2.

15 Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) Control

G. S. CHENG (2005)

Model-free adaptive (MFA) control, as its name suggests, is an
adaptive control method that does not require process models. An
MFA control system is defined to have the following properties:
1. No precise quantitative knowledge of the process is
available.
2. No process identification mechanism or identifier is
included in the system.
3. No controller design for a specific process is needed.
4. No manual tuning of controller parameters is required.
5. Closed-loop system stability analysis and criteria are
1–3
available to guarantee the system stability.
Derivations of the core MFA control technology address
specific control problems as described here:
4–14
SISO MFA controller, and a feedback loop. The control
objective is for the controller to produce an output u(t) to
force the process variable y(t) to track the given trajectory
of its setpoint r(t) under variations of setpoint, disturbance,
and process dynamics. In other words, the task of the MFA
controller is to minimize the error e(t) in an online fashion,
where e(t) is the difference between the setpoint r(t) and the
process variable y(t). The minimization of error e(t) is
achieved by (i) the regulatory control capability of the MFA
controller, and (ii) the adjustment of the MFA controller
weighting factors that allow the controller to deal with the
dynamic changes, disturbances, and other uncertainties of the
control system.
MFA Controller Architecture

Figure 2.15b illustrates the core architecture of a single-input

• SISO MFA to replace PID so that manual controller
single-output MFA controller. A multilayer perceptron (MLP)
tuning is eliminated
artificial neural network (ANN) is used in the design of the
• Nonlinear MFA to control nonlinear processes
controller. The ANN has one input layer, one hidden layer with
• MFA pH controller to control pH processes
N neurons, and one output layer with one neuron.
• Feedforward MFA controller to deal with measurable
Within the neural network there is a group of weighting
disturbances
factors (wij and hi ) that can be updated as needed to vary the
• Antidelay MFA to control processes with large time
behavior of the dynamic block. The algorithm for updating
delays
the weighting factors is based on the goal of minimizing the
• Robust MFA to protect the process variable from run-
error between the setpoint and process variable. Since this
ning outside a bound
effort is the same as the control objective, the adaptation of
• Time-varying MFA controller to control time varying
the weighting factors can assist the controller in minimizing
processes
the error while process dynamics are changing. From another
• Antidelay MFA pH controller for pH processes with
point of view, the artificial neural network–based MFA con-
varying time delays
troller “remembers” a portion of the process data providing
• MIMO MFA to control multivariable processes
valuable information for the process dynamics. In compari-
son, a digital version of the PID controller remembers only
MFA controllers can be readily embedded into various control
the current and previous two samples. In this regard, PID has
equipment and are becoming available on more and more plat-
forms offered by multi-vendors including building controllers,
single-loop controllers, programmable logic controllers (PLC),
hybrid controllers, process automation controllers (PAC), con- d(t)
trol software, and distributed control systems (DCS). r(t) e(t) MFA u(t) SISO x(t) + y(t)
+ controller process +
–
SINGLE-LOOP MFA CONTROL SYSTEM

Figure 2.15a illustrates a single-loop MFA control system FIG. 2.15a

that includes a single-input single-output (SISO) process, a Single-loop MFA control system.

224

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

 2.15 Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) Control 225

E0 = 1 wij

e(t)
N(.)
E1 p1 q1
Σ ϕ(.)
hi
Z–1
E2 p2 q2
Σ ϕ(.) q0 = 1

Z–1 o(t)
E3 p3 q3 v(t)
Σ ϕ(.) Σ ϕ(.) ψ(.) Kc
+
+
.....

.....

Z–1 qN
EN pN
Σ ϕ(.)

FIG. 2.15b
Architecture of a SISO MFA controller.

almost no memory, and MFA possesses the memory that is The weighting factors can be updated online at every
essential to a “smart” controller. sample interval using the following formulas:

SISO MFA Control Algorithm N

The core MFA control algorithm comprises the following

∆wij (n) = η Kce(n)q j (n)(1 − q j (n)) Ei (n) ∑ h (n) ,
k =1
k

difference equations: 2.15(5)

N ∆h j (n) = η Kc e(n)q j (n). 2.15(6)
p j (n) = ∑i =1
wij (n) Ei (n) + 1, 2.15(1)
A more detailed MFA control algorithm and discussions can
be found in references 1 and 2.
q j (n) = ϕ ( p j (n)), 2.15(2)
MFA and PID
  N 
o(n) = ψ ϕ 
  ∑ h j (n)q j (n) + 1  ,
 
Most industrial processes are still being controlled by PID
 j =1  2.15(3) (proportional–integral-derivative) controllers. PID is a simple
N general-purpose automatic controller that is useful for control-
= ∑ h ( n ) q ( n ) + 1,
j =1
j j ling simple processes. However, PID has major problems in
controlling complex systems and also requires frequent manual
tuning of its parameters when the process dynamics change.
v(t ) = Kc [o(t ) + e(t )], 2.15(4) The performance of MFA (top) and PID (bottom) controllers
is compared in Figure 2.15c to show how MFA adapts when
where n denotes the nth iteration, o(t) is the continuous func- process dynamics change.
tion of o(n), v(t) is the output of the MFA controller, Kc > 0 Starting from the same oscillating control condition, the
and is the MFA controller gain, and wij and hj are weighting system will continue to oscillate under PID control, while
factors. the MFA system will quickly adapt to an excellent control

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

226 Control Theory
FIG. 2.15c
Comparison of MFA and PID.
condition. If both controllers start from a sluggish situation,
MFA will control the process faster and better.
MFA Control System Requirements
As a feedback control system, MFA requires the process to
have the following behavior:
1. The process is controllable.
2. The process is open-loop stable.
3. The process is either direct or reverse acting (process
does not change its sign).
If the process is not controllable, improvement of the process
structure or its variable pairing is required. If the process is not
open-loop stable, it is always a good practice to stabilize it first.
However, for certain simple open-loop unstable processes such
as a non-self-regulating level loop, no special treatment is
required when using MFA. If a process changes its sign within
1
its operating range, special MFA controllers are required.
SISO MFA Configuration
A SISO MFA controller has only a few parameters to configure:
1. Sample interval—the interval between two samples
or calculations in seconds. A high-speed MFA con-
troller can run at a 1 millisecond rate.
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
2. Controller gain—use of a default value is recom-
mended.
3. Time constant—a rough estimate of the process time
constant in seconds.
4. Acting type—direct or reverse action of the process.
If the process input increases and then its output
increases, it is direct acting, and vice versa. However,
M FA controllers embedded in various platforms
always use the vendor’s definition. Sometimes, con-
troller acting type is used, which is different than the
process acting type.
According to the principles in the information theory, it
is required that sample interval be less than or equal to one
third of the time constant. That is,
1
Ts ≤ T, 2.15(7)
3 c
where Ts is the sample interval, and Tc is the time constant.
Once the configuration is done, MFA can be launched at
any time and will control the process immediately. MFA does
not require process identification and is not a dynamic modeling-
based controller; there is no need to first collect data to train
the model. MFA controllers can be switched between auto-
matic and manual at any time. No specific bumpless transfer
procedure is required.

NONLINEAR MFA CONTROLLER
Nonlinear control is one of the most challenging topics in
modern control theory. Although linear control system theory
has been well developed, it is the nonlinear control problems
that present the most headaches. The main reason that a non-
linear process is difficult to control is because there could be
so many variations in process nonlinear behavior. Therefore,
it is difficult to develop a single controller to deal with the
various nonlinear processes. Traditionally, a nonlinear process
has to be linearized first before an automatic controller can be
effectively applied. This is typically achieved by adding a
reverse nonlinear function to compensate for the nonlinear
behavior so that the overall process input–output relationship
becomes somewhat linear. It is usually a tedious job to match
the nonlinear curve, and process uncertainties can easily ruin
the effort.
The nonlinear MFA controller is a general-purpose con-
troller that provides a more uniform solution to nonlinear
control problems. The nonlinear MFA controller is well suited
for nonlinear processes or processes with nonlinear sensors,
actuators, and other elements.
A flow or high-pressure loop is a typical nonlinear process
that can cause the actuator to lose its authority in different
operating conditions. Inevitable wear and tear on a valve typ-
ically makes a linear valve nonlinear. The dissolved oxygen in
a bio-tech micro reactor to cultivate cells is another nonlinear
process example. As cells grow, they suddenly start to consume
much more oxygen. Since the number of bio-tech experiments
is huge and the types of cells to grow can vary significantly,
it is difficult and costly to deal with nonlinear characterization
problems. The general-purpose nonlinear MFA controller is
well suited for this application.
Nonlinear MFA Configuration
In addition to the parameters used in SISO MFA including
sample interval, time constant, controller gain, and acting type,
the nonlinear MFA has an extra parameter to enter: the process
nonlinearity factor. As shown in Figure 2.15d, the graph on
the menu shows how severe the nonlinear behavior is between
the process input and process output.
The process linearity factor is a number between 0 and
10. A 10 represents an extremely nonlinear process while
a 0 represents a linear process. Notice that the graph shows
a nonlinear curve marked with 10 on both upper and lower
positions. This means that a nonlinear M FA controller does
not care what the nonlinear characteristics are for this pro-
cess. For instance, the valve can be either “fast open” or
“fast close,” as represented by these two convex and con-
cave curves.
When using nonlinear MFA, there is no need to worry
about how the nonlinear curve is laid out. The curve can be
concave, convex, or S-shaped. Simply advise the controller
whether the process is extremely nonlinear (enter a 9 or 10),
quite nonlinear (enter a 5 or 6), or somewhat nonlinear (enter
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
2.15 Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) Control 227
FIG. 2.15d
Configuration menu of nonlinear MFA.
a 1 or 2). The nonlinear MFA controller will be smart enough
to handle the rest.
Simulations and real applications show that the nonlinear
MFA controller can easily deal with a nonlinear process even
if its gain changes hundreds of times. In a nonlinear MFA,
there is no linearization calculation or process model. The
MFA controller gain Kc is simply set at its nominal point and
not retuned.
MFA pH CONTROLLER
Most process plants generate a wastewater effluent that must
be neutralized prior to discharge or reuse. Consequently, pH
control is needed in just about every process plant, yet a large
percentage of pH loops perform poorly. The results are infe-
rior product quality, environmental pollution, and material
waste. With ever-increasing pressure to improve plant effi-
ciency and tighter regulations in environmental protection,
effective continuous pH control is highly desirable.
A strong-acid-strong-base pH process is highly nonlinear.
The pH value vs. the reagent flow has a logarithmic relation-
ship. Away from its neutrality, the process gain is relatively
small. Near the neutrality where pH = 7, its process gain can
be a few thousand times higher. There is no way for a fixed
controller such as PID to effectively control this process. In
practice, most pH loops are in a “bang-bang” type of control,
with pumps turning on and off, resulting in large oscillations.
Since acid and caustic neutralize each other, over-dosing acid
and caustic is like continuously burning money. Statistics
show that a poorly controlled pH process can cost tens of
thousands of dollars in chemical usage each month, not count-
ing the penalties imposed by violating Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) or local government discharge codes.
The MFA pH controller is able to control a wide range of
pH loops because its adaptive capability allows it to compensate
228 Control Theory
FIG. 2.15e
Configuration menu of MFA pH controller.
for the large nonlinear gain changes. In addition, it can control
the full pH range with high precision and enables automatic
control of acid or alkaline concentration, both of which are
critical quality variables for the chemical process industry.
MFA pH Controller Configuration
As shown in Figure 2.15e, one can easily enter Break Points
A and B to define the estimated shape of the titration curve
of the pH process. Then the MFA controller gain Kc for the
flat portion and steep slope can be entered. For a strong-acid-
strong-base pH process, if the controller gain for the flat por-
tion is one, then the gain for the steep slope can be estimated
as 0.001, which is 1000 times smaller. Due to the adaptive
capability of the MFA controller, the titration curve does not
have to be accurate and, in fact, its shape can vary in real
applications. In addition, the flow rate and the pH value of the
inflows may vary significantly. The MFA pH controller can
effectively deal with these large disturbances.
The MFA pH controller has helped many users effec-
tively control their tough pH loops. Return-on-investment in
weeks or even days has been reported with savings on chem-
ical reagents, no violation of discharge code, and smoother
production operation.
FEEDFORWARD MFA CONTROLLER
Feedforward is a control scheme to take advantage of distur-
bance signals. If a process has a significant measurable dis-
turbance, a feedforward controller can be used to reduce its
effect before the feedback loop takes corrective action. A good
feedforward controller can improve the control system perfor-
mance economically.
Feedforward compensation can be as simple as a ratio
between two signals. It could also involve complicated energy
or material balance calculations. The feedforward MFA is a
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
d(t)
uf (t) Feed-
forward
MFA
Process
Gp2
+ + y2(t)
r(t) e(t) MFA uc(t) u(t) Process y1(t) y(t)
+ controller + Gp1 +
–
FIG. 2.15f
Feedback and feedforward MFA control system.
general-purpose feedforward controller. It does not attempt a
perfect cancellation of the disturbances, which is very difficult
to implement in industrial applications due to changing process
dynamics and operating conditions. A feedback/feedforward
MFA control system diagram is illustrated in Figure 2.15f,
where Gp1 is the main process and Gp2 is the process with dis-
turbance input and the process variable as output.
Feedforward MFA Controller Configuration
Since the feedback MFA controller has strong adaptive capa-
bilities, the feedforward MFA can be designed in a simple
form. There are two parameters to configure, the feedforward
controller gain and time constant. The controller gain can be
estimated based on the following formula:
K p2
K fc = − , 2.15(8)
K p1
where Kp1 and Kp2 are the estimated static gain for processes
Gp1 and Gp2, respectively. The rules for selecting the sign in
order to ensure that the feedforward action rejects the distur-
bance can be summarized as follows:
• If processes Gp1 and Gp2 have the same sign, the feed-
forward gain should be negative.
• If processes Gp1 and Gp2 have different signs, the feed-
forward gain should be positive.
The feedforward MFA time constant can be an estimate of
the time constant of Gp2. This is related to how fast the
disturbance will affect the process variable (PV).
ANTIDELAY MFA CONTROLLER
Many processes have large time delays due to the delay in
the transformation of heat, materials, and signals. No matter
what control action is taken, its effect is not measurable
during a period of time delay. This is equivalent to disabling

