35 views

Uploaded by api-358662729

- Midterm Control
- AGC-4 DRH 4189340686 UK_2015.07.17
- Loop Pro
- 11-15nonlinear-controller1-20141-Gotovo-m.pdf
- A Comparison of Adaptive PID Methodologies Controlling a DC MotorWith a Varying Load
- Chap 11 Marlin 2013
- Process Control Instrumentation Technology 8th Ed
- Frequency Dependent Impedance
- parametrizacion IOP sinamics
- Lab. Sheets Requirement
- 01a_104
- Pressure Control Trainer
- Process Asg
- Controller Tuning
- Tuning Control Loops
- Tuning of Multivariable PID Controllers Based on Charesteristic Matrix Eigenvalues, Lyapunov Fuctions and Robustnees Criteria
- Exp_5
- Peng Pros
- shamsuzzoha2008
- A Design for a Controller Was Created and Implemented to Step the Angle of the Satellite Position as Quickly as Possible

You are on page 1of 24

FLEXIBLE BEAMS FOR USE IN NEXT-GENERATION OF

MICROCANTILEVER-BASED BIOSENSING

GROUP 6

CHRISTOPHER BALINO

CHRISTOPHER BRENNAN

SAM GREEN

ERIC HOLTZMAN

OLIVER QUADROS

Mechatronic Systems

Northeastern University

April 29th, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 2

TABLE OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................. 2

TABLE OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................... 2

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

THEORY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5

RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 10

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................................. 16

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 18

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................. 19

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Diagram of Theoretical Model ......................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Experimental Setup .............................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 3: Uncontrolled Velocity Response of Cantilever Tip .............................................................. 10

Figure 4: Zoomed View of the Uncontrolled Velocity Response ....................................................... 11

Figure 5: Velocity Response of Cantilever Tip with Controller 1 ..................................................... 12

Figure 6: Velocity Response of Cantilever Tip with Controller 2 ..................................................... 13

Figure 7: Experimental Data Amplitude Spectrum of Uncontrolled Beam ............................... 14

Figure 8: Simulated Data Amplitude Spectrum of Uncontrolled Beam ....................................... 14

Figure 9: Simulated Uncontrolled Beam Strain ........................................................................................ 15

Figure 10: Simulated Beam Strain with Controller 1 ............................................................................. 15

Figure 11: Simulated Beam Strain with Controller 2 ............................................................................. 16

Figure 12: Simulink system diagram for use in MATLABonly simulation .................................. 19

Figure 13: MATLAB Code for Analysis and Simulation ......................................................................... 23

Figure 14: Simulink theoretical model for validation of MATLAB simulation ........................... 24

Figure 15: Simulink theoretical simulation data to verify MATLAB code. ................................... 24

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1: Controller Parameters and Calculated Percent Reduction ................................................ 17

Table 2: Tabulated peak values from both physical and theoretical systems. ........................... 17

ABSTRACT

Microcantilevers, or small, projecting beams fixed only at one end, can be incorporated into

microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) for use in atomic force microscopy and biological

sensing. In such applications, it becomes necessary to precisely regulate the dynamics

occurring at the cantilever tip. The objective of this study was to implement a PID

controller on a cantilever system so as to minimize the firstmode vibrations. This

cantilever system consisted of a beam with a piezoelectric patch (PZT) attached near its

base. A stinger was used to induce a sinewave excitation on the system while a laser

Doppler vibrometer, force transducer, and strain gauge monitored the tip dynamics. The

PID controller, which was designed according to the ZieglerNichols method, regulated the

voltage into the PZT such that the strain from first mode vibrations was minimized. From

this method with an input frequency of 8.1 Hz, firstmode amplitude reductions of 43% and

56% were realized for controller gains P=33, I=0, D=0.1 and gains P=50, I=440, D=0.1

respectively. The experiment was next run without a controller and a sine chirp from 0 to

25 Hz. This allowed for an updated transfer function and system model to be created for

simulation. A new natural frequency of 7.9 Hz was found for the system. This system was

then stimulated with the same 8.1 Hz frequency from this experiment to compare the

systems. The same controller gains were then applied to this closed loop model of the

cantilever system, and from this model, firstmode amplitude reductions of 59% and 71%

were realized for controller gains P=33, I=0, D=0.1 and gains P=50, I=440, D=0.1

respectively. These discrepancies between the experimental and theoretical results can be

attributed to the increased complexity of the real system as well as signal noise.

