Nyquist plot, damping factor and phase margin

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around analyzing a Nyquist plot of a standard second-order system to determine the peak percentage overshoot expected in the system output when a unit-step function is applied. Participants explore the relationship between phase margin, damping factor, and system response, engaging in both theoretical and practical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests tracing backwards from the ω→+∞ to find a vector of magnitude one on the Nyquist plot to determine the phase margin.
  • Another participant questions the definition of a "standard" second-order system and points out that the plot does not pass through the initially mentioned point (0.6, -0.8), but does pass through (1, 0), (0, 0), and (0, -0.8).
  • A different participant derives a damping factor (ζ) of 0.625 based on the points identified on the plot and calculates an overshoot percentage of 8.083%.
  • One participant raises a concern about the distinction between open-loop and closed-loop transfer functions, suggesting that the Nyquist plot pertains to the open-loop system and that the relationship to the closed-loop system is not straightforward.
  • Another participant proposes generating a "template" Nyquist plot based on unknown parameters and suggests that careful selection of these parameters could lead to a solution for the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition and implications of a "standard" second-order system, as well as the relationship between open-loop and closed-loop transfer functions. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on how to approach the problem.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made regarding the standard form of the second-order system and the interpretation of the Nyquist plot. The relationship between phase margin and damping factor is also not fully established, leading to uncertainty in the calculations presented.

jegues
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



A Nyquist (polar) plot of a standard second-order system is shown below (drawn to scale).
attachment.php?attachmentid=66371&stc=1&d=1391738703.jpg

Suppose a unit-step function is applied as the input to this system. Determine the peak percentage overshoot expected in the system output.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



My idea was to trace backwards from the ω→+∞ at the origin until I reach a vector from the origin to a point on the curve with magnitude one. This ω will correspond to a gain cross over frequency and provide me with the phase margin.

I could then link this value of the phase margin back to zeta through the following equation,

[tex]\text{P.M.} = \gamma = tan^{-1}\left( \frac{2\zeta}{\sqrt{-2\zeta^{2}+\sqrt{1+4\zeta^{2}}}}\right)}[/tex]

The first point I could find that would give me a vector of magnitude one resides at (0.6, -0.8) yielding a phase margin of 126.87°. Unfortunately this PM yields a negative value for zeta.

Any idea where I went wrong or an easier way to solve the problem?
 

Attachments

  • NyquistQ.JPG
    NyquistQ.JPG
    32.3 KB · Views: 2,294
Physics news on Phys.org
Bump, still looking for help!
 
It might help if you defined what your textbook calls a "standard" 2nd order system.

Looking carefully at the plot, it doesn't go exactly through (0.6, -0.8), but it does go exactly through (1, 0), (0, 0) and (0, -0.8), and the slope at (1,0) is vertical. Is that enough data to fix the transfer function, for your "standard" system?
 
AlephZero said:
It might help if you defined what your textbook calls a "standard" 2nd order system.

A standard 2nd order system would be in the form,

[tex]G(s) = \frac{\omega_{n}^{2}}{s^{2}+2\zeta \omega_{n} s + \omega_{n}^2}[/tex]

AlephZero said:
Looking carefully at the plot, it doesn't go exactly through (0.6, -0.8), but it does go exactly through (1, 0), (0, 0) and (0, -0.8), and the slope at (1,0) is vertical. Is that enough data to fix the transfer function, for your "standard" system?

The only information I can extract out of those three points is that,

[tex]G(j\omega_{n}) = \frac{1}{j2 \zeta} = -j0.8[/tex]

[tex]|G(j\omega_{n}| = \frac{1}{2 \zeta} = 0.8[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow \zeta = 0.625[/tex]

So,

[tex]\text{OS%} = 100 e^{\frac{-\pi \zeta}{\sqrt{1 - \zeta^{2}}}} = 8.083 \text{%}[/tex]
attachment.php?attachmentid=66491&stc=1&d=1392080153.jpg


Does the slope at the point (1,0) somehow link back to ζ as well?
 

Attachments

  • NyquistQ2.JPG
    NyquistQ2.JPG
    21.2 KB · Views: 2,060
Last edited:
The problem I have with this is that you speak of a standard 2nd order transfer function, which is well defined: F(s) = (1/(s2 + 2ζwns + wn2), which I assume is the closed-loop transfer function.

However, a Nyquist plot is that of the open loop, not the closed loop, and the open loop is not unique to the closed loop.

One candidate however is F(s) = G/(1+G) which is G/(1+GH) with H=1 (unity fedback).

The closed loop is also written as F(s) = 1/(s+s1)(s+s2) where s1 and s2 are complex-conjugate pole pairs:
s1 = a +jb
s2 = a -jb
where a and b are functions of ζ and wn.

Solve for G(a,b) from G/(1+G) = 1/(s+a+jb)(s+a-jb) with s = jw.

You can now generate a "template" Nyquist plot of G(jw) with unknown a and b. Then pick values for a and b so as to generate your given plot. This may not be as bad as it seems if you pick your w point judiciously. Knowing a and b you can find wn and ζ . Finally you have the entire closed loop transfer function and can input a step function and solve for the overshoot.

This seems a really horrible problem that way, there is probably a short-cut of some kind equating open-loop Nyquist plots with the corresponding closed-loop transfer functions, but I don't know it. I'll try to research this a bit further.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K