Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress

Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

An Automatic Tuning Method for


Multiloop PID Controllers
Massimiliano Veronesi , Antonio Visioli

Yokogawa Italia srl, Milan, Italy


e-mail: max.veronesi@it.yokogawa.com

Dipartimento di Ingegneria dellInformazione,


University of Brescia, Italy
e-mail: antonio.visioli@ing.unibs.it

Abstract: In this paper we propose a new automatic tuning technique for multiloop PID
controllers applied to MIMO processes. The process parameters are estimated by employing
simple closed-loop experiments (where roughly tuned PID controllers are in place), namely,
by evaluating the response of the system to a sequence of set-point step signals (one for each
reference input). Once the process transfer function is obtained, a (IMC-based) PID tuning
rule already proposed in the literature is then applied to suitably re-design the PID controllers.
Simulation examples are given to illustrate the methodology and to show its effectiveness.
1. INTRODUCTION
It is well-known that many industrial processes are basically multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) systems,
namely, they are affected by interactions among various
control loops and plant variables. Although Multivariable
Predictive Control has been successfully employed in many
applications (typically in the refining processes), decentralised multiloop proportional-integral-derivative (PID)
controllers remain the standard for many industries because they are often capable to provide a satisfactory
performance in spite of their simple structure and intuitiveness. However, because of the above mentioned interactions, tuning the controllers can be a difficult task
(Wang et al., 2008; Vazquez et al., 1999). For this reason,
it is desirable to have an automatic tuning methodology in
order to help the operator to properly design the control
system.
Different methodologies have been proposed in the literature in this context, mainly for two-inputs-two-outputs
(TITO) processes, which represent the most common case
in practical applications. For example, the use of open-loop
step tests (one for each input) for the model identification
purpose has been proposed in (Wang et al., 2000). After
having employed a suitably designed decoupler, a sequential tuning method is then employed for decentralised PID
controllers. Autotuning technique based on relay-feedback
experiments has also been proposed. In particular, simultaneous (Halevi et al., 1997) and sequential relay techniques
(see (Shiu and Hwang, 1998; Marchetti et al., 2002) and
references therein contained) have been developed. An
approach based on finite frequency response data has been
presented in (Gilbert et al., 2003). In this case, the closedloop experiment to be performed consists of applying a
square wave excitation input to one set-point at a time
(note that this means that the feedback controllers have
to be previously tuned, possibly roughly).
This work was partially supported by MIUR scientific research
funds.

Copyright by the
International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC)

It can be noted that these kinds of methods require special experiments to be employed and the identification
part cannot rely on routine operating data. In this paper
we propose a new automatic tuning technique in which
the identification experiment consists of evaluating the
response of the system to a sequence of standard set-point
step signals (one for each reference input). Actually, we
extend to MIMO processes a methodology that has already
been proven to be effective for SISO processes (Veronesi
and Visioli, 2009, 2010a,b).
Once the a process model based on first-order-plus-deadtime (FOPDT) transfer functions has been estimated, a
tuning rule can be adopted to determine the parameters
of the PID controllers. In this paper we suggest the use
of the tuning rule proposed in (Lee et al., 2004), which is
based on the Internal Model Control (IMC) design (Morari
and Zafiriou, 1989) and on a Maclaurin series expansion.
In particular, the tuning procedure aims at obtaining a desired closed-loop transfer function and in this context the
dominant time constant is chosen by taking into account
the identification technique employed.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 the problem
is formulated. The method for estimating the process parameters by using the closed-loop set-point step responses
is explained in Section 3, while the employed tuning rules
is reviewed in Section 4. Simulation examples are given in
Section 5 and conclusions are drawn in Section 6.
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
For the sake of simplicity, two-inputs-two-outputs (TITO)
processes are considered from now on. We consider therefore a linear, time-invariant, overdamped, continuous-time
TITO system whose matrix transfer function is:
P(s) = [Pij (s)]
i, j = 1, 2
(1)
where (i, j = 1, 2)
ij esij
Pij (s) =
(2)
qij (s)
and

7517

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress


Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

r1

e1

u1

C1

3. ESTIMATION OF THE PROCESS PARAMETERS

y1

P11

The estimation of the process parameters can be performed by evaluating the response of the system to a
sequence of step signals applied to each of the set-point
starting from steady-state conditions. This means that
the transient response caused by a set-point step has to
be terminated before applying another set-point step and
should not be perturbed by external disturbances.
By considering a setpoint step change in the loop 1 (i.e.
to r1 ), the following relations can be easily derived:
U1 (s) = C1 (s)(R1 (s) (P11 (s)U1 (s) + P12 (s)U2 (s))),

P12
P21
e2

r2

u2

C2

P22

y2

U2 (s) = C2 (s)((P22 (s)U2 (s) + P21 (s)U1 (s))),


(9)

Fig. 1. The considered TITO control scheme.


qij (s) =

nij
Y

(1 + sij,k ) = snij

k=1

ij,k + ... + s

k=1

Define as
Tij0

:=

nij
X

ij,k + ij

nij
X

ij,k + 1

k=1

(3)
(4)

k=1

the sum of the dead time and of the time constant of the
single transfer function Pij (s). We consider a decentralised
control law (where the input-output pairings have been
previously selected), where the PID controller is in ideal
form, namely,


C1 (s) 0
.
(5)
C(s) =
0 C2 (s)
where


1
Cj (s) = Kpj 1 +
+ Tdj s
j = 1, 2
(6)
Tij s
and Kpj , Tij , Tdj , j = 1, 2 are, respectively, the proportional gain, the integral time constant and the derivative
time constant of the PID controller that handles loop j.
Note that, in order to make the controller proper, a lowpass filter has also to be implemented. Its cut-off frequency
should be selected in order for the filter to be negligible for
the PID relevant dynamics and to filter the high frequency
noise at the same time (Ang et al., 2005; Visioli, 2006).
Hereafter we will neglect the presence of the filter without
loss of generality. For the analysis made in the following
sections, it is convenient to write the PID controller transfer function as
Kpj cj (s)
Cj (s) =
, j = 1, 2
(7)
sTij
where
cj (s) = Tdj Tij s2 + Tij s + 1, j = 1, 2.
(8)
The control scheme is shown in Figure 1.
The aim of the methodology proposed in this paper is
to estimate the process parameters by evaluating closedloop set-point step responses. In particular, given already
(roughly) tuned PI(D) controllers, a step signal is applied
to the first set-point and then, after the steady-state has
been attained, to the second set-point. After the process
parameters has been estimated, any tuning rule can be
employed for re-tuning the PID controllers. Among those
presented in the literature, in this paper we have choosen
that proposed in (Lee et al., 2004) because of the high
performance it has been shown to provide.

from which it can be derived that


C1 (s)(1 + C2 (s)P22 (s))R1 (s)
U1 (s) =
,
d(s)
C1 (s)C2 (s)P21 (s)R1 (s)
.
U2 (s) =
d(s)
where
d(s) = 1 + C2 (s)P22 (s) + C1 (s)P11 (s)
+C1 (s)C2 (s)P11 (s)P22 (s)

(10)

(11)

C1 (s)C2 (s)P12 (s)P21 (s).


Further, the two control errors are:
E1,1 (s) = R1 (s) P11 (s)U1 (s) P12 (s)U2 (s),

(12)
E2,1 (s) = P21 (s)U1 (s) P22 (s)U2 (s).
It is worth noting that e1,1 indicates the error variable
of the loop 1 after the setpoint step change in the loop
1 itself while e2,1 is the error variable of the loop 2 after
the same setpoint step change in the loop 1. By replacing
the output of the controllers in (12) with their expressions
(10) and by considering (2) and (7), after some calculations
the transfer functions between the setpoint of the first loop
(R1 ) and the two control errors can be written as:
sa1 (s)es(11 +12 +21 )
E1,1 (s)
=
,
R1 (s)
b1 (s)s2 + b2 (s)b3 (s)s + b4 (s)b5 (s)
(13)
E2,1 (s)
sa2 (s)es(11 +12 +22 )
=
,
R1 (s)
b1 (s)s2 + b2 (s)b3 (s)s + b4 (s)b5 (s)
where
a1 (s) = (sTi2 q22 (s)es22 + Kp2 22 c2 (s))

7518

Ti1 q11 (s)q12 (s)q21 (s),


a2 (s) = Kp1 21 Ti2 c1 (s)q11 (s)q12 (s)q22 (s),
b1 (s) = Ti1 Ti2 q11 (s)q12 (s)q21 (s)es(11 +12 +21 +22 ) ,
b2 (s) = q12 (s) + q21 (s)es(12 +21 ) ,
b3 (s) = Ti1 Kp2 22 q11 (s)c2 (s)es11
+Ti2 Kp1 11 q22 (s)c1 (s)es22 ,
b4 (s) = Kp1 Kp2 c1 (s)c2 (s),
b5 (s) = 11 22 q12 (s)q21 (s)es(12 +21 )
12 21 q11 (s)q22 (s)es(12 +22 ) .
(14)

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress


Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

By applying the final value theorem we eventually obtain


the following expressions of the integrated errors:
22 Ti1
As1
Kp1 (11 22 12 21 )
Z
(15)
21 Ti2
As1
:= e2,1 (t)dt =
Kp2 (11 22 12 21 )

IE 1,1 :=
IE 2,1

e1,1 (t)dt =

where As1 denotes the amplitude of the setpoint step


change applied to the first loop.
Denote now as Au1 and Au2 the steady-state values of
the output of the controllers C1 and C2 respectively. By
considering that, at the steady state, after a step change
in the setpoint r1 , it has to be:
11 Au1 + 12 Au2 = As1
21 Au1 + 22 Au2 = 0

(16)

we can express Au1 and Au2 in terms of the process gains


as follows:
22
As1 ,
11 22 12 21
21
As1 .
=
11 22 12 21

Au1 =
Au2

(17)

Define now the two following variables:


v(t) := 11 u1 (t) + 12 u2 (t) y1 (t),
w(t) := 21 u1 (t) + 22 u2 (t) y2 (t).

(18)

By using (2), (3), and (18) we can derive:


11
(q11 (s) es11 )U1 (s)
q11 (s)
12
(q12 (s) es12 )U2 (s),
+
q12 (s)
21
W (s) =
(q21 (s) es21 )U1 (s)
q21 (s)
22
(q22 (s) es22 )U2 (s).
+
q22 (s)

V (s) =

(19)

Hence, by applying the final value theorem, we obtain


V (s)
lim
= 11 lim
s0
s0
s


q11 (s) 1 1 + es11
Au1
+
s
s


q12 (s) 1 1 + es12
Au2 ,
+12 lim
+
s0
s
s
0
0
= 11 T11
Au1 + 12 T12
Au2


q21 (s) 1 1 + es21
W (s)
Au1
lim
= 21 lim
+
s0
s0
s
s
s


q22 (s) 1 1 + es22
+
Au2 ,
+22 lim
s0
s
s
0
0
= 21 T21
Au1 + 22 T22
Au2
(20)
that is, by taking into account (17), (3), and (4), we have


0
11 22 T11
As1
11 22 12 21
0
12 21 T12

As1
11 22 12 21
(21)
Z
0
21 22 T21
As1
IW 1 := w(t)dt =
11 22 12 21
0
21 22 T22

As1
11 22 12 21
which can be rewritten as
0
0
11 22 T11
12 21 T12
IV 1 =
As1 ,
11 22 12 21
(22)
0
0
12 22 (T21
T22
)
IW 1 =
As1 .
11 22 12 21
A similar reasoning can be applied when a step change is
applied to the setpoint of the other loop (i.e. to r2 ). Hence,
E1,2 (s) = P11 (s)U1 (s) P12 (s)U2 (s),
(23)
E2,2 (s) = R2 (s) P21 (s)U1 (s) P22 (s)U2 (s),
from which,
Z
11 Ti2
As2 ,
IE 1,2 := e1,2 (t)dt =
Kp2 (11 22 12 21 )
Z
12 Ti1
IE 2,2 := e2,2 (t)dt =
As2 ,
Kp1 (11 22 12 21 )
(24)
and
Z
0
0
12 21 (T12
T11
)
As2
IV 2 := v(t)dt =
11 22 12 21
(25)
Z
0
0
11 22 T22
12 21 T21
IW 2 := w(t)dt =
As2
11 22 12 21
where As2 denotes the amplitude of the setpoint step
change applied to the second loop. Thus, by applying a
step change to the setpoint of the first loop and then, at the
end of the transient, a step change to the setpoint of the
second loop, the four process gains and the values of the
four sums of the lags and dead times Tij0 (i, j = 1, 2) can
be computed. In fact, by solving the system of equations
(15) and (24), it is possible to obtain:
Ti1 IE 2,2
As1 ,
11 =
Kp1 (IE 1,1 IE 2,2 IE 2,1 IE 1,2 )
Ti2 IE 1,2
12 =
As1 ,
Kp2 (IE 2,1 IE 1,2 IE 1,1 IE 2,2 )
(26)
Ti1 IE 2,1
As2 ,
21 =
Kp1 (IE 1,2 IE 1,2 IE 1,1 IE 2,2 )
Ti2 IE 1,1
22 =
As2 .
Kp2 (IE 1,1 IE 2,2 IE 2,1 IE 1,2 )
In a similar way, by solving the system of equations (22)
and (25), it is possible to obtain:
21 IW 2 IV 1
0
+
,
T11
=
11 As2
As1
22 IW 2 IV 1
0
T12
=
+
,
12 As2
As1
(27)
11 IW 1 IV 2
0
+
,
T21
=
21 As1
As2
IV

IW
2
12
1
0
+
.
T22
=
22 As1
As2

7519

IV 1 :=

v(t)dt =

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress


Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

Summarising, the identification procedure initially consists


of evaluating IE 1,1 , IE 2,1 (see (15)), IE 1,2 , IE 2,2 (see (23)),
IV 1 , IW 1 (see (22)), IV 2 , IW 2 (see (25)), and then by
determining ij and Tij0 (i, j = 1, 2) by applying (26) and
(27). Note that the values of the parameters of the PID
controllers employed (those that need to be retuned) are
obviously known.
Once ij and Tij0 (i, j = 1, 2) have been determined, each
transfer function Pij (s) can be approximated as a FOPDT
transfer functon, namely:

in (Skogestad, 2003), to apply a tuning rule based on the


IMC design. In particular, the method proposed in (Lee
et al., 2004) extends the generalised IMC-PID method for
SISO systems (Lee et al., 1998) to MIMO systems and
consists of determining the multiloop PID controller in
order to obtain a desired closed-loop response for the ith
loop, which is specified as

Yi (s)
esii
=
Ri (s) 1 + i s

i = 1, 2

(32)

ij esij
Pij (s) =
.
(28)
ij s + 1
In this context it is worth considering the so-called halfrule (Skogestad, 2003) which states that the largest neglected (denominator) time constant is distributed evenly
to the effective dead time and the smallest retained time
constant. This means that an appropriate approximation
of the possibily high-order system (2) is obtained by setting
nij
ij,2
ij,2 X

ij = ij,1 +
ij,k . (29)
,
ij = ij +
+
2
2

The result of the design method proposed in (Lee et al.,


2004), based on the expansion of the process model in a
Maclaurin series, is the following set of tuning formulae
(j = 1, 2):

It is worth stressing that we have


nij
X
ij,k + ij = ij + ij ,
Tij0 :=

(33)
1 (0)jj is the jth element of the diagonal of the
where P
h
i

inverse of the matrix P(s)


= Pij (s) for s = 0. In this way

jj ((j + jj )
jj + 2jj )
,
Kpj =
(jj (j+ jj ))2


2
2
jj j
2j jj + 6
6
jj jj + jj
jj
1

,
Tdj =
2Kpj
6jj (j + jj )3

Tij =

k=3

(30)

k=1

namely, the sum of the dead time and of the time constants
of the process (2) is unaltered in the reduced model. Thus,
Tij0 is a relevant process parameter that is worth estimating
for the purpose of the retuning of the PID controllers.
Finally, the apparent dead time ij of each transfer function Pij (s) can be evaluated by considering respectively
the time interval from the application of the step signal
to the set-point rj and the time instant when the output
yi attains the 2% of the steady-state value corresponding
to the new set-point value Asj . Actually, from a practical
point of view, in order to cope with the measurement noise,
a simple sensible solution is to define a noise band NB
(
Astrom et al., 1993) (whose amplitude should be equal to
the amplitude of the measurement noise) and to rewrite
the condition as yi > NB .
It is clear at this point that the time constants of each
transfer function can be trivially obtained as
ij = T 0 ij ,
i, j = 1, 2.
(31)
ij

Remark 1. The values of process parameters are determined by considering the integral of signals and therefore
the method is inherently robust to the measurement noise
(Veronesi and Visioli, 2009). Further, they are obtained
independently on the values of the PID parameters. This is
an advantage with respect to the use of other methods for
the identification of the process transfer function (for example, the least squares approach), whose result depends
on the control variable and process variable signals.

Kpj (jj + j )
,
1 (0)jj
P

the integral action of the PID can take into account even
the off-diagonal terms of P (s). This is reasonable because
both the integral action and the loop interactions are more
significant at low frequencies.
The choice of the desired closed-loop time constant j can
be done as in (Skogestad, 2003), by taking into account
the trade-off between aggressiveness and robustness, as
j = jj .
(34)

In this way the tuning formulae can be rewritten simply


as:
1 4
jj + jj
Kpj =
,
8jj
jj


jj jj jj
1 12
(35)
,
Tdj =
12
4
jj + jj
4
jj + jj 11 22 12 21
Tij =
.
4
11 22
Remark 2. As it is well-known in the IMC design, parameter j handles effectively the trade-off between aggressiveness and robustness (and control effort) and represents
therefore a very desirable feature from the user viewpoint.
Actually, the rule (34) has been selected as in (Skogestad,
2003) but the user can modify simply the value of j (that
is, use (33)) in order to meet specific requirements (for
example, the value of j can be increased in order to reduce
the overshoot in the set-point step response).

4. TUNING

5. SIMULATION RESULTS

Once the process parameters have been obtained, any of


the tuning rules proposed in the literature for MIMO
processes can be applied, in principle. However, since the
identification technique proposed in the previous section
relies on the properties of the half-rule, it is sensible, as

5.1 Example 1
As a first example, the well-known distillation column
model reported in (Wood and Berry, 1973) is considered:

7520

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress


Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

1.2

1.2

0.8
2

process variable y

process variable y

1.4

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

100

200

300
time

400

500

0.2

600

100

200

300
time

400

500

600

Fig. 2. Example 1: process variable y1 with the initial


controller tuning (dashed line) and with the tuning
obtained by applying the new method (solid line).

Fig. 3. Example 1: process variable y2 with the initial


controller tuning (dashed line) and with the tuning
obtained by applying the new method (solid line).

12.8es 18.9e3s

1 + 21s .
P(s) = 1 + 16.7s
(36)
6.6e7s 19.4e3s
1 + 10.9s 1 + 14.4s
As an initial controller parameters, those proposed in
(Luyben, 1986) are selected: Kp1 = 0.375, Ti1 = 8.29,
Td1 = 0, Kp2 = 0.075, Ti2 = 23.6, Td2 = 0. With these
parameters, after a setpoint step change in the first loop,
the value of the integrated absolute errors defined as
Z
IAE i =
|ei (t)|dt
i = 1, 2
(37)

5.2 Example 2

In order to verify the robustness of the methodology to


modelling uncertainties, as a second example, the following
high-order process model is considered:
P(s) =

1.2e3s
0.4e20s

(1 + 10s)(1 + 5s)2
(1 + 60s)(1 + 30s)(1 + 10s)

0.6e10s
0.8e2s

(1 + 30s)(1 + 20s)(1 + 10s)


(1 + 5s)(1 + s)2
As an initial controller parameters, the values Kp1 = 0.5,
0
Ti1 = 20, Td1 = 1, Kp2 = 0.5, Ti2 = 10, Td2 = 1 have
are IAE 1 = 4.56 and IAE 2 = 16.76, while, after a been fixed. With these parameters, after a setpoint step
setpoint step change in the second loop, it results IAE 1 = change in the first loop, the value of the integrated absolute
3.37 and IAE 2 = 32.46. By applying the identification errors are IAE 1 = 44.18 and IAE 2 = 16.50, while,
procedure presented in Section 3 (namely, by evaluating after a setpoint step change in the second loop, it results
the two step responses), the following process parameters IAE 1 = 21.71 and IAE 2 = 32.98. The corresponding
are determined:
process variables are plotted in Figures 4 and 5 as dashed
0
0
0
0
= 17.83 lines. By applying the proposed identification procedure,
= 17.72, T12
= 24.16, T21
= 17.93, T22
T11
the following process parameters are determined:
11 = 1.08, 12 = 3.32, 21 = 7.1, 22 = 3.2
0
0
0
0
11 = 12.80, 12 = 18.92, 21 = 6.61, 22 = 19.46 T11
= 24.10, T12
= 116.45, T21
= 68.87, T22
= 10.19
(38)
11 = 7.33, 12 = 48.12, 21 = 26.82, 22 = 2.82
and therefore (see (31)):
11 = 1.2, 12 = 0.39, 21 = 0.60, 22 = 0.80
11 = 16.64, 22 = 14.63
(41)
(39)
and
therefore
(see
(31)):
Hence, by applying the tuning formulae (35), the following
11 = 16.77, 22 = 7.37
(42)
PID parameters can be used for retuning the two controllers:
Hence, by applying the tuning formulae (35), the following
Kp1 = 0.61
Ti1 = 8.42
Td1 = 0.26
PID parameters can be used for retuning the two con(40)
Kp2 = 0.12
Ti2 = 7.68
Td2 = 0.73.
trollers:
Kp1 = 1.06
Ti1 = 14.04
Td1 = 1.59
With these values of the parameters, the performance of
(43)
K
=
1.78
T
=
6.09
T
p2
i2
d2 = 0.62.
the controllers have been improved to IAE 1 = 3.80 and
IAE 2 = 5.58 when the set-point unit step change is applied With these values of the parameters, the performance of
to the set-point of the first loop and to IAE 1 = 2.12 and the controllers have been improved to IAE 1 = 24.45 and
IAE 2 = 7.32 when the unit step signal is applied to the IAE 2 = 2.84 when the set-point unit step change is applied
to the set-point of the first loop and to IAE 1 = 7.32 and
set-point of the second loop.
The obtained step responses are shown in Figures 2 IAE 2 = 6.87 when the unit step signal is applied to the
and 3 where the effectiveness of the automatic tuning set-point of the second loop.
The step responses obtained with the retuned controller
methodology can be evaluated.
7521

Preprints of the 18th IFAC World Congress


Milano (Italy) August 28 - September 2, 2011

method also in the presence of high-order processes. The


methodology can be implemented by means of standard
control instrumentation.

1.4

1.2

REFERENCES

process variable y

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

200

400

600

800
time

1000

1200

1400

1600

Fig. 4. Example 2: process variable y1 with the initial


controller tuning (dashed line) and with the tuning
obtained by applying the new method (solid line).
1.4

1.2

process variable y

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

200

400

600

800
time

1000

1200

1400

1600

Fig. 5. Example 2: process variable y2 with the initial


controller tuning (dashed line) and with the tuning
obtained by applying the new method (solid line).
are shown in Figures 4 and 5 as solid lines. These results
confirm the effectiveness of the methodology also in the
presence of modelling uncertainties.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have proposed a new autotuning methodology for multiloop PID controllers. The closed-loop identification procedure is based on the evaluation of a sequence of standard set-point responses and therefore routine operating data can be effectively employed for retuning the controllers and improve the performance. Being
based on the integral of signals, the technique is inherently
robust to measurement noise. The rationale of the method
relies in the half-rule model reduction technique and
the tuning rules suggested are appropriate in this context.
Simulation results have shown the effectiveness of the

Ang, K.H., Chong, G., and Li, Y. (2005). PID control


systems analysis, design, and technology. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 13, 559576.

Astrom, K.J., Hagglund, T., Hang, C.C., and Ho, W.K.


(1993). Automatic tuning and adaptation for PID
controllers - a survey. Control Engineering Practice, 1,
699714.
Gilbert, A.F., Yousef, A., Natarajan, K., and Deighton, S.
(2003). Tuning of PI controllers with one-way decoupling in 22 MIMO systems based on finite frequency
response data. Journal of Process Control, 13, 553567.
Halevi, Y., Palmor, Z.J., and Efrati, T. (1997). Automatic
tuning of decentralized PID for MIMO processes. Journal of Process Control, 7, 119128.
Lee, M., Lee, K., Kim, C., and Lee, J. (2004). Analytical
design of multiloop PID controllers for desired closedloop responses. AIChE Journal, 50(7), 16311635.
Lee, Y., S.Park, Lee, M., and Brosilow, C. (1998). PID
controller tuning for desired closed-loop responses for
SI/SO systems. AIChE Journal, 44, 106115.
Luyben, W.L. (1986). Simple method for tuning SISO
controllers in multivariable systems. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Research, 25(1), 654658.
Marchetti, G., Scali, C., and Romagnoli, J.A. (2002).
Relay autotuning of multivariable systems: application
to an experimental pilot-scale distillation column. In
Preprints 15th IFAC World Congress. Barcelona, E.
Morari, M. and Zafiriou, E. (1989). Robust Process Control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Shiu, S.J. and Hwang, S.H. (1998). Sequential design
method for multivariable decoupling and multiloop PID
controllers. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 37, 107119.
Skogestad, S. (2003). Simple analytic rules for model
reduction and PID controller tuning. Journal of Process
Control, 13, 291309.
Vazquez, F., Morilla, F., and Dormido, S. (1999). An iterative method for tuning decentralized PID controllers.
In Proceedings 14th IFAC World Congress. Barcelona,
E.
Veronesi, M. and Visioli, A. (2009). Performance assessment and retuning of PID controllers. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Research, 48, 26162623.
Veronesi, M. and Visioli, A. (2010a). An industrial application of a performance assessment and retuning technique
for PI controllers. ISA Transactions, 49, 244248.
Veronesi, M. and Visioli, A. (2010b). Performance assessment and retuning of PID controllers for integral
processes. Journal of Process Control, 20, 261269.
Visioli, A. (2006). Practical PID Control. Springer.
Wang, Q.G., Huang, B., and Guo, X. (2000). Auto-tuning
of TITO decoupling controllers from step tests. ISA
Transactions, 39, 407418.
Wang, Q.G., Ye, Z., Cai, W.J., and Hang, C.C. (2008).
PID Control for Multivariable Processes. Springer.
Wood, R.K. and Berry, M.W. (1973). Terminal composition control of a binary distillation column. Chemical
Engineering Science, 28(16), 17071710.

7522

Anda mungkin juga menyukai