PROCESS INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL

STUDENT NUMBER:

15578291

NAME:

Lisa Gibson

GROUP:

G9 TUESDAY (10:00am)

LABORATORY:

PRESSURE CONTROL

DATE PERFORMED:

23 SEPTEMBER 2014

DATE DUE:

7 OCTOBER 2014

DATE SUBMITTED:

7 OCTOBER 2014

I hereby declare that the calculation, results, discussion and conclusions submitted in this
report is entirely my own work and have not copied from any other student or past student.
Student Signature: ________________________________________

Contents
1.

Objective.........................................................................................................................2

2.

Summary of Results........................................................................................................2

3.

Discussion.......................................................................................................................4

4.

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................6

5.

References.......................................................................................................................6

List of Figures
Figure 1: Controller output vs set point value, for PB=200, I=3 and D=0..............................2
Figure 2: Controller output vs set point value for PB=200, I=3 and D=5.................................2
Figure 3: Controller output vs set point value for PB=200, I=3 and D=20...............................3
Figure 4: Controller output vs set point value for PB=200, I=3 and D=20...............................3
Figure 5: Controller output vs set point value for PB=100, I=1500 and D=0...........................3
Figure 6: Controller output vs set point value for PB=6 and PB=5...........................................4
Figure 7: Controller output vs set point value for PB=10, I=5 and D=1 ..................................4

1. Objective
The objective of this experiment was to use a proportional controller to control the pressure
of a process by automatically manipulating a pneumatic valve. Pressure disturbances that
may appear in processes were investigated by changing the set point, integral time and
derivative time of the controllers and measuring the response.
The responses to the changes in the system were investigated firstly using a P and I and a PI
and D controllers and secondly investigating the effect of proportional band.
The experiment also focused on the tuning of a controller and observing the improved
response.

2. Summary of Results

Figure 1: Controller output vs set point value, for PB=200, I=3 and D=0

Figure 2: Controller output vs set point value for PB=200, I=3 and D=5

In section 1 of the experiment a PI controller and a PID controller were investigated by

comparing different values for each. In figures 1 and 2 in can be seen that a PID controller
leads to a reduction in overshoot in the present of a disturbance, in comparison to a PI
controller. This is indicated by a decline in amplitude of the spike seen in figures 2 when
compared to that of figure 1.

Figure 3: Controller output vs set point value for PB=200, I=3 and D=20

In figure 3 it can be seen that when the derivative time is increased from 5s to 20s, while the
integral time is held constant, that the controller displays an improved response with the
amplitude of the spike seen in this figure being smaller than that of the spikes seen in both
figure 1 and 2.

Figure 4: Controller output vs set point value for PB=200, I=3 and D=20.

Figure 5: Controller output vs set point value for PB=100, I=1500 and D=0

Figure 6: Controller output vs set point value for PB=6, I=1500 and D=0 and PB=5, I=1500 and
D=0

In section 2 of the experiment the proportion bad was manipulated to see the effects of this
parameter on the process. It was observed in figure 6 that a lower PB value, had a better
response time and less offset. This is reflected in the results shown for that of the PB values
PB=6 and PB=5. However it should also be noted that a low PB value increases oscillation
which can result in the system becoming unstable. The results above reflect this with
oscillation increasing from PB=100 (see figure 4) to PB = 5 (see figure 5).

Figure 7: Controller output vs set point value for PB=10, I=5 and D=1
after applying control loop tuning.

In section 3 investigated a loop tuning procedure called the Nicholas method. It can be seen
in the above figure (figure 7), that the tunned loop has a very quick response time, little
overshoot and oscillation and little to no offset.

