 |
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
Model-based Tuning Methods for Pid Controllers
The manner in which a measured process variable responds over time to changes in the controller output signal is fundamental to the design and tuning of a PID controller. The best way to learn about the dynamic behavior of a process is to perform experiments, commonly referred to as "bump tests." Critical to success is that the process data generated by the bump test be descriptive of actual process behavior. Discussed are the qualities required for "good" dynamic data and methods for modeling the dynamic data for controller design. Parameters from the dynamic model are not only used in correlations to compute tuning values, but also provide insight into controller design parameters such as loop sample time and whether dead time presents a performance challenge. It is becoming increasingly common for dynamic studies to be performed with the controller in automatic (closed loop). For closed loop studies, the dynamic data is generated by bumping the set point. The method for using closed loop data is illustrated. Concepts in this work are illustrated using a level control simulation.
FORM OF THE CONTROLLER
The methods discussed here apply to the complete family of PID algorithms. Examples presented will explore the most popular controller of the PID family, the Proportional-Integral (PI) controller:
In this controller, u(t) is the controller output and is the controller bias. The tuning parameters are controller gain, , and reset time, . Because is in the denominator, smaller values of reset time provide a larger weight to (increase the influence of) the integral term.
CONTROLLER DESIGN PROCEDURE
Designing any controller from the family of PID algorithms entails the following steps:
specifying the design level of operation,
collecting dynamic process data as near as practical to this design level,
fitting a first order plus dead time (FOPDT) model to the process data, and
using the resulting model parameters in a correlation to obtain initial controller tuning values.
The form of the FOPDT dynamic model is:
[2]
where y(t) is the measured process variable and u(t) is the controller output signal. When Eq. 2 is fit to the test data, the all-important parameters that describe the dynamic behavior of the process result:
Steady State Process Gain,
Overall Process Time Constant,
Apparent Dead Time,
These three model parameters are important because they are used in correlations to compute initial tuning values for a variety of controllers [1]. The model parameters are also important because:
the sign of indicates the sense of the controller (+ reverse acting; – direct acting)
the size of indicates the maximum desirable loop sample time (be sure sample time )
the ratio indicates whether a Smith predictor would show benefit (useful if )
the dynamic model itself can be employed within the architecture of feed forward, Smith predictor, decoupling and other model-based controller strategies.
DEFINING GOOD PROCESS TEST DATA
As discussed above, the collection and analysis of dynamic process data are critical steps in controller design and tuning. A "good" set of data contains controller output to measured process variable data that is descriptive of the dynamic character of the process. To obtain such a data set, the answer to all of these questions about your data should be "yes" [1]. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to consider these steps to ensure success.
Was the process at steady state before data collection started?
Suppose a controller output change forces a dynamic response in a process, but the data file only shows the tail end of the response without showing the actual controller output change that caused the dynamics in the first place. Popular modeling tools will indeed fit a model to this data, but it will skew the fit in an attempt to account for an unseen "invisible force." This model will not be descriptive of your actual process and hence of little value for control. To avoid this problem, it is important that data collection begin only after the process has settled out. The modeling tool can then properly account for all process variations when fitting the model.
Did the test dynamics clearly dominate the process noise?
When generating dynamic process data, it is important that the change in controller output cause a
response in the process that clearly dominates the measurement noise. A rule of thumb is to define a
noise band of ±3 standard deviations of the random error around the process variable during steady
operation. Then, when during data collection, the change in controller output should force the process variable to move at least ten times this noise band (the signal to noise ratio should be greater than ten). If you meet or exceed this requirement, the resulting process data set will be rich in the dynamic information needed for controller design.
Were the disturbances quiet during the dynamic test?
It is essential that the test data contain process variable dynamics that have been clearly (and in the ideal world exclusively) forced by changes in the controller output as discussed in step 2. Dynamics caused by unmeasured disturbances can seriously degrade the accuracy of an analysis because the modeling tool will model those behaviors as if they were the result of changes in the controller output signal. In fact, a model fit can look perfect, yet a disturbance that occurred during data collection can cause the model fit to be nonsense. If you suspect that a disturbance event has corrupted test data, it is conservative to rerun the test.
Did the model fit appear to visually approximate the data plot?
It is important that the modeling tool display a plot that shows the model fit on top of the data. If the two lines don't look similar, then the model fit is suspect. Of course, as discussed in step 3, if the data has been corrupted by unmeasured disturbances, the model fit can look great yet the usefulness of the analysis can be compromised.
NOISE BAND AND SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO
When generating dynamic process data, it is important that the change in the controller output signal causes a response in the measured process variable that clearly dominates the measurement noise. One way to quantify the amount of noise in the measured process variable is with a noise band. As illustrated in Fig. 1, a noise band is based on the standard deviation of the random error in the measurement signal when the controller output is constant and the process is at steady state. Here the noise band is defined as ±3 standard deviations of the measurement noise around the steady state of the measured process variable (99.7% of the signal trace is contained within the noise band). While other definitions of the noise band have been proposed, this definition is conservative when used for controller design.
