Scribd
Upload
365 views

Controller Design Based On Transient Response Criteria

This document discusses controller design based on transient response criteria. It describes desirable controller features such as stability, quick response, disturbance rejection, and insensitivity to errors. It presents alternatives for controller design including tuning correlations, closed-loop transfer functions, simulation, and frequency response analysis. It discusses controller synthesis in the time domain using criteria based on a few points or the entire response curve, such as settling time, overshoot, and integral criteria. It also provides examples of designing PI and PID controllers for first-order-plus-dead-time and second-order-plus-dead-time processes using time domain specifications and modeling approximations.

Uploaded by

Vijay Rajaindran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
365 views

Controller Design Based On Transient Response Criteria

This document discusses controller design based on transient response criteria. It describes desirable controller features such as stability, quick response, disturbance rejection, and insensitivity to errors. It presents alternatives for controller design including tuning correlations, closed-loop transfer functions, simulation, and frequency response analysis. It discusses controller synthesis in the time domain using criteria based on a few points or the entire response curve, such as settling time, overshoot, and integral criteria. It also provides examples of designing PI and PID controllers for first-order-plus-dead-time and second-order-plus-dead-time processes using time domain specifications and modeling approximations.

Uploaded by

Vijay Rajaindran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 45

Chapter 12

Controller Design Based


on Transient Response
Criteria

Chapter 12

Desirable Controller Features


0. Stable
1. Quick responding
2. Adequate disturbance rejection
3. Insensitive to model, measurement errors
4. Avoids excessive controller action
5. Suitable over a wide range of operating conditions
Impossible to satisfy all 5 unless self-tuning. Use
optimum sloppiness"

Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Alternatives for Controller Design


1.Tuning correlations most limited to 1st order plus
dead time
2.Closed-loop transfer function - analysis of stability or
response characteristics.
3.Repetitive simulation (requires computer software
like MATLAB and Simulink)
4.Frequency response - stability and performance
(requires computer simulation and graphics)
5.On-line controller cycling (field tuning)

Chapter 12

Controller Synthesis - Time Domain


Time-domain techniques can be classified into two
groups:
(a) Criteria based on a few points in the response
(b) Criteria based on the entire response, or integral
criteria
Approach (a): settling time, % overshoot, rise time, decay
ratio (Fig. 5.10 can be viewed as closed-loop response)

Process model

Ke s
G(s)
s 1

(1st order)

Several methods based on 1/4 decay ratio have been


proposed: Cohen-Coon, Ziegler-Nichols

Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Graphical interpretation of IAE. The shaded area is the IAE value.

Approach (b)
1. Integral ofsquare error (ISE)

ISE e( t ) dt
2

2. Integral of absolute value of error (IAE)

Chapter 12

IAE e( t ) dt
0

3. Time-weighted IAE

ITAE t e( t ) dt
0

Pick controller parameters to minimize integral.


IAE
allows larger deviation than ISE (smaller overshoots)
ISE
longer settling time
ITAE weights errors occurring later more heavily
Approximate optimum tuning parameters are correlated
with K, , (Table 12.3).

Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Summary of Tuning Relationships

Chapter 12

1. KC is inversely proportional to KPKVKM .


2. KC decreases as / increases.
3. I and D increase as / increases (typically D =
0.25 I ).
4. Reduce Kc, when adding more integral action;
increase Kc, when adding derivative action
5. To reduce oscillation, decrease KC and increase I .

Disadvantages of Tuning Correlations

Chapter 12

1. Stability margin is not quantified.


2. Control laws can be vendor - specific.
3. First order + time delay model can be inaccurate.
4. Kp, and can vary.
5. Resolution, measurement errors decrease stability
margins.
6. decay ratio not conservative standard (too
oscillatory).

Example: Second Order Process with PI Controller


Can Yield Second Order Closed-loop Response

Chapter 12

G (s)

PI:

K
1s 1 2 s 1

K s 1
G C (s) C I
Is

1
or G C (s) K C 1
Is

Let where
Canceling terms,

KK C
Y

Ysp 1s 2 s 1 KK C

Check gain (s = 0)

2nd order response with...

Chapter 12

1 2
KC K

and

Select Kc to give

1
1
2 2 KC K

0.4 0.5

(overshoot)

Figure. Step response of underdamped second-order processes


and first-order process.

Chapter 12

Direct Synthesis

Chapter 12

GC G
Y

Ysp 1 GC G

( G includes Gm, Gv)

1. Specify closed-loop response (transfer function)

Y
sp

% (= GPGMGV)
2. Need process model, G
3. Solve for Gc,

Y
sp

1
d
GC %
G
Y
1
Y

sp d

(12-3b)

Specify Closed Loop Transfer Function


Y
e s

cs 1
Ysp

(12 6)

Chapter 12

(first order response, no offset)

c speed of response, = process time delay in

But other variations of (12-6) can be used (e.g., replace time delay
with polynomial approximation)
1 1
If = 0, then (12 - 3b) yields Gc = %
)
G s c

1
%= Ks ,+G1 =
For G
=
+
c
s + 1
K cs K c K cs

(12 - 5)
(PI)

Derivation of PI Controller for FOPTD Process

Chapter 12

Consider the standard first-order-plus-time-delay model,


s
Ke
G% s
s 1

(12-10)

Specify closed-loop response as FOPTD (12-6), but


approximate e- s -%1 - s.
Substituting and rearranging gives a PI controller,
Gc K c 1 1/ I s , with the following controller settings:
Kc

1
,
K c

(12-11)

Derivation of PID Controller for FOPTD Process:

Chapter 12

let

s
K (1 s )
Ke
2
G%( s )

s 1 ( s 1)(1 s )
2

1 s
Y
2

Y
sp
d cs 1

Gc

Gc

Y
1 sp d
G%
Y
1-
Ysp

(12-3b)

1- s
2

s +1 1+ 2 s c s +1 s +1 1+ 2 s
=

1- s
K 1- s
K + c s
2
2
2
1 c s +1


2 1
1
Kc
K c
2 1

2( ) 1

(12-2a)

(12-30)

Second-Order-plus-Time-Delay (SOPTD) Model


Consider a second-order-plus-time-delay model,

Chapter 12

s
Ke
G% s
1s 1 2 s 1

(12-12)

Use of FOPTD closed-loop response (12-6) and time delay


approximation gives a PID controller in parallel form,

1
Gc K c 1

I s

D s

(12-13)

where
1 1 2
Kc
,
K c

I 1 , 2

1 2

1 2

(12-14)

Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Example 12.1
Use the DS design method to calculate PID controller settings for
the process:
2e s
G
10s 1 5s 1
Consider three values of the desired closed-loop time constant:
c = 1, 3, and 10. Evaluate the controllers for unit step changes in
both the set point and the disturbance, assuming that Gd = G.
Perform the evaluation for two cases:
a. The process model is perfect ( G%= G).
b. The model gain is K%= 0.9, instead of the actual value, K = 2.
This model error could cause a robustness problem in the
controller for K = 2.
s
0.9
e
G%
10s 1 5s 1

The IMC controller settings for this example are:


Kc
Kc
I
D

K% 2
K% 0.9

c 1

c 3

c 10

3.75

1.88

0.682

8.33

4.17

1.51

15

15

15

3.33

3.33

3.33

Note only Kc is affected by the change in process gain.

Chapter 12

The values of Kc decrease as c increases, but the values of I


and D do not change, as indicated by Eq. 12-14.

Figure 12.3 Simulation results for Example 12.1 (a): correct


model gain.

Chapter 12
Figure 12.4 Simulation results for Example 12.1 (b):
incorrect model gain.

