Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435

Model predictive control—Building a bridge between theory and practice

J. Brian Froisy
Aspen Technology, Houston, TX 77042, United States
Received 28 February 2006; received in revised form 15 May 2006; accepted 16 May 2006
Available online 25 July 2006

Abstract
This paper describes the development of an MPC product at AspenTech. A brief historical view sets the stage, describing collaboration with
university researchers that formed much of the technical foundation. Gaps between theory and practice were addressed during product development.
Major effort focused on eliminating the need for practitioners to understand control theory, while ensuring that controllers satisfy theoretical
requirements. This allows control strategies to be designed and implemented via configuration and tuning in a domain familiar to a process
operations engineer. Terms like eigenvalue, covariance, detectability, controllability, etc. are never exposed. Robust numerical algorithms and
software suitable for real time execution must augment the control theory foundation. Best practices and expertise are embedded in the software
realization, thus reducing the skill level required for success while still allowing experts to push the envelope. The resulting technical scalability
facilitates a wide range of process control practice in a single framework.
© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Model predictive control; MPC; Industrial process control; State-space

1. Introduction available theory without being encumbered by such relics. Past

Model predictive control, MPC, has influenced process con-
trol practice significantly during the past 20 years. Early MPC
technology (circa 1976) evolved principally in industrial set-
tings, followed by copious numbers of academic papers ana-
lyzing and extending the underlying theoretical basis. Some
MPC applications were one-of-a-kind, implemented for specific
applications. Others were based on more generally applicable
commercial products. Two survey papers by Qin and Badgwell
(1997, 2003) describe MPC products available during the past
10 years. These surveys summarize product features that relate
to important issues in process control practice.
Theoretical insight into MPC increased rapidly, but actual
practice evolved more slowly. Practitioners, working with tools
that were firmly rooted in the past, faced increasingly chal-
lenging applications that forced them to develop clever ad hoc
solutions to address real-world issues. Unfortunate side effects
of evolution, today’s MPC technology and products often con-
tain “relics of the past” similar to unused genes found in liv-
ing creatures. Eventually, AspenTech began development of a
new product with the philosophy to start fresh, using the best
E-mail address: Brian.Froisy@aspentech.com.
practice was retained when appropriate, however. The resulting
product is formally known as the APC State-Space Controller,
a module of the aspenONETM Advanced Process Control Solu-
tion. The term SSC is used in this paper for brevity.
AspenTech and predecessor companies had supported vari-
ous university research consortia. Much of the theoretical basis
for SSC can be traced to research from the Texas-Wisconsin
Modeling and Control Consortium, TWMCC, starting with its
inception in 1993. This long-term relationship resulted in a
research thread that built incrementally on prior research. Incor-
porating new results was much easier than embracing new,
potentially outstanding, results that did not quite fit into this
continuum. A hallmark paper by Muske and Rawlings (1993)
defines the starting point. Much of the product development
involved filling theoretical and practical gaps from this initial
point. Gap closure came from both academic research and inter-
nal AspenTech efforts.
The paper proceeds as follows. A short historical review of
MPC provides an overall perspective. Then, the motivation for
a new product is described. This includes specifying the range
and types of control applications to be addressed. In a sense,
this defines a certain view of process control practice and tools
needed to achieve successful applications. Gaps between theory
and practice are described in a separate section. An additional

0098-1354/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2006.05.044
 J.B. Froisy / Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435
section is devoted to a few simple examples illustrating impor-
tant technical advantages compared with previous generation
products. No CPC paper would be complete without predictions
about future directions. These are given in a forward-looking
section, which outlines areas for future research. Finally, con-
cluding remarks are made including answering the question:
why did it take so long?
2. Historical perspective
Early papers (Cutler & Ramaker, 1980; Richalet, Rault,
Testud, & Papon, 1978) document the generally accepted begin-
ning of industrial MPC. The initial work was probably being
done at about the time of CPC 1 in 1976. A long sequence
of MPC-oriented papers have appeared at every CPC since
then, including one on “Model Algorithmic Control” at CPC
2 (Mehra, Rouhani, Eterno, Richalet, & Rault, 1981).
Five years later, at CPC 3, a session was devoted to MPC
with focus on industrial applications. Although rather simple
by current standards, the applications were clearly economi-
cally significant. Two papers (Froisy & Richalet, 1986; Garcia
& Prett, 1986) foretold of new directions for IDCOM and DMC,
the notable early MPC variants. An important theme was the
need to address a wide range of real-world issues such as multi-
objective and economic optimization, dealing with hard and soft
constraints, and robustness to modeling errors.
There were two sessions on MPC at CPC 4 in 1991,
attesting to its growing popularity. Some papers described
industrial applications. Others from the academic community
addressed theoretical issues such as stability of constrained
MPC (Zafirou, 1991). Two papers (Morari & Lee, 1991; Ricker,
1991) dissected industrial MPC approaches, essentially reverse-
engineering them in terms of traditional control engineering
theory. The analysis comparing theory and practice, notably with
practice coming first, was an important step. It exposed deficien-
cies both in practice and theory, thereby helping set new research
directions. MPC was interpreted in a state-space framework, an
important step needed to meld MPC with established theory such
as linear quadratic control. However, MPC practice was largely
formulated as a constrained optimization problem meaning that
significant gaps still existed between theory and practice.
By the time of CPC 5 in 1996, the single MPC session had
a “recent advances” paper and one on nonlinear MPC. Also
notable was a survey and overview of industrial MPC (Qin
& Badgwell, 1997) describing various commercially available
MPC products. These products which had largely evolved during
the previous 10 years tended to be descendents of IDCOM and
DMC. A few such as SMOC and RMPCT were not direct descen-
dants. SMOC has the distinction of using state-space models and
feedback via a Kalman filter, unlike the other cited products.
More recent products, such as one from ABB, also use a state-
space formulation. The existence of several products confirmed
the commercial significance and maturity of MPC technology. A
detailed look at the survey exposes the fact that these products
had ad hoc features needed to deal with inherent limitations,
such as those noted by the academic community. Lack of an
explicit disturbance model, special parameters for models with
1427
integrators and various parameters to deal with the finite model
dynamic move plan calculation are examples.
A notable paper was published between CPC 4 and CPC 5
(Muske & Rawlings, 1993). It provided a framework for infinite
horizon, constrained MPC that matched real-world needs fairly
well. For example, a structure for disturbance models that meets
important requirements and demonstrates nominal stability for
constrained control was described. Another important CPC 5
paper by Wright (1997) shows how to formulate a general (lin-
ear) MPC optimization problem for efficient computation.
There were no specific MPC sessions at CPC 6, but related
papers appeared among other sessions. Perhaps this is a mark
of maturity. Eastman Chemical Company documented its
experience with infinite horizon state-space MPC (Vogel &
Downs, 2002). Their implementation was based on the 1993
Muske and Rawlings paper. Several papers addressed MPC with
nonlinear models, including one (Young, Bartusiak, & Fontaine,
2002) that describes development of the NLMPC algorithm at
ExxonMobil Chemical Company in conjunction with university
and private collaborators. Young describes the technology as
“by no means mature” but reminiscent of linear MPC of the late
1980s. This is probably a realistic assessment, suggesting that
maturation is now occurring. The rate at which this and compet-
ing nonlinear MPC packages evolve will certainly be a function
of the economic benefits they achieve. In today’s competitive
environment, compelling economic benefits are essential to
obtain product and technology development funding.
The trajectory of MPC since CPC 1 has gone from initiation,
through rapid growth impacting process control practice and
theory in important ways. It may appear to have reached a steady
state—at least for linear MPC. However, a step change is on the
horizon even for linear MPC.
3. A new MPC product—why?
Why would a company invest in a new linear MPC product?
And what does this have to do with process control practice? A
few short answers follow.
Despite being mature, existing MPC products are not suit-
able for all applications or they do not capture all the benefits
possible when they do apply. Compromises are inherent with
finite models and/or finite prediction and control horizons.
The typical approach of reconciling model predictions with
measurements by simply biasing predictions is clearly not
optimal. Shortcuts in formulating the “dynamic move plan”
optimization due to computational complexity result in subop-
timal control, even if an optimal estimate of the future process
evolution were available. Of course, these are the things that
the academic community had been saying since first dissecting
early industrial MPC technology.
There are important non-technical reasons to invest in a new
controller. The high level of expertise required to implement and
maintain MPC is an impediment to more widespread utilization.
Long-term total cost of ownership is an undeniable issue for both
vendors and end user companies. The need to achieve superior
performance, even with non-expert applications engineers, is a
driving force in today’s worldwide competitive environment.
1428 J.B. Froisy / Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435
The petroleum refining industry greatly influenced the evolu-
tion of MPC. There the emphasis was on control near operating
limits, often driven by a constraint-seeking internal optimiza-
tion or simply the objective to maximize production. Certainly
dynamic control was important, but not as strong a driving force.
Product blending, a normal industry practice, inherently reduces
the need to satisfy product quality on a minute-by-minute basis.
Some, but certainly not all, chemical manufacturing has simi-
lar characteristics. Short-term quality is often more important
than for petroleum refining. And quality becomes increasingly
important as manufacturing gets closer to the end user. An impor-
tant objective of the new MPC product was to enable improved
dynamic control for processes where product quality is empha-
sized, while retaining the ability to optimize and operate at
constraints if necessary.
There are three important technical characteristics of SSC:
• state-space model;
• state estimation;
• infinite horizon, constrained dynamic move plan.
These enabling technologies will help address an increas-
ingly challenging set of industrial control problems. Physical
systems are naturally represented using the state-space model
structure. Real processes have internal connections (states) and
can exhibit a range of fast and slow dynamics, including inte-
grating and unstable modes, all of which are naturally described
in a state-space structure. State estimation provides the mech-
anism to detect disturbances entering the plant. Once detected,
disturbances can be optimally rejected by the infinite horizon
controller.
From a high level, the major steps in all approaches to MPC
can be summarized with the following questions:
• Where is the process now?
• Where is it going, if there is no intervention?
• Where do we want it to go?
• What is the best plan to get it there?
The characteristics of all MPC variants are effectively deter-
mined by how they address these questions.
State estimation answers the first two questions. The estimate
of current process outputs, given all available measurements,
answers the first one. The future trajectory, where the process is
going, is calculated by evolving the state estimate into the future.
A good state estimate is important because If you do not know
where the process is and where it is going, your control plan
cannot be optimal.
The fact is that commercially available products have largely
ignored this basic premise. For the most part, feedback enters by
applying an output bias to model predictions. There is no true
state estimation. Why? This is a relic of the past.
Fig. 1 is a concise view of important functions required to
answer the four basic MPC questions. The Model and Filter
blocks perform state estimation. Note that the model is the aug-
mented (plant + disturbance) model.
The estimated state, X, includes plant states and estimates of
the unmeasured disturbances, D. The model “sees” manipulated
Fig. 1. MPC functional blocks.
inputs, U, and measured disturbances, F. The estimator com-
pares measured outputs, Y, with model predictions to update
the state estimate. Optimizer objectives, O, includes operating
limits and targets plus optional economic costs with priorities
defining how conflicting objectives or infeasibilities should be
handled. The control block calculates the optimal move plan
based on the estimated state and feasible targets determined by
the target optimization.
Control performance improvements are definitely expected
from this approach with explicit state estimation. A disturbance
model that augments the basic plant model is a prerequisite.
The (implied) disturbance model when simply updating out-
put biases simply cannot do effective state estimation. Future
predictions are inherently limited to knowledge of past inputs.
Regardless of model structure, the internal process dynamic state
does not get feedback with bias-only updating.
Improved performance from state estimation comes at a
cost. The applications engineer is required to configure and
tune a disturbance model. An important challenge was to
design an environment that facilitates this step when done by
a process operations engineer lacking formal control theory
training.
The infinite horizon constrained dynamic move plan makes
it possible to find the true optimal future trajectory, based on the
optimal state estimate. Prior industry practice always involved
compromise. Manipulated variables were calculated for a lim-
ited number of future points, often with some type of pattern
that determined when changes would be allowed. This has been
referred to as MV blocking or compaction. It results in the
need to recalculate the move plan at each time step, even when
there are no changes affecting the process! Nominal stability
was likely, if not guaranteed, when the move plan extended far
enough and the final MV values were constrained to be at steady
state. Similar restrictions were sometimes placed on the future
samples where controlled variables, and hence the optimization
objective function, were calculated. These compromises are also
relics of the past, forced by the need to simplify time-consuming
optimization computations.
An infinite horizon formulation largely eliminates compro-
mises, but is computationally demanding. Vastly improved com-
puter power alone was not enough to make it practical. Exploita-
tion of problem structure was the key. Part of our internal devel-
opment was to do this and extend published results to gain even
greater benefit.
Control performance improvements can be expected with the
“no compromise” infinite horizon move plan. Results for the
 J.B. Froisy / Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435
unconstrained case are identical to an optimal regulator—after
all, this is the optimal plan. Current generation commercial con-
trollers simply do not have this property.
Performance from state estimation comes at the price of
defining a disturbance model and tuning the resulting filter.
Performance improvements from an infinite horizon move plan
comes with a computational price when compared with prior
shortcut approaches. On the other hand, dynamic controller con-
figuration and tuning is actually simpler.
The answer to: why build a new MPC controller? Provide
higher performance and make it easier for non-experts to actu-
ally configure, tune and maintain real-world MPC applications.
The combination of state estimation and an infinite horizon con-
strained move plan provides the technical foundation needed to
meet these objectives.
The secondary question was how this all relates to the practice
of process control. Current practice with MPC is guided by the
capabilities and limitations of available technology and prod-
ucts. Configuration and tuning parameters inherent in the tech-
nology and/or product dictate, or at least influence, the project
workflow. Our product development, at an early stage, contin-
ually addressed the question of how to expose the underlying
capability to the applications engineer responsible for config-
uring and/or maintaining the controller. There was a continual
tension between the desire for simplicity and that for extended
functionality to satisfy an increasingly diverse class of control
problems. Were we building this for the novice user with simple
applications or for the expert capable of pushing the envelope?
The simple answer is: Yes! We were building it for both.
This dual objective was challenging. A guiding principle was
to hide complexity, exposing as few choices and parameters as
feasible. Moreover, these should be mapped into the domain of
the process operations engineer whenever possible. In the case of
estimator tuning, the user does not enter disturbance and mea-
surement covariance matrices. These parameters are mapped
into “typical disturbances” and noise ratios by a layer isolating
the user from underlying control theory.
Hiding complexity and theory was not enough. We also
wanted to provide a built-in workflow with a balance of structure
and flexibility to support a methodical approach to controller
configuration, tuning and maintenance. Beyond that, it was
desirable to provide smart tuning defaults often based on plant
operating data. It remains to be seen how these concepts impact
process control practice. Initial response has been encouraging.
New users are able to quickly develop control applications, with
limited training.
4. Gaps between theory and practice
Theory and “toy problem” simulations clearly indicated that
a new generation of MPC could frequently outperform available
products. Some important questions were:
• Will the performance exist for practical applications?
• What surprises will emerge using infinite state-space versus
finite response models?
1429
• Is calculation of a “no compromise” infinite horizon, con-
strained move plan really feasible?
• What special initialization steps are required?
• How do issues like asynchronous, missing or invalid data
impact the nice theoretical basis?
Of course, the real list was longer—but not initially evident.
