The lsim command

 

 

Consider the plant
𝑃(𝑠) =
1
(𝑠 + 1)(𝑠 + 5)
1) What is the plant’s type?
2) Let C(s) = K (a proportional controller). Find the closed-loop transfer function
from reference to output using unity feedback.
3) Choose different gains for K within the range 1 to 100. Plot the unit step
response for the different gains. What happens with the transient response of the
closed-loop as K increases?
4) For 𝐾 = 20 find the maximum value attained by the output y(t) and the settling
time Ts
for a unit step input (the time it takes the output to settle within a band
of  2% around its final value). Also find what is the steady-state value of y(t)?
What is the steady-state error equal to?
5) Design a controller that will increase the system’s type by 1 and that will yield
the smallest settling time you can obtain for a step input. What is the settling
time? What is the steady-state error?
6) Plot the response of the closed-loop system to a unit ramp using the controller
you designed in part (5).
There are several ways to do this. One is to use the sawtooth command together
with the lsim command to obtain the time response of the system. Another way
is to implement the whole thing in Simulink, using a signal generator block to
produce the ramp input. And a third way still is to use the step command yet
again, noting that the Laplace transform of a unit step is 1
𝑠
, and the Laplace
transform of a unit ramp is 1
𝑠
2 = (
1
𝑠
) (
1
𝑠
).
Record your observations. Is there a steady-state error? If so, what is its
magnitude?
What would happen with the steady-state error if the input were, instead, a train
of steps? You do not need to give a plot for this question, just answer based on
the type number of the plant together with your controller design.
7) Comment on the performance limitations you found in part (5). Do this by
observing what happens if you make 𝐾 very small, or very large.

 

 

 

Sample Solution

unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. Jus in bello The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.