- •Distributed Control Systems (DCS)
- •Fieldbus control
- •Practical PID controller features
- •Manual and automatic modes
- •Output and setpoint tracking
- •Alarm capabilities
- •Output and setpoint limiting
- •Security
- •Digital PID algorithms
- •Introduction to pseudocode
- •Position versus velocity algorithms
- •Note to students
- •Proportional plus integral control action
- •Proportional plus derivative control action
- •Full PID control action
- •Review of fundamental principles
- •Process dynamics and PID controller tuning
- •Process characteristics
- •Integrating processes
- •Runaway processes
- •Lag time
- •Multiple lags (orders)
- •Dead time
- •Hysteresis
- •Before you tune . . .
- •Identifying operational needs
- •Identifying process and system hazards
- •Identifying the problem(s)
- •Final precautions
- •Quantitative PID tuning procedures
- •Heuristic PID tuning procedures
- •Features of P, I, and D actions
- •Tuning recommendations based on process dynamics
- •Tuning techniques compared
- •Tuning a liquid level process
- •Tuning a temperature process
- •Note to students
- •Electrically simulating a process
- •Simulating a process by computer
- •Review of fundamental principles
- •Basic process control strategies
- •Supervisory control
- •Cascade control
- •Ratio control
- •Relation control
- •Feedforward control
- •Load Compensation
- •Proportioning feedforward action
- •Feedforward with dynamic compensation
- •Dead time compensation
- •Lag time compensation
- •Lead/Lag and dead time function blocks
- •Limit, Selector, and Override controls
- •Limit controls
30.5. TUNING TECHNIQUES COMPARED |
2489 |
30.5.3Tuning a temperature process
Ziegler-Nichols open-loop tuning procedure
This next simulated process is a temperature control process. Performing an open-loop test (two 10% increasing output step-changes, both made in manual mode) on this process resulted in the following behavior:
From the trend, the process appears to be self-regulating with a slow time constant (lag) and a substantial dead time. The reaction rate (R) on the first step-change is 30% over 30 minutes, or 1 percent per minute. Dead time (L) looks to be approximately 1.25 minutes. Following the ZieglerNichols recommendations for PID tuning based on these process characteristics (also including the
10% step-change magnitude m): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kp = 1.2 |
m |
= 1.2 |
10% |
= 9.6 |
||
|
|
|
|
|||
RL |
|
30% |
|
|||
|
|
30 min |
1.25 min |
|||
|
|
|
|
τi = 2L = (2)(1.25 min) = 2.5 min
τd = 0.5L = (0.5)(1.25 min) = 0.625 min
2490 |
CHAPTER 30. PROCESS DYNAMICS AND PID CONTROLLER TUNING |
Applying the PID values of 9.6 (gain), 2.5 minutes per repeat (integral), and 0.625 minutes (derivative) gave the following result in automatic mode:
As you can see, the results are quite poor. The PV is still oscillating with a peak-to-peak amplitude of almost 20% from the last process upset at the time of the 10% downward SP change. Additionally, the output trend is rather noisy, indicating excessive amplification of process noise by the controller.
30.5. TUNING TECHNIQUES COMPARED |
2491 |
Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop tuning procedure |
|
Next, the closed-loop, or “Ultimate” tuning method of Ziegler |
and Nichols was applied to |
this process. Eliminating both integral and derivative control actions from the controller, and experimenting with di erent gain (proportional) values until self-sustaining oscillations of consistent amplitude were obtained, gave a gain value of 15:
From the trend, we can see that the ultimate period (Pu) is approximately 5.2 minutes in length. Following the Ziegler-Nichols recommendations for PID tuning based on these process characteristics:
Kp = 0.6Ku = (0.6)(15) = 9
τi = Pu = 5.2 min = 2.6 min 2 2
τd = Pu = 5.2 min = 0.65 min 8 8
2492 |
CHAPTER 30. PROCESS DYNAMICS AND PID CONTROLLER TUNING |
These PID tuning values are quite similar to those predicted by the open loop (“Reaction Rate”) method, and so we would expect to see very similar results:
As expected, we still see excessive oscillation following a 10% setpoint change, as well as excessive “noise” in the output trend.
Heuristic tuning procedure
From the initial open-loop (manual output step-change) test, we could see this process was selfregulating with a slow lag and substantial dead time. The self-regulating nature of the process demands at least some integral control action to eliminate o set, but too much will cause oscillation given the long lag and dead times. The existence of over 1 minute of process dead time also prohibits the use of aggressive proportional action. Derivative action, which is generally useful in overcoming lag times, will cause problems here by amplifying process noise. In summary, then, we would expect to use mild proportional, integral, and derivative tuning values in order to achieve good control with this process. Anything too aggressive will cause problems for this process.