Matlab step response. Just need a quick check

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a user's concern regarding the unusual shape of their step response graph generated in Matlab for the transfer function G(s) = 3 / (s^2 + 3). The user receives feedback that the oscillation observed in the graph is due to the absence of damping in the system, which leads to perpetual sinusoidal oscillations. Clarifications are made regarding the correct formulation of the transfer function, emphasizing the importance of the denominator in determining system behavior. The user is advised that a time axis value of 50 should be sufficient for analysis. Overall, the conversation highlights the significance of understanding system dynamics in control engineering.
AnkleBreaker
Messages
22
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Could someone just quickly check my Step Reponse diagram which I made using Matlab. It does not look like the usual shape for a step response system which is making me a bit worried. I'm a fairly new to Matlab and Control Engineering
untitled.jpg

Homework Equations


G(s) = 3 / ((s^2) +3)

The Attempt at a Solution


This was the code which I entered in Matlab to obtain the above step response:
num = [3]
den = [1 0 3]
G=tf(num,den)
step(G)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mark44 said:
The image you posted isn't showing up.

Here's your image:
View attachment 94899
Yes that's my image.. Very sorry.. I tried re uploading it and I thought it was working..
 
AnkleBreaker said:
Yes that's my image.. Very sorry.. I tried re uploading it and I thought it was working..
I added more to my previous post after you replied...
 
  • Like
Likes AnkleBreaker
Mark44 said:
I added more to my previous post after you replied...
untitled_after_help.jpg

This is the new step response graph I am getting after I did like you asked
 
Correction:
Matlab:
G=tf(3, [1, 0, 3])
This is probably the same as what you initially tried.

I don't know much about Control Engineering, but I do know something about Laplace transforms and such. The inverse Laplace transform of your G(s) function, ##\mathcal{L}^{-1}[G(s)]##, is ##\sqrt{3}\sin(\sqrt{3}t)##. That would explain the oscillation of the graph you show, but it doesn't explain either the period of this graph or the range (low to high values). The time-domain function I show has a period of ##\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{3}}## and an amplitude of ##\sqrt{3}##, meaning the values should range between ##-\sqrt{3}## and ##\sqrt{3}##. For your original graph, the values range between 0 and 2, and the period seems to be right around ##2\pi##. There also seems to be an upward shift by 1 unit.
 
Mark44 said:
Correction:
Matlab:
G=tf(3, [1, 0, 3])
This is probably the same as what you initially tried.

I don't know much about Control Engineering, but I do know something about Laplace transforms and such. The inverse Laplace transform of your G(s) function, ##\mathcal{L}^{-1}[G(s)]##, is ##\sqrt{3}\sin(\sqrt{3}t)##. That would explain the oscillation of the graph you show, but it doesn't explain either the period of this graph or the range (low to high values). The time-domain function I show has a period of ##\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{3}}## and an amplitude of ##\sqrt{3}##, meaning the values should range between ##-\sqrt{3}## and ##\sqrt{3}##. For your original graph, the values range between 0 and 2, and the period seems to be right around ##2\pi##. There also seems to be an upward shift by 1 unit.
Thank you very much for your help. I'll try to ask Sir tomorrow what went wrong with my graph. One last question, on the time axis I have only put values up to 50. Is that enough or should I put more/less than 50, in your opinion
 
AnkleBreaker said:
Thank you very much for your help. I'll try to ask Sir tomorrow what went wrong with my graph. One last question, on the time axis I have only put values up to 50. Is that enough or should I put more/less than 50, in your opinion
50 should be enough, I think.

You didn't show the rest of your m-file, so perhaps there's something wrong in it. Here's a link to the documentation for step() - http://www.mathworks.com/help/control/ref/step.html
 
AnkleBreaker said:

Homework Equations


G(s) = 3 / ((s^2) +3)
That is a second order system with zero damping, so once it is given a jolt it will oscillate sinusoidally forever, as your graph demonstrates.

To see what to expect in terms of damping and natural frequency, compare your system's denominator s2 + 3
with the denominator for a general second-order system, viz.,
s2 + 2ζωns + ωn2
 
  • Like
Likes AnkleBreaker
  • #10
NascentOxygen said:
That is a second order system with zero damping, so once it is given a jolt it will oscillate sinusoidally forever, as your graph demonstrates.

To see what to expect in terms of damping and natural frequency, compare your system's denominator s2 + 3
with the denominator for a general second-order system, viz.,
s2 + 2ζωns + ωn2
Ohh there was no damping ratio. I get it now. That explains a lot. Thank you very much
 
  • #11
Mark44 said:
50 should be enough, I think.

You didn't show the rest of your m-file, so perhaps there's something wrong in it. Here's a link to the documentation for step() - http://www.mathworks.com/help/control/ref/step.html
Thank you for all your help. User NascentOxygen's answer states that the graph oscillates infinitely due to there being an absence of a damper, which makes a lot of sense and explains a whole lot.
 
  • #12
AnkleBreaker said:
Ohh there was no damping ratio. I get it now. That explains a lot. Thank you very much
So possibly there is a mistake in your denominator? Perhaps you meant the denominator to be (s + 3)^2

How was the denominator determined?
 
  • #13
NascentOxygen said:
So possibly there is a mistake in your denominator? Perhaps you meant the denominator to be (s + 3)^2

How was the denominator determined?
This was part of a question. In the question they say:
Arm dynamics are represented by:
G(s) = 3 / ((s^2) +3)

So G(s) = 3 / ((s^2) +3) is part of the question and I did not derive it

And they want us to find a phase lead controller/compensator to fit required poles, which I did. I was just confused on why the step response of the original system didn't behave normally
 

Similar threads

Back
Top