In this experiment, the objective is to study level control in a

system. Also, the experiment aimed to observe the behaviour of PID

controller with different control modes towards the induced disturbances,
which is the change in set point value. The process variable in the
experiment is water level and the manipulated variable is the flowrate.
Control valve was used to control the level by opening and closing the
valve. The valve opening is adjusted automatically based on the set point
changes. In this experiment, the level is control by three types of
feedback control modes, which are proportional (P) control, Integral (I)
control and lastly the derivative (D) control.
Firstly, for proportional (P) control it is used to reduce steady state
error and stabilize the unstable process of the system. The performance of
P controller is closely related with its proportional gain factor. When the
proportional gain factor increases, the steady state error of system
decreases. This is because increasing proportional gain provides smaller
amplitude and phase margin, faster dynamics satisfying wider frequency
band and larger sensitivity to the noise (Temel, Yagli & Gorem). However,
P control is not able to eliminate the steady state error completely. The
next controller is Integral (I) control which is normally used together with
proportional control to eliminate its steady state error completely. This
controller is used when the speed of the system is not an issue as Integral
control has a negative impact on the speed and overall stability of the
system. Lastly, the Derivative (D) control is normally used to increase
stability of the system as it has ability to predict future error of system
response. However, D control mode amplifies process noise hence D-only
control is not used. In the experiment conducted, only PID Controller was
used. In the experiment, the controller is levelled accordingly to
proportional-integral (PI) control mode, only Proportional (P) control mode
and with Derivative (D) control mode.
The response of the system is recorded by the graph recorder. The
green line on the graph indicates the flowrate of the inlet according to the

difference in the opening of valve. The red line represents the level of the
water in the tank. The recorded graphs were analysed and discussed
below respectively.

Experiment 1: Level PID Controller with Proportional-Integral (PI)

Control Mode
PID Control Mode

First (I) Trial PID

values

Second (II) Trial PID

values

Proportional Band, PB1

30%

10%

Integral Time Constant,

TI1

25 secs

15 secs

Derivative Time Constant,

TD1

0 sec

0sec

Set Point Value, SV

500

550

450

500

550

450

Present Value, PV

500

550

450

500

550

450

In our first experiment, the PID controller was adjusted with

Proportional-Integral (PI) control mode. There are two trials performed on
the PID controller. In the first trial, the set point, SV1 of LIC31 is set to
500mm. The PID controller was adjusted to PB1=30%, TI1=25s and
TD1=30s. Here, a mistake was done when the derivative time was set to
30s instead of 0s. However, the discussion here will only focus on the
effect of PI control on system response. Then, the set point was increased
by 10% to 550mm and reduced by 10% to 450mm. The changes in set
point are the disturbances introduced to observe the system response.
The same procedures were made on the second trial but the PID controller
was adjusted to PB1=10%, TI1=15s and TD1=0s.
In figure (

), the response of system in the level and flowrate

when the set point is 500mm were observed. The system responded
quickly by opening its valve 100% for maximum inflow of water to reach
the set point. This is due to the Proportional control action that takes

immediate corrective action as soon as changes or errors are detected.

The oscillatory responses in the graph was due to the integral term in PI
controller. The integral term helps to eliminate offset so that the set point
of 500mm can be achieved. However, it produces oscillatory response.
After some time, the deviation became smaller as the system reached
steady state value at 500mm. After that based on figure (

), the set point

is increased by 10% to 550mm which stimulated the PID controller to take

corrective action. The flowrate increases which resulted in the increment
in the level. After experiencing small oscillation, the new steady state
value was reached within a short period of time. Lastly, the set point is
decreased by 10% again to 450mm as shown in figure (

). This time the

flowrate decreases which reduce the level of water in the tank. The new
steady state value was attained after some time.
Figure (

) showed the response of system in the level and flowrate

when the set point is 500mm with second trial PID values. The system
showed the same response pattern just as first trial when set point was
increased and decreased by 10%. However, the time taken to reach new
steady state value was reduced greatly when comparing to first trial. This
is because the proportional band percentage was reduced to 10%. A small
proportional band value corresponds to large controller gain, Kc in
proportional control. Increasing the controller gain, Kc will reduce the
steady state error and reduce rise time. However, after certain limit
increasing Kc only causes overshoot (Astrom, 2002). Also, when the
integral time was reduced to 15s, the smaller integral term helps to return
the system to the set-point value at a shorter time.
In conclusion, with PI controller, the offset or disturbance in the
system can be eliminated. However, oscillatory response was observed
when PI control is in action. The proportional term in PI control helps to
reduce offset while the Integral term helps to eliminate offset.
Experiment 2: Level PID Controller with only Proportional (P)
Control Mode

P Control Mode

First (I) Trial PID

values

Second (II) Trial PID

values

Proportional Band, PB1

10%

5%

Integral Time Constant,

TI1

9999 secs

9999 secs

Derivative Time Constant,

TD1

0 sec

0sec

Set Point Value, SV

500

550

450

500

550

450

Present Value, PV

499

547

450

499

547

450

In the second experiment, the PID controller was adjusted with only
Proportional (P) control mode. There are two trials performed on the PID
controller. In the first trial, the set point, SV1 of LIC31 is set to 500mm.
The PID controller was adjusted to PB1=10%, TI1=9999s and TD1=0s.
Then, the set point was increased by 10% to 550mm and reduced by 10%
to 450mm. The changes in set point are the disturbances introduced to
observe the system response. The same procedures were made on the
second trial but the PID controller was adjusted to PB1=5%, TI1=9999s
and TD1=0s. The integral time constant was set to the maximum to
eliminate the integral term.
Based on figure (

), the response of system in the level and

flowrate when the set point is 500mm, 550mm and 450mm were
observed. With only proportional control, when there is disturbance
detected, the P control take immediately corrective action towards the
disturbance to bring back the set-point value. When comparing to the PI
control, there are no oscillation as shown in the graph recorder. The small
proportional band value contributes to a large controller gain value as
shown in the relationship below:
PB=

100
KC

Larger controller gain value helps the system to response quickly towards
the set-point changes. However, the inherent limitation for proportional

(P) only controller is that a steady-state error (offset) occurs after a setpoint change or a sustained disturbance. This means that the system will
not response to reach the new set-point. This is proven by the result from
the experiment, where the present value of level in the system did not
reach the set-point.
On the other hand, figure (

) showed the response of system in

the level and flowrate when the set point is 500mm with second trial PID
values. The system showed the same response pattern just as first trial
when set point was increased and decreased by 10%. However, some
oscillations were observed on the response curve when set-point changes.
This is due too small value of proportional band which gives a very large
controller gain, Kc value. According to Seborg (2011), the intermediate
controller gain, Kc value is desirable to give the best control response.
This is because small Kc value will give sluggish response and larger
deviation, while large Kc value will exhibit oscillatory or unstable
behaviour.
In conclusion, with proportional (P) only controller, the system is
able to reduce the offset or sustained disturbance in the set-point.
However, the offset will not be eliminated. Also, for optimum control, the
intermediate values of controller gain Kc is desirable.

Experiment 3: Level PID Controller with Derivative (D) Control

Mode
D Control Mode

First (I) Trial PID

values

Second (II) Trial PID

values

Proportional Band, PB1

10%

20%

Integral Time Constant,

TI1

15 secs

15 secs

Derivative Time Constant,

TD1

30 secs

30 secs

Set Point Value, SV

500

550

450

500

550

450

Present Value, PV

500

550

450

550

500

450

In the third experiment, the PID controller was adjusted with

Derivative (D) control mode. There are two trials performed on the PID
controller. In the first trial, the set point, SV1 of LIC31 is set to 500mm.
The PID controller was adjusted to PB1=10%, TI1=15s and TD1=30s.
Then, the set point was increased by 10% to 550mm and reduced by 10%
to 450mm. The changes in set point are the disturbances introduced to
observe the system response. The same procedures were made on the
second trial but the PID controller was adjusted to PB1=20%, TI1=15s and
TD1=30s. Three control modes were combined together to ensure a better
control performance.
Based on figure (

), () and (), the response of system in the level

and flowrate when the set point is 500mm, 550mm and 450mm were
observed. When derivative (D) control was involved, the controlled
process was able to be stabilize. This is due to the properties of Derivative
action which is able to anticipate the future error by considering its rate of
change (Goodwin, 2000). Derivative action is never used alone; it is
always used in conjunction with P or PI control. When comparing with
experiment 2, the graphs exhibit lesser offset than proportional alone. The
integral term also helps to eliminate the offset in this case. Also,
Derivative control is able to reduce lags from the integral term for a more
rapid response.
For the second trial based on figure (

), () and (), the system

showed the same response pattern just as first trial when set point was
increased and decreased by 10%. However, a higher degree of oscillation
was observed on the response curve when set-point changes. This is due
the large value of proportional band which gives a very small controller
gain, Kc value. Too small value of Kc will give sluggish response and larger
deviation as explained in experiment 2. The oscillation might also

contribute by the value of derivative time constant, TD. When derivative

time constant is increased, it is able to improve the response by reducing
maximum deviation, response time and degree of oscillation. However,
the measurement noise will be amplified and response becomes
oscillatory if derivative time constant is too large.
In conclusion, although PID controller with Derivative (D) control
mode is the most complex, it is able to produce the best control
performance among all others if properly tuned with rapid response and
no offset. The limitation on PID controller is that it is difficult to tune.
Hence, PID controller is the most used in the industry.

Ari, K. (n.d.). PI, PD, PID Controllers. Retrieved from

http://www.eee.metu.edu.tr/~ee402/2012/EE402RecitationReport_4.pdf

Astrom, K. J. (n.d.). PID Control. Retrieved from

http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/courses/cds101/fa02/caltech/astromch6.pdf

Goodwin, G. C., Graebe, S. F., & Salgado, M. E. (2000). Control System

Design. Pearson.

Seborg, D. E., Mellichamp, D. A., Edgar, T. F., & Doyle, F. J. (2011). Process
Dynamics and Control (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.