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!