Pic Final Draft

CCB 3072
Process Instrumentation and Control Lab
PROJECT WORK
NAME
ID
ARTHUR ELISEUS
18441
CHOO EE HUEY
18510
KUAN SHAO KANG
18346
MUHAMMAD AIMAN NAIM BIN AHMAD SUKRI
18509
NORSAFWAN IN NORDIAN
18337
Submitted to:
DR NASSER MOHAMED RAMLI
Date of Submission:
27TH NOVEMBER 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
1-2
Introduction & Theory
3-10
Procedure/Methodology
Results
12-26
Discussion
27-33
Conclusion
34
References
34-35
11
CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab
Sept 2015
1.0 Summary
Generally, the aim of the project is to introduce students on the concept of control system
and how to implement the theory of Chemical Process, Dynamics, Instrumentation and Control
on a specific real case situation. The project provides a brief sight-seeing of the control system,
in which students are exposed to various models and formulas to get along with tuning and
controlling system. The objectives of this project are:
To determine the optimum process in each five different methods of tuning which will
have less error, fast settling time and less overshoot.
To study the best controller either Proportional Controller (P), Proportional Integral
Controller(PI) and Proportional Integral Derivatives Controller (PID) in those five
methods of tuning which will have least percentage of error.
Through this project, students are required to tune a control loop by arranging the control
parameters (step size, step time) to their optimum values in order to obtain desired control
response. Before that, gain, time delay and time constant values need to be calculated from the
graphs of manual control and the values are substituted accordingly into the given formula in
order to obtain the proportional gain, integral time and derivative time which are then used to
find the integral gain and derivative gain. This is followed by inserting the proportional gain,
integral gain and derivative gain into PID automatic control simulator in order to obtain the
respective response graphs. In this level, stability is the main necessity, nevertheless at certain
point; different systems may leads to different behaviors and requirements, which might not be
compatible to each other.
Students are given task to obtain the optimum tuning for Cyclone Feed Density Control
by regulating few parameters using a manual process step testing and an automatic PID
controller. Also, the project description provided 5 tables of tuning methods which are tuning for
Quarter Decay Ratio Response, Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas for Set Point
Changes, Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas for Set Point Changes, Controller
Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis and Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon
controller settings.
1|Page
Sept 2015
By using value of 20 for step time and 30 for step size in the manual controller, Gain
(Kc), Time Delay (t0) and Time Constant () are calculated. These values are substituted in each
of the formulas for the various tuning methods specified before. Getting the values for controller
types, the three vital Gains for the PID controller, Proportional Gain (KP), Integral Gain (KI) and
Derivative Gain (KD) are acquired. Finally, these gains are inserted in the PID controller to
determine the response.
As a conclusion, this project is the best practice for those who are interested in tuning and
controlling system as it assists students to illustrate those theories and calculations learned
before, into responses of the dynamic system, which would be very useful for a chemical
engineer.
2|Page
Sept 2015
2.0 Introduction & Theory

2.0.1 Introduction
In recent years, control systems plays vital role in the development and advancement of
modern technology and civilization. Practically every aspects of our day-to-day life is affected
less or more by some control system. A bathroom toilet tank, a refrigerator, an air conditioner, a
geezer, an automatic iron, an automobile all are control system. These systems are also used in
industrial process for more output. Besides, control system can be found in quality control of
products, weapons system, transportation systems, power system, space technology, robotics and
many more. The principle of control theory is applicable to engineering and non-engineering
field both.
Overall, this project will emphasize on the process control which mainly functions to
maintain a process at the desired operating conditions, safely and efficiently, while satisfying
environmental and product quality requirements, by using numerous types of tuning methods
discovered. In this project, we are required to determine the best process by comparing the IAE
value. The optimum process should be comprised of less error (low IAE value), fast settling time
and less overshoot. KC, and values are calculated from the manual control graphs and then
inserted into sets of equations for different type of controllers, for 5 respective processes which
are Tuning Formulas for Quarter Decay Ratio Response, Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE
Formulas for Set Point Changes, Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas for Set Point
Changes, Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis, and Tuning Formulas for
Cohen Coon controller settings.
After conducting the computations and response analysis, it is found out that PI are the
best controller for Quarter Decay Ratio Response, Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE
Formulas, Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas and P is the best controller for Cohen
Coon controller settings whereas Dahlin Synthesis is only subjected to the only option of using
PID controller. We also managed to determine the best tuning for each P, PI and PID controller
from five methods. The results indicate that Quarter Decay Ratio Response is the best tuning
3|Page
Sept 2015
method for P controller, Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas works best for PI
controller and lastly, Dahlin Synthesis is the optimum choice of tuning for PIC controller.
The subject of process control is concerned with how to achieve these goals. In largescale, integrated processing plants such as oil refineries or ethylene plants, thousands of process
variables such as compositions, temperatures, and pressures are measured and must be
controlled. Fortunately, large numbers of process variables (mainly flow rates) can usually be
manipulated by the control system for this purpose.
As a brief overview to the subject, this project considers a representative process control
problem in several industries, which is Cyclone Feed Density Control.
2.0.2 Theory
Open Loop Process Characterization
Process control system is utilized to control and maintain the desired output of a process within
the required range of interest. In process control, there are both feedforward and feedback control
while feedback control can be differentiated into open loop and closed loop system. Open loop
system can be defined as continuous control system in which the output has no influence or
effect on the control action of the input signal (ElectronicsTutorials, 2015) .In terms of the
difference between open loop and closed loop is that an open loop systems input does not
change in the input since the output does not compare to the input to check for error. Thus, for
open loop system the tuning and instrumentation must be done carefully and the change must be
monitored as the systems do not have self-corrective action if any errors occurs.
Figure 1.0: The diagram of a open loop control system with drying system as example
4|Page
Sept 2015
The models used to analyse the open loop characteristics are the First order Plus Dead Time
(FOPDT) Model as well as Second order Plus Dead Time Model shown below. The second order
system is derived from two first order system in series. A step change will be introduced into the
controller output for step testing, with the controller on manual or open loop response. In terms
of manual control, the step size and step time does not change.
First order Plus Dead Time (FOPDT) Model:
Second order Plus Dead Time Model:
G( s)
K e to s
s 1
G( s)
K e to s
( 1 s 1)( 2 s 1)
In a PID controller, the three terms identified as Proportional (P) , Integral(I) and Derivative(D)
Action is important in the tuning. These proper adjustments to the three parameter allow
appropriate control on the response towards an error with improved sensitivity and stability of
the open loop process control. Any improper tuning would yield sluggish response or reduced
efficiency in amidst of large disturbance being introduced into the system. This results in
undesired costs and process condition.
P, PI, PID Controller

PID controllers use a 3 basic behavior types or modes: P - proportional, I -integrative and D derivative. While proportional and integrative modes are also used as single control modes, a
derivative mode is rarely used on its own in control systems. Combinations such as PI and PD
control are very often in practical systems.
Proportional controllers are simple to understand and easy to tune. The controller output is
simply the output of the proportional control mode, plus a bias. The bias is needed so that the
controller can maintain an output (say at 50%) while there is no error (set point = process
variable).
() = + ()
Where
5|Page
() =
Sept 2015
= (, )
= (, , )
() =
The use of proportional control alone has a large drawback offset. Offset is a sustained error
that cannot be eliminated by proportional control alone. Under proportional-only control, the
offset will remain until the operator manually changes the bias on the controllers output to
remove the offset.
In PI controller, the Integral parameter is introduced in the control to solve the inability of Pcontroller to remove the offset of the system. PI-control stops the systems from offsets and takes
the corrective action to return the system to its set point. PI-controller is however still 50%
slower than P-only controller. As long as there is an error present (process variable not at set
point), the integral control mode will continuously increment or decrement the controllers
output to reduce the error. Given enough time, integral action will drive the controller output far
enough to reduce the error to zero. For a given error, the speed of the integral action is set by the
controllers integral time setting (TI). A large value of TI (long integral time) results in a slow
integral action, and a small value of TI (short integral time) results in a fast integral action. If the
integral time is set too long, the controller will be sluggish, if it is set too short, the control loop
will oscillate and become unstable.
() = + [() +
1 1
( )]
1 0
Lastly, PID controller has all the necessary dynamics: fast reaction on change of the controller
input (D mode), increase in control signal to lead error towards zero (I mode) and suitable action
inside control error area to eliminate oscillations (P mode). Derivative mode improves stability
of the system and enables increase in gain K and decrease in integral time constant Ti, which
increases speed of the controller response. the derivative control action, its function to anticipate
the future behaviour of the error signal through considering its rate of change.
() = +
Where =
6|Page
()
Sept 2015
Quarter Decay Ratio Response

