Closed-Loop Identification of Multivariable

Systems by Optimization Method

Dr. M. Chidambaram
Department of Chemical Engg
IIT-Madras
chidam@iitm.ac.in
1
Process Identification
Most chemical processes are multi-input and
multi-output (MIMO) systems.

Transfer function model matrix required to
design multivariable controllers.

Identification of systems

Open-loop identification
Closed-loop identification

For controller tuning purposes, closed loop
identification method is preferred over open
loop method (Hjalmarsson et al., 1996).
2
3
Viswanathan et al.(2001) Proposed GA+BFGS
optimization method for identification, in time
domain
Computational time is high (about 1 hr and 30 min).
Parameter convergence not guaranteed.
Upper and lower bounds taken arbitrarily.
Objectives
To propose a simple method to obtain initial
guess values of model parameters to identify
FOPTD transfer function models of MIMO systems
using closed-loop step responses by optimization
method.

Extend this method to identify SOPTD transfer
function model identification for multivariable
systems.
Model Identification Procedure
4
TITO Process Transfer function matrix
Decentralized controller matrix

Response matrix of TITO system
5
Objective Function for Optimization
Guess values for FOPTD model parameters
Design value of
is taken as 6
Diagonal process gains obtained from
controller gain. The value of
Time delay considered
as same as closed time
delay.

Time constant obtained
from settling time.
Guess value for time constant is assumed as
Approximated FOPTD Model
Guess values of non-diagonal process gains
are estimated from closed-loop transfer function.
7
The value of S* is taken as
8
Three simulation examples considered to show
the effectiveness of the proposed method.
9 9 9
Simulation examples Identification

Identification of FOPTD to FOPTD TITO
system.
Effect of different controller
settings, noise & initial guess values
are studied.
Optimization computational time
considerably reduced from 1 hr and 29
mins
1
to 4 min and 17 s
Identification of Higher order model
to FOPTD TITO system.
Effect of noise & initial guess
values are studied.
Optimization computational time
considerably reduced from 1 hr and 20
mins
1
to 1 min and 26 s.
Identification of SOPTD to SOPTD 3
3 system.
Effect of controller settings &
initial guess values are studied.
Optimization computational time is 23
min and 20 s
Example 1.1: Wood and Berry (1983)

distillation
process.
Simulation Examples
Decentralized PID controller settings(Ham & Kim,
1998)
10
Converged model parameters match well with actual FOPTD
system.

Effect of different controller settings, noise & initial
guess values are studied.

Optimization computational time considerably reduced from
1 hr and 29 mins
1
to 4 min and 17 s.
Closed-loop response of the process and the identified FOPTD
transfer function model using decentralized PID
controller.(Model & Process response curves overlap)
11
Table 1.1. Model identification results using
decentralized PID controller for Example 1.
Model IAE values ISE values
Time
(N. I.)
Model identification results without noise
11
Guess 5.0505 6.2500 1.0000
6.4110
-4
1.1710
-8

152
(25)
Converged 12.8009 16.7031 1.0002
21
Guess 5.2391 8.7500 7.0000
1.6010
-3
7.2410
-8

Converged 6.6004 10.9020 7.0001
12
Guess -7.2450 6.2500 3.0000
9.1010
-4
1.1610
-8

Converged -18.9062 21.0104 3.0002
22
Guess -16.1290 7.5000 3.0000
1.6010
-3
7.0510
-8

Converged -19.4026 14.4027 3.0001
Model identification results with noise
11
Guess 5.0505 5.0000 1.0000
0.1017 6.2410
-4

68
(21)

Converged 12.5038 16.0582 1.0447
21
Guess 5.6799 7.5000 7.0000
0.181 1.9010
-3

Converged 6.4410 10.3176 6.9856
12
Guess --8.6169 6.2500 3.0000
0.0961 3.6210-
4

Converged -18.2553 20.1191 2.9997
22
Guess -16.1290 6.2500 3.0000
0.211 2.4010
-3

Converged -19.1683 14.0428 2.9041 12
N.I: Number of iterations (in brackets); Time in Seconds
13
Example 1.2: Niederlinski (1971)
Decentralized PID controller settings
Effect of noise & initial guess values are
studied.

