Time Domain Specifications of Step

Responses of Both Underdamped

and Overdamped Systems: In Correction
to MATLAB Inbuilt ‘Stepinfo’ Function

Kanchan Kumar Kaity , Anup Kumar Mallick , and Kabita Purkait

Abstract The precise evaluation of time domain parameters is pivotal in unraveling

the dynamic intricacies and performance metrics of control systems. The calcula-
tion of time domain specifications, viz, rising time, settling time, peak time, and
peak overshoot etc. for an underdamped system differs from an overdamped system.
While MATLAB’s stepinfo function is a widely used tool for this purpose, its default
formulation caters predominantly to underdamped scenarios, leading to inaccura-
cies in results for overdamped systems. This paper introduces an innovative algo-
rithm designed to calculate time-domain specifications, taking into account both
underdamped and overdamped cases. Notably, the proposed algorithm rectifies the
inaccuracies observed in the rise time calculation for overdamped systems, a limi-
tation present in the stepinfo function. By considering the simulation end output
as the final value rather than a fixed value of 1(like stepinfo function), the algo-
rithm addresses the flawed settling time calculations for both underdamped and
overdamped systems. To check and compare the performance of the proposed algo-
rithm, one overdamped system and two underdamped systems: one having some
steady state error and another with no steady state error are considered. Compara-
tive analysis between the proposed algorithm and the MATLAB stepinfo function
demonstrates the superiority of the approach.

Keywords Rise time · Settling time · Maximum peak overshoot · Peak time ·
Damping factor · Underdamped system · Overdamped system

K. K. Kaity · A. K. Mallick (B) · K. Purkait

Electronics and Communication Engineering, Kalyani Government Engineering College, Kalyani,
West Bengal 741235, India
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024 191
H. Sharma et al. (eds.), Communication and Intelligent Systems, Lecture Notes
in Networks and Systems 969, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2082-8_13
192 K. K. Kaity et al.

1 Introduction

The analysis of system responses is a fundamental aspect of control theory and

engineering . In the context of control system analysis, it is essential to quantita-
tively measure the performance of these systems in order to assess their suitability
for various applications. This is where MATLAB’s ‘stepinfo’ [1] function becomes
invaluable. This built-in function provides valuable insights into the characteristics
of the step response, including parameters like rise time, settling time, and over-
shoot, which are key indicators of system performance. But in some cases, it does
not provide the correct values.
The rise time provided by the stepinfo function is not accurate. Also, for over-
damped systems, the stepinfo function is unable to find rise time by default. The
proposed algorithm will calculate rise time for both underdamped and overdamped
systems using individual rules. Furthermore, if simulations are ended before reaching
the final value, the stepinfo function calculates the settling time by considering the
final value as 1 [2]. But this is erroneous from the theoretical perspective. The
proposed algorithm will find the settling time by taking only the actual final value.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, the literature review is
presented. The theoretical foundation of step responses of a second-order system is
covered in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4, the proposed algorithm is explained. Section 5 reports
and discusses the simulation results. In Sect. 6, the paper is finally concluded.

2 Literature Review

Time domain specifications play an important role in control engineering for mainly
two purposes [3]. One is for performance checking of the control system, and the
other is for system design based on time domain performance specifications. Ahmed
and Whidborne [4] have combined the H∞ frequency domain parameter with time
domain specifications for an aircraft flight controller. Balestrieri [5] analyzes a
collection of DAC time domain parameters, such as glitch energy, rise time, fall
time, and settling time. Zheng et al. [6] has proposed an optimal fractional order
controller based on time and frequency domain specifications for PMSM (permanent
magnet synchronous motor). Muthukumari et al. [7] developed a two-area deregu-
lated power system’s linear quadratic regulator (LQR) for load frequency control
(LFC). Senthilkumar and Lincon [8] have proposed to compute a multi loop PI
controller for achieving time and frequency domain specifications simultaneously
for a coupled tank. Kaya [9] has proposed work on the auto tuning of a new PI-PD
Smith predictor based on time specifications [10]. The time domain analysis, partic-
ularly the evaluation of key parameters like rising time, settling time, peak time, and
peak overshoot, plays a crucial role in assessing system performance [11]. For an,
overdamped system, the stepinfo function cannot calculate rise time by deafult, and
it shows a NaN value.
Time Domain Specifications of Step Responses of Both Underdamped … 193

3 Theoretical Background

The transient response of a practical control system often exhibits damped oscil-
lations before reaching steady state [12, 13]. Transient responses specifications
are:
1. Delay time (t d ): This is the amount of time needed for the response to first reach
half of the final value.
2. Rise time (t r ): The rise time, measured in seconds, is the amount of time needed
for a response to increase from 10 to 90%, or 0 to 100% of its final value. In
second order underdamped systems, the rise time from 0 to 100% is typically
employed. 10–90% rise time is a common rise time for overdamped systems
[14].
3. Peak time (t p ): The amount of time needed for the response to reach the
overshoot’s maximum peak is known as the peak time.
4. Maximum overshoot (M p ): The response curve’s maximum peak value, measured
from final or steady state output, is known as the maximum overshoot [15, 16].
5. Settling time (t s ): [12, 17] The amount of time needed for the response curve to
reach and remain within a range surrounding the final value, which is indicated
by an absolute percentage of the final value (often 2% or 5%), is known as the
settling time.
In Fig. 1, the step response of an 2nd order underdamped system simulated for
6 s is plotted. The general form of the closed loop transfer function of a 2nd order
system [18, 19] is given by,

Fig. 1 Step response of an underdamped 2nd order system

194 K. K. Kaity et al.

C(s) ωn2
= 2 (1)
R(s) s + 2ζ ωn s + ωn 2

Here ζ = damping factor, ωn = undamped natural frequency.

For a unit-step input, C(s) can be written as,

ωn2
C(s) = (2)
(s + 2ζ ωn s + ωn 2 )s
2

Taking the inverse Laplace transform, the step response c(t) is obtained as given
in Eq. (3).
  
−ζ ωn t
e 1 − ζ 2
L −1 C(s) = c(t) = 1 −  sin ωd t + tan−1 (3)
1 − ζ2 ζ

Here L −1 C(s) = inverse Laplace transform of the function C(s) and ωd = damped
natural frequency.

3.1 Time Domain Specifications Formulas

The expressions of different time domain specifications [20–26] for the system whose
dynamics is expressed by Eq. (3), are given below, considering the final value of the
response as unity [24].
1. Rise time (t r ) is obtained from the following equation.
π −β
tr = (4)
ωd

Here β = is phase angle in radians.

2. Peak time is given by,
π
tp = (5)
ωd

3. Maximum overshoot,
 
C t p − C(∞)
Mp = × 100% (6)
C(∞)
 
Here C t p = peak value of the response and C(∞) = steady state value, or,
 
− √ζ π
Mp = e 1−ζ 2
× 100%. (7)
Time Domain Specifications of Step Responses of Both Underdamped … 195

4. Settling time,

4
ts = . (8)
ζ ωn

corresponding to ±2% tolerance (as shown in Fig. 1) [25, 26].

4 Proposed Algorithm

The proposed algorithm is developed into two stages. First, the nature of the system,
whether it is underdamped or overdamped based on the value of the damping factor
is determined. Then, the time domain specification parameters are evaluated based
on the nature of the system. The detailed steps of the proposed algorithm are given
below.
1. First, calculate the damping factor using zeta. If 0 < zeta < 1, then the system is
underdamped. If zeta > 1, then the system is overdamped.
2. To calculate the rise time, check when the response reaches 100% of final value
for the underdamped system. For an overdamped system, calculate the time taken
to reach from 10 to 90% of the final value.
3. To calculate the settling time for both systems, check the time when the response
is limited to a 2% tolerance of the final value.
4. Using the max function, estimate the peak value and peak time.
5. After getting the peak value and final value, calculate the maximum overshoot
using Eq. (6).
For at-a-glance understanding, the flowcharts of different stages of the proposed
algorithm are given in Flowcharts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Following the steps given in Flowchart 1, the nature of the system is first deter-
mined. Then the time domain specifications have been calculated separately for
underdamped system and overdamped system as given in Flowcharts 2, 3 and 4 and
in Flowcharts 5 and 6, respectively.
For underdamped system
The steps of estimating the rise time for an underdamped system is given in Flowchart
2.
Next the settling time is calculated for the underdamped system considering ±2%
tolerance as depicted in Flowchart 3.
The steps of finding the peak values of the underdamped system are given in
Flowchart 4.
For overdamped system
The steps of calculating the settling time and rise time for an overdamped system are
given in Flowchart 5 and in Flowchart 6, respectively.
196 K. K. Kaity et al.

