C chapter Learning outcomes 9 After completing this chapter the student will be able to: ‘© Make and interpret a basic Routh table to determine the stability of a system (Gections 6.1-6.2) ‘© Make and interpret a Routh table where either the first element ofa row is zero or an entite row is zero (Sections 6.3-6.4) © Use a Routh table to determine the stability ofa system represented in state space (Section 6.5) (case study Learning outcomes 9 You will be able to demonstrate your knowledge of the chapter objectives with case studies as follows: ‘© Given the antenna azimuth position control system shown on the front endpapers, you will be able to find the range of preamplifier gain to keep the system stable. © Given the block diagrams for the UFSS vehicle's pitch and heading control systems on, the back endpapers, you will be able to determine the range of gain for stability of the pitch or heading contiol system. sae Space 301302 Chapter Stability (6.1. Introduction In Chapter 1, we saw that three requirements enter into the design of a contro! system: transient response, stability, and steady-state errors. Thus far we have covered transient response, which we will revisit in Chapter 8. We are now ready to discuss the next requirement, stability. Stability is the most important system specification. If a system is unstable, transient response and steady-state errors are moot points. An unstable system cannot be designed for a specific transient response or steady-state error require- ment. What, then, is stability? There are many definitions for stability, depending upon the kind of system or the point of view. In this section, we limit ourselves to linear, time-invariant systems. In Section 1.5, we discussed that we can control the output of a system if the steady-state response consists of only the forced response. But the total response of a system is the sum of the forced and natural responses, or (0) = creat) + Coat) (6.1) ‘Using these concepts, we present the following definitions of stability, instability, and marginal stability: A linear, time-invariant system is stable if the natural response approaches 2er0 as time approaches infinity. A linear, time-invariant system is wnstable ifthe natural response grows without ‘bound as time approaches infinity. A linear, time-invariant system is marginally stable ifthe natural response neither decays nor grows but remains constant or oscillates as time approaches infinity. ‘Thus, the definition of stability implies that only the forced response remains as the natural response approaches zero. ‘These definitions rely on a description of the natural response. When one is ooking atthe total response, itmay be difficult o separate the natural response from the forced response. However, we realize that if the input is bounded and the total response is not approaching infinity as time approaches infinity, then the natural response is obviously not approaching infinity. Ifthe input is unbounded, we see an ‘unbounded total response, and we cannot arrive at any conclusion about the stability of the system; we cannot tell whether the total response is unbounded because the forced response is unbounded or because the natural response is unbounded, Thus, our alternate definition of stability, one that regards the total response and implies the first definition based upon the natural response, is thi ‘A system is stable if every bounded input yields a bounded output. We call this statement the bounded-input, bounded-output (BIBO) definition of stability. Let us now produce an alternate definition for instability based on the total response rather than the natural response. We realize that if the input is bounded but the total response is unbounded, the system is unstable, since we can conclude that the natural response approaches infinity as time approaches infinity. Ifthe input is unbounded, we will see an unbounded total response, and we cannot draw any conclusion about the stability of the system; we cannot tell whether the total response is unbounded because the forced response is unbounded or because the6.1 Introduction natural response is unbounded. Thus, our alternate definition of instability, one that regards the total response, is this: A system is unstable if any bounded input yields an unbounded output. ‘These definitions help clarity our previous definition of marginal stability, which really means that the system is stable for some bounded inputs and unstable for others. For example, we will show that if the natural response is undamped, a bounded sinusoidal input of the same frequency yields a natural response of growing oscillations. Hence, the system appears stable for all bounded inputs except this one sinusoid. Thus, marginally stable systems by the natural response definitions are included as unstable systems under the BIBO definitions. Let us summarize our definitions of stability for linear, time-invariant systems. Using the natural response: 1. A system is stable if the natural response approaches zero as time approaches, infinity. 