DHAKA UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
Gazipur-1707
Department of Chemical Engineering.
Course Code: ChE 4746
Course Name: Process control and Dynamic sessional.
Experiment No-02
Experiment Name- Open Loop Single Flow PID Control Loop Tuning (Ziegler & Nichols
Method)
Date of Experiment:30-06-2025 Date of Submission: 10-07-2025
Submitted By, Submitted To,
Name: Md. Shafiul Hasan Akemus salehin
Lecturer
Student ID: 208001
Dpt. Of Chemical Engineering
Year:3rd DUET, Gazipur-1707
Semester:1st
Session:2020-2021 Md. Rashedul islam
Lecturer
Dpt. Of Chemical Engineering
DUET, Gazipur-1707
Allocated Mark Obtained Mark Signature
Experiment no:02
Experiment name: Open Loop Single Flow PID Control Loop Tuning (Ziegler & Nichols
Method)
Objective:
To demonstrate the characteristics and loop tuning procedures of Single Flow Control
Loop.
To know how to Open Loop Flow Control.
To know how to Closed Loop Flow Control.
To know how to Open Loop Level Control.
To know how to Closed Loop Level Control.
Abstract:
This experimental report details the tuning of a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID)
controller in an open-loop single flow control system using the Ziegler-Nichols method. The
objective is to achieve optimal controller parameters that ensure system stability and improve
dynamic response. In the experiment, a step input was introduced to the process, and the
corresponding open-loop response was recorded to determine key characteristics such as
process gain, time delay, and time constant. These parameters were then applied to the Ziegler-
Nichols open-loop tuning formula to compute the PID controller settings. The tuned controller
was subsequently implemented, and the closed-loop response was observed and analyzed in
terms of rise time, overshoot, and settling time. The results demonstrate that the Ziegler-
Nichols method provides a practical starting point for PID tuning, yielding a balanced response
with moderate overshoot and acceptable stability. This experiment highlights the significance
of empirical tuning methods in process control and their impact on system performance.
Experimental set-up:
Figure 01: Benchtop Multi process Control Unit
Experimental Procedure:
Open Loop Single Pressure PID Control Loop Tuning:
Selected "Single Level Control" and adjusted valve HV302 to a 70-degree opening.
Opened Pump P-101 through the mimic panel or through SOLDAS web SCADA.
Ensured the power regulator was turned all the way clockwise until it reached its limit
(maximum power).
Regulated valve HV102 (to bypass and reduce water pressure if PCV201 was fully
shut).
Pressed the booster button on the top of pump P-101 (ensured the LED was green or
blinking green) if the flow rate was too low (pressed only if necessary, as the LED lit
up green by default).
Put control loop LIC-301 into "Manual Mode" and adjusted the control loop output
"MV" to 60%. Waited until the PV value stabilized.
Made a step change by increasing LIC-301 output MV to 70% and waited until the PV
value became constant.
Opened the "Trend History Window", measured the dead time, the time taken for the
step change to stabilize, and the total change in PV.
Referred to the table below and calculated the proportional, integral, and derivative
values.
Put LIC-301 into "Manual Mode" and manually adjusted the set point to 50%.
Manually adjusted the output MV gradually so that the level measurement matched the
set point of 40%.
Input the calculated PID values into the controller and put LIC-301 into "Auto Mode".
Simulated a set point change by increasing the set point to 50%. Observed the response
of the controlled and manipulated variables.
Adjusted (increased) the PB until the desired degree of damping was achieved.
Put LIC-301 into "Manual Mode" and manually adjusted the set point to 50%.
Manually adjusted the output MV gradually so that the level measurement matched the
set point of 50%. Input the tuned PID values into the controller and put LIC-301 into
"Auto Mode".
Simulated a load change by fully opening HV302 for 5 seconds and then restored it to
its original position. Observed the response of the controlled and manipulated variables.
