Contents

1. Historical Control Systems : “Feedback by Design”

Electronic Control Systems 2. Mathematical Modeling of plants/systems
http://www.ent.mrt.ac.lk/~rohan/teaching/EN2142/EN2142.html Input output relationship as an ordinary differential equation (ODE)
3. Determining the response of the plant/system
Ref Book: Classical Control Systems, ISBN 978-81-8487-194-4
Poles, theoretical solution (Laplace)
Simulation (MatLab) + performance verification
4. Design a feedback control system
5. Frequency domain analysis of Control systems
Bode plots (Mag/Phase response)
Prof. Rohan Munasinghe 6. PID: Most famous industrial controller
Department of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering
Faculty of Engineering 7. Controller implementation: Analog (OPAmp)
University of Moratuwa 10400
8. Digital Control
1. Digital Redesign (of analog controller)
1 2. Digital implementation (of analog controller) 2

1. Historical Control Systems: 1. Historical Control Systems:

“feedback by design” • Self Re-filling mechanism (200BC)
• 250 BC flow regulated water clock Constant flow rate – Philon, a Greek inventor
– Ctesibius, a Greek Inventor
V (t ) Ft
h(t ) = = = Kt
A A
air

h(t ) Oil bath

4
3
 1. Historical Control Systems: 1. Historical Control Systems:
• Weight Regulated Liquid Filling Device(1st Century AD) • Flyball Governor (James Watt 1788)
Pivot Joint The first crude governors
were working reasonably
well. However, precisely
machined governors showed
unstable pressure oscillations
Close (default) Position in the steam generators.
Full WHY?

Open Position
Empty
valve
Empty Steam
Engine RPM Generator

Full Steam Engine

5 6
Pivot Joint

Plant Model: Mechanical System

• Shock absorber Free body diagram

2. Mathematical Modeling of
Plant/System

damper
spring
• Spring resists displacement (reactive force is prop to displacement)
Prof. Rohan Munasinghe
Department of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering • Damper resists speed (reactive force is proportional to speed)
Faculty of Engineering
University of Moratuwa 10400 (2.1)

(2.2) Second order model

7 8
 Plant Model: Electrical System Plant Model: Electrical System
• RC Circuit

(2.3)

What have we learned so far?

• System models are ordinary differential equations (ODEs).
• System complexity is represented by the model order
• The response (output) of the plant can be obtained by
solving the model ODE for a given forcing function (input)
• Laplace transforms can be used to solve ODEs efficiently
First order model
9 10

Laplace Transforms System Response with Laplace

• RC Circuit Model (2.3)
– When transformed into Laplace domain L{ } - forward transformation

For DC Voltage

(3.47)

Partial fraction

• Response (Method 1: Partial Fraction)

– When transformed back to time domain L-1{ } - inverse transformation

(3.49)
11 12
 System Response with Laplace

Matlab Simulation: RC Circuit

Response (Method 2: Convolution Integral)
(3.47),

 1 
1  L−1  − at
=e
L−1   = u s(t) s + a
s 
• Transforming back to time domain

(3.50)

13 14
Homogeneous Response Exogenous Response

Observations and Conclusions

Matlab Simulation: Step Response

• Homogeneous response (Initial condition response) dies

out leaving no remaining response in the long run. The
time period where this response lasts is known as
transient response.

• Exogenous response is what remains in the long run after

transient time. This response finally remains as the steady
state response.

• In order to understand the input output relationship,

homogeneous response has to be removed.

15 16
 System Response with Laplace System Response: Partial Fractions
• Mechanical System Response • Case 1:
(2.2)
(3.52)
(3.51)
Where
where negative, real, distinct poles
• Transforming into Laplace domain Poles are determined by the system parameters

Case 1: Partial Fractioning Using coverup method (see Appendix)

• There exist three different responses based on the

determinant of the denominator polynomial (characteristic
where
equation)
17 18
(2σ ) 2 − 4 ×1× ρ = 4(σ 2 − ρ ) initial conditions system parameters
and system parameters

System Response: Partial Fractions System Response: Convolution Integral

• Transforming back to time domain • Case 1: Convolution Integral Method

(3.55),

Steady-state
Decay with time ‘cos ∝1∝2 are -ve
response where
Transient response

19 20
 System Response with Laplace Steady State and Transient Responses
• Transforming back to time domain
• Transient response
– Decaying response
– Depends both on Initial conditions and external forcing function
• For

• Steady State Response

– The sustainable response
– Depends on external forcing function

21 22
Steady-state response Transient response

Simulation: Matlab Code

Case 1: Over Damped Shock-Absorber
• System parameters
– Strong damper m=50 kg
– Speed is severely resisted

• Then, from (3.51) η=0.02

• Consequently, the two system poles are

-ve real distinct poles

23 24
 Matlab Code

Simulation: Over Damped

25 26

System Response System Response: Case 2 Critical Damping

• Case 2: → Real, -ve coincident poles For
(3.52) →

(3.61)
d()/ds
1/s
where s
IC and System System

Response
damper
spring

27 28
 Simulation: Case 2 Critical Damping MatLab
Adjust (increase) spring earlier Simulation
constant to achieve critical Critical Damping
damping 2
b • Fast response
k=
2m • No overshoots
Poles α1 = α 2 = −7
• Most energy
efficient
Deflection at steady state

29 30

Response Response: Case 3 Under Damped

Comparison • Case 3:
Weaker damper
Complex Conjugate
pair of poles
• Over damped
response is BIG • System poles
and slow
• Response
• Critically damped (3.52),
response is small
and FAST

31 32
 Response: Case 3 Under Damped Response : Case 3 Under Damped
−σt
but s => (s+σ) exponential scaling e cos ωt

Refer Appendix
for derivation
but s => (s+σ) exponential scaling
• Decaying sinusoidal indicates an oscillation, which is a
e −σt sin ωt result of weaker damper to resist the speed
Case 1

Case 2

Case 3
33
Steady state response 34

Under Damped
Oscillatory
Response
Response
• Poles

• Oscillatory due to
dominant spring
action
• Oscillation decays.
Response is stable

35 36
 Response
Comparison Over

Poles and Response

damped
• Critical damped and
under damped
responses are
generally better than
over damped response

• Overshoot is generally Critically

unacceptable in motion damped
control systems
(robots), however,
some overshoot is
acceptable in process
control systems
(temperature, pressure) Under
damped
• Under damped
response is the fastest 37 38
in reaching the level