Scribd
Upload
107 views20 pages

Elec Eng 4Cl4:: Control System Design

The document discusses architectural issues in single-input single-output control systems. It provides an example of using disturbance feedforward to improve system response and describes an application of feedforward control to address a limitation in controlling a reversing mill process due to tension interactions.

Uploaded by

Morteza Sepehran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
107 views20 pages

Elec Eng 4Cl4:: Control System Design

The document discusses architectural issues in single-input single-output control systems. It provides an example of using disturbance feedforward to improve system response and describes an application of feedforward control to address a limitation in controlling a reversing mill process due to tension interactions.

Uploaded by

Morteza Sepehran
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 20

ELEC ENG 4CL4:

Control System Design


Notes for Lecture #32
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Dr. Ian C. Bruce
Room: CRL-229
Phone ext.: 26984
Email: [email protected]

Goodwin,

Chapter 10

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Chapter 10

Architectural Issues in SISO


Control

Goodwin,

Chapter 10

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Disturbance Feedforward
We show how feedforward ideas can be applied to
disturbance rejection.
A structure for feedforward from a measurable
disturbance is shown in Figure 10.2.
Dg (s)
Gf (s)
+

R(s)
C(s)
+

U (s)

+
Go1 (s)

Go2 (s)

Y (s)

Figure 10.2: Disturbance feedforward scheme.

Goodwin,

Chapter 10

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

The proposed architecture has the following features


(i)

The feedforward block transfer function Gf(s) must be


stable and proper, since it acts in open loop.
(ii) Ideally, the feedforward block should invert part of the
nominal model, i.e.
G f ( s ) [ G 01 ( s )] 1

(iii) Since usually G01(s) will have a low pass characteristic, we


should expect Gf(s) to have a high pass characteristic.

Goodwin,

Chapter 10

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Example of Disturbance Feedforward


Consider a plant having a nominal model given by
es
Go (s) = 2
2s + 3s + 1

1
Go1 (s) =
s+1

es
Go2 (s) =
2s + 1

We assume that the disturbance dg(t) consists of


infrequently occurring step changes. A feedback only
solution to this problem would be hindered by the fact
that the achievable loop bandwidth would be constrained
by the presence of the delay in G0. We therefore
investigate the use of feedforward control. We choose
the architecture shown earlier in Figure 10.2 and choose
-Gf(s) as an approximation to the inverse of G01(s), i.e.

Goodwin,

Chapter 10

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

s+1
Gf (s) = K
s + 1

Where allows a trade off to be made between the


effectiveness of the feedforward versus the size of the
control effort. Note that K takes the nominal value 1.
The next figure shows the effect of varying K from 0
(no disturbance feedforward) to K = 1 (full disturbance
feedforward). [A unit step reference is applied at t = 1
followed by a unit step disturbance at t = 5].

Goodwin,

Chapter 10

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Figure 10.3: Control loop with (K = 1) and without


(K = 0) disturbance feedforward

Effect of disturbance feedforward


1.5

Plant response

K=0
1
K=1
0.5

0
0

10
Time [s]

15

Chapter 10

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

We thus see that the use of disturbance feedforward


can anticipate the disturbance and lead to
significantly improved transient response.

Chapter 10

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Industrial Application of
Feedforward Control
Feedforward control is generally agreed to be one of
the most useful concepts in practical control system
design beyond the use of elementary feedback ideas.
We will illustrate the idea by revisiting the hold up
effect in Rolling Mills which was discussed in
Chapter 8.

Chapter 10

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Hold-Up Effect in Reversing Mill


Revisited
Consider again the Rolling Mill problem discussed
earlier. There we saw that the presence of imaginary
axis zeros were a fundamental limitation impeding
the achievement of a rapid response between
unloaded roll gap position and exit thickness. We
called this the hold-up effect. The physical origin of
the problem is tension interactions.

Chapter 10

Reversing Mill

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Chapter 10

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Hold Up Effect

The dotted line


represents the expected
disturbance response
whereas what is actually
achieved is the solid line.

Goodwin,

Chapter 10

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Consider the schematic diagram shown on the next


slide. We recall that the physical explanation for the
hold-up effect is as follows:

Say the roll gap is opened;


Initially this causes the exit thickness to increase;
However, the exit speed is roughly constant (due to the
action of another control loop), hence more mass comes
out the end of the mill;
Hence the incoming strip velocity must increase to
supply this extra mass flow;

Goodwin,

Chapter 10

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

However, due to the inertia of the uncoiler, this means


that the input tension will increase;
In turn, increased input tension implies a drop in exit
thickness.

The exit thickness increase is thus held up until the


uncoiler current controller can respond and restore
the tension to its original value.
This phenomena manifests itself in the imaginary
axis zero noted in Chapter 8 in the model linking roll
gap to exit thickness.

Chapter 10

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Figure 10.6: Feedforward controller for reversing mill

Chapter 10

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

The above explanation suggests that a remedy might


be to send a pulse of current to the uncoiler motor as
soon as we adjust the roll gap, i.e. to use
FEEDFORWARD.

Goodwin,

Chapter 10

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Indeed, one can show using the physics of the


problem that tension fluctuations would be avoided
by choosing the uncoiler current as
iu (t) =

Ju uo
vio hoi Km


c1 v0o

d(t)
dhi (t)
dhi (t)
+ c2 v0o
vio
dt
dt
dt

The above equation is seen to be a feedforward


signal linking (the derivatives of) the unloaded roll
gap position, (t), and the input thickness, hi(t), to
the uncoiler current.

Chapter 10

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Use of feedforward control in this example removes


the fundamental limitation arising from the
imaginary axis zero. This is not a contradiction in
terms because the limitation was only fundamental
within the single input (roll gap) single output (exit
thickness) architecture. Changing the architecture
by use of feedforward control to the uncoiler
currents alters the fundamental nature of the problem
and removes the limitation.

Chapter 10

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

Result with Feedforward Control

Recall that the solid line


was the best that could
be achieved with a
single degree of freedom
control whereas using
feedforward we can
achieve the dotted line.

Chapter 10

Goodwin,

Graebe, Salgado, Prentice Hall 2000

The above example delivers an important message in


solving tough control problems. Specifically, one
should look out for architectural changes which may
dramatically change a difficult (or maybe
impossible) problem into an easy one.

You might also like