Performance of Different Control Strategies for Boiler

Drum Level Control using LabVIEW

Pragyan P. Kar, Priyam Saikia and Umesh C. Pati*
Department of Electronics and communication Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Rourkela-769008, Odisha
E-mail: Pragyankar7@gmail.com, saikia.ainu@gmail.com , *ucpati@nitrkl.ac.in

Abstract: In boilers, chemical energy of stored fuel is converted into the heat energy and this heat energy
is absorbed by the water which converts it into steam. Too low a boiler drum level may overheat boiler
tubes and damage them. Too high a level may interfere with separating moisture from steam and transfer
moisture into the turbine, which reduces the boiler efficiency. The safe operation of the boiler becomes
critical. This paper presents the implementation details of the different types of boiler drum level control
systems designed in the Circuit Design and Simulation toolkit of Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation
Engineering Workbench (LabVIEW). The work provides insight into the various control strategies and
PID controller tuning methods such as Zeigler-Nichols method, Tyreus-Luyben method and Internal
Model Control (IMC) method. Comparative study is made on the performance of the PID using the above
mentioned methods.
Keywords: Boiler drum level, circuit Design and Simulation toolkit, tuning methods

 INTRODUCTION used to design the controller of boiler.

Boiler is defined as a closed vessel in which
steam is produced from water by the combustion
of fuel. But it can sometimes cause many serious
injuries and destruction of property. The safe
operation of the boiler becomes critical. To
bring the drum level up to the given set point
and maintain the boiler drum level at constant
steam load, three strategies have been discussed.
Each successive strategy is a refinement of the
previous control strategy. The single element
control strategy involves the measurement of
drum water level and feed water control valve.
The two element drum level control system
requires the measurement of drum level, load
demand and feed water control valve. The three
element drum level control system is ideally
suited where a boiler plant consists of multiple
boilers and multiple feed water pumps or feed
water valve has variation in pressure or flow [1].
It requires the measurement of drum level, steam
flow rate, feed, water flow rate and feed water
control valve. Control strategies are necessary
for any system to perform accurately [2].
This paper presents the different control
techniques of the boiler. Various PID control
tuning methods such as Ziegler-Nichols method,
Tyreus-Luyben method and IMC method are
LabVIEW based boiler control strategies are
used to maintain the process variable (level).
 CONTROL STRATEGIES AND PID TUNING
METHODS
Control strategies
Single element drum level control
The single element control is the simplest
method for boiler drum level control system.
The process variable coming from the drum
level transmitter is compared to a set point and
the difference is a deviation value. This signal is
given to the controller which generates
corrective action output. The output is then
passed to the boiler feed water valve, which
adjusts the level of feed water flow into the
boiler drum.
Two element drum level control
The two element drum level control system can
be best applied to single element boiler drum
level control system where feed water is at a
constant pressure. It requires the measurement of
drum level, load demand and feed water control
valve. Steam flow load changes act as a feed
forward controller to the feed water control
valve. This feed forward controller provides an
initial correction for the load changes.

Three element drum level control
This control system is ideally suited where a
boiler plant consists of multiple boilers and
multiple feed water pumps or feed water valve
has variation in pressure or flow. It requires the
measurement of drum level, steam flow rate,
feed water flow rate and feed water control
valve. By using cascade control mechanism
level element act as a primary loop, flow
element act as a secondary loop and steam flow
element act as a feed forward controller.
A. PID controller tuning Methods
Ziegler–Nichols Method
In this method, the Ki and Kd gains are first set to
zero. The P gain is increased until it reaches the
ultimate gain Ku, at which the output of the loop
starts to oscillate. Ku and the oscillation period
Pu are used to set the gains [3].
Tyreus-Luyben Method
In this method, the Ki and Kd gains are first set to
zero. The P gain is increased until it reaches the
ultimate gain Ku, at which the output of the loop
starts to oscillate. Ku and the oscillation period
Pu are used to set the gains.
Internal model control Method
In this method, the IMC controller transfer
function is calculated, which includes a filter for
unstable processes and better disturbance
rejection. The equivalent standard feedback
controller is obtained.
 MODEL FORMULATION AND
SIMULATION
This paper develops a LabVIEW based single
and two element control using Ziegler–Nichols
method, Tyreus-Luyben method and IMC
method of PID tuning.
Single element drum level control
A PID controller is designed with the drum
level (process variable) and valve function
transfer function as and respectively
which are as follows:
(1)
(2)
Fig. 1 shows the LabVIEW model of the PID
controller for single element control with step
input and unity feedback.
Figure 1: Block Diagram for Single element control
The frequency response method suggested by
Ziegler-Nichols method is applied for the design
of the PID controller by setting Ki = 0, Kd = 0
and using the proportional control action (Kp)
only. The value of gain is increased from 0 to a
critical value where the output exhibits
oscillations of constant amplitude. The sustained
oscillations occur for Kp = Ku= 8.3 The ultimate
time period Tu is obtained to be 2 seconds. The
value of the controller parameters are Kp =
4.98,Ti = 1 and Tu = 0.005. The step response for
Kp = 4.98 is shown in Fig. 5.
Tyreus –Luyeben method is applied for the
design of the PID controller by setting Ki = 0,
Kd = 0 and using the proportional control action
(Kp) only. The value of gain is increased from 0
to a critical value where the output exhibits
oscillations of constant amplitude. The sustained
oscillations occur for Kp = Ku= 8.3 The ultimate
time period Tu is obtained to be 2 seconds. The
value for the controller parameters are Kp = 3.77,
Ti = 4.4 and = 0.0035. The step response for
=3.77 is shown in Fig. 5.
Two element drum level control
A PID controller is designed with the drum level
(process variable) and valve function transfer
function as and respectively as
feedback .The steam flow variable and feed
forward controller transfer function are
and respectively. They provide a
feed-forward control. Transfer function for
and are as follows:
(3)
 (4) (9)

After substituting the values in Eq. (6) and Eq.

(7) the values were obtained as follows:

(10)

(11)

Fig. 3 shows the LabVIEW model of the PID

Figure 2: Block Diagram for two element feedback and controller with step input and unity feedback for
feed-forward control IMC tuning method.
Fig. 2 shows the block diagram for two element
control. Tuning is done using Ziegler –Nichols
and Tyreus-Luyben method by utilizing the
same steps as in the single element feedback
control.

IMC based PID control

A PID controller is designed with the drum level
(process variable) and valve function transfer Figure 3: Block Diagram for IMC based PID control
function as and respectively. The  RESULT & ANALYSIS
disturbance to the process is taken as . The percent overshoot (Mp), settling time (ts)
and steady state error (ess) for single and two
(5) element control strategies is observed.

The IMC controller transfer function is taken as

It includes a filter to provide a derivative
action. The equivalent standard feedback
controller is taken as .Transfer function for
and are obtained from Eq. (6) and
Eq. (7) respectively .In Eq. (6) the transfer
function for the filter is taken as and is
obtained from Eq. (8), where filter parameters
are λ=0.2, n=4. The process model transfer
Figure 4: Response of single element and two element
function is taken as The value of
control strategy using Ziegler-Nichols method
is given by Eq. (9).
(6) In Fig. 4 the graph in red and green represents
the response for single element and two element
control strategy respectively.
(7) In single element control strategy, the unit step
response for kp = 4.98, Ti = 1 and Td = 0.005 is
shown in Fig. 4, which gives Mp = 8%, ts = 5.2
(8) sec. & ess = 0. In two element control strategy,
the unit step response for kp = 4.98, Ti = 1 and Td
= 0.004 is shown in Fig. 4, which gives Mp =
3%, ts = 5 sec. & ess = 0. The time response  CONCLUSION
parameters, Mp, ts and ess for single element The paper presents an overview of different
control strategy (SECS) and two element control control strategies for boiler drum level control,
strategy (TECS) are presented in Table I. design of PID controller and tuning of PID
TABLE I. controller using Ziegler Nichols method, Tyreus
Time response parameters Luyben method and IMC based tuning.
Mp(%) ts(sec) ess Simulation results using LabVIEW are
SECS 8 5.2 0 discussed. Single element control strategy gives
TECS 3 5 0 a higher overshoot and settling time with zero
steady state error. Two element control strategy
gives zero steady state error and smaller
overshoot and settling time than single element
control strategy. Ziegler Nichols tuned PID
gives a higher overshoot and settling time with
zero steady state error. Tyreus Luyben tuned
PID gives zero steady state error with smaller
overshoot than Ziegler Nichols tuned PID. IMC
tuned PID gives zero steady state error with no
overshoot. The settling time is found to be same
for all the tuning methods. The simulation
results confirm that the two element control
strategy and IMC tuned PID can provide better
Figure 5: Response for Ziegler-Nichols, Tyreus–Luyeben performance compared to the single element
and IMC tuning method for single element control strategy control strategy and Ziegler-Nichols, Tyreus
Luyben tuned PID respectively.
In Fig. 5 the graph in red, green and blue
represent the response for Ziegler-Nichols,  REFERENCES
Tyreus-Luyben and IMC tuning method [1] Subhransu Padhee, Yaduvir Singh,Jan 2011,
respectively. The Mp, ts and ess for Ziegler “Data Logging and Supervisor Control of
Nichols, Tyreus-Luyben and IMC tuned PID for Process Using Lab VIEW”, Proc. of the IEEE
single element control strategy is observed. In Students Tech. Symp., pp. 329-334
Ziegler-Nichols tuning method, the unit step [2] Mihai Iacob, Gheorghe-Daniel Andreescu,
response for kp = 4.98, Ti = 1and Td = 0.005 and Nicolae Muntean,2010, “Boiler-Turbine
gives Mp = 8%, ts = 5.2 sec. & ess = 0. In Tyreus- Simulator with Real-Time Capability for
Luyben tuning method, the unit step response Dispatcher Training Using LabView”, 12th
for kp =3.77 , Ti = 4.4 and Td = 0.004 gives Mp = International Conference on Optimization of
4%, ts = 5.2 sec. & ess = 0.In IMC tuning Electrical and Electronic Equipment, OPTIM
method, the unit step response gives Mp = 0%, ts 2010,pp.864-868
= 5.2 sec. & ess = 0. The time response [3] S.R.Vaishnav, Z.J.Khan,2007, ”Design and
parameters Mp,ts and ess for Ziegler Nichols Performance of PID and Fuzzy Logic Controller
tuned PID controller (ZNPIDC), Tyreus-Luyben with Smaller Rule Set for Higher Order System”
tuned PID controller (TLPIDC) and IMC tuned Proceedings of the World Congress on
PID controller (IMCPIDC) are presented in Engineering and Computer Science 2007
Table II. WCECS 2007, San Francisco, USA.
TABLE II.
Time response parameters
Mp(%) ts(sec) ess
ZNPIDC 8 5.2 0
TLPIDC 4 5.2 0
IMCPIDC 0 5.2 0