16 views

Uploaded by TimothyYeo

project

- A Proposed DC Motor Sliding Mode Position Controller Design using Fuzzy Logic and PID Techniques
- PID Controller
- Time Impact Analysis for Beginners
- Engineering Design Showcase
- Di 34672675
- ICT117 Week04 Requirements Determination s
- PID Tutorial
- fieldbus tutorial part8-fieldbus functionblocks-101111063354-phpapp01.pdf
- Bldc Freescale Motor Controller
- Arb 03 Pid Control
- Lean Scorecard 5
- Hardware in the Loop Simulation Underwater Unmanned
- Analysis and Modeling of PID and MRAC Controllers for a Quadruple Tank System Using Lab view
- Artigo_8051Temp
- Pressure Report
- PID
- WATTAT2314
- v80-229
- Modular Servo System Round III
- GoodtechPCS7 en (1)

You are on page 1of 15

Group 06

Group members:

TIMOTHY YEO YU JIN

A0101826N

A0100521H

Submission Date:

Question 1

The objective of experiment 1 is to find the extreme positive parameters for the uncertain process

Gm

Gp

models given the nominal model,

and uncertainty weighting function,

as shown

below.

G m=

l m=

1

s+1

s +0.2

0.4 s+1

The 2 uncertain processes assigned to the group are b) and f) as shown below, where and n are

parameters to be found.

Gb=Gm .

Gf =Gm .

1

s+1

1

0.01 s+1

the worst possible perturbation which allows the extreme positive parameters to be obtained.

Therefore,

As

lm

and

Gm

have been given, the objective of this question is to use trial and error to

find the maximum positive value of the unknown parameter that when substituted into

Gp

l

will result in the value of () being less than or equal to the magnitude of m for the

entire frequency range.

To do this, the magnitude of

figure 1 below.

lm

Next, the graph of various values of

the initial guess for the value of

of

l m

Gb

in

Gm

Gb

1 exceeded that of the uncertainty weight. The value of

Gm

Gb

found to be 1.23. At this point, the value of

Gm

increasing

Gb

any further will result in Gm 1 exceeding

|l m|

the arrow is pointing. A close-up of this region can be found in figure 3. The code required to

produce this graph can be found in appendix A1.

Gb

1

Figure 2: Plot of

Gm

and

l m

in

Gb

The graph of various values of n in

Gf

Gf

for

Gm

, the initial guess for the value of n was 1 with increments of 1 until any point of graph of

Gf

1 exceeded that of the uncertainty weight. The value of n at this point was

Gm

Gf

found to be 89. At this point, the value of

Gm

Gf

n

increasing

any further will result in

Gm

which the arrow is pointing in figure 4. A close-up of this region can be found in figure 5. The

code required to produce this graph can be found in appendix A2.

Gf

1

Figure 4: Plot of

Gm

and

l m

Gf

with varying values of n in

Question 2a)

This question requires a PI controller,

C3

method and to compare the performance of this controller with 2 other controllers,

C2

C1

and

designed based on the ITAE performance index for load and set-point respectively. The

equations for

C1

and

1

6.48 s

1

7.39 s

C1 =0.42 1+

C2 =0.28 1+

C2

is shown below.

G m=

Gm

4 3.5s

e

7 s +1

Cohen-Coon tuning makes use of the nominal model parameters to design the controller via the

following equations.

K C=

(0.9+

)

K

12

I =

20

9+

30+

Where,

K Nominal process gain=4

Nominal process time constant =7

Nominal process time delay=3.5

Kc

and

C3

as shown below.

C3 =0.471(1+

1

)

5.803 s

Next, the performance of the controllers is compared to each other for a unit step change in the

set-point using Simulink. A simple feedback loop is designed in Simulink as shown in figure 6.

Figure 6: Simple Feedback loop to simulate unit step set-point changes for

C1 , C2 and C3

The resulting graph is plotted in matlab via the code found in Appendix A3 and is shown in figure 7.

