Int. J. Simulation and Process Modelling, Vol. 11, No.

2, 2016 97

Comparison of subspace and prediction error

methods of system identification for cement
grinding process

Venkatesh Sivanandam* and Ramkumar Kannan

School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
SASTRA University,
Thanjavur, India
Email: esvee@eie.sastra.edu
Email: ramkumar@eie.sastra.edu
*Corresponding author

Seshadhri Srinivasan
Kalasalingam University,
Krishnankoil, India
Email: seshucontrol@gmail.com

Guruprasath Muralidharan
FLSmidth Pvt. Ltd.,
Chennai, India
Email: guruprasath.muralidharan@flsmidth.com

Abstract: Maintaining product quality in cement grinding process in the presence of

clinker heterogeneity is a challenging task. Model predictive controllers (MPC) are argued
to be one possible solution to handle the variability, and the lack of models that relates
clinker heterogeneity with product quality makes the MPC design challenging. This investigation
addresses the suitability of two data-driven modelling approaches for cement grinding
process-prediction error and subspace identification methods. Data collected from cement
grinding process is used to build the model of the same. The collected data is used to build
different candidate state-space models using the prediction error and subspace identification
methods. The candidate models were validated using Akaikes information criterion and mean
square error to study the suitability of these modelling techniques. The validation tests are used
to identify the most suitable candidate models for the prediction error and subspace methods. The
models developed in this investigation are inputs to design predictive controllers for cement
industries and assure product quality in the presence of clinker grindability variations.

Keywords: cement grinding process; system identification; state space model; prediction error
method; PEM; subspace method.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Sivanandam, V., Kannan, R., Srinivasan, S.
and Muralidharan, G. (2016) Comparison of subspace and prediction error methods of system
identification for cement grinding process, Int. J. Simulation and Process Modelling, Vol. 11,
No. 2, pp.97107.

Biographical notes: Venkatesh Sivanandam holds a Bachelor in Engineering and Masters in

Process Control and Instrumentation. He is currently doing his research in the field on process
control at SASTRA University, Thanjavur, India. He has over 17 years of teaching experience in
engineering.

Ramkumar Kannan received his PhD in Process Control from SASTRA University. He is
working in the Department of Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering, SASTRA University,
Thanjavur, India over 18 years. He has successfully completed a funded project from DRDO.

Seshadhri Srinivasan received his PhD from National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli in
2010. He worked as an Associate Scientist in ABB Indian Corporate Research Center at
Banaglore, India, and Sr. Scientist in Center for Excellence in Nonlinear Systems at Institute of
Cybernetics, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia. He worked as a Forscher with
Technical University of Munchen, Germany and currently leads the international research efforts
of the Kalasalingam University. He has worked in various projects of significance such as
European Union Regional Development Fund and Target Project SF 140018s0 on complex

Copyright 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

98 V. Sivanandam et al.

control systems, I3RES (FP7 project) and e-Gotham (Arteimus) in Smart grids. EUCLID has
identified him as a resource person in industrial networked control systems. He was also the
recipient of MHRD fellowship for pursuing research from 20072010.

Guruprasath Muralidharan received his PhD in the field of process control from National
Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli, India. He has extensive experience in the automation of
cement plants over 12 years. He is currently working for FLSmidth Pvt. Ltd, Cement and
Minerals Projects India, Chennai, India.

