KMJ 32104

Process Control and Dynamics

LAB REPORT

NAME : RAVEENA NAIDU DEVANATHAN

MATRIX NO : 221141757
EXPERIMENT 2 : TO ANALYZE DYNAMIC REPONSE OF PI
CONTROLLER
LECTURER’S NAME : MR. MAHFUZ AFFIF MOHD RUSLAN

Faculty of Chemical Engineering & Technology

University Malaysia Perlis
 EXPERIMENT 2 TO ANALYZE DYNAMIC REPONSE OF PI CONTROLLER

1.0 OBJECTIVE
• To identify the important components of the control system.
• To study the dynamic response of PI Controller.

2.0 RESULTS
Settling First peak Rise
P Setting 𝑲𝒑 (%) 𝑲𝑰 (𝒔) 𝑲𝑫 (𝒔)
time, s time, s time, s
30/10/0 3.33 0.333 0 35.997 28.798 14.399
30/15/0 3.33 0.222 0 35.997 28.798 14.399
30/20/0 3.33 0.167 0 71.994 14.399 7.199

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑡 (𝑚𝑚)

𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒, 𝑡𝑥 =
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 (𝑚𝑚⁄𝑠)

500 𝑚𝑚 1ℎ 𝑚𝑚
unit of (𝑚𝑚⁄𝑠) is (3600 𝑠) = 0.1389
ℎ 𝑠

P Setting 30/10/0
100 𝐾𝑝
𝐾𝑝 = 𝐾𝐼 = 𝐾𝐷 = 𝐾𝑃 × 𝑇𝐷
𝑃𝐵 𝑇𝐼
100 3.33 𝐾𝐷 = 0.333 (0)
𝐾𝑝 = 𝐾𝐼 =
30 10 𝐾𝐷 = 0 𝑠
𝐾𝑝 = 3.33 % 𝐾𝐼 = 0.333 𝑠

5 𝑚𝑚 4 𝑚𝑚 2 𝑚𝑚
𝑡𝑠 = 𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑝 = 𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑟 = 𝑚𝑚
0.1389 0.1389 0.1389
𝑠 𝑠 𝑠

𝑡𝑠 = 35.997 𝑠 𝑡𝑝 = 28.798 𝑠 𝑡𝑟 = 14.399 𝑠

P Setting 30/15/0
100 𝐾𝑝
𝐾𝑝 = 𝐾𝐼 = 𝐾𝐷 = 𝐾𝑃 × 𝑇𝐷
𝑃𝐵 𝑇𝐼
100 3.33
𝐾𝐷 = 3.33 (0)
𝐾𝑝 = 𝐾𝐼 =
30 15 𝐾𝐷 = 0 𝑠
𝐾𝑝 = 3.33 % 𝐾𝐼 = 0.222 𝑠

5 𝑚𝑚 4 𝑚𝑚 2 𝑚𝑚
𝑡𝑠 = 𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑝 = 𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑟 = 𝑚𝑚
0.1389 0.1389 0.1389
𝑠 𝑠 𝑠

𝑡𝑠 = 35.997 𝑠 𝑡𝑝 = 28.798 𝑠 𝑡𝑟 = 14.399 𝑠

 P Setting 30/20/0
100 𝐾𝑝
𝐾𝑝 = 𝐾𝐼 = 𝐾𝐷 = 𝐾𝑃 × 𝑇𝐷
𝑃𝐵 𝑇𝐼
100 3.33 𝐾𝐷 = 3.33 (0)
𝐾𝑝 = 𝐾𝐼 =
30 20 𝐾𝐷 = 0 𝑠
𝐾𝑝 = 3.33 % 𝐾𝐼 = 0.167 𝑠

10 𝑚𝑚 2 𝑚𝑚 1 𝑚𝑚
𝑡𝑠 = 𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑝 = 𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑟 = 𝑚𝑚
0.1389 0.1389 0.1389
𝑠 𝑠 𝑠

𝑡𝑠 = 71.994 𝑠 𝑡𝑝 = 14.399 𝑠 𝑡𝑟 = 7.199 𝑠

3.0 DISCUSSION
The Proportional-Integral (PI) controller is a fundamental control mechanism
widely used in process dynamics and control. It adjusts system inputs to minimize error
by combining proportional gain (KP) and integral gain (KI) to achieve stability and
performance. From the provided results, the impact of changing KI while keeping KP
constant is analyzed.
In the experiment, KP was kept constant at 3.33, while KI was varied from 0.333
to 0.167. The derivative gain (KD) was maintained at zero to isolate the effect of the
proportional-integral parameters. The following trends were observed; with a higher KI
value (0.333), the settling time was 35.997 seconds. However, as KI was reduced to
0.167, the settling time doubled to 71.994 seconds. This indicates that a higher KI
accelerates error correction, whereas a lower KI leads to slower convergence of the
system. Both first peak time and rise time decreased significantly as KI was reduced.
For KI=0.333, the first peak time was 28.798 seconds, and the rise time was 14.399
seconds. As KI was reduced to 0.167, the rise time dropped to 7.199 seconds, and the
first peak time fell to 14.399 seconds. This indicates that lower KI values result in a
faster initial response, albeit at the expense of a longer overall settling time.
Higher KI values lead to more aggressive integral action, which improves the
system's ability to eliminate steady-state error. However, this can increase the risk of
overshooting and prolonged oscillations, as seen in the unchanged first peak time for
KI=0.333 and KI=0.222. Lower KI values reduce the integral component's influence,
resulting in a slower error elimination but better damping of oscillatory behaviour,
evidenced by the shorter rise and peak times.
When precision and fast error correction are priorities, a higher KI value may
be favourable, as it ensures the system converges quickly to the setpoint despite
potential overshoots. If system stability and reduced oscillations are more critical, a
lower KI value is more suitable, even if the settling time increases.
The experiment demonstrates that the integral gain (KI) significantly influences
the control response. While higher KI values improve the speed of error correction, they
may compromise stability, resulting in longer settling times and potential overshoots.
Lower KI values, on the other hand, produce a more stable response with reduced
oscillations, albeit at the cost of slower overall system performance. Therefore, optimal
tuning of KI is essential to balance speed and stability based on system requirements.
4.0 APPENDIXES