BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

Experiment No: 01 Group No: 01

Student No: 0606096

Name of the Experiment:

1. MODELING OF PHYSICAL SYSTEMS AND STUDY OF THEIR OPEN LOOP

RESPONSE
2. PID DESIGN METHOD FOR DC MOTOR SPEED CONTROL

Course No: EEE 402

Course Name: Control System Sessional

Submitted by-

Bishwajit Debnath

Date of performance: Student No: 0606096

08.03.2011 Level – 4, term – 1

Date of submission: Dept. EEE

15.03.2011 Partners’ student no:

0606091
0606092
0606093
0606094
0606095
Objective:

 To model a DC motor considering Armature control

 Observe the speed profile and time needed for steady state speed of a DC
motor
 Observe the effect of Resistance and input voltage on motor characteristic
curve
 Observe the effect of PID(Proportional – Integral – Derivative) design
method for DC motor speed control by –
 Controlling transient response
 Controlling steady state errors
 Controlling stability of DC motor
 Design a PID control motor system with following specification –
 Speed : 1 rad/s
 Settling time : 1s
 Steady state error < 1%
 Overshoot < 5%

DC Motor and PID Design:

To control a physical system like a DC motor control system, a mathematical

model defining the input and output relationship is required. Using the basic
physical laws and linearity property, a differential equation and hence a transfer
function from using Laplace transform can be derived.

INPUT SYSTEM OUTPUT

Modeling the DC motor:

A DC motor has two parts –

 Field circuit
 Armature circuit
 DC motor can be controlled using either field or armature circuit or both the
circuits. Since the transfer function modeling needs linear relationship and
controlling both introduces nonlinearity, only field or only armature control
will be considered. In this experiment, only armature control method is
examined.

Physical Law to Model the system:

The torque of the motor T is

proportional to armature current IA
and field current IF.

So, T = K IAIF

If both IA and IF are varied, then torque

will be nonlinear. For armature
control, IF = constant and Kt = KIF is
armature constant.

So, T = Kt IA

When the motor is driven, there will be a back-EMF (e) and this is proportional
to angular velocity.
Ѳ
So, e = Ke

Now, for the mechanical part,

Ѳ Ѳ
J +b =T

Combining the equations and assuming K = Ke =kt ,

Ѳ Ѳ
J +b = Ki
Ѳ
L + Ri = V - K

Using Laplace transform,

 (Js + b) ω(s) = KI

(Ls + R)I = v – k ω (s)

These lead to the transfer function relationship,

=( )( )

So, the system now transformed into –

Transfer Function Output

Input
K Angular
Voltage (Js + b)(Ls + R) + K Velocity

The transfer function derived is an open loop system. It can also be closed loop
(feedback) system where the output is compared with input by feedback. The
feedback is a negative feedback, which has low gain but higher stability.

PID Design:

The PID (Proportional – Integral – Derivative) design is a closed loop system with
intermediate gain modification in the forward path. This is used to control the
transient, steady state and stability of motor operation.

The schematic of a unity feedback control system is given below:

E U
+
R CONTROLLER PLANT R

-
The transfer function of the controller is –

KP + + KDs =
And hence the controller output –

U = KPE + KI ∫ Edt +KD

So the overall forward path gain will be the multiplication of open loop gain and
the controller gain.

Transfer Function Transfer Output

Input K
Function
Angular
(Js + b)(Ls + R) + K K s + K s + K
Volt Velocity

Transfer Function for Proportional Control:

For proportional control, the transfer function of the controller is only

proportional to error signal.

So, overall transfer function –

TF = ( )( )

Transfer Function for Proportional-Differential Control:

For proportional-differential control, the transfer function of the controller is

proportional to error signal and the derivative of error signal.

So, overall transfer function –

( )
TF = ( )( )

Transfer Function for proportional-Integral Control:

For proportional-integral control, the transfer function of the controller is

proportional to error signal and integral of error signal e.

