Antiwindup Control Scheme

Antonio Flores T. Departmento de Ingenier Qu a mica Universidad Iberoamericana Prolongacin Paseo de la Reforma 880 o Mxico DF, 01210, MEXICO e October 22, 2008

E-mail: 2674279

antonio.ores@uia.mx, http://200.13.98.241ntonio, phone/fax: a

(+52)5

Introduction

There are some cases when the demanded control actions are so large that the nal control element (i.e. a control valve) could remain saturated for a long time. For instance, if the nal control element is a control valve, the controller might lead to a situation where the control valve would be completely open or closed. Under such conditions the control valve will be saturated. If the control valve happens to be completely open no additional ow rate could go trough the valve even when the controller could call for larger control actions. Similarly, if the control valve happens to be completely closed, then further reductions on the ow rate are physically impossible to implement even if the controller tries to do so. Saturation conditions in a control system may happen because of the following reasons. Large set-point changes. Strong upsets. During saturation conditions the value of the manipulated variable stays either at its maximum or minimum value. Although this behavior is correct, in the sense that no control actions can be implemented outside the maximum/minimum controller bounds, during the saturation period the controller error e(t): e(t) = y sp y (1) always growths leading to a slow recovery from a set-point change or disturbance rejection scenario. The reason why a closed-loop control system will normally recover quite slowly from these conditions can be better understood, assuming that a PI controller is used, by examining the value of the integral part (I) of such a controller: Kc t I= e(t)dt (2) i 0 because, as mentioned previously, during saturations conditions e(t) keeps rising, then the absolute value of I will always increase and it will only start decreasing when e(t) changes sign. This situation is depicted in Figure 1. As shown in this Figure, during the saturation period, the manipulated variable (u) stays at its maximum value. The controlled variable (y) always 2

increases towards its set-point value, crosses the set-point and after a while starts decreasing. During saturation conditions the integral part of the PI controller (I) always increases as well until the error signal e(t) changes sign.

(a)

Time

(b)

Time

(c)

Time

Figure 1: (a) The control action stays saturated for a while, (b) Plant response, (c) Integral part. Even when the closed-loop control system equipped with a saturation control element might be able to get successful control, the time needed for doing so may be long. Therefore, what it is needed is a control scheme capable of recovering from saturation conditions as quickly as possible meeting the closed-loop control demands. This is the aim of the so-called Antiwindup 3

control structure. There have been many suggested ways of implementing Antiwindup control schemes, one of the best known is the so-called back information antiwindup scheme whose block diagram is depicted in Figure 2.
y +
sp

e Kc

+ + Kc/ + + 1 s I

uc

us Gp(s)

1 Tt

es

Figure 2: Antiwindup control scheme. As displayed in Figure 2, the antiwindup control scheme introduces a new feedback signal es (saturation error) dened as: es = us uc (3)

where uc is the magnitude of the control action requested by the control system, whereas us is the magnitude of the same control signal coming out from the saturation element. In Figure 2, Tt stands for a saturation time constant whose aim is to speedup the incoming of the antiwindup scheme. As a rule of thumb, normally Tt i (4) Under saturation conditions the integral part I of the control system will be given by the following two contributions: I = =
0

Kc i
t

1 t es (t)dt Tt 0 0 Kc 1 e(t) + es (t) dt i Tt e(t)dt +

(5)

Therefore, from the above equation, we see that the aim of the antiwindup control scheme is to modify the value of the integral control action in a way that leads to a faster recovery from saturation conditions. 4

It is clear that when no saturation problems occur: uc = us (6)

therefore es = 0 and the action of the antiwindup control scheme will be canceled recovering the conventional feedback control structure. From Figure 2 we can analyze how the antiwindup control scheme helps to reduce and get rid o saturation worries. If the control action happens to hit its upper bound then uc > us and the sign of the saturation error es will be negative leading to a reduction in the magnitude of the controller integral action I and the combined control action uc . If the control action hits its lower bound then uc < us and the sign of the saturation error es will be positive contributing to reduce the magnitude of the controller integral action I and increasing the combined control action uc .

Example
Previously we have addressed the closed-loop control of an isothermal reaction train whose transfer function between the volumetric ow rate fed to the rst tank and the reactant A concentration coming out from the last reactor reads as follows: CA3 (s) 0.0106s2 + 0.003105s + 0.0003101 Gp (s) = = 3 Q(s) s + 0.2875s2 + 0.02734s + 0.00086 Using the relay auto tuning method the following controller parameters were obtained: Kc = 11.0184 i = 11.1667 When a set-point change in CA3 from 32.56 mol/L down to 20 mol/L was imposed, the closed-loop response shown in Figure 3 was obtained. As we note, the controller stays saturated for near 50 minutes due to the large desired set-point change. Design and implement an Antiwindup control scheme able to achieve the requested set-point change as quick as possible avoiding the emergence of saturation conditions. The maximum and minimum bounds of the values of the manipulated variable are 100 and -50 L/min, respectively.
50 34 45 32

40

30

35

28

30

26

Q [L/min]

25

C [mol/L]
0 20 40 60 80 100 Time 120 140 160 180 200

24

20

22

15

20

10

18

16

14

20

40

60

80

(a)

(b)

100 Time

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 3: Closed-loop feedback control action without antiwindup protection control scheme. Using the PI controller tuning parameters previously shown, and setting Tt = 10, Figure 4 depicts the closed-loop response comparison using and without using an antiwindup protection control scheme, whereas in Figure 5 the Simulink block diagram is shown. 6

50

34

45

32

40

30

35

28

30

26

25

CA3 [mol/L]
No Antiwindup Antiwindup Control

Q [L/min]

24

20

22

15

20

10

18 No Antiwindup Antiwindup Control

16

20

40

60

80

(a)
0 20

100 Time [min]

120

140

160

180

200

14

20

40

60

80

(b)

100 Time [min]

120

140

160

180

200

40

60 No Antiwindup Antiwindup Control 80

100

120

140

160

20

40

60

80

(c)

100 Time [min]

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 4: Closed-loop feedback control action with antiwindup protection control scheme.
50 Constant1 kc Step 1 Gain Saturation Scope 4 0.0106 s2 +0.003105 s+0.0003101 s3 +0.2875 s2 +0.02734 s+0.00086 Transfer Fcn 1 32.5641 kc/ti Gain 1 1 s Integrator 1/tt Gain 2 Constant Scope 3

Figure 5: Simulink implementation of the closed-loop feedback control system augmented with the antiwindup protection control system.

This example has shown that the Antiwindup protection control scheme is able to recover from saturation conditions when the saturation valve hits its lower bound. On the other hand, to demonstrate that the same Antiwindup control scheme performs well when the control valve hits its allowed upper 7

limit, let us try the following composition set point change: from 32.56 up to 60 mol/L. Figure 6 displays the closed-loop performance when an Antiwindup control scheme is used. The comparison against the performance without using Antiwindup is also shown clearly demonstrates the advantages of the Antiwindup control.
150 70 140 65

130 60 120 55

110

100 No Antiwindup Antiwindup Control

CA3 [mol/L]

Q [L/min]

No Antiwindup Antiwindup Control 50

90

45

80 40 70 35

60

50

20

40

60

80

(a)
400 350

100 Time [min]

120

140

160

180

200

30

20

40

60

80

(b)

100 Time [min]

120

140

160

180

200

300

No Antiwindup Antiwindup Control

250

200

150

100

50

20

40

60

80

(c)

100 Time [min]

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 6:

Exercise
The dynamic mathematical model of a binary distillation column reads as follows, Condenser dx1 V (y2 x1 ) = dt Mc (7)

Rectifying Section Trays (i = 2, . . . Nf 1 ) dxi 1 (L(xi1 xi ) V (yi yi+1 )) = dt Mt Feed Tray (i = Nf ) dxi 1 = (F xf + Lxi1 Ls xi V (yi yi+1 )) dt Mt Stripping Section Trays (i = Nf +1 , . . . Nt1 ) dxi 1 = (Ls (xi1 xi ) V (yi yi+1 )) dt Mt Reboiler(i = Nt ) dxi 1 = (Ls xN t 1 (F D)xNt V yNt ) dt Mr Vapor-Liquid Phase Equilibrium yi = xi 1 + ( 1)xi (12) (11) (10) (9) (8)

You should remember that the rectifying section liquid (L), vapor (V ) and stripping section liquid (Ls ) ow rates are given as follows: L = RD V = L+D Ls = F + L 9 (13) (14) (15)

where x is the liquid phase mol fraction, y is the vapor phase mol fraction, V is the vapor phase ow rate, L is the liquid phase ow rate, F is the feed stram ow rate, D is the distillate ow rate, R is the reux ratio, M is the liquid holdup, Nf is the feed tray, Nt is the total number of trays, is the relative volatility. The subindex i stands for tray number, c stands for condenser, r stands for reboiler, t stands for tray, f stands for the feed stream. The superindex s stands for stripping section. Let us assume that the binary distillation column consists of 32 trays (condenser is tray number 1 and reboiler is tray number 32) and that the feed tray is tray number 17. The feed stream consists of an equimolar mixture (xf =0.5) of 0.4 mol/min, whereas the distillate ow rate is 0.2 mol/min. The relative volatility is 1.6. The condenser, trays and reboiler holdups are 0.5, 0.25 and 1 mol, respectively. Finally, the reux ratio is 3. Design an implement a PI closed-loop control system that controls distillate composition using the reux owrate as the manipulated variable. Test the control system using the nonlinear process model and assuming that 20% variations in the feed stream owrate hits the system. You can assume that under design conditions the reux control valve is 50% open. If the control system happens to be saturated, under the described disturbance scenarios, then design and implement an antiwindup protection control system able to quickly recover from the disturbances.

10