1. The document discusses PID controller tuning and how to achieve acceptable stability and fast responses for a control system.
2. It explains that faster responses typically lead to worse stability while better stability leads to slower responses, so the goal is to achieve acceptable stability.
3. The document then demonstrates how a Smith predictor controller can significantly improve stability and performance for a system with time delays compared to a traditional PID controller.
1. The document discusses PID controller tuning and how to achieve acceptable stability and fast responses for a control system.
2. It explains that faster responses typically lead to worse stability while better stability leads to slower responses, so the goal is to achieve acceptable stability.
3. The document then demonstrates how a Smith predictor controller can significantly improve stability and performance for a system with time delays compared to a traditional PID controller.
1. The document discusses PID controller tuning and how to achieve acceptable stability and fast responses for a control system.
2. It explains that faster responses typically lead to worse stability while better stability leads to slower responses, so the goal is to achieve acceptable stability.
3. The document then demonstrates how a Smith predictor controller can significantly improve stability and performance for a system with time delays compared to a traditional PID controller.
1. The document discusses PID controller tuning and how to achieve acceptable stability and fast responses for a control system.
2. It explains that faster responses typically lead to worse stability while better stability leads to slower responses, so the goal is to achieve acceptable stability.
3. The document then demonstrates how a Smith predictor controller can significantly improve stability and performance for a system with time delays compared to a traditional PID controller.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 16
PID MANUAL TUNING
The aim of the controller tuning
If possible, we would like to obtain both of the following for the control system: Fast responses, and Good stability Unfortunately, for most practical processes being controlled with a PID controller, these two wishes can not be achieed simultaneously!
In other words "he faster responses, the worse stability, and "he better stability, the slower responses! For a control system, it is more important that it has good stability than being fast! So, we specif : Acceptable stability (good stability, but not too good as it gives too slow responses) "he plot below e#plain the aim of control tuning! Step response for LTI !tf ! "#$%&'(,") *$%%+ ,$,%)')(- $%D&' Step Scope tf([5.928],[1 3.994 0.09181]) LTI System (esponse %bseration )ystem is unstable! )etpoint is not met! *+ ,pplying PID -ontroller to achiee the stability of the system! 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time A m p l i t u d e Step response for LTI (tf ( [5.928],[1 3.994 0.09181]) Simulation time-30 sec
Step input Step response Analsis of PID .ontroller/ $odel for PID -ontroller! P$0/1 Process 2aria3le S$P/1 Set point$ 4esponse 5 )$ PI .ontroller/ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0.5 1 1.5
X: 16 Y: 1.428 time R e s p o n s e unit step Response Response of LTI system having T.F=([5.928],[1 3.994 0.09181]) on using PI( P=1,I=1) &$ PD .ontroller/ *$ PID .ontroller!fast response, poor sta3ilit-/
0 50 100 150 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 on using PD( P=7.25,D=1.5) Time R e s p o n s e
Step input Response 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Time R e s p o n s e
Step input Response Response of LTI system having T.F=([5.928],[1 3.994 0.09181]) Response of LTI system having T.F=([5.928],[1 3.994 0.09181]) on using PID(P=3,I=6,D=0.2) .! PID -ontroller /marginally stable0* 1! PID -ontroller/,ccurate stability0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 on using PID(P=0.5,I=0.64,D=0.5) Time R e s p o s e
unitstep response 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Time R e s o n s e
step input response Response of LTI system having T.F=([5.928],[1 3.994 0.09181]) Step response for LTI (tf ( [5.928],[1 3.994 0.09181]) P=0.033,I=.056,D=-0.2 63ser2ation &ffects of increasing a parameter independently Parameter 4ise time 62ershoot Settling time Stead/state error Sta3ilit Decrease Increase )mall change Decrease Degrade Decrease Increase Increase &liminate Degrade $inor change Decrease Decrease 2o effect in theory Improe if small 7eha2ior of .ontrol Sstem on Introducing Transport Dela $odel '"I tf/31!4567,38 9!44. :!:486870
Parameter 0alue P :!:5.985;68..:5.94 I :!:::48566;<448.1:;1 D *:!5..8.51<;:.591< Performance 0alue )ettling "ime =8:: s %ershoot =8:> (ise "ime 5;!6 s Time Dela ,$) sec 5 Sta3le 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Time A m p l i t u d e
Step Input Time Delay .01s Step Response Performance 0alue )ettling "ime =8:: s %ershoot =8:> (ise "ime 5;!< s Time Dela ,$# sec 5 Sta3le 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Time A m p l i t u d e
Step Input Time Delay .05s Step Response Performance 0alue )ettling "ime =4; s %ershoot =88> (ise "ime 5<!< s Time Dela ) sec 5 Sta3le 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Time A m p l i t u d e
Step Input Time Delay 1 s Step Response Performance 0alue )ettling "ime =41 s %ershoot =8.> (ise "ime 51!1 s Time Dela # sec 5 Sta3le 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 0.5 1 1.5 Time A m p l i t u d e
Step Input Time Delay 5s Step Response Time Dela ), sec 5 Sta3le Performance 0alue )ettling "ime =59< s %ershoot =.9> (ise "ime 5:!6 s 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Time A m p l i t u d e
Step Input Time Delay 10s Step Response Performance 0alue )ettling "ime =8!4e9 s %ershoot =49> (ise "ime 84!6 s Time Dela )# sec / Unsta3le 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Time A m p l i t u d e
Step Input Time Delay 15s Step Response Performance 0alue )ettling "ime 2a2 %ershoot =5!9e<9> (ise "ime 84!6 s Time Dela ))$)%8 sec 5 Marginall Sta3le 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time A m p l i t u d e
Step Input Time Delay 11.197s Step Response Performance 0alue )ettling "ime 2a2 %ershoot =85<> (ise "ime 84!; s Smith Predictor .ontrolling Sstems with Time Dela It is difficult to obtain satisfactory performances of control systems with time delay, which is a well recogni?ed problem in many control processes! "ime delay, also called dead time, is mostly aroused by transportation lags, measurement lags, analysis times, computation and communication lags! ,nd it e#ists in a lot of systems such as industrial process control systems, engineering systems, economical, and biological systems! Defining Dead time @ Dead time is a delay between when a process ariable changes, and when that change can be obsered! Dead time can also be caused by a system or output actuator that is slow to respond to the control command, for instance, a ale that is slow to open or close! 7asic 7loc9 Diagram @ Analsis '"I tf/31!4567,38 9!44. :!:486870 63ser2ation 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Time A m p l i t u d e Transport delay-15sec
Step input PID response Smith response Response for LTI (tf ( [5.928],[1 3.994 0.09181]) "he aboe mode is simulated with both PID and )mith predictor to compare the stability ability of both! Parameters of PID controller are selected to get the best results "he (ed line represent the step response of system with PID -ontroller while Alue is with )mith Predictor! Be can see that the step response of system with )mith predictor is much better! "he time delay item is eliminated in case of )mith Predictor which improes the control performance significantly!