Constraint parameters.

In addition, for selected v a

parameters, the calculated and actual values can be
plotted for the original time or for the timeframe selected
by the green bar in the overview.
Figure 3: Model overview in DeltaV
y k =∑ ai y k−i+ ∑ bi uk−d −i -------------- (6)
i=1 i=1
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)
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.

8 MODEL VERIFICATION
Alternatively, the FIR response can be used as a guide in
manually editing the step response. FIR identifies pulse
response coefficients, as in below for a SISO process.

p
∆ y k =∑ hi ∆ uk −i ---------------------- (5)
i=1

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

Figure 5: Performance of Model

Figure 6 : Comparison between actual and predicted value of CV

Figure 4: Comparison between ARX and FIR Response

the model[8]. On other hand ARX has fewer coefficients

which are defined with higher confidence, provided the

process dead times are known. 9 CONTROLLER GENERATION
A dynamic matrix is used for developing an MPC
controller. A dynamic matrix is built from step responses prediction horizon (number of scans); and c is the control
to predict the changes in the process outputs that result horizon (number of scans).
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 10 MPC CONTROLLER EQUATION
moves of MV, defined by the vector∆ u (k ).
ΔMV(k) = (SuT Г yT Г ySu + Г uT Г u)-1 SuT Г yT Г y Ep(k)
--------- (8)
∆ X k =¿ Su ∆ u(k).=
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

[ ][ ]
∆u k and pn × cm for a MIMO model with m manipulated
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 Г y

[]
∆ 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
be less than or equal to Manipulated Parameter. Penalty state value. During this procedure, other manipulated
on Move (POM) and Penalty on Error (POE) are two variables remained to its original position. Note that,
parameters to adjust the robustness of control and speed constraint variable (Reboiler valve Position) crossed its
of response. By using Controller Setup, parameters are higher limit (95%) i.e. 97.49%.
selected for controller generation. This gives condition
number. Lower condition number gives better control. A. In Local Mode (Without MPC)
Penalty on Move is a parameter that affects robustness.
To make control less aggressive Penalty on Move of that Table 1
parameter increases. The MPC controller minimizes the
squared error of a controlled variable over prediction Manip Controlled Constrai
horizon and the squared error of controller output over ulated Variable nt
control horizon. Variabl Variable
e
Reboiler Botto Upper Reb Ref
2 2 Flow m Side side oile lux
min
∆ MV (k)
{
‖Г y [CV ( k )−R (k )]‖ +‖Г u ∆ MV (k )‖ } Tempe
rature
tempe r Val
0rature 0Val
94.9 ve
95.
----------- (7)
70 KPPH 217.62 127.79
F 2%F 43
0 97.4
0 95.
75 KPPH 218.91 128.77
F 9%F 38
94.9 95.
where CV(k) is the controlled output p-step ahead 70 KPPH 217.64 0127.89
F 0
1%F 42
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 Now, noted value of Bottom Side Temperature in local
penalty matrix on the controlled output error; Гu is a mode is given as Set Point of Bottom Side Temperature
diagonal penalty matrix on the control moves; p is the in MPC mode and results are checked. It is rightly
 observed that not only controlled variable tracks set point System. As seen from above results MPC was able to
but also does not affect other CVs (Controlled and handle constraints very effectively as in this case Reflux
Constraint Variable). To track set point, MV Valve Position and Reboiler Valve Position was
(Manipulated Variable) utilization is carried out. As constrained between low limit and high limit.
constraint (Reboiler Valve Position) is reached to its
higher limit, Reboiler flow (MV) didn’t change
significantly (69.90 KPPH to 69.95 KPPH). Instead of ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
that, sidestream is changed from 69.71 BPD to 71.13 We are very thankful to Emerson Export
BPD. Again set point is changed from 218.910 F to Engineering Centre for giving us opportunity. We would
like to thank Mr. Koustubh Palnitkar and Mr. Archis Labhe
217.620 F . Then, Reboiler flow (mv) is changed for technical assistance. We are very grateful to Mr. Sachin
significantly, because now, its related constraint (Reboiler Soman for moral inspiration while carrying out this project.
Valve Position) is in limit. Like this way, Set point tracks
Set point tracks as well as constraints are handled Using
MPC as shown in Figure 7. REFERENCES:
B. In MPC Mode (With MPC)
[ 1] Willian L. Luyben, ‘Process Modelling, Simulation
and Control for Chemical Engineers’, 1990.
Table 2
Controlled Variable Manipulated Variable [ 2] Warren L. McCabe, Julian C. Smith, Peter
S.P. of Bottom Side Reboile Sidestrea Harriott, ‘Unit Operations of Chemical engineering’,
Bottom Side r Valve Reboiler Reflux Mc GRAW-HILL International Editions, Chemical
Temperatur m
Flow Flow
Temperatur e Position flow and Petroleum Engineering Series, Fifth
e 0 0 69.90KPP 76.79 Edition,1993.
217.62 F 217.62 F 94.40%
H
69.71BPD
Bbl/day
69.95KPP 76.90
218.910 F 218.910 F 94.45%
H
71.13 BPD
Bbl/day [ 3] Bѐla G. Lipták, Instrument Engineers’ handbook :
65.11KPP 74.75 Process Control, Third Edition, 1995.
217.620 F 217.620 F 92.48%
H
70.25 BPD
Bbl/day
[ 4] B. Wayne Bequette, ‘Process Control, Modelling
and Simulation’, Prentice Hall of India Pvt.
Ltd.2003.

[ 5] S. Joe Qin, Thomas A. Badgwell, ‘A survey

of industrial model predictive control technology’,
Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733-764.

[ 6] Sudhir Panditrao, Sudhir Agashe, Prashant

Shevgaonkar, ‘Model Predictive Control of Pilot
Spray Dryer Unit Designed and implemented for an
Educational Institute ’.

[ 7] Dale E. Seborg, Thomas. F. Edgar, Duncan A.

Mellichamp, ‘Process Dynamics and
Control’,Second Edition, 2004.

[ 8] W.K. Wojsznis (2005), Model Predictive Control

and Optimization.

[ 9] Tri Chandra S.Wibowo, Nordin Saad, and Mohd

Noh Karsiti, ‘System Identification of an Interacting
Series Process for Real-Time Model Predictive
Control’, 2009 American Control Conference Hyatt
Regency Riverfront, St. Louis, MO, USA June 10-
12, 2009.

Figure7: How better Interactive process is handled by MPC over
PID
12 CONCLUSION
Model generated in MPC is of high accuracy, as it is
rightly confirmed from the methods used in Model
Verification. Further MPC gives better results over PID in
the application of Interactive Multivariable Control
[ 10] Vu Trieu Minh, Wan Mansor Wan
Muhamad, ‘Model Predictive Control of a
Condensate Distillation Column’, International
Journal of Systems Control (Vol. 1-2010/ Iss.1).
[ 11] Saniye Ay and Suleyman Karacan,
‘Decoupling Constrained Model Predictive Control
of Multi-component Packed Distillation Column’,
World Applied Sciences Journal 13, 2011.
[ 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.