- Basic Control Theory
- Control Tutorials for MATLAB and Simulink - Introduction_ PID Controller Design.pdf
- Advanced PID Controller Implementation
- 2.2_singleloopcontrol
- CK
- App Term Vari Freq Drive
- Smith Pred Ref Semi
- PID_Tips_1
- shams_I&ECR
- ch-140203085409-phpapp01.pdf
- Pid
- IV - Types of Controller
- e 03512530
- PID Tuning
- SI_F09_Ch07.pdf
- Control System Presentation
- SYSTEMS_AND_CONTROL.PDF
- Testing of Concrete Under Closed-Loop Control
- Chapter 1
- ME2142C8_162
- 2007 - Feedback Linearization Control for a Distributed Solar Collector Field
- Z6 Pendulum Cart Position Control
- si
- Getting Best Performance
- Basic Principles of PID Controllers
- Rob t 308 Lecture 18
- Definitionen Engl
- PID Without a PhD
- MPC PID2.pdf
- PID Controller
- project charter.docx
- Type of pipe.docx
- Borang Soal Selidik q
- project charter.docx
- scl 2
- borang soal selidik
- GANTT CHART.docx
- Cooling Fan
- Tutorial 4
- GANTT CHART.docx
- Checklist
- GANTT CHART.docx
- Type of pipe.docx
- project charter.docx
- Type of pipe.docx
- Lab Report Chemistry Experiment 4 (Basic Water Properties 1)
- Abstract 1
- Result Soap
- References
- Type of Pipe
- Report Kimia 2
- Cstr 40L
- Lab Report Chemistry Experiment 4 (Basic Water Properties 1)
- Chapter 1.1 Introduction - Petroleum
- References
- borang soal selidik
- Control
- Chemis Lab Exp 5
- exp 1 pro

1.0 ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………….

2.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………3

2.1 OBJECTIVES..............................................................................................................4

3.0 THEORY.......................................................................................................................4

3.1 PROCESS CHARACTERISTIC IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUE…………….........4

3.2 EFFECT OF TUNING PARAMETER TO PROCESS CONTROLLABILITY……… 9

3.3 OPTIMUM CONTROLLER SETTING………………………………………………...10

4.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................12

4.1 P&ID…….……………… ………………………………………………………………12

4.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………12

4.3 OPEN LOOP…………………………………………………………………………….13

4.4 CLOSE LOOP…………………………………………………………………………...15

4.5 SET POINT………………………………………………………………………………15

5.0 RESULT.....................................................................................................................15

5.1 THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS…..……………………………………………....15

6.0 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................18

7.0 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................19

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................19

9.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................20

10.0 APPENDICES..........................................................................................................20

1.

ABSTRACT

**The effect of various time constant to the controllability of pressure control is being carried out
**

by using Emerson. The objective of this experiment is to study the effect by using graphical

method and Cohen-coon tuning rules. The time constant is calculated using tangent, tangent

and point and two point’s method. Only set point test was being carried out. In this experiment,

PI controller is not tuned. The values of P and I are used from the calculated P and I using

Cohen-coon is. The effect of using all three methods to find Tc to the process response have

been observe. From the overall process response, using various method to find Tc does not

affect much on the process response. Only a slightly different can be seen in term of settling

time, rise time, undershoot, overshoot and Integral Absolute Error (IAE).

2

Dead time. The process gain describes how much the process will respond to a change in controller output. Td is the delay from when a controller output (CO) signal is issued until when the measured process variable (PV) first begins to respond whereas time constant. The dynamic response of self-regulating processes can be described reasonably accurately with a simple model consisting of process gain. integral. These types of controllers are still the most widely used controllers in process industries. dead time and lag (time constant). Reformulated Tangent Method and Discrete Tangent Method. manipulated variable behavior and etc. The purpose of finding RR is to define as how fast or slow the reaction takes place and also for the usage of the next theory. and derivative (PID) actions became commercially available and gained widespread industrial acceptance. settling time. robustness and wide applicability. and the time constant describes how fast the process responds once it has begun moving. 3 . The first difference is that dead time describes how long it takes before a process begins to respond to a change in controller output. Tc is the time taken by the process to reach certain level. Some of these tuning methods have considered only one of these objectives as a criterion for their tuning algorithm and some of them have developed their algorithm by considering more than one of the mentioned criterion. in the report we focus on the Reformulated Tangent Method since this method provide faster and simpler analysis in the determination of the process behavior. Once RR is determining then can T d be determined based on the Tuning Rules stated in the Theory part. Many various tuning methods have been proposed for gaining better and more acceptable control system response based on our desirable control objectives such as percent of overshoot. there are several fundamental differences between how dead time and time constant affects a control loop. Although the dead time and time constant both seem to describe the same thing. There are few types of graphical analysis that the students may use to obtained the response rate (RR).2. However. dead time (Td) and time constant (Tc) in order to calculate the optimum controller setting such as Tangent Method. while the dead time and time constant describes how quickly the process will respond. INTRODUCTION During the 1930s three mode controllers with proportional. This succeed is a result of many good features of this algorithm such as simplicity.

in conjunction with software tools.1 Process Characteristic Identification Technique The process characteristics identification techniques consist of three methods that are Tangent Method. Open loop test is done by putting the controller to manual mode and making a load change (ΔMV) of 10% to the controller output. such as so-called pulse and double-pulse tests. There are several objective for this tuning: To identify the behavior of P and I controller in the pressure control system. To obtain a better understanding in PID Tuning. the formula as shown below can be used: 4 .1. II. response rate (RR). Dead Time IV.1 Tangent method The response curve that we get from the open loop test is analyzed and by drawing a tangent line to the steepest point of the response curve. time constant (Tc) and the response rate (RR) by using three methods that are Tangent Method. 3.2. time constant and response rate can be determined. For calculating the response rate. (Td). Td can be directly read and obtain. To gain the fundamental concept of the Process Control system mainly the closed loop V. Other open loop test can be used. The resulted response curve is recorded until anew steady state level has been reached or until an ample amount of data is obtained necessary to perform the analysis. Reformulated Tangent Method and Numerical Technique. dead time. Reformulated Tangent Method and Numerical Technique. VI. III. To determine the value of the optimum P and I mode. The open loop test disturbs the process and requires the attention of operators.1 Objectives I. From graph obtain as shown below. From the response curve. . Dead time Td is the period of time from the start open loop test (MVi) to the cross section between the tangent line and the initial steady state baseline. THEORY 3. Time Constant (Tc) and Controller Gain (Kc) for the pressure control system. control system based on the tuning To perform Open Loop Test for the pressure control system. RR. All of these method start with an open loop test. analyzed and some parameters for the process that is dead time (Td).

T c . Tangent In order to obtain the time constant. Δt=Tc There are three different ways to calculate Time constant. Tangent and point 5 .RR= ∆ PV /∆ t ∆ MV Where. tangent and point and two-point. the distance from intersection of the initial steady state baseline and the tangent line to the intersection of final steady state baseline and tangent line as shown below. Figure 1: Tangent Method 2. that is by using tangent. 1.

Figure 2: Tangent and point Where: Tc=T 63. By using this formula.3% time and for the process to reach 63.2% of the final steady state baseline as shown in figure below.2 −Td 3.5 to the time between the time for the process to reach 28.2% time.3 ) 3.2 Reformulated tangent method This method used the trigonometry in order to get the value of RR. time constant is estimated by multiplying 1.2% when the process reached 63.2 −T 28.The time constant is calculated using the estimation from the intersection of the initial steady state beseline and the tangent libe to the time at 63.1.5( T 63. 6 . time constant can be calculated: Tc=1. Two-point method For the last method. Td and Tc but this method is similar to the tangent method.

equation (3) become: RR= tan θ a (4) ∆ MV b Time constant. Tc = Tc(length) x b Dead time. by applying scaling factor to the equation (2).3 Numerical method 7 .1. it transform and becomes: ∆y a ∆ PV /∆ t ∆ x b RR= = ( 3) ∆ MV ∆ MV a=scaling factor for y-axis b=scaling factor for x-axis By taking Δy/Δx= tan θ. Td = Td(length) x b 3.RR= ∆ PV /∆ t (1) ∆ MV From the original response rate equation is reformulated by : RR= ∆ PV /∆ t ∆ y /∆ x = (2) ∆ MV ∆ MV In order to balance the equation for both side.

48 63.17 0.234 0.52 67.92 68. RR. The data is collected numerically. 1/s 0.42 67. RR RR= slope PV 1−PV −1 = ∆ MV 2 ∆ h ∆ MV (5) Process dead time.421 0.236 0. % 63. Response rate.Numerical method is different from the tangent and reformulated tangent method as the response rate. s Tc. Tc T c =2 ∆ h ( PV nss−PV oss PV 1−PV −1 Time. Td T d=t i−2 ∆ h [ PV 1−PV oss PV 1−PV −1 ] (6) Time constant.058 Td.18 Table 1: Example data for Numerical Analysis 8 .48 66. Dead time Td and Time constant Tc is calculated using formula below. s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ) (7) PV.058 RR. s 1 3.506 0.

2 Effect of I Integral action was included in controllers to eliminate this offset. the oscillations will become larger and the system will become unstable and may even oscillate out of control. Integral.2. However. With integral action. if the proportional gain is too large. This difference is referred to as the Error term. The proportional gain (Kc) determines the ratio of output response to the error signal. The controller output is proportional to the error or a change in measurement (depending on the controller). Controller Output = (1/INTEGRAL) (Integral of) e(t) d(t) 3. and Derivative. the controller output is proportional to the rate of change of the measurement or error. 9 . increasing the proportional gain will increase the speed of the control system response.. Increasing the controller gain will make the loop go unstable. a proportional gain of 5 would produce a proportional response of 50. 3. In general. 3.1 Effect of P The proportional component depends only on the difference between the set point and the process variable. The different value of this parameter will affect the controller action as well as the process response. The controller output is calculated by the rate of change of the measurement with time.2 Effect of tuning parameter to process controllability PID is common controller representation for Proportional. Controllers are designed to eliminate the need for continuous operator attention. Integral action eliminates offset.3 Effect of D With derivative action.2. the process variable will begin to oscillate. if the error term has a magnitude of 10. (Controller output) = (error)*100/(proportional band) With a proportional controller offset (deviation from set-point) is present. the controller output is proportional to the amount of time the error is present.2. If K c is increased further. For instance.

45 Td Table 3: Tuning Rules by Takashi 10 .35 (1+ ) RR Td 5 μ 5 ] 2. 3.2 Td 0.3.3.33 [ 11 μ Td 1+ 5 1+ RR Td 100 PID D μ 1.2 Tuning Rules by Takashi Settling criteria.Derivative action can compensate for a changing measurement. Derivative is often used to avoid overshoot.Performance Test = disturbance in load variable Mode P P 100 μ 1+ 3 PI 100 μ 1+ 11 I RR Td μ 11 ] 3. the derivative action causes the controller gain to move the "wrong" way when the measurement gets near the set-point. When a load or set-point change occurs.3.37 μ 1+ 5 Td Table 2: Tuning Rules by Cohen-Coon 3.5 [ 3 μ Td 1+ 5 1+ 0.33 Td PID 77 RR Td 2.1.minimum control area = disturbance in load variable Mode P I D P 110 RR Td PI 110 RR Td 3. Optimum Controller Setting 3. Thus derivative takes action to inhibit more rapid changes of the measurement than proportional action.1 Tuning Rules by Cohen-Coon The Cohen-Coon tuning rules work well on processes where the dead time is less than two times the length of the time constant Settling criteria.

2 Td Td D 0. Hrones & Reswick (CHR) The Chien-Hrones-Reswick auto tuning method focuses on set point response and disturbance response. This method provides formulas for 0% and 20% overshoot.3. Hrones & Reswick (CHR) 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 11 .33 Td PID 83.5 Td Table 4: Tuning Rules by Ziegler-Nichols 3.3.4 Td 0.5 Td Performance Test – Set Point: 20% Overshoot and minimum response time Mode P PI PID P 143 RR Td 167 RR Td 105 RR Td I D Td 1.3 RR Td 2 Td 0.3 Tuning Rules by Ziegler-Nichols The Ziegler-Nichols rules work well only on processes where the dead time is less than half the length of the time constant.4 Tuning Rules by Chien. Settling criteria.35 Td 0.1 RR Td 3.4 Td 0.47 Td Performance Test – Disturbance in Load Variable: No Overshoot and minimum response time Mode P I D P 333 RR Td PI 167 RR Td 4 Td PID 105 RR Td 2.3. Performance Test – Set Point: No Overshoot and minimum response time Mode P PI PID P 333 RR Td 286 RR Td 167 RR Td I 1.4 Td Performance Test – Disturbance in Load Variable: 20% Overshoot and minimum response time Mode P I D P 333 RR Td PI 167 RR Td 4 Td PID 105 RR Td 2.Performance Tests = set point& disturbance in load variable Mode P I D P 100 RR Td PI 111.4 Td Table 5: Tuning Rules by Chien.

an open-loop system is expected to faithfully follow its input command or set point regardless of the result. The reference to “feedback”. simply means that some portion of the output is returned “back” to the input to form part of the systems excitation. which is also called a non-feedback controller.4. also known as a feedback control system is a control system which uses the concept of an open loop system as its forward path but has one or more feedback loops (hence its name) or paths between its output and its input. is a type of continuous control system in which the output has no influence or effect on the control action of the input signal. It does this by 12 . Therefore.2 Process Description The process of this experiment includes the open loop test. A Closed-loop Control System. in an open-loop control system the output is neither measured nor “fed back” for comparison with the input.PID Controller 4. In other words. Open loop test.1 P&ID Figure 2 . close loop test and set point test. Closed-loop systems are designed to automatically achieve and maintain the desired output condition by comparing it with the actual condition.

In other words. Gas Pressure Control Plant (PIC92) 2.3 Open Loop Test 1. 4. a “closed-loop system” is a fully automatic control system in which its control action being dependent on the output in some way. The control loop is selected: a.generating an error signal which is the difference between the output and the reference input. The Controller is click to open the Faceplate 13 .

The process is stabilized in manual (MAN) mode. 4. 6. The Process History View is click to view the trend/graph. time delay (Td) and time constant (Tc). 8. 10. For non-self-regulating system. 14 . The response curve is printed. The PI controller setting is determined using Cohen Coon’s method. a step change is made by 10% to the manipulated variable. 9. the system is set to AUTO mode when the slope can be calculated from process response. Once the process stabilized.3. Reformulated Tangent Method is being used to determine the response rate (RR). 5. 7. The initial value of manipulated variable (MV in %) is recorded.

RR ∆ PV =PV f −PV i=60−28.5 Set Point Test 1. The PI controller setting are inserted (Kc and I) value at Gain and Reset Section. the graph is printed. Detail is clicked on the icon at Faceplate to set the controller setting. 5 RESULT Theoretical calculation PVf PVi A B 60 % 28. A change in set point is made about ±10% of current operating process value 3.82=31. TC and response rate.4 Closed Loop Test 1. System is in automatic mode 2.18 ∆ MV =MV f −MV i=10 15 .82 % 10% /17 mm 60 s/45 mm Table 6: Data from the figure of open loop test Calculation of dead time.4. When the response becomes stable. 4. The controller is set in AUTO mode 2. 3.

96 s 45.5−18 )=56.5 ( T 63.0763/ s ∆ MV 10 T d=3 mm × 60 s =3.2 −T 28.18 )=48.5 s PV 63.88 RR= = =0.0704 μ T C 56.283 ∆ PV =28.31.5 s 1+ 11 16 .96 s RR T d .283 ( 31.3 )=1.525 Two-point method T C =1. PV i +0. μ= d = =0.2 −T d=55.82+ 0.82+ 0.88 s 45.632 ∆ PV =28.5 ( 55.632 ( 31.6 mm Tangent and point method T C =T 63.643 P and I value calculation using Cohen-Coon tuning rule P= T 100 3.5mm Calculation of the time constant Tangent method T C =∆ t ∆ t=31 mm × 60 s =40.88 s ∴ T C =40.2 =PV i+ 0.25 s Where .18 )=37.18 ∆ PV /∆ t 40.

0227 Method P value (%) I value (s) Gain.96 ) =11.33 Two point 30.0704 1+ 11 11 I =3.96 )=30.02 11.33 Tangent and point 30.33 T d=3.33 ( 3.0227 0.0763 ) (3.0227 11. Kc Calculation of integral absolute error Ts IAE=∫|e| dt=Total area under the curve until T S 0 Sample calculation of IAE for tangent method 1 A 1=( 10 ×1 mm ) + ( 10 ×6 mm )=40 2 A1 1 A 21= ( 4 × 5 )=10 2 17 .4914 s 11 μ 11 (0.47 3.0704) 1+ 1+ 5 5 1+ K C= 100 100 = =3.P= 100 ( 0.33 Table 7: PI value by using the Cohen-Coon tuning rules and the gain value.33 P 30. Kc Tangent 29.0704 1+ 11 [ ] [ ] μ 0.97 3.4914 3.95 10.

75=54.5 )) =5.75 IAE= A 1+ A 2+ A 3=40+54. overshoot1.25+3.75=96.5 6 DISCUSSION 6.5 ) =0.1 A 22= ( 3. stable or oscillatory as below 18 . overshoot 2. Ts.25 2 1 A 26= ( 5 ×1.75+1.75 A3 1 A 31= ( 4 × 0.75 2 A 3=∑ A 3 i=1+0.5 × ( 5+ 4 ) ) =15.75 2 1 A 23= ( 4 × ( 4+2 ) ) =12 2 A 24=2 × 4=8 1 A 25= ( 3 × ( 2+1.75=1. IAE.75 2 A 2=∑ A 2i =10+15.75+12+8+5.1 Table of Tr. undershoot 2.5 ) =3. undershoot 1.5 )=1 2 1 A 32= ( 3 ×0.

The time constant is calculated using tangent. all the three response shows the process reach stability and no oscillation at the end of the process. I and that for the three methods is almost the same. tangent and point and two-point method give almost the same time constant. undershoot 1.06 0 Stable Tangent 153. overshoot and undershoot.3824 0.058 0 0 Stable 0 0 Stable and Point Two 8 124 8 153. for tangent and point method and two points method shows almost the same result. different method of calculating the time constant Tc have been conducted to see the different in the method to process response. the value of P. tangent and point and two point’s method. overshoot 2. settling time. Because of that.125 0. Ts. IAE.Ts Tr IAE OV1 OV2 US1 US2 Stable /Oscillatory Tangent 126. The objective of the experiment has been met and the effect of using all three methods to find 19 .67 8 96. Time taken for the process to finally reach stability is higher when using tangent and point method. it shows that in term of settling time.2 Analysis of comparison between responses In this project. IAE. overshoot1. Based on the result and calculation that our group have made. Lastly.41 0.I and D also almost the same.1 0.06 Points Table 8: Table of Tr. Because of the value of P.5 0. In term of integral absolute error (IAE). undershoot 2. the value is smaller compared to those two methods. The three method tangent. There is only a slightly different in rise time. stable or oscillatory 6.5 8 150 0.35 0. For tangent method. tangent and point have the highest value. 7 CONCLUSION The objective of the experiment is to study the effect of various time constant to the controllability of pressure control (emerson) using graphical method and cohen-coon tuning rules. Tc value. the overshoot and undershoot calculated from the process graph show only a slightly different in overshoot and undershoot.

8 RECOMMENDATION From the set point test and the open loop test. I and D on the stability of the process. rise time. Utilise tangent method in the calculation of process control since it has lowest value of integral area error.html 20 . (2015. PID Tuning Fundamentals Concepts and Applications. No. april). 2.892314 Abdul A..controleng. January). flow. M. it does not affect much on the process response. P. From the overall process response. temperature to test the variety of the effect. Retrieved from http://www. (2014). doi:10. UiTM Press Integral Action and PI Control. & Hussain. Retrieved from http://controlguru. Zalizawati. A.d.com/integralaction-and-pi-control/ PID Theory Explained. Understanding derivative in PID control. undershoot. the effect of using various method to find Tc.2000.March). Only a slightly different can be seen in term of settling time. Retrieved from http://www.1109/tencon. (2011.ni. I. Use different tuning rule to test the effect of the different value of P.com/white-paper/3782/en/ Welander.com/search/search-single-display/understanding-derivative-in-pidcontrol/4ea87c406e. Intelligent Systems and Technologies for the New Millennium (Cat. 9 REFERENCE Ishak. 3.00CH37119).Tc to the process response have been observe. overshoot and Integral Absolute Error (IAE). Employ the effect of the method on the different process control such as on level. 2000 TENCON Proceedings. (2010.). Reformulation of the tangent method for PID controller tuning. the recommendations that can be identified are: 1. A. (n.

21 .

- Basic Control TheoryUploaded byghass815
- Control Tutorials for MATLAB and Simulink - Introduction_ PID Controller Design.pdfUploaded bygliz
- Advanced PID Controller ImplementationUploaded bylizhi0007
- 2.2_singleloopcontrolUploaded bySher Muhammad
- CKUploaded byAnkit Bhatnagar
- App Term Vari Freq DriveUploaded byrizaazari4530
- Smith Pred Ref SemiUploaded bypwnkumar63
- PID_Tips_1Uploaded byOwd LovLa
- shams_I&ECRUploaded byShamsMohd
- ch-140203085409-phpapp01.pdfUploaded bymervelyn
- PidUploaded byMariana Erz
- IV - Types of ControllerUploaded byAnonymous 0zrCNQ
- e 03512530Uploaded byIOSRJEN : hard copy, certificates, Call for Papers 2013, publishing of journal
- PID TuningUploaded bymoney_kandan2004
- SI_F09_Ch07.pdfUploaded byDavid Wee
- Control System PresentationUploaded byecegian
- SYSTEMS_AND_CONTROL.PDFUploaded byteknikpembakaran2013
- Testing of Concrete Under Closed-Loop ControlUploaded byAgustin Gana
- Chapter 1Uploaded byfaja2004
- ME2142C8_162Uploaded byjustinwong12337
- 2007 - Feedback Linearization Control for a Distributed Solar Collector FieldUploaded byKatia Castillo
- Z6 Pendulum Cart Position ControlUploaded byazlina suerman
- siUploaded bySumi Srianand
- Getting Best PerformanceUploaded byozzy75
- Basic Principles of PID ControllersUploaded byAnonymous Q9i062V
- Rob t 308 Lecture 18Uploaded byBauyrzhan Du Fromage
- Definitionen EnglUploaded bykamlesh1714
- PID Without a PhDUploaded byamartyamajumdar
- MPC PID2.pdfUploaded byhabbythomasa
- PID ControllerUploaded byMile

- project charter.docxUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Type of pipe.docxUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Borang Soal Selidik qUploaded byAzmiMamat
- project charter.docxUploaded byAzmiMamat
- scl 2Uploaded byAzmiMamat
- borang soal selidikUploaded byAzmiMamat
- GANTT CHART.docxUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Cooling FanUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Tutorial 4Uploaded byAzmiMamat
- GANTT CHART.docxUploaded byAzmiMamat
- ChecklistUploaded byAzmiMamat
- GANTT CHART.docxUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Type of pipe.docxUploaded byAzmiMamat
- project charter.docxUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Type of pipe.docxUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Lab Report Chemistry Experiment 4 (Basic Water Properties 1)Uploaded byAzmiMamat
- Abstract 1Uploaded byAzmiMamat
- Result SoapUploaded byAzmiMamat
- ReferencesUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Type of PipeUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Report Kimia 2Uploaded byAzmiMamat
- Cstr 40LUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Lab Report Chemistry Experiment 4 (Basic Water Properties 1)Uploaded byAzmiMamat
- Chapter 1.1 Introduction - PetroleumUploaded byAzmiMamat
- ReferencesUploaded byAzmiMamat
- borang soal selidikUploaded byAzmiMamat
- ControlUploaded byAzmiMamat
- Chemis Lab Exp 5Uploaded byAzmiMamat
- exp 1 proUploaded byAzmiMamat