00 upvotes00 downvotes

72 views74 pagesFeb 20, 2008

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

72 views

00 upvotes00 downvotes

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

You are on page 1of 74

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

1

Fig.4

One may notice that there are two transmission paths from m1 to x1 .let us define a

relative gain from m1 to x1 .as:

Gain m1 − x1 , loop 2 open

λ=

Gain m1 − x1 , loop 2 close

When λ = 0.5 , the responses of x1 to a unit step input at m1 is shown in Fig. 5

Fig.5

In this case, when loop 2 is closed, the open loop gain of m1 − x1 becomes doubled.

The increase in the loop gain results in more oscillation in the closed loop response as

shown.

On the other hand, when λ = 2 , the open loop and closed loop responses are also

2

given in Fig. 6.

In this latter case, the open-loop gain decrease when loop 2 is switched from open to

close. As a result, the close of loop 1 leads the system to a more sluggish response to

the r1 input.

The increase or decrease of the loop gain is a result of closing loop2, and , hence, is

considered loop interaction. From the above example, λ is a measure of such

interaction and is named as relative gain of loop 1. You may also find the other

relative gain for loop2. But, in this case, the two relative gains will be equal.

1. ∑g

j

ij g ji = ∑ λ

j

ij = 1, ∀i

3. Λ{G} = Λ{S1G S2}, S1 and S2 are two diagonal matrices.

4. If transfer matrix, G, is diagonal or triangular, then: Λ{G}=I.

[Proof]:

x 0 0...0

x x 0...0

Let, G =

....

x x x... x

Then,

3

x 0 0...0

x x 0...0

G −1 =G =

....

x x x... x

Thus, g ij g ji = 0 = λ ij, ∀j ≠ i

and, g ii g ii = 1 = λ ii , ∀j = i

So, Λ =I

dg ji dg ij

5. = −λ ij

g ji g ij

g ij = =

det[G ] det[G ]

d det[G ]

( −1) i + j det[G ij ]

dg ji dg ij det[G ij ]2

=− 2

= 2

= − g 2ji

dg ij det[G ( g ij )] det[G ( g ij )]

dg ji dg ij dg ij

= − g ji dg ij = − g ji g ij = −λ ij

g ji g ij g ij

dλ dg ij dλ λ ij − 1 dg ij

= (1 − λ ij ) =

ij ij

5. , and

λ ij g ij λ ij λ ij g ij

[Proof];

λ ij = g ij g ji ⇒ dλ ij = dg ij g ji + g ij dg ji

dλ dg ij g ji + g ij dg ji dg ij dg ji dg ij

⇒ = = +( ) = (1 − λ ij )

ij

λ ij g ij g ji g ij g ji g ij

or,

dλ dg ij dg ji 1 dg ij λ ij − 1 dg ij

⇒ = + = (1 − =

ij

g g

)

λ ij ij ji λ ij g ij λ ij g ij

4

RGA-implications:

a. Closed loop system is unstable,

b. Loop with negative λij is unstable,

c. Closed loop system becomes unstable if loop with negative is λij turned off.

4. Plants with large RGA-elements are always ill-conditioned. (i.e., a plant with a

large γ(G) may have small RGA-elements)

5. Plants with large RGA-elements around the crossover frequency are fundamentally

difficult to control because of sensitivity to input uncertainties.

-----decouplers or other inverse-based controllers should not be used for plants

with large RGA-elements.

in G or in some subsystem of G.

RGA-number = || Λ(G)-I ||min.

For decentralized control,, pairings with RGA-number at crossover frequency

close to one is preferred.

RGA-element.

preferred.

5

The Relative Disturbance Gain (RDG)

Operability Analysis. 1. The relative disturbance gain, I&EC, Process Des. Dev.

1985,24, 1181-1188

1. To decide if interaction resulting from a disturbance is favorable or unfavorable.

2. To decide whether or not decoupling should be used and what type of decoupling

structure is best.

y1 = k11m1 + k12 m2 + k F 1d

y2 = k21m1 + k22 m2 + k F 2 d

∂m1 k

∂d = − F1

y1 , m2 k11

∂d

y1 , y2

y2 = k21m1 + k22 m2 + k F 2 d = 0

so that:

1

m2 = [ −k21m1 − k F 2 d ] (3)

k22

Substitute Eq.(3) into E.(2), we have:

k

11 − m +

1 F1k − d = 0

k 22 k 22

Thus,

k12 k F 2

−kF1 + (4)

∂m1 k22 k k − k F 1k22

∂d = = 12 F 2

y1 , y2 k k k11k22 − k12 k21

k11 − 12 21

k22

6

So,

∂m1

∂d

y1 , y2 k k k − k F 1k22 k11 k22 k12 k F 2 − k F 1k22 (5)

β1 = = − 11 × 12 F 2 = ×

∂m1 k F 1 k11k22 − k12 k21 k F 1k22 k11k22 − k12 k21

∂d

y1 , m2

k12 k F 2 − k F 1k22 k11k22 k k

=- × = 1 − 12 F 2 λ

k F 1k22 k11k22 − k12 k21 k F 1k22

Similarly, we have:

∂m1

∂d

y1 , y2 k21k F 1

β1 = = 1 − λ

∂m1 k k

F 2 11

∂d

y1 , m2

k F 2 k12 β λ − β1 k F 2 λ − β1 k22

= 1− 1 = ⇒ = ×

k F 1k22 λ λ kF1 λ k12

k F 1 λ − β 2 k11

Similarly, ⇒ = ×

kF 2 λ k21

× =1= × × ×

kF1 kF 2 λ k21 λ k12

λ − β2 λ − β1 k11 k22 1

⇒ λ λ = k k = 1− λ

21 12

or,

( β1 − λ )( β 2 − λ ) = λ (λ − 1)

λ (λ − 1) λ (λ − 1) ( β − 1) λ 1 − β1

( β2 − λ ) = ⇒ β2 = +λ = 1 = λ

( β1 − λ ) ( β1 − λ ) ( β1 − λ ) λ − β1

It can be shown that:

7

Multi-loop e1 area

∝ β1 and

SISO idealy decoupled e1 area

Multi-loop e 2 area

∝ β2

SISO idealy decoupled e 2 area

=

d (1 + G11Gc1 )(1 + G22 Gc 2 ) − Gc 2 Gc1G12 G21

k k k k

∞ k F 2 k12 c 2 − F 1 22 c 2

τ R2 τ R2 k F 2 k12 − k F 1k22

∫0 e1dt = lim

s →0

e1 ( s) =

kc1k11 kc 2 k22 kc 2 kc1

=

kc1k11k22 k12 k21

− k k 1−

τ R1 τ R 2 τ R 2 τ R1 12 21 τ R1 k11k22

τ R1 k12

=λ kF 2 − kF1

kc1k11 k22

On the other hand, when loop 2 is opened, the area under e1becomes:

∞

τ R' 1 k F 1

∫ e dt = − k

o

1 '

0 c1 k11

Thus,

8

∞

∫ e dt 1

τ R1 kc' 1 k F 2 k12 τ R1 kc' 1

0

=− × − 1 λ = × β1 = f1 β1

∞

τ R' 1 kc1 k F 1k22 τ R' 1 kc1

∫ e dt

o

1

0

Similarly, we have:

∞

∫ e dt 2

τ R 2 kc' 2

0

= × β2 = f2 β2

∞

τ R' 2 kc 2

∫ e dt

o

2

0

Notice that the PI parameters in the interacting loops are used to be more conservative

than those in single loops. In another words,

f1 ≥ 1; f2 ≥ 1

The multi-loop control should be beneficial when the sum of absolute values of the

Remarks:

1. If λ is assumed not vary with frequency, and the process under study is FOPDT,

λ>1, f1 lies in the range 1< f1 <2, while 0.5<l<1, f1 lies in the range 1< f1 <3.

2. When f1 =1, β is equal to the ratio of response areas.

3. If β is small and f1 =is close to one, then the interacting control is favored for that

particular disturbance.

4. If β is large, the interacting control is un favorable for that particular disturbance.

(J.C. Chang and C.C. Yu, CES Vol.45, pp. 1309-1323 1990)

ym×1 ( s ) = Gm×n ( s )un×1 ( s )

Define Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of the matrix G ( s) as:

G + ( s) = ( GT G ) GT ( s)

−1

Then, under close-loop control, the steady-state control input will be:

∂ui +

u = G + (0) y d and = gij (0) .

∂y

j CL

Thus, the non-square relative gain is defined similarly to the square RGA, that is:

9

−1

∂y ∂yi + T

Λ% = i = G (0) ⊗ G (0)

∂u

j OL ∂u j CL

1. Row sum of Λ% :

T

n n n

RS = [ rs (1), rs (2), L , rs (m) ] = ∑ λ%1 j , ∑ λ% 2j , L , ∑ λ% mj , ;

j =1 j =1 j =1

T

n n n

CS = [ cs (1), cs (2), L , cs (n)] = ∑ λ% j1 , ∑ λ% j 2 , L , ∑ λ% jn , = [1, 1, L, 1]

T

2. j =1 j =1 j =1

3. 0 ≤ rs(i) ≤ 1, ∀i = 1, 2,L, m

m n

4. ∑ rs(i) = ∑ cs(i) = n

i =1 j =1

m m n n m n

Note: ∑ rs(i) = ∑∑ λ% = ∑∑ λ% = ∑ cs ( j ) = n

i =1 i =1 j =1

ij

j =1 i =1

ij

j =1

5. Non-square RGA is invariant under input scaling, but is variant under output

scaling:

( GS ) ⊗ (GS )+ = (G ⊗ G+ ) ( SG ) ⊗ ( SG )+ ≠ (G ⊗ G+ )

T T T T

1

%

2 ) = P1 Λ (G ) P2

A. Multi-loop BLT-Tuning:

I. BLT-1 method:

diagonal element of G, i.e. gi,i.

b. Assume a detuning factor “F”, and calculate controller settings for loops.

kc ,i = k ZN ,i / F ; τ R ,i = (τ R ,i )ZN F

10

d. Calculate the closed-loop function Lc(iω):

W( iω )

Lc (iω ) = 20 log

1 + W( iω )

e. Calculate the detuning factor F until the peak in the Lc log modulus curve is

equal to 2N, that is:

W( iω )

Lcm = Max 20 log = 2N

ω

1 + W( iω )

II. BLT-2

b. Choose a second detuning factor FD. FD should be greater than one.

c. Compute τD,j as:

τ D, j =

(τ )

D , j ZN

FD

C is minimized, maintaining FD > 1. The trivial case may

result where Lmax

C = 2N .

III. BLT-3

controller and compensate for it.

Consider the PI controller:

1

t

u j = u j (0) + kC , j e j +

∫

τ R, j 0

e j dt ;

u j (0) = 0

At steady state,

11

∞

kC , j

lim u j (t ) =

t →∞ τ R, j ∫ e (t )dt

0

j

So,

∞

τ R , j u j (∞)

∫ e (t )dt =

0

j

kC , j

Notice that:

u (∞) = G −1 (0) R − G −1GL (0) d (∞)

= [ g i , j (0); i, j = 1,..., N ][0,..., 0,1, 0,..., 0]T

N

ui (∞) = i th row of G −1 (0)GL (0) = ∑ [ gi , j (0) g L, j (0)]

j =1

u j (∞)τ R , j

ITE j =

kC , j

Let,

N ITE j

Sj = ∑ + ITE j −load

i =1 N

τ R, j N g j ,i (0)

Sj = × ∑ + g j ,i (0) g L,i (0)

kC , j i =1 N

j

Smax

Fj = F

Sj

kc ,i = kZN ,i / Fj ; τ R ,i = (τ R ,i ) ZN Fj

IV. BLT-4

12

a. BLT-3 is used to get individual PI controllers as described above.

b. BLT-2 procedure is used with individual FD factors for each loop:

S max

FD , j = FD

Sj

The best variable pairing is the one that gives the smallest magnitudes for each

element of X,(i.e. Xi) of the following:

X ( iω ) = ([ I + GGC ]−1 GL L )

( iω )

VI. Summary

equal Fi equal Fi

BLT-3---PI, BLT-4-----PID,

unequal Fi unequal Fi

TITO Processes

This method is based on A modified Z-N method for SISO control system. To derive

this modified Z-N method, ageneral formulation is to start with a given point of the

Nyquist curve of the process:

j ( −π +ϕ p )

G p ( jω ) = rp e (1)

13

1

GR ( jω ) = k 1 + j ωτ D − (2)

jτ Rω

1

rs = .

Am

A phase margin design corresponds to rs = 1 and ϕ s = ϕm

j ( −π +ϕ p +ϕ R )

From Eqs.(1)~Equ.(3), we have: rs e j ( −π +ϕs ) = rp rR e , so that

rs

rR = and ϕ R = ϕ s − ϕ p

rp

In other words,

1 j (ϕ R )

GR ( jω ) = k 1 + j ωτ D − = rR e = rR cos ϕ R + jrR sin ϕ R

jτ Rω

Or,

1

k = rR cos ϕ R =

rs

rp

(

cos ϕ s − ϕ p ) and ωτ D − (

= tan ϕ s − ϕ p

τ Rω

)

The gain is uniquely determined. Only one equation determines τ R and τ D .

is as follows:

0.413 g (0)

α= , where κ =

3.302κ + 1 g ( jωc )

1

From ωτ D −

τ ω

−1

( )

= tan ϕ s − ϕ p , τ D can be solved to obtain:

R

1

τD = − tan(ϕ s − ϕ p ) + 4α + tan 2 (ϕ s − ϕ p ) and

2ω

1

τR = τD

α

14

y1 ( s) g11 ( s) g12 ( s ) u1 ( s )

y ( s ) = g ( s ) g ( s ) u ( s )

2 21 22 2

c1 ( s ) c1 ( s ) 0

c ( s ) = 0 c2 ( s)

2

c2 g12 g 21 g g

g1 = g11 − = g11 − −112 21

1 + c2 g 22 c2 + g 22

g12 g 21

g 2 = g 22 −

c1−1 + g11

Let

1

ci ( jω ) = k 1 + j ωτ Di + ; i = 1, 2

jτ Riω

ci ( jω ) = kci (1 − j tan(ϕbi − ϕ ai ) ) ; i = 1, 2

15

rai e j ( −π +ϕia ) ⋅ kci (1 − j tan(ϕbi − ϕai )) = rbi e j ( −π +ϕia )

⇓

rbi j (ϕai −ϕbi ) rbi r

e = cos(ϕai − ϕbi ) + j bi sin(ϕai − ϕbi ) = kci (1 − j tan(ϕbi − ϕ ai ))

rai rai rai

⇓

rbi

kci = cos(ϕai − ϕbi )

rai

rbi

kci ⋅ gi ( jω ) = cos(ϕ ai − ϕbi ) ⋅ rai e j ( −π +ϕia ) = rbi cos(ϕ ai − ϕbi ) ⋅ e j ( −π +ϕia )

rai

By setting i equal one and two, one will obtain two equations with kc1 and kc2 as

unknowns, and, thus, can be solved. But, there are very tedious procedures to find the

controller gains (such as:such kc1 and kc2) and frequency ω11 and ω22 that satisfy the

phase criteria. (see the reference: I&EC Res. 1998, 37, 4725-4733, Q-G Wang, T-H

Lee, and Y. Zhang)

16

f1 [(g11) -]-1

_

G

_ f2 [(g22)-]-1

g11 _

g22 _

GC ,i = ( Gi ,i )− f i ; i = 1,..., n

−1

The stability is guaranteed for any stable IMC filter that satisfies either of the

following:

g i ,i (iω )

f i (iω ) < f R*,i (iω ) = ; i = 1, 2,..., n

∑

j , j ≠i

gi , j (iω )

g i ,i (iω )

f i (iω ) < f C*,i (iω ) = ; i = 1, 2,..., n

∑

j , j ≠i

g j ,i (iω )

