Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Example Problem

    Uploaded by

    shaheerdurrani
    This document discusses different types of controllers - proportional, derivative, integral, and PID - for a mass-spring-damper system. It shows how each controller type affects rise time, overshoot, and steady-state error. A PID controller with gains Kp=350, Ki=300, Kd=50 provided the desired response of fast rise time, no overshoot, and no steady-state error. The document uses MATLAB simulations to compare the step responses for each controller type.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Example Problem

    Uploaded by

    shaheerdurrani
    55 views7 pages
    This document discusses different types of controllers - proportional, derivative, integral, and PID - for a mass-spring-damper system. It shows how each controller type affects rise time, overshoot, and steady-state error. A PID controller with gains Kp=350, Ki=300, Kd=50 provided the desired response of fast rise time, no overshoot, and no steady-state error. The document uses MATLAB simulations to compare the step responses for each controller type.

    Original Description:

    dfgdfgdf

    Original Title

    456tgdf

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses different types of controllers - proportional, derivative, integral, and PID - for a mass-spring-damper system. It shows how each controller type affects rise time, overshoot, and steady-state error. A PID controller with gains Kp=350, Ki=300, Kd=50 provided the desired response of fast rise time, no overshoot, and no steady-state error. The document uses MATLAB simulations to compare the step responses for each controller type.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views7 pages

    Example Problem

    Uploaded by

    shaheerdurrani
    This document discusses different types of controllers - proportional, derivative, integral, and PID - for a mass-spring-damper system. It shows how each controller type affects rise time, overshoot, and steady-state error. A PID controller with gains Kp=350, Ki=300, Kd=50 provided the desired response of fast rise time, no overshoot, and no steady-state error. The document uses MATLAB simulations to compare the step responses for each controller type.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    1

    Example Problem
    Suppose we have a simple mass, spring, and damper problem.

    The modeling equation of this system is Taking the Laplace transform of the modeling equation, we get The transfer function between the displacement and the input then becomes

    Let M = 1 kg b = 10 N s/m k = 20 N/m F=1N Plug these values into the above transfer function

    The goal of this problem is to show you how each of 1.Fast rise time 2.Minimum overshoot 3.No steady-state error

    and

    contributes to obtain

    Open-Loop Step Response


    Let's first view the open-loop step response. s = tf('s'); P = 1/(s^2 + 10*s + 20); step(P)

    The DC gain of the plant transfer function is 1/20, so 0.05 is the final value of the output to an unit step input. This corresponds to the steady-state error of 0.95, quite large indeed. Furthermore, the rise time is about one second, and the settling time is about 1.5 seconds. Let's design a controller that will reduce the rise time, reduce the settling time, and eliminate the steady-state error.

    Proportional Control
    we know that the proportional controller (Kp) reduces the rise time, increases the overshoot, and reduces the steady-state error. The closed-loop transfer function of the above system with a proportional controller is:

    Let the proportional gain ( Kp = 300; C = pid(Kp) T = feedback(C*P,1) t = 0:0.01:2;

    ) equal 300 and change the m-file to the following:

    3 step(T,t) C= Kp = 300 P-only controller.

    T= 300 ---------------s^2 + 10 s + 320

    The above plot shows that the proportional controller reduced both the rise time and the steady-state error, increased the overshoot, and decreased the settling time by small amount.

    Proportional-Derivative Control
    Now, let's take a look at a PD control. we know that the derivative controller (Kd) reduces both the overshoot and the settling time. The closed-loop transfer function of the given system with a PD controller is:

    Let equal 300 as before and let in the MATLAB command window. Kp = 300; Kd = 10; C = pid(Kp,0,Kd) T = feedback(C*P,1) t = 0:0.01:2; step(T,t) C= Kp + Kd * s with Kp = 300, Kd = 10

    equal 10. Enter the following commands into an m-file and run it

    Continuous-time PD controller in parallel form. T= 10 s + 300 ---------------s^2 + 20 s + 320 Continuous-time transfer function.

    This plot shows that the derivative controller reduced both the overshoot and the settling time, and had a small effect on the rise time and the steady-state error.

    Proportional-Integral Control
    Before going into a PID control, let's take a look at a PI control. From the table, we see that an integral controller (Ki) decreases the rise time, increases both the overshoot and the settling time, and eliminates the steady-state error. For the given system, the closed-loop transfer function with a PI control is:

    Let's reduce the to 30, and let Kp = 30; Ki = 70; C = pid(Kp,Ki) T = feedback(C*P,1) t = 0:0.01:2; step(T,t) C= 1 Kp + Ki * --s with Kp = 30, Ki = 70

    equal 70. Create an new m-file and enter the following commands.

    Continuous-time PI controller in parallel form.

    T= 30 s + 70 -----------------------s^3 + 10 s^2 + 50 s + 70 Continuous-time transfer function.

    We have reduced the proportional gain (Kp) because the integral controller also reduces the rise time and increases the overshoot as the proportional controller does .The above response shows that the integral controller eliminated the steady-state error.

    Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control
    Now, let's take a look at a PID controller. The closed-loop transfer function of the given system with a PID controller is:

    After several trial and error runs, the gains response Kp = 350; Ki = 300; Kd = 50; C = pid(Kp,Ki,Kd) T = feedback(C*P,1); t = 0:0.01:2; step(T,t) C= 1 Kp + Ki * --- + Kd * s s with Kp = 350, Ki = 300, Kd = 50 PID controller in parallel form.

    = 350,

    = 300, and

    = 50 provided the desired

    Now, we have obtained a closed-loop system with no overshoot, fast rise time, and no steady-state error.

    You might also like