TABLE OF CONTENT

NO CONTENT PAGE NUMBER

1 Abstract 2

2 Introduction 3–6

3 Procedure 6–8

4 Results and Discussion 9 – 15

5 Conclusion and Recommendation 15

6 References 16

7 Appendix 16

1
Abstract

The objectives of temperature control trainer experiment were to study the operation of
pressure control trainer, two modes control, tuning using Ziegler-Nichols method, stability of
the system and autotuning of controller. Initially, the temperature control trainer was operated
in Simulink and the proportional gain, integral time and derivative time were obtained by
using trial and error method. The set point was set as 50 and the output range was at 0-100%.
The proportional gain was set as 20 while 4300 and 15 seconds for integral time and
derivative time respectively. The system was operated under three modes control.
Disturbance was introduced to the system after the system became stable by changing the set
point to 75%. The responses of the system was observed in the software in the BODE plot. A
graph of process variable versus time was plotted to determine in order to find time constant
and delay time by applying the Ziegler-Nichols method. The time constant and delay time
was 318 and 162 seconds respectively. The proportional gain obtained from the graph was
0.6113 while integral time and derivative was 636 and 159 seconds respectively. The error
was ±1% before the disturbance but increased to ±5% after the disturbance but decreased to
around 1% too at the end. The increased in error was due to the changed of output signal
which would affect the process variable and also decreased in proportional gain. The process
variable was increased from around 49% to around 75% after the disturbance as the change in
set point. However, it was reduced back to around 52% after using the new proportional,
integral and derivative time. The value was closed to that before disturbance as tuning of
controller occurred. Incorrect tuning assumption and environmental factors were the factors
that would lead to error in this experiment. It was recommended to change the output range to
see the other changes.

2
1.0 Introduction

1.1 Process Control and Control System

Control system is that means by which any quantity of interest in a machine,

mechanism or equipment is maintained or altered in accordance with a desired manner. There
are two types of control systems which are open loop and closed loop control system. Open-
loop system is a type of continuous control system in which the output has no influence or
effect on the control action of the input signal. An open-loop system is expected to faithfully
follow its input command or set point regardless of the final result. The open loop control is,
therefore, satisfactory only if such fluctuations can be tolerated or system components are
designed and constructed so as to limit parameter variations and environmental conditions as
well controlled. Closed loop system which is also known as feedback control system consists
of a process and a controller that automatically adjusts one of the inputs to the process in
response to a signal feedback from the process output. Closed-loop systems are designed to
automatically achieve and maintain the desired output condition by comparing it with the
actual condition. It does this by generating an error signal which is the difference between the
output and the reference input (Coughanowr & Donald, 1991).

Figure 1: Block diagram of an open loop system

Figure 2: Block diagram of a closed loop control system

Control system performance is often measured by applying a step function and then
measuring the response of the process variable. This response is quantified by measuring
defined waveform characteristics (lab manual).

Rise time: It is the time required for the response to rise from 10% to 90% of the final value
for over damped systems and 0 to 100% of the final value for under damped systems.

Peak time: It is the time required for the response to reach the peak of time response or the
peak overshoot.

3
Peak overshoot: It is the amount that the process variable overshoots the final value,
expressed as a percentage of the final value.

Settling time: It time is the time required for the process variable to settle to within a certain
percentage (commonly 5%) of the final value

1.2 Temperature Control System and Description of Equipment

A temperature control system is a type of control system that automatically controls the
temperature of an area or object. It is commonly used in control systems in Air Conditioners,
Refrigerators, geysers, etc. where the temperature is automatically adjusted as per the input settings.
Temperature system, controller and temperature sensor are needed in order to implement a
temperature control system. A sensor is needed to provide measurement of temperature and processes
feedback to the controller to control the temperature (Coughanowr & Donald, 1991). A PID
temperature controller combines the proportional gains with the two additional parameters to
automatically compensate changes in system. It provides the most accurate and stable control of the
three controller types. PID temperature controllers are differ from ON/OFF temperature controller
where 100% power is applied until the set point is reached, at which point the power is cut to 0% until
the process temperature again falls below the set point. The set-up of the experiment consisted of a
process tank. Temperature transmitter is given to transmit the temperature signal. Heater is provided
to rise the temperature of the tank. Rotameter is used to control the flow of water. Micro-processer
controller with PID setting, auto tuning and fully programmable with serial communications is
provided. Software is provided with facility of data logging, trend plot and offline analysis & printing.

1.3 Theory

A proportional controller, Kc will have the effect of reducing the rise time and will
reduce but never eliminate the steady-state error. The proportional component depends only
on the difference between the set point and the process variable. This difference is referred to
as the Error term. The proportional gain (Kc) determines the ratio of output response to the
error signal. An integral control, Ti will have the effect of eliminating the steady-state error
for a constant or step input, but it may make the transient response slower. The integral
component sums the error term over time. The result is that even a small error term will cause
the integral component to increase slowly. The integral response will continually increase
over time unless the error is zero, so the effect is to drive the Steady-State error to zero.
Steady-State error is the final difference between the process variable and set point. A

4
derivative control, Td will have the effect of increasing the stability of the system, reducing
the overshoot, and improving the transient response (Astrom & Karl, n.d.).

Table 1: Effect of controller parameters on control system

CL RESPONSE RISE TIME OVERSHOOT SETTLING TIME S-S ERROR

Kc Decrease Increase Small Change Decrease
Ti Decrease Increase Increase Eliminate
Td Small Change Decrease Decrease No Change

1.4 Application, Advantages and Disadvantages

Temperature control can be used in many areas. Temperature controllers provide

control of industrial or laboratory heating and cooling processes. The sensor in the controller
detects the set point and the controlled signal to generate an output signal to activate the
heating or cooling devices to bring back to devices to the set point. Some common uses for
temperature controllers in industry include plastic extrusion and injection moulding
machines, thermos-forming machines, packaging machines, food processing and so on. In
packaging process, machinery equipped with seal bars, glue applicators, hot melt functions,
shrink wrap tunnels or label applicators must operate at designated temperatures and process
time lengths (McCabe and Smith, 1993). Temperature controllers precisely regulate these
operations to ensure a high quality product output. In plastics manufacture industry,
temperature control is commonly used on portable chillers, hoppers and dryers and moulding
and extruding equipment. In extruding equipment, temperature controllers are used to
precisely monitor and control temperatures at different critical points in the production of
plastic. Common equipment using temperature controllers includes laboratory and test
equipment, autoclaves, incubators, refrigeration equipment, and crystallization growing
chambers and test chambers where specimens must be kept or tests must be run within
specific temperature parameters.

The advantages of temperature control system are needed in any situation requiring a
given temperature be kept stable. This can be in a situation where an object is required to be
heated, cooled or both and to remain at the desired temperature (set point), regardless of the
changing. The main advantage of temperature control is safety. By being able to regulate the
system temperature like in hot water storage system or heater, the hazard of explosion can be
5
avoided. The ease of operation is also advantage of temperature control system. By using
temperature control system, times and energies can be saved instead of having to observe or
juggle the temperature of a system which may require experiences and times and make a
system to stay constant in temperature. A PID temperature control can also use to improve
the accuracy of the system or process by eliminating the process environment changes.
Moreover, temperature controllers with PID are more effective at dealing with process
disturbances. If the PID temperature controller is tuned properly it will compensate for the
disturbance and bring the process temperature back or close to the set point, or reduce power
as temperature approaches the set point so that it doesn’t overshoot and risk damaging the
product with too much heat. However, there are also some disadvantages of temperature
control system. The installation of PID temperature controller required a vast knowledges
thus it will be costlier than normal On/Off controller in temperature control system. They are
also more complicated to design and required more and proper maintenance. Sometimes, the
feedback may also leads to oscillatory response. The stability of the system may also a major
problem thus more care is needed to design a stable and durable control system. Lastly, the
overall gain of the system is also reduced due to presence of feedback.

The advantage of PID controller is its feasibility and easy to be implemented. The PID
gains can be designed based on the system parameters if they can be achieved or estimated
precisely. Moreover, the PID gain can be designed just based on the system tracking error.
However, PID controller generally has to balance all three gains impact to the whole system
and may compromise the transient response, such as settling time, overshoots and
oscillations. If the system parameters cannot be precisely estimated or achieved, the designed
PID gains may not resist the uncertainties and disturbances, and thus present low robustness
(Adian, 2009).

2.0 Procedure

2.1 Starting Procedure

1) All the valves (V1-V2) on the temperature control trainer were closed.

2) All switched on the panel were at OFF position.

3) Water inlet and outlet were connected to the apparatus.

4) Flow control valve was used to set the flow rate of water.

6
5) The computer and interfacing unit were switched on.

6) Auto mode was selected to perform the experiment automatically and manual mode was
chosen to change the values manually.

2.2 Closing Procedure

1) The software for the trainer was logged off.

2) The interfacing unit was turning off.

3) The power supply was switched off.

5) The drain valve was opened to drain the water from process tank.

2.3 Starting Procedure for PID control

1) The setup was started as mentioned in the starting procedure previously.

2) The controller was selected in AUTO mode.

3) The value of set point was selected (50%).

4) Some values of Kc, Ti and Td were selected.

5) The response of the system was observed. The value of Kc, Ti and Td were then increased
or decreased if over damped oscillations were occurring as to make PV equal to SP.

6) The proportional gain, integral time and derivative time were selected by using trial and
error method and a satisfactory response to step change in set point was given after that.

2.4 Closing Procedure for PID control

1) The setup was shut down as mentioned in the closing procedure previously after
experimentation.

7
 Figure 3: The schematic diagram of temperature control trainer
The relevant formulae for calculations:
Table 2: Tuning formula
Mode Kc Ti Td
P Tp/T INFINITY 0
P+I 0.9Tp/T T/0.3 0
P+I+D 1.2Tp/T 2T 0.5T
Where Tp = time constant, T= delay time

Error (e) = Set point (SP) – Process variable (PV)

8
3.0 Results and Discussion

Table 3: The data obtained for the temperature control trainer before disturbance

Sr. No. Kc Ti (sec) Td (sec) t (sec) SP (%) PV (%) OP (%) e (%)

1 22 3500 15 0 50 49.53 12.07 0.47

2 20 3900 15 60 50 49.22 16.10 0.78

3 20 4300 15 120 50 49.10 18.17 0.90

4 20 4300 13 180 50 49.17 16.55 0.83

5 20 4300 13 240 50 49.28 14.48 0.72

6 20 4300 13 300 50 49.15 16.99 0.85

7 20 4300 13 360 50 49.16 16.63 0.84

8 20 4300 13 420 50 49.28 14.25 0.72

9 20 4300 13 480 50 49.20 16.05 0.80

Table 4: The data obtained for the temperature control trainer after disturbance

Sr. No. Kc Ti (sec) Td (sec) t (sec) SP (%) PV (%) OP (%) e (%)

1 20 4300 13 0 75 49.20 16.05 25.80

2 20 4300 13 60 75 70.50 26.08 4.50

3 20 4300 13 120 75 74.33 13.48 0.67

4 20 4300 13 180 75 74.18 16.53 0.82

5 20 4300 13 240 75 74.12 17.56 0.88

6 20 4300 13 300 75 74.27 14.61 0.73

7 20 4300 13 360 75 74.16 16.85 0.84

9
 80
75

Process Variable (%)

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (min)

Figure 4: S shape curve (Process Variable versus Time)

4
Error (%)

0
1 3 5 7 9 11
Time (min)

Figure 5: The graph of error (e) with respect to time (t)

Table 5: Kc, TI and Td values obtained manually and by Ziegler Nichols method

Parameter Manually by trial and error Ziegler Nichols method

KC 20 0.6113

TI 4300 seconds 636 seconds

Td 13 159

10
Table 6: Data obtained from new values of Kc, Ti and Td

Sr. No. Kc Ti (sec) Td (sec) t (sec) SP (%) PV (%) OP (%) e (%)

1 0.611 636 159 0 75 26.31 30.15 48.69

2 0.611 636 159 60 75 46.69 17.38 28.31

3 0.611 636 159 120 75 50.96 14.71 24.04

4 0.611 636 159 180 75 51.84 14.15 23.16

5 0.611 636 159 240 75 52.03 14.04 22.97

55
50
Proces Variable (%)

45
Ziegler
40 Nichols
35 Experimen
30 tally

25
20
1 2 3 4 5
Time (min)

Figure 6: Comparison between process variable obtained experimentally and by using Ziegler
Nichols method versus time.

