Group Members

Name

Userid

Name

Userid

Dai Tian Yu

tydai

Jonathan Wong

Jc9wong

By filling out the names above, the group members acknowledge that a) they have jointly authored this
submission, b) this work represents their original work, c) that they have not been provided with nor
examined another person's assignment, either electronically or in hard copy, and d) that this work has
not been previously submitted for academic credit.

LAB 4. PROPORTIONAL-INTEGRAL-DERIVATIVE CONTROLLER ANALYSIS

ASSIGNED DATA
For easily referencing it, the Assigned Data has been placed at the start of this document. To determine
your assigned data, read Section 2 of this prelab.
On your pre-lab and post-lab submissions, always include this page at the beginning of the document.
Select your lab session:

morning lab;

afternoon lab;

Tue;

Thu

Wed;

GroupNumber
Assigned plant formula

GroupNumber - rounddown(GroupNumber/24.5, 0) * 24
(valid Excel formula syntax)

Assigned plant number:

14

P(s) parameters

On ACS-13005

K1 = 10
a=1

On ACS-13008

b = 2.5
T1 = 100

On ACS-13007

K2 = 0.5

On ACS-13006

T2 = 100

Page 1

Prelab
a) Calculate the transfer function of P(s). 

bT!
K! bT!
K! bT!
s(s + aT! )
s(s + aT! )
M(s) =
=
= !

bT!
s(s + aT! ) + K! bT!
s + aT! s + K! bT!
1 + K!

s(s + aT! )
s(s + aT! )
T
K ! T!
(1)(K ! ) !
K ! T!
s
s
N(s) =
=
=

T!
s + K ! T!
s
+
K
T
!
!
1 + (1)(K ! )

s
s
K! bT!
K ! T!
P(s) = M(s)N(s) = !

s + aT! s + K! bT! s + K ! T!
K! bT! K ! T!
= !

s + (aT! + K ! T! )s ! + (aT! K ! T! + K! bT! )s + K! bT! K ! T!
K!

s ! +

150s !

125000

+ 7500s + 125000

b) For the system depicted in Figure 2, where Kp=1, obtain in Matlab a 0.2Vpeak-to-peak step
response. By default, the step function yields a unit-step response. To customize the size of the
step, you may use stepDataOptions. 

Output Parameter

Symbol

V alue

Magnitude of first
peak

Mp

0.114 V

Time to first peak

Tp

0.0832 s

Settling time (2%)

Ts

0.169 s

Steady-state

yss

0.1 V

Page 2

Figure i Matlab Simulation 0.2V step response

c) Using the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, calculate the smallest positive gain Kp, for which the plant P(s)
becomes unstable under proportional control.

K ! P(s)

1 + K ! P(s)
125000
K! !
!
s + 150s + 7500s + 125000
=
125000
1 + K ! !
!
s + 150s + 7500s + 125000
H(s) =

125000K !
+ 7500s + 125000
= !

!
s + 150s + 7500s + 125000 + 125000K !

s ! + 150s ! + 7500s + 125000
s ! +

150s !

125000K !

s ! + 150s ! + 7500s + 125000 + 125000K !
Page 3

s3

7500

s2

150

125000 + 125000Kp

s1

20000 2500!

3

s0

125000 + 125000Kp

Page 4

Postlab
5.1 Plant P(s) Setup and Verification

Figure 1 Plant P(s) step response Vpp = 0.2 V

Table 1. Plant verification results: experimental and Matlab simulation
Mp

yss

Tp

(mV)

(mV)

(ms)

Experimental

107

91.88

83

Simulated

114

100

83.2

Errors (%)

6.14

8.13

0.24

The experiment values are very close to the stimulated values. Percentage errors are less than 10%.

Page 5

5.2 Proportional Controller

a) Minimum value of Kp is 6.1; we set the input step function frequency to 200mHz so that we give it
sufficient time for the response to settle. We determined this value by starting from Kp = 1, and
turning up Kp until the output is not approaching a steady state.
b)
Table 2. Measurements of P-controlled system
Kp

Tp

Mp

yss

OS

ess

Ts2%

ms

mV

mV

mV

ms

80

105.63

90.63

16.55

107.5

124

65

168.13

125

34.5

73.13

206

58

210

142.5

47.37

55.63

269

53

243.13

153.13

58.78

45

425

c) As Kp increases, the peak time decreases as the system is responding faster to the input, the peak
magnitude is increased, as well as the overshoot and settling time, meaning the system is having
more oscillations and is slower to reach the steady state value. The steady state error is decreased.
d)

Figure 2 Root Loci of P(s)

Page 6

e) As Kp increases, one pole is moving towards the left of the graph, with less imaginary components
to the poles, and two poles moving right from pole = -50 and away from the real axis. There is no
oscillation when all poles are located on the real axis where Kp = 0. When Kp increases, there are
more imaginary components to the poles, which introduce oscillation with higher frequency and
larger magnitude.
f) i) ess = lim!! !!!

!
!

s3 + 150s2 + 7500s +125000

125000

= lim!! s3 + 150s2 + 7500s +125000+125000K = 125000+125000K

!(!)
p

ess = 0 when Kp =
ii) for type 0 system, ess = 0 when Kp =
for type 1 and higher, ess = .

Page 7

5.3 Proportional-Integral (PI) Controller

Figure 3 Plant P(s) step response with Kp = 3 and Ki = 30

Table 3. Measurements of PI-controlled system; Kp=const = 3
Ki

Tp

Mp

yss

OS

ess

Ts2%

ms

mV

mV

mV

ms

10

54

241.25

210

14.88

838

20

58

250.63

201.68

24.27

8.32

462

30

60

263.75

201.88

30.65

8.13

414

40

62

276.25

199.38

38.56

10.63

344

b) As Ki increases, Tp increases slightly as well as the Mp. The steady-state value stays relatively
constant, however, the overshoot increased greatly. Settling time decreases indicating that the system
responses faster with larger Ki.

Page 8

c)

Figure 4 Root Locus of P(s) under PI control with Ki variable

d) With larger integral control, the system can be made faster. The integrator will integrate the error
and feed to the plant, which makes it faster to reach steady state. The steady-state error should be
controlled, and approach 0 when time approaches infinity. The imperfection and limitation of the
equipment, human errors and tolerance of the oscilloscope may cause the slight mismatch.
Larger Ki will move the red and cyan pole towards the real axis and slightly towards the imaginary
axis. As poles move towards the real axis, the damping increases, higher overshoot, and lower
settling time. The purple pole is moving away from the imaginary axis along the real axis, faster than
the other two poles in the area resulting in slower response time, which explains the increase in Tp.
These three poles are dominant. The other two poles moved towards each other on the real axis as Ki
increases, then away from the imaginary and real axis. For Ki less than 100, the red and cyan pole
locations will stay in the right half plane so that the system is stable.

Page 9

5.5 Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) Controller

Figure 5 Plant P(s) step response with Kp = 3 and Kd = 0.03

Table 4. Measurements of PD-controlled system; Kp=const = 3
Kd

Tp

Mp

yss

OS

ess

Ts2%

ms

mV

mV

mV

ms

0.02

50

183.75

142.5

28.95

66.25

114

0.03

47

174.38

142.5

22.37

66.25

109

0.04

46

162.5

143.13

13.53

65.62

95

0.05

44

153.13

143.75

6.53

65

48

b) As Kd increases, the peak time and peak value decreases. The steady-state value stays relatively
the same. Overshoot and the settling time are decreased significantly.

Page 10

c)

Figure 6 Root Locus of P(s) under PD control with Kd variable

d) Two imaginary poles, green and red, moves away from the imaginary as well as the real axis as
Kd increase. When poles move away the real axis, the damping decreases, lower overshoot, and
lower settling time. Other two poles move towards the imaginary axis on the real axis, there is a
faster response thus lowers Tp.

Page 11

5.5 Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) Controller

a)

Figure 7 Plant P(s) step response under PID control

Table 5. PID controlled system; heuristic tuning

Kp
3.220

Ki
4.070

Kd
0.047

Tp

Mp

yss

OS

ess

Ts2%

ms

mV

mV

mV

ms

49

201.83 200.85 0.488

103

b) The benefit of increasing the integral control is a shorter response time. The drawbacks are a
higher overshoot and a higher steady state error.
The benefits of increasing the derivative control will decrease the overshoot and response time. The
drawback is there is no significant change in the steady state error.
c) To improve the steady-state performance of my proportionally controlled plant P(s), it is best to
add derivative instead of integral action. The reason is because integral action would introduce a
higher steady state error based on our experiment.

Page 12