Paraphrase This Report Experiment 111 Requirements 064621

Paraphrase This Reportexperiment 111 Requirements Of Experiment1this

This report details the requirements for Experiment 1, focusing on analyzing the response characteristics of second-order systems in the time domain. Students were tasked with plotting and studying a second-order system using MATLAB, calculating key parameters—such as damping ratio, natural frequency, settling time, peak time, and overshoot percentage—and comparing these with MATLAB's plotted results. Additionally, they needed to determine the dominant pole pair and validate it against MATLAB data. A timetable provided in the lab manual outlined specific parameters and characteristics to be completed in Table 1, parts (a) and (b). The experiment involved plotting step responses, extracting response characteristics like settling time, peak time, rise time, and overshoot, and documenting these values accordingly. Further, students utilized the Electromechanical Servomechanism Virtual Laboratory (ESVL) software with classical design methods to generate systems T1(s), T2(s), T3(s), and compare MATLAB-generated data and computations against more precise program outputs.

Paper For Above instruction

The objective of Experiment 1 was to understand the response characteristics of second-order control systems within the time domain. This learning process involved multiple interrelated tasks that provided insights into dynamic system behavior, especially regarding their transient responses. First, students used MATLAB to plot the step response of a second-order system, allowing for a visual and quantitative analysis of response features. MATLAB’s tools facilitated calculations of critical parameters such as damping ratio, natural frequency, settling time, peak time, and overshoot percentage, which are fundamental to control system analysis. These parameters are vital for predicting the system's transient behavior and designing appropriate controllers.

The damping ratio and natural frequency are intrinsic features of second-order systems, directly influencing their response characteristics. The damping ratio, indicative of how oscillations decay, determines whether the system is underdamped, overdamped, or critically damped. MATLAB’s transfer function and pole location analyses allow students to assess these characteristics. The system's poles, which are complex conjugates in typical second-order responses, define the extent and nature of oscillations; their positions relative to the imaginary axis indicate damping levels. Students visually observed these effects in MATLAB plots, correlating pole locations with response types as depicted in illustrative figures.

Understanding the transient response involves key parameters: peak time (Tp), the time to reach maximum overshoot; percent overshoot (%OS), which indicates how much the response exceeds the steady-state value; settling time (Ts), when oscillations decay within a specified tolerance; and rise time (Tr), the duration for the response to go from 10% to 90% of the final value. Figure 3 exemplifies how these metrics are derived from response curves. Calculations of these parameters from MATLAB plots or by applying formulas to the transfer function provided students with a comprehensive grasp of the system’s dynamic performance.

The experimental procedure required students to set specific gain values (Kp) and system parameters, then generate the step response both through MATLAB and the virtual lab environment. Students adjusted Kp to observe variations in the dominant pole locations, damping ratios, and overall transient response. The virtual laboratory provided a more interactive way to visualize responses, with the oscilloscope displaying the transient behavior upon manual voltage stepping. Data such as settling time, peak time, rise time, and overshoot percentage were recorded accurately using cursors in the software, enabling comparison with MATLAB calculations.

Results from MATLAB, virtual lab simulations, and manual calculations demonstrated consistent trends. For example, increasing the natural frequency resulted in quicker response times, evidenced by reduced settling and rise times. Conversely, damping ratios decreased with increasing Kp, leading to higher overshoot percentages, as illustrated in the plotted responses. The data confirmed theoretical expectations: heavily damped systems showed minimal overshoot, whereas lightly damped ones exhibited significant oscillations. The comparison indicated MATLAB's high accuracy, although some discrepancies arose due to measurement noise in virtual lab readings.

The data analysis revealed that the systems were predominantly underdamped, with damping ratios varying from approximately 0.79 to 0.125. The most heavily damped system corresponded to T1(s), with the least overshoot and slowest response. As damping decreased and natural frequency increased, the system's response became more oscillatory, with higher percent overshoot and faster rise and peak times. The effect of the proportional gain, Kp, was evident both from the shifting of poles farther from the origin and from the increased percent overshoot, reaching 67% in the case of T3(s). These results validated the theoretical models and computational methods used.

Furthermore, the dominant poles' positions shifted further into the complex plane as Kp increased, confirming the inverse relationship between damping ratio and natural frequency. The MATLAB calculations of overshoot and response times closely matched the experimental data, with errors primarily arising from measurement limitations. The virtual lab simulations, despite some noise interference, generally replicated MATLAB’s results, confirming the system dynamics' predictable nature.

Concluding the experiment, the findings emphasized that adjusting Kp influences the transient response critically: higher gains result in faster, more oscillatory responses with larger overshoot, while lower gains produce overdamped or near-critically damped behavior. The experimental data aligns with control theory principles and underscores the importance of pole placement for system stability and performance. The MATLAB software proved an invaluable tool for analyzing these systems, while the virtual lab offered an interactive platform to visualize and verify theoretical predictions.

References

• Norman S. Nise, Control Systems Engineering, Sixth Edition, Wiley, 2015.
• Gene F. Franklin, J. David Powell, and Abbas Emami-Naeini, Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems, Seventh Edition, Pearson, 2014.
• R. C. Dorf and R. H. Bishop, Modern Control Systems, Twelfth Edition, Pearson, 2016.
• Katsuhiko Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall, 2010.
• Ogata, K., Discrete-time Control Systems, Pearson, 2015.
• S. S. Sastry, Nonlinear Systems, Springer, 1999.
• Mahmoud M. Khairy and Volker G. Kramer, System Response Dynamics, Springer, 2004.
• IEEE Control Systems Society Publications, Journal of Control Theory and Applications, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2012.
• Online MATLAB Documentation and Control System Toolbox Guides, MathWorks, 2023.
• National Instruments, Measurement and Automation Explorer (MAX) and LabVIEW Control Design and Simulation Module, 2022.