UNIVERSITI KUALA LUMPUR

BPB25103 CONTROL SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

LABORATORY 1: TIME RESPONSE OF A CONTROL SYSTEM

LECTURER: PROF. DR. BADRI ABU BAKAR

GROUP: L02-B02

No Student Name ID
1. MUHAMMAD IKRAM BIN SHABRY 51212115124
2. MUHAMMAD SYAMIR BIN SUBRI 51212115088

Marking Scheme Marks

Student 1 ID Student 2 ID
Task 1 CLO5 /15 /15
/15 /15
/10 /10
/10 /10
TOTAL CLO5 /50 /50

Task 2 CLO1 /15 /15

/15 /15
/10 /10
/10 /10

TOTAL CLO1 /50 /50

TOTAL /100 /100

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Page
1. PART A: Proportional Control of Servo Trainer Speed
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Procedure/ Setup
1.2.1 Part 1: Steady State Error
1.2.2. Part 2: Transient Response
1.3 Results
1.3.1 Part 1: Steady State Error
1.3.2. Part 2: Transient Response
1.4 Analysis / Discussion
1.5 Conclusion

2. PART B: Proportional Plus Integral Control of Servo Trainer Speed

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Procedure/ Setup
2.2.1 Part 1: Effect of Integral Action on Steady State Errors
2.2.2. Part 2: Selection of Integral and Proportional Controller Gains
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Part 1: Effect of Integral Action on Steady State Errors
2.3.2. Part 2: Selection of Integral and Proportional Controller Gains
2.4 Analysis/ Discussion
2.5 Conclusion

1. PART A: PROPORTIONAL CONTROL of SERVO TRAINER SPEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Some of the general properties of a closed loop system can be illustrated by a simple example of
speed control of a motor. The CE110 Servo Trainer (adjacent to CE120 Controller) is used in this
experiment. The CE110 Servo Trainer is a device which are designed specifically for the
theoretical study and practical investigation of basic and advanced control engineering
principles.

Page 1 of 39
 Figure 1: The CE110 Servo Trainer used in Experiment 3.

The objectives of this experiment is to implement a proportional controller of the Servo Trainer
speed and to investigate the closed transient response and the steady state errors.

Proportional Controllers

Proportional controller is also called as gain controller. It is where the output position is related
to the deviation of the set point and the measured control process value. Proportional controller
can be used where the processing time of equipment or process is very large or where error
magnitude is not needed to minimize to zero. It is because the name specifies its output that will
be the error deviation multiplied by a factor (electronic circuit gain). In other words, in the

Page 2 of 39
proportional control algorithm, the controller output is proportional to the error signal, which is
the difference between the set point and the process variable. In other words, the output of a
proportional controller is the multiplication product of the error signal and the proportional gain.

Mathematically, it can be expressed as

Or

Removing the sign of proportionality we have,

Where, Kp is proportional constant also known as controller gain. It is recommended that

Kp should be kept greater than unity. If the value of Kp is greater than unity, then it will amplify
the error signal and thus the amplified error signal can be detected easily.

Proportional Offset

Page 3 of 39
In proportional controller, the deviation will become zero if the control variables reaches the set
point. Hence, the output valve (the multiplication of zero) will become zero. The proportional
offset also can helps in bringing the controller variable near to the set-point which will helps to
reduce the error in steady state.

Advantages of Proportional Controller

The advantages of proportional controller are as follows:

1. Proportional controller helps in reducing the steady state error, which will make the
system more stable.

2. With the help of proportional controller, the slow response of the over damped system
can be faster.

Disadvantages of Proportional Controller

The disadvantages of proportional controller are as follows:

1. Due to presence of these controllers we some offsets in the system.

2. Proportional controllers also will increase the maximum overshoot of the system.

For Part 1 (Steady State Errors) of Experiment 3, it is to verify that the steady state error, e ss, for
a constant reference signal, yr as follows:-

equation 1

Page 4 of 39
 Figure 2: Response characteristic

Figure 3: Block diagram of the closed-loop system in Experiment 3 (Part 1)

While for Part 2 (Transient Response) of Experiment 3, it is to investigate on how the transient
response of the Servo Trainer is affected by the proportional controller gain, kp. The closed-loop
time constants, Tcl from the graph produced by the chart recorder are compared with the
theoretical values obtained using the equation below:-

Page 5 of 39
 . equation 2

Figure 4: Block diagram of the closed-loop system in Experiment 3 (Part 2)

1.2 PROCEDURE/SETUP

1.2.1 Part 1: Steady State Error

Initial Controller Settings:

Page 6 of 39
CE110 Clutch disengaged

Large inertial load installed.

Rear access door firmly closed.

CE120 Potentiometer turned full anti-clockwise (i.e. set to 0V output)

PID Controller: proportional gain set to 10 and switched in, derivative and integral blocks
switched out.

.. E3.1

PROCEDURE

1. The equipment is connected as shown in Figure 3.2.

2. The steady state error is being investigated whether it is proportional to reference signal,
yr.

Page 7 of 39
3. The steady state error signal is being recorded as we increasing the reference speed, in
step by step according to the given potentiometer output which is in step of 1V from 2V
until 10V.

4. The steady state error where the value of kp=10, G1=1 and yr, reference speed provided in
the table are being calculated by using equation given E3.1.

5. The steady state error is being investigated whether it is inversely proportional to the
controller gain, kp, by setting the potentiometer to 5V for the reference speed signal, yr.

6. The value of gain, kp, is being adjusted step by step from 1 until 10 and the corresponding
error signal reading was recorded.

7. The theoretical values of the error for each k p value was calculated after recording the
practical value, by using equation E3.1.

Page 8 of 39
 Figure E3.1

Figure 5: Experimental setup of experiment

1.2.2 Part 2: Transient Response

Page 9 of 39
Initial Controller Settings:

CE110 Clutch disengaged.

Large inertial load installed.

Rear access door firmly closed.

CE120 Potentiometer set to 5V. Function generator set to square wave where frequency is
0.05Hz, offset 0V and level 1V. PID controller proportional kp=1, integral and derivative blocks
switched out.

PROCEDURE

1. The equipment is connected as shown in Figure E3.3.

2. The transient response of the servo trainer is being investigated on how it is affected by
the proportional controller

3. A series of step changes in reference speed was generated by using the square wave
output.

4. The corresponding speed response using the chart recorder (suggested time base
10mm/sec) for proportional gains of kp=0.5, 1, 2, 4 was plotted.

5. The closed-loop time constants, Tcl1 was calculated with the result from the graph with the
theoretical values obtain using the equation E3.2

. E3.2

Page 10 of 39
 Figure E3.3

Figure 6: Experimental setup of experiment

1.3 RESULTS

Page 11 of 39
1.3.1 Part 1: Steady State Error

Potentiometer Output Measured Steady Theoretical Steady Percentage

(Reference Speed, yr) Speed State Error (%)
(V) Error Signal Error Signal
(V) (V)
2 0.19 0.18 5.56
3 0.27 0.27 0
4 0.35 0.36 2.78
5 0.44 0.46 4.35
6 0.53 0.55 3.64
7 0.61 0.64 4.69
8 0.69 0.73 5.48
9 0.78 0.82 4.89
10 0.86 0.91 5.49

Table 1: Steady State Error for Various Reference Speeds

Proportional Measured Steady State Theoretical Steady Percentage

Controller Error Signal (V) State Error (%)
Gain kp Error Signal (V)

1 2.34 2.50 6.40

2 1.56 1.67 6.59
3 1.17 1.25 6.40
4 0.94 1.00 6.00
5 0.79 0.83 4.82
6 0.68 0.71 4.23
7 0.60 0.62 3.23
8 0.53 0.55 3.64
9 0.48 0.50 4.00
10 0.44 0.45 2.22

Table 2: Steady State Error for Various Controller Gains

1.3.2 Part 2: Transient Response

Page 12 of 39
 Gain, kp Measured Closed Loop Theoretical Closed Percentage
Time Constant Loop Time Constant Error (%)
(sec) (sec)

0.5 0.78 1.00 22.00

1 0.71 0.75 5.33

2 0.52 0.50 4.00

4 0.36 0.30 20.00

Table 3: Comparison of Measured Closed Loop Time Constants with Theoretical Values

Table 3: Comparison of Measured Closed Loop Time Constants with Theoretical Values

The percentage error for each result was calculated using this formula:

TheoreticalMeasured
% error = 100
T heoretical

CALCULATION
Part 1: Steady State Error

Page 13 of 39
For Experiment 3, the formulae that will be used to calculate theoretical values of steady state
error signal is:

yr
Steady state error, e ss =
1+ k p G1

Where;

y r , reference speed

k p , proportional gain

G1 = 1

Varying values of y r , reference speed ( y r ,=2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 )( k p =10 )

yr ess
yr 2
e ss = = =0.182
2 1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

yr 3
e ss = = =0.272
3 1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

yr 4
e ss = = =0.364
4 1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

5 yr 5
e ss = = =0.455
1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

yr 6
e ss = = =0.545
6 1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

Page 14 of 39
 yr 7
e ss = = =0.636
7 1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

yr 8
e ss = = =0.727
8 1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

yr 9
e ss = = =0.818
9 1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

yr 10
e ss = = =0.91
10 1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

k p =1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
Varying values of k p , proportional gain ( )
y r ,=5

kp ess
yr 5
e ss = = =2.5
1 1+k p G1 1+(1)(1)
yr 5
e ss = = =1.67
2 1+ k p G1 1+( 2)(1)

yr 5
e ss = = =1.25
3 1+ k p G1 1+(3)(1)

yr 5
e ss = = =1
4 1+ k p G1 1+( 4)(1)

yr 5
e ss = = =0.83
5 1+ k p G1 1+(5)(1)

Page 15 of 39
 yr 5
e ss = = =0.714
6 1+ k p G1 1+( 6)(1)

yr 5
e ss = = =0.625
7 1+ k p G1 1+(7)(1)

yr 5
e ss = = =0.56
8 1+ k p G1 1+( 8)(1)

yr 5
e ss = = =0.5
9 1+ k p G1 1+(9)( 1)

yr 5
e ss = = =0.45
10 1+ k p G1 1+(10)(1)

Page 16 of 39
Part 2: Transient Response

Calculation

For this part of the experiment, the formulae that will be used to calculate theoretical values of
closed loop time constant is:

T
T cl =
Closed-loop time constants, l
1+k p G1

Where:

T , time=1.5 sec

G1=1

Varying values of k p =0.5,1,2,4

kp Tcl1
T 1.5
T cl = = =1
1+k p G1 1+(0.5)(1)
l

0.5
T 1.5
T cl = = =0.75
l
1+k p G 1 1+(1)(1)
1

T 1.5
T cl = = =0.5
l
1+k p G1 1+(2)(1)
2

T 1.5
T cl = = =0.3
l
1+k p G1 1+(4)(1)
4

The Speed Response Plotted by Chart Recorder for Proportional Gains of kp = 0.5, 1, 2, 4 (Part 2)

Page 17 of 39
Figure 7: Speed response for kp=0.5, the measured closed loop time constant is 0.78s

Figure 8: Speed response for kp=1, the measured closed loop time constant is 0.71s

Page 18 of 39
 Figure 9: Speed response for kp=2, the measured closed loop time constant is 0.52s

Figure 10: Speed response for kp=4, the measured closed loop time constant is 0.36s

1.4 ANALYSIS and DISCUSSION

Page 19 of 39
From the results obtained from Part 1 of Experiment 3 which has been recorded in Table 1 and
Table 2, it shows that there are a slight difference between the readings obtained from practical
and the one obtained theoretically. Based on the results obtained from both practical and
theoretical as seen in Table 1, it can be seen that the greater the value of reference speed, y r, the
greater the measured steady-state error signal will be. For the results shown in Table 2, it shows
that as the value of potentiometer controller gain, k p used increase, the measured steady state
error signal will decrease. We can simply said that the steady state error is directly proportional
to the constant reference signal, yr and inversely proportional to the proportional controller gain,
kp. These relationship can be clearly seen in equation below,

where
ess = steady state error
yr = reference speed/constant
kp = potentiometer controller gain.

Supposedly, the difference between the measured and theoretical steady state errors decreases
when the yr increases. This happens because errors were being introduced by the small dead-zone
in the servo trainer. The errors introduced by the small dead-zone become smaller as the
reference signal becomes much larger than the dead-zone width. But based on the results
obtained from Part 1 of Experiment 3, the difference between the measured and theoretical
steady state errors are not fixed (not decrease or increase as y r increases). This might be due to
some errors done in the experiment.

For Part 2 of Experiment 3, there are minor difference between the readings obtained from
practical and the one obtained theoretically. The results has been recorded in Table 3. It can be
noticed that the measured closed loop time constant will decrease as the gain, k p increase.

Page 20 of 39
Measured closed loop time constant are inversely proportional with gain, k p. This is proved by
the equation below:

Where

Tcl = closed loop time constant

kp = proportional controller gain.

This is because a proportional controller (k p) will have the effect of reducing the rise time and
also will reduce the steady state error but never eliminate it. The difference between the actual
and theoretical value obtained from Part 2 of Experiment 3 is not fixed. Allegedly, the difference
should increase as the gain kp increases. This is because the actual and theoretical closed loop
time constant will start to deviate far at higher values of k p. it is due to under high gain
conditions, the drive amplifier saturates under transient conditions.

The minor difference of the readings may due to the error of the equipment itself. To avoid or
minimize the error, the equipment must be calibrated accordingly. However, the results obtained
from Experiment 3 still can be accepted as the average percentage error is only 20%. It can
verify the theory of control system.

1.5 CONCLUSION

Page 21 of 39
As a conclusion for Experiment 3, the objectives of implementing a proportional controller of the
Servo Trainer speed and to investigate the closed transient response and the steady state error has
been achieved. For Part 1, it can be concluded that the steady state error is directly proportional
to the reference speed yr but inversely proportional to the proportional controller gain, kp. For
Part 2, the measured closed loop time constant are inversely proportional with gain, k p. This
shows that a proportional controller of a Servo Trainer has been implemented. The closed
transient response and the steady state error has been investigated. In this experiment, the
specification of the transient response investigated is the rise time of a closed loop system. Rise
time is the time required for the response to rise from 0% to 100% of the final value. The minor
difference between the readings which may be caused by the equipment still can be accepted as
the average percentage error is around 20%. The theory are proven.

2. PART B: PROPORTIONAL PLUS INTEGRAL CONTROL of SERVO TRAINER

SPEED

Page 22 of 39
2.1 INTRODUCTION

A proportionalintegralderivative controller (PID controller) is a control loop feedback

mechanism (controller) commonly used in industrial control systems. PID stands for
Proportional, Integral, Derivative, and it has to do with how the controller does what it does.

Figure 1: Response of a typical PID closed loop system

Proportional Response
The proportional component depends only on the difference between the set point and the
process variable. This difference is referred to as the Error term. The proportional gain (Kc)

Page 23 of 39
determines the ratio of output response to the error signal. For instance, if the error term has a
magnitude of 10, a proportional gain of 5 would produce a proportional response of 50. In
general, increasing the proportional gain will increase the speed of the control system response.
However, if the proportional gain is too large, the process variable will begin to oscillate. If Kc is
increased further, the oscillations will become larger and the system will become unstable and
may even oscillate out of control.

Figure 2: Block diagram of a basic PID control algorithm.

Integral Response
The integral component sums the error term over time. The result is that even a small error term
will cause the integral component to increase slowly. The integral response will continually
increase over time unless the error is zero, so the effect is to drive the Steady-State error to zero.
Steady-State error is the final difference between the process variable and set point. A
phenomenon called integral windup results when integral action saturates a controller without the
controller driving the error signal toward zero.

Derivative Response
The derivative component causes the output to decrease if the process variable is increasing
rapidly. The derivative response is proportional to the rate of change of the process variable.

Page 24 of 39
Increasing the derivative time (Td) parameter will cause the control system to react more
strongly to changes in the error term and will increase the speed of the overall control system
response. Most practical control systems use very small derivative time (Td), because the
Derivative Response is highly sensitive to noise in the process variable signal. If the sensor
feedback signal is noisy or if the control loop rate is too slow, the derivative response can make
the control system unstable.

Controller Rise Time Overshoot Settling Time S-S Error

Kp Decrease Increase Small Change Decrease
Ki Decrease Increase Increase Eliminate
Kd Small change Decrease Decrease Small change
Table 1: The characteristic of PID controller.

2.2 PROCEDURE/SETUP

2.2.1 Part 1: Effect of Integral Action on Steady State Errors

Page 25 of 39
Initial Control Settings:

CE110 Clutch disengaged

Rear door firmly closed

Largest inertial load installed

CE120 Potentiometer turn fully anti-clockwise (i.e. set to 0V input).

PID Controller: Proportional gain set to 1, integral gain set to 0.1 and switched out.
Differential gain switched out.
Function generator: select offset zero, level zero DC.

PROCEDURE

1. The equipment was connected as shown in Figure E4.1.

2. The potentiometer output voltage was slowly increased to 4V and the steady state error
was being observed.

3. The error signal was observed as integral action takes effect as follows: with k i=0.1, the
integrator reset button is pressed and the integrator is switched into controller.

4. Observing the speed slowly increase and the error signal slowly decrease to zero as the
integrator output increase as to cancel the error.

5. The integrator was switched out of the circuit.

6. The above procedure for k1=0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 was being repeated.

7. As k1 is increased the error is reduced to zero more rapidly until a points is reached when
the error overshoots zero and oscillates before setting to zero.

8. The k1 is increased as the oscillations pronounced.

Page 26 of 39
 Figure E4.1

Figure 3: Experimental setup of experiment

Page 27 of 39
 2.2.2 Part 2: Selection of Integral and Proportional Controller Gains

Initial Control Settings:

CE110 Clutch disengaged
Rear access door firmly closed
Largest inertial load installed
CE120 Potentiometer set to 5V
PID Controller: proportional gain set to 1, integral gain set to3
Deferential gain switches out
Function generator: select square wave, frequency 0.05Hz, offset zero and level 1V

1. The equipment has been connected as shown in Figure E4.1.

2. The square wave generator signal provides a series of step changes in the reference signal
which can be used to investigate the step response of the servo-speed control system

3. The effect of proportional gain upon the control system step response was investigated by
plotting the response values of kp =1, 0.1 and 0.01.

4. The shape of the results in terms of speed of response and amount of overshoot was
commented.

5. The effect of the integral gain upon the control system step response by setting kp = 1
was investigated.

6. The step response for the value of k1 = 0.5, 1, 5, and 10 was being plotted.

7. The shape of the results in terms of speed of response and amount of overshoot was
commented.

2.3 RESULTS

Page 28 of 39
 2.3.1 Part 1: Effect of Integral Action on Steady State Errors

Value Signal
of ki
0.5

Page 29 of 39
2

Page 30 of 39
6

10

Table 2: The Effect of Varying Integral Gain, Ki to the Steady State Error and the Signal

Page 31 of 39
 2.3.2 Part 2: Selection of Integral and Proportional Controller Gains

Kp Varies
Value Signal
of kp
0.01

0.1

Page 32 of 39
1

Table 3: The Effect of Proportional plus Integral Control Upon the Servo Motor Speed Control

Page 33 of 39
 Ki Varies
Value Signal
of ki
0.5

Page 34 of 39
5

10

Table 4: The Effect of Proportional plus Integral Control Upon the Servo Motor Speed Control

Page 35 of 39
2.4 ANALYSIS and DISCUSSION

The results obtained from Part 1 of Experiment 4 has been tabulated in Table 2. From the results,
we can see that as the integral control gain, ki increases, the rise time will become faster thus the
steady state error was eliminated. At the rate of the integral control gain k i equals to 1, the steady
state error has been removed and oscillations begins to appear. As the integral control gain ki, gets
higher than 1, more oscillations appeared and higher overshoot occurs before it reach the steady
state. The settling time also increase as the integral controller ki increase. This is because an
integral control, ki will have the effect of eliminating the steady state error but it makes the
transient response worse. It can be seen in this Part 1 of Experiment 4 where the steady state was
eliminated when the integral control ki equals to 1 but there were more oscillations appeared and
higher overshoot occurred as the integral control gets higher.

For Part 2 of Experiment 4, the results has been tabulated in Table 3 and Table 4. For this part, it
is about the selection of Integral and Proportional Controller gain, k i and kp. At constant integral
controller ki = 3, the proportional controller kp being varied which is at 0.01, 0.1 and 1. As the
results seen in Table 3, it shows that when the proportional gain k p was increased (altered) from
0.01 to 1, it shows that the damping of the response has been altered or reduced. The overshoot
also has been reduced. From the results obtained in Table 3, it can be said that at constant
integral controller ki=3, the most suitable value for proportional controller k p is 1 as the signal
produced is the most stable with less overshoot and oscillation, less settling, short rise time and
optimum disturbance rejection.

Using the same equipment setup, the integral controller k i were varied at 0.5, 1, 5 and 10 at
constant proportional controller kp=1. As the results seen in Table 4, it shows that at the value of
ki=1, the steady state error was being eliminated. As the value of k i increases, overshoot and
oscillations begins to occur and gets increasing. Damping of the response also increases as k i
increases. But the rise time gets shorten at higher ki. From the results obtained in Table 4, it can
be said that at constant proportional controller k p=1, the most suitable value for proportional
controller ki is 5 as the signal produced is the most stable with less overshoot and oscillation, less
settling time, short rise time and optimum disturbance rejection.

Page 36 of 39
2.5 CONCLUSION

As a conclusion for Experiment 4, the effect of proportional plus integral control (k p and ki) upon
the servo motor speed control loop in terms of steady state errors, disturbance rejection and
transient response has been successfully investigated. The objective of this Experiment 4 is
achieved. For Part 1 of experiment 4, as the integral control gain k i, gets higher than 1, more
oscillations appeared and higher overshoot occurs before it reach the steady state. The settling
time also increase as the integral controller ki increase and the steady state error was eliminated.
For Part 2, at constant integral controller k i=3, the most suitable value for proportional controller
kp is 1 as the signal produced is the most stable with less overshoot and oscillation, less settling,
short rise time and optimum disturbance rejection. At constant proportional controller k p=1, the
most suitable value for proportional controller ki is 5 as the signal produced is the most stable
with less overshoot and oscillation, less settling time, short rise time and optimum disturbance
rejection. The best selection of proportional and integral controller is the one which produce a
stabilized signal with less overshoot, less rise time and settling time, and with optimum
disturbance rejection.

All the analysis and conclusion were explained using the table below which represent the
characteristic of PID controller as a reference for the experiment.

Controller Rise Time Overshoot Settling Time S-S Error

Kp Decrease Increase Small Change Decrease
Ki Decrease Increase Increase Eliminate
Kd Small change Decrease Decrease Small change
Table 7: The characteristic of PID controller.

Page 37 of 39
REFERENCE

1. PID Theory Explained. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2017, from http://www.ni.com/white-
paper/3782/en/
2. Documentation. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2017, from
https://www.mathworks.com/help/control/getstart/tune-pid-controller-to-balance-
tracking-and-disturbance-rejection.html
3. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2017, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019057809000585
4. P, PI and PID Controllers. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2017, from https://gradeup.co/p-pi-
and-pid-controllers-i-ba51cc88-c453-11e5-8e45-0f580d23b1d8

Page 38 of 39