0 Votes +0 Votes -

0 vues13 pages2015

Apr 12, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

2, 2015 179

quadruple-tank process

LAC, Laboratorio de Automatización y Control,

Departamento de Control,

Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura,

Universidad Nacional de Rosario,

Ríobamba 245 Bis – S2000EKE Rosario, Argentina

Email: nacusse@fceia.unr.edu.ar

Email: sjunco@fceia.unr.edu.ar

*Corresponding author

Abstract: The quadruple-tank process has been proposed as a benchmark for multivariable

control system design. This paper addresses the design in the bond-graph domain of a robust

controller having the volumetric flows of two pumps as manipulated variables and the level of

the two lower tanks as the regulated outputs. The basic control objectives are expressed in terms

of desired closed-loop energy and power-dissipation functions and captured in the bond-graph

domain by means of a so-called target bond-graph. A basic controller design performed via

bond-graph prototyping yields a primary control law which is further robustified against

parameter uncertainties, measurement deviations and faults using the diagnostic bond-graph

concept. This results in an additional closed-loop consisting of a PI-law which is represented by a

physically meaningful bond-graph subsystem. The design methodology is first developed on a

simpler two-tank SISO-control problem and then straightforwardly extended to the multivariable

problem with the help of some causal manipulations on the four-tank bond-graph model.

robust fault-tolerant control.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Nacusse, M.A. and Junco, S.J. (2015)

‘Bond-graph-based controller design for the quadruple-tank process’, Int. J. Simulation and

Process Modelling, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.179–191.

Biographical notes: Matías A. Nacusse received his degree in Electronic Engineering from the

Universidad Nacional de Rosario (UNR), Argentina, in 2007. Since April 2008 he has been a

PhD student in Electronic Engineering and Control at the Faculty of Engineering (FCEIA) of

UNR under the supervision of Prof. S. Junco and Prof. M. Romero. His work is supported by The

Argentine National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET). He was a

Teaching Assistant in two undergraduate courses, one on system dynamics and control and the

other on control of electrical drives, both at FCEIA-UNR. His main research interests are on

bond graphs, fault tolerant control and nonlinear control.

Sergio J. Junco received his Electrical Engineering degree from the Universidad Nacional de

Rosario (UNR), Argentina, in 1976. From 1976 to 1979, he worked as an Automation-Project

Engineer at Acindar, a large private steel company in Argentina. From 1979 to 1981, he was at

the Institute of Automatic Control of the University of Hannover, Germany, with a scholarship

from DAAD (the German Academic-Exchange Service). In September 1982, he joined UNR,

where he currently is a Full Professor at the recently created Department of Control. He teaches

courses on modelling and simulation of dynamical systems and control of electrical drives. He

has held several invited positions at research labs and universities in Spain and France. He is a

member of AADECA, IEEE and IFAC (individual member). His current research interests are in

theoretical and application problems in modelling, simulation, control and diagnosis of dynamic

systems.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Bond-graph-based controller

design of a two-input two-output four-tank system’ presented at the IMAACA 2013 Conference,

Athens Greece, 25–27 September 2013.

180 M.A. Nacusse and S.J. Junco

controllers are used.

The quadruple-tank system proposed in Johansson (2000)

The active approach modifies the control law according

became a very popular benchmark allowing to test different

to the faults occurred, so that in this approach a fault

control algorithms for multivariable processes. It is a

detection and isolation (FDI) phase is mandatory before

two-input two-output or TITO nonlinear plant consisting of

making a decision on how to reconfigure the control law.

four interconnected water tanks fed by two pumps, whose

Analytical redundancy relationships (ARRs), which count

linearised model has a multivariable zero, which can be

among the many solutions used to generate residual signals

made minimum or non-minimum phase by simply changing

for FDI, have been implemented in the BG domain via the

the position of two distribution valves. In Roinila et al.

diagnostic bond-graphs (DBGs) technique presented in

(2008), a correction of the linearised model of Johansson

Samantaray et al. (2006). Using the plant inputs and plant

(2000) is presented, showing a remarkable discrepancy

measurements, residual signal are generated that depend on

when the pumps used are not identical. In Johnsen and

the model parameters and the real plant parameters.

Allgöwer (2007), an interconnection and damping

This article collects and extends the results addressed in

assignment plus passivity-based control (IDA-PBC)

Nacusse and Junco (2011, 2013), two papers presented at

algorithm for the minimum phase configuration of the

the conferences IMAACA 2011 and 2013, respectively. The

four-tank system is presented showing simulation and

first one deals with the PFTC problem on a two-tank system

experimental results. Here, the control problem is first

in the BG domain using an energy and power shaping

tackled on the two-tank configuration, where some

method (Junco, 2004). This method first expresses the

matching equations are easier to solve, and then extended to

control system specifications in terms of desired closed-loop

the four-tank system. In both cases, the level of all the tanks

energy and power dissipation functions, proceeds further

are measured. In Biswas et al. (2009), a controller design

capturing both functions in a so called target bond-graph

based on the coupling of feedback linearisation with sliding

(TBG) that represents the desired closed-loop behaviour,

mode yields an algorithm providing robust control of the

and concludes constructing the controller via bond-graph

process. In particular, the controller is designed in the

prototyping. This prototyping is such that the coupling of

difficult zone of controllability, the non-minimum phase

the resulting controller-BG and the plant-BG renders the

operating zone of the process. However, it should be noted

whole equivalent to the TBG. The basic control law

that a singularity was encountered when using this

obtained in this way is further robustified with additional

controller, when one of the four tanks is empty. Hence, the

terms derived considering a DBG of the closed-loop: the

proposed controller cannot be implemented in such case.

nominal control system represented by the TBG (originally

Limon et al. (2010) present a robust model predictive

proposed under ideal assumptions) is fed with the actual

control (MPC) algorithm for level tracking implemented in

reference signals and measured plant outputs; see Appendix

the tank system, with the plant modelled as a linear system

for a brief description of the DBG for FDI purposes. Thus,

with additive uncertainties. In Abdullah and Zribi (2012), a

the residual signal obtained from the closed-loop DBG

bibliographical review and three different control schemes

(CL-DBG) is a measure of the error between the desired and

are presented only for the minimum phase configuration:

the actual dynamics of the control system. Then, the control

gain scheduling, linear parameter varying and input-output

law is designed in order to make the residual signal vanish

feedback linearisation controllers have been compared,

in time, thus forcing the closed-loop system to behave

measuring the pressure of the four tanks.

asymptotically like the original TBG. Nacusse and Junco

This paper addresses the design in the bond-graph (BG)

(2013) extend the previous results to the four-tank problem.

domain of an energy-based nonlinear control law which

The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2

only measures the pressures of the two bottom tanks. The

presents the system properties. Sections 3 and 4 revisit and

control system design objectives are to track the levels (or

extend the results and methods previously addressed in the

pressures) of the two-bottom tanks, to reject disturbances

above mentioned conference papers. Specifically, Section 3

originated in model uncertainties and measurement errors,

is devoted to the PFTC problem on the two-tank system

and to be tolerant to some interconnection faults. Fault

while Section 4 performs some BG manipulations that

tolerant control (FTC) can be classified in two main

provide a way to extend the design method employed in the

categories, passive fault tolerant control (PFTC) and active

simpler system to the multivariable four-tank process.

fault tolerant control (AFTC). Both approaches are usually

Section 5 presents some simulation results showing the

complemented in the praxis to improve the performance and

good dynamic response of the control system and, finally,

stability of the fault tolerant system (Blanke et al., 2006).

Section 6 addresses some conclusions. Sections 3 and 4 are

Refer to Zhang and Jiang (2008) for a bibliographical and

developed in detail in order to show paradigmatically

historical review on FTC. The passive approach defines a

several analysis and control system design techniques in the

unique control law to achieve the control objectives even in

bond-graph domain, as this methodological issue is a major

the presence of a fault. Generally speaking, the passive

concern of this paper.

approach ensures stability and confers robustness under

faults to the control system, but there exists a trade-off

between performance and robustness (Isermann, 2006).

Although this paper follows a PFTC-approach, some

Bond-graph-based controller design for the quadruple-tank process 181

2

P1 = ⎣

The quadruple-tank system depicted in Figure 1 is a TITO a12

nonlinear plant consisting of four interconnected water 2

⎡(1 − γ2 ) u2 + u1γ1 ⎤⎦

tanks fed by two pumps, whose linearised model has a P2 = ⎣

multivariable zero, which can be made minimum or a 22

2

non-minimum phase by simply changing the position of ⎡(1 − γ1 ) a 2 P2 − γ1a1 P1 ⎤ γ22 (2)

two-distribution valves. In this section, the zero dynamics is P3 = ⎣ 2

⎦

explored directly in the nonlinear model on the BG domain ⎡⎣1 − ( γ1 + γ2 ) ⎤⎦ a32

using the methodology developed in Junco (2000). 2

⎡(1 − γ2 ) a1 P1 − γ2 a 2 P2 ⎤ γ12

P4 = ⎣ ⎦

The BG model of the four-tank system is depicted in

Figure 2 where the system outputs, i.e., the pressures of the 2

⎣⎡1 − ( γ1 + γ2 ) ⎦⎤ a4

2

two-bottom tanks, are indicated with arrows and denoted as

{y1, y2}.

Figure 2 BG model of the four-tank system

The state equations can be read from the BG of Figure 2

using the standard procedure, giving as state variables the

stored liquid volumes. Here, the gauge pressures at the

bottom of the tanks are chosen as state variables and their

dynamics presented in (1):

a P a P (1 − γ1 )

P1 = − 1 1 + 3 3 + u1

C1 C1 C1

a P a P (1 − γ2 )

P2 = − 2 2 + 4 4 + u2

C2 C2 C2

(1)

a P γ

P3 = − 3 3 = 2 u2

C3 C3

a P γ

P4 = − 4 4 + 1 u1

C4 C4 To analyse the zero dynamics of the four-tank system in the

BG domain requires to identify the input-output causal

where with i = 1, 2, 3, 4, Pi represents the gauge pressure at paths of minimum length as done in Figure 2 in dashed

the bottom of Tank_i; Ci are the tanks hydraulic capacities lines, then to invert the causality on these paths as done in

and ai are coefficients depending on the cross sections of the Figure 3 using the bi-causality assignment and, finally,

outlet holes of the tanks. imposing a zero signal at the outputs variables and

propagating this imposition up to the system inputs through

Figure 1 Four-tank system with measurements encircled in red the inverted causal paths. For more details of this procedure

(see online version for colours)

see Junco (2000). Applying it in Figure 3 yields the

necessary inputs to maintain y1 = 0 and y2 = 0 according to

(3). A new BG model can be constructed for the constrained

inputs in order to illustrate the relationships between the

remaining variables, i.e., the zero dynamics, as done in

Figure 4. This figure, which is just the first step towards

the zero-dynamics bond-graph, shows the C elements

representing the two upper tanks in derivative causality in

order to put in evidence an algebraic loop closed through

the MSf’s which is convenient for further manipulation of

the BG. The second step, the elimination of the algebraic

loops, yields Figure 5, which shows the appearance of new

R elements. Finally, in order to get a better insight into the

whole dynamics, this bond-graph is converted into an

equivalent vector BG with the following manipulations: the

single-port capacitors, resistors and modulated flow sources

are respectively grouped into the C-, R- and MSf-fields

depicted in Figure 6. The constitutive relationships of these

fields are detailed in (4).

The equilibrium points of the four-tank system must satisfy

the constraints (2). This restriction on the tank state

variables limits the regulation problem up to two tank

pressures (or levels).

182 M.A. Nacusse and S.J. Junco

a3 P3

u1 = −

(1 − γ1 )

(3)

a P

u2 = − 4 4

(1 − γ2 )

⎡ γ1 ⎤

⎡C4 0⎤ ⎢ 0 1 − γ1 ⎥

C=⎢ ,Γ=⎢ ⎥

⎣0 C3 ⎥⎦ ⎢ γ2 ⎥

⎢1 − γ 0 ⎥

⎣ 2 ⎦

(4) A similar analysis yielding the same results can be

⎡ 1 − ( γ1 + γ2 ) ⎤

⎢ a4 P4 ⎥ performed on an exact incremental BG around the generic

(1 − γ1 )(1 − γ2 ) equilibrium point specified in (2). Alternatively, this result

fR = ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 1 − ( γ1 + γ2 ) ⎥ can be obtained considering a linearised model around this

⎢ a3 P3 ⎥ equilibrium point.

⎣⎢ (1 − γ1 )(1 − γ2 ) ⎦⎥

The MSf-field of Figure 6 acts as a state-dependent Figure 6 Equivalent BG model for zero dynamics study

perturbation on the remaining RC-subsystem. If 1 – (γ1 + γ2)

> 0 then the R-field is strictly dissipative and the

RC-subsystem can be shown to be exponentially stable. As

the MSf-field injects a vanishing perturbation, the resultant

whole dynamics, i.e., the zero dynamics is stable. When

1 – (γ1 + γ2) < 0 the zero dynamics is unstable. When

1 – (γ1 + γ2) = 0, then fR = 0 and the system neither generates

nor dissipates the energy stored in the C field. In the

linearised system, this situation coincides with the zeros

placed at the origin of the complex plane.

Figure 3 IO-causality inverted BG with (zero) outputs as inputs 3 Background and previous results

This section briefly summarises the main ideas on

performing energy shaping and damping assignment

directly in the BG domain through BG prototyping and

recalls their application to solve a control problem on a

two-tank system as presented in Nacusse and Junco (2011).

This result will be reinterpreted, by performing a causal

manipulation, as a prelude to the development of the main

result in this paper, the design of a controller for the

quadruple-tank benchmark process.

The power and energy shaping control technique defines the

control problem as a stabilisation one, choosing desired

closed-loop energy- and power-dissipation functions, and

Figure 4 Reduced BG model for zero dynamics study, step 1 obtaining the control law through equations that match the

control open-loop energy function [a kind of control

Lyapunov function, see Sontag (1998)] and the desired

closed-loop functions. In the BG domain, the closed-loop

specifications are expressed by a so-called TBG

representing the desired closed-loop behaviour. In order to

obtain the control law, the controlled sources – which

provide the manipulated variables in the BG model of the

plant – are prototyped (meaning that their behaviour is

expressed by BG components) in such a way that the global

BG resulting from their power-interconnection with the rest

of the plant BG – which is called a virtual bond-graph

(VBG) – matches the TBG. The control law is obtained

from the VBG by simply reading the outputs of the

Bond-graph-based controller design for the quadruple-tank process 183

prototyped sources with the help of the causal assignment in Figure 8 TBG for pressure control of lower tank

the VBG. This method is exemplarily performed below on a

two-tank system. For more details refer to Junco (2004).

As shown in Figure 7, the tanks are located one above the

1

other, the upper tank discharging into the lower tank. Both V ( P) = C1 Pe2

tanks are fed with a unique input flow splitted between them 2

(6)

through a distribution valve whose parameter γ ∈ [0, 1] 1 2

V ( P) = − Pe

determines how the input flow is distributed to the tanks as RH

indicated by the BG in Figure 7.

1

The control objectives imposed on Tank_1 are: Pe = − Pe (7)

C1 RH

• regulation of constant reference levels

• rejection of constant disturbances The regulation error Pe = P1 − P1ref is the state variable of

the TBG and P1ref is the Tank_1 reference pressure.

• robustness regarding parametric uncertainties and

faults. To enforce the desired closed-loop dynamics specified

by the TGB, the VBG of Figure 9 is constructed. It shows

Figure 7 Two-tank system and its BG model (see online version how to proceed in order to obtain the control law. The left

for colours) half of the figure is obtained prototyping the controlled

power source MSf in such a way that access is gained to the

chosen output, the pressure P1, and an overall equivalent

behaviour to the TBG is achieved. The first objective is

achieved via the exact compensation of the Tank_2 pressure

on the pump over the distribution valve and of the discharge

of Tank_2 on Tank_1. The second objective is reached first

adding the virtual elements with negative ‘gains’ that cancel

the own dynamics of Tank_1 and later building the

incremental dynamics around the reference pressure P1ref

for Tank_1 via the insertion of the virtual elements C: C1

and MSe (shapes the closed-loop energy) and R: RH

(assigns damping).

Note: Measured plant outputs encircled in red.

The state equations can be read from the BG of Figure 7

using the standard procedure, giving as state variables the

stored liquid volumes. Here, the gauge pressures at the

bottom of the tanks are chosen as state variables [instead of

the liquid levels used in Nacusse and Junco (2011)] whose

dynamics is presented in (5):

a P a P (1 − γ )

P1 = − 1 1 + 2 2 + u

C1 C1 C1

(5)

a P γ

P2 = − 2 2 + u

C2 C2

where with i = 1, 2, Pi represents the gauge pressure at the

bottom of Tank_i; Ci are the tanks hydraulic capacities and Using the standard causality reading procedure the control

ai are coefficients depending on the cross sections of the law (8) can be read directly from the VBG:

outlet holes of the tanks.

⎛ 1 ⎞⎡

The proposed TBG for the closed-loop system is shown u=⎜ ⎟ ⎢ a1 P1 − a2 P2 −

1

( P1 − P1ref ) + C1 P1ref ⎥⎤ (8)

in Figure 8 where the desired stored energy (V) and power ⎝1− γ ⎠ ⎣ RH ⎦

dissipation (V ) are expressed in terms of the regulation

Assuming exact model knowledge and perfect

error state variable (Pe) in (6) and (7).

measurements, this control law yields a closed-loop

184 M.A. Nacusse and S.J. Junco

behaviour equivalent to the TBG of Figure 5, i.e., the Furthermore, as the control objectives are placed only on

closed-loop dynamics satisfies (7). Tank_1, for control system design purposes the equivalent

plant model shown in Figure 12 can be considered, where

Remark: the rated control law (8) performs a partial energy

the effect of Tank_2 enters as a disturbance.

shaping and damping assignment, since only the dynamics

of Tank_1 is captured in the TBG. As no objectives are Figure 12 Equivalent BG for control system design

imposed on Tank_2 and its dynamics is hidden in

closed-loop, its stability must be analysed after the

controller has been designed, property that can be easily

verified in this case.

Another manner to obtain the control law (8) is performing

a causal manipulation on the BG depicted in Figure 7. In

this figure, the flow Q21 from Tank_2 into Tank_1 is

computed by the R-element representing the discharge

orifice of the former. Putting in derivative causality the Following similar steps as those detailed in Section 3.2, the

upper C-element (models the potential energy stored in the VBG of Figure 13 can be constructed to enforce the desired

upper tank) yields the BG of Figure 10, where the closed-loop dynamics specified by the TGB.

discharging flow is computed as the sum of the incoming

flow from the source and the flow of the upper C element, Figure 13 Virtual and plant BG (see online version for colours)

i.e., Q21 = γu – Qc2. This new computation justifies the

equivalent BG of Figure 11.

in derivative causality (see online version for colours)

The control law (9) can be read directly from the VBG

using the standard causality reading procedure:

1

u = a1 P1 − ( P1 − P1ref ) + C1 P1ref + C2 P2 (9)

RH

Remark: Equations (8) and (9) are fully equivalent and both

show the need to measure not only the pressure of Tank_1

but also that of Tank_2 to implement the control law u.

However, equation (9) – which results from the above

manipulation performed on the BG – has the advantage of

Figure 11 Equivalent plant model after manipulation of the showing that its last term can be eliminated from the control

original BG (see online version for colours) law as it is an evanescent perturbation, i.e., it vanishes in

steady state, and as such it does not affect the equilibrium

point. Moreover, as the autonomous system shown in

Figure 12 is LTI, then the non-autonomous system with

evanescent perturbation is exponentially stable.

Doing so yields the control law (10) which can be

implemented with the sole measurement of P1. However, it

must be realised that this simplification amounts to

modifying the TBG as indicated in Figure 14.

1

u = a1 P1 − ( P1 − P1ref ) + C1 P1ref (10)

RH

Bond-graph-based controller design for the quadruple-tank process 185

Figure 14 New TBG without measuring x2 and the ideally expected closed-loop dynamics, i.e., when

res = 0, Pe responds as previously defined in the TBG of

Figure 8. This suggests that the control objectives could be

reached extending the previously computed control law to a

new one u = u ( P1 , P1ref , res ) incorporating the residual

signal in such a way that res tends to zero with growing

time.

Pe = − Pe + (13)

C1 RH C1

Because of parameter dispersion, faults, modelling errors,

sensor limited precision, noise, etc., neither the model nor The residual expression (14) obtained reading the CL-DBG

the measurements are exact. To deal with this it is clearly shows that choosing u as in (8) (rated control law)

convenient to think the control input as composed by two yields res = 0, in absence of faults and modelling errors.

terms as in (11), where ur is the ‘rated’ part of u, i.e., the

1

control input part that performs the power and energy res = −a1 P1 + ( P1 − P1ref ) − C1 P1ref − C2 P2 + u (14)

shaping under ideal plant and measurement conditions, and RH

δu is the unknown controller part due to modelling errors,

To improve the control system robustness, the extra term u4

parametric dispersion, faults, etc. The perturbed target

shown in (15) is added to the expression (8) for u.

bond-graph (PTBG) of Figure 15 reflects this situation.

1

u = ur + δu (11) u = a1 P1 − ( P1 − P1ref ) + C1 P1ref + C2 P2 + u4 (15)

RH

Figure 15 PTBG

∫

Choosing u4 = − K res yields the residual dynamics (16):

+ Kres = δu

res (16)

Thus, with constant δu, res goes asymptotically to zero with

time constant 1/K. As already anticipated, this forces Pe to

Under this situation the closed-loop dynamics no longer approach asymptotically the desired error dynamics defined

satisfies (7) but (12). in the TBG of Figure 8.

Pe = − Pe + δu (12) that the discrepancies, caused by parameter uncertainties,

C1 RH C1 faults, modelling errors, etc., between the model and the real

plant are constant. In rigour, δu is state dependent, i.e.,

3.4 Robustifying the control law δu = g δu ( P ), and being constant at the equilibrium point

The CL-DBG is defined injecting the pressure tracking error means that δu = 0 so that this term in (16) can be

(as measured on the real control system) into the TBG considered as a vanishing perturbation.

through modulated sources and collecting a residual signal

as shown in Figure 16. This residual measures the error Representing u4 in terms of ( P1 − P1ref ) yields (17),

between the PTBG and the TBG and will be used to expression showing that, in this case, the residual signal

generate an additional control action forcing this error to defined in the CL-DBG has a PI structure. Note however

vanish in steady-state (as well as the residual itself). that this does not necessarily generalise, since the resulting

structure depends on the TBG.

Figure 16 Proposed CL-DBG (see online version for colours)

K

u4 = − KC1 ( P1 − P1ref ) − ∫(P − P )

1 1

ref

(17)

RH

The results of the previous subsection are revisited here in

order to provide a BG implementation of the additional term

Note: Measurements to be fed encircled in red. u4 of the control law given in (17).

The CL-DBG yields the new error dynamics in (13) which The TBG defines the closed-loop dynamics of the

is driven by the residual signal PQR. The residual signal, system. To robustify its behaviour it is necessary to inject an

which is the power co-variable of the error injected into the additional control action. In order to analyse this problem in

CL-DBG, is a measure of the difference between the actual the BG domain a concise word BG version of that one in

Figure 13 rated controller is presented in Figure 17.

186 M.A. Nacusse and S.J. Junco

Departing from Figure 17, Figure 18 shows the word BG of Figure 20 Power coupling between the PTBG and the mDBG

a power interconnection proposed as a means to provide the

additional control action. There, the word BG block

named mDBG must be capable of rejecting all of the

above-mentioned disturbances.

the TBG

power interconnection among the plant BG, the VBG and

the mDBG is highlighted in dotted squares. Notice that the

redundancy in the MSe which injects the − P1ref can be

Figure 18 Proposed power interconnection eliminated by shifting the mDBG into the VBG as it is

shown in Figure 22.

indicated in Figure 19 (cf. Figure 16).

closed-loop DBG

(see online version for colours)

(17) in terms of the tracking error (a pressure) can be

interpreted as produced by an effort-sharing set constituted 3.6 Stability analysis

by a hydraulic resistance and an inertance, i.e., a R-I set. Figure 23 shows the complete CL-BG model of the two

Thus, u4 can be thought of as minus the sum of QR ≔ KC1Pe tank system employed to analyse the stability of the

∫

and QI := K / RH Pe , the volumetric flows of the R and the equilibrium point. The equilibrium point (18) can be

calculated from the BG model by simply making zero the

I elements, respectively. Figure 20 shows the resulting incoming power variables of the storage elements in integral

closed-loop BG with power coupling between the PTBG causality and reading through the causal paths and the

and the mDBG, where R1 = 1/KC1 and I1 = RH⁄K. constitutive relationships of the elements. The reader must

refer to Breedveld (1984) or Junco (1993) for a detailed

Bond-graph-based controller design for the quadruple-tank process 187

description of an algorithm to obtain the equilibrium point The signals entering the upper tank and the

in a BG domain. PTBG-mDBG submodels through the MSf’s in the BG of

2

Figure 24 can be interpreted as vanishing perturbations.

⎛a γ⎞ Hence, the stability analysis can be first performed

P2 = ⎜ 1 ⎟ P1ref

⎝ a2 ⎠ disregarding the MSf, see Figure 25, and then extended to

Pe = 0 (18) the perturbed system since the origin of the incremental CL

model is asymptotically stable and the disturbances, i.e.,

QI = δu Pe / RH + C1 P1ref and C2 P2 , are bounded. The stability of

Instead of the BG of Figure 23, with equilibrium point at the autonomous system is easily verified by following the

(18), an equivalent incremental BG model can be propositions stated in Junco (2001), as the total energy in

constructed with equilibrium point at zero, where the the storages is a positive definite function of the state

systems relationships hold but for all the variables referred (energy) variables, thus being a candidate Lyapunov

to their equilibrium values. This incremental BG model is function, and, moreover, each R element is strictly

shown in Figure 24, where the incremental variables are dissipative, has it causality imposed by only one storage

defined as: ΔP2 = P2 − P2 , ΔPe = Pe − Pe and ΔQI = QI − QI . element in integral causality, and all storages impose

causality on a R-element, what means that the orbital

Figure 23 Complete CL-BG model for the two-tank system derivative of the total stored energy is a negative definite

function of the states.

two-tank system

Figure 24 Incremental CL-BG model for the two-tank system problem

In this section, the control law for the four-tank system is

designed. The control objectives are the same as that

proposed for the two-tank system, in this case imposed on

both of the bottom tanks.

As the first step developing the multivariable control law, a

causal manipulation is performed on the original BG of

Figure 2 as shown in Figure 26. As in the two-tank case,

again the discharge flows of the upper tanks are expressed

not as computed by their associated R-elements but as the

difference between the flows of the sources minus their

net input flows, i.e., as γ1u1 − C3 P3 and γ2 u2 − C4 P4 ,

respectively. This manipulation permits to construct the new

BG given in Figure 27. This BG exhibits two internal

variables u1* and u2* , which in the sequel are going to be

188 M.A. Nacusse and S.J. Junco

associated to these two auxiliary flow variables the u1 = − ⎨(1 − γ2 ) ⎢ a1 P1 − + C1 P1ref

γ1 + γ2 − 1 ⎩⎪ ⎣ RH1

quadruple-tank problem appears as two decoupled two-tank

problems. Hence, the multivariable problem is strongly K1 ⎤

− K1C1 ( P1 − P1ref ) − ∫ ( P − P )⎥⎦

1 1

ref

simplified, as the previously developed procedure can be RH1

first applied to each sub-problem and then the overall (21)

⎡ P2 − P2ref

control law be recovered using the causal relationships −γ2 ⎢ a2 P2 − + C2 P2ref − K 2C2 ( P2 − P2ref )

relating the auxiliary variables to the control inputs ⎣ RH 2

provided by the power-conserving structure relaying them. K2 ⎤⎫

∫ ( P − P )⎥⎦ ⎬⎭

ref

The real and the virtual control inputs are related − 2 2

RH 2

through a transformation matrix which is given in (19).

Notice that when γ1 + γ2 = 1 the transformation matrix is

singular. In this condition of the distribution valves, the 1 ⎧⎪ ⎡ P2 − P2ref

u2 = − ⎨(1 − γ1 ) ⎢ a2 P2 − + C2 P2ref

multivariable zeros (of the linearised system) are placed at γ1 + γ2 − 1 ⎪⎩ ⎣ RH 2

the origin of the complex plane (Johansson 2000).

K2 ⎤

− K 2 C2 ( P2 − P2ref ) − ∫ ( P − P )⎥⎦

2

ref

⎡(1 − γ1 )

2

⎡u1* ⎤ γ2 ⎤ ⎡ u1 ⎤ RH 2

⎢ *⎥ = ⎢ (19) (22)

⎣u2 ⎦ ⎣ γ1 (1 − γ2 ) ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣u2 ⎥⎦ ⎡ P1 − P1ref

−γ1 ⎢ a1 P1 − + C1 P1ref − K1C1 ( P1 − P1ref )

The virtual control laws, obtained following the same ⎣ RH 1

∫ ( P − P )⎥⎦ ⎬⎭

ref

− 1

vanishing term, are given in (20). RH1

1

1

u1* = a1 P1 − ( P1 − P1ref ) + C1 P1ref Using (21) and (22) the stability of the hidden closed-loop

RH1 dynamics of Tank_3 and Tank_4 can be verified. Figure 27

(20)

1

u2* = a2 P2 − ( P2 − P2ref ) + C2 P2ref shows that the interconnection structure relating the bonds

associated to the actual control inputs u1,2 and the virtual

RH 2

*

control inputs u1,2 is composed of TFs, 0- and 1-junctions.

The actual control inputs u1,2 are simply obtained

As such, this interconnection structure is power conserving.

pre-multiplying (20) by the inverse of the matrix in (19).

This implies that the stability results obtained considering

Notice that the actual control law is not defined for the

the virtual inputs, i.e., for the two-tank problem, are

distribution valves configuration satisfying γ1 + γ2 = 1.

immediately valid for the actual inputs and thus can be

Figure 26 BG of the four tanks system with upper tanks in directly extended to the four-tank problem.

derivative causality (see online version for colours)

Figure 27 BG model after manipulation for controller design

(see online version for colours)

5 Simulation results

4.2 Robustifying the control law

The parameters used in the simulations, shown in Table 1,

The virtual control laws (20) are robustifyied, as in the were obtained from (Johansson 2000), where Ai are the

two-tank example, via power coupling of the mDBG or by cross section areas of the tanks, related to the tanks

simply adding a term like (17) to each equation of (20). This hydraulic capacities by the relation Ci = Ai/ρg, where ρ is

yields the real control laws given in (21) and (22). the liquid (water) density and g is the gravitational

acceleration. The parameters of the mDBG are

RH1 = RH 2 = 10 and K1 = K2 = 0.01.

Bond-graph-based controller design for the quadruple-tank process 189

configuration is tested, where the valves position are placed

Parameter Value

at: γ1r = 0.7, γ2r = 0.7. Again, two sequential faults occurred,

A1, A3 28 cm2 the first, at time T = 6,000 s where the value of the position

A2, A4 32 cm2 valve changes to γ2 = 1 which physically implies that

pump_2 injects all its flow to Tank_3; and the second, at

a1, a3 0.071 cm 2 cm3 / gr

time T = 15,000 s, where the value of the cross section area

a2, a4 0.057 cm 2 cm3 / gr of outlet hole of Tank_1 (a1) is increased by 50%.

Using the control laws (21) and (22) with noisy

sequential faults in simulation Scenario_1 (see online

measurements of the bottom tanks pressure (normal version for colours)

distribution and amplitude n = 2 cm), the simulation

scenarios involve abrupt faults in the system. To show the

robustness of the control laws, the parameters of Tank_1

and Tank_2 are varied in –10% and +10% respectively. For

illustration purposes, the simulations show tanks levels high

instead of tanks pressures.

The first simulation scenario, Scenario_1, consists of a

minimum phase configuration with valves positions in

γ1r = 0.3 and γ2r = 0.2. These are rated values used to

parameterise the control laws. In this scenario, two

sequential faults occurred: at time T = 2,000 s the value of

the cross section area of outlet hole of Tank_2 is increased

by 50% (forcing the same increment in a2); and at time

T = 5,000 s the value of the valve position changes to

γ1 = 0.6.

Scenario_1 (see online version for colours)

Scenario_2 (see online version for colours)

Figure 28 and Figure 29, which show that despite the faults

occurrence the control system behaves as expected and the

bottom tanks levels follow their references. For both cases,

the control inputs, u1 and u2, force to zero the residual

signals in order to reject the faults.

190 M.A. Nacusse and S.J. Junco

In this scenario, the bottom tank levels follow their Rosario) and ANPCyT for their financial support through

references rejecting the disturbances originated by the faults the research projects PID-UNR Nr. 19I386 and PICT 2008

occurrence as it is shown in Figure 30. Figure 31 shows the Nr. 650, respectively.

associated residual signals and the control inputs. Here

again, the control inputs force the residual signals to remain

at zero to reject the faults. References

Abdullah, A. and Zribi, M. (2012) ‘Control schemes for a

Figure 31 Residual signals and control inputs (in cm3/s) for

quadruple tank process’, International Journal of Computers

sequential faults in simulation Scenario_2 (see online

Communications and Control, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.594–604,

version for colours)

ISSN: 1841-9836.

Biswas, P.P., Srivastava, R., Ray, S. and Samanta, A.N. (2009)

‘Sliding mode control of quadruple tank process’,

Mechatronics, June, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.548–561,

ISSN: 0957-4158, DOI 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2009.01.001.

Blanke, M., Kinnaert, M., Lunze, J. and Staroswiecki, M. (2006)

Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Control, 2nd ed.,

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Breedveld, P.C. (1984) ‘A bond graph algorithm to determine the

equilibrium state of a system’, Journal of the Franklin

Institute, Vol. 318, No. 2,. pp.71–75, ISSN 0016-0032.

Isermann, R. (2006) Fault-Diagnosis Systems, Springer-Verlag

Berlin Heidelberg.

Johansson, K.H. (2000) ‘The quadruple-tank process: a

multivariable laboratory process with an adjustable zero’,

Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, May,

Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.456, 465, doi: 10.1109/87.845876.

Johnsen, J. and Allgöwer, F. (2007) ‘Interconnection and damping

assignment passivity-based control of a four-tank system’,

Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences.

Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Methods for Nonlinear Control

2006, Springer Berlin Heidelberg Publisher, Vol. 366,

pp.111–122.

Junco, S. (1993) ‘Stability analysis and stabilizing control

synthesis via Lyapunov’s second method directly on bond

graphs on nonlinear systems’, Proceedings of IECON’93,

Maui, HII, 17–20 November, pp.2065–2069.

Junco, S. (2000) ‘Linéarisation exacte entrée-sortie et stabilité de

6 Conclusions la dynamique des zéros directement sur bon graph des

systèmes non linéaires’, Actes de CIFA 2000, Première

This work addressed the design of a robust controller for a conference Internationale Francophone d’automatique,

multivariable four-tank system in three stages. A (partial) 4–7 juillet, Lille, France.

energy shaping and damping assignment control system Junco, S. (2001) ‘Lyapunov second method and feedback

design technique in the bond-graph domain was first applied stabilization directly on bond graphs’, Proc. ICBGM’2001,

SCS-Simulation Series, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.137–142.

to obtain an almost-exact I/O feedback linearising controller

for a simpler two-tank problem. The controller is just Junco, S. (2004) ‘Virtual prototyping of bond graphs models for

controller synthesis through energy and power shaping’,

almost-exact because a feedback term was ignored in the Conference on Integrated Modeling and Analysis in Applied

(otherwise exact) control law in order to spare a Control and Automation (IMAACA 2004).

measurement. The second stage proceeded to robustify the Limon, D., Alvarado, I., Alamo, T. and Camacho, E.F. (2010)

previous controller to which aim a closed-loop DBG was ‘Robust tube-based MPC for tracking of constrained linear

introduced. Finally, a causal manipulation was performed systems with additive disturbances’, Journal of Process

on the BG of the quadruple-tank that permitted handling the Control, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.248–260.

associated multivariable problem as two monovariable Nacusse, M. and Junco, S. (2011) ‘Passive fault tolerant control: a

decoupled problems, each for a simple two-tank system. bond graph approach’, Conference on Integrated Modeling

Simulation results demonstrate the good regulation and Analysis in Applied Control and Automation (IMAACA

response and the fault tolerance of the control system. 2011), Rome, Italy, 12–14 September.

Nacusse, M. and Junco, S. (2013) ‘Bond-graph based controller

design of a two-input two-output four-tank system’,

Conference on Integrated Modeling and Analysis in Applied

Acknowledgements Control and Automation (IMAACA 2013), Athens Greece,

The authors wish to thank SeCyT-UNR (the Secretary for 25–27 September.

Science and Technology of the National University of

Bond-graph-based controller design for the quadruple-tank process 191

Roinila, T., Jaatinen, A. and Vilkko, M.K. (2008) ‘Corrected As can be noted in (23), the residuals depend on system

mathematical model of quadruple tank process’, Proceedings parameters. If the model represents perfectly the controlled

of the 17th IFAC World Congress, South Korea, Vol. 17,

system, then the residual signals are zero. The differential

Part 1.

causality is an advantage in FDI, because no knowledge of

Samantaray, A., Medjaherb, K., Ould Bouamama, B.,

the initial states is necessary to evaluate the residuals.

Staroswieckic, M. and Dauphin-Tanguy, G. (2006)

‘Diagnostic bond graphs for online fault detection and

isolation’, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, April, Figure 32 DBG of the two tank system (see online version

Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.237–262. for colours)

Sontag, E. (1998) Mathematical Control Theory: Deterministic

Finite Dimensional Systems, 2nd ed., Springer, New York.

Zhang, Y. and Jiang, J. (2008) ‘Bibliographical review on

reconfigurable fault-tolerant control systems’, Annual

Reviews in Control, December, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.229–252.

Appendix

Diagnostic bond-graph

The DBG was first presented by Samantaray et al. (2006)

for numerical evaluation of ARRs. The ARRs are calculated

to perform FDI in an AFTC frame.

Basically, the DBG is obtained from a BG model of the

plant injecting the plant measurements and inputs through

modulated sources. The residual signal is obtained by

Note: Plant measurements to be fed into the DBG

measuring the power co-variables of the modulated sources, encircled in red.

see Figure 32.

Reading directly from the BG the residuals are:

(23)

res 2 = C2 P2 + a2 P2 − γu

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.