Year 2 Laboratory Report

Control Experiment
1:Pressure Control
Date of experiment : 9/4/2015
Group number

: 31

Group member
(010699)

: Gan Wei Sim

: Collin Yeo Chu Yuan

(010867)
: Chin Ker Win
(010785)
: Joel Chan Kai Chin
(011032)
Lecturer
Date of submission

: Dr Ong Sze Pheng

: 28/4/2015

CONTENT
1. Summary

2. Results and Discussion

4-8

3. Conclusion

4. Notations

10

5. References
6. Appendix

11

SUMMARY
This pressure control experiment is carried out mainly to study the
behaviour and response of open-loop process. Besides that, by using the
Ziegler-Nicholas method, the open-loop system can be configured to its
optimum controller settings. Last but not least, the aim of this experiment
is to evaluate the performances of three distinct controllers, namely, P, PI
and PID controllers.
Open-loop system also known as non-feedback controller can be
defined as a controller that computes its input into a system, by using
only its current state and its model of the system. This Ziegler-Nicholas
method can be subdivided into two methods, which are the open-loop
method and the closed- loop method. By selecting this method for the
determination of controller settings, the step response of the process has
to be evaluated.
P-controller, known as Proportional controller, does not possess the
ability to stabilize processes with higher orders. Processes with only one
order indicates the presence of only one energy storage and can only
stabilize unstable first order processes.
PI-controller, known as Proportional Integral controller, ensures that
there will be no occurrence of other oscillations or errors, which will
ultimately result in operation on-off.
PID-controller, which stands for Proportional Integral Derivative, is
the ideal controller that provides all the significant and necessary tools for
a process system. Besides being able to produce fast reactions to the
changes of controller input (mode D), PID-controller can also increase the
signal control, in which it will lead to its errors (mode I), and also discard
all the produced oscillations (mode P).
One factor in particular that may contribute to the disturbance of
the system is leakage in the system. The manipulated variable that is
playing a role in the process would be the speed of the compressor, while
the controlled variable in this experiment is pressure.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Task 1: To determine the Behaviour of Open-Loop
Process
Type and order of the process
Refer to graph CTR1-1:
In this graph, the system requires a longer time to adjust itself back to
steady state. The reaction time for this system is slight slower as
compared to the flow control process system. As a whole, the process is a
second order (2nd) process.
Limitation of the Process
Refer to graph CTR1-2:
In this experiment, a step change is carried out in the manual regulation
ratio(Y). 10% interval of manual regulation ratio(Y) is increased, until the
compressor reaches its maximum capacity of Y=100%. During each stage,
the system will undergo steady state, before going further step changes.
Such steady state of the system is vital in order for the system to have a
steady and uniform increase. Such scenario will result in less fluctuation in
the system, hence giving a more accurate and precise behaviour of the
system. From the graph of CTR1-2, the maximum pressure value is at
about 1.05 bars. Therefore, the limit of this system can be determined
which is at 1.05 bars. This value also indicates the maximum amount of
pressure that the compressor can undergo its compressing at the
maximum capacity of Y=100%.
Influence of disturbance to the process & Examples of
disturbances
Refer to graph CTR1-3:
The introduction of disturbance when the manual regulation ratio (Y) is at
70% will result in the decrease of the actual value, hence the slope of red
line decreases. The value will experience a drop from 80 to 63. The reason
the manual regulation ratio is set at constant 70% is so that the system
4

would be able to sustain the pressure level of 1.05 bars. Besides, the
constant manual regulation ratio can help the system to recover faster
and reach steady state at faster rate, when disturbance is introduced into
the system.
Some good examples of disturbance in the system are leakage in the
outlet of the compressor and malfunction of the mechanism in the
compressor. By theory, high disturbance in the system will result in
decrease in the pressure of the system. Since disturbance is introduced,
therefore the system will not be able to sustain the initial pressure,
resulting in the decrease of the pressure.

Signal block diagram for open-loop process

Disturbanc
e, Z
Control Output, Y

Set Point, W
Actuator

Processor, M

Output,
X

Task 2: To determine the controller settings by using

Ziegler-Nicholas Open-Loop Method
Refer to graph CTR1-4:
Table (1): Ziegler-Nichol as Open-Loop Optimum Controller Tuning Formulae
Type of
Controller
P

Loop Gain, K

/a

Optimum Settings
Proportional
Integral Action
Gain
Time
K/Kn

Derivative
Time
-

P+I

0.9 /a

K/Kn

a/0.26

P+I+D

1.2 /a

K/Kn

2.3a

a/1.74

Table (2): Tabulated Results

5

Type of
Controller
P
P+I
P+I+D

Loop Gain, K
7.593
6.837
9.112

Optimum Settings
Proportional
Integral Action
Gain
Time
949.125
854.213
2.315
1138.935
1.385

Derivative
Time
0.346

Process gain, Kn (KS by the software) = 0.008

Delay time, a (or dwell time, Tu) = 0.602
Time constant,

(or rise time, Ta) = 4.571

Task 3: To Evaluate Performance of P, PI and PID

Controllers
The aim of task 3 is to determine the performance of P, PI and PID
controllers in relation to the influence these individual controlling systems
have on the control of the reference variable (set-point, W) and inclusion
of disturbance variable (Z). In order to identify and analyse the mentioned
control systems in relation to how the system achieves and maintains the
controlled variable, X (pressure of the system) at set point, W with and
without the influence of the disturbance variable, Z which is the leakage
of gas that reduces the pressure of the system through control of the
opening of the Solenoid valve. Task 3 is divided into 2 sub-experiments for
each control systems (P, PI & PID): 1 st) The ability for each control system
to achieve the set point, W after each successive step change in the
pressure of the system, X & 2nd) The response of each individual control
system with the inclusion of disturbance variable, Z and the rate at which
the control system responds to the disturbance variable.
For the 1st sub-experiment, it is found that the P control system is
not able to correct the pressure of the system, X to achieve steadiness at
set-point, W for 0.7, 0.8 & 0.9 bar. However, PI and PID control systems
are able to correct the pressure of the system, X to achieve steadiness at
set point, W for 0.7, 0.8 & 0.9 bar. The possible analytical reasons and
assumptions are discussed in the following graph discussion sections. For
the 2nd sub-experiment, it is found that the response time to correct the
pressure of the system, X back to the set-point, W value at 0.7 bar when
the disturbance variable, Z is introduced and is the fastest for PID control
system, followed by PI control system & finally P control system. For the P
control system, a minimum control for the pressure of the system, X

cannot even be achieved whatsoever more a positive response correction

when the disturbance variable, Z is introduced.

1st Subexperiment: The ability for each control system to

achieve the set point, W after each successive step change in the
pressure of the system, X.
For P Controller:
Refer to graph CTR1-5:
The graph shows that implementing P control system does not help to
correct the pressure of the system, X (represented by the red line) to
achieve steadiness at the set-point, W (represented by the yellow line).
The off-set which is the difference between the pressure of the system, X
and the set-point, W is quite evident in the graph which signifies that even
with inclusion of proportional gain value, K p it is still insufficient to correct
the pressure of the system to achieve steadiness at the set-point, W. This
may be due to the fact that the integral of the instantaneous past errors
(in the form of integral action time, T n) and the derivatives of such past
errors (in the form of derivative time, Tv) represented by the integral, I
and derivative, D control factors are not considered. The other possibility
might be that the proportional gain value, K p is small which causes the
magnitude of the corrective response to be insignificant even when a
large error in the form of system disturbances are encountered.
For PI Controller:
Refer to graph CTR1-6
The graph shows that implementing PI control system helps to correct the
pressure of the system, X to achieve steadiness at the set-point, W. Even
though they are small fluctuations in the pressure of the system, X the PI
control system manages to correct the errors so that the pressure of the
system, X can be maintained at set point, W. The small fluctuations may
be the resultant of the varying efficiency of the gas compressor that aims
to operate at the steady set-point selected.
For PID Controller:
Refer to graph CTR1-9
Similar to the graph obtained for PI controller, the PID controller system is
able to correct the pressure of the system, X to achieve steadiness at the
set-point, W. The fluctuations occurred in the pressure of the system, X as
7

mentioned before may be due to the un-steadiness in the operating

condition of the gas compressor that controls the pressure of the system,
X. However, the only difference that can be observed is that the efficiency
of the gas compressor, Y (actuation signal) (represented by the green line)
has significant fluctuations, this shows that the derivative factor, D in the
control system causes instability in the actuation signal.

