MECH2006Dynamics and Control

DC2Analogue Servo System

Abdul Latif Ismail

March 17, 2013

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Contents
1 Summary
2 Results
2.1 Experiment 1
2.2 Experiment2 .
2.3 Experiment 3
2.4 Experiment 4

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

3 Calculations and Discussion

3.1 Derivation of the transfer function of the motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Time Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Calculation of T , km and kg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Potentiometer Gain k3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Overall transfer function relating Vi to Vo and expressions for n , , Tp and
percentage overshoot in terms of k3 , km , P1 and T for the proportional controller
3.6 Relationship of n , , Tp and percentage overshoot on varying P1 . . . . . . . . .
3.7 Critically damped system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.1 Theoretical value for P1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.2 Experimentally value for P1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8 Can the design criteria be met? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9 Exploration in the sensitivity of Tp and percentage overshoot to change in P1
and P2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.10 Optimum P1 and P2 combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.11 Transfer function of Vi to Vo and derivation for Tp and percentage overshoot in
terms of k3 , km , P1 , P2 , and T for velocity feedback controller . . . . . . . . . .
3.12 Range of P1 and P2 that satisfy design objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.13 Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Conclusion

1
1
2
2
3
5
5
5
6
8
9
11
13
13
13
14
15
15
16
18
19
19

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Summary

The main objective of this laboratory session was to design a controller for the Puma robot,
which rotates about the zaxis. The main design objective was to reduce the percentage
overshoot to a maximum of 10% and a maximum peak time of 0.8s. The main tasks of this
laboratory session were:
Find the values of T and km
Finding the potentiometer gain k3
Proportional controller
Velocity feedback controller
By following these tasks the design criterion was achieved.

2
2.1

Results
Experiment 1
Table 1: Results from first experiment.
Vi
[V]
0.780
1.902
2.866
4.829
7.829

+
0.976
2.049
2.976
5.073
8.049

Tacho Speed
[rpm]
8.4
19.8
29.3
50.2
80.5

+
7.9
18.8
28.3
48.8
78.6

m
[rad/s]
28.15
66.35
98.19
168.22
269.76

+
26.47
63.00
94.83
163.53
263.39

Vo
[V]
0.829
1.829
2.683
4.610
7.268

+
0.558
1.537
2.366
4.050
6.683

T
[s]
0.302
0.424
0.441
0.436
0.457

+
0.357
0.394
0.424
0.440
0.475

Abdul Latif Ismail

2.2

MECH 2006- DC2

Experiment2
Table 2: Results obtained from second experiment.
p

2.3

[deg]

[rad]

[deg]

[rad]

V
[V]

20
40
60
80
100
120

0.35
0.70
1.05
1.40
1.75
2.09

19
38
58
78
100
112

0.33
0.66
1.01
1.36
1.75
1.95

0.951
2.207
3.208
4.415
5.817
6.56

Experiment 3
Table 3: Results obtained from third experiment.
P1
[%]
20
25
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

Tp
[s]

A
[V]

1.678 0.695
1.434 1.085
1.242 1.244
1.015 1.695
0.881 1.952
0.805 2.171
0.747 2.451
0.705 2.537
0.679 2.561
0.663 2.731

B
[V]

Overshoot
[%]

4.878
4.561
4.866
4.781
4.817
4.878
4.829
4.817
4.854
4.805

14.25
23.79
25.57
35.45
40.52
44.51
50.76
52.67
52.76
56.84

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

(a) P1 =0%

(b) P1 =20%

(c) P1 =25%

(d) P1 =30%

(e) P1 =40%

(f) P1 =50%

(g) P1 =60%

(h) P1 =70%

(i) P1 =80%

(j) P1 =90%

(k) P1 =100%

Figure 1: Graphs of sensitivity of Tp and percentage overshoot with respect to P1 .

2.4

Experiment 4

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

(a) P1 =0%, P2 =0%

(b) P1 =50%, P2 =0%

(c) P1 =100%, P2 =0%

(d) P1 =0%, P2 =50%

(e) P1 =50%, P2 =50%

(f) P1 =100%, P2 =50%

(g) P1 =0%, P2 =100%

(h) P1 =50%, P2 =100%

(i) P1 =100%, P2 =100%

Figure 2: Graphs of sensitivity of Tp and percentage overshoot with respect to P1 and P2 .

