You are on page 1of 26

Acknowledgement

First of all, I am grateful to my teammate, Tan Li Xiu for the cooperation in completing this arduous advanced control project. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Prof. Azlan, lecturer of advanced control subject, for providing me with all the necessary knowledge. I place on record, my sincere gratitude to Mr Fauzi and Miss Jarinah. I am indebted to them for their expert, sincere and valuable guidance extended to me. I take this opportunity to thank my parents and other course mates for their constant encouragement.

Contents
Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................... i List of tables ............................................................................................................. iii List of figures ........................................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction..........................................................................................................1 1.1 Biodiesel ...........................................................................................................1 1.2 CSTR in series with recycle stream ..................................................................1 2. Literature review ..................................................................................................4 2.1 Conventional control system ............................................................................4 2.2 Cascade control system.....................................................................................5 2.3 Adaptive control system ...................................................................................6 3. Methodology ......................................................................................................10 3.1 Modelling equation .........................................................................................10 3.2 Control system design .....................................................................................11 3.3 Robustness of the system ................................................................................11 3.4 Simulink block diagram ..................................................................................12 4. Results and Discussion ......................................................................................16 4.1 Transfer function and PID gain value .............................................................16 4.2 Performance of various control system ..........................................................16 5. Conclusion .........................................................................................................22 6. References ..........................................................................................................23 7. Appendix ............................................................................................................23

ii

List of tables
Table Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Description Ideal output subjected to various input and operating conditions Classification of advanced control system Classification of adaptive control system Difference between MRAC and STR Parameters of adaptive filter Robust test for the various control systems Calculation result using ZN-method Comparison between 3 different control systems Page 3 6 7 7 9 10 16 22

List of figures
Figure Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Description Transesterification reaction of TG with DMC Series of CSTRs Schematic diagram of STR and MRAC system Simulink block diagram for controller and Lyapunov adaptation law Process instrument diagram of the series of CSTR Simulink block diagram for the system without and with conventional control system Simulink block diagram for subsystem for series of CSTRs Simulink block diagram for 3 advanced control system (cascade, MRAC and STR) Figure 9: Performance of CSTR, Ca without control system, with proportional controller at ultimate gain and with PID at ZN tuning (m=0.0005, Ca0=0.001, =1 =1) Figure 10: Performance of MRAC at different set point (m=0.006, 0.004 and 0.002; Ca0 = 0.005) Figure 11: Performance of STR at different weight (0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 at step size 1) and different step size (1, 100 and 1000 at weight 0.25) Figure 12: Simulink block diagram for the various control systems (PID, Cascade and STR) Figure 13: Conversion of the product using different control system (m=0, Ca0=0.005mol/dm3) Performance of various controllers (Test 1 = set point tracking; Test 2 = disturbance rejection; Test 3 = increase of transport delay; Test 4 = decrease of coolant ratio) Temperature profile of tank 3 at coolant ratio of 0.0003 Page 1 1 6 8 9 10 12 15 16 17 18 19 19 21 22

iii

1. Introduction
1.1 Biodiesel Biodiesel is a mixture of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) produced from triglycerides (TG). Currently, it is being viewed as the most potential candidate to replace fossil fuel. Transesterification of palm oil with dimethyl carbonate (DMC) is among the many possible reactions to produce fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) and glycerol dicarbonate (GDC) as shown in Figure 1[1]. The reaction is found to be first-order with respect to the concentration of triglycerides. Since the reaction is exothermic, a great control has to be done to obtain high yield.

Figure 1: Transesterification reaction of TG with DMC 1.2 CSTR in series with recycle stream While the rate constant of any reaction is temperature-dependent, the order of the reaction is not. Since the catalyst present in small amount, CSTR is usually used for such reaction. In this project, a series of CSTRs are being studied as shown in Figure 2. Reaction Rate of reaction : A (TG) B (FAME) :

