Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Xiong Qiang 2007
Xiong Qiang 2007
document is downloaded from DR‑NTU (https://dr.ntu.edu.sg)
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Multivariable control system design based on
relative interaction energy
Xiong, Qiang
2007
Xiong, Q. (2007). Multivariable control system design based on relative interaction energy.
Doctoral thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
https://hdl.handle.net/10356/39072
https://doi.org/10.32657/10356/39072
Xiong Qiang
2007
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Nanyang Technological University Library
Acknowledgments i
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge all of the people who guide, help and support me
during the undertaking of this research.
I would also like to thank all of my colleagues, friends and the technicians in
Process and Instrumentation Laboratory. Their friendship and help will always be
treasured.
Table of Contents i!
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments i
Table of Contents ii
Summary iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables viii
Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
1.1. Motivations 1
1.2. Objectives 2
1.3. Major contributions of the thesis 2
1.4. Organization of the thesis 3
Chapter 2 5
Literature Review 5
2.1. Introduction 5
2.2. Preliminaries 8
2.3. Interaction analysis and loop pairing 10
2.3.1. RGA based loop paring 12
2.3.2. RIA based loop paring 15
2.3.3. Dynamic RGA (DRGA) based loop paring 18
2.3.4. GRDG based loop paring 20
2.3.5. SSV based loop paring 21
2.4. Multi-loop controller design 23
2.4.1. Detuning methods 24
2.4.2. Sequential loop closing methods 27
2.4.3. Independent design methods 29
2.4.4. Simultaneous equation solving methods 31
2.5. Decoupling controller design 34
2.5.1. Ideal/dynamic decoupling methods 37
2.5.2. Static decoupling methods 39
2.5.3. Partial/block decoupling methods 41
References 43
Chapter 3 49
Interaction Analysis and Loop Pairing for Multivariate Processes 49
3.1. Introduction 49
3.2. Preliminaries 51
3.3. A modified loop pairing rule 52
3.4. Case studies 58
3.5. Conclusions 61
References 61
Chapter 4 63
Decentralized Control System Design 63
4.1. Introduction 63
4.2. Equivalent transfer function 64
4.3. SISO controller design 71
4.4. Case studies 74
4.5. Conclusions 87
References 87
Chapter 5 .' 89
Decoupling Control System Design 89
5.1. Introduction 89
5.2. General formulation of MIMO control 90
5.3. Full decoupling control 92
5.4. Block decoupling control 94
5.5. Case studies 96
5.6. Conclusions 109
References 109
Chapter 6 112
Application to an Experimental HVAC System 112
6.1. Introduction 112
6.2. Four-room air temperature control system 115
6.3. Modeling and simulations 117
6.4. Experiment results 123
6.5. Conclusions 126
References 126
Chapter 7 128
Conclusion and Recommendations 128
7.1. Conclusion 128
7.2. Recommendations 129
Author's Publications 131
Summary IV
Summary
For the design of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) system, two major tasks
have to be resolved, i.e., loop pairing and controller design. For the first task, one
needs to pair the input and output variables in such a way that the interactions
among different loops are smallest. The other task is control system design
according to paired variables. Generally, a good pairing results in relatively easy
controller design. Unfortunately, both loop pairing and controller design are
difficult since there are complicated interactions among different loops. Especially
for controller design, adjusting controller parameters of one loop will affect the
performance of others, sometimes to the extent of destabilizing the entire system.
To ensure stability, many industrial controllers for multivariable processes are
tuned loosely, which causes inefficient operation and higher energy costs.
In this thesis, relative energy array (REA) is defined by using steady-state
gains and critical frequencies of the transfer function matrix elements, and used to
provide a simple yet comprehensive description of loop interactions for MIMO
processes. The value of REA can be conveniently calculated by control engineers
since the critical frequencies can be easily obtained from given transfer function
matrix. Furthermore, REA is used to derive simple equivalent transfer functions
(ETFs) for each transfer function element under closed-loop control, which is
fundamental in control system design. Consequently, the decentralized, full
decoupling and block decoupling controllers can be easily designed by simply
using single loop design approaches. The method is very simple, straightforward
and easily understood by control engineers. The advantage of the proposed
method is even more significant when applied to higher dimensional processes
with complicated interaction modes. As a matter of fact, higher dimension does
not increase the design difficulty. The simulation results for a variety of industrial
processes show that the performance of the proposed controller design method is
much better as compared with the existing approaches. The proposed method has
Summary _
List of Figures \i
List of Figures
Figure 3.1. Frequency response curves and the energy, et), of g^jco)
List of Figures Ml
List of Tables
List of Tables
i
Introduction
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Motivations
Even though considerable effort has been dedicated to this problem and a
great many design techniques have been proposed over recent years, there is no
simple and yet systematic approach for the design of MIMO control systems. A
unified and generally accepted definition is still lacking. Important issues, such as
the effects of interaction on closed-loop performance, the measure of the severity
of interaction, and the impact of variable pairing and controller tuning on
interaction and subsequently on closed-loop performance, are far from being
resolved.
Introduction :
1.2. Objectives
(1) A novel interaction measure and loop pairing criterion for decentralized
control of multivariate processes is proposed. Both steady-state gain and
critical frequency of the elements in the transfer function matrix are used
to provide an effective description of loop interactions. The criterion can
be conveniently applied by control engineers since the information needed
can be easily obtained from the process model. It gives accurate interaction
assessment even for some complex processes while the conventional
relative gain array (RGA) based loop pairing criterion may result in a
wrong conclusion.
(2) A novel method for decentralized control system design based on the
proposed interaction measure is proposed. The loop interactions are
Introduction 3
4
Introduction
Chapter 7 concludes the thesis and suggests some possible future research
topics in this field.
5
Literature Review
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
6
Literature Review
Global Economic
3
lant •Vide Optimizat on Optimization
(every day)
Local Economic
Unit 1 Local Optimizer Unit n Local Optimize' Optimization
(eve*> nojr)
T
Dynamc
FIC PID PC L'L PIO Constraint
Control
(eve-y minute)
Bas c Dynamic
Un11 DCS- PID Controls Unit n D C S - P D Controis Control
(every second;
Unitl Unitn
Global Econonvc
Optimization
=lant-' .Vide Optimizat on
leveny day;
Local Economic
Dynamic
Model Preofctive Control Model Predictive Control Constraint
IMPC) (MPC) Control
;eve*y minute)
Bas c Dynamc
Unit" DCS- PID Controls Unit n D C S - P D Contras Control
(every second j
©©
(b) MPC structure
Figure 2.1. Hierarchy of control system functions in a typical processing plant
7
Literature Review
(2) Design and tuning simplicity: Decentralized controllers involve far fewer
parameters, resulting in a significant reduction in the time and cost of
tuning. For PID control of a two-input two-output (TITO) process, for
Literature Review s
2.2. Preliminaries
u„ i = l,2,•••« , are the manipulated variables. di,i = l,2,---n, are the output
disturbances, yi,i = l,2,---n, are the system outputs, G(s) is the process transfer
9
Literature Review
di d2 dn
I
ri +^ e, 111
»
+1 yi
»
—^v +
V2 - 1 e: 112 y2.
-£<5* * PQ9
-i Gc(s) G(s)
rn
y
•"6 P^ Un r i yn.
-ry
"*ci(*) 0 - 0
0 gc2(s) - 0
GM = (2.2)
0 0 ... gcn{s)_
and it is often used for processes with mild interactions. The control structure
simplicity, easiness to design and implement, and loop failure tolerance (i.e.,
without the need for readjustment to the other parts of the control system to
preserve stability in the case of a sensor failure and/or actuator failure) are the
main advantages.
Full decoupling control: It has a full controller structure
Literature Review 10
controller, the control system performance and robustness can be improved. The
drawbacks may be the sacrifice of structure simplicity and control system integrity.
Block decoupling control: It has a block diagonal controller structure
0 0 ... Gcm(s)
The ultimate performance goals for the closed-loop control system to achieve
are tracking set-point changes, rejecting disturbances, and robustness to parameter
variations. For physical realization, Gc(s)must be selected such that all poles of
T(s) and S(s) lie in the open left halfplane (LHP). Furthermore, for the feedback
control system to have no offset for set-point or disturbance changes, we need
11
Literature Review
Configuration 1 Configuration 2
ui—yi u,—y2
u2—yi U2—yi
These two configurations are mutually exclusive, i.e., only one of them can be
used at any particular time. For n*n dimensional systems, there are n! possible
input-output configurations.
(2) Interaction should be extracted from the true dynamics of the closed-loop
system without making any overly simplifying assumption about the
system concerned and should have physical significance;
Literature Review 12
Some popular interaction measures and paring rules for process control will be
summarized below.
J,
\ l J /all loops
tops op
open
A..=
' ( * . / * , all
) *other loops close except for loop y, -u.
and
A=
A, A7 ... A
nl nl m
respectively. Since
y(s) = G(s)u(s),
which implies
u(s) = G-\s)y(s).
Obviously, if all ykk±J are perfectly controlled by the use of uIUl then the gain
from w, to yJ is given by l/[G~'] . The relative gain is actually the ratio of these
A = G(0)®G" r (0)
where the operator <8> is the hadamard product and G 7 represents the transpose of
inverse of G.
13
Literature Review
The primary use of the RGA is to determine control loop pairings in multi-
loop control systems, and in assessing the extent of interaction present in such
systems. Further more, Niederlinski (1971) introduced Niederlinski index (NI).
The NI is defined, also using steady-state gain matrix of a process, as below:
det(G(0))_ |G(0)|
NI
det(G(0))
fWo)
where det(G(0)) and |G(0)| denote the determinant of matrix G(0) and
G(0) = diag(G(0)). Under closed-loop conditions in all n loops, the system will
be unstable for all possible values of controller parameters if the NI is negative
(Mc Avoy, 1983; Seborg and Edger. 1989; Skogestad and Lundstrom, 1990). For
NI, the following are worth noticing:
(1) A negative NI is a necessary and sufficient condition for instability only
for TITO systems; for higher dimensional systems, it is only a sufficient
conditions: if it holds then the system is definitely unstable; otherwise, the
system may, or may not be unstable depending on the values taken by the
controller parameters;
(2) For 2><2 systems the NI becomes:
NI = \-%
i—\
where £ = . If £ > 1, the NI is always negative; hence 2*2 systems
14
Literature Review
(4) Variables should be paired in such a way that the resulting pairing
corresponds to an NI closest to 1.0. The NI interaction rule is based on
empirical observations of the definition of the NI and is justified largely
from the relationship between the sizes of the RGA. The NI interaction
rule has been found to be capable of avoiding ambiguities in using the
RGA interaction rule.
The RGA based paring is further enhanced by taking into account integrity
(Chiu and Arkun, 1990; Zhu and Jutan, 1993) as well as robustness (Zhu and
Jutan, 1993) considerations, together with the use of the RGA and the NI.
