Sketching Root Locus: n=2, m=1, Angle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tekneek
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Root Root locus
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the root locus for a system characterized by the equation 1+K(S+1)/S^2, which has two poles at zero and one zero. Participants clarify that the presence of s^2 indicates two poles at the same location, leading to two branches in the root locus diagram. The angle of departure is debated, with confusion arising over the formula used and the interpretation of angles between branches versus the real axis. Additionally, the concept of root-curves on the real axis is explained, noting that they occur when the number of poles and zeros to the right of a point is odd. The conversation encourages experimentation with different pole and zero configurations to better understand their effects on the root locus.
Tekneek
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
The characteristic equation is 1+K(S+1)/S2 Below is the root locus diagram. I don't get why there are two branches when there is only one pole, at 0. Does it count as having two poles even if it is the same because of s^2 ? If it does then why doesn't the angle of departure make sense?

number of poles(n) = 2
number of zeros(m) = 1

angle = (2h+1)/n-m * 180 = keep getting the same angle, 180

The angle certainly does not look like 180 as it departs from its pole...
95whgh.jpg
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Tekneek said:
The characteristic equation is 1+K(S+1)/S2 Below is the root locus diagram. I don't get why there are two branches when there is only one pole, at 0. Does it count as having two poles even if it is the same because of s^2 ? If it does then why doesn't the angle of departure make sense?

number of poles(n) = 2
number of zeros(m) = 1

angle = (2h+1)/n-m * 180 = keep getting the same angle, 180

The angle certainly does not look like 180 as it departs from its pole...

Yes, there are two poles, s2 = (s+0)(s+0)

The mentioned angle is the angle between the two branches (180°), not the angle between a branch and the real-axis.

I don't recognize this formula: angle = (2h+1)/n-m * 180°.

Rule 1) If the number of poles in the same point = n, then the angle between the n branches = 360°/n.

Rule 2) There will be a root-curve on the real-axis at a point, if the number of real (zeroes+poles) to the right of that point is odd.
 
Last edited:
Hesch said:
Yes, there are two poles, s2 = (s+0)(s+0)

The mentioned angle is the angle between the two branches (180°), not the angle between a branch and the real-axis.

I don't recognize this formula: angle = (2h+1)/n-m * 180°.

Rule 1) If the number of poles in the same point = n, then the angle between the n branches = 360°/n.

Rule 2) There will be a root-curve on the real-axis at a point, if the number of real (zeroes+poles) to the right of that point is odd.

What does it mean by root-curve on the real axis? Also how would I know the root locus moves in a circular pattern?
 
Tekneek said:
What does it mean by root-curve on the real axis?

Look at your attached figure: There is a root-curve (actually 2) on the real axis (imaginary part = 0) for s < -1, because there is 1 zero and 2 poles to the right of all points on the real axis when s < -1.

Tekneek said:
Also how would I know the root locus moves in a circular pattern?

Poles will repel roots and zeros will attrack roots as the amplification in a control-loop is increased. Say you have three poles in the same point. If not the roots should leave these poles in a mutual angle of 120°, what should they do instead, and why?

Having left the startpoint (at some distance from the startpoint) the roots will no longer spread symmetrically because they then "can sense" other poles (repelling) and zeros (attracking).

Recommendation: Invent some sets of poles and zeroes and "play" with them on your screen. See what the root-curves will do in different combinations. Confirm the rules in #2.

Examples here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=roo...KcsgH064D4CQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=635
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Back
Top