EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT: ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

group: Measurement and Control
CLASSICAL AND ADVANCED CONTROL IN
DISTRIBUTED CONTROL SYSTEMS:
THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE
by J. van den Dool
Report of the Internship
Performed for Honeywell Amsterdam,
Division Industrial Automation
from September upto October 1993
Honeywell Coordinator: J.C.J. van de Wiel
University Coordinator: prof. A.C. Backx
Date: May 3, 1994
The Department Electrical Engineering of the Eindhoven University
does not accept any responsibility for the contents of internship and
graduation reports
Summary
Historically, control research is being performed along two different lines: Servo
Control and Process Control. Nowadays Servo Control covers academic research,
Process Control covers the development and improvement of Distributed Control
Systems. Todays Process Industries are forced to improve their production methods. A
powerful method to their disposal is to improve the control algorithms in DCSs
covering primary, supervisory and optimization control. Here, Control Theory can
help. The past of both fields is described. The outlines of an ideal control system with
split architecture are sketched. Throughout the report this "model" is looked upon as
the ideal structure for mc 3000 (Honeywell's DCS). After a detailed description of
IDC 3000, it is proven that Model Based Control can be implemented. Bottlenecks in
developing IDe 3000 towards the ideal structure have a software character. Future
research will be directed on theory side to the solution of the Fundamental Control
Problem (a formulation for any control problem developed by Shell) and on DCS
side to the software of the higher levels and the automation of (parts of) the control
system design in which Artificial Intelligence is going to playa crucial role. Research
schools can contribute to "system engineering" education and high risk but potential
large pay-off research.
3
Contents
1 Introduction 7
2 History: Servo Control versus Process Control 8
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Developments in Control Theory
2.2 Developments in Process Control
3 General description of a Distributed Control System 13
3.1 What's in a name?
3.2 The up-to-date Hierarchical Process Control Concept
3.2.0 Introduction
3.2.1 The Hierarchical Process Control Structure
4 The TDC 3000 system of Honeywell 19
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Global description of IDC 3000
4.2 Currency of IDC 3000: Points
4.3 Controller functions within IDC 3000
4.3.1 SISO control within the Advanced Process Manager
4.3.2 Sequential Process Control within the Advanced Process Manager
4.3.3 Controller functions performed by the Application Module
4.3.3.1 Horizon Multivariable Predictive Control
4.3.3.2 Real Time Statistical Process Quality Control
4.3.3.3 Model Based Control versus Statistical Process Quality Control
4.4 What levels in the hierarchy are being filled in recent projects ?
5 Implementation of a Model Based Controller on TDC 3000 35
5.0 Introduction
5.1 The Internal Model based Control form
5.2 Internal Model based Control for a Distillation Column
5.3 Implementation on IDC 3000
5.3.1 Requirements
5.3.2 Results
5.3.3 Conclusions
6 Software and Hardware 45
6.1 Developments in Software and Hardware
6.1.1 Performance
6.1.2 Programming Languages
6.2 Hardware and Software requirements for the Hierarchical Control
System
7 Recent and future topics in Research 49
7.1 The Fundamental Control Problem
7.2 Areas of Research for the solution of the Fundamental Control Prob-
lem
7.3 The Fundamental Control Problem versus the Hierarchical Control
Structure
7.4 Areas of Research for the Hierarchical Control Structure
7.5 The role of Academia in Control Research
8
9
Process Automation Projects
Conclusions
References
6
55
57
58
1 Introduction
Historically, developments in "control" have taken place in two fields: Servo Control
and Process Control. Servo Control evolved from the control of ships' rudders to the
field of academic control theory nowadays. Process Control has evolved in the
chemical and physical process industries and has resulted in the development of
Distributed Control Systems of which IDC 3000 is an example.
Todays industries are confronted with a very dynamic and hardly predictable
marketplace which has to be serviced using the available plants and control systems:
redesign is too expensive. In most process control systems safety and operability
demands are met and now production must be improved using academic control
theories or the ''wisdom'' of the other field. This asks for a study of a recent Process
Control System (the IDC 3000 system of Honeywell) as to what extent classical and
advanced control concepts are, and could be implemented nowadays, and what the
requirements are, to be ready for future developments.
In chapter 2 the developments in both fields are described. Chapter 3 gives the
outlines of a model of an ideal control system, prepared for the future. Throughout
the report, this model will be treated as the ideal form of IDC 3000. In chapter 5 the
implementation on IDC 3000 of a compact Model Based Controller is treated and in
chapter 6 software and hardware requirements for the ideal Control System will be
described after a description of the availabilities. Chapter 7 contains a reflection on
the fundamentals of every control problem and its relation to the ideal control
system. It can be seen as the presentation of the themes around which the discussion
between the mentioned fields will continue. For both fields topics of recent and
future research will be described. In chapter 8 problems and solutions are described
for recent Process Automation Projects.
2 History: Servo Control versus Process Control
2.0 Introduction
Control systems have been developed along two different lines: servo mechanisms and
process control. Both fields started research at the same time and evolved separately
ever since. Now the two fields turn out to be: Academic Control and Process Control
or "theory" and "practice". The distance is felt as a gap because there is so little
communication between people that deal with the same processes nowadays.
Servo Control systems [3] are required when the force needed to move the
control mechanism is too large for the human operator (ships' rudders, aircraft
control surfaces). The function of the control system is to follow the position set by
the operator suppressing disturbances which in general are low. The response must be
fast (seconds at most). Servo systems traditionally operate in a large dynamic range.
In general they are built in large numbers for one particular application.
Process control systems [3] are applied in the chemical and physical process
industries. Applications of the systems are often unique. Their function is to maintain
the variable under control at a preset level in response to changes that occur in the
process or are attributable to external causes. Process control systems generally
operate in a limited dynamic range. The response of the plant will take at least
seconds, minutes commonly.
The persistence of the gap can be explained by the origin of the different
control engineers.
The inventors of servo mechanisms were -at that time- mechanical engineers
(later on a new species splitted off: electrical engineers). As said before the disturb-
ances to these mechanisms were minimal. Smarter control strategies were developed
but there were always the assumptions of minimal disturbances and the application on
linear processes (aero space: avionica).
The process control engineers originated from chemistry. Their main activity
was and is inventing new products and designing the necessary production processes.
Their top priorities being safety and continuous operation, they need(ed) reliable and
robust controllers and not the ones that were optimal in a small range.
Application of Model Based Control forces both parties to cooperate. In the
modem process control system both first principle models (rigourous, white) stem-
ming from process engineers and black box models from people that apply of
academic control are required.
Now the developments in both fiels will be described.
8
2.1 Developments in control theory [3]
Classical Control was developed before and during the Second World War. It
concerns PID controllers. The design for Single Input Single Output systems is based
on frequency domain descriptions. It is broadly applicated in industry (80%/90% of
all low level control loops). A general model suffices for tuning. Roughly tuned
controllers are robust to changes in the dynamics of the process.
Development of Modem or Multi Input Multi Outout control started the late 50s. In
industry MIMO control is called advanced control. Three of the most popular
techniques are [9]:
Pole Placement Control: As a control-system-design tool abandoned because
there is little insight in where to place poles.
Decoupling: Earliest method for MIMO control. First suggested in 1949 ([9D],
page 309). Decoupling converts the multivariable problem into independent
SISO problems. The general philosophy now is to remove all 'interactions'
whenever the performance is not deteriorated.
Linear Quadratic Optimal Control: Suggested in late 50s by Kalman. Based on
the State Space Description of the processes to be controlled. Through the
assumption that signals are stationary, controllers can be designed that mini-
mize quadratic criteria. Signals that depend linearly on the states of the system
are fed back within the controller. When the states cannot be observed
physically, optimal (Kalman) filters can be used to derive the states from
inputs and outputs to the process.
During the early 70s nothing was left of the enthusiasm of the 60s about
the optimal control theory. In the LQ Optimal Control scheme disturbances
are assumed to have infinite bandwidth (white noise) and to afflict the output
only. LQC tries to control the process over infinite bandwidth. This requires an
exact model of the process dynamics! To cope with model uncertainty (by
phase and amplitude variations) feedback is used explicitly in classical control.
But the problem of model uncertainty is not dealt with by state space methods
which made them inadequate for practice.
During the 80s research was looking for a mathematical tractable relation between a
model uncertainty description and a measure of performance. This led to:
Robust Control (H_inf and H
2
) minimizes the weighted sensitivity operator (transfer
of output disturbance to the process outputs). The expected uncertainty is modeled in
the frequency domain and the control system is designed to minimize the worst
performance. Performance is specified by a bound on the sensitivity operator. H
2
minimizes the 2-norm or average value of the weighted sensitivity operator and
H_inf minimizes the inf-norm or maximum value. The biggest problem is how to use
Robust Control in practice. The weights determine how degrees of freedom will be
used to match desired process response criteria. There is no systematic procedure to
obtain the uncertainty description and the selection of weights is not obvious. For H
2
the weights can be obtained from well defined experiments. Case studies and experi-
ments help here to gain insight.
9
Adaptive controllers essentially are linear controllers that periodically tune the
parameters to improve robustness. This requires a second feedback loop in which
information is gathered about the changing dynamic behaviour of the process.
Examples are Self Tuning Control and Model Reference Adaptive Control. Major
drawbacks are: minimum phase behaviour of process required, large sensitivity to
noise, the parameters must be updated significantly slower than the slowest relevant
process dynamics and expressing the stability of the system requires complex mathe-
matics.
Continued research on optimal control led to the Model Based Control concept in the
60s. To improve the control of a process, the controller needs to 'know' the process
e.g. contain detailed knowledge about its dynamics including the process equipment.
This requires an off-line identification procedure that delivers a model. MBC enables
manipulation of system dynamics up to physical constraints, compensation for non-
desired system properties, decoupling, smooth setpoint tracking and disturbance
rejection. The dynamics of some processes are so complex that MBC is the only way
to control them.
When the model of a process has been obtained, still nothing has been said
about the controller structure. The design of a specific controller uses the extensive
degrees of freedom for manipulation of process dynamics in a particular way. The
control design depends on the desired process response. The translation of criteria for
process response (rise time, overshoot, response time, ..) into useful control design
criteria is the biggest problem in this field. When using Robust Control for the design
of the controller, this problem is incorporated by the selection of proper weighting
functions.
Identifying a process within prescribed bounds is very expensive. Certainly not
all processes apply for this treatment. Within the MBC class we distinguish Linear
Unconstrained Control (for example Internal Model based Control in which a
parametric State Space model resides) and Linear Model Predictive Control
(Dynamic Matrix Control and Model Algorithmic Control which use non-parametric
process description). In the second concept constraints are dealt with explicitly. The
methods use different process model representations.
Intelligent controllers cope with process non-linearities and complex information. Three
subclasses exist:
Fuzzy control: Uses "fuzzy sets" and "fuzzy" rational equations. Fuzzy set theory
allows to partially belong to a set. The membership of a set is expressed by a
number between 0 and 1. This facilitates the implementation of constructions
like "for many ..." or "the rudder doesn't function correctly."
Expert systems: Expert systems are used to connect long rows of "if...then..
else..." rules (forward chaining). Through internal feedback the system can
learn and achieve a higher speed by testing off-line what if-conditions were
executed (backward chaining). Expert systems are dedicated controllers that
are based primarily on human knowledge and experience.
Neural Networks: Based on the principles of switching in our own neurons,
many small processors are connected in parallel and in feedback. The outputs
are functions of weighed sums of inputs. The weights can be adapted by learn
processes.
10
2.2 Developments in process control
Before reading the history of process control one should realize that the ranking of
priorities of process industry significantly differ from advanced-control theory
developers:
1. Safety
2. Keeping the plant in operation: shut downs are very precious because produc-
tion stops and the plant must be cleaned before restart
3. Optimizing quality and efficiency
During [3] the first thirty years of this century the operator used simple measurement
devices (pressure and temperature gauges) to determine the adjustment of the
positions of the valves and meet the desired values. The plants were small and
operation always in steady state. Control mechanisms were mechanical.
The development of pneumatic transmission of measurement signals made it
possible to collect all indicators, recorders and other equipment into one central
location in the late 30s and 40s. The regulator mechanisms had been developed into
pneumatic servo mechanisms that were located in the control room as well.
During and after the Second World War process plants grew larger and
because only S1S0 controllers under direct supervision of the operators were used,
control consoles grew proportionally. Now the disadvantages of centralization became
clear: (i) the quantity of information offered in the control room became too great for
human comprehension and (ii) the increasing distance between controller and points
of measurement and regulation introduced a significant delay into the control loops.
From the 60s the second problem could be solved by the development of
electronic analog signal transmission. This development had long been delayed in
many industries by the danger of electrical energy in explosable atmospheres. So far
the development of control system design had been based on the universal S1S0
controller rather than on the customer's wishes and although the theory behind
feedforward, interactive, cascade or ratio control existed, the implementation was
delayed because this required hardwired or piped interconnections between the
individual controllers and the design of the control panel could only be altered when
the plant was shut down. Replacement of pneumatic by electronic control of pro-
cesses is still ongoing.
The appearance of digital computers (Direct Digital Control) in the 60s didn't
solve any of the problems. The computers were large, expensive and not reliable.
Application of a central computer was only justified if it replaced 100 S1S0 control-
lers and at the same time this centralization in a medium which was not reliable
created a dangerous situation. This forced the computers to play a supervisory role at
first (setpoint optimization).
The development of the microprocessor and the integrated circuits made it
possible to distribute intelligence over a control system. During the first half of the
70s Distributed Control Systems were developed. Through the User Station the
operator can have access to all control loops to facilitate coordination and steering.
During the second half of the 70s it became possible and economic to use micropro-
cessors in control systems. This led to increased computational power and higher
11
robustness.
The advantages of using computers within a distributed architecture:
The distributed architecture overcomes the "all or nothing" problem of control
system availability
A reconfiguration of the interconnections between SISO controllers is possible
while the plant is operating
Through the data processing capability of computers it is possible to display
large amounts of data in a way that the operator can make use of it
It reduces the amount of cabling required since digital signals can be multi-
plexed and the analogidigital interface can be located near the points of
regulation and measurement.
With each new version of DCS software information about the process is added. Its
representation to the operator asked for more graphic capabilities in the 80s. As an
example, SPQC is treated here.
During the second half of the 80s Statistical Process Quality Control [10] was
introduced. SPQC uses statistical methods to improve process productitivity and
product quality.
In rebuilding their (parts-)manufacturing industries after WW II, the Japanese
put an extreme priority on quality which led to the Japanese miracle. Because of its
direct relation with "Quality Management", SPQC receives a lot of attention from the
management of process industries. However it is not that natural to apply SPQC in
process industries. Inspired by its parts-manufacturing background, SPQC starts with
the assumption that the process will remain on target unless an unexpected event
occurs. A situation is "in statistical control" whenever the measurements are indepen-
dently and normally distributed about the target with constant variance.
Engineering process control assumes that the process under study is always
being disturbed by disturbances whose sources may be known but cannot be elimin-
ated and that the best one can expect for being "in a state of statistical control" is that
the quality measurement behaves as a stationary process centered about the target
with as small a variance as possible.
The great value of SPQC lies in the fact that operators can work with it in a
very easy and pleasant way. It provides a means of listening to the process and the
control system to eliminate causes of problems. The introduction of gateways
in the 80s linked ncss with PLCs, analyzers and other computers. This development
meant further integration of the control system.
In the 90s the control system is being further integrated; the system gets deeper and
wider which facilitates management to pop up whatever information they want (more
or less detailed, recent or old, far away and close) and direct their orders world-wide.
"Open Use" and "Object Oriented" are key words of the 90s.
12
3 General description of a Distributed Control System
3.1 What's in a name?
The word "distributed" [3] in Distributed Control Systems reflects on systems which
depend on distributed signal processing of plant measurement and control signals. In
this type of signal processing, measurement data are converted to their digital form,
stored in a memory and multiplexed for serial telemetry over the data link. Nowadays
a lot of people use the word "distributed" to denote that intelligence is distributed
over different levels within one control system: primary, supervisory and optimization
control.
For the data link there are three configurations: star, ring and multidrop (see
figure 3.1). The configuration depends on the nature of the data transfers required by
the system architecture. The advantage of the ring configuration is that it tolerates
one break.
To overcome the problem of distortion of digital signals and failure of I/O
equipment (AD interface and multiplexing) duplication or even triplication (nuclear
plants) of these elements is required. Received and decoded signals are compared to
identify distortion.
From now on Distributed Control Systems will denote control systems that
monitor and control a process in real time. It provides a user interface to the process
and supplies real time control actions to the actuators.
3.2 The up-to-date hierarchical process control concept
3.2.0 Introduction
Originally DCSs were developed to keep processes in operation (second priority of
process industry, chapter 2.2), safety being guaranteed by "robust" mechanical process
design and an independent, hardwired safeguarding system. Nowadays one is inte-
rested in matching the third priority: optimization.
Todays industries are confronted with a full customer [4] market. This means
that they have to deal with a very dynamic and hardly predictable marketplace, in
other words produce relatively small quantities with low margins and in spite of this
remain competitive and profitable. Count to this the high social attention for
environmental problems we arrive at the situation that industries need reliable
methods, techniques and tools to operate processes at maximum efficiency, with total
quality control and maximum flexibility.
Most industries cannot afford to redesign their plants. The mentioned goals
must be achieved using existing plants and control system hardware.
Translated into control terminology industries need fully integrated optimal
control of all interacting unit processes such that decisions taken at management level
13
(entered in management terminology) are executed by the control system in the most
economic way.
Because process operation has to be close to the process constraints the
control system has a hierarchical structure. Now, the up-to-date concept will be
described [4].
3.2.1 The hierarchical process control structure
In the hierarchical concept, control in the broadest contents is executed at different
levels, with different priorities, at different sample frequencies. 9 Levels can be
discerned [1], [4]:
14
Minicomput4'lr
Local op,nator
intcrrfacQ and
store
Star links
Plant
microcomputer
Plant
microcomputQr
Plant
microcomputer
tal
Minicomputer
Local operator
interface and
store
Plant
microcomputcpr
Plant
microcomputer
Plant

(b)
Plant
(data
oIcqUJsltion)
microcomputer
Plant
(data
.acqIJisition)
mlcrocomputClr
Plant
( data
acquIsition)
microcomputer
Figure 3.1 Data link configuration [3J
(a) star (b) ring (c) multidrop
15
level 0 :
level 1 :
level 2 :
level 3 :
level 4 :
level 5 :
level 6 :
level 7 :
level 8 :
field instrumentation and AID interfaces
manual emergency system
Safe Guarding System
interlocking
primary process control
T < = 1 second
unit process control
: second < = T < = 1 minute
constraint handling and unit process optimization
1 minute < =T < = 1 hour
dynamic plant performance optimization
1 hour < = T < = 1 day
production optimization
T > = 1 day
From level 4 upto and including level 8 sample times are derived by multiplying the
sample time of the lower level typically 10 times. Average sample times are given.
For some processes, unit process control has a sample time of 1 hour.
In figure 3.2 the 5 last levels are given together with their interconnections.
Oyru.m: PIlM
pwiorn'llroc:4
opciMnOOf'l
Primary
c:ontrol
Figwe 3.2
ProdJcaon Khedulinc and rnodoII bued dyn,,,,,c PI"t pwionnaflca
opOnwuaon
Hierarchical process control [4]
The field instrumentation and AID inteifaces level covers the sensors and actuators
(valves) that are connected to the field and the AID and DIA converters that
interface the process and the control system.
The manual emergency system is a system that can be started by pushing "the red
button" and brings the process to a safe shut-down state. It is hard wired and fully
separated from the control system.
The safe guarding system is a system that accomodates the so called safe guarding
logic and automatically leads the process to a safe state when certain conditions are
not met. Safe guarding systems are fail-safe micro computer based.
16
Interlocking is the lowest level of the control system. To prevent the process of getting
into an abnormal situation, it checks and, if necessary, corrects all I/O signals.
The primary process control level covers the control of primary process inputs (e.g.
pressure, flow, speed, ..). In this level manual, feedforward and feedback control takes
place which is mainly executed by SISO PID control systems. Dependent on the appli-
cation the tuning can be fIxed or automatic. The primary control in general results in
smoothly responding linear or weakly non lineal process inputs (figure 3.3). At this
level the operator is able to dictate setpoints to the PID controllers ("automatic"
control) or to enter the controller outputs directly ("manual" control).
5P --Jl,.,)PIDL...-
1
......
_ 4 ~ ~ I
PV
Figure 3.3 Example of primary process control
When in normal operation, the setpoint inputs of the SISO PIDs are the manipulated
variables for the next level: unit process control. This mode is called supervision.
First a general definition: the process outputs are the variables to be controlled
(Controlled Variables) and the inputs for the controller. Another name is Process
Variables. The manipulated variables (MV) are the inputs to the process being the
outputs of the controller.
The unit process control level covers the control of MIMO processes, in industry called
"advanced" control. A unit process is a part of the plant consisting of several inputs
(setpoints to the primary process control) that can be manipulated within a defined
range, a set of disturbances that cannot be manipulated and a set of process outputs
that have to be controlled according to given specifications. The manipulated and
controlled variables have strong dynamic interactions which makes model based
control the best way to control the MIMO process units.
As by the first level the transfers between manipulated and controlled
variables were made smoothly nonlinear and operation often takes place in specifIc
points or ranges, the dynamic behaviour of the process unit can be approximated by a
set of linear models.
The inputs of the unit process can be manipulated within bounds. To prevent
the signals of overshooting the bounds, a constraint handler is introduced. Constraints
are variables or functions of variables to be kept within bounds. We distinguish two
types: hard constraints do not allow violations, soft constraints temporarily do for the
satisfaction of other criteria. The constraint handler uses a process model to simulate
process responses over some horizon and to detect whether constraints at inputs,
outputs or states are violated. The constraint handler will adjust signals if necessary. It
17
interfaces the unit process control level and the unit process optimization level.
The unit process optimization level guarantees optimal operation of the supervised
unit processes. This can also be denoted by "coordinated" control that can decide to
shift the process from one point of operation to the other. In this level the overall
dynamic performance optimization for the whole plant is combined with the operation
of the unit processes up to hard constraints. Unit processes usually have more
manipulated variables than controlled variables. The corresponding degrees of
freedom can be used for further unit process optimization. Options for using these
degrees of freedom:
introduction of additional (soft) constraints
minimization of additional criteria (mostly related to operation economics)
operation of input variables at preferred variables (ideal resting values)
The soft constraint values and ideal resting values depend upon instantaneous
operating conditions and have to be determined from plant wide optimization.
The dynamic plant performance optimization level covers the optimization of the
overall plant. This includes the determination of production schedules with the
corresponding unit process operation conditions. These conditions include the setpoint
values for the unit process control level, the soft constraints that are sent to the
constraint handler and the ideal resting values in the unit process optimization level
and additional criteria for the unit process control systems.
The production schedules determine when, what product, in what unit process
will be made. Production schedules are based upon characteristics of the production
facilities and production planning information.
To determine the corresponding operating conditions of the process units,
linear programming techniques based on steady state plant simulation are used
nowadays. As stated before industries are confronted with a dynamic marketplace that
orders relatively small quantities of specific (narrow banded) quality. Production must
be possible for different input-product-qualities (crudes for crude distiller). Different
qualities of input product mean different steady states which are not always reached
due to changes in inputs and small amounts of ordered quantities. This is why the
operating conditions based on steady state plant simulation will not be optimal. A
better optimization technique will be to use rigorous (white box) dynamic model
based simulators for the unit processes that significantly contribute to the overall
plant performance.
The production optimization level covers overall optimization of production. Optimal
production planning is determined considering the products requested, required
maintenance etc. A target planning is obtained which is used to determine the
production schedules. This activity is nowadays also denoted by Computer Integrated
Manufacturing.
18
4 The TDC 3000 system of Honeywell
4.0 Introduction
The IDC 3000 system [6] is a Distributed Control System with a multidrop data link
configuration [3]. TDC replaces Total Distributed Control which stresses the split
architecture of the controller functions. In figure 4.1 the IDC 3000 architecture is
given.
A global description of TDC 3000 follows, TDC 3000 will be projected on the
general hierarchical control structure given in figure 3.2 and control functionality will
be treated.
4.1 Global description of mc 3000
Within the TDC 3000 system (figure 4.1) four levels can be discerned: the process
control networks level covers the primary process control and unit process control level
(figure 3.2), the process supervisory level covers the unit process optimization level, the
production level covers the dynamic plant performance optimization level and the plant
management level covers the production optimization level.
There are two types of process control networks: The Data Hiway which is an
"old" system and will not be described here and the Universal Control Network which
was introduced in 1988.
The Universal Control Network is a 5 Mbit/sec token ring network compatible
with IEEE and ISO standards. This description of TDC 3000 focusses on the UCN
and not on the Data Hiway because it is the most advanced control subsystem within
IDC 3000 and is applicated in most of todays process automation projects. The UCN
has three types of nodes: the Process Manager, the Advanced Process Manager and
the Logic Manager. Both types of PM's do data acquisition and have modulating of
sequential control as well as interlocking capabilities. The advanced type has larger
memory capacity (table 5.1). The primary function of the LM is to provide rapid
execution of logic-type operations. It is composed of PLC's and an interface to the
UCN.
The Local Control Network 5 Mbit/sec serial coax token ring. Its maximum
length is 300 m and 32 redundant devices can be connected. When a device possesses
the circulating token it is allowed to broadcast its information to all nodes on the
UCN network.
The nodes at the upper side of the LCN perform the operator interface, save
the history and process supervision task. Via the Universal Station one can supervise
any part of the system that is lower in hierarchy including the nodes on the LCN. The
History Module is a hard disk that contains the software of the system, the graphic
objects and the collected history. The Application Module can be used in combination
with UCN nodes A)PM, LM) to extend the control capabilities.
To make the transition between transmission techniques and communication
19
protocols, interfaces are required to connect the different networks. The Hiway
Gateway connects the Data Hiway to the LCN, the Network Interface Module
connects the UCN to the LeN and the Programmable Logic Controller Gateway
connects the Safe Guarding System to the LCN. Several LCN's can be connected by a
Network Gateway.
The Local Area Network stretches out plant-wide. Its interfaces to the LCN are
the PLant Network Modules. Its nodes execute the management information task.
VAX. computers perform the dynamic plant performance optimization and by means
of other host computers (including a simple Personal Computer) the production
manager can optimize the overall plant production (Computer Integrated Manufactur-
ing).
4.2 Currency of TDC 3000: Points
The IDC 3000 operator console contains several User Stations (up to 10) with shared
peripherals. From the console three
20
Honeywell
'"
\
.,11
1
1
1
tl

MAGNEW
3000
,ii '
i
ST 3000
,
l:]). ,'.I,jil
)j.j .
11 ..
" --:....
sn 3000
rl
N
__-:_,_, . __... "._. ". _ .......,.- ... _._ _ . _.-. ._.,_ "- .. _. _ . _ .--0- --.----..- ..... --- " .. _.- ._ ... _. __ ... __. ......,.
AM ,', = ApplicationModule , EOS '" Enhanced Operator Station lCNE' , '" Local'Coriit' PG ,'"
AMC,':: '" Advanced Multifunction Controller' '" General Purpose Computer Interface, ll.MUX': '" Low,Lev ' ' PLC,'; = Proghu'r:i'
BC",:"'" Basic Controller HeM,;'", H1wax. qquplipg Module,,' I.M30i(:';",
BOS,; ',;= Basic Operator Station ,,"'HG : ",Hiy..ay Gateway 'MC', '<"'" Multif ST3000,,:';";Sma '
'" Compressoi"Control Corporation "HM , "'Hi$tory Module NNG
1M
' ':_- NN, ;'{,
CG Computer Gateway HIM" == Hlway Interface Module \., , STDCM:>;"'sm!itt.t
ClM, ':' '" Communication Link Module.; HTG. ",' Hydrostatic Tank Gauging PC ' ;" Personfil' ,,-:'- ;'.
CM50N' "', 50 N LAN '" Local Are,a Network PCIM '" Personal Computer Interface Module' STT3000';'
DH 'is'''' Dam Hlway '" lCS620 '" Honeywell PLC PCNM '" Personal C\:>mputer Network Module UCN '"
nua n""tO"'l Ulu.....'" D,," I t"a.1 _ I ..."".... 1 1"'".........1 .. 1,.,...........(, _ 0-...... 1 ,,_.. ..I_I 1-"--'---
sections of a process, subdivided in unit processes, can be controlled: area, unit and
point.
An area is a portion of a process controlled by one operator. Example:
polymer area. A unit is a portion of an area represented by a number of points, a set
of alarms and messages. The control responsibility of the operator for the given unit
is limited to this set. Example: reactor unit. A point represents all of the information
about a specific process related item and can be considered as a data record repre-
senting a number of related I/O and parameters. It is the basic element to which
control functions are applied. The main elements of a point are:
Point ID
Parameters
Functions
Point ID is the name of the point (tagname) throughwhich it can be called. In
"Parameters" is declared what inputs and outputs are used and the values of tuning
constants. Example: PID constants. "Functions" defines the operation of the point.
Example: PID. As an example possible points of the (A)PM are listed below.
Analog Input Points:
Digital Input Points:
Analog Output Point:
Digital Output Points:
Digital Composite
Points:
Totalizer Points:
PID Control Points:
Logic Slot Points:
Process Module Data
Points:
Numerics, flags, timers
bring in continuous process data
bring in digital information
typically used to drive control valve
control individual relais
combine related DI and DO into one point (e.g.
on/off values)
accumulates continuous flows over time
closed loop control of process value, contain AI
andAO
interlocking: part of the interface between process
and control system, check whether outputs of the
control system or Process Variables are within
predefined safety bounds.
user written algorithms by means of Control Lan-
guages
Each point is associated with a slot of the memory in the control device A)PM,LM,-
AM).
A SISO control point has two inputs: Process Variable (PV) which is the
actual process output, SetPoint which is the desired value for the PV. It has one
OutPut to the final control element (control valve). A control point has three modes
of operation: manual, automatic and cascade. When just has been switched to
"manual", OP is held at current position and the operator is in direct control of OP.
When in "automatic" the operator controls SP and the controller automatically adjusts
OP to keep PV on SP. In "cascade" OP of one controller (master/primary) is SP input
to the following controller (slave/secondary). When switching from "manual" to
22
"automatic", the process is not allowed to be disturbed by step changes in OP. This
requires bumpless transfer mechanisms (e.g. PV tracking).
Some points are more important to the operator than others. Within APM
three point forms are distinguished. The full point form is to be fully specified. The
component point form only delivers information to the system. The untagged point
form has no name and is referenced by module (= node) number, slot number, and
whether its type is input or output point.
4.3 Controller functions within TDC 3000
In figure 4.2 the distribution of the IDC 3000 nodes over the levels from section 3.2.1
is depicted.
We will focuss on control now rather than on handling abnormal situations and
interlocking. In the following the control possibilities will be treated for the Advanced
Process Manager and Application Module. The LM will not be examined. It's one of
the APM's peers on the DCN. It uses ladder logic to execute programs fast.
23
Control Hierarchy
e.g. PC Production Optimization
Dynamic Plant Performance
Optimization
Unit Process Optinlization and
Constraint Handling
Primary Process Control
(A)PM Unit Process Control
AM
e.g. VAX
TDC 3000
LM Interlocking
PLCG Safe Guarding System
Figure 4.2 Relation between TDC 3000 and the general hierarchical process control
structure
24
4.3.1 SISO control within the Advanced Process Manager
When a point requires standard SISO control within the APM, it is referred to as a
"regulatory control point". An algorithm can be allocated through a special menu. The
possible algorithms are treated below.
The Derivative (PID) controller is a SISO feedback
controller that reduces the error between Process Variable and SetPoint to zero. It
receives PV and SP and outputs the Control Variable in percentages of the maximum
values.
A PID point in the APM can be the master of another datapoint in the same
APM or in another APM on the same DCN.
A PID point in the APM can be the slave of another datapoint on the same DCN or
in the Application Module (constraint handling) or in another computer through the
Computer Gateway.
There are two possible forms: interactive and non-interactive form. In the
interactive form the P and I action are added and multiplicated with a special version
of the D action. In the noninteractive form all actions are added (also "digital
computer version"). The latter is used to emulate the old pneumatic PID form. The
values of the constants can be easily copied in the interactive form.
Both forms have 4 different equations, introduced by the different values the
P,I and D act on.
D Ion PV-SP
A
B
C
P, I, D act on PV-SP
P,I on PV-SP, D on PVt-PV
t
_
T
I on PV-SP, P,D on PVt-PV
t
_
T
to reduce error to zero as quickly as possible
eliminates spikes in CV when quick changes
in SP
smoothest and slowest response to changes
in SP
In the A,B,C equations the P and I actions are added.
For the Interactive form:
Equation A - P, I, and 0 act on the error
CV
s
= k x (1 + Tl * s * 1 + T2 * s
T1 * s 1 + a * T2 s (PV? s - S? ? s) )
Equation B - P and I act on error, 0 acts on PV
1 + Tl * s
cV
s
= K x (-----'--...;:.
T1 * s
1 + T2 * s
1 + a x T2
pVP
s
-
s
1 + Tl x s
T: s
... sPPsJ
Equation C - I acts on error, P and 0 act on PV
1
CV
s
= K x (
+ Tl x s
Tl * s
i + T2
1 T a
s
1
?V?s - x SPPsJ
Tl x 5
Equation 0 - Integral control, only
* PVPs - SPP
s
)
s
25
For the Noninteractive fonn:
Equation A- P, I, and D act on the error
1 + T1 * 5
CV5 = K '" [( T1 * 5 + 72 * 5) * (?
VP
5 - SPP5) ]
Equation B- P and I act on error, D acts on PV
1 + T1 * 5
CV
5
= K '" [( + 'x2 * 5)
71 '" 5
Equation C- I acts on error, P and 0 act on PV
1 + 71 '" s
71 " s
* SPP
s
) ]
1 + 71 '" s
CVs = K '" [( 71 * 5
Equation 0 - Integral contrOl, only
1
CV
S
= 71 * 5 * (PVP
s
-
+ 72 '" S)
SPP
s
)
1
- '" SPPs]
T1 " 5
cv
=
Output of the PID algorithm, full value in percent
a
=
A constant equal to O.l. l/a is the high-frequency gain or rate
amplitude.
K
=
Gain. See 8.13.1.3.7.
PVP
=
The process variable in percent
s
=
The Laplace operator
spp
=
The setpoint in percent
Tl
=
The time constant in minutes per repeat for interactive
form.
T2
= The derivative time constant in minutes.
26
There are four options for changing the gain (K). In linear gain the (constant) value is
specified by the user. Through gap gain modification K is decreased when the error
reaches a specific (small) value. In nonlinear gain modification K is proportional to
the square of the error. In external gain modification K can depend on an input value
from the process or a user written program.
The PID controller is completed by anti-windup handling (if windup then I
action is stopped) and bumpless transfer mechanisms between "manual, automatical
and cascade".
The PID with FeedForward (PIDFF) controller is identical to the normal PID
controller but now the influence of an extra variable can be put in the output of the
controller. The feedforward signal is added to or multiplicated with the output of a
normal PID controller and accumulated. Before the FF signal is fed-in it must have
been subjected to deadtime compensation or lead-lag compensation.
PID with external reset feedback (PIDERFB) accepts a reset feedback signal
from another datapoint, typically a PV of slave-datapoint that receives SP of PID-
ERFB. This technique prevents a wind-up.
PID Position Proportional Controller (PIDPOSPR) is a normal PID in cascade
with a PosProp controller. The OP of PID is the PV of PosProp which generates raise
and lower pulses.
Ratio Control (RATIOCTL) calculates the SP for a PID that must realize the
desired ratio of controlled and not controlled variable.
Ramp and Soak (RAMPSOAK) is used as a setpoint programmer for a
following PID.
Auto Manual (AUTOMAN) is the slave of a cascade that may add to the OP of
the master-controller a bias value that is provided by the operator.
Incremental Summer (INCRSUM) is the incremental sum of the weighed
changes in at most 4 variables.
Switch (SWITCH) chooses between the outputs of at most 4 controllers.
The Override Selector (ORSEL) passes the input (1 out of at most 4) through
with the highest or lowest value. Through this it is possible to measure and control a
specific process variable and have another variable selected to constrain the con-
trolled variable under a specific condition.
4.3.2 Sequential Process Control within the Advanced Process Manager
The point within the APM that executes a Sequential Process Control program is the
Process Module Data Point. These points allow to implement MIMO or unit process
control within the APM (see chapter 5). The language by which the Sequential
Process Control is implemented is Control Language/APM. Control Language
employs a variety of general and process oriented statements with improves both
security and throughput. The maximum number of statements is roughly 3*(1500Q-n)
with n = number of memory units used by datapoints. The programs can be loaded
easily from the Universal Station. Through a PMDP sequential programs can be
started, status can be observed and alarms can be sent to the system.
A CLIAPM sequential program is able to read and write values from any node
on the same VCN, to be subjected as a slave to a datapoint in the Application
27
Module, to use local variables, to start another sequential program and to communi-
cate with the operator.
The PMDP's can be partitioned on a process unit base (figure 4.3).
Advanced Process Manager Module
(APMM)
t
::::
I
"
Process ModUle Data POints
~ 6
,
2 3 4 5 ($eQuence Slots)
-
C
)
<
~
Ie
)
<:
- -
<
D
"
~ r
~ 'rI
,
f I /
Unit' Unit2 Unit3 U n t ~ U..,,:5
Process &:iuipment
Figwe 4.3 Sequence Program Partitioning / Unit partitioning
Generally, a sequential program consists of two main sections: a data declaration
section and an execution section. The execution section can be divided as follows:
normal sequence:
phase:
step:
statement:
subroutines:
Main program, conditions normal, subdivided into
different process phases are marked by key points of
synchronization in the control program (charging, heat-up,
etc.)
executes minor process function (opening valve including
checks)
one eLIAPM instruction, elementary action (opening
valve)
Repetitive functions that can be called by main program,
other subroutines and abnormal condition handlers. At
most two levels of nesting. No use possible of subroutine
libraries.
28
abnonnal condition handlers:
Hold:
Shutdown:
Emergency
Shutdown:
Perform corrective action when abnormal
conditions are encountered. Three types:
partial shutdown (lowest priority)
systematic shutdown
complete and sudden shutdown (highest priority)
The normal sequence can be started by an operator at the US, a statement "Initiate"
in another sequence, CL block in AM, user written program in VAX computer
(Computing Module), abnormal condition handlers and by a predefined process
condition detected by the sequence program.
4.3.3 Control performed by the Application Module
The Application Module is one of the modules on the LCN. The AM can communi-
cate with all modules attached to the LCN including other LeNs and the process
control networks (Hiway and UCN). It can provide directly control outputs to
actuators in the field or to datapoints in the surrounding modules (including itself). In
figure 4.4 all functions are given.
: BUILT-IN !
! ALG(JArrHLAS
..
PROCESS DATABASE
I
g
Figure 4.4 Application Module Functions
The AM contains built-in algorithms that perform point processing and control. The
process database contains datapoints. The Internetwork Point Processor provides for
closed loop control across the Network Gateway (connection to other LCN). As in
the APM, points can be defined in the AM that execute CLIAM programs. Programs
can be coded at the US or in "Workbook"-environment (runs at DOS machine) and
afterwards compiled at the US to eLIAM object code. A user-written CL block can
be bound to one datapoint or written as a generic CL-block.
CLIAM programs have two modes: foreground and background. Background
programs have lowest priority (executed when CPU time is available). Within the
AM, CL can be extended with the possibility to retrieve history from the History
Module (at most 262 values collected in one call) and by adding a Math Library
which covers a set of math subroutines (manipulating matrices, CPU usage calcula-
tions, ..) for those AMs with high performance processor and math coprocessor.
Apart from user-written and standard algorithms that adapt signals from
29
datapoints in various ways the AM contains the same built-in control algorithms as in
the APM.
Several standard software application packages are available that run in the
AM:
Looptune II: optimally tunes PID control loops
Horizon Multivariable
Predictive Control: MIMO Model Based C0ntrol
Real Time SPQC-II uses statistical control for early detection of quality prob-
lems
Only HMPC and SPQC-II will be described here.
4.3.3.1 Horizon Multivariable Predictive Control
Horizon Multivariable Predictive Controller (HMPC) is a model based control
algorithm that executes in the Application Module. HMPC is used in stead of simple
PID control if the process has difficult dynamics (dead time, instabilities, high order)
or as supervisory control/unit process control.
The model allows the controller to predict how the process will react c.q. what
the PV will do in the future for a certain controller output now. The algorithm
calculates the OP now that will make the output of the model (=PV) equal to the
setpoint in future time. So HMPC has only one tuning constant: future time =
Correction Horizon. For the tradeoff between response, effort and robustness see
figure 4.5.
Small H
Fast correction
Large ouptut change!>
Sensitive to model errors
H --..
La!'.&e H
Slow correction
Small ouptut changes
Tolerant of model errors
Figure 4.5 Tradeoff between response, effort and robustness
HMPC works well if the process can be approximated by a linear, time invariant (step
response is same when test is repeated at different times) model. Most processes are
linear over the normal operating range but slowly or infrequently changing dynamics
can be dealt with as well by reidentifying the model.
The output of the controller can be sent directly to the process or cascaded to
the SP of a slave controller. The process "seen" by the upstream controller includes
everything between the OP and PV, induding all downstream controllers.
If some of the process disturbances can be measured or calculated it is
beneficial to feed them forward. Feedforward makes the controller aware of the
30
effects of disturbances before they cause a deviation of the PV fed back to the con-
troller and SP (see figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6
r
- - - - - -
-
- - - - -
,
I
Process 2
I
I
HPC
I
Feedforward I
Actual
Process
+
HPC
Process 1
Controller
L
- - - - - - - - - - - -
J
Control loop with one feedfolWard
Feedforward can also be used to implement non-interacting control by compensating
for the interactions between two or more loops (see figure 4.7).
SP2
PV2
r-------------------l
PV1
I OPl
I
I I
I
S ~
HPC I
ProcesI511
J.
I
ControUer 1
I
I
I I
+
'<,Y I
I +
I
I HPC
I PV12 I
I I
l
Feedforwa.rd 12
I
I
I
Process 12
I
I
I Actual Proce&s
I PV21
I
I I
HPC
I
Process 21
Feedfarward 21
I
I
I I
I
+
I
I
I OP2 I
I
I
+
x',..
HPC
Procma 22
I ControUer2
I
I
I I
'U'
I
I
L ___________________ J
Figure 4.7 Noninteracting control
31
HMPC consists of four software products: Data Collector, Identifier, HMPC controller
and Simulator.
The Data collector collects data for building the mode1(s). Once the variables
that will be used are identified, the responses of the outputs are collected to changes
in the inputs of the unit and stored in the AM data base. In the real world production
may not be stopped so the collection must take place within the disturbance margins.
Because the following step takes place in a PC, the data must be transferred from the
AM.
The Model Identifier creates mathematical models for each Control Variable
expressed in Manipulated Variables. HMPC uses the Finite Impulse Response form
but parametric models like the Auto Regressive Moving Average form are also
supported. Before the real identification takes place the data have to be prepared.
During a data conditioning session, invalid data must be replaced by linear interpo-
lations, the sample frequency must be adapted to the dynamics of the signal, the data
must be filtered. The Data Analysis determines whether there is enough information
to create a good model (through Signal to Noise ratio, Correlation-, Spectrum- and
transfer function analysis). In a MatLab environment the model is built off line. If
available the user can also enter the transfer function matrix, a routine will transform
it to parameters of the model.
Figwe 4.8
History Module
LeN Resident
PC Resident
I Identifier
HMPC Data Flow
32
Editor
The HMPC controller definition and fine tuning takes place in the Pc. It is an
interactive process that requires a simulator that is -of course- the model. In figure
4.8 the HMPC data flow is depicted.
If the user is satisfied, the models and HMPC controller structure are trans-
ferred to the AM to actually control the unit.
4.3.3.2 Real Time Statistical Process Quality Control II
Real Time SPQC is a software package that runs in the AM that helps to minimize
the process variation and maximize the product quality. SPQC could be seen as an
intelligent observer of the process and is a means of extending the operator's view.
When certain ranges are crossed the operator is notified and can take corrective
action. SPQC has three main functions:
automatic data acquisition from any point in TDC 3000 or manually entered
control charting makes distributions easy to comprehend
statistical alarms: point alarms, range limit alarms
Using these tools in a proper way helps the user to detect quality problems before
they occur, to detect changes in raw materials and to determine which production
areas affect most the end product quality.
4.3.3.3 Model Based Control versus Statisical Process Quality Control
Well designed Model Based Control systems know and use the dynamics of the
process to perform optimally control. During the identification procedure the most
important disturbances were involved in the control system design. The quality of the
product in a steady state is being guaranteed when the circumstances are the same as
during the identification.
MBC can be combined succesfully with SPQC to processes that show fast and
slow dynamics, the latter caused by slow disturbances. The MBC uses the fast
dynamics and the SPQC filters out the slow disturbances.
For processes that are hard to identify and can be controlled only by roughly
tuned PID controllers, SPQC can help. The assumption that the process behaviour is
statistical might be the best under certain conditions.
4.4 What levels in the hierarchy are being filled in recent projects ?
In this section the 9 levels of section 3.2.1 and figure 4.2 are important.
Section 3.2 was based upon the up-to-date hierarchical process control concept.
Up-to-date means optimal here. However, in recent process automation projects less
advanced structures are used due to the different priorities of process industry stated
in section 2.2.
The levels 0 up to 4 (field instrumentation up to primary process control) are
filled in for almost every project. Experience gained in former projects is represented
33
by standard solutions for standard problems being gathered in libraries.
As the primary process control level, the unit process control level (5) is
responsible to the unit process in operation in a specific point. In most applications it
directly receives supervision from the operator at the User Station instead of the
higher hierarchical level. For those applications the operator has a larger responsibil-
ity, interfacing the higher optimization levels (of which some can be automated) and
the lower control and emergency levels.
The presence of an AM on the UCN (figure 4.2) does not necessarily mean
that the unit process optimization level (6) is automated. In a lot of applications it is
only an extension of the APM that executes special user written algorithms at the
same level of control as the APM. In practice level 6 is denoted by "co-ordinated
control". It can provide two different types of coordination: (i) sequential process
control to move to another point of operation (in the unit process optimization
terminology this motion would be optimal) and (ii) all kinds of calculation programs.
Examples: calculation of controller constants at certain time intervals (Adaptive
Control), "Bang-bang Control" [1].
As stated in section 3.2.1 still a lot of research has to be done to develop the
dynamic plant performance optimization level (7): requires white box modelling and
simulation of the total plant in order to derive production schedules with operating
conditions.
The production optimization level (8) or Computer Integrated Manufacturing
is connected directly to the management information systems (supplies, data).
Applications are known. Its success as a means of directing orders is of course
determined by the quality of the lower levels.
34
5 Implementation of a Model Based Controller on
TDC 3000
5.0 Introduction
In 1992 Honeywell implemented a Model Based Controller in the IDC 3000 system
[11]. It was a pilot project: one wanted to know what possible problems could occur
during the project (planning, effort, responsibility), to what extend IDC 3000 is
prepared for the implementation of a Model Based Controller (level of standard
software and hardware, operator interface: turning the controller on and of) and how
much system capacity the controller would take (memory units, processor time).
5.1 The Internal Model based Control form
The Model Based Controller developed by IPCOS (SETPOINT IPCOS now) has the
Internal Model based Control form [4] of which the most general scheme is depicted
in figure 5.1.

Incernal model
hued control
syn.em
Process
outpuu
Figure 5.1

Intemal Model based Control scheme [4]
The philosophy behind the scheme is that as much information as possible is fed
forward and only unmeasurable disturbancesare fed back. In practice only for
minimizing the error (difference between process and controller output) feedback is
necessary.
The scheme contains several model based controllers. The feedback controller
can be designed with H inf, the feedforward setpoint compensator is designed to
prevent that operating co-nstraints are violated by changes in the operating point of
the process. In "Model" the process transfers are modelled, in the feedforward
disturbance compensator disturbance transfers of measured disturbances to the
process outputs are modelled. The latter compensates measured disturbances by
subtracting the modelled output disturbances from the error signal and adding them
35
HIHo
Top product
Reflux level
controller
....
. .
Bottom product
Reflux tank
Condensor
r- - - - -
I
I
I
I
I r --
I I
I I
I
I
I

J
Reflux setpoint
--------,
I
I
MIMO
controller
Reflux
Feedflow
Preheater
Reboiler steamflow
setpoint
r-----------,
I

t I
I I
I
----------------------------------
Stearn
Feed
Cooling water
..

t\.)
c,
t:;'
....
-.
;::::
l::l
....
c
:::l
('l
c
E'"
-
....
...
:::l

l::l..

0'\
("')
C
:::l
....

::::::
<'l:>
"'I
to the model output. The constraint handler uses a process model to simulate process
responses over some horizon and to detect whether constraints at inputs, outputs or
states are violated. If so it will adjust signals.
5.2 Internal Model based Control for a Distillation Column
In figure 5.2 the distillation process and the controller are depicted. Of the primary
process control level only the PID controllers that receive setpoint values of the
MIMO controller are shown.
Inputs of the controller are:
top purity
bottom purity
feedflow
Outputs of the controller:
setpoint for the reboiler steamflow
setpoint for the reflux flow
The controller architecture is not listed here because it is confidential informa-
tion. The general structure of the controller is given in figure 5.1. The controller
contains only two models. Apart from the process (including the primary control
level) transfer model, the feedflow is the input of the feedforward disturbance model.
The feedforward setpoint compensator is not used and the feedback controller is a
Proportional action only. A limiter limits the control signals to the process and the
controller uses de-filtering. Defiltering is applicated when both the filtered and the
un-filtered version of a signal should influence the steer signal. The models are State
Space versions.
5.3 Implementation on TDC 3000
5.3.1 Requirements
The MIMO controller acts as a unit process controller. As depicted in figure 4.2 the
unit process control level is covered by the (A)PM. The IMC controller was compact
(State Space) enough to implement it in the PM (Process Module Data Point). The
implementaton of an explicit constraint handler was not part of the project. If it had
been or will become, it ought to be implemented on the AM (unit optimization level)
where there is enough space even to deal with a number of complex soft constraints.
The goal of the project was not to prove that the controller performed well
(control the process) but that it could be implemented easily on IDC 3000 (A)PM.
This is the reason why the models used in the controller could do as the process
simulator during the final tests. This raises one withdrawal: The MIMO controller is
based on models of the primary process control level + the distillation process. If the
models used in the MIMO controller function as simulators, the controller should be
attached directly to the simulator. In this case the operator can only enter the desired
top and bottom qualities and simulate the feedflow through a setpoint value. To
increase the operator's power, the same PIDs as in the primary process level and
37
w
co
TDC-3000
Implementation .
blockscheme
IPCOS IMC
Operator
settings
field inputs
digital)
>... ".3'-' eywell Amsterdam
..... 11-92
digital
CL(JLOCK Col_Mirna
:;0,
;-<euoilel
rlf) 0"'1
Umk(l)
1.:Sp(2) 1------1..
C,JS Aulc
Usp(1) 1------1..
7
",
(cJS Aulo
Ilr,I-,(l: 1--------------------------'
PIO ",'!
Ulilkl7J JI
Q V 302
FOe"
F"e:J Fl ',w
OIA30:-
ToC' Qualil y
011,30'
eu.]:;',
'Jrli.
L:_:__PI_[l__
---11-1 YIl)
I" DAS PV ., CALC (,1 (SPI Ysk(1)


L"C NTV, p. ", YI<(2)
" {iA:; PV (A' r (", (:,P) Ysi2)
C, 301

t"'"
c
.g

s:::i

'E'
.,
-
;::..

(J
w
s

-
;::..

t...l
c::.
c::.
Ilrll..d2:

'-----------------------------4-1
AI'I'IIOVAL
1 , ..
Irn,s
1;11-
...... :j,'.'.( "CI'
:)IA[;I1AM : ClOP
:J' _,"'1" " 10.\-1,
iNTERlljAL M:JDEL : Of\: T LER
:,
I '1.0.
,--
'-1111:) FOP DCTIL LAT10:-1 LOLUI'N
f',:, ... '
: -'l:' 79 Ion JI'I
.
All
I I I I I I I
r'""f 'Jr, 372201 .... ,
Honeyweil
lNOLJSTR1Al AliTOMr"::N

PM300 \' -,I,
Program structure
Sequence Col_Mimo(PM; Point Col_Mimo)
External definitions and references
Local Variable definitions
Local Constant definitions
Phase Init
Define variables with a constant value (singles and arrays)
Phase Control
Step Read Val
Read Quality PV's
Read Quality SP's
Read Feedflow PV
Read Reflux and Reboiler PV's
Calculate Fs filter
Step Proc mod
Multiply Am_Xmk = PJn * Xmk
Multiply Bm_Xmk = 8m * Xmk
Add XJm< = Am_Xmk + Bm_Xmk
Multiply Cm_Xmk = em * Xmk
Multiply Om Umk = Om * Umk
Add Ymk = Cm Xmk + Om Umk
- -
Step Dist_mod
Multiply Ad_Xdk = Ad * Xdk
Multiply Bd Udk = Bd * Udk
Add Xdk = Ad Xdk + Bd Udk
- -
Multiply Cd_Xdk = Cd * Xdk
Multiply od Udk = Dd * Udk
Add Ydk = Cd_Xdk + od_Udk
Calculate Fr filter
Calculate Reflux and Reboiler SP's
Goto Phase Control
End Mimo Col
Figure 5.5 Sequential Program Structure for MIMO Process Module Data Point
40
cI) linqLd :3 t er'
..._-- - ---II
-1
., _.. , , ' ,
h. l' 1'.J ,.,
, -__.._..--.--:-,,---..1
:30.110 I

'.. :.1 I
. -- I .111'''''''''''''''''''')
I .Refluxtank
I
l....lIlol4--fo!-r-r-rt ======== I;';' r-(O} Cp b ,i
I
L.U.__ __ _Jp. _ S..
I T - ,- I" "., .. j I I 0. f
l
I.U 1..1 ..'; 1.1 I ..J I. '.,
I I'
L
I
r
-lo........ -+_. .J .-..
--- ---- --.-.--..-.- ------( iJ ", 1 f F"1 ';1
b_l_
1
1_'.... 1_e_r'__...... jIalll- __.-l._ .
Condensate Bottom product
i


r-----
i .'-.
i
'F'
i, "0"
"ToO-
I PCO': :'I I 1,1 Ci
IMC DISfILLHTION CJLUMN
three delays were interconnected between the controller and simulator. In this
configuration, disturbances can be introduced by changing the tuning constants of the
PID controllers. The limiting of the setpoints requires some logic as well.
It was only practical to implement the simulator in the same PM. Eventually
the required system configuration was:
1 x User Station
1 x Local Control Network
1 x Network Interface Module
1 x Universal Control Network
1 x Process Manager, release 300
1 x alarm printer
The resulting architecture does not contain a unit optimization level to provide the
MIMO controller with setpoints for top and bottom quality. Instead they are entered
directly by the operator from the US using the setpoints of the interconnected PIDs.
This also holds for the simulated reflux- and reboiler valves. When the PID control-
lers are in automatic mode, the operator can enter setpoint values for the PID
controllers during the "start-up" of the process. After this, the controllers are switched
to cascade mode (normal operation). In figure 5.3 the IDC 3000 implementation
blockscheme for the IPCOS IMC is shown. In figure 5.4 the resulting loop diagram
for the PM 300 is depicted.
The Sequential Process Control structure of the controller in a PMDP is given in
figure 5.5. In "Step Proc_mod" the state and output vectors of the process model are
updated, in "Step Dist_mod" the state and output vectors of the disturbance model
are updated. This updating requires matrix multiplication for which no standard built-
in algorithm is available right now in the PM (in the AM it is). In this case all matrix-
multiplications are written out in full CL which makes this implementation very
specific. In figure 5.6 the operator's view on the controlled process is shown.
5.3.2 Results
In table 5.1 the available and required performance for the implementation of the
MIMO controller in the (A)PM 300 is given.
42
Table 5.1 Available and required performance of the (A)PM 300 for implementation
of the MIMO controller
# Memory Units # Processing units # Variables
System capacity (available)
APM300 10000 1600 2048+80*n
PM 300 3200 1600 2048+8O*n
Control Scheme (required)
-Basic Control 70 70 at 1 s scan
-MIMO Control 100 Max. 150 at 10 s scan 300
Aver. 15 at 10 s scan
-SP limits processing
(estimation) 35 Max. 20 at 10 s scan 25
Aver. 2 at 10 s scan
Total amount
required 205 for APM 2.1 % Max. 240 15% 325 < 16 %
205 for PM 6.5 % Aver. 90 5.6 %
The required amount of CPU is expressed in so called processing units. The scanning
frequency of the MIMO controller can be specified and is typically 10 times slower
than the scanning of the connected primary controllers. The memory size is denoted
by the number of Memory Units. The number of Variables depends on the number of
Process Module Data Points (n). Each configured PMDP has 80 local variables.
5.3.3 Conclusions
In table 5.1 the most important constraints are the number of variables and the
maximum number of processing units required. These values determine the number
of control loops that can be implemented in the (A)PM. As to this number there is
no difference between APM and PM. In this implementation 6 MIMO loops including
additional requirements could be implemented but in practice one per (A)PM would
do.
The number of variables can be decreased and robustness can be improved by
declaring the parameters that do not change (contents of State Space matrices, scaling
factors) to be constants. This would mean a variable reduction of at least 70 %.
Drawbacks of this operation would be that constants could not be changed and
visualized during runtime, the use of generic subroutines is impossible (manipulations
index impossible) and declaration in both controller and simulator is necessary. The
operation would make it possible to implement 8 MIMO controllers in one (A)PM.
Because only one process-unit MIMO controller is required in the APM, its complex-
ity can be increased and a constraint handler could be added.
If the PID controller is out of cascade mode, the MIMO controller sequence
"holds" while the process simulator continues. Of course, this causes a large error
between MIMO controller output and process simulator output and consequently,
when switching back in cascade mode, it takes a long time to get back the process
simulator PVs according the SP values.
Mter all we may conclude that the (A)PM allows MIMO controller implemen-
tation without any problems as far as (A)PM performance is concerned (takes only a
43
few percents of total). The MIMO controller perfectly copes with the primary
controllers in the (A)PM. In particular as far as bumpless transfer is concerned after
switching back to cascade (MIMO) control. The operator need not worry and can
switch to cascade without disturbing the process. The MIMO operator interface
behaves like a PID operator interface and needs the same approach. Once the MIMO
controller design is available it is only a matter of man-weeks to get it implemented
in (A)PM, tested and documented. If an existing plant has been equipped with a DCS
like IDC 3000 then there is actually no problem to move from primary control to
MIMO control. The only real task is to get the right MIMO controller designed.
Companies like Setpoint IPCOS can provide this kind of service. No particular
managerial problems (planning, financial, responsibility of human resources) were
encountered during the MIMO pilot project.
44
6 Software and Hardware
6.1 Developments in Software and Hardware
The level of technology is determined by the level of hardware and software separate-
ly and their integration. The technology is up-to-date if the software uses the capabil-
ities of the up-to-date hardware to the full extent.
There are four criteria for technology [7]:
1 performance
2 pnce
3 reliability
4 programmability and maintenance
The first three are hardware criteria, the fourth is a software criterion.
Nowadays the price of the hardware has become a minor issue. The price of a
process automation project is mainly determined by the hours that the highly skilled
project team spent.
Reliability is guaranteed by the use of high quality, proven elements. Some
elements are duplicated or even triplicated and as ultimate rescue, there is an
emergency handling system.
In section 6.1.1 performance will be dealt with more explicitly.
6.1.1 Performance
The performance of a hardware configuration (CPU, ALU, memory, bus) depends on
its accuracy, memory, speed and database access.
The accuracy is determined by the number of bits in the "currency" of the
Central Processing Unit and bus. This currency is called "word". Typical lengths: 8 bits
(= 1 byte), 16 bits or 24 bits.
The memory is characterized by its size expressed in the number of words that
can be contained.
The speed of the CPU depends on its clock, the number of bits in a word and
the way operations are implemented.
The frequency of the clock determines the duration of one cycle. All arithmetic
operations executed by the CPU take a number of cycles. Typical values; logic
operation: 1..2 cycles; addition/subtraction: 2 cycles; multiplication: 4..8 cycles (mean
value: 5); Division: 8..16 cycles (mean value: 10). The number of cycles that an
operation takes is determined by the way the processor is programmed.
The speed of processors has increased over time through the availability of
hardware allowing higher clock frequencies, smarter programming and increased
lengths of words. A cascade architecture of more than 1 servers, one (coprocessor) of
them receiving the overflow of others, further increases speed. In table 6.1 the INTEL
45
family is given with clock speeds.
Table 6.1 CPU clock frequencies [12]
CPO (INTEL)
8088
80286
8086
80286
80386
80486
80586
Clock Frequencies (MHz)
4.77
6/8
8
10
16/20
25 / 33 / 50 / 66
33 / 50 / 66 / 100
Whilst the individual processors are being optimized, the speed of the overall system
(CPU + ALU + memory + I/O) is determined by a bottleneck like the data-base
access. Physical constraints are envisaged that makes research looking for less
constrained alternatives.
6.1.2 Programming Languages
The software part of a specific application consists of algorithms that are imple-
mented in a specific programming language. Such an implementation is called a
program. Apart from the quality of the algorithm the language [12] is an important
factor in the quality of the program.
In hardware newly developed generations of computers replace old ones. In
computer languages, developments are being divided in generations as well but there
is a difference. As for the Hierarchical Control Structure, newly developed levels or
generations are added to existing ones, making a higher level of abstraction possible.
Programming languages can be divided into 5 generations:
The first generation is machine language. Instructions are series of bits that are
entered by the programmer.
The second generation is assembler language. The programmer enters mne-
monic abbreviations of the instructions. There is still a 1 to 1 relationship between
the program and the instructions for the computer. The assembler translates the
source code to the object code (machine language). A program in assembler language
is performed fast, efficiently using the processor. Assembler languages are dedicated
to a specific processor using its strengths. A higher language (>2rd generation) can
never reach this.
Procedural languages belong to the third generation. Each command means
several instructions for the computer. Procedural reflects on the fact that the program
must contain data and procedures to provide action in all states of the application. A
compiler translates the program to the object code which is saved and executed. If the
translation and execution are performed for each line separately, it is called an
interpreter. Procedural languages offer machine independency. Different languages
were developed for different applications. COBOL for business and administration,
46
FORTRAN and MATLAB for science, Turbo Pascal for education, BASIC for PC
environments, C for packages on PCs being powerful, flexible and fast.
Languages of the fourth generation want the user to specify what has to be
done rather than how in order to decrease the step between problem definition and
program. Examples for PC environments: Oracle, dBASE.
The fifth generation programming languages have powerful commands and data
structures that can contain knowledge in order to solve problems. Usp and Prolog are
languages in which knowledge can be structured in different ways. In Expert-System-
Shells the structures in which the knowledge must be captured together with the
methods to reason are fixed.
6.2 Hardware and Software requirements for the Hierarchical Control System
In this section hardware and software requirements will be treated for the levels of
the Hierarchical Control System of figure 3.2.
If the controller in the primary process control level is a SISO PID then output
processing (given the noninteractive scheme, equation A, section 4.3.1 and the mean
values for operation cycles in section 6.1.1) based on mean values costs 41 cycles.
Choose one cycle to take 1 micro s (equals 1 MHz clock frequency) then approxi-
mately 250 PVs can be sampled 100 times per second. Because a normal value for the
required sample frequency in chemical processes is 1 Hz, one should think that there
is a large overhead of speed which can be used by scanning a lot of PVs. However,
the collection of PVs (AD/DA) is not the only function of the processors of the
(A)PM: signal pre-processing, alarm functions, PV checking, ranging, etc. To guaran-
tee the necessary level of reliability, at least 50% of the CPU capacity must be used
for diagnostics. As was shown in figure 4.2, the unit process control functions
(sequential process control, see chapter 5) are performed by the same (A)PM CPUs
as well. Conclusion: the available CPU capacity is the bottle neck. The number of
variables or local memory at disposal suffices in (A)PM.
The CPU capacity can be increased through more economic use of the
applicated ones (software problem) or by replacing them by more recent and
advanced CPUs. In the latter case a lot of software has to be rewritten.
The identification and controller design part of the HMPC package is only partially
LeN resident (figure 4.8). The moment that an on-line identification (optimization of
model parameters of which the structure was determined off-line) and tuning of
controller parameters can be performed within the control system (all parts are LCN
available) and the whole package can be engineered quickly, demands a minimum of
expertise, can be applicable to a range of processes and is fully supported by its
supplier, then MIMO control will have become an accepted block-structured control-
ler within TOC 3000 like the PID controller nowadays. The technology to incorporate
the package is already available yet not in IDC 3000.
The algorithms within the HMPC package were based on technology from the
late seventies / early eighties that has been improved by now. Now it is possible to
produce more compact models, decouple the control and optimization problem, and
allow for robust control. Conclusion: the software can be improved as well.
47
The HMPC documentation described that the non-parametric description of
the process was saved in the AM. However, it did not treat where the controller
actions were calculated. Here it is assumed that the HMPC controller fully resides in
the AM.
For the levels unit process optimization upto production optimization, still a lot of
software has to be written. For the calculations in these levels samples are taken of at
least one second. The hardware and availability criteria of these levels are not as
stringent as for the primary process control level. In these levels VAX computers and
PCs are typically used. Hardware and software breakthroughs can be applicated
relatively quickly. The quality of these levels is determined by software rather than
hardware. Appropriate algorithms are developed "bottom up" by process control
scientists and "top down" by management scientists.
48
7 Recent and future topics in Research
7.1 The Fundamental Control Problem [8]
As we have seen before a DCS with split architecture automates the four technologies
that are integrated in the decision making process: (i) measurement (ii) control (SISO
and MIMO layer) (iii) optimization (iv) logistics (scheduling and allocation of raw
materials). Such a control system extracts the most profit out of existing processes (no
redesign needed) while responding to market changes.
For still a lot of processes all over the world integrated control systems have to
be designed (15.000 to 20.000). Since each petro-chemical process is unique, costs
cannot be lowered by manufacturing at large scale. So design and maintenance costs
must be minimized. This requires a unified approach to every specific control
problem which starts from setting the specific problem into the framework of a
standard problem formulation: The Fundamental Control Problem. In this section a
design procedure to solve the FCP will be treated. The value of the FCP lies in the
fact that it limits the solution space to the solution(s) of the real control issue. The
steps in the off- or on-line design procedure will make clear in what directions future
research should take place.
The advantages of a unified approach to control is that design and mainten-
ance costs are decreased and that the focus of research is redirected from the
application of intuitive process models (training and experience) and the use of ad-
hoc solutions by non-expert designers to the fundamentals of the control problem
itself.
There are two major disadvantages to the unified approach: (i) The unified
approach forces one to model a process completely which is of course much more
difficult than modelling parts of the process driven by the conscientiously built up
library with standard solutions for standard problems. (ii) The treated unified
approach does not centre the real issue. It implicitly states that the quality of good
control is something that a process or model admits whilst the key issue that mainly
bothers academics is what control objective a certain model together with its uncer-
tainty description admit.
Before the design procedure will be treated the Fundamental Control Problem is
stated: On-line update the manipulated variables to satisfy multiple changing
performance criteria based on a process representation which includes a description
of the uncertainties. The practical performance criteria are:
economic:
safety and
environmental:
equipment:
product quality:
maintain PVs at targets dictated by the optimization phase
or dynamic minimal cost function
some PVs must not violate specific bounds for personal or
equipment safety or environmental regulations
physical limitations of equipment
consumer's specifications
49
human
preferences: operator will not tolerate certain jaggedness or oscilla-
tions, preferred modes of operation
These criteria have to be translated to mathematical expressions, to be divided in:
objectives: functions of variables to be optimized
constraints: functions of variables to be kept within bounds, two types:
hard constraints: no violations allowed
soft constraints: violations allowed temporarily for the satisfaction
of other criteria
The translation to objectives and constraints involves compromises and assumptions.
Artificial Intelligence facilitates the formulation of the practical criteria and the
translation to mathematical expressions for non-expert designers.
Mathematical models for petro-chemical processes are hard to formulate and
often contain uncertainty. Since uncertainties impose restrictions on the satisfaction of
the performance criteria, apart from the process model an explicit uncertainty
description must be available to perform the control system design.
In figure 7.1 the Fundamental Control Problem is given.
Objectives I
Control the Top Compo- min (Yi* - yjF, i = 1,2, '" nobj
sit ion at Its Target
m
Inequality Constraints I
Yilow ,; Yi ,; Yihigh
The Reactor Temp. Must
m j l ~ m i s mjhigh
Not Exceed High Limit
ILimj I .. max move
Equality Constraints I
The Air to the Regen-
Yi = Yi
, erator Must Be on
mj =mj*
I
ITarget at All Times
Performance
Criteria
Process
Representation
Model Equations I
m
The Overhead Temp. Yi (k) = L: aijl' Lim; (k-f)
Drops Fast When
I' =,
+ di (k)
Steam is Reduced
>
Uncertainty Desuiption I
a;;, ' a;j' ,a;j,;" ~
Feed Composition Can
Change as Much as 20%
Iddk) I,; dj
in a Couple of Hours
Assumptions
Qualitative --- --- Quantitative
Compromise
Figure Zl The Fundamental Control Problem [8]
50
Objectives I Objectives I
Single
Lumped Multiobjeetive
Quadratic Quadratic
Setpoint Tracking Setpoint Tracking.

