[ Team LiB ] Previous Section Next Section

8.10 Improved Disturbance Rejection Design

We can achieve improved disturbance rejection by specifying a different IMC filter design procedure. We perform the same factorization of the process model as before. The difference is in the selection of the IMC filter transfer function. Here, rather than using a filter of the form

graphics/08equ47c.gif


we use a filter with the form

Equation 8.48

graphics/08equ48.gif


where g is selected to achieve good disturbance rejection. In practice, g will be selected to cancel a slow disturbance time constant. Consider the closed-loop transfer function for disturbance rejection

Equation 8.49

graphics/08equ49.gif


In the case of a perfect model, this results in

Equation 8.50

graphics/08equ50.gif


The controller, using the new filter form, is

Equation 8.51

graphics/08equ51.gif


so the output response is

Equation 8.52

graphics/08equ52.gif


Although it is hard to tell from this general expression, g should be selected to cancel the slow time constant associated with gd(s). This is shown by way of an example for a first-order process.

Example 8.8: First-Order Process, Improved Disturbance Rejection Design

For a first-order process model,

graphics/08equ53.gif


The IMC controller, using the proposed filter design, is

graphics/08equ54.gif


Assuming a perfect model and load disturbance transfer function equal to the process transfer function, Equation (8.52) becomes

graphics/08equ55.gif


If we select l2/(2l - g) to cancel the process model time constant, graphics/08inequ20.gif,we find

graphics/08equ56.gif


Numerical Example

Here we consider again the first-order process model transfer function from Example 8.7,

graphics/08equ57.gif


and assume that the disturbance transfer function is equal to the process transfer function (this is equivalent to assuming that the load disturbance occurs at the process input).

graphics/08equ58.gif


which leads to the closed-loop results for a unit step disturbance, shown in Figure 8-18.

Figure 8-18. Improved disturbance response for Example 8.8, with l = 2 min. A comparison with the standard IMC filter design.

graphics/08fig18.gif

It should be noted that the improved disturbance rejection design does not lead to detrimental performance for setpoint changes. In Figure 8-19, the new filter design also leads to faster performing setpoint responses. The major disadvantage is the increased manipulated variable action. In practice, the l value should be detuned for improved robustness.

Figure 8-19. Setpoint response for Example 8.8, with l = 2 min. A comparison of design for improved disturbance rejection with the standard IMC filter design.

graphics/08fig19.gif

    [ Team LiB ] Previous Section Next Section