CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY II

1.0

TITLE OF EXPERIMENT: Temperature Process Control.

2.0

OBJECTIVES OF EXPERIMENT

The objective of this experiment is to demonstrate and understand the characteristic

of proportional (P), proportional integral (PI) and proportional-integral-derivative
(PID) controller in a temperature control loop. Besides that, the objective of this
experiment is also to observe the different types of temperature responses to P, PI,
and PID controller.

3.0

INTRODUCTION

Temperature process control is a process of where the temperature of the fluid is

changed in order to be measured, as the heat energy in or out of the space is adjusted
to achieve a desired average or optimum temperature. The temperature control
system consists of a heat exchanger, a sensor, a controller and a control panel. The
controller is used for maintaining the temperature measuring the process variable at a
particular set. In this experiment, a circulation pump transfers water within a closed
circuit in order to allow water to experience heat exchange between the hot and cold
water. The water flow is controlled by an actuator, taking place automatically should
any deviation occurs from the set point with the supply of compressed air.
A proportionalintegralderivative controller (PID controller) is a control
loop feedback mechanism, which is able to minimize errors of the values by
adjusting the process control inputs. The output of a PID controller is a linear
combination of P, I, and D modes of control. The proportional controller, or P
controller, is a linear type of feedback control system and is more complex than an
on-off control system, but simpler than a proportional-integral-derivative (PID)
control system. However, the P-only controller still has some amount of offset away
from the set point. Therefore, with the addition of an extra controlling system, the

integral controller, forming the proportional-integral (PI) control. The integral action
will attempt to avoid or minimize the offset created in the proportional control by
bringing the output closer to the set point. PID control system is a linear combination
of P, I and the derivative (D) which permits an increase in the proportional gain,
offsetting the decrease error from the integral controlling. The derivative action
reduces the period of cycling, yet producing the same speed of response as with the
proportional action but without offsets.
PI controller offers a balance of complexity and capability that makes them
popular in many process control applications due to the integral action that enables
PI controllers to eliminate offsets.

4.0

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

Figure 4.1: Schematic Diagram of Temperature Control Unit / Trainer.

5.0

RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS

Experiment 1: Closed Loop Proportional (P) Control

Variable= P Value
Constant = I Value (600 s) and D Value (0 s)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.1: Load Change (PB = 5)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
14:10:11
45.0
45.0
14:10:13
45.1
45.0
14:10:43
43.2
45.0
14:11:13
43.1
45.0
14:11:43
45.1
45.0
14:12:13
45.1
45.0
14:12:43
45.0
45.0
14:13:13
44.9
45.0
14:13:43
45.0
45.0
14:14:13
44.9
45.0

Output (%)
12.4
11.8
49.7
50.1
10.6
11.4
13.3
14.4
12.4
14.3

Figure 5.1: Load Change (PB = 5)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.2: Set Point Change (PB = 5)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
17:12:58
44.9
45.0
17:13:00
44.9
45.0
17:13:30
47.3
50.0
17:14:00
47.8
50.0

Output (%)
28.7
27.9
79.6
70.7

23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

17:14:30
17:15:00
17:15:30
17:16:00
17:16:30
17:17:00
17:17:30
17:18:00
17:18:30
17:19:00
17:19:30
17:20:00
17:20:30
17:21:00
17:21:30

47.6
47.7
47.8
47.2
47.5
47.7
47.8
47.9
47.3
47.4
47.5
47.7
47.9
47.2
47.4

50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0

75.4
71.7
71.1
83.9
76.9
73.5
72.7
69.5
82.4
81.6
78.4
75.4
71.7
85.8
80.9

Figure 5.2: Set Point Change (PB = 5)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.3: Load Change (PB = 20)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
14:02:09
45.1
45.0
14:02:39
43.6
45.0
14:03:09
41.4
45.0
14:03:39
44.0
45.0
14:04:09
45.1
45.0
14:04:39
45.2
45.0
14:05:09
45.0
45.0
14:05:39
45.0
45.0
14:06:09
45.0
45.0
14:06:39
44.9
45.0

Output (%)
13.1
20.5
31.9
19.1
13.5
12.9
14.1
14.0
13.8
14.2

Figure 5.3: Load Change (PB = 20)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.4: Set Point Change (PB = 20)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
16:55:30
44.7
45.0
16:55:32
44.7
45.0
16:56:02
46.4
50.0
16:56:32
46.6
50.0
16:57:02
46.4
50.0
16:57:32
46.1
50.0
16:58:02
46.4
50.0
16:58:32
46.5
50.0
16:59:02
46.6
50.0
16:59:32
46.7
50.0
17:00:02
46.0
50.0
17:00:32
46.3
50.0
17:01:02
46.4
50.0
17:01:32
46.5
50.0
17:02:02
46.7
50.0
17:02:32
46.0
50.0
17:03:02
46.3
50.0
17:03:32
46.5
50.0
17:04:02
46.6
50.0
17:04:32
46.1
50.0
17:05:02
46.3
50.0

Output (%)
28.1
28.1
44.5
43.6
44.7
46.6
45.1
44.7
44.4
43.9
47.1
46.0
45.5
45.0
44.4
47.8
46.5
45.6
45.3
47.5
46.9

Figure 5.4: Set Point Change (PB = 20)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.5: Load Change (PB = 100)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
13:26:15
44.9
45.0
13:26:45
45.3
45.0
13:27:15
45.2
45.0
13:27:45
43.8
45.0
13:28:15
39.8
45.0
13:28:45
45.0
45.0
13:29:15
44.9
45.0
13:29:45
45.2
45.0
13:30:15
45.0
45.0
13:30:45
45.3
45.0
13:31:15
45.5
45.0
13:31:45
45.2
45.0
13:32:15
45.3
45.0
13:32:45
45.5
45.0
13:33:15
45.2
45.0

Figure 5.5: Load Change (PB = 100)

Output (%)
15.1
14.8
14.8
16.3
20.3
15.1
15.2
14.9
15.1
14.8
14.5
14.8
14.8
14.5
14.8

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.6: Set Point Change (PB = 100)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
13:38:47
45.2
45.0
13:39:17
45.1
45.0
13:39:47
44.9
45.0
13:40:17
45.9
50.0
13:40:47
45.5
50.0
13:41:17
45.7
50.0
13:41:47
45.9
50.0
13:42:17
45.6
50.0
13:42:47
45.5
50.0
13:43:17
46.2
50.0
13:43:47
46.0
50.0
13:44:17
45.7
50.0
13:44:47
46.0
50.0
13:45:17
45.9
50.0
13:45:47
45.7
50.0
13:46:17
46.0
50.0
13:46:47
45.9
50.0
13:47:17
45.5
50.0
13:47:47
45.8
50.0
13:48:17
45.9
50.0
13:48:47
45.5
50.0
13:49:17
46.0
50.0
13:49:47
45.9
50.0
13:50:17
45.9
50.0
13:50:47
46.2
50.0
13:51:17
45.9
50.0
13:51:47
45.9
50.0
13:52:17
46.2
50.0
13:52:47
45.8
50.0

Figure 5.6: Set Point Change (PB = 100)

Output (%)
14.8
14.9
15.1
19.2
19.6
19.4
19.2
19.5
19.7
19.0
19.2
19.5
19.3
19.3
19.6
19.3
19.4
19.8
19.5
19.5
19.9
19.5
19.5
19.6
19.3
19.6
19.6
19.4
19.7

Table 5.7: Mean Temperatures, Settling Time for Different PB Values

Mean Temperature (C)
Settling Time (s)
PB value
Set Point
Set Point
Load Change
Load Change
Change
Change
45.0
47.6
71
127
5
45.0
46.3
67
41
20()
45.2
46.0
467
1
100

Experiment 2: Closed Loop Proportional-Integral (PI) Control

Variable= I Value
Constant = P Value (20 s) and D Value (0 s)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.8: Load Change (I = 1)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
14:33:41
45.0
45.0
14:33:43
45.0
45.0
14:34:13
42.6
45.0
14:34:43
47.3
45.0
14:35:13
45.3
45.0
14:35:43
45.1
45.0
14:36:13
44.9
45.0
14:36:43
44.9
45.0
14:37:13
45.1
45.0
14:37:43
44.9
45.0
14:38:13
44.9
45.0