Chapter 12

Controller Tuning Relations


Model-based design methods such as DS and IMC produce PI or
PID controllers for certain classes of process models, with one
tuning parameter c (see Table 12.1)

How to Select c?
Several IMC guidelines for c have been published for the
model in Eq. 12-10:
1. c / > 0.8 and c 0.1

(Rivera et al., 1986)

2. c

(Chien and Fruehauf, 1990)

3. c

(Skogestad, 2003)

Tuning for Lag-Dominant Models

Chapter 12

First- or second-order models with relatively small time delays


/ <<1 are referred to as lag-dominant models.
The IMC and DS methods provide satisfactory set-point
responses, but very slow disturbance responses, because the
value of I is very large. ( I )
Fortunately, this problem can be solved in three different ways.
Method 1: Integrator Approximation
s
s
Ke
K
*
e
Approximate G%( s )
by G%( s)
s 1
s
where K * K / .

Then can use the IMC tuning rules (Rule M or N)


to specify the controller settings.

Method 2. Limit the Value of I


Skogestad (2003) has proposed limiting the value of I :

Chapter 12

I min 1 , 4 c

(12-34)

where1 is the largest time constant (if there are two).


Method 3. Design the Controller for Disturbances, Rather
Set-point Changes
The desired CLTF is expressed in terms of (Y/D)d, rather than (Y/Ysp)d
Reference: Chen & Seborg (2002)

Example 12.4

Chapter 12

Consider a lag-dominant model with / 0.01:


G% s

100 s
e
100 s 1

Design three PI controllers:


a) IMC c 1
b) IMC c 2 based on the integrator approximation in Eq. 1233
c) IMC c 1 with Skogestads modification (Eq. 12-34)

Evaluate the three controllers by comparing their performance


for unit step changes in both set point and disturbance. Assume
that the model is perfect and that Gd(s) = G(s).

Chapter 12

Solution
The PI controller settings are:
Controller

Kc

(a) IMC

0.5

100

(b) Integrator approximation

0.556

(c) Skogestad

0.5

Chapter 12

Figure 12.8. Comparison


of set-point responses
(top) and disturbance
responses (bottom) for
Example 12.4. The
responses for the
integrator approximation
and Chen and Seborg
(discussed in textbook)
methods are essentially
identical.

On-Line Controller Tuning

Chapter 12

1. Controller tuning inevitably involves a tradeoff between


performance and robustness.
2. Controller settings do not have to be precisely determined. In
general, a small change in a controller setting from its best
value (for example, 10%) has little effect on closed-loop
responses.
3. For most plants, it is not feasible to manually tune each
controller. Tuning is usually done by a control specialist
(engineer or technician) or by a plant operator. Because each
person is typically responsible for 300 to 1000 control loops, it
is not feasible to tune every controller.
4. Diagnostic techniques for monitoring control system
performance are available.

Chapter 12

Controller Tuning and


Troubleshooting Control
Loops

Ziegler-Nichols Rules:

Chapter 12

These well-known tuning rules were published by Z-N


in 1942:
controller
P
PI
PID

Kc

0.5 KCU
0.45 KCU

PU/1.2

0.6 KCU

PU/2

D
PU/8

Z-N controller settings are widely considered to be an


"industry standard".
Z-N settings were developed to provide 1/4 decay
ratio -- too oscillatory?

Chapter 12

Modified Z-N settings for PID control


I

controller

Kc

original
Some overshoot
No overshoot

0.6 KCU

PU/2

PU/8

0.33 KCU

PU/2

PU/3

0.2 KCU

PU/3

PU/2

Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Chapter 12
Figure 12.15 Typical process reaction curves: (a) non-selfregulating process, (b) self-regulating process.

Chapter 12
Figure 12.16 Process reaction curve for Example 12.8.

Chapter 12
Figure 12.17 Block diagram for Example 12.8.

Chapter 12
Previous chapter

Next chapter

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy