22 голоса за00 голосов против

48 просмотров18 стр.Feb 27, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

48 просмотров

22 голоса за00 голосов против

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

P. W. MURRILL (1970) P. D. SCHNELLE, JR. (1985) B. G. LIPTÁK (1995)

In order for the reader to fully understand the content and as regulators, having a set point that remains unchanged for

concepts of this section, it is advisable to ﬁrst become familiar days and even months at a time.

with some basic topics. These include gains, time lags and reac- Examples of variables held at constant set points are

tion curves (Section 2.22), the PID control modes (Section 2.3), drum-level and steam temperature of a boiler, most pressure

feedback and feedforward control (Section 2.9), and relative and level variables, pH of process and efﬂuent streams, most

gain calculations (Section 2.25). product-quality variables, and most temperature loops. Set-

Controllers are designed to eliminate the need for con- point response is of no importance to these loops, but they

tinuous operator attention when controlling a process. In the must contend with load upsets minute by minute. In fact, the

automatic mode, the goal is to keep the controlled variable only loops in a continuous plant that must follow set-point

(or process variable) on set point. The controller tuning changes are ﬂow loops.

parameters determine how well the controller achieves this Batch plants have frequent transitions between steady

goal when in automatic mode. states, some of which require rapid response to set-point

changes with minimal overshoot. However, some of these

changes are large enough to saturate the controller, particu-

larly at startup. This can cause integral windup, which

DISTURBANCES requires special means of prevention to overcome.

The purpose of a controller is to keep the controlled variable The Load Only pure-batch processes — where no ﬂow into

as close as possible to its set point at all times. How well it or out of the process takes place — operate at constant load,

achieves this objective depends on the responsiveness of the and that load is zero. All other processes can expect to encoun-

process, its control modes and their tuning, and the size of ter variations in load, which are principally changing ﬂow rates

the disturbances and their frequency distribution. entering and leaving vessels. A liquid-level controller, for

example, manipulates the ﬂow of one liquid stream, while

Sources other streams represent the load. Feedwater ﬂow to a boiler is

manipulated to control drum level and must balance the com-

Disturbances arise from three different sources: set point, bined ﬂows of steam and blowdown leaving to keep level at

load, and noise. Noise is deﬁned as a random disturbance set point. The load changes frequently and often unpredictably,

whose frequency distribution exceeds the bandwidth of the but the set point may never change.

control loop. As such, the controller has no impact on it, In a typical temperature control loop, the load is the ﬂow

other than possibly amplifying it and passing it on to the of heat required to keep temperature constant. Liquid entering

ﬁnal actuator, which can cause excessive wear and ultimate a heat exchanger will require a certain ﬂow of steam to reach

failure. a controlled exit temperature. Variations in liquid ﬂow and

Set point and load changes affect the behavior of the inlet temperature will change the demand for steam ﬂow

control loop quite differently, owing to the dynamics in their manipulated to keep exit temperature at set point.

path. A controller tuned to follow set point changes tends to

respond sluggishly to load variations, and conversely a con-

troller tuned to correct disturbances tends to overshoot when Dynamics

its set point is changed.

The term process dynamics can refer to capacitance, inertia,

resistance, time constant, dead time or their combinations.

Set Point The set point is the desired value of the controlled There is no dynamics involved with changing the set point,

variable and is subject to adjustment by the operator. In a unless intentionally placed there for the purpose of ﬁltering

continuous process plant, most of the control loops operate the set point.

414

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 415

Steps are also quite common in industry, representing

conditions caused by sudden startup and shutdown of equip-

ment; starting and stopping of multiple burners, pumps and

Load

SP filler dynamics compressors; and capacity changes of reciprocating compres-

sors. If a control loop can respond adequately to a step dis-

Process Controlled turbance, then a ramp or exponential disturbance will have

Loop variable

Controller less of an impact on it.

dynamics

The step is also the easiest test to apply, requiring only

a size estimate, and can be administered manually. Pulses

require duration estimates, and doublet pulses require bal-

ancing. Step changes in set point are the usual disturbance

FIG. 2.35a applied to test or tune a loop, even for loops that operate at

Load variables always pass through the dominant dynamic elements. constant set point. Figure 2.35b illustrates a step response

with 1/4 decay ratio.

The usual result of tuning a controller for set point

However, there is always dynamics in the load path. Load response is to reduce its performance to variations in load.

variables are principally the ﬂow rates of streams similar to Therefore, the effectiveness of a controller and its tuning as

those manipulated by the controller. Therefore the dynamics a load regulator need to be determined by simulating a step

in their path to the controlled variable are similar — and in load change.

most cases identical — to the dynamics in the loop itself.

Figure 2.35a presents all the essential elements of a con-

trol loop, showing its disturbance sources and dynamics. Simulating a Load Change

Most frequently, the dynamics are common to both the load

Some controllers have an adjustable output bias. An acceptable

disturbance and the controller output, meaning that the load

simulation of load change, when the controller is in automatic

and manipulated streams enter the process at the same point.

and at steady state, is a step change in the value of this bias.

An example would be the control of composition of a liquid

The value of the controller output prior to the step is an indi-

at the exit of a blender, where both the manipulated and load

cation of the current plant load because the loop was in a steady

streams making up that blend are introduced at a common

state. The step in bias in that case moves the controller output

entry point.

to another value, which disturbs the controlled variable and

Less often encountered is the process where the dynam-

causes the controller to integrate back to its previous steady-

ics in these two paths differ. An example of this is a shell-

state output.

and-tube heat exchanger, wherein the temperature of a liquid

leaving the tube bundle is controlled by manipulating the Alternatively, controllers that can be transferred “bump-

ﬂow of steam to the shell. The shell may have more heat lessly” between manual and automatic modes (most do — all

capacity than the tubes, causing the temperature to respond

more slowly to a change in steam ﬂow than to a change in

liquid ﬂow. Nonetheless, these two dominant lags will typ-

Output

ically not differ greatly.

Step Responses

frequency content of the disturbance variables is not speci-

ﬁed. There are cases of periodic disturbances, and they can

pose special problems for control loops that themselves are b

capable of resonating at a particular period. They are found a

1.0

principally in cascade loops and in process interactions where

controllers manipulate valves in series or in parallel. These

are considered in other sections of this work. Another period P

disturbance is the cyclic operation of such cleaning devices

as soot-blowers. a/b = 1/4

For the general case, the step disturbance is the most

difﬁcult test for the controller in that it contains all frequen- 0 Time

cies, including zero. In fact, the frequency content of the step 0

is identical to that of integrated white noise — therefore, it is FIG. 2.35b

an excellent test for loops subject to random disturbances. Step response curve of a control loop tuned for 1/4 decay ratio.

416 Control Theory

No

This is done by waiting until the loop is at steady state and filter SP tuning

on set point (zero deviation). At that point switching to the Set

Controlled variable

manual mode and stepping the output by the desired amount Load

in the desired direction, and immediately (before a deviation SP filter tuning

Load

develops) transferring back to the automatic mode.

This procedure can be followed for all but the fastest

loops, such as ﬂow loops. For them, a step in set point is

acceptable, both because ﬂow loops must follow set-point

changes, and because for them, set-point tuning gives accept-

able load response. 0 1 2 3 4

Time, t/St

Comparing Set-Point and Load Responses

FIG. 2.35c

The steady-state process gain of a ﬂow loop is typically Set-point tuning slows load recovery for lag-dominant processes.

between 1 and 2, as indicated by the controller output being

between 50 and 100% when the ﬂow measurement is at full

scale. The proportional gain of a typical ﬂow controller is in

and longer integral time than is optimum for load regulation,

the range of 0.3 to 1.0, with the higher number associated

or a ﬁlter must be applied to the set point.

with the process that has the lower steady-state gain. There-

Figure 2.35c compares responses to steps in set point and

fore, the proportional loop gain for a typical ﬂow loop is in

load for a process with distributed lag such as a dashed

range of 0.6 to 1.0. As a result, a step change in set point

exchanger, distillation column, or stirred tank. The time scale

will move the controller output approximately the correct

is normalized to Στ , which is the time required for the dis-

amount to produce the same change in ﬂow, by proportional

tributed lag to reach 63.2% of the full response to a step input

action alone, that gives excellent set-point response.

in the open loop. It is also the residence time of liquid in a

This is not the case for other loops. Level has the opposite

stirred tank.

behavior. To maintain a constant level, the controller must

If the PID settings are adjusted to minimize the Integrated

match the vessel’s inﬂow and outﬂow precisely. Changing

Absolute Error (IAE) to the set point change, the dashed

the set point will cause the controller to change the manip-

response curve is produced (SP tuning). Note that following

ulated ﬂow, but only temporarily — when the level reaches

a step change in load, the return to set point is sluggish. This

the new set point, the manipulated ﬂow must return to its

is commonly observed with lag-dominant processes. The PID

original steady-state value.

settings that produce the minimum-IAE load response, shown

Therefore, no steady-state change in output is required

in black (no ﬁlter), result in a large set-point overshoot,

for a level controller to respond to a set-point change. The

however.

Integrated Error (IE) sustained by a controller following a

disturbance varies directly with the change in output between

Set-Point Filtering

its initial and ﬁnal steady states. In response to a set-point

change, the level controller has the same initial and ﬁnal If optimum load rejection is desired, without the large set-

steady-state output values and hence sustains zero integrated point overshoot that it produces on lag-dominant processes,

error. the proportional response to set-point changes needs to be

As a result, the error that is integrated while the level is reduced.

approaching the new set point will be matched exactly by an Some PID controllers have the option to eliminate pro-

equal area of overshoot. In other words, set-point overshoot portional action on the set point altogether. This tends to

is unavoidable in a level loop unless set-point ﬁltering is produce a set-point undershoot, which can signiﬁcantly dashed

provided. the controller response, and it should never be used in the

Most other processes, such as temperature, pressure, and secondary controller of a cascade system. (Incidentally,

composition, have steady-state gains higher than those of a derivative action should never be applied to the set point, as

ﬂow process. But more importantly, they are also dominated this always produces overshoot.)

by lags, which allows the use of a higher controller propor- Some controllers can reduce the controller’s proportional

tional gain for tight load regulation. When this high propor- gain when it acts on set point changes, either through the use

tional gain is multiplied by the process steady-state gain, the of a lead-lag ﬁlter, or by the use of a specially structured

resulting loop gain can be as high as 5 to 10 or more. algorithm. This adjustment allows separate optimization of

A set-point step then moves the controller output far more set-point response, after the PID settings have been tuned to

than required to drive the controlled variable to the new set optimize the controller’s load response. The ﬁlter used for

point, producing a large overshoot. To minimize set-point the loop whose response is shown in Figure 2.35c has applied

overshoot, the controller must be detuned, with lower gain only half the controller’s proportional gain to the set point.

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 417

process variable

Applying a step to the process is simple and can be used to (% of full scale)

tune the loop and to obtain a simple model for the process.

80

Two methods are widely used. The ﬁrst is the “process reac-

tion curve,” which is not used to calculate the process model

but is used to obtain the tuning parameters for rejecting the 70

65.8

upsets caused by load changes. K

The second method uses the “process model” by obtain- 60

ing a simple process model; the tuning parameters are cal- Lr

culated from this model based on either a load rejection or 50

a set point change criterion. Lr Rr

40 Time (minutes)

Process Reaction Curve 0 2 4 6 8

t0.632

FIG. 2.35d

change, it usually starts to react after a period of time called Reaction curve of a self-regulating process, caused by a step change

the dead time (Figure 2.35d). After the dead time, most pro- of one unit in the controller output. L r = td is dead time, Rr is reaction

cesses will reach a maximum speed (reaction rate), then the rate, and K is process gain.

speed will drop (self-regulating process) or the speed will

remain constant (integrating process).

When tuning a loop to remove disturbances caused by ences between the recommended settings arrived at by using

load changes, the controller must react at its maximum rate the various tuning techniques.

of reaction, and the strength of the reaction will correspond From this curve, it is not possible to determine the pro-

to the maximum speed. Hence, to tune the loop, it is not cess model since the curve is too short to tell whether the

necessary to know the process model. It is sufﬁcient to know reaction rate remains constant (integrating process) or goes

the dead time and the maximum speed to calculate the tuning down (self-regulating process). From such a test, the model

parameters. cannot be found but the tuning parameters for load rejection

Figure 2.35e illustrates the response of a temperature can be estimated.

loop after a step change in the controller output. This example As can be seen from Figure 2.35e, a 10% change in CO

will be used throughout this section to illustrate the differ- was applied at 10 s and the temperature started to increase

130

Process Variable

(70 – 40) s

120

23 s

40 80

50

48

Controller Output

46

44

42

40

40 80

Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35e

Process reaction curve in response of a change in controller output (CO). The process variable (PV) range is 0 to 300 degC and the CO

range is 0 to 100%.

418 Control Theory

TABLE 2.35f to the installation of the control system.

Equations for Calculating the Ziegler–Nichols Tuning Parameters

The disadvantages are also multiple. The open-loop test

for an Interacting Controller

is not as accurate as the closed-loop one because it disregards

Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes) the dynamics of the controller. Another disadvantage is that

the S-shaped reaction curve and its inﬂection point are difﬁ-

P ∆CO — — cult to identify when the measurement is noisy and/or if a

Rr ∗ td

small step change was used.

∆CO Because of the above considerations, a good approach is

PI 0.9 * 3.33 td —

Rr ∗ td to use the open-loop method of tuning in order to obtain the

ﬁrst set of initial tuning constants for a loop during startup.

PID ∆CO 2 td 0.5 td Then, reﬁne these settings once the system is operating by

1.2

Rr ∗ td retuning the loop using the closed-loop method.

and the reaction rate (speed) is

There are many ways to use and interpret the dead time (td)

∆PV and reaction rate (Rr) values obtained from the open-loop

Rr = 2.35(1) tuning method. Most open-loop methods are based on

∆t

approximating the process reaction curve by a simpler sys-

The slope is: tem. Several techniques are available to obtain a model.

The most common approximation by far is a pure time

9 deeg C

∗ 100 delay (dead time) plus a ﬁrst-order lag. One reason for the

∆PV 132 deg C − 123 deg C 9 deg C 300 deg C

= = = popularity of this approximation is that a real-time delay of

∆t 70 s − 40 s 30 s 30 s any duration can only be represented by a pure time delay

3%

= = 0.1%/s = 6.0%/min because there is yet no other simple and adequate approxi-

30 s mation. Theoretically, it is possible to use higher-than-ﬁrst-

After the dead time (td) and the reaction rate (Rr ) have order lags plus dead time, but accurate approximations are

been determined, the controller settings are calculated by difﬁcult to obtain. Thus the real process lag is usually approx-

using the equations in Table 2.35f. imated by a pure time delay plus a ﬁrst-order lag. This

If a PI controller is to be used for the process that was approximation is easy to obtain, and it is sufﬁciently accurate

tested in Figure 2.35e, the values are: for most purposes.

The process’s dead time is the time period following an

P = 0.9*10%/(0.1%/s X 23 s) = 3.9

upset during which the controlled variable is not yet respond-

I = 3.33 * 23 s = 76.6 s = 1.28 minutes. ing. The time constant is a period between the time when a

Ziegler and Nichols recommend using the ratio of the response is ﬁrst detected and the time when the response has

controller output divided by the product of the slope and the reached 63.2 % of its ﬁnal (new steady-state) value. The time

dead time to calculate the proportional gain. The ideal process constant is also the time it would take for the controlled

has a small dead time and a small slope, so that the controller variable to reach its ﬁnal value if the initial speed were

can aggressively manipulate the controller output to bring the maintained.

process back to set point.

The integral and derivative are calculated using the dead Bump Tests Figure 2.35g shows the Ziegler–Nichols pro-

time. The proportional is calculated using the slope and the cedure to approximate that process reaction curve with a ﬁrst-

dead time. If the slope is high, then the controller gain must order lag plus a time delay. The ﬁrst step is to draw a straight-

be small because the process is sensitive; it reacts quickly. If line tangent to the process reaction curve at its point of

the dead time is long, the controller gain must be small maximum rate of ascent (point of infection).

because the process response is delayed and therefore the Although this is easy to visualize, it is quite difﬁcult to

controller cannot be aggressive. If one can reduce the slope do in practice. This is one of the main difﬁculties in this

and the dead time of any process, it will be easier to control. procedure, and a considerable number of errors can be intro-

One of the advantages of open-loop tuning over the duced at this point. The slope of this line is termed the

closed-loop tuning technique is its speed because one does reaction rate R r . The time between the instant when the bump

not need to wait for several periods of oscillation during was applied and the time at which this line intersects the

several trial-and-error attempts. The other advantage is that initial value of the controlled variable prior to the test is the

one does not introduce oscillations into the process with dead time, or transport time delay td.

unpredictable amplitudes. In open-loop tuning, the user Figure 2.35g illustrates the determination of these values

selects the upset that is introduced, and it can be small. for a one-unit step change (∆CO) in the controller output

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 419

170 τ = 183 − 33 s

160

Process variable

150

140

130

120

400 800

50

Controller output

48

46

44

42

40

400 800

Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35g

Maximum slope curve, Fit 1.

(manipulated variable) to a process. If a different-size step The ﬁrst-order lag time constants are given by:

change in controller output was applied, the value of τd would

not change signiﬁcantly.

Fit1: τ F1 = K / Rr = 1.5/0.1%/s = 150 s

However, the value of Rr is essentially directly propor-

tional to the magnitude of the change in controller output. (same slope as previous section) 2.35(3)

Therefore, if a two-unit change in output was used instead Fit 2: τ F1 = t63.2% − t0 = 155 s – 33 s = 122 s 2.35(4)

of a one-unit change, the value of Rr would be approximately

twice as large. For this reason the value of Rr used in Equation

In Equation 2.35(4), t63.2% is the time necessary to reach

2.35(2) or any other must be the value that would be obtained

63.2 % of the ﬁnal value, and t0 is the time elapsed between

for a one-unit change in controller output.

the CO change and the beginning of the PV change. Note that

In addition to the dead time and reaction rate, the value

the parameters for Fit 1 are based on a single point on the

of the process gain K must also be determined as follows:

response curve, which is the point of maximum rate of ascent.

However, the parameters obtained with Fit 2 are based on two

final steady-state change in controlled vaariable (%) separate points.

K= 3

change in controller ouput (control unit) Studies indicate that the open-loop response based on

2.35(2) Fit 2 always provides an approximation that is as good or

better than the Fit 1 approximation. A typical curve resulting

There is a second method to determine the pure time delay from the above procedure is shown in Figure 2.35i.

plus the ﬁrst-order lag approximation. In order to distinguish The response shown in Figure 2.35i resulted from a ten-

between these two methods, they will be called Fit 1 (described unit change in controller output. For different step changes,

in Figure 2.35g) and Fit 2 (described in Figure 2.35h). K and Rr must be adjusted accordingly. From a curve such

The only difference between these two is in how the ﬁrst- as in Figure 2.35i, a number of parameters can be determined.

order time constant is obtained. In case of Fit 2, the time The controller settings are calculated from the equations in

constant of the process is determined as the difference Table 2.23j:

between the time when the dead time ends and the time when Table 2.35k compares the results obtained in terms of pro-

the controlled variable has covered 63.2% of the distance cess gain (K), time constant (τ (s)), dead time (td (s)), and the

between the pre-test steady state and the new one. The dead resulting controller gain (Kc) and integral time setting (Ti (min))

time determination by both ﬁts is the same and was already of a PI controller.

described. In the following discussion, the process model deter-

Another method to determine the dead time is to measure mined by the second ﬁt will be used to compare against a

the time when the PV moves by 2% of the total change. variety of tuning criteria.

420 Control Theory

170

Process variable

(50− 40)%

150 120 degC + 0.632 * = 4.5 degC = 100*(4.5/300)%

45 degC = 148 degC % %

140

= 1.5

130

120 155 s

33 s

400 800

50

Controller output

48

46

44

42

40

400 800

Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35h

Bump test, Fit 2 curve.

Comparing the Tuning Methods One of the earliest methods empirical equations to be used to predict controller settings to

for using the process reaction curve was proposed by Ziegler obtain a decay ratio of 1/4 are given in Table 2.35j in terms of

and Nichols. When using their process reaction curve method, K, td, and τ.

which was described in connection with Figure 2.35e, only Rr In developing their equations, Ziegler and Nichols con-

and td or t0 must be determined. Using these parameters, the sidered processes that were not “self-regulating.” To illustrate,

170

160

Process variable

150

140

130

120

400 800

50

48

Controller output

46

44

42

40

400 800

Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35i

A typical reaction curve using the dead time and time constant obtained by a bump test.

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 421

the level in the tank will rise to some new position but will

TABLE 2.35j not increase indeﬁnitely, and therefore system will be self-

Ziegler–Nichols’ Recommendations to Obtain the Tuning 4

regulating. To account for self-regulation, Cohen and Coon

Parameters for an Interacting Controller Based on the Readings

introduced an index of self-regulation µ deﬁned as:

Calculated from a Model

Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes) µ = Rr Lr /K 2.35(5)

τ Note that this term can also be determined from the process

P — —

K ∗ td reaction curve. For processes originally considered by Ziegler

and Nichols, µ equals zero and therefore there is no self-

τ regulation. To account for variations in µ, Cohen and Coon

PI 3.33 td —

0.9 *

K ∗ td suggested the equations given in Table 2.35l in terms of td and τ.

In case of a proportional control, the requirement that the

decay ratio be 1/4 is sufﬁcient to ensure a unique solution, but

PID τ 2 td 0.5 td

1.2 for the case of proportional-plus-reset control, this restraint is

K ∗ td

not sufﬁcient.

Another constraint in addition to the 1/4 decay ratio can

consider the level control of a tank with a constant rate of be placed on the response to determine the unique values of

liquid outﬂow. Assume that the tank is initially operating at Kc and Ti . This second constraint can be to require that the

constant level. If a step change is made in the inlet liquid ﬂow, control area of the response be at its minimum, meaning that

the level in the tank will rise until it overﬂows. This process the area between the response curve and the set point be the

is not “self-regulating.” smallest. This area is called the error integral or the integral

On the other hand, if the outlet valve opening and outlet of the error with respect to time.

backpressure are constant, the rate of liquid removal With the proportional-plus-reset-plus-rate controller

increases as the liquid level increases. Hence, in this case, (PID), the same problem of not having a unique solution

exists even when the 1/4 decay ratio and the minimum error

TABLE 2.35k integral constraints are applied. Therefore, a third constraint

The Tuning Setting Recommendations for a PI Controller must be chosen to obtain a unique solution. Based on the

Resulting from the Three Methods of Testing Described work of Cohen and Coon, it has been suggested that this new

constraint could have a value of 0.5 for the dimensionless

τ (s) td (s) Kc Ti (min)

Testing Method Used K

group Kc Ktd /τ. The tuning relations that will result from

Reaction curve 3.91 1.28 applying these three constraints are given in Table 2.35l. This

5–7

Process model Fit1, ZN 1.5 150 23 3.91 1.28 method has been referred to as the 3C method.

Greg Shinskey suggested a variation to the above, where

Process model Fit 2, ZN 1.5 122 23 3.18 1.28

the proportional gain and the integral time are increased.

TABLE 2.35l

Comparison of Equations Recommended by Ziegler–Nichols, Shinskey, Cohen–Coon, and

3C for the Determination of the Tuning Settings for PID Controllers

Ziegler–Nichols Shinskey Cohen–Coon 3C

P KKc = (td /τ ) −1.0 (td /τ ) −1.0 (td /τ ) −1.0 + 0.333 1.208(td /τ ) −0.956

P KKc = 0.9(td /τ ) −1.0 0.95(td /τ ) −1.0 0.9(td /τ ) −1.0 + 0.082 0.928(td /τ ) −0.946

I

Ti

= 3.33(td /τ ) 4.0(td /τ ) 3.33(td /τ )[1 + (td /τ )/11] 0.928(td /τ )−0.583

τ 1 + 2.2 + (td /τ )

P KKc = 1.2(td /τ ) −1.0 0.855(td /τ ) −1.0 1.35(td /τ ) −1.0 + 0.270 1.370(td /τ ) −0.950

= 2.0(td /τ )

τ 1 + 0.6(td /τ )

Td 0.37(td /τ )

D = 0.5(td /τ ) 0.6(td /τ ) 0.365(td /τ )0.950

τ 1 + 0.2(td /τ )

422 Control Theory

8

Integral Criteria Tuning

TABLE 2.35m

Table 2.35m provides the controller settings that minimize Tuning Settings for Load and Set Point Disturbances

the respective integral criteria to the ratio td/τ. The settings Load Change Set Point Change

differ if tuning is based on load (disturbance) changes as

A B A B

opposed to set point changes. Settings based on load changes

IAE P 0.902 –0.985

will generally be much tighter than those based on set point

changes. When loops tuned to load changes are subjected to P 0.984 –0.986 0.758 –0.861

a set point change, a more oscillatory response is observed. I 0.608 –0.707 1.020 –0.323

P 1.435 –0.921 1.086 –0.869

I 0.878 –0.749 0.740 –0.130

Which Disturbance to Tune for D 0.482 1.137 0.348 0.914

With tuning parameters calculated for load rejection, the ITAE P 0.490 –1.084

integral time (Ti) and derivative time (Td) will depend mostly P 0.859 –0.977 0.586 –0.916

on the dead time (td) of the process. I 0.674 –0.680 1.030 –0.165

In contrast, if the tuning parameters are calculated for a P 1.357 –0.947 0.965 –0.855

set-point change, the integral time will be longer and the I 0.842 –0.738 0.796 –0.147

derivative time will be shorter, and they will depend mostly D 0.381 0.995 0.308 0.929

on the time constant of the process. ISE P 1.411 –0.917

The relationship between the controller settings based on P 1.305 –0.959

integral criteria and the ratio t0 /τ is expressed by the tuning I 0.492 –0.739

relationship given in Equation 2.35(6).

P 1.495 –0.945

I 1.101 –0.771

B

t D 0.560 1.006

Y = A 0 2.35(6)

τ ZN P 1.000 –1.000

P 0.900 –1.000

I 0.333 –1.000

where Y = KKc for proportional mode, τ /Ti for reset mode,

P 1.200 –1.000

Td/τ for rate mode; A, B = constant for given controller and

mode; t0, τ = pure delay time and ﬁrst-order lag time constant. I 0.500 –1.000

Hence, using these equations, D 0.500 1.000

CCC P 1.208 –0.956

B P 0.928 –0.946

A t0

Kc = 2.35(7) I 1.078 –0.583

K τ P 1.370 –0.950

B I 1.351 –0.738

1 A t0

= 2.35(8) D 0.365 0.950

Ti τ τ Shinskey P 1.000 –1.000

B P 0.952 –1.000

t

Td = τ ∗ A 0 2.35(9) I 0.250 –1.000

τ P 0.855 –1.000

I 0.625 –1.000

Lambda Tuning D 0.600 1.000

4 to 1 decay P 1.235 –0.924

Lambda tuning originated from Dahlin in 1968; it is based Critical damping P 0.300 –1.000 0.300 –1.000

4,5

on the same IMC theory as MPC, is model-based, and uses (no overshoot, P 0.600 –1.000 0.350 –1.000

a model inverse and pole-zero cancellation to achieve the maximum speed) I 0.250 –1.000 Ti =1.16τ

desired closed-loop performance.

P 0.950 –1.000 0.600 –1.000

Lambda tuning is a method to tune loops based on pole

I 0.420 –1.000 Ti = τ

placement. This method ensures a deﬁned response after a

set-point change but is generally too sluggish to properly D 0.420 1.000 0.500 1.000

reject disturbances. Promoters for this method often claim

that all loops should be tuned on the basis of Lambda tuning.

Doing so, the controllers are almost in “idling mode” and

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 423

the time to eliminate this disturbance is quite long for most TABLE 2.35n

The Tuning Setting Recommendations for a PI Controller

processes, because the integral time selected equals the pro-

Resulting from the Criteria Listed

cess time constant.

The promoters also suggest the use of a closed-loop time Criteria Tuning Kc Ti (min)

constant, which is three times the process time constant.

Load change criteria Ziegler–Nichols 3.18 1.28

Doing so, the response time in the automatic mode will be

CCC 3.00 0.71

three times longer than in manual. Therefore, the response

time will be slower in automatic. This is adequate if no Shinskey 3.37 1.53

disturbance occurs but if no disturbance occurs, the control IAE 3.40 1.03

loop is not needed. SP change criteria IAE 2.13 1.16

“Lambda tuning” refers to all tuning methods where the Lambda 0.21 2.03

control loop speed of response is a selectable tuning param-

eter. The closed loop time constant is referred to as “Lambda”

(λ). Therefore, following a set-point change, the PV will reach

set point as a ﬁrst-order system (same type of response as in The performance of lambda tuning is unacceptable for

the manual mode when the CO is changed). correcting upsets caused by load changes if the process time

Lambda tuning has been widely used in the pulp and constant is larger than the dead time. This is the case with

paper industry, but control specialists are starting to realize pressure, level, and temperature control applications. With

that it is often too sluggish to handle disturbances. For a ﬁrst- ﬂow loops, the results are similar to other methods since the

order plus dead time model time constant is in the same order of magnitude as the dead

time.

Ti = τ 2.35(10) In Table 2.35n, Fit 2 (Figure 2.35h) will be used as the

reference to compare the process models found using the

1 T

Kc = ∗ i 2.35(11) different tuning criteria. For load and set-point responses of

K λ + td the different tuning techniques, see Figures 2.35o, p, and q.

where λ = closed loop time constant; it is recommended to Adjusting Robustness To remove oscillations in a control

use λ = 3τ. loop, hence to increase the robustness, it is necessary to give

185

175 Lambda

Process variable

165

IAE SP

155

145 ExperTune SP

135

ExperTune Load

125 IAE

ZN

115 CCC Shinskey

200 400 600 800 1000

45

Controller output

35

25

15

5

200 400 600 800 1000

Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35o

Load responses of the different tuning techniques (example).

424 Control Theory

170 CCC

IAE

ZN Shinskey

160

Process variable

ExperTune Load

150

140 )

IAE (SPLoad Lambda

xp er Tu ne

130 E

120

200 400 600 800 1000

80

Controller output

70

60

50

40

30

200 400 600 800 1000

Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35p

Set-point responses of the different tuning techniques (example).

a control loop, the robustness will be increased and the oscil-

lations will be reduced or removed. Digital control loops differ from continuous control loops by

As a rule of thumb, dividing the proportional gain by a having the continuous controller replaced by a sampler, a

factor of two will eliminate the oscillations; dividing again discrete control algorithm calculated by the computer, and a

the proportional gain by a factor of two will remove most of hold device (usually a zero-order hold). In such cases Moore

the overshoot. (For more on robustness, see Section 2.26.) et al. have shown that the open-loop tuning methods presented

160

CCC

IAE (L)

150

Process variable

ZN

Shinskey

140

IAE (SP)

130 Lambda

120

64

60

Controller output

56

52

48

44

40

200 400 600 800 1000

Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35q

Set-point responses of the different tuning techniques (example) with a controller where the P is applied only on PV changes.

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 425

previously may be used, considering that the dead time used Output

is the sum of the true process dead time and one-half of the

sampling time, as expressed by Equation 2.35(12):

t0′ = t0 + T /2 2.35(12)

Curve A

where T is the sampling time. t′0 is used in the tuning rela- Curve B

tionships instead of t0. (Section 2.38 deals with the subject Curve C

of controller tuning by computer.)

tuning, the controller does not even have to be installed in order

for the controller settings to be determined. When the closed-

loop method is used, the controller is in automatic. Described

below are the two most common closed-loop methods of tuning,

the ultimate method and the damped oscillation method.

Time

Curve A: unstable, runaway oscillation

Ultimate Method Curve B: continuous cycling, marginal stability

Curve C: stable, damped oscillation

One of the ﬁrst methods proposed for tuning controllers was

1

the ultimate method, reported by Ziegler and Nichols in FIG. 2.35r

1942. This method is called “the ultimate method” because Ultimate gain is the gain that causes continuous cycling (Curve B)

its use requires the determination of the ultimate gain (sen- and ultimate period (Pu) is the period of that cycling.

sitivity) and the ultimate period. The ultimate gain Ku is the

maximum allowable value of gain (for a controller with only

a proportional mode) for which the system is stable. The

ultimate period is the response’s period with the gain set at basis of the distance where the loop will operate from insta-

its ultimate value (Figure 2.35r). bility. Settings for load rejection are not too far from instabil-

In order for a closed loop to display a quarter of the ity, but tuning parameters for set-point change are different,

amplitude damping (Figure 2.35b), its loop gain must be at and the process model is needed for their determination.

0.5. This means that the product of the gains of all the com- The optimum integral and derivative settings of control-

ponents in the loop — composed by the process gain (Gp), the lers vary with the number of modes in the controller (P = 1,

sensor gain (Ks), the transmitter gain (Kt), the controller gain PI = 2 mode, PID = 3 mode) and with the amount of dead

(Kc = 100/PB), and the control valve gain (Kv) — must be at times in the loop. For noninteracting PI controllers with no

0.5. When the loop is in sustained, undampened oscillation, noticeable dead time, one would set the integral (Ti ) for about

the gain product of the loop is 1.0 and the amplitude of cycling 75% of the period of oscillation.

is constant (Curve B in Figure 2.35r). As the dead time-to-time constant ratio rises, the integral

The period when the closed loops oscillate depends setting becomes a smaller percentage of the oscillation

mostly on the amount of dead time in the loop. The period of period — around 60% when the dead time equals 20% of the

oscillation in ﬂow loops is 1 to 3 seconds; for level loops, it time constant, about 50% when their ratio is at 50%, about

is 3 to 30 seconds (sometimes minutes); for pressure loops, 33% when they are equal, and about 25% when the dead time

5 to 100 seconds, for temperature loops; 0.5 to 20 minutes; exceeds the time constant.

and for analytical loops, from 2 minutes to several hours. For noninteracting PID loops with no dead time, one

When controlled by analog controllers (no dead time would set the integral minutes/repeat (I) to a value equal to

added by sampling), plain proportional loops oscillate at peri- 50 % of the period of oscillation and the derivative time (D)

ods ranging from two to ﬁve dead times, PI loops oscillate to about 18% of the period. As dead time rises to 20% of the

at periods of three to ﬁve dead times, and PID loops at around time constant, (I ) drops to 45% and (D) to 17% of the period.

three dead time periods. At 50% dead time, (I) = 40% and (D) = 16%. When the dead

The settings determined by this method will be based on time equals the time constant, (I ) = 33% and (D) = 13%;

load disturbance rejection and will not be suitable for set-point ﬁnally, if dead time is twice the time constant, (I ) = 25% and

changes. The tuning parameters are in fact calculated on the (D) = 12%.

426 Control Theory

Process variable

be used to illustrate the “ultimate” closed-loop tuning 145

method. The aim of this tuning process is to determine the

Pu

controller gain or proportional band that would cause sus-

125

tained, undampened oscillation (Ku) and to measure the cor-

responding period of oscillation, called the ultimate period 300 600

(Pu). The steps in this tuning sequence are as follows:

Controller output

55

1. Set all controller dynamics to zero. In other words, set

the integral to inﬁnite (or maximum) minutes per

35

repeat or zero (or minimum) repeats per minute and

set derivative to zero (or minimum) minutes. 300 600

2. Set the gain or proportional band to some arbitrary Time (sec)

value near the expected setting (if known) or at Kc = 1

(PB = 100%) if no better information is available. FIG. 2.35t

3. Let the process stabilize. Once the PV is stable, intro- Ultimate cycling response of the same process that was tested in

duce an upset. The simplest way to do that is to move Figure 2.35e.

the set point up or down by a safe amount (for exam-

ple, move it by 2% for half a minute) and then return In order to use the ultimate gain and the ultimate period

it to its original value. to obtain the controller settings for proportional controllers,

Ziegler and Nichols correlated the decay ratio vs. gain

The result will be an upset in the PV resembling the expressed as a fraction of the ultimate gain for several sys-

characteristics of curve A, B, or C in Figure 2.35r. If the tems. From the results they concluded that if the controller

response is undampened (curve A), the gain (or proportional) gain is set to equal one-half of the ultimate gain, it will often

setting is too high (proportional narrow); inversely, if the give a decay ratio of 1/4, i.e.,

response is damped (curve C), the gain (or proportional)

Kc = 0.5Ku (PB = 2PBu) 2.35(13)

setting is too low (proportional wide). Therefore, if the

response resembles curve A, the controller gain is increased; By analogous reasoning and testing, the equations in

if it resembles curve C, the gain is reduced, and the test is Table 2.35s were found to also give reasonably good settings

repeated until curve B is obtained. for noninteracting two- and three-mode controllers. Again it

After one or more trials, the state of sustained, undamp- should be noted that these equations are empirical and excep-

ened oscillation will be obtained (curve B), and at that point tions abound. For the same example as before, Figure 2.35t

the test is ﬁnished. (Make sure that the oscillation is a sinu- illustrates the ultimate cycling response.

soidal and not a limit cycle.) Next, read the proportional gain The ultimate gain and period obtained from Figure 2.35t

that caused the sustained oscillation. This is called the “ulti- are: Ku = 7.75 and Pu = 87 s.

mate gain” (Ku), and the corresponding period is the ultimate

Hence the recommended tuning settings for the process

period of oscillation (Pu).

that was used in the example are: Kp = 3.49 and Ti = 1.21

Once the values of Ku and Pu are known, one might use minutes.

the recommendations of Ziegler–Nichols (Table 2.35s) or the

There are a few exceptions to the tuning procedure

recommendations that were described earlier, which also con-

described here because in some cases, decreasing the gain

sider the dead time-to-time constant ratio. No one tuning is

makes the process more unstable. In these cases, the “ultimate”

perfect, and experienced process control engineers do come

method will not give good settings. Usually in cases of this

up with their own “fudge factors” based on experience.

type, the system is stable at high and low values of gain but

unstable at intermediate values. Thus, the ultimate gain for

systems of this type has a different meaning. To use the ulti-

mate method for these cases, the lower value of the ultimate

TABLE 2.35s gain is sought.

Tuning Parameters Based on the Measurement of Ku and Pu

Recommended by Ziegler–Nichols for a Noninteracting

Advantages and Disadvantages The main advantage of the

Controller

closed-loop tuning method is that it considers the dynamics

Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes) of all system components and therefore gives accurate results

P 0.5 Ku — —

at the load where the test is performed. Another advantage

is that the readings of Ku and Pu are easy to read and the

PI 0.45 Ku Pu /1.2 —

period of oscillation can be accurately read even if the mea-

PID 0.6 Ku Pu /2 Pu /8 surement is noisy.

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 427

TABLE 2.35u as the ultimate method since it is often necessary to experi-

Harriott Tuning Parameters for a Noninteracting Controller

mentally adjust the value of the gain to obtain a decay ratio

Calculated from Kc1/4 Obtained to Reach a Quarter-

of 1/4. It is also possible to use this method to use a different

of-Amplitude Decay

decay ratio criterion.

Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes)

P Kc1/4 — —

Advantages and Disadvantages In general, there are two

major disadvantages to the ultimate and damped oscillation

PID adjusted P/1.5 P/6

methods. First, both are essentially trial-and-error methods,

since several values of gain must be tested before the ultimate

The disadvantages of the closed-loop tuning method are gain or the gain to give a 1/4 decay ratio are to be determined.

that when tuning unknown processes, the amplitudes of To make one test, especially at values near the desired gain,

undampened oscillations can become excessive (unsafe) and it is often necessary to wait for the completion of several

the test can take a long time to perform. One can see that when oscillations before it can be determined whether the trial

tuning a slow process (period of oscillation of over an hour), value of gain is the desired one.

it can take a long time before a state of sustained, undampened Second, while one loop is being tested in this manner, its

oscillation is achieved through this trial-and-error technique. output may affect several other loops, thus possibly upsetting

For these reasons, other tuning techniques have also been an entire unit. While all tuning methods require that some

developed and some of them are described below. changes be made in the control loop, other techniques require

only one and not several tests, unlike the closed-loop methods.

Damped Oscillation Method Also, if the tuning parameters are too aggressive, the

expected response can be obtained by increasing the propor-

Harriott has proposed a slight modiﬁcation of the previous tional band (or decreasing the proportional gain). The integral

procedure. For some processes, it is not feasible to allow and derivative settings probably need to be modiﬁed. The

sustained oscillations and therefore, the ultimate method can- proportional gain has to be reduced to 3.5 to have a quarter-

not be used. In this modiﬁcation of the ultimate method, the of-amplitude decay.

gain (proportional control only) is adjusted, using steps anal-

ogous to those used in the ultimate method, until a response

curve with 1/4 of the decay ratio is obtained. However, with

COMPARISON OF CLOSED AND OPEN LOOP

this tuning method, it is necessary to note only the period P

of the response.

Table 2.35w provides a comparison of open-loop and closed-

Again it should be noted that the equations in Table 2.35u

loop results for the process example used in Figure 2.35e.

are empirical and exceptions abound.

and period are found to be Kc1/4 = 7.75 and P = 87 s. Hence the FREQUENCY RESPONSE METHODS

recommended tuning settings for the PI controller are Kp = 3.49

and Ti = 1.21 minutes. Frequency response methods for tuning controllers involve

After these modes are set, the sensitivity is again adjusted ﬁrst determining the frequency response of the process,

until a response curve with 1/4 of a decay ratio is obtained. which is a process characteristic. From this, tuning can be

developed. Frequency response methods (FRM) may have

several advantages over other methods: These are:

Process variable

150

1. FRM require only one process bump to identify the pro-

140

cess. The bump can be a change in automatic or manual,

130

120

300 600

TABLE 2.35w

80

Controller output

70

60 Type of Tuning Test Kc Ti (min)

50

40 Open loop Reaction curve 3.91 1.28

30 Model Fit 2 3.18 1.28

Closed loop Closed loop, ultimate cycling 3.49 1.21

FIG. 2.35v

Damped cycling for the example. Closed loop, damped cycling 3.5 1.20

428 Control Theory

and be either a pulse, step, or other type of bump. A set- of the output when aligned with the crest of the input is

point change provides excellent data from FRM. generally thought to be 180 degrees out of phase or 180

2. FRM do not require any prior knowledge of the pro- degrees of phase lag.

cess dead time or time constant. With the other time By applying a variety of sine wave inputs to a process,

response methods, one often needs a dead time esti- one can obtain a table of amplitude ratios and phase lags

mate and a time constant estimate. dependent on the sine wave frequency. If one plots these, the

3. FRM do not require any prior knowledge of the pro- result will be the frequency response of the process.

cess structure. Time response methods often require Using Fourier analysis computer software programs one

the user to have such model structure knowledge, i.e., can calculate the process frequency response from a bump,

whether it is ﬁrst or second order or whether it is an pulse, or any other signal that applies sufﬁcient excitation to

integrator. For FRM-based tuning none of this is the controller output. In the evaluation both the CO and PV

required; only the process data are needed. trends are used. The data provided for these programs should

start from a settled state, experience a quick change, and end

Obtaining the Frequency Response settled.

Any one of the responses in Figures 2.35e, g, h, i, o, p, q,

The process frequency response is a graph of amplitude ratio

and v would provide adequate data for frequency response–

and phase vs. oscillation or sine wave frequency. If one injects

based testing. Figure 2.35x shows the typical frequency

a sine wave into a linear process at the controller output, the

response arrived at by the use of computer software.

PV will also display a sine wave. The output (PV) sine wave

will probably be of smaller height relative to the input and

will be shifted in time. PID Tuning Based on Frequency Response

The ratio of the heights is the amplitude ratio at the

frequency of the input sine wave. The shift in time is the In most processes, both the amplitude ratio and the phase

phase shift or phase lag. A time shift resulting in the trough angle will decrease with increasing frequencies. Assuming

Amplitude ratio (dB)

−1.25

−23.75

0

Phase angle (deg)

−180

−360

Frequency (radians/sec)

FIG. 2.35x

Typical model (solid line) and actual (dash line) process frequency response.

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 429

frequency when the process and the controller frequency

responses are combined, the following general stability rule

applies: A control system will be unstable if the open-loop

lopt × 3

Deviation

frequency response has an amplitude ratio that is larger than

one when the phase lag is 180 degrees. lopt × 1.5

To provide proper tuning, a margin of safety in the gain 0

and phase is desired. Tuning constants are therefore adjusted lopt

to result in the highest gain at all frequencies and yet achieve lopt ÷ 1.5

a certain margin of safety or stability. This is best accom-

plished using computer software. 0 1 2 3 4

Time, t/St

FIG. 2.35z

FINE TUNING The integral setting primarily affects the location of the second peak.

a load change in the closed loop as described at the beginning

of this section. This can be especially useful if the initial In Figure 2.35y, the proportional band of the controller

tuning is not satisfactory or if the process characteristics have is the parameter being adjusted. Note that increasing the

changed. It is simply a trial-and-error method of recognizing proportional band increases the height of the ﬁrst peak and

and approaching an optimum — or otherwise desirable — also its damping; but along with the increased damping

load response. comes a loss of symmetry. In Figure 2.35z, it is the integral

time of the controller that is being adjusted. Note that it has

Optimum Load Response no effect at all on the ﬁrst peak but determines the location

of the second, i.e., the overshoot or undershoot of the process

As described earlier, the optimum load response is generally variable’s deviation.

considered to be that which has a minimum IAE, in that it The integrated error IE of a standard PID controller varies

combines minimum peak deviation with low integrated error directly with the product of its proportional band and integral

and short settling time. The second curve from the bottom in time. While increasing either of these settings improves

each of Figures 2.35y and z represents a minimum-IAE load damping, it also increases IE in direct proportion, and there-

response for a distributed lag under PI control. fore it costs performance. Increasing both settings above their

This second curve from the bottom has a symmetrical optimum compounds this effect.

ﬁrst peak, low overshoot, and effective damping. The time

scale of these curves is normalized to the 63.2% open-loop Effect of Load Dynamics

step response of the distributed lag, identiﬁed as Στ. On either

side of the optimum curve in both ﬁgures are other response All of the tuning rules described in this section to optimize

curves, which were produced by changing one of the con- load regulation will apply only to loops in which the dynam-

troller settings. ics in the load path are identical to those in the path of the

controller output. Yet Figure 2.35a shows the possibility that

the dynamics are different in the two paths, for example in

the case of heat exchangers.

Any dead time in the load path, or variation thereof, will

Popt × 3

have no effect on the load response curve, simply delaying

it by more or less time. The dominant lag in the load path is

Popt × 1.5

Deviation

curve.

Popt As a demonstration, a distributed lag in a PI control loop

0

was simulated to assess the effects of variations in load

dynamics. Three different load-response curves appear in

Popt ÷ 1.5

Figure. 2.35aa representing ratios of Στq /Στm varying from

0.5 to 2, where subscripts q and m identify the load and

0 1 2 3 4

Time, t/St

manipulated-variable paths, respectively.

In all three cases, the PI controller has been tuned to min-

FIG. 2.35y imize IAE following a simulated load change, simulated by

The proportional setting affects the height of the first peak and its stepping the controller output, which produces the center curve

symmetry. represented by Στq /Στm = 1. However, when a true load step

430 Control Theory

Σtq/Σtm = 0.5 minimize IAE following a load change simulated by stepping

the controller output. After that the appropriate correction factors

should be found for the expected ratio of load-to-manipulated

lag Στq/Στm.

Deviation

1

The integral time will need correcting regardless of the

2 controller used—it must be multiplied by a factor repre-

0 sented by the top curve for a PID controller and the middle

curve for a PI controller. If the controller is a noninteracting

(ideal, parallel) PID, then its proportional band should be

0 1 2 3 4 multiplied by the correction factor, which is indicated by the

Time, t/Σt dashed line. PI and interacting (series) PID controllers do not

require a correction to the proportional setting, and no cor-

FIG. 2.35aa rection to the derivative setting is required for any controller.

Load dynamics affect the shape of the response curve.

Symbols, Abbreviations

passes through different dynamics than in the controller-output

path, the resulting response curve is no longer minimum-IAE. CO Controller output

As might be expected, faster dynamics in the load path FRM Frequency response method

produce a faster rising deviation, which therefore peaks at a Gp Process gain

higher value before the controller can overcome it. The larger IAE Integral of absolute error

peak is then followed by a large overshoot. By contrast, IE Integral error

slower dynamics in the load path reduce the peak deviation, ISE Integral of squared error

followed by an undershoot. The IAE for the curve where ITAE Integral of absolute error × time

Στq /Στm = 0.5 is actually only 6% higher than the minimum, ITSE Integral of squared error × time

but for the case where Στq /Στ m = 2, the IAE is actually 53% Kp Proportional gain for a PID controller

above the minimum, indicating substantial need for correc- Ku Ultimate controller gain

tion. The appearance of the exaggerated overshoot and the PV Process variable or measurement

undershoot indicate that those responses are no longer min- Rr Reaction rate, slope

imum-IAE, and that the integral time needs adjusting. Retun- RRT Relative response time, the time to remove most

ing the controllers for minimum-IAE response in the pres- of a disturbance

ence of different load dynamics resulted in the development SP Set point

of the correction factors plotted in Figure 2.3bb. (Tau) Process time constant (seconds)

10

PID

Integral corr.

PI

1 Prop. corr.

Nonint. PID

0.1

0.1 1 10

Σtq /Σtm

FIG. 2.35bb

To obtain minimum-IAE response, integral time and possibly the proportional band may require correction for load dynamics.

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 431

t0(td) Process dead time (seconds) Rovira, A.A., Murrill, P.W., and Smith, C.L., Tuning Controllers for Set-Point

Ti Integral time (s) -for a PID controller Changes, Instruments and Control Systems, December 1969.

Ruel, M., Loop Optimization: before You Tune, Control Magazine, Vol. 12,

Td Derivative time (s) for a PID controller No. 03 (March 1999), pp. 63–67.

F PV ﬁlter time constant Ruel, M., Loop Optimization: Troubleshooting, Control Magazine, Vol. 12,

tu Ultimate period No. 04, (April 1999), pp. 64–69.

Ruel, M., Loop Optimization: How to Tune a Loop, Control Magazine, Vol. 12,

No. 05 (May 1999), pp. 83–86.

Ruel, M., Instrument Engineers' Handbook, chap. 5.9, Plantwide Control

Bibliography Loop Optimization, 3rd ed., Bela G. Liptak, Ed., Boca Raton, FL:

CRC Press, 2002, 40 pp.

Astrom, K.J., and Hagglund, T., Automatic Tuning of PID Controllers,

Shinskey, F.G., Process Control Systems, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill,

Research Triangle Park, NC: ISA Press, 1988.

1996.

Bjornsen, B.G., A Fluid Amplifier Pneumatic Controller, Control Engineering,

Shinskey, F.G., Process Control Systems, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill,

June 1965.

1996.

Box, G.E.P., and Jenkins, G.M., Time Series Forecasting and Control, San

Shinskey, F.G., Interaction between Control Loops, Instruments and Control

Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970.

Systems, May and June 1976.

Caldwell, W.I., Coon, G.A., and Zoss, L.M., Frequency Response for Process

Salmon, D.M., and Kokotovic, P.V., Design of Feedback Controllers for Non-

Control, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

linear Plants, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. AC 14, No. 3,

Campbell, D.P., Process Dynamics, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958. 1969,

Chen, C.T., Introduction to Linear System Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart Sastry, S., and Bodson, M., Adaptive Control: Stability, Convergence and

and Winston, 1970. Robustness, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.

Corripio, A.B., Tuning of Industrial Control Systems, Research Triangle Seborg, D., Edgar, E., and Mellichamp, D., Process Control, New York:

Park, NC: ISA Press, 1990. Wiley, 1990.

Gerry, J.P., How to Control Processes with Large Dead Times, Control Seborg, D.E., Edgar, T.F., and Shah, S.L., Adaptive Control Strategies for

Engineering, March 1998. Process Control, AI Chem. E. Journal, 32, 1986, pp. 881–913.

Gerry, J.P., PID settings sometimes fail to make the leap, Intech, November Smith, C.A., and Corripio, A.B., Principles and Practice of Automatic Process

1999. Control, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985.

Gerry, J.P., Tune Loops for Load Upsets VS Setpoint Changes, CONTROL Smith, C.L., Controller Tuning That Works, Instruments and Control Systems,

Magazine, September 1991. September 1976.

Higham, J.D., Single-Term Control of First- and Second-Order Processes with Smith, C.L., and Murrill, P.W., A More Precise Method for the Tuning of

Dead Time, Control, February 1968. Controllers, ISA Journal, May 1996.

Hougen, J.O., Experiences and Experiments with Process Dynamics, Chemical Smith, C.L., Controllers—Set Them Right, Hydrocarbon Processing and

Engineering Process Monograph Series, Vol. 60, No. 4, 1964. Petroleum Reﬁner, February 1966.

Howell, J., Rost, D., and Gerry, J.P., PC Software Tunes Plant Startup, InTech, Smith, O.J.M., Close Centrol of Loops with Dead Time, Chemical Engineering

June 1988. Progress, May 1957.

Kraus, T.W., and Myron, T.J., Self-Tuning PID Controller Uses Pattern Sood, M., Tuning Proportional-Integral Controllers for Random Load

Recognition Approach, Control Engineering, June 1984. Changes, M.S. thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, University

Larson, R.E., et al., State Estimation in Power Systems, Part I and Part II, of Mississippi, University, MS, 1972.

IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS 89, No. 3, Sood, M., and Huddleston, H.T., Optimal Control Settings for Random Dis-

March 1970. turbances, Instrumentation Technology, March 1973.

Lelic, M.A., and Zarrop, M.B., Generalized Pole-Placement Self-Tuning Stephanopoulos, G., Chemical Process Control: An Introduction to Theory

Controller, Int. J. Control, 46, 1987, pp. 569–607. and Practice, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.

Lipták, B.G., How to Set Process Controllers, Chemical Engineering, Suchanti, N., Tuning Controllers for Interacting Processes, Instruments and

November 1964. Control Systems, April 1973.

Lopez, A.M., et al., Controller Tuning Relationships Based on Instrumentation Wade, H.L., High-Capability Single-Station Controllers: A Survey, InTech,

Technology, Control Engineering, November 1967. September 1988.

Luyben, W.L., Process Modeling, Simulation and Control for Chemical Wells, C.H., Application of Modern Estimation and Identification Techniques

Engineers, 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990. to Chemical Processes, AIChE Journal, 1971.

Mehra, R.K., Identification of Stochastic Linear Dynamic Systems Using Wells, C.H., and Mehra, R.K., Dynamic Modeling and Estimation of Carbon

Kalman Filter Representation, AIAA Journal, January 1971. in a Basic Oxygen Furnace, paper presented at 3rd Int. IFAC/IFIPS

Mehra, R.K., On-Line Identification of Linear Dynamic Systems with Applica- Conf. on the Use of Digital Computers in Process Control, Helsinki,

tions to Kalman Filtering, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. AC 16, Finland, June 1971.

No. 1, February 1971. Wellstead, P.E., and Zarrop, M.B., Self-Tuning Systems, New York: Wiley,

Miller, J.A., et al., A Comparison of Open-Loop Techniques for Tuning Con- 1991.

trollers, Control Engineering, December 1967. Widrow, B., and Stearns, S.D., Adaptive Signal Processing, Englewood

Murrill, P.W., Automatic Control of Processes, Scranton, PA: International Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985.

Textbook Co., 1967. Ziegler, J.G., and Nichols, N.B., Optimal Settings for Automatic Controllers,

Raven, F., Automatic Control Engineering, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. ASME Trans., November 1942.

Rovira, A.A., Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Ziegler, J.G., and Nichols, N.B., Optimal Settings for Controllers, ISA Journal,

LA, 1969. August 1964.

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.