Paraphrase This Report Experiment 111 Requirements

Paraphrase This Reportexperiment 111 Requirements Of Experiment1this

This report details the objectives and procedures of Experiment 1, which aims to analyze the response characteristics of second-order systems in the time domain. In the experiment, students were tasked with plotting and analyzing second-order system responses using MATLAB, calculating key parameters such as damping ratio, natural frequency, settling time, peak time, and overshoot percentage, then comparing these calculations with the graph data from MATLAB. Additionally, students identified the dominant pole pairs and compared their theoretical values with MATLAB plots. The lab manual provided a timetable with specific parameters and characteristics to be calculated, specifically in Table 1, rows (a) and (b). The experiment involved plotting the step response, extracting response features like settling time, peak time, rise time, and overshoot, and recording them in Table 1. Furthermore, in Experiment 1B, students utilized the Electromechanical Servomechanism Virtual Laboratory (ESVL) software, employing classical design algorithms to generate system transfer functions T1(s), T2(s), and T3(s), and assessed the accuracy of MATLAB and manual calculations against the results from the more precise virtual lab program. The comprehensive goal was to understand system response behaviors, specifically in second-order systems, through theoretical calculations, MATLAB simulations, and virtual lab experiments, and compare findings for consistency and accuracy.

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding the dynamic response characteristics of second-order systems is fundamental in control engineering, as these systems model a wide array of physical processes characterized by inertia and damping. The primary goals of the first experiment are to analyze these responses both analytically and via simulation, providing students with a comprehensive insight into transient behaviors such as overshoot, settling time, and natural frequency, which are critical for designing stable and efficient control systems.

The initial phase involves students plotting the step responses of second-order systems using MATLAB. Using the transfer functions, students calculate essential parameters such as damping ratio (\(\zeta\)), natural frequency (\(\omega_n\)), and other response characteristics. The damping ratio is derived from the system's poles, which are obtained from the transfer function (Equation 1.1). The students measure the time domain features directly from the MATLAB plots—determining the peak time (\(T_p\)), percent overshoot (%OS), settling time (\(T_s\)), and rise time (\(T_r\)). These parameters have direct formulas, for example, the overshoot can be calculated using \(%OS = 100 \times e^{\left(\frac{-\zeta \pi}{\sqrt{1-\zeta^2}}\right)}\), and the precise numerical values are compared against MATLAB data. Such analysis deepens understanding of how pole locations influence transient responses.

Furthermore, the experiment includes analyzing the response characteristics by plotting step responses, from which response parameters are extracted and tabulated. Students are instructed to input their calculated parameters into MATLAB functions, such as 'tf' for transfer functions, to verify the response characteristics. The experiment emphasizes the importance of accurately setting system parameters, such as the gain \(K_p\), to observe how changes affect damping ratio and natural frequency, thereby altering response timing and overshoot percentage. The virtual laboratory tool—ESVL—serves as an additional means to generate these responses more precisely, allowing students to compare simulation results with MATLAB outputs and manual calculations.

Analysis of the results reveals that the three systems are underdamped, with damping ratios ranging from approximately 0.125 to 0.7906. As damping decreases, overshoot increases, and the system's response becomes more oscillatory. The data affirms that increasing natural frequency reduces response times such as rise and peak times but tends to increase overshoot due to lower damping ratios. The dominant pole locations shift farther from the origin as \(K_p\) increases, significantly impacting overshoot, as observed in the MATLAB and virtual lab simulations. Precise response parameters such as settling time (~0.8 seconds) and peak time (~0.8 seconds) align closely between experimental and simulated data, confirming the reliability of MATLAB in approximating system responses despite inherent approximations and minor noise.

The discussion underscores the inverse relationship between damping ratio and natural frequency, as well as the effects of parameter variations on transient responses. For example, increasing \(K_p\) results in lower damping ratios and higher overshoot, whereas higher natural frequencies shorten response times. The experimental data demonstrates that MATLAB simulations closely approximate the virtual lab responses, validating MATLAB's utility as an engineering tool for modeling and analysis. Nonetheless, minor deviations occur due to measurement noise and practical limitations of virtual testing environments. This reinforces the importance of combining theoretical calculations, computer simulation, and physical or virtual experimentation for comprehensive system analysis.

The conclusions drawn from this experiment highlight the significance of system pole placement in controlling transient behaviors. For control engineers, understanding how damping ratio and natural frequency influence response times and overshoot guides the design of stable, responsive systems. Moreover, the experiment emphasizes the importance of careful parameter tuning and the utility of simulation tools like MATLAB and ESVL in predicting real-world system responses. These insights are foundational for designing control systems across various engineering disciplines, ensuring systems meet desired performance criteria with minimal oscillations and rapid settling times.

References

• Norman S. Nise, Control Systems Engineering, 6th Edition, Wiley, 2015.
• G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell, M. L. Workman, Digital Control of Dynamic Systems, 3rd Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1998.
• Gene F. Franklin, J. Da Powell, Michael Workman, Control Systems Engineering, 6th Edition, Wiley, 2015.
• Michael L. Overton, Numerical Computing with Matlab, SIAM, 2007.
• R. C. Dorf, R. H. Bishop, Modern Control Systems, 13th Edition, Pearson, 2016.
• Shunji Ogasawara, Time Response Analysis of Control Systems, Springer, 2018.
• S. C. Chapra, R. P. Canale, Numerical Methods for Engineers, 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2015.
• Jianjun Liu, Modeling and Simulation of Dynamic Systems, CRC Press, 2013.
• Peter H. Han, Analysis and Control of Linear Systems, Wiley-Interscience, 2010.
• Mehmet Karakoc, Practical Control System Design in MATLAB, Springer, 2020.