See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308969667

Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control

Chapter · January 2011

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374407-4.00413-1

CITATIONS READS

0 4,715

1 author:

Petia Georgieva
University of Aveiro
151 PUBLICATIONS 1,125 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Petia Georgieva on 10 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only.
Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.

This article was originally published in Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second

Edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the
author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for non-commercial
research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your
institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to
your institution’s administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation

commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open
internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited.
For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s
permissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

Georgieva P (2011) Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control:

Process Control In: Fuquay JW, Fox PF and McSweeney PLH (eds.), Encyclopedia
of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, vol. 4, pp. 242–251. San Diego: Academic Press.

ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

 Author's personal copy
Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control
P Georgieva, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is a revision of the previous edition article by
R. Oliveira, P. Georgieva, and S. Feyo de Azevedo, Volume 3,
pp 1392–1401, ª 2002, Elsevier Ltd.
Introduction – Dairy Industry, Aims,
Trends
Dairy processing industries worldwide have undergone
rationalization, with a trend toward fewer but larger
plants specialized in a limited range of products and
operated by fewer people. Plants producing market milk
and products with short shelf-life, such as yogurts, creams,
and soft cheeses, tend to be located on the fringe of urban
centers close to consumer markets. Plants manufacturing
items with longer shelf-life, such as butter, milk powders,
cheese, and whey powders, tend to be located in rural
areas closer to the milk supply.
Basic dairy processes have changed little in the past
decade. However, changing global needs and the pressure
of globalization create contemporary challenges related to
rapid development of new, high-value-added products,
improvements of production efficiency, and more energy-
efficient, cost-saving, and environmentally friendly pro-
cesses. Issues such as pollution prevention and reduction
of waste loads and product losses are critical for the dairy
industry. To achieve these requirements, an integrated
smart production policy is expected based on a holistic
plant-wide representation of the production chain from
process control level, through plant management, to cor-
porate management. Modern dairy technology consists of
a few hierarchical stages:
Enterprise resource planning (ERP), which refers to a
system that sits at the top of an integrated dairy infra-
structure to manage the demands of business, in terms
of functions such as sales and distribution, accounting,
materials management, asset management, and plant
maintenance.
Manufacturing execution (ME) refers to a system that
centers on the product as it moves through the plant.
Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) is a
system that provides the operator and other users with
access to direct regulatory process control, such as pro-
grammable logic controllers (PLCs). The SCADA system
works in real time and provides graphical status displays
and process monitoring. Though the PLCs form the basis
of most traditional process control systems in the dairy
industry, the use of more sophisticated control systems,
information technology (IT)-based modern control
242
Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251
equipment, and new control algorithms are solutions
implemented by an increasing number of companies.
For example, specialized processes such as ultrafiltration
and modern drying processes have increased the oppor-
tunity for the recovery of milk solids that were formerly
discharged.
ME provides a bridge between ERP systems and real-
time control supplied by PLC and SCADA systems, for
functions such as batch process control and production
scheduling.
Batch and Semibatch Process Operation
Batch or fed-batch mode of operation is a typical pro-
duction scheme for a large group of dairy processes. It is
related to the formulation of control problems in terms
of the economic or performance objective at the end of
the process; for example, milk powder production qual-
ity is evaluated by the total quantity and concentration
of solids at the end of the process. The main challenge of
batch production is the large batch-to-batch variation
of the final characteristics. This lack of process repeat-
ability is an inherent consequence of the variability of
raw materials and uncontrolled parameters and not
necessarily due to improper control policies, though
the latter would greatly enhance the problem. Over the
past 10 years, a number of control methods have been
researched to cope with process constraints and different
objectives derived from economic or environmental con-
siderations with the objective to drive the process to its
optimal state of profit maximization and cost minimiza-
tion. Some of the most typical control paradigms and
new model-based control trends are presented in the rest
of this article.
Classical Closed-Loop Process
Control – Established Control
Engineering Practice
Any control system in which the output is monitored
(measured), compared (subtracted) with the reference
(desired) input, and the difference (the error) used to
actuate the controller until the output equals the
 Author's personal copy
Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control
+
e(t) u(t)
Reference Controller Process
input
– Statistical process control (SPC) is one of the most power-
Measured
Sensor
output
Figure 1 Closed-loop process control.
reference is called a closed-loop or feedback control sys-
tem (see Figure 1).
The controller design consists of computing the PID
parameters Kp ; KI ; Kd such that the closed-loop perfor-
mance and stability requirements are achieved. Each
parameter is related to one of the terms (proportional,
integral, or derivative) of the control law.
Proportional action. The magnitude of the contribution
of the proportional term to the overall control action is
determined by proportional gain, Kp . A high proportional
gain results in a large change in the output for a given
change in the error. If the proportional gain is too high,
the system can become unstable. In contrast, a small gain
results in a small output response to a large input error
and a less responsive (or sensitive) controller. In the
absence of disturbances, pure proportional control will
not settle at its target value but will retain a steady-state
error that is a function of the proportional gain and the
process gain.
Integral action. The contribution of the integral term is
proportional to the error magnitude and error duration.
Summing the instantaneous errors over time (integrating
the error) gives the accumulated offset. The magnitude of
the contribution of the integral term to the overall control
action is determined by the integral gain, KI . The integral
action (when added to the proportional action – PI con-
troller) accelerates the movement of the process toward
the setpoint and eliminates the residual steady-state error
that occurs with a proportional-only controller. However,
because the integral term responds to accumulated errors
from the past, it increases oscillations and overshoots of
the setpoint.
Derivative action. The rate of change of the process
error is calculated by determining the slope of the error
over time (its first derivative over time) and multiply-
ing this rate of change by the derivative gain, Kd . The
magnitude of the contribution of the derivative action
to the overall control action is termed the derivative
gain, Kd . The derivative action slows the rate of
change of the controller output and thus decreases
oscillations and overshoots, an effect that is most
noticeable close to the controller setpoint. However,
differentiation of a signal amplifies noise, and thus
this term in the controller is highly sensitive to noise
in the error term and can cause a process to become
unstable if the noise and the derivative gain are
sufficiently large.
Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251
243
Statistical Process Control
Controlled
output
ful tools for process improvement. Although SPC is new
to the dairy industry, it is not really a new approach. It has
been used successfully in manufacturing businesses for
more than 60 years. SPC is a set of analytical tools of
which the control chart is one of the most important.
Control charts are helpful in signaling that a change has
occurred. The fundamental concept of control charts is to
distinguish between inherent random variation and real
changes in output, quality, or measured performance.
SPC methods can be used to signal emerging problems
and to evaluate the positive or negative impact of a
change in a management practice or the implementation
of a new product. Next, some of the most commonly used
online multivariate SPC techniques are presented briefly.
Empirical Linear Techniques
Batch process modeling and monitoring has been always a
challenging problem in dairy engineering due to the pre-
sence of nonlinear behavior and serial correlation,
correlated and/or collinear data, varying batch lengths,
and multiproduct production. Current state of the art
empirical techniques include the bilinear approaches of
multiway principal component analysis (MPCA), the
multiway partial least squares (MPLS), and the trilinear
methodologies of parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) and
PARAFAC II. Although the above bilinear and trilinear
techniques have been applied successfully to batch pro-
cesses, they experience a number of limitations. For
example, they do not incorporate the process dynamics,
and with the exception of PARAFAC II, the duration of
the batches is assumed to be constant. Moreover, for
online monitoring, it is required that the whole batch
trajectory is known or is predictable. This requirement
results in certain assumptions being made to in-fill the
unknown future values of the batch trajectory. Finally, all
these techniques are linear and to a greater or lesser
extent fail to capture the nonlinear nature of a batch
process. Alternative approaches that overcome the issues
of data in-filling and unequal batches are presented next.
Moving Window Principal Component Analysis
In moving window principal component analysis
(MWPCA), typically, measurements from a batch process
are arranged in a three-dimensional matrix X
(NB  NV  NT) where NB, NV, and NT are the number
of batches, variables, and time instants (Figure 2(a)). The
three-dimensional matrix X can be transformed to a bidi-
mensional matrix by unfolding over the batch dimension
(NB  (NV  NT)), as shown in Figure 2.
 Author's personal copy
244 Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control

(a)
NT
Time
1

Batches x

NR Variable NV

⇒
(b)
t=1 → t = ti -1 t = ti → t = NT
1

NB
1 → NV 1 → NV 1 → NV 1 → NV 1 → NV

⇒
(c) 1→k
1
Pt
→

2 ∗NV

Figure 2 Moving window principal component analysis (MWPCA).

A scaling is usually applied to the unfolded matrix X T 2 ¼ tt St– 1 tTt ½3

before an ordinary principal components analysis (PCA).
The mean of each column of X is subtracted from each
data element of this column. This way of mean centering
is very important as it results in the removal of the main
nonlinear component in the data. Furthermore, by scaling
the variables in each column of X, the differences in the
measurement units between variables can be handled to
allow equal weight to be given to each variable at each
time interval. A PCA model is then developed on a mov-
ing window of data. Having selected the length of the
moving window (L), MWPCA then develops NTL þ 1
PCA models for each time interval by decomposing the
(NB  NV) matrix X into a systematic and noisy part:
X ¼ Tk PTk þ E
where Tk and Pk are the matrices of the k retained
principal component scores and loading respectively,
and E is the matrix of the residuals. The number of the
retained principal components, k, is usually determined
by the means of cross-validation. For the application
exemplified, the order of the moving window was
selected to be L ¼ 2. For each PCA model, the loading
matrix Pk is stored. Having performed a PCA analysis, a
set of online monitoring tools can then be developed.
Typically, these tools are Hotelling’s T 2 and squared
prediction error (SPE) control charts. For instance, con-
sidering that a new batch xnew is to be monitored, the
Hotelling’s T 2 is calculated using the k retained PCA
scores by:
tk ¼ xnew Pk
where tk are the k retained PCA scores and S is their
covariance matrix. The SPE is then calculated as follows:
SPE ¼ et eTt ½4
 
e ¼ xnew I – Pk PTk ½5
Batch Dynamic Principal Component Analysis
The MWPCA approach does not capture the dynamic
behavior within a batch process. The batch dynamic princi-
pal component analysis (BDPCA) is an alternative method
that uses lagged variables to incorporate process dynamics.
½1 More specifically in BDPCA, each batch is isolated from the
others (see Figure 3(a)). A matrix Xiv (NT  NV) is formed
for each iv batch. Then each of the NV variables is lagged d
times resulting in a lagged Xiv [(NT  d)  (NV ? (d þ 1))]
matrix (see Figure 3(b)). The covariance matrix of the
lagged Xiv matrix, Siv, is then calculated (see Figure 3(c)).
The procedure is repeated for all NB batches, resulting in
NB Siv covariance matrices. The elements in each of the Siv
matrices are a measure of the dynamic relationship between
variables in batch iv. Having calculated these dynamic cor-
relations for all NB batches, an average covariance matrix,
Savg, is then calculated based on the NB Siv covariance
matrices (see Figure 3(d)):
P
NB
ðNT – d – 1Þ Siv
iv¼1
Savg ¼ ½6
½2 NV ðNT – d Þ

Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251

 Author's personal copy
Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control 245

Lagged
Variables Variables
1 → NV 1 → (K + 1) × NV
1
↓ Batch 1 ⇒ Xd, 1 ⇒ S1
NT

1
↓ Batch 2 ⇒ Xd, 2 ⇒ S2
NT

1
↓ Batch 3 ⇒ Xd, 3 ⇒ S3 ⇒ Savg ⇒ P
NT

1
↓ …. ⇒ …. ⇒ …
NT

1
↓ Batch NB ⇒ Xd, NV ⇒ SNB
NT
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure 3 Batch dynamic principal component analysis (BDPCA).

The average covariance matrix, Savg, expresses the aver-
age dynamic relationships between the process
measurements. A PCA model is then developed based
on Savg (see Figure 3(e)). The resulting BDPCA model
is finally used to calculate the T2 and SPE statistics for
monitoring purposes.
Batch Observation Level
The batch observation level (BOL) method considers the
problem with unequal batch lengths. In BOL, the original
three-way data is unfolded over the variable’s dimension
(see Figure 4(a)). A dummy y-variable that can be a time
index or a batch maturity index is then specified. Data are
scaled and matrix X is transformed into a systematic and
noisy part as in eqn [1]. Partial least squares (PLS) ana-
lysis is then performed between the unfolded matrix X
and the dummy y vector:
y ¼ Tk c þ f ½7
where c is the regression vector of y onto the PLS scores
Tk (see Figure 4(b)) and f are the PLS model residuals.
The number of PLS latent variables to be retained are
selected as those that provide an adequate description of
both the X and y spaces. For setting up an online mon-
itoring scheme, the PLS scores retained are then
rearranged over the batch dimension resulting in an
[NB  (NT?k)] matrix (see Figure 4(c)) and their mean
and standard deviation calculated for each sample point
and stored (see Figure 4(d)). In an online situation,

Variables Scores
1 → NV 1→k
1
↓ Batch 1
NT (c) t=1 t=2 t=3 … t = NT
1 1→k 1→k 1→k 1→k 1→k
↓ Batch 2 ⇒ ⇒ 1
NT ↓
1 NT
↓ Batch 3
⇒

NT
1 (d) t=1 t=2 t=3 … t = NT
↓ …. 1→k 1→k 1→k 1→k 1→k
NT mean
1 std
↓ Batch NB
NT
(a) (b)
Figure 4 Batch observation level (BOL).

Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251

 Author's personal copy
246 Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control
when a new sample is obtained, the scores are calculated
initially and then scaled using the mean and the standard
deviation of the corresponding sample point. These
scaled scores are plotted against their control limits in
univariate score plot charts. Similar to the previous
approaches, T2 and SPE charts can also be constructed.
Time-Varying State Space Modeling
Time-varying state space (TVSS) modeling is an alter-
native approach for batch process modeling and
monitoring with the following state space model:
tt þ1 ¼ Ct tt þ wt
y t ¼ H t tt þ e t
where t is the system states, y is the available process
measurements, and w and e are the state and output
residuals with covariance matrices Q and R, respectively.
Finally, C and H are the state space model matrices,
which are assumed to be time-varying as they aim to
describe a nonstationary process. To develop the model,
the data are initially unfolded and scaled as in MWPCA.
The procedure to compute the TVSS matrices C and H
then proceeds through the identification of the system
states. For a time interval t ¼ k, the past and the future of
the system are defined as shown in Figure 5(a). The past
(p) of the process is associated with the past process
measurements of all batches at time k up to a specific
lag (in Figure 5(a), the time lag, K, was set to a value of
two):
 T
pt ¼ yt –1 yt –2    yt –K
The future ( f ) of the process is the current and future
process measurements of all batches (in Figure 5(a), the
future horizon, L, is set up to a value of one):
 T
f t ¼ yt yt þ1    yt þL
Now, by applying any one of either PLS, principal com-
ponent regression (PCR), or canonical variate analysis
(CVA) between the past (eqn [10]) and the future (eqn
(a)
t=1 t = ti -2 t = ti -1 t = ti
1
↓
NB
1 → NV 1 → NV 1 → NV 1 → NV
⇒
(b)
Past ↔ Future →
Figure 5 Time-varying state space model (TVSS).
Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251
[11]) of the process, new latent variables that provide a
reliable approximation of the true system states can be
calculated. PCR scores capture the variability between
process measurements, while PLS and CVA latent vari-
ables are those linear combinations of the past that
include the information required to predict process
future. The result of applying either a PCR, PLS, or
CVA analysis is a weighting matrix Jt , which is used to
identify the system states through the past vector pt :
tt ¼ Jt pt ½12
Once the system states have been identified, the state
space matrices can be computed using a least squares
½8 solution.
½9
Intelligent Control
The process modeling and monitoring techniques dis-
cussed in the section ‘Statistical Process Control’ are the
first step toward developing modern computer-based
control systems able to collect a large amount of process
operational data, store it in databases, and display it to the
operator. The next step is the subsequent decision making
that still relies mainly on the human operators; however,
new concepts and methodologies for automatic analysis
and developing a computationally intelligent control (IC)
are slowly being introduced in dairy manufacturing. IC
deals with the application of data mining, machine learn-
ing, and knowledge discovery paradigms, artificial
intelligence, expert systems, fuzzy logic, and neural net-
works for controlling complex physical processes that are
½10
difficult to control using conventional methods. The main
modules of an IC system are discussed below.
Perception Subsystem
½11 Information from the plant and the environment is col-
lected and processed into a form suitable for perception.
Basic elements of a perception subsystem are
• Sensor
data
arrays – provide raw plant and environmental
t = NT
• Signal processing – transforms data into information
and knowledge
• Data fusion and pattern recognition – uses multidi-
mensional and varying nature data spaces to extract
underlying patterns describing the plant and the
1 → NV environment
Cognition Subsystem
T In an IC framework, cognition is concerned with the
decision-making process under conditions of uncertainty.
Basic activities of a cognition subsystem are
 Author's personal copy
Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control
• Reasoning
fuzzy logic
– using knowledge-based algorithms and
• Strategic planning – using adaptive search and genetic
algorithms for optimum policy evaluation and path
prediction
• Learning – using adaptive supervised (teacher
supported) or unsupervised (self) learning paradigms
The Actuator Subsystem
The actuators operate using signals from the cognition
subsystem to drive the plant to some desired state. In the
event of actuator/sensor failure, the IC system has to be
able to reconfigure its control strategy.
Though milk production is a traditional dairy process
for which conventional controllers have been used inten-
sively, IC appears to be quite plausible for such processes.
If the temperature drifts during processing, safety can be
compromised or the product flavor or texture might be
ruined. To perform the delicate balancing act that dairy
products demand, plant operators need complete control,
including the ability to know precisely what is happening
at every moment and to perform urgent changes on time.
It is not easy, especially when the product is hidden from
sight in tanks and pipes more than 90% of the time.
Companies that process the same products day in and
day out have experience on their side, but those that
change frequently have to be very agile and adaptable.
In this sense, fuzzy and model predictive controllers are
very good examples for building IC systems that are well
accepted generally in the process industry.
Fuzzy Logic Control System
The basic structure of a fuzzy logic control system
(FLCS) is shown in Figure 6.
Fuzzification Module
Fuzzification is a process of mapping the input variables
to the fuzzy logic controller (FLC) into a set of
Data base &
Rule base
r(t) e(t)
+ y(t)
Fuzzy
Fuzzification
Inference
–
Meaurement
system
Figure 6 Fuzzy logic (FL) control system.
Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251
247
membership functions, known as fuzzy sets. Fuzzy set
theory provides a means for representing uncertainty. In
general, probability theory is the primary tool for analyz-
ing uncertainty and assumes that uncertainty is a random
process. However, not all uncertainty is random, and
fuzzy set theory is used to model the kind of uncertainty
associated with imprecision, vagueness, and lack of
information.
Conventional set theory distinguishes elements that are
members or not members of a set, with very clear, crisp
boundaries between them. For example, temperatures
between 20  C and 30  C belong to the crisp set ‘medium
temperature’, and all temperatures between these bound-
aries have a membership value of one ( ¼ 1). The central
concept of fuzzy set theory is that the membership function
 can have a value between 0 and 1. The shape of the
membership function is also known as the universe of
discourse. Among the most typical fuzzy set shapes are
symmetrical triangles, trapezoids, and Gaussian or bell-
shaped curves. Each set is given a linguistic label to identify
it; for example, positive big (PB), positive small (PS), about
zero (Z), negative big (NB), negative small (NS). The size
of the universe of discourse depends on the range of the
variable and the number of the sets. The number and shape
of fuzzy sets are a trade-off between precision of control
action and real-time computational complexity.
Fuzzy Rulebase Module
The fuzzy rulebase consists of a set of antecedent-
consequent linguistic rules of the form
Example: OR IF e is PS AND ce is NS THEN u is PS
½13
where e is the error (process reference – measured value),
deðt Þ
ce is the rate of change of the error ce ¼ , and the
dt
objective of the FLC (see Figure 6) is to minimize e
and ce.
In this example, the FLC input variables are e and ce,
the fuzzy logic controller (FLC) output variable is u, and
FL controller
u(t)
Defuzzification Plant
 Author's personal copy
248 Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control
they all have values defined as fuzzy sets. The fuzzy
conditional statement eqn [13] is often called a
Mamdani-type rule after Mamdani who first used it to
control a steam plant. The rule base is constructed using a
priori knowledge from the following sources:
• Physical laws that govern the plant dynamics.
• Imprecise heuristic
Data from other controllers.
•
• enced plant operatorsknowledge obtained from experi-
and experts.
Fuzzy Inference Module
Fuzzy inference is the process of mapping membership
values from the input variable(s) through the rulebase to
the output variable(s).
Example (continued): If at a certain moment the mem-
bership values of the input variables are
PS ðeÞ ¼ a; NS ðceÞ ¼ b ½14
based on fuzzy set operations and the fuzzy rule eqn [13],
the membership value of the control action u is
computed as
PS ðuÞ ¼ max½minðPS ðeÞ; NS ðceÞÞ ½15
Equation [15] is referred to as the max-min inference
process or max-min fuzzy reasoning.
Defuzzification Module
Defuzzification is the process of mapping from a set of
inferred fuzzy control signals belonging to fuzzy sets to a
nonfuzzy (crisp) control signal. The center of area is the
most well-known defuzzification technique, which can be
expressed as
P
n deposit removal shortens the running time between
C ðAðui ÞÞAðui Þ
u ðcrispÞ ¼ i¼1 P n ½16
Aðui Þ
i¼1
where Aðui Þ is the area of the ith membership function
computed at the previous step (the fuzzy inference), and
C ðAðui ÞÞ is the center of the respective area.
Model-Based Predictive Control
Modeling Approaches
Process modeling strategies can be divided into the
following main streams:
• with
The analytical approach (white-box models) is concerned
building the so-called mechanistic model, also
known as first-principles model, which is a set of
mathematical expressions that reflect the dynamic (dif-
ferential equations) or static (algebraic equations)
Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251
behavior of the modeled plant. The mechanistic
model is a result of extensive, specially designed
experiments and domain knowledge on the physical
laws that govern the process at hand. Analytical mod-
eling is time and resource consuming, but it has the
main advantage of permitting good generalizations and
scale-up.
Data-driven alternatives (black-box models) are based on
data mining and machine learning techniques and aim
at extracting process knowledge from databases col-
lected during the normal operation of the plant. The
development of data-driven models usually takes less
time and resources; however, their generalization out-
side the data space used to build the model is poor. One
of the most common black-box models is the artificial
neural network (ANN) paradigm, which will be
described in more detail later.
• Hybrid modeling (gray-box model) is a combination of
the two previous approaches and is also known as
knowledge-based hybrid modeling (KBHM). KBHM
offers a reasonable compromise between the exten-
sive efforts to obtain a fully parameterized structure
and the poor generalization of the data-driven
models.
Process modeling for the dairy industry is strongly
influenced by the recent trends in building data-based
or KBHM models. For example, fouling, the unwanted
formation of deposits on heated surfaces, is a major
unsolved problem in the dairy industry. A direct con-
sequence of fouling is reduction in the processing
efficiency, because the material deposited disturbs
both the fluid flow and the heat transfer, which in
turn may impair product quality. Additionally, the
cleaning cycles and thus increases the costs. As a result,
daily cleaning is a common practice in the dairy indus-
try and is necessary for hygienic and product quality
requirements. The additional annual costs in the dairy
industry caused by fouling are estimated at US$260
million per year. A relevant model of fouling would
be a powerful tool for the development of strategies to
avoid or reduce this unwanted process. However, due
to its very complex nature, milk fouling is only par-
tially understood, and its modeling is a challenging
issue. A KBHM model combining parameterized equa-
tions (for fluid flow, heat and mass transfer) with
qualitative knowledge in fuzzy logic form (for protein
and salt deposition) was developed a few years ago.
The model describes the fouling behavior with regard
to the temperature and the pressure drop in a time-
dependent manner, and it is not restricted to a certain
dairy product or plant configuration. KBHM was suc-
cessfully used for testing technological improvements
 Author's personal copy
Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control
in the heat treatment of milk in tubular heat
exchangers.
Model Predictive Control – General Formulation
The term model predictive control (MPC) does not
refer to a particular control method; instead, it cor-
responds with a general control approach. The MPC
concept, introduced in the late 1970s, has evolved to
a mature level and has become an attractive control
strategy implemented in a variety of process indus-
tries and in the dairy industry in particular. The
main difference between the MPC configurations is
the model used to predict the future behavior of the
process or the implemented optimization procedure.
First, the MPC based on linear models gained popu-
larity as an industrial alternative to PID control, and
later nonlinear cases such as tubular heat exchangers
and drying processes were reported as successfully
MPC-controlled processes. MPC is an optimization-
based multivariable constrained control technique
that uses a dynamic model, from the types described
in the previous section, for process output
predictions.
At each sampling time, the model is updated on the
basis of new measurements and state variables esti-
mates. Then, the open-loop optimal manipulated
variable moves are computed over a finite (predefined)
prediction horizon with respect to some performance
index, and the manipulated variables for the subsequent
prediction horizon are implemented. The prediction
horizon is shifted or shrunk by usually one sampling
time into the future, and the previous steps are
repeated.
Artificial Neural Networks
Over the past 20 years, ANNs became a well-established
methodology not only as a reliable classifier with count-
less applications but also as a data-driven modeling
framework. The remarkable success of the ANN
approach is in great part due to the following features:
1. ANNs are universal approximators. It has been proved
that any continuous nonlinear function can be approxi-
mated arbitrarily well over a compact set by a
multilayer ANNs, which consists of one or more
hidden layers.
2. Learning and adaptation. The intelligence of ANNs
comes from their generalization ability with respect to
unknown data. Online adaptation of the weights is
possible.
3. Multivariable systems. ANNs may have many inputs
and outputs, which makes it easy to model multivari-
able systems.
Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251
249
ANNs have been applied to design robust neural con-
trollers with guaranteed stability and reference tracking.
The neural control problem can be approached in a
direct or indirect control design framework. Direct
ANN control means that the controller has an ANN
structure, whereas in the indirect ANN control scheme,
first an ANN is used to model the process to be con-
trolled, and this model is then used in a more
conventional controller design. The implementation of
the first approach is simple, but the design and the
tuning are rather challenging. The indirect design is
very flexible, the model is typically trained in advance,
and the controller is designed online. Moreover, the
ANNs appear to be rather convenient numerical models
when dealing with nonlinear systems or in general with
systems for which data are available but little is known
on the physical mechanisms that determine their
dynamics.
The most popular ANN structures for modeling
reasons are feedforward networks (FFNNs) and recur-
rent networks (RNNs). The RNNs are most suitable
for dynamic system modeling, due to the memory
introduced by the recurrent (delayed and/or fed back)
signals (see Figure 7). Normally, the RNN has two
vector inputs (r and p) formed by past values of the
process input and the network output, respectively. A
linear activation function is often located at the output
node (layer 2), and S-shape functions are usually the
hidden nodes (layer 1).
ANN Error Tolerant Model Predictive Control
MPC controllers proved to be the most promising alter-
native to the traditional PID control that has the
potential to overcome the problem of the lack of repeat-
ability and related product recycling or loss increase. It
has been applied successfully in batch dairy processes
assuming linear process dynamics. However, online
execution of MPC with predictions running on a large
number of empirical and analytical nonlinear algebraic
differential equations (the process model) make this
alternative computationally more demanding or even
Input Layer 1 Layer 2 Output
Two r (7×1)
W1_1
Delays Tansig
(7×2) n1 (1×1)
(2×1) Σ w2_1 Purelin
b1 n2
(7×1) (1×7) Σ
(7×1)
b2 (1×1)
Two p
W1_2 (1×1)
Delays (7×1)
(7×2)
(2×1)
Figure 7 Recurrent neural network (RNN) architecture.
 Author's personal copy
250 Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control

unfeasible for dairy processes with fast nonlinear NN MPC

dynamics. Even for processes where the standard control
approach (e.g., ladder logic) is not the best solution, the
implementation of MPC is impeded due to high compu- Optimization ANN
procedure process model
tational costs.
A recent modification of the classical MPC, termed
ANN Error Tolerant (ET) MPC, reduces considerably Process
the average duration of each optimization step and makes (KBHM)
the MPC computationally more efficient and attractive
Figure 8 ANN-based model predictive control (MPC).
for industrial applications (see Figure 8). The ANN
model is integrated into the controller, and the The discretized version of the modified performance
optimization procedure is executed only when the error index is
is above a predefined value.

8 ( Hp
>
> X X
Hc
>
> u: min F ¼ l ð eðt þ kÞ Þ 2
– l ðuðt þ kÞÞ2 ; if EP > 
< ½uðt þkÞ;uðt þkþ1;...uðt þHc ÞÞ
1 2
k¼1 k¼1
uðt þ kÞ ¼ ½17
>
> ; PRþ
>
>
:
u ; if EP < 

1 PHp  
 follow publications in the Journal of Food Engineering,
where EP ¼ k ¼ 1 e ðt þ kÞ ;eðt þ kÞ ¼ ref ðt þ kÞ –
Hp
yp ðt þ kÞ;uðt þ kÞ ¼ uðt þ k – 1Þ – uðt þ k – 2Þ; is the
prediction model response. The prediction horizon Hp is
the number of time steps over which the prediction errors
are minimized, and the control horizon Hc is the number
of time steps over which the control increments are mini-
mized. u ðt þ kÞ; u ðt þ k þ 1Þ; . . . u ðt þ Hc Þ are
tentative values of the future control signal, which are
limited by umin and umax . The controller is denoted as an
ET MPC formulation because the optimization is per-
formed only when the error function EP is bigger than a
predefined real positive value . To reduce the computa-
tional burden when the error is less than , the control
action is equal to u , which is the last value of u, computed
before the error enters the  strip. Note that EP in eqn [17]
is defined as the mean value of the future errors, between the
predicted output and its reference along the next Hp steps.
Conclusion
In new integrated dairy plants, each process is carried out in
multiple phases, and there exists strong nonlinear and
dynamic effects between the variables. Therefore, modern
process control systems have usually a hierarchical archi-
tecture including decentralized controllers, remote input
and output (I/O) modules, fieldbus systems, local area net-
works (LANs), and smart sensors and other devices. The
huge amount of information flows are stored and used on-
line or off-line for executing the IC alternatives like FLC,
ANN MPC, or SPC, all methods described in this article.
Interested readers are advised to consult not only the
references in the ‘Further Reading’ section but also to
Journal of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, and the
International Dairy Journal.
Acknowledgment
This work was financially supported by the Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology within the activ-
ity of the Institute of Electronic Engineering and
Telematics of Aveiro (IEETA).
See also: Plant and Equipment: Instrumentation and
Process Control: Instrumentation.
Further Reading
Braha D (2001) Data Mining for Design and Manufacturing: Methods
and Applications (Massive Computing). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Burns RS (2001) Advanced Control Engineering. Linare House, Jordan
Hill, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Camacho EF and Bordons C (2004) Model Predictive Control in the
Process Industry. London: Springer-Verlag.
Haykin S (1999) Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nagy ZK and Braatz RD (2003) Robust nonlinear model predictive
control of batch processes. AIChE Journal 49: 1776–1786.
Norgaard M, Ravn O, Poulsen NK, and Hansen LK (2000) Neural
Networks for Modelling and Control of Dynamic Systems. London:
Springer-Verlag.
Oliveira C, Georgieva P, Rocha F, Ferreira A, and Feyo de Azevedo S
(2007) Dynamical model of brushite precipitation. Journal of Crystal
Growth 305: 201–210.
Oliveira C, Georgieva P, Rocha F, and Feyo de Azevedo S (2008)
Artificial neural networks for modeling in reaction process systems.
Neural Computing & Applications 18: 15–24.

Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251

 Author's personal copy
Plant and Equipment | Instrumentation and Process Control: Process Control 251

Petermeier H, Benning R, Delgado A, and Becker T (2002)
Hybrid model of the fouling process in tubular heat
exchangers for the dairy industry. Journal of Food Engineering
55: 9–17.
Rossiter JA (2003) Model Based Predictive Control. A Practical
Approach. New York: CRC Press.
Simoglou A, Georgieva P, Martin EB, Morris J, and
Feyo de Azevedo S (2005) online monitoring of a sugar
crystallization process. Computers & Chemical Engineering
29: 1411–1422.
Simoglou A, Martin EB, and Morris AJ (2002) Statistical performance
monitoring of dynamic multivariate processes using state space
modelling. Computers & Chemical Engineering 26: 909–920.
Suárez LAP, Georgieva P, and Feyo de Azevedo S (2009)
Computationally efficient process control with neural network-based
predictive models. International Joint Conference on Neural
Networks (IJCNN), Atlanta, GA, USA, 14– 9 June.
Wang XZ (1999) Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery for Process
Monitoring and Control (Advances in Industrial Control). London:
Springer.

Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition, 2011, Vol. 4, 242-251

View publication stats