EE315 Linear Controls Twilight Zone Tower of Terror Case Study 04-29-2015

EE 315 Linear Control Systems
Project Report
Twilight Zone Tower of Terror II

Design
Written by:
Jordan D. Ulmer,
Instructor:
Dr. Hietpas
Joshua Behnken,
Design Initiated:
01/16/2015
Part I Report Submission:
02/13/2015
Part II Programmatic Submission:
03/16/2015
Part III Final Design Report:
04/29/2015
Jeremy Laird
Page |1
Background:
The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is a Walt Disney World amusement park ride, which the SDSU team has
been tasked with re designing (See Figure 1). The existing system has been analyzed, simulated and a
new control system scheme design is here in proposed to meet a new set of specifications and constraints.
Figure 1: Walt Disney World's Twilight Zone Tower of Terror Building Architecture [1]
Page |2
Introduction:
The aim of this project was to design a new Control System for Walt Disneys Twilight Zone Tower of
Terror, this task has been split into three parts, analysis, simulation and design. First, the existing system
was thoroughly studied through hand analysis techniques (Part one). Second, the existing system was
modeled programmatically and simulated (Part two). Third, specifications and constraints were identified
and a control system was designed (Part three) and is here-in presented.
Theoretical Analysis: Part one consisted of four independent tasks contrived to understand the exiting
Control System for the Tower of Terror. First, the electromechanical model provided by Walt Disney
engineers was translated to an electrical equivalent network. Second, the electrical equivalent system
was used in coalition with the electromechanical model to generate a Simulink system block diagram
summary. Third the transfer function of the system has been derived using two methods: standard circuit
analysis applied to the electrical equivalent network (described in Task 1) and Masons Gain Rule applied
to the SIMULINK system block diagram (described in Task 2). Fourth, a set of prospective DC motors
considered to meet new specifications. Additionally, in Task 4, one motor from this set has been chosen
and analyzed in detail.
Simulation: Part two was a continued study of the existing system through programmatic simulations
utilizing Simulink and MATLAB. First, the open loop system transfer function was analyzed (with and
without gravity) in MATLAB as well as modeled in Simulink and the two simulations were compared.
Second, a maximum forward system gain was established through the use of a Routh Hurwitz stability
analysis. Third, the system closed loop transfer function was analyzed in MATLAB and modeled in
Simulink and again the simulations were compared.
Design: In part three, specifications and constraints for a new control system were identified, and a
control system was designed through iteratively utilizing two separate design approaches. First, the root
locus of the open loop system transfer function was studied, and a manual attempt was made to meet
specifications by altering the forward system gain to position the dominant closed loop system poles
(preliminary design work, not discussed). Second, the system Bode plot was considered and a Lag
Compensator was iteratively designed.
Page |3
(0)PART ZERO DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

Before a formal design approach was considered, specific design constraints were identified and desired
specifications were established.
System Constraints:
The following system constraints have been identified and a summary has been detailed in Table 1.
1. The maximum elevator position, , shall be less than the height of the Tower of Terror [2] .
2. The maximum elevator velocity, , shall be less than fastest known elevator speed at the time
of this study [4] .
3. The maximum elevator acceleration, , shall be less than the acceleration at which the
average human passes out at [5] .
4. The maximum motor drive output voltage, , shall be less than three times the rated voltage
[2] [3] .
5. The maximum startup motor drive output current, , shall be less than six times the rated
current [2] [3] .
6. The maximum motor torque shall not exceed the rated torque of the motor [3] .
7. The motor drive input voltage, , will be within the conventional operating range of 12 [2]
[6] .
8. The motor will be from the Professors Approved Part List (APL), Table 15, [6] .
Table 1: [Part 3] Physical System Constraints and Customer Non Negotiables
Item
Constraint Description:
Symbol
Physical Constraint
[MKS Units]
1.1
Maximum Elevator Position:
1.2
Maximum Elevator Velocity:
1.3
Maximum Elevator Acceleration:
61 []
20 [ ]
25 [ 2 ]
1.4
Maximum Motor Drive Output Voltage:
1320 []
1.5
Maximum Startup Motor Drive Output Current:
6546 []
1.6
Maximum Motor Torque:
5385 [ ]
1.7
Motor Drive Input Voltage Range:
| |
12 []
1.8
Motor Number:
11
Page |4
System Specifications for a Step Input:

The design specifications for a step input are listed in Table 2.
0. The magnitude of the step input, , will be equal to 80% of the maximum elevator position.
1. The steady state error, , should be less than 0.5 .
2. The maximum steady state position, , of the elevator should be within the magnitude of the
step input plus or minus the steady state error.
3. The desired percent overshoot, %. ., shall be sufficient to provide peak position that is at least
5 higher than the desired steady state position.
4. The minimum rise time, , shall be greater than the time required for the elevator to travel
from 0 to the desired maximum steady state position, at the maximum elevator velocity.
5. The maximum rise time, , should be comparable to the time required for the elevator to
travel elevator to travel from 0 to the desired maximum steady state position, at 6
6. The desired settling time, , should be consistent with the desired overshoot, and a time
to peak of 9 .
Table 2: [Part 3] Desired (Type 0) Positional Performance Specifications Step Input
Item
Specification Description
Symbol
Performance Specification
[MKS Units]
2.0
Magnitude of the Step Input:
50 [m]
2.1
Maximum Steady-State Error:
| |
0.5 []
2.2
Maximum Steady-State Height:
50 []
2.3
Percent Overshoot:
%. .
15 [%]
2.4
Minimum Rise Time:
2.5 []
2.5
Maximum Rise Time:
7 []
2.6
Settling Time:
17 []
System Specifications for a Ramp Input:

The design specifications for a ramp input are listed in Table 3.
0. The magnitude of the ramp, , input will be equal to of the maximum elevator velocity.
1. The steady state error, , should be less than 0.1 after 5 have elapsed.
Page |5
Table 3: [Part 3] Desired (Type 1) Positional Performance Specifications Ramp Input
Performance Specification
Item
Specification Description
Symbol
2.0
Magnitude of the Ramp Input:
10 [ ]
2.1
Sinusoidal Steady-State Error:
0.1 []
[MKS Units]
Page |6
(1)PART ONE THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

Electrical Equivalent Model:
An electromechanical system model was provided in the specifications document [2]
Figure 2.
g (s)
and is shown in
Y (s)
J g , Dg
J g , Dg
DE
kC
X (s)
Elevator
ME
kC
Worm
Gear
DE
Tm ( s )
J m , Dm
Ra , La
electromechanical kt , kb
m ( s )
DC
Motor
N g : Nm
J g , Dg
mechanical
electrical
Ea ( s )
J g , Dg
g (s)
Figure 2: System Level Diagram of the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror [2]
An S-Domain electrical equivalent network, Figure 3, has been contrived based upon the approximate
system level Electro-Mechanical model detailed in Figure 2.
LHS Units Are In Ohms
RHS Units Are In Mhos ( )
: 1 2
Figure 3: [Part 1 and Part 2] Electrical Equivalent Circuit Network
Page |7
System Transfer Function:

Two methods were used in parallel to derive the systems transfer function, where the Motor Terminal
Voltage is the system input, and the Position of The Elevator is the system output.
Statement of Analysis Assumptions:
For simplicity in the part one analysis, three assumptions were made. First, the torque due to gravity
( = 0) was ignored. Second, the springs were assumed to have an infinite rigidity, =
( = ).
thus
Third, in the circuits approach, the electromechanical gains are assumed to be equal,
= = .
Circuits Fundamentals Approach:
Using the circuit equivalent model identified in Figure 3, the system gain was derived using a standard
circuits approach.
The Motor Impedance , Back EMF , Equivalent Admittance at node , Equivalent Motor
Inertia and Equivalent Motor Damping are defined by (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) respectively.
= +
(1)
= + + (
) (4 + 4 ) + ( ) 2 + 2
= (
(2)
) 2 + ( ) (4 ) +
(3)
(4)
) 2 2 + ( ) (4 ) +
Equation (5) is the un-expanded transfer function resulting from the standard circuit analysis, reflecting
= (
admittances and applying KVL1 and KCL2.

=

=(

(
1
( ) ( )
) ( ) +
(5)
A full derivation is presented in the section titled,

(~Circuits Fundamentals Approach to the System Gain Derivation~)
(KVL) Kirchhoffs Voltage Law (Conservation Of Energy): The Sum All Of The Power Sourced Is Equal To The Power
Drained.
2
(KCL) Kirchhoffs Current Law (Conservation Of Charge): The Current Entering A Node Is Equivalent To The Current
Leaving The Node
Page |8
Simulink Model of the System:

From the circuit equivalent model in Figure 3 a system level block diagram was created in Simulink.
Figure 4: [Part 1 and Part 2][Simulnk] Open Loop Simulink System Model With Gravity
Masons Gain Rule (MGR) Systems Level Approach:

Masons Gain Rule (MGR) was applied to the system block diagram depicted in Figure 4.
The Loop Gains 1 and 2 , are defined in (6) and (7) respectively.
1

1
+
1
2

The System Characteristic is defined by (8).
1 1 + 2 =
(6)
(7)
1 + + + +
(8)
The Forward Gain 1 and the Forward Gain Coefficient 1 are defined in (9) and (10) respectively:
( )
1
1 2
+
1 = 1
(9)
(10)
Equation (11) is the un-expanded transfer function resulting from the application of Masons Gain Rule.
Page |9

1
=
=

1 1 + 2
The Masons Gain Rule approach led to the monic form transfer function in (12).
=
(11)
( )
( )
(12)
( + ) 2 ( + )
3 +
+
+0
( )
( )
A full derivation is presented in the section titled,

(~Masons Gain Rule Systems Level Approach to The System Gain Derivation~).
The System Transfer Function Identified In Monic Form
The transfer functions derived in (Appendices:
A [ Part 1 ] [ Task 3 ] System Gain Derivations:) were simplified to monic form, through algebraic
manipulations and the resulting coefficients are detailed in Table 4. Notably, because 0 = 0, the
positional transfer function (13) is a type one system and the velocity transfer function (14) is a type zero
system.
=

0
1
0
=
=
3
2
1
2

3 + 2 + 1 + 0 3 + 2 1 + 1
(13)

0
=
=
2

3 + 2 1 + 1
(14)
Table 4: [Part 1] Summary of Positional Transfer Function Coefficients
Constant
Simplified
Expanded
Expression
Expression

4 2 + 2 2 2 + ( ) + ( )
( ) + 4 2
+ 2 2 )
( ) + 4
+ 2 2
( ) + 4 2 + 4 2 + 2 2
2
( ) + 4
+ 2 2
P a g e | 10
Motor Selection:
A list of motors was compiled based upon the following constraints (See Table 15):
1. Nominal supply voltage 440 and 470 VDC.
a. {440 [ ] ; 470 [ ]}
2. Nominal speed range between 710 and 910 rpm
a. 710 [rpm] n2 910 [rpm]
3. Nominal output power capability range between 375 and 475 hp.
a. 375 [hp] P 475 [hp]
b. 279 [kW] P 354 [kW]
Motor # 11 of the Approved Parts List (APL)was assigned by the instructor for further study [6]
. A
further description of this motor is provided in Table 5.

