MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY

FACULTYOF ENGINEERING & TECHOLOGY

LAB REPORT
CONTROL ENGINEERING
EME3206
TRIMESTER 2 (2014/2015)
EXPERIMENT 1: CONTROL SYSTEM MODELING AND STEP
RESPONSE

STUDENT NAME: ERLANGGA SULAIMAN BIN RAZAK

ID: 1121117520
LECTURERS NAME: PITCHANDI VELRAJKUMAR

CE 1: CONTROL SYSTEM MODELLING AND STEP RESPONSE

1. Objectives
a. To design proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller for closed loop control.
b. To evaluate the performance of different controllers based on maximum overshoot, rise
time, settling time and steady-state error.
2. Procedure
Open loop system
(i)
A new m-file was created in MATLAB. A MATLAB editor/debugger window pop up.
(ii)
The following code was typed in the window:

num=1;
den=[1 10 20];
step(num,den)
(iii)

The m-file is hen run in the MATLAB editor/debugger window. A plot was generated in
figure below.

(iv)
(v)

The final value theorem were recorded as shown in table 2.

From the response obtained, the maximum overshoot, rise time and settling time was
obtained. The data is then tabulated in table 3
The editor/debugger is then closed and re-open a new m-file on MATLAB

(vi)

Proportional control
(i)

The following code were coded in the editor/debugger as shown below with KP is 300

kp=300;

num=[kp];
den=[1 10 20+kp];
t=0:0.01:2;
step(num,den,t)
(ii)

The m-file is then run and step response is obtained from the plot.

(iii)
(iv)

The data obtained is then tabulated in table 2 and table 3.

The editor/debugger is then closed and re-open a new m-file on MATLAB.

Proportional-Derivative control
(i)
(ii)

The closed loop transfer function were derived with the given system PD controller and
tabulated in table 2.
KP is then set to 300 and KD equal to 10. The code is then coded in the editor/debugger
as shown below.

kp=300;
kd=10;
num=[kd kp];
den=[1 10+kd 20+kp];
t=0:0.01:2;
step(num,den,t)

(iii)

The data is obtained is then tabulated in table 2 and table 3 as shown in graph below

(iv)

The editor/debugger is then closed and reopen a new m-file on MATLAB

Proportional-Integral control
(i)
(ii)

The closed loop transfer function were derived with the given system PI controller and
tabulated in table 2.
KP is reduced to 30 and KT equal 70. The code is then coded in the editor/debugger as
shown below.

kp=30;
ki=70;
num=[kp ki];
den=[1 10 20+kp ki];
t=0:0.01:2;
step(num,den,t)

(iii)

The data is obtained is then tabulated in table 2 and table 3 as plotted in graph below

(iv)

The editor/debugger is then closed and reopen a new m-file on MATLAB

Proportional-Integral-Derivative control
(i)
(ii)

A closed loop transfer function were derived with the given system PID controller and
record in table 2
4 sets of values of KP KI and KD and note the closed loop step response has been tried.
The varying parameter is changed one at a time to observe the changes in parameter.
The results were tabulated in Table 3.

kp=350;
ki=500;
kd=50;
num=[kd kp ki];
den=[1 10+kd 20+kp ki];
t=0:0.01:2;
step(num,den,t)

(iii)

The final reading KP = 350, KI = 300 and KD = 50 were tabulated in table 3.

Table 2
Open loop

P Control

PD Control

Transfer function:
()
1
=
)(+ 10 + 20
Final Value:
lim = lim

1
1
1
= lim
=

+ 10 + 20
20
Transfer function:
()

300
=
=
( )+ 10 + 20 + 10 + 20
Final value:
lim = lim

1
300
300
lim
=

+ 10 + 20
20

No. of finite zeros = 0

No. of poles = 2
System order = 2

Transfer function:
()
+
=
( )+ 10 + 20 + +
Final Value:

No of zeros= 1
No. of poles= 2
System order= 2

No.of zeros = 0
No. of poles = 2
System order = 2

1
Transfer function:
()
+
=

( )+ 10 + 20 + +
Final value:
1
Transfer function:

+ +
=
+ 10 + + 10 + +
Final value:
1

PI Control

PID control

No of zeros=1
No of poles=3
System order=3

No of finite zeros= 2
No of poles= 3
System order=3

Table 3
Controller
Open loop
P
PD
PI
PID

300
300
30
50
350
350
350
350

70
300
50
300
500
300

10
50
50
10
50
50

Maximum
overshoot
0
0.372
0.142
0.01
0.07
0
0.15
0
6 10

Rise
time(s)
0.885
0.0728
0.779
0.408
0.536
0.556
0.703
0.0543
0.0549

Settling
time(s)
1.59
0.772
0.29
0.594
3.42
7.01
0.741
0.379
0.831

Steady-state
error
0.95
0.938
0.938
0
0
0
0
0
0

Exercise
1. Perform a block diagram reduction to obtain a single transfer function for the system with P
Control

300
+ 10 + 20

2. For the system with PD control, calculate the closed loop system poles. Hence, state
whether the closed loop system is over damped, critically damped or underdamped
- From the data taken from the experiment, we can say that the number of poles equals
to two. It tends to overshoot with little amount of time compared with open loop
system, therefore it is a critically damped
3. Find the system type for the system without any controller, and the system with P, PD, PI
and PID controllers
open loop system Undamped system
Proportional systemOver damped
Proportional-Derivative systemcritically damped
Proportional-integration system- Critically damped

Proportional-Integral-Derivative system-

Over damped

Discussion
Open loop response shows that the maximum overshoot is zero with the need of improving the rise
time, settling time and steady-state error from the equation
From the experimental data acquired, we ca observed the changes of maximum overshoot, rise time,
settling time and steady-state error changes with the addition terms of proportional, derivative and
integral control.
As we compared open loop with P, PD and PI, a proportional control will have effect the of reducing the
rise time by 0.8122 s and small changes can be seen in settling time by 0.818 s and steady state decrease
by 0.012. Meanwhile a proportional derivative control by reducing the maximum overshoot by 0.23
comparing with proportional control as the maximum overshoot is zero on open loop. By using the
proportional integration control, it eliminates the steady-state error completely from the control
system.
In order to improve the results, all proportional, derivative and integration control must be used in the
control system in order to achieve improved result. Therefore, by adding the integration term to the
control system, this will eliminate the steady-state error completely and with the correct value of
proportional and derivative term, a desired system can be achieve. This can be observed on the PID 4th
column data with the elimination of maximum overshoot and steady-state error, with fast rise time and
settling time of 0.0543 and 0.379 seconds respectively.

Conclusion
As a conclusion of this report, the experiment has achieved its objectives by designing a proportionalintegration-derivative controller for closed loop system and to study and evaluate the effect changes of
different controllers based of desired maximum overshoot, rise time, settling time and steady-state
error.