Decentralized Control of a Water Tank

Using MBPC Control

S. Ayala–Cabrera, G. Perez–Valenzuela, J. Pampamallco–Jara, A. Rojas–Moreno
Electronic Engineering Department
Universidad de Ingenierı́a y Tecnologı́a (UTEC)
Lima, Peru
stefano.ayala@utec.edu.pe, gian.perez@utec.edu.pe, jose.pampamallco@utec.edu.pe, arojas@utec.edu.pe

Abstract—For comparison purposes, this work implements two Section VII, while in Section VIII, some concluding remarks
decentralized control systems to control simultaneously the water derived from this work are presented.
level and the temperature in a tank. The first control system
employs MBPC (Model Based Predictive Control) controllers, II. T HE C ONTROL S YSTEM FOR E XPERIMENTATION
while the second uses PID (Proportional Integral Derivative) con-
The experimental setup comprises a multipurpose plant
trollers. Experimental results obtained in this work demonstrate
that the performance using a MBPC controller is better than shown in Fig. 1a, and a supervision module (Fig. 1b). Both
using a PID controller only in the level process. That is, the modules were patented by UTEC (Universidad de Ingenierı́a
settling times and the steady–state errors were diminished. But y Tecnologı́a) [7], [8], and are placed in the Automation Lab
in the case of the temperature process, the MBPC controller only of UTEC.
diminishes the settling time.
The multipurpose plant is mainly a water tank equipped
Index Terms—PID decentralized control, MBPC decentralized
control, water tank plant. with level, rate flow, pressure, and temperature transmitter,
as well as two proportional valves and an electric heating
I. I NTRODUCTION device. The supervision module possesses breakers, power
sources, a PanelView front, two PAC (Programmable Automa-
There are a few works dealing with the simultaneous tion Controller), a PLC (Programmable Logic Controller), and
control of the level and temperature inside a water tank a Flex I/O (Input/Output) switch, as well as a front panel
plant. The work in [1] employs PID controllers for two with input and output connectors to establish physical Ethernet
control approaches. The first one uses decouplers while the communication between the PACs and the PLC with the valves
second approach implements a centralized control. The paper and transmitters of the multipurpose plant.
published in [2] implement a multi–loop control with two PID
controllers, while in [3], level and temperature in the tank are
controlled by means of four decoupling devices and two PID
controllers. A MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) PID
controller is used in [4] to control the level and temperature
employing the cold water flow rate and the heat of an electric
resistance as control inputs. The work published in [5], a
MIMO fractional order control of a water tank plant was
designed and implemented, while in [6], a nonlinear predictive
control was applied to a water tank plant. No work dealing
with the decentralized MBPC control of a water tank plant
has been published.
This paper develops two decentralized control systems for
controlling the water level and the temperature into a tank,
using MBPC controllers as well as classical PID controllers,
respectively.
This work is structured as follows. Section II describes (a) The multipurpose plant. (b) The supervision module.
the experimental setup of the control system. Section III Fig. 1: The experimental setup.
deals with the design of the decentralized control system,
while the experimental modelling of the plant is performed in Fig. 2 illustrates the P&ID (Piping and Instrument Diagram)
Section IV. Section V deals with the MBPC controller design. of the water tank T–10 located in the multipurpose plant. A
In Section VI, the two decentralized control systems are flow rate of cold water entering into T–10 is controlled by
implemented. Comparison of both controllers are presented in the valve FV10. The tank is equipped with an electric heating
978–1–7281–9377–9/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE resistor. The power supplied by such device is regulated by the
power controller PW10. The control objectives are to keep the Using the Jacobian method on (2) and (5), the linear state–
level and temperature in the tank close to reference values. We space representation is found to be
assumed that the output flow rate exiting the tank possesses
ẋ = Ax + Bu; y = Cx (6)
the same water temperature into the tank. Table I describes        
components of Fig. 2 x1 h u1 qi
x= = ; u= = (7)
x2 θo u2 Φi
In (6), A, B and C are the state, control, and output matrices
respectively, y, x and u are the output, state, and control
vectors, respectively. The transfer matrix Gp (s) of the plant
is found to be
Gp (s) = C(sI − A)−1 B
 K11 
T11 +s 0
Gp (s) =   (8)
P s+Q K22
(Ta s+1)(Tb s+1) T22 s+1

