Category | Assignment | Subject | Engineering |
---|---|---|---|
University | De Montfort University | Module Title | ENGP5302 Control and Instrumentation |
Over the course of Block 3, you will have familiarized yourself with the Rotary Inverted Pendulum system, produced a mathematical model, performed simulated analysis and carried out experimentation.
The coursework involves the production of a report that reflects your work and observations. This report carries 25% of the module mark for ENGP5302.
You are to write a report based around your laboratory work and a discussion question. The report should contain a minimum of 20 figures.
The report should comply with the following structure:-
I Introduction
II System Model:
The equations, the Simulink model figure and system hardware figure are essential.
III Controller Design:
1)Linearization
2)Open-loop stability: is there a need for control?
3)Controllability: is the linearized model controllable?
4)Observability: is the system observable? Why is there no observer in the system?
5)State-feedback design
6)Zero-pole map as a figure
IV Simulation with discussion:
1)Model simulation (1 structure figure, free response with 11 figures, forced responses with 1 figure)
2)Closed loop simulation (1 structure figure, 2 figures with/without disturbances)
V Experimentation with discussion:
Performance of hardware (minimum of 2 figures with/without disturbance)
VI Discussion question
VII Conclusion and Future works References.
Appendix: Please compose a self-assessment statement. Please self-validate each section of your report claiming your expected mark each part of this assessment with reasons.
Your report will need to be submitted via Turnitin. Please note that you can only submit your report once so please check your work carefully before submitting it, ensuring it is the right version to submit. The submission deadline is 12:00 noon, 26/03/2025. Your report mark will be released on 16/04/2024.
Academic offences are taken very seriously and can result in penalties ranging from failure in a component or assignment to expulsion from the university. For more details, please see:
Any evidence of plagiarism, collusion or cheating in coursework, or misconduct in the examination, will be treated very seriously and in the first instance lead to referral to the Academic Practice Officer.
Are You Looking for Answer of ENGP5302 Assignment
Order Non Plagiarized AssignmentCriterion Description
A1. Report Format (5 marks) The layout of the report, references, etc
A2. Abstract (5 marks) The abstract should describe the report sufficiently.
1. Introduction (10 marks) The introduction should include background, motivation and applications.
2. System Model (5 marks) Modelling of the inverted pendulum system
3. Controller Design (20 marks) Including linearization, open-loop stability, controllability,
observability, full state-feedback design with pole assignment, closed-loop poles/zeros analysis, etc.
4a. Simulation Results (15 marks) All the figures as simulation results should be shown in the report.
4b. Simulation Discussion (10 marks) The analysis and discussion of the simulation results.
5a. Experimental Results (5 marks) All the figures as experimental results should be shown in the report.
5b. Experimental Discussion (5 marks) The analysis and discussion of the experimental results.
6. Discussion question (10 marks) Analysis of the discussion question
Conclusion (5 marks) Concluding statement with future work / recommendations. A3. Appendix (5 marks) This should, at the very minimum, include a self-appr
For clarity, you are recommended to submit your traces on a white background. Some of your plots will contain 4 traces; please remember to label all traces.
During the laboratory sessions, you will have calculated an array of K (state feedback) coefficients to stabilize the pendulum. The LabView set-up has K coefficients programmed into its default configuration. Using your knowledge and simulation skills to evaluate both configurations, which of the two configurations provides the best solution and why?
|
|
0 |
1-2 |
3-4 |
5 |
A1 |
Format |
Format is not compliant. Sections are not numbered, there is no table of contents and no references. |
Partial compliance. Sections correct. Some of the following in place: section numbering, table of contents and references. |
Reasonable compliance. Sections correct. Most of the following in place: section numbering, table of contents and references. |
Format is fully compliant, with correctly numbered sections, table of contents and references. |
|
|
0 |
1-2 |
3-4 |
5 |
A2 |
Abstract |
No abstract. |
Vague, mostly incomplete, or irrelevant abstract. |
Comprehensive abstract with some details missing |
Abstract comprehensively and concisely describes report. |
|
|
0-3 |
4-6 |
7-8 |
9-10 |
1 |
Introduction |
None or entirely inappropriate. |
Minimalist introduction with key points omitted and minimal referencing. |
The introduction is comprehensive with a few errors and omissions. Reasonable referencing. |
Excellent background introduction, motivation and applications for inverted pendulums. Excellent introduction to the laboratory apparatus. Good referencing |
|
|
0 |
1-2 |
3-4 |
5 |
2 |
System Model |
None or inappropriate model. |
Original model with minimal additions. |
Model developed with minor errors. Clear presentation. |
Correct model. Clear presentation. |
|
|
0-5 |
6-10 |
11-15 |
16-20 |
3 |
Controller Design |
None, or analysis is entirely inappropriate. |
A few of the following have been carried out: linear modelling, open- loop pole analysis, controllability analysis, observability analysis, state feedback, closed-loop pole analysis. Minimal critical analysis. |
Most of the following have been carried out: linear modelling, open- loop pole analysis, controllability analysis, observability analysis, state feedback, closed-loop pole analysis. More extensive critical analysis. |
Correct linear model. Correct open-loop pole analysis with deductions. Correct analysis on controllability and observability. Correct state feedback with confirmation of the pole placement. |
|
|
0-4 |
5-8 |
9-11 |
12-15 |
4a |
Simulation Results |
No traces, or traces that are inappropriate. |
Only a few traces presented. The presentation and/or clarity is poor and not properly labelled. |
The majority of the traces are presented. There may be deficiencies in the presentation, clarity or labelling. |
A complete set of correct traces is provided. The traces are clear, well presented and properly labelled. |
|
0-3 |
4-5 |
6-8 |
9-10 |
|
4b |
Simulation Discussion |
None, or entirely inappropriate |
Weak critical analysis of a few results including the effect of both friction values and mass for the free response, along with analyses of the forced and closed-loop responses. Ineffective discussion and the majority of points may have been omitted. |
Reasonable critical analysis of the majority of the results including the effect of both friction values and mass for the free response, along with analyses of the forced and closed-loop responses. Some points may have been omitted. |
Comprehensive critical analysis of the results including the effect of both friction values and mass for the free response, along with analyses of the forced and closed-loop responses. |
|
|
0 |
1-2 |
3-4 |
5 |
5a |
Experimental Results |
None, or entirely inappropriate |
Relevant experimental results with errors or omissions. Not particularly clear and/or poor labelling. |
Reasonable experimental results with deficiencies in presentation. |
Correct experimental results, clearly labelled and presented. |
|
|
0 |
1-2 |
3-4 |
5 |
5b |
Experimental Discussion |
None, or entirely inappropriate |
A description of the experimental results with little or no critical analysis, and no comparison with the theoretical results. |
Reasonable critical analysis of the results with little or no comparison with the theoretical results. |
Excellent critical analysis of the results with good comparisons against the theoretical results. |
|
|
0-3 |
4-5 |
6-8 |
9-10 |
6 |
Discussion Question |
None, or entirely inappropriate |
An overview of the situation with some simulation and little or no critical analysis. |
Reasonable critical analysis of the problem with some use of simulation, but no overall conclusion to this question. |
Comprehensive critical analysis of the question, applying simulation skills, demonstrating good analysis and formulating a good conclusion to this question. |
|
|
0 |
1-2 |
3-4 |
5 |
7 |
Conclusion |
No conclusion or totally inappropriate content. |
Conclusion does not fully summarize report. Lack of future recommendations. |
Reasonable summary of the report with some salient points missing or detail lacking for future recommendations. |
Conclusion fully summarizes report with good future recommendations. |
|
|
0 |
1-2 |
3-4 |
5 |
A3 |
Self-appraisal |
No self-appraisal. |
Inaccurate self-appraisal with inflated expectations. |
Reasonable self-appraisal with realistic / modest expectations. |
Accurate self-appraisal. |
Hire Experts to solve your ENGP5302 Assignment before Deadline
Pay & Buy Non Plagiarized AssignmentLooking for the solution of the ENGP5302 Control and Instrumentation Assignment? Look no further! There are specialized professionals for all categories of assignments who offer you plagiarism-free and superior content. You are assured that our Automotive Engineering Assignment Help will make you productive and help you achieve high grades in your academic year. A free list of assignment samples written by PhD experts is also provided here that can help you boost your study power and check the quality of the assignment. So contact us today and get your top-notch assignment!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content