CE426 P ROCESS CONTROL PRACTICAL REPORT

DEMONSTRATION OF PROCESS CONTROL IN LAB-SCALE

STIRRED TANK
Alicia van der Merwe- 16442016
Hand In: 16 March 2015

1. Introduction
Process control in a lab-scale experiment is demonstrated in this practical. The
concentration of potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) in the stirred tank is measured
through conductivity, which is used as the control variable (CV), and the pumped
feed rate of water as the manipulated value (MV).
Three major objectives are outlined in this practical, the first of which is to gain a
basic understanding of a mixing process with automated feedback control. This is
done with the Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) algorithm by experimentation
and simulation. The second objective is the identification of the process and
disturbance transfer functions through empirical model identification. Lastly the
control performance of PID feedback control for set point changes and a
disturbance is characterised through experimentation and simulation.
Practical equipment includes both an osmosis water and a KHCO3 container and
peristaltic pump with piping and differential pressure sensors for both containers.
A sump, a conductivity sensor and a stirrer and overflow standpipe also forms
part of the practical equipment. An overflow standpipe is used to ensure a
constant fluid volume in the stirred tank.

2. Theoretical background
2.1.

Feedback control

Feedback control is the process of altering the behaviour of a system to achieve

safe and profitable process performance. Feedback is applied to achieve a
desired output the controlled variable, by adjusting an input the measured or
disturbance variable. A manipulated variable is adjusted in a control strategy to
achieve a desired performance in the controlled variable while disturbances are
any other variables that influence the controlled variable. A sensor is inserted to
communicate with a computing device and a final element responds to the
command from the computing device.
Certain criteria exists for choosing an adjustable variable as a manipulative
variable. First of all there must be a causal relationship between the valve and
1

controlled variable, and it is desired that the speed of the response be fast. It is
required that the automated valve influences the selected flow and that there is
an ability to compensate for large disturbances. Finally it is also desired that the
manipulated variable be adjusted rapidly with little upset to the rest of the plant.
In the case of this specific experiment the steps in the set point would be
changes in the water pump and steps in the disturbance would be changes to
the KHCO3 pump.

2.2.

The PID algorithm

The Proportional-Integral-Derivative control algorithm is used for single-loop

systems and determines the performance of the entire feedback system. Both
the structure and the parameters used in the algorithm is responsible for the
resulting feedback system.
A key performance feature of the feedback control algorithm is that zero offset is

reached.

denotes the error, and is the difference between the desired value

- the set point, and the controlled variable.

E ( t ) =SP ( t )CV (t)

Equation 1

The proportional mode is simple and provides a rapid adjustment to the

manipulated value, but although it reduces error, it does not produce zero offset.
Other characteristics of the proportional mode is that it speeds dynamic
response, but if it is tuned improperly it can cause instability.
The integral mode is characterized by its poor dynamic performance and, like the
proportional mode has the risk of instability when tuned improperly. The integral
mode achieves an offset of zero although the manipulated value is adjusted
slower than through the proportional mode.
The derivative mode provides a rapid correction based on the rate of change of
the CV. The final steady-state value of the error is not influenced by this mode. A
final characteristic of the derivative mode is that undesirable high frequency
variations in the manipulated can be caused by this mode.
In most cases a combination or a subset of the modes is required to provide good
control. The Time-Doman controller algorithm for the proportional-integralderivative mode is given below:
t

dCV ( t )
1
MV =K c E ( t ) + E ( t ' ) dt ' T d
+I
TI 0
dt

Equation 2

TI

and

Td

are the integral and derivative time constants,

initialization constant,

represents time and

E (t)

is the error.

is the

2.3.

Tuning method

Tuning methods are used to minimize the Integral Absolute Error (IAE), to limit
variations on the manipulated variable, and to insure a change of roughly 25% to
the process model parameters.
The PID controller can achieve good control performance with the proper choice
of tuning constants but the risk exists that the system can become unstable and
perform poorly if improper values of the controller tuning constants are used.
The entire control problem must be completely defined before the tuning
constants can be determined and the performance evaluated however. The
tuning constants are determined from empirical modelling by the process
reaction curve, assuming the process can be represented by a first-order-withdead-time transfer function, since the process reaction curve is restricted to this
model. This transfer function is represented by the following equation:
s
Y (s ) K p e
=
X ( s ) s+1

The process gain,

Equation 3

Kp

the dead time, , and the time constant,

, are all

determined from the process reaction curve according to the following equations:

K p=

Equation 4

=1.5 ( t 63 t 28 )

Equation 5

=t 63

Equation 6

Once the model parameters are known the Ciancone correlations can be used to
determine controller tuning parameters The controller gain,
time,

T I , and the derivative time,

Kc,

the integral

T d . The following equation must however

first be used to calculate the fraction dead time:

Equation 7

It is important to take into account that some controllers like the one used during
this experiment express the controller gain in terms of the Proportional Band, PB,
related to the controller gain by the following equation:

PB=

100
Kc

Equation 8

A larger controller gain will thus be represented by a smaller proportional band

and will result in more aggressive control performance.

2.4.

Control Performance measures

Six major control performance measures will be evaluated through processing of

the results namely the offset, the integral absolute error (IAE), the rise time, the
decay ratio, the settling time and the manipulated variable overshoot.
The rise time, is the time it takes for the controlled variable to first reach its new
set point after a step change is introduced. According to definition step in a
disturbance will thus not cause a rise time. IAE indicates the cumulative
deviation of the controlled variable form the set point and is represented by the
following equation:

IAE=|SP ( t )CV (t)|dt

Equation 9

The ratio of neighbouring peaks in an underdamped controlled-variable is the

decay ratio and the time taken by the system to reach a nearly constant final
value is the settling time. Both a small decay ratio and settling time is desired.
The MV overshoot indicates how aggressively it has been adjusted and is
effectively the maximum amount that the MV exceeds its final steady-state
value.

3. Methodology
3.1.

The selection and executions of experimental runs

Initially the tank was filled with KHCO 3 solution and the PID control was switched
to automatic. No water was pumped and the stirrer was switched on.
The KHCO3 pump (B) output was set to 20%, the PID control to automatic mode
and the conductivity set point to 50mS. The proportional band was used at 10%,
the integral time as 300s and the derivative time as 1s as initial tuning
parameters.
Part A represents run 1 4 (non-aggressive tuning). Here step changes were
applied to the set point of the CV (the conductivity) of 10mS and the KHCO 3 feed
(disturbances) of 10%.
For part B of the experiment the controller performance was investigated for
aggressive tuning and is represented by run 5 - 8. The proportional band was set
to 6% and similar to part A of the experimental procedure, step changes were
now applied to the set point and the disturbance (KHCO 3 feed).
Table 1: Representation of step changes in the disturbance and set point for both
aggressive and non-aggressive tuning

Set Point

RUN 1
Step up

Disturban
ce
PB

Constan
t
10

RUN 2
Step
down
Constant

RUN 3
Constan
t
Step up

10

10

RUN 4
Constant

RUN 5
Step up

Step
down
10

Constan
t
6

RUN 6
Step
down
Constant

RUN 7
Constan
t
Step up

RUN 8
Constan
t
Step
down
6

3.2.
The calculation of transfer functions and Ciancone
parameters
From open loop data, empirical model formulation was used to determine the
process and disturbance transfer functions. The system was modelled as a firstorder-with-dead-time system and process reaction curves (Appendix B) were
drawn up for the dynamic response of the measured and controlled variable.
From these process reaction curves the process and disturbance gain, dead time,
and time constants were determined from Equation 4 to 6 and the transfer
functions were generated.
Correlations developed by Ciancone were used to determine the control transfer
function by calculating the fraction dead time for both set point and disturbance
changes using Equation 7. The controller gain, integral time and derivative time
were now read of from Figure 9.5 a to c in Marlin (2000).

3.3.

Simulation methodology

Simulink was used to model the closed loop system containing the controller,
process and disturbance transfer functions. The sensor and valve dynamics were
assumed to be negligible and used as constants equal to one. Parameters
determined form the process reaction curve method and correlations developed
by Ciancone were used as constants in this simulation. The simulation was run
twice, once for a step change in the set point of 10mS, and once for a step
change in the disturbance of 10%. Data was sent to the Matlab workspace and
finally graphs were generated to represent the dynamic response plots of the SP
and CV (conductivity), MV (Pump A speed), and disturbance (Pump B speed).

3.4.

The calculation of the control performance

Control performance measures were calculated by importing the data for each
run into Matlab and coding for each performance measure. Refer to Appendix D
for the Matlab code.

4. Results and discussion

4.1.

Experimental work

4.1.1.Dynamic response plots

Figure 1: Dynamic Response plots for a step change in the SP of 10 mS for nonaggressive tuning

From Figure 1 it is apparent that a step change in the set point causes an initial
decrease in the measured variable of a value close to 25%. The controlled
variable in the case of the experiment represents the concentration of the KHCO3
in the vessel output stream and is measured in terms of conductivity. Results
thus make logically sense since a decrease in the MV (pure water vessel feed)
should result in an increase in KHCO 3 in the output stream. Figure 1 also
indicates the return of the MV back to its initial value of 25% after the CV has
reached its new SP of 60mS. A very similar pattern is followed for the step down
in the SP from 60mS to 50mS. As expected the disturbance dynamic response
stays at its constant value of 20%.

Figure 2: Dynamic Response plots for a step change in the disturbance of 10% for nonaggressive tuning

Figure 2 shows the dynamic response of the system as a result of the step in the
disturbance. This increase in the amount of KHCO3 pumped into the system
results in a momentary rise in the CV. It is clear that the measured variable
compensates for the disturbance by pumping more water into the system, thus
effectively cancelling out the rises in the CV. As the CV once again nears its set
point of 50, the measured variable returns to its initial value of 20%.
6

Figure 3: Dynamic Response plots for a step change in the SP of 10 mS for aggressive
tuning

Figure 3 once again represents a step increase and subsequent step decrease of
10 mS in the set point. The differences in Figure 1 and Figure 3 is a direct result
of the increase in controller aggression by an increase in the controller gain from
10%/mS for run 1 and 2 (Figure 1) to 16.666 %/mS for run 4 and 5 (Figure 3).
Accept for the aggression of the system Figure 3 shows similar trends to that of
Figure 1.

Figure 4: Dynamic Response plots for a step change in the disturbance of 10% for
aggressive tuning

Figure 4 shows similar trends as Figure 2, with minor differences a result of the
increase in aggression for runs 5-8. A step increase in the disturbance causes a
rise in the water pump speed to compensate for the rise in KHCO3 concentration
in the vessel outlet stream.
Unexpected jumps in the MV and CV in Figure 1 to 4 can be a result of factors like
air bubbles (probe measured air bubble conductivity), conductivity meter errors,
calibration errors, meter age, or dead time volumes that come loose suddenly.
Generally they do not affect the accuracy of the data.
4.1.2.Control performance measures
7

Table 2: Control performance measures for run 1 - run 8 for experimental work

Table 2 indicates the process performance measures for run 1-8 and is used as
comparison for non-aggressive tuning to aggressive tuning. An aggressive
controller results in a faster response in the measured variable than for nonaggressive tuning. This is proved by the fact that the offset and IAE is smaller for
aggressive tuning than for non-aggressive tuning. From Figure 1-4 it is observed
that aggressive tuning generally leads to more oscillations in the process
dynamics, resulting in larger values of decay ratio for aggressive tuning. The
general trend for experimental results is that the settling time for aggressive
tuning parameters is larger than settling times for non-aggressive tuning.
Theoretically an increase in the controller constant should result in an increase in
the MV overshoot. Although this is experimentally proved to be true for the step
change in the set point, this trend is not followed for the step change in the
disturbance. The MV overshoot is bigger for run 3 and 4 where the controller in
non-aggressive than for run 7 and 8 where the controller is aggressive.
Aggressive control parameters will thus cause an initial faster response to step
changes, but a decrease in the time it takes for the system to reach stability
again.
Linearity is classified by comparing the differences in gains when stepping up
and stepping down for changes in the set point and disturbance. Since the CV
and MV tend very close back to their original values after a step up and
subsequent step down, the system can be described as linear.

4.2.

Simulation work

4.2.1.Process simulation and transfer functions

Figure 5: Process simulation in Simulink

The process simulation in Simulink is demonstrated in Figure 5. Valve and sensor

dynamics are taken to be negligibly small and are thus taken as constants of 1.
The process and disturbance transfer functions are calculated by using the
Process Reaction Curve Method 2 as illustrated in Appendix A and B.
The Process transfer function is represented by the following formula:
s

CV ( s) K P e
2.17
G p=
=
=
MV ( s) s+1 5.13 s+ 1
The process gain is negative since a step increase in the MV causes a
decrease in the CV and a step decrease in the MV causes an increase in the
CV.
The Disturbance transfer function is represented by the following formula:
s

CV ( s) K d e
2.56
Gd =
=
=
D( s)
s+1 10.3875 s+1
The disturbance gain is positive since a step increase in the disturbance
causes an increase in the CV and a step decrease in the disturbance causes a
decrease in the CV.
Note that the dead time and effectively the derivative time was found to be
negligibly small. The Process Reaction Curve method is validated by Figure 1 to
4. It is clearly observed that the dead time is indeed zero since a change in set
points or disturbances results in an almost immediate response in system
dynamics. Dead time is still included in Figure 5 for clarity although the dead
time is set to 0 and thus has no effect on the overall dynamics. The derivative
9

part of the PID controller is however left out of the simulation to avoid confusion.
This is because the value of the derivative time is zero since the dead time
fraction is zero. For a through explanation of steps and calculations for the
determination of the transfer functions refer to Appendix B and C.
Time constants, gains and dead times determined using the process reaction
curve method generally shows values that will lead to good control. A small
process time constant as found is desired to ensure a fast response in the MV to
changes in the CV and a large disturbance time constant as found is desired to
ensure a slow response in the CV to changes in the disturbance.
4.2.2.Determination
parameters

and

implementation

of

Ciancone

PID

Ciancone correlations used in conjunction with the fraction dead time determined
from the Process Reaction Curve to determine the PID parameters (The controller
gain, integral time and derivative time). Since the dead time was found to be
zero for both the process and the disturbance process transfer functions the
fraction dead time is zero for both cases.
Table 3: Parameters determined from the Ciancone correlations

4.2.3.Dynamic response plots

10

Figure
response plot generated through Simulink for a step increase in the SP

6:

Dynamic

From Figure 6 it is clear that there is a decrease in the measured variable as a

result of the step increase in the set point. The reasoning behind this is the same
as that for the experimental data. There is a rapid increase in the CV with
implementation of the step change and an initial overshoot.

Figure
7:
Dynamic
response curve for a
step increase in the disturbance of 10%

11

From Figure 7 it is clear that the same trend exists than that determined from
experimental data. A step increase in the disturbance causes an increase in the
measured variable to keep the control variable at the specified set point. Initially
there is a large increase in the concentration of KHCO 3 in the vessel outlet. As the
measured variable increases as a result of the PID-controller the CV falls back to
its initial value and stabilizes to reach a zero offset steady-state.
4.2.4.Control performance measures
Table 4: Control performance measures for the simulated process

Offset
IAE
Rise time (min)
Decay ratio
Settling time
(min)
MV overshoot

Step in Set Point

-8.53E-12
22.0324
3
0.0197

Step in Disturbance
-0.0085
16.1222
0.096

11.961

50

1.226

From Table 4 it is observed that the offset for the simulated process for both a
step change in the set point and a step change in the disturbance is very small
indicating good control. The settling time for a step change in disturbance is
much higher than that for a step change in the set point and the IAE for both
step changes is relatively small another indication of good control.

4.3.

Comparison of experimental and simulation work

When comparing figures generated from experimentally gathered data and

figures generated from Simulink with Ciancone correlations it is clearly observed
that two methods give similar results. Similar trends include an initial overshoot
in the MV for a step change in the set point and a much smaller MV overshoot for
a step change in the disturbance. The settling time for a step change in the
disturbance is larger that of a step change in the set point and small decay ratios
are determined for both a step in the set point and disturbance. Small
differences in trends can be a result of factors like dead times coming loose or
conductivity meter errors during the actual experimental implementation. These
errors will not arise in ideal conditions simulated by Matlab and Simulink.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The plot of the dynamic response of the experimentally measured CV, SP, MV
and disturbance to step changes in the SP and disturbance lead to the conclusion
that an increase in the SP will lead to a decrease in the MV through feedback
control and vice versa. The disturbance dynamic response is constant for a step
change in the SP. A step change in the disturbance results in an initial increase in
the CV. Feedback control however facilitates a rise in the MV to counteract the
rise in the CV and the CV returns to its initial steady-state value.

12

A comparison of control performance measures for aggressive and nonaggressive tuning indicates that aggressive tuning will cause a faster response in
the MV for step changes in the SP and disturbance, but that the system takes
longer to stabilize back to steady state for aggressive tuning than for nonaggressive tuning. In industry care must thus be taken to not make PID-tuning
too aggressive.
Using the Process reaction curve method on open loop data the process and
disturbance transfer functions were determined as

2.56
.
10.3875 s+1

2.17
5.13 s+1 and

The dead time in both cases were found to be negligibly small.

Correlations from Ciancone were used to determine the controller gain as -0.927
and the integral time as 1.29 minutes. The derivative time is zero since the
fraction dead time is zero.
Using Matlab and the results obtained from the open loop data and parameters
determined from Ciancone correlations the experimental process was now
simulated on Simulink. Experimental and simulated results compare well. Minor
deviations are predicted to be a result of errors in the measuring of conductivity
or natural factors like dead time coming loose.
Generally the experiment gave accurate and expected results.

References

[1] Marlin, T., 2000. Process Control: Designing Processes and Control
Systems for Dynamic Performance. 2nd ed. United States of America:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Appendix A: Nomenclature
Table 5: Nomenclature

Element
Process gain

Symbol

Kp

13

Units
mS/%open

Magnitude of input
change
Magnitude of the steady
state change in the
output
Time constant

mS

%open (valve)

Min

Dead Time

Min

Controller gain

Kc

%open/mS

Integral Time

TI

Min

Derivative Time

TD

Min

The time at which the

output reaches 28% of its
final value
The time at which the
output reaches 63% of its
final value
Measured Variable
Set Point
Controlled Variable

t 28

Min

t 63

min

MV
SP
CV

%open
mS
mS

Appendix B: The Process Reaction Curve Method

70.0
65.0
60.0
55.0
CV - Conductivity (mS) 50.0
45.0
Control Variable
40.0
35.0
10.00

30
25
20
15
10
Measured Variable
5

MV (%open)

0
15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Time (min)

Figure 8: The process reaction curve Method 2 for a step up in the set point

14

Controlled variable

CV - Conductivity (mS)

Measured Variable

60.0

30

50.0

20

40.0

10

MV (%open)

30.0
0
25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00

Time (min)

Figure 9: The process reaction curve Method 2 for a step down in the set point

Control Variable

Measured Variable
30

65.0

25

60.0

CV - Conductivity (mS)

20
15

55.0

10

50.0
45.0
45.00

Disturbance (% open)

5
0
55.00

65.00

75.00

Time (min)

Figure 10: The process reaction curve Method 2 for a step up in the disturbance

CV

Disturbance

65.0

30

55.0

25
20

45.0

CV - Conductivity (mS)

15

35.0

10

25.0

Disturbance (%open)

15.0
0
60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

Time (min)

Figure 11: The process reaction curve Method 2 for a step down in the disturbance
Table 6: Parameters calculated using the Process Reaction curve method

15

Appendix C: Sample calculations

1. Determining the process gain from the process reaction curve generated
from the open loop data:

K p=

[4]

10 mS
5 %opem

2mS /%open
2. Determining

t 28 t 63 from the process reaction curve generated from the

open loop data:

0.63=( 10 mS ) 0.63=6.3 mS
0.28=( 10 mS ) 0.28=2.8 mS
t 28 =1.65 min
t 63 =4 min
3. Determining

from the process reaction curve generated from the

open loop data:

16

 =1.5 ( t 63 t 28 )=1.5 ( 41.65 )=3.525

[5]

=t 63 =43.525=0.475 min

[6]

4. Determining the fraction dead time for use in the Ciancone correlations.

0.475
=
=0.118975
+ 0.475+3.525

[7]

5. Using Ciancone correlations - Figure 9.5 a, b and c (Marlin):

K c K P=2

K c=

KP
2
=
=1%open /mS
2 2 mS/%open

TI
TI
=
=0.3
+ 0.475+0.525
0.3 ( 0.475+0.525 )=1.2 min
T D =0

Apppendix D: Matlab Code

figure;
subplot(3,1,1);
plot(tout,SP,'r--');
hold on;
plot(tout,CV,'bo-');
xlabel('Time (min)');
ylabel('SP,CV (mS)');
title('Dynamic Responce of SP and CV');
legend('SP','CV','SouthEast');
grid;
subplot(3,1,2);
plot(tout,MV,'bo-');
xlabel('Time (min)');
ylabel('MV');
title('Dynamic Responce of MV');
grid;
subplot(3,1,3);
plot(tout,DIST,'bo-');
xlabel('Time (min)');

17

ylabel('Pump B speed');
title('Dynamic Responce of Disturbance')
grid;

CP.offset = SP(end)-CV(end);
CP.IAE = trapz(tout,abs(SP-CV));
steptime = 1;
crosslocation = find(CV>SP,1);
crosstime = tout(crosslocation);
CP.risetime = crosstime-steptime;
[peaks,peaklocations] = findpeaks(CV);
A = CV(peaklocations(1))-SP(peaklocations(1));
B = CV(peaklocations(2))-SP(peaklocations(2));
CP.decayratio = B/A;
CVfinalvalue = CV(end);
CVlowerlimit = CVfinalvalue*0.95;
CVupperlimit = CVfinalvalue*1.05;
limitlocations = find((CV<CVupperlimit)&(CV>CVlowerlimit));
settlingindex = find(diff(diff(limitlocations))==0,1);
settlinglocation = limitlocations(settlingindex);
CP.settlingtime = tout(settlinglocation)-steptime;
C = max(MV);
D = MV(end);
CP.MVovershoot = C/D;

18

19