Figure 3: Optimum combination of P1 and P2 .

4

Abdul Latif Ismail

3
3.1

MECH 2006- DC2

Calculations and Discussion

Derivation of the transfer function of the motor

For this derivation, the inertia of the motor will be I, the damping b and the torque Q. By
assuming the torque produced by the motor is proportional to the error signal . [1]
Q = k


dm
d2 m
= ID2 + bD m
+b
2
dt
dt
Where m is the motor output. By combing both equations 1 and 2 gives:


k = ID2 + bD m
Q=I

Since the input in this case is Vi , equation 3 can be simplified to:

kVi = ID2 + bD m
m
k
=
2
Vi
ID + bD
As the motor speed is required, equation 5 has to be differentiated:

(1)
(2)

(3)

(4)
(5)

m
Dm
kD
=
=
2
Vi
Vi
ID + bD

(6)

m
k
=
Vi
ID + b

(7)

m
=
Vi

(8)

By diving by the D term:

By dividing by b:

Therefore:

3.2

k
b
ID
b

+1

m
km
=
Vi
1 + TD

(9)

Time Constant

The time constant is a measure of how long it takes a systems output to reach 63.2% of its
peaktopeak value. Therefore by considering the maximum and minimum voltages of the
Tacho output, it is possible to calculate the time constant.
The graphs in figure 4 shows the way in which the output (blue curve) behaves to a square
wave voltage input (red curve). To calculate the time constant, the maximum and minimum
voltages had to be identified. So by looking at both (a) and (b) in figure 4, the maximum and
minimum values are 0.558V and -0.829V respectively. Therefore by considering the difference
between the maximum and minimum, it gives a value of 1.387V. Thus, the time constant has
5

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

(a) Positive

(b) Negative

Figure 4: Print screen of voltage against time at 1V.

to be 63.2% of the peakto peakvalue. Which in this case is 0.877V. Therefore, this difference
has been drawn in both (a) and (b) of figure 4 as shown by the blue line. Now by seeing the
time difference between the step input to reach this voltage difference, two brown vertical lines
have been drawn, which will give the time constant. In this case the time constant was 0.357s
and 0.302s for positive and negative respectively.

3.3

Calculation of T , km and kg

By looking at table 1, the time constants for the input voltage are shown in the last column.
By taking an average of the time constants, T can be obtained. This has been shown in table
4.
By plotting a graph of output velocity m against the input voltage Vi the gain km can be
identified by the gradient of the line.

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Table 4: Table of time constants for Vi
T
[s]
+
0.302 0.357
0.424 0.394
0.441 0.424
0.436 0.440
0.457 0.475

T=0.415s

Figure 5: Graph of motor speed against input voltage.

Therefore the gradient shows the gain km is approximately 33.461 rad/Vs.
By plotting a graph of the tachogenerator output voltage against motor speed m , the tacho
gain kg can be obtained by looking at the gradient of the line.
In this case the kg value obtained is 0.0261 Vs/rad.

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Figure 6: Graph of tacho output voltage against motor speed.

Figure 7: Initial block diagram.

By replacing these variables for the calculated values in figure 7 the following block diagram
will be achieved:

Figure 8: Block diagram with corresponding numerical values.

3.4

Potentiometer Gain k3

By plotting a graph of change in output voltage against thirtytwo times the output motor
angle, the slope will give the gain k3 .
8

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Figure 9: Graph of change in output voltage against thirtytwo time the output angle.
Therefore, by looking at figure 9 the gain k3 is shown to be 0.1069V/rad.

3.5

Overall transfer function relating Vi to Vo and expressions for

n , , Tp and percentage overshoot in terms of k3 , km , P1 and T
for the proportional controller

Figure 10: Block diagram of proportional controller

By looking at figure 10, it can be seen that:
Vo
3.3P1 km k3
=
Vi Vo
D (1 + T D)


3.3P1 km k3
3.3P1 km k3
Vo 1 +
=
Vi
D (1 + T D)
D (1 + T D)

(10)

Vo [D (1 + T D) + 3.3P1 km k3 ] = 3.3P1 km k3 Vi
Vo
3.3P1 km k3
=
2
Vi
T D + D + 3.3P1 km k3

