Understanding the Role of Components in a Feedback Loop

Eloise Jackson and Jigar Patel
Summary
The purpose of this experiment is to understand the role of the main components in
a feedback loop; these include the sensor, control valve and controller. It can be
determined that automatic control is more effective than manual control as it offers a
smoother, more gradual and stable process so maximum efficiency is achieved at a
lower cost. It was observed that hysteresis occurred within the control valve. Overall
it was found that using only the proportional gain values alone is not sufficient to
reach the set point required. It is necessary and more common in industry to use
integral time in addition to allow for the set point to be reached; however the
disadvantage to this is that at lower values there are more oscillations but the
desired set point will be reached quicker. When introducing derivative time into the
parameters, at low values it is able to achieve the set point but at higher values the
process becomes unstable with the tank emptying, along with an erratic output. To
find the best combination of the parameters autotuning is used and the most
common used would be for the PI controllers. Tuning for PI fast, values attained
were Kc=12.0690, Ti=0.0419min and Td=0min. With the values from autotuning, a
PID control system can be optimised to suit any process. It was determined that the
relative valve resistance was 0.1198 for decreasing signal and it was 0.0398 for
increasing signal.
Table of Contents
Summary................................................................................................................. 1
1
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 3
Theory..................................................................................................................... 4
Control System...................................................................................................... 4
Sensors................................................................................................................ 4
Calibration............................................................................................................ 5
Control Valve......................................................................................................... 6
PID control............................................................................................................... 8
Proportional gain................................................................................................... 9
Integral time.......................................................................................................... 9
Derivative time...................................................................................................... 9
Experimental procedure........................................................................................... 10
Results and discussion............................................................................................ 13
Sensor Calibration............................................................................................... 13
Valve Calibration.................................................................................................. 15
Relative control valve resistance............................................................................ 16
Manual control........................................................................................................ 18
Automatic control with heuristic tuning........................................................................20
P controller......................................................................................................... 20
PI controller........................................................................................................ 22
PID controller...................................................................................................... 24
Automatic tuning..................................................................................................... 26
PI slow and PI fast............................................................................................... 26
PID fast.............................................................................................................. 27
Maximum Input Flow rate......................................................................................... 28
Negative Proportional Gain....................................................................................... 28
Conclusion............................................................................................................. 29
References............................................................................................................ 30
Symbols and Units.................................................................................................. 31
Appendix............................................................................................................... 32
Introduction
The importance of understanding process dynamics and control has been accepted
for a long time. From early control systems such as Watts Fly Governor (Nagy,
2010)[1] that regulated steam flow to a steam engine to maintain constant engine
speed despite a changing load to equipment (Encyclopdia Britannica, 2010) [2]. Now
2
in modern industrial plants, the same aim is there but far more sophisticated control
systems are used.
Process control and dynamics is integral to the running of an operation, whether this
is to ensure the outcome is reached or to ensure fewer variations in the overall
outcome. Also of great importance is ensuring the safety of the workers controlling
the plant as often this control monitors specific safety boundaries for which a system
cannot work over (Nagy, 2010) [1]. The feedback ensures that action is taken either
manually or automatically before any harm ensues so that the control can keep
temperatures and pressures within the safety limits. When no steady state can be
reached we effectively need something to drive the process and within a process
there can be an element which is able to influence the operation. These can be
automated, for example a sensor to a valve to control flow.
Industry is a very competitive global market, especially in the current economic

climate, all aiming to reduce outgoing costs to result in maximum profit without
effecting product quality. As a result process control has become even more
important as industry cuts down on excess variation to ensure tight control to save
money. Since process control can automate a process, this can increase profits as
less man power is required to monitor the conditions. Process Control can provide
better equipment protection for example if there is no flow in a pump this could
damage it, so with control this would make sure that the minimum level is reached at
all times. Another example, is a reactor which is suitable for a particular maximum
temperature, the process control can be used to keep the temperature below the
maximum and also below a range below the maximum. This protection saves money
in the long term as it reduces the need to regularly replace equipment.
Processes can be difficult to maintain at a constant specification as process outputs

regularly tend to fluctuate due to changing inputs. An example is a petroleum refinery
distillation tower, the crude oil feed entering may vary in composition; this in turn
would alter the quality of the resulting fuel (Rodgers, 2004) [3].
Often in process control, if a system is left alone with no changes the outcome would
no longer be desirable since adjustments of certain variables are continuously
needed to reduce the effect that dynamic inputs have on the system. As mentioned
before, some processes require specific output conditions that cannot be exceeded,
for example an optimum reaction temperature or specific pressure (Rodgers, 2004)
[3]
. This is to ensure maximum safety at the most economic cost. For these output
conditions to be satisfied continuous changes must be made to the system when
input conditions are altered, for example feed temperature or pressure. Process
control would deal with these changes to ensure the overall running of the process
operation is smooth and done in a controlled manner (Seborg et al, 2004, pp.1-2)[4].
Theory
Control System
This is how a typical control system will operate. A desired set point will be targeted.
The sensor will detect any disturbances within the system created by the process,
when this disturbance is detected it will be set to the controller. The controller will in
3
turn analyse the change in the system and send a signal to the final element. This
will act to control the change so the set point can be maintained.
Set point
Controller
Final Sensor
element Process
INPUT OUTPUT
Figure 1: Block diagram of a sensor-transmitter combination

