Experiment 6

Transient Performance
and PD Control of a
Positioning System
EE3261 Control Systems
Team Members:

Due Date 3/4/2015

Course Instructor: Dr. Wayne Weaver
Lab Instructor: Khalid Yousuf Khan

Table of Contents

Introduction......
..... 3
Objective..
... 3
Experimental Apparatus and Procedure....
..... 3
Results and Discussion...
...... 3
Conclusions and Recommendations...
.... 4
Appendix.......
5

Introduction
Lab 6 was used to introduce the effects of the integrator in a control loop, and
testing the Steady State Error when that integrator was present and not present.
Lab 6 includes both hardware/Simulink and dSpace simulations and MATLAB
simulations.

Objective
The objective of this lab is to become familiarized with integrators in order to
keep systems more stable. A motor was used and we measured the response of
the spinning shaft. Measurements included steady state error, overshoot, and
rise time.

Experimental Apparatus and Procedure

Firstly, we created the control loop in Figure 1 in Simulink in order to interface
with the motors. We were testing the spin of the shaft and how it responded to
different proportional gains (K0) and different integral gains (Ki) in the control
loop. The responses we were looking for were percent overshoot, such as; when
the motor stopped to flip and spin the other direction did it overshoot its final
speed in order to read that final speed faster? We were also looking for the stead
state error, such as; when it flip and spun the other way did it do it slowly so
that there would be zero percent overshoot but a large difference in the value
wanted and the actual value? Lastly we were measuring the %2 settling time
which ties both of the previous responses into its outcome because there is
always a settling time weather there is overshoot and steady state error or
neither.

Results and Discussion

Table 1: Theoretical Values
{K0,Ki}

{1,0}

{3,0}

{7,0}

{1,50}

{3,50}

{7,50}

Steady State Error

1.555

1.076

.666

Table 2: Experimental Values

{K0,Ki}

{1,0}

{3,0}

{7,0}

{1,50}

{3,50}

{7,50}

Steady State Error

1.683

1.092

.65

%2 Settling Time

.0439

.0439

.319

.2399

.378

.596

Percent
Overshoot

%0

%0

%0

%0

%0

%0

From this data one can spot that when the integral gain (Ki) is 0, and effectively
eliminating the integral; there is a steady state error in the system, but when Ki
has a value therefore not eliminating the integral the steady state error goes to

zero. It is also evident that a smaller proportional gain (K0) reduces %2 settling
time, these are the basis for which we found our best case scenario.
From this data one can also see the decrease in Steady State Error as there is an
increase in the proportional gain K0. The integrator works by taking the Error
signal (which is the difference in the reference voltage and the feedback loop
voltage) and summing what should have been compensated in voltage levels
previously and passing it on until the error goes to zero.
Table 3: Best Case Scenario
{K0,Ki}

{.1,55}

Steady State Error

%2 Settling Time

.16

Percent
Overshoot

1.39%

We chose this as our best case scenario for the values of our proportional and
integral control gains because we knew that whatever we chose had to have
zero steady state error or %0 overshoot. Therefore we decided that zero steady
state error and a small enough percent overshoot that its negligible. Then we
tried to get the smallest %2 settling time possible which came out to be .16.

Conclusion and Recommendation

This lab shows the importance of integral control and steady state error within a
system and how to properly incorporate the integral controller in order to make a
better system. It also showed how having a very large integral grain does not
greatly help the system but hurts it by creating large overshoot.

Index

Figure 1: dSpace Control Loop

Figure 2: {K0, Ki} = {1,0}

6
Figure 3: {K0,Ki} = {3,0}

Figure 4: {K0,Ki} = {7,0}

7
Figure 5: {K0,Ki) = {1,50}

Figure 6: {K0,Ki} = {3,50}

8
Figure 7: {K0,Ki} = {7,50}

Figure 8: {K0, Ki} = {.1,55}