Concept

Residues — where it appears

The coefficients of a response's partial-fraction expansion, one to a pole, which turn a factorised transfer function into an exact waveform in time. They give an exact waveform where a march gives an approximate one, and the difference between the two measures the march rather than the circuit.

Named by 9 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

One step response, computed twice: from the poles, and by walking the network forward. A damping ratio of 0.22, so the overshoot is 49.2%. The two curves are drawn on top of each other; the panel below is the difference between them, which is the trapezoidal rule's error at 500 steps and reaches 1.70e-3 V.

One step, computed twice

A step response from the poles is exact. The same step walked forward in time is not, and the difference between them is the trapezoidal rule's own error rather than anything about the circuit. It falls by a factor of four every time the step is halved, which is a claim about a method and can be watched.

transients · Step response

How long a second-order step takes to arrive inside ±2%. computed by solving, not by drawing from the residue expansion at 260 damping ratios. The fastest is ζ = 0.780 at 3.60/ω₀; critical damping takes 5.83/ω₀, which is 62% longer. Between ζ = 0.775 and 0.780 the time falls by 33% in one step of the sweep, because which excursion is the last one outside the band changes there — the overshoot at the fastest damping is 1.99%, which is the band itself, and one step to the left it is larger. The faint curves are the other bands, each with its own step in a different place.

The cliff before the fastest settling

Settling time against damping is not a smooth curve with a minimum. It falls by a third in one step of a sweep of five thousandths, and the fastest damping sits on the edge of that step — so a design a hundredth of a damping ratio to the left of the optimum settles forty-eight per cent slower, with a waveform that looks no different.

transients · Damping

A step on a series RLC at ζ = 0.079, and the two numbers read off H(s). computed by solving, not by drawing. A 50.3 kHz series RLC driven by a one-volt step, with the capacitor voltage and the inductor voltage drawn together. Two limits of the transfer function are two points of the waveform and neither needs the waveform: H(0) = 1.000000 is where the capacitor ends up, and H(∞) across the inductor is 1.0000, which is what it does at the first instant — the expansion gives 1.000000 for it at t = 0. Here the damping ratio is 0.0791, the response is inside ±2% after 7.6 cycles, and 100.0% of the last twenty-four cycles sit there. The poles are at a real part of -7.91e-2 of ω₀, which is the condition the final-value theorem actually has — not a property of H but of where sY(s) has its poles.

Two numbers without solving for the waveform

Where a step response starts and where it ends are two limits of the transfer function, and neither needs the waveform. Both are exact here — 1.000000000 volts at the end and the whole step at the first instant — and one of them is a lie waiting to happen: take the damping to zero and the final-value theorem still returns 1.000000 for a response that swings between 0 and 2 for ever. Its condition is not on the transfer function but on where the poles are, and the practical condition is narrower still: at five ohms the poles are safely in the left half-plane and sixty cycles is not enough time.

transients · Value theorems

A 1.0% doublet: 0.078 dB in the magnitude, 36× the settling time. computed by solving, not by drawing. Above, the magnitude of a fast circuit followed by a pole and a zero that were meant to cancel and miss by 1.00%, against the same circuit with the cancellation exact: the worst disagreement anywhere up to the fast corner is 0.0777 dB. Below, the error left in the step response, in units of the tail's own amplitude of 0.909%. Settling to 0.10% takes 245.2 fast time constants against 6.9 with the cancellation exact, and the closed form τ·ln(A/B) gives 245.2 — a time that contains nothing of the fast circuit at all.

The cancellation that leaves a tail

A pole and a zero placed on top of each other disappear from the response. Miss by one per cent and the magnitude changes by 0.078 decibels, which no measurement would report as a fault, while the time to settle to a thousandth goes from 6.9 time constants to 245 — thirty-six times longer. The settling time has a closed form containing neither the fast circuit nor the doublet's separation as such, and its consequence is blunt: settling to a part in ten thousand needs a cancellation good to a part in ten thousand, however fast the amplifier in front of it is.

transients · Doublet

Three cliffs, not one, and the fastest damping is on the last of them. computed by solving, not by drawing. Settling time against damping for a third-order response — a complex pair at unit natural frequency and a real pole at 3 — with the second-order case behind it. Both are staircases: the settling time is set by the last excursion outside the band, so there is one step for each excursion that stops happening, and there are 3 of them between 0.3 and 0.98. They are at 0.378, 0.522, 0.773, with jumps of 1.24, 1.30, 1.42. The rung below found the last and largest of them and did not look below it. The fastest damping is 0.775, sitting on the edge of the last step, and a design a hundredth to the left of it settles 42 per cent slower.

Three cliffs, and where they are

The rung below sweeps a second-order step's damping, finds the settling time falling by a third in one step of a five-thousandth sweep, and calls it the cliff. There are three of them between 0.3 and 0.98, one for each excursion that stops leaving the band, and adding a third pole moves all three left and makes all three shallower — so the classic 0.78 for fastest two per cent settling is a second-order number, and at a third pole one and a half times the natural frequency the answer is 0.745 and 0.78 is on the wrong side of the step.

transients · Damping

The sensitivity of a pole against the room it has. computed by solving, not by drawing. A series R–L–C whose damping is walked from 0.3 to 0.999999, which slides its two poles together along a straight line and changes nothing else. The exact derivative of a pole with respect to the capacitor climbs from 0.5241 to 353.6 as the gap between them falls from 19078 to 28.28 radians a second. The fitted exponent over the closest four is -1.0000, and the product of the two is the natural frequency itself — 9999.6894 against 9999.6894, at every damping drawn and not merely in the limit, which a closed form gives and this computation never sees. The resistor's curve runs at 2ζ times the capacitor's — below it at 0.3 and at twice it by the time the poles have met — and the inductor's lies exactly under the capacitor's throughout.

The gap a derivative needs

The derivative of a pole is exact and has no step size in it, and beside the formula sits a sentence nobody had measured: it divides by a quantity that vanishes when two poles meet. Driven together, the sensitivity climbs as the reciprocal of the gap — fitted exponent −1.0000, the product a constant 1.00000 times the natural frequency — while the largest change it still describes falls as the gap *squared*. A one per cent capacitor is outside first order once the poles are 3194 radians a second apart, which is an ordinary critically damped design.

transients · Poles $The ladder's step response, and the sum of its own stages — 0.95 per cent apart at worst. computed by solving, not by drawing. A step of power into a three-stage thermal ladder, and the junction's rise divided by it. The solid curve is exact: the impedance is a continued fraction in s, its denominator has 3 real negative roots, and the partial-fraction expansion of Z(s)/s is a sum of that many ordinary exponentials — no march, no step size. The dashed curve is the sum every account of a thermal path writes, each stage's own resistance times 1 − exp(−t/RC) with its own local time constant, and it is an approximation because the stages load each other. What that costs is 0.950 per cent, once, at 12.9 ms — between the fastest stage's 2.4 ms and the next one's 200 ms, which is the only place two stages are moving together. It is one-sided: the sum never reads low.$

Two ladders the terminals cannot tell apart

A thermal path drawn as a ladder and the same path drawn as a sum of exponentials are called different models of one object, and the difference between them has never been priced because pricing it needs an exact answer. Solved in closed form, the sum is 0.950 per cent high at worst and never low; the marched netlist is right to a part in 21,169; and the largest disagreement in the picture was 2.919 per cent that has nothing to do with heat at all, which reading the curve one sample differently removes.

transients · Reverse-recovery

Stepped at 20 of its time constant, a 1 µs pole rings between 1.818 and 0.331 V, and needs 23 steps to settle. Marched with the trapezoidal rule at a step of 20.0 µs. A 1 µs pole (1 kΩ, 1 nF) drives, through a unity buffer, a 1 ms pole (1 kΩ, 1 µF). The fast node's exact response reaches its final volt within a few microseconds; the march's first values are 1.8182, 0.3306, 1.5477, 0.5519, 1.3666 V. Its distance from its final volt is multiplied by (1 − h/2τ)/(1 + h/2τ) = −0.8182 every step, measured and checked against that form, so it changes sign every step and takes 23 steps to fall below 1% — 460 µs. The slow node it drives is 1.23e-5 V from exact at 1 ms, because a 1 ms pole averages an alternation at half the stepping rate to nothing.

The ringing that belongs to the rule

The trapezoidal rule is stable for every stable circuit and every step size, and it is not damping. March a one-microsecond pole with twenty-microsecond steps and its node reads 1.818, 0.331, 1.548, 0.552 volts — an oscillation at half the stepping rate, its distance from the final volt multiplied by exactly −0.8182 every step, taking twenty-three steps to fall below one per cent. The slow node that pole drives is right to 1.2 × 10⁻⁵ V at a millisecond. One backward-Euler step at the discontinuity cuts the first swing from 0.818 V to 0.048 and two to 0.0023, because backward Euler multiplies the same error by 1/(1 + h/τ) and the trapezoidal rule by (1 − h/2τ)/(1 + h/2τ), which approaches −1.

transients · Step response $A step through r sections starts as (t/τ)^r: it reaches 1% at 10.1 µs, 105 µs, 243 µs, 380 µs, 508 µs for r = 1 to 5. Solved, and expanded two ways. The step response of buffered RC sections of time constants τ, τ/2, … τ/r, with τ = 1 ms, on logarithmic axes. The relative degree of the recovered transfer function is r, so the first r − 1 derivatives of the step are zero at the start and the r-th is lim s^r·H(s) = r!/τ^r, read off the network solved far above its poles and off the expansion of H about infinity; the step therefore starts as (t/τ)^r, a straight line of slope r. The expansion about infinity and the residue expansion agree to a part in a million where both are well conditioned. The output reaches 1% at 10.1 µs (r = 1), 105 µs (r = 2), 243 µs (r = 3), 380 µs (r = 4), 508 µs (r = 5), and half its final value at 693 µs, 1.23 ms, 1.58 ms, 1.84 ms, 2.04 ms. For these time constants the whole step is (1 − e^(−t/τ))^r, checked against both expansions, so the time to a fraction ε is −τ·ln(1 − ε^(1/r)).$

The start a step takes from infinity

The initial-value theorem reads where a step starts off H at infinite frequency. Apply it again to s·H, s²·H and on, and it reads how the step starts: the first r − 1 derivatives are zero for a network r degrees more poles than zeros, and the r-th is the ratio of the leading coefficients. So a step through r sections begins as a power of time — for sections of τ, τ/2, … τ/r, exactly (t/τ) to the r — and reaches one per cent at 10.1 µs through one section, 105 µs through two and 508 µs through five. Put a zero anywhere, even a thousand times above every pole, and the step starts linearly instead, with a slope of twice the zero's time constant over τ² that is the larger term for the first two of them.

transients · Value theorems

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Poles Settling time Model range Damping ratio Numerical error Step response Trapezoidal rule Convergence order Final value theorem Initial value theorem Marching Overshoot

All concepts