MALAYSIA-JAPAN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

SEMESTER 2 2022/2023

LONG REPORT: CONTROL LAB

ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING LABORATORY III

SMJE 3192
Group 5

MUHAMMAD AIMAN FARID BIN

NAME MOHAMMAD SHUKRI

MATRIC NO A21MJ0046

YEAR/PROGRAM 3/SMJE

SECTION 02

LECTURER’S NAME IR. TS. DR. MOHD AZLAN BIN ABU

DATE 17/7/2024

VENUE LEVEL 6 MJIIT, COMMUNICATION

LAB
 INTRODUCTION

A servo system is an automated control system using a servo motor and drive to achieve
precise rotation or displacement control. It operates as a closed-loop system, utilizing feedback
from a positional sensor to ensure accuracy. Servo systems offer quick response, high moment of
inertia, and precise positioning.

A servo motor is a specialized actuator that accurately controls angular position, velocity,
and acceleration. It combines a motor, like a Brushless DC motor, with a feedback sensor, such
as an encoder, to monitor position. This feedback allows the servo drive to control speed and
torque precisely, enabling accurate motion control. Servo motors are used in various motion
control systems across industries.

The steady state of a servo motor is its stable condition when it maintains minimal
position error and low velocity fluctuations. The transient response is the motor's initial reaction
to changes until it reaches a new steady state. Engineers optimize both responses by adjusting
control strategies.

Root locus analysis graphically represents a closed-loop control system's poles relative to
controller gain, providing insights into system behavior and stability. This helps engineers design
stable, predictable control systems.

In summary, a servo system uses a servo motor and drive for precise motion control, with
steady state and transient responses characterizing its behavior. Root locus analysis aids in
designing stable control systems.
LIST OF EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE USED

NAME TYPE SPECIFICATION QUANTITY

Digital Controller Hardware Lab-Volt Digital Servo 1

Servo Module Training System
(Model 8063)

Human Machine Software

Interface (HMI)

Microsoft Excel Software Microsoft Office 2016 1

Computer Hardware Installed servo system 1

software
LAB 1: INTRODUCTION TO SERVO SYSTEM

1.0 OBJECTIVE

• To understand what a servo system is.

• To learn how to adjust the servo system.

• To determine how to set up a digital servo system.

• To learn how to record data in a servo system.

• To understand how to export data from a servo system.

• To determine how to analyze the data using Excel.

2.0 PROCEDURE
1. The Digital Servo system was set up, consisting of the mechanical unit, servo controller,
and computer.
2. The servo controller and the mechanical unit were connected.
3. 3. The servo controller and the computer were connected using a USB
cable.
4. The flywheel was gently coupled to the shaft using a set screw
5. The platform was moved to the middle of the rail.
6. The servo controller and the computer were powered up, and the software LVServo was
opened.
7. The "Device Controlled" command button in the "Position Loop" menu was clicked to
access the default position control screen
8. The "Exit" button was clicked to return to the screen. The "Device Controlled" command
button in the "Speed Loop" menu was clicked to access the default speed-control screen.
It was noted that only the motor shaft incremental encoder could be used in
speed-control mode.
9. The settings in the default speed-control screen were modified to those shown in Table 1.
The modified settings included configuring the function generator, PID controller, PV
speed scaling, and Trend Recorder.
10. The function generator's "Power" button was clicked to initiate the triangular wave
signal.
11. The "Clear Data History" button was clicked, followed by clicking the "Show and Record
Data" button. The strip recorder was monitored until all the data to be exported was
viewed. Finally, the "Show and Record Data" button was clicked again to turn off the
strip chart recorder.
12. The "Export Data to File" button was clicked, and a new file was created to save the data.
13. The data was opened using Microsoft Excel, and "reference data" and "Timestamp" were
selected. Then, the "insert" button was clicked, "Scatter" was chosen, and the option
"Scatter with Straight Lines" was selected to generate a graph for reference data analysis.
3.0 DATA COLLECTION

Figure 1: Triangular wave capture

Figure 2: Plotted graph from exported data

 4.0 DISCUSSION

Host controlled mode executes control algorithms on the computer, offering flexibility
and computational power but potentially longer execution time. Device controlled mode executes
algorithms within the digital servo controller, resulting in shorter execution time but limited
computational capabilities.