(Nagy, 2010)[1]
Sensors
Sensors are very important in industry as they are used for process monitoring and
process control, often the output reading is a standard electric signal (e.g. 0-5V)
(Nagy, 2010)[1]. They can be used to measure process variables such as
temperature, pressure, concentration and level. A sensor will measure a process
variable, after measuring this variable a signal will be sent to a transmitter, this will
convert the signal for the controller so the variable can be adjusted accordingly.
Industrial sensors can help to keep a process cost effective and also with the safety
aspects of controlling a chemical plant. The level sensors can send information
either by analogue or digital signals
A sensor converts physical signals into useful signals. (Tschulena, 1987, p.1)[5].
Fundamentally a sensor is a device which measures a physical quantity and
converts it into a signal which can be read by an observer or by an instrument. An
example could be a thermocouple which converts a temperature into an output
voltage which can be read by a voltmeter (Seborg et al, 2004, pp.209) [4].
Figure 2 is a simple diagram representing the sensor to the transmitter.
PV(s) C(s)
Process Variable Transmitter output
Figure 2: Block diagram of a sensor-transmitter combination

4
(Smith et al, 2006, p.155)[8].
The sensor used in this experiment was an analogue continuous level sensor; this
was used to measure the water level in the tank. This will transmit a signal in a
specific range, generally between 4-20mA. The level is measured in the tank and an
electrical signal can then be read in the form of volts after the conversion from milli
Amps, this signal will indicate the level of the tank. This will then give the level as
percentage between 0-100%. The signal can then be sent to a controller that will
change the position of the valve so the set level can be maintained.
Calibration
Calibration is used to find the output that is related to the input of a system, for
example the level being the output related to the voltage which is the input. There
are two main types of calibration; these are static/steady state calibration and
dynamic calibration. Static/steady state calibration is when the variable measured
remains constant and dynamic calibration is when the variable is dependant with
time and is changing (Seborg et al, 2004, pp225) [4].
In this experiment both methods of calibration will be used. The calibration process is
used to find how the physical variable is linked to the measured signal and also the
inaccuracies within the sensor readings. It is vital in industry that sensors are
correctly calibrated since if they are not it will lead to an inefficient process. The
calibration process is for optimum efficiency, calibration provides a relationship
between the level in the tank and the signal given in volts. For the sensor in this
experiment, the sensors input variable was essentially the liquid level in the tank and
its output variable was a voltage which was sent to the controller (Seborg et al, 2004,
pp225)[4]. The equation relating these are:
Level ( )=K s Voltage (V )+ Z s (1)
Ks represents the sensors gain and is the change in the output over the change in
the input and Zs is the zero of the instrument (Nagy, 2010)[1]. This equation can help
us work out whether the valve displays hysteresis.
5
Control Valve
Control valves are very important in industry; they can be used to control certain
variables of a system and to manipulate the flows of material and energy into an out
of a process, so the desired outcome can be achieved. For example a control valve
can control certain variables such as: temperature, pH, pressure and flow. The
control valves can be part of a system that include a controller and flow sensor. The
closing and opening of the valves can be very important in industry as it can also
help with safety features, this could be to prevent excessive temperatures, pressures
or the overfill of a tank. These control valves have to be different from ordinary
valves as the relationship between the flow and valve movement needs to be
specific. This is why it is important to consider the inherent characteristic of the valve
and the installed valve characteristic.
The inherent characteristics can vary and need to be specific to the type of process
that is taking place. There are three main types of inherent characteristics these are
quick opening, linear and equal percentage. A linear characteristic is when the
valves opening is directly proportional to the flow rate, for example if 10% of the
valve is open the flow would be 10% of the maximum flow rate. A linear characteristic
is commonly used in a system to control liquid level or for a system in which the
pressure drop will remain constant (Fisher, 2005)[6]. An equal percentage
characteristic is when equal increments of the valve travel produce equal percentage
change in the flow and this is an exponential relationship. An equal percentage
characteristic is used in systems in which there is a large pressure drop or when the
temperature and pressure in a system have to be regulated. A quick opening
characteristic is when the flow rate is initially high with a small change in valve
position. This quick opening characteristic is used for a frequent on and off system or
for a process where large instant flow is required (J H Chan, 2007) [7].
Control valves can either be operated manually or they can be operated by using
pneumatic, hydraulic or electrical actuators, the actuator will control the valve
opening and closing. These either close or open in response to an automatic signal
which come from measurements that have been taken from the system. A control
valve will respond to the change in a system that is detected by controllers, an
example of a controller is a flow meter.
6
The control valve in this experiment works in the same principle as the control valve
in the figure 3 below:
Figure 3: Diagram of control valve with actuator

(Cable, 2005)[9].
The pneumatic signal from the positioner applies directly to the actuator. For our
control valve, the air enters above the diaphragm and pushes against spring
pressure to close the valve. The valve fully closes when the plug seats tightly against
the seat ring. As air pressure decreases, the spring pressure causes the diaphragm,
stem, and plug to move upward, opening the valve. This means a loss of pressure
would cause the valve to open. This is a fail-open valve. (Cable, 2005) [9].
Control transmission signal can be influenced by noise, including electrical signals

from other devices. Another problem that occurs within a control valve is hysteresis
which is a dynamic response to change that causes the path of movement to be
different when the response is increasing than when the response is decreasing.
(Caro, 2006)[10]. Hysteresis can occur due to friction within the valve, loose linkages
and general wear of the parts within the valve (Sydorenko, 2009-2010) [11]. In the
majority of case hysteresis is as a result of design problems or maintenance issues,
and progressively worsens with time. This experiment investigates the extent, if any,
of hysteresis in the valve which can be determined by the plotting of a calibration
curve (level versus voltage). If the two lines are similar this implies no hysteresis, but
if they differ hysteresis will have occurred. Hysteresis can also be checked for in the
sensor too.
The control valve can either be fail close or fail open. A fail close will either go to the
close position when the control sends a signal or if the actuator energy source fails,
7
in this experiment if the air supply stops the valve will close. It produces minimum
flow at minimum signal, giving:
uumin
l= (2)
umax umin
In the case of a fail open valve the valve will be in an open position if the actuator
energy source fails so it produces maximum flow at minimum signal giving:
umax u
l= (3)
umax umin
In both cases l is the Fractional valve stem position, u max is the Maximum signal in %,
u is the Signal in % and umin is the Minimum signal in %.
It is important to determine which it is as it is key for different types of processes and

