Scribd
Upload
32 views3 pages

Name: Thomas Franz Me 144L DSC Lab Date: 4/1/2018 Section: W 4-6 Ta: Namrata Nayar LE9

This document summarizes experiments performed on a feedback control system for an angle measurement device. Step input tests were conducted by specifying angle values and measuring the response. The proportional, integral, and derivative gains were tuned to minimize oscillation and steady state error. Tracking of a reference command was assessed using a slider input, which showed high response times, especially for quick movements. Disturbance rejection was tested by tilting the device and observing it stabilize. Finally, the system sensitivity was analyzed by doubling the circuit resistance, which doubled the stabilization time and required voltage.

Uploaded by

Thomas Franz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
32 views3 pages

Name: Thomas Franz Me 144L DSC Lab Date: 4/1/2018 Section: W 4-6 Ta: Namrata Nayar LE9

This document summarizes experiments performed on a feedback control system for an angle measurement device. Step input tests were conducted by specifying angle values and measuring the response. The proportional, integral, and derivative gains were tuned to minimize oscillation and steady state error. Tracking of a reference command was assessed using a slider input, which showed high response times, especially for quick movements. Disturbance rejection was tested by tilting the device and observing it stabilize. Finally, the system sensitivity was analyzed by doubling the circuit resistance, which doubled the stabilization time and required voltage.

Uploaded by

Thomas Franz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Name: Thomas Franz ME 144L DSC Lab Date: 4/1/2018

Section: W 4-6 TA: Namrata Nayar


LE 9

1. Describe step input testing.


To test the step input we specified a value for the angle and tested how well the feedback angle
followed the predicted angle. The controller response was fine-tuned as close as possible by
setting the proportional gain to one and the integral gain to eleven. The derivative gain was the
kept at zero as changing it made the response unstable.
The response from various step intervals is shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Analyzing the graph, you can see the latter measurements had a slower response due to
negative error observed from the buildup of positive error. Figure 2 is the response from a step
input of 40 degrees, Figure 3 from 60 degrees, and Figure 4 from 90 degrees. The oscillation,
overshoot, and steady state error were minimized as much as possible. The time it took to
reach each step were higher than we wanted but the gains were set as best as they could. The
response angle for Figure 4 caps before it reaches 1.55 radians because needle could not reach
an angle that high.
2. Feedback for tracking reference command.

To assess the tracking of the user input we modified the VI so a slider would control the input
angle. The results are shown below in Figure 2. The red line is the manually adjuste reference
angle while the blue line shows the response. The rising time and overall response time of the
signal (blue line) was very high. The first section matches well because of the slow movement
we made to the slider, but in the last 8 seconds we moved the slider with quick movements
which tracked very poorly. The analysis shows that the feedback loop can be used in a system
where response time isn’t extremely important.

Figure 2

3. Disturbance rejection.

To see the impact disturbance has on the system we set the angle to around 20 degrees and let
the system stabilize. The angle was then changed to around 30 degrees and waited for it to
stabilize. We then held the camera and needle to roughly a 10 degree tilt to allow gravity to
provide disturbance on the system. The system responded quickly upwards and then stabilized
itself to its former position. We then returned the camera and needle to its original position
and watched the system respond quickly downwards and then stabilize itself again. These
experiments showed that the feedback loop works with constant disturbance.
Figure 3

4. Parameter variation.

We doubled the resistance in the circuit in order to variate the parameter and compare the
sensitivity of the old system to the new system. Figure 4 below shows the response before and
after adding the resistance. We were forced to add the resistor during the test so you can see
where there was an unexpected error at around 20 seconds. The amplitude was the same but
adding the extra resistor doubled the time for the system to stabilize. The voltage required
shown in Figure 5 doubles in size as well.

Figure 4 Figure 5

You might also like