In (8), s is the Laplace operator, I is the Identity matrix, and

K11 , T11 , K22 , T22 , P , Q, Ta and Tb , are constant parameters.
Fig. 2: Piping and Instrumentation diagram (P&ID) of the Fig. 3 shows the block diagram of the decentralized system
system. assuming that we have to control first the water level by means
of the Gc11 (s) controller before controlling the temperature
into the tank using the Gc22 (s) controller. Two PID controllers
TABLE I: Sensors and actuators of the multipurpose plant. will be used for the first decentralized control system, while
the second one employs two MBPC controllers.
TAG Description Range
DV10 On–Off valve for water flow rate
FV10 Control valve for water flow rate entry 0 - 100 %
DV30 On-Off valve for output flow rate
HV30 Manual valve for output flow rate
TT10 Temperature transmitter 0 - 50 ◦ C
LT10 Level transmitter 0 - 40 cm
PW10 Heating resistor 0 - 100 %

III. D ESIGN OF THE D ECENTRALIZED C ONTROL S YSTEM

.
The volume of water in the tank is expressed as
dh √ Fig. 3: Block diagram of the decentralized control system.
A = qi − qo ; qo = a h (1)
dt
In (1), A is the tank section, qi is the cold flow rate entering
the tank, qo is the output flow rate, and a is discharge factor. IV. E XPERIMENTAL M ODELLING OF THE P LANT
From (1), we obtain the first state–space equation With the valve of the output rate flow opened, let us open
dh a √ 1 the valve FV10 shown in Fig. 2 from an initial position,
= − a h + qi (2) corresponding to an initial water level of 50 %, to its maximum
dt A A
On the other hand, the heat ΦT accumulated by the water in aperture in order to obtain the reaction curve of the water level
the tank is expressed as in the tank T–10. Using the MATLAB command ident, the
acquired data is processed to generate the following transfer
ΦT = −Φo − Φs + Φc + Φ (3) function
dθo √ K11 182.4 Y1 (s)
ΦT = AhρCp ; Φo = Cp ρθo a h (4) GL (s) = = = (9)
dt T11 s + 1 63.532s + 1 U1 (s)
θo − θa To obtain the reaction curve of the temperature, the resistor
Φs = Φc = Cp ρθi qi
Rt inside the tank T–10 needs to be heated first in order to reduce
In (4), Φo is the heat given by qo , Φs is the heat delivered the delay. Starting from an initial temperature, we manipulate
outside the tank, and Φc is the heat given by qi . From (3), the the power controller PW10 from 50 to 100 % of its capacity
second state–space equation takes on the form in order to obtain the corresponding reaction curve
dθo a θo θo − θa qi Φi K22 10.516 Y2 (s)
=− √ − + + (5) GT (s) = = = (10)
dt A h AhρCp Rt Ah AhρCp T22 s + 1 531.91s + 1 U2 (s)
 V. T HE M ODEL BASED P REDICTIVE C ONTROLLER The scalar control law for the horizon control Nu = 1 has the
The MBPC controller is more computational demanding form
PN2
than the PID controller. Its control law requires a process gk [r(t + k/t) − yf ree (t + k/t)]
model, which can be obtained after an identification procedure. ∆u(t) = k=N1 PN2 (17)
2
This work follows the design procedure published in [9] k=N1 gk + λ

