of process output prediction at a time k – 1, 0, 1, 2, … p –
1 steps ahead. Matrix A is the shift operator defined for a
4 MPC THEORY
MPC is an advanced method of process control. It relies
on dynamic model of the process, most often linear and
empirical models obtained by system identification. The
applied models are determined to depict the behavior of
complex dynamical systems. Hence, the models are used
to predict the behavior of dependent variables (i.e.
outputs) of the modelled dynamical system with respect to
changes in the process (i.e. inputs). The MPC uses the
models and current plant measurement to calculate future
moves in the independent variables that will result in
operation that honors all independent and dependent
variable constraints. The MPC then sends this set
independent variable moves to the corresponding
regulatory controller set points to be implemented in the
process. Model Predictive control offers several
important advantages such as , process model captures the
dynamic and static interactions between input and output,
constraints handling, control calculations can be
coordinated with the calculation of optimum set points,
accurate model predictions can provide early warnings of
potential problem.[7] .
5 PROCESS MODEL
The basis for MPC technology is the Process Model.
Mostly, MPC uses step response models, which provide
future prediction of process outputs. The future prediction
is used to compute the predicted error vector as an input
to the MPC controller. MPC controller uses an
incremental model. It means that, at model initialization,
real process input and output values are assigned to the
model. Later on, increments of the inputs are accounted
for and increments of the model outputs are calculated
[8]. The model used for control system design, is the first-
order plus time-delay model or second-order plus time-
delay model,
−θ s
y(s) =
Kp eθ s Kpe
τ ps +1 τ p S+ 1
------------------------ (1)
Where Kp is process gain,θ is dead time,τ p is process
time constant.[11].
6 PROCESS MODELING EQUATIONS
MPC application assumes a linear process model. For
single-input, single-output (SISO) process prediction, the
equations are in the form:
X k = A X k−1 +b ∆u k + f W k ----------------------(2)
y 0=C X k -------------------------- (3)
T Constraint
Where X k−1=[ y 0 , y 1 , … y i , … , y p−1 ] is the vector
self-regulating process as
A X k−1=[ y 1 , y 2 , … y i , … , y p−1 ]T -----------
(4)
T
b=[b0 , b1 , ….. , bi , … , b p−1 ] is the vector of p step
response coefficients. ∆ u k =uk −uk−1 is the change in
p m
the process input/controller output. W k = y − y is the
process output measurement minus the model output (the
difference between the process and the model that results
from the noise, unmeasured disturbances, and model
inaccuracy). f is the p dimension filter vector with unity
default values. Matrix C is the operator for selecting the
current model output defined as y 0=C X k +1 [ 8]
7 MPC IMPLEMENTATION ON THE PART
OF DISTILLATION COLUMN
Here bottom product composition is considered for
control. Temperature is the indirect measurement
parameter for the composition [3]. Bottom temperature is
main control variable for the bottom composition. To
manipulate this control variable, used manipulated
variables are Reboiler flow ,Side Stream flow, Reflux
flow and Pressure. Reflux Valve Position and Re-boiler
Valve position are constraint variables. By the following
way MPC has been implemented using DeltaV.
7.1 MODEL IDENTIFICATION
Model plays an important role in Model Predictive
Control (MPC) because it facilitates approximately
correct time response of change in process output
(controlled or constrained variable) for a change in
process input (manipulated variable). Looking at the
difficulties of Distillation Process, model identification
assists in the development of plant model that can
adequately characterize temperature and flow control.
Multivariable model tries to show relationships between
input-output pair that may have prominent association
with
Figure 2: PRBS test for Model Identification
each
other. By using MPCPro block of DeltaV variables can be
selected. Selected variables are shown in
Condition to execute MPCPro algorithm
is that number of controlled and constrained parameters
must be less than or equal to manipulated parameter. [13]
Table 1
SP SP Low High
Variables
Low High Limit Limit
Bottom Side
Controlled
Temp.
0 300 - -
Variable Upper Side Temp. 0 500 - -
Reboiler Valve
Variable Position
- - 0 95
 Reflux Valve
- - 0 95
Position 0.19 e−22 s 0.4 e−10 s 0.211e−16 s

[ ]
Manipulate Sidestream flow - - 35 80 0 0
d Variable Reboiler Flow - - 45 90 18 s +1 15.2 s +1 16.61 s+1
Pressure - - 15 25
0.893 e−2 s Reflux
0 0 0 0

[ ]
Reflux Flow - - 50 90
Disturbanc Reflux 4.15 s+1 Reboil
- - - -
e Temperature Pressure
−0.20 e−8 s 0.078 e−20 s
0 0 0 Reflux T
After putting all the relevant values for the Controlled, 19.72 s +1 20.109 s +1
Manipulated, Constraints and Disturbances, launch the
Sidestream
0.98 e−2 s
DeltaV PredictPro application for the commission and 0 0 0 0
testing. Parameters required for model generation are 4.15 s+1
Time to Steady State and Step Size. Here values for above
parameters are 240 sec and 5% respectively. Step testing Model is verified by choosing the Control and Constraint
offers interaction between process variables during MPC parameter. The squared error is shown for all Control and
implementation. DeltaV provides Pseudo Random Binary Constraint parameters. In addition, for selected
Signal (PRBS) signal to MV for a test to generate parameters, the calculated and actual values can be
corresponding CV response. As shown in Figure 2. plotted for the original time or for the timeframe selected
Table 2 and Table 3 by the green bar in the overview.
gives us corresponding values of Controlled and
Constraint variables for change in Manipulated variable.
From this we can obtain gain and can verify the Controlled Variable Constraint Variable

Time Upper Side Bottom Side Reboiler Reflux

Table 2 Temp. Temp. Valve Valve
Manipulated Variable Position Position
Time Reflux Reboile Pressur Sidestream 11.45 135.81 226.34 96.07 85.47
r e 12.00 138.54 231.13 91.01 87.43
12.15 138.66 221.11 100 80.75
11.45 57 72 20 70.99 12.30 141.58 235.66 100 80.45
12.00 67 62 17.50 75 8 MODEL VERIFICATION
12.15 47 82 22.50 65
12.30 47 82 22.50 75
Alternatively, the FIR response can be used as a guide in
manually editing the step response. FIR identifies pulse
Table 3 response coefficients, as in below for a SISO process.

Figure 3: Model overview in DeltaV

p
model which will be generated in future. By
selecting the AUTO generation button, model is ∆ y k =∑ hi ∆ uk −i ---------------------- (5)
generated. The validity of the step response can i=1

be obtained from the background color of the

individual step response as shown in the Figure
3. Red colored step response is the most
significant for the associated Manipulated
process input.Step test provides Steady State
Process Gain, Time Constant and Dead Time.
Matrix is obtained in the Transfer Function form
as below:
Bottom side temperature
where p is prediction horizon, with a typical default value
for MPC model 120; ∆ y k is change in the process
output at the time k; ∆ u k−i is change in the process input
at the time k – i; and hi is the pulse response coefficient of
the model[8]. On other hand ARX has fewer coefficients
which are defined with higher confidence, provided the
process dead times are known.

[ Reboiler Valve Position

Upper SideTemperature
Reflux Valve Position
=
] v a
y k =∑ ai y k−i+ ∑ bi uk−d −i --------------
i=1 i=1
(6)

Where a, v are autoregressive and moving average

equation orders of ARX; a = 4, v = 4 satisfy most
applications;a i , bi are moving average and autoregressive
coefficients of the ARX model; and d is dead time in
scans. As shown in Figure 4, the FIR response provides
valuable information on the process gain and response.
This alternative method essentially involves comparison
of ARX (Auto Regressive model with External input)

Figure 4: Comparison between ARX and FIR Response

 with FIR. The squared error is shown for all Control and
Constraint parameters. Here squared error is 0.21. Refer
Figure 5. In addition, for selected parameters, the
calculated and actual value can be plotted for the original
time or for the timeframe selected by the green bar in the
overview. This involves comparison of calculated output
and actual output. This is shown in the Figure 6.
Figure 6 : Comparison between actual and predicted value of CV
9 CONTROLLER GENERATION
A dynamic matrix is used for developing an MPC
controller. A dynamic matrix is built from step responses
to predict the changes in the process outputs that result
from moves of the manipulated variables over the control
horizon. Dynamic matrix Su as in Equation below,
calculates prediction vector ∆ X k resulting from c future
moves of MV, defined by the vector∆ u (k ).
∆ X k =¿ Su ∆ u(k).=
Figure 5: Performance of Model
be less than or equal to Manipulated Parameter. Penalty
on Move (POM) and Penalty on Error (POE) are two
parameters to adjust the robustness of control and speed
of response. By using Controller Setup, parameters are
selected for controller generation. This gives condition
number. Lower condition number gives better control.
Penalty on Move is a parameter that affects robustness.
To make control less aggressive Penalty on Move of that
parameter increases. The MPC controller minimizes the
squared error of a controlled variable over prediction
horizon and the squared error of controller output over
control horizon.
2 2
min
∆ MV (k)
{‖Г y
[CV ( k )−R (k )]‖ +‖Г u ∆ MV (k )‖ }
----------- (7)
where CV(k) is the controlled output p-step ahead
prediction vector; R(k) is the p-step ahead reference
trajectory (set point) vector; ΔMV(k) is the c-step ahead
incremental control moves vector; Гy is a diagonal
penalty matrix on the controlled output error; Гu is a
diagonal penalty matrix on the control moves; p is the
prediction horizon (number of scans); and c is the control
horizon (number of scans).

10 MPC CONTROLLER EQUATION

ΔMV(k) = (SuT Г yT Г ySu + Г uT Г u)-1 SuT Г yT Г y Ep(k)

--------- (8)

Where Su is the p × c process dynamic matrix built from

the step responses of dimension p ×c for a SISO model
b0 0 0 0 and pn × cm for a MIMO model with m manipulated

[ ][ ]
∆u k
b1 b0 0 0 inputs and n controlled outputs; and E p ( k ) is the error
∆ uk +1
b2 b1 b0 0 vector over prediction horizon. Presenting MPC control
∆ uk +2 equation in the form
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ =
⋮
bi bi−1 bi−2 bi−c+1
⋮
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ Δ MV ( k )=K mpc E p ( k )----------------(9)
∆u k+c−1
b p−1 b p−2 b p −3 b p−c
Where K mpc =¿(SuT Г yT Г ySu + Г uT Г u)-1 SuT Г yT
∆ y0 Гy

[]
∆ y1
∆ y2 11 RESULTS
⋮
∆ yi 11.1 Comparison of variables between with MPC and
without MPC (local)
⋮ In Local Mode i.e. without MPC, deviation of 5% in
∆ y p−1 steady state value of manipulated variable ( Reboiler
Flow) results in change in most relevant controlled
variable i.e. Bottom Side Temperature from 217.620 F
Once the model is accurate, Controller Generation is the to 218.910 F . This value is noted down. It also deviates
next stage. Condition to execute Controller Generation is other controlled variable, Upper Side Temperature from
number of Controlled and Constrained Parameters must
 their Set Point (SP) and constraint variable from its steady handle constraints very effectively as in this case Reflux
state value. During this procedure, other manipulated Valve Position and Reboiler Valve Position was
variables remained to its original position. Note that, constrained between low limit and high limit.
constraint variable (Reboiler valve Position) crossed its
higher limit (95%) i.e. 97.49%.
A. In Local Mode (Without MPC) ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
We are very thankful to Emerson Export
Engineering Centre for giving us opportunity. We would
Table 3 like to thank Mr. Koustubh Palnitkar and Mr. Archis Labhe
for technical assistance. We are very grateful to Mr. Sachin
Manip Controlled Constrai Soman for moral inspiration while carrying out this project.
ulated Variable nt
Variabl Variable
e REFERENCES:
Reboiler Botto Upper Reb Ref
Flow m Side side oile lux [ 1] Willian L. Luyben, ‘Process Modelling, Simulation
Tempe tempe r Val
rature and Control for Chemical Engineers’, 1990.
0rature 0Val
94.9 ve
95.
70 KPPH 217.62 127.79
F 2%F 43
97.4 95.
218.910128.77 0 [ 2] Warren L. McCabe, Julian C. Smith, Peter
75 KPPH F 9%F 38
0 94.9
0 95. Harriott, ‘Unit Operations of Chemical engineering’,
70 KPPH 217.64 127.89
F 1%F 42 Mc GRAW-HILL International Editions, Chemical
and Petroleum Engineering Series, Fifth
Edition,1993.
Now, noted value of Bottom Side Temperature in local
mode is given as Set Point of Bottom Side Temperature [ 3] Bѐla G. Lipták, Instrument Engineers’ handbook :
in MPC mode and results are checked. It is rightly Process Control, Third Edition, 1995.
observed that not only controlled variable tracks set point
but also does not affect other CVs (Controlled and [ 4] B. Wayne Bequette, ‘Process Control, Modelling
Constraint Variable). To track set point, MV and Simulation’, Prentice Hall of India Pvt.
(Manipulated Variable) utilization is carried out. As Ltd.2003.
constraint (Reboiler Valve Position) is reached to its
higher limit, Reboiler flow (MV) didn’t change [ 5] S. Joe Qin, Thomas A. Badgwell, ‘A survey
of industrial model predictive control technology’,
significantly (69.90 KPPH to 69.95 KPPH). Instead of Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733-764.
that, sidestream is changed from 69.71 BPD to 71.13
BPD. Again set point is changed from 218.910 F to [ 6] Sudhir Panditrao, Sudhir Agashe, Prashant
Shevgaonkar, ‘Model Predictive Control of Pilot
217.620 F . Then, Reboiler flow (mv) is changed Spray Dryer Unit Designed and implemented for an
significantly, because now, its related constraint (Reboiler Educational Institute ’.
Valve Position) is in limit. Like this way, Set point tracks
Set point tracks as well as constraints are handled Using [ 7] Dale E. Seborg, Thomas. F. Edgar, Duncan A.
MPC as shown in Figure 7. Mellichamp, ‘Process Dynamics and
Control’,Second Edition, 2004.
B. In MPC Mode (With MPC)
[ 8] W.K. Wojsznis (2005), Model Predictive Control
Table 4 and Optimization.
Controlled Variable Manipulated Variable
[ 9] Tri Chandra S.Wibowo, Nordin Saad, and Mohd
S.P. of Bottom Side Reboile Sidestrea Noh Karsiti, ‘System Identification of an Interacting
Bottom Side r Valve Reboiler Reflux
Temperatur m Series Process for Real-Time Model Predictive
Temperatur Position Flow Flow
e flow Control’, 2009 American Control Conference Hyatt
e 0
217.62 F 217.62 F 0 94.40%
69.90KPP
69.71BPD
76.79 Regency Riverfront, St. Louis, MO, USA June 10-
H Bbl/day 12, 2009.
69.95KPP 76.90
218.910 F 218.910 F 94.45%
H
71.13 BPD
Bbl/day
65.11KPP 74.75 [ 10] Vu Trieu Minh, Wan Mansor Wan
217.620 F 217.620 F 92.48%
H
70.25 BPD
Bbl/day Muhamad, ‘Model Predictive Control of a
Condensate Distillation Column’, International
Journal of Systems Control (Vol. 1-2010/ Iss.1).
12 CONCLUSION [ 11] Saniye Ay and Suleyman Karacan,
Model generated in MPC is of high accuracy, as it is ‘Decoupling Constrained Model Predictive Control
rightly confirmed from the methods used in Model of Multi-component Packed Distillation Column’,
Verification. Further MPC gives better results over PID in World Applied Sciences Journal 13, 2011.
the application of Interactive Multivariable Control
System. As seen from above results MPC was able to [ 12] Yucai Zhu, Rohit Patwardhan, Stephen B.
Wagner, Jun Jhao, ‘Toward a low cost and high
 performance MPC: The role of system
identification’, Computers and Chemical
Engineering 51 (2013) 124-135.

[ 13] Books on-line, DeltaV DCS Documentation,

Emerson Process Management, USA.