Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
00
Printed in Great Britain. 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc
Abstract--Generally speaking, chemical processes in nature are non-square systems with unequal numbers
of inputs and outputs. However, only limited tools, e.g. singular-value decomposition (SVD), are capable of
analyzing non-square muItivariable systems directly. In this paper, Bristols relative gain array (RCA) is
extended to non-square multivariable systems. The non-square relative gain array (NRC) is defined as the
ratio of the open-loop gain, when all loops are without any control, to the closed-loop gain, when all loops
other than the loop explored are under perfect control in the least-square sense. Properties of NRG are
rigorously derived. Similar to the square RCA, the NRC can be used to assess the performance of
non-square control systems based on steady-state information. Futhermore, the NRG can be served as
a criterion to choose a square subsystem from a non-square system if a square control system is preferred.
Two distillation examples are presented to illustrate the use of the NRC.
1309
1310 JIN-WEN CHANG and CHENG-CHING Yu
fore, we have
-2
Ldui1
2
= Bji (5)
aYi
Ykk+i
where gii is the jith element of G-i.
It should be emphasized that the only assumption
made about the controller K is that the controller has
integral action (can eliminate steady-state offset for
asymptotically constant disturbances). No assump-
Fig. 1. Concept of closed-loop gain in a feedback system.
tion is made about the controller structure. Therefore,
Aij becomes
Aj = Sijdji (6)
output (yi) and jth input (u,.), A:, is defined as the
open-loop gain over the closed-loop gain. The open- and the RGA, A, is defined as
loop gain between yi and uj is described by the ijth
A = G@(G-)= (7)
element of the process transfer function matrix. gii(.,.
Generally, the open-loop gain, gij(,,, is a function of where @ denotes element-by-element multiplication.
the frequency (let s = iw) and the definitions are the
same for both square (m = n) and non-square (m > n) 2B. Non-square system
systems. However, the definition and interpretation of For a non-square system with more outputs than
the closed-loop gain are not that straightforward. The inputs (m > n), it is not possible to keep all outputs at
closed-loop gain is defined separately for both square their set points. Therefore, the sense of perfect control
and non-square systems. in the definition of closed-loop gain should be modi-
fied. Perfect control in the least-square sense is pro-
posed. That is, a controller K is designed such that the
2A. Square systems steady-state offsets are minimized in the sense of least-
For square systems, the closed-loop gain is defined square (i.e. the 2-norm of the steady-state error vector
as the gain between yi and ui when all other outputs is minimized). This type of controller is termed a least-
are under perfect control, i.e. y,s are held constant for square perfect controller. From the IMC structure
all k # i (McAvoy, 1983; Grosdidier and Morari, [Fig. 2 and Garcia and Morari (1982)] the output
1985). Figure 1 illustrates the concept of the closed- vector, y(,,. can be expressed as
loop gain provided that all other outputs are kept at
set points. Generally, it is not possible to keep all Y(si = %,[I,, + Ge,,, tG,,, - &,)I - Gc,,, YE (8)
other outputs, yks, under perfect control at all time if and assuming no plant-model mismatch, we have
G,,, contains dead-time and/or RHPT zeros. There-
fore, only the steady-state aspect of perfect control is
meaningful for general systems. In this paper, only the where Ge,,, is an n x m IMC controller transfer func-
steady-state aspect (s = 0) of the closed-loop gain is tion matrix
discussed. Mathematically, the relative gain can be %, is an m x n nominal process transfer
defined as function matrix.
The closed-loop error becomes
[ auj 1
uk,k+j
= &j(O).
(Strang, 1980). Using the final-value theorem, the Similarly, the column sum vector (CS) is defined as
steady-state offsets become [subscript (0) is dropped r n n n 1T
for clarity]
i5 = (I - GG+),=. (12)
= [es(l), cs(2), . . . , es(n)] (20)
where the superscript - denotes the deviation from
its nominal value at steady state. Geometrically, the and
matrix (I - GG) projects g onto the orthogonal
complement of the column space of G. Subsequently, es(i) = (9+ 9)ii (21)
the sum of the square of the steady-state offsets, ErB, is where (g g)ii is the iith element of the n x n matrix
minimized. Therefore, the steady-state closed-loop re- G+G.
lationship, under the least-square perfect control, be-
tween ii and y becomes Property 1: The sum of the elements in each column of
,=G+y_ (13) the NRG is always equal to unity. That is es(j) = 1.0
for all js.
Between the ith output and the jth input, the inverse
of the closed-loop gain is Proof For an m x n matrix, G, with m > n, if GrG is
1
non-singular, we have
auj = 9ji
t (14)
[ aYi CL G+ G = (GTG)-i GrG = I,. (22)
where gf is the jith entry of G+. Since the jth column sum of the NRG, es(j), is the jjth
Notice that in order to achieve the control objec- element of G+ G, we have
tive, controller structure, a full multivariable least-
square perfect controller, and steady-state gain of the es(j) = F A; = 1.0.
controller are assumed implicitly. i=r
For a non-square system, G, the non-square rela- QED
tive gain (NRG) is defined as Property 1 says that the sum of NRG elements
along the longer side of the G matrix (the column sum
rayi
for m > n) is equal to unity. This property is consistent
-N LauJoL=gij.g; (15) with the result of square systems (RGA).
+ = rayi
Property 2: The sum of the elements in each row of
Thus, from the steady-state transfer matrix G and its the NRG falls between zero and unity. That is:
pseudo inverse G+, the non-square relative gain ar- 0 < rs(i) < 1 for all is.
ray, AN, can be promptly evaluated: Proof: Appendix C.
AN = G@(G+)T. (16)
This property points out the fundamental difference
The definition is similar to the Bristol RGAs. Despite between the NRG and the RGA. Since it is not poss-
the difference that the pseudo-inverse, G+, is used ible to keep all outputs perfect for a non-square sys-
instead of the normal inverse, G-l, the simplicity of tem, the row sum of the NRG being less than unity
the RGA remains. seems to indicate the deviation from perfect control
for each output. The next two sections will discuss the
3. PROPERTIES OF THE NON-SQUARE RCA row sum in greater details.
Proof!
RS= j$liyj, 5 dE;lj,. . . , t A:jIT
[ j-1 j= 1
IIJ
thogonal matrices, e.g. P; = PT and Pi 1 = P,, we
(A& = gijsj ; g; = gijg; = a& have
1
A$ = 1 = 1 [ZOOO] + ( - 1000) [ - 20001+ (1000)
det (GTG) [2000] + ( - 1000) [ - 20001 + (1001)
As G becomes nearly singular [det (GrG) 4 01, the [ [ - lOOO] + (2001) [999] + ( - 2000)
elements of the NRG approach infinity.
With 6 = 0.0001, we have
QED
1
Consider a nearly singular non-square system G [G [20,000] + ( - 10,000) [ - 2O,ooo] + (10,001)
is singular if and only if det(GTG) = O]: [2O,M30] + ( - 10,000) [ - 2O,OOO] + (10,001)
[ [ - lO,OOO] + (20,001) L-99991 + ( - 20,001)
a a
G= a a The results show that the premultiplication factor in
the RHS of eq. (25) grows in the magnitude which is
[ a a(1 + 6)
proportional to the size of dc. Therefore, we can
I.
The NRG becomes conjecture that the relative sensitivity between ,%gand
r
gij is proportional to the size of 1;. For a system with
1+b -1 large value of nzs, it becomes more sensitive to errors
26 2s in gvs.
l+S -1
A=
I -
2s
~
26
L
4. NON-SQUARE CONTROL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
-1
- ~1+6 As pointed out earlier, two approaches can be
6 6
taken to handle non-square systems. The first ap-
Let S = 0.001: proach is to design a non-square controller for a given
non-square system (Treiber, 1984, Lourtie, 1985). Im-
1
500.5 - 500 plications of the NRG to the ultimate performance of
500.5 500 non-square controllers are discussed in this section.
A = [
-1000 - 1001 Since it is not possible to keep every output at its set
point with fewer inputs (notice that the process trans-
and for 6 = 0.0001: fer function is an m x n matrix with m > n) in the face
of disturbances, the ultimate steady-state performance
1
5000.5 -5000 measure is, therefore, the steady-state offset (error) in
AN= 5000.5 -5cOo. each output. In most cases, a least-square perfect
- 10,000 10,001 controller [eq. (1 l)] is designed such that the 2-norm
of the steady-state offset is minimized. The NRG
This special case implies a nearly singular system measures, quantitatively, the ultimate steady-state
matrix results in large elements in the NRG. For this performance of a non-square control system.
special case, the smaller 6 is, the larger the values of
n: are. However, the degree of singularity for non- Theorem 1: Consider a stable non-square system with
square systems is less critical than square systems, more outputs than inputs. If a least-square perfect
since it is not very likely to have a singular (or nearly controller [eq. (1 l)] is employed and the closed-loop
singular) system, especially for cases with m + n. system is stable, then the deviation of the ith row sum
of the NRG from unity [l - rs(i)] is equal to the
steady-state offset in the ith output when a unit step
Property 8: Consider an m x n transfer matrix G with set point change is made in the ith output.
its pseudo-inverse G+ and its associate NRG, AN.
Relative changes in the gijs and 25s are related by the Proof: Based on the IMC structure (Fig. 2), if the
following expressions. least-square perfect controller (Section 2B) is used, the
da: g; det [ (G)T(Gij)] closed-loop relationship becomes
nc - lgdet(GTG)
+ (1 - 2a;)
1 2. (25)
B = (I - GG+ ),*. (26)
1314 JIN-WEN CHANG and CHENG-CHING Yv
If a unit step set point change is made on the ith the process transfer function matrix with output
output, i.e. scaling matrix provided with a larger scaling factor on
that output. The row sums of output resealed NRG
-Set = (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0, . . . , o)=
Y change accordingly and the row sum of that particu-
the steady-state error of the ith output is lar output becomes closer to unity. Therefore, the
physical meaning of output scaling on the NRG be-
ei = 1 - (gg+)ii
comes more transparent.
where (gg+)ii is the iith entry of GG+.
From eq. (19), we have 4A. Example: DL column (Doukas and Luyben, 1978)
Consider a side-stream distillation example (Fig. 3),
ci = 1 - w(i).
separating benzene, toluene and xylene, originally
QED studied by Doukas and Luyben (1978). Table 1 gives
The closeness of each row sum, n(i), to unity has the process transfer function matrix. The concentra-
a strong implication in non-square control system tions of four impurities in three product streams are
performance. In the case when one output is more controlled by three manipulated variables: reboiler
important than the other, we can simply weight that duty, reflux ratio and side stream flow rate. Doukas
particular output heavier than the other, e.g. rescale and Luyben (1978) squared up the system by adding
Raflux
40 -
.-----
- Sidestrram
----87
Feed
Steam
Bottoms
From the row sum of the NRG, it is clear that the Fig. 5. Closed-loop responses for a unit step set point
third output will be controlled poorly if a non-square change in yz with a non-square IMC controller.
controller is used. A non-square IMC controller is
designed to verify this prediction by the NRG. Since
our objective is to illustrate the steady-state offsets in
the controlled variables, a simple non-square IMC
controller is designed:
1 .o
f
2
0.8
0.6
0.4
co
-s 0.2
0.0
-0.2
-02C Time 4
oc
-0.4
0 1
200
1
400
Time
1
500 e 0
Fig. 4. Closed-loop responses for a unit step set point Fig. 7. Closed-loop responses for a unit step set point
change in y, with a non-square IMC controller. change in y, with a non-square IMC controller.
1316 JIN-WEN CHANG and CHENG-CHING Yu
Table 2. Steady-state offsets of the DL column for a unit Consider an m x n process transfer function matrix
step set point change in each variable with the static IMC G with m > n. If we choose n outputs for control, the
least-square controller
system can be partitioned into
SCl Se Se, SC
Yl Y2 Y3 Y4
SSE(i) = L (32)
Sfl
and
m
c si:
SSE(i) = + -_1=1--1. (33)
Fig.8. Square control structure for a non-square system. 9il n(i)
The relative gain for non-square multivariable systems 1317
Notice that SSE(i) is for the case when the ith output 1, a small row sum in the RHS of eq. (39) indicates
is chosen as the controlled variable. Equation (33) a small SSE in the corresponding square subsystem.
shows that choosing the largest row sum of the NRG Now we can justify that the small row sum of the
can lead to the smallest SSE subject to any perturba- NRG in the complementary (remaining) system indi-
tion in the controlled variable. From property 6, we cates a small SSE in the square subsystem. Therefore,
know that a large of giI corresponds to a large value the criterion for the selection of a square subsystem is
of AZ and rs(i). Therefore, choosing the element with to eliminate the controlled variable with the smallest
the largest magnitude from a transfer function matrix row sum in the NRG.
is equivalent to choosing the largest row sum from the
NRG in this case. This is physically understandable SC. Other cases
for the single-loop control, since the heuristic in com- Besides the two special cases, the cases with two or
mon practice is to choose a system that the manipu- more input variables and many output variables also
lated variable has a large effect on the controlled occur frequently. For example, we often try to keep
variable. the temperature profile in a distillation column with
reflux flow, steam flow, etc. Unfortunately, no direct
SB. Caseofm=n+ 1 link between the SSE and row sum can be derived
For this almost square system, we can square down analytically. The closest relationship between the SSE
the system by choosing the first n outputs to form and the row sum of the NRG for two input variables
a square subsystem, G,, and to derive the relation is (Appendix E)
between the SSE and rs. Since there are
k [k = C(n + 1, n) = n + l] choices to select a set of (40)
.9nz
. ...
.9nn
.1.
det(GTG) { ii1 *s(i)) - 2
G=
-__
=9.1
SSE(j) = (det G[ j])z
n 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0.5
1
-1 .cI- 49.969 0 0
-1.5 0 0 1.614
1O
I- I
200
1
400
I
600 E
x [ 0 12.055 0
[
Time
0.993 - 0.116 - 0.008 T
Fig. 11. Closed-loop responses for a unit step set point .
change in y, (ya is the uncontrolled output).
X -
0.115
0.167
0.991
- 0.075
- 0.077
- 0.997 1
can be predicted used the NRG:
In this case, the SVD method chooses controlled
variable 4, 4 and 2 to form a square subsystem. This
rs(3) example shows that the controlled variables (marked
SSE = = 1 ;;;*f = ( - 0.0391)2 by brackets in U matrix) change as the system is
1 - rs(3)
(input) scaled differently. On the contrary the NRG
+ ( - 0.0024)= + ( - 0.1723)2. subsystem selection criterion is invariant under input
The NRG square subsystem selection criterion scaling.
handles non-square system directly. In some cases, it
provides quantitative information about the SSE for 5C2. Example: DM column (Downs and Moore,
the uncontrolled outputs. 1981) Another distillation column example (Fig. 12)
Another technique to handle the non-square system studied by Downs and Moore (1981) is used to illus-
is the SVD method. Unlike the NRG, the SVD trate the selection of sensors locations using the NRG
method depends on both input and output scalings. method. The azeotropic distillation column is under
Mathematically, SVD decomposes G into three com- R-Q control and the steady-state gains are given in
ponent matrices: Table 5. If only one manipulated variable is used, e.g.
R or Q, to hold the temperature profile, the one-
G = UZVT column NRG should be calculated (Table 5). The
where W is an m x n orthonormal matrix,
Z is an n x n diagonal matrix with singular values v
in the diagonal. t
VT is an n x n orthonormal matrix. f
The transfer matrix function of the DL column can be
decomposed into R
1
F W
[ - 0.7843 - 0.423 0.452
0.438 0.139 [O.SSS]
G=
0.104 - 0.135 - 0.033
- 0.427 [0.885] 0.072 _---__ 6
1
18.10 0 0
-----_ L)
0 0 1.614
x [ 0 11.095 0
[
0.859 - 0.512 - 0.024 =
.
0.509 0.858 0.077
X - 0.060 - 0.053 - 0.997 1
9
The SVD subsystem selection criterion chooses the
largest element from u(i)s [u(i) is the ith column vector
of U]. For the DL column, the result of SVD is Fig. 12. DM distillation column.
1320 JIN-WEN CAANG and CHENG-CHING Yu
Table 5. Steady-state gains and the NRGs for the cases with a single
manipulated variable (DM column)
NRC
Tray j
(2)~ (2)~ R only Q only
Table 6. NRG and row sums for the R-Q struc- 6. CONCLUSIONS
ture
Bristols RGA is extended to non-square systems.
Tray j NRC rs(i) In this paper, an m x n non-square system with more
outputs than inputs (m > n) is considered. The NRG
9 - 0.0085 0.0154 0.007 is defined with the notion of least-square perfect con-
8 - 0.2665 0.2747 0.008 trol. The properties of the NRG are rigorously de-
- 1.2364 1.3750 0.141
: 12.1885 - 11.3720 CO.8171 rived. Similarities and differences between the NRG
5 - 11.5669 11.8991 0.333 and the RGA are also pointed out. The results on the
4 0.1876 0.2320 CO.4201 properties of the NRG can be summarized as follows:
3 1.1761 - 0.9764 0.200
2 0.4214 - 0.3611 0.060
1 0.1018 - 0.0878 0.024 (1) the sum of elements in each column adds up to 1;
(2) the sum of elements in each row falls between
0 and 1;
(3) NRG is input scaling independent;
quoted brackets in Table 5 are the selected temperat- (4) NRG is output scaling dependent;
ure control trays. As shown in Table 5, the NRG (5) permutation of rows and columns in the trans-
selection criterion matches our physical intuition to fer function matrix results in the same permuta-
choose the temperature control trays with the largest tion in the NRG;
steady-state gains. The temperature control tray in (6) for square systems, the NRG is reduced to the
both cases is tray 6 (Table 5). RGA;
It is quite common to have more than one manipu- (7) a nearly singular transfer function matrix re-
lated variable to control a distillation column. The sults in large elements in the NRG;
NRG and row sums for the R-Q control structure are (8) large NRG elements indicate the system is sen-
shown in Table 6. The NRG selection criterion sitive to modeling error (error in gij).
chooses trays 4 and 6 to form a square subsystem.
This choice is not obvious if we analyze the steady- The theoretical development of the NRG has the
state gain matrix only (Table 5). It is interesting to following practical implications:
note that the SVD method also chooses trays 4 and (1) The NRG can be used to assess the ultimate
6 as the temperature control trays (Downs and performance of non-square controllers. quantitative
Moore, 1981). results between the steady-state errors for a least-
In terms of control structure selection (to choose square-based non-square controller and the row sum
a square subsystem from a non-square process), the of the NRG are also established. The result indicates
NRG method has several advantages: that the deviation of the ith row sum from unity is
eqtial to the steady-state offset in the ith output when
(1) the NRG method handles a non-square system a unit step set point change is made in that output.
directly, (2) A square subsystem (secondary measurements
(2) the NRG method is output scaling dependent or sensor location) selection criterion is also pro-
and the scaling factors weigh the relative im- posed, based on the NRG. This criterion forms
portance of the outputs, a square subsystem by eliminating outputs with
(3) the NRG method is invariant under input scal- a small row sum. The NRG selection criterion assures
ing, that the profile of all outputs can be maintained at its
(4) the physical interpretation of the NRG method best in most cases when the square subsystem is under
is straightforward. integral control.
The relative gain for non -square multivariable systems 1321
1 1, w3)
have
g$ det [(GU)r(GU)] = gij( - l)i+j det Gj = 112.
det (GTG) det G
If the controller structure is other than a fuil multivariable Equation (B6) can be reduced further to
controller (e # G), we also have dL..
2 = (1 - I,,)?. (B9)
ij
with (El)
1
I=,
where G[Z] is an n x n matrix with rows from the Ith subset 7
of S(n, m)
G[I;,,] is an n x n matrix with rows from the Ith
detG, -..
det G, det G,
subset of S(n,m) such that the ith row is always in-
cluded.
k is equal to C(m - l,n ~ 1).
The ith row sum of the NRC is
rs(i) = i: $. (C5) W)
,= 1
Substituting eq. (C4) into eq. (C5), we have
and from Appendix C
i (det G Ch,l)
rs(1) =
j-s(j) = I=: (Cc)
C (det G[r])
I=1
Since all possible G[ f&Is are subsets of all possible G[I] s
and (det G[Z])2 is greater than zero, it is obvious that
0 d t-s(i) < 1. (C7)
i-s(2) =
APPENDIX D
From Appendix C, we know that
*
gij c det Gj[ I;,,] det G [ I;,,]
2; = =I ~ (C4)
1 (detG[l])* . SSE(1) = i lie(i) II: =
I=1 i=1 det(&G){ 1::: iz:(
If the output scaling matrix has the form
+I::: ;::I+ . . +I,,: ;,:I
S, = diag(1, 1,. . , si, . . , 1,l) PI)
the ,?c under output scaling becomes