Aspentech Jan06

6/2/06

16:34

Page 39

Brian Froisy,Aspen Technology, USA, describes how new model predictive

control technology can offer significant performance benefits when applied to
a wide range of common chemical process units.

odel predictive control (MPC) has been the

dominant technology for implementing
advanced process control (APC) in petroleum
refining and some petrochemical processes for approximately 20 years1. MPC evolved to satisfy requirements in
this industry segment and is being applied to an increasingly diverse range of processes elsewhere. Often the technology is a natural fit, but can require significant customisation for specific applications. In any case, MPC provides
a standard approach to address important APC design and
implementation issues.
Recent advances have led to the development of a
new generation MPC. The technology uses state-space
models, replacing finite step response models used in traditional MPC. The state-space technology is designed to
address requirements typical in many chemical
processes, making it a more natural fit for the industry.
The technology implements explicit state estimation to
achieve better prediction and especially enables
improved rejection of process disturbances. An infinite
horizon controller formulation makes it feasible to address

issues that were outside the scope of previous

approaches. The development of this new technology is
more fully described elsewhere2.
Early implementations of state-space MPC by
AspenTech have demonstrated its viability and performance in several chemical process units, including different
types of reactor systems. It has also been shown that the
technology can be packaged with an ease of use focus to
enable engineers without specialised control system expertise to implement these controllers. The new technology
provides capabilities that are complementary to those of
existing process controllers, hence adding to the MPC
alternatives available across the broad spectrum of the
process industries.
This article presents a brief case study based on an
initial application of the APC state-space controller
(a module of the aspenONE advanced
process control solution) and illustrates
how process characteristics have
played a key role in guiding the
development of the technology.

Figure 1. State-space MPC is a natural fit in many

chemical processes.

REPRINTED FROM HYDROCARBON ENGINEERING JANUARY 2006

Aspentech Jan06

6/2/06

16:34

Page 40

Figure 2. Extractive distillation process.

Figure 3. Step responses.

MPC basics
From a high level, the major steps in all approaches to
MPC can be summarised with the following questions:

Where is the process now?

Where is it going, if there is no intervention?
Where do we want it to go?
What is the best plan to get it there?

MPC requires a process model that describes the

dynamic relationship between manipulated variables (MVs)
and controlled variables (CVs). Control calculations are
essentially an optimisation to determine the best trajectory
of future MVs that satisfies economic or operational objectives, subject to physical and operating constraints. MVs
are typically valve positions or setpoints to low level regulatory PID (proportional, integral, derivative) controllers.
CVs include process measurements such as temperature,
pressure, flow, level and quality variables directly measured by online analysers or inferred via calculations.
Models usually come from empirical identification based on
step test data. An understanding of the underlying physics
normally supplements empirical results to help validate the
model. Sometimes, a physical model validated from
selected test data is the starting point.
Traditional MPC normally uses finite step response
models, at least for the internal representation. Finite
response models are limited in their ability to faithfully
describe a wide range of dynamics. The inherent approximations become severe when describing a mix of fast
dynamics (e.g. valve positions, flows, pressures) with slow
dynamics (e.g. composition in high purity distillation). Statespace models overcome this issue completely. Dynamic
range is important in chemical processes since recycles

(both material and energy) often introduce long response

times and complex dynamics. Other features leading to
long (several hours or more) responses include high purity
distillation (hundreds of trays), impurities that must be
purged (a very small purge flow relative to total process volume), catalyst deactivation, and slow byproduct reactions.
These are almost always coupled with fast responding (a
few minutes or less) process variables.
Model representation is just a starting point. In particular, a state-space model describing the relationship
between MVs and CVs can be extended to help describe
how unmeasured disturbances affect the process. Early,
accurate disturbance detection is a prerequisite for superior
control. This critical disturbance model extension makes it
possible to build controllers with the potential to reject disturbances faster and more reliably than with traditional
MPC. In terms of the basic MPC questions, an extended
model provides the means to help determine the current
process state and its future trajectory.
The third MPC question, where do we want it to go?,
must be answered by describing operational and economic
objectives along with physical or other constraints to be satisfied. At a high level, this is an optimisation problem normally based on the controller internal model. External optimisation, for example based on a rigorous online model
consistent with the internal controller model, is also an
option.
The fourth question, what is the best plan to get
there?, is answered by solving yet another optimisation
problem, this time based on the infinite dynamic model and
controller objectives. A major technical breakthrough with
state-space MPC is the ability to calculate an infinite horizon move plan that determines the true optimal MV action
plan. This is made possible by a combination of control theory and numerical techniques.
The four MPC questions are answered at each controller cycle, taking into account process measurements
since the last execution. Typical execution intervals range
from fractions of a minute to several minutes, depending on
the underlying process dynamics. Numerical optimisation
that exploits structure in this type of problem makes real
time solution practical.

Process example
Extractive distillation illustrates the kind of process than can
benefit from the new technology. Multiple recycle streams
with both fast and slow dynamic responses makes it especially suitable for infinite state-space models. Economic
benefits come from maintaining stringent product qualities,
while maximising production rate and minimising energy.
Process disturbances tend to propagate due to material
and energy recycles. A control system that detects disturbance effects quickly and takes optimal corrective action
provides the foundation for realising economic benefits.
The process is highly interactive. Failure to account for
important interactive dynamics can actually cause a control
system to amplify disturbances, leading to plant operation
that is far from optimal.
Essential process features are illustrated in Figure 2.
Feed is a mixture of two close boiling components, denoted
by the red/green stream. Solvent (blue stream) vaporises
feed and separation takes place in the columns. Feed is
separated into individual, high purity products. Solvent is
recovered and recirculated. Recycle streams return material and energy to various points in the process, leading to
complex dynamics. Disturbances in recycles tend to upset
the entire unit, unless properly controlled. Long response
times (for compositions) are observed since there are

REPRINTED FROM HYDROCARBON ENGINEERING JANUARY 2006

Aspentech Jan06

6/2/06

16:34

Page 41

hundreds of total trays. Short response times also exist

because of the solvent loop as well as various heat
exchangers, pressure effects and local level control loops
(these details are omitted from the diagram).
Step responses representative of this type of process
are shown in Figure 3, with a response time of four hours.
Some responses are fast, such as the CV1 response to a
step input for MV3 with important dynamics during the first
15 min. Others, such as the response of CV3 to MV2 take
approximately one hour to start and do not quite reach
steady state in four hours.
Another characteristic is the oscillatory tendency in several responses, frequently caused by recycle effects. The
response of CV2 to MV3 is an example that also illustrates
how there can be a significant dynamic response without
any net final effect. Process recycles and feedback due to
lower level PID controllers can cause a zero gain
response like this one. Similar responses (CV1 to MV3)
have small non zero gains. The overall effect is that this is
a very difficult type of process to control.
The control strategy must honour an overall material
balance and ensure that products meet specification. This
requires a delicate balance between solvent rates and
product withdrawal, as well as the various internal flows
and energy exchange required to maintain internal stability
and material balances. MPC provides the framework to
achieve this basic operational objective. It can also implement optimisation by maximising production rate and minimising energy. These additional economic objectives are
demanding because optimal operation is normally at constraints (e.g. column pressure drop, heating or cooling limits or flow limits as indicated by wide open valves). Control
near multiple interacting constraints is challenging. This is
where the capability of MPC becomes essential. For this
example the added dynamic response time range is well
accommodated using the state-space model formulation.
Measurements of process variables that are not explicitly controlled are almost always available and can provide
valuable information about the process state. This is especially true for tightly integrated processes. Although interactions cause control challenges, they can be exploited
with state estimation. Temperatures, pressure drop, internal
flows and levels are the types of measurements that provide supplemental information about the internal state of
the process. These are not independent inputs, nor are
they necessarily controlled to targets or within constraints.
They serve as a type of feedforward signal that can be
used with the process model to estimate the dynamic state
of the process. This helps to answer the first two basic MPC
questions. In control systems terminology, the estimate of
future CV behaviour is obtained using a so called Kalman
filter. This is markedly superior to the bias update approach
used by traditional MPC, which, by its formulation, does not
natively provide for use of extra dependent measurements.
The extended process model (i.e. disturbance model) is the
foundation for the Kalman filter.

Controller performance
The actual application that formed the basis for this case
study has approximately 10 MVs and 25 CVs. There were
also five measured (traditional feedforward) disturbance
variables and approximately 25 additional measured
dependent variables. These, combined with basic MVs and
CVs, are included in the extended model to detect unmeasured disturbances. The complete real world application
has too much detail to explain in this article. Instead, a simulation based on a simpler process fragment with similar
characteristics will provide an illustration of how controller

Figure 4. Simulation process example.

Figure 5. Disturbance rejection comparison.

structure, state estimation in particular, can impact controller performance.

Figure 4 is a block diagram of a distillation column. The
objective is to control the composition (A) using reboiler
heat input (F). The dynamic response between the reboiler
and composition includes a significant time delay. An intermediate column temperature (T) is available but does not
have a specific control objective.
Disturbances can enter the process in various ways.
Potential candidates include:

Heating medium temperature or steam quality.

Fuel heating value (for a fired reboiler).

Upstream pressure (assuming valve position is directly
manipulated).

Valve malfunction (sticky valve).
The control system must reject these and other disturbance effects quickly and reliably.
Figure 5 illustrates disturbance rejection performance
with three MPC structures corresponding to the numbered
response curves.

Case 1: Traditional MPC bias update is used for the disturbance model. There is no state estimation.

Case 2: State estimation with a disturbance model that
looks for disturbances entering at the reboiler, but without an early warning variable.

REPRINTED FROM HYDROCARBON ENGINEERING JANUARY 2006

Aspentech Jan06

6/2/06

16:34

Page 42

Case 3: State estimation as in Case 2, with additional

use of the intermediate temperature as an early warning mechanism.
The plant model is identical for all cases, with the provision that Case 1 does not (due to its natural formulation)
include the extended disturbance model. Controller tuning
is also identical. Different responses are a result of the
state estimation structure only.
An unmeasured (reboiler) disturbance enters at time
zero. Disturbance rejection with traditional MPC is sluggish
due to the time delay between the disturbance event and
observing it via the composition deviation. Additionally, the
(implied) disturbance model that expects disturbances to
enter directly into the CV measurement does not match the
underlying physics.
The benefit of an explicit disturbance model and state
estimation is apparent in Case 2. There is still a time delay,
but quick effective action is taken once the CV measurement deviates from its setpoint. Note that MV action is necessarily more aggressive to counteract the disturbance.
The third case shows what happens when the intermediate temperature is included. Temperature is not controlled, but provides the early warning to enhance state
estimation, resulting in even more effective disturbance
rejection. Due to the quick action, MV movement does not
have to be aggressive as in the second case.
State estimation with the intermediate temperature is
somewhat like cascade control in classical APC, with similar early warning benefits. The Kalman filter state estimation approach, however, handles the general multivariable
case including the ability to use many intermediate variables (the slave loop in traditional cascade control).

Traditional cascade control also requires that the slave loop

response be much faster than the master loop (composition
in this case). The state-space MPC approach eliminates
this restriction.

Conclusion
The wide range of process characteristics in the chemical
industry translates into numerous control system challenges. It is not economically feasible to design and implement custom control solutions from scratch for each type of
process. MPC products address the issue, in part, by providing a mechanism for tailoring specific solutions without
starting from scratch. The availability of the new statespace controller technology now makes it possible to
address a wider range of applications, such as the case
study presented here, with minimal customisation.
Moreover, this can be achieved while offering significant
performance enhancements compared with earlier generation technology. Reduced customisation also offers the
considerable additional benefit of long term maintainability.
Using a standard framework makes it possible to amortise
training across multiple applications and eases maintenance costs as engineers are reassigned within an
organisation.

References
1.

2.

QIN, S.J., and BADGWELL, T. A.l, A Survey of Industrial Model

Predictive Control Technology, Control Engineering Practice, 11/7,
733 - 764, (2003).
FROISY, J. B., Model Predictive Control - Building a Bridge Between
Theory and Practice, Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Chemical Process Control, Lake Louise, Alberta
Canada, January 2006.__________________________________

REPRINTED FROM HYDROCARBON ENGINEERING JANUARY 2006