Figure 2: Series of CSTRs

Product B (FAME) is produced and reactant A (TG) is consumed in each of the three perfectly mixed reactors by a first-order reaction occurring in the liquid. The inlet stream, q0 consists of TG and DMC while another stream, qm consists only of TG. The product stream is recycled to increase the conversion rate. It will be constantly drained from 3rd tank to prevent accumulation of reactants in the system. Several control systems will be used to maintain the concentration of reactant A from tank 3, CA3. The output from tank 3 must be able to follow the changes in set-point and maintain a constant value despite fluctuation in inlet concentration CA0. A good control of the stream from tank of pure A is the key to achieve this objective. It must be noted that high temperature favours the rate of reaction despite the reaction being exothermic. Thus, a coolant is necessary to maintain the temperature of the CSTR. In nominal operating condition, the following assumptions are made: The liquid volume is constant in each reactor. No reaction occurs in the pipe. The resistance in the pipe is negligible. Density and specific heat of the mixture are constant. Coolant dynamics are negligible. The log mean temperature difference is approximated by using an arithmetic mean.

The operating parameters are: Concentration of inlet, CA0 Flow rate of pure A, m Volume of each tank, V Flow rate into 1st tank, F Fraction being recycled, a Surface area of the tank, A Temperature of coolant, Tc Feed temperature, Tf Rate constant of the reaction, k0 [1] = = = = = = = = = 0 to 0.005 mol/m3 0 to 0.001 m3/min 5 m3 0.5 m3/min 0.10 10 m2 298K 298K 1.26 x 109 min-1 Ratio of coolant, Transport delayed, Activation energy, E [1] Rate law, k [1] Density of mixture, [2] [2] Heat of reaction, Specific heat capacity, Cp [3] Heat transfer coefficient of steel, U0 = = = = = = = = 0 to 1 0 to 5 min 79.1 kJ/mol k0 exp (-9514/T) 0.887 kg/m3 6828 000 kJ/mol 0.130 kJ/mol*K 24 W/m2K

Table 1: Ideal output subjected to various input and operating conditions epic
6 x 10
-3

Input

Set point
m
0 x 10
-3

0 100 200 300 400 Time 500 600 700 800

10-3
T ransport Delay Disturbance

m1

-1

m2 18.33
0 2 4 6 8 10 Time 12 14 16
-4

10-2
PID
18 20

-2

-3

1 0.8 0.6

x 10

m3 Add

Final PID Controller control element


m Ca1 Ca3 T1 T2 T3

Operating conditions

0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1

0.001 White Noise Manual Switch


0 1 2 3 4 5 Time 6 7 8 9 10

Measuring element fluctuations Ca2

Gain1

10-5
Tj

Ca0

m1

T ransport Delay

Ca0

beta

Transport delay in measuring element Concentration


CST Rs

1 minutes or 2 minutes
18.33 PID

m2

Tc

m3 Add
6 x 10
-3

Final PID Controller control element beta


m Ca1 No overshoot Ca2
300

Amount of coolant in CSTR 1 or 0.0005 0.00001


a1
250

Ideal Output

0.001
4

Ca0 Tj beta

White Noise

Manual Switch 3
2

Gain1

Minimum Ca3 response T1 time Minimum T3 fluctuations


CST Rs
150

200

T2

150

Ca0

100

50

25

50

Tc

75 Time

100

125

Stable temperature

T emperature
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Concentration of Tank 3 outlet

Temperature of the CSTR

beta a1

2. Literature review
2.1 Conventional control system Conventional control system utilized the feedback mechanism with PID controller. A major disadvantage of feedback control is that it can cause oscillatory responses. If the oscillation has small amplitude and damps out quickly, then the control system performance is generally considered to be satisfactory. However, under most circumstances, the oscillations may be undamped or even have amplitude that increases with time until a physical limit is reached, such as a control valve being fully open or completely shut. In these situations, the closed-loop system is said to be unstable. Besides, it is unsatisfactory for processes with significant dead time. There are three types of conventional controller commonly used which are P, PI and PID controllers. The selection of controller type and its parameters are based on the model of the process to be controlled. PID controllers use a 3 basic behaviour types or modes: P (proportional), I (integrative) and D (derivative). The proportional controller produces an overshoot followed by an oscillatory response [4]. It has an output signal which does not equal to set point and proportional to an error, . The time domain model is: = = = = where Output signal from controller Proportional gain / sensitivity Error (set point measured variable) Constant (bias value)

The proportional-integral controller produces a smaller overshoot but larger period of oscillation. One major advantage of the integral action is the elimination of offset after a long settling time. The time domain model is: where = = = Proportional gain / sensitivity Integral time Error (set point measured variable)

The proportional-integral-derivative controller produces a smallest overshoot and quickest to return to set point. However, it is very difficult to tune because of 3 parameters being involved. It is necessary for process of higher order and offset is not tolerable. The time domain model is: where = = = Proportional gain / sensitivity Integral time Derivative time

This case study is tune using Ziegler and Nicholos (ZN) method. This is because it is more popular and achieve satisfactory control as compared to Cohen-Coon (CC) method. Both method is a heuristic PID tuning rule that used to determine good values for the PID gain parameters. The steps of tuning by using Z-N method are: 1 2 The integral and derivative modes of controller are removed, leaving only proportional controller A value of proportional gain, Kc for disturbing the system is selected and the transient response is observed. The value of Kc is increased in small steps until the system achieve a response with oscillation of constant amplitue. At this point, the value of gain and period of oscillation are corresponded to ultimate gain, Kcu and ultimate period, Pu respectively. 3 From the values of Kcu and Pu obtained from previous step, the controllers parameters can be determined by the ZN rules. 2.2 Cascade control system Conventional control system can never achieve satisfactory response in real processes especially when it deals with non-linear system. Thus, various advanced control system is introduced as shown in Table 1. A cascade control system consists of two feedback controllers and two measuring elements. The primary controller is known as master controller and the secondary controller is known as slave controller. The output of primary controller changes the set point of secondary controller before it finally adjusts the valve (actuator). The secondary controller is usually a proportional controller with high value of gain. This is to simplify the tuning and any

offset associated with proportional control of the inner loop can be eliminated by the integral action of the primary controller. Thus, primary controller is usually a PID controller. Cascade controller is better than conventional PID controller because it take measurement before it enters the final tank. Since disturbance affects the intermediate process output, the secondary controller limits this effect but the error between the input of tank 3 and the set point. It also limits the effect of actuator or process gain variations on the control system performance. Table 2: Classification of advanced control system Category Sub-category Classical Modern Adaptive Model-based Artificial intelligence Example Cascade, ratio, feed forward and time delay Model reference adaptive control (MRAC) and self-tuning regulator (STR) Model predictive controller (MPC), Global linearizing controller (GLC), Generic model controller (GMC) and Inverse model controller (IMC) Neural network (NN), Fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm

2.3 Adaptive control system Adaptive control system is defined as control system that monitors its own performance and adjusts its control mechanism in the direction of improved performance
[5]

. Ever since it was

introduced back in 1957 by Drenick and Shahbender, adaptive control has evolved into multiple different forms as shown in Table 2. All adaptive control system composed of inner loop and outer loop. Most of the research carried out focused on two adaptive control system: Model-reference adaptive control (MRAC) and Self-tuning regulator (STR). Although both are adaptive control system with almost similar performance, they have a lot of difference as shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. They are proposed as a method to adaptively stabilize a non-linear system with unknown model. MRAC manipulate the controller based on a proposed model. The model output and the actual process output are compared to adjust the parameters of the controller. Thus, a good reference model is required for the system to behave ideally. On the other hand, STR does not need a model. It utilizes computation to obtain estimated parameters and adjustment mechanism.

Table 3: Classification of adaptive control system Category Adaptive behaviour Algorithms Adaptive scheme Design method Estimator . Table 4: Difference between MRAC and STR System Application Analysis Algorithm Component Model Weight Design MRAC STR Deterministic servo problem Stochastic regulation problem Continuous time system Discrete time system Direct approach Indirect approach Reference model and adaptation Parameter estimator and adjustment mechanism mechanism Required No No Required MIT rule or Lyapunov rule LMS filter or Kalman filter Details Passive adaptation System characteristic adaptation Input signal adaptation Extremum adaptation System variable adaptation Direct system: parameters updated directly in direct system (implicit self tuning) Indirect system: controller parameters are obtained via design procedure (explicit self tuning). Gain scheduling Model-reference adaptive control (MRAC) Self-tuning regulator (STR) Minimum variance Pole placement Linear quadratic (LQ) Model following. Least square (LS) Instrumental variable Extended and generalized least Maximum likelihood square Stochastic approximation

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of STR and MRAC system

In MRAC, the adaptation law is the adaptation mechanism used to find the controller parameters (1 and 2). Common laws are gradient method (MIT rules) and Lyapunow stability theory. In Lyapunov theory, a first order system equation is used to simplify the derivation of differential equation for the error [6]. The process model given is

The Lyapunov function candidate has the following equation:

In order for the equation to be zero, then it will be as shown in Figure 4.

