Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Smith Preditor PDF
Smith Preditor PDF
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OF
SMITH PREDICTOR THROUGH
AUTOMATIC COMPUTATION OF
DEAD TIME
VERONESI Massimiliano *1
INTRODUCTION (Single Input Single Output) process affected by dead time can be
described by a differential equation such as
x (t ) = f (x (t ); u(t ) )
I n process control it is not uncommon for systems to be affected
by dead times, due to material transfer times. This is evident
typically in pipelines. A fluid of density and flow rate w in a
where x(t) is the measured variable at time t, u(t) is the
manipulated variable and is the dead time.
(1)
section of pipe A the length of d takes the amount of time Considering the simpler and more popular linear case, (1) can
=Ad/w to cover the whole distance (see Figure 1).
This means the controller (human or digital) can only be
FIC
aware in retrospect of the effect of actions taken, and decisions
must therefore be based on previous situations, typically resulting
in troublesomely long oscillations around the steady state value.
In this case, however, we can take some countermeasures which = Ad/w
are not so complicated and do not stray far from the traditional
and popular PID control architectures. d
Switching to mathematical relationships, a first order SISO
Manuscript received March 3, 2003 Figure 1 Time Delay Due to the Fluid Transfer Time in a
Final manuscript received April 23, 2003 Pipeline
*1 Yokogawa Italia, Industrial Automation Department
if P(s)=Pm(s)
d
u
y _ RPID(s) G(s)e s y
G(s)
a good approximation of the real process, the controller can shown. In the first one, the low level YS170 language was used,
perform a zero/pole cancellation independently by the values of while in the second one the algorithm is performed by the
the PID parameters. function blocks available in the CENTUM CS1000/3000 control
In fact, being D(s) the Laplace transformation of the load drawing builder. The DLAY-C block performs the transfer
disturbance, the following transfer functions can be computed as m
function (e s m 1) , and its output is added to the error
Y (s) RPID ( s ) P( s ) 1 + sTm
= (8)
Y ( s ) 1 + RPID ( s )Gm ( s ) (1 e s m ) + RPID P( s ) internally at the PID block (through the parameter VN). For this
reason the Compensation Gain (CK) of the PID block has to be set
Y (s) P( s) to -1. The meanings of the other variables are explained in the
= (9)
D( s ) 1 + RPID ( s )Gm ( s ) (1 e s m ) + RPID P( s ) figures themselves. In both cases the PID algorithm is performed
and so, if m=, by a single action (BSC for the YS170 and PID for CENTUM), as
Y (s) RPID ( s )G ( s ) dictated by the programming language.
= e s (10)
Y ( s ) 1 + RPID ( s )Gm ( s ) Specifically, in the PID block the INPUT COMPENSATION
option has to be selected in the Function Block Detail Builder /
Y (s) G( s ) Control Calculation Tab. Then the dead time is computed as the
= e s (11)
D( s ) 1 + RPID ( s )Gm ( s ) product of the parameter SMPL (available by DLAY-C tuning
Therefore, from a theoretical point of view, and with a good window) and the number of sample points which has to be set by
model (Gm(s)=G(s)), the PID controller can be tuned as it would engineers in the Function Block Detail Builder / Basic Tab.
be for a process without a time delay; thereby making it easy to It must be emphasized that in case the process has an
achieve its best performance. integrator (that is s=0 is a pole for the transfer function G(s)), the
Thanks to digital technologies, it is not so difficult to realise a Smith Predictor is not able to accommodate a load disturbance
Smith Predictor algorithm. Modern controllers have a rich library D(s) on the process input. In fact, it can be proved that in a steady
of parameters and function blocks with which it is easy to build a state the ratio between the process value and the load disturbance
transfer function; among them there are, for instance, the ones is proportional to the model gain and time delay. This means that
-s the integral of the load disturbance will not be compensated; or in
corresponding to 1 + sT and e operators.
other words, that the controller is not able to reset the steady state
In Figures 3 and 4, two examples of the Smith Predictor are error.
%%INPUT
IN
Figure 4 Smith Predictor Designed with the Control Drawing Builder of CS1000/3000 Yokogawa DCS
Figure 5 Ideal Trend Compared to the One Achievable with Figure 6 Graphical Representation of Equation (15)
50% Delay Estimation Mistake
d m
The most effective scheme for load disturbance
(3)
= K (y y m ) (K is a constant) (12)
compensation is the one proposed by Matausek, Micic . The idea dt
that is, starting from m ,
o
is to eliminate additional feedback by subtracting from the t
manipulated variable an amount proportional to the difference m (t ) = mo + K (y m ( ) y ( ) ) d (13)
between the process variable and its estimation, as provided by 0
the model. That difference, in fact, is by construction the best It is not difficult to understand the reasoning behind this
approximation of the load disturbance that we have after the dead formula.
In fact, if m < , during the transient between y1 and y2 > y1,
o
time.
the model response is faster than the process one, hence ym-y > 0
AUTOMATIC DETERMINATION OF THE DEAD for the most part of the time. Therefore, m being proportional to
that difference, it will grow from the initial value m to . On the
o
TIME VALUE
other hand, if m > , the model response will be slower than the
o
The performance of the Smith Predictor dramatically process one and so ym-y < 0 for an extensive period. Thus, due to
decreases (become unstable) due to modelling errors, especially the proposed adaptive law, m will decrease. Ultimately, when
for the dead time (m). This is very dangerous because it can vary y m=y, the derivative of m will become stable. Analog
widely depending on the working conditions (i.e. the fluid flow). consideration holds in the case of y2 < y1.
Lets consider, for instance, a simple FOPDT process with If Gm(s)=G(s) , by indicating with y the process variable not
T=1 sec. and =10T. A step change in the setpoint is applied and affected by delay, it holds that
then, when =100 sec, a load disturbance will be simulated. In y (t ) = y (t )
Figure 5 the trends achieved with 50% delay estimation (14)
y m (t ) = y (t mo )
mistakes are illustrated. The performances (achieved by re-tuning
Looking at Figure 6, if m > , it can be seen that
o
proportional gain and integral time) are worse than that of the
ideal situation in which =m. In fact, in case of under-estimation,
( )
t t
y
0.4 0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
-0.2
-0.4 -0.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
t [sec.] t [sec.]
11 18
17
10
16
estimated dead time
8 14
13
7 12
6 11
10
5
9
4 8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
t [sec.] t [sec.]
Figure 7 Comparison Between a Smith Predictor with Model Delay Automatic Determination (solid line)
and a Simple Smith Predictor (dashed line)
Therefore adaptive law has to be disabled when the process variable joins
t t t mo the steady state. In fact, after that, a load disturbance would be
y ( )d = ( )
o
+ T e T
+ T e T misunderstood as a change of the manipulated variable and so
m
t mo would provide a change in m. In order to avoid these behaviours,
mo t t
(
= mo + Te ) T
Te T
(17) the following formula (suggested in [Veronesi, Visioli,
- 2000])(8)(9) can be used:
m
o
t
= mo + T e T e T e T s
sign( K ) = sign Y ( s ) (19)
1 + sT
This is the proof that the proposed adaptation law In this manner, the time delay is quickly identified and
t
m (t ) = mo (y ( ) y m ( ) )d
1 therefore the proposed algorithm can improve the robustness of
0 the Smith Predictor in control processes affected by long time
m
o
t (18) delays. The effectiveness of the method is shown in Figure 7,
= + T e e e
o T T o T where some setpoint step changes are applied. It is easy to see that
m
m
the performance is dramatically better than the one achievable
brings m to for t faster the more they are different at the without model delay adaptation and that a higher value of K can
beginning. speed up the computation of m.
The algorithm works even if the loop is closed and the The proposed technique is also robust enough to
feedback allows the use of a coefficient K 1/ in order to accommodate some modelling errors, such as a wrong evaluation
accelerate its convergence. In this way the loop can be left in of the process dominant lag time (at least the supposed correct
Automatic Mode and the algorithm will autonomously identify estimation of process gain). In Figure 8 comparative simulation
the value of through a few simple setpoint changes. results are shown (referring to the case in which mo =2 and K
Some countermeasures have to be considered because the =10; analog results can be achieved if mo =/2).
sign of K must agree with that of the setpoint change, and the If the dominant lag time of the model is greater than that of
Tm=T/2 12
0.6
(dotted line) Tm=T/2 (dotted line)
11
0.4
10
0.2
9
Tm=2T
0 8 (solid line)
-0.2 7
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
t [sec.] t [sec.]
Figure 8 Achievable Performances with a Modelling Error in the Dominant Lag Time Estimation
(Solid Line: Tm= 2T; Dotted Line: Tm= 0.5T)
the process (Tm>T), the transport dead time will be under- focused on algorithm tuning. In these proposed modifications, if
estimated (solid line, on the right side of Figure 8). This means the dead time of the model is wrong, the performance
that m will converge to a value lower than the real . On the dramatically decreases (become unstable). On the other hand, the
contrary, if Tm<T, then the dead time will be super-estimated proposed method in this paper can improve performance in
(dotted line, on the right side of Figure 8). accommodating a wrong value of the dead time of the model (m)
As seen in the left side of Figure 8, this is the best that the due to bad initial tuning or even to changes in the working
algorithm can do. However, the achievable performances are conditions in the process (i.e. a change of the flow rate in the
better than the standard Smith Predictor without any automatic pipelines).
time delay computation. For the purpose of presenting a clearly
understood figure, the two setpoints have been scaled by a factor
of 0.5. REFERENCES
(1) K. J. Astrom, Hang Lim, A new Smith Predictor for
CONCLUSIONS controlling a process with an integrator and long dead-time,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr., Vol. 39, pp. 343-345, Feb. 1994
In this paper the theory behind the control process affected by (2) T. Hagglund, An industrial dead-time compensating PI
dead time through the Smith Predictor has been explained. controller, Cont. Eng. Pract., Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 749-756, 1996
Furthermore, considering the common FOPTD (First Order Plus (3) M. R. Matausek, A. D. Micic, A modified Smith Predictor
Time Delay) process, it has been shown how easy it is to for controlling a process with an integrator and long dead-
implement it with Yokogawa controller (YS170) and DCS time, IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, Vol. 41, No.
(CENTUM CS1000/3000). 8, pp. 1199-1203, 1996
Since the dead time can change depending on the fluid speed (4) J. E. Normey-Rico, E. F. Camacho, Robust tuning of dead-
in the pipelines, a new law for its automatic computation has been time compensator for process with an integrator and long
proposed for supporting the operators in the fine tuning of the dead time, IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, Vol.44,
algorithm. Thanks to the suggested method, the dead time can be No.8, pp-1597-1605, Aug.1999
quickly estimated through quite simple step changes in the (5) Z. Palmor, Stability properties of Smith dead time
manipulated variable (open loop approach) or even in the setpoint compensator controllers, International Journal of Control,
(closed loop approach). These step changes can be applied Vol. 32, No. 6, pp.937-949, 1980
manually by the operator when it is realized that the process (6) O. J. M. Smith, A controller to overcome dead time, ISA
variable behaviour is not satisfactory. Step changes in the setpoint Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 28-33, 1959
can also be part of a program which has to be run automatically (7) F. G. Shinskey, PID deadtime control of distributed process
when the measured variable is too unstable. Preprints IFAC Workshop on Digital Control PID00,
The algorithm works better if a good model of the process is Terrassa (E), 2000
available, but it works well even if the main lag time is only (8) M. Veronesi, Regolazione PID. Fondamenti di teoria,
roughly estimated. Should the system under control be an integral algoritmi di taratura, applicazioni di controllo, Franco
process, additional Matausek-Micic feedback should also be Angeli, in Italian 2002
incorporated into the control strategy. (9) M. Veronesi, A. Visioli, Controllo di processi industriali
Recently some other modifications of the Smith Predictor affetti da ritardo, Atti del Convegno Automazione e processi
have been proposed (see bibliography). They are, however, not decisionali, ANIPLA, in Italian, 2000