INDIVIDUAL/GROUP Name OR Group Name KONG WEI HERN

Faculty of Engineering (Representative Name)

Coursework Front Sheet/ Lab Cover Sheet Student ID 017168
Personal Tutor Dr Ianatul Khoiroh

Department Chemical Engineering and Chemical Course Code CHEE

with Environmental Engineering
Module Title Fundamentals of Process Control Module Code CHEE 2022

Module or Lab Convener/Lecturer Dr Senthil Kumar Arumugasamy Submission Deadline 18th April 2018

Assignment Title/Laboratory CTR2 – Flow Control

Date/Time of Laboratory 20th March 2018 Lab/WS/Design Group No 10

For Extenuating Circumstances to be considered for this work and related information/guidelines are available at :
http://www.nottingham.edu.my/CurrentStudents/StudentRegistry/Examinations/Extenuating-
circumstances/Index.aspx
Note: ECFs will not be actioned until supporting evidence has been supplied.
Completed Form Submitted Yes/No (circle) Date Submitted:
Supporting Documentation Submitted Yes/No (circle) Date Submitted:

1. Coursework Submission Hours

All coursework must be submitted to the engineering student support office (room CA06) Block C, Faculty of
Engineering from 9.30 am to 4.00 pm for the working day. The counter staff will not accept any submissions
outside the specified hours. Late submissions will be penalized by a deduction of 5% absolute per university
working day.
2. Coursework Front Sheet (Coursework Coversheet)
Please submit your coursework with the coversheet on top. One (1) coversheet represents one(1) coursework
submission. This is important for students to adhere in order to avoid assignments being misplaced to the wrong
submission group.
3. Complete Document & Stationery
All coursework should be bonded, fastened or stapled unless students are specifically instructed by the module
conveners to do otherwise. Unbounded, unfasten or unstapled coursework will not be accepted.
No stationery will be supplied over the counter.

Feedback from Marker [ ] if ticked, feedback on this work is indicated on the body of the work
What has been done well

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggestions for improvement

*Please continue on the reverse of the sheet if needed.

Marker’s Name Marker’s Signature

Coursework Mark Deduction for Late Submission OVERALL MARK

Marks are provisional until confirmation at the External Examination Board meeting.
Plagiarism (copying, cheating)
In signing this form you are confirming that you have read and understood the University regulations relating to
plagiarism and that the content of this document is your own work and has not been plagiarized. Full details on the
University’s policy can be found at: http://www.nottingham.edu.my/CurrentStudents/StudentRegistry/Academic-Appeals-and-
Academic-Misconduct/index.aspx

Signature of Student: _______________________________ Date: ____________________

Students coursework submission form is available at: http://share.nottingham.edu.my/

Public Documents  Faculty of Engineering Info for Students Student Forms
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Copy : *(coursework/labwork submission form)
Assignment Title CTR2 – Flow Control Module Code CHEE 2022

Module or Lab Convenor/Lecturer Dr Senthil Kumar Arumugasamy Submission 18th April 2018
Deadline

Name OR Group Name Kong Wei Hern

(Representative Name)
Student ID 017168
 CHEE 2022
Fundamentals of Process Control
CTRL 2 – Flow Control
Module Convenor: Dr Senthil Kumar Arumugasamy

Experiment Date : 20th March 2018

Submission Deadline : 18th April 2018

Group Number : 10

Name ID

Anna Lvova 20021406

Chu Rui Lynn 18816774

Kong Wei Hern 18817168

Muhammed Tahmid–Jamil Munaim 20021409

Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 Results & Discussion 3

2.1 Task 1 3
- To Determine The Open-Loop
Behaviour and Limitation of Process
2.2 Task 2 5
- To Determine Influence of Disturbances to
Process
2.3 Task 3 7
- To Determine Controller Settings by Using
Ziegler-Nicholas Closed-Loop Method
2.4 Task 4 8
- To Evaluate Performance of P, PI and PID
Controllers

3 Conclusion 16

4 Notations 17

5 References 18

6 Appendix 19
6.1 Appendix A - Sample Calculations 19
6.2 Appendix B - Stamped Results Graphs 20

1
1 Introduction
The aim of the experiment is to investigate the flow control system. The experiment is
separated into four tasks. Task 1 is to determine the trend of an open-loop system, the
behaviour and the limitation of the system by step change in the manual regulation ratio
(Y). It is found that the order of the process is a First Order Plus Dead Time (FOPDT).
The flow rate react to the step change almost immediately but with a small delay.

Task 2 is to investigate the influence of disturbance to the process. It is found that when
the disturbance increases, the flow rate decreases. In this experiment, our disturbance
is the pump speed. However, it is found that some additional disturbance may occur
from time to time. Examples of possible disturbance are equipment leakage (corrosion
overtime) or equipment blockage (by-products which formed at the wall of equipment).

Task 3 is to determine the values for P, PI and PID controllers by using Ziegler-Nicholas
Close-Loop Method when the system is in a closed-loop. By trial and error method, Kcrit
and Tp is found. Optimum settings are calculated and tabulated in table 1.

Lastly, Task 4 is to evaluate the performance of P, PI and PID controller and the influence
of pure proportional gain (Kp), integral action time (Tn) and derivative time (Tv). From
the results, P controller has faster reaction time and easy to tune but having a
disadvantage of offset being unable to eliminate. PI controller is slightly harder to tune
than P controller, having the advantage of removing offset. The only pitfall is the
processing response become oscillatory. It takes longer reaction time to achieve its set
point. PID controller, having three parameters which is the hardest to tune. PID has the
advantage of dampened the oscillations. However, it may produce noise and potentially
causes damage on the final control element. P, PI and PID controller are compared and
the most suitable controller for the flow control system is chosen and justified. After
comparing, we concluded that PI controller is the most suitable controller for this flow
control system.

The results are reliable because the experiment is carried out by a computer software
and fully automated equipment. Theories are also used to support and compare our
findings from the experiment.

2
2 Results & Discussion
In this flow control experiment, four tasks are carried out to determine the performance
of a pump controller. The controlled variable is flow rate, X while the manipulated
variable is the setting of the electromagnetic proportional valve. The process of task 1
and task 2 are an open-loop system whereas task 3 and task 4 are a closed-loop system.
The red line in the graph indicates the flow rate (X), the green line indicates the opening
of the electromagnetic proportional valve while the yellow line indicates the set point.
Disturbance variable, the pump speed, is altered by using the software.

2.1 Task 1: To Determine Open-Loop Behavior and Limitation of

Process

i) Step change in manual regulation ratio (Y=20% to Y=30%)

Figure 1: Graph of CTR2-1

The objective of this task is to determine the respond of output (the flow rate, X) when
the input (manual regulation ratio, Y) changes. No disturbance is introduced to the
system. From Figure 1, it is shown that the flow rate remain constant at 100 l/h at the
manual regulation ratio of 20%. At time of 2:14:07 PM, the manual regulation ratio is
stepped up from 20% to 30%. A new steady state is achieved at 30% after about 1
second. The flow rate increased to 117.9 l/h. From the observation, we found that when
the manual regulation ratio changed, the flow rate changes almost immediately but with
a small delay.

According to theories, first order systems react immediately to excitation as others do

not. Dead time (delay) is known as the moment that lapses between the input changes

3
and process response (Chemeng, 2012). Since our results are first order system with
some small delay, we can conclude that our system is a First Order Plus Dead Time
(FOPDT).

ii) Step change in manual regulation ratio (Y=20% to Y=100%)

Figure 2: Graph of CTR2-2

The experiment was repeated with a steady increase of 10% interval in the manual
regulation ratio (Y) from 20% to 100%, until the electromagnetic proportional valve is
fully open. From Figure 2, it is observed that when manual regulation ratio (Y) increases,
X increases. When the manual regulation ratio (Y) increases, this send signal to the
electromagnetic proportional valve to increase its opening. This resulted in a higher flow
rate.

It is also observed that the increment in X is getting smaller throughout the increment
of Y. For instance, when Y changes from 30% to 40%, X changes from 119 l/h to 132
l/h, with an increment of 13 l/h; when Y changes from 60% to 70%, X changes from 150
l/h to 155 l/h, with an increment of 5 l/h. This makes sense as in the real world situation,
flow rate does not keep on increasing with valve opening because after a certain speed,
the tolerances of frictional force between the fluid, pipelines and equipment become
significant. The greater the manual regulation ratio (Y), the flow rate increases. This
resulted in flow that is more prone to smaller and smaller imperfections which causes
additional disturbance in the process, thus reducing the increment of flow rate (X).

We also observed that there is a limitation to the flow rate of pump. After Y=80%, the
flow rate remains constant at maximum flow rate of 164.4 l/h. This might due to the

4
friction between the outer layer of fluids and the walls of a pipe or friction between fluid
layers within the fluid itself. At higher flow rate, the turbulent flow in the pump and
pipelines create more resistance (Augusta, 2009). Moreover, there might have fouling in
the pump or pipelines that increase the resistances in the flow rate. Another possible
limitation is the pump speed which the pump power is only capable to pump that specific
amount of fluid into the tank even when the valve is fully opened.

2.2 Task 2: To Determine Influence of Disturbance to Process

Figure 3: Graph of CTR2-3

The objective in task 2 is to determine the effect of disturbance to the process. In this
experiment, the manual regulation ratio (Y) is set at 50% while the disturbance variable
(Z) is increased from 0% to 100% at 10% interval. According to Figure 3, it is shown
that when 10% and 20% of disturbance is applied to the system, the flow rate (X)
remains unchanged. This is because the previous 20% of disturbance is insignificant to
the system.

The flow rate (X) starts to drop after 30% of disturbance is applied. As the disturbance
is increased, the flow rate (X) continues to decrease until it reaches its steady state of
16.3 l/h (minimum flow rate) when 100% disturbance is introduced. By comparing with
the theories, our results is reliable. This is because as disturbance (pump speed)
increases, the flow rate decreases given that the manual regulation ratio, Y (valve
opening) is kept constant. When 100% of disturbance is applied to the system, there
should be no flow in the system. However, the result of the experiment is slightly
discrepancy to the theory due to the failure of equipment or the software controller.
Since it is an open-loop system, the output has no influence or effect on the control

5
action of the input signal. Therefore, this system follow the set point or input command
regardless the final result. The disadvantage of this system is poorly equipped to handle
the disturbances or changes that may reduce the ability of the process to complete the
desired task (Anon, 2013).

However, a sudden peak in the flow rate is observed at 2:23:12 PM. This may due to the
air bubbles inside the system which cause a sudden pressure change in the pipelines.
Possible disturbances that could occur in a flow process is the blockage of the pipeline
because the pipeline is not cleaned regularly and is used by students for a long-time
period. Accumulation in the pipeline would restrict the flow and cause a pressure build-
up. Also, since the water in the pump is not drained by the lab assistance, corrosion and
fouling may happens in the pump and hence affecting the efficiency of the pump.
Therefore, the overall flow process is affected.

Another possible disturbances is friction loss in the pipe. The higher the viscosity of the
liquid, the higher the resistance which results in a higher friction loss. A layer of non-
moving liquid forms near the surface of the inner pipe which reduce the inner diameter
and increase the velocity of liquid. This also increase the friction losses. Moreover, pipe
fittings and valves would disturb the normal flow of the liquid, causing head loss due to
friction (Hydromatic, 2014).

The signal block diagram below represents the open loop system.

Figure 4: Block Diagram for Open-Loop System

6
2.3 Task 3: To Determine Controller Settings by Using Ziegler-Nicholas
Closed-Loop Method

Figure 5: Graph of CTR2-4

This task is to determine the controller settings by using Ziegler Nicholas Closed-Loop
Method. In this task, the controller is set to pure proportional P control action only. Given
a step in the set point from W= 50 l/h to W= 70 l/h, a trial and error method is used to
find the smallest Kp value at which a sustained oscillation is produced. At Kp= 0.6, a
sustained oscillation is produced. The Kp value is recorded as Kcrit. The period of the
oscillation, Tp value is determined by measuring from one peak to another peak which
gives a value of 1 second. With the obtained Kcrit and Tp, the optimum controller settings
is calculated and obtained. Proportional gain, integral action time, and derivative time
are calculated using the formulae in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Ziegler-Nichols Closed-Loop Optimum Controller Tuning Formulae

*The calculated results are shown in Table 1

7
 Table 1: Calculated values for Optimum Controller Settings

Optimum Settings
Type of Controller
Proportional Gain, Integral Action Derivative Time,
Kp Time, Tp Tv

P 0.3 - -

P+I 0.2727 0.8333 -

P+I+D 0.3529 0.5 0.1250

2.4 Task 4: To Evaluate Performance of P, PI and PID Controllers

P-controller

i) Introducing step change in set point

Figure 7: Graph of CTR2-5

According to Figure 7, Proportional (P) controller is used to control the flow rate (X).
Step change in set point is performed from W=60 l/h to W=80 l/h at a 10 l/h increment.
No disturbance (Z) is introduced. From Figure 7, it is observed that the flow rate (X)
increases from 50 l/h to 60.7 l/h throughout the step change in set point. From the
results, we found that the offset of the system gets bigger when the set point is
increasing further. This can be explained by the characteristic of P controller which offset

8
is present because it is enforced by the control system. As the set point increases, the
value gets further away from designated value of the P-controller, thus offset gets larger.

ii) Introducing disturbance

Figure 8: Graph of CTR2-6

According to Figure 8, the set point is set at 60 l/h throughout the process. An offset
between the flowrate (50 l/h) and the set point is observed to be 10 l/h before the
disturbance (Z) is introduced. After the system becomes steady, a disturbance of 70%
is introduced to the system. A sudden drop in the actual flow rate from 50 l/h to 25 l/h
is observed. After approximately 3 seconds, the flow rate achieved its steady state at 30
l/h. The new offset of 30 l/h is observed. Thus, we can conclude that the offset value
increases in the presence of the disturbance. The effect can be reduced by increasing
the proportional gain value, Kp of the system. However, as controller gain increases, the
oscillations in the flow rate will increase and even go unstable. An offset is obtained as
a characteristic of the P controller, it can only be reduced, but never eliminated
completely (Augusta, 2009).

One distinguishing feature of a P-Only controller is that it is only able to make the
measurement equal to the set point. When the set point is not at the design value, offset
occurs in most processes. The biggest advantage of P-Only control is that there is only
one tuning parameter to adjust, so it is relatively easy to achieve a “best” final tuning.
The disadvantage is that this control algorithm permits offset. Offset occurs in most
processes under P-Only control when the set point and disturbances are not at its design
value.

9
PI controller

i) Introducing step change in set point

Figure 9: Graph of CTR2-7

Proportional-Integral (PI) controller is used to control the flow rate (X). Step change in
set point from W=60 l/h to W=80 l/h is performed at a 10 l/h increment. No disturbance
(Z) is introduced. The difference between the actual flow rate and the set point is
compared after steady state is achieved. According to Figure 9, there is hardly any offset
except for some small oscillation due to disturbances (air bubbles, blockage in the pipe,
etc). From the observation, we can conclude that PI controller has the ability to eliminate
offset. According to theory, PI controller has integral action time which eliminate offset.
This increases the confidence of our results.

It is found that there are also some fluctuations in the flow rate during the step change
in set point. This is due to the unstable responses in the closed-loop system under a
short period of time. However, there are disadvantages within this controller. By
comparing to P controller, there is two tuning parameters compared to one in P controller.
A designer may need to spend more time and effort in designing the controller. Besides
that, the integral term in PI controller increases the oscillatory behaviour in the closed-
loop system. For instances, when comparing to P controller, the process response has
become more oscillatory but the offset has been eliminated.

10
 ii) Introducing disturbance

Figure 10: Graph of CTR2-8

According to Figure 10, no offset is observed before introducing the disturbance. The
disturbance is introduced at 2:59:36 PM, a sudden drop in the actual value from 60 l/h
to 30 l/h is observed before it slowly recovered to 60 l/h in approximately 10 seconds.
The green line rises which indicates the increased opening of the electromagnetic
proportional valve to compensate the disturbance in order to maintain the flow rate at
its set point. No offset is observed after the system stabilize. From the results, we can
conclude that PI controller is able to remove the offset after disturbance is introduced.
However, the time required for the system to stabilize is relatively slow (10 seconds).

11
PID Controller

i) Introducing step change in set point

Figure 11: Graph of CTR2-9

Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller is used to control the flow rate (X). Step
change in set point from W=60 l/h to W=80 l/h is performed at a 10 l/h increment in
flow rate. No disturbance (Z) is introduced. The difference between the actual flow rate
and the set point is compared after steady state is achieved. According to Figure 11, the
offset is getting smaller and then slowly eliminated. It is noticed that the green line which
indicates the opening of the electromagnetic proportional valve is oscillating before it
become stable which causes noisy measurements. This may disrupt the controller
performance and damage the equipment. Based on theory, PID controller is able to
improve the dynamic response by anticipating future behaviour of the error signal. This
is because PID controller contains derivative mode which improves the stability of the
system and enables an increase in gain K and decrease in the integral time constant Tv,
which increases the speed of the controller response. Therefore, the reaction on change
of the flow rate is fast which required only about 1 seconds. The prediction to remove
offset causes the valve constantly changing its opening. This may cause potential wear
in the equipment.

12
 ii) Introducing disturbance

Figure 12: Graph of CTR2-10

According to Figure 12, no offset is observed before introducing the disturbance. There
are no differences between the set point and the actual value. The disturbance is
introduced at 3:04:00 PM, a sudden drop in the actual value from 60 l/h to 30 l/h is
observed before it recovered to 60 l/h in a duration of 5 seconds. The green line which
indicates the opening of the electromagnetic proportional valve increases to compensate
the disturbance in order to maintain the flow rate at its set point. No offset is observed
after the system stabilize. However, the green line (manual regulation ratio) produces
more oscillating signal than the PI controller. From the results, it is found that the time
required for the system to stabilize (5 seconds) is quite fast relatively to PI controller.

The following signal block diagram represents the above closed-loop system.

Figure 13: Block Diagram for Close-Loop System

13
Influence of pure proportional gain, integral action time and derivative time

P controller has only one parameter to tune, which is the pure proportional gain (Kp)
term. P controller has the objective to reduce error signal to zero.

e(t) = ysp (t) - ym (t)

p(t) = p’ + Kc e(t)

where p(t) = controller output,

p’ = bias value,

Kc = controller gain

The controller gain can be tuned to make the manual regulatory ratio changes as
sensitive as desired to the deviation between the set point and flow rate. Thus, the error
can be reduced by adjusting the proportional gain (Kp). However, the offset is unable to
eliminate completely due to the bias value (p’). P controller can be useful in some
applications where precise value for the controlled variable is not required. It is cheap
and easy to tune.

PI controller has two parameters to tune, having both proportional gain (Kp) and
integral action time (Tn). The introduction of integral action time to the system is able to
remove the offset.

1 𝑡 ∗
𝑝(𝑡) = 𝑝′ + 𝐾𝑐 { 𝑒(𝑡) + ∫ 𝑒(𝑡 )𝑑𝑡 ∗ }
𝜏1 0

where 𝜏1 = integral time

Controller output depends on the integral of the error signal over time. The integral
action eliminate offset where p(t) is changing until e(t)= 0. Thus, the steady state offset
can be eliminated. The process control can be considerably speeded up compared to
open-loop system. However, the tuning is harder as it has two parameters for the
designer to work with. The process response also becomes oscillatory and bad tuning
may even lead to instability.

14
PID controller has three parameters to tune, having proportional gain (Kp), integral
action time (Tn) and derivative time (Tv). Adding derivative time parameter, PID
controller is able to improve dynamic response by anticipating the future behaviour of
the error signal.

1 𝑡 𝑑𝑒(𝑡)
𝑝(𝑡) = 𝑝′ + 𝐾𝑐 { 𝑒(𝑡) + ∫ 𝑒(𝑡 ∗ )𝑑𝑡 ∗ + 𝜏𝐷 }
𝜏1 0 𝑑𝑡

where 𝜏𝐷 = derivative time

𝑑𝑒(𝑡)
The term anticipates what the error will be in the immediate future. Thus, the
𝑑𝑡
reaction time is faster and oscillations can be dampened with respect to PI controller.
However, tuning is harder as there are three parameters to design. The derivative action
may amplify the measurement noise, which can damage the final control element.

The most suitable controller for the flow control system

P controller provides the easiest tuning as it has only one parameter which is the
proportional gain, Kp. However, the offset is not tolerable in the flow rate control system.
Therefore, the choice of controller lies between PI controller and PID controller. PID
controller provides faster response and a dampened oscillation with respect to PI control.
However, noise is produced which causes potential wear in the equipment. It is debatable
whether it is worth to use PID controller for the faster response despite the noise
produced. PID controller also requires three parameters to tune compared to two
parameters in PI controller. Looking at our system, the controlled variable is the flow
rate. Even though the response time for PI controller is slower than PID controller, the
response time (approximately 10 seconds) is sufficient for the system. The system does
not require an immediate response such as a reactor which may cause hazardous
disaster when the control response is slow. Hence, PI controller is the most suitable type
of controller to be used in the flow control system.

After comparing with theories, we are confident that our results is reliable. In order to
improve the accuracy of the experiment, maintenance of the equipment and pipeline
should be done frequently. Also, more sets of data should be taken so that the results
are more accurate.

15
3 Conclusion
In conclusion, the objectives of all the four tasks are achieved. For task 1, the process
is a First Order Plus Dead Time (FOPDT). It was shown that when the manual regulation
ratio (Y) increases, the flow rate (X) response in a very short time with a small delay.
There is a limitation where the flow rate remains maximum at a certain value despite
continue increasing the manual regulation ratio (Y).

For task 2, the flow rate decreases when disturbance increases. It is found that the flow
rate is not affected when the disturbance is small due to it is being insignificant to the
system. Besides, several possible disturbances for the system are determined.

For task 3, the optimum settings are calculated with the obtained Kcrit and Tp for P, PI and
PID controller by using the Ziegler-Nicholas Method.

For task 4, P, PI and PID controller are discussed and compared. The influences of Kp, Tn
and Tv on the system is determined. After evaluating the performances and comparing
between the controllers, it is concluded that PI controller is the most suitable controller
for the system. It satisfies the system requirement which does not allow offset. The
reaction time of PI controller is also sufficient for the system.

16
4 Notations
X Flow Rate

Y Manual Regulation Ratio

Z Disturbance

Kp Proportional Gain

Tn Integral Action Time

Tv Derivative Time

W Reference Variable Set Point

Kcrit Critical Proportional Gain

Tp Period of Sustained Oscillation

P Proportional Controller

PI Proportional - Integral Controller

PID Proportional – Integral - Derivative Controller

p(t) Controller Output

p’ Bias Value

Kc Controller Gain

𝜏1 Integral Time

𝜏𝐷 Derivative Time

Kc Adjustable Controller Gain

e(t) Error Signal

17
5 References
Anon, (2013). [online] Available at: https://www.electronics-
tutorials.ws/systems/open-loop-system.html [Accessed 13 Apr. 2018].

Apmonitor.com. (2018). First Order Plus Dead Time (FOPDT). [online] Available at:
https://apmonitor.com/pdc/index.php/Main/FirstOrderSystems [Accessed 11 Apr.
2018].

Augusta.k12.va.us. (2009). [online] Available at:

https://www.augusta.k12.va.us/cms/lib01/VA01000173/Centricity/Domain/396/Resist
ance_in_the_Fluid_System.pdf [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018].

Control Station, Inc. (2005) Practical Process Control, Fundamentals of

Instrumentation and Process Control 1-146.

Hydromatic.com. (2014). Head Loss in Piping Systems - TechInfo. [online] Available

at: http://www.hydromatic.com/ResidentialPage_techinfopage_headloss.aspx
[Accessed 13 Apr. 2018].

My.chemeng.queensu.ca. (2012). [online] Available at:

http://my.chemeng.queensu.ca/courses/CHEE319/documents/CHEE319_notes_2012_l
ecture4.pdf [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018].

Pacontrol.com. (2006). [online] Available at:

https://www.pacontrol.com/download/Process%20Control%20Fundamentals.pdf
[Accessed 15 Apr. 2018].

18
6 Appendix

6.1 Appendix A – Sample Calculations

Results obtained from experiment,

Kp = Kcrit = 0.6

Tp = 1s

For P controller:

𝐾𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 0.6
= = 0.30
2 2

For PI controller:

𝐾𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 0.6
== = 0.27
2.2 2.2

𝑇𝑝 1
Integral Action Time = = = 0.83 s
1.2 1.2

For PID controller:

𝐾𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 0.6
= = 0.35
1.7 1.7

𝑇𝑝 1
Integral Action Time = = = 0.50s
2 2

𝑇𝑝 1
Derivative Time = = = 0.125s
8 8

19
6.2 Appendix B - Stamped Results Graphs

20
21
22
23
24