Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Editions
Research Webcasts Newsletters Magazine
Username
Subscribe Sponsored by:
Forgot password? ******* Manage Account
Overcoming process deadtime with a Smith Predictor
A controller equipped with an accurate process model can ignore deadtime. Deadtime generally occurs when material is
transported from the actuator site to the sensor measurement location. Until the material reaches the sensor, the sensor cannot
measure any changes effected by the actuator.
Vance VanDoren, PhD, PE
Multiaxis
02/17/2015
system fo
Share switchgea
Driving g
efficiency
For the purposes of feedback control, deadtime is the variable s
delay between the application of a control effort and Palletizer
its first effect on the process variable. During that enhanced
interval, the process does not respond to the
increased
controller's activity at all, and any attempt to
manipulate the process variable before the deadtime Documen
has elapsed inevitably fails. project
Smart ma
Deadtime generally occurs when material is
on displa
transported from the site of the actuator to another
location where the sensor takes its reading. Not until Expo
the material has reached the sensor can any Top 5 Con
changes effected by the actuator be detected. Engineeri
Septembe
Consider, for example, the rolling mill shown in the
Leaders u
"Simplified Deadtime Example" which produces a
continuous sheet of some material at a rate of V automatio
(inches per second). A feedback controller uses a changes,
piston to modify the gap between a pair of reducing systems,
rollers that squeeze the material into the desired Nonconta
thickness. The deadtime in this process is caused by the separation S between the rollers and the thickness gage. temperatu
and softw
The controller in this example can compare the current thickness of the sheet (the process variable, PV) with the desired
thickness (the setpoint, SP) and generate an output (CO), but it must wait at least D = S/V seconds for the thickness to change. Waterproo
If it expects a result any sooner, it will determine that its last control effort had no effect and will continue to apply everlarger induction
corrections to the rollers until the sensor begins to see the thickness changing in the desired direction. By that time, however, it
Mechatro
will be too late. The controller will have already overcompensated for the original thickness error, perhaps to the point of
causing an even larger error in the opposite direction. simplifies
design
How badly the controller overcompensates depends on how aggressively it is Control s
tuned and on the difference between the actual and the assumed deadtime. That industrial
is, if the controller assumes that the deadtime is much shorter than is actually the
applicatio
case, it will spend a much longer time increasing its output before successfully
effecting a change in the process variable. If the controller is tuned to be
particularly aggressive, the rate at which it increases its output during that
interval will be especially high, and the resulting overcompensation will be
particularly severe.
Detuning the controller
The preferred method for curing a deadtime problem is to physically modify the
process to reduce deadtime. In the rolling mill example, this could be
accomplished by moving the thickness gage closer to the rollers or by running
the sheet at a higher velocity.
But if deadtime cannot be cured by relocating the sensor or speeding up the
process, its symptoms can still be addressed by modifying the control algorithm. The simplest method is to detune the
controller to slow its response rate. A detuned controller will not have time to overcompensate unless deadtime is particularly
long.
The integrator in a proportionalintegralderivative (PID) controller is particularly sensitive to deadtime. By design, its function is
to continue ramping up the controller's output so long as there is an error between the setpoint and the process variable. In the
presence of deadtime, the integrator works overtime. Ziegler and Nichols determined that the best way to detune a PID
controller to handle a deadtime of D seconds is to reduce the integral tuning constant by a factor of D2. They also found that
the proportional tuning constant should be reduced by a factor of D. The derivative term is unaffected by deadtime since it only
comes in to play after the process variable has begun to move.
http://www.controleng.com/singlearticle/overcomingprocessdeadtimewithasmithpredictor/8c727a1371eb45011801350175606812.html 1/4
10/1/2015 Overcoming process deadtime with a Smith Predictor | Control Engineering
Detuning can restore stability to a control loop that suffers from chronic overcompensation, but it would not even be necessary
if the controller could first be made aware of the deadtime, and then endowed with the patience to wait it out. That is essentially
what happens in the famous Smith Predictor control strategy proposed by Otto Smith in 1957.
Removing deadtime from the loop
Smith's strategy is shown in the "Smith Predictor" block diagram. It consists of an ordinary feedback loop plus an inner loop
that introduces two extra terms directly into the feedback path. The first term is an estimate of what the process variable would
look like in the absence of any disturbances. It is generated by running the controller output through a process model that
intentionally ignores the effects of disturbances. If the model is otherwise accurate in representing the behavior of the process,
its output will be a disturbancefree version of the actual process variable.
The mathematical model used to generate the disturbancefree process variable consists of two elements hooked up in series.
The first element represents all of the process behavior not attributable to deadtime. The second element represents nothing
but the deadtime. The deadtimefree element is generally implemented as an ordinary differential or difference equation that
includes estimates of all the process gains and time constants. The second element of the model is simply a time delay. The
signal that goes in to it comes out delayed, but otherwise unchanged.
The second term that Smith's strategy introduces into the feedback path is an estimate of what the process variable would look
like in the absence of both disturbances and deadtime. It is generated by running the controller output through the first element
of the process model (the gains and time constants), but not through the time delay element. It thus predicts what the
disturbancefree process variable will eventually look like once the deadtime has elapsed, hence the expression Smith
Predictor.
Subtracting the disturbancefree process variable from the actual process variable yields an estimate of the disturbances. By
adding this difference to the predicted process variable, Smith created a feedback variable that includes the disturbances, but
not the deadtime.
So what?
The purpose of all these mathematical manipulations is best illustrated by the "Smith Predictor Rearranged" block diagram. It
shows the Smith Predictor with the same blocks arranged to yield the same mathematical results, only computed in a different
order. This arrangement makes it easier to see that the Smith Predictor effectively estimates the process variable (including
both disturbances and deadtime) by adding the estimated disturbances back into the disturbancefree process variable. The
result is a feedback control system with the deadtime outside of the loop.
The Smith Predictor works to control the modified feedback variable (the predicted process variable with disturbances included)
rather than the actual process variable. If it is successful in doing so, and if the process model does indeed match the process,
then the controller will simultaneously drive the actual process variable towards the setpoint, whether the setpoint changes or a
load disturbs the process. The deadtime becomes irrelevant.
Unfortunately, in the real world, those are big ifs. It is certainly easier for the controller to meet its objectives without having to
deal with the deadtime, but it is not always a simple matter to generate the process models required to make this strategy work.
Even the slightest mismatch between the process and the model can cause the controller to generate an output that
successfully manipulates the modified feedback variable, but drives off the actual process variable into oblivion. There have
been several fixes proposed to improve on the basic Smith Predictor, but deadtime remains a particularly difficult control
problem.
Vance VanDoren, PhD, PE, is a contributing content specialist for Control Engineering.
http://www.controleng.com/singlearticle/overcomingprocessdeadtimewithasmithpredictor/8c727a1371eb45011801350175606812.html 2/4
10/1/2015 Overcoming process deadtime with a Smith Predictor | Control Engineering
Vance VanDoren, PhD, PE, is a contributing content specialist for Control Engineering.
Key concepts:
Deadtime in a process can cause a controller to overreact to a disturbance or setpoint change.
If it isn't practical to wait for a time interval to pass, there are techniques designed to make changes more quickly.
ONLINE
Read more on control strategy and loop tuning below.
Related News:
Fundamentals of integrating vs. selfregulating processes 02.12.2014 10:01
Tuning PID loops for level control 30.10.2014 15:51
Fundamentals of cascade control 17.08.2014 05:20
Tuning PID control loops for fast response 01.07.2014 12:09
Fixing PID, Part 2 28.04.2014 14:20
Fundamentals of lambda tuning 16.04.2013 11:28
Fixing PID 30.11.2012 16:23
Feedback controllers do their best 16.10.2012 10:27
DisturbanceRejection vs. SetpointTracking Controllers 26.09.2011 12:47
Gain scheduling and process linearity 31.01.2011 17:09
Back to Basics: Closedloop stability 17.08.2010 13:27
Understanding Derivative in PID Control 01.02.2010 07:00
The Three Faces of PID 01.03.2007 07:00
Post a comment
Log in or create an account to submit your comment for this article.
Ahmed , OH, Egypt, 02/18/15 10:47 PM:
it is deep knowledge of controller and meaning of deedtime.
LARRY , WA, United States, 02/19/15 09:53 PM:
Great job pointing out the potential benefits without minimizing the potential hazards. The application example was a good one,
and has a hidden hazard to make matters worse: the material balance for a rolling process means that repositioning the drive
roller changes the travel rate at the output side, so that the "time delay" is not exactly constant. The classic "Smith Predictor
filter," as implemented in the 1950s, used analog nonminimum phase filters, which often were subject to sensitivity and stability
limitations. We have options today to use the same architecture model, but replacing the Smith Predictor filter part of the
process model with digital delay lines and digital filters. However, appropriate tuning of these can still be tricky. Why is there
never a free lunch?
WILLIAM , CA, United States, 04/07/15 12:28 PM:
It seems one can also view the Smith Predictor as "feedforward control", where the controller output is simply another
measured "input disturbance" which the feedforward equation responds to in an attempt to keep the thickness (controlled
variable) from changing. If the predictor's "plant model" is perfect, it seems it would simply counter the control action until one
deadtime has passed.
With today's digital controllers, it seems a simpler approach is that after each control change, wait one deadtime before acting
on the sensor signal (i.e. common sense). This might be realized by simply setting the PLC cycle time (or task time) to match
the deadtime.
Tom , NonUS/Not Applicable, Australia, 04/07/15 09:06 PM:
Also refer to F.G.Shinskey :
PID deadtime control of
distributed processes.
Glenn , Canada, 04/11/15 12:52 PM:
A good article and timely for me as I just designed and commissioned 3 MSP (Modified Smith Predictor) controllers last week.
MSP's have been common in the paper industry since the 1980's. An MSP predicts the effect of the process time constant in
addition to the dead time. The final controller is simply gain X predicted error divided by process gain. If significant model
mismatch is possible, I often add compensation for uncertainty. These controllers are very simple to design and implement and
work well with both improved stability and speed.
Oil & Gas Engineering
http://www.controleng.com/singlearticle/overcomingprocessdeadtimewithasmithpredictor/8c727a1371eb45011801350175606812.html 3/4
10/1/2015 Overcoming process deadtime with a Smith Predictor | Control Engineering
http://www.controleng.com/singlearticle/overcomingprocessdeadtimewithasmithpredictor/8c727a1371eb45011801350175606812.html 4/4