11572

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 1157211581

Step Response Identication under Inherent-Type Load Disturbance with Application to Injection Molding
Tao Liu, Feng Zhou, Yi Yang, and Furong Gao*
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Hong Kong UniVersity of Science & Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Motivated by autotuning of injection velocity in an industrial injection molding machine, a step response identication method is proposed for practical application subject to inherent-type load disturbance. Both models of the process and the inherent-type load disturbance can be simultaneously derived from a step test. Identication algorithms are detailed for obtaining the widely used low-order models of rst-order plus dead time (FOPDT) and second-order plus dead time (SOPDT). Based on the identied process and disturbance models, a two-degree-of-freedom (2DOF) internal model control (IMC) structure plus feed-forward control is proposed for improving load disturbance rejection. Analytical controller design formulas and tuning guidelines are developed accordingly. A practical application to the velocity control of an injection molding machine is shown to illustrate the effectiveness and merits of the proposed identication method and control strategy.
1. Introduction Step response tests have been widely applied in the process industries for control-oriented model identication.1-3 Since the earlier developments of tting several representative points in the process transient response to a step change of the set point4-7 or using the graphical area ratio of the output response to the step input,2 a number of enhanced identication methods have been reported in the recent literature. Bi et al.8 proposed a leastsquares- (LS-) based identication algorithm to improve tting over the low-frequency range in terms of the most widely used low-order model structure of rst-order-plus-dead-time (FOPDT) model, which was further extended to obtain a second-orderplus-dead-time (SOPDT) or higher-order model.9,10 An alternative step response identication method11 was developed in the frequency domain, by introducing a damping factor for the Laplace transform. Using polygonal curve approximation for data preprocessing, Piroddi and Leva12 proposed a step response classication method to determine the process dynamic characteristics and then choose a suitable model structure. A criterion named stability rate was suggested by Garnier et al.13 to evaluate the performance of an identication algorithm in terms of Monte Carlo tests. Recent surveys on the robust identication of process models from experimental data can be found in refs 14 and 15. Because step response tests in engineering practice are likely to be subject to load disturbance or unsteady initial process conditions, a number of robust step response identication methods have recently been developed to address this problem. By dening initial states of the process output and its derivatives as part of the parameters to be identied while assuming no presence of a load disturbance, Ahmed et al.16,17 developed two robust identication algorithms, one based on an iterative procedure combined with a linear ltering method and the other based on evolving multiple tting conditions to establish a linear LS solution. Liu et al.18 suggested the use of multiple piecewise step tests for identication under nonzero initial process conditions or load disturbance with slow dynamics, and by comparison, Wang et al.19 developed an alternative algorithm to improve identication robustness in the presence of unknown
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: +852-23587139. Fax: +852-2358-0054. E-mail: kefgao@ust.hk.

initial process conditions and static disturbances. By using the transient response data from adding and subsequently removing a step change to the process input, a robust identication algorithm20 was proposed to construct independent LS regression for unbiased parameter estimation against unexpected load disturbance. Note that, for the presence of a repetitive load disturbance, which is commonly encountered in various industrial batch process operations that are periodically initiated by a step change to the set point, the resulting step response can be viewed as a pure process response plus a load disturbance response, according to the linear superposition principle. Such a load disturbance is herein called an inherent-type load disturbance. Modeling only the pure process response might not be sufcient for describing the overall dynamic response characteristics for control system design or controller tuning. For instance, a water pump in an air conditioning system obviously gives different step responses under different loads. Modeling both the pure pump response to the set point without a load and the disturbance response of the load can facilitate control design for pump operation at a variety of load levels. For velocity control of an industrial injection molding machine,21 the open-loop response of the injection velocity during the lling process will gradually decrease after a step change of the valve opening, because of the presence of mold cavity pressure that gradually increases until the end of mold lling. Modeling the inuence caused by the mold cavity pressure can facilitate advanced control design for maintaining the injection velocity during the lling process to guarantee product consistency and quality. To facilitate step response identication subject to an inherenttype load disturbance, as encountered in industrial injection molding processes,21,22 a piecewise model identication method is proposed herein for practical application. Both the process model and the inherent-type load disturbance model can be simultaneously derived from a step test. Correspondingly, a control scheme consisting of a two-degree-of-freedom (2DOF) internal model control (IMC) structure plus feed-forward control is proposed for improving process operation against such a load disturbance. A practical application to the injection velocity control of an industrial injection molding machine is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed identication algorithms and control strategy. This article is organized as

10.1021/ie1015427 2010 American Chemical Society Published on Web 10/15/2010

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

11573

Figure 2. Block diagram of proposed control scheme for inherent-type disturbance rejection.

