0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

8 (de) vizualizări75 paginipdc

Dec 03, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

pdc

© All Rights Reserved

8 (de) vizualizări

pdc

© All Rights Reserved

- The Law of Explosive Growth: Lesson 20 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- Micro: A Novel
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- State of Fear
- State of Fear
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The 6th Extinction
- The Black Swan
- The Art of Thinking Clearly
- The Last Battle
- Prince Caspian
- A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science Even If You Flunked Algebra
- The Theory of Death: A Decker/Lazarus Novel

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 75

Control

Laboratory

7. PID Controllers

7.0 Overview

7.1 PID controller variants

7.2 Choice of controller type

7.3 Specifications and performance criteria

7.4 Controller tuning based on frequency response

7.5 Controller tuning based on step response

7.6 Model-based controller tuning

7.7 Controller design by direct synthesis

7.8 Internal model control

7.9 Model simplification

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.0 Overview

Laboratory

PID controller (”pee-i-dee”) is a generic name for a controller containing a

linear combination of

proportional (P)

integral (I)

derivative (D)

terms acting on a control error (or sometimes the process output).

All parts need not be present. Frequently I and/or D action is missing,

giving a controller like

P, PI, or PD controller

It has been estimated that of all controllers in the world

95 % are PID controllers

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.1 PID controller variants

Laboratory

7.1.1 Ideal PID controller

An ideal PID controller is described by the control law

1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)

𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.1)

𝑇𝑇i 0 d𝑡𝑡

𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) is the controller output

𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑟𝑟 𝑡𝑡 − 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) is the control error, which is the difference

between the setpoint 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡) and the measured process output 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡)

𝐾𝐾c is the proportional gain

𝑇𝑇i is the integral time

𝑇𝑇d is the derivative time

𝑢𝑢0 is the “normal” value of the controller output

The transfer function of the PID controller is

𝑈𝑈(𝑠𝑠) 1 𝐾𝐾c

𝐺𝐺PID = = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 2 (7.2)

𝐸𝐸(𝑠𝑠) 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠

𝐸𝐸(𝑠𝑠) is the Laplace transform of the control error

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–3

7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.1 Ideal PID controller

Depending on the values of 𝑇𝑇i and 𝑇𝑇d , the transfer function of the PID

Process

Control controller can have

Laboratory

Complex zeros might be useful for control of underdamped systems with

complex poles.

transfer function is

1 𝐾𝐾c

𝐺𝐺PI = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 (7.3)

𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠

transfer function is

𝐺𝐺PD = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 (7.4)

the parallel form of a PID controller

the (ISA) standard form

7. PID Controllers 7.1 PID controller variants

Control

Laboratory

In the pre-digital era it was convenient to implement an analog PID

controller as a PI controller and a PD controller in series. This form of a

PID controller is called the series form. Occasionally, the terms interactive

form or classical form are used. The controller has the transfer function

1 𝐾𝐾c′

𝐺𝐺PIPD = 𝐾𝐾c′ 1+ 1+ 𝑇𝑇d′ 𝑠𝑠 = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠 1 + 𝑇𝑇d′ 𝑠𝑠 (7.5)

𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠

the parallel form.

The series form of a PID controller can only have real valued zeros.

This means that the series form is less general than the parallel form.

It is easy to find the controller parameters of the series form by

frequency analytic methods by so-called lead-lag design.

Exercise 7.1

Which is the control law in the time domain for a series form PID

controller?

7. PID Controllers 7.1 PID controller variants

Control

Laboratory

A drawback with the ideal PID controller (7.1) is that the derivative part

cannot be realized exactly in a real controller. For example, if the control

error 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) changes as a step, the derivate in (7.1) becomes infinitely

large. This problem can be remedied by

filtering the signal to be differentiated.

This also has the practical advantage that (high-frequency) noise is

filtered before differentiation.

The transfer function of a parallel form PID controller with a derivative

filter is

1 𝑇𝑇 𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺PIDf = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + d (7.6)

𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1

filter is

1 𝑇𝑇d′ 𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺PIPDf = 𝐾𝐾c′ 1+ 1+ (7.7)

𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f′ 𝑠𝑠+1

𝑇𝑇f and 𝑇𝑇f′ are filter constants, usually 10-30 % of corresp. derivative time.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–6

7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.3 A PID controller with derivative filter

Process

Control

Laboratory If the parameters of the series form are known, the corresponding

parameters of the parallel form can be calculated according to

′ ′

𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇

𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇i′ + 𝑇𝑇d′ − 𝑇𝑇f′ , 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇d′ i − 𝑇𝑇f′ , 𝑇𝑇f = 𝑇𝑇f′ , 𝐾𝐾c = 𝐾𝐾c′ i (7.8)

𝑇𝑇 i 𝑇𝑇 i

For calculation of the parameters of the series form from the parameters

of the parallel form, we define the parameter

4𝑇𝑇i (𝑇𝑇d +𝑇𝑇f )

𝛿𝛿 = 1 − (7.9)

(𝑇𝑇i +𝑇𝑇f )2

If 𝛿𝛿 ≥ 0, the zeros of the parallel PID are real. Then, there exists a series

form PID controller which is equivalent to the parallel form according to

(𝑇𝑇i +𝑇𝑇f ) 𝑇𝑇i′

𝑇𝑇i′ = 1 + 𝛿𝛿 , 𝑇𝑇d′ = 𝑇𝑇i + 𝑇𝑇f − 𝑇𝑇i′ , 𝑇𝑇f′ = 𝑇𝑇f , 𝐾𝐾c′ = 𝐾𝐾c (7.10)

2 𝑇𝑇i

(𝑇𝑇i −𝑇𝑇f )2

𝑇𝑇d ≤ (7.11)

4𝑇𝑇i

i.e., the derivative time has to be “small enough”.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–7

7. PID Controllers 7.1 PID controller variants

Control

Laboratory

Even if we have a derivative filter, a step change in the setpoint 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡)

tends to affect the derivative part much more strongly than a disturbance

in the output 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡). A remedy to this is to

differentiate the (filtered) output instead of the control error 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡).

The ideal control law (7.1) then becomes

1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑦𝑦f (𝑡𝑡)

𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 − 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.12a)

𝑇𝑇i 0 d𝑡𝑡

d𝑦𝑦 (𝑡𝑡)

𝑇𝑇f f + 𝑦𝑦f 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) (7.12b)

d𝑡𝑡

In the Laplace domain we get

1 1 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠

𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 1 + + 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.13)

𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1

𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺PI 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺PIDf 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.14)

This kind of 2-degrees-of-freedom (2DOF) controller can be tuned

separately for setpoint tracking and disturbance rejection.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–8

7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.4 Differentiation of the measured output

Exercise 7.2

Process

Control

Laboratory Which is the control law, both in the time domain and the Laplace

domain, for the series form of a PID controller with differentiation of the

filtered output measurement?

A simple way of obtaining 2DOF PID controller is to use setpoint

weighting. With the definitions

𝑒𝑒p = 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝑦𝑦 , 𝑒𝑒 = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦 , 𝑒𝑒d = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝑦𝑦f (7.15)

where 𝑏𝑏 and 𝑐𝑐 are setpoint weights, the control law becomes

1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒d (𝑡𝑡)

𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒p 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.16a)

𝑇𝑇i 0 d𝑡𝑡

d𝑦𝑦f (𝑡𝑡)

𝑇𝑇f + 𝑦𝑦f 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) (7.16b)

d𝑡𝑡

7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.5 Setpoint weighting

Process

Control

Laboratory 𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺vPID 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺PIDf 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.17)

where

1

𝐺𝐺vPID = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑏𝑏 + + 𝑐𝑐𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 (7.18)

𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠

and 𝐺𝐺PIDf is as in (7.6).

With suitable choices of 𝑏𝑏 and 𝑐𝑐, all previously treated PID

controllers on parallel form can be obtained.

𝑏𝑏 and 𝑐𝑐 do not affect the controller’s ability to reject disturbances in

the output, only the ability to track setpoint changes.

𝐺𝐺vPID can be tuned for setpoint tracking and 𝐺𝐺PIDf for disturbance

rejection (i.e., 𝐾𝐾c , 𝑇𝑇i and 𝑇𝑇d need not have the same values in 𝐺𝐺vPID

and 𝐺𝐺PIDf ).

Exercise 7.3

Include setpoint weighting in the series form of a PID controller.

7. PID Controllers 7.1 PID controller variants

Control

Laboratory

In the control laws treated so far, the proportional part alone cannot

be disconnected by letting 𝐾𝐾c = 0 because that would disconnect all

parts; it would put the controller on “manual” with 𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑢𝑢0 .

Tuning the proportional part by adjusting 𝐾𝐾c will affect all controller

parts (however, this is often a desired feature); hence, it is an

interactive controller form.

The non-interactive form

𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒d (𝑡𝑡)

𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡 + 𝐾𝐾i ∫0 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝐾𝐾d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.19)

d𝑡𝑡

is a more flexible control law. In the Laplace domain it can be written

𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺vP+I+D 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺P+I+Df 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.20)

where

𝐺𝐺vP+I+D = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑏𝑏 + 𝐾𝐾i 𝑠𝑠 −1 + 𝑐𝑐𝐾𝐾d 𝑠𝑠 (7.21a)

𝐺𝐺P+I+Df = 𝐾𝐾c + 𝐾𝐾i 𝑠𝑠 −1 + 𝐾𝐾d 𝑠𝑠(𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠 + 1)−1 (7.21b)

Note: It is essential to know which form is used when tuning a controller!

