136 views

Uploaded by Pereira

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- PID Labview
- Design+of+internal+model+control+based+fractional+order+PID+controller.pdf
- r05322304-instrumentation-and-process-control
- Paper4
- ICA20110200001_94894672
- DC Motor Speed Using Fuzzy and PID Controller
- DCS
- Control Theory
- A new control structure for PID load frequency control
- v.percy -Bets, Expected Gains and Taxes: An Investment Framework in the Age of Convergence Finance
- Development of an Auto Tuning Pid
- PDF v f Using PID and Encoder En
- He Jan2006 State Space Controller
- Dynamic characteristics of Measurement system
- Process Dynamics
- WATLOW pmpmintegrated
- DC Motor Control
- 7224
- The Control Loop - Don Morgan
- lineduino report final

You are on page 1of 11

Ming Ge

a

, Min-Sen Chiu

b

, Qing-Guo Wang

c,

*

a

Honeywell Singapore Laboratory, Honeywell International, 17 Changi Business Park Central 1, Singapore 486073, Singapore

b

Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore

c

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore

Abstract

In this paper, a method which allows explicit incorporation of the description of system uncertainties in the problem formulation

for designing robust proportional-integal-derivative (PID) controller is presented. The multiple-model paradigm is employed to

represent the uncertainties and provides the basis for the PID controller design. Using standard techniques, the robust PID con-

troller design is reduced to a convex constraint problem which can be eciently solved with linear matrix inequalities (LMIs)

approach. Various practical specications are considered simultaneously within this framework. Extension to system with time-

delays, which follows naturally from the preceding development, is also discussed. Two examples are used to demonstrate the

eectiveness of the proposed method and a comparison with the existing PID tuning methods is made. #2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.

All rights reserved.

Keywords: PID; Linear matrix inequalities (LMI); Multiple-model; Time-delay

1. Introduction

Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers

have found extensive industrial applications for several

decades since Ziegler and Nichols proposed their rst

PID tuning method. This is because its simple structure

makes the PID controller much easier to be understood

by the control engineer [1] than most other advanced

controllers. Numerous modications have been made to

improve the ZieglerNichols (ZN) tuning methods [2

4]. Nevertheless, these ZN related methods might be

inadequate in the applications where the high perfor-

mance is required because much a-priori information of

the processes is not exploited in the PID controller

design. To tackle this problem, varieties of new techni-

ques have been developed. Among them are the analy-

tical tuning method [5,6], the optimization based

method [68], the gain and phase margin method [8,9],

and so forth.

These approaches have proven to work well in a lot of

practical situations. Most of them, however, only make

use of a single linear model to design the PID controller,

which inevitably causes the plantmodel mismatch.

Consequently, the resultant PID controller may behave

quite poorly if the plant is operated in a wide range of

operating conditions. One possible way to overcome

this problem is to employ an internal-model-based PID

tuning method [10,11] to consider the model uncer-

tainty, where the plant-model mismatch can be accom-

modated by the proper design of IMC lter. However,

this method inherently implies the pole-zero cancella-

tions, which can cause the inferior response to load dis-

turbance when the cancelled poles are slow in

comparison with the dominant poles [8].

The objective of this paper is to propose a novel

robust PID controller design to address the problem

mentioned above. To this end, a multiple-model para-

digm is employed to describe the uncertainties that are

inherent in the approximation of nonlinear plants. The

concept of multiple-model has been recently developed

and found its widespread use in nonlinear system mod-

eling and control [1223]. Under the mild condition, it

has been shown that multiple-model can uniformly

approximate any system on a compact subset provided

that a sucient number of local models is given [13].

Various practical requirements on control systems are

considered in the paper and formulated as LQR cost,

H

o

performance, regional pole constraints, and so on.

These measures are then tackled in terms of linear

0959-1524/02/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0959- 1524( 00) 00057- 3

Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313

www.elsevier.com/locate/jprocont

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-874-2282; fax: +65-779-1103.

E-mail address: elewqg@nus.edu.sg (Qing-Guo Wang).

matrix inequalities (LMIs) which can be solved e-

ciently using recently developed convex optimization

algorithms [2426]. The resulting PID controller will

achieve a superior performance in comparison with the

single model based PID controller. Extension to systems

with time-delays, which follows naturally from the pre-

ceding formulation, is also discussed. Examples are

included to demonstrate the eectiveness of the pro-

posed method and show signicant improvement over

the existing PID tuning methods.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents

the LQRLMI framework as the basis to develop the

robust PID controller. In Section 3, the robust PID

controller design problem is formulated and solved by

the LQRLMI approach. Various design specications

are converted to LMI constraints to be used in PID

controller design and extension to time-delay system is

discussed. Simulation studies are conducted in Section

4. Section 5 concludes this paper.

2. LQRLMI framework

In this section, we present some background material

on linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and linear matrix

inequality (LMI) which will be used for the robust PID

controller design in this paper. In many control pro-

blems, it is well motivated to base the design on the

LQR control theory for its nice robustness [27]. Con-

sider the time invariant linear system:

x

.

= Ax Bu.

y = Cx. (1)

The standard LQR problem is to determine the con-

trol u which minimizes the quadratic cost:

J(u) =

_

o

0

(x

T

Qx u

T

Ru)dt

for any initial state x(0), where Q and R are symmetric

positive semidenite matrix and symmetric positive

denite matrix, respectively, i.e. Q = Q

T

50 and

R = R

T

> 0. Assume that (A. B) are controllable and

(Q

1,2

. A) are observable. It turns out that the solution u

+

to this optimal control problem can be expressed [27] in

the state feedback form:

u

+

= Kx = R

1

B

T

Px.

where P is the symmetric positive denite solution of the

algebraic Riccati equation (ARE):

A

T

P PA PBR

1

B

T

P Q = 0 (2)

and the minimum quadratic cost is given by

J

min

= x

T

(0)Px(0). (3)

Thus, the solution to the LQR problem relies on sol-

ving the ARE (2). An ecient alternative for this pro-

blem is the LMI technique that has emerged recently as

a powerful design utility for a variety of control pro-

blems due to its convexity [24]. By the LMI technique,

the LQR problem can be rephrased [24] as an optimi-

zation problem over P

^

and Y:

min

P^.Y

x

T

(0)P

^

1

x(0) (4)

subject to

AP

^

P

^

A

T

BY Y

T

B

T

P

^

Y

T

P

^

Q

1

0

Y 0 R

1

_

_

_

_

40. P

^

>0.

(5)

where Y = KP

^

and P

^

= P

1

. In many practical situa-

tions, the objective (4) is modied as

x

T

(0)P

^

1

x(0)4,.

where , is the specied upper bound. The above

inequality can also be expressed as LMI:

, x

T

(0)

x(0) P

^

_ _

50. (6)

Consequently, the optimization problem in (4) and (5)

is converted to seeking a solution (P

^

+

. Y

+

) that satises a

set of LMIs in (5) and (6) and the state feedback gain is

given by

K = Y

+

(P

^

+

)

1

(7)

The system matrix [A. B] is usually not precisely

known in practice. Assume that [A. B] is uncertain but

belongs to a polytopic set:

= Cov [A

1

. B

1

]. [A

2

. B

2

]. . [A

N

m

. B

N

m

]

_ _

(8)

where Cov refers to a convex hull, or [A. B] c if

[A. B] =

N

m

i=1

w

i

(x. u)[A

i

. B

i

].

where N

m

is the number of multiple models, and w

i

the

weighting functions constrained between 0 and 1, and

satisfy

4 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313

N

m

i=1

w

i

(x. u) = 1. \(x. u) c R

n

x

R

n

u

.

Generally, we have to search for a solution to LMIs in

(5) and (6) all over the uncertain system , which will be

obviously an arduous task. However, due to the prop-

erties of the polytopic systemn [24], solutions can be

sought only at the polytopic vertices instead of all

points within the polytope. In other words, if we can

nd a pair of Y and P

^

such that all LMIs are satised at

the polytope vertices, then they also hold for the whole

polytope. Therefore, a solution to LMIs in (5) and (6)

only needs to be sought at the vertices [A

i

. B

i

], i =

1. 2. . N

m

, and hence the task for solving the con-

straints is much reduced.

One advantage of using LMI is its convenience to

include other specications for the controller design.

Therefore, various design specications may be recast

into the LMIs and the resulting LMI constraints can be

eciently solved in polynomial time by using recently

developed convex optimization algorithms [28].

Denition 1 and Lemma 1 below are needed in the

next section to recast the performance specications

into LMIs. Let H denote the ellipsoid centered at the

origin: H = { c R

n

[

T

P

1

41].

Denition 1 [24]. The ellipsoid His said to be invariant if

1. for every trajectory x of dynamic system (1), x(t

0

) c

H implies x(t) c H, for all t5t

0

; or

2. P satises A

T

P PA - 0, for all A c ,

where denotes some uncertainty sets.

Lemma 1. [24]. The following matrix inequality:

V(x) S(x)

S

T

(x) Z(x)

_ _

> 0.

where V(x)=V

T

(x), Z(x) = Z

T

(x) and S(x) depend

anely on x, is equivalent to

Z(x) > 0.V(x) S(x)Z

1

(x)S

T

(x) > 0.

and

V(x) > 0. Z(x) S

T

(x)V

1

(x)S(x) > 0.

3. Robust PID controller design

Consider an uncertain second order process

G(s) =

b

2

s

2

a

1

s a

2

(9)

where the parameters vary in intervals:

a

1

c [a

1

. a

1

]. a

2

c [a

2

. a

2

]. b

2

c [b

2

. b

2

]. (10)

According to Astrom and Hagglund [8], a PID con-

troller:

C(s) = K

p

K

i

s

K

d

s

is adequate for such a kind of process. The resultant

negative feedback system is shown in Fig. 1. The objec-

tive of PID controller design is to determine PID set-

tings to meet various design specications given by

users. In this paper, the PID controller is designed in the

state-space settings for the ease of using LQRLMI

approach. The feedback system is transferred from s-

domain (Fig. 1) to time domain (Fig. 2) and can be

expressed in the state space description:

x

.

= Ax Bu B

r

r.

u = Kx K

p

r K

d

r

.

.

y = Cx. (11)

where y is the system output, x = [ x

1

x

2

x

3

]

T

the

state with variables dened by

x

1

= y. x

2

= x

.

1

. x

3

=

_

edt. e = r y.

r the reference input, and

A =

0 1 0

a

2

a

1

0

1 0 0

_

_

_

_

_. B =

0

b

2

0

_

_

_

_

_. B

r

=

0

0

1

_

_

_

_

_.

C = [ 1 0 0] . K = [K

p

. K

d

. K

i

].

(12)

In this state-space model, the PID controller design

becomes a static state feedback controller, and the static

feedback gain K simply contains all the PID controller

parameters. Note also that there are three uncertain

parameters in (9) and (12) and the polytopic uncertain

set in (8) reduces to

= Cov [A

1

. B

1

]. [A

2

. B

2

]. . [A

8

. B

8

]

_ _

.

where the vertex matrices [A

i

. B

i

] are determined by

permutation of the extreme points of (10) in the system

matrices.

In the above discussion, we only focused on the con-

troller design for the second order system. As a matter

of fact, similar results can be easily derived for the rst

order process and are omitted here for brevity.

In practical situations, the controller is usually

required to meet various specications simultaneously.

The design specications are often a mixture of perfor-

mance and robustness objectives. Unfortunately, these

dierent objectives may rarely be encompassed by a

single design criterion. For instance, the output energy

is more naturally expressed in LQR terms, but the

robustness is better captured by an H

o

criterion and

M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 5

transient behaviors are more easily tuned in terms of

closed-loop damping via the pole placement. Therefore,

the multi-objective design will be highly desirable in the

PID controller design. As we mentioned before, these

specications have to be converted to the LMIs for the

use of LQRMI approach.

Consider rst disturbance rejection. Let the uncertain

system with disturbance w be

x

.

= Ax Bu B

w

w.

y = Cx.

A. B [ ] c .

= Cov [A

1

. B

1

]. [A

2

. B

2

]. . [A

8

. B

8

]

_ _

.

Denoting by T the closed-loop transfer functions

from disturbance w to output y and T | |

o

the H

o

norm

of T, the disturbance rejection can be measured by the

performance specication T | |

o

- o. It is equivalent to

seeking a pair of P

^

and Y in a static feedback gain K =

YP

^

1

such that the following LMI constraint holds

[28]:

AP

^

BY P

^

A

T

Y

T

B

T

P

^

B

w

C

T

B

T

w

P

^

oI 0

C 0 oI

_

_

_

_

40. (13)

Next, it is well known that the transient response of

the dynamic system is closely related to the locations of

poles. The desired damping can be achieved by con-

straining the closed-loop poles to lie in a prescribed

region. The conditions for the pole placement con-

straints can also be recast in the LMIs and LMI region.

Dene the notation L = L

T

= [l

ij

]

14i. j4m

and M =

M

T

= [j

ij

]

14i.j4m

, which means that L and M are m

m matrix with the elements l

ij

and j

ij

, respectively. The

closed-loop poles lies in the LMI regions:

= {z c C : L Mz M

T

z - 0]

if and only if there exists a symmetric positive denite

matrix P

^

satisfying the following LMI [29]:

[l

jk

P j

jk

(AP

^

BY) j

kj

(AP

^

BY)

T

]

14j.k4m

- 0. (14)

Fig. 1. PID control system (s-domain).

Fig. 2. PID control system (time-domain).

6 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313

The third specication we consider is the physical

limitations on the control signal. Assume the control

signal u = Kx = Y

+

(P

^

+

)

1

x is the solution to LMIs

in (5) and (6), and x

T

(0)P

^

1

x(0)41. From Denition 1,

we know that the quadratic stability can be interpreted

in terms of invariant ellipsoids and x(t) belongs to H for

all t50. Consequently, one has

max

t50

u(t)

_

_

_

_

2

= max

t50

YP

^

1

x(t)

_

_

_

_

_

_

2

4max

xcH

YP

^

1

x

_

_

_

_

_

_

2

= max

xcH

(YP

^

1,2

P

^

1,2

x)

T

(YP

^

1,2

P

^

1,2

x)

= max

xcH

(P

^

1,2

x)

T

(YP

^

1,2

)

T

(YP

^

1,2

)P

^

1,2

x

4l

max

((YP

^

1,2

)

T

(YP

^

1,2

))(P

^

1,2

x)

T

P

^

1,2

x

= l

max

((YP

^

1,2

)

T

(YP

^

1,2

))x

T

P

^

1

x

4l

max

((YP

^

1,2

)

T

(YP

^

1,2

))4u

2

max

.

where u

max

is the maximum control signal amplitude

available. The last inequality shown above is a general-

ized eigenvalue problem and it holds true at all times

t50 if the following LMI holds [24]:

P

^

Y

T

Y u

2

max

_ _

50. (15)

Since time-delays exist widely in industrial processes

such as chemical rectors, steel manufacturing and

paper-making process, it is meaningful to extend the

preceding development to the time-delay system. Con-

sider the system described by the following delay-dier-

ential equation:

x

.

(t) = Ax(t) Bu(t t) B

w

w.

y(t) = Cx(t).

A. B [ ] c .

= Cov A

1

. B

1

[ ]. A

2

. B

2

[ ]. . A

8

. B

8

[ ]

_ _

.

u(t) = Kx(t). (16)

where t is a positive real number. It is shown [30] that

the system is closed-loop uniformly asymptotically

stable with the state feedback gain K = YP

^

1

if

1

t

[P

^

A

T

AP

^

BY Y

T

B

T

] BY

Y

T

B

T

1

2

P

^

_

_

_

_

_ - 0.

[

1

P

^

AP

^

A

T

40.

[

2

P

^

0

0 0

_ _

0 BW

Y

T

B

T

P

^

_ _

40. (17a)

where the symmetric positive denite matrix P

^

, matrix

Y, and the scalars [

1

and [

2

are unknown parameters to

be solved. In addition, the o-stability of the closed-loop

system and a prescribed level o on disturbance attenua-

tion are achieved [31] if

P

^

A

T

AP

^

o

2

B

d

B

T

d

S BY Y

T

Y

T

B

T

S 0

Y 0 I

_

_

_

_

_ - 0.

P

^

A

T

AP

^

S 2oP

^

BYe

ot

Y

T

B

T

e

ot

S

_ _

- 0. (17b)

where S, Y, and the symmetric positive denite matrix P

^

are to be solved. As a result, we have obtained a set of

LMI conditions to guarantee the robust performance

and stability for time-delay system.

These various design specications may lead to plenty

of LMIs which appear rather complicated at a rst

glance. However, LMIs are actually quite ecient to be

solved due to the convexity of LMIs and high quality

software is now available for use (e.g. LMI toolbox

developed by Gahinet et al. [25]). Also, we should point

out that a possible conservativeness might be caused by

using the same P

^

matrix in the LMI equations which

means the robust PIDcontroller may not be true optimal.

In view of the above development, the robust PID

controller design procedure is summarized as follows

for the ease of reference.

3.1. Robust PID controller design procedure

. Step 1. Linearize or identify a set of multiple

models from the given process;

. Step 2. Set the LQR weighting matrix Q and R ;

give the prescribed LQR cost ,, H

o

performance

o and control input constraint u

max

(if any);

Choose the desired closed-loop poles region to

Table 1

Process parameters and operating condition for example 1

Parameter Notation Value

Process ow rate q 100 l/min

Feed concentration C

Af

1 mol/l

Feed temperature T

f

350 K

Coolant inlet temperature T

cf

350 K

Reactor volume V 100 l

Heat transfer coecient h

A

710

5

cal/min/K

Reaction rate constant k

o

7.210

10

min

1

Activation energy term E,R 110

4

K

Heat of reaction H 210

5

cal/mol

Liquid densities ,. ,

c

110

3

g/l

Specic heat C

P

. C

PC

1 cal/g/K

M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 7

guarantee some minimum decay rate and closed-

loop damping, or o for o-stability and o as

disturbance attenuation level for time-delay sys-

tem;

. Step 3. Find the solution (P

^

+

. Y

+

) to LMIs (5), (6),

(13), (14), (15) or (17);

. Step 4. Calculate the PID controller parameters by

(7).

4. Examples

In this section, we present two examples to illustrate

the proposed robust PID controller design method. Like

the practical implementation of the PID controller, our

simulation puts the derivative action in the feedback

loop but not in front of the error signal.

Example 1. Consider a continuous stirred tank reac-

tor described by the following dynamic equations [32]:

C

.

A

=

q

V

(C

Af

C

A

) k

0

C

A

e

E,RT

.

T

.

=

q

V

(T

f

T)

Hk

0

,C

p

C

A

e

E,RT

,

c

C

pc

,C

p

V

q

c

(1 e

h

A

,cCpcqc

)(T

cf

T). (18)

whose variables, parameters and nominal values are

dened in Table 1. In this example, C

A

is the measured

output, q

c

is the manipulated variable, and C

Af

is the

disturbance. Considering the stable operating range of

C

A

between [0.06 0.14], three models are obtained at the

operating points 0.06, 0.10, and 0.14, respectively:

C

A

= 0.06 :

0.04612

s

2

9.251s 22.19

.

C

A

= 0.10 :

0.04107

s

2

2.674s 10.97

.

Fig. 3. Pole placement region.

Fig. 4. Closed-loop responses to successive step changes in the set point. Conventional PID controller (

.

), robust PID controller ().

8 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313

C

A

= 0.14 :

0.03707

s

2

0.01248s 5.862

.

Specify the LQRcost weight as Q = 1, R = 1, , = 570,

o = 0.9, and the LMI region for pole placement as the

intersection of the half plane x - 1 and of the sector

Fig. 5. Closed-loop response to disturbance in C

Af

: conventional PID controller (

.

), robust PID controller ().

Fig. 6. Closed-loop response to successive step changes in the set point: non-robust PID controller (

.

), robust PID controller ().

M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 9

centred at the origin and with inner angle 3/4 as shown

in Fig. 3. By the proposed method, the PID controller

parameters are obtained as K = [K

p

. K

d

. K

i

] = [516.6.

143.8. 765.5].

For comparison, simulation results are also presented

for the PID controller tuned by pole placement method

[8]. The nominal model for tuning is chosen at the mid-

operating point C

A

= 0.10. The conventional PID

Fig. 7. Bode bands of GC/(1+GC) for stable region (C

A

=0.06 to C

A

=0.14). () Robust PID controller; (

.

): conventional PID controller.

Fig. 8. Bode bands of GC/(1+GC) for unstable region (C

A

=0.15 to C

A

=0.5). () Robust PID controller. (

.

) non-robust PID controller.

10 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313

controller parameters are calculated as K = [33.4. 51.8.

233.7] by choosing the desired poles at (2. 1.4 1.4j).

The control performances of both PID controllers are

evaluated for successive step change in the euent con-

centration C

A

that varies between 0.06 and 0.14. From

Fig. 4, it is observed that the robust PID controller

Fig. 9. Closed-loop responses to step changes in the set point. Conventional PI controller (

.

), robust PI controller ().

M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 11

outperforms the conventional PID controller globally

when tracking the successive step changes. This can be

justied since the robust PID controller has considered

the uncertainties of the system in the design procedure

such that the controller shows strong robustness in the

whole operating region. Similar results can also be

obtained for the disturbance responses (see Fig. 5).

One advantage of the proposed robust PID controller

design consists in that it is also applicable to the

unstable system. To illustrate this, consider the unstable

region starting from C

A

=0.15 to C

A

=0.5 and three

local models are obtained as follows:

C

A

= 0.15 :

0.036

s

2

0.405s 4.996

.

C

A

= 0.30 :

0.026

s

2

2.647s 0.879

.

C

A

= 0.50 :

0.016

s

2

2.251s 2.252

.

Specify the LQR cost weight Q = 1, R = 1, , = 724,

o = 0.9, and the LMI region for pole placement as the

intersection of the half plane x - 1. The PID con-

troller parameters are obtained as K = [804.6. 316.2.

607.3]. To demonstrate the advantages of the robust

PID controller, we use the same method to design a

non-robust PID controllers based only on the nominal

model at C

A

= 0.3 to meet the same specications. The

PID settings are calculated as K

0

= [463.6. 249.7. 383.1].

In the whole operating regime, the performance of the

single model based controller turns rather worse than

that of the robust PID controller (see Fig. 6). To illus-

trate the superiority of the proposed PID controller

further, we draw Bode bands graph for the closed-loop

transfer functions as shown in Figs. 7 and 8. From

these gures, we observe that the bands of the pro-

posed PID controller system are tighter and smoother

than those of non-robust/conventional PID controllers.

These results conrm the robustness of the proposed

PID controller from the frequency response point of

view.

Example 2. Consider an inverted cone tank described

by

h

.

(t) =

kF(t t)

h(t)

2

k[

h(t)

1.5

.

y(t) = h(t). (19)

where liquid level h is the measured output, F the inlet

owrate used as the manipulated variable, t = 1 the

time delay, k = 2, and [ = 10. Three local models at

operating points, h=2, 6, 10, are given as follows:

h = 2 :

0.57

1.13s 1

e

s

.

Fig. 10. Closed-loop responses to step disturbance. Conventional PI controller (

.

); robust PI controller ().

12 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313

h = 6 :

0.98

17.63s 1

e

s

.

h = 10 :

1.26

63.25s 1

e

s

.

Specify o = 0.23, and o = 0.9. A PI controller is ade-

quate for this rst order plus dead time process. By the

proposed method, the PI controller parameters are cal-

culated as K = [K

p

. K

i

] = [5.33. 0.56]. The conventional

PI controller was tuned based on the dominant pole

placement [8] with nominal model at h = 6. The desired

dominant poles are chosen at x = 0.7 0.7j and the

resulting PI controller parameters are calculated as

K

0

= [8.3. 0.51]. Comparison results are shown in Fig. 9

where step changes in the set point are conducted. It is

observed that in the whole operating regimes the general

performance of robust PI controller is superior to that

of conventional PI controller. Note that near the oper-

ating point h = 2 the conventional PI control system

becomes unstable while the robust PI control system

still remains stable. Similar results are also obtained for

the load disturbance responses as shown in Fig. 10.

5. Conclusion

In this paper, a robust PID controller design method

is developed via the LQRLMI approach. Uncertainties

are tackled by multiple-model paradigm in this method

and various design specications arising from practical

situations are considered simultaneously to determine

the robust PID settings. Simulation studies demon-

strated the superiority of the proposed method over the

existing PID design methods.

References

[1] W.L. Luyben, Process Modeling, Simulation and Control for

Chemical Engineers, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Publishing

Company, USA, 1990.

[2] I.L. Chien, J.A. Hrones, J.B. Reswick, On the automatic control

of generalized passive systems, Trans. ASME 74 (1952) 175185.

[3] C.L. Chen, A simple method for on-line identication and con-

troller tuning, AIChE J. 35 (1989) 20372039.

[4] C.C. Hang, K.J. Astrom, W.K. Ho, Renements of the Ziegler

Nichols tuning formula, IEE Proc. Part D 138 (1991) 111118.

[5] S.H. Hwang, H.C. Chang, A theoretical examination of closed-

loop properties and tuning methods of single-loop PI controllers,

Chem. Eng. Sci. 42 (1987) 23952415.

[6] S.P. Boyd, C.H. Barratt, Linear Controller Design: Limits of

Performance, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Clis, New Jersey,

1991.

[7] S.K.P. Wong, D.E. Seborg, Control strategy for single-input sin-

gle-output nonlinear systems with time delays, Int. J. Control 48

(1988) 23032327.

[8] K.J. Astrom, T. Hagglund, PID Controller, 2nd Edition, Instru-

ment of Society of America, Research triangle park, North Car-

olina, 1995.

[9] H.W. Fung, Q.G. Wang, T.H. Lee, PI tuning in terms of gain and

phase margins, Automatica 34 (1998) 11451149.

[10] M. Morari, E. Zariou, Robust Process Control, Prentice Hall,

USA, 1989.

[11] Y. Lee, S. Park, M. Lee, C. Brosilow, PID controller tuning for

desired closed-loop responses for SI/SO systems, AIChE J. 44

(1998) 106115.

[12] C. Yu, R.J. Roy, H. Kaufman, B.W. Bequette, Multiple-model

adaptive predictive control of mean arterial-pressure and cardiac-

output, IEEE Trans. on Biomed. Eng. 39 (1992) 765778.

[13] T.A. Johansen, B.A. Foss, Constructing narmax models using

armax models, Int. J. Control 58 (1993) 11251153.

[14] M. Pottmann, H. Unbehauen, D.E. Seborg, Application of a

general multi-model approach for identication of highly non-

linear processes a case study, Int. J. Control 57 (1993) 97

120.

[15] R. Murray-Smith, A Local Model Network Approach to Non-

linear Modeling, PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,

UK, 1994.

[16] T.A. Johansen, B.A. Foss, Identication of nonlinear system

structure and parameters using regime decomposition, Auto-

matica 31 (1995) 321326.

[17] K.S. Narendra, J. Balakrishnan, M.K. Ciliz, Adaptation and

learning using multiple models, switching and tuning, IEEE

Control Systems Magazine 15 (1995) 3751.

[18] K.J. Hunt, T.A. Johansen, Design and analysis of gain-scheduled

control using local controller networks, Int. J. Control 66 (1997)

619651.

[19] A. Banerjee, Y. Arkun, B. Ogunnaike, R. Pearson, Estimation of

nonlinear systems using linear multiple models, AIChE J. 43

(1997) 12041226.

[20] Y. Chikkula, J.H. Lee, B.A. Ogunnaike, Dynamically scheduled

MPC of nonlinear processes using hinging hyperplane models,

AIChE J. 44 (1998) 26582674.

[21] M.S. Chiu, S. Cui, Q.G. Wang, Internal model control design for

transition control, AIChE J. 46 (2000) 309320.

[22] Y.C. Cheng, C.C. Yu, Nonlinear process control using multiple

models: relay feedback approach, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39 (2000)

420431.

[23] M. Ge, M.S. Chiu, Q.G. Wang, An extended self-organizing map

for nonlinear system identication, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39

(2000) 37783788.

[24] S.P. Boyd, L.E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, V. Balkrishnan, Linear matrix

inequalities in systems and control theory, SIAM, Philadelphia,

1994.

[25] P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A.J. Laub, M. Chilali, LMI Toolbox

for Use With Matlab, The Mathworks Inc, 1995.

[26] J.G. VanAntwerp, R.D. Braatz, A tutorial on linear and bilinear

matrix inequalities, J. Proc. Control 10 (2000) 363385.

[27] F.L. Lewis, V.L. Syrmos, Optimal Control, John Wiley & Sons,

1995.

[28] P. Gahinet, P. Apkarian, A linear matrix inequality approach to

H

o

control, Int. J. of Robust and Nonlinear Control 4 (1994)

421448.

[29] M. Chiliali, P. Gahinet, H

o

design with pole placement con-

straints: an LMI approach, IEEE Trans. on Auto. Control 41

(1996) 358367.

[30] S.I. Niculescu, M. Fu, H. Li, Delay-dependent closed-loop stabi-

lity of linear system with input delay: an LMI approach, Proc.

CDC (1997) 1012.

[31] S.I. Niculescu, H

o

memoryless control with an ostability con-

straint for time-delay systems: an LMI approach, IEEE. Trans.

on Auto. Control 43 (1998) 739743.

[32] G. Lightbody, G.W. Irwin, Direct neural model reference adap-

tive control, IEE Proc. Part D 142 (1995) 3137.

M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 13

- PID LabviewUploaded byJose Barragan
- Design+of+internal+model+control+based+fractional+order+PID+controller.pdfUploaded byHolly Gardner
- r05322304-instrumentation-and-process-controlUploaded bySRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- Paper4Uploaded byjerrytha
- ICA20110200001_94894672Uploaded byAnggara T Nugraha
- DC Motor Speed Using Fuzzy and PID ControllerUploaded bySandeepRana
- DCSUploaded byRanjita Singh
- Control TheoryUploaded bymCmAl
- A new control structure for PID load frequency controlUploaded byIOSRjournal
- v.percy -Bets, Expected Gains and Taxes: An Investment Framework in the Age of Convergence FinanceUploaded bypigrodrafts
- Development of an Auto Tuning PidUploaded byHoang Giang
- PDF v f Using PID and Encoder EnUploaded byacount.br
- He Jan2006 State Space ControllerUploaded byquinteroudina
- Dynamic characteristics of Measurement systemUploaded byMedo Hamed
- Process DynamicsUploaded byyoseppirnawan
- WATLOW pmpmintegratedUploaded byjulianaugusto
- DC Motor ControlUploaded byAhmed1972
- 7224Uploaded byAbdo Ali
- The Control Loop - Don MorganUploaded byAtakan OzturK
- lineduino report finalUploaded byapi-255235794
- 4MationE.pdfUploaded byobi Salam
- Final Project ReportUploaded byTimothy Fields
- 2006HCPP87.pdfUploaded byLibardo Gamboa
- Control Chapter07 - GearTeamUploaded byNabilaSalsa
- 00526915.pdfUploaded byErna Utami
- NI Tutorial 7438[1]Uploaded byAkshay Mattu
- Dinamic ControlUploaded byNazeri Nasaruddin
- Study ProblemsUploaded byaydanayd
- exp 4-2Uploaded byiqbal105
- Lec15.pdfUploaded byNasrullah Yusup

- The Matrix CookbookUploaded byDhillonv
- aplicações_motor_cc.pdfUploaded byPereira
- [Donald E. Kirk] Optimal Control Theory an Introd(B-ok.org)Uploaded byPereira
- Progress and Trends in SE Part II PrinterUploaded byPereira
- Tutoria LatexUploaded byThales Estevão
- Progress and Trends in SE Part I Printer 1Uploaded byPereira
- The Future of PID ControlUploaded byMarcelo Andrade Santiago
- LMI_PID-Multi-Loop Decentralized PID Control Based on Covariance Control Criteria-An LMI Approach-(Huang2004)Uploaded byPereira
- LMI_PID-An Improvement on Multivariable PID Controller Design via Iterative LMI Approach-(Lin2004)Uploaded byPereira
- LMI_PID-A Quasi-LMI Approach to Computing Stabilizing Parameter Ranes of Multi-loop PID Controllers-(Wang2007)Uploaded byPereira
- Rigid Motion and Homogeneous Transformations1Uploaded byPereira
- Rigid Motion and Homogeneous TransformationsUploaded byPereira

- Identification and Optimization of Pi Parameters Based on Genetic Algorithm for Non Linear System Using MatlabUploaded byjagateesan
- 151CHE721SyllabusUploaded byeutectic1992
- Systems ProgrammingUploaded byYianni
- A PID Controller for Real-Time DC Motor Speed Control Using the C505C Micro ControllerUploaded bybhargav103
- slides19Uploaded byapi-3731921
- Building HVAC Control Systems - Role of Controls and OptimizationUploaded byMohammad Hafiz Othman
- CS507 MCQs (24th June 2010)Uploaded byPower Girls
- Seanewdim 2013 Vol 7 Ped PsychUploaded byseanewdim
- Handout Where to From Here (1)Uploaded bylos_matt
- CS 360-Software Engineering-Hamid Abdul BasitUploaded byZia Azam
- Nasa FMEA PresentationUploaded bydwdobbs
- Improve Control of Liquid Level LoopsUploaded bySyed Samir Alam
- Experiment 4Uploaded byAdi Putra
- DSP System Toolbox™ User’s GuideUploaded byKhai Huynh
- CHM1051 Lectures Week7 & 8Uploaded bytt94
- Modula DC Servo SystemUploaded byFaisal Khan Jadoon
- TM.G5SW.012Uploaded bych prabu
- Introduction to QFDUploaded byakjeevanantham79
- CyberneticsUploaded bygmo.gaviria6381
- Stochastic Models Estimation and ControlUploaded byShahryar Bagheri
- analog-systemsUploaded byfadapow4u
- Signals and SystemsUploaded byanand_kkr
- A Learning Algorithm for Continually Running Fully Recurrent Neural NetworksUploaded bycabirul
- SADCW-ed Chapter 01Uploaded byPraneet Reddy
- Chapter 2 Independent Joint ControlUploaded byThienXa
- CS6403_uw.pdfUploaded byRaja Sekar Raja
- WP Alarm RationalizationUploaded byrasikachandra
- Pss Controller DesignUploaded byalfredo quiroga
- The 7 Manufacturing WastesUploaded byJohn Rizvi
- Babok OverviewUploaded bySérgio Viegas