Advanced Control Strategy: CASCADE CONTROL

UG PROJECT REPORT

Project Submitted by: Under the supervision of:

Name: Nishant Kumar
Roll No: 14045062

Name: Shikhar Kant Sharma Prof. R.S. Singh

Roll No: 14045088
Date:

1
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Cascade Control System
2.1 Overview
2.2 Conventional and cascade control system under consideration
3. Comparison of Cascade and Conventional Control System
3.1 Performance Criteria
3.2 Controller Tuning
4. Results
4.1 Ziegler-Nichols
4.2 Best Response
4.3 Cohen and Coon
5. Conclusion
6. Future Plan

2
Advanced Control Strategy: CASCADE CONTROL

Introduction
A chemical plant needs advanced control strategies to meet several requirements
imposed by its designer and general, technical, economic and social conditions in the
presence of everchanging external disturbances. Advanced control strategies include
cascade control, ratio control, internal model control and feedforward control. With
modern technology, better precision over process control is possible. With modern
technology, better precision over process control is possible and desired response is
obtained. These control strategies involve multi-loop system with multiple controllers
and sensors and have special purposes in process control. While cascade control is
used for improved disturbance rejection, ratio control is used to control the blending
of two components in desired ratio. Feedforward control is usually used in conjunction
with feedback control to suppress disturbances. Internal model control resembles
Smith Predictor control which counteracts the deleterious effects of dead time on
process control. Based on objective sought, we choose an advance control strategy
best suited for our need.
In current report, we explore the advantages for cascade control strategy over
conventional single-loop systems involving single controller and measuring elements.

Cascade Control System

Overview
In a cascade control arrangement, there are two or more controllers of which primary
controller’s output drives the set point of secondary controller. This can be shown in
the form of a block diagram in Figure 1.

3
 Figure 1: Block diagram of cascade control system

Primary controller is called master controller while secondary controller is referred

as slave controller. This master slave relation results in reduction of lag in the outer
loop and cascade system responds quickly with higher frequency of oscillation.

Conventional and Cascade Control System under consideration

For our purpose, we consider a jacketed stirred tank water heating system. We
analyze this system using both conventional single loop system and cascade system.

In this system, hot oil is used for heating water and its flow rate is manipulated for
controlling water outlet temperature in tank. Conventional and cascade control
system are shown in figure 2 and figure 3 respectively. In cascade control system, we
are using two controllers to measure the temperature of the water in tank and oil in
jacket. Since temperature of oil is not measured directly in the conventional system,
any changes in it will only be noticed after its effect is evident in water temperature.
However, this process takes considerable time. Hence overall response is slow in this
case. While in cascade control system, temperature of oil is also measured and fed to
secondary controller which regulates valve based on set point fed by primary
controller which is monitoring water bath temperature. Clearly, response obtained
will be faster in this case, which can be clearly seen in Figure 4.

In our present analysis, we assume first order transfer function for value, tank and
jacket with unit steady state gain in each case. This is done to keep mathematics
simpler and pay heed on the analysis of system behavior.

4
Figure 2: Conventional Single Loop Control System

Figure 3: Cascade Control System

5
Figure 4: Response to step change in load for both systems. System with no control is
plotted for reference.

In single-loop system, proportional integral(PI) controller is used while in cascade

system primary controller is PI and secondary controller is proportional(P) controller.
For secondary controller, high value of gain is chosen to ensure that fast responding
inner loop. For our purpose, we chose gain for inner loop Kc1=10 is chosen. Using P
control for inner loop simplifies tuning and offset produced by the inner loop is
eliminated by integral control in outer loop. Block diagram for both control system is
presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Temperature measuring thermocouple is having
unit transfer function.

Figure 5: Block diagram for single loop conventional control system

6
 Figure 6: Block diagram for cascade control system

Another advantage of cascade control includes boiling down slow control loop
resulting from nonlinearities in the final control element.

Comparison of Cascade and Conventional Control System

Performance Criteria
For comparison of performance of the two control systems we chose two types of
dynamic performance criteria:
1. Criteria using only a few isolated a few isolated points of the response.
These includes:
➢ Overshoot
➢ Rise time
➢ Decay ratio
Values of these simple performance criteria should be less for better response.
Overshoot is indicative of peak value attained. Lower rise time implies quick response.
Decay ratio shows settling time of the response.

2. Criteria using entire closed loop response from time t=0 to t=infinity. These
includes:
➢ Integral of the square error(ISE)
➢ Integral of the absolute value of the error(IAE)
➢ Integral of the time-weighted absolute error(ITAE)

7
These parameters act as ‘figure of merit’ and are used to compare the response of
control systems. They are small for stable control system.

Controller Tuning
MATLAB was used for process simulation and evaluating performance criteria.
We tuned the controllers using Ziegler-Nichols Controller setting, using Bode plot for
open loop transfer function for both systems. Taking these values as initial estimate
we found best response for both system using hit and trial. These ‘best response
settings’ were also used for tuning. For a step change for magnitude 4 units in set
point, we evaluated the dynamic performance criteria and obtained response for each
case. Cohen and Coon settings were also used and response was obtained for single
loop system.

Results
Block diagram was constructed in Simulink (Figure 7) and tuning was done as
mentioned in Table 1.

Controller Setting and Performance Parameter

Z N method Cohen andCoon Best Response
Conventional Cascade Conventional Conventional Cascade
kc 3.65 1.2685 4.21 2.84 1
ꞆI 3 1.4512 1.8484 5 0.63
ITAE 110.1 8.49 501.1 40.15 5.361
IAE 18.13 5.144 49.05 10.87 4.313
ISE 31.44 11.26 147.8 21.45 10.7
Overshoot 0.5624 0.08 0.9856 0.2762 0.1495
Rise time 1.0644 0.8873 0.9196 1.3277 0.7595
Deacy ratio 0.5001 0.5375 0.9585 0.243 0.5858

Table 1: Controller tuning for both conventional and cascade system using different
tuning and obtained performance parameters.

8
 Figure 7: Simulink Block diagram for both systems

1. Ziegler-Nichols
For Ziegler-Nichols controller setting, we find that all performance parameters were
in favour of cascade control. It has lower value than conventional control for both
isolated as well as entire loop performance parameters. Overshoot for cascade control
is as low as 8% while that for conventional control is 56%. Similarly rise time is also
less in case of cascade control. However, decay ratio is slightly greater for cascade

9
control. But it is evident from response, plotted in Figure 8, that overshoot is very less
for cascade relative to conventional, hence slightly greater decay ratio for latter
doesn’t raise concerns and it remains better option over conventional control.

Figure 8: Response of both systems for Z N Settings

2. Best Response
Taking Ziegler-Nichols controller settings as initial estimates, using trial and error we
obtain best response for both conventional and cascade systems. All parameters,
except decay ratio, are in favour of cascade control over conventional control.
Overshoot in case of cascade is 0.14, i.e. half of that for conventional system.
Response of both systems, plotted in Figure 9, indicates again that cascade gives
better results than conventional control system.
Interestingly, overshoot and decay ratio for cascade has increased in this case as
compared to the previous case but time integral error is quite less than those under
Z N settings, implying better response when considering entire time. However, for
conventional system, all parameters have decreased as compared to Z N setting case,
implying better isolated point as well as entire curve response.

10
 Figure 9: Response of both systems for Best Response Settings

3. Cohen and Coon

Cohen and Coon controller settings were also obtained for conventional single loop
system. However, when tuned using Cohen and Coon setting response was not
favourable. All performance parameters were increased, except for rise time,
indicating poor response. For cascaded control system, Cohen and Coon parameters
were not obtained.

Conclusion
For any controller setting, cascade response is better option over single loop
conventional control system. Insolated point performance parameters like overshoot
and rise time is less for the cascade system. Decay time for latter is however larger,
but considering better overall response over entire time and very small overshoot,
cascade systems have superiority over single loop systems which is clearly evident
from obtained response.

11
Future Plan
We aim at studying other advanced multi loop control strategies like feed forward,
internal model control and ratio control and their application. Non-linear control will
also be studied using phase plane analysis. We plan to study industrial case studies on
related topic. Once we are thorough with the subject matter, we will focus on applying
these underlying concepts to industrial level chemical process.

12