Figure 1. Illustration of step response test under nonzero initial conditions and load disturbance.

follows: Section 2 presents some guidelines on the choice of step response data for model identication. In section 3, identication algorithms are detailed for obtaining low-order process and disturbance models of FOPDT and SOPDT types. These algorithms can be applied with nonzero initial process conditions. Subsequently, a 2DOF IMC plus feed-forward control scheme is proposed in section 4 for practical applications subject to inherent-type load disturbance. Illustrative examples from the recent literature are presented in section 5 to demonstrate the effectiveness and merits of the proposed identication method and control scheme. A practical application to the injection velocity control of an injection molding machine is described in section 6. Finally, conclusions are drawn in section 7. 2. Step Response Test It is well-known that only the process transient response to a step change is useful for model identication. To effectively extract such data from a step test, it is suggested that the process output trend be monitored before the step test. If the initial (t0) < 0, a process output, y(t0), has a decreasing trend, that is, y positive step change to the input (u) is suggested, as shown in Figure 1, so that an obvious turning point in the output response can be observed and referenced to take the rst point (t1) of the step response data used for identication. Accordingly, if the initial process output has an increasing trend, a negative step change should be introduced. If a clear trend in the initial process output cannot be observed, particularly for the presence of a high noise level, either a positive or a negative step change to the process input can be used based on observations/knowledge of the process response characteristics; the magnitude of this change should be set reasonably large to yield an admissible uctuation range of the process output around its operating level. That is, the step response should be conducted within a workable range of the process output for model identication. For the presence of an inherent-type load disturbance, as illustrated in Figure 1, the corresponding turning point in the output response can be clearly observed, and it should therefore be referenced to take the starting point (td) of the load disturbance response for identication. Practically, it is suggested that td be taken slightly earlier than the time of the observed turning point to ensure identication effectiveness against measurement noise, in consideration of the time delay usually associated with process response. Hence, the step response data in the time interval [t1, td) can be used to identify a model of the pure process response without the inuence of the inherenttype load disturbance, and correspondingly, the step response data in the time interval [td, tN] from which the obtained process model response has been subtracted can be used to identify the load disturbance model, where tN can be taken roughly after the output response has recovered to a steady state.

For the case where the inherent-type load disturbance occurs at a very early stage of a step test, a reasonable division of the observed transient response data is needed for separate identication of the pure process response model and the load disturbance model to facilitate control design. That is, the number of transient response data points (M) chosen in terms of the obvious turning point in the output response should be large enough for identication of the pure process model. In general, it is suggested that M be at least 2 times larger than the number of parameters to be estimated in such an LS tting algorithm to guarantee effectiveness of the model identication, as will be illustrated by a later experimental example. To ensure a sufcient number of transient response data, a compromise can be made between the two segments of data chosen for identication of the pure process model and the inherent-type load disturbance model. For the worst case, where the obvious turning point appears at the very early stage of a step test, it has been revealed20 that the standard step test cannot allow for independent identication of the process model against the inuence from load disturbance, and therefore, a modied step test can be performed to apply a robust identication algorithm20 for identication of the pure process model. Then, the inherenttype load disturbance model can be identied by using the piecewise identication method presented in the next section. For the cases where the overall transient process response to a step change can be effectively described by a single model structure or the modeling aims at controller tuning after the inherent-type disturbance response has become steady, the identication effort might be correspondingly reduced to determining only a single low-order model for describing the dynamic response characteristics of interest in control design. In other words, there is no need to choose td any longer for model identication. It should be noted that, to obtain a good tradeoff between identication accuracy and computation efciency for the use of LS tting for parameter estimation, the number of transient response data (M) for identication of the pure process model or the load disturbance model is generally suggested to be taken in the range of 50-200. This guideline will be illustrated in the later examples. 3. Identication Algorithms The process output response to the set point and the inherenttype load disturbance can be generally expressed as Y(s) ) G(s) U(s) + Gd(s) Ud(s)

(1)

where G(s) and Gd(s) denote the process model and the disturbance model, respectively, and U(s) and Ud(s) denote the process input and the inherent-type load disturbance, respectively. For convenience of model identication, Ud(s) is herein normalized as a unity step signal, as shown in Figure 2, and correspondingly, the gain of Gd(s) reects the magnitude of the inherent-type load disturbance.

11574

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

In view of the fact that low-order FOPDT and SOPDT process models are most widely employed for control system design, the following model structures are studied here G(s) ) kp a2s2 + a1s + 1 e
-s

t 0

m-1

f(0) d0 dm-1 )

(m)

[0,t]

f(t), m g 2 (9)

It can be derived for t > that

(2)

(3) [0,t]

(2)

[0,t]

u(t) )

h + h 2 h 2 t - ht + 2 2

(10)

Gd(s) )

kd e-ds d s + 1

(3)

u(t) )

h + h 3 h 2 h 2 h 3 t t+ t 6 2 2 6

(11)

where kp is the process gain, is the process time delay, a1 and a2 are positive coefcients to reect the process dynamic characteristics and kd is the magnitude of the inherent-type load disturbance, d is the time delay of the disturbance response, and d is the time constant of the disturbance response. Note that the time delay in eq 3 can be decomposed as d ) d + td, where td is taken in terms of the observed turning point of the process response caused by the inherent-type load d disturbance. By using a time shift of td (i.e., letting td ) 0), can be separately derived for model tting of the load disturbance response in the time interval [td, tN]. Using the linear superposition principle, the time-domain response of eq 1 can be decomposed as y ) y r + yd a2y r(t) + a1y r(t) + yr(t) ) kpu(t - ) dy d(t) + yd(t) ) kdud(t - d)

(3) [0,t] (3)

(2)

[0,t]

y (t) )

y(t) - y(0)t
t 0 (2) [0,t]

(12) (13)
2

[0,t]

y (t) )
t

1 y(t) - y(0)t2 2

y (t) )

1 y (0)t y(t) - y(0)t - 2

0

(14)

Note that y(t) ) yr(t) for t < td, as shown in Figure 1. With the input description of eq 7, the time-domain response shown in eq 5 can be equivalently expressed as a2y r(t) + a1y r(t) + yr(t) ) kpu(t)

(15)

(4) (5) (6)

By triply integrating both sides of eq 15 and rearranging the resulting equation using eqs 11, 13, and 14, we obtain (t) ) T(t) where
(t) )

(16)

where yr denotes the pure process response to the input change and yd is the inherent-type load disturbance response. Note that, by letting a2 ) 0, the expression of eq 2 is reduced to an FOPDT model similar to eq 3. Hence, the following development of identication algorithms is detailed for obtaining an SOPDT model and then is briey summarized for obtaining an FOPDT model. To allow for practical identication with unsteady or nonzero initial process conditions, the initial process state for a step test is herein considered as u(t0) ) h, h R, and y(t0) * 0, which is illustrated in Figure 1, as encountered in injection molding processes.21,22 Note that, u(t0) ) 0 was assumed in the nonzero initial conditions studied in recent step response identication articles,17-19 which can be viewed as a zero-input (or normalized zero-input) case associated with a nonzero initial transient output response that might be unknown before a step test. By comparison, we change the initial process conditions to facilitate practical applications with raw step response data. 3.1. SOPDT Model. With initial process conditions as described above, by using a time shift of t0 (i.e., letting t0 ) 0), one can express the process input under a step test as u(t) )

yt (t) ) [- y t , -
(3)

()

[0,t]

( 2)

()

[0,t]

y(t), (h + h)t3 /6, t2 /2, t /2, -h /6

) [a2, a1, kp, -hkp + a2y (0) + a1y(0), hkp2 + 2a2y(0), kp3]T

(17)
Hence, using the step response data in the time interval [t1, td), as shown in Figure 1 (i.e., t0 < t1 < t2 < < tM < td) and letting ) [(t1) (t2) (tM) ]T and ) [(t1) (t2) (tM) ]T we obtain a linear LS algorithm for parameter estimation ) Accordingly, the parameter vector can be solved as ) (T)-1T

(18)

(19)

h, 0et< h + h, t g

(7)

where denotes the process time delay to be identied. For t > , it can be derived that

u(t) dt )
t 0

h dt +

(h + h) dt ) (h + h)t - h
t

(8)
Denote multiple integrals for a time function of f(t) as

Note that the rst two columns of , vectors of single and double integrals for the process output, are obviously independent of the other columns of , and the third to fth columns of are all time vectors with exponents of different indexes, so they are linearly independent of each other. Therefore, is guaranteed to be full column rank. Owing to the matrix property rank(T) ) rank(), we ensure that T is invertible for the computation of eq 19, leading to a unique solution of . Subsequently, the model parameters can be retrieved from eq 19 as

Note that initial state of the process output can be estimated from eqs 17 and 19 as y(0) ) (5) - hkp2 2a2

[] [ ]
(1) a2 (2) a1 ) (3) kp 3 (6)/ (3)

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

Mf

11575

lim (Z )/ M

(20)

exists.
Mf

lim (ZT)/ M ) 0

where ) [(t1) (t2) (tM) ]T denotes the sampled measurement noise matrix. Accordingly, a consistent parameter estimation can be obtained as ) (ZT)-1ZT

(21)

y (0) )

1 [(4) + hkp - a1y(0)] a2

(22)

Therefore, the above estimation of the initial state can be used to represent the step response test for evaluating the tting effect of the identied model under unsteady/nonzero initial process conditions. Note that, in the case of model mismatch for the identication of a higher-order process, an enhanced tting effect can be obtained by using preliminary knowledge of the initial process conditions. That is, apart from the other model parameters, the process time delay can be alternatively estimated from the redundant tting conditions in eq 17 as ) or ) (5) - 2a2y(0) hkp 1 [a y (0) + a1y(0) - (4)] hkp 2

(26)

3.2. FOPDT Model. For identication of an FOPDT model for an inherent-type load disturbance in terms of the time interval (td,tN], as shown in Figure 1, the load disturbance response can be computed as yd ) y - y r

(27)

(23)

where y r denotes the above-identied process model response in terms of the step test. Because the inherent-type load disturbance is normalized as d + td, one obtains a unity step signal, by letting td ) 0 for d ) ud(t) )

0, 0 e t < d 1, t g
d

(28)

(24)

With the disturbance description of eq 28, the time-domain response shown in eq 6 can be equivalently expressed as dy d(t) + yd(t) ) kdud(t)

or mean of the three values computed from eqs 20, 23, and 24. The best choice can be determined from model tting of the step response. Remark 1. By doubly integrating both sides of eq 15, an identication algorithm with less computation effort can be obtained in a similar way, but its identication robustness against measurement noise is inferior to that of the above algorithm. It can be seen from eq 17 that, rather than using individual output response points measured from the step test, single to triple integrals of output response points are used for parameter estimation, which facilitates the reduction of the inuence from measurement errors according to the statistical averaging principle. To guarantee parameter estimation consistency in the presence of measurement noise, the instrumental variable (IV) method23 can be used to circumvent this issue. There is, however, no uniform choice of the IV matrix for consistent estimation. A feasible choice is proposed as Z ) [z1 z2 zM ]T where zi ) [1/ ti 1/ ti2 ti3 ti2 ti 1 ]T It can be easily veried using the consistent estimation theorem given in ref 20 that the above IV satises the following two limiting conditions: The inverse of

(29)

By doubly integrating both sides of eq 29 and rearranging the resulting equation using eqs 10, 12, and 28, we can formulate a linear LS tting in the form of eq 16, for which (t) )

(t) ) t2 /2, t, 1/2 + y (0), k 2 T ) [d, kd, - kd d d d d d]

(2) y (t) [0,t] d t - 0 yd(t),

(30)

Accordingly, the model parameters can be derived using eqs 19 and 30 as

[] [ ]
d (1) kd ) (2) (4)/ (2) d

(31)

To guarantee consistent estimation against measurement noise, the corresponding IV is suggested as zi ) [1/ ti ti2 ti 1 ]T

(25) (32)

which can also be veried as satisfying the aforementioned limiting conditions for consistent estimation. Remark 2. In case different step tests are used to verify the identication effectiveness of the load disturbance model, particularly for the presence of a high noise level, different d. Therefore, choices of td will result in different values of verication of the time delay of the load disturbance model d + td. That is, model should be made in terms of d )

11576

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

verication should be made in terms of a time-domain response tting criterion (kT ) - y (kT )] / N [y
2 k)1 d s d s Nd

<

contrary, increasing d mitigates the control action so as to accommodate unexpected model mismatch. In the nominal case, that is, G ) Gm, and so for the feedforward control, there is an open-loop control for the set-point tracking. Based on the process model of eq 2, the desired system transfer function is proposed as Tr(s) ) e-s (ss + 1)2

where y d(kTs) is the disturbance model response obtained by adding a unity step change to the disturbance model as shown in eq 3, yd(kTs) is the disturbance response obtained from eq 27, Ts is the sampling period, NdTs is the transient response time, and is a user-specied threshold for model tting. Note that, for identication of an FOPDT process model in terms of the time interval [t1, td), by doubly integrating both sides of eq 15 with a2 ) 0 and rearranging the resulting equation using eqs 10 and 12, we can formulate a linear LS tting in the form of eq 16, for which (t) )

(38)

where s is an adjustable time constant for obtaining desirable set-point tracking performance. Using the nominal relationship of Tr(s) ) G(s) Cs(s), the set-point tracking controller can be inversely derived as Cs ) a2s2 + a1s + 1 kp(ss + 1)2

(t) ) -

(h + h)t2 /2, t, h /2 ) [a1, kp, - hkp + a1y(0), kp2 ]T

0

[ y(t),
t

(39)

(2)

[0,t]

y(t)

(33)

Correspondingly, the time-domain system response to a step change (r) of the set point can be derived from eq 38 as 0 yr(t) ) r 1 - 1 + t - e-(t-)/s s

Hence, the model parameters can be retrieved the same as in eq 31. Also, consistent parameter estimation against measurement noise can be obtained using the IV proposed in eq 32. 4. Control System Design Based on the identied models for both the process and the inherent-type load disturbance, a 2DOF IMC plus feed-forward control scheme is proposed for improving load disturbance rejection, which is shown in Figure 2, where Cs is the set-point tracking controller, Cf is the closed-loop feedback controller, and Fd is the feed-forward controller. According to the aforementioned normalization of the inherent-type load disturbance as a unity step signal, the process input can be derived as U(s) ) Cs(s) R(s) + Cf(s) E(s) + Fd(s) s

{[

te t>

(40)

(34)

where R(s) and E(s) denote Laplace transforms of r and e, respectively. To counter against the inherent-type load disturbance, it is ideal to let Gd(s) ) G(s) Fd(s)

which indicates that there is no overshoot for the nominal case and that the quantitative time-domain performance specication for set-point tracking can be easily satised by tuning the single adjustable parameter of s. For instance, dene the rising time, tr, as the time required to reach 95% of the set-point change (r), the tuning formula can be derived from eq 40 as tr ) 4.7439s + . The closed-loop structure set between the process input and output is used for eliminating output error in the presence of model mismatch and other process uncertainties. Note that, if model mismatch exists for the feed-forward control, the redundant control signal (ud) can be viewed as a load disturbance (denoted as di) that enters into the process input. If G ) Gm, the transfer function from ud to uf can be derived as Hdi(s) ) G(s) Cf(s)

(41)

(35)

Substituting the model forms of eqs 2 and 3 into eq 35, we obtain Fd-ideal(s) ) kd(a2s2 + a1s + 1) -(d-)s e kp(ds + 1)

which is exactly equivalent to the nominal open-loop system transfer function for set-point tracking. Hence, using the control idea developed in ref 24 for optimal load disturbance rejection, the desired closed-loop transfer function is proposed as Tf(s) ) Hdi(s) ) e-s (fs + 1)2

(36)

(42)

It can be seen that the ideal feed-forward controller is not proper. A rst-order low-pass lter, 1/(ds + 1), is therefore introduced for implementation, resulting in the expression Fd(s) ) kd(a2s2 + a1s + 1) -(d-)s e kp(ds + 1)(ds + 1)

where f is an adjustable time constant for tuning the closedloop performance for disturbance rejection. Substituting eqs 2 and 41 into eq 42, we obtain Cf ) a2s2 + a1s + 1 kp(fs + 1)2

(37)

(43)

where the lter time constant is suggested as d ) (0.1-1.0)d to adjust the feed-forward control action. When d is tuned to zero, the feed-forward control becomes ideal but tends to be sensitive to model mismatch and measurement noise. On the

which is similar to the form of Cs in eq 39. However, the tuning of Cf is subject to a stability constraint of the closedloop structure. According to IMC theory,25 tuning Cf aims

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

Table 1. Step Response Identication for Example 1 under Different Measurement Noise Levels NSR (%) 0 process model 1.2000e 8.9999s2 + 2.4001s + 1 (1.2007 ( 0.013)e(-6.0458(0.26)s (8.9946 ( 0.35)s2 + (2.4212 ( 0.36)s + 1 (1.2184 ( 0.047)e(-6.2913(0.89)s (8.4433 ( 1.25)s2 + (2.9135 ( 1.38)s + 1 (1.2531 ( 0.055)e(-7.0594(0.75)s (8.4726 ( 2.09)s2 + (3.8558 ( 1.71)s + 1
-6.04667s

11577

err 1.2 10-5

load disturbance model 0.1000e 1.0001s + 1

-1.0192s

err 2.65 10-7

5.52 10-5

(0.1019 ( 0.015)e(-1.0306(0.13)s (1.0011 ( 0.36)s + 1 (0.1123 ( 0.046)e(-0.9539(0.24)s (1.1894 ( 0.79)s + 1 (0.1405 ( 0.052)e(-0.8529(0.19)s (1.2489 ( 0.71)s + 1

2.25 10-6

10

3.81 10-3

6.04 10-5

30

4.02 10-2

9.01 10-4

at a compromise between achievable closed-loop performance for disturbance rejection and its robust stability, that is | m(s) Tf(s)| + | W(s)[1 - Tf(s)]| < 1

tting criterion of the step response error,27,28 which is dened by 1 err ) [y(kTs) - y (kTs)]2 Ns k)1 where y(kTs) and y (kTs) denote the process and model responses, respectively, to a unity step change and NsTs is the transient response time or the settling time. The sampling period is taken as Ts ) 0.01 s for all simulation tests. 5.1. Example 1. Consider the second-order process studied in ref 17 Y(s) ) e-s 1.2e-6s U(s) + U (s) s+1 d 9s + 2.4s + 1
2

(44)

Ns

where m(s) )[G(s) - Gm(s)]/G(s) denes the process multiplicative uncertainty and W(s) is a weighting function of the closed-loop sensitivity function, Sf(s) ) 1 - Tf(s). For instance, W(s) ) 1/s can be taken for a step change in the load disturbance that enters into the process input. Decreasing f can improve the disturbance rejection performance of the closed-loop structure, but degrades its robust stability in the presence of process uncertainties. In contrast, increasing f can strengthen the robust stability of the closed-loop structure, but in exchange for a degradation in its disturbance rejection performance. According to the small gain theorem,26 the closed-loop structure for disturbance rejection holds robust stability if and only if | m(s) Tf(s) | < 1

(45)

Substituting eq 42 into eq 45, we obtain the robust stability constraint for tuning f

f22 + 1 > m(j),

g 0

(46)

which can be intuitively checked by observing whether the magnitude plot of the left-hand side of eq 46 is larger than the right-hand side for [0,). Therefore, given an upper bound of m as is usually specied in practice (e.g., the maximal range of the model parameters), the admissible tuning range of f can be numerically ascertained from eq 46. 5. Simulation Results To demonstrate the effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed identication algorithms, illustrative examples from the recent literature are presented in this section. Example 1 is given to demonstrate the achievable accuracy of the proposed algorithms for identifying rst- and second-order processes, together with measurement noise tests for demonstrating identication robustness. Example 2 is presented to show the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms for the identication of higher-order processes. For all cases, the number of transient response data is taken as M ) 100 for computation. For assessment of the model tting error, we use a widely used

Note that an FOPDT model studied by Bi et al.8 is used to represent the dynamics of an inherent-type load disturbance. For illustration, assume that the initial process conditions are (t0) ) 0.01, and u(t0) ) 1.0. A step change of h y(t0) ) 1.2, y ) 0.2 is added to the set point for identication at t0 ) 3 s, and an inherent-type load disturbance with a magnitude of -0.1 is added through the above FOPDT model to the process at t ) 18 s. For illustration, td ) 19 s, corresponding to an obvious turning point of the process response as shown in Figure 1, is chosen for load disturbance identication. The process transient response in the time interval [10, 19) s is employed to derive the process model. The results are listed in Table 1, along with the tting error for the transient response used for identication. It can be seen that good accuracy is obtained by the proposed algorithm. Subsequently, using the load disturbance response estimated in the time interval [19, 26] s, that is, subtracting the resulting SOPDT process model response from the real step response, an FOPDT disturbance model is therefore derived as listed in Table 1, which also indicates good accuracy. Note that the gain of the FOPDT disturbance model is reduced to one-tenth, as the magnitude of the load disturbance is normalized to unity for model identication. The tting error for the load disturbance response is correspondingly evaluated in terms of the transient response in the time interval [19, 26] s. To demonstrate identication robustness in the presence of measurement noise, assume that a random noise of N(0, 2 ) 0.0012%), causing a noise-to-signal ratio (NSR, dened as {mean[abs(noise)]/mean[abs(signal)]}) of 2%, is added to the output measurement. By performing 100 Monte Carlo tests in terms of varying the seed of the noise generator from 1 to 100, the proposed algorithms based on the above time intervals

11578

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

Figure 3. Fitting effect of step response for example 2.

of the step response data for identication give the results listed in Table 1, where the model parameters are the mean values for the 100 Monte Carlo tests along with the sample standard deviations. The results for NSR ) 10% and 30% are also listed in Table 1 to demonstrate the achievable identication accuracy and robustness. Note that, for NSR ) 10% and the absence of a load disturbance but with nonzero initial conditions of y(t0) ) 0.2, y (t0) ) 0.01. and u(t0) ) 0, Ahmed et al.17 gave the identication results based on 100 Monte Carlo tests using a settling time length of tN ) 50 s and M ) 500 for computation Gm(s) ) (1.2 ( 0.007)e(-5.95(0.36)s (9.1 ( 0.8)s2 + (2.41 ( 0.16)s + 1

which shows obviously better accuracy compared to the results listed in Table 1. When the same time length of the transient response to the step change of the set point is used for identication of the process model, the proposed algorithm gives the following results using M ) 100 for computation Gm(s) ) (1.2 ( 0.0003)e(-6.065(0.22)s (8.98 ( 0.21)s2 + (2.39 ( 0.09)s + 1

It can be seen that the proposed method can also give very good accuracy in the absence of a load disturbance but with nonzero initial process conditions, thus demonstrating good applicability for various step tests in practice. 5.2. Example 2. Consider the high-order process studied in refs 9 and 10 Y(s) ) 1 1 U(s) + Ud(s) 5 (s + 1) (s + 1)8

Note that the eighth-order process model studied by Bi et al.8 is used to describe the dynamics of an inherent-type load disturbance. Assume that the initial process conditions are y(t0) ) 1.0, y (t0) ) 0, and u(t0) ) 1.0. A step change of h ) 0.2 is
time interval (s) [2, 12] process model 0.9976e-1.72s 3.4825s2 + 3.1803s + 1 0.9981e-1.74s 3.4021s2 + 3.1862s + 1 0.9963e-1.68s 3.6297s2 + 3.1551s + 1 err 3.42 10-4

added to the set point at t0 ) 0 s, and an inherent-type load disturbance with a magnitude of -0.1 is added to the process at t ) 10 s. The corresponding step response is shown in Figure 3. Using the process transient response in the time interval of [2, 12] s, the proposed identication formulas of eqs 17-20 give an SOPDT process model, Gm ) 0.9976e-2.06s/(3.4825s2 + 3.1803s + 1), corresponding to err ) 1.74 10-3 for the time interval [0, 12] s. Note that further enhanced tting accuracy can be obtained using known initial process conditions and the corresponding identication formula of eq 23 as Gm ) 0.9976e-1.72s/(3.4825s2 + 3.1803s + 1), which corresponds to err ) 3.42 10-4. Then, using the load disturbance response estimated in the time interval [14, 30] s with a choice of td ) 12 s that is slightly ahead of the observed turning point at t ) 14 s (i.e., subtracting the above SOPDT model response from the real step response), an FOPDT disturbance model is therefore derived as Gd ) 0.1045e-3.03s/(3.7663s + 1), corresponding to err ) 2.14 10-4 for the transient response in the time interval [12, 30] s. The combined step response of the above SOPDT process model and the FOPDT disturbance model for representing the real step response are also plotted in Figure 3 for comparison, which demonstrates the good tting accuracy. Note that the assumed inherent-type disturbance dynamics that was studied as a high-order process by Bi et al.8 was identied as Gm ) 1.06e-4.94s/(3.81s + 1), corresponding to err ) 7.7 10-4 in terms of an unity step test, and by comparison, the wellknown graphical area method2 gave Gm ) 1.0e-4.3s/(4.3s + 1), corresponding to err ) 2.2 10-3. To demonstrate identication robustness to different choices of the time length of the transient response associated with the turning point chosen for piecewise model identication, Table 2 lists the identication results for using different time lengths of transient response, which indicates that the proposed method is not sensitive to different choices of the turning point and transient response data for model tting. To demonstrate the achievable control effect based on the identied models, the proposed control scheme shown in Figure 2 is applied in comparison with the standard 2DOF IMC control structure. For the above initial process conditions and the setpoint change with an inherent-type load disturbance as in the above step test, the control results are shown in Figure 4. It can be seen that using the same control parameters (i.e., s ) 0.5 and f ) 1.0), the standard 2DOF IMC control structure based on using the identied SOPDT process model gives similar setpoint tracking performance but with better load disturbance rejection, compared to using the real process model. To obtain the same disturbance rejection performance, the tuning parameter for Cf, f, should be increased to 1.6 for use of the identied SOPDT process model, which, in fact, facilitates better closedloop stability according to the robust stability analysis in section

Table 2. Identication Results for Example 2 Using Transient Responses of Different Time Lengths time interval (s) [14, 30] inherent disturbance model 0.1045e-3.03s 3.7663s + 1 0.1027e-3.39s 3.2801s + 1 0.1015e-3.69s 2.9068s + 1 err 2.14 10-4

[2, 13]

3.22 10-4

[15, 30]

2.01 10-4

[2, 11]

4.28 10-4

[16, 30]

1.91 10-4

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

11579

Figure 6. Open-loop step test for injection velocity response.