Figure 5.7: Load Change (I = 1)

Output (%)
13.7
13.6
46.3
17.4
12.6
11.1
12.5
14.8
12.8
13.3
15.2

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.9: Set Point Change (I = 1)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
16:37:29
45.1
45.0
16:37:31
45.0
45.0
16:38:01
46.9
50.0
16:38:31
47.4
50.0
16:39:01
47.7
50.0
16:39:31
47.7
50.0
16:40:01
48.0
50.0
16:40:31
48.1
50.0
16:41:01
47.5
50.0
16:41:31
47.4
50.0
16:42:01
47.7
50.0
16:42:31
47.8
50.0
16:43:01
47.9
50.0
16:43:31
48.0
50.0
16:44:01
47.3
50.0
16:44:31
47.5
50.0
16:45:01
47.7
50.0
16:45:31
47.8
50.0
16:46:01
48.0
50.0
16:46:31
47.6
50.0
16:47:01
47.6
50.0
16:47:31
47.7
50.0
16:48:01
47.9
50.0

Output (%)
28.1
28.2
92.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Figure 5.8: Set Point Change (i = 1)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.10: Load Change (I = 10)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
14:27:14
45.0
45.0
14:27:16
45.0
45.0
14:27:46
44.9
45.0
14:28:16
45.3
45.0

Output (%)
12.7
12.8
13.5
11.7

23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

14:28:46
14:29:16
14:29:46
14:30:16
14:30:46
14:31:16

45.4
45.1
44.9
45.2
45.3
44.9

45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0

10.5
11.7
12.8
11.3
10.6
12.2

Figure 5.9: Load Change (I = 10)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.11: Set Point Change (I = 10)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
16:24:17
45.2
45.0
16:24:32
45.3
45.0
16:25:02
47.0
50.0
16:25:32
46.6
50.0
16:26:02
47.1
50.0
16:26:32
47.3
50.0
16:27:02
47.6
50.0
16:27:32
47.7
50.0
16:28:02
47.1
50.0
16:28:32
47.3
50.0
16:29:02
47.5
50.0
16:29:32
47.6
50.0
16:30:02
47.8
50.0
16:30:32
48.0
50.0
16:31:02
48.0
50.0
16:31:32
47.5
50.0
16:32:02
47.3
50.0
16:32:32
47.6
50.0
16:33:02
47.7
50.0
16:33:32
48.0
50.0
16:34:02
48.0
50.0
16:34:32
48.1
50.0
16:35:02
47.9
50.0

Output (%)
28.4
28.0
48.6
55.5
57.8
61.0
63.4
66.1
72.9
76.7
79.5
82.5
85.1
87.4
90.1
96.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Figure 5.10: Set Point Change (I = 10)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.12: Load Change (I = 100)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
14:19:49
44.8
45.0
14:19:55
44.8
45.0
14:20:25
41.4
45.0
14:20:55
44.9
45.0
14:21:25
45.1
45.0
14:21:55
44.9
45.0
14:22:25
45.1
45.0
14:22:55
45.2
45.0
14:23:25
45.1
45.0
14:23:55
44.9
45.0

Figure 5.11: Load Change (I = 100)

Output (%)
13.1
13.2
30.5
13.2
12.0
13.1
12.3
11.7
12.3
13.4

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.13: Set Point Change (I = 100)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
16:11:12
44.8
45.0
16:11:14
44.8
45.0
16:11:44
46.8
50.0
16:12:14
47.8
50.0
16:12:44
47.8
50.0
16:13:14
48.0
50.0
16:13:44
48.1
50.0
16:14:14
47.8
50.0
16:14:44
47.3
50.0
16:15:14
47.6
50.0
16:15:44
47.7
50.0
16:16:14
47.9
50.0
16:16:44
48.1
50.0
16:17:14
48.1
50.0
16:17:44
47.2
50.0
16:18:14
47.5
50.0
16:18:44
47.7
50.0
16:19:14
47.8
50.0
16:19:44
48.0
50.0

Output (%)
28.0
28.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Figure 5.12: Set Point Change (I = 100)

