1 / 28

The setpoint overshoot method: A simple and fast closed-loop approach for PI tuning

The setpoint overshoot method: A simple and fast closed-loop approach for PI tuning. Mohammad Shamsuzzoha Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim. Dycops symposium, Leuven, July 2010. Motivation.

markmcgee
Download Presentation

The setpoint overshoot method: A simple and fast closed-loop approach for PI tuning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The setpoint overshoot method:A simple and fast closed-loop approach for PI tuning Mohammad Shamsuzzoha Sigurd Skogestad Department of Chemical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim Dycops symposium, Leuven, July 2010

  2. 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

  3. Outline • Existing approaches to PI tuning • SIMC PI tuning rules • Closed-loop setpoint experiment • Correlation between setpoint response and SIMC-settings • Final choice of the controller settings (detuning) • Analysis and Simulation • Conclusion

  4. 1. Common approach:PI-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 (τ) • time delay (θ) • 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

  5. Alternative approach:PI-tuning based on closed-loop data only Ziegler-Nichols (1942) closed-loop method Step 1. Closed-loop experiment Use P-controller with sustained oscillations. Record: • Ultimate controller gain (Ku) • Period of oscillations (Pu) Step 2. Simple PI rules: Kc=0.45Ku and τI=0.83Pu. Advantages ZN: • Closed-loop experiment • Very little information required • Simple tuning rules Disadvantages: • System brought to limit of instability • Relay test (Åström) 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 > -180o (does not work on second-order)

  6. This work. Improved closed-loop PI-tuning method 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! • Idea: Derive correlation between “key parameters” and SIMC PI-settings for corresponding process

  7. 2. SIMC PI tuning rules First-order process with time delay: PI controller: SIMC PI controller based on direct synthesis: “Fast and robust” setting:

  8. 3. Closed-loop setpoint experiment • 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 Kc0 • 2. Overshoot = (Δyp-Δy∞)/Δy∞ • 3. Time to reach peak (overshoot), tp • 4. Steady state change, b = Δy∞/Δys. • Estimate of Δy∞ without waiting to settle: Δy∞ = 0.45(Δyp + Δyu) • Advantages compared to ZN: • * Not at limit to instability • * Works on a simple second-order process. Closed-loop step setpoint response with P-only control.

  9. Closed-loop setpoint experiment Various overshoots (10%-60%) Overshoot of 0.3 (30%) with different τ’s 30% τ=100 τ=2 τ=0 Small τ: Kc0 small and b small

  10. Estimate ofΔy∞ using undershoot Δyu Conclusion: Δy∞≈ 0.45(Δyp+Δyu) Data: 15 first-order with delay processes using 5 overshoots each (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6). ys=1

  11. 4. Correlation between Setpoint response and SIMC-settings • Goal: Find correlation between SIMC PI-settings and “key parameters” from 90 setpoint experiments. • Consider 15 first-order plus delay processes: τ/θ = 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 SIMC PI-settings (Kc,τI) • Generate setpoint responses with 6 different overshoots (0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.40, 0.50, 0.60)and record “key parameters”(Kc0, overshoot, tp, b)

  12. Correlation Setpoint response and SIMC PI-settingsController gain (Kc) 90 cases: Plot Kcas a function of Kc0 10%: A=0.87 30%: A=0.63 60%: A=0.45 Kc Kc0 Fixed overshoot: Slope Kc/Kc0 = A approx. constant, independent of the value of τ/θ Agrees with ZN (approx. 100% overshoot): Original: Kc/Kcu = 0.45 Tyreus-Luyben: Kc/Kcu = 0.33

  13. Conclusion: Kc = Kc0 A A = slope overshoot Overshoots between 0.1 and 0.6(should not be extended outside this range).

  14. Correlation Setpoint response and SIMC PI-settingsIntegral time (τI) SIMC-rules • Case 1 (large delay): τI1 = τ • Case 2 (small delay): τI2 = 8θ Case 1 (large delay): τ= 2·kKc·θ(substitute τ = τI into the SIMC rule for Kc) (from steady-state offset) Conclusion so far: Still missing: Correlation forθ

  15. Correlation between θ and tp θ/tp θ tp Use: θ/tp= 0.43 for τI1 (large delay) θ/tp = 0.305 for τI2 (small delay) overshoot Conclusion:

  16. 5. Summary setpoint overshoot method From P-control setpoint experiment record “key parameters”: 1. Controller gain Kc0 2. Overshoot = (Δyp-Δy∞)/Δy∞ 3. Time to reach peak (overshoot), tp 4. Steady state change, b = Δy∞/Δys Choice of detuning factor F: • F=1. Good tradeoff between “fast and robust” (SIMC with τc=θ) • F>1: Smoother control with more robustness • F<1 to speed up the closed-loop response. Proposed PI settings (including detuning factor F)

  17. 6. Analysis: Simulation PI-control First-order + delay process • ”in training set” • similar response as SIMC t=0: Setpoint change t=40: Load disturbance

  18. Analysis: Simulation PI-control Pure time delay process • ”in training set”

  19. Analysis: Simulation PI-control Integrating process • ”in training set”

  20. Analysis: Simulation PI-control Second-order process • Not in ”training set” Responses for PI-control of second-order process g=1/(s+1)(0.2s+1).

  21. Analysis: Simulation PI-control High-order process • Not in ”training set” Responses for PI-control of high-order process g=1/(s+1)(0.2s+1)(0.04s+1)(0.008s+1).

  22. Analysis: Simulation PI-control Third-order integrating process • Not in ”training set”

  23. Analysis: Simulation PI-control First-order unstable process • Not in ”training set” • No SIMC settings available

  24. Analysis: Simulation PI-control Effect of detuning factor F Second-order process

  25. 6. Conclusion ”Probably the fastest PI-tuning approach in the world”  • From P-control setpoint experiment obtain: 1. Controller gain Kc0 2. Overshoot = (Δyp-Δy∞)/Δy∞ 3. Time to reach peak (overshoot), tp 4. Steady state change, b = Δy∞/Δys, Estimate: Δy∞ = 0.45(Δyp + Δyu) • PI-tunings for “Setpoint Overshoot Method”: F=1:Good trade-off between performance and robustness F>1:Smoother F<1:Speed up

  26. REFERENCES • Åström, K. J., Hägglund, T. (1984). Automatic tuning of simple regulators with specifications on phase and amplitude margins, Automatica, (20), 645–651. • Desborough, L. D., Miller, R. M. (2002). Increasing customer value of industrial control performance monitoring—Honeywell’s experience. Chemical Process Control–VI (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) 252–265. • 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, 291–309. • Tyreus, B.D., Luyben, W.L. (1992). Tuning PI controllers for integrator/dead time processes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2628–2631. • Yuwana, M., Seborg, D. E., (1982). A new method for on-line controller tuning, AIChEJournal 28 (3) 434-440. • Ziegler, J. G., Nichols, N. B. (1942). Optimum settings for automatic controllers. Trans. ASME, 64, 759-768.

  27. SIMC PI tuning rules On dimensionless form, the SIMC (τc = θ) Scaled proportional and integral gain for SIMC tuning rule. is known as the integral gain. Note: Integral term (KI΄) is most important for delay dominant processes (τ/θ<1). Proportional term Kc΄ is most significant for processes with a smaller time delay.

  28. Abstract • The PI 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 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 controller settings similar to those of the SIMC 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 PI controller tuning available and should be well suited for use in process industries.

More Related