UNIT IV MULTI-LOOP REGULATORY CONTROL

Multi-loop Control - Introduction – Process

Interaction – Pairing of Inputs and Outputs -
The Relative Gain Array (RGA) – Properties
and Application of RGA – Multi – loop PID
Controller– Biggest Log Modulus Tuning
Method – De coupler
Multivariable processes
 In practical control problems, there typically are a
number of process variables which must be controlled
and a number which can be manipulated.
Example: product quality and throughput must usually
be controlled.

•Multiloop control: Each manipulated variable depends

on only a single controlled variable, i.e., a set of
conventional feedback controllers.

•Multivariable Control: Each manipulated variable can

depend on two or more of the controlled variables.

Examples: decoupling control, model predictive

control
Process Interactions
Multiloop Control Strategy
•Typical industrial approach
•Consists of using n standard FB controllers (e.g. PID), one for
each controlled variable.

•Control system design

1. Select controlled and manipulated variables.
2. Select pairing of controlled and manipulated variables.
3. Specify types of FB controllers.

Example: 2 x 2 system

Two possible controller pairings:

U1 with Y1, U2 with Y2 …or
U1 with Y2, U2 with Y1

Note: For n x n system, n! possible pairing configurations.

Block diagram Analysis

Two controlled variables and

two manipulated variables (4
transfer functions required)
Y1 ( s ) Y1 ( s )
 GP11 ( s ),  GP12 ( s)
U1 ( s ) U 2 ( s)
Y2 ( s ) Y2 ( s )
 GP 21 ( s ),  GP 22 ( s )
U1 ( s ) U 2 (s)

Thus, the input-output relations for the process can be

written as:
Y1 ( s )  GP11 ( s )U1 ( s )  GP12 ( s )U 2 ( s )
Y2 ( s )  GP 21 ( s )U1 ( s )  GP 22 ( s )U 2 ( s )
Or in vector-matrix notation as,
Y ( s)  GP ( s)U ( s)

where Y(s) and U(s) are vectors,

Y1 ( s)  U1 ( s) 
Y ( s)    , U ( s)   
 2 
Y ( s )  2 
U ( s )
And Gp(s) is the transfer function matrix for the process
GP11 ( s) GP12 ( s) 
GP ( s)   
 P 21
G ( s ) GP 22 ( s ) 
Control-loop interactions

• Process interactions may induce undesirable

interactions between two or more control loops.
Example: 2 x 2 system

Control loop interactions are due to the presence of a third

feedback loop.

• Problems arising from control loop interactions

i) Closed -loop system may become destabilized.
ii) Controller tuning becomes more difficult
For the multiloop control configuration the transfer function
between a controlled and a manipulated variable depends
on whether the other feedback control loops are open or
closed.
Example: 2 x 2 system, 1-1/2 -2 pairing

From block diagram algebra we can show

Y1
 GP11 Y2  U 2  Open (1)
U1
If both loops are closed, then the contribution to Y1, from
two loops are added together
Y1  GP11U1  GP12U 2
(2)
If the 2nd feedback controller is in the automatic mode with
Y2sp=0, using block diagram reduction
G p12U1 (3)
Y2 
1  Gc 2G p 22
The signal to the 1st loop from 2nd loop

G p12U 2  G p12Gc 2Y2

Subs the above equ in (2)

Y1 GP12GP 21GC 2
 GP11 
U1 1  GC 2GP 22
Closed loop stability

Consider the paring 1-1/2-2. using

Block diagram reduction technique,
relation between controlled variable
and setpoint.

Where the closed loop transfer

function
Closed loop stability

Two important conclusions can be drawn

1. A setpoint change in one loop causes both controlled variables to
change because 12 and 21 are not zero.
2. Stability - Each of the four CL TF has same denominator, the
characteristic eq. ∆(s)=0

The stability depends on both controllers, and all four TF. Similarly for
1-2/2-1 paring Cha. Eq can be derived.
For special case either Gp12 or Gp21=0, Cha. Eq. reduces to

Stability depends on the two individual FB loops and their Cha. Eq.
Closed loop stability

The cha.eq for the closed loop system

Closed loop stability
Paring of Controlled and Manipulated variables
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

Bristol (1966) developed a systematic approach for the

analysis of Multivariable process control problem. This
approach requires steady-state information and provides
two useful types of information:
1) Measure of process interactions
2) Recommendation about best pairing of controlled and
manipulated variables.
Requires knowledge of steady state gains but not process
dynamics.
It is based on the concept of relative gain.
Relative Gain Array (RGA)
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
When the relative gain is calculated for all of the
input/output combinations of a multivariable
system, the results are placed into a matrix as
follows and this array is called Relative Gain
Array.
 11 12  1n 
    
  21 22 2n 

    
 
 n1  n 2   nn 
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

• Properties of the Relative Gain Array

1. The elements of the RGA across any row, or down

any column sum up to 1. i.e.:
n n


i 1
ij   ij  1
j 1

2. λij is dimensionless; therefore, not affected by

choice of units and scaling of variables.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

3. RGA is a measure of sensitivity to element

uncertanity in the gain matrix K. The gain matrix
can become singular if a single Kij changed to
Kij=Kij(1-1/ λij ). Thus a large RGA elememt
indicates small changes in Kij can markedly
change the process control characteristics.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

4. Let Kij* represent the loop i steady-state gain when

all loops (other than loop i) are closed, whereas, Kij
represents the normal open loop gain.

1
K ij *  K ij
ij
This equation has the very important implication: that
1/λij tells us by what factor the open loop gain
between output yi and input mj will be changed
when the loop are closed.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

5. When λij is negative, it indicates a situation in

which loop i, with all loops open, will produce
a change in yi in response to a change in uj in
totally the opposite direction to that when all
the other loops are closed. Such input/output
pairings are potentially unstable and should be
avoided.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

• Calculating the Relative Gain Array

There are two ways of calculating the Relative

Gain Array

1. The “First Principles” Method

2. The Matrix Method

 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
•First Principles Method
Let’s consider a 2x2 system. First, we must observe that the
Relative Gain Array deals with steady-state systems, and
therefore , must only be concerned with the steady state form of
this model which is:
y1 =K 11m1 +K 12m2 (Eq. 1a)

y 2 =K 21m1 +K 22m2 (Eq. 1b)

In order to calculate the λ11  y i 

 
Recall:  m j  all loops
ij  open

 y i 
 
 m j all loops closed
except for
the m j loop
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
Due to the fact that the equations found on the previous slide
represent steady-state, open-loop conditions, the differentiation
for the numerator portion of the relative gain is:

 y1 
   K11
 m1 all loops open
The second partial derivative (the denominator) requires Loop 2
to be closed, so that in response to changes in m1 , the second
control variable m2 can be used to restore y2 to its initial value
of 0. To obtain the second partial derivative, we first find from
Eq. 1b the value of the m2 must be to maintain y2=0 in the face
of changes in m1, what effect this will have on y1 is deduced by
substituting this value of m2 into Equation 1a.
28
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
The computation of the denominator of λ11
Set y2=0 and solve m2 in Eq. 1b.
K 21
m2   m1
K 22
Substituting this value of m2 into Eq. 1a. gives:
K12 K 21
y1  K11m1  m1
K 22
Having eliminated m2 from the equation, we now may differentiate
with respect to m1.
 y1   K 12 K 21 
   K11 1  
 m1  loop 2 closed  K 11 K 22 
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
We then substitute the numerator and denominator into the definition
of λ11 which yields:
K 11
11 
 K 12K 21 
K 11  1- 
 K K
11 22 

This equation simplifies to the form:

1 K12K 21
11  =
1 
where
K11K 22
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
This exercise should be repeated for all λij’s
so that the RGA can be constructed.

For Practice, repeat this exercise and verify

the following.

 1
12  21  and 22  11 
1 1
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

• Thus the RGA for this 2x2 system is given by:

 1  
1   1 
 
   1 
1  
 1  

Note, that if we define

1
  11 
1
The RGA can be rewritten as follows
  1 
 
1    
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
• The Matrix Method for Calculating RGA
Let K be the matrix of steady-state gains of the
transfer function matrix G(s) i.e.:

lim G ( s)  K
s 0

Whose elements are Kij, further, let R be the

transpose of the inverse of this steady state matrix
(K)
R K  
1 T
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

With elements rij it is possible to show that the

elements or the RGA can be obtained from the
elements of these two matrices as:
ij  K ij rij

It is important to note that the equation above

indicates an element-by-element multiplication of
the corresponding elements of the two matrices, K
and R, DO NOT TAKE THE PRODUCT OF
THESE MATRICES!
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

•Example- Matrix Method of Calculating RGA.

