Steam Water Loop

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 20

processes

Article
The Application of a New PID Autotuning Method
for the Steam/Water Loop in Large Scale Ships
Shiquan Zhao 1,2,3 , Sheng Liu 1, * , Robain De Keyser 2,3 and Clara-Mihaela Ionescu 2,3,4
1 College of Automation, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China; zhaoshiquan@hrbeu.edu.cn
2 Research Group on Dynamical Systems and Control, Department of Electromechanical, Systems and Metal
Engineering, Ghent University, B9052 Ghent, Belgium; Robain.DeKeyser@ugent.be (R.D.K.);
ClaraMihaela.Ionescu@ugent.be (C.-M.I.)
3 Core Lab EEDT—Energy Efficient Drive Trains, Flanders Make, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
4 Department of Automation, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Memorandumului Street No.28,
400114 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
* Correspondence: liu.sch@163.com

Received: 24 December 2019; Accepted: 29 January 2020; Published: 6 February 2020 

Abstract: In large scale ships, the most used controllers for the steam/water loop are still the
proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers. However, the tuning rules for the PID parameters
are based on empirical knowledge and the performance for the loops is not satisfying. In order to
improve the control performance of the steam/water loop, the application of a recently developed
PID autotuning method is studied. Firstly, a ‘forbidden region’ on the Nyquist plane can be obtained
based on user-defined performance requirements such as robustness or gain margin and phase
margin. Secondly, the dynamic of the system can be obtained with a sine test around the operation
point. Finally, the PID controller’s parameters can be obtained by locating the frequency response of
the controlled system at the edge of the ‘forbidden region’. To verify the effectiveness of the new PID
autotuning method, comparisons are presented with other PID autotuning methods, as well as the
model predictive control. The results show the superiority of the new PID autotuning method.

Keywords: steam/water loop; steam power plant; proportional-integral-derivative controller;


multi-input and multi-output system

1. Introduction
The steam/water loop in a steam power plant is the process that provides water for the boiler
and recycles the waste steam from the turbine [1]. Due to the harsh operation environment, the system
of steam/water loop in large ships suffers more disturbances than the equipment installed in onshore
power stations. The steam/water loop is a system with multiple variables and strong interactions.
All above become obstacles to obtain satisfying system performance for the steam/water loop in large
scale ships.
The sub-loops in the steam/water loop are listed as follows—the control loop for drum water
level, the control loop for exhaust manifold pressure, the control loop for deaerator pressure, the control
loop for deaerator water level and the control loop for condenser water level. The main difficulties
existing in the system can be summarized as follows:

• when the water turns between steam and liquid, the false water level phenomenon appears for
reason of the shrink and swell in the water, which makes the drum water level control loop a
non-minimum phase system [2].
• the water in the condenser goes to the deaerator, hence, strong interactions exist in the water
control loops of the deaerator and the condenser.

Processes 2020, 8, 196; doi:10.3390/pr8020196 www.mdpi.com/journal/processes


Processes 2020, 8, 196 2 of 20

• the steam required in the deaerator is from the exhaust manifold, which leads to strong coupling
in the pressure control loops of the deaerator and exhaust manifold.
• the amount of required steam in the deaerator changes with the feedwater flow rate. Hence,
the water level and the pressure are two strong coupling variables in the deaerator.

For the false water level phenomenon, the most used method in reality is the cascade-three
elements control [3–5], which can be treated as a hybrid structure consisting of feedback control and
feed-forward control. The water level is the feedback signal, while the feed-forward signals are chosen
as steam flow rate and water flow rate. Besides, many advanced control strategies have been studied
on the drum water level control in literature, including the sliding mode control [6–8], model predictive
control [9–13], backstepping control [14,15] and adaptive disturbance rejection control (ADRC) [16,17].
In Reference [8], a robust adaptive sliding mode controller was designed for the boiler-turbine
unit to deal with the unknown bounded uncertainties and external disturbances. The effectiveness
was evaluated comparing with a type-I servo controller. Liu proposed a coordinated control with
two nonlinear model predictive control methods for a steam-boiler generation plant [11]. One of
the models was obtained with input-output feedback linearization technique. The other model was
obtained with neuro-fuzzy networks, which is a nonlinear dynamic model. An economic model
predictive controller was proposed, and the part of the cost function is composed of the economic
index [9]. To guarantee the stability, stable Sontag controller and corresponding region were designed.
A backstepping procedure was implemented to adapt the unknown parameters in a power plant
station, in which the nonlinearity of the system is synthesized. Meanwhile, the control law was
obtained with symbolic computations [15]. Sun applied the ADRC algorithm to a power plant. For
system safety, an automatic tuning tool was designed when the ADRC was applied to the loop [17].
For the coupling issue between the water level control loops in deaerator and condenser, a fuzzy
PID algorithm was proposed for a multi-variable control system, which has been applied in practice in
the Yangzhou thermal power plant [18]. Other work shows in Reference [19], in which the system is
decoupled firstly, and a PID neural network was designed for the system. According to experience,
the initial weighting factors and learning coefficients were selected, and the convergence of the
proposed method was enhanced.
The deaerator is used to remove the oxygen and other gas dissolved in feed water. When there
is a change in the deaerator water level, the pressure changes a lot for the interactions between the
two variables. Liao proposed a self-tuning fuzzy PID controller, in which the overshoot was decreased
from 40% to 12% [20]. Wang applied the decoupling method to the deaeration system [21]. Then,
the neurons for proportional, integral and derivative were obtained with a PID neural network and the
superiority was validated for the PID neural network.
The exhaust manifold has the following functions—recycles waste steam from turbine and
auxiliary machines and supplies steam for the deaerator. Hence, the exhaust manifold pressure has
strong interaction with the deaerator pressure. For the modeling of the exhaust manifold pressure,
a mean-value model was derived with the compressible flow equation, in which the exhaust system
was treated as a fixed-geometry restriction between the exhaust manifold and the outlet of the
tailpipe [22]. A generic model was used for the controller design [23]. In this method, the exhaust
gas flow was estimated with an observer, which comes from the loops with high pressure or low
pressure. Then, an intake burnt gas fraction control was designed to obtain satisfying performance for
a LTC-Diesel engine.
For the loop control of multiple interacting subsystems, a practical tuning method was proposed
with model based predictive control and it is validated that the method is suitable for manually
tuning for predictive control [24]. Linear and nonlinear PID controllers were designed for a twin
rotor MIMO system and based on nonlinear-segmented observers, the parameters for nonlinear PID
controller were obtained. The results showed the superiority of the nonlinear PID [25]. Based on
fractional order method, designing controller with adaptive laws was proposed [26]. To deal with the
interactions between sub-loops in a process, a theoretical framework was proposed, which is useful for
Processes 2020, 8, 196 3 of 20

controller design problems [27]. An optimization method was proposed to make a trade-off between
implementation cost and achievable performance for multiple interacting subsystems [28]. In order to
optimize the choice of the cost function and their effect to the overall system performance, strategy for
selection of the optimal criteria according to context conditions was proposed and a windmill park
experiment was conducted to validate the performance [29].
In most of the methods mentioned above, an accurate model is necessary for the controller
design. However, according to Reference [30], the expenses of time in the procedure of modeling
takes 60%–70% of the total time for a controller design. Moreover, the steam/water loop is a complex
system, and a model for the entire system is difficult to be obtained [31]. In the industrial process
control, the most used strategy is still PID controller. The PID controllers play an important role in
process control [32–35]. Meanwhile, 60% of loops have bad performance and 25% can not meet the
performance requirements in industry [36]. In order to develop much advanced tuning method for
the PID controller, an universal direct tuner was proposed for loop control [37]. In this paper, a PID
autotuner—named the KC autotuning method—is applied to the steam/water loop in large scale ships.
According to the user-defined requirement, a ‘forbidden region’ can be plotted on the Nyquist plane.
Then, the dynamic of the system around the operating point can be obtained with a simple sine test.
By designing a proper PID controller, the system’s frequency response can be tangent to the ‘forbidden
region’, where the requirements can be fulfilled.
The paper is structured as follows—firstly, the steam/water loop in large scale ships is introduced
in Section 2. Then, the detailed theory of the KC autotuner is presented in Section 3. In Section 4, other
PID autotuning methods are listed. The comparison experiments are conducted in Section 5 and the
results are analyzed. The conclusions are shown in Section 6.

2. Introduction of the Steam/Water Loop


There are four main pieces of equipment in the steam/water loop, including the drum, exhaust
manifold, deaerator and condenser, as shown in Figure 1. In system, the red line is the steam loop,
while the green line indicates the water loop. The steam/water loop works as follows—firstly, the feed
water gets pre-heated in the economizer and pumped into the drum. Then, the feedwater goes to the
mud drum for its high density. After absorbing heat from the risers, the water becomes a mixture
of water and steam. Thirdly, the steam gets separated in the drum and heated in the superheater,
after which the steam is qualified to serve in turbine. Fourthly, the waste steam from the turbine
and other auxiliary machines goes to the exhaust manifold. The waste steam is mostly used for
condensation in the condenser and the remaining part goes to the deaerator for deoxygenation. Finally,
the condensed water goes to the deaerator. After being deoxygenated, the water will be pumped to
the drum to work again.
The manipulated variables u = [u1 , u2 , . . . , u5 ] are the positions of the valves that control the flow
rates of feedwater into the drum (u1 ), exhaust steam out of the exhaust manifold (u2 ), exhaust steam
into the deaerator (u3 ), water from the deaerator (u4 ) and water into the condenser (u5 ), respectively.
The controlled output variables y = [y1 , y2 , . . . , y5 ] are the values of the water level in drum (y1 ),
pressure in exhaust manifold (y2 ), water level (y3 ) and pressure (y4 ) in deaerator, and water level of
condenser (y5 ), respectively [31]. Equation (1) shows the transfer function of the system around the
operation points shown in Table 1. The constraints of the system can be found in Equation (2).
    
y1 G11 G12 · · · G15 u1

 y2
 
  G21 G22 · · · G25 
 u2


.. = .. .. .. .. , (1)
..
 
. . . . . .
    
    
y5 G51 G52 · · · G55 u5

0.0000987 0.7254
where G11 = (s+0.1131)(s+0.0085+0.032j)(s+0.0085−0.032j)
, G22 = (s+1.2497)(s+0.0223)
,
Processes 2020, 8, 196 4 of 20

G23 = −0.5 , G33 = 0.0132


, G34 = −0.009 ,
(s+1.9747)(s+0.0253) (s+0.0265+0.0244j)(s+0.0265−0.0244j) (s+0.0997)(s+0.0411)

G41 = −0.0008 , G44 = 0.0005152


,
(s+0.012+0.126j)(s+0.012−0.126j) (s+0.012+0.038j)(s+0.012−0.038j)

G54 = −0.00015 , G55 = 0.00147


and other transfer
(s+0.0175+0.0179j)(s+0.0175−0.0179j) (s+0.025+0.0654j)(s+0.025−0.0654j)

functions G12 = G13 = ... = G53 = 0.

du


 −0.007 ≤ 1 ≤ 0.007 0 ≤ u1 ≤ 1



 dt



 du
−0.01 ≤ 2 ≤ 0.01 0 ≤ u2 ≤ 1



dt







du

−0.01 ≤ 3 ≤ 0.01 0 ≤ u3 ≤ 1 (2)


 dt



 du
−0.007 ≤ 4 ≤ 0.007 0 ≤ u4 ≤ 1



dt







 −0.007 ≤ du5 ≤ 0.007 0 ≤ u ≤ 1



5
dt

Figure 1. Scheme of steam/water loop [38] (reproduced with permission from Zhao, S.; Maxim, A.;
Liu, S.; De Keyser, R.; and Ionescu, C, Processes; published by MDPI, 2018).
Processes 2020, 8, 196 5 of 20

The inputs are normalized in percentage values of the valve opening, and 0 means the valve
is closed completely and 1 means the valve is opened fully. Additionally, the unit for input rates is
measured in opening degree per second.

Table 1. System operating points and range.

System Outputs Operating Points Range Units


Drum water level 1.79 [1.39–2.19] m
Exhaust manifold pressure 100.03 [87.03–133.8] MPa
Deaerator pressure 30 [24.9–43.86] KPa
Deaerator water level 0.7 [0.49–0.89] m
Condenser water level 0.5 [0.32–0.63] m

3. Detailed Theory of KC Autotuning Method


In this section, the theory of the KC autotuning method is introduced in detail [39–42]. The main
idea of the KC autotuner is shown in Figure 2. By designing a PID controller indicated with C ( jω ),
the point B on the Nyquist curve of process P( jω ) can be placed at the point A of the loop L( jω ) =
P( jω )C ( jω ). Circle 2 in Figure 2 indicates the ‘forbidden region’ obtained according to user defined
performance such as robustness or phase and gain margin. In this paper, the performance of phase
margin and gain margin are chosen, and a similar theory can be obtained with robustness. In order to
fulfill the performance requirement, the loop L( jω ) should be tangential to the ‘forbidden region’ on
the Nyquist plane, which means that the slopes should be the same of the loop L( jω ) as well as the
‘forbidden region’ on the edge of the region.

Figure 2. Graphic illustration of the KC autotuning principle [43] (reproduced with permission
from Zhao, S.; Ionescu, C.M.; De Keyser, R.; and Liu, S. In 3rd IFAC Conference in Advances in
Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control; published by Elsevier, 2018).

The procedure for KC autotuning can be summarized as follows:

(1) Obtain the critical frequency ω̄ of the system (ω̄ is usually critical frequency, but might
be different);
(2) Conduct sine tests around the operating points on the steam/water loop;
Processes 2020, 8, 196 6 of 20

(3) According to the loop margin requirements, calculate a ‘forbidden region’ on the Nyquist plane;
(4) Calculate parameters for the PID controller for the points on the region edge (for α from 0◦
to 90◦ );
(5) Search for the point, where the slope of the loop L( jω ) is the same with the slope of the
‘forbidden region’;
(6) The parameters for the PID controller are obtained from step 5).

3.1. Slope of the ‘Forbidden Region’


According to loop margin requirements, points D and E can be obtained in Figure 2. D indicates
the intersection of gain margin with negative real axis. E is the intersection of phase margin with unit
circle. With D and E, the ‘forbidden region’ can be calculated as:

Forbidden region : ( Re + C )2 + Im2 = R2 (3)

D ⇒ (−1/GM + C )2 = R2
, (4)
E ⇒ (− cos PM + C )2 + (− sin PM)2 = R2

where the Re and Im are the real part and image part of the points on the circle 2; GM and PM are
user defined phase margin and gain margin of the system.

Then the center C and the radius R of the ‘forbidden region’ are as follows:

GM2 − 1 1
C= ; R = C− . (5)
2GM ( GM cos PM − 1) GM

The slope at point A gives:

dIm − Re + C cos α
= = . (6)
dRe α Im sin α

3.2. Slope of the Loop L( Jω )


The slope of loop L( jω ) is obtained according to the derivative of L( jω ).

dP( jω )C ( jω ) dC ( jω ) dP( jω )
= P( jω ) + C ( jω )
dω dω dω
dRe PC dIm PC
= +j , (7)
dω dω
dIm PC

dRe PC ω̄

with ω̄ the specified frequency.

The gain and phase at point A can be obtained as:

M A e jϕ A = MPC ( jω̄ )e jϕPC ( jω̄ ) . (8)

It can be re-written as:


(
M A = MPC ( jω̄ ) = MP ( jω̄ ) MC ( jω̄ )
(9)
ϕ A = ϕ PC ( jω̄ ) = ϕ P ( jω̄ ) + ϕC ( jω̄ )
Processes 2020, 8, 196 7 of 20

3.2.1. Calculation for C ( Jω ) and Its Derivation


dC ( jω )
The following section introduces how to obtain the parts of C ( jω ) and dω . The typical form of
the PID controller gives:

1
C ( jω ) = K p (1 + + Td jω )
Ti jω
, (10)
Td Ti ω 2 − 1
= K p + jK p
Ti ω

where K p , Ti Td are the proportional gain, integration time constant and differential time
constant, respectively.

The modulus and phase for the PID controller can be obtained according to Equation (10).
s
2
Td Ti ω 2 − 1

MC ( jω ) = K p 1+ (11)
Ti ω

Td Ti ω 2 − 1
 
ϕC ( jω ) = atan . (12)
Ti ω
According to the ‘forbidden region’, the modulus and phase are as follows:
q
M A ( jω ) = R2 sin2 α + (C − R cos α)2
p (13)
= C2 + R2 − 2CR cos α

R sin α tan ϕC + tan ϕ P


tan( ϕC + ϕ P ) = = . (14)
C − R cos α 1 − tan ϕC tan ϕ P
Hence, we have
R sin α − tan ϕ P (C − R cos α)
tan ϕC = . (15)
tan ϕ P R sin α + (C − R cos α)
Let:
R sin α − tan ϕ P (C − R cos α)
F= . (16)
tan ϕ P R sin α + (C − R cos α)
Taking the relationship of Ti = 4Td , the Td at the frequency ω̄ can be calculated as:

F+ F2 + 1
Td = . (17)
2ω̄
Substitute Td to Equation (9) and K p gives:

MA
Kp = √ . (18)
MP ( jω̄ ) 1 + F2

dC ( jω )
The items of C ( jω̄ ) and dω are obtained as follows:
ω̄

T T ω̄ 2 − 1
 
MA
C ( jω̄ ) = K p 1 + j d i = √ (1 + jF ) (19)
Ti ω̄ MP ( jω̄ ) 1 + F2
 
dC ( jω ) 1
= Kp − + jTd
dω ω =ω̄ jTi ω̄ 2
. (20)
Td Ti ω̄ 2 + 1
 
MA
= jK p =j
Ti ω̄ MP ( jω̄ )ω̄
Processes 2020, 8, 196 8 of 20

3.2.2. Calculation for P( Jω ) and Its Derivation


dP( jω )
The following introduces how to get the parts of P( jω ) and its derivation dω . In order to
obtain the magnitude and phase slope of the process at the gain crossover frequency, a sinusoidal
input signal around the operation point is imposed into the system:

u(t) = Au sin(ω̄t) + uop , (21)

where Au is the amplitude of the sinusoidal signal and uop denotes the input operation point.

Then there will be another sinusoidal signal in the output of the system, which can be described as:

y(t) = Ay sin(ω̄t + ϕy ) + yop , (22)

where Ay , ϕy indicate the amplitude and phase of the output signal, and yop is the output
operation point.

Hence, the part P( jω̄ ) can be obtained as:

P( jω̄ ) = M(ω̄ )e jϕ(ω̄ ) , (23)

Ay
with M = Au , and ϕ(ω̄ ) = ϕy .

According to the property of Laplace-transform:

If F (s) = L{ f (t)}
Z ∞
dF (s)
then = F 0 (s) = e−st f (t)dt/ds . (24)
d(s) 0
Z ∞
= −te−st f (t)dt = L{−t f (t)}
0

We can conclude that, when there is an input t × u(t) applied to the process P(s), the Laplace
transform of the output X (s) gives:

X (s) = L{t × u(t)} P(s), (25)

which can be re-written as:


dU (s)
− P ( s ) = X ( s ). (26)
ds
Considering U (s) P(s) = Y (s), where the U (s) and Y (s) are the Laplace transforms of input and
dP(s)
output, if the signal u(t) is imposed to the process ds , the corresponding output will be ȳ(t), yielding:

dP(s)
U (s) = Ȳ (s). (27)
ds
Furthermore, the following equation can be obtained:
 
dY (s) −1 dY ( s ) −1 d [ P ( s )U ( s )]
= L{−ty(t)} ⇒ −ty(t) = L { }=L
ds ds ds
 
−1 dP ( s ) dU (s) , (28)
=L U (s) + P(s)
ds ds
= L−1 Ȳ (s) + X (s)


ȳ(t) = x (t) − ty(t), (29)


Processes 2020, 8, 196 9 of 20

where ȳ(t) indicates the output of the process derivative.

Taking the input shown in (21), its Laplace transform gives:

Au ω̄
U (s) = (30)
s2 + ω̄ 2
and its derivative gives:
dU (s) 2Au ω̄s
=− 2 . (31)
ds (s + ω̄ 2 )2
Hence, the output of the process derivative can be calculated as:

dU (s) 2Au ω̄s


X (s) = − P(s) = 2 P(s)
ds (s + ω̄ 2 )2
. (32)
Au ω̄ 2s 2s
= 2 P(s) = 2 Y (s)
s + ω̄ 2 s2 + ω̄ 2 s + ω̄ 2

According to Equation (29), the experimental scheme to apply the sine signal to the system can be
obtained as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The scheme of sine test to obtain the knowledge of the process around the operating point [39]
(reproduced with permission from De Keyser, R., Muresan, C. I. and Ionescu, C. M. A novel auto-tuning
method for fractional order PI/PD controllers. ISA transactions, published by Elsevier, 2016).

dP(s)
The modulus and phase of the process ds can be obtained by measuring the output ȳ(t):

dP( jω )
= M̄(ω̄ )e j ϕ̄(ω̄ ) , (33)
d( jω ) ω =ω̄

Aȳ jϕȳ
with M̄e j ϕ̄ = Au e . Aȳ and ϕȳ are the amplitude and phase of the signal ȳ(t), respectively.

dC ( jω ) dP( jω )
Now, the four parts P( jω ), dω , C ( jω ) and dω are all obtained for Equation (7).
For 0 ≤ α ≤ αmax , find the α which minimizes ||0 slope of L( jω )0 −0
slope of forbidden region0 ||, that is,

dIm RE dIm PC dIm RE Re(α) + C


min − with =− . (34)
α dRe RE α dRe PC ω̄ dRe RE α Im(α)
Processes 2020, 8, 196 10 of 20

Then the PID parameters can be calculated as:

MA
Kp = √ (35)
MP ( jω̄ ) 1 + F2

F+ 1 + F2
Td = (36)
2ω̄
Ti = 4Td . (37)

3.3. Application to Mimo System


In order to apply the KC autotuning method based PID controller to a Multi-Input and
Multi-Output (MIMO) system, the following procedure is required to be performed on the system.

(1) Apply sine test around the operating points on one of the sub-loops, while keeping other
sub-loops to work at their own operating points. And the controller parameters can be calculated
for the selected loop, with the magnitude and phase obtained from the sine test;
(2) Keep the previous sub-loop working at its operating point with the obtained PID control,
and conduct a new sine test on one the other sub-loops. The magnitude and phase can be
obtained for the new sub-loop and the controller can be calculated;
(3) Repeat step 2 for each sub-loop until the output magnitude and phase do not change significantly
between consecutive tests.
(4) The parameters for the PID controller can be obtained for all the sub-loops after step 3
is completed.

4. A Brief Introduction of Other PID Autotuners


To validate the KC autotuning method, comparisons are conducted with other PID autotuning
methods, including Åström-Hägglund (AH) [44], Phase Margin (PM) and Kaiser-Rajka (KR) methods.
The brief introduction for the PID autotuners are as follows.
These methods are based on a relay test shown in Figure 4. The output will oscillate around the
system’s operation point with a relay excitation signal. After a period of time, the oscillation will be a
steady periodic signal with amplitude Ac and critical period Tc . A typical result for a relay test can be
find in Figure 5.

Figure 4. Schematic representation of the relay test.

The critical gain can be obtained as:

4d
Kc = . (38)
π Ac

The PID parameters obtained based on the AH and PM method are:

AH method : K p = 0.6Kc ; Ti = 0.5Tc ; Td = 0.25Ti (39)


Processes 2020, 8, 196 11 of 20

1 + sin PM
PM method : K p = Kc cos PM; Ti = Tc ; Td = 0.25Ti . (40)
π cos PM

Figure 5. Typical result of the relay test.

The PID parameters based on the KR method are obtained with a relay plus delay test and the
−37 T , with the PM and T the desired
scheme is shown in Figure 6. The delay time is set as τd = PM360 c c
phase margin and critical period.

Figure 6. Schematic representation of the relay plus delay test.

The PID parameters obtained for the KR method are:

KR method : K p = 0.8Kc∗ ; Ti = 0.64Tc∗ ; Td = 0.25Ti , (41)

where Kc∗ = 4d
π A∗c ; A∗c and Tc∗ are the amplitude and period of the result in the relay plus delay test.
Processes 2020, 8, 196 12 of 20

5. Experiments and Results Analyses

5.1. A Simple Single Input Single Output System Example


In this section, the test on a simple single input single output (SISO) system example is provided
to verify the effectiveness of the KC PID autotuning method. The transfer function of the SISO system
is shown as follows:
0.00147
G (s) = 2 . (42)
s + 0.05s + 0.0049
In the SISO system test, the performance for reference tracking and disturbance rejection are
verified for the KC method. The PID parameters obtained with AH, PM, KR and KC methods are
shown in Table 2.

Table 2. PID parameters with different autotuners for the single input single output (SISO) system.

PID kp Ti Td
AH 85.42 6.81 1.70
PM 100.66 10.46 2.62
KR 52.86 12.67 3.17
KC 257.76 8.49 2.12

The results are shown in Figure 7. It is obvious that the KC method has the best performance
compared with other PID autotuning methods, not only in reference tracking, but also in disturbance
rejection. In the KC method, the performance requirements, such as robustness or phase margin and
gain margin, are obtained by locating the frequency response of the process to be tangential to the
boundary of the ‘forbidden region’. Hence, the PID parameters obtained with the KC method are less
conservative compared with other PID autotuning methods, which leads to a fast dynamic response in
the KC method. GM = 2 and PM = 45◦ are introduced for the PID controller design.

Figure 7. The results of a SISO system with different PID autotuners.

5.2. Simulation on Steam/Water Loop in Large Scale Ships


In the experiments, step signals are introduced to the system at different times. Table 3 shows
the step setpoints changing. Table 1 is the initial condition of the steam/water loop. GM = 2 and
PM = 45◦ are introduced for the PID controller design.
Processes 2020, 8, 196 13 of 20

Table 3. Setpoints for different loops in the experiments.

Time (s) 2–300 300–600 600–900 900–1200 1200–1500


Drum Water Level (m) 2 2 2 2 2
Exhaust Manifold
100.03 116 116 116 116
Pressure (MPa)
Deaerator Pressure (KPa) 30 30 35 35 35
Deaerator Water Level (m) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8
Condenser Water Level (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6

The parameters obtained with different PID autotuners are shown in Table 4. Loop 1 to loop 5 are
the control loops for drum water, exhaust manifold pressure, deaerator pressure, deaerator water level
and condenser water level, respectively.
The simulation results are shown in Figure 8. The performance is evaluated with the following
definitions, including the Integrated Absolute Relative Error (I ARE), Integral Secondary control output
(ISU), Ratio of Integrated Absolute Relative Error (RI ARE), Ratio of Integral Secondary control output
(RISU) and combined index (J). The results for the performance indexes are listed in Tables 5 and 6.

T
I AREi = ∑ |ri (k) − yi (k)| /ri (k) (i = 1, 2, · · · , 5) (43)
k =0

T
ISUi = ∑ (ui (k) − ussi (k))2 (i = 1, 2, · · · , 5) (44)
k =0

I AREi (C2 )
RI AREi (C2 , C1 ) = (i = 1, 2, · · · , 5) (45)
I AREi (C1 )
ISUi (C2 )
RISUi (C2 , C1 ) = (i = 1, 2, · · · , 5) (46)
ISUi (C1 )

1 5 w1 RI AREi (C2 , C1 ) + w2 RISUi (C2 , C1 )


5 i∑
J (C2 , C1 ) = , (47)
=1
w1 + w2

where ussi is the steady state value of ith input; C1 ,C2 are the two compared controllers; the weighting
factors w1 and w2 in Equation (47) are chosen as w1 = w2 = 0.5.

Table 4. PID parameters with different autotuners for steam/water loop.

Loop 1 Loop 2 Loop 3 Loop 4 Loop 5


kp 0.83 0.28 0.27 2.77 2.87
AH Ti 76.62 20.48 42.00 57.77 31.69
Td 19.16 5.12 10.50 14.44 7.92
kp 0.98 0.31 0.32 3.26 3.39
PM Ti 117.76 24.14 49.56 88.79 48.70
Td 29.44 6.03 12.39 22.20 12.17
kp 0.98 0.29 0.29 3.28 3.50
KR Ti 102.64 29.99 63.33 76.60 46.92
Td 25.66 7.50 15.83 19.15 11.73
kp 2.47 0.33 0.31 8.34 8.67
KC Ti 96.24 31.48 64.56 72.02 39.50
Td 24.06 7.87 16.14 18.01 9.88
Processes 2020, 8, 196 14 of 20

Table 5. Performance indexes for I ARE and ISU.

Index Autotuners Loop 1 Loop 2 Loop 3 Loop 4 Loop 5


AH 2.2063 1.5750 2.7951 3.6710 4.9961
PM 2.9400 1.5464 2.6325 4.7586 6.3090
I ARE
KR 2.5294 1.5087 3.1779 4.0973 5.9431
KC 1.2606 1.4744 3.2924 2.0025 2.8126
AH 0.0288 1.0234 0.1766 0.2405 2.9971
PM 0.0425 0.9210 0.1799 0.2934 2.9572
ISU
KR 0.0345 0.8095 0.2205 0.2586 2.9566
KC 0.0204 0.7241 0.2043 0.1284 2.6393

Table 6. Performance indexes for RI ARE, RISU and J (the controllers are compared in order of C2 vs.
C1 , according to Equations (45) and (46)).

Index loops AH vs. PM AH vs. KR AH vs. KC PM vs. KR PM vs. KC KR vs. KC


loop 1 0.7504 0.8723 1.7502 1.1623 2.3322 2.0064
loop 2 1.0185 1.0440 1.0683 1.0250 1.0488 1.0233
RI ARE loop 3 1.0618 0.8795 0.8490 0.8284 0.7996 0.9652
loop 4 0.7715 0.8960 1.8332 1.1614 2.3763 2.0461
loop 5 0.7919 0.8406 1.7763 1.0616 2.2431 2.1130
loop 1 0.6768 0.8342 1.4100 1.2325 2.0834 2.0834
loop 2 1.1112 1.2643 1.4134 1.1377 1.2720 1.2720
RISU loop 3 0.9813 0.8007 0.8645 0.8159 0.8810 0.8810
loop 4 0.8199 0.9301 1.8739 1.1344 2.2855 2.2855
loop 5 1.0135 1.0137 1.1356 1.0002 1.1205 1.1205
J 0.8997 0.9375 1.3974 1.0559 1.6442 1.5796

As shown in Figure 8 and Table 6, the KC autotuner has the best performance compared to
other PID autotuners. In Table 6, the KC method has a worse performance only in loop 3, which is
because of the strong interaction between deaerator water level indicated by loop 3 and deaerator
pressure indicated by loop 4. In order to obtain good performance for loop 4, the valve opening for the
deaerator water level changes a lot, which also has a noticeable negative effect on loop 3. In order to
test the performance of the KC autotuner with a model based controller, a comparison between the KC
autotuning based PID controller and Model Predictive Controller (MPC) is conducted. The results are
shown in Figure 9. The detailed parameters for the MPC can be found in Reference [31].

(a) drum water level control loop


Figure 8. Cont.
Processes 2020, 8, 196 15 of 20

(b) exhaust manifold pressure control loop

(c) deaerator pressure control loop

(d) deaerator water level control loop


Figure 8. Cont.
Processes 2020, 8, 196 16 of 20

(e) condenser water level control loop


Figure 8. Outputs of the steam/water loop with different PID autotuning methods (The outputs are
listed on the left and the inputs are listed on the right).

(a) drum water level control loop

(b) exhaust manifold pressure control loop


Figure 9. Cont.
Processes 2020, 8, 196 17 of 20

(c) deaerator pressure control loop

(d) deaerator water level control loop

(e) condenser water level control loop


Figure 9. Outputs of the steam/water loop with KC based PID controller and MPC (The outputs are
listed on the left, and the inputs are listed on the right).

According to the results shown in Figure 9, both methods provide satisfying results for the
steam/water loop, and obviously the MPC controller provides better results than the PID controller
based on the KC autotuning method. However, a good model for the system is essential for the MPC,
which is not necessary in the PID controller with the KC autotuning method.
Processes 2020, 8, 196 18 of 20

6. Conclusions
In the steam/water loop of large scale ships, the PID controller is still the most applied control
strategy. However, the tuning results for the PID controllers are not satisfying. In this paper,
the parameters for a PID controller are tuned with a recently developed method named KC autotuner,
which is free to the system model. According to the user-defined system performance, a ‘forbidden
region’ is obtained on the Nyquist plane. Through sine tests performed on the steam/water loop,
the dynamics around the operating points are obtained. By designing a proper PID controller, the loop
frequency response of the controlled system can be tangent to the ‘forbidden region’, which guarantees
the system performance requirements. The comparison results show the superiority of the KC method.

Author Contributions: Methodology, R.D.K., C.-M.I. and S.Z.; software, S.Z. and S.L.; formal analysis, S.Z.;
writing—original draft preparation, S.Z.; writing—review and editing, S.Z., R.D.K., S.L., and C.-M.I.; supervision,
C.-M.I., S.L. and R.D.K.; funding acquisition, S.Z., S.L. and C.-M.I. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Part of this project is funded by a special research fund of Ghent University, MIMOPREC STG020-18
(Ionescu), National Natural Science Foundation of China subsidization project (51579047), the Doctoral Scientific
Research Foundation of Heilongjiang (No. LBH-Q14040), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities under grant 3072019CF0408, 3072019CFT0403.
Acknowledgments: Shiquan Zhao acknowledges the financial support from Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC)
under grant 201706680021 and the Co-funding for Chinese PhD candidates from Ghent University under
grant 01SC1918.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Drbal, L.; Westra, K.; Boston, P. Power Plant Engineering; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin,
Germany, 2012.
2. Åström, K.J.; Bell, R.D. Drum-boiler dynamics. Automatica 2000, 36, 363–378. [CrossRef]
3. Xia, Y.; Liu, B.; Fu, M. Active disturbance rejection control for power plant with a single loop. Asian J. Control
2012, 14, 239–250. [CrossRef]
4. Yu, N.; Ma, W.; Su, M. Application of adaptive Grey predictor based algorithm to boiler drum level control.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2006, 47, 2999–3007. [CrossRef]
5. Cheng, Q.M.; Zheng, Y.; Du, X. Three-element Drum Water-level Cascade Control System Featuring a
Self-disturbance-resistant Controller. J. Eng. Therm. Energy Power 2008, 23, 69.
6. Moradi, H.; Saffar-Avval, M.; Bakhtiari-Nejad, F. Sliding mode control of drum water level in an industrial
boiler unit with time varying parameters: A comparison with H∞ -robust control approach. J. Process Control
2012, 22, 1844–1855. [CrossRef]
7. Aliakbari, S.; Ayati, M.; Osman, J.H.; Sam, Y.M. Second-order sliding mode fault-tolerant control of heat
recovery steam generator boiler in combined cycle power plants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 50, 1326–1338.
[CrossRef]
8. Ghabraei, S.; Moradi, H.; Vossoughi, G. Multivariable robust adaptive sliding mode control of an industrial
boiler–turbine in the presence of modeling imprecisions and external disturbances: A comparison with
type-I servo controller. ISA Trans. 2015, 58, 398–408. [CrossRef]
9. Liu, X.; Cui, J. Economic model predictive control of boiler-turbine system. J. Process Control 2018, 66, 59–67.
[CrossRef]
10. Liu, X.; Kong, X. Nonlinear fuzzy model predictive iterative learning control for drum-type boiler–turbine
system. J. Process Control 2013, 23, 1023–1040. [CrossRef]
11. Liu, X.; Guan, P.; Chan, C. Nonlinear multivariable power plant coordinate control by constrained predictive
scheme. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2009, 18, 1116–1125. [CrossRef]
12. Wu, X.; Shen, J.; Li, Y.; Lee, K.Y. Fuzzy modeling and predictive control of superheater steam temperature
for power plant. ISA Trans. 2015, 56, 241–251. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Processes 2020, 8, 196 19 of 20

13. Zhao, S.; Cajo, R.; De Keyser, R.; Liu, S.; Ionescu, C.M. Nonlinear predictive control applied to steam/water
loop in large scale ships. In Proceedings of the 12th IFAC Symposium on Dynamics and Control of Process
Systems, including Biosystems, Florianópolis, Brazil, 23–26 April 2019; pp. 868–873.
14. Wei, L.; Fang, F.; Shi, Y. Adaptive backstepping-based composite nonlinear feedback water level control for
the nuclear U-tube steam generator. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2013, 22, 369–377. [CrossRef]
15. Bolek, W.; Sasiadek, J.; Wisniewski, T. Adaptive backstepping control of a power plant station model.
IFAC Proc. Vol. 2002, 35, 215–220. [CrossRef]
16. Sun, L.; Hua, Q.; Shen, J.; Xue, Y.; Li, D.; Lee, K.Y. Multi-objective optimization for advanced superheater
steam temperature control in a 300 MW power plant. Appl. Energy 2017, 208, 592–606. [CrossRef]
17. Sun, L.; Li, D.; Hu, K.; Lee, K.Y.; Pan, F. On tuning and practical implementation of active disturbance
rejection controller: A case study from a regenerative heater in a 1000 MW power plant. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2016, 55, 6686–6695. [CrossRef]
18. Lu, J.; Chen, L.; Zhao, S.; Wu, Y. Multivariable Fuzzy PID Control System for Deaerator’s and Condenser’s
Levels in a Thermal Powerunit. Cybern. Syst. 2002, 33, 483–506.
19. Wang, P.; Meng, H.; Dong, P.; Dai, R.-H. Decoupling control based on PID neural network for deaerator and
condenser water level control system. In Proceedings of the 2015 34th Chinese Control Conference (CCC),
Hangzhou, China, 28–30 July 2015; pp. 3441–3446.
20. Liao, Y.F.; Guo, S.D.; Yang, G.; Ma, X.Q. Fuzzy Control of Deaerator Water-Level in Nuclear Power Station
Based on MATLAB/Simulink. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 291, 2397–2402. [CrossRef]
21. Wang, P.; Meng, H.; Ji, Q.Z. Application of PID neural network decoupling control in deaerator pressure and
deaerator water level control system. In Asian Simulation Conference; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2014; pp. 15–25.
22. Olin, P.M. A Mean-Value Model for Estimating Exhaust Manifold Pressure in Production Engine Applications;
Technical Report, SAE Technical Paper; IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008.
23. Grondin, O.; Moulin, P.; Chauvin, J. Control of a turbocharged diesel engine fitted with high pressure and
low pressure exhaust gas recirculation systems. In Proceedings of the 48h IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control (CDC) held jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference, Shanghai, China, 15–18 December
2009; pp. 6582–6589.
24. Ionescu, C.M.; Copot, D. Hands-on MPC tuning for industrial applications. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci.
2019, 67, 925–945.
25. Cajo, R.; Agila, W. Evaluation of algorithms for linear and nonlinear PID control for Twin Rotor MIMO
System. In Proceedings of the 2015 Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Aided System Engineering, Quito,
Ecuador, 14–16 July 2015; pp. 214–219.
26. Copot, D.; Ghita, M.; Ionescu, C.M. Simple Alternatives to PID-Type Control for Processes with Variable
Time-Delay. Processes 2019, 7, 146. [CrossRef]
27. Maxim, A.; Ferracuti, R.; Ionescu, C.M. A Theoretical Framework to Determine RHP Zero Dynamics in
Sequential Interacting Sub-Systems. Algorithms 2019, 12, 102. [CrossRef]
28. Haemers, M.; Derammelaere, S.; Rosich, A.; Ionescu, C.M.; Stockman, K. Towards a generic optimal
co-design of hardware architecture and control configuration for interacting subsystems. Mechatronics 2019,
63, 102275. [CrossRef]
29. Ionescu, C.M.; Caruntu, C.F.; Cajo, R.; Ghita, M.; Crevecoeur, G.; Copot, C. Multi-Objective Predictive
Control Optimization with Varying Term Objectives: A Wind Farm Case Study. Processes 2019, 7, 778.
[CrossRef]
30. Starr, K.D. Single Loop Control Methods, 1st ed.; ABB Inc.: Westerville, OH, USA, 2015.
31. Zhao, S.; Maxim, A.; Liu, S.; De Keyser, R.; Ionescu, C.M. Distributed model predictive control of steam/water
loop in large scale ships. Processes 2019, 7, 442. [CrossRef]
32. Samad, T. A survey on industry impact and challenges thereof [technical activities]. IEEE Control Syst. Mag.
2017, 37, 17–18.
33. Wu, Z.; Li, D.; Xue, Y. A New PID Controller Design with Constraints on Relative Delay Margin for
First-Order Plus Dead-Time Systems. Processes 2019, 7, 713. [CrossRef]
34. Cajo, R.; Zhao, S.; Ionescu, C.M.; De Keyser, R.; Plaza, D.; Liu, S. IMC based PID control
applied to the Benchmark PID 18. In Proceedings of the 3rd IFAC Conference in Advances in
Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control, Ghent, Belgium, 9–11 May 2018; pp. 728–732.
Processes 2020, 8, 196 20 of 20

35. Zhao, S.; Cajo, R.; Ionescu, C.M.; De Keyser, R.; Liu, S.; Plaza, D. A Robust PID Autotuning
Method Applied to the Benchmark PID18. In Proceedings of the 3rd IFAC Conference in Advances
in Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control, Ghent, Belgium, 9–11 May 2018; pp. 521–526.
36. De Keyser, R.; Ionescu, C.M.; Muresan, C.I. Comparative evaluation of a novel principle for PID autotuning.
In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Asian Control Conference (ASCC), Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, 17–20
December 2017; pp. 1164–1169.
37. De Keyser, R.; Muresan, C.I.; Ionescu, C.M. Universal direct tuner for loop control in industry. IEEE Access
2019, 7, 81308–81320. [CrossRef]
38. Zhao, S.; Maxim, A.; Liu, S.; De Keyser, R.; Ionescu, C. Effect of Control Horizon in Model Predictive Control
for Steam/Water Loop in Large-Scale Ships. Processes 2018, 6, 265. [CrossRef]
39. De Keyser, R.; Muresan, C.I.; Ionescu, C.M. A novel auto-tuning method for fractional order PI/PD
controllers. ISA Trans. 2016, 62, 268–275. [CrossRef]
40. De Keyser, R.; Muresan, C.I.; Ionescu, C.M. Autotuning of a robust fractional order PID controller.
IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018, 51, 466–471. [CrossRef]
41. Copot, C.; Muresan, C.; Ionescu, C.M.; Vanlanduit, S.; De Keyser, R. Calibration of UR10 robot controller
through simple auto-tuning approach. Robotics 2018, 7, 35. [CrossRef]
42. Juchem, J.; Muresan, C.; De Keyser, R.; Ionescu, C.M. Robust fractional-order auto-tuning for highly-coupled
MIMO systems. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Zhao, S.; Ionescu, C.M.; De Keyser, R.; Liu, S. A Robust PID Autotuning Method for Steam/Water Loop
in Large Scale Ships. In Proceedings of the 3rd IFAC Conference in Advances in Proportional-Integral-
Derivative Control, Ghent, Belgium, 9–11 May 2018; pp. 462–467.
44. Åström, K.J.; Hägglund, T. Automatic tuning of simple regulators with specifications on phase and amplitude
margins. Automatica 1984, 20, 645–651. [CrossRef]

c 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy