What is it about?
The study compares the Linear Quadratic Tracking (LQT) controller with other widely used control strategies, including Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) and Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) controllers for optimal speed control of DC motors, focusing on its effectiveness in maintaining precise motor shaft rotation. The DC motor and controllers are tested in the MATLAB software in terms of standard performance metrics such as Steady-state Error (SSE), Rise Time (Tr), Settling Time (Ts), Overshoot (OS), Control Input Saturation, Integral of Absolute Error (IAE), Integral of Squared Error (ISE), Integral of Time-weighted Absolute Error (ITAE), and Control Effort. The results indicate that the LQT controller provides comparable performance, achieving near zero SSE, minimal overshoot, moderate rise and settling times, and efficient control effort. Although the PID controller provides the fastest response time, it is less suitable for applications that require stability and efficiency due to its significant overshoot and high control effort. The LQR controller, while highly energy-efficient, offers slower response times and incurs a slightly higher SSE, making it ideal for energy-conservation-focused applications. In contrast, the LQT controller exhibits a well-balanced performance in multiple measures, excelling in processing step input signals with zero error.
Featured Image
Photo by Gsightfotos on Unsplash
Why is it important?
We evaluate and contrast the performance of widely adopted control strategies—PID, LQR, and LQT—for precision speed control in DC motors, with a specific focus on tracking accuracy and control effort. This is timely in the context of increasing demand for high-performance motor control in robotics, electric vehicles, and automation systems, where both precision and energy efficiency are essential. Two significant contributions of this work are: a) while PID offers fast responses, it fails to maintain control stability and energy efficiency, making it suboptimal for long-term or sensitive applications, and b) the LQT controller demonstrates an ability to track step inputs with zero steady-state error and low overshoot, combining the strengths of LQR and PID in a single, balanced framework. These findings help redefine the trade-offs in motor control applications, offering a more nuanced recommendation for controller selection based on performance and energy constraints, which could guide future designs in embedded and real-time control systems.
Perspectives
I hope this article helps make what might seem like a highly technical and niche topic—DC motor control and optimal control theory—a bit more approachable and intellectually engaging. Speed control in motors isn't just a textbook exercise; it's at the heart of real-world technologies we rely on every day, from electric vehicles to industrial automation. I was particularly drawn to how Linear Quadratic Tracking (LQT) can offer a more balanced and adaptable control solution than traditional methods. More than anything, I hope this comparison encourages readers to think critically about the trade-offs between responsiveness, efficiency, and control accuracy—not just in motors, but in system design more broadly. If nothing else, I hope this piece sparks curiosity about the power of control theory and its potential in solving practical engineering problems.
Md Khurram Monir Rabby
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Optimal DC Motor Speed Control Comparison, December 2024, Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
DOI: 10.1109/icece64886.2024.11024856.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
