Computational Approach for Adjudging Feasibility of
Acceptable Disturbance Rejection
Vinay Kariwala and Sigurd SkogestadDepartment of Chemical Engineering
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
2
Outline
• Problem Formulation
• Previous work
• L1 - optimal control approach (Practical)
• Case studies
• Branch and bound (Theoretical)
3
Process Controllability Analysis
Ability to achieve acceptable control performance• Limited by plant itself, Independent of controller
Useful for finding• How well the plant can be controlled?• What control structure should be selected?
– Sensors, Actuators, Pairing selection• What process modifications will improve control?
– Equipment sizing, Buffer tanks, Additional sensors and actuators
4
Disturbance Rejection Measure
Is it possible to keep outputs within allowable bounds for the worst possible combination of disturbances, while keeping the manipulated
variables within their physical bounds?
• Flexibility (e.g. Swaney and Grossman, 1985)
• Disturbance rejection measure (Skogestad and Wolff, 1992)
• Operability (e.g. Georgakis et al., 2004)
5
Mathematical FormulationLinear time-invariant systems
Skogestad and Wolff (1992), Hovd, Ma and Braatz (2003)
• Achievable with
• Minimal to have
• Largest with ,
6
Previous Work
Steady-state:
• Hovd, Ma and Braatz (2003)– Conversion to bilinear program using duality – Solved using Baron
• Kookos and Perkins (2003)– Inner minimization replaced by KKT conditions– Integer variables to handle complementarity conditions
7
Previous Work
Frequency-wise solution:
• Skogestad and Postlethwaite (1996)– SVD based necessary conditions
• Hovd and Kookos (2005)– Absolute value of complex number is non-linear– Bounds by polyhedral approximations
8
Disturbance Rejection using Feedback
Minimax formulation• even non-causal• Scales poorly
Theoretical!
FeedbackExplicit controllerComputationally attractive
Practical!
Feedback approach also provides– Upper bound for minimax formulation
9
Optimal for rational, causal, feedback-based linear controller
Feedback
YoulaParameterization
Annn approach
a - optimalControl
10
Annn approach: Steady-stateConversion of to standard LP
• Vectorize as
• Equivalent problem (simple algebra)- Bound each element :
- Sum of rows of :
• Standard linear program
11
Annn approach : Frequency-wise
Polyhedral approximation(Hovd and Kookos, 2005)
Semi-definite programStill Convex!
Used in approach
Absolute value of complex number is non-linear
12
Annn approach : Dynamic System
• Continuous-time formulation – Difficult to compute -norm– Formulation using bounds - highly conservative
• Discrete-time formulation– Finite impulse response models of order N– Increase order of Q (NQ) until convergence– Standard LP (same as steady-state) with
constraints
variables
13
Summary
approach:
• Exact solutions for practical (feedback) cases
– Steady-state– Frequency-wise– Dynamic Case (discrete time)
• Upper bound for minimax (non-causal) formulation
14
Example 1: Blown Film Extruder
• - circulant, steady-state• is parameterized by (spatial correlation)• Hovd, Ma and Braatz (2003) - bilinear formulation
aaann(Feedback)
Achievable Output ErrorBilinear
(Non-Causal)Case
0.783
0.894
0.382
0.783
0.935
0.409
15
Example 2: Fluid Catalytic Cracker• Process: transfer matrices • Steady-state: Perfect control possible• Frequency-wise computation
Upper boundNon-Causal (Hovd and Kookos, 2005) Lower bound
(upper bound on solution using minimax formulation)
16
Example 3: Dynamic system
• Interpolation constraint: – Useful for avoiding unstable pole-zero cancellation– Explicit consideration unnecessary as u is bounded
Input bound
Unstable zeroTime delay
17
Branch and Bound
• Blown film extruder (16384 options for d)– Optimal solution by resolving 6, 45 and 47 nodes
• Exact solution using branch and bound– Branch on – Upper bound using approach– Tightening of upper bound using divide and conquer– Lower bound using worst-case d for approach
• approach provides practical solution• Minimax formulation – theoretical interest
18
Conclusions• Disturbance rejection measure
• Minimax formulation – Theoretical interest – can be non-causal– Previous work – scales poorly
• approach– Practical controllability analysis – Exact solutions for steady-state, frequency-wise and
dynamic (discrete time) cases – Computationally efficient
• Efficient theoretical solution using Branch and bound
Computational Approach for Adjudging Feasibility of
Acceptable Disturbance Rejection
Vinay Kariwala and Sigurd SkogestadDepartment of Chemical Engineering
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
kariwala,[email protected]
