Chemical Engineering Communications

This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]
On: 21 June 2013, At: 00:06

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Chemical Engineering Communications

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcec20
A SIMPLE METHOD FOR TUNING CASCADE CONTROL

SYSTEMS
a a b a c a
HSIAO-PING HUANG , I-LUNG CHIEN , YUEH-CHUNG LEE & GOW-BIN WANG
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 10617,
R.O.C
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 106, R.O.C
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, Chang Gung University, Kweishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan,
333, R.O.C
Published online: 30 Mar 2007.
To cite this article: HSIAO-PING HUANG , I-LUNG CHIEN , YUEH-CHUNG LEE & GOW-BIN WANG (1998): A SIMPLE METHOD FOR
TUNING CASCADE CONTROL SYSTEMS, Chemical Engineering Communications, 165:1, 89-121
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986449808912371
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Chm. &. Comm..1998. Vol. 165, pp. 89-121 Q 1998 OPA (OK- Publirhm Asmiation)
Reprinu availabk directly fmm the publisher Amsterdam B.V. Fublirhcd under lknr
Photompying permitted by l i m w only under thc Oordon and B m h Scicna
Publishers imprint.
Rink4 in India.
A SIMPLE METHOD FOR TUNING CASCADE

CONTROL SYSTEMS
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 00:06 21 June 2013
HSIAO-PING HUANG*, I-LUNG CHI EN^,

YUEH-CHUNG LEE and COW-BIN W A N G ~
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University,
Taipei 10617, Taiwan. R.0.C
(Received 3 December 1996: Infinnl form 10 June 1997)
A simple method for tuning controllers in a cascade system is presented. In this method, all the
relations that facilitate the tuning procedures are well prepared in terms of figures or simple
equations. Using thew figures and equations, the controller tuning for different configurations
of cascade systems becomes easy and straightfonvard when process models are available. On
the other hand. when process models are not available, a simple method that w s one single run
of step input experiment to develop such models is proposed. Based on these developments in
the controller tuning and process models, an autotuning system that uses relay feedback is
presented. Unlike the existing autotuning systems, this proposed system conducts identification
and controller tuning in a decoupled manner. As a result, no excessive trial- and-error efforts for
modeling.and tuning are required. Simulation results show the potential usage of such a
method. It is interested to see that the resulting systems have almost compatible responses to
those systems which have been designed optimally in one way or another as reported in the
literature. It is not, however, the purpose of this article to emphasize on obtaining superior
performance to all other existing methods, but to emphasize on its effectiveness and simplicity
for application.
Keywordr: Cascade control; primary open-loop; controller tuning; autotuning; relay feedback
1. INTRODUCTION
In a cascade control system, the output of the "primary" (also called master
or outer) controller is used to manipulate the setpoint of the "secondary"
'Corresponding author.
t ~ c p a r t m e n t of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and
T hnology, Taipei 106, Taiwan. R.O.C.
?Department of Chemical Engineering, Chang Gung University, Kweishan, Taoyuan 333,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
90 H.-P. HUANG er a/.
(also called slave or inner) controller, while the secondary controller is the
only one which has an output to the process. These two controllers are
arranged in a way that the secondary loop is nested inside of the primary
one. Each controller has its own process measurement but only the primary
controller will keep its process output follow an independent setpoint
command from outside, while the secondary controller with its intermediate
process output measurement will follow the command from the primary
controller output.
The benefits of a cascade control system are discussed in many process
control books (cf. Smith and Corripio, 1985; Seborg et a/., 1989; Luyben,
1990; Ogunnaike and Ray, 1994; Marlin, 1995) and also in a number of
papers (Franks and Worley, 1956; Schork and Deshpande, 1978; McMillan,
1982; Krishnaswamy el al., 1990; Verhaegen, 1991). The principal
advantages of cascade control are perhaps best described by the book of
Shinskey (1988) as:
I. Disturbances arising within the secondary loop are corrected by the
secondary controller, often before they can influence the primary
variable.
2. Phase lag existing in the secondary part of the process is reduced
measurably by the secondary loop. This improves the speed of response
of the primary loop.
3. Gain variations in the secondary part of the process are overcome within
its own loop.
4. The secondary loop permits an exact manipulation of the flow of mass or
energy by the primary controller.
Because the two loops of a cascade system are nested together, how to
properly tune these two controllers becomes very important or else the
potential benefits claimed above will be significantly lost. There are quite a
few papers in the literature targeting on tuning such cascade control
systems. Some of these papers aim at minimizing integral criteria, e.g.,
ITAE, ISE, IAE, etc. (Krishnaswamy et a/., 1990, Krishnaswamy and
Rangaiah, 1992; Wang et a/., 1995; Huang et al., 1996a); some use Ziegler-
Nichols formulae (Schork and Deshpande, 1978; Krishnaswamy and
Rangaiah, 1987). Other approaches include: Hang et al. (1994) using two
relay feedback tests to obtain the tuning parameters of cascade controllers;
and Eker and Johnson (1996) using a controller derived from LQG or H,
approach in a form other than PID. Although the controller parameters are
determined differently, the basic approach is the same: the secondary loop is
tuned first and then the primary one follows.
TUNING CASCADE CONTROL SYSTEMS 91
In all the tuning methods having been proposed in literature, there are
common disadvantages or difficulties in either technical or practicing
aspects. In practicing aspect, during the tuning stage, besides modeling for
the primary process G,, and secondary process Gp2,one has to find ultimate
information (such as: ultimate frequency and ultimate gain) or develop a
parametric model for the primary open-loop. Since this primary open-loop
includes so many parameters, general relations for modeling are not
available. Thus, identification procedures have to be used from time to time
during the design or tuning stage. This would cause inconvenient and would
take a lot of efforts. In technical aspect, difficulties are associated with the
way those tuning rules are established. First, the tuning results are usually
restricted to a specific cascade configuration. Secondly, because of using

integral criteria, the results do not directly related to the performance
specifications, such as: overshoot, rise time, etc. Also, the results are mostly
derived from a searching procedure over a certain range of parameters,
consequently, they are in general quite restrictive. Furthermore, since they
are optimal, there is no tuning factor to take care of the uncertainties in
modeling errors nor a degree of freedom for the designer to choose. For
those that use advanced theories to develop the tuning method, the
procedure for tuning seems unfriendly to the practitioners.
To circumvent the difficulties aforementioned and to facilitate tuning a
cascade control system in a more efficient way, a simple method is presented.
In this method, all relations that can facilitate modeling the secondary loop
and the primary open-loop are well prepared in terms of figures or simple
equations by presuming that process models are well defined in terms of
FOPDT transfer functions. Furthermore, two tuning factors for a cascade
control system are related to control specifications so that they can be used
to guide the selection of these two values. As a result, by using these figures
or equations, tuning controllers in a cascade system becomes easy and
straightforward when these process models are available. On the other hand,
when process models are not available, a quick method to derive such
FOPDT models using only one single run of step input experiment is
proposed. Based on the developments for modeling and controller tuning
aforementioned, an autotuning system that uses relay feedback for cascade
control loops is presented. Unlike other autotuning systems, this proposed
system conducts identification and controller tuning in a decouple manner.
As a result, no excessive trial- and-error efforts for modeling and tuning are
required. Simulation results are presented to show the potential usage of
such a method. It is interested to find that the resulting systems by using this
simple method have almost compatible performance compared with those
92 H.-P. HUANG et a/.
which have been designed optimally in one way or another as reported in the
literature. ~evertheltss,it is really not our purpose to emphasize on
obtaining superior performance to all other existing methods, but to
emphasize on the simplicity and readiness of this method for application.
2. OPEN-LOOP MODELS FOR TUNING CASCADE LOOPS
The block diagram of a cascade control system is shown in Figure 1. In this

figure, Gc2and Gp2are the secondary loop controller and process transfer
"FIGURE I Equivalent block diagrams for a cascade control system.

functions, respectively. Similarly, G,1 and GpI are those for the primary
loop. The dynamics of valve and measurements are neglected for simplicity
purpose. The process models (i.e., G ~ ; , I and cP2) are assumed to be
approximated as first-order plus dead-time (FOPDT) forms.
A conventional approach to tune the controllers in a cascade control
system is to start with tuning the secondary loop first. Tuning this secondary
loop is hardly different from tuning a conventional single loop, except that
the controller is usually confined to P or PI form. Ater this step, the well
tuned secondary loop is combined with Gpl, the primary process, to become
the primary open-loop. A proper model to fit this primary open-loop is then
derived and is used to tune the primary controller. Although it seems simple
to use this conventional approach, establishing general relations for

modeling the primary open-loop is by no means a simple task, because it
would involve so many parameters. So far, there is no useful relations
available for this purpose. Consequently, identification for the primary
open-loop have to be made all over again each time when process model
changes or when the controller settings in the secondary loop are changed.
In the following, modeling the primary open-loop is decomposed into two
parts. The first part is to model the secondary loop using the parameters in
Gp2 together with the tuning factor of this loop. The secondary part is to
combine the resulted secondary loop with GpI as a primary open-loop. In
each of this two parts, useful relations in terms of the parameters in Gpl and
Gp2 and the tuning parameters are established. To use these relations for
tuning, it has to presume that models for Gpl and Gp2are well defined. Later,
we shall develop a simple method or arrange a consecutive relay feedback
test to identify this two models.
Before proceeding further, we should mention a very useful property that
can be used to define the similarity between two linear transfer functions.
Given a transfer function G(s) so that
then we have
where S(r) designates the step response of G(s) and k is the steady-state
gain of G(s). Thus, if any two transfer functions, say Hl(s) and H2(s), are
94 H.-P. HUANC er al
similar/equivalent to each other, we should at least have
We should also mention the fit-3 method of Smith and Corripio (1985) to
find a FOPDT model to fit an overdamped step response of a given process.
Assume that S(t) is the given overdamped step response recorded from an
open-loop step test on the process. The corresponding dead time 0 and the
time constant T can be calculated from the following formulae
where 10.~8and 10.63 are the times that S(t) reaches the values of 0.28 S(t,)
and 0.63 S(t,), respectively.
2.1. Modeling the Secondary Loop

In most cascade control applications, the secondary loop emphasizes the use
of P or PI controller. For a P-control loop, the proportional gain is the only
tuning parameter. On the other hand, in a PI-control loop, if IMC-PI rule
(Rivera et al., 1986; Chien and Fruehauf, 1990) is employed, the only tuning
parameter will be the filter constant T ~ ZThus, the equivalent model to this
secondary closed-loop can be formulated in terms of the process parameters
(i.e., kP2,72, and 6'2) and the tuning parameter (i.e., 7/2 or kC2)It is presumed
that such a secondary loop can be approximated as an underdamped
second-order process.
a. Secondary Loop with PI-Control
For a secondary process model of the following form
Using first-order Taylor approximation for the dead time, the resulting
IMC-PI settings are given by
where 7 f 2 is the only tuning parameter of this loop. A model for this
secondary loop would be an underdamped second-order process that
approximates the complementary sensitivity function of this loop, i.e.,
where k, 7, <, and e are the steady-state gain, the time constant, the
damping factor, and the dead time of the secondary loop, respectively.
Let k= l and by normalizing time with respect to e2, we have
we then conclude that
<
It is found that ?/02 vs. rf2/02 and vs. v2/& have a linear relationship
as shown in Figure 2. The results are obtained from simulating the step
responses of both sides of Eq. 10 and followed by employing proper
identification methods (for example, Sundaresan et al. (1978) for over-
damped SOPDT model; Chen (1989) for underdamped SOPDT model) to
match the resulting responses. On the other hand, the apparent dead time
of this equivalent open-loop process can be taken as
b. Secondary Loop with P-Control

Next, let us examine P-control loop. An Open-loop model for a
secondary loop with P-contorl would be an underdamped process to
approximate its complementary sensitivity function. That is
H.-P. HUANG er a1
FIGURE 2 The relations o f ? and vs. its tuning factor TD for a secondary PI-loop.
where
By changing time to become dimensionless, we have
Simulation results to match the step responses of both sides of Eq. 13 give
the following relations as shown in Figure 3. The quantified equations for
TUNING CASCADE CONTROL SYSTEMS
FIGURE 3 The relations of r and < vs. its tuning factor kn for a secondary P-loop.
this figure are given in Appendix A. Similarly, the equivalent deadtime
for this secondary loop is given as
Thus, once the tuning parameter 7/2 or kc2 is assigned to a given secondary
process, the equivalent second-order process to this secondary loop can be
found.
2.2. Modeling the Primary Open-Loop

A model for the primary open-loop is essential for determining the primary
controller in a cascade loop. Having this model, we are able to apply
different tuning rules to determine the parameters of the controller. In order
to apply those model-based rules for the PID controller tuning, this open-
loop model is better to be of low order.
98 H.-P. HUANG el a/,
a Second-Order Plus Dead-Time (SOPDT) Model

for Primary Open-Loop
Finding a SOPDT model for the primary loop is to assign a second-
order process to approximate the dynamic behavior of the primary
open-loop. That is
where k*, T * , C*, and 8' are the steady-state gain, the time constant, the
damping factor, and the dead time of the SOPDT model for the primary
open-loop, respectively. The approximation is made separately to match

the dynamic portion, steady-state gain, and the apparent dead time of
both sides of Eq. 17. Thus we have
The method of finding AB' is to equate the first derivatives at s= 0 of

both sides of Eq. 18 so that
If the right hand side of Eq. 21 gives a negative value, AB' is assumed to
be zero.
Although the closed-loop transfer function of the secondary loop is
usually specified as an underdamped system for fast disturbance
rejection purpose, the primary open-loop can vary from an under-
damped to an overdamped system depending on how slow the primary
process G,,, is. By using the dimensionless groups, matching the time
domain step responses of each side of Eq. 18 gives the results as shown
in Figure 4.
According to the same simulation results, it is very interesting to find
<
that, for = 0.25 0.7, r*and t have the following relation (Lee, 1996)
N
FIGURE 4 The relations of C/(vs. TI/? for the primary open-loop.
In other words, T* can be taken as the same value as that of 7. By

combining Eqs. 12, 20, and 21, estimation of 8* can then be given as
follows
On the right hand side of the above equation, the first three terms are
known from the process models. Meanwhile, 7/02 can be read from
Figure 2 and C* can be read from Figure 4. Thus, if 712 has been
assigned, the value of '8 can be easily found.
b First-Order Plus Dead-Time (FOPDT) Model for Primary Open-Loop