Table 5.14: Mean Temperatures and Settling Time for Different I Values
Mean Temperature (C)
Settling Time (s)
I value
Set Point
Set Point
Load Change
Load Change
Change
Change
45.0
47.7
36
140
1()
45.2
47.8
42
630
10
45.1
47.8
73
300
100

Experiment 3: Closed Loop Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) Control

Variable= D Value
Constant = P Value (20 s) and I Value (1 s)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.15: Load Change (D = 1)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
14:41:26
45.4
45.0
14:41:29
45.4
45.0
14:41:59
44.3
45.0
14:42:29
43.0
45.0
14:42:59
44.2
45.0
14:43:29
44.4
45.0
14:43:59
44.5
45.0
14:44:29
44.3
45.0
14:44:59
44.5
45.0
14:45:29
44.6
45.0
14:45:59
44.4
45.0
14:46:29
44.5
45.0
14:46:59
44.7
45.0

Output (%)
13.4
13.6
30.1
20.9
23.7
23.6
24.8
26.0
25.9
26.1
28.8
27.5
27.6

Figure 5.13: Load Change (D = 1)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.16: Set Point Change (D = 1)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
14:57:49
44.8
45.0
14:57:50
44.8
45.0
14:58:20
46.4
50.0
14:58:50
47.0
50.0
14:59:20
47.2
50.0
14:59:50
47.2
50.0
15:00:20
47.1
50.0
15:00:50
47.4
50.0

Output (%)
31.7
31.6
49.4
53.6
56.8
62.0
65.6
68.7

23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

15:01:20
15:01:50
15:02:20
15:02:50
15:03:20
15:03:50
15:04:20
15:04:50
15:05:20
15:05:50
15:06:20
15:06:50
15:07:20
15:07:50
15:08:20
15:08:50
15:09:20
15:09:50
15:10:20

47.7
47.9
47.8
47.2
47.5
47.6
47.8
48.0
47.7
47.4
47.7
47.8
47.9
48.1
48.0
47.2
47.6
47.7
47.8

50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0

70.8
73.0
77.7
84.0
85.7
89.3
91.6
93.6
99.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Figure 5.14: Set Point Change (D = 1)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.17: Load Change (D = 10)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
15:15:43
44.9
45.0
15:15:46
44.9
45.0
15:16:16
43.7
45.0
15:16:46
45.2
45.0
15:17:16
45.5
45.0
15:17:46
45.6
45.0
15:18:16
45.7
45.0
15:18:46
45.8
45.0
15:19:16
45.8
45.0
15:19:46
45.6
45.0

Output (%)
31.8
30.1
53.7
19.0
23.4
26.8
26.2
24.4
26.3
25.8

23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

15:20:16
15:20:46
15:21:16
15:21:46
15:22:16
15:22:46
15:23:16

45.8
45.7
45.6
45.6
45.6
45.4
45.3

45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0

22.7
23.3
23.0
20.5
19.0
22.2
19.9

Figure 5.15: Load Change (D = 10)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.18: Set Point Change (D = 10)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
15:33:09
45.0
45.0
15:33:11
45.2
45.0
15:33:41
46.6
50.0
15:34:11
47.0
50.0
15:34:41
47.6
50.0
15:35:11
48.1
50.0
15:35:41
48.0
50.0
15:36:11
48.3
50.0
15:36:41
48.6
50.0
15:37:11
48.6
50.0
15:37:41
48.4
50.0
15:38:11
48.7
50.0
15:38:41
49.0
50.0
15:39:11
48.7
50.0
15:39:41
48.6
50.0
15:40:11
48.9
50.0
15:40:41
49.0
50.0
15:41:11
49.0
50.0
15:41:41
48.5
50.0
15:42:11
48.9
50.0
15:42:41
49.1
50.0
15:43:11
49.3
50.0

Output (%)
30.0
24.8
28.5
36.1
38.3
40.2
52.0
49.5
48.3
55.9
58.7
56.4
56.8
67.8
63.5
62.9
64.4
69.9
79.1
70.1
70.5
71.1

Figure 5.16: Set Point Change (D = 10)

