Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 741–747

www.elsevier.com/locate/jprocont

A practical loop pairing criterion for multivariable processes

Qiang Xiong, Wen-Jian Cai *, Mao-Jun He
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore

Received 21 September 2004; received in revised form 7 February 2005; accepted 23 March 2005

Abstract

Utilizing both steady state gain and bandwidth information of the process open loop transfer function elements, this paper pre-
sents a new dynamic loop pairing criterion for decentralized control of multivariable processes. Through defining an effective gain
matrix, the loop pairing procedures of popular relative gain array method is directly extended to the new method which can reflect
dynamic loop interactions under finite bandwidth control. Compared with existing methods, this method is simple, effective, and
easy to be understood and applied by control engineers. Several examples, for which the RGA based loop pairing criterion gives
an inaccurate interaction assessment, are employed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multivariable process; Decentralized control; Interaction measures; Loop pairing; Effective gain; Relative gain array; Effective relative
gain array

1. Introduction variable controllers are complex and lack integrity, the

Most of the large and complex industrial processes
are naturally multi-input multi-output (MIMO) sys-
tems. Compared with single-input single-output (SISO)
counterparts, MIMO systems are more difficult to con-
trol due to the existence of interactions among input
and output variables. Although considerable effort has
been dedicated to this problem and many design tech-
niques have been proposed over the decades, control
system design and implementation for MIMO processes
is still a big challenge for practical control engineers.
The interactive multivariable systems can be either
controlled by (1) a multivariable or centralized MIMO
controller or by (2) a set of SISO decentralized control-
lers. Algebraic decoupling methods or optimal multivar-
iable control theory are usually applied to obtain
centralized MIMO controllers. While centralized multi-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6790 6862; fax: +65 6793 3318.
E-mail address: ewjcai@ntu.edu.sg (W.-J. Cai).
decentralized control system enjoys certain advantages:
(1) it requires fewer parameters to tune which are easier
to be understood and implemented; and (2) loop failure
tolerance of the resulting control system can be assured
during the design phase. Therefore, they are more often
used in process control applications [1,2]. However, the
potential disadvantage of using the limited control
structure is the deteriorated closed loop performance
caused by interactions among loops as a result of the
existence of non-zero off-diagonal elements in the trans-
fer function matrix [3,4]. Thus, the primary task in the
design of decentralized control systems is to determine
loop configuration, i.e. pair the manipulated variables
and controlled variables to achieve the minimum inter-
actions among loops so that the resulting multivariable
control system mostly resembles its single-input single-
output counterparts and the subsequent controller tun-
ing is largely facilitated by SISO design techniques [5].
Since the pioneering work of Bristol [6], the relative
gain array (RGA) based techniques for control loop
configuration have been widely used in industries,

0959-1524/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2005.03.008
742 Q. Xiong et al. / Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 741–747

including blending, energy conservation, and distillation r1 + e u1 y1

columns, etc. [7–9]. The most important advantage of ⊗ 1
_ +
r2 e u2 y2
RGA based techniques is its simple calculation since ⊗ 2
_ Gc(s) G(s)
… … …
only process steady state gains are involved and scaling rn + en un yn
is independent due to its ratio nature [10]. However, _⊗
using steady state gain alone may result in incorrect
interaction measures and consequently loop pairing
decisions, since no dynamic information of the process
is taken into consideration. Fig. 1. Closed loop multivariable control system.
To overcome the limitations of RGA based loop pair-
ing criterion, several pairing methods have later been
proposed by using the dynamic RGA (DRGA) to con- reference inputs; ui, i = 1, 2, . . ., n are the manipulated
sider the effects of process dynamics, which employ the variables; yi, i = 1, 2, . . ., n are the system outputs, G(s)
transfer function model instead of the steady state gain and Gc(s) are the process matrix and the decentralized
matrix to calculate RGA [11–13]. In DRGA, the denom- controller matrix, respectively, G(s) and Gc(s) are with
inator involved achieving perfect control at all frequen- compatible dimensions and expressed by:
cies, while the numerator was simply the open loop 2 3
g11 ðsÞ g12 ðsÞ . . . g1n ðsÞ
transfer function. Recently, McAvoy et al. proposed a 6 g ðsÞ g ðsÞ . . . g ðsÞ 7
significant DRGA approach [14]. Using the available 6 21 22 2n 7
GðsÞ ¼ 6 7
dynamic process model, a proportional output optimal 4 ... ... ... ... 5
controller is designed based on the state space approach gn1 ðsÞ gn2 ðsÞ . . . gnn ðsÞ
and the resulting controller gain matrix is used to define a
and
DRGA. Several examples in which the normal RGA 2 3
gives the inaccurate interaction measure and wrong pair- gc1 ðsÞ 0 ... 0
ings were studied and in all cases the new DRGA method 6 0 gc2 ðsÞ . . . 0 7
6 7
gives more accurate interaction assessment and the best Gc ðsÞ ¼ 6 7.
4 ... ... ... ... 5
pairings. However, DRGA is often controller dependent
0 0 ... gcn ðsÞ
[14], which makes it more difficult to calculate and to be
understood by practical control engineers. Assume that the system is open loop stable and the pro-
To combine the advantages of both RGA and cess matrix G(s) is non-singular at steady state. The loop
DRGA, this work employs the steady state gain and pairing problem defines the control system structure,
bandwidth of the process transfer function elements i.e., which of the available plant inputs are to be used
to provide a more comprehensive description for loop to control each of the plant outputs. The most popular
interactions. Then, a new loop pairing criterion based loop pairing method is the RGA and NI based pairing
on the new interaction measure which results in rules as follows [6,10,15]:
minimum loop interactions are proposed in terms of Define relative gain
effective relative gain array (ERGA) of the process. ðoy i =ouj Þall loops open
The main advantages of this method are: (1) compared kij ¼
with DRGA method, it also provides a comprehensive ðoy i =ouj Þall other loops close except for loopy i
uj

description of dynamic interaction among individual

and RGA as
loops without requiring the specification of the control- 2 3
ler type and with much less computation; (2) it results in k11 k12 ... k1n
a less conservative controller when the detuning factor 6k k22 ... k2n 7
6 21 7
design method is used; and (3) it is very simple for field K¼6 7
4... ... ... ...5
engineers to understand and work out pairing deci-
sions in practical applications. Several examples, for kn1 kn2 ... knn
which the RGA based loop pairing criterion gives an which can be calculated by [10]
inaccurate interaction assessment, are employed to dem-
K ¼ G  G
T ; ð1Þ
onstrate the effectiveness of the proposed interaction
measure and loop pairing criterion. where the operator  is the Hadamard product and G
T
represents the transpose of inverse of G. The RGA
based pairing criterion is:
2. Preliminaries
• the paired RGA elements are closest to 1.0;
Consider a multivariable system with n-inputs and n- • all the paired RGA elements are positive;
outputs as shown in Fig. 1, where ri, i = 1, 2, . . ., n are the • large RGA elements should be avoided.
 Q. Xiong et al. / Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 741–747
Furthermore, if all n loops are closed, the multi-loop
system will be unstable for all possible (any) values of
controller parameters (i.e., it will be ‘‘structurally mono-
tonic unstable’’), if the NI is negative, i.e.
jGð0Þj
NI ¼ Qn < 0;
i¼1 g ii ð0Þ
where jG(0)j denotes the determinant of matrix G(0).
The sign of NI, i.e. NI > 0, provides a necessary stability
condition and consequently, constitutes a complemen-
tary tool to the RGA in variable pairing selection.
One of the main advantages of these methods is that
the interaction depends on only the steady state gains.
This information is easily obtained from simple identifi-
cation experiments or steady state design models. A po-
tential weakness of these methods, however, is the same
fact that they only use the steady state gains which are
based on the assumption of perfect loop control to
determine loop pairing. We use the following example
to illustrate this point.
Example 1. Consider a process given by [14]
2 3
5e
40s e
4s
6 100s þ 1 10s þ 1 7
GðsÞ ¼ 6
4
5e
4s
7.
5e
40s 5
10s þ 1 100s þ 1
The RGA is