The rail increment encoder is mounted on the rail to measure platform position and is
used in position control mode. The motor shaft incremental encoder is mounted on the motor
shaft to measure angular position and is used in speed control mode.

In speed control mode, the platform must be disengaged to prevent interference with the
precise control of the motor shaft's speed. Engaging the platform during speed control
experiments could damage the unit due to conflicting forces.

The experiment involved setting up the Digital Servo system, coupling the flywheel to
the shaft, adjusting the platform, and interconnecting the mechanical unit, servo controller, and
computer. The software was launched via the servo controller icon.

Both position control and speed control modes were explored using device-based
execution. Settings for the Function generator, PID controller, PV speed scaling, and Trend
recorder were configured. A triangular wave signal was generated and captured for analysis.
Data was imported into a spreadsheet application like Microsoft Excel, manipulated, and plotted
to visualize the system's response.

The resulting graph showed a triangular wave pattern, indicating effective system
tracking of the reference signal. The initial curve on the graph indicated a transient response
before the system reached a stable state.

The line graph provided a visual representation of the reference data, illustrating the
system's ability to track the reference signal accurately. The spreadsheet with plotted data was
saved for future reference.

Overall, the experiment demonstrated the setup and data analysis of the Digital Servo
system using hardware and software components to control, monitor, and visualize system
behavior.

5.0 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the experiment successfully achieved its objectives. We gained a

comprehensive understanding of the servo system and its functioning. Following the outlined
procedures, we were able to configure the servo system by setting the parameters as indicated in
Table 1. The digital servo system accurately captured a triangular wave signal. We recorded and
exported the data of the captured signal, and performed data analysis using Excel, resulting in
the creation of a line graph. Our observations confirmed that the recorded triangular wave
signal and the generated line graph matched the expected outcomes outlined in the lab sheet.
This experiment provided us with valuable insights into the operation of the servo system and
equipped us with the ability to utilize Excel as an effective tool for data analysis.
LAB 2: OPEN-LOOP SERVO MOTOR – TRANSIENT

1.0 OBJECTIVE
● Familiar with the various mechanical and electrical components of a brush-type
permanent-magnet dc servo motor system.
● Know how to analyze the steady state behavior of the dc servo motor in open loop mode.
● Able to calculate and develop the relationship between the dc voltage applied to the servo
motor and the motor speed.

2.0 PROCEDURE

1. The servo system was setup for speed control, such as disengaging the platform.
2. The belt tension was set to allow the belt to be lifted of the pulley connected to the motor
shaft and slipped on the two pins to the rear of the pulley, allowing the shaft to run
uncoupled from the belt.
3. The flywheel was secured to the shaft using the approximate hex key.
4. LVServo was ran and clicked on the Device Controlled button in the Speed Loop menu
and use the settings provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Settings for measuring the viscous friction coefficient B.

5. The function of the generator power was switched to ON.
6. A few seconds of operations are captured by the recorder when the motor attains its
steady state, then the recorder is stopped and the data is exported to a spreadsheet.
7. The function generator was set power switch to OFF.
8. The armature current IA (A) is determined using the exported data. This value should be
&A if the default value has not been changed.
9. The dynamic friction torque TD was determined by multiplying the armature current IA
by the torque constant KT. TD = KTIA.
10. The motor speed ⍵ (rads/s) is determined using the formula ⍵=⍵RPM x 2π/60 to find the
motor speed in rpm. This value should be 3000 rpm if the default value has not been
changed.
11. The viscous friction coefficient B by dividing the dynamic friction torque TD by the
𝑇𝐷
motor speed ⍵. B= ⍵
was determined.
12. The theoretical value of steady state speed constant KS was calculated by using KS =
𝐾𝑇
𝑅𝐵 + 𝐾𝐵𝐾𝑇
.
13. LVServo is run, and the Device Controlled button in the Speed Loop menu is clicked on.
It is ensured that the settings are initially as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Settings for measuring the motor KS value.

 14. The function generator Power was switched to ON.
15. A complete period is captured and exported to a spreadsheet.
16. A spreadsheet was used to plot the motor steady state speed ωSS in rad/s versus supply
voltage E.
17. The slope is calculated and an equation is developed that relates steady-state speed ωSS
to dc supply voltage E for the servo motor using the plot.

3.0 DATA COLLECTION AND OBSERVATION

Figure 3: Wave generated for part 1

Figure 4: Graph plotted for part 1

 Figure 5: Modified speed control screen for part 2

Figure 6: The data collected and the graph plotted for part 2
4.0 DISCUSSION

Review questions

1. How is the steady state speed affected by a decrease in dc supply voltage E?

When the DC supply voltage (E) decreases, the steady-state speed of the servo motor
typically decreases as well. This is because the voltage directly influences the
electromagnetic force generated in the motor, which in turn affects its torque and speed
characteristics. A lower supply voltage results in a weaker electromagnetic force, leading
to reduced torque and ultimately a lower speed under the same load conditions.

2. If the motor is loaded in such a way that the viscous friction coefficient B increases,
how is the steady state speed affected?

If the motor is loaded in a way that increases the viscous friction coefficient (B), the
steady-state speed of the motor decreases. Viscous friction opposes the motion of the
motor's rotating components, effectively adding resistance that must be overcome by the
motor's torque output. With higher viscous friction, more torque is required to maintain
the same speed, leading to a reduction in the steady-state speed.

3. In the steady state speed vs supply voltage plot, explain why there is a “flat” or
horizontal region in the middle of the curve.

In the steady-state speed vs. supply voltage plot, a "flat" or horizontal region can appear
under certain conditions. This region occurs when the motor reaches its maximum speed
and further increases in supply voltage do not significantly impact the speed. This can
happen due to factors like saturation effects in the motor's magnetic circuit, where
increasing voltage beyond a certain point does not produce a proportional increase in
torque or speed.

4. Explain the difference between open loop and closed loop control system.

An open-loop control system operates without feedback, meaning it doesn't adjust its
output based on the actual system performance. In contrast, a closed-loop control system
uses feedback from sensors to compare the system's actual output with the desired output
and makes adjustments to maintain or achieve the desired performance. Closed-loop
systems are generally more accurate and responsive because they can compensate for
disturbances and uncertainties in the system.
5.0 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the characteristics of open-loop servo motors underscore a delicate balance

between simplicity and precision in motor control systems. These systems operate efficiently and
cost-effectively by directly responding to input signals without the complexities of feedback
mechanisms. This simplicity in control implementation makes them attractive for applications
where precise feedback control is not paramount and where cost and simplicity are prioritized.

However, the absence of feedback control in open-loop systems can lead to certain
limitations. They may be more susceptible to variations in external factors such as load
fluctuations, changes in environmental conditions, or supply voltage irregularities. These
external influences can impact the motor's performance, potentially leading to deviations from
desired output values over time. Maintaining steady-state performance, particularly under
dynamic operating conditions, can be more challenging in open-loop systems compared to
closed-loop counterparts that continuously adjust based on feedback.

Despite these considerations, the straightforward nature of open-loop servo motor control
implementation remains a significant advantage. Their relative simplicity in hardware and
software requirements makes them easier to design, implement, and maintain in certain
applications. They also offer cost-effective solutions, especially in scenarios where precise
feedback control is not critical or where simpler control mechanisms suffice.

In the broader context of motor control system selection, the decision between open-loop
and closed-loop systems hinges on the specific requirements and performance criteria of the
application. While open-loop servo motors offer advantages in simplicity and cost-effectiveness,
they may not meet the stringent demands of applications that necessitate high accuracy,
precision, and adaptability. Therefore, the selection of the most suitable control system type
depends on a careful evaluation of the application's needs, balancing simplicity, cost
considerations, and performance requirements.
 LAB 3: CLOSED-LOOP SERVO MOTOR - STEADY-STATE

1.0 OBJECTIVE
● Familiar with the transient behavior of a dc servo motor in open loop mode.
● Know how to calculate and measure the motor time constant.
● Able to distinguish a first-order from a second-order system.
● Able to approximate a second-order system using its first-order model.

