Some Comments on Reduction of

Parameter Variations by Use of

Feedback
Summary: T~vo formulae regarding reduc-
tion of output variation of an elementaql
feedback system due to variations in system
parameters are derived and discussed. Cer-
tain confusing and often erroneously treated
aspects are detailed and illustrated.
Both authors, one from The Peoples Re-
public of China and the other from the United
States, have often encountered student diffi-
culty in understanding how feedback reduces
the incremental output variations caused by
incremental variations in system parameters.
There exist two different approximation solu-
tions in texthooks [ 1 ~ 2,3] in use today. This
difference was eliminated in later editions of
[2,3]. Rather than start out with the concept
of system sensitivity, the ultimate tool for
such investigations, this presentation follows
the lead of the textbooks used in introductory
feedback control-system courses.
Given a unity feedback system with
forward-path gain G(s), input R(s) and out-
put C(s), let us suppose that G(s) is subject to
an incremental change AG(s), this increment
being of small amplitude compared to
that of G(s).
For the closed-loop, feedback system sub-
ject to variations AG(s) in G(s), the differ-
ence between the output of the system with
the perturbed parameter G(s) +AG(s) and
that from the system with nominal parameter
G(s) is
AC,(S) =
G(s) +AG(s)
1 +G(s) +AG(s)
- a] 1 +G(s) *R(s) ( 1)
Received May 31, 1983; revised September 23,
1983, and November 23, 1983. Accepted in re-
vised form by Associate Editor G. H. Hostetter.
Hongcai Zhang
Richard S. Marleau
Senior Member, IEEE
If AG(s) is assumed small compared to
1 +G(s) in the denominator, then the dis-
turbance in theoutput is
which is sometimes accepted as the measure
of the system response error.
Starting again with equation ( 2) , but sub-
stituting 6G(s) for AG(s) in the denominator,
we have
Obviously, the result of equation (4) is
a better approxi mati on than that of
equation (2). Equation (2) is essentially of
no value and should be considered an in-
correct approximation.
Conclusion
Realizing how readily this error was made
in quality textbooks suggests that special care
should be taken in presenting this topic to
persons learning feedback concepts for the
fi st time. This reaffirms the continuing care
that must be taken in dealing with small
[l +G(s)] G(s) AG(s) - G(s) [l +G(s) +~G(s)]
1 +G(s) +6G(s)
- - [I +G(s)]AG(s) - G(s) 6G(s)
[l +G(s) f 6G(s)] [ 1 f G(s)]
Assuming 6G(s) =AG(s), and that both
these terms are small compared to G(S), we
have
AC =
1
[I +G(S)] ~(~)
which does not agree with equation (2).
The result of equation (2) can be obtained
from equation (4) by assuming G( s ) =0
and G(s) 4 G(s). The di f f erence i n
equations (2) and (4) results from erroneous
subtraction to obtain the small difference in
two large numbers.
(3)
differences in large values, especially when
approximations are involved.
References
[I ] K. Ogata, Moderrz Control Engineering,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1970.
[2] R. C. Dorf, Modern Control Systems,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
Inc., 1967; Second Edition, 1974; Third mi-
tion, 1980.
[3] B.C. Kuo, Automatic Control Systems,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1962; Second Edition, 1967; Third Edi-
tion, 1975.
[4] J. B. Cruz, Jr., Feedback Systems, New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972.
0272-1708/84/0joo-0317$01.03 0 1984 IEEE
may I984 17