1

2
Summary

An experiment of Flow control was conducted to test P, PI, PD, and PID
controllers at different parameters to control the flow inside a pipe, also the
optimum controller parameters will be calculated using Ziegler – Nichols closed
loop method. In this experiment FESTO software was used to simulate the flow
control. The PID controller in this experiment has the best response to the system,
because it has a good time to reach steady state. Also, in PID controller there is no
offset form the set point. It provides the most accurate and stable control of the
three controllers. The best run in this simulation for PID controller was considered
run 1. PI controller has shown also a good result compared to PD & P, because
there is no offset. In all runs for the PID, PI, PD and PD controllers it was shown
that increasing Kp has contributed to decrease time to reach steady state and the
offset from the setpoint and the best run was number 1. In PI controller increasing
the value of I from 1 to 4 has shown an inverse response to the process variable. In
PD controller the effect of increasing D has contributed to increase the oscillatory.

3
Contents
Summary ...............................................................................................................................3
Results...................................................................................................................................5
Discussion ..............................................................................................................................7
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 10
Recommendation ................................................................................................................. 11
References ........................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix A: Results .............................................................................................................. 12
Appendix B: Calculation of critical Kp ..................................................................................... 16

List of tables
Table 1 P controller results ......................................................................................................5
Table 2: PID controller results..................................................................................................5
Table 3:PI controller results.....................................................................................................5
Table 4: PD controller results...................................................................................................6
Table 5:Closed loop Ziegler-Nicholas........................................................................................6
Table 6: Closed loop Ziegler – Nichols method for tuning PID controllers ................................. 16

List of figures
Figure 1: Critical K................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2: P controller ............................................................................................................ 12
Figure 3: PD controller .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4: PI controller............................................................................................................ 14
Figure 5: PID controller ......................................................................................................... 15

4
Results

Continuous closed loop control

1) Proportional Control (P)
Table 1 P controller results

Proportional Control (P)

Run Kp SP offset Steady State time (s)
1 2 0.4 0.22 0.9
2 4 0.4 0.155 0.65
3 6 0.4 0.12 0.85
4 8 0.4 0.1 3.4

2) Proportional Integral Derivative Control (PID)

Table 2: PID controller results

Proportional Integral Derivative Control (PID)

Run Kp tr td SP offset Steady State time (s)
1 4 8 0 0.4 ---- 31.3
2 2 6 0.1 0.4 ---- 42
3 6 8 0.3 0.4 ---- 50.4
4 6 8 0.5 0.4 ---- 29.1

3) Proportional Integral Control (PI)

Table 3:PI controller results

Proportional Integral Control (PI)

Run Kp tr SP offset Steady State time (s)
1 1 1 0.4 ---- 12.1
2 1 4 0.4 ---- 46.4
3 4 8 0.4 ---- 112
4 6 8 0.4 ---- 144

5
 4) Proportional Derivative Control (PD)
Table 4: PD controller results

Proportional Derivative Control (PD)

Run Kp td SP offset Steady State time (s )
1 1 0.2 0.4 0.29 1.4
2 1 0.6 0.4 0.29 1.9
3 5 0.8 0.4 (0.26-0.15) 2
4 6 0.8 0.4 (0.26-0.15) 1.4

5) Closed loop Ziegler – Nichols method for determining the parameters

Table 5:Closed loop Ziegler-Nicholas

Closed loop Ziegler – Nichols method

P,cr Kp,cr Kp
0.4 9.1 4.55

6
Discussion

Continuous closed loop control

• Proportional Integral Derivative Control (PID)

As it can be seen from table [2] & figures [17&18] the response of the derivative
control show that increasing the value of D has contributed to make oscillatory to
the output response of the process variable. For example, lets consider the increase
of D from 0 to 0.1, it begins with an inverse response then it starts to increase.
Also, increasing its value to 0.3, 0.5 respectively shows the system oscillatory
increases. Also, it has contributed to decrease time to reach steady state. The effect
of proportional control has shown an increase of Kp from 2 to 4 has contributed to
decrease the time to reach steady state. The effect of the Integral control, has
shown increasing I from 6 to 8 has shown a small overshot in the process variable.
The best run in this simulation is considered number 1 where Kp=4, I=8, D=0
which shows a stable system and less time to reach steady state, and the overshot
can be considered small.

• Proportional Integral Control (PI)

In this type of controller there are to variables to be manipulated which are P & I.
As it can be seen from table [3] & figures [10 to 13], increasing I from 1 to 4
caused an inverse response to the system. In PI controller the effect of increasing
Kp has contributed to decrease the deviation of the system from the set point but,
on the other hand it has contributed to increase the time to reach steady state from
112(s) to 144(s). The best run in this simulation is considered number 1 where
Kp=1, I=1 which shows a stable system and less time to reach steady state .