for safety reasons, for example to ensure that a critical temperature is not exceeded
that would ruin the process conditions and potential risk to human life.
The valve in this experiment has linear inherent characteristics which means the flow
capacity increases linearly with the valve (Engineering Toolbox, 2010) [12]:
C v =C v ,max l(4 )
The installed characteristic of a valve is the flow behaviour when the valve is part of
a fluid circuit. For fully turbulent flow through a circuit consisting of a centrifugal
pump in series with a control valve and a fixed flow resistance, the installed
characteristic of a linear valve is:
1
Q= (5)
( 1 ) l 2
+
q
Q=
Where q max the fractional flow and alpha is is the relative valve resistance. The
relative valve resistance is defined as the ratio of the energy dissipated by the valve
to the energy dissipated by the system at maximum flow. For properly sized valves
1 2
the value of alpha is between 3 and 3 .
PID control
PID is the most common controller used in process industries which stands for
proportional integral derivative control. In process control today more than 95% of
8
control loops are of the PID type with most being of the PI type (Astrom, 2002, p.1)
[13]
.
The PID controller is a three part controller, proportional, integral and derivative
control. This controller is used to find out the error between the desired signal and
the measured signal. The Controller compares a measured value from a process
with a reference set point value. The difference is then used to calculate a new value
for a manipulated input to the process that brings the process measured value back
to its desired set point (Wikipedia 2010)[14]. This is used commonly in industry.
Proportional gain
The P controller is the proportional gain (K c) and this determines the reaction due to
the current error. For the proportional control the controller output will be proportional
to the error signal. The key concepts behind proportional control is that the controller
gain can be adjusted to make the controller output as sensitive as desired to
derivations between the set point and controller variable and also the sign of K c can
be chosen to make the controller output increase or decrease as the error signal
increases (Seborg et al, 2004, pp188)[4].
The proportional gain Kc will determine the ratio of output response to the error
signal. Proportional gain will depend on the size of the errors, so if there is a small
error you should tailor the valve so that it opens slowly, however if there is a big error
you can open the valve wide open. A major disadvantage of proportional only control
is that a steady state error occurs after a set point change (Seborg et al, 2004,
pp190)[4].
Integral time
The next form of controller is the integral time ( l), this will give the error over a time
period. It determines the reaction based on the current error and the controller output
depends on the integral of the error signal over time. Integral time refers to how
quickly steady state equilibrium can be reached. Integral control is widely used
because it provides an important practical advantage, the elimination of offset. One
disadvantage of using integral action is that it tends to produce oscillatory responses
of the controlled variable and reduces the stability of the feedback control system. A
limited amount of oscillation can usually be tolerated because it often is associated
with a faster response (Seborg et al, 2004, pp190) [4].
Derivative time
Derivative time (D) allows for the anticipation of the future behaviour and determines
the reaction based on the rate at which the error has been changing . By providing
anticipatory control action, the derivative mode tends to stabilize the controlled
process. The larger the value of derivative will lead to a decrease in overshoot but
will result in a much slower response. The derivative time can bring in a
disadvantage of increased noise, and this in turn will bring about wild fluctuations
and eventually will amplify the previous noise (Seborg et al, 2004, pp190) [4].
Overall, many variations using the PID controllers can be achieved and the use of
each can be modified depending on the process involved as each have their
advantages and disadvantages, it is a matter of which can be compensated for or is
less important.
9
10
Experimental procedure
The first objective was to observe the effect of the input signal on the control valve.
This was done by changing the control mode to manual, changing the signal
between 0-100% and observing whether the control valve was opening or closing.
After this a test was done to find out if the level in the tank was independent to the
output flow rate. This was done by filling the tank completely then opening the valve
fully and turning off the input flow rate. The output flow rate was observed when the
tank was full, then again when it was emptying via the digital flow meter.
The next step was to complete a sensor calibration. The controller mode was
changed to auto and the level was set to 90%, the signal was then recorded when
the level reached at steady state. The same procedure was carried out to find the
signal at 10% level. This procedure was carried out for increasing levels from 10-
90%. The level was left to reach steady state at 90%, when this was achieved the
input flow rate was switched off and the signal was read at decreasing values from
90-10%. This was also done for strictly increasing the level, for this the input flow
rate was turned on and the signal was recorded for increasing level from 10-90%.
The signal was measured for strictly increasing and decreasing the level so the
effects of hysteresis can be observed.
The inlet flow rate was increased and the control was fully opened, the controller
mode was set to manual. This caused the tank to over flow; this was done to
eliminate the possibility that the level is dependent on the output flow rate. The
output flow rate was measured for strictly increasing from 0-100%, then strictly
decreasing from 100-0%. This was again carried out to observe if hysteresis took
place.
The feedback control loop was then studied. This was achieved by firstly setting the
controller on auto mode. The system was then allowed to stabilize at 50% level in
the tank. The controller was switched to manual mode and a new set point of 70%
was chosen, the valve signal was manipulated manually to stabilize at 70% set point.
Switching the controller to auto mode, each of the PID controllers were tested. This
was done by firstly keeping the I and D controllers constant and changing the P
controller, the values used were 1, 2, 5 and 10. The I controller was tested next,
keeping the P and D controller the same, the values used for the I controller were
0.01, 1.5, 5 and 10min. Finally the D controller was tested, this was carried out by
keeping the P and I controller constant, the values used for the D controller were
0.01, 1.5 and 10min.
The system was then stabilized for using the controller on auto mode. When the
system was stable the auto tuning wizard was used to find the PID parameters
settings. The parameters chosen to tune for were PI fast and slow along with PID
fast. These were tested because the P controller would never reach the set point.
11
The PID parameters were set to the original and the system was allowed to stabilize.
The input flow rate was increased until the system was not able to cope with the high
input flow rate. This flow rate was recorded.
Finally the value of Kc was changed to a negative and the set point was also
changed, the system behaviour and controller action was recorded.
12
Results and discussion
13
Initially it was found that the level was independent of the output flow rate. When the
tank was filled up to the maximum level of 90% the output flow rate was 0.247m 3/hr.
When the input flow rate was then stopped the level in the tank started to decrease,
but the output flow rate still remained constant at 0.247m 3/hr, this shows that the
level in the tank is independent to the output flow rate.
When the level was at a constant 40%, the input flow rate was 0.247m 3/hr and the
output flow rate was the same. This means that once the level is at a steady state
the output flow rate will be the same as the input flow rate since effectively the same
amount of water is entering as in leaving hence leaving the level at a constant level.
The control valve was found to be open when the signal percentage was a 0%, thus
it was concluded that the valve was a fail open valve. This is shown as when the
valve signal is zero the valve will open.
Level Sensor Calibration

