CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 LAB 1: EFFECT OF CONTROLLER GAIN

Figure 3.1: Plot data of PV against Time

Table 3.1: Configurations of parameters PID
P I D
PID 1 0.05 0.01 0
PID 2 0.10 0.01 0
PID 3 0.20 0.01 0

Proportional-Integrative-Derivative (PID) controller is a control function used to

maintain the consistency of set point by adjusting the control outputs. A process is controlled by
PID controller through three parameters; Proportional (P), Integrative (I) and Derivative (D). The
effect of these parameters can be adjusted on the process.
 Proportional or also known as proportioning band (controller gain) is the area around the
set point where the controller is actually controlling the process. If the proportioning band is too
narrow or small, the number of oscillation that will be produced is larger around the set point.
Vice versa, if the proportioning band is too wide or large, the control will the control will
respond in a listless manner, which means the process will take too long to settle. In this
experiment, the system is a closed loop transfer function with a PI controller that P as the
manipulated variable. Therefore, only P parameter will be discussed in this section and how it
affects the results.
A closed control loop was set up by using the MATLAB Simulink software. The process

5s
transfer function was set to 2
s +10 s with the value of 1 for the set point. For the first trial, the

values of PID1 were set as P 1=0.05, I=0.01 and D=0. The simulation was run at 600s and the
graph was plotted. The P parameter used in PID2 was P2=0.10, in PID3 was P3=0.20 while the
value of I and D for PID 2 and PID3 remained constant.
Based on the graph plotted, PID 1(P1=0.05) has the highest curve compared to PID 2
(P1=0.10) and PID 3 (P3=0.20) and PID 3 has lowest curve among those plots. The PID 1 in
graph shows that the system has no steady state error in response to the step reference by itself.
However, the system showed has significant steady state error when increasing value of P2=0.10
was applied. This follows the property of superposition that holds for linear systems. The larger
the value of P, the smaller the steady state error is due to the disturbance but it never reaches
zero. In addition, by applying larger values of P has the adverse effect of increasing the
overshoot and the settling time needed will be much shorter when increasing values of P applied.
Therefore, it can be concluded that PID parameters does affect the process controllability.

Table 3.2: Results of effect of controller gain

P 0.05 0.10 0.02
Overshoot 0.6 0.405 0.21
Time of first maximum 40.478 36.388 32.077
Decay ratio 0.36 0.164025 0
Period of oscillation 89.746 94.92 0
Rise time 20.123 18.231 15.462
Settling time 424.441 202.846 130.846
Number of oscillation 4 2 Half

Based on the calculations made, the values are tabulated in table above. It is found that PID 3 is
better than PID 2 and followed by PID 1. This can be proven by the values obtained in the table
above. PID 3 with the value of P3=0.20 has the smallest value of overshoot which is 0.21,
compared to PID 1 and PID 2. Small overshoot is needed so that the process will be as close as
possible to the set point. It is also found that the time of first maximum (time taken to the first
peak) is the smallest value which is 32.077. For PID 1, the decay ratio obtained is 0.36 which is
the largest among all the processes. A process with a large decay ratio will likely have a long
settling time, this can be proven by the plot data since PID 1 took the longest time to settle down.

3.2 LAB 2: EFFECT OF INTEGRAL TIME

Figure 3.2: Plot data of PV against Time

Table 3.3: Result of effect of integral time at set point 1
Integra Overshoot Decay Settling Rise Time of Period of Number
l ratio time time first max oscillation of
oscillation
0.01 0.613 0.331 130.913 20.025 40.150 27.13 5
0.02 0.706 0.429 250.348 14.468 29.090 63.22 8
0.04 0.786 0.598 266.125 10.544 21.270 44.33 12

Lab 2 is about the effect of integral time where the controller gain, P and derivative time,
D are fixed and only the integral time, I will be manipulated. The PID controllers parameters are
set into 3 sets of data to verify the value of integral time. By using the MATLAB Simulink
software, a control loop was set up.

5s
In this closed-loop system, a process transfer function was set as 2
s +10 s with a

process set point of 1. For the first trial, the value of the three parameters were P 1= 0.05, I1= 0.01
and D1= 0. Once the simulation was run at 600, the graph resulted in the scope and was plotted in
the MATLAB. For second and third trial, the integral time were changed to I 2=0.02 and I3=0.04
respectively while the values of P and D were remained unchanged.

