Tuning Proportional-Integral-Derivative Controllers Using Achievable Performance Indices

Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research

Volumn 42, Issue 22, 2003, Pages 5576-5582

  Agrawal, Prabhat ^a   Lakshminarayanan, S ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLOSED LOOP CONTROL SYSTEMS; ROBUSTNESS (CONTROL SYSTEMS); TUNING;

PROPORTIONAL-INTEGRAL-DERIVATIVE (PID) CONTROLLER;

PROPORTIONAL CONTROL SYSTEMS;

CONTROL SYSTEM;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CONTROL SYSTEM; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; MODEL; MONITORING; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PROCESS CONTROL; PROCESS DESIGN; STOCHASTIC MODEL;

EID: 0142214693     PISSN: 08885885     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ie030001a     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Desborough, L. D.; Miller, R. M. Increasing Customer Value of Industrial Control Performance Monitoring-Honeywell's Experience. Proceedings of CPC VI, Tucson, AZ, 2001.
2. O'Dwyer, A. A Summary of PI and PID Tuning Rules for Processes with Time Delay. Part I: PI Controller Tuning Rules. In Preprints of the IFAC Workshop on Digital Control: Past, Present and Future of PID Control; CBS: Terrassa, Spain, 2000; p 175.
3. Van Overschee, P.; De Moor, B. RAPID: The End of Heuristic PID Tuning. Preprints of the IFAC Workshop on Digital Control: Past, Present and Future of PID Control; CBS: Terrassa, Spain, 2000; p 687.
4. Ender, D. B. Process Control Performance: Not as Good as you Think. Control Eng. 1993, Sept.
5. Åström, K. J. Automatic tuning and Adaptation for PID controllers-A survey. Control Eng. Pract. 1993, 1 (4), 699.
6. Harris, T. J. Assessment of control loop performance. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1989, 67, 856.
7. Desborough, L.; Harris, T. J. Performance Assessment Measures for Univariate Feedback Control. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1992, 70, 1186.
8. Stanfelj, N.; Marlin, T. E.; MacGregor, J. F. Monitoring and diagnosing control loop performance: The single loop case. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993, 32, 301.
9. Huang, B.; Shah, S. L.; Kwok, E. Z. Good, Bad or Optimal? Performance Assessment of Multivariable Processes. Automatica 1997, 33 (6), 1175.
10. Thornhill, N. F.; Oettinger, M.; Fedenczuk, P. Refinerywide control loop performance assessment. J. Process Control 1999, 9, 109.
11. Ko, B. S.; Edgar, T. F. Performance assessment of cascade loops. AIChE J. 2000, 46 (2), 281.
12. Qin, S. J. Control performance monitoring-a review and assessment. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1998, 23, 173.
13. Huang, B.; Shah, S. L. Performance Assessment of Control Loops: Theory and Applications; Springer-Verlag: New York, 1999.
14. Ko, B. S.; Edgar, T. F. Assessment of achievable PI control performance for linear processes with dead time. Proceedings of the American Control Conference; American Automatic Control Council: Evanston, IL, 1998; p 1548.
15. Agrawal, P.; Lakshminarayanan, S. Direct Assessment of PI Achievable Performance using Experimental Closed Loop Data. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2002, submitted for publication.
16. Optimization Toolbox, Version 2.2, MATLAB (Release 13); The MathWorks, Inc.: Natick, MA, 2002.
17. Swanda, A. P.; Seborg, D. E. Controller performance assessment based on setpoint response data. Proceedings of the American Control Conference; American Automatic Control Council: Evanston, IL, 1999; p 3863.
18. Reyes, F.; Luyben, W. L. Steady-state and dynamic effects of design alternatives in heat-exchanger/furnace/reactor processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, 39, 3335.