See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267246441

Genetic algorithm based parameter tuning of PID controller for composition

control system

Article · August 2011

CITATIONS READS

9 1,080

3 authors, including:

Bhawna Tandon Randeep Kaur

Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana 5 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   
10 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bhawna Tandon on 04 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bhawna Tandon et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

GENETIC ALGORITHM BASED

PARAMETER TUNING OF PID
CONTROLLER FOR COMPOSITION
CONTROL SYSTEM
Bhawna Tandon
Asstt. Prof., EIE Deptt.,
M.M.Engineering College,
Mullana.

Randeep Kaur
Lecturer., EIE Deptt.,
M.M.Engineering College,
Mullana

Abstract- A Composition control system is discussed in this paper in which the PID controller is tuned using
Genetic Algorithm & Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Criteria. Tuning methods for PID controllers are very important
for the process industries. Traditional methods such as Ziegler-Nichols method often do not provide adequate
tuning. Genetic Algorithm (GA) as an intelligent approach has also been widely used to tune the parameters of
PID. Genetic algorithms are used to create an objective function that can evaluate the optimum PID gains based
on the controlled systems overall error.

I. Introduction
In a Composition control system, represented by Fig. 1, a concentrated stream of control reagent containing
water and solute is used to control the concentration of the stream leaving a three-tank system. The stream to be
processed passes through a preconditioning stirred tank where composition fluctuations are smoothed out before
the outlet stream is mixed with control reagent.

Fig. 1 Composition Control system

The measurement of composition in the third tank is sent to the controller, which generates a signal that opens
or closes the control valve, which in turn supplies concentrated reagent to the first tank.
By choosing numerical values of the Time-constant of the control reagent tank as 5 and steady-state gain of the
control reagent tank as unity, the system is represented by the block diagram shown in Fig. 2.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 8 August 2011 6705

 Bhawna Tandon et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

1 1
5 1 1

+ 1 1 + + C
R _ 1
1

Fig. 2 Block diagram of Composition control system

Where R is the set-point, C is the concentration of output stream and is the concentration input from the
control reagent tank.
The Transfer function of the Process shown in Fig. 2 is

(1)

Many PID tuning methods are introduced. The Ziegler-Nichols method is widely used for Controller Tuning.
One of the disadvantage of this method is prior knowledge regarding plant model. Once tuned the controller by
Ziegler Nichols method, a good but not optimum system response will be reached. The Transient response can
be even worse if the plant dynamics change. To assure an environmentally independent good performance, the
controller must be able to adapt the changes of the plant dynamic characteristics. For these reasons, it is highly
desirable to increase the capabilities of PID controllers by adding new features. Many random search methods,
such as Genetic Algorithm (GA) have received much interest for achieving high efficiency and searching global
optimal solution in the problem space.

II. PID Controller

The PID controller, represented by Fig.3, is well known and widely use to improve the dynamic response as
well as to reduce or eliminate the steady state error. The Derivative controller adds a finite zero to the open loop
plant Transfer function and improves the transient response. The Integral controller adds a pole at the origin,
thus increasing system type by one and reducing the steady state error due to a step function to zero. PID
controller consists of three types of control Proportional, Integral and Derivative control.

Fig.3 Schematic diagram of Conventional PID controller

PID control consists of three types of control, Proportional, Integral and Derivative control.

A. Proportional Control
The proportional controller output uses a ‘proportion’ of the system error to control the system.

= Error (2)

B. Integral Control

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 8 August 2011 6706

 Bhawna Tandon et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

The Integral controller output is proportional to the amount of time there is an error present in the system. The
Integral action removes the offset introduced by the proportional control but introduces a phase lag into the
system.

(3)

C. Derivative Control
The Derivative controller output is proportional to the rate of change of the error. Derivative control is used to
reduce overshoot and introduces a phase lead action that removes the phase lag introduced by the integral
action.

(4)

III. GENETIC ALGORITHM

The basic principles of GA were first proposed by Holland. The technique was inspired by the mechanism of
natural selection, a biological process in which stronger indivisual is likely to be the winners in a competing
environment. GA uses a direct analogy of such natural evolution to do global optimization in order to solve
highly complex problems. It presumes that the potential solution of a problem is an indivisual and can be
represented by a set of parameters. These parameters are regarded as genes of a chromosome and can be
structured by a string of concatenated values. The form of variables representation is defined by the encoding
scheme. The variables can be represented by binary, real numbers or other forms, depending on the application
data. Its range, the search space, is usually defined by the problem. An illustrative flowchart of the GA
algorithm implementation is shown in the Fig. . In the beginning an initial chromosome is randomly generated.
The chromosomes are

Fig.4 Flow Chart of Genetic Algorithm

candidate solutions to the problem. Than, the fitness values of all chromosomes are evaluated by calculating the
objective function in decoded form. So, based on the fitness of each indivisual, a group of the best chromosomes
is selected through the selection process. The Genetic operators, crossover and mutation, are applied to this
surviving population in order to improve the next generation solution. The process continues until the
population converges to the global maximum or another stopping criterion is reached.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 8 August 2011 6707

 Bhawna Tandon et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

IV. EVALUATE THE PROCESS USING FITNESS FUNCTION

A. Objective Function
The most crucial step in applying GA is to choose the objective functions that are used to evaluate fitness of
each chromosome. Some works use performance indices as the objective functions. The objective functions
are Mean of the Squared error (MSE). Integral of Time multiplied by absolute Error (ITAE), Integral of
Absolute Magnitude of the error (IAE) and the Integral of the Squared Error (ISE).

