ABSTRACT

The control loop of a process plant is the main concern of this work. The retuning entails, designing a controller,
investigating the effect of disturbance and actuator saturation on the system, and proffering a solution. Using
Hagglund-Astrom and Cohen-Coon Proportional-plus-integral tuning relations, the controller is designed. The design
is then compared with that obtained from the more widely used Ziegler-Nichols tuning relations. The responses of
each controller design are investigated and a suggestion is given on the controller that would give optimum results.
A disturbance of 0.1 step function is introduced into the system and the effect is monitored. Finally, an actuator
saturation block is introduced and the effect on the overall system is investigated in order to design a counter acting
control mechanism.

1
Contents
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
AIMS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4
PROCEDURE AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Plant Model ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Pade Approximation ............................................................................................................................................... 5
PI Controllers .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Hagglund-Astrom Tuning ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Cohen-Coon Tuning ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Ziegler-Nichols Tuning ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Observations and Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 11
SIMULATION AND DISTURBANCE INJECTION................................................................................................................ 12
INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF BLOCK X ................................................................................................................ 13
Analyses ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
SUGGESTIONS ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 19
REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................................................. 20
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................................................. 21
APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................................................................. 22
APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................................................................. 23
APPENDIX E................................................................................................................................................................... 23

2
BACKGROUND
The performance of a control system can be fine-tuned using the proportional-integral-derivative controller,
otherwise known as PID. However, depending on the system behaviour, only proportional controller or a
combination of proportional and integral (PI) controller may be used. In this work, the PI controller is used. This gives
just enough control action for the system.

From figure (1), the error is the difference between process output and the set point. This error is worked on by the
proportional, integral and derivative parts of the controller to give an output that is close to the set point. The
iteration continues until the error is minimized or eliminated. In this work, the derivative part is not used as the
proportional and integral actions give desired results.

Figure 1: A typical PID Controller

R(s) E(s) U(s) Y(s)

PI Controller Plant

C(s) P(s)

Figure 2: Closed Loop of the Process Plant

Combining figures (1) and (2) and ignoring the derivative controller of figure (1), we have

Where are the proportional and integral gains respectively.

Taking the Laplace transform of equation (1) gives

3
Hence, the PI controller transfer function becomes

This can be rewritten as

Where is the controller’s integral time constant.

Equation (4) is used extensively in this work. It is combined with the transfer function of the plant to give the transfer
function of the whole process plant.

AIMS
 To obtain a suitable model of the plant using the raw data obtainable from the data files supplied;

 To determine the proportional and integral (PI) controller parameters using the formulae provided by Messrs
Hagglund and Astrom and Messrs Cohen and Coon;

 To compare the result of the Hagglund-Astrom and Cohen-Coon controllers with the more classical and widely
used Ziegler-Nichols design;

 To simulate the controllers above for a unit step input followed by 0.1 of unit step disturbance at a time of 40
seconds and comment on which PI controller gives optimum control;

 To investigate the effect that actuator saturation would have on the control system at large; and

 To modify the plant to maintain its smooth running.

4
PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

Plant Model

Figure 3: Time response of the plant

Figure (3) shows the response of the plant obtained from the data files – time.dat and response.dat. This response
matches that of a time-delayed first order function, which has a general form shown in equation (5).

Where,
θ = dead time in seconds,
K= plant gain,
τ = time constant in seconds-1

From the LabVIEW VI design, the following values were obtained.

θ = 1second,
K= 2,
τ = 2.8 seconds-1

Hence for the plant, equation (5) can be rewritten as

Pade Approximation
In getting an accurate time response in LabVIEW, the Pade approximation was used to convert the time delay part of
equation (6) into polynomial form of desired order. According to Dorf and Bishop (2011) and Ogata (2002), Pade
approximation takes the form

5
 … … … … … … … … (7)

Which gives the following when expanded:

… … … … … … (8)

PI Controllers
Using equation (4), the controller parameters is calculated for the different PI controller tuning relations. Combining
the PI controller and plant transfer functions in figure (2) and feeding the output back through a unity gain, we have

The Hagglund-Astrom tuning settings are first explored followed by those of Cohen and Coon. The Ziegler-Nichols PI
controller settings are then used as a baseline to check the first two. Each of the controllers are designed below
together with their responses.

Hagglund-Astrom Tuning
With the Hagglund-Astrom tuning relations, the PI controller parameters are obtained below.

Thus giving

Using the Pade approximation of degree 3, a polynomial closed loop transfer function is achieved. Table 1 gives a
summary of the time and frequency responses for the Hagglund-Astrom design.

Cohen-Coon Tuning
With the Cohen-Coon tuning relations, the PI controller parameters were obtained below.

Thus giving

Using the Pade approximation of degree 3, a polynomial closed loop transfer function is achieved. Table 2 gives a
summary of the time and frequency responses for the Cohen-Coon design.

6
Ziegler-Nichols Tuning
With the Ziegler-Nichols tuning relations, the PI controller parameters were obtained below.

Where,

Figure 3a: General Ziegler-Nichols ‘S’ process reaction curve

The steepest slope is depicted by the general Ziegler-Nichols ‘S’ process reaction curve in figure (3a), Using MATLAB,
the steepest slope was calculated as follows:

>> t=(0:0.00001:20);
>> y=2*(1-(exp(-t/2.8)));
>> diff(y);
>> max(diff(y))

ans =

7.1428e-006 divided by the time interval of 0.00001 gives 0.71428

Hence,

And,

Using the Pade approximation of degree 3, a polynomial closed loop transfer function is achieved. Table 3 gives a
summary of the time and frequency responses for the Ziegler-Nichols design.

7
Table 1: Hagglund-Astrom Tuning

8
Table 2: Cohen-Coon Tuning

9
Table 3: Ziegler-Nichols Tuning

10
 Figure 4: Time response of the three PI Controllers

Observations and Analysis

From tables 1-3 the following observations could be made:

For all the three designs, the poles were all on the left hand plane, which implies a stable system.

The rise times of the three controllers show that the Cohen and Coon controller has the fastest response. However,
the settling time of the Hagglund-Astrom and Ziegler-Nichols control are much better with a difference of about 5
seconds. This is because of the poor damping factor of the Cohen-Coon controller, which gave rise to an overshoot
of 63.6%. The Hagglund-Astrom controller gave an overshoot of just 12.5% due to its better damping factor. It was
noted that the Ziegler-Nichols controller result in a critically damped system with unity damping factor.

The stability of the system can be investigated using the fundamental values of the natural frequencies. Hagglund-
Astrom controller had the better stability than its Cohen-Coon counterpart did, as its fundamental frequency was
0.53rad/sec although the baseline design using Ziegler-Nichols gave the best result. The Cohen-Coon frequency of
1.25rad/sec shows more instability due to oscillations.

Using the gain margin and the phase margin to investigate the stability of the systems shows that the Hagglund-
Astrom gave the best stability with gain margin of 12.5dB and a phase margin of 54 degrees.

Thus, the Hagglund-Astrom PI controller is a preferable choice.

11
SIMULATION AND DISTURBANCE INJECTION
The controllers were simulated for a unit step change in the set-point and then injection of 0.1 of a unit step
disturbance at a time of 40 seconds. Figure (5) shows the control loop diagram while figure (6) shows the response
of the PI controllers to the disturbance.

Figure 5: Control system with disturbance injection

Figure 6: Response of controllers to disturbance

According to figure (6), the Cohen-Coon PI controller gave the best disturbance rejection, as its overshoot was the
lowest. The overshoot of the Hagglund-Astrom Controller was about 0.925 units while those of the Ziegler-Nichols
and Cohen-Coon were 0.75 and 0.725 units respectively. The Cohen-Coon PI controller also had the fastest settling
time after the disturbance.

12
INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF BLOCK X
The block X in figure (7) can be identified as the actuator saturation block. When an actuator reaches a limit, it is said
to be saturated. This is because the actuator no longer reacts to further increase in control input. Once the actuator
becomes saturated, its incremental gain becomes zero. In addition, this has the potential of making the control
system perform poorly, or worse still causing it to be unstable. This section of the work, seeks to investigate the
effect of the saturation block in the control system and thereby giving a pointer to the saturation limits.

The integral part of the controller causes a phenomenon whereby the controller input continues to increase
uncontrollably. This is called integral windup. A solution to this is to insert an anti-windup feedback within the
control loop. This method is used to limit the input into the controller. Figure (8) shows a general representation of
this method.

In investigating the effect of the saturation block and the impact that anti-windup control loop has on the control
system, a wide range of saturation limits were investigated. However, ±1.2, ±0.6, ±0.5 and ±0.3 are shown in this
report. It is also worth mentioning that while all the three controller responses were monitored, that of Hagglund-
Astrom controller was given detailed attention. Hence, to distinguish it from other responses in each of the plots,
thicker lines are used.

Figures (9) to (16) show the results obtained from this investigation.

Figure 7: Process Plant with Block X (Saturation Block)

Figure 8: A general anti-windup control

13
 Figure 9: System output with saturation limits of ±1.2

Figure 10: Controller input with saturation limits of ±1.2

14
Figure 11: System output with saturation limits of ±0.6

Figure 12: Controller input with saturation limits of ±0.6

15
Figure 13: System output with saturation limits of ±0.5

Figure 14: Controller input with saturation limits of ±0.5

16
Figure 15: System output with saturation limits of ±0.3

Figure 16: Controller input with saturation limits of ±0.3

17
Analyses

±1.2 Saturation:
From figures (9) and (10), it was noticed that there were no observable differences between the responses with
saturation and that without saturation. Obviously, the saturation had no effect on the system performance at this
point. It was however noticed that the saturation curve for the Cohen-Coon controller input had a downward
overshoot.

±0.6 Saturation:
A close look at figures (11) and (12) shows that response of the system had a slightly higher overshoot and settling
time than its unsaturated counterpart (labeled “H-A Disturbance”). All the same, it was still a good form of the
original response. However, the compensated response reduced the overshoot and settling time. The same effect
was noticed for the controller input.

±0.5 Saturation:
At this saturation limit, the Hagglund-Astrom controller gave a system response that has the same gain as the
original response without saturation although it magnified the negative effect of the disturbance. This can be seen in
figure (13). Moreover, in figure (14), the response of the saturated system raised much above the unsaturated
response although the disturbance at 40 seconds reset the signal. This suggests that at this point, the system takes
the form of an open loop since the effect of the output is now negligible on the controller input.

±0.3 Saturation:
From figure (15), the system is response is seen to be further distorted by the effect of the saturation block. Figure
(16) further shows the effect of the integral windup in the response of the system to the saturation block as the gain
continues to rise uncontrollably. However, the compensated control input bears a strong correlation with the
unsaturated counterpart.

SUGGESTIONS
In considering the better of Hagglund-Astrom PI controller and Cohen-Coon PI controller, a number of factors would
have to be considered about the functions and operational needs of the process plant. This is because none is 100
percent better than the other is.

Therefore, if the response time and disturbance rejection were of concern, then Cohen-Coon PI controller would
perform better. Nevertheless, if stability and response to actuator saturation were important for the plant, then
Hagglund-Astrom PI controller would be a good suggestion.

Furthermore, from the analyses of the effect of the saturation block X on the control system, it would be
recommended that an anti-windup compensator be used for smooth running of the plant. This is applicable to
saturation limits of ±0.6 units and below. From the analyses, it can be deduced that above these limits, the plant
would run normally without the anti-windup compensator.

18
CONCLUSION
The investigations on the process plant started with the determination of the transfer function of the plant. Pade
approximation was then applied to the resulting transfer function to convert it to a polynomial. This was done to
obtain the best frequency response.

Hagglund-Astrom and Cohen-coon Proportional-plus-integral tuning relations were used to design the controller for
the plant. The designs were then compared with the classical Zeigler-Nichols tuning algorithm. The design was
simulated and a disturbance of 0.1 step input was injected into the system just before the plant at a time of 40
seconds and the response of each of the controller designs was monitored. A saturation block was then added to the
system to see the effect of actuation saturation on the process plant.

Analyses show that the Hagglund-Astrom design would perform better in a plant where stability and response
actuator saturation are of utmost importance. The Cohen-Coon design would be better for disturbance rejection and
fast response. Finally, an anti-windup compensator would be needed to suppress the effect of the actuator
saturation if the limits fall below ±0.6 units.

REFERENCE
Markaroglu, H., Guzelkaya, M., Eksin, I., Yesil, E. “Tracking Time Adjustment in Back Calculation Anti-Windup
Scheme”. www.scs-europe.net. Accessed on 6th February 2011.
http://www.scs-europe.net/services/ecms2006/ecms2006%20pdf/107-ind.pdf

Becerra, V.M., “Actuator Saturation and Anti-Windup Compensation”. www.personal.reading.ac.uk. Accessed on 6th
February 2011. http://www.personal.reading.ac.uk/~shs99vmb/notes/nlc/lecture6.pdf

Burns, R.S. (2001) “Closed-Loop Control System”, Advanced Control Engineering, Butterworth-Heinemann (ISBN: 0
750651008, pp. 63-104.

Ogata, K. (2002) “Root-Locus Analysis”, Modern Control Engineering,4th edition, Pearson education International,
(ISBN: 0-13-043245-8), pp. 383-384.

“PID Controller”. www.en.wikipedia.org. Accessed on 6th February 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

19
APPENDIX A
Front Panel of the VI for the design of the PI controller for the process plant.

Figure 17: Process plant front panel

20
APPENDIX B
Block diagram of the VI for the design of the PI controller for the process plant.

Figure 18: Block diagram for the process plant

21
APPENDIX C
Simulation part of the VI for the design of the PI controller for the process plant.

Figure 19: Simulation block diagram for the process plant

22
APPENDIX D
SubVI for calculating PI controller parameters.

Figure 20: SubVI for PI Controller Parameters

APPENDIX E
SubVI for PI controller Block used for simulation.

Figure 20: SubVI for PI Controller Blocks used for Simulation

23