Overshoot Control: Determining k to Avoid Overshoot

  • Thread starter Thread starter peripatein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Control
AI Thread Summary
To determine the values of k that prevent overshoot in the given step response, one must analyze the closed-loop transfer function derived from the plant P(s) = s^2 + a1*s + a0. The process involves substituting P(s) into the feedback loop equation and simplifying it to obtain a quadratic form. From this quadratic, damping can be extracted to assess overshoot characteristics. Concerns were raised about the appropriateness of the transfer function used, as it may not represent a physically realizable system. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the importance of algebraic manipulation and understanding of control theory fundamentals to solve the problem effectively.
peripatein
Messages
868
Reaction score
0
Hello,
Suppose I have the following step response:
ystep(t)=(kP/1+kP)(1-e(-t/τ))
where k is constant and P is the plant.
How may I determine the values of k for which there would be no overshoot?
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
No takers yet ?

Seems to me you'd have to plug in whatever f(t) describes P and find the damping.
 
Here are the relevant functions:
P(s)=s^2+a1*s+a0
Y_step(s)=[kP(s)]/[1+kP(s)]
Now, how exactly do I find the values of k which would prevent an overshoot?
 
you're on the right track...

Laplace Transfer function of plant then is P(s) = s2 + a1s +a0

and when connected to feedback to close the loop takes that form KP/(1+KPh), h being feedback gain

so you'll have to expand that by plugging in P(s) to get Laplace transform of the closed loop,

and multiply that by a step, which in Laplace is 1/s,

which will result in a pretty long fraction
that'll have to be resolved by algebra

but since this looks like a homework problem it'll be quite do-able, for textbooks are that way.

Once the closed loop response is boiled down to a quadratic form it should be straightforward to extract damping.

Now - it was 1965 when i took modern control theory course
and my algebra has grown rusty, if you'll pardon a cheap excuse for not solving this and typing it out in latex.

Above is the approach i'd have used in 1965. I remember struggling with the algebra of this type problems, and still dread them.
Hopefully someone who's fresh will chime in now, i wanted to prime the pump for you. Could be they're teaching an easier method nowadays.
 
peripatein said:
... Suppose I have the following step response:
ystep(t)=(kP/1+kP)(1-e(-t/τ))
where k is constant and P is the plant ...

This looks an awful lot like you're mixing up frequency- and time-domain expressions. I assume P is a (complex-valued) transfer function. How did you arrive at this expression?

peripatein said:
Here are the relevant functions:
P(s)=s^2+a1*s+a0
Y_step(s)=[kP(s)]/[1+kP(s)] ...
Are you sure you have the right P(s)? I ask because it's not a proper transfer function, i.e. it cannot represent any physically realizable system, which is a tad unusual in introductory control theory.
 
Very basic question. Consider a 3-terminal device with terminals say A,B,C. Kirchhoff Current Law (KCL) and Kirchhoff Voltage Law (KVL) establish two relationships between the 3 currents entering the terminals and the 3 terminal's voltage pairs respectively. So we have 2 equations in 6 unknowns. To proceed further we need two more (independent) equations in order to solve the circuit the 3-terminal device is connected to (basically one treats such a device as an unbalanced two-port...
suppose you have two capacitors with a 0.1 Farad value and 12 VDC rating. label these as A and B. label the terminals of each as 1 and 2. you also have a voltmeter with a 40 volt linear range for DC. you also have a 9 volt DC power supply fed by mains. you charge each capacitor to 9 volts with terminal 1 being - (negative) and terminal 2 being + (positive). you connect the voltmeter to terminal A2 and to terminal B1. does it read any voltage? can - of one capacitor discharge + of the...
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Back
Top