TOWARDS „PLUG&CONTROL“:

SELFTUNING TEMPERATURE CONTROLLER FOR PLC

Bernd-Markus Pfeiffer
Siemens AG
Automation & Drives
Advanced Group Technologies A&D GT5
D-76181 Karlsruhe, Germany
Phone +49(721)595-5973
Fax +49(721)595-6728
e-mail: bernd-markus.pfeiffer@khe.siemens.de

Keywords: adaptive control, software PID control,
programmable logic controller (PLC), temperature control
Abstract
Software PID controllers have become a standard component
of automation with PLCs (Programmable Logic Controllers)
and work together with classical sequential function charts in
the same processing units. However, traditional methods for
the computer-aided design of control systems often involve
high mathematical effort and are usually implemented on
additional PCs that are only connected for commissioning
purposes. Therefore a new, very simple concept for self-
tuning PID controllers will be presented, which is
implemented together with the controller on the PLC and
which enables automatic tuning without prior knowledge of
the process. The concept is designed specifically for
temperature control, but can also be used for other control
loops in the process industry which show stable time-lag
dynamics and allow sufficient setpoint steps. For users, the
most important advantage is the drastic reduction of
commissioning time and effort. If, for example, there are ten
temperature loops in one machine, the successive tuning of all
ten controllers used to require several days. With the new
concept, there is no longer any need for dedicated tuning. The
self-tuning of all control loops is performed automatically and
simultaneously on machine startup. Control performance is
better than it is with the traditionally-designed PID
controllers, particularly for slow temperature processes. The
concept is based on a systematic startup sequence to explore
process dynamics, a modified inflection point method for
process identification and a separation of setpoint and
disturbance control.
process dynamics. Such a controller is supposed to learn
enough about an unknown process during the first heating
phase and to be able to reach even the first given setpoint
without an overshoot („plug & control“). This paper describes
a new concept to reach this goal with very low computational
effort and memory requirements.
The first section summarizes some basic aspects of modeling
and control of temperature processes. The second section
gives details on the identification algorithm, the third on the
controller design. In section four some practical aspects of
implementation and application are discussed.
1.1 Modeling of Temperature
Processes
According to [3.], physical models for temperature dynamics
can be constructed from first order models for elementary
subsystems. That way it is not necessary to define a system
model with spatially distributed parameters using partial
differential equations.
+ Qi 1 Ti
- ci s
Ti-Ti+1 +
Qi,i+1
ai,i+1
-