2 m 3 Q1 1 Q2 4 Ca3 Product2 1 Uc Product1


3 error 1 adaptation rate 4 Ca3

2 m Product1
gamma_e_u

-1 Gain

dQ1/dt

1 s Integrator

2 Q1

Product 1 s Integrator1

gamma_y _e

1 Gain1

dQ2/dt

1 Q2

Product2

Figure 4: Simulink block diagram for controller and Lyapunov adaptation law

The reference model is governed by the maximum overshoot (Mp) and settling time (Ts).

In STR, the series of CSTR can be modeled single-input-single-output system (SISO).

It can be rewritten as

where

In adaptive filter, there are several operating parameters that can be used in this case study as shown in Table 4. However, the two most important operating parameters are the step size and filter weight. There are various algorithms available such as least-mean-squared (LMS) method, normalized LMS, sign-error LMS, sign-data LMS and sign-sign LMS. Filter length is set at minimum 4, leakage factor of 1 with adaptation. Table 5: Parameters of adaptive filter Parameters Algorithm Filter length Step size Description LMS 4 1000 Parameters Leakage factor Filter weights Adapt port Description 0 or 1 0.04 0 or 1

3. Methodology
3.1 Modelling equation From mass balance, rate of accumulation = rate of flow in rate of flow out rate of consumption For tank 1, rate of accumulation of CA = Stream in (F) + Stream in (m) Outlet stream rate of reaction

From energy balance for coolant,

From energy balance for the reactor, rate of accumulation of heat = rate of heat flow in rate of heat flow out + rate of heat released from reaction rate of heat lost by cooling jacket

Similarly for tank 2 and tank 3:

10

3.2 Control system design Manipulated variable Disturbance variable Controlled variable : Flow rate of Pure A tank, m (mol/min) : Concentration of q0 stream, CA0 and inlet temperature, Tf : Concentration of tank 3 outlet, CA3 and outlet temperature, T3

Figure 5: Process instrument diagram of the series of CSTR The measuring element (sensors and transmitters) converts the concentration of A to an electronic signal. Specifically, the output of the measuring element varies from 4 to 20 mA as the concentration of A varies from 0.01 to 0.06 mol/m3 of A. The concentration measuring device is linear. The flow of A through the control valve varies linearly from 0 to 1 m3/min as the valvetop pressure varies from 3 to 15 psig. The time constant of valve is small compared with other time constants in the system that its dynamics can be neglected.

3.3 Robustness of the system Tuning is the adjustment of controller parameters to achieve a satisfactory control. Several different control system will be subjected to various conditions as shown in Table 5. There are several criterias where a system can be defined to be good or satisfactory. The observable criteria in the response are rise time, decay ratio and response time (+-5%). In term of error, it can be compared using the equation below.

11

Table 6: Robust test for the various control systems System Category Conventional Classical Advanced Modern Condition 1 2 3 4 Selected PID Cascade MRAC & STR

m (mol/dm3) CA0 (mol/dm3) Measuring element (min) 0 to 0.005 0.005 No noise 1 1 0.005 0 to 0.005 (noise) No noise 1 1 0.0005 0.005 With noise 2 1 0.0005 0.005 No noise 1 0.0005

3.4 Simulink block diagram From all those equations above, a block diagram is generated using Simulink as shown in Figure 5. The 4 manipulated variables are concentration of inlet (CA0), concentration of pure A (m), feed temperature (Tf) and temperature of coolant (Tc). Since the reaction is exothermic, controlling the concentration of the reactant can control both the reaction rate and temperature. Conventional control system is shown in Figure 6 with its detailed process shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 and 9 showed the advanced control system used in this project.
m m setpoint m

m1 Ca3 m2

Concentration

m1

Transport Delay

Concentration

m2 18.33 PID White Noise1

m3 Add
m Ca1 Ca2 Ca3 T1 T2 T3

m3 Add

Final PID Controller control element


m Ca1 Ca2 Ca3 T1 T2 T3

0.00001 0 No noise

0.001 White Noise Manual Switch Gain1

Ca0 Tj beta

0.001 White Noise Temperature Ca0 Manual Switch Gain1

Ca0 Tj beta

Ca0

CSTRs Tc Tc

CSTRs

Temperature

beta

beta

Figure 6: Simulink block diagram for the system without and with conventional control system

12

0.5 F 1 m 0.2 2 Ca0 0.5 F1 1.26e9 k0 -9514 -Ea 0 Constant -CH / pCp 298 Tf 4 beta -C- (UA / pCpV)*(T - Tj)

Tank 1
F+m (F+m)Ca1_0

1/V

1 s

Ca1

1 Ca1

eu

Tf - T 0.2 Product 1/V1 1 s Add1 -6.105 Display

T1

4 T1

UA / pCpV T - Tj 3 Tj

(UA / pCpV)*(T - Tj)

Integrator1

6.103 Display1

0.5 F2 0.05 aF aF(Ca3) F+m1 (F+m)Ca1_1

Tank 2
0.2 1/V2 1 s 2 Ca2

Ca2

F+m3

(F+m+aF)(Ca2) 1.26e9 k1 -9514 -Ea1 0 Constant1 -CH / pCp1 eu

T1 - T2

Product1 0.2 Product3 Add6 1/V3 1 s


- (UA / pCpV)*(T - Tj)

T3 - T2 -CUA / pCpV1 1 (UA / pCpV)*(T - Tj)1 T - Tj1 Add3


T2

5 T2

Integrator3

13

T3 - T2 -CUA / pCpV1 1 (UA / pCpV)*(T - Tj)1 T - Tj1


- (UA / pCpV)*(T - Tj)

1 s Add3

T2

5 T2

Integrator3

Tank 3

0.55 F+aF F+aF+m 0.2 1/V4 Add7 1 s

Ca3

3 Ca3

1.26e9 k2 -9514 -Ea2 0 Constant2 -CH / pCp2 eu

T2 - T3 0.2 -CUA / pCpV2 2 (UA / pCpV)*(T - Tj)2 T - Tj2 Product2 1/V5 1 s Add5

- (UA / pCpV)*(T - Tj)

T3

6 T3

Integrator5

Figure 7: Simulink block diagram for subsystem for series of CSTRs

14

T ransport Del ay

m1 -Km2 Fi nal control el em ent PID PID Control l er m3 Add


m Ca1 Ca2 Ca3 T1 T2 T3

Concentrati on PID Control l er1 PID Whi te Noi se1

T ransport Del ay1

0.00001 0 No noi se

0.001 Whi te Noi se M anual Swi tch Ca0 Gai n1

Ca0 Tj beta

CST Rs Tc

T em perature

beta

418.8 s2 +60s+418.8 m 10
Uc

m odel

Q2

m1

m Q1 Ca3

Constant

m2

Control l er

adaptation rate m error Ca3

Q2 Q1

m3 Add 0.001 Whi te Noi se M anual Swi tch Ca0 Gai n1

Adapti ve Law

Uc Ca0 Ca3

Tc

Tc beta T3

beta

Noise

PID Whi te Noi se1 0 No noi se -KM anual Swi tch1 Gai n2

Input m 1 m1 T ransport Del ay 0 Manual Swi tch2 Desi red LMS Adapt

Output Error Wts Error Wei ght

LMS Fi l ter Concentrati on

m2 18.33 m3 Add PID

Fi nal PID Control l er control el ement


m Ca1 Ca2 Ca3 T1 T2 T3

0.00001

Whi te Noi se1 0 No noi se

0.001 Whi te Noi se Manual Swi tch Ca0 Gai n1

Ca0 Tj beta

CST Rs Tc

T emperature

beta

Figure 8: Simulink block diagram for 3 advanced control system (cascade, MRAC and STR)

15

4. Results and Discussion


4.1 Transfer function and PID gain value

Table 7: Calculation result using ZN-method Controller Type P PI PID 0.50Ku = 0.090 0.45Ku = 0.081 Pu/1.2 = 32.5 0.60Ku = 0.108 Pu/2.0 = 19.5 Pu/8.0 = 4.875 0.090 0.081 0.108 0.0308 0.0513 4.875

4.2 Performance of various control system

x 10

-3

1 0.9

x 10

-3

0.8 0.7 0.6

0.8

0.6

0.5 0.4 0.3

0.4

0.2

0.2 0.1

20

40

60

80

100 Time

120

140

160

180

200
0 0 100 200 300 Time 400 500 600 700

Figure 9: Performance of CSTR, Ca without control system, with proportional controller at ultimate gain and with PID at ZN tuning (m=0.0005, Ca0=0.001, =1 =1)

16

The performances of the tanks without any control system achieve 0.006mol/dm3 in all 3 CSTRs. This is obviously unacceptable because large concentration of Ca indicates that only small amount of Cb (product) is formed at the end of the reaction. After utilizing ZN tuning, it is found that the conventional system has ultimate gain of 0.180 and ultimate period of 39 minutes as shown in Figure 10. However, it still has long response time (667 minutes) and large decay ratio (0.727). With adaptation rate of 20, when Mp = 2 and Ts = 3.398, then

x 10

-3

-1

100

200

300 Time

400

500

600

700

Figure 10: Performance of MRAC at different set point (m=0.006, 0.004 and 0.002; Ca0 = 0.005) It is found that the performance of MRAC is only ideal when the set point, m is greater than that of disturbance (Ca0). Otherwise, a large adaptation rate is required. This may sometimes exceed the amount that can be calculated in Matlab (1099). This then managed to maintain the concentration of the outlet of Tank 3, Ca3 to be stable and similar to that of the set point. At this performance, all the reactant from feed, F will be converted into product. However, this is not economically feasible because large amount of pure A is required to maintain the concentration of the product. The performance of the control system begins to decrease when m decreases. There is a large offset at m = 0.0002mol/dm3. In fact, the performance of conventional PID controller is found to be even better at lower concentration of pure A, m. Since MRAC cannot handle set point lower than those of disturbance, cascade and STR control systems are then used to improve the performance of the system.

17

The operating condition for cascade controller is similar to that of conventional PID controller. In addition to that, the secondary controller is a proportional controller with Kc = 1 for a fastest response. If Kc>1, the system is found to be unstable although an even faster response is achieved. On the other hand, the performance of STR is observed at different weight and step size as shown in Figure 11. It is notable that increasing weight decreases the rise time but at the expense of higher overshoot initially. Thus, there is an optimum weight where the system achieves minimum overshoot and offset. Increasing step size makes the system responds even faster. Desirable performance is achieved at optimum weight of 0.25 and highest step size of 1000.
1.4 x 10
-3

weight = 0.1 weight = 0.2 1.2 weight = 0.3 set point

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

50

100

150

200

250 Time

300

350

400

450

500

1.2

x 10

-3

step size = 1 step size = 100 step size = 1000 set point

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

50

100

150

200

250 Time

300

350

400

450

500

Figure 11: Performance of STR at different weight (0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 at step size 1) and different step size (1, 100 and 1000 at weight 0.25)

18

The ideal operating conditions for cascade and STR control system are incorporated to improve the performance of conventional PID controller as shown in Figure 12. Among the 3 different control systems, the performance of STR is found to be ideal in set point tracking. The conversion of the product achieved 1.00 at steady-state for all controllers as shown in Figure 13. However, under various robust tests, there are some remarkable characteristics shown by different control system in Figure 14.
m

Input
Ca3

Output Error Wts Error Weight

Desired LMS Adapt

Ca0

m1

Tc

-K-

Gain
beta

LMS Filter 1
T3

m2
Noise

m3 Ca0
m

PID Concentration

Tc

Ca0

Ca3

beta

Tc

T emperature

beta

White Noise1 0 No noise -KManual Switch1 Gain1


Noise1

T3

Cascade

Cb 0.5 F

Figure 12: Simulink block diagram for the various control systems (PID, Cascade and STR)
1.005

0.995

0.99

0.985

0.98 PID Cascade STR 20 40 60 80 100 Time 120 140 160 180 200

0.975

0.97

Figure 13: Conversion of the product using different control system (m=0, Ca0=0.005mol/dm3)

19

16

x 10

-4

14

PID Cascade STR set point

12

Test 1

10

-2

100

200

300

400

500 Time

600

700

800

900

1000

x 10

-4

5.6

PID Cascade STR set point

5.4

Test 2

5.2

4.8

4.6

500

550

600

650

700

750 Time

800

850

900

950

1000

12

x 10

-4

10

PID Cascade STR set point

Test 3

-2

10

20

30

40 Time

50

60

70

80

20

x 10

-4

PID Cascade STR set point

Test 4

50

100

150

200

250 Time

300

350

400

450

500

Figure 14: Performance of various controllers (Test 1 = set point tracking; Test 2 = disturbance rejection; Test 3 = increase of transport delay; Test 4 = decrease of coolant ratio) In all 4 robust tests, cascade control system found to have lower overshoot and response time as compared to PID controller. This is done at the expense of 2 measuring elements and 2 controllers. Thus, cascade control can be unstable when the transport delayed increased as in Test 3. STR has the best performance in Test 1, Test 2 and Test 3 with minimum overshoot, shortest response time and better disturbance rejection. Under careful inspection, STR also has its own flaws. In Test 1, STR has little overshoot when the set point increase from 0 to 0.0005mol/dm3 but large overshoot (similar to PID) when the set point decreases from 0.00075 to 0.00025mol/dm3 at time 400 to 600 minutes. In between that period, the response is not that satisfactory although it maintains below the set point. In Test 4, the performance of STR dropped drastically when the coolant ratio decreases from 1 to 0.0005. Further investigation from the temperature profile has shown that the reactor cannot maintain the temperature of the reaction when amount of coolant dropped as shown in Figure 15. This justify that certain minimum amount of coolant is required to maintain the temperature of all the CSTRs since the reaction is exothermic. Controlling the temperature of the reactor is unnecessary and difficult because thermometer has large transport delay. As long as the amount of coolant is above that of minimum, all the temperature of CSTRs shall be maintained at 298K (room temperature). This can be compensated by installing a low-level alarm and amount of coolant must be at least twice the amount of minimum requirement.

21

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

Ideal temperature

Increased infinitely
PID Cascade Coolant

100

50

10

15

20

25 Time

30

35

40

45

Figure 15: Temperature profile of tank 3 at coolant ratio of 0.0003. Table 8: Comparison between 3 different control systems Operating condition PID Cascade STR Proportional gain (primary) 0.1080 0.1080 0.1080 Integral gain 0.0513 0.0513 0.0513 Derivative gain 4.875 4.875 4.875 Proportional gain (secondary) 1.0000 Weight 0.25 Step size 5000 Performance (500 minutes for set point tracking, m = 0.0005) Rise time (minutes) 20 21 15 Decay ratio 0.727 0.467 0.400 Period (minutes) 63 66 60 Response time (minutes) 667 302 257 Disturbance rejection (%) 10 6 0.8 ITAE 6.685 2.364 0.5166 IAE 0.04201 0.02315 0.004859 ISE 6.412 x 10-6 3.220 x 10-6 3.187 x 10-7

5. Conclusion
Self-tuning regulator adaptive control is found to be the best control system as compared to classic advanced control system (cascade) and conventional control system (PID). It improves the performance of the system in set-point tracking and disturbance rejection with significant lower rise time and response time. Unlike cascade controller, it can be used despite large transport delayed is present in the measuring element. Since it is heavily dependent on the flow rate of coolant, further improvement can be made by incorporating artificial intelligence advanced control system on its algorithm.

22

6. References
1. Zhang, L., et al., Kinetics of transesterification of palm oil and dimethyl carbonate for biodiesel production at the catalysis of heterogeneous base catalyst. Bioresource technology, 2010. 101(21): p. 8144-8150. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Fabbri, D., et al., Properties of a potential biofuel obtained from soybean oil by transmethylation with dimethyl carbonate. Fuel, 2007. 86(5): p. 690-697. Zhou, Y., J. Wu, and E.W. Lemmon, Thermodynamic Properties of Dimethyl Carbonate. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 2011. 40(4): p. 043106-043106-11. Coughanowr, D.R. and L.B. Koppel, Process systems analysis and control. Vol. 3. 1965: McGraw-Hill New York. Kokotovic, P., Foundations of Adaptive Control, volume 160 of Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences. 1991, Springer-Verlag. Yimam, A., Adaptive Control Design for a MIMO Chemical Reactor. 2004, Addis Ababa University.

7.

Appendix

*Important reference are attached for the details in designing the CSTRs.

23

You might also like