The objectives of this experiment were to study the operation of temperature control
trainer, three mode controls, tuning of controller using Ziegler-Nichols method, stability of
the system and autotuning of controller. In this experiment, a temperature control trainer was
used. Initially, the experiment was carried out by using simulink and set point of 50%. The
output range was set from 0% to 100%. In this experiment, three modes controls were used
which were proportional, integral and derivative controls. The trainer was allowed to run

11
manually by changing the Kc, Ti, and Td values using trial and error method. The response of
the system could be observed in the software by using the BODE plot. The values of Kc, Ti
and Td obtained for an almost steady graph were 20, 4300 seconds and 13 seconds in this
experiment. The disturbance in this experiment was step change disturbance which was
created by adjusting the set point to 75%. Ziegler-Nichols method was used to determine the
proportional, integral and derivative parameters after the disturbance. The values were
expected to be difference with the manually obtained values as tuning of the controller
response to reject the disturbance. The values obtained from the method were 0.6113 for
proportional gain, 636 seconds for integral time while 159 seconds for derivative. The error
was expected to undergo some changes after the disturbance as the new value of proportional
gain would change too. The results obtained nearly attained the expected results as the value
of error increased when the proportional decreased.

The tuning of controller was studied by using Ziegler-Nichols method in this

experiment. It was used to calculate the values of P, I, D using the s shape curve. The purpose
of tuning controller was to determine the values of P, I, D in such a way that the error
between the set point and process variable should become equal to zero (Adian, 2009). It was
also used to minimize overshoot and then made the process variable steady at the set point
without excessive output changes. The reasoning behind using this method was due to it
didn’t require the use of mathematical model, and by adjusting the controller parameters
experimentally (Coughanowr & Donald, 1991).

Before applying the Ziegler-Nichols method to get the three parameters, the control
system was put in auto mode and was waited to settle out in order to obtain a steady response.
The data of the steady response was recorded in Table 3 above. The table consisted of
controller gain (Kc), integral time (Ti), derivative time (Td), time (t) set point (SP), process
variable (PV), output (OP) and error (e). A process variable, process value or process
parameter was the current status of a process under control. The current flow of the system
was called the process variable, while the desired pressure was known as the set-point. Data
were collected every minute using the software. The proportional gain, integral time and
derivative time were set by using trial and error method. The proportional gain, integral time
and derivative time obtained from trial and error for the system to become stable were 20,
4300 seconds and 13 seconds respectively. The set point was set at 50%. The process variable
was maintained in the close range of 49.0% before the introduced of disturbance. The output

12
was at 18.17% at beginning and decreased to 16.05% before the disturbance was introduced.
The error was remained at the range of 0.7-0.9% before the disturbance.

A disturbance was introduced to the system to settle out for a new value of the three
parameters. In this experiment, step up change response was selected as the disturbance. The
disturbance was created by adjusting the set point to 75%. The data obtained after the
disturbance was recorded at Table 4. The disturbance was introduced at 8th minute after the
process became stable. The process variable at 8th minute increased until 70.5% and was
underwent an increment which was increased to 74.16% later and become steady at the end.
The increased in process variable was due to the increase of set point limit which allowed the
system to operate in higher process variable. The output signal was slightly increased to more
than 20% after the disturbance was introduced and underwent fluctuations and became stable
after that. The error was remained at the same range liked before the disturbance. This was
due to the output signal and proportional gains were maintained in the same consistent range
before and after the disturbances.

By using the data collected, a S shape curve was plotted by using process variable
versus time. The graph was plotted in Figure 4. A tangential line was drawn at the inflection
point of the curve to determine the delay time, T and time constant, Tp. The delay time
obtained was 318 seconds while the time constant was 152 seconds. By using the values
obtained from the curve, the new values of Kc, Ti and TD could be calculated by using the
Ziegler-Nichols formula and was recorded in table 5. The new proportional gain obtained by
using this method was 0.6113 while integral time and derivative times were 636 second and
159 seconds. The new values of Kc, Ti and Td were inserted into the system and the response
was observed and recorded in Table 6. The process variable was decreased dramatically
which was at 26.31% and the output was also the same was 30.15%. However, the process
variable increased again after that and settled at around 50% while the output was decreased
until around 30%. The output of the system should be decreased because the proportional
gain obtained from the Ziegler Nichols method was lower than the proportional gain obtained
manually. This was due to output equalled to product of proportional gain and error. The
process variable was dropped to value that almost same with the process variable before
disturbance which was 50%. This showed that autotuning of controller was worked to bring
down the process variable from around 70% with disturbance to the initial process variable.
A high proportional gain resulted in a large change in the output for a given change in the
error. The proportional gain (Kc) determined the ratio of output response to the error signal.