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–11

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.2 Choice of controller type

Laboratory

The choice between controller types such as P, PI, PD, PID is considered.

In principle, the simplest controller that can do the job should be chosen.

An on-off controller is the simplest type of controller, where the control

signal has only two levels. If the variables are defined such that a positive

control error 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) should be corrected by an increase of the control

signal 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡), the control law is

𝑢𝑢max if 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 > 𝑒𝑒hi

𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = �𝑢𝑢0 or unchanged if 𝑒𝑒lo ≤ 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 ≤ 𝑒𝑒hi (7.23)

𝑢𝑢min if 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 < 𝑒𝑒lo

where 𝑢𝑢max , 𝑢𝑢0 , 𝑢𝑢min is the high, normal, low value of the control signal.

The interval (𝑒𝑒lo , 𝑒𝑒hi ) is a dead zone. In the simplest case, 𝑒𝑒lo = 𝑒𝑒hi = 0.

The on-off controller is inexpensive, but it causes oscillations in the pro-

cess. It is often used for temperature control in simple appliances such as

ovens, irons, refrigerators and freezers, where oscillations are tolerated.

7. PID Controllers 7.2 Choice of controller type

Control

Laboratory

A P controller implements the simple control law

𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.24)

where 𝐾𝐾c is the adjustable controller gain and 𝑢𝑢0 is the normal value of

the control signal, which is also be adjustable. In principle, 𝑢𝑢0 is selected

to make the control error 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 = 0 at the nominal operating point.

If the output is changed by a disturbance or a setpoint change, the P

controller is unable to bring the control error to zero, i.e., there will be a

remaining control error.

The higher the controller gain, the smaller the control error. Thus, P

control is used when a (small) control error is allowed and a high

controller gain can be used without risk of instability.

A typical application for P control is level control in liquid tank. Another

situation when P control is often sufficient is as an inner loop (a secon-

dary loop) in so-called cascade control.

7. PID Controllers 7.2 Choice of controller type

Control

Laboratory

A PI controller is by far the most common type of controller. The ideal PI

controller implements the control law

1 𝑡𝑡

𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.25)

𝑇𝑇i 0

where the gain 𝐾𝐾c and the integral time 𝑇𝑇i are adjustable parameters;

𝑢𝑢0 is less important due to the integral.

The main advantage of the PI controller is that there will be no remaining

control error after a setpoint change or a process disturbance. A dis-

advantage is that there is a tendency for oscillations.

PI control is used when no steady-state error is desired and there is no

reason to use derivative action. Measurement noise is often a reason for

not using derivative action.

PI control is suitable for noisy processes, integrating processes and

processes resembling first-order systems. The most typical application is

flow control. PI control might also be preferable for processes with large

time delays.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–14

7. PID Controllers 7.2 Choice of controller type

Control

Laboratory

The ideal form of a PD controller implements the control law

d𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)

𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.26)

d𝑡𝑡

where the gain 𝐾𝐾c and the derivative time 𝑇𝑇d are adjustable para-

meters; 𝑢𝑢0 is chosen as for a P controller.

A PD controller is preferred when integral action is not needed, but the

dynamics of the process are so slow that the predictive nature of

derivative action is useful.

Many thermal processes, where energy is stored with small heat losses

(e.g., ovens), usually have slow dynamics, almost as integrating systems.

A PD controller might then be suitable for temperature control.

Another typical application for PD control is in servo mechanisms such as

electrical motors, which usually behave as second-order integrating

systems.

7. PID Controllers 7.2 Choice of controller type

Control

Laboratory

As has been shown in Section 7.1, there are many variants of PID

controllers.

The ideal form and the classical series form have 3 adjustable

parameters in addition to 𝑢𝑢0 : the proportional gain, the integral time,

and the derivative time.

If a derivative filter is included, there are 4 adjustable parameters, but

the filter time constant is usually selected as a given fraction (e.g.,

10 %) of the derivative time.

In addition, the setpoint can be weighted in the proportional part and

the derivative part.

If there is no reason to exclude integral action or derivative action, a PID

controller is the natural choice. Typically PID control is used for under-

damped processes, processes with slow dynamics and not very large time

delays, and systems of second and higher order.

Typical applications are control of temperature and chemical composition

when the process is not close to an integrating system.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–16

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.3 Specifications and performance criteria

Laboratory

7.3.1 General performance criteria

The task of a controller is to control a system to behave in a desired way

despite unknown disturbances and an inaccurately known system.

The controlled system should satisfy performance criteria such as:

The controlled system must be stable; this is absolutely necessary.

The effect of disturbances on the controlled output is minimized; this

is especially important for regulatory control.

The controlled output should follow setpoint changes fast and

smoothly; this is especially important for setpoint tracking.

The control error is minimized or kept within certain limits,

The control signal variations should be moderate or at least not be

excessively large; more variations wear out control equipment faster.

The control system should be robust (insensitive) against moderate

changes in system properties, which introduce model uncertainty.

The importance of these criteria varies from case to case. Since many cri-

teria are conflicting, compromises have to be made in the control design.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–17

7. PID Controllers 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria

Control

Laboratory

One reason to the fact that there are usually good solutions to the

conflicting control criteria is that feedback control is used.

However, feedback also introduces limitations because a control error

is required for the controller to take action.

The fact that the available resources for control are always limited,

also limit the achievable performance.

In addition to the general limitations above, there are also limitations

that depend on the process to be controlled, e.g.,

the dynamics of the process

nonlinearities

model and process uncertainty

disturbances

control signal limitations

7.3 Specifications and performance criteria 7.3.2 Fundamental limitations

Process

Control factors are

Laboratory

time delays as well as RHP (right-half plane) poles and zeros

high-order dynamics

In practice, all processes are nonlinear. Such a process

cannot be described accurately at different operating points by a

linear model with constant parameters; thus there is model/process

uncertainty.

Disturbances such as load disturbances and measurement noise limit how

well a variable can be controlled.

Efficient control of load disturbances often require derivative action,

but measurement noise is bad for the derivative.

Large load disturbances can cause the control variable to reach its

(physical) maximum or minimum value. This is especially troublesome

if the controller contains an integrator. Proportional band and

integrator windup are two concepts that deal with this limitation.

7. PID Controllers 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria

Control

Laboratory

Proportional band

A controller’s proportional band (PB) denotes the maximum control error

the controller can handle with the available control signal. The PB is

defined for a P controller, but it can be extended to a full PID controller.

If the control signal is limited by 𝑢𝑢min ≤ 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) ≤ 𝑢𝑢max , a P controller can

according to (7.24) handle a control error that satisfies

𝑢𝑢min −𝑢𝑢0 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢0

≡ 𝑒𝑒min ≤ 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) ≤ 𝑒𝑒max ≡ (7.27)

𝐾𝐾c 𝐾𝐾c

The PB is equal to 𝑒𝑒max − 𝑒𝑒min = 𝑦𝑦hi − 𝑦𝑦lo , where 𝑦𝑦hi is the highest

output (𝑒𝑒min = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦hi ) and 𝑦𝑦lo is the lowest output (𝑒𝑒max = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦lo )

the controller can handle. Usually, the PB is defined in percent of the

total measurable output interval 𝑦𝑦min , 𝑦𝑦max . Then, the PB is

𝑦𝑦hi −𝑦𝑦lo 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢min 100%

𝑃𝑃b = 100% = ⋅ (7.28)

𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝐾𝐾c

7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup Proportional band

Process

Control 𝑦𝑦hi −𝑦𝑦lo 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢min 100%

Laboratory 𝐾𝐾c = 100% = ⋅ (7.29)

𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑃𝑃b

or percentage of the total signal interval (0-1 or 0-100%). The PB is then

𝑃𝑃b = 100%/𝐾𝐾c (7.30)

Note that the controller gain here has to be expressed in terms of the

normalized signals, which means that the controller gain is dimensionless.

The practical usefulness of the PB is that it tells something about the size

of control errors that can be handled without reaching an input signal

constraint. If 𝑢𝑢0 is in the middle of the interval 𝑢𝑢min , 𝑢𝑢max , a P

controller with 𝑃𝑃b = 50 % can handle an instantaneous control error

equal to ±25 % (i.e., 50 % in total) of the total output signal range.

Note that the PB is an adjustable controller parameter — if it is to small, it

can be increased (corresponding to a decrease of 𝐾𝐾c ).

7.3 Specifications and performance criteria 7.3.3 PB and integrator windup

Integrator windup

Process

Control

Laboratory

Usually controllers are tuned for stability and performance, not for signal

limits. Therefore, it is not uncommon that a control signal reaches a

constraint. If the controller contains integral action, this can be very

damaging to the control performance unless the situation is handled

properly.

Consider the figure, where the PI control law (7.25) has been used. A

strong disturbance causes the process output to fall well below the set-

point. The controller is not able to elimi-

nate the control error (A) because the

control signal has reached a constraint.

During this time, the positive control error

will increase the integral in the controller.

If the disturbance later disappears, the

controller will still keep the control signal

at the constraint due to the large value of

the integral, even if the control error goes

below zero. This will cause the output (B),

which is entirely due to the controller. Illustration of integral windup.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–22

7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup Integral windup

Process

Control

Laboratory There are sophisticated as well as simple methods for handling the

problem. The term anti-windup is used for such arrangements.

A simple solution is to stop integrating when a control signal reaches a

constraint. This requires that

it is known when the control signal reaches a constraint (e.g., through

measurement)

there is some built-in logic to interrupt the integration

In the case of digital control, which nowadays is customary, automatic

anti-windup can be built into the control law.

7. PID Controllers 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria

Control

Laboratory

Above, some general performance criteria and fundamental limitations to

achievable control performance have been considered.

Here, some ways of making more specific design specifications will

introduced.

If a process model is available, the specifications make it possible to

calculate controller parameters.

Step-response specifications

It is of often desired that the closed-loop response to a step change in

the setpoint resembles an underdamped second-order system.

Therefore, parameters familiar from the step-response of such a system

can be used to specify the desired behaviour. Such parameters are

the maximum relative overshoot 𝑀𝑀

the rise time 𝑡𝑡r

the settling time 𝑡𝑡𝛿𝛿

the relative damping 𝜁𝜁

the ratio between successive relative overshoots (or undershoots) 𝑀𝑀R

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–24

7.3.4 Design specifications Step-response specifications

Process

Control

Laboratory

The two parameters 𝑀𝑀 and 𝑡𝑡r are sufficient to determine the transfer

function of an underdamped second-order system with a given gain.

The settling time 𝑡𝑡𝛿𝛿 can be used instead of 𝑀𝑀 or 𝑡𝑡r , but the

relationships are then only approximate.

The relative damping 𝜁𝜁 or the overshoot ratio 𝑀𝑀R can be specified

instead of 𝑀𝑀.

Some classical tuning recommendations are based on the specification

𝑀𝑀R = 1/4.

This may be acceptable for regulatory control, but not for setpoint

tracking. 𝑀𝑀R = 1/4 corresponds to 𝑀𝑀 = 0.5 (i.e., a 50 % overshoot)

and 𝜁𝜁 = 0.22 .

For setpoint tracking, 𝑀𝑀 ≈ 0.1 (𝜁𝜁 ≈ 0.6) is usually more appropriate.

If an overdamped closed-loop response is desired, this cannot be

achieved with a specification 𝜁𝜁 > 1 , because the other parameters

require an underdamped system. Instead, the closed-loop transfer

function can be directly specified and controller parameters calculated by

direct synthesis (Section 7.7), for example.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–25

7.3 Specifications and performance criteria 7.3.4 Design specifications

Error integrals

Process

Control

Laboratory In principle, a small overshoot, rise time and settling time are desired. In

practice, the overshoot and settling time will increase with decreasing

rise time, and vice versa. Therefore, compromises have to be made.

One way of solving this problem in an optimal way is to specify some

error integral to be minimized. Examples of such error integrals are

𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡

𝐽𝐽IAE = ∫0 s 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) d𝑡𝑡 , 𝐽𝐽ISE = ∫0 s 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)2 d𝑡𝑡

𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡 (7.31)

𝐽𝐽ITAE = ∫0 s 𝑡𝑡 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) d𝑡𝑡 , 𝐽𝐽ITSE = ∫0 s 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)2 d𝑡𝑡

where the acronyms are

– IAE = “integrated absolute error”

– ISE = “integrated square error”

– ITAE = “integrated time-weighted absolute error”

– ITSE = “integrated time-weighted square error”

The weighting with time forces the control error towards zero as time in-

creases. In principle, the integration time should be infinite, but because

the minimization has to be done numerically, a finite 𝑡𝑡s has to be used.

7.3.4 Design specifications Error integrals

Process

Control specifications when the controlled system is of second order, i.e.,

Laboratory

2

𝜔𝜔n

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 2 (7.32)

𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n

In the figure, IAE and ISE are normalized with 𝜔𝜔n , ITAE and ITSE with 𝜔𝜔n2 .

As can be seen, every normalized error integral has a minimum for a

given relative damping 𝜁𝜁 .

This damping as well as the

corresponding relative over-

shoot 𝑀𝑀 are shown below.

Table 7.1 Optimal relative

damping for 2nd order system.

Error integral ζ M (%)

ITSE 0.59 10.1

IAE 0.66 6.3

ITAE 0.75 2.8 Error integrals as function of 𝜁𝜁.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–27

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.4 Tuning based on frequency response

Laboratory

7.4.1 Experimental tuning

An ideal PID controller of interactive

form can be tuned experimentally G

by making closed-loop control experi-

ments with the real process. The

standard feedback structure is used.

1. A P controller (𝐺𝐺c = 𝐾𝐾c ) is used for the first experiment. A low value is

chosen for the gain 𝐾𝐾c . Note that 𝐾𝐾c must have the same sign as 𝐾𝐾p .

2. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 is introduced. (Some other disturbance

could also be used.) The controller gain 𝐾𝐾c is increased until the

output 𝑌𝑌 starts to oscillate with a constant amplitude (see next slide).

3. The value of the controller gain yielding constant oscillations is

denoted 𝐾𝐾c,max . The period of the oscillations is denoted 𝑃𝑃c .

4. The controller gain is changed to 𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max . If the intention was

to tune a P controller, this is the final tuning.

7.4 Tuning based on frequency response 7.4.1 Experimental tuning

Process

Control action (PI or PID), an experiment

Laboratory

is done with a PI controller using

𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max . A large value is

initially used for the integral time 𝑇𝑇i .

6. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 (or some

other disturbance) is introduced. The

integral time 𝑇𝑇i is reduced until 𝑌𝑌

starts to oscillate with a constant

amplitude. This occurs at 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇i,min .

7. The integral time for a PI or PID controller is chosen as 𝑇𝑇i = 3𝑇𝑇i,min .

8. To tune the derivative part of a PID (or PD) controller, an experiment

is done with such a controller using 𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max , 𝑇𝑇i = 3𝑇𝑇i,min (if a

PID controller). The derivative time is initially set at 𝑇𝑇d = 0 .

9. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 (or some other disturbance) is introduced.

The derivative time 𝑇𝑇d is increased until the output 𝑌𝑌 starts to

oscillate with a constant amplitude. This occurs when 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇d,max .

10. The derivative time for a PD or PID controller is set at 𝑇𝑇d = 13𝑇𝑇d,max .

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–29

7.4 Tuning based on frequency response 7.4.1 Experimental tuning

Process

Control unsatisfactory, the controller parameters can be adjusted by “trial and

Laboratory

error”.

The next figure shows how changes of the controller gain 𝐾𝐾c and the

integral time 𝑇𝑇i typically affect the control performance. The optimal

performance is in this case obtained by 𝐾𝐾c = 3 and 𝑇𝑇i = 11 .

𝑇𝑇i = 5 𝑇𝑇i = 11 𝑇𝑇i = 20

𝐾𝐾c = 5

𝐾𝐾c = 3

𝐾𝐾c = 1

7. PID Controllers 7.4 Tuning based on frequency response

Control

Laboratory

In 1942, Ziegler and Nichols suggested tunings for P, PI and PID

controllers based on 𝐾𝐾c,max and 𝑃𝑃c only. To obtain this information, it is

sufficient to do steps 1–3 in the experimental procedure.

The tunings are primarily intended for regulatory control (i.e.,

disturbance rejection). For setpoint tracking, setpoint weighting is

suggested, e.g. 𝑏𝑏 = 0.5.

The controller tuning should Table 7.2. Ziegler-Nichols’s controller

preferably not be used out- tuning recommendations based on

side the range 0.1 < 𝜅𝜅 < 0.5, frequency response.

where

−1 Controller K c / K c,max Ti / Pc Td / Pc

𝜅𝜅 = 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c,max .

Here, 𝐾𝐾 is the process gain. P 0.5 – –

The critical frequency 𝜔𝜔c is PI 0.45 0.8 –

often used instead of 𝑃𝑃c : PID 0.6 0.5 0.125

𝜔𝜔c = 2𝜋𝜋/𝑃𝑃c .

7. PID Controllers 7.4 Tuning based on frequency response

Control

Laboratory

In 2006, Åström and Hägglund showed that, in general, 𝐾𝐾c,max and 𝑃𝑃c

alone do not provide sufficient information for good controller tuning.

In addition to 𝐾𝐾c,max and 𝑃𝑃c , Åström and Hägglund also use the

−1

parameter 𝜅𝜅 = 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c,max in their controller tuning correlations.

The tuning correlations are primarily intended for regulatory control; for

setpoint tracking, setpoint weighting is suggested.

The correlations should Table 7.3. Åström-Hägglund’s controller

not be used below the tuning correlations based on frequency

range 𝜅𝜅 > 0.1 . response.

Large time delays are

Controller K c / K c,max

allowed, but clearly Ti / Pc Td / Pc

underdamped systems PI 0.16 (1 + 4.5κ ) −1 –

are less suitable.

