Formal Lab Report: Ball and Beam Control (1X10)

Module code: EG1004

Module name: Engineering Experimentation

30/03/2023

Author(s): Tareka Sankar Ganesh

Student ID(s): 229063432

Degree: BEng Aerospace Engineering with Industry

Tutor/Project supervisor: Jinning Zhang

By submitting this report for assessment, I confirm that this assignment is my own work, is not copied from
any other person's work (published or unpublished), and that it has not previously been submitted for
assessment on any other module or course.

I am aware of the University of Leicester’s policy on plagiarism, and have taken the online tutorial on avoiding
plagiarism. I am aware that plagiarism in this project report may result in the application of severe penalties
up to and including expulsion from the University without a degree.
Summary

Analysing control systems used in engineering industries by operating on a simplified version

of an open loop unstable control system, followed by examining beam oscillations using
feedback control techniques and a proportional integral derivative controller to stabilise the
system. The equipment has been set up to move proportionally to the value shown in the
voltage display. The readings obtained by observing ball positions, transducer outputs and
proportional gain values, were tabulated and substituted into the derived equations.
MATLAB was used to illustrate a graph demonstrating the line of best fit, displaying the slope
and intercept values. Thus, adjusting the potentiometer created a stable closed loop control
system as a result of the experimenter acting as the controller, aware of the desired output
and ensuring that the correct input signal is looped back to the system.
Contents

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Health and Safety ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Method of Analysis .................................................................................................................. 2

2 Method .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Apparatus ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Pre-experiment ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................................ 4

2.3.1 Calibration Test .......................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.2 Proportional Beam Control........................................................................................................ 4
2.3.3 Manual Ball Position Control ..................................................................................................... 5
2.3.4 Manual Ball Position Control using a Controller....................................................................... 5
2.3.5 Automatic Ball Position Control using a Controller .................................................................. 6
3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Results for Experiment – Transducer Output ............................................................................. 6

3.2 Results for Experiment – Tuning with Proportional Gain Kp only................................................ 7

3.3 Experimental Findings – Relationship between Ball Positions and set Potentiometer values....... 7

4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Analysing the Results................................................................................................................ 8

4.2 Observations ............................................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Experimental Findings .............................................................................................................. 8

4.4 Sources of Errors ...................................................................................................................... 9

4.5 Applications ............................................................................................................................. 9

5 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 9
References ................................................................................................................................10
Appendix 1 ...............................................................................................................................11
Appendix 2 ...............................................................................................................................13
Student Self-reflection on performance.....................................................................................15

1
1 Introduction

The Ball and Beam control system is, universally, used for teaching control systems engineering. It
is straight forward to understand, and manages to represent a simplified version of many control
systems which cover many important classical and modern design methods. This experiment
demonstrates the use of control loop systems by representing a real-life control system through the
experimental apparatus.

1.1 Aims and Objectives

• To understand the use of control systems through an open loop unstable system.
• To make the connections accurately, and examine the oscillations produced by the beam.
• To control and stabilise the position of the steel jockey mass (ball) for a desired output.
• To plot the graph obtained onto MATLAB and compare the slope values.

1.2 Health and Safety

Components Risk Factor Risk Prevention

Steel Jockey High Dropping the mass Handling the mass with care and
Masses (Ball) placing it onto a flat surface when
not in use.
Beam High Exhibiting excessive Thoroughly checking circuit
Oscillations oscillations connections before operating.

1.3 Method of Analysis

The apparatus consists of a steel jockey mass (ball)
placed on a pivoted beam attached to a motor
shaft. The connections made on the controller
board determine the angle of the beam.

The angle can be precisely controlled by applying

an electrical control signal to the motor amplifier,
thus, regulating the position of the ball on the
beam. [1] The system is termed ‘open loop
unstable’ because the ball position fluctuates
without limit for a fixed input (beam angle). Figure 1– Ball and Beam Schematic [2]

There are two main types of ‘Control Systems’ [3]:

1. Open Loop System: This system only utilizes the input signal, disregarding feedback from the
output signal. This produces a fluctuating range of results due to external factors. Therefore,
to operate this system, the appropriate input is chosen in accordance to the desired output.
2. Closed Loop System: This system uses feedback control, which is used to keep the signal
controlled and is utilized as a part of the system input. The feedback loop relays signals from

2
 the controller board to the motor and vice versa, thus, using input and output signals. This
enables specific variables to remain constant, ensuring accurate results. It is used to stabilise
a system that is unstable in open loop. At each time 𝑡𝑡, to determine the next appropriate
input to the plant in many cases, the controller makes use of the output tracking error 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)
given as [1]:

e(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡) − 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡)

Where:

• e(𝑡𝑡) is the output tracking error

• r(𝑡𝑡) is the desired output
• y(𝑡𝑡) is the actual output
In this experiment, the open loop unstable system was transformed into a closed loop system due
to the presence of a human controller controlling the input signal to obtain the required output.

2 Method

2.1 Apparatus

The experimental apparatus consists of:

• A Ball and Beam Apparatus

• A Controller Board
• A Digital Oscilloscope
• Assorted leads
• Steel Jockey Mass
Figure 2- The Ball and Beam Apparatus [4]

Figure 3 - The Ball and Beam Controller [5] Figure 4 - Digital Oscilloscope [6]

2.2 Pre-experiment

• The transducer had been calibrated at ± 10𝑉𝑉.

3
 • The wires present in the transducer had a resistance of 5Ω each and were 13.20mm apart.
• Placing the ball between both wires altered the effective resistance of the wire, which
created a proportional relationship between the resistance and voltage (use of Ohm’s law).

2.3 Procedure

NOTE: The figures (numbered 9 – 15) stated under the following sub-sections are displayed
in the ‘Appendix 1’ section.

2.3.1 Calibration Test

• Using the assorted leads, the connections shown on figure 9 – ‘Card 1’ were made. The
potentiometer knob was used to set the display to 0𝑉𝑉.
• The connections shown in figure 10 – ‘Card 2’ were made. The potentiometer knob was used
to adjust the motor voltage to 0𝑉𝑉. This caused the beam to tilt into a horizontal position,
causing the beam angle transducer to read approximately 0𝑉𝑉.
• The connections shown in figure 11 – ‘Card 3’ were made.
• The beam had 10cm intervals, each, from -50cm to 50cm.
• The ball on the beam was positioned at each interval to tabulate the transducer output
from the voltmeter display.
• After tabulating the readings, the ball was removed and all the connections were
disconnected.
• The ‘polyfit’ function in MATLAB was used to derive the slope (m) and Intercept (c) for the
line of best fit in the graph obtained from these readings. [1]

2.3.2 Proportional Beam Control

• The following adjustments were made to the controller board:

1. Function Generator: Square wave output

2. Frequency Step Size: 0.1
3. Frequency Value: 0.1Hz
4. LEVEL: 0V
5. OFFSET: 0V (on voltmeter display screen)
6. Proportional Gain (Kp): 1

• The connections shown in figure 12 – ‘Card 4’

Figure 5 - System Response Characteristics [1]
were made and the level was increased to 2V.
• The readings, for the following, were tabulated with Kp=1, 5, & 8:

1. Steady State Output (𝒚𝒚𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔): point on the y-axis where the output appears to be steady.
2. Steady State Error (𝒆𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔): difference between the reference output and the actual
output at steady state.

4
 3. Overshoot (𝑶𝑶𝒗𝒗): difference between the peak point of the output signal (𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡)) and the
reference signal (𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡)). (Calculated when 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) goes above 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡) before becoming steady).
4. Rise Time (𝑻𝑻𝒓𝒓): measure of time the output signal takes to reach 𝑦𝑦𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝑡𝑡) when there is no
overshoot. It is also the measure of the time taken for the output 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) to exceed the
reference output 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡) when there is an overshoot.

• After tabulating the readings, all the connections were disconnected. [1]

2.3.3 Manual Ball Position Control

• The connections shown in figure 13 – ‘Card 5’ were made.

• The following adjustments were made to the controller board:

1. Potentiometer Knob Display: 0V

2. Proportional Gain (Kp): 8
3. Channel 1: Potentiometer Voltage (input signal)
4. Channel 2: Ball Position (x)

• The ball was placed at 0cm on the beam.

• By turning the potentiometer knob, the ball was moved to the 40cm mark, with an attempt
to stabilise the ball within approximately 12 seconds. Then, it was moved to the -40cm
mark, with an attempt to stabilise it again within 12 seconds. This was repeated twice. [1]

2.3.4 Manual Ball Position Control using a Controller

• The connections shown in figure 14 – ‘Card 6’ were made.

• The following adjustments were made to the controller board before connecting the motor
lead:

1. Potentiometer Knob Display: 0V

2. Beam Angle Controller Gain (Kp1): 8
3. Proportional Gain (Kp): 0.5
4. Derivative Gain (Kd): 0.5
5. High Frequency Filter (Ki): 4
6. Channel 1: Beam Angle (θ)
7. Channel 2: Ball Position (x)

• The ball was placed at 0cm on the beam.

• By turning the potentiometer knob, the ball was moved to the 40cm mark, with an attempt
to stabilise the ball within approximately 12 seconds. Then, it was moved to the -40cm
mark, with an attempt to stabilise it again within 12 seconds. [1]

5
 2.3.5 Automatic Ball Position Control using a Controller

• The connections shown in figure 15 – ‘Card 7’ were made (excluding the dotted line).
• The following adjustments were made to the controller board:

1. Upper Potentiometer: -5V

2. Lower Potentiometer: +9V
3. Beam Angle Controller Gain (Kp1): 8
4. Proportional Gain (Kp): 0.5
5. Derivative Gain (Kd): 0.5
6. High Frequency Filter (Ki): 4

• The ball was placed at -25cm on the beam and the motor lead was connected.
• The ball had, then, stabilised around −25𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ± 3𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐.
• After stabilising the ball, the dotted line connection was made.
• This provided a step reference(r) for the ball position control system.
• Therefore, the difference between the initial ball position and the final ball position was
obtained as:
𝑟𝑟 = 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 – 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵

• This was monitored using the oscilloscope and the readings were tabulated. [1]

3 Results

3.1 Results for Experiment – Transducer Output

Table 1 displays the transducer output results obtained based on various ball positions.

Table 1 – Ball Position and Transducer Output Data

Ball Position [cm] Transducer Output [V]
-50 -10.04
-40 -8.09
-30 -6.08
-20 -4.04
-10 -2.06
0 -0.01
10 1.98
20 3.96
30 6.06
40 8.08
50 10.00

6
 Figure 6 - Graph of Transducer Output against Ball Position

3.2 Results for Experiment – Tuning with Proportional Gain Kp only

The results of the experiment given in table 2, shows the results obtained on examining the
Steady State Output (𝒚𝒚𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔), Steady State Error (𝒆𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔), Overshoot (𝑶𝑶𝒗𝒗) and Rise Time (𝑻𝑻𝒓𝒓). (The
oscilloscope traces for the following are displayed in the ‘Appendix 2’ section.)

Table 2 – Tuning with Proportional Gain Data

Kp yss [V] 𝒆𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 [V] 𝑶𝑶𝒗𝒗 [V] Tr [s]
1 3.40 0.60 0 0.3
5 3.96 0.06 0.44 0.14
8 3.88 0.12 0.6 0.1

3.3 Experimental Findings – Relationship between Ball Positions and set Potentiometer values

With the results obtained in table 1, a link was established between the ball position and the
upper potentiometer value before the dotted line connection followed by a link between
the lower potential value and the magnitude of the step (r) after the dotted line connection.
[1]. The link can be noted through the following:
Table 3 – Ball positions vs Potentiometer values
BPinitial [cm] BPfinal [cm] r [cm] Upper Potentiometer Lower Potentiometer
Value [V] Value [V]
-40 -20 20 -8.02 4.06
20 25 5 4 5
-15 25 40 -3 5
30 35 5 7 6
-33 45 78 6 9
-30 45 45 -6 3

7
4 Discussion

This experiment, significantly, utilized the ‘Proportional-Integral-Derivative’ (PID) controller

as the derivative control actioned with the proportional controller, enhancing sensitivity.
This produced accurate responses for multiple values of error signals, increasing the stability
of the system. Also, the proportional controller reduced the steady-state error. Therefore, a
combination of proportional and derivative controller was used to stabilise the system. [7]
4.1 Analysing the Results

• After performing the experiment, it was noted that the transducer output slowly increased
on increasing the value at which the ball is placed, hence making it directly proportional.
• Similarly, by only using Kp for the closed loop control of a system, it was seen that the rise
time decreased on increasing the value of Kp, making it indirectly proportional. This was
because the controller got more aggressive, increasing oscillations and overshoot.

4.2 Observations

• This experiment relied on the use of a ‘Summing Amplifier’ which combines the present input
signals, which, then gets amplified into one output signal.
• The beam angle signal was connected to the negative input of the summing amplifier as the
positive feedback was not stable and non-linear whereas the negative feedback reduced the
gain of the amplifier as well as its instability and increased the bandwidth.
• Furthermore, it was easier to stabilise the ball position in section 2.3.3 in comparison to the
same step performed in section 2.3.4.
• This was due to channel 1 being connected to the potentiometer voltage (set at 0V) in section
2.3.3. Due to the gradual change in voltage for stabilising the ball, the controller was not as
sensitive or aggressive, and thus needed less settling time. Whereas, in section 2.3.4, channel
1 was connected to the ‘Beam Angle Controller Gain’, which was high, increasing the settling
time and making the equipment more unstable.

4.3 Experimental Findings

1. Slope value of the line of best fit (obtained theoretically)

Figure 7 - Value of Slope

8
 2. Slope value of the line of best fit (obtained using MATLAB)
(The MATLAB code and the values obtained for the following are displayed in the
‘Appendix 2’ section.)

• Slope (m) = 0.2012

• Intercept (c) = -0.0218

3. Relationship between the ball position and the transducer output

Figure 8 - Expressing Y through the equation of a straight line

4.4 Sources of Errors (Error Analysis)

• Equipment error: causes possible variations in values due to difference in cables used.
• Human error: damaging the jockey mass or provided apparatus.
• Procedural error: causes instability of the machine resulting in ball position error.

4.5 Applications

• This experiment is performed before a control system has been built or when testing on
the actual equipment cannot take place due to the financial/physical implications of failure
during testing. For example: testing the thrust angle of a rocket during take-off.

• A control system ranges from being used in industrial automation, such as cruise control in
cars and autopilot in aeroplanes, traffic lights, to being used in domestic appliances such as
the toaster and the microwave.

5 Conclusion

• The experimental analysis of ‘Ball and Beam Control’ was used to measure the instability of
the system and to stabilise a system that is unstable in an open loop, using feedback control
techniques and a summing amplifier.
• Analysed the stated theory followed by direct application practically and successfully
completed the experiment, with the data collected having a few fluctuations due to the
sources of error stated previously.
• MATLAB was used to demonstrate the readings onto a graph (including the line of best fit).
• Therefore, a closed loop control system was created by adjusting the controls in the
controller board to obtain the desired output, hence, ensuring the correct input signal.

9
References

[1] University of Leicester Library, Ball and Beam Control Handbook, No date. Available from:
Control Lab [Accessed 21/03/2023].

[2] Control Systems Laboratory Manual, (2005). Available from: lab3.dvi (utoronto.ca) [Accessed
22/03/2023].

[3] Deniz Yalcin, (2014), Open-Loop vs Closed-Loop Systems in the Materials Testing Industry.
Available from: Testing Issues Archives - ADMET [Accessed 22/03/2023].

[4] TQ TecQuipment Ltd. CE106 – Experiment, Ball and Beam Apparatus [online]. Available from:
BALL AND BEAM APPARATUS | TecQuipment [Accessed 20/01/2023]

[5] TQ TecQuipment Ltd. CE120 – Base Unit, Controller [online]. Available from: CONTROLLER |
TecQuipment [Accessed 20/01/2023]

[6] Farnell Ltd. MP720106 – Base Unit, Digital Oscilloscope [online]. Available from: MP720106
Multicomp Pro, Digital Oscilloscope, 14-bit, 4-in-1 | Farnell UK [Accessed 20/01/2023]

[7] Proportional Derivative Controller, No date. Available from: What is Proportional Derivative
(PD) Controller - Electronics Coach [Accessed 27/01/2023].

10
Appendix 1

In this appendix, the card sheets (from 1 – 7) are contained.

Figure 9 - Card 1 Figure 10 - Card 2

Figure 11 - Card 3 Figure 12 - Card 4

11
Figure 13 - Card 5 Figure 14 - Card 6

Figure 15 - Card 7

12
Appendix 2

In this appendix, the oscilloscope traces and the code used for obtaining the slope values on
MATLAB are contained.

Figure 16 - Oscilloscope trace for Kp=1

Figure 17 - Oscilloscope trace for Kp=5

Figure 18 - Oscilloscope trace for Kp=8

13
Figure 19 - MATLAB code for graph, slope and intercept

Figure 20 - Table containing the required values

14
Student Self-reflection on performance
Describe how you have used AT LEAST ONE of the following sources of information to improve
this piece of work:
1.) (PREFERRED) Feedback from previous assignment(s). This can be from the same
module or from a previous module or previous year of study (e.g. comments from 1st year lab
formal reports should be used to help improve your 2nd year lab formal reports).
2.) The marking criteria or rubric provided for this assignment.
3.) The Department Technical Writing Handbook for Students.
1. The Department Technical Writing Handbook for ‘Ball and Beam Control’ was extremely
helpful. It gave a clear walk through on how to go about the procedure of the
experiment, making it one of the key textbooks I have used as a reference for my
‘Method’ section of the lab report.
2. Moreover, one of the main feedbacks I received in my previous lab report (for semester
1) was to analyse the results obtained followed by linking it to the discussions, which I
have followed in this report.

Are there any aspects of this work that you would specifically like the marker to comment/or
advise on? For example: “I wasn’t sure if my figure formatting looked professional and would
appreciate feedback on this aspect”
One of the main problems I faced while writing this report was regarding the structure of my
report. As you may be aware, this experiment displays all the connections through ‘CARD
SHEETS’. Due to a limited page number, I could only add those sheets in my appendix 1. This was
also the case for the oscilloscope traces. I am confused on whether or not that is the correct
structure/format for this report. Please let me know your thoughts on the same. Thank you!

15