TA1 2 -1 0:30
Qualitative Simulation for Pmcess Modeling and Contwl
D. T. Dalle Molle and T. F. Edgart
Department of Chemical Engg
University of Texas at Austn
Austin, TX 78712-1062
Abstract
Qualitative simulation is a promising technique for
analyzing dynamic systems with incomplete
knowledge. The QSIM algorithm provides a
framework for constructing qualitative versions of
process models rmnally represented by ordinary
differntial equations. In this work, a qualitative
model is developed for a fim-order system with a
PI controller without precise knowledge of the
process or controller parameters. Simulation of the
qualitative model yields all of the solutions to the
system equations. In developing the qualitative
model, a necessary condition for the occurrence of
oscillatory behavior is identified. ntalizaBtions that
cannot exhibit oscillatory behaviors produce a finite
set of behaviors. When the phase space behavior of
the oscillatory behaviors is properly constrained,
these initializations produce an infinite but
comprehensible set of asymptotically stable
behaviors. While the predictions include all
possible behaviors of the real system, a class of
spurious behaviors has been identified. When
limited numerical information is included in the
model, the number of predictions is significantly
reduced.
Introduction
Recently, there has been considerable interest in
methods for analyzing physical processes
qualitatively. The goal of these qualitative
reasoning methods is to provide altemative ways for
understanding, representing, and analyzing the
function and behavior of physical systems when
faced with an incomplete description of the real
system. A variety of techniques for qualitative
reasoning have appeared in both the artificial
intelligence and engineering literature. Much of the
recent work in qualitative reasoning has been based
on the previous work of de Kleer and Brown
(1984), Forbus (1984), and Kuipers (1984). For
example, Oyeleye and Kramer (1988) have
combined the use of signed directed graphs with
confluences (de Kleer and Brown, 1984) to
qualitatively analyze the steady-state effects of faults
in chemical process plants. Qualitative simulation
(Kuipers, 1984, 1986) has been used to predict the
dynamic behavior of several systems of interest in
tAuthor to whom correspondence should be addressed.
1360
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nac de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Downloaded on February 03,2024 at 12:56:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
chemical engieng (Dalle Molie t al., 1988a;
Dalle Molle and Edgar, 1989). Other recent
research efforts have developed new approaches to
qualitative reasoning not aligned with any other
technique. Sacks (1988) has developed a prgram
for analyzing the phase plane behavior for nlinear
systems described by ordinary differential equations
using piecewise linear abstcion. Mavrovouniotis
and Stephanopoulos (1988) present a formal
analysis of order-of-magnitude reasoning and have
applied their approach to rason qualitatively about
chemical and biochemical engineenrng systems.
Williams (1988) has developed a qualitative
symbolic algebra for reasoning with algebraic
equations.
This work is concerned with providing qualitative
descriptions of dynamic systems with limited
knowledge of process parameters. While other
methods of qualitative reasoning may also be
applicable to this type of analysis, qualitative
simulation (Kuipers, 1986) is used because it
provides dynamic descriptions of systems of any
complexity. The metiods proposed by Oyeleye and
Kramer (1988) and Williams (1988) are limited to
steady-state, algebraic analyses. The work of Sacks
(1988) cannot express incomplete knowledge of
parameter values and fumctional relationships, and is
restricted to second-order systems. Qualitative
simulation allows for representing systems with
incomplete knowledge in tenns of Qualitative
Differential Equations (QDEs) and is guaranteed to
capture all possible dynamic descriptions of thie
system.
Previous work in developing qualitative models of
systems with feedback control consideredLonly
proportional control (Dalle Molle et. al., 1988b).
For this system, fte qualitative model captred all of
the correct dynamic behaviors of the process,
including offset in the controlled variable, without
knowledge of the process parameters. In this work,
the dynamic behavior of a first-order system with a
PI controller is analyzed. -Since this closed-loop
system can potentially exhibit oscillatory behaviors,
additional reasoning techniques are required to
reduce the number of spurious predictions. The
incorporation of quantitative infonnation into the
qualitative model is also considered.
 The QSIM Algorithm for
Qualitative Simulation
The QSIM algorithm for qualitative simulation by
Kuipers (1986) provides a framework for
developing qualitative models of physical
mechanisms. The algorithm is based on an
abstraction of Ordinary Differential Equations
(ODEs), and allows for representing incomplete
knowledge of funtional relationsips and parameter
values in the form of Qualitative Differential
Equations (QDEs). Witdin the QSIM framework, a
qualitative model consists of a set of variables (or
pauameters)ofthe system and constaints da relate
the variables to one another. Variables have
quantity spaces with landmark (qualitatively
significant) values that represent the range of values
a vanable may have. The qualitative state of a
variable is a list of the qualitative value (at or
between landmark values) and the qualitative
derivative (increasing, decreasing, or steady) of the
variable. The constraints represent qualitative
versions of common mathematical operations such
as addition, multiplication, and differentiation.
Given an incomplete set of variable smtes and a set
of constraints, QSIM determines all possible
completions of the state that are consistent with the
constraints.
In detennrunng the dynamic behavior of a system,
QSIM uses a strategy of proposing and filtering sets
of qualitative transitions to predict possible
al
subsequent states for the folowing time point or
open interval. Therefore, it is an enumeration
algonrthm. Inconsistent states are detected by
application of continuity and system constraints.
Global filters identify states as inconsistent,
quiescent, divergent, or identical to a previous state
(indicating cyclic behavior); the remaining states ar
again subjected to the propose/filter procedure. A
branching tree of states results, and each path
through the tre constitutes a possible behavior of
the system.
Kuipers (1986) has proven that the set of possible
behaviors generated by the QSIM algorithm is
guaranteed to include all of the behaviors exhibited
by the original ODE from which the QDE was
derived. While this approach is sound, it is not
complete. The algorithm cannot be guaranteed to
recognize and eliminate all spurious behaviors
(predictions that represent no real physical system
behavior). Recent developments in qualitative
reasoning have been aimed at reducing the number
of spurious predictions in qualitative simulafion.
Recent Extensions to the QSIM Algorithm
While the QSIM algorithm provides a full language
for developing and simulating qualitative models,
many situations require additional qualitative
reasoning techniques to reduce or eliminate spurious
1361
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nac de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Downloaded on February 03,2024 at 12:56:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
behaviors. Kuipers and Chiu (1987) presented two
methods for taming inractable branching caused by
under-consained derivatives. One method changes
the level of description to aggregate a number of
behaviors whose distinctions are real, but are not
considered important. This approach amounts to
ignoring the direction of change of a given variable.
Their second approach, discussed in detail by Chiu
(1988), places additional constraints on the
derivatives of variables that may otherwise be
constrained only by continuity. These second
derivative , or curvature constraints, are applied
when the derivative of a variable is ze roto verify or
refute curvatures proposed by QSIM. Recent work
by DaHe Mole (1989a) extended this approach to
automatically evaluate the value of the third-order
derivative in cases where the curvate constraint
vanishes. These various methods for taming
otherwise intractable branching were summarized
by Kuipers et al. (1989).
Another manifestation of the loss of knowledge that
occurs when abstracting to qualitative models is the
violation of phase space constraints between
variables in systems that exhibit oscillatory
behavior. Recent work by Lee and Kuipers (1988)
and Struss (1988) identified system independent
global filters for qualitative simulation derived from
constraints that exists on the trajectories of variables
in the phase plane. Lee and Kuipers (1988) showed
how the Non-Intersection of phase-plane trajectories
Constraint (NIC) can eliminate large classes of
spurious behaviors in mass and spring systems. In
this work, the NIC filter is used to achieve a
tractable qualitative simulation of a PI contoller on
a lst-order system.
While purely qualitative models are useful for
identifying the possible solutions of a given QDE
from a parficular initialization, the resulting set of
behaviors may be too large to be manageable or the
descriptions not detailed enough for the purpose of
the model. In many situations, functional
relationships are known to some degree, and
parameter values may be known with some
uncertainty. Kuipers and Berleant (1988) have
presented a method for representing incomplete
quantitative knowledge into QSIM-type qualitative
models. Unknown functions are represented with
upper and lower envelopes, and parameters can
have ranges or precise numenrcal values. With this
additional knowledge, qualitative states with
inconsistent quantitative values can be eliminated,
behaviors with quantitatively inconsistent states can
be pruned, and models that produce only
inconsistent behaviors can be refuted. The
elimination of inconsistent models by using
incomplete quantitative knowledge is discussed
further by Dvorak and Kuipers (1989). Examples
of qualitative models with partial quantitative
knowledge are discussed later in this paper.
 .
Model Development and Initialization
Y"(s) kess +
_

1+1
y(s)
Tic block diagam for a first-order system with a PI
controller is shown in Figure 1. In this particular Figure 1: First-Order System with a PI Controller
configuration, only changes m the process variable initial states, Equation 1 eliminates the possibility
set point, Ys, are considered (servo problem);
controlling the process with load changes at whie u is dec, dy/dt cannot be inc or std. The
(regulatory problem), is not considered here. The values of the qualitatively valid 15 initial states are
time domain equation describing the open-loop shown in Table 1. Dalle Molle (1989b) has shown
process is that four of these initalizations (I1, 12, 14, and
15), while satisfying the constraint model, do not
T ku -y
= (1) represent any real system described by the model
Equations, 1 - 3. However, these spunrous initial
where k is the process gain, z is the process time states can be eliminated when quantitative
constant, a is the process input, and y is the information is added to fte model. This approach is
controlled vanrable. For a PI controller, fte process discussed later in the paper.
input is calculd as fouows: Simulation Results
a kc(e + 1 Jeot)
= (2) When successor states are generated for the 15
initial states in Table 1, 10 of the initial states
where kc is the controler gain, 'c is the integrl fime generate finte sets of behaviors. For example,
constant of the controller, and e is the error in the initial state 7 generates five behaviors, four of which
prcess output from its setpoint, ys: are genuie for that analytical system. Figure 2
shows one of these genuine behaviors of the input
e = ys-y (3) and output The variations on this behavior that
In developing a qualitative model for a first-order
make up te other3 genuine behaviors are al due to
differences in the behavior of the input, ua, as shown
process with a PI controller, Equations 1 - 3 can be in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows a numerical simulation
translated directly into qualitative constraints. for the case where u has the trajectory of behavior I
Previous modeling expenrence suggests that in Figure 3 (see also Figure 2). For this simulation,
curvatu constrains should also be developed for k =r= 1, ti = 2, and kc = 0.8. As the controller
the highest-order derivatives in the system equations gain is increased from 0.5 (at or below 0.5, du/dt is
(Dalle Molle and Edgar, 1989). These constraints zero or positive and is described by initial sttes 8
provide knowledge of fte second-order derivatives and 9 respectively), the trajecry of u changes. For
that can be used to venrfy or refute behaviors example, if kc = 1.0 (and everything else in Figure 4
proposed by QSIM. The curvature constraints for remains the same) then u has the trajectory of
dy/dt and at are (Dalle Molle, 1989b): behavior 3 in Figure 3. For kc > 1, then u has the
d trajectory of behavior 2 in Figure 3. In the limit as
(4)
Iq
dU Table 1: Possible Qualitative ial States for a
k= rl (,q -T)t (5) First-Order Process with PI Control
The form of this curvature consraint reveals that Initia Intial
when 'C -t = 0, thn a higher-order derivatives of u bntial Value of Derivative Derivative
must vanish, and the simulation must be quiescent IL- ofLAYLB
Tins property of the system is exploited to eliminate 1 doc
otherwise spurious predictions. 2 sd dx
3 dxc
dx
The initial conditons for a set poin increase are the 4 0 dc dex
dex
setpoint variable, ys, taking the value ys+, while the 5 0 std die
process output, y, is at the value 0. Given this 6 0 Ur dex
initialization, the qualitative model based on 7 +
dac diec
Equations 1 - 3, and the curvature constraints, 8 rde
Equations 4 and 5, generates 15 initial states. The 9
variations in these imntial states comes from the fact 10 std
that the parameter 'l - r can be positive, zero, or 11 0
negative, and the variables dy/dt and u can each be 12 Ur rid
inc, std, or dec. In this particulr model, not every 13 frc
combination of these three distinctions is 14 0 std
qualitatively possible (or 27 initial states would have 15
been generated). For example, since y is inc in all

1362
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nac de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Downloaded on February 03,2024 at 12:56:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1.0
-
.0

CA
a
:< f1
"
.0 7

06 Y,
Prc. SIS y Py twu
jg - - -

Figure 2: Behavior I for Initial State 7 0.4

02

0.0
0 5 10 15 20
TIME
boh.r
1
1.oh2:7
Figure 4: Numerical Behavior of Inital State 7
responses and a method for constraining these
beh 3 W 7) teh 4 CM 7}
behaviors are discussed next
Conditions for Oscillatory Behavior
Figure 3: Four Behav'iors of u for Initial Ste 7 In general, determining Ut validity of the qualitative
kc t, the trajectory of u approaches thiat of
--
predictions is non-trivial especialy for systems with
behavior 4 in Figure 3. Later in the paper, unknown functionalities and a large parameter
quantitaive information 'is added to the model to space. However, when the system being modeled
reduce tfie number of possible behaviors. Ihe fift have a tractable solution under certain conditions,
behavior of initial sLue 7 has -a trajectory wit y then this solution can be used for comparing the
overshooting its final value before ultLimately alitative predictions to the analytical expectations.
achieving it. As will be discussed later. tis For Ue system shown in Figure 1 and described by
behavi'or is not possible for this 'm'tial state. An Equations I - 3, an analytical solution can be
analysis of te predictims for th other initial stes obtained when certain assumptions are made about
with fmnite. behaviors has been done by Dalle Molle the values of the parameters in the model.
(1989b). Performing block diagram algebra on the system in
Figure 1 yields the following Laplace domain
F:or ffie m'tal states withri -, < 0, an firztbe set solution for y(s) in response to a unit step in ys(s):
of oscilating behaviors is geneated. Intactable in
this sense refers to thie situation wbere a fimite set of --p,t
Ws =
kkc(Cis + 1) (b)
complete behaviors camnot be generated wit finite S(CrrIS2 + tI(kkc + l)s + kkc)
resources (computer memory, etc.). Figure 5 Solving this characteristic equation with the
shows two oscillatory behaviors genemted from quadmtic formula yields the two roots:
initial state I (of Table l) ffix illstate a cause of
the intractable branching. In Figure 5(a), the
contmlled variable y overshoots,thden undershoots
its final value before achievmg it at time point TIO
(decreasing oscilllation). However, the input u,
which starts out positive and decreasing, goes
negative to a mnuimnum, dhe goes positive to a value
greater ffa 'it had ixi'tially (increasing oscillation).
Other behaviiors (not shown) suggest tat u may (a) Behavior 102
reach a value less than it had initially. Figure 5(b
shows another behavior that exhibits oscillatory,
almost cyclic, behvlor. At time point TIO, bothi te r. s *64*
< ,t I,****4,.- _I,
process vanable y and th input u achieve the same
1

w~~~~~ rerl
. 1 1 4 t 9

values tha they had initialy. While thiis behavior 4! 1_4t_ T1 ;o 46 Proas , U . . .
, 4
may appear cyclic, it 'is not auy a cycle since u does PrOCM3 Std y
Ts v S1 n ?I
Prcss hqt u
2

not also have the samne derivative at TIO as it did

initially (while y does). The variations 'in these (b) Behavior 701
behaviors suggest tha the current qualitative model
predicts botli increasing and decreasing behaviors', Figure 5: Two Qualitative Behaviors frm Initial
andi 'inclasing aned decreasing osciflatons withiin th Stare 1
same behavilor. Tle criteria for oscillatory

1363
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nac de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Downloaded on February 03,2024 at 12:56:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

rl r2 a
-
'EI(kkc + 1) ±4i (kc )2 - 4VCIkc
2T
The sign of the term m the radical determines
whether the system will be over-damped (+),
critically-damped (0), or under-damped (-). In all
cases, because of the real part of the root is always
negative, the behavior is asymptotically stable.
Thus, all predictions from te qualitative model ffia
are not asymptotically stable are spurious. Since the
point where oscillatory dynamics become possible
occurs when fte term under fte radical becomes
negative, Xt condition for oscillatory behaviors is
(after rangn
q ((kkc + )2) 1
(8)
An interesting property of this expression is hat the
term in brackets in Equation 8 is always gratertha
or equal to I (for positive values of k and kc).
Hence, in order for th overall expression on the left
hand side of Equation 8 to be less than 1, the ratio
'1ft must be less than 1. This inequality, lfr< 1,
represents a necessary condition for oscillatory
dynamics. However, this inequality is not a
sufficient condition because even if 'r/tk < 1 is
satisfied, the second term on the left hand side of
Equation 8 may be sufficiently greater than ¶/? so
that the overall expression is greater than one.
The necessary condition for oscillatory behaviors
derived above, 'cft < 1, has also been captured in
t qualitive model as the equivalent condition oc -
r < a. Only thse ntial sates in Table l that had r
- z < 0 give rise to owritry behaviors like those in
Figure 5. All of these 'intal staes withiX -'c <O
also genrate non-oscillatory behaviors ilustrting
that this inequality (ci - Xc <0) is not a sufficient
condition. The sufficient condition, Equation 8, is
not explicitly captured in the qualitative model.
Nonetheless, the qualitaive model does identify the
necessary conditions, and predicts both over-
damped and oscillatory behaviors for those initial
states.
Constraining Oscillatory Behaviors
A common viewpoint for analyzing dynamic
systems is the phase space. This approach provides
the "big picture" of the process dynamics. For the
first-order system with a PI controller, a phase
plane can constructed between the process output y,
and the input u. Figure 6 shows the phase plane
diagrams for the two time domain behaviors of te
PI controller system in Figure 5. The dashed lines
indicate the values of the variables at the quiescent
state, should the system achieve quiescence. In
Figure 6(b), the y vs u plot forms a closed path,
intersecting itself at TIO where it had started at TO
(at coordinates (0, u-0)). In phase plane analysis, a
1364
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nac de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Downloaded on February 03,2024 at 12:56:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
I
:
4t
-
4
*J .. .
K
. *--: If N.
.
' /
10 * . V. -
y-ES 0 U+ y-0
behlO2Oni) ywu
v 2 bhO (il) yvsu
X
(a) Behavior 102 (b) Behavior 701
Figure 6: y vs u Phase-Plane Plots for Behaviors
102 and 701 in Fgure 5
closed path corresponds to periodic or cyclic
behavior in the time domain. As discussed
previously, the time domain behavior for the phase
plot in Figure 6(b) is not periodic since the variables
y and u are not in the exact same state ftat they had
the first time they passed through point (0, u-O).
Hence, this behavior and others like it are spurios.
In Figure 6(a), the trajectory of the y vs. as phase
plot interects itself (between time points 1T7 and T8
in Figure 5(a)). While the time domain plots of this
phase plane behavior in Figure 5(a) do not reveal
any apparent inconsistencies, Lee and Kuipers
(1988) and Struss (1988) have shown that self
intersecting phase plane trajectories like that in
Figure 6(a) do represent spurious behaviors. These
intersections, caused by a loss of quantitative
knowledge in abstracting to qualitative models,
suggest that one variable may be exhibiting an
increasng or steady oscillion at one period during
Xt simulation, and later change to a decreasing
oscillations within the same behavior. The recent
developments by Lee and Kuipers (1988) and
Struss (1988) provide algorithms for identifying
these inconsistencies in qualitative time-domain
simulation. These methods provide an additional
global filter for identfying and elimi ng spurious
behaviors. When the phase planes of the oscillatory
variable in the model are checked by te NIC fiter,
an intractable set of behaviors is still generated by
the qualitative model. However, each variable in
each of these behaviors has an oscillatory tajectory
with decreasing amplitude. This feature is
charaerized in phase space diagrams by trajetories
that spiral inward to an asymptotic value (the
quiescent point). This result agrees with the
previous analysis that showed that the real parts of
the roots to the characteristic equation for this
system were negative for all possible (positive)
parameter values.
While the qualitative model tor the controlled
system has correctly predicted only stable
behaviors, an intractable set of predictions are
generated. The features ta distinguish the various
 be divided into two main categories. One
distnguishing feature of the various quiescent
behaviors is the number of time points ffiat make up
fte behavior. Some quiescent oscillatory behaviors
teminate after 10 time points while ofter trminate
after 20 (or more if the computer resources are
inceased). The various behavior lengths represent
various amounts of an oscillatory behavior. In its
present implementation, QSIM does not have the
ability to reognize (stable or unstable) oscillatory
behaviors unless they axe perfectly cyclic like the
frictionless mass and spring system (Kuipers, -1
1986). Hence, an oscillatory behavior can have 0 2 4
arbitary "lgts" in QSIM reping portons of TIME
the analytically infinite behavior.
Figure 7: Varying Phases in a Quantitative Behavior
The othersource of disdnguishing feaures in the
intractable set of behaviors is caused by a
phenomenon refenred to as "occrrnce brnching."
Specifically, when two variables are each
approaching a landmark value, either variable may
achieve their larkmar before tie other variable, or -27

they can achieve their respective landmarks a_4_^_s

1 4 fi _& 3_ IA2 ;S 411 ;7. -,
simultanously. For example, when the variable u TiT I1 iT if i4 1n . nTl134. 1 1 4g 4

approaches its la rk zero in the interval M T8)

in Figure 5(b), the variable y is also approaching a
steady point Without any additional constaints on a114

these values, the simulation branches and the 104

number of behaviors increases by a factor of thee. 7

In general, these distinctions are real, and depend

I4
on the specific parameters of the model P kpdut
pi _p u
(Dale Mol}e and Edgar, 1989).
Analyzing the Phase Characteristics of the &*: 66 6 .4
46
~ ~
-1-4
N -144
Qualitative Behaviors jIbq
-Ii

Figure 7 shows a numerical simulation for the PI

contller that corresponds with initial state 13 in 3IaaIaa
Is 4S.
Error ..__ I
4,I
If J

Table 1 for the qualitative modeL For this case, the

0d -1 o f E""norn
T 4.t 2= 4D 1 1 X

parameter values are k = 1.l, X = 1,t = 0.1, and kc

= 0.8. The constant phase property of this
quantitative behavior is well defined. Specifically,
the order in which critical points (maxima and
minima) are achieved is constant: dy/di, u, integral
of error, y, dy/dt, u, integral of error, y, etc.. As the
parameters of the system vary, the precise amount
of lead or lag changes, but the relative order of these
events is the same. Figure 8 shows a qualitative
prediction from initial sate 13 that illustates thiatt
relative order of achieving each critical point is the
same as the order prescribed by the quantitative
model in Figure 7. If this analysis were done on
other behaviors from the same initialization, the
same phase order would be exhibited. If the
analysis were also done on behaviors from the other
initial sates that generate oscillatory predictions, Xt
same phase order would exist, but may initiate with
a different variable.
Figure 8: Phase Features of a Qualitative Behavior
The time domain solution of the response of the
process output y to a unit setpoint change (Equafion
6) has been discussed in detail by Seborg et. al.
(1989). One property of the time domain solution is
that only when under-damped behaviors are
possible can the response ofy ever exceed its final
value. Hence, behavior 5 from initial state 7
(mentioned previously) is spurious. Another
important feature of the solution presented in
Seborg et. al. (1989) is that the process output, y, is
always positive. The results of the oscillatory
systems even with the properly constrained phase
plane behaviors still predicts that the controlled
variable may become 0 (but not negative as in

1365
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nac de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Downloaded on February 03,2024 at 12:56:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Figure 5). In general, the nature of these spurous
behaviors is atnbzted to th local natu of the limit
analyss approach to prpagation and the qualitive
descriptiont New techniques for copig with these
limitations are te goals of futuie researh.
Incorporating Quantitative Knowledge
into Qualitative Models
While the qualitative model captures all of the
behaviors possible of a gven system, fte number of
behaviors can often be too large to be manageable
Furthermore, the resulting qualitative description
may be too weak to be useful. When knowledge of
process parameters and functionalities is known,
this information could be used in a qualitative model
to reduce the number of predictions and to provide
more descriptive result Kuipers and Berleant
(1988) have develop a method for incorporating
limited knowledge of quantitative information into
QSIM models.
As an example of this approach, the PI controller
system can be given numerical information to
reduce the number of behaviors generated from the
qualitative simulation. Since the process may not
always be known exactly, ranges are imposed on
te process gain and time consnt. On Xt other
hand, the controller parameters are usually known
quite accurately. Figure 9 shows the unique
qualitative behavior predicted for the case where fte
process parameters are known to be within 10% of
the nominal values k = 1= while the controller
parameters are known exactly: 'r = 2 ,and kc = 0.8.
By specifying quantitative information, three of the
four behaviors of the qualitative model for this case
(Figures 2 and 3) are refuted by the quantitative
reasoner. Furthermore the final values of the input
and output have ranges, rather than merely
qualitative landmarks.
Conclusions and Future Directions
In this work, a qualitative model for a first-order
system with a PI contoller was developed. The
model required the use of curvatre and phase space
constains to make the set of qualitative peWdictions
manageable. Certain iniilizions of the qualitative
model satisfied the necessary condition for
exhibiting oscillator dynamics, and these
initializations generated both under- and over-
damped behaviors. For fte caws where oscillatory
behaviors were generated, the qualitative model
captured the proper phase relationships present im
the quantitative model. However, the behaviors
were not sufficiently constained to prevent a class
of spurious behaviors from being generated. These
unexpected behaviors suggested that the controlled
variable could become zero during the simulation.
When partial knowledge of quantitative informaton
was used in the qualitative model, a unique
prediction with quantitative ranges on the final
values of the input and output was generated.
1366
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nac de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Downloaded on February 03,2024 at 12:56:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Figure 9: Urnque Prediction with Quantitative
Information
While the results of qualitative modeling appear
promising, there are sill areas q ng additonal
research. As qualitative models become more
complex and generate larger and larger sets of
behaviors, techniques for automatically aalyzing
and classifying behaviors will be needed.
Automating the model buildig process would also
expedite reasomng with larger, more complex
systems. In addition to dealing with th problem of
system dimension, stronger methods for reasoning
qualitatively and quantitatively about time are
needed. For example, qualitative simulation
currenty cannot represent and reason about systems
with time delay. Since this featue is common in
many systems, an approach for reasomnng about the
effects of time delay on qualitative behaviors could
have significant benefits.
Acknowledgement
This work was funded in part by the Texas
Advanced Technology Program (TATP). Portions
of this work took place at the Qualitative Reasoning
Group in the Ardficial Itlligence Laboratory of Xt
University ofTexas which. is funded in part by NSF
gsant IRI 8602665 and by NASA grants NAG 2-
507 NAG 9-200.
References
Chiu, C., "Higher Order Derivative Constraints and
a QSIM-Based Total Qualitative Simulation
Scheme," Technical Report A1TR88-65, University
of Texas, Austin, Texas (1988).
Chiu, C., "System Property and Third-Order
Constraints in Qualitative Simulation," Technical
Report AITR89-xx in preparation, University of
Texas, Austin, Texas (1989).
Dalle Molle, D. T., B. J. Kuipers, and T. F. Edgar,
"Qualitative Modeling and Simulatioof-Dynamnic
Systems," Computers and Chemical Engineering,
12 (9/10), 853-866 (1988a).
Dalle Molle, D. T., T. F. Edgar, and B. J. Kuipers,
"Qualitative Modeling of Physical Systems," in
proceedings of the Third International Synposium
on Process Systems Engineering 1988, Sydney,
rhe histitution of Engineers, Australia, (1988b).
 Dalle Molle, D. T., "Automatic Evaluation of Sacks, E., "Qualitative Analysis by Piecewise
Third-Order Constraints in Qualitative Simulation," Linear Approximation," Artificial Intelligence in
Technical Report AITR89-98, Department of Engineering, a3), 151-155 (1988).
Computer Sciences, University of Texas, (1989a).
Seborg, D. E., T. F. Edgar, and D. A. Mellichamp,
Dalle Molle, D. T., "Qualitative Modeling of Process Dynamics and Control, Wiley, New York
Chemical Processes," Ph. D. Dissertation, (1989).
University of Texas at Austin (1989b).
Struss, P., "Global Filters for Qualitative
Dalle Molle, D. T., and T. F. Edgar, "Qualitative Behaviors," In Proceedings AAAI-88, Minnapolis
Modeling of Chemical Reaction Systems," in AI (1988).
Applications in Process Engineering, M. L.
Mavrovouniotis, editor, Academic-Press, (1989). Williams, B., "MINIMA: A Symbolic Approach to
Qualitative Algebraic Reasoning," In Proceedings
Dvorak, D. L., and B. J. Kuipers, "Model-based AAAJ-88, (1988).
Monitoring of Dynamic Systems," In Proceedings
IJCIA-89, Detroit (1989).
de Kleer, J., and J. S. Brown, "A Qualitative
Physics Based on Confluences," Al Journal, 24 7
(1984).
Forbus, K., "Qualitative Process Theory," Al
Journal, 2L4. 85 (1984).
Kuipers, B., "Commonsense Reasoning about
Causality: Derivng Structure from Behavior," Al
Journal, 24.. 169 (1984).
Kuipers, B., WQualitative Simulation," Al Journal,
22. 289 (1986).
Kuipers, B., and C. Chiu, "Taming Intractable in
Qualitative Simulation," In Proceedings IJCM-87,
Milan (1987h
Kuipers, B., and D. Berleant, "Using Incomplete
Quantitative Knowledge in Qualitative Reasoning,"
In Proceedings AAAI-88, Minneapolis (1988).
Kuipers, B. J., C. Chiu, D. T. Dale Molle, and D.
R. Throop, "Curvature Constraints in Qualitative
Simulation." in peparaion.
Lee, W. W., and B. J. Kuipers, "Non-Intersection
of Trajectories in Qualitative Phase Space: A Global
Constraint for Qualitative Simulation," In
Proceedings AAA1-88, Mineapolis (1988).
Mavrovouniotis, M. L., and G. Stephanopoulos,
"Fonmal Order-of-Magnitude Reasoning in Process
Engineering,'" Computers and Chemical
Engineering, 12 (9/10), 867-880 (1988)
Oyeleye, -0. O., and M. A. Kmmer, "Qualitative
Simulation of Chemical Process Systems: Steady-
state Analysis," AlChE Journal, i4(9) 1441-1454
(1988).

1367
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nac de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Downloaded on February 03,2024 at 12:56:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.