Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Open-Loop Process
Closed-Loop System
In study and design of control systems, we are concerned with the dynamic behavior of a controlled or Closed-loop Systems
Feedback Control
Control is meant to provide regulation of process outputs about a reference, , despite inherent disturbances
Controller
System
The deviation of the plant output, ,from its intended reference is used to make appropriate adjustments in the plant input,
Feedback Control
Process is a combination of sensors and actuators Controller is a computer (or operator) that performs the required manipulations
Computer Actuator
+ Process
Sensor
+ Process
Sensor
- Open-Loop Process Transfer Function - Controller Transfer Function - Sensor Transfer Function - Actuator Transfer Function
6
For analysis, we assume that the impact of actuator and sensor dynamics are negligible
They arise from three so-called sensitivity functions Highlights the dilemma of control system design Only one degree of freedom to shape the three sensitivity functions
9
Sensitivity functions:
The sensitivity function:
10
SERVO RESPONSE
REGULATORY RESPONSE
Servo response is the response of the output to setpoint change Regulatory response is the response of the output to disturbance changes
11
Since
Note that
or
is large
13
PID Controller
Most widespread choice for the controller is the PID controller
The acronym PID stands for: P - Proportional I - Integral D - Derivative PID Controllers: greater than 90% of all control implementations dates back to the 1930s very well studied and understood optimal structure for first and second order processes (given some assumptions) always first choice when designing a control system
14
PID Control
PID Control Equation Proportional Action Derivative Action
Controller Bias
15
PID Control
PID Controller Transfer Function
or:
Note:
numerator of PID transfer function cancels second order dynamics denominator provides integration to remove possibility of steady-state errors
16
PID Control
Controller Transfer Function:
or,
Note:
Many variations of this controller exist Easily implemented in MATLAB/SIMULINK each mode (or action) of controller is better studied individually
17
Proportional Feedback
Form:
Closed-loop form:
18
Proportional Feedback
Example:
Given first order process:
19
Proportional Feedback
Final response:
Note:
for zero offset response we require
Tracking Error
Disturbance rejection
Possible to eliminate offset with P-only feedback (requires infinite controller gain) Need different control action to eliminate offset (integral)
20
Proportional Feedback
Servo dynamics of a first order process under proportional feedback
21
Proportional Feedback
High-order process e.g. second order underdamped process
increasing controller gain reduces offset, speeds response and increases oscillation
22
Proportional Feedback
Important points:
proportional feedback does not change the order of the system started with a first order process closed-loop process also first order order of characteristic polynomial is invariant under proportional feedback speed of response of closed-loop process is directly affected by controller gain increasing controller gain reduces the closed-loop time constant in general, proportional feedback reduces (does not eliminate) offset speeds up response for oscillatory processes, makes closed-loop process more oscillatory
23
Integral Control
Integrator is included to eliminate offset
provides reset action usually added to a proportional controller to produce a PI controller PID controller with derivative action turned off PI is the most widely used controller in industry optimal structure for first order processes
PI controller form
PI Feedback
Closed-loop response
25
PI Feedback
Example
PI control of a first order process
PI Feedback
Example (contd)
effect of integral time constant and controller gain on closed-loop dynamics (time constant) natural period of oscillation
damping coefficient
integral time constant and controller gain can induce oscillation and change the period of oscillation
27
PI Feedback
Effect of integral time constant on servo dynamics
28
PI Feedback
Effect of controller gain on servo dynamics
29
PI Feedback
Effect of integral action of regulatory response
reducing integral time constant removes effect of disturbances makes behavior more oscillatory
30
PI Feedback
Important points:
integral action increases order of the system in closed-loop PI controller has two tuning parameters that can independently affect speed of response final response (offset) integral action eliminates offset integral action should be small compared to proportional action tuned to slowly eliminate offset can increase or cause oscillation can be de-stabilizing
31
Derivative Action
Derivative of error signal
Used to compensate for trends in output measure of speed of error signal change provides predictive or anticipatory action P and I modes only response to past and current errors Derivative mode has the form
if error is increasing, decrease control action if error is decreasing, decrease control action Usually implemented in PID form
32
PID Feedback
Transfer Function
PID Feedback
Example:
PID Control of a first order process
34
PID Feedback
Effect of derivative action on servo dynamics
PID Feedback
Effect of derivative action on regulatory response
increasing derivative action reduces impact of disturbances on controlled variable 36 slows down servo response and affects oscillation of process
PD Feedback
PD Controller
37
PD Feedback
Transfer Function
38
PD Feedback
DC Motor example:
In terms of angular velocity (velocity control)
39
PD Feedback
Simplifying
Notice that
40
Derivative Action
Important Points:
Characteristic polynomial is similar to PI derivative action does not increase the order of the system adding derivative action affects the period of oscillation of the process good for disturbance rejection poor for tracking the PID controller has three tuning parameters and can independently affect, speed of response final response (offset) servo and regulatory response derivative action should be small compared to integral action has a stabilizing influence difficult to use for noisy signals usually modified in practical implementation
41
Closed-loop Stability
Every control problem involves a consideration of closed-loop stability General concepts: Bounded Input Bounded Output (BIBO) Stability:
An (unconstrained) linear system is said to be stable if the output response is bounded for all bounded inputs. Otherwise it is unstable. Comments: Stability is much easier to prove than instability This is just one type of stability
42
Closed-loop Stability
Closed-loop dynamics
Let then,
Closed-loop stability
General Stability criterion:
A closed-loop feedback control system is stable if and only if all roots of the characteristic polynomial are negative or have negative real parts. Otherwise, the system is unstable. Unstable region is the right half plane of the complex plane. Valid for any linear systems.
44
Closed-loop Stability
Problem reduces to finding roots of a polynomial (for polynomial systems, without delay)
Easy (1990s) way : MATLAB function ROOTS (or POLE) Traditional: 1. Routh array: Test for positivity of roots of a polynomial 2. Direct substitution Complex axis separates stable and unstable regions Find controller gain that yields purely complex roots 3. Root locus diagram Vary location of poles as controller gain is varied Of limited use
45
Closed-loop stability
Routh array for a polynomial equation
is
where
Elements of left column must be positive to have roots with negative real parts 46
Polynomial Coefficients
a5 = 2.36, a4 = 149, a3 = !0.58, a2 = 121, a1 = 0.42, a0 = 0.78 . .
Routh Array
a5 (2.36) a3 ( !0.58) a1(0.42) a4 (149) a2 (121) a0 (0.78) . . b1( !2.50) b2 ( !0.82) b3 (0) c1(0.72) c2 (0.78) d1(189) . d 2 (0) e1(0.78)
Direct Substitution
Technique to find gain value that de-stabilizes the system. Observation: Process becomes unstable when poles appear on right half plane Find value of that yields purely complex poles
Strategy:
Start with characteristic polynomial
Solve for
and
48
Substitution for
Real Part
Complex Part
System is unstable if
49
Characteristic polynomial
50
Given plant model, we assume a stable closed-loop system can be designed Once stability is achieved - need to consider performance of closedloop process - stability is not enough All poles of closed-loop transfer function have negative real parts - can we place these poles to get a good performance S
51
Controller Tuning
Can be achieved by
Direct synthesis : Specify servo transfer function required and calculate required controller - assume plant = model Internal Model Control: Morari et al. (86) Similar to direct synthesis except that plant and plant model are concerned Pole placement Tuning relations: Cohen-Coon - 1/4 decay ratio designs based on ISE, IAE and ITAE Frequency response techniques Bode criterion Nyquist criterion Field tuning and re-tuning
52
Direct Synthesis
From closed-loop transfer function
Isolate
, controller is
not necessarily PID form inverse of process model to yield pole-zero cancellation (often inexact because of process approximation) used with care with unstable process or processes with RHP zeroes
53
Direct Synthesis
1. Perfect Control
For 1st order open-loop process, For 2nd order open-loop process,
requires again, 1st order leads to PI control 2nd order leads to PID control
54
55
where to 1. 2. Controller
where
The constant is chosen such the IMC controller based on pole-zero cancellation
is proper
56
Example
PID Design using IMC and Direct synthesis for the process
57
Example
1.
IMC Tuning:
a) Taylor Series: Filter Controller (PI)
58
Example
Servo Response
59
Example
Regulatory response
60
IMC Tuning
Must modify IMC filter such that the value of Usual modification
at
is 1
Strategy is to specify
such that
61
Example
Let
Yields a PI controller
62
Example
Servo response
63
Pole placement
Under what condition does there exist a unique controller pair and such that
64
Pole placement
Result:
Assume that and are (co) prime. Let be an arbitraty polynomial of degree . Then there exist polynomials and of degree such that
65
Pole Placement
Example
This is a second order system The polynomials and are prime The required degree of the characteristic polynomial is The degree of the controller polynomial and are
Controller is given by
66
Pole Placement
by equating polynomial
67
Pole Placement
System of equations
68
Tuning Relations
Process reaction curve method:
based on approximation of process using first order plus delay model
Manual Control
1. Step in U is introduced 2. Observe behavior 3. Fit a first order plus dead time model
69
Tuning Relations
Process response
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4. Obtain tuning from tuning correlations Ziegler-Nichols Cohen-Coon ISE, IAE or ITAE optimal tuning relations
70
Ziegler-Nichols Tunings
Controller P-only PI PID
- Note presence of inverse of process gain in controller gain - Introduction of integral action requires reduction in controller gain - Increase gain when derivation action is introduced
Example:
PI: PID:
71
Example
Ziegler-Nichols Tunings: Servo response
72
Example
Regulatory Response
Z-N tuning
Oscillatory with considerable overshoot Tends to be conservative
73
Kc
Ti
Td
(1 / K p )(! / " )[1 + " / 3! ] (1 / K p )(! / " )[ 0.9 + " / 12! ] 3" + 16! (1 / K p )(! / " )[ ] 12!
PID
Tuning relations
Cohen-Coon: Servo
More aggressive/ Higher controller gains Undesirable response for most cases
75
Tuning Relations
Cohen-Coon: Regulatory
76
77
ITAE Relations
Choose Kc, I and d that minimize the ITAE:
For a first order plus dead time model, solve for:
! ITAE ! ITAE ! ITAE = 0, = 0, =0 ! Kc !" I !" d
Design for Load and Setpoint changes yield different ITAE optimum
Mode P I P I D P I P I D
A 0.859 0.674 1.357 0.842 0.381 0.586 1.03 0.965 0.796 0.308
B -0.977 -0.680 -0.947 -0.738 0.995 -0.916 -0.165 -0.85 -0.1465 0.929
78
ITAE Relations
From table, we get
Load Settings:
B Y = A ! " = KKc = " " = " d " I
( )
Setpoint Settings:
B Y = A ! " = KKc = " d " ,
( )
"
! "I = A+ B "
( )
Example
79
ITAE Relations
Example (contd) Setpoint Settings
KKc = 0.965 9 30 = 2.6852 Kc = 2.6852 K = 2.6852 0.3 = 8.95
( )
!0.85
9 . ! I = 0.796 " 01465 30 = 0.7520 ! I = ! 0.7520 = 30 0.7520 = 39.89 0.929 !d = 0.308 9 30 = 01006 . ! ! d = 01006! = 3.0194 .
( )
( )
Load Settings:
( )
!0.947
"0.738 = 0.842 9 30 = 2.0474 !I ! I = ! 2.0474 = 30 2.0474 = 14.65 0.995 !d = 0.381 9 30 = 01150 . ! ! d = 01150! = 3.4497 .
( )
( )
80
ITAE Relations
Servo Response
design for load changes yields large overshoots for set-point changes
81
ITAE Relations
Regulatory response
82
Tuning Relations
In all correlations, controller gain should be inversely proportional to process gain Controller gain is reduced when derivative action is introduced Controller gain is reduced as ! " increases Integral time constant and derivative constant should increase as increases In general, !
d
"
! I = 0.25
Ziegler-Nichols and Cohen-Coon tuning relations yield aggressive control with oscillatory response (requires detuning) ITAE provides conservative performance (not aggressive)
83