Figure 7: Graph showing the reponses for the 3 different controllers to a unit step set-point change

To determine which controller has the fastest servo response, 2 criteria will be looked at, 1) time

taken for the curves to cross the set point and 2) time taken to reach the first peak. Just by

looking at the graph in figure 7, it is obvious that the Cohen-Coon design gives the fastest servo

response.

Table 1 below shows the specific values for the 2 criteria mentioned above.

Table 1: 1) Time taken for curves to cross set-point and 2) time taken for curves to reach the first

peak for the 3 different controllers.

Controller

Criteria

first peak/s

Time taken to cross

set-point /s

C1 (Load)

C2

(Set-Point)

C3

(Cohen-Coon)

16.3

19.6

15.85

12.65

16.55

12.05

From the 2 criteria mentioned above, it can be seen from table 1 that the shortest times to achieve

C3

these criteria belongs to

, the controller designed using the Cohen-Coon tuning method.

Therefore

C3

while the slower speed of servo response for

C1

C1

C3

is not indicative of good performance

are other factors that determine performance such as peak related criteria. An example of peak

related criteria is the maximum overshoot, the higher the overshoot, the worse the performance

and vice versa. Another example of peak related criteria is the decay ratio which is linked to the

oscillatory nature of the curve. A small decay ratio improves the performance as it reduces the

oscillatory nature of the curve while a large decay ratio worsens performance as it increases the

oscillatory nature of the curve.

Question 2b)

There are 3 equations available to determine the frequency response based robust stability

criteria. These equations are different forms of each other and they are shown below. The

equation that will be used in this section is equation (3).

Equation 3 states that the amount of tolerable uncertainty must be more than the actual

uncertainty in order for a controller to be robustly stable. From this equation, we can also imply

that the greater the amount of tolerable certainty a controller is able to provide given a fixed

Gm

, the more robustly stable a controller is as it can accept a greater actual uncertainty. Figure

1

1

than T 2

1

as it remains

closer to the value of 1 over a larger range of frequencies. This is indicative of good set-point

1

tracking which can be in turn be interpreted as a fast servo response. Therefore, the closer T

remains to the value of 1 for a larger range of frequencies, the faster the servo response is.

1

It should also be noted that for PI controllers, the values of T

for each of the 3 controllers

tends towards 1 when the frequency goes to 0. This means that at the steady state condition, there

is no offset which is to be expected when using a PI or PID controller.

1

Using the code found in appendix A4, a similar graph of T was plot for the 3 different

y-

1

Figure 9: T graph for the 3 controllers

From figure 9, it can be seen that the Cohen-Coon controller has the least tolerable uncertainty,

and hence is the least robust stable. However, it remains closest to the value of 1 over the largest

range of frequencies, giving it the fastest servo response as found in question 2a). Likewise, the

ITAE (set-point) designed controller has the largest tolerable uncertainty and therefore is the

most robust stable. However, it deviates from 1 faster than the other 2 controllers, giving it the

slowest servo response as found in question 2a). The ITAE (load) designed controller is in

between these 2 controllers.

The evaluation of 2a) is consistent with the frequency response based robust stability criterion as

explained above. This also concurs with the theory that robust stability and performance both

cannot be achieved at the same time. It is a problem inherent in feedback control and one will be

achieved at the expense of the other. Therefore, it is up to the designer to decide which is of

greater importance in the process to be controlled and from there decide the parameters for the

controller.

Question 2c)

Assuming the process/model mismatch is entirely due to uncertainty in the process gain, the

Gp

process model

can be represented by the equation shown below.

G p=

K 3.5s

e

7 s +1

Where,

K=unknown process gain

To determine the range of K that each controller can accept, it is important to first note that the

controller gain is positive, therefore the process gain must be positive as well. This acts as the

lower bound for the process gain. The upper bound of the process gain will be determined from

1

l m

equation (3) in section 2b. Equation (3) states that T must be more than

for

all frequencies. Hence the approach to solving this question revolves around finding the

(|T 1|)min

To solve the inequality above, an expression for

below.

lm

Gp

Gm

In this question, the expression for () , after substituting in the

and

defined

above, is shown below.

( )=

K

1

4

l

Finally, equating () to m the final expression to solve for the upper bound of K is

shown below.

K

1< (|T 1|)min

4

Table 2 shows

(|T 1|)min

(found from Matlab), the calculated upper limits of K and finally, the

range of K for which the controller can tolerate based on the frequency response robust stability

criteria

Controller

C1 (Load)

C2 (SetPoint)

C3 (CohenCoon)

|T-1|min

Upper bound of

K

Range of K

0.573

1.00

0.404

6.292

5.616

0<K<6.29

0<K<8.00

0<K<5.62

From the ranges of K shown for each controller, it can be seen that the most aggressive

controller, the Cohen-Coon controller, provides the least robust stability while the ITAE (set-

point) designed controller which is the most conservative controller provides the most robust

stability.

Question 2d)

To find out the upper limit of the K is tolerable for each controller, the simulink set-up shown in

figure 6 will be used. For each controller, the value of the process gain, K ,will be increased,

from the upper bound of K found via the robust stability criterion until the time-based response

shows sustained oscillations as shown in figure 10 which is indicative of marginal stability. The

new upper bound value, K* is then noted down for each controller and the results have been

recorded in table 3.

Table 3: Upper bound of K as determined by the feedback loop response

Controller

C1

(Load)

C2 (SetPoint)

C3

(CohenCoon)

Upper bound of K* as

determined by feedback loop

response

7.31

11.37

6.27

Upper bound of K as

determined by frequency

response robust stability

criterion (2c)

6.292

5.616

From the values shown in table 3, it can be seen that the values obtained from the feedback loop

response is higher than the values obtained from the frequency response robust stability criterion.

- A Proposed DC Motor Sliding Mode Position Controller Design using Fuzzy Logic and PID TechniquesUploaded byerdsan
- PID ControllerUploaded byCheng Khie Chieh
- Time Impact Analysis for BeginnersUploaded bysohail2006
- Engineering Design ShowcaseUploaded byHarisSafi
- Di 34672675Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- ICT117 Week04 Requirements Determination sUploaded byDanny Manno
- PID TutorialUploaded byFarid Hazwan
- fieldbus tutorial part8-fieldbus functionblocks-101111063354-phpapp01.pdfUploaded bythrone001
- Bldc Freescale Motor ControllerUploaded byharishkumarsingh
- Arb 03 Pid ControlUploaded bySajitha Nishali
- Lean Scorecard 5Uploaded byEmmanuelLaresEmmy
- Hardware in the Loop Simulation Underwater UnmannedUploaded byhilgad
- Analysis and Modeling of PID and MRAC Controllers for a Quadruple Tank System Using Lab viewUploaded bydbpublications
- Artigo_8051TempUploaded byPhilipe Dias
- Pressure ReportUploaded byHaZry RaFieq
- PIDUploaded byprashantshivanagi
- WATTAT2314Uploaded byGrahsie Abella Paño
- v80-229Uploaded bymecatro
- Modular Servo System Round IIIUploaded byRadhey Meena
- GoodtechPCS7 en (1)Uploaded byDhp Cia
- 250269Uploaded byAnonymous WkbmWCa8M
- PDC lab 8Uploaded byMustafa Barwaniwala
- 1-Mistake-When-Purchasing-PID-Tuning-Software.pdfUploaded bySyed Mian Fahim Kakakhail
- PositionControlByExamples_HapticPaddleUploaded byसन्तोस दाहाल
- 35Uploaded byadd313199
- DRONE JOURNALUploaded byMoch Zaky
- chap9Uploaded byajayikayode
- 2003 BalanceUploaded byAnonymous HsoXPy
- AgentsUploaded byKshitij Wahurwagh
- Electromotion No 1-2-2014 Paper 11Uploaded byafroz_sultana_p

- CN3132 II Lecture 01 Mass Transfer ModelsUploaded byTimothyYeo
- ICO to look out for.txtUploaded byTimothyYeo
- Scoping SpreadsheetUploaded byTimothyYeo
- Integration PapersdUploaded byTimothyYeo
- Small Group Meeting 1Uploaded byTimothyYeo
- CN4227R - Course Outline - 2015Uploaded byTimothyYeo
- CryptoCurency PortfolioUploaded byTimothyYeo
- 3554-7017-1-PBUploaded byTimothyYeo
- PersuasiveUploaded byTimothyYeo
- Ichthys Project OverviewUploaded byTimothyYeo
- 1011SEM2-CM1502Uploaded byTimothyYeo
- Pokego CalculatorUploaded byTimothyYeo
- Team Leader MeetingUploaded byTimothyYeo
- Minutes TemplateUploaded byTimothyYeo
- HYSYS Chemical Reactions & ReactorsUploaded bypaldopal
- Lecture 5Uploaded byTimothyYeo
- Valve SizingUploaded byvasanth_paul8508
- CalculationsUploaded byTimothyYeo
- 13 CEP1 Panel Discussion Mark SheetUploaded byTimothyYeo
- Solution of Tutorial Question Q6Uploaded byTimothyYeo
- PlotUploaded byTimothyYeo
- FYP1Uploaded byTimothyYeo
- HYSYS Dynamics Jump StartUploaded byahmad
- Cn2122 ProjectUploaded byTimothyYeo
- Assignment 2 Peer Evaluation Form WlUploaded byTimothyYeo
- GloblznUploaded byTimothyYeo

- TricolomaniaUploaded byCarolZz
- AntibioticsUploaded bypulmonologist
- CHEM 1315Uploaded byGabe Marquez
- Discrete And Stationary Wavelet Decomposition For Image Resolution EnhancementUploaded bykamalahasanm
- Maya 4 BasicsUploaded byVijay Chavan
- 2010-11 Florida Hunting RegulationsUploaded byFlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
- Chapter 10 Radioactivity Teacher Guide1Uploaded byFahmi Ami
- Tactics eBookUploaded byJavier Vallejo
- Lec NotesUploaded byabbey
- PhD DissertationUploaded byShito Ryu
- Cambridge Institute German BrochureUploaded byNihansh Bhat
- Phaser III Model Vrs1.0Uploaded byColin Roberts
- PC1431 MasteringPhysics Assignment 8Uploaded bystpmoment
- Promotion ManagementUploaded byrajeev
- 7. Bagunu vs Aggabao DigestUploaded byManu Sala
- Optical Emission Spectrometer Arl4460Uploaded byThulasi Ram
- erica turner resumeUploaded byapi-232077068
- 1st Sessional With SolutionUploaded byTahir Iqbal
- infographic design defense and genre analysis essayUploaded byapi-253517286
- Ecologyecosystems 150313032615 Conversion Gate01Uploaded byPrakriti Goel
- Kctools Interactive Catalogue 08Uploaded byRiverland Welding and Tool Supplies
- Geoinformation Metadata in INSPIRE and SDIUploaded byvieri
- Design of Analogue Filters Using Cypress PsocUploaded byshailaja pydipati
- Plc Survey ExerciseUploaded byViola Gilbert
- 93 Explorer DiagramsUploaded byLarry
- lab reportUploaded byapi-351220233
- Career Coach - Managing Your Career in the Music Industry - Shelly Field (2008.)Uploaded byLala P. Rodríguez
- A macro that is contained in an encrypted Office Open XML file does not run in 2007 Office programsUploaded bySun Narto
- Gilbert Hyatt RiscUploaded byKavitha Subramaniam
- Character Sheet - 1920s.pdfUploaded byjeppoo1