Simo Miso

LECTURE FOUR
054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB
054461 Process Control Laboratory LECTURE 4: SIMO and MISO CONTROL

Daniel R. Lewin Department of Chemical Engineering Technion, Haifa, Israel
4-1
PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin
SIMO and MISO Control
Introduction
This part of the course explores opportunities to improve the performance of simple SISO control:
Additional process outputs (measurements) may be available these cases are referred to as SIMO (single input, multiple outputs)
For example, when controlling a reactor using the flow of cooling water, both the reactor temperature and the temperature of the coolant effluent can be measured.
More than one process input which affects the process output can be manipulated or measured - these cases are referred to as MISO (multiple inputs, single output)
For example, the temperature of the reactor feed (a disturbance) can be measured, and the coolant flow rate can be manipulated. Both of these affect the reactor temperature.
4-2 PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin SIMO and MISO Control
Daniel R. Lewin, Technion
LECTURE FOUR
Objectives
On completing this section, you should be able to: Identify processing situations that require cascade control. Correctly design a cascade control system. Correctly design a feedforward control system.
4-3
SIMO Systems
In these control systems, with only one manipulated variable, a number of process outputs (measurements) may be available. The most commonly used example of a SIMO system is a cascade control system
This involve one or more inner, slave loops, and an outer, master loop.
4-4
LECTURE FOUR
Cascade Control
Objectives: To suppress disturbance d2 before it influences primary variable y1.

Flow Valve Position
2 2
1
Valve hysteresis
The inner loop should be aggressive enough to eliminate the effect of these disturbances.
To compensate for nonlinearities in the inner loop (e.g. valve hysteresis).

4-5 PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin
Cascade Control (Contd)
Analysis. Inner loop: y2 =
1 + p2c2 = d2
d2 +
p2c2 yS 1 + p2c2 + L2 yS
Design Procedure.
p1d2 + d1 pLc + 1 2 1 yS Outer loop: y1 = 1 + p1L2c1 1 + p1L2c1
Design outer loop first, as is the inner loop transfer function is L2 = 1 i.e. assume BW(L2) >> BW(L1). Tune outer loop filter to meet performance specifications. Compute BW(L1). Then tune inner loop to be fast enough.
LECTURE FOUR
Cascade Control (Contd)

Design Procedure. Design outer loop first, as is the inner loop transfer function is L2 = 1 i.e. assume BW(L2) >> BW(L1). Tune outer loop filter to meet stability and performance specifications. Compute BW(L1). Design inner loop to ensure:
Robust stability BW(L2) > 5-10BW(L1). Proportional band of inner loop is reasonable and on-off control of inner loop is avoided.
If any of the above are not satisfied, return to and increase the filter time constant of the outer loop.
4-7
Example Cascade Controllers

Example. Vessel level control.
Outer loop LC primary loop Inner loop FC slave loop How does this cascade control system improve on the performance of a LC using the product valve ?
Example. Reactor temperature control.

Outer loop TC on T primary loop Inner loop TC on TJ slave loop
4-8 PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin
How does this cascade control system improve on the performance of a TC using FJ ?
LECTURE FOUR
Cascade Design - Class Exercise

Design control systems for an exothermic reactor. Note that T responds to TJ according to: 1.5 2s T (s ) = e TJ ( s ) 5s + 1 Also, TJ responds to FJ and TJ0 according to: k 0.5 0.02s TJ ( s ) = e 0.02s FJ (s ) + e TJ0 ( s ) s +1 s +1 The valve gain is uncertain, 0.5 k 1.5, a result of valve hysteresis. Design a cascade control system, limited to PIDs, that gives the fastest possible response of temperature to its set point, while being almost insensitive to step-like disturbances in TJ0. Compare with the best SISO PID controller.
Cascade Design - Solution

