78 views

Uploaded by Ruchit Pathak

A new Smith predictor and controller for control of processes

- APC Project steps
- Kubota b5100-b6100-b7100 Owners Manual
- Truss
- Super Charge Your Cells for Super Growth
- Modernist Cuisine at Home Brochure
- Foot Bridge
- Devicenet Communication for Panelview Terminals
- 2008 Foundations
- POSITION CONTROL OF BRUSHED DC MOTOR USING PID CONTROLLER IN MATLAB
- Letter from Eric Holder to Russian Minister of Justice
- DC Machines
- DC Machines
- Foundations (S D) s
- Dc Machine
- Under Presure Thomas Keller
- A Quasi Universal Practical IMC Algorithm
- Tangent Analysis of a discreet step response
- KD_Auto Tuning to Module Based Rules
- 10.1016@j.jprocont.2010.09.007
- null

You are on page 1of 10

A new Smith predictor and controller for control of processes with long dead time

Ibrahim Kaya*

Engineering Faculty, Electrical and Electronics Dept., Inonu University, 44069, Malatya, Turkey

Abstract Good control of processes with long dead time is often achieved using a Smith predictor conguration. Typically a PI or PID controller is used; however, it is shown in this paper that for some situations improved set point and disturbance responses can be obtained if a PI-PD controller is used. Several methods are possible for selecting the parameters of the PI-PD controller but when the plant transfer function has no zeros, the use of the standard forms provides a simple algebraic approach, and also reveals why difculties may be encountered if a PID controller is used. Some examples are given to show the value of the approach presented. 2003 ISAThe Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society.

Keywords: Predictive control; Integral performance indices; Delay compensation; PID controllers; Disturbance rejection

1. Introduction Plants with long time delays can often not be controlled effectively using a simple PID controller. The main reason for this is that the additional phase lag contributed by the time delay tends to destabilize the closed loop system. The stability problem can be solved by decreasing the controller gain. However, in this case the response obtained is very sluggish. The Smith predictor, shown in Fig. 1, is well known as an effective dead-time compensator for a stable process with long time delays 1 . The closed loop transfer function for the system of Fig. 1 is given by

where G e( s ) G ( s ) e s G m( s ) e ms. s ms, G ( s ) e G m( s ) e , and G c ( s ) are, respectively, the plants dynamic model and the transfer functions of the plant and the controller, which is usually a PI or a PID controller. The stability of the Smith predictor is affected by the accuracy with which the model represents the plant. Based on the assumption that the model used matches perfectly the plant dynamics, G e ( s ) 0, and the closed loop transfer function of Eq. 1 reduces to

T0 s

G c s G m s e ms . 1 Gc s Gm s

T s

C s R s

Gc s G s e s 1 Gc s Gm s Ge s

, 1

According to Eq. 2 , the parameters of the primary controller, G c ( s ) , which is typically taken as PI or PID, may be determined using a model of the delay-free part of the plant. Many possible approaches for determining or tuning the parameters of an appropriate controller, G c ( s ) , have been given in the literature and recent contributions include Refs. 2 4 . An interesting

0019-0578/2003/$ - see front matter 2003 ISAThe Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society.

102

result has also been provided recently by Ma tausek and Micic 5 , who have shown that by adding an additional controller the disturbance response of the Smith predictor can be controlled independently of the set point response. The result given by Matausek and Micic 5 was later improved by the same authors 6 by adding a PD controller so that a better disturbance response can be achieved. In this paper a new control strategy for the Smith predictor is presented that replaces the conventional controller by a PI-PD structure, a controller that has been shown to signicantly outperform a PID controller in some standard singleinputsingle-output systems 7 . The disturbance rejection controller suggested by Matausek and 6 is also included. It is also shown that, Micic when the plant transfer function is of relatively low order, the parameters of the PI-PD controller can be suitably chosen using the standard form method, which is a simple algebraic approach to control system design. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, design using integral performance criteria is briey reviewed and the standard forms for integral squared time error ISTE are given. Section 3 presents the new PI-PD Smith predictor controller and then outlines the design procedure for several simple process plant transfer function models. Examples are given in Section 4, which by comparison with previous studies clearly show the advantages of the new design approach presented. Finally, conclusions are given in Section 5. 2. Integral performance criteria In this section a very brief review of integral performance criteria is given, since the approach

can be used to produce standard forms used for the controller designs used in the next section. The use of integral performance indices for control system design is well known. Many textbooks, such as Refs. 8 and 9 , include short sections devoted to the procedure. When integral performance criteria were rst suggested in the early 1950s, digital computers were in their infancy and evaluations could take a long computation time. For linear systems, the ISTE can be evaluated efciently on digital computers using the s-domain approach with Astroms recursive algorithm 10 . Thus for

J0

e 2 t dt,

0

J0

1 2 j

0

E s E

s ds,

A s

a 0s m a 1s m b 1s m

1

am

1s

1s

am ,

B s

bm

bm .

n 2 Criteria of the form J n 0 ( t e ) dt can also be evaluated 11 using this approach, since L t f ( t ) ( d/ds ) F ( s ) , where L denotes the Laplace transform and L f ( t ) F ( s ) . Using this approach, it is possible to obtain the optimal parameters of a closed loop transfer function that will provide a minimum value of the ISTE. Tables of such all pole transfer functions were given many years ago 12 but are of little use in design, because even with an all-pole plant transfer function the addition of a typical control-

103

ler produces a closed loop transfer function with a zero. Results with a single zero were also given so that the feedback loop would follow a ramp input with zero steady-state error, but these expressions are not appropriate for step response design. For a closed loop transfer function with one zero it is easy to present results for these optimum transfer functions as the position of the zero varies. Assuming a plant transfer function with no zero and a controller with a zero, then a closed loop transfer function, T 1 j , of the form

the closed loop improves. However, it is also seen from the gure that any further increase in c 1 above the value of 4 or 5 has a negligible improvement in the response. Also the step responses for the J 1 criterion for a few different c 1 values are shown in Fig. 5. It is seen that as c 1 increases the step responses are faster.

3. Controller design The proposed Smith predictor is shown in Fig. 6, where G c1 is a PI controller, G c2 is a PD or P controller, where it is appropriate, and G d is the disturbance controller introduced in Ref. 6 . G c2 is used to stabilize an unstable or integrating process and modify the pole locations for a stable process. The other two controllers, G c1 and G d , are used to take care of servotracking and regulatory control, respectively. When G c2 G d 0, then the standard Smith predictor is obtained. Assuming exact matching between the process and the model parameters, then the set point and disturbance responses are given by

T1j

sj dj

c 1s 1 j 1 d 1s 1 1s

is obtained, where the subscript 1 in T 1 j indicates a zero in the numerator of the standard form and the subscript j indicates the order of the denominator. Also, for a unit step set point, the error is obtained as

E1j

sj s

1 j

d j 1s j d j 1s j

2 1

d1 c1 . d 1s 1

Minimizing E 1 j for the ISTE, the optimum values of the ds as functions of c 1 are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 for T 12( s ) and T 13( s ) , respectively. Fig. 4 shows how J 1 the minimum value for the ISTE criterion varies as c 1 increases. The gure illustrates that as c 1 increases the step response of

C s

where

Tr s R s

Td s D s ,

104

Tr s

G m G c1 e m s , 1 G m G c1 G c2

Td s

G m [1 G m (G c2 G c1 G c1 e m s )]e m s 1 G m G c1 G c2 1 G d G m e

ms

9 The transfer function for the set point response, given by Eq. 8 , reveals that the parameters of the main controllers, G c1 and G c2 , may be determined using a model of the delay-free part of the plant. Also it is seen that only the disturbance response is affected by the controller G d . It has been shown 3 that the original Smith predictor gives a steady-state error under disturbances for integrating processes. That is why the use of the controller G d was proposed in Ref. 6 to improve the disturbance rejection of integrating processes. Here, it has been adopted in the proposed method, again primarily to improve disturbance rejection for integrating processes. The proposed PI-PD Smith predictor control structure gives superior performance over classical PI or PID Smith predictor control conguration for both the set point response and disturbance re-

jection. The superior performance of the proposed Smith predictor is more evident when the process has a large time constant, with or without an integrator, and for processes with poorly located poles, i.e., lightly damped. This is illustrated later by examples. However, the proposed Smith predictor conguration still suffers from a mismatch between the actual process and model dynamics, which is a case also for classical PI D Smith predictor scheme. In the following, it is shown how standard forms are used in order to obtain the controller parameters for several specic plants. Case 1: If the process can be modeled by a rstorder plus dead-time transfer function given by

Gm s

Km e s a

ms

10

G c1 s

and

Kc 1

1 T is

11

G c2 s

Kf .

12

105

Using the delay-free part of Eq. 8 , then the resulting closed loop transfer function, T ( s ) , is given by

T s

T is

K mK c T is 1 . a K c K f K mT is K mK c 13

Rearranging Eq. 13 ,

the choice of K f . In practice, K c will be constrained, possibly to limit the initial value of the control effort, so that the choice of K c and T i may involve a tradeoff between the values chosen for and c 1 . The controller G d is not needed in this case as the plant is a stable one. Case 2: If the process can be modeled by a second-order plus dead-time transfer function with complex poles, which is given by

T sn

s2 n

c 1s n 1 d 1s n 1

14 G s

Km e s 2 as b

ms

18

is obtained, where the normalized Laplace complex variable s n s ( T i /KK c ) 1/2 s/ , which means the response of the system will be faster than the normalized response by a factor of , where

then the controller, G c1 , in the forward loop is still a PI controller given by Eq. 11 . However, the controller, G c2 , in the inner feedback loop is now a PD controller, given by

K m K c /T i

1/2

15

G c2 T d s K f .

19

c1 d1 a

Ti , Kc K f Km .

16 17

Following the same procedure as in case 1, the closed loop transfer function can be put in the normalized form

T sn

where

In principle the time scale, , can be selected by the choice of K c , c 1 by the choice of T i and d 1 by

c 1s n 1 , d 2s 2 d 1s n 1 n

20

106

c1 d2 d1

and

Ti , , ,

21 22 23

a K mT d

chosen for and c 1 . Again the controller G d is not needed because the plant is a stable one. Case 3: An integrating process plus dead time with the following transfer function is considered:

Kc K f Km

2

G s K m K c /T i

1/3

Km e s

ms

25

24

In this case is again selected by the choice of K c and c 1 by the choice of T i , d 1 by the choice of T d and d 2 by the choice of K f . Also the choice of K c and T i may involve a trade-off between the values

This is a special case of Eq. 10 with the constant a equal to zero. In this case the controllers G c1 and G c2 are again given by the transfer functions of case 1. It is easy to show that the standard closed loop transfer function is again given by Eq.

107

14 and also the constants c 1 and are given by the same equations as in case 1. However, d 1 is now given by

d1

Km Kc K f

26

The choice of , c 1 , and d 1 is made according to the discussions in case 1. The controller G d

G d K 0 1 T 0s

27

is necessary for a satisfactory load disturbance rejection. G d is designed using the approach given in Ref. 6 where the relation T 0 m has been used to obtain

K0

/2 Km

m

pm

/2

pm

28

for a specic phase margin pm . The best results can be obtained 6 by 0.4 and pm 64. Case 4: A rst-order plus integrator plus dead time with the transfer function

G s

Km e s s a

ms

29

is a special case of 2 with b 0. Thus the Eqs. 21 24 are used with b 0 in Eq. 23 . The choice of , c 1 , d 1 , and d 2 is made according to the discussions in case 2. The controller G d , given by Eq. 27 , may again be used for disturbance rejection. However, it should be noticed that in this case m used in Eq. 28 must be replaced by m T s where T s is the sum of the time constants. 4. Examples In this section several examples are given to illustrate the use of the method. The method is com pared with the methods of both Hagglund and Maek for processes that can be modeled by a taus rst-order plus dead-time and integrator plus deadtime transfer functions, respectively. Also, the control of a second order plus dead-time transfer function with complex poles and a long dead time is given using the proposed method and it is compared with a Smith predictor using a PID controller as the main controller.

