Fundamentals of cascade control

Vance VanDoren, PhD, PE

When multiple sensors are available for measuring conditions in a controlled process, a cascade
control system can often perform better than a traditional single-measurement controller.
Consider, for example, the steam-fed water heater shown in the sidebar Heating Water with
Cascade Control. In Figure A, a traditional controller is shown measuring the temperature inside
the tank and manipulating the steam valve opening to add more or less heat as inflowing water
disturbs the tank temperature. This arrangement works well enough if the steam supply and the
steam valve are sufficiently consistent to produce another X% change in tank temperature every
time the controller calls for another Y% change in the valve opening.

However, several factors could

alter the ratio of X to Y or the
time required for the tank
temperature to change after a
control effort. The pressure in
the steam supply line could drop
while other tanks are drawing
down the steam supply they
share, in which case the
controller would have to open
the valve more than Y% in order
to achieve the same X% change
in tank temperature.

Or, the steam valve could start

sticking as friction takes its mechanical toll over time. That would lengthen the time required for
the valve to open to the extent called for by the controller and slow the rate at which the tank
temperature changes in response to a given control effort.

A better way

A cascade control system

could solve both of these
problems as shown in Figure
B where a second controller
has taken over responsibility
for manipulating the valve
opening based on
measurements from a second
sensor monitoring the steam
flow rate. Instead of dictating
how widely the valve should
be opened, the first controller
now tells the second
controller how much heat it
wants in terms of a desired
steam flow rate.
The second controller then manipulates the valve opening until the steam is flowing at the
requested rate. If that rate turns out to be insufficient to produce the desired tank temperature, the
first controller can call for a higher flow rate, thereby inducing the second controller to provide
more steam and more heat (or vice versa).

That may sound like a convoluted way to achieve the same result as the first controller could
achieve on its own, but a cascade control system should be able to provide much faster
compensation when the steam flow is disturbed. In the original single-controller arrangement, a
drop in the steam supply pressure would first have to lower the tank temperature before the
temperature sensor could even notice the disturbance. With the second controller and second
sensor on the job, the steam flow rate can be measured and maintained much more quickly and
precisely, allowing the first controller to work with the belief that whatever steam flow rate it
wants it will in fact get, no matter what happens to the steam pressure.

The second controller can also shield the first controller from deteriorating valve performance.
The valve might still slow down as it wears out or gums up, and the second controller might have
to work harder as a result, but the first controller would be unaffected as long as the second
controller is able to maintain the steam flow rate at the required level.

Without the acceleration afforded by the second controller, the first controller would see the
process becoming slower and slower. It might still be able to achieve the desired tank
temperature on its own, but unless a perceptive operator notices the effect and re-tunes it to be
more aggressive about responding to disturbances in the tank temperature, it too would become
slower and slower.

Similarly, the second controller can smooth out any quirks or nonlinearities in the valve's
performance, such as an orifice that is harder to close than to open. The second controller might
have to struggle a bit to achieve the desired steam flow rate, but if it can do so quickly enough,
the first controller will never see the effects of the valve's quirky behavior.

Elements of cascade control

The Cascade Control Block Diagram shows a generic cascade control system with two
controllers, two sensors, and one actuator acting on two processes in series. A primary or master
controller generates a control effort that serves as the setpoint for a secondary or slave controller.
That controller in turn uses the actuator to apply its control effort directly to the secondary
process. The secondary process then generates a secondary process variable that serves as the
control effort for the primary process.

The geometry of this block diagram defines an inner loop involving the secondary controller and
an outer loop involving the primary controller. The inner loop functions like a traditional
feedback control system with a setpoint, a process variable, and a controller acting on a process
by means of an actuator. The outer loop does the same except that it uses the entire inner loop as
its actuator.

In the water heater example, the tank temperature controller would be primary since it defines
the setpoint that the steam flow controller is required to achieve. The water in the tank, the tank
temperature, the steam, and the steam flow rate would be the primary process, the primary
process variable, the secondary process, and the secondary process variable, respectively (refer
to the Cascade Control Block Diagram). The valve that the steam flow controller uses to
maintain the steam flow rate serves as the actuator which acts directly on the secondary process
and indirectly on the primary process.
Requirements

Naturally, a cascade control system can't solve every feedback control problem, but it can prove
advantageous if under the right circumstances:

 The inner loop has influence over the outer loop. The actions of the secondary controller
must affect the primary process variable in a predictable and repeatable way or else the
primary controller will have no mechanism for influencing its own process.
 The inner loop is faster than the outer loop. The secondary process must react to the
secondary controller's efforts at least three or four times faster than the primary process
reacts to the primary controller. This allows the secondary controller enough time to
compensate for inner loop disturbances before they can affect the primary process.
 The inner loop disturbances are less severe than the outer loop disturbances. Otherwise,
the secondary controller will be constantly correcting for disturbances to the secondary
process and unable to apply consistent corrective efforts to the primary process.

Steam-fed water heaters as in the example are particularly amenable to cascade control because
raising or lowering the steam flow rate raises or lowers the tank temperature without any
additional actuators, a valve can manipulate a steam flow rate almost instantaneously in
comparison to the slow pace at which steam can heat the water in a large tank, and disturbances
to the steam supply pressure are relatively infrequent and easily compensated by the steam flow
controller.

Cascade control block diagram

A cascade control system reacts to physical phenomena shown in blue and process data shown in
green.

In the water heater example:

 Setpoint - temperature desired for the water in the tank

 Primary controller (master) - measures water temperature in the tank and asks the
secondary controller for more or less heat
 Secondary controller (slave) - measures and maintains steam flow rate directly
 Actuator - steam flow valve
  Secondary process - steam in the supply line
 Inner loop disturbances - fluctuations in steam supply pressure
 Primary process - water in the tank
 Outer loop disturbances - fluctuations in the tank temperature due to uncontrolled
ambient conditions, especially fluctuations in the inflow temperature
 Secondary process variable - steam flow rate
 Primary process variable - tank water temperature

Challenges

Cascade control can also have its drawbacks. Most notably, the extra sensor and controller tend
to increase the overall equipment costs. Cascade control systems are also more complex than
single-measurement controllers, requiring twice as much tuning. Then again, the tuning
procedure is fairly straightforward: tune the secondary controller first, then the primary
controller using the same tuning tools applicable to single-measurement controllers.

However, if the inner loop tuning is too aggressive and the two processes operate on similar time
scales, the two controllers might compete with each other to the point of driving the closed-loop
system unstable. Fortunately, this is unlikely if the inner loop is inherently faster than the outer
loop or the tuning forces it to be.

And it's not always clear when cascade control will be worth the extra effort and expense. There
are several classic examples that typically benefit from cascade control-often involving a flow
rate as the secondary process variable-but it's usually easier to predict when a cascade control
system won't help than to predict when it will.

Vance VanDoren, PhD, PE, is a Control Engineering contributing content specialist. Reach him
at controleng(at)msn.com.

Back to Basics: Closed-loop stability

Stability is how a control loop reduces errors between the measured process variable
and its desired value or setpoint.

For the purposes of feedback control, stability refers to a control loop’s ability to reduce errors
between the measured process variable and its desired value or setpoint. A stable control loop
will manipulate the process so as to bring the process variable closer to the setpoint, whereas an
unstable control loop will maintain or even widen the gap between them.

With the exception of explosive devices that depend on self-sustained reactions to increase the
temperature and pressure of a process exponentially, feedback loops are generally designed to be
stable so that the process variable will eventually achieve a constant steady state after a setpoint
change or a disturbance to the process.
Unfortunately, some control loops don’t turn out that way. The problem is often a matter of
inertia – a process’s tendency to continue moving in the same direction after the controller has
tried to reverse course.

Consider, for example, the child’s toy shown in the first figure. It
consists of a
weight hanging from a vertical spring that the human controller can raise
or lower by tugging on the spring’s handle. If the controller’s goal is to
position the weight at a specified height above the floor, it would be a
simple matter to slowly raise the
handle until the height measurement matches the desired setpoint.

Doing so would certainly achieve the desired objective, but if this were
an industrial positioning system, the inordinate amount of time required
to move the weight slowly to its final height would degrade the
performance of any process that depends on the weight’s position. The
longer the weight remains above or below the setpoint, the poorer the
performance.

Moving the weight faster would address the time-out-of-position problem, but
moving it too quickly could make matters worse. The weight’s inertia might
cause it to move past the setpoint even after the controller has observed the
impending overshoot and begun pushing in the opposite direction. And if the
controller’s attempt to reverse course is also too aggressive, the weight will
overshoot the other way.

Fortunately, each successive overshoot will typically be smaller than the last so
that the weight will eventually reach the desired height after bouncing around a
bit. But as anyone who has ever played with such a toy knows, the faster the
controller moves the handle, the longer those oscillations will be sustained. And
at one particular speed corresponding to the resonant frequency of the weight-
and-spring process, each successive overshoot will have the same magnitude as
its predecessor and the oscillations will continue until the controller gives up.

But if the controller were to become even more aggressive, those oscillations would grow in
magnitude until the spring reaches its maximum distention or breaks. Such an unstable control
loop might be amusing for a child playing with a toy spring, but it would be disastrous for a
commercial positioning system or any other application of closed-loop feedback.

One solution to this problem would be to limit the controller’s aggressiveness by equipping it
with a speed-sensitive damper such as a dashpot or a shock absorber as shown in the second
figure. Such a device would resist the controller’s movements more and more as the controller
tries to move faster and faster. The
derivative term in a PID controller serves the same function, though too much derivative
damping can actually make matters worse.

See “Understanding Derivative in PID Control,” Control Engineering, February 2010.

See Tutorials Channel at www.controleng.com/tutorials.

Vance VanDoren, Ph.D., P.E., is Control Engineering consulting editor, at

controleng(at)msn.com. www.controleng.com