0.6 0.15(1 − κ )

PID 0.3 − 0.1κ 4

1 + 2κ 1 − 0.95κ

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.5 Tuning based on step response

Laboratory

A drawback with generating the frequency response is that it is quite

cumbersome and time-consuming to generate oscillations with constant

amplitude by adjusting a controller parameter.

An alternative is to use a step response for the process.

The figure illustrates how the

needed parameters are obtained

from a unit-step response, i.e., a

step with size 𝑢𝑢step = 1 expressed

in the units used for the control

variable. yi

(modified) tangent method, but L ti

here it is not necessary to wait

for the new steady state; only

the parameters 𝑎𝑎 and 𝐿𝐿 need Characteristic parameters from a

to be determined. monotonous unit-step response.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–33

TaK

id //cTL

Instead of taking the 𝑎𝑎 parameter from the point, where the tangent

Process

Control

Laboratory

through the inflexion point (i.e., the point where the slope is highest) of

the step response crosses the vertical axis, it can be calculated when the

coordinates (𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ) of the inflexion point are known. The calculation is

valid for any size of 𝑢𝑢step . The formula for 𝑎𝑎 is

𝐿𝐿𝑦𝑦i

𝑎𝑎 = (7.34)

𝑢𝑢step (𝑡𝑡i −𝐿𝐿)

𝜃𝜃 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇ekv , 𝑇𝑇ekv = 𝑡𝑡63 − 𝐿𝐿 (7.35)

where 𝑇𝑇ekv is the equivalent time constant of the system and 𝑡𝑡63 is the

time it takes to reach 63% of the total output change.

The step response of a purely integrating system is a ramp that changes

linearly with time, i.e., it has a constant slope. Any point on the ramp

can then be used as a pair of coordinates (𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ) for calculation of 𝑎𝑎

according to (7.34).

7. PID Controllers 7.5 Tuning based on step response

Control

Laboratory

In 1942, Ziegler and Nichols also suggested tunings for P, PI and PID

controllers based on the information that can be obtained from a step

test. Their recommendations for an ideal controller are given in Table 7.4.

The method requires 𝐿𝐿 > 0 and preferably 0.1 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1.

recommendations based on step response.

Controller aK c Ti / L Td / L

P 1.0 – –

PI 0.9 3 –

PID 1.2 2 0.5

response and step response do not necessarily give the same controller

tuning for the same process.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–35

7. PID Controllers 7.5 Tuning based on step response

Control

Laboratory

In 1952, Chien, Hrones and Reswick suggested improvements to Ziegler’s

and Nichols’s recommendations based on a step response. The CHR-

method gives

different tunings for regulatory control and setpoint tracking

tunings for aggressive control (with ~20 % overshoot) and cautious

control (no overshoot)

The method requires 𝐿𝐿 > 0 and preferably 0.1 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1.

The CHR tunings (even the aggressive one) are less aggressive than the ZN

tuning.

Note that the different tunings for regulatory control and setpoint

tracking can directly be used in a 2DOF controller.

7.5 Tuning based on step response 7.5.2 The CHR method

Table 7.5. Controller tuning for regulatory control by the CHR method.

Process

Control

Laboratory

No overshoot 20 % overshoot

Controller

aK c Ti / L Td / L aK c Ti / L Td / L

P 0.3 – – 0.7 – –

PI 0.6 4.0 – 0.7 2.3 –

PID 0.95 2.4 0.42 1.2 2.0 0.42

Table 7.6. Controller tuning for setpoint tracking by the CHR method.

No overshoot 20 % overshoot

Controller

aK c Ti / T Td / L aK c Ti / T Td / L

P 0,3 – – 0,7 – –

PI 0,35 1,2 – 0,6 1,0 –

PID 0,6 1,0 0,5 0,95 1,4 0,47

7. PID Controllers 7.5 Tuning based on step response

Control

Laboratory

In 2006, Åström and Hägglund presented improved controller tunings

based on a step response. In addition to 𝑎𝑎 and 𝐿𝐿 , they use 𝜃𝜃 in their

correlations, which can be used for all 𝜃𝜃 ≥ 0. However, for 𝜃𝜃 < 0.4 ,

they tend to be conservative. For an integrating process, 𝜃𝜃 = 0 is used.

The tunings are primarily intended for regulatory control. For setpoint

tracking, setpoint weighting can be used as follows:

PI control: 𝑏𝑏 = 1 if 𝜃𝜃 > 0.4 , 𝑏𝑏 < 1 if 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 0.4 (optimal 𝑏𝑏 is unclear)

PID control: 𝑏𝑏 = 1 if 𝜃𝜃 > 1 , 𝑏𝑏 = 0 if 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1

Table 7.7. Åström’s and Hägglund’s controller tuning correlations

Controller aK c Ti / L Td / L

θ 13

PI 0.35 + 0.15θ − 0.35 + –

(1 + θ ) 2 1 + 12 θ + 7θ 2

8 + 4θ 0.5

PID 0.45 + 0.2 θ

1 + 10 θ 1 + 0.3θ

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.6 Model-based controller tuning

Laboratory

The controller tuning methods in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 employ parameters

that can be determined from an experiment with an existing process.

If a process model is known, the same parameters can be determined

through a simulation experiment

possibly by direct calculation from the process model

For example, a first-order system with a time delay has the transfer

function

𝐾𝐾

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.36)

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1

from which the parameters 𝑎𝑎 and 𝜃𝜃 can be calculated according to

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 𝐿𝐿

𝑎𝑎 = , 𝜃𝜃 = (7.37)

𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇

The same tuning methods as in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 can then be used.

However, the methods in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 are “general purpose”

methods that are not optimized for any specific model type.

For a given model, better controller tunings probably exist.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–39

7. PID Controllers 7.6 Model-based controller tuning

Control

Laboratory

The transfer function is defined in (7.36) and the parameter 𝜃𝜃 in (7.37).

Minimization of error integrals

Controller tunings that minimize IAE and ITAE when 0.1 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1.

Table 7.8. IAE and ITAE minimizing controller tunings for regulatory control.

integral KK c KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T

IAE 0.902 θ −0.985 0.984 θ −0.986 1.645 θ 0.707 1.435 θ −0.921 1.139 θ 0.749 0.482 θ 1.137

ITAE 0.490 θ −1.084 0.859 θ −0.977 1.484 θ 0.680 1.357 θ −0.947 1.188 θ 0.738 0.381 θ 0.995

Table 7.9. IAE and ITAE minimizing controller tunings for setpoint tracking.

integral KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T

IAE 0.758 θ −0.861 (1.020 − 0.323θ ) −1 1.086 θ −0.869 (0.740 − 0.130 θ ) −1 0.348 θ 0.914

ITAE 0.586 θ −0.916 (1.030 − 0.165θ ) −1 0.965 θ −0.855 (0.796 − 0.147 θ ) −1 0.308 θ 0.929

7.6 Model-based controller tuning 7.6.1 First-order system with time delay

Other optimality criteria

Process

Control

Laboratory The controller tunings for minimizing the error integrals IAE and ITAE in

Tables 7.8 and 7.9 do not give any robustness guarantees. Thus, the

control performance can be bad if the model contains errors.

Cvejn (2009) has derived controller tunings that have a certain robustness

even for systems with large time delays, i.e., for large 𝜃𝜃 values.

Table 7.10. Cvejn’s tunings for regulatory control and setpoint tracking.

PI controller PID controller

Control

KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T

Regulatory +

2θ 1 + 5.92 θ 4θ 1 + 3.91θ 3 3.26 + θ

1 3 +θ θ θ

Tracking 1 1+

2θ 4θ 3 3 +θ

The PI controller tunings tend to give better robustness than the PID

controller tunings, which tend to give better performance.

7. PID Controllers 7.6 Model-based controller tuning

Control

Laboratory

We shall consider second-order systems with a time delay but no zeros.

Such a system has the transfer function

2

𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 2 2 e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.40)

𝑠𝑠 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n

In Cvejn’s method for tracking control, the controller 𝐺𝐺c (𝑠𝑠) is tuned to

give the loop transfer 𝐺𝐺k (𝑠𝑠) = 𝐺𝐺(𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺c (𝑠𝑠) such that

1 −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

𝐺𝐺k 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.38)

2𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

or

1 3

𝐺𝐺k 𝑠𝑠 = 1+ e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.39)

4 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

Exercise 7.3

Use Cvejn’s method for tracking control to tune a PID controller for the

system (7.40).

7.6 Model-based controller tuning 7.6.2 Second-order system with delay

Overdamped system

Process

Control

Laboratory For an overdamped (or critically damped) second-order system, 𝜁𝜁 ≥ 1.

In this case, (7.40) is more conveniently written as

𝐾𝐾

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 (7.41)

(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)

Cvejn’s method can be used also in this case, but Åström and Hägglund

(2006) suggest the following tuning when the system is overdamped:

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c = 0.19 + 0.37𝜃𝜃1−1 + 0.18𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.02𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇i = 0.48 + 0.03𝜃𝜃1−1 − 0.0007𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.0012𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1 (7.42)

𝜃𝜃1 +𝜃𝜃2

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d /𝐿𝐿 = 0.29 + 0.16𝜃𝜃1−1 − 0.2𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.28𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1

𝜃𝜃1 +𝜃𝜃2 +𝜃𝜃1 𝜃𝜃2

where

𝜃𝜃1 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇1 , 𝜃𝜃2 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇2 (7.43)

7.6.2 Second-order system with delay Overdamped system

Process

Control

Laboratory A second-order no-zero system including an integrator has the transfer

function

𝐾𝐾

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.44)

𝑠𝑠 (𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)

For this kind of system, Åström and Hägglund (2006) suggest the tuning:

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿 = 0.37 + 0.02𝜃𝜃2−1

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿2 /𝑇𝑇i = 0.03 + 0.0012𝜃𝜃2−1 (7.45)

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d = 0.16 + 0.28𝜃𝜃2−1

𝐾𝐾 −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.46)

𝑠𝑠 2

the suggested tuning is

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿2 = 0.02

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿3 /𝑇𝑇i = 0.0012

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d 𝐿𝐿 = 0.28

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.7 Controller design by direct synthesis

Laboratory

In the previous sections, equations for controller tuning have been given

for first- and second-order no-zero systems.

The equations are usually the result of optimization of some criterion

that is considered to imply “good control”.

However, what is “good control” varies from case to case depending

on the compromise between stability and performance.

A drawback of the tuning equations is that the user cannot influence

the tuning according to his/her opinion of “good control”.

In this section, a method is introduced whereby

the user can influence the controller tuning in a systematic way

according to his/her opinion of “good control”

more model types than in previous sections can be handled, e.g.,

systems with a zero

7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Control

Laboratory

Consider the closed-loop V (s)

Gd ( s )

system in the figure with the

+

following transfer functions: R( s)

Gc ( s ) G (s)

+ Y (s)

– 𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 process being controlled +

−

– 𝐺𝐺c 𝑠𝑠 controller

– 𝐺𝐺d 𝑠𝑠 disturbance system Block diagram of closed-loop system

Standard block diagram algebra gives

𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 𝐺𝐺d

𝑌𝑌 = 𝑅𝑅 + 𝑉𝑉 (7.49)

1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c

where

𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 𝐺𝐺d

𝐺𝐺r = , 𝐺𝐺v = (7.50,51)

1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c

are the closed-loop transfer functions from the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 and the

disturbance 𝑉𝑉 to the output 𝑌𝑌.

The user can specify the desired 𝐺𝐺r for setpoint tracking or 𝐺𝐺v for regu-

latory control. For setpoint tracking, the required controller is given by

1 𝐺𝐺r

𝐺𝐺c = (7.52)

𝐺𝐺 (1−𝐺𝐺r )

7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Control

Laboratory

First-order system

A strictly proper first-order system without a time delay has the transfer

function

𝐾𝐾

𝐺𝐺 = (7.53)

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1

Assume that we want the controlled system to behave as a first-order

system with the time constant 𝑇𝑇r . Then,

1 𝐺𝐺r 1

𝐺𝐺r = , which gives = (7.54)

𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠

Substitution of (7.53) and (7.54) into (7.52) gives

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1 1 𝑇𝑇 1

𝐺𝐺c = = 1+ (7.55)

𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇

which is a PI controller with the parameters

𝑇𝑇

𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 (7.56)

𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r

Here, 𝑇𝑇r is a design parameter, by which the performance of the control

system can be affected.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–47

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.2 Low-order min-phase systems

Second-order system with no zero

Process

Control

Laboratory A second-order system with no zero and no time delay has the transfer

function

2

𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 2 (7.57)

𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n

controlled system to be of first order. Substitution of (7.54) and (7.57)

into (7.52) then gives

𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n

2 1 2𝜁𝜁 𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺c = 2 = 1+ + (7.58)

𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n 𝑇𝑇r 2𝜁𝜁𝑠𝑠 2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n

2𝜁𝜁 2𝜁𝜁 1

𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = , 𝑇𝑇d = (7.59)

𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n 𝑇𝑇r 𝜔𝜔n 2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n

Also here, 𝑇𝑇r is a design parameter which only affects the controller gain.

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.2 Low-order min-phase systems

Overdamped second-order system with a LHP zero

Process

Control

Laboratory An overdamped second-order system with a zero in the left half of the

complex plane (LHP) has the transfer function

𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = , 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0 (7.60)

(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)

(7.54) and (7.60) into (7.52) gives

(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1) 1 1 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠 2 + 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1

𝐺𝐺c = =

𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1) 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1

1 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇3 𝑇𝑇3 2

= 1 + 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠 + 𝑠𝑠

𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1

or

1 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺c = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + (7.61)

𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1

where

𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇3 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2

𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇3 , 𝑇𝑇d = − 𝑇𝑇3 , 𝑇𝑇f = 𝑇𝑇3 (7.62)

𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇3

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–49

7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Control

Laboratory

A high-order minimum-phase system with real poles and zeros, but with

no time delay, has the transfer function

∑𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚

𝑗𝑗=𝑛𝑛+1(𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1)

𝐺𝐺 = 𝐾𝐾 ∑𝑛𝑛

, 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 > 0 , 𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 > 0 , 𝑛𝑛 > 2 (7.63)

𝑖𝑖=1(𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠+1)

be obtained by a full PID controller.

If 𝑛𝑛 > 3, it is not possible to obtain a closed-loop system of lower

order than 3 by a PID controller and an exact design by specifying 𝐺𝐺r

is thus not practical.

In the case of 𝑛𝑛 > 3 , two possibilities are to specify a closed-loop

system of first or second order and then to

first calculate a 𝐺𝐺c according to (7.52), then to approximate 𝐺𝐺c by a

PID controller;

first approximate 𝐺𝐺 by a model of at most third order, then to

calculate the PID controller according to (7.52).

In Section 7.9, the latter approach will be described.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–50

7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Control

Laboratory

A second-order system with real poles and a right half plane (RHP) zero

has the transfer function

𝐾𝐾(−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = , 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0 (7.71)

(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)

RHP pole if 𝐺𝐺r is chosen as in the previous sections.

One possible solution is to approximate the unstable controller by a

stable controller. This tends to result in too aggressive control because

the controller is then designed as if there were no RHP zero in 𝐺𝐺 .

Another solution is to include the same RHP zero in 𝐺𝐺r as in 𝐺𝐺 ; it will

then be cancelled out in (7.52) and the controller will automatically be

stable. This means that the choice of 𝐺𝐺r is restricted, but otherwise

the control performance tends to be as expected.

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.4 System with RHP zero

Process

Control

Laboratory The closed-loop transfer function is chosen as

−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1 𝐺𝐺r −𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1

𝐺𝐺r = , which gives = (7.72)

𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 1−𝐺𝐺r (𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 )𝑠𝑠

(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1) 1 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 1 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺c = = 1+ + (7.73)

𝐾𝐾 (𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 )𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 ) 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2

𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2

𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 , 𝑇𝑇d = (7.74)

𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 ) 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.4 System with RHP zero

Process

Control

Laboratory A first-order system with a zero is proper, but not strictly proper. If a zero

is present, a strictly proper system has to be at least second order.

Hence, a more natural choice for 𝐺𝐺r is

(−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)𝜔𝜔r2 𝐺𝐺r (−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)𝜔𝜔r2

𝐺𝐺r = , which gives = (7.75)

𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁r 𝜔𝜔r 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔r2 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑠𝑠(𝑠𝑠+2𝜁𝜁r 𝜔𝜔r +𝑇𝑇3 𝜔𝜔r2 )

𝑇𝑇f = 1/(2𝜁𝜁r 𝜔𝜔r + 𝑇𝑇3 𝜔𝜔r2 ) (7.76)

Substitution of (7.71) and (7.75) into (7.52), gives with (7.76)

(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠 2 + 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1

𝐺𝐺c = = (7.77)

𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1

Analogously with the derivation of (7.62), this gives the PID controller

parameters (7.76) and

𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2

𝐾𝐾c = (𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇f ), 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇f , 𝑇𝑇d = − 𝑇𝑇f (7.78)

𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇f

where 𝑇𝑇f is the derivative filter time constant in a PID controller (7.61).

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–53

7.7.4 Second-order system with RHP zero Closed-loop system of 2nd order

Process

Control

Laboratory In (7.75), there are two design parameters, the relative damping 𝜁𝜁r , and

the undamped natural frequency 𝜔𝜔r . The meanings of these parameters

are discussed in Section 5.3, especially Subsection 5.3.3.

The choice of design parameters can be simplified in the following two

ways.

Let 𝐺𝐺r have two equally large real poles at −1/𝑇𝑇r . This corresponds

to 𝜁𝜁r = 1 and 𝜔𝜔r = 1/𝑇𝑇r , which for (7.76) gives

𝑇𝑇r2

𝑇𝑇f =

2𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3

Let 𝐺𝐺r have real poles at −1/𝑇𝑇r and −1/𝑇𝑇3 . This corresponds to

𝜁𝜁r = 0.5(𝑇𝑇r + 𝑇𝑇3 )𝜔𝜔r and 𝜔𝜔r = 1/ 𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇3 , which for (7.76) gives

𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇3

𝑇𝑇f =

𝑇𝑇r +2𝑇𝑇3

7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Control

Laboratory

To illustrate how systems with a time delay can be handled by direct

synthesis, a first-order system with a time delay will be studied. Such a

system has the transfer function

𝐾𝐾

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.79)

𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠+1

containing a time delay — there is no practical way to avoid this by the

choice of 𝐺𝐺r .

There are methods to implement a controller resulting from (7.52)

(see Section 7.8), but not by a regular PID controller.

If a PID controller is desired, the time delay has to be approximated in

some way.

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.5 1st order system with a delay

Process

Control

Laboratory A standard way of approximating a time delay is to use a Padé approxi-

mation. I first-order Padé approximation

1−0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ≈ (7.80)

1+0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

gives the model

𝐾𝐾(−0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1)

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = (7.81)

(𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠+1)(0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1)

−0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1 𝐺𝐺r −0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1

𝐺𝐺r = , which gives = (7.82)

(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1)(0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1) 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑠𝑠(0.5𝑇𝑇r 𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠+𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿)

Substitution of (7.81) and (7.82) into (7.52) gives a PID controller with the

parameters

𝑇𝑇+0.5𝐿𝐿−𝑇𝑇f 0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 0.5𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇r

𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 + 0.5𝐿𝐿 − 𝑇𝑇f , 𝑇𝑇d = , 𝑇𝑇f = (7.83)

𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿) 𝑇𝑇+0.5𝐿𝐿−𝑇𝑇f 𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿

Here, 𝑇𝑇f is the time constant of a derivative filter in the PID controller

(7.61).

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.5 1st order system with a delay

Process

Control

Laboratory If e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 is retained in the model, it also has to be part of 𝐺𝐺r , because it is

impossible for the closed-loop system to have a shorter time-delay than

the uncontrolled system.

If 𝐺𝐺r is chosen to be first order with a time delay

1 𝐺𝐺r e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

𝐺𝐺r = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , which gives = (7.84)

𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1−e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1

𝐺𝐺c = (7.85)

𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1−e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 )

Unfortunately, this controller cannot be implemented by a PID controller

in a regular feedback loop. In order to do that, the time delay in (7.85)

has to be approximated by a rational expression.

If the approximation (7.80) is used, the controller parameters will be

as in (7.83).

The simpler approximation e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ≈ 1 − 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 gives a PI controller with

𝑇𝑇

𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 (7.86)

𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿)

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.8 Internal model control

Laboratory

“Internal model control” (IMC) is closely related to “direct synthesis” (DS).

As in DS, a model of the system to be controlled is explicitly built into the

controller, but in a different way.

An advantage with IMC is that it is easier to implement more complex

control laws than regular PID controllers. For example, the controller

transfer function (7.85) can easily be implemented exactly with IMC.

Even if the controller design is based on IMC, it is often desirable to

implement the controller as a regular PID controller. In such cases, the

IMC approach offers better possibilities to deal with robustness issues

than DS.

7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Control

Laboratory

Consider the closed-loop

system in the figure with the

following transfer functions: E (s)

– 𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 true process G (s)

Gˆ ( s )

– 𝐺𝐺IMC 𝑠𝑠 a controller

– 𝐺𝐺d 𝑠𝑠 disturbance system

Standard block diagram algebra The IMC structure.

gives 𝑈𝑈 = 𝐺𝐺IMC (𝐸𝐸 + 𝐺𝐺� 𝑈𝑈) from which

𝑈𝑈 −1 −1 𝐺𝐺IMC

= 𝐺𝐺c = 𝐼𝐼 − 𝐺𝐺IMC 𝐺𝐺� 𝐺𝐺IMC = 𝐺𝐺IMC 𝐼𝐼 − 𝐺𝐺� 𝐺𝐺IMC = (7.87)

𝐸𝐸 1−𝐺𝐺� 𝐺𝐺IMC

Assume that

𝐺𝐺IMC = 𝐺𝐺� −1 𝐺𝐺f (7.88)

where 𝐺𝐺f is a “filter”. Substitution of (7.88) into (7.87) gives

1 𝐺𝐺f

𝐺𝐺c = 𝐺𝐺� −1 𝐺𝐺f 𝐼𝐼 − 𝐺𝐺f −1 = (7.89)

𝐺𝐺� (1−𝐺𝐺f )

If the filter is chosen as 𝐺𝐺f = 𝐺𝐺r (and 𝐺𝐺� = 𝐺𝐺), this is the same as (7.52) !

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–59

7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Control

Laboratory

Consider a system modelled as a first-order system with a time delay, i.e.,

𝐺𝐺� = 𝐾𝐾e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 /(𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 1). Choose the IMC filter as 𝐺𝐺f = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 /(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 + 1) .

Substitution into (7.88) now gives

1 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1 1 𝑇𝑇−𝑇𝑇r

𝐺𝐺IMC = = 1+ 𝑠𝑠 (7.90)

𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1

which is a PD controller with a derivative filter having the parameters

𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 1/𝐾𝐾 , 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇 − 𝑇𝑇r , 𝑇𝑇f = 𝑇𝑇r . Substitution of (7.90) and the model

𝐺𝐺� into (7.87) gives

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1

𝐺𝐺c = −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.91)

𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1−e )

which identical with (7.85). The difference is that (7.91) can be implemen-

ted exactly with the IMC structure without time-delay approximation.

Note that there is no integration in 𝐺𝐺IMC , but the feedback of 𝐺𝐺� in the

IMC structure introduces integration if 𝐺𝐺IMC has been calculated using

the same 𝐺𝐺� in (7.88); integration is achieved even if 𝐺𝐺� ≠ 𝐺𝐺 .

Exercise. Calculate the closed-loop transfer function 𝐺𝐺r when 𝐺𝐺� ≠ 𝐺𝐺 .

Show that there will be no steady-state error, i.e., that 𝐺𝐺r 0 = 1 .

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–60

7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Control

Laboratory

The previous block diagram of the IMC structure is drawn to empha-

size how 𝐺𝐺IMC combined with the feedback of 𝐺𝐺� is equivalent to 𝐺𝐺c .

The block diagram can also be drawn to emphasize the predictive

character of the IMC structure, as shown below. (Note that the two

diagrams are completely equivalent.)

– The control signal is an input to the real system 𝐺𝐺 and the model 𝐺𝐺� .

– 𝐺𝐺� predicts the output 𝑌𝑌�, which is compared with the true output 𝑌𝑌.

– Only the prediction error 𝐸𝐸 = 𝑌𝑌 − 𝑌𝑌� is fed back, not the entire 𝑌𝑌.

The latter property is a clear

advantage in controller design.

If 𝐺𝐺� = 𝐺𝐺 (i.e., 𝐸𝐸 = 0)

𝐺𝐺r = 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺IMC (7.93) G (s)

loop transfer function depends Gˆ ( s )

of 𝐺𝐺IMC easier than design of 𝐺𝐺c . Predictive nature of IMC structure.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–61

7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Control

Laboratory

The following conclusions can be drawn from (7.93):

A stable closed-loop system 𝐺𝐺r requires a stable IMC controller 𝐺𝐺IMC ;

in particular, the IMC controller may not contain integral action.

Non-minimum phase properties (i.e., RHP zeros and time delays) in 𝐺𝐺

will also be present in 𝐺𝐺r because they cannot be cancelled out by a

stable and realizable 𝐺𝐺IMC .

From (7.88) it follows that

the filter 𝐺𝐺f has to be chosen to cancel out non-minimum phase prop-

erties of 𝐺𝐺 — this is equivalent to the choice of 𝐺𝐺r in direct synthesis.

In practice, the IMC design is done differently. Instead of guaranteeing

the stability and realizability of 𝐺𝐺IMC by the choice of 𝐺𝐺f , it is handled

by the choice of 𝐺𝐺� to be inverted: non-minimum phase parts of 𝐺𝐺� are

not inverted.

7.8 Internal model control 7.8.4 Controller design

Process

Control

Laboratory 𝐺𝐺� = 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ (7.94)

where 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ contains all non-minimum-phase elements of 𝐺𝐺� , but no

minimum-phase elements, and normalized so that 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ 0 = 1 (i.e., it

has the static gain 1). This means that 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ contains all RHP zeros and

time delays of 𝐺𝐺� ; if there are no such elements, 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ = 1.

When 𝐺𝐺IMC is calculated according to (7.88), only 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ is inverted. Thus,

−1

𝐺𝐺IMC = 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ 𝐺𝐺f (7.95)

Note that the full 𝐺𝐺� should be used as internal model as illustrated by

the IMC block diagrams — the use of 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ is only a technical aid for the

calculation of 𝐺𝐺IMC .

The IMC filter 𝐺𝐺f could be chosen as the desired closed-loop transfer

function without any non-minimum phase elements (not even a time

delay), but in practice a low-pass filter

1

𝐺𝐺f = (7.96)

(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1)𝑛𝑛

is chosen. Here, 𝑛𝑛 is an integer, usually 𝑛𝑛 = 1, sometimes 𝑛𝑛 > 1.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–63

7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Control

Laboratory

An advantage of the IMC structure is that time delays can be handled

exactly, but often a regular PID controller is preferred, because it is

standard software in all automation systems.

If an IMC controller 𝐺𝐺IMC has been designed, the corresponding

“regular” controller 𝐺𝐺c can be calculated according to (7.87).

