Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sachi Dash
Honeywell Process Solutions
46
pH Probe
Overflow Beaker
Microcontroller/
Computer
u
Buffer
Pump
Pump
Strong
Base
Strong
Acid
Example 2:
Controller design based on experimental analysis
Consider a 500-mL magnetically stirred reactor with
three input streams (acid, base, and buffer) as shown in
Figure 10. An overflow tube keeps the volume inside the
reactor constant. The flowrate of the base stream is used to
control the pH inside the reactor and is varied by adjusting
the pumps motor voltage; the other two flowrates (acid
and buffer) are fixed at 2.45 mL/min.
The example in Part 1 designed and evaluated pH
controllers based on modeling at two specific pH levels
pH = 6 and pH = 8. For this example, laboratory experiments were performed over a pH range of 59. The nominal models were designed at pH values of 6 and 8, but they
were evaluated over a wider range of pH. This wider set
of conditions is required to illustrate the highly nonlinear
characteristics of the pH response and the restrictions this
nonlinearity can impose on the selection of a single controller to operate at various operating conditions.
To identify the system model, a pseudo-random binary
sequence (PRBS) is used for step testing, with the flowrate
of the base as the input variable, a switching time of 100 sec,
and the magnitude of input variation chosen to perturb the
system around pH values of 59. (The interest in the two
extreme values, which are outside the operating range of the
application, is to enable the assessment of the model beyond
the nominal operating range.) The output (pH) sequences
pH x 103
1.5
pH 5
1.0
pH 9
pH 6
0
0
pH 7
1
2
Time, min
p Figure 11. The step responses of the models for the lab-scale reactor
(Figure 10) for pH values of 59 are shown over 4 min.
pH
p Figure 12. The identification experiment can provide the integration rate for
the lab-scale reactor shown in Figure 10 as a function of pH.
pH 8
0.5
Here, in Part 2 of the article, the focus shifts to the problem of computing realistic estimates of the model uncertainty from data obtained via identification experiments.
The data are then used to determine feasible performance
objectives (e.g., bandwidth) such that the corresponding
controller will produce the desired response with a high
degree of confidence.
K(1s+1) Td s
e
s( 2 s+1)
(19)
47
Instrumentation
1
Cm6 (s) = 12,450 1+
(20)
2.94 s
9.22
pH Setpoint = 9
pH
8.89
8.56
8.23
8.21
pH Setpoint = 8
pH
8.07
7.92
7.78
7.01
pH
pH Setpoint = 7
6.87
6.74
6.60
pH
6.30
1
Cm8 (s) = 3,596 1+
2.36 s
5.88
5.46
pH Setpoint = 6
5.04
5.06
pH
4.43
101
3.80
pH Setpoint = 5
1/m = 1
3.16
25
50
75
100
Time, min
p Figure 13. This plot of the pH values predicted by the open-loop model
(ym, blue) and the actual measured pH values (y, green) as a function of
time reveals the high quality of the models at predicting process behavior.
Table 2. Parameters for the transfer function (Eq. 19)
of the models at pH values of 59.
K
Td
t1
t2
P5
3.77 x 104
0.267
1.6 x 105
P6
6.69 x
105
0.367
2.65
2.8
P7
4.96 x 105
0.217
0.0625
P8
2.02 x
104
0.183
0.124
P9
2.48 x 104
0.367
0.125
0.0334
100
1/m
48
(21)
101
102
102
101
100
Frequency, rad/min
101
102
p Figure 14. This plot of the inverse multiplicative uncertainty estimate for
the model at pH = 8 shows that the magnitude of the uncertainty crosses
the value of one at a frequency of approximately 1 rad/min. Similar results
are obtained at pH = 6. This figure provides a quantitative characterization
of the model quality. Based on the robust stability condition (Eq. 4), it also
indicates that the controller can be designed with a closed-loop bandwidth
of 0.6 rad/min.
0.2
0.1
pH = 6
0
0.1
10
15
Time, min
pH
pH = 8
0.1
0.1
pH = 6
0
pH = 6
0.1
0.1
0
10
Time, min
10
15
Time, min
25
20
pH = 6
3,000
15
4,000
pH = 8
2,000
6
1,000
10
15
Time, min
*Base Flowrate (mL/min) = (7 x DAC Setpoint)/4,095
pH
DAC Setpoint*, V
pH = 8
pH = 8
0.2
pH
and a systematic procedure can be used to design a controller to achieve this bandwidth. Performance degradation can
be expected due to the nonlinear behavior of the process
or changes in the process parameters, and becomes more
pronounced as the process moves farther from its nominal
operating conditions.
This raises an important question: Can control performance be improved over a wider range of operating conditions by online controller scheduling or adaptation? Based
on preliminary work (beyond the scope of this article),
we expect that uniform performance can be achieved by
pH
Step Response
5
4
3
10
15
20
Time, min
25
30
35
49
Instrumentation
Literature Cited
1. Ljung, L., System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd ed.,
PTR Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1999).
2. Zhan, C. Q., and K. Tsakalis, System Identification for Robust
Control, American Control Conference, 2007, New York, NY,
pp. 846851 (July 913, 2007).
3. Alvarez, H., et al., pH Neutralization Process as a Benchmark
for Testing Nonlinear Controllers, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research, 40 (11), pp. 24672473 (2001).
4. strm, K. J., and K. J. Hagglund, PID Controllers: Theory,
Design, and Tuning, Instrument Society of America, Research
Triangle Park, NC (1995).
5. Doyle, J. C., et al., Feedback Control Theory, MacMillan
Publishing, New York, NY (1992).
6. Grassi, E., et al., Integrated System Identification and PID Controller Tuning by Frequency Loop-Shaping, IEEE Transactions
on Control Systems Technology, 9 (2), pp. 285294 (Mar. 2001).
7. Rivera, D. E., et al., Internal Model Control: PID Controller
Design, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design
and Development, 25 (1), pp. 252265 (1986).
8. Henson, M. A., and D. E. Seborg, Adaptive Nonlinear Control
of a pH Neutralization Process, IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, 2 (3), pp. 169182 (Sept. 1994).
9. MacArthur, J. W., A New Approach for Nonlinear Process
Identification Using Orthonormal Bases and Ordinal Splines,
Journal of Process Control, 22, pp. 375389 (2012).
10. Tsakalis, K., and D. Sachi, Approximate H Loop Shaping in
PID Parameter Adaptation, International Journal of Adaptive
Control Signal Process, 27 (12), pp. 136152 (2013).
50
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support from SERDP Environmental
Restoration Projects #2237 and #2239. Special thanks to Amy Childress
(Univ. of Southern California), Cesar Torres and Sudeep Popat (Arizona State
Univ.), and Eric Marchand (Univ. of Nevada, Reno) for their valuable input in
identifying the specific issues with pH control in the wastewater system.
Nomenclature
C
Cm
FFT
j
K
M
P