Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal On Robust Design of PID Controller Using IMC Technique For Integrating Process Based On Maximum Sensitivity
Journal On Robust Design of PID Controller Using IMC Technique For Integrating Process Based On Maximum Sensitivity
DOI 10.1007/s40313-015-01960
1 Introduction
Vast majority of chemical processes like batch chemical
reactors and liquid-level systems are non-self-regulating
(integrating) in nature. Many of the chemical processes run
as batches because of possible formulation changes (Chien
and Fruehauf 1990; Shamsuzzoha and Lee 2008a). Design
of the
K e s
(1)
L (s)
+
R
(s _
)
Feedback Controller
GP(s)
Process
+
Y(s)
IMC Tuning
123
Lead-Lag
Filter
G C (s)
D(s)
++
(3)
Q(s)
1 Q(s)G M(s)
(4)
The optimal IMC filter [Eq. (6)] for the FOPDT is achieved
from Eq. (5) with n = 2. The enhanced performance of the
PID controller is achieved with higher-order filter in comparison with the lower-order filter.
G f (s ) =
( a s + 1)
(6)
1 - rG M + (s)(as + 1)
(s
2
+ 1)
(7)
Ke- s
s+P
(8)
P K e- s
G M (s) = Ps + 1
(9)
1 +
s 2(a s + 1 )
2s
- 1 - 2 s (as + 1)
(14)
ds 2 + cs + 1
+ Td s
Ti s
2 +
KP =
(16b)
(16c)
+P
a=
+ - a
32+ 1.5
(3 + - 2a )
b=
c=
(16a)
(15)
bs 2 + as + 1
P K (3 + - 2a)
Ti = P +
1
+
s+1
PK
r
(s + 1)3 1 +
(10)
, G (Ms ) = eG M- (s ) =
s
(13)
1 + 2s
-2 s
G C (s) =
Td =
Ps
(12)
e- s =
G M-1 - ( s ) ( a s + 1 ) 2 ( s + 1)
3
s+1
(as+1)2
r(s + 1)3 - (as +
PK
1)2 e- s
(5)
n+1
+ 1)
( as+
2
G f (s) = 1)
(s + 1)3
G C (s) =
G C (s) =
(s
a2
(17b)
+ 1.52 + a
(3 + - 2a )
2
(17a)
(17c)
(3 + - 2a )
d = 2a
(17d)
Ps+1
PK
( a s + 1)
1)3
(s +
(11)
= 0; simplification yields
123
KP
Ti
Td
Ms
Disturbance
tr e
Proposed
Setpoint
Peak
IAE
IAE
14.7
5.56
2.553
0.0956
103.7
4.933
3.568
1.85
1.9
1.9
47.222
52.9
0.416
0.484
9.235
12.9
14.74
9.431
11.3
0.531
24.533
2.467
1.9
49.734
0.487
12.32
24
11
0.536
35.137
2.286
1.9
72.322
0.493
16.36
23.42
ChienFruehauf
15.28
0.526
37.96
3.339
1.9
80.216
0.464
18.02
23.65
Horn et al.
11.8
1.6
103.7
3.568
1.9
62.342
0.554
16.41
26.98
Rivera et al.
3.31
0.484
103.7
3.568
1.9
0.532
40.61
23.44
Paul et al.
15.12
0.531
37.64
3.336
1.9
>140
78.82
0.463
17.69
23.56
6.5
0.5083
103.7
3.568
1.9
>140
0.463
38.44
21.01
Gopi
Krishna
Rao et al.
(2013)
Fig. 3 Load disturbance
response nominal model case
study 1
r
a = P 1 -
1 -
(18)
3 Setpoint Filter
The IMC-PID controllers described above are specifically
designed for disturbance rejection with the IMC filter
G f (s) = (as + 1)2 (s + 1)3 . The closed-loop transfer
function produces a lead term (as + 1) causing excessive
overshoot in the servo response for step change in setpoint
input. The occurrence of overshoot in the output response
to
step
123changes in setpoint is inherent in integrating systems.
By
tr e
Proposed
Shamsuzzoha and Lee (2008a)
14.7
5.56
Peak
IAE
51
49
0.455
0.520
9.221
12.9
11.3
47.1
0.522
12.26
11
71.8
0.53
16.35
ChienFruehauf
15.28
78.7
0.498
18.01
Horn et al.
11.8
59.8
0.588
16.27
Rivera et al.
3.31
0.567
40.61
Paul et al.
15.12
>140
78.7
0.496
17.68
6.5
>140
0.501
38.45
Gopi
Krishna
Rao et al.
(2013)
the addition of a setpoint filter G f r (s) of the form Eq. (19)
G f r (s) =
s+1
as + 1
(19)
IAE =
(20)
|e(t )dt |
123
The recovery time (tr e ) is the time period from the instance
Case
study 1
KP
Ti
Proposed
Shamsuzzoha and Lee (2008c)
23.75
19.3
4.142
1.466
103
34.169
21.75
1.467
58.634
Paul et al.
23.5
1.492
53
Horn et al.
20.6
3.098
103
Rivera et al.
9.15
1.344
103
Gopi
Krishna
Rao et al.
(2013)
Shamsuzzo
ha and Lee
(2008a)
Proposed
123
(for Ms =
1.63)
10.8
1.4751
24
16.15
2.913
1.490
Peak
IAE
IAE
1.4
1.4
59.01
59.02
0.127
0.143
6.006
6.043
19.05
25.53
1.195
1.4
84.77
0.151
9.879
25.7
2.830
1.4
80.28
0.138
8.863
26.45
2.913
1.4
72.5
0.164
8.441
30.7
2.913
1.4
147
0.167
17
29.23
103
2.913
1.4
140.5
0.146
15.39
26.08
0.0323
1.5
1.63
180
0.283
28.11
20.33
6.860
103
2.913
1.63
41.7
0.107
3.67
16.29
t
re
Proposed
IAE
23.75
19.3
59
58.22
0.131
0.149
6.006
6.025
21.75
84.2
0.156
9.876
Paul et al.
23.5
80
0.141
8.861
Horn et al.
20.6
72.5
0.169
8.417
Rivera et al.
9.15
146.1
0.171
17
Gopi
Krishna
Rao et al.
Proposed (for M s = 1. 63)
(2013)
10.8
138.8
0.149
15.4
24
178.7
0.288
28.1
16.15
41.72
0.111
3.602
0
G M (s) =
.4 s
.2 e -7
s
(21)
e-6s
(22)
5 Conclusions
n+1
a) An
IMC filterfor
of the
G f (s)
(ascontroller
+ 1) (s based
+
is proposed
theform
design
of =
PID
n
1)
123
Td =
P,
P K (3 + - 2a)
P2
2
+P
Ti = P + , 2
r
a = P 1 -
1- P
31
123
References
Alcntara, S., Vilanova, R., & Pedret, C. (2013). PID control in terms
of
robustness/performance and servo/regulator trade-offs: A
unifying approach to balanced auto tuning. Journal of Process
Control,
23(4), 527542.
123
Zhao, Z., Liu, Z., & Zhang, J. (2011b). IMC-PID robust tuning
method
for integrated process with time-delay. Journal of Huazhong
University of Science and Technology (Nature Science
Edition),
39(12).