Figure 4. Comparison of control effects for example 2.

shown in eq 17 that the number of parameters to be estimated [dim()] is 6. To ensure identication effectiveness, the turning point is chosen at t ) 0.13 s for determining the starting point of the load disturbance response. Accordingly, the transient response in the time interval [0.05, 0.13] s is used to identify the dynamic response of injection velocity to the valve opening, corresponding to a value of M ) 17, which complies with the guideline given in section 2 for piecewise model identication. By using a low-pass third-order Butterworth lter with a cutoff frequency of fc ) 20 Hz for predenoising the measured data, the proposed identication method gives the SOPDT model Gm ) 71.1198e-0.05s 1.0792 10 s + 6.6425 10-3s + 1
-4 2

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of injection molding machine.

4. Note that, based on the identied FOPDT disturbance model, the proposed control scheme with s ) 0.5, f ) 1.6, and d ) 2.0 apparently gives an improved load disturbance response, demonstrating well that identifying both models of the process and the inherent-type load disturbance from a step test facilitates advanced control design and performance. 6. Experimental Results Consider the injection velocity control of an industrial reciprocating screw injection molding machine (Chen-Hsong, model JM88-MKIII-C), a schematic diagram of which is shown in Figure 5. The injection velocity is regulated by a proportional valve (4WRP-10-63S-1X/G24Z24/W), denoted as PV1 in Figure 5, and is measured by an MTS Temposonics III displacement and velocity transducer (RH-N-0200M-RG0-1-V0-1). A 16-bit data acquisition card (PCL-816) from Advantech is used for analog-to-digital (A/D) and digital-to-analog (D/A) conversions. For illustration, a rectangular mold of length 150 mm, width 200 mm, and thickness 2 mm, corresponding to a weight of 28 g, is used for the injection molding experiments. The plastic material is high-density polyethylene (HDPE). For an open-loop step test through a sudden change of 40% in the valve opening of PV1, the injection velocity response measured over a sampling period of 0.005 s is plotted in Figure 6. It can be seen that the injection velocity response has an obvious overshoot for startup from an initial value of -2 m/s and then drops to a roughly steady value about 25 m/s in the time interval [0.1, 0.2] s. Because of the presence of mold cavity pressure that increases gradually during the lling process, the injection velocity decreases continuously until the end of the lling process. In view of the obvious overshoot in the step response, an SOPDT model structure is employed for identication. It can be seen from the corresponding LS tting algorithm

Then, by letting td ) 0.12 s in consideration of the time delay, the load disturbance response in the time interval [0.13, 2.5] s, estimated by subtracting the above SOPDT model response from the real step response, is used for modeling the inuence caused by mold cavity pressure. An FOPDT disturbance model is therefore derived as Gd ) 23.025e-0.13s 0.4726s + 1

For comparison, the SOPDT model response and the combined model response for representing the real step test are also plotted in Figure 6, which shows the good tting effect. Based on the identied models, the proposed control scheme is applied for closed-loop control of the injection velocity at a desired constant value, IV ) 30 m/s, for the lling process of injection molding. For implementation, the control sampling period is taken as Ts ) 0.01 s, and the one-step-backward discretization operator, e (kTs) ) {e(kTs) - e[(k - 1)Ts]}/Ts, is used for computational simplicity. Experimental results based on the tuning parameters of s ) 0.2, f ) 0.5, and d ) 0.1 are plotted in Figure 7. It can be seen from Figure 7a that fast set-point tracking without overshoot is obtained by the proposed control method. A slight drop of the injection velocity during the time interval [0.6, 1] s is due to model mismatch for describing the inuence caused by the mold cavity pressure, which, however, is quickly compensated by the feedback controller (Cf). Figure 7b shows the valve opening (as a percentage) and the controller outputs. For comparison, the control result obtained using the standard 2DOF IMC scheme is also plotted in Figure 7a, which indicates that the set-point tracking is obviously slower and the lling time is longer, when the feed-forward control based on the identied disturbance model is not used. To further demonstrate the achievable control effect, assume that the injection velocity prole is prescribed for molding a

11580

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

identied time delay of the injection velocity response, and correspondingly, the tuning parameters of Cs and Cf are adjusted as s ) 0.05 and f ) 0.1 to deal with the step change, so that the implemental constraint of moderating a step change of the set point into a ramp type21,22 is no longer necessary. 7. Conclusions For step response identication subject to inherent-type load disturbance in practical applications, we have proposed a piecewise model identication method that allows direct use of the raw step response data for simultaneously identifying the pure process model and the inherent-type load disturbance model from a step test, based on intuitive decomposition of the transient step response data. Identication algorithms have been detailed for obtaining the widely practiced low-order models of FOPDT and SOPDT types. Note that these identication algorithms can be transparently extended to obtain higher-order models for describing more complex dynamic response characteristics of the process and the inherent-type load disturbance. Illustrative examples have been used to demonstrate that good identication accuracy and robustness can be obtained by the proposed identication method. Accordingly, a 2DOF IMC plus feed-forward control scheme has been proposed for improving process operation against inherent-type load disturbances. The application to velocity control of injection molding has been used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed identication and control method. Acknowledgment This work was supported in part by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council under Project 613107. Literature Cited
(1) Seborg, D. E.; Edgar, T. F.; Mellichamp, D. A. Process Dynamics and Control, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2004. (2) stro m, K. J.; Ha gglund, T. AdVanced PID Control, 2nd ed.; Instrument Society of America: Research Triangle Park, NC, 2005. (3) Leva, A.; Donida, F. Quality indices for the autotuning of industrial regulators. IET Control Theory Appl. 2009, 3, 170180. (4) Rake, H. Step response and frequency response methods. Automatica 1980, 16, 519526. (5) Huang, C. T.; Huang, M. F. Estimation of the second-order parameters from the process transients by simple calculation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993, 32, 228230. (6) Rangaiah, G. P.; Krishnaswamy, P. R. Estimating second-order dead time parameters from underdamped process transients. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1996, 51, 11491155. (7) Huang, H. P.; Lee, M. W.; Chen, C. L. A system of procedures for identication of simple models using transient step response. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 19031915. (8) Bi, Q.; Cai, W. J.; Lee, E. L.; Wang, Q. G.; Hang, C. C.; Zhang, Y. Robust identication of rst-order plus dead-time model from step response. Control Eng. Pract. 1999, 7, 7177. (9) Wang, Q. G.; Guo, X.; Zhang, Y. Direct identication of continuous time delay systems from step responses. J. Process Control 2001, 11, 531 542. (10) Wang, Q. G.; Zhang, Y. Robust identication of continuous systems with dead-time from step responses. Automatica 2001, 37, 377390. (11) Liu, T.; Gao, F. A frequency domain step response identication method for continuous-time processes with time delay. J. Process Control 2010, 20, 800809. (12) Piroddi, L.; Leva, A. Step response classication for model-based autotuning via polygonal curve approximation. J. Process Control 2007, 17, 641652. (13) Garnier, H.; Mensler, M.; Richard, A. Continuous-time model identication from sampled data: implementation issues and performance evaluation. Int. J. Control 2003, 76, 13371357.

Figure 7. Closed-loop control of injection velocity during the lling process.

Figure 8. Tracking an injection velocity prole during the lling process.

product of convex shape, as shown in Figure 8a (dashed line). The proposed control method with the above tuning parameters gives the results shown in Figure 8a,b. Note that, for the setpoint change from 30 to 40 m/s or the inverse, the output of the set-point tracking controller Cs is implemented one sampling step ahead of the set-point change to compensate for the

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

(14) Garnier, H., Wang, L., Eds. Identication of Continuous-time Models from Sampled Data; Springer-Verlag: London, 2008. (15) Goodwin, G. C.; Agu ero, J. C.; Welsh, J. S.; Yuz, J. I.; Adams, G. J.; Rojas, C. R. Robust identication of process models from plant data. J. Process Control 2008, 18, 810820. (16) Ahmed, S.; Huang, B.; Shah, S. L. Novel identication method from step response. Control Eng. Pract. 2007, 15, 545556. (17) Ahmed, S.; Huang, B.; Shah, S. L. Identication from step responses with transient initial conditions. J. Process Control 2008, 18, 121130. (18) Liu, M.; Wang, Q. G.; Huang, B.; Hang, C. C. Improved identication of continuous-time delay processes from piecewise step tests. J. Process Control 2007, 17, 5157. (19) Wang, Q. G.; Liu, M.; Hang, C. C.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, W. X. Integral identication of continuous-time delay systems in the presence of unknown initial conditions and disturbances from step tests. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 49294936. (20) Liu, T.; Gao, F. Robust step-like identication of low-order process model under nonzero initial conditions and disturbance. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2008, 53, 26902695. (21) Tian, Y. C.; Gao, F. Injection velocity control of thermoplastic injection molding via a double controller scheme. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 33963406.

11581

(22) Tan, K. K.; Huang, S. N.; Jiang, X. Adaptive control of ram velocity for the injection moulding machine. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2001, 9, 663671. (23) So derstro m, T.; Stoica, P. System Identication; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1989. (24) Liu, T.; Zhang, W. D.; Gu, D. Y. Analytical two-degree-of-freedom tuning design for open-loop unstable processes with time delay. J. Process Control 2005, 15, 559572. (25) Morari, M.; Zariou, E. Robust Process Control; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1989. (26) Zhou, K. M.; Doyle, J. C.; Glover, K. Robust and Optimal Control; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996. (27) Yu, C. C. Autotuning of PID Controllers: Relay Feedback Approach, 2nd ed.; Springer-Verlag: London, 2006. (28) Wang, Q. G.; Lee, T. H.; Lin, C. Relay Feedback: Analysis, Identication and Control; Springer-Verlag: London, 2003.

ReceiVed for reView July 19, 2010 ReVised manuscript receiVed August 30, 2010 Accepted September 26, 2010 IE1015427