= Technology The electronic amplifiers of the time allowed proportional, integrator and differentiator units tot made fairly easily with good reliability. Thus the PID controller could be made using analogt electronic components. This ability to manufacture PID controllers made it the first real successful controller product with a high volume market. = Analysis The Laplace transform formalism had begun to be understood and used by engineers to study tt performance of op-amps and hence the performance of PID control. These simple Laplace tran form links, like [1/s] to represent an Integrator and [s] to represent a Differentiator, helped establish a theoretical basis for analysing a PID control design. Figure 11.1 shows the three lin! for the PID controller. Figure 11.1 (a) shows the PID blocks, (b) shows the time function forms the blocks and finally (c) shows the Laplace function forms of the blocks. >| >| K, he al hy ute el os oO! Ky 4 > + I, + 1D a Kat @ cy o Figure 11.1. PID controller blocks. 1 isontrolier assessment tramework ‘To understand and assess the effects of the different terms of the controller, we use a ste dard transfer function block diagram (Figure 11.2], which has a reference signal, R[s), a turbance signal, Ds). Re) tl ey Hl ceo Contralter Process, Figure 11.2 Unity feedback closed-loop control. The controller is represented by K(s) and the plant or process transfer function model G(s}. The output ¥{s) is desired to follow the reference signal, R(s). Typically the diagr: represents a real system where signal D(s} represents the extra loading demands made the process. For the purposes of good control, we require the process output, Y(s], to tra only the reference signal, R(s), and attenuate or reject the load disturbance signal, Di ‘This is why we discuss and assess the performance of the control system in terms of: (a) reference tracking performance and (b) load disturbance rejection performance Alternative terms. If a control system has to be designed to follow a frequently changing reference sign this is sometimes referred to as a serve-control design problem. If the reference or set point signal is held at a steady value for long periods, and t control system has to reject disturbance signals, this type of control design problem sometimes called a regulator control design problem. 3eneral block diagram analysis Starting from the closed-loop system output, ¥{s), in Figure 11.2, we worl round the le anticlockwise to obrain ¥{s) = Dis) + Gls}K(sRis) — ¥is)) = G{s)KIs)R|s) + Dis) — GIsIKISI¥is) [1 + GIsIK(s)] ¥(s} = Gis}KIs}RIs} + Dis} giving _ GISK(S) gy, YO) = Teaisieis 80) * Teast GeulsIRis} + Sis\DIs} ‘The system output comprises two effects and we show this asa reduced system diagr: (Figure 11.4). This has two paths: one due to reference tracking and one due to load dist bance rejection. Dis}aterence tracking pertormance: Rs) J] ed »| Gols) —— se | —_] Os) 8) Disturbance rejection performance Figure 11.4 Reduced system form of the closed-loop system, rece Eee To assess reference tracking performance we use the transfer function from R(s) to Y(s) wit D{s) =0, namely Gis)K(s) Yel®) = FSG eyRtay RS) Reference tracking performance For disturbance rejection performance assessment we use the transfer function from D(s) to ¥(s with R(s) = 0, namely 1 Yo) =z D(8) _ Disturbance rejection nec cl = The proportional aain K. is taken to be vositive so that K.> 0. m= Increasing the proportional action: means increasing the numerical value of the proportional gain, K, ‘speeds up the transient portion of the reference tracking response and the transient portio of the load disturbance response decreases but does not entirely remove or eliminate the output offset from the desired refet ence value decreases but does not entirely eliminate the offset in the output due to the constant loa disturbance generally increases the size of the control signal which achieves good reference trackin and disturbance rejection in the system output ‘may cause the controller signal to be too large which may lead to saturation or limiting prot loms with the system actuatorsKey result 1 The integral gain Kis taken to be positive so that K,> 0. 1 Introducing integral action into controller means incorporating an integral term [Kis] into th controller. 1 Increasing the amount of integral action in a controller means that the integral gain K;has an increasin numerical value. 1 The presence of intagral action in a controller usually leads to a wider range of closed-loop syste! responses (sometimes even unstable ones, although this was not shown in this chapter). 1 Solocting a value for integral gain K, shapes tho dynamics of both reference tracking and disturbanc rejection responses. 1 The presence of integral action ina controller eliminates constant offset signals in steady state for bot reference tracking and disturbance rejection responses. This property is guaranteed and does nc depend on using prior process gain modelling information. ec nan SS ‘= The derivative gain K, is taken to be positive so that K,> 0. ‘= Introducing derivative action into the controller means incorporating a derivative term into t ‘controller. = Increasing the amount of derivetive action means that the numerical value of the derivative gain K, increased. Multiple choice ‘= Derivative action is usually associated with the controller anticipating the future direction of on signals. ‘= The damping ratio of the closed Joop system response can be tuned by changing the amount of deri, tive gain in the controller. This is an important practical property of derivative control. ‘= Derivative control will affect the shape of both the reference tracking and disturbance reject! responses. ‘= Derivative control has no effect on constant offsets in either the reference tracking or disturban rejection responses. This is because the derivative of constant error iszeroand sothe controller do not respond to the presence of the constant error. This is quite the opposite effect of the use of integ control.