d(t)
r(t) e(t) u(t) Process x(t) +
MFA
+ controller
with large
+ sigma or zero defects quality control objectives.
– time delays
yc(t)
Delay
predictor
FIG. 2.15g
Antidelay MFA control system.
the feedback for a period of time, where feedback informa-
tion is essential to automatic control.
If a PID is used to control a process with significant time
delays, the controller output will keep growing during the
delay time and cause a large overshoot in system responses
or even make the system unstable. Typically, a PID has to be
detuned significantly in order to stay in automatic but will
sacrifice control performance. Generally speaking, a PID con-
troller usually works for the process if its τ-T ratio (delay
time/time constant) is smaller than one, unless it is detuned.
When a controller is detuned, it loses the sharpness of its
control capability, so the process cannot be tightly controlled.
The Smith predictor is a useful control scheme to deal with
processes with large time delays. However, a precise process
model is usually required to construct a Smith predictor. Oth-
erwise, its performance may not be satisfactory.
Figure 2.15g shows a block diagram for a SISO antidelay
MFA control system with an antidelay MFA controller and
a process with large time delays.
A special delay predictor is designed to produce a dynamic
signal yc(t) to replace the process variable y(t) as the feedback
signal. The idea here is to produce an e(t) signal for the con-
troller and let it “feel” its control action without much delay
so that it will keep producing proper control signals. In other
words, the artificial dynamic signal yc(t) is able to keep the
feedback loop working even when there is a large time delay.
Since the MFA controller in the system has adaptive capability,
the delay predictor can be designed in a simple form without
1,2
knowing the quantitative information of the process.
Compared to the traditional Smith predictor, the antidelay
MFA controller does not need a precise process model. It
only needs an estimated delay time as the basic information
for its delay predictor. If the delay time used in the MFA delay
predictor has a mismatch with the actual process delay time,
the controller is robust enough to deal with the difference.
Typically, it can deal with the situation where the delay time
is two to five times larger or smaller than the actual delay time
with satisfactory control performance. In addition, there is no
real limitation on how large the τ-T ratio is, as long as an
estimated delay time is provided.
The antidelay MFA controller is especially useful in con-
trolling process quality variables since a quality variable is
typically measured after the product or process material travels
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
2.15 Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) Control 229
to a certain point, cools off, forms its shape, etc. Antidelay
y(t) MFA makes it possible for process industries to achieve six
In a semicontinuous production environment, the process
line speed may change as many as 100 times or more, which
will cause the delay time to change on a similar scale. Since
the line speed is measurable, the delay time can be easily
calculated and provided to the antidelay MFA controller in
real time. In this way, the control performance will not sac-
rifice much even during large line speed changes.
On the other hand, if the delay time of a process changes
on a scale of more than five times, and the delay time infor-
mation cannot be provided to the controller, the time-varying
MFA controller will be more suitable for this application.
ROBUST MFA CONTROLLER
In complex control applications, the following challenges
may occur:
1. A large change in the system dynamics occurs, so that
a prompt control action is required to meet the control
performance criteria.
2. The dominant disturbance to the system cannot be
economically measured, and therefore feedforward
compensation cannot be easily implemented.
3. A controller purposely detuned to minimize the vari-
ations in its manipulated variable may lose control
when a large disturbance or significant dynamic
behavior change occurs.
4. The system dynamic behavior or load change does not
provide triggering information to allow the control
system to switch operating modes.
For instance, controlling the reaction temperature for a batch
reactor is always a challenge due to the complex nature of the
process, large potential disturbances, interactions between key
variables, and multiple operating conditions. A large percent-
age of batch reactors running today cannot keep the reactor
temperature in automatic control throughout the entire operat-
ing period, thus resulting in lower efficiency, wasted manpower
and materials, and inconsistent product quality.
An exothermal batch reactor process typically has four
operating stages:
1. Startup stage: ramps up the reactor temperature by use
of steam to a predefined reaction temperature.
2. Reaction and holding stage: holds the temperature by
use of cooling water while chemical reaction is taking
place and heat is being generated.
3. No-reaction and holding stage: holds the temperature
by use of steam after the main chemical reaction is
complete and heat is not being generated.
4. Ending stage: ramps down the reactor temperature for
discharging the products.
230 Control Theory
During the transition period from Stage 2 to Stage 3, the reactor
can change its nature rapidly from a heat-generation process
to a heat-consumption process. This change happens without
any triggering signal because the chemical reaction can end at
any time depending on the types of chemicals, their concen-
tration, the catalyst, and the reaction temperature. Within a
very short period of time, the reactor temperature can drop
significantly. The control system must react quickly to cut off
the cooling water and send in a proper amount of steam to
drive the reactor temperature back to normal. A regular feed-
back controller is not able to automatically control a batch
reactor during this transition. In practice, batch reactors are
usually switched to manual control and rely on well-trained
operators during critical transitions. It is a tedious and
nerve-wracking job that can result in low product quality
and yield.
The robust MFA controller is able to control the problematic
processes described. Without the need to redesign a controller,
using feedforward compensation, or retune the controller param-
eters, the robust MFA controller is able to keep the system in
automatic control through normal and extreme operating condi-
tions when there are significant disturbances or system dynamic
changes.
Robust MFA Controller Configuration
As shown in Figure 2.15h, the robust MFA controller can be
easily configured with these parameters:
1. Upper and lower bound—the bounds for the process
variable (PV) being controlled. They provide “intelli-
gent” upper and lower boundaries for the PV. These
bounds are typically the marginal values that the PV
should not go beyond. PV is unlike the controller
FIG. 2.15h
Robust MFA controller configuration menu.
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
output (OP), where a hard limit or constraint can be
set. PV is a process variable that can only be controlled
by manipulating the OP. Therefore, the upper and
lower bounds for PV are very different from the OP
constraints.
2. Gain ratio—The coefficient to increase or decrease
the MFA control action. Typically, you want to enter
gain ratio = 3, which implies that the MFA gain work-
ing in abnormal situations is three times higher than
the regular MFA gain setting. It is important to under-
stand that this is not a gain scheduling approach,
although it appears to be this way. Gain scheduling
will not be able to resolve the complex problems
described.
TIME-VARYING MFA CONTROLLER
The time-varying M FA controller is used to control a pro-
cess with large time constant and /or delay variations. For
instance, a temperature control loop usually has a shorter
time constant when it heats up and a much longer time
constant when it cools down because adding heat to the
process is much faster than taking it away. Also, a line speed
or flow rate change will cause the process delay time to
vary significantly.
Time-Varying MFA Controller Configuration
As shown in Figure 2.15i, the time-varying MFA controller
can be easily configured with an estimated minimum and
maximum process time constant plus delay time. The con-
troller is able to deal with the large time constant and/or
delay time changes without having to retune any parameters.
FIG. 2.15i
Time-varying MFA controller configuration menu.

