CHAPTER 12: Controller Design, Tuning,

& Troubleshooting

Anis Atikah Ahmad

anisatikah@unimap.edu.my
Steps in Process Control
 Outline
 Performance Criteria for Closed-Loop Systems
 PID Controller Design:
 Model-Based Design Method
 Direct Synthesis Method
 Internal Model Control (IMC)
 Controller Tuning Relations
 IMC Tuning Relations
 Tuning Relations Based on Integral Error Criteria
 Miscellaneous Tuning Method
 Controllers with Two Degrees o Freedom
 On-Line Controller Tuning
 Continuous Cycling Method
 Guidelines for Common Control Loops
 Troubleshooting Control Loops
Performance Criteria for Closed-Loop Systems

Which of the
following
provides the
best
response????

Unit-step disturbance responses of FOPTD model & PI controller

Performance Criteria for Closed-Loop
Systems
 The function of a feedback control system is to ensure that
the closed loop system has desirable dynamic and
steady-state response characteristics.
 Ideally, we would like the closed-loop system to satisfy
the following performance criteria:
Performance Criteria for Closed-Loop
Systems

*Robust: provide satisfactory performance for a wide range of

process conditions and for reasonable degree of model inaccuracy.
PID Controller Settings

PID controller settings can be determined by a number of

alternative techniques:
1. Direct Synthesis (DS) method
In the Direct Synthesis (DS) method, the controller design is based on
a process model and a desired closed-loop transfer function.

Consider the block diagram of a feedback control system in Figure

12.2.

The closed-loop transfer function for set-point changes is:

Y K mGc Gv G p
 Eq. 12-1
Ysp 1  Gc Gv G p Gm
1. Direct Synthesis (DS) method [cont.]

For simplicity, let G  Gv G p Gm and assume that Gm = Km.

Then Eq. 12-1 reduces to:

Y Gc G
 Eq. 12-2
Ysp 1  Gc G

Rearranging and solving for Gc gives an expression for the feedback

controller:
Y Ysp
Gc 
G 1  Y Ysp 
Eq. 12-3a
1. Direct Synthesis (DS) method [cont.]

Equation 12-3a cannot be used for controller design because the

closed-loop transfer function Y/Ysp is not known.

Also, it is useful to distinguish between the actual process G and the

model, that provides an approximation of the process behavior.

A practical design
~ equation can be derived by replacing the
unknown G by G , and Y/Ysp by a desired closed-loop transfer
function, (Y/Ysp)d:

Y Y 
sp d
Gc  ~
G 1  Y Ysp  d
Eq. 12-3b
1. Direct Synthesis (DS) method [cont.]
Note that the controller transfer function in (12-3b) contains the
inverse of the process model.
Y Y 
sp
Gc  ~ d

G 1  Y Ysp  d
Eq. 12-3b

For processes without time delays, the first-order model in Eq. 12-4
is a reasonable choice,
Y 
   1 Eq. 12-4
 Y   s 1
 sp  d c

Where τc is the desired closed loop time constant.

Because the steady-state gain is one, no offset occurs for set-point

changes.
1. Direct Synthesis (DS) method [cont.]
By substituting (12-4) into (12-3b) :
Y 
   1
Y Y 
sp
Gc  ~ d
 Y   s 1
 sp  d c G 1  Y Ysp  d

Solving for Gc , the controller design equation becomes:

1 1
Gc  ~ Eq. 12-5
G  cs

The term 1  c sprovides integral control action and thus

eliminates offset.

Design parameter  c provides a convenient controller tuning parameter

that can be used to make the controller more aggressive (small ) cor less
aggressive (large c ).
Direct Synthesis (DS) method [cont.]
If the process transfer function contains a known time delay θ, a
reasonable choice for the desired closed-loop transfer function is:
Y  e s
   Eq. 12-6
 Y   s 1
 sp  d c

The time-delay term in (12-6) is essential because it is physically

impossible for the controlled variable to respond to a set-point
change at t = 0.

Combining Eqs. 12-6 and 12-3b :

Y  e s Y Y 
sp d
   Gc  ~
 Y   s 1 G 1  Y Ysp  d
 sp  d c
Direct Synthesis (DS) method [cont.]

Combining Eqs. 12-6 and 12-3b

Y  e s Y Y 
sp d
   Gc  ~
 Y   s 1 G 1  Y Ysp  d
 sp  d c

Gives:
1 e s
Gc  ~ s

G c s  1  e Eq. 12-7

The following derivation is based on approximating the time-delay

term in the denominator of (12-7) with a truncated Taylor series
expansion:
e s  1  s Eq. 12-8
1. Direct Synthesis (DS) method [cont.]
Substituting (12-8) into the denominator of Eq. 12-7

1 e s
e s  1  s Gc  ~
G  c s  1  e s
and rearranging gives
1 e s
Gc  ~
G  c    s
Eq. 12-9

Note that this controller also contains integral control action.

1. Direct Synthesis (DS) method [cont.]
1. First-Order-plus-Time-Delay (FOPTD) Model

Consider the standard FOPTD model,

~ Ke s
G Eq. 12-10
s  1

Substituting Eq. 12-10 into Eq. 12-9 and rearranging gives a PI

controller;
s 1 e s  1 
~ Ke Gc  ~ 
Gc  K c 1  
G  Is 
s  1 G  c    s
 I s 1
 K c   PI controller
with the following controller settings:  Is 
1 
Kc  I  Eq. 12-11
K   c
Direct Synthesis (DS) method [cont.]
2. Second-Order-plus-Time-Delay (FOPTD) Model

Consider a second-order-plus-time-delay model,

~ Ke s
G Eq. 12-12
 1s  1 2 s  1
Substitution into Eq. 12-9 and rearranging gives a PID controller;

~ Ke s 1 e s  1 
G Gc  ~ Gc  K c 1    D s 
 1s  1 2 s  1 G  c    s
 Is 
Eq. 12-13
with the following controller settings:
1 1   2  1 2
Kc   I  1   2 D  Eq. 12-14
K c  1   2
Example 12.1

Use the DS design method to calculate PID controller settings for

the process:
2e  s
G
10s  1 5s  1
Consider three values of the desired closed-loop time constant: .
 c  1,3,10
Evaluate the controllers for unit step changes in both the set point
and the disturbance, assuming that Gd = G.

Repeat the evaluation for two cases:~

a. The process model is perfect ~ ( G = G).
b.The model gain is incorrect, K= 0.9, instead of the actual
value, K = 2.
Example 12.1- Solution

Use the DS design method to calculate PID controller settings for

the two cases:
~ 2e s
G
10s  1 5s  1  10 s  1 5s  1 e s
Gc 
1 e s 2e s  c    s
Gc  ~
G  c    s
Comparing with standard PID controller;

Gc 
 10s  1 5s  1  1 
Gc  K c 1    D s 
2 c    s  Is 
50 s 2  15s  1   I D s 2   I s  1 
 comparing  K c  
2 c    s  Is 
Thus;
 I  15  D  50 15  3.33 K c  15  2 c  1 
Example 12.1- Solution

The controller settings are as follows:

 I  15  D  50 15  3.33 K c  15  2 c  1  (a)For K
=2
K c  15  0.9 c  1  (b)For K =0.9

The values of Kc decrease as τc increases, but the values of τI and τD and do not
change
Simulink diagram for Example 12.1
Example 12.1- Solution
~ ~
G
Simulation results for (a) ( = G), K 2

Increasing τc

As τc increases, the
responses become
more sluggish
Increasing τc
Example 12.1- Solution
~
Simulation results for (b) ( K = 0.9).

Increasing τc

As τc increases, the
responses become
more sluggish
Example 12.1- Solution

Which one is better???WHY?

~ ~
K 2 K  0. 9

1 1   2
Kc 
K c 
 2. Internal Model Control (IMC)
The Internal Model Control (IMC), similar to DS method, is based on an
assumed process model and leads to analytical expressions for the controller
settings.

The IMC method is based on the simplified block diagram shown in Fig. 12.6b.

~
The model response Y is subtracted
from the actual response Y, and the
~
difference, Y  Y is used as the
input signal to the IMC controller,

Fig. 12.6
Internal Model Control (IMC)

The two block diagrams are identical if controllers Gc and Gc* satisfy the
relation:
Gc*
Gc  *~
Eq. 12.16
1  Gc G

Any IMC controller is

equivalent to a standard
feedback controller Gc,
and vice versa.

Fig. 12.6
2. Internal Model Control (IMC)

The following closed-loop relation for IMC can be derived as follows:

~
GG *
1 G G *
Y ~ Ysp 
   
c c
~ D Eq. 12.17
1  Gc G  G
*
1  Gc G  G
*

~
For the special case of a perfect model, G  G Eq. 12.17 reduces to
*
c
~

Y  G GYsp  1  G G D *
c  Eq. 12.18
2. Internal Model Control (IMC)

The IMC controller is designed in two steps:

1.The process model is factored as

~ ~ ~
G  G G Eq. 12.19

~
G
where contains any time delay and right half plane zeros.

2. The controller is specified as:

1
G  ~ f
*
c
G Eq. 12.20

Where f is a low-pass filter with steady state gain of one and:

1
f 
 c s  1 r Eq. 12.21
2. Internal Model Control (IMC)
~
For an ideal case where the process is perfect ( G  G), substituting the IMC
1
controller transfer function G  ~ fin closed loop relation,
*
c
G

Y  Gc GYsp  1  Gc G Dgives
* * ~

~ ~

Y  G fYsp  1  fG D  Eq. 12.22

Thus, the closed-loop transfer function for set-point changes (D=0) is:

Y ~
 G f Eq. 12.23
Ysp
Example 12.2
Use the IMC design method to design a FOPTD model. Assume that f is
specified by eq 12.21 with r=1, and consider 1/1 Padé approximation for the
time delay term
~ Ke s
FOPTD Model: G 
s  1 1 s Eq. 12.24a
According to 1/1 Padé approximation, e
s
 2

1 s
Substituting into FOPTD Model; 2

  
K 1  s 
~  2 
G Eq. 12.25
  
1  s s  1
 2 
Example 12.2 cont.

Using 2 steps in IMC Controller design;

~ ~ ~
STEP 1: Factor this model asG  G G
contains any time
  
K 1  s  delay and right
~  2  ~  half plane zeros
Model: G 
  
G  1  s
1  s s  1 2 Eq. 12.26
 2 

~
~ G
Thus, G  ~  K

G   
1  s s  1 Eq. 12.27
 2 
Example 12.2 cont.

Using 2 steps in IMC Controller design;

1
STEP 2: Specify the controller into G  ~ f
*
c
G

~ K 1
Thus, substituting G  and f  ,
  
1  s s  1  c s  1 r

 2 

  
1  s s  1
 2 
Thus, Gc 
*

K  c s  1
Eq. 12.28
Example 12.2 cont.

Using 2 steps in IMC Controller design;

1
STEP 2: Specify the controller into G  ~ f
*
c
G

~ K 1
Thus, substituting G  and f  ,
  
1  s s  1  c s  1 r

 2 

  
1  s s  1
 2 
Thus, Gc 
*

K  c s  1
Eq. 12.28
Example 12.2 cont.
Gc*
The equivalent controller Gc can be obtained from eq 12.16; Gc  *~
1  Gc G

  
1  s s  1
 2 
Gc 
  Eq. 12.29
K  c   s
 2
And rearranged into PID controller;
 
2   1
1    
Kc   I   D 
K c  2  
2   1 2   1
     Eq. 12.30
*Type of controller (PI or PID) depends on time-delay approximation. Repeating this
derivation for Taylor series approximation gives a standard PI controller.
 3. Controller Tuning Relations
3.1. IMC Tuning Relations
Table 12.1
 3. Controller Tuning Relations
3.1. IMC Tuning Relations

Lag-dominant models (θ/τ<<1)

• First- or second-order models with relatively small time delays (θ/τ<<1 )

are referred to as lag-dominant models.
• The IMC and DS methods provide satisfactory set-point responses, but
very slow disturbance responses, because the value of τI is very large.
Fortunately, this problem can be solved in three different ways.

1. Approximate the lag-dominant model by integrator-plus-time delay model.

K *e s
G s  

K K 
*

s
Then apply IMC tuning relation in Table 12.1. (Case M or N)
 3. Controller Tuning Relations
3.1. IMC Tuning Relations

Lag-dominant models (θ/τ<<1)

2. Limit the value of τI

For lag-dominant models, the standard IMC controllers for first-order and
second-order models provide sluggish disturbance responses because τI is
very large.

As a remedy, Skogestad (2003) has proposed limiting the value of :

 I  min 1 ,4 c   
 3. Controller Tuning Relations
3.1. IMC Tuning Relations

Lag-dominant models (θ/τ<<1)

3. Design the controller for disturbance rejection, rather than set-point tracking.

For example, develop an extension of the DS approach based on closed-loop

transfer function for disturbance.

(Y/D)d, rather than (Y/Ysp)d

 Example 12.4

Consider a lag-dominant model withθ/τ =0.01:

~ 100
G s   es
100s  1
Design four PI controller;

(a)IMC (τc=1)
(b)IMC (τc=2) based on the integrator approximation
(c)IMC (τc=1) with Skogestad’s modification
(d)Direct synthesis method for disturbance rejection. The controller settings
are Kc=0.551 and τI=4.91

Evaluate the four controllers by comparing their performance for unit step
changes in both set point and disturbance.
 Example 12.4-solution
The PI controller settings are:

Kc τI
IMC 0.5 100
Integrator 0.556 5
approximation
Skogestad 0.5 8
DS (disturbance) 0.551 4.91
 Example 12.4-solution
Set-point response
IMC controller provides an excellent
set-point response, while the other
three controllers have significant
overshoots and longer settling
times.

However, the IMC controller produces

an unacceptably slow disturbance
response owing to its large τI value.

Disturbance
response
 3. Controller Tuning Relations
3.2 Tuning Relations Based on Integral Error Criteria
Controller tuning relations have been developed that optimize the closed-
loop response for a simple process model & a specified disturbance or set-
point change. The optimum settings minimize an integral error criterion.
Three popular integral error criteria are:

a. Integral of the absolute value of the error (IAE)


IAE   e t  dt
0
a. Integral of squared error (ISE)

ISE   e t  dt
2

a. Integral ofthe time-weighted absolute error (ITAE)

ITAE   t e t  dt
0
 3. Controller Tuning Relations
3.2 Tuning Relations Based on Integral Error Criteria

IAE
value

Graphical interpretation of IAE

 3. Controller Tuning Relations
3.2 Tuning Relations Based on Integral Error Criteria
 3. Controller Tuning Relations
3. 3 Miscellaneous Tuning Relations
• Hägglund and Åström tuning relations
G(s) Kc τI

Ke s 0.35
7
s K

Ke s 0.14 0.28 6.8

 0.33 
s  1 K K 100  

• Skogestad tuning relations

Condition Kc τI τD

0.5 1   2   1 2
 1  8 1   2
K  1   2 

 1  8 0.5 1  8   2  8 2
  8   2
K  8  8   2
 Controllers with two degree of freedom
The specification of controller settings for standard PID controller typically requires
a tradeoff between set-point tracking and disturbance rejection.

Fortunately, two simple strategies can be used to adjust the set-point and disturbance
responses independently. These strategies referred to as controllers with two degrees
of freedom.

First strategy: set point changes are introduced gradually rather than as abrupt
step changes . Eg: the set-point can be ramped or “filtered” by passing it through
first order transfer function:.

Ysp* 1

Ysp  f s 1
 Controllers with two degree of freedom
Second strategy: adjusting the set-point response, based on a simple modification of
the PID control law:

1 t * * dym 
 
p t   p  K c y sp  t   ym  t   K c   e t  dt   D
 dt

 I 0 
Set-point weighting factor, 0<β<1

As β increases, the set point response become faster but exhibits more overshoot.
When β =1, the modified control law reduces to standard PID control law.
 Set-point response
Example 12.6
 For the first-order-plus
delay model of Example
12.4, the PI controller with
DS-d settings provided the
best disturbance response.
However, its set point
response had a significant
overshoot.
 Can set-point weighting
significantly reduce the
overshoot without
adversely affecting the
settling time? Disturbance
response
 Example 12.6

 Set-point weighting with ß =0.5

provides a significant improvement,
because the overshoot is greatly
reduced and the settling time is
significantly decreased.
 4. On-line Controller Tuning
4.1 Continuous Cycling Method
Step 1. After the process has reached steady state (at least approximately),
eliminate the integral and derivative control action by setting τD to zero and τI to
the largest possible value.

Step 2. Set Kc equal to a small value (e.g., 0.5) and place the controller in the
automatic mode.

Step 3. Introduce a small, momentary set-point change so that the controlled

variable moves away from the set point.

- Gradually increase Kc in small increments until continuous cycling occurs.

- The term continuous cycling refers to a sustained oscillation with a constant
amplitude.
- The numerical value of Kc that produces continuous cycling (for proportional-
only control) is called the ultimate gain, Kcu.
- The period of the corresponding sustained oscillation is referred to as the
ultimate period, Pu.
 4. On-line Controller Tuning

4.1 Continuous Cycling Method

Step 4. Calculate the PID controller settings using the Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N)
tuning relations in Table 12.6.

Step 5. Evaluate the Z-N controller settings by introducing a small set-point

change and observing the closed-loop response. Fine-tune the settings, if
necessary.
 4. On-line Controller Tuning

4.1 Continuous Cycling Method

Figure 12.12 Experimental determination of the ultimate gain Kcu.

 4. On-line Controller Tuning

4.1 Continuous Cycling Method

Table 12.6. Controller settings based on the continuous cycling method

 Guidelines for Common Control Loops

1. Flow Rate
- Flow control loops are characterized by fast response with essentially no time delay
- For flow control loops, PI control is generally used.
- The presence of recurring high-frequency noise discourages the use of derivative
action because it amplifies the noise.

2. Gas Pressure

- PI controllers are normally used with only a small amount of integral control action
(тI is large)
- Derivative action is normally not needed because the process response times are
usually quite small compared to those of other process operations.
 Guidelines for Common Control Loops

3. Temperature
-General guidelines are difficult to state because of the wide variety of processes and
equipment involving heat transfer and different time scales.
-PID controller are commonly employed to provide more rapid responses than can be
obtained with PI controllers.

4. Liquid Level

- Standard P or PI controllers are commonly used for level control.

- Because offset is not important in averaging level control, it is reasonable to use a
proportional-only controller.
 Troubleshooting Control Loops

If a control loop is not performing satisfactorily, then troubleshooting is

necessary to identify the source of the problem.

Based on experience in the chemical industry, Buckley (1973) has observed

that a control loop that once operated satisfactorily can become either
unstable or excessively sluggish for a variety of reasons that include:

a. Changing process conditions, usually changes in throughput rate.

b. Sticking control valve stem
c. Plugged line in a pressure or differential pressure transmitter.
d. Fouled heat exchangers, especially reboilers for distillation columns.
e. Cavitating pumps (usually caused by a suction pressure that is too low).
 Troubleshooting Control Loops

The starting point for troubleshooting is to obtain enough background information

to clearly define the problem. Many questions need to be answered:

1.What is the process being controlled?

2.What is the controlled variable?
3.What are the control objectives?
4.Are closed-loop response data available?
5.Is the controller in the manual or automatic mode? Is it reverse or direct acting?
6.If the process is cycling, what is the cycling frequency?
7. What control algorithm is used? What are the controller settings?
8. Is the process open-loop stable?
9. What additional documentation is available, such as control loop summary
sheets, piping and instrumentation diagrams, etc.?

After acquiring this background information, the next step is to check out
each component in the control loop.