1 / 22

Limits of Disturbance Rejection using Indirect Control

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. Outline. Motivation Objectives

mary-battle
Télécharger la présentation

Limits of Disturbance Rejection using Indirect Control

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation 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 d y

  4. d Gd z u K G - y = z “Direct” Control Unstable (RHP) zeros αi in G limit disturbance rejection: interpolation constraint

  5. Compositions cannot be measured or are available infrequently Problem In many practical problems, • Primary controlled variable z not available Need to consider “Indirect control”

  6. d Gd z G Gdy u K Gy - y Indirect Control Indirect control: Control y to achieve good performance for z Primary objective paper: Derive limits on disturbance rejection for indirect control

  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. a • Interpolation constraints • Derivative constraints Nevanlinna-Pick Interpolation Theory Parameterizes all rational functions with Useful for characterizing achievable performance

  10. If are unstable zeros of G If are unstable zeros of Gdy Indirect control: Interpolation Constraints Need to avoid unstable (RHP) pole-zero cancellations same as for direct control

  11. If are unstable poles of Gy that are shared with G If are unstable poles of Gy that are shared with Gdy If are unstable poles of Gy not shared with G and Gdy - stable version (poles mirrored in LHP) More new interpolation Constraints

  12. Reason: Derivative is also fixed Derivative Interpolation Constraint Special case: Control effort required for stabilization Bound due to interpolation constraint Very conservative: Should be:

  13. optimal achievable performance optimal achievable performance Main results: Limit of Performance, indirect control Let v include all unstable poles and zeros: Derivative constraint neglected, Exact bound in paper

  14. G and Gdy have no unstable poles • or has transmission zeros at these points and “Perfect” Indirect Control possible when: • G and Gdy have no unstable zeros • or Gd evaluated at these points is zero and • Gyhas no extra unstable poles

  15. Zeros of G Direct Control vs Indirect Control • 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. Direct Indirect Case Stable system 0.5 0.5 Unstable system 1.5 15.35 Extra unstable pole of Gy - 51.95 Simple Example

  18. d M Gd z G K2 Gdy u K1 Gy - y Feedback + Feedforward Control Disturbance measured (M)

  19. Feedback + Feedforward Control • No limitation due to • Unstable zeros of Gdy unless M has zeros at same points • Unstable poles of G and Gdy • Limitation due to • Unstable zeros of G • Extra unstable poles of Gy, but no derivative constraint • + Possible limitation due to uncertainty

  20. FB+FF FB+FF 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - 0.68 Simple Example (continued) Indirect Case Direct FB FB Stable system 0.5 0.5 Unstable system 1.5 15.35 Extra unstable pole of Gy - 51.95

  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

More Related