4 views

Uploaded by maripopescu

Practical IMC Algorithm

Practical IMC Algorithm

© All Rights Reserved

- lars_hagg2012PID.pdf
- Controller Tuning
- pid-without-a-phd.pdf
- A new Smith predictor and controller for control of processes
- ph
- Control Design - How to Tune Loops
- Tangent Analysis of a discreet step response
- KD_Auto Tuning to Module Based Rules
- 10.1016@j.jprocont.2010.09.007
- Chemical Process Lab Report
- adaptive_fuzzy
- US4903192 PID Fuzzy Logic
- A F700 PID Control
- Controller design for integrating processes
- GPC-I
- AEI504
- 120-194-1-PB
- Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 63, 2008
- Tuning for Pid Controllers
- Proposed Method to Control Load Frequency in Single Area Power System

You are on page 1of 14

https://doi.org/10.1080/00051144.2017.1383581

REGULAR PAPER

Vasile Cirtoaje

Department of Automatic Control and Computers, University of Ploiesti, Ploiesti, Romania

The control algorithm incorporates a process feedback path of pure proportional type (only for Received 20 February 2017

integral-type or unstable processes), a process model of second order plus time delay and a Accepted 12 September 2017

realizable second-order internal controller which has not a tuning ﬁlter time constant as usual KEYWORDS

in the classical IMC design, but a tuning gain with standard value 1, that can be used by the Control algorithm; quasi-

human operator to get a strong or weak control action. The model parameters (steady-state universal practical algorithm;

gain, time delay and transient time) can be easily experimentally determined and can be online compensated process model;

veriﬁed and corrected. The algorithm is practical and quasi-universal because it is easily IMC structure; tuning gain;

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

tunable, has a unique form and can be applied to almost all process types: stable proportional online tuning; time delay;

processes (with or without time delay, with or without overshoot, of minimum or nonminimum transient time

phase), integral processes and even some unstable processes. The proposed algorithm is better

than the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm (which is also quasi-universal and

practical) due to its robustness, high control performance (especially for processes with time

delay) and simple experimental procedure for determining the controller parameters. Some

applications are presented to highlight the main features of the algorithm and the tuning

procedure for all process types.

formance than a genuine IMC algorithm. This is the

The internal model control (IMC) approach involves a

ﬁrst starting point of our paper.

process model embedded in the controller structure. In

The conﬁguration of a standard IMC system is

its standard and advanced variants, the IMC was intro-

shown in Figure 1 [1–5], where GP(s) is the process

duced and thoroughly studied in 1982 by Garcia and

transfer function, GM(s) – process model transfer func-

Morari [1] and in 1986 by Rivera et al. [2], but similar

tion, Gi(s) – internal controller transfer function, Y(s) –

concepts have been used previously by other researchers

controlled variable, U(s) – control variable, R(s) – ref-

[3,4]. The classical IMC method offers advanced control

erence (setpoint) variable, E(s) – error variable and V

procedures that can be applied with very good perfor-

(s) – disturbance variable. For both equivalent dia-

mance to any process with known model, but the found

grams A and B, the transfer function between the con-

particular control algorithm cannot be used for other

trolled variable Y and the reference variable R has the

processes. Thus, the controller complexity depends

expression

mainly on the complexity of the process model and the

control system performance stated by the designer [5– GP Gi

GYR ¼ ; (1)

10]. For these reasons, the control algorithms of IMC 1 þ ðGP GM ÞGi

type are not widely used in current industrial practice.

while the transfer function between the controlled vari-

On the other hand, hundreds of signiﬁcant papers

able Y and the disturbance variable V is

have been written in the last decades on the propor-

tional-integral-derivative (PID) control algorithm, 1 GM Gi

GYV ¼ 1 GYR ¼ : (2)

which is the most widely used in practice. It is well 1 þ ðGP GM ÞGi

known that the IMC design can provide robustness

Under the assumption that the internal controller gain

and control performance better than the PID design,

is the inverse of the model gain, that is

especially for processes with large time delay. For some

particular processes of low order, without time delay 1

Gi ð0Þ ¼ ; (3)

or with time delay approximated by a low-order series GM ð0Þ

expansion, the IMC design can lead to a PID controller

it follows that

structure (or an ideal PID controller cascaded with a

ﬁrst- or second-order ﬁlter) and an intuitive procedure GYR ð0Þ ¼ 1; GYV ð0Þ ¼ 0: (4)

for tuning the PID controller [11–16]. Certainly, an

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted

use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

AUTOMATIKA 169

irrespective of the controlled process type. This is pos-

sible because the model addresses the compensated

process, which is always stable and of proportional

type (with the steady-state gain ﬁnite and nonzero or,

equivalently, with no pole and zero at the origin). Such

a control technique based on process compensation

has been introduced in [17] for unstable processes

(under the name of “modiﬁed IMC”), in [18] for inte-

gral-type processes, and in [19] for unstable integral

processes.

The proposed algorithm is quasi-universal because

it has a unique form and can be used to control almost

all process types: stable processes of proportional type

(with or without time delay, with or without overshoot,

Figure 1. IMC system structure. of minimum or nonminimum phase), integral pro-

cesses and unstable processes. The model parameters

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

According to this result, even if the process model is

be experimentally determined from the compensated

imperfect, the steady-state value of the controlled vari-

process response to a step input, and can be veriﬁed

able y is equal to the steady-state value of the reference

and adjusted online; in addition, by setting a suitable

r whatever the steady-state value of the disturbance v.

tuning gain K, the control performance can be good or

In addition, it is possible to design an overall IMC con-

very good even if the model parameters have no accu-

troller without concern for the closed-loop system sta-

rate values. The use of the tuning gain K (with stan-

bility, but only for the control performance [1,4,5].

dard value 1) instead of a ﬁlter time constant (as usual)

An ideal control system suppresses completely the dis-

is also a practical feature of the presented algorithm.

turbance effect on the controlled variable and forces it to

Using MATLAB/SIMULINK environment, six

track instantaneously the reference. This is possible if and

numerical applications for different process types are

only if the transfer function of the internal controller Gi(s)

presented to show the performance and the tuning

is the inverse of the model transfer function GM(s), i.e.

procedure of the control algorithm.

1

Gi ðsÞ ¼ : (5)

GM ðsÞ 2. Primary form of the control algorithm

Indeed, if this condition is satisﬁed, then A model of second order with two lag time constants

plus time delay has the transfer function

GYR ðsÞ ¼ 1; GYV ðsÞ ¼ 0; (6)

KM etM s

GM ðsÞ ¼ ; (9)

therefore, y(t) = r(t) for any reference r(t) and disturbance ðT1 s þ 1ÞðT2 s þ 1Þ

v(t). Thus, to design an ideal control system, it is not nec-

essary to have a perfect model. Unfortunately, no control- where KM is the model steady-state gain, t M is the

ler can perfectly invert the process dynamic model. model time delay, and T1 and T2 are the model time

Therefore, the classical IMC design methodology seeks to constants satisfying

ﬁnd a more accurate process model and an approximate

proper inverse of the process model. As a consequence, T1 ¼ gT2 ; 0 g 1:

the control algorithms designed by this methodology

have a form which depends on the process model. For g = 1, the two lag time constants are equal to each

On the other hand, for a perfect model, it follows other [20], whereas for g = 0, the model becomes of

from Equation (1) that ﬁrst order. In this paper, we will consider the middle

case with g = 1/2.

GYR ðsÞ ¼ GP ðsÞGi ðsÞ; (7) For a stable proportional-type process with the step

response y(t) monotonic and ﬁnite (called P1-type),

hence, the model parameters KM, tM, T1 and T2 can be easily

experimentally determined as follows:

GUR ðsÞ ¼ Gi ðsÞ: (8)

KM KP ; tM tP ; (10)

The paper presents a quasi-universal and practical TtrM TtrP

approach of the IMC method, in which the model has T1 ¼ ; T2 ¼ 2T1 : (11)

8:4 8:4

170 V. CIRTOAJE

where KP is the process steady-state gain, tP – the pro- Also, since the steady-state error is zero, the ﬁnal value

cess time delay, and TtrP – the transient time of the of u(t) is equal to the inverse of the process steady-state

response y(t) (which does not include the time delay); gain:

more precisely, 1

uð 1 Þ ¼ : (19)

KP

TtrP ¼ t1 tP ; (12)

Therefore, the magnitude coefﬁcient M of the closed-

where t1 is the settling time (when the response is

loop control system response u(t) to a unit step refer-

approximately 98% of its steady-state value):

ence, deﬁned as the ratio between the initial value u

(0+) and the ﬁnal value u(1), has the expression

yðt1 Þ 0:98yð 1 Þ: (13)

uð0þ Þ KP

Note that a ﬁrst-order plus time delay model is too M¼ ¼ ¢K: (20)

simple to describe with sufﬁcient accuracy the process uð 1 Þ KM

sluggishness, whereas a third-order plus time delay

When the human operator increases/decreases the

model is too complicated to be used to increase the

tuning gain K, the control action becomes stronger/

model accuracy. For the internal controller, we have

weaker.

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

According to (10) and (11), one may consider that

ðT1 s þ 1ÞðT2 s þ 1Þ the model parameters are the gain KM, the time delay

Gi ðsÞ ¼ ; (14) tM and the transient time TtrM.

KM ðT3 s þ 1ÞðT4 s þ 1Þ

In the particular case K = 1, the internal controller

where the ﬁlter time constants T3 and T4 are introduced (16) is purely proportional:

to make the internal controller realizable (with a num-

1

ber of poles equal to the number of zeros). These time Gi ðsÞ ¼ : (21)

KM

constants need to be lower bounded to avoid excessive

noise ampliﬁcation and to accommodate to the model- In this case, according to (18) and (19), the initial and

ling error. In the classical IMC design, these ﬁlter time ﬁnal values of the control response u(t) to a unit step

constants are equal to each other and considered as tun- reference are u(0+) = 1/KM and u(1) = 1/KP. If KM

ing parameter (used by the process human operator to and KP are equal to each other, then u(0+) = u(1). In

modify the intensity of the control action). addition, for a perfect model with GM(s) = GP(s), it fol-

Using the substitution lows from (8) and (21) that

T1 T2

T3 ¼ pﬃﬃﬃﬃ ; T4 ¼ pﬃﬃﬃﬃ ¼ 2T3 ; (15) GUR ðsÞ ¼ 1=KM ¼ 1=KP ;

K K

therefore, the ideal control response uid(t) to a unit

a new practical tuning parameter (the gain K with the step reference is a step function of magnitude 1/KP.

standard value 1) is introduced. Thus, the internal con- For a perfect model and K > 0, having in view (8)

troller (14) becomes and (16), the ideal control response uid(t) to a unit step

reference has the expression

ðT s þ 1ÞðT2 s þ 1Þ

Gi ðsÞ ¼ 1 : (16) pﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃ

KM pTﬃﬃK1 ﬃ s þ 1 pTﬃﬃK2ﬃ s þ 1 1 þ A1 e K t=T1

þ B 1 eK t=T2

uid ðt Þ ¼ ; (22)

KM

Because

where

1 1 pﬃﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Gi ð0Þ ¼ ¼ ; (17)

KM GM ð0Þ A1 ¼ K 1 2 K 1 ; (23)

pﬃﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃ

the relation (3) is satisﬁed, therefore the steady-state B1 ¼ K 1 2 K : (24)

error is zero for a step reference or disturbance. On the

other hand, since GM(s) and GP(s) are strictly proper, it Figure 2 shows this ideal response for KM = 1 and

follows from Figure 1 that the initial value u(0+) of the TtrM = 84, when

closed-loop control system response u(t) to a unit step

pﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃ

reference is uid ðt Þ ¼ 1 þ A1 e K t=10

þ B1 e K t=20

: (25)

K

uð0þ Þ ¼ Gi ð 1 Þ ¼ : (18) The response uid(t) is increasing on (0, 1) for 0 <

KM K 1, is decreasing on (0, 1) for 1 K 4, and is

AUTOMATIKA 171

the ratio between the model time delay and the sam-

pling period; that is,

ht i

M

lM ¼ : (30)

T

controller (16) has the discrete transfer function

pﬃﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃ

1 K þ Az 1 K þ Bz 1

G0i ðz Þ ¢ ; (31)

KM ð1 p3 z 1 Þð1 p4 z 1 Þ

Figure 2. Control response uid(t) to a unit step reference for

KM = 1, TtrM = 84 and K = 0.5, 1, 4, 8, 12.

where

decreasing on (0, t0] and increasing on [t0, 1) for K > pﬃﬃﬃ

p3 ¼ eT=T3 ¼ p1 K; (32)

4, where pﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

pﬃﬃﬃﬃ p4 ¼ eT=T4 ¼ p2 K ¼ p3 ; (33)

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

pﬃﬃﬃﬃ

TtrM 4 K 2 A ¼ 1 p3 K ; (34)

t0 ¼ pﬃﬃﬃﬃ ln pﬃﬃﬃﬃ : (26) pﬃﬃﬃﬃ

4:2 K K 2

B ¼ 1 p4 K : (35)

For K = 1, the response uid(t) given by (22) is a step

The discrete-time primary form of the control algo-

function of magnitude 1/KM. Actually, due to the

rithm has the equations

model inaccuracy, the form of the closed-loop system

response u(t) to a step reference is not a perfect step 8

> ek ¼ rk yk

function. By comparing the response u(t) with the >

>

>

>

>

ideal response in step form, the human operator can < xk ¼ ðp1 þ p2 Þxk1 p1 p2 xk2 þ KM PuklM 1

>

verify online if the model parameters have appropriate

fk ¼ ek þ xk ;

>

>

values, and can adjust these parameters to improve the >

>

>

>

model accuracy. So, if the initial value u(0+) is larger/ >

: uk ¼ ðp3 þ p4 Þuk1 p3 p4 uk2 þ 1 f

smaller than its ﬁnal value u(1), then the model gain KM

KM needs to be proportionally increased/decreased to (36)

have KM KP. Then, for KM KP, analyzing the new

response u(t) to a step reference, if u(t) is larger/ where

smaller than u(0+) in a time range t > t M, then the

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

model parameter TtrM needs to be increased/decreased. p1 ¼ e8:4T=TtrM ; p2 ¼ p1 ; (37)

pﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

In its primary (standard) form, used to control sta-

p3 ¼ p1 K ; p4 ¼ p3 ; (38)

ble proportional-type processes (with or without time

delay, with or without overshoot, of minimum or non- P ¼ ð1 p1 Þð1 p2 Þ; (39)

pﬃﬃﬃﬃ

minimum phase), the algorithm has four parameters: f ¼ Kfk þ K ðA þ BÞfk1 þ ABfk2 : (40)

– model steady-state gain KM; Example 2.1: Consider the proportional process with

– model time delay tM; the transfer function

– transient time of the model step response TtrM.

2ðs þ 1Þe5s

The discrete-time equivalent of the continuous GP ðsÞ ¼ :

ð4s þ 1Þð8s þ 1Þð10s þ 1Þ

model (9) with T2 = 2T1 has the discrete transfer func-

tion From the process unit step response in Figure 3, it fol-

lows the process model parameters

KM ð1 p1 Þð1 p2 Þz lM 1

G0M ðz Þ ; (27)

ð1 p1 z 1 Þð1 p2 z1 Þ KM ¼ 2; tM ¼ 6; TtrM ¼ t1 t P ¼ 60 6 ¼ 54:

where

Figures 4 and 5 show the closed-loop system

responses y(t) and u(t) to a unit step reference for K =

p1 ¼ eT=T1 ¼ e8:4T=TtrM ; (28)

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 0.5, 1, 2.5, 8. A good control performance is achieved

p2 ¼ eT=T2 ¼ p1 ; (29) for K = 2.5. The control response u(t) is too strong for

172 V. CIRTOAJE

Figure 3. Process response to a unit step input. Figure 6. Control system responses y(t) to a unit step reference

for KM = 1.5, 2, 2.5.

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

erence for K = 0.5, 1, 2.5, 8.

Figure 7. Control system responses y(t) to a unit step reference

for t M = 3, 6, 9.

0.5, 1, 2.5, 8.

Figure 8. Control system responses y(t) to a unit step reference

for TtrM = 40, 54, 70.

K = 8, when

uð0þ Þ ¼ K=KM ¼ 4; uð 1 Þ ¼ 1=KP ¼ 0:5; values of the model gain KM, model time delay tM and

model transient time TtrM, respectively. All these

and too weak for K = 0.5, when responses show that the control performance is robust

with respect to the model parameters KM, tM and TtrM.

uð0þ Þ ¼ 0:25; uð 1 Þ ¼ 0:5: The closed-loop control system is respectively stable

for KM > 0.54, for all t M > 0, and for TtrM > 6.

For K = 1, the response u(t) is close to a step function; Figures 9–11 show the closed-loop system responses

this conﬁrms that the model parameters have been y(t) to a unit step reference for the best values of the

suitably chosen. Note that the closed-loop system is tuning parameter K and various values of the model

stable for all positive K < 3600. parameters KM, tM and TtrM, respectively. The control

Figures 6–8 show the closed-loop system responses performance remains good even for wrong values of the

y(t) to a unit step reference for K = 2.5 and different model parameters. Moreover, we claim that the control

AUTOMATIKA 173

Figure 9. Control system responses y(t) to a unit step reference

reference for a PI controller with A: KR = 0.1, Ti = 6.2; B: KR =

for A: KM = 2.5, K = 11; B: KM = 2, K = 2.5; C: KM = 1.5, K = 0.4.

0.2, Ti = 10; C: KR = 0.3, Ti = 16.

with the one obtained for TtrM = 54 and K = 2.5

(response B). The closed-loop system with TtrM = 70 is

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

Using the designed controller, the control perfor-

mance is better than the one achieved using a PI con-

troller with the transfer function

1

GPI ðsÞ ¼ KR 1 þ :

Ti s

Figure 10. System responses y(t) to a unit step reference for A: This follows immediately from Figure 12, where are

t M = 9, K = 25; B: t M = 6, K = 2.5; C: t M = 3, K = 0.75. depicted the responses y(t) to a unit step reference for

KR = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and the best values of the integral

performance is better for KM > KP than for KM < KP, time constant Ti, namely Ti = 6.2, 10, 16, respectively.

for tM > tP than for tM < tP, and for TtrM > TtrP than

for TtrM < TtrP. Remark 2.1: The proposed algorithm can be also used

The response A in Figure 9 shows that for the to control stable proportional-type processes with

wrong value KM = 2.5, if the process-operator selects overshoot. Let P be a such process, whose input step

K = 11, then the control system performance is even response has the maximum value at the time t0. In

better than the one obtained for KM = 2 and K = 2.5 order to choose the model parameters, this process

(response B). The closed-loop system with KM = 2.5 is (with or without oscillations) is approximated by a

process P ~ of P1 type (with the unit step response

stable for K < 4600.

Figure 10 shows that for the wrong value t M = 9, by monotonic and ﬁnite), whose step response ~yðt Þ

choosing K = 25 (response A), the control system per- remains constant (at its maximum value) for t t0

formance is better than the one obtained for t M = 6 (Figures 13 and 16). From the step response ~yðt Þ, we

~ P , the time

can easily choose the steady-state gain K

and K = 2.5 (response B). Note that the closed-loop

system with t M = 9 is stable for K < 240. delay t P and the transient time

Figure 11 shows that for the wrong value TtrM = 70,

~ trP ¼ t0 t P :

T (41)

if the process-operator chooses K = 7 (response A),

Thus, the model parameters are

~ P;

KM ¼ K tM ¼ tP ; ~ trP :

TtrM ¼ T (42)

a step reference has a smaller initial value, namely

~ P < K=KP ;

uð0þÞ ¼ K=KM ¼ K=K (43)

response y(t).

By suitably modifying the tuning gain K, a good con-

Figure 11. System responses y(t) to a unit step reference for A: trol system response to a step reference can be obtained.

TtrM = 70, K = 7; B: TtrM = 54, K = 2.5; C: TtrM = 40, K = 0.16.

174 V. CIRTOAJE

Example 2.2: Consider the following non-oscillatory The closed-loop system responses y(t) and u(t) to a

process with overshoot unit step reference are shown in Figures 14 and 15 for

K = 0.25, 1, 4. The control variable u(t) is too strong

1:5ð24s þ 1Þe5s for K = 4 – when u(0+) = K/KM 2, and too weak for

GP ðsÞ ¼ :

ð4s þ 1Þð8s þ 1Þð9s þ 1Þ K = 0.25 – when u(0+) = K/KM 0.125. Note that the

system is stable for all K > 0.

From the process unit step response ~yðt Þ in Figure 13,

it follows that Example 2.3: Consider the oscillatory process with

overshoot

~ P ¼ 1:98;

K tP ¼ 5;

~ trP ¼ t0 t P ¼ 24 5 ¼ 19; 1:5ð2s þ 1Þe5s

T GP ðsÞ ¼ :

ð3s þ 1Þð4s þ 1Þð6s2 þ 3s þ 1Þ

therefore,

From the process unit step response in Figure 16, it fol-

~ P ¼ 1:98; t M ¼ t P ¼ 5;

KM ¼ K lows that

~ trP ¼ 19:

TtrM ¼ T ~ P ¼ 1:98;

K t P ¼ 7;

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

~

T trP ¼ t0 tP ¼ 29 7 ¼ 22;

therefore,

~ P ¼ 1:98; tM ¼ tP ¼ 7;

KM ¼ K

~ trP ¼ 22:

TtrM ¼ T

unit step reference for three different values of the tun-

ing gain K are shown in Figures 17 and 18. The control

response u(t) is too strong for K = 0.4 – when u(0+)

0.2, and too weak for K = 0.1 – when u(0+) 0.05. The

Figure 13. Process response to a unit step input. control system is stable for K < 2.5.

ence for K = 0.25, 1, 4. Figure 16. Process response to a unit step input.

Figure 15. Control system responses u(t) to a unit step refer- Figure 17. Control system responses y(t) to a unit step refer-

ence for K = 0.25, 1, 4. ence for K = 0.4, 0.2, 0.1.

AUTOMATIKA 175

Figure 18. Control system responses u(t) to a unit step refer- Figure 20. Control system responses y(t) to a unit step refer-

ence for K = 0.4, 0.2, 0.1. ence for K = 10, 5, 1.

to control stable proportional-type processes of non-

minimum phase. To control a stable nonminimum-

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

delay includes the interval where the sign of the pro-

cess step response is opposite to the sign of the ﬁnal

value.

Example 2.4: Consider the nonminimum-phase process

2ð1 4sÞe2s

GP ðsÞ ¼ :

ð4s þ 1Þð8s þ 1Þð10s þ 1Þ

Figure 21. Control system responses u(t) to a unit step refer-

From the process unit step response shown in Figure 19, ence for K = 10, 5, 1.

it follows the model parameters

proportional type (called the compensated process) by

KM ¼ 2; tM ¼ 11; means of a feedback path of pure proportional type, as

TtrM ¼ t1 tP ¼ 65 11 ¼ 54: shown in Figure 22.

As a rule, for an integral-type process, the step

Figures 20 and 21 show the closed-loop system response of the compensated process has zero over-

responses y(t) and u(t) to a unit step reference for three shoot for small values of the feedback gain Kf, and non-

values of the tuning gain K. The best response is zero overshoot for large values of Kf. A suitable variant

achieved for K = 10. The closed-loop system is stable is to choose the gain Kf as large as possible such that

for K < 36.6. the overshoot of the step response of the compensated

process remains zero. Then, for selected Kf, the model

parameters KM, tM and TtrM are determined from the

3. Extended form of the control algorithm compensated process response y(t) to a step change of

the input c. If K = 1 and the model parameters have

The algorithm can be extended to control integral-type appropriate values, then the closed-loop control system

processes and unstable processes. The main idea is to response c(t) to a step reference is close to a step

turn the original process into a stable process of function.

Note that the steady-state error is zero for a step and

even for a ramp disturbance added to the process

output.

Figure 19. Process response to a unit step input. Figure 22. Closed-loop system with compensated process.

176 V. CIRTOAJE

According to Equations (36)–(40) and the con- input c is monotonic and bounded (Figure 23). Choos-

troller structure in Figure 22, the discrete-time con- ing Kf = 0.6, it follows that

trol algorithm has the following equations:

KM ¼ 1:67; tM ¼ 7;

8

> ek ¼ rk yk TtrM ¼ t1 t P ¼ 82 7 ¼ 75:

>

>

>

> xk ¼ ðp1 þ p2 Þxk1 p1 p2 xk2 þ KM PcklM 1

>

>

>

< For Kf = 0.6 and K = 1, 3, 8, the closed-loop control

f k ¼ ek þ x k

; system responses y(t), c(t) and u(t) to a unit step refer-

>

> 1

>

> ck ¼ ðp3 þ p4 Þck1 p3 p4 ck2 þ ence are shown in Figures 24–26. The control variables

>

>

f

>

> KM c(t) and u(t) are too strong for K = 8, when

:

uk ¼ ck Kf ðyk y0 Þ

(44) uð0þ Þ ¼ cð0þ Þ ¼ K=KM 4:79;

automatic mode. Notice that for Kf = 0, the extended

control algorithm (44) reduces to the primary form

(36).

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

ing to automatic mode, and

x0 ¼ KM u0 : (45)

lowing settings are needed to be made before switching

to automatic mode:

ck1 ¼ ck2 ¼ ¼ cklM 1 ¼ u0 (46) Figure 23. Compensated process responses y(t) to a unit step

xk1 ¼ xk2 ¼ x0 ; fk1 ¼ fk2 ¼ x0 : (47) input c = 1(t) for Kf = 0.5, 0.6, 0.8.

in addition to replace the equation fk = ek + xk in (44)

with

fk ¼ ðek e0 Þ þ xk :

achieved whenever the human operator changes a

parameter of the control algorithm.

A practical controller needs to have three operating

modes: AUTOMATIC, MANUAL and COMPENSA-

TORY. In COMPENSATORY and MANUAL modes,

Figure 24. Control system responses y(t) to a unit step refer-

the human operator can directly set any value for the ence for Kf = 0.6 and K = 1, 3, 8.

compensated process input c and the controlled process

input u, respectively. Before switching to COMPENSA-

TORY mode (from MANUAL or AUTOMATIC

mode), the variable c should be set to the value of u. For

Kf = 0, the MANUAL and COMPENSATORY modes

are the same.

Example 3.1: Consider the integral-type process

ðs þ 1Þe5s

GP ðsÞ ¼ :

10sð2s þ 1Þð5s þ 1Þ

integral-type process turns into a compensated process Figure 25. Control system responses c(t) to a unit step refer-

of proportional type whose response y to a unit step ence for Kf = 0.6 and K = 1, 3, 8.

AUTOMATIKA 177

Figure 26. Control system responses u(t) to a unit step refer- Figure 28. Control system responses y(t) to a unit step refer-

ence for Kf = 0.6 and K = 1, 3, 8. ence for Kf = 0.5 and K = 1, 8, 25.

and too weak for K = 1, when response y to a unit step input c is monotonic and

bounded (Figure 29). From this compensated process

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

function. The closed-loop system is stable for K < TtrM ¼ t1 t P ¼ 83 3 ¼ 80:

1140.

For Kf = 0.6 and K = 3, the closed-loop system The closed-loop system responses to a unit step refer-

response y(t) to the ramp disturbance v(t) = t/10 is ence are shown in Figures 30–32 for K = 1, 4, 8. The

shown in Figure 27. control responses c(t) and u(t) are too strong for K = 8,

For Kf = 0.5, from the compensated process when

response to a unit step input in Figure 23, it follows

that uð0þ Þ ¼ K=KM 1:04;

Setting K = 25, the system response y(t) to a unit step uð0þ Þ ¼ K=KM 0:13:

reference (Figure 28) is even better than the response

obtained for Kf = 0.6 and K = 3 (Figure 24). The If K = 1, then the control response c(t) is close to a

closed-loop system is stable for K < 4500. step function. The closed-loop system is stable for

K < 460.

Example 3.2: Consider the unstable process

Remark 3.1: A similar but simpler control algorithm

ðs þ 1Þe2s can be obtained by replacing the second-order internal

GP ðsÞ ¼ :

2ð1 þ 3sÞð1 6sÞ controller (16) with the ﬁrst-order controller

Gi1 ðsÞ ¼ ; (48)

process turns into a stable compensated process whose KM TKM1 s þ 1

Figure 27. Control system responses y(t) to the ramp distur- Figure 29. Compensated process responses y(t) to input c = 1

bance v(t) = t/10 for K = 3. (t) for Kf = ¡2.08, ¡ 2.13, ¡ 2.5.

178 V. CIRTOAJE

Figure 30. Control system responses y(t) to a unit step reference for Kf = ¡2.13 and K = 1, 4, 8.

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

(increasing for K < 1, decreasing for K > 1, in step

form for K = 1).

The discrete-time equivalent of the internal control-

ler has the transfer function

1 K þ ð1 r1 K Þz 1

G0i1 ðzÞ ¼ ¢ ; (51)

KM 1 r1 z1

where

r1 ¼ eKT=TM1 ¼ e4KT=TtrM : (52)

ence for Kf = ¡2.13 and K = 1, 4, 8.

The discrete-time control algorithm has the following

equations:

8

> ek ¼ rk yk

>

>

>

>

>

> xk ¼ ðp1 þ p2 Þxk1 p1 p2 xk2 þ KM PcklM 1

>

>

>

<

f k ¼ ek þ x k

:

>

>

>

> K 1 r 1 K

>

> ck ¼ r1 ck1 þ fk þ fk1

>

> KM KM

>

>

:

uk ¼ ck Kf ðyk y0 Þ

Figure 32. Control system responses u(t) to a unit step refer- (53)

ence for Kf = ¡2.13 and K = 1, 4, 8.

Based on many real-time control simulations on

software and physical processes (in laboratory and two

where reﬁneries), we may state that the robustness and con-

trol performance of this algorithm are comparable

TtrM TtrP with the ones of the control algorithm with second-

TM1 ¼ : (49) order internal controller.

4 4

uid1(t) to a unit step reference has the expression 4. Summary of rules for choosing the

controller parameters

1 þ ðK 1Þe4Kt=TtrM For a proportional process of P1 type (with the step

uid1 ðt Þ ¼ : (50)

KM response monotonic and ﬁnite), the model parameters

AUTOMATIKA 179

TtrM) can be easily determined from the process step

response (always starting from an initial steady-state

behaviour). These parameters can be veriﬁed and cor-

rected online by analyzing the deviation of the control-

ler response u(t) to a reference step for K = 1 from the

step shape. So, if the initial value u(0+) is greater/smaller Figure 33. General structure of the closed-loop system with

than its ﬁnal value u(1), then KM needs to be propor- compensated process.

tionally augmented/diminished. Then, for KM KP,

analyzing the new response u(t) to a step reference, if u those from the presented control algorithm (where a =

(t) is greater/smaller than u(0+) in a time range t > t M, 0), namely

then TtrM needs to be augmented/diminished.

For a proportional process with overshoot (with or cð0þ Þ ¼ K=KM ; cð 1 Þ ¼ 1=KP : (56)

without oscillations) or of nonminimum phase, the

model parameters are determined by approximating Note that for a = 1, the internal controller has the trans-

the process with one of P1 type. For a process with fer function Gi(1, s) = 1/KM.

overshoot, if the step response has the maximum value We claim that for any ﬁxed K, K > 1, the control

action is stronger for larger a. Therefore, in the case

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

stant at its maximum value for t t0. For a nonmini- a 6¼ 0, the best performance of the control system will

mum-phase process, we assume that the time delay be achieved for a smaller value of the tuning gain K

includes the time interval where the sign of the process than for a = 0. In our opinion, a = 0.2 is a suitable

step response is opposite to the sign of the ﬁnal value. value to get robust and high control performance.

For an integral or unstable process, the model

parameters are determined by turning the process into

6. Conclusions

a compensated process of P1 type, using a suitable

feedback process gain Kf. For an integral-type process, The proposed quasi-universal practical algorithm

it is recommended to choose the gain Kf as large as incorporates a process feedback block of pure propor-

possible such that the step response of the compen- tional type, a process model of second order plus time

sated process has zero overshoot. Then, for selected Kf, delay, and a realizable internal controller of second

the model parameters KM, t M and TtrM are determined order. By means of the process feedback path, if the

from the compensated process response y(t) to a step original process is of integral-type or unstable, then it

change of the input c. If K = 1 and the model parame- is turned into a stable compensated process of propor-

ters have appropriate values, then the form of the tional type.

closed-loop system response c(t) to a step reference is In its extended form, the proposed algorithm has

close to a step shape. ﬁve parameters: three model parameters (the model

To have a stronger/weaker control action, the pro- steady-state gain KM, the model time delay tM and the

cess operator increases/decreases the tuning gain K transient time TtrM of the model response to a step

(with the standard value 1). input), a tuning gain K with standard value 1 (which

can be easily used by the human process operator to

increase or decrease the magnitude of the control

5. Future research action) and a process feedback gain Kf (which is zero

For many practical applications, it is not recommended for stable processes of proportional type). The indus-

to use high values (larger than 10) of the tuning gain K, trial use of the proposed algorithm will have an

which lead to a very sharp form of the controller output instructive effect on the process operators, who need to

to a step reference. Such situations can appear, for know the main dynamic parameters of the processes

instance, by using an inaccurate process model with KM or compensated processes: the steady-state gain, the

> KP (Figures 9) or tM > tP (Figure 10). To avoid such time delay and the transient time of the step response.

cases, we propose as future research a more general con- If the model steady-state gain KM is equal to the

trol algorithm whose structure is illustrated in Figure 33, compensated process steady-state gain KP, then the

where a 2 [0, 1] and internal controller response c(t) to a step reference has

ðT1 s þ 1ÞðT2 s þ 1Þ the initial value K times larger than its ﬁnal value. Fur-

Gi ða; sÞ ¼ ; (54) thermore, if the dynamic model of the compensated

KM KT11 s þ 1 KT21 s þ 1

process has a high accuracy, then the internal control-

1a

K1 ¼ K 2 : (55) ler response c(t) for K = 1 is close to a step form. By

analyzing the deviation of this response from the ideal

The initial and ﬁnal values of the closed-loop system step form, the model parameters can be easily adjusted

response c(t) to a unit step reference are the same as online to improve the model accuracy.

180 V. CIRTOAJE

The practical feature of the control algorithm fol- algorithm is better than the popular PID algorithm. In

lows from the following considerations: addition, for integral-type processes, the proposed

algorithm achieves zero steady-state error for a ramp

– whatever the process to be controlled, the control disturbance added to the process output.

algorithm has the unique form (44);

– the algorithm has a tuning gain K (with stan-

dard value 1) instead of a tuning ﬁlter time Disclosure statement

constant (as usual in the IMC design), which

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the

achieves a natural trade-off between closed-

author.

loop performance and robustness to model

uncertainties;

– the controller parameters can be easily deter- References

mined from the step response of the process (or

compensated process), and can be veriﬁed and [1] Garcia C, Morari M. Internal model control. A unify-

adjusted online; in addition, due to the tuning ing review and some new results. Ind Eng Chem Proc

Des Dev. 1982;21(2):308–323.

gain K, it is not necessary to estimate with high [2] Rivera D, Morari M, Skogestad S. Internal model con-

accuracy the model parameters in order to have trol - PID controller design. Ind Eng Chem Process

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

good control performance (as shown in the simu- Des Dev. 1986;25:252–265.

lation Example 2.1, it is better to select KM > KP [3] Francis B, Wonham W. The internal model principle

than KM < KP, t M > t P than t M < t P, and TtrM > of control theory. Automatica. 1976;12(5):457–465.

[4] Bengtsson G. Output regulation and internal models -

TtrP than TtrM < TtrP);

a frequency domain approach. Automatica. 1977;13

– as the PID algorithm, the proposed control algo- (4):333–345.

rithm is quasi-universal because it can be applied [5] Horn I, Arulandu J, Gombas C, et al. Improved ﬁlter

to control almost all process types: proportional design in internal model control. Ind Eng Chem Res.

processes (with or without time delay, with or 1996;35:3437–3441.

without overshoot, with or without oscillation, of [6] Brosilow C, Joseph B. Techniques of model-based con-

trol. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall; 2002.

minimum or nonminimum phase), integral pro- [7] Chia TL, Lefkowitz I. Internal model-based control for

cesses, stable or unstable processes. integrating processes. ISA Trans. 2010;49(4):519–527.

[8] Zhou W, Yu M, Huang DQ. A high-order internal

The main original contributions of the paper are the model based iterative learning control scheme for dis-

following: crete linear time-varying system. Int J Autom Comput.

2015;12(3):330–336.

[9] Hiromitsu O, Ryo T, Takahiro M, et al. Design of IMC

– an extension of the proposed algorithm to control based on an optimal control for a servo-system. J Con-

all or almost all industrial processes; trol Sci Eng. 2015;1–5.

– an experimental procedure of tuning the control- [10] Yao F, Xinggao L. Adaptive IMC of a high-purity heat-

ler parameters much simpler than the procedures integrated air separation column. Chem Eng Des J

used for the PID controllers; Control Sci Eng. 2015;38(9):1599–1607.

[11] Chien IL, Fruehauf PS. Consider IMC tuning to

– the use of a tuning gain with standard value 1 improve controller performance. Chem Eng Progress.

instead of a ﬁlter time constant that is usually 1990;10:33–41.

used in the classical IMC design; [12] Skogestad S. Simple analytic rules for model reduction

– the use of the process transient time as model and PID controller tuning. Model Ident Control.

parameter (together with the process steady-state 2004;25(2):85–120.

[13] Xiang L, Dai Y, Lu X. Novel IMC-PID controller

gain and process time delay);

design and parameter tuning with improving control

– a design of the discrete-time control algorithm as performance for the SOPTD. 10th IEEE International

a set of difference equations which can be easily Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA);

implemented on a real time controller; Hangzhou, China; 2013.

– a design of the conditions of bumpless transfer [14] Vanavil B, Anusha AV, Perumalsamy M, et al.

between the three controller modes: MANUAL, Enhanced IMC-PID controller design with lead-lag ﬁl-

ter for unstable and integrating process with time

COMPENSATORY and AUTOMATIC; delay. Chem Eng Commun. 2014;201(11):1468–1496.

– a proposal to generalize and improve the control [15] Kurmar DB, Padma SR. Tuning of IMC based PID

algorithm in order to avoid some unusual situa- controllers for integrating systems with time delay. ISA

tions where the controller output to a step refer- Trans. 2016;63:242–255.

ence has a very sharp shape. [16] Ghousiya BK, Seshagiri RA, Radhakrishnan TK.

Enhanced IMC based PID controller design for non-

minimum phase integrating processes with time delay.

Due to its robustness, high control performance ISA Trans. 2017;68:223–234.

(especially for the processes with time delay) and tun- [17] Yamada K. Modiﬁed internal model control for unsta-

ing procedure simplicity, the proposed control ble system. Proceeding of the 7th Mediterranean

AUTOMATIKA 181

Conference on Control and Automation (MED99); integrator in continuous-time system. Int J Info Elec-

Haifa, Israel; 1999. p. 293–302. tron Eng. 2013;3(4):357–360.

[18] Cirtoaje V. Process compensation based control. Bul [20] Cirtoaje V, Baiesu A. Comparative study of three prac-

Univ “Petrol-Gaze” din Ploiesti, Seria Tehnica. 2006; tical IMC algorithms with inner controller of ﬁrst

LVIII(1):48–53. and second order. JEEE Control Comput Sci. 2016;

[19] Shibasaki H, Endo J, Hikichi Y, et al. A modiﬁed inter- 2(2):21–28.

nal model control for an unstable plant with an

Downloaded by [Manpres Distribution ZT80731] at 01:54 17 November 2017

- lars_hagg2012PID.pdfUploaded byMd Mustafa Kamal
- Controller TuningUploaded byYos Emite
- pid-without-a-phd.pdfUploaded byGiovanni Eliezer
- A new Smith predictor and controller for control of processesUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- phUploaded bylux0008
- Control Design - How to Tune LoopsUploaded byBoss
- Tangent Analysis of a discreet step responseUploaded byduknow2
- KD_Auto Tuning to Module Based RulesUploaded bynilton_ufcg@gmail.com
- 10.1016@j.jprocont.2010.09.007Uploaded bypetruskara
- Chemical Process Lab ReportUploaded byMuhammad Fawwaz
- adaptive_fuzzyUploaded byKemala Sari
- US4903192 PID Fuzzy LogicUploaded bykeyboard2014
- A F700 PID ControlUploaded byPham Long
- Controller design for integrating processesUploaded byIRJET Journal
- GPC-IUploaded byVignesh Ramakrishnan
- AEI504Uploaded byapi-26787131
- 120-194-1-PBUploaded byrana
- Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 63, 2008Uploaded byShamsMohd
- Tuning for Pid ControllersUploaded byMeghanand Kumar
- Proposed Method to Control Load Frequency in Single Area Power SystemUploaded byIRJET Journal
- manual 08Uploaded byAliEjaz
- 113270-293549-2-PB.pdfUploaded byMistik
- Curso PID MateriasUploaded bysergio
- 07 PID ControllerUploaded byHinsermu Alemayehu Garbaba
- Chap08Uploaded byMohammedAbdullah
- 00-0341Uploaded byanon_102072030
- maquina de instrumentação.PDFUploaded byhecirlene vieira
- Logix Designer Report(s)Uploaded bycaciquepenabranca
- Process control lecture 21_Dr Pratik N Sheth_BITS.pdfUploaded byManik Bansal
- Lab 3 DiscussionUploaded byillyzl

- 0 Advanced Simulation Case Using HYSYSUploaded byusman0553
- Windows 8 ExpertUploaded bymaripopescu
- Hysys(LNG)Uploaded byAris Koreya
- Model Predictive ControlUploaded bymaripopescu
- Web DesignUploaded bymaripopescu
- Rough Guide Directions ATHENSUploaded bymaripopescu
- Industrial Control Handbook (2000)Uploaded byapi-3769304
- Action Script ReferenceUploaded bymaripopescu
- epslatexUploaded bymaripopescu

- Medical Orgone TherapyUploaded byuncoveringconscious
- Antarctica AssignmentUploaded byGlory Puljak
- Research CALTUploaded byMarcus Westcliffe
- PVA Grades and SpecificationsUploaded bypasalacqua85
- List of CompaniesUploaded byGursharan Kohli
- Risk Attitude 2Uploaded bysi13nz
- Statistical Methods in Geodesy - Vermeer.pdfUploaded bysonjasonja558061
- Introduction to the Writings of Plotinus by G.R.S. MeadUploaded byMartin Euser
- Special Theory of Relativity & the Lorentz ForceUploaded bysiege
- Deloitte - Learner Centric Learning (Employee Behaviour Change)Uploaded byAndré Mauricio Freire Pires
- discourse community responseUploaded byapi-263487950
- spec_surv_datasheet.pdfUploaded byGiora Rozmarin
- Simulator Quick StartUploaded byRommellnov
- Chapter 8Uploaded byDragica Marina
- Mantle Programming Guide and API ReferenceUploaded byStanford Adderley
- CE2451_EECAUploaded byRaji Sharmi
- Moroz Thesis Final Copyright Material RemovedUploaded byGopal Valsan
- Passages for Note MakingUploaded byDeepak Dhariwal
- 3 Nucleon - VRIOUploaded byVeera Karthik G
- SVMUploaded byPablo Alberto Calla Galleguillos
- Extraction of oil from Jatropha curcas seeds by subcritical fluid extraction.pdfUploaded byjii
- The Mole and Amount of Substance in Chemistry and Education (1)Uploaded byMontoya Duque
- Post TestUploaded byerlia_narulita
- Ge-IIUploaded byVaibhav Sharma
- Study of afterpulsing in InP-based SPAD for 1.5 and 1.06 Photon Counting ApplicationsUploaded byjack11rossi
- Bba Summer InternshipUploaded byVedanth Choudhary
- SSRN-id2319328Uploaded bymarjo95
- Doble - Martin and Moore - Boston 2013Uploaded byAmmar Khalid Mayo
- Shear and StretchUploaded byHayaat Sehgal
- MK 0071 ReleaseNotesUploaded byzacve