Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Comparison of PID Control and Linear Model Predictive

Control Application to Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer System


Sasita Anucha1, Vasit Chayavivatkul2 and David Banjerdpongchai3
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University,
254 Phayathai Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330 Thailand Tel: +662-2186487, Fax: +662-2518991
Email: 1piglet_yores@hotmail.com, 2vasitbill@gmail.com, 3bdavid@chula.ac.th (corresponding author)

Abstract: Process control applications have significantly contributed to the development of the industrial sector.
A regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) is a treatment process of exhaust air. The system absorbs heat from the exhaust
gas and uses the captured heat to preheat the incoming gas stream and destroy air pollutants emitted from process
exhaust streams at high temperatures. In order to regulate the gas stream output, temperature control loop is an
important requirement. Nowadays, temperature control of RTO is still using conventional PID control. Tuning of PID
parameters are straightforward and simple, but its control performance is limited. Moreover, PID design for multi-input
multi-output systems is complicated and cannot ensure the performance. This motivates the development of model
predictive control (MPC) which is one of advanced process control techniques. This paper presents an application of
PID control and model predictive control designed for RTO system. The performance of linear MPC is compared to PID
control of RTO system. Effects of each control parameter are also obtained. Simulation results indicated that linear MPC
provides better transient performance.

1. INTRODUCTION nonlinear characteristic and employing PID controller can


result in poor performance. This leads to the development
A regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) is an industrial of MPC with a use a dynamic model in optimization and
process for the treatment of exhaust air. The system uses to improve process performance [7].
ceramics material to absorb heat from the exhaust gas. It This paper aims to design linear MPC for the RTO
then uses the captured heat to preheat the incoming process which contributes stability and performance of the
process gas stream and destroy air pollutants emitted from system. The main contribution of this paper is to serve the
process exhaust streams at high temperatures [1]. industries which are involved with RTO with a more
Temperature control is an important task for RTO. optimal controller. This might not only make the
Although most of industrial processes are still using companies waste less time with the process but also make
conventional control which is PID control, its them gain more profits. For simulation, control parameters
performance is limited especially in nonlinear plants. This are varied in order to analyze the effect of each control
motivates the development of model predictive control parameter on the MPC. The performance of linear MPC is
(MPC) which is one of advanced process control compared to PID controller.
techniques. Linear MPC is developed in order to deal with The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, model
multivariable system and process constraints [2]. predictive control is described. The RTO and
MPC provides a consistent, model-based intelligence identification of process are given in section 3. In
layer to assist minute-to-minute operator decisions that section 4, the simulation of RTO system with PID
affect overall plant and production performance. In controller. In section 5, we illustrate results of linear MPC
contrast to capital changes designed to improve the energy and compare with that of PID control. Conclusions are
equation, such as installing a supplemental regenerative given in section 6.
thermal oxidizer (RTO) or an additional centrifuge, MPC
solutions reside on top of existing systems and can be
2. MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL
installed in a relatively short timeframe without a plant
shutdown [3]. The term Model Predictive Control (MPC) does not
The previous research on industrial pressure control designate a specific control strategy but a very ample
loop [4] shows that MPC based on linear dynamic model range of control methods which make an explicit use of a
outperforms PID controllers in terms of settling time and model of the process to obtain the control signal by
maximum overshoot. MPC is more robust to multiple minimizing an objective function. Normally, the standard
changes in the system dynamics and the varying time MPC process composes of three steps: future state/output
delay while PID control would need adjustment of its prediction, objective function optimization and control
parameters for any of the changes during the system signal implementation. The model is the corner stone
operation [5]. For the RTO system, the relationship which is used to explicitly generate the future state/output
between temperature and flow rate through combustion air prediction based on the control implementation and the
valve is nonlinear, and the flow rate is a function of valve values up to the instant time. The optimizer block is used
position [6]. Therefore, the temperature control loop has a to generate the control signal implementation based upon

978-1-4799-7862-5/15/$31.00 © 2015 IEEE


the specific objective function optimizzation and the where u ( k i + j ) is the control output
o at the time k i + j
predefined constraints [8]. The main objecctive of MPC is
and N c is control horizon, R is tuning parameter which
to minimize a performance criterion in thhe future that is
possibly subjected to constraints on thhe manipulated represents the weighing of the conttrol output.
inputs and outputs, where the future behavvior is computed
according to the model of the plant [9].
3. REGENERATIVE THE
ERMAL OXIDIZER
Using the state variables, the mathemattical model of a 3.1 Description
linear dynamic system can be expressed in the form of the RTO is an industrial processs for the treatment of
discrete-time state equation [9]. exhaust air. The system uses a bed of ceramic material to
‫ݔ‬ሺ݇ ൅ ͳሻ ൌ ‫ݔܣ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൅ ‫(ݑܤ‬kk) (1) absorb heat from the exhaust gas. It then uses this
‫ݕ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ‫ܥ‬x(k) (2) captured heat to preheat the incom
ming process gas stream
where x is state variable, u is control input aand y is and destroy air pollutants emittedd from process exhaust
performance output, A, B, and C are constaant matrices streams at high temperatures. Temmperature is controlled to
with appropriate dimension. be not too high and also not to oo low due to machine
The basic MPC’s structure is shown in Fig. 1 and the damages, when the temperature iss too high and much air
MPC’s scheme is shown in Fig. 2. pollution when the temperature is too
t low [5].
Fig. 3 shows the piping and instrumentation
i diagram
involved in the temperature conttrol loop of RTO. Two
inputs are combustion valve K4.01(%) and combustion
valve K7.06(%). One input is th he velocity of fan V2.
Temperature transmitter (TT) meaasures the temperature in
vessel and then sends this data too temperature controller
(TC) which will calculate a prop per output control signal
for controlling valve K4.01 [6].

Fig. 1. MPC’s structure.

Fig. 3 P&I diagram of RTO system.


3.2 Dynamic Model
A dynamic model is found d by applying System
Identification Tool using Prediction Error Minimization
(PEM) method [10,11]. The difference
d between the
estimation data and the validatio on data is used as the
Fig. 2. MPC’s scheme. selection criteria. The percentage of best fit accuracy of
the simulation output is 80.5% [66]. Comparison between
Consider the objective function used to m minimize errors the measured output and predicted d output of RTO system
between predicted output and reference [6]. is shown in Fig. 4.
J = ( Rs − Y )T ( Rs − Y ) + ΔU T RΔU (3)
where
Rs = [1 1 ! 1]1× N × r ( ki ) , (4)
p

r ( k i ) is reference signal at the time ki and N p is prediction


horizon.
T
Y = ª¬ y (ki + 1| ki ) y ( ki + 2 | ki ) " y ( ki + N p | ki ) º¼ (5)
where y ( k i + j | k i ) is the predicted output of dynamic
model at the time k i + j given the output aat the time k i
T Fig. 4 Comparison between th
he measured output and
ΔU=ª¬u(ki )−u(ki −1) u(ki +1)−u(ki ) " u(ki +Nc −1)−u(ki +Nc −2)º¼ (6) predicted outtput
By using zero-order hold method, we obtain the Table 1 Performances of RTO system with PID
continuous-time transfer function. control using IAE and ISE tuning methods.
0.09972 s 3 + 0.0644 s 2 + 0.01031s + 0.001265
P (s ) = (7)
s + 0.06081s 3 + 0.1013s 2 + 0.001932 s + 0.0001372
4

The discrete time transfer function of RTO system with


sampling time 10 seconds is as follows [5].
2.242 z 2 − 0.673z + 0.5128
P (z ) = (8)
z − 0.8922 z 2 − 0.5534 z + 0.6713
3

The model of RTO can be represented by the following


discrete time state space model.
ͲǤͷ͸Ͳͷͳ െͲǤ͵ͺͷ͵ െͲǤͶͳͺʹ͸ െͲǤͲ͵ʹͺʹͶ
‫ݔ‬ሺ݇ ൅ ͳሻ ൌ ൥ ͲǤ͵Ͳͳͺͻ ͲǤͺͻͺͶ͹ െͲǤͳ͵͸͹ʹ൩ ‫ݔ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൅ ൥ െͲǤͳͷ͸ͷ͵ ൩ ‫ݑ‬ሺ݇ሻ (9)
െͲǤ͹͸ͺͲͻ െͲǤͳͺͶͷͳ െͲǤͷ͸͸͹Ͷ െͲǤͲͻʹʹ͸ͺ
‫ݕ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൌ  ሾͳʹǤ͸͸Ͷ െͳͲǤͷͺͻ െͳͲǤͺ͵͹ሿ‫ݔ‬ሺ݇ሻ (10)

Temperature [Celsius]
4. RESULTS WITH PID CONTROL
We employ two tuning techniques using SISOTOOL
from MATLAB to find appropriate PID controller [10,11].
They are Integral of Absolute Error (IAE) and Integral of
Square Error (ISE). Simulated process response of RTO
system and control input of PI and PID controller
designed by IAE method and ISE method are shown in Valve [%]
Fig. 5. From the numerical experiments, we find that the
best PID parameters are Kp = 0.0415, Ki = 0.0149, Kd =
0.041, which are designed by IAE method. The
performance of RTO step response with PI and PID Fig. 6 Simulated process response of RTO system and
controllers designed by IAE and ISE methods is control input of PID control designed by IAE method and
summarized in Table 1. We note that PID control designed ISE method.
by IAE method gives the least settling time of 546 sec.
and the smallest maximum overshoot of 5.06%. Moreover, 5. RESULTS WITH LINEAR MPC
we calculate the norm of control input and error. It is
found that PID control designed by IAE method gives In this study, appropriate MPC parameters, namely, R ,
smaller norm of control input, whereas PI control Np, and Nc, are selected. First, we vary the weight
designed by ISE method give smaller norm of error. parameter R from 10, 15 to 20 whereas Np = 20, Nc = 5.
Simulated process responses of RTO system and control The simulated responses are shown in Fig. 7. It can be
inputs of PID controller designed by IAE method and ISE seen that the process output responds faster when R is
method are shown in Fig. 6. small. This is due to the fact that the first term of Eq. (3)
becomes dominant when R is small. As a result, the
output performance is better when R is decreased.
Temperature [Celsius]
Valve [%]

Fig. 5 Simulated process response of RTO system and


control input of PI and PID control designed by IAE Fig. 7 Simulated process response of RTO system and
method and ISE method. control input when varying weight parameter.
Weight parameter R = 5 is experimented to assure that output vector Y that contains preddicted output. The larger
dimension of output vector involves with the objective
the output performance of system when R is less than 10
function and let the magnitude of elements in ¨U to
is very similar to when the output performaance of system
become larger. As a result, the output performance is
when R is equal to 10. Comparison of prrocess responses better when prediction horizon is larger.
when R =5 and R = 10 is shown in Fig. 88. Lastly, we vary control horizon Nc from 5, 10 to 15,
while Np = 20, R =10. Simulatio on results are shown in
Fig. 10. It can be seen that the output
o responds slightly
slower when Nc is large. This results from the larger
dimension of ¨U that contains the control input. When the
dimension of control input is larg ger, the optimal control
energy is distributed over the lonnger period of time [6].
Norm of ¨U is slightly reducing g. The process responds
slightly faster when control horizo
on is small.
From the simulation, we find that the best choice of
design parameters are Nc = 5, Np = 20 and R =10.
The comparison between PID D controller and linear
MPC is shown in Fig. 11. It can n be seen that the linear
Fig. 8 Comparison of process responses whhen R =5 and R MPC has better performance with h less settling time, rise
=10 time and maximum overshoot. The comparison of
performances between PID contro oller and linear MPC is
shown in Table 2.
Temperature [Celsius]

Temperature [Celsius]
Valve [%]

Valve [%]

Fig. 9 Simulated process response of RTO O system and


control input when varying predictionn horizon.
Temperature [Celsius]

Fig. 11 Comparison of process ressponses with controllers


designed by PID and linear
l MPC.

Table 2 Comparison of performannces between using PID


control and linearr MPC.
Valve [%]

Fig. 10 Simulated process response of RT


TO system and
control input when varying control hhorizon.

Next, we vary prediction horizon Np from 5, 10 to 20


whereas Nc = 5, R = 10. Simulation results are shown in
Fig. 9. It can be seen that the output responnds faster when
Np is large. This results from the largerr dimension of
6. CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES
This paper is mainly focused on PID control and linear [1] KBA-MetalPrint GmbH, “Operating Instructions of
MPC with application to temperature control loop for Thermal Regenerative Exhaust Air Purification System”,
RTO system. The feature of MPC is to minimize a Germany, May 2012.
performance criterion in the future that would possibly be [2] C. E. Garcia, D. M. Prett, and M. Morari, “Model predictive
subject to constraints on the manipulated inputs and control: Theory and practice—A survey,” Automatica, vol.
25, pp. 335–348, 1989.
outputs. The variation of control parameters are also
simulated and discussed. These results show that properly [3] M. Tay and M. Macharia, Reducing Energy Costs with
Model Predictive Control Solutions, July 2006.
adjusting control parameters can improve overall Retrieved from
performance. The simulation results show that linear MPC www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/2161/reducing-energy
has better performance than PID controller designed by -costs-with-model-predictive-control-solutions
IAE tuning method. However, nonlinear MPC may [4] P. Meemeng and D. Banjerdpongchai, Design of Linear
provide a better performance compared to linear MPC Model Predictive Control for Pressure Control Loop Using
since the plant model is nonlinear. Therefore, design and Active Set Method," in Proc. of the 2012 First ICT Int’l
simulation of nonlinear MPC is important. It is an ongoing Senior Project Conf. and IEEE Senior Project Contest,
work which needs further studies. Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand, April 20,
2012.
[5] A. Li, Comparison between Model Predictive Control and
PID Control for Water-level Maintenance in a Two-tank
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT System, Bachelor Thesis, University of Science and
Technology, Beijing, 2008.
The research facility is supported by the Dept. of [6] V. Chayaivatkul, Industrial Control System Design and
Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Simulation: Application to Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
Chulalongkorn University. System, Senior Project Final Report, Dept. of Electrical
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn
University, Bangkok, Thailand, 2013.
[7] T. Angwattanapanich and D. Banjerdpongchai, Design and
Implementation of Wiener Nonlinear Model Predictive
Control for Pressure Control Loop, in Proc. of the 2014
SICE Annual Conference, Hokkaido University, Sapporo,
Japan, September 9-12, 2014.
[8] P. X. Dang, Design of Integrated Real Time Optimization
and Model Predictive Control for Distillation Column,
Master of Engineering Thesis, Dept. of Electrical
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn
University, Bangkok, Thailand, 2010.
[9] L. Wang, Model Predictive Control System Design and
Implementation Using MATLAB. London: Springer-Verlag,
2009.
[10] T. Nguyen. “Matlab and Simulink a Tutorial”. Retrieved
from http://edu.levitas.net/Tutorials/Matlab/Simulink/
[11] L. Ljung, “System Identification Toolbox User’s Guide
R2013b”,25th edition. Retrieved from
http://www.mathworks.com/help/pdf_doc/ident/ident.pdf.