Feedforward and Ratio QTY Control Feedback control loops can never achieve perfect control of a chemi- cal process, that is, keep the output of the process continuously at the desired set point value in the presence of load or set point changes. The reason is simple: A feedback controller reacts only after it has detected a deviation in the valuc of the output from the desired set point. Unlike the feedback systems, a feedforward control configuration measures the disturbance (load) directly and takes control action to eliminate its impact on the process output. Therefore, feedforward controllers have the theoretical potential for perfeet control. In this section we study the characteristics of feedforward control systems and describe the techniques that are used for their design. In the final section we examine a special case of feedforward control, ratio control. 21.1 Logic of Feedforward Control Consider the stirred tank heater shown in Figure 1.1. The control objec- tive is to keep the temperature of the liquid in the tank at a desired value (set point) despite any changes in the temperature of the inlet stream. Figure 1.2 shows the conventional feedback loop, which meas- ures the temperature in the tank and after comparing it with the desired value, increases or decreases the steam pressure, thus providing more or less heat into the liquid. A feedforward control system uses a differ-Disturbance @ Oo) Figure 21.1 Structure of (a) feedforward, and (b) feedback control schemes. ent approach. It measures the temperature of the inlet stream (disturb- ance) and adjusts appropriately the steam pressure (manipulated varia- ble). Thus it increases the steam pressure if the inlet temperature decreases and decreases the steam pressure when the inlet temperature goes up. Figure 1.4 shows the feedforward control configuration. In Figure 21.la we can see the general form of a feedforward control system. It measures the disturbance directly and then it anticipates the effect that it will have on the process output. Subsequently, it changes the manipulated variable by such an amount as to eliminate completely the impact of the disturbance on the process output (controlled varia- ble). Control action starts immediately after a change in the disturb- ance(s) has been detected. In Figure 21.1b we have repeated the schema- tic of a typical feedback loop so that you can contrast the two control systems directly. It is clear that feedback acts after the fact in a compen- Satory manner, whereas feedforward acts beforehand in an anticipatory manner. Let us now look at some common feedforward control systems used in chemical processes. Example 21.1: Feedforward Control of Various Processing Units 1. Feedforward control of a heat exchanger (shown in Figure 21.2a): The objective is to keep the exit temperature of the liquid constant by manipulating the steam pressure. There are two principal distur- bances (loads) that are measured for feedforward control: liquid flow rate and liquid inlet temperature. 2. Feedforward control of a drum boiler (shown in Figure 21.2b): Here the objective is to keep the liquid level in the drum constant. The two disturbences are the steam flow from the boiler, which is dic- tated by varying demand elsewhere in the plant, and the flow of the feedwater. The last is also the principal manipulated variable. 3. Feedforward control of a distillation column (shown in Fig-Fectlarars fect tora PE Pas r Dose ae Sec pit Fried Et t > Figure 21.2 Examples of feedforward control: (a) heat exchanger; (b) drum boiler; (c) distillation column; (d) CSTR. ure 21.2c): The two disturbances here are the feed flow rate F and the composition c. The available manipulated variables are the steam pressure in the reboiler and the reflux ratio. The composition of overhead or bottom product is the control objective. Feedfor- ward control is particularly useful for a distillation column, because its response time can be measured in hours leading to large amounts of off-specification products. 4. Feedforward control of a CSTR (shown in Figure 21.24): Inlet con- centration and temperature are the two disturbances, and the prod- ‘uct withdrawal flow rate and the coolant flow rate are the two manipulations. There are two objectives: to maintain constant tem- perature and composition within the CSTR.21.5 Ratio Control Ratio control is a special type of feedforward control where two distur- bances (loads) are measured and held in a constant ratio to each other. It is mostly used to control the ratio of flow rates of two streams. Both flow rates are measured but only one can be controlled. The stream whose flow rate is not under control is usually referred to as wild stream, Figure 21.9a and b show two different ratio control configurations for two streams. Stream A is the wild stream. 1. In configuration 1 (Figure 21.9a) we measure both flow rates and take their ratio, This ratio is compared to the desired ratio (set point) and the deviation (error) between the measured and desired ratios constitutes the actuating signal for the ratio control- ler. 2. In configuration 2 (Figure 21.9b) we measure the flow rate of the wild stream A and multiply it by the desired ratio. The result is the flow rate that the stream B should have and constitutes the set point value which is compared to the measured flow rate of stream B, The deviation constitutes the actuating signal for the controller, which adjusts appropriately the flow of B. Ratio control is used extensively in chemical processes with the following as the most commonly encountered examples: . Keep a constant ratio between the feed flow rate and the steam in the reboiler of a distillation column. Hold constant the reflux ratio in a distillation column. Control the ratio of two reactants entering a reactor at a desired value. . Hold the ratio of two blended streams constant, in order to main- tain the composition of the blend at the desired value. Hold the ratio of a purge stream to the recycle stream constant. Keep the ratio of fuel/air in a burner at its optimum value (most efficient combustion). . Maintain the ratio of the liquid flow rate to vapor flow rate in an absorber constant, in order to achieve the desired composition in the exit vapor stream. Poy 2 ay“Wild” stream Desired ratio Divider Measured ratio Controllable stream FT: flow sensor-transmitter @ “Wild” stream 4 i Ga | Ratio R_} tcontroter t --J Controllable stream FT: flow sensor-transmitter tb) Figure 21.9 Alternative configurations of ratio control systems.Control Systems 20 with Multiple Loops The feedback control configuration involves one measurement (output) and one manipulated variable in a single loop. There are, however, other simple control configurations which may use: More than one measurement and one manipulation, or One measurement and more than one manipulated variables In such cases control systems with multiple loops may arise. Typical examples of such configurations, that we will study in the present chapter, are the following: 1, Cascade control 2. Various types of selective control 3. Split-range control Before proceeding we should emphasize that these control systems involve loops that are not separate but share either the single manipu- lated variable or the only measurement. In this respect the multiple- loop control systems of this chapter are generically different from those we will study in Chapters 23 and 24.20.1 Cascade Control In a cascade control configuration we have one manipulated variable and more than one measurement. It is clear that with a single manipu- lation we can control only one output. Let us now examine the motiva- tion behind cascade control and its typical characteristics using an example from the chemical processes. Example 20.1: Cascade Control for a Jacketed CSTR Consider the CSTR shown in Figure 1.7. The reaction is exothermic and the heat generated is removed by the coolant, which flows in the jacket around the tank. The contro! objective is to keep the temperature of the reacting mixture, 7, constant at a desired value. Possible distur- bances to the reactor include the feed temperature 7, and the coolant temperature T.. The only manipulated variable is the coolant flow rate F,, Simple feedback control. If we use simple feedback, we will take the control configuration shown in Figure 20. la (i.e., measure temperature T and manipulate coolant flow rate F,), It is clear that T will respond much faster to changes in T, than to changes in T. Therefore, the simple feedback control of Figure 20.1a will be very effective in compensating for changes in T; and less effective in compensating for changes in T-.. Cascade control. We can improve the response of the simple feedback control to changes in the coolant temperature by measuring T. and taking control action before its effect has been felt by the reacting mixture. Thus, if T. goes up, increase the flow rate of the coolant to remove the same amount of heat. Decrease the coolant flow rate when 7’, decreases. We notice, therefore, that we can have two control loops using two different measurements, T and T., but sharing a common manipulated variable, F ,. How these loops are related is shown in Figure 20.1. There we notice that: (a) The loop that measures T (controlled variable) is the dominant, or primary, or master control loop and uses a set point supplied by the operator, while (b) The loop that measures T. uses the output of the primary controller as its set point and is called the secondary or slave loop. The control configuration with these two loops is known as cascade control and is very common in chemical processes,Feed Set point —. Coolant Product Set point — Coolant Product (b) TT, temperature sensor and transmitter TC, temperature controller Figure 20.1 Temperature control of jacketed CSTR: (a) conventional feedback; (b) cascade. Let us generalize the discussion above. Consider a process consisting of two parts, as shown in Figure 20.2a: process I and process II. Process 1 (primary) has as its output the variable we want to control. Process II (secondary) has an output that we are not interested in controlling but which affects the output we want to control. For the CSTR system of Example 20.1, process I is the reaction in the tank and the controlled output is the temperature 7. Process II is the jacket and its output 7. affects process I (reactor) and consequently T. Figure 20.2b shows the typical simple feedback control system, andargue paveindiveyyFigure 20.2c indicates the general form of cascade control. The last figure demonstrates very clearly the major benefit to be gained by cascade control: Disturbances arising within the secondary loop are corrected by the secondary controller before they can affect the value of the primary controlled output. This important benefit has led to the extensive use of cascade control in chemical processes. Example 20.2: Cascade Control for Various Processes Let us describe the use of cascade control in various typical processing systems. 1. Heat exchangers: The typical configuration is shown in Figure 20.3a. The control objective is to keep the exit temperature of stream 2 at a desired value. The secondary loop is used to compen- sate for changes in the flow rate of stream 1. Distillation columns: Cascade control is usually employed to regu- late the temperature (and consequently the concentration) at the top or bottom ofa distillation column. Figure 20.3b and c show two such typical cascade control systems. In both cases the secondary loop is used to compensate for flow rate changes. Furnaces: Cascade control can be used to regulate the temperature of a process stream (e.g., feed to a reactor) exiting from a furnace. Figure 20.3d shows the resulting cascade configuration. Again, the secondary loop is used to compensate for flow rate changes (fuel flow rate). x 2 The reader should notice that in all the cascade configurations of Example 20.2, the secondary loop is used to compensate for flow rate changes. This observation is quite common in chemical processes and we could state: In chemical processes, flow rate control loops are almost always cascaded with other control loops. Let us now turn our attention to the closed-loop behavior of cascade control systems. Consider the block diagram of a general cascade sys- tem shown in Figure 20.4a. To simplify the presentation we have assumed that the transfer functions of the measuring devices are both equal to 1. The closed-loop response of the primary loop is influenced by thedynamics of the secondary loop, whose open-loop transfer function is equal to G secondary = Gesu pt (20.1) The stability of the secondary loop is determined by the roots of its characteristic equation 1+ GenGpn=0 (20.2) Figure 20.4b shows a simplified form of the general block diagram (Figure 20.4a), where the secondary loop has been considered as a dynamic element. For the primary loop the overall open-loop transfer function is Genoa -G. 20. Grins Gof Settee Gr (203) ny Ske SL Oa fir a Soon n npe® Sor St © st! Co] siren? Daa ineFigure 20.4 (a) Block diagram of a cascade control system; (b) simpli- fied, but equivalent form. and consequently the characteristic equation whose roots determine the stability of the primary loop is the following: GenG Al 1+6, (GaGa \e =0 20.4 N14 GiGa) leFeedback Control 19 of Systems with Large Dead Time or Inverse Response All the chapters of Part IV were devoted to the analysis and design of feedback control systems for rather simple processes. In this chapter we are concerned with the feedback control of two special types of systems: those with large dead times or inverse responses. We will see that for such systems, conventional P PI, or PID controllers may not be sufficient to yield the desired response. 19.1 Processes with Large Dead Time Consider the general feedback control system of Figure 14.1. All the dynamic components of the loop may exhibit significant time delays in their response. Thus: 1, The main process may involve transportation of fluids over long distances or include phenomena with long incubation periods. 2. The measuring device may require long periods of time for com- pleting the sampling and the analysis of the measured output (a gas chromatograph is such a device). 3. The final control element may need some time to develop the actuating signal. 4. A human controller (decision maker) may need significant time to think and take the proper control action.In all of the situations noted above, a conventional feedback controller would provide quite unsatisfactory closed-loop response, for the follow- ing reasons: 1. A disturbance entering the process will not be detected until after a significant period of time. 2. The control action that will be taken on the basis of the last measurement will be inadequate because it attempts to regulate a situation (eliminate an error) that originated awhile back in time. 3. The control action will also take some time to make its effect felt by the process. 4. Asa result of all the factors noted above, significant dead time is a significant source of instability for closed-loop responses. Example 19.1: Dead Time as a Main Source of Closed-Loop Instability Consider the open-loop transfer function Keele "OSs +1 If tg = 0.01 min (i.e. very small), crossover frequency = 160 rad/min and the ultimate gain = 80.01. 2. Suppose that the dead time is increased to t, = 0.1. Then the cross- over frequency = 17 rad/min and the ultimate gain = 8.56. We notice that the increase in dead time has introduced significant additional phase lag, which reduces the crossover frequency and the maximum allowable gain. In other words, the increase in dead time has made the closed-loop response more sensitive to periodic disturbances and has brought the system closer to the brink of instability. 3. A further increase in dead time, (ie., f4= 1.0) yields a crossover frequency = 2.3 rad/min and an ultimate gain = 1.52. We see the same trends as above. ‘We see from Example 19.1 that as the dead time ofan open-loop transfer function increases, the following two undesirable effects take place: 1. The crossover frequency decreases. This implies that the closed- loop response will be sensitive even to lower-frequency periodic disturbances entering the system. 2. The ultimate gain decreases. Therefore, to avoid the instabilities of the closed-loop response, we must reduce the value of the Proportional gain K., which leads to sluggish response. Figure 19.1 graphically depicts these results. The discussion above indicates that a control system different fromeee 23 17 160 o Figure 19.1 Effect of dead time on crossover frequency (Example 19.1) the conventional feedback loop is needed to compensate for dead-time effects. 19.2 Dead-Time Compensation In the preceding section we identified the critical need for more effec- tive control of processes with significant dead time. In this section we discuss a modification of the classical feedback control system which was proposed by O.J.M. Smith for the compensation of dead-time effects. It is known as the Smith predictor or the dead-time compensa- tor. To understand the nature of the dead-time compensation proposed by Smith, consider the simple feedback loop with set point changes only shown in Figure 19.2a, We have assumed that all the dead time is caused by the process: G(s) = G(s)e"™ and that for simplicity, G,,(s) = G;(s) = 1. The open-loop response to a change in the set-point is equal to VWs) = GAs G(s) e“4"] Ysols) (19.1) (ie,, it is delayed by ¢, minutes).Controller il + Feel) G60) Lp Gis) LY eles > 56) © Figure 19.2 (a) Feedback system with process dead time; (b) feedback with complete dead-time compensation; (c) net result of dead-time com- pensation, In order to eliminate the undesired effects, we would like to have an open-loop feedback signal that carries current and not delayed informa- tion, such as VAs) = Gs)G(s)Vs0(s) (19.2) This is possible if in the open-loop response j(s) we add the quantity V(s) = (1 - e'#)G (s)G(s)Vsels) (19.3) It is easy to verify that V(s) + Hs) = 9") The implication of adding y’(s) to the signal p(s) is shown in Figure 19.2b. There we notice that the signal y’(s) can be taken by a simplelocal loop around the controller, which is called the dead-time compen- sator ot Smith predictor. The simplified loop of Figure 19.2c is com- pletely equivalent to that of Figure 19.2b and indicates the real effect of the dead-time compensator: It moves the effect of dead time outside the loop. Remarks 1. In the block diagram of Figure 19.2c it is not correct to think that we take a measurement signal after the block G(s) because such a signal is not measurable in a real process with dead time. The only measurable signals are the process output, y(s), and the manipu- lated variable. Therefore, the block diagram of Figure 19.2c is meant to give only a schematic representation of what is the effect of the dead-time compensator, not to depict physical reality. 2. The dead-time compensator predicts the delayed effect that the manipulated variable will have on the process output. This pre- diction led to the term Smith predictor and it is possible only if we have a model for the dynamics of the process (transfer func- tion, dead time), 3, In most process control problems the model of the process is not perfectly known; that is, G(s) and ty are known only approxi- mately. Consider that G(s) and t, represent the “true” charac- teristics of the process, while G’(s) and 14 represent their approxi- mations, as these are given by some mathematical model for the process. Then, using G’(s) and t4 to construct the Smith predic- tor, we take the system shown in Figure 19.3. In this case the composite open-loop feedback signal is YAS) = HS) + V(5) =[G.Ge" + (1- e#)6.6'TYsAs) or Ys) = GG’ + (Ge - Ge" )IVe(s) (19.4)TaBle 21 ReLaTIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FEEDFORWARD AND FEEDBACK CONTROL Advantages Disadvantages Feedforward 1. Acts before the effect ofa disturbance 1, Requires identification ofall possible hhas been felt by the system. disturbances and their direct 2s good for slow systems measurement, (multicapacity) or with significant dead 2. Cannot cope with unmeasured time, disturbances. 3.1tdoes not introduce instability in the 3, Sensitive to process parameter closed-loop response, variations. 4, Requires good knowledge of the process model. Feedback 1, It does not require identification and 1. It waits until the effect of the measurement of any disturbance, disturbances has been felt by the 2. Iti insensitive to modeling errors, system, before control action is taken. 3. Its insensitive to parameter changes. 2. It is unsatisfactory for slow processes or with significant dead time. 3. I may create instability m the closed-loop response.