Step Response Analysis

of
Underdamped Second-Order
Systems
a common model for physical
problems

2
 objectives
• Define transient specifications associated with
underdamped responses
• Relate these specifications to the pole location,
(i.e draw an association between pole location and
the form of second-order response)
• Tie the pole location to system parameters

Desired response generates required system

components.

3
 Pole plot for the underdamped second-order system

n2
G( s)  2
s  2n s  n2

s1,2  n  jn 1   2

n   d
n 1   2  d

 d : the damping exp onential frequency

d : the damped frequency of oscillation
17
 Second-order underdamped Response
Specifications
• Rise time, Tr
The time required for the waveform to go from 0.1 of the
final value to 0.9 of the final value.
• Peak time, Tp
The time required to reach the first, or maximum, peak.
• Percent overshoot, %OS
The amount that the waveform overshoots the final value,
expressed as a percentage of the final value
• Settling time, Ts
The time required for the transient's oscillations to reach
and stay within ±2% of the steady-state value.
5
 18
Transient Response Specifications
C ( s) n2 1 n2 
 2 For step input C ( s )   2 
R( s) s  2n s  n2 s  s  2n s  n2 

Setting the derivative

equal to zero, we get:

n 1   2 t  n
n
t
n 1   2
At n =1 t =Tp
 
Tp  
n 1   2 d
 18
Transient Response Specifications
C ( s) n2 1 n2 
 2 For step input C ( s )   2 
R( s) s  2n s  n2 s  s  2n s  n2 

c(t )  1 
1
1  2 
ent cos n 1   2 t   
To find the settling time, we must find
the time for which c(t) reaches and stays
within ±2% of the steady-state value.
(the time required for the amplitude of
the decaying sinusoid to reach 0.02)
1
ent  0.02
1  2
The numerator varies from 3.91 to 4.74 as ζ

Ts 

 ln 0.02 1   2  varies from 0 to 0.9
4 4
n  Ts  
n d
 18
Transient Response Specifications
C ( s) n2 1 n2 
 2 For step input C ( s )   2 
R( s) s  2n s  n2 s  s  2n s  n2 

cmax  c(Tp )  1  e

  / 1 2   cos    
sin    1 e

  / 1 2 
 1  2 
 

cmax  c final
%OS  100
c final

%OS  e

  / 1 2  100
 The Rise Time (Tr)

if n  10
n t

and   0.5

from the grapgh

nt  1.63
t  Tr  0.163 sec


9
Second-order underdamped responses for
damping ratio values

10
 TS

Which parameter (τ ,TS,, %OS) remains constant?

21
Time Response and Pole Locations
cont..

Envelope ?

Which parameter (τ ,TP,, %OS) remains constant? 22

23
14
From the problem
statement As

For 20% overshoot

Thus

15
Second Order System
with Additional Pole

16
Second Order System with Additional Pole

n2
G ( s)  2
s  2n s  n2 Unity gain 2nd order system

 rn2
G( s)  Unity gain 2nd order system
( s   r )( s 2  2n s  n2 ) with additional pole at -αr

1  rn2
C ( s)  Step response of 2nd order
s ( s   r )( s 2  2n s  n2 )
system with additional pole

A B  s  n   Cd D
C ( s)   
    (s   r )
2
s s  n  2
d

where d  n 1   2
17
 A B  s  n   Cd D
C ( s)   
 s  n   d ( s   r )
2 2
s

In time domain

c(t )  Au (t )  e nt  B cos d t  C sin d t   De  r t

18
c(t )  Au (t )  e nt  B cos d t  C sin d t   De  r t

19
Example 4.8
(Comparing Responses of Three-Pole System)

20
Complex poles dominant:
approximate as secon-dorder
system

Real pole dominant:

approximate as first-order system
All three poles dominant:
approximation difficult
The “five times” rule of thumb can be used as
necessary (but not sufficient) condition for
second order approximation during design.

The completed design should be simulated

before final implementation

23
24