d
UV UFi (1.21)
dt
The tank volume V can be expressed in terms of the liquid level h. The
inlet volumetric flow rate Fi may vary with time due to supply pressure
fluctuations and valve manipulations by the operator. The liquid density
depends on the temperature, but will usually not vary significantly with
time during the course of filling. Thus (1.21) becomes
dh
A Fi ( t ) (1.22)
dt
1 t
A ³0
h h ( 0) Fi ( t )dt (1.23)
A new scheme is proposed: put a timer on the valve. Calculate the time
required for filling from (1.23). Close the valve when time has expired.
h h near Fi Fmax
hr h (1.31)
h ! h near Fi Fmax
h r h near
dh
A Fmax h ( 0) known
dt (1.51)
F
h h (0) max t
A
Equation (1.51) can be used to calculate tnear, the time at which h reaches
hnear. For h greater than hnear,
dh hr h
A Fmax h(t near ) h near
dt h r h near
(1.52)
ª h r (t t near ) º
h h r h r h near exp « »
«¬ t fill h r h near »¼
Lesson 1: Processes and Systems
where the parameter tfill is the time required for the level to reach hr at
flow Fmax, starting from an empty tank.
Ah r
t fill (1.53)
Fmax
The plot shows the filling profile from h(0) = 0.10hr with several values of
hnear/hr. Certainly the filling goes faster if the flow can go instantaneously
from Fmax to zero at hr; however this will not be practical, so that hnear will
be less than hr.
1.2
hnear/hr = 0.95
1 0.75
0.50
0.8
h/hr
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
t/tfill
Furthermore, the inputs and outputs of a system need not be material and
energy streams, as they are for a process. System inputs are "things that
cause" or “stimuli”; outputs are "things that are affected" or “responses”.
The point of all this is to look at a single schematic and know how to view
it as a process, and as a system. View it as a process (Fo as an outlet
stream) to write the material balance and make fluid mechanics
calculations. View it as a system (Fo as an input) to analyze the dynamic
behavior implied by that material balance and make control calculations.
system
inputs outputs
1
2
Lesson 1: Processes and Systems
system
controlled
manipulated
variable
variable
final control sensor
element
controller
set point
We will see this structure repeatedly. Inside the block called "process" is
the physical process, whatever it might be, and the block is the boundary
we would draw if we were doing an overall material or energy balance.
HOWEVER, we remember that the inputs and outputs are NOT
necessarily the same as the material and energy streams that cross the
process boundary. From among the outputs, we may select a controlled
variable (often a pressure, temperature, flow rate, liquid level, or
composition) and provide a suitable sensor to measure it. From the inputs,
we choose a manipulated variable (often a flow rate) and install an
appropriate final control element (often a valve). The measurement is fed
to the controller, which decides how to adjust the manipulated variable to
keep the controlled variable at the desired condition: the set point. The
Lesson 1: Processes and Systems
other inputs are potential disturbances that affect the controlled variable,
and so require action by the controller.
1.9 conclusion
Think of a chemical process as a dynamic system that responds in
particular ways to its inputs. We attach other dynamic systems (sensor,
controller, etc.) to that process in a singleloop feedback structure and
arrive at a new dynamic system that responds in different ways to the
inputs. If we do our job well, it responds in better ways, so to justify all
the trouble.
Lesson 2: Mathematics Review
2.0 context and direction
Imagine a system that varies in time; we might plot its output vs. time. A
plot might imply an equation, and the equation is usually an ODE
(ordinary differential equation). Therefore, we will review the math of the
firstorder ODE while emphasizing how it can represent a dynamic
system. We examine how the system is affected by its initial condition
and by disturbances, where the disturbances may be nonsmooth, multiple,
or delayed.
dy
a (t) y( t ) Kx ( t ) y( t 0 ) y0 (2.11)
dt
dt
p(t ) exp ³ (2.12)
a(t )
Notice that p(t) is dimensionless, as is the quotient under the integral. The
solution
t
p( t 0 ) y( t 0 ) K p( t ) x ( t )
p( t ) t³0 a ( t )
y( t ) dt (2.13)
p( t )
comprises contributions from the initial condition y(t0) and the forcing
function Kx(t). These are known as the homogeneous (as if the righthand
side were zero) and particular (depends on the righthand side) solutions.
In the language of dynamic systems, we can think of y(t) as the response
of the system to input disturbances Kx(t) and y(t0).
dy
W y( t ) Kx ( t ) y( t 0 ) y0 (2.21)
dt
t t 0 K t W t W
t
y( t ) y 0e W
e ³ e x ( t )dt (2.23)
W t0
The initial condition affects the system response from the beginning, but
its effect decays to zero according to the magnitude of the time constant 
larger time constants represent slower decay. If not further disturbed by
some x(t), the first order system reaches equilibrium at zero.
t t 0 K t W t W
t
y( t ) y0e W
e ³ e U( t t1 )dt
W t0
(2.24)
t t 0 t t1
§ ·
y 0e W
KU( t t1 )¨1 e W
¸
© ¹
Figure 2.21 shows the solution. Notice that the particular solution makes
no contribution before time t1. The initial condition decays, and with no
disturbance would continue to zero. At t1, however, the system responds
to the step disturbance, approaching constant value K as time becomes
large. This immediate response, followed by asymptotic approach to the
new steady state, is characteristic of firstorder systems. Because the
response does not track the step input faithfully, the response is said to lag
behind the input; the firstorder system is sometimes called a firstorder
lag.
Lesson 2: Mathematics Review
1
disturbance
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2.5
2y 0
response
1.5
1K
0.5
0
0t 0 1 2t 1 3 4 5 6
time
t t 0 t
K t W t W
° 0y ( t ) e W
W
e ³t e x (t )dt t 0 t t1
° 0
° t t1
°
t
K t t
y( t ) ® y ( t 1 )e W
e W ³ e W x ( t )dt t1 t t 2 (2.31)
° W t1
°etc.
°
°¯
Example: suppose
Lesson 2: Mathematics Review
dy
y x y ( 0) 0
dt
0 0 t 1 (2.32)
°
x ®2t 1 1 t 2
°0 2t
¯
0 0 t 1
y( t )
°
®2 t 2 e
t 1
1 t 2 (2.33)
°2e 1e t 2 2t
¯
2
disturbance
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
response
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
time
dy
W y( t ) K1x1 ( t ) K 2 x 2 ( t ) y( t 0 ) y0 (2.41)
dt
t t 0 K t
t
t K t t
t
y( t ) y0e W
1 e W ³ e W x1 ( t )dt 2 e W ³ e W x 2 ( t )dt (2.42)
W t0
W t0
y y H y1 y 2 (2.43)
Lesson 2: Mathematics Review
and write (2.41) in three equations. We put the initial condition with no
disturbances, and each disturbance with a zero initial condition.
dy H
W yH (t) 0 yH (t 0 ) y0
dt
dy
W 1 y1 ( t ) K1x1 ( t ) y1 ( t 0 ) 0 (2.44)
dt
dy 2
W y 2 (t) K 2 x 2 (t) y2 (t 0 ) 0
dt
t t 0
W
y H (t ) y 0e
t
K1 t W t W
y1 ( t ) e ³ e x1 ( t )dt (2.45)
W t0
t
K 2 t W t W
y 2 (t ) e ³ e x 2 ( t )dt
W t0
Example: consider
1 dy 1 3
y U ( t 1) U ( t 3) y ( 0) 2 (2.46)
4 dt 4 4
dy
y 3U ( t 1) 4 U ( t 3) y ( 0) 2 (2.47)
dt
Equation (2.47) shows us that the time constant is 1, and that the system
responds to the first disturbance with a gain of 3, and to the second with a
gain of 4. The solution is
1
disturbances
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8
4
3
2
1
response
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 2 4 6 8
time
y
2e t 3 1 e ( t 1) 4 1 e ( t 3)
2e t 3 3e ( t 1) 4 4e ( t 3) (do not do this!) (2.49)
t ( t 1) ( t 3)
1 2e 3e 4e
This notation at least implies that two of the exponential functions have
delayed onsets. However, further correctbutinappropriate rearrangement
makes things even worse.
Lesson 2: Mathematics Review
y 1 2e t 3e ( t 1) 4e ( t 3)
1 2e t 3e1e t 4e 3e t (do not do this!) (2.410)
1 2 3e1 4e 3 e t
The incorrect solutions are plotted with (2.48) in Figure 2.42. Equation
(2.49) has become discontinuous  the response takes nonphysical leaps
at the onset of each new disturbance. Equation (2.410) has lost all
dependence on the disturbances and decays from a nonphysical initial
condition. Even with the mistakes, both incorrect solutions lead to the
correct longterm condition.
20
15
response
10
5
0 2 4 6 8
time
dy
W y( t ) Kx ( t T) y( t 0 ) y0 (2.51)
dt
t t 0 t
K t t
y( t ) y0e W
e W ³ e W x ( t T)dt (2.52)
W t0
disturbance as
disturbance
experienced by
as it occurs
system
t
t0 t1 t1 + ș
x(ȟ)
ȟ
t0  ș t1  ș t1
[ tT (2.53)
and write the input as x(ȟ). The integral in (2.52) becomes, then,
t t [
t t [T
³ e x (t T)dt
t0
W
³ e x1 (t )dt
t0
W
³e
t 0 T
W
x ([)d[ (2.54)
t t 0 [
K t W T W [
y( t ) y0e W
e e ³ e W x ([)d[ (2.55)
W t 0 T
dy
y x ( t 3) y(0) 0
dt (2.56)
x ( t ) U( t 2)
Using (2.55)
Lesson 2: Mathematics Review
[
y e t e 3 ³ e [ U([ 2)d[
0 3
ª2 [
º
e t e 3 « ³ e [ U([ 2)d[ ³ e [ U([ 2)d[»
«¬03 2 »¼
(2.57)
e t e 3 ª U ([ 2)e [ º
[
«¬ 2»¼
t 3 t 3
U( t 3 2)e e e e 2 > @
>
U( t 5) e t 3 t 3
e 2 t 3
@
U( t 5)>1 e ( t 5 )
@
Figure 2.51 shows that a typical firstorder lag step response occurs 3
time units after being disturbed at t = 2.
1
disturbances
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
1
0.8
response
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
time
Figure 2.51 step response of first order system with dead time
2.6 conclusion
Please become comfortable with handling ODEs. View them as systems;
identify their inputs and outputs, their gains and time parameters.
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
3.0 context and direction
A particularly simple process is a tank used for blending. Just as promised
in Section 1.1, we will first represent the process as a dynamic system and
explore its response to disturbances. Then we will pose a feedback control
scheme. We will briefly consider the equipment required to realize this
control. Finally we will explore its behavior under control.
F, CAi
F, CAo
volume V
d
VC Ao FC Ai FC Ao (3.11)
dt
Balance (3.11) also represents the concentration of the outlet stream, CAo,
as the same as the average concentration in the tank. That is, the tank is a
perfect mixer: the inlet stream is quickly dispersed throughout the tank
volume. Putting (3.11) into standard form,
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
V dC Ao
C Ao C Ai (3.12)
F dt
V dC Ao
0 C Ai,r C Ao,r (3.13)
F dt r
t
W t
t e t
C Ao ( t ) C A ,r e W
W ³e
0
W
C Ai ( t )dt (3.14)
V
W (3.15)
F
Equation (3.21) merely confirms that the system remains steady if not
disturbed.
t
( t t1 ) W t
e t
C Ao C A ,r e W
C A1 We W
t ! t1
W t1
( t t1 )
§ tW t t1
·
C A ,r e W
C A1e ¨e e W ¸ W
(3.31)
© ¹
( t t1 )
§ ( t t1 )
W ·
C A ,r e W
C A1 ¨1 e ¸
© ¹
In Figure 3.31, CA,r = 1 and CA1 = 0.8 in arbitrary units; t1 has been set
equal to Ĳ. At sufficiently long time, the initial condition has no influence
and the outlet concentration becomes equal to the new inlet concentration.
After time equal to three time constants has elapsed, the response is about
95% complete – this is typical of firstorder systems.
In Section 3.1, we suggested that the tank would mitigate the effect of
changes in the inlet composition. Here we see that the tank will not
eliminate a step disturbance, but it does soften its arrival.
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
1
disturbance
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.1
1
response
0.9
0.8
0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
t/Ĳ
°C 0 t t1
° A ,r
° ( t t1 )
§ ( t t1 )
W ·
C Ao ®C A ,r e W
C A1 ¨1 e ¸ t1 t t 2 (3.41)
° © ¹
°ª § ·º ( t t 2 ) W § W ·
( t 2 t1 ) ( t 2 t1 ) ( t t 2 )
° «C A , r e W
C A1 ¨1 e W
¸» e C A , r ¨1 e ¸ t2 t
¯¬ © ¹¼ © ¹
In Figure 3.41, CA,r = 0.6 and CA1 = 1 in arbitrary units; t1 has been set
equal to Ĳ and t2 to 2.5Ĳ. We see that the tank has softened the pulse and
reduced its peak value. A pulse is a sequence of two counteracting step
changes. If the pulse duration is long (compared to the time constant Ĳ),
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
the system can complete the first step response before being disturbed by
the second.
1
disturbance
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.8
response
0.6
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
t/Ĳ
C Ai C A , r A sin Zt (3.51)
From (3.14),
AZW t W
C Ao C A ,r e
A
sin Zt tan 1 ZW (3.52)
1 Z W
2 2
1 Z W
2 2
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
Solution (3.52) comprises the mean value CA,r, a term that decays with
time, and a continuing oscillation term. Thus, the longterm system
response to the sine input is to oscillate at the same frequency Ȧ. Notice,
however, that the amplitude of the output oscillation is diminished by the
squareroot term in the denominator. Notice further that the outlet
oscillation lags the input by a phase angle tan1(ȦĲ).
In Figure 3.51, CA,r = 0.8 and A = 0.5 in arbitrary units; ȦĲ has been set
equal to 2.5 radians, and Ĳ to 1 in arbitrary units. The decaying portion of
the solution makes a negligible contribution after the first cycle. The
phase lag and reduced amplitude of the solution are evident; our tank has
mitigated the inlet disturbance.
1.4
1.2
input and response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8
t/Ĳ
The Bode plot abscissa is Ȧ in radians per time unit; the scale is
logarithmic. The frequency may be normalized by multiplying by the
system time constant. Thus plotting Ȧ is good for a particular system;
plotting ȦĲ is good for systems in general.
For a first order system, the normalized amplitude ratio decreases from 1
to 0 as frequency increases. Similarly, the phase lag decreases from 0 to
90º. Both these measures indicate that the system can follow slow inputs
faithfully, but cannot keep up at high frequencies.
The slope of the amplitude ratio plot approaches zero at low frequency;
the high frequency slope approaches 1. These two asymptotes intersect at
the corner frequency, the reciprocal of the system time constant. At the
corner frequency, the phase lag is 45º.
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
1
Zcorner (3.62)
W
1.00
amplitude ratio/gain
0.10
0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0
10
20
phase angle (deg)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
ȦĲ (radians)
The solutions for the typical bounded step, pulse, and sine disturbances,
given in Sections 3.3 through 3.5, show no terms that grow with time, so
long as the time constant Ĳ is a positive value. For these categories of
bounded input, at least, a firstorder system appears to be stable. We will
need to examine stability again when we introduce automatic control to
our process.
Fc, CAc
F, CAi
F, CAo
volume V
FC Ai Fc C Ac F Fc C Ao
d
VC Ao (3.81)
dt
V C Ac
F dC Ao C 1
C F Fc (3.82)
Ao
F Fc Ai F
1 c dt 1 1 c
F F F
Notice that our equation coefficients each contain the input variable Fc.
Notice, as well, that for dilute CAo and concentrated CAc stream Fc
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
(however it may vary) will not be very large in comparison to the main
flow F. If this is the case, we may be justified in making an engineering
approximation: neglecting the ratio Fc/F in comparison to 1. Thus
V dC Ao C Ac
C Ao C Ai Fc (3.83)
F dt F
C Ac
C Ao,r C Ai, r Fc ,r (3.91)
F
V d C Ao C Ao,r
C Ao C Ao,r C C Ai,r Fc Fc,r
C Ac
Ai
F dt F
(3.92)
V dC 'Ao C
C 'Ao C 'Ai Ac Fc'
F dt F
Thus we shall use deviation variables for derivations and modeling. For
doing process control (computing valve positions, e.g.) we will return to
the physical variables. We can recover the physical variable by adding its
deviation variable to its reference value. For example,
t t
W t W t
e t C Ac t W ' e
³ e C ( t )dt
W
W F ³0
' '
C e Fc ( t )dt (3.101)
W 0
Ao Ai
Equation (3.101) shows how the outlet composition deviates from its
desired value CAo,r under disturbances to inlet composition CAi and the
flow rate of the concentrated makeup stream Fc, where both of these are
also expressed as deviations from reference values. Equation (3.101) is
analogous to (3.14) for the simpler holding tank.
t t t t
W W
e t e C Ac t
U( t t1 )'C Ai ³ e W dt
F t³2
C '
U( t t 2 )'Fc e W
dt
W W
Ao
t1
(3.111)
§ ( t t1 )
W ·
C Ac § ( t t 2 )
W ·
U( t t1 )'C Ai ¨1 e ¸ U( t t 2 )'Fc ¨1 e ¸
© ¹ F © ¹
First, verify the steadystate material balance (3.91) for the desired
conditions:
m3
kg kg kg (0.0001)
(10) 3 (8) 3 (400) 3 s
(3.112)
m m m (0.02) m3
s
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
(Notice that the exact steadystate balance, derived from (3.82), is
satisfied to within 1%, so that our approximation in deriving (3.83)
appears to be reasonable.) The time constant for our process is
V ( 6) m 3
W 300 s (3.113)
F (0.02) m3
s
kg § ( t 0 )
300 ·
kg (5 u 10 5 ) § ( t 120 )
300 ·
C 'Ao U ( t 0)(1) 3 ¨
1 e ¸ U ( t 120 )( 400 ) ¨1 e ¸
m © ¹ (0.02) © ¹
3
m
(3.114)
300 ·
(1) 3 §¨1 e 300 ·¸ U ( t 120)(1) 3 §¨1 e
kg t kg ( t 120 )
¸
m © ¹ m © ¹
CONTROL SCHEME
1.5 0.000075
1 0.000050
0.5 0.000025
0 0.000000
0.5 0.000025
1 0.000050
1.5 0.000075
100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0.35
3
outlet composition deviation (kg m )
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
time
In algorithm (3.151) the controlled variable CAo is subtracted from the set
point. (Subtracting from the set point, rather than the reverse, is a
convention.) Any nonzero result is an error. The error is multiplied by
the controller gain Kgain. Their product determines the degree to which
manipulated variable Fc differs from Fbias, its value when there is no error.
The gain may be adjusted in magnitude to vary the aggressiveness of the
controller. Large errors and high gain lead to large changes in Fc.
These limits are determined by the process, and the control scheme must
be designed to abide by them.
Tolerable limits are determined by the safety limits, above, and then an
economic analysis that considers the cost of variation and the cost of
control. We do not expect to achieve perfect control, but good control is
usually worth spending some money.
EQUIPMENT
set point
We will address these questions in later lessons. For now, we assume that
there will be several distinct pieces of equipment involved, and that they
work together so that
where we use the conventional symbol Kc for controller gain. In the case
of (3.171), we notice that the dimensions of Kc are volume2 mass1 time1.
Presumably the reference condition has no error, so that the set point is
simply the target outlet composition CAo,r. Thus we learn that Fbias, the
zeroerror manipulated variable value, is simply Fc,r. Subtracting (3.181)
from (3.171), we find
If the set point remains at CAo,r, the deviation variable CƍAo,setpt will be
identically zero.
K c C 'Ao,setpt C 'Ao
dC 'Ao C Ac
W C 'Ao C 'Ai (3.183)
dt F
C Ac K c
W dC 'Ao 1 F
C 'Ao C' C' (3.184)
C Ac K c dt C Ac K c Ai C Ac K c Ao,setpt
1 1 1
F F F
t t
W CL t W CL t
e t e t
C '
K CL ³ e W CL
C dt
'
K SP ³ e W CL
C 'Ao,setpt dt (3.191)
WCL WCL
Ao Ai
0 0
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
where
C Ac K c
W 1 F
WCL K CL K SP (3.192)
C Ac K c C Ac K c C Ac K c
1 1 1
F F F
dC 'Ao C Ac '
openloop behavior W C 'Ao C 'Ai Fc
dt F
(the process without control)
C Ac K c
W dC 'Ao 1 F
closedloop behavior C 'Ao C' C'
C Ac K c dt C Ac K c Ai C Ac K c Ao ,setpt
1 1 1
(the process under control) F F F
°
°0 0 t t1
°
° § ( t t1 )
W CL ·
C*Ao '
® Ai CL ¨
C K ¨ 1 e ¸¸ t1 t t 2 (3.201)
° © ¹
°ª
°«'C Ai K CL §¨1 e W CL · º
( t 2 t1 ) ( t t 2 )
W CL
¨ ¸
¸» e t2 t
°¯¬ © ¹¼
1.5
0.5
0.5
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 100 200 300 400 500
makeup flow deviation (105 m3 s 1)
Kc = 0 m6 kg1 s1
0.0
1.0
0.0001
2.0
0.0003
3.0
4.0
0.0009
5.0
0.30
outlet composition deviation (kg m3)
0.25
Kc = 0 m6 kg1 s1
0.20
0.15 0.0001
0.10
0.0003
0.05
0.0009
0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500
time
§ t
·
C 'Ao 'C K CL ¨1 e WCL ¸ (3.211)
© ¹
Lesson 3: The Blending Tank
Figure 3.211 shows open and closedloop step responses. Notice that for
no case does the controlled variable return to the set point! This is the
phenomenon of offset, which is a characteristic of the proportional control
algorithm responding to step inputs.
§ t
·
C 'Ao 'C Ao,setpt K SP ¨1 e WCL ¸ (3.221)
© ¹
We recall from (3.192) that KSP is less than 1. Thus, the outlet
composition follows the change, but cannot reach the new set point. This
is again offset due to proportionalmode control. Increasing controller
gain increases KSP and reduces the offset.
1.5
0.5
0.5
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 100 200 300 400 500
Kc = 0 m6 kg1 s1
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0001
3.0
0.0003
4.0
0.0009
5.0
0.90
outlet composition deviation (kg m3)
0.80
0.70
0.60
Kc = 0 m6 kg1 s1
0.50
0.40
0.0001
0.30
0.20 0.0003
0.10 0.0009
0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500
time
3.25 conclusion
We have done quite a lot:
x used conservation equations to derive a dynamic system model of a
process
x identified three characteristic disturbances to test system responses
x introduced the frequency response and Bode plots
x discussed how to formulate a control scheme
x introduced proportionalmode control and explored its behavior
x compared open and closedloop response
x learned how tuning fits between limits of no control and instability
F, CAi F, CA1
volume V1 F, CA2
volume V2
d
V1C A1 FC Ai FC A1
dt
(4.11)
d
V2 C A 2 FC A1 FC A 2
dt
dC A1
W1 C A1 C Ai
dt
(4.12)
dC A 2
W2 C A 2 C A1
dt
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
we identify two firstorder dynamic systems coupled through the
composition of the intermediate stream, CA1. If we view the tanks as
separate systems, we see that CA1 is the response variable of the first tank
and the input to the second. If instead we view the pair of tanks as a single
system, CA1 becomes an intermediate variable. The speed of response
depends on two time constants, which (as before) are equal to the ratio of
volume for each tank and the common volumetric flow.
We subtract the reference condition from (4.12) and thus express the
variables in deviation form.
dC 'A1
W1 C 'A1 C 'Ai
dt
(4.14)
dC 'A 2
W2 C 'A 2 C 'A1
dt
Because the first equation contains only CƍA1, we may integrate it directly
to find CƍA1 as a function of the input CƍAi. This solution becomes the
forcing function in the second equation, which may be integrated directly
to find CƍA2. That is
t
1 t W1 t W1 '
C'A1 e ³ e C Ai dt (4.21)
W1 0
1 t W2 t W 2 ª 1 t W1 t W1 ' º
t t
C '
e ³ e « e ³ e C Ai dt » dt (4.22)
W2 ¬ W1
A2
0 0 ¼
The result is
d 2 C 'A 2 dC 'A 2
W1W 2 2
W1 W 2 C 'A 2 C 'Ai (4.23)
dt dt
Two mass storage elements led to two firstorder equations, which have
combined to produce a single secondorder equation. A homogeneous
solution to (4.23) can be found directly, but the particular solution
depends on the nature of the disturbance:
t t
W1 W2
C'A 2 A1e A 2e C'A 2,part C 'Ai (4.24)
ª W1 (t t d )
W2 (t t d )
W2 º
C'A2 U t t d 'C «1 e W1
e » (4.31)
¬ W1 W2 W1 W2 ¼
The result in Figure 4.31 looks somewhat different from the firstorder
responses we have seen. We have plotted the step response of a second
order system with Ĳ1 = 1 and Ĳ1 = 1.5 in arbitrary units. At sufficiently
long time, the initial condition has no influence and the outlet
concentration will become equal to the new inlet concentration; in this
respect it looks like the firstorder system response. However, the initial
behavior differs: the outlet concentration rises gradually instead of
abruptly. This Sshaped curve, often called “sigmoid”, is a feature of
systems of order greater than one. Physically, we can understand this by
realizing that the change in inlet concentration must spread through two
tanks, and it reaches the second tank only after being diluted in the first.
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
1
C* Ai/ C
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
0.8
0.6
C*A2/ C
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
t
Figure 4.31: Response to step change in inlet composition
f
y(s) L^y( t )` ³ y ( t )e
st
dt (4.41)
0
(In these notes, we use the notation y(s) merely to indicate that y(t) has
been transformed; we do not mean that y(s) has the same functional
dependence on s that it does on t.)
Ce st d
s
f
^
L Ce at
` ³ Ce at st
e dt
0
C (s a ) t f
e (4.43)
sa 0
C
sa
f
df ( t ) ½ df ( t ) st
L®
¯ dt ¿
¾ ³
0
dt
e dt
f
ª
³ «¬sf (t )e
st
fe »dt
d st º
0
dt ¼ (4.44)
f
f
s ³ f ( t )e st dt f ( t )e st
0
0
t ½ f
§t · st
L ®³ f [ d[¾ ³0 ¨¨© ³0 f [d[ ¸¸¹e dt
¯0 ¿
f
1 §¨ §
f t
· st ·
1
³ f t e st
dt ³ d ¨ ³ f [ d [ ¸e ¸
s0 s 0 ¨© ¨© 0 ¸ ¸
¹ ¹ (4.45)
f
1§ ·t
L^f t ` ¨¨ ³ f [ d[ ¸¸e st
1
s s©0 ¹ 0
L^f t `
1
s
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
N (s) N (s) C1 C2 C3
n 1
... ... (4.46)
D(s) (s D1 ) n (s D 2 ) m ... (s D1 ) n
(s D1 ) (s D 2 ) m
C Ct n 1e Dt
f (s) f (t) (4.47)
(s D) n (n 1)!
N(s) C1 C2 C3
(4.48)
(s D1 )(s D 2 )(s D 3 ) (s D1 ) (s D 2 ) (s D 3 )
N(s) C1 C2 C3
(4.49)
(s D1 )(s D 2 ) 2 (s D1 ) (s D 2 ) 2
(s D 2 )
Some roots may appear as complex conjugate pairs, so that, for example
D1 a jb
(4.410)
D2 a jb
dC 'A1
W1 C 'A1 C 'Ai
dt
(4.14)
dC 'A 2
W2 C 'A 2 C 'A1
dt
dC ' ½
L ®W1 A1 C 'A1 ¾ L C 'Ai ^ `
¯ dt ¿
(4.51)
dC ' ½
^ ` ^ `
W1L ® A1 ¾ L C 'A1 L C 'Ai
¯ dt ¿
^ `
W1 sC'A1 (s) C'A1 (0) C'A1 (s) C'Ai (s)
(4.52)
W1sC (s) C (s) C'Ai (s)
'
A1
'
A1
We can easily solve (4.52) for CƍA1. If we similarly treat the second
equation in (4.14), we arrive at the equivalent formulation in the Laplace
domain.
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
1
C 'A1 (s) C 'Ai (s)
W1s 1
(4.53)
' 1
C (s) C 'A1 (s)
W 2s 1
A2
1 1
C 'A 2 (s) C 'Ai (s) (4.54)
W 2s 1 W1s 1
With (4.54) we have gone as far as we can without knowing more about
the disturbance. That is, we cannot invert the righthand side of (4.54)
until we can actually substitute a functional transform for the variable
CƍAi(s). In this sense, (4.54) resembles (4.22) and (4.24): a solution
needing more specification.
'C t d s
C 'Ai (s) e (4.56)
s
1 1 'C t ds
C 'A 2 (s) e (4.57)
W 2s 1 W1s 1 s
This IS the solution, the step response of the two tanks in series. Of
course, it really must be inverted to the time domain. We treat the
polynomial denominator from either the tables or partial fraction
expansion:
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
1 1 1½ W1 t
W1 W2 t
W2
L1 ® ¾ 1 e e (4.58)
¯ W 2s 1 W1s 1 s ¿ W1 W 2 W1 W 2
1 1 1 t ds ½ ª W1 ( t t d )
W2 ( t t d )
W2 º
L1 ® e ¾ Ut t d «1 e W1
e » (4.59)
¯ W 2s 1 W1s 1 s ¿ ¬ W1 W 2 W1 W 2 ¼
ª W1 ( t t d )
W1 W2 ( t t d )
W2 º
C'A 2 U( t t d )'C«1 e e » (4.510)
¬ W1 W 2 W1 W 2 ¼
dy '
W y' Kx ' ( t ) y ' (0) 0 (4.61)
dt
After taking Laplace transforms, we relate input and output by an algebraic equation:
K '
y ' (s) x (s) (4.62)
Ws 1
The ratio in (4.62) multiplies xƍ(s) (the transform of disturbance xƍ(t)) and in the process
converts that signal into yƍ(s) (the transform of the response yƍ(t)). We call this ratio the transfer
function G(s).
y ' (s) K
G (s) (4.63)
x ' (s) Ws 1
G(s) contains all the information about the ODE (4.61). We should from now recognize it,
when we see it, as a firstorder lag. Should we want to know how the firstorder lag behaves in
response to some disturbance, we transform the disturbance, multiply it by the firstorder lag
transfer function, and then take the inverse transform of the result.
The transfer function for this secondorder system is a product of two first
order lags
y ' (s) K1 K2
G1 (s)G 2 (s) G (s) (4.65)
x ' (s) W1s 1 W 2s 1
xƍ(s) yƍ(s)
G(s)
It comprises blocks and arrows, and thus resembles many other types of flow diagram. In our
use with control systems, however, the arrows represent signals, variables that change in time,
which are not necessarily actual flow streams. The block contains the transfer function, which
may be as simple as a units conversion between x and y, or a description of more complicated
dynamic behavior. Remember that the transfer function incorporates all the dynamic
information in the system equations. This diagram implies the Laplace domain relationship
The real value of block diagrams is to represent the flow of signals among multiple blocks.
y' 3(s)
y' 1(s)
G3(s)
Block diagrams may be turned into equations by simple algebra. It is usually most convenient to
start with an output and work backwards by substitution. In the summing diagram
Similarly, equations may be turned into block diagrams. System (4.72) has two inputs and thus
requires at least 2 blocks.
x' 1(s)
G1(s) G3(s)
+ y' 3(s)

x' 2(s)
G2(s) G3(s)
System (4.73) has two outputs for one input. Input x*1 is not split – its full value is sent to each
of two blocks.
y' 2(s)
x 1(s)
x' G1(s) G2(s)
y 3(s)
y'
G1(s) G3(s)
This pair of block diagrams is equivalent to the pair from which they were derived.
C' Ai(s) 1 C' A1(s) 1 C' A2(s) C' Ai(s) 1 1 C' A2(s)
OR
W1s 1 W 2s 1 W1s 1 W 2 s 1
1 W1W 2 Z ZW1 W 2 j
2
K 1K 2
1 W1 Z2 1 W 2 Z2
2 2
The function G(jȦ), although perhaps daunting to behold, is simply a
complex number. As such, it has real and imaginary parts, and a
magnitude and a phase angle. It turns out that the magnitude of G(jȦ) is
the amplitude ratio of the frequency response.
G ( jZ)
1 W W Z ZW 2 2
W 2
2
1 W Z 1 W Z
1 2 1
K1K 2 2 2 2 2
1 2
1 Z W W Z W W
2 2 2 4 2 2
1 W Z 1 W Z
1 2 1 2
K 1K 2 2 2 2 2
(4.82)
1 2
K 1K 2
1 W1 Z2 1 W 2 Z2
2 2
ImG ( jZ)
G ( jZ) tan 1
ReG ( jZ)
(4.83)
ZW1 W 2
tan 1
1 W1W 2 Z2
In Figure 4.81, the Bode plot abscissa has been normalized by the square
root of the product of the time constants. We see that the amplitude ratio
of a secondorder system declines more swiftly than that of a firstorder
system: the slope of the highfrequency asymptote is 2. Unbalancing the
time constants further decreases the amplitude ratio. The phase angle can
reach 180º. It is symmetric about 90º.
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
1.00
amplitude ratio/gain
0.10
0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0
1.1
30 5
W2
phase angle (deg)
20
60 W1
90
120
150
180
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Ȧ(Ĳ1Ĳ2)0.5 (radians)
The solution to (4.92) is the sum of n terms, each containing a factor eĮit,
where Įi is a real root, or the real part of a complex root, of the
characteristic equation.
Hence if all the Įi are negative, the solution cannot grow with time and
will thus be stable. If we take the Laplace transform of (4.91),
y ' (s) 1
G (s) n 1
(4.94)
x ' (s) a n s a n 1s
n
" a 1s 1
CONTROL SCHEME
One advisor says, “Add it to the first tank, where the disturbance enters.
That way, the manipulation can interact thoroughly with the disturbance;
it’s a matter of success through cooperation.” A second advisor says,
“Add it to the second tank. That way the manipulated variable can affect
the controlled variable more directly, through one tank instead of two.”
This advice brings to mind the difference we have seen between first and
secondorder responses. Yet the first advisor is betterdressed, friendlier,
and has a comforting manner  we decide to add the makeup stream to the
first tank.
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
V1 dC A1 F C
C A1 C Ai Ac Fc
F Fc dt F Fc F Fc
(4.111)
V2 dC A 2
CA 2 C A1
F Fc dt
V1 dC A1 C
C A1 C Ai Ac Fc
F dt F
(4.112)
V2 dC A 2
C A 2 C A1
F dt
1 C Ac F
C 'A 2 (s) C 'Ai (s) Fc' (s) (4.113)
W1s 1W 2s 1 W1s 1W 2s 1
The time constants are the usual volumetoflow ratios. The poles of the
two transfer functions are negative, so adding a makeup stream has not
made the system unstable. Compare (4.113) to (4.54), which describes
the two tanks without makeup flow. Figure 4.111, the block diagram of
(4.113), emphasizes that controlled variable CA2 is influenced by both
disturbance CAi and manipulated variable Fc.
C'Ai (s) 1
W1s 1W 2s 1
Should the outlet composition fall below the set point, the error will
become positive. A positive controller gain Kgain will increase makeup
flow Fc above the bias value, which will act to increase the outlet
composition.
EQUIPMENT
process
x’d(s)
Gd(s)
final sensor
control Gv(s) Gs(s)
controller
element
y’s (s)
y’ İ’ (s) 
co(s)
Gc(s)
y’sp,e(s)
Gsp(s) y’sp(s)
The controller subtracts the sensor signal yƍs from the set point yƍsp and
executes the controller algorithm Gc(s) on the error. The subtraction is
sometimes said to take place in the comparator.
sensor
Let us presume that the sensor is fast  really fast  so that negligible time
elapses between a change in the controlled variable yc and its
measurement ys. Then the transfer function is
Being really fast means that the transfer function has NO dynamic part.
Such a transfer function indicates a “pure gain” process, one in which
changes in the input are “instantaneously” seen in the output. The
dimensions of the gain Ks are
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
controller _ in
Ks ( ) (4.152)
controlled var iable
controller
We see that a proportional controller is also a pure gain process between
error signal and controller response.
where the error is conventionally defined with the set point as positive:
H' '
y sp y s' (4.154)
controller _ out
Kc ( ) (4.155)
controller _ in
set point
The error signal has dimensions suitable for the controller, which implies
that ysp and ys have the same units. However, the operator might prefer to
have the set point expressed in the units of the controlled variable (so
called engineering units), which implies that ysp,e and yc have the same
units. The set point transfer function performs this unit conversion; it is a
pure gain process with gain identical to that of the sensor. That is
G sp Ks (4.156)
Kv '
x 'm y co (4.157)
W vs 1
We begin with the controlled variable, which is the output of the closed
loop system, and work backward through the diagram until all paths are
traced and the inputs appear.
Gd G m G v G c G sp (4.162)
y 'c (s) x 'd (s) '
y sp (s)
1 G m G v G c G s 1 G m G v G c G s ,e
Equation (4.162) shows how a controlled variable responds to a
disturbance and set point inputs. It is derived from Figure 4.141 and
applies to any system that can be represented by the figure.
Kv
Gm K cKs
Gd W vs 1
y 'c (s) x d (s)
' '
y sp ,e (s) (4.163)
§ Kv · § Kv ·
¨¨1 G m K c K s ¸¸ ¨¨1 G m K c K s ¸¸
© W v s 1 ¹ © W v s 1 ¹
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
Equation (4.163) begins to show how the general transfer functions
become specific functions of the Laplace variable s. Now we further
specialize (4.163) to the twotank problem by substituting the process
transfer functions and specific nomenclature from (4.113) or,
equivalently, Figure 4.111.
1 C Ac F Kv
KcKs
C 'A 2 (s)
W1s 1W2s 1 C Ai (s)
' W1s 1W 2s 1 W vs 1
C 'A 2,sp (s)
§ C Ac F Kv · § C Ac F Kv ·
¨¨1 K c K s ¸¸ ¨¨1 K c K s ¸¸
© W1s 1W 2s 1 W v s 1 ¹ © W1s 1W 2s 1 W vs 1 ¹
(4.164)
Beneath its apparent complexity, (4.164) simply tells how the outlet
concentration reacts to disturbances and to a set point input. This closed
loop response is compared in Figure 4.161 to the openloop response of
the process.
1 C Ac F
C 'A 2 (s) C 'Ai (s) Fc' (s)
W1s 1W 2s 1 W1s 1W2s 1
1 C Ac F Kv
K cKs
C 'A 2 (s)
W1s 1W2s 1 C Ai (s)
' W1s 1W 2s 1 W v s 1
C 'A 2,sp (s)
§ C Ac F Kv · § C Ac F Kv ·
¨¨1 K c K s ¸¸ ¨¨1 K c K s ¸¸
© W1s 1W 2s 1 W v s 1 ¹ © W1s 1W2s 1 W vs 1 ¹
Instead of the block diagram algebra, we could have combined the Laplace
domain equations of Section 4.15 directly, eliminating intermediate
variables until we arrived at (4.164).
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
Furthermore, we could have proceeded entirely in the time domain, as we
did in Lesson 3. That is, the secondorder process ODE could have been
combined with the firstorder valve ODE and algebraic equations for
sensor and controller to arrive at an ODE for the controlled variable with
disturbance and set point forcing functions.
We have used new tools  the Laplace transform and the block diagram 
but the underlying objective, and the relationships between inputs and
outputs, were the same as working in the time domain. This is not
mysterious.
W vs 1
W1W 2 W v
C 'A 2 (s) C 'Ai (s)
§ 1 1 1 · § W W W · 1 K v K c K s C Ac F
s 3 ¨¨ ¸¸s 2 ¨¨ 1 2 v ¸¸s
© W1 W 2 W v ¹ © W1W 2 W v ¹ W1W 2 W v
(4.181)
1 K v K c K s C Ac F
W1W 2 W v
C 'A 2,sp (s)
§1 1 1· § W W W · 1 K v K c K s C Ac F
s 3 ¨¨ ¸¸s 2 ¨¨ 1 2 v ¸¸s
© W1 W 2 W v ¹ © W1W 2 W v ¹ W1W 2 W v
W vs 1
§1 1 1· § W W W · 1 K v K c K s C Ac F
s 3 ¨¨ ¸¸s 2 ¨¨ 1 2 v ¸¸s
© W1 W 2 W v ¹ © W1W 2 W v ¹ W1W 2 W v
W vs 1
(4.182)
s D1 s D 2 s D 3
C1 C2 C3
s D1 s D 2 s D 3
The poles of the transfer function are Įi, and the coefficients Ci depend on
these poles, as well as the numerator. We will keep in mind that both Įi,
and Ci depend on the system time constants and gains, as well as the
controller gain Kc. Solving for the coefficients is an algebra problem. The
results are
W v D1 1
C1
D1 D 2 D1 D 3
WvD 2 1
C2 (4.183)
D 2 D1 D 2 D 3
WvD3 1
C3
D 3 D1 D 3 D 2
Thus numerical values of coefficients Ci can be computed for each set of
poles Įi.
1 ª C1 C2 C3 º '
C 'A 2 (s) « » C Ai (s)
W1W 2 W v ¬ s D1 s D 2 s D 3 ¼
ª 1 1 1 º (4.184)
« C C C3 »
D D D
1 2
1
« 1 2 3 » C 'Ai (s)
W1W 2 W v « 1 s 1 1 s 1 1 s 1»
«¬ D1 D2 D3 »¼
We substitute the step disturbance (4.185) into the system model (4.184)
to obtain
ª 1 1 1 º
« C1 C2 C3 »
'C « D1 D2 D3 » e t ds
C 'A 2 (s) (4.186)
W1W 2 W v « § 1 · § 1 · § 1 · »
« ¨¨ s 1¸¸s ¨¨ s 1¸¸s ¨¨ s 1¸¸s »
«¬ © D1 ¹ © D2 ¹ © D3 ¹ »¼
'CU(t t d ) ª C1 C 2 C3 º
CcA 2 (t)
W1W2 W v
«
1 eD1 (t t d )
1 eD2 (t t d )
1 eD3 (t t d ) » (4.187)
¬ D1 D2 D3 ¼
ans =
1.5000 + 1.3229i
1.5000  1.3229i
Notice that zero controller gain leads to poles equal to the negative inverse
of the three system time constants. Thus our closedloop transfer function
reduces to describe the behavior of the process alone, under openloop
conditions. After using the poles in Table 4.191 to compute the solution
(4.187) we obtain a plot of the response behavior. Indeed controller gain
can be increased to reduce the effects of the input disturbance.
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
)
3
1.5
inlet comp deviation (kg m
0.5
0.5
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40
0.0
makeup deviation (10 m s )
Kc = 0
3 1
0.5
6
1.0
0.012
1.5
2.0
0.024
2.5
1.20
outlet composition deviation (kg m)
3
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 10 20 30 40
time (min)
D2 a jb D3 a jb
C2 C3 (4.201)
A jB A jB
D2 D3
to obtain
'CU ( t t d ) ª C1 º
C 'A 2 ( t )
W1W 2 W v
«
1 e D1 ( t t d ) 2A 2e a ( t t d ) A cos b( t t d ) B sin b( t t d ) » (4.203)
¬ D1 ¼
Parameters A, B, a, and b are not variables with time, in the sense of CA2,
but they do depend on the value of the controller gain Kc. Parameters a
and b are found (via the rootfinding procedure) in Table 4.201. A and B
come via complex algebra from (4.183).
bW v a 2 b 2 D1b 2ab
> @
A
2b a 2 b 2 D1 a b 2
2
W a D
(4.204)
2
b 2 1 a a D1 a b 2
> @
v
B
2b a 2 b 2 D1 a b 2
2
Taking data from Table 4.201 and using (4.204), we can plot response
(4.203).
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
inlet comp deviation (kg m)
3
1.5
0.5
0.5
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 4400
makeup flow deviation (10 m s )
3 1
0
2
5
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.90
0.80
outlet composition deviation (kg m)
3
Kc = 0.1
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 10
0.00 50
0 10 20 30 40
time (min)
Figure 4.201: Oscillatory step response
For the single tank of Lesson 3, the closed loop behavior was qualitatively
the same as that of the process itself. Here, however, closing the loop has
introduced behavior we would NOT see in the process alone: the response
variable oscillates in response to a steady input. The key is the thirdorder
characteristic equation, which can admit complex roots. The transfer
function is third order because the secondorder process was placed in a
feedback loop with a firstorder valve. If the system mathematics provide
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
a true representation of the process equipment, we will see oscillations in
operation.
4.00
3.00
arrows show increasing Kc
2.00
from 0 to 100
imaginary (min )
1
1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2
1
real (min )
This root locus plot provides a map of the stability limit; this is
particularly helpful, because we were unable to derive a single expression
that showed the effect of controller gain on the real parts of the poles. We
might imagine that finding the poles will only become more difficult as we
consider more complicated processes and controllers. Hence we introduce
an alternative means of predicting stability: the Bode criterion.
characteristic equation 1 G s G c G v G m
(4.211)
1 GL
It is the amplitude ratio and phase angle, that is, the frequency response, of
GL that determines whether signals will grow in the loop. First we find Ȧc,
the frequency at which the phase delay is 180q. At this crossover
frequency, we inspect the amplitude ratio; if it is less than one, the system
will attenuate reinforced disturbances, and thus be stable.
Thus the Bode criterion evaluates the stability of (1 + GL)1 from the
frequency response of GL.
C Ac F Kv
G L (s) KK (4.212)
W1s 1W2s 1 W vs 1 c s
The phase angle of GL is the sum of the phase angles of the various
elements in (4.212).
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
C Ac 1 1 1
G L ( jZ) KcKsK v
F W1s 1 W 2s 1 W vs 1 (4.213)
0 tan 1 ZW1 tan 1 ZW 2 tan 1 ZW v
Equation (4.213) may be solved for the crossover frequency Ȧc; that is,
the frequency at which the loop delays the signal by 180º.
C Ac 1 1 1
G L ( jZ) KcKsK v u u u
F W1s 1 W 2s 1 W vs 1
(4.215)
C Ac 1 1 1
KcKsK v
F 1 Z2 W1 1 Z2 W 2 1 Z2 W v
2 2 2
C Ac 1 1 1
R Ac KcKsK v (4.216)
F 1 Zc W1 1 Zc W 2 1 Zc W v
2 2 2 2 2 2
Using the data in Section 4.19, we find the crossover frequency from
(4.214) to be 2.25 radians minute1. We notice that phase lag in the loop
depends only on the tanks and valve; the proportional controller, being a
“pure gain” system, contributes no lag to the dynamic response of the
loop. Hence the crossover frequency does not vary with the controller
gain setting.
Using the crossover frequency and further data from Section 4.19, we find
from (4.216) that the crossover amplitude ratio will be 1 when the
controller gain Kc is 52.55. The effect of controller gain is to amplify the
signals in the loop. Around Kc = 52.55, therefore, the system output will
oscillate unabated at frequency Ȧc. At higher gain settings, the amplitude
of the oscillation will grow in time. (The frequency of these oscillations
depends on the poles of the transfer function.)
Figure 4.211 is a Bode plot for the loop transfer function GL, showing
gains below, at, and above the instability threshold. The stability
threshold (amplitude ratio = 1, phase angle = 180°) is shown by a single
point at the crossover frequency
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
1000
100
amplitude ratio
10
1
Kc = 100
52.55
0.1
25
0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0
50
phase angle (deg)
100
200
250
300
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1
Ȧ (radians min )
Figure 4.212 shows unstable step responses at gains of 60 and 100. The
latter response quickly gets out of hand. Notice how the makeup flow
varies in response to the increasing error in the outlet composition.
makeup flow deviation (10 m s ) inlet comp deviation (kg m) Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
3
1.5
0.5
0.5
00 55 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25 30
30
5 3 1
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0.30
outlet composition deviation (kg m)
3
0.20
Kc = 100
0.10
60
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time (min)
RA
(2)
1
GM > 1
RAc
(3)
I1
PM > 0
180
(1)
(4)
Ȧ1 Ȧc
Ȧ
Figure 4.221: Illustration of gain margin and phase margin at a
single controller setting
The gain margin and phase margin are the distances shown on the
ordinates. Their definitions are
GM
1
! 1 for stability
R Ac (4.221)
PM 180 I1 D
! 0 for stability
The controller setting determines the amplitude ratio and phase angle
curves. From those curves we then calculate the margins to see if they are
satisfactory:
Figure 4.222 shows the results of calculations for our tank example.
Earlier, we found the crossover frequency from (4.214). Then (4.216)
was solved for the controller gain that gave RAc = 0.5 (thus GM = 2). The
result was Kc = 26.3. Then (4.213) was solved for the frequency Ȧ1 to
give a phase angle of 150° (thus PM = 30°). Then (4.215) was solved
for the controller gain that gave an amplitude ratio of 1 at frequency Ȧ1.
The result was a much lower gain of 7. Therefore for our system, PM is
limiting, and the lower gain would be chosen. For reference, Figure 4.22
2 also shows the stability limit determined earlier.
The gain and phase margins have given us a tuning criterion for selecting
a controller gain. Using the chosen gain, we can now predict the
performance in response to disturbances and set point changes. The
calculations would be similar to those illustrated in Sections 4.19 and
4.20: a partial fraction expansion leading to an expression for the
response, with parameter values based on numerical rootfinding.
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
100
10
amplitude ratio
Kc = 52.55
1
26.3
0.1
7
0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0
50
phase angle (deg)
100
150
200
250
300
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1
Ȧ (radians min )
Figure 4.222: Bode plot illustrating GM and PM limits on gain
4.23 conclusion
We have completed dynamic analysis and control of a more complicated
process than in Lesson 3. In doing so we have introduced new tools for
analysis  the Laplace transforms and block diagrams  and developed
stability and tuning criteria.
Was it a good idea to listen to the appealing advisor and put the makeup
flow into the first tank? A good way to examine the question would be to
repeat the full analysis for the other case. Even without doing that,
however, we might reflect how removing one lag from the system might
affect the Bode stability criterion for the closed loop…
4.24 reference
Marlin, Thomas E. Process Control. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGrawHill, 2000.
ISBN: 0070393621.
4.25 nomenclature
a constant
Lesson 4: Two Tanks in Series
A constant
A1,A2 constants of integration
b constant
B constant
C constant
C1… constants in partial fraction expansion
CA1 intermediate stream concentration of solute A
CA2 exit stream concentration of solute A
CAc makeup stream concentration of solute A
CAi inlet stream concentration of solute A
CAs reference concentration of solute A at steady state
ǻC change in solute concentration
F volumetric flowrate
Fc volumetric flowrate of makeup stream
f function
G transfer function
Im operator that takes imaginary part of complex number
j square root of 1
K gain (timeindependent part of transfer function)
L Laplace operator
N(s) polynomial in s
r dummy variable in polynomial characteristic equation
Re operator that takes real part of complex number
RA the amplitude ratio of the loop transfer function
RAc the amplitude ratio of the loop transfer function at the crossover frequency
s complex Laplace domain variable
t time
td time at which disturbance occurs
U unit step function
V1 volume of tank 1
V2 volume of tank 2
x(t) input signal to system
y(t) output signal from system
Į1 … roots of polynomial in s
İ error; set point minus controlled variable
Ĳ1 time constant of tank 1
Ĳ2 time constant of tank 2
Ĳv time constant of valve
ȟ dummy variable of integration
Ȧ radian frequency (has dimensions of radians time1)
Ȧc crossover frequency, at which loop transfer function lag is 180°
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
5.0 context and direction
From Lesson 3 to Lesson 4, we increased the dynamic order of the
process, introduced the Laplace transform and block diagram tools, took
more account of equipment, and discovered how control can produce
instability. Now we change the process: our system models have
previously depended on material balances, but now we will write the
energy balance. We will also introduce the integral mode of control in the
algorithm.
F1 T1
F2 T2
F To
Tc
This is not yet the time for complications: we will approximate the
physical properties of the liquid (density, heat capacity, etc.) as constants.
We will also simplify the problem by assuming that the flow rates remain
constant in time. The energy balance is
d
UVC p (To Tref ) UF1C p (T1 Tref ) UF2C p (T2 Tref ) UA(Tc To ) UFCp (To Tref ) (5.12)
dt
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
where the overall heat transfer coefficient is U and the thermodynamic
reference is Tref. We identify a steadystate operating reference condition
with all variables at their desired values.
d
UVC p (Tor Tref ) 0 UF1C p (T1r Tref ) UF2C p (T2r Tref ) UA(Tcr Tor ) UFCp (Tor Tref )
dt
(5.13)
To make some sense of the equation coefficients, define the tank residence
time
V
WR (5.15)
F
and a ratio of the capability for heat transfer to the capability for enthalpy
removal by flow.
UA
E (5.16)
UFC p
ȕ thus indicates the importance of heat transfer in the mixing of the fluids.
We now use (5.15) and (5.16) to define the dynamic parameters: time
constant and gains.
WR
W (5.17)
1 E
F1
K1 F (5.18)
1 E
F2
K2 F (5.19)
1 E
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
Gains K1 and K2 show the effects of inlet temperatures T1 and T2 on the
outlet temperature. For example, a change in T1 will have a small effect
on To if the inlet flow rate F1 is small compared to overall flow F.
E
K3 (5.110)
1 E
dTo'
W To' K1T1' K 2 T2' K 3Tc' (5.111)
dt
dTo' ½
L ®W ^
To' ¾ L K1T1' K 2 T2' K 3Tc' `
¯ dt ¿
dT ' ½
^ ` ^ ` ^ `
WL® o ¾ L To' K1L T1' K 2 L T2' K 3 L Tc' ^ ` (5.21)
¯ dt ¿
W sTo' (s) To' (0) To' (s) K1T1' (s) K 2 T2' (s) K 3Tc' (s)
K1 ' K K
To' (s) T1 (s) 2 T2' (s) 3 Tc' (s)
Ws 1 Ws 1 Ws 1
We must invert each term; this is most easily done by processing the
polynomial first and then applying the time delay. Thus
1 1½ t
L1 ® ¾ 1 e W (5.34)
¯ Ws 1 s ¿
§ 1 1 · t d1s ½ § ( t t d1 )
W ·
L1 ®¨ ¸e ¾ Ut t d1 ¨1 e ¸ (5.35)
¯© Ws 1 s ¹ ¿ © ¹
and finally
§ ( t t d1 )
· § ( ttd 2 )
W ·
To* K1'T1Ut t d1 ¨1 e W
¸ K 2 'T2 Ut t d 2 ¨1 e ¸ (5.36)
© ¹ © ¹
15
T'1 and T'2 (K)
10
5
0
5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
10
0
T'o (K)
1
2
3
4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
t (s)
% INPUT variables
% tauR residence time in seconds
% beta heat transfer significance parameter
% F1frac fraction of flow in stream 1
% OUTPUT variables
% To the deviation in outlet temperature is plotted
end % heated_tank
y yb
y* { 100% (5.61)
y max y min
If the bias value yb is set to the minimum ymin, then y* varies between 0
and 100%. This is the typical control room presentation. If instead the
bias value is set to the reference value yr, then y* varies from
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
y min y r y yr
100% d y* d max 100% (5.62)
y max y min y max y min
The scaled range is still 100% wide, but includes both positive and
negative regions, depending on where yr lies between ymin and ymax. Of
course, yb may be set to any arbitrary value between the limits, but ymin
and yr are generally the most useful.
We will use primes (ƍ) to denote deviation variables and asterisks (*) for
scaled variables. Unadorned variables will be presumed to be physical.
To convert a deviation variable yƍ (from an analytical solution, e.g.) for
presentation as a scaled variable y*, the definitions are combined:
y* {
y y y
'
r b
100% (5.63)
y max y min
T(ºC)
43
40
T'(ºC)
3
100
T*(%)
30
0
t
Figure 5.61 Expressing the variable in physical, deviation, and scaled forms
CONTROL SCHEME
By the model, we are left with the condensing vapor temperature as the
manipulated variable. But what sort of valve adjusts temperature? We
will discuss this below when we select equipment.
§ 1
t
·
x *co x *co , b K *c ¨¨ H* ³ H*dt ¸¸ (5.101)
© TI 0 ¹
where x*co is the controller output and the controlled variable error is
H* y*sp y* (5.102)
Integral mode integrates the error, so that the controller output x*co, which
drives the manipulated variable in the loop, increases with the persistence
of error İ*, in addition to its severity. The influence of the integral mode is
set by the magnitude of the integral time TI. In the special case of a
constant error input to the controller, TI is the time in which the controller
output doubles. Thus decreasing TI strengthens the controller response.
Very large TI disables the integral mode, leaving a proportional controller.
The dimensionless controller gain K*c acts on both the proportional and
integral modes.
y*(%)
60
40
İ*(%)
0
20
x*co(%)
50
30
10
t
Figure 5.101: response of isolated PI controller to an input pulse
For our analytical work, we will want to express the controller algorithm
in deviation variables. We proceed by substituting from definition (5.61)
into the algorithm (5.101) and (5.102).
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
y sp y min y y min
H* 100% 100%
y max y min y max y min
y y
100%
y max y min
sp
(5.103)
y y ' 100% '
y max y min
sp
100%
H
y max y min
x co 0% x 0%
x *co x *co ,b 100% co ,b 100%
100 0% 100 0%
x co x co ,b (5.104)
x co x co ,r
x 'co
100% § ·
t
1
x '
K *
¨ H ³ Hdt ¸
co c
'y ©¨ ¸
TI 0 ¹
(5.105)
§ 1
t
·
K c ¨¨ H ³ Hdt ¸¸
© TI 0 ¹
The dimensionless controller gain K*c (the setting that would actually be
found “on” the controller itself) is multiplied by the ratio 100% ǻy1 to
produce a dimensional quantity Kc. Kc converts the dimensions of the
error İ to the % units of controller output xco. If the error İ were expressed
in the units of a physical variable (a liquid level, for example), ǻy would
perhaps be some number of centimeters. If error were instead expressed
in terms of the output of a signal transducer on the measuring instrument,
ǻy might be in volts or milliamps.
Limits placed on temperature can be both high and low, depending on the
process. Reasons for imposing high limits are often undesirable chemical
changes: polymerization, product degradation, fouling, side reactions.
Both high and low limits may be imposed to avoid phase changes: boiling
and freezing for liquids.
EQUIPMENT
Ts K s To b s (5.121)
The sensor range is adjusted by varying Ks and bs. For example, suppose
that we wish to follow To over the range 50 to 100ºC. Then
4 mA K s 50 D C b s
20 mA K s 100 D C b s (5.122)
Ks 0.32 mA K 1
bs 12 mA
We express the sensor calibration in deviation variables by subtracting the
reference state from (5.121). Suppose we wish to use 75ºC as a reference
operating condition. At the reference, the sensor output will be 12 mA.
* Ts 4mA To 50D C
T 100% 100% (5.124)
s
20 4mA 100 50D C
From (5.124), we see that the scaled sensor output may be defined in
terms of the sensor reading or the controlled variable itself. A temperature
of 75ºC causes a sensor output of 12 mA, or 50% of range.
Ks
Ts' (s) To' (s) (5.125)
Ws s 1
heat exchanger
bundle in tank
steam trap
condensate return
Kv
Tc' (s) x 'co (s) (5.131)
W vs 1
We understand that our process is actually a tank, but what does the
controller look like? For many years, the controller was a physical box
that manipulated air flow with bellows and dampers; its output was an air
pressure that positioned a valve stem. Coughanowr and Koppel (chap.22)
describe such mechanisms.
initialization
set up arrays to hold variables
set controller parameters (Kc*, TI)
process
x'd1(s)
Gd1(s)
x'd2(s)
Gd2(s)
final
control Gv(s) Gs(s)
controller
element
y's (s)
x'co(s) İ' (s) 
Gc(s)
y'sp(s)
Gsp(s) y'sp,s(s)
G d1 Gd2 G m G v G c G sp
y 'c (s) x 'd1 (s) x 'd 2 (s) y ' (s) (5.151)
1 G m G v G c G s 1 G m G v G c G s 1 G m G v G c G s sp
We apply (5.151) to our heated tank by inserting the particular transfer
functions from Sections 5.2, 5.12, 5.13, and 5.14. Thus the disturbance
transfer function is
K1TI
'
s
T (s)
o KsKcK vK3
(5.152)
'
T (s) WTI 1 KsKcK vK3
1 s 2 TI s 1
KsKcK vK3 KsKcK vK3
(and similarly for disturbance T2) and the set point transfer function is
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
To' (s) TIs 1
(5.153)
Tsp' (s) WTI 1 KsKcK vK3
s 2 TI s 1
KsKcK vK3 KsKcK vK3
§ 4W ·
1 K s K c K v K 3 r 1 ¨¨ 2 ¸¸K s K c K v K 3 K s K c K v K 3
2
© TI ¹
s1 , s 2 (5.161)
2W
We observe that the poles could be complex, so that the closed loop
response could be oscillatory. The tendency toward a negative square
root, and thus oscillation, is exacerbated by reducing the integral time TI.
We also observe that the real part of the poles is negative, indicating a
stable system.
We illustrate set point step response for real poles, where the set point is
changed by magnitude ǻT:
ª 1 1 º
« TI TI »
s1 s2
To' 'T «1 es1t es 2 t » (5.162)
« 1 1 1 1 »
«¬ s 2 s1 s 2 s1 »¼
The response is written in terms of poles s1 and s2. Because they are
negative, the two exponential terms decay in time, leaving the longterm
change in set point as ǻT. Thus we requested that the tank temperature
change by ǻT, and the tank temperature changed by ǻT. There is no
offset  this is the contribution of the integral mode of control.
y(s) Ms K
(5.172)
x (s) Ds 2 E s 1
E2
D (5.173)
4
3
unequal, negative
poles: stable, non
oscillating
2 equal, negative
poles: stable, non
oscillating
1
complex negative
poles: stable,
unequal poles of
oscillating
opposite sign:
beta
0 excursively
unstable complex positive imaginary poles:
poles: unstable, persistent
1 oscillating oscillation
equal, positive
poles: excursively
2 unstable
unequal, positive
poles: excursively
unstable
3
1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
alpha
E r E 2 4D
W1 , W 2 (5.174)
2
The system will be stable if both Ĳ1 and Ĳ2 are positive, as they were for the
mixing tanks of Lesson 4. A secondorder step response is
ª § t t d t t d º
M · W1 § M · W2
y( t ) AKU t t d «1 ¨¨1 ¸¸ e W1
¨¨1 ¸¸ e W2
» (5.175)
¬ © KW1 ¹ W1 W 2 © KW 2 ¹ W1 W 2 ¼
W1
W
[ [ 1 2
W [ [2 1 (5.176)
W2
W
[ [ 1 2
W [ [2 1 (5.177)
W W1W2 (5.178)
W1 W 2
[ (5.179)
2 W1W 2
W1 W2 2W[ (5.1710)
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
W1 W 2 2W [ 2 1 (5.1711)
ª §
· [ [ 1 [ 1 t t d W ½º
2 2
M
« °¨1 [ [ 1 ¸
2
e °»
« [ t t d °© KW ¹ 2 [2 1 °»
y( t ) AKUt t d «1 e W
® ¾» (5.181)
« ° §
· [ [ 1 [ 1 t t d W °»
2 2
M
° ¨ 1 KW [ [ 1 ¸
2
« e °»
«¬ ¯ © ¹ 2 [2 1 ¿»¼
ª t t d
§ M · t t d ½º
y( t ) AKUt t d «1 e W
®1 ¨1 ¸ ¾» (5.191)
¬ ¯ © KW ¹ W ¿¼
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
1.2
1
1.1
1.5
2
0.8
ȟ=3
y(t)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time
[2 1
1 [2 j 1 [2 (5.201)
ª M ½º
[
2 t t d KW sin 1 [ 2 t t d °» (5.202)
« [ t t d °
y( t ) AKUt t d «1 e W
®cos 1 [ ¾»
« ° W 1 [2 W °»
¬« ¯ ¿¼»
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
or equivalently
ª § 2
·
1
2 º
« §
¨ 1 [2 ¨ [ M · ¸ ½ »
¸
«
AKUt t d «1 e
[ t t d
W ¨ © KW ¹ ¸ °
sin ® 1 [ 2
t t tan 1
1 [ 2
° »
¾
d
M °»
y( t ) ¨ ¸
« 1 [ 2
° W [ »
¨ ¸
« ¨ ¸ ¯ K W ¿ »
¬ © ¹ ¼
(5.203)
Step Response
1.4
1.2
0.8
x(t) and y(t)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0.2
time
5
4 overshoot
3
2
reciprocal zero*tau
1.8
1.6 p
normalized response
1.4
A
1.2
C
1
0.8
0.6
B
0.4
0.2
0 rise time response time
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
normalized time
S[
1 [ 2
overshoot e
response time – time until response remains within r5% of ultimate value
§ 1 2S · 2SW
p¨ ¸
© f Z¹ 1 [2
WTI
Wcl (5.251)
KsKcK vK3
1 KsKcK vK3 TI
[ (5.252)
2 WK s K c K v K 3
From (5.251) we see that increasing controller gain Kc and decreasing the
integral time TI tend to speed the loop response. Both these adjustments
move the controller in the direction of aggressive tuning. The results of
aggressive tuning are mixed on the damping coefficient  decreasing TI
increases oscillation, but increasing Kc suppresses it. The lower limit of ȟ,
however, is zero, so our secondorder closed loop can be unstable
(theoretically) only in the limit of zero integral time.
K1TI
s
K s K c K v K 3 'T
To' (s) (5.253)
W cl2 s2 2W cl[s 1 s
[t
K1TI 'T 1 t
To' ( t ) e W cl sin 1 [ 2 (5.254)
K s K c K v K 3 W cl 1 [ 2 W cl
Equation (5.254) shows that the response oscillates about, and decays to,
zero; as with the set point response we calculated in (5.162), there is no
offset in the controlled variable, in spite of the permanent change in input.
Thus integralmode control has improved our ability to control the outlet
temperature.
Figure 5.251 shows responses for several controller tunings – that is,
several choices of parameters Kc (represented within the loop gain K) and
TI (scaled to the process time constant). Upon reducing the integral time,
we reduce the amplitude of the error but undergo more oscillation. By
increasing the gain, we speed the decay and thus reduce both the
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
amplitude of the error and time spent away from set point: a 10 K inlet
disturbance affects the outlet temperature by less than 1 K.
1.5
1
T'o (K)
0.5
0.5
0 100 200 300 400
t (s)
f
IE ³ H ( t)dt
0
(5.261)
f
IAE ³ H ( t ) dt
0
(5.262)
³ >H ( t )@ dt
2
ISE (5.263)
0
f
ITAE ³ t H ( t) dt
0
(5.264)
Of course, these integral error measures can be defined for scaled error İ*,
as well. The latter three will always increase as the controlled variable
spends time away from the set point, so in general, smaller means better
control. The measures can be calculated from plant data to compare the
results of different tunings. They can also be used to compare the results
of simulations. For example, we could calculate IAE for the three traces
in Figure 5.251.
KsK cK vK3 § 1 ·
GL ¨¨1 ¸ (5.261)
Ws 1 © TIs ¸¹
and
§ 1 ·
I tan 1 ZW tan 1 ¨¨ ¸¸ (5.263)
© ZTI ¹
Lesson 5: Heated Tank
The Bode plot is made for three ratios of tank time constant Ĳ to controller
setting TI. For the least aggressive tuning with large TI, the response
resembles that of a first order system, although we notice different
behavior at low frequencies, due to the integral controller. Decreasing the
integral time depresses the phase angle toward a uniform 90º and
increases the lowfrequency amplitude ratio. The amplitude ratio on the
plot is normalized by the loop gain; high controller gain settings would
directly increase the amplitude of lowfrequency disturbances.
100
amplitude ratio/gain
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0
30 0.01
phase angle (deg)
0.1
60
90
Ĳ/TI = 1
120
150
180
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
ȦĲ (radians)
Because the phase lag never reaches 180º, the closed loop will remain
stable. However, we see that the integral mode contributes phase lag at
low frequencies, as well as boosts the amplitude ratio. Combined with
other lags in a closed loop, integral control would tend to destabilize the
loop.
5.30 references
Coughanowr, Donald R., and Lowell B. Koppel. Process Systems Analysis and Control.
New York, NY: McGrawHill, 1965. ISBN: 0070132100.
Marlin, Thomas E. Process Control. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGrawHill, 2000. ISBN: 0070393621.
Lesson 5: Operability of Processes
5.0 context and direction
In Lesson 4, we encountered instability. We think of stability as a
mathematical property of our linear system models. Now we will embed
this mathematical notion within the practical context of process
operability. That is, we must not forget that our system models help us
operate processes. Along the way, we will encounter a special category of
instability/inoperability: the nonselfregulating process.
y ' (s) 1
G (s) n 1
(5.11)
x ' (s) a n s a n 1s
n
a 1s 1
dyc
W yc Kxc yc 0 0 (5.12)
dt
K
yc s xc s (5.13)
Ws 1
The transfer function in (5.13) has a single pole at Ĳ1. If the time
constant Ĳ is a positive quantity (as in our tank), the pole is negative and
the response is stable (as we have seen in Lesson 3).
If the time constant were a negative quantity, however, the pole would be
positive. As we saw in Section 4.9, the response would be unstable
because of the exponential term in the solution of (5.12)
t
yc(t) e W
(5.14)
K
yc s xc s (5.31)
Ws
t
yc K (5.32)
W
Fi
h
Fo
The inlet flow is simply given, out of our control, and the outlet is
pumped. The material balance gives
Lesson 5: Operability of Processes
dh
A Fi Fo (5.41)
dt
Both inlet and outlet flow disturbances affect the tank level h. We
envision a steady reference condition in which the flows are balanced at Fr
and the level is at hr. Expressing (5.41) in deviation variables, we obtain
dhc
A Fic Foc (5.42)
dt
1 t
Fic Foc dt
A ³0
hc (5.43)
Thus the name integrator: the response variable is simply the integral of
whatever inputs are fed to it. This can be a big problem. Suppose that this
is your tank. You observe that Fi is running quite steadily, so you adjust
Fo to match it and go home for the night. Just after you leave, Fi increases
to a new steady value. We derive the results from (5.43):
Fic Foc
hc t (5.44)
A
dy
z f y (5.45)
dt
W dyc 1
yc xc yc 0 0 (5.51)
K dt K
We suppose that a particular system features a time constant and gain that
are both large. Under these circumstances, the term involving the
inventory y’ might be neglected in comparison to the others, leaving
W dyc
xc yc 0 0 (5.52)
K dt
In the limit of (5.52), our system is an integrator. The fact that it is not
strictly an integrator is irrelevant if its behavior approaches that of (5.52):
in the matter of midnight phone calls, the process might well be
considered nonselfregulating.
Fi
Fo
A dhc 1
hc Fic (5.53)
k dt k
In physical terms, the constricted outlet forces the liquid level to rise
significantly to respond to relatively small increases in the inlet flow. It
will take a while to reach a level sufficient to push the flow out, so that
there will have been a lot of accumulation in the tank. If the constriction
is sufficiently severe, you will still receive your midnight telephone call,
even though your linear system model (5.53) has a negative pole. The
process is effectively nonselfregulating.
x Part of the answer may come from applying stability theory, either
through formal calculations, or by knowing what to look for while
tuning a controller. Most practical control loops will have a stability
limit. Stability calculations in Section 4.21 helped us select a
Lesson 5: Operability of Processes
controller gain for operability. In this way, we seek to determine a
degree of control.
x Another part of the answer may come from an intuitive examination of
the process, seeking to understand what affects the inventory of each
conserved quantity (mass, species, energy). This is especially useful
for processes that contain multiple operations. Such an examination
can reveal both where control is needed, and where control might
cause a problem. Here we are seeking a scheme of control.
Fi
h
Fo
Such a scheme may allow you to stay at home all night, because it will
tend to reduce imbalance between flows. However, any discrepancy
between the flow rates  through calibration error, instrument drift,
shortcomings of the controller, insufficient adjustment of the pump motor
speed  will contribute to accumulation through (5.43). If that
discrepancy is sufficiently biased, over time the level will creep to an
undesired value.
Lesson 5: Operability of Processes
If our objective is to control level, then we should measure the level! The
scheme of Figure 5.71 did not correct the basic fault of the integrator; in
Figure 5.72 we apply a feedback loop to allow the inventory to affect the
rate of accumulation. Thus the process (under control) becomes self
regulating: a rise in level will trigger an increase in the outlet flow rate,
and so forth.
Fi
L
h
Fo
d
VCAo i Ai Fo C Ao
FC (5.81)
dt
N2
L
water
water
A
N2
A
L L
water
We proceed methodically:
examine scrubber for component A
x inlet streams are independent of the inventory of A
x overhead gas stream is independent of A
x flow of A in the bottoms stream will increase as the bottoms
concentration of A rises, as in Section 5.8
By virtue of the bottoms stream, the scrubber is selfregulating for
component A. As a practical illustration, a rise in the inlet composition of
A will, over time, result in a higher flow of A from the bottom of the
scrubber. (We remark here that this is a qualitative assessment that
presumes good equipment operation, such as sufficient scrubber
performance and a welltuned levelcontrol loop. Our purpose here is not
to perform a detailed design or simulation; rather, it is to determine
whether this process can, in principle, be selfregulating.)
N2
L
water water
water
A
A
N2
A
L L
Lesson 5: Operability of Processes
Figure 5.101 Recovery process with composition control and recycle
N2
L
water water
water
A
A
N2
A
L
L
feed recycle
The problem does not become apparent until we consider the reactor in the
context of other process units. Suppose the concentration of A in the feed
stream undergoes a step reduction. The level and composition controllers
respond: the composition controller increases the supply of recycle to
return the total inflow of A to normal, and the level controller adjusts the
outlet flow as needed to keep the volume the same. Thus A reacts at the
normal rate, and therefore excess A departs the reactor at the normal rate.
5.12 conclusion
We enlarged our notions of stability to develop a concept of what makes a
process operable. In doing this, we have ranged qualitatively over a
variety of chemical processes. In some cases these have included multiple
operations and multiple control loops. In the next lessons, we will return
to analysis of a single operation; as we deepen our understanding, try not
to forget the broad perspective we have attempted here.
5.13 references
Downs, J. J. "Distillation Control in a Plantwide Control Environment." In
Practical Distillation Control. Edited by W. L. Luyben. New York, NY: Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1992. ISBN: 0442006012.
FC Ai FC A V rA
dC A
V (6.21)
dt
§ 1 dN A · E
rA ¨ ¸ kC 2A k oe RT
C 2A (6.22)
© V dt ¹
The energy balance must account for the reaction and heat transfer.
(T Tci ) (T Tco )
Q UoAo (6.24)
T Tci
ln
T Tco
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
1
§ 1 A ·
Uo ¨¨ o ¸¸ (6.25)
© h o Aih i ¹
The outer film coefficient ho depends on the rate of stirring in the tank, as
well as the variation of physical properties with temperature. With
constant physical properties, there is no reason for ho to vary. Inner
coefficient hi depends on the flow of coolant. Invoking typical internal
flow behavior, we write
h i Di
Re n Pr m (6.26)
kc
The main structure of the model is given by the balances (6.21) and (6.2
3). These relate the outlet temperature and composition to their inlet
values. Supplementary equations are needed to describe the reaction
kinetics and heat transfer. We see that the two balances will be coupled
through the temperature dependence of the reaction rate parameter k in
(6.22). Heat transfer is described by equipment performance equation
(6.24) and the empirical relationship (6.27) that describes convective
heat transfer in conduits. These latter equations show how the coolant
flow Fc influences the reactor outlet temperature T.
Even so, we are not finished, because we have not yet accounted for the
outlet coolant temperature Tco in (6.24). Therefore, we must write an
energy balance on the coolant.
d Tc
VcUc C pc FcUc C pc (Tci Tref ) FcUc C pc (Tco Tref ) Q (6.28)
dt
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
1
Tc
Vc ³ T dV
Vc
c (6.29)
Taken together, the equations of this section describe how the outlet
temperature and composition vary in time due to disturbances in inlet
temperature, inlet composition, and coolant flow rate. The coolant outlet
temperature is an intermediate variable in the system.
f (x) f (x r )
df
(x x r ) O (x x r )2 (6.41)
dx x r
wf
f ( x , y,...) f ( x r , y r ,...) (x x r )
wx x r , y r ,...
(6.42)
wf
( y y r ) ... O ( x x r ) 2 , ( y y r ) 2 ,...
wy x
r , y r ,...
w rA
V
dC A
FCAi FCA V rA r V CA CAr V w rA T Tr (6.51)
dt wC A r wT r
FC Air FC Ar V rA r
dC Ar
V 0 (6.52)
dt
w rA E
RT
2k o e CA (6.54)
wC A
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
w rA E
RTr
2k o e C Ar 2k r C Ar (6.55)
wC A r
w rA E E RT 2
ko e CA (6.56)
wT RT 2
w rA E E RTr 2 E 2
ko e C Ar kr C Ar (6.57)
wT r RTr2 RTr2
E
RTr
kr k oe (6.58)
dC 'A E 2 '
V FC'Ai FC'A 2Vk r C Ar C 'A Vk r C Ar T (6.59)
dt RTr2
dC 'A WC '
WC C 'A C Ai K CT T ' C 'A (0) 0 (6.510)
dt WR
where
V
WR
F
WR
WC (6.511)
1 2W R k r C Ar
E
K CT WC k r C 2Ar
RTr2
dT
VUC p FUC p Ti FUC p T
dt
w rA
'H R V rA r 'H R V C A C Ar 'H R V w rA T Tr (6.61)
wC A r wT r
wQ
Qr T Tr wQ Fc Fcr
wT r wFc r
The reaction rate partial derivatives are given in (6.55) and (6.57). To
obtain the heat transfer rate partial derivatives, we combine the heat
transfer expressions (6.24) through (6.27) with the coolant energy
balance (6.210) to eliminate intermediate variable Tco.
ª ° A § 1 A Fn ·
1
½°º
Q FcUc C pc T Tci «1 exp ® o
¨¨ o cr n ¸¸ ¾» (6.64)
«
¬ °̄ FcUc C pc © h o A i h ir Fc ¹ °¿»¼
wQ ª ° A § 1 A Fn ·
1
½°º
FcUc C pc «1 exp ® o
¨¨ o cr n ¸¸ ¾» (6.65)
wT « °̄ FcUc C pc © h o A i h ir Fc ¹ °¿»¼
¬
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
wQ
Fcr Uc C pc >1 E r @ (6.66)
wT r
wQ ª ° A § 1 A Fn ·
1
½°º
Uc C pc T Tci «1 exp® o
¨¨ o cr n ¸¸ ¾»
wFc « °̄ FcUc C pc © h o A i h ir Fc ¹ °¿»¼
¬
A T Tci § 1 A Fn ·
1
° A § 1 A Fn ·
1
½°ª § 1 A o Fcrn · A o nFcrn º
1
o ¨¨ o cr n ¸¸ exp® o
¨¨ o cr n ¸¸ ¾«1 ¨¨ ¸
n ¸
»
°̄ FcUc C pc © h o A i h ir Fc « i ir c »
n
Fc © h o A i h ir Fc ¹ ¹ °¿¬ © o h A i ir c ¹
h F A h F
¼
(6.67)
wQ E r U or A o Tr Tci ª U or A o n º
Uc C pc Tr Tci >1 E r @ «1 » (6.68)
wFc r
Fcr ¬ A i h ir ¼
in which
1
§ 1 A ·
U or ¨¨ o ¸¸ (6.69)
© h o A i h ir ¹
and
° U or A o ½°
Er exp® ¾ (6.68)
°̄ Fcr Uc C pc °¿
dT ' WT '
WT T' Ti K TC C 'A K ht Fc' T ' (0) 0 (6.610)
dt WR
where
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
WR
WT
Fcr Uc C pc
1 1 E r WR 'H r E
k r C 2Ar
FUC p UC p RTr2
'H r
K TC 2 W T k r C Ar (6.611)
UC p
WT Uc C pc Tr Tci ª E r U or A o § nU or A o · º
K ht « ¨¨1 ¸¸ 1 E r »
WR FUC p «¬ Fcr Uc C pc © A i h ir ¹ »¼
WC '
( WCs 1)C 'A (s) C Ai (s) K CT T ' (s) (6.71)
WR
WT '
( WT s 1)T ' (s) Ti (s) K TC C 'A (s) K ht Fc' (s) (6.72)
WR
WC
CAi '(s) Wr CA'(s)
W Cs 1
K CT
W Cs 1
K TC
WT WT s 1
Ti'(s) Wr T'(s)
WTs 1
K ht
Fc'(s)
WTs 1
WC K CT WT K CT K ht
W R WCs 1 W W s 1WT s 1 ' WCs 1WTs 1 F' (s) (6.73)
C 'A (s) C 'Ai (s) R C Ti (s) c
K CT K TC K CT K TC K CT K TC
1 1 1
WCs 1WT s 1 WCs 1WTs 1 WCs 1WT s 1
After simplifying the individual transfer functions in (6.73), we recognize
a secondorder system
W2 W 2 K CT W 2 K CT K ht
WTs 1
W R WT W W W W
C 'A (s) C 'Ai (s) 2 2 R C Ti' (s) 2 2 T C Fc' (s) (6.74)
W s 2W[s 1
2 2
W s 2W[s 1 W s 2W[s 1
WC WT
W2 (6.75)
1 K CT K TC
WC WT
2W[ (6.76)
1 K CT K TC
W2 W 2 K TC W 2 K ht
WCs 1 WCs 1
W R WC W R WT WC WT
T ' (s) Ti (s) 2 2
'
C Ai (s) 2 2
'
Fc' (s) (6.77)
W s 2W[s 1
2 2
W s 2W[s 1 W s 2W[s 1
From (6.74) and (6.77) we see that the material and energy balances
combine to produce a secondorder dependence for each output variable.
