Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 66

Practical plantwide process

control: PID tuning

Sigurd Skogestad, NTNU

Thailand, April 2014


Part 2: PID tuning
Part 2 (4h). PID controller tuning: It pays off to be systematic!

1. Obtaining first-order plus delay models


 Open-loop step response
 From detailed model (half rule)
 From closed-loop setpoint response

2 . Derivation SIMC PID tuning rules


 Controller gain, Integral time, derivative time

3. Special topics


 Integrating processes (level control)
 Other special processes and examples
 When do we need derivative action?
 Near-optimality of SIMC PID tuning rules
 Non PID-control: Is there an advantage in using Smith Predictor? (No)

Examples
Operation: Decision and control layers

RTO Min J (economics);


MV=y1s
cs = y1s
MPC CV=y1; MV=y2s

y2s
PID CV=y2; MV=u

u (valves)
PID controller e

 Time domain (“ideal” PID)

 Laplace domain (“ideal”/”parallel” form)

 For our purposes. Simpler with cascade form

 Usually τD=0. Then the two forms are identical.


 Only two parameters left (Kc and τI)
 How difficult can it be to tune???
 Surprisingly difficult without systematic approach!
Trans. ASME, 64, 759-768 (Nov. 1942).

Comment:
Similar to SIMC for integrating
process with ¿c=0:
Disadvantages Ziegler-Nichols: Kc = 1/k’ 1/µ
1.Aggressive settings ¿I = 4 µ
2.No tuning parameter
3.Poor for processes with large time delay (µ)
Disadvantage IMC-PID (=Lambda tuning):
1.Many rules
2.Poor disturbance response for «slow» processes (with large ¿1/µ)
Motivation for developing SIMC
PID tuning rules
1. The tuning rules should be well motivated, and
preferably be model-based and analytically
derived.
2. They should be simple and easy to memorize.
3. They should work well on a wide range of
processes.
SIMC PI tuning rule
1. Approximate process as first-order with delay (e.g., use “half rule”)
 k = process gain
 ¿1 = process time constant
 µ = process delay
2. Derive SIMC tuning rule*:

Open-loop step response

c ¸ - : Desired closed-loop response time (tuning parameter)

Integral time rule combines well-known rules:


IMC (Lamda-tuning): Same as SIMC for small ¿1 (¿I = ¿1)
Ziegler-Nichols: Similar to SIMC for large ¿1 (if we choose ¿c= 0;
aggressive!)
Reference: S. Skogestad, “Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller design”, J.Proc.Control, Vol. 13, 291-309, 2003
(*) “Probably the best simple PID tuning rules in the world”
MODEL

Need a model for tuning


 Model: Dynamic effect of change in input u (MV) on
output y (CV)
 First-order + delay model for PI-control

 Second-order model for PID-control

 Recommend: Use second-order model only if ¿2>µ


MODEL, Approach 1A

1. Step response experiment

 Make step change in one u (MV) at a time


 Record the output (s) y (CV)
MODEL, Approach 1A

Δy(∞)
RESULTING OUTPUT y

STEP IN INPUT u

Δu
: Delay - Time where output does not change
1: Time constant - Additional time to reach
63% of final change
k =  y(∞)/ u : Steady-state gain
MODEL, Approach 1A

Step response integrating process

Δy

Δt
MODEL, Approach 1B

Shams’ method: Closed-loop setpoint response


with P-controller with about 20-40% overshoot
Kc0=1.5
Δys=1

Δy∞
1. OBTAIN DATA IN RED (first overshoot
and undershoot), and then:

tp=2, dyp=1.23; dyu=0.91, Kc0=60, dys=1


Δyp=0.79
dyinf = 0.45*(dyp + dyu)
Δyu=0.54 Mo =(dyp -dyinf)/dyinf % Mo=overshoot (about 0.3)
b=dyinf/dys
A = 1.152*Mo^2 - 1.607*Mo + 1.0
r = 2*A*abs(b/(1-b))

%2. OBTAIN FIRST-ORDER MODEL:

k = (1/Kc0) * abs(b/(1-b))
theta = tp*[0.309 + 0.209*exp(-0.61*r)]
tau = theta*r

3. CAN THEN USE SIMC PI-rule


tp=4.4
Example 2: Get k=0.99, theta =1.68, tau=3.03
Ref: Shamssuzzoha and Skogestad (JPC, 2010)
+ modification by C. Grimholt (Project, NTNU, 2010; see also PID-book 2012)
MODEL, Approach 2

2. Model reduction of more complicated model

 Start with complicated stable model on the form

 Want to get a simplified model on the form

 Most important parameter is the “effective” delay 


MODEL, Approach 2
MODEL, Approach 2

Example 1

Half rule
MODEL, Approach 2

original

1st-order+delay
MODEL, Approach 2

half rule
MODEL, Approach 2

original

1st-order+delay

2nd-order+delay
MODEL, Approach 2

Approximation of zeros To make these rules more general

c
(and not only applicable to the
choice c=): Replace  (time
c c delay) by c (desired closed-loop
c response time). (6 places)

c
c

Alternative and improved method forf approximating zeros:


Simple Analytic PID Controller Tuning Rules Revisited
J Lee, W Cho, TF Edgar - Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2014, 53 (13), pp 5038–5047
SIMC-tunings

Derivation of SIMC-PID tuning rules

 PI-controller (based on first-order model)

 For second-order model add D-action.


For our purposes, simplest with the “series” (cascade) PID-form:
SIMC-tunings

Basis: Direct synthesis (IMC)

Closed-loop response to setpoint change

Idea: Specify desired response:

and from this get the controller. ……. Algebra:


SIMC-tunings

NOTE: Setting the steady-state gain = 1 in T will result in integral action in the controller!
SIMC-tunings

IMC Tuning = Direct Synthesis


Algebra:
SIMC-tunings

Integral time
 Found: Integral time = dominant time constant (I = 1) (IMC-rule)
 Works well for setpoint changes
 Needs to be modified (reduced) for integrating disturbances

d
u y
c g

Example. “Almost-integrating process” with disturbance at input:


G(s) = e-s/(30s+1)
Original integral time I = 30 gives poor disturbance response
Try reducing it!
SIMC-tunings

Integral Time
I = 1

Reduce I to this value:


I = 4 (c+) = 8 

Setpoint change at t=0 Input disturbance at t=20


SIMC-tunings

Integral time
 Want to reduce the integral time for “integrating”
processes, but to avoid “slow oscillations” we must require:

 Derivation:

 Setpoint response: Improve (get rid of overshoot) by “pre-


filtering”, y’s = f(s) ys.

Details: See www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/publications/2003/tuningPID Remark 13 II


SIMC-tunings

Conclusion: SIMC-PID Tuning Rules

One tuning parameter: c


SIMC-tunings

Some insights from tuning rules


1. The effective delay θ (which limits the achievable closed-loop
time constant τc) is independent of the dominant process time
constant τ1!
 It depends on τ2/2 (PI) or τ3/2 (PID)

2. Use (close to) P-control for integrating process


 Beware of large I-action (small τI) for level control

3. Use (close to) I-control for fast process (with small time
constant τ1)
4. Parameter variations: For robustness tune at operating point
with maximum value of k’ θ = (k/τ1)θ
Cascade PID -> Ideal PID
SIMC-tunings
SIMC-tunings

Selection of tuning parameter c


Two main cases
1. TIGHT CONTROL:
TIGHT CONTROL: Want “fastest possible
control” subject to having good robustness
• Want tight control of active constraints (“squeeze and shift”)
2. CONTROL: Want “slowest possible
SMOOTH CONTROL:
control” subject to acceptable disturbance rejection
• Want smooth control if fast setpoint tracking is not required, for
example, levels and unconstrained (“self-optimizing”) variables

• THERE ARE ALSO OTHER ISSUES: Input


saturation etc.
TIGHT CONTROL
TIGHT CONTROL

Typical closed-loop SIMC responses with the choice c=


TIGHT CONTROL

Example. Integrating process with delay=1. G(s) = e-s/s.


Model: k’=1, =1, 1=1
SIMC-tunings with c with ==1:

IMC has I=1

Ziegler-Nichols is usually a
bit aggressive

Setpoint change at t=0c Input disturbance at t=20


TIGHT CONTROL

1. Approximate as first-order model with k=1, 1 = 1+0.1=1.1, =0.1+0.04+0.008 = 0.148


Get SIMC PI-tunings (c=): Kc = 1 ¢ 1.1/(2¢ 0.148) = 3.71, I=min(1.1,8¢ 0.148) = 1.1

2. Approximate as second-order model with k=1, 1 = 1, 2=0.2+0.02=0.22, =0.02+0.008 = 0.028


Get SIMC PID-tunings (c=): Kc = 1 ¢ 1/(2¢ 0.028) = 17.9, I=min(1,8¢ 0.028) = 0.224, D=0.22
SMOOTH CONTROL

Tuning for smooth control


 Tuning parameter: c = desired closed-loop response time

 Selecting c= (“tight control”) is reasonable for cases with a relatively large
effective delay 

 Other cases: Select c >  for


 slower control
 smoother input usage
 less disturbing effect on rest of the plant
 less sensitivity to measurement noise
 better robustness

 Question: Given that we require some disturbance rejection.


 What is the largest possible value for c ?
 Or equivalently: The smallest possible value for Kc?

Will derive Kc,min. From this we can get c,max using SIMC tuning rule

S. Skogestad, ``Tuning for smooth PID control with acceptable disturbance rejection'', Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 45 (23), 7817-7822 (2006).
SMOOTH CONTROL

Closed-loop disturbance rejection


d0

-d0

ymax

-ymax
SMOOTH CONTROL

Kc
u

Minimum controller gain for PI-and PID-control:


min |c(j)| = Kc
SMOOTH CONTROL

Rule: Min. controller gain for


acceptable disturbance rejection:

Kc ¸ |u0|/|ymax|
often ~1 (in span-scaled variables)

|ymax| = allowed deviation for output (CV)

|u0| = required change in input (MV) for disturbance rejection (steady state)
= observed change (movement) in input from historical data
SMOOTH CONTROL

Rule: Kc ¸ |u0|/|ymax|

 Exception to rule: Can have lower Kc if


disturbances are handled by the integral action.
 Disturbances must occur at a frequency lower than 1/I
 Applies to: Process with short time constant (1 is small)
and no delay ( ¼ 0).
 For example, flow control
 Then I = 1 is small so integral action is “large”
SMOOTH CONTROL

Summary: Tuning of easy loops


 Easy loops: Small effective delay ( ¼ 0), so closed-
loop response time c (>> ) is selected for “smooth
control”
 ASSUME VARIABLES HAVE BEEN SCALED WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR SPAN SO THAT |u0/ymax| = 1
(approx.).
 Flow control: Kc=0.2, I = 1 = time constant valve
(typically, 2 to 10s; close to pure integrating!)
 Level control: Kc=2 (and no integral action)
 Other easy loops (e.g. pressure): Kc = 2, I = min(4c, 1)
 Note: Often want a tight pressure control loop (so may have
Kc=10 or larger)
Conclusion PID tuning
SIMC tuning rules

1. Tight control: Select c= corresponding to

2. Smooth control. Select Kc ¸

Note: Having selected Kc (or c), the integral time I should be


selected as given above

3. Derivative time: Only for dominant second-order processes


PID: More (Special topics)
1. Integrating processes (level control)
2. Other special processes and examples
3. When do we need derivative action?
4. Near-optimality of SIMC PID tuning rules
5. Non PID-control: Is there an advantage in using Smith
Predictor? (No)

April 4-8, 2004 KFUPM-Distillation Control Course 46


SMOOTH CONTROL LEVEL CONTROL

1. Application of smooth control


 Averaging level control
q V
If you insist on integral action
LC then this value avoids cycling

Reason for having tank is to smoothen disturbances in concentration and flow.


Tight level control is not desired: gives no “smoothening” of flow disturbances.

Proof: 1. Let
|u0| = |q0| – expected flow change [m3/s] (input disturbance)
|ymax| = |Vmax| - largest allowed variation in level [m3]

Minimum controller gain for acceptable disturbance rejection:


Kc ¸ Kc,min = |u0|/|ymax| = |q0| / |Vmax|

2. From the material balance (dV/dt = q – qout), the model is g(s)=k’/s with k’=1.
Select Kc=Kc,min. SIMC-Integral time for integrating process:
I = 4 / (k’ Kc) = 4 |Vmax| / | q0| = 4 ¢ residence time
provided tank is nominally half full and q0 is equal to the nominal flow.
LEVEL CONTROL

More on level control


 Level control often causes problems
 Typical story:
 Level loop starts oscillating
 Operator detunes by decreasing controller gain
 Level loop oscillates even more
 ......
 ???
 Explanation: Level is by itself unstable and
requires control.
LEVEL CONTROL

How avoid oscillating levels?


• Simplest: Use P-control only (no integral action)
• If you insist on integral action, then make sure
the controller gain is sufficiently large
• If you have a level loop that is oscillating then
use Sigurds rule (can be derived):
To avoid oscillations, increase Kc ¢I by factor
f=0.1¢(P0/I0)2
where
P0 = period of oscillations [s]
I0 = original integral time [s]
0.1 ¼ 1/2
LEVEL CONTROL

Case study oscillating level

 We were called upon to solve a problem with


oscillations in a distillation column
 Closer analysis: Problem was oscillating reboiler
level in upstream column
 Use of Sigurd’s rule solved the problem
LEVEL CONTROL
SIMC-tunings

2. Some special cases

One tuning parameter: c


SIMC-tunings
Another special case: IPZ process

 IPZ-process may represent response from steam flow to pressure

 Rule T2:
 SIMC-tunings

These tunings turn out to be almost identical to the tunings given on page 104-106 in the Ph.D.
thesis by O. Slatteke, Lund Univ., 2006 and K. Forsman, "Reglerteknik for processindustrien",
Studentlitteratur, 2005.
3. Derivative action?

Note: Derivative action is commonly used for temperature control loops.


Select D equal to 2 = time constant of temperature sensor
BUT: Improvement possible for pure
time delay process

Optimal PI

θ=1

Time delay process: Setpoint and disturbance responses same + input response same
Pure time delay process
Two “Improved SIMC”-rules that give
optimal for pure time delay process
1. Improved PI-rule (iSIMC PI): Add θ/3 to 1

2. Improved PID-rule (iSIMC PID): Add θ/3 to 2

iSIMC PID is better for integrating process


Integrating process
3
1 −s
i SI M C P I D G(s) = e
Out put s, y
2 s

1
do di
SI M
C
op t P P I
I
0 op t P I D

0 10 20 30 40
T ime, t
0.5

0
Input s, u

− 0.5
SI M
i SI M C P I D

C P
op t P I D
−1 I
I
tP
op
− 1.5
0 10 20 30 40
T ime, t
4. Optimality of SIMC rules
How good are the SIMC-rules compared to optimal PI/PID?
 Multiobjective. Tradeoff between
 Output performance High controller gain (“tight control”)
 Robustness
 Input usage Low controller gain (“smooth control”)
 Noise sensitivity

• Quantification Our choice:


– Output performance:
• Rise time, overshoot, settling time
J = avg. IAE for
• IAE or ISE for setpoint/disturbance setpoint/disturbance
– Robustness: Ms, Mt, GM, PM, Delay margin, …
– Input usage: ||KSGd||, TV(u) for step response
– Noise sensitivity: ||KS||, etc.
Ms = peak sensitivity
Performance (J):

di do

ysp e u + +
y

K (s) G(s)

1.5 1.5
do di
1 1 I AE di
Error, e(t )

Error, e(t )
I AE do
0.5 0.5

T ime, t T ime, t
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10

− 0.5 − 0.5
Robustness (Ms):
Comparison of J vs. Ms for optimal and SIMC for 4 processes

CONCLUSION: i-SIMC almost «Pareto-optimal»


5. Better with IMC, Smith
Predictor or MPC?

 Suprisingly, the answer is:


 NO, worse
The Smith Predictor

Where K is a “normal” PI controller

IMC controller
Special case of Smith Predictor where K is a PI controller with the parameters
tau1 > 0 tau1 = 0
Kc = tau1/(k tau_c) Kc =0
tau_I = tau1 Ki = Kc/tau_I = 1/tau_c
Comparison of J vs. Ms for optimal and SIMC for 4 processes

CONCLUSION: i-SIMC is generally better than IMC & SP!


 In addition: SP & IMC usually have much lower (worse) delay margin
than PI/PID
 Reason: SP & IMC can have multiple GM, PM, DM
 CONCLUSION

 Well-tuned PI or PID is better than Smith Predictor


or IMC!!
 Especially for integrating processes