Step Change in a proportional plus integral controller

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the analysis of a proportional plus integral controller, specifically focusing on determining the proportional gain and integral action time based on provided input and output waveforms. Participants explore the implications of these values in the context of control systems, with references to specific calculations and interpretations of the controller's behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests calculating the proportional gain using the formula gain = output change/input change, arriving at a value of -2.5.
  • Another participant notes that the term "PB" stands for proportional band and discusses the lack of units for gain, indicating it can be treated as a dimensionless number.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about how integral action is applied in different manufacturers' controllers, with one noting that some apply proportional gain to integral action while others do not.
  • A participant mentions that the output did not integrate before the step change, implying an initial error of zero, and discusses how to interpret the output changes in relation to the input changes.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of pneumatic controllers and their historical context, with references to their robustness and operational characteristics.
  • One participant shares a waveform they created based on their understanding, prompting feedback on whether it accurately represents the system's behavior.
  • Several participants reflect on the vagueness of the questions and the clarity of the instructions provided in the lessons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the method for calculating the proportional gain, but there is no consensus on the application of integral action across different manufacturers. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of how integral action is treated in various contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the information provided, such as the absence of specific values on the y-axis of the waveforms, which affects their ability to make precise calculations. There is also mention of differing interpretations of integral action among manufacturers.

David J
Gold Member
Messages
140
Reaction score
15

Homework Statement



Figure 5 shows the input and output wave forms for a proportional plus integral controller. State:
(i) the controllers proportional gain
(ii) the controllers integral action time

The attachment below is a copy and paste of the input and output wave forms I am given

upload_2018-11-29_18-39-7.png


Homework Equations


[/B]
I use the equation ##gain = \frac{100}{\%PB}##

Integral action time is the time taken for the initial change due to proportional action to be repeated by the integral action when the input to the controller is subject to a step change

The Attempt at a Solution



I[/B] am looking at where to start with this as all of my lessons show the output moving in a positive direction (up) so do I assume this is some kind of reverse acting device as the output is moving down as the input increases.
There are no values given on the y-axis so I do not know ranges etc. In a situation like this, if I input my own values would should I still be able to calculate the correct values? I am just looking for a little bit of info to initially start me off in the correct direction
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-29_18-39-7.png
    upload_2018-11-29_18-39-7.png
    3.3 KB · Views: 996
Physics news on Phys.org
David J said:
I am just looking for a little bit of info to initially start me off in the correct direction
Well you have to work with what you're given.

I see input stepping UP two squares
and output stepping DOWN five squares
so i'd answer gain is -5/2 squares per square which gives gain = -2.5 and the units cancel.
Controls has its own jargon and that's not even consistent between manufacturers
often the negative sign is taken care of by the word "reverse"
and PB is pretty universally inverse of gain expressed in %

What (if any) units for gain did instructor use in class ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
Don't know what "PB" stands for but I agree with post 2 re: the proportional gain.
So how about the integral gain?

The units don't matter; you can just think of the units as dimensionless, or volts, or whatever.
 
PB stands for proportional band. We were not given any units for gain so as you say its just a number. This has given me something to work on, thanks
 
rude man said:
So how about the integral gain?

Some manufacturers apply proportional gain to integral action, some do not.
It depends on whether or not their internal error term gets multiplied by gain before applying integral.

In his graph,
output wasn't integrating before the step change at input, so error then must have been zero.
After the step we can assume there's an error of two squares.
Output changes by an amount equal to error, 2 squares, in 0.28 minutes so that'd be the integral time in some makes of controller.
Output changes by an amount equal to error X gain, 5 squares, in 0.7 minutes so that'd be the integral time in other makes of controller.
Which did his textbook assume? He didn't say.
In my experience the latter is more common but far from ubiquitous.
You'll also often see "Integral action" named "Reset" instead ...

old jim
 
I dug deeper into the lessons and discovered another method of calculating the gain which makes far more sense and agrees totally with Jims post number 2

##gain=\frac{output change}{input change}## so ##gain =\frac{-5}{2}=-2.5##

I also found an example of the Integral action time in one of the lessons and its explained quite well (I need to read more into these lessons) I have attached an extract from the lesson below.

upload_2018-11-30_16-4-16.png


Based on the above I am certain that the correct value for Question (ii) will be 0.7 seconds

upload_2018-11-30_16-5-55.png


Going back to my first post I was wondering about such things as values on y-axis etc but they were never required for this question.

I think I am ok for part (a)(i and ii) of the question for now so thank you once again and I will move onto part B which is :-

upload_2018-11-30_16-9-28.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-30_16-4-16.png
    upload_2018-11-30_16-4-16.png
    28.1 KB · Views: 855
  • upload_2018-11-30_16-5-55.png
    upload_2018-11-30_16-5-55.png
    35.8 KB · Views: 812
  • upload_2018-11-30_16-9-28.png
    upload_2018-11-30_16-9-28.png
    5.8 KB · Views: 829
"...opening the restrict or on the integral circuit..." ??
Wow that sounds like a pneumatic controller - you'll find excellent training materials in old Bailey and Fisher literature .

Integral of a constant is a ramp , ∫kdt = kt (plus Constant of integration) and C is just whatever output was when integration began

Derivative is also called "Rate"
and as name implies it's derivative of error

your ramp is a constant rate of change so derivative will be its rate of change .
 
Yes, its a Pneumatic force balance controller. This is the example they use through all of our modules
upload_2018-11-30_19-19-45.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-30_19-19-45.png
    upload_2018-11-30_19-19-45.png
    19.3 KB · Views: 767
i love it !

upload_2018-11-30_10-42-21.png


These mechanical analog computers were well suited to boiler control.
Oblivious to power line spikes from lightning, and impervious to EMP attack.
From a slight touch on the beam you could judge their health by the 'hiss' .
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-30_10-42-21.png
    upload_2018-11-30_10-42-21.png
    46.3 KB · Views: 811
  • #10
Going back to post 6

upload_2018-11-30_16-9-28-png.png


This question only asks me to actually create a waveform. If it rises and falls over 4 units per minute then it must start at zero and reach its peak after 2 units then back down to zero when it reaches 4 units. As shown in the drawing above.

I have made a drawing below of what I think the output wave form should look like based on limited info I have in the lesson notes

upload_2018-11-30_22-26-58.png


Does this make any sense??
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-30_22-26-58.png
    upload_2018-11-30_22-26-58.png
    62 KB · Views: 799
  • upload_2018-11-30_16-9-28-png.png
    upload_2018-11-30_16-9-28-png.png
    5.8 KB · Views: 770
  • #11
Hello again, just a thanks for the help with this, I submitted my answers and everything in this thread was confirmed as correct. Many thanks
 
  • #12
oops i missed your post 10 somehow. Sorry about that.

David J said:
I have made a drawing below of what I think the output wave form should look like based on limited info I have in the lesson notes

upload_2018-11-30_22-26-58-png.png

your plot looks almost right for the derivative part
but what about the proportional?
You could consider the two terms as separate computations then sum them.

derivative term should be the slope of input so steps at first positive then negative

and that is added to the proportional term , which i don't see represented in your second line

old jim
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-30_22-26-58-png.png
    upload_2018-11-30_22-26-58-png.png
    62 KB · Views: 753
  • #13
David J said:
Going back to post 6

View attachment 234947

This question only asks me to actually create a waveform. If it rises and falls over 4 units per minute then it must start at zero and reach its peak after 2 units then back down to zero when it reaches 4 units. As shown in the drawing above.

I have made a drawing below of what I think the output wave form should look like based on limited info I have in the lesson notes

View attachment 234946

Does this make any sense??

Hi DavidJ,

Sorry to resurrect an old post. Was this marked correct? From what I can tell it doesn't have the derivative action drawn?
 
  • #14
Hello Jason

This was marked as correct. Its a long time ago now. I had actually submitted this for marking before Jim pointed out about the proportional but thinking back I did ask about this and was told it was not required
 
  • #15
David J said:
Hello Jason

This was marked as correct. Its a long time ago now. I had actually submitted this for marking before Jim pointed out about the proportional but thinking back I did ask about this and was told it was not required

Hi David thanks for the reply. The questions just seem so vague sometimes! Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K