Open loop vs closed loop

The terms open-loop control and closed-loop control are often not clearly distinguished.
Therefore, the difference between open-loop control and closed-loop control is
demonstrated in the following example of a room heating system. In the case of open-
loop control of the room temperature according to Figure 1.1 the outdoor

Figure 1.1: Open-loop control of a room heating system

temperature will be measured by a temperature sensor and fed into a control device. In
the case of changes in the outdoor temperature ( disturbance ) the control device
adjusts the heating flow according to the characteristic of Figure 1.2 using
the motor M and the valve V. The slope of this characteristic can be tuned at the control
device. If the room temperature is changed by opening a window ( disturbance )
this will not influence the position of the valve, because only the outdoor temperature
will influence the heating flow. This control principle will not compensate the effects of
all disturbances.

Figure 1.2: Characteristic of a heating control device for three different tuning sets (1, 2,
3)

In the case of closed-loop control of the room temperature as shown in Figure 1.3 the
room temperature is measured and compared with the set-point value , (e.g.
 ). If the room temperature deviates from the given set-point value, a controller
(C) alters the heat flow . All changes of the room temperature , e.g. caused by
opening the window or by solar radiation, are detected by the controller and removed.

Figure 1.3: Closed-loop control of a room heating system

The block diagrams of the open-loop and the closed-loop temperature control systems are
shown in Figures 1.4 and 1.5, and from these the difference between open- and closed-
loop control is readily apparent.

Figure 1.4: Block diagram of the open-loop control of the heating system

Figure 1.5: Block diagram of the closed-loop control of the heating system

The order of events to organise a closed-loop control is characterised by the following

steps:
 • Measurement of the controlled variable ,
• Calculation of the control error (comparison of the controlled variable
with the set-point value ),
• Processing of the control error such that by changing the manipulated variable
the control error is reduced or removed.

Comparing open-loop control with closed-loop control the following differences are seen:

Closed-loop control

• shows a closed-loop action (closed control loop);

• can counteract against disturbances (negative feedback);
• can become unstable, i.e. the controlled variable does not fade away, but grows
(theoretically) to an infinite value.

Open-loop control

• shows an open-loop action (controlled chain);

• can only counteract against disturbances, for which it has been designed; other
disturbances cannot be removed;
• cannot become unstable - as long as the controlled object is stable.

Summarising these properties we can define:

Systems in which the output quantity has no effect upon the process input quantity are
called open-loop control systems.

Systems in which the output has an effect upon the process input quantity in such a
manner as to maintain the desired output value are called closed-loop control systems.

The classical three-term PID controller

We have seen in section 7.1 that proportional feedback control can reduce error responses
but that it still allows a non-zero steady-state error for a proportional system. In addition,
proportional feedback increases the speed of response but has a much larger transient
overshoot. When the controller includes a term proportional to the integral of the error,
then the steady-state error can be eliminated, as shown in section 7.2. But this comes at
the expense of further deterioration in the dynamic response. Addition of a term
proportional to the derivative of the error can damp the dynamic response. Combined,
these three kinds of actions form the classical PID controller, which is widely used in
industry.

This principle mode of action of the PID controller can be explained by the parallel
connection of the P, I and D elements shown in Figure 8.1. From this diagram the
transfer function of the PID controller is

(8.1)

Figure 8.1: Block diagram of the PID controller

The controller variables are

gain

integral action time

derivative action time

Eq. (8.1) can be rearranged to give

(8.2)
These three variables , and are usually tuned within given ranges. Therefore,
they are often called the tuning parameters of the controller. By proper choice of these
tuning parameters a controller can be adapted for a specific plant to obtain a good
behaviour of the controlled system.

If follows from Eq. (8.2) that the time response of the controller output is

(8.3)

Using this relationship for a step input of , i.e. , the step response of
the PID controller can be easily determined. The result is shown in Figure 8.2a. One has
to observe that the length of the arrow of the D action is only a measure of the
weight of the impulse.

Figure 8.2: Step responses (a) of the ideal and (b) of the real PID controller

In the previous considerations it has been assumed that a D behaviour can be realised by
the PID controller. This is an ideal assumption and in reality the ideal D element cannot
be realised (see section 3.3). In real PID controllers a lag is included in the D behaviour.
Instead of a D element in the block diagram of Figure 8.1 a element with the transfer
function

(8.4)

is introduced. From this the transfer function of the real PID controller or more precisely
of the controller follows as
 (8.5)

Introducing the controller tuning parameters

and

it follows

(8.6)

The step response of the controller is shown in Figure 8.2b. This response
from gives a large rise, which declines fast to a value close to the P action, and then
migrates into the slower I action. The P, I and D behaviour can be tuned independently.
In commercial controllers the 'D step' at can often be tuned 5 to 25 times larger than
the 'P step'. A strongly weighted D action may cause the actuator to reach its maximum
value, i.e. it reaches its 'limits'.

As special cases of PID controllers one obtains for:

a)
the PI controller with transfer function

(8.7)

b)
the ideal PD controller with the transfer function
(8.8)

and the controller with the transfer function

(8.9)

c)
 and the P controller with the transfer function
(8.10)

The step responses of these types of controllers are compiled in Figure 8.3. A pure I
controller may also be applied and this has the transfer function
(8.11)

Figure 8.3: Step responses of the PID controller family

The measure of the quality of the transient response of a PID controlled system can be
performed by calculating an integral performance index as shown in section 7.3.2. The
best controller is one that has the minimum performance index. When this performance
index is a minimum for a specified input, the system performance is said to be optimal.
When the input signal is specified the quadratic performance index can be calculated
for a given plant transfer function as a function of the tuning parameters, e.g. , ,
and .

The mathematical calculation of this performance index for given values of the tuning
parameters is simple as shown in section 7.3.3. But getting the optimal parameters is a
non-trivial task. Though computerised optimisation algorithms are available to calculate
the optimal parameter setting, for the case of quadratic performance indices a
mathematical analysis is possible. The approach shown in section A.7 gives more insight
into the controller settings and can be applied to all types of plants and PID controllers.

In the following the command and disturbance behaviour of a control system with a real
PID controller and a plant with the transfer function

(8.12)

will be investigated. The response of the control error to step changes in the
command input and in the plant input is

For the plant (Eq. (8.12)) and the real PID controller (Eq. (8.6)) one obtains

(8.13)

which is in the form of Eq. (7.40) or Eq. (A.52) for .

Applying the analysis shown in section A.7 to the performance index one gets the
diagrams in Figure 8.4,
Figure 8.4: Stability and performance diagram for step changes (a) in the command input
( , ) and (b) in the plant input ( , )
separately for the command and disturbance inputs. The integral action time constant is

normalized by . These diagrams are shown for the optimal value

 of the derivative action time constant. The filter time constant is
. The diagrams show a rather rectangular stability area that makes tuning of
and for a fixed easy from the stability point of view. But the performance
characteristics are quite different. The optimal parameters for the two cases differ by
about a factor of two. Therefore, an optimal tuned controller is in general never optimally
tuned for command

Advantages and disadvantages of the

different types of controllers
In the following the disturbance behaviour is investigated using the controllers introduced
in section 8.1. Their parameters are tuned optimally according to the performance index
from section 7.3.2. The plant is given by Eq. (8.12). Figure 8.5 shows for the
different types of controller the responses to a step disturbance of the controlled
variable , which is normalised by . These curves indicate that because the
relation is valid.

For discussing these curves the term settling time according to section 7.3.1 is used,
which is related to the steady state of the uncontrolled case

(8.14)

In addition, the different cases should be compared with respect to the normalised
maximum overshoot .

The different cases are discussed below:

a)
The P controller shows a relatively high maximum overshoot , a long
settling time as well as a steady-state error .
b)
The I controller has a higher maximum overshoot than the P controller due to the
slowly starting I behaviour, but no steady-state error.
c)
 The PI controller fuses the properties of the P and I controllers. It shows a
maximum overshoot and settling time similar to the P controller but no steady-
state error.
d)
The real PD controller according to Eq. (8.9) with has a smaller
maximum overshoot due to the 'faster' D action compared with the controller
types mentioned under a) to c). Also in this case a steady-state error is visible,
which is smaller than in the case of the P controller. This is because the PD
controller generally is tuned to have a larger gain due to the positive phase
shift of the D action. For the results shown in Figure 8.5 the gain for the P
controller is and for the PD controller . The plant has a gain
of .
e)
The PID controller according to Eq. (8.6) with fuses the properties of
a PI and PD controller. It shows a smaller maximum overshoot than the PD
controller and has no steady state error due to the I action.

The qualitative concepts of this example are also relevant to other type of plants with
delayed proportional behaviour. This discussion has given some first insights into the
static and dynamic behaviour of control loops.

Disturbance feed-forward on the controller

According to Figure 11.1 the disturbance will feed via the transfer function to
the controller, which will compensate the influence of the disturbance.
 Figure 11.1: Block diagram of the feed-forward on the controller
From this diagram the controlled variable directly follows as
(11.1)

With some manipulations one obtains from this

(11.2)

which gives
(11.3)

where for brevity the argument is omitted. From the transfer functions of Eq. (11.3) one
can see that the characteristic equation is
(11.4)

with regard to disturbance behaviour and

(11.5)

with regard to the reference behaviour. The disturbance will be fully compensated if
(11.6)

from which the required transfer function for the feed-forward element is
(11.7)

This approach can only be realised by a controller if the pole excess of is not larger
than that of . Otherwise a total compensation is not possible. Moreover, the
polynomial must be Hurwitzian.

For the frequent case that the disturbance and control behaviour are equal, i.e. the case of
, the transfer function of the feed-forward elements is
 (11.8)

As the total compensation of a disturbance in a plant with P behaviour is only possible by

a controller with I behaviour, the transfer function of the feed-forward element, according
to Eq. (11.8), should thus show ideal D behaviour. If there is a PI controller in the loop,
the feed-forward element must be designed as a element.

Often the feed-forward element cannot be realised as ideally designed according to

Eqs. (11.7) or (11.8), because , besides pure I behaviour, normally contains delay
elements. Also in these cases a element is recommended.

Disturbance feed-forward on the manipulated variable

The configuration with feed-forward on the manipulated variable or on the actuator,

respectively, is shown in Figure 11.2. From this for the controlled variable it follows that

and after rearranging

(11.9)

or

(11.10)
 Figure 11.2: Block diagram of the feed-forward on the manipulated variable

The characteristic equations are the same as in the previous case with feed-forward to the
controller. For the ideal compensation of the disturbances it follows from Eq. (11.9) and
(11.10) that

(11.11)

from which the transfer function of the feed-forward element follows is

(11.12)

For the special case of , where the disturbance acts directly at the plant input,
the compensation is performed by directly at the plant input..

Similarly as in the case of Eq. (11.7) the realisation of the feed-forward element
according to Eq. (11.12) is not possible if

(11.13)

with and is valid, as must be realised by PD elements.

Also in the case of a non-minimum phase behaviour of or of instability of the
Eq. (11.12) cannot be realised, as the required feed-forward element is unstable. In those
cases in which a dynamical compensation according to Eq. (11.12) is not possible one
must be content with a static compensation using a P element
(11.14)
where and are the gains of the transfer functions and .

Figure 11.3 shows disturbance feed-forward

Figure 11.3: Examples of disturbance feed-forward configurations (a) on the controller

and (b) on the actuator of a steam superheater temperature control system

configurations on (a) the controller and (b) the manipulated variable, for the case of a
temperature control system of a steam superheater (SH) in a power station. The steam
temperature at the superheater outlet is the controlled variable. The manipulated
variable is the cooling water flow in the spray-water cooler (C). Fluctuations of the steam
flow have an influence on the steam temperature and are treated as disturbances. The
steam flow (disturbance ) is measured and fed via or to the controller or to
the manipulated variable, respectively.
Figure 8.5: Behaviour of the normalised controlled variable for step disturbance

at the input to the plant ; for different types of

controllers