Shamsuzzoha - MEPEC 2011 Conference

One Step Procedure for PI/PID
Controller Tuning in Closed-Loop

M. Shamsuzzoha, Al-Shammari, Hiroya Seki
a

Department of Chemical Engineering, King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals, Daharan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Email: mshams@kfupm.edu.sa
a
Chemical Resources Laboratory, Tokyo Institute of Technology,
4259-R1-19 Nagatsuta, Yokohama 226-8503, Japan

MEPEC 2011, Bahrain, 25
th
October 2011
Motivation
Desborough and Miller (2001): More than 97% of controllers are PID
Vast majority of the PID controllers do not use D-action.
PI controller: Only two adjustable parameters
but still not easy to tune
Many industrial controllers poorly tuned
Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop method (1942) is popular, but
Requires sustained oscillations
Tunings relatively poor

Big need for a fast and improved closed-loop tuning procedure

Outline
1. Existing approaches to PID tuning
2. Proposed PID tuning rules
3. Closed-loop setpoint experiment
4. Correlation between setpoint response and proposed PID-settings
5. Final choice of the controller settings (detuning)
6. Analysis and Simulation
7. Conclusion
1. Common approach:
PID-tuning based on open-loop model
Step 1: Open-loop experiment:
Most tuning approaches are based on open-loop plant model
gain (k),
time constant ()
time delay ()
Problem: Loose control during identification experiment

Step 2: Tuning
Many approaches
IMC-PID (Rivera et al., 1986): good for setpoint change
SIMC-PI (Skogestad, 2003): Improved for integrating disturbances
IMC-PID (Shamsuzzoha and Lee, 2007&2009) for disturbance
rejection
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad (2010): The setpoint overshoot
method (Closed-loop tuning method)

Alternative approach:
PI-tuning based on closed-loop data
Ziegler-Nichols (1942) closed-loop method
Step 1. Closed-loop experiment
Use P-controller with sustained oscillations. Record:
1. Ultimate controller gain (K
u
)
2. Period of oscillations (P
u
)

Step 2. Simple PI rules: K
c
=0.45K
u
and
I
=0.83Pu.

Advantages ZN:
Closed-loop experiment
Very little information required
Simple tuning rules

Disadvantages:
System brought to limit of instability
Relay test (strm) can avoid this problem but requires the feature of switching to
on/off-control
Settings not very good: Aggressive for lag-dominant processes (Tyreus and Luyben) and
quite slow for delay-dominant process (Skogestad).
Only for processes with phase lag > -180
o
(does not work on second-order)
Want to develop improved and
simpler alternative to ZN:
Closed-loop setpoint
response with P-controller
Use P-gain about 50% of
ZN
Identify key parameters
from setpoint response:
Simplest to observe is first
peak!

p
y A
p
t
y
A
s
y A
t
0 t =
u
u
y A
s
y
y
This work.
Improved closed-loop PI-tuning method
Idea: Derive correlation between key parameters and proposed
PID-settings for corresponding process
2. Proposed PID tuning rules
y
s
d
c g
y u
+
-
First-order process with time delay:
-
( )
1
s
ke
g s
s
u
t
=
+
PID controller:
Proposed PID controller based on Direct Synthesis:
c
=
Fast and robust setting:
( )
1
1
c D
I
c s K s
s
t
t
| |
= + +
|
\ .
( )
2
2
c
c
K
k
t u
t u
+
=
+
2
D
tu
t
t u
=
+
I c
=min , 4( +)
2
c
u
t

| |
+
`
|
\ .
)
2
3
c
K
k
t u
u
+
=
min , 8
2
I
u
t t u

| |
= +
`
|
\ .
)
2
D
tu
t
t u
=
+

p
y A
p
t
y
A
s
y A
t
0 t =
u
u
y A
s
y
Procedure:
Switch to P-only mode and make
setpoint change
Adjust controller gain to get
overshoot about 0.30 (30%)

Record key parameters:
1. Controller gain K
c0
2. Overshoot = (y
p
-y
)/y

3. Time to reach peak (overshoot), t
p
4. Steady state change, b = y
/y
s
.

Estimate of y
without waiting to settle:

y

= 0.45(y
p
+ y
u
)

Advantages compared to ZN:
* Not at limit to instability
* Works on a simple second-order process.

3. Closed-loop setpoint experiment
Closed-loop step setpoint response with P-only control.
Various overshoots (10%-60%)
10 1
s
e
g
s
=
+
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
time
O
U
T
P
U
T

y

Setpoint
t/u=1 (K
c0
=0.855)
t/u=0.4 (K
c0
=0.404)
t/u=100 (K
c0
=79.9)
t/u=2 (K
c0
=1.636)
t/u=5 (K
c0
=4.012)
t/u=10 (K
c0
=8.0)
t/u=0.2 (K
c0
= 0.309)
t/u=0 (K
c0
= 0.3)
Closed-loop setpoint experiment
Overshoot of 0.3 (30%) with different s
30%
=0
=100
=2
Small : K
c0
small and b small
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
time
O
U
T
P
U
T

y

overshoot=0.10 (K
c0
=5.64)
overshoot=0.20 (K
c0
=6.87)
overshoot=0.30 (K
c0
=8.0)
overshoot=0.40 (K
c0
=9.1)
overshoot=0.50 (K
c0
=10.17)
overshoot=0.60 (K
c0
=11.26)
setpoint
Estimate of y

using undershoot y
u

p
y A
p
t
y
A
s
y A
t
0 t =
u
u
y A
s
y
y
Line: y
= 0.8947(y
p
+ y
u
)/2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2
(y
p
+ y
u
)/2
overshoot=0.6
overshoot=0.5
overshoot=0.4
overshoot=0.3
overshoot=0.2
Data: 15 first-order with delay processes using 5 overshoots each (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6). y
s
=1
Conclusion:
y
0.45(y
p
+y
u
)
4. Correlation between Setpoint
response and proposed PID-settings
Goal: Find correlation between proposed PID-settings and key
parameters from 90 setpoint experiments.

Consider 15 first-order plus delay processes:
/ = 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 5, 7.5, 10, 20,
50, 100

For each of the 15 processes:
Obtain proposed PID-settings (K
c
,
I
)
Generate setpoint responses with 6 different overshoots (0.10, 0.20,
0.30, 0.40, 0.50, 0.60) and record key parameters(K
c0
, overshoot, t
p
, b)
-
( )
1
s
e
g s
s
u
t
=
+
Fixed overshoot:
Slope K
c
/K
c0
= A approx. constant,
independent of the value of /
c
c0
K
=A
K
Correlation Setpoint response and proposed PID-settings
Controller gain (K
c
)
K
c0
K
c
Agrees with ZN (approx. 100% overshoot):
Original: K
c
/K
cu
= 0.45
Tyreus-Luyben: K
c
/K
cu
= 0.33

90 cases: Plot K
c
as a function of K
c0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
kK
c0
k
K
c

0.10 overshoot
kK
c
=1.1621kK
c0
0.20 overshoot
kK
c
=0.9701kK
c0
0.30 overshoot
kK
c
=0.841kK
c0
0.40 overshoot
kK
c
=0.7453kK
c0
0.50 overshoot
kK
c
=0.6701kK
c0
0.60 overshoot
kK
c
=0.6083kK
c0
2
A= 1.55(overshoot) - 2.159(overshoot) + 1.35
(

Overshoots between 0.1 and 0.6
(should not be extended outside this range).
Conclusion: K
c
= K
c0
A
A = slope
overshoot
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
overshoot (fractional)
A

y = 1.55*(overshoot)
2
- 2.159*(overshoot) + 1.35
( )
I1
b
=1.5A
1-b

Proposed PID-rules
Case 1 (large delay):
I1
= +/2
Case 2 (small delay):
I2
= 8
Case 1 (large delay):

= 1.5*kK
c
*-0.5* (substitute
I
= +/2 into the proposed rule for K
c
)
c c0 c c0 c0
kK =kK K K kK A =
c0
b
kK =
(1-b)
Correlation Setpoint response and proposed PID-settings
Integral time (
I
)
(from steady-state offset)
Conclusion so far:
Still missing: Correlation for
I
1.5
c
kK t u =
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Overshoot
u
/
t
p
0.43 (t
I1
)
0.305 (t
I2
)
t/u=0.1
t/u=8
t/u=100
t/u=1
( )
I I1 I p 2 p
b
=min( , ) min 0.645A , 2.44 t
1-b
t
| |
= |
|
\ .
Correlation between and t
p

p
y A
p
t
y
A
s
y A
t
0 t =
u
u
y A
s
y
/t
p
overshoot
Use:
/t
p
= 0.43 for
I1
(large delay)
/t
p
= 0.305 for
I2
(small delay)
Conclusion:
t
p

Derivative action (
D
)
The derivative action can increase stability and improve
the closed-loop performance.
Case I: For approximately integrating process (>> )

Case II: The processes with a relatively large delay

Summary: The derivative action for both the cases i.e.,
D1
and
D2
are approximately same
( )
0.14 1
1-
D p
b
t if A
b
t = >
1
0.305
0.15
2 2 2
p
D p
t
t
tu u
t
t
~ = = =
2 2
2
0.43
0.1433
2 3 3 3
p
D p
t
t
u u u
t
u u u
~ = = = =
+
Choice of detuning factor F:
F=1. Good tradeoff between fast and robust (SIMC with
c
=)
F>1: Smoother control with more robustness
F<1 to speed up the closed-loop response.
0 c c
K =K A F
( )
p p I
=min 0.645A ,
b
t t
1-b
2.44
| |
|
|
\ .
F
2
A= 1.55( ) - 2.15 overshoot oversh 9( ) + 1.3 oot 5
(

From P-control setpoint experiment record key parameters:
c0
2. Overshoot = (y
p
-y
)/y

p
/y
s

Proposed PID settings (including detuning factor F)
5. Summary of the Proposed method
( )
D p
b
= 0.14t if A 1
1-b
>
6. Analysis: Simulation PID-control
5 1
s
e
g
s
=
+
First-order + delay process
t=0: Setpoint change
t=40: Load disturbance
in training set
similar response as SIMC
0 20 40 60 80
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
time
O
U
T
P
U
T

y

Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method with F=1(overshoot=0.10)
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method with F=1 (overshoot=0.599)
Proposed method with F=1(overshoot=0.10)
s
g e s
=
Integrating process
Analysis: Simulation PID-control
in training set
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
time
O
U
T
P
U
T

y

Proposed method with F=1 (overshoot=0.108)
Responses for PI-control of second-order process g=1/(s+1)(0.2s+1).
( )( )
1
1 0.2 1
g
s s
=
+ +
Second-order process
Not in training set
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
time
O
U
T
P
U
T

y

Responses for PI-control of high-order process g=1/(s+1)(0.2s+1)(0.04s+1)(0.008s+1).
( )( )( )( )
1
1 0.2 1 0.04 1 0.008 1
g
s s s s
=
+ + + +
High-order process
Not in training set
0 5 10 15 20
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
time
O
U
T
P
U
T

y

( )
2
1
1
g
s s
=
+
Third-order integrating
process
Not in training set
0 40 80 120 160 200
0
1
2
3
4
5
time
O
U
T
P
U
T

y

5 1
s
e
g
s
First-order unstable process

Not in training set

0 20 40 60 80
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
time
O
U
T
P
U
T

y

6. Conclusion
From P-control setpoint experiment obtain:
c0
2. Overshoot = (y
p
-y
)/y

p
/y
s,

Estimate: y
= 0.45(y
p
+ y
u
)
PID-tunings for the proposed Method:

p
y A
p
t
y
A
s
y A
t
0 t =
u
u
y A
s
y
y
c c0
K =K A , F
2
A= 1.55(overshoot) - 2.159(overshoot) + 1.35 (

( )
I p p
b
=min 0.645A t , 2.44t
1-b
| |
|
|
\ .
F
F=1: Good trade-off between performance and robustness
F>1: Smoother
F<1: Speed up
Probably the fastest PI/PID-tuning approach in the world
( )
D p
b
= 0.14t if A 1
1-b
>
References
strm, K. J., Hgglund, T. (1984). Automatic tuning of simple regulators with specifications on phase and
amplitude margins, Automatica, (20), 645651.
Desborough, L. D., Miller, R. M. (2002). Increasing customer value of industrial control performance
monitoringHoneywells experience. Chemical Process ControlVI (Tuscon, Arizona, Jan. 2001), AIChE
Symposium Series No. 326. Volume 98, USA.
Kano, M., Ogawa, M. (2009). The state of art in advanced process control in Japan, IFAC symposium
ADCHEM 2009, Istanbul, Turkey.
Rivera, D. E., Morari, M., Skogestad, S. (1986). Internal model control. 4. PID controller design, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res., 25 (1) 252265.
Seborg, D. E., Edgar, T. F., Mellichamp, D. A., (2004). Process Dynamics and Control, 2nd ed., John Wiley
& Sons, New York, U.S.A.
Shamsuzzoha, M., Skogestad. S. (2010). Report on the setpoint overshoot method (extended version)
http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/.
Skogestad, S., (2003). Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller tuning, Journal of
Process Control, 13, 291309.
Tyreus, B.D., Luyben, W.L. (1992). Tuning PI controllers for integrator/dead time processes, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 26282631.
Yuwana, M., Seborg, D. E., (1982). A new method for on-line controller tuning, AIChE Journal 28 (3) 434-
440.
Ziegler, J. G., Nichols, N. B. (1942). Optimum settings for automatic controllers. Trans. ASME, 64, 759-768.
Shamsuzzoha, M., Skogestad, S., (2010). The setpoint overshoot method: A simple and fast closed-loop
approch for PI tuning, Journal of Process Control 20 (2010) 12201234.

Abstract
The PI/PID controller is widely used in the process industries due to simplicity and
robustness, It has wide ranges of applicability in the regulatory control layer.
The proposed method is similar to the Ziegler-Nichols (1942) tuning method.
It is faster to use and does not require the system to approach instability with
sustained oscillations.
The proposed tuning method, originally derived for first-order with delay processes
and tested on a wide range of other processes and the results are comparable with
the Setpoint Overshoot Method and SIMC tunings using the open-loop model.
Based on simulations for a range of first-order with delay processes, simple
correlations have been derived to give PI/PID controller settings similar to those of
the Setpoint Overshoot Method tuning rules.
The detuning factor F that allows the user to adjust the final closed-loop response
time and robustness.
The proposed method is the simplest and easiest approach for PID controller
tuning available and should be well suited for use in process industries.
Acknowledgement:
The author would like to acknowledge the support
(Project Number: SB101016) provided by the Deanship
of Scientific Research at King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.

Shamsuzzoha - MEPEC 2011 Conference

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Shamsuzzoha - MEPEC 2011 Conference

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

One Step Procedure for PI/PID

Controller Tuning in Closed-Loop

without waiting to settle:

First-order unstable process

S-ar putea să vă placă și