Solution: a) Obtain the unit step response of Gp(s). Command Window ‘>> mum [400}2 denn(2 48.3 Ole planers [num,den)¢ mvep(plant) b) Try PI controllers with (Kp =2, 10, 100), and Ki=Kp/10. Investigate the unit step response in each Case, Compare the results and comment. Command Window >> ume [40012 dem=[2 48.5 01 plancece imum, den)? step (prent) kpeds ea“ip 20; SORCETEEI (KP HELI, 12 O1)r sya_cl-feedback|contr*plant, 1) eor0.0sas avep(eyn_cl,t) ‘Scanned with CamScanner>> mmm (409) dene(1 48.8 07 planer (nam, dea ¢ stepiplant) gros inep/ 02 eqnteset (tp HL]. 12 O17 sy2_civteeabact (Coste "pianc,3) e070.01:21 step (ava_et,) aprioos esemp/i07 centered ep 1), (2 91)2 aya_clefeedbact (corertpianc.1)) ear0.03021 Condusion: By comparing all above responses we can conclude that the proportional controller (kp) will have the effect of expand the rise time and will expand, but never eliminate, the steady state error. An integral controller (ki) will have the effect of eliminating the steady state error, bul itmay make the transient response worse. Effect of each controller kp & ki on the closed-loop system are summarized below: CLResponse Rise Time Overshoot Settling Time S-S Error kp Increase Increase Small Change Decrease ki Decrease Increase Increases Eliminate ©) Let Kp =100, Ki=10, and add a derivative term with (Kd=0.1, 0.9, 2) Investigate the unit step response in each case, compare the results and comment. ‘Scanned with CamScannerCommand Window >> num=[400}7 den=[1 48.5 0}: plantetf (num, den); avep (plant) ‘kpw3s02 weie100; kedeO.12 contretg( (kd kp ki}, [1 OJ): sys_clefeedback(contr*plant,1)7 wa010.0122: step(sys_cl,t) Command Window: >> num=[400}; den=[1 48.5 0}: plantetf (num,den) : atep (plant) ‘kp=3507 mean100; ka0.97 contrcf\ (kd kp ka}, [2 01)7 sys_cl=feedback (contrplant, 1) ew020.0222. atep(sya_el,t) ‘System ays ‘Tine (seconds): 0.6458 Ameltatie ‘Scanned with CamScannerSyweme aya pecans) 2.0308 Arete 1 >> num [400]; dene[1 48.5 9}7 Command Window | plancerf (num.den): 1 atepiplant) | wpeaso: | kanig0; ideas P| eontrect( (id ep ia}, (2 Oln7 ays_clefeedbeck (contr*plant, 1): eeoro.01:27 | i step(sys_cl.t) ° ae i Te ? Conclusion: By comparing all above responses we can conclude that the derivative control (kd) will have the effect of increasing the stability of the system, reducing the overshoot and improving the transient response... Effect of controller kd closed-loop system are summarized CL Response Rise Time Overshoot Settling Time S-S Error kd Small Change Decrease Decrease Small Change > Based on your results in parts b) and c) above what do you conclude as a suitable PID controller for this system and give your justification. ‘Scanned with CamScanner” Matlab Code for Gp nit pede (1 1020);>>.93= Hind) Stepinfosys) stents) os sys Step Response of Gp seTime: 0.843 Setingtime: 15894 Setting: 0.0452 SertingMax: 0.0500, overshoot: 0 Undershoot: 0 Peak: 0.0500, ‘Scanned with CamScannerPeakrime: 3.2966 » {Go with various PID contra: co with various Pl controle Matab Code Neu = (21020)95= Hind (e_plino} = lotto) steptT_s) StepinolT i Continuous-imeP control ia para fom. stables1 CrossoverFrequency: 4.614 PhaseMarin 60.0000 Seftingie: 10352 Setting 2.0879 Sextingin: 0.3058, overshoot 7868 Undershoot:0 Peak: 10879 Peakrime: 0.6762 ‘Scanned with CamScannerTae acon) Incan be observed that using Pl Controlr Ts Setting time ad Tp Peak Time are edced ‘Scanned with CamScanner