2. A system is unstable if the natural response approaches infinity as time approaches infinity. 3. Asystem is marginally stable ifthe natural response neither decays nor grows but remains constant or oscillates. Using the total response (BIBO): 1. A system is stable if every bounded input yields @ bounded output 2. A system is unstable if any bounded input yields an unbounded output. Physically, an unstable system whose natural response grows without bound ‘can cause damage to the system, to adjacent property, or to human life. Many times systems are designed with limited stops to prevent total runaway. From the perspective of the time response plot of a physical system, instability is displayed by transients that grow without bound and, consequently, a total response that does not approach a steady-state value or other forced response." How do we determine ifa system is stable? Let us focus on the natural response definitions of stability. Recall from our study of system poles that poles in the left half-plane (Ihp) yield either pure exponential decay or damped sinusoidal natural responses. These natural responses decay to zero as time approaches infinity. Thus, if the closed-loop system poles are in the left half of the plane and hence have a negative real part, the system is stable. That is, stable systems have closed-loop transfer functions with poles only in the left half plane. Poles in the right half-plane (chp) yield either pure exponentially increasing or exponentially increasing sinusoidal natural responses. These natural responses approach infinity as time approaches infinity. Thus, if the closed-loop system poles are in the right half of the s-plane and hence have a positive real part, the system is unstable, Also, poles of multiplicity greater than 1 on the imaginary axis lead to the sum of responses of the form Af" cos (at + 9), where m= 1,2,..., which also approaches infinity as time approaches infinity. Thus, unstable systems have closed- loop transfer functions with at least one pole in the right half plane and/or poles of ‘multiplicity greater than I on the imaginary axis. "Care must be taken here to distinguish between natura responses growing without hound and forced ‘response. such as a ramp or exponential inerease, that also grows without bound. A system whose forced response approsehes infinity is stable as long s the natural response approaches zea. 303304 FIGURE6.1 Closed-Loop poles and response: a.stable system; beunstable system Chapter 6 Stability Finally, a system that has imaginary axis poles of multiplicity 1 yields pure sinusoidal oscillations as a natural response. These responses neither increase nor decrease in amplitude. Thus, marginally stable systems have closed-loop transfer Junctions with only imaginary axis poles of multiplicity I and poles inthe left half plane. As an example, the unit step response of the stable system of Figure 6.1(a) is ‘compared to that of the unstable system of Figure 6.1(b). The responses, also shown in Figure 6.1, show that while the oscillations for the stable system diminish, those for the unstable system increase without bound. Also notice that the stable system's response in this case approaches a steady-state value of unity. Iis not always a simple matter to determine if a feedback control system is stable. Unfortunately, a typical problem that arises is shown in Figure 6.2. Although wwe know the poles of the forward transfer function in Figure 6.2(a), we do not know the location of the poles of the equivalent closed-loop system of Figure 6.2(b) without factoring or otherwise solving for the roots. However, under certain conditions, we can draw some conclusions about the stability of the system. First, if the closed-loop transfer function has only 3 ©), $ SGD Sable sytem ‘Stable ha = lesyments ities closed-loop poles: Tiee Greet (oot seal) @ R=} ¥ Al) 7 4), ae esate ten si AAN * AA “jis lo Vis 0 ‘Unstable system's \ osed-oop poles Time (seconds) (ooeto scale) o62 Routh-Hurwitz Criterion RO ge) 8 06+) oo) + Fee Oe HEFT, @ id aa ci). FIGURE6.2 Common cause +26 + 24s + 123237 + 19305 420 Stipenbieme in Being cones Joop poles: a. original system; o ‘equivalent system left-half-plane poles, then the factors of the denominator of the closed-loop system transfer function consist of products of terms such as (s+ a,), where a is real and positive, or complex with a positive real part. The product of such terms is a polynomial with all positive coefficients No term of the polynomial can be missing, since that would imply cancellation between positive and negative coefficients or imaginary axis roots in the factors, which is not the case. Thus, a sufficient condition for a system to be unstable is that all signs of the coefficients of the denominator of the closed-loop transfer function are not the same. If powers of s are missing, the system is either unstable or, at best, marginally stable. Unfortunately, if all coef- ficients of the denominator are positive and not missing, we do not have definitive information about the system's pole locations. If the method described in the previous paragraph is not sufficient, then a computer can be used to determine the stability by calculating the root locations of the denominator of the closed-loop transfer function. Today some hand-held calculators can evaluate the roots of a polynomial. There is, however, another method to test for stability without having to solve for the roots of the denominator. We discuss this method in the next section. 6.2. Routh-Hurwitz Criterion In this section, we learn a method that yields stability information without the need to solve for the closed-loop system poles. Using this method, we can tell how many closed-loop system poles are in the left half-plane, inthe right half-plane, and on the Jeo-axis. (Notice that we say how many, not where.) We can find the number of poles in each section of the s-plane, but we cannot find their coordinates. The method is called the Rowth-Hurwitz criterion for stability (Routh, 1905). ‘The method requires two steps: (1) Generate a data table called a Row table and (2) interpret the Routh table to tell how many closed-loop system poles are in the left half-plane, the right half-plane, and on the jo-axis. You might wonder why we study the Routh-Hiurwitz criterion when modern calculators and computers can tell us the exact location of system poles. The power of the method lies in design rather than analysis. For example, ifyou have an unknown parameter in the denominator of a transfer function, itis dificult to determine via a calculator the range of this parameter to yield stability. You would probably rely on trial and error to answer the The coefficients ean also be made all negative by multiplying the polynomial by —1. Tis operation does not change the root lation,306 Chapter6 Stability stability question. We shall see later that the Routh-Hurwitz eriterion can yield a closed-form expression for the range of the unknown parameter. In this section, we make and interpret a basic Routh table. In the next section, ‘we consider two special cases that can arise when generating this data table. Generating a Basic Routh Table ERSTE Look at the equivalent closed-loop transfer function shown in Fig- aah tay +a +04 m9 ure 63. Since we are interested in the system poles, we focus our FIGURE63 Equivalent closedoop wansfer _ attention on the denominator. We first create the Routh table shown function in Table 6.1. Begin by labeling the rows with powers of s from the highest power of the denominator of the closed-loop transfer func- tion tos°, Next start with the coefficient ofthe highest power of in the denominator and list, horizontally in the first row, every other coefficient, In the second row, list horizontally, starting with the next highest power of s, every coefficient that was skipped in the first row. ‘The remaining entries are filled in as follows. Each entry is a negative determi- nant of entries in he previous tworows divided by the entry in the firstcoluran directly above the calculated row. The left-hand column of the determinant is always the first column of the previous two rows, and the right-hand column is the elements of the ccolumnabove andto theright. The table iscomplete when alloftherowsare completed down to", Table 6.2 the completed Routh table. Let us look at an example. A) Ma) a TAGLE 6.1. Initial layout for Routh table TABLE 6.2 Completed Routh table “ a o % # a a 0 s Example 6.1 Creating a Routh Table PROBLEM: Make the Routh table for the system shown in Figure 6.4(a) SOLUTION: The first step isto find the equivalent closed-loop system because We ‘want to test the denominator of this function, not the given forward transfer RO $ > Eis), 1000. Ch FIGURE6.4 a. Feedback Ga Bie + HFS) A) 1000 ce) system for Example 6.1; PeIe +3155 1080 equivalent closed- loop system o 062 Routh-Hurwitz Criterion 307 TABLE 6.3 Completed Routh table for Example 6.1 function, for pole location. Using the feedback formula, we obtain the equivalent system of Figure 64(6). The Routh-Hurwitz criterion will be applied to this denominator. First label the rows with powers of s from s* down to s* in a vertical column, as shown in Table 6.3. Next form the first row of the table, using the coefficients of the denominator of the closed-loop transfer function. Start with the coefficient of the highest power and skip every other power of Now form the second row with the coefficients of the denominator skipped in the previous step. Subsequent rows are formed with determinants, as shown in Table 6.2. For convenience, any row of the Routh table can be multiplied by a positive constant without changing the values of the rows below. This can be proved by examining the expressions for the entries and verifying that any multiplicative ‘constant from a previous row cancels out. In the second row of Table 6.3, for example, the row was multiplied by 1/10. We see later that care must be taken not to rultiply the row by a negative constant. Interpreting the Basic Routh Table Now that we know how to generate the Routh table, let us see how to interpret it. The basic Routh table applies to systems with poles in the left and right half-planes Systems with imaginary poles and the kind of Routh table that results will be discussed in the next section. Simply stated, the Routh-Hurwitz criterion declares that the number of roots of the polynomial that are inthe right half-plane is equal to the number of sign changes in the first column. If the closed-loop transfer function has all poles in the left half of the s-plane, the system is stable. Thus, a system is stable if there are no sign changes in the first column of the Routh table, For example, Table 63 has two sign changes in the first column. The first sign change occurs from 1 in the s? row to ~72in the s! row. “The second occurs from ~72 in the s* row to 103 in the s° row. Thus, the system of Figure 6.4 is unstable since two poles exist in the right half-plane. Skill-Assessment Exercise 6.1 PROBLEM: Make a Routh table and tell how many roots of the following els polynomial are in the right half-plane and in the left half-plane. ap POs) = 387 $998 +68 4 Ast 4 T+ BF +2846 ‘ental soins ANSWER: Four in the right half-plane (rhp), three in the left half-plane (Ihp). ‘The complete solution is at www.wiley.com/collegeinise.308 Chapter 6 Stability ‘Now that we have described how to generate and interpret a basic Routh table, let us look at two special cases that can arise. ¢ 6.3 Routh-Hurwitz Criterion: Special Cases ‘Two special cases can occur: (1) The Routh table sometimes will have a zero only in the first column of a row, or (2) the Routh table sometimes will have an entire row that consists of zeros. Let us examine the first case. Zero Only in the First Column If the first element of a row is zer0, division by zero would be required to form the next row. To avoid this phenomenon, an epsilon, c, is assigned to replace the zero in the first column. The value ¢ is then allowed to approach zero from either the positive or the negative side after which the signs of the entries in the first column can be determined, Let us look at an example. Example 6.2 Stability via Epsilon Method Trylt 6.1 PROBLEM: Determine the stability of the closed-loop transfer function Use the following MATLAB 46 statement 0 ind the poles of the closed-loop transfer 13) = Sy apa +P ESS (62) function in Eq, (62) See 2a ay SOLUTION: The solution is shown in Table 6.4. We form the Routh table by using the denominator of Eq. (6.2). Begin by assembling the Routh table down to the row where a zero appears only inthe first column (the s* row). Next replace the zero by asmall number, «,and complete the table. ‘To begin the interpretation, we must first assume a sign, positive or negative, for the quantity «. Table 65 shows the first column of Table 6.4 along with the resulting signs for choices of positive and e negative. TABLE 6.5 Determining signs in first column of a Routh table with zero as frst element in a row TABLE 6.4 Completed Routh table for Brame inva oo on ; ; an oe 1 : - : } oe: 2 : eo wat Po, 4 ae 2 | Sete i og : : i Ae ~ 49 ~ 662 ~ s s 0 7 Te 14 o 0 ° 3 + +63. Routh-Hurwite Criterion: Special Cases Ife is chosen positive, Table 6.5 will show a sign change from the s* row to the 4? row, and there will be another sign change from the s? row to the s' row. Hence, the system is unstable and has two poles in the right half-plane. ‘Alternatively, we could choose ¢ negative. Table 6.5 would then show a sign change from the s* row to the s° row. Another sign change would occur from the s° row to the s? row. Our result would be exactly the same as that for a positive choice for ¢, Thus, the system is unstable, with two poles in the right half-plane. Students who are performing the MATLAB exercises and want to explore the added capability of MATLAB's Symbolic Math Toolbox should now run chésp1 in Appendix F at waw.wiley.com/college/ nise. You will learn how to use the Symbolic Math Toolbox to calculate the values of cells in a Routh table even if the table contains symbolic objects, such as ¢. You will see that the Symbolic Math Toolbox and MATLAB yield an alternate way to gen- erate the Routh table for Example 6.2. 309 Sebi Math ‘Another method that can be used when a zero appears only in the first column of a row is derived from the fact that a polynomial that has the reciprocal roots of the original polynomial has its roots distributed the same—right half-plane, left half- plane, or imaginary axis—because taking the reciprocal of the root value does not ‘move it to another region. Thus, if we can find the polynomial that has the reciprocal roots of the original, it is possible that the Routh table for the new polynomial will not have @ zero in the first column. This method is usually computationally easier than the epsilon method just described. We now show that the polynomial we are looking for, the one with the reciprocal roots, is simply the original polynomial with its coefficients written in reverse order (Phillips, 991). Assume the equation SP dy alt bet ays + a9 = 0 (63) If sis replaced by 1/d, then d will have roots which are the reciprocal of. Making this substitution in Eq, (6.3), (yma etal Factoring out (1/d)", [ee @ eee G) 9G) ] = (Je Fayed bess bayeY + aga] = 0 ) +a =0 (64) 65) ‘Thus, the polynomial with reciprocal roots is a polynomial with the coefficients written in reverse order. Let us redo the previous example to show the computa- tional advantage of this method,310 Chapter6 Stability Example 6.3 Stability via Reverse Coefficients PROBLEM: Determine the stability of the closed-loop transfer function 10 ST oT TTS (6.6) SOLUTION: First write a polynomial that has the reciprocal roots of the denomi- nator of Eq. (6.6). From our discussion, this polynomial is formed by writing the denominator of Eq. (6.6) in reverse order. Hence, D(s) = 35 + Ss +65 +3 +2541 (67) ‘We form the Routh table as shown in Table 66 using Eq. (6.7). Since there are two sign changes, the system is unstable and has two right-half-plane poles. This is the same as the result obtained in Example 6.2. Notice that Table 6.6 does not have a zero in the first column, TABLE 6.6 Routh table for Example 63 # 3 6 a * 5 3 1 # 42 14 133 1 Entire Row is Zero ‘We now look at the second special case. Sometimes while making a Routh table, we find that an entire row consists of zeros because there is an even polynomial that is a factor of the original polynomial. This case must be handled differently from the case of a zero in only the first column of a row. Let us look at an example that demonstrates how to construct and interpret the Routh table when an entire row of zeros is present. Example 6.4 Stability via Routh Table with Row of Zeros PROBLEM: Determine the number of right-half-plane poles in the closed-loop transfer function 10 SETAE + TT (68) Ts) = SOLUTION: Start by forming the Routh table for the denominator of Eq. (68) (Gee Table 67). At the second row we multiply through by 17 for convenience. We stop at the third row, since the entire row consists of zeros, and use the following |63 Routh-Hurwitz Criterion: Special Cases TABLE 6.7 Routh table for Example 64 1 6 8 Ft. a 6 68 S @ 41 8 # 3 # #0 © 3 8 0 1 s! ; 0 0 ” 8 0 0 procedure, First we return to the row immediately above the row of zeros and form an auxiliary polynomial, using the entries in that row as coefficients. The polynomial will start with the power of s in the label column and continue by skipping every other power of s. Thus, the polynomial formed for this example is, Pls)=s* +6? +8 (6.9) Next we differentiate the polynomial with respect to s and obtain 9 424 12540 (6.10) as Finally, we use the coefficients of Eq, (6.10) to replace the row of zeros. Again, for convenience, the third row is multiplied by 1/4 after replacing the zeros. ‘The remainder of the table is formed in a straightforward manner by following the standard form shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.7 shows that all entries in the first column ate positive. Hence, there are no right-half-plane poles. an Let us look further into the case that yields an entire row of zeros. An entire row of zeros will appear in the Routh table when a purely even or purely odd polynomial is a factor of the original polynomial. For example, s* + 5s? +7 is an even polynomial; it has only even powers of s. Even polynomials only have roots that are symmetrical about the origin.® This symmetry can occur under three ‘conditions of root position: (1) The roots are symmetrical and real, (2) the roots are symmetrical and imaginary, or (3) the roots are uadrantal. Figure 6.5 shows examples of these cases. Each case or ‘combination of these cases will generate an even polynomiel. It is this even polynomial that causes the row of zeros to appear. Thus, the row of zeros tells us of the existence of an even polynomial whose roots are symmetric about the origin. Some of 4: Retlani symmetiea aboot be origin 1 enaginay and symmetrical bout tke erigin —— these roots could be on the ja~axis. On the other hand,since ja roots fume. stout h FHGURE6.5 Root positions o generate even cannot possibly have jw roots. polynomials: A,B, C,or any combination are symmetric about the origin, if we do not have a row of zeros, we Another characteristic of the Routh table for the case in {question is that the row