THE UNIVERSITY OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

Course Code and Course Title: CTLP2009: Applied

Process Control Systems

Assignment Number and Title: Lab 3: PID Tuning from Open Loop Tests and PID
Tuning from Closed Loop Tests.

Student’s Name: Anthony Loorkhoor

UTT ID #: 90061

Program: NETD Instrumentation Engineering

Status: Full Time

Instructor: Mrs. Nadira Cheddie

Submission Date: 19-11-2021

 OVERVIEW

The experiment is about open loop test and closed loop test with the objective for open loop,
to provide practice in open loop testing, estimation of process parameters and calculation of
tuning parameters from the open loop test data and for closed loop, to provide familiarity
with closed loop testing, determination of process data and the calculation of tuning
parameters from the closed loop data. There are three (3) types of analysis which is Control
Process, Flow Control, and Liquid Flow Process. A graph with a curve was obtained. After
that, the calculated values for Process Gain (KP), Dead Time (Td), and Time Constant (t) was
obtained using Ziegler-Nichols.

Control is used in many aspect of engineering such as mechanical, electrical and chemical.
Process control is one of the most used chemical engineers that applied to chemical reactors,
heat exchanger, and mass transfer equipment. In process control is basically means regulating
the set point value to maintain the quantity of process substance. There are single variable
processes in which only one variable is to be controller as well as multivariable process may
require regulation.

There are two (2) loops which is Open Loop and Closed Loop test. The open loop test
process can be used as single pulse and double pulse test. For open loop, the output is moved
indirectly because of changing in set point. The process movement larger if we measure and
factor the disturbance and set point. That cause by disturbance. The controller is set to
automatic if the process changes into the closed loop system. The controller set to manual if
the process changes into open loop system. If the process is in automatic mood, the process
will stabilize to desired SP.

1|Page
 PID TUNING FROM OPEN LOOP TEST

TITLE: PID Tuning from Open Loop Test

OBJECTIVES:

1. To provide practice in open-loop testing, estimation of process parameters and

calculation of tuning parameters from the open loop test data.

THEORY:
Proportional – Integral – Derivative (PID).

Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers are commonly used in process controllers

are commonly used in process control systems. In process control, more than ninety-five (95)
% of the control loops are of PI or PID Type. (2021) 1. Since Ziegler and Nichols (2021) 2,
proposed their empirical method to tune PID controllers, to date, many relevant methods to
improve the tuning of PID controllers has been reported at the control literature, one of them
is a tutorial given by Hang et al. (2021) 3.

2|Page
As is well known, the dynamics of a process can be known from the transient response, so
when it gets the step response is possible to determine both the process gain and the process
dynamics. Due to this statement, in this work, the frequency response is obtained from the
step response in an open loop system. The size of the step can be a small as it has desired, this
is a great advantage because it can apply a small step near the operation point, without
significantly affecting process safety.

Ziegler-Nichol Open-Loop Tuning Method or Process Reaction Method:

This method remains a popular technique for tuning controllers that use proportional integral,
and derivative actions. The Ziegler-Nichols open-loop method is also referred to as a process
reaction method, because it tests the open-loop reaction of the process to a change in the
control variable output. The basic test requires that the response of the system be recorded,
preferably by a plotter or computer. Once certain process response values are found, they can
be plugged into the Ziegler-Nichols equation with specific multiplier constants for the gains
of a controller with either P, PI, or PID actions. ("9.3: PID Tuning via Classical Methods -
Engineering LibreTexts", 2021).

3|Page
Figure 1. Ziegler – Nicholas Open-Loop Method. ("Ziegler-Nichols Open-Loop Method", 2021).

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT:

1. PC Control Lab computer software

2. Laboratory Handout
3. Writing Material
4. Log Paper

4|Page
5|Page
PROCEDURE:

1. Running the Program.

1. The windows was start.

2. The PC – Control Lab was start.

If PC – Control Lab is already running, then re – read the “GENERIC” process model
to initialize the program.

3. From the menu bar, Process | Select Model was selected.

4. “Generic.mdl” was highlighted and Open was pressed.

Note: The Generic model will not produce similar tuning results from Open Loop
testing and from Closed Loop testing. If similar results are desired, use Generic 2
model rather than Generic.

