Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

2010 IEEE 26-th Convention of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel

Non Linear PID and its application in Process Control

Guy Zaidner, Sammy Korotkin, Eli Shteimberg, Amir Ellenbogen, Meir Arad and Yosef Cohen Nuclear Research Center - Negev, P.O.B 9001, Beer - Sheva, Israel

Abstract In the last four decades, the proportional, integral and derivative (PID) controller remains by far the most widely used in industry and continues to be an important method in control engineering, along with high control performance requirements, advanced control techniques are needed. Since 90 percent of applied control technique among industry is related to PID, any improvement of this technique may result a big impact on all related industrial processes [1]. Furthermore, it is well known that most of the industrial processes are nonlinear and inherit long time delay i.e. thermal, pressure, P.H and flow. Since the conventional PID is a linear controller it is efficient only for a limited operating range when applying in nonlinear processes. During the last two decades, a nonlinear PID forms has been developed. This paper reviews one of the nonlinear PID methods, suggests an optional tuning rules accompanied with simulation results and the implementation in Programmable Logic Controller (PLC).

Index TermsPID, NPID, Gain-Scheduling, PLC.

I.

INTRODUCTION

The conventional PID is the most common control scheme used in industry and considered as simple to implement and affective in broad range of linear process. The conventional PID has two types of representation:

= +

+

̇

= +

+ ̇

(1)

(2)

Where represent the error between the desired output and the process value. The integral of the error functions as accumulator to achieve better tracking. The derivative of the error reveals the rate of change in the error helping to prevent overshoot. Nevertheless, the differential control is carefully used in order to prevent noise amplification by the derivative part. However, since most of the industrial processes are nonlinear, and inherit long time delay the conventional PID is efficient only for a limited operating range. Processes such as thermal, pressure P.H and flow has nonlinear characteristic and long time delay making it difficult to control based on classic methods. For such processes, achieving the

mathematical model is not easy; therefore using a Model Based Control (MBC) is almost not possible. Commonly, when applying in industry, the proportional, integral and derivative gains are usually scheduled according to the process value (PV) and the magnitude of the error in order to overcome the nonlinearity of the plant. This method called gain-scheduling. The disadvantage of this method is that the finding of the optimal set of gains based on many empirical tests which are time consuming. Moreover, the conventional PID has a limited robustness to uncertainties in the model parameters i.e. gain and time delay. During the past two decades several types of enhanced PID controllers have been introduced for industrial control. One is the nonlinear PID (NPID) as introduced by HAN (1994) [2]. The main idea was to create continuous dynamic nonlinear function instead of gain-scheduling by creating a nonlinear

gain function with combination of ,

and ̇ to achieve a

better tracking and better noise rejection. It is achieved by creating a small linear area in the nonlinear function when is near zero. This paper describes one of the main algorithms for NPID controller, its application in industrial control [3] and basic tuning methods of NPID accompanied by experimental results. Furthermore, this paper describes the implementation of NPID algorithm in Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) which is commonly used in industry.

II. MATHEMATICAL APPROACH

As previously discussed, the main algorithm of the NPID controller is based on a nonlinear function as inherent part of the controller. The main goal is to achieve a desired response in the output of the plant when conventional PID could not achieve it. Therefore, the PID has been reconstructed using a nonlinear function as follows:

= , ∝ , +

( , ∝ , ) + ( , ∝ , )

(3)

978-1-4244-8682-3/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE

000574

Where ( , , ) is the nonlinear function:

( , , ) = | | ( , ),

| | | |

>

(4)

, , are the controller gains and they having the same meaning as the PID gains. The error expressions are:

=

= ∫

= ̇

(5)

Obviously, this controller has much more degrees of freedom (DOF) making it much more designable but still more complex to tune.

it much more designable but still more complex to tune. Fig. 1- Illustration of NPID function

Fig. 1- Illustration of NPID function [4]

The method described below is the general form of NPID scheme. Yet, simpler forms can be achieved by selecting some parameters properly and by that decreasing the DOF making it easier to tune.

and by that decreasing the DOF making it easier to tune. Fig. 2- Basic NPID implementation

Fig. 2- Basic NPID implementation

It can be shown that a selection of ∝= 1 and =0 will lead to the conventional PID form. Selection of different of each gain, will lead to different behavior of the controller. The parameters are conventionally the error weighting. Since the motivation for designing such a controller is the demand for a better performance in transient period and over steady state, the design of the parameters need to be focused on the desired response of the controller when error is around zero and when the error is larger than normal error. This behavior is achieved

by the parameter . This parameter defines the linear area in the nonlinear function where the controller acts like a conventional PID. A proper selection of will also affect the

behavior of the controller. The parameter needs to be chosen under consideration of the desired response of the proportional, integral and derivative parts according to disadvantage of the conventional PID.

TABLE I

NPID PARAMETERS EFFECT

Parameter

Value

Effect

< 1

Smaller gain as error is large, not sensitive to small error.

 

> 1

Higher gain when error is large, higher gain when error is small and by that more sensitive to small changes.

1 < < 0

Solving integral windup problem by reducing the integral action when error is large.

>

1

Make the differential gain small when the error is small which results in less sensitivity to noise.

The main considerations that should be taken:

In order to achieve more sensitivity to small errors of the proportional term should be larger than 1. In order to overcome the integral windup problem should be −1 < ∝ < 0. This will reduce the integral action when the error is large, better performance could be achieved even if the model includes dead time. In order to overcome noise perturbation over steady state should be larger than one. It will make the differential gain small when the error is small. Further rules of how might each parameter affect the output are shown

in Table I.

III. SIMULATION RESULTS

A. PID and NPID Controllers tuning

The NPID controller has been implemented in PLC and tested on the following 2 nd order system model:

̇

̇

=

0

−1/1432

−0.127

1

+

6

0

(6)

Its performance compared to the performance of the conventional PID controller. First an optimal tuning of PID has been made based on simplex search optimization and according to step response. Then, the parameters of the NPID controller have been set by trial and error.

000575

TABLE II

PID AND NPID TUNED PARAMETERS

Kp

Ki

Ki

19

0.01515

0.1676

1.1

1.3

1.6

0

Where , , are the PID and NPID gains. The

Notice

that there was a difference between the recommended and the calculated one. The reason is that the basic form of NPID with =0 has been used. The basic form seems to be sufficient enough. As shown in Fig.3 the NPID has lower overshoot and shorter settling time, without significant increasing of rise time.

, ∝ , ∝ and are the NPID controller parameters.

, ∝ , ∝ and are the NPID controller parameters. Fig. 3- Step response tuning B.

Fig. 3- Step response tuning

B. Desired trajectory The controllers have been tested for the desired trajectory.

The controllers have been tested for the desired trajectory. Fig. 4- Desired trajectory response The simulation

Fig. 4- Desired trajectory response

The simulation shows that the NPID controller tracks the reference signal much better than the optimal tuned PID controller (Fig.4).

C. Robustness with Dead time

In order to represent the real plant, a various delay time has been added (Fig.5). The results show that the NPID controller has much more robustness to delay. The tolerable range of time delay in PID is 0-4 seconds compared to 0-10 second range in the NPID. Beyond six seconds delay the PID response has been dispersed.

In order to overcome the dispersion of PID response, new tuning has to be done. The problem is that the new tuning does

not longer feet the non-delayed model.

the new tuning does not longer feet the non-delayed model. Fig. 5- System with delay D.

Fig. 5- System with delay

D. Robustness to uncertainties

Since the model is not always accurate and there are possibilities of model parameters changes during the system lifetime, robustness to uncertainties in model parameters has been tested.

to uncertainties in model parameters has been tested. Fig. 6- Uncertainty of 25% in the system

Fig. 6- Uncertainty of 25% in the system gain

The NPID controller shows much more robustness to uncertainties and almost has no effect on its performance over 25% changes in parameters. The performance of the PID controller has been dramatically deteriorated (Fig.6).

PID controller has been dramatically deteriorated (Fig.6). Fig. 7- Controllers manipulated variable In general,

Fig. 7- Controllers manipulated variable

In general, achieving a better performance could lead to non- physically controller output therefore in this simulation the appropriate constraints has been considered. The simulation shows (Fig. 7) that there are no dramatic changes in the controller output by using NPID.

000576

E. Stability and control of noisy model

In order to compare the stability of the NPID controller and its noise rejection a white Gaussian noise with variance of eight has been added to the system model. The simulation shows that NPID is much stable with the presence of noise such as PID. The simulation shows almost no improvements when using the NPID compared to the PID (Fig.8). The reason for that might be that the model in used as natural LPF and thus filters the high frequencies noises.

as natural LPF and thus filters the high frequencies noises. Fig. 8- Controlling noisy model IV.

Fig. 8- Controlling noisy model

IV.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed method of the NPID controller suggests an alternative nonlinear implementation of PID which is also based on error instead of model based control. The NPID controller is less depended on the accuracy of the estimated mathematical model, what makes it more robust to uncertainties and delay. This method was discovered to be easy to implement in PLC with relation to other techniques i.e. gain-scheduling, due to its simple mathematics. Basic rules for the controller tuning have been shown where the optimal NPID's parameters were easily found by trial and error. The simulations show that the control signal (controller output signal) has not dramatically changed and does not have non-physically demands. Finally, it can be said that by proper tuning and prior simulations NPID controller seems to be a good alternative to PID (when it is needed) and can have impact on many of industrial controlled processes.

V. FURTHER WORK

Still, further work needs to be done in order to increase noise rejection. According to simulation results, the current NPID controller seems to be as noise sensitive as PID. To achieve better noise rejection, the combination of NPID with TD (Tracking Differentiator) called ADRC [5] is suggested as future work. Stability analysis is also needed to be done as can be found in [6].

REFERENCES

B.G. HU, "NPID-PCA: A Simulation Toolkit of Nonlinear PID control on Scilab/Scicos(c) INRIA-ENPC", 2004.

[2] J. Han, "From PID to Active Disturbance Rejection Control", IEEE Transaction on Industrial Electronics, Vol.56, no.3 march 2009 (translation from Chinese). [3] D.B Ender, "Special nonlinear PID Controllers", Application Manual, ch.6, 2001.

[4]

F. Jiang, Z. Gao, "An Application of Nonlinear PID Control to a

[1]

Class of Truck ABS Problem", Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, On page(s): 516 - 521 vol.1 2001. [5] J. Han and W. Wang, Nonlinear tracking-differentiator, Syst.

[6]

Sci. Math. vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 177183, 1994, (in Chinese)Y. Huang and J. Han, A new synthesis method for uncertain systems- the self stable region approach, Int. J. Systems Sci., 1999, 30 (1):33-39.

000577