Optimization computational time considerably
reduced from 1 hr and 20 mins
1
to 1 min and 26 s.
14
Closed-loop responses of the process & the identified
FOPTD model for example 2. (Model & process response
curves overlaps)
.
15 15

Model IAE
values
ISE values
Time
(N.I)
FOPTD Model identification results for without noise
11
Guess 1.2500 1.2500 0.1000
0.0177 1.1810
-4

69
(22)
Converged 0.5114 0.3554 0.2801
21
Guess 2.2314 1.2500 0.1000
0.0515 7.4610
-4

Converged 0.9906 0.2998 0.2247
12
Guess -2.2314 1.2500 0.1000
0.0228 9.3910
-4

Converged -0.9843 0.3283 0.1754
22
Guess 5.0000 1.2500 0.1000
0.0415 3.9210
-4

Converged 2.4518 0.6369 0.4000
FOPTD Model identification results for with noise
11
Guess 1.2500 1.0000 0.1000
0.0492 3.6410
-4

30
(23)
Converged 0.5074 0.3354 0.3000
21
Guess 2.2793 1.0000 0.1000
0.1222 2.0010
-3

Converged 0.9813 0.3316 0.1917
12
Guess -2.4484 1.2500 0.1000
0.0348 2.2210
-4

Converged -0.9793 0.2371 0.2611
22
Guess 5.0000 1.0000 0.1000
0.0771 6.8410
-4

Converged 2.5160 0.6608 0.4000
N.I: Number of iterations (in brackets); Time in Sec
Table 1.2. Model identification results using
decentralized PID controller for Example 2.
16
Example 1.3: Ogunnaike & Ray distillation column
process (Ham & Kim, 1998)

Decentralized PID controller settings
Effect of controller settings & initial guess values
are studied.

Converged model parameters match well with actual
FOPTD system.

Optimization computational time is 23 min and 20 s.
17 17
Closed-loop response of the process and the identified
FOPTD models for example 1.3
18

Model IAE
values
ISE
values
11
Guess 1.2739 10.0000 2.6000
1.7510
-3
6.3610
-8

Converged 0.6598 6.6958 2.6007
21
Guess 4.3027 12.5000 6.5000
6.8510
-3
1.4410
-6

Converged 1.1093 3.2468 6.5012
31
Guess -22.6872 10.0000 9.2000
5.0110
-2
6.5810
-5

Converged -34.6606 8.1438 9.1991
12
Guess -1.7594 12.5000 3.5000
1.0610
-3
2.1210
-8

Converged -0.6096 8.6365 3.5021
22
Guess -6.4516 10.0000 3.0000
3.5510
-3
1.7610
-7

Converged -2.2988 4.9947 3.0009
32
Guess 28.3333 12.5000 9.4000
8.6210
-3
1.8010
-6

Converged 46.1734 10.8923 9.4012
13
Guess -0.0030 10.0000 1.0000
6.0910
-5
1.5510
-10

Converged -0.0049 9.0634 0.9996
23
Guess -0.0064 8.7500 1.2000
1.5010
-4
5.9510
-10

Converged -0.0100 7.0942 1.2007
33
Guess 0.3279 6.2500 0.8000
1.1110
-3
2.8110
-8

Converged 0.8500 6.5995 0.8300
Table 1.3. FOPTD Model identification results for example 1.3
19
Guess values for SOPTD model parameters
Design value of
is taken as
Diagonal process gains obtained from
controller gain. The value of
Time delay considered as same as closed time
delay.
Time constant obtained from settling time.
Guess value for time constant is assumed as
Approximated SOPTD Model
Guess value for Damping coefficient 1
20 20
Objective Function for Optimization
New method of excitation is proposed. The method,
not only considered dynamics of step (up) change
and also considered dynamics by removing step
change(Combined step-up & step-down)
Number of parameters to be estimated increases
(from 12 to 16 parameters for TITO systems) (FOPTD
to SOPTD)
It is shown in this study that by the step
response identification, closed-loop response of
process and model are closely matching. But
identified model parameters are not matching with
that of the actual process
21 21
Simulation examples Identification
Identification of SOPTD to SOPTD TITO
system.
In step response method, Identified
model parameters not matching with
actual SOPTD model
Distinguish differences between
identified models are shown by Nyquist
& open-loop transient response plot.
Identification of Higher order model
to SOPTD TITO system.
IAE & ISE values of identified model
by step response method are higher
compared to model identified by
combined step-up & step-down method.
Distinguish differences between
identified models are shown by Nyquist
plot
Identification of SOPTD to SOPTD 3
3 system.
Effect of different controller
settings, noise & initial guess values
are studied.
Optimization computational time is 9
min and 14 s (max. computational Time)

22
Converged model parameters match well with actual SOPTD
system for combined step-up & step-down response method

Effect of different controller settings, noise & initial
guess values are studied.

Optimization computational time considerably reduced from
5 hr and 14 mins to 11 min and 11 s (max. computational
Time)
Example 2.1: Weischedel and McAvoy (1980)
distillation column transfer function model
Decentralized PID controller settings
23
Closed-loop step response of the process and the
identified SOPTD model (from step-up (only) response)
24 24
Model
IAE
values
ISE values

11
Guess 0.2500 5.0000 1.0000 1
.
0000
Converged
*
0.5141 2.2175 1.9342 1.5865 0.4499 1.7810
-02

Converged
**
0.5798 3.5232 0.9939 1.1709 0.0100 2.6610
-06

Actual 0.5800 3.5143 1.0000 1.1752

21
Guess 0.2017 6.2500 1.2800 1.0000
Converged
*
0.3038 1.0894 1.7442 2.1350 0.2370 2.8010
-03

Converged
**
0.3498 1.8870 1.2439 1.5061 0.0155 1.5010
-05

Actual 0.3500 1.8300 1.2800 1.5492

12
Guess -0.1829 6.2500 1.0000 1.0000
Converged
*
-0.3869 3.6363 1.1944 1.1002 0.2424 2.1010
-03


Converged
**
-0.4497 4.1289 0.9982 1.0491 0.0109 2.2510
-06


Actual -0.4500 4.1279 1.0000 1.0514

22
Guess -0.1667 6.2500 1.0000 1.0000
Converged
*
-0.4318 1.5547 0.8511 1.4886 0.3396 3.6010
-03


Converged
**
-0.4797 1.3518 0.9748 1.8758 0.0254 3.0410
-05


Actual -0.4800 1.3000 1.0000 1.9462

Table 2.1. Model identification results using
PID controller for example 2.1.
*
step-up (only) response; ** Combined step-up and step-down response
25
Nyquist plot for actual system (solid line), identified
SOPTD model: Combined step-up and step-down method (++),
step-up (only) method (dot).
.
25
Real axis
26 26
Closed-loop response of the process and the identified
SOPTD transfer function model (Model & Process curves
overlap)
27 27
Example 2.2: Niederlinski (1971) multivariable
transfer function model
Decentralized PID controller settings
Low IAE & ISE values for SOPTD model identified by
combined step-up & step-down excitation.

Effect of noise, controller parameters & initial
guess values are studied.

Optimization computational time considerably
reduced from 1 hr and 2 mins to 3 min and 3 s (max.
computational Time).
.
28 28
.
Nyquist plot for actual system (solid line), identified
SOPTD model: Combined step-up and step-down method (++),
step-up (only) method (dot) (Example-2).
Real axis
29 29 29
Model IAE
values
ISE
values
11
Guess 1.2500 3.1250 0.1000 1.0000
Converged* 0.4999 0.3557 0.0498 0.7682 0.0132 5.67E-05
Converged** 0.5005 0.2818 0.1049 0.8734 0.0065 9.50E-06
21
Guess 2.0088 2.5000 0.1000 1.0000
Converged* 1.0008 0.2494 0.0250 0.9629 0.0145 5.85E-05
Converged** 1.0002 0.2061 0.0859 1.0254 0.0118 4.84E-05
12
Guess -2.0088 2.5000 0.1000 1.0000
Converged* -1.0015 0.1826 0.0250 1.2708 0.0112 8.79E-05
Converged** -0.9992 0.2267 0.0667 0.9727 0.0038 2.24E-06
22
Guess 3.3333 2.5000 0.1000 1.0000
Converged* 2.3959 0.4415 0.2020 0.9183 0.0165 8.46E-05
Converged** 2.4015 0.4110 0.1905 0.9901 0.0107 2.93E-05
Table 2.2. Model identification results using
PID controller for example 2.2
*
step-up (only) response; ** Combined step-up and step-down response
30 30
Closed-loop response of process and identified SOPTD
transfer function model (Model & Process curves
overlap)
31 31 31
Example 2.3: Transfer function considered by Garcia et
al (2005).
Decentralized PI controller
Converged model parameters match well with actual
SOPTD system for combined step-up & step-down
response method

Effect of different controller settings, noise &
initial guess values are studied.

Optimization computational time is 9 min and 14 s
(max. computational Time)
32 32 32
Closed-loop response of the process and the identified
SOPTD transfer function model (Model & Process curves
overlap)
33
Independent design of PI/PID controller based
on the equivalent transfer function (ETF) of
individual loops with concept of decoupler.

Decomposing of multi-loop systems in to
independent loops (Multi-single loop system) by
using decouplers and then resulting model is
approximated using the concept of ETF.

Open-loop responses of ETFs & EOTF models are
compared.

Independent design of PI/PID controller was
designed for each singles loop based on the
corresponding ETFs.

Multivariable controller design based on ETF models
34



TITO system input-output relationship (Seborg et
al.,2009)is

When , overall closed-loop transfer function
model b/w
and
This can be rewritten as
Perfect control approximation (Vu & Lee, 2010)
35
TITO decoupled control system
Relationship between the input vector and process
output vector (Bequette, 2003)
36 36
=
Dynamic decouplers (Bequette, 2003 )expressed as
Presence of decoupler, TITO system behaves like
two independent loops and it is expressed as
For TITO process
37
Eq. (22) & (27), both are equivalent. Eq. (22)
is derived based on perfect control approximation.
Eq. (27) is derived by introducing decoupler in to
the system.
37
Wang et al.

have suggested a method to obtain the
realizable decoupler
where
If the extra time delay is incorporated with the
decoupler matrix, it will also affect the
corresponding ETF model. For example
=
Then the decoupled Process model as

38
ETF model parameters from RNGA-RARTA (He et al.
2009)concepts:
Integrated Error( ) b/w step input ( ) and output ( )
defined as average residence time( ) :

For FOPDT system
Normalized Gain
RNGA
RARTA
39
Equivalent transfer function (ETF)
is the equivalent transfer function when all other loops
are closed.
assume that ETFs have same structures as corresponding
open loop transfer functions. For FOPDT model, the ETF is
expressed (He et al., 2009)as
SIMC (Skogestad, 2003)PI controller tuning parameters
PI controller form as
Based on ETF the PI controller is designed
40
Example 3.1: The transfer function matrix of VL
column given by

By using the RGA and RNGA concepts, the ETF model
parameters are deduced by
41
The ETF model matrix is expressed as:
The actual EOTF models are derived using equations (10)
and (11), and are expressed as:
Simplified decoupler matrix
The decoupled process models are expressed as:
;
42
Closed-loop responses (sequential step changes in
the set point) for the VL column
43
Performance
indices
Ideal Normalized Inverted Proposed
IAE
2.1830 0.7186 2.437 2.2640 2.179 0.0111 1.933 0.0156
0.0049 2.487 0.436 3.6120 0.002 2.432 0.0027 2.115
Disturbance 0.9950 1.438 0.9573 2.3840 0.995 1.438 0.954 1.460
ISE
1.6910 0.0947 1.689 0.7161 1.693 1.5410
-5
1.448 3.4910
-5

2.510
-6
1.884 0.0249 2.6930 5.7110
-7
1.775 1.2110
-6
1.537
Disturbance 0.0621 0.2279 0.0591 0.4063 0.0621 0.2179 0.0531 0.1928
Performance
indices
Ideal Normalized Inverted Proposed
IAE
*
5.3935 8.7490 4.6241 4.0663
ISE
*
3.6697 5.1230 3.4681 2.9850
Comparison of IAE and ISE values for different decoupling
control schemes for VL column
Performance indices for VL column
*Sum of main and interaction responses
44
Example 3.2: ISP reactor system (Chien et al.,1999)

ETF model parameters are
45
ETF model as expressed as
The actual EOTF models
The decoupled process models are expressed as
,

46
Comparison of IAE values
Method used
Change in
set point
IAE values
IAE
*

Proposed Method
0.9674 0.0024
1.8948
0.0141 0.9109
Centralized controller
0.7270 0.4039
2.7090
0.5917 0.9864
Inverted Decoupler
1.0813 0.0001
1.9604
0.0014 0.8776
*
Sum of main and interaction responses
47
Conclusions
It is shown by simulation examples, the proposed
method for FOPTD/SOPTD model guess values able to
give the faster and guaranteed in convergence.

Problem notified in convergence of SOPTD model
parameters by conventional step response
identification method.

New method of excitation (combined step-up &
step-down) is proposed for the SOPTD model
identification of multivariable systems.

Si.
No.
Simulation Examples No. of iterations Computational Time
1.1. WB Distillation Column 28 4 min and 17 s
1.2. Niderlinski transfer function model 24 1 min and 26 s
1.3. OR distillation Column 42 33 min and 14 s
48 48
It is shown the proposed method is robust for
controller settings, noise and guess values
perturbations (up to 10%).

Decomposing of TITO systems in to independent
loops (Two-single loop system) by using dynamic
decouplers and the resulting model is approximated
using the concept of ETF.

PI Controller designed based on the ETF model
using SIMC method. The control system performances
are compared for the Ideal, Normalized, Inverted
decoupling and centralized control system.
Si.
No.
Simulation Examples No. of iterations Computational Time
2.1. WM Distillation Column 44 11 min and 11 s
2.2. Niderlinski transfer function model 34 3min and 3 s
2.3. Garcia et al. transfer function model 17 3 min and 17 s
49
(1)Viswanathan, P. K.; Toh, W. K.; Rangaiah, G. P. Closed-Loop
Identification of TITO Processes Using Time-Domain Curve Fitting and
Genetic Algorithms, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 2818-2826.
(2)Promod, S.; Chidambaram, M. Closed Loop Identification by
Optimization Method for Tuning PID Controllers, Indian Chem. Engr.,
Section A, 2001, 43, No.2, 90-94.
(3)Weischedel, K.; McAvoy, T. J. Feasibility of Decoupling in
Conventionally Controlled Distillation Columns, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam.,
1980, 19, 379-384.
(4)Codrons, B. Process Modeling for Control: A Unified Framework Using
Standard Black-Box Techniques, Springer-Verlag London Limited, 2005, p
48.
(5)Niderlinski, A. A Heuristic Approach to the Design of Linear
Multivariable Interacting Control Systems, Automatica, 1971, 7, 691-701.
50
References
(6) Wood, R. K.; Berry, M. W. Terminal
Composition Control of a Binary Distillation Column, Chemical
Engineering Science, 1973, 28, 1707-1717.
(7) Ham, T. W.; Kim, Y. H. Process Identification and PID
Controller Tuning in Multivariable Systems, Journal of Chemical
Engineering of Japan, 1998, 31, No.6, 941-949.
(8) Vu, T. N. L.; Lee, M. Independent Design of Multi-loop
Controllers for Interacting Multivariable Processes, J. Process
Control, 2010, 922-933.
(9) He, M. J.; Cai, W. J.; Ni, W.; Xie, L. H. RNGA Based Control System
Configuration for Multivariable Processes, J. Process Control, 2009, 19, 1036-
1042.
(10) Garcia, D.; Karimi, A.; Longchamp, R. PID Controller Design for
Multivariable Systems Using Gershgorin Bands, IFAC World Cong., 2005.
PID control in the Third Millennium
(Lessons learned & the new approaches)
R,Vilanova & A.Visioli (Ed.), Springer 2012

PID Control: New Identification & Design Methods
Johnson ,M.A., Moradi, M.H. (Ed.), Springer, 2005

Handbook of PI & PID Controller Tuning Rules, 3
rd
,
ODwyer, A., (Ed.) Imperial College Press, 2009

Industrial Process Identification and Control Design,
Liu,T. & F.Gao, Springer, 2012

Practical PID Control,
A.Visioli, Springer, 2006

Advanced Process Identification and Control,
E.Ikonen & K.Najim
Marcel Dekker, New York, 2002.

Computer Control of Processes
M.Chidambaram
Narosa Publishers, New Delhi, 2002.

Advanced Practical Process Control
B.Riffel & B.H.L.Betlem, Sprnger, 2004




53
System Identification; Theory for the user
L.Ljung, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1999

Multivariable System identification for Process control,
Zhu, Y., Elsevier Science & Technology Books, 2001

System identification,
Keesman, K.J., Springer, London, 2011

System identification and control
Landau,I.D., Prentice-Hall, 1990.

Relay Feedback, Analysis, identification & Control,
Wang, Q.G., Lee,T., Lin,C., Springer, 2003.
Auto-tuning of PID Controllers, Relay feedback approaches,
YU, C.C., Springer, 2005

54


C.Rajapandiyan and M.Chidambaram
Closed loop identification of multivariable systems by
optimization method
Industrial & Engg Chemistry Research, V51,1324-1336 (2012)

C.Rajapandiyan and M.Chidambaram
Closed loop identification of second order plus time delay
(SOPTD) model of multivariable systems by optimization method
Industrial & Engg Chemistry Research, V51, 9620-9633 (2012)




C.Rajapandiyan and M.Chidambaram
Controller design for MIMO processes based on simple
decoupled transfer functions and simplified decoupler
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, V51, 12398-
12410 (2012)
55
Decentralized control system of a TITO process.
56 56
Closed-loop response of the process and the identified FOPTD
transfer function model for example 1 (with noise) using PID
controller settings.
4
57 57
Parameters

Vu et al.
5
(0.7, 17.27;
-0.13, 16.08)
Loh et al.
6
(0.868, 3.246;
-0.0868, 10.4)
Viswanathan et al.
1
(0.2, 4.0, 3.0;
-0.03, 2.0, 3.0)
N. I. 16 21 28
Computational time
(sec)
94 132 257
IAE
*
values 0.0229 0.0046 0.0066
ISE
*
values 6.5110
-6
3.3510
-7
4.4010
-7

Controller parameters Variation in
guess values
N. I IAE
*
values ISE
*
values
Computational
Time (Sec)
Ham & Kim
4
+10% 25 0.004 1.8810
-7
152
-10% 25 0.0047 1.6210
-7
154
Vu et al.
5
(0.7, 17.27;
-0.13, 16.08)
+10% 14 0.0120 1.8410
-6
86
-10% 16 0.0060 4.0710
-7
94
Loh et al.
6
(0.868, 3.246;
-0.0868, 10.4)
+10% 26 0.0042 3.3110
-7
169
-10% 28 0.0045 3.4610
-7
172
Viswanathan et al.
1

(0.2, 4.0, 3.0;
-0.03, 2.0, 3.0)
+10% 37 0.0066 4.3710
-7
352
-10% 30 0.0066 4.4010
-7
313
Effect of changing controller settings on number of
iterations and computational time for example 1.
Effect of initial guess values on number of iterations and
computational time for example 1.
*
Sum of main and interaction response values, N.I: Number of iterations
58 58
Closed-loop responses of the corrupted process and the
identified FOPTD transfer function model for example 1.2
(with noise).
59 59
Parameters N. I IAE
*
values ISE
*
values
Computational
Time (min)
Ham & Kim (1998)

(2.794, 4.230, 1.102; -0.524, 5.635, 1.110;
3.835, 6.006, 1.069)
50 0.6222 0.0096 30.53
Chien et al (1999)
(1.08, 4.25; -0.2333, 3.32;
2.78, 5.24)
42 0.056 4.08E-05 33.23
Controller parameters
Variation in guess
values
N. I IAE
*
values ISE
*
values
Computational
Time (min)
M.Lee
-10% 25 0.0939 4.32E-04 20
+10% 27 0.0476 2.37E-05 21.31
Ham & Kim
4
(2.794, 4.230, 1.102; -
0.524, 5.635, 1.110; 3.835,
6.006, 1.069)
+10% 49 0.7528 1.4110
-2
30.17
-10% 32 0.7468 1.3010
-2
21.23
Chien et al. (1999)
(1.08, 4.25; -0.2333,
3.32;2.78, 5.24)
+10% 48 0.0562 4.6810
-5
38.48
-10% 41 0.0295 9.8610
-6
32.96
Effect of initial guess values on the number of iterations
and computational time for example 1.3.
Effect of changing controller settings on number of
iterations and computational time for example 1.3.
60 60
Example 4: Industrial-Scale Polymerization
reactor
Example 5: Benzene-toluene distillation column
61 61
Observations from Viswanathan et al. method:
Computational time for optimization ranges
from 50 min to 3 hrs (for different controller
settings & test timings).
Converged values from GA, are not reliable
and these values are taken as initial guess
for BFGS method. After BFGS also, global
minimum not guaranteed.
General method not provided to get the
upper & lower bounds.
If they obtain the lower IAE values also,
not able to get the exact model parameters.
62
Genetic Algorithms: stochastic global
search method (mimics the process of natural
evolution).
Starting at several independent points and
searching in parallel.
Very big population size consumes more
time for finding optimum solution.
Parameters used in the floating point GA
Populations size 200
Number of generations 100
Probability of crossover 0.6
Probability of mutation 0.2
Tournament Size 5.0
63
1. Generate an initial, random
population of individuals.

2. Evaluate their fitness.

3. Select the fittest members
of the population.
Reproduce using a
probabilistic method.
Implement crossover
operation on the reproduced
chromosomes.
Execute mutation operation
with low probability.

4. Repeat step 2 until a
predefined convergence
criterion is met.
64
No absolute assurance, GA will find global
optimum.

GA cannot assure constant optimization times.

Real time implementations are limited because
of random solutions and convergence.

Converge very slow, especially near an optimum.

Determining of termination criterion is not
straight forward.

Insufficiently converged solutions can produce
misleading.
Disadvantages of GA
65
n
th
order system
From the Bode stability criteria, Phase angle
Amplitude Ratio
66 66
Codrons reported that for same controller different models
shows same closed loop behavior even though they have
different open-loop behavior. Two examples are considered,
Integrating system First order lag system
Proportional controller
67 67 67 67
Open-loop response of process and identified SOPTD transfer
function models of Example 2.1(Model & Process curves
overlap)
68
68
Model IAE values ISE values
11
Guess 0.2500 5.0000 1.0000 1
.
0000
Converged 0.5948 3.8334 0.7693 1.0948 0.3386 2.90E-03
21
Guess 0.2152 5.0000 1.3000 1.0000
Converged 0.3673 1.2488 1.5696 2.2692 0.2057 8.86E-04
12
Guess -0.1824 5.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Converged -0.4653 4.3886 0.7786 0.9779 0.4083 3.40E-03
22
Guess -0.1667 5.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Converged -0.4988 1.7106 0.7267 1.5988 0.3889 5.70E-03
Model identification results using PID controller with
measurement noise
Controller PID Controller PI controller
Perturbation in
Guess values
-10% 0% +10% -10% 0% +10%
IAE
*
values 0.0477 0.0618 0.0618 0.0519 0.0643 0.0643
ISE
*
values 3.49E-05 5.03E-05 5.03E-05 2.64E-05 4.35E-05 4.35E-05
Number of Iterations 33 41 40 33 37 44
Computational Time
(Sec)
323 390 379 509 567 671
Effect of initial guess values for example 2.1
69 69 69
Mode of
Controller
PI
b
Controller PI
a
controller
Perturbation in
Guess values
-10% 0% +10% -10% 0% +10%
IAE
*
values 0.0302 0.0327 0.0282 0.0463 0.0275 0.0347
ISE
*
values 9.39E-05 8.94E-05 8.25E-05 1.97E-04 4.52E-05 7.67E-05
Number of
Iterations
30 28 34 37 46 42
Computational
Time (Sec)
158 151 183 130 143 132
Effect of initial guess values for example 2.2
70
PID control in the Third Millennium
(Lessons learned & the new approaches)
R,Vilanova & A.Visioli (Ed.), Springer 2012

PID Control: New Identification & Design Methods (
Johnson ,M.A., Moradi, M.H. (Ed.), Springer, 2005

Handbook of PI & PID Controller Tuning Rules, 3
rd
,
ODwyer, A., (Ed.) Imperial College Press, 2009

Industrial Process Identification and Control Design,
Liu,T. & F.Gao, Springer, 2012

Practical PID Control,
A.Visioli, Springer, 2006

Advanced Process Identification and Control,
E.Ikonen & K.Najim
Marcel Dekker, New York, 2002.

Computer Control of Processes
M.Chidambaram
Narosa Publishers, New Delhi, 2002.

Advanced Practical Process Control
B.Riffel & B.H.L.Betlem, Sprnger, 2004

System Identification; Theory for the user
L.Ljung, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1999