You are on page 1of 7

2016 International Conference on Instrumentation, Control and Automation (ICA)

Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Bandung, Indonesia, August 29-31, 2016

Model Predictive Control Design and Performance


Analysis of a Pasteurization Process Plant
Anang1, Sutanto Hadisupadmo2, Edi Leksono3
Department of Engineering Physiscs
Faculty of Industrial Technology
Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
1
anang.ramadania@students.itb.ac.id, 2sutanto@tf.itb.ac.id, 3edi@tf.itb.ac.id

Abstract Pasteurization is a process of heating food products at contaminate the food products). On the other hand, if the
a specified temperature to eliminate micro bacteria contaminants temperature exceeds this range then the nutritional contents of
that may endanger consumer health. In dairy food industries, the the product can be damaged. The requirement of maintaining a
pasteurization process often set to achieve products temperature fairly narrow range of temperature in the pasteurization
between 70C to 75C during 15 seconds. This paper reports the
development of control system for a lab scale pasteurization
process suggests the need for appropriate controller to
process plant Armfield PCT23MKII which is equipped with maintain the system to achieve specified operational criteria.
programmable logic controller (PLC) Allen Bradley SLC 5/02 The study reported in this paper is aimed at developing a
and OPC KepServer5 real time interface. A MATLAB based model-based predictive control (MPC) technique that can
model predictive control (MPC) algorithm is developed for the provide appropriate control signals for maintaining the
mini plant and its performance is compared to standard PID and pasteurization process to operate within a specified range of
PID cascade controllers. Based on the experimental results, it was temperature. The developed control method is developed
found that the developed MPC was capable of eliminating over under MATLAB software and implemented in real time on a
shoot, achieve a fast settling time with an integral absolute error laboratory scale pasteurization process mini plant Armfield
(IAE) of 3884 and energy consumption 613.2 kJ. In comparison PCT23MKII which is equipped with programmable logic
with both the PID and PID cascade controllers, it is also shown controller Allen Bradley SLC 5/02 and OPC KepServer5 for
that the proposed MPC algorithm has better performance in real time interfacing and data communication. Performance
terms of adapting to load change and mitigating disturbances. comparison between the developed MPC method and
conventional PID and PID cascade controllers is also reported.
Keywords Pasteurization; Heat exchangers; Model predictive
control; PID control; Programmable logic controller Based on the experimental results, it was found that the
developed MPC was capable of eliminating overshoots,
I. INTRODUCTION achieve a fast settling time with an integral absolute error
Pasteurization, named after its inventor Louis Pasteur, is a (IAE) of 3884 and energy consumption 613.2 kJ. In
process of applying heat into food product in order to keep comparison with both the PID and PID cascade controllers, it
their temperature at specific range and maintain the quality of is also shown that the proposed MPC algorithm has better
performance in terms of adapting to load change and
the food during storage. The pasteurization process is intended
mitigating disturbances
to destroy pathogenic bacteria which contaminate the food
without having to damage the nutritional content of the food TABLE I. METHOD OF PASTEURIZATION, TEMPERATURE AND
ingredients [1]. DURATION OF HEATING
The Indonesian national standard document (SNI 19-1502-
Method Time Temperature
1982) specifies that the pasteurization process usually requires Batch or Vat (holder) Pasteurization
the maintenance of a temperature range between 63C - 66C - Milk 30 min 62.8C
- Cream 30 min 65.6C
for a minimum of 30 minutes or to maintain a temperature of - Frozen Dessert Mix 30 min 68.3C
72C for at least 15 seconds. In either case, the process is
followed by immediate cooling the product to achieve a 10C High Temperature Shor Time (HTST)
- Milk 15 s 71.7C
temperature, then treated aseptically and stored at a maximum - Cream 15 s 74.4C
temperature of 4.4C. - Frozen Dessert Mix 25 s 79.4C
- Condensed Milk 15 s 74.4C
As can be seen in TABLE I, the High Temperature Short
Time (HTST) pasteurization process required by milk and Ultra High Temperature (UHT)
dessert products require the temperature to be maintained - All Product 1s 88.3C
0.5 s 90.0C
within the range of 70C - 75C in about 15 seconds. On the 0.1 s 93.0C
one hand, if the temperature is lower than this range, the 0.05 s 95.6C
0.01 s 100C
pathogen micro bacterial will not die and thereby may

978-1-5090-1335-7/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE


81
II. PROCESS DESCRIPTION Fig. 2 shows the control architecture that is used in the system.
The object of study discussed in this paper is the High It can be seen that dedicated application software that can be
Temperature Short Time (HTST) process in a miniature of a used for designing controller for the system is integrated on
pasteurization plant Armfield PCT23MKII that uses water and the workstation. The control command from the software is
heat exchanger for heating process. The process flow diagram then implemented in real time to the plant using OPC server.
of the pasteurization plant used in this study is shown in Fig. A. System Identification
1. It can be seen that the plant consists of the following three A system identification process was conducted to model
important parts [2]: the process dynamics. In the experiment, an input power of
Heated Vessel (tank heater): this heating unit is the part 21.6% which is equal to 0.35kW is used to satisfy the
where the water is heated and then circulated using a pump limitations of the heating temperature T2 to only up to 80C.
(N2) through a heat exchanger and then transferred back into By maintaining the flow of the cold water at pump N1 (feed
the heater tank. The temperature of the content of the tank is pump) at 150ml/min and at pump N2 at 60%, we found that
measured by the temperature sensor T2. the system may achieve a steady state response. In particular,
the following first order plus time delay transfer function is
Heat Exchanger: this part is a heat exchanger media where chosen for the system
the hot water coming from the tank heater is circulated and
the cold water from the cold water tank is also passed (1)
through to allow for the heat exchange process occurs.
Feed Tank: This part is a cold water storage tank that The model parameters were identified by applying a load
of 150ml/min at N1 and use a set point temperature T1 at
provides input water to the heat exchanger. The cold water
54C under a PID controller operation. The selection of the
will be circulated through the heat exchanger by the pump
temperature set point T1 should satisfy the temperature
N1 and the flow rate is measured by the flow meter F1. The limitations of T2: greater temperature T1 may result in an
output from the heat exchanger is the final product that will overshoot of T2 which, if exceed 85C, eventually can activate
be measured by the T1 as the system product. the alarm and turn off the overall process (trip). Some control
strategies will be compared in this study including using
various PID tuning algorithms and MPC method.
The system response is illustrated in Fig. 3. From which
the following transfer function can be obtained:
.
(2)
.
i.e. Kp = 0.98691, Ts = 1011.3 secon, and Td = 91 secon.

Fig.1. Process Flow Diagram of Armfield PCT23MKII pasteurization plant.

Work Station, OPC Client/Server

DF1 communication link

PLC SLC 5/02

Fig. 3. System response against Heater Power


I/O hardwired

B. Heater and Heat Exchanger Modelling


Based on Fig. 3 we also identified the model of the heater
by considering the response temperature T2 as follows.

(3)
.
Plant PCT23MKII Miniatur
Fig. 2 Control System Architecture i.e. Kp = 1, Ts = 1543.6 secon and Td = 25 secon.

82

System identification is also done to the heat exchanger TABLE II. COHEN COON TUNING METHOD
with heater temperature T2 as an input and temperature T1 as Controller Kc Ti Td
an output. T2 was set at 70C and the initial temperature T1
was set at 36C. The water was then circulated to a heat P 1
3
- -
exchanger with a fixed flow rate of 150ml/min whereas the
hot water circulation N2 is kept constant at 60%. The system PI
9 30 3 /
-
response to input step temperature T2 at 70C is shown in Fig. 10 12 9 20 /
4. From which the following transfer function of the heat 5 6 2 /
exchanger was obtained. PD
4 6 22 3 /
.
(4) 4 32 6 / 4
. PID
3 4 13 8 / 11 2 /

i.e. Kp = 0.6351, Ts = 30.143 secon and Td = 30 secon.

TABLE III. ZIEGLER-NICHOLS TUNING

Controller Kc Ti Td

PI 0.9/a 3Td -

PID 1.2/a 2Td Td/2

C. Cascade Control
In addition to standard tuning methods of the PID
controller mentioned above, this paper also reports the
cascaded configuration of the PID controller. Cascade control
has an advantage of reducing the effects of interference on the
system. In this study, the secondary controller is set to be the
Fig. 4. Response of Heat Exchanger against Hot Water T2 water heating system and the primary controller is set to be the
heat exchanger. Fig. 6 shows the diagram block of the cascade
controller implemented in this study.
III. CONTROLLER DESIGN

A. Feedback Control Strategy Set point Output


+_ +_
The system block diagram of closed loop feedback PID PIDp PIDs Gs(s) Gp(s)

control as follows:

Set Point Output


PID
+- Plant (G(s)) Fig. 6. Block diagram of the PID Cascade control system.

In Fig. 6, PIDp denotes the primary PID controller, PIDs is the


Fig. 5 Feedback system block diagram. PID secondary controller, Gp is the transfer function of the
primary system and Gs is the transfer function of the
There are several methods of tuning or configuring the PID secondary system. The tuning of the parameters of the cascade
controller showed in Fig. 5. In this paper, the Cohen Coon and controller is summarized in TABLE IV. [6].
Ziegler Nichols tuning methods as well as the cascade PID
TABLE IV. CASCADE TUNING
control configuration are applied to the system and their
performances are then compared to the MPF control method.
B. PID Controller Tuning
Considering that the process can be modeled as first order
system plus time delay, the PID controllers utilized in the
systems are tuned using the Cohen Coon [4] and the Ziegler
Nichols [5] methods. The tuning parameters of the PID
controller for both cases are shown in TABLE II and TABLE -
III, respectively. In these tables, the parameters Kp is the gain
of the system, Td is the delay time, T is the time constant of
the system, and a = Kp x (Td/T).

83

where
0.5 0.5
and K1 is the gain of the primary system, 1 is the time
constant of the primary system, 1 is the delay time, K2 is the
gain of the secondary system, 2 is the time constant of the
secondary system, and 2 is time delay of secondary system.
D. Model Predictive Control (MPC)
In this paper, the MPC method is also applied to the
system. In short, the MPC method can be explained as follows
[7] :
1. The output on the next time horizon N, called the Fig. 7. Process response using cascade controller
prediction horizon, is predicted at time t by using the At set point 54C, the simulation dead time is 57 seconds
process model. The predicted output is denoted as y(t + k and the experiment dead time is 61 seconds. The simulation
| t) for k = 1 .... N, and depends on the input - output of steady state error (ESS) is 0.00067 and the experimental ESS
the system at time t and the control signal u (t + k | t) is 0.14. The experimental maximum overshoot is 53%,
with k = 0 .... (N-1) is then calculated and sent to the whereas the simulation maximum overshoot is 10%. The
system. experimental settling time with 2% tolerance is at t = 955
2. The control signal will be calculated by optimizing the seconds and the simulation settling time is at t = 869 seconds.
cost function to keep the process remains in the reference Finally, the simulation IAE was obtained to be 2537 while the
trajectory. The objective function often chosen to be a experimental IAE is 5067.18.
quadratic function of the error. At steady state, shown on Fig. 7, disturbance is observed
3. The obtained control signal u(t | t) is then sent to the and was arising from the decrease of the flow of cold water F1
process, and control signal prediction at time t + 1 from 150ml/min to 50ml/min which isapplied at t=2000
discarded because the output sampling value y( t + 1 ) is seconds for 500 seconds. The flow was then returned again to
already known. This algorithm then repeated from step 1. its original state that is 150ml / min at t = 2500 seconds. In
this case, overshoot arising at a value of 2.3C or 12.7% at t =
The prediction output of the MPC follows the following 2254 seconds. Once the load is normalized, the temperature
formula increases immediately. The temperature finally undershoot by
2.88C of the set point or 16% at t = 2593 seconds. The
| | (5) settling time finally return back to normal with a tolerance of
2% at t = 513 seconds.
where gi is the output when the control signal is u(t-1). The B. PID controller tuning using Ziegler-Nichols method
cost function in general can be expressed as The PID controller parameters based on the Ziegler-
Nichols method was found to be Kp = 13 513, Ti = 182 and
Td = 45.5. The simulation and experimental results was done
, , | for a set point of 54C. It was obtained that the dead time
simulation was 91 seconds and the experiment was 69
seconds. In addition, the simulation settling time with 2%
1 (6) tolerance is 1116 seconds while on the experiment the system
could not reached the steady state with 2% tolerance and
where N1 And N2 are the minimum and maximum prediction instead continue to oscillate (cf. Fig. 8).
horizon, respectively, Nu is the control horizon, (j) is the
error weighting and (j) is the control signal weighting. Nu
should be chosen smaller than N2 to achieve a fast response
whereas N2 must be set bigger than the system time delay.
IV. RESULT AND ANALYSIS

A. PID Tuning on Cascade Control


Using TABLE IV, the value of the cascade controller are
as follows: secondary controller Kp = 41.385, Ti = 1551.93
and Td = 8.2886. Primary controller with Kp = 1.164, Ti =
60.976 and Td = 19.00042. The response of the system using
the cascade controller at set point 54C is shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 8. System response using Ziegler-Nochols tuning method

84

The experimental maximum overshoot is found to be


10.40% whereas in the simulation the value is at 17.75%.
Moreover, the settling time with 5% tolerance are achieved
at t = 788 and t = 716 seconds for the experiment and
simulation, respectively. Fig. 11 shows the system responses
when changes of load of cold water is performed at t = 2000
seconds for 500 seconds. It can be seen that overshoot occurs
at 3C or 17.38% at t = 2331 seconds. After the normalized
case, undershoot occurs at 2.14C of set point or by 15.58% at
t = 2644 seconds.
C. PID controller tuning using Cohen-Coon method
Fig. 10. System response using MPC.
The PID controller parameters are calculated as Kp =
15.267, Ti = 215.83, Td = 32.56. For a set point of 54 C, the
dead time of 91 and 70 seconds were observed for simulation
and experiment cases. Additionally, maximum overshoot of
12% and 19% were observed in experiment and simulation,
respectively. The response in experiment can not reach steady
state with 2% or 5% tolerances, whereas the settling time
in simulation with tolerance of 2% was achieved at t = 1495
with an IAE of 4631 (cf. Fig. 9).

Fig. 11 Comparison of controller performance under disturbance.

Fig. 11 shows the comparison of different control methods


mentioned previously. Since the Cohen-Coon and Ziegler-
Nichols methods result in oscillation that is more than 2%
(cf. TABLE V), they can not be applied to the system.

TABLE V. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF VARIOUS CONTROLLERS


Parameters Cascade MPC CC ZN
Fig. 9. System response using Cohen-Coon tuning method. Ts 955 712 - -
Mp 53% - 8.80% 10.4%
Fig. 11 shows the system responses when changes of load ESS 0.14 0.18 - -
Td 61 70 70 69
of cold water is performed at t = 2000 seconds for 500 SSE 61.2 6.73 734.7 76.76
seconds. It can be seen that overshoot occurs at 3C or 41% at MSE 0.122 0.013 1.47 0.15
Disturbance
t = 2373 seconds. After the normalized case, undershoot Mp 12.70% 22% 38.80% 17.38%
occurs at 2.2C of set point or by 12.7% at t = 2733 seconds. Ts 513 463 - -
Undershoot 16% 14% 11.80% 15.58%
D. MPC Controller Impulse
IAE 164.41 56.09 - -
The system response using MPC controller is shown in Note: CC : Cohen-Coon, ZN : Ziegler-Nichols, ESS : Error, Ts : time settling,
Fig. 10. For a set point of 54C, the simulation and Td : time delay
experimental dead times are 91 and 70 seconds, respectively.
The error steady state of the system response is 0.18 and E. Set Point Tracking and Impuls Response
without overshoot for both the simulation and experiment Performance comparison of both the cascade controller
case. The settling times in the experiment and simulation with and MPC to a set point change from 54C to 55C, 57C,
a tolerance of 2% are t = 712 seconds and t = 521 seconds, 52C and back to 54C are conducted to the systems.
respectively. Fig. 12 shows the system response for a set point change at
Fig. 11 shows the system responses when changes of load t = 1500 from 54C to 55C. There exists a delay in the
of cold water is performed at t = 2000 seconds for 500 simulation and experiment at 91 seconds. The set point is then
seconds. It can be seen that overshoot occurs at 3C or 22% at raised to 57C at t = 2000, then decreased to 52C at t = 2500
t = 2437 seconds. Once the load is normalized, the and finally returned to 54C. From the comparison between
temperature rises by 4.67C above the set point at t = 2530 the simulation and experimental responses, it can be
sec, then the temperature drops below the set point at t = 2685 concluded that the system is capable of following the change
seconds. of set points quite well.

85

This can be seen on total IAE during entire step change for
MPC is 1669.78 and 2065.37 for Cascade. For a change in
form of impulse disturbance, the effect on observed using
cascade controller is a temperature change of 1.7C while the
MPC temperature change only of 0.5C (cf. Fig. 14).

F. Comparison on Power Consumption


The comparison of power consumption between MPC and
Cascade control is summarized in TABLE VI.

TABLE VI. COMPARISON OF POWER CONSUMPTION

MPC Cascade
Fig. 12 MPC response to set point changes. Description Power Total Power Total
(kW) (kJ) (kW) (kJ)
Fig. 13 shows that the cascade controller respondS fast
enough to track the new set point but with oscillation. In Settling time 0.85 548.85 0.76 650.76
particular, the greater the set point is increased, the greater the Steady state 0.38 171.82 0.33 162.50
oscillation that occurs and even lead to overshoot. The total Flow Disturbance 0.26 259.79 0.25 268.41
IAE due to input changes is 2065.37. Both cascade or MPC
Step input 0.38 731.40 0.32 653.04
have a good response but Cascade Control provides
temperature decrease (undershoot) that is higher than the MPC Impulse 0.52 11.51 1.62 30.78
when the change of set point is set from 57C to 51C.
At settling time, the MPC consume smaller energy than the
cascade controller. This IS because the cascade controller
experiences overshoot before the steady state. At steady state,
the MPC energy consumption is greater than the cascade
controller. This is because the MPC provides a certain amount
of power to maintain the temperature according to the set point.
On the other hand, the cascade controller works based on the
error between the output and set point, causing output ripple
phenomenon occurs.
With the provision of load changes, namely by reducing the
flow rate of cold water (feed water) from 150ml/min to
50ml/min, the MPC consumes less energy than the cascade
controller (cf. Fig. 15). This occurs because the MPC achieves
Fig. 13 Comparison to set point changes. settling condition more quickly than the cascade controller, i.e.
955 seconds for MPC and 1008 seconds for cascade controller.
The lowest temperature that may occur is 49C and the MPC For the set point tracking, the total energy consumed by the
is able to follow the set point temperature setting. It can also MPC is larger than the cascade control (cf. Fig. 16). However,
be observed that the IAE of the cascade controller is higher at the cascade controller produces greater error as indicated by
1350.49, and MPC IAE is 901.46. The overall response for a IAE of 2065.37 as compared to IAE of 1669.78 in MPC.
step input using MPC is better than the cascade controller.

Fig. 14. Comparison of system response against impuls set point. Fig. 15 Comparison of power consumption under load disturbance.

86

energy consumption of 268.41 kJ of energy consumption and


settling time of 1008 seconds. The best performance of MPC is
observed if the process variables change drastically due to the
presence of input disturbances. This is indicated by the MPC
controller which produces an IAE of 19.1%, which is lower
when compared to the cascade.
REFERENCES

[1] VH. Holsinger, KT. Rajkowski, Jr. Stabel, Milk Pasteurisation and
Safety : a brief history and update, Agriculture Research Service, USA,
1997.
Fig. 16 Comparison of power consumption for step input [2] PCT23MkII : Process Plant Trainer (Process Control Trainer).
Published by Armfield.LTD, www.armfield.co.uk, 2014.
V. CONCLUSION [3] Piotr Tatjewski, Supervisory Predictive Control and OnLine SetPoint
Optimization, Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., 2010, Vol. 20, No. 3,
In this paper, the development of control systems for a 483495.
pasteurization process plant based on cascade controller and [4] Steven E. LeBlanc, Donald R. Coughanowr, Process Systems Analysis
MPC method is presented. The simulation and experimental and Control, Third Edition, McGraw Hill, 2009.
result shows that the MPC performance is better than the [5] S. P. Yongho Lee, PID controller tuning to obtain desired closed loop
responses for cascade control systems, Ind. Amp Eng. Chem. Res., vol.
cascade controller as shown with by the absence of overshoot, 37, no. 5, 1998
a settling time of 712 seconds, an integral absolute error (IAE) [6] M. Huba, S. Skogestad, M. Fikar, M. Hovd, T. A. Johansen, B. Rohal-
of 3884, an energy consumption of 613.2 kJ and the ability to Ilkiv, Selected Topics on Constrained and Nonlinear Control, STU
resist a step input interference while maintaining an IAE of Bratislava NTNU Trondheim, Slovakia, 2011.
1669.78. [7] E.F. Camacho and C. Bordons, Model Predictive Control, Springer-
Under disruption due to load changes, it was found that the Verlag London Limited, 2007.
cascade controller performs better with an IAE of 1197.84, an

87