Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Control
Laboratory
7. PID Controllers
7.0 Overview
7.1 PID controller variants
7.2 Choice of controller type
7.3 Specifications and performance criteria
7.4 Controller tuning based on frequency response
7.5 Controller tuning based on step response
7.6 Model-based controller tuning
7.7 Controller design by direct synthesis
7.8 Internal model control
7.9 Model simplification
Process
Control
7.0 Overview
Laboratory
PID controller (”pee-i-dee”) is a generic name for a controller containing a
linear combination of
proportional (P)
integral (I)
derivative (D)
terms acting on a control error (or sometimes the process output).
All parts need not be present. Frequently I and/or D action is missing,
giving a controller like
P, PI, or PD controller
It has been estimated that of all controllers in the world
95 % are PID controllers
Process
Control
7.1 PID controller variants
Laboratory
7.1.1 Ideal PID controller
An ideal PID controller is described by the control law
1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.1)
𝑇𝑇i 0 d𝑡𝑡
𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) is the controller output
𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑟𝑟 𝑡𝑡 − 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) is the control error, which is the difference
between the setpoint 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡) and the measured process output 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡)
𝐾𝐾c is the proportional gain
𝑇𝑇i is the integral time
𝑇𝑇d is the derivative time
𝑢𝑢0 is the “normal” value of the controller output
The transfer function of the PID controller is
𝑈𝑈(𝑠𝑠) 1 𝐾𝐾c
𝐺𝐺PID = = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 2 (7.2)
𝐸𝐸(𝑠𝑠) 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠
Depending on the values of 𝑇𝑇i and 𝑇𝑇d , the transfer function of the PID
Process
Control controller can have
Laboratory
𝑇𝑇f and 𝑇𝑇f′ are filter constants, usually 10-30 % of corresp. derivative time.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–6
7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.3 A PID controller with derivative filter
For calculation of the parameters of the series form from the parameters
of the parallel form, we define the parameter
4𝑇𝑇i (𝑇𝑇d +𝑇𝑇f )
𝛿𝛿 = 1 − (7.9)
(𝑇𝑇i +𝑇𝑇f )2
If 𝛿𝛿 ≥ 0, the zeros of the parallel PID are real. Then, there exists a series
form PID controller which is equivalent to the parallel form according to
(𝑇𝑇i +𝑇𝑇f ) 𝑇𝑇i′
𝑇𝑇i′ = 1 + 𝛿𝛿 , 𝑇𝑇d′ = 𝑇𝑇i + 𝑇𝑇f − 𝑇𝑇i′ , 𝑇𝑇f′ = 𝑇𝑇f , 𝐾𝐾c′ = 𝐾𝐾c (7.10)
2 𝑇𝑇i
Exercise 7.2
Process
Control
Laboratory Which is the control law, both in the time domain and the Laplace
domain, for the series form of a PID controller with differentiation of the
filtered output measurement?
Exercise 7.3
Include setpoint weighting in the series form of a PID controller.
Process
Control
7.2 Choice of controller type
Laboratory
The choice between controller types such as P, PI, PD, PID is considered.
In principle, the simplest controller that can do the job should be chosen.
Process
Control
7.3 Specifications and performance criteria
Laboratory
7.3.1 General performance criteria
The task of a controller is to control a system to behave in a desired way
despite unknown disturbances and an inaccurately known system.
The controlled system should satisfy performance criteria such as:
The controlled system must be stable; this is absolutely necessary.
The effect of disturbances on the controlled output is minimized; this
is especially important for regulatory control.
The controlled output should follow setpoint changes fast and
smoothly; this is especially important for setpoint tracking.
The control error is minimized or kept within certain limits,
The control signal variations should be moderate or at least not be
excessively large; more variations wear out control equipment faster.
The control system should be robust (insensitive) against moderate
changes in system properties, which introduce model uncertainty.
The importance of these criteria varies from case to case. Since many cri-
teria are conflicting, compromises have to be made in the control design.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–17
7. PID Controllers 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria
The PB is equal to 𝑒𝑒max − 𝑒𝑒min = 𝑦𝑦hi − 𝑦𝑦lo , where 𝑦𝑦hi is the highest
output (𝑒𝑒min = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦hi ) and 𝑦𝑦lo is the lowest output (𝑒𝑒max = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦lo )
the controller can handle. Usually, the PB is defined in percent of the
total measurable output interval 𝑦𝑦min , 𝑦𝑦max . Then, the PB is
𝑦𝑦hi −𝑦𝑦lo 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢min 100%
𝑃𝑃b = 100% = ⋅ (7.28)
𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝐾𝐾c
Integrator windup
Process
Control
Laboratory
Usually controllers are tuned for stability and performance, not for signal
limits. Therefore, it is not uncommon that a control signal reaches a
constraint. If the controller contains integral action, this can be very
damaging to the control performance unless the situation is handled
properly.
Consider the figure, where the PI control law (7.25) has been used. A
strong disturbance causes the process output to fall well below the set-
point. The controller is not able to elimi-
nate the control error (A) because the
control signal has reached a constraint.
During this time, the positive control error
will increase the integral in the controller.
If the disturbance later disappears, the
controller will still keep the control signal
at the constraint due to the large value of
the integral, even if the control error goes
below zero. This will cause the output (B),
which is entirely due to the controller. Illustration of integral windup.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–22
7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup Integral windup
Error integrals
Process
Control
Laboratory In principle, a small overshoot, rise time and settling time are desired. In
practice, the overshoot and settling time will increase with decreasing
rise time, and vice versa. Therefore, compromises have to be made.
One way of solving this problem in an optimal way is to specify some
error integral to be minimized. Examples of such error integrals are
𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡
𝐽𝐽IAE = ∫0 s 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) d𝑡𝑡 , 𝐽𝐽ISE = ∫0 s 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)2 d𝑡𝑡
𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡 (7.31)
𝐽𝐽ITAE = ∫0 s 𝑡𝑡 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) d𝑡𝑡 , 𝐽𝐽ITSE = ∫0 s 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)2 d𝑡𝑡
where the acronyms are
– IAE = “integrated absolute error”
– ISE = “integrated square error”
– ITAE = “integrated time-weighted absolute error”
– ITSE = “integrated time-weighted square error”
The weighting with time forces the control error towards zero as time in-
creases. In principle, the integration time should be infinite, but because
the minimization has to be done numerically, a finite 𝑡𝑡s has to be used.
Process
Control
7.4 Tuning based on frequency response
Laboratory
7.4.1 Experimental tuning
An ideal PID controller of interactive
form can be tuned experimentally G
by making closed-loop control experi-
ments with the real process. The
standard feedback structure is used.
1. A P controller (𝐺𝐺c = 𝐾𝐾c ) is used for the first experiment. A low value is
chosen for the gain 𝐾𝐾c . Note that 𝐾𝐾c must have the same sign as 𝐾𝐾p .
2. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 is introduced. (Some other disturbance
could also be used.) The controller gain 𝐾𝐾c is increased until the
output 𝑌𝑌 starts to oscillate with a constant amplitude (see next slide).
3. The value of the controller gain yielding constant oscillations is
denoted 𝐾𝐾c,max . The period of the oscillations is denoted 𝑃𝑃c .
4. The controller gain is changed to 𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max . If the intention was
to tune a P controller, this is the final tuning.
𝐾𝐾c = 5
𝐾𝐾c = 3
𝐾𝐾c = 1
Process
Control
7.5 Tuning based on step response
Laboratory
A drawback with generating the frequency response is that it is quite
cumbersome and time-consuming to generate oscillations with constant
amplitude by adjusting a controller parameter.
An alternative is to use a step response for the process.
The figure illustrates how the
needed parameters are obtained
from a unit-step response, i.e., a
step with size 𝑢𝑢step = 1 expressed
in the units used for the control
variable. yi
Instead of taking the 𝑎𝑎 parameter from the point, where the tangent
Process
Control
Laboratory
through the inflexion point (i.e., the point where the slope is highest) of
the step response crosses the vertical axis, it can be calculated when the
coordinates (𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ) of the inflexion point are known. The calculation is
valid for any size of 𝑢𝑢step . The formula for 𝑎𝑎 is
𝐿𝐿𝑦𝑦i
𝑎𝑎 = (7.34)
𝑢𝑢step (𝑡𝑡i −𝐿𝐿)
Controller aK c Ti / L Td / L
P 1.0 – –
PI 0.9 3 –
PID 1.2 2 0.5
Table 7.5. Controller tuning for regulatory control by the CHR method.
Process
Control
Laboratory
No overshoot 20 % overshoot
Controller
aK c Ti / L Td / L aK c Ti / L Td / L
P 0.3 – – 0.7 – –
PI 0.6 4.0 – 0.7 2.3 –
PID 0.95 2.4 0.42 1.2 2.0 0.42
Table 7.6. Controller tuning for setpoint tracking by the CHR method.
No overshoot 20 % overshoot
Controller
aK c Ti / T Td / L aK c Ti / T Td / L
P 0,3 – – 0,7 – –
PI 0,35 1,2 – 0,6 1,0 –
PID 0,6 1,0 0,5 0,95 1,4 0,47
θ 13
PI 0.35 + 0.15θ − 0.35 + –
(1 + θ ) 2 1 + 12 θ + 7θ 2
8 + 4θ 0.5
PID 0.45 + 0.2 θ
1 + 10 θ 1 + 0.3θ
Process
Control
7.6 Model-based controller tuning
Laboratory
The controller tuning methods in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 employ parameters
that can be determined from an experiment with an existing process.
If a process model is known, the same parameters can be determined
through a simulation experiment
possibly by direct calculation from the process model
For example, a first-order system with a time delay has the transfer
function
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.36)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1
from which the parameters 𝑎𝑎 and 𝜃𝜃 can be calculated according to
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 𝐿𝐿
𝑎𝑎 = , 𝜃𝜃 = (7.37)
𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇
The same tuning methods as in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 can then be used.
However, the methods in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 are “general purpose”
methods that are not optimized for any specific model type.
For a given model, better controller tunings probably exist.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–39
7. PID Controllers 7.6 Model-based controller tuning
IAE 0.902 θ −0.985 0.984 θ −0.986 1.645 θ 0.707 1.435 θ −0.921 1.139 θ 0.749 0.482 θ 1.137
ITAE 0.490 θ −1.084 0.859 θ −0.977 1.484 θ 0.680 1.357 θ −0.947 1.188 θ 0.738 0.381 θ 0.995
Table 7.9. IAE and ITAE minimizing controller tunings for setpoint tracking.
IAE 0.758 θ −0.861 (1.020 − 0.323θ ) −1 1.086 θ −0.869 (0.740 − 0.130 θ ) −1 0.348 θ 0.914
ITAE 0.586 θ −0.916 (1.030 − 0.165θ ) −1 0.965 θ −0.855 (0.796 − 0.147 θ ) −1 0.308 θ 0.929
Table 7.10. Cvejn’s tunings for regulatory control and setpoint tracking.
PI controller PID controller
Control
KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T
The PI controller tunings tend to give better robustness than the PID
controller tunings, which tend to give better performance.
In Cvejn’s method for tracking control, the controller 𝐺𝐺c (𝑠𝑠) is tuned to
give the loop transfer 𝐺𝐺k (𝑠𝑠) = 𝐺𝐺(𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺c (𝑠𝑠) such that
1 −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐺𝐺k 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.38)
2𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
or
1 3
𝐺𝐺k 𝑠𝑠 = 1+ e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.39)
4 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
Exercise 7.3
Use Cvejn’s method for tracking control to tune a PID controller for the
system (7.40).
Cvejn’s method can be used also in this case, but Åström and Hägglund
(2006) suggest the following tuning when the system is overdamped:
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c = 0.19 + 0.37𝜃𝜃1−1 + 0.18𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.02𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇i = 0.48 + 0.03𝜃𝜃1−1 − 0.0007𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.0012𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1 (7.42)
𝜃𝜃1 +𝜃𝜃2
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d /𝐿𝐿 = 0.29 + 0.16𝜃𝜃1−1 − 0.2𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.28𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1
𝜃𝜃1 +𝜃𝜃2 +𝜃𝜃1 𝜃𝜃2
where
𝜃𝜃1 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇1 , 𝜃𝜃2 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇2 (7.43)
For this kind of system, Åström and Hägglund (2006) suggest the tuning:
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿 = 0.37 + 0.02𝜃𝜃2−1
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿2 /𝑇𝑇i = 0.03 + 0.0012𝜃𝜃2−1 (7.45)
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d = 0.16 + 0.28𝜃𝜃2−1
Process
Control
7.7 Controller design by direct synthesis
Laboratory
In the previous sections, equations for controller tuning have been given
for first- and second-order no-zero systems.
The equations are usually the result of optimization of some criterion
that is considered to imply “good control”.
However, what is “good control” varies from case to case depending
on the compromise between stability and performance.
A drawback of the tuning equations is that the user cannot influence
the tuning according to his/her opinion of “good control”.
In this section, a method is introduced whereby
the user can influence the controller tuning in a systematic way
according to his/her opinion of “good control”
more model types than in previous sections can be handled, e.g.,
systems with a zero
Also here, 𝑇𝑇r is a design parameter which only affects the controller gain.
Analogously with the derivation of (7.62), this gives the PID controller
parameters (7.76) and
𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2
𝐾𝐾c = (𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇f ), 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇f , 𝑇𝑇d = − 𝑇𝑇f (7.78)
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇f
where 𝑇𝑇f is the derivative filter time constant in a PID controller (7.61).
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–53
7.7.4 Second-order system with RHP zero Closed-loop system of 2nd order
Let 𝐺𝐺r have real poles at −1/𝑇𝑇r and −1/𝑇𝑇3 . This corresponds to
𝜁𝜁r = 0.5(𝑇𝑇r + 𝑇𝑇3 )𝜔𝜔r and 𝜔𝜔r = 1/ 𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇3 , which for (7.76) gives
𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇3
𝑇𝑇f =
𝑇𝑇r +2𝑇𝑇3
Substitution of (7.81) and (7.82) into (7.52) gives a PID controller with the
parameters
𝑇𝑇+0.5𝐿𝐿−𝑇𝑇f 0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 0.5𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇r
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 + 0.5𝐿𝐿 − 𝑇𝑇f , 𝑇𝑇d = , 𝑇𝑇f = (7.83)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿) 𝑇𝑇+0.5𝐿𝐿−𝑇𝑇f 𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿
Here, 𝑇𝑇f is the time constant of a derivative filter in the PID controller
(7.61).
Process
Control
7.8 Internal model control
Laboratory
“Internal model control” (IMC) is closely related to “direct synthesis” (DS).
As in DS, a model of the system to be controlled is explicitly built into the
controller, but in a different way.
An advantage with IMC is that it is easier to implement more complex
control laws than regular PID controllers. For example, the controller
transfer function (7.85) can easily be implemented exactly with IMC.
Even if the controller design is based on IMC, it is often desirable to
implement the controller as a regular PID controller. In such cases, the
IMC approach offers better possibilities to deal with robustness issues
than DS.
K e− Ls
Ti / λ T1 + 12 L 1 LT1 / Ti Tr + 12 L
T1s + 1 2
K (T3 s + 1) e− Ls
Ti / λ T1 + T2 − T3 (T1T2 / Ti ) − T3 Tr + L
(T1s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
K (−T3 s + 1) e− Ls
Ti / λ T1 + T2 + (T3 L / λ ) (T1T2 / Ti ) − (T3 L / λ ) Tr + T3 + L
(T1s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
K e− Ls L(1 − 12 L / Ti ) Tr + 12 L
Ti / λ 2 2λ 1
2
s
K e− Ls
Ti / λ 2 2λ + T2 − L T2 (1 − T2 / Ti ) Tr + L
s (T2 s + 1)
Process
Control
7.9 Model simplification
Laboratory
Many controller tuning methods have been presented in the previous
sections.
Section 7.4: Controller tuning based on frequency-response para-
meters 𝐾𝐾c,max , 𝑃𝑃c (or 𝜔𝜔c ) and 𝜅𝜅. These methods are “general-
purpose methods” not optimized for any specific model type.
Section 7.5: Controller tuning based on step-response parameters
𝑎𝑎 (or 𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ), 𝐿𝐿 and 𝜃𝜃. These methods are also general-purpose
methods not optimized for any specific model type.
Section 7.6: Model-based tuning optimized for given model structures
and control criteria with no user interaction.
Section 7.7: Direct synthesis for low-order models according to desired
closed-loop response.
Section 7.8: Internal model control mainly for low-order models
according to desired closed-loop response.
In this section, methods to reduce high-order models to first- or second-
order models are presented. Any controller tuning method can be used.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–66
7. PID Controllers 7.9 Model simplification
Next, the smallest remaining denominator time constant 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 such that
Process
Control
Laboratory
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is selected. If there is no such time constant, or if
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≫ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 , the smaller 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 closest to 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is chosen. It is considered
2
that 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≫ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 > 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖+1 and 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖+1 < 1.6 .
The ratio (𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠 + 1)/(𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠 + 1) is now approximated as
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 5𝑇𝑇r a
5𝑇𝑇r /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖
if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 5𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 b
5𝑇𝑇r −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1 1
≈ if 5𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 c (7.108)
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 if 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇r (d)
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇r if 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (e)
1 if 𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (f)
Here, 𝑇𝑇r is the desired closed-loop time constant. If this is not known,
the suggested value is 𝑇𝑇r = 𝐿𝐿� , which is the time delay in the
simplified model. Since this is not initially known, one may have to
iterate (i.e., first guessing 𝐿𝐿�, then possibly correcting with the new 𝐿𝐿�).
Note that the gain as well as the values and number of denominator time
constants may have changed from the original 𝐺𝐺 ⊖ .
where 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 > 0 (i.e., a stable system) and |𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 | ≥
|𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 | ≥ ⋯ ≥ |𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 | . The numerator time constants can be positive or
negative.