Comparison of PI Controller Performances for a

Conical Tank Process using different tuning methods

N. Gireesh Dr. G. Sreenivasulu
Department of E.I.E. Department of E.C.E.
Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College S. V. U College of Engineering
Tirupati, India Tirupati, India

Abstract – Conical Tank is one of the nonlinear processes used II. MODELING OF CONICAL TANK SYSTEM
in many industries. In this paper various analog PI controllers were
designed and analyzed for the conical tank system to maintain the The schematic diagram of the conical tank system is shown in
liquid level in tank at the desired value. The level control becomes Figure 1. The mathematical model of the conical tank can be
quite typical due to the nonlinear shape of tank as the rate of rise of determined by considering level as the control variable and
water in the narrow part of the tank is high and gets reduce as inflow to the tank as the manipulated variable [1, 3].
height increases thus causing non linear rise in level. The time
The operating parameters are
constant and gain varies as a function of level. Conventional PID
controllers are widely used in many industrial control systems for Fin – Inflow rate of the tank
several decades. In this paper various tuning strategies like Zeigler
Nichols, Cohen-coon, CHR and Kappa-Tau have been applied and Fout – Outflow rate of the tank
their performance indices are compared. H – Total height of the conical tank.
Keywords – Conical tank, Modeling, PI controller, Performance R – Top radius of the conical tank.
indices.
h – Height of the liquid in the tank.
I. INTRODUCTION
r – Radius of the liquid in the tank.
The liquid level and flow control in the tank are the basic
problems in many process industries. The process industries K – Valve coefficient
require the liquids to be pumped, stored in tanks and then
pumped to another tank. Control of liquid level is an important in
process industries. In this paper the liquid level control in the
conical tank is analyzed and presented. The control variable of
the process is the level in a tank and the manipulated variable is
the inflow to the tank.
Conical tanks find wide applications in hydrometallurgical
industries, food process industries, concrete mixing industries
and wastewater treatment industries.
Conventional PID controllers are widely used in industries
since they are simple, robust and familiar to the field operator. In
this work a PI controller is used.
The performance of the feedback control system can be
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of conical level system
improved by properly tuning the controller parameters. If the
tuning is improper, then the closed loop system becomes
unstable. So, tuning is essential for getting good dynamics. In this
paper controller parameters are tuned using four different The cross sectional area of the conical tank is
methods like Zeigler Nichols closed loop method, Cohen-Coon (1)
method, Chein-Hrones-Reswick method and Kappa-Tau method R
[2]. The performance indices Integral Square Error (ISE), (2)
H
Integral Absolute Error (IAE) and Integral Time Absolute Error
(ITAE) of these methods are analyzed and compared. (3)
 R
(4) III. CONTROLLER
H
In many industries conventional controllers are used for
According to mass balance equation, Rate of accumulation = controlling the process variables; as they are simple in operation.
inflow rate - outflow rate. Largely three types of conventional controllers are used in
industries: P, PI and PID controllers. In this paper PI controller is
(5) selected.
√ (6) The general equation of PI controller is
using (4) & (6) in (5), K
u t K e t e t dt u 0
√ τ
(7)
Where,
√
(8) Kc = proportional gain
/

by integrating (8), the mathematical model can be written as τi = integral time

follows,

√ (9) The variable e(t) represents the tracking error which is the
difference between the desired input value and the actual output.
Equation (7) is a nonlinear equation. Using Taylor’s series to This error signal will be sent to the PI controller. The signal u(t)
linearize the equation around h = hs from the controller is applied to the plant. The block diagram of
√ the closed loop system is shown in Figure 2.
, (10)
By Taylor’s expansion,
Set point PI Conical Out put
√
, (11) Controller Tank
The first term on RHS is zero, because the linearization is about a
steady state point Fig. 2. Block diagram of the processes
′
′
, (12) Proportional gain Kc:
′ ′
Large proportional gain can increase response speed and
′
(13) reduce the steady state error, but will lead to oscillation of the
system.
This is similar to the first order equation Integral gain Ki(1/ τi):
(14) Integral control is favorable for diminishing the steady state
error but will lengthen the transient response.
Hence the transfer function of the above system is

(15)
IV. CONTROLLER TUNING METHODS
Where,
A. Ziegler Nichols method:
√ √
; In 1942, Ziegler and Nichols presented two classical methods
to tune a PID controller. In open loop method, the controller
The transfer function is to be a first order plus dead time parameters are calculated based on the parameters of K, L and τ
K LS
delay model (FOPDT) G S and the transfer function of of the process reaction curve [4]. In closed loop method, the
S controller parameters are calculated based on the ultimate gain
a real time experiment is used here for analysis [1] is G S Ku and ultimate period Tu.
. S
.
. S
B. Cohen-Coon method:
Cohen and Coon design method is the second popular method
after Ziegler Nichols method. This method is similar to the
Ziegler Nichols reaction curve method in that it makes of the
 . S
FOPDT model to develop the tuning parameters [5]. The are calculated for the system G S and is given in
controller settings are based on the three parameters K, L, and τ . S
of the open loop step response. The main design requirement is Table II.
the rejection of load disturbances. Despite a better model, the
TABLE II. VALUES OF DIFFERENT TUNING METHODS FOR
results of the Cohen Coon method are not much better than the ANALOG PI CONTROLLER
Ziegler Nichols method.
Tuning Method K τ
C. Chien-Hrones-Reswick method:
This method of tuning was developed from the Ziegler Ziegler Nichols (Open Loop) 1.960 6.8265
Nichols open loop method for better performance of response Cohen-coon 2.204 6.324
speed and overshoot. The quickest aperiodic response is labeled CHR (0% overshoot) 0.762 64.32
with 0% overshoot and the quickest oscillatory process is labeled CHR (20% overshoot) 1.307 53.6
with 20% overshoot [6]. Kappa Tau (Ms=1.4) 0.574 14.35
Kappa Tau (Ms=2) 1.320 14.35
D. Kappa-Tau method:
The Kappa-Tau method is developed by K. Astrom and T.
Hagglund. The method is developed based on dominant pole V. RESULTS
design with criterion on the rejection of load disturbance and
constraints on the maximum sensitivity (Ms) [7]. Typical values Different tuning methods are simulated in MATLAB
of Ms are in the range of 1.2 to 2. Larger values of Ms give environment. The performance of the various controllers is
systems that are faster but less robust. This method avoids the analyzed for the step input. Servo operation and Regulatory
poor damping obtained with the Ziegler Nichols method and it operation of the process with different tuning methods is shown
gives good tuning for processes with long dead time. in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. The time domain analysis
of servo and regulatory operations and performance indices are
The PI controller tuning rules [8, 9] of the above mentioned calculated and shown in Table III, Table IV and Table V
K LS
methods for the FOPDT model G S is given in the respectively.
S
Table I. From Figure 3 and Figure 4 it is observed that in Cohen and
Coon method produces maximum overshoot and long time to
TABLE I. DIFFERENT TUNING METHODS FOR ANALOG PI settle compared with Zeigler Nichols method. CHR (0%
CONTROLLER
overshoot) method makes the system to settle without overshoot
Tuning Methods and more over takes less time to reach the steady state value.
CHR (20% overshoot) method has least overshoot, settling time
Ziegler Nichols 0.9τ 3.33L and ITAE compared with other methods. From the Table III, IV
(Open Loop) KL and V, Kappa-tau method (Ms=2) values are approximately same
Cohen-coon 1 τ L 3L
as Ziegler Nichols method.
1 30
K L 3τ L τ
20L TABLE III. TIME DOMAIN ANALYSIS FOR SERVO OPERATION
9
τ
Tuning Max. Over Peak Rise Settling
CHR (0% 0.35τ/KL 1.2τ methods peak shoot time time time
overshoot) value (%) (sec) (sec) (sec)
0.6τ/KL 4L
Ziegler 1.83 83.5 6.85 1.61 32.2
CHR (20% 0.6τ/KL τ Nichols
overshoot) (Open Loop)
0.7τ/KL 2.3L Cohen-coon 2 99.8 6.53 1.43 50.9
Kappa-Tau 0.29τ 8.9Lexp 6.6x CHR (0% 0.989 0 > 70 7.83 18.7
(Ms=1.4) /LK exp 2.7x 3x overshoot)
x L/ L τ 3.7x CHR (20% 1.12 11.6 8.12 2.97 11.7
overshoot)
Kappa-Tau (Ms=2) 0.7τ 8.9Lexp 6.6x Kappa Tau 1.19 19.5 21.7 7.26 47.2
x L/ L τ /LK exp 4.1x 3x (Ms=1.4)
5.7x Kappa Tau 1.29 29.4 8.11 2.63 32.1
(Ms=2)

