RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Based on this transfer function:

G(s) =

5
2 s+5

e-1.5s

And the transfer function is simplified to:

G(s) =

1
0.4 s +1

e-1.5s

by dividing all values to the largest value.

Tune the process of the transfer function using three different methods:

Ziegler Nichols
Direct Synthesis
Internal Control Model (IMC)

Figure : Simulation Result of Ziegler Nichols

Using Ziegler Nichol method, to calculate the model parameters, the value of Kcu and Pu must be
determined. In order to do that, a process model was needed. Thus, the First-order-plus-timedelay Model has been selected. Based on the two equations in the model, the value of K cu and Pu
was determined which are 1.001 and 48.815, respectively. Using these values, the controller
setting of Ziegler Nichols can be determined. The calculated value of P(k c) and

are 0.45 and

40.68, respectively. Then, the value was adjusted until the graph achieved set point and steady
state. The value of new P(kc) and

are 0.25 and 0.64, respectively after dividing the value of

gain and integral by half until it reach steady state.

Figure : Simulation Result of Direct Synthesis using c = 1.5

Simulating the process using direct synthesis method required accurate dynamic model of the
process. The derivation of the controller for first order plus time delay model gave us the equation
below:
Kc=

1
K + c

where, i =

The value of c can be selected from the guideline and (Skogestad, 2003) which is c =

was

selected. Hence, c=1.5. The value of Kc and ti was calculated using the equation and the value
obtained is 0.13 and 0.4, respectively. The reason i = was assumed was that because slow
process has large values of .

Figure : Simulation Result of IMC with value of tc=1.5

The Internal Model Control was used to derive the PID controller setting using different tuning
relation. In this case, 1/1 Pad approximation was used. This approximation for the time delay
terms have been derived to determine the value of kc, i and d. The value obtain for the kc and
are 0.51 and 1.15 respectively. These values was put in the controller and adjusted until the
response achieved set point and steady state.

Comparing the simulation between the three methods, it is clearly shows that using direct
synthesis method is the best method for PID tuning. The value of controller design that was
calculated using Direct synthesis method obtain steady state directly and have less time taken for
achieving the set point. While the other two method need to be tune the PID before achieving
steady state. It shows that direct synthesis method has fast response compared to the other.
Based on the performance, Integral of the Squared Error has been used to determine the
performance indices. To do so, the block diagram was added with integral and squared magth
function. The display showing after those blocks was representing the error of the process. The
data below is the error shown by each method.

Ziegler Nichols - 111.5

Direct Synthesis - 2.447
Internal Model Control - 2.453

The number shows the error of the process. the smaller the value, the smaller the error. It shows
that direct synthesis has the smallest error compared to the other two methods. Direct synthesis
has better performance to run the process.

RECOMMENDATION

When running the simulation, make sure to record all the controller output and measured

process variable data as the process responds.

Make sure when using a model, the model must fit the first order plus dead time dynamic

model to the process data.

Make sure the tuned controller setting always balances the demands of the stability,

responsiveness of the graph and has low overshoot.

To achieve the goal of a responsive and stable loop with minimal overshoot, the tuning
must be tested in response to upsets and at steady method.

CONCLUSION
As for the conclusion, it can be justified that the best method to achieve the optimum
performance and fast response is the Direct Synthesis method. It was because by using this

method, the steady state can be achieved faster with minimum overshoot. Also, based on the
Integral of Squared Error, it has the smallest value compared to the other methods.