Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185

www.elsevier.com/locate/arcontrol

Advanced control and on-line process optimization in multilayer structures


Piotr Tatjewski *
Institute of Control and Computation Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, Nowowiejska 15/19, 00-665 Warszawa, Poland
Received 5 October 2007; accepted 4 March 2008
Available online 16 May 2008

Abstract
The paper demonstrates the place, role and mutual interaction of advanced control algorithms and on-line set-point optimization in process
control structures. First, a multilayer control structure resulting from a functional decomposition is briefly presented. The role and selected
realizations of advanced control algorithms, in particular mostly applied now model predictive control (MPC) ones, at direct control and
supervisory constraint control layers is discussed. Then possible solutions to on-line set-point optimization, depending of disturbance dynamics,
are presented: dynamic set-point optimization including involved structures based on temporal decomposition, and steady-state set-point
optimization for cases with disturbance dynamics both much slower than and comparable with the process dynamics. For the last case, important in
industrial practice, different structures of interaction and even integration of MPC and steady-state optimization are discussed. The topics are
illustrated by briefly presented examples, selected from given references.
# 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Hierarchical systems; Multilayer control; Advanced control; Model predictive control; Set-point optimization; Nonlinear control; Constraints

1. Introduction layers. The reason is to make the control system design easier
by creating technically well-defined and simpler subtasks, thus
The technique of process automation has been based on the leading to improved reliability and ease of monitoring and
hierarchical approach for years, with the main layers of the maintenance of the resulting control system. There are three
hierarchy being the lower layers of feedback (regulatory) basic methods of decomposition, leading to different multilayer
control and the upper layers of optimization. The idea is well or multilayermultilevel structures:
established in industrial practice and discussed in many papers
and monographs, see e.g. (Blevins, McMillan, Wojsznis, &  functional decomposition;
Brown, 2003; Brdys & Tatjewski, 2005; Findeisen, 1974, 1997;  temporal decomposition;
Findeisen et al., 1980; Findeisen, Brdys, & Malinowski, 1994;  spatial decomposition.
Lefkowitz, 1966; Mesarovic, Macko, & Takahara, 1970; Qin &
Badgwell, 2003; Tatjewski, 2007). The well-known reason for
In the following sections, first the functional multilayer
that is that design of a control unit as a single entity with a
control structure will be presented. Temporal decomposition
homogeneous centralized decision mechanism may be reason-
will be given later, when discussing the on-line dynamic set-
able only in situations in which the process and the control
point optimization, while discussion of multiplayermultilevel
objective are relatively simple. The main idea is to decompose
structures, based on spatial decomposition, will be omitted as
the original control task into a sequence of simpler and
beyond the scope of this paper (the reader is referred to
hierarchically structured subtasks, handled by dedicated control
references cited above). Then the role and certain realizations
of model predictive control (MPC) advanced feedback control

algorithms in the multilayer structure will be discussed. Next,
An earlier version of the paper was presented as a plenary one at the 11th on-line set-point optimization will be the subject of presenta-
IFAC/IFORS/IMACS/IFIP Symposium on Large Scale Systems, Gdansk,
Poland, 2325 July 2007.
tion, for different disturbance dynamics, including interaction
* Tel.: +48 22 8250995; fax: +48 22 8253719. and integration of MPC and on-line steady-state set-point
E-mail address: P.Tatjewski@ia.pw.edu.pl. optimization.
1367-5788/$ see front matter # 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2008.03.003
72 P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185

2. Functional multilayer structure Technical realization of the tasks of the layer is usually ensured,
for complex industrial plants, by distributed control systems
It is beyond the scope of this paper to present the complex, (DCS). Algorithms of direct control should be robust and
hierarchical procedure of plantwide control system structure relatively easy to tune and supervise, that is why classic PID
design, including such important topics as selection of algorithms (delivering in many cases also acceptable perfor-
manipulated and controlled variables, controller types, etc., mance) are still dominant. However, capabilities of modern
see (Skogestad, 2000, 2004; Zheng, Mahajanam, & Douglas, DCS systems enable more computationally advanced solutions.
1999). We recall only that it leads to a functional decomposition Thus, in places where the classic PID control leads to
of the control problem for the whole plant, which is based on unsatisfactory performance, more advanced control algorithms
assigning a set of functionally different partial control can be employed, in particular modifications of the PID
objectives in a structure of vertical, hierarchical dependence. algorithm and, recently, implementions of MPC algorithms.
To maximize an overall economical objective the following In the literature one can find descriptions of basic feedback
main partial objectives should be met: control, as opposed to advanced feedback control, usually
treated as a supervisory control located at a higher layer.
1. To maintain the process in a safe operation mode, i.e., to However, it should be strongly emphasized that the generic
constrain to an acceptable level the probability of undesir- feature characterizing all direct (basic) controllers is the direct
able, uncontrollable process behaviour (caused by faults, access to the controlled process (process manipulated inputs are
etc.). directly influenced by these controllers) and high frequency of
2. To meet demands on product quality and economical usage intervention (small sampling period), not the kind of the
of technological apparatuses, i.e., to keep certain process algorithm employed, advanced or not. Therefore, we shall not
input and output values within or on prescribed limits. keep to this terminology, describing supervisory feedback
3. To maximize the current production profit. controllers (control algorithms) placed at a higher layer, with
outputs being set-point values for direct controllers located
The order of presentation of the above partial objectives is below, as set-point controllers constituting the dynamic set-
not incidental. Safety of the control system is most important, point control layer, or constraint controllers constituting the
next in importance is to care about the quality of products. Only dynamic constraint control layer. The latter description is often
after ensuring the realization of these two aims, can there be used in the literature, because the task of the upper-layer
room for on-line economic optimization. It is in this order that (supervisory) feedback controllers is usually to keep certain
the layers of the basic functional multilayer control structure slower-varying process variables on or within prescribed
are located, as presented in Fig. 1, see also e.g. (Brdys & constraint limits, see e.g. (Blevins et al., 2003) or an excellent
Tatjewski, 2005; Qin & Badgwell, 2003; Tatjewski, 2007). industrial review paper (Qin & Badgwell, 2003). These slower-
The direct control layer (known also as basic control layer) varying variables decide mainly on product quality parameters,
is responsible for basic safety of dynamic processes in the plant. such as concentrations in reactors or distillation columns.
Only this layer has direct access to the plant, being capable to Therefore, it is required that the set-point control algorithms
influence directly the controlled input variables (the manipu- should operate with high control performance, often in cases of
lated variables) and is also equipped with basic safety logic. multivariable, non-linear processes. Notice that at each layer
the same process is seen in a different way direct controllers
operate on faster part of the process (process modes)
counteracting fast disturbances, while constraint controllers on
slower part of the process such a process decomposition is
shown in Fig. 2 (Brdys & Tatjewski, 2005; Duda, Brdys,
Tatjewski, & Byrski, 1995; Tatjewski, 2007).
The history and significance of the constraint control layer is
directly connected with the development of advanced control
algorithms, in fact almost exclusively the MPC algorithms.
There was no distinction made in any previous literature
between the layers of the direct (basic) control and the
constraint control (advanced control), see e.g. (Findeisen et al.,
1980; Lefkowitz, 1966). It was the development of the
computer technology that enabled the realization of more
computationally demanding advanced control algorithms based
on process models, such as the popular DMC algorithm and
other MPC type algorithms, leading to a separation of a
dedicated supervisory feedback control layer. Since that time
this distinction is commonly met in the papers of leading
vendors of control equipment and software, as well as in review
Fig. 1. The functional multilayer control structure. papers and basic textbooks, especially those devoted to process
P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185 73

objective function which defines usually profit or running costs


of the process operation, under constraints on process variables
and using a process model describing relations between process
inputs and outputs. When more involved algorithms than a
single optimization are used, usually utilizing a feedback
information from the process to cope with significant
uncertainty, then operation of this layer is described as
optimizing control (Brdys & Tatjewski, 2005), which is
understood as an optimization with feedback, i.e., in a
different way than the optimizing control as originally defined
by Morari, Stephanopoulos, and Arkun (1980) and described
more precisely as self-optimizing control by Skogestad (2000)
in the more recent paper.

3. Advanced feedback control

Advanced control algorithms are usually defined as all those


more advanced than the classical PID algorithm, see e.g.
(Blevins et al., 2003; Maciejowski, 2002). However, the
undoubtedly dominant advanced technology is now the model
predictive control (MPC), developed in the last decades of the
previous century. The main reasons for that are, first, that the
Fig. 2. Process decomposition for design of direct and constraint controllers
MPC technique, as using future predictions of the process
(a case of yd stabilization).
dynamical behaviour based on direct use of its model, is very
efficient for processes with difficult dynamics and in multi-
control, see e.g. (Blevins et al., 2003; Goodwin, Graebe, & variable cases and, second, that the MPC algorithms have the
Salgado, 2001; Marlin, 1995; Qin & Badgwell, 2003; unique ability to take directly into account constraints imposed
Skogestad, 2000, 2004; Tatjewski, 2007). It should also be on process inputs (manipulated variables) and outputs
mentioned that the set-point control layer cannot always occur. (controlled variables) or state variables, which often decide
It is not distinguished in cases when there is no need for the set- on production quality and economic efficiency. That is why at
point control (constraint control) in the sense described above. the constraint control layer almost exclusively the MPC
Moreover, this layer cannot fully separate the direct control algorithms are being applied, see e.g. (Blevins et al., 2003;
layer from the optimization layeras is indicated in the Maciejowski, 2002; Qin & Badgwell, 2003; Rossiter, 2003;
structure of Fig. 1. Tatjewski, 2007)this layer is even sometimes called the
Optimization of set-points for feedback controllers is the MPC layer. Therefore, only MPC algorithms will be
task that is performed at the next layer of the hierarchy, the local considered at the constraint control layer in this paper.
optimization layer, situated directly above the regulatory However, rapid development of computer technology made it
control. It performs economic optimization related to the possible to apply now MPC also for direct control (in simpler
controlled process, which is usually a part of a larger complex versions if necessary), when improved control performance is
plant (under plant-wide optimization, beyond the scope of this required and cannot be achieved with PIDs. In general, MPC
paper). The goal is to calculate the process optimal operating refers to a class of computer control algorithms that at every
point or optimal operating trajectory, i.e., optimal steady-state sampling instant compute a sequence (a trajectory) of
values of set-points for current values of disturbance increments of manipulated variables minimizing the predicted
measurements or estimates, or a trajectory of set-points for control errors over a prediction horizon. A typical formulation
actual dynamic disturbance predictions to be applied for of the MPC dynamic optimization problem (MPC-DO) is as
feedback controllers of directly subordinate layers. These follows (assuming the main and simplest for presentation case
values result generally from optimization of certain economic when dim y = dim u):

( )
X
N NX
u 1

min J MPC k jjysp k pjk  yk pjkjj2 l jjDuk pjkjj2


Duk
p1 p0
subject to : umin  uk pjk  umax ; p 0; . . . ; N u  1 (1)
Dumax  Duk pjk  Dumax ; p 0; . . . ; N u  1
ymin  yk pjk  ymax ; p 1; . . . ; N
74 P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185
T
where Duk DukjkT . . . Duk N u  1jkT  is the (such outputs are called constraint outputs (Blevins et al.,
vector of decision variables (controller outputs) of dimension 2003)). The mentioned case will not be tackled further in
nuNu (nu = dim u), y(k + pjk) denotes the process output this paper, as this not alter basic structures and conclusions.
prediction for the future sampling instant k + p calculated at The reader is referred, e.g. to the paper (awrynczuk,
the current sampling instant k, using the process model; N and Nu Marusak, & Tatjewski, 2007c), where also a simulation
denote prediction and control horizons, respectively, and l is a study concerning interacting MPC and LSSO for a MIMO
weighting coefficient (diagonal weighting matrices can be used, plant is given.
in general). The constant set-point trajectory is usually assumed Crucial element in the formulation of the MPC-DO problem
over the prediction horizon (for the stabilization task) and will be is the process model. When it is linear (or affine), then the
further used in the paper, for the simplicity, i.e., ysp(k + pjk) = yss, vector of predictions y(k) = [y(k + 1jk)T . . . y(k + Njk)T]T can
p = 1, . . ., N, where yss is a desired steady-state value. Only the be, due to the superposition principle, written as a sum:
first element of Du(k), Du(k) = Du(kjk) is applied and the whole 2 3
procedure is repeated at the next sample, etc. g1 Duk y0 k 1jk
The formulation of the MPC-DO problem (1) applies for the 6 g Duk y0 k 2jk 7
6 2 7
same number of controlled outputs and manipulated variables yk GDuk y0 k 6 .. 7 (2)
4 . 5
(nu = ny, the case of a square plant). It is not always the case
gN Duk y0 k Njk
in practice. When nu > ny (the case of a fat plant) the
solution of the MPC-DO (1) is not unique, then the controller T
where y0 k y0 k 1jkT . . . y0 k NjkT  is the
should use additional degrees of freedom to force economically free trajectory (or free response) vector of the length
better solutions. This can be enforced by nyN (ny = dim y) depending on the past only, whereas G is the
dynamic matrix of dimension nyN  nuNu, composed of coeffi-
 adding to the cost function the term: cients of process step responses, see e.g. (Maciejowski, 2002;
NX
u 1 Rossiter, 2003; Tatjewski, 2007). The GDu(k) component of
r p jjuk pjk  uss jj2 (2), depending only on the future input increments Du(k), is
p0 often called the forced trajectory (or forced response).
The resulting MPC-DO is then

( )
X
N NX
u 1

min J MPC k jjyss  g p Duk  y0 k pjkjj2 l kDuk pjkk2


Duk
p1 p0
X
p
subject to : umin  uk  1 Duk ijk  umax ; p 0; . . . ; N u  1 (3)
i0
Dumax  Duk pjk  Dumax ; p 0; . . . ; N u  1
ymin  g p Duk y0 k pjk  ymax ; p 1; . . . ; N

where uss is a desired steady-state value for the process inputs and is a QP problem, thus can be easily implemented for on-line
and rp are weighting coefficients, see (Qin & Badgwell, application at constraint control layer, and also at direct control
2003), or layer if sufficient computing power and adequate software is
 adding the constraint: available in the controllers of the DCS.
An significant and well known difficulty that may happen and
uk N u  1jk uss
quite often happens in practice is a possible infeasibility of the
to the MPC dynamic optimization problem. But, to avoid MPC optimization problem when defined as (1) or (3), caused by
infeasibility it is better to add to the cost function a penalty conflicting constraints resulting in an empty admissible set. This
term, e.g. in the form: is possible only when the constraints on process outputs are
present (provided constraints on inputs are well defined), and is
r p jjuk N u  1jk  uss jj2 caused by shifts of current output values mainly due to changes in
which reduces to the previous case when assuming rp = 0 for disturbances. The commonly used way to cope with this is to treat
p = 0, . . ., Nu  2 there. the constraints on outputs as soft constraints, and the simplest
technique is to release these constraints by adding additional
slack variables, i.e., to convert them to
The case with nu > ny is important when there are both
controlled process outputs y (with desired set-points given) ymin  s p  yk pjk  ymax s p ; s p  0;
and uncontrolled but constrained outputs, with constraints p 1; . . . ; N (4)
that may be active or not, depending on the current situation
P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185 75

and to add to the cost function in (1) linear or quadratic penalty (Tatjewski, 2007), where constraints both on controller output
terms to minimize the slack variables, see e.g. (Qin & Badg- values and rates of change (defined by actuators limitations)
well, 2003). A more involved technique is to prioritize the are taken into account by projection. An alternative to the
(output) constraints into groups of decreasing priority and to presented suboptimal approach, especially for smaller pro-
solve a series of optimization problems assuring that constraints blems without significant uncertainty, can be a design and use
of higher priority are satisfied hardly and only those of lower of an explicit piecewise-affine (constrained) MPC control law
priority are violated (Vada, Slupphaug, Johansen, & Foss, (Bemporad, Morari, Dua, & Pistikopoulos, 2002; Tondell,
2001). We will not address this (important) problem in the Johansen, & Bemporad, 2003).
sequel, as it is not essential for further considerationsall MPC The design and applications of MPC algorithms with linear
optimization problems presented in the following text (and process models for supervisory constraint control in 1970s and
steady-state problems as well) may be modified in the men- 1980s were a breakthrough opening a new era in process
tioned ways to cope with the infeasibility. control. Better control performance at feedback control layers
If the inequality constraints are neglected when solving the made it possible to increase production effectiveness based on
(then unconstrained) MPC-DO problem (3), then its solution on-line process optimization. However, on-line economic set-
can be derived analytically off-line, as a MPC explicit, point optimization means changing (adopting) the set-points to
unconstrained control law, depending on the form of the varying disturbances and production requirementsthus
process model used. For instance: shifting the, usually nonlinear, process to different regions,
corresponding to different linear process models. Therefore,
Duk ke T ysp k  yk nonlinear feedback control was needed. This led to develop-
T ment of nonlinear MPC algorithms. Presentation of this broad
Ku T Duk  1T    Duk  D 1T  (5)
area is beyond the scope of this paper, see e.g. (Mayne,
for a (general MIMO) step response process model, where D is Rawlings, Rao, & Scokaert, 2000). Let us only mention that the
the step-response dynamics horizon (i.e., the process step formulation of MPC-DO (1) remains unchanged, only the
responses stabilize after D steps) and ke, Ku are controller predictions y(k + pjk) are now based on a nonlinear model, thus
coefficients (DMC controller). A simple unconstrained MPC leading to a nonlinear MPC-DO. It is often difficult to on-line
control law like (5) can be very easily implemented without any implementation, since nonlinear programming procedures do
augmentations if there is no risk that the generated control not guarantee, in general, finding the true solution and doing it
signal can exceed limits defined by physical possibilities of the in a prescribed time. A practical, suboptimal but in most cases
process actuators, i.e., if constraints on process inputs are very effective approach is to base part of the prediction
always not active, as they have been ignored when constructing depending on the past (free trajectory) on a nonlinear model,
the law. However, this is usually not the case and the constraints and prediction depending on decision variables (forced
must be taken into account in order to get practically applicable trajectory) on a linear model stemming from on-line
controllers. This can be done by projecting the controller output linearization of the nonlinear onethe formula (2) remains
on the constraints, but it is effective only if the following two valid, but with nonlinear y0(k) and G = G(k) stemming from
principles are obeyed: current linearization, see e.g. (Tatjewski, 2007).

 past control increment values which are fed back in the 4. On-line set-point optimization
controller structure must be those corresponding to the
process past constrained inputs, not the past values generated 4.1. Introduction
by the unconstrained control law;
 an anti-windup scheme should be added, as the standard MPC The formulation of the economic optimization problem at
controllers (DMC, GPC, etc.) incorporate integrating action. the optimization layer of the multilayer control structure
depends, in general, on dynamical properties of disturbances,
Implementation of the explicit unconstrained DMC control i.e., process inputs not controlled at the optimization layer
law (5) according to this requirements is shown in Fig. 3 (coming as true disturbances from the process environment

Fig. 3. Structure of explicit DMC controller taking into account process input constraints by projection, with anti-windup loop (upper feedback loop).
76 P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185

or as demands from higher layers of the hierarchy). Two most


general cases can be distinguished here:

 Dynamic trajectories of disturbance predictions over certain


time horizon are available as, e.g. water demands in water
treatment and distribution systems, inflows to wastewater
systems, prescribed dynamic trajectories of certain variables
in batch processes, etc.
 Current values of disturbances, estimated or measured, are
only available. Two typical cases can be distinguished here:
Disturbances are slow-varying or changing abruptly but
rare, when compared to the controlled process dynamics,
Disturbance dynamics is comparable with controlled
process dynamics.

The first case leads to dynamic set-point optimization, the


second applies mainly to continuous control leading usually to
steady-state set-point optimization.
Fig. 4. Temporal decomposition into three layers.
It should be pointed out that updating the model is a key
issue at the optimization layer. It is a difficult problem for
nonlinear constrained dynamic models, a popular technique is value of the system statecalculated at early intermediate time
the extended Kalman filtering and, recently, MHE (moving- at the higher layer and passed as a target state for calculations at
horizon estimation) (Rao & Rawlings, 2002); Rao and the lower layer (as final state for the shorter horizon, the case
Rawlings (2005) recommend the latter. For steady-state models shown in Fig. 4) or, e.g. as an average value over shorter
the situation is known to be better, for faster changing horizon. The idea is presented in Fig. 4 for a temporal
disturbances the key issue may be the time needed for relevant decomposition into three layers (sub-layers).
model update and re-optimization, as it may limits the
frequency of optimization execution. The issues of model 4.2.1. Example
identification (update) are beyond the scope of this paper. The presented situation takes place, e.g. in a case study
example of a complex integrated wastewater system, located at
4.2. Dynamic set-point optimization and temporal Kartuzy in Poland, presented in (Grochowski, Brdys, &
decomposition Gminski, 2004), see also (Brdys & Tatjewski, 2005). The
optimizing control layer there consists of three sub-layers
The task of the optimization layer is now to calculate a obtained from the temporal decomposition, designed to cope
trajectory of set-point values for actual dynamic disturbance with multiple time scale feature of internal dynamics of the
predictions, solving a dynamic optimization problem (optimal biological treatment process and variability of the disturbance
control problem) with a horizon dependent on the horizon of inputs (inflows to the system). Each sub-layer operates at
disturbance predictions and controlled process dynamics. As different time scale and handles objectives relevant to this time
there is typically uncertainty in process modelling and scale:
disturbance prediction, only initial part of the optimal trajectory
is usually applied as the set-points for the lower-layer  The slow control sub-layer (SCL) operates at a slow time
controllers, in the structure of repetitive predictive control, scale with 1-day control step and handles long-term
with receding horizon (control structure analogous as in MPC, objectives over a horizon of a week up to several months.
but with economic performance function). It happens often in This control layer is responsible here for biomass biological
complex systems that the controlled dynamic process is multi- sustainability (sludge mass and sludge retention time are key
scale, i.e., there are significant differences between rates of quantities for achieving sludge parameters that are desired for
change of faster and slower state variables (and/or distur- the biological sustainability of the plant operation), volume
bances). To cope with such complexity, the temporal control of equalization and stormwater tanks and long-term
decomposition may be a sound solution, leading to another economic objectives under as wide as possible range of
multilayer concept, now based on different time horizons and disturbance inputs.
time steps at different layersin fact, being sub-layers of the  The medium control sub-layer (MCL) operates at a medium
optimization layer, as at each layer functionally the same task is time scale with 1 h control step and handles medium-term
performed: the dynamic optimization. However, the higher the objectives over a horizon of 1 day. This control layer is
layer the longer the time step and the optimization horizon and responsible for maintaining the effluent quality within
the slower the process model and the disturbance dynamics required limits and optimizing the operating cost subject
(slower modes taken into account). Main information passed to technological and actuator constraints. The target values of
from a higher layer to a direct subordinate one is usually the the manipulated variables prescribed by the SCL must be
P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185 77

reached by the MCL at the end of its time horizon (the targets optimization usually leads to set-points being only sub-
are here: sludge mass, sludge retention time, equalization optimal for the real process, with a degree of suboptimality
tank level and septic tank level). The manipulated variables at dependent on the level of uncertainty.
MCL are: dissolved oxygen concentrations at the aerobic When the uncertainty is significant, one can try to improve
zones, recirculation flow rates, tank pump in/out flow rates the model-optimal set-points performing a number of
and chemical precipitation (PIX). appropriately designed iterations (set-point changes) over
 The fast control sub-layer (FCL) operates at the fastest time the controlled process, exploiting additional measurement
scale with 1 min control step and handles short-term information gained in this way to improve the optimality. This
objectives over a horizon of 1 h. The main functionality of leads to steady-state optimizing control, since the iterative
the FCL is to generate set-points for the direct control layer so process of set-point improvement uses feedback information at
that the process is forced to follow the manipulated variable each iteration (in the form of steady-state measurements), to
trajectories that are prescribed by MCL. Therefore, in the cope with the uncertainty. The known technique of iterative
hierarchy of Fig. 1, FCL should be rather considered as a set-point improvement is the integrated system optimization
separate set-point control layer, not a part of the set-point and parameter estimation (ISOPE), proposed by Roberts
optimization layer. (1979) and further developed in next decades. The detailed
presentation of ISOPE is beyond the scope of this paper, its
4.3. Steady-state optimization, for disturbances much general structure is only given here, in Fig. 5. The core idea of
slower than the process the method is to solve, iteratively for a sequence of set-points,
the steady-state optimization problem with the updated
When variability of disturbances is much slower than the process model and suitably modified performance function
controlled process dynamics, or disturbances are changing incorporating differences between the true input-output
abruptly but rare (e.g. when switching to a different source of process mapping and its model, see e.g. (Brdys & Tatjewski,
feed flows or changing the product specifications), then there 2005) for a detailed presentation. In Fig. 6, a sequence of set-
are long-time intervals when disturbance values can be treated point iterations generated by ISOPE is shown, for a distillation
as constant parameters. Then the classical multilayer structure column example (with contours of the performance function in
from Fig. 1 applies, with the optimization layer performing a the background).
steady-state (static) optimization. Assuming linear form of the
economic performance function, the model-based local steady- 4.4. Steady-state optimization cooperating with MPC, for
state optimization problem can be then stated as follows: faster dynamics of disturbances

min fJ E k cTu uss  cTy yss g 4.4.1. MPC steady-state target optimization (SSTO)
uss ;yss
subject to : umin  uss  umax Let (uss, yss) be an optimal solution of the local steady-
(6)
ymin  yss  ymax state optimization problem LSSO (6). This solution is passed
yss Fuss ; w to the constraint control layer when the MPC controllers
operate, see Fig. 1. To evaluate predicted errors, the MPC
where Fu; w denotes a comprehensive steady-state process
model, usually a nonlinear mapping, often given in an
implicit numerical form, w is the current estimate or mea-
surement of disturbances, cu and cy are prices resulting from
economic considerations, umin, umax, ymin, ymax are constraint
limits imposed on process input and output variables, respec-
tively. Further, nu ; nw ; ny will denote numbers of process
input variables u, slow-varying disturbances w affecting
the plant and output variables y, respectively. To avoid
possible infeasibility, analogous techniques as discussed ear-
lier for MPC-DO can be applied (soft constraints with slack
variables, prioritization of constraints, etc.), which will
therefore be not presented.
Certainly, after sufficiently significant changes in the
disturbance values the optimization should be recalculated,
to correct optimal set-point values. But the set-point
optimization will always result in the set-points close to
their true optimal values only if the process model is
sufficiently accurate, which includes sufficiently low
uncertainty in disturbance measurements or estimates.
Unfortunately, this happens rather rarely in practical cases
of complex industrial plant control. Therefore, a single Fig. 5. General structure of the ISOPE method.
78 P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185

Fig. 6. Example set-point iterations of ISOPE.

algorithm must be supplied with desired set-points. The


problem is that the LSSO calculates the set-points usually
Fig. 7. Multilayer structure with MPC SSTO added at the constraint control
much less frequent than the MPC executes. But, if layer.
disturbances change in the meantime, the set-points should
be recalculated to the points called target set-points
(Kassmann, Badgwell, & Hawkins, 2000). When the of generality. As usual in a multilayer structure, each control
disturbances vary slowly or rarely and thus the process unit (functional block) calculates its output with a different
can operate at unchanged optimal steady states over longer frequency, the higher the block in the structure the lower the
time periods, the target set-points are set-points coming frequencyMPC SSTO and MPC dynamic optimization
directly from LSSO. The usually nonlinear LSSO problem (MPC-DO) constitute now functionally one control unit as
can then be solved reasonably less frequently than the MPC they operate with the same sampling period.
controllers execute, with overall satisfactory results. In many The steady-states calculated at the local steady-state
cases, however, the dynamics of the disturbances is optimization (LSSO) and transmitted to the lower layer are
comparable with the process dynamics. For example, feed denoted by yss ; uss in Fig. 7. The goal of the SSTO is to
flow rates and feed composition may be varying significantly recalculate these values every time the MPC controller
and not much slower than the dynamics of the controlled executes, denote these recalculated values as yss ; uss (without
process. In such cases operation in the classical hierarchical hats). There are two main approaches possible here:
structure with frequency of the economic optimization much
lower than that of MPC can result in a significant loss of 1. To find steady-state targets yss ; uss as close as possible to the
economic effectivenesskeeping then the set-point constant set-points yss ; uss , despite process limitations and input and
over many sampling periods, waiting for the next calculation output constraints, e.g (Rao & Rawlings, 1999).
of LSSO despite changes in disturbances, could lead to 2. To recalculate the set-points basing on the original economic
economic losses. Certainly, the most obvious and successful performance function (as in LSSO) but using a simple
approach would be to perform the LSSO as often as needed, steady-state model and constraints, e.g. (Blevins et al., 2003;
even as frequent as the MPC controller executes. However, Kassmann et al., 2000).
the LSSO uses a comprehensive, usually nonlinear steady-
state model of the process, performing a nonlinear The first approach leads to the SSTO as a QP problem with
identification (adaptation) and constrained optimization. quadratic penalties in the cost function for deviations of the set-
This may be a difficult and time-consuming task, not point targets from the desired steady-states and linear constraints
realistic to be executed on-line at each or even at every few describing the process model (steady-state version of the
sampling periods. dynamic model used in MPC-DO) and inequality constraints
Therefore, a simpler approach became an industrial practice: for inputs and outputs (as in MPC-DO, the feasibility problem
the use of an additional steady-state target optimization (SSTO) tackled also in an analogous ways as discussed for MPC-DO). In
coupled with the MPC algorithm, see e.g. (Blevins et al., 2003; this approach, the objective is to assure that the MPC-DO
Kassmann et al., 2000; Qin & Badgwell, 2003; Rao & problem is feasible in steady-state. It will not be further
Rawlings, 1999; Tatjewski, 2007). The resulting control discussed, as it is not relevant to further considerations.
structure is depicted in Fig. 7, where direct interconnection The second approach uses, in fact, a simplified version of the
of the optimization unit with the direct control layer is omitted LSSO problem (6), with fairly simplified linear process model.
(compare Fig. 1), as this simplifies the presentation without loss In many cases a steady-state version (i.e., the gains matrix) of
P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185 79

the linear dynamic model used in the MPC-DO (thus the same u(k  1)) leads to the SSTO problem of the following LP form:
model as in the previous approach) is recommended and
reported to be used (Blevins et al., 2003; Kassmann et al., min fJ E k cTu Duss  cTy Dyss g
uss ;yss
2000). This results in a linear programming (LP) problem, if the subject to : Dyss HkDuss
economic objective function is linear (as in most cases). Having yss Fuk  1; wk Dyss b (8)
LSSO in the form (6), the SSTO takes then the following LP uss uk  1 Duss
form: umin  uss  umax
ymin  yss  ymax
min fJ E k cTu Duss  cTy Dyss g
uss ;yss
which is similar to (7), but with Fuk  1; wk b instead
subject to : Dyss Gss Duss
of y0(k + Njk) and with H(k) in place of Gss, where b is the bias
yss y0 k Njk Dyss (7) corresponding to unmeasured disturbances based on a compar-
uss uk  1 Duss
ison of measured and predicted outputs (constant output step
umin  uss  umax
disturbance model (Kassmann et al., 2000)):
ymin  yss  ymax
 T
where Gss is the gains matrix of the dynamic model used in @Fuk  1; wT @Fuk  1; wT
Hk ...
MPC-DO. With the SSTO (7) applied, the following calcula- @u1 @unu
tions are performed by the MPC controller-optimizer at each 2 3
@ f 1 uk  1; w @ f 1 uk  1; w
...
sampling instant: 6 @u1 @unu 7
6 7
6 .. .. 7
6 . } . 7 (9)
1. Acquisition of the output measurements y(k). 6 7
4 @ f ny uk  1; w @ f ny uk  1; w 5
2. Prediction of the free output trajectory, to calculate ...
y0(k + Njk). @u1 @unu
3. Solution of the LP SSTO problem (7) to get the set-point
targets for the MPC-DO. is usually computed numerically using finite difference
4. Solution of the MPC-DO QP problem (3), to obtain the approach and where w wk is the actual disturbance mea-
current controller output u(k) as the first element of the surement/estimate. The SSTO problem (8) was defined for
calculated optimal trajectory. solving at each sampling instant of MPC, but updating the
nonlinear model F; wk and, moreover, the gains matrix
It should be pointed out that the calculation of the free output H(k) can be not realistic and often not needed so frequent, for a
y0(k + Njk) is an important element of the above strategythis complex nonlinear plant. Updating H(k) is sensible after a
is the only element in the formulations of both the SSTO significant change in the model nonlinearity. But the value
problem (7) and the MPC-DO problem (3) which can undergo Fuk  1; wk depends on u(k  1). Thus, if it is computed
significant changes from one sampling instant to the next, as a from the nonlinear model less frequent, then at an intermediate
result of disturbances influencing the output measurements (the
feedback) or directly affecting the process model, if measure-
ments of certain disturbances are available and explicitly used
in the model.

4.4.2. Adaptive steady-state target optimization


The LP problem (7) is solved at each sampling instant, but
this may lead to losses in economic optimality, as the constant
linear model may be too different from the nonlinear one used
in the LSSO, for most of the operating points (as mentioned
earlier (7) can be treated as a simplified replacement of LSSO
(6)). The problem has been recognized, e.g. Kassmann et al.
(2000) propose to estimate and take into account uncertainty in
steady-state gain matrix Gss, in the framework of a robust target
steady-state calculation. On the other hand, Qin and Badgwell
(2003) report on using linearizations of the comprehensive
nonlinear model instead of the gain matrix of the dynamic one.
This is reasonable, as the model used in the SSTO should be
consistent with the comprehensive steady-state nonlinear
model used at the LSSO layer, rather than with the dynamic
one applied in the MPC-DO. Using the linearization of the Fig. 8. Multilayer structure with adaptive SSTO based on linearizations of
LSSO model F; wk, at sampling instant k (i.e., at the point LSSO steady-state model.
80 P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185

MPC sampling instant k the value: Notice that the quadratic approximation (11) is used in (12)
only in the objective function, linear approximation must be
Fur  1; wr Hruk  1  ur  1 (10)
used for the output constraintsotherwise it would not be
should be used in (8) instead of Fuk  1; wk, where r is possible to keep all the constraints linear. Nevertheless, the
the last sample of linearization, when Fuk  1; wk and linear-quadratic approximation is expected to be generally
H(k) were calculated. Moreover, if disturbances w (at least more accurate than the linearization only, especially, if non-
some of them) are measured/estimated as often as the MPC linearity of the steady-state model corresponding to actively
executes, the nonlinear steady-state model should also be constrained outputs is not strong or only process inputs are
linearized with respect to these disturbances. constrained.
It is not easy to govern moments of updates according to The possible weakest point of the just discussed linear-
appropriate changes in nonlinearity or disturbances, the quadratic approach to SSTO was the necessity to use a linear
simplest way is to activate the linearization after every process model in the formulation of the output constraints, as
prescribed number of MPC iterations. The steady-state model these constraints are often crucial, being active at the
used by the SSTO (8) is consistent with the nonlinear model optimumit may be then necessary to use a more accurate
used by the LSSO. To the consistency of the full control approximation of the steady-state characteristics of the process
structure, the static properties (the gain matrix) of the dynamic for the constraints than for the objective function JE(k). Thus, a
model used in the MPC-DO should also be consistent with the question arises how to design an efficient, robust SSTO
model used by the SSTOthis can be obtained by adjusting problem, but with a nonlinear approach to process modelling.
appropriately the MPC-DO gains matrix as often as H(k) is Having a linear economic objective function, an answer to this
calculated (a kind of gain-scheduling approach). The discussed question may be a piecewise-linear approximation of the
control structure is depicted in Fig. 8, compare with Fig. 7. nonlinear steady-state process model, performed locally at each
Notice that operations on steady-state (LSSO) nonlinear model sampling instant, after every few sampling instants, or even
are placed in a separate, higher layer block, as they can be once, globallydepending on the dimensionality and non-
performed less frequently than MPC and SSTO execute, as linearity of the problem. Piecewise-linear approximation of a
discussed above. nonlinear function is a well-known concept in mathematical
The use of an on-line linearization discussed above is a kind programming, especially in separable programming, leading to
of an adaptive approach, with the aim to adapt the linear model mixed LP problems, or LP problems if the applied LP solver
used in the linear SSTO problem to nonlinearity of the problem, allows for declaration of SOS (special ordered sets) for
to its linear features at successive operating points. However, additional variables describing the piecewise-linear approx-
one can imagine a representation of nonlinearity in the SSTO imations, see e.g. (Williams, 1995). For a local approach, the
problem itself. Then, the first step in this direction would be to approximation should be performed using a number of values
use the quadratic approximation of the comprehensive non- of the original LSSO model at selected grid points covering a
linear steady-state process model (Tatjewski, 2007; Tatjewski, subset of the feasible domain around the current operating
awrynczuk, & Marusak, 2006). The quadratic model would be point. The stated problem can also be solved by simply
2 3 checking values of the objective function and constrained
Duss T B1 kDuss outputs only at input-feasible grid points of the piecewise-linear
16 .. 7
yss Fuk  1; w HkDuss 4 . 5 approximation. In some cases when the linear approximation
2 ss T ss approach fails the piecewise-linear approximation occurs a
Du Bny kDu
good alternative, such an example is given in (Tatjewski et al.,
(11) 2006).
where Bi(k) is the matrix (of dimension nu  nu) containing
second order derivatives of the ith component f i of the nonlinear 5. Integrated dynamic MPC and set-point optimization
input-output mapping F, i = 1, . . ., ny. Requiring that SSTO
problem be at most a linear-quadratic for fast and robust on-line So far, the need to calculate the steady-state targets for MPC-
calculation, i.e., with linear constraints only, it should be DO more frequently than it is done at a higher control layer of
formulated as follows (for linear JE, see (6)): LSSO was realized by introduction of a separate SSTO
problem, performed at every sampling instant of the MPC
min fJ E k cTu Duss  cTy Dyss cTu Duss controller. Thus, two optimization problems, MPC-DO and
uss
ny
X MPC-SSTO, were solved sequentially at the MPC constraint
cTy HkDuss  0:5 cyi Duss T Bi kDuss g control layer. The question arises, whether or not it is possible
i1 and reasonable to integrate these two optimization problems
subject to : Dyss HkDuss into one. Moreover, one can even imagine to integrate the LSSO
(12)
yss Fuk  1; w Dyss b and the MPC-DO problems into one optimization problem
uss uk  1 Duss thus avoiding the need to introduce the SSTO (and having one
integrated optimization problem instead of three). Such
umin  uss  umax
attempts can be met in the literature, usually for processes
ymin  yss  ymax with specific features (Tvrzska de Gouvea & Odloak, 1998;
P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185 81

