Case Study Learning Outcomes 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 in Appendix A2, you will be able to (a) find the closed-loop transfer function that represents the system from input to output; (b) find a state-space representation for the closed-loop system; (c) predict, for a simplified system model, the percent overshoot, settling time, and peak time of the closed-loop system for a step input; (<) calculate the step response for the closed-loop system; and (e) for the simplified model, design the system gain to meet a transient response requirement. . =e Given the block diagrams for the Unmanned Free-Swimming Submersible (UFSS) vehicle's pitch and heading control systems in Appendix 43, you will be able to represent each control system in state space. 5.1 Introduction We have been working with individual subsystems represented by a block with its input and output. More complicated systems, however, are represented by the interconnection of many subsystems. Since the response of a single transfer function can be calculated, we want to represent multiple subsystems as a single transfer function. We can then apply the analytical techniques of the previous chapters and obtain transient response information about the entire system. In this chapter, multiple subsystems are represented in two ways: as block diagrams and as signal-flow graphs. Although neither representation is limited to a particular analysis and design technique, block diagrams are usually used for frequency-domain analysis and design, and signal-flow graphs for state-space analysis. Signal-flow graphs represent transfer functions as lines, and signals as small-circular nodes. Summing is implicit. To show why it is convenient to use signal-flow graphs for state-space analysis and design, consider Figure 3,10. A graphical representation of a system's transfer function is as simple as Figure 3.10(a). However, a graphical representation of a system in state space requires representation of each state variable, as in Figure 3.10(b). In that example, a single-block transfer function requires seven blocks and a summing junction to show the state variables explicitly. Thus, signal-flow graphs have advantages over block diagrams, such as Figure 3.10(b): They can be drawn more quickly, they are more compact, and they emphasize the state variables. ‘We will develop techniques to reduce each representation to a single transfer function. Block diagram algebra will be used to reduce block diagrams and Mason's rule to reduce signal-flow graphs. Again, it must be emphasized that these methods are typically used as described. As we shall see, however, either method can be used for frequency-domain or state-space analysis and design. 5.2 Block Diagrams As you already know, a subsystem is represented as a block with an input, an output, and a transfer function, Many systems are composed of multiple subsystems, as in Figure 5.1. When multiple subsystems are interconnected, a few more schematic elements must be added to the block diagram. These new elements are summing junctions and pickoff points. ll‘component parts of a block diagram for a linear, time-invariant system are shown in . The characteristic of the summing junction shown in (c) is that the output signal, C(s), is the algebraic sum of the input signals, R,(s), Ra(s), and R,(s). The figure shows three inputs, but any number can be present. A pickoff point, as shown in. dD, distributes the input signal, R(s), undiminished, to several output points. FIGURE 5.1 The recently retired space shuttle consisted of multiple subsystems. Can you identify those that are control systems or parts of control systems?Ro) cw) RO} gy [ Input Output Signals System @ © (5) = Ry(s) + RAs) — RVs) RG) Rs) |__RG), 5) Rus) LR) Sormming junction Pickoff point © d@ FIGURE, 5.2 Components of a block diagram for a linear, time-invariant system ‘We will now examine some common topologies for interconnecting subsystems and derive the single transfer function representation for each of them. These common topologies will form the basis for reducing more complicated systems to a single block. Cascade Form Figure 5.3(a) shows an example of cascaded subsystems. Intermediate signal values are shown at the output of each subsystem, Each signal is derived from the product of the input times the transfer function. The equivalent transfer function, G,(s), shown in Figure 5.3(b), is the output Laplace transform divided by the input Laplace transform from Figure 5.3(@), or Gals) = Gs) G2) Gils) (a). which is the product of the subsystems’ transfer functions, Xq(s) = Xils = Ro) GORE) GAINERS) Gx(9)G1S)Gy()RO) + Gils) +] Gals) +} Gx) - @ RO) ay) >] GA(NG()G (9) J FIGURE 5.3 a. Cascaded subsystems; b. equivalent transfer function Equation (5,1) was derived under the assumption that interconnected subsystems do not load adjacent subsystems. That is, a subsystem's output remains the same whether or not the subsequent subsystem is connected. If there is a change in the output, the subsequent subsystem loads the previous subsystem, and the equivalent transfer function is not theproduct of the individual transfer functions. The network of Figure 5.4(a) demonstrates this concept. Its transfer function is uils 62) 6:9) = 49 Va(s) Similarly, the network of Figure 5.4(b) has the following transfer function: Vals Te 3) (9 = HS aoe 1 8+ ae, If the networks are placed in cascade, as in Figure 5.4(c), you can verify that the transfer function found using loop or node equations is Vals) 6A) 00- F" e mS + (ihr + ee + res) + rechecs But, using Eq. (5.1), (5.5), G(s) = Go(8) G(s) = —__ ___ 8 +(by + rier) 8 maces Equations (5.4), and (5,5) are not the same: Eq, (5.4), has one more term for the coefficient of s in the denominator and is correct.vo CAS Me) wo C2 AR Vals) Gys)= LO Vie) @ R, Ry Ki TG E i vis) & a Cy AS Vals) ot eas # GIGS) Gr(9) = BO = KExNGW) vie) vo © w EIGURE.5.4 Loading in cascaded systems One way to prevent loading is to use an amplifier between the two networks, as shown in Figure 5.4(@). The amplifier has a high-impedance input, so that it does not load the previous network. At the same time it has a low-impedance output, so that it looks like a pure voltage source to the subsequent network. With the amplifier included, the equivalent transfer funetion is the product of the transfer functions and the gain, K, of the amplifier. Parallel Form Figure 5.5 shows an example of parallel subsystems. Again, by writing the output of each subsystem, we can find the equivalent transfer function. Parallel subsystems have a common input and an output formed by the algebraic sum of the outputs from all of the subsystems, ‘The equivalent transfer function, G,(s), is the output transform divided by the input transform from Figure 5,5(a), or G(s) = +G1 (s) + G2 (s) + Ga(s) (5.6) which is the algebraic sum of the subsystems’ transfer functions; it appears in Figure s.5(b).le (GA) RG) R(s)Gxs) C(s) = [+ Gy(s) + Gals) + Ga(s)]R(S) GAs) X45) = +l G9 22 @ Rs) Cs) ] £6168) # Gals) Gls) J @) FIGURE 5.5 a. Parallel subsystems; b. equivalent transfer function Feedback Form The third topology is the feedback form, which will be seen repeatedly in subsequent chapters. The feedback system forms the basis for our study of control systems engineering. In Chapter 1, we defined open-loop and closed-loop systems and pointed out the advantage of closed-loop, or feedback control, systems over open-loop systems. As we move ahead, we will focus on the analysis and design of feedback systems. Let us derive the transfer function that represents the system from its input to its output. The typical feedback system, described in detail in Chapter 1, is shown in Figure 5,6(a); a simplified model is shown in Figure.5.6(6) Directing our attention to the simplified model, E(s) = R(s) =C(s) H(s) (5.2. But since C(s) () - £) 8). BO) = ay Substituting Eq, (5.8) into Eg, (5,7), and solving for the transfer function, C(s)/R(s) = Ge (s), we obtain the equivalent, or closed-loop, transfer function shown in Figure 5.6(c), (5.9), Gl G.(9) = reemD -alled the open-loop transfer function, or loop The product, G(s)H(s), in Eq.(5.9) gain.Input ‘transducer Controller Plant Rs BE Cs 9) Ge) EOQZE 4} Ga LF ax ©) Input “Actual Output signal (error) Hs) Fe Als) Feedback Output transducer (a) Plant and controller Ro) + EQ) ey CO) Input ‘Actua Output +7) signal (error) Ho) | Feedback () RO) Gs) Input | 1+ G()AG) | Output () FIGURE 5.6 a. Feedback control system; b. simplified model; ¢. equivalent transfer function So far, we have explored three different configurations for multiple subsystems. For each, we found the equivalent transfer function. Since these three forms are combined into complex arrangements in physical systems, recognizing these topologies is a prerequisite to obtaining the equivalent transfer function of a complex system. In this section, we will reduce complex systems composed of multiple subsystems to single transfer functions. Moving Blocks to Create Familiar Forms Before we begin to reduce block diagrams, it must be explained that the familiar forms (cascade, parallel, and feedback) are not always apparent in a block diagram. For example, in the feedback form, if there is a pickoff point after the summing junction, you cannot use thefeedback formula to reduce the feedback system to a single block. That signal disappears, and there is no place to reestablish the pickoff point. ‘This subsection will discuss basic block moves that can be made in order to establish familiar forms when they almost exist. In particular, it will explain how to move blocks left and right past summing junctions and pickoff points ‘Eigure 5.7 shows equivalent block diagrams formed when transfer functions are moved left or right past a summing junction, and Figure 5.8 shows equivalent block diagrams formed when transfer functions are moved left or right past a pickoff point. In the diagrams the symbol = means “equivalent to.” These equivalences, along with the forms studied earlier in th section, can be used to reduce a block diagram to a single transfer function. In each case of Figures 5,7 and 5,8, the equivalence can be verified by tracing the signals at the input through to the output and recognizing that the output signals are identical. For example, in Figure 5.7(a), signals R(s) and X(s) are multiplied by G(s) before reaching the output. Hence, both block diagrams are equivalent, with C(s) = R(s) G(s) ¥ X(s) G(s). In Figure 5.7(6), R(s) is multiplied by G(s) before reaching the output, but X(s) is not. Hence, both block diagrams in Figure 5.7(6) are equivalent, with C(s) = R(s) G(s) ¥ X(s). For pickoff points, similar reasoning yields similar results for the block diagrams of igure 5.8(a) and (b). RG co) RG ow wy Gs) BT a RQ ¥ 4 Xs) Gs) XG) @ Ro] tepcoo, — RO +t 1 (CW), +} Gis) = = +] Go) - ? 7 XG) ry Go) X66) o FIGURE, 5.7 Block diagram algebra for summing junctions—equivalent forms for moving a block a. to the left past a summing junction; b. to the right past a summing junctionR(S)G(s) RW)G(S) ry a) -——— RO) RO) RO) TI] RO = G0) H+} ats Ro) i) @ RINGS) RNG) —— G3) | ———> RO) RG)GG) —__R@) [| RNG) Gs) — Gs) ROG) L RNG) ——— Gs) ———> o FIGURE 5.8 Block diagram algebra for pickoff points—equivalent forms for moving a block a. to the left past a pickoff point; b. to the right past a pickoff. point Let us now put the whole story together with examples of block diagram reduction.Example 5.1 Block Diagram Reduction via Familiar Forms PROBLEM: Reduce the block diagram shown in Figure 5.9 to a single transfer function. Rs) Gs) FIGURE SOLUTION: We solve the problem by following the steps in Figure 5.10. First, the three summing junetions can be collapsed into a single summing junction, as shown in Figure 5.10(4). Gas) co) Hs) Has) Has) 9, Block diagram for Example 5.1RO) le |-ex9 |. Hs) +—4 F145) +— HSS) @ Ris) Cs) £9 eye GIGI) ‘9, Hy(s) Has) + HA8) @) RG) GAIGANG(S) cy 1 + Ga(s)Go(s)LH (9) ~ Hols) + Ho] ©) EIGURE 5.10 Steps in solving Example 5.1: a. collapse summing junctions; b. form equivalent cascaded system in the forward path and equivalent parallel system in the feedback path; c. form equivalent feedback system and multiply by cascaded G,(s) Second, recognize that the three feedback functions, H,(s), H,(s), and H,(s), are connected in parallel. They are fed from a common signal source, and their outputs are summed. The equivalent function is H, (s) ~ Ho (s) + Hg (s). Also recognize that G(s) and G,(s) are connected in cascade. Thus, the equivalent transfer function is the product, G4(8)G_(6). The results of these steps are shown in Figure 5.10(6). Finally, the feedback system is reduced and multiplied by G,(s) to yield the equivalent transfer function shown in Figure 5.10().Example 5.2 Block Diagram Reduction by Moving Blocks PROBLEM: Reduce the system shown in Figure 5.11 to a single transfer function. BO) QUOT Go) [OE Yo Weds rH | Gis ow) l eo Hes) a Hs) Vals) Ayo) | FIGURE 5.11 Block diagram for Example 5.2 SOLUTION: In this example we make use of the equivalent forms shown in Figures 5.7 and 5.8. First, move G,(s) to the left past the pickoff point to ereate parallel subsystems, and reduce the feedback system consisting of G,(s) and H,(s). This result is shown in Figure 5.12(a).h (0) RO) EMG WAS) +, vss) vais) +k 35) sy aaf 3 fon <= Vols) inys) @ vi ¢ vs) [a Go| 6) 20x) +1 be AND eo) Few “) Gwe) 1446) ” Ya), 1+ LQHL cio L On @ + Ga ) ais) G20" |e tooo © Tarmorcocmm | (aa Kreme @ no See a UF CHO + GCM N+ EMA) © EIGURE 5.12 Steps in the block diagram reduction for Example 5.2 Second, reduce the parallel pair consisting of 1/G,(s) and unity, and push G,(s) to the right past the summing junction, creating parallel subsystems in the feedback. These results are shown in Figure 5.12(6). Third, collapse the summing junctions, add the two feedback elements together, and combine the last two cascaded blocks. Eigure 5.12(c) shows these results. Fourth, use the feedback formula to obtain Figure 5.12(d). Finally, multiply the two cascaded blocks and obtain the final result, shown in Eigure sate).