Using Table I, the values of Proportional controller gain and

integral time of the PI controller using the different tuning rules
 TABLE IV. TIME DOMAIN ANALYSIS FOR R
REGULATORY CONCLUSIIONS
OPERATION
PI Controller with different tunin
ng methods was simulated for
Tuning methods Max. Peak SSettling
peak time ttime (sec)
nonlinear system. It is observed annd concluded that CHR (20%
value (sec) overshoot) method is appropriatee for servo and regulatory
Ziegler Nichols 0.663 6.09 31.6 operation compared with other meth hods mentioned in this paper.
(Open Loop) This method has least overshoot, settling time, ISE, IAE and
Cohen-coon 0.64 5.71 45.4 ITAE.
CHR (0% overshoot) 0.763 6.93 25
CHR (20% 0.702 6.08 39
overshoot)
Kappa Tau (Ms=1.4) 1.2 11.8 44.6 NCES
REFEREN
Kappa Tau (Ms=2) 0.775 7.09 51.1 [1] S.Nithya, N.Sivakumaran, T.K.Radhak krishnan and N.Anantharaman, “Soft
Computing Based Controllers Implem mentation for Non-linear Process in
Real Time”, Proceedings of the Wo orld Congress on Engineering and
TABLE V. PERFORMANCE INDICES AN
NALYSIS Computer Science 2010, Vol II.
Tuning methods ISE IAE ITAE [2] G. Sreenivasulu and S.N.Reddy, “Perfformance Evaluation of Superheated
Ziegler Nichols 5.225 8.563 77.55 Steam Temperature Control System based
b on Tuning methods of Analog
Controllers”, IETE Journal of Researchh, Vol 49, No.6, 2003, pp. 399-404.
(Open Loop)
Cohen-coon 6.686 11.31 137.5 [3] P.Aravind, M.Valluvan and S.Ranganaathan, “Modelling and Simulation of
CHR (0% overshoot) 4.221 6.511 51.33 Non Linear Tank”, IJAREEIE, Vol 2, Issue
I 2, 2013.
CHR (20% 3.241 4.335 17.83 [4] J.G.Ziegler and N.B.Nichols and Rocchester.N.Y, “Optimum Settings for
overshoot) Automatic Controllers,” Transactions of
o ASME, vol 64, 1942, pp. 759-765.
Kappa Tau (Ms=1.4) 5.208 10.28 143.8 [5] G. H. Cohen, and G. A. Coon, “Theoretical considerations of retarded
Kappa Tau (Ms=2) 3.574 6.445 56.68 control,” Transactions of ASME, vol. 75,
7 1953, pp. 827-834.
[6] Dr. Satya Sheel and Omhari Gupta, “ New Techniques of PID Controller
Tuning of DC Motor-Development of a Toolbox,” MIT IJEIE, Vol 2, No 2,
2012, pp. 65-69.
[7] K. Astrom and T. Hagglund, “PID D Controllers: Theory, Design and
Tuning”, 2nd Edition, Instrument Socieety of America, 1995.
[8] Aidan O’Dwyer, “Handbook of PI and d PID Controller Tuning Rules” 3rd
Edition, Imperial College Press, 2009.
[9] B. Wayne Bequette, “Process Control: Modeling, Design and Simulation”,
Pearson Education Inc., 2003.

Fig. 3. Servo operation response of the PI controller for different tuning

methods

Fig. 4. Regulatory operation response of the analog PI coontroller for different

tuning methods