University of Khartoum

Faculty of Engineering
Chemical Engineering Department

Advanced Control Strategies

2 References

 D.R. Coughanowr & S.E. LeBlance, Process Systems Analysis and Control, 3rd
Edition McGraw-Hills,2009.
 Parbir K. Sarkar, Process Dynamics and Control, PHI Learning Private Limited,
2014.
3 Ratio Control
 An important control problem in the chemical industry is the combining of
two or more streams to provide a mixture having a desired ratio of
components. Examples of this mixing operation include the blending of
reactants entering a chemical reactor or for the injection of a fuel/air
mixture into a furnace.
 Figure below shows an example of a ratio
control system. It depicts a control system
for blending two liquid streams A and B to
produce a mixed stream having the ratio 𝐾𝑟
in units of mass B /mass A. Stream A, which
is uncontrolled, is used to adjust the flow of
stream B so that the desired ratio is
maintained. The measured signal for stream
A is multiplied by the desired ratio 𝐾𝑟 to
provide a signal that is the set point for the
flow control loop for stream B. The
parameter 𝐾𝑟 can be adjusted to the
desired value. Control hardware is available
to perform the multiplication of two control
signals.
4  A block diagram of the ratio control system is shown in figure below . In a
flow control loop, the dynamic elements consist of the controller, the flow-
measuring element, and the control valve. For incompressible fluids, there is
no lag between the change in valve position and the corresponding flow
rate. For this reason, the transfer function between the valve and the
measurement of flow rate is simply unity. The block diagram also shows a
transfer function 𝐺𝑝 that relates the flow rate of B to the supply pressure of B.
A transfer function 𝐺𝑚1 is also shown that represents the dynamic lag of the
flow-measuring element for stream A.
5

 From the block diagram, the flow of B may be written:

𝐺𝑚1 𝐾𝑟 𝐺𝑐 𝐺𝑣 𝐺𝑝
𝑄𝐵 = 𝑄𝐴 + 𝑃
1 + 𝐺𝑐 𝐺𝑣 𝐺𝑚2 1 + 𝐺𝑐 𝐺𝑣 𝐺𝑚2 𝐵
 The control action for a flow control system is usually PI. The integral action is
needed to eliminate offset and thereby establish a precise ratio of the
mixed streams of A and B. Derivative action is usually avoided in flow
control because the signal from a flow-measuring element is inherently
noisy. The presence of derivative action would amplify the noise and give
poor control.
6 Dead-time Compensation (Smith
Predictor)
 Processes that contain a large transport lag [exp(−𝜏𝐷 𝑠)] can be difficult to
control because a disturbance in setpoint or load does not reach the
output of the process until 𝜏𝐷 units of time have elapsed.
 The control strategy to be described here, which is also known as dead-
time compensation, attempts to reduce the deleterious effect of transport
lag. Dead-time compensation, which is also referred to as a Smith
predictor, was first described by O. J. M. Smith (1957).
7  Consider the single-loop control system of figure below; in which the
process transfer function 𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) is to be modeled by:
𝐺𝑝 𝑠 = 𝐺 𝑠 𝑒 −𝜏𝐷𝑠
 The right side of equation is the product of a transport lag [𝑒 −𝜏𝐷𝑠 ] and a
transfer function 𝐺 𝑠 , which has minimum phase characteristics, such as
1
. For convenience in developing the dead-time compensation
𝜏𝑠+1
method, only a change in setpoint R will be considered. If a step change is
made in R, the disturbance will not break through and appear at C until 𝜏𝐷
units of time elapse. Up to time 𝜏𝐷 , no control action occurs, with the result
that the overall closed-loop response will be sluggish and generally
unsatisfactory.
8
 To overcome this difficulty, Smith suggested that 𝐺𝑝 𝑠 be modeled
according to equation above and that additional feedback paths be
inserted into block diagram as shown in figure below.
 If 𝐺𝑝 𝑠 is modeled exactly by that equation, a close study of block diagram
shows that the signals entering comparator A will be identical; as a result,
the signals cancel and cause the output of comparator A to be zero.
9  The net effect is to completely eliminate the outer feedback path; this
simplification is shown in figure.
 The system is now much easier to control because the transport lag is not
present in the loop. Of course, in the real system the transport lag is still
present; we have eliminated it in a mathematical sense from the feedback
path by the additional feedback paths of previous figure and the
assumption that the process transfer function 𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) can be modeled
exactly as shown in equation.
 To achieve the simplification suggested by figure, we must now face reality
and realize that the signal 𝐶1 in figure is not available to feed back. Only
the signal C can be measured and fed back to the controller.
  In terms of controller hardware implementation, the original block diagram
10 is redrawn in figure (a) below to show which portion of the diagram will be
implemented with controller hardware. figure (b), which is another way to
represent figure (a), is a form sometimes presented in the literature for
dead-time compensation. The question here whether hardware exists to
actually implement what is shown within the dotted lines in figure. Until the
appearance of microprocessor-based controllers, the answer was no.
However, today many commercially available controllers provide dead-
time compensation [exp(−𝜏𝐷 𝑠)] and 𝐺𝑝 𝑠 in the form of a first-order lag
1
[ ]
𝜏𝑠+1
11
 The recommended procedure for applying dead-time compensation is as
follows:
1. Model 𝐺𝑝 𝑠 by using a first-order plus dead-time (FOPDT) model
1
𝐺𝑝 𝑠 = 𝑒 −𝜏𝐷 𝑠
𝜏𝑠 + 1
In this step, we have chosen 𝐶 𝑠 of figure (a) to be first-order. Many processes
in chemical engineering can be modeled by a first-order lag with dead time.
2. By means of appropriate hardware, implement the controller portion of
figure(a) or (b). If 𝐺𝑝 𝑠 can be exactly modeled by a first-order process
with dead time, the response of the control system in modified figure will be
equivalent to the response obtained for the system in original figure in
which the loop involves the control of a first-order process. In most practical
situations, there will be some mismatch between 𝐺𝑝 𝑠 and its first-order with
dead-time model. The greater the mismatch, the greater the deterioration
in control response from the ideal situation of original figure.
12

 the dead-time compensation has permitted the use of a higher value of 𝐾𝑐 ,

reduced the offset, and produced a less oscillatory response. The dead-
time compensation response can be improved by adding integral action
to the controller and tuning the controller parameters.
 To successfully apply dead-time compensation to the control of a process,
one must have an accurate model of the process, such as a first-order with
dead-time model. The parameters in this model (𝜏 and 𝜏𝐷 ) can be
considered as controller parameters along with the controller parameters
of 𝐺𝑐 𝑠 .For the case of dead-time compensation with proportional control,
we actually have three controller parameters: 𝐾𝑐 , 𝜏𝐷 and 𝜏. If the process
dynamics [𝐺𝑝 𝑠 ]changes, all three parameters may need adjustment to
achieve good control.
13 Internal Model Control

 Internal model control (IMC), which is based on an accurate model of the

process, leads to the design of a control system that is stable and robust. A
robust control system is one that maintains satisfactory control in spite of
changes in the dynamics of the process.
 In applying the IMC method of control system design, the following
information must be specified:
 Process model
 Model uncertainty
 Type of input (step, ramp, etc.)
 Performance objective (integral square error, overshoot, etc.)
14

 In many industrial applications for control systems, none of the above items
is available, with the result that the system usually performs in a less than
optimum manner.
 Determining the mathematical model and its uncertainty can be a difficult
task. When the process is not sufficiently understood to obtain a
mathematical model by applying fundamental principles, one must obtain
a model experimentally. The choice of a performance objective is
subjective and often arbitrary. In the IMC method, the integral square error
is implied.
15 Internal Model Control Structure
 A block diagram of an IMC system is shown in figure. In this diagram, 𝐺 is
the transfer function of the process and 𝐺𝑚 is the model of the process.
Although 𝐺 and 𝐺𝑚 are called the transfer functions of the process, they
actually include the valve and the process. The transfer function of the
measuring element is taken as 1.0. The portion of the diagram that is
implemented by the computer includes the IMC controller and the model;
this portion is surrounded by the dotted boundary.
16

 Since this structure is the conventional single-loop control structure, we can

identify the single controller block as 𝐺𝑐 . After one designs the IMC
controller (𝐺𝐼 ) by the method to be described, one can determine the
equivalent conventional controller 𝐺𝑐 by the relation:
𝐺𝐼
𝐺𝑐 =
1 − 𝐺𝐼 𝐺𝑚
17
 For the structure shown in original figure, one can show that:
𝐺𝐺𝐼
𝐶 = 𝑈1 + 𝑅 − 𝑈1
1 + 𝐺𝐼 𝐺 − 𝐺𝑚
 If the model exactly matches the process (i.e., 𝐺𝑚 = 𝐺 ), the only signal
entering comparator (1) is 𝑈1 . (The signals from 𝐺 and 𝐺𝑚 are equal and cancel
each other in going through comparator (2)) Since 𝑈1 is not the result of any
processing by the transfer functions in the forward loop, 𝑈1 is not a feedback
signal but an independent signal that is equivalent to 𝑅 in its effect on the
output 𝐶. In fact, there is no feedback when 𝐺 = 𝐺𝑚 , and we have an open-
loop system as shown in figure below . In this case the stability of the control
system depends only on 𝐺𝐼 and 𝐺𝑚 . If 𝐺𝐼 and 𝐺𝑚 are stable, the control system is
stable.
18  Ideally, we should like to have C track R without lag when only a setpoint
change occurs (i.e., 𝑈1 = 0). For this to occur, we see from figure or
equation that 𝐺𝐼 𝐺 = 1 , or since 𝐺𝑚 = 𝐺 , we may write 𝐺𝐼 𝐺𝑚 = 1 . Solving for
𝐺𝐼 gives:
1
𝐺𝐼 =
𝐺𝑚
 For the case of only a change in load 𝑈1 (i.e., 𝑅 = 0), we should like to have
the output C remain unchanged (i.e., C = 0). For this to occur, (𝐺𝐼 𝐺𝑚 = 1) ;
this leads to the same result as given by above equation.
 Even if there is no mismatch between the model and the process, the
application of above equation will usually lead to a transfer function that
cannot be implemented because it will be unstable, requires prediction, or
1
requires pure differentiation. For example, if 𝐺𝑚 = 𝜏𝑠+1, the application of
above equation gives:
𝐺𝐼 = 𝜏𝑠 + 1
19

 This result is equivalent to an ideal PD controller, which cannot be

𝑒 −𝜏𝑠
implemented because of the derivative term. If 𝐺𝑚 = , we obtain:
𝜏𝑠+1
𝐺𝐼 = (𝜏𝑠 + 1)𝑒 𝜏𝑠
 The term 𝑒 𝜏𝑠 , which represents prediction, cannot be implemented.
 With such difficulties of implementation of the internal model controller, one
might ask if any practical result can be obtained. These difficulties can be
overcome by application of the following simplified procedure.
20 Design of IMC Controllers
 In using these rules, only a step change in disturbance is considered. The
procedure for disturbances other than a step response is more complicated.
1. Separate the process model 𝐺𝑚 into two terms:
𝐺𝑚 = 𝐺𝑚𝑎 𝐺𝑚𝑚
 where 𝐺𝑚𝑎 is a transfer function of an all-pass filter. An all-pass filter is one for
which 𝐺𝑚𝑎 𝑗𝜔 = 1 for all 𝜔.
 The 𝐺𝑚𝑚 is a transfer function that has minimum phase characteristics. A system
has non-minimum phase characteristics if its transfer function contains zeros in
the right half-plane or transport lags, or both. Otherwise, a system has minimum
phase characteristics.
1 1
 For a step change in disturbance ( 𝑅 = or U = ), 𝐺𝐼 is determined by:
𝑠 𝑠
1
𝐺𝐼 =
𝐺𝑚𝑚
 The results of applying this equation will yield a transfer function that is stable
and does not require prediction; however, it will have terms that cannot be
implemented because they require pure differentiation (e.g., 𝜏𝑠 + 1).
21
2. To obtain a practical IMC controller, one multiplies 𝐺𝐼 in step 1 by a transfer
function of a filter 𝑓 𝑠 . The simplest form recommended by Morari and
Zafiriou is given by:
1
𝑓 𝑠 =
λ𝑠 + 1 𝑛
 where λ is a filter parameter and n is an integer. The practical IMC controller
𝐺𝐼 can now be expressed as:
𝑓
𝐺𝐼 =
𝐺𝑚𝑚
 The value of n is selected large enough to give a result for 𝐺𝐼 that does not
require pure differentiation. For the simple treatment of IMC design
presented here, λ will be considered as a tunable parameter. In the full
treatment of IMC given by Morari and Zafiriou, λ can be related to the model
uncertainty. In practice, model uncertainty may not be available, in which
case one is forced to treat λ as a tunable parameter.
22

3. If one wants to obtain the conventional controller transfer function

𝐺 𝑓
𝐺𝑐 = 1−𝐺 𝐼𝐺 and with 𝐺𝐼 = 𝐺 For many simple process models, 𝐺𝑐 turns out to
𝐼 𝑚 𝑚𝑚
be equivalent to a PID controller multiplied by a first-order transfer function;
thus:
1 1
𝐺𝑐 = 𝐾𝑐 1 + + 𝜏𝐷 𝑠
𝜏𝐼 𝑠 𝜏1 𝑠 + 1

 where 𝐾𝑐 , 𝜏𝐷 , 𝜏𝐼 , and 𝜏1 are functions of λ and the parameters in 𝐺𝐼 and 𝐺𝑚 .

23 Example
 Design an IMC controller for the process which is first-order:
𝐾
𝐺𝑚 =
𝜏𝑠 + 1

𝐾
1. 𝐺𝑚𝑎 = 1 and 𝐺𝑚𝑚 = 𝜏𝑠+1 so:
1 𝜏𝑠 + 1
𝐺𝐼 = =
𝐺𝑚𝑚 𝐾
2. To be able to implement this transfer function, let
1
𝑓 𝑠 =
λ𝑠 + 1
The IMC controller becomes:
1 𝜏𝑠 + 1
𝐺𝐼 =
𝐾 λ𝑠 + 1
 This result is a lead-lag transfer function that can be easily implemented
with computer-based controllers.
24
𝐺𝐼
𝐺𝑐 =
1 − 𝐺𝐼 𝐺𝑚

𝜏𝑠 + 1
𝐾(λ𝑠 + 1) 𝜏 1
𝐺𝑐 = = 1+
𝜏𝑠 + 1 𝐾 𝐾𝜆 𝜏𝑠
1−
𝐾 𝜆𝑠 + 1 𝜏𝑠 + 1

This result is in the form of a PI controller:

𝜏
𝐾𝑐 =
𝐾𝜆
𝜏𝐼 = 𝜏
 Although this design procedure results in the equivalence of a PI controller,
only one parameter (𝜆) must be used to tune the controller. This is a distinct
advantage over the use of a conventional controller in which both 𝐾𝑐 and
𝜏𝐼 must be tuned.
25
 The treatment of internal model control presented here has been limited to
single-input, single-output continuous systems for which the disturbance is a
step change.
 Furthermore, we have not discussed the use of model uncertainty in selecting
the filter parameters.
 Internal model control has been extended to sampled-data control systems
and to multiple-input, multiple-output systems.
 IMC is an approach to the design of control systems that considers the process
model as an essential part of the control system design.
 Computer-based controllers have the capability of implementing many of the
control algorithms designed by the IMC method. There is no longer a need to
be tied to the classical control algorithms.