The characteristic equation and poles are the same for both T and CA.
Through (6.74) and (6.77) we can predict how T and CA will respond to
particular disturbances.
For some combinations of design (V), reaction system (kr, ǻHR, etc.), and
operating inputs (CAir, Fcr, etc.), it is possible for three distinct pairs of
reactor temperature Tr and composition CAr to satisfy (6.81) and (6.82).
Marlin (App. C) illustrates this behavior by plotting the term of (6.82)
that represents heat generation by reaction
both versus reactor temperature Tr. Any intersection of the two curves
(point A, B, or C) satisfies (6.82).
energy C
time reaction
heat transfer
B
Tr
Our linearized dynamic models should capture this behavior in the vicinity
of the reference state. That is, the poles of (6.74) or (6.77) should show
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
negative real parts for conditions such as A and C, and positive real parts
for B.
Let us examine a specific case (in which the parameters are chosen more
for illustration than realism):
Here our linearized models agree with the stability assessment from the
nonlinear steady state balances. We could not expect a reactor to stay, on
its own, at the second condition.
W2 W 2 K TC
C 'A (f) 'C T ' (f) 'C (6.91)
W R WT W R WT
W 2 K CT W2
C 'A (f) 'T T ' (f ) 'T (6.92)
W R WC W R WC
CONTROL SCHEME
where x*co is the controller output and the controlled variable error,
expressed in scaled variables, is
H* y*sp y* (6.132)
100% § dH ·
t
1
x 'co K *c ¨ H ³ Hdt TD ¸
'y ¨© TI 0 dt ¸¹
(6.133)
§ 1
t
dH ·
K c ¨ H ³ Hdt TD ¸¸
¨
© TI 0 dt ¹
§ '
x 'co (s)
K c ¨¨ y sp
(s) y ' (s)
1 '
y sp (s) y ' (s) TDs y sp
'
(s) y ' (s) ·¸¸
© TIs ¹
(6.134)
§ · '
K c ¨¨1
1
TD s ¸¸ y sp (s) y ' (s)
© TIs ¹
EQUIPMENT
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
heat exchanger
bundle in tank
Thus the controller output must vary the air pressure at the diaphragm.
Conversion of controller output to air pressure requires another device
between controller and valve, called a transducer. The transducer supplies
air to the valve in sufficient quantity to achieve a pressure proportional to
the controller signal. By convention, a zero controller output is
represented to the valve as 3 psig; 100% output produces 15 psig.
In selecting the failure mode of a valve, the engineer considers how best to
protect people and equipment under offnormal conditions. General
guidelines would include cooling water failing open, steam valves failing
closed, reactor feed failing closed, vessel effluent failing open. Of course,
exceptions to these cases could be found, too.
The failure mode of a valve determines the sign of its gain. For example,
suppose that we represent the combined valve and transducer by a transfer
function between the controller output and the flow rate through the valve:
For an airtoopen valve, the flow increases with controller output, so that
the gain Kv is positive. For an airtoclose valve, shown in the schematic,
the flow decreases with controller output, so that the gain is negative.
F Fb
K v x co 0 (6.172)
For an airtoopen valve, the gain Kv is positive and the bias flow Fb is
zero.
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
Fmax
F x co (6.173)
100%
For an airtoclose valve, the gain is negative, and bias flow is the
maximum flow.
F
Fmax
100%
100% x co (6.174)
6.18 positive closed loop gain and the sense of the controller
In these lessons, we have occasionally checked the sign of the gain in our
dynamic systems. Finding in Section 6.17 that an airtoclose valve
necessarily has a negative gain motivates us to examine the gains in a
closed feedback loop.
Because we have defined error to be the set point less the controlled
variable, a high controlled variable gives a negative error. If this error is
acted upon by a positive gain around the loop, the feedback to the
controlled variable is negative. Hence we want a positive loop gain.
The loop gain KL is the gain component of the loop transfer function
GL(s). Thus, the loop gain is the product of the sensor, controller, valve,
and manipulated variable (process) gains.
KL KsKcK vK m (6.181)
x Of these, the gain Ks for most sensors is positive  the mercury rises
with temperature.
x The process gain Km is determined by the process itself  in these
lessons, it has typically been positive, such that an increase in
manipulated variable causes an increase in the response variable.
However, we might in principle run across an opposite case.
x The sign of the valve gain Kv is a function of a safety analysis, as
discussed in Section 6.17.
x Because Km and Kv may be either positive or negative, and can be so
for independent reasons, we must therefore reserve the ability to
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
choose the sign of the controller gain Kc. This is done with the
controller sense switch, which might be a physical switch on an analog
controller, or an input value in software.
6.19 ambiguity!
The adjectives “directacting” and “reverseacting” are used with a
controller to indicate the position of the sense switch. Alternative
adjectives are “increase/increase” and “increase/decrease”. However, the
adjectives are not consistently used! Hence, look at the controller
carefully, and ensure that you know the algebraic sign of the gain.
process
Gud1(s)
Gud2(s)
yu' (s)
Gud3(s)
x'd1(s)
Gd1(s)
x'd2(s)
Gd2(s)
final
control Gv(s) Gs(s)
controller
element
y's (s)
x'co(s) e' (s) 
Gc(s)
y'sp(s)
Gsp(s) y'sp,s(s)
G d1 Gd2 G m G v G c G sp
y ' (s) x 'd1 (s) x 'd 2 (s) '
y sp (s) (6.201)
1 G m G v G c G s 1 G m G v G c G s 1 G m G v G c G s
We specialize the nomenclature and the transfer functions for our stirred
reactor case, using especially temperature model (6.77).
WT
WCs 1s
'
T (s) W R K v K c K s K Th
(6.211)
Ti' (s) § WT · § 2[WT T · ½
°WC ¨¨ TD ¸¸s 3 WC ¨¨ D 1¸¸s 2 °
° © K v K c K s K ht ¹ © WK v K c K s K ht WC ¹ °
® ¾
° W §¨ WT 1 1·
¸
1 °
° C ¨ W 2 K K K K W T ¸s T °
¯ © v c s ht C I ¹ I ¿
The closed loop characteristic equation is third order, because the integral
mode has increased the process order by one. Partial fraction expansion
will show us that the step response will be the sum of three exponential
terms (for 3 real roots) or an exponential oscillation (for 1 real and 2
complex roots). We could proceed as in Lesson 4, in which we calculated
poles numerically and found the onset of oscillation, and then instability
with increasing gain. Here our tuning task would be more complicated,
because we have three controller parameters to vary, instead of just the
gain.
The derivative mode affects the coefficients of the two higher order terms.
Increasing D will increase the curvature of the characteristic function,
which (other parameters unchanged) can increase the likelihood of three
abscissacrossings  thus three real roots, suppressing oscillation in the
response.
The integral mode affects the lower order terms. Increasing TI will result
ultimately in reducing the order of the characteristic equation, which will
allow offset in the step response. Increasing the controller gain Kc will
reduce the transfer function gain (the coefficient in the numerator) and
reduce the magnitude of the dynamic term coefficients in the denominator.
1 WC Z
2
§ 1 · W 2 K ht
2
RA KsKc 1 ¨¨ TD Z ¸¸ K v (6.221)
© TI Z ¹ WC WT 1 W Z 2W[Z
2 2 2 2
Similarly, the phase angle is the sum of the component phase angles.
§ 1 · § 2W[Z ·
I tan 1 ¨¨ TD Z ¸¸ tan 1 WC Z tan 1 ¨ 2 2 ¸
(6.222)
© TI Z ¹ ©1 W Z ¹
The derivative mode opposes the phase lag due to the integral mode and
stabilizes the closed loop. In the figure, the controller parameters are set
to give P, PD, PI, and PID controllers at a stable openloop condition, as
described in Section 6.8. Controllers using integral mode are shown with
dashed lines; solid lines refer to P and PD controllers.
Lesson 6: Exothermic Tank Reactor
100.00
10.00
amplitude ratio
1.00
0.10
0.01
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
0
30
phase angle (deg)
60
90
120
150
180
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Ȧ (radians s 1)
P PD PI PID
The effect of integral mode is to increase the amplitude ratio and increase
the phase lag at low frequency. Both these actions are generally
destabilizing to a closed loop, although in this case, there is no crossover
frequency in evidence (the phase lag never goes beyond 180º). The effect
of derivative mode is to decrease the phase lag at high frequency. This
can often help push a crossover frequency to a higher value, at which the
amplitude ratio will tend to be smaller. In this way, derivative mode can
help to stabilize a closed loop.
6.24 conclusion
We encountered a more complicated process in this lesson, both because it
required two coupled equations, and because reaction kinetics and heat
transfer made them nonlinear. We introduced a formal approximation
process to make the model linear, and then were able to treat it with tools
we had previously developed. Even so, nonlinearity could not be escaped,
because we found that the behavior of the approximate description
depended on the reference conditions we chose. Furthermore, we found
that some conditions admitted multiple steady states. All of this should
inspire us to maintain a healthy skepticism toward our results.
6.25 references
Incropera, Frank P., and David P. DeWitt. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer.
5th ed. New York, NY: J. Wiley, 2002. ISBN: 0471386502.
Marlin, Thomas E. Process Control. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGrawHill, 2000.
ISBN: 0070393621.
Lesson 7: High Order Overdamped Processes
7.0 context and direction
Chemical processing plants are characterized by large time constants and
time delays. For control engineering, we can often approximate these
highorder systems by the FODT (firstorderdeadtime) model. Dead
time in a process increases the difficulty of controlling it.
d
Vi C 'Ai FC 'Ai 1 FC 'Ai (7.11)
dt
C 'An (s) 1
(7.12)
C 'A 0 (s) W1s 1W2s 1" Wn s 1
Let us illustrate highorder behavior and (7.12) by first imagining a single
wellmixed overflow tank of time constant Ĳ. If we introduce a step
increase in the inlet concentration, we will (by the wellmixed assumption)
immediately detect a rise in the outlet stream – the familiar firstorder lag
response. If we have instead two tanks in series, each half the volume of
the original, we will detect a secondorder, sigmoid response at the outlet.
Lesson 7: High Order Overdamped Processes
Each tank has a smaller individual time constant, and their sum is the time
constant Ĳ of the original tank. If we continue to increase the number of
tanks in the series, always maintaining the total volume, we observe a
slower initial response with a faster rise around the time constant. This
behavior is shown in Figure 7.11.
1.2
0.8
step response
0.6
0.4
1
2
6
12
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
time/tau
Figure 7.11. Step response for tanks in series; equal time constants
Lesson 7: High Order Overdamped Processes
The step response shows that highorder systems have a longer startup
period before rising toward the final value.
time
td td + ș
The transit time depends on the liquid velocity and the length of the pipe.
The figure indicates faithful transmission of the input signal x(t) from inlet
to outlet, as if every particle in the pipe moved at the same velocity.
However, in real chemical processes the solute pulse y(t) would become
distorted through diffusive and dispersive effects. Nonetheless, a simple
description of transport using the average fluid velocity is often sufficient
to represent dead time in a process:
Lesson 7: High Order Overdamped Processes
L V
T (7.31)
v F
Consider again Figure 7.11 and the series of tanks. If taken to the limit of
an infinite number of tanks, each infinitesimally small, we finally obtain a
pure delay, in which at time Ĳ the full step disturbance appears at the
outlet.
