You are on page 1of 5

Summary (State aims of experiment, main results, and how the results compare to literature) Mukriz

The aim of this experiment is to tune the PI controller settings for chocolate process control vessel by tuning
the inlet valve to maintain the level of water in the small 300mm vessel. Based on the result obtained, the trend
behaviour of the P, PI and PID control settings are similar in comparison with the responses in literature review.
The aim is satisfied such that PI control settings can be applied for the chocolate level control in counteracting
against disturbances and it is concluded that the best automatic tuning setting applicable for chocolate process
control is PI and PID controller.

Theory (Briefly summarise the main theoretical background of the experiment. Assume your reader has the same theoretical
background as you.) Fahim
Industrial processes often require the modification of the manipulated variables to change, which lead to
offsets in the process variables. Chemical processes often require the offsets to be corrected, bringing the
process variable back to the original desired steady state position. There are two fundamental ways of carrying
out control action: manual control and automated control. Manual control is actuated by an operator who
changes the manipulated variables to reach the desired steady state. A major problem in the employment of
manual control is human error and slow response time. For these reasons, automated controls systems are
often used, the simplest being on/off control, which is actuated whenever there is a deviation of the PV(what is
PV?) from the set point. This control error is prone to cycling and therefore a proportional control (P) can be
employed instead, which removes cycling, but could give rise to an offset of the PV from the steady state
position. An improved integral action can be added to the P control, resulting in the PI. PI control is
characterised by the fast achievement of the steady state, but also an overshoot which could lead to some
oscillation around the set point. A derivative (resulting in PID) term is often used to reduce the overshoot
produced and shorten cycling time to reach a more constant steady state. P, PI, and PID responses are
controlled by a set of parameters, Kc, Ti and Td. There are two major set of equations that can be used to
derive these parameters, the Ziegler-Nichols open loop rules and the Cohen-Coon open loop rules. [1: W.Y.
Svrcek, D.P. Mahoney and B.R. Young, 2014, A Real-time Approach to Process Control, 3rd Edition, Wiley]. In
this experiment the Cohen-Coon method is used, which equations and input variables can be found in the table
Kc Ti Td
P P R - -
(1+ )
NL 3
PI P R 30+3 R -
(0.9+ ) L( )
NL 12 9+20 R
PID P R 32+ 6 R 4
(1.33+ ) L( ) L( )
NL 4 13+ 8 R 11 +2 R

Where P = initial % step disturbance, L in min, T in min, Cp in %, N =

Cp/T in %/min, R = NL/ Cp.

Procedure (Include the main experimental steps taken in the lab; it should be possible to reproduce the experiment using only these
steps (cross reference calculations in the results section if necessary).
Initially, the process control rig with 300 mm height process vessel are switched on and connected to the
laboratory computer so that the control parameters can be input and the log data can be obtained and
recorded. The first experiment is done such that the level of the vessel is controlled manually to maintain at
140mm height of water until the steady state condition is reached on the set point by opening SOL2 valve with
other valves closed and the data on inlet flow rate and vessel height is recorded. After that, the previous step is
repeated by opening SOL3 and base valve with other valves closed for until the steady state condition is
reached on the set point and then relevant data is recorded. Then, the level of the vessel is controlled
automatically by initially calculating the value of relevant control parameters KC, Ti, and Td (Cohen-Coon
technique) with respect to the controller tuning setting and it is summarised in the Table 1 below;

Table 1: Equations to determine parameters for controller tuning

Controller settings KC Ti Td

P 12.49748 - -

PI 13.88811 3.32906 -

PID 9.373937 2.460902 0.363596

The value obtain for KC for P controller is input into the computer with the set point of 140mm height for the
vessel and automatic control experiment is run until the steady state condition is reached on the set point. The
data obtained are recorded. The previous step is repeated for the PI and PID controller setting by inputting the
relevant parameters determined and data obtained is recorded.

Results (Include the main measurements and observations made. Use tables and graphs where necessary.)

Graph of Manual sol 2

Graph of manual sol 3 run 3

Step change graph

Graph for tuning parameters

Graph P, PI, PID

Discussion (Discuss the experimental trends and findings. Include the major sources of error (error calculations are not required))

Manual control of the liquid level was attempted for both solenoid 2 and 3, giving results that reinforce the
notion of the presence of human errors: as it can be seen from the graph of solenoid 2, there is a very
considered drop in the liquid level at around the four minutes mark, which was due to an incorrect value being
inserted in the control panel of the computer unit.
Although a wrong set of parameters has been used as input during the experiment, the correct ones being
reported below, it is possible to see that we have a clear agreement with the theory reported of the control units
and the results obtained. It is possible to appreciate how the offset found when the P control action is
implemented is eliminated using the PI. The most effective control response however is still the more complete
PID, ensuring the achievement of the desired set point (also achieved fastest) and a lower magnitude and
period of oscillation. Nevertheless, the offshoot produced could be lower if the correct set of parameters were
used in the tuning process.
kc ti td
P 8 - -
38.6034 0.53419
PI 5 7 -
57.1498 0.40698 0.06039
PID 4 1 9

In this experiments there were some fundamentals aspects which could have been improved. The time interval
between each liquid level measurements, 10 seconds, represents one of these improvements. A more
accurate instrument, measuring the level every second could lead to a faster response action, especially in
manual control. Another source of improvement could be the use of a better slope for the achievement of the
slope, used to obtain the time delay T: during the experiment a random point was chosen based on which the
slope was drawn. Instrumentals errors could also have had occurred, such as a defective liquid level sensor or
valve openings. Finally, there are some concerns whether the process liquid substitute of chocolate, water,
could give control data relatable to the more viscous chocolate, achieving a lower flowrate at the same
pressure conditions.
In conclusion, it is advised that another experiment is carried out, with chocolate as the process liquid used,
with a more rigorous protocol (which would help for the attainment of the correct input parameters) and the use
of a more accurate liquid level sensor, with a smaller time interval between readings.

Conclusion (Summarise the main answers from the experiment and address the objectives given at the start of the report.) Mukriz

Based on the experiment carried out in controlling the level of water in 300mm vessel, it can be observed and
discussed that the automatic controller tuning setting provide better disturbance rejection than the manual
control on SOL2, SOL3 and base valves. This is so because based on the results obtained in the results and
discussion section (see figure), the automatic controllers setting have a rapid response time and diminishes
the offset especially for Pi and PID controller. The P automatic controller tuning still experience offset at steady
state, while for the manual control, the response time to reach steady state are longer than the automatic

Furthermore, for the P, PI and PID controller setting trend graph, it is observed and discussed that PI and PID
data obtained have the best response time and in destroying the offset in the control system while P tuning
have a high response rate but does not stabilised at the set point in steady state.

So, the aim of the experiment is satisfied such that the PI control setting for the water level vessel control does
correct the offset when disturbances change the level of water in the vessel. Hence, this tuning setting is
applicable in chocolate process vessel. However, water and chocolate have different sets of behaviour and
property that needs to be considered thus another set of experiment is advised to be carried out on small
vessel containing chocolate to investigate the suitable control tuning settings to achieve the best response time
and offset correction.