Analytical
Solution:
The
Laplace
form
of
the
equation
can
be
written
as:
1 ! ! ! ! + 3! + 2 =
! 1 1 1 ! ! = +
2! 2(! + 2) ! + 1 1 1 ! ! = + ! !!! ! !!
2 2 Simulink
Solution:
1. Question
1
2. Question
2
Analytical
Solution:
!! + !!" ! + !" = ! !
! ! !! ! + !!" ! + ! = ! !
Substituting
M=10,b12=0.5
and
k=
1
! (! ) 0.1 ! ! = = !
! (!) ! + 0.05! + 0.1 0.05 !! = 0.1 , !=
2 0.1 !" !! = 1 + exp = 1.779 1.8
1 !! Simulink
Solution:
3. Question
3
(a) (b)
The
plot
of
part
(a)
is
depicted
by
the
blue
curve.
As
we
can
see
from
the
graph
above,
for
a
10
step
input,
as
we
decrease
the
parameter
J,
the
transient
response
is
significantly
changed.
The
overshoot,
rise
time
and
settling
time
decreases
as
we
reduce
J.
We
can
conclude
that
as
the
moment
of
inertia
is
decreased,
the
effect
of
damping
(damping
ratio)
increases
and
hence
the
damped
frequency
will
also
decrease,
causing
the
response
to
settle
faster.
With
that
being
said,
the
change
in
parameter
J,
has
no
effect
on
the
steady-state
response
of
the
system.
4. Question
4
(a) Analytical
Solution:
Objective
is
to
find
sensitivity
of
system
to
parameter
a.
! (! ) 2 ! ! = =
! (! ) !! +2 When
a=1,
for
a
unit
step
response:
1 1 ! ! =2
! !+1 ! ! = 2 2! !!
!!! = lim ! ! = 2
! 4 = 2 2! !! = 1.9633
! 4 100% = 98.17% > 98%
! Therefore
it
can
be
verified
that
at
4
seconds
the
response
is
within
2%
of
the
steady
state
response.
(b)
! !
When
a=0.5,
! (! ) 2 =
!(!) ! + 1.5 We
see
that
the
system
will
behave
as
a
first-order
system
since
it
has
only
one
pole.
Solving
for
y(t),
we
have:
4 ! ! = (1 ! !!.!! )
3
As
shown
on
the
plot
using
Simulink,
the
system
behaves
as
a
simple
first- order
system
with
a
time
constant
of
1.5s
and
amplitude
of
4/3.
This
was
expected
since
the
poles
of
the
transfer
function
lies
on
the
left
side
of
the
imaginary
axis
and
hence
the
system
is
stable.
When
we
increase
the
parameter
a
to
a=2,
! (! ) 2 =
! (! ) ! ! ! = 2!
We
see
that
the
system
is
no
longer
stable.
The
pole
of
the
transfer
function
lies
on
the
imaginary
axis.
This
can
be
viewed
as
the
critical
point
of
instability,
where
! < 2
in
order
for
the
system
to
be
stable.
From
the
graph
it
can
be
seen
that
the
response
increases
linearly
with
time
and
does
not
converge
to
a
steady-state
finite
value.
When
we
further
increase
parameter
a
to
a=5,
! (! ) 2 =
!(!) ! + 1.5 2 ! ! = (1 + ! !! )
3
We
see
that
the
response
tends
to
infinity
exponentially,
with
time.
This
is
because
the
pole
of
the
transfer
function
lies
on
the
right
hand
side
of
the
imaginary
axis
and
hence
the
system
is
unstable.
Therefore,
we
can
conclude
that
the
parameter
a
has
to
be
kept
less
than
2
for
the
system
to
remain
stable.
5. Question
5
(a) The
open-loop
response
for
a
unit-step
disturbance
is,
1 5 ! ! = [ ! ]
5 ! ! + 0.9! + 5 ! ! ! = ! (1 1.02089! !!.!"! sin 2.190! + 1.3682 )
(b) The
closed
loop
response
to
a
unit
step
disturbance
can
be
written
as:
1 55 ! ! = [ ! ]
55 ! ! + 0.9! + 55 1 ! ! = (1 1.001846! !!.!"! sin 7.4025! + 1.51 )
55
(c)
An
open-loop
system
operates
without
feedback
and
directly
generates
the
output
in
response
to
an
input
signal.
Whereas
a
closed- loop
system
uses
a
measurement
of
the
output
signal
and
a
comparison
with
the
desired
output
to
generate
an
error
signal
that
is
used
by
the
controller
to
adjust
the
actuator,
in
this
case
the
disturbance.