Ĳ ș
In the tank step response, the output lags behind the input, but there is no
delay between input and a response at the output. In the pipe, by contrast,
the output is delayed.
is faithfully reproduced at the output of the dead time process, but will be
delayed. Thus the amplitude ratio is unity, and the phase lag depends on
the input frequency and the dead time. Inserting jȦ into the Laplace
transform in Table 7.41,
Lesson 7: High Order Overdamped Processes
RA e Tj Z 1
(7.52)
I e TjZ TZ
Thus dead time delays a signal in an unbounded manner, but does not
diminish its amplitude. From what we recall of the Bode criterion for
evaluating closed loop stability, we might speculate that dead time could
be particularly significant.
dy '
W y' Kx ' t T (7.61)
dt
The FODT time constant Ĳ comes from the tank, and the dead time ș from
the pipe. Taking the Laplace transform of (7.61)
0
phase angle (deg)
100
FOPDT
first order
200
300
0.01 0.1 1 10
ZW(radians)
If the step input can be maintained sufficiently long to see the response
become virtually constant, the gain K is relatively easy to determine.
However, the response variable remains subject to other disturbances,
which may distort the experimental data through noise and confounding
inputs. Such confounding inputs may force a given step test to be short.
Furthermore, in some systems it may be impossible to approximate a step
input. In others, it may be undesirable to force a system away from the
desired operating condition for a lengthy period. Thus other forms of
input disturbance suitable for identifying a system model are discussed by
Seborg et al (2004).
Figure 7.81 shows experimental data for a system with negative gain.
The noise in the response variable trace makes the choice of dead time
somewhat uncertain. Furthermore, the short duration of the run means
that different combinations of gain and time constant can be used to fit the
observed trace; a longer run would have distinguished these two
parameters more clearly.
Lesson 7: High Order Overdamped Processes
time (s)
50 150 250 350 450
0.4
0.2
0
scaled traces
0.2
Thi
0.4 Fc
FOPDT
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Fc, CAc
F, CAi
F, CAo
volume V
dC 'Ao ( t ) C
W C 'Ao ( t ) C 'Ai ( t T) Ac Fc' ( t T) (7.101)
dt F
The responses to changes in either of the inputs CƍAi or Fƍc will resemble
those computed in Lesson 3, except that they will be observed only after a
time interval of ș has followed the occurrence of the input.
CONTROL SCHEME
Lesson 7: High Order Overdamped Processes
V = 6 m3
F = 0.02 m3 s1
Ĳ = 300 s
ș = 60 s
Fcs = 104 m3 s1
CAis = 8 kg m3
CAos = 10 kg m3
CAc = 400 kg m3
We will suppose that CAi may vary between 4 and 10 around its reference
value of 8 kg m3. Therefore, from the steady state material balance, Fc
must be capable of varying between 0 and 2×104 m3 s1 to maintain CA at
set point.
EQUIPMENT
mA %in
Ks ( ) (7.121)
unit of controlled var iable mA
100
PB (7.141)
KC
Such a condition is called reset windup, and could occur under prolonged
severe input step disturbances, or a fault in the loop (such as a mistakenly
closed manual valve) that prevented the manipulated variable from
affecting the controlled variable. Controller devices and algorithms
generally include windup protection to prevent the unbounded growth of
the integral mode.
§ 1
t
dy ·
x co x co,bias K c ¨¨ H ³ Hdt TD ¸¸ (7.171)
© TI 0 dt ¹
Here y represents the controlled variable, and the sign in front of TD has
become negative, because error is always defined as the difference
between set point and controlled variable.
TD s
(7.181)
DTD s 1
dH df dH
DTD H df TD (7.182)
dt dt
where the variable İdf is the differentiated, filtered error signal that is
combined with the original error and the integrated error in the PID
algorithm. The filter parameter Į is often set between 0.1 and 0.2. If Į
were zero, İdf would be the unfiltered derivative of the error İ in the ideal
PID algorithm.
Kd
C 'A (s) Ws 1 (7.191)
C 'Ai (s) § 1 · K
1 K s K v K c ¨¨1 TDs ¸¸ m e Ts
© TIs ¹ Ws 1
In (7.191) we have omitted the dead time from the disturbance transfer
function in the numerator because we (presume that we) have no
independent measure of CAi and thus only know that a disturbance has
occurred when we see the response in CA. We proceed as before to
resolve the fractions, and obtain
C 'A (s) K ds
(7.192)
C 'Ai (s) § 1·
Ws 2 s K s K v K c K m ¨¨ TDs 2 s ¸¸e Ts
© TI ¹
2
§ 1 · 1
RA G L ( jZ) KsK vKcK m 1 ¨¨ TD Z ¸ (7.201)
© TI Z ¸¹ 1 (WZ) 2
1
I G L ( jZ) tan 1 (ZW) tan 1 (TD Z ) TZ (7.202)
TI Z
From (7.202) we see that the crossover frequency depends on the system
model parameters Ĳ and ș, and it may be further influenced by controller
parameters TI and TD. These controller settings also influence the
amplitude ratio, along with the controller gain Kc.
KsKmKv = 0.5
Ĳ = 3 min
ș = 1 min
TI = 10 min
TD = 2 min
Notice that the amplitude ratio becomes level at high frequencies, instead
of dropping off, as we have previously seen. This is because the
decreasing amplitude of the first order process is balanced by the
increasing amplitude of the derivative controller mode. The derivative
mode filter described in Section 7.18 would prevent this high derivative
gain at high frequencies.
The phase angle actually rises over some range of frequency, due to the
contributions of the controller, but ultimately the process dead time
dominates, and the phase angle crosses the 180º stability criterion.
Lesson 7: High Order Overdamped Processes
1000
100
amplitude ratio
10
0.1
0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
0
100
phase angle (deg)
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Ȧ (radians min1)
Figure 7.201. Bode plot for loop transfer function at gains 1, 3, and 5
60
disturbance
50
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
70
manipulated and controlled variables
60
50
40
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time
manipulated controlled
Ciancone
This is Marlin’s recommendation. Read Chapter 9 for the story of its
development. Read particularly Example 9.5 for a good illustration of its
use. In short, the correlation provides robust tuning for an FODT process
(and thus for anything reasonably approximated by FODT). The closed
loop equations (FODT and PID controller) were solved numerically to
predict controlled variable response to disturbance and set point steps.
Controlled variable IAE was minimized by varying controller parameters
Kc, Ti, and Td. However, this optimization was broadened beyond a single
operating case. It accounted for model error and changes in operating
conditions by computing IAE for multiple cases, in which model
parameters were varied. In addition, constraints were placed on variation
in the manipulated variable. The correlation is presented as graphical
relations among nondimensional parameters.
§ T · Ti § T · Ti § T ·
Kc K p f1 ¨ ¸ f2 ¨ ¸ f3 ¨ ¸ (7.211)
©W T ¹ W T ©W T ¹ W T ©W T ¹
7.23 references
Marlin, Thomas E. Process Control. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGrawHill, 2000.
ISBN: 0070393621.
Seborg, Dale, Thomas Edgar, and Duncan Mellichamp. Process Dynamics and
Control. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. ISBN: 0471000779.
Lesson 8: Cascade and Feedforward Control Schemes
8.0 context and direction
Knowledge of the process is the basis for successful process control. In
Lesson 7, we used process knowledge to guide, through tuning
correlations, our choice of controller parameters. In this lesson, process
knowledge will guide our choice of control structure itself: by making
additional process measurements, we will augment the singleloop
feedback control scheme to give it greater capability.
x'd1(s)
Gd1(s)
x'd2(s)
Gd2(s)
y ' (s) G m x 'm (s) G d 2 x d' 2 (s) G d1x 'd1 (s) (8.11)
We imagine a case in which process Gm(s) could be divided into two parts,
connected by a measurable intermediate variable xi: this could be as
simple as two tanks in series, as in Lesson 4. Having specified some of
the interior structure of Gm, we consider xd2 to be typical of disturbances
that affect the process further upstream and xd1 to affect the process
downstream, after the intermediate variable.
x'd1(s)
Gd1(s)
x'd2(s)
Gd2a(s)
Equations (8.11) and (8.12) describe the same process, so they must be
equivalent. Comparing them, we find
Gm G m 2G m1 (8.13)
and
G d2 G d 2 a G m1 (8.14)
1.2
1
xi
0.8 y
response
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
t/Ĳd2
CONTROL SCHEME
Lesson 8: Cascade and Feedforward Control Schemes
8.3 step 1  specify a control objective for the process
Our control objective is to maintain the outlet variable y at set point.
x'd2(s)
Gd2a(s)
x'co(s)  
Gc2(s) Gc1(s)
y'sp(s)
Gsp(s)
Disturbances xd2ƍ are rejected by the secondary loop before they affect the
full process, and thus response is quicker and the impact on yƍ less. The
primary loop is necessary to handle the other disturbances, such as xd1ƍ,
that always exist. The extra layer of control does not degrade the response
to xd1ƍ, because the process is usually much slower than the controller.
Cascade can be carried to more nested levels. For example, in Figure 8.5
2 the composition controller sets a temperature set point in the secondary
loop; the temperature controller in turn sets the flow set point for the
tertiary loop.
x'd1(s)
Gd1(s)
x'd2(s)
Gd2(s)
Gv(s) Gs(s)

Gc(s)
y'sp(s)
Gsp(s)
x'd2(s)
Gd2(s)
Gsf(s) Gv(s)
Gff(s)
x'd2(s)
Gd2(s)

Gff(s) Gc(s)
Gsp(s)
y'sp(s)
Gd2
G ff (8.61)
G sf G v G m
The parallel path through the feedforward controller makes use of advance
warning about the disturbance. Given perfect process models, plus the
ability to render those in transfer function Gff, the compensation can
completely negate the effect of xd2. Of course, perfection is unlikely, as
we will see later.
8.8 example
A feed stream is preheated using a heating oil in a shellandtube
exchanger. The outlet temperature is controlled by manipulating the flow
rate of the oil.
T F T
F T
The process is subject to several disturbances: the flow rate and inlet
temperature of both process (feed) and service (heating oil) streams may
vary. The latter disturbances are particularly troublesome; because the
heating oil is supplied from a header that feeds other, larger users, swings
Lesson 8: Cascade and Feedforward Control Schemes
in the supply pressure and temperature are frequent. We propose
employing additional measurements and control loops, arranged as shown
in Figure 8.82.
T F T
F T
Should the oil supply pressure decrease, the secondary flow controller will
respond by opening the supply valve. This will allow the oil flow rate to
return to its desired value. The cascade structure responds to the pressure
disturbance before the controlled variable is affected.
EQUIPMENT
Tlead s 1 Tff
G ff K ff e (8.92)
Tlag s 1
4
change in controller output
lead = 2 x lag
2 lead = lag
lead = 0.5 x lag
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
time
It may be that the two controllers will oppose each other, so that the sum
of the outputs is a smaller movement than each individual controller
would have directed. This is not necessarily a problem: each controller
responds in its own area of expertise (feedback responding to present
error; feedforward forecasting the effects of present disturbance) and the
sum of the outputs addresses both concerns.
Of course, the sum of the controller outputs could fall outside the physical
0  100% range of the valve. In this case, the valve can move only to its
limit in response. If this is a frequent occurrence, the manipulated variable
may be insufficiently strong to overcome disturbances.
If we regard the valve as the final control element and the flowmeter as the
sensor, there is really no process left. Hence a block diagram will show
the process as a unity transfer function: the controlled variable and
manipulated variable are identical:
properties
Gd1(s)
ǻP
Gd2(s)
flow flow
1

Gc(s)
controller output
set point
Gsp(s)
from outer loop
Figure 8.112 Block diagram of flow control loop
The valve affects the flow through the stem position, as described in
transfer function Gv. The diagram also identifies two disturbances that
affect flow: a change in the pressure difference across the valve (as might
result from variations in sources and sink conditions) and changes in
physical properties of the flowing fluid. All these transfer functions come,
as in other examples, from a linearized model of flow through a valve.
properties
Gd1(s)
ǻP
Gd2(s)
1 flowmeter Gs(s)

Gc(s)
controller output
set point
Gsp(s)
from outer loop
Figure 8.113 Alternative block diagram of flow control loop
In effect, the transfer function that describes how valve stem position
affects flow has moved from Gv in Figure 8.112 to Gm in Figure 8.113.
In this series of Lessons, we have preferred the point of view of Figure
8.112; that is, a controller acts through a final control element to produce
a flow, which may then be used to manipulate a process output.
so that
Gd2 G G G
x i' (s) x d' 2 (s) m 2 v c 2 x 'co1 (s) (8.122)
1 G L2 1 G L2
G L2 G m 2G vG c 2G s 2 (8.123)
Lesson 8: Cascade and Feedforward Control Schemes
With xiƍ known, we continue in the outer loop.
Solving for yƍ
GL G mG vG cG s (8.153)
Notice that the feedforward controller affects only the transfer function for
disturbance xd2; other disturbances and the set point have the usual
feedback loop transfer functions. By (8.61) we try to make the xd2
transfer function zero. However, if it is not, the feedback controller is also
available, through the transfer function denominator, to respond to xd2, as
it does to other disturbances.
8.17 conclusion
By going to the trouble and expense of extra measurements, and obtaining
deeper knowledge of the process, we are enabled to improve on the
performance of the singleloop PID controller. This is not to say that
cascade or feedforward enhancements are always to be recommended 
they must be technically feasible (the measurements and character of the
new variables being appropriate) and economically justified. This of
course, is a familiar story to engineers.
Feedforward and cascade point the way to further control schemes that
make use of process models. Various forms of modelbased control can
offer advantages in single control loops, but really come into their own
when we consider how individual control loops may interact  that is,
when realistic process models are MIMO  multiple input/multiple output.
8.18 reference
Marlin, Thomas E. Process Control. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGrawHill, 2000.
ISBN: 0070393621.