Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tuning PI Controllers Based On Weighted Sensitivity: (Salvador - Alcantara, Carles - Pedret, Ramon - Vilanova) @uab - Cat
Tuning PI Controllers Based On Weighted Sensitivity: (Salvador - Alcantara, Carles - Pedret, Ramon - Vilanova) @uab - Cat
Tuning PI Controllers Based On Weighted Sensitivity: (Salvador - Alcantara, Carles - Pedret, Ramon - Vilanova) @uab - Cat
3
Aquis Corfu Holiday Palace, Corfu, Greece
June 20-23, 2011
Abstract— H∞ control theory is usually associated with high- unstable plants, as recently reported in the closely-related
order controllers. In this paper, simple tuning rules (extending work [11].
the well-known SIMC) for the Proportional-Integral (PI) al- In this communication, we focus on PI control and look
gorithm are derived analytically based on H∞ Weighted Sen-
sitivity. The presented approach deals with stable, integrating for a simple tuning of the controller along the lines of [9], but
and unstable plants in a unified way, avoiding any notion of also including unstable plants. The tuning rules are obtained
coprime factorization. The final tuning involves two adjustable analytically using H∞ optimization, and represent both an
parameters, λ and γ, with clear engineering meaning: λ selects extension and a simplification of those in the previous works
the Robustness/Performance compromise, whereas γ allows to [10], [12], where the full PID structure is used to deal with
balance the Servo/Regulator performance. Based on this, several
application scenarios are considered. First, a One-Degree-Of- stable plants only. A previous H∞ approach to PI control
Freedom (1-DOF) PI controller is assumed. Second, 2-DOF and can be consulted in [13], where, however, no tuning rules
switched implementations are investigated. are finally provided.
The presented approach stems from considering the H∞
I. INTRODUCTION Weighted Sensitivity Problem [14], [3], posed in terms of
The most widely used control algorithm in indus- a two-parameter weight: the first parameter (λ) adjusts the
try still corresponds to the Proportional-Integral-Derivative Robustness/Performance tradeoff, whereas the second one
(PID) controller, commonly simplified in practice to the (γ) is used to balance the performance between the set-point
Proportional-Integral (PI) type. On the other hand, the mod- and disturbance responses. A distinguishing feature of our
ern control literature has been dominated by optimal and ro- H∞ method is the usage of a possibly unstable weight, which
bust control theories, including the H2 and H∞ optimization- unifies the treatment of the stable/unstable plants, avoiding
based paradigms [1], [2], [3]. Influenced by the control any notion of coprime factorization [15], [3].
theory mainstream, PID design methods have received a After deriving the tuning rules, the SIMC rule is revisited
revived interest during the last two decades [4], resulting into to fix γ for balanced Servo/Regulator operation. In addition,
a considerable number of analytically derived tuning rules as as extreme values of γ yield Servo-type and Regulator-type
for example [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], to cite just a few. tunings, a switched scheme to integrate them is investigated
For stable plants, PID tuning rules based on Internal Model as an alternative to the more common 2-DOF PI controller.
Control (IMC) [1] appeared in [5], and have since then The organization for the rest of the paper is as follows.
become very popular. However, for lag-dominant or inte- Section II reviews the H∞ Weighted Sensitivity Problem.
grating processes, the associated input disturbance response Afterwards, the analytical solution is obtained based on the
is sluggish. To circumvent this problem, Horn and coworkers usage of a possibly unstable weight. Section III applies the
[6] proposed alternative IMC filters. A similar idea was latter result to PI control, and tuning rules are obtained
applied later in [7]. As the overshoot after a set-point change for the simplest stable, integrating and unstable models.
in the revised methods [6], [7] can be considerably high, Section IV gives tuning guidelines for linear and switched
a reference prefilter is recommended to avoid an excessive implementations. Section V evaluates the presented design
overshoot. through simulation examples. To conclude the paper, in
Adopting a different viewpoint, Skogestad [9] suggested to Section VI we summarize the main ideas.
augment the integral gain in the original IMC-based tuning Notation:
rules [5], and obtained remarkably simple and effective RH∞ is the set of stable transfer functions.
expressions for the PI(D) parameters with a good tradeoff
C is the set of internally stabilizing controllers K. This
between Servo and Regulator operation. One limitation of
means that, for any K ∈ C, all the closed-loop transfer
the so-called SIMC rule in [9] is that it does not consider
functions in Fig. 1 are stable [1], [3].
