Finding the natural frequency of transfer function (2s) / (3s^2+5s+2)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on determining the natural frequency (ω_n) of a second-order transfer function, specifically analyzing the function 2s / (3s^2 + 5s + 2). Participants clarify that the presence of 's' in the numerator does not negate the process for finding ω_n, which remains applicable. The conversation also delves into the implications of damping factors and the use of Laplace transforms for verification. Ultimately, the final derived transfer function is confirmed as 2s / (3s^2 + 6s + 2), indicating a non-oscillatory response due to the damping ratio exceeding 1.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of second-order transfer functions
  • Familiarity with natural frequency (ω_n) and damping ratio (ζ)
  • Knowledge of Laplace transforms and their applications in control systems
  • Experience with partial fraction decomposition in transfer function analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of natural frequency for various transfer functions
  • Learn about the implications of damping ratios in control systems
  • Explore Laplace transform techniques for solving differential equations
  • Investigate the use of partial fraction decomposition in control system analysis
USEFUL FOR

Control system engineers, students studying control theory, and anyone involved in the analysis and design of second-order systems will benefit from this discussion.

s3a
Messages
828
Reaction score
8
Homework Statement
See attached PDF
Relevant Equations
(ω_n)^2 / [s^2 + 2ζ(ω_n) + (ω_n)^2]
In the context of control systems, if I have a vibratory second-order system, (ω_n)^2 / [s^2 + 2ζ(ω_n) + (ω_n)^2], I know how to get the natural frequency ω_n. So, if I have something like 2 / (3s^2+5s+2), I know how to get the natural frequency ω_n.

However, if I instead have something like (2s) / (3s^2+5s+2), I'm not sure what to do. Do I just ignore the s on the numerator and proceed like if it wasn't there or what?

Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Edit:
P.S.
For what it's worth, I'm doing this as part of a larger problem, so if I made a mistake and it's impossible for a vibratory second-order system to have an s on the numerator, just let me know. The problem is question 3 from the PDF document
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
First,G(s)=y2/u1 it is not equal G1(s) multiplied by G2(s) since y1 in G1(s) is calculated when is no load after y1.In case there is a load [L2 series with r2] then y2/u1=2s/(3s^2+6s+2) and not 2s/(3s^2+5s+2).
Second:
However, since 6^2-4*3*2=12>0 sqrt(+12) is real and then no oscillation is expected [the damping factor is more than 1 and no ω]
 
If approximations don't work you can do the Laplace transform to verify. The equation you provided you can do do a partial fraction and use a table.
 
Thanks for your input, Babadag, but I still don't fully understand how to compute the connection of the two "sub-circuits". I also don't understand why multiplying the two transfer functions isn't good enough. Could you please elaborate on those?

Having said that, I figured out how to do the problem (as you can see the final answer is what you said), but I'm not sure if that's how the problem statement intended I do it. For what it's worth, here is what I did.:

Equation 1:
u_1 = (1 Ω)(I_A (t)) + (1 H) d [I_A (t) - I_B (t)] /dt
U_1 (s) = (1 Ω)(I_A (s)) + (1 H) s [I_A (s) - I_B (s)]
Removing the units for visual clarity,
U_1 (s) = I_A (s) + s I_A (s) - s I_B (s)

Equation 2:
0 = (3 H)(d/dt I_b (t)) + (2 Ω)(I_b (t)) + (1 H)[ d (I_b (t) - I_a (t) /dt]
0 = (3 H)(s I_B (s)) + (2 Ω)(I_B (s)) + (1 H)[ s (I_B (s) - s I_A (s)]
Removing the units for visual clarity,
0 = 3 s I_B (s) + 2 I_B (s) + s I_B (s) - s I_A (s)
0 = 4s I_B(s) + 2 I_B (s) - s I_A (s)
0 = (4s + 2) I_B (s) - s I_A (s)
I_A (s) = (4s + 2)/s I_B (s)

Equation 3:
y_2 (t) = (2 Ω)( I_b (t) )
Y_2 (s) = (2 Ω) I_b (s)
Removing the units for visual clarity,
Y_2 (s) = 2 I_B (s)

Then, we mix equations 1 and 2 to get the following, Equation 4,
Y_1 (s) / U_1 (s) = [2 I_B (s)] / [I_A (s) + s I_A (s) - s I_B (s)]

Then, mixing Equation 2 and Equation 4, we get
Y_1 (s) / U_1 (s) = [2 I_B (s)] / [{(4s + 2)/s I_B (s)} + s {(4s + 2)/s I_B (s)} - s I_B (s)]
Y_1 (s) / U_1 (s) = [2 I_B (s)] / [{(4s + 2)/s I_B (s)} + {(4s + 2) I_B (s)} - s I_B (s)]
Y_1 (s) / U_1 (s) = [2 I_B (s)] / [(4s + 2)/s I_B (s) + (4s + 2) I_B (s) - s I_B (s)]
Y_1 (s) / U_1 (s) = 2 / [(4s + 2)/s + (4s + 2) - s]
Y_1 (s) / U_1 (s) = 2s / [s(4s + 2)/s + s(4s + 2) - s^2]
Y_1 (s) / U_1 (s) = 2s / [4s + 2 + 4s^2 + 2s - s^2]
Y_1 (s) / U_1 (s) = 2s / [6s + 2 + 3s^2]
Y_1 (s) / U_1 (s) = 2s / [3s^2 + 6s + 2]

And, Joshy, thanks for the partial fractions and table tip; I later realized that while doing another problem.

What do you mean about an approximation, though?

I'm not too familiar with this stuff, but I've only ever seen stuff about a linear approximation, but that was in the time domain, not frequency domain. Were you suggesting the possibility of using a linear approximation in the frequency domain and then getting the inverse Laplace transform of that?

P.S.
Sorry for the late response!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K