Input Penalties

Objectives I
Lumped Multiobjective
Quadratic
Setpoint Tracking.
Input Penalties
Objectives I
Lumped Multiobjective
Quadratic
Setpoint Tracking.
Input Penalties i""':":""""
I FiJCed
Objectives I
Lumped Multiobjective
Quadratic
Setpoint Tracking,lnput
r:C:;"""ha'--n-oii:-no-l
Changing
Inequality Constraints
Equality Constraints
Linear
MIMO
linear
MIMO
,.-------------.., r-------...,
I Equality Constraints
I
I
I
I
I
'-- LIC:.;.;h::.;.an;;;l.qi'c.;.nq....,
-
,
,
,
I
I
I l.. -'
- - - - - -
I , , II
, I , II
I I , II
I II II
I I , II
, II " .. ..J l.. ..... ...
... '- "" L. ..J
r-------------, r-------------.., r-------------.,
I Inequality Constraints I 'Inequality Constraints I 'Inequality Constraints
, , I , ,
I , , , I
I I I I'
, I I II
, I I I I
I , I II
Model Equations I
2nd Order
Linear
.5150
Model Equations I Model Eq uations I
Linear linear
MIMO MIMO

I ChanQinq
Model Equations I
Linear
MIMO
Model Equations I
linear
MIMO
r-------------, r-------------""\ r-------------.,
IUncertainty Description I ,uncertainty Description I 'Uncertainty Description I
I I I II I
,. Implicit It. Implicit I I- Implicit I
I. On-line Oetuning I I_ On-Line Oet:uninq I Ie On-Line Oetuning I
I , I 11 I
, , I II I
, I I II I L. ..J l.. ..1 ..J
ssv
Uncertainty Description
Explicit
.. Structured
Parameten and
Oi1turbances

, ,
,. Implicit I
I. On-Line Oetuning I
I ,
I I
I -,
STR 5150 P)[)
Figwe Z2 Control Methodologies in light of FCP [8J
In figure 7.2, 5 control methodologies are reviewed in the light of the FCP. The
elements that are not dealt with at all or implicitly only (comprising the elements in
boxes that are not dashed) are shown in dashed boxes.
In figure 7.2 (a) the model uncertainty can be dealt with by on-line detuning
making the setpoint tracking worse.
Structured Singular Value Synthesis (SSV) is a H inf technique. QDMC is a
model based multivariable control technique that minimizes a quadratic criterion on
line. On-line modification of all elements of the control structure is possible and
constraints can be added. QDMC belongs to the class of Model Predictive Control-
lers.
In 1988 the MPC was improved to include an uncertainty description which
provides a controller that deals with all elements of the FCP explicitly.
Now the complete design procedure will be described under the assumption that
there is enough computing capability and logical processing available to perform it
off-line which is by no means restrictive in the light of advances in the area of Super
Computing.
1 Provide the most accurate model and uncertainty description available for the
process. Requires a model building facility that combines white and black box
modelling techniques. This will demand advanced graphics facilities and
Artificial Intelligence technology superimposed on chemical engineering
technology.
2 Formulate the pratical performance criteria. Requires an advanced graphics
51
terminal interfacing an Expert System that contains Artificial Intelligence. The
AI links the graphics to practical criteria.
3 Translate the practical criteria to objectives and constraints (mathematical
criteria). Performed by an Expert System.
4 Solve the Fundamental Control Problem. If this optimization problem has no
solution then go back to Step 1 or 2 (or 3) to improve the process representa-
tion or relax the criteria. If the problem has a solution there is still no guaran-
tee that it can function on-line. If the hardware facilitates, the design is
complete. If not then proceed with Step 5.
5 Specify the controller equations (= expressions for the MVs). Pick a control
scheme that fits the available hardware. The equations that govern the chosen
control system are added as constraints to the FCP.
6 Solve the FCP with the controller equations substituted for the MVs. Now the
tuning parameters in the controller equations have become the independent
variables. If there is a solution the design is complete. If no solution then relax
criteria (Step 2 or 3) or choose different controller (Step 5).
In section 7.2 specific research for the solution of the FCP will be treated. In section
7.3 the place of the FCP in the design of Hierarchical Control Systems will be
outlined and in section 7.4 specific research for HCS will be described.
7.2 Areas of research for the solution of the Fundamental Control Problem [8]
Time domain optimization under uncertainties: The presence of time-domain inequality
constraints in the FCP forces the optimization to be performed in the time domain.
Techniques must be found that solve the optimal control problem in the face of
uncertainties in the time domain. (See figure 7.2: QDMC deals with model uncer-
tainties implicitly and SSV does not deal with constraints). Existing techniques (1
1
-
optimal controller, newly developed) do not perform well. This, together with the fact
that models are not accurate enough makes the constraint handling still takes place in
nonlinear logic elements with exactly specified priorities.
Multi-objective optimization techniques: All control methodologies of figure 7.2 handle
the satisfaction of multiple objectives by weighting them into one. There is a need to
develop optimization techniques that consider multiple objectives and allow a
transparant specification of priorities. Expert Systems might help.
Nonlinear process representations: Improvements on the performance of control
systems can be made by utilizing nonlinear models in for example adaptive control
structures. Generic nonlinear models for common processes and methods to validate
their parameters with on-line experiments need to be developed. Again Expert
systems can play a role in offering these models to control engineers.
Uncertainty descriptions: The techniques available to describe uncertainties rely on
linear models. This leaves us with a lot of problems related to unstructured represen-
tations because of nonlinearities. The use of nonlinear models would provide
parameters with more physical significance, though taking more hardware capability.
52
The designer should be provided with tools to convert from a nonlinear to a linear
process representation with uncertainties.
Artificial Intelligence [16]: AI research provided rule-based systems that describe
behaviour.
Step 1, 2 and 3 of the design procedure of section 7.1 require Expert Systems
containing Artificial Intelligence. In general these systems will help in facilitating the
synergism between qualitative and quantitative knowledge bases and requires the
least interpretation by the designer. AI technologies must help closing the gap
between what we can realistically implement on-line and what we can solve off-line in
order to provide the non-expert user of the control system with any level of the core-
control theory.
The development of Expert Systems requires new computing environments and
programming styles whose central features are; object-oriented programming and data-
or result-driven procedural programming [16].
Super Computing: On the hardware side, advances in the field of Super Computing
indicate that there is the capability to execute the kind of optimization problem in the
design procedure, not only off-line but on-line as well.
However, large difficulties are encountered on the algorithm and software side.
The FCP for a system with 5 inputs, 7 outputs and 70 states cannot be solved with
CONSYD, HONEY-X and MATLAB [13]. Model reductions were not possible
either.
7.3 The Fundamental Control Problem versus the Hierarchical Control Structure
In section 7.1 the FCP was described. The design procedure arrives at an optimal and
centralized solution that could be an optimal robust or model predictive controller.
However these are not forms that can be readily implemented.
In practice, a hierarchical control structure is preferred for reasons mentioned
in chapter 3. However, this practical design procedure focusses away from the FCP. It
starts with the selection of the variables which are to be manipulated and measured
which already determines the performance of the control system. Then the controller
structure is chosen: which MVs are changed and which errors determine these chan-
ges. This procedure makes it possible to incorporate reliability which is something
industry appreciates more than "optimality frequently on manual".
To improve the "practical" design procedure, techniques have been developed
to translate overall performance and robustness specifications into specifications on
individual loops [13]. Designing the individual loops according to these specifications
guarantees the satisfactory performance of the overall system. The major deficiency of
these systems is their conservativeness that can exclude solutions that meet the
specifications.
One can conclude this section by saying that the Fundamental Control
Problem or finding the optimal control solution, has not the first priority for the
design of Hierarchical Control Systems. This is the reason why safety and operability
provisions can be found in the lower levels with small time constants and optimality is
the responsibility of the highest levels with large sample periods.
53
7.4 Areas of research for the Hierarchical Control Structure
Attempts to systemize the practical control structure problem provided the following:
There is little need for a systematic procedure [13] to fill in the primary
control level (figure 3.2) of the hierarchical control structure. The choice of feedback
and feedforward loops is usually straightforward and can be handled by engineers
with limited experience.
The unit process control or supervisory level is problematic. The model that
resides in this level is often not accurate enough to protect against constraint
violation. Research circles neglected the design of practical features like anti-reset
windup schemes, selectors etc. for this (multivariable) level [13].
As stated in section 3.2.1 the dynamic plant performance optimization level is
based on steady state plant simulation which malfunctions because steady states are
not always reached during production nowadays. Instead rigorous dynamic models
have to be developed to perform the simulation.
7.5 The role of Academia in Control Research [14]
In "measurement and control" there are two types of researchers: academic and
industrial. Since there is no reason to compete, both parties should cooperate. The
role of academia in control research could consist of:
develop and prove control concepts since industry is unwilling to upset current
production procedures
develop the basic theory behind control algorithms and procedures whether
developed in industry or academia
focus more than industry does (has a more immediate focus) toward high risk
but potential large pay-off problems
innovation and new ideas
Aid of industry for academic research could consist of:
direct assistance and support
communication: despite painful for the company involved it is helpful for an
academic to know what does not work in the real world; industry should
promote their failures
54
8 Process Automation Projects
Automation projects in process industry significantly differ from administrative and
general (computer system and network software) automation projects nowadays.
Some differences will be described here; General automation projects are
often performed by software houses or by specialists that are in detachment. Process
automation projects are carried out on a fixed price basis whilst competition forces
the prices to be low. Excessions are generally paid by the control system supplier.
Administrative and general automation projects often deal with rapidly changing
central computer systems. This reduces differences between consequent projects and
eases maintenance and extensions.
In process automation projects at least three parties are involved; the principal
(site), contractor (engineering consultants / "knowledge tank") and the control system
supplier. The site brings in people with expert knowledge about the process to be
automated, the contractor subdivides the job in parts and "contracts" suppliers of
specific hardware and sometimes software. The contractor consists of a team of
measurement and control technologists. The control system supplier employs technol-
ogists dedicated to the control system.
Process automation projects know exponentionally raising costs towards the
end of the project. This is caused by a differentiation of knowledge over the parties
involved rather than poor technology (proven before) which results in difficulties in
understanding each other, elaborating on minor issues whilst the control strategies
become ever more complex. The majority of the problems in process automation
projects originate in the Function Design Specification (FDS) phase. It appears to be
very difficult to specify the funtional requirements in an unambigious way such that
technical design, implementation and test proceed smoothly. FDSers (site) very often
have a chemical origin with little process control knowledge. Before the suggestion of
possible solutions to this problem, the main priorities of all parties in one project are
highlighted:
site: safety, keeping process in operation, optimal production
contractor: good cooperation between all parties, no delays
control system
supplier: ultimate costs including necessary benefits match fixed (a priori)
pnce
As was proven in the chapters before, the "safety" and "operation" priorities of the site
are guaranteed nowadays due to the experience that control system designers gained
over time. Since these conditions are fulfilled sites are more interested in optimal
production, in other words in the relation between the Fundamental Control Problem
and the Hierarchical Control Structure. Research!
The first priority of the contractor is a good cooperation due to a good
coordination in order to gain the confidence of the site and be sure of orders in
future time. Delays are very precious.
55
As mentioned before, due to the fixed price principle, exceeding costs are
covered by the control system designer himself. Because "the hours spent" are the
biggest threat to profits, control system designers ought to be interested in Computer
Aided Design facilities. AI research!
Proper education and research could solve the problems. It would be sensible
to raise post-graduate research schools that teach students the system engineering
approach [15]. It ought to be a post-graduate school since system engineering is
founded on generalized, sometimes abstract and theoretical concepts. Such a school
could have a curriculum for chemical and measurement-and-control engineers,
spending their first year(s) by extending their control- and chemical / physical
knowledge respectively. Such schools could deliver all-round technologists with
"helicopter views" on chemical processes and measurement-and-control concepts
(good FDSs) to make the process automation projects a success for all parties.
The research activities of these schools would cover how Hierarchical Control
Systems are able to control as good as possible (the relation between the Fundamen-
tal Control Problem and the Hierarchical Control Structure) for high risk applications
with a potential large pay-off and the automation of the control-system-design tasks.
A trusted representative of these schools could gain information about failures in
process industry that must remain secret.
The post-graduated students would transfer the research knowledge to
industry.
56
9 Conclusions
The structure of the IDC 3000 control system of Honeywell conforms the ideal
hierarchical control system structure. A MIMO Internal Model based Controller was
implemented succesfully which proves that the unit process control can be executed
optimally in IDC 3000. There will be more than enough room to implement an
additional constraint handler (which will demand high quality of model) and essential
features like anti-reset wind up schemes.
The identification and controller design part of the Model Based Control
package HMPC is not DCS resident which delays serious use. It can be improved
through application of algorithms that arrive at more compact models, decouple the
control and optimization problem and control "robustly". Combined with the Statisti-
cal Process Quality Control, a Model Based Controller can be powerful to processes
that have fast and slow (disturbance) dynamics.
The levels unit process optimization, dynamic plant performance optimization
and production optimization needn't be DCS resident. The slow sample periods for
these levels relief hardware criteria. The dynamic plant performance optimization
level requires the development of rigorous dynamic models. The development of
software for these levels will continue.
The Fundamental Control Problem formulation, suggested by Shell, decreases
design and maintenance costs but cannot be combined with the design of DCSs which
inherently focusses away from the FCP. The FCP causes specific research of which
the application of Artificial Intelligence in Expert Systems to facilitate CAD is
perhaps the most interesting for DCSs. Nowadays the proper CAD environment does
not exist to solve the FCP for advanced controllers.
The increasing complexity of process automation projects asks for a system
engineering approach to be taught to graduates at research schools that will examine
high risk but potential large pay-off problems. Industry should assist, support and
communicate.
57
References
[1] J.C.J. van de Wiel (1991)
Het traject aanvraag tot en met overdracht bij hedendaagse industriele
procesautomatiseringsprojecten (ATEMO)
Uitgave afdeling Industriele Automatisering, Honeywell
Amsterdam
[2] A.AH. Damen en H.H. v.d. Yen (1990)
Dictaat van het college Moderne Regeltechniek
Faculteit Elektrotechniek, Vakgroep Meten en Regelen
[3] J. Borer (1985)
Instrumentation and Control for the Process Industries
Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London and New York
[4] A.C.P.M. Backx (1993)
Industrial Application of Process Identification Techniques
Proceedings Symposium "Procesmodellen in het regelalgoritme"
June 3 1993, Eindhoven University of Technology
[5] C.W. Hart and A.E. Ogden-Swift (1993)
Industrial Application of Model Based Predictive Control
Proceedings Symposium "Procesmodellen in het regelalgoritme"
[6] Honeywell bookset on mc 3000
[7] W. Giloi (1966)
Stand und Aussichten der Rechneranwendung in industriellen Prozessen
Fortschritt Berichte VOl Zeitschrift, Dusseldorf Reihe 8 Nr. 7
[8] C.E. Garcia and D.M. Prett (1986)
Design Methodology based on the Fundamental Control Problem Formulation
The Shell Process Control Workshop, December 15-18, 1986
Butterworths, Stoneham, MA
[9] M. Morari (1986)
Three Critiques of Process Control revisited a decade later
The Shell Process Control Workshop, December 15-18, 1986
Butterworths, Stoneham, MA
[10] The second Shell Process Control Workshop 1988
Butterworths, Stoneham, MA
58
[l1J A. v.d. Draaij
Documentation on inplementation of IPCOS MIMO Controller in IDC 3000
Honeywell Amsterdam, Division Industrial Automation
[12J "De personal computer gids"
[13J M. Morari (1986)
Process Control Theory: Reflections on the Past and goals for the next Decade
The second Shell Process Control Workshop 1988
[14J B.R. Holt (1986)
Control of Autoclave Processing of Polymeric Composites
The Shell Process Control Workshop, 1986
[15J O.A. Asbjomsen (1986)
A Systems Engineering Approach to Process Modelling
The Shell Process Control Workshop, 1986
[16J D.B. Garrisson and D.M. Prett (1986)
Expert Systems in Process Control and Optimization: A Perspective
The Shell Process Control Workshop, 1986
59