Lecture # Root Locus Method

ME 325 Control Systems

(3-0-0-6)

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Instructor

Dr. Karuna Kalita

Professor
Mechanical Engineering Department
[email protected]
[email protected]
Office: D302

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Unit step Disturbance: Example

1
Subject to unit step disturbance D(s) =
s

 
 1 
eD (  ) = −  
 1
+ lim s →0 G1 ( s ) 
 lim G ( s ) 
 s →0 2 
 
 1 
= − 
 lim s ( s + 2)
+ lim s →0 K 
 s →0 0.3162 
1
=−
K Equivalent block diagram
with D(s) as input
The steady-state error produced by the step disturbance is And − E(s) as output
inversely proportional to the DC gain of G1(s).
3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems
 Root Locus Technique

K
T (s) =
s + 18s + 77 s + K
3 2

As K increases from 1386

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root Locus Technique

The root locus can be used to describe qualitatively the performance of a system as various
parameters are changed. For example, the effect of varying gain upon percent overshoot,
settling time, and peak time can be vividly displayed. The qualitative description can then be
verified with quantitative analysis.

NG ( s ) NH ( s) KN G ( s ) DH ( s )
G(s) = H (s) = T (s) =
DG ( s ) DH ( s ) DG ( s ) DH ( s ) + KN G ( s ) N H ( s )

where N and D are factored polynomials and signify numerator and denominator terms,
respectively.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root Locus Technique

Zeros of T(s) consist of the zeros

of G(s) and the poles of H(s)

KN G ( s ) DH ( s )
T (s) =
DG ( s ) DH ( s ) + KN G ( s ) N H ( s )

The poles T(s) are not immediately known without factoring the
denominator, and they are a function of K.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 j j

s−plane s−plane
M M
j j
   
  +a

s =  + j s+a

j j

s−plane s−plane
M M
j j2
   
−a  5
−7

s+a ( s + 7 ) s →5 + j 2

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Forward
transfer function
R(s) + Ea ( s ) C (s)
KG ( s )
Input Actuating Output
− signal
(error)
Closed loop TF:

H (s) R(s) KG ( s ) C (s)

1 + KG ( s ) H ( s )
Feedback
transfer function

Open loop TF:

KG ( s ) H ( s )

Closed-loop pole locations

 K = 1 G(s) H (s)
1 + KG ( s ) H ( s ) = 0  
KG ( s ) H ( s ) = ( 2n + 1)180
0

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 m

 ( s + z )  numerator's complex factors

i

F (s) = i =1
=
( s + p ) 
m
denominator's complex factors
j
j =1

m where a zero length, ( s + zi ) , is the magnitude of the

 zero length  (s + z )
i =1
i
vector drawn from the zero of F(s) at − zi to the point s,
M= =
 pole length
 (s + p )
m

j
and a pole length, ( s + pi ,) is the magnitude of the vector
j =1 drawn from the pole of F(s) at − pj to the point s.

where a zero angle is the angle, measured from the

=  zero angles −  pole angles positive extension of the real axis, of a vector drawn
from the zero of F(s) at − zi, to the point s, and a pole
m n
= ( s + z ) − ( s + p )
i i
i =1 i =1
angle is the angle, measured from the positive
extension of the real axis, of the vector drawn from
the pole of F(s) at − pi to the point s.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Given
F (s) =
( s + 1)
s ( s + 2)

Find F(s) at the point s = −3 + j4

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Motor and
Subject’s Sensor Amplifier Camera
position
R(s) + K2 C (s)
K1
Input s ( s + 10 ) Camera
− position

Block diagram of a security camera with auto tracking can used to follow moving
objects automatically

Closed loop TF:

