Single variable

Selective Control

Model Predictive Control

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 1

 Objectives

End of the chapter, you should be able to

Selective Control

• Explain the concept of

• Model predictive control
• Internal model control
• Smith predictor (dead time
compensator)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 2

 Introduction
• Most modifications to single loop feedback
control presented so far have used additional
measurements to improve control
Selective Control

performance
• An alternative to the PID algorithm is provided.
• The most remarkable feature of PID is the
success of this single algorithm in so many
different applications
• The development of PID lacked a fundamental
structure from which the algorithm could be
derived, limitations could be identified, and
enhancements could be developed
14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 3
 Introduction

• A general development is presented that gives great

insight into the roles of both the control algorithm
and the process in the behavior of feedback systems
Selective Control

• It also provides a method for tailoring the feedback

control algorithm to each specific application
• Since the model of the process is an integral part of
the control algorithm, the controller equation
structure depends on the process model

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 4

 Introduction
• Although the control algorithm is different, the
feedback concept is unchanged, and the selection
criteria for manipulated and controlled variables are
Selective Control

the same
• The algorithms could be used as replacements for
the PID controller in nearly all applications
• PID controller algorithm is considered the standard
algorithm
• Alternative algorithm is selected only when it
provides better performance

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 5

 Predictive Control Structure

• The derivation of control algorithms is

based on the predictive control structure
Selective Control

• Although many methods are possible for

deriving practical control algorithms, only
two of these will be dealt with
– Internal Model Control
– Smith Predictor

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 6

 Model Predictive Control Structure

• Consider the typical thought process used by a

human operator implementing a feedback control
Selective Control

manually
• The approach used by the operator has three
important characteristics:
– It uses a model of the process to determine the
proper adjustment to the manipulated variable ,
because the future behavior of the controlled
variable can be predicted from the values of the
manipulated variable

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 7

 Model Predictive Control Structure
– The important feedback information is the
difference between the predicted model
response and the actual process response. If
Selective Control

this difference is zero, the control would be

perfect, and no further correction would be
needed
– This feedback approach can result in the
controlled variable approaching its set point after
several iterations, even with modest model
errors
• These characteristics provide the basis for the
predictive control structure

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 8

 Model Predictive Control Structure

• A continuous version of the approach can be

automated with the general predictive control
structure
Selective Control

D(s) Gd (s )

+
SP(s) + Tp(s) + CV(s)
Gcp (s) G p (s)
-
MV(s)
+
Gm (s)
-
Em(s)
14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 9
 Model Predictive Control Structure
• The variable Em is equal to the effect of the disturbance,
Gd(s)D(s), if the model is perfect (Gm(s)=Gp(s))
• The structure highlights the disturbance for feedback
correction
Selective Control

• However, the model is essentially never exact

• The feedback signal includes the effect of the
disturbance and the model error, or mismatch
• The feedback signal can be considered as a model
correction
• It is used to correct the set point so as to provide a better
target value, Tp(s), to the predictive control algorithm
• The controller calculates the value of the manipulated
variable based on the corrected target
14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 10
 Model Predictive Control Structure
• The closed-loop transfer functions for the
setpoint and disturbances are:
Selective Control

CV( s) Gcp ( s)Gv ( s)G p ( s)

SP( s) 1 Gcp ( s) Gv ( s)G p ( s)Gs ( s) Gm ( s )
Gcp ( s)G p ( s)
1 Gcp ( s) G p ( s ) Gm ( s)
(1)

CV( s) 1 Gcp ( s)Gm ( s) Gd ( s)

D( s ) 1 Gcp ( s) Gv ( s)G p ( s)Gs ( s) Gm ( s )
1 Gcp ( s)Gm ( s) Gd ( s)
1 Gcp ( s) G p ( s ) Gm ( s) (2)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 11

 Model Predictive Control Structure
• The controller algorithm, Gcp(s), for the predictive structure
is to be determined to give good dynamic performance
• Let us determine a few properties of the predictive
structure that establish important general features of its
Selective Control

performance and give guidance for designing the

controller
• A very important control performance objective is to
ensure that the controlled variable returns to its set point
in steady state
• This objective can be evaluated from the closed-loop
transfer functions by applying the final value theorem and
determining whether the final value of the controlled
variable, expressed as a deviation variable from the initial
set point, reaches the set point
14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 12
 Model Predictive Control Structure
• The application of the final value theorem is
performed for the following conditions:
Selective Control

1. The input is steplike, in that it reaches a steady state

after a transient, SP(s) = ΔSP/s and D(s)= ΔD/s

2. The process without control reaches a steady state

after a steplike input, Gp(0) = Kp and Gm(0)=Km

3. The closed-loop system is stable, which can be

achieved via tuning

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 13

 Model Predictive Control Structure

• Under these conditions, application of the final

value theorem yields,
Selective Control

SP Gcp (0)G p (0)

lim CV(t ) lim sCV(s)
t s 0
s
s 1 Gcp (0) G p (0) Gm (0)
SP (3)
if and only if
1
Gcp (0) G m (0) (4)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 14

 Model Predictive Control Structure
D 1 Gcp (0)Gm (0) Gd (0)
lim CV(t ) lim sCV(s)
t s 0
s
s 1 Gcp (0) G p (0) Gm (0)
0 (5)
Selective Control

1
If and only if Gcp (0) G m (0)

• The predictive control system will satisfy both of the

foregoing equations, thus providing zero steady-
state offset for a steplike input, if
1
Gcp (0) G m (0) or Kcp = 1/Km (6)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 15

 Model Predictive Control Structure
• The next control performance objective is
perfect control
• Perfect control means the controlled variable
Selective Control

never deviates from the set point

• CV(s)/D(s) = 0 and CV(s)/SP(s) = 1 provide the
basis for the following condition:
Gcp ( s) Gm1 ( s)
(7)

• Perfect control can be achieved if the controller

could be set equal to the inverse of the
process dynamic model

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 16

 Model Predictive Control Structure
• Block diagram algebra can be applied to derive
the following condition for the behavior of the
manipulated variable
Selective Control

MV( s) Gd ( s)Gcp ( s)
D( s ) 1 Gcp ( s) G p ( s ) Gm ( s)
Gd ( s )Gcp ( s ) Gd ( s)
(8)
1 Gcp ( s)G p ( s) 1 G p (s)

• The perfect control system must invert the true

process in some manner

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 17

 Model Predictive Control Structure

• The following are four reasons why an exact

inverse of the process is not possible:
Selective Control

– Dead time
– Numerator dynamics
– Constraints
– Model mismatch

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 18

 Dead time
• In most physical processes, the feedback transfer
function includes dead time in the numerator
• Application of equations (7) and (8) to a typical
process model with dead time gives, when the
Selective Control

model is factored into two terms

s
Gm (s) g m ( s)e
1 1
Gcp (s) Gm (s) g m ( s) es

• The perfect controller would have to include the

ability to use future information in determining the
current manipulated variable – not physically
realizable

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 19

 Numerator Dynamics

• Some process models have dynamic elements in

the numerators of feedback transfer function
Selective Control

• Application of IMC equation to an example gives

2 s 1
Gm ( s ) K 2
1 s 1
2
1 1 1s 1
Gcp ( s) Gm ( s)
K 2s 1

• The controller would not be able to provide perfect

control when 2 < 0

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 20

 Constraints

• The manipulated variable must observe constraints

• There is no guarantee that the controller would
Selective Control

observe constraints
• Thus, in some cases, values of the manipulated
variables that are required to achieve perfect
control performance would not be possible

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 21

 Model mismatch

• The model used in the predictive system will almost

certainly be different from the true process
Selective Control

• If the difference is large, the closed-loop system

could become unstable, a situation that precludes
acceptable control performance

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 22

 Model Predictive Control

• Since the perfect controller is not possible, a

manner for deriving an approximate inverse of the
Selective Control

model is required
• The approximate inverse is the Gcp(s) that contains
important features for control performance
• Many methods exist for developing approximate
inverse
• Each method would result in a different control
algorithm giving different control performance

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 23

 IMC Controller

• Based on Brosilow (1979) and Garcia and Morari

(1983)
Selective Control

• Since an exact inverse is not possible, the IMC

approach segregates and eliminates the aspects of
the model transfer function that make the
calculation of realizable inverse impossible
• The first step is to factor the model into the product
of two factors
Gm (s) Gm (s)Gm (s)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 24

 IMC Controller

• Gm (s) - The noninvertible part has an inverse that is

not causal or is unstable
Selective Control

• The steady state gain of this term must be 1.0

• Gm (s) - The invertible part has an inverse that is
causal and stable, leading to realizable, stable
controller
• The IMC Controller (idealized)
~ 1
Gcp (s) Gm (s)

• This design ensures the controller is realizable and

the system is internally stable

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 25

 IMC Controller
• Example 1: Apply the IMC procedure to design a
controller for a process described by

0.039
Selective Control

Gm ( s)
(5s 1)3

0.039
Gm ( s) Gm (s) 1.0
(5s 1)3

1 (5s 1)3
Gcp ( s) Gm ( s)
0.039

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 26

 IMC Controller

Drawbacks of the design:

• The controller involves first, second and third order
Selective Control

derivatives of the feedback signal

• These derivatives can not be calculated exactly,
although they can be estimated numerically
• Appearance of higher-order derivatives of a noisy
signal could lead to unacceptable control
• High derivatives can lead to extreme sensitivity to
model errors
• The controller can not be used without modification

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 27

 IMC Controller
• All realistic processes are modeled by transfer
functions having a denominator order greater than the
numerator order
• Thus, the IMC controller, the inverse of the process
Selective Control

model, will have a numerator order greater than

denominator
• Results in first- or higher-order derivatives in the
controller that lead to unacceptable manipulated
variable behavior, and, thus, poor performance and
poor robustness when model errors occur
• Achieving good control performance requires
modification that modulates the manipulated variable
behavior and increase the robustness of the system

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 28

 IMC Controller
• All realistic processes are modeled by transfer
functions having a denominator order greater than the
numerator order
• Thus, the IMC controller, the inverse of the process
Selective Control

model, will have a numerator order greater than

denominator
• Results in first- or higher-order derivatives in the
controller that lead to unacceptable manipulated
variable behavior, and, thus, poor performance and
poor robustness when model errors occur
• Achieving good control performance requires
modification that modulates the manipulated variable
behavior and increase the robustness of the system

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 29

 IMC Controller
• A filter of the feedback signal is used
• The filter is placed before the controller as shown in
fig.
D(s)
Selective Control

G (s ) d

Tp(s)
+
SP(s) + G f (s) Gcp (s) G p (s) + CV(s)
-
MV(s)
+
Gm (s)
-
Em(s)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 30

 IMC Controller
• To make the controller proper or semiproper, add a
filter to make the controller proper
~ 1
Gcp (s) Gcp (s) Gm (s) G f (s)
Selective Control

• For tracking setpoint changes,

1
G f ( s) n
s 1
• Adjust the filter-tuning parameter to vary speed of the
response of the closed-loop system
• : small --- response is fast
large --- the closed loop response is more robust
(insensitive to model error)
14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 31
 IMC Controller
• The modified IMC Controller for the example

1 10.5s 1
G f ( s)Gcp ( s)
Selective Control

0.039 s 1

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 32

 Example 2
Design an IMC controller using the alternative first-
order-plus-dead-time approximate model for the
process
0.039e 5.5 s
Selective Control

Gm ( s)
(10.5s 1)
0.039 5.5 s
Gm ( s) Gm (s) e
(10.5s 1)
~ 1 (10.5s 1)
Gcp ( s) Gm ( s)
0.039

• The controller is proportional-derivative, which

still might be too aggressive but can be modified
to give acceptable performance
14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 33
 Example 2
• To make the controller semiproper,

(10.5s 1)
Gcp ( s)
Selective Control

0.039 s 1

• Filter tuning parameter is adjusted to provide the

required performance

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 34

 Example 3
• Consider the following transfer function:

( 6s 1)
Gm ( s)
15s 1 3s 1
Selective Control

• This system has a RHP zero and will exhibit

inverse response characteristics
• An all-pass factorization of the model is to be used

6s 1 6s 1
Gm ( s) Gm ( s)
(6s 1) (15s 1)(15s 1)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 35

 Example 3
• An idealized controller would be:

~ 1 (15s 1)(3s 1)
Gcp ( s) Gm ( s)
(6s 1)
Selective Control

• Add the filter to make the controller semi-proper

(15s 1)(3s 1)
Gcp ( s)
(6s 1)( s 1)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 36

 IMC-Based PID Controllers

• Although the IMC procedure is clear and easily

implemented, the most common industrial controller
is still the PID controller
Selective Control

• The IMC block diagram can be rearranged to form

the standard feedback control diagram
• The IMC law is equivalent to PID-type feedback
controller for a number of common process transfer
functions

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 37

 IMC-Based PID Controllers
D(s)
Gd (s )

+ + CV(s)
SP(s) + Gcp (s) G p (s) +
Selective Control

- + MV(s)

Gm (s )

The inner loop is given by:

Gcp ( s)
Gc ( s) : IMC-based PID
1 Gm ( s)Gcp ( s)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 38

 IMC-Based PID Controller Design
Procedure
1. Find the IMC controller transfer function, Gcp(s),
which includes a filter, Gf(s),
– to make Gcp(s) semiproper, or
Selective Control

– the order of numerator of Gcp(s) is one order greater than

the denominator of Gcp(s) (to give derivative action)
– *Major difference from IMC procedure
2. Find the equivalent standard feedback controller
using the transformation:
Gcp ( s)
Gc ( s)
1 Gm ( s)Gcp ( s)
Write this in the form of a ratio between two
polynomials
3. Show this in PID form and find K c , I and D
14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 39
 IMC-Based PID Controller Design for
First-Order Process
kp
• First order process: Gm (s)
p s 1

s 1 1
Selective Control

1 p
Gcp ( s) G f ( s ) Gm ( s )
kp s 1
1 p s 1
Gcp ( s)
kp s 1
• Find the equivalent standard feedback controller:
ps 1
Gcp ( s) k p ( s 1) p s 1
Gc ( s)
1 Gm ( s)Gcp ( s) kp ps 1 kp s
1
p s 1 k p ( s 1)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 40

 IMC-Based PID Controller Design

• Find the equivalent standard feedback controller:

p 1 p 1
Selective Control

Gc ( s) 1
kp kp s kp ps

p
K c ( s) I p
kp

• The IMC-based PID design procedure for a first-

order process has resulted in a PI control law

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 41

 IMC-Based PID Controller Design for
First-Order Process with Time Delay
s
k pe
• First order process: Gm ( s)
p s 1
s 0.5 s 1
• Use a first-order Pade approximation e
0.5 s 1
Selective Control

kp 0.5 s 1
Gm ( s)
p s 1 0.5 s 1

kp
Gm ( s) Gm (s) 0.5 s 1
p s 1 0.5 s 1

• The idealized controller is

~ 1 p s 1 0.5 s 1
Gcp ( s) Gm ( s)
kp

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 42

 IMC-Based PID Controller Design for
First-Order Process with Time Delay

1 p s 1 0.5 s 1 1
Gcp ( s) G f ( s) Gm ( s)
kp s 1
Selective Control

• Note: The numerator order is one degree higher

than the denominator to realize a PID controller
• Find the equivalent standard feedback controller:
~
Gcp (s) Gcp (s)G f (s)
Gc (s) ~
1 Gm (s)Gcp ( s) 1 Gm (s)Gcp (s)G f (s)

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 43

 IMC-Based PID Controller Design for
First-Order Process with Time Delay
~ ~
Gcp ( s)G f ( s) Gcp ( s )G f ( s )
Gc ( s ) 1
1 Gm ( s )Gm ( s ) Gm ( s) G f ( s ) 1 Gm ( s)G f ( s )
Selective Control

1 p s 1 0.5 s 1
kp 0.5 s

1 0.5 p s2 p 0.5 s 1
kp 0.5 s

p 0.5 1 p
1 s
kp 0.5 p 0.5 s 2 p

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 44

 The Smith Predictor

• Time delay compensation that deals with occurrence

of significant dead time
D(s)
Selective Control

Gd (s )
Gcp (s)

E+ E P +
SP(s) + Gc (s ) G p (s) + Y(s)

- -
MV(s)
~ ~ +
Y1 Y2
Gm (s) Gm (s)
-

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 45

 The Smith Predictor
• The process model is split into two parts:
– The part without a time delay, Gm
– The time delay term, Gm e s
Selective Control

• The model of the process without time delay is

used to predict the effect of control actions on the
undelayed output
• The controller uses the predicted undelayed
response to calculate its output signal
• The predicted delayed output is compared with
the actual process output (delayed response)
• This step corrects for modeling errors and for
disturbances entering the process

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 46

 The Smith Predictor

~ ~ ~
E E Y1 Ysp (Y Y2 ) Y1
Selective Control

• If the process model is perfect and there are no

disturbances, ~
Y2 Y
~
• Then E Ysp Y1

• For this ideal case, the controller responds to

the error signal that would occur if no time delay
were present

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 47

 The Smith Predictor
• An alternative configuration for the Smith predictor
• Somewhat similar to that in cascade control
Selective Control

D(s)
Gd (s )
Gcp (s)

E+ E +
SP(s) + Gc (s ) P G p (s) + Y(s)

- -

Gm (s)(1 e s )

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 48

 The Smith Predictor
• Assuming there is no model error, the inner loop
has the effective transfer function
P Gc
G
Selective Control

s
E 1 Gc Gm (1 e )

• The closed-loop setpoint transfer function is

s
Y Gc G p e
Ysp 1 Gc Gm

• The Smith predictor has the theoretical advantage

of eliminating the time delay term in the
characteristic equation

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 49

 The Smith Predictor through Direct
Synthesis approach

• The Direct Synthesis approach can be used to

derive a controller with time-delay compensation
Selective Control

• The controller design is based on a process model

and a desired closed-loop transfer function
• Do not always have PID structure, however it
produce PI or PID controllers for common process
models

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 50

 The Smith Predictor through Direct
Synthesis approach
• Consider the block diagram of a feedback control
system
Selective Control

• The closed-loop transfer function for setpoint

changes is Y K mGcGvG p GG c
Ysp 1 GcGvG p Gm 1 GcG
with G GvG pGm and assume Gm Km
14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 51
 The Smith Predictor through Direct
Synthesis approach
• Rearranging and solving for Gc

1 Y / Ysp
Gc
Selective Control

G 1 Y / Ysp

• As Y/Ysp is not known a priori, the above design

cannot be used.
• Also, distinguish between the plant G and the
model G ~
• The practical design equation
1 Y / Ysp d
Gc ~
G 1 Y / Ysp d

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 52

 The Smith Predictor through Direct
Synthesis approach
• The selection of the desired closed-loop transfer
function is the key decision
• Note: the controller transfer function has the
Selective Control

inverse of G ~
• Desired closed-loop transfer functions
Y 1
Ysp cs 1
d

Y e s
Ysp cs 1
d

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 53

 The Smith Predictor through Direct
Synthesis approach
• By substituting in the controller design equation,
we get respectively,
1 1
Gc ~
Selective Control

G cs
1 e s
Gc ~ s
G cs 1 e

• Approximating the time delay in the denominator

with a truncated Taylor series expansion
s
1 e
Gc ~
G( c )s

• Both are integral controllers, eliminate offset

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 54
 Conclusions

• You have learnt the principles of

– Model Predictive Controller structure
Selective Control

– IMC Controller
– Smith Predictor

14/03/2011 CAB4 523 – Multivariable Process Control 55