The use of the RGA was popularized by Shinskey (1988). who applied it to
numerous examples, including blending, energy conservation, and distillation. Mc
Avoy (1983) published a monograph in which many of the applications of the
RGA up to that date were presented. From a cost benefit point of view, the RGA
method is highly effective due to the following facts:
Despite the availability of vast amount of literature on RGA, there are some
common misconceptions. Kariwala and Hovd (2006), in their distinguished work,
pointed out a number of incorrect claims and disproved some conjectures related
to RGA. For example, they showed that RGA alone cannot be used as a definite
measure of two-way interactions in a system, and pointed out that the RGA based
results are time-tested heuristics, and that the theoretical basis for some of the
results is poor. According to the authors, cross-checking of the findings using
alternate methods is essential. In the absence of verification, the chosen control
structure may not be optimal in the sense of missed opportunities and the closed-
loop system may spring many surprises at the practicing engineer.
Indeed, the RGA based rules have been found to have deficiencies, and in
some cases they lead to incorrect conclusions on how control loops should be
paired and how much loop interaction exists. The possible situations are:
15
Literature Review
(1) In MIMO systems disturbances can have a profound effect on the transient
performance (Stanley et ah, 1985). However, the RGA does not provide
any insight on this aspect;
(2) In the case of one-way interaction, RGA does not apply even though the
effect could be severe;
(3) RGA does not consider dynamics, which may lead to incorrect loop
pairings.
defined as the ratio of two elements: the increment of the process gain after all the
other n-1 control loops are closed and the apparent gain in the same loop when all
the other control loops are open (Bristol. 1967), i.e.,
\ si J 'all other loops close except for loop y - » , ^ St t > all loops open
= :
<P, ' ' •
1
i ^ , ^ , ) all loops open
This concept was further developed by Zhu and Jutan (1996), where loop
interaction can be exposed by investigating the response of an output to its input
in the presence of interaction from other loops through the hidden loops. This
situation can be best depicted by Figure 2.3. Focusing on an arbitrary control loop
with uj paired withy,, output in response to any change in the input consists of
two parallel paths: the direct forward path via the interaction free process and the
parallel path via the hidden loops due to off-diagonal elements of the process.
16
Literature Review
h.
w
av(s)
u
i h.
w SU(*) - ^ - _V!
W
& - *
Here, 0y(s) is the absolute interaction, which can be obtained by the signal flow
technique (Zhu and Jutan. 1996), the relative interaction can be then represented
as the ratio of the absolute interaction and the independent interaction free process
as
Q„Q)
Vv(s) =
a (0) = — e (0).
,J }
G;/(0) ^
Hence, at steady-state we obtain the relative interaction
1
<P 1.
* U g y (0)G;'(0)
All the individual relative interaction terms constitute a relative interaction array
(RIA) as
17
Literature Review
f l =-L-i.
" \
Clearly, the RIA provides an equivalent interaction measure to the RGA. Loop
interaction and its implications can be briefly characterized by the RIA as follows:
(2) q>v > 0 => interaction acts in the same direction as interaction-free process;
(3) <p < 0 => interaction acts in the reverse direction as interaction-free
process gain;
(4) <p, <-1.0=> reverse interaction dominates over interaction-free process
gain.
Under RIA based pairing criterion, variables should be paired in such a way so
that:
(1) All the RIA elements are closest to 0;
(2) NI is positive;
(3) All the RIA elements are greater than -1;
(4) RIA elements close to -1 are avoided.
It is important to notice that both very large positive and very large negative
RGA elements drive loop interaction toward the inverse direction of the original
interaction-free process gain and that both very small positive and very small
negative RGA elements are also, actually even more, harmful to process control.
Apparently, in contrast to the RIA, the RGA exhibits discontinuous behavior
when used to characterize loop interaction.
Although the above interaction rule seems to be equivalent to the RGA
interaction rule, the closeness to a value (0 in RIA rule, 1.0 in RGA rule) has
different implications. Specifically, the distance of the RGA elements from 1.0
may not realistically reflect the amount of interaction as noted previously, whereas
the distance of the RIA does. In particular, the RGA interaction rule mainly
targets at dismissing large RGA elements, which makes the robustness rule
redundant, whereas the RIA interaction rule essentially aims at eliminating small
RGA elements (large interaction), which complements the robustness rule.
Literature Review is
However, the RIA does not contain any more information on the process than
the RGA, although they provide valuable alternative viewpoints and smoother
interpretation. The common feature of those indices is that they only use the
system model at zero frequency.
\x = Ax + Bu
\y = Cx
J= ^[(/Qy+uTRu)dt.
19
Literature Review
identity matrices, since u and y have already been scaled by their operating
ranges. Such a choice for Q and R treats all measurements and manipulated
variables equally. An output feedback matrix gives the admissible controls as
u =-Kx
where K is an optimal feedback controller.
By solving the expected value of J for the case where the initial state forcing
lies on a unit sphere around the origin, the DRGA which is based on the optimal
proportional controller Kcan be defined for the (i,j)'h element of the DRGA as
where K is equal to AT1. The following interpretation of XUj and paring rule is
proposed. If XDlJ is close to 1, then the optimal gain between «, and yy remains
the same regardless of whether the remaining manipulated variables are changing
aggressively or moving very little. If Aaj =1.0, then one can interpret this result
to mean that the manipulated variable under consideration does not interact with
the other manipulated variables so far as yf is concerned. Thus, pairing y. with
aggressively the other manipulated variables are moving. Such a pairing should be
avoided since interaction is likely to be high. Large values of X^ also indicate
2(1
Literature Review
g,,(5)g : : (5)——
4,W = J J ^ -
JL
g\\^)g^S) —-gn{s)glx{s)
v2(*)
where the variables r,(s)and y2(s) are the set-point and the process output of the
r (s)
other loop, and -= is the desired dynamics of the second loop. The transfer
y2(s)
functions gu(s) , g]2(s) , g2\(s) ar
*d fe(5) are me
elements of the process
transfer matrix G(s).
The loop paring rules are as below:
(1) Eliminate the infeasible pairings by normal RGA procedure;
(2) Calculate interaction potentials to obtain the most feasible pairings.
Pomerleau and Pomerleau (2001) gave a practical representation of the GRDG
as a function of both closed-loop bandwidths. For easier control and tuning, the
specifications on the closed-loop set-point responses have to be chosen in a
frequency band where interaction is reduced so the system behaves more like
SISO systems. In order to do so, the closed-loop response specifications are
chosen in frequency band where the GRDG is close to one since, as for RGA, it
means that the interaction is low.
21
Literature Review
Because the zeros in a transfer function affect the process dynamic, the
GRDG, which takes into account the dynamic part of the transfer function, is
preferred to the RGA, which only considers the steady-state. However, as can be
seen from ^,(5), the complexity of representation and computation of the RDGA
will dramatically increase if the system dimension increases.
Let G(s) be the process, and G{s) be a matrix consisting of the block
diagonal elements of G(s). A block diagonal controller
C(s) = diag(Cl(s),C2(s),...,Cm(s))
G(s) = diag(Gu(s),G22(s),...,Gmm(s))
such that block diagonal closed-loop system with the transfer matrix
Literature Review 22
E(s) = (G(s)-G(s))G-\s),
which arises from the "approximation" of the full system G(s) by the block
diagonal system G(s). the general interaction measure can be stated as:
Assume that G(s) and G(s) have the same RHP poles and that H(s) is
stable. Then the closed-loop system H(s) is stable if
where a(A) is the spectral radius of A, fi is the SSV suggested by Doyle (1982).
Equation (2.6) implies that for stability, the magnitude of the diagonal blocks
H,(s) has to be constrained by the reciprocal of the SSV n of the relative error
matrix. The value of /j. depends on the structure assumed for H(s).
(1) When applied to loop paring, all pairing possibilities need to be screened
and calculated to find the best one;
(2) The computation of SSV /u needs complicated digital optimization;
(3) The SSV // gives equal preference to all the loops. In some cases this may
impose an early and perhaps unnecessary roll-off for some of the H^s).
23
Literature Review
to that of H(s) can circumvent this problem. Nevertheless, this makes the
application more difficult.
Literature Review 24
conditions. Many design methods have been reported in the literature, which may
be roughly divided into four categories:
(1) Use any single loop tuning rules to obtain starting values for the individual
controllers based on the corresponding main process, let the controller
gains be k°pi.
(2) These gains should be reduced using the following expressions that
depend on the relative gain parameter X:
{A-^A2-A)k°pi A>\.0
k
,,=
A + v A1 - A k°pj A<1.0
It may still be necessary to retune these controllers after they have been put in
operation, however, this will not require as much effort as if one were starting
from scratch. The disadvantage of the method is that this nicely analytic formula
is only suitable for 2*2 systems, no analytic solution for higher dimensional
systems.
Literature Review 25
Another practical work in this field is the biggest log modulus tuning (BLT)
method proposed by Luyben (1986). The system studied is supposed as an nxn
multivariate process given in the transfer function form
Y = G(s)U
where Y and U are vectors of the controlled variables and the manipulated
variables, respectively, and G is a matrix of the open-loop process transfer
functions gt) relating controlled variables yt to manipulated variables ur These
k ^ s + De-""'
g (s) = — .
The structure of the control system variable pairing has been determined such that
yt is controlled by «, using a PI controller ga(s). Thus, the feedback controller
ga(s) = kpj(l+—).
The first step in the proposed procedure is to calculate the Ziegler-Nichols setting
for each individual loop. The ultimate gain ku,, and ultimate frequency cou, of
each diagonal transfer function g„(s) are calculated in the classical SISO way.
Next, a factor / is assumed. Typical values vary from 2 to 5. The gains of all
Pl=
f
where
*», - 22 •
The reset times (r ; / ) of all controllers are calculated by multiplying the Ziegler-
x
,, = fTzs,
where
26
Literature Review
In
\.2o)UJ
The / factor can be considered a "detuning" factor which is applied to all loops.
The larger the value is, the more stable the system will be but the more sluggish
the set-point and load responses will be. Based on intuition and empirical grounds,
a multivariable closed-loop log modulus is defined as
where
W(s) = -\ + det(I + GB)(s).
The proposed tuning method is based on varying the factor / until the "biggest
log modulus" (Lcm)max, which is a measure of how far the system is from closed-
loop instability, is equal to some reasonable number. Thus, this tuning method is
called the biggest log modulus tuning. By a larger number of tests, the author
found that the following tuning criterion appears to give good response:
27
Literature Review
£l.,Ci(5) =
V = gy. 1 -
gr.Sl&g,
V "l Ja
Literature Review 28
where the subscript CL stands for closed-loop, k2 is the sub-matrix of the rest of
sensitivity function for the remaining loops. Following the relay-feedback test, a
controller can be designed from the ultimate gain and ultimate frequency for loop
1. The next step is to perform relay-feedback test between y^ and u2 while loop 1
is on automatic and other loops are still on manual. A controller can also be
designed for loop 2 following the relay-feedback test. Once the controller on the
loop 2 is put on automatic, a relay-feedback experiment is performed between y3
and M3 . In this way, all loops will be tested and closed. Then, another relay-
of tuning constants is found for the controller in loop 1. This procedure is repeated
until the controller parameters converge. Typically, the controller parameters
converge in 3 ~4 relay-feedback tests for 2 ><2 systems. At each stage, a modified
Ziegler-Nichols formula, with a detuning factor / = 2.5, is employed to tune the
controller parameters. It is worth noticing that the proposed MIMO autotuning
concept repeats the "identification-design" procedure on equivalent SISO transfer
functions.
This class of approaches has several advantages. First, it makes the problem
simple by treating the MIMO system as a sequence of SISO systems which the
relay-feedback system is proven useful and reliable. Second, it operates in an
efficient manner. Third, it can be applied for nonlinear multivariable systems.
However, the method has some fundamental disadvantages: 1) it cannot guarantee
convergence even if starting in a neighborhood of the true solution; 2) loop failure
tolerance is not automatically guaranteed when loops designed early fail; 3) the
performance of the method depends strongly on which loop is designed first and
how the first controller is designed; and 4) the iteration procedure is essential
because closing the subsequent loops may alter the response of the previously
designed loops. Hence, conservative design may result due to the RHP zero on the
diagonal which may not be the RHP transmission zeros of the MIMO process. In
some scheme like the work of Shen and Yu (1994), after all loops have been
closed, the controller will be re-tuned one after another with all other loops closed
with the controllers obtained in the previous step. This procedure will go on until
2')
Literature Review
Gc(s) as shown in Figure 2.2. first select the desired tracking closed-loop
dynamics, which can be minimal-phase or nonminimal-phase, for each loop as
yi(s) = \-rms
r,(s) (l + rn5)(l + r 2 r 0
and
y2(s) _ l-r o : 5
r2(s) (1 + r,,s)(l + rns)
Then the open-loop characteristics are deduced from tracking the closed-loop
specification as
Literature Review 30
]
Gau(') = gA')g*W = ~t —^ :• (2-8)
s(r,, + r,, + r02 + r l2 r 2l s)
By solving Equations (2.7) and (2.8). the magnitude and phase of the SISO
controllers leading to the desired performances are obtained for any frequency:
g^ijo)) and gc2(jaj). The last step is to define the transfer functions gcl(s) and
gr,(.s)that best approximate the frequency responses gcl(j(o) and gc2(jco). The
following controller structure is used:
K((\ + T,s)(\ + Tdls + Td2s2)
T,s(\ + Tfls + Tf2s )
31
Literature Review
The controller design objective is to find Gt(.s)such that both loops achieve
H,(s)and outputyt(s), and g,(s)between input M,(S) and output y2(s) can be
obtained as
g\2(S)gll(S)
gi(s) = gu(s)-
g~c2](S) + g22(S)
and
Literature Review 32
gc>(s) + gu(s)
respectively. It is thus clear that in order to achieve a good loop performance,
gc](s) and gc2(s) should be designed for g,(s)and g,(s) instead of the plant
way, the optimum settings for the multi-loop controller can be obtained with all
the benefits derived from the well-developed SISO tuning. Let
4=gl{m) = raei(-"'-)
be the two given points on the Nyquist curves g,(s),i = 1,2. They are to be moved
respectively to the desired points
Bi=gl(M)gAJ<»i) = rkie'{-*+'>).
1 +
Sc,(-0 = M + rd,s),i = 1,2-
P,s a,
where
P=
,«. =0
tan(^,-^)
g a ( » = ^ , 0 + y ' t a n ( ^ - ^ ) ) , / = l,2.
gXM)kpj=cos{9h,-(pa,)rhle^'^. (2.9)
33
Literature Review
Bringing g:(s),i = 1,2 and gcl(s),i = 1,2 into Equation (2.9) gives two
equations which are complex and can be broken down to four real equations.
Because the number of unknowns equals the number of real equations, intuitively,
it is expected that the problem can be easily solved. Unfortunately this is not the
case. The main difficulty lies in the nonlinearities of the equations which are
further complicated by the coupling among the equations. Even though the authors
presented a novel graphic iterative procedure to solve the these equations with
Nyquist stability constraints, there is no guarantee for the existence of solutions.
In addition, the graph based iterative optimization technique may be complicated
for control engineers and the extension to 3><3 or higher dimensional systems is
far from straight forward if not impossible at all.
Another work of Bao et al. (1999) formulated the multi-loop design as a
nonlinear optimization problem with matrix inequality constraints. As has been
illustrated, the formulation does not include the systems that have different input
delays, which unfortunately happens to be very common in MIMO process control.
Simultaneous optimization for solving multi-loop controllers is also numerically
difficult. The result is very much dependent on the conditions defined in the
objective function. The controllers may result in instability, in case of loop failure
or where loops are closed in different orders. Zhuang and Atherton (1994)
investigated a PID tuning approach using an integral performance optimization
procedure for a TITO system. First of all, represent the error matrix as
combination of the process model, reference inputs and controller parameters.
Then some integral optimum indices related to the error matrix were introduced.
The optimal PID settings of decentralized controller are therefore obtained by
minimizing an integral performance criterion with some constrains. Even if only
for TITO systems, the calculation is relatively complicated and the existence of
the optimal solution is not guaranteed. In addition, Vlachos et al. (1997) studied a
genetic algorithm (GA) approach for optimal PI controller design. After
evaluating all n objective function elements for the j * set-point pattern, the
results can be weighted and added together to form a single number that
represents the quality of the controllers for the j * set-point pattern. Finally, when
all n set-point patterns have been applied to the closed-loop system, the maximum
of all resulting objective function elements (indicating the worst performance) can
Literature Review 34
be selected as the final objective function value for the genetic algorithm. The
crossover operator improves the accuracy of the GA according to the authors. The
main advantage of the proposed method is the ability to handle arbitrary
performance objectives that can be different for each of the outputs of the system.
A disadvantage of the proposed method is that n simulations are required for the
evaluation of the objective function for a single set of controller parameters. This
significantly reduces the speed of the genetic algorithm. In addition, only a TITO
simulation example is given.
1
gmW ••• £/i»
G,(s) =
35
Literature Review
the decoupler design is to find g,,j(s\ '*j such that the cross coupling is
For general decoupling, a diagonal matrix, GR(s), is specified, usually with the
form of
GR(s) = Diag[G(s)].
G(S)GI(S) = GR{S)_
and closed-loop performance for the generalized decoupling is much better than
for simplified decoupling. However, the price for the improved closed-loop
performance in the generalized decoupling is complicated decoupler. Because of
complexities in implementation or the lack of a high-quality dynamic model, it is
often necessary to make use of simplifications of the ideal decoupler. In order to
make the best balance between complexity and closed-loop controller
performance, steady state decoupling and partial/block decoupling are often
employed in practice.
Literature Review 36
G,(s) = . . .
which will take simple, constant numerical values, and will always be realizable,
as well as implementable.
G (s) = K'K
where KR is the steady-state version of GR(s). Since the inversion concerns only a
The main advantages of steady-state decoupling are that its design involves
simple numerical computations, and the resulting decouplers are always realizable.
As steady-state decouplers are very easy to design and implement, it is normally
recommended that steady-state decoupling is the first technique to try in industry.
Only if the dynamic interactions prove to be persistent will dynamic
considerations be entertained. Especially, if the dynamic aspects of the transfer
function elements in each row of the transfer function matrix are similar, the
dynamic decoupler will be very close to its steady-state version.
37
Literature Review
Literature Review 38
Among all the dynamic decoupling methods, Wang et al. (2003) proposed a
full dimensional decoupling control design for an n*n process described, as shown
in Figure 2.2, via a square and non-singular transfer matrix G(s) as
-0 v
where gtJ(s) = g,j0(s)e '' , and glj0(s) are strictly proper, stable scalar rational
non-negative constants, and gclj0(s) are scalar proper rational functions. The task
here is to find a Gc(s) such that the closed-loop transfer matrix between the
transfer functions from the i* set-point rt to the /** output yt for each
then given by
<ln,=
\-K
(2) Match the actual loop gnku to the objective loop: g„(.s)gCi„(s) = 9 m (5), to
controller as
Literature Review 39
both the process and the controller and take dynamics into account. The indices
introduced in the paper capture the fact that interaction can be reduced by
detuning the loops. Nevertheless, the proposed interaction indices and controller
design depend on the assumption that the interaction is not too severe. In addition,
the approach is only developed for TITO systems.
Recently, Lee et al. (2005) showed that static decouplers should be applied
only to the integral modes for such processes since static decouplers can cause
undesirable effects on high frequency responses for some processes. Frequency
411
Literature Review
dependent relative gain arrays (Bristol, 1966) are used to determine whether static
decouplers applied only on the integral modes are recommended. The main results
are listed here. Consider a process of n inputs and n outputs, as shown in Figure
2.2, whose transfer function is
' •
v.'
GC(5) = G'(0) -K+Kp = -G\0) + G-'(0)
s
0 p."
The static decoupler G '(0) reduces process interactions at frequencies near zero.
However, for some processes, it can introduce undesirable effects at high
frequencies. Typically, diagonal elements of the process transfer function are
faster than off-diagonal elements. As frequency increases, the magnitudes of off-
diagonal elements decrease faster than those of diagonal elements and,
consequently, interactions for such processes become smaller. However, when
static decouplers are applied to such processes, off-diagonal elements of the
decoupled process G(s)G'\0) contain faster elements and their magnitudes
relative to those of diagonal elements will not decrease, resulting in higher process
interactions at high frequencies. There are many realistic process models, such as
Wood-Berry column model, for which the static decouplers can have negative
effects on process interactions at high frequencies. To avoid the disadvantage that
a static decoupler causes undesirable effects on reducing process interactions at
high frequencies, the authors proposed a control system where the static decoupler
is applied for only the integral mode, i.e..
0 V I
0
]
Gc(s) = -G (0)K,+K =-G-'(0)
41
Literature Review
effective only at low frequencies and its undesirable behavior at high frequencies
is avoided.
A static decoupler implemented on the integral mode can improve the closed-
loop performances at low frequencies with good robustness. Generally speaking,
although static decouplers are simple to design and adjust in the field, they do not
always provide better closed-loop performances.
a>;,e 0
r+2C,<y„,5 + < 1
U*) = (10)
0 <eT"
2
s + ^zeomZs + iol2
The authors suggested that (on] = conZ and £, = £, = 1.0 . The optional delay
4:
Literature Review
parameters Tdl and rrf,can be specified as zero since the advantage of working
^(K'-r-'fKf)
7 =1
where the indices k and / refer to the outputs and inputs, respectively, and i refers
to the i'h harmonic frequency of the Ith set-point excitation, Wkl are weights
applied to the k" output and /' input. A' are the weights applied to each frequency,
which should be chosen to correspond to the harmonic amplitudes of a trapezoidal
waveform of initial slop K and period P:
4K . i 2n
A,=-—sin ,i = \.\5...det(l + GDGc).
K I K PJ
While the optimization is mainly carried out for user-specified performance
specifications, two constraints are proposed to check. They are the stability checks
for violations of the multivariable Nyquist stability margins on det[l + GDGC),
and the robustness maximization by maximizing the minimum related singular
values ofdet(l+{GDGc)~x\, and det{l + (DGcG)~'y
Literature Review 43
References
44
Literature Review
45
Literature Review
Mc Avoy, T.; Arkun, Y.; Chen. R.: Robinson, D.: Schnelle, P. D. A new approach
to defining a dynamic relative gain. Control Eng. Practice 2003, 11, 907-914.