0.8333 0.1667
KðGð0ÞÞ ¼ .
0.1667 0.8333
This result implies the diagonal pairing 1–1/2–2 is a
good choice. Hence, according to the RGA based loop
pairing criterion, the pairing of 1–1/2–2 should be pre-
ferred for the smaller interaction to any one loop from
another closed loop. However, McAvoy et al. used
DRGA and optimal decentralized PI controllers for var-
ious configurations, and found that the diagonal pairing
resulted in a poor closed loop performance [14]. The off-
diagonal pairing 1–2/2–1 takes advantage of the fast
g21 (s) and g12(s) transfer functions to achieve better
response for y2:
1. there is very little interaction from y1 to y2;
2. the off-diagonal pairing y2 response is significantly
better than that of y2 with diagonal pairing;
3. the y1 response for the diagonal pairing is somewhat
better than that of the off-diagonal pairing when y2 is
given a step set point change.
The main reason for the poor performance of the
diagonal pairing is the dynamic properties of the
transfer functions. It can be easily seen that the time
constants and delays of 10 and 4 of the off-diagonal
elements are 10 times smaller than diagonal ones of 100
743
and 40. In such a case, pairing the faster loops (even
with smaller steady state gains) takes advantage of the
time scale decoupling such that seriousness of the
interactions from the slower loop would be reduced.
3. A modified loop pairing rule
In designing decentralized controllers for multivari-
able processes, it is desired that the interaction measures
and loop pairing will address the following issues:
(1) The interaction measure should consider the finite
bandwidth control, since the assumption of perfect
control is only valid for very low frequency range.
(2) The loop pairing decision should be controller
independent such that any controller type could
be designed after loop pairing.
(3) The pairing results in minimal interaction within
the interested frequency range not only statically
but also dynamically.
(4) It should be simple and easy to use for practical
engineers.
In a decentralized control system design, the individ-
ual loop is tuned around the critical frequency region of
the transfer function which is the region around the con-
trol system bandwidth. Thus, this is the frequency region
that should be focused upon when considering the effect
of interactions. Therefore, two factors in the open loop
transfer functions will affect the loop pairing decision:
1. Steady state gain: the steady state gain gij (0) of the
transfer function reflects the effect of the manipulated
variable uj to the controlled variable yi.
2. Response speed: response speed is accountable for
the sensitivity of the controlled variable yi to manip-
ulated variable uj and, consequently, the ability to
reject the interactions from other loops.
Since the response speed is proportional to the band-
width in frequency domain, we can use the bandwidth to
reflect both interactions from finite bandwidth control
and pairing loops to result in a fast response. Let
gij ðjxÞ ¼ gij ð0Þg0ij ðjxÞ;
where gij (0) and g0ij ðjxÞ are the steady state gain and
normalized transfer function of gij(jx), i.e. g0ij ð0Þ ¼ 1,
respectively.
In order to use both steady state gain and response
speed information for interaction measure and loop
pairing, we now define the effective gain eij for a partic-
ular transfer function as
Z xB;ij
eij ¼ gij ð0Þ jg0ij ðjxÞj dx; ð2Þ
0
744 Q. Xiong et al. / Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 741–747

effective relative gain between output variable yi and

input variable uj, /ij, as the ratio of two effective gains:
eij
/ij ¼ ;
^eij
where ^eij is the effective gain between output variable yi
and input variable uj when all other loops are closed.
When the effective relative gains are calculated for all
the input/output combinations of a multivariable pro-
Fig. 2. Response curve and effective energy of gij (jx). cess, it results in an array of the form similar to that
of RGA, we call it as effective RGA (ERGA):
2 3
where xB,ij for i, j = 1, 2, . . ., n are the bandwidths of /11 /12 . . . /1n
transfer function g0ij ðjxÞ and |•| is the absolute value of •. 6/ 7
6 21 /22 . . . /2n 7
For the frequency response of gij(jx) as shown in Fig. U¼6 7
4 ... ... ... ... 5
2, eij is the area covered by gij(jx) up to xB,ij, where xB,ij
is determined by the frequency where the magnitude of /n1 /n2 ... /nn
frequency response reduced to 0.707gij(0), i.e. which can be calculated by
pffiffiffi
gij ðjxB;ij Þ ¼ gij ð0Þ= 2. U ¼ E  E
T .
Since both RGA and ERGA use relative gains, the
Since jg0ij ðjxÞj represents the magnitude of the transfer
properties of RGA can be directly extended to ERGA:
function at various frequencies, eij of Eq. (2) can be con-
sidered the effective energy output of gij(jx) and the
1. The value of /ij is a measure of the effective interac-
effective gain matrix can be expressed as
2 3 tion expected in the ith loop if its output yi is paired
e11 e12 . . . e1n with uj.
6 7 2. The elements of the ERGA across any row, or any
6 e21 e22 . . . e2n 7
6 7 column, sum up to 1, i.e.
E¼6 7.
6... ... ... ...7
4 5 X n Xn
/ij ¼ /ij ¼ 1.
en1 en2 . . . enn
i¼1 j¼1
To simplify the calculation, we approximate the integra- 3. Let ^eij represent the loop i effective gain when all the
tion of eij by a rectangular area, i.e. other loops are closed, whereas /ij represents the nor-
eij  gij ð0ÞxB;ij ; i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n. mal, open loop effective gain, then:
1
Then, the effective gain matrix is given as: ^eij ¼ eij .
/ij
E ¼ Gð0Þ  X; ð3Þ
4. When /ij is negative, with other loops open, it pro-
where duces a change in yi in response to a change in uj,
2 3
g11 ð0Þ g12 ð0Þ . . . g1n ð0Þ totally opposite in direction to that when the other
6 g ð0Þ g ð0Þ . . . g2n ð0Þ 7 loops are closed.
6 21 22 7
Gð0Þ ¼ 6 7
4 ... ... ... ... 5 As NI < 0, based on steady state information, a suffi-
gn1 ð0Þ gn2 ð0Þ . . . gnn ð0Þ cient condition for the loop configuration to be unstable
and is provided and it can be used to eliminate those struc-
2 3 tures with unstable pairing options. Similar to RGA
xB;11 xB;12 ... xB;1n and NI based pairing rules, the ERGA and NI based loop
6x xB;22 ... xB;2n 7 pairing rules requires that manipulated and controlled
6 B;21 7
X¼6 7 variables in a decentralized control system be paired:
4 ... ... ... ... 5
xB;n1 xB;n2 ... xB;nn
(1) Corresponding ERGA elements are closest to 1.0.
are the steady state gain matrix and the bandwidth ma- (2) The NI is positive.
trix, respectively. Since eij is an indication of interaction (3) All paired ERGA elements are positive.
energy to other loops when loop yi
uj is closed, the big- (4) Large ERGA elements should be avoided.
ger the eij value is, the more dominant the loop will be.
Replacing the steady state gain matrix G(0) of Eq. (1) Here, both ERGA and NI play important roles for
by the effective gain matrix E of Eq. (3), we define the control structure selection. ERGA is used to measure
 Q. Xiong et al. / Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 741–747 745

interactions, while NI is used as a sufficient condition to Example 3. Consider a process given by [3]
rule out the closed loop unstable pairings. Since we are 2 3
5 2.5e
5s
using effective gains (energy) instead of simply, steady 6 4s þ 1 ð2s þ 1Þð15s þ 1Þ 7
state gains, dynamic interactions up to the critical fre- 6 7
GðsÞ ¼ 6 7.
quency can be effectively reflected. Therefore, compar- 4
4e
6s 1 5
ing ERGA method with RGA and DRGA, we may 20s þ 1 3s þ 1
expect that:
RGA: k11 = 0.3333 implies off-diagonal pairing.
1. In addition to steady state gains, only bandwidth The bandwidth of each element is xB,11 = 0.25,
need to be calculated in ERGA method, it is far easier xB,12 = 0.066, xB,21 = 0.05 and xB,22 = 0.333. Hence
 
to calculate than those in DRGA methods. 1.2500 0.1650
2. ERGA combines both steady state gain and band- E¼ ;

0.2000 0.3330
width (effective energy) in measuring the loop interac-
tions, it should provide better pairing results than and ERGA: /11 = 0.9265 implies diagonal pairing.
that of RGA based pairing and comparable with This loop pairing decision was obtained by Grosdi-
DRGA ones. dier and Morari [3] through analyzing both magnitude
3. Since ERGA only uses information of open loop and phase characteristics of the interaction between the
process transfer functions, it is controller type two loops.
independent.
Example 4. Consider a 3 · 3 process [16] given by
2 3

2e
s 1.5e
s e
s
4. Case studies
6 10s þ 1 sþ1 sþ1 7
6 7
6 7
In this section, we use various examples to show the 6 1.5e
s e
s
2e
s 7
GðsÞ ¼ 6 7.
effectiveness of ERGA method in both simplicity and 6 sþ1 sþ1 10s þ 1 7
6 7
correctness. 4 e
s
2e
s 1.5e
s 5
sþ1 10s þ 1 sþ1
Example 2 (Continue with Example 1). For this exam-
ple, k11 = 0.8333 implies diagonal pairing. The RGA of the system is
The four bandwidths are calculated: xB,11 = 0.01,
xB,12 = 0.1, xB,21 = 0.1 and xB,22 = 0.01. 2 3

0.9302 1.1860 0.7442
Hence the effect gain matrix is 6 7
K ¼ 4 1.1860 0.7442
0.9302 5.
" #
0.0500 0.1000 0.7442
0.9302 1.1860
E¼ ;

0.5000 0.0500
Obviously, two possible parings 1–2/2–1/3–3 and 1–3/
and ERGA: /11 = 0.0476. It strongly suggests off-diago- 2–2/3–1 are comparable because all related RGA ele-
nal pairing. ments are close to 1. Therefore, RGA pairing approach
cannot determine which pairing is better.
In order to test the pairing results for this process, The bandwidth matrix of the system is
McAvoy et al. [14] designed two sets of optimal PI con- 2 3
trollers for diagonal and off-diagonal pairings, respec- 0.1 1 1
tively. For each configuration, two controller gains and 6 7
X¼4 1 1 0.1 5.
two integral gains are optimized for a step change in y1
1 0.1 1
followed by a step change in y2 using the same objective
function that was used for the optimal control calcula- The ERGA is then obtained as
tion. Equal weighting is given to the measurements and 2 3
the manipulated variables. In calculating the errors for 0.0554 0.6977 0.2468
y1 and y2 the difference between these measurements 6 7
U ¼ 4 0.6977 0.2468 0.0554 5.
and their set points is used. Since the minimization in-
0.2468 0.0554 0.6977
volved in tuning the PI controllers is non-convex, several
different starting points are used to determine the best This indicates the best paring is 1–2/2–1/3–3 because the
values of the tuning parameters. After all, it is concluded corresponding ERGA elements are much closer to 1
that the DRGA correctly indicates that an off-diagonal than the other option. This was confirmed by the gener-
pairing produces a better overall control system response alized dynamic relative gain (GDRG) approach [16].
than that of the diagonal pairing. However, the proposed method is much simpler.
746 Q. Xiong et al. / Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 741–747

Example 5. Consider a 4 · 4 industrial reactor/recycle to those produced by the pairing option suggested by
system [17] given by RGA. Nevertheless, the proposed method is much more
2 3.96ð197sþ1Þ 0.536ð258sþ1Þ 9.7
3 direct and the computation is much easier.
0 49.4s2 þ14.1sþ1 83.3s2 þ18.3sþ1 24.3sþ1
6 7
6 0.00111 0.044
0.0152e
32s 0.039e
20s 7
6 s 46.9s2 þs s s 7 5. Conclusions
GðsÞ ¼ 6
6
15.96ð529sþ1Þ
7.
7

232.2 139.2
6 0 32.2sþ1 10 417s2 þ204sþ1 7.27sþ1 5
7
4 In this paper, both steady state gain and bandwidth

0.582
2.54ð8.11sþ1Þ 0.0462ð45.6sþ1Þe

35s

0.0358e
30s of the process were used to provide a simple yet compre-
s 6.25s3 þ5s2 þs 306s3 þ35s2 þs s
hensive description of loop interactions for MIMO
Since interaction analysis via the RGA involves steady processes. The ERGA can be conveniently calculated
state information, for processes that contain pure inte- by control engineers since the bandwidth can be easily
grator elements that have no steady state, the steady obtained from the given transfer function matrix. The
state gain and RGA of integrating processes can be cal- effectiveness of the method was demonstrated by several
culated using a special method proposed by Arkun and examples, for which the RGA based loop pairing
Downs [18]. Let us consider criterion gives an inaccurate interaction assessment,
while the proposed interaction measure and loop pair-
1 ing criterion provides accurate results and they are very
I¼
s easy to be calculated. Furthermore, the ERGA method
is not only an effective tool for loop pairing, but also
and substitute I into the original transfer function very useful in helping to design the decentralized and
matrix to obtain decoupling control systems. The design of the decentral-
K ¼ lim GðsÞ. ized controller, especially, for high dimensional pro-
s!0
cesses using ERGA information as a detuning factor
Finally determine RGA by is currently under investigation, the results will be re-
RGA ¼ lim K  ðK
1 Þ
T ported later.
I!1

which is calculated as [17]

