See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276279181

DC Motor Armature Speed Control with PID Controller

Research · May 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4492.1764

CITATIONS READS
0 723

1 author:

Tanjid M Syed
University of Greenwich
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tanjid M Syed on 15 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IEEE JOURNAL OF CONTROL ENGINEERING
DC Motor Armature Speed Control with PID
Controller (December 2014)
S. T. Mehedi, University of Greenwich, Student Member, IET

Abstract—In this paper, I present the findings of my research,
the purpose of which is to demonstrate the various open loop and
closed loop responses of the armature speed of a DC motor to
various types of input. The aim is to eventually design a control
system using a PID controller for a faster and more stable
response. The Ziegler Nichols tuning method is used to tune the
PID controller. The various responses were recorded
experimentally and graphs were produced for comparison and
discussion. A mathematical model of the motor is derived to be
used for theoretical analysis and simulation. The theoretical and
simulated results are compared to the experimental outcomes to
verify its reliability.
Index Terms— Control system, DC motor, disturbance,
Matlab, PID control, Simulink, Transfer Function
I. INTRODUCTION
O NE of the ever existing challenges in control and
instrumentation engineering is the designing of a control
system that can respond very fast, with maximum stability, to
a dramatic change in the input and to maintain the desired
output in the presence of a disturbance. A simple example of a
system which requires a highly sensitive control system is the
control of the armature speed of a DC motors. DC motors are
of specific interest because they can be used in many fields
such as robotics. It can also be found in many portable home
appliances, automobiles and industrial equipments. Therefore
at the early stage of learning control and instrumentation
engineering, the study of DC motors will be helpful in
understanding more complex systems.
In this paper, I demonstrate the various open loop and
closed loop control system responses of the armature speed of
a permanent magnet DC motor for various types of inputs. The
aim is to eventually design a control system to obtain a stable
and faster output response from system.
A. Equipment
The motor rig circuit consisted of a small DC motor, an
MBED microcontroller, a photo-interrupter and a few
microprocessors for signal conversion and manipulation. A
very light flywheel attached to motor armature. The photo-
interrupter is used as a sensor to obtain the frequency of
Manuscript received December 14, 2014; revised January 7, 2014.
S. T. Mehedi, has finished GCSEs and A-Levels with science based
subjects at the Oxford International School. He is now studying MEng
Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the School of Engineering, University
of Greenwich, Medway, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Chatham, Kent
ME4 4TB, UK, (e-mail: ms653@greenwich.ac.uk).
1
Fig. 1. The DC motor speed controller circuit block diagram.
rotation of the flywheel, which is then converted to a voltage
signal and passed on to the MBED. A 12V power is supplied
to the motor rig.
B. Data Acquisition and Control
The MBED microcontroller along with a purpose built
Labview interface running on a computer is used for data
acquisition and control. The MBED microcontroller is a rapid
prototyping platform based on ARM microcontrollers. The
MBED is programmed to collect data from the motor and
transmit it to a PC via a USB port. Labview is a graphical
programming environment used primarily for data acquisition
and control. A Labview interface is designed to collect this
data from the MBED and display a plot of armature speed in
against time. The Labview interface is also designed to allow
the user to input a desired speed of the motor and the
parameter of the PID controller. Using these input values, the
MBED controls the speed of the motor using pulse width
modulation (PWM). To compare the experimental data,
Matlab and Simulink is used to simulate a mathematical model
of the system.
C. Structure of the report
A theoretical analysis of the system is included in the next
section, which is referred to during the discussion in the
following sections. Experimental values are collected and a
mathematical model of the system is constructed.
II. THEORY
A. Mathematical Model
The purpose of this section is to take the dynamic system
and mathematically model it. The mathematical model is
constructed to be used to conduct a theoretical analysis and in
simulation. The simplest model of a DC motor can be obtained
by applying a step input to the system and plot a output
against time graph. The step response of the motor rig yields a
graph which can be approximated as an exponential decay
IEEE JOURNAL OF CONTROL ENGINEERING 2

curve, with a delay at the beginning. Therefore, it can be  K  K 

modeled as a first order system. The general form of a first C  s   E  s   Kp  i  sK d    (4)
 s   Ts  1 
order transfer function is shown in (1)
Substituting (4) into (3) and simplifying, we get,
K
T (s)  (1) R s
Ts  1 E s  (5)
The final value or gain of the system output K and the time  K  K 
1   Kp  i  sK d   
constant T, which is the time take to reach or 63.2% of the  s   Ts  1 
final value, can be used to construct the first order system The steady state error of the system can be determined by
transfer function by substituting the values into (1). using the final value theorem, which states that,