2nd Subexperiment: The response of each individual control

system with the inclusion of disturbance variable, Z and the rate
at which the control system responds to the disturbance variable.
For P Controller:
Refer to graph CTR1-6:
The graph shows that P control system is incapable to correct the
disturbance introduced into the system. The off-set which represents the
difference between pressures of the system, X (red-line) and the set-point,
(yellow-line) becomes larger when the disturbance is introduced. P control
system is not able to remove off-set that derives from disturbances
introduced.

For PI Controller:
Refer to graph CTR1-8:
Referring to the graph, PI control system is able to correct the disturbance
introduced into the system. This can be seen in the slight drop of the
pressure X, (red-line) and then immediately regained back steadiness on
the set-point, W (yellow line). The PI system successfully eliminates the
off-set that derives from the disturbance introduced.
For PID Controller:
Refer to graph CTR1-10:
The graph shows that PID control system is able to correct the disturbance
introduced into the system. This can be seen in the slight drop of the
pressure X, (red-line) and then immediately regained back steadiness on
the set-point, W (yellow line). Moreover, the response time to correct the
pressure, X is faster compared to PI control system. This proves that PID
control system has a quicker response time in relation to changes in the
pressure of the system, X and also encountering disturbances. The
efficiency of the compressor, Y (green-line) spikes up when the
8

disturbance variable is encountered so that it can compensate with the

pressure lost in order to maintain at the set-point, W (yellow-line)
pressure. However, significant fluctuations can be observed in the
efficiency of the gas compressor, Y which is the characteristics of the PID
control system.

Signal block diagram for closed-loop system

Disturbance, Z

Set
points, W

Set Point
error

Computer
(PC)

Feedback

Control
Output, Y
PID
Controller

Feedback
Transmitters

Output, X
Compressor
Motor (M)

Sensor Outputs

Pres
sure
Tank

Pressure
Sensors

CONCLUSION
To sum up the entire experiment, three main objectives have been
achieved, one of which is that the behaviour of open-loop process is
determined. Besides being able to evaluate the performances of P, PI and
PID controller, the last objective of determining the controller settings by
using Ziegler Nicholas Open Loop Method was also successfully carried
out. For processes that are uncontrolled and have step responses, the
Zeigler Nicholas Open Loop Method is the best the way to determine the
controller settings.
As for the performances of the P, PI and PID controllers, large gain is
needed to balance the steady state error while P Controller is being
tested. In cases such as acceptable constant steady state error, P
Controller is good option. When PI Controller is in use, the speed of the
response will not definitely increase, therefore a more suitable option
9

would be introducing derivative mode. Meanwhile when PID Controller is

used, a more stable process system can be obtained due to the derivative
mode that will increase the gain K value and decrease the integral time
constant.
Based on the graph and results obtained, it can be seen that the
values of the result do not go along with the theoretical results. Such
cases could due to random errors while the experiment is being
conducted. A good example could be that the disturbance is not set
correctly before steady-state is reached.

NOTATION
Symbols

Meaning Represented

Kn / K s

Process gain / Proportional gain by software

a / Tu

Delay time / Dwell time

/ Ta

Time constant / rise time

Kp / Kcrit

Proportional gain

Tp

Period of sustained oscillation

Tn

Integral action time

10

Tv

Derivative time

Set-Point

Output (Pressure of the System)

Actuation signal (Gas Compressor Efficiency)

Disturbance signal

REFERENCES
Coulson, John M, and Raymond K Sinnott. Chemical Engineering. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 2005. Print.

APPENDIX
CTR 1 Task 2
Example: Controller P+I+D
Process gain, Kn
Delay Time, a
Time constant,

0.008
0.602 s
4.571 s

Loop Gain, K
11

= 1.2

/a

= 1.2 (0.602/4.571)
= 9.112
Proportional Gain
= K/Kn
= 9.112/0.008
= 1138.953
Integral Action Time
= 2.3a
= 2.3(0.602)
= 1.385
Derivative Time
= a/1.74
=0.602/1.74
=0.346

12