Flowchart 1 Checking zeta

Flowchart 2 Rise time

calculation for underdamped
system

5 Results and Discussion

The performance of the proposed algorithm is checked and compared with the
MATLAB inbuilt stepinfo function by considering step responses to three systems:
two underdamped systems and one overdamped system. The step responses are
Time Domain Specifications of Step Responses of Both Underdamped … 197

Flowchart 3 Settling time calculation for underdamped system

Flowchart 4 Peak time,

maximum peak and
maximum overshoot
calculation for underdamped
system

depicted in Figs. 2, 3 and 4, and the values of the time domain specifications are
reported in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
198 K. K. Kaity et al.

Flowchart 5 Settling time calculation for overdamped system

Flowchart 6 Rise time

calculation for overdamped
system
Time Domain Specifications of Step Responses of Both Underdamped … 199

Fig. 2 Step response of

underdamped system in
Eq. (9)

Fig. 3 Step response of the

overdamped system in
Eq. (10)

5.1 Underdamped Response with No Steady State Error

9
Transfer Function = (9)
s2 + 2s + 9

Theoretically comparing the transfer function with the standard equation

ω2
C(s)
R(s)
= s 2 +2ζ ωnn s+ωn 2 , we find that ζ = 13 ; so it is an underdamped system (shown
in Fig. 2).
200 K. K. Kaity et al.

Fig. 4 Step response of the

underdamped system in
Eq. (11)

Table 1 Time domain specifications for underdamped system in Eq. (9)

stepinfo function output Proposed algorithm output

Table 2 Time domain Specifications for the overdamped system in Eq. (10)
stepinfo function output Proposed algorithm output

From the formula of an underdamped system, we find that rise time tr = π−β ωd
= 0.6755, Peak time, t p = ωπd = 1.11, and Settling time, t s = 3.7, Maximum peak
 
− √ζ π
overshoot, M p = e 1−ζ 2
× 100% = 32.9321%.
Peak value,
Time Domain Specifications of Step Responses of Both Underdamped … 201

Table 3 Time domain specifications for the underdamped system with steady state error
stepinfo function output Proposed algorithm output

 
  −ζ ωn π ζ
c t p = 1 − e ωd cos π +  sin π = 1.3293.
1 − ζ2

Table 1 shows that both the stepinfo function and the proposed approach esti-
mate the values for peak time, settling time, and maximum peak overshoot with
near-perfect accuracy when compared to theoretical values. However, the proposed
algorithm, in comparison to the Matlab stepinfo function, gives a more accurate result
of rise time, which perfectly matches the theoretical value.

5.2 Overdamped Response

9
Transfer Function = (10)
s2 + 8s + 9

Theoretically comparing the transfer function with the standard equation

ω2
C(s)
R(s)
= s 2 +2ζ ωnn s+ωn 2 , we find that ζ = 43 ; so it is an overdamped system. From
Table 2, it is found that MATLAB’s stepinfo function fails to provide the value
of rise time by default; whereas the proposed algorithm estimates it correctly. The
settling time is estimated almost the same by the stepinfo function and the proposed
algorithm.
Output is shown in Fig. 3.

5.3 Underdamped Response with Steady State Error

Next, we consider the same underdamped system with the transfer function given
in Eq. (9). However, to study the performances of the Matlab stepinfo function and
the proposed approach for the underdamped system with non-zero final error, the
same system with the step input has been run for 3 s. It is found from Fig. 4 that
the response at the end of 3 s, could not reach the steady state value. The system is
202 K. K. Kaity et al.

rewritten in Eq. (11).

9
Transfer Function = (simulation end time = 3 s) (11)
s2 + 2s + 9

Theoretically comparing the transfer function with the standard equation

ω2
C(s)
R(s)
= s 2 +2ζ ωnn s+ωn 2 ; ζ = 13 ; so it’s underdamped and ωn = 3.
The definition states that the settling time is the amount of time needed to arrive at
and remain within a range, say 2% of the final value. The Matlab stepinfo function,
considers the final value as 1 for a step input and estimates the settling time accord-
ingly. However, the final value may not be 1 if there is some steady state error (like in
this example, where the range is bounded of time to only 3 s). As a result, the stepinfo
function is giving the wrong result. The proposed algorithm considers the value of
output at the end of simulation as the final value and estimates the settling time
accordingly, and thus is giving the correct result. From MATLAB simulation (output
is shown in Fig. 4) it is found that the final value is = 1.0152(not 1). Hence, settling
time should be calculated based on 98% of 1.0152 =1.0152 × 0.98 = 0.994896.
Corresponding settling time is 2.8668 s, which exactly matches with the proposed
method.