1

∑

j , j ≠i

g i , j (iω )

Ri (iω ) = = ; 0 ≤ω ≤ ∞

1 + f R*,i (iω ) ∑g j

i, j (iω )

1

∑

j , j ≠i

g j ,i (iω )

Ci (iω ) = = ; 0 ≤ω ≤ ∞

1 + fC*,i (iω ) ∑g

j

j ,i (iω )

17

For small interaction: 0.0 ≤ Ri , Ci ≤ 0.5 ⇒ f * >1

1

Controller: u ( s ) = kC − y ( s ) + [r ( s ) − y ( s)] − τ D sy ( s)

τ Rs

y k /(τ s )G p

= C R

r 1 + kC /(τ R s )G p

Re − Ls

GP = ; R = slope of the initial unit step response

s

Re− Ls R(1 − Ls)

GP = ≈

s s

y 1 − Ls 1 − Ls

= ≈ 2 2

r τR τ C s + 1.414τ C s + 1

− τ R L s 2 + (τ R − L ) s + 1

RkC

(1.414τ C + L)

⇒ kC = ; τ R = 1.414τ C + L

R(τ + 1.414τ C L + L2 )

2

C

k P e− Ls k P (1 − Ls )

GP = ≈

τ s +1 τ s +1

18

y 1 − Ls

=

r τ Rτ τ

− τ R L s2 + R + τ R − L s + 1

kC k P kC k P

1 − Ls

≈

τ C s + 1.414τ C s + 1

2 2

1 −τ C2 + 1.414τ Cτ + Lτ

⇒ kC = ;

k P τ C2 + 1.414τ Cτ + L2

−τ C2 + 1.414τ Cτ + Lτ

⇒ τR =

τ +L

derivations except that the deadtime approximation:

1 − 0.5 Ls

e − Ls ≈

1 + 0.5 Ls

19

20

21

2. Controllers for multi-loop system

y k k g1,1

At ω → 0 ; = g1,1 1 − 1,2 2,1 =

u1 loop 2 closed k1,1k2,2 RGA(λ )

y

At ω → ∞ ; = g1,1

u1 loop 2 closed

model in the main loop should provide satisfactory closed loop

results. This is because:

b. For RGA < 1,

(τ )

R ,i based on main loop

τ R ,i =

RGA(λi ,i )

in three different ranges, that is: L/τ < 0.2, 0.2 < L/τ < 0.5, and L/τ >

0.5.

For details, see the original paper.

.

IX. Robustness of Closed-loop System.

The final pairing and the controller tuning is checked for robustness by

plotting DSO and DSI as functions of frequency, [Doyle and Stein]. The

singular values below 0.3-0.2 indicate a lack of stability robustness.

DSO(iω ) = σ [ I + ( GGC ) ]( iω )

−1

DSI ( iω ) = σ [ I + ( GC G ) ]( iω )

−1

22

E. Design Method based on Passivity

multi-loop control is the most widely used strategy in the industrial process

control.

2. Current multi-loop control design approaches can be classified into three

categories: detuning methods (Luyben, 1986), independent design methods

(Skogestard and Morari, 1989), and sequential design methods (Mayne, Chiu and

Arkun, 1992).

3. Loop interactions have to be taken into considerations, as they may have

deteriorating effects on both control performance and closed-loop stability.

4. It is desirable if the multi-lop control system is decentralized unconditionally

stable (i.e., any subset of the control loops can be independently to an arbitrary

degree or even turned off without endangering close-loop stability.

5. Independent design is based on the basis of the paired transfer function while

satisfying some stability constraints due to process interactions.

6. Perhaps the mostwidely used decentralized stability conditions are those

µ-interaction measure.

7. Passivity Concept:

The rate of change of the stored energy in the tank is less than the power supplied

to it.

Inlet Flowrate

Fi

Fo

h Outlet Flowrate

The rate of change of the storage function:

dS

= −Cv ρ gh h + ρ gFi h = −Cv ρ gh h + w < w ∀h > 0

dt

The rate of change of the stored energy in the tank is less than the power

supplied to it. Therefore this process is said to be strictly passive.

23

Passive(Willems 1972): if a non-negative storage function S(x) can be found s.t.:

t

S(0)=0 and S ( x) − S ( x 0 ) ≤ ∫ yT (τ )u (τ )dτ for all t>t0≥0, x0, x∈ X, u∈ U.

t0

t

Strictly passive: if S ( x) − S ( x 0 ) < ∫ yT (τ )u (τ )dτ

t0

KYP Lemma

Nonlinear control affine systems (Hill & Moylan 1976)

x& = f ( x) + g ( x)u

y = h( x )

where x ∈ X ⊂ R n , u ∈ U ⊂ R m , y ∈ Y ⊂ R m

The process is passive if

∂S T ( x )

Lf S ( x) = f ( x ) ≤ 0,

∂x

∂S T ( x )

Lg S ( x ) = g ( x ) = hT ( x )

∂x

KYP Lemma

A linear system (Willems 1972) G(s):=(A,B,C,D) is passive if there exists a

positive definite matrix P such that:

AT P + PA PB − C T

T ≤0

B P − C − D − D

T

AT P + PA PB − C T

T <0

B P − C − D − D

T

Definition:

An LTI system S: G(s) is passive if :

(1) G(s) is analytic in Re(s)>0;

(2) G(jw)+G*(jw)≥0 for all that jw is not a pole of G(s);

(3) If there are poles of G(s) on the imaginary axis, they are non-repeated and the

residue matrices at the poles are Hermitian and positive semi-definite.

G(s) is strictly passive if:

(1) G(s) is analytic in Re(s) ≥ 0;

(2) G(jw)+G*(jw)>0 ∀ω ∈ ( −∞, ∞) .

24

Theorem 1: For a given stable non-passive process with a transfer function matrix

G(s), there exists a diagonal, stable, and passive transfer function matrix

W(s)=w(s)I such that H(s)=G(s)+W(s) is passive.

[Proof]:

λmin ( H ( jω ) + H * ( jω )) = λmin (G ( jω ) + G* ( jω ) + (W ( jω ) + W * ( jω ))

Since both (G+G*) and (W+W*) are Hermitian, from the Weyl inequality, we

have:

=λmin (G ( jω ) + G* ( jω )) + 2 Re(W ( jω ))

Thus, if:

1

Re(W ( jω )) ≥ λmin (G ( jω ) + G* ( jω ))

2

H(s) can be render passive. On the other hand, if

1

Re(W ( jω )) > λmin (G ( jω ) + G* ( jω ))

2

H(s) will be strictly passive.

A passive system is minimum phase. The phase of a linear process is within

[-90º, 90º]

Passive systems are Lyapunov stable

A passive system is of relative degree < 2

Passive systems can have infinite gain (e.g., 1/s)

Passivity Theorem :

stable.

25

(including multi-loop PID controllers) even if it is highly nonlinear and/or

highly coupled

Control design based on passivity

Excess or shortage of passivity of a process can be used to analyse whether

this process can be easily controlled

Passivity based controllability study

passification:

Gff Gfb

G G

Input Feedforward Passivity (IFP) (Sepulchre et al 1997) - If a system

G with a negative feedforward of νI is passive, then G has excessive

input feedforward passivity, i.e., G is IFP(ν).

G with a positive feedback of ρI is passive, then G has excessive

output feedback passivity, i.e., G is OFP (ρ).

In other words, a processs shortage of passivity can be compensated by another

process’s excess of passivity.

Passivity Index

The excessive IFP of a system G(s) can be quantified by a frequency dependent

26

passivity index

∆

1

ν F [G ( s ), ω ]=λmin [G ( jω ) + G *( jω )]

2

Assume the true process is GT ( s ) = G ( s ) + ∆( s)

The passivity index of the true process can be estimated as

1 1

ν (GT ( jω )) = −λmin ∆( jω ) + ∆* ( jω ) + G ( jω ) + G* ( jω )

2 2

1 1

≤ −λmin ∆( jω ) + ∆* ( jω ) − −λmin G ( jω ) + G* ( jω )

2 2

=ν (G ( jω )) +ν (∆ ( jω ))

1. Comprises gain & phase information of the uncertainty

j

Maximum gain

Passivity index

σ

∆(σ)

27

Passivity Theorem 2: If the multivariable process is strictly passive, then the

closed-loop system is stable if the multi-loop controller is passive.

decentralized controller K(s)=diag(ki(s)), w(s) is a stable and minmum phase, and

ν (W ( jω )) < −ν (G + ( jω ))

−1

K ' ( s ) = U −1K ( s) I − w( s )U −1K ( s)

Notice that the above figure is equivalent to the one in the following:

ν ( D −1G + D ( jω )) < ν (G + ( jω ))

and

28

+

D −1G + (0) D + D −1 G + (0) D > 0

Design procedures:

2. Check the pairing. Examine the proposed pairing using DIC condition:

T

G + (0) M + M G + (0) > 0

min(−γ i )

kci ,τ Ri

such that

1 γi

<1

1 jω

1 + Gii+ ( jω )kc+,i 1 +

jτ R,iω

and

kc+,iν s (ω )

τ R2 ,i ≥ , ∀ω ∈ R, i = 1,L , n

1 − kc+,iν s (ω ) ω 2

29

ν F (∆( s ), ω ) ≥ −ν F (W ( s ), ω ), ∀ω ∈ R

If the uncertainty is passive, then the controller is only required to render system T

strictly passive to achieve robust stability even if ∆ is very large.

ν F ( ∆( s ), ω ) ≥ −ν F (W ( s), ω ) , ∀ω ∈ R

where W(s) is minimum phase, the closed-loop system will be robust stable if

system

T ( s )[ I − W ( s )T ( s)]−1

is strictly passive.

1. Characterise the uncertainty in terms of passivity using IFP or OFP.

2. Derive the robust stability condition for systems with uncertainties bounded by

their passivity indices.

3. Develop a systematic procedure to design the robust controller which satisfies

the above stability condition.

Blended approach

Design a controller that satisfies the small gain condition at high

frequencies and satisfies the passivity condition at low frequencies

(Bao, Lee et al 1998)

Based on the bilinear transformation

30

Multi-objective control design

Design a controller that satisfies the passivity condition for robust

2003)

Based on KYP lemma and Semi-Definite Programming

Example:

G ( s) = 60s +−18 s (48s + 1)(45s + 1)

−8 s

0.094e − 0.12e

38s + 1 35s + 1

Passivity index

0.0.0404

P

0.0.0202

as

0.0

si 0.0 0

vit

-0.0

-0.-0.020

-0-0.03.0

110-40

- 10-2

1 1 100 10+2

1 10+41 4

(rad/min

1. Each step in the design procedure involves designing only one SISO controller.

2. Limited degree of failure tolerance is guaranteed: If stability has been achieved

31

after the design of each loop, the system will remain stable if loop fail or are taken

out of service in the reverse order of they were designed.

3. During startup, the system will be stable if the loops are brought into service in the

same order as they have been designed.

4.

Problems with sequential design:

1. The final controller design, and thus the control quality achieved, may depend on

the order in which the controllers in the individual loops are designed.

2. Only one output is usually considered at a time, and the closing of subsequent

loops may alter the response of previously designed loops, and thus make iteration

necessary.

3. The transfer function between input uk and output yk may contain RHP zeros that

do not corresponding to the RHP zeros of G(s).

Notations:

3. S = ( I + GC )−1 ; H = I − S = GC ( I + GC ) −1

4. G% = diag{gii ( s ); i = 1,L , n}

1

5. S% = diag{si ( s ); i = 1,L , n} = diag{ ; i = 1,L , n}

1 + gii ci

g c

6. H% = diag{hi ( s ); i = 1,L , n} = diag{ ii i ; i = 1,L , n}

1 + gii ci

% −1 = {γ ; i, j = 1,L , n}

7. Γ = GG ij

% −1G

8. CLDG = GG d

9. E = (G − G% )G% −1

G M C M

10. G = k ; C= k ;

L O L O

11. Sk = ( I + Gk Ck ) ; H k = Gk Ck ( I + Gk Ck )

−1 −1

Hk 0 Sk 0

12. Hˆ k = ; Sˆk = ; i = k + 1, K + 2, L N

0

%

hi 0 s%i

32

S = ( I + GC ) −1 = [ I + GC

% + (G − G% )C ]−1

{ )}

−1

( ) (

−1

= I + (G − G% )C I + GC

% I + GC

%

{ )}

−1

( ) (

−1

= I + (G − G% )G% −1GC

% I + GC

% %

I + GC

( ) ( I + EH% ) ( )

−1 −1 −1

%

= I + GC = S% I + EH%

Design procedures:

) ) )

( )

−1 −1

In each of the following step, S = S k ( I + Ek H k ) ; Ek = (G − Gˆ k ) Gk

required bandwidth in each loop. Also estimate the individual loop designs

in terms of H% .

Step 1. Design of controller c1 by considering output 1 only. In this case, we have

Gˆ k = G% k and Hˆ k = H%

33

Sequential Design Using Relay feedback Tests of Shen and Yu

The relay feedback system for SISO auto-tuning is as shown in the follwing figure:

When constant cycles appear after the system has been activated, the ultimate gain

and ultimate frequency of the open-loop system can be approximated by measuring

the magnitude and period (see the following figure) and by the following equations:

4h 2π

Ku = ; ωu =

πa Pu

The Z-N tuning method can be used to determine the controller parameters:

PID Controller: K c = 0.60 Ku , τ R = Pu /1.2, τ D = 1.25 Pu

Or, use the Tyreus-Luyben’s formula to give more conservative response:

PI Controller: K c = K u / 3.2, τ R = 2.2 Pu ,

PID Controller: K c = K u / 2.2, τ R = 2.2 Pu , τ D = Pu / 6.3

To avoid the difficult mathematics envolved in the formulation of sequential

design, Shen and Yu suggested to use the relay-feedback test as shown in the

following figure:

34

The controller for a 2 × 2 system is suggested:

PI Controller: K c = K c, ZN / 3, τ R = 2 Pu

Analysis:

The sequential design is derived by considering the multi-loop control system as

coupled SISO loops. For a 2 × 2 system as example, the equivalent SISO loops are:

1

g1 ( s) = g1,1 ( s ) {1 − (1 − ) h ( s)}

λ (s) 2

1

g 2 ( s) = g 2,2 ( s ) {1 − (1 − ) h ( s)}

λ (s) 1

g C,i gi ,i

Where, hi (s) = ; i = 1, 2

1 + gC ,i gi ,i

Notice that, if there is damping in g1 or g 2 , this damping should come from either

h1 or h2 . According to tis study, a closed system having an FOPDT process and a

modified ZN tuned PI controller will result in a closed-loop system (i.e. h1 and h2 )

having damping factor greater than 0.6. It is thus postulate that the open-loop transfer

functions g1 ( s ) and g 2 ( s ) can be approximated by:

kp τ p 2 s + 1 −θ s

G ( s) = ⋅ ⋅e

τ 2 s 2 + 2τζ s + 1 τ p1s + 1

Then, the stability region of the equivalent SISO loops are explored with the

35

are given in the following figure. It can be seen that the modified ZN tuning formula

proposed greatly improve the stability.

On the other hand, the convergence of the sequential design for the multi-loop

controller is formulated as the problem of finding the roots of simultaneous algebraic

equation using sequential iterations.

The simultaneous equations are obtained from the conditions of phase crossover for

the two loops, that is:

Im g1 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 )

F1 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 ) = tan −1 = −π

Re g1 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 )

Im g 2 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 )

F2 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 ) = tan −1 = −π

Re g 2 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 )

following:

∂F1 ∂F2

∂ωu ,2 ωu ,1 ∂ωu ,1 ωu ,2

<1

∂F1 ∂F2

∂ωu ,1 ωu ,2 ∂ωu ,2 ωu ,1

36

The procedures of this proposed sequential design are summarized with the flow

chart as shown.

37

Design of Multi-loop control systems

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

1

Fig.4

One may notice that there are two transmission paths from m1 to x1 .let us define a

relative gain from m1 to x1 .as:

Gain m1 − x1 , loop 2 open

λ=

Gain m1 − x1 , loop 2 close

When λ = 0.5 , the responses of x1 to a unit step input at m1 is shown in Fig. 5

Fig.5

In this case, when loop 2 is closed, the open loop gain of m1 − x1 becomes doubled.

The increase in the loop gain results in more oscillation in the closed loop response as

shown.

On the other hand, when λ = 2 , the open loop and closed loop responses are also

2

given in Fig. 6.

In this latter case, the open-loop gain decrease when loop 2 is switched from open to

close. As a result, the close of loop 1 leads the system to a more sluggish response to

the r1 input.

The increase or decrease of the loop gain is a result of closing loop2, and , hence, is

considered loop interaction. From the above example, λ is a measure of such

interaction and is named as relative gain of loop 1. You may also find the other

relative gain for loop2. But, in this case, the two relative gains will be equal.

1. ∑g

j

ij g ji = ∑ λ

j

ij = 1, ∀i

3. Λ{G} = Λ{S1G S2}, S1 and S2 are two diagonal matrices.

4. If transfer matrix, G, is diagonal or triangular, then: Λ{G}=I.

[Proof]:

x 0 0...0

x x 0...0

Let, G =

....

x x x... x

Then,

3

x 0 0...0

x x 0...0

G −1 =G =

....

x x x... x

Thus, g ij g ji = 0 = λ ij, ∀j ≠ i

and, g ii g ii = 1 = λ ii , ∀j = i

So, Λ =I

dg ji dg ij

5. = −λ ij

g ji g ij

g ij = =

det[G ] det[G ]

d det[G ]

( −1) i + j det[G ij ]

dg ji dg ij det[G ij ]2

=− 2

= 2

= − g 2ji

dg ij det[G ( g ij )] det[G ( g ij )]

dg ji dg ij dg ij

= − g ji dg ij = − g ji g ij = −λ ij

g ji g ij g ij

dλ dg ij dλ λ ij − 1 dg ij

= (1 − λ ij ) =

ij ij

5. , and

λ ij g ij λ ij λ ij g ij

[Proof];

λ ij = g ij g ji ⇒ dλ ij = dg ij g ji + g ij dg ji

dλ dg ij g ji + g ij dg ji dg ij dg ji dg ij

⇒ = = +( ) = (1 − λ ij )

ij

λ ij g ij g ji g ij g ji g ij

or,

dλ dg ij dg ji 1 dg ij λ ij − 1 dg ij

⇒ = + = (1 − =

ij

g g

)

λ ij ij ji λ ij g ij λ ij g ij

4

RGA-implications:

a. Closed loop system is unstable,

b. Loop with negative λij is unstable,

c. Closed loop system becomes unstable if loop with negative is λij turned off.

4. Plants with large RGA-elements are always ill-conditioned. (i.e., a plant with a

large γ(G) may have small RGA-elements)

5. Plants with large RGA-elements around the crossover frequency are fundamentally

difficult to control because of sensitivity to input uncertainties.

-----decouplers or other inverse-based controllers should not be used for plants

with large RGA-elements.

in G or in some subsystem of G.

RGA-number = || Λ(G)-I ||min.

For decentralized control,, pairings with RGA-number at crossover frequency

close to one is preferred.

RGA-element.

preferred.

5

The Relative Disturbance Gain (RDG)

Operability Analysis. 1. The relative disturbance gain, I&EC, Process Des. Dev.

1985,24, 1181-1188

1. To decide if interaction resulting from a disturbance is favorable or unfavorable.

2. To decide whether or not decoupling should be used and what type of decoupling

structure is best.

y1 = k11m1 + k12 m2 + k F 1d

y2 = k21m1 + k22 m2 + k F 2 d

∂m1 k

∂d = − F1

y1 , m2 k11

∂d

y1 , y2

y2 = k21m1 + k22 m2 + k F 2 d = 0

so that:

1

m2 = [ −k21m1 − k F 2 d ] (3)

k22

Substitute Eq.(3) into E.(2), we have:

k

11 − m +

1 F1k − d = 0

k 22 k 22

Thus,

k12 k F 2

−kF1 + (4)

∂m1 k22 k k − k F 1k22

∂d = = 12 F 2

y1 , y2 k k k11k22 − k12 k21

k11 − 12 21

k22

6

So,

∂m1

∂d

y1 , y2 k k k − k F 1k22 k11 k22 k12 k F 2 − k F 1k22 (5)

β1 = = − 11 × 12 F 2 = ×

∂m1 k F 1 k11k22 − k12 k21 k F 1k22 k11k22 − k12 k21

∂d

y1 , m2

k12 k F 2 − k F 1k22 k11k22 k k

=- × = 1 − 12 F 2 λ

k F 1k22 k11k22 − k12 k21 k F 1k22

Similarly, we have:

∂m1

∂d

y1 , y2 k21k F 1

β1 = = 1 − λ

∂m1 k k

F 2 11

∂d

y1 , m2

k F 2 k12 β λ − β1 k F 2 λ − β1 k22

= 1− 1 = ⇒ = ×

k F 1k22 λ λ kF1 λ k12

k F 1 λ − β 2 k11

Similarly, ⇒ = ×

kF 2 λ k21

× =1= × × ×

kF1 kF 2 λ k21 λ k12

λ − β2 λ − β1 k11 k22 1

⇒ λ λ = k k = 1− λ

21 12

or,

( β1 − λ )( β 2 − λ ) = λ (λ − 1)

λ (λ − 1) λ (λ − 1) ( β − 1) λ 1 − β1

( β2 − λ ) = ⇒ β2 = +λ = 1 = λ

( β1 − λ ) ( β1 − λ ) ( β1 − λ ) λ − β1

It can be shown that:

7

Multi-loop e1 area

∝ β1 and

SISO idealy decoupled e1 area

Multi-loop e 2 area

∝ β2

SISO idealy decoupled e 2 area

=

d (1 + G11Gc1 )(1 + G22 Gc 2 ) − Gc 2 Gc1G12 G21

k k k k

∞ k F 2 k12 c 2 − F 1 22 c 2

τ R2 τ R2 k F 2 k12 − k F 1k22

∫0 e1dt = lim

s →0

e1 ( s) =

kc1k11 kc 2 k22 kc 2 kc1

=

kc1k11k22 k12 k21

− k k 1−

τ R1 τ R 2 τ R 2 τ R1 12 21 τ R1 k11k22

τ R1 k12

=λ kF 2 − kF1

kc1k11 k22

On the other hand, when loop 2 is opened, the area under e1becomes:

∞

τ R' 1 k F 1

∫ e dt = − k

o

1 '

0 c1 k11

Thus,

8

∞

∫ e dt 1

τ R1 kc' 1 k F 2 k12 τ R1 kc' 1

0

=− × − 1 λ = × β1 = f1 β1

∞

τ R' 1 kc1 k F 1k22 τ R' 1 kc1

∫ e dt

o

1

0

Similarly, we have:

∞

∫ e dt 2

τ R 2 kc' 2

0

= × β2 = f2 β2

∞

τ R' 2 kc 2

∫ e dt

o

2

0

Notice that the PI parameters in the interacting loops are used to be more conservative

than those in single loops. In another words,

f1 ≥ 1; f2 ≥ 1

The multi-loop control should be beneficial when the sum of absolute values of the

Remarks:

1. If λ is assumed not vary with frequency, and the process under study is FOPDT,

λ>1, f1 lies in the range 1< f1 <2, while 0.5<l<1, f1 lies in the range 1< f1 <3.

2. When f1 =1, β is equal to the ratio of response areas.

3. If β is small and f1 =is close to one, then the interacting control is favored for that

particular disturbance.

4. If β is large, the interacting control is un favorable for that particular disturbance.

(J.C. Chang and C.C. Yu, CES Vol.45, pp. 1309-1323 1990)

ym×1 ( s ) = Gm×n ( s )un×1 ( s )

Define Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of the matrix G ( s) as:

G + ( s) = ( GT G ) GT ( s)

−1

Then, under close-loop control, the steady-state control input will be:

∂ui +

u = G + (0) y d and = gij (0) .

∂y

j CL

Thus, the non-square relative gain is defined similarly to the square RGA, that is:

9

−1

∂y ∂yi + T

Λ% = i = G (0) ⊗ G (0)

∂u j OL ∂u j CL

1. Row sum of Λ% :

T

n n n

RS = [ rs (1), rs (2), L , rs (m) ] = ∑ λ%1 j , ∑ λ% 2j , L , ∑ λ% mj , ;

j =1 j =1 j =1

T

n n n

CS = [ cs (1), cs (2), L , cs (n)] = ∑ λ% j1 , ∑ λ% j 2 , L , ∑ λ% jn , = [1, 1, L, 1]

T

2. j =1 j =1 j =1

3. 0 ≤ rs(i) ≤ 1, ∀i = 1, 2,L, m

m n

4. ∑ rs(i) = ∑ cs(i) = n

i =1 j =1

m m n n m n

Note: ∑ rs(i) = ∑∑ λ% = ∑∑ λ% = ∑ cs ( j ) = n

i =1 i =1 j =1

ij

j =1 i =1

ij

j =1

5. Non-square RGA is invariant under input scaling, but is variant under output

scaling:

( GS ) ⊗ (GS )+ = (G ⊗ G+ ) ( SG ) ⊗ ( SG )+ ≠ (G ⊗ G+ )

T T T T

1

%

2 ) = P1 Λ (G ) P2

A. Multi-loop BLT-Tuning:

I. BLT-1 method:

diagonal element of G, i.e. gi,i.

b. Assume a detuning factor “F”, and calculate controller settings for loops.

kc ,i = k ZN ,i / F ; τ R ,i = (τ R ,i )ZN F

10

d. Calculate the closed-loop function Lc(iω):

W( iω )

Lc (iω ) = 20 log

1 + W( iω )

e. Calculate the detuning factor F until the peak in the Lc log modulus curve is

equal to 2N, that is:

W( iω )

Lcm = Max 20 log = 2N

ω

1 + W( iω )

II. BLT-2

b. Choose a second detuning factor FD. FD should be greater than one.

c. Compute τD,j as:

τ D, j =

(τ )

D , j ZN

FD

C is minimized, maintaining FD > 1. The trivial case may

result where Lmax

C = 2N .

III. BLT-3

controller and compensate for it.

Consider the PI controller:

1

t

u j = u j (0) + kC , j e j +

∫

τ R, j 0

e j dt ;

u j (0) = 0

At steady state,

11

∞

kC , j

lim u j (t ) =

t →∞ τ R, j ∫ e (t )dt

0

j

So,

∞

τ R , j u j (∞)

∫ e (t )dt =

0

j

kC , j

Notice that:

u (∞) = G −1 (0) R − G −1GL (0)d (∞)

= [ g i , j (0); i, j = 1,..., N ][0,..., 0,1, 0,..., 0]T

N

ui (∞) = i th row of G −1 (0)GL (0) = ∑ [ gi , j (0) g L, j (0)]

j =1

u j (∞)τ R , j

ITE j =

kC , j

Let,

N ITE j

Sj = ∑ + ITE j −load

i =1 N

τ R, j N g j ,i (0)

Sj = × ∑ + g j ,i (0) g L,i (0)

kC , j i =1 N

j

Smax

Fj = F

Sj

kc ,i = kZN ,i / Fj ; τ R ,i = (τ R ,i ) ZN Fj

IV. BLT-4

12

a. BLT-3 is used to get individual PI controllers as described above.

b. BLT-2 procedure is used with individual FD factors for each loop:

S max

FD , j = FD

Sj

The best variable pairing is the one that gives the smallest magnitudes for each

element of X,(i.e. Xi) of the following:

X ( iω ) = ([ I + GGC ]−1 GL L )

( iω )

VI. Summary

equal Fi equal Fi

BLT-3---PI, BLT-4-----PID,

unequal Fi unequal Fi

TITO Processes

This method is based on A modified Z-N method for SISO control system. To derive

this modified Z-N method, ageneral formulation is to start with a given point of the

Nyquist curve of the process:

j ( −π +ϕ p )

G p ( jω ) = rp e (1)

13

1

GR ( jω ) = k 1 + j ωτ D − (2)

jτ Rω

1

rs = .

Am

A phase margin design corresponds to rs = 1 and ϕ s = ϕm

j ( −π +ϕ p +ϕ R )

From Eqs.(1)~Equ.(3), we have: rs e j ( −π +ϕs ) = rp rR e , so that

rs

rR = and ϕ R = ϕ s − ϕ p

rp

In other words,

1 j (ϕ R )

GR ( jω ) = k 1 + j ωτ D − = rR e = rR cos ϕ R + jrR sin ϕ R

jτ Rω

Or,

1

k = rR cos ϕ R =

rs

rp

(

cos ϕ s − ϕ p ) and ωτ D − (

= tan ϕ s − ϕ p

τ Rω

)

The gain is uniquely determined. Only one equation determines τ R and τ D .

is as follows:

0.413 g (0)

α= , where κ =

3.302κ + 1 g ( jωc )

1

From ωτ D −

τ ω

−1

( )

= tan ϕ s − ϕ p , τ D can be solved to obtain:

R

1

τD = − tan(ϕ s − ϕ p ) + 4α + tan 2 (ϕ s − ϕ p ) and

2ω

1

τR = τD

α

14

y1 ( s) g11 ( s) g12 ( s ) u1 ( s )

y ( s ) = g ( s ) g ( s ) u ( s )

2 21 22 2

c1 ( s ) c1 ( s ) 0

c ( s ) = 0 c2 ( s)

2

c2 g12 g 21 g g

g1 = g11 − = g11 − −112 21

1 + c2 g 22 c2 + g 22

g12 g 21

g 2 = g 22 −

c1−1 + g11

Let

1

ci ( jω ) = k 1 + j ωτ Di + ; i = 1, 2

jτ Riω

ci ( jω ) = kci (1 − j tan(ϕbi − ϕ ai ) ) ; i = 1, 2

15

rai e j ( −π +ϕia ) ⋅ kci (1 − j tan(ϕbi − ϕai )) = rbi e j ( −π +ϕia )

⇓

rbi j (ϕai −ϕbi ) rbi r

e = cos(ϕai − ϕbi ) + j bi sin(ϕai − ϕbi ) = kci (1 − j tan(ϕbi − ϕ ai ))

rai rai rai

⇓

rbi

kci = cos(ϕai − ϕbi )

rai

rbi

kci ⋅ gi ( jω ) = cos(ϕ ai − ϕbi ) ⋅ rai e j ( −π +ϕia ) = rbi cos(ϕ ai − ϕbi ) ⋅ e j ( −π +ϕia )

rai

By setting i equal one and two, one will obtain two equations with kc1 and kc2 as

unknowns, and, thus, can be solved. But, there are very tedious procedures to find the

controller gains (such as:such kc1 and kc2) and frequency ω11 and ω22 that satisfy the

phase criteria. (see the reference: I&EC Res. 1998, 37, 4725-4733, Q-G Wang, T-H

Lee, and Y. Zhang)

16

f1 [(g11) -]-1

_

G

_ f2 [(g22)-]-1

g11 _

g22 _

GC ,i = ( Gi ,i )− f i ; i = 1,..., n

−1

The stability is guaranteed for any stable IMC filter that satisfies either of the

following:

g i ,i (iω )

f i (iω ) < f R*,i (iω ) = ; i = 1, 2,..., n

∑

j , j ≠i

gi , j (iω )

g i ,i (iω )

f i (iω ) < f C*,i (iω ) = ; i = 1, 2,..., n

∑

j , j ≠i

g j ,i (iω )

1

∑

j , j ≠i

g i , j (iω )

Ri (iω ) = = ; 0 ≤ω ≤ ∞

1 + f R*,i (iω ) ∑g j

i, j (iω )

1

∑

j , j ≠i

g j ,i (iω )

Ci (iω ) = = ; 0 ≤ω ≤ ∞

1 + fC*,i (iω ) ∑g

j

j ,i (iω )

17

For small interaction: 0.0 ≤ Ri , Ci ≤ 0.5 ⇒ f * >1

1

Controller: u ( s ) = kC − y ( s ) + [r ( s ) − y ( s)] − τ D sy ( s)

τ Rs

y k /(τ s )G p

= C R

r 1 + kC /(τ R s )G p

Re − Ls

GP = ; R = slope of the initial unit step response

s

Re− Ls R(1 − Ls)

GP = ≈

s s

y 1 − Ls 1 − Ls

= ≈ 2 2

r τR τ C s + 1.414τ C s + 1

− τ R L s 2 + (τ R − L ) s + 1

RkC

(1.414τ C + L)

⇒ kC = ; τ R = 1.414τ C + L

R(τ + 1.414τ C L + L2 )

2

C

k P e− Ls k P (1 − Ls )

GP = ≈

τ s +1 τ s +1

18

y 1 − Ls

=

r τ Rτ τ

− τ R L s2 + R + τ R − L s + 1

kC k P kC k P

1 − Ls

≈

τ C s + 1.414τ C s + 1

2 2

1 −τ C2 + 1.414τ Cτ + Lτ

⇒ kC = ;

k P τ C2 + 1.414τ Cτ + L2

−τ C2 + 1.414τ Cτ + Lτ

⇒ τR =

τ +L

derivations except that the deadtime approximation:

1 − 0.5 Ls

e − Ls ≈

1 + 0.5 Ls

19

20

21

2. Controllers for multi-loop system

y k k g1,1

At ω → 0 ; = g1,1 1 − 1,2 2,1 =

u1 loop 2 closed k1,1k2,2 RGA(λ )

y

At ω → ∞ ; = g1,1

u1 loop 2 closed

model in the main loop should provide satisfactory closed loop

results. This is because:

b. For RGA < 1,

(τ )

R ,i based on main loop

τ R ,i =

RGA(λi ,i )

in three different ranges, that is: L/τ < 0.2, 0.2 < L/τ < 0.5, and L/τ >

0.5.

For details, see the original paper.

.

IX. Robustness of Closed-loop System.

The final pairing and the controller tuning is checked for robustness by

plotting DSO and DSI as functions of frequency, [Doyle and Stein]. The

singular values below 0.3-0.2 indicate a lack of stability robustness.

DSO(iω ) = σ [ I + ( GGC ) ]( iω )

−1

DSI ( iω ) = σ [ I + ( GC G ) ]( iω )

−1

22

E. Design Method based on Passivity

multi-loop control is the most widely used strategy in the industrial process

control.

2. Current multi-loop control design approaches can be classified into three

categories: detuning methods (Luyben, 1986), independent design methods

(Skogestard and Morari, 1989), and sequential design methods (Mayne, Chiu and

Arkun, 1992).

3. Loop interactions have to be taken into considerations, as they may have

deteriorating effects on both control performance and closed-loop stability.

4. It is desirable if the multi-lop control system is decentralized unconditionally

stable (i.e., any subset of the control loops can be independently to an arbitrary

degree or even turned off without endangering close-loop stability.

5. Independent design is based on the basis of the paired transfer function while

satisfying some stability constraints due to process interactions.

6. Perhaps the mostwidely used decentralized stability conditions are those

µ-interaction measure.

7. Passivity Concept:

The rate of change of the stored energy in the tank is less than the power supplied

to it.

Inlet Flowrate

Fi

Fo

h Outlet Flowrate

The rate of change of the storage function:

dS

= −Cv ρ gh h + ρ gFi h = −Cv ρ gh h + w < w ∀h > 0

dt

The rate of change of the stored energy in the tank is less than the power

supplied to it. Therefore this process is said to be strictly passive.

23

Passive(Willems 1972): if a non-negative storage function S(x) can be found s.t.:

t

S(0)=0 and S ( x) − S ( x 0 ) ≤ ∫ yT (τ )u (τ )dτ for all t>t0≥0, x0, x∈ X, u∈ U.

t0

t

Strictly passive: if S ( x) − S ( x 0 ) < ∫ yT (τ )u (τ )dτ

t0

KYP Lemma

Nonlinear control affine systems (Hill & Moylan 1976)

x& = f ( x) + g ( x)u

y = h( x )

where x ∈ X ⊂ R n , u ∈ U ⊂ R m , y ∈ Y ⊂ R m

The process is passive if

∂S T ( x )

Lf S ( x) = f ( x ) ≤ 0,

∂x

∂S T ( x )

Lg S ( x ) = g ( x ) = hT ( x )

∂x

KYP Lemma

A linear system (Willems 1972) G(s):=(A,B,C,D) is passive if there exists a

positive definite matrix P such that:

AT P + PA PB − C T

T ≤0

B P − C − D − D

T

AT P + PA PB − C T

T <0

B P − C − D − D

T

Definition:

An LTI system S: G(s) is passive if :

(1) G(s) is analytic in Re(s)>0;

(2) G(jw)+G*(jw)≥0 for all that jw is not a pole of G(s);

(3) If there are poles of G(s) on the imaginary axis, they are non-repeated and the

residue matrices at the poles are Hermitian and positive semi-definite.

G(s) is strictly passive if:

(1) G(s) is analytic in Re(s) ≥ 0;

(2) G(jw)+G*(jw)>0 ∀ω ∈ (−∞, ∞) .

24

Theorem 1: For a given stable non-passive process with a transfer function matrix

G(s), there exists a diagonal, stable, and passive transfer function matrix

W(s)=w(s)I such that H(s)=G(s)+W(s) is passive.

[Proof]:

λmin ( H ( jω ) + H * ( jω )) = λmin (G ( jω ) + G* ( jω ) + (W ( jω ) + W * ( jω ))

Since both (G+G*) and (W+W*) are Hermitian, from the Weyl inequality, we

have:

=λmin (G ( jω ) + G* ( jω )) + 2 Re(W ( jω ))

Thus, if:

1

Re(W ( jω )) ≥ λmin (G ( jω ) + G* ( jω ))

2

H(s) can be render passive. On the other hand, if

1

Re(W ( jω )) > λmin (G ( jω ) + G* ( jω ))

2

H(s) will be strictly passive.

A passive system is minimum phase. The phase of a linear process is within

[-90º, 90º]

Passive systems are Lyapunov stable

A passive system is of relative degree < 2

Passive systems can have infinite gain (e.g., 1/s)

Passivity Theorem :

stable.

25

(including multi-loop PID controllers) even if it is highly nonlinear and/or

highly coupled

Control design based on passivity

Excess or shortage of passivity of a process can be used to analyse whether

this process can be easily controlled

Passivity based controllability study

passification:

Gff Gfb

G G

Input Feedforward Passivity (IFP) (Sepulchre et al 1997) - If a system

G with a negative feedforward of νI is passive, then G has excessive

input feedforward passivity, i.e., G is IFP(ν).

G with a positive feedback of ρI is passive, then G has excessive

output feedback passivity, i.e., G is OFP (ρ).

In other words, a processs shortage of passivity can be compensated by another

process’s excess of passivity.

Passivity Index

The excessive IFP of a system G(s) can be quantified by a frequency dependent

26

passivity index

∆

1

ν F [G ( s ), ω ]=λmin [G ( jω ) + G *( jω )]

2

Assume the true process is GT ( s ) = G ( s ) + ∆( s)

The passivity index of the true process can be estimated as

1 1

ν (GT ( jω )) = −λmin ∆( jω ) + ∆* ( jω ) + G ( jω ) + G* ( jω )

2 2

1 1

≤ −λmin ∆( jω ) + ∆* ( jω ) − −λmin G ( jω ) + G* ( jω )

2 2

=ν (G ( jω )) +ν (∆ ( jω ))

1. Comprises gain & phase information of the uncertainty

j

Maximum gain

Passivity index

σ

∆(σ)

27

Passivity Theorem 2: If the multivariable process is strictly passive, then the

closed-loop system is stable if the multi-loop controller is passive.

decentralized controller K(s)=diag(ki(s)), w(s) is a stable and minmum phase, and

ν (W ( jω )) < −ν (G + ( jω ))

−1

K ' ( s ) = U −1K ( s) I − w( s )U −1K ( s)

Notice that the above figure is equivalent to the one in the following:

ν ( D −1G + D ( jω )) < ν (G + ( jω ))

and

28

+

D −1G + (0) D + D −1 G + (0) D > 0

Design procedures:

2. Check the pairing. Examine the proposed pairing using DIC condition:

T

G + (0) M + M G + (0) > 0

min(−γ i )

kci ,τ Ri

such that

1 γi

<1

1 jω

1 + Gii+ ( jω )kc+,i 1 +

jτ R ,iω

and

kc+,iν s (ω )

τ R2 ,i ≥ , ∀ω ∈ R, i = 1,L , n

1 − kc+,iν s (ω ) ω 2

29

ν F (∆( s ), ω ) ≥ −ν F (W ( s ), ω ), ∀ω ∈ R

If the uncertainty is passive, then the controller is only required to render system T

strictly passive to achieve robust stability even if ∆ is very large.

ν F ( ∆( s ), ω ) ≥ −ν F (W ( s), ω ) , ∀ω ∈ R

where W(s) is minimum phase, the closed-loop system will be robust stable if

system

T ( s )[ I − W ( s )T ( s)]−1

is strictly passive.

1. Characterise the uncertainty in terms of passivity using IFP or OFP.

2. Derive the robust stability condition for systems with uncertainties bounded by

their passivity indices.

3. Develop a systematic procedure to design the robust controller which satisfies

the above stability condition.

Blended approach

Design a controller that satisfies the small gain condition at high

frequencies and satisfies the passivity condition at low frequencies

(Bao, Lee et al 1998)

Based on the bilinear transformation

30

Multi-objective control design

Design a controller that satisfies the passivity condition for robust

2003)

Based on KYP lemma and Semi-Definite Programming

Example:

G ( s) = 60s +−18 s (48s + 1)(45s + 1)

−8 s

0.094e − 0.12e

38s + 1 35s + 1

Passivity index

0.0.0404

P

0.0.0202

as

0.0

si 0.0 0

vit

-0.0

-0.-0.020

-0-0.03.0

110-40

- 10-2

1 1 100 10+2

1 10+41 4

(rad/min

1. Each step in the design procedure involves designing only one SISO controller.

2. Limited degree of failure tolerance is guaranteed: If stability has been achieved

31

after the design of each loop, the system will remain stable if loop fail or are taken

out of service in the reverse order of they were designed.

3. During startup, the system will be stable if the loops are brought into service in the

same order as they have been designed.

4.

Problems with sequential design:

1. The final controller design, and thus the control quality achieved, may depend on

the order in which the controllers in the individual loops are designed.

2. Only one output is usually considered at a time, and the closing of subsequent

loops may alter the response of previously designed loops, and thus make iteration

necessary.

3. The transfer function between input uk and output yk may contain RHP zeros that

do not corresponding to the RHP zeros of G(s).

Notations:

3. S = ( I + GC )−1 ; H = I − S = GC ( I + GC ) −1

4. G% = diag{gii ( s ); i = 1,L , n}

1

5. S% = diag{si ( s ); i = 1,L , n} = diag{ ; i = 1,L , n}

1 + gii ci

g c

6. H% = diag{hi ( s ); i = 1,L , n} = diag{ ii i ; i = 1,L , n}

1 + gii ci

% −1 = {γ ; i, j = 1,L , n}

7. Γ = GG ij

% −1G

8. CLDG = GG d

9. E = (G − G% )G% −1

G M C M

10. G = k ; C= k ;

L O L O

11. Sk = ( I + Gk Ck ) ; H k = Gk Ck ( I + Gk Ck )

−1 −1

Hk 0 Sk 0

12. Hˆ k = ; Sˆk = ; i = k + 1, K + 2, L N

0

%

hi 0 s%i

32

S = ( I + GC )−1 = [ I + GC

% + (G − G% )C ]−1

{ )}

−1

( ) (

−1

= I + (G − G% )C I + GC

% I + GC

%

{ )}

−1

( ) (

−1

= I + (G − G% )G% −1GC

% I + GC

% %

I + GC

( ) ( I + EH% ) ( )

−1 −1 −1

%

= I + GC = S% I + EH%

Design procedures:

) ) )

( )

−1 −1

In each of the following step, S = S k ( I + Ek H k ) ; Ek = (G − Gˆ k ) Gk

required bandwidth in each loop. Also estimate the individual loop designs

in terms of H% .

Step 1. Design of controller c1 by considering output 1 only. In this case, we have

Gˆ k = G% k and Hˆ k = H%

33

Sequential Design Using Relay feedback Tests of Shen and Yu

The relay feedback system for SISO auto-tuning is as shown in the follwing figure:

When constant cycles appear after the system has been activated, the ultimate gain

and ultimate frequency of the open-loop system can be approximated by measuring

the magnitude and period (see the following figure) and by the following equations:

4h 2π

Ku = ; ωu =

πa Pu

The Z-N tuning method can be used to determine the controller parameters:

PID Controller: K c = 0.60 Ku , τ R = Pu /1.2, τ D = 1.25 Pu

Or, use the Tyreus-Luyben’s formula to give more conservative response:

PI Controller: K c = K u / 3.2, τ R = 2.2 Pu ,

PID Controller: K c = K u / 2.2, τ R = 2.2 Pu , τ D = Pu / 6.3

To avoid the difficult mathematics envolved in the formulation of sequential

design, Shen and Yu suggested to use the relay-feedback test as shown in the

following figure:

34

The controller for a 2 × 2 system is suggested:

PI Controller: K c = K c, ZN / 3, τ R = 2 Pu

Analysis:

The sequential design is derived by considering the multi-loop control system as

coupled SISO loops. For a 2 × 2 system as example, the equivalent SISO loops are:

1

g1 ( s) = g1,1 ( s ) {1 − (1 − ) h ( s)}

λ (s) 2

1

g 2 ( s) = g 2,2 ( s ) {1 − (1 − ) h ( s)}

λ (s) 1

g C,i gi ,i

Where, hi (s) = ; i = 1, 2

1 + gC ,i gi ,i

Notice that, if there is damping in g1 or g 2 , this damping should come from either

h1 or h2 . According to tis study, a closed system having an FOPDT process and a

modified ZN tuned PI controller will result in a closed-loop system (i.e. h1 and h2 )

having damping factor greater than 0.6. It is thus postulate that the open-loop transfer

functions g1 ( s ) and g 2 ( s ) can be approximated by:

kp τ p 2 s + 1 −θ s

G ( s) = ⋅ ⋅e

τ 2 s 2 + 2τζ s + 1 τ p1s + 1

Then, the stability region of the equivalent SISO loops are explored with the

35

are given in the following figure. It can be seen that the modified ZN tuning formula

proposed greatly improve the stability.

On the other hand, the convergence of the sequential design for the multi-loop

controller is formulated as the problem of finding the roots of simultaneous algebraic

equation using sequential iterations.

The simultaneous equations are obtained from the conditions of phase crossover for

the two loops, that is:

Im g1 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 )

F1 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 ) = tan −1 = −π

Re g1 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 )

Im g 2 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 )

F2 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 ) = tan −1 = −π

Re g 2 ( jωu ,1 , jωu ,2 )

following:

∂F1 ∂F2

∂ωu ,2 ωu ,1 ∂ωu ,1 ωu ,2

<1

∂F1 ∂F2

∂ωu ,1 ωu ,2 ∂ωu ,2 ωu ,1

36

The procedures of this proposed sequential design are summarized with the flow

chart as shown.

37

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.