2.0 PROCEDURE

1. The servo system for speed control was set up, including the disengagement of the
platform.
2. The belt tension was adjusted to allow the belt to be lifted off the pulley connected to the
motor shaft and slipped on the two pins to the rear of the pulley, allowing the shaft to run
uncoupled from the belt.
3. The flywheel was secured to the shaft using the approximate hex key.
4. The time constant 𝜏 was calculated using mathematical tools such as a spreadsheet and
the equation 𝜏 = RJMRB + KEKT, where the sum of the individual inertias of the system
was equal to 0.00033kg.m2.
5. The first-order step response of the motor speed versus time for a supply voltage to the
motor of 48V dc was plotted using mathematical tools such as a Microsoft Excel.
6. LVServo was run, and the Device Controlled button in the Speed Loop menu was clicked
on. The settings were initially ensured as shown in Table 1.
7. A complete positive half cycle was captured and exported to a excel.
8. The motor speed ⍵ in rad/s versus time was plotted using the excel.
9. The motor time constant 𝜏 was determined as follows: ⍵= EKs (1-e-1)=0.6EKs.
10. The point on the curve at which the steady-state speed value was equal to 63% was
determined. The time constant value was equal to the time between the beginning of
acceleration and the 63%-speed point.
 Table 1 for measuring the time constant, τ

Table 2 for recording the calculated and measured values of steady state speed and time
constant.
3.0 DATA COLLECTION AND OBSERVATION

In Control Lab 2, we determined the computed viscous friction coefficient:

B = 1.237311 x 10−4Nm/(rad/s)

The lab sheet provides a given total inertia JT which is equal to 0.000333kgm 2, hence
After obtaining the equation with the given total inertia JT it is then entered into the Matlab
software to generate a plot representing the first order step response of the motor speed against
time. This response is simulated for a supply voltage of 48V DC applied to the motor.

Figure 7 : The Code of the Exponential Function in Matlab software

Figure 8 : Graph of First order Step Response Characteristic Curve in Matlab

Figure 9: The Data Collected and The Graph Plotted in Microsoft Excel.
When t = τ ,
 −1
ω = 𝐸𝐾𝑆(1 − 𝑒 )
= 𝐸𝐾𝑆(0.63)
= (0. 63)(48)(7. 89894)
= 238. 863946 𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠

238.863946
ω 𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑃𝑀 % = 丌
= 76. 03%
τ= 0.06ms

2
Using L = 6.4 mH, 𝐽𝑀 = 𝐽𝑇= 0.000333 kg 𝑚 , R = 2.23, B = 1.237311 × 10-4,
𝐾𝐸= 0.121[V/(rad/s)], 𝐾𝑇= 0.121(Nm/A) substitute into the equation below,

Subsequently, the servo motor's transient response to a step change of E = 48V was plotted using
the measured value of KS = 7.89894. The plot covered the time range from 0 to 250 ms of the
response time. The graph and the corresponding code are displayed in Figure 5 below.
Figure 10: Plotting of Graph of Servo Motor Transient Response
4.0 DISCUSSION

During the servo system experiment, the response curve for a first-order step, as
displayed in Figure 3, was examined, confirming the accuracy of previous calculations against
the lab sheet graph. Following the lab instructions, adjustments were made by deactivating the
platform and activating the "Power" button. Utilizing LVServo software, a square wave was
generated, and the data were transferred to Microsoft Excel for analysis, as depicted in Figure 4.
This dataset served as the basis for creating a plot illustrating motor speed (ω) in radians per
second over time, enabling further manual calculations.

Figure 5 illustrated the step response curve, initiating from 0 and steadily rising to E*KS,
corresponding to 48 times the gain KS. The rate of increase, determined by the time constant T
(set to 1 in this case), led to exponential growth towards the final value. The rise time, indicating
the duration to reach a specific percentage of the final value (e.g., 80%), was estimated using the
maximum slope of the response curve, approximately 0.6 ms. Comparing Figure 5 with Figure 4,
both graphs exhibited nearly identical features, with a slight variance at the beginning of the
graph. The brief pause at 0 in Figure 4 resulted from the voltage value generation necessary to
initiate movement in the motor system.

Furthermore, a higher time constant, τ2 = 46.780714 ms, was calculated and compared to
the time constant τ = 49.78172 ms obtained from the simplified servo motor model. The minor
difference between these values was attributed to external factors such as manufacturing
variations and temperature effects affecting the system's behavior. τ2 was found to be smaller
than τ, with τ representing the theoretical time constant without accounting for real-world
fluctuations.

Observations revealed that a second-order step response typically exhibits a quicker rise
time compared to a first-order response due to its higher-order dynamics. Second-order systems
may display overshoot, where the response momentarily surpasses the final value, leading to
longer settling times due to potential oscillations and higher-order dynamics. Conversely,
first-order systems settle more rapidly but may have steady-state errors when the response
deviates from the desired outcome.
 Finally, the impact of increased system inertia on the speed vs. time step response curve
was explored. As inertia increases, the rise time elongates, necessitating more torque or power to
accelerate the system. Consequently, peak speed is achieved later and at a reduced level, with the
settling time also extended as the system takes longer to stabilize within a specified range.
However, increased inertia acts as a stabilizing factor, resulting in a smoother response overall.

5.0 Conclusion

In summary, our objectives for this lab experiment have been successfully achieved.

Understanding the transient characteristics of open-loop servo motors is essential for anticipating

and addressing the performance limitations inherent in these systems. Without feedback

mechanisms, it's crucial to comprehend how factors like inertia, friction, and response time

influence the motor's behavior during state transitions. Advanced control strategies, such as

predictive models or feedforward techniques, offer effective means to counteract these transient

behaviors, ensuring that the motor performs as desired. Additionally, approximating a

second-order system using its first-order model simplifies analysis while maintaining focus on

critical system dynamics, offering a practical approach to maintaining accuracy in positioning

and speed control across various operational conditions. This comprehensive understanding of

open-loop servo motors' transient characteristics is vital for improving the precision and

reliability of these systems in real-world applications.

 LAB 4: Learn about the Servo Closed-Loop Speed Control - Steady State Characteristics
and Linear Position Controls

1.0 OBJECTIVE
● To familiar with servo operation in closed loop speed control
● To calculate and measure the steady state speed of the Digital Servo in closed loop speed
control for various controller gains both theoretically and experimentally and be to
complete the two
● To understand the Digital Servo PID controller operation and the effects of the
proportional, integral and derivative terms on the transient operation of a servo
positioning system used for linear position control.
● To measure the effects of damping on the step response of a servo system.
● To understand the effects of incremental encoder resolution
● To understand the platform load on the tuning parameter of a servo system.

2.0 PROCEDURE

PART 1 : Servo closed loop control

1. The servo system for speed control was set up.
2. The belt tension was set to allow the belt to be lifted of the pulley connected to the motor
shaft and slipped on the two pins to the rear of the pulley, allowing the shaft to run
uncoupled from the belt.
3. The flywheel to the shaft using the appropriate hex key.
4. LVServo was ran and clicked on the Device Controlled button in the Speed Loop menu.
The settings were initially set as shown in Table 12.
 Table 12 : Settings for closed loop speed-control measurements

5. The function generator power switch was set to ON.

Closed loop speed-control measurements
1. The offset value was slowly increased until the motor voltage reading reached to 40%,
which corresponds to a voltage of 19.2V.
2. The offset was decreased to 0%, the proportional gain 𝐾𝑃 to 2 and the previous operation
was repeated. The same things for 𝐾𝑃 values 3, 4 and 5 were done.
3. The rest of Table 13 using Table 14 was filled out as a quick reference for speed unit
conversion. The following while completing Table 13 was kept in mind.
● K is the ratio of speed ω to supply voltage E and is calculated by diving the
speed value in rad/s by the supply voltage (V)
● The error value is calculated by subtracted the speed ω value to the reference
speed ω𝑅𝐸𝐹.
● The steady state speed ratio ω𝑆𝑆/ω𝑅𝐸𝐹 and speed value ω𝑆𝑆 (%) are calculated
using equation 27.

Table 14 : Speed unit conversion quick reference

4. The ratio of speed to supply voltage, error value and the steady state speed ratio is
calculated.
5. The result is compared and discussed.
PART 2 : Linear position control

1. LVServo was run, and the Device Controlled button in the Position Loop menu was
clicked. The settings were ensured to be initially as shown in Table 30.

2. The platform was set to the mid-position as follows: The center (or 0) reference position
of the platform was found to the right-hand position, and the position count was reset to
0. Then, the platform was moved to the left-hand stop position, and the count was
recorded. This value was identified as the rail length in counts.
3. The count was reset to 0, and the platform was manually moved until the count was equal
to exactly half of the entire rail length. When this point was found, the position count was
RESET to 0. The platform was now positioned exactly halfway. This also corresponded
to the 0% reference position.
4. The function generator Power switch was set to ON.
5. Starting with a value of 1, the proportional gain Kp was slowly increased by 0.25 steps. If
an error occurred because of current overshoot, the gain was reduced back to the previous
value, the platform was repositioned to position 0, and the error was RESET. The search
was refined by steps of 0.05 instead. When the system began to oscillate continuously,
the process was stopped, and the corresponding ultimate gain KU value was noted.
6. A complete positive half cycle was acquired using the trend recorder, and the data was
exported to a spreadsheet.
7. The function generator Power switch was set to OFF.
8. The continuously oscillating response was plotted, and the period of oscillation in
seconds was determined.
9. Using the ultimate gain Kl and the oscillation period tu, the tuning constants KP, ti, and ta
were calculated using the Ziegler-Nichols formulae.
10. LVServo was run again, and the Device Controlled button in the Position Loop menu was
clicked. The settings were ensured to be initially as shown in Table 31.

11. The position count was reset, and the function generator Power switch was set to ON.
12. The derivative term was adjusted if necessary to obtain a quarter amplitude decay
response. The ratio of the peak overshoot (¢PEAK —¢REF) to the peak overshoot of the
 second successive cycle was ensured to be close to 4 to 1. A complete positive half cycle
was recorded with the trend recorder and exported to a spreadsheet.

13. A complete positive half cycle was recorded with the trend recorder and exported to a
spreadsheet.
14. The quarter amplitude decay step response was plotted
15. The position first reached the 10% point after the position reference changed from -10%
to +10%.
16. The parameters were adjusted as follows to produce a damping effect on the system: Kp
was multiplied by 1.5, Ti was multiplied by 16, and Td was multiplied by 2.
17. The position count was reset, and the function generator Power switch was set to ON
18. LVServo was run again, and the Device Controlled button in the Position Loop menu was
clicked.
19. The settings were ensured to be initially as shown in Table 32.
20. A complete positive half cycle was acquired using the trend recorder and exported to a
spreadsheet.
21. The function generator Power switch was set to OFF.
22. The step response was plotted.
23. The position first reached the 10% point after the position reference changed from -10%
to +10%.
24. The servo system is then modified based on the settings below:

25. A complete positive half cycle is recorded and exported to a spreadsheet.

26. The function generator POWER is OFF and the step response is plotted.
27. The result is recorded and discussed.
 3.0 DATA COLLECTION AND OBSERVATION
PART 1 :

Table 13: Speed readings during closed loop speed-control measurements.

Gain Voltage Reference Speed Actual Speed Error Speed/ Steady Steady
Voltage ratio state state
Speed speed
Ratio

𝐾𝐶 E E ω𝑅𝐸𝐹 ω𝑅𝐸𝐹 ω ω ω △ω 𝐾 ω𝑆𝑆 ω𝑆𝑆

ω𝑅𝐸𝐹

% V % 𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠 𝑟𝑝𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠 % % (𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠 %

)/V

1 40 19.2 36 113.0973 14.75 1.5446 21.269 14.73 0.08045 0.01106 3.07x10^

55 045 -4

2 40 19.2 24.9986 78.5354 14.375 1.5053 10.634 14.36 0.0784 0.02133 0.5332
01 46

3 40 19.2 21.99893 69.1117 14.875 1.5577 7.1335 14.86 0.08113 0.03272 0.7198
93 53

4 40 19.2 19.60021 61.5752 14.25 1.4923 5.3696 14.23 3.20704 0.64069 12.5575
5 04

5 40 19.2 15.00114 47.1275 10.75 1.1257 4.271 10.73 0.05863 0.03915 0.5873
014
Part II: Linear position control

Rail length = 6181 counts

𝐾𝑈 = 12.85

𝑡 = 0.829s - 0.735s

= 0.94s

Figure 1

𝐾𝑃 = 0.6 x 𝐾𝑈 = 7.71

𝑡𝑈 0.94
𝑡𝑖 = 2𝐾𝑃
= 2(7.71)
= 0. 06096

𝑡𝑈𝐾𝑃
𝑡𝑑 = 8
= 0. 905925
Quarter amplitude decay step response

Figure 2

𝐾𝑃 = 4.5

𝑡𝑖 = 1

𝑡𝑑 = 0.001
Significantly damped step response

Figure 3

Time : 2.4s

𝐾𝑃,𝑛𝑒𝑤 = 6.75

𝑡𝑖 = 16s

𝑡𝑑 = 0.002s
4.0 DISCUSSION
In this experiment, we examined the effect of increasing the proportional gain (Kp) on the
performance of a digital servo system operating under closed-loop speed control. The system
includes a microcontroller, an incremental encoder for feedback, and a power amplifier, all
crucial for maintaining the desired motor speed.

Initially, with Kp set to 0, the system operated in an open-loop configuration. The motor
voltage was increased to 40%, and we recorded the actual speed (ω) and reference speed (ωref).
This baseline measurement revealed discrepancies between the desired and actual speeds due to
the lack of corrective feedback.

When Kp was increased to 2, the system began adjusting the motor drive based on the
speed error (ωref - ω), significantly reducing the error and aligning the actual speed more closely
with the reference speed. Further increases in Kp to 3, 4, and 5 progressively refined the system’s
response. At Kp = 3, the system showed better stability and reduced oscillations compared to Kp
= 2. At Kp = 4, faster corrections were observed, maintaining the desired speed with minimal
overshoot and quicker settling times. At Kp = 5, the system achieved the highest precision, with
the actual speed almost perfectly aligned with the reference speed.

The results showed that the speed-to-supply voltage ratio improved with higher Kp
values, indicating better utilization of the supply voltage to achieve the desired motor speed. The
error value consistently decreased with higher Kp settings, highlighting increased accuracy and
the effectiveness of proportional control. The steady-state speed ratio improved significantly
with increasing Kp, reflecting the system's enhanced ability to maintain a consistent desired
speed. The feedback sensor's resolution and accuracy were crucial for precise speed
measurements, enabling finer adjustments by the control system. The power amplifier ensured
that the motor received appropriate power levels corresponding to the microcontroller's control
signals, facilitating effective speed control.

In Part II of the experiment, we focused on the linear position control of a servo system to
analyze its step response under different damping conditions. By adjusting the derivative term,
we achieved a quarter amplitude decay response, resulting in an underdamped system with a
damping ratio less than 1. This response featured oscillations that decayed over time, with each
peak being roughly one-quarter the amplitude of the previous peak.
 For a significantly damped response, we increased the damping ratio to 1 or greater,
creating a critically damped or overdamped system. This resulted in a smoother approach to the
target position, with no oscillations and minimal overshoot. The significantly damped system
reached the position reference of 10% faster than the quarter amplitude decay response, as
observed in the step response graphs (Figures 2.2 and 2.3), indicating a stable and controlled
movement towards the target.

The critically damped response demonstrated the fastest settling time without
overshooting the target position. In contrast, the overdamped system, while avoiding oscillations,
took longer to reach the target position compared to the critically damped system. Both responses
ensured high stability and precision, making them ideal for applications where exact positioning
is crucial.

The significantly damped response reached the position reference of 10% first, as shown
in Figures 2.2 and 2.3, requiring less time to move from -10% to 10% position reference
compared to the quarter amplitude decay response.
7.0 Conclusion
The experimental results and analysis highlight the significant impact of tuning
proportional gain (Kp) on the performance of a digital servo system under closed-loop speed
control. Adjusting Kp within an appropriate range leads to substantial improvements in tracking
accuracy, response times, and the utilization of available supply voltage to achieve the desired
motor speed.

In the absence of proportional control (Kp = 0), the system operated in an open-loop
configuration, resulting in significant discrepancies between actual speed and reference speed.
This underscores the importance of closed-loop feedback control for accurate speed regulation.
As Kp increased, the system's ability to correct deviations from the desired speed improved
markedly, resulting in smaller speed errors and better steady-state speed tracking.

The experiment identified an optimal range of Kp values where the system exhibited the
best performance characteristics, balancing fast response times, minimal overshoot, and stability.
In this setup, Kp = 4 and Kp = 5 showed the best performance, enabling the actual speed to align
almost perfectly with the reference speed.

The effectiveness of proportional control in speed regulation depends on the accuracy and
resolution of the feedback sensor (incremental encoder) and the capability of the power amplifier
to deliver the necessary drive signals to the motor. These components are crucial for precise
speed measurements and adjustments by the control system.

In summary, the choice between an underdamped (quarter amplitude decay) and a

significantly damped response depends on the specific application requirements. For applications
where speed is paramount and some overshoot is tolerable, the quarter amplitude decay response
is suitable. Conversely, for applications where precision and stability are critical, a significantly
damped response is preferable. This experiment emphasizes the importance of tuning the
damping characteristics to meet the desired performance criteria of the servo system in linear
position control.