ANTIDELAY MFA pH CONTROLLER
When combining the time-varying MFA and MFA pH control
functions, an antidelay MFA pH controller is generated that
can control a pH process with large and varying time delays.
When a pH process has large varying time delays as well
as large inflow rates and pH changes, the difficulty for this
control loop quadruples. The extremely large gain changes with
varying time delays make an already bad situation worse, caus-
ing the process to become almost “uncontrollable.” Traditionally,
a “bang-bang” type of control or batch-based pH neutralization
would be the only solution.
The antidelay MFA type pH controller has the combined
power of being predictive, adaptive, and robust. It is adaptive
to compensate for the large gain changes, predictive to deal
with large time delays, and robust enough to handle inflow
changes, titration curve moves, and other uncertainties.
MULTIVARIABLE MFA CONTROL SYSTEM
Figure 2.15j illustrates a multivariable feedback control sys-
tem with a model-free adaptive controller. The system includes
a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) process, a set of control-
lers, and a set of signal adders, respectively, for each control
loop.
Similar to a SISO system, the MIMO system has controller
setpoints r(t), error signals e(t), controller outputs u(t), process
variables y(t), and disturbance signals d(t). Since it is a mul-
tivariable system, all the signals here are vectors represented
in bold type.
TWO-INPUT TWO-OUTPUT MFA CONTROL SYSTEM
Without losing generality, we will show how a multivariable
model-free adaptive control system works with a two-input two-
output (2 × 2) system as illustrated in Figure 2.15k, which is the
2 × 2 arrangement of Figure 2.15j. In the 2 × 2 MFA control
system, the MFA controller set consists of two controllers—C11
and C22 —and two compensators—C21 and C12. The process has
four subprocesses—G11, G21, G12, and G22.
d(t)
r(t) e(t) u(t) x(t)
MIMO MFA MIMO
controller processes
FIG. 2.15j
Multivariable MFA control system.
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
2.15 Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) Control 231
– d1 +
+
G11 x11
r1 e1 u1 + y1
+
2 × 2 MFA x21
controller G21
with
decoupling
x12
compensa- G12
tors
r2 e2 u2 x22 +
+ y2
G22
+ d2
– +
2 × 2 process
FIG. 2.15k
Two-input two-output MFA control system.
The measured process variables y1 and y2 are used as the
feedback signals of the main control loops. They are compared
with the setpoints r1 and r2 to produce errors e1 and e2. The
output of each controller associated with one of the inputs, e1
or e2, is combined with the output of the compensator asso-
ciated with the other input to produce control signals u1 and
u2. The output of each subprocess is cross-added to produce
measured process variables y1 and y2. Notice that in real appli-
cations the outputs from the subprocesses are not measurable
and only their combined signals y1 and y2 can be measured.
Thus, by the nature of the 2 × 2 process, the inputs u1 and u2
to the process are interconnected with outputs y1 and y2. The
change in one input will cause both outputs to change.
The control objective for this 2 × 2 MFA control system
is to produce control outputs u1(t) and u2(t) to force the process
variables y1(t) and y2(t) to track their setpoints r1(t) and r2(t),
respectively. The minimization of e1(t) and e2(t) is achieved by:
1. The regulatory control capability of the MFA control-
lers
2. The decoupling capability of the MFA compensators
3. The adjustment of the MFA weighting factors, which
allow the controllers to deal with the dynamic changes,
large disturbances, and other uncertainties
2 x 2 MFA Controller Configuration
A 2 × 2 MFA controller can be considered to have two main
controllers, C11 and C22. For each main controller, the param-
y(t) eters to configure are:
1. Sample interval—the interval between two samples
or calculations in seconds. A high-speed MFA con-
troller can run at a 1 millisecond rate.
2. Controller gain—use of a default value is recom-
mended.
232 Control Theory
3. Time constant—a rough estimate of the process time
constant in seconds.
4. Acting type—direct or reverse acting of the process.
5. Compensator gain—to deal with the interaction from
the other loop.
MIMO MFA CONTROLLER APPLICATION GUIDE
A MIMO system can be much more complex than a SISO
system; precautious have to be taken when applying a MIMO