INTRODUCTION

Vibration analysis and control has long been an issue in the field of engineering,

particularly with machinery and structural systems. The study of vibrations is of great

importance when designing any system (including mechanical, structural, etc.) in order to

ensure that the design meets all required specifications. An example case study was the

Tacoma Narrows Bridge, built in 1940 only to be destroyed a year later due to intense

winds1. The design of this bridge was deeply flawed as its vibration modes were excited by

small gusts of wind, thus leading to its collapse once the resonance condition was reached

for an extended period of time.

This case study is obviously an extreme case demonstrating the importance of vibration

control, but the principle remains the same. Smart structures are increasingly becoming a

heavilyresearched topic in engineering. These smart systems are essentially structures

with sensors and actuators comprised of smart materials (the most prominent being Lead

Zirconate Titanate or PZT) as well as a control system2. These PZTs have the ability to sense

and respond to certain behaviors on these structures, and either minimize or maximize

certain physical characteristics of the system3. PZTs have many advantages such as their

flexibility, ease of implementation, and relative low costs. Smart structures have a vast

array of applications from active vibration control to energy harvesting and biosensing4.

Cantilever beams are of particular interest because of their ability to be applied in many

different environments, including microcantilevers for biosensing. Microcantilevers are

ideal for biosensing applications because of their superior dynamic response, higher

reliability and precision, and their small size5. The goal of this project was to study the

vibration characteristics of a cantilever beam, excited at the fixed end, and use a

piezoelectric transducer (PZT) to dampen the vibration at the free end. This was done by

first exciting the cantilever at its first natural frequency and using a PID (Proportional

IntegralDerivative) controller in a closedloop control system. Experimental data was

taken at both the fixed (excited) end and free (vibrating) end with a strain gauge and Laser

Doppler Vibrometer, respectively. This data was then used to tune the PID controller gains

to optimal values according to the ZieglerNichols Method.

1 Karman, T., Collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Resonance, 10 (8), 97102, (2005).

2 Dong, X., Meng, G., Peng, J., Vibration control of piezoelectric smart structures based on system

identification technique: Numerical simulation and experimental study, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 297

(35), 680693, (2006).

3 Xinke, G., Haimin, T., Active Vibration Control of a Cantilever Beam Using Bonded Piezoelectric Sensors and

Actuators, Electronic Measurements and Instruments, 2007. ICEMI 07. 8th International Conference on. 4854

88, (2007).

4 Aphale, S., "Characterization and Enhancement of Sensing Properties of Piezoelectric Materials with

5 Hansen, K., Thundat, T., Microcantilever Biosensors, Methods, 37 (1), 5764, (2005).

THEORY

The microcantileverbased sensor is comprised of a projecting beam with a piezoelectric

patch attached to its base. Since the beam is fixed at one end, the forces experienced by the

system vary as a function of distance. As a result, the cantilevers motion must be

characterized using the distributed parameter method, which describes systems as a

function of time and one or more spatial variables6. For reference, a diagram of the

theoretical model is depicted in Figure 1 with thickness t, width W and length L given as

dimensions for the piezo patch and beam respectively.

Beam x

L

Piezo

t b

W

t p

W

Lp

Figure 1: Diagram of Theoretical Model

The equations of motion were derived using the finite element method, which breaks the

system into simpler parts and approximates a solution by solving the individual boundary

value problems7. Here, the cantilever was divided into two sections to account for the

sections with and without the piezo patch. From Hamiltons principle, a particle will follow

the path that minimizes its action according to equation 1 below:

, , (1)

where S is the resulting path and L is the Lagrangian given as the difference between the

kinetic and potential energies for the variable q. An extension of this principle, called the

principle of virtual work, states that the work of the applied forces on a particle is zero for

all possible movements of that particle from static equilibrium8. That is a particle disturbed

from static equilibrium will return to static equilibrium and due to path independence the

work done on that particle will be zero. Therefore, since the cantilever starts from static

6 Bilbao, Stefan and Julius O. Smith. DiscreteTime Lumped Models. Center for Computer Research in Music

7 J. Chaskalovic, Finite Elements Methods for Engineering Sciences, Springer Verlag, (2008).

8 Torby, Bruce. "Energy Methods". Advanced Dynamics for Engineers. HRW Series in Mechanical Engineering.

equilibrium, the motion of the two sections can be described from the principle of virtual

work given as

0 (2)

where the operator denotes a functional derivative and Wnc denotes work from non

conservative forces. From here, the equations of motion for each section can be written as

0 (3)

and

0 (4)

Further, the eight boundary conditions, two geometric and two natural for each section,

can be derived by evaluating these equations at the endpoints 0, Lp, and L. Using the

assumed mode method, the equivalent mass and stiffness of the cantilever beam can be

estimated from a chosen mode shape that is consistent with the boundary conditions9.

