Abstract
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers reign absolute when automatic control is applied. There is an expressive number of tuning rules for these controllers in literature. However, for highly oscillatory (or highly underdamped) systems, such as the ones found in oil production and polymerization reactors, the available methods provide poor closed-loop performance and robustness. Besides, most of these tuning rules are developed for systems based on a first-order with pure time delay (FOPTD) transfer function and for parallel form PID controllers. Therefore, the focus of this paper is the development of appropriate tuning rules for highly underdamped systems through non-cancellation of dominant poles and easily adjustable robust performance, making them applicable for both series and parallel PID controllers, since the proposed tuning only places the controller zeros at the real axis. The new tuning rules were developed for these systems and were tested on 15,000 different transfer functions described by a second-order with pure time delay (SOPTD) expression. Additionally, a recommendation interval is also provided in which the controller gain can be varied online or by simulations to achieve the desired trade-off between performance and robustness. The proposed rules are also validated using two case studies: the suppression of slugging in oil production and the temperature control of an industrial gas phase polyethylene reactor.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ANP (2020) Boletim da Produção de Petróleo e Gás Natural. http://www.anp.gov.br/arquivos/publicacoes/boletins-anp/producao/2020-05-boletim.pdf. Accessed 28 Jul 2020
Åström KJ, Hägglund T (1995) PID controllers: theory, design, and tuning, 2nd edn. Instrument Society of America, Research Triangle
Barreiros BF (2019) Estabilização da Produção de Petróleo em Sistemas Gas-lift Através do Ajuste Simples e Eficiente de Controladores PIDs. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre
Bennett S (2001) The past of pid controllers. Annu Rev Control 25:43–53
Di Meglio F, Petit N, Alstad V, Kaasa GO (2012) Stabilization of slugging in oil production facilities with or without upstream pressure sensors. J Process Control 22:809–822
Diehl FC, Anzai TK, Almeida CS, Von Meien OF, Neto SS, Rosa VR, Campos MCMM, Reolon F, Gerevini G, Ranzan C, Farenzena M, Trierweiler JO (2017) Fast Offshore Wells Model (FOWM): a practical dynamic model for multiphase oil production systems in deepwater and ultra-deepwater scenarios. Comput Chem Eng 99:304–313
Diehl FC, Machado TO, Anzai TK, Almeida CS, Moreira CA, Nery GA Jr, Campos MCMM, Farenzena M, Trierweiler JO (2019) 10% increase in oil production through a field applied APC in a Petrobras ultra-deepwater well. Control Eng Pract 91:104108
Godhavn JM, Fard MP, Fuchs PH (2005) New slug control strategies, tuning rules and experimental results. J Process Control 15:547–557
Grimholt C, Skogestad S (2018) Optimal PI and PID control of first-order plus delay processes and evaluation of the original and improved SIMC rules. J Process Control 70:36–46
Hauke J, Kossowski T (2011) Comparison of values of pearson’s and spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaest Geogr 30:87–93
Hunter J, Dale D, Firing E, Droettboom M, Team the M development (2018) Matplotlib. https://matplotlib.org/. Accessed 19 Oct 2019
Isakova A, Novakovic K (2017) Oscillatory chemical reactions in the quest for rhythmic motion of smart materials. Eur Polym J 95:430–439
Isermann R (2011) Perspectives of automatic control. Control Eng Pract 19:1399–1407
Jahanshahi E, Skogestad S (2013) Closed-loop model identification and PID/PI tuning for robust anti-slug control. IFAC, New York
Jahanshahi E, De Oliveira V, Grimholt C, Skogestad S (2014) A comparison between Internal Model Control, optimal PIDF and robust controllers for unstable flow in risers. IFAC Proc 47:5752–5759
Johnson SG (2019) The NLopt nonlinear-optimization package. http://github.com/stevengj/nlopt. Accessed 13 May 2019
Jones E, Oliphant E, Peterson P, Al E (2001) SciPy: open source scientific tools for python. https://www.scipy.org/. Accessed 19 Oct 2019
Lee Y, Park S, Lee M, Brosilow C (1998) PID controller tuning for desired closed-loop responses for SI/SO systems. AIChE J 44:106–115
Liu GP, Daley S (2001) Optimal-tuning PID control for industrial systems. Control Eng Pract 9:1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0661(01)00064-8
Marchetti G, Scali C (2000) Use of modified relay techniques for the design of model-based controllers for chemical processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 39:3325–3334
Marlin T (2000) Process control: designing processes and control systems for dynamic performance, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math, New York
McConville FX (2008) Engineering practice: functions for easier curve fitting. Chem Eng 115(13):48–51
NumPy Developers (2019) NumPy. https://numpy.org/. Accessed 19 Oct 2019
O’Dwyer A (2009) Handbook of PI and PID controller tuning rules, 3rd edn. Imperial College Press, London
Python Software Foundation (2019) PyFMI. https://pypi.org/project/PyFMI/. Accessed 19 Oct 2019
Python-control.org (2018) Python Control Systems Library. https://python-control.readthedocs.io/en/0.8.2/index.html. Accessed 19 Oct 2019
Rivera DE, Morari M, Skogestad S (1986) Internal model control: PID controller design. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 25:252–265
Salau NPG, Neumann GA, Trierweiler JO, Secchi AR (2009) Multivariable control strategy based on bifurcation analysis of an industrial gas-phase polymerization reactor. J Process Control 19:530–538
Seborg DE, Edgar TF, Mellichamp DA, Doyle FJ (2011) Process dynamics and control, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken
Shardt Y, Zhao Y, Qi F, Lee K, Yu X, Huang B, Shah S (2012) Determining the state of a process control system: Current trends and future challenges. Can J Chem Eng 90:217–245
Trierweiler JO, Diehl FC (2009) Analysis, control, and operational optimization of a zymomonas mobilis reactor with equilibrium multiplicity. In: IFAC Proceedings Volumes (IFAC-PapersOnline). IFAC Secretariat, pp 159–164
Ziegler JG, Nichols NB (1942) Optimum settings for automatic controllers. Trans Am Soc Mech Eng 64:759–768
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)—Process 88882.181989/2018-01 for providing financial support to this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix A. Demonstration of how to obtain the adjustment of the controller using the new tuning rules
Appendix A. Demonstration of how to obtain the adjustment of the controller using the new tuning rules
The plant used for the demonstration is given by:
The step-by-step application of the new tuning rules for GA(s) is exemplified below:
Step 1: Determination of \(\tau /\theta\)
Step 2: Determination of the parameters Kp,1st, τI and τD from Table 1
Step 3: Determination of the parameter Kp,2nd from Table 3
where Kp,1st, and Kp,2nd provide a recommended interval for the controller gain.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barreiros, B.F., Trierweiler, J.O. & Farenzena, M. Reliable and straightforward PID tuning rules for highly underdamped systems. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 38, 731–745 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43153-021-00127-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43153-021-00127-0