Morari, M.; Baric, M. Recent developments in the control of constrained hybrid
46
Literature Review
Palmor, Z. J.; Halevi, Y.; Efrati, T. A general and exact method for determining
limit cycles in decentralized relay systems. Automatica 1995, 31, 1333-1339.
Pomerleau, D.; Pomerleau, A. Guide lines for the tuning and evaluation of
decentralized and decoupling controllers for processes with recirculation. ISA
Trans. 2001,40, 341-351.
Qin, S. J.; Badgwellb, T. A. A survey of industrial model predictive control
technology. Control Eng. Practice 2003, 11, 733-764.
Richalet, J.; Rault, A.; Testud, J. L.; Papon. J. Model predictive heuristic control:
Applications to industrial processes. Automatica 1978, 14, 413-428.
Seborg. D. E.; Edgar. T. F.; Mellichamp. D. A. Process Dynamics and Control.
John Wiley and Sons: New York. 1989.
Skogestad, S.; Morari, M. The dominant time constant for distillation columns.
Comp. Chem. Eng. 1987, 11, 607-617.
47
Literature Review
Witcher, M.; Mc Avoy, T. J. Interacting control systems: steady state and dynamic
measurement of interaction. ISA Trans. 1977, 16, 83-90.
Literature Review 15
Chapter 3
3.1. Introduction
The main part of this chapter was published in Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 741-747.
transfer function matrix (Grosdidier and Morari, 1986; He and Cai, 2004). Thus,
the primary task in the design of decentralized control systems is to determine
loop configuration, i.e., pair the manipulated variables and controlled variables to
achieve the minimum interactions among loops so that the resulting multivariable
control system mostly resembles its single-input single-output counterparts and
the subsequent controller tuning is largely facilitated by SISO design techniques
(Seborg and Edgar, 1989).
To combine the advantages of both RGA and DRGA. the steady-state gain and
bandwidth of the process transfer function elements are used in this chapter to
provide a more comprehensive description for loop interactions. Then, a new loop
pairing criterion based on the new interaction measure which minimizes loop
interactions is proposed in terms of relative energy array (REA) of the process.
The main advantages of the method are: 1) as compared with DRGA methods, it
requires much less computation, and does not require the specification of the
controller type; 2) it results in less conservative controllers when detuning factor
design methods are used; and 3) it is very simple for field engineers to understand
and work out pairing decision in practice. Several examples, for which the RGA
3.2. Preliminaries
5e
G(5) = 100s+ 1 \0s + l
-5e
105 + 1 100s+ 1
The RGA is
f0.8333 0.1667
A(G(0)) =
0.1667 0.8333
This result implies the diagonal pairing 1-1/2-2 is a good choice. Hence,
according to the RGA based loop-pairing criterion, the pairing of 1-1/2-2 should
be preferred for the smaller interaction to any one loop from other closed-loop.
However, Mc Avoy et al. used DRGA and optimal decentralized PI controllers for
various configurations, and found that the diagonal pairing resulted in a poor
closed-loop performance (Mc Avoy et al, 2003). The off-diagonal pairing 1-2/2-1
takes advantage of the fast g2l(s) and gl2(s) transfer functions to achieve better
response for y2:
53
Interaction Analysis and Loop Pairing for M u l t i v a r i a t e Processes
In decentralized control system design, individual loop is tuned around the critical
frequency region of the transfer function which is the region around the control
system bandwidth. Thus, this is the frequency region that should be focused upon
when considering the effect of interactions. Therefore, two factors in the open-
loop transfer functions will affect the loop pairing decision:
(1) Steady-state gain: the steady-state gain gu(0) of the transfer function
(2) Response speed: response speed is accountable for the sensitivity of the
controlled variable y, to manipulated variable uf and, consequently, the
.0/ • x--#//;"
g.,Ua>) = g,j<f>)gl(ja>)e »' (3.1)
u$
where g„(0), g"{j(o) and e are steady-state gain, normalized transfer function
To use both steady-state gain and response speed information for interaction
measure and loop pairing, we now define the energy of gv(ja)) as the area in the
(1) 0)ciJ =(oh,j, where cociJ for i,j = l,2,--n is the bandwidth of the transfer
or
(2) a)ciJ -CDUIJ, where aUJ) for i,j = \,2,-n is the ultimate frequency of the
phase plot of frequency response across -n, as shown in Figure 3.1 (b)
i.e.,
arg -71 .
The value of etJ is either the area covered by the curve gt] (0) - P - Q - 0)b I; in
SA^)~Q~<0u4j m
Figure 3.1(b) (when using a>UIJ as critical frequency).
g*(0)
0.707gv(0)
«U
e-Ttn Q
s e
i
I
Q.
Frequency
Figure 3.1. Frequency response curves and the energy, et), of g^jco)
Applying Equation (3.2) to all transfer function elements, the overall process
energy an be written in the form of energy matrix and expressed as
"11
c.-, ... c,
'12 'In
E =
e
e i •>
area, i.e.,
which is the area of the rectangle gv(0)-Q'-eohJJ in Figure 3.1(a) (when using
(when using a>ulj as the critical frequency). Then, the energy matrix is given by
e e e
i\ \2 ••• \n
_en\ e
nl ••• e
m _
where
and
(0 c.U a
cM - Vein
are the steady-state gain and the critical frequency matrices, respectively. Even
though Equation (3.2) is more accurate, Equation (3.3) is easier to use. As the
energy matrix is used to derive relative interaction measures, the same
approximation using Equation (3.3) for both open-loop and closed-loop cases will
not affect the outcomes.
56
Interaction Analysis and Loop Pairing for M u l t i v a r i a t e Processes
Similar to relative gain, the relative energy, tj>n, of g,-(y'<y) is defined as the
energy ratio of the loop yt - Uj when other loops are open or closed, i.e.,
where d) • and e are the critical frequency and the energy of gn(s) when all
4
Following the same arguments as in DRGA and RGA, if all yk, k 5*/', are
perfectly controlled by the use of u,, l*i, then the energy from «, to v is equal
to the energy provided by l/| E~] 1 and Equation (3.4) can be conveniently
computed by
<& = E®E-T. (3.5)
Since REA is also a relative interaction measure, it has similar properties as
RGA and DRGA:
(1) The value of </> is a measure of the relative energy interaction expected in
(2) The elements of the REA in any row or column sum up to 1, i.e.
(-1 7=1
(3) Let e represent the loop / area when all the other loops are closed,
1
e = (3.6)
V
change in u) when the other loops are open totally opposite in direction to
NI=
l' G (°)l
V ;|
<0,
n&(°)
1=1
effectively reflected. Therefore, comparing REA method with RGA and DRGA
methods, it has the following advantages:
(1) In additional to steady-state gains, only critical frequency needs to be
calculated in REA method, it is far easier to calculate than those DRGA
methods.
(2) REA combines both steady-state gains and critical frequencies in
measuring the loop interactions, it provides better pairing results than that
of RGA based pairing and comparable with DRGA ones.
(3) REA only uses information of open-loop process transfer functions, it is
controller type independent.
In this section, we use various examples to show the effectiveness of the above
1005 + 1 105 + 1
G(3) =
5e^0s
105 + 1 1005 + 1
The RGA is
0.8333 0.1667
A(G(0)) =
0.1667 0.8333
This result implies the diagonal pairing 1-1/2-2 is a good choice. Hence, according
to the RGA based loop-pairing criterion, the pairing of 1-1/2-2 should be preferred
for the smaller interaction to any one loop from other closed-loop. However, in
REA approach, the energy matrix is
"0.0500 0.1000
E=
-0.5000 0.0500
results for this process, two sets of optimal PI controllers were designed for
diagonal and off-diagonal pairings, respectively. For each configuration, two
controller gains and two integral gains are optimized for a step change in _>>,
followed by a step change in y2 using the same objective function that was used
for the optimal control calculation. Equal weighting is given to the measurements
and the manipulated variables. In calculating the errors for y] and y2 the
difference between these measurements and their set-points was used. Since the
minimization involved in tuning the PI controllers is non-convex, several different
starting points are used to determine the best values of the tuning parameters.
After all, it is concluded that the DRGA correctly indicates that an off-diagonal
pairing produces a better overall control system response than that of the diagonal
pairing.
Example 3.3 Consider a 3x3 process (Huang et al, 1994, given by
-2e's \.5e-s es
105 + 1 5 + 1 5+1
1.5g" J
e" -2e's
G(s)
5+1 5 + 1 105 + 1
e" -2e" \.5e-'
5+1 105 + 1 5 + 1
This indicates the best paring is 1-2/2-1/3-3 because the corresponding REA
elements are much closer to 1 than the other option. This was confirmed by the
generalized dynamic relative gain (GDRG) approach (Huang et al, 1994).
However, the proposed method is much simpler.
Example 3.4 Consider a 4x4 industrial reactor/recycle system (Robinson et al,
2001) given by
3.96(1975 + 1) 0.536(2585 + 1) 9.7
0
49.4s2 +14. Is+ 1 83.3s2 +18.35 + 1 24.3s + l
0.00111 0.044 -0.0152<T32s 0.039g-2Oj
s 46.9s2 + J s
G(5) =
-232.2 -15.96(529s T!) 139.2
0
32.25 + 1 10417s 2 +204s+1 7.27s + l
-0.582 -2.54(8.115 + 1) 0.0462(45.65 + 1K 35 ' -0.0358e~30s
s 6.25s3 + 5s 2 +s 306s3 + 35s 2 +s s
As proposed by Arkun and Downs (1990), for processes that contain pure
integrator elements (that has no steady-state) the steady-state gain and RGA of
integrating processes can be calculated by letting / = 1 / s, substituting / into the
original transfer function matrix, and taking the limit /C = limG(s) in calculating
j->0
the RGA
0 0.107 0.148 0.745
-0.072 0.196 0.829 0.046
A=
0 0.723 0.067 0.210
1.072 -0.027 -0.044 0
It indicates the parings: 1-4/2-3/3-2/4-1.
To use REA method, the bandwidth matrix of G(s) and REA are obtained,
respectively, as
0 5.6400 4.3800 0.0410
1.4500 0.1750 1.4500 1.4500
fi =
0 0.0310 0.0710 0.1380
1.4500 1.2980 0.4550 1.4500
and
0 0.7856 0.1387 -0.0047
-0.0806 -0.0285 1.2895 -0.0244
<D =
0 -0.0026 -0.0007 0.8426
0.9438 -0.0291 0.0215 0
This indicates parings: 1-2/2-3/3-4/4-1. This is the same as the pairing option
given by the DRGA approaches (Mc Avoy et al, 2003; Robinson et al, 2001).
Robinson et al (2001) confirmed this conclusion and they showed that the
transients produced by this pairing option are significant superior to those
produced by pairing option suggested by RGA. Nevertheless, the proposed
method is much more direct and the computation is much easier.
3.5. Conclusions
In this chapter, both the steady-state gain and the critical frequency of the
process are used to provide a simple yet comprehensive description of loop
interactions for MIMO processes. The REA can be conveniently calculated by
control engineers since the bandwidth or ultimate frequency can be easily
obtained from the given transfer function matrix. The effectiveness of the method
is demonstrated by several examples, for which the RGA based loop pairing
criterion gives an inaccurate interaction assessment, while the proposed
interaction measure and loop pairing criterion provides accurate results and they
are very easy to be calculated. Furthermore, the REA method is not only an
effective tool for loop pairing, but also very useful in the design of the
decentralized and decoupling control systems, especially, for high dimensional
processes. These issues will be discussed later.
References
Arkun, Y.; Downs, J. A general method to calculate input-output gains and the
RGA for integrating processes. Comp. Chem. Eng. 1990. 14, 1101-1110.
Bristol, E. H. On a new measure of interactions for multivariable process control.
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1966, 11, 133-134.
He, M.-J.; Cai, W.-J. New criterion for control loop configuration of multivariable
processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2004, 43, 7057-7064.
Mc Avoy, T.; Arkun, Y.; Chen, R.; Robinson, D.; Schnelle, P. D. A new approach
to defining a dynamic relative gain. Control Eng. Practice 2003, 11, 907-914.
Robinson, D.; Chen, R.; Mc Avoy, T.; Schnelle, D. An optimal control based
approach to designing plantwide control system architectures. J. Proc. Cont. 2001,
11,223-236.
Witcher, M.; Mc Avoy, T. J. Interacting control systems: steady state and dynamic
measurement of interaction. ISA Trans. 1971, 16. 83-90.
63
Decentralized Control System Design
Chapter 4
4.1. Introduction
In process control industry, more than 95% of the control loops are of PI/PID
type (Astrom and Hagglund, 1995). This is mainly attributed to its effectiveness
and relatively simple structure, which can be easily understood and implemented
in practice. Consequently, the research on PID control algorithm development and
their applications is still a very active area; many formulas have been derived to
tune the PID controllers over the years.
Due to the high product quality and energy integration requirements, most of
modern industry processes, however, are MIMO processes. For easier field
implementation, it is desirable to apply well established single loop PID tuning
principles to these MIMO processes (Grosdidier and Morari, 1987). However,
compared with SI SO counterparts, MIMO systems are more difficult to control
due to the existence of interactions between different input and output variables.
Adjusting controller parameters of one loop affects the performance of the others,
sometimes to the extent of destabilizing the entire system. To ensure stability,
many decentralized controllers in industry are tuned loosely, which causes
inefficient operation and higher energy costs.
The main parts of this chapter were published in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
45 (2006) 2769-2776 and Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773-784.
64
Decentralized Control System Design
Although considerable effort has been dedicated to this problem and many
design techniques, such as sequential loop closing methods (Lee et al, 1998; Loh
et al., 1993; Shen and Yu, 1994), detuning factor methods (Luyben, 1986; Chen
and Seborg, 2003), and independent design methods (Grosdidier and Morari, 1986;
Skogestad and Morari, 1989; Pomerleau and Pomerleau, 2001; Huang and Jeng,
2002; Huang et al, 2003) have been proposed, decentralized control system
design and implementation is still difficult to deal with for control engineers due
to the lack of simple and practical approach. Since controllers interact with each
other in a decentralized control system, the performance of one loop cannot be
evaluated without the information of the controllers of other loops.
variable ul:
*,-. (4.1)
'J
where e,y is the effective energy transmission ratio between output variable y, and
input variable ul when all other loops are closed. When the relative energy are
65
Decentralized Control System Design
mentioned in Chapter 3, let the energy of g,j(s), etJ, when all other loops are
closed be el} =gij(0)a>cjj i,j = l,2,---«, where g,7(0) and cbCIJ are the steady-state
gain and ultimate frequency between output variable v, and input variable
Uj when all other loops are closed, respectively. Then, from Equation (4.1)
(4.2)
*»•*? (4.3)
where yIJ represents the critical frequency change of loop i-j when other loops are
YlH
Y%\ Y22 Y2„
r= (4.5)
0.1 0i2 - K
<t>2X A l - <t>2n (4.6)
<t>M
l_~«l <t>n2 4> _1/X, l/i, 2 ... 1/A,
In Chapter 3, we have derived the energy for a control loop when other loops
are closed. In the following, we will derive ETFs, g,;(s), using REA for loop
Since control loop transfer functions when other loops closed will have similar
frequency properties with when other loops open if it is well paired (Chien et ai,
1999), we can let the ETFs have the same structures as the corresponding open-
loop transfer functions but with different parameters
g;,(s)=g:(s)^
In Equation (4.7), g,y(0) can be determined by using Equation (4.3), while by the
h7
Decentralized Control System Design
0„ = - Y„ • t4-8)
Notice that
(1) g,'(s) is usually low order transfer functions, their contribution to the
phase change at low frequency range are small and can be equivalently
represented by the additional time delay term.
(2) In many decentralized control system designs, such as gain and phase
margin method, individual loop is tuned around the critical frequency
region of each control loop. Accurate estimation is required around critical
frequency point, not who contribute to the change.
Assume the contribution of g°(s) in the phase change at critical frequency is
small, we can let Zg'n(jcoc „)« Zg'n(coc „), and make further simplification to
Equation (4.8) as
-6 6) * -6> to
IICJI II C.ll
4*^r=H=^ (4.9)
This is the practical formula which will be used to create ETFs. Even though
Equation (4.9) is less accurate than Equation (4.8), several simulation results have
showed that the control system performances are comparable by the two
approximations, but Equation (4.9) is much more straightforward and easier to
understand than Equation (4.8).
Since it is desirable that the controlled system possesses integrity property;
that is, the overall control system remained stable regardless of input and output
of other control loops, g„(0) and 6lt in ETF must take different values for
different combination of kn and yn. For the four different combinations of \ and
Yu, S,,(s) ma
y take different modes shown in Figures 4.1-4.4, and are discussed
below:
Case 1: Au < 1, yu < 1, Figure 4.1.
In this case, 1 >0and (yn - l ) < 0 . According to Equations (4.3) and (4.9),
v4< )
we haveg„(0) > g„(0), and 0„ < 0„.
• Sn (0) > g„ (0). This means that the magnitude of the frequency response
when the other loops closed is not less than that of when the other loops
open. Since the retaliatory effect from the other loops magnifies the main
effect of ut on yn we need to reduce the controller gain to assure system
stability. In this case, the gain is by Equation (4.3)
2„(0) = g„(0)M,.
• 0n < 0U. This means that the time delay when the other loops closed is not
bigger than that of when other loops open. The reduced time delay will
increase the phase margin. However, by considering the control system
integrity, the time delay needs to be kept as before, i.e..
0. = 0..
11 11
T T r
' • • 1 • 1 '• 1 •
g*(0)
1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 i T S
Frequency
In this case, ' 1 - ; >oand (yn - l ) > 0 . According to Equations (4.3) and (4.9),
>*
M
Decentralized Control System Design
g„(0) = g„(0)/A„.
• 6n > 0„. This means that the time delay when the other loops closed is
bigger than that of when the other loops open. The enlarged time delay
will reduce the phase margin. In this case, the time delay is determined by
Equation (4.9)
0 =y 0 .
II / I! II
1,(0)
!g,(0)
en
ID
2
Frequency
1
In this case, •1 <0and (y„ -1) < 0 . According to Equations (4.3) and (4.9),
v4. J
• g„(0) < g„(0) • This means that the magnitude of the frequency response
when the other loops closed is smaller than that of when the other loops
open. Even if the retaliatory effect from other loops acts in opposition to
the main effect of u, on yt, we cannot enlarge the controller gain for
70
Decentralized Control System Design
0..
a
< /(0„. Same as in Case 1
0=0.
n n
Frequency
wehaveg„(0)<g„(0), and0„>0„.
£„(0) = g„(0).
0 =y0 .
^11 / a II
71
Decentralized Control System Design
g,(0)
g,(0)
1 -
://
^ S * , "-». "^
-
! i l l ^ \
CO <Z>. jj
Frequency
To illustrate the control system design procedure based on ETFs, the gain and
phase margins design approach (Wang and Cai, 2002) is presented here for the
sake of completeness.
Without loss of generality, we assume that each main loop, i.e., diagonal
element in the transfer function matrix is represented by a SOPDT model, which
can be used to describe most of the industrial processes:
•'O.u
&,(') =
a
2MS +
°UiS + l
&(0) --#/!
& ( * ) = •
a S a S+]
2,n '+ u,
The decentralized controllers can then be independently designed by single loop
approaches based on corresponding ETFs. Here we employ the gain and phase
margins approach. This is primarily because the frequency response method
provides good performance in the face of uncertainty in both plant model and
disturbances. The PID controller of each loop is supposed of the following
standard form:
As2+Bs + C
gcA*) = k„+ — + kIIJs = k
s s
where A- kdl/k , B = kpJk and C = klt/k . By letting A = a2, B = a, and C = 1,
Denoting the gain and phase margin specifications as Ami and *¥mJ, and their
M$[gcAJ°>llMi(Jtog.J]=-7r
^./kc,(H,,)^,o?,)|=1
|^c,(H,)i,-0'^,,)| = 1
which result
n
2 4./ 2,4 ftx..(0)
By this formulation, the gain and phase margin are interrelated to each other,
some possible gain and phase margin selections are given in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Typical gain and phase margin values
4., 2 3 4 5
~kp.i
7T *!,«
(4.10)
J.I
24A&«» <72.H
73
Decentralized Control System Design
Applying Equation (4.10) for each case discussed in Section 3, we can easily
obtain both ETFs and the P1D parameters which are summarized in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. ETFs and PID controllers for gain and phase margin method
Mode aW K, KM K,
&(0)/4 c -,„ J *Kau, *K XA„a2,„
a
2.ns2+ai„S +
^ i^AsM T-KAzM 2AmJdHgH(0)
n
g„(0)/A„ c^e„s Kau, *K n a
k i.u
2Amj/„0ug„(O) 2Amjy„0„gAO) 2AmjAg„(0)
a
2 , „ s 2 +
^ M S + X
" ^mjYA,sM 2Amj„0ugll(O) 2Amj,A,g„(0)
phase changes after the other loops closed, the effects of unstable zeros can be
accurately estimated in each control loop. Consequently, the resultant control
systems will be much less conservative.
Algorithm 4.1:
Step 1. For a given transfer function matrix, calculate E, <S>, A and V by
Equations (3.3), (3.5), (3.1) and (4.6), respectively.
Step 2. Select the best pairing and put them on the diagonal position
according to REA, determine the equivalent transfer functions for
diagonal elements by calculating the two correcting factors using
Equations (4.3) and (4.9), respectively.
Step 3. Determine the parameters of the diagonal controllers by looking up
Table 4.2.
75
Decentralized Control System Design
5>
5e" 3 s 2.5<?
45 + 1 15^ + 1
G(5) =
-4e-*s
^205 + 1 55 + 1
This process seems easy to control. However, as can be seen below, both variable
pairing and control design are difficult with conventional approaches.
The RGA, critical frequency array, REA and RFA are given respectively by
0.3333 0.6667 0.6308 0.2732
A = Q:
0.6667 0.3333 0.2856 0.4909
It can be seen that the best pairing according to RGA (0.6667) and NI (=1.5000>0)
is off-diagonal, i.e., 1-2/2-1. Using the method (1), we obtain the detuning factor
K, T
u. K, T
,.»
1.E
05
|5pp*
-05
51 1000 1500 210 2500
Time(minute)
-7
Decentralized Control System Design
The RGA, critical frequency array, REA and RFA are given respectively by
0.7087 0.2913 8.0554 4.1888
A= fi
0.2913 0.7087 7.8540 4.3036
Both REA and RGA indicate diagonal pairing (NI =1.4111>0). In this example,
we have \ < 1 and yn > 1 for ;' = 1,2 . According to the proposed method the
equivalent process for the two loop are calculated as
respectively. For the gain and phase margins of 5 and 2^/5. respectively, the
resulting PI controllers determined by the proposed method together with those
determined by methods (2), (3) and (5) are listed in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4. Controllers for Example 4.2
Controller Proposed Luyben Chien et al. Loh et al.
K, T
,.„
K, T
,,n K, T
,.n K, T
r,„
7S
Decentralized Control System Design
1 8
Proposed
1.6 Luyben
' 4
* — Chien et al.
Loh et al
1 2 ! >'V, -
T
•
GB
0.6 3 -
04
0.2
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(hour)
15
Proposed
— Luyben !*;
— Chien et al
Loh et al
ip
<N 05 •
[A
!; '
-0 5 i i i i i i
15 20 25 tl 40
Timefhour)
T ™ T '•" t I 1
Proposed
— Luyben
— Chien et al
15 • Loh et a I
35 I
_i i—
10 15 2D 25 30 35 40
Time(hour)
Proposed
Luyben
1 5 Chien el al.
Loh et al
35
A
w*
0 5
15 20 25 30 35 43
Time(hour)
The best pairing according to both RGA, RE A and NI (=0.4759 >0) is 1-1/2-2/3-3.
For i = 1,2, \ > 1 and yu < 1. Hence, the original transfer functions are selected
as corresponding ETFs. For ;' = 3, X,t < 1 and yn > 1. The equivalent process is
calculated as
-129.4574e'-'084'
235 + 1
The resulting PI controllers by proposed method are listed in Table 4.5 together
with those of method (6).
Table 4.5. Controllers for Example 4.3
Controller Proposed Loh and Vasnani
K, T
u, K, T
,.n
better performance with the integral times much different from those of Loh and
Vasnani.
81
Decentralized Control System Design
1 4
Proposed
— Loh and Vasnam
1 2
1
A. „.
08
>
26
04
•
32 ' •••
• 4
Proposed
1.2 / N. — Loh and Vasnani -
_^^_
"7
1
08
0.6 -
04
02
-0 2 ' •
- Proposed
12 . . Loh and Vasnani -
1 V
1
0.8
J
1
06
1
04 •
1
0.2
1
0
1
•02
V^"
50 100 150 200 250 30C
Time(second)
82
Decentralized Control System Design
-1.15s
-9.81 Wf 0.374e -2.368e -27.33s •11.3e"
11.365 + 1 22.225 + 1 33.3-v + l (21.745 + 1)2
5.984<T224j -1.986e-°71i 0.422e~872s 5.24<?-*0y
14.295 + 1 66.675 + 1 (2505+ 1)2 4005 + 1
G(s) =
2.3&?-0-42' 0.0204^ 5Qs 0.513<TS -0.33e^ 58i
(1.435 + 1)2 (7.14.v~l) : 5+ 1 (2.385+ 1)2
-11.3e"379s -0.176e-° 48j 15.54e-J 4.48e"°52s
(21.745+ 1)2 (6.95+ 1)2 5+1 11.115 + 1
This is a real process with complicated delay and interaction modes. The problems
of some of the unrealistic pathological cases would be avoided using such kind of
processes to verify design.
The RGA, critical frequency array, REA and RFA are given by
and
4.1448 0.0511 0.7066 0.5004
-0.2239 0.9177 0.0978 0.0113
r= 0.6497 0.4888 1.8192 2.1309
0.0492 0.0793 0.8359 -26.9057
respectively. The best pairing according to REA and NI (=1.1814>0, ideal pairing)
is 1-4/2-2/3-1/4-3. This example has complicated interaction modes. For / = 1,2,
process. For # = 3,4, \ < 1 and y„<\, the equivalent process is calculated as
respectively. The resulting PI/PID controllers by the proposed method are listed in
Table 4.6 together with method (2) based on the diagonal pairing. It should be
noticed that different designs have much different controller parameters due to
different pairing schemes.
Table 4.6. Controllers for Example 4.4
Controller Proposed Luyben
*„, T
,M
T
d,„ *,, T
,,u
in some loops, the system has better overall performance. This example illustrates
that the proposed method can be easily applied to high dimensional processes with
complicated interaction modes. In fact, the dimension does not increase the design
difficulty.
1 6
Proposed
1 4 — Luyben
1.2
1
-t—— Hr\A- - / -
DE
3E
14
31
-0 2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time(minute)
02
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time(minute)
Sh
Decentralized Control System Design
16 1 1
Proposed
1 i - Luyben
12 r h .
I M A . . . J.
1 - 1'• /
)!\\,!J' •
06
V
06
0.4 • -
02
0
' ' •
-02 • •
X7
Decentralized Control System Design
4.5. Conclusions
References
Astrom, K. J.; Hagglund, T. PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning (2nd
edition); Instrument Society of America: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1995.
Chen, D.; Seborg, D. E. Design of decentralized PI control systems based on
Nyquist stability analysis. J. Proc. Cont. 2003, 13, 27-39.
Chien, I.-L.; Huang, H-P.; Yang, J.-C. A simple multiloop tuning for PID
controllers with no proportional kick. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 1456-1468.
Cui, H.; Jacobsen, E. W. Performance limitations in decentralized control. J. Proc.
Cont. 2002, 12, 485-494.
Huang, H.-P.; Jeng, J.-C. Monitoring and assessment of control performance for
single loop systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41, 1297-1309.
Huang, H.-P.; Jeng, J.-C; Chiang, C.-H.; Pan, W. A direct method for multi-loop
PI/PID controller design. J. Proc. Cont. 2003, 13, 769-786.
Lee, J.; Cho, W.; Edgar, T. F. Multiloop PI controller tuning for interacting
multivariable processes. Comp. Chem. Eng. 1998. 22, 1711-1723.
Loh, A. P.; Hang, C.C.; Quek, C. X.; Vasnani, V. U. Autotuning of multiloop
proportional-integral controllers using relay feedback. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993,
32,1102-1107.
Loh, A. P.; Vasnani, V. U. Describing function matrix for multivariable systems
and its use in multiloop PI design. J. Proc. Cont. 1994, 4, 115-120.
Pomerleau, D.; Pomerleau, A. Guide lines for the tuning and evaluation of
decentralized and decoupling controllers for processes with recirculation. ISA
Trans. 2001,40, 341-351.
Shen, S. H.; Yu, C. C. Use of relay-feedback test for automatic tuning of
multivariable systems. AIChE Journal 1994, 40, 627-646.
Skogestad, S.; Morari, M. Robust performance of decentralized control systems
by independent designs. Automatica 1989, 25, 119-125.
Wang, Y.-G.; Cai, W.-J. Advanced Proportional-Integral-Derivative tuning for
integrating and unstable Processes with gain and phase margin specifications. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41, 2910-2914.
84
Decoupling Control System Design
*
Chapter 5
5.1. Introduction
For MIMO processes with severe loop interactions, the decoupling control
schemes are often preferred. The decoupling control usually requires two steps: 1)
design of decoupler to minimize the interactions among loops; and 2) design the
main loop controllers for overall system performance. The key advantages of the
decoupling control approach are that: 1) it allows the use of SISO controller
design methods; and 2) in case of actuator or sensor failure, it is relatively easy to
stabilize the loop manually, since only one loop is directly affected by the failure.
However, such a design may result in very complicated control structures,
especially, when the system dimension is high. Consequently, the research
activities are primarily focused on TITO processes (Shinskey, 1996; Gawthrop.
1987; Palmor et al, 1995; Ho et al, 2000; Wang et al, 2000; Gilbert et al, 2003;
Chen and Seborg, 2002; Tavakoli et al, 2006). For high dimensional processes,
Wang et al. developed some methods for full dimensional PID or non-PID
controllers with systematic design procedures and relatively simple system
structures (Wang et ai, 1997; Wang and Yang, 2002; Wang et al, 2003).
However, due to the mathematic approximation of the decouplers for high
dimensional process, the robustness of such a control system can not be
The main part of this chapter was published in Journal of Process Control 17 (2007) 665-673.
40
Decoupling Control System Design
a
2.,jS +aVJS + i
It is, however, not an easy task to find a suitable solution for G~\s) under the
fixed control structures, as it may end up with very complicated expressions,
41
Decoupling Control System Design
especially, when the system dimension is high. In the following, technique for
computing loop dynamic interactions are employed to find a simple description
for G\s), and establish the relationship between G \s) and the closed-loop
transfer function matrix.
When a MIMO control system is closed, there exist interactions among loops
as a result of the existence of non-zero off-diagonal elements in the transfer
function matrix. The interactions can be dynamically measured by the dynamic
relative gain defined by (Bristol, 1966):
W = gu{s)/giJ(s) (5.2)
where g,;(s) is the equivalent transfer function of g,;(s) when all other loops are
closed. For overall system, Equation (5.2) can be written in a matrix form which
results in the dynamic relative gain array (DRGA),
4,(5) \2(s) ... 4.(5)"
4,(5) 4,(5) ... 4„(5)
A( 5 ) =
(5.4)
where the operator ® is the hadamard product. Since g (s) is controller
dependant, it is impossible to compute A (5) without first knowing the controller
computational algorithm for A (5) can be obtained to calculate the relative gains
A(s) = G(s)®G-r(s)
gixis) gn(s) ... glH(s)
g2l(s) g21(s) ... g2n(s) (5.5)
S21OO £22^) - &„(*)
_£„i(*) gM
gmW
which implies
interactions among loops are minimized and the desired control system
performance is obtained. This will be discussed in the following sections.
By full dimensional controller structure, Equations (2.1), (2.3), (5.1) and (5.6),
we can easily establish the relation between the controller elements and the ETFs
as
g,j(s)
closed-loop control system, the control objective, gc. j,(s)g,j(s) - Vs > ' s to
obtain an ideal control for this loop. As the ideal control cannot be realized
in practice, the PI/PID controller structure, such as, the gain and phase
margin approach described in Chapter 4 can be used to design the
controllers.
(2) Diagonal controllers: The diagonal controllers are to provide the desired
performance of the closed-loop control system. As the interactions among
the loops have already been dealt with by the off-diagonal controllers, the
original transfer functions of diagonal elements after loop pairing are used
for the controller design. Again, the gain and phase margin approach in
Chapter 4 is one of the options to be used for designing the controllers.
