Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589 – 2602

www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng

Integrating process and controller models for the design of

self-optimizing control
Athanassios Kassidas, Jasmin Patry, Thomas Marlin *
Department of Chemical Engineering, McMaster Uni6ersity, Hamilton, Ont., Canada L8S 4L7

Received 11 January 1999; received in revised form 5 July 2000; accepted 5 July 2000

Abstract

The steady-state behavior of an existing plant depends on the independent input variables, process equipment and process
controllers. This paper presents a method for formulating models that represent the effects of controllers when they are included
within a steady-state process flowsheet. The method replaces the controller equations with the equivalent stationarity conditions
representing the relationship between the controlled variables and the implemented manipulated variables at steady state. The
method is demonstrated for the centralized multivariable Dynamic Matrix Control algorithm applied to two processes, binary
distillation and gasoline blending. The integrated process and control system simulation is used to design controllers that improve
the profitability of processes without extensive real-time calculations; this is sometimes termed self-optimizing control. For both
processes, controllers were designed that yielded higher profit than standard control methods and that approached the highest
possible profit achieved by frequent real-time optimization. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Process optimization; Flowsheeting; Bilevel optimization; Self-optimizing control

1. Introduction for multiple single-loop controllers (Marlin & Young,

Mature technology is available for the steady-state
simulation of process plants, usually called flowsheeting
when referring to the solution of the material and
energy balances along with process performance rela-
tionships (e.g. compressor efficiency) and physical prop-
erty correlations. At the design stage, processes are
simulated to determine accurate material flows and heat
transfer duties, and control systems are usually added
later to achieve the desired performance. In contrast,
simulations of existing processes should represent the
behavior of the existing process, so that equipment
limitations, e.g. distillation tray hydraulics, and the
steady-state effects of control systems should be repre-
sented in the model. Methods exist for including equip-
ment limitations, but methods for including controllers
have not been available. This paper addresses the inclu-
sion of the steady-state effects of control systems in
process flowsheeting. It extends the approach developed
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-905-5259140; fax: + 1-905-
5218899.
E-mail address: marlint@mcmaster.ca (T. Marlin).
1998) to a multivariable controller. In addition, impor-
tant applications of this modeling technique are pre-
sented that determine control systems that achieve high
steady-state profit for an operating plant.
The difficulty of modeling the effects of process
controllers in flowsheets depends on the scenarios en-
countered. One simple approach is to set each con-
trolled variable value equal to its set point. This
approach is acceptable when the following five condi-
tions are satisfied, (1) the system is steady-state control-
lable, that is, the controlled variables can be maintained
at their set points in the steady-state by adjusting the
manipulated variables (Rosenbrock, 1974); (2) the dy-
namic system is stable; (3) the system is square, that is,
the number of controller and manipulated variables are
the same (so that a unique solution exists for the
controller); (4) the control system achieves zero steady-
state offset (i.e. has an integral mode); and (5) no
limitation is encountered by the manipulated variables.
These restrictions may be satisfied sometimes, particu-
larly for design studies where equipment capacities are
assumed adequate for the limited number of design
cases. Actual control systems do not always observe the

0098-1354/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0098-1354(00)00611-6
2590 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602
five conditions above, specifically, the system can have
an unequal number of controlled and manipulated vari-
ables, manipulated variables can saturate, and some
controllers need not achieve zero steady-state offset.
For these reasons, a novel approach is needed to in-
clude the steady-state effects of control systems in
flowsheeting, and the first goal of this paper is to
present such a method for centralized multivariable
controllers.
Typically, process control design is performed to
obtain good dynamic behavior, usually small deviations
in the controlled variables with well-behaved adjust-
ments in the manipulated variables. In addition, the
process control design also influences the steady states
achieved after disturbances occur; therefore, control
design has a significant influence on steady-state
profitability as disturbances occur. While the steady-
state profit is certainly not the only factor in control
performance, it is often one of many goals to be
considered in control system design (e.g. Ricker, 1995).
Until now, this factor has not been developed theoreti-
cally, perhaps in part because of the lack of a method
for quantitative analysis. Recently, control designs that
consider profit have been termed ‘self-optimizing con-
trol’ (Narraway & Perkins, 1993; Halvorsen & Skoges-
tad, 1998; Douglas, Mahajanam & Zheng, 1999). The
second goal of this paper is to demonstrate the value of
considering the steady-state profit when designing cen-
tralized multivariable control.
2. Modeling method
Before developing some applications of the flow-
sheeting method for control system design, the model-
ing method must be presented. We begin with the
standard process flowsheet optimization, which con-
tains non-linear equality and inequality constraints.
R
max % P(zr, dr ) (1a)
z r=1
s.t.
h(zr, dr )= 0 (1b)
g(zr, dr )5 0 (1c)
The variables z include all plant states and are con-
tinuous between their bounds, and the variables d rep-
resent external disturbances, of which there are R in
number. The objective is to maximize the total profit
for all disturbance cases in a scenario.
In an existing process with controllers in operation,
addition models are needed to represent the relation-
ships enforced by the control system between selected
controlled and manipulated variables. The approach
presented here is an extension of the approach pre-
sented for single-loop controllers (Marlin & Young,
1998) and is similar to the single-loop technique de-
scribed by Young and Swartz (1997). We begin the
development by presenting the centralized model pre-
dictive control algorithm solved at each controller
execution.
m P
min f= % % g 2i (Y%i,k − Yi,SP )2
DXj,k
i=1 k=1
n P n N
+ % % v 2j (Xj,k − Xj,TV )2 + % % l 2j (DXj,k )2
j=1 k=1 j=1 k=1
(2a)
s.t.
Xj,k ] Xi,min (2b)
Xj,k 5 Xj,max (2c)
Yi,k ] Yi,min (2d)
Yi,k 5 Yj,max (2e)
Xj,k − 1 + DXj,k = Xj,k (2f )
Y%= ADX + YOL + Y*t (2g)
with
6 =[Y%1,1Y%1,2…Y%1,PY%2,1…Y%2,P ……Y%m,P ]T
Y%
X6 = [X1,1X1,2…X1,NX2,1…X2,P ……Xn,N ]T
DX6 =[DX1,1DX1,2…DX1,N DX2,1…DX2,P ……DXn,N ]T
Y*=
t [Y1,tY1,t …Y1,tY2,t ……Ym,t ]T
The variable Y%i,k is the ith predicted plant controlled
variable at future time period k, and the variable Xj,k is
the jth manipulated variable at future time period k.
The matrix A is composed of individual sub-matrices of
the input–output step responses over the time horizon
(Cutler & Raymaker, 1979). The variable (YOL)i,k is the
predicted change in the controlled variable i occurring
at the future time period k due to past changes in the
manipulated variables; this would be the open-loop
response to past changes in the manipulated variables.
Yi,t is the current measured value of the ith controlled
variable. The tuning parameters weight the deviations
from set point (g 2i ) deviations from the manipulated
variable targets (v 2j ) and changes in the manipulated
variables (l 2j ).
This controller is referred to as dynamic matrix con-
trol (DMC) when no inequality constraints are included
(Cutler & Raymaker, 1979) and quadratic dynamic
matrix control (QDMC) when inequality constraints
are included (Garcia & Morshedi, 1986). This controller
formulation has found wide industrial applications but
is limited to open-loop stable plants, as are the results
in this paper. Note that the controller includes set
points for the controlled variables (Yi,SP), which is
standard, and targets for the manipulated variables
 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602 2591

(Xj,TV), which are not always included in published
applications of model-predictive control, but they have
been proposed by Morshedi, Cutler and Skrovenak
(1985) and Rawlings and Muske (1993).
The controller execution period can be extended to
longer than the settling time of the process without
changing the final steady state of the closed-loop system,
assuming that the move suppression is changed to retain
stability. For this long execution period, the plant and
model attain steady state between controller executions.
Also, the input (N) and output (P) horizons can be
reduced to 1.0, because the plant will have attained
steady state in one controller execution period. For this
long controller execution, the term YOL, the future
transient changes in the controlled variables due to past
changes in manipulated variables, is zero. Under these
conditions, the controller model in Eq. (2g) can be
simplified to Y6 %t + 1 = KDX t +Y6 t with K the steady-state
gain matrix between the manipulated and controlled
variables, Y6 t = [YltY2t …Ymt]T the vector of controlled
variable values measured in the plant at the time of the
controller execution, and Y6 %t + 1 the vector of predicted
steady-state controlled variable values as a result of the
current controller output DXt =[DXlt DX2t …DXnt ]T. Nat-
urally, Xt + 1 =DXt +Xt. Substituting these expressions,
step-like inputs, the controller gains do not have exactly
matched the true plant behavior.
The solution of the optimization problem of the plant
under control requires the simultaneous solution of the
process flowsheet, Eqs. (1a), (1b) and (1c) and controller,
Eqs. (3a), (3b), (3c), (3d) and (3e). Note that this involves
the simultaneous solution of two optimization problems,
which proves challenging for conventional numerical
algorithms because of the difficulty of obtaining accurate
derivative information within reasonable computational
times. The common approach for solving several opti-
mization problems simultaneously is termed bilevel opti-
mization, (Clark & Westerberg, 1990). In this approach,
one of the optimization problems is replaced by a set of
equations, which are equivalent to the optimization at the
optimal solution; these equations are the Karesh–
Kuhn–Tucker conditions.
The bilevel approach is applied to the controller
optimization. First, the objective function and con-
straints in Eqs. (3a), (3b), (3c), (3d) and (3e) are combined
to form the following Lagrange function which trans-
forms the constrained problem to an unconstrained
problem.
m
 n
L= % g 2i Yi,t + % Kij DXj,t − Yi,SP
 2

the controller equations become i=1 j=1

m n n

min f = % g 2i (Yi,t + % Kij DXj,t −Yi,SP)2 + % v 2j (Xj,t + DXj,t − Xj,TV)2

DXj.t i=1 j=1 j=1

n n n

+ % v 2j (Xj,t +DXj,t −Xj,TV)2 + % l 2j (DXj,t )2 + % l 2j (DXj,t )2

j=1 j=1 j=1
(3a) n
+ % [bj,min(Xj,t + DXj,t − Xj,min − s 2j,min)
s.t. j=1

Xj,t +DXj,t ]Xj,min +bj,max(Xj,max − Xj,t − DXj,t − s 2j,max)]

  
(3b)
m n
Xj,t +DXj,t ]Xj,max (3c) + % ui,min Yi,t + % Kij DXj,t − Yi,min − 8 2i,min

 n
n i=1 j=1
Yi,t + % Kij DXj,t ] Yi,min (3d) n
j=1 + ui,max Yi,max − Yi,t − % Kij DXj,t − 8 2i,max
n j=1
Yi,t + % Kij DXj,t 5 Yj,max (3e) (4)
j=1

where t denotes the current steady state of any with lagrange multipliers bj,min, bj,max, ui,min, ui,max ]0
variable. and slack variables sj,min, sj,max, 8i,min, 8i,max.
The steady-state gain, Kij, is the gain between the jth The minimum of the problem defined in Eqs. (3a), (3b),
manipulated variable and the ith controlled variable, (3c), (3d) and (3e) occurs at the same values of the
which are the elements of the gain matrix K. The value optimization variables as the minimum of the Lagran-
of each gain is the last value of the step response between gian in Eq. (4) (e.g. Edgar & Himmelblau, 1988). For the
the same input and output; therefore, the gain matrix K optimization in Eq. (4), a local minimum is defined by
is the steady-state model equivalent to the dynamic the following stationary conditions of the Lagrangian,
matrix A when the execution period is long. It is
(L (L (L (L (L
important that the values of Kij used in the model be the = = = =
((DXj,t ) ((bj,min) ((bj,max) ((ui,min) ((ui,max)
same as the values used in the plant; typically, these gains
are determined from empirical identification about ap- (L (L (L (L
= = = = =0
propriate nominal operating conditions. Because of the ((sj,min) ((sj,max) ((8i,min) ((8i,max)
‘integral mode’ in the model-predictive structure for (5)
2592 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602
We note that the second order optimality conditions
are always satisfied at a stationary point for a convex
quadratic program with linearly independent con-
straints, i.e. a local optimum is a global optimum.
Therefore, only Eq. (5) is required to define the solution
of the controller steady-state optimization in Eqs. (3a),
(3b), (3c), (3d) and (3e). Furthermore, it is true (by
definition) that when the system has reached steady
state, all of the manipulated and controlled variables
will have reached constant values and that the con-
troller predicts no further changes in the manipulated
variables. Therefore, at steady state, Yi,t =Yi,ss, Xj,t =
Xj,ss, DXj,t =DXj,ss = 0 where the subscript SS denotes
the steady-state value of any variable. By applying
conditions (Eq. (5)) to the Lagrangian in Eq. (4), we
obtain the stationarity conditions which define the
steady-state controller model.
m manner for influencing the process is through parame-
% 2Kijg 2i (Yi,SS − Yi,SP) +2v 2j (Xj,SS −Xj,TV) + bj,min
i=1
m
− bj,max + % [Kij (ui,min −ui,max)] =0
i=1
2
Xj,SS −Xj,min −s j,min =0
Xj,max − Xj,SS − s 2j,max =0
−2bj,minsj,min = 0
−2bj,maxsj,max =0
Yi,SS −Yi,min −8 2i,min =0
Yi,max − Yi,SS − 8 2i,max =0
− 2ui,min8i,min = 0
−2ui,max8i,max =0
To model the process under unconstrained dynamic
matrix control, Eq. (6a) must be solved simultaneously
with the process and equipment models, Eqs. (1a), (1b)
and (1c); we note that the unconstrained controller
model is linear in this situation. To model the process
under constrained quadratic dynamic matrix control,
Eqs. (6a), (6b), (6c), (6d), (6e), (6f), (6g), (6h) and (6i)
must be solved simultaneously with the process and
equipment model Eqs. (1a), (1b) and (1c). We note that
the controller model in this situation contains the com-
plementarity relationships (Eqs. (6d) and (6e)) and
(Eqs. (6h) and (6i)), which result from the inequality
constraints in the QDMC formulation. These comple-
mentarity equations often result in a more difficult
non-linear program to be solved; in general, the prob-
lem is non-convex and can contain local extrema (Clark
& Westerberg, 1990).
The controller modeling method presented in this
section has several advantages. First, it is derived from
fundamentals, so that the method can be applied to
optimization-based control algorithms other than dy-
namic matrix control. Secondly, it can be solved using
open-form solutions methods; it is not restricted to
sequential-modular solvers. Finally, the method does
not require entries in the economic objective function
(i.e. penalty functions) when used in plant optimization.
3. Multivariable controller design for high steady-state
profit
With the ability to model the combined process and
controller, the process operations optimization problem
can be defined more properly as optimizing the steady-
state objective function subject to the model constraints
by adjusting parameters in the controller (Marlin &
Hrymak, 1997). This problem represents the optimiza-
tion of an existing process, because the only short-term
ters in the controller, not equipment modifications or
catalyst changes. Thus, the process optimization prob-
lem can be stated as the following.
(6a)
R
max % P(zr, dr ) (7a)
(6b) pc r=1
(6c) s.t.
(6d) h(zr, dr )= 0 (7b)
(6e) g(zr, dr )5 0 (7c)
(6f ) hc (Xr, Yr, pc )= 0 (7d)
(6g) The additional equations added to the formulation in
Eq. (7d) are the controller model, hc, which represents
(6h) the stationarity Eqs. (6a), (6b), (6c), (6d), (6e), (6f),
(6g), (6h) and (6i). Note that the controller has access
(6i )
to the measured, controlled variables (Y) and the ma-
nipulated variables (X), which constitute a subset of all
variables in the process (z). Eq. (7a) provides equal
weighting for all disturbance cases; naturally, this
weighting can be modified based on knowledge of the
frequency of disturbance.
The optimization is achieved by adjusting the con-
troller parameters, pc = [Yi,SP gi Xj,TV vj ]. These parame-
ters provide values for the controlled variable set
points, the manipulated variable targets, and the
weights for deviations from these values at steady state.
For an N×N square control problem, the number of
parameters is 4N− 1. One degree of freedom is lost
because one weight is fixed, which is necessary because
the objective function in Eq. (3a) can be multiplied by
an arbitrary positive number without changing the opti-
mum. Fixing one of the weights removes the arbitrary
nature of the problem. There is no reason to impose
other bounds on the weighting parameters, gi or vj,
since they are real values and their squared values are
always positive, as required in the controller. Naturally,
any problem-specific bounds on the values of the set
 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602
points and manipulated variable targets can be
imposed.
Note that this design method does not specify values
for the penalties associated with the changes in the
manipulated variables (lj ), often referred to as the
move suppression factors, because they do not affect
the steady-state behavior of the system. Therefore, val-
ues for the move suppression factors (lj ) can be tuned
to give good dynamic behavior, after the parameter set
(pc ) has been evaluated for good steady-state perfor-
mance. There is an exception to this conclusion, which
occurs when the number of manipulated variables with-
out enforced targets (with vj =0) is greater than the
number of controlled variables (with gj "0). In this
situation, the steady state of the closed-loop system
depends on the move suppression factors, the initial
condition of the plant, and the dynamics of the distur-
bance. This is not a good control design. We recom-
mend monitoring the results of the problem in Eqs.
(7a), (7b), (7c) and (7d); if the solution does not have a
unique steady-state solution for any values of move
suppression, sufficient values of the manipulated
weights (vj ) should be bounded greater than zero to
ensure that the steady-state condition is independent of
the move suppression.
The goals of the control design include, (1) feasible
operation; and (2) high profit over an extended period
of time during which the scenario of disturbances oc-
curs. Therefore, the profit is evaluated at a number of
conditions defined by the specified ‘training’ distur-
bances (dr) which represent the range of expected dis-
turbances. The total profit for all cases is maximized by
adjusting the one set of controller parameters used in
all cases. We emphasize that the controller parameters
(pc) are determined once off-line and are then imple-
mented using the standard controller algorithm; no
on-line economic optimization is required with this
approach. The off-line calculations require the defini-
tion of the process model, plant economics, likely dis-
turbances, and bounds on the allowable variation in
manipulated and controlled variables. Since a central-
ized controller is used, no loop pairing is required; only
the specification of controlled and manipulated vari-
ables is required.
The controller designed by the procedure explained
in this section spans typical designs and opens possibil-
ities not often considered. The typical closed-loop de-
sign, with controlled variables returned to their set
points at steady-state without regard for the adjust-
ments of the manipulated variables, is achieved by
setting all gi " 0 for all i and vj =0 for as many
manipulated variables as controlled variables. On the
other hand, no control can be achieved by setting gi = 0
for all i vj "0 for all j. The design procedure will result
in either of these designs when appropriate, i.e. when
they result in feasible operation and the highest profit.
2593
In addition, the procedure will result in intermediate
tunings when some deviation is allowed in controlled
variables and when more (or fewer) manipulated vari-
ables than controlled variables exist.
The following sections present applications of the
steady-state modeling method to control design of cen-
tralized controllers. The first application evaluates the
design applied to a two-product distillation tower. The
second application evaluates the design applied to a
gasoline blending process. In both cases, the economic
performance is compared with a real-time optimizer
and a conventional control system. These studies
demonstrate that integrating economic analysis with
controller design results in centralized controllers that
attain high steady-state profit over a range of
operations.
4. DMC controller design for distillation
Typically, the distillation control objective involves
maintaining one or more product compositions near
desired values for disturbances and set point changes.
However, plant operating profit is also affected by the
trade-off of separation purities and energy consumption
(e.g. Martin, Latour & Richards, 1981). In some cases,
real-time optimization could prove beneficial (Moore &
Corripio, 1991; Bailey, Hrymak, Treiber & Hawkins,
1993), while in other cases, a properly designed control
system might achieve nearly the highest profit (Luyben,
1975; Stanley & McAvoy, 1975). The design procedure
described in the Section 3 will be applied to compare
the new approach for controller design with conven-
tional approaches.
Several control designs are applied to the two-
product distillation column shown in Fig. 1. The pro-
cess is represented by ideal equilibrium stages, the
vapor–liquid equilibrium is represented by constant
relative volatility, constant molal overflow, liquid feed
at its bubble point, and reflux with no subcooling. The
measured pressure is maintained at its set point by
manipulating the condenser duty. The design parame-
ters for the distillation tower are given in Table 1 along
with the nominal steady-state operating conditions. The
steady-state and dynamic process modeling equations
are well known for this simple distillation model (Mar-
lin, 1995; Bequette, 1998) and are not repeated here.
The operating profit depends on the product purities
and the energy consumption. In this study, no hard
limitation exists for the product compositions, and the
values of the two products depend on their purities,
with higher purity being more valuable. Product values
depending on purity occur, for example, when (1) im-
purities affect downstream unit operation; or (2) the
customer must further purify the stream. In this exam-
ple, the relative values of the components are used; for
2594 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602

example, the value of the light key in the bottoms stream and the value of energy; naturally, the objective
product is 10.1871 $/kmol compared with its disposi- is to maximize the total value. For this example, the

     n
tion in the desired overhead product. The profit can be profit is given by
calculated as a sum of values; the value of each product 100− XD XB
P= − V(DHV )CE + D U+ B W
100 100
(8)
with the parameters given in Table 1. Note that since
the feed flow rate is not adjusted, its contribution to the
profit is constant and thus, would not affect the opti-
mum operating values. When the distillation column is
optimized for the base case conditions, the optimum
operating conditions are given in Table 1.
As disturbances occur, the optimum operating condi-
tions change. In this example, disturbances are assumed
to occur in (1) the feed composition; and (2) the relative
volatility; disturbances in relative volatility could result
from errors in the pressure measurement or in changes
in off-key components. To represent the disturbance
scenario, nine cases are defined for a range of the
disturbance variables about the base operating condi-
tions (Case 5). The set of disturbance cases is defined in
Table 2.
If the disturbance operating conditions were perfectly
known and an exact model of the process were avail-
able, the distillation column could be optimized as each
Fig. 1. Two product distillation process.
disturbance occurs. This approach, referred to as
Method A, requires the most complex implementation,
Table 1 measuring the disturbance in real-time and frequent
Distillation tower parameters and optimal base case operation real-time optimization. It is included in this study be-
cause it provides the best possible operation, i.e. the
Number of trays (reboiler is additional tray) 15 highest profit, for the scenario against which any other
Feed tray (bottom tray is 1) 7
Relative volatility (base case) 1.494
controller design can be compared. The resulting
Feed flow rate 532 kmol/h product purities are given in Table 3, and the total
Feed composition, XF 70% light key profit achieved for all nine cases via Method A is
Heat of vaporization, DH6 302.4 kJ/kg reported in Table 4.
Cost of reboiler energy, CE 0.0028 $/MJ For further comparison purposes, the performance of
Cost of condenser energy 0.0 $/MJ
Relative value of heavy key in the distillate, −7.7616 $/kmol a conventional control is also evaluated. A conven-
U tional control design approach, here referred to as
Relative value of light key in the bottoms, W −10.1871 $/kmol Method B, would be to maintain the product purities at
Reflux flow rate (base case) 3304 kmol/h constant values with feedback controllers, i.e. the set
Reboiled vapor flow rate (base case), V 3681 kmol/h
points would not be adjusted as disturbances occur.
Distillate composition (base case), XD 95.18% light key
Bottoms composition (base case), XB 8.68% light key
The best values for the set points of the light key in the
distillate and bottoms products could be determined by
an optimization that minimizes the total cost for the
Table 2 disturbance cases in the specified scenario. Note that
Disturbance set for distillation controller design this method is superior to the typical industrial ap-
proach, which selects the set points, which provide the
Feed composition XF Relative volatility, a
(% light key)
lowest cost for the base case operation only, not consid-
ering the other cases; thus, the ‘conventional’ design
1.454 1.494 1.534 performs at least as well as typical practice. The purity
set points for Method B are given in Table 3, and the
60 Case 1 Case 4 Case 7 profit is reported in Table 4. Method B yields a lower
70 Case 2 Case 5 Case 8
(base case)
profit (higher cost) than the optimization of every
80 Case 3 Case 6 Case 9 individual case for Method A, as expected. Method B
would be implemented easily, requiring one off-line
 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602 2595

