1

1.0 ABSTRACT
This experiment is about PID controller tuning of simulated gas mass flow process. Objective
of this process is to control simulated gas mass flow process using PID controller parameter
determined manually from Ziegler-Nicholas using the Process Reaction Curve Method,
Cohen-Coon (C-C) Method, and Internal Model Control (IMC Method). The dynamic graphic
of the simulated gas mass flow process is viewed and the solenoid valve SV90 is opened
which green colour is shown. PID control scheme for FIC91A is selected. Firstly is the PID
tuning parameters is calculated by using the Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Relations. The entire test
is repeated for other controller tuning techniques of Cohen-Coon (C-C) method and internal
model control (IMC method). The effectiveness of the PID values determined from the three
tuning methods to control the process is compared. The first observation was made through
the application of different value of setpoint (18 kg/h and 25 kg/h) will yield different vale of
K
p,
t
D
and
c
t
, that are used to calculate the process parameters, which is the Gain, Reset and
Rate. Ziegler-Nichols tuning will produce a stable system that react well to correct the error,
although it did not manage to return the system to it’s steady state. Cohen Coon tuning, in
the other hand, produce a highly unstable system with large error, while Internal Model
Control Tuning is the best tuning where it manages to response well to the disturbance and
correct the error, returning the system to it’s steady state. As conclusion that every value
used in the Simulation of Gas Flow Process will affect the system, whether it will improve or
decrease the efficiency of it.

2

2.0 OBJECTIVE
The objectives for industrial problem based learning 2: PID controller tuning of
simulated gas mass flow process is to control the Simulated Gas Mass Flow Process, using
PID controller parameters determined manually from the following Controller Tuning
techniques, Ziegler-Nichols using the Process Reaction Curve Method, Cohen-Coon (C-C)
Method and Internal Model Control (IMC Method)

3.0 Introduction
The Simulated Gas Flow Process consists of a main pipeline where process air
representing gas/vapour flows and then discharge to atmosphere via the process vent
manual valve VF. The process air that flows into the system is conditioned to have air
temperature of 100°C. With reference to the dynamic graphic of the Simulated Gas Mass
Flow Process at Model SPC211, for PID control, mass flow rate measured by Gas Mass Flow
meter (FE91/FT91), is the measurement input into PID Flow controller FIC91A which in turn
throttles the Control valve FCV91, via a Current-to-Air Converter (I/P), FCY91, and a
Positioner (PP).
Measurement FE91/ FT91 FT91 represents the gas mass flow
meter

Control Type

FIC91A

PID Controller configured at DCS

Control Output

FCY91 Current-to-Air Converter (I/P)
PP Pneumatic Position
FCV91

Air Mass Flow Control Value.
Air-to-close (ATC) type
3

Table 1: Instrumentation and control configuration for gas mass flow process

Figure 1: Simulated gas mass flow process diagram










4

4.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1 Overview
There a few standard control modes such as proportional control, integral control,
derivative control, proportional-integral control, proportional-derivative control, and
proportional-integral-derivative control. In this report, proportional-integral control (PI) and
proportional-integral-derivative control (PID) were focused.

4.2 Proportional-integral control
Proportional-Integral or PI control combines proportional control and integral
control in parallel. A PI-Lead controller is a proportional gain in parallel with an integrator;
both in series with a lead controller. The proportional gain provides fast error response. The
integrator drives the system to a zero steady-state error (Spradlin, 2008).

5

Figure 1 Example of PI tuning and response (Yi, 2008).

4.3 Proportional-integral-derivative control
Proportional-Integral-Derivative or PID control combines proportional control,
integral control, and derivative control in parallel (Seborg, Mellichamp & Edgar, 2011). The
PID control equation involves three separate parameters; the Proportional, the Integral and
Derivative terms. The Proportional term responds instaneously to the current error
(providing instaneous response). The Integral term responds to the accumulation of errors
(providing a slow response that drives the steady-state error towards 0). And the Derivative
term responds to the rate at which the error is changing (providing some anticipatory
response). Their respective weighting determines the controls response (Spradlin, 2008).

Figure 2 Example of PID tuning and response (Yi, 2008).

4.4 Ziegler Nichols closed loop method
6

The method is straightforward. First, set the controller to P mode only. Next, set the
gain of the controller (kc) to a small value. Make a small set point (or load) change and
observe the response of the controlled variable. If kc is low the response should be sluggish.
Increase kc by a factor of two and make another small change in the setpoint or the load.
Keep increasing kc (by a factor of two) until the response becomes oscillatory. Finally, adjust
kc until a response is obtained that produces continuous oscillations. This is known as the
ultimate gain (ku). (Willis D.M.J, 1999) Note the period of the oscillations (Pu). The control
law settings are then obtained from the following table,

Table 1 : K
C
, T
i
, T
D
, eqution for calculationof Ziegler Nichols closed loop method

4.4.1 Practical use of the technique
It is unwise to force the system into a situation where there are continuous
oscillations as this represents the limit at which the feedback system is stable. Generally, it
is a good idea to stop at the point where some oscillation has been obtained. It is then
possible to approximate the period (Pu) and if the gain at this point is taken as the ultimate
gain (ku) , then this will provide a more conservative tuning regime. (Willis D.M.J, 1999)

4.5 Cohen – Coon
This method depends upon the identification of a suitable process model (plant
identification has been covered in previous lectures). Cohen-Coon recommended the
following settings to give responses having ¼ decay ratios, minimum offset and other
favourable properties,
7


Table 1 : K
C
, T
i
, T
D
, eqution for calculation of Cohen – Coon
In the table kp is the process gain, τ the process time constant and θ the process time
delay.

4.5.1 Practical use of the technique
If the process delay is small (in the limit as it approaches zero) increasingly large
controller gains will be predicted. The method is therefore not suitable for systems where
there is zero or virtually no time delay. (Willis D.M.J, 1999)

8

5.0 METHODOLOGY (PID TUNING)
This experiment was run by viewing the dynamic graphic of the Simulated Gas Mass
Flow Process at the operator workstation. The solenoid valve SV90 was ‘OPEN’ and it should
be green in colour. PID control scheme was selected for FIC91A where the FIC91A faceplate
and its Detail Faceplate was called up. Then, the following Gain, Reset and Rate (PID) values
was set at Gain is 0.40, Reset is 3 sec, and Rate is 0 sec. For the flow controller FIC91A a
setpoint SP of 18 kg/h was used. The controller is switched to Auto (AUTO) mode. Process
History View from FIC91A is called up to view the flow response trend. At the Process
History View window, click at the “Chart” menu to select the “Configure Chart” option and
change the “Time Scale” span to 00:02

Next, PID Tuning for the flow setpoint 18 kg/h was run using the process parameters
[process gain, K
p
, dead time, t
D
, response rate, RR and time constant,
c
t ] determined for
flow setpoint of 18kg/h from Experiment Open Loop Test, calculate its PID Tuning
parameters using first the “Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Relations (Process Reaction Curved
Method)”. The ‘PID CONTROLLER TUNING TECHNIQUES’ was referred in the appendix for
the appropriate formulae to establish the approximate Kc,
I
t and
D
t values for the flow
setpoint. As the response is fairly steady at its setpoint SP = 18 kg/h, PID setting was
changed where the Gain (K
c
), Reset (
I
t ) and Rate (
D
t ) values at the Detail Faceplate to the
PID1 values calculated for flow setpoint 18 kg/h. For the load step test, as the flow response
is fairly steady at SP = 18 kg/h, FIC91Ais switched to Manual (MAN) mode and quickly step
increase its MV(OUT) by about 5% for about 5 sec. Then, FIC91A was quickly switched back
to Auto (AUTO) mode. The flow response (red trend) at the Process History View was
observed. Again as the flow response is fairly steady at SP = 18 kg/h, the above steps for the
step increase MV(OUT) by about 10% was repeated for about 5 sec. The flow response (red
trend) was observed similarly. “Print screen” and “save” the observed flow responses and
enclose together with the results sheet. PID Control responses obtained for both the load
step tests were analysed respectively. For setpoint step test as the flow response is fairly
steady at SP = 18 kg/h, with the Controller FIC91A remaining in Auto (AUTO) mode, step
increase the setpoint SP to 23 kg/h. The flow response (red trend) at the Process History
9

View was observed. As the flow response is fairly steady at SP = 23 kg/h, step decrease the
setpoint SP back to 18 kg/h. Waited till the flow response is steady at SP =18 kg/h and then
step increase the setpoint to 28 kg/h. The flow response/trend (red trend) was observed
similarly. With the controller FIC91A remaining in Auto (AUTO) mode at SP =28 kg/h, step
decrease the setpoint SP to 25 kg/h. The flow response (red trend) again observed similarly.
“Print screen” and “save” the observed flow responses and enclose together with the
results sheets. Comment on the PID control responses obtained for both the setpoint step
tests respectively.

