Robust Control

1. Introduction
Robust Control
2. Comparing two Systems
3. Robustness Measures
Karl Johan Åström and Anders Rantzer
4. Classic Loop Shaping
Automatic Control LTH
5. H∞ Loop Shaping
Lund University
6. Gain scheduling
January 20, 2021 7. Summary

Theme: How much process uncertainty can be handled by linear feedback

Introduction Robust Control

Linear feedback can reduce consequences of process variations, which is

popularly expressed as to make good systems using bad components. A 1. Introduction
classic example is the electronic amplifier with negative feedback. 2. Comparing two Systems
Classically the effect is captured by stability margins and loop shaping
3. Robustness Measures
design.
4. Classic Loop Shaping
◮ A system where the controller has integral action will always settle
with zero error if it settles at all, irrespective of process and controller 5. H∞ Loop Shaping
properties (linear or nonlinear)! 6. Gain scheduling
◮ How to characterize uncertainties? 7. Summary
◮ How to design for processes uncertainties and disturbances

Similar Open Loop Different Closed Loop Different Open Loop Similar Closed Loop
Open loop
100 Open loop
500
400
50
y

300
y

200

0 100
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
t 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Closed loop t
3 Closed loop
2
1
1
y

0 0.5

−1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
t 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
t

100 100
P1 (s) = , P2 (s) =
s+1 (s + 1)(1 + 0.025s)2 Systems and complementary sensitivity functions
Complementary sensitivity functions with unit feedback C = 1
100 100 100 100
100 1.616e5 P1 (s) = , T1 (s) = , P2 (s) = , T2 (s) =
T1 = , T2 = s+1 s + 101 s−1 s + 99
s + 101 (s + 83.9)(s2 − 2.90s + 1926s + 1926)
The closed loop systems are very different even if open loop step Closed loop systems are very similar even if open loop systems step
responses are very close! responses are very different!

When are Two Systems Close The Graph Metric

We know how to compare stable systems. What to do with unstable

◮ For stable systems systems? Let
B(s)
P (s) =
δ (P1 , P2 ) = max pP1 (iω ) − P2 (iω )p A(s)
ω
where A and B are polynomials. Choose a stable polynomial C whose
is a measure of closeness of two processes degree is not lower than the degrees of A and B, then
◮ Is this a good measure?
B(s)/C(s) N (s)
◮ Are there other alternatives? P (s) = =
A(s)/C(s) D(s)
◮ A long story
◮ Gap metric (Zames) The unstable systems P1 and P2 are said to be close to each other, if they
can be written as P1 = N1 /D1 and P2 = N2 /D2 where the stable pairs
◮ Graph metric coprime factorization (Vidyasagar)
(N1 , D1 ) and (N2 , D2 ) are close.
◮ Vinnicombe’s ν -gap metric

[Zames and El-Sakkary 1980]

1
Vinnicombe’s ν -gap Metric δ ν Return to the Motivating Examples
Open loop Open loop
100 500
400
300
50

y
200
100
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
t t
Closed loop Closed loop
3
1
2

y
0.5
0

−1 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
t t
Winding number constraint is satisfied and
pP1 (iω ) − P2 (iω )p 100 100
δ ν (P1 , P2 ) = sup p ∈ [ 0, 1] P1 (s) = , P2 (s) = , δ ν (P1 , P2 ) = 0.98
ω (1 + pP1 (iω )p2 )(1 + pP2 (iω )p2 ) s+1 (s + 1)(1 + 0.025s)2
if P1 can be transformed smoothly to P2 without the map of the Nyquist
100 100
curve flipps over the north pole. If not, the ν -gap metrix is defined to be 1. P1 (s) = , P2 (s) = , δ ν (P1 , P2 ) = 0.02
s+1 s−1

Summary Robust Control

1. Introduction
2. Comparing two Systems
3. Robustness Measures
◮ Comparing time responses can be misleading! Process variations
Stability margins gm , φ m , Ms , Mt
◮ Frequency responses are better Delay margin
◮ Vinnicombe’s ν -gap metric is a good measure Small process variations
Large process variations
4. Classic Loop Shaping
5. H∞ Loop Shaping
6. Gain scheduling
7. Summary

Characterization of Process Variations Standard System Configuration

d n

r e u v x y
F Σ C Σ P Σ
◮ Broad descriptions
Classical - gain gm and phase margins φ m
Additive ∆, multiplicative δ and feedback uncertainty ∆fb
−1
Maximum sensitivities Ms and Mt
◮ Specific characterization Controller Process
Specific process parameters 
1 P PCF
 
6 n n
 
Time delays - delay margin y G Gyd Gyr  
5 6 5
= yn u =  1 +CPC 1 + PC
1
1 + PC 
CF  d

◮ Small variations u Gun Gud Gur
 
r − − r
◮ Large variations 1 + PC 1 + PC 1 + PC
◮ Command signal response can always be fixed by feedforward F
◮ First two columns suffice for robustness (Gang of Four)
◮ Physical interpretations
Gyd - response of the output y to load disturbance d
Gun - response of control signal u to measurement noise n

Process Uncertainty - Basic Process Uncertainty - Coprime Factorization

Nominal process

◮ Additive, multiplicative and feedback uncertainty P = NM −1 , M invertibel, N and N coprime

Perturbed process
P Σ P Σ
P = (N + ∆N )(N + ∆M )−1 , MM ∗ + NN ∗ = I

∆ δ Block diagram

Σ P

∆fb
∆M ∆N

u y
S M −1 N S
v

2
Stability Margins and Maximum Sensitivity A Difficulty with Gain and Phase Margins

Gain margin
Im PC(iω ) Im PC(iω )
Ms
gm ≥ −1
Ms − 1
1/Ms ω ms −1 −1/gm Re PC(iω )
Phase margin 1/Ms Re PC(iω )
φm
1 ωs
φ m ≥ 2 arcsin
2Ms

Constraints on both gain and phase margins can be replaced by one ◮ Necessary to specify both gm and φ m
constraint on Ms . ◮ Not sufficient to specify both gm and φ m (right figure)
◮ Ms = 2 guarantees gm ≥ 2 and φ m ≥ 30○ ◮ Ms can replace φ m and gm
◮ Ms = 1.6 guarantees gm ≥ 2.7 and φ m ≥ 36○ ◮ φ m and gm are widely used in industry difficulties when the Nyquist
◮ Ms = 1.4 guarantees gm ≥ 3.5 and φ m ≥ 42○ curve has warts
◮ Ms = 1 guarantees gm = ∞ and φ m ≥ 60○

Delay Margin - Time delay required to make system unstable Small Variations in Process Dynamics
The behavior of the closed loop system is captured by the Gang of Four,
how do they change when there are small errors in the process
2
pPC(iω )p

PC dT 1 dP dP
0
10

1 T = , = =S
1 + PC T 1 + PC P P
ImPC(iω )

−2
10
0
1 dS −PC dP dP
10
−2 −1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
S= , = = −T
−1
1 + PC S 1 + PC P P
P dGyd dP
0

−2
Gyd = , =S
∠PC(iω )

−3
−360
1 + PC Gyd P
−4 C dGun dP
Gun = , = −T
−720

−4 −2 0 2
RePC(iω ) 10
−2 −1
10
ω
0
10
1
10
2
10
1 + PC Gun P

Notice that
Peaks in the loop transfer function PC are dangerous
◮ S+T =1
They are often caused by resonances
◮ S is small at low frequencies and S ( 1 for high frequencies
100 0.25
P (s) = , C(s) = , L = 0.3 ◮ T small at high frequencies T ( 1 at low frequencies
s(0.5s + 1)2 (s2 + 0.004s + 100) s
◮ Large sensitivities are particularly helpful for T and dGyd /dt, effect of
modeling errors significantly less than dP /P when pSp is small

Large Process Variations Another View of Robustness

Im PC A feedback system where the process has multiplicative uncertainty, i.e.