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.19: Load Change (D = 100)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
15:48:45
45.2
45.0
15:48:47
45.2
45.0
15:49:17
43.8
45.0
15:49:47
45.0
45.0
15:50:17
45.1
45.0
15:50:47
45.2
45.0
15:51:17
45.1
45.0
15:51:47
45.2
45.0
15:52:17
45.3
45.0
15:52:47
45.4
45.0
15:53:17
45.3
45.0
15:53:47
45.3
45.0

Figure 5.17: Load Change (D = 100)

Output (%)
22.4
22.2
64.8
30.6
28.6
28.2
33.0
31.4
30.4
28.1
32.6
32.5

Date
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011
23/03/2011

Table 5.20: Set Point Change (D = 100)

Time
TT01 (C)
Set Point (C)
15:55:25
45.3
45.0
15:55:35
45.3
45.0
15:56:05
46.2
50.0
15:56:35
46.4
50.0
15:57:05
46.7
50.0
15:57:35
47.0
50.0
15:58:05
46.6
50.0
15:58:35
46.9
50.0
15:59:05
47.2
50.0
15:59:35
47.3
50.0
16:00:05
47.5
50.0
16:00:35
47.7
50.0
16:01:05
47.3
50.0
16:01:35
47.4
50.0
16:02:05
47.5
50.0
16:02:35
47.7
50.0
16:03:05
47.8
50.0
16:03:35
48.0
50.0
16:04:05
48.1
50.0
16:04:35
47.4
50.0
16:05:05
47.4
50.0
16:05:35
47.5
50.0
16:06:05
47.7
50.0
16:06:35
47.8
50.0

Figure 5.18: Set Point Change (D = 100)

Output (%)
35.4
35.6
40.4
43.0
42.5
44.5
63.1
61.2
62.8
64.4
67.7
67.9
87.0
92.6
93.2
94.8
97.5
97.0
98.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Table 5.21: Mean Temperatures and Settling Time for Different I Values
Mean Temperature (C)
Settling Time (s)
D value
Set Point
Set Point
Load Change
Load Change
Change
Change
44.5
47.7
65
446
1()
45.7
48.9
208
>750
10
45.2
47.7
234
550
100

Offset Calculation
Taking P=5 in Experiment 1 as sample calculation,
Offset = Mean Value of Operating Temperature Set Point
= 47.6 C 45 C
= 2.6 C

Refer Table 6.1 for complete offset values for all conditions.

Overshoot Calculation

ts = settling time
tp = time to first peak

Figure 5.19: Performance characteristics of an underdamped process.

Overshoot is only applicable when the system attempts to make the response of the
controlled variable to a set-point change, which exhibit a prescribed amount of
overshoot and oscillation as it settles at the new operating point.

e h

By using Figure 5.2 for reference for calculation,

Overshoot summary,
Table 5.22: Offset value for proportional change only
P
Overshoot %
Remarks
100
No overshoot
20 () 17.0212766 5
35.71428571 -

Table 5.23: Offset value for proportional change only

I
Overshoot %
Remarks
1
No overshoot, drifting oscillation only
10
Drifting new set point
100
No overshoot, drifting oscillation only

Table 5.24: Offset value for proportional change only

D Overshoot %
Remarks
1
Drifting new set point
10
20
100
Drifting new set point

6.0

DISCUSSION

Error
Detector

Temperature
Controller

Control
Valve

Temperature
Transmitter

Figure 6.1: Temperature Control System Block Diagram

Process

Figure 6.1 indicates the cycle of temperature control system. The temperature
transmitter used to measure the current temperature,

. The temperature transmitter

will send an analogue signal to the error detector so that the error detector can
compare the value between the analogue of current temperature,
temperature,

and the set point

. The temperature controller will then receive the error from the

Error Detector through the P,I and D. Controller will send an electrical current signal
to the Control Valve and the control valve is used to vary the liquid flow rate. The
liquid flow rate will be controlled by the openings of the control valve.

Temperature control utilizes a feedback loop that begins with a system's

measured temperature. A temperature sensor - typically a thermocouple, RTD or
thermistor - measures a process's real-time temperature and feeds the reading back to
a controller. The controller compares the measured temperature to the set point
temperature and actuates devices like heaters or valves to bring the temperature to
the desired set point. The three most common methods of control are proportional
(P), proportional-integral (PI) and proportional-integral-derivative (PID). For this
experiment we had two parts to be done, that are load change and set point change.
This both, are actually the disturbance of the process. The disturbances are the
change of the flow rate in between and also the set point change (temperature
change). When there is disturbance, there will be some fluctuating in the current
value of temperature. The current value of temperature supposed to be nearest to the
set point, but due to the disturbance the value will shoot up. To come back to the set
point value, the output (the opener of valve) will be increased automatically to have a
current value of temperature near to the set point.

For the load change experiment, the cold water flow rate is changed from 5
LPM to 10 LPM and back to 5 LPM. The increased in the amount of cold water
entering the heat exchanger will cause the reduction of water outlet temperature. This
introduced disturbance will cause the system to respond and try to return the cold
water outlet temperature to the set point by controlling the electro-pneumatic
proportional valve (adjusting the opening of hot water inlet). For the set point change
experiment, the set point is increased from 45 C to 50 C. This increase in set point
will cause the system to try to give response so that the process value (temperature)
matches the new set point.

For proportional control, the controller output is proportional to the error

signal. A disadvantage of proportional-only control is that a steady-state error or
offset occurs after a set-point change or a sustained disturbance. In principle, offset
can be eliminated by manually resetting either the set-point or bias value after an
offset occurs. However, this approach is inconvenient because operator intervention
is required and the new value of set point must usually be found by trial and error.

Integral control action provides automatic reset of set point. It is widely used
because it provides an important practical advantage, the elimination of offset. When
integral action is used, controller output changes automatically until it attains the
value required to make the steady state error zero. Proportional-integral controller
provides immediate corrective action as soon as an error is detected without the
problem of offset. One disadvantage of using integral actions is that it tends to
produce oscillatory response of the controlled variable and reduces the stability of
the feedback control system. A limited amount of oscillation can be tolerated
because it is often associated with a faster response. The undesirable effects of too
much integral action can be avoided by proper tuning of the controller or by
including derivative action which tends to counteract the destabilizing effects.

Derivative control action is to anticipate the future behavior of the error

signal by considering its rate of change. While for proportional control, it reacts to a
deviation in temperature only, making no distinction as to the time period over which
the deviation develops. Integral control action is also ineffective for a sudden change
in temperature because corrective action occurs when the deviation persists for a
long period. Derivative control action also tends to improve the dynamic response of
the controlled variable by decreasing the process settling time, the time it takes the
process to reach steady state.

In conclusion, when there is a step change in a disturbance variable occurs,

proportional control speeds up the process response and reduces the offset. The
addition of integral control action eliminates offset but tends to make the response
more oscillatory. Adding derivative action reduced both the degree of oscillation and
the response time.

Table 6.1: Comparison between Different Values of P, I and D.

Controller
Mode

Proportional

Proportional-Integral

Proportional-Integral-Derivative

P=100

P=20

P=5

I=100

I=10

I=1

D=1

D=10

D=100

Operating
Value

46

46.3

47.6

47.8

47.8

47.7

47.7

48.9

46.45

Offsets

1.3

2.6

2.8

2.8

2.7

2.8

2.7

2.7

Little
Oscillation

Little
Oscillation

Moderate
Oscillation

Large
Oscillation

Response
Time
Response
Behavior
Selection

Almost Immediate
Moderate
Oscillation

Little
Oscillation

Large
Oscillation

Moderate
Oscillation

Large
Oscillation

Table 6.2: Comparison between P, PI and PID of Controller Mode.

Controller Mode

Proportional

Operating Value

46.63

47.77

48.1

Offsets

1.63

2.77

3.1

Response Time
Response
Behavior
Selection

Proportional-Integral Proportional-Integral-Derivative

Almost Immediate
Little Oscillation

Moderate Oscillation

Large Oscillation

From the graphs and results, it can be clearly seen that the set point change
takes longer to settle and creates more cycle (oscillation) for the system to reach
steady state compared to load change.