When generating dynamic process data, the change in controller output should cause the measured process variable to move at least ten times the size of the noise band. Expressed concisely, the signal to noise ratio should be greater than ten. In Fig. 1, the noise band is 0.25°C. Hence, the controller output should be moved far and fast enough during a test to cause the measured exit temperature to move at least 2.5°C. This is a minimum specification. In practice it is conservative to exceed this value.
Figure 1 – Noise Band Encompasses ± 3 Standard Deviations Of The Measurement Noise
CONTROLLER TUNING FROM CORRELATIONS
The recommended tuning correlations for controllers from the PID family are the Internal Model Control (IMC) relations [1]. These are an extension of the popular lambda tuning correlations and include the added sophistication of directly accounting for dead time in the tuning computations.
The first step in using the IMC (lambda) tuning correlations is to compute, , the closed loop time constant. All time constants describe the speed or quickness of a response. The closed loop time constant describes the desired speed or quickness of a controller in responding to a set point change. Hence, a small (a short response time) implies an aggressive or quickly responding controller. The closed loop time constants are computed as:
Aggressive Tuning: (See online version for picture of formula)
Moderate Tuning: ("")
Conservative Tuning: ("")
Final tuning is verified on-line and may require tweaking. If the process is responding sluggishly to disturbances and changes in the set point, the controller gain is too small and/or the reset time is too large. Conversely, if the process is responding quickly and is oscillating to a degree that makes you uncomfortable, the controller gain is too large and/or the reset time is too small.
EXAMPLEs: In online copy
PI Controller Tuning Map
Figure 6 – How PI controller tuning parameters impact set point tracking performance
CONCLUSIONS
Understanding the dynamic behavior of a process is essential to the proper design and tuning of a PID controller. The recommended design and tuning methodology is to: step, pulse or otherwise perturb the controller output near the design level of operation, record the controller output and measured process variable data as the process responds, and fit a first order plus dead time (FOPDT) dynamic model to this process data, use the dynamic model parameters in a correlation to compute P-Only, PI, PID and PID with Filter test your controller to ensure satisfactory performance.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Cooper, Douglas, "Practical Process Control Using Control Station," Published by Control Station,
Inc, Storrs, CT (2004).
For more information about model-based tuning techniques and technologies, please see our other resources below:
PID Control – Practical Process Control Training (2 Day Workshop)
http://www.bin95.com/process_control_atlanta_training.htm
Complete list of authors:
Jeffrey Arbogast – Department of Chemical Engineering
Douglas J. Cooper, PhD – Control Station, Inc.
Robert C. Rice, PhD – Control Station, Inc.
To see the full online version with pictures, please visit http://www.bin95.com/PID_Controller_Design.htm
About the Author
More from these authors and much more. please see ”More PID TRaining resources”...
|
 DOVER FLEXOTENSOIN INDICATOR0 500 TENSIONMODEL TI 14  US $599.00
|
 RKI Oxygen Indicator Model XP 204 PN72 0052RK US $500.00
|
 BENDIX KING MODEL KI 203 VOR LOC NAVIGATION INDICATOR WARRANTY US $495.00
|
 Daytronic Analog Indicator Controller Model 3363p US $475.00
|
 Fukuda Model MI 170 Multi Indicator Manometer Tester US $455.00
|
 USED Hersey Model 1020 Flow Rate Indicator Totalizer US $450.00
|
 Daytronic LVDT Indicator Controller Model 3330 US $450.00
|
 Raymarine ST60 Plus Rudder Angle Indicator Model A22015 P US $449.99
|
 DAYTRONIC CORP LVDT CONDITIONER INDICATOR MODEL 3230P US $425.00
|
 NEW Meister Low indicator Switch Model D 63831 US $399.99
|
 Penberthy Model SFR ½ Flow Indicator US $399.95
|
 Raritan MK5 Rudder Angle Indicator Model MK5 US $399.88
|
 Raritan MK2 Model Rudder Angle Indicator Kit MK2B12 US $362.88
|
 Daytronic Model 3378 Strain Gage Indicator Controller US $349.99
|
 Raritan MK5 Model Rudder Angle Indicator Kit MK5 US $349.92
|
 DILLON WEIGHT INDICATOR 17 DIAMETER 0 500 MODEL S US $325.00
|
 1 Lot of Federal Dial Indicators Model A6Q US $320.00
|
 PENBERTHY 80084 630 MODEL SFR SIGHT GLASS FLOW INDICATOR 3 4 BRONZE NEW US $302.00
|
 Scientific Instrument Model 9300 Temperature Indicator Controller Varian US $225.00
|
 Starrett Model 25 181 Dial Indicator with Holder US $225.00
|
 MSA Combustible Gas Indicator Model 40 US $225.00
|
 DAYTRONIC STRAIN GAGE CONDITIONER INDICATOR model 3278 US $215.00
|
 Salter Brecknell Model 200ES 52765 0600 Indicator US $209.99
|
 Red Lion APLCL400 APOLLO CURRENT LOOP INDICATOR model APLCL US $201.00
|
 ATITTUDE INDICATOR MODEL AH11 11 US $200.00
|
 Cornwell Tools 1 2 Dr Digital Torque Wrench w Angle Indicator model CTG4000ANG US $200.00
|
| Powered by phpBay Pro |