6|Page
 5. The following was confirmed:
Process: GENERIC (see the top line, left hand side)
Control Strategy FEEDBACK (see the top line, right hand side)

OPTIONAL: If you are more familiar with “Proportional Band” rather than “Gain”,
or the reset setting in “Repeats / Minutes” rather than “Minutes / Repeat”, then go to
Tune | Options tab and choose the settings that you are more familiar with.

2. Open Loop Testing.

1. This program was began operating with a PV of 275 DegF, a controller output of 35%
and a load variable (feed rate) of 300 GPM, assuming that this was the normal
operating point for this process.
2. The right hand scale of the grid was not in engineering units, then View | Display
Range | Engineering Units was selected.
3. With the controller in Manual, the output was changed to 45%. (On a real process,
you may not be able to make that much change in controller output.
4. The following process parameters was estimated using figure 2.

% change∈PV
Process Gain (Kp)
% Change∈controller output

Dead Time (Td)

Time Constant (t)

7|Page
 Figure 2. Graphical Method of Determining Process Parameters.

Δ PV
Process Gain: Kp -
ΔVALVE

5. A tangent was drawn at the point of steepest rise. Be sure it intersects the initial
equilibrium line; it is not necessary to carry the tangent all the way until it intersects
the final equilibrium line.

Dead Time: Td = Time from valve change to intersection of tangent

with initial equilibrium line.

Time Constant: t = Time, from end of dead time (as determined above until
the process changes by 63.2% of its final amount.

8|Page
 Figure 3. Another Method of Determining Process Parameters.

Δ PV
Process Gain: Kp -
ΔVALVE

6. The time from the instant of valve change was measured until the process rises by 1/4
of its total amount. (This obviously must be done from a chart record after the process
has reached its new equilibrium). This was called the time t1/4.

T1/4 – Td + 0.3t

7. The time from the instant of valve change was measured until the process rises to 3/4
of its final amount. Call this time t3/4.

T3/4 – Td + 1.4t

8. When these two times are determined, the dead time and process time constant was
calculated from the following equations:

t – 0.9 (t3/4 – t1/4)

Td – t3/4 – 1.4t

9|Page
9. The controller output was returned to 35%.
10. The tuning parameters for a P, PI and PID controller was calculated, using the
Ziegler-Nichols equations as shown in Table 1 and these values was entered in table
2.

CONTROLLER PROP ONLY PI PID

GAIN  0.9  1.1
KC
KP Td KP Td KP Td
RESET
TI – Mins/Repeat 3.33 Td 2.0 Td
DERIVATIVE
TD - Minutes 0.5 Td

Table 1. Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Parameter Correlation for Open Loop Process Data.

(If You are using Proportional Band rather than Gain, or Reset Rate (minutes / repeat)
rather than Reset Time (minutes / repeat), then first Gain (Kc), Integral time (TI), and
Derivative (TD) was calculated from the equations. Then, PB was calculated from the
Gain, or Reset Rate was calculated from than Rest Time).

P PI PID
(See Note) (See Note) (See Note)
Gain (KC)
Prop Band (PB)
Integ Time (TI)
(min/rpt)
Reset Rate
(rpt/min)
Deriv Time (TD)

Table 2. Ziegler-Nichols Results Table.

11. For each type of controller, the parameters was entered, the controller was put in Auto
and the loop for a set point change was set. (Suggestion: the set point was changed,
either up or down, by 50 Deg F. On the job, you probably cannot make that large of
change.)

Note: For the Proportional Only controller, with the controller in Manual, Control |
Control Options was selected, and the Proportional only control algorithm was
selected. For the PI and PID controllers, with the controller in Manual, Control |
Control Options, and PID – Non – interacting control algorithm was selected.

10 | P a g e
12. The decay ratio, period and (for the PI controller only) the period-to-integral time
ratio was calculated or measure. (This will be used in a subsequent Laboratory
Exercise.)

P PI PID
Decay Ratio
Period, mins
Period .
Integral Time

Table 3. Decay ratio, Period, and Period-to0integral time ratio results table.

