Workshop 4 1he nazard of 1un|ng I Contro||ers by 1r|a| and Lrror

2) With the controller in manual, step the CO from S0 to 60 and back. Let the Pv
steady after each step. Repeat with a disturbance variable (D) step from S0 to
60 and back.
























CC Lo v response behavlor should dlffer from Lhe u Lo v response behavlor because
Lhe dynamlc models used Lo creaLe each slmulaLlon are dlfferenL verlfy Lhls by sLepplng
CC from lLs defaulL value of 30 up Lo 60 and when Lhe response ls compleLe back Lo
30 nexL sLep u from 30 up Lo 60 and back Lo 30
























4) On the process graphic, step the disturbance variable, D, from S0 up to 60.
After Pv settles, step D back to S0. How would you characterize the controller
performance?
Seek to improve disturbance rejection performance by trying new Kc and/or :
!

values. Cuess new tuning values and test performance by stepping D from S0 to
60 and back.
Repeat this procedure until you find best" tuning values for disturbance rejection.
Count the number of tests you make as you search by trial and error for your best
tuning.

















































44.8
48.0
51.2
54.4
38.5
42.0
45.5
49.0
5250.05437.55625.05812.56000.06187.56375.06562.5
Loop-Pro: SISO Custom Process
Process: Single Loop Custom Process Cont.: Ideal PI ( RA, P(error) )
Tuning: Cont Gain 1.0, Reset Time 100.0, Sample Time 1.0
Process Variable/Setpoint
C
ontroller O
utput
Time (time units)






































When you have deLermlned besL Lunlng values for dlsLurbance re[ecLlon record Lhem
below Also record Lhe number of LesLs you Lrled ln your search for Lhese besL values
Kc 10 :
!
23 mln number of Lunlngs LesLs performed 9
lf clock Llme on Lhe slmulaLlon ls showlng mlnuLes how many hours of process Llme
dld Lhls loop Lunlng exerclse Lake? AL 8 hours/shlfL how many loops could you Lune
per shlfL aL Lhls raLe?
Pours of process Llmed used 60 horas number of loops Luned ln 8 hour shlfL
apenas 1

Workshop S I Contro| of neat Lxchanger 1emperature
1) A des|gn |eve| of operat|on (DLC) lncludes Lhe deslred value for Lhe measured process
var|ab|e (V) whlch we assume wlll be equal Lo Lhe set po|nt (S) durlng normal
operaLlon 1he uLC also lncludes Lhe Lyplcal or basellne values for Lhe lmporLanL
process d|sturbances (D)
Cur uLC for Lhls sLudy ls a v S 134 when u ls normally 30
unlLs unlLs
Cllck Lhe dlsLurbance box on Lhe heaL exchanger graphlc and seL Lhe warm llquld flow raLe
Lo lLs expecLed value of 30 L/mln now cllck on Lhe conLroller ouLpuL box and keep ad[usLlng
Lhe contro||er output (CC) unLll Lhe measured v sLeadles aL Lhe deslgn value of 134
o
C
v wlll sLeady aL Lhe uLC when u ls aL lLs expecLed value and when CC CC
blas
_42_unlLs












4) A Nodel Parameters tab to the left on Design Tools' main screen shows the fit
results. Record the FOPDT model parameters, including the sign (positive/negative)
and units.
Kp 0344 :p 0717 mln 7p 0377 mln

6) The slide bar defaults to a moderate (middle) tuning :c as shown in the image
above. Record the moderate P! controller values displayed in the !NC tuning chart
(with units):
Noderate Tuning: Kc = 0.402 :
l

= 0.717
Click on the slide bar button and move it so it points directly at the Aggressive label
tick mark. Record the aggressive P! controller tuning values (with units):
Aggressive Tuning: Kc = 2.10 :
l

= 0.717

8) Click Continue (:) if your process is paused. Click on the set point box on the
graphic and step the SP temperature from 134
o
C up to 138
o
C. After the response
is complete, return the SP to 134
o
C. Pause () the simulation when the Pv steadies.

Click on the temperature controller (TC) on the graphic, enter your aggressive Kc
and :
!
tuning values (task 6) and repeat the SP steps above. Pause the simulation.
The History icon on the tool bar will allow you to see both tests on the strip chart.

Describe the difference in SP tracking performance between moderate and
aggressive tuning. Do the response plots look like that predicted in Design Tools?
Why/why not?
Si se parecen.
Average the moderate and aggressive tuning values from task 6 and record the result:
NoderatelyAggressive Tuning: Kc = 1.06 :
!

= 0.717
Using these tuning values, repeat the SP tests from 134
o
C up to 138
o
C and back.




























9) Study how the strong nonlinear behavior of this process impacts controller
performance.

Enter your aggressive P! tuning values and steady the process at a SP of 134
o
C. Now
step the SP in increments of 4
o
C, from 134
o
C up to 138
o
C, then 142
o
C and finally
146
o
C. Let the Pv steady after each step.

Why does SP tracking performance change as operating temperature changes?

What does the changing performance with operating level indicate about Kp :p
and/or 7p? How does the changing controller performance with operating level relate
to the first step in the controller design and tuning recipe (i.e., establish a DLO)?

Can you now explain in more detail why the performance observed in task 8 does not
look exactly like the performance response predicted in Design Tools?











10) Develop your intuition about how Kc and :
!
individually impact controller
performance when SP tracking is the objective.
Start with your averaged moderatelyaggressive tuning values from task 8.
Double and halve each tuning parameter in an orderly fashion, and step the SP from
134
o
C up to 138
o
C and back. Does the changing SP response performance follow
the trends shown in the P! controller tuning map below?





































11) !nvestigate the disturbance rejection capability of the P! controller.

Enter your moderate P! tuning values (task 6) and a SP of 134
o
C. Click Continue if
the process is paused. When the previous experiments have scrolled off the strip
charts and the plots show essentially straight lines, click Rescale to expand the
vertical plot axes.

Click the Warm Liquid Flow (D) on the heat exchanger graphic and step the flow rate
of this disturbance stream from 30 L/min up to 40 L/min. After the response is
complete, step it back to 30 L/min. Pause the process.

Enter your moderatelyaggressive and then aggressive tuning values and repeat the
disturbance rejection test.

view a plot of the three disturbance rejection experiments sidebyside. Which
provides the best" performance? Explain how/why you made your decision.
Kc=1.06 porque las perturbaciones causan menos efectos.