Digital Control of Complex Systems Based On Simple Models.

Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons

LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School
1971
Digital Control of Complex Systems Based on

Simple Models.
Kuo-cheng Chiu
Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses
Recommended Citation
Chiu, Kuo-cheng, "Digital Control of Complex Systems Based on Simple Models." (1971). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses.
2114.
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/2114
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact
gradetd@lsu.edu.
INFORMATION TO USERS
This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document.
While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this
document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand

markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the
missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with
adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and
duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black

mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the
copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred
image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the
upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from
left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and
continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest

value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be
made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the
dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at
additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog
number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
A Xerox Education Company

72-17,752
CHIU, Kuo-Cheng, 19J+0-

DIGITAL CONTROL OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS BASED ON
SIMPLE MODELS.
The Louisiana State University and Agricultural

and Mechanical College, Ph.D., 1971
Engineering, chemical
University Microfilms, A XEROX Com pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan

DIGITAL CONTROL OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS BASED
ON SIMPLE MODELS
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the

Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
The Department of Chemical Engineering
by
Kuo-Cheng Chiu
B.S., University of Rangoon, 1963
M.S.E., University of Florida, 1968
December, 1971
I
P L E A S E NOTE:
S o m e p a ge s m a y have
i n d i s t i n c t print.
F i l m e d as received.
U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , A X e r o x E d u c a t i o n C o mpany
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to
Dr. Cecil L. Smith, Chairman of his Advisory Committee for his
consideration, interest, advice and helpful suggestions given
during the course of this work. He wishes to thank the other
members of his committee, Dr. Jessie Coates, Dr. Albert H. Wehe,
Dr. Jerome A. Planchard and Dr. Philemon S. H. Baw for their
cooperation in serving on the committee. He is also obliged to
Dr. Armando B. Corripio for his suggestions and advice.
The author owes his gratitude to the support of this work
by an Air Force Office of Scientific Research Contract No. F44620-
68-C-0021. The author also gratefully acknowledges the use of
the XDS Sigma 5 computer provided by this contract and the IBM-360
computer in the Computer Research Center at Louisiana State
University.
Thanks are extended to Mrs. Beanie Thibodeaux and Mrs. Sonja
Hartley for their assistance with the preparation of the manuscript.
He is also indebted to the Dr. Charles E. Coates Memorial Fund,
donated by Mr. George H. Coates, for financial assistance in the
preparation of t^is manuscript.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES xii
ABSTRACT xiv
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
II MODELING AND STANDARD CONTROL ALGORITHM 6
Introduction 6
Process Description 6
Process Characteristics 12
Model Development 13
Conventional Control Algorithm 23
Tuning Control Algorithms 24
Tuning Techniques 26
Optimization of Parameters 28
Summary and Observations 28
Literature Cited 40
ill
Page
Ill DEADBEAT AND KALMAN ALGORITHM 42
Introduction 42
Design of Control Algorithm Using

z-Transform 42
Deadbeat Algorithm for Step Change in

Set Point 44
Handling of Saturation 50
Ringing 50
Comparison of Algorithms 56
Kalman Algorithm 64
Comparison of First and Second Order

Algorithms 69
Sumnary 82
Literature Cited 84
IV DAHLIN'S CONTROL ALGORITHM 85
Introduction 85
Design of Control Algorithm Using

z-Transform 85
Dahlin's Method 87
Handling of Saturation 88
Ringing Analysis 95
First Order Lag Plus Dead Time Model 95
Second Order Lag Plus Dead Time Model 96
Ringing and Ringing-Free Algorithms 102
iv
Page
Tuning Procedure 111
Summary 120
Literature Cited 123
V ADVANCED CONTROL TECHNIQUES 124
Introduction 124
Cascade Control Systems 124
Cascade Control of Process 128
Inner Loop Tuning 13®

130
Outer Loop Tuning
Cascade Responses 133
Multivariable Control 1^®
Gain Matrix l^2
Relative Gain Matrix 1^9
Significance of the Relative Gain Matrix 152
Tuning 153
Tuning Concentration Loop (FCIM Tuning) 156
Tuning Concentration Loop (FCIA Tuning) 156
Multivariable Control Responses 159
Literature Cited 169
VI CONCLUSIONS 171
v
Page
APPENDIX A DERIVATION OF STANDARD ALGORITHM 173

PARAMETERS FOR. SET POINT CHANGE
VITA 178
vl
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 The jacketed backmix reactor 10
2 .2a Response to change of controller output 14
2 .2b Responses to changes in feed 15
2.3 Ziegler-Nichols model 16
2.4 Miller's first-order plus dead time model 18
2.5 Sten's second-order model plus dead time 20
2.6 Meyer's second-order model plus dead time 21
2.7 Comparison of model responses to the system

response 22
2.8 Control loop with PI controller and first

order lag plus dead time system 25
2.9 Definition of common response criteria 27
2.10 Optimization of controllers parameters 29
2.11 Comparison of PID load change algorithms 33
2.12 Comparison of PID set point change 34

algorithms
2.13a Comparison of PI and FID load algorithms 35
2.13b Comparison of Pi and PID set point 36

algorithms
2.14a Comparison of PID algorithms on load 37

change
2.14b Comparison of PID algorithms on set point 38

change
vii
Page
Typical digital process control loop 43
First order ringing deadbeat algorithm 51

(Equation 3.8)
Second order ringing deadbeat algorithm 52

(Equation 3.10)
Pole-zero location for equation 3.7 54
First order deadbeat algorithm with complex 55

ringing poles removed (Equation 3.12)
First order deadbeat algorithm with all 57

Pole-zero location for Equation 3.9 58
Second order deadbeat algorithm with z=-l 60

removed (Equation 3.15)
Second order deadbeat algorithm with all 61

Comparison of algorithms for load change 62
Comparison of algorithms on set point change 63
Second order ringing and ringing-free 65

algorithms on load change
Desired response characteristics used to 66

design Kalman's algorithm
First order Kalman algorithm (Equation 3.25) 72
Second order Kalman algorithm 73

(Equation 3.27)
First order Kalman's algorithm with all 78

Second order Kalman algorithm with 79

viii
Comparison of algorithms on load change 80
Comparison of algorithms on set point 81

change
Comparison of Kalman ringing and ringing- 83

free algorithms on load change
Typical digital process control loop 86
First order Dahlin algorithm (Equation 4.8) 93
Second order Dahlin algorithm

(Equation 4.10) 94
Pole-zero location of Equation 4.8 97
First order Dahlin algorithm with complex 100

poles removed (Equation 4.15)
First order Dahlin algorithm with all 101


Second order Dahlin algorithm with z=<l-e
"JlT)
removed (Equation 4.23) 106
Second order Dahlin algorithm with

removed (Equation 4.21) 107
Second order Dahlin algorithm with all

ringing poles removed (Equation 4.25) 108
First order Dahlin ringing algorithm

(Equation 4.8) on load change 109
Second order Dahlin ringing algorithm

(Equation 4.10) on load change 110
First order Dahlin ringing and ringing-free

algorithms on load change (1=1)
First order Dahlin ringing and ringing-free

algorithms on set point change (1=1)
Ix
Figure Page
4.14a Second order Dahlin ringing and ringing-free 115

algorithms on set point change (X“l)
4.15 First order Dahlin algorithm (Equation 4.17)

with varying X on load change 116
4.16 Second order Dahlin algorithm (Equation

4.25) with varying X on load change 117
4.17 First order Dahlin algorithm (Equation 4.17)

with varying X on set point change 118
4.18 Second order Dahlin algorithm (Equation

4.25) with varying X on set point change 119
4.19 Comparison of algorithms on load change 121

(X=l)
4.20 Comparison of algorithms on set point change

(X-l) 122
5 .1a Classical feedback 125
5.1b Cascade control 125

5.1c Equivalent feedback loop 125
5.1 Cascade control system 125
5.2 Cascade control with different entry of 127

disturbance
5.3 Cascade control of a stirred jacketed 129

reactor
5.4 Model fitting of jacket temperature with slave 131

controller in manual
5.5 Jacket temperature response with slave 132

controller in automatic
5.5a Model fitting of reactor temperature with

134
slave controller in automatic
5.6 Comparison of cascade PI and conventional PI 136

controller for feed rate change
x
Figure Page

controller temperature set point change

controller for step change in cooling water
temperature
5.9 Response for step change in feed concentration 141
5.10 Response for step change in temperature set 143

point
5.11 Schematic interacting action of multivariable 145

control system
5.12 Open loop response to step change in feed rate 147
5.13 Open loop response to set change in cooling 148

water rate
5.14 Configuration to evaluate bT/QW In 151

c | a
5.15 Two different means of tuning multivariable 155
control systems
5.16 Model and true concentration response with 157

temperature controller in manual
5.17 Model and true concentration response with 160

temperature controller in automatic
5.18 Responses for step change in feed concentration; 161

FCIM tuning; temperature controller on manual
5.19 Response for step change in feed concentration; 162

FClA tuning; temperature control on manual
5.20a Multivariable control responses to step change 164

in feed concentration FCIM tuning
5.20b Multivariable control responses to step change 165

in feed concentration FCIA tuning
5.21a Multivariable control responses to step change 166

in temperature set point, FCIM tuning
5.21b Multivariable control responses for temperature 167.

set point change, FCIA tuning
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
II-l Process Model Equations 8
II-2 Parameters and Steady-State Values 11
II-3 Tuning Results 3Q
III-l Model Transfer Function 45
III-2 Deadbeat Algorithm for First Order Plus 47

Dead Time Model
III-3 Deadbeat Algorithm for Second Order Plus 48

Dead Time Model
III-4 Deadbeat Algorithms for Second Order Plus 59

Dead Time Model
III-5 Kalman Algorithms for First Order Model 70
111-6 Kalman Algorithms for Second Order Model 71
III-7 First Order Kalman Algorithm with Ringing 76

Poles Removed
III-8 Second Order Kalman Algorithm with 77

Ringing Poles Removed
IV-1 Dahlin Algorithm for First Order Model 89
IV-2 Dahlin Algorithm for Second Order Model 91
IV-3 First Order Dahlin Algorithm 98
IV-4 Second Order Dahlin Algorithm 104
xii
Tables Page
V-l Cascade Control Models and Algorithm 135

Settings
V-2 Response for Cascade and Standard Controllers 139
V-3 Gain Matrix and Relative Gain Matrix 150
V-4 Concentration PID Controller for Load Change 158
V-5 Comparison of Two Tuning Methods 163
xiii
ABSTRACT
The primary purpose of this dissertation is to study the
use of simple models in the design of control strategies for
complex processes. The models utilized were limited to first
and second order models with dead time. Control algorithms
were designed by various methods and applied to control of both
set point changes and changes in unmeasured disturbances.
Advanced control schemes were also investigated to see what
advantages they produced over simple feedback schemes. While
all results obtained are for a specific system, they at least
provide an indication for the expected return for other similar
systems.
Specifically, the study is based on a jacketed, well-mixed
chemical reactor in which an exothermic second order chemical
reaction is proceeding. The controlled variable is the
reactor's temperature; the manipulated variable is the cooling
water flow rate. The unmeasured disturbance is the reactant's
flow rate, which was chosen because of its significant effect on
the dynamics of the model.
Various control schemes such as standard FI and FID, dead
beat, Kalman and Dahlin algorithms are implemented on the system.
xiv
In all cases, algorithms derived on second order plus dead time
models behave much better than the first order algorithms,
in either step change in disturbance or step change in set point.
The ringing phenomenon is studied for deadbeat* Kalman and Dahlin
algorithms. It is concluded ringing-free algorithms should be
used for step change in set point while ringing algorithms are
better for changes in disturbances. For this specific system,
ringing-free algorithms designed by all three techniques
reduce to either the standard PI or PID algorithms.
Advanced control techniques such as cascade and multivariable
control are investigated. Cascade control with a PI master
controller and a proportional slave controller performed
better than the simple feedback techniques. Gain matrix,
relative gain matrix, interaction and pairing of manipulated
and controlled variables are studied. Two different tuning
techniques for the concentration loop are investigated. It is
concluded in this particular system, the two tuning techniques
give virtually identical results.
xv
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
In recent years the digital computer has had a real impact
in the design and implementation of control systems in all
areas of technology. Improved computer technology including
analog-to-digital interface now makes it possible to directly
use the digital computer to control virtually any system.
The memory, logic capabilities, speed of computation and general
flexibility of the digital computer over conventional analog
systems offers the control engineer more power and freedom in
both design and implementation.
This dissertation will examine and study several aspects
cf the direct control of chemical processes using digital
computation. The system upon which this study is made is a
water-jacketed backmix reactor in which an exothermic second
order chemical reaction is taking place. The controlled variable
is either product temperature or concentration or both. Control
algorithms for load change and set point change are studied.
In Chapter II, the system is modeled to a set of differ
ential equations and is simulated using Euler's forward difference

method. Temperature response of the reactor due to a step
change in the cooling water rate is approximated to either a
first or second order plus dead time model by different techniques
(1,2,3). For each model, optimum settings for the standard FI
or PID control algorithms are sought by the use of Pattern Search
(4) to minimize the Integral of Time and Absolute Error (ITAE)
criterion. The minimization is made for load disturbances as
well as for set point disturbances. Results obtained by imple
menting these controller settings on the reactor are compared
and studied.
In Chapter III, the control algorithm is designed so that
the system will respond to a specific disturbance in a desired
manner. Deadbeat and Kalman algorithms are designed for set
point change on the system. The continuous transfer functions
derived from models in Chapter II are transformed into pulse
transfer functions by z-transforms (5) using two different sampling
times. Ringing of the manipulated variables for both load changes
and set point changes are studied. Techniques to reduce ringing
and the resulting response of the controlled variable in com
parison with the previous response are also studied. A surprising
result is that the ringing-free algorithm is of the same form as
the standard FI or PID controller, but the tuning constants are
slightly different from those obtained in Chapter II.

In Chapter IV, Dahlin's algorithm, which has one adjustable
parameter, Is examined. Ringing of the manipulated variable
for both load changes and set point changes are studied.
Ringing, ringing-reduced or ringing-free algorithms are compared
for a "good" value of the adjustable parameters. Comparisons are
made on various values of the parameters. The ringing-free
algorithms again reduce to the standard PI or PID controllers.
In Chapter V, advanced control techniques such as cascade and
multivariable control are considered. All the models required
for tuning the algorithms in this chapter are obtained by a
least square fit to the true response. A proportional controller
is employed as the slave controller and a PI controller is
employed as the master controller of the cascade arrangement.
The resulting response is quite superior to that of the algorithms
based on a second order plus dead time model in Chapter II.
In multivariable control algorithms both temperature and concen
tration of the product stream are controlled. The significance
of gain matrix and relative gain matrix in pairing the manipulated
and controlled variables is presented. Two different tuning
methods of the concentration loop are studied. The first method
is to tune with the temperature controller in manual and the other
method is with the temperature controller in automatic. Results
obtained by both the methods are compared.

In summary, the purpose of this dissertation is to discuss
the application of the various digital control algorithms to a
specific highly nonlinear chemical process system. One of the more
interesting results obtained from this study is that, for the
system studied, all ringing-free z-transform algorithms reduced
to the conventional PI or PID algorithms. This appears to
seriously question the contention that algorithms designed by
z-transforms are far superior to conventional algorithms, at
least for systems without large dead times such as the one studied.
The use of an advanced control technique, especially cascade,
gives considerable improvement over simple feedback control.

Literature Cited
Miller, J. A. et.al, "A Comparison of Controller Tuning

Techniques", Control Engineering, (Dec. 1967), p. 72.
Meyer, J. R. et.al., "Simplifying Process Response Approxi

mation", Instruments and Control Systems. Vol., 40, (Dec.
1967), p. 76.
Sten, J. W., "Evaluating Second-Order Parameters", Instrument

Technology. (Sept. 1970), p. 39.
Hooke, R., and Jeeves, T. A., "Direct Search Solution of

Numerical and Statistical Problem", J. Assn. Comp. Math.,
8 , 2 (April 1961), pp. 212-229.
Kuo, B. C., Analysis and Synthesis of Sampled-Data Control

Systerns, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963.
Chapter II
MODELING AND STANDARD CONTROL ALGORITHM
Introduction
The primary purpose of this chapter is to investigate the
suitability of various simple models as a basis for controller
tuning. The system to be controlled is a water-jacketed backmix
reactor in which a second order chemical reaction is taking place.
The product is to be controlled at a particular temperature for
either a step change in feed rate or step change in temperature
set point. First and second order plus dead time models obtained
by different modeling techniques are compared. Optimum setting
for the standard PI or PID control algorithms are evaluated by
minimizing the Integral Time of Absolute Error (ITAE) criterion.
Results obtained by implementing these controller settings on
the system are compared.
Process Description
The system chosen for this study of digital control algorithms
is the control of reactants temperature in a jacketed backmix
reactor in which an exothermic second order reaction takes place.

3
Reactants of concentration C^Clbs/ft ) and temperature ^ ( “F) are
fed at the rate of W(lbs/min). The contents of the reactor are
assumed to be perfectly mixed at concentration C and temperature

&
T. The products are removed at the rate W, with the same concen
tration and temperature as the contents In the reactor. The resulting

3 3
mixture has volume V(ft ), density p(lbs/ft ) and specific heat
Cp (Btu/lb-°F).
Cooling water of T (°F) enters the jacket at a rate of W

w c
(lbs/min) and leaves at T (°F). The heat capacity of the walls
c
of the reactor and of the jacket Is combined with that of the
water In the jacket and denoted by M (Btu/°F). Specific heat

c
of water Is taken as unity and heat losses to the surroundings are
negligible. The overall heat transfer coefficient between the
reactor contents and the jacket Is assumed constant at U(Btu/

2 2
min-ft -°F). The heat transfer area of the jacket is A(ft ).
The equations describing this system are derived hy making
an unsteady-state mass balance on reactant A, and energy balance
on the reacting mixture* and an energy balance on the jacket.
The resulting equations are given in Table II-l.
As shown in Figure 2.1, the objective of this study is to
control the temperature of the reacting mixture, T, by manipu
lating the cooling water rate, Wc> via a digital computer.
The temperature transmitter and the cooling water flow controller
are assumed to behave like first order lags with time constants
•r and t minutes respectively. The corresponding equations

t V
are also given in Table 11-1.
The numerical values for the parameters and the initial
steady state conditions are shown in Table 11-2,

8
Table II-l
Process Model Equations
Mass Balance on Reactant A

dC
Pv -dT " W(Caf- Ca> ' k°a2 <2 - ^
-a
(T+460)
k « k0e (2 .2)
Energy Balance on Reacting Mixture
dT 2
pvc - WC ( T r T )-UA(T-T )+(-AH)VkC (2.3)
Energy Balance on Cooling Water
dT
Mc -jf - UA(T-Tc) -Wc (Tc-Tw ) (2.4)
3
k = reaction rate constant, ft /lb-mln
3
k “ Arrhenius rate constant, ft /lb-min
o
a = Arrhenius temperature constant, °R
-AH “ heat of reaction, Btu/lb of A consumed
dT _
T — - T - T (2.5)
Tt dt c cR
Table II-l (cont.)
dW _
cR _ „
V “dt" " Wc " cR (2.6)
TcR = Delayed temp, °F
W = Delayed cooling water rate, lb/min

CK
CONTROLLER
SET POINT FEED
^ COOLING
** WATER
COOLING
WATER
PRODUCT
Figure 2.1. The jacketed backmlx reactor.

Table II-2
Parameters and Steady-State Values
Steady-State Conditions System Parameters
C = 3 . 6 lb/ft3 a = 2560°R
a
Ca£ = 9.0 lb/cu.ft. C = 0.9 Btu/lb-°F
P
k = 0.0278 cu.ft/lb-mln AH = 867 Btu/lb
T = 190°F k = 1 . 4 3 ft3/lb-min
o
T = 120°F M = 6000 Btu/°F
c c
Tf = 150°F UA = 600 Btu/min-°F
T = 80°F V = 250 cu.ft.

w
W = 1000 lb/mln p = 60 lb/cu.ft.
W = 1050 lb/mln *r = 1 min

c t
t = 0.1 min
Process Characteristics
The disturbances considered in this study are a step change
in load (specifically feed flow rate W) and a step change in
set point. Although the assumptions made in the derivation of
the system equations simplify the problem somewhat, the most
important non-linearities of the system are still included in the
mathematical model. Of these, the one that makes this system
especially difficult to control is related to the operation of
the jacket. As more cooling is required, the jacket water
temperature Tfi must decrease so as to increase the rate of heat
transfer from the contents of the reactor. This decreases the
temperature rise of the cooling water (Tc - T^). Since this
term is multiplied by the flow rate of cooling water,Wc (equation
2.4) the net effect is a decrease in the effective gain of the
control action. This change in gain causes the control response
to be sloppy at high cooling rates, while unstable at low cooling
rates. Corripio and Smith (1) show that the response of the
reactor temperature for a step change in set point from 190°F to
185°F is different from that of 185°F to 190°F, a result of
these nonlinearities.
Although the difference between the reactor temperature
and the jacket temperature could possibly be used to adjust
the controller gain in an adaptive fashion, this was not attempted.
Also, using a cascaded controller for the jacket temperature should
provide some improvement.

The system in question is self-regulated by nature. With
small disturbances in load, such as feed flow rate, feed tempera
ture or cooling water rate,the process seeks another steady-state
in the manner illustrated in Figure 2.2. Of these, the response
to the disturbance in feed flow rate is most interesting. With
a sudden increase in feed, the temperature in the reactor
initially decreases ( T ^ C T ) . Nevertheless, the concentration
in the reactor tends to rise, causing the reaction rate to increase.
More heat is produced and the oveall temperature in the reactor
will eventually rise to a new steady-state.
Model Development
Response to changes in the manipulated variable W c is employed
for model development. Owing to the nonlinearities of the system
as discussed in the last section, the gains are different for
different changes in the manipulated variable. In this study,
a decrease in cooling water from 1350 to 1050 (lbs/min) is ar
bitrarily chosen.
In many applications it is only necessary to have a rough
approximation of a mathematical model for a system; the simpler
the model the better. The first tuning technique presented in
the literature was that of Ziegler and Nichols (3), who charac
terized the process by two parameters and
in Figure 2.3. Ziegler and Nichols developed empirical equations
to relate the tuning parameters to the constants LRand R^. As
illustrated in Figure 2.3, their construction can be readily

o RESPONSE CURVES
Q
o>
05
Q_
CD
CD.
AW = -300 lb/min.
03
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 00
TIME IN MIN.
Figure 2-2a. Response to Change of Controller Output
.
O
RESPONSE CURVES
Q
=a*
o>
o Feed Temp.
o
(AT, = 5°F)
CD
rxj Feed Rate

o>_
IN F
(AW = 200 lb/min.)
CD
o
TEMP
o
05
O
Cl)
CO.
10.00 30.00 U0.00 50
T I M E IN M I N
Figure 2 .2b. Responses to changes in feed

o
o
Slope = IL 2.3 min
Slope = 0.18oF/min
3 09
1'
3'qq = -0.0103 °F/pound per minute
2.3 min
17.2 min
“2.3s
T= 17.2 -0.0103 e
17.2 s + 1
0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00 30.00 HO. 00 50.00 60.00

T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 2.3. Ziegler-Nichols Model.
extended to obtain a first order lag plus dead time model of
the form
K 33 process gain
0 = dead time
T 9 time constant
But since empirical equations were used, Ziegler and Nichols'
method does not depend upon this procedure giving a good fit.
The method suggested by Miller (2) illustrated in Figure 2.4
generally produces an approximation that "looks" better; and thus
would be expected to give better results in any model-based
tuning methods such as those suggested by Lopez (4,5).
As the order of the model is increased, its ability to
describe the process improves. The next logical step is to a
second order plus dead time model (6):
G(s) = (Tis+1)(t2s+1) “ 2
where
K = process gain
6 = dead time
t^,T2 “ time constants
0)^ =» natural frequency
£ “ damping ratio
o>
CD
o>_
-0.0103 °F/pounds per minute
63.2% of change 12.5 min
Q. 2.3 min.
Z
LUo -0.0103 e”2 *3s
G(s)
12.5s+l (2.8)
CO
CO-
o T = 12.5
p*
CO.
0.00 1 0. 0 0 20.00 50.00 60
Figure 2.4. Miller's First-Order Plus Dead Time Model.

The main deterrent to considereing second order models is the
difficulty of evaluating the parameters. However, several
techniques have appeared in recent years.
Oldenbourg and Sartorius (7) proposed a technique for deter
mining the time constants for overdamped systems without dead time.
Smith (8) and later Cox et.al. (9) extended this method to systems
with dead time. Meyer et.al. (10) developed a quick and easy
technique for evaluating both over-damped and under-damped
second order plus dead time models. Sten (11) published a
graphical method for overdamped systems. An improved pulse
testing method for second order plus dead time model is developed
by Pemberton (12).
The derivation of the model via Sten's method is illustrated
in Figure 2.5; via Meyer’s method in Figure 2.6. Miller's,
Sten's and Meyer's models together with the system response
are shown in Figure 2.7. Meyer's model appears to approximate
the process response slightly better than Sten's model, whereas
Miller's first order model is poorest of all. For study of control
algorithms, only Meyer's second order and Miller's first order
models will be considered. However, that Meyer's method is always
better than Sten's method should not be concluded; for other systems
the converse may be true. In fact, the two second order models
are so nearly the same that little difference in the results
presented subsequently would be expected had Sten's model been
used instead of Meyer's.

o
CD
= 0.054
o
o>_
'rom Figure 2 in the original artic .e (11)
1.72 min
CL. 13.14 min
0.93 min
CD
co_ 1.37 min
Gf.i --o-oioae'1-373 (2.9)
= 17.2 K J (1.72S+1)(13.14s + 1)
3.09
-300
o
-0.0103 °F/pound per min.
03
0 .00 10.00 20.00 50.00
Figure 2.5. Sten's Second-Order Model Plus Dead Time.
c
o>
0 = 1.0 min
o 27.8 min
o>. _9 _
t„/tft = 0.1728
Fran Figure 5 > in the original article (10)
0.18 min
UJo
T.= 11.84 min
CD
00- T0= 2.61 min
K = -0.0103°F/pound per min

to
G M = -0-0103 e-1-0s
v^ s' (11.84s+l)(261s+l) (2 .10)
0 00 . 10.00 20.00 30.00 0.00 60.00
T I M E IN MIN
Figure 2.6. Meyer.!s Second-Order Model Plus Dead Time.
o RESPONSE CURVES
o
o>.
o Miller
o>_ System
Meyer
ll-C3
4z-ai
»■ »co_
Sten
CD
00-
O
O
03
0.00 5.00 1 0.0 0 15.00
T I M E IN M I N .
Figure 2.7. Comparison of Model Responses to the System Response.
77
Conventional Control Algorithm
The most common algorithm is the discrete equivalent of the
proportional-plus-integral-plus-derivative (PID) controller. The
PID algorithm is derived by simply replacing the integral by a sum
and the derivative by a finite difference. Hence,
m
n
(2 .11)
where
K = proportional gain
c
T^ = reset time
T = derivative time
d
m^ = initial valve position
T = sampling time
m = manipulated variable
e = error
This is known as the position form of the PID algorithm
since the actual valve position is calculated from the error
sequence.. An alternative is to calculate the change in valve
(actuator) position rather than its actual value via the velocity
algorithm:
Both of these algorithms are commonly used in control systems (13).

Tuning Control Algorithms
The critical phase of the implementation of the PI or PID
algorithm is the selection of the numerical values of the constants
Kc , T^, and Td in the algorithm. The steps in tuning a digital
control algorithm parallel the steps in tuning an analog controller.
These are:
1. Approximate the process with a model
a. First-order plus dead time model
b. Second-order plus dead time model
2. Select the optimum constants for controlling the chosen
model.
3. Apply the results to the physical process
For a PI controller, the control loop is shown in Figure 2.8.
For a selected input the response is a function of only the
controller parameters, i.e., Kc and T^. The objective of the
tuning process is to select the combination of and T^ that
gives the responses C(t) that most nearly satisfies the desired
criteria. This is expressed as optimize[fc(t)} Kc ,tJwhich reads
"Optimize the response C(t) over Kc and T^". Although there are
many criteria upon which the selection is based, the commonly
used criteria can be separated into two classes: (1) the simple
but approximate criteria based on only a few points on the response
and (2) the more exact (but more difficult to evaluate) criteria
based on the entire response.
In the first category fall such criteria as settling time,

Load or
Disturbance
Controller Plant
Ke Output,C(t)
t s +1
Figure 2.8. Control loop with PI controller and first order lag plus
dead time system.
percent overshoot, rise time, decay ratio, etc., which are defined
in Figure 2.9. Of these, the one-quarter decay ratio has been
recognized as a reasonable trade-off between a fast rise time and
a reasonable settling time.
In the second category fall such criteria as integral criteria,
whose general form is
Of these, the one that is probably most appropriate for
controller tuning is the integral of time multiplied by the
absolute value of the error (ITAE):
00
Tuning Techniques
The primary difference between tuning continuous control
loops and digital control loops is that in the latter case an
additional parameter, the sampling time, must be taken into
consideration. Lopez (4,5) developed tuning graphs based on inte
gral criteria, but this additional parameter made it impossible
to reduce them to a convenient equation form. Moore (14) examined
the possibility of using the dead time equivalent to half the
sampling time in the zero-order hold. The continuous tuning
techniques could be applied by using 0 + T/2 instead of 0.

Decay Ratio
105%
100% •
Output
95%
Time t:o~firs-t "peak'

settling time
1— Rise Time
Time
.Figure 2.9. Definition of common response criteria

The first tuning techniques to appear were for continuous
systems based on the one-quarter ratio criterion. The first was
proposed by Ziegler and Nichols (3); Cohen and Coon (15) presented
a later version; and finally Smith and Murrill (16, 17). The
control parameters that minimize the integral criteria for load
changes were developed by Lopez (18) and later Rovira (19)
extended this to set point changes. Lopez (20) developed tuning
techniques for a second order plus dead time model with disturbance
in load. Rovira (21) suggested a modified algorithm if the
controller's primary function is to compensate for load changes.
Optimization of Parameters (22)
The ITAE criterion is chosen in evaluating the optimal
parameters for the first order plus dead time model, the second
order plus dead time model, and the process. The pattern search
technique (23) is employed for both PI and PID algorithms. The
optimization is schematically shown in Figure 2.10.
Table II-3 gives the results from applying the optimal
parameters for PID and PI algorithms to the original process.
The step change in load is from W = 1000 to W ■ 12000 (lbs/min).
The step change in set point is from T = 190°F to T = 185°F.
The sampling time is one minute.
Summary and Observations
From Table II-3, several interesting observations can be
made. First, the Ziegler-Nichols technique works ajLsrost perfectly

OPTIMIZATION CRITERION
Set
Point STANDARD
CONTROLLER SYSTEM
Figure 2.10. Optimization of Controllers Parameters.

Table II-3
Tuning Results
ITAE ITAE Decay

Method K T. Set Point Load Ratio
c i Td
PID Tuning, Load Change
Ziegler-Nichols Tuning -520 5.6 1.4 289.3 68.5 .022
First-order Tuning -543 4.92 1.075 355.7 105.2 0.104
Second-order Tuning -700 42605 2.1 259.5 38.9 .004
True Optimum -710 2.9 3.0 335.4 36.2 .085
PID Tuning, Set Point Change
Ziegler-Nichols Tuning -520 5.6 1.4 289.3 68.5 .071
First-order Tuning -337 16.4 0.96 118.1 376.6 -
Second-order Tuning -679.6 23.3 2.0 65.5 248.0 -
True Optimum -890 27.1 1.5 54.8 201.8 -

Table II-3 (cont.)
ITAE ITAE Decay

Method K T. Set Point Load Ratio
c i Td
PI Tuning, Load Change
Ziegler-Nichols Tuning -390 9.32 - 290.4 180.5 0.152
First-order Tuning -360 6.71 - 400.3 218.3 0.139
Second-order Tuning -390 10.1 - 276.5 189.3 0.156
True Optimum -410 9.1 - 243.7 178.4 0.157
PI Tuning, Set Point Change
Ziegler-Nichols Tuning -390 9.32 - 290.4 180.5 .079
First-order Tuning -225 12.6 - 200.6 400.5 -
Second-order Tuning -582.5 20.0 - 163.6 248.8 0.164
True Optimum -390 17.3 - 148.0 329.5 .022

for the PI control, load change case, but for PID control, load
change, a 50% improvement can be obtained. However, in both
cases and especially for PID control, the decay ratio is less
than the objective of one quarter. For both set point cases,
the Ziegler-Nichols technique was poorest of all. The first-
order tuning method was poorest of all on the PI and PID load
changes cases. An indication of the quality of the various
settings can be obtained from Figure 2.11 for the PID, load
case and Figure 2.12 for the PID, set point case.
On the question of PI and PID control, the improvement of the
PID over PI was by a factor of about 5 for load changes and almost
3 for set point changes. This is illustrated for both cases in
Figure 2.13.
The values in Table II-3 also indicate that optimum settings
for load changes are not optimal for set point changes, and vice
versa. This situation is much more pronounced for the PID case
than for PI, as is illustrated in Figure 2.14.
In each of the four cases presented in Table II-3, the second
order model produced settings that were quite close to the true
optimum. In each case, the improvement over the first order
model was substantial, and in fact one could question whether
the first order model adequately represents this particular
system. The main deterrent to the use of a second order model is
that it is considerably more difficult - in many cases virtually

jj
192 . 0 0
first-order
Optimum
190.00
second-order
IN r.
168.00
TEMP
155.00
I D . 00 0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00
TIME FM M
Figure 2.11. Comparison of FID Load Change Algorithms.

195.00
.190.00
IN F.
first-order
seqond-order
185,00
TEMP
optimum
IBD.tJO
.
0 00 10.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 2.12. Comparison of PID Set Point Change Algorithms

192.00
PID
190.00
IN F.
186.00
.TEMP
86.00
- 10.00 0 . 00 10.00 20.00 30
Figure 2.13a. Comparison of PI and PID load algorithms.

36
o
o
in
03
o
03
Ll.
1— 4
O
a
o
oo
• ID.00 0.00 10.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 2.13b. Comparison of PI and PID set point algorithms.

j/
192.00
Set point
190.00
IN F.
Load
1 8 6 . DO
TEMP
1 8 6 . DO
0.00 0 .00 10.00 20.00 30.00

T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 2.14a. Comparison of PID algorithms on load change.

195.00
190.00
IN F.
1 8 5 . DO
Set point
TEMP
180.00
- 10.00 .
0 00 1 0 . OU 20.00 30.00
Figure 2.14b. Comparison of PID algorithms on set point change.

impossible to obtain accurate parameter values from normal
chart records. However, in any computer-based or automated
tuning procedure, use of the second order model would be
preferable.
Literature Cited
1. Corripio, A. B., Smith, C. L., "Computer Simulation to Evaluate

Control Strategies", Instruments and Control System, January
1971, p. 87.
2. Miller, J. A., et.al., "A Comparison of Controller Tuning

Techniques", Control Engineering. (Dec.1967), p. 72.
3. Ziegler, J. G., and Nichols, N B., "Optimum Setting for

Automatic Controller", Transactions ASME» (November 1942),
p.759.
4. Lopez, A. M . , Murrill, P. W., and Smith, C. L., "Optimal

Tuning of Proportional Digital Controllers", Instruments
and Control Systems, (Oct. 1968), p. 97.
5. Lopez, A. M., et.al., "Tuning PlandPID Digital Controllers",

Instruments and Control Systems, (Feb. 1969), p. 89.
6 . Harriott, P., Process Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New

York, 1964.
7. Oldenbourg, R. C., and Sartorius, H., "The Dynamics of Auto

matic Controls", ASME, New York (1948), p. 276.
8. Smith, 0. J. M., "A Controller to Overcome Dead Time",

ISA Journal, Vol. 6 , No. 2 ( February 1959 ),
pp. 28-33.
9. Cox, J. B., et.al, "A Practical Spectrum of DDC Chemical-

Process Control Algorithms", ISA Journal, Vol. 13, No. 10,
(Oct. 1966), pp. 65-72.
10. Meyer, J. R., et.al., "Simplifying Process Response Approxi

mations", Instruments and Control Systems, Vol. 40, (Dec.
1967), p. 76.
11. Sten, J. W., "Evaluating Second-Order Parameters",

Instrumentation Techn61ogy, (Sept. 1970), p. 39.
12. Pemberton, T. J., "An Improved Pulse Testing Method",
Instrumentation Technology,(Dec. 1970), p. 51.
13. Fertik, H. A., and Ross, C. W., "Direct Digital Control

Algorithm with Anti-Windup Feature", Leeds & Worthrup
Technical Journal, (Jan. 1968), p. 1.
14. Moore, C. F., Smith, C. L., and Murrill, P. W., "Simplifying

Digital Control Dynamics for Controller Tuning and Hardware
Lag Effects", Instrument Practice, (Jan. 1969), p. 45.
15. Cohen, G. H., and Coon, G. A., "Theoretical Considerations of

Retarded Control", Taylor Instrument Companies Bulletin
#TDS-10A102.
16. Smith, C. L., and Murrill, P. W., "Analytical Tuning of

Underdamped Systems", ISA Journal, Vol. 13, No. 9, p. 40.
17. Smith, C. L., and P. W. Murrill, "Controllers - Set Them

Right", Hydrocarbon Processing and Petroleum Refiner, Vol.
45, No. 2, (Feb. 1966).
18. Lopez, A. M., et. al., "Controller Tuning Relationships

Based on Integral Performance Criteria", Instrumentation
Technology, Vo . 16, No. 11, Nov. 1967, p. 57.
19. Rovira, A. A., Murrill, P. W., and Smith, C. L., "Tuning

Controllers for Set point Changes", Instruments and Control
Systems, (Dec. 1969), p. 67.
20. Lopez, A. M. Murrill, P. W. , and Smith, C. L., "An Advanced

Tuning Method", British Chemical Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 11,
(Nov. 1969), pp. 1552-1555
21. Rovira, A. A., "Modified PI Algorithm for Digital Control",

Instruments and Control Systems, Vol. 43, No. 8 (Aug. 1970),
pp. 101-102.
22. Wilde, D. J., and Beightler, C. S., Foundations of Optimization,

Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
23. Hooke, R. and T. A. Jeeves, "Direct Search Solution of

Numerical and Statistical Problem,"Journal of the Association
for Computing Machinery, 8 , 2 (April 1961), pp. 212-229.
Chapter III
DEAD-BEAT AND KALMAN ALGORITHM
Introduction
The conventional PI and PID controllers are tuned to
satisfy a particular criterion such as ITAE in Chapter II.
As far as the algorithm is concerned the standard algorithm
stays the same except for the coefficients, which makes it
quite restricted.
In order for a particular system to respond to a specific
disturbance in a desired manner, the controller has to be
designed for each individual system. Dead-beat and Kalman
algorithms are considered in this chapter.
Design of Control Algorithm Using z-Transform (1)
The general digital control loop considered in this study
is illustrated in Figure 3.1. The objective is to design the
controller D(z) so that the desired loop performance is obtained.
From block diagram analysis with negative feedback (2),
Figure 3.1 can be represented by the following equation:
C(z) « HG(z)D(z) |R(z)-C(z2 (3.1)

Set Zero-order
Point Controller Hold Plant C(s)
D(z) 1-e -sT G(s)
- Error Plant
Manipulated Output
Variable
Feedback Signal C(z)
Figure 3.1. Typical digital process control loop.

where
HG(z) = Z --- G(s)J (3.2)
is the pulse transfer function of the process.
So in order to design D(z), an expression for HG(z) must
be obtained in some manner. Once HG(z) is specified, the only
unknowns in equation 3.1 are D(z) and C(z)/R(z). If the desired
loop performance characteristics could be used to specif^
C(z)/R(z), then equation 3.1 could be solved for D(z):
K } 777
HG(z) 1-C(z)/R(z) 0.3)
Unfortunately, C(z)/R(z) cannot be specified without giving some
attention to HG(z). For example, if HG(z) contains a time delay,
then C(z)/R(z) must contain the same time delay.
One approach to obtain expressions for HG(z) is to use the
modeling techniques described in Chapter II, where expressions
for HG(z) corresponding to first and second order plus dead time
models are derived (3). Table III-l gives numerical values for
HG(z) corresponding to two different sampling times.
Deadbeat Algorithm for Step Change in Set Point
A deadbeat or minimal response is one that satisfies the
criteria that (1) the settling time must be finite, (2) the rise
time should be a minimum, and (3) the steady-state error should

Table III-l
Model Transfer Function
First order plus Second order plus

dead time model dead time model
Continuous Transfer
■0.0103 e-2 -3!_ ,0i0103 e-ls
Function
12.5s + 1
(11.84s+l)(2.61s+l)
Pulse Transfer
[b.0545-fq.02_24Z-.1] 0139+0.0119z_1
-o.oios*’2 [ M i 2
Function T = 1 -3
-0.0103z |
L „1 - « no„_-l1 JI
0.9231Z- I,-, ''>
L(l-0 .9i90z'1)(l-0.687z"1X
Pulse Transfer
-2 [~0.1272 + 0.0207z~1 -1 [~0.0139+0.06
0619z’1+0.1074z"2
Function T = 2 -0.0103z -0.0103z
L 1 - 0.8521z_1 . L(l-0.8446z' 1)(l-0.4647z"1)
One specific case that satisfies the above criteria is that
the response to a step change in set point should have zero
error at all sampling instants after the first.
R(z) = — * . (step input)

1-z
C (z) = z"1 R(z) (3.4)
C(z)/R(z) = z *
Substituting into equation 3.3 gives
-1 .
D(z)\ = Z 1
1_z-l HG(z) (3.5)
The control algorithm will be physically realizable only
if the time delay in HG(z) does not exceed the sampling time.
So in general cases
-N-l x
D(z) = 1_z-N-l HG(z) <3 *6)
where NBnearest Integer number of sampling times in dead time.

The controller D(z) and the equivalent difference equations
for equations for first and second order models are given in
Table III-2 and Table III-3 respectively with sampling time
T “ 1 minute.
Table III-2
Dead-beat Algorithm for
First order Plus Dead Time Model
D(z) = (3.7)
(3.8)
where
1
a, = -
1 T
-a.mT
C = 1 - e
6
-a-jmT -a-T
C? = e - e
0 = N T + 6
and
T = 1 min. = sampling time K = process gain
9 = dead time E = error
t “ time constant M = manipulated variable
(3.8a)
Table III-3
Deadbeat Algorithm for
Second order Plus Dead Time Model
-aT -1W 1 -bT -1.

D(z) = 0 - 1 ^ ----» -? q - e 5-i. (3.9)
-2 2 -1
KC-Cl-ss ^ ( 1 + —
I cx z )
or
M, = J L fE . (.- « + e-bI)E ,+ e-<a+b>T E ,1

n KC^ L n ' n-1 n-2J
C C
E7 V l + Mn-2 + 57 “a-3 (3-10>
E = K C 1 fM + ~ M M „ - 7—- M J + (e"aT+ e“bT)E ,

n 1 L n Cj n-1 n-2 n-3J ' n-1
- e"<a+b)T En_2 (3.10a)
where
1
a = --
T1
b = ^
T2
9 - NT
T = sampling time = 1 min.
be"aT- ae"bT
C1 ° 1 + ' a - b
Table III-3 (cont.)
c _ -(a+b)T be~bT - ae~aT

2 _ + a - b
and
0 = dead time
t^»T2 = time constants
K = process gain
E = error
M = manipulated variable
Handling of Saturation
Physical constraints are imposed upon the system. The fully
opened valve position corresponds to 6,000 lb/min of cooling
water rate, whereas the fully closed valve position corresponds
to no flow of cooling water. When saturation occurs, the error
in equations 3.8a and 3.10a is recalculated from the control
equation 3.8 or 3.10 by employing either equal to 6,000 or 0.
This practice is analogous to the use of the velocity form
of the PID algorithm as opposed to the position form. Applying
the control algorithms in Tables III-2 and III-3 to the original
process for a step change in set point, the manipulated and the
controlled variables are as shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3.
Ringing
Judging the performance of a controller solely from the
response is generally not sufficient. The manipulated variable
(valve signal) m(t) in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 exhibits excessive
valve movement, a phenomenon known as ringing. Obviously the
controller outputs are ringing. In other words, the algorithm
acts like an on-off controller, which is not the objective of our
design.
The ringing amplitude is defined as the difference between
the first two controller outputs, and can be related to the
algorithm's pole - zero locations. The z ** -1 point is called
the ringing node, and the pole at z = -1 is known as the ringing

o
o
u>
r-
Ol
O
CCo
UJ •
a ”
10.00 0.00 1 0.0 0 20.00 30.00

T I M E IN MIN.
o
o
lO
o>,
o>.
Q
CO,
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 3.2. First order ringing deadbeat algorithm (Equation 3.8).

a
0
«l
O
CCo
LJ •
n 10
CO
Q
2 2
- 10.00 0.00 1 0 .0 0 30.00

T I M E IN MIN.
o
o
U>
o
o
O
U-i05
z
o
o
CJ
CD.
- 10.00 0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00 30.00
TI M E IN MIN;
Figure 3.3. Second order ringing deadbeat algorithm (Equation 3.10).
pole. Moving the pole away from the ringing node decreases
the ringing amplitude. A pole in the right-half plane reduces
the ringing amplitude, while zeros in the right-half plane
aggrevate it (4).
For the algorithms derived from the first-order model,
there are one real and two complex conjugate poles in the left-
half plane as shown in Figure 3.4. In fact, the two complex
poles are on the unit circle. Dahlin (4) suggests the ringing
pole be simply eliminated and the gain adjusted accordingly.
Since the complex conjugate poles are on the unit circle,
it seems reasonable to remove them first, giving the algorithm
(3.11)
or
1
M
n 3KC,
6
(3.12)
The controller output of this algorithm, shown in Figure 3.5,
is improved considerably.
By removing the pole z = -C_/C, from equation 3.11, we obtain

7 o
the algorithm
1
Imaginary
1.0
923 Real
Figure 3.4. Pole-zero location for Equation 3.7.

o
CD
*— i
oi
□
21 CD
-ID.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

TIME IN MIN.
in
03
Li_
•— 1
o
to
" - ' 0.00 0.01 10.00 20.00 30.00
TIME IN MIN
Figure 3.5. First order deadbeat algorithm with complex ringing
poles removed (Equation 3.12).
Using this algorithm gives virtually the same process response,
as shown in Figure 3.6, as was obtained in Figure 3.5. The
controller output is also very similar. This algorithm happens
to be a PI controller with a gain of -389.0 and a reset time of
12.0. For PI control of step changes in set point, minimization
of the ITAE criterion gives the values -225 and 12.6, respectively.
Similar results are obtained for the algorithm derived
from the second order model. The pole-zero locations are shown
in Figure 3.7. Removing the ringing pole at z = -1 gives the
control algorithm in equation 3.14; removing the ringing poles
at z = -1 and z = gives the algorithm in equation 3.16
as can been seen in Table III-4. As shown in Figure 3.8 and
3.9, the algorithm with both poles removed exhibits much less
ringing, whereas the responses of the two algorithms are virtually
identical. However, equation 3.16 is identical to the conven
tional PID algorithm with Kc= -654.8, T^ = 13.49, and T^ = 1.80.
In Chapter II, minimization of the ITAE criterion for a step
change in set point gave Kc = -679.6, T^ 83 23.3, and T^ ° 2.0.
Comparison of Algorithms
From Figures 3.10 and Figure 3.11 it is obvious, that the
second order model algorithm is always better than the first
order model algorithm for either load or set point changes.
For load change, responses using algorithms without the ringing
poles removed give less overshoot and less oscillatory behavior

o
c=>
•— i
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

TIME IN MIN.
CD
O
urj
o>
CD
CD
0- -
o
oo
- 10.00 .
0 00 10.00 20.00 30.00
TIME IN MIN.
Figure 3.6. First order deadbeat algorithm with all ringing
z-Plane
Imaginary
0.86 682
919

Table III-4
Deadbeat Algorithms for
Second order Plus Dead Time Model
Removing z = -1:
-aT -1N .. -bT -1N

D(z) - Cl - e z )(1 - e ) (3 .14)
2KC1(1 - z"1)Cl + 57 z_1>
or
__ 1 r„ / -aT , -bT. -(a+b)T i
M = IE - (e + e )E ,+ e E 0
n 2KC^ L n n-1 n-2J
Removing both z= "^/C^ an(* z=
D(,J = Cl - e ' " . ' 1) (1 - e ^ V 1)

2K(Cj+C2) (1 - z’1) (3'16)
or
«n - 2K(C*+ C2) [En-(e'aT+ e'M ) E n-l+
(3.17)
60
O
o
JUlXLTur-u/
- 10.00 0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00 30.00

T I M E IN MIN.
o
o
in
co,
o
oo
- 10.0 0 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 3.8. Second order deadbeat algorithm with z=»l removed
(Equation 3.15).
o
C3
ID.
w
o
X q
CCo
IxJ -
0.2 -
cn
a
2 S
- 1 0 .DO 1 0 .0 0 20.00 30.00

T I M E IN MIN
e>
Cl
in
o>,
Z
I— <
o
o
a
CO
- 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 3.9. Second order deadbeat algorithm with all ringing poles
removed (Equation 3.17)>
192
second order PID first order dead
beat (Equation 3 .1;
190.00
IN F.
second order deadbeat

186.00
(Equation 3.17)
TEMP
186.00
0.00 1 0 .0 0 30
TI M E IN MIN.
Figure 3.10. Comparison of algorithms for load change.

195.00
190.00
IN F.
PID second order

185.00
second order deac

TEMP
beat (Equation ^
3.17)
180.00
first order deadbeat

(Equation 3.13)
10. 0.00 10.00 S O . 00 30

TI M E IN MIN.
Figure 3.11. Comparison of algorithms on set point change.

as compared to those with ringing poles removed, as shown in
Figure 3.12. That is, in the case of a set point change the
controlled variable responds almost identically, but this is
not quite true in the case of a load change.
Kalman Algorithm (5)
Instead of specifying C(z)/R(z) as in the previous section,
Kalman obtained an algorithm by requiring the response to a step
change in set point to reach the final value in two sampling
times and remain at the final value thereafter, as illustrated
in Figure 3.13. Therefore, the expression for C(z) is
o/ \ -1 , -2 , -3 ,
C(z) = c^z + z + z + ...
No restrictions are placed on the value of c^. In order
to accomplish the above, the manipulated variable M(z) will
assume two intermediate values and then assume its final
values thereafter, as shown in Figure 3.13. The expression
for M(z) is
-1 -2 -3
M(z) = m + m,z + m_z + m_z + ...
o 1 f f
Where m^ is the final value which is the reciprocal of the process
gain in a linear system.
For a unit step change in set point,

Q
o
cu
03
* -*
second order deadbeat ringing pole removec

O
O (Equation 3.17)^7
second order deadbeat(Equation 3.10)
CD
D
to
lO.
- 10.00 0.00 10. D U
TIME IN MIN
Figure 3.12. Second order ringing and ringing-free algorithms

on load change.
time
m
o
1 1
| |
1
n»(t) . 1 1
I
ml 1 1 1
i 1
. 1 i
0 T 2T 3T 4T
time
Figure 3.13. Desired response characteristics used to design

Kalman's algorithm.
o/
R(z) = —
1 - z’1
c (z) = /i - z
= (1 X c ^ “I j+. z
"2 +, z
-3 +, ...).
= c^z -1 +, ,, - c^)z
v -2
(1
= P jZ -1 + P2z~2 = P (z) (3 .1 8 )
and
M(z) _ „ -lw . -1 -2 -3, v

= (1 - z )(n^+ m^z + mfz + mfz +...)
= q0 + + q2z "2 = Q(z > (3 .1 9 )
From Elgure 3.1, the process pulse transfer function HG(z)
is the ratio of C(z) to M(z), i.e.,
HG(z) = = ^X.2) (2 20)

} M(z) Q(z)
Therefore, it is obvious that the coefficients in P(z) and Q(z)
must equal to the coefficients in the process pulse transfer
function HG(z).
The following relationships among the coefficients should
be noted:
2
i? ! Pi = + P2 = cx + ” ci^ = 1 (3 .2 1 )
2
- - - + m, - m + m - m, = m_ = 1/K
i=l\ - 9o + ^1 + ^2 " mo + ml" V V ml “ ”f
(3 .2 2 )
where K is the process gain for a linear system. Although these
relationships do not directly hold for the pulse transfer
functions in Table III-l, simply dividing by the sum of the
numerator coefficients will give the desired results.
Now that P (2) and Q(z) are known, the control algorithm
D(z) can be derived from equation 3.3.
J)(z) s — -—
' HG(z) 1-C(z)/R(z)
o Slzj PCz)
P(z) l-P(z)
D(z) <3 -23>
Hence, the coefficients in the control algorithm are directly
related to the coefficients in the process pulse transfer
function.
Two intermediate switches in the. manipulated variable
were assumed in the derivation of equation 3.21. It was found
that Q(z), the denominator of HG(z), must contain terms through

-2
z . In other words, the plant should be second order, since
a third order process would require three switches.

-2
If the process contains a dead time z , equation 3.23
still holds. That is, the process dead time presents no problems
in deriving the control algorithm.

for first and second order models are given in Tables III-5 and
III-6, respectively, with sampling time T = 1 min.
Comparison of First and Second Order Algorithms
Figure 3.14 and Figure 3.15 are responses to step change
in set point for equations 3.25 and 3.27, respectively. Even
though the controlled variable responses look pretty good, too
much ringing is experienced in both algorithms. Pole-zero
relationships for equations 3.24 and 3.25 are shown in Figures
3.16 and Figure 3.17, respectively. It is anticipated that both
algorithms will ring.
Tables III-7 and III-8 give the algorithms with ringing
poles removed for first and second order algorithms, and the
respective responses are shown in Figures 3.18 and 3.19. It
is obvious that the algorithms with ringing poles removed
perform very well. However, equation 3.31 happens to be a PI
controller with a gain of -354.0 and a reset time of 12.0.
Similarly, equation 3.33 happens to be a PID controller with a
gain of -531.0, a reset time of 13.49, and a derivative time
of 1.80.
Comparison of Kalman's first order model algorithm and second
order model algorithm are shown in Figure 3.20 and Figure 3.21
for load and set point changes respectively. Definite conclu
sions can be drawn about the superiority of the second order

Table III-5
Kalman Algorithms for
First Order Model
a.T ,
1 (1 - e z )
D (z) = (3.24)
K(C6+C?) r -3 -4 i
C,z C,z
1 6 7
C,+C_ C,4C
6 7 6 /J
or
-ajT C
1 r_
M =
K(C6+C?) L^n c "n-lj ' C6+ Mn-3 + C,+C, Mn-4
o /
(3.25)
where
a = —
1 T
-a^mT
C6 ‘ 1 ' c
-a.mT -a T
C? = e - e
6
m
1 ” T
e = NT + 6
ana T = 1 mln = sampling time K = process gain
0 a dead time E = error
t ** time constant M = manipulated variable

Table III-6
Kalman Algorithm for
Second Order Model
i fi / -aT. “bT. -1 . - (a+b)T -2]

.1____ Ll ~ ( e + e )z + e z J
D(z) =
k (c 1+ c 2)
. C1 -2 C2 -3
■ C1+C2 z "Cj+Cg 2
(3.26)
or
1 r -aT, "bT._ . -(a+b)T „ i
n K(C1+C2)LEn- (e +e )En-l En-2]
c c
+ 5 ^ «n-2 + c j f q “a-3 <3 -27>
where
a = — 9 = dead time
T1
b-i- t^, t2 = time constants

t2
0 = NT K = processgain
T = sampling time *= 1 min E = error
D6 -aT — £L6-bT
= 1 + a - b M = manipulated variable
-(a+b)T . be ae
2 = e + a - b ----
/1.
o
o
in
CD
in_
•=*
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 30.00

TIM E IN MIN.
CD
O
in
03
CD
t— 4
a
--
o
oo
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 0.00
TI ME IN MIN.
Figure 3.14. First order Kalman algorithm (Equation 3.25).
CD
O
0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00 30.00

TI ME IN MIN.
o
o
Ift
CD
O
CD,
- 10.00 0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00 30.00
TIM E IN MIN.
Figure 3.15. Second order Kalman algorithm (Equation 3.27).

z-Plane
Imaginary
1.0
Real
382 923
309-*8161

/3
z-Plane
919
-.5-.461

/o
Table III-7
First Order Kalman Algorithm
With Ringing Poles Removed
Removing the complex poles
”al^
-1
D (z) - “ r f ™ (1 V E -1 :-! - (3-28)
.10JK. (1_z J-)(1+>382 z A)
or
_a x
“n ' l k K ' 6 1 En-l] + -618Mn-l + -382Mn-2 <3 ‘29>
Removing all the ringing poles
-aiT
_, „ 1 (1 - e z )
D <*> ■ K(3C6« C 7) . ,-1, (3-30)
or
“3 T
(3.31)
Mn = K(3C6+4C?) [En " 6 1 En-l] + Mn-1
Table III-8
Second Order Kalman Algorithm
With Ringing Poles Removed
Removing the complex poles
[l -
( ' " K(2C1+3C2)- - ( 1 . z-l)
(3.32)
or
Mn " ^ W ) [En- (e'aT'Hi'bT)En-l+ e-(att)TE ,1 + M ,

1 2 n-2J n-1
(3.33)
where
a = — 9 = dead time
T1
1
b = —- T|»To = time constants
2
0 = NT K = process gain
T = sampling time = 1 min e = error
_aT jjT M = manipulated variable

c , - 1 + be -■ ^
1 a - b
_ -(a+b)T be bT - ae aT
2 + a - b
78
o
CD
tn
CO
O
2 5
- 10.00 .
0 00 10.00 20.00 30.00
TTI M E IN MIN
CD
o
U3
05
CD
CD
CD
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
TIM E IN M N
Figure 3.18. First order Kalman's algorithm with all ringing poles
removed (Equation 3.31).
79
a
CD
to
O
CO
o
*- J—k
-10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

T I M E IN MIN.
CD
a
to
o>
<— i
CD
O
cl : .
luS“
CD
o
o
DO
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
TI M E IN MIN.
Figure 3.19. Second order Kalman algorithm with ringing poles

ov
O
o
OJ
o>
Kalman's first ordc
(Equation 3.31).
PID second order
o
o
,o
ox
2
Kalman's second order
(Equation 3.33).
CJ
o
to
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 3.20. Comparison of algorithms on load change.

U JL
U>
o?
PID second order
i— i
C3
* O
0.-; *
u j» -
C3
(Equation 3.33) (Equation 3.31)
CO
- 1 0 .0 0 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 3.21. Comparison of algorithms on set point change.

model algorithm in which the rising time is faster, less over
shoot, faster settling time and less oscillatory.
In many cases, algorithm designed for a set point change
perform very well for a load change. From Figure 3.22 it is
clear that, for a load change, the algorithm without removing
the ringing poles yields a better response compared to the
one with the ringing poles removed.
Summary
Algorithms derived from a second order model always
performed better than algorithms derived from a first order
model in either the deadbeat or Kalman method. Superiority
in the second order model algorithm over the first order
model algorithm is experienced in both load and set point
changes, whereas it is advisible to employ the original
algorithm for load changes.
In all cases considered in this chapter, removal of the
ringing poles from the algorithm designed from a first order
model produced a PI algorithm; removal of the ringing poles
from the algorithm designed from the second order model
produced a PID algorithm. This is surprising since one of the
advantages generally cited for use of the z-transform algorithms
is that they should give superior performance to that of PI and
PID algorithms.
09
o Equation 3.33)
»— i
(Equation 3.27)
CD
to
to
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 30
TIME IN MIN
Figure 3.22. Comparison of Kalman ringing and ringing-free

algorithms on load change.
Literature Cited
Kuo, B . C ., Analysis and Synthesis of Sampled-Data Control

Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963.
Koppel, L. B., Introduction to Control Theory. McGraw-Hill

Book Company, Inc.
Smith, C. L., and Merrill, P. W., "The Dynamics of Spot

Samples," Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 46, No. 12, (Dec.1967);
Vol. 47, No. 1, (Jan.1968).
Dahlin, E. B., "Designing and Tuning Digital Controllers",

Instruments and Control Systems. (June 1968), p. 77.
Kalman, R. E., discussion following article entitled

"Sampled-Data Processing Techniques for Feedback Control
Systems", by A. R. Bergen and J. R. Ragazzini, Transactions
of the AIEE. (Nov. 1954), pp. 236-247.
Chapter IV
DAHLIN'S CONTROL ALGORITHM
Introduction
The deadbeat algorithm and Kalman's algorithm require the
process output to move from the old set point to the new set
point in one and two sampling times, respectively (Chapter III),
which is far too streneous for most industrial processes.
The problem is not with the design method, but with the chosen
expression for C(z), the process output. For both deadbeat
and Kalman algorithms there is no parameter that can be adjusted.
The Dahlin method has such a parameter and therefore may be more
attractive for process control.
Design of Control Algorithm Using z-Transform (1)
The general digital control loop is illustrated in Figure 4.1.
From block diagram analysis with negative feedback (2), the
controller D(z) is derived as
1 C(z)/R(z)
(4.1)
HG(z) 1-C(z)/R(z)
where
HG(z) = Z F - — - G(s) (4.2)

Zero-order
E(z) Controller Hold Plant
C(s)
R(z). -sT
D(z) 1-e
G(s)
Plant
"- Error
Set Output
Manipulated
Point
Variable
Feedback Signal C(z)
Figure 4.1. Typical digital process control loop.

is the pulse transfer function of the process. Several expressions
for HG(z) are given in Table ITI-1 in Chapter III.
Dahlin's Method
Dahlin (3) suggests that the closed loop system should behave
like a continuous first-order lag with dead time, i.e.,
Xe~08
c (s ) = —
s+X (4.3)
where X = reciprocal of the time constant.
The \ of the closed loop response can be best visualized
as a tuning parameter. Large values of X give tight control;
small values of X give loose control.
It should be pointed out that the process model dead time
6 should be included in equation 4.3. If situations such as this
are not recognized, the controller D(z) would require future
values of error in order to calculate the current value of the
output, which cannot physically be accomplished.
In discrete form
(1 - e”^T)z"N_1
C O O = <■' •li > -i (4.4)
(1-z ) (1-e KTz L)
where N = nearest integer number of sampling times in 6
T = sampling time
If R(z) is the unit step change, then
C(z) (l-e"XT)z~N ~1
(4.5)
R<z> " (l-e^V1)
Substituting into equation 4.1, we have
D(z) =
i . - M z -1- (1-e
1-e ,, -\T.)z -N-l HG(z)
(4.6)
Pulse transfer functions HG(z) for first order plus dead
time model and for second order plus dead time model are
derived in Chapter III.
for first and second order models are given in Table IV-1 and
IV-2 respectively for sampling time T = 1 min.
Handling of Saturation
Applying the control algorithms in Table IV-1 and Table IV-2
to the original process for a step change in set point for X=l,
the manipulated and controlled variables are as shown in
Figures 4.2 and 4.3. Physical constraints have been imposed
upon the system. Fully-opened valve position corresponds to
6,000 lb/min of cooling water rate, whereas fully-closed valve
position corresponds to no flow of cooling water. When saturation
occurs, the errors in Equations 4.8a and 4.10a are recalculated
from the control equation 4.8 or 4.10 .by employing either
equal to 6,000 or 0. This practice is analogous to the use
of the velocity form of the PID algorithm as opposed to the
position form.
oy
Table IV-1
Dahlln Algorithm for
First Order Model
-XT "ajT ,
d /8) * d - e XT) (1-e 1 z 1) ..
-XT -1 -XT. -31 fn _ -1. (4,7)
K |_l-e z -(1-e )z J (Cg+C^z )
1 -XT -a,T
M = [ V e ’1‘ V , ] +(e'XI-C7/C6)Mn.1
+ 57 •'X\ - 2 + <1- ” >,W C 7/C6 (1'e"XT>Mn-4 (4 -8>

6
KC
\ = [Mn-(e'"T-C7/C6)M„ - r C7/C6e' " \ - 2 - < 1-e'W )M„-3
->T -a-T
- C7/C6 (l'e )Mn-4] + 6 En-1 (4‘8a)
where
1
ai T
-a irfT
C6 = X - e
-a-rrfT -ajT
C = e - e
7
m = 1 - 6/T
90
Table IV-1 (cont,)
0 = NT + 6
T = 1 min = sampling time
0 = dead time
T = time constant
K = process gain
E = error
X = tuning parameters
Table IV-2
Dahlln Algorithm for
Second Order Model
K [l-eW z'1-a-e' W )z'2 ] (Cj +Cj Z-1)
- (CJ /C1- - M ) ^ + r(c /c l)e- w +1] M

u / I * n-2
+ C2/Cl ( l - ’« ) H n_3
KC
En = 7 7 x f [ V (C2/Cr e'W ) M n - r [<C2/Cr l)e'XT+l]
- C2/c1(1V « ^ - 3] + (e-aT+e-bI)En.1-e-<a« ) IEr
where
92
Table IV-2 (cont.)
9 = NT
T = sampling time = 1 min
-aT -bT
C 1 + be - ae
'1 a - b
c = e-(a+b)T + be~bT - ae~aT

2 a - b
9 = dead time
= t:^me constants
K - process gain
E = error
X = tuning parameter
o
o
in.
(M
o
X q
©
CC©
LJ '
0-S
1 0 .0 0 0,00 10.00 20.00

T I M E IN MIN.
CD
CD
in
o>
»—«
X=1
oo.
-10.00 0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.2. First order Dahlin algorithm (Equation 4.8).

CD
O
•
u>.
r**
o g
Xt»-|
=*•
UJ
I—
CE^
tn°
l/5_| LnJlrun.
cc ~
UJ
f—
CCo
120
in
I
- 1 0 .0 0 0.00 1 0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
o
o
in
05
oo
- 1 0 .0 0 0.00 1 0.0 0 20.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.3. Second order Dahlin algorithm (Equation 4.10).
Ringing Analysis
Judging the performance of a controller merely from the
response is inadequate. The manipulated variable (valve signal)
m(t) in Figure 4.2 and 4.3 exhibits excessive valve movement, a
phenomenon known as ringing. The ringing amplitude is defined
as the difference between the first two controller outputs,
and can be related to the algorithm's pole-zero locations.
First Order Lag Plus Dead Time Model
Rewriting equation 4.7
(1-z’1)(l+(l-e"XT)z-1+(l-e"XT)z“2) (1+ )
(4.11)
where
-\T
The two varying conjugate complex poles are
-(l-e~XT)± iV/£a-e"XT)-(l-e"XT)2
z (4.12)
2
and the magnitude is

It is very interesting to note that deadbeat is a special
algorithm of equation 4.11 when X approaches infinity. The pole-
zero locations are shown in Figure 4.4 for \=1 and (deadbeat).
Ringing is anticipated and the tighter the control, the greater
the ringing amplitude as the result of equation 4.13.
Poles on the left half plane contribute ringing (3).
For the most part, the ringing phenomenon is generally super
imposed upon the useful output of that algorithm. Dahlin
suggested that the ringing pole be simply eliminated and the
gain adjusted accordingly.
The various algorithms with ringing poles removed are
shown in Table IV-3. Since the magnitude of the complex
ringing poles dominate, the complex poles will be removed
first, which considerably improves loop performance as shown
in Figure 4.5. As Cy/Cg <»5, it does not contribute too much
ringing, the algorithm with all the left half poles removed
(Figure 4.6) behaves only slightly better than Figure 4.5.
This algorithm happens to be a PI controller with a gain of
-325.0 and reset time of 12.0.
Second Order Lag Plus Dead Time Model
;Rewriting equation 4.9
(4.18)
1
s/
z-Plane
Imaginary
X=1
\=
-.412 923 1.0
Real
X=1
Figure 4.4. Pole-zero location of Equation 4.8.

Table IV-3
First Order Dahlln Algorithm
With the conjugate complex poles removed
-IT **al^ -1
D(z) = (1 -,.e„XT)(l - e .z )
-1 ^7 -1
KC6 (3-2e KL)(l-z ) (1+- (T * A)
6
-XT -a,T
1-e
M =
n
KC6 (3-2e"X’T)
[ V 6 1 Vl] +(1-°7/C6>Mn-
^7
+ 7T M o
6 n"2
With all the ringing poles removed

Table IV-3 (cont.)
where
-a.mT
C6 ’ 1 - 0
-a.mT -a.T
C? = e - e 1
m = 1 - 6/T
e = NT + 6
T = sampling time = 1 min
0 = dead time
T = time constant
K = process gain
E = error
M = manipulated varialbe
\ = tuning parameter
IUU
o
o
in
OCo
UJ •
0-2“
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

TI ME IN MIN.
o
o
LO
CD.
X=1
a
co
-10.00 0.00 10.00 30.00
TI ME IN MIN.
Figure 4.5. First order Dahlin algorithm with complex ploes

o
o
LO
X o
o
0
in.
OCo
LU •
CUS
CO
Q
2 5
10.00 0.00 10.00 Z0.00 30.00

T I M E IN MIN.
o
o
in
o>
21
V—I
X=1
o
a
03
-10.00 0. 00 10.00 • 20.00 30.00

T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 4 .6 . First order Dahlin algorithm with all ringing poles

where
1 - e’XT
K" = 6
“ l
There is one real varying pole on the left half plane
z = -(1 - e’XT) (4.19)
As o o ., the algorithm becomes the second order deadbeat
algorithm in Chapter III. The pole-zero locations are shown
in Figure 4.7 for X=1 and X=0° . Ringing is anticipated as

-XT
poles are located at -0.855 and -(1-e ).
The various algorithms with ringing poles removed are shown
in Table IV-4. From Figure 4.8, considerable ringing still
exists with z= -(1-e removed. Algorithm with z=-C2/C^
removed behaves better than Figure 4.8 as 02/0 ^ = .855 and

-IT
(1-e ) = .632, as shown in Figure 4.9. Algorithm with both
the ringing poles removed works beautifully as shown in
Figure 4.10. However, this happens to be a PID controller
with a gain of -507, a reset time of 13.49, and a derivative
time of 1.80.
Ringing and Ringing-Free Algorithms
Algorithms derived from set point change can be used for
load change as in the case of Kalman and deadbeat algorithms in
Chapter III. Figures 4.11 and 4.12 are responses for first and
z-Plane
Imaginary
-.855 919 0
Real
682

iwo
Table IV-4
Second Order Dahlin Algorithm
With z = removed
i "XT /1 -aT -1 .. -bT -1

n f z) = _____ (1-e z )(l-e z_J_ (4.20)
K(C1+C2) (1 - z " 1) (l+(l-e"XT)z"1)
m - 1-e~XT |\, / _aT . -bT. „ . - (a-t-b)T

n K(C1+C2) I n ” n-1 En-2]
+ e"XTM ,+(l-e”*-T)M 9 (4.21)

n-1 n-2
with z = -(l-e”^X) removed
, XT ,, -aT -1W 1 -bT -1N

D«) = .I > (1-e .« > (4.22)
KC1(2-e A i ) (1-z i)(l-K]2/C1z 1)
M = -e
l-eXT r„ , -ax. -oi\„
r. ./.-aT^-bT^ , -(a+DjT„
^-(a-A)!, t
— — ^ [ E n-(e +e ^ n-1 V l ]
n KC
(4.23)
+ ^ - V W l W n - a
Table IV-4 (cont.)
“XT
with z 5 -(1-e ) and removed
1 n -aT -1. -bT -1N

D <Z> " - L ^ S <1-e Z >P~e Z >
K(C1+C2)(2-e Ai) (1 - z )
-XT
M„ L ~-- |E -(e'aT+e‘bT)E .+e-<a+b>TE
“ k (c 1-
k ;2) (2-e XT) L n n '1
o
o
•
tn,
p-
(M
2 §
Xin4
sa*
Lul
h-
CEO
0Cl
in.
i
QC-
LU
<Xo
3 0
in
i
10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
TI M E IN MIN.
o
o
in
o
o
GO
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
TI M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.8. Second order Dahlin algorithm with z^/l-e-^ )

107
o
o
in.
UJ
- 10.00 0.00 1 0. 0 0 20.00 90.00

TIME IN MIN.
o
o
in
03
UJ
U_
03
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 90.00
TIME IN MIN.
Figure 4.9. Second order Dahlin algorithm with z=-C0/C, removed
(Equation 4.21). 2 1
I v/o
o
o
u>
- 1 0.0 0 0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00 30.00

T I M E IN MI N
o
Q
io
o
o
o
05
UJ
Ll.
o
CD
Q
CO
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30,00
TI M E IN MI N
Figure 4.10. Second order Dahlin algorithm with all ringing
- 1 0.0 0 0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00 30,00
TIM E IN MIN.
o
o
Cvl
Oi
=1
190,00
IN PER*
186.00
TEMP
85.00
- 1 0.0 0 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

TI M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.11. First order Dahlin ringing algorithm (Equation 4.8)

on load change.
o
o
in
in
- 1 0.0 0 0.00 10.0 0 20.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Cj
O
rO
cn
to
03
0.00 1 0 .0 0 20.00 30.00
TI M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.12. Second order Dahlin ringing algorithm (Equation 4.10)
on load change.
second order algorithms respectively without the ringing poles
removed. It is obvious that ringing is not significant in case
of load change as the error imposed is gradual in contrast to
the set point change. From Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14, we
notice that the ringing algorithms give a faster rise time, less
overshoot, smaller settling time and less oscillatory compared
to the ringing-free algorithms. It is interesting to note that
it is more so in the first order algorithms rather than the
second order algorithm, probably because the first-order
ringing-free algorithm is only a PI controller whereas the second
order ringing-free algorithm is a PID controller.
Compensation of ringing at the expense of response has to
be justified in a particular situation. In this system it is
advisible to use the ringing algorithms for the load change and
the ringing-free algorithms for set point change.
Tuning Procedure (3)
As mentioned before X is a tuning parameter in Dahlin1s
algorithm and deadbeat is a particular algorithm when X tends
to infinity. The larger value of \ the tighter is the control.
This is obviously illustrated in Figure 4.15,4.16,4.17, and 4.18.
Higher X is desirable but highest possible X is recognized by
overshoot cauccd by mismatch.between actual and assumed
parameters, nonlinearities and ignored dynamic characteristics.

i
.lZ
132,00
Equation
190.00
4.17
IN F.
Equation 4.8
166.00
TEMP
166.00
10.00 0.00 10.00 e o .o o 30.00

TIME IN MIN.
Figure 4.13. First order Dahlin ringing and ringing-free

algorithms on load change (X=l).
e>
o
to
co
CO,
*—I Equation 4.8
Equation 4.17
co,
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 30.00
T I M E IN M I N
Figure 4.13a. First order Dahlin ringing and ringing-free

algorithms on set point change (X=l).
e»
o
•
CVJ
05
Equation 4.25
O
Q
05
Equation 4.10
to
10.00 0.00 20.00

T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.14 . Second order Dahlin ringing and ringing-free

algorithms on load change ( 1=1 )
o>
Equation 4.10
Equation 4.25
o
00.
- 1 0 .0 0 0.00 1 0 .0 0 30,00
T I M E IN M I N
Figure 4.14a. Second order Dahlin ringing and ringing-free

algorithms on set point change (\=1)•
132.00
100.00
1.0
IN F.
\=
186.00
TEMP
186.00
1 0 .0 0 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.15. First order Dahlin algorithm (Equation 4.17) with
varying X on load change.
CD
O
CM
O
=1
O
07
TEMP .IN F
\= 5
o
CO
ID.
10.00 0. DO 10.00 20.00 30.00
TI M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.16. Second order Dahlin algorithm (Equation 4.25)

with varying \ on load change.
o
o
to
o>.
o
o
O
CD
\=5
CO,
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.17. First order Dahlin algorithm (Equation 4.17) with

varying \ on set point change.
o
o
in
o>.
IN F
TEMP
,=l
X=5
o
00,
10.00 0.00 10.DD
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.18. Second order Dahlin algorithm (Equation 4.25) with
varying ^ on set point change.
Gradually Increasing X and observing response to small set point
changes yields the optimum value. A one parameter
optimization can be made to obtain the desired response
characteristics for the particular application (4). Out of
the three values of X in this study X=5 looks the best.
Summary
From Figures 4.19 and 4.20 it is obvious that algorithms
derived from the second order model are superior to those
derived from the first order model. The second order algorithms
give shorter rise time, less overshoot, and faster settling
time compared to those of the first order. Comparison with
the standard PID algorithm is also shown.
Algorithms designed for set point change perform very
well for load disturbances, but the ringing versions perform
noticeably better than the ringing-free versions.

192.00
Equation
190.00
4.17 A
IN F.
/ PID
Equation 4.25
186.00
TEMP
85.00
.
0 00 10.00 30.00
T I M E IN M I N
Figure 4.19. Comparison of algorithms on load change =1)

03
130.00
IN F.
185.00
TEMP
PID
Equation 4.25
Equation 4.17
180.00
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00

T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 4.20. Comparison of algorithms on set point change (X-l)•
Literature Cited
1. Kuo, B. C., Analysis and Synthesis of Sampled-Data Control

Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963.
2. Koppel, L. B., Introduction to Control Theory. McGraw-Hill

Book Company, Inc.
3. Dahlin, E. B., "Designing and Tuning Digital Controllers",

Instruments and Control System (June 1968), pp. 77.
4. Wilde, D. J. and Beightler, C. S., Foundations of Optimization,

Prentice-Hall, In., Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
(
Chapter V
ADVANCED CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Introduction:
The fact that a digital control system Is more costly than
a conventional analog control system is generally accepted
today. In perhaps the majority of the cases, the justification
for this extra capital outlay comes from improved control
using advanced control techniques that are either impossible
or impractical to implement under the hardware constraints
of the analog system. This chapter considers the use of cascade
control and multivariable control systems on the system dis
cussed in the previous chapters. The results obtained with these
techniques are compared to those obtained with the simple feedback
scheme examined in earlier chapters. All control algorithms
considered will be digital with a sampling time of one minute.
Cascade Control Systems (1)
Suppose we have a process essentially consisting of two
lags in series as illustrated in Figure 5.1. The usual feedback
arrangement \tould be to measure the output and adjust the
input as illustrated in Figure 5.1a.

Controller
s+1 t 0 s +1
Figure 5.1a. Classical feedback
Master Slave Process 1 Process 2

ontroller ontroller
T.s+l
Figure 5.1b. Cascade Control.
Process 1 Process 2
Controller
Figure 5.1c. Equivalent feedback loop.
Figure 5.1. Cascade control system.

Assuming the dynamics of Process 1 are somewhat faster than
that of Process 2, i.e., is smaller than T2 , the performance
of this control system can be improved by somehow making
Process 1 even faster dynamically. One approach by which this
can be accomplished is to add a feedback loop around Process 1,
giving the cascade arrangement in Figure 5.1b. The output of
the outer or master controller is the set point to the inner
or slave controller.
Assuming a proportional controller Kc is employed in the
slave controller, applying the principle of negative feedback
to the inner loop (2).
Since t./(1+K )is less than -r,> Process 1 becomes faster

JL C J*
due to cascading as shown in Figure 5.1c.
This approach to the development of the cascade control
concept was chosen in an attempt to show that cascading
improves the basic performance of the loop. The real payout
comes when the disturbances are considered, as illustrated in
Figure 5.2. Some disturbances enter the inner loop, and others
enter the outer loop. It is obvious that compensation of those
entering the inner loop is greatly improved, but cascading also

Master Slave
Controller ontroller Process 1 Process 2
Figure 5.2. Cascade control with different entry of disturbance.

improves the compensation of disturbances entering the outer
loop. Utopia is when all major disturbances enter a fast
inner loop.
Cascade Control of Process
Figure 5.3 illustrates the cascade control of the process
studied in the previous chapters. The jacket outlet water
temperature is the intermediate variable. The main obstacle to
obtaining good performance from a cascade control arrangement
is the tuning of the two controllers. The basic approach is
simple (3):
1. Place the master controller on manual and tune the
inner loop using the method of your choice (4-8). As
the inner loop must respond well to the set point
changes from the master controller, it should probably
be tuned to give good set point response.
2. Place the inner loop on automatic and tune the outer
loop. It should be noted that the "process", i.e.,
the entire entity controlled by the master controller,
contains the slave controller. It is suggested that
the settings for the slave controller not be changed
while tuning the master controller.
Tuning is certainly a factor to consider in the selection
of the modes for the various controllers. For the inner loop,
a pure proportional controller is frequently recommended as
offset is not significant for the intermediate variable (water

(set point)
Feed
Master '.TRC jacket

overflow
i (set point)
Slave (TRC O
Products
cooling
water
Figure 5.3. Cascade control of a stirred jacketed reactor.

outlet temperature). Use of proportional action in the inner
loop makes the inner loop faster, which should lead to an easier
tuning problem for the outer loop. Reset is sometimes added
but rarely is derivative found to be beneficial. For the outer
loop, a PI controller is typically used, with a rate added in
some cases.
Inner Loop Tuning
Minimum ITAE criterion ( 9) is employed in tuning for set
point change (IQ). In order to tune the slave controller a first
order plus dead time model is fitted to the response of the outlet
water temperature to a step change in water feed rate . A two-
parameter search is made with the Pattern Search technique (11)
to minimize the ISE criterion. In other words, least square
fitting is employed. The model is found to be
re \ - -0.0237 e~°,34s .
G(s) " 4.67 s + 1 (5'2)
Comparison of the true response and the one by the model is
shown in Figure 5.4. The optimum proportional setting was
evaluated as in Chapter II, and found to be K = -1324. The

c
jacket temperature response is shown in Figure 5.5.
Outer Loop Tuning
A first order plus dead time model is fitted to the response
of the reactor temperature to a step change in the set point
for the inner loop with the slave controller (proportional) in

1 22 .0 0
120.00
RESPONSE CURVES
True response
Model 5.2
116.00
IN F.
- 300
116.00
TEMP
1 R .00
112.00
00 10.00 30.00 50.00

T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 5.4. Model fitting of jacket temperature with slave

controller in manual.
o
o
rvi
o
o
CM-
Q
CO
U_
C.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 50. D D

TIME IN MIN.
Figure 5.5. Jacket temperature response with slave controller in

automatic.
automatic. Another two-parameter search is made to minimize
ISG. The model is found to be
, 0.3234 e"°-94s
G(s) ° ~ 8~ 8"s +"l <5 '3>
The model matched the true response very well, as can be
seen in Figure 5.5a. The model and tuning parameters that
minimize the ITAE for both PI and PID control (12) are given in
Table V-l.
Cascade Responses
Step change in feed rate (disturbance entering outside the
inner loop) is simulated when both the master and slave
controllers are in automatic. The response is compared to
the one with PI algorithm tuned to a second order plus dead time
model in Chapter II, as shown in Figure 5.6. Similar results
are shown in Figure 5.7 for temperature set point change. As
is mentioned before, cascade control is best appreciated when
disturbance enters the inner loop. A step change in inlet water
temperature is simulated as shown in Figure 5.8. It is noted
that cascade response yields shorter rise time and less
overshoot.
From Table V-2, it is seen that a PI cascade control
behaves much better than a simple feedback loop with a PI
controller tuned on a second order model. Although PID cascade

o RESPONSE CURVES
o
05,
ll_
True response
Model 5.3
ATSP = 7 . 1
00-
o
o
(0
03
0.00 1 0 .0 0 30.00 50.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 5.5a. Model fitting of reactor temperature with slave

controller in automatic.
i
Table V-l
Cascade Control Models and
Algorithm Settings
Inner Loop Model
' . -0.0237 e"°*34s

G(s) =■
4.67 s + 1
Proportional controller Kc= - 132.4
Outer Loop Model with Slave Controller In Automatic
03234 e“0*9^8
G(s) = 6
8.68 s + 1
Setting for Load Change
PI Kc 12.678 ph , Kc = 9.0
Tj*3 3.661 T± = 1.5
Td = 0.1
Setting for Set Point Change

o JPI
FI cascade
IN
TEMP
to
o
to
to-
0.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 5.6 . Comparison of cascade PI and conventional PI controller

for feed rate change.
OJ,
•— I
o
I cascade
PI
a
to-
1Q.QD 20.00
TIME IM MIN.
Figure .7. Comparison of cascade PI arid conventional PI controller
temperature set point change.
ea
o
m
CM
o>
PI
PI cascade
- 1 0 . DO 0 .00 30. 00
T I M E IN M I N .
Figure 5.8. Comparison of cascade PI and conventional PI controller

for step change in cooling water temperature.
Table V-2
Response for Cascade and
Standard Controllers
Load Change: Am = +200 ITAE
Cascade FI 58.8
Standard PI 189.3
Cascade PID 35.7
Standard PID 38.9
Load Change: ATw= +10
Cascade PI 9.4
Standard PI 110.0
Cascade PID 18.6
Standard PID 23.4
Set Point Change: ATSP = -5
Cascade PI 107.5
Standard PI 163.6
Cascade PID 56.6
Standard PID 74.6

control behaves better than a simple feedback loop with a PID
controller, the Improvement is not as significant as with PI.
It must be borne in mind that the cascade tuning is based
on a first order model whereas the simple feedback tuning is
based on a second order model. Furthermore, PID tuning is much
more difficult than PI. Therefore, utilization of a higher
order model to improve the cascade PID tuning would probably
yield much better performance.
Multivariable Control (13.1Z^
Up to this point the control loops were designed to maintain
one variable (reactor temperatue) at a desired value (the
set point) by manipulating one process input (cooling water
rate). In fact many practical control systems do not exactly
fit this description. This section considers a control system
for maintaining both the reactor temperature and concentration
near their desired values by manipulating both the cooling water
rate, Wc » and the reactor feed rate, W. Every controlled
variable needs a manipulated variable (15) and is thus a multi-
variable control system.
Previously the load change to the system was the change
in feed rate, which is now a manipulated variable. Instead,
the change in concentration of the feed stream is taken as the
load change to the system. Using the PID algorithms in Chapter II,
the responses are shown in Figure 5.9 for a step change in feed
to
CD
cn
li
en
- 1 0 .0 0 1 0 .0 0
T I M E IN MIN.
tZJ
ta
CD
to
to
cm
CD.
to
to 0.5
af
CD
10.00 0.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 5.9. Response for step change in feed concentration.

3 3
concentration from 9.0 lb/ft to 9.5 lb/ft and Figure 5.10
for step change in set point from 190°F to 185°F. Since it is
a self-regulating system, the concentration seeks another

3
steady-state which is quite different from 3.6 lb/ft . In most
cases where the concentration is to be controlled as well as
the temperature, multivariable control comes into play.
Gain Matrix
It is obvious from Figures 5.9 and 5.10 both the temperature
and concentration are functions of cooling water rate W c and
feed rate W.
Hence T= ^ ( W ,W) (5.4)
ca= f2 < V W) (5’5)
One aspect of the design of a multivariable control system is
to decide which manipulated variables (W, or W) will control
which controlled variables (T and C ). Since interaction exists

ci
in the system, it is a matter of common sense to say that the
manipulated variable which has the most influence on the con
trolled variable should be paired. This is where the gain
matrix plays a significant role. Expressing equations 5.4 and
5.5 as changes about the operating point gives

s
cn
23
Ota
Oin
m
1 0 .0 0 10.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
o
ca
in
07,
ATSP “ -5
10*00
T I M E IN MTN
Figure 5.10. Response for step change in temperature set point.
The matrix representation of these equations is
I
“ br bT
m
8* c
W W_
(5.8)
be
AC __a m
a
w VT
o
■» * m «
or in matrix form
C = M m (5.9)
£h
where i,j element of M is bC^/brn^ J This is typically
represented schematically in Figure 5.11.
The matrix of the partials in equation 5.8 is called the
gain matrix, each element being equivalent to the process gain
in a single-input, single-output control loop. For the two-
input, two-output system there are four gains; for an n-input,

2
n-output system there will be n of them.
These gains could be determined experimentally with n
process tests, e.g., impose a step change in one manipulated
variables while holding all others constant. The response of
each controlled variable could be recorded for evaluation of the

Figure 5.11. Schematic interacting action of multivariable
control system.
partial of each controlled variable with respect to the manipulated
variable for which the step change was made.
That is, suppose we place all control systems on the reactor
on manual and impose a change AW on the feed rate into the reactor
whlile holding W constant. The resulting steady state change in

c
C& and T, say, A a n d AT, can be obtained from the response of
the unit as shown in Figure 5.12. Since W has been held

c
constant, the partials with respect to W can be evaluated as
follows:
bC | AC
aI a
■ I, m <5ao)
Wc
AT
- W (5.11)
W
c
The"approximately equal to" notation is necessary because
most systems are nonlinear which means that the final answer
will vary somewhat with the magnitude of Small changes in
the manipulated variable should be undertaken. In the
limiting case, the above approximations become more exact.
Similarly from Figure 5.13, &Ca /8Wc J ^ , bT/tWc | w can be
evaluated.
During the calculation of the gain matrix, the units utilized
determine the final number obtained. Thus it is not wise to
compare elements of the gain matrix to decide the pairing of

- 20.00 0.00 20.00 10.00 60.00
T I M E IN MIN.
CM
o>,
,o
JN F
o
TEMP
tO
m * -loo
Vi
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 5.12. Open loop response to step change in feed rate
o
u_
a.o
lO
*3»- “■
- 20.00 .
0 00 HO. 00
T I M E INI MIN.
o
o
CVJ
03
- 300
u>
CQ.OQ
T I M E IN M IN .
Figure 5.13. Open loop response to step change in cooling

water rate.
variables. From Table V-3, bT/tHf| ^ is much greater than
c
6T/6tfc | yet it will be wrong to pair the temperature with the
feed rate. Therefore, the gain matrix is not unique in pairing
variables.
Bristol (16) introduced the technique of normalizing the gain
matrix making it independent of units and other considerations.
It has been proven to work in several industrial applications
(17,18).
Relative Gain Matrix
For multivariable systems, the above gains are not the only
ones that can be defined (19). Suppose a step change in the
rate of is made in the configuration in Figure 5.14. As
the control system will vary the reactor feed rate W to maintain
constant concentration C , the change in temperature T due to a

£L
change in W c will not be given by tfT/tWc J as developed above.
Instead, this test can be used to evaluate another gain, namely
bT/£W I p , the change in temperature with respect to jacket

c ! ca
flow rate at constant reactor concentration.
Obviously one can evaluate three more gains of this type,
namely The notation for these
will be The relative gain matrix is defined as

&C.,
150
Table V-3
Gain Matrix and Relative Gain Matrix
Gain
- I “ - 0.0101 °F/pound per min.

c IW
.000078 pound/pound per min.

W
.020869 °F/pound per min. feed

W
.001256 pound/pound per min. feed

W
Gain Matrix
W w
c
-.0101 .020869
M =
.000078 .001256
Relative Gain Matrix
W W
c
887 .113"! T
2 'I 113 •887J C.

twC _
8
REACTOR a
I
Controller
Figure 5.14. Configuration to evaluate b T / W

In principle, experimental tests (Figure 5.9) analogous
to that illustrated in Figure 5.14 could be used, but such tests
are not really very convenient. Once the response'matrix or
gain matrix is obtained, the relative gain matrix is evaluated
by matrix manipulation (16). Denoting the gain matrix by M, an
intermediate matrix L is formed by inverting and then trans
posing the gain matrix
L = (M'V (5.13)
The relative gain matrix U is determined by multiplying
corresponding terms of matrices M and L. The relative gain
terms are the elements of the matrix and are found from:
uij = ^“i j ^ i j * (5.14)
Significance of the Relative Gain Matrix
The utility of the relative gain is that it indicates how
manipulated and controlled variables should be paired. For
example, should the rate of cooling water to the reactor
be used to control reactor temperature or concentration? In
some cases the pairing is obvious, but in some cases it is not.
Occasionally it makes no difference (equal coupling), while
it is also possible for the proper pairing to change with operating
level. In these cases, the relative gains can be indispensable.

To facilitate the pairing of manipulated variables and
controlled variables, it is convenient to arrange the relative
gains as follows:
2 n
In
c
2 2n
c
n nn
The pairing is via the combinations whose relative gains
are the largest positive values. For example, the manipulated
variable for c^ would be the one corresponding to the largest
positive gain on the first row of the relative gain matrix.
A useful property of the relative gain matrix is that each
row and each column sums to unity. Thus, in a two-by-two
matrix as in this case, only one relative gain must be
determined.
The gain matrix and the relative gain matrix for this
system is shown in Table V-3. It is obvious that the reactor
temperature and the cooling water rate should be paired.
Tuning
Even though the above analysis indicates the proper pairing
of controlled and manipulated variables, connecting simple

feedback controllers often proves to be unsatisfactory. In
tuning the controllers, the general approach is to first
tune one of the loops and then tune the other. Generally no
problems arise in tuning the first controller (Chapter II), giving
the configuration in Figure 5.15a. In this configuration, the gain
of the system is . The second controller is tuned
with
1. The First Controller In Manual (FCIM), in Figure 5.15b.
2. The First Controller in Automatic (FCIA),in Figure 5.15c.
The gain of the first loop is now different due to the
feedback of the second loop. The value of the first loop gain
is now bc^/bm^| c . If this value is significantly different
from the original gain for which the loop was tuned, its per
formance deteriorates significantly. These loops are then said
to be interacting.
Hence relative gain is a measure of interacting
in multivariable control. Thus, the relative gain matrix is
called the "interaction measure" by Bristol(16). In this
system, if the concentration of the reactor feed increases,
the composition controller would decrease the reactor feed
rate. This would tend to raise the reactor temperature (feed
temperature is below reactor temperature), calling for an increase
in the rate of cooling water. But this temperature rise would

Controller
SYSTEM
Figure 5.15a. Tuning of controller 1.
Controller
SYSTEM
Controller
Figure 5.15b. Tuning of controller 2 with First Controller

in Manual (FCIM).
ontroller
k > 4
SYSTEM
"2
Controller
Figure 5.15c. Tuning of controller 2 with First Controller

in Automatic (FCIA).
Figure 5.15. Two different means of tuning multivariable control

systems.
increase the reaction rate* calling for more feed to maintain
the composition. Thus, a control action in one loop is a
disturbance to the other. The two kinds of tuning mentioned
above are studied.
Tuning Concentration Loop (FCIM Tuning)
In this case it is an ordinary tuning for the concentration
loop ( 9,12). An underdamped second order is approximated to
the concentration response to a step change in feed rate. Using
least square criterion gives the following model:
0.001256
0 0 " UT s +v 2 t£ s + 1 ' <5-«>
where
t - 2.361
c = 0.772
fits the actual response quite well as shown in Figure 5.16.
The standard FID settings determined from the model are given
in Table V-4.
Tuning Concentration Loop (FCIA Tuning)
In this case, the response of the concentration to a step
change in feed rate (W®1200 pound per min.) is fitted to an
overdamped second order plus dead time model. Using the same
procedure as above gives the model

RESPONSE CURVES
O
CO
CO
U.
Model 5.15
True response
- 100
o
m
n
.DC 60.00
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 5.16. Model and true concentration response with

temperature controller in maual.
Table V-4
Concentration PIP Controller for
Load Change
Underdamped Model
G(s) 0.001256
2.36 12s 2+2x 2 .361x0.772s+l
Optimum PIP (FCltfl
K = 2619.4
c
- 1.488
Ti
« 1.571
Td
Overdamped Model
rf ^ = 0.001247 e"°*lls
(3.66s+l)(0.72s+l)
Optimum PIP (FCIA)
K - 2488.4
c
Tt - 1.453
Td - 0.788
0.001247 e"0,lla
(5.16)
G(8) " (3.668+1)(0.728+1)
which fits the true response extremely well as can be seen In
Figure 5.17. The standard PID settings determined from the model
are given in Table V-4.
Multivariable Control Responses
It is very interesting to note that the PID settings for
the two models are quite different as tabulated in Table V-4,
but the response of the two controllers on concentration alone,
illustrated in Figures 5.18 and 5.19, look similar. Even though
the ITAE for both the methods are the same as shown in Table V-5
the FCIA tuning gives a slightly higher overshoot but a much
faster settling time compared to the FCIM tuning in this par
ticular system, as can be seen in Figure 5.20 for a step change
in feed rate. Multivariable control to a step change in temper
ature set point is shown in Figure 5.21.
For this system, the controllers for both temperature and
concentration perform very well to load or set point distur
bances. Among the two tuning methods, it appears that FCIA
tuning has taken the interaction factor into consideration
whereas FCIM does not. Because of low interaction in this
particular system, both tuning methods seem satisfactory; if
the interaction were more, neither would probably have worked.

RESPONSE CURVES
o
CD
CO
O
CO True response and Model 5.16
co
U.
Q
C L-o
co
Zco"
M
00 10.00 20.00 30.00 50.00

TI M E IN MIN.
Figure 5.17. Model and true concentration response with temperature

controller in automatic.
o
CD
to
- 10.00 0.00 10.00

T I M E IN MIN.
03
O
o
-IU.00 0.00
T
I
Figure 5.18. Responses for step change in feed concentration; FCIM

tuning; temperature controller on manual.
Otn
- I '■'.00 0.00 10.00 20.00

T I M E IN M I N . -
*—I
D
fl_ .
111°>-
to
03
- ; a . oa 1C.QQ
Figure 5 19. Responses for step change in feed concentration;

FCIA tuning; temperature, control on manual.
Table V-5
Comparison of Two Tuning Methods
Setting for Temperature Controller in manual:
Load Change (flC-.*=+.5) JTAE *TAE

___________ v af ' Temp. Cone.
Temperature Control 28.7
Concentration Control — 0.325
Multivariable Control 20.2 0.216
Set Point Change (AT=-5°F)
Setting for Temperature Controller in Automatic:
Load Change (AC ..=+.5)

_________& N af Temp. Cone.
Concentration Control — 0.3286
Set Point Change (AT— S 0?)

o
CD
CO
U_
Uncoi
FCIM controller
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

T I M E IN MIN.
O
O
=r
o>.
Single variable control
Multivariable control
Q
to
CD'
T I M E IN MIN.
Figure 5.20a. Multivariable control responses to step, change

in feed concentration FCIM tuning.
Uncontrolled
CLo FCIA controlled

co
z cn
- 10.00 0.00 30.00

T I M E IN M I N
O
zr
03,

fl_ -
11103"
to
10.00
T i m e i n m i i '.
Figure 5.20b. Multivariable control responses to step change in
feed concentration FCIA tuning.
166
co
3 o
rj r*
^co'
Q
21
3 Uncontrolled
O
0.0
to
Z to‘
FCIM controller
O o
O m
co
- 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
o
o
in
o>.
o
aft Single variable control
2 2
I ■ |W -
o
o
ID'
. o . oa ea.aa
time in m i n .
Figure 5.21a. Multivariable control responses to step change
in temperature set point, FCIM tuning.
167
co
to
U.
3 0
O ^
*n .co “
Q
Uncontrolled
cn
FCIA. controller
D o
CJin
ro
10.00 30.00
T I M E IN MIN.
o
ca
in
o».
M
ca
o
o
to
10.00 30.00
IME IN MIN.
Figure 5.21b. Multivariable control responses for temperature
set point change, FCIA tuning.
In this particular case, much of the discrepancy between
the tuning methods can be traced to the fact that the model
for the FCIM case was underdamped, whereas the model for the
FCIA case was overdamped and apparently gave a better fit.
That this would be true in general is doubtful.
In summary, the over-riding consideration in this situa
tion is the degree of interaction. Only when the interaction
is low will either FCIM or FCIA work.

Literature Cited
1. Wills, D. M . , "Cascade Control Applications and Hardware",

Technical Bulletin Number TX119-1, Minneapolis, Honeywell
Philadelphia, 1960.
2. Coughanowr, D. R. and Koppel, L. G., Process Systems Analysis

and Control. McGraw-Hill, New York.
3. Murrlll, P. W., Automatic Control of Processes. International

Textbook Co., Scranton, Pa., 1967.
4. Ziegler, J. G., and Nichols, N. B., "Optimum Setting for

Automatic Controller", Transactions AS ME . (Nov. 1942), p.759.
5. Lopez, A. M . , Murrlll, P. W., and Smith, C. L., "Optimal

Tuning of Proportional Digital Controllers", Instruments and
Control Systems, (Oct. 1968), p. 97.
6. Lopez, A. M., et.al., "Tuning PI and PID Digital Controllers",

Instruments and Control Systems (Feb. 1969), p. 89.
7. Lopez, A. M., et.al, "An Advanced Tuning Method", British

Chemical Engineering. Vol. 14, No. 11 (Nov. 1969), pp. 1552-1555.
8. Rovira, A. A., Murrlll, P. W., and Smith, C. L., "Tuning

Controllers for Set Point Changes", Instruments and Control
Systems (Dec. 1969), p. 67.
9. Lopez, A. M., et.al., "Controller Tuning Relationships

Based on Integral Performance Criteria", Instrumentation
Technology. Vo.. 16, No. 11, Nov. 1967, p. 57.
10. Rovira, A. A., "Modified PI Algorithm for Digital Control",

Instrument and Control Systems. Vol. 43, No. 8 (Aug. 1970),
pp. 101-102.
11. Hooke, R. and Jeeves, T. A., "Direct Search Solution of

Numerical and Statistical Problems", J.A.C.M.. no. 2, Vol. 8,
1961.
12. Adkison, B. M. and Kohler, G. K., "Optimum Tuning of a
Generalized Three-mode Digital Control Algorithm", Paper
70-512. Proceedings of the 25th Annual ISA Conference.
Advances in Instrumentation. Vol. 25, 1970.
13. Rijnsdrop, J. E., Van Kampen, J. A, and Bollen, H. "Automatic

Feedback Control of Two Product Qualities of a Distillation
Column", Paper 32.b, Third IFAC, London, 1966.
14. Dahlin, E. G., "Interactive Control of Paper Machines",

Control Engineering. Jan. 1970.
15. Nisenfeld, A. E., and Schultz, H. M. , "Interaction Analysis in

Control System Design", Paper 70-562. Proceedings of the 25th
Annual ISA Conference. Advances in Instrumentation. Vol. 25,
Part 1, 1970.
16. Bristol, E. H.,"0n a New Measure of Interaction for Multi-

variable Process Control," IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control. Jan. 1966, pp. 133-134.
17. Shinskey, F. G, "Material Balance Control on Multi-Product

Towers", Oil and Gas Journal. July 20, 1969.
18. Nisenfeld, A. E.and Stavinski, C., "Feed-Forward Control for

Azeotropic Distillation", Chemical Engineering. Sept. 23,1968.
19. Shinskey, F. G., Process Control Systems. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

New York, 1967.
Chapter VI
CONCLUSIONS
The primary purpose of this dissertation is to study the
use of simple models in the design of control strategies for
complex processes. In this chapter, the conclusions drawn from
the results presented in the preViow chapters are sumnarized.
The major contribution of this work is the presentation
of the control parameters of a PI or PID algorithm in closed
form for set point changes. Ringing-free algorithms derived
from a first order model invariably reduced to a standard PI.
Similarly, ringing-free algorithms derived from a second order
model reduced to a standard PID. The reset time and derivative
time were identical for deadbeat, Kalman and Dahlin algorithms,
and are functions of the time constants of the models and the
sampling time adopted in a discrete control system. The
proportional gain is a function of model parameters and the sampling
time. The gain of the ringing-free Dahlin algorithm can be tuned
to become the gain of either deadbeat or Kalman algorithm.
While the results obtained in Chapter III and IV (specifically,
that the sampled-data algorithms always reduced to the standard
PI or PID) are specific to the system studied, Appendix A shows
that this result applies to a more general model, even one with
large dead time. While the reset time and and derivative time are
independent of the dead time, the controller gain decreases with
increasing dead time. This also assumes that all poles in the
left-half plane are removed, which may not always be desirable.
In effect, removal of all of these poles deletes the dead-time
compensation from the algorithm, which is not good. If dead time
compensation is not wantedrfor set point change it is not neces
sary to design the control algorithm.
As the second order model approximates the system better
than the first order model, tuning using the second order model
is always superior than the first order model. The FID algorithm
performs better than the FI algorithm especially when a second
order model is employed.
Deadbeat, Kalman and Dahlin algorithms perform very well
for load disturbance. Ringing-free algorithms should be employed
for set point changes whereas, the original algorithms are more
suitable for load changes. Algorithms derived from second order
model always perform better than algorithms derived from first
order model.
As expected, cascade control performs better than the simple
feedback system especially for disturbance entering the inner loop.
Relative gain is unique in pairing of controlled and manipulated
variables. Tuning of the concentration loop with the temperature
controller in manual and in automatic give virtually the same result
for this particular system, which has low interaction.

APPENDIX A
DERIVATION OF STANDARD ALGORITHM
PARAMETERS FOR SET POINT CHANGE

First Order Plus Dead Time Model:
Continuous Transfer Function
K e ' es
G<*> - H > T
Pulse Transfer Function
HG (z ) “ “ --------------------^
(1-vz )
where
K = gain
0 = dead time
T = time constant
0 = (N + 6 )T
T - sampling time
f = 1 - exp(-hmT)
g = exp(-hmr)-exp(-hT)
h * 1/t
m “ 1 - 6
v ■ exp(-hT)
Deadbeat Algorithm
-N-l
D(z) - 1 • Z
HG (z) . -N-1
1 "Z
(l-vz . 1
mm 1 1
K(f+gz A) 1-z W 1
D(z)
K(f+gz-1)(l-z"1)(l+z_1+z“2+. ..-z"N)
Removing all the poles on the left side of the z-plane, we have
1 • tt-v s'1)
D<Z> " K(W-l) (ftg) (1_2-1)
This is equivalent to a PI with
KK
c (N+l) (ffg)
1 - v
T/T
i v
Second Order Pl»s Dead Model
Continuous Transfer Function
G(s) - K e~°S
(Tl8+1) (T2 s +1)
Pulse Transfer Function
HB-W ( c ^ - V e z - 2)
(1-xz )(1-yz )
where
t^»T2 ° time constant
x « exp (-aT)
y =• exp(-bT)
a = 1/Tj
b - 1/t2
xx = exp(-amT)
yy = exp(-bmT)
c = [1 + bxx-ayy J
a - b
d = fayy(l+x) - bxx(l-fy) - (a-b) (x+y)J / (a-b)
e •» £(a-b)xy+bxxy-ayyxj|/(a-b)
Deadbeat Algorithm
D(z) „ Is"* ±.£f < 2)
' ' -1 -2 -N-l
K(c+dz +ez )(l-z w )
Removing all the poles on the left side of the z-plane
D(Z) * --- 1---- &zl2S±Zl2li±2E3Cslf7

° (Z) K(N+1)(c+d+e) (1-z“l)
This is equivalent to a FID with
(x+y)-2xy
KK
c (N+l)(c+d+e)
t/t . lzfr*7)*EL
i (x+y)-2xy
t /t « .*y
Ad/A (x+y)-2xy
VITA
Kuo-Cheng Chiu was born on May 18, 1940 in Mogok, Burma
and received all his early education in Rangoon, Burma. His
undergraduate work was at the University of Rangoon, graduating
with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering in 1963.
From 1963 to 1966 he served on the faculty of the Department of
Chemical Engineering at Rangoon Institute of Technology. In
1968 the author received a Master of Science in Engineering
degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Florida
at Gainesville, Florida. He held the position of Development
Engineer at the Louisiana Division of tlje Dow Chemical Company,
where he worked from 1968 to 1970.
The author is married to the former Chu-Ling Chang alias
Khin Mar Wai.

EXAMINATION AND THESIS REPORT
Candidate: Kuo-Cheng Chiu
Major Field: Chemical Engineering
Title of Thesis: Digital Control of Complex Systems Based on Simple Models
Approved:
M ajor Professor and Chairman
Dean of the Graduate School
EXAMINING COMMITTEE:
Date of Examination:
November 22, 1971

Digital Control of Complex Systems Based On Simple Models.

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Digital Control of Complex Systems Based On Simple Models.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Louisiana State University

LSU Digital Commons

Digital Control of Complex Systems Based on

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand

2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest

A Xerox Education Company

CHIU, Kuo-Cheng, 19J+0-

The Louisiana State University and Agricultural

University Microfilms, A XEROX Com pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the

The Department of Chemical Engineering

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to

Dr. Cecil L. Smith, Chairman of his Advisory Committee for his

consideration, interest, advice and helpful suggestions given

during the course of this work. He wishes to thank the other

members of his committee, Dr. Jessie Coates, Dr. Albert H. Wehe,

Dr. Jerome A. Planchard and Dr. Philemon S. H. Baw for their

cooperation in serving on the committee. He is also obliged to

Dr. Armando B. Corripio for his suggestions and advice.

The author owes his gratitude to the support of this work

by an Air Force Office of Scientific Research Contract No. F44620-

68-C-0021. The author also gratefully acknowledges the use of

computer in the Computer Research Center at Louisiana State

Thanks are extended to Mrs. Beanie Thibodeaux and Mrs. Sonja

Hartley for their assistance with the preparation of the manuscript.

He is also indebted to the Dr. Charles E. Coates Memorial Fund,

donated by Mr. George H. Coates, for financial assistance in the

preparation of t^is manuscript.

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF TABLES xii

II MODELING AND STANDARD CONTROL ALGORITHM 6

Conventional Control Algorithm 23

Tuning Control Algorithms 24

Summary and Observations 28

Ill DEADBEAT AND KALMAN ALGORITHM 42

Design of Control Algorithm Using

Deadbeat Algorithm for Step Change in

Comparison of First and Second Order

IV DAHLIN'S CONTROL ALGORITHM 85

Design of Control Algorithm Using

First Order Lag Plus Dead Time Model 95

Second Order Lag Plus Dead Time Model 96

Ringing and Ringing-Free Algorithms 102

Tuning Procedure 111

Literature Cited 123

V ADVANCED CONTROL TECHNIQUES 124

Cascade Control Systems 124

Cascade Control of Process 128

Inner Loop Tuning 13®

Cascade Responses 133

Multivariable Control 1^®

Gain Matrix l^2

Relative Gain Matrix 1^9

Significance of the Relative Gain Matrix 152

Tuning Concentration Loop (FCIM Tuning) 156

Tuning Concentration Loop (FCIA Tuning) 156

Multivariable Control Responses 159

Literature Cited 169

APPENDIX A DERIVATION OF STANDARD ALGORITHM 173

2.1 The jacketed backmix reactor 10

2 .2a Response to change of controller output 14