Editor's Choice


Loop Signatures 14: Digital controllers – Part 6: The D term, continued

September 2022 Editor's Choice

In my previous Loop Signatures article (see www.instrumentation.co.za/16775r), the purpose of the derivative (D) term and the two types of processes where it works effectively were discussed. This article and the next will deal with the practicalities of using the derivative as applied in the modern digital controller.

As was demonstrated, if a ‘vertically’ changing input signal (like a step change) is applied to a derivative block, the block’s output (in theory) should go to infinity. An example of this is shown in Figure 1, where a P+D controller in the test rig is subjected to a step change in setpoint. The PD (controller output) immediately spikes up to maximum, and then comes straight back down again.

In the old analog electronic and pneumatic controllers, a response like this was impossible as their speed of response was limited by natural lags inherent in the way they worked; examples being the speed of pneumatic signal propagation and capacitor charging time. However, in a digital system that uses mathematical calculations, the maximum output value would be limited only by the number of bits used by the system.

Furthermore, as a digital system is non-continuous and operates on a scan rate, even the smallest change from the previous scan would be seen as a step and the output would go to a maximum or minimum limit. Therefore, a digital system using a straight derivative block would be unusable, as the output would be continually jumping up and down between limits.

Manufacturers studied the derivative action of the analog units and inserted a first-order lag filter in front of the derivative block, to make their digital controllers operate in a similar fashion. This is illustrated in Figure 2. The filter acts the same way as the natural lags do in an analog system. A step change is now converted into an exponential lag response, and the derivative of this is the classical derivative response.

It is necessary to discuss the strange whims and peculiarities of some of the manufacturers. As mentioned in previous articles, there are no standards whatsoever in the control field, and particularly so when it comes to controllers. The manufacturers not only make their brands of controllers uniquely different to other brands, but many of them may not even make the next batch of controllers, or next version of controller software, the same way.

So, any software version or a different model of controller coming out of the same stable may be completely different – which is obviously highly confusing to the user. For example, some manufacturers do not place the derivative filter before the derivative unit, but before all three blocks (P, I and D). In other words, they put a filter in front of the whole controller. There seems to be no logical explanation for this, as it also affects the tuning of the P and I terms.

The most confusing thing when it comes to the derivative filter is how individual manufacturers handle its value. As can be seen in Figure 2, most controllers have the time constant of the filter set to a value given by:

TC = α x TD, where α is a constant and TD is the derivative time.

This is done to effectively make the derivative response directly proportional to the value of the derivative time, TD. If it was not done this way, then it would be necessary to change the filter time constant every time TD was changed.

The value of α is especially critical. Most manufacturers set its value to somewhere between 0,125 and 0,25, and generally don’t let the user adjust it. The response of a P+D controller with a derivative filter α coefficient of 0,25, to an input step change in error, is shown in Figure 3. This is a typical classical derivative response to a step change.

In my previous Loop Signatures article, I wrote about a senior instrument technician in a paper plant who believed in using the derivative in every loop. On examining his DCS system (which is a very popular and well-known make), it was found that the value of the α coefficient was user-adjustable, and had been set to unity. To understand the effect of this, it is necessary to look at the combined transfer function of the filter and derivative block. This may be written as:

If we set α = 1, then the equation becomes:

Thus, the filter cancels out the derivative term. Figure 4 is the response of the same P+D controller to an input step change in error, but with the α coefficient of the derivative filter set equal to unity. The derivative kick is entirely gone, and all that is left is a purely proportional response.

The senior technician was very embarrassed when this was explained to him. His men had spent months tuning derivatives into loops without realising that the derivative was in fact not working at all. However, it was not altogether his fault – nobody had ever taught him about a derivative filter.

Reference to the DCS user’s manual showed that unity is the default value set by the manufacturer. The manual indicated that the α coefficient was adjustable anywhere between 0,1 and a 100. There was no other reference in the manual to this coefficient, and the instrument technicians in the plant said that in their training courses on the DCS, no mention had ever been made of it. Why would a manufacturer set a default value in the system that effectively switches one of the parameters off? It is completely senseless.

Taking this further, I was recently working in a large South African petrochemical refinery where another well-known make of DCS was installed. Upon finding a temperature loop where D would be beneficial, the manual was consulted to determine the α coefficient. It was found that the coefficient was adjustable over a wide range, but in this case the manufacturer’s default value was 2,5. This is amazing, as it makes the denominator in Equation A larger than the numerator.

The former is a lag, and the latter (D component) is a lead. When you have a lead divided by a lag, and the lead is smaller than the lag, the expression turns into a lag. In other words, the D parameter with its filter is now acting as a large lag on the controller output. The effect of this is shown in Figure 5 on the same controller with the α coefficient set to 2,5. It can be seen that the controller now takes over three minutes to respond to a 10% change in error!

It is hard to believe that a leading manufacturer of control equipment can put such a stupid value of the α coefficient into its controller as the default value. In the company’s particular manual it does talk about the α coefficient and says that it is adjustable, and that a larger value should be used in the presence of large noise on the PV signal.

This is really not a sensible approach; the D term was never intended to act as a noise filter. If one has to attenuate noise, then the DCS has a proper lag filter which can be placed in front of the incoming PV signal. (Please refer to other articles on the dangers inherent in using large filters). One can only conclude that some of the manufacturers, or at any rate, the people writing their controller software, have no real understanding of the practicalities of control.

It is of interest that the people who had commissioned the refinery had brought in an expert on refinery control from overseas to tune the controllers. He obviously also had no idea of the practical aspects of the α coefficient, and had increased the P gain dramatically to overcome the tremendously sluggish response when he used the D term.


About Michael Brown


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 now presents courses and performs optimisation over the internet.

His work has taken him to plants all over South Africa and also to other countries. He can be contacted at: Michael Brown Control Engineering CC, +27 82 440 7790, [email protected], www.controlloop.co.za


Credit(s)



Share this article:
Share via emailShare via LinkedInPrint this page

Further reading:

Cutting-edge robotics and smart manufacturing solutions
Yaskawa Southern Africa Editor's Choice
Yaskawa Southern Africa made a compelling impact at this year’s Africa Automation and Technology Fair.

Read more...
A cure for measurement headaches in contract manufacturing
VEGA Controls SA Editor's Choice
A contract manufacturing organisation provides support to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the manufacturing of medications, formulations and substances. VEGA’s measurement solutions offer accuracy and reliability for monitoring levels and pressures during the manufacturing process.

Read more...
PC-based control for a food capsule and pod packaging machine
Beckhoff Automation Editor's Choice
For TME, a machine builder specialising in the packaging of powdered foods, Beckhoff’s PC-based control technology offers unlimited opportunities when it comes to performance and innovative capacity in terms of flexibility, scalability and openness.

Read more...
Case History 198: Cascade control overcomes valve problems
Michael Brown Control Engineering Fieldbus & Industrial Networking
A large petrochemical refinery asked me to perform an audit on several critical base layer control loops. This article deals with a problem found on a valve controlling the flow of fuel to a heat exchanger.

Read more...
Simple and efficient level measurement in the mining, minerals and metals industries
Endress+Hauser South Africa Editor's Choice Level Measurement & Control
Measuring devices in the mining, minerals and metals industries face the challenge of varying material states and long distances in measurement height. Endress+Hauser’s answer to these challenges is the new Micropilot family.

Read more...
PC-based control for fertiliser
Beckhoff Automation Editor's Choice Fieldbus & Industrial Networking
On a farm in the USA, valuable ammonia is extracted from slurry and processed into ammonium sulphate. NSI Byosis has transformed this complex process into a flexible modular system. This modular approach requires an automation solution with flexible scalability in both hardware and software, which this Dutch company has found in PC-based control from Beckhoff.

Read more...
Loop signature 28: Things to consider when tuning.
Michael Brown Control Engineering Editor's Choice Fieldbus & Industrial Networking
I was giving a course at a remote mine in the middle of the Namibian desert. We were discussing tuning responses, and as I always do on my courses, I mentioned that in my opinion ¼ amplitude damped tuning is not desirable, and is in fact not good.

Read more...
Control without complexity
Editor's Choice Motion Control & Drives
In an era where precision, performance and smart control define industrial success, the right driver can make all the difference. At Axiom Hydraulics, we’ve seen firsthand how the Sun Hydraulics XMD series transforms hydraulic systems, from mining and construction to agriculture and automation.

Read more...
The thermal combustion balancing act
Editor's Choice
From carbon taxes to export tariffs, and cost containment to security of supply and sustainability, companies are under increasing pressure to switch to greener fuel sources. Associated Energy Services warns that this pivotal change has some potentially serious knock-on effects.

Read more...
What’s driving the IE3 motor revolution?
WEG Africa Editor's Choice
The International Efficiency 3 (IE3) motor standard will soon become South Africa’s legal minimum standard, mandating that local suppliers offer more efficient electric motors. What is driving this change, and how does it affect the many industries that rely on these modern electric workhorses?

Read more...