PID Tuning for the flow setpoint 25 kg/h. The process parameters [process gain, K
p
,
dead time, t
D
, response rate, RR and time constant,
c
t ] was used to determined for flow
setpoint of 25 kg/h from Experiment Open Loop Test, calculate its PID Tuning parameters
using first the “Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Relations (Process Reaction Curved Method)”. The PID
Tuning Parameters for SP = 25 kg/h is PID2. As the responded is fairly steady at its setpoint
SP = 25kg/h, the Gain (K
c
), Reset (
I
t ) and Rate (
D
t ) values at the Detail Faceplate was
changed to the PID2 values calculated for flow setpoint 25 kg/h. For, load step test, as the
flow response is fairly steady at SP = 25 kg/h, FIC91A was switched to Manual (MAN) mode
and quickly step increase its MV(OUT) by about 5% for about 5 sec. Then, FIC91A quickly
switched back to Auto (AUTO) mode. The flow response (red trend) was observed at the
Process History View. Again as the flow response is fairly steady at SP = 25 kg/h, the above
steps was repeated for the step increase of its MV(OUT) by about 10% for about 5 sec. The
flow response (red trend) was observed similarly. “Print screen” and “save” the observed
flow responses and enclose together with the results sheets. Comment on the PID control
responses obtained for both the setpoint step tests respectively. For, set point step test as
the flow response is fairly steady at SP = 25 kg/h, with the controller FIC91A remaining in
Auto (AUTO) mode, step increase the setpoint to 30 kg/h. The flow response (red trend) was
observed at the Process History View. As the flow response is fairly steady at SP = 30 kg/h,
then, step decreased the setpoint SP back to 25 kg/h. Waited till the flow response is steady
at SP =25 kg/h and then step increased the setpoint to 35 kg/h. The flow response (red
trend) was observed similarly. “Print screen” and “save” the observed flow responses and
10

enclose together with the results sheets. Comment on the PID control responses obtained
for both the setpoint step tests respectively.

For PID tuning parameters robustness check, with the controller FIC91A remaining in
Auto (AUTO) mode at SP = 35 kg/h at the previously set PID2 values, step decrease the
setpoint to 18 kg/h. At the Process History View, waited till the flow response is steady at SP
= 18kg/h. As the flow response is fairly steady at SP = 18 kg/h, switched FIC91A to Manual
(MAN) mode and quickly step increase its MV(OUT) by about 5% for about 5 sec. Then
FIC91A quickly switched back to Auto (AUTO) mode. The flow response (red trend) was
observed at the Process History View. The observed flow responses were printed out to be
enclosed together with the results sheets. The flow control responses of SP = 25 kg/h and SP
= 18kg/h was compared for the same load step tests respectively.
The robustness of PID2 tuning parameters in controlling other flow setpoints of the
Simulated Gas Mass Flow process is commented. The above steps were repeated for other
controller tuning techniques like Cohen-Coon (C-C) Method, and Internal Model Control
(IMC) Method. Compare the effectiveness of the PID values determined from each of the
tuning methods to control the process.



11

6.0 RESULT & DISCUSSION
1. Set point: 18 kg/hr and Internal Model Control (Cohen- Coon)
P

Figure 6.1: P Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (18 Cohen –Coon)
PI

Figure 6.2: PI Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (18 Cohen –Coon)
PID

Figure 6.3: PID Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (18 Cohen –Coon)
12

2. Set point: 18 kg/hr and Internal Model Control (zeigler and Nicholas)
P

Figure 6.4: P Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (zeigler and Nicholas)
PI

Figure 6.5: PI Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (zeigler and Nicholas)
PID

Figure 6.6: PID Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (zeigler and Nicholas)
13


3. Set point: 25 kg/hr and Internal Model Control (Cohen –Coon)
P

Figure 6.7: P Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (Cohen –Coon)
PI

Figure 6.8: PI Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (Cohen –Coon)
PID

Figure 6.9: PID Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (Cohen –Coon)
14

4. Set point: 25 kg/hr and Internal Model Control (Ziegler and Nicholas)
P

Figure 6.10: P Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (zeigler and Nicholas)
PI

Figure 6.11: PI Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (zeigler and Nicholas)
PID

Figure 6.12: PID Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% and 10% (zeigler and Nicholas)
15

5. Set point: 35 kg/hr and Internal Model Control (Ziegler and Nicholas)
P

Figure 6.13: P Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% (zeigler and Nicholas)
PI

Figure 6.14: PI Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% (zeigler and Nicholas)
PID

Figure 6.15: PID Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% (zeigler and Nicholas)
16

6.0 Set point: 35 kg/hr and Internal Model Control (Cohen –Coon)


Figure 6.16: P Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% (Cohen –Coon)

Figure 6.17: PI Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% (Cohen –Coon)

Figure 6.18: PID Controller with the Increase in MV by 5% (Cohen –Coon)
17

Table 6.1 Cohen-Coon Tuning Relations
Controller Type Gain (K
c
) Reset (
I
t ) Rate (
D
t )
P
(
¸
(

¸

+
c
D
D
c
P
t
t K t
t
3
1
1

- -
PI
(
¸
(

¸

+
c
D
D
c
P
t
t K t
t
12
9 . 0
1

c
D
c
D
D
t
t
t
t
t
20 9
3 30
+
(
¸
(

¸

+

-
PID
(
¸
(

¸
+
c
D c
D
c
P
t
t K t
t t
12
3 16 1

c
D
c
D
D
t
t
t
t
t
8 13
6 32
+
(
¸
(

¸

+

c
D
D
t
t
t
2 11
14
+


Table 6.2 Zeigler and Nichols Tuning Relations
Controller Type Gain (K
c
) Reset (
I
t ) Rate (
D
t )
P
RR t
D
×
1

- -
PI
RR t
D
×
9 . 0

D
t × 3 . 3 -
PID
RR t
D
×
2 . 1

D
t × 2
D
t × 5 . 0


18

Table 6.3 Internal Model Control Tuning Relation
Controller Type Gain (K
c
) Reset (
I
t ) Rate (
D
t )
PI
when
8 . 0 >
D
t
ì

10
c
t
ì >





c
D
t
t +
2





-
PID
when
8 . 0 >
D
t
ì

10
c
t
ì >
1 2
1 2
1
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
D
D
c
p
t
t
K ì
t



c
D
t
t +
2


1 2 +
|
|
.
|

\
|
D
c
c
t
t
t


1 2
1 2
1
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
D
D
c
p
t
t
K ì
t
19

for 18 kg/hr

Cohen-coon tuning relation

Zeigler and Nichols Tuning Relation

Kp 2.4

controler
type Gain (Kc) Reset(τI) Rate(τD)

Controller
type Gain (Kc) Reset(τI)
Rate
(τD)
τc 1.95

P 0.707071 9999 0

P 0.546329 9999 0
td 1.43

PI 0.546086 1.945606 0

PI 0.491696 4.719 0
RR 1.28

PID 0.861742 2.75894 1.605882

PID 0.655594 2.86 0.715

for 25 kg/hr

Kp 1.45

controler
type Gain (Kc) Reset(τI) Rate(τD)

Controller
type Gain (Kc) Reset(τI)
Rate
(τD)
τc 1.75

P 0.833333 9999 0

P 0.60241 9999 0
td 2

PI 0.600575 2.098655 0

PI 0.542169 6.6 0
RR 0.83

PID 0.977011 3.509677 2.107527

PID 0.722892 4 1

for 35 kg/hr

Kp 0.46

controler
type Gain (Kc) Reset(τI) Rate(τD)

Controller
type Gain (Kc) Reset(τI)
Rate
(τD)
τc 1.3

P 1.855072 9999 0

P 1.142857 9999 0
td 2.5

PI 1.198551 1.884117 0

PI 1.028571 8.25 0
RR 0.35

PID 2.050725 3.834688 2.357513

PID 1.371429 5 1.25

Table 6.4 Data Collected For Different Setpoint Using Cohen-Coon Tuning Relation And Zeigler And Nicholas Tuning Relation
20