Theoretically, the sensitivity of controller will increase as Kc increases. In

other words, when Kc increases, the controller is very sensitive and results in larger
response and more overshoot when the controller is making correction to the
disturbances in the system.

where,
PB

proportional band or P-value

Kc

controller gain

According to Equation 1, the P-value is inversely proportional to the

controller gain, Kc. At large P-value, the controller become less sensitive as Kc is
small. This theory applies in this experiment as the larger the P-value, the smaller the
overshoot.

Besides that, we also observed that the offset value decreases as the P-value
decreases. This phenomenon can be explained with Equations 2 and 3.

where
KOL

open loop gain

Kv

valve gain

Kp

process gain

Km

steady state gain

ff e

where, M is the set point

From Equation 2, KOL is proportional to Kc. In Equation 1, we showed that P-value is

inversely proportional to Kc. Therefore, when P-value decreases, the Kc and KOL
increases. When KOL increases, the offset decreases. So, when P-value decreases, the

offset decreases. A large Kc is not always desirable as it will tend to cause

oscillations.

Integral control action is widely used because it provides an important

practical advantage, the elimination of offset. When integral action is used, controller
output changes automatically until it attains the value required to make the steady
state error zero. Therefore, in this experiment, the offset value cannot be compared in
terms of integral time value as this mode of control eliminates the problem of offset.

Response time for all the three mode of control is almost immediate
whenever there is a disturbance to the system as can be seen in the results and graph.
This is because all three mode of control (P, PI and PID) include the proportional
control, where it provides immediate corrective action as soon as an error is detected.

While for the response behavior, we can see that the oscillation occur the
most in PID control mode, followed by PI and lastly P control as the addition of Dvalue tends to amplify noise. This noise amplification increases as the D-value
becomes larger. A larger D-value also causes the system to exhibit larger and longer
oscillations.

Underdamped systems frequently overshoot their target value initially. This

initial surge is known as the "overshoot value". The ratio of the amount of overshoot
to the target steady-state value of the system is known as the percent overshoot.
Percent overshoot represents an overcompensation of the system, and can output
dangerously large output signals that can damage a system. Percent overshoot is
typically denoted with the term OS. No percentage overshoot is most preferable.
Based on our calculations, the proportional integral there is no overshoot percentage.
When proportional, the control process gives an overshoot percentage when P=20
and P=5. The value of P=100 there is no overshoot percentage. For proportional
integral derivate, when D=10 there is overshoot percentage. During this mode, the
settling time for set point change is very high. So we can conclude that due the
higher value of settling point, there will be an overshoot percentage. Another
situation, during the proportional mode when P=100 the settling time is just 1 s.
Tha he l we

e ling p in we b ained

he e i n any

e h

Overall the proportional mode gives a lower operating value. And when as
the P values increases the operating value decreases and it requires less settling time
for the temperature to reach its steady temperature (nearest to its set point).

Theoretically, PID gives the best control system. However, in this

experiment, it shows that the inclusion of D gives longer settling time and higher
oscillation than PI control. Overall, by comparing all the response (operating value,
offset, overshoot, settling time, response time and response behavior), we conclude
that the best choice (a symbol of is located near all the response factors) of control
mode is PI with the setting of P = 20 and I =1 where all the factors are within the
acceptable range.

One of the recommendations is that the value of D should not be so high,

because the settling time required for the process to achieve steady state is very high.
So it require us to stay longer, hence the results we obtain might not be so accurate.
Apart from that, the pressure should be constant throughout the process and there
should be an alarm to alert us when there is no pressure being supplied. This is
because, during the experiment, the compressor may not working all of sudden, and
we are not being notified for this incident. Due to the un-working compressor, the
settling time for the process value to achieve a steady state is higher.

7.0

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, proportional mode gives a lower operating value. The operating value
is inversely proportional with the P value. In this experiment, we found out PI
controller is the best choice with P = 20 and I = 1, in which the mean temperatures
f

8.0

l ad change and e p in change a e 45.0C and 47.7C, respectively.

REFERENCES

Seborg, D. E., Edgar, T. F., & Mellichamp, D. A. (2004). Process dynamics and
control (2nd Edition). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Julabo (2010). Temperature Control Solutions, Retrieved March 20, 2011 from
www.julabo.de