UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN

ACADEMIC YEAR 2019/2020

PRACTICAL 2

UEEA3423 CONTROLS SYSTEMS

BY

SEE WEN JIAT JASPER

17UEB02930

Bachelor (Hons) of Mechanical Engineering (ME)

Department of Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and

Science
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

TOPIC 1 INTRODUCTION 1
TOPIC 2 OBJECTIVES 2
TOPIC 3 METHODOLOGY 3
3.1 PROCEDURES 3
3.2 SETUP 4
3.2.1 Experiment 1 – MATLAB simulation software 4
3.2.2 Experiment 2- LABVIEW simulation software 6
TOPIC 4 RESULTS 9
4.1 EXPERIMENT 1 – MATLAB SIMULATION 9
4.1.1 Individual PID controller experimentation 9
4.1.2 Varying result of individual PID controller 11
4.1.3 Commonly used controller types in simulation 17
4.1.4 Effect of different gain values in PID simulation 23
4.2 EXPERIMENT 2 - LABVIEW SIMULATION 30
4.2.1 Commonly used controller types in simulation 30
4.2.2 Effect of different gain values in PID simulation 33
TOPIC 5 DISCUSSIONS 39
TOPIC 6 CONCLUSION 41
REFERENCES 42

i
 TOPIC 1

INTRODUCTION

PID controller was first developed in 1911 by Elmer Sperry. By the mid-1950’s, automatic PID
controllers were widely adopted for industrial use. (OMEGA, 2020)Now, it is used to read a
sensor signal, interpret and process though, then display and provide the output results. PID
controller have various application for example to regulate the temperature, flow, pressure,
speed and many other process variables. A control loop feedback mechanism is used in PID
controller to control process variable to allow more accurate and allow stabilization of the
system.

The term P in PID is known as proportional. If the error is too large and positive, the
output will be also too large and positive. Just by using proportional control will result in error
between the setpoint and the actual process value, because it requires an error to generate the
proportional response. If there is no error, there is no corrective response. The term I is known
as integral. Integral control functions to eliminate residual error by trying to eliminate the error
and increase its integral term. There will be increase in the gradient of the graph up until the
error is diminished. The term D is known as derivative. Derivative control functions to dampen
the signal. This reduces the overshoot of the system. The more rapid the change, the greater
the controlling or dampening effect.

1
 TOPIC 2

OBJECTIVES

1. Tune proportional, integral, and derivative gains to achieve a desirable output

response.
2. Interpret the individual contributions of the proportional, integral, and derivative
terms.
3. Comparison between using MATLAB and LABVIEW software
4. Effect of gain on PID controller

2
 TOPIC 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 PROCEDURES

1. 2 sets of experiment were conducted. Simulation of PID was done using MATLAB as
first experiment and LABVIEW software for the second experiment.
1
2. Transfer function equation was to be 𝑇(𝑆) = . This function will remain constant
𝑠2 +5𝑠+6

throughout the entire two sets of experiment.

3. Unit steps was to be remain constant for the entire experiment where the initial input = 0
and final output value = 1.
4. For the first experiment using MATLAB software, 4 sub-experiment was conducted.
5. First sub-experiment was individual PID controller experimentation.
6. Second was to conduct varying value of Individual controller experiment.
7. Thirdly will be the commonly used controller types in simulation experiment.
8. Fourthly was the effect of gain on PID controller experiment.
9. All relevant response graph was recorded, and tuning was made to compare the
experimental value and the theoretical value.
10. For the second experiment using LABVIEW software, 2 sub-experiment was conducted.
11. Firstly, will be the commonly used controller types in simulation experiment.
12. Secondly was the effect of gain on PID controller experiment.
13. A comparison of result was made between MATLAB and LABVIEW software.

3
3.2 SETUP

Parallel arrangement of the system configuration is to be used for the two sets of experiment.

Figure 1: Parallel configuration of PID controller

3.2.1 Experiment 1 – MATLAB simulation software

1. Setup without Gain

Figure 2: Setup without gain

2. Setup with Gain

Figure 3: Setup with gain

3. Output waveform from dashboard

4
 Figure 4: Scope dashboard output waveform

• All desired output waveform is to be critically damped.

4. Tuning of PID controller

Figure 5: Configuration and steps in tuning PID control

• Parallel PID equation is used in entire experiment

5
 Figure 6: Tuning settings for PID control

• The response time and robust transient behaviour can be changed.

• However, in this experiment, all tuned data is using the least response time and best
performance for transient response.
• Control parameter shows peak time, rise time, setting time, overshoot etc.
• Update can be made to ensure the tuned value is updated into the block diagram for
new simulation.

3.2.2 Experiment 2- LABVIEW simulation software

1. Setup without gain

Figure 7: Setup without gain

6
 Figure 8: Input result of PID controller
2. Setup with Gain

Figure 9: Setup with gain

Figure 10: Dashboard scope of output waveform

• Input result of PID controller

7
• Output waveform to be obtained

Figure 11: PID control settings

• Parallel arrangement of PID equation in LABVIEW simulation

8
 TOPIC 4

RESULTS

4.1 EXPERIMENT 1 – MATLAB SIMULATION

4.1.1 Individual PID controller experimentation

Figure 12: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0

As shown in figure 12 above, Kp = 40. The proportional value contributed in the experiment
creates an underdamped characteristic. There exists steady state error. It reaches a steady
state after 2 sec.

Figure 13: Output waveform for Kp=0, Ki=10, Kd=0

As shown in figure 13 above, Ki = 10, Kp = Kd = 0, and gain = 5. The waveform shows an
underdamped behavior. It reaches steady state when it is after 8 second. As the action of
integral control corrects the steady state error.

9
 Figure 14: Output waveform for Kp=0, Ki=0, Kd=15
As shown in figure 14 above, Kd = 0, Kp = Ki = 15. There is no response in the graph as the
derivative control only attempts only to minimize the overshoot.

Table 1: Values for individual controller that affects the output graph

Parameter Rise time, Peak time, Setting time, Steady state

Sign Value Tr (s) Tp (s) Ts (s) error Stability
Kp 40
Ki 0
Kd 0 1.5 1.5 2.2 Large YES
Kp 0
Ki 10
Kd 0 2 3 8 Minimized YES
Kp 0
Ki 0 Not Not Not Not
Kd 15 applicable applicable applicable Not applicable applicable
*All values in table is approximate value*

Table 1 above shows the individual experiment on using single controller of P, I and D. It can
be concluded that P or I controller is most essential in PID controller for operation.

10
4.1.2 Varying result of individual PID controller

4.1.2.1 Proportional control (Ki = 0 & Kd =0 as constant)

Figure 15: Output waveform for Kp=4, Ki=0, Kd=0

As shown in figure 15 above, Kp = 4. The waveform is very overdamped as the proportional
control supplied is not adequate to reach the desired output. There exists a very large steady
state error. There is no correcting of the error value.

Figure 16: Output waveform for Kp=10, Ki=0, Kd=0

As shown in figure 16 above, Kp = 10. The waveform is still very overdamped. Proportional
control is still not adequate to bring the waveform to reach the desired output. There still exist
steady state error but the error is lesser compare to figure 15 with Kp = 4.

11
 Figure 17: Output waveform for Kp=100, Ki=0, Kd=0
As shown in figure 17 above, Kp = 100. The waveform is underdamped. In comparison to
figure 15 and figure 16 above, the proportional control now is adequate to bring the
waveform to reach the desired output. But steady state error still exists.

Table 2: Effect of different proportional constant values on parameters

Proportional Control (±0.05)

Kp Value Steady State Error Peak amplitude value Peak Time (s)
4 Very Large 0.4 2
10 Large 0.65 2
100 Small 1.35 1.1
*All values in table is approximate value*

12
4.1.2.2 Proportional Integral Control (PI) (Kp = 40 as constant)

Figure 18: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0

As shown in figure 18 above, Ki = 10. The waveform is underdamped. The setting time is
approximate to be 8 second to remove error and for the system to reach stability.

Figure 19: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=20, Kd=0

As shown in figure 19 above, Ki = 20. The waveform is behaviour. The setting time is
approximate to be 5 second for the system remove error and to reach stability.

13
 Figure 20: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=30, Kd=0
As shown in figure 20 above, Ki = 30. The waveform is more underdamped as the peak
amplitude increases. The setting time is approximate to be 3 second for the system to remove
error and to reach stability. Thus, it can be concluded that the overshoot becomes larger as
integral control value increases.

Table 3: Effect of different integral constant values on parameters

Proportional Integral control (±0.05)

Ki Setting Time (s) Peak amplitude value Peak Time (s)
10 8 1.15 1.7
20 5 1.2 1.7
30 3 1.25 1.7
*All values in table is approximate value*

14
4.1.2.3 Proportional Derivative control (PD) (Kp = 40, Ki = 0 as constant)

Figure 21: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=2

As shown in figure 21 above, Kd = 2. The waveform is underdamped. The overshoot that
happen by the proportional control had been reduced by the presence of derivative control.
The steady state error is unable to be corrected.

Figure 22: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=10

As shown in figure 22 above, Kd = 10. The waveform is still underdamped even with
increasing derivative value.

15
 Figure 23: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=100
As shown in figure 23 above, Kd = 100. The waveform shown is almost exactly as shown in
figure 21 and figure 22 above. Therefore, the derivative control does not affect much in the
experiment conducted.

Table 4: Effect of different derivative constant values on parameters

Proportional Derivative control (±0.05)

Kd overshoot Peak amplitude value Peak Time (s)
2 Less 1.2 1.7
10 Minimal 1.2 1.7
100 completely removed 1.2 1.7
*All values in table is approximate value*

16
4.1.3 Commonly used controller types in simulation

4.1.3.1 P controller

Figure 24: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0

As shown in figure 24 above, Kp = 40, Ki = 0 and Kd = 0. The peak time obtained is
approximate to 1.2 seconds. Approximately after 2.2 second, the waveform is stable but with
error.

Figure 25: Tuned Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0

As shown in figure 25 above, Kp = 6.4469, Ki = 0 and Kd = 0. The tuned P controller helps
the system to be more critically damped to ensure operational stability. However, this comes
with a problem where it causes a larger steady state error.

17
4.1.3.2 I controller

Figure 26: Output waveform for Kp=0, Ki=10, Kd=0

As shown in figure 26 above, Ki = 10, Kp = 0 and Kd = 0. The waveform shows an
underdamped characteristic. The configuration is stable after 8 sec.

Figure 27: Tuned Output waveform for Kp=0, Ki=10, Kd=0

As shown in figure 27 above, Ki = 106.1273. However, the tuned waveform shows a
developing characteristic. This is an unstable system.

18
4.1.3.3 PI controller

Figure 28: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0

As shown in figure 28 above, Kp = 40, Ki = 10, Kd = 0. The integral control helps in
correcting the steady state error. In this case, it takes approximately 8 second to reach steady
state. However, it still exists slight steady state error after correction.

Figure 29: Tuned Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0

As shown in figure 29 above, Kp = 10.6066, Ki = 15, Kd = 0. This is the best waveform to be
obtained. However, the waveform obtained still shows an underdamped characteristic as it
still overshoots a little. The steady state error is zero.

19
4.1.3.4 PD controller

Figure 30: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=15

As shown in figure 30 above, Kp = 40, Ki = 0, Kd =15. The derivative control contributes to
reducing the proportional overshoot. Since there is no integral control, the steady state error is
unlikely to be corrected.

Figure 31: Tuned Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=15

As shown in figure 31 above, Kp = 357.0847, Ki = 0, Kd =19.8872. The tuned value adjusts
the proportional control to have a large value in order to reduce error value. By doing so,
derivative value then used to minimize overshoot and try to reduce the initial time where the
system is still unstable.

20
4.1.3.5 PID controller

Figure 32: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15

As shown in figure 32 above, Kp = 40, Ki = 10, Kd = 15. In this case, the existence of
integral control had been able to reduce the steady state. The proportional control also helps
to reduce the overshoot. Result obtained is a critically damped waveform.

Figure 33: Tuned Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15

As shown in figure 33 above, Kp = 229.43, Ki = 560.5163, Kd = 22.5128. This is the desired
tuned waveform that should be obtained.

21
 Table 5: Summary for experimental and theoretical for common controller type

Rise time, Tr Peak time, Tp Setting time, Ts Steady state

Control Type (s) (s) (s) error Stability
P 0.9 1.2 2.2 large yes
Tuned P 0.61 0.54 1.69 very large yes
I 1 1.5 8 small yes
Tuned I - ∞ ∞ - no
PI 1 1.15 8 very small yes
Tuned PI 0.557 1.08 2.37 zero yes
PD 0.9 1.1 2.2 large yes
Tuned PD 0.0558 1.14 0.259 minimum yes
PID 1 0.9 8 minimum yes
Tuned PID 0.0547 1.11 0.404 minimum yes
*All values in table is approximate value*

22
4.1.4 Effect of different gain values in PID simulation

4.1.4.1 GAIN = 1

4.1.4.1.1 P controller

Figure 34: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0, Gain=1

Figure 34 above values are Kp = 40, Ki = 0, Kd = 0. The proportional control value
contributes to a little overshoot, it is nearing to obtain the output value desired. The peak
value obtained is between time 1-2 second. However, there still exist large steady state error.
The waveform characteristics is underdamped.

4.1.4.1.2 PI controller

Figure 35: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0, Gain=1

As shown in figure 35 above, Kp = 40, Ki = 10, Kd = 0. The proportional control helps to
obtain desired result but still with error. Using an integral control can help to correct the
error. It causes the waveform to reach back to its desired final output value.

23
4.1.4.1.3 PID controller

Figure 36: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15, Gain=1

As shown in figure 36 above, Kp = 40, Ki = 10 and Kd = 15. The proportional control helps
to obtain desired result but still with error. The integral control helps to correct the error. And
the derivative control helps to minimize the overshoot. In this case, derivative controller has
successfully removed the overshoot. The rise time is very short, and the setting time takes a
longer time for it to reach 98% of the desired output value. The waveform characteristics as
shown is a critically damped behaviour.

4.1.4.1.4 Tuned PID controller

Figure 37: Tuned Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15, Gain=1
As shown in figure 37 above, Kp = 117.23, Ki = 140.11 and Kd = 24.49. This is a PID
controller. This is using autotuning from the software provided to obtain the best desired
output waveform. The waveform characteristics is a perfect critically damped behaviour.

24
4.1.4.2 GAIN = 5

4.1.4.2.1 P controller

Figure 38: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0, Gain=5

As shown in figure 38 above, Kp = 40, Ki = 10 and Kd = 15. This time to obtain the peak
value is faster compared to the time to obtain peak value for gain=1 as in figure 34. Its peak
time is approximately to 1.2 seconds. Moreover, the overshoot is also higher when using a
higher gain value. The gain had reduced much steady state error to obtain the desired output
value.

4.1.4.2.2 PI controller

Figure 39: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0, Gain=5

Figure 39 above values are Kp = 40, Ki = 10, Kd = 0. In this case, the result is like figure 38
above with using P controller alone. As the gain had substantially allow minimum steady

25
state error, there is less need for integral controller to help to correct it, but the error is lesser
compared to error with using P controller alone.

4.1.4.2.3 PID controller

Figure 40: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15, Gain=5

Figure 40 above values are Kp = 40, Ki = 10, Kd = 15. As can be seen in the graph above, the
results show a critically damped behaviour.

4.1.4.2.4 PID autotuned controller

Figure 41: Tuned Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15, Gain=5
Figure 41 above values are Kp = 40, Ki =10, Kd = 15. In comparison to figure 37 tuned result
with gain = 1, the requirement for all three Kp, Ki and Kd value is much lower as the gain
increase. The waveform shows a perfect critically damped characteristic.

26
4.1.4.3 GAIN = 10

4.1.4.3.1 P controller

Figure 42: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0, Gain=10

As shown in figure 42 above, gain = 10, Kp = 40, Ki = 0 and Kd = 0. Its peak time is
approximately to 1.15 seconds which means that it is faster compared to using gain =1 and
gain =5 as shown in figure 34 and figure 38.

4.1.4.3.2 PI controller

Figure 43: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0, Gain=10

As shown in figure 43 above, gain = 10, Kp = 40, Ki = 10 and Kd = 0. Integral control did
not contribute much in this response graph as the gain had substantially reduce the error
happen in the waveform.

27
4.1.4.3.3 PID controller

Figure 44: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15, Gain=10

As shown in figure 44 above, gain = 10, Kp = 40, Ki = 10 and Kd = 15. Its derivative control
helped to reduce the overshot. This response has a very high-rise time and setting time. The
behaviour is very critically damped.

4.1.4.3.4 PID tuned controller

Figure 45: Tuned Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=15, Kd=15, Gain=10
As shown in figure 45 above, gain = 10, Kp = 12, Ki = 14 and Kd = 2.5. It can be clearly be
seen that all three Kp, Ki and Kd best values had been obtained which are much lower
compared to figure 37 with gain = 5 and figure 41 with gain = 1. When looking closely at all
three autotuned graph, the plots of value in the response graph is the same regardless of
different gain. This means that regardless of any gain value, the gain does not affect the final
desired output, but only affect the requirement of the PID controller value.

28
 It can be concluded that the with additional gain value, there is lesser value required
by the PID controller to reach its desired output. The higher the additional gain value, the
lesser the K value is required by controller. This can be clearly shown in table 6 below.
Therefore, it is easier to tune value with a higher gain.

In normal experimental with the gain, higher gain value causes a higher peak time but
also causes the waveform to have a higher peak amplitude. It also contributes to shorter
setting time. This can be seen in figure 34, figure 38 and figure 42. As compared to the tuned
results, the peak time, rise time and setting time for all different gains exhibit the same result.

Table 6: Summary for effect of gains on tuned PID controller

Peak time, Tp Setting time, Ts

GAIN P I D Rise time, Tr (s) (s) (s)
1 117.2268 140.1139 24.4853 0.0909 0.999 0.172
5 23.4454 28.0228 4.8971 0.0909 0.999 0.172
10 11.7227 14.0114 2.4485 0.0909 0.999 0.172
* All tuned data is using the least response time and best performance for transient response*

29
4.2 EXPERIMENT 2 - LABVIEW SIMULATION

4.2.1 Commonly used controller types in simulation

4.2.1.1 P controller

Figure 46: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0

Figure 46 above shows the output graph obtain for Kp = 40, Ki =0 and Kd = 0. From the
above graph shown, there exist a large steady state error. The waveform produces similar
result as when simulated by using MATLAB software.

4.2.1.2 I controller

Figure 47: Output waveform for Kp=0, Ki=10, Kd=0

30
Figure 47 above shows the output graph obtain for Ki = 10, Kp =0 and Kd = 0. The
characteristics shows underdamped behaviour. The waveform produces similar result as
when simulated by using MATLAB software.

4.2.1.3 PI controller

Figure 48: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0

Figure 48 above shows the output graph obtain for Kp = 40, Ki =10 and Kd = 0. Due to the
presence of I controller the error is corrected by the integral control. The setting time required
is approximately 10 second. The waveform produces similar result as when simulated by
using MATLAB software.

4.2.1.4 PD controller

Figure 49: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=15

31
Figure 49 above shows the output graph obtain for Kp = 40, Ki =0 and Kd = 15. There still
exist steady state error as there is not integral control action to correct the error. The
waveform produces similar result as when simulated by using MATLAB software.

4.2.1.5 PID controller

Figure 50: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15

Figure 50 above shows the output graph obtain for Kp = 40, Ki = 10 and Kd = 15. Waveform
characteristics shows a critically damped behaviour.

32
4.2.2 Effect of different gain values in PID simulation

4.2.2.1 GAIN = 1

4.2.2.1.1 P controller

Figure 51” Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0, Gain=1

4.2.2.1.2 PI controller

Figure 52: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0, Gain=1

33
4.2.2.1.3 PID controller

Figure 53: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15, Gain=1

Table 7: Comparison of different controller type and parameters with input gain =1

Controller type Parameter MATLAB LABVIEW

Rise Time 0.9 0.85
Peak Time 1.2 1.1
Setting Time 2.5 2.8
Steady state error medium medium
P stability yes yes
Rise Time 1 0.98
Peak Time 1.2 1.15
Setting Time 8 8
Steady state error small small
PI stability yes yes
Rise Time 1 0.98
Peak Time 0.9 0.9
Setting Time 8 10
Steady state error small small
PID stability yes yes
*All values in table is approximate value*

34
4.2.2.2 GAIN = 5

4.2.2.2.1 P controller

Figure 54: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0, Gain=5

4.2.2.2.2 PI controller

Figure 55: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0, Gain=5

35
4.2.2.2.3 PID controller

Figure 56: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15, Gain=5

Table 8: Comparison of different controller type and parameters with input gain =5

Controller
type Parameter MATLAB LABVIEW
Rise Time 1 0.95
Peak Time 1.5 1.55
Setting Time 2.7 3
Steady state error small small
P stability yes yes
Rise Time 1 1
Peak Time 1.5 1.55
Setting Time 2.5 3
Steady state error minimum minimum - zero
PI stability yes yes
Rise Time 0.98 1
Peak Time 0.95 0.97
Setting Time 1.05 2
Steady state error minimum minimum
PID stability yes yes
*All values in table is approximate value*

