MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010

ROBUST PID CONTROL OF A LINEAR MECHANICAL AXIS : A CASE STUDY

M Fajar Rohman (2107100174)

Abstract
This paper is a rebuild from Robust PID control of a linear mechanical axis. Inside, we try to find stability a system. From the
transfer function, we write in matlab to obtain signal response obviously. The transfer function, are combined gain of
proportional,integral,and derivative to stabilize signal quickly.

Keywords : Robust ; PID control ; linear mechanical axis.

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, many industrial use robot to assembly the component to be product. It could be used for
welding,assembly,cutting,etc. it is controlled by controller and could move all of direction. When it
moving, it could be vibrations and this vibrations disadvantages. To overcome this trouble, PID
controller installed to controller to minimize error when the robot move. PID controller consist of
P(proportional), I(Integral), D(Derivative). They could use single or pairs even all it on one system. The
proportional term (gain) makes a change to the output that is proportional to the current error value.
The proportional response can be adjusted by multiplying the error by a constant Kp. If the
proportional gain is too high, the system can become unstable. In contrast, a small gain results in a
small output response to a large input error, and a less responsive (or sensitive) controller. If the
proportional gain is too low, the control action may be too small when responding to system
disturbances. The integral term (when added to the proportional term) accelerates the movement of
the process towards setpoint and eliminates the residual steady-state error that occurs with a
proportional only controller. However, since the integral term is responding to accumulated errors
from the past, it can cause the present value to overshoot the setpoint value (cross over the setpoint
and then create a deviation in the other direction). The magnitude of the contribution of the integral
term to the overall control action is determined by the integral gain, Ki. The derivative term slows the
rate of change of the controller output and this effect is most noticeable close to the controller
setpoint. Hence, derivative control is used to reduce the magnitude of the overshoot produced by the
integral component and improve the combined controller-process stability. However, differentiation
of a signal amplifies noise and thus this term in the controller is highly sensitive to noise in the error
term, and can cause a process to become unstable if the noise and the derivative gain are sufficiently
large.

ANALISYS

Now, from this figure below, we could analyze about response this system.

Page 1
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010

We could design block diagram for system as figure below

In design system,we use PID controller. A PID is the most commonly used feedback controller. A PID
controller calculate an error value as the difference between a measured process variable and a
desired setpoint. It could minimize error when system run.The PID controller consist of Proportional,
Integral, and Derivative. They could use single or pairs even all it on one system. The proportional
term (gain) makes a change to the output that is proportional to the current error value. The
proportional response can be adjusted by multiplying the error by a constant Kp. If the proportional
gain is too high, the system can become unstable. In contrast, a small gain results in a small output
response to a large input error, and a less responsive (or sensitive) controller. If the proportional gain
is too low, the control action may be too small when responding to system disturbances. The integral
term (when added to the proportional term) accelerates the movement of the process towards
setpoint and eliminates the residual steady-state error that occurs with a proportional only controller.
However, since the integral term is responding to accumulated errors from the past, it can cause the
present value to overshoot the setpoint value (cross over the setpoint and then create a deviation in
the other direction). The magnitude of the contribution of the integral term to the overall control
action is determined by the integral gain, Ki. The derivative term slows the rate of change of the
controller output and this effect is most noticeable close to the controller setpoint. Hence, derivative
control is used to reduce the magnitude of the overshoot produced by the integral component and
improve the combined controller-process stability. However, differentiation of a signal amplifies noise
and thus this term in the controller is highly sensitive to noise in the error term, and can cause a
process to become unstable if the noise and the derivative gain are sufficiently large.

From the system,we get a equation for H1(s) and H2(s) as below.

Page 2
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010

mtot=m1+m2 ; ξ’, ξ as the damping ratio ; r= ωn’/ ωn as the inertia ratio.

Then, we determine transfer function for u and H(s)

H(s) = H1(s) x H2(s)

H(s) = (1 + a1s + a2s2)/{mtots2(1 +b1s + b2s2)2)

From equation,we determine that

a1 as {2ξ’/ωn’}, a2 as {1/ωn’2}, b1 as {2ξ/ωn}, and b2 as {1/ωn2}.

and value for variable

mtot = {80 ; 90} (kg), ωn=,10π ; 15 π-(rad/s), ξ’=,0.6 ;0.8-, ξ=,0.6 ;0.8-, r=,0.5 ;0.8-, r= ωn’/ ωn.

Now, we get coefficient for

a1 = {2*0.6/(0.5*10π)- = 0.76

a2 = ,1/(0.5*10π)^2} = 0.004

b1 = {2*0.6/(10π)} = 0.04

b2 = ,1/(10π)^2} = 0.001

and then, we get transfer function for H1(s) is (1+0.76s +0.004s2)/(80s2(1+0.004s+0.001s2));H2(s) is

1/(1+0.004s+0.001s2); and H(s) is (1 +0.76s +0.004s2)/{80s2(1+0.004s+0.001s2)2} or (1 +0.76s
+0.004s2)/(8*10^-5 s6+6.4*10^-3 s5+0.288 s4+6.4 s3+80 s2)

with matlab we can obtain figure for step response from transfer function above.To programme in
matlab,we can type in matlab

clear all;clc;

%tugas final project%

num =[0 0 0 0 0.004 0.76 1];

den =[0.00008 0.0064 0.288 6.4 80 0 0]

sys=tf(num,den);step(sys)

and then running the program to get figure step response as like below

Page 3
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010

-3
x 10 Step Response
6

4
Amplitude

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time (sec)

Besides that,we could use program from internet in http://www.softintegration.com/cgi-

bin/chcgi/toolkit/control/ctk_step.ch. And we get step response

Rise time: 39.946189

Settling time: 61.865096
Peak value: 24.944638
Peak time: 62.500000

Page 4
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010

And now,we try to use PID controller.Let’s type

clear all;clc;

%tugas final project%

num =[0 0 0 0 0.004 0.76 1];

den =[0.00008 0.0064 0.288 6.4 80 0 0]

t=0:0.0005:1;

plant=tf(num,den);

Kp=150;

Ki=10;

Kd=50;

PI=tf([Kp Ki],[1000 0]);

contr=feedback(PI*plant,0);

P=feedback(Kp*plant,0);

Q=tf([Kp Ki Kd],[1 0])

PID=feedback(Q*plant,0);

figure(1);
Page 5
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010
step(P,t);

figure(2);

step(plant,t);

figure(3);

step(contr,t);

figure(4);

step(PID,t);

and the figures from running programme are

figure 1

figure 2

Page 6
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010

figure 3

figure 4

Page 7
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010

Because the response increase continuously,we should reduce time range to be 0.4 s and we change
Kp,Ki,and Kd. Let’s try again to get new response with new time range.

clear all;clc;

%tugas final project%

num =[0 0 0 0 0.004 0.76 1];

den =[0.00008 0.0064 0.288 6.4 80 0 0]

t=0:0.0005:0.4;

plant=tf(num,den);

Kp=5000;

Ki=2;

Kd=100;

PI=tf([Kp Ki],[1000 0]);

contr=feedback(PI*plant,0);

P=feedback(Kp*plant,0);

Page 8
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010
Q=tf([Kp Ki Kd],[1 0])

PID=feedback(Q*plant,0);

figure(1);

step(P,t);

figure(2);

step(plant,t);

figure(3);

step(contr,t);

figure(4);

step(PID,t);

and the figures from the new running programme are

figure 1

Figure 2

Page 9
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010

Figure 3

Figure 4

Page 10
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010

After,trying the new range time. We get the new figure and the response nearly stable in 0.2-0.25 s. It
is too fast range time for robot to obtain stability. After all, we know that the response from transfer
function illustrate positive trend till infinitive.

CONCLUSION

This test try to find stable response from system control. A PID controller installed in system to
minimize error in system. Some gain Kp,Ki,and Kd adjusted to find stable performance. The response
from the test transfer function perform positive trend continuously. But the response for this system
too large. Many ways to solve it, the gain of proportional,integral,or derivative could be variant to
find stability in system. At last, the stability response found in range time 0.2-0.25 and then,the
graphic continuously rise.

References

[1] Ahn KK, Nguyen HTC. Design of a robust force controller for the new mini
motion package using quantitative feedback theory. Mechatronics
2007;17:542–50.
*2+ Alazard D. Comments on the benchmark for ‘‘Design and optimization of
restricted complexity controllers:towards a non-parametric model based
solution”. European J Control 2003;9:100–4.
[3] Barre PJ, Béarée R, Borne P, Dumetz E. Influence of a jerk controlled movement
law on the vibratory behaviour of high-dynamics systems. J Intell Robot Syst
2005;42:275–93.
[4] Benson SJ, Ye Y. DSDP5 user guide – software for semidefinite programming,
<http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/DSDP/>; 2005.
[5] Bhattacharyya S, Chapellat H, Keel L. Robust control: the parametric
approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2002.
[6] Boyd S, Ghaoui LE, Feron E, Balakrishnan V. Linear matrix inequalities in
system and control. Philadelphia: SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics;

Page 11
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,ITS 2010
1994.
[7] Dumetz E, Dieulot J-Y, Barre PJ, Colas F, Delplace T. Control of an industrial
robot using acceleration feedback. J Intell Robot Syst 2006;46:111–28.
[8] Ellis G. Control system design guide. 2nd ed. Boston: Academic Press; 2000.
[9] Goodwin GC, Woodyatt AR, Middleton RH, Shim J. Fundamental limitations
due to jx-axis zeros in SISO systems. Automatica 1999;35:857–63.
[10] Henrion D, Arzelier D, Peaucelle D. Positive polynomial matrices and improved
LMI robustness conditions. Automatica 2003;39:1479–85.
[11] Yang F, Gani M, Henrion D. Fixed-order robust controller design with regional
pole assignment. IEEE Trans Automat Control 2007;52:1959–63.
[12] Lofberg J. YALMIP: a toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB. In:
IEEE international symposium on computer aided control systems design,
Taipei, Taiwan; 2004.
[13] Md Zain MZ, Tokhi MO, Mohamed Z. Hybrid learning control schemes with
input shaping of a flexible manipulator system. Mechatronics 2006;16(3–
4):209–19.
[14] Moheimani SOR, Vautier BJG, Bhikkaji B. Experimental implementation of
multivariable PPF control of active structures. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol
2006;14:443–56.
[15] Suh G, Hyun DS, Park JI, Lee KD, Lee SG. Design of a pole placement controller
for reducing oscillation and settling time in a two-inertia motor system. In:
The 27th annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics society, IECON
’01; 2001.
[16] Szabat K, Orlowska-Kowalska T. Vibration suppression in a two-mass drive
system using PI speed controller and additional feedbacks – comparative
study. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2007;54:1193–206.
[17] Zhang G. Comparison of control schemes for two-inertia system, In: IEEE
international conference on power electronics and drive systems, PEDS’99,
Hong Kong; 1999.

Page 12