2 3 References
0 0.107 0.148 0.745
6 7 [1] P. Grosdidier, M. Morari, A computer aided methodology for
6
0.072 0.196 0.829 0.046 7
K¼6 6 0
7 the design of decentralized controllers, Comput. Chem. Eng. 11
4 0.723 0.067 0.210 7
5 (1987) 423–433.
[2] M.S. Chiu, Y. Arkun, Decentralized control structure selection
1.072
0.027
0.044 0 based on integrity considerations, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 29 (1990)
369–373.
indicates parings: 1–4/2–3/3–2/4–1. [3] P. Grosdidier, M. Morari, Interaction measures for systems under
decentralized control, Automatica 22 (1986) 309–319.
To use ERGA method, the bandwidth matrix of G(s) [4] M.-J. He, W.-J. Cai, New criterion for control loop configuration
and ERGA are obtained, respectively, as of multivariable processes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. in press.
[5] D.E. Seborg, T.F. Edgar, D.A. Mellichamp, Process Dynamics
2 3 and Control, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1989.
0 5.6400 4.3800 0.0410 [6] E.H. Bristol, On a new measure of interactions for multivariable
6 1.4500 0.1750 1.4500 1.4500 7 process control, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 11 (1966) 133–
6 7
X¼6 7 134.
4 0 0.0310 0.0710 0.1380 5 [7] F.G. Shinskey, Process Control Systems, McGraw-Hill, New
1.4500 1.2980 0.4550 1.4500 York, 1988.
[8] E.A. Wolff, S. Skogestad, Operation of integrated three-product
and (Petlyuk) distillation columns, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 34 (1995)
2 3 2094–2103.
0 0.7856 0.2461
0.0047
[9] J.E. Hansen, S.B. Jørgensen, J. Heath, J.D. Perkins, Control
6 0.0562
0.5078 1.2895 0.1621 7 structure selection for energy integrated distillation column, J.
6 7
U¼6 7. Process Control 8 (1998) 185–195.
4 0 0.3174
0.1600 0.8426 5 [10] P. Grosdidier, M. Morari, Closed-loop properties from steady-
0.9438 0.4048
0.3486 0 state gain information, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 24 (1985) 221–
235.
This indicates parings: 1–4/2–1/3–2/4–3. This is the [11] M. Witcher, T.J. McAvoy, Interacting control systems: steady
same as the pairing option given by the DRGA ap- state and dynamic measurement of interaction, ISA Trans. 16
(1977) 83–90.
proaches [14,17]. Robinson et al. [17] confirmed this [12] E.H. Bristol, Recent results on interactions in multivariable
conclusion and they showed that the transients pro- process control, in: Proceedings of the 71st Annual AIChE
duced by this pairing option are significantly superior Meeting, Houston, TX, USA, 1979.
 Q. Xiong et al. / Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 741–747 747

[13] L. Tung, T. Edgar, Analysis of control–output interactions in
dynamic systems, AIChE J. 27 (1981) 690–693.
[14] T. McAvoy, Y. Arkun, R. Chen, D. Robinson, P.D. Schnelle, A
new approach to defining a dynamic relative gain, Control Eng.
Practice 11 (2003) 907–914.
[15] A. Niederlinski, A heuristic approach to the design of linear
multivariable interacting subsystems, Automatica 7 (1971) 691–
701.
[16] H.-P. Huang, M. Ohshima, I. Hashimoto, Dynamic interaction and
multiloop control system design, J. Process Control 4 (1994) 15–27.
[17] D. Robinson, R. Chen, T. McAvoy, D. Schnelle, An optimal
control based approach to designing plantwide control system
architectures, J. Process Control 11 (2001) 223–236.
[18] Y. Arkun, J. Downs, A general method to calculate input-output
gains and the RGA for integrating processes, Comput. Chem.
Eng. 14 (1990) 1101–1110.