Advertisement

Outlier Sensitivity of the Minimum Variance Control Performance Assessment

Conference paper
  • 371 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1196)

Abstract

Minimum variance (MinVar) control performance assessment (CPA) constitutes one of the most common approaches to the control quality estimation. There are dozens of versions of this method, enriched with practical implementations. However, it should be remembered that the method relies on the same assumptions as the minimum variance control. It is essential that considered disturbance is an independent random sequence. This paper addresses the situations, when loop noise has non-Gaussian properties and is characterized by outliers exhibiting fat-tailed distribution. Sensitivity analysis of minimum variance method against the outliers is conducted using commonly used PID control benchmarks. It is shown that CPA using minimum variance may be significantly biased in non-Gaussian situations, which are very frequent in the industrial reality.

Keywords

CPA Minimum variance Robustness Outliers PID 

References

  1. 1.
    Åström, K.J., Hägglund, T.: Benchmark systems for PID control. In: IFAC Digital Control: Past, Present and Future of PlD Control, pp. 165–166 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, M., Horch, A., Xie, L., Jelali, M., Thornhill, N.: The current state of control loop performance monitoring - a survey of application in industry. J. Process Control 38, 1–10 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bialic, G.: Methods of control performance assessment for sampld data systems working under stationary stoachastics disturbances. Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation of Technical University of Opole, Poland (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CPC Control Group: Univariate Controller Performance Assessment, Limited Trial Version 2.5. University of Alberta, Computer Process Control Group (2010). https://sites.ualberta.ca/~control/manuals/uvpa.pdf. [downloaded: 04-December-2019]
  5. 5.
    Desborough, L., Harris, T.J.: Performance assessment measures for univariate feedback control. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 70(6), 1186–1197 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Desborough, L., Harris, T.J.: Performance assessment measures for univariate feedforward/feedback control. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 71(4), 605–616 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Domański, P.D.: Non-gaussian properties of the real industrial control error in SISO loops. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing, pp. 877–882 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Domański, P.D.: Statistical measures for proportional-integral-derivative control quality: simulations and industrial data. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part I J. Syst. Control Eng. 232(4), 428–441 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Domański, P.D.: Control Performance Assessment: Theoretical Analyses and Industrial Practice. Springer, Cham (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Domański, P.D., Golonka, S., Jankowski, R., Kalbarczyk, P., Moszowski, B.: Control rehabilitation impact on production efficiency of ammonia synthesis installation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55(39), 10366–10376 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ettaleb, L.: Control loop performance assessment and oscillation detection. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farenzena, M.: Novel methodologies for assessment and diagnostics in control loop management. Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation of Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gomez, D., Moya, E.J., Baeyens, E.: Control performance assessment: a general survey. In: de Carvalho, A.P.L.F., Rodriguez-Gonzalez, S., De Paz Santana, J.F., Rodriguez, J.M.C. (eds.) Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence: 7th International Symposium, pp. 621–628. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris, T.J.: Assessment of closed loop performance. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 67, 856–861 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harris, T.J., Yu, W.: Controller assessment for a class of non-linear systems. J. Process Control 17(7), 607–619 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hawkins, D.M.: Identification of Outliers. Chapman and Hall, London (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jelali, M.: Control Performance Management in Industrial Automation: Assessment, Diagnosis and Improvement of Control Loop Performance. Springer, London (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kadali, R., Huang, B.: Controller performance analysis with LQG benchmark obtained under closed loop conditions. ISA Trans. 41(4), 521–537 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ko, B.S., Edgar, T.F.: Performance assessment of cascade control loops. AIChE J. 46(2), 281–291 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ko, B.S., Edgar, T.F.: PID control performance assessment: the single-loop case. AIChE J. 50(6), 1211–1218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu, M.C.P., Wang, X., Wang, Z.L.: Performance assessment of control loop with multiple time-variant disturbances based on multi-model mixing time-variant minimum variance control. In: Proceeding of the 11th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, pp. 4755–4759 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ordys, A., Uduehi, D., Johnson, M.A.: Process Control Performance Assessment - From Theory to Implementation. Springer, London (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perrier, M., Roche, A.A.: Towards mill-wide evaluation of control loop performance. In: Proceedings of the Control Systems, pp. 205–209 (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rousseeuw, P.J., Leroy, A.M.: Robust Regression and Outlier Detection. Wiley, New York (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seppala, C.T.: Dynamic analysis of variance methods for monitoring control system performance. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thornhill, N.F., Huang, B., Shah, S.L.: Controller performance assessment in set point tracking and regulatory control. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. 17(7–9), 709–727 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tyler, M.L., Morari, M.: Performance assessment for unstable and nonminimum-phase systems. IFAC Proc. Volumes 28(12), 187–192 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Control and Computation EngineeringWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations