1
Overview and Control of DC and AC Motors
Brian Bouma
Abstract— an overview of the differences in form and
function between DC and AC motors. An in-depth analysis of
the general differential equations and transfer functions of DC
and AC motors. Strategies for controlling DC and AC motors
using gain and PID control are discussed and analyzed in depth.
Methods for determining the time constants of DC and AC
motors are discussed and analyzed.
Index Terms – AC motors, Control systems, DC motors,
Motor drives.
I. NOMENCLATURE
PID Proportional Integral Derivative
II. INTRODUCTION
Motors are an integral part of engineering in today’s
society. They are used in a wide variety of applications,
from running fans to driving belts to turning wheels. Yet,
despite their prevalence in the designs of undergraduate
engineering students, most such students have very little idea
of how motors actually work, or of how to control them
safely and dependably. This paper describes both DC and
AC motors, analyzes them from a control standpoint, and
determines adequate strategies for controlling them in a
manner which is both safe and reliable. Stepper and servo
motors will not be discussed here, as their form, function,
and application are considerably different from that of DC
and AC motors, and the analysis of those four motor types
would be too much information to cover in this setting.
III. MOTOR OVERVIEW
To the uninformed observer, DC and AC motors appear to
be basically identical. Even though they seem to operate in
essentially the same way, their physical structures, and thus
their range of applications, vary significantly.
The brush DC motor is arguably the simplest variable-
speed DC motor design, in addition to being the most
common. For these reasons, the brush design is the one
being described and analyzed here. The brush DC motor (or
all DC motors, for that matter) is made up of a stator and a
rotor (refer to Fig. 1 for all descriptions relating to the brush
DC motor). As the names suggest, the rotor (the circular
portion of Fig. 1 made up of eight “T”-shaped parts) is the

This work was done for Engineering 315 at Calvin College in Grand
Rapids, Michigan, in the fall of 2004. All software used in this paper was
supplied by Calvin College. This project was supported financially by Calvin
College and Smiths Aerospace LLC.
Brian Bouma works for Smiths Aerospace LLC and attends Calvin
College in Grand Rapids, MI 49546 USA (e-mail: bbouma83@calvin.edu).
part of the motor that rotates during operation, while the
stator (the dark blue block and light blue “fingers” around the
rotor in Fig. 1) remains stationary during operation, relative
to the motor’s casing and mounting [3]. The stator is made
up of either a winding or a magnet, which creates magnetic
flux in the magnetic field formed between the stator and the
rotor [3]. For the simple analytical purposes herein, it makes
no difference whether a winding or a magnet is used in the
stator, so the use of a magnet will be assumed. The rotor has
a winding on its surface, termed the armature, in which
electromotive forces are induced by the magnetic field
formed between the stator and the rotor [3]. The armature
winding is supplied current through the collector (the yellow
cylinder attached to the rotor in Fig. 1), on which the brushes
(the two brown tabs touching the collector) apply pressure
[3]. The collector is mounted on the same shaft as the
armature, and the fixed brushes are connected to the
armature terminals [3]. Thus, the power to the motor runs
through the brushes, into the collector, and through the
armature winding to produce the electromotive forces
between the stator and the rotor (the power cables are the red
lines attached to the brushes in Fig. 1). The brush-collector
assembly provides current to the armature windings in such a
way that the current flows in one direction when the
windings are under a magnetic North pole (from the stator
magnet), and in the other direction when the windings are
under a magnetic South pole [3]. The rotor windings are
made up of coils, called sections, all sections being of an
equal number of turns (in Fig. 1, the eight colored sets of line
segments, two segments per set, on the “front” of the T-
shaped parts of the rotor are the ends of the coils; the coils
run through the length of the rotor and wrap around the
opposite end of the T-shaped parts of the rotor) [3]. Each
section has two sides, which are inserted into two slots
spaced apart a distance equal to the distance between the two
field poles [3]. This way, when the conductors of one side of
a section are under the North pole, the conductors of the
other side of the same section are under the South pole [3].
The sections of armature winding are all connected together,
in series, with the end of the last section being connected to
the beginning of the first section, so that the winding as a
whole is continuous, having no particular start or finish [3].
For this to work, each slot must contain two sides of sections
(half each of two different sections) [3]. As the rotor rotates,
when a section changes from being under the North pole to
being under the South pole (and hence the current in that
section reverses direction), that section commutates.
Commutation of a section of the winding is the changing of
the section from being under one pole to being under the
other pole [3]. Two sections (two sections that are opposite
each other on the rotor) commutate at a time, one switching
 2

from North to South pole, the other switching from South to

North pole. Because the two poles “swap” sections
simultaneously, half of the windings are under each pole at
all times. The North and South poles are an effect of the flux
in the armature created by the current flowing through the
two sets of windings (each pole containing one set). When a
section commutates, the brushes, applying pressure on the
collector, short-circuit the two ends of that section together,
to release the energy stored in the coils of the section before
the direction of current flow in the section is reversed [3].
Despite this ingenious design, sparks are still produced
between the brushes and the collector [3].

Fig. 2. AC Motor Stator and Rotor

The inner face of the stator is made up of deep slots (or

grooves, depending on the exact design, but that distinction
makes no difference for this analysis), through which the
windings run (the red arrow in Fig. 3 indicates one such slot)
[3].
Fig. 1. Brush DC Motor

The primary advantage of a DC motor is that the

magnitude of the torque produced by the output shaft never
changes [3]. This makes the DC motor perfect for
applications that have large startup loads, particularly
automotive applications (like the drive wheels in electric
vehicles, for instance), where DC power is readily available
under most circumstances.
Today, the asynchronous (or induction) motor is the most
commonly used electric motor in industry and in household
devices [3]. For this reason, the asynchronous motor is the
AC motor design being described and analyzed here.
Electromagnetic induction is the creation of a current
through a conductor that that is within a magnetic field [3].
The magnetic field is capable of generating a large current in
the conductor without requiring any physical contact
whatsoever [3]. It is this principle that allows the induction
motor to function without having any sliding electrical
contacts (such as the brushes in the brush DC motor) [3].
The stator (the hollow cylinder in Fig. 2) is essentially a
hollow cylinder with no ends, and may be constructed out of
either cast iron or aluminum [3].
Fig. 3. Winding Slot in AC Motor Stator
The motor’s number of poles is determined by the layout of
the windings within the stator (the number of poles will
always be a multiple of two, but, again, that has no impact
here) [3].
The rotor is also cylindrical, though this cylinder does
have a core. The rotor is made of steel disks (the long black
segments in Fig. 4) slotted around the exterior of the cylinder
[3]. A short-circuited winding is placed in the slots between
the steel disks, preventing the need for a supply to be
connected to the rotor [3]. The currents in the rotor are
induced by the interaction between the magnetic fields of the
stator and the rotor, leading to the name for this type of
motor [3]. A copper or aluminum bar (in the case of Fig. 4,
aluminum, judging by the color) is also placed in each slot
between the steel disks [3]. A circular conducting ring is
placed on the end of the cylinder (refer to Fig. 4), to connect
the ends of the bars together (because the conducting ring
and bars resemble a circular cage, this rotor design is called
“squirrel cage”) [3].
 3

transforming each of these equations, s-domain equations are

reached. The developed torque is now
T( s ) K2⋅ If( s )
, (4)
the field voltage is now
Vf( s ) (
Lf⋅ s + Rf ⋅ If( s )), (5)
and the mechanical torque is now
T( s ) ( 2
I⋅ s + B⋅ s ⋅ Θ( s ), ) (6)
where all of the constants have the same meaning as in the
time-domain differential equations, If is used in place of if
and Θ is used in place of θ [2]. By substituting and solving,
the transfer function of the motor is found to be
Θ( s ) Km
Fig. 4. Squirrel Cage and Steel Disks in AC Rotor
Vf( s ) ( )(
s ⋅ τm⋅ s + 1 ⋅ τe⋅ s + 1 ) , (7)
The interaction between the stator magnetic field and the
where
rotor magnetic field forces the rotor to spin, relative to the
I
stator, resulting in a functioning AC motor [3]. τm
There are two varieties of asynchronous motors: three B (8)
phase and single phase. Three phase motors are used mainly is the mechanical time constant of the motor,
in industry, while single phase motors are more common Lf
household appliances [3]. τe
The primary advantage of an induction motor is that it Rf
(9)
contains no sliding electrical contacts, resulting in a simple is the electrical time constant of the motor, and
robust design that is easy to manufacture and maintain [3]. A K2
secondary advantage is that the available range of induction Km
motors is from only a few watts to several megawatts, B⋅ Rf
making the use of induction motors in a wide variety of (10)
applications physically feasible [3]. is another constant [2]. This is the transfer function that will
be used for the control analysis of the DC motor in the next
IV. TRANSFER FUNCTIONS section.
The differential equations and transfer functions for AC
The differential equations and transfer functions of DC and motors are considerably less complicated than those for DC
AC motors are crucial to the analysis of the control of these motors, owing to the fact that AC motors only have a single
machines. The transfer functions are derived from the time constant while DC motors have two. AC motors are
differential equations using Laplace transforms, a method all described by two differential equations: The torque (T(t)) is
too familiar to most engineers. described by
The differential equations and transfer functions for DC
d
motors are more complicated than those of AC motors, due T( t ) K⋅ v ( t ) − m⋅ θ ( t )
to the fact that DC motors have time lags because of both the dt , (11)
armature inductance and the winding, while AC motors have where K is a constant, v(t) is the voltage provided to the
only a single time constant. DC motors are described by motor, θ(t) is the angular position of the motor, and m is
three differential equations: The developed torque (T(t)) is described by
described by "stall torque (at rated voltage)"
T( t ) K2⋅ if( t ) m
, (1) "no-load speed (at rated voltage)" , (12)
where if(t) is the current through the field and K2 is constant where stall torque (at rated voltage) and no-load speed (at
[2]. The field voltage (vf(t)) is described by rated voltage) are characteristics of any specific AC motor
d [2]. The torque is also described by
v f( t) Rf⋅ if( t) + Lf⋅ if( t)
dt 2
, (2) d d
T( t ) I⋅ θ ( t) + B⋅ θ ( t)
where Rf is the field resistance and L f is the field inductance 2 dt
dt , (13)
[2]. Lastly, the mechanical torque (T(t)) is described by
which is identical to the third differential equation that
2
d d describes DC motors, and has the same meaning [2]. By
T( t ) I⋅θ ( t) + B⋅ θ ( t)
2 dt equating the two AC motor equations, assuming zero initial
dt , (3) conditions, and then taking the Laplace transform of the
where I is the motor’s moment of inertia, B is the motor’s resultant equation, the transfer function of an AC motor is
viscous damping, and θ(t) is the motor’s angular position [2]. found to be
By assuming zero initial conditions and then Laplace

Θ( s ) Km
V( s ) s ⋅ ( τ⋅ s + 1) , (14)
where
K
Km
m+ B (15)
is a constant, and
I Fig. 5. Simulink Model of DC Motor Control System with
τ PID Control
m+ B (16)
is the time constant of the motor [2]. This is the transfer
function that will be used for the control analysis of the AC
motor in the next section.
V. CONTROL
Precise control of motors is vital to the use of motors in
any application. Without a system in place to prevent the
motor from operating unchecked, a step increase to the inputs
of a motor would result in the motor accelerating until it
literally broke apart, costing untold amounts of money to
repair and replace damaged equipment, and undoubtedly
ruining someone’s day.
The first step to safe control is the use of negative
feedback, a concept so common that it warrants no
explanation here, which has been employed in all of the
simulations whose results are shown here.
A control method which is popular because of its
robustness, its simplicity, and its reusability is PID control.
A PID controller contains a proportional gain, an integrator,
and a differentiator (hence its name), all of which are
summed together to produce the output of the controller.
The transfer function of a PID controller has the form
2 output of the system was sinusoidal and continued for all of
KI KD⋅ s + KP⋅ s + KI
PID KP + + KD⋅ s
s s ,(17)
where KP is the proportional gain coefficient, KI is the
integrator coefficient, and KD is the differentiator coefficient.
The proportional gain is used to amplify the input signal.
The integrator is used to improve the accuracy of the control
system, that is, to minimize the steady-state error (the
difference between the input value and the final output value)
as much as possible. The differentiator is used to increase
the damping in the system, which will decrease both the peak
time and the settling time of the system.
As can be recalled from above, the transfer function of the
DC motor is third order in the denominator, so it has three
poles (roots of the polynomial in the denominator).
Likewise, the transfer function of the PID controller is
second order in the numerator, so it has two zeros (roots of
the polynomial in the numerator). Thus, the PID values may
be set so that the zeros of the PID controller eliminate the
poles of the DC motor. However, since the DC motor has
three poles and the PID controller only has two zeros, only
two of the poles may be eliminated. This raises the obvious
question: Which poles should be eliminated and which one
should be left alone? That depends on which pole, as the
only pole in the system, results in a system with the shortest
rise time, the shortest settling time, and the least overshoot.
4
This system was modeled and simulated in
MATLAB/Simulink (see Fig. 5), using a unit step input as a
standard input.
The gain block in this system is used to dramatically speed
up the response of the system, although it does not effect the
location of any of the poles or zeros, so it does not impact the
“control” aspect of this analysis (even though it decreases the
peak and settlings times for the system). The electrical time
constant of the motor (τe) was assumed to be 1 ms, the
mechanical time constant of the motor (τm) was assumed to
be 100 ms, and the motor constant (Km) was assumed to be
0.050 N*m/A, all of which are typical constants for a DC
motor [1]. The first two poles to be eliminated were the
poles that result from the electrical and mechanical time
constants, leaving the third pole (at s = 0) alone. This was
done by setting the differentiator coefficient to the product of
the electrical and mechanical time constants, the proportional
gain coefficient to the sum of the electrical and mechanical
time constants, and the integrator coefficient to one. The
result of this simulation is so worthless that it will not be
shown here. By eliminating those two particular poles (hand
calculations would confirm this, but are not necessary here),
the overshoot of the system became 100% (the output was
“2” while the input step was only “1”), the peak time became
0.44 seconds (not terrible, but not great either), and the
settling time became infinite. The system never settled. The
eternity (until the simulation time of ten seconds was
reached). This is no good. In the next simulation run, the
two poles eliminated were the pole at s = 0 and the pole
created by the electrical time constant. This was done by
setting the differentiator coefficient to the value of the
electrical time constant, the proportional gain coefficient to
one, and the integrator coefficient to zero. The output of this
simulation is shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Time Response of System with Mechanical Time
Constant Pole
Fig. 6 shows the time response of the system when the
mechanical time constant and s = 0 poles were eliminated by
the settings of the PID controller. The horizontal axis shows

time, in seconds, and the vertical axis is the output of the
system, normalized to the magnitude of the input step.
Closer analysis of this simulation output shows a settling
time (using 2% criterion) of approximately 0.76 seconds, a
peak time of approximately 0.14 seconds, and an overshoot
of approximately 49%. This simulation shows a better peak
time (0.14 seconds as opposed to 0.44 seconds), a better
overshoot (49% as opposed to 100%), and a much better
settling time (0.76 seconds as opposed to not settling at all).
However, the peak time could still improve (a little), the
peak time could improve quite a bit, and the overshoot has
the most room for improvement. The simulation was run a
third time, this time eliminating the pole at s = 0 and the pole
created by the mechanical time constant. This was done by
setting the differentiator coefficient to the value of the
mechanical time constant, the proportional gain coefficient to
one, and the integrator coefficient to zero. This simulation
output is shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. Time Response of System with Electrical Time
Constant Pole
The simulation output in Fig. 7 shows that the elimination of
the s = 0 and mechanical time constant poles produces the
best system performance yet. Since the output does not
oscillate, the peak time cannot be characterized as having a
unique value, so the peak time will be considered to be the
same as the settling time. The settling time is approximately
0.073 seconds (73 ms), and there is no overshoot. Note also
that while the system corresponding to Fig. 6 was simulated
for 1 second (with the step input occurring at time t = 0
seconds), the system corresponding to Fig. 7 was simulated
for only 0.25 seconds, because its time response was so fast
that it could scarcely be seen on a 1-second time plot.
From these findings, it appears as though the best way to
use a PID controller in conjunction with a DC motor is to set
the PID values so that the s = 0 pole and the pole created by
the larger of the two time constants (typically the mechanical
time constant) are eliminated.
The transfer function of an AC motor is simple enough
that, even though PID control may be implemented for an
AC motor (as it will be later), acceptable time response
values may be attained by simply adjusting the gain in the
system (see Fig. 8). For all of the AC motor control system
simulations, a time constant (τ) of 0.1 seconds (100 ms) and
a motor constant of 0.050 N*m/A have been assumed.
5
Fig. 8. Simulink Model of AC Motor Control System
By running this simulation many times, and adjusting the
gain value each time, it can be found that, between the gain
values of approximately 128.957 and 143.076, the overshoot
is less than (or equal to) 10% and the peak time is less than
(or equal to) 0.5 seconds. At a gain of 128.957, the
overshoot is 8.21% while the peak time is exactly 0.5
seconds. At a gain of 143.076, the peak time is 0.461
seconds while the overshoot is exactly 10.0%. For gain
values between the two just given, the overshoot and peak
time are between the two extremes given above for overshoot
and peak time. It just so happens that the settling time,
regardless of the gain value, is always 0.8 seconds (two
opposing values, both functions of the gain, cancel out in the
calculation of the settling time). These values are, of course,
also dependent on the value of the motor’s time constant, so
the overshoot, peak time, and settling time will change if the
time constant is changed. For comparison purposes, the
model of Fig. 8 was simulated (see Fig. 9), using a gain of
135, as that value is roughly midway between the two gain
values discussed earlier which denote the two endpoints of
the range in which optimum output values are produced.
Fig. 9. AC Motor System Time Response with Gain of
135
This simulation output shows a peak time of approximately
0.48 seconds, a settling time of approximately 0.73 seconds,
and an overshoot of approximately 9.0%.
Since the AC motor transfer function is only second order
(as opposed to the third order DC motor transfer function),
those values may be easily changed by adjusting the gain
value. However, better system response may be attained by
placing a PID controller in the control system with the motor
(see Fig. 10), and setting the PID values accordingly.

Fig. 10. Simulink Model of AC Motor Control System
with PID Control
Because the denominator of the AC motor transfer function
is second order, both poles may be eliminated by setting the
PID values strategically. This was done by setting the
differentiator coefficient to the value of the time constant,
the proportional gain coefficient to one, and the integrator
coefficient to zero. The output of that simulation is shown in
Fig. 11.
Fig. 11. Time Response of System with Both Motor Poles
Eliminated
Closer inspection of Fig. 11 reveals a peak time of 0.14
seconds, a settling time of 0.065 seconds, and an overshoot
of 0.4%. The settling time is less than the peak time because
the peak value is less than 2% greater than the final value. In
comparison to the simulation (of Figs. 8 and 9) which was
optimized by adjusting nothing other than the gain, this
simulation exhibited considerable improvement, decreasing
the peak time by approximately 0.34 seconds (from 0.48 to
0.14 seconds), decreasing the settling time by approximately
0.665 seconds (from 0.73 to 0.065 seconds), and decreasing
the overshoot by approximately 8.6% (from 9.0 to 0.4%). A
simpler way to compare the two responses by inspection is to
note the time scale in Figs. 9 and 11. The simulation
represented in Fig. 9 was run for 1.5 seconds, while the
response of the system whose simulation is represented in
Fig. 11 was so much faster that a time scale of only 0.5
seconds had to be used to attain a high enough resolution in
the output graph that the response could be seen without
difficulty.
From these findings, it appears as though the best way to
control an AC motor is the use a PID controller and to set the
PID values so that the poles of the motor are eliminated.
When such equipment is not available, the gain can be
adjusted to optimize the response, although that approach
produces much less favorable results than those ensuing from
the use of a PID controller.
6
VI. TIME CONSTANTS
A method to control both DC and AC motors with PID
control has been determined. This method is heavily reliant
on the time constants of the motor, and assumes that anyone
trying to implement PID control for a motor knows the
values of the motor’s time constants. Since the nameplate on
most motors only provides the name of the manufacturer, the
motor’s serial number, the motor’s input voltage, the
maximum rotational speed of the motor’s output shaft (in
RPM), the power of the motor (in horsepower), and the
weight of the motor, another questions arises: How can the
time constants be determined for a motor that one already
has in hand? This is a very good question.
While the data sheets for some motors do contain the
values of the time constants, this is not true in every case, so
those values must be obtained experimentally.
In the case of a DC motor, this is easier said than done.
First, a system resembling that of Fig. 5 must be constructed,
where the output being measured is the rotational speed of
the output shaft of the motor. Keep in mind that, in this case,
the transfer function of the motor is really a black box; all
that is known about is for certain is that it has three poles,
one of them at s = 0, and the other two created by the two
time constants. Unfortunately, there is no cut and dried, step
by step process by which to determine the time constants of
the DC motor. As such, the system must be run many times,
adjusting the PID values each time. The integrator
coefficient should be set to zero, and the proportional gain
coefficient should be set to one, and both values should left
there for all of the system runs. Only the value of the
differentiator coefficient should be changed between runs.
The electrical time constant will likely be around 1 ms, and
the mechanical time constant will be greater than the
electrical. Recall from earlier that the best system response
will be attained when the differentiator coefficient is equal to
the mechanical time constant. The mechanical time constant
may range anywhere from only a few milliseconds to
hundreds of milliseconds, so that full range should be tested.
Thus, when a system response closely resembling Fig. 7 (no
oscillations, no overshoot, and a very short settling time) is
achieved, the value of the differentiator coefficient for that
run is the value of the mechanical time constant.
To determine the time constants of an AC motor, a system
resembling that of Fig. 8 must be constructed, where the
output being measured is the rotational speed of the output
shaft of the motor. Choose an arbitrary gain value (it should
be somewhat high, to get a relatively fast time response, so a
run will take no more than a couple seconds, but not so high
that separate oscillations are indistinguishable), and then do
not change the gain value again. Keep in mind, again, that
the transfer function of the motor is really a black box, and
the only thing that is known about it for certain is that it has
two poles, one at s = 0 and the other created by the time
constant. The system must be run a single time (after
running it several times to determine a good gain value), and
the peak time, settling time, and percent overshoot all need
to be observed. Fig. 12 shows the output of the model of Fig.
8, using a gain of 1000 instead of the gain of 135 shown in
Fig. 8.
 7

may be solved for, in this case turning out to be

approximately 0.10 seconds. Considering that the value used
for the time constant in the simulation was 0.1 seconds, it
appears as though this method works with some degree of
accuracy.
When attempting to determine the time constants of a DC
motor, the best method available is adjust the values of the
coefficients of a PID controller until the result of a run bears
resemblance to that of Fig. 7, and then to use those
coefficient settings from then on. When attempting to
determine the time constant of an AC motor, the system
should be run, and the peak time, settling time, and overshoot
observed and used to calculate the value of the time constant.
Fig. 12. AC Motor System Response with Gain of 1000

Fig. 12 shows a peak time of approximately 0.14 seconds, a VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

settling time of approximately 0.76 seconds, and an The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of
overshoot of approximately 49%. Next, several calculations Paulo Ribeiro, for his help in writing this paper. Without his
must be made, using the following equations: support, this process would have been much more difficult.
 −ζ⋅ π  The author also acknowledges the contributions of John
PO 100⋅ exp Washburn, Frank Saggio, Paul Bakker, Matt Husson, and
 1 − ζ2  Nate Studer for their help in the research process.
, (18)
where PO is the percent overshoot of the response and ζ is
the damping ratio of the system, VIII. REFERENCES
[1] Robert H. Bishop, Richard C. Dorf, Modern Control Systems, 9th
π ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2001, p. 52-56, 227-
Tp
231.
2
ωn ⋅ 1 − ζ [2] D.K. Anand, Introduction to Control Systems. New York:
, (19) Pergamon Press Inc., 1974, p. 34-37.
where Tp is the peak time of the response and ωn is the [3] The ST Microcontroller Support Site Motor Control Tutorial,
http://mcu.st.com/contentid-7.html.
natural frequency of system,
4
Ts
ζ⋅ ωn
, (20)
where Ts is the settling time of the response, and IX. BIOGRAPHY
1
2⋅ ζ⋅ ωn Brian Bouma was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan
τ, (21) in the United States of America, on September 30,
1982. He graduated from Grand Rapids Christian
where τ is the time constant of the motor. Using the percent High School in 2001, and is currently pursuing his
overshoot (in this case, 49%) in conjunction with (18), solve undergraduate degree at Calvin College. He is
majoring in engineering, with a concentration in
for the damping ratio, which in this case turns out to be electrical and computer engineering, and currently
approximately 0.22. Next, use the value of the damping ratio holds a minor in mathematics.
and the peak time (in this case, 0.14 seconds) in conjunction His work experience includes Smiths Aerospace
LLC where he works in Digital Design.
with (19), and solve for the natural frequency, which in this He has been a student member of IEEE since
case turns out to be approximately 23.0 radians/second. If, 2001.
for some reason, the value of the peak time is not available
or cannot be gleaned from the time response graph, the
damping ratio and the settling time may be used in
conjunction with (20) to find the value of the natural
frequency, but since the peak time may generally be
observed with greater accuracy than the settling time, (20)
should only be used as a last resort. Similarly, if there is
some problem with the value of the peak time or percent
overshoot, any two of (18), (19), and (20) may be used to
solve for the values of the damping ratio and natural
frequency, but since the percent overshoot and peak time are
the two that may be measured the most easily and with the
most accuracy, (18) and (19) should be used whenever
possible. Finally, using the values of the damping ratio and
natural frequency in conjunction with (21), the time constant