Find the RGA for the 2x2 system represented by Equations 1a and 1b
and compare them with the results obtained using the First Principles
Method.

Solution:
For this system, the steady-state gain matrix (K) is the following.

 K11 K12 
K  
 K 21 K 22 
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

From the definition of the inverse matrix we know that

1 1  K 22  K12 
  K K11 
K
K  21

Where the determinant of K, |K| is: K  K11 K 22  K12 K 21

Therefore, by taking the transpose of the K-1 matrix, we obtain the R

matrix
 K 22  K 21 
R  K 
1 T 1
  K
K  12 K11 
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
Since we now have the R and K matrices, we can perform an element
by element multiplication to obtain the elements (λij) of the RGA
(Λ)

K 11K 22 K 11K 22
11= OR 11 =
K K 11K 22 - K 12K 21
here is the first element of the matrix. Try on your own to compute
the other 3 elements of the RGA.
 K 11K 22 -K 12K 21 
 K K 
 
 -K 21K 12 K 22K 11 
 
 K K 
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

• Example of RGA for the Wood and Berry

Distillation, using the Matrix Method
Find the RGA for Wood and Berry Distillation column whose transfer
function matrix is
 12.8e  s  18.9e 3s 
 
G ( s)  16.7 s7 s1 21.0s  1 
 6.6e  19.4e 3s 
10.9s  1 14.4s  1 

Solution: For this system, the steady-state gain matrix is easily

extracted from the transfer function matrix by setting s=0.

12.8  18.9
K  G (0)   
 6 .6  19.4 
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
The next step is to determine the inverse of the matrix K:

1 0.157  0.153
K  
 0 . 053  0 .104
Once the inverse is calculated, the transpose of this matrix must be
calculated to yield the matrix R.
 0.157
1 T 0.053 
R  (K )   
  0 .153  0 .104
After these two matrices are computed, it is time to calculate the RGA
by multiplying the matrices element by element.

 2  1
 
  1 2 
Note that all of the rows and columns sum to one.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

Case 1: λij=1, the open loop gain is the equal to the

closed loop gain.
Loop interactions implications : This situation indicates
that loop i will not be subject to retaliatory effects from other loops
when they are closed, therefore uj can control yi without
interference from other control loops. If any of the other elements
in the transfer function matrix are nonzero, the ith loop will
experience some disturbances from other control loops, but these
are NOT provoked from actions in the ith loop.
Recommendation for pairing: In this case, the pairing of uj
with yi would be ideal.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

Case 2: λij=0, the open loop gain between uj and yi is

zero.

Loop interactions implications : uj has no direct influence

on yi (keep in mind that uj may still have an effect on other control
loops)

Recommendation for pairing: Do NOT pair yi with uj, it

would be more advantageous to pair uj with another output variable,
since we are led to believe that yi will not be influenced by the loop
containing uj.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

Case 3: 0<λij<1, the open loop gain between yi and uj

is smaller than the closed loop gain.

Loop interactions implications : The closed loop gain is

the sum of the open loop gain and the retaliatory effect, from the
other loops,

a) The loops are interacting, but

b) They interact in such a way that the retaliatory effect from the other
loops is in the same direction as the main effect of uj on yi.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
Loop interactions implications :
The loop interactions “assist” uj on controlling yi, The extent of this
assistance is dependent on how close λij is to 0.5
When:
λij =0.5: the main effect of uj on yi is exactly the same as the retaliatory
effect.
0.5<λij <1, the retaliatory effects are less than the main effect
0<λij< 0.5, the retaliatory effect is larger than the main effect.

Recommendation for pairing: If possible, avoid pairing yi with uj if

λij<0.5
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
Case 4: λij>1, the open loop gain between yi and uj is larger than
the closed loop gain.

Loop interactions implications : The loops interact, and the

retaliatory effect from the other loops acts in opposition to the
main effect of uj on yi, (which means that the loop gain will be
reduced when the other loops are closed), but the main effect
is still dominant, otherwise λij would be negative. For large
values of λij, the controller gain for loop i will have to be
chosen much larger than when all loops are open. This would
cause loop i to be stable when the other loops are open.
Recommendation for pairing: The higher the value of λij , the
greater the opposition uj experiences from the other loops in
trying to control yi. Therefore try not to pair yi with uj with if
the value of λij is large.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

Case 5: λij<0, the open loop and closed loop gains

between yj and ui have opposite signs.
Loop interactions implications : The loops interact, and
the retaliatory effect from the other loops is not only in opposition,
but it is greater in absolute value to the main effect of uj on yi. This
is potentially dangerous because if the other loops are opened, loop
i could become very unstable.

Recommendation for pairing: Avoid pairing uj with yi

because of the retaliatory effect that mj provokes from the other
loops acts in opposition to, and dominates the main effect on yi.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)

• RULE #1
Pair input and output variables that have positive
RGA elements closest to 1.0.
Consider the following examples to demonstrate this rule.
For a 2x2 system with output variables y1 and y2, to be paired with u1
and u2
If the RGA is… 0.8 0.2
 
 0.2 0.8 

Then it is recommended to pair u1 with y1 and u2 with y2, which is

quite often referred to a the 1-1/2-2 pairing.
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
Now, consider the 2x2 system whose transfer matrix is:

 1 .5  0 .5 
 
  0 . 5 1 .5 
In this case, a 1-1/2-2 pairing is preferred as to avoid pairing on a
negative RGA element. Usually, we will try to avoid pairing on RGA
elements greater than 1, but pairing on negative RGA elements is
worse.
Recall the Wood and Berry distillation column example we saw, it’s
RGA is:
 2  1 In this case, it is
  desirable for a
 1 2  1-1/2-2 pairing
 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
On the other hand, for the 2x2 systems whose RGA is

0.3 0.7 
 
0.7 0.3

y1 should be paired with u2 and y2 should be paired with u1, this is

referred to as 1-2/2-1 pairing. (as the elements 1-2,2-1 are closer to a
value of 1 and all elements in the RGA are positive.)

Module 5 – Controllability Analysis 51

 Relative Gain Array (RGA)
Let’s consider the following 3x3 matrix:

 1.95  0.65  0.3 


   0.66 1.88 
 0.22
 0.29  0.23 1.52 

The same general guidelines, we applied to the 2x2 systems can also be
applied here. It can be seen that although the diagonal elements are
all greater than 1, the other elements are all negative, suggesting that
a 1-1/2-2/3-3 pairing would be preferable.
EXAMPLE: Hydrocracker

The RGA for a hydrocracker has been reported as,

U1 U2 U3 U4
Y1  0.931 0.150 0.080  0.164
Y2   0.011  0.429 0.286 1.154 

Y3  0.135 3.314  0.270  1.910
 
Y4  0.215  2.030 0.900 1.919 

Recommended controller pairing?

Alternative Strategies for Dealing with Undesirable
Control Loop Interactions

1. "Detune" one or more FB controllers.

2. Select different manipulated or controlled variables.
e.g., nonlinear functions of original variables
3. Use a decoupling control scheme.
4. Use some other type of multivariable control scheme.

Decoupling Control Systems

Basic Idea: Use additional controllers to compensate for process

interactions and thus reduce control loop interactions

Ideally, decoupling control allows setpoint changes to affect only

the desired controlled variables.

Typically, decoupling controllers are designed using a simple

process model (e.g. steady state model or transfer function model)
Multi loop PID control system
 Multi loop PID controller Tuning
Multiloop (decentralized) PID control systems are often used to
control interacting multi-input-multi-output processes because,
1. They are easy to understand and require fewer parameters to
tune than more general multivariable controllers.
2. Loop failure tolerance of the resulting control system can be
easily checked.
PID Tuning methods
1. Detuning method (Luyben, 1986)
2. Sequential loop tuning method (Hovd and Skogestad,
1994).
3. Independent loop method (Grosdidier and Morari, 1987;
Skogestad and Morari, 1989)
4. Relay auto-tuning (Sherr and Yu, 1994)
5. Other type of multivariable control scheme.( IMC, MPC,
DMC, etc,.)
 Detuning method(BLT Method)

 In the detuning method, each controller of the

multiloop control system is first designed, ignoring
process interactions from the other loops.

