Post on 14-Jan-2016
transcript
1
Limits of Disturbance Rejection using Indirect Control
Vinay Kariwala* and Sigurd Skogestad
Department of Chemical Engineering
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
skoge@chemeng.ntnu.no
* From Jan. 2006: Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore
2
Outline
• Motivation
• Objectives
• Interpolation constraints
• Performance limits
• Comparison with direct control
• Feedback + Feedforward control
3
General control problem
y
d
4
“Direct” Controld
K G
Gd
zu- y = z
Unstable (RHP) zeros αi in G limit disturbance rejection:interpolation constraint
5
Problem
In many practical problems, – Primary controlled variable z not available
L
V
xD
B
F
zF
D
xB
LC
LR
Compositions cannot be measuredor are available infrequently
Need to consider “Indirect control”
6
Indirect Control
K Gy
Gd
d
z
u-
G
Gdy
y
Primary objective paper: Derive limits on disturbance rejection for indirect control
Indirect control: Control y to achieve good performance for z
7
Related work
• Bounds on various closed loop functions available– S, T – Chen (2000), etc.
– KSGd – Kariwala et al. (2005), etc.
• Special cases of indirect control
Secondary objective:Unify treatment of different closed loop functions
8
Main Assumptions (mostly technical)
• Unstable poles of G and Gdy – also appear in Gy
• All signals scalar
• Unstable poles and zeros are non-repeated
• G and Gdy - no common unstable poles and zeros
9
Nevanlinna-Pick Interpolation TheoryParameterizes all rational functions with
Useful for characterizing achievable performance
• Derivative constraints
• a
• Interpolation constraints
10
Indirect control: Interpolation ConstraintsNeed to avoid unstable (RHP) pole-zero cancellations
If are unstable zeros of G
If are unstable zeros of Gdy
same as for direct control
11
More new interpolation Constraints
If are unstable poles of Gy that are shared with Gdy
If are unstable poles of Gy not shared with G and Gdy
If are unstable poles of Gy that are shared with G
- stable version (poles mirrored in LHP)
12
Derivative Interpolation Constraint
Very conservative: Should be:
Special case: Control effort required for stabilization
Reason: Derivative is also fixed
Bound due to interpolation constraint
13
Main results: Limit of Performance, indirect control
Derivative constraint neglected, Exact bound in paper
optimal achievable performance
optimal achievable performance
Let v include all unstable poles and zeros:
14
“Perfect” Indirect Control possible when:
• G and Gdy have no unstable zeros – or Gd evaluated at these points is zero and
• G and Gdy have no unstable poles
– or has transmission zeros at these points and
• Gy has no extra unstable poles
15
Direct Control vs Indirect Control
• Zeros of G
• Poles of G
+ (Possible) derivative constraint
Practical consequence: To avoid large Tzd, y and z need to be “closely correlated” if the plant is unstable
16
Indirect control
The required change in u for stabilization may make z sensitive to disturbances
Exception: Tzd(gammak) close to 0 because y and z are “closely correlated”
Example case with no problem : “cascade control”In this case: z = G2 y, so a and y are closely correlated.
Get Gd = G2 Gdy and G = G2 Gy, and we find that the above bound is zero
17
Simple Example
Case Direct Indirect
Stable system 0.5 0.5
Unstable system 1.5 15.35
Extra unstable pole of Gy - 51.95
18
Feedback + Feedforward Control
K1 Gy
Gd
d
z
u-
G
Gdy
y
K2
M
Disturbance measured (M)
19
Feedback + Feedforward Control
• Limitation due to– Unstable zeros of G
– Extra unstable poles of Gy, but no derivative constraint
• No limitation due to– Unstable zeros of Gdy unless M has zeros at same points
– Unstable poles of G and Gdy
• + Possible limitation due to uncertainty
20
Simple Example (continued)
Case DirectFB
Stable system 0.5 0.5
Unstable system 1.5 15.35
Extra unstable pole of Gy - 51.95
Indirect
FB FB+FF0.5
FB+FF0.5
0.5 0.5
- 0.68
21
Conclusions
• Performance limitations– Interpolation constraint, derivative constraint
– and optimal achievable performance
• Indirect control vs. direct control– No additional fundamental limitation for stable plants
– Unstable plants may impose disturbance sensitivity
• Feedforward controller can overcome limitations– but will add sensitivity to uncertainty
22
Limits of Disturbance Rejection using Indirect Control
Vinay Kariwala* and Sigurd Skogestad
Department of Chemical Engineering
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
skoge@chemeng.ntnu.no
* From Jan. 2006: Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore