Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: The industrial challenge polymer control problem posed by Chylla and
Haase has been solved by a variant of Quantitative Feedback Theory. This is
facilitated by a transfer function model with a set of uncertain parameters, arrived
at after simplifying and linearizing the nonlinear model. The control algorithm only
requires the reaction temperature measurement, does not involve any complicated
parameter estimation, and is structurally of low complexity. Simulation studies
with the nonlinear plant model demonstrate the efficacy of this controller.
Keywords: Robust control, Temperature control, Semibatch reactor, Emulsion
polymerization, Quantitative feedback theory
1. INTRODUCTION
High value added specialty chemicals are often
produced in semibatch mode. Control of semibatch reactors is difficult, thanks to the unsteady
state nature of the process, complex nonlinear
behaviour and highly uncertain dynamics. Chylla
and Haase (1993b) have given details of such
a reactor as a challenge control problem. There
have been only a few solutions to this problem
(Helbig et al., 1996; Clarke-Pringle and MacGregor, 1997; Ryali and Moudgalya, 1998).
Helbig et al. (1996) and Clarke-Pringle and MacGregor (1997) have used model predictive control strategies to solve this problem. There have
been some inconsistencies in the formulation of
the problem (Chylla and Haase, 1993a; Helbig
et al., 1996) If the initial charge refers to the
polymer only, it becomes an easy problem. Ryali
and Moudgalya (1998) solve the easy problem
using a variant of Quantitative Feedback Theory.
1
Table 1. Bounds on
1min (dimensionless)
1max (dimensionless)
2min (dimensionless)
2max (dimensionless)
min (Btu/f t2 /min/o F )
U
max (Btu/f t2 /min/o F )
U
hmin (f t2 )
A
hmax (f t2 )
A
1.73
16.65
5.35 103
0.8
0.469
2.37
6.59
9.33
that the required efforts for with and without delays are about the same. Hence, we use the model,
with delays assumed zero, to design control:
dx
= G1 (x) F(x) + G2 (x, c)
(2)
dt
Assuming that we can get perfect control, we
replace F(x) with F(xd ):
dx
= G1 (x) F(xd ) + G2 (x, c)
(3)
dt
Furthermore, as the variation in F(xd )(t) with
time is slow, we replace it with a constant matrix
Ah )]T , where,
and Ah are the con = [
F
(U
, U
0.4
stant replacements of (xd ), U (xd ) and Ah (xd ),
respectively. To account for the variation in the
, and
latter parameters with time, we allow
, U
Kp can be written as
Kp = K p 1 K p 2
(4)
fv (c(t))
x5
(5)
(6)
(7)
Pc (t) 3
12
100
Pc (t) + 6
12
100
6
R(c(t)/50) = R
, which is obtained as
Pc is varied between 6 psig and 0 psig. This
plot can be seen to be bound by the family of
lines:
Lc = {m
Pc
6
| 6 Pc 0; m [mmin , mmax ]}
m kvc
Tinlet
Pc
6
n01
d01
d03
d12
d14
d22
6 Pc (t) 0
Pc
6
3.48 102
2.02 102
1.62 104
3.937
0.0449
1.493
n11
d02
d11
d13
d21
d23
6.62 103
3.49 102
7.66 103
0.029
1.498
0.03
0 Pc (t) 6
(8)
(9)
K(s + 0.1)
(0.0695s + 1)(0.001s + 1)
K(s + 0.1)
C1 (s) =
(0.0695s + 1)
(14)
Fig. 5. Jacket inlet temperature: Summer operation, i = 1.2, 1/hf = 0.004; Solid line - actual
profile; Circles - ideal profile
the reaction temperature is at its setpoint value.
These assumptions are relaxed later.
For brevity, we show the simulation results for
product A only. Fig. 4-7 show the results of the
closed loop simulation for two extreme situations:
summer operation with i = 1.2 and 1/hf =
0.004, and winter operation with i = 0.8 and
1/hf = 0. Fig. 4, 5 correspond to the case when
there is maximum exothermicity, whereas Fig. 6,7
correspond to the minimum exothermicity case.
In both the cases, the heat transfer surface fouling
coefficient is at its maximum value. Deviations in
the reaction temperature about the setpoint are
controlled to well within the desired limit of 1o F .
The sudden stoppage of the monomer feed after
70 minutes into the reaction causes the derivative
of the reaction temperature to increase suddenly.
Since the controller has a large lead (derivative)
action, this causes a relatively sharp dip in the
jacket inlet temperature for a very short period
of time. This explains the dip in the reaction
temperature by about 0.30.4o F at around t = 70
mins. The lead action is again responsible for the
rather sluggish response, subsequently.
Using the approach of Ryali and Moudgalya
(1998), it has been found that noise effects will be
small if the power spectral density (PSD) of has
all its components concentrated in the high frequency region beyond 104 rad/min (26.5 Hz). To
Fig. 7. Jacket inlet temperature: Winter operation, i = 0.8, 1/hf = 0.004; Solid line - actual
profile; Circles - ideal profile
test this conjecture, as suggested by Astrom and
Wittenmark (1994, page 153), a high frequency
sinusoidal noise signal with amplitude 0.2o F and
frequency 2650 Hz was added to the temperature
measurement. Simulation results have confirmed
this conjecture to be true. Since temperature measurement noise is typically a high frequency signal,
it should be possible to choose a measurement
device with such noise statistics.
This controller is able to handle well 25% deviation in process delays as well.
The seriousness of the assumption of initial temperature being at the setpoint is checked now. We
would like to know whether all deviations in the
range [179 181] can be tolerated for product A.
Simulations show that the controller C(s) allows
x3 (0) to take values in the interval [179.2, 181]o F
- see Fig. 8. Since the monomer feed comes in at a
lower temperature, the reaction temperature dips
slightly below x3 (0), hence the allowable lower
bound on x3 (0) has to be at least 179.2o F .
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
i
k0
Kp
kvc
kvh
M Wm
mc
m
c
mw
R
Tamb
Tinlet
Tsteam
1
2
p
6400
x3 +460
G1 (3, 1) = (ik0 e
6400
x3 +460
)M Wm x1
(x4 + x5 ) 2x3
2mc cpc
(x4 (t 2 ) + x5 (t 2 )) 2x3 (t 2 )
G1 (5, 2) =
2mc cpc
G1 (4, 2) =
c(t)
0 c(t) 49
kvc (R)( 50 ) (Tinlet x5 )
c(t) = 50
Kp = 0
k h (R)( c(t)
50 2) (T
steam x5 ) 51 c(t) 100
v
= (i
k0 )e6400/(x3d +460) x1d (t)
= M Wm p11
= M Wm p13
= p11 [M Wm (cpm cps )x3d
+ (Hp )]/D(xd (t))
Ah (U A)loss + p21 x1d (t)(cpm cps )]
p33 = [ U
p13
p21
p23
p31