Zanin, Tvrzska de Gouvea, & Odloak, 2000; Zanin, Tvrzska de generated by the on-line linearization of the nonlinear steady-
Gouvea, & Odloak, 2002). Certainly, the problem is difficult state model (or QP problem (12)), we have again two
considering its nonlinear nature and requirements of on-line optimization problems: MPC-DO and LP SSTO, both solved
applications. Integrating the MPC-DO problem (3) with the with the same sampling rate. Integrating this two optimization
nonlinear LSSO problem (6) we get: problem into one leads to the following QP problem

( )
X
N
2
NX
u 1
2
min J INT k jjyss  g p Duk  y0 k pjkjj l jjDuk pjkjj gcTu uss  cTy yss
Duk;uss ;yss
p1 p0
X
p
subject to : umin  uk  1 Duk ijk  umax ; p 0; . . . ; N u  1
i0 (13)
Dumax  Duk pjk  Dumax ; p 0; . . . ; N u  1
ymin  g p Duk y0 k pjk  ymax ; p 1; . . . ; N
umin  uss  umax
ymin  yss  ymax
yss Fuss ; w

where g is a suitable weighting coefficient. In reality, the (awrynczuk, Marusak, & Tatjewski, 2007a, 2007b), compare
nonlinear integrated approach (13) has rather limited applic- with the nonlinear one (13):

( )
X
N
2
NX
u 1
2
ss 0
min J INT k jjy  g p Duk  y k pjkjj l jjDuk pjkjj gcTu uss  cTy yss
Duk;uss ;yss
p1 p0
X
p
subject to : umin  uk  1 Duk ijk  umax ; p 0; . . . ; N u  1
i0 (14)
Dumax  Duk pjk  Dumax ; p 0; . . . ; N u  1
ymin  g p Duk y0 k pjk  ymax ; p 1; . . . ; N
umin  uss  umax
ymin  yss  ymax
yss Fuk  1; w Hkuss  uk  1 b

ability, to processes with rather very slow dynamics at the The integrated control-optimization structure corresponding
constraint control layer and not complicated computationally to (14) is depicted in Fig. 9, compare with Fig. 8. Adaptation of
nonlinear steady-state model (or its replacement by computa- the linearized model in (14) may be reasonable when made less
tionally fast neural network representation, see (Tatjewski & frequently than the MPC executes, analogously as it was
awrynczuk, 2006)). Moreover, it is not convincing why one discussed for the case presented in Fig. 8 with adaptive SSTO
more complicated, higher dimensional nonlinear optimization (8) based on on-line linearizations, see there. Further analogy to
problem should be better than a series of two: a simpler (lower that case, instead of a constant dynamic matrix G an adaptive
dimensional) nonlinear problem (LSSO) and a simple QP matrix G(k) changing its gains to be equal to those in the gain
problem. However, the integrated problem (13) may be treated as matrix H(k) should be applied to have steady-state consistency
certain reference in simulation studies concerning integrated of the overall control-optimization structure.
approaches. For certain nonlinear plants a quadratic approximation of the
In the multilayer structure of Fig. 7, with standard LP SSTO, steady-state process mapping introduced to the performance
three optimization problems have to be solved on-line: the function can also bring an improvement, similarly as it was
nonlinear LSSO task (6) much less frequent, the SSTO LP presented for adaptive SSTO, see (11) and (12).
problem (7) and the MPC-DO task (3) with the same sampling
rate. Integration of the linear-quadratic MPC-DO problem with 5.1. Example
a LP SSTO problem leads to an integrated problem of standard
QP form and should be successful if the SSTO taken as a In (awrynczuk et al., 2007b) a simulation study concerning
separate problem is efficacious. Passing to more advanced a detailed comparison of various structures with interacting
structure of Fig. 8, with adaptive LP SSTO problem (8) MPC and steady-state optimization is given. We shall present
82 P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185

Production rate is to be maximized, hence the economic


performance function can be expressed as (constant volume is
assumed due to applied inventory control, not shown in the
figure):
J E FIss (16)
The manipulated variable is constrained:
F Imin  F I ; FIss  F Imax (17)
where F I min = 0.0035 m3/h, F I max = 0.033566 m3/h. The pro-
duct should satisfy a purity criterion, i.e., the output variable is
constrained:
NAMWmin  NAMW (18)
where NAMWmin = 20000 kg/kmol. Changes in the distur-
bance signal are described by the equation:
Fk F 0  1:6sin 0:008k  sin 0:08 (19)
where F 0 = 2 m3/h.
Fig. 9. Control system structure with MPC optimization integrated with Taking into account the constraints imposed on input and
linearization-based SSTO. output variables, the static characteristic is shown in Fig. 11.
Optimal steady-state operating points for different values of
disturbance 0.5 m3/h  F  2 m3/h are also shown (the point
here a few selected results from those given there, referring the P1 corresponds to F = 2 m3/h).
reader to there for a detailed description of the process and Let TE denote the intervention period of the economic LSSO
simulation conditions. The control process is a polymerisation layer with nonlinear optimization, defined as a number of MPC
reaction taking place in a jacketed continuous stirred tank sampling periods (i.e., TE = 1 means that LSSO is performed
reactor (Maner, Doyle, Ogunnaike, & Pearson, 1996), see and applied as often as the MPC controller executes). Fig. 12
Fig. 10. The output variable, number average molecular weight compares the economic objective function in both
(NAMW) is controlled by manipulating the inlet initiator flow LSSO + MPC and LSSO + MPC + SSTO structures as the
rate F I. The main disturbance is the feed flow of the monomer function of TE. Introduction of the SSTO into the LSSO + MPC
and solvent stream F. The fundamental nonlinear process structure with nonlinear economic LSSO layer activated
model is as follows: infrequently leads, practically, to the same economic perfor-
p mance as in the reference LSSO + MPC system with TE = 1.
x1 106  x1  2:4568x1 x2 Next, integrated structures based on integrated optimization
x2 80F I  0:10225 10Fx2
p problem (13) MPCEO (with nonlinear steady-state model and
x3 0:0024121x1 x2 0:112191x2  10x3
p (15)
x4 245:978x1 x2  10x4
x4
NAMW
x3
In the MPC layer the GPC algorithm (Clarke, Mohtadi, &
Tuffs, 1987) is used. The horizons are N = 10 and Nu = 3, the
weighting coefficient is l = 0.2, the sampling period is 1.8 min.

Fig. 11. Steady-state characteristic NAMW(FI, F) of the polymerisation reactor


Fig. 10. Polymerisation reactor control system. and constraints, Pioptimal operating points for different values of disturbance F.
P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185 83

5.2. Adaptive MPC with integrated dynamic tracking of


control error and economic performance

An interesting approach to integrated economic optimiza-


tion and MPC dynamic optimization was proposed by Becerra,
Roberts, & Griffiths (1998), in the framework of adaptive
model predictive control. The algorithm requires an instanta-
neous on-line identification of a process linear state-space
model (after an initial time interval of several sampling periods
needed to start the identification procedure proposed in the
paper). The ARMAX type input-output model is proposed to be
identified using a non-iterative moving data window, and the
model parameters are updated after every few sampling instants
(in the two simulation examples reported it was after every 5
and 20 samples, respectively). Then, a state-space representa-
tion is constructed in a form avoiding the use of an observer (see
also e.g. (Maciejowski, 2002; Tatjewski, 2007)) and the
identified linear state-space model in the incremental form is
Fig. 12. Graphical comparison of the economic objective function values in further used. With this adaptive process model the integrated
LSSO + MPC and LSSO + MPC + SSTO control system structures as the
dynamic optimization problem is formulated integrating the
function of TE.
MPC controller and economic performance functions, both in
the dynamic form (i.e., for every sample within prediction and
nonlinear optimization) and integrated problem (14) control horizons, which are equal). However, for the success of
MPCEOL (with on-line linearization and quadratic program- the technique, the process input signal must have sufficient
ming) are considered. Simulation results are shown in Fig. 13. persistent excitation properties to get acceptable robustness and
For nominal value of the parameter g = 10, the obtained quality of the identification, as usual with adaptive systems
behaviour of three control systems is practically indistinguish- based on current model identification. Therefore, in simulation
able. As g is decreased and less than 1, which corresponds to studies presented in (Becerra et al., 1998), an additional PRBS
reducing the role of the economic steady-state optimization (pseudo-random binary sequence) signal added to the controller
over the MPC dynamic optimization, the results in integrated output was applied. We refer the interesting reader to this
structures differ from those obtained in the control structure reference for detailed presentation of the algorithm, which, in
with separate layers (LSSO + MPC). It is worth emphasizing fact, is a quite fortunate combination of the philosophy of
that for chosen g, the results of the integrated algorithm with integrated system optimization and parameter estimation
nonlinear optimization (MPCEO) and linearization and (ISOPE, see Section 4.2) with the MPC technique.
quadratic programming (MPCEOL) are virtually the same,
as it is shown in Fig. 13. 6. Conclusions

The place, role and mutual interaction of advanced control


algorithms and on-line set-point optimization in multilayer
process control structures have been presented in the paper.
First, the multilayer structure stemming from functional
decomposition of an overall economic process control task
was briefly reviewed, with direct control, constraint control and
optimization layers. Next, the role of model predictive control
(MPC) algorithms in creation and realizations of the super-
visory constraint control (set-point-control) feedback control
layer was discussed. Basic philosophy of MPC was recalled and
selected realizations were discussed, in particular a simple but
in many cases successful implementation based on an
unconstrained linear MPC control law. A fast, practical
implementation of a nonlinear constrained MPC controller
when based on linearizations of a nonlinear model was
mentioned.
It was indicated that realization of the task of the
optimization layer depends on dynamical properties of
Fig. 13. Simulation results of the LSSO + MPC structure with TE = 1 (solid disturbances, when compared to the controlled process
line) and integrated MPCEO, MPCEOL structures (dashed line). dynamics. Dynamic set-point optimization was discussed,
84 P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185

together with the temporal decomposition as a tool to cope with


multiple time scale of a complex process. Steady-state
optimization for the case with disturbances varying slow when
compared to process dynamics was briefly reviewed, including
comments on the ISOPE (integrated system optimization and
parameter optimization) approach. Much attention was devoted
to the important practical case when disturbance dynamics is
not much slower than the controlled process dynamics.
Introduction and possible realizations of the steady-state target
optimization, a tool to recompute set-points given by the
optimization layer to improve optimality of the control
structure was presented. Finally, integrated approaches to
set-point optimization and MPC dynamic optimization were
presented, resulting in reduced on-line computational load.
Certain topics discussed in the paper are illustrated by briefly
presented examples, selected from given references.
We have started this paper with the functional multilayer
structure presented in Fig. 1, well established in the last two Fig. 15. The control system structure being now a design alternative.
decades of the previous century. A few years ago, in
(Maciejowski, 2002) a question was raised: are we going identification (including techniques of data mining) for
towards the structure shown in Fig. 14? In the opinion of the control tasks at different layers of the control hierarchy,
author, the direct control layer will not be annihilated by higher development of diagnostic methods for accident prevention
layers, mainly for safety and reliability reasons. However, and fast and reliable fault detection and isolation.
structures and algorithms discussed in this paper prove well that
that the control system structure presented in Fig. 15 becomes a Acknowledgments
sound design alternative.
Finally, it should be noted that impact of new develop- The author is grateful to the referees for indication of topics
ments in information technologies on process automation has needing further or better presentation, which allowed to
not been the subject of this paper. But, as Samad, increase the quality of the paper. The author is also grateful for
McLaughlin, and Lu (2007) indicate these developments the support of the presented research by Polish national budget
are transforming process automation structures. This funds 20052007 for science, as a research project and statutory
should enable also easier, more flexible implementation of research.
structures and techniques discussed in this paper. It should
also be pointed out that the paper focuses on algorithms of References
advanced feedback control and set-point optimization only,
while there are actually still many other important on-line Becerra, V. M., Roberts, P. D., & Griffiths, G. W. (1998). Novel developments in
control challenges such as effective model building and process optimization using predictive control. Journal of Process Control,
8(2), 117138.
Bemporad, A., Morari, M., Dua, V., & Pistikopoulos, E. N. (2002). The explicit
linear-quadratic regulator for constrained systems. Automatica, 38(1), 320.
Blevins, T. L., McMillan, G. K., Wojsznis, W. K., & Brown, M. W. (2003).
Advanced control unleashed. ISA.
Brdys, M. A., & Tatjewski, P. (2005). Iterative algorithms for multilayer
optimizing control. London/Singapore: Imperial College Press/World
Scientific.
Clarke, D. W., Mohtadi, C., & Tuffs, P. S. (1987). Generalized predictive
control. I. The basic algorithm. Automatica, 23, 137148.
Duda, J., Brdys, M., Tatjewski, P., & Byrski, W. (1995). Multilayer decom-
position for optimizing control of technological processes. In Proceedings
of the IFAC/IFORS/IMACS symposium large scale systems theory and
applications LSS95 (pp. 111116).
Findeisen, W. (1974). Wielopoziomowe ukady sterowania (multilayer control
systems, in Polish). Warszawa: PWN.
Findeisen, W. (1997). Struktury sterowania dla zozonych procesow (control
structures for complex processes, in Polish). Warszawa: Warsaw University
of Technology Press.
Findeisen, W., Bailey, F. N., Brdys, M., Malinowski, K., Tatjewski, P., &
Wozniak, A. (1980). Control and coordination in hierarchical systems.
Chichester/New York/Brisbane/Toronto: J Wiley & Sons.
Fig. 14. A disputable future control system structure, after (Maciejowski, Findeisen, W., Brdys, M., & Malinowski, K. (1994). Control problems and
2002). control systems. An overview. In M. Brdys & K. Malinowski (Eds.),
P. Tatjewski / Annual Reviews in Control 32 (2008) 7185 85

Computer aided control systems design (pp. 115). Singapore: World Samad, T., McLaughlin, P., & Lu, J. (2007). System architecture for process
Scientific. automation: Review and trends. Journal of Process Control, 17, 191201.
Goodwin, G. C., Graebe, S. F., & Salgado, M. E. (2001). Control System Design. Skogestad, S. (2000). Plantwide control: The search for the self-optimizing
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. control structure. Journal of Process Control, 10, 487507.
Grochowski, M., Brdys, M. A., & Gminski, T. (2004). Inteligent control Skogestad, S. (2004). Control structure design for complex chemical plants.
structure for wastewater treatment systems. In Proceedings of the 10th Computers and Chemical Engineering, 28, 219234.
IFAC symposium on large scale complex systems (pp. 263268). Tatjewski, P. (2007). Advanced control of industrial processes. London:
Kassmann, D. E., Badgwell, T. A., & Hawkins, R. B. (2000). Robust steady- Springer-Verlag.
state target calculation for model predictive control. AIChE Journal, 46, Tatjewski, P., & awrynczuk, M. (2006). Soft computing in model-based
10071024. predictive control. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and
awrynczuk, M., Marusak, P., & Tatjewski, P. (2007a). Efficient model pre- Computer Science, 16(1), 726.
dictive control integrated with economic optimisation. In Proceedings of the Tatjewski, P., awrynczuk, M., & Marusak, P. (2006). Linking nonlinear steady-
15th mediterranean conference on control and automation MED2007. state and target set-point optimisation for model predictive control. In
awrynczuk, M., Marusak, P., & Tatjewski, P. (2007b). Multilevel and inte- Proceedings of the IEE International Control Conference 2006 (CD-ROM).
grated structures for predictive control and economic optimization. Tondell, P., Johansen, T. A., & Bemporad, A. (2003). An algotithm for multi-
awrynczuk, M., Marusak, P., & Tatjewski, P. (2007c). Eonomic efficacy of parametric quadratic programming and explicit MPC solutions. Automatica,
multilayer constrained predictive control structures: An application to a 39, 489497.
MIMO neutralisation reactor. Tvrzska de Gouvea, M., & Odloak, D. (1998). One-layer real time optimization
Lefkowitz, I. (1966). Multilevel approach applied to control system design. of LPG production in the FCC unit: Procedure, advantages and disadvan-
Journal of Basic Engineering-Transaction of the ASME, Series B, 2, 392 tages. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 22, S191S198.
398. Vada, J., Slupphaug, O., Johansen, T. A., & Foss, B. A. (2001). Linear MPC with
Maciejowski, J. M. (2002). Predictive control with constraints. Englewood optimal prioritized infeasibility handling: Application, computational issues
Cliffs: Prentice Hall. and stability. Automatica, 37, 18351843.
Maner, B. R., Doyle, F. J., Ogunnaike, B. A., & Pearson, R. K. (1996). Williams, H. P. (1995). Model building in mathematical programming (3rd ed.).
Nonlinear model predictive control of a simulated polymerization reactor Chichester/New York: J Wiley.
using second-order Volterra models. Automatica, 32, 12851301. Zanin, A., Tvrzska de Gouvea, M., & Odloak, D. (2000). Industrial imple-
Marlin, T. E. (1995). Process control. New York: McGraw-Hill. mentation of a real-time optimization strategy for maximizing production of
Mayne, D. Q., Rawlings, J. B., Rao, C. V., & Scokaert, P. O. M. (2000). LPG in a FCC unit. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24, 525531.
Constrained model predictive control: stability and optimality. Automatica, Zanin, A., Tvrzska de Gouvea, M., & Odloak, D. (2002). Integrating real-time
36, 789814. optimization into model predictive controller of the FCC system. Computers
Mesarovic, M. D., Macko, D., & Takahara, Y. (1970). Theory of hierarchical, & Chemical Engineering, 10, 819831.
multilevel systems. New York: Academic Press. Zheng, A., Mahajanam, R. V., & Douglas, J. M. (1999). Hierarchical procedure
Morari, M., Stephanopoulos, Y., & Arkun, Y. (1980). Studies in the synthesis of for plantwide control system synthesis. AIChE Journal, 45(6), 12551265.
control structures for chemical processes. Part I. Formulation of the problem.
Process decomposition and the classification of the control task. Analysis of Piotr Tatjewski was born in Warsaw, Poland, in 1949. He received the M.S. (in
the optimizing control structures. AIChE Journal, 26(20), 220232. electronic engineering), Ph.D. and D.Sc. Degrees (in automatic control) from
Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (2003). A survey of industrial model predictive Warsaw University of Technology, in 1972, 1976 and 1998, respectively. Since
control technology. Control Engineering Practice, 11, 733764. 1972 with the Institute of Control and Computation Engineering (till 1994
Rao, Ch. V. , & Rawlings, J. B. (1999). Steady states and constraints in model Institute of Automatic Control) of Warsaw University of Technology, since
predictive control. AICHE Journal, 45(6), 12661278. 1996 director of the Institute, 1993 Professor, 2006 full professor. Author or co-
Rao, Ch. V. , & Rawlings, J. B. (2002). Constrained process monitoring: author of more than 30 journal papers, author of the books Advanced Control
Moving-horizon approach. AIChE Journal, 48(1), 97109. of Industrial Processes. Structures and Algorithms (Springer, 2007) and
Rao, Ch. V. , & Rawlings, J. B. (2005). Critical evaluation of extended Kalman Iterative Algorithms of Multilayer Optimizing Control (Imperial College
filtering and moving-horizon estimation. Industrial and Engineering Chem- Press/World Scientific, 2005, co-author M.A. Brdys). Member of Automatic
istry Research, 44, 24512460. Control and Robotics Committee of Polish Academy of Sciences. His current
Roberts, P. D. (1979). An algorithm for steady-state system optimization and interests involve multilayer control, predictive control of linear and nonlinear
parameter estimation. International Journal of System Science, 10, 719734. processes, set-point optimization, decomposition techniques in optimization
Rossiter, J. A. (2003). Model-based predictive control.. CRC Press. and control, soft computing methods.