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
r1
e1
u1
C1
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
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.
(10)
(11)
(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
IE 1,1 :=
IE 2,1
e1,1 (t)dt =
(16)
Au1 =
Au2
(17)
(18)
V (s) =
(19)
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 =
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
(33)
1 (0)jj is the jth element of the diagonal of the
where P
h
i
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)
4. TUNING
5. SIMULATION RESULTS
5.1 Example 1
As a first example, the well-known distillation column
model reported in (Wood and Berry, 1973) is considered:
7520
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
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
1.2e3s
0.4e20s
(1 + 10s)(1 + 5s)2
(1 + 60s)(1 + 30s)(1 + 10s)
0.6e10s
0.8e2s
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
1.2
process variable y
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
200
400
600
800
time
1000
1200
1400
1600
7522