Minimum to maximum (dynamic calibration)
100
90
f(x)
f(x) =
f(x) = 53.54x
= 52.89x--- 1.46
52.81x 2.51
2.25
R
Linear (Minimum
R = 0.99
= 11 maximum (dynamic calibration))
R = to
80
70
60 Maximum to minimum (dynamic calibratiion)
50
Level(%)
40 Linear (Maximum to minimum (dynamic calibratiion))
30
20
Varying from maximum to minimum (Static/Steady state calibration)
10
0
0Linear (Varying
0.2 from
0.4 maximum
0.6 to 0.8
minimum 1
(Static/Steady
1.2 state
1.4 calibration))
1.6 1.8
Voltage (V)
Sensor Calibration
Figure 5: Graph to show the level sensor calibration
The results from figure 5 are displayed in the table below:
14
Gain Zero
Minimum to maximum level 52.893 -2.2464
(dynamic calibration)
Maximum to minimum level 52.807 -2.5138
(dynamic calibration)
Varying from minimum to maximum 53.540 -1.4579
(Static/ steady state calibration)
Table 1: Results of the gains and zeroes of the sensor
From figure 5 it is seen that all three calibration lines are linear to correspond with
the level equation:
Level ( )=K s Voltage (V )+ Z s (1)
Figure 5 shows that as the signal voltage increases so does the level in the tank, this
shows that the valve is closing as the tank level increases. When the tank was at
90% level the reading of the signal was 1.74V. When the tank was at the low level of
10% the signal was at 0.23V.
Since there is little variation between each line, this shows that there is little or no
hysteresis in the level sensor. The only line which has a small amount of variation is
the line when the steady state calibration took place, but however the hysteresis will
only be shown when dynamic calibration takes place. The gain of the sensor can
also be found by taking the gradient of each of the lines, the average gain was found
to be 53.08. The zero of the instrument can also be found by looking at the y
intercept, the average zero of the instrument was found to be -2.0727. The value for
the zero of the instrument being negative could be because of the position of the
level sensor. It can also be said that the data is accurate as all the values for R2 are
close to one showing that the lines are nearly a perfect fit.
15
Control Valve Calibration

0.3
0.25
0.2
Opened to closed 0.15 Closed to open Logarithmic (Closed to open)

Output flowrate (m3/hr)
0.1
0.05
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
Signal (%)
Valve Calibration
Figure 6: Graph to show the control valve calibration
From figure 6 it is observed that as the signal increases the output flow rate
decreases, this is because when the control valve closes, the area that water can
flow through has got smaller in size so the flow rate will decrease as less water is
effectively being let through. This also shows it is a fail open valve as at there is
minimum flow at the maximum signal. The two different sets of data refer to the
output flow rates when for the blue data the valve started fully open to end fully
closed. For the red data the valve fully closed, ending with it fully open. With the red
data you can see that at 80% signal the flow rate is at 0m 3/hr and for the blue line at
80% the flow rate is 0.16m3/hr. This shows hysteresis since there is a large
difference in output flow rate. This large difference is the same from approximately
30% signal upwards. Since both lines differ so much, hysteresis is evident due to the
fact the control valve was probably aging which in turn would be making the valve
stem and the control valve packing. The sticking is particularly evident on the line
referring to valve going from fully open to closed. This is because initially on the
graph in figure 6 the output flow rate remains the same for up to approximately 60%
for the signal. This could suggest sticking up to this point, once this sticking had
reduced or gone the output flow rate started to decrease as the valve closed. To
16
reduce the extent of hysteresis you can maintain oscillations within the control valve
to reduce the sticking within the valve.
Relative control valve resistance
Determination of the relative valve resistance

2
1.8
1.6
Control valve signal increasing Linear (Control valve signal increasing) Control valve decreasin
1.4
1.2
f(x) = 0.12x
1
Q-2 - 1
f(x) = 0.04x
0.8
0.6
Linear (Control valve decreasing)
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(l-2 -1)
It was determined that this valve is fail open as when the signal to the sensor was
0% the valve fully open.
Figure 7: Graph to determine the relative valve resistance
From figure 7 it can be seen that there is a difference of alpha (gradient of line, refer
the equation 5) when closing and opening the valve, when opening the valve the
value of alpha is at 0.1198. When the valve is closing the value of alpha is much
smaller at 0.0398. Properly sized valves have a value of alpha between 1/3 and 2/3,
the values attained from the graph however are much smaller, this could be due to
the fact that these valves are designed for a small pilot lab and the bigger values of
alpha would be for an industrial sized process.
17
For when the control valve signal was increasing there is some variation around the
line of best fit. This could be due to the slight variation in input flow rate whilst
performing the experiment.
The graph also shows two anomalous results, the points are present in both sets of
data. This could be because there is a large change in the output between the
signals of 65% to 85%. It was noticed that for when the control was decreasing there
was a large change in output flow rate from when the signal percentage changed
from 70% to 65%. The same was the case for when the control valve signal was
increasing; the output flow rate had a significant change from when the signal
percentage changed from 75% to 80%. This in turn made the values very large on
for the y and x axis. A possible reason for this is that the valve will start to operate in
the signal range between 65% and 85%; the larger values are obtained on the
extreme values when the valve will start to operate.
18
Manual control
Graph aiming to achieve two set points: 70% and 50%

100
90
80
70
60
50
Percentage (%)
40
30
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time (Seconds)
Figure 8: Graph to show the manual control aiming to achieve the set points of 70%
and 50% respectively
Figure 8 shows the graph when aiming to achieve two set points. The first set point
that was aimed to be achieved was the level of 70%. This was attempted at
approximately 200 seconds on the graph. It can be seen from this graph the line is
fairly smooth in reaching the set level, this was because there was no drastic change
made to the control valve signal which allowed the level to change at a slow rate and
settle so the set point can be reached. However, the set point was difficult to
maintain for a long period of time. When using manual control it was found that the
time it takes to reach the desired set point takes a lot longer than when using
automatic control. This is because care has to be taken so no severe changes are
made to make the system difficult to control as constant changes to the control valve
have to be made.
The next level aimed to be achieved was at 40% and this can be seen to happen at
approximately 1000 seconds on the graph. The change in the control valve signal
19
has to be decreased which makes it even harder to maintain as the correct signal
has to be found to stabilise the level. This was also difficult to maintain. Since the
level is difficult to control it means that the way the controller will be changed will be
aggressive each time to account for the fluctuations, this will put increasing stress on
the valve than if automatic control was used. The level in the tank also changed due
to some fluctuations in the inlet flow rate, therefore the control valve has to be
constantly manipulated to achieve the set point level in the tank. The manipulations
that have to be made are also very small so this makes it harder to achieve the set
point. This results in the level fluctuating around the set point.
Overall, it can be summarized that using manual control in comparison to automatic

control is very difficult. For ease of control and to keep the level at a more constant
level then automatic control is the more preferable control to be used.
20
Automatic control with heuristic tuning
P controller - varying the proportional gain value
100
80
60
Percentage (%)
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (seconds)
P controller
Figure 9: Graph to show the results of varying the proportional gain values
The values used to display the graph above are shown below in table 2 along with
the errors associated with them:
Kc Ti (min) Td (min) Error (%)
1 0 0 40
2 0 0 36
5 0 0 15
10 0 0 7.5
Table 2: Proportional gain values used and their errors from figure 9
The graph above shows what happens when the proportional gain value (K c) is
altered. The values for the integral and derivative time remain constant. The set point
chosen for this was at 50% and this can be seen to extend the whole way across the
21
graph never to be reached so there was always an undershoot. When the K c value
each time was changed which can be seen by when the output voltage was
changed, this signified a change in the K c value there was a quick response to the
change but it never reached the set point level desired. The start of the graph begins
with when the Kc value was at 1 and this stabilised at a level of about 10%. When the
Kc value was changed to 2, the level stabilised at approximately 13%. When the K c
value was increased to 5 the level stabilised at approximately 35% and finally when
the Kc value was changed to 10, the level stabilised at approximately 42%. When
the proportional gain value was increased the steady state error was reduced from
40% at the start to 7.5% at the end using our values of K c so it can be summarized
that although the actual set value desired was not achieved the accuracy increases
as the proportional gain value increases. The oscillations reduced as the K c value
increased and the higher the gain in K c decreases the offset from the desired set
value but there is an increase in variance of the output signal. This in turn produces
instability to the system.
The proportional gain Kc is based on the current error and will determine the ratio of
output response to the error signal so as the value of K c increases as the error signal
reduces. When Kc was at its lowest the error was at its highest. When the
proportional gain is small there is little change in the output response in conjunction
with the large offset. When the Kc value is high, there is a large change in the output
for a given change in error; this is shown with the variable output signal on the graph.
22
PI controller
Figure 10: Graph to show the results of varying the Integral time values
The values used to display the graph in figure 1 above are shown below along with
the error associated with them:
Kc Ti (min) Td (min)
4 0.01 0
4 1.5 0
4 5 0
4 10 0
Table 3: Proportional gain and integral time values used from figure 10
The graph above shows what happens when the proportional gain and derivative
time values are kept constant whilst varying the integral time value. From the graph
above, it looks as though the set point specified is never achieved for higher values
of the I controller. On the graph above when the T i value is at 0.01min, this is not
shown on the graph but when the set point was increased, the set point was quickly
achieved, however with an overshoot. As the I controller value increases, the system
23
gets a lot slower to reach the set point. The system will eventually stabilise so the
offset is eliminated but this will occur after a longer period of time. When the value of
the integral term is low, for example when T i was at 0.01min, there was a small
overshoot but as the value of Ti increases this overshoot diminishes. As the value of
the integral term increases there are a lower number of oscillations. So as a result,
the lower the integral term value, the advantage is that the system will be faster but
at the expense of increased oscillations, however the oscillations will decrease to
zero after a certain period of time. The use of the integral time term in addition to the
proportional gain term causes the system to reach the set point. It can be seen from
this graph that the integral at higher values will allow for greater accuracy but this will
take a long time, but if a quick process is required then a lower value for integral time
can be used to achieve the set point quickly.
The integral term takes into account the reaction based on the sum of the recent
errors so the controller will respond effectively to errors that build up over time. Even
if the error is small, a control signal will be sent to eliminate the error. So if the
controller is sensitive it will react more violently to errors in the past by sending a
large control signal to eliminate the error immediately. However for the lower values
of the integral time value the controller over compensates due to the fact the term is
responding to errors which have accumulated in the past, this will result as in the
graph, the noise which can be seen on the blue line at the start of the graph.
24
PID controller
PID controller - varying the Derivative value