Table 3
Distillation product compositions for three control methods (all values are% light key)

Disturbance case Method A (optimize each case) Method B (conventional DMC control) Method C (self-optimizing
control)

XD XB XD XB XD XB

1 93.16 8.24 94.88 9.19 94.27 9.94

2 94.25 10.0 94.88 9.19 94.24 9.99
3 94.51 10.0 94.88 9.19 94.24 10.0
4 94.21 7.03 94.88 9.19 95.17 8.58
5 95.18 8.68 94.88 9.19 95.13 8.63
6 95.81 10.0 94.88 9.19 95.13 8.64
7 95.07 6.02 94.88 9.19 95.92 7.43
8 95.89 7.46 94.88 9.19 95.89 7.48
9 96.69 9.77 94.88 9.19 95.89 7.48

Table 4
Profit ($/h) for distillation control methods for design and evaluation disturbance sets (Method C controller designed using 100% case)

Disturbance set (magnitude as% of design Method A (optimize each case) Method B (constant XD and Method C (self-optimizing)
set) XB)

50 −3744 −3793 −3758

100 (design) −3730 −3869 −3771
200 −3695 −3934 −3780

flowsheet optimization, a standard DMC controller and
not requiring a disturbance measurement.
Alternative control designs that retain the simplicity
of Method B and yield higher profit might be possible.
To investigate this possibility, we design a centralized
controller with parameters that maximizes the total
profit for the nine cases under consideration using the
procedure introduced in Section 3. This procedure will
be termed as Method C, which is a self-optimizing
approach. The controller parameters to be optimized
are the (1) set points for the distillate and bottoms
compositions; (2) weights for deviations from one set
point (one weight is fixed as described previously); (3)
targets for the manipulated reflux and reboiler, and (4)
weights for deviating from the manipulated variable
targets. In summary, the Method C control design
calculations solve the following optimization problem,
maximize the objective function in Eq. (8) for the nine
disturbance cases subject to the distillation model and
the stationarity equations which represent the uncon-
strained controller optimization problem, (Eq. (6a)).
Method C can result in exact steady-state control for
the product qualities to their set points (by setting the
manipulated variable weights to zero), no control of the
controlled variables (by setting the weights on the er-
rors from set point to zero), or performance between
these extremes. Clearly, Method C has great flexibility,
and since it does not preclude some typical control
designs, it contains Method B as a special case. Note
that if Method C results in non-zero weights for the set
point errors and the manipulated variable deviations,
the DMC controller does not return the controlled
variables to their set points at steady-state, i.e. the
control system does not have zero steady-state offset.
This may yield higher profit for some plants, as this
example demonstrates.
The parameters obtained via optimization for the
Method C controller are given in Table 5. Since the
weights on the set point errors and manipulated vari-
able deviations are non-zero, the optimization has de-
termined that maintaining the distillate product purities
constant for all nine cases is not optimal for this plant,
economics and scenario. The values for the product
purities in Table 3 show substantial variation. As re-
ported in Table 4, the total profit for Method C is
between the best possible real-time optimization via
Method A and the conventional product purity control
in Method B. The controller in Method C requires no
more complex design or implementation calculation
that the controller in Method B, but Method C results
in substantially higher profit over the disturbance
scenario.
The results in Tables 3 and 4 report the steady-state
behavior of the three methods for the disturbance sce-
narios used in their designs. The performance of these
controllers should be evaluated for disturbances differ-
ent from those used in the design. To evaluate the
sensitivity to disturbance magnitude, two different sets
of disturbances are considered, one with one-half of the
design magnitudes and one with double the design
2596 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602
magnitudes. The results for these 18 additional evalua-
tion cases (nine disturbances per scenario for two mag-
nitudes) are given in Table 4. Again, Method C
provides excellent performance; capturing about 70% of
the benefit for Method A (Real-time optimization) over
Method B (conventional DMC control).
The results in Table 4 report only the steady-state
behavior of the system, while the controller must also
provide acceptable dynamic performance. The dynamic
behavior was determined by dynamic simulation of the
nonlinear process under DMC control; the steady-state
parameters for the controllers are given in Table 5 for
Methods A–C. The dynamic models required for the
DMC controller were identified by introducing small
perturbations into the manipulated variables in the
nonlinear dynamic simulation and observing the con-
trolled variables. The step changes were small and
provided accurate locally linear models, as established
by comparing responses from positive and negative step
changes. The data was fit by low order transfer func-
tions, which were then used to generate the required
step weight models (Cutler & Raymaker, 1979).
As previously discussed, the design procedures for
good steady-state performance do not determine the
move suppression factors (l 2j ). No specific mathemati-
cal procedure was used to tune the controllers for the
cases investigated; tuning was by trial and error with
the goal of attaining similar dynamic behavior as indi-
cated by return of the controlled variable to set point
with moderate adjustments in the manipulated vari-
ables. For a controller execution period of 12 min, the
values for the controller parameters were, output hori-
zon of 80, input horizon of 10, and both move suppres-
sion factors (l 2j ) of 0.10.
The dynamic responses are simulated for each con-
troller with the plant subject to the nine base case
scenario disturbances. The transient responses for
Method A in Fig. 2 involves nine set point changes that
are calculated by real-time, model-based optimization
in response to each disturbance and are implemented
Table 5
Method C controller parameters for the distillation process
Controlled variable
Product Set point, Yi,SP Weight on deviation from
composition set point, g 2I
a
Method A Distillate 10b
a
Bottoms 10b
Method B Distillate 94.88 10b
Bottoms 9.19 10b
Method C Distillate 95.15 10
Bottoms 8.55 6.5
a
Determined for each case by optimization, see Table 3, Method A.
b
Any positive value will yield zero steady-state offset for set point.
c
Value not used because weight on deviation is zero.
immediately upon the occurrence of a disturbance; note
that Method A requires a measurement or estimate of
the disturbance. The transient responses for Method B
in Fig. 3 involve constant set points for the top and
bottom compositions for the entire time regardless of
the disturbances. The transient response for Method C
in Fig. 4 involves a DMC controller with the set of
parameters presented in Table 4 for the entire scenario.
All three controllers provide similar dynamic perfor-
mance, showing stable and somewhat slow return to
steady state as expected for a plant with large relative
gain array elements (the relative gain is 8.9). Similar
responses were obtained for the additional evaluation
disturbance scenarios defined in Table 4 (Kassidas,
1993). For these cases, the Method C controller pro-
vides dynamic control performance equivalent to the
performance provided by conventional designs.
In summary, the self-optimizing controller design
Method C allows additional flexibility for profit maxi-
mization over a range of operating scenarios. The con-
troller modeling approach introduced in Section 3 of
this paper is required to perform the Method C design.
Steady-state evaluations of various control methods
show that the Method C controller captures 70% of the
advantage of real-time optimization (Method A) over
standard constant set point control (Method B). Cer-
tainly, no dynamic disadvantage is apparent for the
Method C controller, which is significantly simpler to
implement than the Method A real-time optimization.
The choice of the proper design would involve deter-
mining whether the additional benefits for Method A
were sufficient to balance the additional cost for imple-
menting real-time optimization.
5. QDMC control for gasoline blending
Numerous petroleum products are blended to pro-
duce gasoline, and the goal of the blending process is to
produce the required rate with key gasoline qualities
Manipulated variable
Flow rate Target, Xj,TV Weight on deviation from
target, v 2i
Reflux c
0
Reboiled vapor c
0
Reflux c
0
Reboiled vapor c
0
Reflux 3243 0.020
Reboiled vapor 3660 0.0775
 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602 2597

Fig. 2. Dynamic response of distillation for Method A, real-time optimization.

Fig. 3. Dynamic response of distillation for Method B, conventional commposition control.

within specifications defined by individual maximum
and minimum specifications on each product quality. In
the process shown in Fig. 5, two product qualities, Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) and Octane (OCT), and the
product flow rate are to be controlled. Because the flow
of five input components can be manipulated, opportu-
nity exists to satisfy all requirements (product flow rate
and qualities) and to maximize profit by using the
combination of components with the lowest cost.
The profit for the blending process is defined as the
sales price of product minus the component costs. The
product qualities are modeled based on linear blending
relationships; where the properties do not blend lin-
early, linearity is achieved through the use of correc-
tions via blend indices (Gary & Handwerk, 1984) thus,
the process model is
P= % (Fi Vi ) (9a)
i
2598 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602

Fig. 4. Dynamic response of distillation for Method C, DMC with optimized parameters.

FT = FR + FL +FB + FA (Flow balance) (9b) be referred to as Method B. The multiloop controller is

designed using conventional criteria, e.g. (Marlin,
FTqOCT,T = FRqOCT,R+FLqOCT,L+FBqOCT,B+FFqOCT,F 1995). Since the current blending process has three
+ FAqOCT,A (Octane balance) (9c) controlled variables and five manipulated variables, one
3× 3 system will be considered for multiloop control,
FTqRVP,T = FRqRVP,R+FLqRVP,L+FBqRVP,B+FFqRVP,F with the two components which have zero flow rates in
the base case fixed to zero. The steady-state relative
+ FAqRVP,A (RVP balance) (9d)
gain was used to eliminate loop pairings with poor
where Vi, is the value of stream i (i, the component or integrity, i.e. those with negative steady-state relative
product); Fi, the flow rate of stream i; qOCT,i, is the gains array elements (McAvoy, 1983). Only one pairing
octane of stream; qRVP,i is the RVP of stream i; sub- with all positive relative gains was possible, which had
scripts (for i ); R, the reformate stream; L, the LSR- the loop pairings, octane-light straight run, vapor pres-
NAP stream; B, the n-butane stream; F, the sure-butane, and flow-reformate. These three PID con-
FCCGASO stream; A, the ALKYL stream; T, the trollers have constant set points and integral modes;
product stream with the data in Table 6. The product thus, they manipulate the flows to achieve the desired
qualities and flows must be between their minimum and set points, when possible. The blending process under
maximum limits. The results for optimizing the base multiple, single-loop control is simulated in steady-state
case are given in Table 7 Table 8. using the method previously presented by Young and
As with the previous distillation example, three po-
tential control approaches are evaluated. One method
for controlling a blend would involve the real-time
optimization to calculate the best blend flows subject to
product quality and flow rate constraints (Diaz &
Barsamian, 1996); again, this design will be referred to
as Method A. In industrial application, Method A
requires a linear programming problem to be solved at
each execution with feedback to correct for model
errors (Forbes & Marlin, 1994). In this study, the
disturbances are assumed measured and model errors
are assumed to be zero to establish the limit of best
possible performance, i.e. the highest possible profit.
A much simpler method would be classical control
using multiple single-loop quality controllers; this will Fig. 5. Gasoline blending process.
 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602 2599

Table 6
Base case component data for the gasoline blending process

Component Quality Total component volume Value ($/Barrel)

OCT (OCT number) RVP (psi) Minimum (barrels) Maximum (barrels)

REFORMATE 91.8 4.0 0 6000 −34.0

LSR-NAP 64.5 12.0 0 3250 −26.0
N-BUTANE 92.5 138.0 0 1500 −10.3
FCC NAPHTHA 78.0 6.0 0 2250 −31.8
ALKYL 96.5 7.0 0 3500 −37.0

Table 7
Regular gasoline product data

Quality Total product volume (barrels) Value ($/barrel)

Octane RVP Minimum Maximum

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

88.5 100 4.5 10.8 7000 7000 33

Marlin (1998), which solves the process model in Eqs. self-optimizing controller achieved nearly the same
(9a), (9b), (9c) and (9d) and stationarity of the Lagran- profit; note that good performance can be achieved
gian for all single-loop controllers simultaneously. without perfect models and without a measurement of
The self-optimizing Method C controller in this ex- the disturbance. Such good performance is partially due
ample is modeled and optimized using the same proce- to the location of the optimum at the intersection of
dure as in the distillation example. However, the inequality constraints, and the best performance is
control system is non-square and saturation of some achieved by identifying the proper active set. The multi-
manipulated variables is expected; therefore, the loop PID Method B could not achieve feasible perfor-
QDMC (rather than DMC) controller is employed. mance for all disturbances, which would incur
This requires that the complementarity equations be substantial economic debits.
included when modeling the controller; thus Eqs. (6a), The performances of all three controllers were evalu-
(6b), (6c), (6d), (6e), (6f), (6g), (6h) and (6i) are re- ated with a second, evaluation scenario with larger
quired. Also, the larger number of controlled and ma- disturbances, reformate octane (88.0, 90.5, 93.0) and
nipulated variables result in many more controller LSR-NAP Reid Vapor Pressure (8, 14, 20). The results
parameters to be determined in the off-line tuning are reported in Table 11. Again, the Method A real-
process. For this process, the blending process model, time optimization achieves the highest possible profit,
Equations 9, and the controller models, Equations 6, the Method C self-optimizing controller achieves nearly
are formulated for the base case and eight disturbance maximum profit, and the Method B multiloop control
scenario cases. The total profit for the nine cases is was not able to achieve feasible operation. We empha-
optimized by adjusting the QDMC parameters which size that the Method C QDMC controller parameters
influence the steady-state, set points, error weights,
manipulated variable targets and manipulated variable Table 8
deviation weights. The resulting QDMC controller Results of profit maximization for the base case gasoline blending
problem
parameters are given in Table 9.
The design disturbance scenario involved changes to Profit ($) 7042.16
two of the blend component qualities, reformate octane Product flow (barrels) 7000
(89.3, 91.8, 94.3) and LSR – NAP Reid Vapor Pressure Product octane (Oct number) 88.5
of (6, 12, 18); combinations of these values define the Product RVP (psi) 10.8
nine cases. The performances of the control methods Component flows
are summarized for the design scenario in Table 10, REFORMATE flow (barrels) 5841.804
which reports only steady-state results because the pro- LSR-NAP flow (barrels) 853.955
N-BUTANE flow (barrels) 304.241
cess dynamics are essentially instantaneous. As ex- FCC NAPHTHA flow (barrels) 0
pected, the Method A real-time optimization method ALKYL flow (barrels) 0
yielded the highest profit. However, the Method C
2600 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602
Table 9
Method C controller parameters for the gasoline blending process based on the design disturbance scenario
Controlled variable
Product variable Set point, Yi,SP Weight on deviation from set
point, g 2i
Flow rate 7000 10
Octane 88.5 10
RVP 10.8 10
Table 10
Total profit for the blending process for nine blends in the scenarios ($)
Disturbance scenario Method A (optimization of every case)
Design 60156.1
Evaluation 39721.6
are determined for the base disturbance scenario and
were applied unchanged to this second scenario. Other
studies determined that the Method C controller
achieved a much larger feasible region of operation
than the PID Method B design. In addition, further
studies with other economic objectives, relaxing the
constraint on the product flow, resulted in the Method
C controller yielding very high profits, in this case
indistinguishable from the best possible Method A re-
sults (Patry, 1996).
6. Discussions on self-optimizing controller design
A novel approach for modeling and evaluating vari-
ous controller designs has been presented in this paper.
A novel controller design, termed Method C here, has
been introduced that uses an integrated model of the
process and the control system, and determines con-
troller parameter values that maximize the steady-state
profit for a scenario of disturbances.
The design approach includes typical centralized con-
trol designs as special cases; for example, holding the
controlled variables at their set points in the steady-
state is a special case of Method C with gi "0 for all i
and vj =0. Therefore, using the Method C design
procedure does not preclude simple controller designs.
In addition, the Method C controller could be used in
conjunction with on-line real-time optimization. The
controller could be used to enforce the results of real-
time operations optimization (Marlin & Hrymak, 1997)
to achieve high profit between optimizations as distur-
bances occur.
Manipulated variable
Component flow Target, Xj,TV Weight on deviation from target,
rate v 2i
Reformate 5896.2 1.556
LSR-NAP 2545.2 1.055
n-Butane 651.1 22.375
FCC 0 7.0
NAPHTHA
ALKYL 0.8 3.0
Method B (PID control) Method C (self-optimizing)
Infeasible 59984.1
Infeasible 39461.3
The Method C self-optimizing controller design cal-
culations are performed offline only once and the cen-
tralized online control calculations are no more
complex than a standard QDMC controller. We em-
phasize that the controller does not have access to
measurement of the disturbance and makes no eco-
nomic calculations in real-time.
The new design approach relies upon an assumption
about the relative dynamics of the feedback process and
disturbances. In the controller parameter evaluation,
the economic performance is based on the sum of the
steady-state behaviors for all disturbances in the sce-
nario. Thus, the assumption is made that the distur-
bances effecting the process profit are infrequent when
compared with the closed-loop dynamic response of the
plant. This assumption is valid for the distillation dy-
namic disturbance scenarios in Figs. 2–4 and for the
very fast blending process, but it certainly is not appro-
priate for all processes.
Naturally, the dynamic behavior as well as steady-
state performance of potential control designs must be
evaluated. As the new design, Method C utilizes the
same manipulated and measured variables, no signifi-
cant difference from the performance of standard cen-
tralized control performance is expected. Simulation
studies for the distillation case study confirms the good
dynamics behavior of the Method C self-optimizing
controller; however, no general conclusions are
claimed, and simulation studies are recommended to
ensure good dynamic performance for other processes.
The controller design approach presented in this
paper employs a design or ‘training’ scenario to deter-
mine the QDMC parameters that influence the steady-
state behavior of the process under control. The
 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602
Method C controller thus derived was evaluated for
steady-state profit in both examples and dynamic be-
havior, with appropriate move suppression tuning, for
the distillation tower. The evaluation scenarios included
disturbances not included in the training scenario. The
same general approach could be applied to other con-
trol algorithms. QDMC controllers were selected for
this study because of their proven industrial perfor-
mance in a wide range of processes.
The self-optimizing controllers designed using
Method C provided good performance for the pro-
cesses and scenarios considered in this study. Naturally,
no general conclusions can be drawn about general
advantages of Method C; similar evaluation studies
would be required for other applications. However, the
potential for achieving high steady-state profit with
centralized controllers employing specially tuned
parameters provides the control engineer with one more
design option. In addition, extension to dynamic sys-
tems is possible, although the design calculations would
appear to be intensive.
7. Conclusions on the process and control modeling
method
The major contribution of this paper is the general
method for modeling a continuous process under a
centralized, multivariable controller. Because of the
well-known difficulties of solving ‘nested’ optimization
problems, the controller optimization problem is re-
placed with its equivalent stationarity conditions; this
procedure is often termed bilevel optimization. In this
paper, the method has been applied to the DMC and
QDMC control algorithms. For the DMC controller
without constraints being encountered, the stationarity
equations are linear Eq. (6a), which usually result in
non-linear programming programs which are not sig-
nificantly more difficult to converge than to original
plant model without the controller model. When in-
equalities exist in the controller formulation, the sta-
tionarity equations include complementary equations,
e.g. Eq. (6d), which introduce non-convexities and
make successful solutions more problematic. In this
study, all design calculations were performed using the
GAMS model manager and MINOS nonlinear opti-
mizer (Brooke, Kendrick & Meeraus, 1992); several
starting points were selected to achieve convergence.
Certainly, additional research is needed on the solution
of optimization with complementary constraints.
This modeling approach should be used when model-
ing processes under control. Because the control design
strongly effects the steady-state behavior, this approach
is expected to be necessary for all existing processes. In
addition, actuator saturation or other constraints occur
that influence the behavior of the process control sys-
2601
tem. However, it is not limited to controller design for
high operating profit. One potential application is de-
termining the feasible operating region, which would be
influenced strongly by the control design. A specific
control design might increase the size of allowable
disturbances while maintaining feasible operation. An-
other application would be evaluating the effects of
disturbances on competing process designs. Since dis-
turbance response would require process control, a fair
comparison of the candidates would be possible when
self-optimizing Method C controllers are applied to all
cases.
Finally, as more steady-state and dynamic modeling
is applied in real-time for monitoring and diagnosis, the
method in this paper should find use in representing the
combined behavior of the process and control systems,
especially when saturation occurs.
References
Bailey, J. K., Hrymak, A., Treiber, S., & Hawkins, R. (1993).
Nonlinear optimization of a hydrocracker fractionation plant.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 17, 123 – 138.
Bequette, W. (1998). Process dynamics: modeling, analysis and simula-
tion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., & Meeraus, A. (1992). GAMS: a user’s
guide. San Franciso: Scientific Press.
Clark, P., & Westerberg, A. (1990). Bilevel programming for steady-
state chemical process design I. Fundamentals and algorithms.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 14, 87 – 98.
Cutler, C., & Raymaker, B. (1979). Dynamic matrix control — a
computer control algorithm. American Institute of Chemical Engi-
neers 86th National Meeting, Houston, TX, April 1979.
Diaz, A., & Barsamian, A. (1996). Meet changing fuel requirements
with online blend optimization. Hydrocarbon Processing, Febru-
ary 1996, 71 – 76.
Douglas, J., Mahajanam, R., & Zheng, A. (1999). A short-cut
method for controlled variable selection and its application to
butane alkylation process. American Institute of Chemical Engi-
neers Annual Meeting, Paper 2086, Dallas, November 4, 1999.
Edgar, T., & Himmelblau, D. (1988). Optimization of chemical pro-
cesses. New York: Wiley.
Forbes, F., & Marlin, T. (1994). Model accuracy for economic
optimizing controllers: the bias update case. IEC Res., 33 (8),
1919 – 1929.
Garcia, C., & Morshedi, M. (1986). Quadratic programming solution
of dynamic matrix control (QDMC). Chem. Eng. Commun., 46,
73 – 87.
Gary, J., & Handwerk, G. (1984). Petroleum refining: technology and
economics. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Halvorsen, I., & Skogestad, S. (1998). Self-optimizing control. Amer-
ican Institute of Chemical Engineers Annual Meeting, Paper 229c,
Miami Beach, November 15 – 20, 1998.
Kassidas, A. (1993). Model predictive controller design with implicit
economic criteria. M. Eng. thesis, McMaster University, Hamil-
ton, Ont. Canada.
Luyben, W. (1975). Steady-state energy conservation aspects of distil-
lation column control system design. Industrial Engineering and
Chemical Fundamentals, 14, 321 – 325.
Marlin, T. (1995). Process control: designing processes and control
systems for dynamic performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2602 A. Kassidas et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2000) 2589–2602
Marlin, T., & Hrymak, A. (1997). Real-time operations optimization
of continuous plants. In J.C. Kantor, & B. Garcia Carnahanl,
Fifth International Conference on Chemical Process Control, Amer-
ican Institute of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series 93, pp.
156 – 164.
Marlin, T., & Young, M. (1998). Integrating the effects of process
controllers with steady-state equation-based simulation. Chemical
Engineering and Communication, 165, 67–87.
Martin, G., Latour, P., & Richards, L. (1981). Closed-loop optimiza-
tion of distillation energy. Chemical Engineering Process, 77,
33– 37.
McAvoy, T. (1983). Interaction analysis. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Instrument Society of America.
Moore, R., & Corripio, A. (1991). On-line optimization of distillation
columns in series. Chemical Engineering and Communication, 106,
71– 86.
Morshedi, M., Cutler, C., & Skrovenak, T. (1985). Optimal solution
of dynamic matrix control with quadratic programming tech-
niques (QDMC). ISA National Meeting, Paper c 85 -0732.
Narraway, L., & Perkins, J. (1993). Selection of process control
structure based on linear dynamic economics. Industrial Engineer-
ing and Chemical Research, 32, 2681 – 2692.
Patry, J., 1996. Real-time optimization of plant operations. Under-
graduate thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. April
1996.
Rawlings, J., & Muske, K. (1993). The stability of constrained
receding horizon control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con-
trol, 38, 1512 – 1516.
Ricker, N. L. (1995). Optimal steady-state operation of the Tennessee
eastman challenge process. Computers and Chemical Engineering,
19 (9), 949 – 959.
Rosenbrock, H. (1974). Computer-aided control system design. New
York: Academic Press.
Stanley, G., & McAvoy, T. (1975). Dynamic energy aspects of
distillation control. IEC Fundamentals, 24, 439 – 443.
Young, J., & Swartz, C. (1997). Input saturation effects in optimizing
control, 1997. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Annual
Meeting, Los Angles, Paper 194g, November 1997.