Advertisement

Type-I Control Loops

  • Konstantinos G. PapadopoulosEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.3k Downloads

Abstract

In this chapter, the tuning of the PID controller via the Magnitude Optimum criterion for type-I control loops is presented. Initially, the revision of the conventional Magnitude Optimum design criterion for tuning the PID type controller’s parameters is presented in Sect. 3.2, which serves as a basis for the reader to understand the current state of the art, see Sects. 3.2.13.2.4. This revision reveals three fundamental drawbacks, which are summarized in Sect. 3.2.5 and prove to restrict the PID controller’s optimal tuning in terms of robustness and disturbance rejection at the output of the plant. Sorting out these drawbacks in the beginning, one can argue that: (1) with the conventional PID tuning and for determining the PID controller’s zeros, exact pole-zero cancellation has to be achieved between the processes’ poles and the controller’s zeros. (2) To this end, the conventional PID tuning via the Magnitude Optimum criterion restricts the controller’s zeros to be tuned only with real zeros. (3) Last but not the least, the conventional design procedure via the Magnitude Optimum criterion has been tested only to a limited class of simple process models. To overcome the aforementioned drawbacks, a revised PID type control law is then proposed in Sect. 3.3. For the development of the control law a general transfer function process model is employed in the frequency domain. The final control law consists of analytical expressions that involve all modeled process parameters. The resulting control law can be applied directly to any linear single input single output stable process regardless of its complexity. A summary of the explicit solution is presented in Sect. 3.3 and the analytical proof of the control law is presented in Appendix B.1. For evaluating the proposed theory, an extensive simulation test batch between the conventional and the revised PID tuning is performed in Sect. 3.4 for various benchmark processes. Throughout this evaluation, the validity of several literature comments related to the Magnitude Optimum criterion is discussed in Sects. 3.4.6 and 3.4.7. Finally, it is shown that the performance of the proposed control law compared to the conventional PID design procedure achieves satisfactory results both in the time and the frequency domain, in terms of robustness and disturbance rejection.

Keywords

Pole-zero Cancellation Optimal Magnitude Output Disturbance Rejection Conventional Design Procedure Ziegler-Nichols Step Response Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Åström KJ (1995) Model uncertainty and robust control. Tech. rep., Department of Automatic Control, Lund University, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Åström KJ, Hagglund T (1995) PID controllers: theory, design and tuning, 2nd edn. Instrument Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Åström KJ, Hagglund T (2004) Revisiting the Ziegler–Nichols step response method for PID control. J Process Control 14(6):635–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bahrani B, Kenzelmann S, Rufer A (2011) Multivariable-PI-based current control of voltage source converters with superior axis decoupling capability. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 58(7):3016–3026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brosilow C, Joseph B (2002) Techniques of model-based control, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bühler H (1979) Électronique de reglage et de commande. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bühler HR (1997) Reglage des systemes d’electronique de puissance, vol 1, 2 and 3, Theorie, 1st edn. PPUR: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires romandesGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buxbaum A, Schierau K, Straughen A (1990) Design of control systemsfor DC drives. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Courtiol B, Landau ID (1975) High speed adaptation system for controlled electrical drives. Automatica 11(2):119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Föllinger O (1994) Regelungstechnik. Hüthig, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fröhr F, Orttenburger F (1982) Introduction to electronic control engineering. Siemens, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodwin GC, Graebe SF, Salgado ME (2001) Control system design. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haalman A (1965) Adjusting controllers for a dead time process. Control Engineering Practice, pp 71–73Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habetler TG (1993) A space vector-based rectifier regulator for AC/DC/AC converters. IEEE Trans Power Electron 8(1):30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kessler C (1955) UG ber die Vorausberechnung optimal abgestimmter regelkreise teil III. Die optimale einstellung des reglers nach dem betragsoptimum. Regelungstechnik 3:40–49Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kessler C (1958) Das symmetrische optimum. Regelungstechnik, pp 395–400 and 432–426Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loron L (1997) Tuning of PID controllers by the non-symmetrical optimum method. Automatica 33(1):103–107CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lutz H, Wendt W (1998) Taschenbuch der regelungstechnik, 1st edn. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag, Harri DeutschGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mohan N, Undeland TM, Robbind WF (1989) Power electronics: converters, applications and design, 1st edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morari M, Zafiriou E (1989) Robust process control, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oldenbourg RC, Sartorius H (1954) A uniform approach to the optimum adjustment of control loops. Trans ASME 76:1265–1279Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sartorius H (1945) Die zweckmässige festlegung der frei wählbaren regelungskonstanten. Master thesis, Technische Hochscule, Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schauder C, Mehta H (1993) Vector analysis and control of advanced static VAr compensators. IEE Proc Gener, Transm Distrib 140(4):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Umland WJ, Safiuddin M (1990) Magnitude and symmetric optimum criterion for the design of linear controlsystems: what is it and how does it compare with the others? IEEE Trans Ind Appl 26(3):489–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Voda AA, Landau ID (1995) A method for the auto-calibration of PID controllers. Automatica 31(1):41–53CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vrančić D, Strmčnik S (1999) Practical guidelines for tuning PID controllers by using MOMI method. In: International symposium on industrial electronics, IEEE, vol 3, pp 1130–1134Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vrančić D, Kristiansson B, Strmčnik S (2004) Reduced MO tuning method for PID controllers. In: 5th Asian control conference, IEEE, vol 1, pp 460–465Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ATDDABB IndustriesTurgiSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations