Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: A Non-isothermal Jacketed Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) is extensively used in chemical as well
Received 30 November 2015 as in other process industries to manufacture different products. The dynamics of non-isothermal CSTR
Received in revised form 6 August 2016 are highly nonlinear and open-loop unstable in nature. Moreover, it may have parametric uncertainties,
Accepted 7 November 2016
disturbances and un-modeled side reactions which may cause the reactor temperature to deviate from the
reference value. This deviation may degrade quality of the product because the chemical reaction inside
Keywords:
the CSTR depends on reactor temperature. For such a nonlinear, unstable and uncertain process, designing
Non-isothermal
a control scheme with the ability to reject the effects of disturbances along with a good reference tracking
Uncertain
Unstable
capability is a challenging control engineering problem. In this work, a novel robust sliding mode control
CSTR technique named as Improved Integral Sliding Mode Control (IISMC) has been presented for uncertain
Robust non-isothermal jacketed CSTR process. Moreover, a variety of recently developed sliding mode control
CISMC techniques such as Classical Integral Sliding Mode Control (CISMC) and Super Twisted Algorithm based
STA-SMC Sliding Mode Control (STA-SMC) have also been devised and compared with the proposed approach in
IISMC order to investigate the effectiveness of the proposed scheme. A Lyapunov based analysis has also been
HGO provided to assure the robust stability of the closed loop process. Furthermore, in order to extend the
EHGO
state feedback approach to the output feedback scheme, two robust observers; High Gain Observer (HGO)
State Feedback
and Extended High Gain Observer (EHGO), are also designed for the very process. They have also been
Output Feedback
compared with each other and have been investigated for robust stability using Lyapunov based approach.
Finally, an output feedback control scheme using IISMC and EHGO has been presented and its performance
has been examined and compared with the IISMC based state feedback approach. The simulation results
show that the proposed control scheme effectively rejects the uncertainties and disturbances without
leading the process to instability and offers good reference tracking capabilities.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction maintain the quality of the product [10]. Therefore, the problem for
designing the control scheme for uncertain process would become
Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) is one of the widely used more interesting for the control engineers.
reactors in chemical plants [24,10] as well as in other process indus- If the classical control techniques are used to design a control
tries. It possesses highly nonlinear with unstable characteristics scheme, it is very difcult to meet the performance requirements
due to which the design of high performance control scheme would for the control of highly nonlinear process. Indeed, conventional
become a challenging problem. Moreover, the process model may linear control schemes involve the linearization of the process
have parameters uncertainties, input disturbance and un-modeled model around an operating point, which poses two major limita-
side reactions and nonlinearities due to poor knowledge of the tions: First, it can only predict the local behavior of the process
process, may lead the process to instability. Some industrial appli- around an operating point; secondly, the dynamics of linear pro-
cations such as alkylation of benzene with ethylene process, etc., cesses is not much rich as compared to dynamics of nonlinear
may require robust and fast response control scheme in order to processes [3].
During past few years, control engineers and researchers have
proposed a variety of nonlinear control schemes. Some of them
Corresponding author. are based on differential geometric concepts [13], adaptive lin-
E-mail addresses: fwallam@gmail.com, fwallam@yahoo.com (F. Wallam), earization [6,8], robust linearization [7] and asymptotically exact
attaullah@pnec.nust.edu.pk (A.Y. Memon).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2016.11.001
0959-1524/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 F. Wallam, A.Y. Memon / Journal of Process Control 51 (2017) 5567
linearization [9,5]. Others are based on sliding mode control (SMC), robust stability analysis of the closed loop system is also carried
adaptive SMC, lyapunov redesign and Nonlinear Model Predic- out using Lyapunov stability technique. Moreover, for designing
tive Control (NMPC). Among them, SMC is one of the widely used an output feedback scheme, two nonlinear robust observers; High
schemes due to its ability to reject disturbances and its insensitiv- Gain Observer (HGO) and Extended High Gain Observer (EHGO) are
ity to parameter variations [18]. Many researchers have proposed also devised, compared and investigated. The stability analyses of
different combinations of sliding mode control schemes together these observers are also presented.
with other approaches. One such scheme is a differential geometric The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, a
approach with sliding mode scheme which has provided a poten- brief introduction of the CSTR process is presented. In Section 3,
tial way of designing a robust control scheme for the control of robust control techniques, CISMC, STA-SMC and IISMC are devised
uncertain nonlinear process [1,19]. A Dynamical Sliding Mode Con- for the uncertain CSTR process. The performance of the controllers
trol (DSMC) strategy is another scheme, which is presented in [21] is also discussed in the same section. The robust observers, HGO
for the Fliesss generalized observability canonical form based sys- and EHGO, are designed and discussed in Section 4. In Section 5,
tem. A robust SMC based feedback linearization technique and output feedback control scheme is developed by combining IISMC
deterministic approach is presented in [22]. A control scheme, by and EHGO for the CSTR process. Performance comparison between
combining the differential geometric feedback linearization tech- the IISMC based state feedback control technique and IISMC and
nique together with SMC and adaptive state feedback techniques, EHGO based output feedback control scheme is also carried out in
is presented in [19]. Some researchers combined SMC scheme the same section. Finally, in Section 6, conclusion of the work is
with fuzzy logic control scheme, which is known as Fuzzy Slid- presented.
ing Mode Control (FSMC). One such scheme is employed in [23]
where authors have used the sliding surface and rate of change of
2. Non-isothermal jacketed continuous stirred tank reactor
sliding surface as inputs to design a fuzzy logic control for chemical
(CSTR)
processes.
Recently, an output feedback exact linearization control scheme
We have considered a non-isothermal jacketed continuous
has been designed for non-isothermal jacketed CSTR [11]. In this
stirred tank reactor problem in which exothermic irreversible rst
scheme, nonlinear observers have been designed to estimate the
order reaction takes place. This problem has been extensively used
states as well as disturbances in some parameters of the process.
in the area of control research due its highly nonlinear behavior.
The performance of such control scheme may degrade if distur-
Before discussing the process model dynamics, consider the fol-
bance occurs in the parameters that are not estimated by the
lowing assumptions:
observer or if there is an input disturbance or un-modeled side
reaction. More recently, a Terminal Sliding Mode Controls (TSMC) Assumption 1. The temperature inside the reactor is uniformly
along with nite time stability observer have been proposed in [10] distributed by assuming perfect mixing in the reactor.
for non-isothermal CSTR process neglecting the dynamics of the
cooling jacket. Assumption 2. A constant volume inside the reactor is assumed.
Physical state variables are required in order to monitor the pro-
By considering the above mentioned assumptions, following
cess. Moreover, state feedback control techniques require all states
dynamic equations, described the physical model of the reactor,
of the process to generate control signal(s). But, in real practice,
are derived [12,11].
not all the state variables are measured because the instruments
required to measure the state variables are either too expensive x = f (x) + g (x) qc + f (x) (1)
or does not exist. Therefore, an observer is required which esti-
mates the unmeasured states from the available measurement of where,
the process. The classical linear observer only provides local estima-
tion for state variables of the process having intrinsic nonlinearity. q x1f x1 x1 (x2 )
But, a nite time stable nonlinear observer may provide global
f (x) = q x1f x2 (x2 x3 ) + x1 (x2 ) (2)
estimation of state variables of highly nonlinear process and may
give the desired performance specication. In addition to compen- 1 2 (x2 x3 )
sate for nonlinearity, the observer must converge the estimated
states to the unmeasured states of the process in nite time in 0
the presence of parametric uncertainties. Different types of non- g (x) = 0 (3)
linear observers such as Luenberger like Nonlinear Observer (LNO),
1 x3f x3
Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) and Sliding mode observers (SMO)
are proposed in [11] for the CSTR process.
f1 (x)
The aim of present work is to propose a high performance and
simple robust control scheme, Improved Integral Sliding Mode f (x) = 0 (4)
Control (IISMC), for the regulation of nonlinear non-isothermal 0
uncertain jacketed continuous stirred tank reactor. In this work,
different existing control techniques which have proven to be where, f(x) and g(x) are locally Lipschitz in x, state variable x1 , x2
robust such as Classical Integral Sliding Mode Control (CISMC)1 and and x3 is the dimensionless reactant concentration, reactor tem-
recently proposed Super Twisted Algorithm (STA) are also devised perature and cooling jacket temperature, respectively, q denotes
for the very process. These control techniques are compared with the reactor feed ow rate, x1f , x2f and x3f is the dimensionless reac-
the proposed approach for reference tracking, parameter uncer- tor feed concentration, reactor feed temperature and cooling-jacket
tainties and un-modeled side reaction and input disturbance. The feed temperature, respectively, is the dimensionless heat of reac-
tion, is the dimensionless heat transfer coefcient, 1 is the reactor
to cooling-jacket volume ratio, 2 is the reactor to cooling-jacket
1
In order to differentiate Integral Sliding Mode Control Scheme (ISMC) presented
density heat capacity ratio, is the nominal Damkohler number
in [3] with the proposed ISMC, we named the preceding scheme as CISMC and the based on the reactant feed, the controlled variable qc denotes the
later scheme as IISMC. cooling jacket ow rate ranges from 0 to 1 [11], f1 denotes the un-
F. Wallam, A.Y. Memon / Journal of Process Control 51 (2017) 5567 57
modeled rst order side reaction from x1 and therefore it is assumed where, r is the reference signal. The process dynamics (8)(10) may
that f1 is only dependent on x1 [20] such that be rewritten in error form as
f1 = x1 (5) = p (, e1 ) = q x1f (e1 ) (12)
e 1 = e2 (13)
where, is an unknown positive constant. is the dimensionless
Arrhenius reaction rate nonlinearity and is dened as
e 2 = q + z2 + 1 qc x3f x3 + 2 (z1 x3 )
x2
1+ 1 x
(x2 ) = e 2 (6)
+ (e1 ) + z2 r (14)
1 + 1 z1
where, is the dimensionless activation energy. The Arrhenius
rate expression () makes the process dynamics nonlinear and where, is dened as
unstable which poses operational and control problems. The CSTR
e1 +r
considered here acts as an unstable open loop when the reactor
1+ 1 (e1 +r )
dimensionless temperature is between 1.5 and 3.0. Due to eco- (e1 ) = e (15)
nomic constraints, the industries are interested to operate the The steady state value r for the internal dynamics may be
reactor inside this region. It may be veried that following property computed as
holds for the CSTR process model.
q x1f r r (0) r = 0 (16a)
Property 1. The model described by (1)(4) has a relative degree
2. qx1f
r = (16b)
q + (0) +
Remark 1. The state variables x2 and x3 are both measureable
In order to achieve stable tracking, the internal dynamics
[11].
should remain stable throughout the region of interest [19]. The
internal dynamics remains stable if the zero dynamics
3. Design of robust nonlinear controllers
= p (, 0) (17)
The design objective of robust nonlinear control scheme is to is stable over the region of interest [3]. In order to ensure the sta-
control the temperature inside the reactor to follow a desired bility of internal dynamics following lemma has been constructed.
trajectory as well as to reject the effects of input disturbances,
un-modeled side reaction and parametric uncertainties. Different Lemma 1. The internal dynamics of the process (12)(14)
nonlinear robust controllers are reported in the literature. How- remains stable if the following holds
ever, we consider only two robust control algorithms; CISMC and
STA-SMC, which are robust, fast and efcient. Moreover, we pro- q + (0) + > 0
pose a novel nonlinear robust control scheme, Improved Integral
Sliding Mode Control (IISMC), for the nonlinear uncertain process Proof. Let,
and compare it with the control techniques mentioned earlier.
= r
(18)
In this section, rst, we develop existing nonlinear robust con-
trol schemes that is, CISMC and STA-SMC, for the CSTR process.
= p (, e1 ) = qx1f
[q + (e1 ) + ]
Next, we propose a new robust control scheme for the same pro-
cess. Later on, we present performance analysis among different r [q + (e1 ) + ] (19)
control schemes considered in this section.
To design nonlinear robust controllers, the process dened in
(1)(4) needs to be transformed in normal form. Choosing the coor- The zero dynamics of (19) is given by
dinate transformation as
= p (, 0) =
[q + (0) + ] (20)
T
T1 = z1 z2 Let, the Lyapunov candidate be selected as
(7)
T1 = x1 x2 q x1f x2 (x2 x3 ) + x1 1 2
=
V0 ()
(21)
2
We get,
V 0 ()
=
(22)
= q x1f (8)
By using (20), we get,
z 1 = z2 (9)
V 0 ()
=
[q + (0) + ] (23)
z 2 = q + z2 + 1 qc x3f x3 + 2 (z1 x3 ) V 0 () 2 [q + (0) + ]
= (24)
V 0 0q + (0) + 0 (25)
+ + z2 (10)
1 + 1 z1
The process model may contain parametric uncertainties and
This form decomposes the system into an internal part and an input disturbance. Therefore, the whole process is now transformed
external part z [3]. Now, let, into perturbed parameter form in order to simplify the design of
control schemes. In this form, the parameters of the process model
e1 = z1 r (11a) is decomposed into its nominal term and uncertain term as
e2 = z2 r (11b) +
=
58 F. Wallam, A.Y. Memon / Journal of Process Control 51 (2017) 5567
where, u is the input disturbance term. Now, the process model 1 >
(12)(14) may be written in perturbed parameter form as
Proof. See Appendix A.
+ w1
= q x 1f (26)
Small values of 1 will slow down the controller response and
e = F (.) + G (.) u + (27)
large values of 1 will make the controller more reactive which
where, results in chattering. For better accuracy,
should be chosen as
small as possible. But, too small value of
will induce chattering
F1 because as
tends to 0, sat(s/
) tends to sign(s). So, there is a trade-
F (.) = (28a)
F2 off between the amount of chattering and control precision [3,19].
In this section, we present the design of CISMC for the uncertain and 2 be dened as
process dened in (26)(30). The sliding surface for the design of v 2 = k2 sign (s) (40)
CISMC may be selected as [3]
Theorem 2. Suppose that the uncertain process dened in
s = eI + a1 e1 + e2 (31) (26)(30), satisfy lemma 1, is subjected to the control designed in
where, a1 is positive constant and eI is dened as: (38)(40). Assume the following bound on
Table 2
where, 1 and 2 are some positive constants. The closed loop
Controllers parameters.
system is stable if the following conditions hold
Controller Parameters
k1 > 21 CISMC a0 = 0.02, a1 = 5, 1 = 20 and
= 0.1
STA-SMC a1 = 200, k1 = 5 and k2 = 0.05
2 IISMC a1 = 200, 1 = 0.01, 2 = 0.01, k1 = 2,
= 0.01 and k2 = 10
2k12 + 42 + k1 1 + 41 k13 + 8k12 2 4k14
k2 >
8 (k1 21 )
s
Proof. See Appendix B. k1 tanh + k2 s2 >
3.3. Improved integral sliding mode control (IISMC)
Proof. Let, the Lyapunov candidate be selected as
In this section, we propose a novel robust algorithm which is V = V0 + V1 (49)
fast, efcient and robust. The proposed algorithm is an improved
version of the CISMC presented in Section 3.1. The sliding surface where, V0 is dened in (21) and V1 is dened as
for the IISMC is dened as 1 2
V1 = s (50)
s = eI + a1 e1 + e2 (41) 2
By taking the time derivative of the Lyapunov candidate dened
where, a1 is a positive constant and eI is dened as in (50), we get
e
1
e I = 1 tanh + 2 |e1 |sign (e1 ) (42) V 1 = ss (51)
Take the time derivative of (41) and put into (51), we get,
where, 1 , 2 and
are also some positive constants. The proposed
control law is V 1 = s [e I + a1 e2 + F2 + G2 u + ] (52)
1
u= F2 e I a1 e2 + v (43) By combining (42), (43), (44) and (52), we get,
G2
s
V 1 = k1 s tanh k2 s3 sign (s) + s (53)
where, be dened as
s
s
v = k1 tanh k2 s2 sign (s) (44) V 1 s k1 tanh + k2 s2 (54)
s
k1 and k2 are another positive constants. The Eqs. (42) and (44)
V 1 < 0k1 tanh + k2 s2 > (55)
may respectively be written as
stable for the uncertainties dened in (56)(58) as well as satis- Fig. 1(d). All the controllers reject the input disturbance as reveal
es other performance indicators (such as chattering, undershoots, from Fig. 1(d). The reactor temperature goes to a minimum value
etc.). of 1.4986 (change of 0.093%) in the case of CISMC. The STA-SMC
and IISMC rejects the disturbance signal with a minimum shoot of
Remark 2. It may be veried that lemma 1 holds for the uncer-
1.4997 (change of 0.02%) and 1.49996 (change of 0.0027%), respec-
tainties and disturbances assumed in (56)(58).
tively.
Following four cases are evaluated for comparing the perfor- This case study shows that the proposed scheme IISMC has good
mance among the controllers. capability of rejecting the input disturbance signal.
(a) 2.1
Reference
CISMC
STA-SMC
2 IISMC
1.9
2.015
2.01
1.8
2.005
2
2
x
1.7 1.995
1.99
21.2 21.4 21.6 21.8 22 22.2 22.4 22.6 22.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time
(b) 2
Reference
1.51 CISMC
1.9 STA-SMC
1.5
IISMC
1.49
1.8
1.48
1.7 1.47
1.46
1.6
-2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10
1.5
2
x
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time
(c) Reference
1.5002 CISMC
STA-SMC
IISMC
1.5
1.4998
1.50001
x2
1.5
1.4996
1.49999
1.49998
1.4994
1.49997
1.49996
1.49995
1.4992 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10
1.499
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time
(d) 1.5015
Reference
CISMC
1.5 STA-SMC
1.501 1.49999 IISMC
1.49998
1.49997
1.5005
1.49996
1.49995
18 20 22 24 26 28
1.5
2
x
1.4995
1.5
1.499
1.4999
1.4998
1.4985
1.4997
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
1.498
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time
Fig. 1. (a) Reference tracking. (b) Parametric uncertainties. (c) Un-modeled side reaction. (d) Input disturbance.
62 F. Wallam, A.Y. Memon / Journal of Process Control 51 (2017) 5567
By differentiating (68) and (69), we get, uncertainties and disturbances [16,17]. The EHGO for the process
dened in (60)(62) may be designed as
1 = 1 1 + 2 (70)
1
2 = 2 1 + ( 0 ) = 2 1 + (71) z 1 = z2 + z1 z1 (80)
It may be written as 2
z 2 = 0 z1 , z2 , x3 , qc + 2 z1 z1 + (81)
= + B (72)
3
= 3 z1 z1 (82)
where,
1 1 where, 0 is dened in (66) and 3 is also a gain term. Only dif-
= (73a) ference between the HGO and EHGO is having an additional state
2 0 in EHGO. Theorem 4 is also valid in the case of EHGO with the
following bound on uncertain term.
0
B= (73b) L
1
is dened here as
It may be noted that reducing diminishes the effects of in
(72). Assume ([4]), z1 z1
1 2
L + M (73c)
= 2 =
z2 z2
(83)
where, where, L and M are some positive constants. Let, the Lya-
punov candidate be selected as 3
V = T P (74)
Differentiating (83) with respect to time, we get the same Eq.
where, P is a positive denite symmetric matrix and is computed that is,
(72) except is replaced by ,
by using
= + B
(84)
P + T P = I (75)
where,
where, I is an identity matrix of order 2. Differentiating (74) with
1 1 0
respect to time and by using (72), we get,
T
= 2 0 1 (85a)
T
V = + B P + P + B (76)
3 0 0
V = T + 2BP (77)
0
By using (73c), we get, B = 0 (85b)
1
V (1 2LBP) 2MBP (78)
2MBP Just like HGO, EHGO has the same limitation of peaking phe-
V 0
(79) nomenon which may be resolved by saturating the controller.
1 2LBP
The steady state error decreases if reduces. So, should be 4.3. Performance analysis
selected small for achieving higher accuracy. The above result may
be summarized by using the following theorem. In this section, the performance of the observers designed in Sec-
tions 4.1 and 4.2 is analyzed. The observers presented in (64)(65)
Theorem 4. Suppose that (0, ), every trajectory of the closed
and (80)(82) are used to predict the un-measureable state of
loop system started inside a given compact set is bounded if the
the process. In order to test the robustness of the observers, sup-
following condition holds
pose that = 0.4, = 2.0, q = 0.05, 1 = 2.0, 2 = 0.05 and
x3f = 0.05. The HGO parameters are set as 1 = 13.7, 2 = 33.09
2MBP
> and = 0.1 and EHGO gains are set as 1 = 10.7, 2 = 33.99, 3 = 60.0
1 2LBP
and = 0.1. The error dynamics 1 (1 = z1 z1 ) and 2 (2 = z2 z2 )
A major limitation of HGO is an occurring of peaking phe- of the observers are plotted in Fig. 2(a)(b). As shown in Fig. 2(a), 1
nomenon for small values of which may lead the process to of HGO initially attains a value of approximately 5.5 105 before
instability. During peaking phenomenon, a peak of the order of setting down to a value of approximately 5.62 105 whereas 1
O(1/) is observed which may cause the feedback controller to of EHGO approaches to a peak value of 4 105 and then it set-
become unstable. One of the solutions for this problem is to saturate tles down to value of 0. It may be interesting to observe that there
the controller outside the compact set of interest [15,17]. remains a steady state error in the case of HGO but in the case
of EHGO, no steady state error is observed. Similarly, as shown
4.2. Extended high gain observer (EHGO) in Fig. 2(b), there remains a steady state error of approximately
7.6 103 in 2 for HGO but no steady error is observed in the case
EHGO estimates the unmeasured states along with the model of EHGO. This shows that EHGO offers more robustness than HGO.
uncertainties and disturbances. As the name implies, EHGO is an
extension of the HGO. EHGO is primarily an HGO with an additional 5. IISMC and EHGO based output feedback control
state augmented to it. This additional state improves the estima-
tion performance by providing a lumped parameter that contains From Section 3, it may conclude that the performance of the pro-
the missing information of the process dynamics that is, the model posed control technique, IISMC, is better than CISMC and STA-SMC
F. Wallam, A.Y. Memon / Journal of Process Control 51 (2017) 5567 63
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. (a) HGO and EHGO error 1. (b) HGO and EHGO error 2 .
and from Section 4, we conclude that EHGO is better in performance s
comparison with HGO. In this section, robust output feedback con- v = k1 tanh k2 s2 sign s (88)
trol technique is proposed by utilizing IISMC and EHGO as both are
the best in comparison with other recently developed techniques where,
discussed in this article.
s = e I + a1 e 1 + e 2 (89a)
For the CSTR process, the EHGO is designed in (80)(82). Based
on EHGO, the IISMC dened in (42)(44) may now be modied as e 1 = z1 r (89b)
e 2 = z2 r (89c)
1
u = sat (u)
= sat F2 e I a1 e 2 + v (86)
G2 F2 = q + z2 + 2 1 2 z1 x3 +
e 1 Now, the closed loop system can be shown by
e I = 1 tanh + 2 |e1 |sign e 1 (87)
z 1 = z2 (90a)
64 F. Wallam, A.Y. Memon / Journal of Process Control 51 (2017) 5567
(a) 2.1
Reference
SFB-IISMC
OFB-IISMC
2
1.9 2.01
2.005
2
1.8
1.995
2
x
1.99
1.7
1.985
1.98
1.6 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5
1.5
1.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time
(b) 1.52
Reference
SFB-IISMC
OFB-IISMC
1.51
1.5
1.49
1.5
2
x
1.48 1.495
1.49
1.47
1.485
1.45
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time
(c) Reference
1.5001 SFB-IISMC
OFB-IISMC
1.5
1.500010
1.500005
1.4999 1.500000
1.499995
1.499990
2
x
1.4998 1.499985
0 0.5 1 1.5
1.5
1.4997
1.4999
1.4999
1.4998
1.4996
1.4998
1.4997
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
1.4995
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time
(d) Reference
1.5001 SFB-IISMC
OFB-IISMC
1.5
1.4999
1.50000
2
x
1.4998 1.49998
1.49996
1.4997
19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5
1.4996
1.4995
0 50 100 150
Time
Fig. 3. (a) Reference tracking. (b) Parametric uncertainties. (c) Un-modeled side reaction. (d) Input disturbance.
66 F. Wallam, A.Y. Memon / Journal of Process Control 51 (2017) 5567
Appendix A. . Proof of Theorem 1 Let the Lyapunov candidate be selected as mentioned in (49)
and V0 dened in (21). Let chooses V1 be dened as [14,13]
Let the Lyapunov candidate be selected as mentioned in (49). 2
Let also select V0 as dened in (21) and V1 as mentioned in (50). 1 2 1 s
V1 = 2k2 |s| + v + k1 v3 (B10)
Take the time derivative of (31) and put into (51), we get, 2 3 2 |s|1/2
V 1 = s [a0 e1 + a1 e2 + F2 + G2 u + ] (A1) Take the time derivative of (B10) and by using (B9), we get,
1 2
s
Put (33) and (34) into (A1) we get,
s V 1 = 2k2 + k s + 2v3 v 3
2 1 |s|
V 1 = s 1 sat
+ (A2)
s2 v3 v3 sv 3
s k1 + s k1 (B11)
Outside the boundary layer {|s|
}, sat will be simply 2|s|5/2 |s|1/2 |s|1/2
become sign(s) [3]. Therefore, we may write (A2) as
By using (B5), (B6) and (B9), we may write (B11) as
V 1 = s 1 + (A3)
1 2 1 1 1
V 1 k1 k2 + k |s| 2 + k12 |v3 | + 2k2 + k12 1 |s| 2
V 1 0, 1 (A4) 2 1 2
By combining (25) and (A4), we conclude that k1 |v3 |2 k1 1 |v3 | 1
+22 |v3 | 1
+ + k1 2 |s| 2 (B12)
V < 0 2|s| 2
2
Inside the boundary layer, the system may be represented by [3] By rearranging (B12), we get
= A0 + B0 s (A5) 1
1 2
1 2
V 1 k1 k2 + k 2k2 + k 1 k1 2 |s|
where, |s|
1
2
2 1 2 1
0 a0 k1 1 k1
A0 = (A6) k12 + 1 + 22 |v3 ||s| 2 + |v3 |2 (B13)
2 2
1 a1
It may be written as
0
B0 = (A7)
1 1
V 1 T Q (B14)
|s|1/2
By taking V1 = T P0 , where P0 is the solution of the equation
P0 A + A0 P0 T = I. It may be veried that where,
V < 0 T = |s|1/2 |v3 |
Assume the following bound on , By combining (25) and (B15), we conclude that
[9] M. Groebel, F. Allgower, M. Storz, E.D. Gilles, Asymptotically exact [16] L.B. Freidovich, H.K. Khalil, Robust Feedback Linearization Using Extended
I/O-linearization of an industrial distillation column, Am. Control Conf. IEEE 4 High Gain Observers, Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE, 2006, pp.
(1995) 26482652. 983988.
[10] D. Zhao, Q. Zhu, J. Dubbeldam, Terminal sliding mode control for continuous [17] L.B. Freidovich, H.K. Khalil, Performance recovery of feedback linearization
stirred tank reactor, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 94 (2015) 266274. based designs, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 53 (2008) 23242334.
[11] Silvina I. Biagola, J.L. Figueroa, A high gain observer: application to the control [18] Utkin, Sliding Modes in Control and Optimization, Springer, 1992.
of an unstable nonlinear process, Comput. Chem. Eng. J. 28 (2004) 18811898. [19] C.T. Chen, C.S. Dai, Robust controller design for a class of nonlinear uncertain
[12] D. Nagrath, V. Parasad, B.W. Bequette, A model predictive formulation for chemical processes, J. Process Control 11 (2001) 469482.
control of open-loop unstable cascade systems, Chem. Eng. Sci. 57 (2002) [20] C.T. Chen, S.T. Peng, A sliding mode control scheme for non-minimum phase
365378. non-linear uncertain input-delay chemical processes, J. Process Control 16
[13] I. Nagesh, C. Edwards, A multivariable super twisted sliding mode approach, (2006) 3751.
Automatica 50 (2014) 984988. [21] H. Sira-Ramirez, Dynamical sliding mode control strategies in the regulation
[14] J.A. Moreno, M. Osorio, A. Lyapunov, Approach to Second Order Sliding Mode of nonlinear chemical processes, Int. J. Control 56 (1) (1992) 121.
Controllers and Observers, Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE, 2008, [22] Z.H. Li, T.Y. Chai, C. Wen, Systematic design of robust controllers for nonlinear
pp. 28562861. uncertain systems, Int. J. Control 62 (4) (1995) 871892.
[15] H.K. Khalil, L. Praly, High-gain observers in nonlinear feedback control, Int. J. [23] A. Shahraz, R. Bozorghmehry, A fuzzy sliding mode control approach for
Robust Nonlinear Control 24 (2014) 9931015. nonlinear chemical processes, Control Eng. Pract. 17 (2009) 541550.
[24] B.W. Bequette, Process Dynamics: Modeling, Analysis and Simulation, 1st
edition, Prentice Hall, 1998.
[25] A.N. Attasi, H.K. Khalil, A separation principle for the stabilization of a class of
nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 44 (9) (1999) 16721687.