7
 • Proportional Derivative Control (PD)
In this type of controller there are to variables to be manipulated P&D. As it can
be seen from table [4] & figures [6 to 9], increasing the derivative parameter has
contributed to cause oscillatory to the process variable. Increasing D from 0.2 to
0.6 had shown that the process variable has been started to oscillatory, increasing
D beyond this point to 0.8 has shown a large amount of oscillatory. The
contribution of the proportional control has contributed to decrease the time to
reach steady state and increased the stability of the response. As it can be seen,
increasing Kp from 5 to 6 at run 3& 4 has decreased both, steady state time and
the oscillatory of the system. The best run in this simulation is considered number
4 where Kp=6, D=0.8 which shows a less offset and the system con be considered
stable.

• Proportional Control (P)

In this type of controller there are only p to be manipulated. As it can be seen
from table [1] & figures [2 to 5], increasing the value of kp has contributed to
decrease the offset between the process variable and the set point. While, the
effect of kp on the time to reach steady state does not show specific trend because
the time to reach steady state has decreased from run 1 to run 2 and then increased.
But it can be concluded that the effect of increasing kp has contributed to decrease
the stability of the system. . The best run in this simulation is considered number 4
where Kp=8 which shows a less offset.

From this experiment as the best controller which has better response to the
system is the PID controller run number 1 table [2], because it has a good time to
reach steady state. Also, in PID controller there is no offset form the set point and
this what is needed in sensitive industrial systems. From literature PID is the best
controller because the derivative channel of PID controller provide faster response
to the change of system state thus allowing fast response plus the integral term
which reduce the offset. It provides the most accurate and stable control of the
three controllers types, and is best used in systems which have a relatively small
mass and those which react quickly to changes in the energy added to the process.

8
The most used controller in the industry is PI controller which contributed for 90%
of the processes in the industry. While PID has contributed 9%, and the 1% for PD
& P controller.

• Advantages and disadvantages of open and closed loop control system

1) Open System

Advantages :

• Open loop system is simple and economical.

• Construction of open loop system is easier.
• Open loop systems are generally stable.

Disadvantages:

• Open loop systems are inaccurate and unreliable.

• The changes in the outputs due to external disturbance are not corrected
automatically.

2) Closed System

Advantages :

• Closed loop control systems are more accurate even in the presence of non-
linearities.
• The sensitivity of the system may be made small to make the system more
stable.
• The closed loop systems are less affected by noise.

Disadvantages:

• Closed loop control systems are costlier and complex.

• The feedback in the closed loop system may lead to oscillatory response.
• The feedback reduces the overall gain of the system.
• Stability is the major problem in the closed loop system and more care is
needed to design a stable closed loop system.

9
Conclusion

1) In P controller the effect of increasing Kp from 2 to 8 has contribute to

increase the time to reach steady state from 0.9 s to 3.4 s.
2) In P controller the effect of increasing Kp from 2 to 8 has contribute to
decrease the offset of the system from 0.22 to 0.1.
3) In PI controller the effect of increasing Kp has contributed to decrease
the deviation of the system from the set point but, on the other hand it
has contributed to increase the time to reach steady state from 112(s) to
144(s).
4) In PI controller the effect of increasing I from 1 to 4 has caused an
inverse response to the system.
5) In PD controller increasing value of kp from 1 to 6 will contribute to
decrease the offset of the system from 0.26 to 0.15.
6) In PD controller the effect of increasing D from 0.2 to 0.8 will increase
the time to reach steady state from 1.4(s) to 2(s).
7) In PID increasing the value of kp from 2 to 6 will contribute to decrease
the time to reach the steady state from 117 (s) to 70(s) and the
oscillatory also will decrease.
8) In PID controller the effect of proportional control has shown an
increase of Kp from 2 to 4 has contributed to decrease the time to reach
steady state.
9) In PID controller the effect of increasing D from 0 to 0.1, it begins with
an inverse response then it starts to increase. Also, increasing its value
to 0.3, 0.5 respectively shows the system oscillatory increases.
10) The critical value for Kp observed from the simulation Kpcr=9.1

10
Recommendation

For further studies it is recommended

• To study the effect of on variable for more than one run by keeping the
other variables constant this will give a good observation.
• To study the feed forward process control type.

References

1) R. H. Perry and D. W. Green, "Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook", 8th ed.,

McGraw-Hill, USA (2008).
2) D.E. Seborg, T.F. Edgar, E.A. Mellichamp, F. J. Doyle, Process Dynamics and
Control, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 2011.

11
Appendix A: Results

Figure 1: Critical K

Figure 2: P controller

12
Figure 3: PD controller

13
Figure 4: PI controller

14
Figure 5: PID controller

15
Appendix B: Calculation of critical Kp

Table 6: Cl os ed loop Ziegler – Ni chols method for tuning PID controllers

Controller Type Kp Ki Kd
P 0.5 Kp,cr ---- ------
0.45 (1 / 1.2)
PI Kp,cr Pcr ------
1.25
PID 0.6 Kp,cr 0.5 Pcr Pcr

Kp=9.1*0.5=4.55

16