RME30002 – Control and Automation

Lab Report 3
Lab group – 1

Name: Manashaa Madhavan

Student ID: 102000138

Figure 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4 - Transient response for step input with gain of 1 ..................................................... 8
Figure 5-Transient response for step input with gain of 3 ....................................................... 8
Figure 6- Transient response for step input with gain of 5 ...................................................... 8
Figure 7 – Steady-State response for ramp input with gain of 1 .............................................. 9
Figure 8- Steady-State response for ramp input with gain of 2............................................... 9
Figure 9 - Steady-State response for ramp input with gain of 5............................................... 9
Figure 10- Steady-State response for unit step input............................................................. 10

Table 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Introduction

This lab focusses on the analysis of the two time responses of a control system - transient and steady
state response of a servo motor position control system. The servo motor under consideration is a
second-order system (consists of two poles) and consists of a proportional element and load elements.
The transient response is observed by feeding in different values of gain for a unit step response into
the system. The steady state response is discussed for different scenarios of input- unit step, unit ramp
inputs to the system. Initially, the transient responses for various gains are theoretically predicted
using SIMULINK and the subsequent practical results are verified by the analogue 33-110 and their
waveforms are measured using oscilloscope. The characteristics of the transient response such as the
maximum overshoot and the rising time could be explored through this lab. This lab is pivotal in
determined the extend of gain on the transient response and the steady state response of the system.

Objectives

• To determine the transient response for a unit step response applied to the servo motor system
under different conditions of gain
• To analyse the steady state error and response for unit step and unit ramp input applied to the
system for the three cases of gain
• To comprehend the effect of the differing gain on the system for responses.

Methods and Techniques

Transient response:
The time response of the control system which travels from the initial to the final state is defined as
the transient response. In a typical control system, the transient response undergoes damped
oscillations before reaching steady state. The characteristics of the response for a unit step response
are defined by Rise time, Peak time, Maximum overshoot and overshoot percentage, settling time and
delay time. For a second order system as considered in this lab, is assumed to be underdamped and the
response is expected to be rapid, and the damping ratio is expected to be between 0.4 and 0.5.
Steady-State response:
The steady state response of the system is the behaviour of the system as the time reaches infinity.
The steady state response of a system can be determined by analysing the steady-state error for
varying inputs such the unit step and unit ramp of the system. If the output of the system does not
exactly follow the input, then the system is said to undergo steady-state error. The steady state error
depends on the type of the system which is determined by the power of the s in the denominator of the
transfer function.
Predictions:

Transient response:
From, the above derivation of transient response it can be seen that the damping ratio of the system
varies inversely as the Gain, motor constant and the time constant. In this experiment, the Ks and Ts
are kept constant while the gain is varied. This implies that the damping ratio will increase upon the
application of smaller gain and this in term affects the overshoot, stability and settling time as these
values are dependent on the damping ratio.

When the gain is 1, the damping ration was calculated to be 0.344 for Ks of 0.52s and Ts for 1.018.
When the gain is 2, the damping ration was calculated to be 0.243 for Ks of 0.52s and Ts for 1.018.
When the gain is 5, the damping ration was calculated to be 0. 153 for Ks of 0.52s and Ts for 1.018.

For a second order system is assumed to be underdamped if the damping ration lies between 0 and 1.
Hence, the above-mentioned system is underdamped system, and the error signal undergoes damped
sinusoid oscillations and at steady-state no-error exists between the input and the output. It is
predicted that the damping ratio below 0.4 yields excessive overshoot in the transient response.

Steady-State response:

From the derived transfer function G(s) = 4GKs, it can be identified that the system is a

s (Ts s +1)
type 1 system as the power of s in the denominator is 1. This implies that for a unit step input, the
system will possess steady-stare error of 0. The steady-state error for a unit ramp input is anticipated
to be 1/4GKs for a type 1 system. These values are coherent with the theoretically derived values
using Final-value theorem. The equation obtained exhibits that the steady-state error is inversely
related to the gain of the system. This insinuates that the accuracy of the output increases when the
gain of the system is large as the steady-state error diminishes.

Practical Results
Simulation of transient response using Simulink:

The closed loop and the input of the system are plotted against time and their transient response is
observed.

Here, the system is simulated with Gain = 1, Ts = 0.52s and Ks = 1.018.

Figure 1

Here, the overshoot observed is 31.7% of the input.

Here, the system is simulated with Gain = 2, Ts = 0.52s and Ks = 1.018.

 Figure 2

Here, the overshoot observed is 43.8% of the input.

Here, the system is simulated with Gain = 5, Ts = 0.52s and Ks = 1.018.

Figure 3

Here, the overshoot observed is 58.5% of the input.

It can be observed that the largest overshoot is achieved when then the gain was 5. This is consistent
with the predications as the overshoot is directly proportional to the gain.
Experimental Results of Transient Response:

The transient response of the system was observed for a step input voltage of 2.24V and
subsequently the overshoot was calculated for the varying values of gain.

Figure 4 - Transient response for step input with gain of 1

Gain Overshoot Percentage Total Gain

Overshoot GainTotal = 4GKs
1 0.64 V 32% 4.072
2 0.8 V 35% 8.144
5 1.12 V 56% 20.36

Table 1

Figure 5-Transient response for step input with gain of

3

Figure 6- Transient response for step input with gain of 5

Experimental Results of Steady-State Response:

The steady state error response of the system was observed for a ramp input voltage of 5.5V
over two cycles and the steady-steady error was calculated for one cycle.

Measured Steady-
Gain Value State Error
Figure 7 – Steady-State response for ramp input with gain of 1
1 D = 1.98V 0.99V

3 D = 1.10V 0.55V

5 D = 0.440V 0.22V

Table 2

Figure 8- Steady-State response for ramp input with gain of 2

Figure 9 - Steady-State response for ramp input with gain of 5

Tracking the error response for a unit step response applied to the system

Figure 10- Steady-State response for unit step input

Analysis and Discussions

From the above charted Table 1 , it can be observed that the transient response and the
overshoot vary with the subjected gain for a constant unit step input of 2V to the system.
The overshoot, a characteristic of the transient response is influenced by the factor of gain as
the response is dependent on the system gain. It can be noticed that when the gain to the
system is increased, the damping ratio will decrease as a result the system undergoes more
oscillation and subsequently the overshoot of the output enlarges. This implies that the gain
of the system is inversely proportional to the damping ration.

By comparing the values of overshoot from the Simulink and the oscilloscope results, the
percentage seems to be consistent with each other. The pattern of oscillation for the two
experiments are similar and this proves that the experiment followed the theoretical
assumptions.

The total gain in the feedforward path of the system for each gain value is calculated using
the formula GTotal = 4GKs. This is derived by applying the final value theorem to the transfer
function G(s) = 4GKs / s(Ts s +1) when s goes to infinity in Laplace domain. The total gain
for the open -loop feedback system for gain 1,2 and 5 was found to 4.072, 8.144 and 20.36
respectively. Here, the value of Ks was taken to be 1.018 as predicted by the previous lab.

The trend of the effect of gain for a steady-state response for a constant ramp input can be
observed through the figures 7, 8 and 9 and the Table 2 can be inspected. The steady state
error of the system reduces as the system gain value increases and it can be established that
they are inversely proportional to each other. Also, the oscillation and the overshoot of the
output increases with higher gain. Thus, it can be stated that the error of the system decreases
and the precision of the output increases upon the subject of larger gain.

The steady-state error was predicted to be 1/4GKs, however the practical values were found to
be a little inconsistent with the predicted values by some margin. This might be due to
inaccurate measurement of the values on the output curve and value of Ks 1.018 was
calculated to be a little higher than the ideal value. These reasons might have predicted a
differing value for the steady-state error.

When the steady-state error for a unit step input is considered, it can be observed that the
error is zero as the input follows the output (through a small amount of phase lag). This is
coherent to the initial predications made in the theory section.

Conclusions

The lab was successful in demonstrating the speculated objectives through theoretical
findings and practical experiment. It was very supportive in the investigation of the
characteristics of the transient response and the steady-state response for a servo motor
positioning control system. The consequence of the gain on the system response was realised
through the Simulink and the practical graphs plotted.

The gain was found to be inversely proportional to the damping ratio which in turn affected
the overshoot as examined theoretically. It was observed that the system response exhibited
higher oscillations when the gain of the system was increases and the results produced were
more precise due to the same response. It was also visible that the steady state error
decreases. Thus, the stability of the system decreases, and the accuracy of the system
increases upon applying greater gain to the system. These statements conclude the lab was
successful in demonstrating and proving the theoretical assumptions through practical results.