DESIGN LABORATORY-II (ME 306) REPORT

for
PID Control of a Cantilever Beam

Submitted by

Nikhil Meel (2023MEB1362)

Nikunj Mahajan (2023MEB1363)

Palak (2023MEB1364)

Kalpesh Patil (2023MEB1365)

Perumalla Geethika Goud (2023MEB1366)

​ Lab-Group: Wed (Group-C)

Second Semester of Academic Year 2025-26
Date of Experiment: 21-01-2026
Date of Submission: 28-01-2026

Supervised By

Dr. Srikant Shekhar Padhee

Abstract
Vibration control is a critical requirement in mechanical systems where excessive oscillations can lead to
fatigue failure, loss of accuracy, and reduced service life. This experiment focuses on understanding the
principles of Proportional (P), Proportional–Derivative (PD), and Proportional–Integral–Derivative (PID)
control systems and their application to vibration suppression. The experiment involved analytical derivation
of controller equations, interpretation of system order changes due to controller action, and tuning of
controller parameters using MATLAB-based tools. The effect of individual PID gains was studied by
keeping the proportional gain constant and varying integral and derivative gains independently. An attempt
was made to verify the controller performance experimentally using a cantilever beam equipped with a
piezoelectric sensor. While complete quantitative validation could not be achieved due to practical
constraints, the qualitative response trends were consistent with theoretical expectations. The experiment
provided valuable insight into controller tuning, system dynamics, and the challenges involved in real-world
vibration control applications.

1. Objective of the Experiment

The objectives of this experiment are listed as follows:

1.​ To understand the basic principles of feedback control systems.

2.​ To study the mathematical formulation of P, PD, and PID controllers.
3.​ To analyze the effect of proportional, integral, and derivative actions on system response.
4.​ To understand the change in system order with PD and PID control.
5.​ To perform controller tuning using MATLAB-based simulations.
6.​ To apply PID control concepts to a mechanical system in the form of a cantilever beam.
7.​ To study the limitations and challenges of experimental vibration control.

2. Introduction
Vibrations are inherent in mechanical systems due to external disturbances, dynamic loading, and structural
flexibility. In structures such as beams, shafts, and frames, uncontrolled vibrations can result in excessive
noise, discomfort, loss of precision, and structural damage. Therefore, vibration control forms an important
area of study in mechanical and control engineering.

Control systems can broadly be classified into open-loop and closed-loop systems. Open-loop systems
operate without feedback and are generally unable to compensate for disturbances or parameter variations.
Closed-loop systems, on the other hand, use feedback to continuously correct system behavior, making them
more robust and accurate.

Among various control strategies, the Proportional–Integral–Derivative (PID) controller is one of the most
widely used due to its simplicity, effectiveness, and ease of implementation. PID controllers are extensively
employed in industrial automation, robotics, aerospace systems, and vibration control applications.
In this experiment, PID control theory was introduced through analytical derivations and practical
demonstrations. The experiment focused on understanding how PID parameters influence system stability,
damping, and transient response. MATLAB-based tuning tools were used to visualize the system response,
and an experimental setup involving a cantilever beam and piezoelectric sensor was used to attempt
real-world verification.

3. Theory and Methodology

3.1 Feedback Control System

A feedback control system compares the actual output of a system with a desired reference input. The
difference between these two quantities is known as the error signal. The controller processes this error and
generates a control signal to reduce it. This continuous correction mechanism enables the system to achieve
stability and accuracy.

3.2 Proportional Controller (P)

In a proportional controller, the control output is directly proportional to the error:

where (Kp) is the proportional gain. Increasing (Kp) increases the speed of response but may result in
overshoot and steady-state error.

3.3 Proportional–Derivative Controller (PD)

A PD controller introduces derivative action to the proportional control:

The derivative term predicts future error behavior by considering the rate of change of error. This action
improves damping and reduces oscillations. Systems under PD control typically exhibit second-order
dynamics.

3.4 Proportional–Integral–Derivative Controller (PID)

A PID controller combines proportional, integral, and derivative actions:

The integral term eliminates steady-state error by accumulating past error. However, it introduces an
additional pole, resulting in a third-order system. Proper tuning is essential to maintain stability.
3.5 System Order Interpretation

●​ PD control leads to a second-order characteristic equation.

●​ PID control introduces an additional pole due to integral action, resulting in a third-order system.

Understanding this change in system order is crucial for controller design and tuning.

3.6 Assumptions

●​ Linear system behavior

●​ Small amplitude vibrations
●​ Negligible nonlinearities and saturation effects

3.7 Transfer Function Representation of PID-Controlled System

For analytical study and controller design, it is convenient to represent the system in the Laplace domain
using transfer functions. Transfer functions allow the conversion of time-domain differential equations into
algebraic expressions in the frequency domain, simplifying stability and response analysis.

The general PID control law in the time domain is given by:

Taking the Laplace transform of the above equation (assuming zero initial conditions), we obtain:

Factoring R(s), the expression becomes:

Hence, the transfer function of the PID controller is:

This expression clearly shows the contribution of each control action:

●​ The proportional term Kp​provides an output proportional to the error.​

●​ The integral term Ki​​dominates low-frequency behavior and eliminates steady-state error.​

●​ The derivative term Kds improves damping and high-frequency response.​

3.8 Closed-Loop Transfer Function of the System

Let the transfer function of the plant (cantilever beam system) be denoted by Gp(s). The open-loop transfer
function of the system is then:

Assuming unity feedback, the closed-loop transfer function between the output X(s) and the reference
input R(s) is given by:

This closed-loop transfer function governs the dynamic response of the system, including stability, transient
response, and steady-state behavior. The poles of this transfer function determine whether the system is
stable and how quickly vibrations decay.

3.9 Relation Between Transfer Function and System Order

The order of the closed-loop system depends on the highest power of s in the denominator of the transfer
function:

●​ For PD control, no integral term is present, resulting in a second-order system.​

●​ For PID control, the integral term introduces an additional pole at the origin, resulting in a
third-order system.​

This increase in system order improves steady-state accuracy but also increases system complexity and the
need for careful tuning.
4. Experimental Setup

4.1 Apparatus Used

●​ Cantilever beam setup

●​ Piezoelectric vibration sensor
●​ Signal conditioning unit
●​ Data acquisition system (DAQ)
●​ Computer with MATLAB and control toolbox
●​ Power supply

5. Experimental Procedure
1.​ Theoretical derivation of P, PD, and PID controllers was discussed during the lab session.
2.​ Controller equations were implemented in MATLAB.
3.​ Initial gain values were assigned based on theoretical understanding.
4.​ Proportional gain was kept constant while integral and derivative gains were varied individually.
5.​ System response was observed for PD and PID configurations.
6.​ MATLAB tuning tools were used to analyze step response, settling time, and damping behavior.
7.​ The controller was connected to the cantilever beam setup.
8.​ Vibration signals were acquired using a piezoelectric sensor.
9.​ Experimental response was compared qualitatively with theoretical predictions.

6. Observations and Results

●​ Increasing derivative gain reduced oscillation amplitude and improved damping.
●​ Integral action reduced steady-state offset but increased settling time.
●​ PID control showed improved transient response compared to P and PD control.
●​ Experimental vibration signals showed partial reduction in amplitude.
●​ Noise and external disturbances affected measurement accuracy.
Figure 1: Effect of increased derivative gain on vibration suppression (P = 20, I = 0.01, D = 0.1)

Figure 2 : Effect of reduced integral gain on vibration response (P = 20, I = 0.01, D = 0.01)
 Figure 3: PID-controlled cantilever beam response for baseline gains (P = 20, I = 0.1, D = 0.01)

Figure 4: System response for high proportional gain highlighting sensitivity and oscillation magnitude (P =
200, I = 0.01, D = 0.01)
Figure 5: Optimally tuned PID controller response using MATLAB PID Tuner
7. Interpretation of Results and Error Analysis
The experimental observations were consistent with theoretical expectations of PID control behavior.
However, discrepancies arose due to sensor noise, limited tuning duration, and environmental disturbances.
Additionally, ideal assumptions such as linearity and negligible damping losses do not fully hold in practical
systems.

8. Key Learning Outcomes

●​ Understanding of PID control structure and tuning principles.
●​ Insight into system order and stability concepts.
●​ Experience with MATLAB-based controller tuning.
●​ Awareness of practical challenges in experimental vibration control.
9. Conclusions

Conclusion and Discussion (Geethika)

This experiment successfully demonstrated the practical implementation of PID control for vibration
suppression in a cantilever beam system. Using the transfer function formulation discussed, the effect of
proportional, integral, and derivative actions on system dynamics was clearly observed. The proportional
term primarily influenced the speed of response, while the derivative term introduced additional damping,
effectively reducing oscillations. The integral action, though beneficial in eliminating steady-state error,
increased the order of the system and required careful tuning to avoid instability.

The transition from PD to PID control resulted in a higher-order closed-loop transfer function, confirming
theoretical predictions regarding pole addition due to the integral term. MATLAB-based tuning helped
visualize the shift in pole locations and corresponding changes in transient response. Although experimental
limitations such as sensor noise and external disturbances prevented exact numerical matching, the observed
trends closely followed theoretical expectations. Overall, the experiment validated the relevance of
transfer-function-based controller design for real mechanical vibration systems

Conclusion and discussion (Nikhil)

The cantilever beam experiment highlighted how classical PID control concepts translate into observable
physical behavior. Without control, the beam exhibited sustained oscillations, whereas the introduction of
PID control significantly improved damping characteristics. Increasing derivative gain reduced oscillation
amplitude and settling time, confirming its role as a predictive damping mechanism. Proportional gain
improved responsiveness but also made the system sensitive when excessively increased.

Integral action was effective in reducing steady-state offset but introduced slower dynamics due to the added
pole in the closed-loop transfer function. This trade-off between accuracy and stability was clearly visible
during tuning. The results reinforced that PID control is not merely about gain increase but about balancing
system order, stability margins, and transient response. Despite practical non-idealities, the experiment
demonstrated meaningful vibration reduction consistent with control theory.

Conclusion and discussion (Palak)

This experiment provided a clear understanding of how PID controllers modify the mathematical and
physical behavior of a mechanical system through changes in the transfer function. The PD controller
maintained a second-order system, while the introduction of integral action increased the system to third
order, as predicted. This increase improved steady-state accuracy but also demanded careful tuning to
preserve stability.

The closed-loop transfer function analysis explained the observed oscillatory trends during experimentation.
Excessive integral gain caused slower settling due to pole dominance near the origin, whereas derivative
action shifted poles leftward, improving damping. MATLAB-assisted tuning allowed visualization of these
effects before experimental application. The study emphasized the importance of transfer-function analysis
in anticipating real-world controller behavior before hardware implementation.
Conclusion and discussion (Kalpesh Patil)
The experiment effectively bridged the gap between theoretical PID control concepts and real-world
vibration control of a flexible structure. By applying transfer-function-based controller design, the influence
of each PID term on the cantilever beam response became evident. Derivative control emerged as the most
influential factor in vibration suppression, while proportional and integral terms required moderation to
avoid instability.

A key learning outcome was understanding that increasing controller complexity also increases tuning
sensitivity. While PID control improved steady-state accuracy, it also introduced higher-order dynamics that
demanded careful gain selection. Experimental constraints such as noise and imperfect sensing highlighted
the difference between ideal models and physical systems. Overall, the experiment reinforced the practical
importance of classical control theory in mechanical applications.

Conclusion and discussion (Nikunj)

This study confirmed that PID control is a practical and effective method for controlling vibrations in
cantilever beam systems. The experimental results aligned with transfer-function-based predictions,
particularly regarding the role of derivative action in improving damping and stability. Integral control
reduced steady-state error but introduced slower dynamics due to the additional pole in the closed-loop
system.

However, the experiment also exposed limitations of real-world implementation. Sensor noise, limited
tuning time, and environmental disturbances prevented perfect controller performance. These deviations
emphasized the assumptions made in theoretical modeling, such as linearity and negligible losses. Despite
these challenges, the overall reduction in vibration amplitude and improved transient behavior validated PID
control as a robust solution for mechanical vibration suppression.

11. References
1.​ Analog and Digital Motor Control – Curriculum Manual, Chapter 9
2.​ Design Laboratory – II Manual
3.​ Control Systems lecture notes