3. Discussion
In this experiment both PI and PID controllers were compared. The integral term gives a sum
of accumulated error over a set period of time and corrects any error in the system
accordingly. This allowing the controller to optimise process control outputs and almost
completely eliminates offset. If the I time is too long the correction in any offsets would take
a much longer duration and would result in a larger quantity of error within the system.
If the I term were too short the set point value will be exceeded resulting in the process
becoming unsteady, as the I term reacts to the accumulation of previous errors in order to
correct the system. In reference to the set of data in figure 1, the controller output (green) is
observed to be relatively stable as oscillations are kept to a minimum. The offset between the
controller output and set point is also low and almost completely eliminated. However it can

also be observed that the response time of this controller is relatively slow in the presence of
pressure disturbances placed onto in the system or set point changes. When a derivative term
(D=5s) is introduced to the systems as can be seen in figure 2 the controller response is
improved. This is depicted by the amplitude of the spike resulting from the introduction of a
disturbance, as seen in this figure, being smaller than that of the spikes seen in figure 1.
When the derivative is increased to 20s it can be observed that the response time and
overshoot is reduced further and it can be seen that the amplitude of the disturbance spike
seen in figure 3 is significantly smaller than that of the spikes in figures 1 and 2. It can also
be observed that the offset has been completely eliminated in both figures 2 and 3 due to the
introduction of said derivative term.
In section 2 of this experiment it can be observed that a relatively low proportional band
percentage is needed to minimise error within the system. This is shown by figure 6 in which
PB =6% and 5% respectively. In this figure it can be seen that these PB values have a better
convergence time in comparison to the data shown in figure 5 and lower offset. This is
because reducing the proportional band will increase the proportional gain
and decrease the steady-state off set.
A relatively low proportional band will allow the system to minimise error at the output as
100
error Kp = PB , where Kp is the proportional gain and PB is the the proportional
band %. However if the proportional band is too the low the process will
become unstable and major oscillation will occur. It can be seen that when
the PB value is equal to 100% (see figure 5) no oscillation occurs
suggesting a stable system, but a relatively high proportional band will result in a
slow response to disturbances and will lead to an increase in offsets. This can be seen in
figure 5 when the proportional band equals 100%. Whilst it can be observed that the graph
shows a relatively smoother line through this section (relatively minimal oscillation), it can
also be observed that the time taken for the process to settle back at the set point is drastically
larger than that of the when the proportional band is set to 6% or 5% (figure 6).
Once the controller output pattern began to exhibit constant amplitude cycling as can be seen
in figures 6 and 7,tunning using the Ziegler and Nicholas method was instigated.. The
purpose of control loop tuning is to find the optimal balance between the P, I and D terms of
the PID controller which will consequently result in a faster and more accurate controller
response in the presence of any disturbances or set point changes. The Ziegler and Nicholas
PB, I and D terms were calculated using the formulae below:

I= 0 ;
D= 0 ;
PB=2 ( P B' ) ;
1.2
8
Where PB is the proportion band setting at which constant amplitude cycling is exhibited.

And 0 is the natural period and the time between two successive peaks.
In this experiment it was found that PB=5 and

=5.

Using the above formulae it was calculated that the appropriate PID terms were PB=10%,
I=5s and D=1s. The data obtained in figure 7 is that in which the Ziegler and Nicholas terms
are portrayed. This is figure it can be observed that the response of the controller significantly
improved. It can be seen that the offset was entirely eliminated, overshoot was dramatically
reduced and the controller was very quick to respond to any disturbances or set point

changes. It can also be observed that the system is only exhibiting small oscillation and is
therefore stable.

4. Conclusion
In this experiment it was found that a PID controller is more successful at maintaining
better regulated pressure process than a PI controller. This is because the PID controller
maintains a good response time and completely eliminates offset, with little oscillation.
It can also be concluded that a smaller PB value is best as it has a relatively good
convergence time with only a small amount of offset. However if the PB value is too
small major oscillation will occur resulting in the system becoming unstable.
It was also demonstrated that the tunning of a controller is very effective in achieving
desired control conditions. With appropriate tunning offset can be completely eliminated
and the controller response time becomes extremely fast with little to no oscillation.

5. References
June 2009. Process Lab Projects, Pressure Control: Laboratory Manual.(1).Chemical
Engineering Department, Curtin University.
June 2012. Essentials of Process Control, Level Control Process: Instruction Manual.(2).
Armfield Limited.