MFA controller. When designing a multivariable control sys-
tem, the first step is to decide which process variable is paired
with a manipulated variable. A MIMO MFA control system
should follow these pairing rules:
1. Each process of the main loops has to be controllable,
open-loop stable, and either reverse or direct acting.
2. A process with a large static gain should be included
in the main loop as the main process (G11, G22), and
a process with a small static gain should be treated as
a subprocess (G21, G12).
3. A faster process should be paired as the main process
and a slower process, and processes with time delays
should be treated as subprocesses.
4. If pairing rules 2 and 3 should result in a conflict, a
tradeoff is the only option.
In addition, an MFA control system should be designed based
on the degree of interactions between the loops. Table 2.15l
lists the control system design strategy based on the degree of
interaction of a MIMO process.
MFA CONTROL METHODOLOGY
“All roads lead to Rome.” A problem usually has multiple
possible solutions, and a process can usually be controlled
using different controllers based on different control methods.
Almost every control method has its merits and weakness.
What is important is to use the right controller to fit the
application at a minimum cost.
TABLE 2.15l
MIMO System Design Strategy
Interaction Measure Control Strategy
Small to no interaction Tighten both loops with SISO MFA
Moderate interaction Tighten important loops with SISO MFA
and detune less important loops or use
MIMO MFA for better overall control
Severe interaction Use MIMO MFA to control the process;
may need to de-tune less important loops
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
In natural science, the combination of physics, mathe-
matics, and philosophy plays an integral part in developing
a theory that is practically useful. Physics is the foundation
for the study of the physical process or environment, math-
ematics provides the tools to precisely describe the physical
process or phenomenon, and equally important is the philos-
ophy that provides directions.
The development of model-free adaptive control technol-
ogy started from a simple desire to develop a new controller
that could easily and effectively solve various industrial con-
trol problems. The actual development process has evolved
from a prolonged interest in the study of combined intelli-
gence methodology. Since model-free adaptive control does
not follow the traditional path of model-based adaptive con-
trol, the philosophy behind the combined intelligence has led
the way up this long and rocky road.
SUMMARY
To see how the MFA control method is developed based on
the combined intelligence methodology, we will relate MFA
to each of four key points.
Simple Solution
PID control is simple since it is a general-purpose controller
and its algorithm is easy to understand. However, PID is
almost too simple to control complex systems. In this regard,
PID cannot be considered an effective solution to the more
difficult control problems. On the other hand, model-based
advanced control methods have proven themselves too com-
plex to launch and maintain since they depend on either a
first principle or an identification-based process model. A
dream controller has to be powerful enough to control various
complex processes yet simple enough to use, launch, and
maintain. MFA is a solution that fits these requirements.
Use All Information Available
Model-free adaptive control, as its name suggests, is a con-
trol method that does not depend on either first principle or
identification-based process models. However, we do try to
use all the process information available. For this reason, it
can be considered an information-based controller.
For instance, process time constant defines how fast a
dynamic system responds to its input. A slow process might
have a 10-hour time constant and a fast process might have
a 10-millisecond time constant. It would be unwise not to
use this information for the controller. In addition, it is rela-
tively easy to estimate the time constant by reading a trend
chart. Other important yet easily obtained information about
a process includes its acting type (either direct or reverse),
static gain, and delay time if any. An MFA controller is
designed to use the process parameters that can be easily
estimated.

Information’s Accuracy
A process can be classified as a white, gray, or black box. If its
input–output relationship is clear, the process is a white box.
We can easily use existing well-established control methods
and tools to design a controller for this process.
When we are not sure if the process input–output relation-
ship is accurate, or if the process has potential disturbances,
dynamic changes, and uncertainties, the process is a gray box.
In this case, MFA’s adaptive capability is able to handle such
changes and uncertainties. PID or model-based control methods
will have a much tougher time or higher cost addressing these
uncertainties.
Technique That Fits the Application
MFA is neither model based nor rule based. We might say
that it is an information-based control method. If the argu-
ment is made that the process information used is equivalent
to a process model, that is perfectly acceptable. The key to
this approach is that we focus on delivering a simple, adap-
tive, and effective solution.
To extend this idea, a series of MFA controllers, many of
which are described here, has been developed to address dif-
ferent difficult control problems. Users can simply select the
appropriate MFA, configure its parameters, launch the control-
ler, and reap the benefits.
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
2.15 Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) Control 233
References
1. Cheng, G. S., MFA in Control with CyboCon, Rancho Cordova, CA:
CyboSoft, General Cybernation Group, Inc., March 2002.
2. VanDoren, V., Techniques of Adaptive Control, Burlington, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003.
3. VanDoren, V., “Model Free Adaptive Control—This New Technique
for Adaptive Control Addresses a Variety of Technical Challenges,”
Control Engineering Europe, March 2001.
4. Major, M., “Model-Free Adaptive Control on an Evaporator,” Con-
trol, September 1998.
5. Cheng, G. S., He, M., and Li, D. L., “Model-Free Coking Furnace
Adaptive Control,” Hydrocarbon Processing, December 1999.
6. Seiver, D., and Marin, O., “Air Separation Advances with MFA
Control,” Control, May 2001.
7. Cheng, G. S., and Huo, L. Q., “Control System Optimizes EOR Steam
Generator Output,” Oil & Gas Journal, September 2003.
8. Cheng, G. S., and Huo, L. Q., “Leading Edge Plant Control System—
Model-Free Adaptive Control Puts Ling-Yuan Iron and Steel in
League of Its Own,” InTech, October 2003.
9. Cheng, G. S., CyboCon CE User Manual, Rancho Cordova, CA:
CyboSoft, General Cybernation Group, Inc., 2001.
10. Cheng, G. S., “Tomato Process Improvements Using Model-Free
Adaptive Controllers,” Tomato News, April 2004.
11. Harris, S., “Model-Free Adaptive Control Improves Productivity and
Efficiency,” Control, June 2004.
12. Cheng, G. S., “Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) Control,” IEE Comput-
ing and Control Engineering, June/July 2004.
13. Cheng, G. S., and Zhang, Z. W., “Model-Free Adaptive Control in
Water Treatment,” Control Engineering Europe, September 2004.
14. Cheng, G. S., and Zhang, W. D., “Model-Free Adaptive Technology
Improves Distillation Column Chain Control,” Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, October 2004.