If 𝐺𝐺� contains a time delay, it will also be present in 𝐺𝐺c .

In such cases, the time delay has to be approximated in a suitable way.

Table 7.12 shows IMC-based tunings of regular PID controllers for some

typical model structures.

The tunings can also be used for models of lower degree or no time

delay as long as

𝑇𝑇1 > 0 , 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ 0 , 𝑇𝑇3 ≥ 0 , 𝐿𝐿 ≥ 0 (7.101)

The tunings can be used for (underdamped) models expressed by the

relative damping an the natural frequency by the substitutions

𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 = 2𝜁𝜁/𝜔𝜔n , 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 = 1/𝜔𝜔n2 (7.103)

Usually 𝑇𝑇r is chosen such that 𝐿𝐿 ≤ 𝑇𝑇r < 𝑇𝑇 (but no clear consensus).

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–64

7.8 Internal model control 7.8.5 Implementation with a PID controller

Process

Control

Laboratory G (s) Kc K Ti Td λ

K e− Ls

Ti / λ T1 + 12 L 1 LT1 / Ti Tr + 12 L

T1s + 1 2

K (T3 s + 1) e− Ls

Ti / λ T1 + T2 − T3 (T1T2 / Ti ) − T3 Tr + L

(T1s + 1)(T2 s + 1)

K (−T3 s + 1) e− Ls

Ti / λ T1 + T2 + (T3 L / λ ) (T1T2 / Ti ) − (T3 L / λ ) Tr + T3 + L

(T1s + 1)(T2 s + 1)

K e− Ls L(1 − 12 L / Ti ) Tr + 12 L

Ti / λ 2 2λ 1

2

s

K e− Ls

Ti / λ 2 2λ + T2 − L T2 (1 − T2 / Ti ) Tr + L

s (T2 s + 1)

used in the calculations, is closely related to 𝑇𝑇r . Note that the calculated

integral time 𝑇𝑇i is used in several expressions.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–65

7. PID Controllers

Process

Control

7.9 Model simplification

Laboratory

Many controller tuning methods have been presented in the previous

sections.

Section 7.4: Controller tuning based on frequency-response para-

meters 𝐾𝐾c,max , 𝑃𝑃c (or 𝜔𝜔c ) and 𝜅𝜅. These methods are “general-

purpose methods” not optimized for any specific model type.

Section 7.5: Controller tuning based on step-response parameters

𝑎𝑎 (or 𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ), 𝐿𝐿 and 𝜃𝜃. These methods are also general-purpose

methods not optimized for any specific model type.

Section 7.6: Model-based tuning optimized for given model structures

and control criteria with no user interaction.

Section 7.7: Direct synthesis for low-order models according to desired

closed-loop response.

Section 7.8: Internal model control mainly for low-order models

according to desired closed-loop response.

In this section, methods to reduce high-order models to first- or second-

order models are presented. Any controller tuning method can be used.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–66

7. PID Controllers 7.9 Model simplification

Control

Laboratory

Skogestad and Grimholt (2012) have presented a method to simplify a

high-order model with real poles and zeros to a first- or second-order

model with a time delay but with no zeros.

The transfer function to be simplified is factorized into a minimum-phase

part 𝐺𝐺 ⊖ and a non-minimum-phase part 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ , i.e.,

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ (𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺 ⊖ (s) (7.106)

Any left-half plane (LHP) zeros of 𝐺𝐺 ⊖ (s) and RHP zeros of 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ (𝑠𝑠) are

eliminated by suitable approximations.

Elimination of LHP zeros

If the poles and zeros are real, the minimum-phase part has the form

𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠+1)

𝐺𝐺 ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 = (7.107)

𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠+1)

where 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 > 0, 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 > 0 , 𝑛𝑛 > 𝑚𝑚.

The simplification procedure now goes as follows.

The numerator time constants 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 , 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 , …, 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 are considered in

that order. Assume that 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is the one currently being considered.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–67

7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Elimination of LHP zeros

Next, the smallest remaining denominator time constant 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 such that

Process

Control

Laboratory

𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is selected. If there is no such time constant, or if

𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≫ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 , the smaller 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 closest to 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is chosen. It is considered

2

that 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≫ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 > 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖+1 and 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖+1 < 1.6 .

The ratio (𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠 + 1)/(𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠 + 1) is now approximated as

𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 5𝑇𝑇r a

5𝑇𝑇r /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖

if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 5𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 b

5𝑇𝑇r −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1

𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1 1

≈ if 5𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 c (7.108)

𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1

𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠+1

𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 if 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇r (d)

𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇r if 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (e)

1 if 𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (f)

Here, 𝑇𝑇r is the desired closed-loop time constant. If this is not known,

the suggested value is 𝑇𝑇r = 𝐿𝐿� , which is the time delay in the

simplified model. Since this is not initially known, one may have to

iterate (i.e., first guessing 𝐿𝐿�, then possibly correcting with the new 𝐿𝐿�).

7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Elimination of LHP zeros

Process

Control

Laboratory

the form

�

𝐾𝐾

𝐺𝐺� ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 = � � �

(7.109)

𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛

� 𝑠𝑠+1)

Note that the gain as well as the values and number of denominator time

constants may have changed from the original 𝐺𝐺 ⊖ .

The transfer function 𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ (𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺� ⊖ (s) now has the form

� −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+1 𝑠𝑠+1 −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(−𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠+1)

𝐾𝐾

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.110)

𝑇𝑇�1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇�2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛

� 𝑠𝑠+1)

Skogestad’s half rule

If an approximate model of order 𝑛𝑛� is desired, the 𝑛𝑛� largest denomi-

nator time constants are retained in the model with the modification that

half of 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛�+1 is added to 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛� . Half of 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛�+1 is also added to the time delay as

well as all remaining smaller denominator time constants. In addition, all

negative numerator time constants are subtracted from the time delay.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–69

7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Elimination of RHP zeros and the half rule

Process

Control

Laboratory If a first-order model is desired, the half rule gives

�

𝐾𝐾 −𝐿𝐿�𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.111a)

𝑇𝑇� 𝑠𝑠+1

𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑝𝑝

𝑇𝑇� = 𝑇𝑇�1 + 12𝑇𝑇�2 , 𝐿𝐿� = 𝐿𝐿 + 12𝑇𝑇�2 + ∑𝑖𝑖=3

𝑛𝑛�

𝑇𝑇�𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑗𝑗=𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+1 𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 (7.111b)

If a second-order model is desired, the half rule gives

�

𝐾𝐾 −𝐿𝐿�𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.112a)

(𝑇𝑇�1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇�2 𝑠𝑠+1)

𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑝𝑝

𝑇𝑇�2 = 𝑇𝑇�2 + 12𝑇𝑇�3 , 𝐿𝐿� = 𝐿𝐿 + 12𝑇𝑇�3 + ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=4

�

𝑇𝑇�𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑗𝑗=𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+1 𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 (7.112b)

7.9 Model simplification 7.9.1 Skogestad’s method

Process

Control

Laboratory Simplify the model

(16𝑠𝑠+1)(4𝑠𝑠+1)(−8𝑠𝑠+1)e−2𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 =

(50𝑠𝑠+1)(20𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)

to a second-order model by Skogestad’s method and determine the

parameters of a PID controller by IMC-based tuning for this model. Use a

first-order filter time constant 𝑇𝑇r = 10.

Here

(16𝑠𝑠+1)(4𝑠𝑠+1)

𝐺𝐺 ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 = .

(50𝑠𝑠+1)(20𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)

16𝑠𝑠+1 1

According to (7.108c), ≈ . The numerator factor (4𝑠𝑠 + 1) can

20𝑠𝑠+1 4𝑠𝑠+1

now be cancelled out against the new denominator factor, which gives

1

𝐺𝐺� ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 =

(50𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)

and

(−8𝑠𝑠+1)e−2𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = .

(50𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)

7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Example 7.2

Process

Control �

𝐾𝐾 −𝐿𝐿�𝑠𝑠

Laboratory

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e

(𝑇𝑇�1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇�2 𝑠𝑠+1)

Thus

1

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e−17𝑠𝑠 .

(50𝑠𝑠+1)(15𝑠𝑠+1)

– 𝜆𝜆 = 𝑇𝑇r + 𝐿𝐿� = 10 + 17 = 27

– 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇�1 + 𝑇𝑇�2 = 50 + 12 = 62

– 𝐾𝐾c = 𝑇𝑇i /(𝐾𝐾 � 𝜆𝜆) = 62/(1 ⋅ 27) = 2.3

– 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇�1 𝑇𝑇�2 /𝑇𝑇i = 50 ⋅ 15/62 = 12.1

7. PID Controllers 7.9 Model simplification

Control

Laboratory

Isaksson and Graebe (1999) have presented a method to simplify a high-

order model, where the fast and slow dynamics are combined to yield a

model with a desired number of poles and zeros. If the original model

contains a time delay, it is either left intact or substituted by a Padé

approximation.

To describe the method, both factorized and polynomial forms of the

original transfer function are employed. If the numerator order is 𝑚𝑚 and

the denominator order is 𝑛𝑛 , the transfer function is

𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠+1)

𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐾 (7.113a)

𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠+1)

𝑏𝑏0 𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚 +⋯+𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−2 𝑠𝑠 2 +𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 𝑠𝑠+1

= 𝐾𝐾 (7.113b)

𝑎𝑎0 𝑠𝑠 𝑛𝑛 +⋯+𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 𝑠𝑠 2 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1

where 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 > 0 (i.e., a stable system) and |𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 | ≥

|𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 | ≥ ⋯ ≥ |𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 | . The numerator time constants can be positive or

negative.

7.9 Model simplification 7.9.2 Isakssons’s and Graebe’s method

If a model with the numerator order 𝑚𝑚

� and the denominator order 𝑛𝑛� is

Process

Control desired, the simplified model is

Laboratory

𝑚𝑚

� 𝑠𝑠+1) + 𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−𝑚𝑚� 𝑠𝑠 +⋯+𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 𝑠𝑠+1

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐾 �

𝑛𝑛 (7.114)

𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛

� 𝑠𝑠+1) + 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−𝑛𝑛

� 𝑠𝑠 +⋯+𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1

poles number 𝑛𝑛� and 𝑛𝑛� + 1 or zeros number 𝑛𝑛 + 𝑚𝑚� and 𝑛𝑛 + 𝑚𝑚

� + 1.

One solution is then to use the real part of the complex conjugate as 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛�

� .

or 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚

second-order model, possibly with a time delay, is usually desired. Then

𝐾𝐾

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 1 (1st order) (7.115a)

𝑇𝑇 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1

2 1

1

𝐾𝐾 2 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 +𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 𝑠𝑠+1

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 1 2 +1 𝑇𝑇 +𝑇𝑇 +𝑎𝑎

(2nd order) (7.115b)

2

𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 𝑠𝑠 2 1 2 𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1

where

𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 = ∑𝑚𝑚 𝑛𝑛 1

𝑗𝑗=1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 , 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 = ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 , 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 = 2 ∑𝑛𝑛

2 𝑛𝑛 2

𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 −∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (7.116)

7.9 Model simplification 7.9.2 Isakssons’s and Graebe’s method

Example 7.3. IMC via model reduction by Isaksson–Graebe’s method.

Process

Control

Laboratory Solve the same problem as in Example 7.2 by Isaksson’s and Graebe’s

model reduction method.

The model gives

𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 = 16 + 4 − 8 = 12 , 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 = 50 + 20 + 12 + 6 + 3 + 1 = 92

𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 = 12 922−(502+202+122+62+32+12) = 2687

from which

1

16+12 𝑠𝑠+1 (14𝑠𝑠+1)e−2𝑠𝑠

𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 1 2

2 +1 70+92 𝑠𝑠+1

e−2𝑠𝑠 =

1000+2687 𝑠𝑠 1843.5𝑠𝑠 2 +81𝑠𝑠+1

2 2

𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 = 81 and 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 = 1843.5 can be used in the controller calcula-

tions. Table 7.12 for IMC-based tuning of second-order model then gives

– 𝜆𝜆 = 𝑇𝑇r + 𝐿𝐿 = 10 + 2 = 12

– 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇�1 + 𝑇𝑇�2 − 𝑇𝑇�3 = 81 − 14 = 67

– 𝐾𝐾c = 𝑇𝑇i /(𝐾𝐾𝜆𝜆) = 67/(1 ⋅ 12) = 5.6 (much bigger than in Ex. 7.2!)

– 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇�1 𝑇𝑇�2 /𝑇𝑇i − 𝑇𝑇�3 = 1843.5/67 −14 = 13.5

- Analysis and Optimization of an Electronic Throttle for Linear Operating ModesÎncărcat deDamjan Ule
- Ei2356 Pcs Lab Set 2Încărcat deAnand Gvph
- 05-06_103-6Încărcat deRahmat Ismardi
- GS INS 161Încărcat deIsmail Sultan
- An Overview of Proportional Plus Integral Plus Derivative ControlÎncărcat deOllaf
- REV-ADE_IIJ-JournalÎncărcat deade hasan
- Articulo MecatronicaÎncărcat deAlberto Hinojosa
- Furnace Temperature ControlÎncărcat deManas De
- Endurance Testing of Aircraft Electro-Hydraulic Actuator Using LabVIEWÎncărcat deAI Coordinator - CSC Journals
- ITCA 2015Încărcat deCS & IT
- APC Foundation ToolsÎncărcat deShawn Chan
- Process Control Instrumentation Technology 8th EdÎncărcat deAffify Afify
- download_001.pdfÎncărcat deinfodotz
- New Microsoft Word DocumentÎncărcat deBarack Obama
- 1081ch2_1Încărcat dejigjigaw
- Manual FinalÎncărcat dekrushnasamy subramaniyan
- Guía de Uso PID Para ArduinoÎncărcat deTatiana Moreno M
- PLC_6Încărcat deMohamed Omar
- my thesisÎncărcat deapi-255025462
- Chen e Turng, 2005Încărcat deMayara Oliveira
- HomeworkÎncărcat deA4black
- 0047Încărcat deEngr Nayyer Nayyab Malik
- aÎncărcat degebremichael
- A review of L1 adpative output feedback control and its applications to uncertain & nonlinear systems by Minhaj-un-Nabi.pdfÎncărcat dealamsaqib1
- MTech Instrumentation & ControlÎncărcat deachus2207
- danfos ekc 312Încărcat deHendra Syahputra
- AMP ProposalÎncărcat dePortia Shilenge
- Developing Control Techniques for Two-Coordinate Planar Positioning Systems by Means of Coupled Advanced Simulation ToolsÎncărcat dearnika33
- TRP_DrewÎncărcat deAndrey Caro
- PID TutorialÎncărcat derashm006ranjan

- Chap1 PropertiesÎncărcat deshibeeshak_897835353
- LectureNotes-17.pdfÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- lecture22.pdfÎncărcat deLavkesh Lachhvani
- 1 (2)Încărcat deAdonay Yirga
- block diagram reduction.pdfÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- Control Systems I.pptÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- block diagram reduction.pdfÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- Best Int ControlÎncărcat dehinsermu
- Control SystemsÎncărcat dejolenesingh
- 19573Încărcat desvgl123
- 07 PID ControllerÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- 07 PID ControllerÎncărcat deZuhair Hamza
- FY_eng.pdfÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- Ch18_1_25_05Încărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- IMC_PID.pdfÎncărcat deGopi Pasala
- Chapter 10 PID 1Încărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- MIMOÎncărcat deIhwan Fauzi
- Chapter 1Încărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- 1Încărcat deVenkat Chakravarthi
- Signal Hand OutÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- Lecture 11Încărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- Second Order Systems ProgrammingÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- James Carstens,Automatic Control Systems and ComponentsÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- Chapter 10Încărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a
- Fundamentals of Network Analysis SynthesisÎncărcat deGarramiin Maal Ta'a

- Notice: Airport noise compatibility program: Noise exposure maps— St. Louis Downtown Airport, IL; new air traffic control towerÎncărcat deJustia.com
- Marie had a little lambÎncărcat deblackhatson13
- Digital Green Standard Operating ProceduresÎncărcat derikin5603
- EE370 L2 Design OverviewÎncărcat deNaman Humane
- MembersÎncărcat deapsari
- NASA.uplinkOrangeBookÎncărcat depathmakerpk
- Certificate of DeathÎncărcat deAngel Lai
- Aggregation of Key with Searchable Encryption for Group Data SharingÎncărcat deEditor IJRITCC
- worksheet enzyme.docÎncărcat deRia yulian
- Security 101 - PresentationÎncărcat denguyentamvinhlong
- Decision-Support-Package-Guidelines.pdfÎncărcat deMade Kurniawan
- ast101inÎncărcat deMyriam Valan
- energies-09-00002Încărcat deFulki Kautsar S
- MtAw - Legacies - The Rehashed (a Fan-Made Update)-1.22Încărcat deKris M
- Sage X3 - User Guide - HTG-Parcel Rate Shopping.pdfÎncărcat decaplusinc
- ParaViewGuide CEÎncărcat deMarco André Argenta
- UNIT 2C and Lab 6 XML SchemaÎncărcat detame regassa
- T00_VI03_STR_RE01_AÎncărcat deAlket Dhami
- Turning food waste into glassÎncărcat debugmyf-nuts
- Research ProposalÎncărcat deChris Kohl
- O'Connor -- A Historical Note on the Fisher-Yates Shuffle Algorithm.Încărcat deDerek O'Connor
- Managing Service and Manufacturing OperationsÎncărcat deAlvito Raihan Muhammad
- Transparent Electronics (Synopsis)Încărcat deAbhi Bhat
- 1-s2.0-S0890838914000596-mainÎncărcat deIka Yulianingtyas
- Chromogenic Smart MaterialsÎncărcat deSundar Perumalsamy
- Ati Radeon Hd 5600 SeriesÎncărcat demarios46
- Competition Law NotesÎncărcat deNelsonMoseM
- USA v Dwayne Bigelow Doc 428 filed 21 Apr 15.pdfÎncărcat descion.scion
- Internal_Erosion_Toolbox.pdfÎncărcat deAnonymous Ln3WKrpVc
- microsoft-powerpoint-theories-of-nursing-1233043715004678-1Încărcat deapi-19824701

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.