Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vol:3 2009-10-26
I. INTRODUCTION
1081
Input variables
Material Feed Rate
Fuel Feed Rate
Kiln Speed
I.D Fan Speed
Secondary Air Pressure
Variable name
Mat
Fuel
Ks
Fan
Ap
Output variables
Back-end temperature
Pre-heater temperature
CO content
Kiln Ampere
Variable name
BE
Pre
CO
Ka
1082
Ts = min / 3
fs= 10 f0
Ts =Tst / 20 to Tst / 100
31.5
31
30.5
30
29.5
29
0.9
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
Time (second)
x 10
Real Data
Filtering Data
32
(1)
(2)
(3)
Matrial Feed Rate (Ton/Hour)
32.5
B. Sampling Frequency
In computer controlled systems, sampling of continuous
signals leads to annihilation of some information. Therefore, it
is essential to select a syntactic sampling frequency which
does not interfere with the control system. Although high
frequency sampling seems better for control propose, it may
cause some problems in system identification. Three methods
are proposed for sampling for the purpose of system
identification [17].
Real Data
Filtering Data
32
31.5
31
30.5
30
29.5
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
Time (second)
x 10
32.5
32
31.5
31
30.5
30
29.5
29
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
Time (second)
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
5
x 10
D. Normalizing Data
In this part, we have tried to normalized data. The reason
why we want to normalize data is that the inputs and outputs
data have different ranges that cause error in data
quantization. This increases the quantization error during
identification phase, and consequently the plant not identified
well. Therefore, to identify the model, it is better to normalize
all the data Figure 4 shows both the original and the
normalizing of one of the input signals.
1083
Original Data
Normalizing Data
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
Time (s)
x 10
Fig. 4 Original data and Normalized data for Kiln speed (Ks)
B. Simulation Technique
Figure 6 shows a simulation method for a plant. As you see,
in this technique only the plant inputs are given to the model
in addition to the previous outputs of the model and the
outputs which are obtained from pervious steps of the model
but not from outputs of the real plant.
Variables
Mat
Fuel
Ks
Fan
Ap
Pre
30
10
40
5
5
Delays (min)
BE
CO
18
15
4
5
36
5
0
0
0
3
Ka
10
25
0
10
30
1084
10
Train Set
Test Set
-1
10
MSE
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
1.5
2.5
3
3.5
Number of Neurons
4.5
Variable
Mat
Fuel
Ks
Fan
Ap
Ka
CO
BE
Pre
1085
Ka
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
Number of Dynamics
CO
BE
2
5
2
3
2
2
3
11
4
3
7
10
-
Pre
5
2
3
4
2
11
Ets=0.0023612
Real
Estimated
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
200
400
600
800
1200
1400
1600
1800
Real
Estimated
Ets=0.011925
Real
Estimated
0.5
0.4
70
CO Content
75
65
60
55
0.2
0.1
-0.1
45
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
-0.2
200
400
600
800
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Real
Estimated
0.5
1000
Ets=0.02389
Ets=0.00027614
Real
Estimated
830
0.4
0.3
CO Contents
0.3
50
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
820
810
800
790
780
770
-0.2
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
760
2000
200
810
800
790
780
770
760
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Real
Estimated
800
790
780
770
760
750
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Ets=0.010284
Real
Estimated
1000
740
2000
810
800
Ets=0.00050687
810
820
200
600
Real
Estimated
830
400
Ets=0.0045653
2000
Ets=0.004272
80
1000
800
790
780
Method
Simulation
1 min Prediction
5 min Prediction
10 min Prediction
15 min Prediction
770
760
750
740
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1086
Ka
0.00236
0.00124
0.00427
0.00975
0.01633
CO
0.01192
0.00222
0.02389
0.05161
0.06930
BE
0.00027
0.00003
0.00092
0.00456
0.00974
Pre
0.00050
0.00003
0.00190
0.01028
0.02229
As you can see in table 5, the predictor model for one step
prediction has less error than simulator model. However, as it
was mentioned before, the simulator model could simulate
kiln behavior after training without the need of real kiln
output data, but only by applied inputs to this model. It is
impossible to use prediction model for this purpose. This
advantage of simulator model allows for utilizing the obtained
locally linear model parameters for designing local
controllers.
Here, we observe that an increase in prediction horizon
increases the error in modeling. This increase of error for ten
minutes prediction is between 2 to 7 percent. This means that
with respect to the fastest time constant( three minutes in kiln)
accompanied with the previously obtained predictor models;
it is possible to predict the output for the fastest settling time
with more accuracy within 10 percent of output that is
acceptable rate for fault detection.
V.
CONCLUSION
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author and the co-author are grateful to Saveh Cement
Company for their kind help and technical assistance during
this project.
REFERENCES
[1] Devedzic, H., Knowledge-Based Control of Rotary Kiln, the proceedings
of the International IEEE/IAS Conference on Industrial Automation and
Control: Emerging Technologies, pp. 452 - 458, Taipei, 1995.
[2] Akalp, M., Dominguez, A. L. and Longchamp, R., Supervisory Fuzzy
Control of a Rotary Cement Kiln, the Proceedings IEEE Electrotechnical
Conference, vol. 2, pp. 754-757, 1994.
[3] Lu, J., Huang, L., Hu, Z., Wang, S., Simulation of gassolid, two
phase flow, coal combustion and raw meal calcination in a pre-calciner.
ZKG International 57 (2), 5563, 2004.
[4] Mastorakos, E., Massias, A., Tsakiroglou, C.D., Goussis, D.A.,
Burganos, V.N., CFD predictions for cement kiln including flame
modeling, heat transfer and clinker chemistry. Applied Mathematical
Modeling 23, 5576, 1999.
[5] Mujumdar, K.S., Ranade, V.V., Coupling of CFD models with different
time scalesa case study of rotary cement kiln. In FLUENT Users
Group Meeting held at Pune, 2003.
[6] Modigell, M.; Liebig D.; Munstermann, S. Calculation of the clinker
burning process using thermochemical process simulation. ZKG Int., 55
(7), 38-46, 2002.
intelligent control,
identification.
.
.
1087