w Ti q

w, T
(a) (b) (c)

A wC
T'i T'i

T'R Gc G wC T' T'R Gc A T'

s s

(d) (e)

FIGURE 12–1

228
 229

a,

b
c

d.
wC
A e.

G
Kv
Kv Kv
Gc GcKv

unity-feedback
e,

12.1 PROPORTIONAL CONTROL FOR SET

POINT CHANGE (SERVO PROBLEM—
SET POINT TRACKING)

Gc Kc
e

T Kc A s Kc A
TR Kc A s s Kc A

T Kc A Kc A A
TR Kc A s s

Kc A

Kc A
A
Kc A Kc A
230

T'R TR
A
T'

t
T
FIGURE 12–2 T
T
A KcA KcA

T
offset

TR T

Kc A
Kc A Kc A

Kc
Kc

Kc
 231

Ti Example 12.1. Proportional control of a

stirred tank heater for set point tracking.

V
T

q TR Kc

Kc
FIGURE 12–3

Ti Ti
TR TR
q q

A
wC

Tr
Q T
kc
s

Kc

Ti

Tm

FIGURE 12–4
232

Kc

Kc

5 5
Offset
1 1 0 . 0714

Kc
 233

Kc

Kc

Kc

Kc

Kc

FIGURE 12–5

Kc

Kc

FIGURE 12–6
234

12.2 PROPORTIONAL CONTROL FOR LOAD

CHANGE (REGULATOR PROBLEM—
DISTURBANCE REJECTION)
e
TR

Ti

TR T

T s
Ti Kc A s s Kc A

T A
Ti s
A
Kc A

Kc A

Ti s,
Kc A
T
s Kc A s
T

T sT s
s Kc A

Kc Ti

KcA T
KcA Kc A

t
FIGURE 12–7 Kc
 235

TR T
Kc A

Kc A

Kc

Example 12.2. Proportional control of a stirred-tank heater for disturbance

rejection.
Kc
Kc

Kc

Kc

Kc

Kc

Kc

Kc

FIGURE 12–8
236 PART 3 LINEAR CLOSED-LOOP SYSTEMS

Offset vs for Disturbance Rejection

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FIGURE 12–9
Effect of controller gain on offset for stirred-tank proportional control—disturbance rejection.

Note the results are qualitatively the same as for set point tracking. As
increases for proportional control, the system does a better job at rejecting the
disturbance and bringing the tank temperature back to the original set point (0 C
in deviation variables, or 80 C). The final temperature is closer to zero, and the
offset also approaches zero.

12.3 PROPORTIONAL-INTEGRAL
CONTROL FOR LOAD CHANGE
Again, for the case of a load change, the desired goal is the rejection of the disturbance,
and the desired final value is zero (since the set point remains unchanged). For PI con-
trol, we replace in Fig. 12–1 by (1 1/ ). The overall transfer function for
load change is therefore

1/ 1
1 1/ (12.8)
1
1
Rearranging this gives

1 1
or

2
 237

T I Kc A s
Ti I Kc A s I Kc A s

T As
Ti s s

I
A
Kc A
I
Kc A

I Kc A
Kc A

Ti s.

A
T
s s

Ti
A

t t
T A e

Kc I
a,
Kc I

Kc
b Kc I
238

Kc
A A
Kc
Kc

Kc

t t
a b

FIGURE 12–10

I
I

Summary for Proportional-Integral Control—Response to Step Change in Load

Kc
Kc

TR T

Key Point Proportional-Integral Control No offset

Example 12.3. Proportional-integral control of a stirred tank heater for distur-

bance rejection.
a
Kc
I
b a Kc
I

P Is
Ds. P Kc I
Kc I D Kc D
kc P kc/taui I.
 239

FIGURE 12–11

I
240

Kc

Kc

Kc

Kc

FIGURE 12–12
I

Kc

Kc

FIGURE 12–13
Kc
 241

12.4 PROPORTIONAL-INTEGRAL
CONTROL FOR SET POINT CHANGE
Kc Is e

T AK c Is s
TR AK c Is s

T Is
TR s s

TR s

Is
T
s s s

I
T
s s s s s

t t
T e

t t
e

TR T

eliminated the offset.

242

Kc

FIGURE 12–14

Example 12.4. Proportional-integral control of a stirred-tank heater for set

point tracking

Kc
I
a Kc
I

Kc
Kc

Kc
Kc

FIGURE 12–15
I
 243

Kc

FIGURE 12–16
Kc

12.5 PROPORTIONAL CONTROL OF

SYSTEM WITH MEASUREMENT LAG

ms

T'i

Kc s
T'R wC T'

ms

FIGURE 12–17
244

T A ms
TR s s

Kc A
A
Kc A
m
Kc A

m Kc A

m Kc A. Kc m

Kc m
Kc m

m
m Kc
Kc
T'R s m T'R s
Kc m

Kc m
t t
(a) (b)

T'R Kc T'
s
A

ms

(c)

FIGURE 12–18

m a Kc
 245

Kc

Kc

Kc b

Example 12.5 Effect of measurement lag on the proportional-integral control of a

stirred-tank heater for set point tracking.

Kc I

Tr
Q T
s

Ti

Tm
s

FIGURE 12–19

m
246

Kc
m

FIGURE 12–20

SUMMARY

PROBLEMS
12.1.

a C
b
c