(5)

= | | (6)

| | 7

∑ (8)

B. The Fitness Values

The PID controller is used to minimize the error signals, or we can define in term of error criteria: to minimize
the value of performance indices. And because the smaller the value of performance indiced of the
corresponding chromosomes the fitter the chromosomes will be, and vice versa, we define the fitness of the
chromosomes as

V. SIMULATION RESULTS
The Concentration control system is simulated using SIMULINK in MATLAB as shown in Fig. The values of
KP, KI and KD are selected as 3.7, 1.8 & 1.8 as obtained from Ziegler-Nichols Tuning criteria.

Fig. 5 Simulation of Concentration Control System using PID

Table I
GAs PARAMETER SETTING
PARAMETERS VALUE
Selection method Roulette Wheel
Population Size 80
Generation Size 220
Mutation Probability 0.1%
Ranges of PID values 0-40

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 8 August 2011 6708

 Bhawna Tandon et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Fig. 6 Response Curves for Objective function ITAE

Table II
Comparative Analysis for Objective Function ITAE

ITEM GA Zeigler-
Nichols
%age Overshoot 40.4 29.6
Rise time(sec) 0.1 1.5
Peak Time(sec) 0.15 2.5
Settling Time(sec) 3 10
KP 54.96323 3.7
Ki 8.51 1.8
Kd 99.1578 1.8

Fig. 7 Response Curves for Objective function IAE

Table III
Comparative Analysis for Objective Function IAE

ITEM GA Zeigler-
Nichols
%age Overshoot 38.2 29.6
Rise time(sec) 0.1 1.5
Peak Time(sec) 0.35 2.5
Settling Time(sec) 2.9 9.8
KP 31.16428 3.7
Ki 9.0578 1.8
Kd 92.04361 1.8

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 8 August 2011 6709

 Bhawna Tandon et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Fig. 8 Response Curves for Objective function ISE

Table IV
Comparative Analysis for Objective Function ISE
ITEM GA Zeigler-
Nichols
%age Overshoot 37.5 29.6
Rise time(sec) 0.1 1.5
Peak Time(sec) 0.2 2.5
SettlingTime(sec) 2.5 9
KP 3.53227 3.7
Ki 24.3176 1.8
Kd 99.67948 1.5

Fig. 9 Response Curves for Objective function MSE

Table V
Comparative Analysis for Objective Function MSE
ITEM GA Zeigler-
Nichols
%age Overshoot 37.5 29.6
Rise time(sec) 0.1 1.5
Peak Time(sec) 0.12 2.5
SettlingTime(sec) 2.5 8
KP 54.96323 3.7
Ki 8.5105 1.8
Kd 99.15787 1.8

VI CONCLUSION
It can be seen that though Overshoots are more in GA tuned system as compared to Ziegler-Nichols tuned
system, but settling time and Rise time are very less in case of GA tuned system. The reason for bigger
overshoots may be the assumptions taken during the mathematical modeling of the system.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 8 August 2011 6710

 Bhawna Tandon et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

VII REFRENCES
[1] Chia-Ju Wu, “Genetic Tuning of PID controllers using a Neural Network model: A seesaw example”, Journal of Robotics and
Intelligent systems, Vol. 25, Issue 1, 1999.
[2] T. K. Teng, J. S. Shieh, C. S. Chen, “Genetic Algorithms applied in on-line autotuning PID parameters of a liquid control system,”
Transactions of Institute of Measurement and Control, Vol. 25, pp. 433-450, 2003.
[3] Pereira, D.S., Pinto, “Genetic Algorithm based system identification and PID tuning for adaptive control”, Advanced Intelligent
Mechatronics, Proceedings, IEEE/ASME International Confrence, July 2005.
[4] Ismail K. Bouserhane, Rahli Mostefa, “Optimal Fuzzy self tuning of PI Controller using Genetic Algorithm for Induction motor speed
control” University of Sciences and Technology of Oran, Algeria, August 2007.
[5] J. G. Ziegler, N. B. Nichols, “Optimum settings for Automatic controllers”, Transactions of American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Vol. 64, pp. 759-768, 1942.
[6] M. Zhuang, D. P. Atherton, “Automatic Tuning of Optimum PID Controllers,” IEE Proceedings on Control and Applications, Vol.
140, pp. 216-224, 1993.
[7] Z. Y. Zhao, M. Tomizuka, S. Isaka, “Fuzzy gain scheduling of PID controllers”, IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics,
Vol. 8, pp. 56-65, 2003.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 8 August 2011 6711

View publication stats