Industrial Control and Automation Assignment
Uploaded by
Mengistu TarkoIndustrial Control and Automation Assignment
Uploaded by
Mengistu TarkoIndustrial Control and automation Assignment
GROUP MEMBER ID NO
AMI BIRHANU UGR/9923/13
HELEN GIRMA UGR/4633 /13
MENGSTU TARKO UGR/0404/13
Submitted to Mr Teshome
Submission Date 4/22/2025
1)
1)
Characterstics Open loop P-closed loop P-closed loop P-closed loop
system (Kc=10) (Kc=20) (kc=30)
Rise time Relatively low 1.2s 0.67s 0.47s
Settling time 0.8s 0.8s 0.8s 0.8
Steadystate 0.95 0.67 0.5 0.4
error
Overshoot 0% 12.5% 19.1% 4.3%
The graph clearly shows:
1. Open-Loop Step Response:
o Displayed at the top, this response is characterized by a slow rise to the steady-
state value, indicating a significant steady-state error and poor performance.
2. P Closed-Loop Responses:
o Configuration (Kc = 10): Shows a quicker rise compared to the open-loop
response, but the steady-state error is still noticeable.
o Configuration (Kc = 20): Exhibits an improved response with quicker rise and
reduced steady-state error.
o Configuration (Kc = 30): Demonstrates the fastest response with minimal
steady-state error, indicating that higher proportional gain improves performance.
Performance Metrics Comparison
1. Rise Time:
o Open-Loop: Long rise time due to lack of feedback.
o (Kc = 10): Reduced rise time, indicating a better response.
o (Kc = 20): Further reduced rise time, showing increased responsiveness.
o (Kc = 30): Quickest rise time, reflecting strong proportional control.
2. Settling Time:
o Open-Loop: Extended settling time, with the response taking longer to stabilize.
o (Kc = 10): Shorter settling time than the open loop but still significant.
o (Kc = 20): Even shorter settling time, showing improved stability.
o (Kc = 30): Fastest settling time, indicating rapid stabilization.
3. Overshoot:
o Open-Loop: High overshoot due to no damping.
o (Kc = 10): Moderate overshoot, still present but reduced.
o (Kc = 20): Lower overshoot, showing better control.
o (Kc = 30): Very low overshoot, indicating effective response management.
4. Steady-State Error:
o Open-Loop: Significant steady-state error.
o (Kc = 10): Reduced steady-state error, but noticeable.
o (Kc = 20): Further reduced steady-state error.
o (Kc = 30): Minimal steady-state error, demonstrating enhanced control.
Conclusion
The comparison demonstrates that the proportional (P) closed-loop configurations significantly
improve system performance compared to the open-loop system. Higher proportional gains lead
to faster rise times, shorter settling times, reduced overshoot, and lower steady-state errors. This
analysis highlights the importance of tuning the proportional gain Kc to achieve optimal
control system performance.
2) Open-Loop System:
Rise Time: Relatively slow due to overdamped nature.
Settling Time: ≈0.8seconds.
Steady-State Error (unit step): ≈0.95 (large).
Overshoot: 0% (overdamped).
I Closed-Loop System:
Introducing integral control eliminates steady-state error for a step input (system becomes
type 1). However, it typically slows down the response (increases rise and settling times)
and can introduce overshoot due to the increased system order and potential for
instability.
TI=100:
Rise Time: Likely slower than open loop.
Settling Time: Likely larger than open loop.
Steady-State Error: 0 (eliminated).
Overshoot: May have overshoot (introduced).
TI=150:
Rise Time: Likely even slower than TI=100.
Settling Time: Likely even larger than TI=100.
Steady-State Error: 0 (eliminated).
Overshoot: May have more or less overshoot than TI=100 (complex relationship).
TI=200:
Rise Time: Likely slowest among the I controlled systems.
Settling Time: Likely largest among the I controlled systems.
Steady-State Error: 0 (eliminated).
Overshoot: Overshoot characteristics depend on the specific pole locations of the third-
order system and are not easily predictable without further analysis.
Therefore the integral controller effectively eliminates the steady-state error for a step
input, which is a significant improvement over the open-loop system. However, this
comes at the cost of a potentially slower transient response (increased rise and settling
times) and the introduction of overshoot, which was absent in the open-loop system.
Increasing TI(decreasing the integral gain) generally tends to slow down the response
further.
3. The results are illustrated in the provided graph, which compares the responses of both
systems.
Step Responses
Open-Loop Response (Blue Line):
o The open-loop system exhibits a gradual rise to the steady-state value, showing a
relatively slow response.
Closed-Loop Response (Red Line):
o The closed-loop system, enhanced by the feedback gain, demonstrates a quicker
rise and reaches the steady-state value faster than the open-loop system.
Performance Metrics
The following performance metrics were calculated for both systems:
1. Rise Time:
o Open-Loop: The time taken to rise from 10% to 90% of the final value is longer,
indicating a slower response.
o Closed-Loop: The rise time is significantly reduced due to the feedback, allowing
for a faster transition to the steady state.
2. Settling Time:
o Open-Loop: The settling time is extended, meaning the system takes longer to
stabilize within a specified error band.
o Closed-Loop: The closed-loop system shows a shorter settling time, reflecting
improved stability and responsiveness due to the feedback mechanism.
3. Overshoot:
o Open-Loop: The open-loop system may exhibit more overshoot as it lacks
damping from feedback.
o Closed-Loop: The closed-loop system typically demonstrates reduced overshoot,
indicating better control over the response and less tendency to exceed the steady
state.
Steady-State Error
The steady-state error for the open-loop system is generally higher compared to the
closed-loop system, which approaches the desired output more effectively due to the
feedback control.
4.
1. Open-Loop System:
o Rise Time: Longer, indicating a slow response.
o Settling Time: Extended, showing it takes time to stabilize.
o Overshoot: Higher, as there is no damping mechanism.
o Steady-State Error: Present, indicating the system does not reach the desired
output.
2. PID Closed-Loop System (a)
o Rise Time: Reduced compared to the open-loop response.
o Settling Time: Shorter, reflecting improved stabilization.
o Overshoot: Moderate, as the proportional gain is high, but the lack of derivative
control may lead to some overshoot.
o Steady-State Error: Lower than the open-loop due to integral action.
3. PID Closed-Loop System (b)
o Rise Time: Further reduced, indicating a very responsive system.
o Settling Time: Even shorter, showing enhanced stability.
o Overshoot: Lower than in (a), as the derivative term helps dampen the response.
o Steady-State Error: Minimal, benefiting from both integral and proportional
control.
4. PID Closed-Loop System (c)
o Rise Time: Quick, benefiting from the high derivative gain.
o Settling Time: Shortest among the PID configurations, indicating rapid
stabilization.
o Overshoot: Very low, as the derivative action effectively controls overshoot.
o Steady-State Error: Very small, indicating excellent control of the steady state.
2)
Using matlab to verify
By running this code we check that at least one root has a positive real part for each Kc.
Kc = [9, 11, 13];
for k = 1:length(Kc)
kc = Kc(k);
coeffs = [0.5 2 2.5 1+3*kc];
r = roots(coeffs);
fprintf('Kc = %d, Roots: %s\n', kc, mat2str(r));
end
For part 1
% Test for Kc = 0, 1, 2, 3.5, 4, 5
for Kc = [0, 1, 2, 3.5, 4, 5]
p = roots([1 3 3 1+2*Kc]);
disp(['Kc = ', num2str(Kc), ', Roots: ', mat2str(p)]);
end
Result negative real part only from 0 to 4.
For part 2
tauD = linspace(0, 1, 100);
for i = 1:length(tauD)
coeffs = [1 3 3+20*tauD(i) 21];
r = roots(coeffs);
if all(real(r)<0)
stable_tauD(i) = tauD(i);
else
stable_tauD(i) = NaN;
end
end
fprintf('Stable tau_D range: %.2f to %.2f\n', min(stable_tauD(~isnan(stable_tauD))),
max(stable_tauD(~isnan(stable_tauD))));