1 Introduction Figure 1: Elementary heat capacity as a subsystem of a

Customer demands for modern digital control systems
meanwhile include the need for selftuning controllers, that
automatically adapt to any temperature process without
manual parametrization and without prior knowledge of
temperature process
Each subsystem i (Figure 1) is characterized by its heat
capacity ci [Ws/K] and the respective heat transfer coefficient
ai,i+1 [W/K] to the next, colder subsystem. The subsystem
receives the heat input Qi and stores it, i.e. integrating over
time, thereby reaching the temperature Ti . The heat output to
the next subsystem is calculated as a product of temperature
difference Ti -Ti+1 and heat transfer coefficient. This heat
output is taken away from subsystem i, and transferred to
subsystem i+1 . External e.g. electrical energy is an additional
input to the subsystem „heating“.
1.2 Control of Temperature
Processes
The resulting transfer functions for temperature dynamics in
most cases have time-delay characteristics of rather small
order. There are rarely more than three relevant time
constants that can be identified in industrial processes, but
these time constants depend in a non-trivial way on the time
constants of the elementary subsystems. Process gains range
from 0.5 to 30, depending on the design of the heating and on
measurement normalization factors. Time constants from one
to several thousand seconds are observed. In open loop, there
are no oscillations and no extremely long deadtimes. But
anyway there are some properties that make temperature
control difficult:
• Slow drift time constants, i.e. poles of the system
transfer function that are close to the origin of the
complex plane, and are causing integrator-like dynamics
in the relevant working range. After applying a step input
(„heating on“), it takes a very long time to reach a steady
state. Therefore, identification methods based on
evaluation of step responses (e.g. [2.]) are rather time
consuming and sometimes not practicable. Moreover the
relevant time constants time-lag and recovery time differ
from each other by an order of magnitude or more,
posing special problems for identification algorithms.
• Transfer zeros, i.e. numerator terms in the transfer
function. They are found if the controlled variable is not
defined at the end of the heat transfer chain, e.g. if an
oven is heated from the inside, but the heat capacity of
the outside isolation plays an important role.
• In many cases, there is no active cooling, and the
positive temperature gradients observed are much bigger
than the negative ones. Anyway, this effect can be
explained with a linear dynamic model, that does not
allow negative values of the manipulated variable.
• Nonlinearities can be caused by evaporation,
condensation or actuators with nonlinear characteristics
(e.g. valves). However, in many cases they are
considered as a cause for control problems that actually
are bound to one of the first three difficulties mentioned
above.
In principle, temperature control is feasible with simple PID-
controllers, but the combination of a process with integrator-
like characteristics and a controller with integral action is
2
difficult. From a dynamic point of view, PD control would do
better, but is not applicable because of steady state errors. The
integral time constant Ti of the PID controller cannot be
selected according to the dominant, slowest process time
constant, as proposed by many tuning formulas, because this
time constant usually is in the order of hours. If Ti is selected
much faster, there will be large overshoots for setpoint step
changes due to a closed loop transfer zero, even if closed loop
damping is sufficient and the response to load disturbances is
satisfactory. Therefore, the most important decision even for a
simple control concept is a separation of setpoint and load
disturbance design. The PID is optimized for tight disturbance
control and is enhanced with a special structure
decomposition to avoid overshooting setpoint responses:
proportional and derivative terms are placed in the feedback
path.
2 Identification
Control design is supposed to rely on a rather simple process
identification algorithm that easily fits into a PLC function
block. But the identification must at least deliver a second
order model with two different time constants, because they
differ by an order of magnitude for most temperature
processes. Many identification algorithms for such
measurement data deliver only first order models, that are not
sufficient to design good PID control. Therefore a modified
inflection point method is applied in a systematic startup
sequence (Figure 2) to obtain information of the process and
successively improve the mathematical model.
The startup sequence has the following steps (called PHASE
in Figure 2):
Phase 1: Heating is off and the steady state cg of the
temperature is measured.
Phase 2: As soon as the user demands a setpoint step of
sufficient size, constant heating energy is applied until the
inflection point of the step response is detected. This requires
adaptive low-pass filtering of the measured temperature to
suppress noise effects. As soon as the filtered ascent ratio of
the step response is decreasing in two successive cycles or the
temperature increases over 70% of the step size, the self-tuner
is considering the inflection point to be found, with time
abscissa, ordinate and ascent ratio:
 dx w 
t w , x w , 
 dt 
From the tangent at the inflection point, the time delay
x w − x0
t u = t w − t sprung − t hilf 1 , t hilf 1 =
dx w / dt
is calculated, assuming the steady state x0 = cg . For the
behavior observed up to now, an integrating process model
with first order time lag (IT1)
Ki dx w / dt
G ( s) = , Ki = , T2 = t u
s(T2 s + 1) y max
can be assumed, for which PI-control according to the
symmetric optimum ( [1.], p. 263) with integrating time
constant
Ti= 4 T2 and gain
Ti
Kp = 2
8T2 K i
is designed. It is slightly detuned to avoid overshoots.
Phase 3: “Rough” PI-control to reach the setpoint. The
estimated IT1-model does not have a steady state, i.e. the
process gain is still unknown. Due to the lack of information
on process dynamics, the PI control must be tuned quite
conservative. But as soon as this rough control has achieved a
steady state, the process gain
x ∞ − x0
K=
y ∞ − y0
can be calculated. At this time at the end of phase 3 it
becomes now possible to make additional use of the
inflection point data from the beginning of phase 3. The open
loop control with fixed heating power (phase 2) had to be
interrupted a long time before the respective steady state
could be reached. From this first part of the step response, the
classical inflection point method ([4.], p. 365) only delivers
the time-lag, but not the recovery time. But with the
additional information about process gain, an enhancement of
the classical inflection point method becomes feasible: the
intersection of the inflection tangent and a virtual (not
measurable) steady state at the end of the step response (that
was interrupted !) is defined, from which the recovery time is
obtained.
The parameters of a second order Laplace transfer function
K and its time derivative x = dx
G ( s) = , T1 > T2
(T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
3 Control Concept
The control concept is based on classical PID control, but
allows a separation of setpoint and load disturbance design:
the PID is optimized for tight disturbance control and is
enhanced with a special structure decomposition to avoid
overshooting setpoint responses: proportional and derivative
terms are placed in the feedback path.
3.1 Structure Decomposition Control
Structure decomposition as shown in Figure 3 is well known
in literature for integrating processes, because there is a
fundamental dilemma between good disturbance control and
good setpoint control: a PID controller designed for optimal
disturbance control leads to overshoots of 10-20% of the step
size on setpoint changes, even if all closed loop poles are
sufficiently damped. This is due to a dominant transfer zero in
the closed loop reference transfer function. The same
dilemma is also found for temperature control, where usually
the requirement is “no overshoot”, because even small
overshoots take a very long time to decay without active
cooling. On the other hand, sluggish disturbance control is
also not acceptable, because the temperature processes are
always “too slow”.
The new discovery is: structure decomposition originally
intended for integrating processes is also helpful for
temperature control with integrator-like dynamics in the
relevant working range. Optional structure decomposition is
already available in many software PID controllers.
3.2 Controller Design
The whole configuration in Figure 3 can be considered as a
cascade control: in an inner loop, the slow temperature
dynamics are accelerated by PD control; in the outer loop, the
whole inner loop is directed to steady state precision by I-
control. The design procedure follows the usual strategy for
cascade control: firstly, the inner loop is tuned.
Each second order process has two states: the process value x
•
. The transfer function can
dt
be transformed to an equivalent state space representation

