ISA

TRANSACTIONS
1

ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23

Predictive PID
R.M. Miller a,1, S.L. Shah a, R.K. Wood a,*, E.K. Kwok b
a
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G6, Canada
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada

Abstract
A new stochastic, predictive, proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control law is proposed which is mathematically
equivalent to generalized predictive control (GPC) with a steady state weighting term. The main motivation of this
paper is the extension of the classical PID algorithm on industrial computers to do advanced control without
employing specialized software. The predictive PID constants and the internal model are chosen by equating the dis-
crete PID control law with the linear form of GPC. The result is a long range predictive control law with a model based
PID structure. Use of a ®rst order model yields a PI controller while a second order plant results in a PID structure.
The process model order is restricted to a maximum of two although there is no restriction on the choice of GPC
tuning parameters. Performance of the predictive PID scheme is shown, via simulation, to be identical to GPC. Results
from the use of the predictive PID algorithm for the control of an industrial heat exchanger are also presented. # 1999
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Predictive PID; Model-based control; Stochastic PID

1. Introduction dicult control situations, PID controllers can

The PID controller has a long history in the
®eld of chemical process control and therefore
practitioners are well acquainted with its tuning
and idiosyncrasies. However, many key processes
in a chemical plant have dicult dynamics which
are characterized by one or more of the following
(a) long time delay, (b) inverse response, (c) fre-
quent and severe disturbances, (d) signi®cant non-
linearities, (e) multivariable interactions, and (f)
constraints. Moreover, recent advances in chemi-
cal process eciency including heat exchanger
networks and reactive distillation are increasing
the number of dicult control problems. In these
* Corresponding author.
1
Currently with Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions, 325 Rolling
Oaks Drive, CA 91361-1266 USA.
only be detuned to retain closed loop stability
resulting in sluggish performance.
Commercially available linear model predictive
control (MPC) methods can address the above
mentioned control diculties except for non-line-
arities. The widespread use and success of MPC
applications described in the literature [1] attests
to the improved performance of MPC compared
to PID for control of dicult process dynamics.
However, even with these outstanding results
MPC still is not used in many chemical processes
with dicult dynamics primarily because the
licensing, hardware and commissioning costs of
commercial MPC require signi®cant economic
justi®cation which is dicult to quantify at the
feasibility stage. Furthermore, long term main-
tenance of MPC requires a higher level of exper-
tise and cost compared to PID maintenance.

0019-0578/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0019 -0 578(98)00041 -X
12 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23

In this paper a compromise between MPC and ^ ‡ j j t† ˆ G~ j
u…t ‡ j ÿ 1† ‡ fj

y…t …2:4†
PID is proposed (denoted as predictive PID). The
main advantage of the predictive PID algorithm where the unforced term, fj , is
developed in this paper is that it is cost e€ective
yet retains most of the advantages of MPC for G j
u…t ÿ 1† Fj y…t†
fj ˆ ‡ …2:5†
single loop control. The algorithm involves the C C
reformulation of generalized predictive control
(GPC) [2] with steady state weighting, denoted The j ˆ 1; . . . ; N multistep predictor can con-
here as gGPC [3,4], into a model based PID veniently be expressed in the vector form,
structure. Therefore, predictive PID preserves the y^ ˆ G~u ‡ f, where
same PID ideology that is familiar to operating
personnel while the closed loop performance is y^ ˆ ‰y…t
^ ‡ 1 j t†; y…t ^ ‡ N j t†ŠT
^ ‡ 2 j t† . . . y…t
that of MPC. In the following sections, the devel- G ˆ ‰G1 ; G2 . . . GN ŠT
opment, interpretations and industrial application
of predictive PID will be described. u~ ˆ ‰
u…t†;
u…t ‡ 1† . . .
u…t ‡ N ÿ 1†ŠT
f ˆ ‰f…t ‡ 1†; f…t ‡ 2† . . . f…t ‡ N†ŠT

2. Generalized predictive control (GPC) The GPC control objective is composed of a sum
of squares prediction error term and a control
Generalized predictive control (GPC) or GPC action penalty term given by
with steady state weighting is chosen as a basis for X
N2
predictive PID for two major reasons. First, the
JˆE ^ ‡ j j t† ÿ w…t ‡ j†Š2
‰y…t
receding horizon solution of GPC can be descri-
jˆN1
bed easily in a linear polynomial representation.  …2:6†
In comparison, the receding horizon form of X
Nu
2
‡ l…j†‰
u…t ‡ j ÿ 1†Š
DMC [5] is cumbersome because it is based on a jˆ1
convolution model. Second, GPC is a ``general-
ized'' strategy which includes all desirable proper- where w…t ‡ j† is the setpoint, l…j† is the control
ties of the industry proven MPC formulations. weight, N1 is the minimum prediction horizon, N2
It is assumed that the plant is adequately repre- is the maximum prediction horizon and Nu is the
sented by the ARIMAX model control horizon. Minimization of the performance
index (2.6) with respect to future
u yields the
C…qÿ1 † GPC control law
A…qÿ1 †y…t† ˆ B…qÿ1 †u…t ÿ 1† ‡ …t† …2:1†


u~ ˆ …GT G ‡ lI†ÿ1 GT …w ÿ f† …2:7†
where A, B, and C are polynomials in the backward
shift operator qÿ1 and y, u, and  are the predicted
output, control input and a zero-mean white noise 3. GPC with steady state weighting (gGPC)
disturbance, respectively. The jth step ahead pre-
dictions of (2.1) require the Diophantine identities A terminal matching condition, de®ned as the
given by (the (qÿ1 ) notation is omitted for brevity): weighted square of the steady state error, is inclu-
ded in the GPC cost function (2.6) to derive GPC
C ˆ Ej A
‡ qÿj Fj …2:2† with g weighting (denoted herein as gGPC [4]).
Computation of the steady state prediction by
Ej B ˆ CG~ j ‡ qÿj G j …2:3† solving for the steady state value of (2.2) and (2.3)
yields
Long range predictions of the plant output based
on current and past data are given by F s ˆ es A …3:1†
 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23 13

G s
ˆ gs C ÿ es B …3:2† t; t ‡ 1; . . . t ‡ Nu ÿ 1 based on the prediction

where horizon t ‡ N1 ; . . . t ‡ N2 . For the receding hor-
C…1† izon implementation, only the ®rst element of u~ is
es ˆ …3:3† implemented at the current interval and the
A…1†
remaining elements are discarded. This imple-
B…1† mentation can be expressed in a linear form by
gs ˆ …3:4† solving for the ®rst control move,
u…t†, in the
A…1†
control law. Because GPC is a subset of gGPC,
The orders of Fs and G s are nA and the linear form of GPC will be a subset of the lin-
max…nB ÿ 1; nC ÿ 1†, respectively. The optimal ear form of gGPC. For the ®rst control element of
steady state predictor is found by taking the limit (3.6), it follows that
of (2.4) as j approaches in®nity.

u…t† ˆ h…w ÿ f† ‡ hs …ws ÿ fs † …4:1†
^ ‡ j j t† ˆ y…s
lim y…t ^ j t†
j!1
where
X
Nu
ˆ gs
u…t ‡ j ÿ 1† ‡ G s
u …t ÿ 1† ‡ Fs y …t†
f f
h ˆ first row of‰GT ÿ G ‡  ‡ GTs ÿGs Šÿ1 GT ÿy
jˆ1
hs ˆ
…3:5† 
 the first row of‰GT ÿy G ‡  ‡ GTs ÿGs Šÿ1 GTs ÿ
The gGPC cost function contains the ®rst two
terms of the GPC cost function plus a steady state fs ˆ G s
uf …t ÿ 1† ‡ Fs yf …t†
prediction error. Minimizing the objective func-
tion yields the gGPC control law expanding (4.1) yields
( " #)
u~ ˆ ‰GT ÿy G ‡  ‡ GTs ÿGs Šÿ1 ‰GT ÿy …w ÿ f† X
N2
…3:6† C‡q ÿ1
G j hj ‡ G s hs
u…t†
‡ GTs ÿ…ws ÿ fs †Š jˆN1
( " #) ( )
X
N2 X
N2

where ˆ C hj ‡ hs w…t† ÿ Fj hj ‡ Fs hs y…t†

jˆN1 jˆN1
ÿy ˆ y IN2 ÿN1 ‡1N2 ÿN1 ‡1
…4:2†
 ˆ lINu Nu ÿ ˆ INu Nu
2 3
gs 0 . . . 0 which is in the linear form
6 .. . 7
6 gs gs
6 . .. 77 T
u…t† ˆ Rw…t† ÿ Sy…t† …4:3†
Gˆ6 . .. 7
4 .. . 05
gs . . . . . . gs Nu Nu where
" #
X
N2

fs ˆ ‰ 1 1 . . . 1 ŠT ‰G s
u f …t ÿ 1† ‡ Fs y f …t†ŠNu 1 TˆC‡q ÿ1

G j hj ‡ G s hs
jˆN1
ws ˆ ‰w…t†; . . . ; w…t†ŠTNu 1 " #
X
N2
RˆC hj ‡ hs
jˆN1
4. The linear form of GPC
X
N2
Sˆ Fj hj ‡ Fs hs …4:4†
The gGPC control law is implemented in a jˆN1
receding horizon. At each interval, the control
vector, u~ , is computed for the control horizon with the order of the linear polynomials being:
14 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23
nT ˆ max…nB; nC†
nR ˆ nC and
nS ˆ max…nA; nC ÿ 1† …
5. The discrete PID control law
The incremental discrete PID control law is
developed by starting with the non-interacting
continuous algorithm given by
… tC
de…tC †
u…tC † ˆ KPC e…tC † ‡ KIC e…tC †dtC ‡ KDC
0 dtC
…5:1†
where e…tC †, KPC , KIC and KDC are the error, non-
interacting proportional, integral and derivative
constants and the subscript c denotes continuous
time, respectively. The non-interacting algorithm
(5.1) was chosen as a basis because it is the sim-
plest PID form and interacting forms can be easily
derived from it. A ®rst order discretization of (5.1)
results in the following discrete control law
X
t work. For the deterministic (C ˆ 1) linear gGPC
u…t† ˆ KP e…t† ‡ KI e…i† ‡ KD ‰e…t† ÿ e…t ÿ 1†Š
iˆ0
…
where t denotes sampled time and
KP ˆ KPC
KIˆ KIC TS …
K
KD ˆ TDSC
and TS is the sampling interval. The incremental
control law is determined by applying the di€er-
encing operator to the control output.

u…t† ˆ ‰…KP ‡ KI ‡ KD †
…
‡ …ÿKP ÿ 2KD †qÿ1 ‡ …KD †qÿ2 Še…t†
A common industrial practice is to remove the
setpoint signal from the proportional and deriva-
tive terms in (5.4) to avoid abrupt control actions
following a setpoint change otherwise known as
the proportional and derivative kick. The resulting
setpoint on integral only (SPI) controller is
described by

u…t† ˆ GCw w…t† ÿ GCy y…t† …5:5†
where
4:5†
GCw ˆ K1
GCy ˆ …KP ‡ K1 ‡ KD †
…5:6†
‡ …ÿKP ÿ 2KD †qÿ1 ‡ …KD †qÿ2
Observation of the GCw and GCy polynomials in
the SP on I control law (5.5), shows that a PI
controller is ®rst order in y…t†, a PID controller is
second order in y…t† and PI/PID controllers are
zero order with respect to w…t†.
6. The PI/PID form of gGPC
It has been recognized by McIntosh [6] and
Henningsen et al. [7] that a discrete PID control
law such as (5.5) could be equivalent to standard
GPC given some restrictions in the GPC formula-
tion. The conditions under which gGPC is
equivalent to PID are determined in the current
control law for a second order A polynomial and
zero order B polynomial, a second order plant
5:2† model without time delay, from (4.5), it follows
that the linear polynomials T, R and S are of
order 0, 0 and 2, respectively, so the control law
(4.4) can be written as
5:3†

u…t† ˆ r0 w…t† ÿ …s0 ‡ s1 qÿ1 ‡ s2 qÿ2 †y…t† …6:1†
where ri and si are the coecients of the R and S
polynomials, respectively. Recall that the T poly-
nomial has a leading 1, therefore, a zero order T
polynomial is unity. Equating the SPI form of the
5:4† PID control law (5.5) and the GPC controller
(4.4) yields an exact match if
GdCw ˆ R …6:2†
GdCy ˆ S …6:3†
The superscript d indicates a deterministic model
representation. The PID tuning constants in (5.5)
 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23 15

can be expressed in terms of the linear gGPC The GPC control law (cf. 4.2) can be expressed as
coecients by equating (5.5) with (6.1) to yield ( " #)
X
N2
KP ˆ ÿ…s1 ‡ 2s2 † ˆ s0 ÿ r0 ÿ s2 C‡q ÿ1
G j hj ‡ G s hs
u…t†
KI ˆ r0 …6:4† jˆN1
( " #) " #
K D ˆ s2 X
N2 X
N2
ˆ C hj ‡ hs w…t† ÿ Fj hj ‡ Fs hs y…t†
jˆN1 jˆN1
A ®rst order plant model results in a ®rst order S
polynomial and an equivalent PI controller while …7:1†
a second order plant yields a PID controller from which can be rewritten as
the relations in (5.5). A comparison of GPC and
equivalent PID servo and regulatory response is ( " #)
X
N2
shown in Fig. 1 for the unstable plant:
u…t† ˆ C hj ‡ hs w…t†
jˆN1
( )
ÿ0:015 X
N2
GP ˆ ÿ Fj hj ‡ Fs hs y…t†
1 ÿ 1:95qÿ1 ‡ 0:935qÿ2
jˆN1
(" # )
X
N2
A step disturbance of 0.1 is applied/removed at the ÿ G j hj ‡ G s hs ‡ …C ÿ 1†
u…t ÿ 1†
100/150 and 250/300 sampling instants, respectively. jˆN1

The simulation shows an exact match between GPC …7:2†

and PID control while the control response is satisfactory
for a dicult control problem.
7. The multistep long range predictor, GMP
The PID controller proposed in the previous
section does not o€er a practical solution to con-
trol problems with time delays or realizable second
order plant models (i.e. with a ®rst order numera-
tor). It was shown by Harris et al. [8] that a PI
controller with a Smith predictor [9] is equivalent
to a minimum variance controller (MVC) for
models with time delay. However, a Smith pre-
dictor gives a d step ahead prediction only where d
is the time delay. The practical extension of MVC
is to a long range multistep prediction as in GPC.
In addition, real processes are subject to random
because there is always a leading 1 in the Cc poly-
nomial. The ®rst term in the right hand side of
(7.2) is of order nCc which does not ®t into the
PID SP on I form unless Cc ˆ 1. In industry, most
processes are operated in a regulatory fashion
most of the time while changes in setpoint are
typically infrequent. A zero order approximation
of the servo term in (7.2) that accommodates the
PID SP on I form is desired. The logical zero
order is its steady state value. This requires that Cc
is replaced by the sum of the elements of Cc . Such
an approximation will always give a conservative
or detuned servo response but have no e€ect on
regulatory performance. The following expression
is such an approximation
( " #)
X
nC X
N2

disturbances that are usually correlated. GPC
u…t† ˆ cj h j ‡ hs w…t†

jˆ1 jˆN1
compensates for correlated disturbances by ( )
including the disturbance model, C=A
, directly X
N2

in the control law. A PID control law based on ÿ Fj hj ‡ Fs hs y…t†

jˆN1
GPC with a non unity C polynomial will therefore (" # )
not require ad-hoc detuning to reduce manipu- X
N2
ÿ  
Gj hj ‡ Gs hs ‡ …C ÿ 1†
u…t ÿ 1†
lated variable variance. This implies a stochastic
jˆN1
weighted predictor must be developed so that the
model based PID controller is equivalent to GPC. …7:3†
16 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23
Fig. 1. GPC and equivalent PID control response to a discrete second order plant.
In Section 6, it was shown that the linear gGPC
polynomials R and S are related to the discrete
PID terms GCw and GCy through (6.4), therefore,
(7.3) can be expressed as follows

u…t† ˆ GCw w…t† ÿ GCy y…t† ÿ GMP GCy
u…t ÿ 1†
…
where
" #
P
N2
G j hj ‡ G s hs ‡ …C ÿ 1†
jˆN1
GMP ˆ …
GCy
The GPC law is an optimal multistep predictive
control law, therefore (7.5) is an optimal multistep
weighted predictor when used as an internal model
for PID control. When the model order is restric-
ted to a maximum of two the PID controller con-
stants KP , KI and KD can be solved by (6.4).
Fig. 2 shows the block diagram of the stochastic
predictive PID control loop. The stochastic pre-
dictive PID controller can also be expressed in a
model based PID form as shown in Fig. 3. This
alternative representation uses all three control
modes (P, I and D) on setpoint changes which
di€ers from the SPI form discussed previously.
The setpoint ®lter in Fig. 3 has the same e€ect as
removing the proportional and derivative action
from setpoint changes. The control performance
of GPC and the equivalent predictive PID algo-
rithm is demonstrated in Fig. 4 for the second
7:4† order plant:
eÿ5s
Gp ˆ
…3s ‡ 1†…5s ‡ 1†
A step disturbance of 0.05 is applied/removed at
7:5†
the 100/150 and 250/300 sampling instants,
respectively. The simulation in Fig. 4 shows excel-
lent performance for PID on a process with a sig-
ni®cant time delay. Fig. 5 shows the performance
of the deterministic PID controller given by (7.9)
for the plant model
…ÿ2s ‡ 1†
Gp ˆ
…6s ‡ 1†…3s ‡ 1†
where plant noise is correlated by Cp ˆ 1 ÿ 0:8qÿ1
with variance  2 ˆ 0:0005. The control response is
satisfactory although the manipulated variable
variance is excessive. Fig. 6 shows that the
 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23 17

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the stochastic predictive PID control loop.

Fig. 3. Alternate diagram of the stochastic predictive PID control loop.

Fig. 4. GPC and equivalent PID response to a second order plant.

18 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23

Fig. 5. Response of deterministic PID to a stochastic process.

Fig. 6. Response of stochastic GPC and predictive PID to a stochastic process.

response of the stochastic PID controller is
slightly more sluggish than GPC for servo
response. However, the regulatory response is
equivalent. The control variance in Fig. 6 is sig-
ni®cantly smaller than the control variance in
Fig. 5. A stochastic control law compensates for
the correlation structure in the disturbance which
results in less aggressive control action. The
detuned PID servo response compared with GPC
in Fig. 6 should not be a problem for most pro-
cesses because regulation is the typical control
objective.
 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23
8. Interpretations of the predictor, GMP
Conceptually, GMP can be interpreted as a long
range predictor in comparison with gGPC. Con-
sider the special case where g is set to zero and
C ˆ 1. The resulting model based PID controller
can be interpreted by expanding GMP which fol-
lows since G j contains the nB ÿ 1 jth step ahead
step response coecients for a deterministic plant
model as can be illustrated by the following
example. Let the ®rst order plus time delay plant
be given by A ˆ 1 ÿ 0:9qÿ1 and B ˆ 0:1qÿ1 (note
that the plant ZOH is removed from the model).
The step response coecients are: 0.0, 0.100, 0.190,
0.271, 0.344, . . ., 1.000. For the ®rst step (j ˆ 1)
G 1 ˆ 0:1 and for the second step (j ˆ 2) G 2 ˆ 0:19,
therefore, G j contains the jth step ahead prediction
and is of order nB ÿ 1. The predictor GMP can now
be interpreted as an optimal weighted sum of j step
ahead predictions from the minimum prediction
horizon, N1 to the maximum prediction horizon,
N2 . The interpretation of GMP is more dicult to see
when the plant model is stochastic, i.e. Cc ˆ
6 1. Both
Diophantine identities (2.2) and (2.3) contain the Cc
polynomial. Therefore, the extension of the above
interpretation to include stochastic disturbance
Fig. 7. Block diagram of the stochastic predictive PID control loop with expanded predictor, GMP .
19
compensation is not as simple as inserting a 1=C ®l-
ter in the feedback loop. All of the linear PID poly-
nomials, GCw , GCy and GMP are strong functions of
Cc . The Cc polynomial has the e€ect of detuning all
of the linear PID polynomials. Fig. 7 shows the PID
block diagram with expanded predictor GMP .
9. In®nite horizon GPC and PID
In the practical application of GPC, it is
recommended that a maximum prediction hor-
izon, N2 , corresponding to 50 to 90% of the rise
time of the process be used [4]. Furthermore,
unstable control behavior may result from an N2
that is too short. Setting N2 to in®nity results in
mean level control or steady state model inverse
control [10,11]. The closed loop poles of a mean level
controller are the same as the open loop poles [10],
therefore, for an open loop stable process without
model plant mismatch, mean level control response
is guaranteed stable. Mean level control o€ers a
conservative but robust approach to automatic
control. Removing the ®nite horizon term from the
gGPC control law (3.6) results in the mean level
controller (denoted as 1GPC) expressed as
20 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23
  
ÿ1 Gs C Fs The above polynomials now are independent of
C‡q
u…t† ˆ w…t† ÿ y…t† …9:1†
gs gs gs any GPC tuning parameters. Predictive PID con-
troller constants, KP , KI and KD can be expressed
A PID equivalent to 1GPC, denoted as 1PID, in terms of the model parameters by comparing
can be developed following the same procedure as the coecients of (9.4) with the linear relations in
in Sections 6 and 7. From (4.4), the linear poly- (6.4) which results in
nomials for 1GPC are
…a1 ‡ 2a2 †…ÿC…1††
KP ˆ
G s C Fs B…1†
T ˆ C ‡ qÿ1 Rˆ Sˆ …9:2†
gs gs gs
C…1†A…1† C…1†
KI ˆ KD ˆ a2 …9:5†
Equating the PID polynomials in (7.9) with (9.2) B…1† B…1†
along the same lines of previous sections yields
Fig. 8 shows satisfactory control response using
the 1PID controller for the same plant and dis-
C…1† Fs G s ‡ gs …C ÿ 1† turbance as presented in Fig. 6.
GCw ˆ GCy ˆ GMP ˆ
gs gs Fs The 1PID controller de®ned by (9.5) no longer
…9:3† requires the solution of the Diophantine identities
as was the case in the predictive PID controller
Substitution of the relations in Section 3 into (9.3) developed in Section 7. This has several advan-
gives tages. Implementation of this control law is very
C…1†A…1† C…1† simple and easy to understand. The fact that the
GCw ˆ GCy ˆ A Diophantine identities are not required also means
B…1† B…1†
that the execution of the 1PID controller is very
B…1†C ÿ C…1†B ‡ B…1†
…C ÿ 1† ecient in comparison to GPC or DMC. The
GMP ˆ …9:4†
C…1†A
adaptive implementation will also be very ecient

Fig. 8. Response of 1GPC and 1PID to a stochastic process.

 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23
because only simple multiplications are required
to compute the control law. This adaptive imple-
mentation is discussed in Miller [12] and Miller et
al. [13,14].
10. Industrial application of predictive PID
Predictive PID was implemented in a Honeywell
TDC2000 control computer for control of a key
unit in a fertilizer plant. Fig. 9 shows the simpli®ed
process and instrument diagram of the process.
Sub-cooled liquid ammonia is vaporized by E1
and superheated to about 300 F by the E2 con®g-
uration. Superheated ammonia and compressed
air enter the highly exothermic reactor, R3 which
produces NO2 in a yield of less than 50%. The
existing controllers for TC1, TC2 and TC3 are
PID, PID and DMC, respectively.
The undesired byproducts, NOx (other than
NO2), are produced in signi®cant quantities if the
catalyst temperature of R3 drops below 1495 F,
while the catalyst degrades prematurely if the
temperature exceeds 1505 F. Control of the cata-
lyst temperature is further complicated by var-
iance in the ammonia temperature and the
Fig. 9. Simpli®ed schematic and instrument diagram for the NO2 process.
21
ambient air temperature. E1 and E2 use process
steam which has a signi®cantly higher variance in
pressure than utility steam. Furthermore, the
temperature transmitter, TT2, is located several
metres downstream of the E2 parallel con®gura-
tion which results in a signi®cant time delay for
the TC2 control loop.
TC2 was chosen to upgrade to predictive PID
because the existing PID controller was known to
cause increased variability in the catalyst tem-
perature of R3. PID controller constants and the
internal model, GMP , were computed using an
open loop model of E2 and (6.4) and (7.12),
respectively. Predictive PID was implemented by
means of a conventional TDC2000 PID control
loop with the addition of a simple user de®ned
function for GMP and the removal of proportional
and derivative terms from setpoint changes (a
built in option). The total time required for this
implementation was about one hour not including
process identi®cation.
A comparison of predictive PID and the exist-
ing PID during nominal operating conditions is
shown in Fig. 10. The variance of the ammonia
temperature is signi®cantly higher when E2 is
controlled by the PID controller compared to the
22 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23
Fig. 10. Comparison of PID and predictive PID for control of the NO2 process.
period that is controlled by the predictive PID con-
troller. The FCOR method described by Huang et
al. [15] was used to assess the performance of PID
and predictive PID in Fig. 10 relative to minimum
variance. An FCOR measure of 1.0 indicates
minimum variance type control performance while
measures approaching zero indicate poor perfor-
mance. The PID controlled response resulted in an
FCOR measure of 0.14 while predictive PID yiel-
ded a measure of 0.26 which represents an 86%
improvement relative to minimum variance.
11. Conclusions
Long range predictive stochastic PI and PID
control laws are determined by equating the linear
polynomials in GPC with PID constants plus an
internal model for ®rst and second order plants,
respectively. The internal model GMP, which can
be interpreted as a multistep weighted predictor,
exists for models with time delay. There are no
restrictions on the gGPC tuning parameters N1 ,
N2 , Nu , l,
y and
from which the predictive PID
controller is based. Predictive PID is equivalent to
GPC for all cases except for an approximation of
stochastic servo control.
A mean level formulation of PID is determined
by setting the ®nite horizon weight to zero in the
predictive PID control law. The resulting 1PID
controller can be expressed as a simple function of
ARIMAX model parameters.
Implementation of the predictive PID controller
on a TDC2000 control computer for control of a
key heat exchanger in a fertilizer plant required only
one hour. The performance of the predictive PID
scheme was demonstrated to be superior to the
existing PID controller for a series of disturbances to
the steam pressure and during nominal operation.
Acknowledgement
The ®rst author (R.M.M.) would like to thank
NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada) for ®nancial support
in the form of a postgraduate scholarship.
References
[1] S.L. Shah, Model-based predictive control: theory and
implementation issues, Presented at ADCHEM '94,
Kyoto Research Park, Kyoto, Japan, 1994.
[2] D.W. Clarke, C. Mohtadi, P.S. Tu€s, Generalized pre-
dictive controlÐpart I. The basic algorithm, Automatica
23 (2) (1987) 137Ð148.
 R.M. Miller et al. / ISA Transactions 38 (1999) 11±23
[3] K. Kwok, Long range adaptive predictive control, Ph.D.
thesis, University of Alberta, 1992.
[4] K. Kwok, S.L. Shah, Long range pedictive control with a
terminal matching condition, Chemical Engineering Sci-
ence 49 (9) (1994) 1287±1300.
[5] C.R. Cutler, B.L. Ramaker, Dynamic matrix controlÐa
computer control algorithm, Proceedings of the 1980 Joint
Automatic Control Conf. Pt. 1, WP5-B, San Francisco,
CA, 1980.
[6] A.R. McIntosh, Performance and tuning of adaptive gen-
eralized predictive control, M.Sc. thesis, University of
Alberta, 1988.
[7] A. Henningsen, A. Christensen, O. Ravn, A PID auto-
tuner utilizing GPC and constraint optimization, Proc.
29th IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, Honolulu, HI,
pp. 1475±1480, 1990.
[8] T.J Harris, J.F. MacGregor, J.D. Wright, An overview of
discrete stochastic controllers: generalized PID algorithms
with dead-time compensation, Can. J. of Chem. Eng. 60
(1982) 425±432.
23
[9] O.J.M. Smith, Closer control of loops with dead time,
Chemical Engineering Progress 53 (5) (1957) 217±219.
[10] D.W. Clarke, C. Mohtadi, P.S. Tu€s, Generalized pre-
dictive control part II. Extensions and interpretations,
Automatica 23 (2) (1987) 137±148.
[11] A.R. McIntosh, S.L. Shah, D.G. Fisher, Analysis and
tuning of adaptive generalized predictive control, The
Canadian J. of Chemical Engineering 69 (1991) 97±110.
[12] R.M. Miller, Adaptive Predictive PID, M.Sc. thesis, Uni-
versity of Alberta, 1995.
[13] R.M. Miller, S.L. Shah, R.K. Wood, Adaptive predictive
PID, Proc. ISA/95, pp. 1±10 Toronto, 25±27 April 1995.
[14] R.M. Miller, K.E. Kwok, S.L. Shah, R.K. Wood,
Development of a stochastic predictive PID controller,
Proc. 1995 American Control Conference, pp. 4204±4208,
Seattle, WA, 1995.
[15] B. Huang, S.L. Shah, K.E. Kwok, On-line control per-
formance monitoring of MIMO processes, Proc. 1995
American Control Conference, pp. 1250±1254, Seattle, WA,
1995.