Con trol Performance Monitoring A Review and
Assessment
S Joe Qin
Department 
of Chemical Engineering 
University of 
Texas Austin TX 
Email qin che utexas edu Fax
April
Keyw ords con trol performance monitoring minimum variance control robustness root
cause diagnostics plant wide variability assessment intelligent sensors and valves model
based control
The original v ersion of this paper was presented at the NSF NIST Measurement and Control Workshop
New Orleans March
S Joe Qin
Department 
of Chemical Engineering 
University of 
Texas Austin TX 
In this paper w e present an overview of current status
itoring using minimum variance principles
Extensions to
of control performance mon
PID achievable performance
assessment trade o between performance and robustness and trade o between 
de 

terministic and 
stochastic performance ob jectives are discussed Future directions 
are 
pointed out for 
research and practice with regard to root cause diagnosis plant wide 
performance assessment multivariable assessment adequacy assessment of existing
control strategies performance assessment of model predictive control and the use
of intelligent eld devices and
arti cial intelligence to form a systematic diagnostic
methodology A brief tutorial on performance assessment is given in the appendix
with an industrial process example
Introduction
There is a recen t resurgence of interest in control loop performance assessment and diagnosis
due to the work of Harris In his work Harris proposed the use of closed loop data
to evaluate and diagnose controller performance using minimum variance control Astrom
as a benchmark Astrom proposed the minimum variance control MVC prin
ciple and 
the use of auto correlation to indicate how close the existing controller performance 

is to that 
of a minimum variance 
controller DeVries and Wu extended Astrom s work 
to assess multivariable processes
by
ror using normal process data This
estimating the variance of one step ahead prediction er
work further used spectral analysis to indicate the cause
of a strong frequency component in a process variable Harris proposed the use of
minimum variance controller
as a lower
bound to assess the performance of single loop con
trollers The lower bound is estimated from closed loop operating data accounting for the
process time delay which was ignored in DeVries and Wu Further work by Desbor
ough and Harris proposed i the use of a performance index which is the ratio
of the best achievable variance to the variance of
and ii the use of analysis of variance ANOVA
the controlled variable under assessment
for feedforward feedback control loops to
indicate whether a poor performance is due to the feedforward controller or the feedback
controller Stanfelj et al discussed the use of cross correlation analysis for feedfor
ward feedback control loops to diagnose the root cause of a poor performance Although
the 
process time delay 
plays an important role in estimating the MVC achievable variance 

the 
estimation of time 
delay from closed loop operating data is not addressed 
until Lynch 
and Dumont In their paper Lynch and Dumont discussed i the use of the xed
model variable regressors proposed by Elnaggar to estimate 
the process time 
delay 
ii the use of a Laguerre network to model the controller output instead of an ARMA 
model 
by Harris and iii to determine the degree of process nonlinearity by monitoring
the static input output relation Extensions of the performance assessment to
non minimum
phase processes and MIMO processes are discussed in Huang and Shah and Huang et
al Kendra and Cinar
discussed the use of frequency analysis approaches for
the monitoring of loop performance Tyler and Morari proposed the use of likelihood
ratio to determine if the control performance is acceptable or not Kozub summarized
some recent work in this area up to
The MVC based variance is only
early
exactly achievable when a minimum variance controller
is used with a perfectly known process and a disturbance model which requires at least
a Smith predictor control structure for processes with time delays In practice however
more than of
industrial control loops are PID type without time delay compensation
Therefore no matter how the PID parameters are tuned the MVC based variance is not
exactly achievable for PID controllers when time delay is signi cant or the disturbance is
non stationary Eriksson and Isaksson addressed this point and proposed to use a PI
controller as a benchmark for a special type of disturbance model Another realistic perfor
mance measure proposed
restricting the controller
by Ko and Edgar calculates a lower bound of the variance by
type to PID only and allows for more general disturbance models
The PID achievable lower bound is generally larger than that calculated from MVC but it
is possibly achievable by a PID controller
The aforementioned work in performance monitoring is concerned with the assessment of
the output variance due to unmeasured stochastic disturbances which are further assumed
to be generated from a dynamic system driven by white noise For this reason we refer
to
this class of the performance monitoring methods as sto chastic performance monitoring
While these 
methods bring up an important aspect of the controller performance they do not 
provide any 
information about the traditionally concerned performance such as step changes 
in setpoint or disturbance variables settling time decay ratio and stability margin of the
control system We refer to this class of monitoring techniques as deterministic performance
monitoring Astrom discussed some recent developments in this area Shinskey
proposed the use of time delay to determine the best achievable deterministic performance
Swanda and Seborg use settling time to evaluate the deterministic control performance
of PID controllers As indicated by the analysis given later in this paper the two types of
performance usually cannot be best achieved simultaneously In this paper we focus on the
discussion of stochastic performance monitoring
The organization of this paper is given as follows Section provides an overview of
ma jor methodology development in control performance monitoring with
an assessment
Section discusses several extensions to the performance monitoring problem Some future
directions are pointed out in section The last section provides conclusions to the paper
A brief tutorial on control performance assessment is given in Appendix A for those who are
interested in implementing the assessment algorithm
Assessment Based on Minimum Variance Principles
Minimum Variance Control
A discretized SISO process
model can be described by the
following z transfer
function
representation 

y k G u 
z 
u k 
G w z 
w 
k 


where 
B
u z
G u z z d G
A
u z
u
z z d
is the transfer function from the manipulated variable
u
to the controlled variable y with a
time delay d G is the process model without time delay The noise
u
z B z z
A
z
dynamics
G w z
B w z
B w z
A w z r q A w z z q
has the form of ARIMA p q r This ARIMA p q r is able to account for nonstationary
disturbances even though w k is zero mean white noise
MacGregor et al Box
and
Jenkins In this section we assume all the polynomials are stable i e all poles and
zeros are inside the unit circle We further assume that A u A w and B w are monic and
the variance of the noise w k is
w For non minimum phase processes i e unstable B u
MVC can be designed with minor modi cation and the minimum variance calculation can
be found in Huang and Shah
The minimum variance
control rst derived by
Astrom is feedback control which
achieves minimum output variance Therefore it can also be viewed in an internal model
control IMC structure or a Smith predictor structure The block diagrams for the three
equiv alent structures are shown in Figure The controller transfer functions in the MVC
feedback form IMC form and Smith predictor form are denoted as G MV and G SP
c G IMC
c
c
respectively The equivalence between MVC and IMC was revealed by Bergh and MacGregor
to analyze the robustness 
of MVC The IMC form is convenient to analyze the 
case 

where the process G p is di erent 
from the model G u 

Next we derive the minimum variance controller using the IMC structure 
shown in 
Fig 
ure b because the derivation appears to be more straightforward The noise transfer
function G w z can be rearranged in the following form by a long division
into B w z
or
B w
d G
z
F
A w r q A w r q
A w r q F z d G B w
of A w z r q
which is known as a Diophantine equation about F z
and G z The polynomial F is
monic because A w and B w are monic Assuming a zero setpoint and no model mismatch
i e G p G u the process output
Diophantine equation
can be represented as
follows using Figure b and the
The implication of
be causal the rst
y k G w w k G u G IMC G w w k
c
z
d G
B
F q w k G IMC z d w k
A
w r
c
G
w
u
A
u
r q G
A w
B
u B
w
A u
G
IMC
c
w k d Fw k
the above relation is rather profound Since the controller G
IMC has to
c
term on the right hand
side of the relation depends on data up to time
k d while the second term depends only
on data after k d Therefore no matter what
controller is used the two terms are independent As a result
the variance of the output
var fy k g var fF w k g f f w MV
d
where the minimum variance MV is achieved by the minimum variance controller in the
IMC form
G
IMC
c
A
u
G
B u B w
The ac hieved output under minimum variance control is
y k F w k
Therefore the autocorrelation function of y is zero beyond the time delay d Astrom
rst used this property to assess how close a control performance is from minimum
variance
For a non zero setpoint y r k the principle of superposition gives the resulting closed loop
relation
G
y k z d y r k F w k
B
w
Now we can easily nd the equivalent MVC controller in the standard feedback form in
Figure a
G
MV
c
G
IMC
c
A
u
G
G IMC FA w r q
c
G u B u
The controller transfer function in the Smith predictor form is
G
SP
c
G
IMC
c
A
u
G
G IMC G B w z G
c
u
B
u
Consider a special case where the noise dynamics is IMA i e
G
w
z c z
z
After solving the Diophantine equation the resulting MVC
in three di erent forms is
A
c z
G 
MV 
u 



c 
B 
u 
c 

IMC 
A 
u 
c 
z


c 

B 
u 
c 
z


G 
SP 
A 
u 
c 
z


c 

B 
u 
z

G
d
z c z
and the closed loop relation is
y
k c
c
z
d
y r k F w k
z
Therefore no matter what the process dynamics is
the closed loop dynamics using MVC
is always rst order plus dead time All process poles and zeros
are cancelled by the MVC
This is wh y the MVC is aggressive and sensitive to process changes Furthermore the MVC
controller in Eq is identical in structure to the Dahlin s controller known in 
digital control 

Dahlin Seborg et al The controller in this case is the 
inverse 
of the process 
model without time delay plus an integrator The controller in IMC form is the inverse of
the process model without time delay plus a rst order lter If in addition the process
model is rst order second
order rst order plus dead time FOPDT or second order plus
dead time SOPDT
the resulting transfer functions
for the MVC are standard PI PID or
Smith predictor with
PI or PID controllers The list
of the controller transfer functions for
these special cases are given in Table
From the above analysis we summarize the relationship between
MVC
and other more
popular controller forms in practice
If the disturbance is IMA and the process model is rst
order
or second order
only the MVC is a PI or PID controller respectively
If the disturbance is IMA and the process model is FOPDT or SOPDT the
MVC is a Smith predictor with a PI or PID controller respectively
If the process model is general and the noise model is IMA the MVC is a
T
Dahlin s controller with closed loop time constant where T is the sampling
ln c
interval
The MVC G IMC in Eq inverts the invertible part of the process dynamics and
c
chooses a ler that has to do with noise dynamics and process time delay only In the
case of non minimum phase processes the unstable zeros are not inverted similar to
the treatment in IMC design
Refer to Huang and Shah for further detail
If the noise dynamics is ARMA i e without an integrator
does not even have integral control As a special case if the
the resulting MVC Eq
disturbance is white noise
the resulting MVC is open loop i
e
no feedback control
If in the IMA noise model there is no corresponding
be designed
Dahlin s controller but the MVC can still
The above observations are useful in understanding the pros and cons of using MVC for
controller performance assessment
Control Performance Assessment
Feedback Control Only
The tasks for control performance assessment from
Estimate process time delay e g Lynch and
closed loop operation data include
Dumont
Identify the closed loop model relating process output y to noise w This model 
can be 
ARMA Harris or other types of time series models The identi cation 
of this 
time series model does not require plant testing but care must be taken in selecting
the data
Estimate the minimum variance MV from Eq
Estimate the actual control error variance from the data
y
Compare to see how far the actual performance is from the minimum
MV with
y
variance performance
As an alternative strategy calculate
is signi cant correlation beyond the
the autocorrelation of the output y
time delay
to see if there
The time delay estimation is little addressed in the performance monitoring literature
but it is critical for estimating the minimum variance from the data The identi cation
of the time series model is a rather straightforward task In addition to comparing the
variance of the process output the use of autocorrelation provides a cross check for
control performance assessment based on Eq
