Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

Chemical Engineering Science, Printed in Great Britain.

VOI. 45, NO.

THE

55 PP.

13w-1323,

1990

RELATIVE

GAIN

MULTIVARIABLE

FOR

NON-SQUARE

SYSTEMS

OOG9 2509/90 53.00 + 0.00

0 1990 Pergamon Press plc

 

JIN-WEN

CHANG

and CHENG-CHING

 

YU+

Department

of Chemical

Engineering,

National

Taiwan

Institute of Technology,

Taipei, Taiwan

10772,

 

R.O.C.

 

(First

received

9

May

1989;

accepted

in revised

form

25

August

1989)

Abstract--Generally speaking, chemical processes in nature are non-square systems with unequal numbers of inputs and outputs. However, only limited tools, e.g. singular-value decomposition (SVD), are capable of

analyzing non-square muItivariable systems directly. In this paper, Bristol’s relative gain array (RCA) is extended to non-square multivariable systems. The non-square relative gain array (NRC) is defined as the ratio of the open-loop gain, when all loops are without any control, to the closed-loop gain, when all loops other than the loop explored are under perfect control in the least-square sense. Properties of NRG are

rigorously

derived.

Similar

to

the square

RCA,

the NRC

can be used

to

assess the performance

of

non-square

control

systems based on steady-state

information.

Futhermore,

the NRG

can be served as

a criterion to choose a square subsystem from a non-square

Two distillation examples are presented to illustrate the use of the NRC.

system if a square control system is preferred.

of the NRC. system if a square control system is preferred. Non-square 1. INTRODUCTION with systems,

Non-square

1. INTRODUCTION

with

systems,

systems

unequal

numbers

of inputs and outputs, arise naturally in chemical processes (Downs, 1984; Downs and Moore, 1981; Lourtie, 1985; Treiber, 1984). However, most multi- variable control system analysis and/or design tools, e.g. the relative gain array (RGA), Niederlinski index etc. (McAvoy, 1983), deal with square systems only, except for the method of singular-value decomposi- tion (SVD). Mathematically, SVD has very good geo- metric interpretation (Klema and Laub, 1980, Downs,

(1981) used

SVD for measurement selection and variable pairings in distillation processes. Despite being meaningful geometrically, the SVD method depends on input and

output scalings (Mijares et al., 1986; Nguyen et al.,

1984, Lau et al., 1985). Downs

and Moore

1988).

The RGA, known as an interaction measure for multivariable control systems (McAvoy, 1983), was

originally proposed by Bristol (1966). Morari

and

coworkers (Grosdidier et al., 1985; Skogestad

and

Morari, 1987) gave updated summaries of the RGA.

In the design of decentralized controllers (multi-loop

SISO controllers), the RGA

workable variable pairings (Yu and Luyben, 1986). Manousiouthakis et al. (1986) generalized the concept of the RGA to block relative gain (BRG) which is capable of handling partially decentralized control systems. Both the RGA and BRG deal with square systems only. The purpose of this work is to extend the RGA to non-square systems. Systems having more outputs than inputs are considered in this paper. Obviously, it is not possible to control a system having more out- puts than inputs perfectly, i.e. steady-state offsets in all outputs are zero (Goodwin and Sin, 1984). However,

is used to eliminate

un-

in the least-square sense, the control objective can be stated as: to minimize the sum of square errors

(steady-state errors or steady-state offsets) of the out-

puts with

law perfect control in the least-square sense”

throughout this paper. Therefore, the concept of per- fect control, e.g. for deriving closed-loop gain, can be constructed for non-square systems. Following the definition of the non-square RGA (NRG), algebraic properties of the NRG are derived. Generally, two approaches can be taken to design a control system for a non-square process. One approach is to design

fewer

inputs. We

call this kind

of control

a non-square controller to control all outputs

(Treiber, 1984; Lourtie, 1985). A quantitative relation-

ship between the NRG and the ultimate performance

of a least-square perfect controller is derived. Another

approach is to square the system down, i.e. to select outputs such that the number of inputs and outputs are equal (Downs and Moore, 1981). A square subsys- tem, e.g. measurements, selection criterion is also pro- posed based on the NRG. Quantitative relationship can also be derived or conjectured from the NRG. Two distillation examples (Doukas and Luyben, 1978; Downs and Moore, 1981) are used to illustrate appli- cations of the NRG.

2. DEFINITIONS

Consider

a process

transfer

y:

%,%

function

matrix

Ccs,

(1)

function

with inputs u and outputs

Y(S)=

m x

where

G,,,

matrix

y(., is an

an

UC,) is

is

an

M 2

with

m

n x

n

x

1 output

1 input

n

process

vector

vector.

transfer

 

The

system

(Fig.

1)

is

under

feedback

control

with

+Author to whom

correspondence

should be addressed.

a controller,

K.

