Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advanced Control Performance Assessment

  • Chapter
Control Performance Management in Industrial Automation

Part of the book series: Advances in Industrial Control ((AIC))

Abstract

This chapter deals with extensions of the MV benchmark that need substantially more information about the plant than just the time delay. An extension of the MV benchmark is the approach of generalised MV (GMV) benchmarking, minimising a weighted sum of the control error and control effort. More general but rigorous extensions are the linear-quadratic Gaussian (LQG) benchmark and the model-predictive control (MPC) assessment. These benchmarks are useful when more information on controller performance, such as how much can the output variance be reduced without significantly affecting the controller output variance is needed, or for cases where actuator wear is a concern. This chapter provides an overview of these advanced methods. It is particularly shown how to use routine operating data to distinguish between poor performance due to plant–model mismatch and that due to improper tuning of the MPC controller. Moreover, performance measures that estimate potential benefit from re-identification of the process model or re-tuning of the controller are introduced. This is essential in MPC monitoring, as a process model is a substantial component of the MPC controller.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This assumes a system model of the ARMAX type. If a model of the ARIMAX type, i.e. with integrating disturbance term, is considered, u(k) has to be replaced by Δu(k).

  2. 2.

    The more general form of this control law is R(q)u(k)=−S(q)y(k)+T(q)r(k), referred to as the RST regulator.

  3. 3.

    In this section, MATLAB routines kindly provided by Julien et al. (2004) have been used for the computation of infinite-horizon MPCs and the corresponding performance curves.

References

  • Agarwal N, Huang B, Tamayo EC (2007a) Assessing MPC performance. Part 1: probabilistic approach for constraint analysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 46:8101–8111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal N, Huang B, Tamayo EC (2007b) Assessing MPC performance. Part 2: Bayesian approach for constraint tuning. Ind Eng Chem Res 46:8112–8119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akande S, Huang B, Lee K-H (2009) MPC constraint analysis—Bayesian approach via a continuous-valued profit function. Ind Eng Chem Res 18:3944–3954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allgöwer F, Zheng A (eds) (2000) Nonlinear model predictive control. Birkhäuser, Basel

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson BDO, Moore JB (1991) Optimal control: linear quadratic methods. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ã…ström KJ (1979) Introduction to stochastic control. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Ã…ström KJ, Wittenmark P (1997) Computer controlled systems: theory and design. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezergianni S, Georgakis C (2003) Evaluation of controller performance-use of models derived by subspace identification. Int J Adapt Control Signal Process 17:527–552

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd S, Barratt C (1991) Linear control design. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Camacho EF, Bordons C (1999) Model predictive control. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke DW, Scattolini R (1991) Constrained receding horizon predictive control. Proc IEE D 138:347–354

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke DW, Mohtadi C, Tuffs PS (1987a) Generalized predictive control. Part I: the basic algorithm. Automatica 23:137–148

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke DW, Mohtadi C, Tuffs PS (1987b) Generalized predictive control. Part II: extensions and interpretations. Automatica 23:149–160

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg A (2002) Benchmarking as an aid to identifying under-performing control loops. www.isc-ltd.com/benchmark/learning_centre/aclegg.html

  • Cutler CR, Ramaker BL (1980) Dynamic matrix control—a computer control algorithm. In: Proc joint automatic control confer, San Francisco, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Favoreel W, Moor BD, van Overschee P (1999) Model-free subspace-based LQG-design. In: Proc Amer control confer, San Diego, pp 3372–3376

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao J, Patwardhan RS, Akamatsu K, Hashimoto Y, Emoto G, Shah SL, Huang B (2003) Performance evaluation of two industrial MPC controllers. Control Eng Pract 11:1371–1387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García CE, Morshedi AM (1986) Quadratic programming solution of dynamic matrix control (QDMC). Chem Eng Commun 46:73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García CE, Prett DM, Morari M (1989) Model predictive control: theory and practice—a survey. Automatica 25:335–348

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Grimble MJ (2002a) Controller performance benchmarking and tuning using generalised minimum variance control. Automatica 38:2111–2119

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Grimble MJ (2006a) Robust industrial control systems. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimble MJ (2006b) Design of generalized minimum variance controllers for nonlinear systems. Int J Control Autom Syst 4:281–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimble MJ, Johnson MA (1988) Optimal control and stochastic estimation, volumes 1 and 2. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimble MJ, Majecki P (2004) Weighting selection for controller benchmarking and tuning. Tech report ICC/219/Dec 2004, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimble MJ, Majecki P (2005) New ideas in performance assessment and benchmarking of nonlinear systems. www.isc-ltd.com/benchmark/workshop/NGMV.pdf

  • Grimble MJ, Uduehi D (2001) Process control loop benchmarking and revenue optimization. In: Proc Amer control confer, Arlington, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris TJ (1985) A comparative study of model based control strategies. In: Proc Amer control confer, Boston, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris TJ (2004) Statistical properties of quadratic-type performance indices. J Process Control 14:899–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris TJ, Davis JH (1992) An iterative method for matrix spectral factorization. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 13:531–540

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huang B, Kadali R (2008) Dynamic modelling, predictive control and performance monitoring. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang B, Shah SL (1999) Performance assessment of control loops. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hugo AJ (2006) Performance assessment of single-loop industrial controllers. J Process Control 16:785–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julien RH, Foley MW, Cluett WR (2004) Performance assessment using a model predictive control benchmark. J Process Control 14:441–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadali R, Huang B (2002a) Estimation of the dynamic matrix and noise model for model predictive control using closed-loop data. Ind Eng Chem Res 41:842–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadali R, Huang B (2002b) Controller performance analysis with LQG benchmark obtained under closed loop conditions. ISA Trans 41:521–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kammer LC, Bitmead RR, Barlett PL (1996) Signal-based testing of LQ-optimality of controllers. In: Proc IEEE confer decision control, Kobe, Japan, pp 3620–3624

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko B-S, Edgar TF (1998) Assessment of achievable PI control performance for linear processes with dead time. In: Proc Amer control confer, Philadelphia, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko B-S, Edgar TF (2001a) Performance assessment of constrained model predictive control systems. AIChE J 47:1363–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouvaritakis B, Cannon M (eds) (2001) Nonlinear predictive control: theory and practice. The Institute of Electrical Engineers

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozub DJ (2002) Controller performance monitoring and diagnosis. Industrial perspective. In: Proc IFAC world congress, Barcelona, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucera V (1979) Discrete linear control: the polynomial equations approach. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwakernaak H, Sivan R (1972) Linear optimal control systems. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JH, Cooley B (1997) Recent advances in model predictive control and other related areas. In: Proc chemical process control AICHE and CACHE, pp 201—216b

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee K-H, Huang B, Tamayo EC (2008) Sensitivity analysis for selective constraint and variability tuning in performance assessment of industrial MPC. Control Eng Pract 16:1195–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor JF (1977) Discrete stochastic control with input constraints. IEE Proc, Control Theory Appl 124:732–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Maciejowski JM (2001) Predictive control with constraints. Prentice Hall, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mayne DQ (1997) Nonlinear model predictive control: an assessment. In: Proc chemical process control AICHE and CACHE, pp 217–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayne DQ, Rawlings JB, Rao CV, Scokaert POM (2000) Constrained model predictive control: stability and optimality. Automatica 26:789–814

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh AR, Shah SL, Fisher DG (1991) Analysis and tuning of adaptive generalized predictive control. Can J Chem Eng 69:97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery DC, Runger GC (1992) Applied statistics and probability for engineers. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morari M, Lee JH (1991) Model predictive control: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In: Proc chemical process control, pp 271–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Moudgalya KM (2007) Digital control. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moudgalya KM, Shah SL (2004) A polynomial based first course in digital control. In: Proc IEEE intern symp computer aided control systems design, Taipei, Taiwan, pp 190–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Patwardhan RS, Shah SL (2002) Issues in performance diagnostics of model-based controllers. J Process Control 12:413–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patwardhan RS, Shah S, Emoto G, Fujii H (1998) Performance analysis of model-based predictive controllers: an industrial study. In: Proc AIChE, Miami, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Prett DM, García CE (1988) Fundamental process control. Butterworths, Stonehan

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin SJ, Badgwell TA (1997) An overview of industrial model predictive control technology. In: Kantor JC, García CE, Carnaham B (eds) Int confer chemical process control. AIChE symposium series, vol 93, pp 232–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin SJ, Badgwell TA (2003) A survey of industrial model predictive control technology. Control Eng Pract 11:733–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawlings JB, Muske KR (1993) The stability of constrained receding horizon control. IEEE Trans Autom Control 38:1512–1516

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rawlings JB, Meadows ES, Muske K (1994) Nonlinear model predictive control: a tutorial and survey. In: Proc IFAC ADCHEM, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Richalet J, Rault A, Testud JL, Papon J (1978) Model predictive heuristic control: applications to an industrial process. Automatica 14:413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricker NL (1991) Model predictive control: state of the art. In: Proc chemical process control, pp 419–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer J, Çinar A (2002) Multivariable MPC performance assessment, monitoring and diagnosis. In: Proc IFAC world congress, Barcelona, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  • Seborg DE, Edgar TF, Mellichamp DA (2004) Process dynamics and control. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah SL, Patwardhan R, Huang B (2001) Multivariate controller performance analysis: methods, applications and challenges. In: Proc chemical process control confer, Tucson, USA, pp 187–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Soeterboeck R (1992) Predictive control: a unified approach. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Uduehi D, Ordys A, Grimble MJ, Majecki P, Xia H (2007a) Controller benchmarking procedures—data-driven methods. In: Ordys AW, Uduehi D, Johnson MA (eds) Process control performance assessment. Springer, Berlin, pp 81–126

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Uduehi D, Ordys A, Grimble MJ, Majecki P, Xia H (2007b) Controller benchmarking procedures—model-based methods. In: Ordys AW, Uduehi D, Johnson MA (eds) Process control performance assessment. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu F, Huang B, Tamayo EC (2006a) Assessment of economic performance of model predictive control through variance/constraint tuning. In: Proc IFAC ADCHEM, Gramado, Brazil, pp 899–904

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu F, Lee K-H, Huang B (2006b) Monitoring control performance via structured closed-loop response subject to output variance/covariance upper bound. J Process Control 16:971–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu F, Huang B, Akande S (2007) Performance assessment of model predictive control for variability and constraint tuning. Ind Eng Chem Res 46:1208–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu F, Huang B, Tamayo EC (2008) Performance assessment of MIMO control systems with time-variant disturbance dynamics. Comput Chem Eng 32:2144–2154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Henson MA (1999) A performance measure for constrained model predictive controllers. In: Proc Europ control confer, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao C, Zhao Y, Su H, Huang H (2009) Economic performance assessment of advanced process control with LQG benchmarking. J Process Control 19:557–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Plant, Energy and Machine Systems, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Koeln, Germany

    Dr.-Ing. Mohieddine Jelali

Authors
  1. Dr.-Ing. Mohieddine Jelali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jelali, M. (2013). Advanced Control Performance Assessment. In: Control Performance Management in Industrial Automation. Advances in Industrial Control. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4546-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4546-2_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4545-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4546-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation