HW9 Solutions
HW9 Solutions
HW 9 Solutions
1. Pole Placement
Given the following open-loop plant,
10(s + 3)
G(s) =
s(s + 2)(s + 5)
k1 (10 + k2 ) (7 + k3 ) 1
h i
y = 30 10 0 x
Y X Y
We write the open-loop plant as G(s) = . The inverse Laplace transform of gives the
XU X
X
output equation, y = Cx, and the inverse Laplace transform of gives the state equation,
U
x = Ax + Bu. Plugging in the feedback we get x = Ax + B(Kx + r) = (A BK)x + r.
(b) Where should the second-order poles be to satisfy the design requirements?
Answer: (1 pt) s = 5.0 j5.24
Using the design specifications,
ln(OS)
=q = 0.69,
2 + ln2 (OS)
4
n = = 7.26,
Ts
p
so the desired second-order poles are at s = n jn 1 2 = 5.0 j5.24.
(c) Calculate the desired closed-loop characteristic equation by selecting the third closed-loop pole
to cancel the closed-loop zero. Is this a good design choice? Explain.
Answer: (3 pts) s3 + 13s2 + 82.5s + 157.5 = 0
Note that this feedback does not change the open-loop zero. Since we can cancel the zero with
a stable pole, the closed-loop system behaves like a second-order system after cancellation, and
the design requirements can be satisfied exactly.
The desired closed-loop characteristic equation is
1 of 5
EE C128 / ME C134 Fall 2014 HW 9 Solutions UC Berkeley
Matching coefficients with the desired characteristic equation, we find k1 = 157.5, k2 = 72.5,
k3 = 6.
(e) Simulate the step response. Did you meet the design specifications?
Answer: (1 pt)
Step Response
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
Amplitude
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (seconds)
The overshoot is 5 % and the settling time is 0.83 s, slightly greater than the desired settling
time.
For part (c), choose the third pole to cancel one of the zeros. Which one should you choose?
For part (e), you should find that you did not meet all the design specifications. What went wrong
and where should you have placed the third pole instead?
(a) What is the closed-loop representation of the system in phase-variable form?
Answer: (2 pts)
0 1 0 0
x = 0 0 1 x + 0 r
(b) Where should the second-order poles be to satisfy the design requirements?
2 of 5
EE C128 / ME C134 Fall 2014 HW 9 Solutions UC Berkeley
Matching coefficients with the desired characteristic equation, we find k1 = 682.4, k2 = 131.5,
k3 = 10.
(e) Simulate the step response. You should find that you did not meet all the design specifications.
What went wrong and where should you have placed the third pole instead?
Answer: (2 pts) The step response is plotted below. The overshoot is 5.5% and settling time
is 0.78 s. The specifications were not met since the system is not close enough to second-order.
Step Response
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Amplitude
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (seconds)
As we move the third pole in the desired characteristic equation closer to the origin, the over-
shoot decreases and settling time increases. At 12, the overshoot is 4.8% and settling time is
7.9 s, so it is possible to satisfy the design specifications. The step response is plotted below.
3 of 5
EE C128 / ME C134 Fall 2014 HW 9 Solutions UC Berkeley
Step Response
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Amplitude
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (seconds)
26 38 62 8
h i
y = 2 2 7 x
8 704 53808
rank(CM ) = 3 = order of plant so system is controllable.
C 2 2 7
OM = CA = 164 230 382
13 21 34 1
h i
y = 0 3 5 x
4 of 5
EE C128 / ME C134 Fall 2014 HW 9 Solutions UC Berkeley
1 47 1868
rank(CM ) = 2 < order of plant so system is not controllable.
C 0 3 5
OM = CA = 56 90 146
5 of 5