1.

INTRODUCTION

Aim of this experiment is checking angular position of a disk driven by a DC motor with
different usage of P, I and D control gains and beheld how to control gains affect controller
output values and transient response. In these controllers, proportional (P), integral (I) and
derivative (D) gains have lots of combinations such as P, PI, PD and PID [1].

2. THEORY

Control systems have many different types such as P, PD, PI, and PID controllers, they have
very common usage in different systems, in this experiment these types were investigated
with certain aspects [1]. These controllers produce significant signals to manage plant due to
getting desired outputs.

2.1 Time Response:

Time response has two parts, these are steady-state response and transient response. The
steady-state response is the habit in which the system works t value goes to the continuum.
Transient response is the part of answer among the initial state and final state.

In the study and design of control systems, a universal basis of comparison survives for the
transient performances of various systems. This is usually accomplished by using particular
test input signals and comparing the answers [2].

2.2 Transient Response :

Ordinarily, unit step input is used due to its clearness and completeness in defining the
dynamic nature of the system. It is also customary to normalize the output with its steady-
state value if the steady-state value of the output is not compact [2].
 Figure 1 Transient Time Respond

The main conditions of the transient response are the speed of response and relative stability.
The speed of response is the fast feedback of the system to the inputs. Relative stability is that
the answer is available from excessive oscillations, both in dimension and duration [2].

2.3 Delay Time:

 Response time that reach half period of final period. Y(td)= 0.5 Yss
 Clock the speed feedback (td ↓ speed ↑).

2.4 Peak Time:

 Time for the answer to arrive the first top value.

 Measure of speed response (tp ↓ speed ↑).

2.5 Percent overshoot or Maximum overshoot:

Percent overshoot =>

Maximum overshoot=>

 Measure of relative stability (Mp ↑, relative stability ↓)

2.6 Settling Time:

 Time for response the response to reach and stay within a range ±δs * yss
 Generally, δs is 0.02 or 0.05
Duration of relative stability.
3.PREPARATORY WORK
3.1.1 Ampflier circuit:

Figure 2: Ampflier circuit

(V0-Vx )/ Rf = (Vx-Vi) / R1

V0 = -K*Vx

V0 / Vi = (-Rf /Ri) / ( 1 + [(Rf+Ri)/ K*R1])

3.1.2 Integrator circuit:

Figure 3: Integrator circuit

V0 = -K * Vx

(Vx-Vi)/R1=Cs (V0 – Vx )
 V0 / Vi = (-K ) / ( 1+ RCs + RCKs )

V0/ Vi = (-1 ) /( R1*cf*s)

3.1.3 Differention Circuit:

Figure 4: Differention circuit

V0 = -K*Vx

(V0-Vx)/Rf =Cs(Vx-V1)

V0 = -m and (1 + RCs) is to neglect.

3.1.4 Summation Circuit

Figure 5: Summation circuit

 V0 = -K*Vx

(Vi1-Vx) / R1 + (Vi2-VX) / R2 = (Vx – V0) / Rf

(R2*Rf*Vi1) +(R1*Rf*Vi2) = [- V0 * (R1*R2) + (R1* Rf) +(R2* Rf) +(R1*R2*K)]/ K

3.2 Control System Block Diagram

Figure 6: Control System Block Diagram

For P controller;

For PD controller;
For PI controller;

For PID controller;

4.DATA & CALCULATIONS

Part-1)

Figure 7: Triangular Signal of 1 Hz Figure 8: Triangular Signal of 2 Hz

In this section, P and I controllers are deactived, D controller is actived. According to Figure 7
and Figure 8, as can be seen that as the input frequency is increased, the curve of triangular
and the area of output is increased.
 Figure 9: Square signal of 0.1 Hz Figure 10: Square signal of 0.2 Hz

In this section, P and D controllers are deactived, I controller is actived. According to Figure 9
and Figure 10 as can be seen that as the input frequency is increased, the area of under the
output is decreased and the amplitude is decreased.

Part-2)
a)

Figure 12: P control is activated

 =

Table 1: P Controller’s Calculated Values

0.52sec

0.139

7.133(1/sec)

0.532

0.131

6.665

b)

Figure 13: PI control is activated

When the integral constant was 0.1 the system became unsteady.

c)
 Figure 14: PD control is activated

When the derivative constant is 60, the system did not do overshoot

d)

Figure 15: PID active with an integral time constant of 0,1 (P=1, D= 220 msec)

Figure 16: PID active with an integral time constant of 0,4 (P=1, D= 220 msec)
Figure 17: PID active with an integral time constant of 0,6 (P=1, D= 220 msec)

Figure 18: PID active with an integral time constant of 0,9 (P=1, D= 220 msec)

Figure 19: PID active with a derivative time constant of 20 msec (P=I=1)
Figure 20: PID active with a derivative time constant of 60 msec (P=I=1)

Figure 21: PID active with a derivative time constant of 140 msec (P=I=1)

Figure 14: PID active with a derivative time constant of 220 msec (P=I=1)
Table 2: Responses of the changes of Integral and Derivative Time Constants
Response Rise Time % Overshoot Settling Time SS Error
Increase in Increase Decrease Decrease No Change
Integral Time
Constant

Increase in No Change Decrease Decrease No Change

Derivative Time
Constant
5.CONCLUSION
In this experiment, the idea of PID control was examined by making a separate show using a
DC servo motor. Answers were witnessed while changing states such as adjusting P, I and D
characteristics or driving the DC servo motor. In the theory part, DC servo motors and PID
controllers were examined. While the research is occurring provided, the system is
theoretically discovered and measured. When the transfer function is realized, the block
diagram was used. Calculation of some circuit’s Vo/Vi ratio is acquired. When analyzing the
graphs on the oscilloscope, it is observed that the system acted differently in each input
modification. Furthermore, there was an error during each input change. The P controller gets
a result fastly but it can cause many errors. As can be seen due to the PD controller there was
a lot of oscillation. PI controller gets results slowly than P but they have minor oscillating
than PD.
6.REFERENCES
[1].MAK 305 System Dynamics and Control Laboratory Experiment Sheet
[2]. https://www.ijser.org/paper/Design-analysis-of-Controller-to-improve-Transient-response-
of-2nd-order-system-tuning-rule-for-the-same.html