R(s) K C (s)
s 2 + 10s + K

where K = K1K 2

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Pole location as function of gain
for the system
K Pole 1 Pole 2
0 −10 0
5 −9.47 −0.53
10 −8.87 −1.13
15 −8.16 −1.84
Pole plot 20 −7.24 −2.76
25 −5 −5
30 −5 + j2.24 −5 − j2.24
35 −5 + j3.16 −5 − j3.16
40 −5 + j3.87 −5 − j3.87
45 −5 + j4.47 −5 − j4.47
50 −5 + j5 −5 − j5

Root locus K0

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems
 Properties of Root Locus
KG ( s )
T (s) = KG ( s ) H ( s ) = −1 = 1 ( 2k + 1)1800 k = 0, 1, 2, 3,
1 + KG ( s ) H ( s )

1 KG ( s ) H ( s ) = ( 2k + 1)1800 k = 0, 1, 2, 3,

KG ( s ) H ( s ) = 1  K =
G(s) H (s)

K ( s + 3)( s + 4 )
Example KG ( s ) H ( s ) =
( s + 1)( s + 2 )

K ( s + 3)( s + 4 )
Closed loop TF T (s) =
(1 + K ) s 2 + ( 3 + 7 K ) s + ( 2 + 12K )

R(s) + K ( s + 3)( s + 4 ) C (s)

( s + 1)( s + 2 )
−

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 j
1 +  2 − 3 −  4 = 56.31 + 71.57 − 90 − 108.43 = −70.55
0 0 0 0 0

j3

L1 L2 L3 L4

1 2 3 4
−4 −3 −2 −1 
Vector representation of G(s) at −2+j3

K=
1
=
1
=
 pole length K=
L3 L4
= 0.33
G(s) H (s) M  zero length L1L2

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root Locus Terminology

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root-locus Sketching Rules
• Rule 1: # branches = # poles
The number of branches of the root locus equals the number of closed-loop pole
• Rule 2: symmetrical about the real axis
The root locus is symmetrical about the real axis.
• Rule 3: On the real axis, for K > 0 the root locus exists to the left of an odd
number of real axis, finite open-loop poles and/or finite open-loop zeros.
NG ( s ) NH ( s)
G(s) = H (s) = j
DG ( s ) DH ( s )
s - plane
Angle condition for closed loop-pole
KG ( s ) H ( s ) = ( 2k + 1)1800

G ( s ) H ( s ) =  zeros −  poles P1

P4 P3 P2

Complex—pole/zero contributions: cancel

because of symmetry
Real—pole/zero contributions: each is 00 from the left, 1800 from the right;
total contributions from right must be odd number of 1800’s to satisfy angle condition.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root-locus Sketching Rules
• Rule 4: Starting and ending points:
The root locus begins at the finite and infinite poles of G(s)H(s) and ends at the
finite and infinite zeros of G(s)H(s).

NG ( s ) NH ( s) KN G ( s ) DH ( s )
G(s) = H (s) = Closed loop TF: T (s) =
DG ( s ) DH ( s ) DG ( s ) DH ( s ) + KN G ( s ) N H ( s )

If K → 0+ (small gain limit) If K → + (large gain limit)

KN G ( s ) DH ( s ) KN G ( s ) DH ( s )
T (s)  T (s) 
DG ( s ) DH ( s ) +   + KNG ( s ) N H ( s )

closed—loop denominator is denominator of G(s)H(s) closed—loop denominator is numerator of G(s)H(s)

⇒closed—loop poles are the combined poles of ⇒closed—loop poles are the combined zeros of
G(s)H(s). We conclude that the root locus begins at G(s)H(s). We conclude that the root locus ends at the
the poles of G(s)H(s), the open-loop transfer function. zeros of G(s)H(s), the open-loop transfer function.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root-locus Sketching Rules
• Rule 5: Behaviour at infinity: Asymptotes: angles and real-axis intercept
T(s) has a zero at infinity if T(s → ) → 0
T(s) has a pole at infinity if T(s → ) → 
Example:
K
KG ( s ) H ( s ) =
s ( s + 1)( s + 2 )

Clearly, this open—loop transfer function has three poles, 0, −1, −2. It has no
finite zeros. For large s, we can see that