the
The control performance assessment method is practically appealing for its simplicity
and plant friendly i e no plant tests needed A brief step by step tutorial is given in
Appendix A for those who are interested in implementing the monitoring algorithm Based
on the previous analysis and the nature of minim um variance control we provide the following
assessment about the method in general
The the oretical minimum variance MV is invariant regardless of the control structure
It is solely determined by the process
time delay and the
dynamics of unmeasured
disturbances In other words the minimum variance is a lower bound which may
or may not be achievable for all types of controllers including PID PID with Smith
predictors feedforward control of measured disturbances model based control and
multivariable control Therefore one can use MV to assess the performance of other
types of controllers
There is
no other way to exactly achieve minimum variance than minimum variance
control The reason is that for linear processes there is only one minimum for the
variance Making the output variance close to the minimum variance implies that the
actual controller is made close to a minimum variance controller
The use of MV for PID loop assessment is appropriate i e MV is approximately
achievable for the following situations i the process has negligible dead time such
as ow loops ii the process is low order and iii the unmeasured disturbance is
fairly stationary Industrial experience indicates that about of control loops in
re nery fall in this category Kozub If the process time delay is signi cant
minimum variance control requires time delay compensation
Several other factors that prohibit the minimum variance from being achievable include
i multivariable interaction ii model plant mismatch including process nonlinearity
iii model error in noise dynamics and iv process constraints One could be in a
situation where no improvement can be made based on PID controllers but the actual
variance is still far from the minimum variance In this case the use of minimum
variance to assess PID loops can be misleading More realistic performance bounds
such as PID achievable performance bound Ko and Edgar are needed
One should be careful not to extremize the stochastic performance by sacri cing the
deterministic performance such as responses to setpoint and deterministic load distur
bance changes For example if the noise dynamics is ARMA the minimum variance
is achieved with no integral control This will greatly sacri ce the deterministic per
formance of the controller Trade o is necessary
performance
between deterministic and stochastic
For process with signi cant time
delays the use
of Smith predictors
control in the general case can reduce the variance since MVC shares
or model based
the same control
structure with Smith predictor The use of model based control including dead time
compensation will in principle improve both deterministic and
of the controller The implementation of Smith predictors as a
stochastic performance
way to improve control
performance 
is made easier here since the time delay is already estimated during the 
performance 
assessment step 
The MVC based performance assessment is not applicable to processes with varying
time delay which are often encountered
in the process industries It is also not suitable
in situations where variability is allowed 
intentionally to reduce the disturbance 
to other 
variables such as the control of surge tanks 

Assessment of Feedback Feedforward Control 

The assessment of control loops with feedforward controllers is often more important 
because 
these loops are typically more critical and di cult to control A process sub ject to m
measured disturbances v i i
m can be described as follows
m
y k G u u k G v i v i k G w w k
i
where G v i is the transfer function for the i th feedforward path For the interest of reduc
ing process variability feedforward control should always be used to reduce the source of
disturbances An ine ective feedforward control will contribute a large variance due to the
measured disturbances Therefore one additional task in assessing feedback feedforward
con trol loops is to diagnose whether a poor performance is due to feedback control or feed
forward control
Two methods have been reported for the performance assessment of feedback feedforward
control loops
Use of analysis of variance ANOVA Desborough and Harris and
Use of cross correlation analysis to indicate ma jor contributions to output variance
Stanfelj et al
The ANOVA method by Desborough and Harris
The measured disturbances v i k i
driven by white noise w i k i e
bears the
m are outputs of
v i k H i k w i k i m
following assumptions
some dynamic systems
The noise terms
sian
The noise terms
w
w
k
k
and
and
w
w
i
i
k 
i 






m 
k 
i 
m 
are independent over time and Gaus
are mutually independent
Eliminating u k in Eq with
feedforward feedback controllers
m
u k G c y k G v i k
i
ff
i
and substituting Eq into Eq
the following closed loop relation is obtained
m
y k z w k i z w i k
i
m
j w k j ij w i k j
j
i j
Therefore the variance of the output is
y
w
j
j
m
w i
i
j
ij
Assuming the time delay in G u is d and those in G v i are l i i m
Desborough and Harris break the output variance into ve terms
y
fb
mv
w
mv
v
w
ff
v
ff fb
v
where d i min d l i and the de nitions of the variance terms are
mv minimum variance due to unmeasured disturbance w k
w
w j j
d
mv m ij minimum variance due to disturbance v i k
v
i w i
j
d
d
fb
variance due to w k under non optimal feedback control
w
w j d j
m ij variance due to v i k under non optimal feedforward
v
i w i
j d
ff
d
d
control
ff fb
m ij variance due to v i k under non optimal feedfor
v
i
w
i j d d
ward feedback control
An
ANOVA table can be used to assess the contribution of each variance The sum mv
w
mv MV is the MVC based lower bound for the assessment of feedback forward
v
control
loops
The identi cation of the process and disturbance models takes two steps First closed
loop model of ARMAX is identi ed from measured disturbances and output data Then
each measured disturbance model Eq is identi ed as an ARIMA time series
model
Time delays d and l i are required and the model orders also need to be determined The
identi ed closed loop model is then used to carry out an ANOVA table for the output
y based on the time delays in the feedforward and feedback paths This method can yield
valuable information
about the sources of variability provided that all measured disturbances
are mutually independent Although Desborough and Harris suggest that routinely
operational data can be used in the method plant tests are sometimes needed in order to
identify the models and break the correlation among the measured disturbances
The cross correlation method Stanfelj et al for root cause diagnosis of feed
back feedforward control loop performance does not require the closed loop disturbance
models This method appears to be e ective when the disturbances are not strongly inter
related
The success and limitation of this
method in practice is reported in Kozub
It should be noted that the minimum variance MV must be calculated di erently in
feedback feedforward control than in feedback control alone The ma jor di erence is in the
estimation of the variance of the unmeasured disturbance w
An
ARMAX model should be
used for 
identifying the closed loop model to include the e ect of 
measured disturbances as 
opposed 
to an ARMA model only 
Extensions
One of the signi cant points in the performance assessment work
of Harris lies in the
fact that reducing process variability is critical to industrial processes In particular the
stochastic performance is brought to one s attention with an easily practicable approach
However it is not advisable to achieve minimum variance at the cost
of giving up other im
portant considerations including robustness to process changes deterministic performance
knowledge based diagnosis and the diagnosis of sensor and actuator faults that cause signif
icant deterioration of the control performance In this section we discuss a few extensions of
the performance monitoring task including i estimate PID achievable performance ii ro
bustness and performance trade o iii deterministic and stochastic performance trade o
and iv knowledge and pattern recognition based diagnosis for the health of the controllers
actuators and sensors
Assessment for PID Achievable Performance
Since most industrial controllers are of PID type it is sensible to assess the control per
formance using a PID achievable variance Ko and Edgar proposed the following
procedure to estimate the PID achievable performance
Estimate the closed loop transfer function from the noise w to the process output based
on a PID controller
Expand the closed loop transfer function in a impulse response form i e
y k i w k i w k
i
where the impulse coe cient
i is dependent on the PID control parameters
Calculate the variance of y by
y
i
w
i
w
The PID achievable variance is derived from
P ID min
P
ID
y
Since the actual PID controller is typically di erent from a minimum variance controller
the resulting closed loop response is of in nite impulse in general However one can always
truncate it to a nite impulse response as long as the closed loop system is stable
Unfortunately the above procedure is di cult to implement if the open loop process model
is not known Assuming that the open loop model and the time delay of the process are
known Ko and Edgar used the closed loop operation data to identify the disturbance
transfer function and then performed the above procedure For example assuming the
process model is given by
G
u
z z
For 
four di erent disturbance models in Table one can use the above procedure to estimate 

the 
best 
PID achievable variance The PID achievable variance and the minimum achievable 
variance for the four cases are also given in Table As expected the PID achievable variance
is always 
larger than the minimum variance in one case by more than This example 
indicates 
that there can be a large di erence between the PID achievable variance and the 
minimum variance
It is observed from Table that the minimum variance is more di cult to achieve when the
disturbance is non stationary i e ARIMA instead of ARMA On the other hand processes
with little time delay makes it easier to achieve minimum variance using PID controllers
Therefore it is helpful to in vestigate the dependence of the ratio of PID achievable variance
to MVC variance on time delay and disturbance stationarity via simulation Consider the
following process
G
u
z z d
sub ject to the following disturbance model
G w
z
z z z
To test the e ect of time delay we vary d from to To test the e ect of the dis
turbance stationarity we vary from to The ratio of the PI achievable variance to
MVC variance is then calculated and plotted in Figure It is observed that more non
stationary disturbances generally make the MVC variance
more di cult to achieve by PI
controllers However larger time delay does not necessarily makes MVC variance more dif
cult to achieve the MVC variance is actually easier to achieve
large This observation is not intuitive To further examine this
when the time delay is very
observation Figure shows
the actual PI achievable variance and MVC variance vs time delay for
This gure
shows that more time delay makes both P ID larger but their di erence diminishes
MV
and
because the MVC variance contains more terms due to larger
time delay Eq
The above experiment shows that the minimum variance can be achievable for a PID
controller 
when the 
time 
delay is very small or very large but it is not achievable for a PID 
controller 
when the 
time 
delay is medium Practical experience shows that about loops 
in re nery can achieve minimum variance using PID controllers Kozub
Robustness and Performance Trade o
A well designed controller should not only demonstrate superb performance due to stochastic
disturbances but also be robust
to process changes and model plant mismatch The design
for robustness is well studied in the IMC literature Morari and Za riou To make
the controller robust to model plant mismatch it is desirable to design an IMC lter A
larger time 
constant for the lter will result in a more robust controller in general This time 
constant is 
equivalent to the desired closed loop time constant In fact this design method 
is popular in the pulp and paper industry as a tuning method kno wn
as Lambda tuning If
we wish to design an IMC controller that will result in a closed loop
time constant with
the following closed loop relation
where c exp T and T is
y
k c
c
z d
z y r k
the sampling interval the resulting IMC controller is
G
IMC
c
c
A u
c
z
B
u
Assuming further that the noise model is IMA
G
w
c
c z
and there is no process model error Appendix B shows
that the best achievable
IMC MV
c c
c
w
which is larger than the minimum variance
The above variance IMC can be used to assess
the performance degradation
variance is
due to the
requirement of robustness in design Given that
is the desired closed loop time constant
the best achievable performance should be IMC For this reason we refer to IMC as the
best IMC achievable performance for a desired closed loop time constant
Equation points out an important con ict between minimum variance and robustness
From the IMC literature it is known that a larger c results in more robust control Palmor
and Shinnar Garcia and Morari However a larger c dramatically increases
the 
IMC achievable 
variance Therefore in the IMC design using very 
large c will increase 
the 
variance 
Equation also
points out an theoretical lower bound for selecting
the closed loop time
constant in IMC design Having c c will result in the best performance having
c c will improve the robustness However there is no bene t at all for having c c
Therefore one should choose c to be at least c or
T
ln c
This lower bound is related to the dynamics of the unmeasured disturbance
Stochastic and Deterministic Performance Trade o
Although deterministic disturbances can be realized b y stochastic disturbances with ARIMA
models the performance measures for stochastic and deterministic disturbances are in
essence di erent In the traditional deterministic performance assessment one is concerned
with the speed of response settling time overshoot and damping ratio Astrom
Achieving minimum variance for the process disturbance during a limited observation pe
riod does not necessarily result
measures
in acceptable performance for deterministic performance
Standard PID controllers are one degree of freedom controllers It is well known that
these controllers c annot achieve the best disturbance rejection and setpoint tracking simul
taneously some trade o between setpoint tracking and disturbance rejection is necessary
Therefore even though deterministic disturbances can be viewed as a special stochastic dis
turbance achieving the best disturbance response can result in a poor setpoint response
Care must be made in trading o the setpoint responses and load disturbance responses
especially where setpoint change happens frequently
The example in the previous subsection also depicts the con ict between deterministic
and stochastic performance requirements In minimum variance control c is chosen 
to cancel 

out the e ect of unmeasured disturbance 
as much as 
possible However to achieve 
a desired 
closed loop response for setpoint changes c has to
be chosen to match the desired closed
loop time constant Therefore trade o is necessary between the two ob jectives
Diagnosis of the Entire Systems
While poorly designed
controllers are responsible for undesirable control performance at
tention should 
also be 
paid to other elements in a control system which 
can signi cantly 
deteriorate the 
performance such as actuator and sensor malfunctions and 
faults Problems 
in this category include valve sticking improper sizing hysteresis sensor malfunctioning
and 
degradation It is well known that actuator hysteresis can cause limit cycle in the con 
trol 
loop which contributes additional variability to the controlled variable These problems 
cannot be overcome by re tuning the controller
It is interesting to note that diagnosis of these problems is practiced in some industries
routinely for example in pulp and papers Bialkowski Research work in the area
of fault detection for actuator faults may be integrated in control performance diagnosis
Auburn et al A closely related topic that aims to detect and diagnose oscillation
in control loops can also help the diagnosis of the entire system Thornhill and Hagglund
Hagglund More interestingly the development of intelligent sensors valves
and Fieldbus devices will provide much more information such as device self diagnosis to
accomplish the task in a systematic manner Intelligent devices that can diagnose their own
abnormal conditions will alleviate the diagnosis task of the entire system
It should be noted that assessment and diagnosis of the entire control system performance
cannot be e ciently achieved by using statistics based approaches alone Pattern recogni
tion arti cial intelligence and knowledge based approaches should also
diagnose the root cause of poor performance Hinde and Cooper
be used to e ectively
provided an interest
ing approach for performance diagnosis using a vector quantizing neural network approach
Early work in pattern recognition based performance evaluation can be found in Bristol
Further research in combining di erent approaches to performance monitoring and
diagnosis will signi cantly bene t the industry
Future Directions
Recent research activities in the control
of evaluating control performance from
performance monitoring area bring up the awareness
a statistical point of view Although stochastic con
trol theory has been available for several decades most
control design strategies in practice
are only concerned with deterministic changes such as step changes The work in control
performance monitoring may provide an opportunity for the process control community to
pay more attention to the stochastic nature of plant disturbances and consider them in con
trol design It should be pointed out that there are many theoretical issues and practical
problems that should
be
addressed before performance monitoring can have a signi cant
impact on industrial practice Based on the previous discussions we provide the following
suggestions for future directions in controller performance monitoring
Diagnosis of root causes It is fairly easy to know if a process is not performing
optimally from variance assessment and operation experience but a challenging task is
how to identify the root cause Further the cause of poor performance should not be
limited to controller design and tuning other elements in the control systems such as
sensors and actuators are often responsible for the poor performance Information from
other sources than the controlled variables should be used simultaneously to identify
the root cause The next generation of intelligent sensors and valves e g Fieldbus
devices will help provide additional
in the control loop and alleviate the
information about the health of the each element
diagnosis task of the entire control system Work
by Stanfelj et al provided some diagnosis of the root cause More research
e ort is needed to provide a systematic approach that makes use of all the information
for intelligent diagnosis Statistical methods such as ANOVA system identi cation
and arti cial intelligence approaches
should play their roles
in such a diagnosis system
Performance monitoring of MIMO systems So far most work has focused on
SISO or MISO control performance monitoring However except for simple ow loops
most industrial control loops are more
or less interactive making the performance as
sessment of SISO or MISO systems not
applicable Harris et al and
Huang and
Shah discussed some
methods for MIMO process control monitoring While the
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.