4.1. Prototype—Phase 1
A significant internal project commenced in late 1999 to
build a proof-of-concept prototype based mainly on published
theory and algorithms. The internal code name was MrC, for
Muske–Rawlings Controller. The objective was to answer some
of these questions and, in particular, mitigate risk before pro-
ceeding with all-out product development. State estimation and
infinite horizon move plan calculation, the two main techni-
cal advances, received major attention. Results were encour-
aging, at least to the “true believers”. This effort closed a
few theory-practice gaps, but mainly helped bring them into
focus. One notable gap was related to the usual assump-
tion that disturbances enter as random steps, regardless of
their entry point. This does not characterize the real world.
The solution was to incorporate more general disturbance
dynamics.
An important outcome in this phase was construction of a pro-
totype layer isolating the end-user engineer from control theory.
This demonstrated important “ease of use” ideas that persist in
SSC.
Specification of the disturbance model illustrates how the user
is isolated from theory. The augmented (plant + disturbance)
model must be detectable and there can be other restrictions
depending on the rank of the state to output (C) matrix. The user
builds a disturbance model by specifying “disturbance channels”
corresponding to plant model inputs and outputs. Invalid com-
binations are blocked. Also, an indication of “how observable”
the specified disturbances will be is provided to assist the user.
This is all done in a point-and-click environment appropriate for
a process operations engineer. Behind-the-scenes calculations
guarantee that the resulting estimator will be stable and offset-
free in the outputs. Furthermore, offset-free control is guaranteed
when there are sufficient degrees of MV freedom. This detail is
one of the gaps closed during the early development phase illus-
trating collaboration with the academic community (Muske &
Badgwell, 2002).
A detailed math document was developed during this early
phase, and updated as necessary. It was based on TWMCC
results and other open literature. This exercise forced the disci-
pline needed to expose issues requiring attention and helped for-
malize assumptions when necessary. In retrospect, the approach
proved to be important in guiding the team throughout product
development.
4.2. Prototype—Phase 2
A second prototype phase focused on closing gaps between
theory and practice. A “textbook” fixed gain Kalman filter
1430 J.B. Froisy / Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435
had been used in the first phase, ignoring important issues
such as:
• filter initialization;
• instrumentation failure;
• asynchronous measurements, including lab data;
• operator intervention.
These were ultimately addressed with a “dynamic Kalman
filter”. It is initialized in a smart way to allow immediate use
of state estimates. The gain is time-varying depending on mea-
surement availability. It will approach the steady state gain if
all measurements are available synchronously at each sample
instant.
Nice guarantees apply when all measurements are available.
Measurement loss due to operator action or instrumentation fail-
ure invalidates the guarantees. Is estimation still offset-free when
an output measurement is not available? The answer is yes for
the remaining outputs, but this was not immediately obvious. Of
more concern, what happens if a measurement loss results in an
undetectable system? The online software (built at a later stage)
checks detectability when measurement status changes. Critical
alerts are sent to the operator when necessary. Non-critical loss
is handled more leniently. The net result is that the estimator can,
within reason, continue to operate without the full complement
of measurements. Also, changes in measurement availability do
not cause abrupt changes in the state estimate.
Published results for efficient move plan calculation did not
include a direct pass-through term in the model. This was a short-
coming for the intended class of problems. A specific example
is the output of a PID controller when the setpoint changes. The
“proportional kick” results in immediate valve movement. It is
common for valve (in general, actuator) position to be a con-
strained output in the MPC controller. Tedious re-derivation and
programming was required.
The second prototype phase successfully closed the major
theory-practice gaps. The estimator proved to be the place where
most of the real-world issues had to be addressed. In retrospect,
there were no real gaps in the theory. The discipline enforced
while building a “real world” prototype provided the framework
to adapt practice to theory, retaining the objective that applica-
tions engineers would not need a formal understanding of control
theory.
4.3. Prototype—Phase 3
A third prototype phase began late 2002. The objective was to
construct a system (not a product) suitable for actual industrial
application. The idea was to embed the new controller in a real-
time framework supporting such things as an operator interface,
DCS connectivity, data validation, etc. Some of the framework
came from existing DMCplus® software and some was new,
consistent with long term plans for a future real-time control
and optimization environment.
The early prototype software included a mix of Visual Basic
(for the user interface), Matlab (control technology) and For-
tran/C++ (steady state optimization and dynamic move plan
optimization). A self-imposed requirement was that none of the
online calculations would use Matlab. This was another step in
producing an industrially hardened system. The prototype was
installed on a large process unit at a major chemical company.
This was not a “toy problem”. The plant model had 15 inputs,
25 outputs and 120 states.
The limitations of an output bias (i.e., a model that assumes
disturbances enter directly into the outputs) became apparent
during this stage. Input disturbances were available and eas-
ily constructed. However, they are not always the right choice.
They are most useful when unmeasured disturbances are likely
to enter with dynamics similar to process inputs (manipulated or
feedforward variables). Detectability of the augmented model is
theoretically required and offset-free output estimation is also a
necessity for practical applications. These restrictions must be
imposed.
The dilemma was how to specify state disturbances while
retaining the simplicity of output bias updates. Direct specifica-
tion of state disturbances was not an option for two reasons. It
would have been inconsistent with the guideline to hide com-
plexity. Secondly, the use of empirical state-space models meant
that individual states do not have understandable physical mean-
ing. There would be no basis for choosing specific states as the
location where disturbances entered. The solution was to find a
mapping from outputs to states, similar to the mapping between
inputs and states used for input disturbances. As a result, the
estimator configuration step allows disturbances to be specified
in terms of outputs with the map being automatically calculated.
A mix of input, state (based on the map) and output biases can
be specified, subject to conditions that guarantee detectability
and offset-free output estimation. This was significant gap filled
during product development.
State estimation and infinite horizon control were the two
main new areas, but by no means the only challenges. In a state-
space framework, infinite horizon control requires calculation
of steady state, i.e. state values at steady state. A numerical
optimization is required in the general case. States are decision
variables when a straightforward approach is used. This can
result in a time-consuming calculation. This issue was addressed
by reformulating the optimization to reduce the number of deci-
sion variables. This is another example of taking advantage of
problem structure to formulate a numerical solution that is both
efficient and robust. Particular attention was needed for mod-
els with integrating states. The end-user never sees any of this
detail.
During the phase three prototype, we began addressing
important modeling issues. Previously, it was assumed that a lin-
ear discrete state-space model was available. Ideally, the plant
model can be identified directly as a state-space model. Vari-
ous subspace model identification algorithms including a variant
available in the DMCplus Model package could satisfy this
need. An alternative scenario is that there is a pre-existing finite
response model. Software to convert these into state-space, using
published algorithms, was constructed to address this need.
Practitioners often use the term “model” to describe a specific
input–output relationship. This could be a finite model repre-
sented as a step response or possibly a SISO transfer function
 J.B. Froisy / Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435
Fig. 2. Model construction workflow.
model. An assembly of these (SISO step response or trans-
fer function models) describing all inputs and outputs is often
used as the overall model. This input–output assembly does
not reflect physical reality since multiple internal connections
between inputs and outputs normally exist. A MIMO state-space
structure is a more natural representation of the physical world.
Dynamic models based on physical principles have this struc-
ture, although they are normally nonlinear.
It is possible to construct a MIMO state-space model from
an input–output assembly. Restrictions exist on the model real-
ization. It must be a minimal realization to guarantee important
properties of the estimator and controller.
A flexible model construction workflow to obtain a plant
model in state-space form was developed during the project. It is
summarized in Fig. 2. Individual sub-models (SISO or MIMO)
from various sources can be merged into a final MIMO state-
space (minimal) realization. The engineering end-user continues
to work at the input–output level, with all the state-space detail
hidden.
The preferred path for empirical identification is via a sub-
space algorithm. FIR models are supported, allowing direct
import of pre-existing finite response models. The model library
option provides a means to directly enter simple transfer func-
tion models. Physical dynamic models, from external sources,
are naturally in nonlinear state-space form. These can be used
after appropriate linearization.
Model assembly takes place in the “Merge” operation which
manipulates equations to construct the necessary state-space
matrices. Parallel, series and feedback connections are handled
automatically and exactly.
There was not any need to extend theory. The (significant)
effort was to build a framework that allows the engineer to con-
tinue to work with an input–output mindset while supporting the
underlying state-space model.
The modeling story does not end once a minimal realiza-
tion describing the full input–output behavior is constructed.
The state order can be too large for practical use. In our expe-
rience, computational time for the infinite horizon move plan
is approximately quadratic with respect to state order. Model
reduction is therefore needed for large models. Models with
1431
fewer states can also provide more robust state estimation. One
particular algorithm was chosen after evaluation of several pub-
lished approaches. There was not any satisfactory approach to
model reduction for integrating and unstable states. This was
resolved with an internally developed algorithm for the unstable
partition.
Model reduction provides another example of how the engi-
neer is isolated from theory. Hankel singular values are used to
determine a cutoff point for state order. However, the engineer is
presented with a choice in terms of the number of states denoted
as: small, medium, large, and custom. The first three options
come from a specific range of Hankel singular values and Cus-
tom provides freedom when the pre-determined options are not
satisfactory. In any case, a user is presented with an overlay plot
of step responses for the original and reduced models to aid in
choosing the final size.
The technical issues encountered in the phase three proto-
type turned out to be mainly modeling related. In the end, it was
possible to retain an input–output perspective for both plant and
disturbance models. This required filling some important gaps
in published approaches. Significant effort went into numeri-
cal algorithms, especially when dealing with integrating states.
Additional software effort was required to host the new state-
space controller technology in a real-time environment with
support for DCS data connectivity and a human interface.
4.4. Prototype—Phase 4
The final prototype phase extended the previous work with
an application at another chemical company. The plant model
has 8 inputs, 20 outputs and 109 states.
Two new practical issues were addressed. One output (an
important product quality, measured by an online GC) had a
nonlinear response. Linearization was applied using a log trans-
form, thereby allowing the core model to remain linear. This is a
Wiener model. Hammerstein models (transformations on inputs)
are also supported. This is typical industrial practice with vari-
ous MPC products. Use of transforms with a state-space model
does not introduce complexity beyond that for finite response
models.
Control of calculated outputs is a second practical issue. The
usual practice of performing identification directly on a calcu-
lated quantity is not the best practice for state-space models.
State estimates are best done using directly measured outputs,
not calculations. The core plant state-space model should simply
relate measured outputs to measured inputs in order to describe
the state equations most efficiently. Assuming the calculation
is a linear combination of measured inputs and outputs, calcu-
lated outputs can be appended to the state-to-output (C) matrix
and direct pass through (D) matrix. Calculated variables inherit
dynamics from the model in a natural way. Once the core model
has been established, linear calculated outputs can be defined
without having to repeat identification calculations or other
“model construction” steps. Note that the estimator requires
only measured outputs for the state update. The optimization
and move plan employ calculated variables without any addi-
tional special configuration.
1432 J.B. Froisy / Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435

Fig. 3. Plant model.

We took advantage of the state-space structure during model

identification and construction in this prototype application.
Much of the identification was based on normal operating data,
greatly reducing the need for traditional step tests. This was pos-
sible for two reasons. The process had been manually controlled,
but with some stabilizing PID loops. Measured disturbances and
manual adjustments provide a suitable dataset for identification.
However, it was suitable only when process segments were taken
in isolation. Sub-models relating a few inputs and outputs could
be reliably identified. A few other sub-models were identified
based on specific step test data. All sub-models were then merged
into the main final model. This “merge” (Fig. 2) is effectively a
multivariable convolution plus feedback interconnections (due Fig. 4. Disturbance rejection comparison infinite horizon control.
to process recycles). This approach is not feasible with finite
models, especially when feedback connections are required.
Feedback performance is compared using different distur-
Another interesting model construction feature was exercised
bance models. The first assumes that disturbances enter directly
during the project. The process is open-loop unstable, as are
at the controlled output, y2 . The second assumes the entry chan-
many chemical reactor systems. Given normal data, it was pos-
nel is at the input, u. The third is also an input disturbance but
sible to construct sub-models with the stabilizing PID controllers
with the addition that the intermediate variable, y1 , is a mea-
mathematically placed in manual. An open-loop unstable plant
sured but uncontrolled output. The actual disturbance enters at
model (without PID controllers) was constructed via the merge
the input for all cases.
operation. This was used in analyzing process dynamics and PID
Simulation results are shown in Fig. 4. The top set of curves
loop tuning. While there was never any intent to allow the MPC
is the CV response, with MVs at the bottom. An unmeasured
controller to supervise the unstable system, it would have been
disturbance enters at time zero. Controller tuning is the same for
technically feasible. It is reasonable to expect that MPC control
all cases.
of unstable plants will occur when there is sufficient economic
The response with an output bias, denoted as curve 1, is
incentive to do so. Until now, this option simply did not exist.
sluggish as expected. The controller observes the disturbance
over time since its effect is dampened by process dynamics. MV
5. Examples movement is correspondingly slow.
The result with an input disturbance model (curve 2) is quite
Performance benefits from state estimation and infinite hori- different. The MV acts aggressively to reject the disturbance,
zon control are illustrated in this section. One example demon- with much better performance. Still, there is a significant tem-
strates improved disturbance rejection. It is well known that PID porary deviation from setpoint because of the process deadtime.
controllers can be tuned to reject disturbances more effectively The response is the best possible in the sense that the disturbance
than MPC that uses bias updates (Shinskey, 1994). Addition of model accurately characterizes the actual disturbance.
state estimation eliminates this performance difference and fur- The third case (curve 3) shows the response when the inter-
thermore applies to multivariable applications. mediate variable y1 is also measured with the input distur-
The second example demonstrates calculation of a complex bance model. This achieves almost perfect rejection since the
“no compromise” move plan. Subtle issues related to the infinite disturbance is detected earlier (before the deadtime) via the
horizon formulation are illustrated. intermediate measurement. Note that the MV response is less
aggressive than for case 2. Use of the intermediate variable gives
5.1. State estimation performance similar to traditional cascade control. Equivalent
behavior in an actual application on an extractive distillation
This example demonstrates controller performance with dif- process has been observed. For the general case, state estima-
ferent disturbance models and optional intermediate measure- tion using intermediate measurements results in “multivariable
ments. Fig. 3 is a block diagram of the plant. Physically, this cascade control”. This is a native capability that does not require
could correspond to a distillation column with steam (u) as additional user configuration.
the manipulated input, an intermediate uncontrolled temper- The second example illustrates behavior of the infinite hori-
ature (y1 ) and a composition (y2 ) as the primary controlled zon controller in a highly constrained scenario. This demon-
output. strates how a very complex control move plan can be calculated
 J.B. Froisy / Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435
Fig. 5. Infinite horizon move plan.
when required to obtain optimum performance. The plant is
essentially two stirred tank reactors in series with four con-
trolled quality parameters plus operating limits on other outputs.
Fig. 5 shows MV and CV responses that result from changing
the setpoint for quality variable CV9 from 450 to 400. A quick
transition to the new setpoint is desired, while maintaining CV10
and CV11 at optimum values and other variables within limits.
Grey regions visible in most subplots represent upper and lower
limits.
There are two responses for each variable. The thick line is
the result when calculating 100 future MV values, correspond-
ing to a 5-h constrained horizon. (The model sample period is
3 min.) The thin line is the case with 40 future constrained values
followed by the unconstrained infinite horizon linear regulator
(u = −Kx). Forty samples correspond to 2 h, the first vertical grid
line. There is very little difference between the cases because
few constraints are active after 2 h. A notable exception is for
MV3. It would violate the limit during the unconstrained infi-
nite horizon segment for about 2 h. The formulation guarantees
that MVs approach the feasible steady state eventually satisfying
1433
these hard constraints. Of course, the MV would not actually vio-
late the limit because the constrained horizon segment is always
guaranteed to satisfy MV limits.
Note that the infinite horizon formulation differs from
Muske’s original approach that forces MVs to reach the steady
state values at a finite horizon (Scokaert & Rawlings, 1996).
This restriction means that the resulting move plan is “less opti-
mal” than the infinite horizon with a linear regulator. It is clear
in the example that the MV trajectories would have to be signifi-
cantly different if they were restricted to reach steady state after
2 h. MV constraints include hard rate-of-change limits. These
are evident during the first 2 h when several MV responses are
straight line segments. CV positional constraints are always soft
meaning that they can be violated if necessary to satisfy more
important competing objectives. In the example, CV4 is con-
strained near a low limit during the initial 2-h period.
Fig. 6 zooms in to expose more detail, illustrating how the
soft constraint is violated with the original (slow) tuning. The
dynamic optimization is penalizing this violation along with the
deviation of other CVs from their setpoints or beyond limits.
1434 J.B. Froisy / Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435
Fig. 6. CV soft constraint response.
The additional response (dashed line) denoted as fast tuning
shows that this particular violation was avoided by adjusting the
dynamic optimization penalty weight. The user is not confronted
with optimization weights, however. A visual interface depict-
ing a tuning dial that can be adjusted for “faster” or “slower”
response for any of the dynamic control objectives is provided
instead.
6. Future developments
This MPC environment marks a new beginning with control
theory and software to support a wide range of users and applica-
tions. The framework will facilitate incorporation of recent and
future control theory results for even better performance and
increased ease of use. It is also suitable for extension to other
classes of problems. For example, academic and practical results
exist today that extend into the world of MPC using nonlinear
models. The software framework has been architectured to sup-
port this kind of technology. The timing of new functionality
will depend on market demand.
Near-term enhancements are likely. The ability to tune a
Kalman filter using data from closed loop MPC operation based
on the ideas of Odelson and Rawlings (2003) is one example.
This will make it possible for users, even non-experts, to effi-
ciently enhance and maintain performance throughout the life
cycle of a controller.
An obvious requirement for a successful MPC application is
the model. Techniques for plant testing and model identification
are continually being improved. It is reasonable to anticipate
that these will be integrated with the new environment so that
models can be efficiently and accurately developed. One of the
important challenges will be to provide the means to blend
empirical and physical modeling. This can take the form of con-
strained identification (e.g., some steady state gains are known)
or parametric identification (a model structure is imposed, with
unknown parameters). The general idea is to allow the user to
impose (incomplete and possibly uncertain) physical knowledge
when fitting models to data.
MPC will surely be applied to batch processes, despite the
continuous process orientation of current MPC theory and prac-
tice. The concept of driving a process to a specific state at the end
of a batch is all too natural for this to not be the case. An impor-
tant issue will be the ability to deal with MVs that have discrete
values. The underlying optimization is a mixed integer problem,
for which solutions exist. Still, issues unique to real-time control
optimization will have to be resolved, some of which are being
addressed (Bemporad & Morari, 1999). Also, it is reasonable to
expect that batch processes will require nonlinear models thus
adding to the challenge.
Despite the process industry focus, MPC can certainly be
applied to a wide range of processes. The technical foundation
is solid. That is not always sufficient. Highly regulated indus-
tries such a pharmaceutical or nuclear power are examples where
MPC has not, to this author’s knowledge, been applied. In fact,
one might be able to make a case that the MPC mindset is exactly
the right approach to take these industries into the world of
advanced process control.
A driving force in today’s competitive manufacturing envi-
ronment is the need for holistic solutions that are maintain-
able in the face of change. Stand-alone MPC applications can
address specific operational problems, often with significant
economic impact. More complex ones are not isolated and
must cooperate to achieve broad business goals. This is particu-
larly true when economic optimization spans the process oper-
ations automation and business automation layers. There will
be an increasing need for model consistency as these domains
overlap.
7. Conclusions
The title contains the phrase “building a bridge between
theory and practice”. This describes much of the product devel-
opment activity. A major objective was to develop an MPC
environment, not just a controller, to enable engineers without
formal control theory training to efficiently build, deploy and
maintain control applications. This included the objective that
the environment would be suited to a wide range of control prob-
lems, especially in industries where the benefits of MPC have
not been fully realized.
In retrospect, the theoretical basis existed or became available
during the overall project. There was no need to compromise on
theory to satisfy real-world issues. It did take significant effort to
understand and resolve the apparent gaps. Ultimately, the gaps
were filled by building a software environment that encapsulates
a great deal of theoretical and practical expertise. This is not a
single bridge; rather it is a continuum of interlocking bridges
connecting theory with practice.
Several iterations of prototypes proved effective for finding
and resolving issues. Major risks were addressed first. It came
as no surprise that a solid numerical foundation would be a
critical need. Much of the linear algebra and control-specific
software were readily available. Other software, especially for
optimization algorithms, was tailored to fit the specific problem
domain. The numerical foundation was incrementally improved
throughout the project, especially as stress testing demonstrated
subtle weaknesses.
Subspace algorithms were developed in parallel to support
state-space model identification. An unexpectedly large effort
was required to build an environment that makes it easy for the
 J.B. Froisy / Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (2006) 1426–1435
user to assemble model fragments (input–output subsets) into a
final model and also reduce the model order when required.
So, what is the answer to: “why did it take so long?”. The
project involved much more than building a new controller. It
was an entire MPC product, including a real time environment to
deploy and manage applications. The relentless push to make a
system suitable for non-experts without compromising the the-
oretical foundation increased demands on numerical algorithms
and software. In the end, the guiding principle went beyond
trying to “hide complexity” to become “expose simplicity”, a
term coined by my colleague Tom Badgwell. While the result
may not be as simple as possible, it is certainly much simpler
than it would have been without this mindset. And, the journey
continues—toward increased functionality and simplicity.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper represents a large team
effort, especially in the final year of product development. The
“true believers” that contributed during the early phases deserve
special mention. These include my current and former con-
trol engineering colleagues at AspenTech: Tom Badgwell, John
Campbell, Dean Kassmann and Mike Keenan. Also, Dave Hein
deserves special mention for his untiring contribution to the
initial and final online real time environment architecture and
software. It is safe to say that SSC would not have come to
fruition without the individual contributions of this outstanding
team.
References
Bemporad, A., & Morari, M. (1999). Control of systems integrating logic,
dynamics and constraints. Automatica (special issue on hybrid systems),
35(3), 407–427.
Cutler, C. R., & Ramaker, B. L. (1980). Dynamic matrix control—a computer
control algorithm. In Proceedings of the automatic control conference.
Froisy, J. B., & Richalet, J. (1986). Industrial applications of IDCOM. In
M. Morari & T. J. McAvoy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chemical Process
Control—III (pp. 233–244). Elsevier.
Garcia, C. E., & Prett, D. M. (1986). Advances in industrial model-predictive
control. In M. Morari & T. J. McAvoy (Eds.), Proceedings of the chemical
process control—III (pp. 245–293). Elsevier.
1435
Mehra, R. K., Rouhani, R., Eterno, J., Richalet, J., & Rault, A. (1981). Model
algorithmic control (MAC): Review and recent developments. In D. E.
Seborg & T. F. Edgar (Eds.), Proceeding of the engineering foundation con-
ference (CPC2) (pp. 287–309).
Morari, M., & Lee, J. L. (1991). Model predictive control: The good, the bad
and the ugly. In Y. Arkun & W. H. Ray (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth
international conference on chemical process control (pp. 419–444).
Muske, K. R., & Badgwell, T. A. (2002). Disturbance modeling for offset-
free linear model predictive control. Journal of Process Control, 12,
617–632.
Muske, K. R., & Rawlings, J. B. (1993). Model predictive control with linear
models. AIChE Journal, 39(2), 262–287.
Odelson, B. J., & Rawlings, J. B. (2003). Online monitoring of MPC disturbance
models from closed-loop data. In Proceedings of the American control con-
ference (pp. 2714–2719).
Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (1997). An overview of industrial model predictive
control technology. In J. C. Kantor, Garcia, & B. Caranahan (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the fifth international conference of chemical process control,
Vol. 93 (pp. 232–256).
Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (2003). A survey of industrial model predictive
control technology. Control Engineering Practice, 11/7, 733–764.
Richalet, J. A., Rault, J. L., Testud, & Papon, J. (1978). Model predictive heuristic
control: Application to industrial processes. Automatica, 14, 413–428.
Ricker, N. L. (1991). Model predictive control: State of the art. In Y. Arkun
& W. H. Ray (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on
chemical process control (pp. 271–296).
Scokaert, P. O. M., & Rawlings, J. B. (1996). Infinite horizon linear quadratic
control with constraints. In Proceedings of the IFAC ’96 world congress (pp.
109–114).
Shinskey, F. G. (1994). Feedback controllers for the process industries. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Vogel, E. F., & Downs, J. J. (2002). Industrial experience with state-space model
predictive control. In J. B. Rawlings, B. A. Ogunnaike, & J. W. Eaton (Eds.),
Proceedings of the sixth international conference on chemical process con-
trol, Vol. 98 (pp. 438–442).
Wright, S. J. (1997). Applying new optimization algorithms to model predictive
control. In J. C. Kantor, Garcia, & B. Caranahan (Eds.), Proceedings of
the fifth international conference of chemical process control, Vol. 93 (pp.
147–155).
Young, R. E., Bartusiak, R. D., & Fontaine, R. W. (2002). Evolution of an
industrial nonlinear predictive controller. In J. B. Rawlings, B. A. Ogunnaike,
& J. W. Eaton (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on
chemical process control, Vol. 98 (pp. 342–351).
Zafirou, E. (1991). On the effect of tuning parameters and constraints on the
robustness of model predictive controllers. In Y. Arkun & W. H. Ray (Eds.),
Proceedings of the fourth international conference on chemical process con-
trol (pp. 363–394).