∗ This work was prepared during a research stay of the first author at the Q is the set of internally stabilizing Q’s, assuming the
Q
Norwegian University of Science and Technology. parameterization K = 1−P Q.
w z
W (zi ) = N o (zi ) i = 1 . . . ν, (8)
G
being z1 . . . zν (ν ≥ 1) the RHP zeros of P .
u v Proof: Let us parameterize K as follows
K Q
K= (9)
1 − PQ
Fig. 2. Generalized control setup. As shown in [1], internal stability is then equivalent to
• Q ∈ RH∞
plant and the objective is to minimize the norm from w to • S = 1 − P Q has zeros at the unstable poles of P
z. Mathematically, this is expressed as The weighted sensitivity W S = W (1 − P Q) = N o in (7)
min kTzw k∞ = min kFl (G, K)k∞ (2) is achieved by
K∈C K∈C
Q0 = P −1 (1 − N o W −1 ) (10)
where Fl (G, K) is the Lower Fractional Transformation
(LFT): First, we must verify that Q0 ∈ Q (i.e., internal stability):
. • That Q0 ∈ RH∞ follows from the interpolation con-
Fl (G, K) = G11 + G12 K(I − G22 K)−1 G21 (3) straints (8) [14], [2], [10].
−1 o
For the case at hand, • On the other hand, S = 1−P Q0 = W N is such that
S = 0 at the unstable poles of P (because W contains
W −W P
G= (4) them by assumption).
1 −P
Now that internal stability has been verified, it remains to be
results into Tzw = Fl (G, K) = W S, making (1) equivalent proved that Q0 is optimal. In [1], it is shown that any Q ∈ Q
to (2). Note, however, that this numerical approach is not has the form Q0 + ΥQ1 , where Q1 ∈ RH∞ and Υ ∈ RH∞
suitable for the purpose of obtaining tuning rules. A more has (exclusively) two zeros at each closed RHP pole of P
convenient analytical solution is investigated next. The cel- (the exact shape of Υ is not necessary for the proof). Hence,
ebrated Youla-Kucera parameterization [17] constitutes an any admissible weighted sensitivity can be expressed as
important result for optimization-based controller synthesis,
showing that any K ∈ C can be parameterized as W (1 − P Q) = W (1 − P [Q0 + ΥQ1 ])
Y + MQ = W (1 − P Q0 ) − W P ΥQ1
K= (5) = N o − W P ΥQ1
X − NQ
978-1-4577-0123-8/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 1302
Minimizing kN o − W P ΥQ1 k∞ is a standard Model Match- • If γ = λ, |W | = |K1g | |P/s|. Since the constant |K1g |
ing Problem [16], [2], [10] with: T1 = N o , T2 = plays no role, the optimization problem (1) is now
W P Υ, Q1 ∈ RH∞ . The optimal error Ñ o = T1 − T2 Q1 equivalent to min kP Sk∞ subject to integral action. As
K∈C
is well-known to be all-pass and completely determined by e = −P Sd, this choice of γ yields the best disturbance
the RHP zeros of T2 , which are those of P . More concretely, attenuation.
for each RHP zero of P , we have the interpolation constraint • For intermediate values of γ, a Servo/Regulator balance
Ñ o (zi ) = N o (zi ). Obviously, this implies that Ñ o = N o . is obtained.
Equivalently, the optimal solution is achieved for Q1 = 0,
As we increase λ, the minimization of |S| at higher fre-
showing that Q0 is indeed optimal.
quencies is emphasized, preventing large peaks on S at the
Remark 2.1: Note that the assumption ν ≥ 1 is not
expense of closed-loop bandwidth. Thus, once γ is fixed, λ
restrictive because many processes exhibit inverse response
can be used to select a compromise between robustness and
characteristics or are affected by time delay, which can be
performance as in the IMC procedure [1], [10].
easily approximated by a Non-Minimum Phase rational term.
Furthermore, if ν = 0, then the optimal weighted sensitivity C. Solution
is identically zero regardless of W . In order to apply Lemma 2.1, we need first to approximate
Once N o = W S has been computed using Lemma 2.1, the time delay in the FOPTD model (12). For simplicity, we
the associated feedback controller is use a first order Taylor approximation:
1 − S −1 1 − N o W −1
K= P = P −1 (11) −sh + 1
S N o W −1 P ≈ Kg (14)
τs + 1
III. GETTING THE PI TUNING RULES Now, applying Lemma 2.1 with P and W as in (14) and
In order to obtain PI tuning rules using Lemma 2.1, we (13), respectively, the optimal weighted sensitivity function
need to specify: is given by the constant
• A simple model for P (this is done in subsection A). (λ + h)(γ + h)
• A simple weight W (this is done in subsection B).
No = ρ = (15)
τ +h
After that, the final tuning rules are obtained in subsection From (11) and (14), the corresponding feedback controller
C. is
χ τ (h + λ + γ) − λγ
A. Model K= , χ=1+ s (16)
Kg ρs τ +h
We take a First Order plus Time Delay1 (FOPTD) model
which is of PI type
[9], [4]:
e−sh
1
P = Kg (12) K = Kc 1 + (17)
τs + 1 Ti s
where The expressions for the PI parameters can be consulted
• Kg is the (zero frequency) gain. in Table I. Note that the tuning rule for the integrating
• h is the (effective) time delay.
• τ is the time constant of the process.
TABLE I
−sh
PI TUNING RULE FOR THE MODEL P = Kg eτ s+1 .
In particular, τ may be negative to account for unstable
plants. We will also assume that P is lag-dominant (h > |τ |). Kc Ti
Note that integrating plants can be treated considering the 1 Ti τ (h+λ+γ)−λγ
λ > 0, γ ∈ [λ, |τ |]
Kg λ+γ+h−Ti τ +h
limit τ → ∞, as it will be seen later on.
γ Kc Ti Objective
1 Ti τ (h+λ+|τ |)−λ|τ |
|τ | Kg λ+|τ |+h−Ti τ +h
Set-point tracking
h+2λ−λ2 /τ τ (h+2λ)−λ2
1 τ
λ Kg λ+h h+λ τ +h
Disturbance attenuation
4(τ −λ)
(3τ + 4h) λ+h
τ −λ
1
Kg 4h+3λ
4(λ + h) Servo/Regulator tradeoff (ESIMC)
Kc d
row of Table III represents an extended version of the
r u y e−s
1
a
1
P SIMC tuning. To illustrate this, let us consider P = 20s+1
Ti s
- (Kg = 1, h = 1, τ = 20) and λ = h = 1. The corresponding
1
1-a s time responses for SIMC and ESIMC are depicted in Fig.
reset 6 (top). As it can be seen, the two methods yield very
similar results (indeed, the same happens in general for any
Fig. 5. Unity feedback scheme using the PI+CI controller. ratio between the time delay and the time constant). More
precisely, the PI parameters are Kc = 10, Ti = 8 (SIMC)
and Kc = 10.8571, Ti = 8 (ESIMC). If we now consider
and the proposed design are suggested in Table IV. By
assuming positive logic and that set-point changes occur at
1.5
t = 0, the reset signal is:
1 if 0 ≤ t ≤ tsp 1
reset(t) = (22)
0 if t > tsp y
0.5 SIMC
The rationale behind Table IV is explained next. Note that Proposed (ESIMC)
the PI+CI controller offers only a restricted implementation 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
of the general switched scheme, since the reset mechanism t
just acts over the integral term. Therefore, Ti is chosen as in 1.5
Table III (γ = λ) when the reset is inactive, and α is such that
α
Ti is equal to the other extreme value of Ti given in Table III 1
for γ = |τ |. The idea is to recover the largest possible value
y
of Ti when the reset is active. This way, during the set-point 0.5
Option Kc Ti α
1 Ti τ (h+2λ)−λ2 τ (h+2λ)−λ2
1 Kg λ+|τ |+h−Ti τ +h τ (h+λ+|τ |)−λ|τ |
h+2λ−λ2 /τ τ (h+2λ)−λ2 τ (h+2λ)−λ2
1 τ
2 Kg λ+h h+λ τ +h τ (h+λ+|τ |)−λ|τ |
controller, b = 0.25 (decreasing b further does not reduce [3] S. Skogestad and I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable Feedback Control.
the overshoot significantly). As for the PI+CI controller, Wiley, 2005.
τ (h+2λ)−λ2 [4] K. Astrom and T. Hagglund, Advanced PID control. ISA - The
α = τ (h+λ+|τ |)−λ|τ | = 0.1087 according to Table IV, and Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, 2006.
tsp = 3. In this particular example, it seems that the PI+CI [5] D. Rivera, M. Morari, and S. Skogestad, “Internal Model Control. Part
4: PID Controller Design,” Int. Eng. Chem. Process. Des. Dev., no. 25,
pp. 252–265, 1986.
[6] I. G. Horn, J. R. Arulandu, C. J. Gombas, J. G. VanAntwerp, and R. D.
1.4
Braatz, “Improved Filter Design in Internal Model Control,” Industrial
& Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 3437 – 3441,
1.2 1996.
[7] Y. Lee, M. Lee, S. Park, and C. Brosilow, “PID controller tuning
1 for desired closed-loop responses for SI/SO systems,” AiCHE journal,
vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 106 – 115, 1998.
0.8 [8] J. He, Q. Wang, and T. Lee, “PI/PID controller tuning via LQR
approach,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 55, pp. 2429 – 2439,
y
2000.
0.6
[9] S. Skogestad, “Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID
controller tuning,” J. Process Control, vol. 13, pp. 291–309, 2003.
0.4 [10] R. Vilanova, “IMC based Robust PID design: Tuning guidelines and
1−DOF PI automatic tuning,” Journal of Process Control, vol. 18, pp. 61–70,
0.2 2−DOF PI (b=0.25) 2008.
PI+CI (Option 1, t =3)
sp [11] M. Shamsuzzohaa and S. Skogestad, “The setpoint overshoot method:
0
A simple and fast closed-loop approach for PID tuning,” Journal of
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Process Control, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1220 – 1234, 2010.
t
[12] S. Alcántara, C. Pedret, R. Vilanova, and W. Zhang, “Unified
Servo/Regulator Design for Robust PID Tuning,” Proc. of IEEE
Fig. 7. Time responses for 1-DOF PI, 2-DOF PI and PI+CI schemes. Conference on Control Applications, 2010.
[13] R. N. Tantaris, L. H. Keel, and S. P. Bhattacharyya, “H∞ Design
With First Order Controllers,” in Proc. of the IEEE Conference on
controller may be advantageous with respect to the 2-DOF PI Decision and Control, 2003.
controller. In particular, a set-point response with shorter rise [14] G. Zames and B. Francis, “Feedback, minimax sensitivity, and optimal
robustness,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-28, no. 5, pp. 585
time and lower overshoot is attained. However, to establish – 601, 1983.
this thesis completely, a more thorough study is necessary. [15] M. Vidyasagar, Control System Synthesis. A factorization approach.
MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS [16] B. A. Francis, A course in H∞ Control theory. Springer-Verlag.
Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, 1987.
Tuning rules for PI control have been obtained from an [17] D. Youla, H. Jabr, and J. Bongiorno, “Modern Wiener-Hopf design
analytical H∞ methodology. The resulting tuning expres- of optimal controllers, part II: The multivariable case,” IEEE Trans.
sions take into account set-point tracking and disturbance Automat. Contr., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 319–338, 1976.
[18] S. Skogestad, “Tuning for Smooth PID Control with Acceptable
attenuation and are valid for both stable and unstable plants. Disturbance Rejection,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research,
As reported in [23], even in the stable case, there is some vol. 45, no. 23, pp. 7817 – 7822, 2006.
room to improve the SIMC rule. In this line, the presented [19] A. Feuer, G. C. Goodwin, and M. Salgado, “Potential benefits of
hybrid control for linear time invariant plants,” in Proc. of the IEEE
design constitutes a good framework to improve the SIMC American Control Conference, vol. 5, 1997, pp. 2790 – 2794.
settings, including unstable plants in the discussion. The [20] A. Baños and A. Vidal, “Definition and tuning of a PI+CI reset
controller,” in Proc. of the European Control Conference, 2007, pp.
presented tuning rules have also been applied to systematic 4792 – 4798.
tuning of the PI+CI controller, which has been compared [21] J. Bakkeheim, T. A. Johansen, . N. Smogeli, and A. J. Sørensen,
with the more common 2-DOF PI control law. “Lyapunov-Based Integrator Resetting With Application to Marine
Thruster Control,” IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 908 – 917, 2008.
[22] A. Vidal and A. Baños, “Reset compensation for temperature control:
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support Experimental application on heat exchangers,” Chemical Engineering
received from the Spanish CICYT program under grant Journal, vol. 159, no. 1 – 3, pp. 170 – 181, 2010.
[23] C. Grimholt, “Verification and improvements of the SIMC method
DPI2010-15230. for PI control,” Project Report, Department of Chemical Engineering,
NTNU, 2010, available at H T T P :// W W W . N T . N T N U . N O / U S E R S /
R EFERENCES S K O G E / D I P L O M / P R O S J E K T 10/ G R I M H O L T /.