Based on the graph above, PID 3 has the highest overshoot and decay ratio followed by
PID 2 and PID 3. On the other hand, PID 1 has the highest rise time and time required for the
output to reach its first maximum value followed by PID 2 and PID 3. In terms of oscillations,
PID 3 produced more number of narrow oscillations compared to PID 2 and PID 1. PID 1
produced less number of oscillations and broader compared to PID 2. For a system to achieve a
steady- state, PID 1 was the first one to become stable at 130.913 followed by PID 2 at 250.348
and PID 3 at 266.125.
 Figure 3.3: Plot data of PV against Time

Table 3.4: Result of effect of integral time at set point 5

Integra Overshoot Decay Settling Rise Time of Period of Number
l ratio time time first max oscillation of
oscillatio
n
0.01 0.636 0.109 845.145 620.062 640.132 180.30 6
0.02 0.706 0.467 850.001 614.595 629.10 63.20 8
0.04 0.786 0.599 864.772 611.337 621.20 44.60 12

The procedures were repeated by changing the set point at 5. Figure 3.3 and Table 3.4
show that the result of effect of integral time at set point of 5. For the first trial, the value of the
three parameters were P1= 0.05, I1= 0.01 and D1= 0. Once the simulation was run at 600, the
graph resulted in the scope and was plotted in the MATLAB. For second and third trial, the
integral time were changed to I2=0.02 and I3=0.04 respectively while the values of P and D were
remained unchanged.
 Based on the graph above, PID 3 has the highest overshoot and decay ratio followed by
PID 2 and PID 3. On the other hand, PID 1 has the highest rise time and time required for the
output to reach its first maximum value followed by PID 2 and PID 3. In terms of oscillations,
PID 1 produced more number of narrow oscillations compared to PID 2 and PID 3. PID 3
produced less number of oscillations and broader compared to PID 2. For a system to achieve a
steady- state, PID 1 was the first one to become stable at 845.145 followed by PID 2 at 850.001
and PID 3 at 864.772.

By comparing the results of effect of integral time at set point 1 and set point 5, results of
both set point have same trends. Decreasing the value of I makes the controller action stronger
which result a faster process response towards the set point. It can be proven as the settling time
decreases when the integral time decreases. Settling times means that time taken by the process
to finally reach stability. The higher decay ratio means the longer settling time. Furthermore,
number of oscillations indicate the stability of the process. The higher the number of oscillation
the more unstable the process. Besides, the lower the integral time, the lower the overshoot. As
the overshoot is low, the closer the process to the set point given. Rise time is the time taken by
the process to initially reach the set point.

3.3 LAB 3: EFFECT OF DERIVATIVE TIME

Figure 3.4: Plot data of PV against Time

Table 3.4: Configuration parameters of PID
P I D
PID 1 0.05 0.01 1
PID 2 0.05 0.01 2
PID 3 0.05 0.01 4

Table 3.5: Result of effect of derivative time

D 1 2 4
Overshoot 0.442 0.349 0.247
Time of first maximum 49.708 58.103 71.748
Decay ratio 2.8595 2.554 2.252
Period of oscillation 0.263 0.190 0.117
Rise time 24.93 29.08 36.00
Settling time 326.402 374.996 459.112
Number of oscillation 5 4 and a half 3 and half

Derivative acts as a brake or dampener on the control effort. The more the controller tries to
change the value, the more it responds the effort. The variable rises in response to the set point
change, but not as violently. As it approaches the set point, it settles in nicely with a minimum of
overshoot. It doesnt move as quickly as the PI-only effort, but without the oscillations, the right
amount of derivative action can stabilize the process variable at the set point sooner.
By using the MATLAB Simulink software, a control loop was set up. In this closed-loop

5s
system, a process transfer function was set as 2
s +10 s with a process set point of 1. For the

first trial, the value of the three parameters were P 1= 0.05, I1= 0.01 and D1= 1. Once the
simulation was run at 600, the graph resulted in the scope and was plotted in the MATLAB. The
D parameter in second and third trial, PID 2 and PID 3 were D 2=2.0 and D3=4.0, respectively.
The values of P and I for second and third trial were remained constant.
Based on the graph obtained, it is found that PID 1 has the highest peak followed by PID
2 and PID 3 was the lowest. In terms of oscillations, PID 1 produced more number of narrow
oscillations compared to PID 2 and PID 3. PID 3 produced broader response of oscillations
compared to PID 1 and PID 2. For a system to achieve a steady-state condition, it is found that
PID 1 was first to reach the set point just by looking at the value obtained for settling time which
is the shortest with 326.420 s despite the highest number of oscillations produced. However, the
system in PID 1 took longer time to reach its steady-state among those three process.
From the data extracted from the graph mentioned above, the higher the value of D, the
less number of oscillations will be produced, the lower the peak produced and longer time for the
system to reach its steady-state. Thus, it can be concluded that Derivative of PID controller does
affect the process controllability.

For PID1, the graph shows a higher overshoot from the set point and the settling time is
326.402 s which is shorter compared to PID2 and PID3 but the overshoot is closer towards the
set point.

Using step, simulation time = 1500

Figure 3.5: Plot data of PV against Time

Table 3.6: Result of effect of derivative at set point 5
D 1 2 4
Overshoot 1.691 1.598 1.5005
Time of first maximum 650.693 659.056 672.235
Decay ratio 2.8595 2.554 2.252
Period of oscillation 109.7 125.48 156.682
Rise time 625.589 629.125 636.521
Settling time 1216.513 1288.757 1500
Number of oscillation 5 5 5 and half

Based on the calculations made, the values are tabulated in table above. It is found that PID1 is
better than PID2 and followed by PID3. This can be proven by the values obtained in the table
above. PID1 with the value of D1=1.0 has the highest value of overshoot which is 1.691,
compared to PID2 and PID3. For PID 1, the decay ratio obtained is 2.8595 which is the largest
among all the processes. However, PID1 took the shortest time to settle down since PID1 was the
first to reach the set point. Time of first maximum of PID1 is 650.693 compared to PID2 and
PID3. Number of oscillations obtained by PID1 also is the smallest compared to PID 2 and PID3.
This shows that PID1 is the most stable process among all three processes.

By comparing the results obtained from the data plot of set point of 1 and set point of 5, it
is found that the both results show the same trends of plot. However, the values obtained for set
point of 5 much larger than the values obtained for set point 1. Increasing the derivative time
parameter will cause the control system to react more strongly to changes in the error term and
will increase the speed of the overall control system response. Most practical control systems use
very small derivative time, because the Derivative Response is highly sensitive to noise in the
process variable signal. Based on both plot data, process with lower derivative time has the
higher peak. It is shown that the control system response varies when the different derivative
time was set.
3.4 LAB 4: EFFECT OF DEAD TIME

Figure 3.6: Plot data of PV against Time

Table 3.7: Results effect of dead time

Time Overshoot Decay Settling Rise Time of Period of Number
delay ratio time time first max oscillation of
oscillatio
n
5 0.505 0.006 60.577 13.971 24.840 70.390 1
7 0.821 0.116 106.945 15.738 27.240 53.090 3
9 1.202 0.515 330.052 17.601 30.950 54.630 9
 A time delay is also called dead time. Dead time is the delay from when a controller
output signal is issued until when the measured process variable first begins to respond or the
time at the first instance of the change in the measurement. In controller design, the systems with
dead time can be difficult to control.

Time taken for a material to travel from one point to another can add dead time to loop. If
a parameter is changed at one end of a pipe and the sensor is located at the other end, the change
will not be detected until the fluid has moved down the length of the pipe. Like a time constant,
dead time has units of time and must always be positive. As dead time gets larger, the controller
gain gets smaller.

By using the MATLAB Simulink software, a control loop was set up. In this system, a

5s
process transfer function was set as 2
s +10 s with a process set point of 1. Transport delay

was added into the system and the time delay was set at 5 (TD 1). The value of the PID
parameters were P=0.2, I=0.01 and D=0 and the simulation was run at 600. For the second and
third trial, the value of time delay was 7 (TD 2) and 9 (TD 3), respectively.

Based on the graph plotted, TD 3 produced the highest curve compared to TD 1 and TD
2. TD 3 also produced more oscillations compared to TD 1 and TD 2. Although TD 1 has time
delay of 5, it has no steady-state error and it takes the shortest time to reach steady-state
condition compare to TD 2 and TD 3. Small overshoot is required so that the process is as close
as possible to the set point.