The graphs show the result of the P, PI and PID tuning for two different methods at load
disturbance of mv of 5% and 10% which are Ziegler-Nichols Method and Cohen-Coon (C-C) Method.
These figures show that these controller setting and open-loop responses indicate that the Ziegler-
Nichols setting is the most aggressive and produced oscillatory response. The Ziegler-Nichols controller
provides the best control for the disturbance. On the other hand, the Ziegler-Nichols controller is the
worst for the set-point change. The Coben-Coon method’s result shows in satisfactory set-point
response but sluggish disturbance responses.
At the disturbance MV=5%. Relatively, the result considers the change in the disturbance value.
Hence, the Ziegler-Nichols is the best tuning method. In addition the, Different operating set points of
gas mass flow, the process parameters vary due to different value of steady state gain KP, response rate
RR, dead time t
D
, and time constant t
c
. Besides that, different tuning methods have different value of
parameter due to different relation use in that method. Maybe due to the tuning value too large, all the
control response that get from the experiment is highly oscillate and fluctuated continuously, where we
hardly to differentiate the control response effect from different tuning method and different set point
for the load test and set point test.
Figure 5.7, Figure 5.8, Figure 5.9, Figure 5.10, Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12 show the result of
applying new set-point which is 25kg/hr. The simulation results in the figures mentioned indicate that
the Internal Model Control (IMC) controller provides an excellent set-point response, while the other
two controllers have a significant overshoots and longer settling time. However, the IMC controller
produces an unacceptable show disturbance response owing to its large τ value, although the response
does eventually rerun to zero owing to the integral action. The other two controllers provide much
better disturbance rejection in view of their smaller setting time. Thus, although the standard IMC
21

tuning produces very sluggish disturbance response for very small θ/τ ratios, as demonstrate in the
figures.
The use of the fuzzy set-point weighting, in conjunction with the Ziegler–Nichols method for the
tuning of the proportional gain and the integral and derivative time constants, leads to a significant
improvement in the step response and preserves the good performances in the attenuation of the load
disturbance assured by the Ziegler–Nichols formula. It can be shown that the approach is also robust
with respect to the controller parameter variations, in the sense that the Ziegler–Nichols parameters can
be quite different from their nominal values without impairing performances. It can be noticed how the
results are similar to the nominal case. It turns out that the application of the methodology is further
simplified, since no great attention has to be paid in the initial tuning phase. Moreover, the analog gain
can be increased in order to provide a better load disturbance attenuation. Hence, the proposed
approach seems to be particularly appropriate to be adopted in industrial environments, since it
requires only a small computational effort, it is easy to apply, intuitive, and robust. Furthermore, the
fuzzification of the weight can be easily excluded from the overall control scheme by simply fixing when
the operator has no interest in applying it.
Table 6.4 shows the result of the calculated tuning parameters using the three different
methods have been mentioned earlier in this discussion. These tables show that for a step change in
set point, the set point tuning parameters result in a smaller overshoot and less oscillatory response
than the disturbance tuning parameters. However, for a step input in disturbance, the disturbance
tuning parameters give a slightly smaller initial deviation and a smaller peak value than the set point
tuning parameters.

22

7.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
The simulated gas flow process consists of a main pipeline where process air
representing gas or vapour flows and then discharge to atmospheric via the process vent
manual valve VF. The objectives of the experiment are to control the simulated gas mass flow
process, using PID controller parameters that determined manually from Ziegler-Nichols using
process reaction curve method, Coher-Coon(c-c) method and internal model control (IMC
method). The experiment requires controlling manually and hence we need to set the
controller output manually at certain point which is a set point to observe the new steady state
establishes for different value of the controller output.. We are testing three different
controller set point SP = 18kg/h to 25kg/h to 35kg/h. The Ziegler-Nichols controller provides the
best control for the disturbance. On the other hand, the Ziegler-Nichols controller is the worst
for the set-point change. The Coben-Coon method’s result shows in satisfactory set-point
response but sluggish disturbance responses. At the disturbance MV=5%, the Ziegler-Nichols is
the best tuning method. Besides that, different tuning methods have different value of
parameter due to different relation use in that method. Maybe due to the tuning value too
large, all the control response that get from the experiment is highly oscillate and fluctuated
continuously, where we hardly to differentiate the control response effect from different
tuning method and different set point for the load test and set point test.

23

8.0 REFERENCES
Willis D.M.J., (1999). Proportional- Integral-Derivative Control
Yi, C. (2008, February 5). Learning pid tuning ii: Stability margin. Retrieved from
http://www.mathworks.fr/matlabcentral/fileexchange/18561-learning-pid-tuning-ii-
stability-margin/content/html/learningpid.html
Spradlin, G. (2008, November 12). Standard controller forms. Retrieved from
http://wikis.controltheorypro.com/index.php?title=Standard_Controller_Forms


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful