Editor's Choice


Control loop: Case History 167 - Test your analytical capabilities

July 2019 Editor's Choice Motion Control & Drives

Answer to the question at the end of Case History 166 (www.instrumentation.co.za/8690r)

In the last Case History article, I suggested you try and see what was not so good about a level control, which was actually working pretty well. The answer is that the valve is probably largely oversized. The process was running under normal load conditions, and assuming that the valve was calibrated correctly to the controller output then the valve at the level balance point was operating at about 14%. This is far too low for good valve practice.

A good rule of thumb is that control valves should under normal operating conditions should always work above 20% of opening. Problems (particularly cycling and non-linearity) can occur when the valve is close to the seat. The reasons for this have been detailed in the articles on final control elements in my Loop Signature series. In this case one could really encounter severe problems if the load was reduced considerably as the balance point of the level could be where the valve was almost completely closed.

The following is also to test your analytical powers. See what you can infer from the tests, and then you can refer to my deductions at the end of the article.

Figure 1 is the recording of a closed loop ‘As Found’ test on a flow loop in a minerals processing plant. This test consists of a setpoint change with the original tuning as done by the plant C&I personnel.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

The tuning in the controller was P(gain) = 0,25 and I = 25 seconds/repeat. (The controller algorithm is the classical ideal where the gain is multiplied through the integral.) At least 3 things that can be seen in the recording which would indicate a valve problem: can you identify them?

Figure 2 is a portion of an open loop test on the same loop. In this test one of the problems seen in the first test is confirmed.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Figure 3 is a ‘Final’ closed loop test with our new tuning of P = 1,2 and I = 6 seconds/repeat. The test shows the response when a 5% SP change is made. The test again confirms the valve problem. There is a small cycle appearing after the setpoint change. Is this caused by too ‘hot’ a tune, or is it something else?

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Deductions that can be made from the tests

Closed loop ‘As Found’ test (Figure 1)

1. The tuning is pitifully slow with far too small a gain and a terribly slow integral. In both the setpoint (SP) step changes, up and then down, one can clearly see on the controller output (PD) the initial proportional step which takes place immediately on the SP step, and it is then followed by the very slow ramp of the integral action, with the ramp rate decreasing as the process variable (PV) gets closer to the SP.

2. The valve is very sticky which can be seen by the extremely long deadtime before the PV starts moving after the SP change. This is because the control action is so slow and the controller output (PD) has to move quite a way before the energy in the actuator is sufficient to get through the stickiness and start moving the valve. (Actually, at this stage, one is not sure if it is actually valve stickiness or hysteresis, but the deductions made from the other two tests would rather confirm that it is stickiness.)

3. After the SP is stepped down it can be seen that it moves quite far below the original PD value at the start of the test, and in actual fact the PV has still not reached SP again at the end of the test. This is usually a sign of hysteresis, but can also be caused by stickiness which can sometimes be greater on one direction of valve movement, and less on the reverse direction. However it is definite confirmation that the valve is not operating well.

Open loop test (Figure 2)

This test normally shows valve problems very clearly, but surprisingly, in this case it does not really show them. The reason for this is that the test involves making quite a big step on the PD, and this acts like a ‘shock’ input to the valve and in this case the valve is driven quickly through the stickiness, so it looks quite good. However there is one indication of the stickiness in the test. It can be seen on the second step downwards, that the flow came down and then levelled off for quite a while (at about 270 seconds), and then it moved down a bit, and eventually settled out at a value slightly lower than the original PV at the start of the window – before the PD step upwards. (This is sometimes referred to as ‘Negative Hysteresis’.) What has actually happened is that on the reversal of the PD, the valve has moved down and has stuck before reaching the correct position. The positioner has then started trying to move the valve further down, and in overcoming the stiction, it has ‘pumped’ too much pressure into the actuator so that when the valve did move again it moved too far.

Final closed loop test (Figure 3)

This test shows that the feedback control with decent tuning does a pretty good job of getting the PV to SP despite the valve problem. However it does also show clearly that a small ‘stick-slip’ cycle is occurring due to the valve’s stickiness. Many people mistakenly believe that a cycle like this is due to bad tuning, but it is definitely caused by the valve’s stickiness, and the controller and positioner trying to move it to exactly the correct position.

The test also presents a powerful illustration of how remarkably well feedback control is in overcoming problems, especially with good tuning.

Editor’s note: We received some feedback from Glyn Craig in response to Mike’s ‘Control loop question answered’ article published in the June issue (www.instrumentation.co.za/8711r). Here’s what he had to say: “Thanks for the (as usual) voice of reason! An old friend (sadly now emigrated) was Fred Stevens who taught control theory at Wits. He told me that he met the lead programmer for the avionics on one of the U.S. fighter jets (F16?) at a conference, and asked him how they did it. The response: “Oh the usual, nested PID loops!” Makes one think, doesn’t it?”

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, +27 82 440 7790, [email protected], www.controlloop.co.za



Credit(s)



Share this article:
Share via emailShare via LinkedInPrint this page

Further reading:

Swiss watchmaking meets hypercar power
Horne Technologies Editor's Choice
The display of Bugatti’s upcoming luxury model, Tourbillon will be something truly special. Instead of a digital version, the driver will see a genuine Swiss timepiece behind the steering wheel.

Read more...
Reinventing the wheel
Editor's Choice
Once a curiosity in the early automotive age, in-wheel motors are now re-emerging with real promise. From electric cars to commercial vehicles and even aircraft, they are on the verge of transforming transportation engineering.

Read more...
Creating new magnets for electric motors
Editor's Choice
Innomotics, a global specialist in electric motors and large drive systems, is coordinating a consortium for a research project on ‘Integrated Product and Process Innovation for Electric Drives’.

Read more...
Sustainability is transforming fluid power
Editor's Choice Motion Control & Drives
Sustainability is reshaping the future of fluid power. With the growing demand for cleaner, more efficient technologies and tightening global regulations, fluid power systems are being re-engineered for higher efficiency, lower emissions and reduced material usage.

Read more...
The power of water
Editor's Choice Electrical Power & Protection
The Alpenglow Hy4 is the world’s first water-based hydrogen combustion engine, offering a convincing alternative to traditional battery-electric vehicles and established hydrogen fuel cell designs.

Read more...
Optimising purification for green hydrogen production
Parker Hannifin - Sales Company South Africa Editor's Choice Electrical Power & Protection
Parker Hannifin delivers advanced purification and thermal management components that enhance green hydrogen production.

Read more...
A new chapter in geothermal engineering
Editor's Choice Electrical Power & Protection
The town of Geretsried in southern Germany has become a focal point in the global shift toward renewable energy. While the world’s attention often turns to wind turbines and solar panels, a quieter but no less powerful force is at work deep beneath the surface, geothermal energy.

Read more...
Harnessing the ocean with wave energy
Editor's Choice Electrical Power & Protection
Wave energy is emerging as one of the most promising yet underutilised renewable sources. Tapping into the rhythmic, predictable power of ocean waves, this technology offers a clean, reliable alternative to fossil fuels and a valuable complement to wind and solar energy.

Read more...
Leading the way to the all-electric mine
ABB South Africa Editor's Choice IT in Manufacturing
Decarbonising the mining sector requires more than just new technology. ABB eMine provides a strong portfolio of electrification and automation solutions, consulting, partnerships and technology applications to support mining operations to reduce emissions and achieve operational cost savings and superior efficiency.

Read more...
Speeding up warehouse automation
Rockwell Automation Editor's Choice Motion Control & Drives
Bastian Solutions designs and delivers world-class material handling systems. The company was engaged by a high-end global fashion brand to implement a new warehouse system. Bastian used Rockwell Automation Emulate3D digital twin software to test the system before it was installed and went live.

Read more...









While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, the publisher and its agents cannot be held responsible for any errors contained, or any loss incurred as a result. Articles published do not necessarily reflect the views of the publishers. The editor reserves the right to alter or cut copy. Articles submitted are deemed to have been cleared for publication. Advertisements and company contact details are published as provided by the advertiser. Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd cannot be held responsible for the accuracy or veracity of supplied material.




© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd | All Rights Reserved