The motor Torque Current ratio was calculated in (15).
= =
[ ]
5385 [ ]
=
4.936
[]
1091 []
(15)
The motor Voltage Speed ratio was calculated in (16).
= =

440 [] 1091 [] 40 []
=(
)(
764 []
2
) (60 [
])
[ ]
(16)
4.954 [
]
/
Theoretically the motor (Torque Current) ratio and the motor (Voltage Speed) ratio should be
equivalent, ( = = ), notably they are not. The small discrepancy is due to the fact that there are
losses unaccounted for in this model thus the motor torque is not equivalent to the rated torque.
P a g e | 11
Table 5: [Part 1] Motor Parameters Corresponding to Motor #11 (See Figure 28)
Element
Value
Units
7500
250
6.5
151.6
75.8
0.117
0.57
40
4.936
4.954
/ /
60
teeth
1440
teeth
P a g e | 12
(2)PART TWO - SIMULATION

Original System - Open Loop Simulations:
In order to further characterize the Walt Disneys original Tower of Terror control system a set of
simulations were performed. During the simulation phase, both the open loop and closed loop transfer
system functions were analyzed. In all part two simulations the rated motor voltage has been applied
as a step input to the armature voltage . For the motor under consideration, motor (#11), the step
input used is defined by (17).
= = 440 []
(17)
Original System - Open Loop Simulations MATLAB:

The open loop system velocity transfer function of (14) was analyzed in MATLAB, neglecting the effect of
gravity. The maximum velocity (18) , percent overshoot (19) time to peak (20) , settling time (21) and
steady state velocity (22) are depicted in Figure 5. From the settling time in (21) it was observed that the
system is very quick to respond.
: 4.282 [/]
(18)
: %. . 1.730 [%]
(19)
: 0.1311 []
(20)
: 0.1440 []
(21)
: 4.2050 [/]
(22)
P a g e | 13
Part 2. Task (1) . Section (c) . Item(i) - [MATLAB]

Open-Loop - Step Response - (Neglecting Gravity)
5
%O.S. = 1.730 [%]
4.5
X: 0.1311
Y: 4.282
Maximum Velocity = 4.282 [m/s]
Steady State Velocity = 4.205 [m/s]

X: 0.1439
Y: 4.275
X: 0.2471
Y: 4.205
Time To Peak Velocity = 0.1311 [s]

Settling Time = 0.1440 [s]
3.5
Vx(t) [m/s]
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Time [s]
Figure 5: [Part 2][MATLAB] - Step Input - Open Loop Response Velocity (Neglecting Gravity)
P a g e | 14
Original System - Open Loop Simulations SIMULINK Neglecting Gravity:

The open loop system velocity Simulink model in Figure 4 was analyzed in Simulink, neglecting the effect
of gravity ( = 0 [ ]). The Simulink simulation results of Figure 6 were found to closely agree with
the MATLAB results of Figure 5, a side by side comparison has been provided in Table 6.
From the top subplot of Figure 5, the maximum velocity (23) , percent overshoot (24), time to peak (25) ,
settling time (26) and steady state velocity (27) were observed.
: 4.3530 [/]
(23)
: %. . 3.4970 [%]
(24)
: 0.1097 []
(25)
: 0.1406 []
(26)
: 4.2060 [/]
(27)
From the middle subplot of Figure 5, the maximum motor current (28) and steady state current (29) were
observed.
: 9246 []
(28)
: 27.23 []
(29)
From the bottom subplot of Figure 5, the maximum torque (30) and steady state torque (31) were
ascertained.
: 40230 [ ]
(30)
: 118.5 [ ]
(31)
P a g e | 15
Vx(t) [m/s]
Part 2. Task (1) . Section (c) . Item(ii) - [Simulink]

[ Translational Velocity Vx(t) ] Open-Loop - Step Response - (Neglecting Gravity)
4
X: 0.1098
Y: 4.353
Steady State Velocity = 4.2060 [m]

2
0
0
0.05
X: 0.02622
Y: 9246
10000
% Overshoot = 3.4970 [%]

0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Time [s]
[ Motor Drive Output Current Ia(t) ] Open-Loop - Step Response - (Neglecting Gravity)
X: 0.3002
Y: 4.206
X: 0.3264
Y: 4.206
0.3
0.35
Maximum Motor Current = 9246 [A]

5000
Current Goes Negative
Steady State Current = 27.23 [A]

0
0
0.05
x 10
Tm(t) [N*m]
Ia(t) [Amps]
X: 0.1406
Y: 4.29
X: 0.02622
Y: 1.449
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Time [s]
[ Motor Torque T m(t) ] Open-Loop - Step Response - (Neglecting Gravity)
X: 0.3002
Y: 29.5
X: 0.3274
Y: 27.23
0.3
0.35
X: 0.02622
Y: 4.023e+04
4
Maximum Output Motor Torque = 40230 [N*m]
2
Torque Goes Negative
Steady State Output Motor Torque = 118.5 [N*m]

0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
X: 0.3002
Y: 128.3
X: 0.3274
Y: 118.5
0.3
0.35
Time [s]
Figure 6: [Part 2][Simulink] - Step Input - Open Loop Elevator Velocity, Motor Current and Torque Response (Neglecting Gravity)
P a g e | 16
Original System - Open Loop Simulations SIMULINK With Gravity:

The open loop system velocity Simulink model in Figure 4 was analyzed in Simulink, including the effect of
gravity ( = 9.8 [/ 2 ]). The effect of gravity was modeled by (32).
= ( )
#11
3879 [ ]
(32)
From the top subplot of Figure 7 , the maximum velocity (33) , percent overshoot (34) , time to peak (35) ,
settling time (36) and steady state velocity (37) were observed.
: 4.079 [/]
(33)
: %. . 3.5 [%]
(34)
: 0.1108 []
(35)
: 0.1419 []
(36)
: 3.9410 [/]
(37)
From the middle subplot of Figure 7 , the maximum motor current (38) and steady state current (39) were
observed.
: 9564 []
(38)
: 917.2 []
(39)
From the bottom subplot of Figure 7 , the maximum torque (40) and steady state torque (41) were
ascertained.
: 41610 [ ]
(40)
: 3990 [ ]
(41)
P a g e | 17
Vx(t) [m/s]
Part 2. Task (1) . Section (d) . Item(iv) . SubItem(d) - [Simulink]

[ Translational Velocity Vx(t) ] Open-Loop - Step Response - (WITH Gravity)
4
X: 0.1196
Y: 4.071
X: 0.02491
Y: 1.179
2
0
0
0.05
X: 0.02753
Y: 9564
Steady State Velocity = 3.9410 [m]

%O.S. = 3.5000 [%]

0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Time [s]
[ Motor Drive Output Current Ia(t)) ] Open-Loop - Step Response - (WITH Gravity)
X: 0.3002
Y: 3.941
X: 0.3274
Y: 3.941
0.3
0.35
Maximum Motor Current = 9564 [A]

5000
0
0
0.05
x 10
Tm(t) [N*m]
Ia(t) [Amps]
10000
X: 0.1468
Y: 4.007
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Time [s]
[ Motor Torque T m(t) ] Open-Loop - Step Response - (WITH Gravity)
X: 0.3002
Y: 919.4
X: 0.3274
Y: 917.2
0.3
0.35
X: 0.02753
Y: 4.161e+04
4
Maximum Output Motor Torque = 41610 [N*m]
2
Steady State Output Motor Torque = 3990 [N*m]
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
X: 0.3002
Y: 4000
0.3
X: 0.3274
Y: 3990
0.35
Time [s]
Figure 7: [Part 2][Simulink] - Step Input - Open Loop Elevator Velocity, Motor Current and Torque Response (With Gravity)
P a g e | 18
Original System - Open Loop Simulations Comparison of MATLAB and Simulink:

A comparison between the MATLAB velocity response of Figure 5 and the simulated Simulink response detailed in the top subplot of Figure 6
was performed. In the top subplot of Figure 8, the velocity response of both Simulink (Blue) and MATLAB (Green)to a step input are plotted on
the same axis. In the bottom subplot of Figure 8 the difference between the Simulink response and the MATLAB response is shown with respect
to time , normalized to the machine error epsilon. A maximum difference was identified and is described in (42).
max
3.434 [/] 3.103 [/] 0.331 [/]
(42)
Part 2. Task (1) . Section (c) - [MATLAB & Simulink]

5
X: 0.1003
Y: 4.339
Vx(t) [m/s]
X: 0.05637
Y: 3.434
X: 0.1003
Y: 4.181
X: 0.02655
Y: 1.474
X: 0.3002
Y: 4.205
X: 0.1501
Y: 4.269
X: 0.3002
Y: 4.206
Maximum Difference = 0.3310 [m/s]

= max( Simulink Vx(t) - MATLAB Vx(t) )
X: 0.05637
Y: 3.103
X: 0.1501
Y: 4.265
= 3.434 [m/s]
- 3.103 [m/s]
= 1.489 * 1015 epsilon
Simulink Vx(t)
X: 0.02655
Y: 1.284
0
0
MATLAB Vx(t)
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
( Simulink Vx(t) - MATLAB V x(t) ) / eps

[Normalized Units]
Time [s]
14
15
x 10
X: 0.05637
Y: 1.489e+15
10
Part 2. Task (1) . Section (c) . Item(iii) . SubItem(b) - [MATLAB & Simulink Difference Plot]
Simulink - MATLAB, difference normalized to epsilon
X: 0.1003
Y: 7.092e+14
X: 0.02655
Y: 8.57e+14
5
X: 0.3002
Y: 2.975e+12
X: 0.1501
Y: -1.424e+13
0
-5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Time [s]
Figure 8: [Part 2][Simulink and MATLAB Comparison] - Step Input - Open Loop Elevator Velocity (Neglecting Gravity)
P a g e | 19
Original System - Stability Analysis:

By utilizing the Routh Hurwitz stability criterion in MATLAB, Figure 29, a maximum forward gain (43) was identified. Notably, a parallel study
performed by the instructor yielded the maximum gain in (44), however, the authors were unable to reproduce this result.
6384 [/]
(43)
5969 [/]
(44)
The root locus analysis in Figure 9 served to validate the forward gain derived in Figure 29.
Part 2. Task (1) . Section (e) . Item (ii) . SubItem(5) - [MATLAB]

[ Full Root Locus (Movement of Sytem Poles as the Forward Gain K SYMS changes) ] Open-Loop Positional Response - (Neglecting Gravity)
100
80
Imaginary Axis (seconds-1)
60
0.68
0.8
0.56
0.42
0.28
0.14
0.91
40
20
0.975
120
0
-20
100
80
60
40
0.975
-40
-60
-80
System: Gx
Gain: 1.4e+04
Pole: 7.52 - 50.9i
Damping: -0.146
Overshoot (%): 159
Frequency (rad/s): 51.5
20
System: Gx
Gain: 5.01e+03
Pole: -2.08 - 35.5i
Damping: 0.0584
Overshoot (%): 83.2
0.14
Frequency
(rad/s): 35.6
0.91
0.8
0.68
-100
-120
-100
0.56
-80
0.42
-60
0.28
-40
-20
20
40
-1
Real Axis (seconds )

Testing K max Calculated (The Locus Lines Should Cross the j Axis)
[ Root Locus centered about K max spanning over +- (1/8)K max ] Open-Loop Positional Response - (Neglecting Gravity)
50
40
30
20
10
System: Gx
Gain: 6.38e+03
Pole: -61
Damping: 1
Overshoot (%): 0
Frequency (rad/s): 61
System: Gx
Gain: 6.38e+03
Pole: 0.000169 + 38.8i
Damping: -4.36e-06
Overshoot (%): 100
Validating Dominant
System GX(s) Poles @
Kmax = 6384 [V/V]
-10
-20
System: Gx
Gain: 6.38e+03
Pole: -0.000106 - 38.8i
Damping: 2.73e-06
Overshoot (%): 100
System Zero
-30
-40
-50
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
Real Axis (seconds -1)
Figure 9: [Part 2][MATLAB] Open Loop Root Locus Analysis (Neglecting Gravity)
P a g e | 20
Original System with Feedback - Closed Loop Simulations:

Having previously concluded an extensive open loop analysis of Walt Disneys original Tower of Terror control system, a set of closed loop
simulations were subsequently performed, in the context of negative unity gain feedback, as depicted in the full and simplified Simulink models,
Figure 10 and Figure 11 respectively. The gain of the closed loop transfer function was set to of as described by (46).
= =
6384
3192 [/]
2
2
(45)
Figure 10: [Part 2][Simulnk] Full Closed Loop Simulink Model
P a g e | 21
Figure 11: [Part 2][Simulnk] Simplified Closed Loop Simulink Model
P a g e | 22
Original System with Feedback - Closed Loop Simulations MATLAB:

The closed loop system positional transfer function (46) was analyzed in MATLAB with negative unity gain
feedback ( = 1) and the forward gain defined by (46), neglecting the effect of gravity.

1 +
(46)
The maximum position (47) , percent overshoot (48), time to peak (49) , settling time (50) and steady state
position (51) are depicted in Figure 12. When comparing the open loop and closed loop MATLAB
responses, Figure 5 and Figure 12 respectively, it was found that the transient response is greatly
exacerbated when feedback was added.
: 72.53 [/]
(47)
: %. . 45.06 [%]
(48)
: 0.1255 []
(49)
: 0.6617 []
(50)
: 50 [/]
(51)
P a g e | 23

Closed-Loop - Step Response - (Neglecting Gravity)
80
X: 0.1255
Y: 72.53
%O.S. = 45.060 [%]

Peak Position = 72.530 [m/s]
Time To Peak Position = 0.1255 [s]
70
60
X: 0.3352
Y: 56.65
Steady State Position = 50 [m]

X: 0.5448
Y: 51.96
X: 1.6
Y: 50
X: 1.717
Y: 50
x(t) [m]
50
X: 0.6617
Y: 49
X: 0.44
Y: 46.39
40
X: 0.2303
Y: 37.75
30
20
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Time [s]
Figure 12: [Part 2][MATLAB] - Step Input - Closed Loop Elevator Position (Neglecting Gravity)
P a g e | 24
Original System with Feedback - Closed Loop Simulations SIMULINK:

The closed loop of Figure 11 was simulated in Simulink,using the forward gain defined by (46) and
including the effect of gravity ( = 9.8 [/ 2 ]). Where the effect of gravity was again modeled by (32).
From the top subplot of Figure 13 , the maximum position (52) , percent overshoot (53) , time to peak (54)
, settling time (55) and steady state position (56) were observed.
: 70.93 [/]
(52)
: %. . 41.89 [%]
(53)
: 0.1323 []
(54)
: 0.6033 []
(55)
: 50 [/]
(56)
From the middle subplot of Figure 13 , the maximum motor current (57) and steady state current (58)
were observed.
: 3.211 106 []
(57)
: 970.6 []
(58)
From the bottom subplot of Figure 13 , the maximum torque (59) and steady state torque (60) were
ascertained.
: 13.97 106 [ ]
(59)
: 4223 [ ]
(60)
P a g e | 25
Part 2. Task (1) . Section (e) . Item (iii) - [Simulink]

[ Translational Position x(t) ] Closed-Loop - Step Response - (WITH Gravity)
x(t) [m]
100
X: 0.1323
Y: 70.93
X: 0.6033
Y: 50.96
0.4
Ia(t) [Amps]
Time To Peak Position = 0.1323 [s]

0.2
x 10
X: 0.2286
Y: 1.58e+06
X: 0.0275
Y: 3.212e+06
0.2
0.4
x 10
X: 0.2286
Y: 6.875e+06
X: 0.0275
Y: 1.397e+07
0.8
1
1.2
Time [s]
[ Motor Current Ia(t) ] Closed-Loop - Step Response - (WITH Gravity)
Peak Motor Current = 3.211*106 [A]
-5
0
0.6
0.6
X: 1.714
Y: 49.99
50
0
0
Tm(t) [N*m]
%O.S. = 41.89 [%]

Peak Position = 70.93 [m/s]
1.4
1.6
X: 1.717
Y: 970.6
X: 1.201
Y: -4187
0.8
1
1.2
Time [s]
[ Motor Torque T m(t) ] Closed-Loop - Step Response - (WITH Gravity)
Peak Output Motor Torque = 13.97*106 [N*m]

Steady State Output Motor Torque = 4223 [N*m]
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.8
X: 1.715
Y: 4168
X: 1.201
Y: -1.822e+04
-2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Time [s]
Figure 13: [Part 2][Simulink] - Step Input - Closed Loop Elevator Position, Motor Current and Torque Response (With Gravity)
P a g e | 26
Original System - Simulations Summary:

A summary of the parameters attained from the preceding part two simulation analyses of the open and closed loop transfer functions in
MATLAB and Simulink are detailed in Table 6.
Table 6: [Part 2] Original System Simulation Summary
Simulation:
Figure Reference:
Symbol:
max(
Max Difference*
)
Max Position
Percent
%. .
Overshoot
Peak Time
Settling Time
Steady State
Velocity
Steady State
Position
Current
Current
Torque
Torque
*
Maximum Difference, described by (42).
Parameter:
Max Velocity
[MATLAB]
(No Gravity)
Open Loop Step Response

[MATLAB]Vs.[Simulink]
[Simulink]
[Simulink]
Comparison
(No Gravity) (With Gravity)
(Neglecting Gravity)
Closed Loop Step Response

[MATLAB]
(No Gravity)
[Simulink]
(With Gravity)
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 12
Figure 13
4.282
4.3530
4.079
[/]
0.331
[]
72.53
70.93
[%]
1.730
3.4970
3.5
45.06
41.89
[]
[]
0.1311
0.1440
0.1097
0.1406
0.1108
0.1419
0.1255
0.6617
0.1323
0.6033
[/]
4.2050
4.2060
3.9410
[]
50
50
[]
[]
[ ]
[ ]
9246
27.23
40230
118.5
9564
917.2
41610
3990
3.211 106
970.6
13.97 106
4223
Units:
[/]
P a g e | 27
(3)PART THREE - DESIGN

Design Process:
When the step response of the open loop transfer function in (13) was simulated in Simulink, it was
determined that the original system in (13) responded to rapidly, and required too much power from the
motor (#11). In order to protect the motor and to dampen the system response to a step input, a lag
compensator has been designed.
System Model:
A new Simulink system model was generated which has incorporated the lag compensator. Saturation
limitations were imposed on the system based upon the physical constraints identified.
Figure 14: [Part 3][Simulnk] Simplified Closed Loop Simulink Model
P a g e | 28
Figure 15: [Part 3][Simulnk] Full Closed Loop Simulink Model
Forward Gain Design Procedure:

First, the forward gain was determined so to meet the steady-state error specification for a step input
to the type one system in (13). The desired DC Gain in (61) was divided by the initial Zeroth Order DC Gain
in (62) yielding the forward gain in (63).
=
0 0 = [
=
1
= 2 6.02 dB
0.5
0
0
=
= 0.096 40.4 dB
]
3 + 2 + 1 s=0 1
= [] [] 209 46.4 dB
(61)
(62)
(63)
P a g e | 29
Lag Compensator Theoretical Design Procedure:

The form of a Lag compensator is described by (64) and depicted in Figure 16.
1

= (
)

(64)
on the
s plane
ox
Figure 16: Lag Compensation Pole and Zero Locations on the S Plane
To visualize the open loop transfer function of (13) with the forward gain in (63), in the context of
negative unity feedback = 1, a bode plot of the KGH was generated and is shown in Figure 17.
Part 3. [MATLAB] Open-Loop - Bode Plot - KGH - (Neglecting Gravity - Without Compensator)
Feedback H = 1 ; Forward Gain K = 209.2367
Magnitude (dB)
50
System: untitled1
Magnitude (dB): -0.0206
System: untitled1
-50
-100
System: untitled1
Phase (deg): -94.7
-90
System: untitled1
Phase (deg): -115
Phase (deg)
-135
-180
-225
-270
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 17: [Part 3] Bode Plot of [KGH] the Open Loop Transfer Function GH with the Forward Gain K
To attain the 15% overshoot specification, as a response of KGH to a step input, it was ascertained that the
phase margin in (65) was required.
= 55
(65)
Programatically, from the bode plot in Figure 17, the frequency (69) where the phase of KGH (67),
provided the desired phase margin (65) . The design parameter (66) was added for flexability in the
design.
= 10
= 180 + + = 115
| | 0.0006 64.6
rads
10.7
sec
(66)
(67)
(68)
(69)
P a g e | 30
The pole of the lag compensator (70) was then placed two decades before the phase margin frequency
identified in (69).
=
0.107
100
(70)
A gain attenuation factor for the lag compensator was then identified in (71). It is necessary to mention
that the value of in the preliminary design was incorrectly in decibels. The corrected value of
is
shown in (72) however, because this observation was made after the final design was completed the
preliminary design was not redone.
= | | 64.6
= | | 0.0006
(71)
(72)
The zero of the lag compensator was then attained in (73).

= 6.91
(73)
A Bode plot of KGH s was then generated to validate the phase margin, however only a 15 phase
margin was observed. The compensated closed loop transfer function was used to evaluate transient
response. Due to a small phase margin, a large overshoot was observed causing the position, velocity and
motor voltage to saturate; these preliminary design results are suppressed for brevity.
Lag Compensator Iterative Design:
To fine tune the lag compensator design, multiple iterations were simulated and the resulting system
response was analyzed. Table 7 shows the iterations where the separation between the compensator
pole and zero and the location of the compensator pole were and the corresponding system
information which resulted from these changes. Some values are listed with (-) which indicates that that
value was not measured for that iteration due to blatant violations of specifications in other
measurements. A value listed with a plus or minus sign suffix (i.e. 25+ or 14-) indicates that the value was
not measured accurately and only served as general reference to the compensators effect on the
respective specification or constraint. Table 8 lists the percent error of the Table 7 iteration results with
respect to the specifications detailed in Table 2 and constraints listed in Table 1.
From the iterations detailed in Table 7, multiple conclusions can be drawn regarding the effects of a lag
compensator on the system in (13). First the forward gain is proportional to the overshoot of the
system and also has a strong effect on the acceleration of the system, however was observed to have
little or no effect on the maximum velocity. The location of the compensator pole and consequently the
placement of the zero appear to have a logarithmic inverse proportionality on the overshoot and
maximum velocity. The pole placement also appears proportional to the acceleration of the system.
Finally, the gain normalization factor had a small proportional effect on the overshoot and an even
smaller effect on the acceleration.
P a g e | 31
Table 7: [Part 3] Lag Compensator Design Simulink Values by Iteration

Lag Compensator Parameters
Iteration
UID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Constraints
Specifications
Forward
Gain
Zero
Pole
Gain
Normalizatio
n
Position
Velocity
Acceleration
Current
Steady
State
Overs
hoot
Rise
Time
Settling
Time
Steady
State
Error
ZLAG
PLAG
aLAG
Xmax
Vx max
ax max
Ia max
Xss
%O. S.
Tr
Ts
209.2
200.0
300.0
209.2
209.2
209.2
209.2
209.2
209.2
209.2
-6.9090
-6.9090
-6.9090
-0.6456
-64.5600
-50.0000
-75.0000
-25.0000
-25.0000
-75.0000
-0.1070
-0.1070
-0.1070
-0.0100
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-0.5000
-1.5000
64.56
64.56
64.56
64.56
64.56
50.00
75.00
25.00
50.00
50.00
82.00
82.00
84.00
82.00+
66.50
66.13
66.50
65.30
72.20
55.38
12.35
12.35
12.35
6.0012.35
12.35
12.35
12.35
12.35
12.35
10.00
27.50
15.001.0025.0025.0024.00+
24.00+
20.0025.19
2000+
2000+
2500+
1000+
200020002000200020002000
49.88
49.87
49.87
49.87
11
1.504.07
100+
8-10
8-12
10-15
10-15
7.3
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Table 8: [Part 3] Lag Compensator Design Simulink Error Analysis by Iteration

Lag Compensator Parameters
Iteration
UID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Constraints
Specifications
Forward
Gain
Zero
Pole
Gain
Normalization
Position
Velocity
Acceleration
Current
Steady
State
Oversh
oot
Rise
Time
Settling
Time
Steady
State
Error
ZLAG
PLAG
aLAG
Xmax
Vx max
ax max
Ia max
Xss
%O. S.
Tr
Ts
42.61%
42.61%
46.08%
42.61%
15.65%
15%
15.65%
13.57%
25.57%
3.69%
38.25%
38.25%
38.25%
70%
38.25%
38.25%
38.25%
38.25%
38.25%
38.25%
60%
10%
40%
96%
0%
0%
4%
4%
25%
0.76%
69.45%
69.45%
61.81%
84.72%
69.45%
69.45%
69.45%
69.45%
69.45%
69.45%
0.24%
0.26%
0.26%
0.26%
26.67%
40%
0%
471%
48.57%
42.86%
28.57%
28.57%
58.29%
76%
74%
74%
74%
74%
P a g e | 32
Final Design Summary of Parameters:

The general form of the open loop transfer function including the forward gain and the lag compensator
is described by (74) and the final system parameters are listed in Table 9.
= =

1

0
1 = (
)
[
]
3

3 + 2 2 + 1 + 0
(74)
A rigorous analysis of the system in (74) has been performed in the following section where the elevator
was fully loaded (75) and a brief analysis at half load (76) has been included in the appendix.
20[] 100 [
] 2000 []
(75)
] 1000 []
(76)
10[] 100 [
Table 9: [Part 3] Summary of the Final Open Loop Transfer Function Coefficients
Full Load Value
Half Load Value
(Using Motor #11)
(Using Motor #11)
1
1
209.2
209.2
50
50
75
75
1.5
1.5
14.37
15.46
1504
1617
61.03
61.03
Dependencies
Forward Gain
System Coefficients
Parameters
Parameter
Compensator
P a g e | 33
Final Design Lag Compensator Circuit Realization:

A circuit realization of the lag compensator described by Table 9 and (64) has been contrived. The initial
gain block and summing amplifier feeding the lag compensator are depicted in Figure 18 are required to
ensure negative unity gain feedback in the system. The final lag compensator design is depicted in Figure
19.
Figure 18: [Part 3] - System Circuit Realization - Initial Gain Block and Summing Junction
P a g e | 34
Figure 19: [Part 3] - System Circuit Realization - Final Lag Compensator Design
P a g e | 35
Final Design System Characterization:

The compensated system described in (74), was analyzed using the parameters listed in Table 9. First the resultant phase margin was
observed.
136 180 44
Part 3. [MATLAB] Open-Loop - Bode Plot - GLAG*KGH - (Neglecting Gravity - Compensated)

H = 1 ; K = 209.2367 ; aLAG = 50 ; ZLAG = -75 ; PLAG = -1.5
100
50
Magnitude (dB)
(77)
System: untitled1
-50
-100
-150
-90
System: untitled1
Phase (deg): -136
Phase (deg)
-135
-180
-225
-270
-315
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
10
10
Figure 20: [Part 3] Bode Plot of the Final Compensated System

[ ] the Lag Compensator with the Open Loop Transfer Function with the Forward Gain
P a g e | 36
Final Design Stability Analysis:

A pole zero plot and the root locus was first studied in Figure 21 to ensure the stability of the system. The dominant system poles were found to
be in the left hand side of the real axis of the frequency domain which indicated that the system was stable and would thus steady
out in a finite time.
40
0.11
0.16
20
0.26
0.45
Part 3. [MATLAB] Open-Loop Positional Root Locus - (Neglecting Gravity - Compensated)

[ Full Root Locus (Movement of Sytem Poles as the Forward Gain K changes) ]
40
0.08
0.054
0.034
0.016
30
20
10
0
-20
-40
0.45
0.26
System: Gx_comp
Gain: 1.71e+03
Pole: -0.412 - 4.9i
Damping: 0.0838
Overshoot (%): 76.8
0.16
0.08
0.11
-5
-4
10
20
30
40
0.054
0.034
0.016
50
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Real Axis (seconds-1)
Part 3. [MATLAB] Open-Loop Positional Root Locus - (Neglecting Gravity - Compensated)
Testing Kmax Calculated (The Locus Lines Should Cross the j Axis)
[ Root Locus centered about K spanning over +- (1/8)K ]
30
Validating Kspecific-value = [209.2367]
20
10
System: Gx_comp
Gain: 235
Compensator Zero
ZLAG
@K=209, the dominant pole is in LHP -> System is stable
Compensator Pole Pole: -0.703 + 1.7i

Damping: 0.383
PLAG
Overshoot (%): 27.2

System Poles
0
System: Gx_comp
Gain: 235
Pole: -0.703 - 1.7i
Damping: 0.383
Overshoot (%): 27.2
-10
-20
-30
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Type 1 System Pole
10
Real Axis (seconds-1)
Figure 21: [Part 3][MATLAB] Open Loop Root Locus Analysis (Neglecting Gravity)
P a g e | 37
Final Design Step Input Analysis:

A step of 50 [] was then applied to the compensated system and the response was simulated in MATLAB. The positional response to the
step is shown in Figure 22. The peak position (78) violated the maximum height constraint, this may have been due to the fact that the MATLAB
simulation was ideal and the MATLAB model did not account for gravity.
:
62.2 []
: %. . 24 [%]
: 0 []
(78)
(79)
(80)
Part 3. [MATLAB] Closed-Loop - Step Response - (Neglecting Gravity - With Compensator)

[ Translational Position x(t) ]
70
System: untitled1
Time (seconds): 2
Amplitude: 62.2
%O.S. = 24 [%]
Maximum Position = 62.2 [m]
60
System: untitled1
Time (seconds): 6
Amplitude: 50.7
System: untitled1
Time (seconds): 8
Amplitude: 49.8
50
Steady State Error = 50 [m] - 50 [m] = 0 [m]
x(t) [m]
40
System: untitled1
Time (seconds): 1.16
Amplitude: 45
System: untitled1
Time (seconds): 17
Amplitude: 50
Settling Time = 8 [s]
System: untitled1
Time (seconds): 4
Amplitude: 47
30
Rise Time =1.160 [s] - 0.305 [s] = 0.855 [s]
20
10
0
0
System: untitled1
Time (seconds): 0.305
Amplitude: 5
10
Time [s] (seconds)
12
14
16
18
Figure 22: [Part 3][MATLAB] - Step Input - Closed Loop Step Response of the Final Compensated System
P a g e | 38
A step response of 50 [] was then applied to the closed loop system and the response was analyzed in
Simulink. The elevators movement characteristics are shown in Figure 23, and the motors load characteristics
are depicted in Figure 24.
From the top subplot of Figure 23, the maximum position (81), the positional overshoot(82), settling time (83),
percent overshoot (84) , and steady state error (85) were observed, and it was seen that (81), (82) and (83) were
within the physical constraints listed in Table 1 and the performance specifications listed in Table 2.
: . []
(81)
: . []
(82)
: . []
(83)
: %. . 10.78 [%]
(84)
0.13 []
(85)
From the middle subplot of Figure 23, the maximum velocity was observed, and was found to be within the
constraints listed in Table 1.
: . [/]
From the bottom subplot of Figure 23, the maximum acceleration was observed.
(86)
The initial maximum
acceleration (87) violated its constraint and lasted roughly one fifth of a second. The deceleration stage
maximum (88) lasted for roughly 3 [] and was found to be within the constraints listed in Table 1.
: 143.5 [/ 2 ]
(87)
: . [/ ]
(88)
From the top subplot of Figure 24, the maximum armature voltage clipped, but was found to be at the maximum
constraints listed in Table 1.
: []
(89)
From the middle subplot of Figure 24, the initial maximum armature current (90) violated constraints, but the
maximum deceleration current (91) lasted for roughly 1 [] and was found to be within the constraints listed in
Table 1.
:
17770 [ ]
[]
(90)
(91)
From the bottom subplot of Figure 24, the initial maximum motor torque (92) lasted roughly one fifth of a second
and violated constraints, but the maximum deceleration torque (93) lasted for roughly 1 [] and was found to be
within the constraints listed in Table 1.
:
77330 [ ]
(92)
: [ ]
(93)
P a g e | 39

Part 3. - [Simulink] - Closed-Loop - Step Response - (WITH Gravity And Saturation Blocks)
x(t) [m]
60
40
X: 4.845
Y: 55.39
%O.S. = 10.7 [%]

Rise Time = 2.512 [s]
X: 7.3
Y: 48.86
Steady State Position = 49.87 [m]
X: 17
Y: 49.87
Steady State Error = 50 [m] - 49.87 [m] = 0.013 [m]
Maximum Position = 55.39 [m]
20
0
0
10
Time [s]
12
14
16
18
20
[ Translational Velocity Vx(t) ]
Vx(t) [m/s]
20
X: 0.1866
Y: 12.53
X: 2.05
Y: 12.35
X: 4.227
Y: 12.35
10
X: 4.859
Y: -0.07697
X: 7.3
Y: 1.19
-10
0
Maximum Initial Acceleration = 143.5 [m/s 2]

Durration = 0.16 [s]
Ax(t) [m/s2]
200
X: 0.0775
Y: 143.5
10
Time [s]
X: 17
Y: -0.0004907
12
14
16
18
20
[ Translational Acceleration Ax(t) ]

Reported Maximum Acceleration = -25.19 [m/s 2]
Duration = 3 [s]
100
0
X: 0.1604
Y: -0.07735
-100
0
X: 8.841
Y: -0.0003095
X: 4.359
Y: -25.19
X: 5.58
Y: -0.001324
X: 7.3
Y: 1.315
X: 17
Y: -0.00227
10
Time [s]
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 23: [Part 3][Simulink] - Step Input - Elevator Movement Characteristics

Elevator Position, Velocity and Acceleration
P a g e | 40
Part 3. - [Simulink] - Closed-Loop - Step Response 2 - (WITH Gravity And Saturation Blocks)
[ Motor Drive Output Voltage E a(t) ]
X: 0.1278
Y: 1320
X: 1.983
Y: 1320
X: 4.2
Y: 1320
1000
Maximum Armature Voltage = 1320 [V]
X: 7.3
Y: 156.6
X: 4.836
Y: -0.5125
X: 17
Y: 27.67
X: 9.207
Y: -0.1748
-1000
0
2
4
Ia(t) [Amps]
Initial Maximum Armature Current = 17770 [A]
X: 0.07716
Y: 1.777e+04
X: 0.1866
Y: 382.9
0
X: 4.36
Y: -1994
2
4
x 10
5
0
-5
0
10
12
Time [s]
[ Motor Drive Output Current Ia(t) ]
14
16
18
20
18
20
18
20
Reported Maximum Armature Current = -1994 [A]

Duration = 1 [s]
10
x 10 Duration = 0.18 [s]
-1
0
Tm(t) [N*m]
Ea(t) [V]
2000
X: 5.227
Y: 0.0527
X: 7.3
Y: 1054
Initial Maximum Motor Torque = 77330 [N*m]

Duration = 0.18 [s]
X: 0.07716
Y: 7.733e+04
X: 17
Y: 891.3
10
Time [s]
[ Motor Torque T m(t) ]
12
14
16
Reported Maximum Motor Torque = -8075 [N*m]

Duration = 1 [s]
X: 0.1866
Y: 1666
X: 4.33
Y: -8075
X: 5.227
Y: 0.2293
X: 7.3
Y: 4584
X: 17
Y: 3878
10
Time [s]
12
14
16
Figure 24: [Part 3][Simulink] - Step Input - Motor Load Characteristics

Motor Voltage, Current and Torque
P a g e | 41
Final Design Ramp Input Analysis:

A ramp input of 10 [/] was then applied to the closed loop system and the steady state specification was analyzed. The elevators
movement characteristics are shown in Figure 25, and the motors load characteristics are depicted in Figure 26.
From the second subplot of Figure 25, it was observed that the system steady state error (94) to a ramp input of 10 [/] is under 0.2 [/]
after 5 [] have elapsed, this was not within the desired ramp specifications detailed in Table 3. The maximum velocity (95) and maximum
acceleration (96) were both with the step input constraints establish in Table 1 , for a ramp input of 10 [/].
0.14 []
(94)
12.35 [/]
(95)
10.58 [/ 2 ]
(96)
Part 3. - [Simulink] - Closed-Loop - Ramp Response - (WITH Gravity And Saturation Blocks)
80
The Elevator Hit the Roof @ X = 61 [m]
x(t) [m]
60
X: 6.612
Y: 61
40
0
0
10
12
Time [s]
14
16
18
20
18
20
X: 2.004
Y: 12.35
15
Vx(t) [m/s]
X: 17
Y: 61
Maximum Position = 61 [m]
20
X: 7.183
Y: 12.35
10
5
X: 10.03
Y: 61
X: 5
Y: 44.75
X: 5
Y: 9.86
X: 12
Y: 12.35
X: 17
Y: 12.35
ess @ 5 [s] = 10 [m/s] - 9.86 [m/s] = 0.14 [m/s]
0
-5
0
10
12
Time [s]
14
16
Ax(t) [m/s2]
20
Maximum Acceleration = 10.58 [m/s 2]
X: 0.7587
Y: 10.58
10
X: 5
Y: 0.5539
X: 2.004
Y: 5.207e-05
X: 7.036
Y: 8.965
X: 7.143
Y: -0.3118
0
X: 6.615
Y: -0.1399
-10
0
X: 17
Y: -4.396e-13
10
Time [s]
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 25: [Part 3][Simulink] - Ramp Input - Elevator Movement Characteristics

P a g e | 42
From the first, second and third subplots of Figure 25, it was observed that the motor voltage (97), current (98) and torque (99) are all within the
step input constraints establish in Table 1 , for a ramp input of 10 [/].
Ea(t) [V]
(97)

2164 []
(98)

9413 [ ]
(99)
Part 3. - [Simulink] - Closed-Loop - Ramp Response 2 - (WITH Gravity And Saturation Blocks)
[ Motor Drive Output Voltage E a(t) ]
X: 2
Y: 1320
1500

1320 []
X: 7.035
Y: 1320
X: 11.98
Y: 1320
1000
X: 17
Y: 1320
Maximum Armature Voltage = 1320 [V]
500
0
0
10
12
Time [s]
14
16
18
20
18
20
18
20
Ia(t) [Amps]
3000
X: 0.7889
Y: 2164
Maximum Armature Current = 2164 [A]
2000
X: 7.146
Y: 934.6
1000
Tm(t) [N*m]
X: 17
Y: 971.3
X: 2.772
Y: 667.1
0
0
10000
X: 7.036
Y: 2021
X: 0.7889
Y: 9413
10
Time [s]
[ Motor Torque T m(t) ]
12
14
16
X: 7.044
Y: 8567
Maximum Motor Torque = 9413 [N*m]

X: 7.146
Y: 4066
5000
X: 17
Y: 4226
X: 2.772
Y: 2903
0
0
10
Time [s]
12
14
16
Figure 26: [Part 3][Simulink] - Ramp Input - Motor Load Characteristics

Motor Voltage, Current and Torque
P a g e | 43
Final Design Comparison to Constraints and Specifications:

A rigorous analysis of the system in (74) has been performed in the previous section where the elevator was fully loaded (75) and a brief analysis
at half load (76) has been included in the appendix. A summary of the final compensated systems performance compared to the established
physical constraints and desired performance specifications has been summarized in Table 10.
Table 10: [Part 3] Final Design Comparison to Constraints and Specifications
Table
Reference
Constraints
Table 1
Step
Specification
Table 2
Item
Parameter
Units
Expected
Value
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
%. .

[]
[/]
[/ 2 ]
[]
[]
[ ]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[%]
[]
[]
[]
61
20
25
1320
6546
5385
12
11
50
0.5
50
15
2.5
7
17
Full Load
MATLAB
Value
Full Load
Simulink
Value
Half Load
Simulink
Value
Worst
Case
Value
62.2
NTN*
0
50
24
55.39
12.53
143.5
1320
17770
77330
NTN*
NTN*
NTN*
0.13
49.87
11.08
55.41
12.65
143.6
1320
17684
76939
NTN*
NTN*
NTN*
0.119
49.88
11.09
0.855
2.512
2.507
8
-
7.3
NTN*
7.3
NTN*
55.41
12.65
143.6
1320
17770
77330
NTN*
NTN*
NTN*
0.13
49.88
10.78
2.512
2.507
7.3
NTN*
9.16 [%]
36.75 [%]
474.4 [%]
0 [%]
171.5 [%]
1336 [%]
NTN*
NTN*
NTN*
74.0 [%]
0.26 [%]
0.48 [%]
64.11 [%]
58.8 [%]
100 [%]
Ramp
[/]
3.0
10
Specification
[/]
3.1
**
0.1
0.2
Table 3
1
Peak Occurs At System Turn On Point, Within the First
[] of the Step Response.
5
*
No Test Necessary (NTN) , Implementation Grantees The Requirement Is Met.
**
Steady State Error to a Ramp Input After 5 []
Worst Case
% Deviation
NTN
Design
Requirement
Met In
Simulink
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
NTN*
NTN*
NTN*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NTN*
No
P a g e | 44
Table 11: [Part 3] Final Design Simplified Comparison to Constraints and Specifications
1
2
3
4
5
6
Simulink
Description
Expected
(w/Units)
Value
[]
61
[/]
20
[/ 2 ]
25
[]
1320
[]
6546
[ ]
5385
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Simulink
Description
Expected
(w/Units)
Value
[]
0.5
[]
50
%. . [%]
15
[]
2.5
[]
7
[]
17
[/]
0.1
Constraints
Target
Specification
Actual Value
Full-Load
55.39
12.53
143.5
1320
17770
77330
50% Load
55.41
12.65
143.6
1320
17684
76939
Actual Value
Full-Load
0.13
49.87
11.08
2.512
2.512
7.3
0.2
50% Load
0.119
49.88
11.09
2.507
2.507
7.3
0
Final Worst-Case Values

Value
55.41
12.65
143.6
1320
17770
77330
Met
% Deviation
(Yes/No)
Yes
9.16 [%]
Yes
36.75 [%]
[%]
No
474.4
Yes
0 [%]
171.5 [%] No
1336 [%] No
Final Worst-Case Values

Value
0.13
49.88
11.08
2.512
2.507
7.3
0.2
Met
% Deviation
(Yes/No)
Yes
74.0 [%]
Yes
0.26 [%]
Yes
[%]
Yes
0.48
Yes
64.11 [%]
Yes
58.8 [%]
No
100 [%]
P a g e | 45
An additional simulation was performed where a saturation block was added to limit the armature current to a maximum of 6546 []. A
summary of the new systems performance compared to the established physical constraints and desired performance specifications has been
summarized in Table 12. Notably, the same specifications and constraints which were met without the current saturation block, Table 10, were
also met with the addition of the current saturation block, Table 12, and the same constraints were still violated, though to a lesser degree.
Table 12: [Part 3] Final Design (With Current Saturation Block) Comparison to Constraints and Specifications
Table
Reference
Constraints
Table 1
Step
Specification
Table 2
Item
Parameter
Units
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
%. .

[]
[/]
[/ 2 ]
[]
[]
[
]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[%]
[]
[]
[]
Full Load Simulink

Value
(No Current Saturation)
Full Load Simulink

Value
(With Current
Saturation)
Absolute
Difference
% Difference
Change
Summary
55.39
12.53
143.5
1320
17770
55.39
12.49
48.20
1320
6546
0
0.04
95.3
0
11220
0 [%]
0.32 [%]
66.41 [%]
0 [%]
63.16 [%]
Same
Decrease
Decrease
Same
Decrease
77330
28480
48850
63.17 [%]
Decrease
12
11
50
0.13
49.87
11.08
12
11
50
0.13
49.87
11.08
NTN*
NTN*
NTN*
0
0
0
2.512
2.512
7.3
7.379
0.079
NTN*
NTN*
NTN*
NTN*
0 [%]
0 [%]
0 [%]
0 [%]
0 [%]
1.08 [%]
NTN*
NTN*
NTN*
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Increase
NTN*
NTN*
35 [%]
Decrease
Ramp
[/]
3.0
10
10
Specification
[/]
3.1
**
0.2
0.13
Table 3
1
Peak Occurs At System Turn On Point, Within the First
[] of the Step Response.
5
*
No Test Necessary (NTN) , Implementation Grantees The Requirement Is Met.
0.07
P a g e | 46
Conclusion:
In this study a new control system for the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror was designed to meet a set of
constraints and specifications. The resulting system was tested by applying a step input of 50 [] and a
ramp input of 10 [/]. It was found that five out of the eight constraints and all of the specifications
were met for the step input.
Notably, during the first fifth of a second (turn on point) after a step input of 50 [] is applied to the
final compensated system in (74), the elevator velocity (86), acceleration (88) , the motor voltage (89) ,
current (90) and torque (92) all peak as shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24. This is due to the infinite slope
at the start of a step input.
The first of three constraints violated, at the turn on point, was the maximum motor current draw,
constrained to 6546 []. At the turn on point, the motor current peaks at 17,770 []. This peak current is
due to the ideal motor drive assumed in the simulations. In a realistic system, the motor drive would be
designed to provide a much smaller current than that seen in the simulation, and have protection
designed to prevent this large current spike.
The second constraint violated was the peak motor output torque, constrained to 5385 [ ]. At the
turn on point, this torque peaked at 77330 [ ]. The current limit previously discussed would also
serve to prevent a violation of the maximum torque. This is due to the relationship between the motor
torque and current, = .
The final violated constraint was the elevator acceleration, constrained to 25 [/ 2 ]. The acceleration
initially peaked at 143.5 [ 2 ]. The current limit previously discussed would again serve to prevent a
violation of the maximum acceleration. This is because of the relationship between acceleration and
current, = = .
In order to simulate the realistic current limit a saturation block of 6546 [] was added to the Simulink
system in Figure 14. The same step input of 50 [] was applied to the Simulink system at full load with
the current saturation block and a comparison of parameters was performed in Table 12. Notably, the
aforementioned current, torque, and acceleration were significantly reduced at the turn on point, and all
of the step specifications were still met.
Upon the introduction of the current saturation block into the Simulink model, the current, torque, and
acceleration peaks all decreased by approximately 60 %, yielding final values of 6546 [] , 28480 [ ]
and 48.2 [/ 2 ] , respectively.
The peak values of the current, torque, and acceleration can be further reduced by the application of a
ramp input 10 [/] as observed in Figure 25 and Figure 26. Therefore it may be advisable to provide a
ramp input until the magnitude of the step desired is reached.
Further limitations of the motor current combined with the initial application of a ramp input will serve to
ensure safety and enhance the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror II theme park experience!
P a g e | 47
Works Citied & Works Consulted:

[1]
The Tech of the Tower of Terror, Tower of Terror Walt Disney World By Martin Smith,
https://eeyoreandhs.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/the-tech-of-the-tower-of-terror/
Downloaded: January 11, 2015.
[2]
Controls Project Part I - s15.docx, Linear Control Systems EE-315-S01 Lecture Content, Web Site:
https://d2l.sdbor.edu/d2l/le/content/653305/viewContent/3440333/View
[3]
ABB Catalog for DC Motors, Type DMI,

http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot234.nsf/veritydisplay/4a43defb2e83aea2c125784f00380
340/$file/dc_motors_dmi_catalog_low%20res.pdf
[4]
Hitachi to Deliver the World's Fastest*1 Ultra-High-Speed Elevators, Web Site:

http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/month/2014/04/140421.pdf
Downloaded: March 21, 2015
[5]
Hyperloop: What is a physically comfortable rate of acceleration for human beings?, Web Site:
http://www.quora.com/Hyperloop/What-is-a-physically-comfortable-rate-of-acceleration-forhuman-beings
Viewed: March 29, 2015.
[6]
EE315 Group Assignment.pdf, Linear Control Systems EE-315-S01 Lecture Content, Web Site:
https://d2l.sdbor.edu/d2l/le/content/653305/viewContent/3568607/View
Downloaded: January 31, 2015
[7]
Guidelines for Writing Reports for The Electrical Engineering Program under The Department of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Approved by EE Faculty Dec. 7, 2008, Web Site:
http://www.sdstate.edu/eecs/for-students/
[8]
Using the correct terms Shall, Will, Should, Requirements Experts, Posted October 9th 2012,
Web Site:
http://www.reqexperts.com/blog/2012/10/using-the-correct-terms-shall-will-should/
Viewed: April 23, 2015.
[9]
Nise, N. Control Systems Engineering. United States: R. R. Donnelly Willard, 6th edition
P a g e | 48
Appendices:
A [ Part 1 ] [ Task 3 ] System Gain Derivations:
Assumptions
For simplicity in the part one analysis, two assumptions have been made. First, the torque due to gravity
was ignored. Second, the springs are assumed to have an infinite rigidity.
Assumption #1: ( = 0 )
Assumption #2: ( 2 = 0 )
~Circuits Fundamentals Approach to the System Gain Derivation~
Finding the systems transfer function =
Starting from the LHS of Figure 3, we then defined the equivalent impedance due to the motor windings
= +
(100)
Where the back-EMF voltage dependent voltage source:

=
(101)
We then determined the current of the motor model:

@: + + = 0
=
(102)
(103)
For reference dependent current source at node is defined as:

Notably, because of the aforementioned
assumption( 2
(104)
=0):
=
Now, defining the admittance at nodes , and :
(105)
= + 2
= 4 + 4
= +
Reflecting all admittances from nodes and to :
(106)
(107)
(108)
= (
) 2
(109)
The total equivalent admittance at node becomes:

= (
= + + = + + (
(110)
) (4 + 4 ) + ( ) 2 + 2
(111)
P a g e | 49
= ( ) 2 + ( ) (4 ) +
(112)
= ( ) 2 2 + ( ) (4 ) +
(113)
Then, by Mhos Law :
Through substitution and algebraic manipulation in order to find as a function of :

=
)
+
(115)
) = ( ) (
)
(116)
= (
Reflecting node to node :
= (
(114)
Dividing through by and dividing through by (Time Domain Integration) yields the desired Transfer
Function:
( )

1
1
=
=( )
= ( )(
)

( ) +
(117)
Back substituting into the Transfer Function yields a fundamental, but simplified form:
1
( ) ( )
=
(
( +
2
2
+ ( ) (4 + 4 ) + ( )
(118)
2
+ 2 ) + +
Further multiplying out the denominator and collecting like terms yields:
2
= (( + 4 ( ) + ( )
2 ) 2
+ ( + 4 ( ) + ( )
2 2 ) 1
2
+ ( + + + 4 ( ) + 4 ( ) + ( )
+(
(119)
2
2
2 2 ))
P a g e | 50
The Circuits Approach yields a fundamental monic form described by the coefficients in Table 13:
Table 13: [Part 1] Circuits Approach Transfer Function Coefficients
Numerator
0 = (
Denominator
( ) + 4 2
2
0 = 0
2
+ )
1 = 0
1 = (
4 2 + 2 2
2
( ) + 4
+ ( ) + ( )
+ 2
2 =0
3 =0
=(
( ) + 4 2 + 4 2 + 2
2
( ) + 4
+ 2
3 =1
P a g e | 51
~Masons Gain Rule Systems Level Approach to The System Gain Derivation~
Finding the systems transfer function =
In order to apply Masons Gain Rule on the system block diagram depicted in Figure 4, the One At A Time
(1AAT) Loop gains were defined3:
1
1
1
1

) =
) ( ) (

+
+
1
1
1
2 ( ) ( ) ( ) =

Next the system characteristic was calculated:
1 (
1

1
+
+

1 + + + +
=
+
The forward path of the system block diagram depicted in Figure 4 was then identified.
(120)
(121)
= 1 1 + 2 = 1 +
(122)
( )
1
1
1
1
1
(123)
1 (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) = 2
+

+
By observation, the forward gain shares signals with all Loop Gains, so the coefficient 1 was calculated to
be:
1 = 1
Masons Gain Rule then yields the desired transfer function:

=
=
Simplification yields the following:

=
( )
2
+
+ + + +
+
( )
1
=
+ + + +
( )
1
=
( ) 2 + ( + ) + ( + )
The final transfer function in monic form becomes:
(124)
(125)
(126)
(127)
No simultaneous (ie: 2AAT, 3AAT) loops exist in the system block diagram depicted in Error! Reference
ource not found..
P a g e | 52

( )
( )
(128)
(
)
(
)

3 +
2 +
+0
( )
( )
The Masons Gain Rule system level approach yields a monic form described by the coefficients in Table
=
14:
Table 14: [Part 1] MGR Transfer Function Coefficients
Numerator
0 = (
( )
Denominator
0 =0
1 = 0
1 =
2 =0
2 =
3 =0
( + )
( )
( + )
( )
3 = 1
P a g e | 53
B [ Part 1 ] Task 4 Motor Selection:

Table 15: [Part 1] Motor Selection from the ABB DC-Motors Catalog
UN
Pout
Pout
Jm
Ra
La
IN
(Ea in
Vdc)
(nm in
rpm)
(kW)
(hp)
(kg m2)
(m)
(mH)
(A)
(Nm)
117
440
804
284
381
5.9
38
0.86
745
3378
117
470
845
299
401
5.9
38
0.86
745
3377
119
470
735
308
413
6.7
43
0.99
720
4007
119
440
839
347
465
6.7
29
0.61
860
3954
127
440
844
300
402
5.9
38
0.51
745
3396
127
470
906
322
432
5.9
38
0.51
744
3392
129
470
745
320
429
6.7
43
0.59
745
4099
133
440
886
302
405
6.5
34
0.92
747
3250
135
470
759
320
429
7.8
41
1.14
745
4018
10
137
440
729
348
467
8.9
29
0.93
909
4561
11
143
440
866
300
402
6.5
40
0.57
747
3311
12
151
470
825
284
381
11
54.8
0.92
675
3285
Motor
#
Pg. #
P a g e | 54
Figure 27: [Part 1] Designated Motor(#11) [6]
P a g e | 55
Figure 28: [Part 1] Designated Motor (#11) From The ABB DC-Motors Catalog [3]
P a g e | 56
C [ Part 2 ] Routh Hurwitz System Stability Analysis:

(Figure)Routh Hurwitz Stability Analysis MATLAB Output:
Figure 29: [Part 3][MATLAB] Routh Hurwitz Analysis - Finding Open Loop Gain K
P a g e | 57
(Text)Routh Hurwitz Stability Analysis MATLAB Output:
Part 2. Task (1) . Section (e) . Item (i) - CLOSED-Loop Positional Step Response - (Neglecting Gravity)]
Finding the Maximum Closed Loop Gain K_max:
------------------------------------------------------------------------Performing A Routh Hurwitz Stability Analysis On The Following Characteristic Polynomial:
1.0 s^3 + 61.027695723276671913026802940294 s^2 + 1503.7642105939680732262786477804 s + 14.373808673859363338465300330426

K_SYMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------The Routh Hurwitz Matrix:
+|
-+
1.0,
1503.7642105939680732262786477804
|
|
|
61.027695723276671913026802940294,
14.373808673859363338465300330426 K_SYMS |
|
| 1503.7642105939680732262786477804 - 0.23552927082542665648823287938285 K_SYMS,

|
|
|
14.373808673859363338465300330427 K_SYMS,
|
P a g e | 58
+-
-+
For the system to be stable the first row must have the SAME sign (No Right Hand Plane Poles):
Each element in the first row has been compared with zero [eval(c(:,1)>0)] the results are displayed below:
+|
-+
1.0
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
| K_SYMS < 6384.6171022562712717332100818435 |

|
|
+-
|
0.0 < K_SYMS
|
-+
User discretion is advised for the following reported K_max (Closed Loop - Forward Path Gain)
Large changes in this system may cause undecipherable regions of stability - utilizing the current method K_max may be indeterminable
The closed loop gain (K_SYMS) produces a stable system for the following values and or intervals:
(0.0, 6384.6171022562712717332100818435)
K_max Has Been Identified!!!
Maximum magnitude of the Open-Loop Gain:[K_max] = 6384.6171
P a g e | 59
D [ Part 3 ] MATLAB Code First Compensator Design:

%The first compensator designed was a normalized lag compensator.
%% EE315 Linear Control Systems Design Project - Tower Of Terror Two
% Part 3 First Lag Compensator Design
% Written By: Jordan D. Ulmer, Joshua Behnken, and Jeremy Laird
% Start Date: 03/16/2015
% Revision Date: 04/27/2015
% Clean Up Commands
clc
clear all
close all
close all hidden
format long
% Figure Positions
rightScreen_Small_normalized=[0.525, 0.075, 0.45, 0.825]; %[x y w h]
leftScreen_Small_normalized=[0.025, 0.075, 0.45, 0.825]; %[x y w h]
rightScreen_fit_normalized=[0.505, 0.05, 0.492, 0.8725]; %[x y w h]
leftScreen_fit_normalized=[0.005, 0.05, 0.492, 0.8725]; %[x y w h]
fullScreen_fit_normalized=[0.005, 0.05, 0.99, 0.8725]; %[x y w h]
wholeScreen_normalized=[0,0,1,1]; %[x y w h]
disp('Jordan, Joshua, Jeremy (04/27/2015)')
%% -------------------------------------------------------------------------disp('Part 2. Task (1) . Section (a) . Item (i)')
disp('Variable Definitions (See Code) - Using Motor #11')
% Motor #11
Jm = 6.5; % Kg*m^2
Jg = 250; % Kg*m^2
Me_full_load = 2000; %Kg
Me_half_load = 1000; %Kg
Me = 7500+Me_half_load; % Kg % for full load analysis
%Me = 7500+Me_half_load; % Kg % for half load analysis
r = 1; % m
Dm = 0.117; % N*m*s*(rad^-1)
Dg = 75.8; % N*m*s*(rad^-1)
De = 151.6; % N*s*(m^-1)
kt = 3250/747; % N*m*(A^-1) % Numerical Value (4.350736278447122) From Dr. Hietpas (Discussed
and comprehended)
kb = kt; % V*(rad^-1)*s
%kc = inf; % Infinitely stiff springs % N*(m^-1)
Ra = 31.1 * 10^(-3); % Ohms
La = 0.51* 10^(-3); % H % Numerical Value From Dr. Hietpas was(0.92 mH) ? Double Checked with
datasheet = (0.51 mH)
Nm = 60; % Gear Teeth
Ng = 1440; % Gear Teeth
UN = 440; % Vdc
ag = 9.8; % Acceleration Of Gravity % m*(s^-2)
P a g e | 60
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------disp('Part 2. Task (1) . Section (a) . Item (ii)')

disp('Constructing The System Transfer Function Derived in Part 1')
% Equivelent Inertia and Damping From Part 1
Jeq = Jm+(Nm/Ng)^2*(4*Jg+r^2*Me); % Kg*m^2
Deq = Dm+(Nm/Ng)^2*(4*Dg+2*r^2*De); % N*m*s*(rad^-1)
% Numerator
b0 = (kt*(Nm/Ng)*r)/(La*Jeq);
Num = [b0];
% Denominator
a0 = 0;
a1 = (Ra*Deq+kt*kb)/(La*Jeq);
a2 = (Ra*Jeq+La*Deq)/(La*Jeq);
a3 = 1;
Den_x = [a3 a2 a1 a0];
Den_v=Den_x(1:3); % Multiply By s in the numerator shifts the denominator
% Transfer Functions
% Position
disp('Positional Transfer Function:')
disp('Gx_no_comp(s) = X(s)/Ea(s); % m*(s^-1)*(V^-1)')
Gx_no_comp = tf(Num,Den_x) % m*(V^-1)
% Determine desired gain constant from steady-state error, depending on system type, or from a Bode Plot:
disp('The zeroth order transfer function')
G0 = tf(Num,Den_v) % m*(s^-1)*(V^-1);
Kv_Initial = evalfr(G0,0) ;
fprintf('Initial Forward Gain:[Kv_Initial] = %.4f\n',Kv_Initial )
% Specifications - Step Input
specs_X_STEPSTEADYSTATEERROR = 0.5; % Theoretically will be zero.... % m
Kv_desired = 1 / specs_X_STEPSTEADYSTATEERROR ;% Type 1 ess with a constant to Go over
the spec
fprintf('Desired Net Forward Gain:[Kv_desired] = %.4f\n',Kv_desired )
%
emperical_dampening = (1/5); % I want ~100 V/V
K_specific_value = Kv_desired/ Kv_Initial ;% desired / actual
%
K_specific_value = 300;
fprintf('Chosen Forward Gain:[K_specific_value] = %.4f\n',K_specific_value )
disp('Bode of KGH')
% System bode plot of KGH
figure(1)
w_vec = [10^-3:0.1:10^3];
bode(K_specific_value*Gx_no_comp,w_vec)
set(gcf,'Units','normalized','Position',fullScreen_fit_normalized,...
'Name',['Part 3. [MATLAB] Open-Loop - Bode Plot - KGH - (Neglecting Gravity - Without
Compensator)'])
grid on
title({'Part 3. [MATLAB] Open-Loop - Bode Plot - KGH - (Neglecting Gravity - Without
Compensator)',['Feedback H = 1 ; Forward Gain K = ',num2str(K_specific_value)]})
P a g e | 61
% Designing a Normalized Lag Compensator

disp('Designing a Lag Compensator [GLAG]:')
PM = 55; % Degrees - From Graph to get a 15% overshoot...
fprintf('Phase Margin:[PM] = %.4f\n',PM )
flexability = 10; % Degrees
fprintf('Flexability:[flexability] = %.4f\n',flexability )
phase_to_find_on_bode = -180 + PM +flexability; % Degrees
fprintf('Find Phase of KGH:[phase_to_find_on_bode] = %.4f\n',phase_to_find_on_bode )
[BODE_MAG,BODE_PHASE] = bode(K_specific_value*Gx_no_comp,w_vec);
tolerance = 0.001;
w_at_desired_phase = w_vec(min(find(((phase_to_find_on_bode - BODE_PHASE) /
(phase_to_find_on_bode))<(tolerance)))+1);
fprintf('Frequency Where PM is met:[w_at_desired_phase] = %.4f\n',w_at_desired_phase )
M_at_PM= evalfr(Gx_no_comp,w_at_desired_phase) ;% dB @ -120 deg % From BODE
%[M,P]=bode(Gx_no_comp);
fprintf('Magnitude of KGH Where PM is met:[M_at_PM] = %.4f\n',M_at_PM )
M_at_PM_dB = db(M_at_PM) ;
fprintf('Magnitude of KGH Where PM is met:[M_at_PM_dB] = %.4f\n',M_at_PM_dB )
P_LAG = - w_at_desired_phase/100; % rad/s
%
P_LAG = -1.5
fprintf('Lag Compensator Pole:[P_LAG] = %.4f\n',P_LAG )
a_LAG=abs( M_at_PM);
%
a_LAG = 50
fprintf('Lag Compensator Attinuation Factor:[a_LAG] = %.4f\n',a_LAG )
Z_LAG = a_LAG * P_LAG;
fprintf('Lag Compensator Zero:[Z_LAG] = %.4f\n',Z_LAG )
disp('Full Lag Compensator')
GLAG = (1/a_LAG)*tf(poly(Z_LAG),poly(P_LAG))
Gx_comp =series(Gx_no_comp,GLAG);%series(,compensator)Gx_no_comp%
% System bode plot of KGH

figure(2)
bode(K_specific_value*Gx_comp,w_vec)
set(gcf,'Units','normalized','Position',fullScreen_fit_normalized,...
'Name',['Part 3. [MATLAB] Open-Loop - Bode Plot - G_L_A_G*KGH - (Neglecting Gravity Compensated)'])
grid on
title({'Part 3. [MATLAB] Open-Loop - Bode Plot - G_L_A_G*KGH - (Neglecting Gravity Compensated)',['H = 1 ; K = ',num2str(K_specific_value),' ; a_L_A_G = ',num2str(a_LAG),' ;
Z_L_A_G = ',num2str(Z_LAG),' ; P_L_A_G = ',num2str(P_LAG)]})
disp('Yes, we realize that this compensation yields a NEGATIVE phase margin...')

disp('Emperical iterations corrected this, and our final system provided roughly 45 [Degrees] of
phase margin...')
disp('Sincerely, -- Jordan, Joshua, Jeremy (04/27/2015)')
P a g e | 62
E [ Part 3 ] Simulink Final Design Performance Raw Output:

Simulink Full Load Step Input Analysis (No Current Saturation):
(Spec/Constraint)
Maximum Position (Spec/Constraint) :[m] = 61.0000
Maximum Velocity (Spec/Constraint) :[m/s] = 20.0000
Maximum Acceleration (Spec/Constraint) :[m/s^2] = 25.0000
Maximum Armature Current (Spec/Constraint) :[Amps] = 6546.0000
Maximum Armature Output Voltage (Spec/Constraint) :[V] = 1320.0000
Maximum Motor Drive Voltage (Spec/Constraint) :[V] = 12.0000
Minimum Motor Drive Voltage (Spec/Constraint) :[V] = -12.0000
Maximum Motor Torque (Spec/Constraint) :[N*m] = 5385.0000
Steady State Position (Spec/Constraint) :[m] = 50.0000
Maximum Overshoot (Spec/Constraint) :[%] = 15.0000
Minimum Rise Time (Spec/Constraint) :[s] = 2.5000
Maximum Rise Time (Spec/Constraint) :[s] = 7.0000
Maximum Settling Time (Spec/Constraint) :[s] = 17.0000
Maximum Steady State Error to a Step (Spec/Constraint) :[m] = 0.5000
(Actual)
Maximum Position (Actual) :[m] = 55.3888
Maximum Velocity (Actual) :[m/s] = 12.6207
Maximum Acceleration (Actual) :[m/s^2] = 143.5833
Maximum Armature Current (Actual) :[Amps] = 17775.6078
Maximum Armature Output Voltage (Actual) :[V] = 1320.0000
Maximum Motor Drive Voltage (Actual) :[V] = 12.0000
Minimum Motor Drive Voltage (Actual) :[V] = -5.1517
Maximum Motor Torque (Actual) :[N*m] = 77336.9815
Steady State Position (Actual) :[m] = 49.8675
Maximum Overshoot (Actual) :[%] = 11.0721
Rise Time (Actual) :[s] = 2.5122
Maximum Settling Time (Actual) :[s] = 7.3082
Maximum Steady State Error to a Step (Actual) :[m] = -0.1325
(Error)
Maximum Position (Error) :[%] = 9.1986
Maximum Velocity (Error) :[%] = 36.8967
Maximum Acceleration (Error) :[%] = -474.3333
Maximum Armature Current (Error) :[%] = -171.5492
Maximum Armature Output Voltage (Error) :[%] = 0.0000
Maximum Motor Drive Voltage (Error) :[%] = 0.0000
Minimum Motor Drive Voltage (Error) :[%] = 57.0693
Maximum Motor Torque (Error) :[%] = -1336.1556
Steady State Position (Error) :[%] = 0.2651
Maximum Overshoot (Error) :[%] = 26.1859
Minimum Rise Time (Error) :[%] = -0.4886
Maximum Rise Time (Error) :[%] = 64.1112
Maximum Settling Time (Error) :[%] = 57.0104
Maximum Steady State Error to a Step (Error) :[%] = 100.0000
P a g e | 63
Simulink Half Load Step Input Analysis (No Current Saturation):

(Spec/Constraint)
(Actual)
(Error)
Maximum Armature Current (Error) :[%] = -170.1527
P a g e | 64
Simulink Full Load Step Input Analysis (With Current Saturation):

Part 3. SubItem(9) - Simulink Analysis
Steady State Motor Torque:[steady_state_torque] = 3879.0631
(Spec/Constraint)
(Actual)
(Error)
Maximum Armature Current (Error) :[%] = 0.0000
P a g e | 65
Ax(t) [m/s2]
Vx(t) [m/s]
x(t) [m]
100
50
Rise Time = 2.507 [s]
%OS = 11.09 [%]

Steady State Position = 49.88 [m]
0
0
10
Time [s]
12
14
16
18
20
14
16
18
20
14
16
18
20

20
0
-20
0
10
Time [s]
12

200
0
-200
0
X: 0.07713
Y: 143.6
10
Time [s]
12
Figure 30: [Part 3][Simulink][Half Load] - Step Input - Elevator Movement Characteristics
P a g e | 66
Ia(t) [Amps]
2000
0
-2000
0
T m(t) [N*m]
Ea(t) [V]
[ Motor Drive Output Voltage Ea(t) ]
10
Time [s]
12
14
16
18
20
14
16
18
20
14
16
18
20
x 10
2
0
-2
0
Maximum Current = 17684 [A]
10
Time [s]
12
[ Motor Torque Tm(t) ]
x 10
1
0 X:Y: 0.07713
7.693e+04
-1
0
2
Maximum Torque = 76939 [N*m]
10
Time [s]
12
Figure 31: [Part 3][Simulink][Half Load] - Closed-Loop - Step Response - (WITH Gravity And Saturation Blocks)
[ Motor Drive Output Voltage E_a(t) ]
P a g e | 67
Ax(t) [m/s ]
Vx(t) [m/s]
x(t) [m]
Part 3. - [Simulink] - Closed-Loop - Ramp Response - (WITH Gravity And Saturation Blocks)
100
50
0
0
Maximum Position = 61 [m]
10
Time [s]
12
14
16
18
20
14
16
18
20
14
16
18
20

20
0
-20
0
10
Time [s]
12

20
0
-20
0
X: 0.7543
Y: 10.55
10
Time [s]
12
Figure 32: [Part 3][Simulink][Half Load] - Closed-Loop - Ramp Response - (WITH Gravity And Saturation Blocks)
P a g e | 68
Ea(t) [V]
Ia(t) [Amps]
T m(t) [N*m]
Part 3. - [Simulink] - Closed-Loop - Ramp Response 2 - (WITH Gravity And Saturation Blocks)
[ Motor Drive Output Voltage Ea(t) ]
2000
1000
Maximum Voltage = 1320 [V]
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time [s]
4000
2000
0
0
Maximum Current = 2067 [A]
10
Time [s]
12
14
16
18
20
14
16
18
20
[ Motor Torque Tm(t) ]

10000
5000
0
0
X: 0.7744
Y: 8993
Maximum Torque = 8993 [N*m]
10
Time [s]
12
Figure 33: [Part 3][Simulink][Half Load] - Closed-Loop - Ramp Response 2 - (WITH Gravity And Saturation Blocks)
[ Motor Drive Output Voltage E_a(t) ]
P a g e | 69
F [TOC] Table of Contents, Tables List and Figures List:

Figure List:
Figure 1: Walt Disney World's Twilight Zone Tower of Terror Building Architecture [1] ............................. 2
Figure 2: System Level Diagram of the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror [2] ...................................................... 7
Figure 3: [Part 1 and Part 2] Electrical Equivalent Circuit Network ................................................................. 7
Figure 4: [Part 1 and Part 2][Simulnk] Open Loop Simulink System Model With Gravity ............................... 9
Figure 5: [Part 2][MATLAB] - Step Input - Open Loop Response Velocity (Neglecting Gravity) .................... 14
Figure 6: [Part 2][Simulink] - Step Input - Open Loop Elevator Velocity, Motor Current and Torque
Response (Neglecting Gravity) ....................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 7: [Part 2][Simulink] - Step Input - Open Loop Elevator Velocity, Motor Current and Torque
Response (With Gravity) ................................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 8: [Part 2][Simulink and MATLAB Comparison] - Step Input - Open Loop Elevator Velocity
(Neglecting Gravity) ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 9: [Part 2][MATLAB] Open Loop Root Locus Analysis (Neglecting Gravity) ........................................ 20
Figure 10: [Part 2][Simulnk] Full Closed Loop Simulink Model ...................................................................... 21
Figure 11: [Part 2][Simulnk] Simplified Closed Loop Simulink Model............................................................ 22
Figure 12: [Part 2][MATLAB] - Step Input - Closed Loop Elevator Position (Neglecting Gravity) .................. 24
Figure 13: [Part 2][Simulink] - Step Input - Closed Loop Elevator Position, Motor Current and Torque
Response (With Gravity) ................................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 14: [Part 3][Simulnk] Simplified Closed Loop Simulink Model............................................................ 28
Figure 15: [Part 3][Simulnk] Full Closed Loop Simulink Model ...................................................................... 29
Figure 16: Lag Compensation Pole and Zero Locations on the S Plane ...................................................... 30
Figure 17: [Part 3] Bode Plot of [KGH] the Open Loop Transfer Function GH with the Forward Gain K ....... 30
Figure 18: [Part 3] - System Circuit Realization - Initial Gain Block and Summing Junction .......................... 34
Figure 19: [Part 3] - System Circuit Realization - Final Lag Compensator Design .......................................... 35
Figure 20: [Part 3] Bode Plot of the Final Compensated System [] the Lag Compensator with
the Open Loop Transfer Function with the Forward Gain .................................................................. 36
Figure 21: [Part 3][MATLAB] Open Loop Root Locus Analysis (Neglecting Gravity) ...................................... 37
Figure 22: [Part 3][MATLAB] - Step Input - Closed Loop Step Response of the Final Compensated System 38
Figure 23: [Part 3][Simulink] - Step Input - Elevator Movement Characteristics Elevator Position, Velocity
and Acceleration ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 24: [Part 3][Simulink] - Step Input - Motor Load Characteristics Motor Voltage, Current and Torque
....................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 25: [Part 3][Simulink] - Ramp Input - Elevator Movement Characteristics Elevator Position, Velocity
and Acceleration ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 26: [Part 3][Simulink] - Ramp Input - Motor Load Characteristics Motor Voltage, Current and Torque
....................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 27: [Part 1] Designated Motor(#11) [6] .............................................................................................. 55
Figure 28: [Part 1] Designated Motor (#11) From The ABB DC-Motors Catalog [3] ...................................... 56
Figure 29: [Part 3][MATLAB] Routh Hurwitz Analysis - Finding Open Loop Gain K ....................................... 57
Figure 30: [Part 3][Simulink][Half Load] - Step Input - Elevator Movement Characteristics Elevator Position,
Velocity and Acceleration .............................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 31: [Part 3][Simulink][Half Load] - Closed-Loop - Step Response - (WITH Gravity And Saturation
Blocks) ............................................................................................................................................................ 67
Figure 32: [Part 3][Simulink][Half Load] - Closed-Loop - Ramp Response - (WITH Gravity And Saturation
Blocks) ............................................................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 33: [Part 3][Simulink][Half Load] - Closed-Loop - Ramp Response 2 - (WITH Gravity And Saturation
Blocks) ............................................................................................................................................................ 69
P a g e | 70
Table List:
Table 1: [Part 3] Physical System Constraints and Customer Non Negotiables............................................ 4
Table 2: [Part 3] Desired (Type 0) Positional Performance Specifications Step Input .................................. 5
Table 3: [Part 3] Desired (Type 1) Positional Performance Specifications Ramp Input ................................ 6
Table 4: [Part 1] Summary of Positional Transfer Function Coefficients ....................................................... 10
Table 5: [Part 1] Motor Parameters Corresponding to Motor #11 (See Figure 28)....................................... 12
Table 6: [Part 2] Original System Simulation Summary ................................................................................. 27
Table 7: [Part 3] Lag Compensator Design Simulink Values by Iteration ................................................. 32
Table 8: [Part 3] Lag Compensator Design Simulink Error Analysis by Iteration ..................................... 32
Table 9: [Part 3] Summary of the Final Open Loop Transfer Function Coefficients ...................................... 33
Table 10: [Part 3] Final Design Comparison to Constraints and Specifications ............................................. 44
Table 11: [Part 3] Final Design Simplified Comparison to Constraints and Specifications ............................ 45
Table 12: [Part 3] Final Design (With Current Saturation Block) Comparison to Constraints and
Specifications ................................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 13: [Part 1] Circuits Approach Transfer Function Coefficients ............................................................. 51
Table 14: [Part 1] MGR Transfer Function Coefficients ................................................................................. 53
Table 15: [Part 1] Motor Selection from the ABB DC-Motors Catalog .......................................................... 54
P a g e | 71
Table of Contents:
EE 315 Linear Control Systems......................................................................................................................... 1
Background: ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................ 3
(0)PART ZERO DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS ................................................................... 4
System Constraints: ................................................................................................................................. 4
System Specifications for a Step Input: ................................................................................................... 5
System Specifications for a Ramp Input: ................................................................................................. 5
(1)PART ONE THEORETICAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 7
Electrical Equivalent Model: .................................................................................................................... 7
System Transfer Function: ....................................................................................................................... 8
Motor Selection: .................................................................................................................................... 11
(2)PART TWO - SIMULATION ..................................................................................................................... 13
Original System - Open Loop Simulations: ............................................................................................. 13
Original System - Stability Analysis: ....................................................................................................... 20
Original System with Feedback - Closed Loop Simulations: .................................................................. 21
Original System - Simulations Summary: ............................................................................................... 27
(3)PART THREE - DESIGN ........................................................................................................................... 28
Design Process: ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Final Design Summary of Parameters: ................................................................................................ 33
Final Design Lag Compensator Circuit Realization: ............................................................................. 34
Final Design System Characterization: ................................................................................................ 36
Final Design Comparison to Constraints and Specifications: .............................................................. 44
Conclusion: ................................................................................................................................................ 47
Works Citied & Works Consulted: ............................................................................................................. 48
Appendices:.................................................................................................................................................... 49
A [ Part 1 ] [ Task 3 ] System Gain Derivations: ................................................................................. 49
~Circuits Fundamentals Approach to the System Gain Derivation~ ...................................................... 49
~Masons Gain Rule Systems Level Approach to The System Gain Derivation~ ................................... 52
B [ Part 1 ] Task 4 Motor Selection: .................................................................................................. 54
C [ Part 2 ] Routh Hurwitz System Stability Analysis:........................................................................... 57
(Figure)Routh Hurwitz Stability Analysis MATLAB Output: ................................................................... 57
(Text)Routh Hurwitz Stability Analysis MATLAB Output:....................................................................... 58
D [ Part 3 ] MATLAB Code First Compensator Design: ...................................................................... 60
E [ Part 3 ] Simulink Final Design Performance Raw Output: .............................................................. 63
Simulink Full Load Step Input Analysis (No Current Saturation): ........................................................ 63
Simulink Half Load Step Input Analysis (No Current Saturation): ....................................................... 64
Simulink Full Load Step Input Analysis (With Current Saturation): .................................................... 65
F [TOC] Table of Contents, Tables List and Figures List: ...................................................................... 70
Figure List: .............................................................................................................................................. 70
Table List: ............................................................................................................................................... 71
Table of Contents: .................................................................................................................................. 72
P a g e | 72

EE315 Linear Controls Twilight Zone Tower of Terror Case Study 04-29-2015

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EE315 Linear Controls Twilight Zone Tower of Terror Case Study 04-29-2015

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EE 315 Linear Control Systems

Twilight Zone Tower of Terror II

Part I Report Submission:

Part II Programmatic Submission:

Part III Final Design Report:

(0)PART ZERO DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

Table 1: [Part 3] Physical System Constraints and Customer Non Negotiables

Maximum Elevator Position:

Maximum Elevator Velocity:

Maximum Elevator Acceleration:

Maximum Motor Drive Output Voltage:

Maximum Startup Motor Drive Output Current:

Maximum Motor Torque:

Motor Drive Input Voltage Range:

System Specifications for a Step Input:

Table 2: [Part 3] Desired (Type 0) Positional Performance Specifications Step Input

Magnitude of the Step Input:

Maximum Steady-State Error:

Maximum Steady-State Height:

Minimum Rise Time:

Maximum Rise Time:

System Specifications for a Ramp Input:

Table 3: [Part 3] Desired (Type 1) Positional Performance Specifications Ramp Input

Magnitude of the Ramp Input:

Sinusoidal Steady-State Error:

(1)PART ONE THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

RHS Units Are In Mhos ( )

Figure 3: [Part 1 and Part 2] Electrical Equivalent Circuit Network

System Transfer Function:

admittances and applying KVL1 and KCL2.

A full derivation is presented in the section titled,

Simulink Model of the System:

Masons Gain Rule (MGR) Systems Level Approach:

A full derivation is presented in the section titled,

Table 4: [Part 1] Summary of Positional Transfer Function Coefficients

further description of this motor is provided in Table 5.

The motor Voltage Speed ratio was calculated in (16).

(2)PART TWO - SIMULATION

Original System - Open Loop Simulations MATLAB:

Part 2. Task (1) . Section (c) . Item(i) - [MATLAB]

Maximum Velocity = 4.282 [m/s]

Steady State Velocity = 4.205 [m/s]

Time To Peak Velocity = 0.1311 [s]

Original System - Open Loop Simulations SIMULINK Neglecting Gravity:

Part 2. Task (1) . Section (c) . Item(ii) - [Simulink]

Steady State Velocity = 4.2060 [m]

% Overshoot = 3.4970 [%]

Maximum Motor Current = 9246 [A]

Current Goes Negative

Steady State Current = 27.23 [A]

Torque Goes Negative

Steady State Output Motor Torque = 118.5 [N*m]

Original System - Open Loop Simulations SIMULINK With Gravity:

Part 2. Task (1) . Section (d) . Item(iv) . SubItem(d) - [Simulink]

Steady State Velocity = 3.9410 [m]

%O.S. = 3.5000 [%]

Maximum Motor Current = 9564 [A]

Original System - Open Loop Simulations Comparison of MATLAB and Simulink:

3.434 [/] 3.103 [/] 0.331 [/]

Part 2. Task (1) . Section (c) - [MATLAB & Simulink]

Maximum Difference = 0.3310 [m/s]

( Simulink Vx(t) - MATLAB V x(t) ) / eps

Simulink - MATLAB, difference normalized to epsilon

Original System - Stability Analysis:

Peak Output Motor Torque = 13.97106 [Nm]