(11)
9

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Since the form required is:

n2
D2 + 2n D + n2

(12)

3.3P1 km k3 T1
Vo
= 2 1
Vi
D + T D + 3.3P1 km k3 T1

(13)

So by dividing by T in equation 11:

Therefore by comparing coefficients of equations 12 and 13, it can be seen that:

3.3P1 km k3
T
r
3.3P1 km k3
n =
T
n2 =

Also:
2n =

(14)

1
T

1
2T n
By using the expression from equation 14, equation 15 can be written as:
r
1
T
=
2T 3.3P1 km k3
=

1
=
2 3.3T P1 km k3

(15)

(16)

Since the expression for Tp is known, the derived terms in equations 14 and 16 can be substituted
to replace n and respectively:

Tp =
(17)
d

Tp = p
n 1 2
r
T

q
Tp =
3.3P1 km k3
1 13.2T P11 km k3
r

T
2 3.3T P1 km k3
Tp =

3.3P1 km k3
13.2T P1 km k3 1
Which gives:
Tp =

2T
13.2T P1 km k3 1

(18)

The equation for percentage overshoot, is given as:

"

Overshoot = 100exp p
%
1 2

(19)

10

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Where A is the peak value, and B is the value at steady state.

Substituting equation 16:

23.3T1P1 km k3
%
Overshoot = 100exp q
1
1 13.2T P1 km k3
Using the same simplification as used between equations 17 and 18 gives:

"
#
3.3T P1 km k3
2
2 3.3T P1 km k3
Overshoot = 100exp
%
13.2T P1 km k3 1
Which gives:


Overshoot = 100exp
%
13.2T P1 km k3 1

3.6

(20)

Relationship of n , , Tp and percentage overshoot on varying

P1

The data gathered in the experiment is shown in table 3.

To identify the sensitivity of n , , Tp and percentage overshoot to P1 a series of graphs have
been drawn to see how each parameter varies with respect to the change in P1 .

Figure 11: Graph of natural frequency n against P1 .

Looking at figure 11, it can be seen that the natural frequencyn is proportional to P1 . By
referring to equation 14, it can be seen that n is a function of P1 . Therefore, increases with
an increasing P1 value. Since the natural frequency n ranges from: 2.38 < n < 5.34, it can
be said that the natural frequency is sensitive to the change in P1 .

11

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Figure 12: Graph of damping ratio against P1 .

By looking at figure 12 it can be seen that the damping ratio decreases with respect
to P1 . This
is because, referring back to equation 16, it can be seen that is a function of 1/ P1 . Therefore
causing it to decay. Also, it can be seen in figure 12 that after a P1 value of approximately 0.55
the decay becomes linear, this could be because of the relationship between n and P1 . The
range of the damping ratio is: 0.51 < < 0.22, which clearly shows that the damping ratio is
very sensitive to the change in P1 .

(a) Theoretical

(b) Experimental

Figure 13: Graph of peak time Tp against P1 .

By looking at figure 13, it can be seen that both the theoretical and experimental graphs look
very similar. Thus resulting that Tp follows the theoretical relationship predicted. This can be
backed up because, at a P1 value of 100%, the theoretical Tp value is approximately 0.6s and
the experimental value is approximately 0.66s, which shows a similarity between the two. In
figure 13 (b) it can also be seen that up to a P1 value of approximately 60%, the Tp reduces
very quickly, whereas after, the Tp reduction is very slow. By looking at the range of the
experimental data, which is: 1.6 < Tp < 0.67s, it can be said that the sensitivity of peak time
Tp to the change in P1 % is relatively high.

12

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

(a) Theoretcial

(b) Experimental

Figure 14: Graph of percentage overshoot against P1 .

Now looking at figure 14, it can be seen that the trend between the theoretical and experimental
graphs is similar, however not as identical to that in figure 13, as there are many anomalies.
These anomalies can be seen very clearly at approximately 25% and 70% of P1 , and can be
caused due to the errors in the apparatus used and human errors. Lastly, looking the experimental percentage overshoot data shown in figure 14, it can be seen that the values range:
14.2 < overshoot < 56.9. Which shows a large sensitivity.

3.7
3.7.1

Critically damped system

Theoretical value for P1

Referring to equation 16, the theoretical P1 for the critical damping ratio can be calculated:
1
=
2 3.3T P1 km k3
Since the numerical values for , T , km and k3 are known, it gives:
1
1=
2 3.3 0.415 P1 33.461 0.1069
P1 =
3.7.2

1
= 0.051 5.1%
4 3.3 0.415 33.461 0.1069

Experimentally value for P1

Looking at figure 15, it can be seen that this graph has been extrapolated to the xaxis, this
is because the equation that was generated by the trend line was:
y = 4 1012 x6 2 109 x5 + 3 107 x4 3 105 x3 + 0.0014x2 0.0442x + 1.0044 (21)
Which implies that the yintercept is approximately 1.0044. This indicates that the critical
damping occurs at approximately 0% P1 value, which is not a true indication of when the
system is critically damped.
13

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Figure 15: Graph of damping ratio against P1 , extrapolated.

Figure 16: Graph of voltage against time, with P1 at 15%.

However, using the data obtained in the laboratory session a graph of 15% P1 was drawn and
is shown in figure 16. Looking at figure 16 it can be seen that this graph is a very good
approximation to a critically damped system. Thus, it can be said that experimentally that
the system is critically damped at a P1 value of 15%. The error produced by this value is
approximately 193.92%.

3.8

Can the design criteria be met?

The main design criteria of this proportional controller:

Percentage overshoot 10%
Tp 0.80s
By looking at figure 17 it can be seen that post 20% P1 , the percentage overshoot will exceed
the criteria. Thus, for the percentage overshoot criteria to be met, P1 has to be less than 20%.
However, the peak time Tp only reaches a value less than 0.8s after a P1 value of approximately
14

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Figure 17: Graph of overshoot and peak time against P1 , superimposed.

60%, which implies that the second criteria where Tp 0.80s can only be achieved after a P1
value of 60%. Therefore, it can be concluded that this proportional controller will not be able
to reach its desired requirements.

3.9

Exploration in the sensitivity of Tp and percentage overshoot to

change in P1 and P2

In this part of the laboratory session, it was required to see how the peak time Tp and percentage
overshoot varied with respect to both P1 and P2 . Graphs of the different combinations have
been shown in figure 2.
In reference to figure 2, the first observation that can be made is that by having P1 at 0%,
and changing P2 it has no effect on the behaviour on the system. However, with an increased
P1 , it can be seen that P2 helps reduce the percentage overshoot of the system. Whereas, P1
increases the percentage overshoot, but helps in reducing Tp of the system.

3.10

Optimum P1 and P2 combination

The graph shown in figure 3, shows the optimum combination that was supposed to meet the
design criteria. The P1 and P2 values selected were 100% and 70%, respectively. However, the
percentage overshoot calculated is approximately 10.5%, which shows that the design criteria
was missed by 5%. This was due to the lack of iterations conducted in the laboratory session.
Whereas, the time Tp produced is approximately 0.6s, which is under the required time.

15

Abdul Latif Ismail

3.11

MECH 2006- DC2

Transfer function of Vi to Vo and derivation for Tp and percentage overshoot in terms of k3 , km , P1 , P2 , and T for velocity
feedback controller

Figure 18: Block diagram for the velocity feedback in a position control system.
Using the block diagram in figure 18, the overall transfer function can be obtained. The
equations that can initially be generated are:
A = Vi Vo

(22)

B =AE

(23)

C=

3.3P1 km
B
D (1 + T D)

(24)

E = P2 kg DC

(25)

Vo = Ck3

(26)

B = Vi Vo P2 kg DC

(27)

Combining equations 22, 23 and 25:

Simplifying equation 26 gives:

C=

Vo
k3

Which can simplify equations 24 and 27 to:

B=

D (1 + T D) Vo

3.3P1 km
k3

B = Vi Vo

P2 kg DVo
k3

(28)
(29)

Equating equations 28 and 29 gives:

D (1 + T D) Vo
P2 kg DVo

= Vi Vo
3.3P1 km
k3
k3
16

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2




D (1 + T D) P2 kg D
+
+ 1 Vo = Vi
3.3P1 km k3
k3


D (1 + T D) + 3.3P1 P2 km kg D + 3.3P1 km k3
Vo = Vi
3.3P1 km k3
Therefore:



3.3P1 km k3
Vo
=
Vi
D (1 + T D) + 3.3P1 P2 km kg D + 3.3P1 km k3


Vo
3.3P1 km k3
=
Vi
T D2 + (3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1) D + 3.3P1 km k3

(30)

Since the form required is the same as that in equation 12:

n2
D2 + 2n D + n2
Equation 30 can be written as:

Vo
=
Vi
D2 +

3.3P1 km k3
T 

3.3P1 P2 km kg +1
D
T

Which shows:

r
n =

Also:

3.3P1 km k3
T

3.3P1 km k3
T

3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1
T
3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1
=
2T n

(31)

(32)

2n =

(33)

Substituting equation 32:

=

3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1
q
2T 3.3P1Tkm k3

3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1

2 3.3T P1 km k3
As seen in equation 17, it can be seen that Tp can be calculated by:
=

Tp =

(34)

p
n 1 2

r
Tp = q
h
i2
3.3P1 P2 km kg +1
3.3P1 km k3

T
2 3.3T P1 km k3
Tp =

Tp = q

3.3P1 km k3
T

1
4T 2

(3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1)2
17

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

2T
Tp = q
13.2T P1 km k3 (3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1)2

(35)

Now obtaining an expression for the percentage overshoot, shown in equation 19:
"
#

Overshoot = 100exp p
%
1 2
Replacing :

Overshoot = 100exp
r

P k k +1
1 2 m g

3.3P
2 3.3T P1 km k3

3.3P1 P2 km kg +1

2 3.3T P1 km k3

2 3.3T P1 km k3

2 %

3.3P1 P2 km kg +1

2 3.3T P1 km k3

%
Overshoot = 100exp q
2
13.2T P1 km k3 (3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1)

(3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1)
%
Overshoot = 100exp q
2
13.2T P1 km k3 (3.3P1 P2 km kg + 1)

3.12

(36)

Range of P1 and P2 that satisfy design objectives

In subsection 3.8, the design objectives have been mentioned. In order to see how, the
time and percentage overshoot reacted to a change in P1 and P2 values inequalities had
formed.
2T
q
0.8
2
13.2T xkm k3 (3.3xykm kg + 1)

(3.3xykm kg + 1)
0.1
exp q
2
13.2T xkm k3 (3.3xykm kg + 1)

peak
been
(37)

(38)

Where x is equivalent to P1 and y being equivalent to P2 .

Both equations can then be shown graphically using Grapher.
Looking at figure 19 two regions can be identified, the overshoot region that is shown in red and
the peak time region, which is shown in blue. However, the region in which the design criteria
can be picked is when both red and blue regions overlap. This only occurs when: 0.83 < P1 < 1
and 0.56 < P2 < 0.79.

18

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

Figure 19: Graphical representation of P1 and P2 .

3.13

Errors

The initial sources of errors caused in this experiment can be clearly seen in figures 5, 6 and
9. This is because a line of best fit had been taken of these values, which does not mean that
all the points lie on the line of best fit. Also, looking at figures 13 and 14, it can be seen that
both experimental curves are similar to the theoretical curves, but not still give a slight error.
Additionally the points in figure 14 (b) are not on the line resulting in a slight error to be
caused.
Now looking at figure 15, the extrapolated line for the damping ratio against P1 does not give
a suitable value for a critically damped system, thus taking more values in future experiments
would be advised. Additionally, no readings were repeated, so to ensure reliability it would be
best if readings were repeated.
Lastly, during the experiment, it was not clear whether the readings taken for the time constant,
peak time, initial peak and initial steady state value were accurate due to the noise in the
system. Therefore accumulating to the error caused in this experiment.

Conclusion

Overall, this experiment was a good insight to the operation of a Puma robot, and how the
velocity feedback controller ensures the design criteria to be achieved. As mentioned in subsection 3.8, the design specification could not be reached due to the inverse relation between
the peak time and overshoot produced. Thus, by adding a velocity feedback, it allowed for the
design requirements to be achieved.
19

Abdul Latif Ismail

MECH 2006- DC2

References
[1] Dr A.R. Greig. Mech 2006 Dynamics & Control Linear Control Theory. University College
London.
[2] Dr A.R. Greig. Analogue Servo System. University College London.

20