36
4.2.2.3 GAIN = 10

4.2.2.3.1 P controller

Figure 57: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=0, Kd=0, Gain=10

4.2.2.3.2 PI controller

Figure 58: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=0, Gain=10

37
4.2.2.3.3 PID controller

Figure 59: Output waveform for Kp=40, Ki=10, Kd=15, Gain=10

Table 9: Comparison of different controller type and parameters with input gain =10

Controller
type Parameter MATLAB LABVIEW
Rise Time 1 0.98
Peak Time 1.7 1.65
Setting Time 2.4 3
Steady state error minimum minimum
P stability yes yes
Rise Time 1.7 1
Peak Time 1.15 1.68
Setting Time 2.4 2.8
Steady state error minimum minimum - zero
PI stability yes yes
Rise Time 1 1
Peak Time 0.98 0.98
Setting Time 1.05 1
Steady state error minimum minimum - zero
PID stability yes yes
*All values in table is approximate value*

38
 TOPIC 5

DISCUSSIONS

For both experiments conducted, each experiment produces similar result. This can be proved
by the approximate result obtained as shown in table 7 – table 9. Result obtain is verified and
cross checked on one another. This ensures that the result obtain is valid and model can be used
in daily application wise. This solid result is due to the mature software which allow calculation
and design. However, the primary difference that varies the two different software is that
MATLAB processes more on the numerical and mathematical computation. LABVIEW on the
other hand provides a system design platform for testing products, instrument control.

Table 10: Difference between MATLAB and LABVIEW simulation

MATLAB DIFFERENCE/SIMILARITY LABVIEW

Good Sensitivity Good

Available Tuning Not available

Accurate result accuracy Accurate

Medium Time taken for simulation Medium

From all the results obtained, proportional control tuning helps to compare the desired
final output value with original output value. The feedback error obtained is then multiplied
with the proportional constant value to provide corrected output. Where in case that there is no
error, proportional control does not have any output. However, a high proportional constant
value contributes to a higher overshoot and a longer setting time which makes the system
initially unstable. Using proportional control alone is not able to completely the steady state
error.

Using integral control helps to correct the steady state error. From most of the cases
from the error result of proportional control, it had increased its correction factor adequately to
remove the error. Over a period, the error value reaches zero. The period for correcting the

39
error can be shorten by increasing integral constant value. However, higher integral value
contributes to a higher overshoot which makes the system initially unstable.

Derivative control helps to minimize overshoot. Derivative control can be very useful
in times where there exist lots of overshoot due to high proportional and integral constant value.
The output of derivative control is dependent on the rate of change of error with respect to time.
Derivative control helps to kick start the output to increase system response.

40
 TOPIC 6

CONCLUSION

The desired output value of simulation is to obtain a critically damped characteristic. Tuning
the controller is firstly by setting Ki and Kd values to zero and increase proportional term, Kp
until system reaches an oscillating behaviour. Then adjust the integral term, Ki to remove the
steady state error and finally adjust the derivative tern, Kd to reduce overshoot to obtain a
critically damped characteristic waveform. A suitable combination of all three controller can
allow the system to be critically damped which is the desired output response.

Proportional control function to detect feedback error by comparing desired output and
original output value. By increasing value of proportional gain allows it to be able to reach the
desired output value. However, increasing the proportional gain indirectly causes the waveform
to oscillate more and overshoot. Integral control function to take action to increase its
correction factor to correct the steady state error. However, similar to proportional control
where increasing integral gain will indirectly cause waveform to oscillate more and overshoot.
Lastly, derivative control which depends on the rate of change of error and take action to reduce
overshoot.

In the presence of additional gain amplifier, value is required for each PID controller to
reach its desired output value is lesser. The higher the additional gain value, the lesser the
requirement for each PID controller to reach the desired output value. This is proved as shown
in table 6 above. Additional gain might be very helpful to allow more oscillation. But too much
gain might cause the system to be unable to reach a critically damped behaviour. Therefore, a
suitable gain value should only be used. In comparison between MATLAB and LABVIEW
software, each software produces approximately same results. This means that the result
obtained by each software is accurate. Therefore, it can be concluded that each software is
adequate and is able to perform simulation of a PID controller in application.

41
 REFERENCES

OMEGA. (2020). What is a PID Controller. Retrieved 5 August, 2020, from

https://www.omega.co.uk/prodinfo/pid-controllers.html#

42