K
KG ( s ) H ( s ) 
s3

So this open—loop transfer function has three zeros at infinity.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root-locus Sketching Rules
• Rule 5: Asymptotes: angles and real-axis intercept
The root locus approaches straight lines as asymptotes as the locus approaches infinity.
Further, the equation of the asymptotes is given by the real-axis intercept, a and angle, a
as follows:

a =
 finite poles −  finite zeros
#finite poles − #finite zeros

a =
( 2k + 1)1800 k = 0, 1, 2,
#finite poles − #finite zeros

In this example,
poles = {0, −1, − 2, − 4},

 zeros = {−3},

0 + ( −1) + ( −2 ) + ( −4 )  − ( −3) 

a = 
4
=−
4 −1 3

( 2k + 1)1800
a =
4 −1

= 600 ,1800 ,3000 

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root-locus Sketching Rules
• Rule 6: Real axis break-in and breakaway points
In this example,
K ( s − 3)( s − 5 ) K ( s − 8s + 15 )
2

KG ( s ) H ( s ) = =
( )(
s + 1 s + 2 ) ( s 2 + 3s + 2)
So on the real-axis segments we have
K ( ) = −
(  + 1)( + 2 )
=−
(  2 + 3 + 2 )
( − 3)( − 5) ( 2 − 8 + 15)
Taking the derivative,
dK ( ) 11 2 − 26 − 61
=−
d ( )
2
 2 − 8 + 15
dK ( )
and setting =0 we find
d

 1 = −1.45,  2 = 3.82
Alternatively, poles = {−1, −2},
zeros = {+3, +5} so we must solve

1 1 1 1
+ = +  11 2 − 26 − 61
( − 3) ( − 5) ( + 1) ( + 2 )

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root-locus Sketching Rules
• Rule 7: Imaginary axis crossing
If s = jω is a closed—loop pole on the
imaginary axis, then
KG ( j ) H ( j ) = −1

The real and imaginary parts of the

above equation provide us with a 2 × 2
system of equations, which we can solve
for the two unknowns K and ω (i.e., the
critical gain beyond which the system
goes unstable, and the oscillation
frequency at the critical gain.)

The Ruth— Hurwitz criterion can also be

used for this purpose.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root-locus Sketching Rules
• Rule 7: Imaginary axis crossing In this example,
K ( s + 3)
KG ( s ) H ( s ) =
s ( s + 1)( s + 2 )( s + 4 )
Ks + 3K
= 
s + 7 s 3 + 14s 2 + 8s
4

Kj + 3K
KG ( j ) H ( j ) = 4
 − j 7 3 − 14 2 + j8

KG ( j ) H ( j ) = −1

− 4 + j 7 3 + 14 2 − j ( 8 + K )  − 3K = 0

From the second equation,

− + 14 − 3K = 0
4 2

 2 =
(8 + K )
 7 − ( 8 + K )  = 0
3
7
2
8+ K  8+ K 
−  + 14   − 3K = 0  K + 65K − 720 = 0
2

 7   7 

Of the solutions K = − 74.65, K = 9.65 we can discard the negative one

Thus K = 9.65 and  = 1.59

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Root-locus Sketching Rules
Angles of Departure and Arrival

Angles of Departure

−1 +  2 + 3 −  4 − 5 +  6 = ( 2k + 1)1800

1 =  2 + 3 −  4 − 5 +  6 − ( 2k + 1)1800

Angles of Arrival
−1 +  2 + 3 −  4 − 5 +  6 = ( 2k + 1)1800

 2 = 1 − 3 +  4 + 5 −  6 + ( 2k + 1)1800

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 j

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 K
Sketch the root locus plot for the open-loop system KG ( s ) =
( s + 1)( s + 2 )( s + 4 )
and find the gain K at which it becomes unstable.

1. Determine and plot the open-loop poles and zeros.

2. Determine and plot the regions of the real axis that lie on the root locus.
3. Determine the number of asymptotes.
There are no finite zeros, therefore n − m = 3.
4. Determine the asymptote angles and centroid, then sketch the asymptotes. For three
asymptotes the angles are 600, 1800, 3000.
The centroid is

a =
( ( sum of the poles ) − ( sum of the zeros ) )
(n − m)
( ( −1 − 2 − 4 ) − ( 0 ) ) = −
1 7
=
3 3

These steps were used to produce the following sketch

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

The closed-loop characteristic equation is:

(s + 1)(s + 2)(s + 4) + K = s3 + 7s2 + 14s + 8 + K = 0

and at the point of marginal stability (when s = jω)
−jω3 − 7ω2 + j14ω + 8 + K = 0 + j0
Equating the real and imaginary parts

−7ω2 + 8 + K = 0
−ω3 + 14ω = 0
giving ω = 0, √14
K = −8, 90
Since the root locus is defined only for K > 0 we conclude that the system will become
unstable for K > 90, and the locus will cross the imaginary axis at s =  j 14 rad/s

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

Show the effect of PD control on the root-locus of the previous example.
Let Gc(s) = Kp + Kds = K(s + b), where b = Kp/Kd and K = Kd. The PD controller has added a
zero at s = −b to the system.
K ( s + b)
The open-loop transfer function is now KG ( s ) =
( s + 1)( s + 2 )( s + 4 )

and we have n − m = 2. Assume for now that b = 3. There will be n − m = 2 asymptotes, at

angles 900 and 2700.
The centroid will be
( ( −1 − 2 − 4 ) − ( −3) ) = −2
1
a =
2

( ( −1 − 2 − 4 ) − ( −6 ) ) = −0.5
1
The centroid will be a =
2
These two cases are sketched below

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems
Notice that as the PD zero moves deeper into the left half plane, it moves the
asymptote toward the imaginary axis, meaning that the dominant closed-loop poles
become lightly damped.

What will happen if b > 7?

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems
 Root-locus Sketching Rules

Angles of Departure and Arrival

−1 +  2 − 3 −  4 − 5 = −251.50

AC D E
K= = 1.71
B

In summary, we search a given line for the point yielding a summation of angles (zero
angles-pole angles) equal to an odd multiple of 180°. The gain at that point is then found
by multiplying the pole lengths drawn to that point and dividing by the product of the zero
lengths drawn to that point.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Damping ratio and pole location
n2
, 0   1
s + 2n s + n
2 2


 d = n , d = n 1 −  2 , tan  =
1− 2
We can rewrite the step response as
1
1−  e− d t  cos (d t −  ) j
1− 2

The definition above can be re-written + jn 1 −  2 = jd

d
=
n s − plane

d −n = − d 
1− 2 =
n
0 
d 1− 2
tan  = =
d 

cos = 
− jn 1 −  2 = − jd
3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems
 Transient response and pole location
Peak time

Tp =
n 1 −  2

Percent overshoot ( %OS)

  
%OS = exp  −   100
 1− 2 
 
− ln ( %OS 100 )
=
 2 + ln 2 ( %OS 100 )
Settling time
( to within  2% of steadystate )

Ts = −
(
ln 0.02 1 −  2 ) 4
n n
( approximation valid for 0    0.9 )
1− 2
tan  =

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems
 %OS2
j
Tp is inversely proportional to
Tp2
the imaginary part of the pole.
%OS1
s − plane Since horizontal lines on the
s−plane are lines of constant
Tp1
imaginary value, they are also
0 lines of constant peak time

Ts2 Ts1

Settling time is inversely proportional to the real part of the pole. Since vertical lines
on the s − plane are lines of constant real value, they are also lines of constant
settling time.

Since  = cos , radial lines are lines of constant . Since percent overshoot is only
a function of , radial lines are thus lines of constant percent overshoot, %OS.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Step responses of second-order
underdamped systems
as poles move: (a) with
constant real part; (b) with
constant imaginary part;
(c) with constant damping ratio

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Achieving s desired transient with a given Root Locus

As   
If the given root locus does not allow the
• Rise time Tr  (slower)
desired transient characteristics to be
• Settling time Ts  (slower)
achieved, then we must modify the root locus
• Peak time Tp  (slower)
by adding poles/zeros (compensator design)
• Overshoot %OS  (smaller)

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

Consider the system shown. Design the value of gain, K, to yield 1.52% overshoot. Also
estimate the settling time, peak time, and steady-state error.

R(s) + E (s) K ( s + 1.5 ) C (s)

s ( s + 1)( s + 10 )
−


Tp =
n 1 −  2

− ln ( %OS 100 )
=
 2 + ln 2 ( %OS 100 )

4
Ts =
n

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 K (1.5 )
K v = lim sG ( s ) =
s →0 (1)(10 )

Case Closed-loop Closed- Gain Third Settling Peak time Kv

poles loop zero closed-loop time
pole
1 −0.875 ± j0.657 −1.5 + j0 7.35 − 9.25 4.60 4.76 1.1
2 −1.19 ± j0.900 −1.5 + j0 12.79 − 8.61 3.36 3.49 1.9
3 −4.60 ± j3.450 −1.5 + j0 39.64 − 1.80 0.87 0.91 5.9

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems
3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems
 Lag compensator
The lag compensator is an electrical network which produces sinusoidal output
having phase lag when sinusoidal input is given.

Gc ( s ) =
( s + zc )
 ( Gc ( s ) ) = −ve
( s + pc )

zc  pc
Consider 1 1
zc = , pc =
zc zc 

 1
 s +  (1 + j zc )
Gc ( s ) =  z c 
=
(1 + zc s ) Gc ( j ) = 
 1  (1 + zc s ) (1 + j zc  )
 s + 
 z 
c 

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 k p = lim s →0 G ( s ) and kv = lim s →0 sG ( s )

K 1 1
G(s) = k p = lim s →0 G ( s ) = 8.23 e() = = = 0.108
( s + 1)( s + 2 )( s + 10 ) 1 + K p 1 + 8.23

Compensate the system whose root locus is shown below, to improve the steady-state
error by a factor of 10 if the system is operating with a damping ratio of 0.174.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

A ten fold improvement means a steady-state error is
0.108
e() = = 0.0108
10

1 1 − e()
e() = = 0.0108  K p = = 91.59
1+ K p e()

zc
K pN = K pO  K pO
pc

zc K pN 91.59
= = = 11.13
pc K pO 8.23

Let us select pc = 0.01

Let us select zc = 11.13 × pc = 0.111

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 R(s)
+ E (s) K ( s + 0.111) 1 C (s)
( s + 0.01) ( s + 1)( s + 2 )( s + 10 )
−

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

Along the  = 0.174 line for a multiple of 1800 and find that the second-order
dominant poles are at − 0.678 ± j3.836 with a gain, K, of 158.1, The third and
fourth closed-loop poles are at − 11.55 and − 0.101, respectively, and are found by
searching the real axis for a gain equal to that of the dominant poles. The fourth
pole of the compensated system cancels its zero. This leaves the remaining three
closed-loop poles of the compensated system very close in value to the three
closed-loop poles of the uncompensated system.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

The transient response of both systems is approximately the same, as is the system gain, but
notice that the steady-state error of the compensated system is 1/9.818 that of the
uncompensated system and is close to the design specification of a tenfold improvement.

Even though the transient responses of

the uncompensated and lag-
compensated systems are the same,
the lag-compensated system exhibits
less steady-state error by approaching
unity more closely than the
uncompensated system.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

We now examine another design possibility for the lag compensator and compare the
responses. Let us assume a lag compensator whose pole and zero are 10 times as close to the
origin as in the previous design. Even though both responses will eventually reach
approximately the same steady-state value, the lag compensator previously designed,
Gc(s) = (s + 0.111)/(s + 0.01), approaches the final value faster than the proposed lag
compensator, Gc(s) = (s + 0.0111)/(s + 0.001).
The previously designed lag compensator
has a fourth closed-loop pole at -0.101.
Using the same analysis for the new lag
compensator with its open-loop pole 10
times as close to the imaginary axis, we find
its fourth closed-loop pole at -0.01, Thus, the
new lag compensator has a closed-loop pole
closer to the imaginary axis than the original
lag compensator. This pole at —0.01 will
produce a longer transient response than the
original pole at -0.101, and the steady-state
value will not be reached as quickly.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

Given the system below, design an ideal derivative compensator to yield a 16% overshoot,
with a threefold reduction in settling time.
R(s) + E (s) K C (s)
s ( s + 4 )( s + 6 )
−

Let us first evaluate the performance of the

uncompensated system operating with 16%
overshoot. The root locus for the
uncompensated system is shown in the figure.
Since 16% overshoot is equivalent to  =
0.504, we search along that damping ratio
line for an odd multiple of 1800 and find that
the dominant second-order pair of poles is at
−1.205 ± j2.064. The settling time of the
uncompensated system is
4 4
Ts = = = 3.320
n 1.205

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

Since our evaluation of percent overshoot and settling time is based upon a second-order
approximation, we must check the assumption by finding the third pole and justifying the
second-order approximation. Searching beyond − 6 on the real axis for a gain equal to the
gain of the dominant, second-order pair, 43.35, we find a third pole at − 7.59, which is
over six times as far from the j-axis as the dominant, second-order pair. We conclude that
our approximation is valid. The transient and steady-state error characteristics of the
uncompensated system are summarized in the table below

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

Now we proceed to compensate the system.
First we find the location of the
compensated system's dominant poles. In
order to have a threefold reduction in the
settling time, the compensated system's
settling time will be one-third of 3.320. The
new settling time will be 1.107. Therefore,
the real part of the compensated system's
dominant, second-order pole is

4 4
= = = 3.613
Ts 1.107

and an imaginary part of

d = 3.613tan (1800 − 120.260 ) = 6.193

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

The result is the sum of the angles to the design point of all the poles and zeros of the
compensated system except for those of the compensator zero itself. The difference between
the result obtained and 180° is the angular contribution required of the compensator zero.
Using the open-loop poles and the test point, − 3.613 + j6.193, which is the desired
dominant second-order pole, we obtain the sum of the angles as −275.6°. Hence, the angular
contribution required from the compensator zero for the test point to be on the root locus is
+275.60 − 1800 = 95.60.
6.193
3.613 − 
( )
= tan 1800 − 95.60   = 3.006

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 Lead Compensation

Just as the active ideal integral compensator can be approximated with a passive lag
network, an active ideal derivative compensator can be approximated with a passive lead
compensator. When passive networks are used, a single zero cannot be produced; rather, a
compensator zero and a pole result. However, if the pole is farther from the imaginary axis
than the zero, the angular contribution of the compensator is still positive and thus
approximates an equivalent single zero. In other words, the angular contribution of the
compensator pole subtracts from the angular contribution of the zero but does not preclude
the use of the compensator to improve transient response, since the net angular contribution
is positive, just as for a single PD controller zero.
The advantages of a passive lead network over an active PD controller are that (1) no
additional power supplies are required and (2) noise due to differentiation is reduced.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

 If we select a desired dominant, second-order pole on the s-plane, the sum of the angles
from the uncompensated system's poles and zeros to the design point can be found. The
difference between 1800 and the sum of the angles must be the angular contribution
required of the compensator.
 2 − 1 − 3 −  4 + 5 = ( 2k + 1)1800
where  2 − 1 =  c is the angular contribution of the lead compensator.

The differences are in the values of static error constants, the gain required to reach the
design point on the compensated root locus, the difficulty in justifying a second-order
approximation when the design is complete, and the ensuing transient response.

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems
 Thank you

3/12/2024 ME 325 Control Systems