Lecture 11

LECTURE ELEVEN
054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN
054414 Process Control System Design LECTURE 11: SYSTEMATIC DISCRETE CONTROL DESIGN
Daniel R. Lewin Department of Chemical Engineering Technion, Haifa, Israel
11- 1 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin Systematic Discrete Design
Objectives
On completing this section, you should: Be able to implement the IMC design procedure on discrete systems. Be able to compare common discrete control algorithms, namely:
The discrete PID algorithm (plus filter) Dead-beat Algorithm Dahlins Algorithm
using a systematic framework Be able to identify situations where adaptive controllers are needed, and be able to conceptually design such a system.
Daniel R. Lewin, Technion
LECTURE ELEVEN
IMC Design Principles

If p (z ) = p (z ) (perfect model)
d yyS S
+ +
q((z)) qq(s) z
p (z ) p(s)
+ +
yy
+
y = pq ys + (1 (z pq)d p -1 ) q=p f
Open-loop control design method Simple!

Basic IMC Design Procedure

1 Ideally, we require y = ys, implying that: q = p Two problems can arise:
Problem 1: If p ( z ) contains non-minimum phase components: kz 3 z 1.5 e.g. p1 ( z ) = or p2 ( z ) = 2 z 0.5 (z 0.5 )
then if we were to design a controller such that q = p 1 :
q1 ( z ) =
(z
0.5 ) z +3
and q2 ( z ) =
(z
0.5 ) z 1.5
Non-causal
11- 4
Unstable
PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin
Systematic Discrete Design
LECTURE ELEVEN

Solution to Problem 1: 1. Partition the process model into its minimum phase and non-minimum phase (all-pass) components: p ( z ) = pA ( z ) pM ( z ) Non-invertible Invertible
1 1 such that p pA = pM (stable, causal, and strictly proper) and the all-pass component, pA ( z ) , is defined as:
pA ( z ) = z
(1 ) ( z ) ( z ) (1 ) .
h i
1
i =1
Note that pA (e i T
) = 1
N is a time delay, selected so that pM ( z ) will be strictly proper, and h is the number of zeros in p ( z ) outside the unit circle.

Solution to Problem 1 (Contd): 2. Select the controller as the inverse of the invertible part of the process model: Note that q ( z ) as defined above is proper. In the two examples:
q = pM 1 (n.b. q (1 ) = p 1 (1 ) )
kz 3 z 0.5 kz q (z ) = pA1 ( z ) = z 4 , pM 1 ( z ) = z 0.5 kz z 0.5 z 1.5 pA 2 ( z ) = 0.667 z 1 2 (z 0.667 ) z 1.5 0.667 ( z 0.5 ) p2 ( z ) = 2 z ( z 0.667 ) q ( z ) = z ( z 0.667 ) (z 0.5 ) pM 2 ( z ) = 1.5 2 (z 0.5 ) p1 ( z ) =
LECTURE ELEVEN

Robustness Filter. Since the true process may be different from the model used to design the controller, the IMC controller q ( z ) is augmented with a low-pass filter, f(z), to enable the detuning the controller to impart robustness: q ( z ) = q ( z )f ( z ) , where:
1 For step-like inputs (Type I) 1 z 1 Note: To guarantee offset-free response, the filters must satisfy the set of conditions:
f (z ) =
dk (1 f (z ) ) z =1 = 0, 0 k < m dz k
input type (1 or 2)
1 =0 1 z 1 z =1
e.g. for Type 1, (1 f ( z ) ) z =1 = 1

11- 7
Example IMC Design

Design an IMC controller for the process: p ( z ) = Solution:
z 1.5 z 3 2 ( z 0.5 )
= pq = pAf =
0.667 ( z 1.5 1 If ys = z/(z 1) (unit step): lim y (kT ) = lim (z 0.667 )(z)( ) ) z -3 =1 k z 1 i.e. design with q (1 ) = p 1 (1 ) guarantees offset-free response
11- 8
LECTURE ELEVEN
Example IMC Design

Response of the controlled system for decreasing values of the filter constant.
11- 9

Just when we think we have solved all the problems, here is another one, particular to discrete systems. Problem 2: Ringing and the placement of poles. The optimal design of the IMC controller is:
q ( z ) = pM 1 ( z ) f ( z )
As seen previously, any negative poles in q(z) lead to ringing (the controller output will exhibit a sign change in each sample). The closer these negative poles are to 1, the more severe will be the ringing.
11- 10
LECTURE ELEVEN
Example of Ringing
Consider the process p ( s ) =
(10 s +1)(25s +1)
1
sampled at T=3.
The equivalent discrete process as seen by a discrete controller (after ZOH) is (see Lecture 8):
p (z ) =
0.016 ( z + 0.87 ) (z 0.90 ) (z 0.74 )
IMC design procedure gives:
pM ( z ) =
0.016 ( z + 0.87 ) z (z 0.90 ) (z 0.74 )
pA ( z ) = z 1
63.7 ( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 ) (1 ) (z + 0.87 ) (z ) 63.7 (1 )( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 ) q (z ) = c (z ) = 1 p (z ) q (z ) (z + 0.87 )(z 1)

q ( z ) = pM1 (z ) f ( z ) =
11- 11
Example of Ringing
c (z ) =
1 p (z ) q (z )
q (z )
63.7 (1 )( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 ) (z + 0.87 )(z 1)
The closed loop servo response is shown below (for = 0.5).

k
show ringing, the true response does, which is a result of the ringing exhibited by the input, due to the pole at z = -0.87.
PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin Systematic Discrete Design
Note that while the output at the sample intervals does not
11- 12
LECTURE ELEVEN

Solution to Problem 2: In cases where optimal design gives controller poles close to 1, these are removed using the following procedure: Let the optimal controller (obtained by the IMC design procedure, be: q (z ) q (z ) = P (z i ) where q(z) is the portion of the controller transfer function without the undesirable poles, i are the undesirable pole locations (p altogether). We modify the controller:
i =1
qmod ( z ) = q ( z )
(z i ) i
=1
(1 i ) i
=1
z P =
q (z ) z P (1 i )
i =1 P
11- 13

Solution to Problem 2 (Contd):
qmod ( z ) = q ( z )
(z i ) i
=1
(1 i ) i
=1
z P =
q (z ) z P (1 i )
i =1 P
The modified controller, qmod(z), has the following properties: The negative poles zi = i , -1 i 0, have been substituted by poles at the origin, eliminating the ringing phenomenon. The P poles need to be added to keep the controller proper. The steady-state gain of the IMC controller has been conserved (why is this important?)
11- 14
LECTURE ELEVEN
Back to the Example of Ringing

The original IMC controller is: q ( z ) = Using the procedure:
k
(z + 0.87 )(z 0.5 ) 31.8 ( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 ) 17.0 qmod ( z ) = z (1 +z0.87 )( z 0.5 ) (z 0.5 )
The response with the modified controller now no longer satisfies the desired trajectory (note the overshoot!). However, we have eliminated the ringing. Thats life
31.8 ( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 )
11- 15
Accounting for Model Uncertainty

The same representation for uncertainty used for continuous systems is used here: p(z) = p(z) (1 + m (z) )
m
(z )
+
p (z )
Process model Multiplicative uncertainty

p(eiT ) = p(eiT ) (1 +
m m
Im(z)
p (e
iT
(eiT ) )
p (e iT )
(eiT ) =
pworst (eiT ) p(eiT ) p(eiT )

m
Re(z)
11- 16
depends on T
LECTURE ELEVEN
Computing
Compute,
m
(z) - Example
(z) ,the multiplicative uncertainty for the uncertain k e s , = (1 ) ,k = 1 k, = 1 process: p(s) = s + 1
Solution:
pworst (z) = p(z) =
(1 + k ) (1 e T /(1) )
z
(1+ ) T
(1 e ) z (z e )
T T T
(z e
T /(1 )
iT z = e
(z) =
pworst (z) p(z) p(z)
11- 17
Computing
= 0.1, = = k = 0.2
T = 0.5 T = 0.05
(z) - Example
= 1, = = k = 0.2
T = 0.5
Note the effect of sample time of result
T = 0.05
0 < < T
0 < < T
The results for T = 0.05 are close to those one would expect for a continuous system. For T = 0.5, the effect of uncertainty may be different, depending on the ratio of /.
LECTURE ELEVEN
Designing for Robust Stability

The procedure is just as before, but using z instead of s.
11- 19
Systematic Discrete Control Design

The first step is the definition of the desired closed loop transfer function: y (z ) = (z ) ys ( z )
ys(z) ys(z)
(z )
Since the closed loop transfer function is given by:

y (z ) G (z ) C (z ) = , where G(z) = Z {L1 H(s)P(s) } ys ( z ) 1 + G ( z ) C ( z )
We can compute the controller to achieves the desired performance directly: (z ) C ( z ) = G -1 ( z ) 1 (z )

10
LECTURE ELEVEN
Systematic Discrete Control Design

At this point, we recall the IMC design procedure and note that ( z ) = G(z)Q(z), where Q(z) is the IMC controller.
-1 -1 Note that: Q(z) = GM (z)F(z), where GM (z) is the MP component of the process model, and F(z) is a low-pass robustness filter. Substituting for ( z ) in the equation for C(z) gives: (z ) Q (z ) Q (z ) = = C ( z ) = G -1 ( z ) 1 (z ) 1 (z ) 1 G (z ) Q (z )
This is the same equation used to translate an IMC controller to its classical equivalent! We shall use this interpretation to analyze several common discrete controllers: Discrete PID algorithm Dead-beat algorithm Dahlin algorithm
Discrete PID Algorithm

1 + D s e ( s ) Continuous theoretical PID: u ( s ) = Kc 1 + I s Discrete equivalent (position form): D T k u(k) = Kc e(k) + e(i) + T ( e(k) - e(k-1) ) + us I i=0 Velocity form: D T k-1 u(k-1) = Kc e(k-1) + e(i) + T ( e(k-1) - e(k-2) ) + us I i = 0 u(k) = u(k) u(k-1)
T e(k) + D ( e(k) 2e(k-1) + e(k-2) ) = Kc e(k) e(k-1) + T I D D T D e(k-2) = Kc 1 + + e(k) 1 + 2 e(k-1) + T T I T

11
LECTURE ELEVEN
Discrete PID Algorithm (Contd)

T D u(k) = Kc 1 + + e(k) 1 + 2 D e(k-1) + D e(k-2) T T I T -1 -2 u(k) + z + z = = e(k) 1 z -1
Advantages: The velocity form is independent of initial condition, us. It is not subject to reset wind-up. Disadvantages: It responds aggressively to step changes in setpoint. The differential operator is sensitive to noise.
Discrete PID Algorithm (Contd)

The two disadvantages are eliminated by implementing the configuration shown below.
ys(k)
11- 24
12
LECTURE ELEVEN
Dead-beat Algorithm
In dead-beat control, the desired response is to ensure zeroerror from the n+1 sample, where n = /T. The desired closed loop transfer function is: y ( z ) = ( z ) = z -(n+1) ys ( z ) (z ) z -(n+1) -1 = G -1 ( z ) Thus, CDB ( z ) = G ( z ) 1 (z ) 1 z -(n+1) Example. 1 e T 0.5 z 1 10 8.6z 1 T = 1, P(s) = , G(z) = HP(z) = 10 = 0.5s + 1 1 0.14z 1 1 e T 0.5z 1
-1 Since the process has no dead-time, n = 0, and ( z ) = z
Thus, CDB ( z ) = G -1 ( z )
z -1 1 0.14z 1 z -1 1 0.14z 1 = = 0.116 1 z -1 8.6z 1 1 z -1 1 z -1

11- 25
Dead-beat Algorithm (Contd)

Example (Contd).
1 0.14z 1 1 z -1 1. The equivalent IMC controller, Q(z) is: CDB ( z ) z 0.14 = 0.116 (1 0.14z 1 ) = 0.116 QDB (z) = 1 + G ( z ) CDB ( z ) z 2. The output is specified at the sample instances only. The actual process could have large inter-sample overshoots and/or be highly oscillatory. CDB ( z ) = 0.116
11- 26
13
LECTURE ELEVEN
Dahlins Algorithm
Recall that the IMC design for a delay process gives: y (s) 1 = (s) = e s s + 1 ys ( s ) This approach enables us to target not only the desired delay of the response, but also define how fast we would like it to settle (as determined by the value of ). Taking this idea into the discrete domain: (1 b)z-(n+1) (z ) = ,b = e T , = nT 1 bz-1 (z ) Thus, CDA ( z ) = G -1 ( z ) 1 (z )
= G -1 ( z )
11- 27
(1 b)z -(n+1) ,b = e T 1 bz -1 (1 b)z -(n+1)
Example: Comparing DB with DA

Design both Dead-beat (DB) and Dahlins (DA) controllers for the process: (1 + k ) e (1+)s , T = 0.5 min (Thus, n = 2). P (s) = s +1 In the above, k and are fractional uncertainties. We shall compare designs with no uncertainty and then check the effect of uncertainties. In the following, we study the case = 1 min. Dead-beat Controller.
(z ) z -(n+1) z -3 = G -1 ( z ) = G -1 ( z ) -(n+1) 1 (z ) 1 z -3 1z (1 e T ) z 3 = 0.39z 3 G(z) = 1 e T z 1 1 0.61z 1 -3 1 0.61z 1 z 1 0.61z 1 Q(z) = CDB ( z ) = G -1 ( z ) = 2.54 -3 -3 0.39 1z 1z CDB ( z ) = G -1 ( z )
14
LECTURE ELEVEN

Dahlins Controller.
Target response is ( z ) = (1 b)z-3 ,b = e T -1 1 bz
Hence, CDA ( z ) = G -1 ( z ) =
(1 b)z -3 ,b = e T 1 bz -1 (1 b)z -3
1 0.61z 1 (1 b)z -3 0.39z 3 1 bz -1 (1 b)z -3 1 0.61z 1 1 b 0.39 1 bz -1
Q(z) =
Thus, DA and DB are both equivalent to IMC control with and without and a filter. In DA, selection of the filter parameter, b, allows robustness to be guaranteed.

Response of DB ( = 0), and DA ( = 0.5 and 2 min), = 0.
DB ( = 0 min)
Here,
DA ( = 0.5 min)
DA ( = 2.0 min)
0.39z 3 1 0.61z 1 Note that the fastest response is obtained with DB, with the filter time constant provided a back-off on performance for DA. G(z) =
11- 30
15
LECTURE ELEVEN

Response of DB ( = 0), and DA ( = 0.5 and 2 min), = 0.5
DB ( = 0 min)
Here,
DA ( = 0.5 min)
DA ( = 2.0 min)
0.39z 4 1 0.61z 1 With no filter, DB is unstable with delay uncertainty. DA with = 0.5 is close to the theoretical stability limit, and with = 2 gives a similar to nominal response. G(z) =
11- 31
Adaptive Control
In cases where parameter changes are expected to be large, robust control may lead to poor performance. Such cases are: Large, frequent disturbances (feed composition, feed quality) Batch operation (no steady-state) Inherent nonlinear behavior (pH control, highly nonlinear kinetics, catalyst decay, heat exchanger fouling, etc). A variety of adaptive control techniques are often used in these situations, where: The process changes are largely known and can be anticipated this calls for programmed adaptation, which is essentially a feedforward strategy. The process changes are largely unknown this calls for on-line adaptive control or self-tuning control, and involves feedback.
16
LECTURE ELEVEN
Programmed Adaptation (PA)

Several alternatives for programmed adaptation are often used: Gain Scheduling a different set of controller tuning parameters are prepared for each anticipated operating point of the process. A look-up-table is used to change the controller tuning as appropriate. PA based on physical process knowledge For example, suppose the static gain, time delay and time constant of a process are twice as large at 50% of flow as at 100% of flow. The PID tuning could then be: 0 0 Kc = K c0 , I = I , D = D , where is the fraction of flow
Programmed Adaptation
Gain Scheduling based on knowledge of nonlinearity If the process gain is known to vary significantly, we can use a controller with a nonlinear gain: C(s) = f(e) x g(s): Options for f(e): a. Continuous gain (1 ) e , 0 1 f (e) = + 100 If 0, this leads to offset because the controller is insensitive to small e. b. 3-piece nonlinear controller
Kc , e eband f (e) = Kc,low , e < eband
17
LECTURE ELEVEN
Self-tuning Controllers
When process changes can be neither measured nor anticipated, programmed adaptation cannot be used. Instead, a feedback strategy is employed, in which the controller is retuned on-line.
Controller computation
parameter estimates
input controller settings
Process model parameter estimation
output
11- 35
Case Study: pH Control

Ref: Kulkarni et al, Nonlinear pH Control, Chem. Eng. Sci., 46(4), 995 (1991)
The figure shows a process in which a continuous flow of HCl, F2, at concentration CCl1 is neutralized using NaOH, F1. Both F2 and CCl1 are disturbances.
The pH of the exiting stream, F, must be kept at 7. The figure on the right shows the pH curve for this strong acidstrong base process.
18
LECTURE ELEVEN

Assuming perfect mixing, reaction at equilibrium, constant volume and density, the system is described by: F (t ) = F1 (t ) + F2 (t )
dCCl 1 = (F (t ) CCl 1 (t ) F (t ) CCl (t ) ) dt V 1 60 dC Na 1 = (F (t ) CNa 2 (t ) F (t ) CNa (t ) ) dt V 2 60 pH = log C H , C H (t ) = KW COH (t ) , KW = 10 14 gmol2 /li2 COH (t ) = C Na (t ) + C H (t ) CCl (t )
Defining variables: P = F1 60 ,Q = F2 60 V V
Ch = CH
11- 37
KW , Cn 2 = C Na 2
KW , Cc 1 = CCl 1
KW

Combining equations and substituting dimensionless variables, we obtain the single ODE:
dCh 1 = (Ch + Cc 1C h2 C h3 ) P 1 + C h2 dt
+ C h + Cn 2C h2 C h3 Q , C h ( 0 ) = 1
The nominal values of inputs are:
Q = 0.15, P = 1.5, Cn 2 = 106 , C c 1 = 105
11- 38
19
LECTURE ELEVEN

SIMULINK model for the pH control system.
P: 1.5 1.6 at t = 5 s
Parameters: Kc = 5 10 4 , I = 2 s, pH_band = 2, K c,low = 2.5 10 5


Comparing linear PI to nonlinear PI.
11- 40
20
LECTURE ELEVEN

Change in Kc in the nonlinear pH controller
11- 41
Summary
On completing this section, you should: Be able to implement the IMC design procedure on discrete systems. Be able to compare common discrete control algorithms, using a systematic framework (IMC):
The discrete PID algorithm (plus filter) Dead-beat Algorithm Dahlins Algorithm
Much of the material covered in the continuous part of the course carries over with some exceptions.
Be able to identify situations where adaptive controllers are needed, and be able to conceptually design such a system.
21

Lecture 11

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lecture 11

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

LECTURE ELEVEN

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

IMC Design Principles

Open-loop control design method Simple!

Basic IMC Design Procedure

Problem 1: If p ( z ) contains non-minimum phase components: kz 3 z 1.5 e.g. p1 ( z ) = or p2 ( z ) = 2 z 0.5 (z 0.5 )

then if we were to design a controller such that q = p 1 :

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Systematic Discrete Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

Basic IMC Design Procedure

Basic IMC Design Procedure

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

Basic IMC Design Procedure

e.g. for Type 1, (1 f ( z ) ) z =1 = 1

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Example IMC Design

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Systematic Discrete Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

Example IMC Design

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Systematic Discrete Design

Basic IMC Design Procedure

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Systematic Discrete Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

0.016 ( z + 0.87 ) (z 0.90 ) (z 0.74 )

IMC design procedure gives:

0.016 ( z + 0.87 ) z (z 0.90 ) (z 0.74 )

63.7 ( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 ) (1 ) (z + 0.87 ) (z ) 63.7 (1 )( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 ) q (z ) = c (z ) = 1 p (z ) q (z ) (z + 0.87 )(z 1)

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Systematic Discrete Design

63.7 (1 )( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 ) (z + 0.87 )(z 1)

The closed loop servo response is shown below (for = 0.5).

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

Basic IMC Design Procedure

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Systematic Discrete Design

Basic IMC Design Procedure

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Systematic Discrete Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

Back to the Example of Ringing

31.8 ( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 )

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Systematic Discrete Design

Accounting for Model Uncertainty

Process model Multiplicative uncertainty

pworst (eiT ) p(eiT ) p(eiT )

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

(z) ,the multiplicative uncertainty for the uncertain k e s , = (1 ) ,k = 1 k, = 1 process: p(s) = s + 1

pworst (z) p(z) p(z)