Example 1. A FOPDT transfer function given by e 10s / ( 10s 1 ) is considered. It should be noticed that the time constant is quite large. K c was limited to 1.00 and T i was chosen as 0.25, leading to 0.6324 and c 1 0.1581. For the ISTE integral performance criterion d 1 1.3563, which gives the controller parameter K f 6.5772. The results are compared with the initial tuning for a PI con troller suggested by Hagglund for which K c 1 and T i 10. The response of the system to the proposed method and Hagglunds method, when the starting tuning parameters are used, is given in Fig. 7. At time t 60 s a disturbance with magnitude of 0.1 is introduced to the system. The proposed method gives better results for the set point response, although there is not a signicant difference in disturbance rejection. The main reason the proposed method gives better results is because due to its large-time constant its response resembles more an integrating process rather than a nonintegrating one. Example 2. A SOPDT transfer function given by e 15s / ( s 2 0.2s 1 ) is considered. K c was again limited to 1.00, with the choice of T i 0.50. These two values give 1.26 and c 1 0.63. The ISTE optimum values of d 2 and d 1 are, from Fig. 3, 1.644 and 2.163, respectively. These values can be achieved with 1.8714 and 1.4334 for T d and K f respectively, from Eqs. 21 and 22 . The response to set point change is given in Fig. 8 for the PI-PD controller and also shown for comparison are the results for a PID controller with parameters 1.00, 0.198, and 5.065 for the gain, integral and derivative time constants, respectively, which were obtained rst by limiting K c 1.00, then by using an ISTE optimization program to get the other two parameters. The proposed method is seen to be superior to using a PID controller, since the plants complex poles are near to the imaginary axis. Example 3. An integrating process given by e 5s /s ( s 1 )( 0.5s 1 )( 0.2s 1 )( 0.1s 1 ) , which was given in Ref. 6 is considered. As in Ref. 6 K 0 0.08 and T 0 2.72 was obtained for 0.4 and pm 64. The proportional only controller for Matausek and Micic 6 was taken as 0.56. Using the identication method given by Kaya 13 rst a proper model G m ( s ) e 5.6s /s ( 1.205s 1 ) was obtained. Then, limiting K c to 1.00 and choosing T i as 0.5 and follow-

108

ing the same procedure as before, 1.184, c 1 0.592, d 2 1.629, d 1 2.149, giving K f 2.629 and T d 1.323, were obtained. The responses to a unit set point and a disturbance change, which is of magnitude 0.1 at t 40 s, are given in Fig. 9. In this case only a small im-

provement over Matauseks approach is obtained. However, in the following example it is shown that the proposed method can be more advantageous if the process has a large time constant, which means that the process almost has a double integrator action.

109

Example 4. Consider G ( s ) e 6.7s /s ( 10s 1 ) , where the plant has both an integrator and a relatively large time constant. With K c 0.50 and T i 2.00 and again using the ISTE standard form approach, one obtains T d 3.757 and K f 1.336. K 0 0.031 and T 0 6.68 were obtained using

0.4 and pm equations given in Section 3 for 64. The Matausek and Micic method has the same K 0 and T 0 values and a main controller gain of 0.1. The responses of the system to a unit set point and 0.1 unit disturbance at t 100 s are shown in Fig. 10. The far superior response of the

110

PI-PD controlled system is now clearly evident. 5. Conclusions A new approach to control processes, both integrating and nonintegrating, with long dead times based on a Smith predictor concept and a PI-PD controller has been introduced. It is shown that the proposed method can be advantageous when the process has a large time constant, with or without an integrator, and for processes with poorly located poles, i.e., lightly damped. Several procedures for obtaining the parameters of the PI-PD controllers are possible, but one of the simplest approaches, which is used in this paper, is to employ ISTE standard forms as this enables the design to be completed using simple algebra. References

1 Smith, O. J., A controller to overcome dead time. ISA J. 6, 28 33 1959 . 2 Hagglund, T., A predictive PI controller for processes with long dead-time delay. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 12, 57 60 1992 . 3 Watanabe, K. and Ito, M., A process-model control for linear systems with delay. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control AC-26, 12611266 1981 . 4 Astrom, K. J., Hang, C. C., and Lim, B. C., A new Smith predictor for controlling a process with an integrator and long dead time. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 39, 343345 1999 . 5 Matausek, M. R. and Micic, A. D., A modied Smith predictor for controlling a process with an integrator and long dead time. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 41, 119911203 1996 . 6 Matausek, M. R. and Micic, A. D., On the modied 7

8 9 10 11

12

13

Smith predictor for controlling a process with an integrator and long dead time. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 44, 16031606 1999 . Atherton, D. P. and Boz, A. F., Using standard forms for controller design. Proceedings of Control98, September 1998, Sweansea, UK. Dorf, R. C. and Bishop, R. H., Modern Control Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1995. Chen, C. T., Analog and Digital Control System Design. Saunders College, 1993. Astrom, K. J., Introduction to Stochastic Control Theory. Academic, New York, 1970. Zhuang, M. and Atherton, D. P., Tuning PID controllers with integral performance criteria. In Matlab Toolboxes and Applications, Peter Peregrinus, Chap. 8, p. 131144, 1993. Graham, D. and Lathrop, R. C., The synthesis of optimum response: criteria and standard forms, II. Trans. AIME 72, 273288 1953 . Kaya, I., Relay feedback identication and model based controller design. D.Phil. thesis, University of Sussex, U.K. 1999 .

Ibrahim Kaya was born in Diyarbakir, Turkey, on 17 September 1971. He received a B.Sc. degree from Gaziantep University, Turkey and a D. Phil. degree from University of Sussex, England. He is currently with Inonu University, Electrical & Electronics Department. He is interested in Identication, Autotuning, Computer-Aided Control System Design, and User Interface Toolkits.

- APC Project stepsUploaded bysandeep lal
- Kubota b5100-b6100-b7100 Owners ManualUploaded bybomber1000
- TrussUploaded byriz2010
- Super Charge Your Cells for Super GrowthUploaded byskeletonsecretary
- Modernist Cuisine at Home BrochureUploaded byModernistCuisine
- Foot BridgeUploaded byAzil14
- Devicenet Communication for Panelview TerminalsUploaded byMidhun Varghese
- 2008 FoundationsUploaded byNeeraj Sharma
- POSITION CONTROL OF BRUSHED DC MOTOR USING PID CONTROLLER IN MATLABUploaded byJournal 4 Research
- Letter from Eric Holder to Russian Minister of JusticeUploaded byThe Washington Post
- DC MachinesUploaded byakshay4423
- DC MachinesUploaded byrasumrajan
- Foundations (S D) sUploaded bySaurabh Godha
- Dc MachineUploaded byyazdanie
- Under Presure Thomas KellerUploaded byUlrich Carl
- A Quasi Universal Practical IMC AlgorithmUploaded bymaripopescu
- Tangent Analysis of a discreet step responseUploaded byduknow2
- KD_Auto Tuning to Module Based RulesUploaded bynilton_ufcg@gmail.com
- 10.1016@j.jprocont.2010.09.007Uploaded bypetruskara
- nullUploaded byapi-26191239
- Process AsgUploaded byYz Low
- Design and Comparative Analysis of Controller for Non Linear Tank SystemUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Towardsplug and Control Self-tuning TempUploaded byBassel Almouie
- pid tuning methodsUploaded byNirmal sachan
- 110101_RetFSPUploaded byJoão Gadelha
- Chap08Uploaded byMohammedAbdullah
- AEI504Uploaded byapi-26787131
- 715_AIAU.pdfUploaded byBodoShow
- 120-194-1-PBUploaded byrana
- paper1Uploaded byRavi

- The Jungle BookUploaded byneo0000
- Horizontal Planar Motion Mechanism (HPMM) Incorporated to the existing towing carriage for Ship Manoeuvring StudiesUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Jungle Book 2Uploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Paper 76Uploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Fuzzy Logic Control of Greenhouse Climate Using Hybrid Distributed ControlUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Fuzzy Control StructureUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Single Input Fuzzy Logic Controller for Steering Control of Autonomous Underwater Vehicle.Uploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Stupidity and Bliss Comic :Intro Other Char SafaUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- PID_PD Tuning for Steering Control of AutonomousUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- 3d Fuzzy SurfaceUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Stupidity and Bliss Comic : anshulUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Stupidity and Bliss Comic : a1 MahabaliUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Motion Control of AUV _ a Model FollowingUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Instrumentation Control and Signal Processing ICSP-2013Uploaded byRuchit Pathak
- A. Mahandrakar Nonlinear Control SYSTEMS IITMUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Soln_Hw4 A. Mahandrakar Nonlinear Control SYSTEMS IITMUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- coverpic4Uploaded byRuchit Pathak
- coverpicUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Resume HassanUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- AUV control PD controllerUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- National Conference on Instrumentation, Control and Signal Processing.Uploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Table FLC FAM typical PDUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Toplitz Table fuzzyUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Fuzzy Predictive Control of Fractional-OrderUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Kaczor EkUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- LQR_PolePlacement1.pdfUploaded byern_43
- Fuzzy Immune PID Control in VVVF Hydraulic systemUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- Fuzzy PID Controller for Wind TurbinesUploaded byRuchit Pathak
- AIRCRAFT LANDING CONTROL IN WIND SHEAR CONDITIONUploaded byRuchit Pathak

- 3361Uploaded byEr Uttam Jain
- Trabajo_1.pdfUploaded bysebax1693
- Gsd Fall 2012 04 Reaction Diffusion SystemUploaded byDragana Ranitovic
- Tocmod2 - Nutlearners.blogspot.comUploaded bynutlearners
- 2214AFE Tutorial 8 Questions and SolutionsUploaded byTrang
- LSD1513 - Multiview Alignment Hashing ForUploaded bySwetha Pattipaka
- Efficient Collision Detection for Animation and Robotics - Ming C LinUploaded byKhaled Hossam Emam
- Shrodinger EqUploaded byawais33306
- Chord Recognition Using Duration Explicit Hidden Markov ModelsUploaded byjunshern
- 2- Boundary Element Tearing and Interconnecting Methods.pdfUploaded byChandra Clark
- 3.1 Quadratic Functions and Their Basic PropertiesUploaded byVon A. Damirez
- Tutor Test and Home Assignment Questions for DeUploaded byachaparala4499
- LPOPFUploaded bykinny1974
- ST7201-Finite Element Analysis.pdfUploaded byMadhan Kumar
- BA Sample Paper Questions2Uploaded bykr1zhna
- Langrage Multiplier.pdfUploaded byValentine Sule
- g729Uploaded byDoanThang
- Ps Prorgam AnaliticUploaded byLeon Boldurat
- 2 DifferenceEqtnUploaded byHeng Choc
- Evolution NN Games IntelligenceUploaded byChing Sam
- Tolerance Stackup TemplateUploaded byRajesh Venkatesh
- ICT 2marksUploaded byShanmugapriyaVinodkumar
- LorentzUploaded byOsama Hassan
- Matlab code for implementation of routhharwitz table tableUploaded byEngr. Naveed Mazhar
- Fundamentals of Futures and Options Markets Edition 7 ch 12 Problem SolutionsUploaded byMichael Evans
- Thoughts and HappinessUploaded byIntegrated Intelligent Research
- Differential Equations SummaryUploaded byFaisal Rao
- proj2Uploaded byapi-314080932
- Computer Chess and Search [Marsland 1991].pdfUploaded byPrakashRoxx
- Artificial Intelligence - CS607 Handouts Lecture 9 - 10Uploaded byPooja Sinha