Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
ISA Transactions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans
Design of PID controllers in double feedback loops for SISO systems with setpoint filters
V. Vijayan ^{a} , Rames C. Panda ^{b}^{,} ^{∗}
^{a} Department of E&I, St Joseph’s College of Engg, IT Highway, Chennai – 600 119, India
^{b} Department of Chemical Engineering, CLRI (CSIR), Near IIT Madras, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020, India
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 November 2011 Received in revised form 1 March 2012 Accepted 14 March 2012 Available online 9 April 2012
Keywords:
Overshoot PID controller Set point filter Tuning IMC
a b s t r a c t
A PID controller is widely used to control industrial processes that are mostly open loop stable or unstable. Selection of proper feedback structure and controller tuning helps to improve the performance of the loop. In this paper a doublefeedback loop/method is used to achieve stability and better performance of the process. The internal feedback is used for stabilizing the process and the outer loop is used for good setpoint tracking. An internal model controller (IMC) based PID method is used for tuning the outer loop controller. Autotuning based on relay feedback or the Ziegler–Nichols method can be used for tuning an inner loop controller. A tuning parameter (λ) that is used to tune IMCPID is used as a time constant of a setpoint filter that is used for reducing the peak overshoot. The method has been tested successfully on many low order processes.
© 2012 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Classical PID controllers are widely used in process industries despite continued advancement in control technology. Most of the industrial loops are controlled by PID regulators due to their simple structure, near optimal performance and robustness, applicability over wide range and ease in implementation and maintenance on analog or digital platform. There are many industrial processes, which produce undesirable peak overshoot that needs to be eliminated to achieve desired safety and economic (process input or controller output must be optimally synthesized) norms. The problem can be addressed by synthesizing alternate loop structures and by tuning controllers properly. Many researchers [1–8] proposed PID tuning rules to control various stable systems by different methods to improve closed loop performance. Openloop unstable systems are generally observed in process industries (exothermic stirred reactors with back mixing, batch reactors, pump with liquid storage tank, combined feed/effluent heat exchanger with adiabatic exothermic reactor etc.) to operate at unstable steady states in order to achieve safety and performance. These unstable systems are difficult to control compared to openloop stable processes mainly because (1) unstable systems are hard to stabilize for unstable poles,
^{∗} Corresponding author. Fax: +91(44)24911589. Email address: panda@clri.res.in (R.C. Panda).
(2) some performances are difficult to achieve for these processes. These systems show unusual overshoot or inverse response due to the presence of negative or positive zeros. Moreover, the presence of deadtime in the process makes the system uncertain. Many researchers have synthesized the internal model controller to study closedloop performances of these systems. Moreover, due to ease in implementation and maintenance, PID forms of these controllers have received more attention. Hence, in order to achieve stable closedloop response and safe operation, controller design for such open loop unstable processes has become challengeable and interesting. De’Paor and O’Malley [9], Rotstein and Lewin [10], Venkatasubramaniam and Chidambaram [11], Ho and Xu [12], Luyben [13], Huang and Chen [14], Jung et al. [15], Visioli [16], Yang et al. [17], Saraf et al. [18], Tan et al. [19], and Panda [20] proposed design of PID controllers for unstable systems. In all the above works, attention was imparted to improve closed loop performances (evaluated by error criteria) through different domains. But these methods involve cumbersome calculations, need user defined multiparameters and do not reduce overshoot much in closedloop responses. Many works have been reported to make the closedloop response faster by designing appropriate set point weight (mostly for stable systems) while they do not reduce overshoot satisfactorily of closedloop responses. Later on, loop performance was enhanced by employing setpoint filter on the existing classical structure. Lee et al. [24] considered two loop control to reduce undesirable overshoot by using an ideal PID controller and setpoint weight. However, their method must be associated with the method of design of original error feedback
00190578/$ – see front matter © 2012 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V. Vijayan, R.C. Panda / ISA Transactions 51 (2012) 514–521
515
and their setpoint filter needs information on process parameters. Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] designed setpoint filters to improve loop performances by IMC Maclaurian PID controller. These filters are of higher order and involve complicated calculations for design. Zhang [22] also proposed a method to design a simple set point filter to reduce the peak overshoot. Recently Nie et al. [23] derived PID tuning rules and implemented compensator based on gain and phase margin specifications to reduce peak overshoot. Results from the above methods show that undesirable overshoot still exists in closedloop response. Moreover, many of the above methods involve cumbersome calculations. Hence an easy and efficient method must be looked for reducing the overshoot. An open loop process needs a loop for stabilization at first stage. Most of the unstable systems and processes with numerator zero produce overshoot mainly due to improper tuning. Hence, new design procedures are proposed here to achieve desired overshoot using simple calculations. The advantage of this procedure is that it avoids tedious and cost effective modelling and identification procedures. The objective of this research is to design PI/PID controller for low order systems and to reduce their overshoot by employing set point filters. The system can be made stabilized by restructuring loops. Several examples comprising of FOPDT, SOPDT, Integrating and unstable systems are chosen to implement the present method and results are achieved in this study. The controllers are implemented in double feedback loop. The inner feedback loop stabilizes the loop while the outer loop provides enhanced performance to the closedloop system. This is again augmented with a setpoint filter. Thus the entire paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses principle of designing proposed PID controller. Results and discussions are presented in Section 3. Closedloop results related to setpoint changes are discussed in this section. Results related to load disturbance, measurement noise and stability analysis are also proposed in section. Experiments on real time system is presented in Section 4. Conclusion is drawn at the end.
2. IMCPID design
The closed loop structure of the proposed scheme is shown in Fig. 1 where G _{p} is the process transfer function (either stable or unstable or integrating type) with a , b , c , d, f , g as constant coefficients and G _{c} _{1} and G _{c} _{2} are two controllers. Here, G _{c} _{1} = K _{c} _{1} (a proportional controller). The inner loop controller, G _{c} _{1} is proportional controller alone. It is used to stabilize the process and is tuned by either relay feedback method or Ziegler–Nichols method. The outer loop G _{c} _{2} is obtained by IMC method that is explained below. Let us consider a process with general transfer function given as
G p = k _{p} ( fs + g )e ^{−} ^{d}^{s}
as ^{2} + bs + c
^{.}
(1)
For the innerloop, closed loop transfer function is given by,
G _{p} _{1} =
^{y}
^{r} 1
=
k (fs + g )e
−
ds
as ^{2} + bs + c + k(fs + g )e ^{−} ^{d}^{s}
^{(}^{2}^{)}
where, k = k _{c} _{1} ∗ k _{p} . Let the desired closed loop transfer function for the entire block diagram become,
G
^{D}
Cl
^{=}
_{e} − ds
( ms + 1)( ns + 1 ) ^{.}
^{(}^{3}^{)}
Here, m = λ and n = 0 for first order system and m = n = λ for the second order system. λ is a tuning parameter used for tuning k _{c} , τ _{I} and τ _{D} . It is also considered as a time constant of simple set point filter [22].
Fig. 1.
Basic structure of proposed scheme for closedloop control.
So the outer controller G _{c} _{2} is given by,
^{G} c 2 ^{=}
1
G
^{D}
Cl
^{G}
p 1
(1 − G ^{D} Cl ^{)} ^{.}
(4)
Substituting Eqs. (2) and (3) in Eq. (4),
G c 2 =
as ^{2} + bs + c + k(fs + g )e ^{−} ^{d}^{s}
×
k (fs + g )
1
^{} (ms + 1)( ns + 1) − e ^{−} ^{d}^{s} ^{} ^{.}
^{(}^{5}^{)}
The time delay can be expanded in an infinite series as e ^{−} ^{d}^{s} =
1 − ds + ^{d} ^{2} ^{s} ^{2}
2! ^{−}
_{d}
3 _{s} 3
3
!
+ · · ·.
So, Eq. (5) becomes as in Box I.
Simply G _{c} _{2} can be written as,
_{G} c 2 _{=} φ(s )
s
(7)
where, φ(s ) is defined as in Box II. Expanding Eq. (7) according to Laurent series [8]
_{G} c 2 _{=} φ(s )
_{s}
= ^{1} _{s} · · · + φ(0) + φ ^{′} (0) s + ^{φ} ^{′}^{′} ^{(}^{0}^{)} ^{s} ^{2} + · · · . !
2
(9)
The standard form of PID controller is,
G _{c} = k _{c} 1 + ^{1} s + τ _{D} s .
τ
I
(10)
Comparing coefficients of s terms of Eqs. (9) and (10) as ex plained in [8,20] one obtains
k _{c} = φ ^{′} (0 )
τ _{I} = _{φ}_{(}_{0} _{)} and τ _{D} = ^{φ} ^{′}^{′} ^{(}^{0}^{)}
k
c
2k _{c}
.
(11)
Substituting s = 0, in Eq. (8) and in its derivatives one gets
N
D
N _{1} ∗ D − D _{1} ∗ N
D
^{2}
φ(0) =
φ ^{′} ( 0) =
_{φ} _{′}_{′} _{(}_{0} _{)} _{=} D( N _{2} ∗ D − D _{2} ∗ N ) − 2D _{1} ( N _{1} ∗ D − D _{1} ∗ N )
D
^{3}
(12)
(13)
(14)
where, k =
2a + d ^{2} kg − 2dkf
k _{c} _{1} ∗ k _{p} ; N
=
c + kg; N _{1}
=
b − dgk + kf ; N _{2}
=
D = k(dg + gm + gn);
D _{1} = k df + fm + fn −
d ^{2} g
2
+ gmn ;
D _{2} = k − d ^{2} f + ^{d} 3 ^{g}
3
+ 2fmn .
Eqs. (11)–(14) can be used to compute PID parameters. Here λ is used to tune the PID parameter which also used as filter time constant in setpoint filter. Same value of λ is to be used both in PID parameters and setpoint filter to get less ITAE value.
516
V. Vijayan, R.C. Panda / ISA Transactions 51 (2012) 514–521
as ^{2} + bs + c + k( fs + g ) e ^{−} ^{d}^{s} 
(6) 

