Download presentation

1
**PID Tuning and Controllability Sigurd Skogestad NTNU, Trondheim, Norway**

2
**Tuning of PID controllers**

SIMC tuning rules (“Skogestad IMC”)(*) Main message: Can usually do much better by taking a systematic approach One tuning rule! Easily memorized References: (1) S. Skogestad, “Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller design”, J.Proc.Control, Vol. 13, , 2003 (2) S. Skogestad, ``Tuning for smooth PID control with acceptable disturbance rejection'', Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 45 (23), (2006). (*) “Probably the best simple PID tuning rules in the world” k’ = k/τ1 = initial slope step response c ≥ 0: desired closed-loop response time (tuning parameter) For robustness select (1) : c ¸ (gives Kc ≤ Kc,max) For acceptable disturbance rejection select (2) : Kc ≥ Kc,min = ud0/ymax

3
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

4
**Step response experiment**

Make step change in one u (MV) at a time Record the output (s) y (CV)

5
**First-order plus delay process**

Step response experiment k’=k/1 STEP IN INPUT u (MV) RESULTING OUTPUT y (CV) : Delay - Time where output does not change 1: Time constant - Additional time to reach 63% of final change k : steady-state gain = y(1)/ u k’ : slope after response “takes off” = k/1

6
**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 usually the “effective” delay

9
half rule

10
**Approximation of zeros**

11
**Derivation of SIMC-PID tuning rules**

PI-controller (based on first-order model) For second-order model add D-action. For our purposes it becomes simplest with the “series” (cascade) PID-form:

12
**Basis: Direct synthesis (IMC)**

Closed-loop response to setpoint change Idea: Specify desired response T = (y/ys)desired and from this get the controller. Algebra:

13
**IMC Tuning = Direct Synthesis**

14
**Integral time Found: Integral time = dominant time constant (I = 1)**

Works well for setpoint changes Needs to be modified (reduced) for integrating disturbances 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! g c d y u

15
**Example: Integral time for “slow”/integrating process**

IMC rule: I = 1 =30 Reduce I to improve performance. This value just avoids slow oscillations: I = 4 (c+) = 8 (see derivation next page)

16
**Derivation integral time: Avoiding slow oscillations for integrating process**

. Integrating process: 1 large Assume 1 large and neglect delay : G(s) = k e- s /(1 s + 1) ¼ k/(1s) = k’/s PI-control: C(s) = Kc (1 + 1/I s) Poles (and oscillations) are given by roots of closed-loop polynomial 1+GC = 1 + k’/s ¢ Kc ¢ (1+1/Is) = 0 or I s2 + k’ Kc I s + k’ Kc = 0 Can be written on standard form (02 s2 + 2 0 s + 1) with To avoid oscillations must require ||¸ 1: Kc ¢ k’ ¢ I ¸ 4 or I ¸ 4 / (Kc k’) With choice Kc = (1/k’) (1/(c+)) this gives I ¸ 4 (c+) Conclusion integrating process: Want I small to improve performance, but must be larger than 4 (c+) to avoid slow oscillations

17
**Summary: SIMC-PID Tuning Rules**

One tuning parameter: c

18
Some special cases One tuning parameter: c

19
**Note: Derivative action is commonly used for temperature control loops.**

Select D equal to time constant of temperature sensor

21
**Selection of tuning parameter c**

Two cases Tight control: Want “fastest possible control” subject to having good robustness (1) S. Skogestad, “Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller design”, J.Proc.Control, Vol. 13, , 2003 Smooth control: Want “slowest possible control” subject to having acceptable disturbance rejection (2) S. Skogestad, ``Tuning for smooth PID control with acceptable disturbance rejection'', Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 45 (23), (2006).

22
(1) TIGHT CONTROL

23
**Example. Integrating process with delay=1. G(s) = e-s/s. **

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=0 Input disturbance at t=20

24
TIGHT CONTROL Approximate as first-order model with k=1, 1 = 1+0.1=1.1, = = 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= =0.22, = = 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

25
**Tuning for smooth control**

Tuning parameter: c = desired closed-loop response time (1) 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? (2) Will derive Kc,min. From this we can get c,max using SIMC tuning rule

26
**Closed-loop disturbance rejection**

SMOOTH CONTROL Closed-loop disturbance rejection d0 -d0 ymax -ymax

27
**u Kc SMOOTH CONTROL Minimum controller gain for PI-and PID-control:**

Kc ¸ Kc,min = |ud0|/|ymax| |ud0|: Input magnitude required for disturbance rejection |ymax|: Allowed output deviation

28
**Common default factory setting Kc=1 is reasonable !**

SMOOTH CONTROL Minimum controller gain: Industrial practice: Variables (instrument ranges) often scaled such that Minimum controller gain is then (span) Minimum gain for smooth control ) Common default factory setting Kc=1 is reasonable !

29
**Example SMOOTH CONTROL Response to disturbance = 1 at input**

c is much larger than =0.25 Does not quite reach 1 because d is step disturbance (not not sinusoid) Response to disturbance = 1 at input

30
**Application of smooth control**

LEVEL CONTROL Application of smooth control Averaging level control V q LC If you insist on integral action 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. Derivation of tunings: Minimum controller gain for acceptable disturbance rejection: Kc ¸≥ Kc,min = |ud0|/|ymax| Where in our case |ud0| = |q0| expected flow change [m3/s] (input disturbance) |ymax| = |Vmax| - largest allowed variation in level [m3] Integral time: From the material balance (dV/dt = q – qout), the model is g(s)=k’/s with k’=1. Select Kc=Kc,min = |q0| |Vmax| . SIMC-Integral time for integrating process: I = 4 / (k’ Kc) = 4 |Vmax| / |q0| = 4 ¢ residence time provided tank is nominally half full (so |Vmax| = V) and q0 is equal to the nominal flow.

31
**Rule: Kc ¸ |ud0|/|ymax| ( ~1 in scaled variables)**

SMOOTH CONTROL Rule: Kc ¸ |ud0|/|ymax| ( ~1 in scaled variables) Exception to rule: Can have even smaller Kc (< 1) if disturbances are handled by the integral action. Happens when c > I = 1 Applies to: Process with short time constant (1 is small) For example, flow control Kc: Assume variables are scaled with respect to their span

32
**Summary: Tuning of easy loops**

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” Flow control: Kc=0.5, I = 1 = time constant valve (typically, 10s to 30s) Level control: Kc=2 (and no integral action) Other easy loops (e.g. pressure control): Kc = 2, I = min(4c, 1) Note: Often want a tight pressure control loop (so may have Kc=10 or larger) Kc: Assume variables are scaled with respect to their span

33
**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.

34
**Integrating process: Level control**

35
**How avoid oscillating levels?**

LEVEL CONTROL How avoid oscillating levels? Actually, 0.1 = 1/π2

36
**Case study oscillating level**

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

37
LEVEL CONTROL

38
Identifying the model

39
**Model identification from step response**

General: Need 3 parameters: Delay 2 of the following: k, k’, 1 (Note relationship k’ = k/1) Two approaches for obtaining 1: Initial response: ( + 1) is where initial slope crosses final steady-state (+1)= 63% of final steady state If disagree: Initial response is usually best, but to be safe use smallest value for 1 (“fast response”) as this gives more conservative PID-tunings 1 = 16 min for this case BOTTOM V: -0.5 xB 1=16 min / 19 min 63% k’ k

40
**Model identification from step response**

Generally need 3 parameters BUT For control: Dynamics at “control time scale” (c) are important “Slow” (integrating) process (c< 1/5): May neglect 1 and use only 2 parameters: k’ and g(s) = k’ e- s / s “Delay-free” process (c > 5θ): Need only 2 parameters: k and 1 g(s) = k / (1 s+1) c = desired response time 1 ¼ 200, 1 c time c < τ1/5 = 40: “Integrating” (neglect τ1) c > 5θ = 5: “Delay-free” (neglect θ)

41
**“Integrating” process (c < 1/5):**

Need only two parameters: k’ and From step response: Example. Step change in u: u = 0.1 Initial value for y: y(0) = 2.19 Observed delay: = 2.5 min At T=10 min: y(T)=2.62 Initial slope: Response on stage 70 to step in L y(t) 7.5 min =2.5 t [min]

42
**“Delay-free” process (c > 5 )**

Example: BOTTOM V: -0.5 xB 16 min 63% First-order model: = 0 k= ( )/(-0.5) = (steady-state gain) 1= 16 min (63% of change)

43
**Step response experiment: How long do we need to wait?**

NORMALLY NO NEED TO RUN THE STEP EXPERIMENT FOR LONGER THAN ABOUT 10 TIMES THE EFFECTIVE DELAY ()

44
Conclusion PID tuning

46
Cascade control

47
**Tuning of cascade controllers**

48
**Cascade control serial process (“exception”)**

G1 u2 y1 K1 ys G2 K2 y2 y2s

49
**Cascade control serial process**

G1 u y1 K1 ys G2 K2 y2 y2s Without cascade With cascade

50
**Tuning cascade control: serial process**

Inner fast (secondary) loop: P or PI-control Local disturbance rejection Much smaller effective delay (0.2 s) Outer slower primary loop: Reduced effective delay (2 s instead of 6 s) Time scale separation Inner loop can be modelled as gain=1 + 2*effective delay (0.4s) Very effective for control of large-scale systems

51
CONTROLLABILITY Controllability (Input-Output) “Controllability” is the ability to achieve acceptable control performance (with any controller) “Controllability” is a property of the process itself Analyze controllability by looking at model G(s) What limits controllability?

52
**Controllability Recall SIMC tuning rules**

1. Tight control: Select c= corresponding to 2. Smooth control. Select Kc ¸ Must require Kc,max > Kc.min for controllability ) max. output deviation initial effect of “input” disturbance y reaches k’ ¢ |d0|¢ t after time t y reaches ymax after t= |ymax|/ k’ ¢ |d0|

53
CONTROLLABILITY Controllability

54
**Example: Distillation column**

CONTROLLABILITY Example: Distillation column

55
**Example: Distillation column**

CONTROLLABILITY Example: Distillation column

56
**Distillation example: Frequency domain analysis**

CONTROLLABILITY Distillation example: Frequency domain analysis

57
**Other factors limiting controllability**

Input limitations (saturation or “slow valve”): Can sometimes limit achievable speed of response Unstable process (including levels): Need feedback control for stabilization ) Makes sure inputs do not saturate in stabilizing loops

Similar presentations

OK

Controllability Analysis for Process and Control System Design

Controllability Analysis for Process and Control System Design

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on chromosomes and genes share Ppt on journalism in india Best ppt on minerals and energy resources Ppt on palm island in dubai Ppt on shell scripting commands Ppt on green building technology Ppt on earthquake and tsunami Ppt on needle stick injury protocol Ppt on history of badminton rules Ppt on project tiger