Chemical Engineering Science, VOI.45, NO. 55 PP. 13w-1323, 1990 OOG9 2509/90 53.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc

THE RELATIVE GAIN FOR NON-SQUARE

MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS

JIN-WEN CHANG and CHENG-CHING YU+

Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan Institute of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan 10772,
R.O.C.

(First received 9 May 1989; accepted in revised form 25 August 1989)

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.

1. INTRODUCTION in the least-square sense, the control objective can be

Non-square systems, systems with unequal numbers stated as: to minimize the sum of square errors
of inputs and outputs, arise naturally in chemical (steady-state errors or steady-state offsets) of the out-
processes (Downs, 1984; Downs and Moore, 1981; puts with fewer inputs. We call this kind of control
Lourtie, 1985; Treiber, 1984). However, most multi- law perfect control in the least-square sense
variable control system analysis and/or design tools, throughout this paper. Therefore, the concept of per-
e.g. the relative gain array (RGA), Niederlinski index fect control, e.g. for deriving closed-loop gain, can be
etc. (McAvoy, 1983), deal with square systems only, constructed for non-square systems. Following the
except for the method of singular-value decomposi- definition of the non-square RGA (NRG), algebraic
tion (SVD). Mathematically, SVD has very good geo- properties of the NRG are derived. Generally, two
metric interpretation (Klema and Laub, 1980, Downs, approaches can be taken to design a control system
1984, Lau et al., 1985). Downs and Moore (1981) used for a non-square process. One approach is to design
SVD for measurement selection and variable pairings a non-square controller to control all outputs
in distillation processes. Despite being meaningful (Treiber, 1984; Lourtie, 1985). A quantitative relation-
geometrically, the SVD method depends on input and ship between the NRG and the ultimate performance
output scalings (Mijares et al., 1986; Nguyen et al., of a least-square perfect controller is derived. Another
1988). approach is to square the system down, i.e. to select
The RGA, known as an interaction measure for outputs such that the number of inputs and outputs
multivariable control systems (McAvoy, 1983), was are equal (Downs and Moore, 1981). A square subsys-
originally proposed by Bristol (1966). Morari and tem, e.g. measurements, selection criterion is also pro-
coworkers (Grosdidier et al., 1985; Skogestad and posed based on the NRG. Quantitative relationship
Morari, 1987) gave updated summaries of the RGA. can also be derived or conjectured from the NRG.
In the design of decentralized controllers (multi-loop Two distillation examples (Doukas and Luyben, 1978;
SISO controllers), the RGA is used to eliminate un- Downs and Moore, 1981) are used to illustrate appli-
workable variable pairings (Yu and Luyben, 1986). cations of the NRG.
Manousiouthakis et al. (1986) generalized the concept
of the RGA to block relative gain (BRG) which is 2. DEFINITIONS
capable of handling partially decentralized control Consider a process transfer function matrix Ccs,
systems. Both the RGA and BRG deal with square with inputs u and outputs y:
systems only.
The purpose of this work is to extend the RGA to Y(S) = %,% (1)
non-square systems. Systems having more outputs where G,,, is an m x n process transfer function
than inputs are considered in this paper. Obviously, it matrix with M 2 n
is not possible to control a system having more out-
y(., is an m x 1 output vector
puts than inputs perfectly, i.e. steady-state offsets in all
outputs are zero (Goodwin and Sin, 1984). However, UC,) is an n x 1 input vector.

The system (Fig. 1) is under feedback control with

+Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. a controller, K. The relative gain between the ith

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

(2) e(,) = (1, - G,,, GM ~7:; (10)

closed-loop gain r
where e,,, is an m x 1 error vector
Since we are interested in the steady-state error, the
Alternatively, ijj can be expressed as least-square perfect controller requires

=(a, = (GT,, Go,)- GA, = G,. (11)

The superscripts T and + denote the transpose and
As pointed out earlier, the open-loop gain is the the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse, respectively
steady-state gain of the process transfer function:
n
aY.
_-.A

[ auj 1
uk,k+j
= &j(O).

Since only the steady-state aspect is considered, the

subscript (0) is dropped for clarity. The closed-loop
gain can be expressed as the element of G-i regard-
less of controller structure, e.g. multi-loop SISO con-
trollers, block-diagonal controllers or full multi-
variable controller, as shown in Appendix A. There- Fig. 2. Non-square IMC structure.
 The relative gain for non-square multivariable systems 1311

(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.

Corollary 1: Summation of all row sums, rs(i)s, is

(17) equal to summation of all column sums, cs(j)s, and
the summation is equal to the column dimension.
That is
From AN, we can compute the sums of all elements in
each row and in each column. The row sum vector
i$l rs(0 = j$l es(j) = n (23)
(RS) is defined as

Proof!
RS= j$liyj, 5 dE;lj,. . . , t A:jIT

[ j-1 j= 1

= [m(l), i-s(2), . . . .rs(m)] (18)

where rs(i) is the sum of the ith row of the NRG.
Furthermore, it can be shown that (Appendix C)
us(i) = (99+ )ii
where (gg + )ii is the iith element of the m x m matrix
GG+.
This corollary indicates that the summation of row
sums [rs(i)] is limited to the dimension of G (the
(19)
number of inputs). With n inputs, at best, we can keep
n output variables under perfect control. For an
m x n non-square system, the n degrees of perfection
 1312 JIN-WEN CHANG and CHENG-CHINO Yu

are distributed among m output variables. This corol- Proof: Appendix D.

lary clearly states the inherent limitation for systems
Despite being variant under output scaling, the
with fewer inputs.
physical meaning of output scaling is quite clear. With
respect to input/output scalmgs, the NRG has the
Property 3: The NRG is invariant under input scaling
following properties:
and is variant under output scaling. By input (output)
scaling we mean post (pre)-multiplication of G by (1) the NRG is invariant under input scaling
a non-singular diagonal matrix S,(S, ). (2) the NRG is variant under output scaling but the
scaling factors weight the relative importance of
the outputs.
Proof:
(1) Input scaling: For an n x n diagonal scaling Property 4: Any permutation of rows and columns in
matrix S,, S, = diag (sl, sl,. . . , s,), it can be shown a transfer function matrix G results in the same
that permutation in the NRG. Mathematically, let
(GS,)+ = S;G+C. AN = NRG(G) and P, and P, are two square permu-
tation matrices. If (AN), = NRG(P,GP,), then
From the definition, A? can be expressed as
(A),, = P,ANP,.
A: = (GS,)@(S;G+)r.
Proof: P, is an m x m permutation matrix and P, is an
The NRG for the system under input scaling is n x n permutation matrix. Since P, and P, are or-

IIJ
thogonal matrices, e.g. P; = PT and Pi 1 = P,, we
(A& = gijsj ; g; = gijg; = a& have

(P,GP,)+ = P;G+ P,. (24)

Therefore 9 we have Af = AN.
(2) Output scaling: For the m x m diagonal scaling The permutated NRG becomes
matrix S,, S, = diag (sls sa, _ . . , s,), it can be shown
that (AN), = CP,GP,18 CVoGP,)+ I=
(S,G)+ = (GTS,2G)-1GTS:. = CPoGP,l @ CP,(G+)P,l
The scaling matrix (S,) cannot be factored out as the = PoCW-46.3
(G+)=lP,
previous case except for the following case. For = P,ANP,.
s1=s2= ... =s,=si,wehave
QED
A: = (S,G)O[(S,G)+]7T Similar to the RGA, any permutation of rows and
columns in a transfer function matrix G results in the
= s,G@ [(c)l+ = AN. same permutation in the NRG.
1
Generally Property 5: The definition of the NRG is consistent
A,N # AN. with the definition of the RGA when the number of
input variables is equal to the number of output
QED
variables. Mathematically, if G is a square matrix,
Similar to the RGA, the NRG is invariant under
then AN = A.
input scaling. However, the NRG is variant under
output scaling. It should be emphasized that property ProoE For a square and non-singular matrix G:
3 holds only for systems with more outputs than
inputs (for systems with more inputs than outputs, the G+ = (G=G)-G=
opposite is true). Since the concept of least-square = G-(G=)-lGr
perfect control is used in the definition of the closed-
= G-.
loop gain, the output scaling is equivalent to the
weighted least square [Lawson and Hanson (1974, p. QED
183)]. The magnitude of an output scaling factor, i.e. Property 5 shows that the RGA is a special case of
si, weights the relative importance of the ith output. the NRG. Properties l-5 state fundamental proper-
The next corollary gives the interpretation of the ties of the NRG.
scaling factor, si, under asymptotic conditions.
Property 6: For an m x 1 system, G = [gii, gsi,
. . . , g,ilT, the NRG is
:Corollary 2: If the ith scaling factor of the output
scaling matrix is zero, i.e. sI = 0, then the ith con- AN = [I,,, A,,, . . . , &,7=
trolled variable is disregarded in the context of least- with
square perfect control and the corresponding row
sum, rs(i), is zero. If the ith scaling factor, si, goes to
infinity, i.e. si + co, then the ith controlled variable is
always held constant and the corresponding row sum
approaches unity.
 The relative gain for non-square multivariable systems 1313

For a one-column matrix, the NRG is a vector with Proof: Appendix B.

all positive elements. Each NRG element is the ratio
It seems that the analytical expression, eq. (25), does
of the square of the open-loop gain to the sum of
not directly imply relative sensitivity between 1: and
square of all elements.
.gr,, since 3,;s appear in both the numerator and the
Property 7: The elements of the NRG approach infin- denominator of the RHS of eq. (25). However, the first
ity as the non-square system matrix G becomes nearly term in the RHS of eq. (25) is implicitly related to the
singular. 1; as we can see from eq. (BS) of Appendix B. Let us
take the ill-conditioned G in the previous case as an
Proof: From eqs (C3) and (C4) of Appendix C, Ji,can
example, the numerical results for the first (the
be expressed as
element in brackets) and the second term of the RHS
of eq. (25) for all ijs with 6 = 0.001 are
gij 5 det Gj[IJ det G [Zti,]

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

5000.5
AN= 5000.5
- 10,000
This special case implies a nearly singular system
matrix results in large elements in the NRG. For this
special case, the smaller 6 is, the larger the values of
n: are. However, the degree of singularity for non-
square systems is less critical than square systems,
since it is not very likely to have a singular (or nearly
singular) system, especially for cases with m + n.
Property 8: Consider an m x n transfer matrix G with
its pseudo-inverse G+ and its associate NRG, AN.
Relative changes in the gijs and 25s are related by the
following expressions.
da: g; det [ (G)T(Gij)]
nc - lgdet(GTG)
+ (1 - 2a;)
1
-5000 measure is, therefore, the steady-state offset (error) in
-5cOo. each output. In most cases, a least-square perfect
10,001 controller [eq. (1 l)] is designed such that the 2-norm
of the steady-state offset is minimized. The NRG
measures, quantitatively, the ultimate steady-state
performance of a non-square control system.
Theorem 1: Consider a stable non-square system with
more outputs than inputs. If a least-square perfect
controller [eq. (1 l)] is employed and the closed-loop
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
set point change is made in the ith output.
Proof: Based on the IMC structure (Fig. 2), if the
least-square perfect controller (Section 2B) is used, the
closed-loop relationship becomes
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

Fig. 3. DL distillation column.

Table 1. Process transfer function matrix for the DL column

Reboiler duty (u,) Reflun ratio (21,) Side draw (I(~)

- g g*le- 1.59s 0.374e- 7.7S - 11 3e-3.79

Toluene in bottom (yl)
11.36s + 1 (22.2s + 1)2 (21.74s + 1)

5.984e-2.24 - 1.986e-0~7 5.24eC60

Toluene in bottom (y2)
14.298 + 1 (66.67& + l)* (400s + I)2

2.38e-0,42 0.0204e-0~5g" - 0.33e-0.68

Benzene in side draw (ys)
(1.43s + 1)2 (7.145 + l)* (2.388 + I)*

- 11.67e-~9S - 0.176e-0.485 4.48e-0.525

Benzene in side draw (yl)
12.19s + 1 (6.9,s + l)* (11.11s + 1)2
 The relative gain for non-square multivariable systems 1315

a fourth manipulated variable, the sidedraw location. 1.2

Treiber (1984) treated the DL column as a 4 x 3

system. A non-square controller should be design for
the non-square system. The NRG can be used to
assess control system performance a priori. 0.8
The NRG for the 4 x 3 system is
0.6

0.241 - 0.103 0.861 cc

0.006 1.094 - 0.100 -5 0.4

0.028 0.000 0.002

0.2
0.726 0.008 0.237
0.0
with
cs = [l.OOo 1.000 l.Ooo]~ -0.2 I-
O 260 460 SbO a

RS = CO.998 1.000 0.030 0.971]=. Time

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:

The controller is equivalent to the non-square version

of SPMC [simplified model predictive control
(Arulalan and Deshponde, 1987)]. Simulation results
(Figs 4-7) show that little steady-state offsets in the
first, second and fourth output when unit step set
point changes are made in these variables. However,
a significant offset is observed in y3 for a unit step set
point change in yy (Fig. 6). Table 2 summarized the
steady-state offsets in all outputs which are exactly the
results predicted by the NRG. Treiber (1984) also
200 400 600 1 0
pointed out that the third output, y3, is poorly con- Time
trolled from the results of closed-loop simulation.
Clearly, the ultimate non-square control system per- Fig. 6. Closed-loop responses for a unit step set point
formance can be assessed from the NRC directly. change in y, with a non-square IMC controller.

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

Yl 0.0016 - o.ooo1 - 0.0388 -0.0067 [,-;-I = [ ;I-]u (27)

Y2 -0.0001 0.0000 -0.0025 - 0.0004
Y3 - 0.0388 -0.0025 0.9699 - 0.1664
-0.0067 - 0.0004 - 0.1664 0.0286
Y4 where ys is an n x 1 output vector for the selected
(controlled) outputs and yR is an (m - n) x 1 output
5. CONTROL STRUCTURE SELECTION
vector for the remaining (uncontrolled) outputs.
Clearly, there are C(m, n) choices for ys. The objective
An alternative approach to designing a control
is to minimize the SSE for the uncontrolled outputs,
system for a non-square process is to square the
yn, for any variation in the controlled outputs, ys.
system down. That is to select the same number of
Notice that only steady-state error is considered. The
outputs as inputs and a square controller can be
closed-loop gains for the square subsystem are de-
designed for the square subsystem (Fig. 8). This is
scribed by
a common practice in chemical process control
(Joseph and Brosilow, 1978; Downs and Moore, 1981; 6 = G, 1r:_ (28)
Downs, 1984; Morari and Stephanopoulos, 1980) and
When the square subsystem is under perfect control,
is generally termed selection of secondary measure-
the steady-state error for all outputs is
ments. However, only the method of SVD proposed
by Downs and Moore (1981) is capable of handling e = (I, x n - GG; )y:= (29)
a non-square system in a direct fashion. Despite hav-
where I, X,, is an m x IZ matrix with unity in the
ing good geometric interpretation, the SVD method is
diagonal zero elsewhere, and e is an 111x 1 steady-
both input and the output scaling dependent and the
state error vector. For a particular choice of the
secondary measurement selection method proposed
square subsystem, G,, the SSE is defined as
by Downs and Moore (1981) may fail in some occa-
sions, e.g. the largest element in the different column
vector of U may happen to be the same output. The SSE = k IIs II: = 5 II(ImX,, - GG,- )y:: )I: (30)
i=1 i=l
NRG provides an alternative for the selection of
where ytft 1s
. an n x 1 vector with unity in the ith entry
a square subsystem (secondary measurements).
and zero elsewhere, and e(i) is an m x 1 error vector
Consider a non-square process, G, with a square
corresponding to the specific input 7:::. The row sum
controller as shown in Fig. 8. The non-square system
of the NRG provides optimal (exact) solution to the
G can be partitioned into a square subsystem G, and
problem for two special cases, namely, case of n = 1
the complementary (remaining) subsystem G,. The
and case of m = n + 1, and suboptimal (approxi-
control objective is to minimize the sum of square
mated) solution for other cases.
error (SSE) of uncontrolled outputs when the square
subsystem is under perfect control. In the least-square
5.4. Case ofn = 1
sense, this is equivalent to choosing n out of m (with
This case is quite common in chemical process
m > n) data sets and solve the n linear algebraic equa-
control: to choose a measurement location for single-
tions directly for the coefficient such that SSE for the
loop control, e.g. to choose a temperature control tray
complete m data sets is minimized. Notice that there
in a distillation control. In this case G is a one-column
are C(m, n) combinations to choose from. In terms of
matrix. From property 5, the row sum is
tubular reactor control, this means to choose some
temperature measurement location(s) such that when 2
9il
t-s(i) = m = 22. (31)
the chosen temperatures are under integral control
the temperature profile in the reactor can be held & g5
most constant for any variation in the controlled
temperature. In terms of distillation control, this is to From eqs (30) and (31) it can be shown that, for
select temperature control tray(s) such that the tem- a particular choice of G,, i.e. the ith subset of S(l, m)
perature profile within the distillation column can be (Appendix B), the SSE becomes
kept most constant. The row sum of the NRG pro- m
vides some information in this regard. c sj:
j=1

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
is chosen as the controlled variable. Equation (33)
shows that choosing the largest row sum of the NRG
can lead to the smallest SSE subject to any perturba-
tion in the controlled variable. From property 6, we
know that a large of giI corresponds to a large value
of AZ and rs(i). Therefore, choosing the element with
the largest magnitude from a transfer function matrix
is equivalent to choosing the largest row sum from the
NRG in this case. This is physically understandable
for the single-loop control, since the heuristic in com-
mon practice is to choose a system that the manipu-
lated variable has a large effect on the controlled
variable.
SB. Caseofm=n+ 1 link between the SSE and row sum can be derived
For this almost square system, we can square down
the system by choosing the first n outputs to form
a square subsystem, G,, and to derive the relation
between the SSE and rs. Since there are
k [k = C(n + 1, n) = n + l] choices to select a set of
1, a small row sum in the RHS of eq. (39) indicates
a small SSE in the corresponding square subsystem.
Now we can justify that the small row sum of the
NRG in the complementary (remaining) system indi-
cates a small SSE in the square subsystem. Therefore,
the criterion for the selection of a square subsystem is
to eliminate the controlled variable with the smallest
row sum in the NRG.
SC. Other cases
Besides the two special cases, the cases with two or
more input variables and many output variables also
occur frequently. For example, we often try to keep
the temperature profile in a distillation column with
reflux flow, steam flow, etc. Unfortunately, no direct
analytically. The closest relationship between the SSE
and the row sum of the NRG for two input variables
is (Appendix E)
(40)

.9nz
. ...
.9nn
.1.
det(GTG) { ii1 *s(i)) - 2

G=
-__
=9.1
SSE(j) = (det G[ j])z

n-tuple from n + 1 possible elements, the results for

the remaining (k - 1) combinations can also he where i is the ith element of the jth 2-tuple subset of
similarly derived. For this particular choice, we have S(2, m).
Despite the subsystem selection criterion generated
911 912 .. 91. by previous two cases, choosing the square subsystem
G, by eliminating outputs with smaller row sums leads to
(34) the minimum SSE [as defined in eq. (30)]. Equation
G, ______________ (40) bears no direct link to this criterion. Counter-
examples can be established such that by choosing the
[l[ 9ml 4m2 ... 9mn
n largest of row sums is not equivalent to the minim-
This particular choice corresponds to the first subset ization of the SSE.
from S(n, m). Therefore, SSE( 1) can be calculated from A computer experiment is conducted to test the
eq. (30): heuristic generated from previous two cases. Ten
thousand random matrices were generated for a given
SSE(l) = 5 11
e(i) 11:= 5 I/I - GG, y:: II;- (35) dimension. The optimal and suboptimal square sub-
i=l i=l systems are identified (by optimal we mean that the
Since G, = G[l] (Appendix B), we have particular square subsystem results in the minimum
n+l
SSE and by suboptimal we mean that the subsystem
results in the one next to the minimum SSE) and the
SSE(l) = ,g2(detGci)= det(G=G) - (detG[l])Z subsystem selected by the NRG criterion is checked
(det G[l]) (det G[lJ) against the optimal and suboptimal subsystem. The
results (Table 3) show that the NRG subsystem selec-
(36) tion criterion leads to the optimal subsystem in
almost 77% of the cases tested and results in the op-
and from Appendix C
timal or/and a suboptimal subsystem in almost
rs(m) = det (GTG) - @etG Cll) (37)
88% of all cases tested. The reason for the NRG
det(GTG) subsystem selection criterion fails to produce the op-
timal subsystem can be seen from eq. (40). The row sum
From eqs (36) and (37), we get (which the criterion based on) only accounts for part of
Mm) the contribution to the SSE. The other factor comes
SSE(l) = (38) from the determinant of the selected square system.
1 - w(m)
Generally, the NRG subsystem selection criterion en-
or in a more general form sures a large determinant, but it does not guarantee
rs(n + 2 - j) the largest determinant. However, for a square sub-
SSE(j) = system with competitive row sums, determinants of
1 - rs(n + 2 - j)
square subsystems play a deciding role for the values
where thej in SSE(j) denotes the sum of square error of the SSE. This explains the observation that, when
when the jth subset of S(n, m) is chosen to form the NRG subsystem selection criterion fails to pro-
a square subsystem. duce the optimal square subsystem, the second largest
Since the value of the row sum is between zero and row sum generally resultsin the minimum SSE. From the
1318 JIN-WEN CHANG and CHENG-CHING Yu

Table 3. Numbers of optimal and suboptimal cases generated by the

NRG square subsystem selection criterion

n 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 9532: 906 1 9307 8830 8350 7185

46X0 530 582 479 818 1353
3 9144 8356 7593 7564 7353
420 1176 1091 1081 1518
4 7974 6302 5478 6182
1228 923 2060 1485
5 7785 6446 6357
1461 1696 541
6 7788 7362
762 1158
7 7x10
1042

+Number of cases tested for a eiven dimension = 10,000.

*Number of optimal cases.
$Number of suboptimal cases.

results of the computer experiment, we can further

conjecture that the NRG subsystem selection cri-
terion will result in the optimal subsys- or suboptimal
tem in most cases. After having selected the variables
to square down the system, we can go on to design
controllers for the square subsystem.

5Cl. Example: DL column.From the RS informa-

tion 4), we can eliminate the third output to
(Section
form a square subsystem. Thus the rest of AN becomes

0.241 - 0.103 CO.8611

(AN) = 0.006 Cl.0947 - 0.100 .
[ CO.7261 0.008 0.237 I
0 200 400 600 6
If the variables are paired according to the NRG as Time
shown in the (A) (those in brackets), the controller
Fig. 9. Closed-loop responses for a unit step set point
structure becomes (u,, y,; u2, y2; z+, y,}, The RGA, change in Yt CyBis the uncontrolled output).
A, for the square subsystem is

0.245 - 0.103 [0X58]

A= 0.006 [ 1.0941 - 0.100 .
C co.7491 0.009 0.242 I

Notice that there is little difference between A and A

for this example. A multi-loop PI controller is used to
control the square subsystem. The controller gains 0.8 - D YI
and reset times (Table 4) are determined used the BLT * Yn
- Ya
method (Luyben, 1986). Steady-state offsets exist for 0.6 -
- Y4
the uncontrolled variable, y,, for unit step set point
changes in the controlled variables (Figs 9-l 1). Sum-
mation of the square of these steady-state errors (SSE)

Table 4. Controller gains and reset times from the

BLT method

Controller gain Reset time

K *, (min) -0.4 I 1 , I
200 600 600

{UI_Y,I loop - 0.0986 25.33

{W-Y, 1 loop - 10.2330 107.48
- 0.1159 143.73 Fig. 10. Closed-loop responses for a unit step set point
{Ua-Y, I loop
change in Y, (JJ, is the uncontrolled output).
 The relative gain for non-square multivariable systems 1319

1.5 consistent with the result of the NRG selection

method by choosing controlled variables 1, 2 and 4.
1 .o
But if the G matrix is under input scaling, i.e. the first
column is multiplied by 3, then the results of SVD

1
0.5

- 0.611 - 0.649 0.452

v) 0.0 0.370 0.271 [0.889]
-__ G, =
x 0.141 - 0.096 0.032
-0.5
[ - 0.6861 co.7051 0.070

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

- 0.0773 0.0135 0.0000 0.0000

- 0.2399 0.2379 0.0013 0.0013
- 2.5042 2.4223 0.1388 0.1392
- 5.9973 5.7838 CO.79633 co.79331
- 1.6773 1.6582 0.0623 0.0652
0.0217 0.0259 0.0000 0.0000
0.1977 - 0.1587 0.0009 0.0006
0. I 290 - 0.1069 0.0004 0.0003
0.0646 - 0.0539 0.0001 0.0001

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

Two examples are used to illustrate ap-

distillation U output orthonormal matrix by SVD
plications of the NRG. The results show that the u input vector
NRG is a useful tool in analyzing a non-square system ui ith element of u vector
in a direct manner. 4) ith column vector of U
VT input orthonormal matrix by SVD
Acknowledgements-After the completion of this manu- Y output vector
script, Reeves and Arkun (1989) published a paper on the jth element of y vector
Yi
non-square block relative gain. Working toward a similar output vector for the corresponding G,
goal, interestingly enough, different definition, properties Ys
and implications are developed. This research is supported YR output vector for the corresponding G,
by National Science Council of the R.O.C. under contract
NSC 79-O402-E01 l-03. Greek letters
6 small number
A RGA
NOTATION
iij ijth element of A
BRG block relative gain array AN NRG
cs column sum vector of the NRG n; ijth element of AN
es(i) ith element of column sum vector I: singular-value matrix by SVD
det determinant of a matrix time constant
e closed-loop error vector : determinant of the GTG matrix
ei ith element of closed-loop error vector 0 frequency
e(i) steady-state error vector corresponding to
the ith specific input vector y:: Subscripts
G process transfer function matrix CL closed-loop
e process transfer function matrix employed I input
in calculation of the IMC controller 0 output
G+ Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of G OL open-loop
G-1 inverse of G P permutation
Gc IMC controller
Sij ijth element of G Superscripts
*
9 ij ijth element of G-l N non-square system
$7; jith element of G+ set set point
G G matrix with ith row and jth column re- T transpose
moved + Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse
square submatrix with rows from the jth deviation from nominal value at steady state
subset of S(n, m)
submatrix with rows from Ith subset of REFERENCES
S(n, m) such that the ith row is always in- Arulalan, G. R. and Deshponde, P. B., 1987, Simplified
cluded model predictive control. Ind. Engng - - Chem. Rex 26, 347.
G[I] submatrix with rows from Ith subset of Bristol, e. H., 1966, On a new measure of interaction of
S(n, m) such that the ith row is always ex- multivariable process control. IEEE Trans. autom. Control
AC-11, 133. -
cluded
Doukas, N. and Luyben, W. L., 1978, Control of sidestream
GR complementary (remaining) subsystem of G columns separating ternary mixtures. Anafyt. Instrum. 16,
GS square subsystem of G 485.
iith element GG* matrix Downs, J. J., 1984, Paper presented at Distillation Control
99, + hi
Short Course, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
@Ggjii iith element of G+G matrix
Downs, J. J. and Moore, C. F., 1981, Steady state gain
matrix of the product of G and G analysis for azeotropic distillation. Proc. JACC,
G+G matrix of the product of G+ and G Charlottesville. VA.
IMC internal model control Gantmacher, F. R., 1977, The Theory of Matrices, p. 9.
K controller transfer function matrix Chelsea, New York.
Garcia, C. E. and Morari, M.. 1982. Internal model control:
NRG non-square relative gain array 1. A unifying review and some new results. Ind. Engng
P square permutation matrix Chem. Process Des. Dev. 21. 308.
RGA relative gain array Goodwin, G. G. and Sin, K: S., 1984, Adaptive Filtering,
RHS right-hand side Prediction and Control, p. 141. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
RS row sum vector of the NRG
Grosdidier, P., Morari, M. and Holt, 3. R., 1985, Closed-
i-s(i) ith element of row sum vector loop properties from steady state gain information. Ind.
Laplace transformation variable Engng Chem. Fundam. 24, 221.
: diagonal scaling matrix Joseph, B. and Brosilow, C., 1978, Inferential control of
ith diagonal element of scaling matrix processes. I: steady state analysis and design. A.1.Ch.E. J.
si
24,485.
SSE sum of square error defined in eq. (30) Klema, V. C. and Laub, A. J., 1980, The singular value
SSE(i) SSE when the ith subset of S(m, n) is chosen decomposition: its computation and some applications.
SVD singular-value decomposition IEEE Trans. aurom. Control AC-25 164.
 1322 JIN-WEN CHANG and CHENG-CHING Yv

Lau, H., Alvarez, J. and Jensen, K. F., 1985, Synthesis of APPENDIX B

control structure by singular value analysis: dynamic Assume G = [yij], x , then we have Gr = [g& *m and
measures of sensitivity and interaction. A.1.Ch.E. J. 31,
427. GTG=[j,gki(IkjInXm
Lawson, C. L. and Hanson, R. J., 1974, Solving Least Square
Problems, p. 183. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Let gi denote the ith row vector, that is
Lourtie, P. M. G., 1985, The inverse Nyquist array for gi = (Yil, Bi2. . . , gin). In order to square down G in its
non-square systems. Proc. American Control Conference, minimum rank n, we have k = C(m, n) choices about gi from
Boston, MA. row vectors of G matrix. For notational convenience, let
Luyben, W. L., 1986, Simple method for tuning SISO con- S(n, m) be the collection of all strictly increasing n-tuples
trollers in multivariable systems. Ind. Engng Chem. Pro- {i,, i,, . . . , in} with the elements in order [Vidysagar (1985,
cess Des. Dev. 25, 654. p. 391)] That is 1 4 i, < i, d . _ . < i, <m. For example,
Manousiouthakis, V., Savage, R. and Arkun, Y., 1986, Syn- S(3, 5) = ((1. 2, 31, (1>2,4), (1,2, 5), &3,4). (1, 3, 51, (L4, 5),
thesis of decentralized process control structures using the (2, 3,4), (2,3, 51, (2,4, 5), (2,3, 51, (2,4, 51, (3,4,5) 1 and
block relative gain. A.1.Ch.E. J. 32, 991. S(n, n) = {(1,2, 3,. , . , n)}. Let C;,, be an n x n square
McAvoy, T. J., 1983, Interaction Analysis. ISA Monograph, matrix with the rows from I [1~S(n, m)] and the columns
Research Triangle Park, NC. from J. Since JE S(n, n) is a singleton set, let G,,[i] denote
Mijares, G., Cole, J. D., Naugle, N. W. and Holland, C. D., the submatrix composed from row vectors belonging to the
1986, A new criterion for the pairing of control and ma- ith subset of S(n, m). The subscript IJ is dropped for clarity.
nipulated variables. A.1.Ch.E. J. 32, 1439. From the Binet-Cauchy formula [Gantmacher (1977,
Morari, M. and Stephanopoulos, G., 1980, Studies in the P. 9)l
synthesis of control structures for chemical processes III.
A.I.Ch.E. J. 26, 247. det (CG) = i (det G[z~). (Bt)
Nguyen, T. C.,Barton, G. W., Perkins, J. D. and Johnston, R. i=*
D., 1988, A condition number scaling policy for stability The NRG can be further expressed as
robustness analysis. A.I.Ch.E. J. 34, 1200.
Reeves, D. E. and Arkun, Y., 1989, Interaction measure for
nonsquare decentralized control structures. A.1.Ch.E. J. 032)
35, 403.
Skogestard, S. and Morari, M., 1987, Implication of large where @ = det (GTG), and GTG is assumed to be nonsingu-
RGA elements on control performance. Ind. Engng Chem. lar (@ # 0).
Res. 26, 2323. Since GTG is nonsingular and positive definite, its deter-
Strang, G., 1980, Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 2nd minant is always positive. Therefore
Edition. Academic Press, New York.
Treiber, S., 1984, Multivariable control of non-square sys-
tem. Znd. Engng Chem. Process Des. Deu. 23, 854.
Vidyasagar, M., 1985, Control System Synthesis: a Factor-
ization Approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. (B3)
Yu, C. C. and Luyben, W. L., 1986, Design of multiloop
SISO controller for multivariable processes. Ind. Engng
Chem. Process Des. Deu. 25, 498.
034)
Yu, C. C. and Luyben, W. L., 1987, Robustness with respect
to integral controllability. Ind. Engng Chem. Res. 26, 1043.
and
d2@
dg2. = 2 det [ (Gij)T(Gij)] (B5)
APPENDIX A. CLOSED-LOOP GAIN FOR SQUARE SYSTEM
J
From the IMC structure (Fig. 2), the input can be ex-
where Gj is the G matrix with the ith row and ith column
pressed as
removed. The sensitivity of the NRG can be expressed as
gifidet
1
a(,) = CI + Gc,,, (G,,, - %,)I - Cc,,,Y;:, (Al)
s_ [(Gj)T (GJ)]
+ (1 - 21;) 2. (B6)
where the controller structure is characterized by e:, e.g. for
2; - A det (GTG)
multi-loop SISO controllers we have e = diag (gii) and for
a full multivariable controller we have e = G. In order to The first term in the RHS can not be reduced further for the
eliminate the steady-state offset, we require non-square system. For the square system (m = n), however:

Gc (0) = %: . (-42) ~., = gij( - l)+jdet Gi

I, (Yu and Luyben, 1987) (B7)
Consider the stea_dy-state aspect. If a full multivariable con- det G
troller is used (G = G), from the final-value theorem, we
and

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

Therefore, the inverse of the closed-loop gain [which is APPENDIX C

equivalent to the change in tij over a change in jjy J is
(I) *s(i) = (99 + Iii
The diagonal element of (GG+) can be expressed as
tW
(gg+)ii = 2 .9,kgz = 2 nc = rs(i) (Cl)
where 4 ji is the jith element of G,;:. L=I j=1
 The relative gain for non-square multivariable systems 1323

(2) 0 d rs(i) < 1 APPENDIX E

From Appendix 3, we have For an tn x 2 system:
lg..d@
AN = _A!-
Cl (C2)
2 Q, dgij

with (El)

@ = det (GrG) = f: (det G[i])2 (C3)

i=, we specify
where k = C(m, n).
Take the derivative of Q and express Lz as

gij 5 det Gj[I;,,] det CC&,]

A; _ *=I t to derive the relationship between the SSE and RS of the
(C4) NRG. Other combinations can be derived from the same
C (detGCI]) induction:

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

sFgii 5 det G[1;,,] det G[I;,,]

i= 1
(l,N)ij = (D2) (E3)
sf 5 (det G[I;,,]) + 5 (det G[I])
I= 1 r=l
1
where G[I)] is an n x n matrix with rows from the Ith r-s(l) + W(2) = [Z(det GS)
subset of S(n, m) such that the ith row is always excluded and det (GrG)
k = k - k, and the ith row sum takes the form + SSE(l) (det G,)] (E4)

Crs(r310= 5 (nbv)ij det (CT G)

j=I SSE(1) = [rs(l) + rs(2)] - 2. (E5)
(det G,)
ST i det(G[l;,,]
I=1 For general cases eq. (ES) becomes
=
. (D3)
sf 2 (det G[l;i,J)Z + 5 (det GII(il])Z
det(GTG) { 2 W)} - 2 (E6)
I= 1 I*=1 SSE(J)
= (det G[j]) i=,
Asymptotically, if si is equal to zero, then [r-s(i)], is equal to
zero. If si goes to infinity, then [rs(i)], approaches unity. where i is the ith element of the jth 2-tuple subset of S(2, m).