−1
P (1 + δ ), where δ is the relative error, can be represented with the block
Re PC diagrams

1 + PC
B δ δ
A C ∆P
P Σ

− 1+PCPC
−C
 ∆P   1 + PC  1 1
   
pC∆P p < p1 + PCp,  < = ≤ The small gain theorem gives the stability condition
P PC pT p Mt
 1 + PC  1
 
◮ Large variations permitted when T is small pδ p <  =
PC pT p
◮ Small variations when T is large, Mt = max pT (iω )p
Same result as obtained before!
◮ Mt = 1.4 and 2 permits modeling errors of 70% and 50%

Robust Control Overview

◮ A powerful classic design method - particularly SISO
◮ Electronic Amplifiers (Bode, Nyquist, Nichols, Horowitz)
Command signal following
Robustness to gain variations, phase margin φ m
1. Introduction Notions of minimum and non-minimum phase
Bode Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design 1945
2. Comparing two systems
◮ Servomechanism theory 1940
3. Robustness Graphical, Nyquist and Bode plots, Nichols chart
4. Classic Loop Shaping James Nichols Philips Servomechanism Theory 1947
Classic loop shaping
5. H∞ Loop Shaping
Bode’s ideal loop transfer function
6. Gain scheduling ◮ Design for Specific Process Disturbances QFT
7. Summary Horowitz 1993
Generalizes Bode’s ideal loop tranfer function
Robust design of SISO systems for specified process variations
◮ H∞ - Loopshaping (see H∞ Lecture)
Design of robust controllers with high robustness
Mc Farlane Glover Robust Controller Design Using Normalized
Coprime Factor Plant Descriptions 1989

3
Harry Nyquist 1889-1976 The Nyquist Plot
◮ Strongly intuitive Im L(iω )
◮ Stability and Robustness
From farm life in Nilsby Värmland to Bell Labs
Stability margins φ m , gm ,
−1 −1/gm Re L(iω )
sm = 1/Ms
Dreaming to be a teacher sm
Frequencies ω ms , ω gc , ω pc
◮ Emigrated 1907 φm
◮ Disturbance attenuation
◮ High school teacher 1912 Circles around −1, ω sc
◮ MS EE U North Dakota 1914 ◮ Process variations
◮ PhD Physics Yale 1917 Easy to represent in the Nyquist plot
Parameters sweep and level curves of pT (iω )p
◮ Bell Labs 1917
◮ Measurement noise not easily visible
Key contributions
◮ Command signal response
◮ Johnson-Nyquist noise
Level curves of complementary sensitivity function
◮ The Nyquist frequency 1932 ◮ Bode plot similar but easier to use for design because its wider
◮ Nyquist’s stability theorem frequency range

Some Interesting Frequencies in the Nyquist Plot Hendrik Bode 1905-1982

Im Gl (iω ) Im Gl (iω ) ◮ Born Madison Wisconsin

◮ Child protégé, father prof at UIUC, finished
high school at 14
◮ Too young to enter UIUC
n
ω pc
n
ω pc ◮ Ohio State BA 1924, MA 1926 (Math)
ω bw ω ms Re Gl (iω )
ω ms Re Gl (iω ) ◮ Bell Labs 1929
ω bw
ω gc ω sc Network theory
ω sc ω gc Missile systems
Information theory

◮ PhD Physics Columbia 1936

◮ The frequencies ω gc and ω sc are close
◮ Gordon McKay Prof of Systems Engineering at Harvard 1967 (Bryson
◮ Their relative order depends on the phase margin (borderline case
and Brockett held this chair later)
φ m = 60○ )

Bode on Loopshaping Bode Plot of Loop Transfer Function

A Bode plot of the loop transfer function P (s)C(s) gives a broad
Bode Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design p 454 characterization of the feedback system
The essential feature is that the gain around the feedback loop be reduced from
Performance
1

the large value which it has in the useful frequency band to zero dB or less at
10

Robustness and Performance

some higher frequency without producing an accompanying phase shift larger
log pL(iω )

Z ω gc [
0
10

than some prescribed amount. ...

Robustnss and noise attenuation
If it were not for the phase restriction it would be desirable on engineering grounds −1
10

to reduce the gain very rapidly. The more rapidly the feedback vanishes for −1
10 10
0 1
10
log ω
example, the narrower we need make the region in which active design attention is
required to prevent singing. ... −90

Moreover it is evidently desirable to secure a loop cut-off as soon as possible to

avoid the difficulties and uncertainties of design which parasitic elements in the
∠L(iω )

−135

circuit introduce at high frequencies. Robustness

But the analysis in Chapter XIV (Bode’s relations) shows that the phase shift is
−180

broadly proportional to the rate at which the gain changes. ... A phase margin of
−1 0 1
10 10 10
log ω

30○ correspond to a slope of -5/3.

Notice relations between the frequencie ω gc ( ω sc ( ω bw
Requirements above ω gc

Requirements An Example
Translate requirements on tracking error and robustness to demands on
◮ Stablity and robustness
the Bode plot for the radial servo of a CD player.
Gain margin gm , phase margin φ m , maximum sensitivity Ms
p∆P p p1 + PCp
Stability for large process variations: < ,
pP p pPCp
◮ Load disturbance attenuation
Ycl (s) 1
=
Yol (s) 1 + PC
◮ Can be visualized in Hall and Nichols charts
◮ Measurement Noise
U (s) C
− =
N (s) 1 + PC
◮ Command signal following (system with error feedback)
PC
T = can be visualized in Hall and Nichols charts
1 + PC From Nakajima et al Compact Disc Technology, Ohmsha 1992, page 134
Fix shape with feedforward F
Major disturbance caused by eccentricity about 70 µm, tracking
How are these quantities represented in loop shaping when we typically requirements 0.1 µm, requires gain of 700, the RPM varies because of
explore Bode, Nyquist or Nichols plots? constant velocity read out (1.2-1.4 m/s) around 10 Hz.

4
Nathaniel B Nichols 1914 - 1997 Hall and Nichols Chart
◮ BS Chemistry Central Michigan University 1936
3
◮ MS Physics University of Michigan 1937
4
◮ Taylor Instruments 1937-50 2

log pL(iω )p
2
◮ MIT Rad Lab 1942-46

Im L(iω )
◮ Raytheon 1951-55 0 1
◮ Taylor Instruments 1957-63 −2
◮ Aerospace Corporation 1963 - 67 0
Red suspenders! −4
−1
Accomplishments −5 0 5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0
Re L(iω ) arg L(iω ) [rad]
◮ Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules
◮ Servomechanism theory in James Nichols Phillips Theory of Hall is a Nyquist plot with level curves of gain and phase for
Servomechanisms 1947 the complementary sensitivity function T . Nichols=log Hall.
◮ The Nichols chart Both make is possible to judge T from a plot of PC
◮ Rufus Oldenburger Medal 1969 Conformality of gain and phase curves depend on scales
The Nichols chart covers a wide frequency range
◮ Richard E Bellman Control Heritage Award 1980
The Robustness Valley Re L(iω ) = −1/2 dashed

Isaac Horowitz 1920 - 2005 Horowitz on Feedback

◮ B.Sc. Physics and Mathematics University
of Manitoba 1944.
◮ B.Sc. Electrical Engineering MIT 1948
◮ Israel Defence Forces 1950-51 Horowitz IEEE CSM 4 (1984) 22-23
It is amazing how many are unaware that the primary reason for feedback
◮ M.E.E. and D.E.E. Brooklyn Poly 1951-56
in control is uncertainty. ...
(PhD supervisor Truxal who was
And why bother with listing all the states if only one could actually be
supervised by Guillemin)
measured and used for feedback? If indeed there were several available,
◮ Prof Brooklyn Poly 1956-58 their importance in feedback was their ability to drastically reduce the effect
◮ Hughes Research Lab 1958-1966 of sensor noise, which was very transpared in the input-output frequency
◮ EE City University of New York 1966-67 response formulation and terribly obscure in the state-variable form. For
◮ University of Colorado 1967-1973 these reasons, I stayed with the input-output description.
◮ Weizmann Institute 1969-1985
◮ EE UC Davis 1985-91
◮ Air Force Institute of Technology 1983-92

Background - Feedback and uncertainty Cost of High Gain Feedback

Consider a static gain process and static controller

y = Pu, u = C (r − y )

Want y = PC/(1 + PC)r ( r, say PC/(1 + PC) ∈ [Tmin , 1]

◮ Control effort
For P ∈ [0.1, 1]
◮ Measurement noise
◮ Tmin = 0.75 need C ≥ 30
◮ Dynamic instability
◮ Tmin = 0.90 need C ≥ 90
◮ Tmin = 0.99 need C ≥ 990 The aim of QFT design is to use precisely the right amount of feedback
High gain exactly where needed
For P ∈ [0.01, 1]
◮ Tmin = 0.75 need C ≥ 300
◮ Tmin = 0.90 need C ≥ 900
◮ Tmin = 0.99 need C ≥ 9900
Tighter spec or more uncertain system [ need higher controller gain.

The Cost of Feedback The Cost of Feedback

The cost of feedback is that a controller which has high gain over a wide
10
pGun (iω )p

frequency range is required. The high controller gain means that small
measurement errors may generate large control signals that could cause
0
10

saturations in the system. If there is measurement noise the high gain may
also cause control actions that may wear out the actuators.
−1
10
−1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10

The transfer function from measurement noise n to the control signal for a
closed loop system is
pP (iω )p pT (iω )p

0
10

C T
−Gun = =
1 + PC P
−2
10

An estimate of the cost of control can be obtained by plotting the gain

−4
10

curves of the transfer functions Gun or T and P. Reasonable measures are 10

−1 0
10
1
10 10
2

ω
max pGun (iω )p eller ppGun pp2 .
Notice that controller gain is high way beyond
the gain crossover frequency marked with the red dots

5
QFT Design Cost of Feedback - Robust stability for 2DOF

log(P )
“Quantitative Feedback Theory” (QFT) is a good choice when the main ω
problem is model uncertainty.
Often gives a good intuitive understanding of the design problem
log(Pm )
Carpentry in the Nichols chart log( PPm )
Its main strength is for SISO design, but MIMO and nonlinear extensions
exist. Will only discuss SISO design here
  
 P   Cff 
p∆p <     , ∀ω
Pm Cfb
Regions where gain is increased and where feedback is used require
low model uncertainty

Templates An Observation

For each frequency, plot all possible complex process gains

ka
P (s) = , k ∈ [ 1, 5] , a ∈ [ 1, 4]
s(s + a) Note: The set {P (iω )C(iω ))}P ∈P has the same shape as the template
{P (iω )}P∈P ! Not true in Nyquist.
Template is moved by (180/pi*angle(C),20*log10(abs(C)))
Nyquist templates for w=[1 3 10] Nichols templates for w=[1 3 10]
1

0.5
10
For each frequency ω k :
0

−0.5
0
◮ Move the template around in the Nichols chart
◮ Mark all positions of the nominal point for which the entire template
−1

−1.5 −10

−2 satifies the requirement

−20

Gives a region of allowed controller gains C(iω ).

−2.5

−3
−30
−3.5 “Horowitz Bounds”
−4 −40
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 −270 −180 −90 0

Easier to work with the Nichols diagram

The regions {P (iω k )}P ∈P are called “templates”

Robust Control What is Good Performance?

d n
1. Introduction
y
2. Comparing two Systems ❡
❄ ✲ P ❡
❄ ✲
3. Robustness Measures
4. Classic Loop Shaping
5. Loop Shaping for Specific Process Variations u
✛ K ✛
6. H∞ Loop Shaping
7. Gain scheduling
8. Summary y I $ n
5 6 5 6 5 6
(I + PC)−1 I P
#
=
u C d

What is Good Performance? Loop-Shaping Design

d n Recall from Lecture 2 that a good performance controller design requires

◮ in the low frequency region:
y
❡
❄ ✲ P ❡
❄ ✲
σ (PC) >> 1, σ (CP ) >> 1, σ (C) >> 1.

high gain compensation

u ◮ in the high frequency region:
✛ K ✛

σ (PC) << 1, σ (CP ) << 1, σ (C ) ≤ M

What is captured by the norm
where M is not too large, high-frequency roll-off
5 6
I −1
$ There is an explicit solution to the problem in the form of a controller with
?
C (I + PC) I P
#
∞ an observer and a linear feedback from the observed state. The gains are
given by Riccati equations.
Remember: A controller should counteract disturbances, but be insensitive
to measurement noise.

6
Use weighting matrices!
ds ns
ds ns
❞ ✲ W1
❄ ❞
❄
❞ ✲ W1 ❞
P W2 ✲
❄ W2
❄ ✲ ys
P
ys
us
us ✛ K ✛
✛ K ✛

1) Choose W1 and W2 and absorb them into the nominal plant P to get
the shaped plant Ps = W2 PW1 .
20

W2 ( i ω ) P ( i ω ) W1 ( i ω )
Magnitude
10

2) Design the controller C∞ to minimize the H∞ gain from (ns , ds ) to

0

−10

−20
(us , ys ). If the gain is large, the return to Step 1.
Measurement errors
−30

−40
3) The final controller is C = W1 C∞ W2 .
−50

−60
w0 w1

Frequency
−70 0 1

The H∞ loop shaping design procedure was suggested by Glover and

10 10

McFarlane, 1990, details will be given in the course on robust control

Disturbance rejection

Keith Glover and Duncan McFarlane Robust Control

1. Introduction
2. Comparing two Systems
3. Robustness Measures
4. Classic Loop Shaping
5. Loop Shaping for Specific Process Variations
6. H∞ Loop Shaping
7. Gain scheduling
What is it?
How to find schedules?
Applications
8. Summary

Gain Scheduling How to Find Schedules?

Controller
parameters Gain
schedule

Operating
condition
◮ Select scheduling variables
Command
signal Control ◮ Make control design for different operating conditions
signal
Controller Process Output ◮ Use automatic tuning
◮ Transformations

Example of scheduling variables

◮ Production rate
◮ Machine speed
◮ Mach number and dynamic pressure

Valve Characteristics Schedule on Controller Output

The valve characteristics depend on the installation because pressure drop

across the valve changes

When this is appropriate? What should we think about?

7
Schedule on Process Variable Schedule on External Variable

When this is appropriate? What should we think about?

When this is appropriate? What should we think about?

Concentration Control Performance with changing flow

(a) Output c

cr
1.0
q = 0.5
0.5 q = 0.9
q = 1.1
q =2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Time
(b) Control signal cin
q = 0.5
1.5 q = 0.9

The process can be modeled by an FOTD system where both the time 1.0
constant and the lag depend on the flow rate. The system will be controlled q = 1.1
0.5
by a sampled controller where the sampling rate depends on the flow rate - q=2
sample per meter and not per time. Similar ideas are used in control of 0.0
rolling mills where the time delay also depends on machine speed. 0 5 10 15 20
Time

Variable Sampling Rate Results

Process model Digital control with h = 1/(2q).
1 −sτ The flows are: (a) q = 0.5; (b) q = 1; (c) q = 2
G(s) = e
1 + sT (a)
1 1
where
Vm Vd cin
T = τ = c
q q
0 0
Sample the system with period 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
(b) Time Time
Vd 1 1
h=
nq cin
c
The sampled model becomes 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
c (kh + h) = a c (kh) + (1 − a)u(kh − nh) (c) Time Time
1 1
where c cin
a = e−qh/Vm = e−Vd /(nVm )
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Notice that the sampled equation (a) does not depend on the flow rate q!!! Time Time

Flight Control The Pitch Control Channel

Pitch dynamics VIAS H

q = θ˙ Pitch stick
Gear
VIAS
α Position
θ
V Filter A/D K DSE

Σ
H M
H
−
Nz δe T1s
K SG
1+ T1s
Operating conditions Σ D/A Σ
80 Acceleration
Filter A/D D/A Σ
60
Altitude (x1000 ft)

To servos
M Filter
Pitch rate
40
Σ Σ
1
3 4 Filter A/D K Q1 K NZ
1+ T3 s
20
M H
1 2 T2 s
K QD
0 1+ T2 s
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Mach number
H M VIAS

8
Schedule of KQ with Respect to Indicated Airspeed (IAS) and Igelsta Power Plant for District Heating
Height (H)
Igelsta 120 MW co-generation plant in Södertälje. Heat exchanger with
nonlinear valve.

K QD IAS K QD H

0.5
0.5

0 0
0 1000 0 10 20
V IAS (km/h) H (km)

Gain Scheduling for a District Heating System Automatic Generation of Gain-schedules

Three 120 MW boilers total energy 1700GWh
Original system

An ordinary PID controller was replace with a PID controller having gain
scheduling. Operating regions were set manually. The schedule was
determined by relay auto-tuning.

Valve position K Ti Td
0.00-0.15 1.7 95 23
Modified system 0.15-0.22 2.0 89 22
0.22-0.35 2.9 82 21
0.35-1.00 4.4 68 17

Results Relay Auto-tuning

Original Modified

0.5

0
y

−0.5

−1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
t

, Relay feedback creats oscillation at approximately ω 180 !

Wait for steady state, use modified Ziegler Nichols tuning rules

Industrial Impact ECA 40 - Satt Control

Functions
◮ Automatic tuning AT
◮ Automatic generation of gain scheduling GC
◮ Adaptive feedback AFB and adaptive feedforward AFF
Sample of products
◮ NAF Controls SDM 20 - 1984 DCS AT, GS
◮ SattControl ECA 40 - 1986 SLC AT, GS
◮ Satt Control ECA 04 - 1988 SLC AT
◮ Alfa Laval Automation Alert 50 - 1988 DCS AT, GS
◮ Satt Control SattCon31 - 1988 PLC AT, GS
◮ Satt Control ECA 400 -1988 2LC AT, GS, AFB, AFF
◮ Fisher Control DPR 900 - 1988 SLC
◮ Satt Control SattLine - 1989 DCS AT, GS, AFB, AFF
◮ Emerson Delta V - 1999 DCS AT, GS, AFB, AF
◮ ABB 800xA - 2004 DCS AT, GS, AFB, AFF

9
Summary

◮ Graphical methods very useful

Nyquist, Bode, Hall and Nichols charts
◮ Design issues
Load disturbance attenuation
Process uncertainty
Avoid injecting too much measurement noise
◮ Classical loopshaping
Lead-lag-notch compensation
Horowitz qualitative feedback theory
◮ H∞ loopshaping
Details in course on Robust control
◮ Gain-scheduling very useful technique
Linearization of nonlinear actuators
Control over wide operating ranges
Requires good models
Bumpless parameter changes

10