Editor's Choice

Control Loop: Case History 176 The importance of programming PLC control modules correctly.

March 2021 Editor's Choice

Every time I work on a plant that is using a PLC and scada system for feedback control, I always first do a test on a controller module to ensure that the controllers have been configured correctly. I find that they are not working properly in at least 85% of cases! This is because the average person who writes the PLC program has no real understanding of the potential pitfalls.

As mentioned in previous articles, this is because most PLC manufacturers, as opposed to manufacturers of DCS systems, have not provided any safeguards in their system to prevent users from making mistakes. (The DCS people come from a background extending over nearly a century of manufacturing PID controllers from the early analog technology days, and have the experience to ensure that their digital systems provide all the necessary safeguards to prevent users making basic errors).

What are the problems associated with controllers that are configured incorrectly?

1. Controllers not working at all: I have been in at least three plants in my career where system integrators have written controller algorithms and software blocks that have not worked properly, for instance, not being able to change the tuning. Generally, these plants end up running the control loops in manual. Unbelievable but true.

2. Controllers not triggered correctly: controllers should be triggered by an accurate and repeatable timed interrupt, as the I (integral) and D (derivative) terms are time dependent.

3. Controllers triggered correctly, but the wrong scan time entered in the controller’s parameter block: the result is I and D terms that are not calculated correctly. It seems very strange that the scan rate is not automatically set to the same time as the interrupt scan time, but often there doesn’t seem much logical thought used by certain manufacturers. It should be noted that most DCS controllers actually measure the exact scan rate on each and every scan, and the time is incorporated into the control algorithm, so there can be no error.

4. Incorrect control algorithms used by manufacturers: this is very rare these days, but I have encountered a few PLC controllers that do not operate correctly.

5. Incorrect input/output scaling: the calculation performed by the P term in the controller is to take the control error, which is the difference between SP (set-point) and PV (process variable), multiply it by the gain factor, and then send the result to the controller’s output. Now, in the vast majority of cases, the controller’s output is scaled 0-100%. Therefore to be correct, the units of error must also be in percentage.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

In modern day digital control systems, people prefer to work in engineering units rather percentages, so it is important that the SP and PV inputs be converted, or that a factor be used to convert the engineering units to percentages. Most, if not all, DCS manufacturers do this for you when you program in your control loop. However, many PLC manufacturers seem completely unaware of the need for this, and leave it up to the user to perform the ‘normalisation’.

As an example: assume the measuring range of a transmitter is 0-200°C, and the system integrator programs 0-200°C as the ranges of both the SP and PV. Now, let’s say the SP is at 100°C, and the PV is at 99°C. The error is 100°C-99°C = 1°C. This is actually a percentage error of 0,5%. However, if the controller manufacturer, or the system integrator, has not compensated for this, the controller ‘thinks’ it is an error of 1%, which it will multiply by the P gain factor.

Assuming that the controllers are actually working (unlike those mentioned in point 1 above), what is the main problem encountered because of incorrect controller operation?

The answer is that if the proportional gain, and/or the integral and possibly derivative terms are not set up correctly, then scientific tuning is not possible as the closed loop responses will be wrong.

This may not worry most people, since very few use scientific tuning methods and surveys show that 98% of all tuning is done by trial and error. However, people who are any good at such tuning have acquired their skill through years of practice. The problem then is that the loops may all behave differently, maybe due to incorrect triggering, or incorrect configuration when using engineering units. Therefore the ‘feel’ for tuning that these people have developed may work differently on each loop, and they find that their tuning skills don’t seem to work anymore.

I always remember a control manager on a large mine saying to me: “I don’t understand it. We have got eight identical plants on this mine, yet the tunings on the loops are completely different for each plant. Surely they should be the same, or very similar?”

The answer was that each plant had its own PLC control system. Even though the PLCs were all the same make and model, each had been programmed by different people, none of whom understood how to configure controllers properly. Therefore, because the PLC manufacturer had not built in sufficient safeguards to prevent configuration errors, the programmers had all done different things. As a result, the controllers all behaved differently, as did the P, I and D terms. Not only that, but the different control loops in each individual PLC operated differently. It was a complete mess.

To test a controller for P+I action, one must set up the controller as shown in Figure 1. One needs to use a spare control block, or disconnect the controller in the field. As shown, a fixed 50% signal is fed into the PV input. The PD (output) and SP are then set to 50% with the controller in manual. Then you switch to auto. The PD signal should remain at 50% as the control error is zero. One then makes step changes on the SP and records the PD response.

Figure 2 shows a simplified controller and how the P and I terms each react to a constant step change in error. Figure 3 shows how one measures the P and I responses to see if the controller is responding correctly.

Figure 4 is an actual controller test recently performed at a metallurgical processing plant, where they use a very well-known make of PLC. The P in the controller was set to unity, and integral to 2 minutes/repeat. The SP was then stepped by 10%. (The little steps on the recording of the PV during the integral ramp are due to the 1 second scan rate of the OPC system that connected the Protuner to the control system).

On the actual recording it can be seen that the P also stepped up by 10%, so the P gain in the controller was correct. However, the integral ramped up and repeated the P move of 10% in 25 seconds. It should have taken 120 seconds (2 minutes). This means that either the controller block was not being triggered correctly, or else incorrect time settings had been made in the controller setup program.

The implications for the plant are possibly appalling: if all the control blocks have been configured incorrectly, then it will mean retuning every one of over 100 controllers in that plant – a major undertaking. This illustrates how important it is to ensure your controllers are set up correctly.

Michael Brown.

About Michael Brown

Michael Brown is a specialist in control loop optimisation with many years of experience in process control instrumentation. His main activities are consulting, and teaching practical control loop analysis and optimisation. He gives training courses which can be held in clients’ plants, where students can have the added benefit of practising on live loops. His work takes him to plants all over South Africa and also to other countries. He can be contacted at Michael Brown Control Engineering cc.


Share this article:
Share via emailShare via LinkedInPrint this page

Further reading:

Loop Signatures 1: Introduction to the Loop Problem Signatures series
May 2020, Michael Brown Control Engineering , Editor's Choice
Over the years I have had many requests to write a book giving more detailed explanations of some of the problems I have encountered in my work on practical loop optimisation. I am by nature and inclination ...

Loop Signatures 6: Final control elements – Part 2: characteristics.
April 2021, Michael Brown Control Engineering , Editor's Choice
Feedback theory generally assumes that the process has a linear transfer function, which means that equal changes on the input will result in equal changes on the output.

New online control loop optimisation and tuning service
April 2021, Michael Brown Control Engineering , News
Michael Brown has introduced an online control loop optimisation and tuning consultation service designed to help plant engineers all over the world understand why their loops are not behaving the way ...

Tailored technology meets responsive design with the new Festo website
April 2021, Festo South Africa , Editor's Choice
Festo South Africa recently launched its new website to demonstrate the company’s continuing commitment to simplifying its customer’s lives through innovative service delivery.

Control Loop: Loop Signatures 5
February 2021, Michael Brown Control Engineering , Editor's Choice
This article outlines some of the practical problems and rules of thumb relating to final control elements, which can affect control in the real world.

Unlimited performance in limited spaces
February 2021, KROHNE , Editor's Choice
The new AF-E 400 is the culmination of KROHNE`s 70 years of expertise in electromagnetic flow measurement and was specifically designed for industrial automation applications.

Control loop: Case History 175 Oversized valve disrupts good control
January 2021, Michael Brown Control Engineering , Editor's Choice
This article provides good insight into the dangers of using largely oversized valves, and into the importance of understanding practical control, and how your controllers work.

Advanced new Festo valve portfolio gains immense popularity in industrial automation
November 2020, Festo South Africa , Editor's Choice
Kershia Beharie talks to SA Instrumentation and Control about choosing the right valves for machine applications from the popular Festo range.

Michael Brown now offering control courses to individuals
November 2020, Michael Brown Control Engineering , News
Michael Brown is now offering training courses to individuals via online Zoom sessions. The first session of the Part 1 practical control course – Troubleshooting and Loop Tuning – will commence on Monday 1 February 2021.

2020 MESA virtual conference – if you missed it you missed out!
January 2021 , Editor's Choice, IT in Manufacturing
Arguably the best lineup of guest speakers in years; to top it you’d have to get Elon Musk and Kanye West to present at next year’s event.