Scribd
Upload
2 views14 pages

Modelling Differences Transfer Function and State - Space: Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

The document discusses the differences between transfer function and state space models in control system design, highlighting that transfer functions are suitable for linear time-invariant systems while state space models can handle both linear and non-linear systems. It explains the limitations of transfer function approaches, particularly for multi-input multi-output systems, and presents a design example of a controller to achieve zero-state error. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of selecting appropriate design parameters to ensure system stability and performance.

Uploaded by

Dhairya Singhal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views14 pages

Modelling Differences Transfer Function and State - Space: Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

The document discusses the differences between transfer function and state space models in control system design, highlighting that transfer functions are suitable for linear time-invariant systems while state space models can handle both linear and non-linear systems. It explains the limitations of transfer function approaches, particularly for multi-input multi-output systems, and presents a design example of a controller to achieve zero-state error. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of selecting appropriate design parameters to ensure system stability and performance.

Uploaded by

Dhairya Singhal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE

Modelling Differences Transfer Function and


State_Space

Yogesh V. Hote
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee
Difference between transfer function
and state space model
1. In classical modelling, Laplace transform is needed for continuous system and z-
transform is needed for discrete systems, where as in state variable approach ,
both continuous system and discrete system, we can represent in same
formulation.

2. Transfer function approach is for classical modelling. It is applicable to linear time


invariant systems.

3. Transfer function modelling is better for SISO and cumbersome for MIMO,
whereas, state space approach is for both SISO, and MIMO systems.

4. Transfer function modelling is for LTI (Linear time invariant systems) and state
space approach for time varying systems.

5. Transfer function modelling is for linear systems and state space modelling is for
both linear and non-linear systems.
2
Difference between Transfer function
and state space models
For a large order system, by varying a limited

number of constants in the controller transfer

function, we can vary in a pre-specified manner the

locations of only a few of the closed-loop poles ,

but not all of them.


A. Tewari, Modern Control System Design: with Matlab and Simulink, Wiley Publications, 2002.
( s  1)
G( s) 
(s  1)(s  2)(s  3)
(i) Plant is type “0”
(ii) The plant unstable due to pole ,s=1
in the right-half of s-plane.
For achieving a zero-state error, we can do
two things.
(i) Making the closed-loop system stable.
(ii) Making the type of the closed-loop system
at least unity.
Design of controller:
The requirements are apparently met by the
following controller transfer function , H(s):

K ( s  1)
H (s) 
s
This controller would apparently cancel the
plant’s unstable pole at s=1 by a zero at the
location in the closed-loop transfer function,
and make the system of type 1 by having a pole
at s=0 in the open-loop transfer function.
The open-loop transfer function:

K ( s  1)
G( s) H ( s) 
[ s( s  2)( s  3)]

The closed-loop transfer function is given by


G (s) H (s)

1  G (s) H (s)
K ( s  1)

[ s( s  2)( s  3)  K ( s  1)]
Closed-loop transfer function:
[s(s  2)(s  3)  K (s  1)]  0
Closed-loop poles:
K=10:
-4.1948
-0.4026 + 1.5685i
-0.4026 - 1.5685i

K=50 -5.5444
0.2722 + 2.9907i
0.2722 - 2.9907i
The closed-loop system can be stable by
selecting those value of the design parameter,
K such that all the closed-loop poles lie in the
left half s-plane.

By choosing the sole parameter K, the


locations of all the three poles cannot be
chosen independently of each other.
Various issues with this design:
(i) Since all the poles contribute to the closed-
loop performance, the classical design
approach may fail to achieve the desired
performance objectives when only a few
poles are being directly affected in the
design process.
(ii) The closed loop transfer function is of third
order where as we expect that it should be
of fourth-order.
This discrepancy in the closed-loop transfer
function’s order has happened due to our
attempt to cancel a pole with a zero at the
same location.
State space model:
X  Ax  Bu
Y  Cx  Du

(  1) 0 0 0
K /3 (  2  K / 3) K /3 1/ 3
[ I  A]  =0
-K /2 -K /2 (  3- K / 2 -1/ 2
K K K 
References

1. Ashish Tewari, Modern Control Design: With MATLAB and


SIMULINK,”2002.

2. K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, Prentice Hall, 2010.

14

You might also like