So, overall transfer function –

 ( )
TF = ( )( )

Transfer Function for Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control:

For proportional-integral-Derivative control, the transfer function of the

controller is proportional to error signal, integral of error signal and derivative of
error signal e.

So, overall transfer function –

( )
TF = ( )( )

REPORT AND EXPLANATION:

PART 1:

Using the transfer function and MATLAB, the relationship between speed and
time for open loop DC motor system is observed:

From the curve, the maximum speed that the motor can achieve is 0.1rad/s and
the time required to reach that speed is about 2.5s.

The characteristic curve also shows that –

  The steady state response of motor is not very good as it can not attain
maximum speed of 1rad/s.
 The transient response shows that the rise of speed is gradual but takes a
lot of time to reach the steady state.
 The transient and steady state operation contains no oscillations or
overshoot and quite stable.

The effect of Armature Resistance and Input voltage:

The effect of changing resistance R from 10Ω to 60Ω is shown below:

The effect of changing v from 1v to 5v is shown below:

Analysis and Explanation:

 Effect of resistance:
The transient part is same for all resistance, but the steady state part is
decreased as the resistance is increased.

This can be explained by noting that increasing resistance decreases the

armature current and hence the speed which is proportional to armature
current.

 Effect of voltage:
The transient part is same also in this case. But, the speed increases
proportionally as the voltage increases.

This can be explained from the fact that the transfer function is linear, so the
change of speed should also be linear with voltage change.

PART 2:

Angular speed vs time using Proportional control design –

Analysis:

 Steady state: The motor can not reach desired speed of 1rad/s, but closer
than the open loop design.
 Transient response: The motor reaches the maximum speed around 1s and
the transient response is approximately linear when rising.
 The transient operation contains oscillations or overshoots. The system is
stable.

Angular speed vs time using Proportional-Derivative control design –

Analysis:

 Steady state: The motor can not reach desired speed of 1rad/s just like
proportional control design.
 Transient response: The motor reaches the maximum speed at 0.25s and
the transient response is more linear. So, the transient characteristic is
improved.
 The transient and steady state operation contain no oscillation or
overshoot and stable.

Angular speed vs time using Proportional-Integral control design –

Analysis:

 Steady state: The motor has reached desired speed of 1rad/s. So, the
steady state behavior is improved.
 Transient response: The motor reaches the maximum speed at 1.3s and the
transient response is linear while rising and then contains ripple. So,
transient behavior is damaged.
 The transient and steady state operation contain overshoot but stable. The
overshoot is more than the proportional control.
Angular speed vs time using Proportional-Integral-derivative control design –

Analysis:

 Steady state: The motor has reached desired speed of 1rad/s. So, the
steady state behavior is improved.
 Transient response: The motor reaches the maximum speed at 0.3s and the
transient response is approximately linear. So, the transient characteristic is
improved.
 The transient and steady state operation contains no overshoot and stable.

Another Efficient Design:

Varying the PID controller coefficient, more advantageous control can be

obtained. One such system curve is shown below:
Analysis:

 Steady state: The motor has reached desired speed of 1rad/s

 Transient response: The motor reaches the maximum speed at 0.1s and
transient behavior is highly linear than any other.
 The transient and steady state operation contains slight oscillation that
becomes stable at 0.9s.

If such small disturbance or ripple can be neglected, then this is one of the
best designs so far. This design was obtained for KP= 350, KD = 30 and KI = 350.

Decision and Discussion:

 The open loop control system is most easy one to implement but it can not
ensure desired performance in speed and settling time.
 The close loop or feedback system is complex but by modifying the forward
path gain, good performance can be attained.
 The proportional control introduces ripple or overshoot in the behavior.
 The proportional-integral control improves the steady state response and
degrades the transient behavior.
 The proportional-derivative control improves the transient response.
 The PID control can affect steady state, transient state and overshoot for
various controller coefficients.
 A specific design may not need proportional, derivative and integral control
all at a time and in practical case, the required system will determine which
will be most appropriate. For example, if settling time is important, then
derivative control will be desired. Again, if final speed is important, then
integral control will be appreciated.