Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

606

OPTIMUM CASCADE PID CONTROLLER DESIGN FOR SISO SYSTEMS

Minxia Zhuang, Derek P. Atherton University of Sussex, U.K.

INTRODUCTION

Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers are still widely used in the process induStries even though more advanced control techniques have been developed. Many approaches have been used to determine PID con- troller parameters for a single input single output (SISO) system [l]. Some methods employ information about the open loop plant step response, for example, the Coon- Cohen reaction curve method, other methods use some knowledge of the Nyquist curve of the plant, nowadays often determined by auto-tuning, such as the Ziegler- Nichols, Astrom-Hagglund [I], and Zhuang-Atherton [2] frequency response methods. Other methods use optimi- sation of integral performance criteria, for example, tlie time moment weighted integral of error squared criterion, and provide good PID controller settings but require a kiiowkdge of the transfer function model of the plant[3].

  • I L

......._

.........

J I

Figure 1: Diagram of a cascade control system

In some SlSO systems additional variables apart from t,lie process output are measurable, so that two controllers rather than a single PID cont.roller, are used in cascade as illustrated iu Fig.]. The onter loop controller, G,I, is usually regarded as the main cont.rollcr and the inlier loop one ay tlie auxiliary cont.roller. Because there arc t.wo coutrollers to tune this often proves more diflicrilt thaii

with a siugle coiltrollcr. Althougli lrinny algorit~llnshaVC

been developed to t uue PID controllers for SlSO systeiirs as mentioned above, few iiivcstigat.ious have been made 011 tuuiiig I’IU coiltrollers for a cascade system. This pa- per reports on ail iiivestigat.ioii iuto t uuiiig cascade 1’111 coiit.rollers nsiiig hotli optiniisatioii and aiit,o-tuiiiiig tecli- niques. Several exainpIes are considered in t lie paper arid comparisons of t lie performaiicc betweeii cascade conlrol

and a single colitroller are given.

CASCADE PID CONTROL

I&

mTr TC

Distillation

column

\

Reboiler

(a)

Conventional single control

column

\

Reboiler

(b) Cascade contrd loop

TT = temperature transmitter TC = temperature controller

FT = Flow transmitter

FC

=

Flow controller

Figure

2:

Distillatioii-colriiiiii-rel,oiler temperature

cont.ro1 [I]

Cascade coiitrol tccliiii<liieb are Ireqiieiitly used in pro- cess coiitrol eugiiiceriiig becaiise better control perfor-

mance is iiwally possil>le compared with a single coli-

(roller. For rxample, ca.+cadr coiit rol is very

clfect.ive iii

reducing tlir effects of load dist iirlmnces wliicli occur ill

tlic inurr loop. Considu t Iir dis(illat.ioii-coluiriii-reboiler

syst.cin [.I]sl~owii iii I.’ig.2, aiid siippose tliere is a dist.ur- Imm affect.ing tl~eRow of steam. M:lien a coiiventional single-loop tcrnpcratiire control is used \villi the output of

CONTROL’94.21-24March 1994.Conference Publication No.389.01EE 1994

Authorized licensed use limited to: Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. Downloaded on December 4, 2009 at 08:26 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

the temperature controller applied directly to the steam valve as shown in Fig.2(a), no correction will be made un- til its effect reaches the temperature measuring element. Thus there is a considerable lag in correcting for a flow disturbance. With a cascade control technique using a separate flow control as shown in Fig.2(b), any change

in steam flow is corrected by the flow controller.

There-

fore the reboiler and the column are less affected by any disturbances arising in the flow loop.

From Fig.1 the equivalent transfer function of the inner loop, denoted as Gz, is given by

thus the closed loop transfer function of the system is

G

Y,

=-=

GzGc~Gpl

RI

1 + G~GclGpl

  • - Gc1 GszGplGp~

  • - (2)

    • 1 + GszGp~+Gc~GczGplGpz

For a load disturbance, such as dz within the inner loop, with dl = 0, the transfer function to the output is

_-

Y,

-

Dz

GP1

I + Gc2Gp2 + Gcl GczGpl Gpz

(3)

Without the inner feedback loop, and of course no con- troller Gcz, the transfer function between the same vari-

The denominators of eqns.3 and4 are seen to be quite different. Therefore the response to a disturbance in the cascade control system will be different to that in the single loop system. In most cases, the magnitude of the change in the controlled variable y1 for a given change in dz is much reduced in a cascade control system when two appropriate controllers are chosen.

