Control Systems 3B

(TKN3B21)
Semester Group Project

Date 24
th
July 2014
Final hand in date 23
rd
October 2014
Marks 100
==================================================================
Notes
1. Explain all assumptions and answers and give all the necessary analytical steps
note that this is especially important for linearizations and/or approximations.
2. There is no single correct answer any design that fulfils the requirements is
acceptable as long as it is properly analysed and presented.
3. The performance will be based on a class curve basis. You are thus competing
against the rest of the class the best performing design receives full marks for
the performance section.
4. Ensure that you fully document your final project. The Mathematica and
Wolfram System Modeler or Matlab and Simulink simulation files are also not
sufficient.
==================================================================
This project is a group project that is aimed at meeting the requirements by ECSA for
evidence of student performance in a group work environment. It is part of the ECSA
ELO 8 assessment and is a mandatory pass requirement for this course. It measures
both your ability to perform as a group as well as your ability to solve an ill-defined and
multidisciplinary type of project.
==================================================================

Question Position Controller Design

A normally supported double pendulum is the basis of the project this year. It is typical of the
control problems face by space and aircraft structural engineers for a variety of space
deployment and aeronautical flight systems.

Design a controller to maintain a given angular position (1) for the first joint in the diagram
below. The various dimensions for the lengths, masses and the thrust output of an electric
motor and propeller attached at m2 as a function of an input voltage that can vary between 0V
and 12V must be determined by the group from the actual device (available from
5 Aug 2014).

Steps that you should follow are:

Develop a mathematical model
Simplify the model to allow the group to develop the control theory aspects
Determine the model parameters from measurements on the actual device
Implement the model in a simulation environment (WSM / Simulink)
Determine the open loop performance of the system for small deflections
Develop a control strategy
Implement the controller in the simulation environment
Determine the closed loop performance of the system for both small and large
deflections
Develop the electronics to control the device
Implement the electronics for the device
Present the final report and electronic solution prior to testing
Test the control response during a competitive testing event against other teams in the
class
Compare your simulation and hardware system performance in a post-test report to be
added to your final report commenting on performance and relative position



NB: You can assume that the pendulum is started with all initial conditions at 0.

Notes

Each project must be accompanied by a signed schedule of work done by group members.
(See below!)

Statements such as we all did everything will be ignored and in such cases marks will be
allocated randomly to group members on the basis of the areas indicated as the responsibility
of the individual! In the case where there is any doubt about student participation the group
will be required during the oral assessment to present their own work individually and be
quizzed upon their contribution directly by the external moderator.

Note that this is an ECSA exit ELO based requirement to pass. Please read the
statement regarding the project and its mandatory pass requirement in the Study
Guide. Not passing the project is an automatic and non-negotiable exclusion from the
final examination.


The project report will be marked out of 100, as follows:

A. Report typography, drawings and communication of ideas [20]

B. Report content: [45]
Mathematical model and controller design
(including references used in the project)
Mathematica / WSM analysis and code
Introduction, commentary and conclusions

C. Performance of simulation [25]

D. Practical Arduino / electronics performance [10]



R Re ep po or rt t r ru ub br ri ic c S Sc co or re e
3 3/ /3 3 2 2/ /3 3 1 1/ /3 3 0 0/ /3 3
P PE ER RF FO OR RM MA AN NC CE E S SI IM MU UL LA AT TI IO ON N ( (2 25 5) )
WSM model
(10)
The simulation
works with both
given as well as
assessor inputs
flawlessly
The simulation
works only with
with student used
inputs adequately
The simulation
works poorly at
best even with
student used
inputs
The simulation
does not work at
all as delivered (or
no simulation
provided
0
Class related
performance
(15)
Top 3 performing
simulations that
meet all
specifications
Performs
adequately above
median
performance of
class
Performs below
class median
performance
Performs below
15 percentile or
does not perform
at all
0
m my yR RI IO O ( (m me ec ch ha at tr ro on ni ic cs s) ) / / A AR RD DU UI IN NO O / / E EL LE EC CT TR RO ON NI IC CS S ( (1 10 0) )
Device based
proof of
simulation
(10)
Device works
flawlessly and
demonstrates
solution correctly.
Device works
adequately and
demonstrates
solution to a
reasonable extent.
Device works but
does not
demonstrate the
solution correctly.
Device does not
work or is not
presented.
0
T TO OT TA AL L
P PO OI IN NT TS S
out of 35 0.0




R Re ep po or rt t r ru ub br ri ic c S Sc co or re e
3 3/ /3 3 2 2/ /3 3 1 1/ /3 3 0 0/ /3 3
T TA AS SK K B BA AS SI IC CS S
Mathematical
model (10)
Exceptional and
accurate model
incorporating all
details required
Accurate model
incorporating
most details
required some
insignificant
errors
Not completely
accurate model
only details
included some
significant errors
Inaccurate model
only few details
included
significant
modelling errors
0
Mathematical
model (10)
Exceptional and
123456789101112
model
incorporating all
details required
Exceptional and
123456789101112
model
incorporating all
details required
Exceptional and
123456789101112
model
incorporating all
details required
Exceptional and
123456789101112
model
incorporating all
details required
0
Mathematica /
WSM model
(15)
Exceptional and
accurate
simulation model
incorporating all
details required
Accurate
simulation
incorporating
most details
required some
insignificant
errors
Not completely
accurate
simulation some
simulation errors
Inaccurate or
incomplete
simulation
significant
simulation errors
0
T TA AS SK K D DE ET TA AI IL LS S
Introduction
(5)
Introduction to
area is clear.
Introduction is
unclear but the
writing is
acceptable.
Introduction is
unclear and the
logical structure is
not acceptable.
There is no
introduction to the
piece.
0
Comments
and conclusions
(10)
Detailed reference
discussion is done
correctly.
Detailed reference
discussion is done
but not all
references are
used properly.
There is some
detailed reference
discussion but
some are ignored.
There is little or
not detailed
reference
discussion.
0
References (5)
Information is
cited properly and
in IEEE or
Harvard format.
Information is
cited but not
formatted
correctly.
Information is
cited, but has
errors.
Information is not
cited or is cited
incorrectly.
0
P PR RE ES SE EN NT TA AT TI IO ON N
Logical
structure and
length (5)
Well organized,
demonstrates
logical sequencing
and structure.

Length is
appropriate - no
padding
Well organized,
but demonstrates
illogical
sequencing or
structure.

Length is
reasonable with
padding or some
areas missing
Weakly organized
with no logical
sequencing or
structure.

Substantial length
problems - too
short or padded.
Random writing.

Length is totally
inappropriate for
details.
0
Typography
(10)
All 3 faultless
(Fonts numbering,
layout and
spacing, and
consistency).
2 out of 3 are
faultless.
1 out of 3 are
faultless.
All have faults. 0
Grammar (5)
5 or less
grammatical
errors.
5-10 grammatical
errors.
10-15
grammatical
errors.
15 or more
grammatical
errors.
0
T TO OT TA AL L
P PO OI IN NT TS S
out of 65 0.0



Report in general

1. Plagiarism will not be tolerated. An electronic copy of the final report must be
provided. All references must be acknowledged. Turn-It-In may be used to check
for incidences of plagiarism.
2. The report is meant as both an exercise in producing a formal report as well as a
report on the actual work done on the practical project. For this reason considerable
emphasis will be placed on the quality of the material as well as the presentation of
the material. Do not underestimate the time it takes to produce a high quality
product.
3. State and comment on all assumptions and approximations.
4. Explain all answers and give all the necessary analytical steps.
5. Clearly indicate what the various inputs and system constants are in your report.


Group project notes
1. This is a group project, students have been randomly assigned to groups.
2. Groups cannot be changed once assigned.
3. The purpose of a group project is to learn from each other and to experience work
load sharing and trust.
4. All students are required to contribute to the project to meet the ECSA exit
requirement.
5. Each student's final project mark will be proportional to their contribution.
6. All group members must rate their own and their fellow group members' contribution.
7. In the singular case where there is less than 4 members to a group the Contribution
rating described below will be scaled appropriately but all sections must be
completed by the group.

Contribution ratings
1. You have 10 points for each person in your group, so if your group contains 4 people,
then you have a total of 40 points to allocate; if your team contains 3 people, then you
have 30 points to allocate.
2. You must allocate all the points.
3. If you think each person contributed equally towards completing the project, then you
should allocate 10 points to each person (including yourself).
4. If you feel that one person did more work than everyone else, then you can allocate
that person more than 10 points, and everyone else less than 10 points.
5. Please list your team members, including yourself, and the number of points you want
to allocate to each individual.
6. Provide a brief justification for your point allocation only if you awarded less than 8
points to one person, or more than 12 points to one person. For example, if you
allocated one person only 5 points because they missed half the group meetings, then
state that. If you allocated one person 13 points because they executed the majority of
the research or Mathematica programming themselves, then state that.
7. Do not forget to allocate yourself points.

You can use the following template to rate the contribution of the group members to the
project:

Your Name :
Your Student
Number:

Your Group
Number:

Name (group
member 1)
Area of responsibility
(group member 1)
Points
(group
member 1)
Justification for points (group member 1)




Name (group
member 2)
Area of responsibility
(group member 2)
Points
(group
member 2)
Justification for points (group member 2)




Name (group
member 3)
Area of responsibility
(group member 3)
Points
(group
member 3)
Justification for points (group member 3)




Name (group
member 4)
Area of responsibility
(group member 4)
Points
(group
member 4)
Justification for points (group member 4)