are obtained from gain, time lag tu and recovery time ta by an x  x • = Ax + b y 
analytic solution of a polynomial approximation of the x =  • ,  
nonlinear equation system: x   x = c ′ x + dy 
T1
 T  T1 −T2  0 1 
t a = T2  1  A = − 1 − (T1 + T2 ) ,
 T2   T1T2 T1T2 
TT T
t u = 1 2 ln( 1 ) − t a + T1 + T2  0 
T1 − T2 T2 b = K  , c′ = [1 0], d = 0
 T1T2 

3
A state feedback for this process is defined by
y = − k ′ x = −( k1 x + k2 x • )
and can be implemented using
1
k = Kp 
Td 
as conventional PD controller with gain Kp and derivative
time Td ! This allows to design PD control for a second order
process with the rigorous mathematical methods of state
space optimization, minimizing a quadratic performance
index. The time consuming optimizations are performed
offline for the relevant parameter space 1.1 < f= T1 / T2 < 40
and the results are approximated with low order polynomials
for fast online computation on the PLC. The same strategy
applies to the design of the I-controller: it is optimized in
offline simulations for the relevant parameter space and the
resulting tables for the integral time constant are
approximated with a polynomial, depending on the already
known derivative time constant.
4 Practical Aspects
4.1 Implementation
The new methods described in this paper are implemented as
a PLC function block for SIMATIC S7. Programming
language is structured text according to IEC 1131-3. The
product name is „PID Self-Tuner“. It does not contain a PID
controller itself, but is working together with all software
controllers of SIMATIC S7, i.e. „Standard PID Control“,
„Modular PID Control“ and the integrated „Step 7 PID
Control“. The self-tuner takes actual setpoint, process value
and manipulated variable as input signals. During the startup
sequence the self-tuner sets the controller in manual mode,
and makes use of the bumpless switching from manual to
automatic mode. As a result of automatic commissioning, the
parameters gain, integral time and derivative time of the PID
are defined. In a PLC program, controller and self-tuner are
called one after each other in the same cycle. The self-tuner is
a very lean function block, needing only 5kB of code plus
0.3kB of data per control channel. It actually requires less
resources than the PID controller.
4.2 Industry Applications
The new concept was verified in simulation and laboratory
experiments before it was tested with selected pilot
customers. As an example, some results from the practical
application to a plastic profile extruder “Weber CE7 272K“
for PVC-window frames, located at Kömmerling (Pirmasens,
Germany), will be given.
4
At zone 1 plastic powder is filled into the machine, and is
pressed with extruder screws through the cylinder zones 2 to
6, before it leaves the machine with high pressure through a
heated tool (zones 7 to 10), giving the material the desired
profile shape. There are 10 temperatures to be controlled, all
of them measured with thermocouples. Actuators are
electrical heating inductors controlled by solid state relays.
Zones 2,3 and 4 are additionally equipped with cooling blast
engines controlled by mechanical relays.
Automatic self-tuning is performed for all 10 channels at the
same time as shown in Figure 4. The control loops are just
switched on and supplied with a setpoint, before all self-
tuners step through their startup sequence, identify the
process model for the respective control channel, and take
their controllers in automatic operation. After self-tuning has
finished, regular production can be started in controlled mode.
This example does not show the additional cooling test to
identify the difference between heating and cooling dynamics.
5 Conclusions
The „PID Self Tuner“ V1.0 with variable structure control
instead of structure decomposition is delivered since January
1998 to the customers. Patents are pending under Appl. No.
19548909.8, 19722431.8, 19851827.7 and 19851826.9. With
the self tuner, customers are enabled to perform control
commissioning in the sense of a “plug&play”-philosophy: the
controller is connected to input and output signals, afterwards
switched on, and is immediately ready to drive the process to
the first given setpoint. There are still some control
parameters that can be handled by the user, e.g. to select
operating modes, but they only need attention if there are
special problems or desires. The self tuner is applicable to
continuous output control, to puls-width modulation control
for binary actuators (relays) and to step control for motor
valves with or without position feedback (repeated
manipulated variable). Version 2.0 with structure
decomposition will be capable to handle three-point control
for two actuators per loop (heating and active cooling) and is
expected for June 1999.
6 Literature
[1.] Föllinger, O.: Regelungstechnik, 6. Auflage, Hüthig,
Heidelberg, 1990
[2.] Preuß, H.-P., Linzenkirchner, E., Kirchberg, K.-H.:
SIEPID - ein Inbetriebsetzungsgerät zur automatischen
Regleroptimierung. atp 29, 9/1987.
[3.] Preuß, H.-P.: Modellbildung und Regelung von
Temperaturstrecken, vorläufiger Bericht, Siemens AG, A&D
GT 34, 6/94.
[4.] Unbehauen, H.: Regelungstechnik 1, Vieweg,
Braunschweig, 1992.
 PHASE = 1 PHASE PHASE = 3 PHASE = 4
=2
SP LMN
PV

Warm state of
SP process:
operating point
PV
LHLM_TUN

LMN
Inflection
point

Cold state of
process
t

TUN_ON
t

Figure 2: Self-tuning of controller for unknown process - setpoint SP, process value PV, manipulated variable LMN; constant
heating LHLM_TUN for identification and control; bit TUN_ON for activation of self-tuning (source: Siemens user manual)

input- z_e output- z_a

disturbance disturbance
w
x
I-control
y
setpoint
K_i(s) p rocess
p rocess G(s) value
PD-control

K _ p d ( s)

Figure 3: Structure decomposition – PD in feedback path

5
Figure 4: Control commissioning for plastic extruder. Setpoint, process value and manipulated variable for startup procedure
to 180 oC. (scales: 0-100% manipulated variable for heating only, -100..+100% for heating and cooling, 0-200 oC setpoint and
process value)