California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

College of Engineering

Electrical and Computer Engineering

ECE 309L

Control Systems Laboratory

Spring 2018

DC Motor Control Progress

Final Lab Report

By: Emmanuel Bautista-Dizon

To: Professor Tarek Elsharhawy

May 29, 2018

1
 Table of Contents

1. Objectives…………………………………………………………………………....Page 3

2. Procedure….…………………………………………………………………………Page 3

3. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..….Page 3

4. Appendix A (Week 1 System Block Diagram)……………………………………...Page 4

5. Appendix B (Week 2 Wiring Diagram)……………………………………………..Page 5

6. Appendix C (Week 5 System Controller Design [TE Tuning Method])...………….Page 6

7. Appendix D (Week 7 System Modeling Method).………..………………………...Page 7

8. Appendix E cont. (Week 7 System Modeling Method)..............................................Page 8

9. Appendix F (Week 8 Control System Analysis)........................................................Page 9

10. Appendix G (Week 8 Control System Analysis cont.).............................................Page 10

11. Appendix H (Week 9 Final Demo and Presentation)................................................Page 11

12. Appendix I (Approved Documents)..........................................................................Page 12

13. References………………………………………………………………………….Page 22

2
 1. Objective: The objective of this lab is to design, assemble, and test a DC motor control

system.

2. Procedure:

a. Create system block diagram

b. Research parts, including motor driver, motor and encoder, and myDAQ

c. Create schematics/wiring diagram

d. Order parts; already have myDAQ, ordered motor encoder and motor driver

e. Hook up circuit according to wiring diagrams.

f. Find Ki and Kp using Tuning Method and System Modeling Method

g. Analyze each method

h. Demo project with and without load

3. Conclusion:

​In Conclusion, we successfully created, assembled, and tested a DC motor control

system with and without a load.

To summarize this project, we compared the data obtained from both methods and determined

which of the two was better. Both methods resulted in different Ki and Kp values. The different

values allowed us to find different values for the rise time, overshoot, and steady state error. For

both methods we noticed that when a load was added, the values changed. When we added a

load, the steady state error increased. We also noticed that the rise time increased. When

comparing Method 1- Tuning method and Method 2 - System Modeling, we noticed that Method

1 was better, since its steady state error was smaller while its rise time was smaller. Overall, the

lab was very successful in teaching us how to properly execute lab work as well as write a report.

3
Appendix A (Week 1 System Block Diagram)

4
Appendix B (Week 2 Wiring Diagram)

5
 Appendix C (Week 5 System Controller Design [TE Tuning Method])

Test values of Ki and Kp until a smooth curve is obtained

These are the tested values, with the last value being the best:

Ki Kp

0.1 0.001

0.1 0.002

0.1 0.003

0.1 0.01

0.1 0.011

0.1 0.015

0.1 0.02

0.5 0.02

0.5 0.015

0.5 0.018

1 0.019

1 0.02

1 0.019

1 0.016

1 0.015

1 0.01

6
 Appendix D (Week 7 System Modeling Method)

θ(S)/V(S)=Kt/((LS+R)(JS+b)+Kt​2​)
R​Matlab​=11Ω
R​Measured​=11.66Ω
L​Measured​=21mH
b=Stall torque/Free run Speed=0.1059Nm/58.641rad/s
b=0.001806Nms
J=½mr​2​=1/2(0.095kg)(0.002m)​2
J=1.9x10​-7​kgm​2
Kt=stall torque/stall current=0.1059Nm/1.1A
Kt=0.09627 Nm/A

θ(S)/V(S)=0.09627/(2.969x10​-7​S​2​+0.0001994s+0.02898

7
 Appendix E cont. (Week 7 System Modeling Method)

MATLAB code:
J = 1.9e-7;
b = 0.001806;
Kt = 0.09629;
Ke = 0.09629;
R = 10.9;
L = 21e-3;

8
 Appendix F (Week 8 Control System Analysis)
Method 1 – TE Tuning Method

No Load

Load
Data Table:

Method Kp Ki Rise Time Overshoot Ess

Method 1 (No
Load) 0.01 1 1.5 0.0352 0.00424
Method 1 (Load) 0.01 1 1.75 0 0.0036

9
 Appendix F (Week 8 Control System Analysis cont.)

Method 2 – System Modeling Method

No Load

Load
Data Table:

Method Kp Ki Rise Time Overshoot Ess

Method 2 (No 0.05
Load) 0.00306 0.9 2.4 0 533
Method 2 (Load) 0.00306 0.9 2.7 0 0.12

10
 Appendix G (Week 9 Final Demo and Presentation)
Method 1 resulted in the best output. We decided this by the fast rise time, as well as a low
steady state error. The results were close to method 3, but method 3’s steady state error was
higher. Our final values using method 3 were:
Kp= 0.01
Ki=1
TR=1.5
%OS=0
ess=4.24%
With load, ess changes:
ess=0.36%

11
Appendix I (Approved Documents)

12
Appendix I (Approved Documents cont.)

13
Appendix I (Approved Documents cont.)

14
Appendix I (Approved Documents cont.)

15
Appendix I (Approved Documents cont.)

16
Appendix I (Approved Documents cont.)

17
Appendix I (Approved Documents cont.)

18
Appendix I (Approved Documents cont.)

19
 References

1. https://blackboard.cpp.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4060770-dt-content-rid-26289343_2/courses/
18S_CENG_ECE309L.02/ba6956an-e.pdf
2. https://www.pololu.com/product/3262
3. https://blackboard.cpp.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4084628-dt-content-rid-27218589_2/courses/
18S_CENG_ECE309L.02/ECE309L%20Experiment%205%20%28LV%29.pdf
4. http://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/index.php?example=MotorSpeed&section=System
Modeling

20