Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 1

Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control
REV 3: Þx I-source references; revise ckt to adjust overall gain rather than P separately: add annotating ”balloons”
to Þgures, & explan. of D gain; March 14, 2002

Re: active Þlters: Chapter : 5.01 - 5.10: skim most of this, but read closely the sections that
concern the active Þlter you will build: the passive and VCVS: 5.01, 5.03-5.06 and Þrst pages of
5.07

1 Introduction
Today’s lab invites you to look at two useful circuits that ßirt with instability. In the Þrst, the
Þlter circuit, the stability issue is incidental; in the PID circuit (where the circuit response includes
“proportional,” “integral,” and “derivative” of the circuit error) , stability is the central issue.
The second circuit, the PID, will give you a chance to apply several subcircuits that you have met
before (integrator, differentiator, summing circuit, push-pull brought within feedback loop), plus a
new one (differential ampliÞer). This exercise provides a Þrst chance to use multiple op amps in
one larger circuit.

2 An Active Filter: VCVS (45 min.)

Figure 1: Two forms of a 2-pole active low-pass Þlter

Both circuits, above, work fundamentally the same way, feeding back a boost in a frequency band
around f3dB . We ask you to build the right-hand circuit, because this form—which the Text
calls“VCVS”—is easy to build and then easy to tune. The VCVS form lets us use just one R value
and one C, and then vary the positive feedback by adjusting the gain of the op amp circuit:

2.1 “Flattest” Response: versus passive RC

Wire the circuits below, with RGAIN = 4.7k. If you have a resistor substitution box available, use
it to form the 4.7k feedback resistor.
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 2

Figure 2: VCVS: a particular implementation, with cascaded RC’s added for comparison

ConÞrm that the circuit behaves like a low-pass; note f3dB , and note attenuation at 2 X f3dB and
4 X f3dB . We hope you will Þnd the“-12dB/octave” slope that is characteristic of a“2-pole” Þlter,
though you won’t see that full steepness in the Þrst octave above f3dB . We hope, also, that the
simple cascaded RC looks wishy-washy next to this improved Þlter. The simple RC and the active
Þlter should show the same f3dB .
Presumably you have been watching the outputs of both Þlters on the scope, as you drive the two
Þlters with a common input. For a vivid display of the two Þlters’ frequency-responses you will
want to sweep frequencies automatically. You have done this before, using the
function-generator’s sweep function, but this time you must do the task a little differently from
the way you did it earlier. This time, you cannot use the X-Y display mode. Instead, use a
conventional sweep (this allows you to watch two output signals, not just one), while triggering
the scope on the function generator’s RAMP output (use the steep falling edge of the ramp).

2.2 Effects of Varying the amount of Positive Feedback: other Þlter Shapes
Once you have a pretty display of a ßat passband, try altering the Þlter shape: in place of the
4.7k feedback resistor (which helps deÞne the op amp circuit’s gain), try the following values (this
change of gain is very easy if you are using a resistor substitution box). The 4.7k is shown again,
in the table below, to make the point that 4.7k provides an intermediate behavior.
Filter Type R2 Gain
best time delay (Bessel) 1.8k 1.3
ßattest (Butterworth) 4.7k 1.6
steep, 2dB ripple (Chebyshev) 7.5k 2.1
nasty peak (no one claims this one!) 12K almost 3
OSCILLATOR! 15K >3

The last case, in which we deliberately overdo the positive feedback, is pointless in a Þlter—but for
today’s lab it may be useful: it reminds us of the boundary we are moving toward in this lab,
where positive feedback becomes harmful (a page or so farther, just below).

2.3 Step Response; waveform distortion

(Text sec. 5.05, esp. pp.271-272, re: Bessel Þlter)
Watch the circuit’s response to a 200Hz square wave, and note particularly the overshoot that
grows with circuit gain. If you are feeling energetic, you might test also the claim that the tamest
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 3

of the Þlters (with R = 1.8k), which shows the best step response, also shows the least waveform
distortion. The R=7.5k Þlter should show most distortion. Try a triangle as test waveform. The
contrast will not be very striking: we saw only a little distortion, from the worst of the Þlters.

3 PID Motor Control

The task we undertake here looks simpler than it is. All we aim to do is control the position of a
DC motor’s shaft, by letting it drive a potentiometer and feeding back the pot’s voltage. Here’s
the scheme:

Figure 3: Basic Motor-Position Control Loop: Very Simple!

What could be simpler? Not much, on paper. But the challenge turns out to lie in keeping the
circuit stable. The issue is fundamentally the same as the one you met in Lab 10b, when you
noticed that a low-pass in an op-amp’s feedback loop could turn negative feedback into positive, if
we weren’t careful. The problem arose from the fact that an op amp provides -90 degrees of phase
shift, so that just 90 degrees more can get us into trouble. Another way to say that–and a way
that may be more appropriate to today’s circuit–is to note that the op amp acts like an
integrator, above a few tensof Hz. This integration effected by the naked op amp results from the
internal “compensation” that rolls off its gain so as to keep the feedback circuit stable.
In today’s circuit we are stuck with a similar -90 degree shift, or an integration. This time, it
comes not from the op amp. We avoid that effect by not using the “naked” op amp, and so can
hide from its phase shift. Instead, the integration comes from the nature of the stuff we are
putting inside the loop: a motor whose shaft position we are sensing. We drive the motor with a
voltage, which controls its speed; it spins for a while; the position it achieves is the time integral
of the spin rate. That last proposition means we are stuck with an integration inside the loop.
To make this last point graphically vivid, here’s a scope image showing how the position-pot
responds to a square-wave input to the motor. The triangular output looks a lot like what you
saw in Lab 9’s integrator, doesn’t it? –apart from the inversion that Lab 9’s op-amp integrator
inserted.

Figure 4: Motor-drive to Position-sensing Potentiometer forms an INTEGRATOR

Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 4

Here’s a block diagram of our feedback scheme, with the variables indicated, as they work their
way around the loop. We’ll show it Þrst in the more formal control-loop form used in our class
discussion:

Figure 5: Loop to control motor shaft position: block diagram in form used in class discussion
Now, here’s the same diagram redrawn to look more like the op amp loops that we are
accustomed to seeing:

Figure 6: Loop to control motor shaft position: block diagram in form familiar from op amp discussions

Stability We will Þnd that we can make the circuit at least marginally stable, simply by
keeping the gain of the circuit low enough: more precisely, we’ll keep the loop gain, AB low
enough. In Lab 10b, we saw the same pattern–in which stability improved when loop-gain was
reduced ; in those Lab 10b experiments, we could not control the gain of the op amp (“A”), so we
varied the fraction fed back (“B”).
Just below is the circuit where we met the effect: capacitive load could make the circuit unstable,
but cutting gain (“B”) could restore stability.
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 5

Figure 7: Lab 10b circuit: diminishing signal fed back was able to stabilize circuit despite C-load
The signal fed back was shrinking as its phase shift was growing more dangerous (approaching the
-90 degrees that could bring on oscillation). So, when we attenuated it further (with a voltage
divider, in exercise 10b-2), we were able to keep our circuit stable.
Today, we again regulate loop gain (AB ), but we will do this, Þrst, by varying “A,” the “ampliÞed
error” term, rather than “B”. (We will be able to vary “A” because we replace the usual
very-high-gain op amp with a pseudo-op amp made from a differential amp followed by a gain
block). We will not play with “B,” the fraction fed back.
Once this “P”-only loop is wired, we will try gradually increasing the gain –much as in the
active-Þlter case. We should Þnd the circuit fairly stable for low gains, then as we increase gain
we should begin to see overshoot and ringing, evidence of the circuit’s restlessness; at still higher
gains, the circuit should oscillate continuously.

Figure 8: Proportional-only drive will cause some overshoot; gain will affect this
At the end of these notes we attach some scope images describing just such responses to
variations in simple “proportional” gain.

3.1 Motor Driver

Let’s start with a subcircuit that is familiar: a high-current driver, capable of driving a
substantial current (up to a couple of hundred milliamps). We’ll use the power transistors you’ve
met before: 2N3055 (npn) and 2N2955 (pnp). The motor presents the kind of troublesome load
likely to induce parasitic oscillations, as in the last exercise of Lab 10b. We need, therefore, the
protections that we invoked there: not only decoupling of supplies, but also both a snubber and
high-frequency feedback that bypasses the troublesome phase-shifting elements.
We are trying hard, here, to decouple one part of the circuit from the others: the 15µF caps
should prevent supply disturbances from upsetting the target signal. Similar caps at the ends of
the motor-driven potentiometer aim to stabilize the feedback signal. We also suggest that you use
an external power supply to provide the motor’s ±15V supplies; we do this not for decoupling,
but because the motor’s maximum current exceeds the breadboard’s 100mA rated output, and
might have disturbed those supplies even if we decouple fanatically. The external supply can
provide the necessary current.
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 6

Figure 9: Motor-driver
Wire up the two potentiometers, as well. The resistors at the ends of the two
potentiometers–6.8k resistors on input, 4.7k resistors on the motor pot–restrict input and
output range to a range of about ± 10V, so as to keep all signals within a range that keeps the op
amps happy. The difference in R values makes sure that the input range cannot exceed the
achievable output range.
You can test this motor driver by varying the input voltage, and watching the voltage out of the
motor-driven pot. Any VIN more than a few tenths of a volt should evoke a change of output
voltage. You will hear the motor whirring, and will see the shaft slowly turning (the motor drive
is geared down through a two-stage worm- and conventional- gearing scheme). A clever clutch
scheme allows the motor to slip harmlessly, when the pot reaches either end of its range. If the
signs of VIN and the change in VOU T do not match, then be sure to interchange leads of one of
the pots, so as to make them match. We don’t want a hidden inversion, here, to upset our scheme
when we later close the loop.
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 7

3.2 Pseudo Op Amp

Now we do a strange thing: we use a pair of op amps to make a rather-crummy op-amp like
circuit. Here is our “pseudo op amp.”

Figure 10: Differential Amp Followed by Inversion and a Gain Stage

The Þrst stage you recognize as a standard differential amp. It shows unity gain. The second
stage simply inverts1 ; the third stage seems to be doing no more than undoing the inversion of the
preceding circuit. That is true, at this stage; but we include this circuit because soon we will use
it, fed by two more inputs, as a summing circuit. So used, it will put together the three elements
of the PIDcontroller: Proportional, Integral, and Derivative.
This circuit is a differential ampliÞer, with gain that is adjustable, but never anything like so high
as what we are accustomed to in op amps. We need this modest gain, and we need a virtue of this
simple circuit: no appreciable phase-shift between input and output. Both characteristics contrast
with those of an ordinary op amp, as you know: the ordinary op amp shows Þxed, high gain, and
integrator behavior beginning at 10 or 20 Hz. We cannot afford to include such an integrator in
our loop, because–as we have noted above–we are stuck with another integration, and two
integrations in series would get us into trouble, turning negative feedback into positive.
We suggest that you use a resistor substitution box to set the summing circuit’s gain. Set the
gain at 100 (RF EEDBACK in summing circuit = 1M), and see whether a common-mode signal–a
volt or so applied from the input pot, applied common-mode to both inputs
simultaneously–evokes the output you would expect. (Do you expect zero output?) Then ground
one input, so as to apply a “pseudo-differential” signal, and see if you get the expected gain of
-10, in response to a change at the input pot.
A DVM may be handier than a scope, at this point, to conÞrm that the output of this chain of
three op-amp circuits shows a pseudo-differential gain of +10, while you drive the input with the
input potentiometer voltage. When you Þnish this test, leave the output voltage close to zero
volts.
1
This inversion is included so as to let this signal share a polarity with the “Derivative” and “Integral” signals,
soon to be generated; these signals will come from circuits that necessarily invert.
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 8

3.3 Drive the Motor

You have already tested the motor driver. Let’s now check the three new stages–the pseudo op
amp–by letting its output feed the motor-driver. ConÞrm that you can make the motor spin one
way, then the other, by adjusting the input pot slightly above and then below zero volts. (The
motor-driven pot fortunately can take the pot to its limit without damaging pot or motor: the
motor continues to spin, once the pot has hits its stop; the motor’s gearing has been cleverly
designed so as to permit this slippage.)

Figure 11: Try making motor spin, to test the diff amp, gain stage, sum and motor drive

3.4 Close the Loop

Now reduce the gain, using the R substitution box : set gain to about 50 (RSum = 470k). Replace
the ground connection to the inverting input of our “pseudo op amp” with the voltage from the
output potentiometer.

Figure 12: The loop closed, at last: Proportional only

Watch Vin on one channel of the scope, Voutput−pot on the other channel. If a digital scope is
available, this is a good time to use it, because a very-slow sweep rate is desirable: as low as 0.5
second- or even 1 second -per division.
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 9

Manual or Function-Generator Steps? A function generator, providing a small square wave

(±0.5V, say), at the lowest available frequency (about 0.2Hz) can provide your test input.
Alternatively, you can manually apply a “step input” from the input pot: a step of perhaps a volt.
The output pot should follow–though showing a few cycles of overshoot and damped oscillation.
A second way to test the circuit’s response is to leave the input constant, then force the pot away
from its resting position, simply by turning the knob of the output pot. Let go, and the knob
should return to its initial position–but showing some overshoot and oscillation, as when the
change was applied at the input pot.
Start with a very low gain, which should make the circuit stable, even in this P-only form. Try
RSum = 100k; now use the substitution box to dial up increasing gain. At RSum = 220k we saw
some overshoot and a cycle or two of oscillation. That oscillation is evident in the motion of the
motor and pot shaft; if this shaft were controlling, say, the rudder of an airplane, this effect would
be pretty unsettling. The circuit works–but it would be nice if we could get it to settle faster
and to overshoot less.
Increasing the gain, at RSum = 680k, we were able to make out several cycles of oscillation (the
bigger, uglier trace shows the motor drive voltage; there the oscillation is more obvious):

Figure 13: P only: gain is high enough to take us to the edge of oscillation
With a little more gain (RSum = 1M , in our case) and the application of either a step change at
the input, or a displacement of the output pot by hand we saw a continuous oscillation. Find the
gain that sets your circuit oscillating, and then note the period of oscillation, at the lowest gain
that will give sustained oscillation. We will call this the period of “natural oscillation,” and soon
we will use it to scale the remedies that we’ll apply against oscillation.

4 Adding a Derivative of the Error

Well, of course we can get it to settle faster; we can improve performance. (If we couldn’t, would
the name of this sort of controller include the “I” and “D” in its name, ‘PID”?)
We can speed up the settling markedly, and even crank up the “P” gain (“proportional”) a good
deal once we have added this derivative. Thinking of the stability problem, as we did for op amps
generally, as a problem of taming phase shifts of sinusoids, we can see that inserting a derivative
into the feedback loop will tend to undo an integration, at least in some degree.
The integrations are the hazard, here: one is built in, the translation from motor rotation to motor
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 10

position. Additional integrations lagging phase shifts can carry us to the deadly minus-180-degree
shift that turns nice feedback into nasty, and brings on the oscillation you have just seen.

4.1 Derivative Circuit

The standard op amp differentiator shown below can contribute its output to the summing
circuit. Here, we show the entire prior circuit, with the differentiator added. Its gain is rolled off
at about 160Hz.

Figure 14: Derivative added to Loop

How Much Derivative?

Our goal, in adding derivative, is to cancel the extra phase shift otherwise caused by a low-pass
effect that brings on instability. How do we know at what frequency this trouble occurs? We got
that information by looking at the frequency (or period) of oscillation, back in section 3.4, when
you gradually increased the P-only gain till you got either long-settling disturbances or a
continuous oscillation, in response to a disturbance. When we did this, we got a period of roughly
0.3 second.
This instability results from the phase shift caused by a second low-pass or integration, in
addition to the implicit integration that occurs because of our feeding back pot position, an
integration of pot rotation rate, the characteristic that our driver controls. We want to inject
enough derivative so as to undo or cancel this second low-pass effect, thus avoiding the dangerous
phase shift that would result.
Our goal is to arrange things so that the derivative contribution, D, is equal to the P contribution,
at the frequency where trouble otherwise would occur. The D should keep the loop stable, until
yet another low-pass cuts in; at this cut-in frequency, we should have made sure the loop gain is
too low to permit an oscillation (less than unity).
Let’s start by reminding ourselves what we mean by differentiator “gain;” then we’ll calculate
what RC we need for stability. Gain for a differentiator, by deÞnition is

VOU T /(dVIN /dt)

Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 11

. We know that
VOUT = I × RF eedback
and this I is just .
C × dVIN /dt.
So
R × C × dVIN /dt
VOU T /(dVIN /dt) = = RC.
dVIN /dt
So, RC deÞnes the differentiator’s gain. A differentiator’s output amplitude grows linearly with
frequency; VOUT , in other words, for a sinusoid is proportional to ω:

VOU TDeriv = ωRC

We want this VOUTDeriv to equal VOU TP roportional –which is just equal to VIN (“VIN ”, to both “P”
and D” circuits, is the Error signal: the output of the diff amp).
If we set these quantities equal, then
ωRC = 1
2πf RC = 1
RC = 1/(2πf ).
In words, this suggests that RC should be about 1/6 of the period of natural oscillation. In our
case, where TOscillation = 0.3s, we’d set RC to about 0.05 s, or a bit less.2 If we use a convenient
C value of 0.1 µF, the our observations (fnatural−osc ≈ 3Hz) seem to call for R of about 0.5M.3
Let’s make this value adjustable, though–because we want to be able to try the effect of more or
less than the usual derivative weight: if you have a second resistor substitution box, use it to set
the differentiator’s gain (RC ). Otherwise, use a 1M variable resistor. Watching the position of the
rotator will let you estimate R to perhaps 20 percent; the midpoint value certainly is 500k, and
700k is close to the 3/4-rotation position. The differentiator’s output goes into the summing
circuit installed earlier, through a resistor chosen to give this “D” term weight equal to the “P”’s.
We hope you will Þnd this “D” to be strong and effective medicine. Once it has tamed your
circuit’s response–eliminating the overshoot and ringing–crank up the “P” gain, taking it to the
gain that just set off oscillation in the “P-only” circuit. Is the circuit stable? If not, try more “D.”
Does an excess of “D” cause trouble? Incidentally, you can also use the scope image’s time-domain
image of the circuit’s response to judge whether you have too much or too little D: too little, and
you’ll see remnants of the overshoot you saw with “P-only”; too much D, and you’ll see an RC-ish
curve in the output voltage as it approaches the target: it chickens out as it gets close.

Switch The toggle switch across the feedback resistor will let us cut “D” in and out; the switch
seems preferable to relying, say, on a very-large variable R to feed the summing circuit. We Þnd it
hard to keep track of multiple pot settings, to know whether we’re contributing “D” or not. A
switch makes the ON/OFF condition easier to note.
2
See., e.g., Tietsche and Schenk (sp?)..... A less formal approach appears in St.Clair..... From his website, ...., one
can download an interesting simulator that allows one to try his rules. See also, [Exeter, UK simulator]
3
We must confess that our circuit worked better with about half this “D” gain; we hope you’ll come closer to the
target.
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 12

4.2 Add Integral

Adding the third term, the “I” of PID can drive residual error (a difference between the input pot
voltage and the output pot voltage) to zero. In today’s circuit, that residual error is hard to see
on the scope, so adding “I” will not reward you as adding “D” did. Your best hope will come if
you cut the “P” gain very low: try RSum = 100k, so that the circuit feedback ought to tolerate a
residual error, when not fed an “I” of the error. If you have been using a function generator to
provide step inputs to your circuit, now replace that signal source with the manually-adjusted pot
input. Slow the scope sweep rate, to a rate that permits you to see the multi-second effect of the
integration.

Figure 15: Integral added, to complete the PID loop

If you are using a digital scope, you will be able to watch input (“Target”), output (“Motor
pot”)and Integrator signals, after a step input applied from your input potentiometer. If you are
patient, you can even make out the effects of the motor and pot’s “sticktion”: the motor and pot
do not move smoothly in response to a slowly-changing input (the I term). Instead, it fails to
move till I reaches some minimal level; then output voltage jumps to a new level, and waits for
another shove. You can see these effects in some of the scope images attached at the end of these
lab notes.

...but Stability may suffer It sounds dangerous, doesn’t it?–tacking an integral term when
integration, plus other lagging phase shifts, are just what threatens the circuit’s stability. It is
dangerous, as you can conÞrm by overdoing the “I”. You should be able to evoke continuous
oscillation, as in the dark days before you knew about the stabilizing effect of “D”!
Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 13

Scope Images: Effect of Increasing Gain, in P-only loop

Figure 16: Increasing P-only gain brings increasing overshoot

Lab 11b: More Op Amp Applications: Active Filter; PID Motor Control 14

Figure 17: Increasing P-only gain, taken to brink of oscillation; and effect of integration term
lb11b Mar02.tex; March 14, 2002