G c 2 = 
sk dg + gm + gn + s df + fm + fn − ^{d} ^{2} ^{g} 2 + 
gmn + s ^{2} − ^{d} ^{2} ^{f} 2 _{+} d ^{3} g 6 + fmn . 

Box I. 

as ^{2} + bs + c + k(fs + g )e ^{−} ^{d}^{s} 
(8) 

φ(s ) = 
k dg + gm + gn + s df + fm + fn − ^{d} ^{2} ^{g} 2 + 
gmn + s ^{2} − ^{d} ^{2} ^{f} 2 _{+} d ^{3} g 6 + fmn . 
3. Results and discussion
Box II.
The examples considered for simulation are selected from stable, unstable and integrating type processes and are provided in Table 1. Process types or examples, methods of tuning, PID parameters, filters and performance values are provided in the Table 1. Fig. 2 contains setpoint responses (closedloop) for different examples considered in Table 1. Detailed results with different examples are given as follows:
Example 1a (Stable FOPDT Process). An example of a stable FOPDT
process [22] having transfer function (Table 1), G(s ) =
is chosen for study. Comparing this transfer function with that of Eq. (1), we find, k _{p} = 1 , d = 2, f = 0, g = 1, a = 0 , b = 1c = 1. Naturally, in this case, m = λ and n = 0. Using relay feedback method, a proportional controller is designed with k _{c} _{1} = 0.76 for the inner loop. This will make the loop to respond faster. Using all the above values in Eqs. (11)–(14), the PID parameters will be obtained. The λ value is adjusted simultaneously both in PID equation (11) and in setpoint filter until it produces less ITAE values. Thus, PID parameters are obtained as k _{c} = 0.3147, τ _{I} = 0.3942, τ _{D} = 1.7141. Using present method, a setpoint filter is designed with λ = 0.9. The overshoot obtained with the present method is 1.023. Zhang [22] reported PID controller parameters as
k _{c} = 0. 91, τ _{I} = 2 .75, τ _{D} = 0.68 and obtained a peak overshoot of
1.022.
1
s+ 1 ^{e} − 2s
Example 1b (Unstable FOPDT Process). We consider an unstable FOPDT process [15,22] having transfer function (Table 1), G _{p}
=
. Comparing this transfer function with that of Eq. (1), we get,
_{e} −0 .5s
s− 1
k _{p} = 1, d = 0.5, f = 0, g = 1, a = 0, b = 1, c = − 1. Since this is first order system m = λ and n = 0 are assumed. The value of proportional controller constant, k _{c} _{1} = 1.268 of inner is obtained by Ziegler–Nichols method. It is a simple proportional controller used in the inner loop to make the system stable and at the same time to achieve faster response. By substituting all the above values in Eqs. (11)–(14), then adjusting the tuning parameter λ the PID parameters will be obtained. The λ is adjusted simultaneously both in PID equation (11) and in setpoint filter until it produces less ITAE values. Thus, the obtained PID parameters are k _{c} = 0.3533, τ _{I} = 1.5046, τ _{D} = 0. 5166. Using present method, a setpoint filter is designed with λ = 0.4. The overshoot is found to be 1.0014 with the present method. Jung et al. [15] reported PID controller
parameters as k _{c} = 1 .5353, τ _{I} = 7.5753 and obtained a peak overshoot of 1.0044 which is slightly more than the present value. Zhang [22] reported PID controller parameters as k _{c} = 2. 6, τ _{I} = 1.7826, τ _{D} = 0.2473 and obtained a peak overshoot of 1.48895 which is more than the present value.
Example 2 (Stable SOPDT Process). Consider a stable SOPDT process [21] as Example 2 (Table 1) with the PID controller parameters as k _{c} = 9. 8092, τ _{I} = 5.4502, τ _{D} = 1.6898. The peak