6 Conclusion

The time domain specifications of step responses to 2nd-order systems differ signif-
icantly between underdamped and overdamped systems. Generally, underdamped
systems exhibit oscillatory behavior, resulting in longer settling times and poten-
tially high overshoot. In contrast, overdamped systems have no overshoot, and
usually shorter settling times. In the MATLAB stepinfo function, there are many
errors and values that are not accurate in determining time domain parameters for
underdamped and overdamped systems. For an overdamped system, it is not giving
a finite rise time value by default. Also, the rise time calculation rule is different
for underdamped and overdamped. In the proposed algorithm, it is shown that these
problems have been successfully removed. In the stepinfo function, when calculating
settling time, it does not consider steady-state errors. In the proposed algorithm, this
problem has also been resolved successfully.

References

1. MathWorks stepinfo function. MathWorks. https://in.mathworks.com/help/ident/ref/dynami

csystem.stepinfo.html
2. Yang XS, Deb S (2010) Engineering optimization by cuckoo search. Int J Math Model Numer
Optim 1(4):330–343
Fast Color Image Security Standard for IoT Applications Using … 329

9. Geng Q, Yan H (2022) Application of image encryption algorithm for wireless sensor network
in the security analysis of public big data. Hindawi Wirel Commun Mobile Comput, Article
ID 6186275, 1–12
10. Vishwakarma S, Gupta NK (2021) An efficient color image security technique for IOT using
fast RSA encryption technique. 2021 10th IEEE International conference on communication
systems and network technologies (CSNT), Bhopal, India, pp 717–722
11. Singh A, Agarwal P, Chand M (2019) Image encryption and analysis using dynamic AES. 2019
5th International conference on optimization and applications (ICOA), Kenitra, Morocco, pp
1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOA.2019.8727711
12. Zhang Q, Ding Q (2015) Digital image encryption based on advanced encryption standard
(AES). 2015 Fifth international conference on instrumentation and measurement, computer,
communication and control (IMCCC), Qinhuangdao, China, pp 1218–1221. https://doi.org/10.
1109/IMCCC.2015.261
13. Shalaby MAW, Saleh MT, Elmahdy HN (2020) Enhanced arnold’s cat map-aes encryption tech-
nique for medical images. 2020 2nd Novel intelligent and leading emerging sciences conference
(NILES), Giza, Egypt, pp 288–29.https://doi.org/10.1109/NILES50944.2020.9257876
14. Kumar C, Singh S (2022) LFSS-KF: lightweight fast real-time security standards with key
fusion for surveillance videos. Imaging Sci J 70(7):439–458.https://doi.org/10.1080/13682199.
2023.2171550
15. Kumar C, Singh S (2023) Security standards for real time video surveillance and moving object
tracking challenges, limitations, and future: a case study. Multimed Tools Appl. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11042-023-16629-7
16. wakarma, Gupta NK (2021) An efficient Color image security technique for IOT using fast RSA
encryption technique. 2021 10th IEEE International conference on communication systems
and network technologies (CSNT), Bhopal, India, pp 717–722. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSN
T51715.2021.9509697
17. Trujillo-Toledo DA et al (2021) Real-time RGB image encryption for IoT applications using
enhanced sequences from chaotic maps. Chaos Solitons Fractals 153, Part 2:111506, ISSN
0960–0779
18. Moreira Bezerra JI, Machado G, Soares R, Molter A, Camargo VV (2022) Fast chaotic image
encryption with simultaneous permutation and diffusion for IoT applications. GLOBECOM
2022–2022 IEEE global communications conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp 5481–5486
19. Dweik H, Abutaha M, A survey of lightweight image encryption for IoT. IntechOpen, p 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104431
20. Makhija N (2023) Secured image storage and transmission technique suitable for IoT using
Tangle and a novel image encryption technique. Multimed Tools Appl 82:36793–36814. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-14794-3