Sei sulla pagina 1di 20

Practical PID Control: Use Filters

for Better Disturbance Rejection.

PID Control: Use Filters for Better Disturbance Rejection. Patrick Thorpe (Speaker) Doug Nicholson Sébastien Osta

Patrick Thorpe (Speaker)

Doug Nicholson

Sébastien Osta Shabroz Gill,

IPCOS(UK) Ltd. Cambridge, UK

Contents

Importance of the Pre-Test.

Optimisation based PID tuning.

Tuning for Load rejection.

External & Internal Filters in the PID Loop

Set Point Filters.

Cascade Tuning.

Conclusions.

 External & Internal Filters in the PID Loop  Set Point Filters.  Cascade Tuning.

2

The APC pre-test is the opportunity to give the basic control the attention it deserves.

The APC pre-test is the opportunity to give the basic control the attention it deserves.

Regulatory control forms the foundation layer for the

APC.

Use the pre-test to ensure that the design of the

regulatory control is correct.

Look at the choice of control algorithms, tuning and any additions such as feed-forward control, pressure

compensation etc.

These design decisions will all affect significantly the overall process dynamics and the performance of the APC.

Not only will the work done during the pre-test pay dividends during the APC project, changing the tuning later on may require costly re-work.

done during the pre-test pay dividends during the APC project, changing the tuning later on may

3

Optimisation Based PID Tuning

GL

GM

m Σ - I B
m
Σ
-
I
B

x

Σ x
Σ
x

set

Tuning GL GM m Σ - I B x Σ x set Process Model Objective Function

Process Model

Objective Function

J J J

1

2

3

J

J 1 = Set point response IAE

J

2 = Load rejection IAE

J

3 = Control effort

2 = Load rejection IAE J 3 = Control effort Controller Model min J , 

Controller Model

min J ,  ,  k c i , I i , D i
min
J
,
,
k c i
,
I i
,
D i
,
st
c k
(
,
 
,
)
0,
i
1,
,
n
loops,
j
1,
,
m
constraints
j
c i
,
I i
,
D i
,
,

Constraints

Max PV overshoot following SP change. Max OP kick following SP change.

Min damping ratio.

Max noise amplification in OP. Max model gain mismatch & dead time mismatch.

• Min damping ratio. • Max noise amplification in OP. • Max model gain mismatch &

4

Constraint Example #1: Controller robustness constraint. Combined Robustness Constraint Dead Time Margin = 2 Gain

Constraint Example #1: Controller robustness constraint.

Combined Robustness Constraint Dead Time Margin = 2 Gain Margin = 3 Upper Stability Region
Combined Robustness Constraint
Dead Time Margin = 2
Gain Margin = 3
Upper Stability Region
robustness constraint. Combined Robustness Constraint Dead Time Margin = 2 Gain Margin = 3 Upper Stability

5

Constraint Example # 2: Maximum OP overshoot.

For processes where θ/tau is small, optimal SP tuning

may generate unacceptable MV movement.

This may be unattainable or undesirable for the

process (e.g. fired heater firing).

The OP may be an APC CV constraint that we want to push to a limit.

The OP overshoot

Max OP Overshoot
Max OP Overshoot

can be included as a tuning constraint to

limit

movement.

to push to a limit.  The OP overshoot Max OP Overshoot can be included as

6

Tuning for Load Rejection

For the majority of loops, load rejection is far more important than set point response.

On most critical loops (liquid levels, pressure, temperature,

etc.) set points are rarely changed, while load changes are

frequent and can be severe.

Load disturbances can be any external effect on the control

loop including rate changes, ambient effects etc.

Note that for SISO tuning we generally use a simulated OP step to characterise the disturbance. In reality disturbances will have different dynamic impacts and may be easier or

harder to reject.

MIMO tuning allows us to model the impact of other disturbance such as those from interacting controllers.

reject.  MIMO tuning allows us to model the impact of other disturbance such as those

7

Tuning for Load Rejection

Tuning for best load rejection will result in a higher gain

controller compared to setpoint tuning.

When θ/tau is small (lag dominant) we buy a lot of load rejection for a small sacrifice in SP overshoot.

For dead time dominated processes the trade off will be

much smaller.

SP Response

in SP overshoot.  For dead time dominated processes the trade off will be much smaller.

Load Response

in SP overshoot.  For dead time dominated processes the trade off will be much smaller.
in SP overshoot.  For dead time dominated processes the trade off will be much smaller.

8

Filters in the PID Loop

External Filters I
External Filters
I
Internal Filter
Internal Filter
Filters in the PID Loop External Filters I Internal Filter 9

9

Filters in the PID Loop

Noise is random variation in the measured value at frequency higher than the controller bandwidth.

The controller can’t control the noise and may amplify it.

Controller gain and derivative action can be reduced to avoid this, but at the expense of compromising load

rejection.

Adding a filter attenuates the noise allowing a higher gain but the filter also adds lag which means that the controller has to be detuned to maintain stability criteria.

The optimum filter is the lowest acceptable value that rejects most of the noise (higher order filters and least squares filters can also help).

The control parameters must then be redesigned to take account of the filter.

squares filters can also help).  The control parameters must then be redesigned to take account

10

Increase in load rejection IAE following a disturbance, increasing filter lag. IAE vs Filter Time

Increase in load rejection IAE following a disturbance, increasing filter lag.

IAE vs Filter Time (Noise Free Case) 9 0 8 8 8 6 8 4
IAE vs Filter Time (Noise Free Case)
9
0
8
8
8
6
8
4
8
2
8
0
7
8
7
6
IAE

0 2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

Filter Time (Seconds)

120

140

9 0 8 8 8 6 8 4 8 2 8 0 7 8 7 6

11

Noise Amplification within the PID calculation Amplitude = 0.005, Freq = 0.2 * Ts K

Noise Amplification within the PID calculation Amplitude = 0.005, Freq = 0.2 * Ts

K = 6.1, Ti = 6.9, D = 0.18 0.2 0.15 0.1 Prop Int Deriv
K = 6.1, Ti = 6.9, D = 0.18
0.2
0.15
0.1
Prop
Int
Deriv
0.05
0
1
301
601
901
1201
1501
1801
2101
2401
2701
3001
3301
3601
-
0.05
0.15 0.1 Prop Int Deriv 0.05 0 1 301 601 901 1201 1501 1801 2101 2401

12

Derivative Filter

Because the noise amplification effect is seen most significantly in the derivative action of the controller it makes sense to filter only the portion of the signal destined for this part of the loop.

Some DCS vendors provide a means to filter the

derivative term directly by appropriate modification of the

PID equation.

An alternative variation is an output filtered PID equation.

These modifications effectively create a 4 term PID

controller.

There are very few published guidelines for tuning the 4

term controller, some commercial tuning package take

account of the modified controller design.

for tuning the 4 term controller, some commercial tuning package take account of the modified controller

13

Set Point Filter

Some DCS vendors provide the option of weighting the SP contribution in the PID loop.

This is equivalent to adding a filter to the SP.

the option of weighting the SP contribution in the PID loop.  This is equivalent to
the option of weighting the SP contribution in the PID loop.  This is equivalent to
the option of weighting the SP contribution in the PID loop.  This is equivalent to

14

Set Point Response and Load Response: Increasing values of Alpha

SP Response
SP Response
Load Response
Load Response
OP Movement
OP Movement
Set Point Response and Load Response: Increasing values of Alpha SP Response Load Response OP Movement

15

Set Point Filter

This allows us to tune the controller for load rejection without the penalty of excessive SP overshoot.

When T filt = T i (Alpha=0) then all of the proportional action is on PV. (Honeywell Type C Equation).

Two stage tuning process using SP weighting (Alpha)

1. Set the Alpha parameter to 0 (P on PV).

2. Optimise the controller for load rejection.

3. Adjust Alpha to optimise the desired SP response.

4. This usually results in settings in the range 0.2 0.5

when θ/tau is small.

When Alpha is not available then use the Proportional on PV option if available.

– 0.5 when θ/tau is small.  When Alpha is not available then use the Proportional

16

Cascade Tuning

Optimum performance of the primary loop in a cascade depends on

the secondary controller being tightly tuned for load rejection.

So can we use the SP weighting technique to improve cascade performance as we know it can improve IAE in the secondary?

Process simulation example:

to improve cascade performance as we know it can improve IAE in the secondary?  Process
to improve cascade performance as we know it can improve IAE in the secondary?  Process
to improve cascade performance as we know it can improve IAE in the secondary?  Process

17

Simulation Results

The secondary (temperature) loop was tuned for optimal load

rejection.

The plot shows the improvement in primary (composition) loop load rejection performance as Alpha is increased from 0 to 1 in the

secondary loop.

Increasing Alpha. 0 1 0.4
Increasing Alpha.
0
1 0.4

18

Simulation Results

Imposing a filter between the primary and secondary loops degrades the performance of the primary loop significantly and should be

avoided.

Remember that using Proportional on PV (Honeywell Eqn C) in the secondary is equivalent to imposing a first order lag equal to the secondary integral time!

The same will apply if the controller is an APC MV.

If we limit the primary (or APC) moves to small values then excessive SP kick may not be a problem. But be careful about big moves during the step test!

The other concern is when the primary is disabled (or APC off). Some DCS vendors provide alternative tuning in this case.

For a PID cascade Proportional on error will be beneficial in the

primary.

alternative tuning in this case.  For a PID cascade Proportional on error will be beneficial

19

Conclusions

Load rejection should always be the main consideration

when tuning PID loops.

Some of the limitations to increased disturbance rejection can be moderated by modifications to the basic control design through external or internal filters.

The drawback is that these modifications introduce more tuning parameters that have to be adjusted in order to achieve the desired performance.

Optimisation based tuning techniques allow the control engineer to tune this extended set of parameters taking into account practical design considerations.

allow the control engineer to tune this extended set of parameters taking into account practical design

20