overshoot (PO) reported was 1.009. (For the proposed method, the process is converted into the form similar to Eq. (1) with k _{p} = 2 , d = 1, a = 50, b = 15 , c = 1, f = 0, g = 1). Using present method, a setpoint filter is designed with λ = 0. 7. Closed loop simulation resulted as PO of lesser value, 1.0067, and better performance values (Table 1) are obtained compared to Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] who used a second order filter.
Example 3 (SODUP (One Unstable Pole)). As an unstable SODUP process [21], let us take Example 3 as mentioned in Table 1. The PID controller settings used are k _{c} = 6. 7051, τ _{I} = 5.4738,
τ _{D} = 1 .333 and a second order filter with transfer function
_{.}_{4}_{7}_{3}_{8}_{s}_{+} _{1} was used that yielded a PO of 1.03 (Table 1).
Whereas by using the present method, a first order filter was designed whose λ = 0. 6. (For the proposed method, the process is converted into the form similar to Eq. (1) with k _{p} = 1, d = 0 .939, a = 10 .35, b = 2.93 , c = −1, f = 0, g = 1). After the closedloop simulation with same PID settings, better performance values are obtained with less PO value of 1.0065.
G _{F} =
1
.6421s+ 1
7. 2966s ^{2} + 5
Example 4 (SODUP (One Unstable Pole)). As an unstable SODUP
process [23], let us take Example 4 as mentioned in Table 1. The
and the
compensator is c ( s ) = 2 ^{0} ^{.}^{7}^{4}^{6}^{2}^{s}^{+} ^{1} that yielded a PO of 1.0505
PID controller settings used are c _{0} = 0.155 + ^{0}^{.}^{3}^{1}^{4}
_{s}
0
.143s+ 1
(Table 1). Whereas by using the present method, a first order filter was designed whose λ = 0.25. (For the proposed method, the
process is converted into the form of Eq. (1) as k _{p} = 1, d = 0 .5, a = 1, b = 1.5, c = −1 , f = 0, g = 1.) After the closed loop simulation with same PID settings, better performance values are obtained with less PO value of 1.0269.
Example 5 (SOPDT with Inverse Response). Next example is chosen as a SOPDT process with a zero in numerator that often shows inverse response as also was considered by Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21]: The PID parameter was set to be k _{c} = 3.0819, τ _{I} =
1 .6399, τ _{D} = 0 .4295 for this Example 5 and a second order filter
with transfer function G _{F} =
_{1}_{.}_{6}_{3}_{9}_{9}_{s} _{+}_{1} was used. They
obtained a PO of 1.0127 and ITAE of 1.135. (For the proposed method, the process is converted into the form of Eq. (1) as k _{p} = 1 , d = 0 .2, a = 1, b = 2, c = 1, f = − 0 .2, g = 1.) By using the present method, a setpoint filter with time constant λ = 0 .29 is obtained and after simulation, an ITAE value of 1.071 is obtained. Thus the performance of the system is improved by the present method. The performance values for this example are given in Table 1.
1
0.7044s ^{2} +
Example 6 (First Order Delay Integrating Process (FODIP)). Another type of model structure (FODIP) is generally observed in process industries. Due to presence of an integrator, the step response becomes unstable for these systems. Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] used PID settings k _{c} = 0.3593, τ _{I} = 12 .13, τ _{D} = 2. 704 and designed a second order setpoint filter G _{F} =
that yielded a PO of 1.012 and ITAE value of 87.31 whereas using
1
32 .8106s ^{2} + 12 .1304s+ 1
V. Vijayan, R.C. Panda / ISA Transactions 51 (2012) 514–521
Table 1 Resulting performance for examples.
517
Process type 
Method 
PID parameters 
Filter parameters 
Performance 

Stable FOPDT 
k _{c} _{1} = 0 .76, 
IAE = 3.816 

Example 1a G _{p} = 1 s + 1 ^{e} −2s 
Proposed 
0.3147, τ _{I} = 0. 3942, τ _{D} = 1.7141 k _{c} = 
λ 
= 0 .9, G = F 0. 
1 9s +1 
ISE = 3.071 ITAE = 8.778 PO = 1.023 

k _{c} = 0.91, τ _{I} = 2. 75, 
1 
. 26s 2 
+ 
1. 47s + 1 
IAE = 3.51 ISE = 2.634 ITAE = 9.477 PO = 1.022 IAE = 1.202 

Zhang [22] 
τ _{D} = 0.68 
1 
.26s 2 
+ 
1. 86s + 1 

Unstable FOPDT 
k _{c} _{1} = 1 .268, 

Example 1b 
Proposed 
k _{c} = 
0.3533, 
λ 
= 0 .4, G F = 0. 
1 
ISE = 0.926 

G p = 
_{e} − 0 .5s 
4s +1 
ITAE = 0.8572 PO = 1.0014 IAE = 2.654 ISE = 2.002 ITAE = 4.645 PO = 1.0044 IAE = 1.355 

s −1 
τ _{I} = 1. 5046, τ _{D} = 0.5166 k _{c} = 1.5353, 

Jung et al. [15] 
τ _{I} = 
7. 5753 
G 
1 

F = 
7 . 5753s +1 

k _{c} = 2.6, 

Zhang [22] 
τ _{I} = 1. 7826, τ _{D} = 0.2473 
G 
0. 4409s 2 +0 . 6906s +1 
ISE = 0.8738 

F 
= 
0 . 4409s 2 +1 . 7826s +1 
ITAE = 1.619 PO = 1.48895 

SOPDT (stable) 
k _{c} _{1} = 3 .6568, 
IAE = 3.0582 

Example 2 
Proposed 
k _{c} = 
0.4399, 
λ 
= 0 .7, G F = 0. 
1 
ISE = 2.3466 

G _{p} = 
_{2}_{e} − 1s 
7s +1 
ITAE = 5.77 PO = 1.0067 IAE = 4.174 

( 
10s + 1)( 5s + 1) 
τ _{I} = 0. 9287 τ _{D} = 6.8788, k _{c} = 9.8092, 

Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] 
τ _{I} = 5. 4502, τ _{D} = 1.6898 
G 
1 . 6351s +1 
ISE = 3.058 

F 
= 
9 . 2099s 2 +5 . 4502s +1 
ITAE = 10.89 PO = 1.009 

SODUP 
k _{c} _{1} = 1 .3965, 
IAE = 2.6663 

Example 3 
Proposed 
k _{c} = 
0.5469, 
λ 
= 0 .6, G F = 0. 
1 
ISE = 2.0924 

G _{p} = 
_{e} − 0. 9 3 9 s 
6s +1 
ITAE = 4.2817 PO = 1.0065 IAE = 3.244 

( 
5s −1 )(2 . 07s+ 1 ) 
τ _{I} = 4. 1202, τ _{D} = 6.7344 k _{c} = 6.7051, 

Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] 
τ _{I} = 5. 4738, τ _{D} = 1.333 
G 
1 . 6421s +1 
ISE = 2.389 

F 
= 
7 . 2966s 2 +5 . 4738s +1 
ITAE = 6.846 PO = 1.03 

SODUP 
k _{c} _{1} = 1 .3977, 
IAE = 1.2 

Example 4 
Proposed 
k _{c} = 
0.591, 
λ 
= 0 .25 , G F = 
1 
ISE = 0.9456 

G _{p} = 
_{e} −0 .5s 
0 
. 25s+ 1 
ITAE = 0.9523 PO = 1.0269 IAE=1.955 

( 
0 . 5s + 1)( 2s −1 ) 
τ _{I} = 2. 077, τ _{D} = 1.4746 

Nie et al. [23] 
_{c} _{0} _{=} _{0} _{.}_{1}_{5}_{5} _{+} ^{0}^{.} ^{3}^{1}^{4} s 
_{c} _{(} _{s}_{)} _{=} _{2} 0. 7462s + 1 0. 143s+ 1 
ISE = 1.418 ITAE = 2.893 PO = 1.0505 

SOPDTZ 
k _{c} _{1} = 2 .4438, 
IAE = 1.1532 

Example 5 
Proposed 
k _{c} = 
0.7493, 
λ 
= 0 .29 , G F = 
1 
ISE = 0.8606 

− 
0 .2s 
0 
. 29s+ 1 
ITAE = 1.071 PO = 1.0359 IAE = 1.395 

_{G} p _{=} ( − 0. 2s+ 1 )e (1s +1 )(1s _{+}_{1} _{)} 
τ _{I} = 0. 4147, τ _{D} = 0.9562 k _{c} = 3.0819, 

Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] 
τ _{I} = 1. 6399, τ _{D} = 0.4295 
G 
1 
ISE = 1.106 ITAE = 1.135 PO = 1.0127 IAE = 10.5646 

F 
= 
0 . 7044s 2 +1 . 6399s +1 

FOIPDT 
k _{c} _{1} = 0 .1318, 

Example 6 
Proposed 
k _{c} = 
0.4909, 
λ 
= 2 .1, G F = 2. 
1 
ISE = 8.3239 

G _{p} = 
_{1}_{e} − 4s 
1s +1 
ITAE = 69.907 PO = 1.0135 

s ( 4s+ 1) 
τ _{I} = 4. 0251, τ _{D} = 9.6422 

k _{c} = 0.3593, 
IAE = 12.33 

Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] 
τ _{I} = 12 .13, τ _{D} = 2.704 
G 
1 
ISE = 9.897 

F 
= 
32 .8106s 2 + 12. 1304s +1 
ITAE = 87.04 PO = 1.012 
518
V. Vijayan, R.C. Panda / ISA Transactions 51 (2012) 514–521












Fig. 2.
Closed loop responses of various process (examples are taken from Table 1).
present procedure, the filter is designed with λ
the proposed method, the process is converted into the form of Eq. (1) as k _{p} = 1, d = 4 , a = 4, b = 1, c = 0, f = 0, g = 1.)
2. 1. (For
=
After simulating the performance is obtained as ITAE = 69.907. Thus improved performance values are obtained and are reported in Table 1.
V. Vijayan, R.C. Panda / ISA Transactions 51 (2012) 514–521
519
Table 2 Performance for closedloop scheme with present controller for load disturbance.
Method 
IAE 
ISE 
ITAE 
Proposed Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] 
0.3816 
0.05722 
0.8023 
0.5402 
0.09955 
1.174 
3.1. Load disturbance
Load changes frequently occur in process industries. Distur bance rejection is a major criterion in chemical process control. Evaluating the performance of the controller under load changes is an important consideration in judging the suitability of con troller. Process model (Example 5) is subjected to load disturbance of unity with controller in the closed loop. First G _{c} _{1} is designed (K _{C} _{1} = 2.4438) by ZN method to stabilize inner loop. Second, G _{c} _{2} is designed by IMCPID method. Simultaneously, both setpoint filter and G _{c} _{2} are tuned by varying the lambda. Lambda is being used as time constant of setpoint filter and tuning parameter of IMCPID filter. The filter ( λ) and PID parameters (k _{C} = 0.7493, τ _{I} = 0.4147 and τ _{D} = 0 .9562) are given in Table 1. Fig. 3 shows the closedloop performance for this disturbance rejection case. It can be seen that the present controller is able to eliminate the effect due to the said disturbance much faster compared to the same by using controller proposed by Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21]. The present method gives an IAE (Table 2) of value = 0.3816 against the same (IAE = 0.5402) obtained by Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] proving the superiority of the method over others. The performance values show that present method works better even for load disturbance which is shown in Table 2.
3.2. Presence of measurement noise
Measurement noise is a common problem in almost all process industries. Ability of tracking the set point under measurement noise is also a test to evaluate the goodness/suitability of a controller for controlling the process. A process model (Example 5) is selected for this purpose. Accuracy of the presently proposed method was rationalized by employing a white random noise with a noise to signal ratio (NSR) of 0.001 at the output level. The noisy measured output data were feedback (negative) to the comparator and error between measured data and set point were fed to the controller (G _{c} _{2} ). The process output is shown in Fig. 4 which reveals that the present method is able to design controller that can efficiently overcome the effects of measurement noise.
3.3. Stability analysis
For an open loop unstable process, the output (y) keeps on increasing/decreasing for a change in the input variable (u). An IMC controller can make the closedloop stable if the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) G _{P} _{1} = ^{G} ^{P} ^{G} ^{C} ^{1} _{C} 1 must be stable, (2) (1 − G _{P} _{1} G ^{I}^{M}^{C} ) G _{P} _{1} should
be stable. Thus according to condition (2) above, the unstable poles of G _{P} must be cancelled by zeros of G ^{I}^{M}^{C} and according to condition (3), the unstable poles of G _{P} _{1} must be cancelled by zeros of (1 −
). As the proposed controller is of PID type, the closedloop
characteristic equation,
(15)
will hold good for analysing the stability of the closed loop system
(while the open loop process is unstable). Let, G _{P} (s ) = ^{K} ^{P} ^{e} ^{−} ^{D} ^{P} ^{s}
rewriting in the form of Eq. (1)
1 + G _{P} (s ) G _{C} ( s ) = 0
1 + G _{P} G
C
C
_{G} P 1 _{G} IMC
C
τ _{P} s− 1 ^{,}
G _{P} (s ) =
_{K} P _{e} − ds
bs − 1 ^{,}
where, k = k _{c} _{1} ∗ k _{p}
G _{p} _{1} =
^{y}
_{k}_{e} − ds
=
^{r}
1
bs − 1 + ke ^{−} ^{d}^{s}
G _{C} (s ) =
_{K} _{C} _{τ} _{D} _{s} ^{2} + K _{C} s + ^{K} ^{C}
τ I
^{=}
r _{1} s ^{2} + r _{2} s + r _{3}
s
s
(16)
where, r _{1} = K _{C} τ _{D} , r _{2} = K _{C} , r _{3} = ^{K} ^{C}
τ I ^{.} The closed loop characteristics equation is given by, 1 + G _{C} (s )G _{p} (s ) = 0, expanding exponential delay term up to first five terms (neglecting remaining higher order terms), we get
p _{6} s ^{6} + p _{5} s ^{5} + p _{4} s ^{4} + p _{3} s ^{3} + p _{2} s ^{2} + p _{1} s + p _{0} = 0
where,
p _{0} = kr _{3} ,
p _{1} = k + kr _{2} − dkr _{3} − 1 ,
p _{2} =
p _{3} =
p _{4} =
p _{5} =
p _{6} =
b − dk + kr _{1} + ^{d} 2 ^{k}^{r} ^{3} 2 
− 
dkr _{2} 

d ^{2} k 
+ d ^{2} kr _{2} 
^{−} 
d ^{3} kr _{3} 
− 
dkr _{1} , 

2 
2 
6 

d ^{2} kr _{1} 
^{−} 
d ^{3} k 
d ^{3} kr _{2} 
+ 
d ^{4} kr _{3} 

2 d ^{4} k 
^{−} 
6 ^{−} + d ^{3} kr _{1} 
6 d ^{4} kr _{2} 
^{−} 
24 d ^{5} kr _{3} 

24 
6 
24 
120 ^{,} 

d ^{4} kr _{1} 
d ^{5} k 
d ^{5} kr _{2} 

24 
^{−} 
120 
^{−} 
120 
(17)
520
V. Vijayan, R.C. Panda / ISA Transactions 51 (2012) 514–521
Table 3 Values of perturbations on parameters of system for testing stability.
System 
Process Gain 
Time constant 
Time delay 
All process parameters simultaneously 

G( s ) = ^{e} ^{−} ^{0}^{.} ^{5}^{s} s − 1 
±98% 
±100% 
±10% 
±90%, ±90%, ±10% 148 181 

Frequency range (r/s) 
674 832 
9054.8 
4199 
Fig. 5.
Nyquist image for four Kharitonov’s polynomial.
as lower bound
and p
According to Kharitonov’s theorem, every polynomial (character istic equation) in the interval family will be stable (Hurwitz) if the following four Kharitonov polynomials are Hurwitz.
are defined in interval p ^{L}
, 6.
_{i}
≤ p _{i} ≤ p
i
U
with p ^{L}
i
U
i
as upper bound of parameters p _{i} where i = 0, 1, 2 ,
K _{1}_{1} (s ) = p ^{L} K _{1}_{2} (s ) = p ^{L} K _{2}_{1} (s ) = p K _{2}_{2} (s ) = p
_{0}
_{0}
U
0
U
0
+ p ^{L} + p ^{U} + p ^{L} + p ^{U}
1
1
1
s
s
+ p
+ p
U
2
s ^{2} + p
U
2
s ^{2} + p ^{L}
U
3
s ^{3} + p ^{L}
_{3} s ^{3} +
_{4} s ^{4} +
_{4} s ^{4} +
p ^{L}
s ^{4} +
_{5} s ^{5} + · · ·
p ^{L}
s ^{5} +
p
U
5
·
p _{5} ^{L} s ^{5} + · · ·
·
·
+
·
·
·
.
(18)
(19)
(20)
1
s
+ p _{2} ^{L} s ^{2} + p
U
3
s + p ^{L}
_{2} s ^{2} + p ^{L}
s ^{3} + p
U
4
(21)
As the process parameters (K _{P} , τ _{P} , D _{P} ) are perturbed, closed loop stability changes accordingly the coefficients of Eq. (17) changes. Since the characteristic equation is of 6th order, the value set will move through 3 quadrants in a counterclockwise direction and exclude the origin if the family is robustly stable. Fig. 5 shows that the value sets of characteristic polynomial (9) that is Hurwitz. It describes that Nyquist image of set of all polynomials of Eq. (17) is always bounded by a rectangle whose corners are constructed from the Nyquist images of the four Kharitonov’s polynomials (Eqs. (18)–(21)). The four corner points denote 4 equations (upper left (Eq. (19)), upper right (Eq. (21)), lower left (Eq. (18)), and lower right (Eq. (20))). It can be easily seen that the Nyquist image of the vertex polynomials starts at 3rd quadrant and slowly moves without passing through origin. With increase in level of perturbations (on k _{p} ± 90%, on τ _{p} ± 90% and on time delay ± 10%) on parameters of the chosen system. These results on robustness ability of the controller to parametric changes are shown in Table 3. The image (Fig. 5) tries to move towards 3rd quadrant, ensuring the polynomial as Hurwitz till a maximum frequency of 148 181 rad/s.
_{3} s ^{3} + p s ^{4} + p
U
4
U
5
s ^{5}
4. Realtime test
The coupled tanks setup (Fig. 6a) is a model of a liquid storage system in process industries. Often tanks are coupled through connecting pipes. These storage facilities contain fluids where the reactant level and flow are to be controlled. Water is chosen as the
Fig. 6a.
Experimental setup for two interacting tank level control system.
Fig. 6b. 
Schematic of experimental setup for two interacting tank level control 
system. 
fluid. The experiment setup of coupled tanks is designed so that the system can be configured. The 33041 coupled tank system is interfaced with computer through MATLAB/SIMULINK and an Advantech PCI 1711 data acquisition interface card. The setup has four translucent tanks each with a pressure sensor to measure the water levels. Two of the liquid level tanks of 3.7 litres capacity each are connected in series (Fig. 6b) where the exit flow from 1st tank enters 2nd tank and level (h _{2} ) is measured and controlled in 2nd tank by manipulating flow rate of liquid in 1st tank. The input is the voltage given to the pump through pump control unit. The Differential pressure type level transmitter is used to measure the level in the tank. To measure the level in both tanks, two DPT type level transmitters are implemented at the bottom of the tanks. The hand valve HV1 and HV3 are introduced in the pipe to adjust the inflow and outflow respectively. The card gives 0–5 V output corresponding to the level 0–25 cm in the tank. The sampling time used here is 0.1 s. The controlled inputs are voltage applied to pumps so as to adjust the feed flow rate in 1st tank. The maximum excitation for 100% actuator output is restricted to 3.5 V for corresponding maximum flow rate of 4907 . 8 cm ^{3} / min. For openloop studies, the level is set at 12 cm in the second tank. The nominal flow for this 12 cm is maintained at 1654 .5 cm ^{3} /min (equivalent to an excitation of 2.2 V to the pump). Step test is
V. Vijayan, R.C. Panda / ISA Transactions 51 (2012) 514–521
521
Fig. 7. Comparison of closedloop real time control of liquidlevel in two interacting tanks (in series) with setpoint filter (present method with solid line; Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21], dash–dot line).
5. Conclusion
A simple first order setpoint filter and a new IMC based PID tuning rule is proposed for open loop low order processes. The tuning parameter lambda (λ ) that is used for tuning the
PID controller is used as filter time constant. According to
design objectives, the peak overshoot is reduced and better
closed loop performances like IAE, ISE, and ITAE were obtained. Several practical processes are selected to implement the proposed strategy and it has been found that the method works satisfactorily. The controller efficiently tracks set point and gives desired load disturbance properties. Results of the stability analysis show that the present method is able to provide overall closedloop stability for an open loop system. The set point filter offers a value addition in yielding better performances over other controllers available in the literature. This design method is very simple to implement. The controller has been tested for disturbance rejection and performance under the presence of measurement noise has been found satisfactory.
Table 4 Comparison of realtime closedloop performance details for the control of liquid level in twointeracting tanks.
Shamsuzzoha and Lee [21] 
Proposed 

ITAE 
1 .294 × 10 ^{5} 
8.652 × 10 ^{4} 

ISE 
7382 
6967 

IAE 
1062 
943.3 

Overshoot of PV in % 
2.4592 
0.7130 

Filter = 
1 . 17s +1 
K _{C} = 0 .5435, τ _{i} = 25 .118, τ _{D} = 2.1008, λ = 0. 5 Filter = ^{1} 

Controller 
10. 37s ^{2} +5 . 
_{8}_{5}_{s} _{+}_{1} 

details 
Compensator = ^{0}^{.} ^{0}^{3}^{3}^{3}^{s} ^{+} ^{1} 0. 4261s + 
1 

0 
. 5s +1 
K _{C} =
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.