It is found that, when 0.25 5 ( 5 0.7 and (TI/?)2 3, the model for the
primary open-loop will be highly damped. In these cases, it is desirable
to model the primary open-loop as the form of FOPDT
100 H.-P. HUANG er a1
where ko, T O , and Bo are the steady-state gain, the time constant, and the
dead time of the FOPDT model for the primary open-loop, respectively,
and ko = & I . It is interested to find that TO/? can be formulated in terms
of T I / ? as shown in Figure 5 (Lee, 1996). In other words, the equivalent
time constant r0is a function of r 1and 7 only when the secondary loop is
obviously overdamped. The value of Bo for such cases can be estimated as
3. TUNING PROCEDURE - WHEN Gpl AND Gp2 ARE GIVEN
If GpIand Gp2 are known at the moment of tuning, the procedure would be
most straightforward. In this case, we don't need to perform any further
open-loop test but simply follo.wing the conventional tuning approach, i.e.,
from inner loop to the outer, by making uses of those relations presented in
the previous section and the charts for performance specifications to be
shown in the following.
To tune the secondary loop, the relations of damping factor and the
tuning factor rf2 have been given in Figure 2. The relating performance
indices such as maximum peak gain M, rising time (T,-B2)/B2, and peak
time (Tp-e2)/B2to each choice of rf2are given in Figure 6. If the secondary
loop is to emphasize its fast response to correct for the intermediate load
FIGURE 6 The performance charts for a PI-loop with open-loop FOPDT process.
disturbance, performance specifications such as overshoot would really not

a concern. Consequently, the 2-N tuning rule which aims at a quarter decay
ratio (approximately, a damping factor of 0.22) can be used. Of course, if
one concerns the overshoot in the secondary loop such as Corripio (1990), a
larger damping factor should be used. In this study, we will suggest to start
with a damping factor of 0.25 for the secondary loop. Such a choice of the
damping factor for the secondary loop is almost compatible to the use of
2-N tuning rule.
Using this assigned damping factor, the model for the secondary loop can
be read from Figure 2 or Figure 3 together with Eq. 12 or Eq. 16, depending
on P I or P controller is being used. The model for the primary open-loop
102 H.-P. HUANG et a!.
can then be read from Figure 4 or Figure 5 together with Eqs. 22 and 23 or
Eq. 25, depending on whether it is highly damped or not. The tuning
parameters based on IMC can be calculated for an underdamped process as
If the primary open-loop model is of overdamped one, it can further be

simplified to use the FOPDT form. An IMC-PI or IMC-PID controller for
such a FOPDT process can also be found. The IMC-PI controller settings
have been given in the similar forms as Eqs. 7 and 8 and the IMC-PID
controller settings are as follows
where a is a constant for the pre-filter of the parallel PID controller.

Notice that in the above equations, there is one tuning parameter to be
determined to meet system requirements. In the following, we should depict
how this tuning factor is chosen.
For an SOPDT primary open-loop, the IMC tuning method would lead
the primary controller to be of PID form. The tuning factor T,~ for such a
PID loop that gives different overshoot is given in Figures 7a and 7b. It is
also easy to see that the other performance indices of such a loop (such as:
rise time, time of first peak, etc.) are functions of parameters T * , C*,and 8' in
the following forms
FIGURE 7a The relations of tuning factor ~,,/ff VS. @'/refor the SOPDT primary open-
loop (0.4 < C' < 0.9).
The relations of Eqs. 31 and 32 are plotted for the SOPDT primary open-
loop as shown in Figures 8a and 8b. Consequently, we can tune this primary
loop by adjusting r f l to give desired performance and robustness. On the
other hand, a primary open-loop of FOPDT form would result in a PI
controller for this loop. Thus, to choose a tuning factor for such a PI
controller, we can refer to Figure 2 and Figure 6 by replacing
rn/B2 with rfl/BO.From these figures, we can choose T f 1 in terms of the
ratio of T,-~/B~ to meet the requirements for system performance and
H.-P. HUANG e t a / ,
FIGURE 7b The relations of tuning factor rfl/B'vs. B'/T' for the SOPDT primary open-loop
(1.0 < C' < 6.0).
robustness. In general, rf1 can be taken any value between 0.45 Bo and 0.8 Bo
depends on performance and robustness requirements. Thus, when tuning
this primary loop, it can be guided by what kind of model for this primary
open-loop is identified and what requirements of the system have been
specified.
Although it seems straightforward to tune a cascade control system
according to the procedure described above, choice of the damping factor in
the secondary loop would need some precautions. A default value of 0.25 for
FIGURE 8a The performance charts for a PID-loop with open-loop SOPDT process
(0.4 < C'
< 0.9).
damping factor seems all right to most secondary loop where P or PI

controller is to be used. But when T I / ? is not large enough (for example,
(rl/?)1 lo), a further check on the maximum log module of the
complementary sensitivity function is suggested. It is found that when this
maximum log module is too far away from 2 db, a further increase of the
damping in the secondary loop seems necessary.
A systematic tuning procedure for cascade control loops is thus
summarized in Figure 9, following the route of which GpI and Gp2are given.
H.-P. HUANG er a/.
FIGURE 8b The performance charts for a PID-loop with open-loop SOPDT process
(1.0 < C' < 6.0).
Illustration
In the following, we shall use the tuning procedure described above to find
the controller settings for the selected cascade control system. It is the
purpose to show that using this simple procedure, the resulting system can
have almost compatible performance compared with those designed
optimally.
y+TL given 7
Ye. 4
~ q . .44-45 Find
1- OPl OP2
4
'
F1O. orng.l Find: , E ~ S76
. 8
Find: G,
or ~ C Z
I
Flp.2 6 Eq.12
Find:?, e,if,
Fig.4 6 Eqs.22 21
FIg.6 6 Eg.25
or
r-lFind: y1
D-@
Find: G,,
FIGURE 9 Flow diagram for tuning a cascade control system.
Exumple I (Wang er al., 1995)

Consider the cascade control system of Wang et ul. (1995) where the
primary and secondary processes are
e-9~ e-3s
G P i ( s ) = - and Gpz(s)= -
1Os+ I 8s+ 1
108 H.-P.
HUANG el al.
Assume that a PID-PI configuration is defined for this cascade control

system. The damping factor of the secondary loop is assigned to be 0.25.
Consequently, the PI-setting for the secondary loop is
Then, from Figure 2 together with Eq. 12, it is found that a second-order
model of the following can be obtained for the secondary loop
r = 2.123 and f = 0.25
Since the ratio of r1/t is large ( 13), according to Figure 4, we shall have
a strongly overdamped primary open-loop. As a result, Figure 5 is used to

estimate the FOPDT model for this primary open-loop. That is
e-11.81s
G' (s) =
10.3s + 1
0.8
YI 0.0
0.4
1 0 20 40 60 80 100 110 140 160'
0.2 ~ ~
lims
::;
4.8
1
.l.Z
0 20 40 MI 80 100 120 140 160
Time
FIGURE 10 Response curves of example 1: (a) for setpoint change, (b) for load 1 change,
(c) for load 2 change. (dash line - Wang's method, solid line - proposed method).
As a result, the recommended controller settings for the primary loop

(rfl = 0.6 0,) are as follows
According to these controller settings, the control responses are shown in

Figure 10 where the responses from the one tuned by Wang's method are
also presented. Comparing the results, it is found that this simple method
does have compatible results to those of Wang er al. (1995) where more
complicated optimal tuning method is used.
4. TUNING PROCEDURE - WHEN Gpl AND Gp2 ARE UNKNOWN
To tune a cascade control system when Gpl and Gp2 are unknown, the usual
practice is to carry out in the following manner:
1. A step input is introduced to identify a model for the secondary process
when both loops are opened.
2. The secondary controller is tuned according to the model obtained in the
previous step.
3. A further step test is conducted to identify a model for the primary open-
loop when the secondary loop is closed.
4. The primary controller is tuned using the model of the primary loop.
In this conventional tuning procedure, it needs to carry out open-loop
step test twice. With the help of the data presented previously in this article,
a simple tuning procedure that needs only one step test is presented in the
following.
Just like the first step in the conventional procedure, a step input is
introduced when both two loops are opened. From the primary and
secondary measurements, we have two responses. These two responses can
be fitted into two FOPDT models, i.e.,
where GA(s)and dB@)are the models for Gpl Gp2(s) and Gp2(s),respectively.
Thus, we have
110 H.-P. HUANG er a1
The steady-state gain of the primary process can be directly estimated as
Rough estimations for the dead time and time constant of the primary
process model which are expressed as 81 and ?I, respectively, can be
calculated by
The result in Eq. 36 is derived from matching the first derivatives at s=O
of GP1Gp2(s)and that of G"(s).
The above values of 81 and are then refined according to the following
equations defined as
A
91= m a x { i ~%}
, and ql%nin{?l, 6) (37)
and let
Therefore, we have
Notice that 681 is to compensate for the apparent dead time which is
contributed by the two time constants (Smith and Corripio, 1985).
Having these two models at hand, the remaining steps of the procedure
will then be the same as those in the previous section. Usually, the cascade
system tuned in this way is more conservative than the one of which both
GpI and Gp2 are well defined.
Illustration
For the same processes as those in the previous section, it is assumed here
that open-loop process models are unknown at the moment of tuning. In
order to tune the cascade controllers using the procedure depicted
previously, the estimations of FOPDT models using one single run of step
test for the demonstrated example are given in the following.
Example 2
Consider the same process as example 1:
e-9~ e-3s
G P ~ ( s=) and Gp2(s)= -
8s+ 1
Similarly, from a step input test, we can obtain

e-16.7s e-3.15s
and d ~ ( s=
)
+I
"(s) = 1 4 . 7 ~ 1~ - 7.95s
Thus, we have
Similarly, we also have
As we can see, the estimated FOPDT models are very close to the original
GpI and G p 2 Thus, the resulting cascade control system which is tuned
according to these G ~ I ( Sand) G ~ ~ ( Scould
) only have very small
differences from that we have in the previous example.
5. AUTOTUNING USING RELAY FEEDBACK
Recently, Huang et al. (1996b) presented a method to estimate FOPDT

models using the data from a modified auto-tuning test. This modified
autotuning test can be used to develop models for GpI and Gpl in a cascade
system, too. As shown in Figure 11, by shifting the switch to close secondary
loop or to close primary loop, we are able to observe the constant cycles at
either y2 or y l . Thus, having the magnitudes and periods of these constant
cycles together with the tail parts of each responses, the parameters in the
FOPDT models can be estimated. Let y and u designate the output and
input of a testing experiment, the estimations for the representative FOPDT
model include:
112 H.-P. HUANG el a1
FIGURE I I A relay feedback loop for autotuning a cascade control system.

(I) Process Steady-State Gain (k,)
where to is. any time origin for integration.

(2) Process Dead Time (0)
where
(3) Process Time Constant ( T )
which P is calculated according to whether the final process

is zero or not, i.e.,
when yf= 0
when yf# 0
where //is the final time of the relay feedback test.

Noted that estimations for Gpl and Gp2 conducted in this way can be
decoupled from tuning controller Ga and can be done consecutively in one
phase.
Thus, when we shift the switch to close the secondary loop, we can obtain
a model for the secondary process:
Then, by shifting the switch to close the primary loop, we can estimate the
FOPDT model for GplGp2(s):
When eP2(s) and dA(s) are known, a FOPDT model for the primary
process can be derived as depicted in the previous section. Figure 9 also
shows the systematic tuning procedure for a cascade system by using the
proposed autotuning test. Two examples for such estimations are given in
the following.
Example 3
Consider again the process of example 1:
e-9~ e-3s
GPl(s) = - and Gp2(s) = -
IOs+ I 8s+ 1
The output and input responses of the proposed relay feedback test are
shown in Figure 12. Table I gives summaries about the estimations. The
resulting process models are
e-16.348s e-3.006s
and dP2(s)=
= 13.651s+ 1 7.987s + 1
Therefore, the final process model of the primary loop is derived as
H.-P. HUANG er al.
-0 50 100 150 200 150 SW 350 4 0 0 . 150 YW

Time
0 50 100 150 7.00 150 SW 350 4W 450 500

Time
FIGURE 12 Testing results of example 3. (G,I (s)= e-9'/(10s + I ) and GP2(s) = e-3'/
(8s + I)). (a) ouput responses for the relay feedback test; (b) input responses for the relay
feedback test.
It is apparent that the estimated FOPDT models are very close to the
original GpI and Gp2. Thus, the resulting cascade control system which
is tuned according to these cP;,l(s)and cP2(s) would have very small
differences from that we have in the previous example.
Example 4
A cascade control system where the primary and secondary loop
processes are in the form of
2e-" 1.5e-0.5S
GPl(s) =
(5s + 1)(2s + 1) and Gp2(s) =
+
(S l)(O.Ss 1) +
is studied next. The output and input responses of the proposed test
are shown in Figure 13. And the estimation results are summarized in
Table I1 from which we obtain that
2.00 le-2.3033s 1,se-0.795s
GI(.) = and (;' s
5.7097s + I P'( ) = I.l95s+ 1
And open-loop step responses of primary loop process Gpl(s) and its
model cPl(s) are also shown in Figure 14. The derived FOPDT model
does have very close step response behavior to that of the process.
- l . S ~ " ' " " " I

0 10 20 10 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Time
FIGURE 13 Testing results of example 4. (a) output response for the relay feedback test;
(b) input responses for the relay feedback test.
TABLE I Estimation results of example 3 using relay feedback test (r=2 and h= 1)
Inner loop: G,(s) = &
Relay: hl = 2 and h2= -1 l,= 120
/ydr= 10.2098 a1=0.6263 / rydr= 377.8791
/u@= 10.2100 a?=-0.3135 /rudr= 265.6401
+ kp2=1.00 P = 11.0681 92 + 4 = 10.9937
+ 92 = 3.006 + 6 = 7.987
+ Model : 6,2(s) =
Overall loop: GA(s)= ,8,+;i;~,+l,
Relay: h1= 2 and h2 = - l q= 380

jydr=72SI I5 al=l.1721 / tydt= 11761.59
udl=72.5100 a2= -0.6204 /tudt=9586.157
+k, = l .OO P=51.4807 * 9. + 7. = 29.9985
+ 9 . = 16.348 + T. = 13.651
e-II.YL,
+ Model : C A N=
Outer loop: Gpl(s) = $&
-.I13
=+ Model : G ~( sI) =
1 16 H.-P. HUANG et al.
TABLE I1 Estimation results of example 4 using relay feedback test (7'2 and h = I)
Inner loop: Gp2(s) = &
Relay: hl = 2 and h2= - l I,= 20
Jydt=4.245 a l = 1.0449 / rydr =40.4525
J"u+ = 2.830 a 2 = -0.5525 /rudt= 21.3366
e kp2= 1 .SO P = 2.8601 +&+4=1.990
+ $2 = 0.795 + 4 = 1.195
Relay:hl=2 and h l = - l I,= 90

Jydt=41.57 a1=2.1576 J rydt= 2053.123

Judr= 13.85 a2=-I.lOll Jrudt= 545.4964
+k,= 3.001 P= 14.7523 + 9. +TO = 10.0035
+9,=4.118 + T. = 5.885
+ Model : 6,(s) =
Outer loop: Gpl(s) =hi

8, = 3.323 81 = - 691
kp2= 1.5 6 = 4.69 i t = +I + 691
k,y3.001 q l =il-4.69
- ikp, = 2.001 q 2 = q =].I95 + 81 = 2.3033
+ 691 = 1.0197 3 +I = 5.7097
Model : dPl(s) =
"
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time
FIGURE 14 Open-loop step responses for example 4: process Gpl(s) = 2e-'/(5s + I ) @ + 1)
and model Gpl(s) = 2.001e-2.303"/(5.7097s I). +
In this case, it is assumed that a PID-PI configuration is chosen for this

cascade control system. By applying the tuning procedure, we can find the
controller setting for the secondary loop:
and the PID-setting for the primary loop with ~ f =0.600:

l
The responses of this cascade system to the setpoint change and the load
changes are as shown in Figure 15.
:m
0.4
0.2
:imm:!m
0
0 10 20 30 40 60 M) 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80
Time Time
0.4
0.2
0 .1.5
0.2
!-q
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 LO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time Time
y2
0.1
0
-0.1 -0.2
-0.2 4.4
4.6
-0.3 -0.8
-0.1
0 10 20 $0 40 50 64 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 m 80
Time Time
FIGURE 15 Response curves of example 4 using relay feedback test: (a) for setpoint change,
(b) for load I change, (c) for load 2 change.
H.-P. HUANG el a/.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this article, we have presented a method to tune controllers in a cascade

control system. In this method, useful relations that facilitate the tuning
procedure have been well prepared in terms of figures or simple equations.
Performance specifications are used to guide for selecting tuning parameters.
A simple method to estimate the two FOPDT models for GpI and Gp2using
only one single run of step input experiment is included. As a result, this
proposed method can be applied to either cases where GpI and Gp2are given
or unknown. By making use of the presented tuning method, an autotuning
system that uses relay feedback is also presented. In this autotuning system,
identification and controller tuning are conducted in a decoupled manner.

Several examples illustrate the potential usage of the proposed method.
Acknowledgement
Financial support from the National Science Council of the Republic of
China (NSC-86-2214-E002-018) is gratefully acknowledged.
NOMENCLATURE
parameters in Eq. 42
average amplitude of the constant cycles
coefficient constants
primary and secondary loop disturbances
functions
process models for GpIGp2(s)and Gp2(s)
primary and secondary controllers
primary' and secondary processes .
amplitude of relay output
controller gains of the primary and secondary loops
process gains of the primary and secondary loops
maximum peak gain
period of process output at constant cycling
parameters defined as Eq. 37
(unit) step response of the process
final time of the relay feedback test
peak time and rising time
time original for integration
= time that S(t) at 0.28 S(t,) and 0.63 S(r,)

= outputs of primary and secondary controllers
= process output value at I/
= outputs of primary and secondary processes
Greek Symbols
pre-filter constant of a parallel PID controller
parameter calculated by Eq. 44 or Eq. 45
ratio of positive peak to negative peak of relay output
dead time calculated from Eq. 21
compensated dead time calculated from Eq. 38

damping factor
dead times of primary and secondary processes
derivative times of primary and secondary controllers
filter time constants of primary and secondary
controllers
integral times of primary and secondary controllers
time constants of primary and secondary processes
Superscripts
secondary loop
primary open-loop
estimated value or process model
roughly estimated value
Subscripts
primary open-loop
References
Chen, C. L. (1989) "A Simple Method for On-Line Identification and Controller Tuning,"
AIChE J., 35, 2037-2039.
Chien, I-L. and Fmehauf, P. S. (1990) "Consider IMC Tuning lo Improve Controller
Performance," Chem. Eng. Prog., Oct., 33-41.
Corripio, A.B. (1990) Tuning of Industrial Control Systems, ISA, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Eker, I. and Johnson, M. A. (1996) "New Aspects of Cascade and Multi-Loop Process
Control," Trans. IChemE, 74, 38-54.
Franks, R. G. and Worley, C. W. (1956) "Quantitative Analysis of Cascade Control," Ind. Eng.
Chemistry, 48, 1074- 1079.
Hang, C. C., Loh, A. P. and Vasnani, V. U. (1994) "Relay Feedback Auto-Tuning of Cascade
Controllers," I E E E Trans. Control Systems Technology, 2, 42-45.
where
1 1.
with (02/r2)
3. Quantitative equation for Figure 4
(A- 10)
where
a3 = -0.9187 + 1.784
4. Quantitative equation for Figure 5

Chemical Engineering Communications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chemical Engineering Communications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]

On: 21 June 2013, At: 00:06

Chemical Engineering Communications

A SIMPLE METHOD FOR TUNING CASCADE CONTROL

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986449808912371

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A SIMPLE METHOD FOR TUNING CASCADE

HSIAO-PING HUANG*, I-LUNG CHI EN^,

(Received 3 December 1996: Infinnl form 10 June 1997)

restricted to a specific cascade configuration. Secondly, because of using

2. OPEN-LOOP MODELS FOR TUNING CASCADE LOOPS

The block diagram of a cascade control system is shown in Figure 1. In this

"FIGURE I Equivalent block diagrams for a cascade control system.

to use this conventional approach, establishing general relations for

similar/equivalent to each other, we should at least have

2.1. Modeling the Secondary Loop

we then conclude that

b. Secondary Loop with P-Control

By changing time to become dimensionless, we have

2.2. Modeling the Primary Open-Loop

a Second-Order Plus Dead-Time (SOPDT) Model

open-loop, respectively. The approximation is made separately to match

The method of finding AB' is to equate the first derivatives at s= 0 of

FIGURE 4 The relations of C/(vs. TI/? for the primary open-loop.

In other words, T* can be taken as the same value as that of 7. By

b First-Order Plus Dead-Time (FOPDT) Model for Primary Open-Loop

3. TUNING PROCEDURE - WHEN Gpl AND Gp2 ARE GIVEN

disturbance, performance specifications such as overshoot would really not

If the primary open-loop model is of overdamped one, it can further be

where a is a constant for the pre-filter of the parallel PID controller.

damping factor seems all right to most secondary loop where P or PI

FIGURE 9 Flow diagram for tuning a cascade control system.

Exumple I (Wang er al., 1995)

Assume that a PID-PI configuration is defined for this cascade control

a strongly overdamped primary open-loop. As a result, Figure 5 is used to

As a result, the recommended controller settings for the primary loop

According to these controller settings, the control responses are shown in

4. TUNING PROCEDURE - WHEN Gpl AND Gp2 ARE UNKNOWN

The steady-state gain of the primary process can be directly estimated as

Similarly, from a step input test, we can obtain

Similarly, we also have

5. AUTOTUNING USING RELAY FEEDBACK

Recently, Huang et al. (1996b) presented a method to estimate FOPDT

FIGURE I I A relay feedback loop for autotuning a cascade control system.

(I) Process Steady-State Gain (k,)

where to is. any time origin for integration.

(3) Process Time Constant ( T )

which P is calculated according to whether the final process

where //is the final time of the relay feedback test.

-0 50 100 150 200 150 SW 350 4 0 0 . 150 YW

0 50 100 150 7.00 150 SW 350 4W 450 500

- l . S ~ " ' " " " I

Overall loop: GA(s)= ,8,+;i;~,+l,

Relay: h1= 2 and h2 = - l q= 380

Outer loop: Gpl(s) = $&

Relay:hl=2 and h l = - l I,= 90

Jydt=41.57 a1=2.1576 J rydt= 2053.123

Outer loop: Gpl(s) =hi

In this case, it is assumed that a PID-PI configuration is chosen for this

and the PID-setting for the primary loop with ~ f =0.600:

In this article, we have presented a method to tune controllers in a cascade

identification and controller tuning are conducted in a decoupled manner.