Voices: McMillan & Weiner

What Are the Benefits of Advanced Process Control?

How Good Is Good? McMillan and Weiner Talk with Lewis Gordon about APC benefit techniques such as Model Predictive Control

By Greg McMillan, Stan Weiner

Stan: This month, we continue the thread we started last month—sharing the experience gained over the 38-year career of Lewis Gordon, a principal control systems engineer retired from Invensys. Last month, we focused on tuning and loop performance monitoring software. Here, we explore how to approach estimating and proving the benefits from applying advanced process control (APC) techniques such as model predictive control (MPC).

Greg: In previous columns and blogs, I advocated the use of a metric to quantify improvements in process efficiency and capacity, preferably in dollars, immediately before and after basic process control improvements such as better field measurements and valves, control strategies and feed-forward control.

Stan: Considering that an MPC can be switched between automatic and manual to show "APC on" and "APC off" performance on demand, we asked Lew, "How do you quantify the economic benefits of an APC project?"

Lew: The previous column listed the three basic metrics for performance improvement— production rate and value, energy consumption per unit of product and yield per unit of feed. Comparing "before" and "after" values for these metrics is the usual approach. Still, many things can change over the course of a project that will cloud the results. Changes in process equipment and characteristics, product specifications and the costs of energy and/or feed will generate changes in these metrics that are unrelated to the project implementation.

So although it's more difficult, expensive and time-consuming, the only truly fair way is to compare averages for these metrics from APC-on and APC-off periods at the end of a project.

Many random things happen in the plant every day that affect control system performance. So the only accurate way to get a good comparison is to expose the "new" and "old" control systems to these random events across a series of APC-on and APC-off periods. The list of such influences is long. Variations in production rate, raw materials properties, fuel characteristics, operator influences, ambient conditions, product demand and quality specifications, upstream and downstream operations, mechanical factors such as equipment modifications, process factors such as fouling and changes in catalyst activity, and field automation system issues such as plugging, sensor coating and valve wear will make themselves felt.

Also read "Bringing Advanced Process Control Home"

The net effect of truly random influences will present itself as a normal distribution of these metrics, calculated for a series of APC-on and APC-off periods. Where the observed distribution is not normal, in the statistical sense, there are specific reasons that need to be identified. For example, averages and medians may be forced apart by nonlinearities as the operating point moves closer to an optimum, forcing the statistical distribution to be asymmetric. In such a case, the standard deviation on the side closest to the optimum is more important.

The rules of statistical analysis and the characteristics of plant dynamics and disturbances define the random tests needed. All "normal" variations can be captured by random on-off testing, with on and off times, sample interval and transition times all based on the plant and MPC response times and known disturbance periods.

The total on and off test time must be long enough to include all combinations of significant variations. The shortest individual test time should be three times the longest settling time. The longest individual test time should be the longest test time plus the longest disturbance interval. Disturbances at known periods and times can be used to set the on and off test boundary (test start and end times).

Finally, data collected during the transition between systems should not be used for calculating performance metrics, as this data will always bias the results in favor of the poorer performing configuration. The minimum transition time should be greater than the larger of the longest disturbance settling time or the optimizer settling time.

Abnormal operation and day-to-night variations, instrument failures, manual control and the like should be removed from the data prior to statistical analysis.

Greg: Dennis Cima alluded to these requirements for documenting MPC performance in Control Talk, July 2013, "The Route to Model Predictive Control Success." Dennis emphasized the need to screen the data and remove outliers before benefits are reported. What are your guidelines on sampling for the statistical analysis of benefits?

Lew: Data sampling intervals should be less than half the shortest process variable period of oscillation to avoid aliasing. Set the sampling interval to be less than 10% of the dominant time constant, but not so short as to simply be capturing noise.

Stan: How do you use results reporting to inspire people, rather than make them perspire?

Lew: Operations should be credited publicly when things go well, but never criticized publicly when things go wrong. You never want to make people look bad in front of their peers. Unfairly preferential praise and criticism both create resentment. The goal is to create team spirit and a common desire to excel.

Greg: What is needed for an APC project to deliver benefits?

Lew: First, don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish. An advanced control performance improvement project of any significant size needs an APC study to provide a solid basis for project definition and planning, and the economic justification that will command the necessary time and resources. A study provides clarification of objectives, priorities and scope. This leads to selection of the most appropriate technology and more realistic scheduling and staffing plans.

A study also can cut project cost by identifying work already done, defining a shorter schedule, eliminating later scope changes, and promoting more efficient project execution. A process study also promotes customer and supplier familiarity, and develops working relationships early on.

Finally, a study increases the probability of success through a better definition of what data and information needs to be provided by the customer and the details of the work to be done. An extreme example of how this can go wrong was one APC project that was sold without a study. When the APC team showed up to execute the project, the customer simply dumped a foot high stack of old Fortran code listings on the table and said, "This is what we have now. We just need you to optimize and implement what this does into the new DCS." After a long struggle, neither side was satisfied with the result, technically or economically.

On the other hand, a process study also can disqualify projects that don't have sufficient potential economic benefits to proceed, thereby avoiding wasting time and money on both sides. A bad project does no one any good—both sides lose.



Greg: I would think getting everyone involved in the study and the project into the meeting, with some understanding of the implications of statements, would be best.

Maybe there is Greg and Stan anti-matter somewhere in the universe who are salesmen. Any meeting would result in a tremendous release of energy and strange matter. This leads us to the "Top 10 Reasons Why Hopefully There is Only One Stan and Greg in the Universe"

10. Greg and Stan "look-alike" contests are more challenging.
9. Automation "Top 10 Lists" are a specialty rather than a commodity.
8. Cartoonist Ted is not overwhelmed with ideas.
7. Engineers aren't inspired to do stand-up comedy routines during project meetings.
6. Young engineers don't aspire to become just like Greg and Stan.
5. Society doesn't get confused by smiling and laughing engineers.
4. Florida gets time to get ready for another Stan, including evacuation plans.
3. ISA standards committees get time to address Greg and Stan statements.
2. Just two wild and crazy guys were too much for management.
1. Anti-matter Greg and Stan are salesmen.

More from this voice

Title

Bonkers vortex meter spells double trouble

Control Talk columnists Greg McMillan and Stan Weiner offer up a bit of humor along with the answer to April's Puzzler on why a vortex meter measuring toothpaste went bonkers.

06/05/2005

Top 10 signs a startup has gone wrong

Control Talk columnists Greg McMillan and Stan Weiner, PE, offer up a bit of humor regarding startups, and how Stan avoided being fired despite a recent Monday morning hangover.

07/01/2005

Intrinsically wicked

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner rustle up answers to why an electrode changed when it was inserted, then provide a bit of humor with a Top Ten list of reasons not to retire.

08/22/2005

Top ten signs you're an endangered species

Why is the instrument engineer such a rare find? The answers may be in the standard dialog on the causes of endangerment. Here are the Top Ten Signs you are an Endangered Species.

09/11/2005

Top 10 signs your software is over the (leading) edge

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner discuss standard mixing design practices for neutralization control and offer up the Top Ten Signs you are over the edge with your leading-edge software.

10/19/2005

Daytime talk is a hoot and a holler

McMillan and Weiner imagine a transcript of a control engineer on a daytime talk show and offer up the Top 10 reasons why you won’t find a model-based control text book anywhere in today’s college classroom.

11/06/2005

Are you grounded in reality?

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner get an insightful reply as to why a plant instrument engineer said the control schemes and instruments successfully used at other locations won't work in his plant.

12/23/2005

Five rules for helping a middle-aged engineer

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner provide their unique brand of commentary on the handling of cascade loops, then offer up some humor with the Top 10 reasons you should migrate to a new DCS.

01/16/2006

Resolutions are made to be broken

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner provide their unique brand of commentary on process trends and dynamics, then offer up some humor with their Top 10 broken New Year’s resolutions.

02/13/2006

The Bad Hall of Fame

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner induct some really bad instruments, final control elements, and systems into the Bad Hall of Fame, then proffer the Top 10 signs your life is like a Reality TV show.

03/20/2006

15 case-in-points of common control myths

In a time-proven tradition of subjecting everything to scrutiny and ridicule, columnists McMillan and Weiner offer up the following 15 examples used to help illustrate and demystify control mythology.

04/18/2006

Intoxicating answers

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner describe the period of time between when you first take a drink and when you first recognize the effect and bypass the next round for coffee as dead time.

08/10/2006

Flashbacks

In conjunction with their retirement motto of better late than never, Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner offer answers to the May and June Puzzlers, and the Top 10 signs your project is behind schedule.

09/15/2006

Still life

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner invite Wendy Kramer, Mark Sowell and Control Hall of Fame inductee Terry Tolliver to comment on improving the control of batch distillation applications.

10/13/2006

Tuning rule bonanza

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner say in order to get good performance, you need to measure and track the process, the controls, and the equipment under actual real-time operating conditions.

11/07/2006

Talking about talking

Columnists Greg McMillan and Stan Weiner, PE, bring their wits and more than 70 years of process control experience to bear on your questions, comments and problems in this month’s installment of Control Talk.

12/15/2006

The best of the best, Part 1

Columnists Greg McMillan and Stan Weiner, PE, bring their wits and more than 70 years of process control experience to bear on your questions, comments and problems in this month’s installment of Control Talk.

01/05/2007

The best of the best — Part 2

In the second installment of this two-part series, Control Talk columnists Greg McMillan and Stan Weiner, PE, bring their wits and more than 70 years of process control experience to bear on your questions.

02/07/2007

Best of the best, Part 3

In the third installment of this series, Control Talk columnists Greg McMillan and Stan Weiner, PE, continue their interviews with the big names in process control. This time they talk with ISA Fellow Vernon Trevathan.

03/08/2007

Best of the best, Part 4

Control Talk columnists McMillan and Weiner continue their interviews with the big names in process control. This time they talk with Bob Heider, adjunct professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

04/12/2007