1 Introduction cement grinding circuit. For example, Austin et al. (1976,

1984) developed a first-principle model for the entire
Feed-grindability variations (clinker hardness) due to
cement milling circuit based on residing time and specific
clinkers procured from different vendors influence the
breakage rate of the clinkers and the model was validated in
product quality in cement grinding circuit. Model-based
Apling and Ergin (1994). An event-based approach based
controllers are argued to be a promising solution to
on distributed model fracture for modelling cement grinding
tackle feed-grindability variations and to guarantee
circuit was studied in Viswanathan and Narang (1988) and
product quality (Van Breusegem et al., 1996; Venkatesh
Viswanathan (1988). Following up on the results, Zhang et
et al., 2015). However, absence of models that relate
al. (1988) developed first-principle model based on particle
feed-grindability with product quality and output are
test that made it possible to accommodate breakage function
required for designing model-based controllers. To our best
in the model. The investigations in Lynch et al. (2000) and
knowledge, the current models in literature are not suitable
Benzer et al. (2001) used the particle size inside the
to model the influences of feed grindability variations with
ball-mill to model the cement grinding circuit. In addition to
product quality. Obtaining first principle models that relate
the above results, first principle models based on transfer
feed-grindability with product quality is rather difficult, as
function models (Prasath et al., 2013; Muthukumar et al.,
the physical laws governing the mass flow are cumbersome.
2015), parametric and neural network-based modelling
A better approach in this scenario is to use data-driven
(Venkatesh et al., 2015), semi-parametric regression
models using real-time plant measurements. The main
(Boulvin et al., 1999), and other mathematical techniques
advantage of data-driven modelling technique is their
(Van Breusegem et al., 1996; Boulvin and Vande Wouwer,
simplicity and reasonable accuracy. Currently, there are no
2003) have been studied in literature. Though, first principle
models that map feed grindability variations with product
modelling is based on established physical laws and
quality. Objective of this investigation is to propose
mathematical techniques, developing them require
data-driven models for cement grinding circuit that can be
multi-disciplinary expertise and are cumbersome. Further,
used to design model-based controllers. Main contribution
the models capture the material flow, but capturing the
of the paper is to study the suitability of two promising
effects of feed-grindability variations on product quality
data-driven modelling techniques-prediction error and
using their models is complex. One significant advantage of
subspace identification to build a model for cement grinding
the first-principle model is the direct correlation between
process that maps product quality with feed-grindability
the physical variables and model parameters. Several
variations. To reach our objectives, data collected from a
modelling techniques were discussed for different industrial
cement grinding mill located near Chennai using FLSmidth
processes (Paradis et al., 2014; Schoech et al., 2013) which
A/s supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
do not suit the cement grinding process because of its
systems is used. The data thus obtained is used to model the
slowly varying nature.
cement grinding circuit. Different candidate models are
To overcome the difficulties with the first-principle
validated for a considered error criterion. The candidate
models, the authors of this investigation proposed a
model that gives a good trade-off between the order of the
data-driven modelling approach for cement grinding circuit
system and accuracy is chosen as the cement grinding
using computation intelligence techniques in Wigren (2006)
circuit model.
and Favoreel et al. (2000). The resulting model was
Modelling cement grinding circuits have attracted
simple and captured the effect of noise and disturbance
significant research. The available models in literature can
better than the first principle models in literature. Though,
be classified into two broad categories:
the data-driven approach proposed in Wigren (2006) and
1 first-principle Favoreel et al. (2000) is simple and easy to adapt in
industries, direct correlation between physical variables and
2 data-driven models.
model parameters is rather difficult. Advantages of the
First principle models are based on mass balance equations first-principle and data-driven modelling approaches are
that use differential equations to model the cement grinding illustrated in Table 1. Our objective in this investigation is
circuit (see Austin et al., 1975; Benzer et al., 2001; and to combine the advantages of the first-principle and
references therein). The authors in these works have used data-driven modelling approaches, by developing a
various assumptions and simplifications to model the data-driven mathematical model that relates model
 Comparison of subspace and prediction error methods of system identification for cement grinding process 99

parameters directly with the physical variables. Further, use investigation are most suited for designing predictive
a firm mathematical framework wherein the sensitivity of controllers for cement grinding circuit in the presence of
the accuracy to the designer choice is eliminated. feed-grindability variations.
Main contributions of this investigation are:
Table 1 Advantages and disadvantages of different modelling
techniques 1 two data-driven state space models for the cement
grinding process based on prediction error and
Approach Advantages Dis-advantages subspace methods that use real-time data from cement
First Based on well-defined Complex to develop. grinding circuit to map feed-grindability variations with
principle physical laws. Requires multiple product quality
models Mathematical domain expertise and is
formulation that time-consuming.
2 analyse different candidate models for both the state
directly relates physical space models and selecting the most accurate model
Relating
variables with model feed-grindability 3 model validation using real-time industrial data.
parameters. variations with product
quality is difficult.
Data Simple and easy to Direct correlation 2 Process description
driven develop. between physical
model Relate feed-grindability variable and model The schematic of the cement grinding process used in this
variations with product parameter is not study is shown in Figure 1. It consists of ball mill, bucket
quality. possible.
elevator, and separator. The feed to the process is the
Model uncertainties are Accuracy depends on clinkers along with additives such as gypsum and fly ash to
adopted. the model data and
expertise of the improve the chemical properties of the cement that are
designer. stored in hoppers. Clinkers are introduced into the ball mill
grinding process through weigh feeders. The clinkers are
To reach the objectives, this investigation proposes two ground by the impact of steel balls to obtain a powdered
modelling techniques: material that are taken by the bucket elevator to the
separator. The classifying separator separates the fine and
1 prediction error method (PEM)
coarse particles into two streams based on centrifugal force.
2 subspace identification technique. The final cement product that satisfy the desired fineness
(Blaine) get suspended in the air stream and are therefore
Both these data-driven approaches are simple and the
sucked by the separator fan. The coarse and semi-ground
models developed directly correlate the parameters and
particles that are not satisfying the desired fineness are
physical variables. The identified models were validated
collected at the bottom of the separator and re-circulated
with several techniques as discussed in Tavakolpour-Saleh
into the ball mill for further grinding. Higher the separator
et al. (1997, 2015). As a result, these approaches combine
speed better the product quality.
the advantages of the first-principle and data-driven models
and map the feed-grindability variations to the product
quality and output. Therefore, models developed in this

Figure 1 Schematic of cement grinding process (see online version for colours)
100 V. Sivanandam et al.

The feed with grindability variations entering the ball mill,
affects the mill load (material inside the mill) and product
quality in the following two ways assuming that the
separator speed is maintained at is maximum value:
1 low grindability feed causes increase in mill load which
may lead to the plugging phenomenon (obstruction of
mill) and also affect the product quality because the
semi-ground particles are collected at the outlet stream
2 high grindability feed reduces the mill load that leads to
wear and tear of the balls and fine particles enter into
the reject stream.
To guarantee product quality in the presence of feed
grindability variations requires that the feed flow rate and
separator fan power to be varied leading to improved
product quality, productivity, and reduced plugging and
wearing of the balls in the mill.
Currently, cement industries lack a measurement
methodology for product quality directly. Therefore, the
elevator current and main drive load can be used as the
controlled variable, whereas feed-flow rate and separator
power are the manipulating variables. Thus, the model that
relates the manipulating and controlled variables will
capture the effect of feed grindability variations on cement
product quality.
Figure 2 Real time data acquired from cement grinding process
(see online version for colours)
20
current (A)
Elevator
with a sampling time of 1minute. The data collected has
outliers and is corrupted by noise. Data pre-processing
techniques such sigma testing and average filtering are used
to eliminate the outliers and bad-data. The processed data is
then normalised (see Figure 2) to simplify the computations.
In the modelling step, the normalised data is divided
into two parts: one set of data is used for fitting the model,
whereas the second set of data is used in validation.
3.1 Prediction error method
This premise of the method is to minimise the error between
the predicted and observed values of the output. The basic
idea behind prediction error approach is, first describe the
model as a predictor of the next output, and then
parameterise the predictor. The predictor thus obtained is
used to predict the next output and the parameters are
corrected based on the predicted error using a suitable norm.
This method is classified under the broad category of
parameter estimation methods. It has close association with
maximum likelyhood approach. The predictor for this
model is represented by
(
y m (k | k 1) = f Z k 1 ) (1)
where y m (k | k 1) is the one step ahead predictor, f is the
function denoting past observed data, k is the sampling
instant and Z is the input and output data observed from the
cement grinding process. The predictor is represented in
terms of parametric vector as follows

( )
0
y(k | ) = f Z k 1 , (2)
-20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
The parameterisation of the model is obtained from the
50
differential equation as follows
Main drive
load (kW)

0
y (k ) + a1 y (k 1) + " + an y (k n)
(3)
-50
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
= b1u (k 1) + " + bm u (k m)

20 where y and u are the outputs and inputs, n and m are the
rate (TPH)

number of coefficients in output and input respectively. The

feed flow

0
predictor of equation (3) becomes
-20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
y(k | ) = a1 y (k 1) " an y ( k n) + b1u (k 1)
(4)
20 + " + bm u (k m)
power (kW)
Separtor

0
where = [a1 ... an b1 ... bm ]T . The observed data of the
-20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 cement grinding process is expressed as
Time in minutes

( )
f Z k 1 , = T (k ). (5)

3 System modelling where (k ) = [ y (k 1)... y (k n)u (k 1)...u (k m)]. The

Having described the cement grinding process in good
details along with the modifications required in terms of
manipulating and controlled variables, this section studies
the two state space modelling approaches for the cement
grinding circuit. To obtain the models, plant data from
cement grinding circuit in a cement mill located near
Chennai and obtained using FLSmidth SCADA systems
predictor model which is linear in Zk1 is expressed as
( )
f Z k 1 , = Wy (q, ) y (k ) + Wu (q, )u (k ) (6)
where q is the time shift operator and Wy and Wu are the
output and input weights respectively. The linear predictor
model in equation (6) is equivalent to
 Comparison of subspace and prediction error methods of system identification for cement grinding process 101

y ( k ) = G (q, )u (k ) + H (q, )e(k ). (7) In the first step, the data is projected into the row space to
find the observability matrix and state estimates. The second
where e(k) is the unpredictable white noise, G is the transfer step involves finding the system matrices A, B, C and D
function of a linear time invariant system of finite order from observability matrix and state estimates. Several
(LTFID) and H is a stable, monic and minimum algorithms are there for implementing the subspace
phase transfer function corresponding to a noise model. identification techniques. All the subspace identification
Equation (7) is written as procedure start with the following input and output matrix
equation as discussed in Favoreel (2000).
y(k ) = I H 1 (q, ) y (k )
(8) y f = Ti X i + H d u f + H s M f + N f (12)
+ H 1 (q, )G (q, )u (k ) + e(k )
where the observability matrix Ti is given by
The prediction error is the difference between the predicted
output by the model and the actual measurement of the C
process. Ti = ,
CA
The prediction error can be written as
the lower triangular matrix Hd is defined as
e(k ) = y (k ) y ( k ) = H 1 [ y ( k ) Gu (k ) ] (9)
D 0
where y(k) and y(k ) denote the actual measurement and the CB D ,

output predicted by the model respectively and u(k) is the
input. The identification criterion has to be chosen so that a and Hs is the stochastic triangular matrix defined as
best model fit can be obtained. Generally least square
0 0
criterion will be used. The cost function of least square C 0 .
criterion can be obtained directly
1 The input Hankel matrix is

N
min VN ( ) = e( k , ) 2 (10)
N k 1
u0 u1
u u2
where is parametric vector and it is found as discussed in 1
Ljung (1999) and N is the length of data.
The state space model using this parameters is y y1
and the output matrix is 0
written as y1 y2
x(k + 1) = A( ) x(k ) + B( )u (k ) yf yfuture is the predicted output
x(0) = x0 ( ) (11)
Xi is the estimate of state vector
y (k ) = C ( ) x(k ) + D( )u (k )
u is the input.
The system matrices of equation (11) A, B, C and D are
Mf and Nf are process and measurement noise, respectively.
parameterised and found using canonical form
The matrix with input up and output yp is known as Wp.
representation.
That is

3.2 Subspace method (N4SID) yp

Wp = .
Subspace identification methodology is used to obtain the u p
parameters of the system matrices A, B, C and D of the state
space representation. Figure 3 shows the two step procedure The subscript f and p indicates future and past values.
to build subspace model of a process. The first step in subspace identification is to find TiXi.
Once this is found, the extended observability matrix Ti and
Figure 3 Subspace system identification procedure (see online the state estimate Xi can be very easily found. The
version for colours) knowledge of Ti and Xi is used to find the system
parameters. The row space of yf is projected on to the row
Observability
matrix space of u. Hence, from equation (12), we have
y f = Ti X i + H i M f + N f (13)
System After weighting this projection with some matrices W1 and
Real time
matrices
input, output W2 equation (13) becomes
data

State estimate
102 V. Sivanandam et al.

Oi = W1 y f W2 correlation between the residuals and outputs are analysed

in order to check the dependency (Tavakolpour-Saleh,
(
= W1Ti X iW2 + W1 H i M f + N f W2 ) (14) 2015). The final prediction error (FPE) is the difference
Oi = W1 y f u f W2 = W1Ti X i u f W2 between the measured output and model output which is to
be minimum is the next method to validate the model. The
Using singular value decomposition the observability matrix expressions and the methods used for this analysis are
Ti and state estimate Xi is found. discussed in Zhang and Krieger (1993). The third validation
In the second step, the system model is found from the test is the AIC which is the good measure of accuracy of the
following equations using the least square estimates identified model as discussed in Tavakolpour-Saleh et al.
(2015). The last validation test is the mean squared error
X i +1 A B X i w which is the square of the difference between the observed
y = C D u + (15)
and model output.
i i v
where w and v are residual matrices.
Further the equation (15) is reduced to 5 Results and discussions
2
X A B Xi The training dataset of the real time data were utilised for
min A, B ,C , D i +1 (16) the model identification and the testing dataset for
yi C D ui validation. This section discusses the comparison of
Minimisation of equation (16) in several iterations produces the state space models obtained using two different
the system matrices A, B, C and D. techniques PEM and subspace method. The most accurate
For identification of noise model, the residuals w and v of these two models is selected for providing models that
used to find the noise covariances Q, S and R are as follows. relate the feed grindability variations with product quality.

Q S 1 w T T Table 2 Model validation test for different candidate models

(
T = w v 0 ) (17) for PEM-based state space models
S R i j v
Sl. Candidate Model
The index term i is the bias that has been introduced for FPE AIC MSE
no. model order
finite i and it approaches infinity, the bias disappears.
1 SSP1 1 15.5280 2.7427 28.2492
The matrix equation (17) should be positive semidefinite.
2 SSP2 2 4.9486 1.5994 9.7823
The positive semidefiniteness is essential since these
3 SSP3 3 4.6713 1.5432 9.4303
covariances are leading to physically realisable noise model.
4 SSP4 4 3.3872 1.2246 8.7900
5 SSP5 5 3.1999 1.1706 8.5647
4 Model validation 6 SSP6 6 3.0926 1.1401 8.4110
7 SSP7 7 2.9251 1.0885 8.3628
The next step in system identification step is to validate the 8 SSP8 8 2.8977 1.0838 8.3320
identified state space models for their suitability to the
9 SSP9 9 2.9845 1.0987 8.3986
cement grinding process. Although, the models identified
10 SSP10 10 3.0123 1.1209 8.4623
using data-driven approaches are not accurate models, a
reasonably accurate model can be selected by validating the
models using historical data. As the true process parameters 5.1 State space model using PEM
are not known, the models are validated with the real-time
Since the model order influences the accuracy and
data-obtained from the plant. The first half of the real time
complexity of the model, several candidate models from
data acquired from the cement grinding process is used for
SSP1 through SSP10 (see Table 2) by changing the model
training and to identify the model as discussed in Section 3.
order from 1 to 10 were experimented using trial and error
For validation the second set of data in Figure 2 from time
method. The models SSP1-10 are validated using measures
sample 1,001 to 2,000 was utilised for validation.
such as FPE, AIC and MSE to denote the model accuracy.
The model identified is validated using
For the 1st order model all the three validation parameters
1 residual analysis were too high compared with the other model orders as
shown in Table 2. As the model order is increased all the
2 final prediction error (FPE)
validation parameters starts decreasing till the order 8. After
3 Akaikes information criterion (AIC) that the validation parameters increase. From Table 1 it is
evident that the SSP8 having the model order 8 is showing
4 mean squared error (MSE).
least values of all the validation parameters FPE, AIC and
The residuals (difference between the observed output and MSE. Hence, it will be reasonable choice to choose SSP8 as
predicted output) must be independent with inputs for the the winner model. The adequacy of the winner model for
model to have good accuracy. Hence in residual analysis, addressing the cement grinding process is tested by
the auto correlation among the residuals and the cross checking dependency of the residuals with the inputs. In
 Comparison of subspace and prediction error methods of system identification for cement grinding process 103

order to check the dependency, correlation analysis is being
performed.
First the auto correlation among the residuals is tested.
All the correlation functions except at lag 0 are lying within
the confidence region of 95% as shown in Figure 4. It is
obvious that the correlation function will hit 1 at lag 0
because the dependency of the signal at the same time
samples is maximum. The cross correlation function
between the residuals of the output (difference between the
observed output and model output) and the inputs are
analysed in order to check the dependency among them.
Figure 5 shows the cross correlation function of
residuals of the output elevator current with the inputs feed
flow rate, separator power.
Figure 6 shows the cross correlation function of
residuals of the main drive load with the inputs. A close
look at Figures 5 and 6 show that the correlation functions
lie within the 95% confidence region, which means that the
winner state space model SSP8, identified using PEM is
representing the cement grinding process with guaranteed
accuracy of 95%.
Among the winner models SSP8 from the PEM and the
SSS4 from the subspace method, the best model which suits
the cement grinding process that relates the feed grindability
variations with product quality has to be chosen. For this
analysis, the testing dataset is introduced as input for the
winner models SSP8 and SSS4. Figure 10 shows the
comparison of measured outputs with that of prediction
error-based state space model SSP8 where as Figure 11
shows the comparison between the measured and model
output of subspace state space model. A close look of these
Figures 10 and 11 reveal that the model output
corresponding to SSS4 (state space model found using
subspace method) is tracking the observed (measured)
output. Hence the model SSS4 found with the technique of
subspace method is a good representative for the cement
grinding process under feed grindability variations.

Figure 4 Auto correlation function among the residuals for both the outputs for the selected candidate model
(see online version for colours)
For elevator current
0.2

0.1
correlationfunction

-0.1

-0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

For main drive load

0.2

0.1
correlationfunction

-0.1

-0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

Figure 5 Cross correlation function between residuals of the first output elevator current with two inputs viz. feed flow rate and separator
power (see online version for colours)
Between feed flow rate and elevator current
0.1
confidence region
correlation function
0.05
correlationfunction

-0.05

-0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

Between separator power and elevator current

0.1
confidence region
correlation function
0.05
correlationfunction

-0.05

-0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag
104 V. Sivanandam et al.

Figure 6 Cross correlation function between residuals of the first output main drive load with two inputs viz. feed flow rate and separator
power (see online version for colours)
correlation function between the feed flow rate and residuals from the elevator current
0.1
confidence region
correlation function
correlationfunction 0.05

-0.05

-0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

crorrelation function between the separaton power and resdiuals from main drive load
0.1
confidence region
correlation function
0.05
correlationfunction

-0.05

-0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

Figure 7 Correlation function among the residuals of the winner model for both outputs elevator current and main drive load
(see online version for colours)
autocorrelation of residuals for elevator current
0.2
confidence region
correlation function
0.1
correlationfunction

-0.1

-0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

autocorrelation of residuals for main drive load

0.2
confidence region
correlation function
0.1
correlationfunction

-0.1

-0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

Figure 8 Correlation function between the output elevator current and two inputs viz. feed flow rate and separator power for the winner
model (see online version for colours)
correlation between feed flow rate and residuals from elevator current
0.1
confidence region
correlation function
0.05
correlationfunction

-0.05

-0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

correlation function between separator power and residuals from elevator current
0.1
confidence region
correlation function
0.05
correlationfunction

-0.05

-0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag
 Comparison of subspace and prediction error methods of system identification for cement grinding process 105

Figure 9 Correlation function between the output main drive load and two inputs viz. feed flow rate and separator power for the winner
model (see online version for colours)
correlation function between the residuals of output main drive load and input feed flow rate
0.1
confidence region
correlation function
0.05
correlationfunction

-0.05

-0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

correlation function between the residuals of output main drive load and input separator power
0.1
confidence region
correlation function
0.05
correlationfunction

-0.05

-0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lag

Figure 10 Comparison of model output and observed output for the winner SSP8 model (see online version for colours)
4

2
Elevator current (A)

-2

measured output
-4 model output

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (minutes)

20
15
aindriveload(kW)

10
5
0

-5
M

-10
measured output
-15 model output

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (minutes)

Figure 11 Comparison of model output and observed output for the winner SSS4 model (see online version for colours)
4

2
Elevator current (A)

-2

measured output
-4 model output

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (minutes)

20
15
aindriveload(kW)

10
5
0
-5
M

-10
measured output
-15 model output

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (minutes)
106 V. Sivanandam et al.

Table 3 Model validation test for different candidate models Austin, L.G., Klimpel, R.R. and Luckie, P.T. (1984) Process
for subspace method-based state space models engineering of size reduction: ball milling, Society of Mining
Engineers of the AIME, pp.260291, 458470.
Sl. Candidate Model Austin, L.G., Luckie, P.T. and Seebach, H.M.V. (1976)
FPE AIC MSE
no. model order Optimization of a cement milling circuit with respect to
1 SSS1 1 64.355 4.165 12.6055 particle size distribution and strength development, by
simulation models, Fourth European Symposium
2 SSS2 2 4.606 1.527 9.8168
Zerkleinern, Dechema Monographein, Verlag Chemie,
3 SSS3 3 4.549 1.516 9.8129 Weinheim, pp.519537.
4 SSS4 4 4.190 1.442 8.7435 Austin, L.G., Luckie, P.T. and Wightman, D. (1975) Steady state
5 SSS5 5 5.439 1.696 10.2336 simulation of a cement milling circuit, International Journal
of Mineral Processing, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.127150.
6 SSS6 6 4.629 1.536 9.6033
Austin, L.G., Weymont, N. P. and Knobloch, O. (1980)
7 SSS7 7 4.707 1.554 9.2741 The simulation of air swept cement mills, Part 1. The
8 SSS8 8 4.405 1.489 9.2741 simulation model, European Symposium on Particle
Technology, pp.640655.
9 SSS9 9 4.332 1.552 9.8456
Benzer, H., Ergun, L. Oner, M. and Lynch, A.J. (2001)
10 SSS10 10 4.992 1.609 9.1239 Simulation of open circuit clinker grinding, Minerals
Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp.701710.
Boulvin, M. and Vande Wouwer, A. (2003) Modeling and control
6 Conclusions of cement grinding processes, IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp.715725.
This investigation presented two data driven modelling Boulvin, M., Renotte, C., Vande Wouwer, A., Remy, M.,
approaches for cement grinding circuit that maps the Tarasiewicz, S. and Cesar, P.(1999) Modeling, simulation
product quality with feed grindability variations. The first and evaluation of control loops for a cement grinding
modelling approach was based on prediction error, whereas process, European Journal of Control, Vol. 5, No. 1,
subspace identification was the second method. The models pp.1018.
were identified from real-time data collected from a cement Favoreel, W., Moor, B.D. and Van Overschee, P. (2000)
grinding circuit using SCADA systems of FLSmidth. Subspace state space system identification for industrial
processes, Journal of Process Control, Vol. 10, Nos. 2/3,
Different candidate models using both subspace and pp.149155.
prediction error were compared. The model giving a good
Ljung, L. (1999) System Identification, Theory for the User,
trade-off between accuracy and computation complexity 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
was selected as the candidate model. The identified
Lynch, A.J., ner, M. and Benzer, H. (2000) Simulation of closed
candidate models were validated using several tests such as cement grinding circuit, Zement-Kalk-Gips, Vol. 53, No. 10,
FPE, AIC, and MSE, and two models were selected from pp.560564.
each category of prediction error and subspace method. Magni, L., Bastin, G. and Wertz, V. (1999) Multivariable non
Two models SSP8 and SSS4 were selected as good linear predictive control of cement mills, IEEE Transaction
candidate models from the available choices that use both on Control Systems Technology, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.502508.
these methods for modelling. Correlation analysis was used Massei, M., Poggi, S., Tremori, A. and Ferrando, A. (2014)
to analyse the two models and to draw conclusions on the Innovative models for supporting operational planning,
most suitable modelling approach. Our results showed that International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling,
the subspace identification provides more accurate models Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.181194.
for cement grinding circuit than the PEM for the cement Muthukumar, N., Seshadhri, S., Ramkumar, K., Kavitha, P. and
industry studied in this investigation. Designing model Valentina, E.B. (2015) Supervisory GPC and evolutionary PI
controller for web transport systems, Acta Polytechnica
predictive controllers (MPC) using the proposed approaches
Hungarica, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.135153.
is the future prospect of this investigation.
Paradis, P.L., Ramdenee, D., Ilinca, A. and Ibrahim, H. (2014)
CFD modelling of thermal distribution in industrial server
centres for configuration optimisation and energy efficiency,
References International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling,
Vol. 9, Nos. 1/2, pp.6380.
Al-Zuheri, A., Luong, L. and Xing, K. (2014) Using simulation in
verification of a mathematical model for predicting the Pillonetto, G., Chiuso, A and De Nicolao, G. (2011) Prediction
performance of manual assembly line occupied with flexible error identification of linear systems: A nonparametric
workforce, International Journal of Simulation and Process Gaussian regression approach, Automatica, Vol. 47 No. 2,
Modelling, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.270284. pp.291305.
Apling, A.C. and Ergin, H. (1994) Validation of a grinding model Prado, R.R., Pereira, D.C., Del Rio Vilas, D., Monteil, N.R. and
for a full scale air swept cement mill, 5th International Del Valle, A.G. (2014) A parameterised model of
Mineral Processing Symposium, A.A. Balkema Publishers, multimodal freight transportation for maritime services
Turkey, pp.527532. optimisation, International Journal of Simulation and
Process Modelling, Vol. 9, Nos. 12, pp.3345.
 Comparison of subspace and prediction error methods of system identification for cement grinding process
Prasath, M.G., Bodil, R., Chidambaram, M. and Jrgensen, J.B.
(2013) Soft constrained based mpc for robust control of a
cement grinding circuit, Preprints of the 10th IFAC
International Symposium on Dynamics and Control of
Process Systems, The International Federation of Automatic
Control, December 1820, Mumbai, India.
Ramdenee, D., Ilinca, A., Ion Minea, S. and Hussein, I. (2013)
Modelling of aerodynamic flutter on a NACA 4412 airfoil
with application to wind turbine blades, International
Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling, Vol. 8, No. 1,
pp.7987.
Schoech, R., Schmid, S., Hillbrand, C. and Fleisch, R. (2013)
Optimising plant layout decisions based on emulation
models technical framework and practical insights,
International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling,
Vol. 8, Nos. 2/3, pp.92103.
Solis, A.O., Longo, F., Nicoletti, L., Caruso, P. and Fazzari, E.
(2014) A modelling and simulation approach to assessment
of a negative binomial approximation in a multi-echelon
inventory system, International Journal of Simulation and
Process Modelling, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.146156.
Tajini, R., Elhaq, S.L. and Rachid, A. (2014) Modelling
methodology for the simulation of the manufacturing
systems, International Journal of Simulation and Process
Modelling, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.285305.
Tavakolpour-Saleh, A.R., Nasib, S.A.R., Sepasyan, A. and
Hashemi, S.M. (2015) Parametric and nonparametric system
identification of an experimental turbojet engine, Aerospace
Science and Technology, June, Vol. 43, pp.2129.
Tavakolpour-Saleh, A.R., Shumway, R and Tsai, C.L. (1997)
The model selection criterion AICu, Statistics & Probability
Letters, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.285292.
Van Breusegem, V., Chen, L., Bastin, G., Wertz, V.,
Werbrouck, V and de Pierpont, C. (1996) An industrial
application of multivariable linear quadratic control to a
cement mill circuit, IEEE Transaction on Industry
Applications, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.670677.
107
Van Overschee, P. and Moor, B.D. (1994) N4SID:
subspace algorithms for the identification of combined
deterministic-stochastic systems, Automatica, Vol. 30, No. 1,
pp.7593.
Van Overschee, P. and Moor, B.D. (1995) Choice of state-space
basis in combined deterministic-stochastic subspace
identification, Automatica, Vol. 31, No. 12, pp.18771883.
Venkatesh, S., Ramkumar, K., Seshadhri. S. and Guruprasath, M.
(2015) Data driven models for cement grinding circuit,
International Journal of Advanced Intelligence Paradigms, in
press.
Viswanathan, K. (1988) Computer based models for grinding and
industrial case studies, Aufbereitungs-Technik/Mineral
Processing, Vol. 10, pp.560572.
Viswanathan, K. and Narang, K.C. (1988) Computer simulation
and optimisation of ball mills/circuits, World Cement,
Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.143148.
Wigren, T. (2006) Recursive prediction error identification and
scaling of non-linear state space models using a restricted
black box parameterization, Automatica, Vol. 42, No. 1,
pp.159168.
Yang, B. and Ren, B. (2015) Parallel spatio-temporal model for
emergency evacuation simulation International Journal of
Simulation and Process Modelling, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.1018.
Zhang, P. and Krieger, A.M. (1993) Appropriate penalties in the
final prediction error criterion: a decision theoretic approach,
Statistics & Probability Letters, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.169177.
Zhang, Y., Napier Munn, T.J. and Kavetsky, A. (1988)
Application of comminution and classification modeling to
grinding of cement clinker, Transaction of Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, December, Vol. 97, pp.C207C214.
Zhao, Y., Huang, B., Su, H. and Chu, J. (2012) Prediction error
method for identification of LPV models, Journal of Process
Control, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.180193.