Lecture 11 PDF

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.
11- 2
Daniel R. Lewin, Technion
LECTURE ELEVEN
IMC Design Principles

If p (z ) = p (z ) (perfect model)
d
yySS
++
qqq(s)
((zz))
++
pp(s)
(z )
yy
y = pq ys + (1p (z pq)
d
)
q = p-1f
Open-loop control design method Simple!

11- 3
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
Non-causal
11- 4
and q2 ( z ) =
(z
0.5 )
z 1.5
Unstable
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 ) .
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.
11- 5

Solution to Problem 1 (Contd):
2. Select the controller as the inverse of the invertible part
of the process model:
q = pM1 (n.b. q (1 ) = p 1 (1 ) )
Note that q ( z ) as defined above is proper.

In the two examples:
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 ) =
11- 6
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
e.g. for Type 1, (1 f ( z ) ) z =1 = 1

11- 7
input type (1 or 2)
1
=0
1 z 1 z =1
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 ) -3
z =1
If ys = z/(z 1) (unit step): lim y (kT ) = lim (z 0.667
)(z )
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 ) = pM1 ( 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)
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 ) =
q (z )
1 p (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
11- 12
Note that while the

output at the sample
intervals does not
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.
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 )
i =1
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:
P
qmod ( z ) = q ( z )
(z i )
i
=1
(1 i )
z P =
z P (1 i )
i =1
=1
11- 13
q (z )

Solution to Problem 2 (Contd):
P
qmod ( z ) = q ( z )
(z i )
i
=1
(1 i )
i
=1
z P =
q (z )
P
z P (1 i )
i =1
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:
(z + 0.87 )(z 0.5 )

31.8
17.0 ( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 )
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
11- 15
31.8 ( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 )
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 )
Im(z)
p (e
iT
Re(z)
Multiplicative uncertainty
p (e iT )
11- 16
Process model
p(eiT ) = p(eiT ) (1 +
m
(eiT ) =
(eiT ) )
pworst (eiT ) p(eiT )

p(eiT )
m
depends on T
LECTURE ELEVEN
Computing
(z) - Example
(z) ,the multiplicative uncertainty for the uncertain

k
e s , = (1 ) ,k = 1 k, = 1
process: p(s) =
s + 1
Compute,
Solution:
pworst (z) =
(1 + k ) (1 e T /(1) )
z
(1+ ) T
(z e
(1 e )
z (z e )
T /(1 )
p(z) =
11- 17
(z) =
iT
z = e
pworst (z) p(z)

p(z)
Computing
(z) - Example
Note the effect of sample time of result

= 0.1, = = k = 0.2
= 1, = = k = 0.2
T = 0.5
T = 0.5
T = 0.05
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 /.
11- 18
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 )
11- 20
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.
Note that: Q(z) = GM-1 (z)F(z), where GM-1 (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
11- 21
Discrete PID Algorithm
1
+ D s e ( s )
Continuous theoretical PID: u ( s ) = Kc 1 +
I s
Discrete equivalent (position form):
T k
u(k) = Kc e(k) +
e(i) + D ( e(k) - e(k-1) ) + us
I i= 0
Velocity form:
T k-1
u(k-1) = Kc e(k-1) +
e(i) + D ( e(k-1) - e(k-2) ) + us
T
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
T D
= Kc 1 +
+ e(k) 1 + 2 D e(k-1) + D e(k-2)
T
T
T
11- 22
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
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.
11- 23
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 )
11- 25
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
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 )
11- 28
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
Q(z) =
1 0.61z 1 1 b
0.39 1 bz -1
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.
11- 29

Response of DB ( = 0), and DA ( = 0.5 and 2 min), = 0.
DB ( = 0 min)
DA ( = 0.5 min)
DA ( = 2.0 min)
11- 30
15
Here,
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) =
LECTURE ELEVEN

Response of DB ( = 0), and DA ( = 0.5 and 2 min), = 0.5
DB ( = 0 min)
DA ( = 0.5 min)
DA ( = 2.0 min)
11- 31
Here,
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) =
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.
11- 32
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:
Kc = K c0 , I = I0 , D = D0 ,
where is the fraction of flow
11- 33
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
11- 34
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.
11- 36
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
=
(F1 (t ) CCl 1 (t ) F (t ) CCl (t ) )
dt
60V
dC Na
1
=
(F2 (t ) CNa 2 (t ) F (t ) CNa (t ) )
dt
60V
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 60V ,Q = F2 60V
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

11- 39

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.
Much of the material covered in the continuous part of

the course carries over with some exceptions.
Be able to compare common discrete control

algorithms, using a systematic framework (IMC):
The discrete PID algorithm (plus filter)
Dead-beat Algorithm
Dahlins Algorithm
Be able to identify situations where adaptive

controllers are needed, and be able to conceptually
design such a system.
11- 42
21

Lecture 11 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Lecture 11 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

LECTURE ELEVEN

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

054414 Process Control System Design

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

Systematic Discrete Design

using a systematic framework

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

Systematic Discrete Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

IMC Design Principles

Open-loop control design method Simple!

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

Systematic Discrete Design

Basic IMC Design Procedure

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

N is a time delay, selected so that pM ( z ) will be strictly proper,

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

Systematic Discrete Design

Basic IMC Design Procedure

Note that q ( z ) as defined above is proper.

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

Systematic Discrete Design

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

Systematic Discrete Design

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

(10 s +1)(25s +1)

The equivalent discrete process as seen by a discrete controller

IMC design procedure gives:

63.7 ( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 ) (1 )

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

Systematic Discrete Design

63.7 (1 )( z 0.90 ) ( z 0.74 )

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

Note that while the

show ringing, the

Systematic Discrete Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054414 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

Basic IMC Design Procedure

where q(z) is the portion of the controller transfer function

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