Simulated a set point change again by repeating steps 9–12
Experimental Calculation:
Td = 18 − 16
= 2 sec
∆PV = 83.86 − 18.29
= 65.57
∆t = 25 − 16
=9
∆MV = 60% − 30%
= 30%
∆PV
RR = ∆t
∆MV
65.57
RR = 9
30
= 0.2428
proportinal Gain (PB) = 83.3 × RR × Td
= 83.3 × 0.2428 × 2
= 40.45
Integral Time (T1 = 2 × Td )
= 2 × 2 = 4 sec
Derivative Time (TD = 0.5Td )
TD = 0.5 × 2
TD = 1 sec
Experimental Data:
Open loop Response Curve
Time Set Point MV PV
4:33:58 PM 0 30 18.33762
4:33:59 PM 60 30 18.33934
4:34:00 PM 60 30 18.38754
4:34:01 PM 60 30 18.34375
4:34:02 PM 60 30 18.37195
4:34:03 PM 60 30 18.33078
4:34:04 PM 60 30 18.33863
4:34:05 PM 60 30 18.37139
4:34:06 PM 60 30 18.35783
4:34:07 PM 60 30 18.3534
4:34:08 PM 60 30 18.3767
4:34:09 PM 60 30 18.35455
4:36:09 PM 60 60 36.81619
4:36:10 PM 60 60 36.84779
4:36:11 PM 60 60 36.88385
4:36:12 PM 60 60 36.90701
4:36:13 PM 60 60 36.87432
4:36:14 PM 60 60 36.87375
4:36:15 PM 60 60 36.81506
4:36:16 PM 60 60 36.88821
4:36:17 PM 60 60 36.9142
4:36:18 PM 60 60 36.93785
4:36:19 PM 60 60 36.90793
4:36:20 PM 60 60 36.88772
4:36:21 PM 60 60 36.89369
Open loop Response Curve after Tuning:
Time Set Point MV PV
5:13:18 PM 40 52.47554 39.69727
5:13:19 PM 40 52.47554 39.63572
5:13:20 PM 40 52.67044 39.58674
5:13:21 PM 40 52.67044 39.65107
5:13:22 PM 40 52.8322 39.71735
5:13:23 PM 40 52.8322 39.72172
5:13:24 PM 40 52.5941 39.81568
5:13:25 PM 40 52.5941 39.8775
5:13:26 PM 40 52.52994 39.8283
5:13:27 PM 40 52.52994 39.82888
5:13:28 PM 40 52.51077 39.84795
5:13:29 PM 40 52.59898 39.75219
5:13:18 PM 40 52.47554 39.69727
5:15:46 PM 45 60.7743 43.00422
5:15:47 PM 45 60.7743 43.10961
5:15:48 PM 45 61.58281 43.16441
5:15:49 PM 45 61.58281 43.26783
5:15:50 PM 45 61.63265 43.30863
5:15:51 PM 45 61.63265 43.37344
5:15:52 PM 45 61.89573 43.44406
5:15:53 PM 45 61.89573 43.55793
5:15:54 PM 45 62.25282 43.58949
5:15:55 PM 45 62.08214 43.54268
5:15:56 PM 45 62.08214 43.58373
5:15:57 PM 45 62.56293 43.61445
Result and Discussion:
Open loop Respons Curve
70
60
50
40
Output
30
20
10
0
4:31:00 PM
4:31:18 PM
4:31:35 PM
4:31:52 PM
4:32:10 PM
4:32:27 PM
4:32:44 PM
4:33:01 PM
4:33:19 PM
4:33:36 PM
4:33:53 PM
Time
time vs Mv Time vs pv
Figure 02: Open loop Response Curve
The graph shows an open-loop response where MV (Manipulated Variable) is represented by
the Upper line. PV (Process Variable) is represented by the lower line. The open-loop system
responds to a step increase in the manipulated variable. The process variable increases
smoothly, showing a first-order lag behavior common in thermal or fluid processes. Since this
is an open-loop system, there is no automatic correction of the PV. If any disturbance occurred
or if PV did not reach the desired value, it wouldn't correct itself. The response appears fairly
linear, suggesting a proportional relationship between MV and PV, at least over this range.
This PV shows no oscillatory behavior, which is desirable in many systems for stability and
ease of control tuning.
Open loop Response Curve after Tuning
70
60
50
40
Output
30
20
10
0
5:12:29 PM5:13:12 PM5:13:55 PM5:14:38 PM5:15:22 PM5:16:05 PM5:16:48 PM5:17:31 PM5:18:14 PM5:18:58 PM
Time
Figure 02: Open loop Response Curve
after Tuning
This graph shows an open-loop response after tuning, likely after determining better controller
settings. Compared to the earlier graph, the response is more stable. The PV increases smoothly
with no sharp oscillations or instability. The MV also stabilizes quickly despite a brief ripple
right after the step change. The settling time is slightly faster. The PV reaches its new steady-
state value gracefully. or manual fine-tuning. Despite being an open-loop system, the after-
tuning results simulate how a closed-loop system might behave post-tuning. There's no
automatic error correction here, but the tuning makes the system more predictable and
responsive.