Model-predictive control can solve valve problem

ControlGlobal.com
CONTROL columnist Greg McMillan addresses the use of fine adjustment valves to
reduce process variability and suggests that now is a fine time to break away from old
valve problems and into model-predictive control.
By Greg McMillan, CONTROL columnist
IN THE OLD days, we used small and large valves with the idea that the small valve
would extend the rangeability of the manipulated flow for low loads. The valves were
split ranged with the split range point set at the classical value of 50%. The split range
was typically done in the positioner. Of course, the big valve tended to get stuck in the
seat where the friction was highest, especially if the valve was designed for tight shutoff
or the plug stayed in the seat for long periods of time.
As a result, some ingenious engineers devised a scheme in which a pressure switch
tripped and energized solenoid valves. This froze or closed the small valve, and
preloaded a pressure to the big valve to get it off of its seat, so it could take over
throttling the flow for high loads. These valves looked like a Christmas tree with the
extra solenoids, switch, and tubing, but the instrument technician wasnt in the holiday
spirit when maintenance was required. Getting everything right in the middle of the
night, when a valve needed to be replaced to keep the plant running, was difficult. The
failure rate was higher than a simple valve, which was not so
APPLICATION
bad considering the pneumatic positioner and pressure
NOTE
switch were out of calibration anyway after about six months
operating in the plant. Since there was no readback of
Implementing
actual valve position in the control room, various creative
MPC to reduce
explanations were offered for the increasingly pesky
variability by
oscillations as the calibration and settings shifted. Then there
optimizing
were the persistent entertaining questions of split ranged
gap and overlap.
control valve

response

Early improvements
In the last decade, users got smarter, and installed digital
positioners that would hold their calibrations. The split ranging in the field was now
accurate, but configuration engineers preferred the maintainability, visibility, and
flexibility of the standard splitter block on the controller output. A split range point
other than 50% was readily implemented, and the actual valve positions were displayed
for the operator. The split range point was set to compensate for the different valve
sizes and gains. For example, if the big valve was about 10 times larger than the small
valve, the small and big valves stroked from 0 to 10% and 10 to 100% controller
output, respectively. Signal characterization
BIG VALVES, LITTLE
blocks were added to linearize the installed
VALVES
characteristic of each control valve. Tricky
configuration engineers devised and
implemented valve-switching strategies that
better addressed the transition at the split range
point.
Next, adaptive controllers came along that
identified the different gain and dynamics of the
installed behavior of each valve, and stored
them in regions to schedule tuning settings
based on controller output. This adaptation was
beneficial because big valves had a larger valve ADVERTISEMENT
gain and a slower response due to their bigger
MPCs
actuators. Also, the valves might have been on

control the
process variable by
simultaneously manipulating
the small and big valves.

streams with different transportation delays and process fluids. The big valves also
tended to have more stick-slip because of the incentive to use less expensive types for
bigger sizes, which affected process gain and dead time. Even if the percentage of stickslip was the same as for the small valve, the variability introduced into the process by
the big valve was greater because of the larger flow coefficient, and so the need to
manage then correctly was more urgent.
Consequently, some astute control engineers realized that valves tended to limit cycle
across the split range point because of the severe discontinuity and increased friction at
this point, and that the rangeability problem was really a subset of the valve resolution
problem. This insight was hard to identify because the official definition of valve
rangeability didnt account for valve stick-slip; valve specifications did not quote stickslip; and test results from a valve supplier were generally at a mid throttle positioni.e.
not riding the seat.
MPCs refine valve resolution
If you could always use the small valve for a fine adjustment, you could solve the real
problem, which is control valve resolution. Those innovative configuration engineers
devised a valve position control strategy, in which an integral-only controller was added
that manipulated the big valve to keep the small valve at 50% open. The split range
was eliminated and the process controller just manipulated the small valve.
Unfortunately, the valve position controller could not have proportional or derivative
action, and the integral time setting needed to be five times larger than the product of
the process controller gain and reset time to prevent interaction between the two loops.
As a result, the valve position controller was too slow for big upsets or set point
changes. Feed-forward action could be added, but unmeasured disturbances were still a
problem and it was a challenge to explain the difference between a valve position
controller and a valve positioner. The explanation that a valve positioner is the box on
the valve didnt work anymore when fieldbus allowed valve positions controller to be in
the field.
In addition, there was a creative modification to the PID algorithm to move the big valve
to share the load with the small valve, but it was a custom implementation that didnt
address differences in valve dynamics or large dead times.
Finally, engineers found that a small model predictive controller (MPC) could inherently
solve these traditional valve problems without relying on split ranging, valve position
control or custom solutions. In essence, an MPC is set up to control the process variable
by simultaneously manipulating the small and big valves.
For some MPC software, this is all that is required. For MPC software that requires
controlled variables to equal the number of manipulated variables, the small valve is
wired back as an additional controlled variable for optimization.
SIMULTANEOUS THROTTLING OF FINE AND COARSE CONTROL VALVES

The MPC can solve the problem without split ranging, valve position control, or custom
solutions.
Figure 2 above shows how small (trim) and big (coarse) valves are simultaneously
moved to compensate for load upsets and to meet set point changes. The default MPC
tuning was used, except that the penalty on error for keeping the small (trim) valve at
50% was reduced by a factor of 10. This adjustment was made so optimization of this
valve position was a lot less important than the control of the process variable. Even
with this reduced penalty, the small valve still returned to 50% relatively quickly to be
ready for the next adjustment.
In addition, the MPC incorporated the knowledge of the difference in valve gains and
dynamics in its process models, and eliminated interaction associated with simultaneous
throttling. The MPC also facilitated feed-forward control with proper dynamics by adding
disturbance variables, and was better able to deal with dead time dominant processes.
The MPC further reduced the limit cycle from the resolution limit (stick-slip) of the big
valve and offered the opportunity to eliminate it by freezing the big valve at its last
position, which was when the process variable was within a band around the set point.
The width of the band was the product of the big valves resolution and the big valves
process gain.
There are many opportunities to use fine adjustment valves to reduce process variability
without the +60-year-old headaches of split ranged or valve position control. It is a fine
time to break away from old valve problems and break into model-predictive control.
SEE APPLICATION NOTE:
Implementing MPC to reduce variability by optimizing control valve response