You are on page 1of 21

TABLE OF CONTENT

1.0 ABSTRACT.

2.0 INTRODUCTION3
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 DESCRIPTION12
4.3 OPEN LOOP.13
4.4 CLOSE LOOP...15
4.5 SET POINT15
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 points 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.

INTRODUCTION

During the 1930s three mode controllers with proportional, integral, and derivative (PID) actions
became commercially available and gained widespread industrial acceptance. These types of
controllers are still the most widely used controllers in process industries. This succeed is a
result of many good features of this algorithm such as simplicity, robustness and wide
applicability. 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, settling time, manipulated variable behavior and etc. 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.
The dynamic response of self-regulating processes can be described reasonably
accurately with a simple model consisting of process gain, dead time and lag (time constant).
The process gain describes how much the process will respond to a change in controller output,
while the dead time and time constant describes how quickly the process will respond. Although
the dead time and time constant both seem to describe the same thing, there are several
fundamental differences between how dead time and time constant affects a control loop. The
first difference is that dead time describes how long it takes before a process begins to respond
to a change in controller output, and the time constant describes how fast the process responds
once it has begun moving.
There are few types of graphical analysis that the students may use to obtained the
response rate (RR), dead time (Td) and time constant (Tc) in order to calculate the optimum
controller setting such as Tangent Method, Reformulated Tangent Method and Discrete Tangent
Method. However, 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. Dead
time, 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, Tc is the time
taken by the process to reach certain level.
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. Once RR is determining then can T d be determined based
on the Tuning Rules stated in the Theory part.

2.1 Objectives
I.
II.
III.

There are several objective for this tuning:


To identify the behavior of P and I controller in the pressure control system.
To determine the value of the optimum P and I mode, response rate (RR), Dead Time

IV.

(Td), Time Constant (Tc) and Controller Gain (Kc) for the pressure control system.
To gain the fundamental concept of the Process Control system mainly the closed loop

V.
VI.

control system based on the tuning


To perform Open Loop Test for the pressure control system.
To obtain a better understanding in PID Tuning.

3.

THEORY
3.1 Process Characteristic Identification Technique

The process characteristics identification techniques consist of three methods that are Tangent
Method, Reformulated Tangent Method and Numerical Technique. All of these method start with
an open loop test. The open loop test disturbs the process and requires the attention of
operators. Other open loop test can be used, such as so-called pulse and double-pulse tests, in
conjunction with software tools. Open loop test is done by putting the controller to manual mode
and making a load change (MV) of 10% to the controller output. 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.
From the response curve, analyzed and some parameters for the process that is dead time
(Td), time constant (Tc) and the response rate (RR) by using three methods that are Tangent
Method, Reformulated Tangent Method and Numerical Technique.

.1.1

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, dead time, time constant and response rate can
be determined. 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. From graph obtain as
shown below, Td can be directly read and obtain. For calculating the response rate, RR, the
formula as shown below can be used:

RR=

PV / t
MV

Where, t=Tc
There are three different ways to calculate Time constant, T c , that is by using tangent, tangent
and point and two-point.
1. Tangent
In order to obtain the time constant, 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. Tangent and point


5

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 63.2% when the process
reached 63.2% of the final steady state baseline as shown in figure below.

Figure 2: Tangent and point


Where: Tc=T 63.2 Td

3. Two-point method
For the last method, time constant is estimated by multiplying 1.5 to the time between
the time for the process to reach 28.3% time and for the process to reach 63.2% time.
By using this formula, time constant can be calculated:

Tc=1.5( T 63.2 T 28.3 )

3.1.2

Reformulated tangent method

This method used the trigonometry in order to get the value of RR, Td and Tc but this method is
similar to the tangent method.

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, by applying scaling factor to the equation (2), 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 y/x= tan , equation (3) become:

RR=

tan a
(4)
MV b

Time constant, Tc = Tc(length) x b


Dead time. Td = Td(length) x b

3.1.3

Numerical method

Numerical method is different from the tangent and reformulated tangent method as the
response rate, RR, Dead time Td and Time constant Tc is calculated using formula below. The
data is collected numerically.
Response rate, RR

RR=

slope PV 1PV 1
=
MV 2 h MV

(5)

Process dead time, Td

T d=t i2 h

PV 1PV oss
PV 1PV 1

(6)

Time constant, Tc

T c =2 h

PV nssPV oss
PV 1PV 1

Time, s
0
1
2
3
4
5
6

(7)

PV, %
63.48
63.48
66.52
67.42
67.92
68.17
0.058

RR, 1/s
0.236
0.506
0.421
0.234
0.058

Td, s

Tc, s

3.18

Table 1: Example data for Numerical Analysis

.2 Effect of tuning parameter to process controllability


PID is common controller representation for Proportional, Integral, and Derivative.
Controllers are designed to eliminate the need for continuous operator attention. The different
value of this parameter will affect the controller action as well as the process response.
3.2.1

Effect of P
The proportional component depends only on the difference between the set point and

the process variable. This difference is referred to as the Error term. The controller output is
proportional to the error or a change in measurement (depending on the controller).
(Controller output) = (error)*100/(proportional band)
With a proportional controller offset (deviation from set-point) is present. Increasing the
controller gain will make the loop go unstable. The proportional gain (Kc) determines the ratio of
output response to the error signal. For instance, if the error term has a magnitude of 10, a
proportional gain of 5 would produce a proportional response of 50. In general, increasing the
proportional gain will increase the speed of the control system response. However, if the
proportional gain is too large, the process variable will begin to oscillate. If K c is increased
further, the oscillations will become larger and the system will become unstable and may even
oscillate out of control.
3.2.2

Effect of I
Integral action was included in controllers to eliminate this offset. With integral action, the

controller output is proportional to the amount of time the error is present. Integral action
eliminates offset.
Controller Output = (1/INTEGRAL) (Integral of) e(t) d(t)
3.2.3

Effect of D

With derivative action, the controller output is proportional to the rate of change of the
measurement or error. The controller output is calculated by the rate of change of the
measurement with time.
9

Derivative action can compensate for a changing measurement. Thus derivative takes
action to inhibit more rapid changes of the measurement than proportional action. When a load
or set-point change occurs, the derivative action causes the controller gain to move the "wrong"
way when the measurement gets near the set-point. Derivative is often used to avoid overshoot.

3.3.1. Optimum Controller Setting


3.3.1

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- Performance Test = disturbance in load variable
Mode

100

1+
3

PI

100

1+
11

I
RR Td

11
]
3.33 [
11 Td
1+
5
1+

RR Td

100
PID

1.35 (1+ ) RR Td
5

5
]
2.5 [
3 Td
1+
5
1+

0.37

1+
5

Td

Table 2: Tuning Rules by Cohen-Coon


3.3.2

Tuning Rules by Takashi


Settling criteria- minimum control area = disturbance in load variable
Mode
P
I
D
P
110 RR Td
PI
110 RR Td
3.33 Td
PID
77 RR Td
2.2 Td
0.45 Td
Table 3: Tuning Rules by Takashi

10

3.3.3

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.
Settling criteria- Performance Tests = set point& disturbance in load variable
Mode
P
I
D
P
100 RR Td
PI
111.1 RR Td
3.33 Td
PID
83.3 RR Td
2 Td
0.5 Td
Table 4: Tuning Rules by Ziegler-Nichols
3.3.4

Tuning Rules by Chien, 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.
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
1.2 Td
Td

D
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

Td
1.35 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
2.4 Td
0.4 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
2.4 Td
0.4 Td
Table 5: Tuning Rules by Chien, Hrones & Reswick (CHR)

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
11

4.1

P&ID

Figure 2 - PID Controller


4.2

Process Description

The process of this experiment includes the open loop test, close loop test and set point test.
Open loop test, which is also called a non-feedback controller, is a type of continuous control
system in which the output has no influence or effect on the control action of the input signal. In
other words, in an open-loop control system the output is neither measured nor fed back for
comparison with the input. Therefore, an open-loop system is expected to faithfully follow its
input command or set point regardless of the result.
A Closed-loop Control System, 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. 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. Closed-loop systems are designed to automatically achieve and
maintain the desired output condition by comparing it with the actual condition. It does this by
12

generating an error signal which is the difference between the output and the reference input. In
other words, a closed-loop system is a fully automatic control system in which its control action
being dependent on the output in some way.
4.3

Open Loop Test

1. The control loop is selected:


a. Gas Pressure Control Plant (PIC92)

2. The Controller is click to open the Faceplate

13

3. The Process History View is click to view the trend/graph.


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

14

4.4

Closed Loop Test

1. The controller is set in AUTO mode


2. Detail is clicked on the icon at Faceplate to set the controller setting.

3. The PI controller setting are inserted (Kc and I) value at Gain and Reset Section.

4.5

Set Point Test

1. System is in automatic mode


2. A change in set point is made about 10% of current operating process value
3. When the response becomes stable, the graph is printed.

RESULT

Theoretical calculation
PVf
PVi
A
B

60 %
28.82 %
10% /17 mm
60 s/45 mm
Table 6: Data from the figure of open loop test

Calculation of dead time, TC and response rate, RR

PV =PV f PV i=6028.82=31.18
MV =MV f MV i=10

15

31.18
PV / t 40.88
RR=
=
=0.0763/ s
MV
10
T d=3 mm

60 s
=3.96 s
45.5mm

Calculation of the time constant


Tangent method

T C = t
t=31 mm

60 s
=40.88 s T C =40.88 s
45.6 mm

Tangent and point method

T C =T 63.2 T d=55.5 s
PV 63.2 =PV i+ 0.632 PV =28.82+ 0.632 ( 31.18 )=48.525

Two-point method

T C =1.5 ( T 63.2 T 28.3 )=1.5 ( 55.518 )=56.25 s


Where , PV i +0.283 PV =28.82+ 0.283 ( 31.18 )=37.643

P and I value calculation using Cohen-Coon tuning rule

P=

T
100
3.96 s
RR T d , = d =
=0.0704

T C 56.5 s
1+
11

16

P=

100
( 0.0763 ) (3.96 )=30.0227
0.0704
1+
11

[ ] [

0.0704
1+
11
11
I =3.33
T d=3.33
( 3.96 ) =11.4914 s
11
11 (0.0704)
1+
1+
5
5
1+

K C=

100
100
=
=3.33
P
30.0227

Method
P value (%)
I value (s)
Gain, Kc

Tangent
29.95
10.97
3.33

Tangent and point


30.02
11.47
3.33

Two point
30.0227
11.4914
3.33

Table 7: PI value by using the Cohen-Coon tuning rules and the gain value, 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

1
A 22= ( 3.5 ( 5+ 4 ) ) =15.75
2
1
A 23= ( 4 ( 4+2 ) ) =12
2
A 24=2 4=8
1
A 25= ( 3 ( 2+1.5 )) =5.25
2
1
A 26= ( 5 1.5 ) =3.75
2
A 2= A 2i =10+15.75+12+8+5.25+3.75=54.75

A3
1
A 31= ( 4 0.5 )=1
2
1
A 32= ( 3 0.5 ) =0.75
2
A 3= A 3 i=1+0.75=1.75
IAE= A 1+ A 2+ A 3=40+54.75+1.75=96.5

DISCUSSION

6.1

Table of Tr, Ts, IAE, overshoot1, overshoot 2, undershoot 1, undershoot 2, stable

or oscillatory as below

18

Ts

Tr

IAE

OV1

OV2

US1

US2

Stable
/Oscillatory

Tangent

126.67

96.5

0.35

0.1

0.06

Stable

Tangent

153.5

150

0.3824

0.058

Stable

Stable

and Point
Two

8
124

153.125

0.41

0.06

Points
Table 8: Table of Tr, Ts, IAE, overshoot1, overshoot 2, undershoot 1, undershoot 2, stable or
oscillatory
6.2

Analysis of comparison between responses

In this project, different method of calculating the time constant Tc have been conducted to see
the different in the method to process response. The three method tangent, tangent and point
and two-point method give almost the same time constant, Tc value. Because of that, the value
of P,I and D also almost the same. There is only a slightly different in rise time, settling time,
IAE, overshoot and undershoot. Based on the result and calculation that our group have made,
it shows that in term of settling time, tangent and point have the highest value. Time taken for
the process to finally reach stability is higher when using tangent and point method.
In term of integral absolute error (IAE), for tangent and point method and two points
method shows almost the same result. For tangent method, the value is smaller compared to
those two methods. Because of the value of P, I and that for the three methods is almost the
same, the overshoot and undershoot calculated from the process graph show only a slightly
different in overshoot and undershoot. Lastly, all the three response shows the process reach
stability and no oscillation at the end of the process.

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. The time constant is calculated using tangent, tangent and point and two points method.
The objective of the experiment has been met and the effect of using all three methods to find
19

Tc to the process response have been observe. From the overall process response, the effect of
using various method to find Tc, it 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).

RECOMMENDATION
From the set point test and the open loop test, the recommendations that can be

identified are:
1. Use different tuning rule to test the effect of the different value of P, I and D on the
stability of the process.
2. Utilise tangent method in the calculation of process control since it has lowest value
of integral area error.
3. Employ the effect of the method on the different process control such as on level,
flow, temperature to test the variety of the effect.

REFERENCE

Ishak, A., & Hussain, M. (n.d.). Reformulation of the tangent method for PID controller tuning.
2000 TENCON Proceedings. Intelligent Systems and Technologies for the New Millennium
(Cat. No.00CH37119). doi:10.1109/tencon.2000.892314
Abdul A. I, Zalizawati. A, (2014). PID Tuning Fundamentals Concepts and Applications. UiTM
Press
Integral Action and PI Control. (2015, april). Retrieved from http://controlguru.com/integralaction-and-pi-control/
PID Theory Explained. (2011,March). Retrieved from http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3782/en/
Welander, P. (2010, January). Understanding derivative in PID control. Retrieved from
http://www.controleng.com/search/search-single-display/understanding-derivative-in-pidcontrol/4ea87c406e.html

20

21

You might also like