Aim/Objective:
The main aim of this lab is to implement, design, and tune a Proportional-
Integrate-Derivative (PID) controller for accurate position control of DC
motor. As a result of this exercise, we sight to acknowledge the influence
of each PID parameter on the system’s time-domain response
characteristics, such as settling time, rise time, peak time and overshoot.
Moreover, we strive to improve our skills in the manual tuning of PID
controllers and examine the effect of parameter adjustments on system
performance.
Observation and Analysis:
Task 1. Implementation of PID controller in Simulink.
Task 2. Test the controller.
After implementing parameters output is as follows
Task 3. Estimation of the step response characteristics of the
controlled system
a) What is the peak value ypeak (round to the nearest degree)?
Task3a = 133.4°
b) What is the settling value (round to the nearest degree)?
Task3b = 91.8°
c) What is the rise time in seconds (round to the nearest hundredth)?
Task3c = 0.163 seconds
d) What is the settling time in seconds (round to the nearest
hundredth)?
Task3d = 2.054 seconds
e) What is the percent overshoot?
Task3e = 48.242%
f) What is the peak time in seconds (round to the nearest
hundredth)?
Task3f = 0.425 seconds
These values indicate considerable overshoot and a comparatively long
settling time, emphasising that further PID parameter tweaking is
necessary to achieve a more desired response.
Task 4. Run the tuning model.
Set point 90°
This graph is for 90°. It displays a significant proportional gain (kp) when
it first overshoots past 90°. Underdamping is suggested by the oscillations
prior to settling, most likely because of inadequate derivation action (kd).
Then it settles around 90°, indicating how well ki reduces steady-state
error. Stability and overrun can be further decreased by kd.
Set point 270°
This graph is for 270°. It displays an overdamped response with
oscillations, an overshoot beyond 400°, and a settling time of 3-4 seconds
before stabilising with little steady state error at 270° setpoint. To
increase stability and lessen overshoot, tuning is required.
Task 5. In this task, we will tune the PID parameters to obtain a
good response.
a) Start by setting all three PID parameters to zero. Then,
gradually increase the proportional gain, kp. Start with very
small values of kp (e.g.kp=0.05, ). What happens to the
time-domain characteristics of the step response as kp
increases?
Task 5a = When ki and kd were adjusted to zero, increasing kp
resulted in increased magnitude of oscillations. The system
response was linear when kp=0.meaning there were no oscillations.
b) Set kp to 0.4 and then gradually increase the integral gain,
ki. Does this improve the performance of the controller?
Why or why not?
Task 5b = At kp=0.4, increasing ki results more oscillations rather
than better performance. This happens because of overcorrection
and decreased system stability caused by integral action
accumulating past errors.
c) Set kp to 1 and set ki to zero. Then, gradually increase the
derivative gain, kd. Does this improve the performance of
the controller? Why or why not?
Task 5c = When kp = 1 and ki = 0, increasing kd reduces
oscillations and overshoot while improving stability due to the
derivative action that dampens abrupt changes in error.
d) With kp=1 and ki = 0, what is a good value (i.e., one that
has a short rise time without overshoot) of the derivative
term gain, kd?
Task 5d = The system response became more stable when the
derivative gain (kd) value of 0.2750 was discovered to offer a
reasonable compromise between the rise time and overshoot.
e) Based on your observations, which controller appears to
work best for this system?
Task 5e = Based on the observation PD controller (proportional and
derivative terms) appears to work best for this system.
Analysis of Results:
The system's response to the original PID parameters was marked by
oscillations and overshoot. By hand-tuning, it was found that:
Increasing the proportional gain (Kp) by itself can speed up
responsiveness, but it may also cause or escalate oscillations.
If not properly adjusted, adding integral gain (Ki) might increase
oscillations and perhaps lead to instability even if it can remove
steady-state error.
By lowering oscillations and overshoot, the addition of derivative
gain (Kd) improves stability by damping the system response.
The most suitable performance for this system was obtained using the
proportional and derivative control (PD) combination, which produced a
fast reaction with little oscillation or overshoot.
Conclusion:
This lab exercise illustrated how PID control may be used practically to
regulate the position of DC motors. We were able to see the unique
impacts of each term on the system's time-domain response by manually
adjusting and implementing PID parameters. The integral term dealt with
steady-state mistakes, the derivative term helped with damping and
stability, and the proportional term affected response speed. The best
configuration for this system turned out to be the PD controller,
underscoring the need of customised controller design based on system
dynamics.
References:
1. MathWorks. “PID Controller.”
https://www.mathworks.com/help/simulink/slref/pidcontroller.html
2. University of Michigan. “Introduction: PID Controller Design.”
https://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/index.php?
example=Introduction§ion=ControlPID
3. ECE 5670/6670 - Lab 3: PID Control of a Brush DC Motor.
https://my.ece.utah.edu/~bodson/5670/Labs/Lab3.pdf
4. ME 460 Lab 3: Basic Control Actions.
https://coecsl.ece.illinois.edu/me460/Lab3.pdf