Decay ratio can be defined as the ratio of successive peak heights or ratio by which the
oscillation is reduced during one complete cycle. Quarter decay ratio is a traditional standard
where the controller is tuned so that the second peak is a quarter the height of the first and it is
commonly used in open loop systems for oscillation dampening. This response is widely used
due to its good indication of the stability of the controlled response.
Quarter decay ratio, c/a= 0.25
20
15
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
time[min]
Figure 1: Quarter Decay Ratio Response
Controller Type
Proportional
Gain
Integral Time
Derivative Time
Kc
1
Proportional only, P
1 to

K
Proportional integral, PI
0.9 t o

K
3.33 t 0
Proportional integral
derivative, PID
1.2 t o

K
2.0 t 0
1
t0
2
Table 1: Tuning Formulas for Quarter Decay Ratio Response
7|Page
Sept 2015
Minimum Error Integral

There are three main functions related to the Minimum Error Integral as shown below:
a. Integral Squared Error (ISE)
Integral Squared Error (ISE) focused on square the error function where the errors from
both positive and negative sides are penalized. Large error can be eliminated while small
error can be tolerated. For a second order system, the minimum ratio of damping turns to
almost 0.5.
b. Integral Absolute Error (IAE)
Integral Absolute Error combines both the positive and negative term from the response
and creates a nicely underdamped system. The minimum ratio of damping is around 0.7.
It has slower response when compared to ISE optimal systems, less sustained oscillation
is observed. IAE also allows larger deviation than ISE, resulting in smaller overshoots.
c. Integral Time-weighted Absolute Error (ITAE)
Suitable for longer transient duration, this function has higher selectivity than IAE or
ISE. The minimum value of the integral is much more definable and the minimum
damping ratio can reach nearly 0.7. ITAE produces systems that settle more quickly than
IAE and ISE. However, its drawback is that it produces sluggish initial response.
As mentioned before tuning for decay ratio often leads to oscillatory responses and also this
criterion considers only two points of the closed loop response (the first two peaks). The
alternative approach is to develop controller design relation based on a performance index that
8|Page
Sept 2015
considers the entire closed loop response. These formulas indicate the same trend as the quarter
decay ratio formulas except that the integral time depends more on the effective process time
constant and less on the process dead time.
Controller Type
Proportional
Gain
Integral Time
Derivative Time
Kc
derivative, PID
0.758 t o

K
1.086 t o

K
0.861
0.869
1.02 0.323(t o / )
0.740 0.130(t o / )
t
0.348( ) o

0.914
Table 2: Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas for Set Point Changes
Controller Type
Proportional
Gain
Integral Time
Derivative Time
Kc
derivative, PID
0.586 t o

K
0.916
0.965 t o

K
0.855
1.03 0.165(t o / )
0.796 0.147(t o / )
t
0.308( ) o

0.9292
Table 3: Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas for Set Point Changes
Dahlin Synthesis
Also known as Lambda tuning. Dahlin Synthesis was commonly used in paper and pulp industry
in the 1970s with the rise of min-computer based control system. This system incorporates the
term to assume and approximate the function to First order Plus Dead Time (FOPDT) Model.
This tuning causes dead beat controller to be imposed by closed loop structure. The Dahlin
Synthesis function share the same unit static gain, the same delay as the process model and a
specified time constant as compared to FOPDT.
9|Page
Sept 2015
Controller Type
Proportional
Gain
Integral Time
Derivative Time
o
2
Kc
derivative, PID
K (t o )
Table 4: Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis
Cohen Coon Method

The Cohen Coon Method corrects the slow, steady-state response given by the Ziegler-Nichols
method when there is a large dead time (process delay) relative to the open loop time constant.
However, the weakness in Cohen Coon Method is that the need of large process delay due to
unreasonably large controller gains will be expected. Due to the progressive step disturbance
rather than instantaneous , the method is only applicable for first order system. The tuning is
conducted with the step disturbance being introduced once process is in steady state , the output
is measured with the time constant and time delay. Initial control parameters can be derived from
the evaluation of the response with given data.
Controller Type
Proportional only, P
derivative, PID
Proportional Gain
Integral Time
Derivative Time
Kc
t
1 o
3
K t o
1
K t o
9
t
o
10 12
K t o
4 t o

3 4
to
30 3(t o / )
22 3(t o / )
to
32 6(t o / )
13 8(t o / )
to
Table 5: Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings
10 | P a g e
4
11 2(t o / )
Sept 2015
3.0 Procedures/Methodology
1.
Given from the manual mode (in Excel Spreadsheet), the values of Gain (K), Time
Constant () and Time Delay (TD) are:
= = 0.01
= 12.5
= 2.5
2.
Determine the values of Kc, I and D by substituting the values of Gain (K), Lag Time
(TL) and Dead Time (TD) into each of the 5 methods.
3.
Since P controller does not have the value for I and D , so set I = 0 and D = 0; whereas
for PI controller, set D = 0.
4.
Once Kc, I and D are obtained after substitution method, calculation of Kp, KI and KD is
done by using the fomulas as follows:
=
= /
=
5.
Once Kp, KI and KD are obtained, insert the values into the PID automatic control tuning.
Then a graph of response variable is plotted and the Integral of Absolute Error (IAE)
values for all controllers of different methods are written down.
6.
The IAE values of every controller are being compared. For the optimum process, it will
have the least error, fastest settling time and least overshoot.
7.
All the results are tabulated and analysed.
11 | P a g e
Sept 2015
4.0 Result
Substituting K=-0.01, to=2.5 and =12.5 into each process, yields;
Controller
Type
Proportional Gain
Integral Time
Kc
Proportional
only, P
1 2.5
0.01 12.5
Derivativ
e Time
Integral
Gain
Derivative
Gain
(Kc /I)
(Kc *D)
3.332.5 8.325
450
8.325
= -500
Proportional
integral, PI
0.9 2.5
0.01 12.5
= -54.054
= -450
Proportional
integral
derivative,
PID
1.2 2.5
0.01 12.5
2.02.5 = 5
1
2.5
2
= 1.25
= -600
600
6001.25
= -750
= -120
Table 6: Tuning Formulas for Quarter Decay Ratio Response
Controller
Type
Proportional Gain
Integral Time
Derivative Time
Kc
Integral
Gain (Kc /I)
Derivative
Gain
(Kc *D)
Proportional
integral, PI
0.758 2.5
0.01 12.5
0.861
12.5
1.02 0.323(0.2)
= 13.084
303.028
13.084
= -23.16
= -303.028
Proportional
integral
derivative,
PID
1.086 2.5
0.01 12.5
12 | P a g e
0.869
= -439.779
0.914
12.5
439.779
2.5
0
.
348
(
12
.
5
)
0.740 0.130(0.2)
17.507
12.5
= 17.507
= -25.12
= 0.9999
439.8
0.9999
= -439.735
Sept 2015
Table 7: Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas for Set Point Changes
Controller
Type
Proportional
Gain
Integral Time
Derivative Time
12.5
1.03 0.165(0.2)
Integral
Gain (Kc/I
)
Kc
Proportiona
l integral,
PI
Proportiona
l integral
derivative,
PID
0.586 2.5
0.01 12.5
= -255.949
0.916
0.965 2.5
0.01 12.5
= -382.073
0.855
= 12.538
12.5
0.796 0.147(0.2)
= 16.306
2.5
0.308(12.5)
12.5
= 0.863
0.9292
Derivative Gain
(Kc*D )
255.949
12.538
= -20.414
382.073
16.306
= -23.431
382.07316.306
= -329.729
Table 8: Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas for Set Point Changes
Controller Type
Proportional
integral
derivative, PID
Proportional
Gain
Integral
Time
Kc
12.5
0.01(2.5 12.5)
= -83.333
= 12.5
Derivative Integral
Time
Gain (Kc/I
)
Derivative
Gain
2 .5
=
2
1.25
(Kc*D )
83.333
12.5
83.3331.25
= -104.166
= 6.667
Table 9: Controller Modes &Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis
13 | P a g e
Controller
Type
Proportional Gain
Integral Time
Kc
Proportional
only, P
1
51 25
0.01 312.5
= -533.333
Proportional
integral, PI
30 3(0.2)
1
5 9 2.5 2.5 22 3(0.2)
0.01 10 1212.5
= 3.385
= -458.333
Derivative
Time
Integral Gain
(Kc/I)
Sept 2015
Derivative
Gain
(Kc*D)
458.333
3.385
= -135.401
Proportional
integral
derivative,
PID
32 6(0.2)
1
5 4 2.5 2.5 13 8(0.2)
0.01 3 412.5
= 5.685
= -691.667
2.5
4
11 2(0.2)
= 0.877
691.667
5.685
= -121.665
Table 10: Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings
14 | P a g e
691.6670.877
= -606.591
Tuning Formulas for Quarter Decay Ratio Response

P-controller
15 | P a g e
Sept 2015

PI-Controller
16 | P a g e
Sept 2015

PID-Controller
17 | P a g e
Sept 2015
Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas for Set Point Changes
PI-Controller
18 | P a g e
Sept 2015
PID-Controller
19 | P a g e
Sept 2015
Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas for Set Point Changes
PI-Controller
20 | P a g e
Sept 2015
PID-Controller
21 | P a g e
Sept 2015
Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis

PID-Controller
22 | P a g e
Sept 2015
Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings

P-Controller
23 | P a g e
Sept 2015

PI-Controller
24 | P a g e
Sept 2015

PID-Controller
25 | P a g e
Sept 2015
Sept 2015
Tabulation of Overshoot Percentage, Settling Time & Integral of absolute error (IAE)
P
PI
PID
Offset
0.025
0
0
OS
0.496
0.513
1.067
Ts
20.06
24.13
INFINITY
IAE
7.3
1.2
22.9
PI
PID
Offset
0
0
OS
0.12
0.60
Ts
16.40
97.73
IAE
0.8
3.8
PI
PID
Offset
0
0
OS
0.04
0.47
Ts
15.07
43.87
IAE
0.8
1.6
Ts
47.8
IAE
2.2
Ts
237.11
235.87
INFINITY
IAE
6.9
7.9
20.7
Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis

PID
Offset
0
OS
0

P
PI
PID
26 | P a g e
Offset
0.024
0
0
OS
0.49
0.913
0.993
Sept 2015
5.0 Discussion
5.0.1 Determine the best controller for each method
A control loop is a feedback mechanism that attempts to correct discrepancies between a
measured process variable and the desired set point. The controller applies the necessary
corrective actions via an actuator that can drive the process variable up or down. The art of
tuning a PID loop is to have it adjust its output to move the measured process variable as quickly
as possible to the set point (responsive), minimize overshoot, and then hold the process variable
steady at the set point without excessive output changes (stable).
There are five methods of tuning available in this project. The evaluation of the best
controller for each respective method will be done based on the IAE value obtained when using
different controller systems.
Quarter Decay Ratio Response

From the computed table provided in excel, the IAE for P controller is 7.3, 1.2 for PI Controller
and 22.9 for PID controller. Thus, it is indicated that PI Controller has the lowest IAE value
whereas PID controller has the highest IAE value. The IAE of P controller is in between P
controller and PID controller.
PID controller has the highest value of peak overshoot ratio which is 1.0667 followed by PI
controller and P controller. For settling time, P controller has the fastest settling time whereas
PID controller has infinity settling time. P controller has an offset of 0.025 while the other two
controllers do not have offsets. Thus, the best controller for this method would be PI controller.
Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE

From the computed table provided in excel, PID controller has higher IAE value than PI
controller with a difference of 3.0. It is found out that PID controller has higher value of peak
overshoot ratio compared to PI controller. Besides that, PID controller has much more longer
settling time than PI controller with a difference of 81.33 minutes. For the aspect of offset, both
27 | P a g e
Sept 2015
controllers do not have any offsets thus this parameter is not considered as a parameter in
deciding the best choice of controller for this method since it is a constant for both controllers.
Thus, PI controller would be the best controller for this method.
Minimum Error Tuning

From the computed table provided in excel, PI controller has lower IAE value compared to PID
controller. It is shown that PI has a lower value of peak overshoot ratio compared to PI
controller. Moreover, PI controller settles faster than PID controller. Again, just like in Minimum
Error Integral Tuning IAE, both type of controllers do not have any offsets. Due to higher IAE
value, peak overshoot ratio and longer settling time, PID controller is eliminated as the option
and PI controller is chosen as the best controller suited for this method.
Dahlin Synthesis
There is only one choice of controller available for Dahlin Synthesis Method which is PID
controller. Thus, no comparison could be made to choose the best controller for this method.
Cohen Coon
From the computed table provided in excel, P Controller has the lowest IAE value whereas PID
controller has the highest IAE value. The IAE of PI controller is in between P controller and PID
controller. PID controller has the highest value of peak overshoot ratio followed by PI controller
and P controller. Among the three controllers, PID has the longest settling time whereas PI
controller has the shortest settling time. P controller has an offset of 0.024 while the other two
controllers do not have offsets. Thus, the best controller for this method would be P controller.
28 | P a g e
Sept 2015
5.0.2 Determine the best tuning for each P, PI and PID controller from five methods
P Controller
The P-Only controller computes a CO action every loop sample time T as:
CO = CObias + Kce(t)
Where:
CObias = controller bias or null value
Kc = controller gain, a tuning parameter
e(t) = controller error = SP PV
SP = set point
PV = measured process variable
Time constant, Tp, and dead time, p, cannot affect the sign of Kc because they mark the
passage of time and must always be positive. The above tuning correlation thus implies that Kc
must always have the same sign as the process gain, Kp. When CO increases on a process that
has a positive Kp, the PV will increase in response. A process with a positive Kp is direct acting.
With negative feedback, the controller must be reverse acting for stable control. Conversely,
when Kp is negative (a reverse acting process), the controller must be direct acting for stable
control. Since Kp and Kc always have the same sign for a particular process and stable control
requires negative feedback, then:
Direct acting process (Kp and Kc positive) use a reverse acting controller
Reverse acting process (Kp and Kc negative) use a direct acting controller
In our project, P controller of Quarter Decay Ratio Response and Cohen Coon Controller
Settings are both reverse acting controller due to both having negative Kp values.
In feedback control system, it is best that the error, e(t), between any variable and its
demanded value is zero. However, in both the Quarter Decay Ratio Response and Cohen Coon
Controller Settings, the value of IAE is not zero, with P controller in Quarter Decay Ratio
Response having an error value of 0.025 and P controller in Cohen Coon Controller Settings
having an error value of 0.024. By comparing Cohen Coon and Quarter Decay Ratio Response
method, the value of Integral of Absolute Error (IAE) in Quarter Decay Ratio Response is
29 | P a g e
Sept 2015
slightly larger compared to in Cohen Coon Controller Settings with a difference of 0.001. Due to
the e(t) not equal to zero in both of the controllers, there are areas between the set point line and
the process variable line. For the Cohen Coon graph, the area between the set point line and the
process variable is smaller, which signifies that the tuning system is able to bring the process
variable closer to the set point and gives a smaller offset.
Settling time is the time elapsed from the application of an ideal instantaneous step input
to the time at which the amplifier output has entered and remained within a specified error band,
usually symmetrical about the final value. The settling time of P controller in Quarter Decay
Ratio Response is slower whereas Cohen Coon has faster settling time. This is due to low value
of higher value proportional gain Kc used in Cohen Coon caused less oscillatory response in the
tuning system.
The peak overshoot ratio of P controller in Quarter Decay Ratio Response is also higher
than the one in Cohen Coon Controller Settings. Overshoot refers to an output exceeding its
final, steady-state value and the percentage overshoot (PO) is the maximum value divided by the
step value. Thus, it indicates that P controller in Quarter Decay Ratio Response has higher
maximum value than in Cohen Coon Controller Settings since the step value is constant for the
two controllers. In terms of offset, P controller in Quarter Decay Ratio Response is also higher
than the one in Cohen Coon Controller Settings.
In conclusion, Quarter Decay Ratio would be more ideal since it has faster settling time
and response of higher accuracy could be obtained since it also gives less error.
PI Controller
The PI controller computes a CO action every loop sample time T as:
Where:
CO = controller output signal
CObias = controller bias or null value; set by bumpless transfer as explained below
e(t) = current controller error, defined as SP PV
30 | P a g e
Sept 2015
SP = set point
Ti = reset time, a tuning parameter
The PI-mode has an effect on controller output by varying the integral time with respect
to time. The integral time is changed and ultimately it directly affects the output of the controller.
As the integral time was increased the controller output was also changed with respect to time.
This might be due higher oscillations and lesser smoothness in case of PI mode. The PI-mode
also reaches the steady state set point slowly. Like the P-Only controller, the ProportionalIntegral (PI) algorithm computes and transmits a controller output (CO) signal every sample
time, T, to the final control element. The computed CO from the PI algorithm is influenced by
the controller tuning parameters and the controller error, e(t). Integral action enables PI
controllers to eliminate offset, a major weakness of a P-only controller. Thus, PI controllers
provide a balance of complexity and capability that makes them by far the most widely used
algorithm in process control applications.
By comparing four methods of Quarter Decay Ratio Response, Minimum Error Integral
Tuning IAE Formulas, Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas and Cohen Coon
controller settings, it is found out that Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas and
Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas have the lowest value of IAE which is 0.8
followed by Quarter Decay Ratio Response and Cohen Coon controller settings.
In terms of settling time, Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas has the fastest
settling time among the five methods mentioned with the value of 15.07 whereas Cohen Coon
controller settings has the slowest settling time with value of 235.87.
All of the methods do not lead to any offsets, thus offset could not be used as an accurate
parameter to decide on which method is the best for PI Controller.
The peak overshoot ratio of Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas is also the
smallest which is 0.04 compared to Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas of value 0.12,
31 | P a g e
Sept 2015
Quarter Decay Ratio Response of value 0.5133 and Cohen Coon controller settings with biggest
peak overshoot ratio value which is 0.913.
In a nutshell, Minimum Error Integral tuning ITAE is the best tuning method for PI
controller. This because it has the least Integral of Absolute Error (IAE) and peak overshoot
ratio, fastest settling time, no offset. The Quarter Decay Ratio Response and Minimum Error
Integral Tuning IAE and Cohen Coon controller settings method are not pursued because they
have high values of IAE, peak overshoot ratio and settles slower.
PID Controller
The PID controller is a three mode controller. That is, its activity and performance is based on
the values chosen for three tuning parameters, one each nominally associated with the
proportional, integral and derivative terms.
Where:
CO = controller output signal
CObias = controller bias; set by bumpless transfer
e(t) = current controller error, defined as SP PV
SP = set point
Ti = reset time, a tuning parameter
Td = derivative time, a tuning parameter
By comparing the 5 PID controllers from 5 different methods which are Quarter Decay
Ratio Response, Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas, Minimum Error Integral Tuning
ITAE Formulas, Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis and Cohen Coon
controller settings, it is shown that Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas has the
lowest IAE value followed by Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis,
32 | P a g e
Sept 2015
Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas, Cohen Coon controller settings and Quarter
Decay Ratio Response.
Among all the five methods, Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas has the
fastest settling time with the value of 47.8 minutes whereas Cohen Coon controller settings and
Quarter Decay Ratio Response has infinite settling time.
Regarding the offset comparison of the five methods, it is found out that all the five
methods do not have offsets. Dahlin Synthesis has no overshoot thus zero peak overshoot ratio
while on the other hand, Quarter Decay Ratio Response has the highest value of peak overshoot
ratio.
It can be concluded that the recommended tuning method for PID Controller is Dahlin
Synthesis as it has no overshoot at all compared to the other four methods despite that it has
higher IAE value than Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas. Minimum Error Integral
Tuning IAE Formulas has overshoot thus it is not chosen. Besides that, Quarter Decay Ratio
Response is not preferable due to its high value of peak overshoot ratio. Cohen Coon controller
settings method is also eliminated because of its infinite settling time.
33 | P a g e
Sept 2015
6.0 Conclusion
In short, the experiment is conducted by testing different type of tuning formula with
different type of controllers. The tuning formulas used include Quarter Decay Ratio Response,
Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas for Set Point Changes, Minimum Error Integral
Tuning ITAE Formulas for Set Point Changes, Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin
Synthesis and Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings. Each of the methods has
their own efficiency in removing the error, settling time and preventing overshooting. In
addition, different type of controllers which are P controller, PI controller and PID controller
were used in each of the methods respectively to determine which controller is the best choice
for the respective tuning methods. Analysis was done based on the graphs plotted using the
spreadsheets.
The best tuning for each P, PI and PID controller from five methods is determined where
Quarter Decay Ratio Response is the best tuning method for P controller, Minimum Error
Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas works best for PI controller and lastly, Dahlin Synthesis is the
optimum choice of tuning for PIC controller. Besides that, the optimum choice of controller for
each tuning method is also found out from the analysis of the response graphs. PI are the best
controller for Quarter Decay Ratio Response, Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE Formulas,
Minimum Error Integral Tuning ITAE Formulas and P is the best controller for Cohen Coon
controller settings. Dahlin Synthesis has the only choice of using PID controller.
7.0 References
Control System | Closed Loop Open Loop Control System. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2015,
from electrical4u.com: http://www.electrical4u.com/control-system-closed-loop-open-loopcontrol-system/
Kemal ARI, F. T. (n.d.). PI, PD, PID Controllers.
Mansour T.,(2011), PID Control, Implementation and Tuning, Intech.
Open-Loop System. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2015, from ElectronicsTutorials:
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/systems/open-loop-system.html
34 | P a g e
Sept 2015
Proportional Control. (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2015, from 20.SIM:

http://www.20sim.com/webhelp/library_signal_control_pid_control_proportionalcontrol.php
Seborg, D.E., Edgar, T.F, Mellicham, D.A., Doyle III, F.J. (1990). Process Dynamics and
Control. 3rd edition.
The P-Only Control Algorithm. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from Control Guru:
http://controlguru.com/the-p-only-control-algorithm/
Wikipedia,(2015), PID Controller, Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
35 | P a g e

Pic Final Draft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pic Final Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCB 3072

Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

KUAN SHAO KANG

MUHAMMAD AIMAN NAIM BIN AHMAD SUKRI

Introduction & Theory

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

2.0 Introduction & Theory

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Second order Plus Dead Time Model:

P, PI, PID Controller

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Quarter Decay Ratio Response

Figure 1: Quarter Decay Ratio Response

Table 1: Tuning Formulas for Quarter Decay Ratio Response

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Minimum Error Integral

a. Integral Squared Error (ISE)

b. Integral Absolute Error (IAE)

c. Integral Time-weighted Absolute Error (ITAE)

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Table 4: Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis

Cohen Coon Method

Table 5: Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

All the results are tabulated and analysed.

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Table 6: Tuning Formulas for Quarter Decay Ratio Response

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Table 10: Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Tuning Formulas for Quarter Decay Ratio Response

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Tuning Formulas for Quarter Decay Ratio Response

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Tuning Formulas for Quarter Decay Ratio Response

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Controller Modes & Tuning Formulas for Dahlin Synthesis

Tuning Formulas for Cohen Coon controller settings

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Quarter Decay Ratio Response

Minimum Error Integral Tuning IAE

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

Minimum Error Tuning

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab

CCB 3072 Process Instrumentation and Control Lab