100
90
80
70
60
50
Percentage (%)
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 60
Time (seconds)
Figure 11: Graph to show the results of varying the Derivative time values
Kc Ti (min) Td (min)
4 0.6 0.01
4 0.6 0.5
The values used to display the graph above are shown below along with the error
associated with them:
Table 4: Proportional gain, integral time and derivative time values used from figure
10
This is a graph showing what happens when the proportional gain and the integral
time values are kept constant but the derivative time values are varied. For our first
value for the derivative time it was able to steady and reach the desired set point.
However when the D controller was increased to 0.5min, the tank level went to zero.
As the value of the D controller increases the valve also starts to act more violently
as it is seen on the graph with the extreme variation in the output value. This means
the system will not stabilise and reach the set point.
25
Since the Derivative mode anticipates the future behaviour of the error it is evident
that it over estimates what is required when using past experience to reach the set
point level so on its own it will not eliminate offset. The D controller only acts when
the error is changing and will stop when the error is settling out. The D controller is
based on the rate at which the error has been changing. As can be seen from the
graph the variation in signal output is highly erratic which will mean that the control
valve is opening and closing continuously to try and remove the errors and the
accumulating errors. The erratic nature as the T d value increases will after time
cause damage to the valve so care needs to be taken to ensure this does not
happen. However when the Td value was low at 0.01min this caused a big
undershoot and then reached the desired level after some time. The process to
achieve this set level was smooth and there was no erratic behaviour with the control
valve opening and closing, this in turn would mean the valve would not wear out so
easily.
Automatic tuning
If the parameters for using the P controller were to be collected, there would be little
point because it would never get you to the correct set point.
26
PI slow and PI fast
Autotune - showing PI slow and PI fast
100
80
60
Percentage (%)
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100
Time (seconds)
Autotune was firstly performed for PI slow and PI fast as shown below as during the
experiment the level set point was achieved, particularly fast for lower values:
Figure 12: Graph to show the results of varying autotune for PI slow and PI fast
These are the values for the PI slow controller
PI slow Value
Kc 3.3740
Ti (min) 0.0781
Td (min) 0
Table 5: Parameter values for PI slow demonstrated in figure 12
The set point was changed initially from 40% to 50% to study the PI slow control, the
set point level is achieved, but oscillation occurs around the set level so the set level
is never truly reached. Initially there is a large overshoot and offset but this gradually
decreases. The output signal shows oscillation but it is smooth and not aggressive.
The change to observe the PI slow control parameters were made at approximately
27
100 seconds. On the graph, the level does settle, but that was because the values
were changed back to their original control parameters to allow for a steady level.
These are the values for the PI fast controller
PI fast Value
Kc 12.0690
Ti (min) 0.0419
Td (min) 0
Table 6: Parameter values for PI fast demonstrated in figure 12
The set point was changed and this can be seen later on in the graph when the set
point desired level was changed from 50% to 60% to study the PI fast control. The PI
control does achieve the set point level much more directly than the PI slow as there
is little to no oscillation around the desired set level point. The change to observe the
PI fast control parameters was made at approximately 800 seconds. The process is
faster due to the fact the Kc value is higher and the Ti value is lower. The initial
overshoot after the change was much less than the PI slow controller.
PID fast
PID fast Value
Kc 41.9785
Ti (min) 0.0253
Td (min) 0.0063
Please refer to appendix for figure 14 to see how the PID fast parameters react to
the process. It can be seen at the far left of the figure when the level is changed from
60% to 70%. These are the values for the PID fast controller:
Table 7: Parameter values for PID fast demonstrated in figure 14 in the appendix
As can be seen from figure 14 the set value desired is quickly reached, however
there is extreme oscillation and noise due to the fact the D controller has been
involved in the parameters.
28
Maximum Input Flow rate

The maximum input flow rate that the system could not stabilise at was at 5l/min.
This is due to the input flow rate increasing above the maximum output flow rate.
The output flow rate was 0.249m3/hr, so when the input flow rate increases above
this value then the output flow rate is limited to its maximum flow rate only.
Converting 5l/min to m3/hr gives is 0.3m3/hr. This is just above the maximum output
flow rate which reinforces that when the input flow rate exceeds the output flow rate
the system is unable to stabilize.
Negative Proportional Gain

100
90
80
70
60
50
Percentgae(%)
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9
Time (seconds)
Negative Proportional Gain
Figure 13: Graph to observe when the proportional gain value is negative
The best parameters to maintain a constant level were found to be 4 for K c, 0.6 for Ti
and 0 for Td. The set point was changed to observe what happens when the
proportional gain value is made negative. It can clearly be seen that when the set
point was changed from 50% to 60%, the controller was unable to maintain a
constant level by completely undershooting the required set point, in the end the tank
fully emptied. This means for negative Kc values the system is unable to stabilize.
29
Conclusion
Overall it can be determined from this experiment that using automatic control is the
better option than using manual control since it is able to make the transition
between set levels desired a more smooth and controlled process with no erratic
handling of the control valve opening. This would ensure a longer life for the control
valve as there would less wear and tear. It was found that the maximum input flow
rate the system could not stabilise at was 5l/min since the maximum output flow rate
cannot go above a certain value.
It was determined that the control valve used was a fail open valve, since there is
maximum flow at the minimum signal. When the graph of Output flow rate against
Signal was plotted it was determined that the control valve displayed signs of
hysteresis since the lines differed from each other considerably. A reason for this
could be due to the age of the valve and also due to loose linkages and sticking of
the valve stem and control valve packing. To reduce the extent of hysteresis,
maintaining oscillations within the control valve will reduce the sticking within the
valve. The sensor displayed no signs of hysteresis. The average gain of the sensor
was found to be 53.08 and the average zero of the instrument was found to be
53.08.
It was found that the proportional gain alone is not sufficient to reach the set point
desired. The larger the value of K c the smaller the offset, but if the value is too large
instability to the process will occur. It can be concluded that if offsets can be
tolerated then the simplicity of using the proportional gain value is attractive. When
changing the sign of the proportional gain this causes the process to become
unstable. When applying the integral time value for when this value is low this
accelerated the time to reach the set point, but as the value increases this makes the
process slower. However, the smaller the value for the integral term the more
oscillations there were. But generally the use of the integral time term allows for the
elimination of offset completely so this is a big advantage. When the derivative term
was introduced for low values, it managed to smoothly attain the desired level;
however at high values the process becomes unstable with the tank completely
emptying.
From this it can be determined that using the three values together will provide
parameters that can be used for a particular process with each term helping in a
different way to achieve the set point with minimum oscillations and noise. When
using auto tune it allowed the best parameters to be found for P, PI and PID fast and
slow responses. For each it allowed for a quick response to achieve the desired set
point. When using PI slow, there was a large overshoot which then continues to
fluctuate around the desired set point with oscillations in the output. Using PI fast
gave a smaller overshoot with smaller fluctuations around the desired set point. With
PID fast, it achieved the desired set point but with erratic output control and lots of
fluctuations about the set point. Overall PI controller would be the best because
firstly P alone would not reach the desired set point, and secondly with PID there is
excessive noise and oscillations.
Overall the advantages of using automatic control outweigh those of using manual
control, allowing the smooth operation of a process at a lower cost.
30
References
[1] Nagy, Z. (2010). Instrumentation, Control & Industrial Practice Lecture Notes,
CGB014 1
[2] Encyclopdia Britannica. (2010). Flyball Governor. Retrieved October 23, 2010
from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/211619/flyball-governor
[3] Rodgers, V.G. (2004). Process Dynamics and Control. Retrieved October 25,
2010 from http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~cbe_185/OUTLINE%202004.htm
[4] Seborg, D. E., Edgar, T. F. & Mellichamp, D. A. (2004), Process Dynamics and
Control, 3rd ed, John Wiley & Sons
[5] Tschulena, G. (1987), "Sensors for Process Control", no. pp. 1
[6] Fisher Controls International (2008), Control Valve Handbook. Retrieved October
24, 2010 from
http://www.documentation.emersonprocess.com/groups/public/documents/book/cvh9
[7] Chan, J.H. (2007), Control valve and selection and sizing engineering design
guidelines. Retrieved October 24, 2010 from
http://kolmetz.com/pdf/EDG/ENGINEERING_DESIGN_GUIDELINE__control_valve_
rev_6.pdf
[8] Smith, C. A & Corripio, A.(2006), Principles and Practice of Automatic Process
Control, 3rd ed, John Wiley & Sons.
[9] Cable, M. (2005), Calibration: A Technician's Guide. Retrieved October 23, 2010
from http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?
Section=Article_Index1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&Conte
ntID=43794
[10] Caro, R. (2010). What is Hysteresis. Retrieved October 26, 2010 from
http://www.control.com/thread/1026227912
[11] Sydorenko, S. (2010). What is Hysteresis in Hydraulic Controls. Retrieved

October 26, 2010 from http://www.insanehydraulics.com/letstalk/hysteresis.html
[12] Engineering Toolbox. (2010). Control Valves and Flow Characteristics. Retrieved
October 27, 2010 from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/control-valves-flow-
characteristics-d_485.html
[13] Astrom, K. J. (2002). PID Control. Retrieved October 27, 2010 from
www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/courses/.../astrom-ch6.pdf
[14] Wikipedia. (2010). PID controller. Retrieved October 27, 2010 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
31
Symbols and Units

Symbol Definition Units
Kc Gain No units
Ti Integral time Minutes
Td Derivative time Minutes
Ks Sensor gain No units
Zs Zero of instrument Percentage
l Fractional valve stem position No units
u Control valve signal Percentage
Cv Valve coefficient No units
Q Fractional flow No units
q Output flow rate m3/hr
qmax Maximum output flow rate m3/hr
Relative valve resistance No units
32
Appendix
Figure 14 Print screen shot to show PI slow, PI fast and PID fast, the latter being at
the end of the figure to the far right
33
Tables of raw data
Level (%) Signal (V)

10 0.23
20 0.41
30 0.60
40 0.80
50 0.90
60 1.16
70 1.26
80 1.55
90 1.74
Table 8: A table to show steady state calibration for level sensor

10 0.23
20 0.43
30 0.61
40 0.81
50 1.01
60 1.18
70 1.37
80 1.56
90 1.75
Table 9: A table to show dynamic calibration for level sensor increasing level

90 1.74
80 1.57
70 1.36
60 1.17
50 0.98
40 0.81
30 0.61
20 0.41
10 0.24
Table 10: A table to show dynamic calibration for level sensor decreasing level
34
Signal(%) Output flow rate (m3/hr)

0 0.249
10 0.249
20 0.249
30 0.249
40 0.249
50 0.249
60 0.249
65 0.247
70 0.231
75 0.223
80 0.160
85 0
90 0
95 0
100 0
Table 11: A table to show control valve calibration for increasing level
Signal(%) Output flow rate (m3/hr)

100 0
95 0
90 0.151
85 0.202
80 0.214
75 0.217
70 0.226
65 0.234
60 0.241
50 0.245
40 0.247
30 0.249
20 0.249
10 0.249
0 0.249
Table 12: A table to show control valve calibration for decreasing signal
35
Q(fractional u max u min Stem position Q-2 Q-2-1 L-2 L-2-1

flow) (%) (%)
1.0000 100.000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000
0
1.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.9000 1.0000 0.0000 1.2346 0.2346
0
1.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.8000 1.0000 0.0000 1.5625 0.5625
0
1.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.7000 1.0000 0.0000 2.0408 1.0408
0
1.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.6000 1.0000 0.0000 2.7778 1.7778
0
1.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.5000 1.0000 0.0000 4.0000 3.0000
0
1.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.4000 1.0000 0.0000 6.2500 5.2500
0
0.9920 100.000 0.0000 0.3500 1.0163 0.0163 8.1633 7.1633
0
0.9277 100.000 0.0000 0.3000 1.1619 0.1619 11.1111 10.1111
0
0.8956 100.000 0.0000 0.2500 1.2468 0.2468 16.0000 15.0000
0
0.6426 100.000 0.0000 0.2000 2.4219 1.4219 25.0000 24.0000
0
0.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.1500 N/A N/A 44.4444 43.4444
0
0.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.1000 N/A N/A 100.000 99.0000
0 0
0.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.0500 N/A N/A 400.000 399.000
0 0 0
0.0000 100.000 0.0000 0.0000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Table 13: A table to show data used to plot graph for calculating alpha for increasing
signal
Q (fractional u max u min Stem Q-2 Q-2-1 l-2 l-2-1

flow) (%) (%) position
0.0000 100.000 0.000 0.0000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0 0
0.0000 100.000 0.000 0.1000 N/A N/A 100.000 99.000
0 0 0 0
0.0000 100.000 0.000 0.2000 N/A N/A 25.0000 24.000
36
0 0 0
0.6064 100.000 0.000 0.3000 2.719 1.719 11.1111 10.111
0 0 2 2 1
0.8112 100.000 0.000 0.3500 1.519 0.519 8.1633 7.1633
0 0 5 5
0.8594 100.000 0.000 0.4000 1.353 0.353 6.2500 5.2500
0 0 9 9
0.8715 100.000 0.000 0.4500 1.316 0.316 4.9383 3.9383
0 0 7 7
0.9076 100.000 0.000 0.5000 1.213 0.213 4.0000 3.0000
0 0 9 9
0.9398 100.000 0.000 0.6000 1.132 0.132 2.7778 1.7778
0 0 3 3
0.9679 100.000 0.000 0.7000 1.067 0.067 2.0408 1.0408
0 0 5 5
0.9839 100.000 0.000 0.8000 1.032 0.032 1.5625 0.5625
0 0 9 9
0.9920 100.000 0.000 0.9000 1.016 0.016 1.2346 0.2346
0 0 3 3
1.0000 100.000 0.000 1.0000 1.000 0.000 1.0000 0.0000
0 0 0 0
Table 14: A table to show data used to plot graph for calculating alpha for decreasing
signal
Sample calculation for working out equations for graph
The example used is for increasing signal at 70%.
q 0.231
Q 0.9277
q max 0.249
u max u 100 70 30
l 0.3
u max u min 100 0 100
Q 2 1 0.9277 2 1 0.1619
l 2 1 0.3 2 1 10.1111
These values where then plotted.
37
38

Understanding the Role of Components in a Feedback Loop

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Understanding the Role of Components in a Feedback Loop

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Eloise Jackson and Jigar Patel

Industry is a very competitive global market, especially in the current economic

Processes can be difficult to maintain at a constant specification as process outputs

Figure 1: Block diagram of a sensor-transmitter combination

Figure 2 is a simple diagram representing the sensor to the transmitter.

Process Variable Transmitter output

Figure 2: Block diagram of a sensor-transmitter combination

(Smith et al, 2006, p.155)[8].

Level ( )=K s Voltage (V )+ Z s (1)

Figure 3: Diagram of control valve with actuator

Control transmission signal can be influenced by noise, including electrical signals

It is important to determine which it is as it is key for different types of processes and

Results and discussion

Level Sensor Calibration

60 Maximum to minimum (dynamic calibratiion)

Figure 5: Graph to show the level sensor calibration

The results from figure 5 are displayed in the table below:

Table 1: Results of the gains and zeroes of the sensor

Level ( )=K s Voltage (V )+ Z s (1)

Control Valve Calibration

Opened to closed 0.15 Closed to open Logarithmic (Closed to open)

Figure 6: Graph to show the control valve calibration

Relative control valve resistance

Determination of the relative valve resistance

Figure 7: Graph to determine the relative valve resistance

Graph aiming to achieve two set points: 70% and 50%

Overall, it can be summarized that using manual control in comparison to automatic

Automatic control with heuristic tuning

P controller - varying the proportional gain value

PID controller - varying the Derivative value

PI slow and PI fast

Autotune - showing PI slow and PI fast

These are the values for the PI slow controller

Table 5: Parameter values for PI slow demonstrated in figure 12

These are the values for the PI fast controller

Table 6: Parameter values for PI fast demonstrated in figure 12

Maximum Input Flow rate

Negative Proportional Gain

Negative Proportional Gain

[5] Tschulena, G. (1987), "Sensors for Process Control", no. pp. 1

[11] Sydorenko, S. (2010). What is Hysteresis in Hydraulic Controls. Retrieved

Symbols and Units

Tables of raw data

Level (%) Signal (V)

Table 8: A table to show steady state calibration for level sensor

Level (%) Signal (V)

Level (%) Signal (V)

Signal(%) Output flow rate (m3/hr)

Signal(%) Output flow rate (m3/hr)

Q(fractional u max u min Stem position Q-2 Q-2-1 L-2 L-2-1

Q (fractional u max u min Stem Q-2 Q-2-1 l-2 l-2-1

Sample calculation for working out equations for graph

The example used is for increasing signal at 70%.

These values where then plotted.

S-ar putea să vă placă și