Generally, a cascade control system has the following ad- vantages over a system with a single controller [5]

Disturbances arising in the inner loop are corrected by the auxiliary controller before they influence the controlled variable yt . The correction is much better when the inner loop has a faster response than the outer loop.

The speed of the system response is much improved if the resulting auxiliary control loop has a faster response than the process GPz.

Because of the auxiliary feedback control, parameter variations in the process GPz can be corrected for within its own loop.

Therefore, cascade control is a better choice when a pro- cess has measurable additional variables. To achieve a

good system performance, the inner loop should include the major disturbance and be faster reacting than the outer loop, a condition which can usually be met in pro- cess control systems. To design a cascade control system, the parameters of two controllers have to be determined. In the following two sections, two methods for obtaining parameters for cascade PID controllers will be discussed.

OPTIMUM DESIGN PROCEDURE

A PID tuning method using integral performance criteria has been successfully applied to a system with a single controller [3]. In particular time-moment weighted in- tegral performance criteria have been found to provide good step response results with a small overshoot and a relatively short settling time. The general form of this criterion is

Jn(B) = lm{tne(B,t)zdt

(5)

where B denotes the variable parameters which can be chosen to minimize Jn(B). This optimisation procedure can also be used to determine PID parameters for a cas cade control system. It is often satisfactory to include a derivative term in the main controller only, since the dynamics of Gp2 are usually of low order and excessive derivative action may increase noise and cause derivative ‘kicks’. This is therefore the situation considered here so that the two controllers have the ideal transfer functions

Several different approaches can be used to apply opti- misation techniques to the cascade control system. The easiest approach is to optimize the loops individually. For the inner loop, minimizing the performance criterion for the error e2 in response to a step input or the effect of the step disturbance dz on the output yz give the same results since

and

Ez(s)=

1

R2

+ GczGp~

(8)

(9)

Once the inner loop controller G,z is derived, the opti- misation procedure can then be carried out to determine the main controller parameters for the resultant plant GI where

The transfer function El(s), of the error signal is then given by

Authorized licensed use limited to: Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. Downloaded on December 4, 2009 at 08:26 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

608

which is used in the optimization criterion to find the three parameters of the main PID controller.

Another approach is to optimize all five parameters of both controllers together, that is to minimize an integral performance index which is a function of

The resultant PID controller parameters using both pro- cedures provide good system performances. But the lat- ter one may result in a faster but more oscillatory closed loop response as illustrated in an example later.

AUTO-TUNING METHOD

The auto-tuning method has been used to determine PID control parameters for both SISO and two-input two- output systems [6]. For the later case the design proce- dure used two relays to replace both controllers to obtain the critical frequency and critical gains of the system, from which the PID controller parameters were deter- mined. The some approach may be used to determine PID parameters using the auto-tuning technique for a cascade control system.

Figure 3: Auto-tuning PID controllers

The procedure is implemented as follows:

  • 1. When the system is set to the tuning mode, two relay controllers are used to replace the two regula- tors as shown in Fig.3. The switching amplitude of the relay controller in the outer loop is set to zero. Measurements on the limit cycle in the inner loop enable the critical frequency wcz and critical gain Kc2 of that loop to be determined.

  • 2. The parameters of the PI controller in the inner loop are then determined, using the formulae presented in Ref. [2] or other methods mentioned in the intro- duction section, from wci and KCz.

  • 3. The PI controller is then switched

into the inner

loop, and the critical frequency wcl and critical gain h',l of the system are obtained from the limit cy- cle of the loop with the relay output levels set at appropriate values.

  • 4. The parameters of the main PID controller can then be derived using the same tuning law as the one for the auxiliary controller.

Although the tuning results using the above method may not provide quite as good a performance as the optimi- sation approach, the procedure provides an efficient way of tuning the two controllers when the transfer functions of the plant are unknown.

EXAMPLES

Several examples have been considered to illustrate the tuning results using the two methods discussed above. Some of the examples are discussed in this section. The optimisation is carried out using the time weighted inte- gral performance index given in eqn.5 with n = 1 and is carried out for the two controllers separately unless oth- erwise indicated. The formulae presented in Reference[2] are nsed in the auto-tuning procedure. A first order lag with time constant 0.01Tdl is added in the derivative term during the simulation since a pure derivative action cannot be implemented in the practical system.

EXAMPLEI A third order process

This example is given to show the advantages of using cascade cont,rol. The transfer functions of the process are given by

and

Gpl

=

2

(10s + l)(5s + 1)

5e-0.2J

Gp2 = ___

(7.5s+ 1)'

The PID controller paramet,ers using the optimisation

Table 1: PID controller parameters for example 1

 

PID Parameters

I

Method

cascade Gcz

4.460

10.689

I 14.97

I 3.23

I

single PID

0.503

I 18.74

1 7.75

1

procedure for a cascade control and a single controller are listed in Table 1. The corresponding step responses to set point change and a disturbance dz at t = 30 are

shown in Fig.4. It is seen

from the step responses that

the cascade control system responds to a set-point change

Authorized licensed use limited to: Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. Downloaded on December 4, 2009 at 08:26 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

609

much faster than the single controh system and is much kas sensitive to the disturbance occurring in the inner

loop. In the figure, the magnitude of the change to the inner loop disturbance in the cascade control system is too small to be seen. The figure also shows that the optimum controller settings for Ca.sc.de control result in a good system response with a small overshoot and small settling time.

the optimal PID parameters for a single controller. The corresponding step responses of the closed-loop systems are given in Fig.5 which also shows the responses to a unit step disturbance d? injected into the system at 1 = 15. The optimisation procedure of tuning the five parameters together (optimisation 2) results in a fast but oscillatory response to the set-point change and a smaller overshoot response to the disturbance compared with the optimi- sation results with two controllers tuned separately. Al- though the individually tuning optimisation procedure results in a larger final cost function value JI as shown in Table 2, the resultant step response to a set-point change and disturbance change in the inner loop are ac- ceptable with respects to the overshoot and settling time. Compared with the single controller system, the cascade control strategy provides better closed loop performance, especially with respect to the reduction of the overshoot caused by a disturbance in the inner loop.

Figure 4: Step responses for example 1

EXAMPLE2 A fifth order process

The transfer functions in this example are given by

and

Gp2 =

4

(0.25s + 1)(0.5s + l)(s + 1)’

Table 2: PID controller parameters for example 2

Method

optimisation 1 Gc2

cascade G,1

optimisation 2

Gcz

cascade G1,

opt. single PID

PID Parameters

Kp

0.413

Ti

1.632

Td

-

51

2.354

1) 0.965

II

I

f

I

3.538

4.102

1.069

6.359 1 -

I

4.625

0.649

I

1.64

I

I

0.817

0.554

4.363

1.757

3.157

In this example both the optimisation procedures pro- posed in section 3 are carried out to determine the PID controller parameters for a cascade control system. The optimal PID settings are listed in Table 2 together with

Figure 5: Optimization results

EXAMPLE3 A second order with time delay process

This example is given to compare the auto-tuning

method with the optimisation method The transfer func- tions of the process are given by

and

Gpl = ~

e-‘,

(20s + 1)

e-o.5,

Gpz = ~

(10s + 1)

The PID controller parameters using the autotuning pro- cedure and optimisation method for a cascade control are listed in Table 3 together with the optimum settings for a single PID controller. In the case of auto-tuning, the crit- ical frequency and critical gain of the inner loop process

Authorized licensed use limited to: Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. Downloaded on December 4, 2009 at 08:26 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

61 0

Table 3: PID controller parameters for example 3

are 3.204 and 32.055 respectively, and those for the equiv- alent transfer function GI of the cascade control system are 0.353 and 6.853. The corresponding step responses, in which a step disturbance is injected at time 30 sec- onds, are shown in Fig. 6. From the figure it can be seen that the anto-tuning method provides a reasonably good performance although the settling time is a little longer than that using the optimisation method. It is also seen that the cascade control provides a better response than a single PID controller to a disturbance input.

