The Un-Tunable PID Control Loop

Best-Practices and Innovations for Tuning Oscillatory, Noisy and Long Dead-Time Processes

Robert Rice
Vice President, Engineering
March 2015

PUBLIC

www.rockwellautomation.com www.us.endress.com

PUBLIC
 Agenda

Economic Drivers

Real-World Challenges

Tuning Demystified

Real-World Successes

Closing Thoughts

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Economic Drivers
Process Automation: A State-of-the-State Assessment

The Amazing Problem-Free Plant

Michael Brown Control Engineering

85% of controllers perform inefficiently when operated in automatic mode

65% of controllers are poorly tuned to mask control-related problems

30% of PID control loops are operated in manual mode

20% of control systems are not properly configured to meet their objectives

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Economic Drivers
Top Line and Bottom Line Benefits

Invest in Control Payback in Profits

Carbon Trust

2 5% 5 10%

5 15% 25 50%

Production Production Energy Production

Throughput Yield Consumption Defects

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Economic Drivers
Missed Opportunities for Financial Gain

Annual Production & Efficiency Losses

Control Station, Inc.

$7.6 Million $5.0 Million $1.8 Million $8.0 Million

Basic Chemicals Power Oil & Gas

Materials & Utilities

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Agenda

Economic Drivers

Real-World Challenges

Tuning Demystified

Real-World Successes

Closing Thoughts

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Real-World Challenges
The Black Art of PID Controller Tuning

Limited Education
Chemical Engineering curriculum
Single semester totaling 16 hours
Not covered by most trade schools
Focus on PLC programming
Limited Experience
Few staff tasked with PID tuning
Methods handed down
No formalized approach or methodology
Out-of-the-box parameters applied
Limited Emphasis
Other projects deemed more important
PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT
 Real-World Challenges
The Devil is in the Data

Noise Oscillations Dead-Time

Wait for it Wait for it

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Real-World Challenges
Where to Turn?

Economic drivers
Clear opportunities for improvement
Strong financials: Payback, ROI
Training & experience
Limited skilled resources
Pool of candidates drying up
Traditional state-of-the-art software
Struggles under real-world conditions

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Agenda

Economic Drivers

Real-World Challenges

Tuning Demystified

Real-World Successes

Closing Thoughts

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 PID Controller Tuning
Demystifying the Process

Find Step Model Tune Test Document

Identify the Perform a Fit a Model Use Tuning Implement and Document the
Controller and Bump Test to the Correlations to Test results Tuning
Specify the DLO and Collect Process Calculate Process
and Control Dynamic Data Tunings Based
Objective Process Data on Model

11

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Tuning Recipe: A Simplified, Repeatable Process

How do you identify PID control loops that need to be tuned?

Reactive: Respond to the Operators Needs
Proactive: Analyze Process Data to Identify PIDs that Contribute to Increased
Process Variability
Proactive monitoring should:
Identify Mechanical, Process and Controller Tuning Issues
Facilitate Root-Cause Detection
Recommend Appropriate Corrective Action
Track and Report Findings

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 1: Find Controller, Specify Objective

Good Control is SIMPLE

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 1: Find Controller, Specify Objective

Reflux Drum Level Control Example

What is/are the primary Control Objective(s)?

Maintain Liquid Level In the Reflux Drum
Maintain Column Stability
Prevent Environmental Release by Avoiding Drum Hi Limit

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 2: Step or Bump the Process

Data should show Cause and Effect

A bump test must generate a Here the PV moves approximately
four (4) times the noise band a
response that clearly dominates good value
the random (noisy) PV behavior

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 2: Step or Bump the Process

Good bump tests

Open loop tests require the Closed loop tests require a sharp
Controller Output change
Controller Output to be stepped

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 2: Step or Bump the Process

Bad bump tests

AVOID Disturbance-Driven Data & Slow Ramping CO Changes

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 2: Step or Bump the Process

Types of process behavior

Self-Regulating Non Self-Regulating
Process will only reach a steady-
If all inputs are held constant, the
state at its balancing point
process will seek a steady-state
Example: Surge Tank
Example: Heat Exchanger

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 2: Step or Bump the Process

Simple First Order Models

Self-Regulating Non Self-Regulating

PV
KP* Integrator Gain [ timeCO ]
KP Process Gain [ PV
CO
] P Dead-Time [time]
P Time Constant [time]
P Dead-Time [time]

All models are wrong, some are useful

George Box

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 3: Fit a Process Model

First Order Plus Dead-Time (Self-Regulating Model)

Process Gain
How Far 63%
How Far does the
PV Move for
Change in the
Output
Process Time
Constant

How Fast
Process Dead-
How Fast does it
Time
take the PV to
How Much Delay
reach 63% of its
How much delay is
total change
there from when
the CO is changed
until the PV first
moves
PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT
 Tuning Demystified
Step 3: Fit a Process Model

First Order Plus Dead-Time (Non Self-Regulating Model)

Integrating
Process Gain
How Far and
How Fast
How Far and How
Fast does the PV
Move when the CO
is moved from its
balancing point Process Dead-Time
How Much
Delay
How much delay is
there from when the
CO is changed until
the PV first moves

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 3: Fit a Process Model

Tunings are only as good as the model

Manual or Auto-Tune Approaches

Sufficient for Simplest of Controllers
Software Modeling Much More Robust
Open Loop and Closed Loop
Noisy and Non-Steady State (NSS) Conditions

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 4: Tune the PID Control Loop

First compute, C, the Closed Loop Time Constant

A small C provides an aggressive or quick response
Choose your performance using these rules:
Aggressive: C is the larger of 0.1p or 0.8p
Moderate: C is the larger of 1p or 8p
Conservative: C is the larger of 10p or 80p
PI tuning correlations use this and the FOPDT model values:
and

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 4: Tune the Level PID Control Loop

IMC tuning correlation: Depending PID, Non Self-Regulating Process

The Closed Loop Time Constant, , should be as large as possible but

still fast enough to arrest or recover from a major disturbance.
PI tuning correlations use this and the FOPDT Integrating model values:

1 2
2

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 4: Tune the PID Control Loop

Closed Loop Time Constant rules of thumb:

Flow Loops
3 to 5 times the Open Loop Time Constant,

Pressure Loops
2 to 4 times the Open Loop Time Constant,

Temperature Loops
1 to 3 times the Open Loop Time Constant,

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 4: Tune the PID Control Loop

Expected PI Controller Response:

Conservative Moderate Aggressive

Set Point tracking (servo) response as changes

Copyright 2007 by Control Station, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 4: Tune the PID Control Loop

Challenges of PI Control: Self-Regulating Processes

Kc*2

Base Case Performance

Kc

2
Kc/2
Copyright 2007 by Control Station, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Ti/2 Ti Ti*2

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 4: Tune the PID Control Loop

Challenges of PI Control: Non Self-Regulating Processes

Kc*2

Kc

Kc/2

Ti/2 Ti Ti*2

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 4: Tune the PID Control Loop

PI vs. PID Set Point tracking response

PID shows decreased oscillations

compared to PI performance

PID has somewhat:

Shorter Rise Time
Faster Settling Time
Smaller Overshoot

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 5: Implement and Test Results

Modified tuning parameters must be tested

Testing PID Controllers Typically
Involve:
Adjust Set-Point to ensure adequate
tracking
Did the Process Variable overshoot?
Did the Controller Output move too
much?
Introduce a Load Change or Disturbance
Did the Process Variable recover quick
enough?

NOTE: PID controllers work off of controller error (SP-PV). If there is no error, there is nothing for
the PID controller to do. You MUST introduce controller error and force the controller to respond
before it can be determined if the tuning changes actually improved the system.

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Step 6: Document, Document, Document

Who:
Who is accountable for the change(s)?
What:
Which loop was tuned? What were the
As Found and Recommended tuning
values?
When:
When was the loop adjusted?
Why:
Why was this particular loop tuned?

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Tuning Demystified
Industrial-Grade Software for Real-World Applications

How do you identify PID control loops that need to be tuned?

Reactive: Respond to the Operators Needs
Proactive: Analyze Process Data to Identify PIDs that Contribute to Increased
Process Variability
Proactive monitoring should:
Identify Mechanical, Process and Controller Tuning Issues
Facilitate Root-Cause Detection
Recommend Appropriate Corrective Action
Track and Report Findings

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Agenda

Economic Drivers

Real-World Challenges

Tuning Demystified

Real-World Successes

Closing Thoughts

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Case Study: Praxair
Continuous Improvement & Process Optimization

Praxair, Inc.
The largest industrial gases company in
North and South America and one of the
largest worldwide.
Over 400 Cryogenic Plants Worldwide
On-stream reliability of 99%
Standardized on Rockwell Automation
Process Controllers
Standardized on LOOP-PRO TUNER PID
tuning software across all regions
The following 2 PID controllers alone
contributed between $75K-$100K USD /
year of savings

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Case Study: Known Underperformers
Continuous Improvement & Process Optimization

Example #1: LIQUID LEVEL CONTROL

Instability occurred at lower levels making
100
90

PID tuning difficult 80

70
60
Control the level at a reasonable value 50
40
(i.e. lower is better) 30
20 BEFORE
Before: Highly noisy PV
10
0

0:01
1:37
3:13
4:49
6:25
8:01
9:37
11:13
12:49
14:25
16:01
17:37
19:13
20:49
22:25
Process safety and efficiency impact 100
90
80

AFTER
70
Impact 60
50

Stable control at lower value 40

30
20
Savings: ~1% higher process 10
0

efficiency
0:01
1:31
3:01
4:31
6:01
7:31
9:01
10:31
12:01
13:31
15:01
16:31
18:01
19:31
21:01
22:31
PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT
 Case Study: Known Underperformers
Continuous Improvement & Process Optimization

Example #2: MIXING VALVE CONTROL

Mix two flows with different specifications 100
90

(higher is better) 80
70
60
Before: Poor tuning. Once in Auto, nearly 50
40
tripped the plant. As a result, most of time in 30
20
Manual, with low PV. 10
0
Process safety and low product recovery impact

0:01
0:24
0:47
1:10
1:33
1:56
2:19
2:42
3:05
3:28
3:51
4:14
4:37
5:00
5:23
5:46
100
Impact 90
80

Change PID loop from Manual to 70

60

Auto; Stabilize control at higher SP

50
40
30
SP PV OT
Savings: >2% product recovery
20
10
0
increase
0:01
0:24
0:47
1:10
1:33
1:56
2:19
2:42
3:05
3:28
3:51
4:14
4:37
5:00
5:23
5:46
PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT
 PlantESP TuneVue
Continuously Watches for Suitable Data For Analysis and Recommends
Tunings Parameters
Including SP Changes, Manual Bump Tests
No configuration required for setting noise limits, minimum step size or window length
Model Fits are Generated using full Non Steady State (NSS) Modeling
Innovation
Tuning Parameters Generated for each loop based on the criteria specified
by the user (Fast/Slow, Slider Bar)
Reports/Alerts Generated based on Deviation from Recommended Tunings

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Case Study
Models and Tuning Range Automatically Determined

Level Control of Medium Pressure

Steam Separator

TuneVue Used Existing Set-Point

Changes to Identify A Suitable
Tuning Parameter Range

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Agenda

Economic Drivers

Real-World Challenges

Tuning Demystified

Real-World Successes

Closing Thoughts

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Closing Thoughts
Demystify PID controller tuning
Apply a proven, repeatable recipe
Integrate the procedure with existing processes
Apply industrial-grade technologies
Eliminate the steady state requirement
Leverage advanced heuristics
Proactively address performance issues
Improve plant-wide awareness
Identify problems, isolate root-causes

PUBLIC CHICAGO PROCESS SOLUTIONS SUMMIT

 Questions

Robert Rice, PhD

Vice President, Engineering
November 2014

PUBLIC

www.rockwellautomation.com www.us.endress.com

PUBLIC