Chapter 1 deals with plant process characterization and the PID control of the plant using

computer simulation software. The software being use is LabVIEW. The report will also
present an introduction to a plant setup, wiring and proper operation.

Theory
There are many situations that require some type of servo-control system. This section
reviews the fundamentals of PID controllers.

Proportional-I ntegral-Derivative (PI D) Control
PID controllers are commonly used to regulate the time-domain behavior of many
different types of dynamic plants. These controllers are extremely popular because they
can usually provide good closed-loop response characteristics, can be tuned using
relatively simple design rules, and are easy to construct using either analog or digital
components. Consider the feedback system architecture that is shown in Figure 1.1,
where it can be assumed that the plant is a DC motor whose shaft position must be
accurately regulated.


r(t) y(t)
e(t)





Figure 1.1: PID control

The PID controller K(s) is placed in the forward path, so that its output becomes the
voltage applied to the motors armature. The feedback signal is either an angular shaft
position or velocity, measured by a potentiometer or a tachometer, respectively. In the
block diagram, these transducer dynamics are in the feedback path. The output position
signal y(t), or velocity signal, is summed with a reference signal r (t), or command signal,
K(S) DC motor
Sensor Dynamics

CHAPTER 1: Plant Process Characterization and PID

2
to form the error signal e (t). Finally, the error signal is the input to the PID controller.
The concept for this closed-loop system is simple. The sensor, which is attached to the
motor shaft, provides a voltage that is compared to the reference voltage r (t) at the
summer. When this error signal is non-zero, there will be an input to the controller, and
hence some action taken by the DC motor. Once the sensor signal is equal to the
reference signal, there is no input to the controller and no voltage applied to the motor,
causing the motor to stop. However, this simple explanation does not provide us a with a
method whereby the motor position can be brought to an exact position (with absolute
accuracy) and does not tell us how to make the motor perform this positioning task as
quickly as possible.

Before examining the input-output relationships and design methods for the PID
controller, it is helpful to review typical characteristics observed for the velocity response
of a DC motor to a step voltage input. Different characteristics of the motor response
(steady-state error, peak overshoot, rise time, etc.) are controlled by selection of the three
gains that modify the PID controller dynamics. This is discussed in detail below. The
PID controller is defined by the following relationship between the controller input
e(t) and the controller output v(t) that is applied to the motor armature:


Taking the Laplace transform of this equation gives the transfer function K(s):



This transfer function clearly illustrates the proportional, integral, and derivative gains
that make up the PID compensation. Select new definitions for the gain terms according
to:

dt
t de
K d e K t E K t V
d i P
) (
) ( ) ( ) (
0

+ + =

) (
) (
) (
) ( S K
S
K
K
s E
s V
s K
d
i
p
+ + = =
K K
p
=
i
i
T
K
K =
d d
KT K =
3

Then, the transfer function can be expressed to easily show that the PID controller leads
to a pole at the origin of the Laplace plane and design freedom over two zeros:


The Vi used for this laboratory contains the capability of varying the control inputs (Kp,
Ki and Kd). It also can make the system an open loop control or close loop control. A
close loop control system is a system that can control an output with feedback, thus
giving the system a real time control over the response of the system, as shown in figure
1.2.

Figure 1.2: PID controller using LabVIEW (closed loop)

An open loop control system is a system that has no type of real time control for the
plants output, due to there being no feedback in the system. Figure 1.3 graphical
represents the open loop system.

)
1 1
( ) (
2
d i d
d
T T
S
T
S
S
KT
s K + + = =
4
Figure 1.3: PID controller using LabVIEW (open loop)

The Vi can also vary the damping ratio and natural frequency. The damping ratio is
defined as the ratio of the damping of the system over the critic damping, where critical
damping is the point were you have the fastest response without overshoot and ringing.
The natural frequency is the frequency of the system or better known as its resonance
frequency. When the damping ratio is greater than one, we can see the output with the
slowest response, known as over damping. When the damping ration is one, we can see
the output with the fastest response without overshooting and ringing, known as critical
damping. When the damping ratio is between one and zero, we can see a fast response
with overshooting and ringing, this is called under damping. The transfer function of the
system is used as the basic characteristic of the plant, as shown in figure 4. The transfer
function is used to understand the plant in used.


Figure 1.4: Transfer function of the plant

Discussion
In the initial tasks of this lab we simulated a basic transfer function with the PID
LabVIEW Vi. We then observed the response of the system in an open loop
configuration. Our next few tasks consisted of making a closed loop system, and then by
manipulating the PID variables of the system while keeping the Transfer function
5
constant, we acquired our results. We observed that this system setup allowed the
response to be conformed to an ideal response without having to vary the transfer
function.

For the lab we were first given a graph with the response curve of some unknown transfer
function. We initially made sure to set the P=1, I=0, and D=0. This was to insure that
there would be no PID control influence upon the response curve. Figure 1.5 shows the
open loop response that we were trying to conform our system to.

1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
y(t) y(t)
u(t) u(t)
e(t) e(t)
r(t) r(t)

Figure 1.5: Open loop response

By doing this we could then determine the transfer function of the unknown system.
Once the PID variables were set we then varied only the damping ratio number till our
6
response resembled what is seen in figure 1.5. Graphically we achieved a fairly accurate
representation of the unknown curve. Our response is shown in figure 1.6.
Figure 1.6: Our response

Once this response was displayed on the graph we then considered the transfer function
in figure 1.4 to be the transfer function of the unknown response. If you carefully
observe the responses in figures 1.5 and 1.6 you can see that both of there rise time
resemble one another. One problem with the results is the fact that the resolution
between the desired response and our response is considerably different. This variance
unfortunately will bring some percentage of error into our system's result, therefore the
Zn= 38.00 are not completely accurate. Once the desired response was achieved we then
closed the system loop and observed that our response had changed. The responses rise
time had decreased and introduced a fairly large overshoot in to the system, yet the
7
overall amplitude of the response curve had been impeded. This result came from the
introduction of the force feedback into the system, also known as closed loop control.
Figure 1.7 is a display of the closed loop influence on the response curve.


Figure 1.7: Closed loop response

Finally by randomly manipulating the PID variables, of the closed loop system, we
achieved our desired curve. Figure 1.6, which is the given response, and figure 1.7,
which is our created response, and is an acceptable representation of one another. Again
there remains a resolution discrepancies between the two therefore we can not say are
results are 100% accurate, but our results are within acceptable tolerances
8

.
1.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2
y(t) y(t)
u(t) u(t)
e(t) e(t)
r(t) r(t)

Figure 1.8: The given response


Figure 1.9: The response
9


Figure 1.10: RPM Vs. Vout of system

Figure 1.11 Vin ramp Vs. Vout response


Conclusion
In conclusion we observed that both the transfer function and the PID control could have
a large influence upon the response of the system. More specifically the transfer
functions damping ratio can be adjusted so in crease of decrease the response curves rise
RPM vs. Vout of system
y = 822.57x + 41.566
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 1 2 3 4
Vout of system
P
R
M

o
f

s
y
s
t
e
m
RPM
Linear (RPM)
Vin ramp Vs. Vout response
y = 0.0899x - 0.0642
y = 0.3415x - 7E-14
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30 40
time sec
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
OUTPUT
INPUT
Linear (OUTPUT)
Linear (INPUT)
10
time. From our observation was concluded that as the Zn increases the rise time
decreases and as the Zn decreases to one the rise time increase to a point. Once in that
critically damped state the PID controls can be used to fine-tune the response. The P:
proportional directly multiplies the amplitude to the response, while the integral and
differential work against on another to fine-tune the shape of the curve. Over all we
considered the lab to be very informative. Our only suggestion is that the lab needs to
address the resolution difference so that we can increase the accuracy of our results.