The PID controller parameters using the autotuning prc- cednre and optimisation method for cascade control are listed in Table 4. In the case of auto-tuning, the critical frequency and critical gain of the inner loop process are 10.144 and 11.309 respectively, and those for the equiv- alent transfer function GI of the cascade control system are 1.691 and 5.291. The optimum single PID controller settings are also given in the table for comparison. The corresponding responses for a unit step set-point input at 1 = 0 and a unit step disturbance at t = 10 are shown in Fig. 7. From the figure it can be seen that the antc-tnning method provides reasonably good per- formance though the settling time is a little longer than that using the optimisation method.

Table 4: PID controller parameters for example 4

PID Parameters

Method

Kp

T,

Td

optimisation G,p

  • 3.970 0.274

-

cascade

G,,

  • 2.664 1.620

0.555

autotuning G,n

  • 3.988 0.276

-

cascade

G,1

  • 2.693 1.869

0.462

opt. single PID

12.903

1.636

0.586

..

..

- __

Figure 6: Step responses of example 3

EXAMPLE4 A third order with time delay process

This example is also given to compare the auto-tuning method with the optimisation method. The transfer functions of the process are given by

and

e-o.5s

Gpl =

(s + l)(s

+ 2)

Gp2 =

e-o.2s

~

s+5'

-.-.?.umd&cU&

I I , ........ . . , , , , , , , 1 1 4
I
I
,
........
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
1
4
4
6
6
8
8
IO
IO
I2
I2
I4
I4
16
16
I8
I8

I

20

20

Figure 7: Step responses of example 4

In Fig.],

the main PID controller is implemented in

the forward path, so that the controller output will have a large derivative kick in response to set point changes. This phenomenon can be overcome by apply-

ing the derivative term to the process output only. Table

5 lists the optimal

PID settings for Gc1 and the mini-

Authorized licensed use limited to: Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. Downloaded on December 4, 2009 at 08:26 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

61 1

mum cost fnnction values for three cases, namely case(i) the ideal PID structure, (U) derivative action applied to the process output and (iii) no derivative action. The optimal auxiliary PI controller settings are the same as those listed in Table 4. The corresponding step responses are given in Fig.8 from which it can be seen that when the derivative action is applied to the process output, case (ii), the step response of the closed loop is slower than that of case (i) but still faster than PI control only, case@).

Table 5: Optimal PID settings for G,1

sults. The auto-tuning method can also provide good tuning when the PID controller parameters are tuned by the use of the formulae proposed by the authors in Ref erence [2]. The advantage of this approach is that it can be used when no mathematical model is available for the process.

References

[l] Astri;m, K J, 1988, “Automatic Tuning of PID Reg- ulators”, Research Triangle Park, N. C. Instrument Society of America

[2] Zhuang,

M.

and

Atherton,

D.P.,

1993,

IEE proceedings-D,

140, No.3, 216-224

[3] Zhuang,

M.

and

Atherton,

D.P.,

1991,

Proceeding of Control’91, 3, 481-486

[4] Luyben, W.L., 1973, “Process modelling, simulation and control for Chemical Engineering”, McGraw- Hill, New York

1.2

 

[SI Shinskey,

F.G.,

1967,

“Process-control

systems”,

McGraw-Hill Book Company

.

.

.

I

.

.

.

.

,

[6] Zhuang,

M.

and

Atherton,

D.P.,

1993,

Proceedings of ACC’93, 3176-3177

Figure 8: Step responses for optimisation results

CONCLUSIONS

The paper has presented two methods to determine cas- cade PID controller parameters for a SISO system. When the transfer function of a process is known, the optimiza- tion procedure can be used to tune the cascade controller for the given process. From the examples considered, it can be seen that the method usually results in a good closed-loop performance with small overshoot and short settling time for both tuning methods. The performance obtained when determining the controller settings by in- dividual optimisations for each loop is often not far from the true optimum and normally produces satisfactory re-

Authorized licensed use limited to: Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. Downloaded on December 4, 2009 at 08:26 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.