Control Theory

Feedback control has denite advantages over other

techniques in relative simplicity and potentially successful
operation in the face of unknown contingencies. In general,
it works well as a regulator to maintain a desired operating
point by compensating for various disturbances that affect
the system, and it works equally well as a servo system to
initiate and follow changes demanded in the operating point.
Feedback Control Objectives
First, it is desirable that the output follow the desired behavior. Note that in all the subplots in Figure 2.1m, the response
to a unit step change approaches the steady-state value of 1,
which corresponds to the magnitude of the input step
response. Because the output response eventually reaches the
steady-state value, the steady-state error, or the difference
between the desired nal output and the actual one, is zero.
Second, almost always, the steady-state error should be
zero to a step input, or constant targets, as inputs. In some
cases, such as the case of a ramp input, it also is desirable for
the steady-state error to be zero or nearly so. There may be an
upper limit on the magnitude that is tolerable when no disturbances are present. However, in the presence of disturbances
the steady-state error can become larger.
Third, the speed of response is important. From the discussion in connection with equation 2.1(7), viz. the solution
of the differential equation, the steady-state is attained as the
homogeneous portion of the solution of the differential equation approaches zero. A control system can affect the rate at
which this happens. If the response of the system is sluggish,
then the output (control action) of the controller is not changing
enough in magnitude in response to the difference between the
desired and actual output. By changing the parameters of the
controller, the magnitude of the control action and the speed
of response can be increased in response to control errors.
Fourth, the physical limitations of the plant constrain the
ability of the controller to respond to input command
changes. Another measure of the controllers speed is the
settling time. The settling time is dened as the time after
which the control system will remain within a given percentage
of the desired nal value when there are no outside disturbances. Figure 2.1z illustrates a 2% settling time, meaning
the time it takes for a step response to approach the nal
steady-state value within 2%.
Lastly, note that (Figure 2.1l) the step change responses
of a second-order system all have an overshoot, when the
damping ratio of the system is less than one. Overshoot is
dened as the percentage by which the peak response value
exceeds the steady-state value (peak value of step response
steady-state value)/(steady-state value). A small overshoot can
be acceptable, but large overshoots are not.

Step response
1.4
1.2
2% settling time
1
Amplitude

108

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

3
Time (sec)

2006 by Bla Liptk

FIG. 2.1z
The step response shown has a 4.2-second 2% settling time.

As was shown earlier, the dynamic behavior of many

processes can be modeled adequately as rst- or second-order
systems. Thus, the PID is an ideal tool with which to control
such systems. Furthermore, the PID is easily understood and
tuned by trained operators.
Consider the feedback control system with a plain proportional-only controller shown in Figure 2.1aa. Assume that
the process to be controlled is a static system with a gain Kp.
For a proportional-only controller, the controller output is the
product of the error signal (e = r c) and of the proportional
gain Kc. That is,
u = Kc e

2.1(11)

The closed-loop response is the relationship between the

output (controlled variable), c, and the reference or set point
input, r. This relationship is

c=

Kc K p
1 + Kc K p

2.1(12)

Note that if r is a constant, say one, the controlled output is

less than one. Thus, there is a nonzero steady-state error to
constant inputs. This is not surprising because if r = c, then
e = r c = 0 and the output of the controller would also be

PID

Plant

The PID Controller

In Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 detailed descriptions are provided of the various analog and digital PID algorithms and
therefore only some of the basic aspects are discussed here.

FIG. 2.1aa
Block diagram of a PID feedback control loop.

2.1 Control Basics

The Derivative Mode To better understand the effect of

derivative action, consider the situation in which the controller shown in Figure 2.1aa is proportional plus derivative (PD).
In this case, the controller output is given by
u(t ) = e(t ) + Td

de(t )
dt

Step response
1.5
1
0.5
0

4
5
6
Error signal

10

3
4
5
6
7
Derivative of error signal

10

e (t)

0.5
0
0.5

de(t)
-----dt

1
0
1
2

10

FIG. 2.1bb
The step response of a PD controller showing the responses of the
controlled variable (top), the error (center), and the derivative of
the error (bottom).

2006 by Bla Liptk

0.8
0.6
0.4

PD

0.2
0
0.2
0.4

0.6
0.8

5
Time

10

2.1(13)

if the proportional gain Kc is 1 and the derivative gain is Td ,

which is called the derivative time. Figure 2.1bb illustrates
the controlled variables step response, the error and derivative of the error signal, when the set point (reference) is r = 1.
The vertical lines in the top two plots of Figure 2.1bb
are in locations where the controlled variable signal and the
error signal have local maximums and minimums or points
where the derivative is zero. Note that the controlled variable
response has exceeded the set point (target value) of one. The
excess overshoot is due to the presence of a certain momentum in the response of the system; the controller did not turn

Controller response with and without derivation action

1

Controller output

zero. This produces a contradiction in that c would be forced

to zero, which, in general, is not the value of r.
Therefore, the plain proportional controller reduces but
does not eliminate the error. Note from Equation 2.1(12) that
as the controller gain increases, the controlled output, c,
approaches the referenced input r more and more closely.
Thus, the steady-state error, e, becomes smaller as Kc is made
larger. But since Kc can never be innite, the error is never
zero.

109

FIG. 2.1cc
The anticipation of the PD controller can be seen by noting the
controlled variable response of a plain proportional controller
(solid line) and that of a PD controller (dashed line) to the same
step upset.

the input around in time to stop the system from exceeding

the desired value.
This is seen in the error signal that has not changed sign
until the controlled variable output has exceeded the set point.
Note also that the derivative is zero at the peak values and
of opposite sign to the value of the error signal. When the
error is added to a constant times the derivative, the result is
a signal that changes sign earlier in time, that is, before the
output has actually reached the steady-state value. Figure 2.1cc
illustrates this.
The PD controller is used in applications where overshoot
cannot be tolerated, such as pH neutralization. The reduction
or elimination of overshoot can often be accomplished without signicantly affecting the settling time of the closed-loop
system. The primary disadvantage of derivative mode is its
sensitivity to noise. Noise is generally of high frequency, and
differentiating just amplies it. The controller output can
become cyclic or unstable, which can have a detrimental
effect on the longevity of actuators such as valves or motors.
Integral Mode Nearly all controllers have some form of integral action. Integral action is important because it corrects
based on the accumulated error, which is the area under the
error curve. If the error goes to zero, the output of the integrator
is the constant area that had accumulated up to that point.
Consider the feedback system illustrated in Figure 2.1aa.
The task of the integral term in the PID algorithm is to nd
the manipulated variable (the input to the plant) needed to
drive the steady-state error to zero when the set point (reference input) is constant.
When the error is zero, both the proportional term and
the derivative term contribute nothing to the controller output.

Control Theory

Only the integral term provides any input to the controller

output; only the integrator drives the manipulated variable to
compensate for the area under the past error curve.
In summary, the PID controller produces an output
dened as

1
u(t ) = K p e(t ) +
T

e( )d + Td

de(t )
dt

2.1(14)

where Kp is the proportional gain; Td is the derivative time;

and Ti is the integral time.
The integral time can be viewed as the amount of the
time it takes for the integral component to make the same
contribution as the proportional term. If the integral time is
short, the integral contribution to the PID output is large and
too much integral gain (Ti too small) can cause the system
to become unstable.
Feedforward Control

control applications. In many cases disturbances cannot be

accurately measured, and therefore pure feedforward cannot
be used. The main limitation of feedforward is due to our
inability to prepare perfect process models or to make perfectly accurate measurements.
Because of these limitations, pure feedforward would
accumulate the errors in its model and would eventually selfdestruct. The main limitations of feedback control are that
feedback cannot anticipate upsets but can only respond to
them after the upsets have occurred, and that it makes its
correction in an oscillating, cycling manner.
It has been found that combining feedback and feedforward is desirable in that the imperfect feedforward model
corrects for about 90% of the upset as it occurs, while feedback corrects for the remaining 10%. With this approach, the
feedforward component is not pushed beyond its abilities,
while the load on the feedback loop is reduced by an order
of magnitude, allowing for much tighter control.
Feedforward Response

Feedforward control is another basic technique used to compensate for uncontrolled disturbances entering the controlled
process. Both feedback and feedforward control are discussed in detail in Section 2.8 and therefore only an introduction is given here. In this technique the control action is
based on the disturbance input into the process without considering the condition of the process. In concept, feedforward
control yields much faster correction than feedback control
does, and in the ideal case compensation is applied in such
a manner that the effect of the disturbance is never seen in
the controlled variable, the process output.
A skillful operator of a direct contact water heater could
use a simple feedforward strategy to compensate for changes
in inlet water temperature by detecting a change in inlet water
temperature and in response to that, increasing or decreasing
the steam rate to counteract the change (Figure 2.1dd). This
same compensation could be made automatically with an
inlet temperature detector designed to initiate the appropriate
corrective adjustment in the steam valve opening.
The concept of feedforward control is very powerful, but
unfortunately it is difcult to implement in most process

Ideally the feedforward correction would be so effective that

a disturbance would have no measurable effect on the controlled variable, the process output. As an example, consider a rst-order system in which there is a measurable
disturbance. Suppose that a process disturbance occurs at time
t = 5 seconds, as shown in the top segment of Figure 2.1ee, and
causes the PID controller to generate a corrective action as
shown in lower part of Figure 2.1ee. Note that while the
controller will eliminate the disturbance, it will do that only
after it has occurred.

Process output with disturbance

1.5
Amplitude

110

1
0.5
0

10

10

Controller output with disturbance

Hot water

Cool water

Steam
valve

Temperature
indicator

FIG. 2.1dd
The concept of feedforward control implemented by a human
operator.

2006 by Bla Liptk

1.5
1
0.5
0

Water
heater

Steam

Amplitude

FIG. 2.1ee
If a step disturbance occurs at t = 5, the controlled variable of a
first-order process responds to that upset as shown in the top portion
of the figure. The bottom part shows the response of a feedback
PID controller to such an upset, which generates the manipulated
variable.