Code covered by the BSD License

# Learning PID Tuning I: Process Reaction Curve

by

### Yi Cao (view profile)

30 Sep 2007 (Updated )

process reaction curve approach to tune PID controller

Learning PID Tuning I: Process Reaction Curve

# Learning PID Tuning I: Process Reaction Curve

Most PID tuning rules are based on the assumption that the plant can be approaximated by a first-order plus time delay system. This code explains why this assumption is valid and how to identify such an approximation model. Finaly, we use a 4th-order example to show how this can be done and compare it with oscilation based tuning approach.

## Step Response

Consider a typical first order system,

and a fourth order system

Their step responses are generated using the MATLAB Control System Toolbox as follows.

G = tf(1,[1 1]);
subplot(221)
step(G)
G2 = tf(1, [1 4 6 4 1]);
subplot(222)
step(G2)


## Maximum Slope of Step Responses

The difference is that the response of the first order system has the maximum response slope at the t=0, whilst that of the 4th order system is at t>0. This difference is true for all high-order (>1) systems.

The maximum slope is the maximum reseponse speed. For a first order system, if we assume the system can keep the maximum resppnse speed all the time, then the system will take exact the time of the time constant to reach its steady-state. Therefore, the time constant can be identified by taking the maximum slope and measuring the time period between the points where the the maximum slope line accrosses the initial and final response lines.

subplot(223)
step(G)
hold
plot([0 1],[0 1],'Linewidth',2)
plot([1 1],[0 1],':')
set(gca,'Xtick',1)

Current plot held


## Approximation of the 4th Order System using the Maximum Slope Line

To approximate the 4th order system, we wish to keep the maximum response speed being the same between the actual system and the approximated first-order plus time delay system. Therefore, this leads to the so called process reaction curve approach to identify the approaximation.

[y,t]=step(G2);
% The maximum response speed and the corresponding time point
[dydt,idx]=max(diff(y)./diff(t));
% The crossing point with the initial line
t0=t(idx)-y(idx)/dydt;
% The crossing point with the steady state line
t1=t(idx)+(1-y(idx))/dydt;
% plot the step response with the maximum slope
subplot(224)
plot(t,y,'-',[t0 t1],[0 1],'r--','Linewidth',2)


## Process Reaction Curve Approximation

The step response is termed as the Process Reaction Curve in process. However, manually to draw the maximum slope on a Process Reaction Curve is neither accurate nor convinient. The submission of Process Reaction Curve provides a tool to get the first-order plus time delay approaximate model directly from the supplied step response data (Process Reaction Curve).

Let us apply this function to the step response of the 4th order system, then compare how good of the approximation is.

[model,controller]=ReactionCurve(t,y);
fprintf('Process gain: %g, Time constant: %g, Time delay: %g\n',model.gain, model.time_constant, model.time_delay)

% We can compare how good the approximation is.
figure
Ga = tf(model.gain,[model.time_constant 1]);
set(Ga,'InputDelay',model.time_delay')
step(Ga)
hold
plot(t,y,'--','Linewidth',2)
legend('approximation','Process Reaction Curve')

% This example shows that the approximation matches the maximum response
% speed well but overall response speed is slower than original system.
% This is the general behaviour of this approach.

Process gain: 0.998794, Time constant: 4.45908, Time delay: 1.42509
Current plot held


## PID Tuning

There are many PID tuning rules around for first-order plus time delay systems. The following tuning table was derived by Ziegler-Nichols to provide a quarter decay ratio (the ratio of the second peak over the first peak). (alpha: time delay, tau: time constant, Kp: gain)

 Controller Kc Ti Td P tau/(Kp*alpha) PI 0.9*tau/(Kp*alpha) 3.33*alpha PID 1.2*tau/(Kp*alpha) 2*alpha 0.5*alpha

For the 4th order example, the corresponding controller is derived by the ReactionCurve function as follows:

 Controller Kc Ti Td P 2.4381 PI 2.194 6.929 PID 2.929 4.2 1.0497

## The ITAE Tuning Rule

For comparison, the minimum ITAE approximate model controller tuning rules (for setpoint tracking) are presented in the following table.

 Controller Kc Ti Td PI 0.586/Kp*(tau/alpha)^0.916 tau/(1.03-0.165*alpha/tau) PID 0.965/Kp*(tau/alpha)^0.855 tau/(0.796-0.147*alpha/tau) 0.308*tau*(alpha/tau)^0.929

For the 4th order example, the ITAE PI and PID controllers are:

 Controller Kc Ti Td PI 1.6681 4.5628 PID 2.5622 5.9532 0.4760

## Closed-Loop Response Comparison

Let us take the PID controller derived above.

K = controller.PID;
% Connect it with the 4th-order system to form a closed-loop system.
T = feedback(G2*K,1);
% The closed-loop response to a step input is as follows.
[y,t]=step(T);

% Compare it with the ITAE PID controller derived as above
%
k=znpidtuning(G2,3);
K2=2.5622*(1+tf(1,[5.9532 0])+tf([0.4760 0],1));
T2=feedback(G2*K2,1);
y2=step(T2,t);
figure
plot(t,y,'-',t,y2,'--','Linewidth',2)
grid
legend('Approximate Model Tuning','ITAE Tuning')
% Clearly, the ITAE tuning rule gives much better result.