Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Colorado School of Mines CHEN403: G G Ys Fs y S G y S y S
Colorado School of Mines CHEN403: G G Ys Fs y S G y S y S
Colorado School of Mines CHEN403: G G Ys Fs y S G y S y S
y1 ( s ) y2 ( s ) y N 1 ( s ) yN ( s )
f (s) G1 G2 GN
yN ( s ) = GN ( s ) yN 1 ( s )
= GN ( s ) GN 1 ( s ) yN 2 ( s )
= GN ( s ) GN 1 ( s ) G1 ( s ) f ( s )
yN ( s ) N
= Gi ( s )
f (s) i =1
For a series of two non-interacting 1st order systems with different time constants 1 & 2 ,
then the overall transfer function is 2nd order:
y2 ( s ) K1 K2
= .
f (s) 1 s + 1 2 s + 1
Since the denominator of the transfer function can be factored into linear terms each with
real coefficients, the overall transfer function will give an overdamped response to a
disturbance. Also, since the poles of the transfer function, 1/ 1 & 1/ 2 , are real and
negative, then the overall transfer function will give a stable overdamped response to a
disturbance.
We could also analyze the expected response knowing something about 2nd order systems.
Putting the overall transfer function into the standard form for a 2nd order system gives:
y2 ( s ) K1 K2 K 1K 2 K p*
= =
f ( s ) 1 s + 1 2 s + 1 1 2 s + ( 1 + 2 ) s + 1 *2
p s + 2 p p s + 1
* *
where:
K p* = K 1K 2
*2
p = 1 2 *p = 1 2
1 + 2 1
2 *p *p = 1 + 2 *p = = 1 + 2
2 1 2 2 2 1
For positive 1 & 2 that are not equal, then the damping factor *p will always be greater
than one (meaning an overdamped system). In the event that 1 = 2 , then *p = 1 and the
system will be critically damped. There are no combinations of 1 & 2 so that the system
would be underdamped this makes sense since an underdamped system requires linear
factors with complex coefficients.
But what if the processes interact? Can we get an underdamped system then? The answer
is it depends how they interact. Lets look at a simple liquid flow system where the
interaction is due to back-pressure from the second tank. Assume the liquid density is
constant. Further assume that the tanks are open to the atmosphere, have constant cross-
sectional areas A1 and A2 , and that the flow through each valve is proportional to the liquid
level providing the hydrostatic pressure (i.e., Fi = Ci ( h) ).
F 0,
h 1, A 1, h 2, A 2,
F 1, F 2,
dh1
A1 = F0 C1 ( h1 h2 )
dt
dh
A1 1 + C1h1 = F0 + C1h2
dt
A1 dh1 1
+ h1 = F0 + h2
C1 dt C1
A1 dh1 1
+ h1 = F0 + h2
C1 dt C1
A1 1
s + 1 h1 = F0 + h2
C1 C1
K1 1 A 1
h1 = F0 + h2 where 1 = 1 and K 1 = .
1 s + 1 1 s + 1 C1 C1
dh2
A2 = C1 ( h1 h2 ) C2h2
dt
dh
A2 2 + ( C1 + C2 ) h2 = C1h1
dt
dh2
A2 + ( C1 + C2 ) h2 = C1h1
dt
( A2s + C1 + C2 ) h2 = C1h1
We would normally define the 2 time constant by dividing by the sum of the valve
coefficients, C1 + C2 . However, instead, lets define the time constant in a manner similar to
that for the 1st tank, i.e., 2 = A2 / C2 . This leads to:
( 2C2s + C1 + C2 ) h2 = C1h1
C1 C1
2 s + 1 + h2 = h1
C2 C2
K2 C
so: h2 = h1 where K 2 = 1 .
2 s + 1 + K 2 C2
Now, the transfer function between F0' and h2' will be:
K2 K1 1
h2 = F0 + h2
2 s + 1 + K 2 1 s + 1 1 s + 1
K2 1 ' K1 K2
1 h2 = F0'
2 s + 1 + K 2 1 s + 1 1 s + 1 2 s + 1 + K 2
( 1 s + 1)( 2 s + 1 + K 2 ) K 2 h ' = K 1K 2
F'
( 1 s + 1)( 2 s + 1 + K 2 ) 2
( 1 s + 1)( 2 s + 1 + K 2 ) 0
K 1K 2
h2' = F0'
( 1 s + 1)( 2 s + 1 + K 2 ) K 2
K 1K 2
h2' = F0'
1 2 s + 1 (1 + K 2 ) + 2 s + 1
2
Notice the extra K 2 term in the denominator because of the interaction of the tanks. The
coefficients in the denominator are all positive & real, so the resulting response to a
disturbance will be stable. But will it be overdamped, critically damped, or underdamped?
To answer this, lets look at the damping factor. In the standard form for a 2nd order system:
*2
p = 1 2 *p = 1 2
1 (1 + K 2 ) + 2
2 *p *p = 1 (1 + K 2 ) + 2 *p =
2 1 2
1 + 2 1K 2
= +
2 1 2 2 1 2
1 K 1
= 1 + 2 + 2
2 2 1 2 2
Note that the first term for *p will always be greater or equal to one (only equal to one if
1 = 2 ). The second term will always be positive. Together, this shows that the overall
damping factor will always be greater than one this type of system will always be
overdamped.
We can do an analysis of the poles, too. The poles are given by:
1 (1 + K 2 ) + 2 1 (1 + K 2 ) + 2 41 2
2
p1 , p2 =
21 2
1 (1 + K 2 ) + 2 12 (1 + K 2 ) + 21 2 (1 + K 2 ) + 22 41 2
2
p1 , p2 =
21 2
p1 , p2 =
(
1 (1 + K 2 ) + 2 12 21 2 + 22 + 12K 22 + 212K 2 + 2K 21 2 )
21 2
1 (1 + K 2 ) + 2 ( 1 2 ) + ( 12K 22 + 212K 2 + 2K 212 )
2
p1 , p2 =
21 2
Notice that the resulting system is still 2nd order, stable, and overdamped. As an example,
what happens to the poles when the tanks are identical? Here, 1 = 2 = and K 2 = 1 .
Then:
(1 + 1) + ( ) + ( 2 + 22 + 22 )
2
p1 , p2 =
22
3 52 1 3 5 0.382 2.618
p1 , p2 = = = ,
2 2
2
yN ( s ) N
= G ( s ) = GN .
f (s) i =1
This could lead to a very simple solution depending upon the forcing function. For example,
if the processes are all first order and the forcing function is an impulse,
f = C ( t ) f = C , then the output response will be:
N
K
yN = C
s + 1
K
=
N
1 ( N 1 )! C
( N 1)! 1 N
s +
N
N 1 t /
K t e
yN ( t ) = C .
( N 1 )!
The following figure shows the response curves for an impulse disturbance to a series of
identical 1st order processes (with C = 1 , K = 1 & = 2 ). Notice that the response from the
1st process is an exponential & the responses from the rest of the processes look like spread
pulses. The peak or maximum value of the disturbance occurs later for each additional
process & (in this case) the peak is a little smaller for each additional process. In fact, we
can determine when the peak will occur it will be at that time t m where t m > 0 and the
first time derivative of the response curve will be zero:
N
dyN C K t N 1e t /
= ( N 1 ) t N 2 t /
e
dt ( N 1)!
N
C K t mN 1e tm /
( N 1)tm e
N 2 t m /
=0
( N 1)!
N
C K t m N 2 t m /
( N 1 ) t m e =0
( N 1 )!
t
( N 1) m = 0
tm = ( N 1) .
N 1 ( N 1 )
K ( N 1) e
( N 1 )
CK N ( N 1) e
N N 1
yN ( t m ) = C = .
( N 1)! ( N 1)!
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
Response Value
0.30
N= 1
0.25
0.20
N= 2
0.15 N= 3
N= 4
0.10
N= 5
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (min)
A more complicated forcing function will lead to more complicated Laplace functions that
need to be inverted. However, with some ingenuity, it may be fairly easy to work with these
more complicated functions. For example, if the forcing function is a step function,
f = A S ( t ) f = A / s , then:
N
K A
yN =
s + 1 s
and the partial fraction expansion must have all of the powers of the s + 1 term up to the
N 1 power:
C N
Ci N
Ci
yN = AK N 0 + y = AK N
C + e t /
t i 1
s i =1 ( s + 1) i =1 ( i 1 )!
i N 0 i
where the C i coefficients must be determined to be consistent with the original overall
transfer function. Ones first thought is that these coefficients will be very difficult &
tedious to determine. On the contrary, using the Heaviside method we can find:
1 i =0
Ci =
i = 1,2, , N
so:
1 N N
1
yN = AK N y = AK N
1 e t /
t i 1
.
s i =1 ( s + 1)
i N
i =1
i 1
( i 1)!
The following figure shows the response curves for a step disturbance to a series of
identical 1st order processes (with A = 1 , K = 1 & = 2 ). Notice that the higher order
response curves look very much like the 2nd order response (i.e., that the initial response
has a zero slope) but the time period in which there is very little response is much longer.
1.0
0.9
N= 1
0.8
N= 2
0.7
N= 3
Response Value
0.6
N= 4
0.5
N= 5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (min)
The transfer function to be split apart should be put into the following working
form:
1 1 C0 N Bi
= +
s ( s + 1) N
s i =1 1 i
s +
C i = Bi i .
The first coefficient, C0 , is very easily calculated with the Heaviside method:
1 1
C0 = lim s =1.
s ( s + 1)
s 0 N
The coefficient for the highest order term is also very easily calculated:
1 N 1 1 1 1
BN = lim s + = lim N = N C N = .
s 1/
s ( s + 1 )
N s 1/
s
1 N
s +
1 d k 1
BN + 1 k = lim k = 2,3, , N
s 1/ ( k 1 )! ds k 1
s ( s + 1)
N
1 1 d k 1 1
BN +1k = lim N k 1
s 1/ ( k 1 ) ! ds s
dn 1 1
= ( 1) n! n+1
n
n
ds s s
So:
1 1 ( k 1) 1
BN +1k = lim N ( 1 ) ( k 1)! k
s 1/ ( k 1 )!
s
( 1 )( k 1)
= lim N k
s 1/
s
.
( k 1 )
= ( 1 ) ( ) ( )
k N
( k 1 )
= ( 1 ) ( 1 ) k N
k
(2k 1) k N
= ( 1 )
= k N
( 2 k 1 )
Note that since 2k 1 will always be odd then ( 1) will always be -1. Finally:
1 1 N
= .
s ( s + 1 ) s i =1 ( s + 1)i
N
Since:
y (t + td ) = f (t ) y (t ) = f (t td )
y ( s ) = e td s f ( s )
We can develop this Laplace formula be thinking of dead time as an infinite number
of identical non-interacting processes in series. Image a series of N tanks, each
with the same volume, with a total volume of V . Into the first tank we make a
change to the composition of component A. The component balance around the first
tank will be:
dC A1
V1 F0C A1
= F0C A0
dt
C A1 1 1
= = .
C A0 V1 V
s +1 s +1
F0 NF0
N
1 N N
C '
C A' ,0 Vs td s
A ,N
= V = 1 + = 1 +
C ' s + 1 C A' , N NF0 N
NF0
A ,0
n/ r n
r r
lim 1 + = e lim 1 + = e r
n
n n
n
so as N then:
N
C A' ,0 t s
= 1 + d exp ( t d s )
C A' ,N N
and:
C A' , N
G(s) = exp ( t d s ) .
C A' ,0
It is not always convenient (or even possible) to work with the dead-time term as it is
defined. Remember that to invert the Laplace functions in the presence of a time delay
term, all of the time delay terms must be factored out of & away from the rest of the Laplace
expression. For example, the time delay term in the following expression can be factored
out & the remain expression inverted:
Ke s K K K t
y = = e s L1 = exp
s + 1 s + 1 s + 1
.
1 K s K t
L e = exp S (t )
s + 1
However, the following expression comes about when we consider systems with a feedback
of information:
Ke s
s + 1 K
y = s
= s
e s .
Ke s + 1 + K c Ke
1 + Kc
s + 1
Weve factored the e s time delay term out of the numerator but it is still in the
denominator & it cannot be removed form here. We cannot use the standard methods to
invert this Laplace function.
When we have a situation like that above we will often approximate the exponential time
delay term with a ratio of polynomials. Once we do this the exponential term is gone & we
can use standard methods to break apart the transfer function into partial fractions and
then invert. Approximate methods for dealing with time delays are based upon
approximating the exponential term with some type of polynomial. Remember that the
Taylor series expansion formulas is:
1 dn f
f (x) = ( x x0 )
n
n
i =0 n! dx x = x0
( x ) + ( x ) +
2 3
n
e +s
= x n = 1 + x +
i =0 n! 2 6
( x ) ( x ) +
2 3
n n
e s
=
i =0
( n
1)n!
x = 1 x +
2 6
One could just truncate the polynomial after a prescribed number of terms. So we could use
linear forms of either:
e s 1 x
or:
1 1
e s = +s
.
e 1 + x
And, depending upon how the approximation will be used, this may be perfectly acceptable.
However, it is more typical that the exponential term is approximated with a ratio of
polynomials. The most typical set of functions used for the time delay term are the Pad
approximations. There are approximations of various order. The most common one used
(especially for hand calculations) is the 1st order Pad approximation:
1
1 s
e s 2 = 2 s
1 + s 2 + s
1
2
1 1
( s ) + ( s ) 12 6 ( s ) + ( s )2
2
1
e s 2 12 =
1 + ( s ) + ( s ) 12 + 6 ( s ) + ( s )
2
1 1 2
2 12
1 1 1
1 ( s ) + ( s ) ( s ) 120 60 ( s ) + 12( s )2 ( s )3
2 3
e s 2 10 120 =
( s ) 120 + 60 ( s ) + 12( s ) + ( s )
2 3
1 1 1
1 + ( s ) + ( s ) +
2 3
2 10 120
and so on.
Pad approximations match terms to the exponential functions Taylor series expansion
one order higher than the functions used in the Pad approximation. The 1st order
approximation has a Taylor series expansion:
1
1 s ( s ) ( s )
2 3
e s 2 = 1 ( s ) + +
1 2 4
1 + s
2
and so it actually matches terms up to the 2nd power, the 2nd order approximation has a
Taylor series expansion:
1 1
( s ) + ( s )
2
1 ( s ) ( s ) ( s )
2 3 4
e s 2 12 == 1 ( s ) + +
1 1 2 6 18
1 + ( s ) + ( s )
2
2 12
and matches terms up to the 3rd power, and so forth. You should get higher order accuracy
using lower order polynomials.
The response curves using Pad approximations tend to be least accurate at short times
(especially on the order of the time delay ) and become more accurate with higher order
approximations. However, the difficulty of working with the expressions becomes much
greater with higher order approximations. For example, using a 1st order approximation,
the example transfer function is approximated as:
2 s
Ke s K
2 + s K ( 2 s )
y = = .
s + 1 + K c Ke s 2 s ( 2 + s )( s + 1) + K c K ( 2 s )
s + 1 + K c K
2 + s
This is a transfer function for a 2nd order process and the inverse can be determined using
standard forms. Using a 2nd order approximation, the example transfer function is:
12 6 ( s ) + ( s )
2
K
12 + 6 ( s ) + ( s )
2
Ke s
y =
s + 1 + K c Ke s 12 6 ( s ) + ( s )
2
s + 1 + K c K
12 + 6 ( s ) + ( s ) .
2
K 12 6 ( s ) + ( s )
2
=
12 + 6 ( s ) + ( s ) ( s + 1 ) + K c K 12 6 ( s ) + ( s )2
2
This is a transfer function for a 3rd order process and it must be split apart using partial
fractions into the sum of a 1st order response & a 2nd order response before standard forms
can be used to determine the inverse.
One way to reduce the order of a transfer function is approximate the small time constants
with corresponding time delay terms. For example, if 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 is the largest time
constant, the following 4th order transfer function can be approximated with the following
FOPDT model:
Kp Kp 1 1 1
=
( 1 s + 1)( 2s + 1)( 3 s + 1)( 4 s + 1) 1 s + 1 2 s + 1 3 s + 1 4 s + 1
Kp 1 1 1
1 s + 1 2 s + 1 3 s + 1 4 s + 1
Kp
= e 2s e 3s e 4 s
1 s + 1
( 2 +3 +4 ) s
K pe
=
1 s + 1
An approximate SOPDT model (Second Order Process with Dead Time) would be:
( 3 +4 ) s
Kp K pe
.
( 1 s + 1)( 2s + 1)( 3 s + 1)( 4 s + 1) ( 1 s + 1)( 2s + 1)
Skogestad has proposed a related method. He suggests that the largest neglected time
constant should be split between the smallest retained time constant and the time delay.
So, Skogestads FOPDT model would be:
( 2 /2+3 +4 ) s
Kp K pe
( 1 s + 1)( 2s + 1)( 3s + 1)( 4 s + 1) ( 1 + 2 /2) s + 1
( 3 /2+4 ) s
Kp K pe
.
( 1 s + 1)( 2s + 1)( 3 s + 1)( 4 s + 1) ( 1 s + 1) ( 2 + 3 /2) s + 1
These methods are best applied when you already have the coefficients for the high order
transfer functions. If you must first derive the coefficients of the high order model from
empirical data, it is better to derive the coefficients of the FOPDT or SOPDT model directly.
FOPDT Example
1
G(s) =
(10s + 1)( s + 1)(0.1s + 1)(0.05s + 1)
can be approximated as the following FOPDT model using 1st order Taylor series
expansions:
e 1.15s
G(s)
10s + 1
e 0.65 s
G(s) .
10.5s + 1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
4th Order Transfer Function Solution
0.3
Taylor Series FOPDT
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (min)
The figure above compares the response curves for a step change forcing function for the
original transfer function & the two FOPDT models. Notice that both FOPDT models match
the response from the original transfer function once past t 8 min .
The overall transfer function for a process that shows inverse response will look something
like:
G ( s ) = G1 ( s ) G2 ( s )
where G2 ( s ) dominates at early times and G1 ( s ) dominates at long times. Expressing the
overall transfer function as a ratio of two polynomials:
Nm ( s )bm s m + bm1 s m1 + + b1 s + b0
G(s) = =
Dn ( s ) an s n + an1 s n1 + + a1 s + a0
then there will be an inverse response when there is at least one positive zero in the
transfer function (i.e., there is at least one positive root to the polynomial in the numerator
Nm ( s ) ).
Lets look at the necessary conditions for inverse response when combining several types
of common transfer functions.
Inverse Response from the Sum of Two 1st Order Transfer Functions
The transfer function formed from the sum of two 1st order transfer functions is:
G(s) =
K1
+
K2 ( K + K 21 ) s + ( K 1 + K 2 )
= 1 2
1 s + 1 2 s + 1 ( 1 s + 1)( 2s + 1)
K1 + K2 K1 + K2
s= implies an inverse response for < 0.
K 1 2 + K 2 1 K 1 2 + K 2 1
If we only consider positive gains & time constants then there will not be an inverse
response the combination of positive terms cannot give a negative number.
Inverse Response from the Difference Between Two 1st Order Transfer Functions
The transfer function formed from the difference of two 1st order transfer functions is:
G(s) =
K1
K2 ( K K 21 ) s + ( K 1 K 2 )
= 1 2
1 s + 1 2 s + 1 ( 1 s + 1)( 2s + 1)
K1 K2 K1 K2
s= implies an inverse response for < 0.
K 1 2 K 2 1 K 1 2 K 2 1
Inverse response will occur if the numerator & denominator are of opposite sign so that
overall the fraction is negative. So, there are two possibilities. If:
K1
K1 K 2 > 0 K1 > K 2 >1
K2
then:
1 K 1
K 1 2 K 2 1 < 0 K 2 1 > K 1 2 > >1.
2 K 2
K1
K1 K 2 < 0 K1 < K 2 <1
K2
then:
1 K 1
K 1 2 K 2 1 > 0 K 21 < K 1 2 < <1.
2 K 2
This shows that just having the difference of two 1st order transfer functions is not a
sufficient condition for an inverse response.
Inverse Response from the Difference Between a 2nd & 1st Order Transfer
Functions
Now, lets look at when the overall transfer function is the difference between 2nd
order & 1st order transfer functions. Then:
G(s) = 2 2
K1
K2
=
( )
K 212 s 2 + ( K 1 2 2K 21 1 ) s + ( K 1 K 2 )
1 s + 21 1 s + 1 2 s + 1 ( 2s + 1) 12 s2 + 211 s + 1( )
The roots to the numerator are:
r1 , r2 =
( K 1 2 2K 21 1 ) ( K 12 2K 211 )
2
( )
4 K 212 ( K 1 K 2 )
(
2 K 2 12 )
( K 12 2K 211 ) + 4K 212 ( K 1 K 2 )
2
K 1 2 2K 21 1
r1 , r2 =
2K 2 12
The largest root will be with the positive sign, so to guarantee an inverse response
we only need to restrict this root:
( K 12 2K 211 )
2
> K 12 2K 21 1
If ( K 1 2 2K 211 ) > 0 , then we only need the 2nd term under the radical to be
positive for the inequality to hold:
4K 212 ( K 1 K 2 ) > 0
K1 K 2 > 0
K1 > K 2
K1
>1
K2
which is what is given in the text. However, we really need to combine this with the
1st assumption to get:
( K 1 2 2K 211 ) > 0
2K 21 1 > K 12
211 K 1
>
2 K2
211 K 1
and: > >1
2 K2
But what if ( K 1 2 2K 211 ) < 0 ? Now the 2nd term under the radical can be
negative and the inequality may still hold. Lets multiply the inequality by itself
the direction of the inequality must change since we are essentially multiplying it by
a negative value. Then:
( K 1 2 2K 21 1 ) + 4K 2 12 ( K 1 K 2 ) < ( K 1 2 2K 21 1 )
2 2
K1 K 2 < 0
K1 < K 2
K1
<1.
K2
( K 1 2 2K 21 1 ) < 0
2K 21 1 < K 1 2
21 1 K 1
<
2 K2
21 1 K 1
and: < <1
2 K2
This allows for the possibility that the ultimate response is controlled by the 2nd
(negative) transfer function, not the 1st (positive) one.
Inverse Response from the Difference Between Two 2nd Order Transfer
Functions
Finally, lets look at the case when both of the individual transfer functions are 2nd
order. Then:
K1 K2
G(s) = 2 2
s + 21 1 s + 1 2 s + 2 22 s + 1
2 2
1
=
(K 2
1 2 )
K 2 12 s 2 + 2( K 122 K 21 1 ) s + ( K 1 K 2 )
( s
2 2
1 )(
+ 21 1 s + 1 22 s 2 + 2 22 s + 1 )
Again there are two zeros to the 2nd order numerator given by the quadratic
formula:
r1 , r2 =
( )
2( K 1 2 2 K 21 1 ) 4 ( K 1 22 K 211 ) 4 K 122 K 212 ( K 1 K 2 )
2
(
2 K K 2
1 2
2
2 1 )
( K 1 2 2 K 21 1 ) ( K 122 K 211 ) ( K 122 K 212 ) ( K 1 K 2 )
2
r1 , r2 = .
K 1 22 K 2 12
When the denominator is positive (i.e., K 1 22 K 212 > 0 K 1 22 > K 212 ) then the
largest root is given by the plus sign on the radical that is all that is necessary
for an inverse response. Then:
As we did for the previous set of transfer functions, we will multiply the inequality
by itself. What happens to the inequality sign depends upon the sign of what is on
the right hand side (since the radical on the left hand side has to be positive). If
( K 122 K 211 ) > 0 then:
( K 1 22 K 2 12 ) ( K 1 K 2 ) > 0
( K 1 K 2 ) > 0 since weve already assumed K 1 22 K 212 > 0
K1 < K 2
K1
<1
K2
K 1 12
K 1 22 K 2 12 > 0 1 > >
K 2 22
K
and: ( K 122 K 211 ) > 0 1 > 1 > 1 1
K 2 22
( K 1 22 K 2 12 ) ( K 1 K 2 ) < 0
( K 1 K 2 ) < 0 since weve already assumed K 1 22 K 212 > 0
K1 > K 2
K1
>1
K2
Now when taking the other conditions into account we cannot compare them to 1:
K 1 12
K 1 22 K 212 > 0 >
K 2 22
K 1 1 1
and: ( K 122 K 211 ) > 0 >
K 2 2 2
We still have another pair of cases to consider, that when the denominator is
negative (i.e., K 1 22 K 2 12 < 0 ). Now, the largest root is given by the minus sign on
the radical. Then:
Again, what happens to the inequality sign depends upon the sign of what is on the
right hand side. If ( K 1 22 K 21 1 ) > 0 then we must flip the inequality:
( K 1 22 K 2 12 ) ( K 1 K 2 ) < 0
( K 1 K 2 ) > 0 since weve already assumed K 1 22 K 212 < 0
K1 < K 2
K1
<1
K2
( K 1 22 K 2 12 ) ( K 1 K 2 ) > 0
( K 1 K 2 ) < 0 since weve already assumed K 1 22 K 212 < 0
K1 > K 2
K1
>1
K2
Now when taking the other conditions into account we cannot compare them to 1:
K 1 12
K K <0 1<
2 2
<
K 2 22
1 2 2 1
K
and: K 1 22 K 21 1 < 0 1 < 1 < 1 1 .
K 2 2 2