1.

0 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study is to determine the effect of controller gain, the effect of integral
time, effect of derivative time and effect of dead time on the process controllability. The
acronym PID stands for Proportional, Integral, Derivative. PID itself is actually a set of
equations used in many industrial control applicationsfrom aerospace engineering to energy
generation to beer brewingthe small electronics box that is referred to as a PID controller is
simply a physical representation of the algorithm ("A Brief History of the PID", 2016). PID
controller is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial
control systems a PID is the most commonly used feedback controller. A PID controller
calculates an "error" value as the difference between a measured process variable and a desired
setpoint. The controller attempts to minimize the error by adjusting the process control inputs
("PID Controller", 2016).

1.2 TYPE OF PROCESSES

The type of control needed to maintain a process is dependent upon the type of process
involved. Each process has its own unique set of characteristics, depending on the kind of process
and the physical components that make it up. There are two broad categories of processes: self-
regulated processes and non-self-regulated processes.

Self-regulating processes are processes that are inherently self-regulating. Self-regulated

processes have built-in feedback characteristics that cause the process to tend towards self-
regulation. An example of a self-regulating process is a tank of water with an input of water
entering the tank and an output of water leaving the tank. Assuming the water level in the tank is
constant at 10 inches. Water enters the tank at a rate of 20 gallons per minute and leaves the tank
at a rate of 20 gallons per minute. As long as this balance is maintained, water level in the tank
will remain constant at 10 inches. What happens if the outlet valve is opened at 1/8 of a turn and
water leaving the tank changes to a rate of 25 gallons per minute? Since this is a self-regulating
process, the level will stabilize at a new position and maintain that position. Flow out of the tank

1
is proportional to the square root of the differential pressure across the output valve. As level
decreases, the differential pressure will also decrease, causing the rate of drainage to decrease. At
some point, the drainage rate will once again equal the fill rate, and the tank will reach a new
equilibrium point.

A non-self-regulating process is one where the process does not tend towards self-
regulation. These processes have no self-regulating feedback characteristics and will tend towards
being unstable if not controlled externally. For example, the initial scenario. The water level in the
tank is constant at 10 inches. Water enters and leaves the tank at a rate of 20 gallons per minute.
In this process, instead of having a discharge valve on the tank, a positive displacement pump is
used to drain the water. As long as the balance is maintained, water level in the tank will remain
constant at 10 inches. If we increase the discharge rate of the positive displacement pump to 25
gallons per minute, what will happen? Initially, as with the self-regulating process shown before,
we are removing 5 more gallons per minute from the tank than we are putting in the tank. This
causes the level to drop. However, unlike the self-regulated process, this drop in level does not
affect the flow out of the tank. A positive displacement pump will discharge a set flow rate
regardless of head pressure. The pump will continue to discharge at a rate of 25 gallons per minute
until the tank is completely empty ("Process Control Fundamentals - Technology Transfer
Services", 2016).

1.3 PID CONTROLLER HISTORY

PID controller history dated back to 1890s governor design. PID controllers were
subsequently developed in automatic ship steering. One of the earliest examples of a PID-type
controller was developed by Elmer Sperry in 1911, while the first published theoretical analysis
of a PID controller was by Russian American engineer Nicolas Minorsky, in (Minorsky 1922).
Minorsky was designing automatic steering systems for the US Navy, and based his analysis on
observations of a helmsman, observing that the helmsman controlled the ship not only based on
the current error, but also on past error and current rate of change; this was then made mathematical
by Minorsky. His goal was stability, not general control, which significantly simplified the
problem. While proportional control provides stability against small disturbances, it was

2
insufficient for dealing with a steady disturbance, notably a stiff gale (due to droop), which
required adding the integral term. Finally, the derivative term was added to improve control. In the
early history of automatic process control the PID controller was implemented as a mechanical
device. These mechanical controllers used a lever, spring and a mass and were often energized by
compressed air. These pneumatic controllers were once the industry standard.

Electronic analog controllers can be made from a solid-state or tube amplifier, a capacitor
and a resistance. Electronic analog PID control loops were often found within more complex
electronic systems, for example, the head positioning of a disk drive, the power conditioning of a
power supply, or even the movement-detection circuit of a modern seismometer. Nowadays,
electronic controllers have largely been replaced by digital controllers implemented with
microcontrollers or FPGAs.

Most modern PID controllers in industry are implemented in programmable

logic controllers (PLCs) or as a panel-mounted digital controller. Software implementations have
the advantages that they are relatively cheap and are flexible with respect to the implementation
of the PID algorithm. PID temperature controllers are applied in industrial ovens, plastics injection
machinery, hot stamping machines and packing industry ("PID Controller", 2016).

1.4 PID CONTROLLER EQUATION AND THEORY

PID controller equation is:

where u is the control signal and e is the control error (e = r y). The reference value is also called
the setpoint. The control signal is thus a sum of three terms: the P-term (which is proportional to
the error), the I-term (which is proportional to the integral of the error), and the D-term (which is
proportional to the derivative of the error). The controller parameters are proportional gain k,
integral gain ki and derivative gain kd. The controller can also be parameterized as

3
where Ti is called integral time and Td derivative time.

Proportional Response

The proportional component depends only on the difference between the set point and the
process variable. This difference is referred to as the Error term. The proportional
gain (Kc) determines the ratio of output response to the error signal. For instance, if the error term
has a magnitude of 10, a proportional gain of 5 would produce a proportional response of 50. In
general, increasing the proportional gain will increase the speed of the control system response.
However, if the proportional gain is too large, the process variable will begin to oscillate. If K c is
increased further, the oscillations will become larger and the system will become unstable and may
even oscillate out of control ("PID Theory Explained - National Instruments", 2016).

Table 1.0: Block diagram of basic PID control algorithm ("PID Theory Explained - National
Instruments", 2016).

4
Integral Response

The integral component sums the error term over time. The result is that even a small error
term will cause the integral component to increase slowly. The integral response will continually
increase over time unless the error is zero, so the effect is to drive the Steady-State error to zero.
Steady-State error is the final difference between the process variable and set point. A phenomenon
called integral windup results when integral action saturates a controller without the controller
driving the error signal toward zero ("PID Theory Explained - National Instruments", 2016).

Derivative Response

Derivative action acts on the derivative or rate of change of the control error. This provides
a fast response, as opposed to the integral action, but cannot accommodate constant errors (i.e. the
derivative of a constant, nonzero error is 0). Derivatives have a phase of +90 degrees leading to an
anticipatory or predictive response. However, derivative control will produce large control signals
in response to high frequency control errors such as set point changes (step command) and
measurement noise ("PID Theory Explained - National Instruments", 2016).

1.5 CONTOLLER GAIN, INTEGRAL TIME, DERIVATIVE TIME AND DEADTIME

Controller gain

Gain = 100 / Proportional Band. More gain in a controller gives a faster loop response -
and a more oscillatory (unstable) process. Gain in the process - Process Gain - is defined as "change
in process output" divided by "change in process input". A process with high process gain reacts
more to a change in the process input than a process with low process gain.

Integral Time

The time required to obtain the same manipulated variable as for the proportional action
when using only an integral action. The shorter the integral time, the stronger the correction is of
the integral action.

5
Derivative time

The derivative - D - part of a PID controller. With derivative action the controller output is
proportional to the rate of change of the process variable or process error.

Deadtime

Dead time is the amount of time it takes for the process variable to start changing after
changing output as a control valve, variable frequency drive etc.

1.6 EFFECT OF INCREASING OR DECREASING VALUE OF P, I & D TOWARD

PROCESS RESPONSE

A proportional controller (Kp) will have the effect of reducing the rise time and will reduce,
but never eliminate, the steady-state error. An integral control (Ki) will have the effect of
eliminating the steady-state error, but it may make the transient response worse. A derivative
control (Kd) will have the effect of increasing the stability of the system, reducing the overshoot,
and improving the transient response.

Like the P-Only controller, the Proportional-Integral (PI) algorithm computes and
transmits a controller output (CO) signal every sample time, T, to the final control element (e.g.,
valve, variable speed pump). The computed CO from the PI algorithm is influenced by the
controller tuning parameters and the controller error, e(t).

PI controllers have two tuning parameters to adjust. While this makes them more
challenging to tune than a P-Only controller, they are not as complex as the three parameter PID
controller.

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.

6
1.7 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Performance measurement criteria is a parameter that very important in process control.

The performance criteria are based on some typical features of closed loop response such as
settling time, over shoot, decay ratio, number of oscillations, rise time, period of oscillation and
time of first maximum. One or more such of the criteria can be chosen in order to appear at a set
of controller parameters in a process control. Unfortunately, controller design are based on
multiple performance criteria often that turnout conflicting the response characteristics. For
instance, a smaller significance of gain can reduce the overshoot but will increase the settling time
for a certain process.

The first performance criteria is settling time, ts. Settling time is defined as time taken for
the output to come within a band of the final steady-state value and remain in this band. The value
of this settling time can be determined by placing a line 5% above and 5% below the set point and
the intersection one of the line with the process line is the settling time.

Next criteria is overshoot. Overshoot is a fraction of the final steady-state change by which
the first peaks exceeds this change. The overshoot also can be calculated by dividing the value of
(a) which is the difference between maximum value of peak and set point with the value of (b)
which is the difference between set point and old steady state value.

7

= =
12

After that, ratio which the amplitude of the sine wave is reduced during one complete cycle
known as decay ratio. Decay ratio can be calculated by dividing the (c) value which the difference
value of second peak from set point with the (a) value which the difference value of the first
maximum peak from set point.
2 2
= = =
12 2

Besides that, the performance criteria that should be consider is number of oscillation.
Number of oscillation is the amount of oscillation produce in the process line before achieving the
settling time.

The fifth criteria is rise time, tr. The definition of rise time is time taken for the process
output to first reach the new steady state value. As shown in the figure above, the rise time value
is the value at the intersection point between set point line and process line before it reach the first
maximum peak.

Then, period oscillation. Period oscillation, P is the time between two successive peaks of
the response. The difference in time between second peak and first peak is the period oscillation
value.
2
, =
1 2
Last but not least, the criteria is time of first maximum. Time required for the output to
reach its first maximum value. The value of the time of first maximum is the time for the first peak
which mean the maximum peak shown in the figure as tp.

, =
12

8
1.8 METHOD OF PID TUNING

Proportional, integral and derivative (PID) controllers are the type of controller that are
being extensively used in the chemical process industries because these controller are easy to used
and successful for practical application. Tuning method is defined as a method of adjustment of
the controller parameters to achieve a specified closed-loop response. Many tuning approaches
that have been recommended for PID controllers. The PID tuning methods are classified into main
categories which are online or closed loop tuning and step testing or open loop tuning.

Closed loop tuning

Closed loop tuning are the method that tune the controller during automatic state in which
the plant is running in closed loop. The example of closed loop methods that can be considered for
simulation are Ziegler-Nichols method and Modified Ziegler- Nichols Method.

Ziegler-Nichols method was first proposed by Ziegler and Nichols for a trial and error
tuning based on continuous oscillations. This method is the most known and universally used
method of tuning PID controller is also called as online or continuous cycling or ultimate gain
tuning method. A quarter decay ratio has considered as model criterion for this method. The decay
ratio is the ratio of the amplitudes of two successive oscillations. It should be independent of the
input to the system and only depends on the roots of the characteristics equation of the loop.

Mode KC I D
P - -
= 2

PI -
= =
2.2 1.2
PID
= = =
1.7 2 8

Modified Ziegler-Nichols method is used when the measure of oscillation for some control
loops that provide by quarter decay ratio and the corresponding large overshoots for set point
changes are unwanted. Modified Ziegler-Nichols are more preferable.

9
 Controller Parameters KC I D
Some Overshoot 0.33 KCU
2 3
No Overshoot 0.2 KC
2 3

Open loop tuning

The open loop tuning refer to the methods that tune the controllers when it is in manual
state and the plant is works in open loop. The open loop tuning is a controller tuning method that
are characterized the process by a simple first order plus dead time (FOPDT) and second order
plus dead time (SOPDT). There are 3 parameters that being used to characterize the model which
are gain (K) or response rate (RR), dead time (0) and time constant (). These 3 parameters are
very important in order to tune the PID controller. There are 4 type of method that can be used in
order to get the parameters; tangent method, reformulated tangent method, tangent and point
method and two point method. The examples of the open loop method are open loop Ziegler-
Nichols method and Cohen and Coon method.

Open loop Ziegler-Nichols method is the method that used when the process dynamics is
modeled by a first order plus dead time (FOPDT) model, as given below:

0
() =
+ 1

Mode KC I P

P 1 0 1 - -
( )

PI 0.9 0 1 3.330 -
( )

PID 1.2 0 1 2.0 0 0

( ) 2

10
 Cohen and Coon method is the method that used when the process dynamics is
approximated by first order plus dead time (FOPDT) model. In this method, the process reaction
curve is obtained first by an open loop test.

Mode KC I P

P - -
(1 + 3)
.

PI -
(1 + 11) 1 + 11
3.33 [ ]
. 11
1+
5

PID 0.37
(1 + ) 1+
1.35 5 2.5 [ 5]
. 3 1+
1+ 5
5

=

11
1.9 SET POINT TEST AND DISTURBANCE TEST

SET POINT (SP)

Set point (SP) is defined as the desired value of the controller variable. Thus, the job of a
control system is to maintain the controlled variable at its set point. The manipulated variable is
used to maintain the controlled variable at its set point. The following steps are the steps to perform
set point test.

Set point test:

1. Set the controller in automatic mode.

2. Make a change in set point less than 10% of the process span.

3. If the process become oscillatory or unstable, set the controller to manual mode. Then set
MV to the last stable value (MV at SP1) for self-regulating process. However for a non-
self- regulating process, the set point is changed to SP1 and last stable value of P, I and D
are inserted.

DISTURBANCE

Disturbance is any variable that causes the controlled variable to deviate from set point.
Disturbance also known as upset. In a most of process there are many different disturbance. It is
very significant to understand that disturbances in a process system are always occurred. It is
because these disturbances are needed in the automatic process control. If there is no disturbance
existence in a process, design operating conditions would be succeed and continuously monitoring
the process is not necessary. The following steps are the steps to perform set point test.

Disturbance test:

1. Set the controller to manual mode.

2. Make a change to MV about 5 to 10%. Then, wait about 3s
3. Then set the controller to automatic mode.
4. If the process become oscillatory or unstable, set the controller to manual mode. Next, set
MV to the last stable value.

12
2.0 METHODOLOGY

Lab 1: Effect of controller gain

1. The following control loop was prepared

5
2. The process transfer function = 2 +10 , with process set point = 1

3. PID controllers parameters were: P = 0.05, I = 0.01 and D = 0.

4. The simulation parameters were set to 600 s.
5. The simulation was run.
6. PV vs time was plotted, >> plot(time,PV)
7. For second simulation, the PIDs parameters were: P = 0.10, I = 0.01 and D = 0.
8. The second PV vs time was plotted, >> figure(2), plot(time,PV)
9. For third simulation, the PIDs parameters were: P = 0.20, I = 0.01 and D = 0.
10. The third PV vs time was plotted, >> figure(3), plot(time,PV)
11. Response of figure(2) and figure(3) were combined into figure(1).
12. The combined figures should looked like in Figure 3.1
13. For step change test, the setpoint block was replaced with step block with step time = 4,
initial value = 1, final value = 5, and sample time = 600 s. The simulation parameter was
changed to 1500 s.
14. The step responses were combined and the figure should looked like in Figure 3.2

13
Lab 2: Effect of integral time

1. The following control loop was prepared

5
2. The process transfer function = 2 +10 , with process set point = 1

3. PID controllers parameters were: P = 0.05, I = 0.01 and D = 0.

4. The simulation parameters were set to 600 seconds.
5. The simulation was run.
6. PV vs time was plotted, >> plot(time,PV)
7. For second simulation, the PIDs parameters were: P = 0.05, I = 0.02 and D = 0.
8. The second PV vs time was plotted, >> figure(2), plot(time,PV)
9. For third simulation, the PIDs parameters were: P = 0.05, I = 0.04 and D = 0.
10. The third PV vs time was plotted, >> figure(3), plot(time,PV)
11. Response of figure(2) and figure(3) were combined into figure(1).
12. The combined figures should looked like Figure 3.3
13. For step change test, the setpoint block was replaced with step block with step time = 4,
initial value = 1, final value = 5, and sample time = 600 s. The simulation parameter was
changed to 1500 s.
14. The step responses were combined and the figure should looked like in Figure 3.4

14
Lab 3: Effect of derivative time

1. The following control loop was prepared

5
2. The process transfer function = 2 +10 , with process set point = 1

3. PID controllers parameters were: P = 0.05, I = 0.01 and D = 1.

4. The simulation parameters were set to 600 seconds.
5. The simulation was run.
6. PV vs time was plotted, >> plot(time,PV)
7. For second simulation, the PIDs parameters were: P = 0.10, I = 0.01 and D = 2.
8. The second PV vs time was plotted, >> figure(2), plot(time,PV)
9. For third simulation, the PIDs parameters were: P = 0.20, I = 0.01 and D = 4.
10. The third PV vs time was plotted, >> figure(3), plot(time,PV)
11. Response of figure(2) and figure(3) were combined into figure(1).
12. The combined figures should looked like Figure 3.5
13. For step change test, the setpoint block was replaced with step block with step time = 4,
initial value = 1, final value = 5, and sample time = 600 s. The simulation parameter was
changed to 1500 s.
14. The step responses were combined and the figure should looked like in Figure 3.6

15
Lab 4: Effect of deadtime

1. The following control loop was prepared

5
2. The process transfer function = 2 +10 , with process set point = 1. Transport delay was

added with Time delay = 5

3. PID controllers parameters were: P = 0.2, I = 0.01 and D = 0.
4. The simulation parameters were set to 600 seconds.
5. The simulation was run.
6. PV vs time was plotted, >> plot(time,PV)
7. For second simulation, the time delay = 7
8. The second PV vs time was plotted, >> figure(2), plot(time,PV)
9. For second simulation, the time delay = 9
10. The third PV vs time was plotted, >> figure(3), plot(time,PV)
11. Response of figure(2) and figure(3) were combined into figure(1).
12. The combined figures should looked like Figure 3.7

16
3.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Lab 1: Effect of controller gain

A) Setpoint = 1

i. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 0

ii. P = 0.10, I = 0.01, D = 0

17
iii. P = 0.20, I = 0.01, D = 0

Combination of three figures:

Figure 3.1: 3 different P value for PID-controller responses for set point, SP =1

18
 Performance P = 0.05 P = 0.1 P = 0.2
measurement criteria

1) Settling time 265.587 s 106.326 s 60.994 s

2) Overshoot, (1.61 1.0) (1.41 1.0) (1.21 1.0)
= 0.21
(1.0 0) (1.0 0) (1.0 0)
= 0.61 = 0.41

3) Decay ratio, (1.20 1.0) (1.04 1.0) (1.0 1.0)
=0
(1.61 1.0) (1.41 1.0) (1.21 1.0)
= 0.328 = 0.098
4) Number of oscillations 2.5 2 0.5
5) Rise time 19.704 s 18.285 s 15.179 s
6) Period of oscillation 130.33-40.15 131.09-36.56 156.34-31.24
= 90.18 s =94.53 s =125.1 s
7) Time of first maximum 40.15 s 36.56 s 31.24 s

From the graph, it show that PID with P value of 0.05 has the highest peak compared to
the others PID, meanwhile the PID with P value of 0.2 has the lowest peak among the others. The
lowest the P value in proportional controller will produce the highest the peak of PV in the graph.
In can be concluded that by increasing the value of P, the controller action becomes faster and the
process response become faster. Lower value of P results in slower controller action and slows
down process response. In addition, changes in the controller output for a given change in the error
are affected by a high proportional gain. The system can become unstable with a very high
proportional gain. Meanwhile, when the proportional gain is too small, it gives a small output
response to a large input error, which in turn results in a less responsive or sensitive controller.
Apart from that, the amount of settling time, overshoot, decay ratio, number of oscillation, rise
time and time of first maximum is decrease with the increasing value of proportional, P.

19
B) Step change, setpoint = 5

i. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 0

ii. P = 0.10, I = 0.01, D = 0

20
iii. P = 0.20, I = 0.01, D = 0

Combination of three figures:

Figure 3.2: Step change for 3 different P value for PID-controller responses for new set
point, SP = 5

21
 Performance
measurement P = 0.05 P = 0.1 P = 0.2
criteria
1) Settling time 819.767600 702.558 600 659.302600
= 219.767 s = 102.558 s = 59.302 s

2) Overshoot, (7.45 5.0) (6.62 5.0) (5.84 5.0)
= 0.405 = 0.21
(5.0 1.0) (5.0 1.0) (5.0 1.0)
= 0.613

3) Decay ratio, (5.81 5.0) (5.15 5.0) (0)
= 0.093 = 0.00
(7.45 5.0) (6.62 5.0) (5.84 5.0)
= 0.331
4) Number of 4 2 1
oscillations
5) Rise time 623.023 s 617.442 s 614.651 s
6) Period of 730.16639.94 731.04636.57 756.35631.23
oscillation = 90.22 s =94.47 s =125.15 s
7) Time of first 639.94 s 636.57 s 631.23 s
maximum

The result has been observed when proportional, P value was increased, the process going
fast and achieve set point quickly plus number of oscillation also less. Moreover, settling time,
overshoot, decay ratio, rise time and time of first maximum is decrease with the increasing value
of proportional, P. In contrast, period of oscillation is increase when P value is increase. This
happen due to decreasing number of oscillation, when number of oscillation is less, the period of
oscillation is high.
The advantages of proportional controller are aids in lowering the steady state error,
therefore makes the system more stable and slow response of the over damped system can be fasten
with the use of these controllers. However, these controllers also have a few disadvantages which
are occur offsets in the system and increase the maximum overshoot of the system.

22
Lab 2: Effect of integral time

A) Setpoint = 1

i. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 0

ii. P = 0.05, I = 0.02, D = 0

23
iii. P = 0.05, I = 0.04, D = 0

Combination of three figures:

Figure 3.3: 3 different I value for PID-controller responses for set point, SP =1

24
 Performance
measurement I = 0.01 I = 0.02 I = 0.04
criteria
1) Settling time 265.777 s 250.631 s 266.121 s
0.613 0.706 0.786
2) Overshoot, = 0.613 = 0.706 = 0.786
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.203 0.330 0.470
3) Decay ratio, = 0.331 = 0.467 = 0.598
0.613 0.706 0.786
4) Number of 3 4 7
oscillations
5) Rise time 20.176 s 14.610 s 10.613 s
6) Period of 130.307 s 40.122 s 92.519 s 29.304 s 65.765 s 20.951 s
oscillation = 90.185 s = 63.215 s = 44.814 s
7) Time of first 40.122 s 29.304 s 20.951 s
maximum

Based on the graph, PID controller with I value of 0.04 results to highest overshoot and
decay ratio while PID controller with I value of 0.01 results to lowest overshoot and decay ratio.
This shows that when I value increases, the wave formed is bigger in size and have response peaks
that is further from the new set point. This is valid, considering the increment in I value will caused
the waveform to have a smaller period of oscillation. Other than that, PID controller with I value
of 0.04 have the highest number of oscillations, lowest rise time, and shortest time of first
maximum compared to I values of 0.02 and 0.01. Despite these differences, the graph illustrated
in Figure 3.3 showed almost similar settling time for all 3 I values. Therefore, it can be concluded
that different in I value would change the responses waveform without changing its settling time.

25
B) Step change, setpoint = 5

i. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 0

ii. P = 0.05, I = 0.02, D = 0

26
iii. P = 0.05, I = 0.04, D = 0

Combination of three figures:

Figure 3.4: Step change for 3 different I value for PID-controller responses for new set
point, SP = 5

27
Performance
measurement I = 0.01 I = 0.02 I = 0.04
criteria
1) Settling time 864.161 s 600 s 851.707 s 600 s 866.928 s 600 s
= 264.161 s = 251.707 s = 266.928 s
2.452 2.822 3.142
2) Overshoot,
= 0.613 = 0.706 = 0.786
4 4 4
0.811 1.319 1.881
3) Decay ratio, = 0.331 = 0.467 = 0.599
2.452 2.822 3.142
4) Number of 4 6 8
oscillations
5) Rise time 619.234 s - 600 s 615.083 s 600 s 610.249 s 600 s
= 19.234 s = 15.083 s = 10.249 s
6) Period of 730.114 s 640.011 s 692.282 s 629.095 s 665.825 s 621.209 s
oscillation = 90.103 s = 63.187 s = 44.616 s
7) Time of first 640.011 s - 600 s 629.095 s 600 s 621.209 s 600 s
maximum = 40.011 s = 29.095 s = 21.209 s

For a set point step change, the result can be observed from figure 3.4 and table above. The
comparison between PID controller with different I values shows the same pattern as in figure 3.3
with the adjustment of starting point simulation time of 600 seconds and new set point of 5. The
only difference that could be observed is the number of oscillations produced which is higher for
all I values. This is due to presence of instantaneous step increase in the error, such as set point
step change that would produce excessive movement in the output waveform. For PID controller
with different Integral values, it can be concluded that as set point step change value increases,
excessive movement of error also increases, and eventually affect the number of oscillations to
increase.

28
Lab 3: Effect of derivative time

A) Setpoint = 1

i. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 1

ii. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 2

29
iii. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 4

Combination of three figures:

Figure 3.5: 3 different D value for PID-controller responses for set point, SP =1

30
 Performance
measurement D=1 D=2 D=4
criteria
1) Settling time 325.154 s 375.703 s 458.672 s
0.349 0.247
2) Overshoot, (1.442 1.0)
= 0.698 = 0.742
(1 0.4) 0.5 0.333
= 0.737
0.158 0.131
3) Decay ratio, (1.176 1)
= 0.453 = 0.53
(1.442 1) 0.349 0.247
= 0.398
4) Number of 3 3 3
oscillations
5) Rise time 24.693 s 29.123 s 35.910 s
6) Period of 159.923 s -50.077 s 185.004 s 58.381 s 228.047 s 72.578 s
oscillation =109.846 s = 126.623 s = 155.469 s
7) Time of first 50.077 s 58.381 s 72.578 s
maximum

Based on the graph, PID controller with D value of 4 results to highest rise time and time
of first compared to PID controller with D value of 1 and 2. This shows that when D value
increases, the waveform response would have a bigger width and shorter overshoot peaks. Other
than that, PID controller with D value of 4 results longest settling time and period of oscillation
compared to PID controller with D value of 1 and 2. This is valid considering PID controller with
higher D value would have a bigger width and shorter overshoot peaks. On the other hand, the
number of oscillations was observed to be almost the same the three D values when approaching
to set point. Therefore, it can be concluded that a small different in D value would make the
responded waveform to be settled within the 600s simulation time.

31
B) Step change, setpoint = 5

i. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 1

ii. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 2

32
iii. P = 0.05, I = 0.01, D = 4

Combination of three figures:

Figure 3.6: Step change for 3 different D values for PID-controller responses for new set
point, SP = 5

33
 Performance
measurement D=1 D=2 D=4
criteria
1) Settling time 980.553 s 600 s 1228.810 s 600 s 1368.779 s 600 s
= 380.553 s = 628.81 s = 768.779 s
1.393 1.002
2) Overshoot, (6.77 5)
= 0.658 = 0.697 = 0.744
(5 2.312) 2 1.347
0.644 0.526
3) Decay ratio, (5.72 5.0)
= 0.407 = 0.462 = 0.525
(6.77 5.0) 1.393 1.002
4) Number of 6 6 6
oscillations
5) Rise time 624.883 s 600 s 29.277 s 36.275 s
= 24.883 s
6) Period of 759.841s 650.039 s 789.575 s 652.437 s 829.733 s 672.412 s
oscillation = 109.802 s = 137.138 s = 156.321 s
7) Time of first 650.039 s 600 s 58.471 s 72.412 s
maximum = 50.039 s

For a set point or step change, the result can be observed from figure 3.6 and table above.
The comparison between PID controller with different D values shows the same pattern as in figure
3.5 with the adjustment of starting point simulation time of 600 seconds and new set point of 5.
By taking D value of 1, set point step change to 5 would results to higher settling time, overshoot,
decay ratio and number of oscillation compared to the old set point of 1. This is due to presence
of instantaneous step increase in the error, such as set point step change that would produce
excessive movement in the output waveform. For PID controller with different Derivative values,
it can be concluded that as set point step change value increases, not only the number of oscillations
to increase, but it would also prolonged the settling time of waveform output.

34
Lab 4: Effect of deadtime

A) Setpoint = 1

i. Time delay = 5

ii. Time delay = 7

35
iii. Time delay = 9

Combination of three figures:

Figure 3.7: 3 different first order with time delay responses for set point, SP =1

36
 Performance
measurement Time delay = 5 Time delay = 7 Time delay = 9
criteria
1) Settling time 59.661 s 5 s 104.901 s 7 s 302.262 s 9s
= 54.661s = 97.901 s = 293.262 s
0.505 0.821 1.202
2) Overshoot,
= 0505 = 0.821 = 1.202
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.003 0.095 0.619
3) Decay ratio, = 0.006 = 0.116 = 0.515
0.505 0.821 1.202
4) Number of 1 3 8
oscillations
5) Rise time 13.289 s 5 s 14.986 s 7 s 17.248 s 9 s
= 8.289 s = 7.986 s = 8.248 s
6) Period of 95.420 s 24.946 s 80.481 s 27.121 s 85.485 s 30.926 s
oscillation = 70.474 s = 53.360 s = 54.559 s
7) Time of first 24.946 s 27.121 s 30.926 s
maximum

Based on the graph, PID controller with time delay of 9 showed the highest overshoot,
decay ratio and number of oscillations compared to PID controller with time delay of 7 and 5. It
can be concluded that the settling time would increase as time delay increase. On the other hand,
the rise time and the time of first maximum for all time delays are almost the same to each other.
It can be concluded that as time delay increases, the period of oscillation would remain constant.

37
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCLUSIONS

The simulation for the process control were successfully done. All the performance criteria
such as settling time, over shoot, decay ratio, number of oscillations, period oscillation, rise time
and time of first maximum for all the simulation lab are being calculated. From this lab simulation
using MATLAB software, the understanding about the type of response for process control
increases. All proportional, integral and derivative controller can be used in chemical process
control and have different type of response and characteristic.
P controller is mostly used in first order processes with single energy storage to steady the
unsteady process. The main usage of the P controller is to decrease the steady state error of the
system. The steady state error of the system decreases, as the proportional gain factor K increases.
However, despite the reduction, P control can never manage to eliminate the steady state error of
the system. When the proportional gain is higher, it will results smaller phase margin and
amplitude, sensitivity to the noise become larger and rapid dynamics satisfying wider frequency.
This proportional controller can be used only when the system bearable to a steady state error.
Inclusion, when applying P controller it can reduces the rise time and subsequently a certain value
of reduction on the steady state error.
P-I controller is mostly used to eradicate the steady state error resulting from proportional
controller. However, in terms of the speed of the response and overall stability of the system, it
has an unfavorable impact. This controller is frequently used in areas where speed of the system
is not a matter in the process. Since P-I controller has no aptitude to anticipate the future errors of
the system, the rise time cannot be decrease and eliminate the oscillations. If applied any amount
of integral, it can guarantees set point overshoot.
The derivative term slows the rate of change of the controller output and this can make the
most noticeable close to the controller set point. P-I-D controller has the excellent control
dynamics including zero steady state error, faster feedback (short rise time), no oscillations and
higher stability. Hence, derivative control is can be used to lessen the magnitude of the overshoot
produced by the integral component and enhance the combined controller-process stability. One
of the main benefits of the derivative controller is that it can be used with higher order processes
including more than single energy storage. However, differentiation of a signal amplifies noise
and thus this term in the controller is highly sensitive to noise in the error term, and can cause a
38
process to become unstable if the noise and the derivative gain are sufficiently large. Hence an
approximation to a differentiator with a limited bandwidth is more commonly used.
Dead time is known as the number of time it takes for the process variable to start to change
after the output is changed. Dead is a term that usually used instead of dead time. Dead time occur
when the delay from a controller output signal is expressed until the measured process variable
first commence the respond. The existence of dead time in a process always a problem to the
control loop. For any process, when dead time or delay in a certain process is greater, the control
challenge and tight performance becomes more problematic. Dead time always lower the
steadiness of the entire system and restraint the obtainable response time.

RECOMMENDATIONS
These are some recommendations that can be apply to controller in order to improve the
process outcome. Firstly, set all gains to zero. Next, increase the Proportional value until occur
steady oscillation for the response. Then, increase the Derivative gain value until the oscillations
downturn. After that, control the Proportional value and Derivative value to be constant until
fluctuations remain to oscillate. Set the last proportional value and derivative time in order to get
steady values. Lastly, rise the value of integral gain until the value is near to the set point with the
number of required oscillation.

39
REFERENCES

A Brief History of the PID. (2016). La Marzocco. Retrieved 13 December 2016, from
https://home.lamarzoccousa.com/history-of-the-pid/
Carlos, A. S., & Corripio, A. (2006). Principles and practice of automatic process control.
Hoboken: Ohn Wiley & Sons.
Control Guru. (n.d.). Retrieved from Control Guru Web site: http://controlguru.com/dead-
time-is-the-how-much-delay-variable/
Guhawati, I. (2013, June 17). NPTEL. Retrieved from
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/103103037/23
Nagy, Z. K. (n.d.). Loughborough University. Retrieved from Loughborough University
Web site:
http://homepages.lboro.ac.uk/~cgzkn/processcontrol/processcontrol_topic13_pidtuning.p
df
PID Controller. (2016). Liquisearch.com. Retrieved 13 December 2016, from
http://www.liquisearch.com/pid_controller
PID Theory Explained - National Instruments. (2016). Ni.com. Retrieved 20 December
2016, from http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3782/en/
Process Control Fundamentals - Technology Transfer Services. (2016). Technology
Transfer Services. Retrieved 13 December 2016, from
https://www.techtransfer.com/blog/process-control-fundamentals/

Shahrokhi, M., & Zomorrodi, A. (n.d.). Comparison of PID Controller Tuning Methods.

Smuts, J. (2011, June 21). Control note. Retrieved from

http://blog.opticontrols.com/archives/499
The Engineering Toolbox. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/process-control-terms-d_666.html
Universiti of Michigan. (n.d.). Retrieved from University of Michigan web site:
http://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/index.php?example=Introduction&section=ControlPI
D#14

40
APPENDIX

MATLAB software

Simulink interface

41
 Simulink library browser

Scope using to calculate all the performance criteria

42