previous to the row of zeros contains the even polynomial that is a factor of the original polynomial. Finally, everything from the row containing the even polynomial down to the end of the Routh table is a test of only the even polynomial. Let us put these facts together in an example. The polynomial + Se+7e isan example of an odd polynomial: it has enly odd powers of s. O48 polynomials re the product of an even polynomial and an odd power of s Thus, the constant term ofa ‘odd polynomial is alwsys missing,312 Chapter6 Stability De SE Pole Distribution via Routh Table with Row of Zeros PROBLEM: For the transfer function ij ee FP FTES DOS $F SOS FETS IS DO tell how many poles are in the sight halplane, inthe left half-plane, and on the joaxis SOLUTION: Use the denominator of Eq. (6.11) and form the Routh table in ‘Table 68. For convenience the s° row is multiplied by 1/10, and the s° row is, ‘multiplied by 1/20. At the s? row we obtain a row of zeros. Moving back one row to «f, we extract the even polynomial, P(s), as (611) Pi) as 32 42 (612) TABLE 6.8 Routh table for Example 65 Fi 2 9 em y 1 2 9 3B 0 ” 46-1 2-2 w1 ew 2 o s a1 se 3 a2 0 oO 1 3 2 o ° e442 63 #40 ° o 2 3 é 2s 24 0 ° o 1 1 ‘ i o 0 ° o e 4 0 0 0 ‘This polynomial will divide evenly into the denominator of Eq, (6.11) and thus is a factor. Taking the derivative with respect tos to obtain the coefficients that replace the row of zeros in the s° row, we find (6.13) Replace the row of zeros with 4, 6, and 0 and multiply the row by 1/2 for convenience. Finally, continue the table to the s® row, using the standard procedure. How do we now interpret this Routh table? Since all entries from the even polynomial at the s* row down to the s? row are a test ofthe even polynomial, we begin to draw some conclusions about the roots of the even polynomial. No sign changes exist from the s* row down to the s° row. Thus, the even polynomial does not have right-half-plane poles. Since there are no right-half-plane poles, no left- half-plane poles ae present because of the requirement for symmetry. Hence, the even polynomial, Eq. (6.12), must have all four of its poles on the jo~axis.* These results are summarized in the first column of Table 6.9. “Anecessary condition or stability is thatthe rootshave unit multiplicity The even polynomial must be ‘checked for multiple jo roots For tis cae, the existence of multiple jw roots would lead toa perfect fourth-order square polynomial. Since Eq, (6.12) i nota perfect square, the four jo rots are distint.63. Routh-Hurwitz Criterion: Special Cases 313, TABLE 6.9 Summary of pole locations for Example 6.5, Total Location (cighth-order) ‘Right half-plane 0 2 2 Left haltplane ° 2 2 fo 4 0 4 ‘The remaining roots of the total polynomial are evaluated from thes*row down tothe s* row. We notice two sign changes: one from the s’ row to the s° row and the ‘other from the® row to thes* row. Thus, the other polynomial must have two roots in the right half-plane, These results are included in Table 6.9 under “Other”. The final tally is the sum of roots from each component, the even polynomial and the other polynomial, as shown under “Total” in Table 6.9. Thus, the system has two poles in the right half-plane, two poles in the left half-plane, and four poles on the jo-axis itis unstable because of the right-half-plane poles. ‘Virtual Experiment 6.1 m Stability ‘Wenowsummarize what we havelearnedabout polynomialsthatgenerateentire py ucorypnepacroc and rowsofzerosinthe Routhtable: These polynomialshaveapurelyeventactorwithroots thon mo pact sn that are symmetrical about the origin. The even polynomial appears in the Routh {hnmerlinear nested Pe tablein the row directly above the row of zeros. Every entry in the table from the even lim in atViEW, When nthe polynomial’srow tothe endof the chart appliesonly tothe even polynomial. Therefore, _»P%ard balanced poston, tis the number ofsign changes from the even polynomial totheendofthe ableequalsthe | emadesesthe challenge of : Zibag act ig number ofright-alfplane roots of the even polynomial. Because ofthe symmetry of “lng rece ding ke roots about the origin the even polynomial must have the same numberof left-half- mans the cosaucaon plane rootsasitéoesright-half-plane roots Having accounted forthe roots intheright pany cane ‘and left half-planes, we know the remaining roots must be on the joraxis. Every row in the Routh table from the beginning of the chart to the row containing the even polynomial applies only to the other factor of the original polynomial. For this factor, the number of sign changes, from the beginning of the table down to the even polynomial, equals the number of right-half-plane roots. ‘The remaining roots are left-half-plane roots. There can be no jo roots contained in the other polynomial. ‘Virtua experiments are found fon WileyPLUS. Skill-Assessment Exercise 6.2 PROBLEM: Use the Routh-Hurwitz criterion to find how many poles of the following closed-loop system, 7(s), are in the rhp, in the Ihp, and on the j-axis: 8472 219410 84S — 68 $08 — F546 ANSWER: ‘Two thp, two Ihp, and two jor ‘The complete solution is at www.wiley.com/college/nise. 7) = Let us demonstrate the usefulness of the Routh-Hurwitz criterion with a few additional examples.314 Chapter6 Stability (6.4. Routh-Hurwitz Criterion: Additional Examples ‘The previous twosections have introduced the Routh-Hurwitzcriterion. Now we need todemonstrate the method’s application to a number of analysis and design problems. a Standard Routh-Hurwitz PROBLEM: Find the number of polesin the left half-plane, the right half-plane, and (on the je-axis for the system of Figure 6.6. RO 3D BD), cw) FIGURE 6.6 Feedback control system for Example 66 SOLUTION: First, find the closed-loop transfer function as 200 FF@ Fete The Routh table for the denominator of Eq. (6.14) is shown as Table 6.10. For clarity, we leave most zero cells blank. At the s! row there is a negative coefficient; thus, there are two sign changes. The system is unstable, since it has two right-hall- plane poles and two let-half-plane poles. The system cannot have jw poles since a row of zeros did not appear in the Routh table. TABLE 6.10 Routh table for Example 66 Ts) = (6.14) 1 i 200 #1 61 41 206 20 19 20 ‘The next example demonstrates the occurrence of a zero in only the first column of a row. EE 30:7 Routh-Hurwitz with Zero in First Column PROBLEM: Find the number of polesiin the left half-plane, the right half-plane, and con the ja-axis for the system of Figure 6.7. BY 5 ALD, on sae VaO 4 BAD FIGURE 6.7 Feedback control system for Example 6.764 Routh-Hurwitz Criterion: Additional Examples 35 SOLUTION: The closed-loop transfer function is. 1 TSF FS Fae ts tT Form the Routh table shown as Table 6.11, using the denominator of Eq. (6.15). A zero appears in the first column of the s° row. Since the entire row is not zero, ‘simply replace the zero with a small quantity, e, and continue the table. Permitting ¢ to be a small, positive quantity, we find that the first term of the s” row is negative, ‘Thus, there are two sign changes, and the system is unstable, with two poles in the right half-plane. The temaining poles are in the left half-plane. Ts) = (6.15) TABLE 6.11 Routh table for Example ‘We also can use the altemative approach, where we produce a polynomial whose roots are the reciprocal of the original. Using the denominator of Eq. (6.15), we form a polynomial by writing the coefficients in reverse order, S 42st 43s) +25? +3942 (6.16) ‘The Routh table for this polynomial is shown as Table 6.12. Unfortunatly, in this cate we alo produce a zero only in the fist column atthe s row. However, the table is easier to work with than Table 6.11. Table 6.12 yields the same results as ‘Table 6.11: three poles inthe left half-plane and two pols inthe right half-plane. ‘The system is unstable TABLE 6.12 Alternative Routh table for Example 6.7 ? 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 we 2 aed " 2 Student's who are using MATLAB should now run chép1 in Appendix B. ed Youwill learn how to performblock diagram reduction tofind T(s), ap followed by an evaluation of the closed-loop systenfs poles to determine stability. This exercise uses MATLAB todo Example 6.7.316 Chapter6 Stability In the next example, we see an entire row of zeros appear along with the possibility of imaginary roots. SL 620 pc: ED Trylt 62 ‘Use MATLAB, The Control System Toolbox, and the fol- lowing statements to find the closed-loop transfer funetion, (for Figure 68 and the closed-loop poles tf (nung, deng)s ‘Tefeedback (6,1) poles=polett) Routh-Hurwitz with Row of Zeros PROBLEM: Find the number of poles in the left half-plane, the right half-plane, and on the joaxis for the system of Figure 6.8, Draw conclusions about the stability of the closed-loop system. Rea ee Re) $6 AU, ry cw) Feedbeck S743 410 2A 4B 96 + BRS + 19D) control system {or Example 68 SOLUTION: The closed-loop transfer function for the system of Figure 6.8 is 128 18) = Sar TTT ee HT ee Te I) Using the denominator, form the Routh table shown as Table 6.13. A row of zeros appearsin the s* row. Thus, the closed-loop transfer function denominator must have an even polynomial as factor. Return to the s® row and form the even polynomial: Pls) = 58 +864 432 + 64 (6.18) ti ge 0 * m8 4s me wt a a a) on can 26 0 Ss wm os a 8 Differentiate this polynomial with respect to s to form the coefficients that will replace the row of zeros: FO _ 65 4329 + 648+0 (6.19) Replace the row of zeros at the s* row by the coefficients of Eq, (6.19) and multiply through by 1/2 for convenience. Then complete the table. ‘We note that there are two sign changes from the even polynomial at the s® row down to the end of the table. Hence, the even polynomial has two right-half-64. Routh-Hurwitz Criterion: Additional Examples TABLE 6.14 Summary of pole locations for Example 68 Polynomial Even ‘Other (sixth-order) (second-order) ight half-plane 2 0 Left hallplane 2 2 4 fo 2 0 2 lane poles. Because of the symmetry about the origin, the even polynomial must hhave an equal number of left-half-plane poles. Therefore, the even polynomial has two left-half-plane poles. Since the even polynomial is of sixth order, the two remaining poles must be on the jeaxis. ‘There are no sign changes from the beginning of the table down to the even polynomial at the s° row. Therefore, the rest of the polynomial has no right-half- plane poles. The results are summarized in Table 6.14. The system has two poles in the right half-plane, four poles in the left half-plane, and two poles on the jo axis, which are of unit multiplicity. The closed-loop system is unstable because of the right-half-plane poles. 317 ‘The Routh-Hurwitz criterion gives vivid proof that changes in the gain of @ feedback control system result in differences in transient response because of changes in closed-loop pole locations, The next example demonstrates this concept. ‘We will see that for control systems, such as those shown in Figure 6.9, gain variations -an move poles from stable regions of the s-plane onto the jo~axis and then into the right half-plane. FIGURE 6.9 Jason is an underwater, remote-controlled vehicle that has been used to explore the wreckage of the Lusitania. The manipulator ‘and cameras comprise some of the vehicle's control systems318 Chapter6 Stability a TE Stability Design via Routh-Hurwitz PROBLEM: Find the range of gain, K, for the system of Figure 6.10 that will cause the system to be stable, unstable, and marginally stable. Assume K > 0. RO) $A, x oe) weaTKee TH FIGURE 6.10 Feedback contro! system for Example 69 SOLUTION: First find the closed-loop transfer function as K STIR + TIER Next form the Routh table shown as Table 6.15, Ts (6.20) TABLE 6.15 Routh table for Example 69 2 1 y 18 1386 ~ K 18 ’ K na Since K is assumed positive, we see that all elements inthe first column are always positive except the s* row. This entry can be positive, zero, or negative, depending upon the value of K. If K < 1386, all terms in the first column will be positive, and since there are no sign changes, the system wall have three poles in the left half-plane and be stable. If K > 1386, the s! term in the first column is negative. There are two sign changes, indicating that the system has two right-half-plane poles and one left- half-plane pole, which makes the system unstable. If K = 1386, we have an entire row of zeros, which could signify jw poles. Returning to the 5? row and replacing K with 1386, we form the even polynomial P(s) = 18- + 1386 (621) Ditterentiating with respect to 5, we have aP(s) TE = 36040 (62) Replacing the row of zeros with the coefficients of Eq. (6.22), we obtain the Routh- Hurwitz table shown as Table 6.16 for the case of K = 1386. TABLE 6.16 Routh table for Example 69 with K= 1386 1 7 18 1386 ao % ‘ 13866A Routh-Hurwitz Criterion: Ad ional Examples Since there are no sign changes from the even polynomial (row) down to the bottom ofthe table, the even polynomial hasits two roots onthe jo-axis of unit multiplicity. Since there are no sign changes above the even polynomial, the remaining root i inthe left half-plane. Therefore the system is marginally stable. Students who are using MATLAB should now run ch6p2 in Appendix B. Youwill learn how to set upa loop to search for the range of gainto yield stability. This exercise uses MATLAB to do Example 6.9. Students who are performing the MATLAB exercises and want to explore the added capability of MATLAB's Symbolic Math Toolbox should now run ch6sp2 in Appendix F at www.wiley.com/college/ nise. You will learn how to use the Symbolic Math Toolbox to calculate the values of cells ina Routh table even if the table contains symbolic objects, such as a variable gain, K. You will see that the Symbolic Math Toolbox and MATLAB yield an alterna~ tive way te solve Example 6.9. 319 ane symbote wah ‘The Routh-Hurwitz criterion is often used in limited applications to factor polynomials containing even factors. Let us look at an example. Factoring via Routh-Hurwitz PROBLEM: Factor the polynomial sf 430 + 300 + 305-4200 (623) SOLUTION: Form the Routh table of Table 6.17, We find that the s' row is a row of zeros. Now form the even polynomial at the s? row: Pi) = 2 +10 (624) TABLE 6.17 Routh table for Example 6.10 7 0 200 a1 a 10 s amt ar 10 ' #2 #0 10 ‘This polynomial is differentiated with respect to s in order to complete the Routh table. However, since this polynomial i a factor of the original polynomial in Eq, (6.23), dividing Eq. (6.23) by (6.24) yields (s* + 3s + 20) as the other factor. Hence, P4389 + 30? +305 + 200 = ( + 10)(6? + 35 +20) = (5 + j3.1623)(s — j3.1623) (6.25) x(s-+15+/8.213)(5+ 15 ~ 4213) SE 2001 610 TD