7 views

Uploaded by neel1237

gg

gg

© All Rights Reserved

- Block Diagram Reduction
- Control System
- QFTManual
- Block Diagram
- Control Systems--The Last Basic Course, Pt II
- Assignment.pdf
- 10. Closed-Loop Dynamics
- ENS5253 Chapter-1 review questions_quiz-1.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S0167691101001426-main
- MELJUN CORTES EENG03 Control System
- Assignment 1
- L13 Freq Resp, Nyquist
- Course Project 1_rangansrinivasan
- 2014 SCE2210 Introduction to Control Systems
- Introduction to control system
- lec-45
- tute7solns
- ME55_scp_290806
- 4_tanksinseries
- EEE402 Exp09 New

You are on page 1of 8

Department of Electronics

and Instrumentation Engineering,

NIT Agartala, Tripura 799046, India

e-mail: pghorai@gmail.com

Somanath Majhi

Department of Electronics

and Electrical Engineering,

IIT Guwahati, Assam 781039, India

e-mail: smajhi@iitg.ernet.in

Saurabh Pandey

Department of Electronics

and Electrical Engineering,

IIT Guwahati, Assam 781039, India

e-mail: p.saurabh@iitg.ernet.in

of Real-Time Processes Based

on Nonzero Setpoint Autotuning

Test

The paper presents a real-time system modeling and identification scheme for estimation

of plant model parameters using a single asymmetrical relay test. A modified set of analytical expressions for unknown plant models under nonzero setpoint and non-negative

relay settings is derived. Thereafter, the unknown parameters of three different stable

plant models are identified as first-order plus dead time, overdamped, and critically

damped second-order plus dead time. The well-known examples from literature are

included to show the accuracy of the proposed method through computer simulations.

Yokogawa distributed control system centum CS3000 is considered as a design platform

for an experimental setup for the realization of asymmetrical relay feedback test. Finally,

the transfer function models derived from successive identification of plant dynamics are

compared with the literature through Nyquist plots. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4034802]

Introduction

function models generally plays a pivotal role in the appropriate

design of controllers. Since the last four decades, relay feedback

test has attained a significant amount of attention in the field of

process identification. Earlier, the works reported in Refs. [15]

have developed various symmetrical and asymmetrical relaybased control strategies while considering the negative relay

amplitudes. However, for real-time system identification, all physical variables may not always permit negative relay settings. Therefore, a symmetrical relay test with zero setpoint may fail to induce

sustained limit cycle oscillations in many industrial plants. Therefore, an asymmetrical relay with nonzero setpoint scheme would

help in yielding sustained oscillations around the setpoint and further estimation of various real-time plant model parameters.

strom and Hagglund [6] have proposed a relay feedback

A

experiment for tuning of controller parameters based on userspecified amplitude and phase margins. Thereafter, an online process identification methodology for controller tuning is proposed

by Sung and Lee [7]. Their method is advantageous in the sense

that it could automatically tune controller parameters without

restricting the signal generators, viz., either proportional controller or relay signals, respectively. Scali et al. [8] have proposed a

relay feedback method for the estimation of five unknown process

model parameters. Panda and Yu [9] have derived a set of nonlinear expressions for the study of second-order plus dead time

(SOPDT) and higher-order processes while assuming different

damping coefficients. The authors have derived the process output

expression up to the fifth-order transfer function models and further extended for modeling of nth-order process models. Atherton

[10] and Lin et al. [11] have elaborated a relay feedback test for

identification of various dynamical processes. Kaya and Atherton

[12] have identified the unknown process model under an asymmetrical relay feedback experiment using A-locus method. Srinivasan and Chidambaram [13] and Vivek and Chidambaram [14]

have proposed a set of modified asymmetrical/symmetrical relay-

JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received

January 29, 2016; final manuscript received September 14, 2016; published online

November 11, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Shankar Coimbatore Subramanian.

(FOPDT) with improved parameter estimations. Majhi [15,16]

and Bajarangbali et al. [17] have derived the mathematical expressions for identification of a class of processes with or without time

delay using half-cycle data. Using single relay test, four iterative

identification algorithms based on the recursive least square

method are proposed by Liu et al. [18,19] for an exact estimation

of stable/unstable FOPDT and SOPDT processes. Fedele [20] has

proposed an improved set of identified process model using the

area under the steady-state response test. Hang et al. [21] and Liu

et al. [22] have given a tutorial review on the various process

identification schemes using step and relay feedback experiments.

The proposed identification scheme aims to identify real-time

unknown plant model using an asymmetrical relay feedback test

where the controlled variables (CVs) do not permit negative relay

amplitudes. Although the researchers have developed various

symmetrical and asymmetrical relay-based expressions with negative relay amplitudes for identification of various processes, these

do not hold true for identification of industrial plants. Therefore,

in order to circumvent this difficulty, the authors have derived a

modified set of novel expressions using an asymmetrical relay test

with nonzero step reference signal. Moreover, the proposed mathematical expressions are noniterative, less sensitive to measurement noise, and free from the convergence of parameter estimates

under ideal and real-time environment. The main objective of this

work lies in the generation of sustained limit cycle oscillations for

a class of stable processes using an asymmetrical relay output and

followed by validation of proposed identification scheme on realtime level control system generally modeled in terms of FOPDT

model as per Ref. [23]. In the context of real-time process identification, a set of analytical expressions for estimation of unknown

stable SOPDT process model parameters are derived. Further,

these expressions are generalized for modeling of unknown realtime plant in terms of critically damped SOPDT and stable

FOPDT process models.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the process modeling required for identification of various process transfer function models using relay feedback test. In Sec. 3, a separate

set of modified expressions for estimation of stable FOPDT process, overdamped SOPDT process, and critically damped SOPDT

process are derived. Thereafter, the robustness of proposed

method is analyzed through simulation in Sec. 4 followed by

C 2017 by ASME

Copyright V

in Sec. 6.

nonzero setpoint considered for generation of sustained oscillations is shown in Fig. 1. When a relay with positive magnitudes is

fed back to unknown plant G(s), a phase lag of p radians can

easily be observed between process input and output waveforms.

The setpoint, R, is set to nonzero while carrying out identification

test, which ultimately brings limit cycle output around the setpoint. For stable FOPDT, overdamped second-order plus dead

time (ODSOPDT), and critically damped second-order plus dead

time (CDSOPDT) plants with positive steady-state gain, the necessary condition for existence of limit cycle oscillations is given

as relay height at ON condition hH > setpoint R > relay

height at OFF condition hL , i.e., hH > R > hL . Consider a general SOPDT plant transfer function model as follows:

ds

ke

T1 s 1T2 s 1

(1)

time, and time constants, respectively. When one of the time constants is kept zero, i.e., T2 0, the assumed transfer function

model G(s) would become a stable FOPDT process, and the

CDSOPDT process model is derived by substituting T1 T2 in the

assumed transfer function model (1). The Jordan canonical form

representation of the assumed transfer function is written as

_ Axt Brt d

xt

(2)

yt Cxt

(3)

ka1 a2 ka1 a2

1

a1 0

;B

, and

where A

;C

0 a2

1

a1 a2 a1 a2

a1 1=T1 and a2 1=T2 are the eigenvalues of the assumed

process transfer function model.

(4)

at time t2 is

Gs

set of modified expressions using an asymmetrical relay feedback

test with a nonzero reference input are derived. These expressions

are further utilized for modeling and estimation of unknown realtime level control system parameters in terms of stable FOPDT,

overdamped SOPDT, and critically damped SOPDT process models, respectively. Let the system be subjected to a step excitation

or a setpoint with an asymmetrical relay feedback where the relay

is assumed to have both positive amplitudes, i.e., upper and lower

peaks of hH and hL, respectively. Initially, the stable plant is subjected to setpoint input and after reaching steady state (i.e., at setpoint value), the relay is invoked which results in sustained

oscillatory output around the forced input value as shown in Fig.

2. The Jordan canonical state-space equations comprising of constant matrices A; B; and C of an assumed transfer function model

are of dimensions n n, n l, and l n, respectively. For time

range t0 t t1 , where rt d hH , the state equation at time

t1 is written as

setpoint

(5)

at time t3 is

xt3 eAd xt2 l 3 hL

(6)

at time t4 is

xt4 eATsd xt3 l 4 hH

(7)

eAd IB; and l 4 A1 eATsd IB, where I is an identity

matrix of order 2 2.

Using Eqs. (4)(6) in Eq. (7), xt4 is represented as

xt4 eAT xt0 eATd l 1 hH eATs l 2 hL

eATsd l 3 h2 l 4 hH

(8)

xt0 I eAT 1 eATd l 1 hH eATs l 2 hL

eATsd l 3 h2 l 4 hH

(9)

Similarly, at time t2, xt2 is derived from Eqs. (4), (5), and (9) as

xt2 I eAT 1 eAsd l 1 hH l 2 h2 eATsd l 3 hL eAs l 4 hH

(10)

Considering an ideal relay and at limit cycle condition yt0

yt2 setpoint (R), therefore

Cxt0 R

(11)

Cxt2 R

(12)

Now, from the relay feedback test, the period of the oscillation T,

the time for which the plant output remains positive s, the upper

peak amplitude of the oscillation Aup, the lower peak amplitude of

the oscillation Adp, the area of the plant output signal Ay, and the

area of the plant input signal Ar over the last stable period of the

Eq. (9), the expression for an initial state x0 at time t0 can be

written as

2 "

#3

1 ea1 Tsd ea1 Td hH hL

6

"

# 6

hH 7

7

1 ea1 T

x01

7

6 a1

7

6

x0

"

#

7

6

x02

7

6 1 ea2 Tsd ea2 Td hH hL

5

4

h

H

a

T

1 e 2

a2

(13)

Since C has elements equal in magnitude but opposite in sign,

therefore magnitudes of both components in state vector x0 are

equal. From Eqs. (11) and (12), the following expression is

yielded:

"

#

Ra1 a2

1 ea1 Tsd ea1 Td hH hL

hH

1 ea1 T

ka1 a2

a1

"

#

1 ea2 Tsd ea2 Td hH hL

hH

(14)

1 ea2 T

a2

"

#

Ra1 a2

1 ea1 Td ea1 sd hH hL

hL

1 ea1 T

ka1 a2

a1

"

#

1 ea2 Td ea2 sd hH hL

hL

1 ea2 T

a2

Cxtdt khH hL s hH T

(24)

rt ddt hH hL s hH T

(25)

Ay

k

Ar

(15)

(16)

(19)

From Eq. (19), the following expression can be derived for upper

peak time tup:

"

#

1 ea2 Ts 1 ea1 T

a1 a2 tup d

e

(20)

1 ea1 Ts 1 ea2 T

Subsequently, from Eq. (16), the expression for upper peak amplitude is derived as

"

a a

Aup khL 1 2

khH hL

Ay

The steady-state gain can be written from Eqs. (24) and (25) as

where xd1 and xd2 are found by putting A, B, and I in Eq. (4) as

2

3

hH

a1 d

a1 d

e

x

e

1

01

6

x

a1 7

7

(18)

xd d1 6

4 ad

h

xd2

H5

e 2 x02 ea2 d 1

a2

#a1

1 ea2 Ts

1 ea2 T

#a2

"

1 ea1 Ts

areas under the plant output and input are given as

where tup can be obtained by taking the first derivative of Eq. (16)

and equating the result to zero. After simplification, it becomes

a ea1 tup d x ea1 tup d hL

0

(17)

C 1 a2 tup d d1

a2 e

xd2 ea2 tup d hL

following the procedures similar to upper peak amplitude expression. On further simplification and substitution of Eq. (22), the

following expression is derived:

"

#a2 "

#a1

a a

1 ea1 s

1 ea2 s

khH Adp 1 2

(23)

1 ea1 T

1 ea2 T

khH hL

Ar

At time tup, the upper peak output of the plant occurs, so the

expression for Aup from Eq. (5) can be written as

Aup CeAtup d xt1 A1 eAtup d IBhL

Similar to the steps followed to derive Eq. (20), the expression for

tdp the time instant at which the downward peak output of the

plant occurs can be derived from Eq. (7) with the help of Eqs. (6)

and (10) as

"

#

1 ea2 s 1 ea1 T

a1 a2 tdp sd

(22)

e

1 ea1 s 1 ea2 T

(26)

all unknown parameters, T1, T2, d, and k, of the assumed transfer

function model given in Eq. (1) by an asymmetrical relay feedback test from the measurements of T, s, Ay, Ar, Aup or Adp, and tup

or tdp. In Secs. 3.13.3, the estimation of the unknown parameters

of stable FOPDT and SOPDT process are considered with an

asymmetrical relay feedback and step input as the setpoint.

3.1 Expressions for FOPDT Processes. In this section, modeling and development of analytical expressions for estimation of

stable FOPDT process model using an asymmetrical relay feedback test are explained. Considering a stable FOPDT process

dynamics yields

keds

(27)

Gm1 s

T1 s 1

Substituting a1 1=T1 and a2 ! 1 in Eqs. (14) and (21)

gives solution for d and T1 from measurements of T, s, and Aup, if

steady-state gain (k) is found from Eq. (26) with the help of Ay

and Ar. If k is known, then it is easy to derive explicit expressions

for T1 and d from Eqs. (14) and (21) from the measured quantities.

T1 and d are given by

"

!#1

Aup khH khL Adp

T1 T ln

Aup khL khH Adp

dT

Aup Adp

ln 1

khH hL

!

Aup khH khL Adp

ln

Aup khL khH Adp

(28)

(29)

(21)

3.2 Expressions for Overdamped SOPDT Processes. Consider a general transfer function model for SOPDT process

(T1 > T2) as in Eq. (1) with four unknown parameters. The steadystate gain (k) can be estimated from the measurements of Ay and

1 ea1 T

from Eqs. (21) and (23). Thereafter, either Eq. (20) or Eq. (22)

can be solved to yield the process time delay d. Alternatively,

Eqs. (21), (23), and (20) or (22) can also be solved simultaneously

to get the values of T1, T2, and d from measured quantities while

considering a proper set of initial solutions for the unknown process parameters.

3.3 Expressions for Critically Damped SOPDT Processes.

Consider a critically damped SOPDT process modeled from Eq.

(1) while substituting T1 T2 as

Gm2 s

keds

T1 s 12

(30)

The derived expressions (14), (15), (21), and (23) are extended for

the development of generalized expressions for critically damped

SOPDT processes. Assuming a1 a and a2 a k and letting

k ! 0 , Eqs. (21) and (23) become

"

#

1 eaTs

Aup khH hL

1 eaT

"

#

(31)

aT seaTs

aTeaT

khL

1 eaT

e 1 ea Ts

"

Adp khH khH hL

1 e

1 eaT

as

"

aseas

aTeaT

as

aT

e1 e 1 e

(32)

Substituting a1 and a2 in Eq. (20), the expression for process time

delay d can be written as

"

#"

#

1 eas

eaTs

T

s

(33)

tup d

1 eaTs

1 eaT

One of the three unknown parameters of critically damped

SOPDT plant k can be estimated with the help of Eq. (26) from

the measurements of Ay and Ar. After getting k, another unknown

process time constant T1 can be derived from Eq. (31) or Eq. (32),

and thereafter, Eq. (33) can be used to estimate d. Alternatively,

Eqs. (26), (31), and (33) can be solved simultaneously to yield the

unknown process model parameters with a proper choice of initial

conditions for the measured quantities.

Simulation Study

In this section, the three well-known examples from the literature are considered for the illustration of proposed identification

scheme. Thereafter, the obtained models from each example are

validated through Nyquist frequency response plots. The accuracy

of the proposed method is estimated using integral of absolute

error (IAE) criterion as

xgm

Gm jx G jx

dx

(34)

IAE

G jx

0

where Gm jx is the identified process model, Gjx is the actual

process, and xgm is the frequency of the process, respectively.

Further, the effect of measurement is studied through the addition

of Gaussian distributed random noise which is quite common in

real-time environment [24]. To overcome this, an offline method

for reconstruction of original limit cycle output using Fourier

series-based curve fitting method [25] is utilized for obtaining a

best-fitted limit cycle output. The technique searches the best

021010-4 / Vol. 139, FEBRUARY 2017

mean value and random noisy data present at each point of

the limit cycle output. The equation which governs the fitting the

noisy limit cycle can be expressed as

N

X

aj cosjxt bj sinjxt

(35)

y^t a0

j1

where y^t and x, namely, the process output and ultimate frequency, are to be obtained through curve fitting method.

The Fourier series coefficients (a0, aj, and bj) 8 j 1 can be

T

T

obtained as a0 1=2T T y^tdxt; aj 1=T T y^t

T

cosjxtdxt, and bj 1=T T y^tsinjxtdxt.

4.1 Example 1. Consider a stable FOPDT plant widely studied in the literature [3,17] as Gm1 s e2s =10s 1. An asymmetrical relay settings (hH 65:0 and hL 45:0) is fed back with

a step input of R 50:0% yielding sustained asymmetrical limit

cycle output around the setpoint. The limit cycle parameters

Aup 52.7182, Adp 49.0942, T 8.9292, s 6:3425; Ay

453:5476, and Ar 453:5477 are substituted in the derived

mathematical expressions for estimation of unknown process

model parameters. From Eq. (26), the process steady-state gain is

estimated as k 0.9999, and further solving Eqs. (28) and (29),

the remaining plant model parameters are obtained as T1

10:0038 and d 1:9999. Now, the identified model is represented

in transfer function form as tabulated in Table 1. The Nyquist frequency response plots for estimated and actual FOPDT process

transfer function models are compared with the literature and

shown in Fig. 3. To consider the measurement noise, a 30 dB noise

is added at the process output, and thereafter, a noise-free output

is derived by Fourier series-based curve fitting method. Again

substituting the recovered limit cycle information in derived

mathematical expressions, the FOPDT process is identified in

comparison with the actual model through IAE in Table 1. The

robustness of the proposed scheme and variation of the process

input over the model parameter estimation are shown in Table 2

with an improved accuracy in Table 3.

4.2 Example 2. Let us consider an SOPDT plant studied by

Bajarangbali et al. [17] and Liu et al. [18] as

Gm2 s fe2s =10s 1s 1g. Using an asymmetrical relay

feedback test with relay settings (hH 70:0 and hL 40:0) and

step input of R 50:0% yields sustained asymmetrical limit cycle

output around the setpoint. The measured limit cycle parameters

Aup 53.8686, Adp 48.0809, tup 2.7545, s 7:0577; T

11:1339; Ay 567:6468, and Ar 567.6415 are substituted in the

derived mathematical expressions for estimation of unknown process model parameters. From Eq. (26), the process steady-state

gain is derived as k 1.0, and the remaining unknown plant model

parameters are estimated from the simultaneous solution of Eqs.

(21), (23), and (20) or (22) as T1 10:0115; T2 0:9962, and

d 2:0023. The identified model can be written in SOPDT

transfer function form in Table 1. The three different levels of

measurement noise are added at process output to yield noisy

outputs with 10 dB, 20 dB, and 30 dB signal to noise ratio (SNR)

values, respectively. Thereafter, the noise-free outputs are recovered using Fourier series-based curve fitting method as shown in

Fig. 4. Substituting the recovered limit cycle data in the derived

expressions, an overdamped SOPDT plant model is identified.

Comparison of identified models in terms of IAE is given in

Table 1 and in terms of percentage error in Table 3. Finally, the

actual and identified transfer function models are compared

through Nyquist frequency response plots as shown in Figs. 5

and 6.

4.3 Example 3. Consider the critically damped SOPDT

plant studied by Vivek and Chidambaram [26] as Gm3 s

fe0:5s =20s 12 g. Using an asymmetrical relay feedback

Transactions of the ASME

Examples

1

Methods

Identified models

IAE

Proposed model

0:9999e1:9999s

10:0038s 1

3:6850 104

1:0e1:997374s

9:9415s 1

38:1188 104

1:0048e2:0024s

10:0490s 1

2:2186 103

0:9467e2:0s

9:5028s 1

1:6065 102

Proposed model

1:0e2:0023s

10:0115s 10:9962s 1

3:3663 104

1:0014e2:1391s

10:2491s 11:0164s 1

30:55 103

1:0019e2:0769s

10:0691s 11:0751s 1

24:35 103

0:9999e1:9718s

9:9038s 10:9966s 1

79:449 104

0:9923e2:0s

9:8997s 11:0105s 1

4:3141 103

1:0122e2:0037s

10:1178s 10:9920s 1

5:3081 103

1:0e0:4983s

1:8589 104

Proposed model

19:9991s 12

64:5469 104

1:0004e0:4368s

19:9187s 1

1:6820 102

1:058e0:551s

20:81s 1

test with relay settings (hH 70:0 and hL 40:0) and step input

of R 50:0% yields sustained asymmetrical limit cycle output

around the setpoint. The measured limit cycle parameters

Aup 50.3504, Adp 49.8231, s 10:5783, T 15.9567, tup

4:8580s; Ay 799:6553, and Ar 799:6194 are substituted in the

derived mathematical expressions for estimation of unknown

parameters

Setpoint (R)

60%

50%

40%

30%

Table 3

Ex.

actual plant, (b) proposed model, (c) model by Liu and Gao [19],

and (d) model by Vivek and Chidambaram [14]

2:1944 101

0:3753e3:8613s

64:7950s 1

Relay settings

T1

hH 80%, hL 45%

hH 65%, hL 45%

hH 70%, hL 30%

hH 50%, hL 55%

1.0000

0.9999

1.0000

1.0000

2.0005

1.9999

2.0001

2.0008

9.9999

10.0038

9.9999

9.9999

Methods

T1

T2

Proposed

As per Ref. [16]

As per Ref. [25]

0.01

0.48

5.33

0.0036

0.12

0

0.0387

0.49

4.972

Proposed

As per Ref. [6]

As per Ref. [15]

0

0.77

1.22

0.1171

0

0.185

0.1151

1.003

1.178

0.3712

1.05

0.8

Proposed

As per Ref. [26]

0.0044

5.8

0.3364

10.2

0.0043

4.05

Fig. 4 Limit cycle output for example 2: (a) noisy output with

20 dB SNR and (b) reconstructed output

actual plant, (b) proposed model, (c) model by Vivek and Chidambaram [26], and (d) model by Srinivasan and Chidambaram

[13]

between the Nyquist frequency response plots of the estimated

and actual critically damped SOPDT processes. To show the measurement noise effect, a 30 dB noise is added at the process output, and thereafter, a noise-free output is derived by Fourier

series-based curve fitting method. The recovered limit cycle data

when substituted in the derived expressions result in a critically

damped SOPDT plant model. Like the previous example, the

comparison in terms of IAE and percentage error is given in

Tables 3 and 4, respectively.

5

Fig. 5 Nyquist frequency response plots for example 2: (a)

actual plant, (b) proposed model, (c) model by Bajarangbali

et al. [17], and (d) model by Liu and Gao [18]

gain is derived as k 1.0. Thereafter, the remaining unknown

plant model parameters T1 and d are estimated as T1 19:9991

and d 0:4983 by solving Eqs. (31) and (33), respectively. The

identified model can be written in critically damped SOPDT

test of a real-time liquid level control system is studied to illustrate the performance of the proposed technique. A practical orientation of the field devices is shown in Fig. 8. The setup consists

of an overhead liquid container having one input fed from reservoir to tank through pump and control valve for liquid inlet and

two outlets, one of which is through a manual control valve to discharge liquid with a constant rate and another outlet is through a

control valve which is in fully closed position throughout the

period of identification. Yokogawa DCS CENTUM CS3000 [27]

is used here as a field control station (FCS), and the data communication part is done through VLNet between FCS and engineering station as well as human interface station (HIS). In the

experiments, a step input was given as liquid level setpoint input

to the process through relay feedback. The details of experimental

outcomes are well stated in Sec. 5.2.

5.2 Experimental Validation. The proposed asymmetrical

relay feedback test is applied to the above plant shown in Fig. 8.

actual plant, (b) proposed model with 10 dB noise, (c) proposed

model with 20 dB noise, and (d) proposed model with 30 dB

noise

Variation (%)

K%

T1 %

d%

0.5

1

2

0.5

1

2

0.5

1

2

0.5

1

2

0.5084

1.0088

2.0088

0.4870

0.9981

1.9874

0.4847

0.9841

1.9834

0.5237

1.0036

2.0225

Fig. 9 Response of level control system using an asymmetrical relay: (a) limit cycle around setpoint and (b) relay output

plant output: (a) setpoint, (b) plant output, (c) FOPDT model

output, (d) overdamped SOPDT model output, and (e) ZN testbased model output

models

Methods

Identified models

0:9507e6:9442s

265:4280s 1

0:9388e7:0455s

273:5958s 1

0:9507e3:6964s

176:3120s 13:4908s 1

0:9507e8:2085s

29:9624s 12

0:9790e8:4127s

169:6874s 1

0:9589e8:4919s

167:6980s 1

Fig. 11 Nyquist frequency response plots for level control system: (a) proposed FOPDT process model, (b) proposed overdamped SOPDT model, (c) proposed critically damped SOPDT

model, and (d) model by ZN test

The limit cycle plant output with relay output signals is shown in

Fig. 9. A single asymmetrical relay feedback tests are conducted

by considering the same plant in two different orders of dynamics.

First, the plant is applied an asymmetrical relay feedback test of

relay heights hH 65:0 and hL 25:0 with a step input of R

40:0% and produces a sustained asymmetrical system output at

steady state. From the experimental results, the limit cycle parameters Aup 40.544, Adp 39.562, T 28.0, Ay 1121:84, and

Ar 1180:0 are measured. From Eq. (26), the process steadystate gain is derived as k 0.9507, and further solving Eqs. (28)

and (29), the unknown plant model is found in terms of stable

FOPDT process model parameters as T1 265:4280 and d

6:9442 which can be seen in Table 5. Second, the same plant is

considered as stable SOPDT model, and thereafter, from additional limit cycle information of s 16:0, tup 8.0, and simultaneously solution of Eqs. (20)(22), the unknown plant model

parameters are estimated as T1 176:3120; T2 3:4908, and

d 3:6964, i.e., as shown in Table 5. Similar to the above relay

settings, the real-time level control system is estimated from the

simultaneous solution of Eqs. (26), (31), and (33) in terms of critically damped SOPDT process model as k 0.9507,

T1 29:9624, and d 8:2085, and can be seen as transfer function form in Table 5 with the model obtained from

ZieglerNichols (ZN) test. For validation purpose, the obtained

dynamics of the real-time plant in transfer function forms of three

different types such as FOPDT, overdamped SOPDT, and ZN

model are simulated with the same relay setting and same set

value which was considered during the experimental study. Thereafter, three model outputs are plotted in Fig. 10 in comparison with

the actual experimental output of the real-time level control system.

To discard measurement noise, the noisy process output signal is

processed by MATLAB Fourier series-based curve fitting method [25].

Again substituting the recovered limit cycle information in derived

mathematical expressions, the stable FOPDT plant model is identified and tabulated in Table 5. Thereafter, the amount of measurement noise present at the process output as shown in Fig. 9 is

calculated, and thereafter, the SNR of the real-time level control is

found to be as 56.7144 dB. As the derived transfer functions are

obtained for single plant dynamics with three different forms, proper

validation is required to satisfy the experimental outcomes. The

Nyquist frequency response plots of three identified models and the

dynamic model obtained from ZN test are demonstrated in Fig. 11

for a wide range of frequency responses. Interestingly, it has been

observed that the identified transfer function models in terms of stable FOPDT and overdamped SOPDT are close to model obtained

from the ZN test as compared to critically damped SOPDT model

due to model mismatch.

Conclusions

methods are widely accepted feedback approach for identification

of the unknown plant. These methods cannot always be used in a

straightforward way in process industries and also may lead to

erroneous models if the measured parameters are estimated from

describing function-based analysis. Therefore, a set of modified

expressions for estimation of parameters of plant dynamics in

transfer function form using state-space approach using an asymmetrical relay with nonzero setpoint reference are derived in this

paper. The proposed identification procedure is validated through

both simulation and experimental hardware showing its

for modeling and identification of various real-time unknown

plants can be adopted in various industrial sectors.

References

[1] Ahmed, S., Huang, B., and Shah, S. L., 2007, Novel Identification Method

From Step Response, Control Eng. Pract., 15(5), pp. 545556.

[2] Ahmed, S., Huang, B., and Shah, S. L., 2008, Identification From Step

Responses With Transient Initial Conditions, J. Process Control, 18(2), pp.

121130.

[3] Majhi, S., and Atherton, D. P., 1999, Autotuning and Controller Design for

Processes With Small Time Delays, IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., 146(5),

pp. 415425.

[4] Bi, Q., Cai, W. J., Lee, E. L., Wang, Q. G., Hang, C. C., and Zhang, Y., 1999,

Robust Identification of First-Order Plus Dead-Time Model From Step

Response, Control Eng. Pract., 7(1), pp. 7177.

[5] Chang, R. C., Shen, S. H., and Yu, C. C., 1992, Derivation of Transfer Function From Relay Feedback Systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 31(3),

pp. 855860.

str

[6] A

om, K. J., and Hagglund, T., 1984, Automatic Tuning of Simple Regulators With Specifications on Phase and Amplitude Margins, Automatica, 20(5),

pp. 645651.

[7] Sung, S., and Lee, I. B., 1999, On-Line Process Identification and PID Controller Autotuning, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 16(1), pp. 4555.

[8] Scali, C., Marchetti, G., and Semino, D., 1999, Relay With Additional Delay

for Identification and Autotuning of Completely Unknown Processes, Ind.

Eng. Chem. Res., 38(5), pp. 19871997.

[9] Panda, R., and Yu, C. C., 2003, Analytical Expressions for Relay Feed Back

Responses, J. Process Control, 13(6), pp. 489501.

[10] Atherton, D. P., 2006, Relay Autotuning: An Overview and Alternative

Approach, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 45(12), pp. 40754080.

[11] Lin, C., Wang, Q. G., and Lee, T. H., 2004, Relay Feedback: A Complete

Analysis for First-Order Systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 43(26),

pp. 84008402.

[12] Kaya, I., and Atherton, D. P., 2001, Parameter Estimation From Relay Autotuning With Asymmetric Limit Cycle Data, J. Process Control, 11(4),

pp. 429439.

[13] Srinivasan, S. K., and Chidambaram, M., 2004, An Improved Autotune Identification Method, Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q., 18(3), pp. 249256.

[14] Vivek, S., and Chidambaram, M., 2005, Identification Using Single Symmetrical Relay Feedback Test, Comput. Chem. Eng., 29(7), pp. 16251630.

[15] Majhi, S., 2007, Relay Based Identification of Processes With Time Delay, J.

Process Control, 17(2), pp. 93101.

[16] Majhi, S., 2007, Relay-Based Identification of a Class of Nonminimum Phase

SISO Processes, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 52(1), pp. 134139.

[17] Bajarangbali, R., Majhi, S., and Pandey, S., 2014, Identification of FOPDT

and SOPDT Process Dynamics Using Closed Loop Test, ISA Trans., 53(4),

pp. 12231231.

[18] Liu, T., Gao, F., and Wang, Y., 2008, A Systematic Approach for Online Identification of Second Order Process Model From Relay Feedback Test, AIChE

J., 54(6), pp. 15601578.

[19] Liu, T., and Gao, F., 2008, Alternative Identification Algorithms for Obtaining

a First-Order Stable/Unstable Process Model From a Single Relay Feedback

Test, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 47(4), pp. 11401149.

[20] Fedele, G., 2009, A New Method to Estimate a First-Order Plus Time Delay

Model From Step Response, J. Franklin Inst., 346(1), pp. 19.

str

[21] Hang, C., A

om, K. J., and Wang, Q., 2002, Relay Feedback Auto-Tuning of

Process Controllers-A Tutorial Review, J. Process Control, 12(1),

pp. 143162.

[22] Liu, T., Wang, Q. G., and Huang, H. P., 2013, A Tutorial Review on Process

Identification From Step or Relay Feedback Test, J. Process Control, 23(10),

pp. 15971623.

[23] Bhanot, S., 2008, Process Control Principles and Applications, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.

[24] Ljung, L., 1999, System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd ed., Prentice

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[25] MATLAB, 2007, Curve Fitting Toolbox, The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA.

[26] Vivek, S., and Chidambaram, M., 2012, An Improved Relay Auto Tuning of

PID Controllers for Critically Damped SOPTD Systems, Chem. Eng. Commun., 199(11), pp. 14371462.

[27] Yokogawa Electric, 2002, Technical Information: CENTUM CS3000 Integrated Production Control System (IPCS)TI 33Q01B10-01E, 6th ed., Yokogawa Electric Corp., Tokyo, Japan.

- Block Diagram ReductionUploaded byJamal Mesidor
- Control SystemUploaded bySreeram Panigrahi
- QFTManualUploaded byEDWARDURIBE
- Block DiagramUploaded bySimran Jeet Singh Maken
- Control Systems--The Last Basic Course, Pt IIUploaded byabhineet sharma
- Assignment.pdfUploaded byNajeeb Ullah
- 10. Closed-Loop DynamicsUploaded byjunhao_tan_1
- ENS5253 Chapter-1 review questions_quiz-1.pdfUploaded byomairakhtar12345
- 1-s2.0-S0167691101001426-mainUploaded byKen Hong
- MELJUN CORTES EENG03 Control SystemUploaded byMELJUN CORTES, MBA,MPA
- Assignment 1Uploaded byRonak Choudhary
- L13 Freq Resp, NyquistUploaded bySmriti Saryan
- Course Project 1_rangansrinivasanUploaded byRangan Srinivasan
- 2014 SCE2210 Introduction to Control SystemsUploaded byBernice Johnson
- Introduction to control systemUploaded byVimala Elumalai
- lec-45Uploaded byapi-247714257
- tute7solnsUploaded byIshanSane
- ME55_scp_290806Uploaded byS C Pilli
- 4_tanksinseriesUploaded bytresmilhoes
- EEE402 Exp09 NewUploaded byanon_181037318
- ME2142_T2_182Uploaded byKenny Shin
- 0ee43801a016bd9d7e0c23f250bb48f9-MCQ.pdfUploaded byHemanth Reddy
- FeedlabCh4Uploaded byJohn David Meer Ramos
- Practice Questions (1)Uploaded bykotesrao
- SEE_2113_NOTES_-_Ch01Uploaded byandee_syazana
- 1Uploaded byjonthemes
- VAR-501-WECC-3Uploaded byrodruren01
- 12270 - Control System.pdfUploaded byKapilGarg
- ME PhD Qual MControl Sample1Uploaded byshv_atluru
- Study guide - controlUploaded byTerene

- Trajectory Catching.pdfUploaded byneel1237
- n 2012525910Uploaded byneel1237
- Top 50 Automation and Control Systems JournalsUploaded byneel1237
- Zeng 2010Uploaded byneel1237
- PRUploaded byneel1237
- (Mathematical Modelling_ Theory and Applications 10) C. Rocşoreanu, A. Georgescu, N. Giurgiţeanu (Auth.)-The FitzHugh-Nagumo Model_ Bifurcation and Dynamics-Springer Netherlands (2000)Uploaded byneel1237
- dobal2007Uploaded byneel1237
- Singh 2006Uploaded byneel1237
- Ch18_1_25_05Uploaded bysalvador2me
- bofaaa.com.pdfUploaded byneel1237
- HYbrid FunctionUploaded byneel1237
- tara rahasya vritikaUploaded byneel1237
- forms.pdfUploaded byneel1237
- ListUploaded byneel1237
- aakaUploaded byneel1237
- new nugsUploaded byneel1237
- PapersUploaded byneel1237
- 05164399.pdfUploaded byneel1237
- Datia swmi ji.pdfUploaded byneel1237
- Wave Model of NugomoUploaded byneel1237
- Moola Bandha - The Master KeyUploaded byrvaigai1
- Orginal BFOUploaded byneel1237
- Sample IRCTC ticketUploaded byLora Bishop

- estiecepUploaded byJessa Mae Mauricio Castillo
- 4. Band Limited SignalUploaded byAshik iqbal
- SERVICE REMOTE CONTROL LG 47LX9500-3D.pdfUploaded byvideoson
- Good Project _ Sound ByteUploaded byKanna
- Performance Analisys of Proportionate-Type Normalized Mean Square AlgorithmsUploaded byKaio Douglas
- 1570436672 1Uploaded byapi-401990080
- Analysis on Denoising of Biomedical ECG Signal Using Various Wavelet Transforms and Thresholding TechniquesUploaded byIJARTET
- MATLAB INL DNL.pdfUploaded byVP Singh
- Mobile JammerUploaded bymaxrisk111
- ECE203 Research Paper v1.8Uploaded byAllan Lee Freeman
- CFAR Thesis - James Jen - PDFUploaded byJames Jen
- W2032Uploaded byMiki Arsovski
- Over SamplingUploaded byNedel Labile
- 04 Millimetre Wave RadiometersUploaded byagmnm1962
- ads127l01Uploaded byFrank Baz
- Principles and Limitations of Ultra-Wideband FM Communications SystemsUploaded byIuliaMitrica
- Sigcomm TalkUploaded bykirankumar217
- Parametric Optimization of Eicher 11.10 Chassis Frame for Weight Reduction Using FEA-DOE Hybrid Modeling.pdfUploaded bySNI1
- Teoria T TideUploaded byReinaldo Barriga B
- A Comparison of FFT and Polyphase ChannelizersUploaded bytasos1970
- HAMMAMATSU INGAAS DETECTORS IR.pdfUploaded bylazaros
- Eetop.cn MMIC DesignUploaded byA Mohan Babu
- Testreport HD-CR35NDT HD-IPPlus Duerr 7159Uploaded byJOMAGUES
- Philips FW M15Uploaded byMarian Niculae
- EthernetUploaded bypascaruflorin
- FSK- Signals and DemodulationUploaded byMatthew Carter
- Lab20150.pdfUploaded bynmmMJKJ
- CCTV Course NotesUploaded byBadr El Ouassif
- Wang2008_TFMaskingHearingAidUploaded byMrJoshuaUSA
- Theory of HPLC Quantitative and Qualitative HPLCUploaded byAndrew Berry