without considering the effect of disturbances. The objective In (17), N1 , . . . , N2 is the time horizon, λ is a tuning parame-
of the MBPC is to find the control vector u(t + k/t), k = ter, and ∆u(t) = u(t) − u(t − 1) is an increment of the scalar
0, . . . , N2 −1 (the control force in the discrete–time unit t+k control law. The default value of N1 is either 1 or the process
postulated in t), which minimize the cost function dead–time, while the default value of N2 − N1 is 10. Also,
N2
Σk=N Nu −1
[r(t + k/t) − y(t + k/t)]2 + λΣk=0 (11) r(t + k/t) is a trajectory related with the desired signal or set
1
point w(t + k/t) as follows
In (11), r is the predictive trajectory, y is the controlled
variable, and λ is a tuning parameter. r(t + k/t) = αr(t + k − 1/t) + (1 − α)w(t + k/t) (18)
The z–transform of either (9) or (10) for a sampling time VI. R EAL –T IME I MPLEMENTATION
Ts has the following form
A. Real–Time Decentralized PID Control System
A(z −1 )Y (z) = B(z −1 )U (z) (12) In Fig. 4, the PID controller is applied to the water tank
A(z −1 ) = 1 + a−1
1 ; B(z −1 ) = b−1
1 plant. Instead of using the Ziegler–Nichols method [10], we
obtained the parameters of such controller using the auto–
In (12), Y (z), U (z), and z are the process output, input, and
tuning software of the Control Logix PLC L73 from Rockwell
shift operator, respectively, and a1 and b1 are coefficients. For
Automation. Observing the experimental time–responses to
Ts = 0.01 s, b1 = 0.02871 and a1 = -0.9998 for (9), while
step–form reference signals in Fig. 4, the controlled tank level
b1 = 0.0001977 and a1 = -1 for (10). The difference equation
depicts a settling time around 95 s in average, 12 % overshoot,
corresponding to (12) for the discrite–time index k = 1, 2, . . .
and 2% steady–state error in average. The controlled tank
is expressed as
temperature presents a settling time about 150 s in average,
yk = −a1 y(k − 1) + b1 u(k − 1) (13) around 14 % overshoot, and a 1.6% steady–state error. On the
The predictive response of the output formulated for the time other hand, we can note a great effort in the control law for
t + k given t, that is y(t + k/t), is the result of two effects: the two variables.
the free response and the forced response
y(t + k/t) = yf ree (t + k/t) + yf orced (t + k/t) (14)
The free response yf ree (t + k/t) is caused by the past control
signals u(t − 1), u(t − 2), ..., and by the future control signals
u(t/t) = u(t − 1), u(t + 1/t) = u(t − 1), .... Therefore, the
difference equation of the free response for (13) with yf ree (t−
1) = 0 takes on the form
yf ree (t) = −a1 yf ree (t − 1) + b1 u(t − 1) = b1 u(t − 1)
yf ree (t + 1) = −a1 yf ree (t) + b1 u(t)
= −a1 yf ree (t) + b1 u(t − 1)
..
. (15)
The forced response yf orced (t + k/t) is caused by
two reasons: the action of the future control increments
∆u(t/t),∆u(t + 1/t), ..., ∆u(t + Nu − 1/t), where Nu is the
control horizon, and the process response g(k) to a sequence of
step inputs. The difference equation of the forced response for Fig. 4: Controlled Level (top graph), control law of the level
(13) with g(−1) = 0, u(−1) = 0, and u(0) = u(1) = . . . = 1 process (2nd graph from top), controlled temperature (3rd
is expressed as graph from top) and control law (bottom graph) from the
temperature process using a PID controller
g(k) = −a1 g(k − 1) + b1 u(k − 1)
g(0) = −a1 g(−1) + b1 u(−1) = 0
g(1) = −a1 g(0) + b1 u(0) = b1
B. Real–Time Decentralized MBPC Control System
g(2) = −a1 g(1) + b1 u(1) = −a1 g(1) + b1
.. In Fig. 5, now, the MBPC controller is applied to the water
. (16) tank plant. The tuning parameters for such a controller were α
= 0.04 and λ = 100 for level, and α = 0.6 and λ = 0.2 for tem- TABLE II: Comparison of the control performance of the two
perature. The real–time structured text programming option implemented control systems for the level process.
of the Control Logix PLC L73 from Rockwell Automation Controller Level % Percent Settling % Steady
was employed. The corresponding time–responses to step– Reference (cm) overshoot time state error
form reference signals evidence that the controlled tank level 8 - 10 10% 27.6 s 5%
MBPC 10 - 8 6% 38.1 s 1.5 %
depicts a settling time around 30 s in average, 8% overshoot 10 - 12 10% 24.5 s 0.8 %
in average, and 2.4% steady–state error. The controlled tank 8 - 10 3% 105.8 s 0.4 %
temperature depicts a settling time about 130 s in average, PID 10 - 8 12.8% 90.1 s 3.2 %
around 20 % overshoot, and a 2.3% steady–state error. Again, 10 - 12 20.5% 88.2 s 2.5 %
we observe a great control effort for the two variables.
TABLE III: Comparison of the control performance of the two
implemented control systems for the temperature process.
Controller Temperature % Percent Settling % Steady
Reference (◦ C) overshoot time state error
MBPC 23 - 26 20.6% 130 s 2.3 %
PID 23 - 26 14% 150 s 1.6 %

and the steady-state error were diminished compared to the

Fig. 5: Controlled Level (top graph), control law of the level
process (2nd graph from top), controlled temperature (3rd
graph from top) and control law (bottom graph) from the
temperature process using a MBPC controller
VII. C OMPARISON OF E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
Table II depicts the comparison of the control performance
of the two implemented control systems for the level process,
using three different step references. We can observe that the
MBPC control system reduces in average the settling time in
65 s, and diminishes the steady–state error.
For the case of the temperature process, we use just one
step reference. Table III shows that both implemented control
systems achieve similar settling time and percent overshoot.
However, the MBPC control system diminish in average the
settling time in 20 s.
VIII. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS
This work implemented two decentralized control system
to control the level and temperature of a water tank plant
employing the PID and the MBPC algorithms for comparison
purposes.
According to the experimental results, we conclude that the
MBPC controller performs better in processes that not have
much time delay like the level process were the settling time
PID controller.
The PID controller was implemented using the ladder
programming language together with the auto–tuning tool in
order to obtain the PID parameters. We know that the ladder
language is a standard to implement PID controllers in PLCs.
Unfortunately, the ladder language presents some limitations
for the implementation of complex controllers. Therefore, we
use the structured text language, which is another option that
the PLC possesses, to implement the MBPC controller.
R EFERENCES
[1] TE37 Equipement Control and Instrumentation Study Station, User
Guide, Tecquipment Ltd, UK, 2009.
[2] V. Tzouanas, “Temperature and Level Control of a Multivariable Water
Tank Process”, in 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta,
Georgia, Jun 23–26, 2013, pp. 1–11.
[3] E. Cornieles, et al., “Modelling and Simulation of a Multivariable Process
Control”, in IEEE ISIE, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July 9–12, 2006, pp.
1–11. DOI: 10.1109/ISIE.2006.296039
[4] A Rojas–Moreno and A. Parra–Quispe, “Design and Implementation of
a Water Tank Control System using a Multivariable PID Controller”, in
6th International Conference on Computing, Communications and Control
Technologies (CCCT), Orlando, USA, June 2008.
[5] A. Rojas–Moreno and G. Hernandez–Garagatti, “MIMO Fractional Order
Control of a Water Tank Plant”, Advances in Science, Technology and En-
gineering Systems Journal (ASTESJ) – Special Issue on Multidisciplinary
Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 321-327, 2019.
[6] L. Alvarez–Zeballos, L. Delgado–Barra and A. Rojas–Moreno, “Real–
Time MIMO Nonlinear Predictive Control of a Water Tank Plant”, in
IEEE XXV International Conference on Electronics, Electrical Engineer-
ing and Computing (INTERCON), Lima, Peru, Aug. 12–14, 2019.
[7] A. Rojas–Moreno, et al.,“Planta industrial multipropósito para control e
instrumentación.” Resolution N° 001545–2019/DIN-INDECOPI, May
20, 2019, Lima, Peru
[8] A. Rojas–Moreno, et al., “Planta industrial multipropósito para control y
supervisión.” Resolution N° 001035–2019/DIN-INDECOPI, March 28,
2019, Lima, Peru.
[9] R. De Keyser, “Model Based Predictive Control for Linear Systems,”
in Control Systems, Robotics and Automation, vol. 11, Oxford: Eolss
Publishers Co Ltd, 2003.
[10] H. Efheij, et al. “Comparison of Model Predictive Control and PID
Controller in Real Time Process Control System,” in 2019 19th Interna-
tional Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and
Computer Engineering (STA), 2019, pp. 64-69.