The

relative

gain

between

the

ith

1309

1310

JIN-WEN CHANG

and CHENG-CHING

Yu

-2

2

Fig. 1. Concept of closed-loop gain in a feedback system.

output (yi) and jth input (u,.), A:, is defined as the open-loop gain over the closed-loop gain. The open- loop gain between yi and uj is described by the ijth

element of the process transfer function matrix. gii(.,. Generally, the open-loop gain, gij(,,, is a function of

fore, we have

L 1

aYi

dui

Ykk+i

=

Bji

(5)

where gii is the jith element of G-i.

It should

be emphasized

that the only

assumption

made about the controller K is that the controller has integral action (can eliminate steady-state offset for asymptotically constant disturbances). No assump- tion is made about the controller structure. Therefore,

Aij becomes

 

Aj

=

Sijdji

and the RGA,

A, is defined

as

A = G@(G-‘)=

(6)

(7)

where @ denotes element-by-element multiplication.

the frequency (let s = iw) and the definitions

are the

 

same for both square (m = n) and non-square

(m >

n)

2B. Non-square system

systems. However, the definition and interpretation

of

For a non-square system with more outputs than

the closed-loop gain are not that straightforward. The closed-loop gain is defined separately for both square and non-square systems.

2A. Square systems

For

square systems, the closed-loop

gain is defined

as the gain between yi and ui when all other outputs

are under perfect control, i.e. y,s are held constant for

all

1985). Figure 1 illustrates the concept of the closed- loop gain provided that all other outputs are kept at set points. Generally, it is not possible to keep all other outputs, yks, under perfect control at all time if G,,, contains dead-time and/or RHPT zeros. There-

fore, only the steady-state aspect of perfect control is meaningful for general systems. In this paper, only the

steady-state aspect (s = 0) of the closed-loop

discussed. Mathematically, the relative gain can be defined as

k #

i (McAvoy,

1983; Grosdidier

and

Morari,

gain

is

Alternatively,

closed-loop

ijj can be expressed

as

gain r

(2)

As

steady-state

pointed

out

earlier,

the

open-loop

is

transfer function:

gain

gain of the process

[

aY.

_-.A

auj

1

uk,k+j

=

&j(O).

the

Since only the steady-state aspect is considered, the subscript (0) is dropped for clarity. The closed-loop gain can be expressed as the element of G-i regard- less of controller structure, e.g. multi-loop SISO con- trollers, block-diagonal controllers or full multi- variable controller, as shown in Appendix A. There-

inputs (m > n), it is not possible to keep all outputs at their set points. Therefore, the sense of perfect control in the definition of closed-loop gain should be modi- fied. Perfect control in the least-square sense is pro-

posed. That is, a controller

steady-state offsets are minimized in the sense of least- square (i.e. the 2-norm of the steady-state error vector is minimized). This type of controller is termed a least- square perfect controller. From the IMC structure [Fig. 2 and Garcia and Morari (1982)] the output vector, y(,,. can be expressed as

such that the

K is designed

Y(si = %,[I,,

and assuming no plant-model mismatch, we have

+

Ge,,, tG,,,

-

&,)I

- ’ Gc,,,YE’

(8)

where

Ge,,,

tion matrix

%,

an

is an n

is

x

m IMC

controller

transfer func-

m

x

n

nominal

process

transfer

function

matrix.

The closed-loop

error

becomes

e(,) =

(1,

-

G,,, GM

~7:;

where

e,,, is an

m x

1 error

vector

Since we are interested

in the steady-state

(10)

error, the

least-square perfect controller requires

=(a,

= (GT,, Go,)-

’ GA,

=

G,.

(11)

The

the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse, respectively

superscripts

T

and + denote

the transpose

and

n

Fig. 2. Non-square IMC

structure.

The relative gain for non-square multivariable

systems

1311

(Strang, 1980). Using the final-value theorem, the steady-state offsets become [subscript (0) is dropped for clarity]

(12)

i5 =

(I

-

GG+),‘=‘.

where the superscript

its nominal value at steady state. Geometrically, the

matrix

complement of the column space of G. Subsequently,

the sum of the square of the steady-state offsets, ErB, is minimized. Therefore, the steady-state closed-loop re- lationship, under the least-square perfect control, be- tween ii and y”’ becomes

“-”

denotes

g”’

the deviation

from

(I

-

GG’)

projects

onto the orthogonal

,=G+y”“_

Between

of the closed-loop

the ith output

and the jth

gain is

[

auj

aYi

1

CL

=

9ji

t

where gf is the jith entry of G+.

that in order

Notice

to achieve

 

(13)

input, the inverse

 

(14)

the control

objec-

tive, controller structure, a full multivariable least- square perfect controller, and steady-state gain of the controller are assumed implicitly. For a non-square system, G, the non-square rela-

tive gain (NRG) is defined as

-N

+

rayi

LauJoL=gij.g;

= rayi

(15)

Similarly,

and

where (g’

G+G.

the column

sum vector

(CS) is defined

 

r

n

n

n

1T

=

[es(l),

cs(2),

, es(n)]’

as

(20)

es(i)

=

(9+

9)ii

g)ii is the iith element

of

the

n x

(21)

n matrix

Property 1: The sum of the elements in each column of

the NRG for all js.

is always

equal to unity. That

is es(j)

=

1.0

Proof

non-singular,

(GTG)-i GrG

Since the jth column sum of the NRG, es(j), is the jjth element of G+ G, we have

For

an m

x

n matrix,

G, with

=

m >

I,.

n, if GrG

is

(22)

we have

G+

G

=

es(j)

=

F

i=r

A;

=

1.0.

Property

1 says

that

the sum

of

NRG

QED

elements

along the longer side of the G matrix (the column sum

for m > n) is equal to unity. This property

with the result of square systems (RGA).

is consistent

Property

2: The

sum of the elements

in each row

of

the

NRG

falls

between

zero

and

unity.

That

is:

0 <

rs(i)

<

1

for

all

is.

Proof: Appendix C.

This property points out the fundamental difference between the NRG and the RGA. Since it is not poss-

ible to keep all outputs perfect for a non-square sys-

less than unity

seems to indicate the deviation from perfect control for each output. The next two sections will discuss the row sum in greater details.

tem, the row sum of the NRG being

Thus, from the steady-state

transfer matrix

G and

its

pseudo inverse G+,

the non-square

relative

gain

ar-

ray, AN, can be promptly evaluated:

AN = G@(G+)T.

(16)

The definition is similar to the Bristol RGA’s. Despite the difference that the pseudo-inverse, G+, is used instead of the normal inverse, G-l, the simplicity of the RGA remains.

the normal inverse, G-l, the simplicity of the RGA remains. 3. PROPERTIES OF THE NON-SQUARE RCA

3.

PROPERTIES

OF

THE

NON-SQUARE

RCA

Corollary

1: Summation

of

all

row

sums,

rs(i)s,

is

(17)

equal

to summation

of all column

sums, cs(j)s,

and

From AN, we can compute

each row and in each column. The

the sums of all elements in

row

sum vector

(RS) is defined

as

RS=

j$liyj,

5

,

t

A:jIT

the

summation

is equal

to

the

column

dimension.

That

is

 

i$l rs(0

= j$l

es(j)

=

n

(23)

Proof!

 

[

j-1

j=

1

=

[m(l),

i-s(2),

.rs(m)]’

(18)

where

rs(i)

is the sum

of the

ith row

of the NRG.

Furthermore,

it can be shown

that (Appendix

C)

This corollary indicates that the summation of row

 

sums [rs(i)]

is limited

to

the

dimension

of

G

(the

 

us(i) =

(99+ )ii

(19)

number of inputs). With

n inputs, at best, we can keep

where (gg + )ii is the iith element

of

the m x m matrix

n

output variables

under

perfect

control.

For

an

GG+.

m

x n non-square system, the n degrees of perfection

1312

JIN-WEN CHANG

and CHENG-CHINO

Yu

are distributed among m output variables. This corol- lary clearly states the inherent limitation for systems with fewer inputs.

Property 3: The NRG is invariant under input scaling and is variant under output scaling. By input (output) scaling we mean post (pre)-multiplication of G by a non-singular diagonal matrix S,(S, ).

Proof:

(1)

Input

scaling:

For

an

n x

n diagonal

scaling

matrix

S,,

S,

=

diag

(sl,

sl,.

, s,), it can be

shown

that

 

(GS,)+

= S;‘G+C.

 

From

the definition,

A? can be expressed

as

 

A:

= (GS,)@(S;‘G+)r.

 

The NRG

for the system under input scaling

is

 

(A&

=

gijsj

IIJ g;

;

=

gijg;

=

a&

Therefore

9 we have Af

=

AN.

(2) Output

matrix

that

S,,

S,

scaling: For

=

the m x m diagonal

, s,),

scaling

diag (sls sa,

it can be shown

(S,G)+

= (GTS,2G)-1GTS:.

Proof:

Appendix

D.

Despite

being

variant

under

output

scaling,

the

physical meaning of output scaling is quite clear. With

respect

following

to

input/output

properties:

scalmgs,

the NRG

has the

(1) the NRG

(2)

is invariant

under input scaling

the NRG is variant under output scaling but the scaling factors weight the relative importance of the outputs.

Property 4: Any permutation

of rows and columns

in

a transfer function

matrix

G

results

in

the

same

permutation in the NRG. Mathematically,

let

AN = NRG(G)

and P,

and P,

are two

square permu-

tation matrices. (A”),, = P,ANP,.

If

(AN),

= NRG(P,GP,),

then

Proof:

P, is an m x m permutation

matrix

and P,

is an

n x n permutation

matrix.

Since

P,

and

P,

thogonal

matrices,

e.g. P;

’ = PT

and Pi

1 =

have

(P,GP,)+

= P;G+

P,‘.

The permutated

NRG

becomes

are or-

P,‘,

we

(24)

(AN), = CP,GP,18 CV’oGP,)+I=

= CPoGP,l

@ CP,(G+)‘P,l

The scaling matrix (S,) cannot be factored previous case except for the following

out as the case. For

s1=s2=

=s,=si,wehave

 

A:

= (S,G)O[(S,G)+]7T

 

= s,G@

[(c)‘l+

=

AN.

 

1

Generally

A,N # AN.

QED

Similar

to the RGA,

the NRG

is invariant

under

input scaling. However, the NRG is variant

under

= PoCW-46.3(G+)=lP,

= P,ANP,.

QED

Similar to the RGA, any permutation of rows and columns in a transfer function matrix G results in the same permutation in the NRG.

Property 5: The definition

of the NRG

is consistent

with

the definition

of the RGA

when

the number

of

input variables

is equal

to

the

number

of

output

variables. Mathematically, then AN = A.

if

G

is a square

matrix,

output scaling. It should be emphasized that property 3 holds only for systems with more outputs than inputs (for systems with more inputs than outputs, the opposite is true). Since the concept of least-square perfect control is used in the definition of the closed- loop gain, the output scaling is equivalent to the weighted least square [Lawson and Hanson (1974, p. 183)]. The magnitude of an output scaling factor, i.e. si, weights the relative importance of the ith output. The next corollary gives the interpretation of the scaling factor, si, under asymptotic conditions.

:Corollary

2:

If

the ith scaling

factor

of

the

output

scaling matrix

is zero,

i.e.

sI =

0, then

the ith

con-

trolled variable is disregarded

square perfect control

sum, rs(i), is zero. If the ith scaling factor, si, goes to

in the context

the

of least-

row

and

corresponding

ProoE

For

Property

a square and non-singular

G+

= (G=G)-‘G=

= G-‘(G=)-lGr

= G-‘.

matrix

5 shows that the RGA

is a special

G:

QED

case of

the NRG. Properties l-5 state fundamental proper-

ties of the NRG.

Property

6:

For

an

m

x

1 system,

G

=

[gii,

gsi,

, g,ilT,

the NRG

is

 

AN

=

[I,,,

A,,,

, &,7=

with

infinity, i.e. si +

co, then the ith controlled

variable is

always held constant and the corresponding approaches unity.

row sum

co, then the ith controlled variable is always held constant and the corresponding approaches unity. row

The relative gain for non-square multivariable systems

1313

For a one-column

matrix, the NRG

is a vector

with

all positive elements. Each NRG element is the ratio

of the square of the open-loop gain to the sum of square of all elements.

Property 7: The elements of the NRG approach infin-

ity as the non-square singular.

system matrix G becomes nearly

Proof: From eqs (C3) and (C4) of Appendix be expressed as

C, Ji”,can

 

gij

5

det G’j[I’J

det G [Z’ti,]

A$

=

1’

=

1

 

det (GTG)

As G becomes

nearly

singular

[det (GrG)

4

01, the

elements of the NRG approach infinity.

QED

Proof:

Appendix

B.

It seems that the analytical expression, eq. (25), does

not directly

.gr,, since 3,;s appear in both the numerator and the

and

imply

relative

sensitivity

between

1:

denominator

term in the RHS

of the RHS

of eq. (25). However,

the first

to the

of eq. (25) is implicitly

related

1;

as we can see from eq. (BS) of Appendix

B. Let

us

case as an

example, the numerical results for the first (the

take the ill-conditioned

G in the previous

element in brackets)

of eq. (25) for all ijs with 6 = 0.001 are

and the second

term of the RHS

[

With

[ZOOO] +

(

-

1000)

[

-

20001+

(1000)

[2000]

+

(

-

1000)

[

-

20001 + (1001)

[

-

lOOO] + (2001)

6 =

0.0001, we have

[999]

+

(

-

2000) 1

Consider

is singular

a nearly singular non-square

if and only

 

a

G=

a

 

[

a

a(1

becomes

 

r 1+b

26

 

A”=

I

- l+S

 

2s

 

-1

 

-

 

L

6

 

500.5

=

[

500.5

-1000

a

a

+

if det(GTG)

6)

-1

2s

-1

~

26

~ 1+6

6

-

-

5000.5

5000.5

-

10,000

=

O]:

system G [G

[20,000]

+

( -

10,000)

[

-

2O,ooo] + (10,001)

[2O,M30] +

( -

10,000)

[ - 2O,OOO] + (10,001)

[

[

-

lO,OOO] + (20,001)

L-99991+ ( -

20,001)

1

The results show that the premultiplication factor in

the RHS of eq. (25) grows in the magnitude

proportional to the size of dc. Therefore, we can conjecture that the relative sensitivity between ,%gand gij is proportional to the size of 1;. For a system with large value of nzs, it becomes more sensitive to errors in gvs.

which is

The NRG

I.

500

1001 1

500

4. NON-SQUARE

CONTROL

SYSTEM

PERFORMANCE

As pointed out earlier, two approaches can be taken to handle non-square systems. The first ap- proach is to design a non-square controller for a given non-square system (Treiber, 1984, Lourtie, 1985). Im-

plications of the NRG to the ultimate performance of

non-square controllers are discussed in this section.

Since it is not possible to keep every output at its set

point with fewer inputs (notice that the process trans-

n) in the face

of disturbances, the ultimate steady-state performance measure is, therefore, the steady-state offset (error) in each output. In most cases, a least-square perfect controller [eq. (1 l)] is designed such that the 2-norm of the steady-state offset is minimized. The NRG measures, quantitatively, the ultimate steady-state performance of a non-square control system.

fer function

Let

S =

0.001:

A”

and

for

6 =

0.0001:

AN=

is an m

x

n matrix

with

m >

-5000

10,001 1

-5cOo.

For

This special case implies a nearly singular system

matrix results in large elements in the NRG.

special

n: are. However, the degree of singularity for non-

square systems is less critical than square systems,

to have a singular (or nearly

since it is not very likely

singular) system, especially for cases with m + n.

this

case, the smaller

6 is, the larger the values of

Theorem 1: Consider a stable non-square system with

more outputs than inputs. If a least-square perfect

controller

system is stable, then the deviation

of

steady-state

set point

and the closed-loop of the ith row sum

[eq.

(1 l)]

from

is employed

unity

[l

-

the NRG

rs(i)]

is equal

to the

offset in the ith output

is made

when a unit step

2),

if

(26)

Property

8: Consider

an m x n transfer matrix

G with

its pseudo-inverse

G+

and

its associate

NRG,

AN.

Relative

changes

in the gijs and 25s are related

by the

following

expressions.

 

da:

nc

-

g; det [ (G”)T(Gij)]

lgdet(GTG)

 

+

(1 -

2a;)

1

2.

(25)

change

in the ith output.

(I

-

structure

GG+

),*“.

(Fig.

the

least-square perfect controller (Section 2B) is used, the closed-loop relationship becomes

Proof: Based on the IMC

the least-square perfect controller (Section 2B) is used, the closed-loop relationship becomes Proof: Based on the

B =

1314

JIN-WEN CHANG

and CHENG-CHING

Yv

a

output,

If

unit

step set point i.e.

change

is made

on the

ith

 

Y -Set =

(0, .

.

.

, 0,

1, 0,

, o)=

 

the steady-state

error

of the

ith output

is

 

ei =

1 -

(gg+)ii

 

where (gg+)ii

is the iith entry

of GG+.

 

From

eq.

(19), we

have

 

ci =

 

1

-

w(i).

 

QED

The closeness of each row

sum,

n(i),

to

unity has

in non-square control system

performance. In the case when one output is more

important than the other, we can simply weight that

particular

a strong implication

output heavier than the other, e.g. rescale

the process transfer function matrix with output scaling matrix provided with a larger scaling factor on that output. The row sums of output resealed NRG change accordingly and the row sum of that particu-

the

physical meaning of output scaling on the NRG be-

lar output becomes closer to unity. Therefore,

comes more transparent.

4A. Example: DL column (Doukas and Luyben, 1978) Consider a side-stream distillation example (Fig. 3), separating benzene, toluene and xylene, originally studied by Doukas and Luyben (1978). Table 1 gives the process transfer function matrix. The concentra- tions of four impurities in three product streams are controlled by three manipulated variables: reboiler duty, reflux ratio and side stream flow rate. Doukas and Luyben (1978) squared up the system by adding

Doukas and Luyben (1978) squared up the system by adding 40 .----- Raflux - 87 ----
Doukas and Luyben (1978) squared up the system by adding 40 .----- Raflux - 87 ----

40

.-----

Raflux

-

(1978) squared up the system by adding 40 .----- Raflux - 87 ---- - Sidestrram Feed
(1978) squared up the system by adding 40 .----- Raflux - 87 ---- - Sidestrram Feed

87

----

-

Sidestrram

the system by adding 40 .----- Raflux - 87 ---- - Sidestrram Feed Fig. 3. DL

Feed

by adding 40 .----- Raflux - 87 ---- - Sidestrram Feed Fig. 3. DL distillation column.

Fig.

3. DL

distillation

column.

Steam

Bottoms

Table

1. Process transfer function matrix for the DL

column

 

Reboiler duty (u,)

Reflun ratio (21,)

Side draw (I(~)

Toluene

in bottom

(yl)

Toluene

in bottom

(y2)

Benzene in side draw (ys)

Benzene in side draw (yl)

-

g g*le-

11.36s

+

1.59s

1

5.984e-2.24’

14.298

+

1

2.38e-0,42”

(1.43s

+

1)2

-

11.67e-‘~9’S

12.19s

+

1

0.374e- 7.7’S

(22.2s

+

1)2

-

1.986e-0~7’”

l)*

(66.67& +

0.0204e-0~5g"

(7.145

+

l)*

-

0.176e-0.485

(6.9,s +

l)*

-

11 3e-3.79’

(21.74s

+

1)”

5.24eC60’

(400s

+

I)2

-

0.33e-0.68”

I)*

(2.388

+

4.48e-0.525

(11.11s

+

1)2

The

relative gain for non-square multivariable systems

1315

a fourth manipulated variable, the sidedraw location. Treiber (1984) treated the DL column as a 4 x 3

system. A non-square controller

the non-square system. The NRG can be used to assess control system performance a priori.

should

be design for

The

NRG

for

the 4

x

3 system

is

 

0.241

-

0.103

0.861

0.006

1.094

-

0.100

0.028

0.000

0.002

0.726

0.008

0.237

with

 

cs

= [l.OOo

 

1.000

l.Ooo]~

RS

=

CO.998

1.000

0.030

0.971]=.

cc

-5

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

I-

O

260

460

Time

SbO

a

From

the row

sum of the NRG,

it

is clear

that the

Fig.

5. Closed-loop

responses

for

third output

will be controlled

poorly

if a non-square

 

change in yz with a non-square

controller

is used. A

non-square

IMC

controller

is

designed

to verify

this prediction

by the NRG.

Since

 

our objective

is to illustrate

the steady-state

offsets in

the controlled variables, a simple non-square IMC controller is designed:

 

The controller is equivalent to the non-square version of SPMC [simplified model predictive control (Arulalan and Deshponde, 1987)]. Simulation results

 

(Figs

4-7)

show

that little

steady-state

offsets

in the

first, second and fourth output when unit step set point changes are made in these variables. However, a significant offset is observed in y3 for a unit step set point change in yy’ (Fig. 6). Table 2 summarized the steady-state offsets in all outputs which are exactly the results predicted by the NRG. Treiber (1984) also

 

200

400

pointed out that the third output, y3, is poorly con- trolled from the results of closed-loop simulation.

Time

Clearly, the ultimate non-square control system per-

Fig.

6. Closed-loop

responses

for

formance can be assessed from the NRC directly.

change in y,

with a non-square

 

-02C

oc

 

Time

 

4

Fig.

4. Closed-loop

responses

for

a

unit

step

set

point

change in y,

with a non-square

IMC

controller.

co

-s

Fig.

1 .o

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

f

2 0

1

200

1

400

Time

7. Closed-loop change in y,

responses

for

a

unit

step

set

point

IMC

controller.

 

600

1

0

a

unit

step

set

point

IMC

controller.

 

1

500

e

0

a

unit

step

set

point

IMC

controller.

 
  1 500 e 0 a unit step set point IMC controller.   with a non-square

with a non-square

1316

JIN-WEN

CHANG

and CHENG-CHING

Yu

Table 2. Steady-state

step set point change in each variable with the static IMC least-square controller

offsets of the DL

column

for

a

unit

SCl

Yl

Se‘

Y2

Se,

Y3

SC‘

Y4

Yl

Y2

Y3

Y4

0.0016

-0.0001

- 0.0388

-0.0067

- o.ooo1

- 0.0388

-0.0067

0.0000

-0.0025

- 0.0004

-0.0025

0.9699

- 0.1664

- 0.0004

- 0.1664

0.0286

5. CONTROL

STRUCTURE

SELECTION

An alternative approach to designing a control system for a non-square process is to square the system down. That is to select the same number of outputs as inputs and a square controller can be designed for the square subsystem (Fig. 8). This is

a common practice in chemical process control

(Joseph and Brosilow, 1978; Downs and Moore, 1981;

Downs, 1984; Morari and Stephanopoulos, 1980) and

is generally termed selection of secondary measure-

ments. However, only the method of SVD proposed

by Downs and Moore

a non-square system in a direct fashion. Despite hav-

ing good geometric interpretation, the SVD method is

both input and the output scaling dependent and the secondary measurement selection method proposed

by Downs

sions, e.g. the largest element in the different column vector of U may happen to be the same output. The NRG provides an alternative for the selection of

a square subsystem

(1981) is capable of handling

and Moore (1981) may fail in some occa-

(secondary

measurements).

Consider a non-square process, G, with a square

controller as shown in Fig. 8. The non-square

G can be partitioned into a square subsystem G, and

the complementary (remaining) subsystem G,. The control objective is to minimize the sum of square

error (SSE) of uncontrolled outputs when the square subsystem is under perfect control. In the least-square sense, this is equivalent to choosing n out of m (with

m > n) data sets and solve the n linear algebraic equa-

tions directly for the coefficient such that SSE for the complete m data sets is minimized. Notice that there are C(m, n) combinations to choose from. In terms of tubular reactor control, this means to choose some temperature measurement location(s) such that when the chosen temperatures are under integral control the temperature profile in the reactor can be held most constant for any variation in the controlled temperature. In terms of distillation control, this is to select temperature control tray(s) such that the tem- perature profile within the distillation column can be kept most constant. The row sum of the NRG pro- vides some information in this regard.

system

Consider an m x n process transfer function matrix

G

with m > n. If we choose n outputs for control,

the

system can be partitioned

 

into

 

[,-;-I

=

[ ;I-]u

(27)

where

(controlled)

vector

Clearly,

is

yn,

Notice

closed-loop

scribed

ys

for

is

an

n x

1 output

and

vector

(m -

for

the selected

1 output

outputs

the

yR is an

n)

(uncontrolled)

x

outputs.

there are C(m, n) choices for ys. The objective

outputs,

remaining

to minimize

for

any

the SSE for the uncontrolled

in the controlled

variation

outputs,

ys.

The

are de-

that only steady-state

by

gains

for

error is considered.

subsystem

the square

6 =

G,

1r:“_

(28)

When the square subsystem is under perfect control, the steady-state error for all outputs is

e

=

(I,

x n -

GG;

‘)y:=’

(29)

where

I,

X,, is

an

m x IZ matrix

 

with

unity

in

the

diagonal

zero

elsewhere,

and

e

is

an

111x

1 steady-

state

error

vector.

For

a particular

choice

of

the

square subsystem,

G,,

the SSE is defined

as

SSE

=

k

IIs

II: =

5

II(ImX,, -

GG,- ‘)y:‘:

)I:

(30)

 

i=1

i=l

where ytft 1s.

an n x

1 vector with unity in

the ith entry

and zero elsewhere,

corresponding to the specific input 7:::. The row sum

of the NRG provides optimal (exact) solution to the

problem for two special cases, namely, case of n = 1 and case of m = n + 1, and suboptimal (approxi- mated) solution for other cases.

and e(i)

is an

m

x

1 error

vector

5.4. Case ofn = 1

This

case

is quite

common

in chemical

process

control: to choose a measurement location for single- loop control, e.g. to choose a temperature control tray in a distillation control. In this case G is a one-column matrix. From property 5, the row sum is

t-s(i) =

m

2

9il

=

22.

(31)

&

g5

From

eqs (30)

choice

and (31)

of G,,

it can

be shown

that, for

m)

a particular

(Appendix

i.e. the ith subset of S(l,

B), the SSE becomes

m

SSE(i)

=

c

sj:

j=1

L Sfl

(32)

and

m

c si:

=

+

SSE(i)

-_1=1--1.

n(i)

(33)

( 3 2 ) and m c si: = + SSE(i) -_1=1--1. n(i) ( 3 3

system.

9il

Fig.8. Square control

structure for a non-square

The relative gain for non-square multivariable systems 1317

Notice that SSE(i) is for the case when the ith output is chosen as the controlled variable. Equation (33) shows that choosing the largest row sum of the NRG can lead to the smallest SSE subject to any perturba- tion in the controlled variable. From property 6, we know that a large of giI corresponds to a large value of AZ and rs(i). Therefore, choosing the element with the largest magnitude from a transfer function matrix

is

the largest row sum from the

NRG in this case. This is physically understandable for the single-loop control, since the heuristic in com-

mon practice is to choose a system that the manipu- lated variable has a large effect on the controlled variable.

1, a small

row

sum in the RHS

of eq. (39) indicates

a small SSE in the corresponding square subsystem. Now we can justify that the small row sum of the NRG in the complementary (remaining) system indi- cates a small SSE in the square subsystem. Therefore, the criterion for the selection of a square subsystem is to eliminate the controlled variable with the smallest row sum in the NRG.

SC.

Besides the two special cases, the cases with two or more input variables and many output variables also occur frequently. For example, we often try to keep the temperature profile in a distillation column with reflux flow, steam flow, etc. Unfortunately, no direct link between the SSE and row sum can be derived analytically. The closest relationship between the SSE and the row sum of the NRG for two input variables is (Appendix E)

Other

cases

 

det(GTG)

{

ii1

*s(i))

-

2

(40)

SSE(j)

=

(det

G[

j])z

where

S(2, m).

i is the ith element

of the jth

2-tuple

subset of

the subsystem selection criterion generated

the square subsystem

two cases, choosing

outputs with smaller row sums leads to

equivalent

to choosing

SB.

Caseofm=n+

For this almost

1

square system, we can square down

the first n outputs to form

the system

a square

between

C(n

k [k

n-tuple

the

similarly

by choosing

subsystem,

the

+

from

SSE

1, n) =

n +

“(k

-

G,,

and

rs.

to derive

Since

the relation

there

are

of

a set

and

1)”

=

n +

1 possible

l]

choices

elements,

to select

the results for

can

choice,

also

he

we have

remaining

combinations

G=- this particular

derived.

G,

For

G,

[l[

9ml

4m2

= 9.19nz

911

912

.

91.

1

9nn.(34)

.

Despite

by previous

9mn

by eliminating

the minimum SSE [as defined in eq. (30)]. Equation

(40) bears no direct link to this criterion. Counter- examples can be established such that by choosing the “n” largest of row sums is not equivalent to the minim-

ization of the SSE.

test the

heuristic generated from previous two cases. Ten thousand random matrices were generated for a given dimension. The optimal and suboptimal square sub- systems are identified (by optimal we mean that the particular square subsystem results in the minimum SSE and by suboptimal we mean that the subsystem results in the one next to the minimum SSE) and the subsystem selected by the NRG criterion is checked against the optimal and suboptimal subsystem. The results (Table 3) show that the NRG subsystem selec- tion criterion leads to the optimal subsystem in almost 77% of the cases tested and results in the op- timal or/and a suboptimal subsystem in almost 88% of all cases tested. The reason for the NRG subsystem selection criterion fails to produce the op- timal subsystem can be seen from eq. (40). The row sum (which the criterion based on) only accounts for part of the contribution to the SSE. The other factor comes from the determinant of the selected square system. Generally, the NRG subsystem selection criterion en- sures a large determinant, but it does not guarantee the largest determinant. However, for a square sub- system with competitive row sums, determinants of square subsystems play a deciding role for the values of the SSE. This explains the observation that, when the NRG subsystem selection criterion fails to pro- duce the optimal square subsystem, the second largest row sum generally resultsin the minimum SSE. From the

A computer

experiment

is conducted

to

This particular choice corresponds to the first subset from S(n, m). Therefore, SSE( 1) can be calculated from eq. (30):

SSE(l)

=

Since G,

5

i=l

=

n+l

11e(i) 11:=

5

i=l

G[l]

(Appendix

I/I

-

GG,

‘y:‘:

B), we have

II;-

(35)

SSE(l) = ,g2(detGci’)’= det(G=G) - (detG[l])Z

(det G[l])’

(det G[lJ)’

and from

Appendix

C

rs(m)

=

det (GTG) -

@etG Cll)’

det(GTG)

From

eqs (36) and

(37), we get

(36)

(37)

SSE(l)

=

Mm)

1 -

w(m)

(38)

or

in a more

general

SSE(j)

where thej

in SSE(j)

form

=

rs(n +

2 -

j)

1 -

rs(n +

2 -

j)

denotes the sum of square error

when

the jth

subset

of

S(n, m)

is chosen

to form

a

square subsystem. Since the value of the row sum is between

zero and

of S(n, m) is chosen to form a square subsystem. Since the value of the row

1318

JIN-WEN

CHANG

and

CHENG-CHING

Yu

 

Table

3. Numbers

of optimal

and suboptimal

cases generated

by the

 

NRG

square subsystem

selection criterion’

 

m

 

n

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

9532:

906 1

9307

8830

8350

7185

 

46X0

530

582

479

818

1353

 

3

9144

8356

7593

7564

7353

 

420

1176

1091

1081

1518

 

4

7974

6302

5478

6182

 

1228

923

2060

1485

 

5

7785

6446

6357

 

1461

1696

541

 

6

7788

7362

 

762

1158

 

7

7x10

 

1042

 

+Number

of cases tested for a eiven dimension

=

10,000.

*Number

of optimal

cases.

 

$Number

of suboptimal

cases.

results

of

the

computer

experiment,

we

can

further

conjecture

that

the NRG

subsystem

selection

cri-

terion

subsys-

tem in most cases. After having selected the variables to square down the system, we can go on to design

controllers for the square subsystem.

will

result

in the optimal

or suboptimal

5Cl. Example: DL column.From the RS informa-

tion (Section 4), we can eliminate the third output to form a square subsystem. Thus the rest of AN becomes

(AN)’ =

[

0.241

0.006

CO.7261

-

0.103

Cl.0947

0.008

-

If the variables are paired according

CO.8611

0.100

0.237

I

.

to the NRG

as

shown in the (A”)’ (those in brackets), the controller structure becomes (u,, y,; u2, y2; z+, y,}, The RGA, A, for the square subsystem is

Fig.

0

200

400

Time

600

9. Closed-loop

responses

for

a

unit

change in Yt CyBis the uncontrolled

step

set

output).

6

point

A=

C

0.245

0.006

co.7491

-

0.103

[ 1.0941

0.009

[0X58]

-

0.100

0.242

I

.

Notice that there is little difference between A and A” for this example. A multi-loop PI controller is used to control the square subsystem. The controller gains and reset times (Table 4) are determined used the BLT method (Luyben, 1986). Steady-state offsets exist for the uncontrolled variable, y,, for unit step set point changes in the controlled variables (Figs 9-l 1). Sum- mation of the square of these steady-state errors (SSE)

Table

4.

Controller

{UI_Y,I loop {W-Y, 1 loop {Ua-Y, I loop

gains

BLT

and

method

reset times from

the

Controller

K

gain

-

-

-

0.0986

10.2330

0.1159

Reset time

*,

(min)

25.33

107.48

143.73

0.8 -

0.6 -

D YI