Discussion

In this water temperature control system design, our aim is to obtain a stable response. The
control system should has high stability and high robustness. So overshoot needs to be
reduced as much as possible in this model and the steady state error should be approximately
zero. However, the settling time should also be in a reasonable range.
Every kind of the tuning method is discussed to obtain the most suitable parameter for PID
controller.

Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Method (Open-loop and Ultimate Cycling)

First thing needs to be pointed out is Ziegler-Nichols tuning method chose quarter-amplitude
damping to be “optimum” control loop response. This causes the process to overshoot its set
point and to oscillate around it a few times before eventually settling down. This method also
has low robustness or low stability due to quarter-amplitude damping. So, the best way to
reduce its overshoot and increase its stability is to cut the proportional gain, Kp into half.
Even though the overshoot is decreased, but the settling time is taking longer.
The best parameter in this method is:
Steady
Peak Settling Rise
Type of Overshoot state
Kp Ti Td Time Time Time
controller (%) error
(min) (min) (min)
(%)
PI 410.85 16.67 0 21.453 30 52.2 8.31 0
Table 20: PID parameter with best overall performance in Ziegler-Nichols method

Tyreus-Luyben Tuning Method

This method is an improvement for Ziegler-Nichols method to make response less
oscillatory. This can be seen from Graph 6 that the overshoot is quite low and with less
oscillation. The settling time is also shorter than the respective controller in Ziegler-Nichols
method. It provides a great improvement on the overall performance of the model.
The best parameter in this method is:
Steady
Peak Settling Rise
Type of Overshoot state
Kp Ti Td Time Time Time
controller (%) error
(min) (min) (min)
(%)
PI 234.06 42.218 0 18.17 6.29 33.4 8.99 0
Table 21: PID parameter with best overall performance in Tyreus-Luyben method
Cohen-Coon Tuning Method
Like the Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules, the Cohen-Coon rules aim for a quarter-amplitude
damping response. Although quarter-amplitude damping-type of tuning provides very fast
disturbance rejection, it tends to be very oscillatory and frequently interacts with similarly-
tuned loops. However, the easy fix for both problems is to reduce the proportional gain by
half.
This method is similar to the Ziegler-Nichols method but the difference comes with the fact
that Cohen-Coon provides the faster rise time and also slightly shorter settling time.
The best parameter in this method is:
Steady
Peak Settling Rise
Type of Overshoot state
Kp Ti Td Time Time Time
controller (%) error
(min) (min) (min)
(%)
PI 414.990 16.630 0 21.20 30.30 51.7 8.21 0
Table 22: PID parameter with best overall performance in Cohen-Coon method

Chien, Hrones, and Reswick Tuning Method

The Chien, Hrones, Reswick (CHR) method focus on the set-point regulation or disturbance
rejection. The more heavily damped closed-loop response, which ensures, for the ideal plant
model, the “quickest response without overshoot” is labeled “with 0% overshoot,” and the
“quickest response with 20% overshoot” is labeled “with 20% overshoot”. However set-point
regulation is chosen for this water temperature control system design.
The best parameter in this method is:
Steady
Peak Settling Rise
Type of Overshoot state
Kp Ti Td Time Time Time
controller (%) error
(min) (min) (min)
(%)
PID 273.97 45.65 2.5 7.77 0 25.1 5.02 0
Table 23: PID parameter with best overall performance in Chien, Hrones, and Reswick method

Skogestad’s Tuning Method

Skogestad’s method results in better tracking property of the control system without the quite
large overshoot in the response after a step in the set point which is typical with Ziegler-
Nichols’ method. This method only provides the formula of PI controller for this water
temperature control model. The result is clearly better than the results from Ziegler-Nichols
method in term of overshoot and settling time.
 Steady
Peak Settling Rise
Type of Overshoot state
Kp Ti Td Time Time Time
controller (%) error
(min) (min) (min)
(%)
PI 228.25 40 0 19.01 6.51 37.7 9.24 0
Table 24: PID parameter and performance in Skogestad’s method

Lambda Tuning Method

The Lambda tuning rules, sometimes also called Internal Model Control (IMC) tuning, offer
a robust alternative to tuning rules aiming for speed, like Ziegler-Nichols and Cohen-Coon.
In this method, the process variable will not overshoot its set point after a disturbance or set
point change. The Lambda tuning rules are much less sensitive to any errors made when
determining the process dead time through step tests. So this tuning is very robust, meaning
that the control loop will remain stable even if the process characteristics change dramatically
from the ones used for tuning.
Unfortunately, the Lambda tuning rules have a drawback too. It set the controller’s integral
time equal to the process time constant. If a process has a very long time constant, the
controller will consequently have a very long integral time. Long integral times make
recovery from disturbances very slow, which means that the settling time will be much
longer.
Steady
Peak Settling Rise
Type of Overshoot state
Kp Ti Td Time Time Time
controller (%) error
(min) (min) (min)
(%)
PI 16.08 45.65 0 - 0 541 301 0
Table 25: PID parameter and performance in Lambda method.

Selecting the Parameter

After the discussion regarding the tuning method, there are several choices of parameter that
we can choose for the control design. However, only the PID parameter from Chien, Hrones,
and Reswick method meets the requirement of our control goal. The Kp = 273.97, Ti = 45.65,
and Td = 2.5.
Control performance:
- Overshoot = 0% (<10%)
- Settling time = 25.2min (<30min)
- Steady state error = 0% (<2%)