Low-Order Approximation of System

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on finding a low-order approximation for the transfer function \(\frac{(2s+5)(-s+0.5)}{(s+3)(s^2+0.1s+0.01)}\). The participant correctly identifies that the pole at \(s=-3\) can be neglected and that the DC gain from the term \(2s+5\) is calculated as \(5/2\), not \(5\). The final approximation is derived as \(5/(12(s^2+0.1s+0.01))\), contradicting the participant's initial belief of \(5/(6(s^2+0.1s+0.01))\). MATLAB was used to validate the results, confirming the accuracy of the derived approximation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of transfer functions in control systems
  • Familiarity with low-order approximations
  • Knowledge of DC gain calculations
  • Experience with MATLAB for system analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of DC gain in control systems
  • Learn about pole-zero cancellation techniques
  • Explore MATLAB functions for plotting transfer functions
  • Research low-order approximation methods in control theory
USEFUL FOR

Control system engineers, students studying system dynamics, and anyone involved in simplifying transfer functions for analysis and design.

sandy.bridge
Messages
797
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I have a pretty simple question. I was going over an older exam when I encountered something that did not quite make sense to me.

If \frac{(2s+5)(-s+0.5)}{(s+3)(s^2+0.1s+0.01)},

find a low order approximation for the system.

I understand that the pole at s=-3 can be neglected, and that we can drop the terms containing the zeros. I also know that we need to consider the DC gain of these portions when dropping those terms for low-order approximation. What I do not understand, is how the DC gain from (2s+5) term is 5/2, rather than merely 5. Wouldn't you simply plug in a zero for s?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My approach is as follows:
Divide numerator and denominator by "2". Thus, in the numerator we have (s+2.5). Now - as a first approximation, the zero at "-2.5" and the pole at "-3" cancel each other.
This leads to a "low-order approximation" of the given function. Why do you think, that you can "neglect" the pole at "-3" ?
 
The behaviour of the system will primarily be governed by the poles that are close the s-axis (relative to the pole at s=-3). The solution reduces the equation to 5/(12(s^2+0.1s+0.01)), but I was certain that it should be 5/(6(s^2+0.1s+0.01)).

EDIT* I plotted it in MATLAB and determined that their solution is wrong. Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
94
Views
13K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K