CHEN3005 Process Instrumentation and Control

Laboratory Experiment

Experimental Title: Dynamic Modelling and PID Control of a Jacketed Reactor

Supervisor:

Date:

Group:

Student Name ID Signature

1. Generation of Step Test data
A simulation of jacketed reactor is conducted to study how the FOPDT parameters varies different step
changes. Two sets of data with the step change of 42-52% and 25-35% are plotted in a graph and recorded
in a table to compare the results between them.

Figure 1: Graph of CO from 42%-52%

Figure 2: Graph of CO from 25%-35%

 Table 1: Data for the changes in PV from CO 42-52%
Time (min) Controller Output (CO) Process Variable (PV) Set point (SP)
9.62 52.00 91.97 91.97
10.22 52.00 91.79 91.79
10.82 52.00 91.25 91.25
11.42 52.00 90.59 90.59
12.02 52.00 90.06 90.06
12.62 52.00 89.65 89.65
13.22 52.00 89.36 89.36
13.82 52.00 89.18 89.18
14.42 52.00 89.02 89.02
15.02 52.00 88.97 88.97
15.62 52.00 88.91 88.91
16.22 52.00 88.87 88.87
16.82 52.00 88.89 88.89
17.42 52.00 88.84 88.84
18.02 52.00 88.84 88.84
18.62 52.00 88.83 88.83
19.22 52.00 88.84 88.84
19.82 52.00 88.84 88.84

Table 2: Data for the changes in PV from CO 25-35%

Time (min) Controller Output (CO) Process Variable (PV) Set point (SP)
13.37 35.00 99.31 99.31
14.57 35.00 98.48 98.48
15.77 35.00 97.01 97.01
16.97 35.00 96.02 96.02
18.17 35.00 95.48 95.48
19.37 35.00 95.12 95.12
20.57 35.00 94.94 94.94
21.77 35.00 94.80 94.80
22.97 35.00 94.72 94.72
 24.17 35.00 94.68 94.68
25.37 35.00 94.69 94.69
26.57 35.00 94.66 94.66
27.77 35.00 94.63 94.63
28.97 35.00 94.66 94.66
30.17 35.00 94.67 94.67
31.37 35.00 94.63 94.63
32.57 35.00 94.65 94.65

Table 3: FOPDT Parameters of the CO step from 42-52% and 25-35% using calculations
CO step from 42% to 52% CO step from 25% to 35%
𝐶𝑂1 = 42% → 𝑃𝑉1 = 92.0℃ 𝐶𝑂1 = 25% → 𝑃𝑉1 = 99.3℃
𝐶𝑂2 = 52% → 𝑃𝑉2 = 88.8℃ 𝐶𝑂2 = 35% → 𝑃𝑉2 = 94.7℃
∆𝑃𝑉 = 88.8 − 92.0 = −3.2 ∆𝑃𝑉 = 94.7 − 99.3 = −4.6
∆𝐶𝑂 = 52 − 42 = 10 % ∆𝐶𝑂 = 35 − 425 = 10 %
∆𝑃𝑉 −3.2 ∆𝑃𝑉 −4,6
Process gain, 𝐾𝑝 = ∆𝐶𝑂 = 10
= −0.32 ℃/% Process gain, 𝐾𝑝 = ∆𝐶𝑂 = 10
= −0.46 ℃/%

𝑃𝑉63.2 = 92.0 + 0.632(−3.2) = 90.0℃ 𝑃𝑉63.2 = 99.3 + 0.632(−4.6) = 96.4℃

𝑡𝑃𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡 = 10.22 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑡63.2 =12.01 min 𝑡𝑃𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡 = 13.22 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑡63.2 =16.52 min
Time constant, 𝜏𝑝 = 12.01 − 10.22 = 1.79 min Time constant, 𝜏𝑝 = 16.52 − 13.22 = 3.2 min

𝑡𝐶𝑂𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝 = 10.22 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝐶𝑂𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝 = 13.32 𝑚𝑖𝑛

Deadtime, 𝜃𝑝 = 10.22 − 9.46 = 0.76 𝑚𝑖𝑛 Deadtime, 𝜃𝑝 = 13.32 − 13.32 = 0 𝑚𝑖𝑛

Based from the results from Figure 1 and 2, the two sets of the FOPDT model parameters are
different for the step change of CO from 42-52% and 25-35%. All parameters except the time constant, 𝜏𝑝
are larger when on higher operating levels. This is because the dynamic process behaviour changes based
on operating levels.
2. Nature of the Process

To being able to compare the parameter of the operating level the entire plot test was separated. Below are
4 sets of data from operating level of 30%-40%, 40%-50%, 50%-60% and 60%-70%. The plot and table of
results are shown.

Figure 3: Graph of CO 30% to 40%

Figure 4: Graph of CO 40% to 50%

Figure 5: Graph of CO 50% to 60%

Figure 6: Graph of CO 60%-70%

 Figure 7: Graph of CO 30%-70%

Table 4: Tuning Correlation (30%-40%)

Model IMC Tuning Correlations
Parameters Controller Kc τI τD α
Type
KP = 0.409 P only -2.66 0 0 0
τP= 2.20 PI -1.08 2.20 0 0
θ = 0.553 PID -1.29 2.47 0.245 0
Model’s R2 = PID with -1.22 2.47 0.245 1.00
0.999 Filter

Table 5: Tuning Correlation (40%-50%)

Model IMC Tuning Correlations
Parameters Controller Kc τI τD α
Type
KP = -0.329 P only -1.93 0 0 0
τP= 1.78 PI -0.863 1.78 0 0
θ = 0.695 PID -1.09 2.13 0.291 0
Model’s R2 = PID with -1.03 2.13 0.291 1.06
1.000 Filter
 Table 6: Tuning Correlation (50%-60%)
Model IMC Tuning Correlations
Parameters Controller Kc τI τD α
Type
KP = -0.275 P only -1.72 0 0 0
τP= 1.43 PI -0.811 1.43 0 0
θ = 0.713 PID -1.07 1.79 0.285 0
Model’s R2 = PID with -1.01 1.79 0.285 1.11
0.999 Filter

Table 7: Tuning Correlation (60%-70%)

Model IMC Tuning Correlations
Parameters Controller Kc τI τD α
Type
KP = -0.229 P only -1.28 0 0 0
τP= 1.11 PI -0.658 1.11 0 0
θ = 0.818 PID -0.953 1.52 0.299 0
Model’s R2 = PID with -0.900 1.52 0.299 1.22
0.999 Filter

By comparing the parameter obtained it is determined as non-linear process due to the change of KP ,τP , θ
as we manipulated the operating level. The process variable from Figure 7 of the overall plot seems to be
decreased over time. At the lowest operating condition, the KP is found to be 0.4 while at higher condition
the value decrease to -0.229. Same change was observed for τP and θ thus it can be concluded that the
jacketed reactor is a nonlinear process. Below showcases the process model equation.

𝐾𝑝 𝑒 −𝜃𝑝 𝑠
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) =
𝜏𝑝 𝑠 + 1

−0.319𝑒 −0.803𝑠
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) =
1.69𝑠 + 1
3. Disturbance Model

In order to determine the model parameter for the disturbance, the Controller Output (CO) was
maintained at 42%. The value of disturbance was manipulated between 50℃-60℃ and the result were
shown below.

Figure 8: Graph of Disturbance 50℃-60℃

Table 8: Tuning Correlation (50℃-60℃)

Model IMC Tuning Correlations
Parameters Controller Kc τI τD α
Type
KP = 0.6717 P only 0.928 0 0 0
τP= 2.395 PI 0.417 2.39 0 0
θ = 0.95 PID 0.529 2.87 0.396 0
Model’s R2 = PID with Filter 0.500 2.87 0.396 1.07
0.999

Figure 8 show an increase in temperature when increase the disturbance value. KP, τP, and θ were obtained
from the simulator. This parameter will be used for the Tuning and evaluation of controller design later on.
The disturbance model equation is shown below.
𝐾𝑝 𝑒 −𝜃𝑝 𝑠
𝐺𝑑 (𝑠) =
𝜏𝑝 𝑠 + 1
 0.668𝑒 −0.961𝑠
𝐺𝑑 (𝑠) =
2.39𝑠 + 1

4. Tuning Correlation and PID controller performance

Table 9: The suggested IMC Tuning correlation for controller output step up (42% to 52%)
Model IMC Tuning Correlations
Parameters Controller Type Kc τI τD α
KP = -0.319 P only -1.57 0 0 0
τP= 1.69 PI -0.733 1.69 0 0
θ = 0.803 PID -0.960 2.09 0.324 0
Model’s R 2
= PID with Filter -0.907 2.09 0.324 1.10
0.999

Table 10: The suggested IMC Tuning correlation for disturbance step up (50°C to 60°C)
Model IMC Tuning Correlations
Parameters Controller Type Kc τI τD α
KP = 0.668 P only 0.920 0 0 0
τP= 2.39 PI 0.414 2.39 0 0
θ = 0.961 PID 0.527 2.88 0.400 0
Model’s R2 = PID with Filter 0.498 2.88 0.400 1.07
1.000

Based on model parameters obtained from the controller output step up and the dynamic
disturbance model, the dynamic disturbance model parameters are deemed not suitable for controlling the
jacketed stirred reactor. One of the reasons why this is the case is because the disturbance test data shows
a positive process gain which is the wrong action causing the valve to move in the wrong direction which
would increase the error rather than correct them. However, it would be useful if designing a feed forward
control element design which would consider high disturbance fluctuations.
Figure 9: P only controller studies using set point tracking with suggested IMC tuning correlation by
controller output step up (42% to 52%)

Figure 10: PI controller studies using set point tracking with suggested IMC tuning correlation by
controller output step up (42% to 52%)
 Figure 11: PID controller studies using set point tracking with suggested IMC tuning correlation by
controller output step up (42% to 52%)

Figure 12: P-only controller studies using disturbance rejection with suggested IMC tuning correlation by
controller output step up (42% to 52%)
Figure 13: PI controller studies using disturbance rejection with suggested IMC tuning correlation by
controller output step up (42% to 52%)

Figure 14: PID controller studies using disturbance rejection with suggested IMC tuning correlation by
controller output step up (42% to 52%)
Figure 15: PI controller studies using set point tracking with suggested Cohen and Coon by controller
output step up (42% to 52%)

Figure 16: PI controller studies using set point tracking with suggested Ziegler-Nichols by controller
output step up (42% to 52%)
Figure 17: PI controller studies using disturbance rejection with Cohen and Coon by controller output step
up (42% to 52%)

Figure 18: PI controller studies using disturbance rejection with Ziegler-Nichols by controller output step
up (42% to 52%)
 Based on Figure 9, the graphs show that the use of a P-only controller creates an offset of about -
2.1% which would be not ideal. As the process is nonlinear, the offset may become larger which is
undesirable. In Figure 12, the P-only controller fails the disturbance rejection test as it was unable to
compensate for the change and created a larger offset. For the PI controller in Figure 10, the offset was
removed by the integral action however it increased the time for the process to settle. However, when
subjugated to disturbances the settling time significantly increased but was able to compensate compared
to the P-only controller. The PID controller in Figure 11 showed similar performance to the PI controller
however it has frequent fluctuations in the controller output or noise which can cause wear and tear towards
the controller valve. Therefore, based on observation of the response of P, PI and PID controller towards
set point tracking and disturbances rejection, the ideal controller choice would be PI. Among the PI
controllers, 3 tuning correlations were selected which are IMC, Cohen and Coon and Ziegler-Nichols to
select the best. The 4 performance criterions were checked for each of the tuning. The criterions are
minimum offset, quick settling time, peak overshoot ratio and decay ratio. All the performance criterions
were tabulated in Table 12 for set point tracking and Table 13 for disturbance rejection. The graphical
values obtained to calculate the performance criterions were tabulated in Table 11. A sample of
performance criterion calculation is shown below for Figure 9. The values for performance criterion were
obtained via graphical analysis however as it is difficult to determine, however the values of the
performance criterions obtained are within ±5% error of margin. Based on the data obtained, the IMC
tuned PI controller has the best performance compared the Cohen and Coon and Ziegler-Nichols. It has no
overshoot ratio, decay ratio and offset however it has a larger settling time when used in set point tracking
and disturbance rejection. As this process is nonlinear, a suggestion which can improve the reliability of
the controller is to take the average process gain, time constant and dead time at multiple controller output
(CO) step up changes to ensure that the process is stable regardless of the change in disturbance or set point.
Furthermore, the use on a feed forward control loop would help mitigate the effects of large disturbances
acting on the process as well.

Performance Criterion 1: Minimum Offset

Based on Figure 9, the steady state PV was found to be 93°C while the set point is 95°C. Ideally the offset
should be within ±5% to be considered a good controller or 0%.
93 − 95
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 = × 100%
95
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 = −2.1%
As the offset is within ±5% the controller can be considered however it may not be the best choice.
Performance Criterion 2: Quick Settling Time
Based on observation from the Figure 9, the settling time from step up set point 92°C to 95°C was found
to be 6.2 minutes.
𝑇𝑠𝑠 = 21 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠 − 14.8 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
𝑇𝑠𝑠 = 6.2 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠
The settling time obtained has to be compared with other tuning correlations to determine which is the
shortest.

Performance Criterion 3: Peak Overshoot Ratio

Based on Figure 9, the response does not have any oscillating action therefore the overshoot ratio is 0%.
However, the formula is as shown below.
𝐵
𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑡 = × 100
𝐴

Performance Criterion 4: Decay Ratio

Based on Figure 9, the response does not have any oscillating action therefore the decay ratio is 0%.
However, the formula is as shown below.
𝐶
𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = × 100
𝐵

Table 11: Graphical values for set point tracking

Graph Values IMC Cohen and Coon Ziegler-Nichols

Controller Type P PI PID P PI PID PI

PVsettled (°C) 93 95 95 94 95 95 95
PVsetpoint (°C) 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
tsettled (mins) 21.0 33.9 64.4 21.0 17.4 15.5 15.8
tstart (mins) 14.8 13.2 41.9 12.6 5.9 9.9 8.9
A ( change in set point) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

B (distance of the first 0 0 0 0 1.6 1.2 0.6

peak to new set point)
C (distance of the 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.1 0.0
second peak from the
new set point)

Table 12: Performance criterion for IMC, Cohen and Coon and Ziegler-Nichols tuning correlation for set
point tracking
Performance Criterion IMC Cohen and Coon Ziegler-Nichols

Controller Type P PI PID P PI PID PI

Minimum Offset (%) -2.1 0.0 0.0 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
±5%
Settling Time (mins) 6.2 20.7 22.5 8.4 11.5 5.6 6.9

Overshoot Ratio (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.3 40.0 20.0
±10%
Decay Ratio (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 15.5 0.0
±25%
Table 13: Performance criterion for IMC, Cohen and Coon and Ziegler-Nichols tuning correlation for
disturbance rejection
Performance Criterion IMC Cohen and Coon Ziegler

Controller Type P PI PID P PI PID PI

Minimum Offset (%) 5.1 0 0 2.6 0 0 0

±5%
Settling Time (mins) 18.7 68.8 58 4.5 6.8 8.9 22.5

Overshoot Ratio (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

±10%
Decay Ratio (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
±25%