 Then interactions are taken into account by

detuning each controller until a performance
criterion is met.

 Detune the control loop for the less important

controlled variable.

 The biggest log-modulus tuning (BLT) method

proposed by Luyben (1986) is a well-known
detuning method.
 Detuning method(BLT Method)
 Initially, the Ziegler-Nichols settings are determined
for each control loop.

 For PI controllers, the detuning is performed by

adjusting a single parameter F that adjusts the
controller gain and the integral time as follows.

 The detuning parameter F is increased from one

until the biggest log-modulus reaches a specified
value.

 The biggest log modulus is a measure of how far

the closed loop system is from being unstable.
Detuning method(BLT Method)
Detuning method(BLT Method)
 Sequential loop tuning method
 The controller for a selected input-output pair is
tuned and this loop is closed.

 Then a second controller is tuned for a second

pair while the first control loop remains closed,
and so on.

 Because each controller can be tuned using SISO

methods, it is simpler than the detuning method.

 A disadvantage is that the controller settings

depend strongly on which loop is tuned first.

 Usually, the fastest loops are tuned first.

 Independent loop method
 Each controller is designed based on the
corresponding open-loop and closed-loop transfer
functions, while satisfying inequality constraints on
the process interactions

 Then IMC approach is used to obtain PID

controller settings for each loop, usually with a
single tuning parameter for each loop.

 The controller for a selected input-output pair is

tuned and this loop is closed.
 Relay auto tune method
 The loops can be tuned in a sequential manner or
simultaneously.

 Shen and Yu (1994) use relay auto-tuning of each

single loop in succession.

 For a 2 X 2 system, they first put one loop in

manual while tuning the second loop.

 Then with the first loop in automatic, they auto-tune

the second loop.

 Then the first loop is tuned again with the second

controller in automatic. This procedure is repeated
until convergence occurs.
 Relay auto tune method
1. Bring the system to steady state.
2. Make a small (e.g. 5%) increase in the manipulated
input. The magnitude of change depends on the
process sensitivities and allowable deviations in the
controlled output.
3. As soon as the output crosses the SP, the
manipulated input is switched to the opposite
position (e.g. –5% change from the original value).
4. Repeat step 2 until sustained oscillation is
observed .
5. Read off ultimate period Pu from the cycling and
compute Ku from the following Equation:
Ku= 4h/(pa)
Relay auto tune method
 Relay auto tune method
Advantages
1. It identifies process information around the important
frequency, the ultimate frequency.
2. It is a closed-loop test; therefore, the process will not drift
away from the nominal operating point.

3. The amplitude of oscillation is under control (by adjusting h ).

4. For processes with a long time constant, it is a more time-
efficient method than conventional step or pulse testing. The
experimental time is roughly equal to two to four times the
ultimate period.

5. If the normalized dead time D /t is less than 0.28, the

ultimate period is smaller than the process time constant.
Therefore the relay feedback test is more time efficient than
the step test.
 Decoupling Control
Control loop interactions can be reduced by adding
additional controllers called decouplers to a
conventional multi loop configuration. Decoupling
control scheme can provide two important benefits.

1) Control loop interactions are eliminated. As a

consequence, the stability of the closed loop system
is determined solely by the stability characteristics
of the individual feedback control loops.

1) A setpoint change for one controlled variable has no

effect on other controlled variable.
 Decoupling Control
In practice, these theoretical benefits may not be
fully realized due to

1. Imperfect process models. Decouplers are

designed using a simple process models that
can be either steady-state or dynamic model.

2. Ideal decouplers may not be physically

realizable.

3. Restricting control loops to be non-

interacting oveall multivariable control
performance may suffer.
Decoupling Control
Decoupling Control
Decoupling Control
Decoupling Control
Decoupling Control
Decoupling Control
Decoupling Control
Niederlinski Index
 stability analysis method - Niederlinski index.

 It can eliminate unworkable pairings of variables at an early

stage in the design.

 The settings of the controllers do not have to be known, but it

applies only when integral action (PI or PID) is used in all loops.

 It utilizes only the steady-state gains of the process transfer

function matrix.

 The method is a “necessary but not sufficient condition” for

stability of a closed loop system with integral action.

 If the index is negative, the system will be unstable for any

controller settings (this is called “integral instability”).