Competition

Just an idea for the new year
If we could (as a group) assemble a set of notoriously difficult models of systems - real systems
That could be tested with a variety of different control methodologies.
Simulation - Build and test etc...
I can suggest some systems! and am interested in the simulation and control of these
Maybe there's scope to merge the practical and theoretical difficulties in the form of a publication
This is just a thought for the moment...but I am sure there is enough people with a variety of strengths to make this a possibility
What d'ye think
Setanta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Setanta wrote:

Interesting but some of us do this every day in their own field. What kind of systems do you think are notoriously difficult?

An applied controls book would be interesting. People are alway looking for application examples in their own field. It takes a lot of work to publish a book. Tim would be the expert on this. I know that even magazine articles take a lot of work.

Herding cats comes to mind.
Peter Nachtwey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

of
control
This is the point though
A lot of books are NOT about the practicalities - Some people write books on control just to show their proficiency in Mathematics.
I can think of many BUT
Astrom and Hagglung have provided plently of material here - which I an in possession of
The idea I have is to target energy usage as the primary optimisation - using a variety of controllers to acchieve this - without introducing operator - setup difficulties.
My language thoughts on this are to transform the more complex controller types to an interface that emulates a PID controller for the operator - but the underlying controller will actually be more complex (not just for the sake of it)

in
people
I am fashioning a crosier as we speak :-)

Setanta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip both ends>

That immediately introduces what many practitioners will perceive as a fairly artificial criterion. Fact is that for process plants, energy conservation tends to be a second-tier incentive for good control.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce Varley wrote:

In fact, one often wants control goals that _maximize_ the energy consumption -- at least the energy consumed by the actuators. This is because you're often putting a controller in there to increase bandwidth, and that means pushing your actuator hard.
Where I've seen energy conservation used as a parameter it had more to do with fooling an otherwise robustness-agnostic algorithm into toning down it's control rule in hopes that the result wouldn't send a real system flying into wild oscillations.
--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
proclaimed to the world:

I will give an example that I think demonstrates what you are saying in mixed terms, at least for me. Tell me if this fits what you are asserting.
We were redesigning a control system for a pumping station. The station has VS pumps that take from a 30 ft wet well/storage tank. The old system used PID controls of the three pumps in cascade. When a single pump reached 80% capacity, then the controls would add another pump and bring them to 40% each. During peak flows, the main system would change the set point for tank level from the normal 20 ft mark, down to 10 ft gradually over a period of 8 hrs or so. This scheme was in use to spread peak loads out over the low times. The system also had a algorithm that lowered the power consumption during peak periods by overriding the set points if the total plant was coming close to the peak power value set by the utility. They were under contract which penalized you if you exceeded the peak.
Anyway, during the redesign, it was argued for doing away with PID at the pumps because they had problems with stability. It place of PID the other controls engineer on staff to the engineering firm insisted that straight proportional control was all they needed and trying to keep a set level was needless. I argued that even though the system would be more stable, you would give away tank storage capacity equal to the range of the proportional system. He argued this would be slight because the proportional would be set at three feet. The system was pushing it's capacity for storage anyway, but now it appeared to be alright to give away 10% of that because they had trouble getting PID stable.
Please apply your idea to this system. I assume you would say in my system that I wanted to maximize energy usage of the pump system because it responded faster and to a greater degree.

Here I am assuming you are arguing with me in my case, but you can see that energy conservation needs to be better defined.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 15, 9:21 am, Paul M <PaulMatWiredogdotcom> wrote:

I find it hard to believe that a tank level control can't be made stable.

Again, this happens when there isn't a good understanding of what the system is doing.

I don't think anyone is arguing the point that one can use the tank as an accumulator so that peak demands are reduced. This is done all the time in hydraulic control systems. It makes good sense. Why size the motors or pumps for peak loads when they can be run at an average load? This just takes a little more design work up front to optimize performance.
I agree with Tim about the bandwidth. I have only been asked once about LQR type of control in 25 years and I don't think that guy really know what he was asking for. Most of the time I get asked about how fast can I move from here to there and there are no concerns about the power required. A lot of my customers are happy to run the system in saturation until the last millisecond before ramping down to a nice stable stop with no overshoot.
Peter Nachtwey
Peter Nachtwey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Nachtwey wrote:
...

The amount of inflow is uncontrolled, but the maximum rate of level change is known: the interceptor is only so big, and flows by gravity. The rate at which pumped flow can be allowed to change is very limited. Do not underestimate the water-hammer effect in a few miles of 1-meter pipe.

I think that energy spent in the actuators is a small part of the energy of the plant. Moving water is much more costly than moving valves.
...
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16 Jan 2007 02:40:05 -0800, "Peter Nachtwey"

And it can, but the problems came from this being a 1970 built system with three pumps that cut in and out. You need a control that takes this into account. You need a system that takes kilotons of inertial energy into account. You just can't try to stop 6 miles of water in a three foot pipe to come to a stop very quickly. Early on, they cracked a check valve trying. I have been in the pump pit when a pump is shut down and water hammer slams the valve shut. It is scary. The building shakes to the point where dust rains down from the roof.

This is not what I was asking or saying. Of course accumulators work. That is what the tanks were there for. I was saying that control redesign would make 10% of the tank capacity unusable for accumulation. They used tank storage to keep from going over a peak, set by the power company. Going over the peak during certain hours of the day caused them to get fined by the contract. They used storage tanks hold wastewater during the day and pump it at night when energy costs were lower too.

But I was talking about an industry where energy conservation has a lot to do with the process. Bandwidth has little to do with anything. The OP brought up different concerns his design software looked at. I don't know what kind of controls it was intended to be used with.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 18, 12:52 am, Paul M <PaulMatWiredogdotcom> wrote:

Try generating 10 Hz sine waves with an actuator with a 10 Hz band width.
Peter Nachtwey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Jan 2007 17:56:20 -0800, "Peter Nachtwey"

Stop quoting out of context and go listen to some 60 cycle humm. :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Nachtwey wrote:

Maybe these energy concerns are some kind of relics from the space era in control engineering in the 1960s.
Z.H.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah
Nowadays we just use A Relativity Drive
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, despite what many people might expect, in my experience for the process industries the profile of energy as a control improvement driver has stayed pretty much where it always was in the scheme of things. What has become hugely more important for CEs, and instrument guys as well, is 'licence to operate' issues. In the old days if your product was off spec you just snuck it out into the marketplace, if your plant was smelly then that was tough. Now either of these situations can put you out of business if you're caught out by a regulatory authority. If you're looking for a current-day hot area, then I'd look no further than LTO. However, the transfer functions and smart algos still tend to be pretty much 'second tier' behind the people and business issues, as they've always been.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Energy saving is coming online
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

optimisation -

It's still a second-tier incentive for good control. If energy saving was a plant's primary incentive, the solution is easy - turn off the power and go home. You can't get much better than that...
Cameron:-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

introducing
a
go
Not sure where your comin from Cameron - Sure - Energy saving is a secondary consideration - BUT - tell your top management you can save them x amount of dinari per blip and see what happens -
Setanta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Setanta wrote:

How can you save energy on a motion application? The amount of work required to move an object from point a to point b will not change no matter what control algorithm you use.
Energy will not be saved by the control algorithm. Motion control requires that energy added to the system is equal to the work required on a millisecond to millisecond basis. I don't care what control algorithm you use that balance must exist if one is going to follow a motion profile.
P=F*v P=M*a*v
Since the acceleration and velocity are carefully controlled at each point along the path the power required at each point will be the same and the energy required is just the sum of the power required at all the points.
The power or energy optimization is done at design time by reducing mass or friction.
Peter Nachtwey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

secondary
amount of

Not all applics involve motion control
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Setanta wrote:

Ok, so you don't want the motion control guys to win. That doesn't sound fair. ;) Fine. So what do you have in mind?
On a motion control application, like a flying shear, one can save energy by minimizing the length of travel required to synchronize and make the cut and get back. Minimizing the required distance minimizes the required energy. The question is how much does each part of the motion controller contribute to the minimizing the required motion. Is the the PID? Feedback resolution? Or is the motion profile itself. Maybe it is all of the above and more.
Perhaps someone knows of an application where the control algorithm is the significant contributor to efficiency.
Peter Nachtwey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.