EE 3001 Control Engineering

Wind Turbine Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Excercise

Mark Roche 109479961 16/02/12

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

Modelling the System

Modelling the wing turbine pitch control scheme yields:

Figure 1- Simulink Model for Open Loop System

Page | 1

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

1) Show how the open-loop system responds to step changes in the motor voltage v(t) and disturbance torque
1] Response to step changes in motor voltage v(t)
The following time responses were obtained by setting the load torque to zero, and stepping the input voltage from 0V to 5V at 0 seconds.
Open Loop Current Response (Step Voltage Input)
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0

Current(A)

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Time(s)

Open Loop Potentiometer Voltage Response (Voltage Step Input)

25

20

Voltage(V)

15

10

0 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Time(s)
Open Loop Tachometer Voltage Response (Voltage Step Input)
2.5

1.5

Voltage(V)

0.5

0 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Time(s)

Figure 2- Open Loop Time Responses (Step Input Voltage)

Page | 2

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

2] Response to step changes in disturbance torque

The following time responses were obtained by setting the input voltage to zero, and stepping the disturbance torque from 0V to 5V at 0 seconds.
Open Loop Current Response (Disturbance Torque Step Input)
0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35

Current(A)

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Time(s)

Open Loop Potentiometer Voltage Response (Disturbance Torque Step Input)

0

-0.1

-0.2

Voltage(V)

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Time(s)

Open Loop Tachometer Voltage Response (Disturbance Torque Step Input)

0 -0.01 -0.02

Voltage(V)

-0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Time(s)

Figure 3- Open Loop Time Responses (Disturbance Torque Step Input)

Page | 3

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

3] Response of the system to step changes in disturbance torque with constant input voltage
The following graph shows the system reaction to a load torque of 100V for a constant input voltage of 5V. The disturbance torque is set to input into the system at 5 seconds. It is clear that each of the plots follows the same trend as shown above:
Open Loop Responses for Step Input Voltage and subsequent Step Input Disturbance Torque
35 Current Potentiometer Voltage Tachometer Voltage

30

25

20

15

10

0 0

10

Time(s)

Figure 4- Open Loop Time Responses for constant input voltage and stepped disturbance torque - There is an initial spike in current in the motor due to the step input voltage, which gradually tends to zero. The disturbance torque acts to lift the current level in the system following a waveform which could be approximated as ( ).

-The potentiometer voltage follows a waveform which can be approximated as a ramp function. There is an initial transient period from 0-1.5 seconds however. The load torque step input acts to reduce the slope of said ramp. -The tachometer voltage follows a second order sigmoidal trend due to the input voltage step and levels off at a steady state value. However when the disturbance hits the system, the tachometer voltage drops and stays at this lower value for an infinite time period. The Disturbance Rejection Capability of the open loop system is poor.

N.B. The tachometer voltage and potentiometer voltage are directly linked to the blade speed and blade pitch. By dividing each response by K and K respectively, the responses for blade speed and pitch can be easily obtained.

Page | 4

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

2) Determine by experiment the frequency response a Bode Plot, a Nyquist Plot and a Nichols Chart
Data Gathering and Experimental Bode Plot of

. Plot this as

However, clearly as these transfer functions are merely first order approximations, it is necessary for to achieve a truer approximation to the actual transfer functions and

. To do this, the input voltage was set to a sinusoidal wave of 1V amplitude. The amplitude and phase change of the output wave was then determined. This process was carried out for numerous frequencies of input voltage. Hence in this way, data points were gathered for the experimental bode plot of below.
Experimental Data Time Input Time Output Wave (s) Wave (s) 785.4 157.0795 78.5405 47.1225 44.5058 49.087 45.553 47.9093 48.6947 49.0874 49.323 49.4801 49.5923 48.891 49.0437 49.166 49.7163 49.68952 49.7681 49.8924 49.5272 49.48795 49.6843 49.7039 19.9334 19.9727 786.289 157.97 79.4281 47.996 45.328 49.867 46.288 48.4518 49.1138 49.4274 49.6091 49.7274 49.8104 49.0865 49.2211 49.3295 49.809 49.756333 49.8072 49.9236 49.5532 49.5022 49.6941 49.7114 19.9395 19.9778

, which are shown in detail in Table 1

Frequency (rad/s)

Gain (V) 0.01 0.4948 0.05 0.4943 0.1 0.4929 0.3 0.4786 0.6 0.4382 0.8 0.4055 1 0.3725 2 0.2456 3 0.1761 4 0.1358 5 0.11 6 0.09223 7 0.07927 8 0.069343 9 0.0617 10 0.05546 20 0.02675 30 0.01679 60 0.006608 80 0.004195 100 0.002872 200 0.0007994 300 0.0003634 400 0.0002061 500 0.0001324 600 0.00009215

Phase (degrees) -0.50935948 -2.551094583 -5.08557339 -15.01435902 -28.26515395 -35.75256642 -42.11239794 -62.16592077 -72.03798358 -77.92226014 -81.96161259 -85.01547764 -87.47346658 -89.61059916 -91.47844157 -93.6785995 -106.2263752 -114.8430875 -134.4158987 -143.0102657 -148.9690267 -163.2929716 -168.4495918 -171.8873385 -174.7521275 -175.3250853

Gain (dB) -6.11141 -6.12019 -6.14482 -6.40055 -7.16655 -7.84018 -8.57747 -12.1954 -15.0848 -17.342 -19.1721 -20.7026 -22.0178 -23.1799 -24.1943 -25.1204 -31.4535 -35.499 -43.5986 -47.5454 -50.8363 -61.9447 -68.7923 -73.7184 -77.5622 -80.7101

V /V

Page | 5

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise 700 800 900 1000 0.00006779 0.00005194 0.00004106 0.00003328 19.9379 19.9118 19.9474 19.9884 19.9423 19.9156 19.9508 19.9915

Mark Roche 109479961 -176.4710009 -174.1791697 -175.3250853 -177.6169165 -83.3767 -85.69 -87.7316 -89.5563

Table 1- Experimentally Measured Gains and Phase Angles for The Time Input Wave and Time Output Wave columns refer to the time at which a certain peak occurs in the input/output sinusoid. This phase difference was then easily determined by: ( )

At first it was quite challenging to decide which peaks of the input/output waves should be measured for each frequency. However, a number of things soon became clear: At low frequencies, it was necessary to run the simulation for a lengthy time (in the case of 0.01rads-1, more than 700 seconds). This is due to the fact that the wave itself is travelling so slowly at these low frequencies. For these measurements minimizing the step size to optimize measurement accuracy was not a major goal as if the minimum step size was too small, it would result in a slowing down of the simulation (hence, maximum step size was set to 0.001). For these frequencies, measurements were taken from the second peak of the input/output waves, as the first peak of the output wave still incorporated transient characteristics. At medium to high frequencies, a time scale of 50 seconds was chosen for the duration of the simulation. This was thought to be a reasonable time scale as, for the final peaks of the output wave, transient behaviour was seen to have died away and also, a timescale of 50 seconds allowed for a small maximum step size to be set within the simulation configuration parameters (maximum step size 0.0001, relative tolerance 1e7). However, at very high frequencies, ( 500rads-1), the need to increase measurement accuracy heightens due to the fact that the wave is moving so quickly. Hence, it was necessary to reduce the maximum step size to 0.00001. However, it was observed that a step size of this size resulted in a major retardation of the simulation when used with a 50 second time scale. It is for this reason that all data above 400rads-1 was measured over a timescale of 20 seconds, which was chosen as it was seen to give optimum levels of accuracy coupled with a relatively quick simulation time. Subsequently, the data points in Table 1 above were plotted on a Bode Gain/Phase Plot as shown below:

Page | 6

0 -10 -20 -30

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Experimentally Determined Bode Gain Plot (Vw(jw)/V(jw))

Mark Roche 109479961

Gain(dB)

-40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -2 10

-1 0 1 2 3

10

10

10

10

10

Frequency(rad/s) Experimentally Determined Bode Phase Plot (Vw(jw)/V(jw))

0 -20 -40 -60

Degrees

-80 -100 -120 -140 -160 -180 -2 10

-1 0 1 2 3

10

10

Frequency(rad/s)

10

10

10

Figure 5-Bode Gain and Phase Plots for

Experimental Bode Plot of

From the Simulink diagram shown earlier it is clear that the only thing separating the potentiometer voltage from the tachometer voltage is a factor of: ( ) ( ) to those for , all that is

Hence, in order to convert from gain and phase values for needed is to scale the gain (not in dB) by

and subtract 90o of phase from the phase

reading of each datapoint. The resulting data points found are expressed on the table below:
Experimental Data Time Input Time Output Wave Wave 1413.75 911.052 1963.497 486.9474 243.474 198.3142 1414.6 911.92 1964.3812 487.8152 244.289 199.089

Frequency (rad/s) V/V 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 Page | 7

Gain (V) 98.96 19.772 9.858 3.190666667 1.460666667 1.01375

Phase (degrees) -90.48701413 -92.48663683 -95.06609282 -104.9163832 -118.0176362 -125.514216

Gain (dB) 39.90919373 25.92101204 19.87577628 10.0776287 3.29102237 0.118617344

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 60 80 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0.745 0.2456 0.1174 0.0679 0.044 0.030743333 0.022648571 0.01733575 0.013711111 0.011092 0.002675 0.001119333 0.000220267 0.000104875 0.00005744 0.000007994 2.42267E-06 1.0305E-06 5.296E-07 3.07167E-07 1.93686E-07 1.2985E-07 9.12444E-08 6.656E-08 95.8185 3004.148 3003.8864 9004.1975 9004.119 9004.0665 9001.336 9001.645 9001.885 9009.6165 9004.51175 9001.7625 9001.841 9001.93925 9001.9353 900000.3611 9.3462 9.9 19.6444 19.6585 29.5601 49.7569 49.7576 49.5885 96.5535 3004.687 3004.3058 9004.536 9004.404 9004.3132 9001.551 9001.84 9002.0635 9009.779 9004.6035 9001.829 9001.8805 9001.9705 9001.96125 900000.3754 9.356 9.9074 19.6504 19.6636 29.5645 49.7608 49.761 49.5916 -132.1123979 -151.7648503 -162.0895498 -167.5784855 -171.6464858 -174.8092128 -176.2301482 -179.381416 -182.0456698 -183.1056417 -195.1377554 -204.3050801 -225.7909974 -233.2394488 -238.6825478 -253.9003076 -258.4495918 -259.5955074 -261.8873385 -265.3250853 -266.4710009 -268.7628321 -265.3250853 -267.6169165

Mark Roche 109479961 -2.556874545 -12.19543275 -18.60663806 -23.36260451 -27.13094647 -30.24498092 -32.89918372 -35.22114729 -37.25854699 -39.09980278 -51.45352427 -59.02081126 -73.14102441 -79.58656052 -84.81571138 -101.9447171 -112.3141267 -119.7390401 -125.5210405 -130.2525183 -134.2580482 -137.7311609 -140.7958714 -143.5357337

Table 2- Experimentally Measured Gains and Phase Angles for

This yields bode plots for

Experimentally Determined Bode Gain Plot (VB (jw)/V(jw))

40 20 0 -20

Gain(dB)

-40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 -160 -2 10

-1 0 1 2 3

10

10

10

10

10

Frequency(rad/s)

Page | 8

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

Experimentally Determined Bode Phase Plot (VB (jw)/V(jw))

-80 -100 -120

Phase(Degrees)

-140 -160 -180 -200 -220 -240 -260 -280 -2 10

-1 0 1 2 3

10

10

10

10

10

Frequency(rad/s)

Figure 6-Bode Gain and Phase Plots for

Nyquist Plot for

90 120

100 60 80 60

150 40 20 180

30
X: -0.01551 Y: 1.172e-010

210

330

240 270

300

Figure 7-Nyquist Plot for

(Second Plot shows close-up view of Im=0)

Page | 9

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

Nichols Chart for

Nichols Chart
50

Phase Margin
0.25 dB 0.5 dB 1 dB 3 dB 6 dB 0 dB -1 dB -3 dB -6 dB -12 dB -20 dB -40 dB

Open-Loop Gain (dB)

Gain Margin
-50

-60 dB -80 dB -100 -100 dB -120 dB -140 dB -150 -160 dB -180 dB -200 -360 -200 dB -315 -270 -225 -180 -135 -90 -45 0

Open-Loop Phase (deg)

Figure 8- Nichols Chart for Hence, the Nyquist Plot shows that the extra gain needed to make the system marginally stable is:

This is an approximation for the ultimate gain of the system.Hence the gain margin has been determined also form the Nyquist Plot to be 64.4745. The gain and phase margins can also be determined from the Nichols Chart as shown above. As the Open Loop dB Gain at -180o was found from the Nichols Chart to be -35.8dB, this implies that:

From the Nichols Chart the phase margin can also be determined as the phase difference between the critical point and the point on the plot which corresponds to 0dB Open Loop o Gain. Hence, from the Nichols Chart shown above:
Page | 10

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

3) Use the frequency response to determine an estimate of the openloop transfer function
The transfer function indirectly from the can be obtained both directly from the gain bode plot, or

gain bode plot. In homework tutorials, the direct method was

discussed, however the indirect method will be explained here, as this was the method that the student used to approach the problem initially, and it was found to give an approximation of equivalent accuracy to that of the direct method. Effectively, how the student approached the problem was to obtain the transfer function from the corresponding bode plot, as a question very similar was covered in the course notes. The method of asymptotes was used as shown in the plot below:

Experimental Bode Gain Plot Vw/V

0 -10 -20 -30
Gain (dB)

-40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 -2 10 Experimental Bode Plot 0dB/decade Asymptote 20dB/decade Asymptote 40dB/decade Asymptote 10
-1

10

10

10

10

Radial Frequency (rad/s)

Figure 9- Bode Gain Plot for By inspection, the bode gain plot of including asymptotes is noticeably broken down into 3 key areas. That

which corresponds to an asymptote of 0dB/decade (low frequencies), that which corresponds to an asymptote of -20dB/decade and that which converges to an asymptote of -40dB/decade (high frequencies). Where these asymptotes cross corresponds to the corner frequencies of the transfer function. By analysing the above plot: and
Page | 11

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

It is known that the transfer function

is to be second order as by analysing the Simulink

diagram it can be seen that the circuit consists of 2 integrators up until the tachometer. Hence the transfer function will be of the form:

The system also has a constant gain for low frequencies of -6.1115dB This implies that: Therefore: =>

)) (

))

Which simplifies down to:

From this point, it is not difficult to obtain

- merely scale

by . Hence:

By declaring this transfer function in Matlab, the actual gain and phase margins, and crossover frequencies of this system can be obtained (which for the gain and phase margins will obviously be slightly different to those obtained via the Nichols Chart). The code needed is relatively simple: [ ][ [ This Yields: Gainmargin =61.8161, Crossover2 =0.8042, Phasemargin = 53.6001, Crossover3 = 1 Crossover1 = 8.2083, ] ]

Hence, the gain and phase margins obtained from the Nichols Chart were clearly accurate, presuming that the frequency response data accurately describes the system.

Page | 12

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

4) A proportional controller with gain Kp is proposed to control pitch angle. Show through simulation in Simulink, how the closed-loop performance depends on the choice of gain Kp. Show how your Nichols Chart could have predicted these results.
In this part of the design, it was attempted to improve the performance characteristics of the system by closing the loop and introducing a proportional controller. Hence, the equivalent circuit

becomes:

Figure 10- Diagram of Closed Loop Model

Where the subsystem contains:

Figure 11- Internal View of Subsystem

The input voltage is set to a step input of 5V, and by varying the value of Kp- the proportional gainchanges in the closed loop performance are evident: Page | 13

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Current
200 8

Mark Roche 109479961

Tachometer
9 8

Potentiometer

150

7 100 4 6

Voltage(V)

Current(A)

50

Voltage(V)
0 10 20 30

3 -50 -2 2

-100

-4 1

-150

10

20

30

-6

10

20

30

Time(s)

Time(s)

Time(s)

Figure 12- Time Responses for K p =10

Current
500

Tachometer
15
10 9

Potentiometer

400

10
300 8 200 7

Voltage(V)

Current(A)

100

Voltage(V)

-100

-5
-200 3 -300 2

-10
-400 1

-500

10

20

30

40

50

Time(s)

-15 0

20

40

60

10

20

30

40

50

Time(s)

Time(s)

Figure 13- Time Responses for K p =30

4 x 10
8

Current 4

x 10

Tachometer
6

x 10

Potentiometer

3 4

2 2 2 1

Voltage(V)

Current(A)

Voltage(V)
0 5 10

-1 -2 -1 -2

-4 -2 -3

-3

10

-4

-6

10

Time(s)

Time(s)

Time(s)

Figure 14- Time Responses for K p =200

Page | 14

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

Hence, it is clear that for low values of proportional gain (Kp=10), the time responses of the current, speed and pitch angle are stable waveforms. However, the peak overshoot and settle time are undesirable. These qualities generally disimprove with increasing Kp However, once Kp reaches the level of ultimate gain, the system becomes marginally stable and subsequent to this, when Kp is increased past the level of ultimate gain, the system will become unstable, which is demonstrated above for a proportional gain of 200. For stable choices of Kp there is zero steady-state error for step inputs, due to the free integrator in the system which makes the system itself Type 1, having a position error constant of infinity.

Current
1500 25 20

Tachometer
12

Potentiometer

10 1000 15

10 500

Voltage(V)

Current(A)

Voltage(V)
0 5 10

-5

-500 -10 2

-15 -1000 0 -20

-1500

10

-25

-2

10

Time(s)

Time(s)

Time(s)

Figure 15-Time Response for Kp=61.6595

The above plot shows the time responses for a 5V step input, when the value of proportional gain is equal to the value obtained for marginal stability for the Nichols Chart. Clearly, the gathered data gives an accurate description of the system, as the gain margin ( which in this case equals the ultimate gain of the system) , almost gives perfect marginal stability (which would be a continuous sinusoidal output of constant amplitude for a step input voltage). However in this case, the amplitude of the sinusoid is increasing slightly with time, hence the system is slightly unstable. In this manor, the Nichols Chart has already predicted the results shown above in Figures 12-15. When the proportional gain is set to a value greater than 61.6595 instability occurs. But what about the disturbance rejection capability of the new proportionally controlled closed-loop system? In the

Page | 15

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

5) Design a first-order phase-lead compensator to provide what you believe is the best trade-off between steady-state accuracy and dynamic performance. Demonstrate the performance of you pitch control scheme, through simulation in Simulink.
The aim of this section is to design a phase-lead compensator for the system, so that the system will track a ramp of the form
-with the best trade-off between steady-state error and dynamic performance. From the material studied in lectures, the design specifications for a well configured phase-lead compensator will follow:

Where PO% refers to the peak overshoot for a step change in the desired pitch angle, and ess is the steady- state error. For a ramp input waveform:

The transfer function of a phase-lead compensator is:

Therefore the velocity error constant is:

As we want PO%=10%- need to find the corresponding damping of the system, which can be found via the equation:

This equation is difficult to solve- therefore the damping required was obtained from the graph given in the course notes. The resulting value of is 0.6, which when subbed back into the above equation gives a peak overshoot of 10%. Hence, if the system is assumed to be second order dominant, Now the gain compensated bode plot is found (K=40.42078032):

Page | 16

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

Bode Diagram From: Subsystem1/1 To: Subsystem1/1 100 System: Model I/O: Subsystem1/1 to Subsystem1/1 Frequency (rad/sec): 6.69 Magnitude (dB): -7.68e-008

50

Magnitude (dB)

0 System: Model I/O: Subsystem1/1 to Subsystem1/1 Frequency (rad/sec): 12.3 Magnitude (dB): -10.6

-50

-100

-150 -90

-135

Phase (deg)

-180 System: Model I/O: Subsystem1/1 to Subsystem1/1 Frequency (rad/sec): 6.69 Phase (deg): -177

-225

-270 10
-2

10

-1

10

10

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

Figure 16- Gain Compensated Bode Plot for Phase -Lead Compensator Design
The value of can be found from this plot as the phase difference between the compensated gain crossover frequency and -180o. From the above plot:

Therefore:

The phase-lead compensator will inject a gain of magnitude:

has been determined on the above bode plot and is marked with the data cursor.

Page | 17

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise Now take And as

Mark Roche 109479961

can be found to equal 0.0240824 All the necessary parameters for the transfer function of the phase lead compensator have been determined and hence:

Now the phase lead compensator is added to the system (the subsystem shown is the same as that shown in Figure 11) :

Figure 17- Diagram of Model with Phase-Lead Compensator Controller

With the input voltage set to a ramp of slope 2V/s, Figure 18 shows the response that was achieved for the potentiometer voltage:
Time Response for Potentiometer Voltage (Ramp Input Voltage)
20 Input Voltage Potentiometer Voltage

18

16

14

Figure 18- Time Response of System with Phase-Lead Compensation for Ramp Input

Voltage(V)

12

10

10

Time(s)

Page | 18

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

The potentiometer voltage does undergo an initial lock-in phase however during the first second of simulation (approximately), however this can be expected in any system, and should not be considered a reason to reconfigure the controller. This initial lock in is 2 Input Voltage shown in Figure19. But how does the Potentiometer Voltage 1.8 system react to a stepped input voltage? 1.6 Figure 20 shows the response of the potentiometer voltage to a input voltage of 5V stepped up at time= 1 second. The plot clearly shows that the output has zero tracking error relative to the input voltage, and has a steady-state value of 5V after the initial overshoot. The overshoot however- designed to be 10% of the setpoint- actually rises to 6.119V- an overshoot of 22.38%. This may or may not cause problems during use, however, the controller is easily re1.4

Voltage(V)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Time(s)

calibrated.

Figure 19- Potentiometer Voltage Lock-In Phase

Time Response for Potentiometer Voltage (Step Input Voltage)
7
X: 1.227 Y: 6.119

Voltage(V)
Figure 20-Time Response of PhaseLead Compensated System for Step Voltage Input

1 Input Voltage Potentiometer Voltage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 0

Time(s)

Page | 19

Pitch Adjustment Scheme Design Exercise

Mark Roche 109479961

Discussion and Conclusion

In conclusion, the design exercise has a whole has been a success. Both open-loop and closed-loop models were analysed and it is now clear the array of methods which can be used in systems such as pitch control schemes. The open-loop model obtained directly from the mathematical modelling process was the starting point of the design. The dynamics of the model could not be adjusted and the system had no disturbance rejection capability, as it was not under feedback control at this time. It is for this reason that the student set out to determine the open loop frequency response of the model- in an effort to design a controller for the pitch adjustment scheme. Once the Nyquist Plot and Nichols chart for the open-loop system were obtained, these gave a better understanding of how to go about closing the loop effectively. The gain margin of the system was determined and from this point, the student attempted to design a proportional controller for the system. It was found that for values of gain above the gain margin of the open-loop system, the pitch angle would become unstable. However, for values of gain lower than the ultimate gain of the system, a stable response was achieved. It was found that the lower the proportional gain, the shorter the settling time for step response. Any stable value of Kp leads to perfect step tracking, due to the fact that the closed-loop system under proportional gain has one free integrator, and hence, is Type 1. However, a better controller design was possible, in the form of a phase-lead compensator. During the design process, the peak overshoot for step response and steady-state error for ramp tracking are picked by the designer, and hence, this method makes the system a lot more controllable. The phase-lead compensator not only allows set points to be tracked with zero error, but also allows ramps to be tacked with relatively small percentage error (designed by the user).

Page | 20