These assumed mode shapes are solutions to the eigenvalue problem for the cantilever

beam and can be given as the following eigenfunctions:

sin cos sinh cosh (5)

and

sin cos sinh cosh (6)

where 1 and 2 are eigenfunction constants and A1D2 are eigenfunction coefficients. Note

that the values of the eigenfunction coefficients depend on the given boundary conditions,

yet the eigenfunction constants are independent of these conditions since they relate to the

natural frequencies of the system10. From here, 2 can be written in terms of 1 as

/

(7)

which gives the relation between natural frequency (Hz) and the 1 values as

/

(8)

be solved for the multidegreeoffreedom system given by

(9)

9 Tribology Group. Rotordynamics Laboratory. Texas A&M Univerisity. (2015).

10 Gere, J. M. and Timoshenko, S. P., 1997, Mechanics of Materials, PWS Publishing Company. (2011).

thus yielding the eigenvectors x1 and x2, which can be put into state space as according to:

0 1

(10.1)

0

(10.2)

0 (10.3)

0 (10.4)

for mass M=1 , stiffness K=12 , and input force F 11.

Further, the viscous damping for the system can be calculated from these parameters

through the following relation:

(11)

Additionally, orthonormalization allows for the equation of motion for the first mode to be

written as

2 (12)

where q is the strain measured by the strain gage and F is the input piezo voltage. This

equation of motion yields a transfer function for the first mode that can be found by simply

measuring the first mode frequency, , and the damping ratio of the system, .

During experiment 2, both the damping ratio and first modal frequency were realized by

measuring the force, velocity, and acceleration of the structures tip upon a linear sine chirp

excitation from 0200 Hz. The recorded data was then analyzed using MATLABs Fast

Fourier Transform algorithm and used to calculate the autopower spectra. The four

autopower spectra were calculated using Eq. 13 through 16 as given below:

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

where denotes the input FFT (force data or piezo voltage), denotes the output FFT

(velocity or acceleration data) and * denotes the complex conjugate.

11 SM Khot, Nitesh P Yelve, Rajat Tomar, Sameer Desai and S Vittal. Active Vibration Control of Cantilever Beam

by using PID based output feedback controller. Journal of Vibration Control. (2011).

The calculated autopower spectra were then used to calculate the frequency response

functions given by Eq. 17 and Eq. 18 below:

(17)

(18)

(19)

The frequency response functions were used to determine the resonance frequencies of the

structure. Both and were graphed and the most intense peaks within the usable

range of frequency data was taken as the resonance frequencies of the structure. The

damping ratio was then determined using the halfpower bandwidth method around the

fundamental frequency.

The damping ratio is given by:

(20)

where and were taken as the 3db frequency values on the positive and negative side

of the fundamental frequency ( ), respectively.

Furthermore during project 2 the theoretical model anticipated that the first three modal

frequencies occur at f1= 9.475 Hz, f2=56.74 Hz, and f3= 152.7 Hz while the experimental

results from experiment 2 gave the first three modal frequencies at f1= 7.70.3 Hz,

f2=46.00.4 Hz, and f3= 1200.4 Hz. To account for this discrepancy, the eigenfunction

coefficients of the theoretical model, given by Eq. 5 and Eq. 6, were modified to better

match the experimental results. Plugging these new values into Eq. 12 and taking the

Laplace Transform yielded the modified transfer function between strain and input

piezoelectric force as

(21)

. .

Lastly, before designing a controller, the effective mass and effective stiffness can be

calculated from the experimental data. Using the following equations these values can be

calculated based off of a known frequency of 7.9 Hz.

(22)

(23)

As shown later in the report, a natural frequency of 7.9 Hz was used because this was the

newly found frequency of the system. Note that this is different from the value from

experiment 2 (7.7 Hz), and the experiment 3 input frequency of (8.1 Hz). This difference

will be talked about later in the Discussion of the report.

From here, the goal was to reduce the firstmode vibrations at the tip using a PID

controller.

A PID controller is a control loop feedback mechanism designed to regulate system inputs

such that the error between a system state and the commanded set point becomes

minimized. The general form of a PID controller is given by

(25)

where , , and are the proportional, integral, and derivative gains, respectively. Each

of these gains is tuned to contribute to the system input based on the error dynamics of the

system. The P gain produces actions that are proportional to the current error in the

system, the D gain produces actions based on the trends of error in the system, and the I

gain produces actions based on the accumulated error in the system.

Note that a PID controller implemented on the cantilever system would attempt to regulate

the voltage of the PZT such that the strain induced by vibrations becomes minimized.

Figure 2: Experimental Setup

The particular PID gains used to minimize first mode vibrations were experimentally

determined using the ZieglerNichols method. The results from these gains were then

compared against the results of the simulated closed loop system subject to the same gains.

The ZieglerNichols method for PID tuning involved adjusting the proportional gain, with

derivative gain and integral gain set to zero, until the closed loop system became

marginally stable at the ultimate gain Ku. Once marginally stable, the oscillation period Tu

was calculated and used to adjust the P, I, and D gains accordingly for the specified control

type12. Note that a stinger was used to induce a sinewave excitation on the system and

that stability was evaluated using a laser Doppler Vibrometer, force transducer, and strain

gauge as shown by the experimental setup given in Figure 2. As explained in the Results

section, an appreciable firstmode vibration reduction was realized from the Ziegler

Nichols method, and the magnitude of this reduction was successfully compared against

the results of the theoretical model subject to the same gains.

RESULTS

Figure 3: Uncontrolled Velocity Response of Cantilever Tip

12 Ziegler,

J.G and Nichols, N. B. (1942). Optimum settings for automatic controllers. Transactions of the

ASME 64. pp. 759768

Figure 4: Zoomed View of the Uncontrolled Velocity Response

Figure 3 displays the velocity response of the cantilever beam tip when the base is being

vibrated at the first fundamental frequency of 8.1 Hz. Figure 4 displays a zoomed view of

the same data. This data was recorded in order to compare the uncontrolled response of

the cantilever to the controlled response with the same disturbance input. The positive and

negative peaks of the velocity data were found in order to quantitatively compare

controlled versus uncontrolled performance. The peaks are marked in the data with orange

and green xs.

The first PID controller was developed through onthefly tuning in the lab and is given

here:

33 0.1 (26)

This first controller was implemented in the feedback loop and the velocity response of the

cantilever beam tip was again recorded for the same disturbance input. The velocity data is

displayed in Figure 5. The positive and negative peaks were again found. The reduction in

amplitude was then calculated by subtracting the average peak height of the controlled

data from the uncontrolled data. It was found that controller 1 reduced the amplitude

response by 43%.

Figure 5: Velocity Response of Cantilever Tip with Controller 1

The first PID controller was then improved through onthefly tuning and a second PID

controller was developed. This PID controller is given here:

50 0.1 (27)

The second PID controller was then implemented in the feedback loop and the velocity

response of the cantilever beam tip was again recorded for the same disturbance input. The

velocity data is displayed in Figure 6. The positive and negative peaks were again found

and the amplitude reduction was again calculated. It was found that controller 2 reduced

the amplitude response by 56%.

Figure 6: Velocity Response of Cantilever Tip with Controller 2

Figure 7 displays the velocity amplitude response of the uncontrolled beam recorded from

a sine chirp force input at the beams base. This data was used to verify the first

fundamental frequency of the beam so that the modeled transfer function of the cantilever

beam could be updated from project 2.

The updated transfer function of the system is given here:

(28)

. .

Figure 8 displays the simulated data of the updated model. The two figures show strong

agreement between the actual and simulated frequency response of the cantilever beam.

This verified the model used and allowed for further analysis with this model to simulate

controller performance.

Figure 7: Experimental Data Amplitude Spectrum of Uncontrolled Beam

Figure 8: Simulated Data Amplitude Spectrum of Uncontrolled Beam

Figure 9 displays the simulated strain response of the uncontrolled beam with a sinusoidal

force input at 8.1 Hz. Figure 10 displays the simulated strain response with controller 1

implemented. There is an obvious reduction in amplitude response when controller 1 is

used. The peaks were again detected and used to calculate the simulated amplitude

reduction with the controller. It was found that controller 1 reduced the simulated

amplitude response by 59%.

Figure 9: Simulated Uncontrolled Beam Strain

Figure 10: Simulated Beam Strain with Controller 1

Figure 11 displays the simulated strain response with controller 2 implemented. It is clear

that the response is again reduced in this simulation. The peak amplitudes were again used

to calculate the simulated reduction and it was found that controller 2 reduced the

simulated amplitude response by 71%.

Figure 11: Simulated Beam Strain with Controller 2

The simulated amplitudes of the system with controllers are slightly better than the actual

system reductions as expected. For controller 1 the simulated reduction of 59% is better

than the actual reduction of 43%. For controller 2 the simulated reduction of 71% is better

than the actual reduction of 59%. These differences are due to the increased complexity of

the real system in addition to signal noise.

DISCUSSION

This experiment focused on the analysis of two different controllers as compared to the

response of an uncontrolled system. Figure 3, Figure 5, and Figure 6 represent the

responses to the physical system without a controller and with controller 1 and 2,

respectively. Both controllers were created through tuning during a live experiment. The

results of the experiment and the values for the individual gains for each controller are

shown below in Table 1. Onthefly tuning allowed for adjustments of controller gains

through visual feedback of system attributes such as noise, amplitude, and stability. Once

experimental data was collected for the uncontrolled system and the two controllers this

data was compared with simulated results of the same system and controllers.

Table 1: Controller Parameters and Calculated Percent Reduction

Controller1 Controller2

Kp 33 50

Ki 0 440

Kd 0.1 0.1

%Reduction 43% 56%

Before the conclusion of data collection, it was decided to repeat the methodology of

Experiment 2 by introducing a sine chirp as the forcing function of the system. This was

done because the disturbance was now created by the impedance head instead of the piezo

patch. This changes the system dynamics and therefore requires validation of the

previously found transfer function. Figure 7 represents the beam tip response to a sine

chirp from 025 Hz. Figure 8 represents the simulated system response to the same sine

chirp. Although it is clear that these graphs are similar it is important to note that this

analysis was done after the experiment and the natural frequency of the first mode was

found to actually be 7.9 Hz. This was different from the excitation frequency of 8.1 Hz that

had been used for all data collection. As a result, the actual first modal frequency of 7.9 Hz

was used as the natural frequency for all simulation models as well as development of the

transfer function of the system. The input force was still simulated at 8.1 Hz to allow for

proper comparison between the physical system and the simulated system response.

As shown in Table 2, the two controllers used in the experiment gave reductions of 43%

and 56% respectively. By analyzing the system response of the system transfer function is

possible to compare the simulated amplitude reduction for the PID controllers used. Using

the MATLAB code in combination with the Simulink model (Figure 12 in the appendix) the

percent reductions of the controllers in a theoretical system were found and are displayed

in Table 2. These controllers have a simulated amplitude reduction that is greater than that

recorded in the actual system. This is expected and is likely due to many factors such as

simplified modelling of the system, addition of signal noise, and some nonrigid movement

in the base of the system.

Table 2: Tabulated peak values from both physical and theoretical systems.

Theoretical/Simulation PhysicalExperiment

%Reduction %Reduction

Controller1 59% 43%

Controller2 71% 56%

CONCLUSION

For this experiment, an aluminum cantilever beam was subjected to a sustained vibration

at its fixed end in the form of a sine wave at 8.1 Hz and a piezoelectric patch was used to

control the vibration of the beam at the free end. A Laser Doppler Vibrometer was used to

collect velocity data at the free end of the beam in order to quantify the vibration. The

piezoelectric patch was controlled using a PID controller, and a strain gauge was used in

the closed loop feedback system. In the previous laboratory experiment, the resonance

frequency was found to be 7.7 Hz but with this new experimental setup the excitation

frequency was set to 8.1 Hz. Upon further research, it was found that the actual resonance

frequency with the new setup was closer to 7.9 Hz but all of the systems were forced with a

frequency of 8.1 Hz. Two PID gain combinations were found that yielded a significant

decrease in vibration amplitude. The first controller had gains of KP=33, KD=0, and KI=0.1,

yielding a vibration amplitude reduction of 43% (compared to the simulated value of 59%).

The second controller had gains of KP=50, KI=440, and KD=0.1, yielding a 56% reduction

(compared to the simulated value of 71%). The simulated values were found from a

simplified transfer function of a beam with natural frequency of 7.9 Hz.

APPENDIX

Figure 12: Simulink system diagram for use in MATLABonly simulation

%Script to Analyze experimental Data and Run Simulation to verify

%Experimental Data. Includes AD-HOC Analysis and Commented Notes

%%

clear

close all

A=load('experiment002-cut.csv');

Time=A(:,1);

PZT=A(:,5); % Chirp (piezo-Voltage) %input 1 (x1)

Transducer=A(:,3); % Base force %input 2 (x2)

Accelerometer=A(:,2); % Base accel %output 1 (y1)

LaserVib=A(:,4); % Tip vel %output 2 (y2)

Strain=A(:,6); %Strain

Accel=Accelerometer*(10); %Acceleration in g

Force=Transducer*(1/.02216); %Force in N %Was 0.2216

Veloc=LaserVib*.1; %Velocity in m/sec (*.1)

plot(Time,Veloc);

title('Uncontrolled Experimental Data: Velocity vs. Time');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('Velocity (m/sec)');

[AToppks,AToplocs] = findpeaks(Veloc,Time,'MinPeakHeight',0.014);

[ABotpks,ABotlocs] = findpeaks(Veloc*-1,Time,'MinPeakHeight',0.014);

hold on

plot(AToplocs,AToppks,'x');

plot(ABotlocs,ABotpks*-1,'gx');

hold off

AtopAvg=mean(AToppks);

AbotAvg=mean(ABotpks);

%{

figure('name','Velocity Response vs. Force Response');

plot(Time,Veloc,Time,Force);

legend('Velocity','Force');

title('Uncontrolled Experimental Data: Velocity & Force vs. Time');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('Velocity (m/sec) or Force (N)');

plot(Time,Veloc,Time,Accel);

legend('Velocity','Acceleration');

title('Uncontrolled Experimental Data: Velocity & Acceleration vs. Time');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('Velocity (m/sec) or Acceleration (m/sec^2)');

%}

B=load('experiment004-cut.csv');

TimeB=B(:,1);

PZTB=B(:,5); % Chirp (piezo-Voltage) %input 1 (x1)

TransducerB=B(:,3); % Base force %input 2 (x2)

AccelerometerB=B(:,2); % Base accel %output 1 (y1)

LaserVibB=B(:,4); % Tip vel %output 2 (y2)

StrainB=B(:,6); %Strain

AccelB=AccelerometerB*(10); %Acceleration in g

ForceB=TransducerB*(1/.02216); %Force in N %Was 0.2216

VelocB=LaserVibB*.1; %Velocity in m/sec (*.1)

plot(TimeB,VelocB);

title('Controller 2 Experimental Data: Velocity vs. Time');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('Velocity (m/sec)');

[BToppks,BToplocs] = findpeaks(VelocB,TimeB,'MinPeakHeight',0.005);

[BBotpks,BBotlocs] = findpeaks(VelocB*-1,TimeB,'MinPeakHeight',0.005);

hold on

plot(BToplocs,BToppks,'x');

plot(BBotlocs,BBotpks*-1,'gx');

hold off

BtopAvg=mean(BToppks);

BbotAvg=mean(BBotpks);

%{

figure('name','Controller 2 Velocity Response vs. Force Response');

plot(TimeB,VelocB,TimeB,ForceB);

legend('Velocity','Force');

title('Controller 2 Experimental Data: Velocity & Force vs. Time');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('Velocity (m/sec) or Force (N)');

plot(TimeB,VelocB,TimeB,AccelB);

legend('Velocity','Acceleration');

title('Controller 2 Experimental Data: Velocity & Acceleration vs. Time');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('Velocity (m/sec) or Acceleration (m/sec^2)');

%}

C=load('experiment005-cut.csv');

TimeC=C(:,1);

PZTC=C(:,5); % Chirp (piezo-Voltage) %input 1 (x1)

TransducerC=C(:,3); % Base force %input 2 (x2)

AccelerometerC=C(:,2); % Base accel %output 1 (y1)

LaserVibC=C(:,4); % Tip vel %output 2 (y2)

StrainC=C(:,6); %Strain

AccelC=AccelerometerC*(10); %Acceleration in g

ForceC=TransducerC*(1/.02216); %Force in N %Was 0.2216

VelocC=LaserVibC*.1; %Velocity in m/sec (*.1)

plot(TimeC,VelocC);

title('Controller 1 Experimental Data: Velocity vs. Time');

xlabel('time(s)');

ylabel('Velocity (m/sec)');

[CToppks,CToplocs] = findpeaks(VelocC,TimeC,'MinPeakHeight',0.005);

[CBotpks,CBotlocs] = findpeaks(VelocC*-1,TimeC,'MinPeakHeight',0.005);

hold on

plot(CToplocs,CToppks,'x');

plot(CBotlocs,CBotpks*-1,'gx');

hold off

CtopAvg=mean(CToppks);

CbotAvg=mean(CBotpks);

Cont2TopDiff=1-(BtopAvg/AtopAvg);

Cont2BotDiff=1-(BbotAvg/AbotAvg);

Cont1TopDiff=1-(CtopAvg/AtopAvg);

Cont1BotDiff=1-(CbotAvg/AbotAvg);

%% Model Verification

D=load('experiment006-cut.csv');

TimeD=D(:,1);

PZTD=D(:,5); % Chirp (piezo-Voltage) %input 1 (x1)

TransducerD=D(:,3); % Base force %input 2 (x2)

AccelerometerD=D(:,2); % Base accel %output 1 (y1)

LaserVibD=D(:,4); % Tip vel %output 2 (y2)

StrainD=D(:,6); %Strain

AccelD=AccelerometerD*(10); %Acceleration in g

ForceD=TransducerD*(1/.2216); %Force in N

VelocD=LaserVibD*.1; %Velocity in m/sec (*.1)

TD = 1/FsD; % Sample time

LD = length(TimeD); % Length of signal

tD = (0:LD-1)*TD; % Time vector

YD = fft(VelocD,NFFTD)/LD;

fD = FsD/2*linspace(0,1,NFFTD/2+1);

figure('name','Actual Amplitude Spectrum of Uncontrolled Beam');

%plot(f,2*abs(Y(1:NFFT/2+1)))

plot(fD(1:(length(fD)/20)),2*abs(YD(1:(NFFTD/2+1)/20)))

title('Amplitude Spectrum of Uncontrolled Beam')

xlabel('Frequency (Hz)')

ylabel('|Y(f)|')

sim('StrainOutputModel');

SimTime=StrainOut.time;

SimPiezo=PiezoVoltageIn.data;

SimStrain=StrainOut.data;

T = 1/Fs; % Sample time

L = length(SimTime); % Length of signal

t = (0:L-1)*T; % Time vector

figure('name','Simulated Raw Strain Data');

plot(Fs*t,SimStrain);

Y = fft(SimStrain,NFFT)/L;

f = Fs/2*linspace(0,1,NFFT/2+1);

figure('name','Simulated Chirp Amplitude of Beam');

%plot(f,2*abs(Y(1:NFFT/2+1)))

plot(f(1:(length(f)/20)),2*abs(Y(1:(NFFT/2+1)/20)))

title('Simulated Amplitude Spectrum of Uncontrolled Beam')

xlabel('Frequency (Hz)')

ylabel('|Y(f)|')

s = tf('s');

%Pest1 = 1/(s^2+4.0715*s+2.5902*10^3); %8.1 Hz

Pest1 = 1/(s^2+3.9710*s+2.4638*10^3); %7.9 Hz

t = 0:0.001:5;

u = sin(2*pi*8.1*t); %8.1 Hz response

lsim(Pest1,u,t)

o = lsim(Pest1,u,t);

[PToppks,PToplocs] = findpeaks(o,t);

[PBotpks,PBotlocs] = findpeaks(o*-1,t);

hold on

plot(PToplocs,PToppks,'x');

plot(PBotlocs,PBotpks*-1,'gx');

hold off

PtopAvg=mean(PToppks)

PbotAvg=mean(PBotpks)

%% PID controller

%Controller 1

K1=33;

D1=0.1;

I1=0;

C1 = (D1*s^2+K1*s+I1)/s;

C1 = C1*20;

System1 = feedback(Pest1,C1);

figure('name','Simulated System Sine Response with Controller 1');

%t = 0:0.001:5;

%u = 0.5*sin(2*pi*8.1*t);

lsim(System1,u,t)

So1 = lsim(System1,u,t);

[SToppks1,SToplocs1] = findpeaks(So1,t);

[SBotpks1,SBotlocs1] = findpeaks(So1*-1,t);

hold on

plot(SToplocs1,SToppks1,'x');

plot(SBotlocs1,SBotpks1*-1,'gx');

hold off

StopAvg1=mean(SToppks1)

SbotAvg1=mean(SBotpks1)

ContTopDiff1=1-(StopAvg1/PtopAvg)

ContBotDiff1=1-(SbotAvg1/PbotAvg)

%Controller 2

K2=50;

D2=0.1;

I2=440;

C2 = (D2*s^2+K2*s+I2)/s;

C2 = C2*20;

System2 = feedback(Pest1,C2);

%t = 0:0.001:5;

%u = 0.5*sin(2*pi*8.1*t);

lsim(System2,u,t)

So2 = lsim(System2,u,t);

[SToppks2,SToplocs2] = findpeaks(So2,t);

[SBotpks2,SBotlocs2] = findpeaks(So2*-1,t);

hold on

plot(SToplocs2,SToppks2,'x');

plot(SBotlocs2,SBotpks2*-1,'gx');

hold off

StopAvg2=mean(SToppks2)

SbotAvg2=mean(SBotpks2)

ContTopDiff2=1-(StopAvg2/PtopAvg)

ContBotDiff2=1-(SbotAvg2/PbotAvg)

Figure 13: MATLAB Code for Analysis and Simulation

Figure 14: Simulink theoretical model for validation of MATLAB simulation

Figure 15: Simulink theoretical simulation data to verify MATLAB code.

- Midterm ControlUploaded byJacky Wong
- AGC-4 DRH 4189340686 UK_2015.07.17Uploaded byBruno Ventura
- Loop ProUploaded byjeffreyspeck7119
- 11-15nonlinear-controller1-20141-Gotovo-m.pdfUploaded byTobirama Senju
- A Comparison of Adaptive PID Methodologies Controlling a DC MotorWith a Varying LoadUploaded byPatrik Arvhult
- Chap 11 Marlin 2013Uploaded byAnnuRawat
- Process Control Instrumentation Technology 8th EdUploaded byAffify Afify
- Frequency Dependent ImpedanceUploaded byasghar
- parametrizacion IOP sinamicsUploaded byJanoNocWn
- Lab. Sheets RequirementUploaded byWaqas Nasir
- 01a_104Uploaded byMiguelÁngelHernándezOsorio
- Pressure Control TrainerUploaded byGoutham Here
- Process AsgUploaded byYz Low
- Controller TuningUploaded bytrshaaa
- Tuning Control LoopsUploaded byNurgul Shuakbayeva
- Tuning of Multivariable PID Controllers Based on Charesteristic Matrix Eigenvalues, Lyapunov Fuctions and Robustnees CriteriaUploaded byEsther Cozar
- Exp_5Uploaded byArjun Verma
- Peng ProsUploaded byWahyuSatyoTriadi
- shamsuzzoha2008Uploaded bynilu
- A Design for a Controller Was Created and Implemented to Step the Angle of the Satellite Position as Quickly as PossibleUploaded byYasir Khan
- DroneUploaded byJuan Carlos Vásquez
- MRACUploaded bygodam ardianto
- CN4227R Project 1Uploaded byTimothyYeo
- Fast Continuous Path Tracking Control Considering High Precision and Torque SaturationUploaded byTony Ngo
- Modern ControlUploaded byBM
- SVCUploaded bymPradeep82
- DDC_Control_Responses.pdfUploaded bySourabh Patil
- PID regulatoriUploaded byMahmutović Edin
- Smith Predictor Control and Internal ModelUploaded bydsshin_ps
- IRJET-A New Load Frequency Control Method of Multi-Area Power System Via the Viewpoints of Port-Hamiltonian System and Cascade SystemUploaded byIRJET Journal

- balinodiazsanfeliu termprojectppt2Uploaded byapi-358662729
- project1Uploaded byapi-358662729
- project2Uploaded byapi-358662729
- balinodiazsanfeliu termprojectUploaded byapi-358662729
- final report group-8Uploaded byapi-358662729
- wheelchair lift executive summaryUploaded byapi-358662729
- thermogrouppaper 1Uploaded byapi-358662729
- wheelchair lift presentation comp1Uploaded byapi-358662729
- wheelchair lift final posterUploaded byapi-358662729
- thermo2 group project 2014 updateUploaded byapi-358662729

- Clevo m74xs m76xs - 6-7p-m74s9-003a - Sg ScUploaded byJuliano Grigulo
- sowing the seeds for a fruitful future - khaleej timesUploaded byapi-252866728
- Type-CUploaded byArmando Sosa Victoriano
- Daikin Download Link (070915)Uploaded bySam Wing Hong
- Catalogo PuntalesUploaded byFreddy Ronald Monteblanco Navio
- SelfUploaded byerine5995
- Beginners Guide to Measurement in Electronic and Electrical EngineeringUploaded byIshwarya Andrewanuj
- Apr1999BalakrishnanUploaded bysuperkan619
- 660 Mw Sipat BoilerUploaded byNavneet Singh
- carbon nanotubes.pdfUploaded bysstrisca27
- Assante Fast ManualUploaded byMarcelo Pchevuzinske
- Stand-Alone Photovoltaic SystemsUploaded bymdc2013
- T-code_Uploaded byshoaib_textech
- Advanced Generation of Rotatable Magnetron Technology for High Performance Reactive SputteringUploaded bynguyenthanhhop
- Budget Template OJT Batch2Uploaded bymiindonesia
- Power Protection SolutionUploaded byFreddy Suhartono
- b17 Handout SCIA ConoidUploaded byGicu
- GS01E20D01-01EUploaded byknightfelix12
- 2017 task 8 brief design and investigations infrared thermometersUploaded byapi-222503660
- pei201609-dlUploaded byjosetxox
- 06-26-17 editionUploaded bySan Mateo Daily Journal
- Iowa; Bioswales (Rain Gardens): - Rainscaping Iowa and NRCSUploaded byFree Rain Garden Manuals and More
- (Plastering)Uploaded byHasanur Rahman Mishu
- 8179 Rehau Ba Controller 864602 UkUploaded byQYTREWPOIUD
- ATV Variable Speed Controllers for Asynchronous Motors.pdfUploaded byRata Ion
- Mb Biostar p4sdp 3Uploaded byEustahije Brzic
- 0d88cecf1dfe2a01766b9261e9b67b32Uploaded byverkire
- Blade Power StudyUploaded byvavin.bet
- Catalytic DewaxingUploaded bypeyman
- What is Bitcoin the Beginner’s Guide to CryptocurrencyUploaded byMay Trist