13
In general, increasing the proportional gain would increase the speed of the control system
response. However, if the proportional gain was too large, the process variable would begin
to oscillate. In contrast, a small gain resulted in a small output response to a large input error,
and a less responsive or less sensitive controller. If the proportional gain was too low, the
control action may be too small when responding to system disturbances. The integral time
accelerated the movement of the process towards set point and eliminates the residual steady-
state error that occurs with a pure proportional controller (Astrom & Karl, n.d.). It provided
necessary action to eliminate the steady state error.

Figure 5 showed the graph of error percent with respect to time. From beginning until
around 6th minute, the error percent was around 1%. This showed that the system was
operated in a stable state. The disturbance was introduced after 6th minute. The error was
increased until between 4 to 5% and decreased again to 1% after around 8th minute. This was
because the introduced of disturbance caused the changes in the output signal. The output
signal thus altered the process variable. This was due to the controller drove the process
variable towards the set point. The error percent was unable to be reduced until zero value
again as the PID values were not the optimal values for the given temperature. Dead time
occurred from 6th minute to around 8th minute. Dead time was the delay between when a
process variable changes, and when that change could be observed. Dead time could be
caused by a system or output actuator that was slow to respond to the output signal (McCabe
and Smith, 1993). Figure 6 showed the comparison between process variable obtained from
the experiment and by using Ziegler Nichols method versus time. From the graph above, it
showed that the process variable obtained experimentally was consistent along the time. It
was around 50%. For the one obtained from Ziegler Nichols method, it showed an increment
at beginning and remained stable after that. It was increased from around 25% to around 70%
and became consistent. The process variable obtained from this method was lower than the
experimentally value before 3rd minute and slightly higher after that. The process variable
was unable to go back to the same as the previous process variable as some small errors or
fluctuations might occur during the system. However, the difference was not big thus the
tuning performance was quite accurate.

There might also some errors which might increase the error percent in this
experiment or some errors that might affect the tuning of the control system. Firstly, the
tuning rule assumption or applied might not suitable for the given system. Next, erratic
behaviours might also occur with discrete controller used. Inconsistent design goals or

14
limited applicability, unrealistic pure time delay assumption might also affect the outcome.
More trial and errors method or readings should be implemented to get more accurate values.
As the system was run in Simulink as the final control element was not in good condition
thus the results obtained was just software based.

4.0 Conclusion and Recommendation

In conclusion, the objectives of the experiment were successfully achieved. The

operation of temperature control trainer was to control the temperature. The tuning
performance of the controller was studied by applying the Ziegler-Nichols tuning method.
PID controller system was being studied and the effect of the three parameters was being
investigated. Three modes (P+I+D) control was used in this experiment to study the tuning
behaviour. The errors calculated before the disturbance was ±1% while error when
disturbance was introduced was ±4% and slowly became around 1%. The error percent was
increased after disturbance as the disturbance rejection was occurred. The calculated delay
time from graph was 318 seconds while time constant was 162 seconds. The increase of
process variable after the disturbance was due to the system was allowed to operate at higher
process variable as the set point was increased until 75%. The process variable was depended
on the output signal. The output signal meanwhile would affected by the disturbance. High
output signal would cause the decreased in the process variable and vice versa. The error was
mainly due to the fact that not all the optimised values of the three parameters were suitable
to all system.

Recommendation:

1. The experiment is recommended to carry out by using different set point and output range
to study the mechanisms to the system.

2. The experiment is recommended to carry out with different type of fluid to study the
different in the characteristic of fluid toward temperature control.

3. The experiment is recommended to carry out by changing the flow rate to study the
temperature control mechanisms in difference condition.

15
5.0 References

1. Adian O’Dwyer, “Handbook of a PI and PID Controller Tuning Rules”, 3rd edition,
2009.
2. Astrom, Karl J., Hagglund, Tore. Advanced PID Control, ISA, The Instrumentation,
Systems and Automation Society.
3. Coughanowr, Donald R. (1991). "Process Systems Analysis and Control". 2nd Ed. ND:
Mc Graw-hill International.
4. McCabe and Smith, Unit Operations in Chemical Engineering, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, NY,
1993.
5. Svrcek, William Y., Mahoney, Donald P., Young, Brent R. A Real Time Approach to
Process Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Appendix

For P+I+D mode control;

i) Kc = 1.2 (2.7) / 5.3

= 0.6113
ii) Ti = 2 (5.3 x 60)
= 636 seconds
iii) Td = 0.5 (5.3 x 60)
= 159 seconds

Errors before disturbance, at 0th second,

(50-49.1)% = 0.9%

Error at 120th second after disturbance,

(75-74.33)% = 0.67%

16