180 views

Uploaded by Olanrewaju Michael Oluseyi

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- C40aod
- Pid Deadtime Control of Distributive Process
- PID Auto Tuning
- M. a. Abido and Y. L. Abdel-Magid
- kk
- International Journal of Information Technology, Control and Automation (IJITCA)
- Universal Motor Controller Designing for Washing Machines
- A PID Automatic Tuning Method for Distributed-lag Processes (2009)
- Avr
- Chapter26 Digital Controllers
- Stability and Sensitivity Analysis of Fuzzy Control Systems. Mechatronics Applications
- RT9
- Design and Tuning of PID Controllers
- Taufiq Journal FIX Perpus
- AC+2003Paper298
- process control Lab Manual
- A PID Controller with Anti-Windup Mechanism for Firminga Carbon Steel
- Cascade Control
- PID
- Discussion PDC.docx

You are on page 1of 23

The control loop of a process plant is the main concern of this work. The retuning entails, designing a controller,

investigating the effect of disturbance and actuator saturation on the system, and proffering a solution. Using

Hagglund-Astrom and Cohen-Coon Proportional-plus-integral tuning relations, the controller is designed. The design

is then compared with that obtained from the more widely used Ziegler-Nichols tuning relations. The responses of

each controller design are investigated and a suggestion is given on the controller that would give optimum results.

A disturbance of 0.1 step function is introduced into the system and the effect is monitored. Finally, an actuator

saturation block is introduced and the effect on the overall system is investigated in order to design a counter acting

control mechanism.

1

Contents

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

AIMS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4

PROCEDURE AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Plant Model ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Pade Approximation ............................................................................................................................................... 5

PI Controllers .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Hagglund-Astrom Tuning ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Cohen-Coon Tuning ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Ziegler-Nichols Tuning ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Observations and Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 11

SIMULATION AND DISTURBANCE INJECTION................................................................................................................ 12

INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF BLOCK X ................................................................................................................ 13

Analyses ................................................................................................................................................................ 18

SUGGESTIONS ............................................................................................................................................................... 18

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 19

REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................................................. 20

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................................................. 21

APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................................................................. 22

APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................................................................. 23

APPENDIX E................................................................................................................................................................... 23

2

BACKGROUND

The performance of a control system can be fine-tuned using the proportional-integral-derivative controller,

otherwise known as PID. However, depending on the system behaviour, only proportional controller or a

combination of proportional and integral (PI) controller may be used. In this work, the PI controller is used. This gives

just enough control action for the system.

From figure (1), the error is the difference between process output and the set point. This error is worked on by the

proportional, integral and derivative parts of the controller to give an output that is close to the set point. The

iteration continues until the error is minimized or eliminated. In this work, the derivative part is not used as the

proportional and integral actions give desired results.

PI Controller Plant

C(s) P(s)

Combining figures (1) and (2) and ignoring the derivative controller of figure (1), we have

3

Hence, the PI controller transfer function becomes

Equation (4) is used extensively in this work. It is combined with the transfer function of the plant to give the transfer

function of the whole process plant.

AIMS

To obtain a suitable model of the plant using the raw data obtainable from the data files supplied;

To determine the proportional and integral (PI) controller parameters using the formulae provided by Messrs

Hagglund and Astrom and Messrs Cohen and Coon;

To compare the result of the Hagglund-Astrom and Cohen-Coon controllers with the more classical and widely

used Ziegler-Nichols design;

To simulate the controllers above for a unit step input followed by 0.1 of unit step disturbance at a time of 40

seconds and comment on which PI controller gives optimum control;

To investigate the effect that actuator saturation would have on the control system at large; and

4

PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

Plant Model

Figure (3) shows the response of the plant obtained from the data files – time.dat and response.dat. This response

matches that of a time-delayed first order function, which has a general form shown in equation (5).

Where,

θ = dead time in seconds,

K= plant gain,

τ = time constant in seconds-1

θ = 1second,

K= 2,

τ = 2.8 seconds-1

Pade Approximation

In getting an accurate time response in LabVIEW, the Pade approximation was used to convert the time delay part of

equation (6) into polynomial form of desired order. According to Dorf and Bishop (2011) and Ogata (2002), Pade

approximation takes the form

5

… … … … … … … … (7)

… … … … … … (8)

PI Controllers

Using equation (4), the controller parameters is calculated for the different PI controller tuning relations. Combining

the PI controller and plant transfer functions in figure (2) and feeding the output back through a unity gain, we have

The Hagglund-Astrom tuning settings are first explored followed by those of Cohen and Coon. The Ziegler-Nichols PI

controller settings are then used as a baseline to check the first two. Each of the controllers are designed below

together with their responses.

Hagglund-Astrom Tuning

With the Hagglund-Astrom tuning relations, the PI controller parameters are obtained below.

Thus giving

Using the Pade approximation of degree 3, a polynomial closed loop transfer function is achieved. Table 1 gives a

summary of the time and frequency responses for the Hagglund-Astrom design.

Cohen-Coon Tuning

With the Cohen-Coon tuning relations, the PI controller parameters were obtained below.

Thus giving

Using the Pade approximation of degree 3, a polynomial closed loop transfer function is achieved. Table 2 gives a

summary of the time and frequency responses for the Cohen-Coon design.

6

Ziegler-Nichols Tuning

With the Ziegler-Nichols tuning relations, the PI controller parameters were obtained below.

Where,

The steepest slope is depicted by the general Ziegler-Nichols ‘S’ process reaction curve in figure (3a), Using MATLAB,

the steepest slope was calculated as follows:

>> t=(0:0.00001:20);

>> y=2*(1-(exp(-t/2.8)));

>> diff(y);

>> max(diff(y))

ans =

Hence,

And,

Using the Pade approximation of degree 3, a polynomial closed loop transfer function is achieved. Table 3 gives a

summary of the time and frequency responses for the Ziegler-Nichols design.

7

Table 1: Hagglund-Astrom Tuning

8

Table 2: Cohen-Coon Tuning

9

Table 3: Ziegler-Nichols Tuning

10

Figure 4: Time response of the three PI Controllers

From tables 1-3 the following observations could be made:

For all the three designs, the poles were all on the left hand plane, which implies a stable system.

The rise times of the three controllers show that the Cohen and Coon controller has the fastest response. However,

the settling time of the Hagglund-Astrom and Ziegler-Nichols control are much better with a difference of about 5

seconds. This is because of the poor damping factor of the Cohen-Coon controller, which gave rise to an overshoot

of 63.6%. The Hagglund-Astrom controller gave an overshoot of just 12.5% due to its better damping factor. It was

noted that the Ziegler-Nichols controller result in a critically damped system with unity damping factor.

The stability of the system can be investigated using the fundamental values of the natural frequencies. Hagglund-

Astrom controller had the better stability than its Cohen-Coon counterpart did, as its fundamental frequency was

0.53rad/sec although the baseline design using Ziegler-Nichols gave the best result. The Cohen-Coon frequency of

1.25rad/sec shows more instability due to oscillations.

Using the gain margin and the phase margin to investigate the stability of the systems shows that the Hagglund-

Astrom gave the best stability with gain margin of 12.5dB and a phase margin of 54 degrees.

11

SIMULATION AND DISTURBANCE INJECTION

The controllers were simulated for a unit step change in the set-point and then injection of 0.1 of a unit step

disturbance at a time of 40 seconds. Figure (5) shows the control loop diagram while figure (6) shows the response

of the PI controllers to the disturbance.

According to figure (6), the Cohen-Coon PI controller gave the best disturbance rejection, as its overshoot was the

lowest. The overshoot of the Hagglund-Astrom Controller was about 0.925 units while those of the Ziegler-Nichols

and Cohen-Coon were 0.75 and 0.725 units respectively. The Cohen-Coon PI controller also had the fastest settling

time after the disturbance.

12

INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF BLOCK X

The block X in figure (7) can be identified as the actuator saturation block. When an actuator reaches a limit, it is said

to be saturated. This is because the actuator no longer reacts to further increase in control input. Once the actuator

becomes saturated, its incremental gain becomes zero. In addition, this has the potential of making the control

system perform poorly, or worse still causing it to be unstable. This section of the work, seeks to investigate the

effect of the saturation block in the control system and thereby giving a pointer to the saturation limits.

The integral part of the controller causes a phenomenon whereby the controller input continues to increase

uncontrollably. This is called integral windup. A solution to this is to insert an anti-windup feedback within the

control loop. This method is used to limit the input into the controller. Figure (8) shows a general representation of

this method.

In investigating the effect of the saturation block and the impact that anti-windup control loop has on the control

system, a wide range of saturation limits were investigated. However, ±1.2, ±0.6, ±0.5 and ±0.3 are shown in this

report. It is also worth mentioning that while all the three controller responses were monitored, that of Hagglund-

Astrom controller was given detailed attention. Hence, to distinguish it from other responses in each of the plots,

thicker lines are used.

Figures (9) to (16) show the results obtained from this investigation.

13

Figure 9: System output with saturation limits of ±1.2

14

Figure 11: System output with saturation limits of ±0.6

15

Figure 13: System output with saturation limits of ±0.5

16

Figure 15: System output with saturation limits of ±0.3

17

Analyses

±1.2 Saturation:

From figures (9) and (10), it was noticed that there were no observable differences between the responses with

saturation and that without saturation. Obviously, the saturation had no effect on the system performance at this

point. It was however noticed that the saturation curve for the Cohen-Coon controller input had a downward

overshoot.

±0.6 Saturation:

A close look at figures (11) and (12) shows that response of the system had a slightly higher overshoot and settling

time than its unsaturated counterpart (labeled “H-A Disturbance”). All the same, it was still a good form of the

original response. However, the compensated response reduced the overshoot and settling time. The same effect

was noticed for the controller input.

±0.5 Saturation:

At this saturation limit, the Hagglund-Astrom controller gave a system response that has the same gain as the

original response without saturation although it magnified the negative effect of the disturbance. This can be seen in

figure (13). Moreover, in figure (14), the response of the saturated system raised much above the unsaturated

response although the disturbance at 40 seconds reset the signal. This suggests that at this point, the system takes

the form of an open loop since the effect of the output is now negligible on the controller input.

±0.3 Saturation:

From figure (15), the system is response is seen to be further distorted by the effect of the saturation block. Figure

(16) further shows the effect of the integral windup in the response of the system to the saturation block as the gain

continues to rise uncontrollably. However, the compensated control input bears a strong correlation with the

unsaturated counterpart.

SUGGESTIONS

In considering the better of Hagglund-Astrom PI controller and Cohen-Coon PI controller, a number of factors would

have to be considered about the functions and operational needs of the process plant. This is because none is 100

percent better than the other is.

Therefore, if the response time and disturbance rejection were of concern, then Cohen-Coon PI controller would

perform better. Nevertheless, if stability and response to actuator saturation were important for the plant, then

Hagglund-Astrom PI controller would be a good suggestion.

Furthermore, from the analyses of the effect of the saturation block X on the control system, it would be

recommended that an anti-windup compensator be used for smooth running of the plant. This is applicable to

saturation limits of ±0.6 units and below. From the analyses, it can be deduced that above these limits, the plant

would run normally without the anti-windup compensator.

18

CONCLUSION

The investigations on the process plant started with the determination of the transfer function of the plant. Pade

approximation was then applied to the resulting transfer function to convert it to a polynomial. This was done to

obtain the best frequency response.

Hagglund-Astrom and Cohen-coon Proportional-plus-integral tuning relations were used to design the controller for

the plant. The designs were then compared with the classical Zeigler-Nichols tuning algorithm. The design was

simulated and a disturbance of 0.1 step input was injected into the system just before the plant at a time of 40

seconds and the response of each of the controller designs was monitored. A saturation block was then added to the

system to see the effect of actuation saturation on the process plant.

Analyses show that the Hagglund-Astrom design would perform better in a plant where stability and response

actuator saturation are of utmost importance. The Cohen-Coon design would be better for disturbance rejection and

fast response. Finally, an anti-windup compensator would be needed to suppress the effect of the actuator

saturation if the limits fall below ±0.6 units.

REFERENCE

Markaroglu, H., Guzelkaya, M., Eksin, I., Yesil, E. “Tracking Time Adjustment in Back Calculation Anti-Windup

Scheme”. www.scs-europe.net. Accessed on 6th February 2011.

http://www.scs-europe.net/services/ecms2006/ecms2006%20pdf/107-ind.pdf

Becerra, V.M., “Actuator Saturation and Anti-Windup Compensation”. www.personal.reading.ac.uk. Accessed on 6th

February 2011. http://www.personal.reading.ac.uk/~shs99vmb/notes/nlc/lecture6.pdf

Burns, R.S. (2001) “Closed-Loop Control System”, Advanced Control Engineering, Butterworth-Heinemann (ISBN: 0

750651008, pp. 63-104.

Ogata, K. (2002) “Root-Locus Analysis”, Modern Control Engineering,4th edition, Pearson education International,

(ISBN: 0-13-043245-8), pp. 383-384.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

19

APPENDIX A

Front Panel of the VI for the design of the PI controller for the process plant.

20

APPENDIX B

Block diagram of the VI for the design of the PI controller for the process plant.

21

APPENDIX C

Simulation part of the VI for the design of the PI controller for the process plant.

22

APPENDIX D

SubVI for calculating PI controller parameters.

APPENDIX E

SubVI for PI controller Block used for simulation.

23

- C40aodUploaded byashish88bhardwaj_314
- Pid Deadtime Control of Distributive ProcessUploaded byFernando Lotero
- PID Auto TuningUploaded byVic Balt
- M. a. Abido and Y. L. Abdel-MagidUploaded bywaaloo
- kkUploaded byIshaku Balami
- International Journal of Information Technology, Control and Automation (IJITCA)Uploaded byijitcajournal
- Universal Motor Controller Designing for Washing MachinesUploaded byATS
- A PID Automatic Tuning Method for Distributed-lag Processes (2009)Uploaded byRené Pereira
- AvrUploaded byAri Asriyanto
- Chapter26 Digital ControllersUploaded bybreno henrique
- Stability and Sensitivity Analysis of Fuzzy Control Systems. Mechatronics ApplicationsUploaded byCh Raja
- RT9Uploaded byphantanthao80
- Design and Tuning of PID ControllersUploaded byahmedmagd63
- Taufiq Journal FIX PerpusUploaded byMuhamad Syukron
- AC+2003Paper298Uploaded byJessica Ross
- process control Lab ManualUploaded bygvkovind
- A PID Controller with Anti-Windup Mechanism for Firminga Carbon SteelUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Cascade ControlUploaded byManoj K Samy
- PIDUploaded byprashantshivanagi
- Discussion PDC.docxUploaded byMira Fazzira
- Load frequency control issues in multiarea power system: A ReviewUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- 88324 - X.Chen -Note 8Uploaded byresal3000
- ReportUploaded byAlieEldeen
- Control Lab ReportUploaded byRavi Saini
- 2006_PID_ACE06Uploaded byAleksandar Micic
- e4112examS17pUploaded byRyan Hill
- IJETT-V3I2P202Uploaded bysurendiran123
- Assignment2_2017Uploaded byNur Afiqah
- 412Uploaded bySuki Thian
- Lecture 12Uploaded byBharath Subramania Raja

- Probability DistributionsUploaded bygregoriopiccoli
- 13HWsolUploaded byMarco Perez Hernandez
- Example Runge KuttaUploaded bydnes9999
- MathematicsUploaded bytekley
- 1 Assignment Solution SubmisionUploaded bySanjay St
- A Review on the Development Strategies of Agro-industrial Institutions in IndonesiaUploaded byPanitia Adic
- Deterministic MethodsUploaded byDomter
- Global Formulations of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Dynamics on Manifolds a Geometric Approach to Modeling and AnalysisUploaded byGiculPiticul
- 1 Mathematical ToolsUploaded byHARSHIT GARG
- Popular Music Analysis in American Music TheoryUploaded byZelazowa
- VolumenesUploaded byJoaquín Mardones
- The Influence of Conditional Bias in Optimum Ultimate Pit PlanningUploaded bySebastian Astorquiza Trucco
- Poisson DistributionUploaded byDinah Fe Tabaranza-Olitan
- 9709 Pure Maths P1 - Topics ReviewUploaded byazalina7
- A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte CarloUploaded byJohn Bird
- c7.pptxUploaded byminhchau
- Princeton Lectures in Analysis.pdfUploaded byjosgau
- Boundary Elements an Introductory Course - Brebbia and Dominguez_LIBERUploaded byJesus Enrique Garcia
- Differential EquationsUploaded byNasir Naeem
- Fuzzy Gain-Scheduling Nonlinear Parametric Uncertain System.pdfUploaded byOualid Lamraoui
- Ch1 - Algebraic and Non-Algebraic Functions and Their InverseUploaded byRafi Sulaiman
- Numerical Analysis Assignment 4aUploaded byOle
- 12 Deepak Fuzzy Logic SVMUploaded byRaj Lakhani
- Phase Stability Analysis of Liquid Liquid EquilibriumUploaded byJosemarPereiradaSilva
- 8HM7CPEVHV9HIBTJTPFVL33UMJ3FKG.pdfUploaded byLuis Alfonso Ramos Bolaños
- 1617 AP Calculus AB Top 58 QuestionsUploaded byMikhael
- Bullen - Means and Their InequalitiesUploaded byGabriel Crestani
- Eee230 Engineering Optimization Using Soft Computing Th 1.00 Ac21Uploaded bySharvanMvs
- Juuti - Stochastic Discriminant AnalysisUploaded byambrofos
- 6 Laplace TransformUploaded byvaibhav