Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2368
1
c ( s ) = Kc 1 +
+Ds
s
I
(2)
g% = pM p A
(4)
q = pM-1 f
(5)
( s + 1) 1 + s
2
(6)
k ( 2 c + )
I =c +
(7b)
(7c)
2 +
The PID controller designed on the basis of the IMC
principle provides excellent set-point tracking, but has a
sluggish disturbance response, especially for processes with
a small / ratio [4,6,9]. To improve the load disturbance
response Skogestad [6] recommended modifying the integral
time as
I =4(c +)
(8)
Therefore, the integral time in Eq.(7b) is modified for the
improved disturbance
(9)
I =min c + , 4(c +)
D =
(10b)
= min + , 8
I
D =
(10c)
2 +
I. CLOSED-LOOP EXPERIMENT
2369
Kc
=A
K c0
(12)
y s
y p
yu
y s
tp
t=0
II.
70
60
50
40
kKc
0.10 overshoot
kK =1.1621kK
c
20
c0
0.40 overshoot
kK =0.7453kK
c0
0.50 overshoot
kK =0.6701kK
10
c0
0.30 overshoot
kK =0.841kK
/=0.1,0.2,0.4,0.8,1.0,1.5,2.0,2.5,3.0,7.5,10.0,20.0,50.0,100
Since we can always scale time with respect to the time delay
() and since the closed-loop response depends on the
product of the process and controller gains (kKc) we have
without loss of generality used in all simulations k=1 and
=1.
For each of the 15 process models (values of /), we
obtained the PID-settings using Eq. (10) with the choice
c=. Furthermore, for each of the 15 processes we generated
6 closed-loop step setpoint responses using P-controllers that
give different fractional overshoots.
c0
0.20 overshoot
kK =0.9701kK
30
c0
0.60 overshoot
kK =0.6083kK
c
20
40
60
80
100
c0
120
kKc0
2370
(13)
kK c0 =
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
overshoot (fractional)
/=0.1
0.5
0.43 (I1)
/=1
0.305 (I2)
/=100
0.4
/tp
/=8
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.3
0.5
(17)
Substituting kKc from Eq. (17) and Kc/ Kc0=A into Eq. (15)
and given as
b
(18)
I = 1.5A
(1-b)
To prove this, the closed-loop setpoint response is y/ys =
gc/(1+gc) and with a P-controller with gain Kc0, the steadystate value is y/ys = kKc0/(1+kKc0)=b and we derive
Eq.(17). The absolute value is included to avoid problems if
b>1, as may occur for an unstable process or because of
inaccurate data.
0.9
0.1
b
(1-b)
0.6
Overshoot
Fig. 4. Ratio between delay and setpoint overshoot peak time (/tp) for Ponly control of first-order with delay processes (solid lines); Dotted lines:
values used in final correlations, Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad (2010).
(21)
2371
b
I =min 0.645 A
t p , 2.44t p
(1b
)
(22)
( I 0.5 ) 1
(23)
2
2 0.43t p
=
= =
= 0.1433t p
2 + 3 3
3
(26)
(1- b )
.
b
1
(1-b )
D = 0.14t p
experiment. Lets assume for the first closed-loop test Pcontroller gain of Kc01 is applied and resulting overshoot OS1
is achieved that is between 0.1 to 0.60 but not around 0.30.
Let the target overshoot be OS and the target P-controller
gain be Kc0. In the proposed closed-loop tuning method the
goal is to match the performance with IMC-PID tuning rule
and for this only maintains a constant P gain Kc, regardless
of the overshoot that resulted from the closed-loop setpoint
test. Ideally, Kc should be the same as that determined with
different overshoots from various closed-loop setpoint test
and the resulting correlation is given as:
1.55 ( OS )2 2.159 ( OS ) + 1.35 K = 1.55 ( OS)2 2.159 ( OS) + 1.35 K (28)
1
1
c 01
c0
( s + 1) e s
2
( 6 s + 1)( 2 s + 1)
s
Example 2: e
2372
2.5
2
OUTPUT y
1.4
1.5
1
OUTPUT y
1
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method with F=1 (overshoot=0.108)
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method with F=1 (overshoot=0.302)
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method with F=1 (overshoot=0.60)
Proposed method with F=1 (overshoot=0.108)
Proposed method with F=1 (overshoot=0.302)
Proposed method with F=1 (overshoot=0.60)
0.5
0.6
0.2
50
100
time
150
0
0
200
10
20
30
40
50
time
60
70
80
( s + 1) e s ,
( 6 s + 1)( 2 s + 1)2
90
100
e s s , Setpoint
K c =K c0 A
b
I =min 0.645 A
t p , 2.44t p
(1b
)
D = 0.14t p
if
(1- b )
2373