this yields the desired characteristic equation:

(

)(

And the desired systems equation is:

Which can be expressed in phase variable form as:

[ ]

][ ]

[ ]

[ ]
The original system had a transfer function that can also be expressed in state space
form after expanding:
(

)(

)(

So:

[ ]

][ ]

[ ]

[ ]

To design a controller to transform the plant behaviour as desired, the plant must be
fully controllable. This is ensured by fulfilling controllability test. The following
controllability matrix is to be found:

From the state space representation:

[

[ ]
Multiplication of matrices A and B yields AB. As for A2B,
(

So to find AB, multiply first row of A by first column of B and so on.

][ ]

][

Therefore, the controllability matrix is:

[

The rank of this matrix must be full (highest) for the system to be controllable. To
find the rank of matrix, the following MATLAB commands were used:

A=[0 1 0; 0 0 1; -64 -56 -14]%A matrix of actual system

B=[0; 0; 1]%B matrix of actual system
c=[B A*B A*A*B]% Controllability matrix
rank(c)%determining rank of c
And the output from MATLAB was:
A =0

-64 -56 -14

B =0
0
1
c =0
0

1 -14

1 -14 140
ans =3
Therefore, from MATLAB we know that rank of the matrix is 3. Since the matrix is a
3X3 matrix, then the highest number of independent rows/columns is 3 so a rank of
3 is a full rank. Therefore this system is controllable.

Proceeding with controller design, the A matrices are of interest since modification
of the characteristic equation yields the desired response. The old system and new
systems A matrices are:
[

In other words, a set of gains is needed to convert the systems transient behaviour.
So the desired matrix can be written in terms of the old matrix as:
[

By comparing these values we get:

Rearranging gives:

To confirm these results, the following MATLAB commands were used:

A=[0 1 0; 0 0 1; -64 -56 -14]%A matrix of actual system
B=[0; 0; 1]%B matrix of actual system
I=sqrt(-1)%C full rank sl let i=sqrt(-1)
P=[-5.33+(I*8.83); -5.33-(I*8.83); -53.333]%Desired eigen values (roots)
place(A,B,P)%command to work out the gains to get desired system
The output from MATLAB was:
A =0

-64 -56 -14

B =0
0
1
I =0 + 1.0000i
P =-5.3300 + 8.8300i
-5.3300 - 8.8300i
-53.3330
ans =1.0e+003 *(5.6094 0.6189 0.0500)
N.B. the outputs are multiplied by 1000 i.e. the vector of output values is:
(5609.4

618.9

500)

These values are very close to the values produced theoretically (MATLAB uses
numerical methods) and these are the gains needed to adjust the system
performance as desired.
The following MATLAB commands were used to visualise the systems response
(after modification).
G=tf([20],[1 64 675 5673]) %characteristic equation of
new system
step(G)%plot step response of new system
The output from MATLAB was this plot:

Step response of system with settling time, peak value, and steady state value marked.

Notice that the desired performance was met with little error despite the
assumption of second order. This is due to the flexibility (DOF) offered by state space
methods compared to other methods.

Question 5:
For the following open-loop plant, design a state feedback controller to yield a 15%
overshoot with a settling time of 0.5 seconds for the following cases:

Part a (Direct design) (see next part for controllability test)

The node before an integrator is a derivative of the state following the integrator. In
the figure below, the derivatives are marked in red.

This system is straight forward and made up of two states only. It is easy to write the
state space equations by inspection so,

[ ]

][ ]

[ ]

[ ]
The percent overshoot is given by the relation:

Therefore, for an overshoot of 15% the damping ratio is given by:

The settling time is given by:

Therefore,

Now

Therefore:

So the second order TF is:

State feedback means we are feeding all the states back to U i.e. it looks like this
diagram:

This is essentially a block diagram. For a while ignore the states and simplify the
system as a normal block diagram simplification problem. The following TF results:
(

The desired TF was earlier shown to be:

So comparing these values we get:

And

Question 5:
Part B (in direct):
The original system is given by:

The system can be simplified using block diagram techniques to yield the following
transfer function:

)(

This can be expressed in phase variable form:

[ ]

][ ]

[ ]

[ ]
To design a controller to transform the plant behaviour as desired, the plant must be
fully controllable. This is ensured by using the controllability test. The following
controllability matrix is to be found:

From the state space representation:

[

]
[ ]

So to find AB, multiply first row of A by first column of B and so on.

[

][ ]

Therefore, the controllability matrix is:

[

The rank of this matrix must be full (highest) for the system to be controllable. To
find the rank of matrix, the following MATLAB commands were used:

A=[0 1 ; -2 3]%A matrix of actual system

B=[0; 1]%B matrix of actual system
c=[B A*B]% Controllability matrix
rank(c)%determining rank of c
And the output from MATLAB was:
ans =2

Therefore, from MATLAB we know that rank of the matrix is 2 since the matrix is a
2X3 matrix, then the highest number of independent rows/columns is 2 so a rank of
2 is a full rank. Therefore this system is controllable.
Proceeding with controller design, the A matrices are of interest since modification
of the characteristic equation yields the desired response. The old system and new
systems A matrices are:
[

In other words, a set of gains is needed to convert the systems transient behaviour.
So the desired matrix can be written in terms of the old matrix as:
[

By comparing these values we get:

Rearranging gives:

To confirm these results, the following MATLAB commands were used:

A=[0 1; -239.4 -16]%A matrix of actual system
B=[0; 1]%B matrix of actual system
I=sqrt(-1) %let i=sqrt(-1)
P=roots([1 3 2])%Desired eigen values (roots)
place(A,B,P)%command to work out the gains to get desired system
The output from MATLAB was:
A = 0 1.0000
-239.4000 -16.0000
B=
0
1

I=
0 + 1.0000i
P=
-2
-1
ans = -237.4000 -13.0000
The vector of output values is:
(-237.4

-13)

Calculating the controllability matrix for the modified system we get:

[

The gains of the modified system are related to those of the actual one by the P
matrix given by:
[

The gains are given by:

[

Question 6:
Part a:
The following system is to be tested for controllability.

All nodes followed by integrators (1/S) are derivatives of the following nodes.
Therefore, the derivatives have been marked in red.

State space equations have the form:

[ ]

][ ]

[]

[ ]
By looking at node Y, one can see the connections from nodes leading to Y and the
TF on these connections. Therefore, from figure Y is:

Similarly, , , and are equal to:

Now these can be put in matrix form:

[ ]

][ ]

[ ]

[ ]
The A matrix is not diagonal (modal/decoupled) therefore, controllability cannot be
found by inspection. However, the controllability matrix can be derived.

From the state space representation:

[

[ ]
Multiplication of matrices A and B yields AB. While A2B is:
(

So to find AB, multiply first row of A by first column of B and so on.

[

][ ]

][

Therefore, the controllability matrix is:

[

The rank of this matrix must be full (highest) for the system to be controllable. To
find the rank of matrix, the following MATLAB commands were used:

A=[-2 0 1; 0 -2 0; 0 0 -3]% A matrix

B=[0; 1; 1]% B matrix
C=[B A*B A*A*B] %controllability matrix
rank(C)%find rank of C
The output from MATLAB was:
A =-2

0 -2
0

0 -3

B =0
1
1
C =0

1 -5

1 -2

1 -3

ans =2
The output from MATLAB is that the controllability matrix has a rank of 2. Since this
is a 3X3 matrix, a rank of 2 is not full rank. Hence, the system is not controllable.
However, it cannot be told which states are controllable and which are not.
However, since rank is 3-2 = 1 rank less than maximum, it means that one state is not
controllable.

Question 6:
Part b:
The following system is to be tested for controllability.

All nodes followed by integrators (1/S) are derivatives of the following nodes.
Therefore, the derivatives have been marked in red.

State space equations have the form:

[ ]

][ ]

[]

[ ]
By looking at node Y, one can see the connections from nodes leading to Y and the
TF on these connections. Therefore, from figure Y is:

Similarly, , , and are equal to:

Now these can be put in matrix form:

[ ]

][ ]

[ ]

[ ]

The A matrix is not diagonal (modal/decoupled) therefore, controllability cannot be

found by inspection. However, the controllability matrix can be derived.

From the state space representation:

[

[ ]
Multiplication of matrices A and B yields AB. While A2B is:
(

So to find AB, multiply first row of A by first column of B and so on.

[

][ ]

][

Therefore, the controllability matrix is:

[

The rank of this matrix must be full (highest) for the system to be controllable. To
find the rank of matrix, the following MATLAB commands were used:

A=[-2 1 0; 0 -2 0; 0 0 -3]% A matrix

B=[0; 1; 1]% B matrix
C=[B A*B A*A*B]%controllability matrix
rank(C)%find rank of C
The output from MATLAB was:
A =-2

0 -2

0
0

0 -3

B =0
1
1
C =0

1 -4

1 -2

1 -3

ans =3
The output from MATLAB is that the controllability matrix has a rank of 3. Since this
is a 3X3 matrix, a rank of 3 is full rank. Hence, the system is fully controllable.