13. For each type of controller, a 5% (40 GPM) load change was made. StepInce or
StepDecr was pressed.
14. Which controller type was preferring, PI or PID, for:

Set point response

Load (disturbance) response

PID control was appeared to be better than a PI for both a set point change and a load
change. However, what you have seen so far is a perfectly noise-free process. Real
processes usually have some noise on the measurement.

15. The PID tuning parameters from Table 2. Was entered and then with the controller in
Auto:

Process | Change Parameters was selected. The scroll bar was used to scroll down
until “PV#1 Meas Noise 0-N; 1-Y” was seen, this was highlighted and then “1” was
entered. OK was pressed then Clear. The observation was recorded.

16. Frequently the measurement signal was filtered to “hide” the effect of the noise. (The
noise is still there – you just can’t see it!). A filter was put on the measurement. This
is equivalent to implementing a software filter on the analog input block on a DCS.
EXCEPT:

Due to the relatively slow sampling rate of this simulation, as compared with the
typical sampling rate of a DCS, we will use a larger filter time constant here than
would be used in real life. Control | Measurement Options was selected in the drop
down menu. In the circle “Yes” was selected in the “Measurement Filter Section”.
“1.0” (minutes) was entered for the filter time constant, Clear was pressed. The effect
was observed and recorded.

11 | P a g e
RESULTS AND CALCULATION:

2. Open Loop Testing.

Figure 4. shows the Open Loop Parameters Are Obtained.

Figure 4. Open Loop.

Process Gain (Kp) Dead Time (Td) Time Constant (t)

∆ Process Variable
= =T2 – T1 = T3 – T2
∆ Control Variable
75−55
= = 9.55 – 7.65 = 16.85 – 9.55
10
=1.5 % = 1.9 mins = 7.3 mins

12 | P a g e
Table. 4. Showing the Calculated Tuning Parameters for a P, PI, and PID controller, using
the Ziegler-Nichols equation.

CONTROLLER PROP ONLY PI PID

GAIN (KC) t 7.3 0.9t ( 0.9 ) (7.3) 1.1t (1.1 ) (7.3)

= =2.56 = =2.30 = =2.82
KpTd ( 1.5 )( 1.9) KpTd (1.5 ) (1.9) KpTd ( 1.5 )( 1.9)

RESET
TI – Mins/Repeat 3.33 Td = 3.33 (1.9) = 6.33 2.0 Td = 2.0 (1.9) = 3.8
DERIVATIVE
TD - Minutes 0.5 Td = 0.5 (1.9) = 0.95

Table 4. Calculated Tuning Parameters for a P, PI, and PID controller.

13 | P a g e
Response of the control loop with a Set Point change of 50DegF for either up or down for:
P-only Controller.

Figure 5. P-Only Controller with a Set Point change of 50 DegF.

14 | P a g e
 Figure 6. P-Only Controller with a 5% (40 GPM) Load Change.

PI Controller.

Figure 7. PI Controller with a Set Point change of 50 Deg F.

15 | P a g e
 Figure 8. PI Controller with a 5% (40 GPM) Load Change.

PID Controller.

Figure 9. PID with a Set Point change of 50 Deg F.

16 | P a g e
 Figure 10. PID Controller with a 5% (40 GPM) Load Change.

Table. 5. Showing the Calculated Decay Ration, Period mins, and Period / Integral Time
for a P, PI, and PID controller.

P PI PID
Decay Ratio
1.75 4.9 2.21
dr = =0.13 dr = =0.22 dr = =0.09
13.78 21.86 25.15
Period, mins
32.40 – 20.25 = 12.15 29.90 – 16.15 = 13.75 29.40 – 15.10 = 14.30

Period .
Integral Time 13.75
6.33

Table 5. Calculated Parameters for P-Only, PI, and PID Controllers.

Figure 11. shows a PID Controller with some Noise on the Measurement.

Figure 11. PID Controller with Noise on Measurement.

17 | P a g e
Figure 12. shows a PID Controller with some a Large Filter Time Constant.

Figure 12. PID Controller with Large Time Constant.

18 | P a g e
 PID TUNING FROM CLOSED LOOP TEST

TITLE: PID Tuning from Closed Loop Test

OBJECTIVES:

1. To provide familiarity with closed loop testing, determination of process data and the
calculation of tuning parameters from the closed loop data.

THEORY:
Ziegler-Nichols Closed-Loop Tuning Method.

The Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop tuning method allows you to use the ultimate gain

value, KCU, and the ultimate period of oscillation, PBU, to calculate KCU. It is a simple method
of tuning PID controllers and can be refined to give better approximations of the controller.
You can obtain the controller constants KC, TI, and TD in a system with feedback. The
Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop tuning method is limited to tuning processes that cannot run in
an open-loop environment. ("9.3: PID Tuning via Classical Methods - Engineering LibreTexts",
2021).

Determining the ultimate gain value, KCU, is accomplished by finding the value of the
proportional-only gain that causes the control loop to oscillate indefinitely at steady state.
This means that the gains from the I and D controller are set to zero so that the influence of P
can be determined. It tests the robustness of the KC value so that it is optimized for the
controller. Another important value associated with this proportional-only control tuning
method is the ultimate period (PU). The ultimate period is the time required to complete one
full oscillation while the system is at steady state. These two parameters, KCU and PU, are used
to find the loop-tuning constants of the controller (P, PI, or PID). ("9.3: PID Tuning via Classical
Methods - Engineering LibreTexts", 2021).

19 | P a g e
Figure 13. Ziegler – Nicholas Open-Loop Method. ("9.3: PID Tuning via Classical Methods -
Engineering LibreTexts", 2021).

20 | P a g e
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT:

1. PC Control Lab computer software

2. Laboratory Handout
3. Writing Material
4. Log Paper

21 | P a g e
PROCEDURE:

1. Running the Program.

1. The windows was start.

2. The PC – Control Lab was start.

2. Tuning by Closed Loop Process Tests.

2.1 Setup.

1. The following was confirmed:

Process: GENERIC (see the top line, left hand side)

Control Strategy FEEDBACK (see the top line, right hand side)

2. If the PC-Control LAB was already running, you may have to do any or all of the
following:

Control | Select Strategy | Feedback and Process | Select Model was selected.
“Generic.mdl” was highlighted and Open was pressed. Process | Initialize was
selected to initialize the process model.

3. If you are more familiar with using Proportional Band, rather than Gain, for tuning
controllers, or if you are more familiar with tuning the reset (integral) mode in
Repeats per Minute, rather than Minutes per Repeat, then:

Tune was pressed, then the Options tab was selected to set up the program to match
the system you use:

GAIN was display as: RESET was display as:

GAIN Mins / Repeat

PROP BAND Repeats / Min

Tune was pressed then the Options tab was selected. RESET Action OFF was
selected

22 | P a g e
2.2 Process Testing.
1. The following was set:

Gain: 1.0
Or PB: 100%
Reset: see above
Derive: 0.0 minutes

2. The controller was put in Auto.

3. A set point change was made of 5% of full scale. (StepIncr was pressed once.)
4. If there is no oscillation, or if the oscillation dies out, increase the Gain (or decrease
the Proportional Band) and repeat the set point change. (The Gain can initially be
changed approximately 50% of its present value, or the PB can be changed to one-half
of its present value. As the response gets closer to sustained oscillation, smaller
changes should be made). You should have to observer the response for more than
three cycles to determine whether or not oscillation is decaying or not).
5. When sustained oscillation is ultimately achieved, the following was recorded:

Gain or PB required for sustained oscillation KCU =

Or PBU =
Period of sustained oscillation PU =

6. The for the closed-loop Ziegler-Nichols method (Table. 4.) was used to calculate
tuning parameters for a P, PI and PID controller. These values was entered in Table.
5.
Gain (KC), Integral Time (TI), and Derivative (TD) was first calculated from the
equations. Then if your system uses PB rather than Gain, or Reset Rate rather than
Reset Time, these values was calculated.

CONTROLLER PROP ONLY PI PID

GAIN
KC 0.5 Kcu 0.45 Kcu 0.6 Kcu

RESET Pu Pu
TI - Mins/Repeat ---- 1.2 2

DERIVATIVE Pu
TD - Minutes ---- ---- 8

Table 6. ZIEGLER-NOCHOLS Tuning Parameter Correlation for Closed Loop Process Data.

23 | P a g e
 Figure 14. Sustained Oscillation, Time between any two Successive Peaks.

KCU = Controller Gain that causes sustained oscillation

PU = Period (in minutes) of sustained oscillation
= Time between any two successive peaks

P PI PID

Gain (KC)

Prop Band (PB)

Integ Time (TI)

(min/rpt)

Reset Rate
(rpt/min)

Deriv Time (TD)

Table 7. Results Table for Tuning Parameters P, PI, and PID.

7. Before the closed loop response was tested, go to Tune | Options tabs and Reset
Action ON.
8. For each type of controller, the parameters was entered. The controller was put in
Auto and the loop for a 10% (of full scale) set point change was tested.
9. The decay ration, period and (for PI controller only) the period-to-integral time ratio
was calculated or measured. (This will be used in subsequent exercise).
10. Also, for each type of controller, a 5% load change was made. (Press StepIncr or
StepDecr). The controller was marked for which controller type has the best, and the
worst, response to a load change.

24 | P a g e
 P PI PID

Decay Ratio

Period, mins

Period
Integral
Time
Load change, best
and worst response

Table 8. Decay ration, period and period-to-integral time ratio Results table.

25 | P a g e
RESULTS AND CALCULATION:

2. Closed Loop Testing.

Figure 15. shows how the Closed Loop Parameters Are Obtained.

Figure 15. Closed Loop.

Parameters Obtained:
Ultimate Gain KCU: = 9
Period PU: = T2 – T1
= 31.00 – 23.85
= 7.2 mins

26 | P a g e
 Table. 9. Showing the Calculated Tuning Parameters for a P, PI, and PID controller, using
the Ziegler-Nichols equation.

CONTROLLER PROP ONLY PI PID

GAIN
KC (0.5) (KCU) = (0.5) (9) = 4.5 (0.45) (KCU) = (0.45) (9) = 4.05 (0.6) (KCU) = (0.6) (9) = 5.4

RESET Pu 7.2
TI - Mins/Repeat ---- = =6 Pu 7.2
1.2 1.2 = = 3.6
2 2

DERIVATIVE
TD - Minutes ---- ---- Pu 7.2
= = 0.9
8 8

Table 9. Calculated Tuning Parameters for a P, PI, and PID controller.

27 | P a g e
Response of the control loop with a Set Point change of 50DegF for either up or down for:
P-only Controller.

Figure 16. P-Only Controller with a Set Point change of 50 DegF.

28 | P a g e
 Figure 17. PID Controller with a 10% Full Scale.

PI Controller.

Figure 18. PI Controller with a Set Point change of 50 DegF.

29 | P a g e
 Figure 19. PI Controller with a 10% Full Scale.

PID Controller.

Figure 20. PI Controller with a Set Point change of 50 DegF.

30 | P a g e
 Figure 21. PID Controller with a 10% Full Scale.

Table. 10. Showing the Calculated Decay Ration, Period mins, and Period / Integral
Time for a P, PI, and PID controller.

P PI PID

Decay Ratio
8.32 26.6 1.01
dr = =0.34 dr = =0.64 dr = =0.92
24.50 41.44 1.09

Period, mins 23.15 – 13.65 = 9.5 25.60 – 15.20 = 10.40 21.75 – 12.35 = 9.4

Period
10.40
Integral = 1.73
Time 6
Load change, best
and worst response

Table 10. Calculated Parameters for P-Only, PI, and PID Controllers.

31 | P a g e
 DISCUSSION

PID TUNING FROM OPEN LOOP TEST.

This experiment was to determine the parameters of; Process Gain (KP), Dead Time (Td), and
Time Constant (t) from the curve as shown in Figure. 4. using the Tangent Method. The open
loop test was performed for P-Only, PI, and PID Controller. Then, the Ziegler-Nichols
equation was calculated by using the parameters (KP), (Td), and (t) as shown in Table. 4. For
the open loop test, parameters such as (KP), (Td), and (t) was calculated by using the Tangent
Method. The values were calculated to be: (KP = 1.5%), (Td = 1.9 mins), and (t = 7.3 mins).
After this, the tuning parameters for P-Only, PI, and PID controller was calculated and for
each type of controller, the calculated parameters were entered for: P-Only as shown in
Figure. 5., PI as shown in Figure. 7., and PID as shown in Figure. 9. Controller, with a set
point change of 50 DegF. The Decay ration, Period, and Period-to-Integral time ration was
calculated as shown in Table. 5.

When a (5%) load change was made for each of the controller, for the P-Only controller as
shown in Figure. 6, the (PV) decreased and the (CO) increased and eventually the loop
stabilized but not at the determined set point value. For both the PI controller as shown in
Figure. 8, and the PID controller as shown in Figure. 10. The two (2) control loop, step
increase was similar and there was an initial decrease in the (PV) and an increase in the (CO).
The time response of the PID controller took to stabilized were better when compared to the
PI controller.

The controller type I would choose for Set point and Load (disturbance) response would be
the PID controller. The PID controller is the best when compared to the: P-Only and PI
controller with regards to a set point change and load change. In the PID response to set point
change, the two (2) points of highest rise where easily obtained when compared to that to the
P-Only and PI controller. Also the point at which, the (PV) stabilized after the change in set
point, the PID had obtained a fixed value. Figure. 11. Shows the PID controller with some
noise on the measurement and Figure 12. Shows the noise measurement signal was filtered to
hide the effect of the noise.

32 | P a g e
PID TUNING FROM CLOSED LOOP TEST.

This experiment was to determine the parameters of; Ultimate Gain (KCU) and Period (PU),
from the waveform obtained in Figure. 15. using the Time between any two (2) successive
peaks. The closed loop test was performed for P-Only, PI, and PID Controller. Then, the
Ziegler-Nichols equation was calculated by using the parameters (KCU) and (PU) as shown in
Table. 9. For the closed loop test, parameters such as (KCU) and (PU) was calculated by using
the time between any two (2) successive peaks (period). The values were calculated to be:
(KCU = 9) and (PU = 7.2 mins). After this, the tuning parameters for P-Only, PI, and PID
controller was calculated and for each type of controller, the calculated parameters were
entered for: P-Only as shown in Figure. 16., PI as shown in Figure. 18., and PID as shown in
Figure. 20. Controller, with a set point change of 50 DegF. The Decay ration, Period, and
Period-to-Integral time ration was calculated as shown in Table. 10.

When a (10% of full scale) set point change was made for each of the controller, the P-Only,
PI, and PID controller gave a general good response to a step increase, there was some
oscillations and then the (PV) returned back to the set point and shown in Figure. 17, 19, and
21. For P-Only, PI, and PID controller. The PID controller gave the smoothest and quickest
response. The response of the P-Only and PI, took longer to stabilize when compared to the
PID controller response. Both P-Only and PI had huge oscillation when compared to the PID
controller response to a change in set point and fewer oscillation were observed in both the
(PV) and (CO) for the PID controller. Also the PID controller had a faster stabilization time
when compared to the other controller.

33 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

The primary objectives for this laboratory experiment was to provide practice in open loop
and closed loop testing, estimation of process parameters and calculation of tuning
parameters for the open loop and closed test data for the P-Only, PI, and PID controller. In
addition, to also become familiar with the program operation. It can be concluded that this
experiment was a success from both the theory and practical knowledge that was taught,
observed, introduced and explained.

34 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

1. 9.3: PID Tuning via Classical Methods - Engineering LibreTexts. (2021). Retrieved 11
November 2021, from
https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Industrial_and_Systems_Engineering/Book
%3A_Chemical_Process_Dynamics_and_Controls_(Woolf)/09%3A_Proportional-
Integral-Derivative_(PID)_Control/9.03%3A_PID_Tuning_via_Classical_Methods
2. Ziegler-Nichols Open-Loop Method. (2021). Retrieved 11 November 2021, from
https://instrumentationtools.com/ziegler-nichols-open-loop-method/
3. (2021). Retrieved 11 November 2021, from
https://aiecp.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/1-0-1-k-j-astrom-pid-controllers-theory-
design-and-tuning-2ed.pdf
4. (2021). Retrieved 11 November 2021, from
https://web01.usn.no/~davidr/iia1117/control/theory/papers/Ziegler_Nichols_
%201942.pdf
5. (2021). Retrieved 11 November 2021, from
https://slunik.slu.se/kursfiler/TE0010/10095.1213/Reg1TuneReview.pdf

35 | P a g e