PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION LAB (BKF3791)

EXPERIMENT 7

TITLE OF EXPERIMENT : PID CONTROLLER TUNING OF SIMULATED GAS MASS

FLOW PROCESS
DATE OF EXPERIMENT : 5TH JANUARY 2021
INSTRUCTOR’S NAME : DR. NOOR ASMA FAZLI BIN ABDUL SAMAD

GROUP MEMBERS:
1. ABDULLAH IBN MASUD KA17334
2. REBECCA GOH CHI ENG KA18002
3. DEVANATHAN A/L MANAGORAN KA18012
4. KUGIILAAN A/L GANESAN KA18132
5. UNGKU AHMAD HUSSEIN BIN UNGKU FADZIL KA18162

SECTION: 02
GROUP: 02

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PAHANG
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1.0 ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 2

3.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 3

4.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION .................................................................. 12

5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 12

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 13
1.0 ABSTRACT

The goal of this experiment is to use the Ziegler and Nichols tuning technique, Cohen-Coon
tuning method, and Internal Model Control tuning method to conduct loop tuning for a single
loop gas mass flow process (FIC-91). The FIC-91 was first set to manual mode. The output values
values of the procedure while MV was set to 0% and 100% were recorded. After the system was
was stabilized, the MV was set to 65 percent (MV1) and then adjusted to 55 percent (MV2). The
The process response curve yielded the gain (KC), time delay (tD), and time constant (tC) values,
values, as well as the Response Rate (RR) and Lambda (). Calculations were used to determine
the gain (Kc), reset (I), and rate (D) for Cohen-Coon Tuning Relations. Finally, the values were
input into the FIC-91 controller, and the reaction of the tuning process with disturbance was
observed. For Ziegler and Nichols and Internal Model Control, the stages were repeated. Internal
Internal Model Control (IMC) Tuning Method is the optimal tuning for this process in this single
single loop gas mass flow process, according to the experiment. IMC tuning was carried out with
with the help of a PI controller and a PID controller. The experimental findings revealed that both
both IMC controllers had comparable tuning outcomes, with the process variable (PV, shown by
by the red line) regaining steady state as set point (SV, indicated by the blue line) in a short
amount of time with little oscillation. The PID controller returns the process variable to steady
state at the set point more quickly than the PI controller.

1
2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Experimental Procedure

The gas mass flow process was selected from the operator workstation.

The controller faceplate FIC-91 is set to Manual Mode.

Maximum and minimum value for process variable, PV are checked by setting
the MV to 0% (MVmax) and the process is allowed to stabilize for a few
minutes.

Table for process variable PVmax is completed.

Step 3 until 4 for MVmin (100%) are repeated.

2.2 Process Reaction Curve

MV was set to 65%. The process was allowed to stabilize, and PV value
was recorded.

The previous step was repeated for MV at 55%

Graph was printed for analysis of process reaction curve.

The value of time delay, td and time constant, tc was determined from graph.

Steady state gain (kp), response rate (RR) and lambda (λ) is calculated.

The value of gain (Kc), reset τ𝐼 and rate τ𝐷 for Cohen-Coon Tuning Relations,
Zeigler and Nichols Tuning Relations and Internal Model Control Tuning
Relations are calculated.
2
2.3 Performance Test

The controller FIC-91 is put to manual mode and the controller setting is set accordingly
to calculate value for Cohen-Coon Tuning Relations (P Control) obtained from previous
step.

The set point was set to 18 kg/hr and the MV was manually adjusted for the PV to
fluctuate at the set point.

Controller FIC-19 was put to auto mode and the set point was changed to 25 kg/hr. The
process was stabilized at new set point.

The graphs were saved for discussion.

The previous steps were repeated for PI & PID using Cohen-Coon Tuning Relations

The previous steps were repeated using Ziegler-Nichols & Internal Model Control Tuning
Relations.

The results were discussed.

3.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

3.1 Process Reaction Curve

The process variable (PV) at maximum and minimum was determined by setting the manipulated
variable (MV) at 0 and 100 respectively and the results are tabulated at Table 1. Table 2 shows the
PV values for MV at 65% and 55%.

3
 Table 1: MV Setting and PV Value at Maximum and Minimum Value
MV Setting (%) PV Value (kg/hr)
MV max 0 PV max 38.7
MV min 100 PV min 0

Table 2: MV and PV Value for Process Reaction Curve

MV Setting (%) PV Value (kg/hr)
MV1 65 PV1 29
MV2 55 PV2 32.7

The steady state gain (Kp), time delay (td), time constant (tc), response rate (RR) and lamda (𝜆)
were obtained and tabulated in Table 3 from the reaction curve as shown in Figure A.1. The
detailed is Shown in Appendix A.

Calculation For Process Parameter

𝑃𝑣2 − 𝑃𝑣1
(𝑃𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑃𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛)
𝐾𝑝 =
𝑀𝑣2 − 𝑀𝑣1
(
𝑀𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑀𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛)
32.7 − 29
( 38.7 − 0 )
𝐾𝑝 =
55 − 65
(0 − 100)

𝐾𝑝 = 0.96

𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑡 63.2% = 29 + (0.632)(32.7 − 29)

= 31.34 𝑘𝑔/ℎ𝑟
𝜏𝐶 = 9: 15: 482 − 9: 15: 474
= 8
𝜏𝐷 = 9: 15: 482 − 9: 15: 468

4
 = 14
𝐾𝑝 0.96
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑅𝑅 = = = 0.12
𝜏𝐶 8
𝜆
> 0.8
𝜏𝐷
𝜆
> 0.8
14
= 11.2

𝜏𝐶
𝜆 >
10
= 0.8
𝜆 = 11.5

Table 3: Process Reaction Curve Tabulated Values

Process Parameter Equation Value

Steady State Gain, Kp 0.956

Time Delay, td - 14

Time Constant, tc - 8

Response Rate, RR 0.12

5
 Lambda,  11.5

Tuning Relations and Performance Test

From Table 3, the value gain, KC, reset τI and rate τD for Cohen-Coon tuning, Zeigler and Nichols
tuning and Internal Model Control tuning were calculated. Two kinds of performance tests which
are disturbance changes and set point changes were conducted for this experiment. The purpose of
these performance tests is to determine the best tuning relation for the control system. The best
tuning for a control system should give quick, smooth and steady responses to any disturbance
changes and set point changes (Seborg D.E., 2011).

3.2 Cohen-Coon Tuning Relations

Detailed Calculation:

P Controller

1 𝜏𝐶 𝜏𝐷 1 8 14
𝐺𝑎𝑖𝑛, Kc = [1 + ]= [1 + ] = 0.942
𝐾𝑝 𝜏𝐷 3𝜏𝐶 0.96 14 3(8)

PI Controller

1 𝜏𝐶 𝜏𝐷 1 8 14
𝐺𝑎𝑖𝑛, Kc = [0.9 + ]= [0.9 + ] = 0.632
𝐾𝑝 𝜏𝐷 12𝜏𝐶 0.96 14 12(8)

𝜏𝐷 14
[ 30 + 3 ] [ 30 + 3 8 ]
𝜏𝐶
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑡, 𝜏 = 𝜏𝐷 𝜏 = 14 = 11.22
9 + 20 𝜏𝐷 14
𝐶
9 + 20 8

PID Controller

6
 1 𝜏𝐶 16𝜏𝐶 + 3𝜏𝐷 1 8 16(8) + 3(14)
𝐺𝑎𝑖𝑛, Kc = [ ]= [ ] = 1.054
𝐾𝑝 𝜏𝐷 12𝜏𝐶 0.96 14 12(8)

𝜏 14
[ 32 + 6 𝜏𝐷 ] [ 32 + 6 8 ]
𝐶
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑡, 𝜏 = 𝜏𝐷 𝜏 = 14 = 22.04
13 + 8 𝜏𝐷 14
𝐶
13 + 8 8

[ 14𝜏𝐷 ] [ 14(14)]
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝜏𝐷 = 𝜏 = = 13.51
11 + 2 𝜏𝐷 14
11 + 2
𝐶 8

Table 4: Cohen-Coon Tuning Relations Calculated Values

Controller Gain, Kc Reset, τ Rate, τD Observation
Type

P 0.942 - - After disturbance is

introduced, the process
output fluctuates and does
not achieve steady state.
PI 0.632 11.22 - After disturbance is
introduced, the process
output fluctuates and only
achieve steady state.
PID 1.054 22.04 13.51 After disturbance is
introduced, the process
output fluctuates and does
not achieve steady state.

3.3 Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Relations

Detail calculation:

P Controller

1 1
𝐺𝑎𝑖𝑛, Kc = [ ]= [ ] = 0.595
𝜏𝐷 × 𝑅𝑅 14 × 0.12
PI Controller

7
 0.9 0.9
𝐺𝑎𝑖𝑛, Kc = [ ]= [ ] = 0.536
𝜏𝐷 × 𝑅𝑅 14 × 0.12

𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑡, 𝜏 = 3.3 × 𝜏𝐷 = 3.3(14) = 46.2

PID Controller

1.2 1.2
𝐺𝑎𝑖𝑛, Kc = [ ]= [ ] = 0.714
𝜏𝐷 × 𝑅𝑅 14 × 0.12

𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑡, 𝜏 = 2 × 𝜏𝐷 = 2(14) = 28

𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝜏𝐷 = 0.5 × 𝜏𝐷 = 0.5(14) = 7

Table 5: Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Relations Calculated Values

Controller Gain, Kc Reset, 𝜏 Rate, 𝜏𝐷 Observation
Type

P 0.595 - - After disturbance is

introduced, the process
output fluctuates and does
not achieve steady state.
PI 0.536 46.2 - After disturbance is
introduced, the process
output achieves steady
state.
PID 0.714 28 7 After disturbance is
introduced, the process
output fluctuates and does
not achieve steady state.

8
3.4 Internal Model Control Tuning Relations

Detail calculation:

PI Controller

𝜏𝐷 14
1 (2 𝜏𝐶 ) + 1 1 (2 8 ) + 1
𝐺𝑎𝑖𝑛, Kc = = = 0.845
𝐾𝑝 (2  ) + 1 0.96 (2 11.5) + 1
𝜏𝐶 8

𝜏𝐷 14
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑡, 𝜏 = + 𝜏𝐶 = + 8 = 15
2 2

PID Controller

𝜏𝐷
1 (2 𝜏𝐶 ) + 1 1 8 16(8) + 3(14)
𝐺𝑎𝑖𝑛, Kc = = [ ] = 1.054
𝐾𝑝 (2  ) + 1 0.96 14 12(8)
𝜏𝐶

𝜏𝐷 14
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑡, 𝜏 = + 𝜏𝐶 = + 8 = 15
2 2

𝜏𝐶 8
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝜏𝐷 = 𝜏𝐶 = = 3.73
2 (𝜏 ) 8
2 (14) + 1
𝐷

9
 Table 6: Internal Model Control Tuning Relations Calculated Values
Controller Type Gain, Kc Reset, 𝜏 Rate, 𝜏𝐷 Observation

PI 0.845 15 - Once the disturbance is

introduced, the process
output decreases
immediately and
fluctuates around the set
point afterwards. Steady
state is achieved.
PID 1.054 15 3.73 After disturbance is
introduced, the process
output fluctuates and
does not achieve steady
state.

QUESTIONS

1. Based on your experiment, which is the best tuning for the process?
For the single loop gas mass flow process, the Internal Model Control (IMC) Tuning Method is
the best tuning method. Tuning is carried out with the help of a PI controller and a PID controller,
respectively. The results show that both IMC controllers have similar tuning results, with the mass
flow response (red line) returning to steady state at the set point in a short period of time with little
oscillation. Although both the PI and PID controllers provide fast and good responses in the IMC
tuning method, the PID controller is superior because it returns to steady state at the set point faster
than the PI controller.

Apart from that, Ziegler-Nicholas and Cohen-Coon tuning relations have been developed,
according to the literature, to provide a 1/4 decay ratio closed-loop response. Except for the PI
controller, which takes a long time to return to steady state at the set point after disturbance, a
response with a decay ratio of 1/4 is considered to be excessively oscillatory for most process

10
applications, as demonstrated in this gas mass flow experiment. As a result, these tuning
relationships are rarely advised (Seborg D.E., 2011). A conservative controller settling such as
IMC tuning relation is preferred. This is because IMC tuning approach has the advantage of
allowing model uncertainty and trade-offs between performance and robustness to be considered
in a more systematic way. Hence, the experiment results which shows that IMC tuning relation is
a better tuning relation than Ziegler-Nicholas and Cohen- Coon tuning relations is perfectly
correspondent to the literature.

2. How do you clarify the best tuning for the process?

The best process tuning should meet the following criteria: provide good disturbance rejection
(minimise disturbance effect), provide good set point tracking (rapid response), and so on. And a
smooth response to set point changes), the elimination of steady state error (offset), and the
robustness of the system enough to provide satisfactory performance under a variety of process
conditions and for a variety of applications a level of model inaccuracy that is reasonable (Seborg
D.E., 2011). The values that control encompass. The best tuning constants are performance goals.
Then the process response would not have been possible. There's a lot of overshoots and a decay
quarter ratio. As a result, the best tuning is defined by its minimal or non-oscillatory response after
a load disturbance. It must be able to quickly return to a steady state at the set point. When a control
system is properly tuned, process variability is reduced, efficiency is maximised, energy costs are
minimised, and production rates can be increased (Best Practices for Controller Tuning, 2017).

3. What is the function of doing a performance test in this experiment?

After introducing the disturbance by changing the MV in manual mode, the performance test is
conducted to examine and observe the process response (red line) for each type of controller.
Performance tests can reveal information such as the time it takes for the controller to change the
process value to the same as the set value, oscillation of the process value, and overshoot value.
We could determine the best type of controller and controller tuning for the process based on the
process responses.

11
4.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

At 65 percent and 55 percent, MV produced a flawlessly smooth process reaction curve,

from which all process parameters such as steady state gain (Kp), time delay (td), time
constant (tc), response rate (RR), and lambda () could be calculated. The set point was
determined to be 25 kg/hr, which equaled 72 percent of the process response and produced a
flawlessly smooth process reaction curve.Internal Model Control (IMC) Tuning Method is the
optimal tuning for this process in this single loop gas mass flow process, according to the
experiment. IMC tuning was carried out with the help of a PI controller and a PID controller.
The experimental findings demonstrated that both IMC controllers had comparable tuning
outcomes, with the process variable (PV, red line) regaining steady state as set point (SV, blue
line) in a short period of time with little oscillation. Although both the PI and PID controllers
responded quickly and accurately in the IMC tuning method, the PID controller is superior
because its process variable returned to steady state as the set point faster than the PI controller
in the case of lambda, 11.5 and a set point change from 18.0 to 25 kg/hr.

Since this affects the value of time constant (tC) and time delay, the process response
curve should be drawn as smoothly as feasible (tD). To guarantee that the gain (KP), reset (I),
and rate (D) determined can offer better and less oscillatory responses, the time constant (tC)
and time delay (tD) must be achieved appropriately.

5.0 REFERENCES

Seborg, D.E., Mellichamp, D.A., Edgar, T.F., Doyle III, F.J. 2010. Process dynamics and

control. John Wiley & Sons.

Dataforth Corporation. (2018). Tuning Cntrol Loops wth IMC Tuning Method:

https://www.dataforth.com/tuning-control-loops-with-imctuning-method.aspx

12
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: PROCESS REACTION CURVE

For MVmax = 0%, PVmax = 38.7kg/hr

Figure A.1: Process Reaction Curve at selected settings

For Mvmin =100%, PVmin =0 kg/hr

Figure A.2: Process Reaction Curve at selected settings

13
For MV1 =65%, PV1 =29kg/hr

Figure A.3: Process Reaction Curve at selected settings

For MV2 =55%, PV2 =32.7kg/hr

Figure A.4: Process Reaction Curve at selected settings

14
APPENDIX B: PERFORMANCE TEST

COHEN-COON TUNING

Figure B.1: P-Controller

Figure B.2: PI-Controller

15
 Figure B.3: PID-Controller

ZIEGLER-NICHOLS TUNING

Figure B.4: P-Controller

16
Figure B.5: PI-Controller

Figure B.6: PID-Controller

17
INTERNAL MODEL CONTROL TUNING

Figure B.7: PI-Controller

Figure B.8: PID-Controller

18