Editor's Choice


Case History 187 - Integrating or self-regulating or both?

May 2023 Editor's Choice

It is vital, when optimising a control loop, to establish at the outset if the process is self-regulating or integrating, as not only do these two process types behave completely differently ,but also they are tuned very differently. A typical self-regulating process is a flow where if you make a step-change to the input to the process, the output moves to a new value and then remains constant at that value. An integrating process on the other hand is one where if the input to, and the output from, the process are different, then the output is always either ramping up or down. It is only constant when the output is equal to the input. It is known as a balancing process. A very good example of an integrating process is the control of a level in a vessel.

Unfortunately, it is sometimes very difficult to decide if a process is actually self-regulating or integrating. For example, certain processes, like certain temperature and pressure control of compressible fluids like gases and steam, sometimes seem to exhibit both characteristics. A good example of this is level control of a liquid in a tank that has not got a pump on the output of the tank. We call this a gravity feed tank. The output flow is dependent on the force of gravity acting on the height of the liquid in the tank. Now, if at a certain point in time the input and output flows are equal, the level remains constant. If one now makes a small step increase in the output flow, the level immediately starts ramping down, but as the level decreases, the head of liquid in the tank is getting smaller and hence the output flow starts decreasing as well. If you have not made too big a step, the level will actually eventually balance itself out. The resultant total curve recorded in the level now looks exactly like a self-regulating process. However, level is definitely integrating. So how do we define it?

Basically what has effectively occurred is that the process started reacting as an integrator and then changed into a self-regulator. There are quite a few cases where this happens, and there are also some odd cases where a process starts as self-regulating and turns into an integrator. The important rule for tuning is that in these cases you always tune on the initial reaction.

It is sometimes quite difficult to decide if a process is better tuned as an integrator or as a self-regulator, and it sometimes takes quite a long time, especially on very slow processes like some temperature control processes. We teach how best to deal with these cases in our courses.

Generally, level is always integrating, but there are occasional cases where the tests make it look self-regulating. An example of this is the gravity feed tank level described above. However, I recently came across an unusual case of level control where the test initially appeared to be giving a truly self-regulating response. This was in the control of levels of cooling towers on a mineral processing plant.

Figure 1 is a recording of an As Found Closed Loop test on one of the towers, where a setpoint (SP) step change is made on the controller, which is in automatic, with the original tuning parameters set in it. The level was in a small continuous slow cycle. It can be seen that the response after the SP was stepped was also rather slow and very cyclic. This type of action is very typical of cycling on integrating processes and is usually caused by either bad tuning (commonly as the result of too fast an Integral (I) setting, or by hysteresis in the valve, and with P+I action in the controller.

Figure 2 shows the Open Loop test we performed. We first got the process into balance with the PD (controller output) at a value where the level PV remained constant. With the controller in manual, a step change was made on the PD. It can be seen that the level started ramping down, but after a while the ramp rate started decreasing and eventually the PV became constant. This would certainly appear to be a self-regulating process, however level is nearly always definitely integrating.

So why did this become self-regulating? We could not initially see any reason for this behaviour, as the level was not gravity fed. However, the process was configured in rather an unusual manner. The liquid feeding the cooling tower was pumped into the tower via the control valve. Then there was also a pump on the output of the vessel which one would think would keep the flow out of the tank pretty constant. This, on the face of it, definitely appears to be a true integrating process.

The only explanation for the behaviour of the actual response that we could think of would be that the output pump’s characteristics were affected by the head of liquid in the tower. Unfortunately in the time available it was not possible to get details of the pump’s characteristics, but it seems to be the only logical explanation.

In any event we did try tuning it both as a self-regulator and then as an integrator. The tuning as an integrator worked much better. Figure 3 shows the window we used for the integrator tuning.

Figure 4 shows a section of the final Closed Loop test with the new tuning. The response was still a little cyclic but the PV settled out after one cycle and stuck to SP at normal conditions without cycling. It was working much better.

The new tuning had much the same P gain as the old, but the integral time was double.

This was an interesting example of the difficulties one can encounter when trying to identify if a process is integrating or self-regulating.

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.


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


Credit(s)



Share this article:
Share via emailShare via LinkedInPrint this page

Further reading:

Loop signature Part 2-5: Interactive control systems
Michael Brown Control Engineering Fieldbus & Industrial Networking
Feedforward control was explained in the previous loop signature articles. One of the examples used was feedforward control of load changes on a heat exchanger when variations occurred in the flow of the process fluid through the exchanger.

Read more...
Control systems, remote monitoring and human skills in the food sector
Editor's Choice Industrial Wireless
The convergence of specialist skills and advanced technology is becoming critical, a trend underscored by two recent projects completed by Associated Energy Services in the food manufacturing sector.

Read more...
Motion control for flight simulators
Beckhoff Automation Editor's Choice Motion Control & Drives
Turkish specialist, SANLAB is a leader in motion platforms and simulation technologies. At the heart of these platforms are application-specific servo drives, servomotors and industrial PCs for real-time control, which are supplied by Beckhoff.

Read more...
Conductivity sensing as a cornerstone of South Africa’s water smart industry
ifm - South Africa Editor's Choice Sensors & Transducers
South Africa’s engineers operate at the intersection of resource constraint and industrial ambition. Few parameters illustrate this balancing act as clearly as water quality. Whether in municipal treatment works, food and beverage plants or mining operations, the ability to measure water quality accurately and continuously has become non-negotiable.

Read more...
Jendamark catalyst shrinking technology leverages SEW-EURODRIVE precision
SEW-EURODRIVE Editor's Choice Motion Control & Drives
[Sponsored] Innovative technology for shrinking catalytic converters, designed and built in South Africa by Jendamark Automation for the global market, relies on the precision of SEW-EURODRIVE’s highly dynamic servo-geared units and software.

Read more...
How to size and select a servo motor
Festo South Africa Editor's Choice Motion Control & Drives
Festo highlights some factors to consider in the process of sizing and selecting a servo motor effectively to ensure optimal performance, reliability and energy efficiency.

Read more...
Dynamic control of industrial solar plants and energy storage systems
Beckhoff Automation Editor's Choice Electrical Power & Protection
Spanish Group, Power Electronics has demonstrated its comprehensive expertise in sustainable energy supply in over 3000 solar and energy storage projects with a total installed capacity of 120 GW. To control its modular systems, the company relies on open, high-performance Beckhoff control technology.

Read more...
Loop signature Part 2-4: Feedforward Control: Part 3
Michael Brown Control Engineering Editor's Choice Fieldbus & Industrial Networking
In the previous articles in this series, the basic theory behind feedforward control was discussed, and it was also shown how to apply feedforward in practice. In this article, it will be shown how well feedforward can work in practice by giving a couple of examples.

Read more...
Engineers, AI and the risk of cognitive surrender
Editor's Choice
AI will have a significant impact on how engineering work gets done in the future, but the cognitive implications of continued AI use are serious.

Read more...
Reinventing grain silo management
VEGA Controls SA Editor's Choice
The VEGAPULS 6X radar sensor is designed for continuous level measurement to help overcome the challenges faced by storage in grain silos.

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