799
DESIGN OF ROBUST CONTROLLERS FOR A MILK OF LIME BLENDING TANK
F. Tadeol and P, Vega2
luniversidad de Walladolid, Spain and 2Universidad de Salamanca, Spain
Keywords: Process Control, Computer Aided Control System Design, Multivariable Control Systems.
ABSTRACT.
This paper presents the use of an industrial Milk of Lime
Blending Tank (MLBT) for the design and evaluation of
different robust c,ontrollers. The plant is a multi-input,
multi-output non-linear system with high interaction
between loops and large disturbance actions. The IMC,
H, and p. methods are used to design controllers which
provide robust stability as well as good nominal
performance in the control of the density at the output
and the level of juice in the tank in the face of
uncertainties due 00 non-linearities within the system and
disturbance actioos. A non-linear model and operating
records of disturbances taken from the real process are
used to develop the weighting functions to include the
plant uncertainties in the design procedure. Finally, a
comparison between the performance of the designed
robust controllers and a conventional PID is carried out.
INTRODUCTION
One of the main stages in the sugar manufacturing
process takes place in the purification station where the
impurities of the juice are removed by means of two
v
carbonation proce ses See McGinnis (6)). An auxiliary
component of the carbonation section is the Milk of
Lime Blending Tank (MLBT) which provides a uniform
flow of milk of lime (calcium hydroxide). One of the
most important aim of the control system is to keep the
density at the output at prescribed values despite the
disturbance effects. The level of liquid in the tank is
maintained within a specified range to avoid flow
obstruction due to the high density of the dissolution.
The interaction b e b e e n the control loops, the presence
of non-linearities and disturbances justify the use of
advanced control techniques.
Currently, most of the advanced controllers are usually
designed by using a linear model of the process based on
fixed information 1 of the plant that is imperfect and
incomplete. Control quality may deteriorate when the
This work was supported in part by the CICYT under
grant BI094-0679-C02-02
U w c C InternationAIConference on CONTROL ‘96,2-5 September 1996, Conference Publication NO.427 0 IEE 1996
working conditions change. The essence of robust
control is to model the uncertainties themselves and to
incorporate them into the design procedure of the control
system, with the aim of ensuring stability. By using
simulation techniques, this paper presents a comparative
study of different Robust Control techniques and the
classical PID control for a MLBT of a particular sugar
factory placed in Spain.
The paper begins with a description of the process to be
controlled and the non-linear mathematical model of the
plant. Next, the control problem is stated and, after a
short review of the basis of Robust Control, the design
of the controllers by means of the p (Doyle (3)) and the
IMC techniques (Morari and Zafirou (7)) is described.
The design of the H,-optimal controller was described
in (Tadeo et al. (8)), therefore it is not repeated in this
paper for lack of space. Finally the performance of the
regulators is compared on a simulation of the real plant,
THE MILK OF LIME BLENDING TANK
The system dealt with is a stirred tank (Figure 1) where
a suspension of lime is mixed with water to decrease the
dissolution density. The product leaves the tank and it is
dissolved with the raw juice (obtained by a diffusion
process from sliced sugar beet and water) during the first
steps of the purification process, in which the non-sugars
present in the juice form insoluble products which are
then easily eliminated by filtering.
essure
Mllk of Lime Concentrahon, c
Figure 1: Milk of Lime Blending Tank
The mathematical model of the MLBT comprises two
non-linear state space equations corresponding to mass
balances (Vega et al. (9)):
 800
where u l , u2, u3 are input signals to manipulate the
valves, x1 is the concentration of the mixture at the
output, x2 is the level of liquid in the tank, p1 is the
concentration of input lime suspension, p2 the back
pressure, The parameters h l = 5 , h2 = 3.6, h3 = 9.285
are the valve constants, a = 10m2 the tank area and a =
0.573 relates the concentration of the lime solution to the
density of dry lime. Finally, the output variables are the
specific gravity of the mixture at the output, y1 = l/(l-
axl) and the level of liquid, y2 = x2.
We used ACSL (Advanced Continuous Simulation
Language) to implement the equations together with
records of data from the real plant for the study.
THE CONTROL PROBLEM
The main control aim is to maintain steady constant
density at the output in the light of large disturbances
effects. The level of liquid in the tank must be kept
within a specified range to avoid flow obstruction as
mentioned above. As it is shown in figure I , there are
control valves already in place at the input and output
that allows the control of such variables, although there
are are some effect which must be taken into account
when designing the controller:
Non-linearities: From the mathematical description of the
plant, it can be seen that the plant is non-linear, The
system may be operating far from the nominal value, and
the non-linearities effects will become observable.
Perturbations: The most severe disturbances are the
concentration of the input lime mixture and the back
pressure.
The use of Robust Control techniques seems to be a good
choice in order to design a concentration and level
controller providing good control performance in every
working condition.
ROBUST CONTROL THEORY REVIEW
The classical method for designing model based
controllers uses a linearised model (6)of the real plant
(G) around the working point. The aim of Robust
Control is to model the Uncertainties (variations of the
nominal model) and use them together with the nominal
model in the design procedure to ensure robust stability
(the controlled system must remain stable despite the
present uncertainties of the model and the disturbances
acting on the system).
Uncertainty Description. When using Robust Control
Techniques it is useful to describe the uncertainty as a
matrix A that relates G and 8 (See Chiang and Safonov
(2)). In the case of the MLBT the uncertainties were
described as output multiplicative inverse uncertainties.
The relationship between G and @ is given by
G = [I -A]@.
Robust Stability. Robust control theory uses the
maximum singular value at each frequency among all
the upper singular values $Ai) for of all considered
uncertainties Ai as a bound to check if the system is
stable when any of them is present. Suppose that a
transfer function called weightingfactor W 1(s) such as
is selected, then a plant affected by an output
multiplicative inverse uncertainty A , belonging to the set
considered in the design, is stable ifand only if
- 1
o(S(jw)) I ~
(31
Wl 1
where S is the closed loop sensivity function which
relates frequency disturbances d(s) to the output signal
y(s). Therefore, any controller K(s) which satisfies this
condition ensures Robust Stability (See Chiang and
Safonov (2)). The inequality (3) expresses the robust
stability criterion.
ROBUST CONTROL DESIGN FOR THE MLBT
Non-linearities description.
The uncertainties due to the non-linear characteristics of
the system were described as output multiplicative
inverse uncertainties. By using this description and by
working out a set of linearised models at different
working points (GI, G2,..) , the corresponding set of
model uncertainties Ai was obtained and the each upper
singular value ??(Ai) over the frequency range
evaluated. For instance, the size of the uncertainties
caused by varying the concentration of lime in the tank
against frequency are plotted in figure 3.
 aoi

," a,
unc-rt- "ty m a t r c s s ,or r ? *O.y,ns [O 0 , 0
For the case of the MLBT the frequency spectrum of the
disturbances on the outputs can be seen in figure 5
together with the transfer function that limited them that
-20 more precisely was found to be

10-1 re-3 7 0- 10. 10. ' ' -dIf Wl(s) > W,(s) the condition for the disturbances is
f?.qu."Cy

Figure 3. Uqcertainties due to non-linearities. included in the non-linearity robustness condition.

Figure 4 shows thb worst case gain of these uncertainties

together with thd weighting function W1 given by: CONTROLLER DESIGN
i

70

eo -
I
I
-

I
50

3 -0-
5.6755 0.3830
3e =O- I K = [ -7.2524 0.1274
20-
'0 -

0 - I ._ _ and the PIS tuning for each loop was: kp = 3.2, Tl = 2.5
-10 -i and for loop two , k = 5.0, Ti = 2.1.

Disturbance desciiption The Internal Model Control (IMC) framework includes

an intemal model of the process and it operates in open
The main distl/rbances are those affecting the loop when the nominal model and the real model are the
concentration of the input lime mixture and the back same. Moreover, the model can include the available
pressure. These p$rturbations are adjusted, by the use of information about non-linearities, constraints, model
a transfer function lmatrix, to equate them to disturbances uncertainty, etc., so that complex nonlinear algorithms
in the density outdut and the level. The transfer from one can be implemented without complex stability issues.
dimension to another acts as a low pass filter and so the The structure is shown in figure 6, where Q(s) is the
disturbances to thd outputs are low frequency signals. A IMC controller, G is the real system and d is the
frequency analysis of the system outputs using the Fast intemal model of the system.
Fourier Transform, allows the design of a controller to d
reduce their effekts by filtering. According to the
-
can be done by bounding the
matrix singular values. A
be chosen such as
should be minimized.

To design robust controllers using the IMC structure a

two-step procedure is proposed. In the first step a
controller Q is selected to get a good response for the
nominal model (it could be any controller: PID, H , ...).
-Lo. - ' '
I
10.. 100

Ir.q".ncy
'O'
In the second step this controller is augmented by a low-
Figure 5 : Frequ ,ncy spectra and weighting function pass filter with parameters that can be tuned to fdfill the
performance and robustness specification (See Morari
i and Zafiriou (2)).
 802

For the MLBT the chosen nominal controller a was the

one which ensures perfect cancellation, i.e., Q = 6-1:

Q(s>=
3.0259(s + 1.3064)

-4.2033(~+ 1.2019)
0.1613(s + 8.7278)

0.0537(~+ 8.7278)
This controller was augmented with a low pass filter F

such that F = ( l + h s ) - l l
I
and Q = Q F . Then the
-
-__
A, -

" I , so the singular

sensitivity is given by S = ___ Figure 8: Specific Structure for the MLBT
1+ hs
values of S were: Every model uncertainty was normalized and included
-
o(S) = o(S) = -
- Is 11
1 + h s s=j, in an uncertainty block k i such that :(Ai)< WiO(Ai)
where ;(Ai) 5 1. The weighting function Wp is given by
As the robustness condition given by the uncertainties the performance specification. In this case its inverse
bounds the complementary transfer function T. It was
was E(s)<~--F/ it was only necessary that chosen to be:
s + 20 s=jo
(s + l)(s / 1000 + 1)
h 5 0.05 to fulfill the robustness requirements. After Wp = 0.9
some simulations varying the parameter h, to implement ( S I3+ l)(s / 60+ 1)
the IMC controller h was chosen to be 0.05 The weighting Wu included the effect of the
multiplicative inverse uncertainty, and was chosen to be
Structured Singular Value Controller Design
s+20
W, = 0.9-
The controller designed with the IMC technique ensure s + 0.05
the Robust Stability and Nominal Performance of the
The design was carried out by using the p Analysis and
plant. The Structured Singular Value (SSV) theory goes
Synthesis Toolbox (Balas and Doyle (1)) which includes
a step ahead and tries to solve the problem of realizing
some MATLAB functions to design SSV-optimal
the design specification despite the uncertainties present
controllers. After some D-K iterations the optimal
in the plant: Robust Performance. In order to apply this
controller was obtained. figure 9 shows the structured
technique, the system is transformed to the structure
singular value of the closed-loop system. It can be seen
shown in figure 7 (Where A is the block diagonal
that the maximum value is 1.2, slightly over the robust
collection of the real uncertainty blocks and fictitious
performance limit.
blocks given by the performance specifications) (Balas
and Doyle (1)) The SSV is a matrix function denoted

;tFF:
with p.

Figure 7: M-A Structure used to evaluate the SSV

The robust stability and performance conditions are
satisfied if and only if pe(M) < 1 . Furthermore, in order
to use the SSV as a design tool for obtaining robust
controllers, by using the H, optimization method on the
modified plant, the controllers that reduce the SSV until
the robustness condition is found. When the method was
apply to the MLBT plant, the interconnection structure
was the one represented in figure 9.
Model reduction. The controller obtained with the 1-1
synthesis technique had 13 states. To implement it, it
may be convenient to reduce the order. Particularly, the
Hankel singular values were calculated first in order to
choose the number of states to be removed. After, a
stochastically balanced realization of the controller was
calculated and then the states to be eliminated
residualized (As shown in Green and Limebeer (5)). The
result of applying this method was:

IIK- Kredll, = 0.36. Figure 10 shows the frequency

 I 803

controller K (solid) and the

Kred (dashed). Disturbance rejection: Input lime concentration. By
using the nominal model with the available data of the
input lime concentration disturbance, the controlled
system was simulated. The robust controlled systems
performed better than the classical designed controller,
as expected, because the disturbance frequency spectrum
was considered in the robust control design procedure.

The results are illustrated in figure 13. They demonstrate

10-
10-2
' loo 'C
1 o2
*'?"*,,cy

Fi$ure 10: Model Reduction

10' 10- that the robust controllers improve the disturbance
rejection, compared with the PID controller. Table 1
summarizes the standard deviation and mean value of
the system outputs with the different controllers: The
SIMULATION^ best ones are in bold. The worst ones are underlined.
Recall that y10=l.l6 to y20=1.2.

CONCLUSIONS
compared with the classical
controlled systed in different situations, for most of the This paper has shown that the Robust Control Design is

i
simulations they mproved the system response in terms
of robustness and stability.
an efficient altemative to the Classical Control Design
when dealing with MIMO systems that suffer from
important interactions and disturbances. Moreover, the

!
Nominal perfor ance (Output concentration change) difficulty of the Robust Control Design does not increase
First of all, th controlled system performed in the with the number of control loops. This is because it is

:.
operation point osen to calculate the nominal model
was studied. Wi hout any disturbances and with the
nominal paramet rs a step in the desired output lime
concentration of 6% (from yl=1.16 to yl=l.lO) was
simulated to stu y its nominal performance. figure 1 1
shows that the robust controllers need slightly more time
by the PID controlled vary
ones have sharp peaks.
based on the maximum singular value.
The improved performance of the MLBT using the
designed IMC, H, and p controllers was shown: The
disturbance rejection is increased, and the interaction
between loops is decreased when it is working far from
the nominal point. They were considered feasible to
implement in the real plant.
REFERENCES

( 1 ) Balas, G.J and Doyle, J.C., 1991 p-Analysis and

the performance of the whole
output valve opening from
was simulated. The same output
to yl=1.10:6%) as
was demanded.
the PID controlled system
performance when this
system controlled with
modified. This is
this parameter
the uncertainties considered during
The robust control only presents a
level, that is soon corrected. The
and 0.8 (p).
Svnthesis Toolbox, The Mathworks Inc.
(2).Chiang, and Safonov, M.G., 1992, Robust Control
Toolbox, The Mathworks Inc.
(3) Doyle, J.C., 1982, "Analysis of Feedback Systems
with Structured Uncertainty", IEE Proc. 1982;
Vol. 129D: 242-250
(4) Doyle, J.C., and Stein, G., 1981, "Multivariable
Feedback Design: Concepts for a Classical/Modem
Synthesis", IEEE Trans. Automat.. Contr.. AC-26: 4-16.
(5) Green, M, Limebeer, D., 1995, Linear Robust
Control, Prentice Hall
(6) McGinnis, R.A., 1971, Beet-Sugar Technolom, Beet
Sugar Development Fundation.
(7) Morari, M, Zafiriou, E,. 1989 Robust Process
Control, Prentice-Hall
(8) Tadeo, F., 1994, "The Robust Control of a Milk of
Lime Blending Tank", AMST'94, Mechanical
Engineering Publications Ltd, London
(9) Vega, P., Cameron, R.G. and de Prada, C. 1987, A
Model of a Milk of Lime Mixing Tank, Research Report
R381, School of Control Eng., Univ. of Bradford, UK
 804

4/ Tank Level ,
PID Hinf MC p

9,
I

0.0 1.6667 3.3333

7. 6.6667 8.3333 1 D. 0

Figure 11: Tank Level Setpoint Change in the nominal working point
Output C o n c e n t r a t i o n

‘ I I
p 0lc Hi PID
PID Hinf IMC p
v1
0
9 d
0 i.6667 i.3333 ’ 6.6667 E. 3333 0.0
T5.O
Figure 12: Output valve opening changed from 50% to 20%
0
0
2. Tank L e v e l Output C o n c e n t r a t i o n
I -

? ! , , , , , I 9
d “
0.0 3.3333 6.6667 fO.0 13.333 16.667 20.0 0 3.3333 6.6667
6.6667 jO.0 13.333 16.667 0.0

Figure 13: Disturbance rejection: Input Lime Concentration