Single PID case. In this case, FJ is used to control T directly. Thus the transfer function is: 1.5k T (s ) = e 2.02s FJ ( s ) , 0.5 k 1.5 (5s + 1 )(s + 1 ) A Pad approximation for the delay term gives the model: 1.5 ( 1.01s + 1 ) (s ) p ( 5s + 1 )(1.01s + 1 )( s + 1 ) This is a third order transfer function. The most accurate second order approximation is: 1.5 ( 1.01s + 1 ) (s ) = p (5s + 1 )(1.01s + 1) 0.666 ( 5s + 1 ) ( single PID) The IMC controller is: q ( s ) ( s + 1 )
LECTURE FOUR

Single PID case (Cond). Next, the multiplicative uncertainty is computed:
2.25 e
2.02s
A m (s) =
=
(5s+1 )( s +1 )
(5s+(1)(1.01s+)1)
1.5 1.01s +1
1.5( 1.01s +1 ) (5s +1)(1.01s +1) 1.5 2.02 s 1.01s +1 e s +1 1.01s +1 1.01s +1 1.01s +1
1 A m single loop
The best BW attainable by a single PID controller, computed using MATLAB is c = 0.78 rad/min. Thus, set to 1.3 min.

Cascade design. The transfer function seen by 1 A m single loop the outer loop controller is: 1.5 2s p (s ) = e 5s + 1 A Pad approximation for the 1 A m cascade inner loop delay term gives the model: 1.5 ( s + 1 ) (s ) p ( 5s + 1)( s + 1) 0.666 ( 5s + 1 ) The IMC controller is: q ( s ) ( s + 1 ) Next, the multiplicative uncertainty is computed as before, giving the approximate bandwidth, c = 1.48 rad/min. Thus, set to 0.5 min.
LECTURE FOUR

Cascade design (Contd). To complete the design, the inner loop must be designed. The process seen by the inner loop controller is:
p1 ( s ) =
The inner loop bandwidth must be 5-10 times larger than that of the outer loop. Lets shoot for 15 rad/min. The simplest inner loop controller would be a PI controller, based on the model: ( s ) = ( s + 1 )1 . The IMC controller is: q ( s ) = ( s + 1 ) ( s + 1 ) p Here, the multiplicative uncertainty is: A m (s) = 1.5e 0.02s 1
This approximately limits the bandwidth to c = 35 rad/min !
The cascade control system calls for an inner PI loop (1 = 1/15 min) and an outer PID loop (2 = 0.5 min). This should respond about three times as fast as the best single loop PID controller.
k e 0.02s , 0.5 k 1.5 s +1
SIMULINK Simulation Model

= 1.3 min
KC = 15
Single-loop
= 0.5 min
Cascade
SIMULINK model to simulate comparison between single-loop and cascade control

LECTURE FOUR
Cascade Design Simulation Results
Servo response of single PID controller. Note the large effect of uncertainty on the responses, and the sluggish response; it cannot be faster!
4-15
Servo response of cascade controller. Note that the inner loop almost eliminates the effect of uncertainty, and the significantly faster response.
Cascade Design Simulation Results
Regulatory response of single PID controller. The effect of a disturbance in the cooling water feed temperature is rejected very sluggishly!
4-16
Regulatory response of cascaded controller. The inner loop efficiently eliminates the effect of the same disturbance (by design).
LECTURE FOUR
MISO Systems
These control systems are characterized by more than one process input, but only one output. Examples include, but are not limited to: Split-range control.
In these systems, at least two distinct control variables are manipulated by the same controller, to regulate a single output variable.
Feedforward control.
Here, control action is computed on the basis of a prediction of the effect of a measured disturbance on the process output. As will be seen, feedforward control action is usually augmented to a feedback control system.
Split-range Control
Example: Exothermic batch reactor control. If the controller needs to bring the reactor contents to ignition (by heating), and subsequently remove heat of reaction, a splitrange control configuration is called for. Several possible implementations are illustrated below. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each.
1 0 Uc 3 1 Uh 9 P (psig) 15 C 0 Uc 3 Uh 9 P (psig) 15 C
4-18
LECTURE FOUR
Feedforward Control
A better arrangement for disturbance rejection (assuming the disturbance is measured). p +c p y = d f d 1 + pc
Ideally, cf =
Problems.
pd p
If p is NMF, cf as defined above can be unstable and/or noncausal (or both). The FF controller, cf, and the feedback controller, c, cannot be designed independently.
FB/FF: Pros and Cons

Advantages 1. 2. 3. Acts before effect of disturbance is felt. Good for NMP systems. Does not affect stability. 1. 2. 3. 4. Disadvantages Feedforward Control Requires measurement of all disturbances. Sensitive to process variations. Requires good process models. Cannot control open-loop unstable processes. Only acts after disturbances effect output. Performance poor for NMP systems. May create instability.
Feedback Control 1. 2. Does not require disturbances to be measured. Can be made robust to model errors. 1. 2. 3.
4-20
10
LECTURE FOUR
Example of FB + FF Control
Design a control system for an an exothermic reactor, using the coolant valve as the manipulated variable. The following measurements are available: (1) feed temperature, (2) reactor temperature, (3) coolant flow rate.
FF compensation for Tf. Outer FB loop TC primary loop
Inner FB loop FC slave loop
Explain the reasons for selecting the above configuration, and the disadvantages of dropping each of its three components.
Class Exercise Revisited

F Continuing the example explored with cascade controllers, suppose the feed flow rate is an important (measured) disturbance, so that the reactor temperature responds as: 1.5 2s 3 T (s ) = e TJ (s ) e 4 s F ( s ) 5s + 1 10s + 1 Design a combined FB cascade and FF control system, and compare its regulatory performance to that of the cascade system alone. Solution:
The FF controller is: cF = pD p = 2e 2s ( 5s + 1) (10s + 1 )

The previous SIMULINK model is modified and tested.
11
LECTURE FOUR
SIMULINK Simulation Model

pD(s)
Cascade only FF Controller Note where the FF action enters Cascade + FF
SIMULINK model to simulate comparison between cascade and cascade + feedforward control
FF Performance Simulation Results
Regulatory response of cascade system to a feed rate disturbance. The feed disturbance is sluggishly rejected using only feedback.
4-24
Regulatory response of cascade controller augmented by feedforward action. In this case, FF action is very efficient!
12
LECTURE FOUR
Summary
On completing this section, you should be able to: Identify processing situations that require special treatment such as cascade, override, auctioneering, feedforward and ratio control,
and be able to conceptually design these systems.
Correctly design a cascade control system,

recognizing that to be effective, the inner loop of a cascade system must be an order of magnitude or more faster than the outer loop.
Correctly design a feedforward control system,

recognizing that it generally needs to be implemented together with feedback control.
13

Simo Miso

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simo Miso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LECTURE FOUR

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

054461 Process Control Laboratory LECTURE 4: SIMO and MISO CONTROL

PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

SIMO and MISO Control

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

SIMO and MISO Control

PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

SIMO and MISO Control

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

Objectives: To suppress disturbance d2 before it influences primary variable y1.

To compensate for nonlinearities in the inner loop (e.g. valve hysteresis).

Cascade Control (Contd)

Analysis. Inner loop: y2 =

p1d2 + d1 pLc + 1 2 1 yS Outer loop: y1 = 1 + p1L2c1 1 + p1L2c1

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

Cascade Control (Contd)

PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

SIMO and MISO Control

Example Cascade Controllers

Example. Reactor temperature control.

SIMO and MISO Control

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

Cascade Design - Class Exercise

Cascade Design - Solution

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

Cascade Design - Solution

Cascade Design - Solution

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

Cascade Design - Solution

k e 0.02s , 0.5 k 1.5 s +1

SIMULINK Simulation Model

SIMULINK model to simulate comparison between single-loop and cascade control

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

Cascade Design Simulation Results

PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Cascade Design Simulation Results

PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

FB/FF: Pros and Cons

PROCESS CONTROL LAB - (c) Daniel R. Lewin

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

Inner FB loop FC slave loop

Class Exercise Revisited

The FF controller is: cF = pD p = 2e 2s ( 5s + 1) (10s + 1 )

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054461 PROCESS CONTROL LAB

SIMULINK Simulation Model

Cascade only FF Controller Note where the FF action enters Cascade + FF