Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. INTRODUCTION
A closed-loop control system, also known as a feedback
control system is a control system which uses the concept of an
open loop system as its forward path but has one or more
feedback loops or paths between its input and its output. The Fig. 1. Closed-loop system
reference to “feedback” simply means that some portion of the Vdesired is a DC voltage input with value equal 0.8*(VTEMP-
output is returned to the input to form part of the system’s
MAX), where VTEMP-MAX is the stop condition value taken from
excitation. [1] the data in experiment 1. In this case, Vdesired = 0.8*(4.54) = 3.6
Closed-loop systems are designed to automatically achieve V. A UA741 single op-amp was used to implement the
and maintain the desired output condition by comparing it with summing block in the closed-loop system. The schematic
the actual condition. It does this by generating an error signal diagram of the operational amplifier for the unity gain feedback
which is the difference between the output and the reference (i.e. E(s)= Vdesired - VTEMP) is shown in Fig. 2.
input. [1]
When the closed-loop system is properly designed, the
output will be less sensitive to disturbances, less sensitive to
plant changes, and will have a lesser steady-state error with
respect to a desired value.
Another way to get a more accurate output (i.e. smaller
steady-state error) is to increase the system type of the plant.
This technique was examined using an integral controller,
wherein given an input step function, the steady state error
theoretically must approach zero.
Fig. 5. Error Step Response of Proportional Controller From the data in Fig.7, it can be observed that the steady-
state output voltage of the system increases, which
consequently decreases the steady-state error, as kp increases.
Given that the system is still a first-order one, the expected This observation matches with the theoretical computations and
step response will be similar to the one obtained in the previous analysis provided.
experiment wherein the curve resembles an exponential
function.
0.055
1 𝑘𝑝 (
)
𝑉𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝 𝐺𝑐(𝑠)𝐺(𝑠) 𝑠+
= = 144.155
𝑉𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 1 + 𝐺𝑐(𝑠)𝐺(𝑠) 0.055
1 + 𝑘𝑝 ( 1 )
𝑠+
144.155
𝑉𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝 0.055𝑘𝑝
=
𝑉𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑠 + 0.0069 + 0.055𝑘𝑝
Fig. 7. Actual Step Response of the System at different kp
C. Integral Controller The error signal was also obtained in the experiment. The
The proportional controller was replaced with an integral plot is shown in Fig. 10.
controller since the constant of proportionality (kp) needed is
only 1. A UA741 op-amp, a 1MΩ resistor and a 1µF capacitor
was used. An inverter was cascaded to the integral controller to
Error Results of the Integral Controller
compensate for the negating effect of the integrating. The 1.5
0.5
0
0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810 900 990
-0.5
Time in Seconds
Fig. 11. Theoretical Step Response of the System with Integral Controller
𝑠(𝑠(𝑠 + 0.0069)) 3.6 0 The plot in Fig.13 shows the theoretical and actual error
𝑒𝑠𝑠 = lim 𝑠𝐸(𝑠) = lim 2
∙ = response of the system. As can be computed using the equation
𝑠→0 𝑠→0 𝑠 + 0.0069𝑠 + 0.055 𝑠 0.055 for E(s) solved in the preceding section, theoretical steady-state
=0
error should be 0 which matches the plot in Fig.13 labelled as
‘Theoretical’.The plot labelled as ‘Actual-initial’ is the error
response of the system on the first trial which matches the
theoretical response. The plot labelled as ‘Actual-final’, is the
error response of the system on the succeeding trials, as
explained before. The steady-state error deviates from the
expected value, which is theoretically 0, and experimentally
should be less than that of the proportional controller. The
cause of this deviation is the same as the explanation given with
the step response deviation.
III. CONCLUSION
The goal of the experiment was to modify the previously
constructed fully functional plant of a temperature-controlled
system into a closed-loop system. This was implemented using
Fig. 12. Theoretical and Actual Step Response a unity feedback gain, designed using a difference amplifier.
An additional forward gain was also introduced using a
The plot in Fig.12 shows the actual and theoretical step proportional controller (a non-inverting amplifier) and an
response of the system. From the computation of the error integral controller (cascade of integrator and inverting
response of the plant presented and as the plot labelled amplifiers). The latter one increases the type of the system from
‘Theoretical’ in Fig.12 shows, the steady-output should reach 0 to 1, and hence decreasing the steady state error, theoretically
the value Vdesired=3.6. The plot labelled as ‘Actual-initial’ is the to 0, given a step input. Some significant deviations from the
response of the plant with integral controller at first trial. The theoretical computations were obtained in the integral
response matches with the theoretical one in terms of the controller most likely because of the change in the behavior of
expected overshoot, oscillations, and estimated steady-state the original open loop system. This may be caused by non-
value. idealities, defective components, and/or the change in ambient
conditions.
However, on the succeeding trial, labelled as ‘Actual-final’
in Fig.12, the system’s response deviated from the expected REFERENCES
theoretical response. Though overshoot was still present, [1] (2018) Electronics Tutorials Closed-loop Control Systems [Online].
oscillations were not evident and the steady-state output Available: https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/systems/closed-loop-
system.html
deviated from Vdesired. The observed discrepancy may be caused [2] (2018) Electronics Tutorials Op-Amp [Online]. Available:
by a change in the plant itself. A component may have been https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/opamp/opamp_6.html
defective, the ambient conditions may have changed, and some [3] (2018) Electronics Tutorials Op-Amp [Online]. Available:
parameters in the system may have been modified. For example, https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/opamp/opamp_8.html