Hence
we
can
see
that
the
closed
loop
greatly
improves
the
disturbance
rejection,
minimising
the
steady
state
disturbance
from
1/5
in
the
open-loop
to
1/55
in
the
closed
loop.
6. Question
6
(a) Using
a
proportional
controller,
with
Gc(s)=2,
we
have
! (! ) 20 =
! (! ) ! + 3 20 ! ! = (1 )!(!)
!+3 1 1 !!! = lim !" (!) = , !"# ! ! =
! ! 3 ! (b) Using
a
PI
controller,
with
Gc(s)=2+20/s,
we
have
1 !!! = lim !" (!) = 0 , !"# ! ! =
! ! ! Plotting
the
graph
for
(a)
and
(b):
! (! ) 20 =
!(!) ! + 20 20 ! ! = (1 )!(!)
! + 20
(c) The
steady
state
tracking
error
was
reduced
from
1/3,
when
a
proportional
controller
was
used
to
0,when
a
proportional
plus
integral
controller
was
used.
However
the
PI
contoller
is
far
more
complex
than
a
simple
proportional
controller.
Designing
such
a
controller
would
incur
more
cost.
Therefore
the
engineer
would
have
to
weigh
the
marginal
benefits
of
reducing
error
before
implementing
such
complex
controllers.
Furthermore,
if
a
PI
controller
was
chosen
incorrectly,
it
may
lead
to
instabilty
of
the
sytem.
(a)
7. Question
7
(b)
The
ramp
responses
were
plotted
for
both
part
(a)
and
(b).
From
the
graph
we
can
see
how
the
actual
response
deviation
from
the
desired
ramp
response.
The
error
for
a
given
time
can
be
evaluated
from
the
vertical
displacement
away
from
the
desired
attitude.
For
a
unity
feedback
loop:
! ! = !! ! !(!)
! ! = !! ! !(!)
However
from
Simulink,
we
can
plot
the
error
against
time.
This
gives
us
a
better
representation
of
the
error
signal
of
the
system.
(a) Attitude
error
after
10s
=
0.3
(Using
proportional
controller)
(b) The
steady
state
error
for
the
system
when
a
proportional
controller
was
used
was
0.3,
and
the
steady
state
error
for
the
system
using
a
PI
controller
was
zero.
Therefore
it
can
be
concluded
that
the
proportional
plus
integral
controller
greatly
reduced
the
error
of
the
system
resulting
in
the
actual
response
to
be
very
close
to
the
desired
response.
8. Question
8
10! ! + 510! + 500
!! (!) (! + 0.83)(! ! + 11.6! + 600.44) Using
analytical
formulas
for
second-order
system,
we
have:
11.6 !! = 600.44 = 24.5 , ! = = 0.2367
2 600.44 !" !! = 1 + exp = 1.465
1 !! 4 !! = = 0.69!
! !! ! !! = = 0.132!
!! 1 ! !
! ! = ! (! ) =
Using
Simulink
solution:
From
the
graph
above,
!! = 1.25
!! = 2.55!
!! = 0.13!
From
the
results,
it
can
be
seen
that
!!
and
!!
was
close
to
the
predicted
results
of
the
second-order
system,
and
the
actual
!!
was
very
much
higher
than
that
of
the
predicted
!! .
This
can
be
explained
by
observing
the
poles
of
the
transfer
function.
The
second-order
poles
have
a
real
value
of
-5.58
whereas
the
third
pole
has
a
real
value
of
-0.83.
Since
the
third
pole
lies
closer
to
the
imaginary
axis,
it
is
the
more
dominant
pole,
so
we
cannot
assume
the
system
to
be
approximated
as
a
second-order
system.
! Furthermore
we
can
evaluate
the
time
constant
of
the
third
pole, ! = !.!" = 1.2.
And
it
requires
that
! 10! !!
for
a
third-order
system
to
be
approximated
by
the
dominant
roots
of
the
second-order
system.
Thus,
what
we
observe
is
that
transient
response
initially
follows
a
second-order
system,
and
after
0.7s,
of
which
is
the
settling
time
of
the
second-order
system,
the
response
follows
!
closely
to
that
of
a
first-order
system.
This
explains
predictions
for
!!
and
!!
were
close
to
the
actual
results,
whereas
!!
was
very
different
from
the
predicted
result.
9. Question
9
From
the
graph,
!! = 0.9784
!"#$% !"#$%, !" = 0.4995
!! !" !"#$"%&'(" !"#$%!!" = 100% = 95.87%
!" !"##$%&' !"#$, !! (!"#!" 2% !" !") = 19.4!