Remark 5.1. Theoretically, any SISO controller design approach can be
employed. This is because the interaction is already approximately considered into
the equivalent transfer functions. The gain and phase margins approach is selected
because it provides good performance in terms of robustness with respect to the
uncertainties in both process model and disturbance, and might be more
acceptable by process control engineers.
It is worth noting that the only difference between off-diagonal and diagonal
controllers is the proportional gain. For off-diagonal proportional gains, they are
corrected by both relative gain and relative frequency factors, while the original
94
Decoupling Control System Design
parameters are used for diagonal ones. In addition, it should be noticed that the
control performance may not be met well for some high dimensional systems
since a fixed PI/PID structure is adopted.
In summary, the whole design procedure is very simple, straightforward and
can be fully automated. The general procedure for designing full dimensional
PI/PID controller for MIMO processes can be summarized as follows.
Algorithm 5.1:
Step 1. For a given transfer function matrix, calculate E, O, A and T by
Equations (3.3), (3.5), (3.1) and (4.6), respectively.
Step 2. Select the best pairing and put them on the diagonal position
according to REA, determine the equivalent transfer functions for
off-diagonal elements by calculating the two correcting factors using
Equations (4.3) and (4.9), respectively.
Step 3. Determine the parameters of the off-diagonal decoupling controllers
and main loop diagonal controllers by Equation (4.10) with modified
and original process parameters, respectively.
The block decoupling controllers balance the high performance given by fully
multivariable controllers and the easy implementation and maintenance associated
with fully decentralized controllers. The use of block decoupling control is also
because of the fact that in most industrial processes, the interactions are limited in
scope and do not include the full scope of the plant.
For block decoupling controller structure, Equations (2.1) and (2.4), to identify
the structure of Gc(s), a threshold, p, is to be specified by the designer. If
the k'h and /* loops are considered to be closely coupled under the p criterion,
columns and rows of the transfer function matrix such that G(s) can be
partitioned as
G,(5)
G2(s) ...
G(s) =
- * Gm(s)
where G,(s), I = l...m are sub-matrices of closed-loop ETFs with the same
dimensions as Gcl(s). The block decoupling control starts from the 2*2 controller
sub-blocks, let
Gck (s) -
_&c,p~\p{s> Sc.p+\p+\ys) _
Gk(s) =
gP+iP(s) (-0
and
Ypp Tpp+\
®k =
rp+\p rp+\p+\
Gck(s)*Gk(s).
The overall design of block decoupling control is summarized as follows.
Algorithm 5.2:
Step 1. Design decouplers for those 2*2 sub-blocks according to design
procedures for off-diagonal decoupling controllers using Equation
(5.8).
Step 2. Recalculate <f> and $P+iP+\. As the off-diagonal elements have been
updated by
Step 3. Approximate the ETFs of the diagonal elements using Equation (4.7)
Equation (5.9).
Step 4. Design the decentralized controller for the diagonal elements
following the principles given in Chapter 4.
Remark 5.2. In decoupling control system design. Equation (4.7) is directly used
to find the ETFs for off-diagonal elements, gtJ(s), i * j , using XtJ and y:j, since
concern here. The no-causal elements, e ,J , which may appear in ETFs for some
i, j , can be approximated by transfer function zeros using first order Taylor series
in the decoupling controller design. Furthermore, since the off-diagonal
decoupling controllers are PID type instead of simply the ratio of transfer function
elements as in conventional decoupling controller design, the robustness
improvement of the control system can be expected.
<;7
Decoupling Control System Design
where G(ja>) is the forward transfer function matrix of the MIMO process
(2) Robustness index: let the process input uncertainty be A, which is used to
describe modeling errors, then, the closed-loop system is stable if and only
if (Morari and Zafiriou, 1989)
1
a[H(jo))] r,Vfl>,
a[A(jco)]'
Both REA and RGA pairing rules indicate diagonal pairing (NI =1.4111>0).
Full Decoupling Control: By the proposed method, the full dimensional
decoupling controller is
1 1
0.3137(1 + ) 0.1336(1 +
Gc(s) = 4.57205 2.17405
-0.0224(1 +
1
) 0.2439(1 + _J
1.80705 1.80105
The designed decoupling controllers are evaluated by
(1) The column dominance index of the decoupled and the original processes
are calculated from Equation (5.10) and shown in Figure 5.1, which
indicates that the original process is indeed not diagonally dominant; it is
98
Decoupling Control System Design
frequency (racVsecond)
I 5
- REAFDC
— Chen and Soberg
r
C5
10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0
Time(hour)
12
1 •
l*>
C8
06
0.4
C2
Q X RFJVFDC
J~
Chen and Soberg
•C2
XI 30 40 50 B0 70 EC
Time(hour)
(3) The value cr[//(yVij)] of different design approaches are shown in Figure
5.3, the proposed method gives better robustness, and the maximum
singular value increases slowly with the frequency.
12
REArFDC
/ Chen and Soberg
2 - — — '•
01 02 03 04 05 06 0.7 09 1
frequency (rad/second)
Figure 5.3. Singular value based robustness index for Example 5.1
(4) The robustness of the different methods is further investigated by
increasing all four time delays by 70%. The closed-loop responses for the
two control schemes are shown in Figure 5.4. It is obvious that the
performance of the proposed control method is still satisfactory while the
10(1
Decoupling Control System Design
RE/VFDC
Chen and Soberg
I'hWr
iW'JWvV' .'
_l l_
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time(hour)
control given by Lee et al. (2005) are also shown in the same figure. It is clear that
the proposed method has a better performance.
1(12
Decoupling Control System Design
1.2
1 K
ca f
C6 -
ci
02
0 — REA-BDC '
Lee et al
-0 2
500 1000 I SOD
I
Time(minute)
1.5
REA-BDC
Lee et al
0J
L
Q5
REA-BDC
Lee et al
REArBDC
Lee et ai
1 2
1
0.8
0.6
C J
02
-C2
.4 RBVBDC
Lee et at.
0.6
500 1000 1£OC
Time(minute)
500 1000
Time(minute)
Hi4
Decoupling Control System Design
The best pairing according to REA and NI (=1.1814>0, ideal pairing) is 1-4/2-2/3-
1/4-3.
Block Decoupling Control: Since the closely coupled loops are 1 and 3,
4 3 =0.5237 and ^ =0.2673, block decoupling control scheme is selected. By
1 _ 1
-03983(1- +1Q87M?) 0 -Q338Q(l4 +1.190Os) 0
43.4800? 47600s
1
0 -148540(1+ 0 0
65.6700*
m- 1 1
-00070(1+ ) 0 08913(1+ +07150?) 0
113600s 28600?
0 0 Q02O2(l-
105
Decoupling Control System Design
Figure 5.7 shows the closed-loop responses, where the unit set-points change in r,
at t=0, r2 at t=200, r3 t=400 and r4 t=600. Since we cannot find any existing
decoupling control scheme in literatures for this process, we compare the
responses with the REA based decentralized controller (REA-DCC) proposed in
Chapter 4, which are shown in the same figure. As can be seen, the REA-BDC
method has better overall performances.
1 2
OB
06
04
02
0.2
-04 REA-BDC
REA-DCC
-06
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 500
Time(minute)
REA-BDC
1.4 REA-DCC "
i:
i
•f '
^v~
r
0.8 -
06 • -
0.4 •
02 •
0
' L • ' '
0 100 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 700 800
Time(minute)
1 4
REA-BDC
1.2 - REA-DCC -
1 It-
y-
06 -
06
0.4
02 •
-0.2 1 1 1
0 100 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 X 7 0 0 800
Time(minute)
y--
•f- -f-*-
REA-BDC
REA-DCC
11)7
Decoupling Control System Design
REA-BDC
REA-DCC
1 5
^*W*«- ^fr^*r>»
05
-05
1 DO 200 300 400 500 600 700 BOO
Time(minute)
100 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0
Time(minute)
1 X 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0
Time(minute)
MW
Decoupling Control System Design
5.6. Conclusions
References
Chen, D.; Seborg, D. E. PI/PID Controller Design Based on Direct Synthesis and
Disturbance Rejection. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41, 4807-4822.
Chen, D.; Seborg, D. E. Design of decentralized PI control systems based on
Nyquist stability analysis. J. Proc. Cont. 2003, 13, 27-39.
Chien, I.-L.; Huang, H-P.; Yang, J.-C. A simple multiloop tuning for PID
controllers with no proportional kick. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1999. 38, 1456-1468.
Doukas, N.; Luyben, W. L. Control of sidestream columns separating ternary
mixtures. Instrum. Technol. 1978, 25, 43.
Ho, W. K.; Lee, T. H.; Xu, W.; Zhou, J. R; Tay, E. B. The direct Nyquist array
design of PID controllers. IEEE Trans. /£2000, 47, 175-185.
Lee, J.; Kim, D. H.; Edgar, T. F. Static decouplers for control of multivariable
processes. AIChE J. 2005. 51, 2712-2720.
Morari, M.; Zafiriou, E. Robust Process Control; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1989.
Ogunnaike, B. A.; Ray, W. H. Multivariable controller design for linear systems
having multiple time delays. AIChE J. 1979,25, 1043.
Chapter 6
6.1. Introduction
The HVAC has now become an indispensable part of our life. Different kinds
of HVAC systems have been installed in housing estates, commercial complexes,
office buildings, and industrial estates, etc. These systems are playing an
important role in providing thermal conditions for people and appliances inside
the air-conditioned space. With the wide usage of air-conditioning system, the
electricity usage for space air-conditioning amounts up to 30% of the total
electrical energy consumption for countries with mild climate (Yaqub and Zubair,
2001; Shoureshi, 1993). As Singapore is a tropical city country with an annual
average ambient temperature of 29.4 °C and an annual average ambient relative
humidity of 85%, the indoor thermal condition of buildings is very important
since people live and work in buildings with air-conditioning systems running
almost all the time. Therefore, it is very important to increase the system
efficiency and improve interior environmental control in a more cost-effective,
high quality manner. The research in the area of control of air-conditioning system
has, therefore, a great impact to the economy and environment.
113
Application to an Experimental HVAC System
As shown in Figure 6.1, an HVAC system consists of indoor air loop, chilled
water loop, refrigerant loop, condenser water loop, and outdoor air loop. Each
component involves several variables, the working principle and system analysis
can be very complicated. To minimize the energy consumption while meeting the
human comfort requirement, an accurate mathematical model for each component
is needed to describe its working conditions. Based on the models, optimization
problem for buildings can be formulated as minimization of the energy cost with
the constraints that all the requirements on air quality in the building such as room
temperature, humidity, air movement and oxygen concentration be met. While for
every set-point change determined by the optimization algorithm, the control
system is to make sure that each device can reach its new set-point smoothly and
promptly.
water «- tower «-
X pumps fans
W
V
< i
•
nvironm
outdoo
a
1a cooling
B
u towers
,1 /DUUJOOf 0.'
Watey
—•
chillers
inputs and outputs are cross-coupled, i.e., one process input can influence other
outputs of the process. For example, if the chilled water supply is used to regulate
the air humidity and the room damper controls the room temperature, then
changing the valve position of the chilled water supply will affect both humidity
and room temperature. Also, changing one room damper to regulate the room
temperature will also affect the temperature of another room. For these kinds of
multivariable processes, if independent loop control is adopted without taking into
account the coupling, the resulting performance is usually poor. To enhance
performance, the control design should address the coupling issue, which makes
loop tuning more difficult. As a result, many HVAC loops are poorly tuned
(Pinnella et al, 1986). A poorly tuned control system may waste energy, reduce
occupant comfort, and cause excessive and unnecessary wear of actuators.
The Ziegler and Nichols methods (Ziegler and Nichols, 1942) are classical
PID tuning approaches which are widely accepted in industries. But those
methods have shortcomings such as long testing time and limited control
performance. It is more suitable for the initial setting of a PID controller. Recently,
some complex control strategies based on the classical control concepts have been
proposed in attempting to improve the system performance. Among those works,
Pinnella et al. (1986) proposed a self-tuning method of an integral only controller.
Brandt (1986) applied the self-tuning control in an HVAC system. Nesler (1986)
developed a computer-based auto- and self-tuning controller, where the open-loop
step test of the Ziegler and Nichols method was used to derive a process model
and a PID controller. Krakow and Lin (1995) designed their PI controller based on
the analytical models of HVAC components. Salsbury (1998) described a
feedforward controller as a supplement of the conventional PI feedback controller
based on simplified physical models. Kasahara et al. (1999) proposed a robust
PID control scheme to deal with the model uncertainty caused by changing
characteristics of the plant. Bi et al. (2000) developed an advanced auto-tuning
PID controller for both temperature and pressure control loops. However, the
above literatures are mainly focused on the single loop PID design, due to the
interactions among individual loops many controllers are tuned conservatively in
order to make the overall system stable. This may result in a unsatisfactory
performance and waste of energy. In this chapter, the REA based MIMO
techniques are applied to analysis and control design of an experimental HVAC
The four-room air temperature control application for HVAC system is tested
on an experimental centralized HVAC system. The system has three chillers, three
sections with three air handling units (AHUs), three cooling towers and flexible
partitions up to twelve rooms. All motors (fans, pumps and compressors) are
equipped with variable speed drives (VSD). The system is made very flexible to
configure these three units to form different schemes. The portrait of the
experimental system is shown in Figure 6.2, where number 1, 2, 3 and 4 indicate
the components of computer controller, VAV air-conditioning system, signal
process board (AI/AO) and signal transmission cables, respectively. The software
environment is Matlab/Simulink V6.5. In the system, the outside air is mixed with
the building return air. The mixed air, i.e., supply air is sucked through the cooling
coil by a supply fan. The cooled air is then supplied to different zones. The
temperature of the off-coil air can be maintained at a pre-specified value by the
regulating valve of chilled water supply or return. To ensure each control loop to
work properly, the supply air pressure needs to be kept at a constant value. This is
realized by regulating the supply air fan speed. The temperature of each room can
be fine tuned by the corresponding damper of VAV box. All motor-driven fans,
pumps and compressors in the system are controlled by VSDs.
* ft ft C ttes
1 , c
Q
I * pj
W . .. i» a . — J * "
i* 2 I B 11
|4 1 "**
Figure 6.2. Experimental centralized HVAC system
117
Application to an Experimental HVAC System
Room 2 Room 4
ED- hd fT3^ DM r
Room 1 Room 3
In the system, there are one air pressure sensor, PA, in the duct, and four
respectively. In addition, there are four supply air control dampers, DMX, DM2,
DM3 and DMA, and four exhausted air vents, VTX, VT2, VT3 and VT4 on the
room ceilings of Rooms 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Due to the cross coupling,
change of any damper position will cause temperature offset for all four rooms.
Therefore, it forms an interactive 4x4 process. The main control objective is to
maintain the conditioned space temperature of each room at the set-point value.
The manipulating inputs for the system are the positions of the four dampers,
DMX, DM2, DM3 and DM,.
IIS
Application to an Experimental HVAC System
where w,, «,, »3and « 4 , the positions of four dampers, are manipulating variables,
and T,, T2, T3 and T4, temperatures of four rooms, are controlled variables,
respectively.
The best pairing according to both RGA and REA and NI (=0.7267>0) are
diagonal. In order to find the proper control strategy, several options are
considered below, where the gain and phase margins are specified as 5db and
2nl5rad, respectively.
ii')
Application to an Experimental HVAC System
K, T
,,» *,.
T
u<
Loop 1 -20.2407 122.0000 -32.2705 113.1520
Loop 2 -24.4200 130.0000 -38.9186 106.4960
Loop 3 -20.5729 118.0000 -31.8627 106.4960
Loop 4 -18.7813 128.0000 -29.0158 119.8080
Decoupling Control: Since the closely coupled loops are loop 1 and loop 2 with
^ 2 =-0.3899 and #,, =-0.3804, and loop 3 and loop 4 with ^ 4 =-0.2242 and
Figure 6.4 shows the closed-loop responses, where the unit set-points change in r,
11
1.2 •
1 Jk_ _,\__
0.8 •
06
0.4
REA-DCC
0 2 REA-BDC
---- RGA based
1.2
1 -A
S 04
o:
o
k REA-DCC
REA-BDC
RGA based
-02
0
I 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time(second)
1.2
REA-DCC
1 . — REA-BDC
---- RGA based
.,, k
08 -
1
I:
02
\ h
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
-0 2 Time(second)
1.2
REA-DCC
REA-BDC
RGA based
oe
o
I"
s 04
t-
02 K»>_
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
•0 2 Time(second)
121
Application to an Experimental HVAC System
14
1.2
08
i
0.6 •
-
C4
1.2 I I
1 /V- A-
0.8
0.6
C4
C2
•0.2
L _l L_
READCC
REABDC
1 2
1
REA-OCC
REABDC
JZ
CB
i"
C2
0
_1 L_
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
-C2 Time(second)
1.2
READCC
REA-BDC
1—
08
i:
1
1
1
1-
02
0
ft
•02
0 50G 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time(second)
123
Application to an Experimental HVAC System
The above simulations confirm that the block decoupling control scheme is
superior in both nominal performance and robustness, but it is not very significant
compared with the decentralized control scheme. In addition, the uncertainty of
this pilot plant may not be so large. Therefore, considering the simplicity of
implementation and loop failure tolerance issues, it is decided that the REA-DCC
be implemented in the 4-room HVAC system.
Figures 6.6 and 6.7 show the performance of the multi-loop control system, in
which the set-points values change from 22 C to 25 C at t=0, t=1000, t=2000
and t=3000 second, respectively. At time t=4000 second, the disturbance is
introduced by opening the door of ROOM 2 with some extent. As can be seen,
both the set-point tracking performance and the disturbance rejection performance
are satisfactory.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10C0
Time(x5 second)
0 100 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 1000
Time(x5 second)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time(x5 second)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time(x5 second)
125
Application to an Experimental HVAC System
0 100 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 1000
Time(x5 second)
0 100 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 B 0 0 9 0 0 1000
Time(x5 second)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 BOO 900 1000
Time(x5 second)
0 100 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 1000
Time(x5 second)
126
Application to an Experimental HVAC System
6.5. Conclusions
In this chapter, the proposed decentralized and decoupling design methods are
used to analyze and design an experimental HVAC system. From simulations and
real-time experiments, it is shown that the proposed control design works well in
the experimental HVAC system even if with significant model uncertainty. This
makes it possible at some extent to replace the tedious and poor manual tuning/re-
tuning of independent loop PID controllers in HVAC systems. Since many
processes in other industries have similar characteristics as those in HVAC
systems, therefore, it is conjectured that the proposed design approach can be
applied to the analysis and design of various industrial multivariable control
systems.
References
Astrom, K. J.; Hagglund, T. PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning (2nd
edition); Instrument Society of America: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1995.
Bi, Q.; Cai, W.-J.; Wang, Q.-G.; Hang, C. C. Advanced controller auto-tuning and
its application in HVAC systems. Control Eng. Practice 2000, 8, 633-644.
Ghiaus, C. Fuzzy model and control of a fan-coil. Energy and Buildings 2001, 33.
545-551.
He, M.; Cai, W.-J.; Li, S.-Y. Multiple fuzzy model-based temperature predictive
control for HVAC systems. Information Sciences 2005, 169, 155-174.
Kasahara, M.: Matsuba, T.: Kuzuu, Y.; Yamazaki, T.; Hashimoto, Y.; Kamimura,
K.; Kurosu, S. Design and tuning of robust PID controller for HVAC systems.
ASHRAE Trans. 1999, 105, 154-166.
Krakow, K. I.; Lin, S. PI control of fan speed to maintain constant discharge
pressure. ASHRAE Trans.: Research 1995, 101, 398-407.
127
Application to an Experimental HVAC System
Shoureshi, R. Intelligent control systems: Are they are real. /. Dynamic Syst.,
Measur. Contr. 1993, 115, 15-19.
Chapter 7
7.1. Conclusion
The significances of the work of the thesis are: 1) the proposed loop pairing and
control system design technique results in a better control system performance
compared with the existing methods; 2) all control designs are based on single
loop control concept and all the existing single loop PI/PID tuning rules can be
directly used; 3) the control system is robust, it still works with satisfactory
performance even under severe model mismatches; and 4) the method is even
more significant when applied to higher dimensional processes with complicated
interaction modes.
7.2. Recommendations
131
Author's Publications
Author's Publications
(1) Qiang Xiong, Wen-Jian Cai and Mao-Jun He, Equivalent transfer function
method for PI/PID controller design of MIMO processes. Journal of
Process Control 17 (2007) 665-673.
(2) Qiang Xiong and Wen-Jian Cai, Effective transfer function method for
decentralized control system design of multi-input multi-output processes,
Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773-784.
(3) Qiang Xiong, Wen-Jian Cai. Mao-Jun He and Ming He, Decentralized
control system design for multivariable processes—A novel method based
on effective relative gain array, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research 45 (2006) 2769-2776.
(4) Qiang Xiong, Wen-Jian Cai and Mao-Jun He, A practical loop pairing
criterion for multivariable processes, Journal of Process Control 15 (2005)
741-747.
(5) Qiang Xiong, Wen-Jian Cai and Ming He, A practical decentralized PID
auto-tuning method for TITO systems under closed-loop control,
International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control 2
(2006) 1-18.
(6) Qiang Xiong and Guang-Yu Jin, Iterative decentralized PID tuning based
on gain and phase margins for TITO systems, International Journal of
Innovative Computing, Information and Control, Accepted in press.
(7) Hua Mei, Shao-Yuan Li, Wen-Jian Cai and Qiang Xiong, Decentralized
closed-loop parameter identification for multivariable processes from step
responses, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 68 (2005) 171-192.
(8) Shao-Yuan Li, Wen-Jian Cai, Hua Mei and Qiang Xiong, Robust
decentralized parameter identification for two-input two-output process
132
Author's Publications