B. PID Controller error at steady state is given by,

Among many other controllers, the PID controller is a e     lim e  t 
relatively simple in terms of the way it works and its s
implementation. We will use PID controller to control the In the Laplace domain,
rotor speed of the motor. Various combinations of PID, e     lim sE  s 
proportional Kp, Integral Ki, Differential Kd, is applied to run s0
tests and observe the response of the system. Fig. 1 shows the Let the PID controller be the transfer function G(s)
block diagram of the closed loop system with PID controller. So
The Ziegler Nichols PID tuning method is eventually used K
to find the right tune for a quarter decay response. The G ( s )  Kp  i  sK d (6)
s
combination is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
ZIEGLER NICHOLS TABLE TO OPTIMIZE PID CONTROLLER Therefore, steady state error for our system is given by,
Type of  
Controller
Kp Ki Kd  sR  s  
e     lim   (7)
P 0.5Kult 0 0 s 0   K 
PI 0.45.5Kult 1/(0.833Pult) 0  1  G  s   Ts  1  
PID 0.6Kult 1/(0.5Pult) 0.125Pult   

In Ziegler Nichols oscillation method of tuning, Kult is the  s(Ts  1) R  s  

e   lim   (8)
s 0  Ts  1  G  s  K
value of Kp (with Ki and Kd set to 0) for which the system just  
starts to oscillate. Putl is the period of the oscillation.
Using a Laplace transform table,
For a step input,
1
R s 
s
For a ramp input
1
R s  2
s
For step input with proportional only controller,
.
 1 
Fig. 2. The block diagram of the system with PID Controller.  s Ts  1   
e     lim 
s  1
(9)
s  0   Ts  1   Kp  K  1  ( Kp ) K
C. Steady State Error  
 
The steady state error of a system is the difference between For step input with proportional and integral controller,
the desired value and the actual value after the system has
 1 
passed its transient state and stabilized. We will find the  s 2   Ts  1 
theoretical value of the steady state error of our system in Fig. e     lim 
 s  0 (10)
2 to compare it with the experimental results in the next s  0  s Ts  1   sKp  K  K 
i
section. The transfer function of the PID controller is,  
 
K
K p  i  sK d (2) For step input with proportional, integral and derivative
s controller,
From the system block diagram in Fig. 1,  1 
 s 2   Ts  1 
E s  R s  C s (3) s
e     lim  0 (11)
s 0 

 
s Ts  1  sKp  Ki  s 2 K d K 

 
IEEE JOURNAL OF CONTROL ENGINEERING 3

For ramp input with proportional only controller, With proportional, integral and derivative controller,
  1   1
 s  2  Ts  1  eD     0 (20)
 
s  Ki Ts  1 
e     lim   (12) lim  Kp   sK d 
s  0   Ts  1   Kp  K  s 0
 s K 
 
 
E. Motor Variables
For ramp input with proportional and integral controller,
In its simplest form, a DC motor consist an armature
  1  
 s 2  2  Ts  1  winding that rotates in a magnetic field when a current is
e     lim 
s   1 (13) passed through it. The magnetic field is produced by a
s  0  s  Ts  1   sKp  K  K  ( Ki ) K
i separate winding, stator winding, around an electromagnet
 
  which is supplied current in series or parallel with the
For ramp input with proportional, integral and derivative armature winding. The armature winding in a motor is
controller, responsible for its internal resistance R and inductance L
  1  
 s 2  2  Ts  1 
e     lim 
 
s  1 (14)
s 0 

 
s Ts  1  sKp  Ki  s K d K  ( Ki ) K
2


 
D. Steady-state Error for Disturbance
The steady-state error for a disturbance introduced to the
system can be shown to reduce when a tuned controller is where, R = armature resistance
used. Fig. 3 shows system block diagram with a disturbance L = armature Inductance
i = current through the armature
D(s) introduced to the motor. Vin = input voltage
Vb = back electromotive force (emf)
Tm = motor torque
= angular velocity
J = rotational inertia
B = viscous friction/damping
.
Fig. 4. The control equivalent circuit for the given system
modeled shown in Fig. 4. In the circuit diagram the back
Fig. 3. The control equivalent block diagram. electromotive force, emf, Vb produced by the motor winding
since it is rotating in a magnetic field. Back emf Vb is known
From Fig. 3, the transfer function of the system is,
to be directly proportional to the angular velocity of the
 K 
C  s    E  s  G  s   D(s)    (15) motor armature with a constant of proportionality know as the
 Ts  1  back emf constant kb.
Comparing (3) and (16), the steady-state error is, d  t 
 K  Vb  kb  kbout (21)
 Ts  1  dt
E s 
1
R s    (16)
D( s) The relationship between angular velocity of the motor
 K   K 
1 G s  1  G  
s  and Torque Tm is given in (23). It is the rotational version of
 Ts  1   Ts  1 
the second low of translational Newton’s second law. The
The second term of left hand side of (13) is the error due to constant of proportionality is the rotational moment of inertia
the disturbance Applying final value theorem to find the J.
steady-state error with disturbance a step disturbance (1/s),
d  
1 Tm  J  J
eD     (17) (22)
 Ts  1  dt
lim  G  s  
K 
Using Kirchhoff's voltage law,
s 0

di  t 
With only proportional controller, Vin  Ri  t   L  Vb (23)
1 1 dt
eD      (18)
 Ts  1  1 The inductance L of a small motor that we are using has a
lim  Kp  K p
s 0
 K  K very low value as low as a few mH. Thus the inductance
component can be ignored in equation (24),
With proportional and integral controller,
1
eD     0 (19) Vin  Ri t   Vb (24)
 K Ts  1 
lim  Kp  i

K 
Rearranging,
s 0
 s
Vb  Vin  Ri t  (25)
IEEE JOURNAL OF CONTROL ENGINEERING 4

approximation of the system. To model the DC motor in state-

space will require two state equations. One for the inductor
associated with the armature and the other for the load.
The storage elements in the system are the voltage across
the inductor VL and the motor torque TL (which is equal to the
load torque).
Fig. 5 The DC motor system block diagram. di
VL  L (35)
dt
Substituting (22) into (26),
d
Vin  Ri  t  TL  J (36)
kb  (26) dt
out
Therefore, the state variables are iL and ω, the angular
The torque, Tm, of the motor is directly proportional to the velocity of the motor. Using Kirchhoff's laws for the electrical
armature current i with the proportionality constant kT known side we can write:
as the torque constant. VL Vin  VR  Vb (37)
Tm  kT i  t  (27)
The voltage across the resistor is = .
The unit of kT and kb are the same and they are equal, Substituting = and (22) into (38) we have,
therefore, VL Vin  iR  km  (38)
Tm  kb i  t  (28)
Substituting (36) we can write the first state equation as,
Therefore the torque at stall is the product of kb and current diL Vin iR km 
at stall,    (39)
dt L L L
Tstall  kb istall (29)
For the mechanical components of the motor, the total
We know that km, is equal to, torque of the motor is the torque of the load TL and the torque
T associated to the motor damping TB.
km  stall R (30)
Vin Tm  TL  TB (40)
Substituting Tstall from (11), Since we are interested in the torque on the load,
k i TL  Tm  TB (41)
km  B stall R (31)
Vin The damping torque is proportional to the speed of the
Thus, motor ω and the damping constant B. Substituting
km  kb (32) TL  kmi  B (42)
The block diagram shown in Fig. 5 is a simple block Substituting (37) into (43) we get our second state variable,
diagram representing the DC motor. The block diagram can be d  ka i 
  (43)
reduced to a single transfer function, dt J J
km So we have our two state equations written in terms of the
 Ls  R  Js  B  input and the two state variables. We can now write the state
G s  (33) equations (40) and (44) in compact matrix notation as,
km kb
1  R k 
 Ls  R  Js  B  i     b 1
 L L i   
The inductance, L of a small DC motor is too small, so the       L Vin (44)
term Ls can be ignored. Thus simplifying (34) we get,   km  B     
 J  
J 
km
Since the output is the speed of the motor, the output
RB  ki kb
G s  (34) equation is:
JR i 
s 1 y   0 1   (45)
RB  ki kb  
Comparing (35) with (1), we can identify the expressions
that represents K and T. Using step input to obtain the III. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
transient response of the motor speed and equating the gain A. Transfer Function
and the time constant we can calculate the values for J, the
An open loop step response test is used to determine the
rotational inertia and B, the damping coefficient.
required values to construct the transfer function in (1). The
The values for R, L, J, B, ki, and kb found can then be used
graph of the step response is provided in Fig. 5. The values are
to model the system as a state space model.
found to be,
F. State Space Model Final value  6000 rpm
State space model of the system would be a better Delay  0.15 s
IEEE JOURNAL OF CONTROL ENGINEERING 5

Timeconstant  (0.65  0.15)  0.50s

Substituting the values of K and T in (1), we get the transfer
function of the DC motor,
6000
G s 
0.5 s  1
To convert the input of the transfer function from voltage
input to rpm input, the numerator is divided with the gain of
the system for step input of 1V. From Fig. 6 the gain is found Fig. 8. Actual step response of the system with a disturbance.
to be 6000rpm. Thus, The value of resistance R and inductance L of the armature
1 winding is found to be,
G s  R  0.76 Ω
0.5 s  1
L 1.5 mH
This transfer function can now be used to simulate an
approximated first order model of the system using the km  kb  0.0014355 V /  rad / s 
powerful engineering simulation software tools in Matlab and Converting the rpm output transfer function G(s) to a rad/s
simulink. output transfer function, d
628
B. State Space Model G s 
In order to model the system as a state space model the 0.5 s  1
values required are the values in (45). Resistance R is very Equating the numerator and denominator and substituting
small, so it cannot be measured directly. The method used to the R, L, km and kb values, we can calculate B and J,
experimentally obtain the resistance value is to measure and B  296  10
9

record the current through the motor increase the voltage input
slowly. There is a saturation voltage where the current reaches TABLE 2
its maximum and voltage drops to that saturation voltage even ZIEGLER NICHOLS TABLE TO OPTIMIZE PID CONTROLLER
if the input voltage is increased. The various voltages are Type of
Kp Ki Kd
taken to be below that saturation voltage. Each pair of voltage Controller
and current reading should be repeated to obtain an average P 5.0 0 0
PI 4.5 2.667 0
value. Finally using Ohm law, the resistance can be PID 6.0 4.444 0.05625
determined for each pair of voltage and current obtained and
6
taking the average of all the values. Inductance L can be J  1.50  10
obtained by applying input voltage to the motor and observing We can now substitute these values to obtain the state space
the transient response of the output voltage. model of the DC motor.
iL   507 0.957  iL  667 
     Vin
    957 0.197       
i 
y   0 1  L 
 
This model can now be used for simulation using Matlab
and simulink.
C. Ziegler Nichols PID tuning
The Ziegler Nichols PID tuning method is used to tune the
Fig. 6. Actual response of the system to various step input values.
PID controller for faster response, minimum overshoot and
zero steady state error. The various test values are shown in
Fig. 7 to find the value of Kp from which the system starts to
oscillate. Kult and Tult was measured to be,
Kult 10
Tult  0.45
Table 2 shows the values of the three PID controller
elements calculated using the Ziegler Nichols tuning methods.

The next section provides the result which includes graphs

of responses from the open loop and closed loop tests.

Fig. 7. Simulated response of the system to various step input values.

IEEE JOURNAL OF CONTROL ENGINEERING 6

Fig. 9. Actual step response of the system as Kp is increased. Fig. 10. Stimulated step response of the system as Kp is increased.

IV. RESULTS ANALYSIS is expected from the theoretical analysis in (10). The system
slowly approaches the desired value with a small Ki but
The data obtained from the experiment and simulation are reaches the desired value with as Ki is increase, obviously with
presented as graphs using Matlab. The various open loop a small overshoot. However very high value of Ki also makes
responses of the DC motor to a step input is shown in Fig. 6. It the system unstable as can be seen in Fig. 11. A very
is clearly from the graphs that, as the step input is increased, interesting point to note in the graph is that for the same
the final value also increases. However, the time constant of combination of Kp and Ki but with a introduction of small
the response is approximately the same. As can be observed, value of Kd, the system seems to have no apparent change in
the response of the system is delayed by about 0.15s, showing its response. The simulated response for the same set of values
that there is a transport delay in the system. In fact it is clearly of Kp, Ki and Kd is shown in Fig. 12. It can be seen that the
not a first order system, as at the beginning the gradient is response are quit not so similar. The response are far more
increasing at a decreasing rate and eventually behaves as an oscillatory than the actual response.
exponential decay curve. Nevertheless for simplicity and for An attempt to manually find the right PID tune for a system
the purpose of this demonstration the first order approximation with minimal rise time, overshoot, settling time and steady-
is appropriate. state proved that it is far too difficult and not efficient. Fig. 13
From Fig. 8, we can see the effect of disturbance on the shows the results of some of the response which were
open loop system. As disturbance is introduced the speed of comparatively better. An attempt to tune the system based on
the armature fell drastically. To maintain this speed to a set
value, the input voltage has to be increased manually. Clearly
an closed loop control system is required to eliminate the error
due to the disturbance.
A closed loop PID control system is programmed using the
MBED microprocessor, Labview in the setup shown in Fig.1.
In order to find the value of Kult and Tult to construct the
Ziegler Nichols PID tuning table shown in Table 2, the various
step responses, as Kp is gradually increased, is shown in Fig. 9.
It is evident from the plots that as the value of Kp is increased,
the steady-state error and the rise time decreases, but the
overshoot and settling time of the system increases. The
system never reaches the desired output, in agreement with
(9), there will always be a steady-state error no matter how big
the value of Kp is. In fact when Kp is increased to 5, the system
tends to never settle down and gradually gets closer to an
oscillation as Kp is increased up to 10. Further increase in Kp
makes the system unstable. Thus it is concluded that for Fig. 11. Simulated step response of the system with various
combination of Kp, Ki and Kd.
Ziegler Nichols tuning the Kult is equal to 10. The simulated
results in Fig. 10, shows that the simulation matches the actual
response. However it only matches as long as the value of Kp
is small, in fact any larger value than shown in Fig 10 makes
the simulated response very unstable and oscillatory.

So increasing Kp improves steady state error and rise time

but increases overshoot and settling time. Therefore increasing
Kp only does not provide an overall improved response. Fig.
11 shows the effect on the response of the system for various
values of Ki in combination with Kp. It is clearly seen that as
Fig. 12. Actual response of the system for tests run for various
the Ki is introduced the steady-state error become zero, which combination of Kp, Ki and Kd to find the right tune manually.
IEEE JOURNAL OF CONTROL ENGINEERING 7

Fig. 13. Actual response of the system with values of Kp, Ki and Kd
calculated using the Ziegler Nichols tuning method.
previous response lead to some improvement but nothing
significant. From the graph in Fig. 11, it was already observed
that the Ki and Kp values seemed to cause a significant
instability or oscillation to the system when it is more than
about 5. Therefore keeping the values of Ki and Kp around 5
and varying the value of Kd it is seen that as Kd is increased
system tends to become unstable and it is apparent the system
has better response without Kd.
Since the manual tuning is not as effective, the Ziegler
Nichols tuning method was applied to compare its
effectiveness. The PID controller parameter, given in Table 2,
is used to set the controller. The step responses of the system
is shown in Fig. 13. With the introduction of the Ziegler
Nichols PID tuned values, the dramatic change in the response
compared to Fig. 12 can be seen in Fig. 13.
Fig. 14. Simulated response of the system with values of Kp, Ki and Kd
calculated using the Ziegler Nichols tuning method.
With proportional only controller, the system stable and
settling time is improved but introduces a significant steady-
state error. Using (9), the steady-state error for unit step input
should be 0.1667, thus for a step input of 10000 rpm, the
steady-state error is 1667 rpm. The actual response shows
higher steady-state error than the theoretical value.
Nevertheless it is a quite correct given that it is assumed and
modeled to be a first order system. For the proportional and
integral combination the steady-state error is seen to become
zero, as confirmed by (10). The introduction of the derivative
component of the controller does reduce the overshoot and
settling time but the system is less steady and the output is
noticeably struggling to stay at the set point. This for this case
it is the PI combination which is favorable over the PID in the

Fig. 15. Actual response of the system with values of Kp, Ki and Kd calculated using the Ziegler Nichols tuning method. The upper graphs are for the Ziegler
Nichols PI combination and the lower graphs are for the PID combination. The first set of graph is for a step response with a disturbance, the second set is the
response for a ramp input (triangular input) and the third one is for a sine wave input response of the system.

Fig. 16. Simulated response of the system with values of Kp, Ki and Kd calculated using the Ziegler Nichols tuning method. The upper graphs are for the Ziegler
Nichols PI combination and the lower graphs are for the PID combination. The first set of graph is for a step response with a disturbance, the second set is the
response for a ramp input (triangular input) and the third one is for a sine wave input response of the system.
IEEE JOURNAL OF CONTROL ENGINEERING 8

case of a DC motor. REFERENCES

The simulated response for the Ziegler Nichols tuning
values are shown in Fig. 14. The response is far to oscillatory
and takes longer to settle down than the actual system
response. It is safe to say at this point that the simulation is not
always producing a very reliable output.
In order to further verify if the system with PI controller is
better than the system with PID controller for the DC motor,
several tests are ran which are shown in Fig. 15. From the
graphs it is seen that, for a step input, when a disturbance is
introduced the PI controller is more stable with better response
than the PID controller. Steady-state error for both PI and PID
controller is zero, as verified by (20) and (21) respectively.
For a ramp input, the PI controller has a steady-state error
of 0.375, calculated using (13). Therefore it has a steady-state
error of 3750 rpm for a ramp input. Whereas, the steady-state
error for a ramp input is calculated using (14) and found to be
2250rpm. The Ziegler Nichols tuned PI controller has higher
steady state error for a ramp input than PID controller.
Nevertheless, for a DC motor, as it can be seen that the system
response is very stable for the PI controller compared to the
PID controller, if stability is priority over the error in steady
state, a PI controller should be used rather than the PID
controller.
The sine wave input has a similar system response. This
also has similar steady state errors compared to the ramp input
response. The PI controller is again seen to be more stable
then the PID controller shown in Fig. 15. The simulated
results are also shown in Fig. 16 which shows that the
simulation output approximately matches the actual response
with the exception of the usual oscillation when the derivative
component is introduces.
[1] Brown, D., Harrold, D. and Hope, R. (2004). Control engineering.
Amsterdam: Newnes.
[2] Goodwin, G., Graebe, S. and Salgado, M. (2001). Control system design.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
[3] Hahn, B. and Valentine, D. (2010). Essential MATLAB for engineers
and scientists. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press.
[4] Hanselman, D. and Littlefield, B. (2005). Mastering MATLAB 7. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
[5] Higham, D. and Higham, N. (2005). MATLAB guide. Philadelphia:
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
[6] LabVIEW Basics I Course Manual., National Instruments, 1999.
[7] Liau, J. C., A Study of LabVIEW Aided in DC Motor Speed Monitoring
System. National Taiwan Ocean University Department of Mechanical
& Mechatronic Engineering, 2000.
[8] Nise, N. (2004). Control systems engineering. [Hoboken, NJ]: Wiley
S. T. Mehedi was born in Dhaka,
Bangladesh, in 1992. He completed his
GCSEs, in 2008 with nine subjects mostly
science based subjects. In 2011 he completed
his A-levels with four subjects purely based
on science and engineering. He is currently
studying MEng Electrical and Electronic
Engineering at the University of Greenwich, expecting to
graduate in 2016. This journal is his first research paper. He
recently joined the IEEE as a student member. He is working
at a project with the Wolfson Bulk Solid Technology Research
Center.

SUMMARY
To summaries this paper has shown the power of closed
loop control system in maintaining its desired output in the
presence of various types of disturbance such as step, ramp
and sine wave input. It has demonstrated the difference
between an open loop and closed loop system and how the
various components of a PID controller effects the responses
of a system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The completion of this paper would not have been possible
without the constant support of my tutor, Dr Terry Gorman,
lecturer at the University of Greenwich. He has guided me
through every problem I faced regarding this attempt to
demonstrate the power of closed loop PID control system. I
would also like to thank the authors of books I have refereed
to and the people who helped me understand concepts by
sharing their knowledge for free on the world wide web.

View publication stats