Inst ToolsInst ToolsInst Tools
  • Courses
  • Automation
    • PLC
    • Control System
    • Safety System
    • Communication
    • Fire & Gas System
  • Instrumentation
    • Design
    • Pressure
    • Temperature
    • Flow
    • Level
    • Vibration
    • Analyzer
    • Control Valve
    • Switch
    • Calibration
    • Erection & Commissioning
  • Interview
    • Instrumentation
    • Electrical
    • Electronics
    • Practical
  • Q&A
    • Instrumentation
    • Control System
    • Electrical
    • Electronics
    • Analog Electronics
    • Digital Electronics
    • Power Electronics
    • Microprocessor
Search
  • Books
  • Software
  • Projects
  • Process
  • Tools
  • Basics
  • Formula
  • Power Plant
  • Root Cause Analysis
  • Electrical Basics
  • Animation
  • Standards
  • 4-20 mA Course
  • Siemens PLC Course
Reading: Tuning a Liquid Level Process Control Loop
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
Inst ToolsInst Tools
Font ResizerAa
  • Courses
  • Design
  • PLC
  • Interview
  • Control System
Search
  • Courses
  • Automation
    • PLC
    • Control System
    • Safety System
    • Communication
    • Fire & Gas System
  • Instrumentation
    • Design
    • Pressure
    • Temperature
    • Flow
    • Level
    • Vibration
    • Analyzer
    • Control Valve
    • Switch
    • Calibration
    • Erection & Commissioning
  • Interview
    • Instrumentation
    • Electrical
    • Electronics
    • Practical
  • Q&A
    • Instrumentation
    • Control System
    • Electrical
    • Electronics
    • Analog Electronics
    • Digital Electronics
    • Power Electronics
    • Microprocessor
Follow US
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited.
Inst Tools > Blog > Control Systems > Tuning a Liquid Level Process Control Loop

Tuning a Liquid Level Process Control Loop

Last updated: September 7, 2018 10:07 am
Editorial Staff
Control Systems
No Comments
Share
6 Min Read
SHARE

Ziegler-Nichols open-loop tuning procedure

The next simulated process I attempted to tune was a liquid level-control process. Performing an open-loop test (one 10% increasing output step-change, followed by a 10% decreasing output step-change, both made in manual mode) on this process resulted in the following behavior:

Tuning a Liquid Level Process Control Loop

From the trend, the process appears to be purely integrating, as though the control valve were throttling the flow of liquid into a vessel with a constant out-flow. The reaction rate (R) on the first step-change is 50% over 10 minutes, or 5 percent per minute. Dead time (L) appears virtually nonexistent, estimated to be 0.1 minutes simply for the sake of having a dead-time value to use in the Ziegler-Nichols equations. Following the Ziegler-Nichols recommendations for PID tuning based on these process characteristics (also including the 10% step-change magnitude Δm):

Tuning a Liquid Level Process Formula

Applying the PID values of 24 (gain), 0.2 minutes per repeat (integral), and 0.05 minutes (derivative) gave the following result in automatic mode:

Tuning a Liquid Level Process Control Loop - 1

The process variable certainly responds rapidly to the five increasing setpoint changes and also to the one large decreasing setpoint change, but the valve action is hopelessly chaotic. Not only would this “jittery” valve motion prematurely wear out the stem packing, but it would also result in vast over-consumption of compressed air to continually stroke the valve from one extreme to the other. Furthermore, we see evidence of “overshoot” at every setpoint change, most likely from excessive integral action.

We can see from the valve’s wild behavior even during periods when the process variable is holding at setpoint that the problem is not a loop oscillation, but rather the effects of process noise on the controller. The extremely high gain value of 24 is amplifying PV noise by that factor, and reproducing it on the output signal.

Also Read : Ziegler-Nichols Open-Loop Theory

 Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop tuning procedure

Next, I attempted to perform a closed-loop “Ultimate” gain test on this process, but I was not successful. Even the controller’s maximum possible gain value would not generate oscillations, due to the extremely crisp response of the process (minimal lag and dead times) and its integrating nature (constant phase shift of −90 o).

Heuristic tuning procedure

From the initial open-loop (manual output step-change) test, we could see this process was purely integrating. This told me it could be controlled primarily by proportional action, with very little integral action required, and no derivative action whatsoever. The presence of some process noise is the only factor limiting the aggressiveness of proportional action. With this in mind, I experimented with increasingly aggressive gain values until I reached a point where I felt the output signal noise was at a maximum acceptable limit for the control valve. Then, I experimented with integral action to ensure reasonable elimination of offset.

After some experimenting, the values I arrived at were 3 (gain), 10 minutes (integral), and 0 minutes (derivative). These tuning values represent a proportional action only one-eighth as aggressive as the Ziegler-Nichols recommendation, and an integral action fifty times less aggressive than the Ziegler-Nichols recommendation. The results of these tuning values in automatic mode are shown here:

Tuning a Liquid Level Process Control Loop - 2

You can see on this trend five 10% increasing setpoint value changes, with crisp response every time, followed by a single 50% decreasing setpoint step-change. In all cases, the process response clearly meets the criteria of rapid attainment of new setpoint values and no overshoot or oscillation.

If it was decided that the noise in the output signal was too detrimental for the valve, we would have the option of further reducing the gain value and (possibly) compensating for slow offset recovery with more aggressive integral action. We could also attempt the insertion of a damping constant into either the level transmitter or the controller itself, so long as this added lag did not cause oscillation problems in the loop (Note). The best solution would be to find a way to isolate the level transmitter from noise, so that the process variable signal was much “quieter.” Whether or not this is possible depends on the process and on the particular transmitter used.

Note : We would have to be very careful with the addition of damping, since the oscillations could create may not appear on the trend. Remember that the insertion of damping (low-pass filtering) in the PV signal is essentially an act of “lying” to the controller: telling the controller something that differs from the real, measured signal. If our PV trend shows us this damped signal and not the “raw” signal from the transmitter, it is possible for the process to oscillate and the PV trend to be deceptively stable!

Also Read : Ziegler-Nichols Closed-Loop Theory

Don't Miss Our Updates
Be the first to get exclusive content straight to your email.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
You've successfully subscribed !

Continue Reading

What is Marshalling Cabinet?
PID Controller Loop Tuning Tips
Workstation Healthiness Checks
Design Logic Diagrams with Standard Formats for Process Control
What is Ground, and importance of a Grounding System?
Industrial Networking and Wireless Interview Questions
Share This Article
Facebook Whatsapp Whatsapp LinkedIn Copy Link
Share
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stay Connected

128.3kFollowersLike
69.1kFollowersFollow
210kSubscribersSubscribe
38kFollowersFollow

Categories

Explore More

ON-OFF Controller Principle
How does a Redundant Controller comes in line when the Main Controller fails?
Difference Between PNP and NPN Sensors
Industrial Automation Mobile Apps
What is Alarm Shelving? – Nuisance Alarms, Types, Suppression
Control Room Alarm Management Practices
Remote Connectivity to Industrial Automation Systems
How Engineers Effectively do Problem-solve and Troubleshoot?

Keep Learning

Signal Isolator

What is a Signal Isolator? Principle, Advantages, Disadvantages

Selector Control Function in DCS

Selector Control Functions

What is Instrumentation and Control

What is Instrumentation and Control ?

Basics of FOUNDATION Fieldbus

Difference between Fieldbus, Profibus and HART Protocols

Three Element Drum Level Control System

Three Element Drum Level Control System

Process Alarms Types

Process Switches and Alarms

DCS Quiz

DCS Quiz

HMI

Learn about SCADA and HMI Systems

Learn More

CNC Milling versus CNC Turning

CNC Milling versus CNC Turning – Which is the Best Option?

Example Program Logic in Allen Bradley PLC

PLC Programming Examples on Industrial Automation

Automatic bending machine for exhaust pipe

PLC Logic for Automatic Bending Machine for Exhaust Pipe

HVAC Multiple Choice Questions

HVAC Multiple Choice Questions

Digital Electronics Multiple Choice Questions

Registers Objective Questions

Ladder Diagram Example using Memory Bits and Set Coils

Ladder Diagram Example using Memory Bits and Set Coils

PLC Programming Example for a Batch Process

PLC Programming Example for a Batch Process

energized-to-safe-loop

Energize to Safe Loop philosophy

Menu

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright

Quick Links

  • Learn PLC
  • Helping Hand
  • Part Time Job

YouTube Subscribe

Follow US
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?