ISA Transactions 50 (2011) 2–10
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
ISA Transactions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans
Editorial — Choosing advanced control✩
1. Introduction
1.1. Bottom line
Use an appropriate tool for the job. Start with process
knowledge. This is essential to making right decisions.
1.2. Scope
ARC (Advanced Regulatory Control) seems to have a common
meaning. It refers to what used to be called advanced process
control: gain scheduling, ratio, cascade, feedforward, decouplers,
override, and related and ancillary techniques such as anti-windup,
bumpless transfer, PID modifications, and tuning techniques.
The ARC techniques were known prior to computers and the
modern era of state–space and model-predictive control. Most of
these techniques were known during the time of analog control.
However, the problems of individual component cost, component
reliability and consistent performance precluded the use of most
of them, except for occasional cascade loops. Perhaps the heyday
of these ARC techniques was after the introduction of computer-
based distributed control systems (DCS) and prior to the wide-
spread use of APC.
By contrast, APC (Advanced Process Control) has many mean-
ings. Within the model predictive control (MPC) community, APC
means MPC. Since the ‘‘big ticket’’ APC item within the chemi-
cal process industry (CPI) is MPC, APC and MPC are synonymous
to many of us. However, many control experts recognize that the
modern computer era also brings us other advanced nonlinear
and adaptive controllers, automation of supervisory real-time eco-
nomic optimization of controller set points, computer perception
and monitoring of status and health to trigger corrective action,
control of inferential variables, and computer-based planning and
scheduling.
Since this editorial is primarily about a comparison of feedback
control strategies, it includes nonlinear and adaptive algorithms
along with MPC in the definition of APC.
With this focus on feedback control, this article does not
explicitly address essential and control-relevant methods for
inferential process sensing, supervisory process health analysis,
fault detection and abnormal situation support, device function
and reliability. But the importance of such techniques is frequently
acknowledged in the paper.
✩ This editorial is based on a presentation ‘‘Advanced Classical or Model-
Predictive Control?’’ at the ISA 2010 Automation Week Conference, Oct 4–7,
Houston, TX, USA.
0019-0578/$ – see front matter © 2010 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.isatra.2010.10.004
Attributes of processes within the chemical process industries
(CPI) pose particular challenges and a unique relative importance
to issues that are different from those encountered in other control
applications such as robotics, aerospace, and communications.
Furthermore, differences in economic and risk considerations and
in standardization of process and equipment design, between
the CPI and other control applications, restrict the permissible
investment of sensing and control modeling. As a result, only
a subset of control technologies has found acceptance within
the CPI. There are many other advanced control approaches
used outside of the CPI. These include sliding mode control (an
adaptive approach), fractional order (a nonlinear approach), and
state–space (or modern) control and linear quadratic regulator
(multivariable linear model-based predictive approaches). The
focus of this editorial is on technology appropriate to the CPI.
2. Challenges in process control
Understanding the issues that face CPI applications is essential
to choosing a right control strategy. Here is a listing of CPI
application attributes that cause difficulty for control.
• Nonlinear Process—The process gain changes with manipulated
variable (MV) (controller output, process input), to process
variable (PV) (process response), and to controlled variable (CV)
(the process response that is controlled, controller input). If the
sensor or the final element introduces the nonlinearity, often
signal characterization or control element characterization (an
inverse of the nonlinearity) can linearize the control loop.
• Non-Stationary Process—Process attributes (such as time-
constants, gain, interactions, and dead time) change in time
due to product grade, piping arrangement, unit switching for
maintenance or production, operational stages within units,
and fouling or other degradation of equipment or sensors.
• Ill-Behaved Dynamics—This includes large dead time relative
to other time-constants or sampling interval, integrating, open
loop-unstable, inverse acting, or disparate settling times for
different variables.
• Multi-Variable—Each of several MVs affects each of several
CVs.
– Interaction—Requiring a coordinated plan for the several MV
moves to temper interactions.
– Degree of Freedom—There may be more MVs than CVs, an
extra degree of freedom (DoF) situation that requires an
economic optimization of the best MV combination that
meets the CV objectives. Alternately, there may be fewer
MVs than CVs, a negative DoF that requires optimization
to best limit deviations from set points (SP). The DoF
situation changes in time as production, product mix, raw
 Editorial / ISA Transactions 50 (2011) 2–10
material, process maintenance, and environmental factors
(disturbances) shift active constraints. The economic weights
for the DoF > 0 optimization change with economic
factors affecting the business (waste penalty, raw material
cost, energy cost, product price, etc.). And, the constraint
violation and SP violation concern values needed for the
DoF < 0 optimization could change with the same factors.
Additionally, they could also reflect scheduling issues, or
political factors (What is management’s concern today? How
soon is the labor contract to be re-negotiated? How long
has it been since a community or regulatory complaint?
etc.). However in practice, rather than updating optimizer
weights, limits and targets are normally changed, or parts of
the application are turned off.
• Constraints—This includes product specifications, operational
limits on equipment (cavitation, vibration, pump capacity, valve
position, temperature, vacuum), inventory storage (tank level),
safety issues (pressure, explosive limits), occupational health
issues (noise, fumes, physical exertion), etc. The constraints
may be either soft (some violation for a short period is
permissible) or hard (violation is either impossible or absolutely
not permissible). Constraints may be on the MV, CV or any
PV. Constraints may be encountered now or in the future,
due to the eventual expression of control action taken now,
or due to the effect of measured or unmeasured disturbances
(any form of upset). In this case a model that relates current
MV action to the future values of the process variable is
required. Constraints may be contradictory, where increasing
the MV relieves one constraint violation but makes another
worse. Constraints may require one variable to always have a
proportion that is larger than another (such as cross-limiting
control in fired heaters/boilers where the fuel follows air when
increasing and air follows fuel when decreasing). If constraints
are ‘‘active’’ they are violated or about to be. If constraints are
inactive, the controller is not constrained. Active constraints
reduce DoF.
• Individuality—No two CPI processes are the same (usually).
By contrast, every robot, car, camera, or airplane of the same
series has the same behavior (usually). Admittedly, some
processes have standardized designs (air separations, fired boil-
ers, water treatment, ion exchange units, refrigeration units,
etc.), and standardized process units would be shipped with a
unit-specific control system. But by contrast, nearly every CPI
plant has a unique design with unique behavior. Even if origi-
nally built from a standard design, maintenance procedures, ad-
ditions, upgrades, ownership history, and replacements cause
processes to evolve individually. This makes each control appli-
cation unique.
• Sensors—Seeking to minimize capital investment, the process
designer usually employs the minimum number of sensors
essential for control and analysis. The sensors are often selected
and located with a priority given to cost, safety, and flexibility
rather than to goodness of control. Orifice flow meters, for
example, have a 3%–7% measurement uncertainty; flange taps
are often used because desire for maintenance convenience and
safety each overrides concern about measurement accuracy.
As long as the flow meter is internally consistent, the
numerical value of flow rate (reflux perhaps) is irrelevant to
composition control. Often sensors measure the wrong thing
(volume flow rate instead of mass flow rate) because it is
convenient, or because it is easy to ‘‘prove’’ to regulatory
bodies by convenient calibration. There are not enough sensors
to measure everything, sensors are often located in a spot
that leads to delay or lag, low-cost sensors often have high
uncertainty, and they often measure a related but not then
primary value (pressure drop can infer viscosity which infers
polymer average molecular weight).
3
• Disturbances—These can take many forms: Accidental human
perturbations or errors, equipment failures, environmental up-
sets (weather and raw material variability), up-stream process
changes, aging equipment, catalyst degradation, surging, up-
stream controller cycling, valve sticktion, etc. Disturbances can
have short or long persistence. If their persistence is less than
the sampling interval they appear as noise. Most disturbances
are not measured, surprising the control system with a CV devi-
ation to fix, and providing little information about the impend-
ing magnitude or trend in the CV deviation.
• Noise—This comprises seemingly random and independent
perturbations to what might be an average signal. Noise could
be due to mixing fluctuations causing variation on composition
measurement, or due to process turbulence impacting flow rate
measurement. Such sources of noise are due to the process-
sensor combination. Alternately, noise may be the result of
mechanical vibration or stray electromagnetic corruption of
transmitted signals. Often noise is close enough to being
Gaussian distributed that it can be accepted as normal for
analysis methods. There is a fine line between disturbance and
noise. If the sampling frequency is increased, what appears to
be independent noise begins to express autocorrelation and
appears like a disturbance with some persistence.
• Cause and Effect Relations—Depending on one’s viewpoint, a
substantial shift can be made in the input–output perspective.
For example, on a primitive heat exchanger control, the signal
from the product temperature controller to the steam valve
constitutes the single loop. In this case, steam pressure is a
significant unmeasurable disturbance to product temperature.
However, in either a cascade or ratio arrangement, the steam
flow controller operates the valve, and gets the flow rate set
point from the primary temperature controller. In the cascade
strategy, any flow rate fluctuation due to steam pressure is
‘‘immediately’’ corrected, eliminating that disturbance from the
product temperature.
• Initial Capital Cost—The desire to minimize investment cost of-
ten drives the design and equipment decisions. Such ‘‘rational’’
economic decisions often result in control-related undesirables,
such as: making CVs have a nonlinear and interacting response
to MVs, limiting process information available to the control
system, providing instruments and final control elements prone
to faults, and confounding the measurement with inferential
variables, delays, and noise.
• Faults—These take many forms:
– Measurement Error—Due to sensor failure, fouling, aging,
calibration drift. . .
– Final Control Element Problems—Valve sticktion, steam
pressure in down-stream utility lines, instrument air failure,
capacity, . . .
– Process—Bypass, blockage, cavitation, choking, collapsed
internals, broken mixer impeller, . . .
– Control System—High traffic leads to missed or delayed
transmission, CPU overload, alarm/priority overload, . . .
– Calibration—Discrimination error dominates a signal, PV is
beyond calibrated range, bias or systematic error, . . .
• Models—Since processes are nonlinear, multivariable, and
unique, model development is expensive. Since processes
are non-stationary, models can be either short lived, require
maintenance, or must be periodically updated or made
adaptive.
• Plant Staff Experience (of the Operator and Process Engineer)—
Several human issues include: Human machine Interface (HMI)
understandability, process and control method complexity,
easy and understandable process overview, training and
education required to implement and maintain the controllers
and associated aspects (HMI, models).
4 Editorial / ISA Transactions 50 (2011) 2–10
• Return on Investment—Control system and algorithms need
to be economically justified. The essential minimal control
is obvious to the process owner. How does one justify the
economic, safety, waste or risk reduction benefit and pay-out
time for each additional level of control complexity?
• Infrastructure—The choice of control scheme and devices must
be compatible with the legacy of field instrumentation, control
systems, software, procedures, and training materials for the
site.
3. Control schemes
It seems that no control scheme (strategy) solves every one
of the problems listed above. Accordingly, the users must assess
which problems are most important within their process context
(this includes technical, economic, safety, and political issues), and
choose a control scheme that is right for that confluence of issues
and concerns.
Listed below are a wide range of control schemes that have been
accepted in the CPI by industrial practice. These are organized from
simple to complex, and in the broad categories of Basic Control,
ARC and APC. Relative advantages are described for each.
(1) Basic Control—First level controllers, generally single-input-
single-output (SISO).
(a) On–Off—Sometimes referred to as bang–bang control, and
representing the signal to a solenoid valve, relief valve, air
compressor, refrigeration, room heater, etc. This is simple
to understand and implement. The on–off switch could be
initiated by a CV crossing a threshold and tempered by a
dead band. In this case, there are no proportional-integral-
derivative (PID) tuning parameters (switching dead band
may be adjustable). Alternatively, the on–off periods may
be apportioned as a percent of a fixed cycle time, as in time-
proportioning control. In this case, there is a higher level
controller, such as PID, that is setting the percent on-time
within each cycle time.
(b) PID—This includes P-only, I-only, PI, and all combinations.
This is the classical controller that was substantially com-
pleted and analyzed by the 1940s. It includes anti-windup
and bumpless transfer features, and many variations (rate
before reset, parallel gains, velocity mode, proportional
band, set point softening, bumpless transfer, etc.).
(c) Self-Tuning PID—These products use a range of strategies
(expert systems, evolutionary optimization, auto-tune
variation, model-based, etc.) to periodically adjust the PID
controller tuning values to meet dynamic performance
choices as the process changes.
(d) SISO Linear Model-Based Controllers—Targeted to com-
pensate for dead time is the Smith predictor, and for
more complex dynamics, Internal Model Control (IMC), and
other sampled-data model-based controllers. (IMC forms
the basis for lambda-tuning of PID control.) In ideal cases,
such as a low-order process model and a simple control ob-
jective, these algorithms generate PI or PID rules, and are no
different from a PID. Where the model dead time is a rea-
sonable approximation to the process dead time these con-
trollers provide excellent results because they essentially
control the model rather than having to wait to see what
the process does. There is only one tuning parameter, usu-
ally for CV damping, simplifying on-line tuning. However,
generating the model is a step more complicated for the
user. These also must have MAN–AUTO bumpless transfer
and output limit features as do PID.
(e) Adaptive Controllers—These usually have models or inter-
nal learning ability that adapts to the dynamic process data,
tracks changes in process dynamics and gain, and then uses
the models for control action.
(f) SISO Nonlinear Controllers—With a linear model, the
following all reduce to PID or one of the subsets (P, I,
PI, etc.). As with SISO PID, each needs to initialize model
values and have other auxiliary operations such as set point
tracking in the MAN mode, or a gradual return to the prior
set point in the AUTO mode for bumpless transfer. And,
each needs to limit the output between 0 and 100% (or −6%
and 106%, for example).
(i) Gain Scheduled PID—Either from explicit mathemati-
cal models or from experience it is relatively simple to
understand how the process gain, transport delay, and
time-constant change with operating conditions. This
knowledge can be used to determine controller gain,
integral and derivative time by conventional reaction-
curve tuning rules. The controller tuning response to
the nonlinear or non-stationary process can be placed
in a look-up table or calculated by equations.
(ii) Relatively Simple Process-Model Based Controllers—
There are several control approaches that use process-
models which are relatively simple for an individual
to implement. Predictive Functional Control (PFC) [1]
and Active Disturbance Rejection Control (ADRC) [2,3]
are of the few that are also marketed as a product. The
user must define the process model and embed it in the
controller software. Alternately, Generic Model Control
(GMC) [4] and Process-Model Based Control (PMBC) [5]
also provide simple structures, and any of these can
be implemented by an engineer with MS-level skills.
An engineer that is able to generate a first-principles
(simplified, basic modeling) process model can also
write the controller code. PFC uses a coincidence point
(a time in the future when it is desired to have
the process match the reference trajectory) for the
MV calculation. GMC with steady-state models uses a
fraction beyond the set point as a target to calculate
the MV. PMBC and GMC with dynamic models use a
desired rate of change toward the set point to calculate
MV. Feedback correction could be used to bias the set
point. In PMBC feedback correction is used to adjust
model parameters, keeping the model locally true to
the process; this has the additional benefit of providing
information about process health. Using a steady-state
model, GMC reduces to a PI controller sending a signal
that represents a biased set point to an output function
that uses the nonlinear model to calculate the MV GMC
is easily implemented a digital controller.
(2) Advanced Regulatory Control multi-input–single-output
(MISO).
(a) Cascade—One controller sends a set point to a lower-level
controller. When an intermediate PV can provide early
indication that a change will affect the primary CV, use the
MV to control the secondary CV, and use the primary CV
controller to determine the set point for the secondary CV.
(b) Ratio—One controller determines a desired ratio between
PVs, then one PV times the ratio becomes the set point
for the second PV. When a wild flow changes, the ratio
times the wild flow determines the controlled flow rate set
point. Ratio could be based on energy or other composite
variables. Ratio control detects a change and takes
immediate action. If there is a large dynamic difference
in how the wild and secondary controlled variables affect
the CV then include dynamic compensation. Ratio control
can be viewed as feedforward, but without dynamic
compensation.
 Editorial / ISA Transactions 50 (2011) 2–10
(c) Feedforward—A disturbance is observed; when it changes,
a time-scheduled compensator (typically lead–lag-delay-
gain) is added or multiplied to an MV. The disturbance
might be either a single measurement or a calculated
composite of several measurements.
(d) Override—Control intended to keep one CV at the SP
could make an auxiliary PV violate a limit. In this case
control of the MV needs to be taken over by the auxiliary
CV controller. Override could be the result of safety,
specification, economic conditions, the boss is watching,
maintenance, etc. In any case it is especially important that
the non-selected controller not windup. When there are
conflicting constraints, classic override by either high or
low select blocks is inadequate.
(e) Decouplers—In a multivariable interactive process with
SISO control loops, one controller changes its MV to correct
for a disturbance to its CV. However, that MV action upsets
another CV, and acts as a measurable disturbance to the
other controller. Dynamic compensators can decouple the
interaction by adding a time-compensated change on one
MV so that the change in the other MV does not upset the
one CV.
(f) Signal characterization—If a nonlinearity is fairly well-
known and relatively stationary, then a characterizing
function (the inverse of the process nonlinearity) can
be employed to overcome the process nonlinearity,
thus linearizing the control loop as a whole. Signal
characterization will often eliminate the need for self-
tuning or gain-scheduling in the PID.
(g) Tailored Process-Model Based Controllers—Several compa-
nies specialize in implementing process-model based con-
trol, and have developed techniques to handle multivari-
able aspects, model evolution, and constraints.
(h) Adaptive and Self-Tuning Controllers—These algorithms
observe the MV and CV and possibly disturbances, and use
the information to adjust the controller.
(i) Fuzzy Logic (FL) or Expert System (ES) Controllers—This
set of controllers uses human knowledge. Heuristics or
expert rules are embedded in a logic system that uses
human understanding to calculate the MV. This can adjust
for nonlinearity, and often includes issues such as dynamic
compensation for measurable disturbances or coordination
from up-stream events. Most vendor products show an
example FLC as a nonlinear velocity-mode PI. But if
nonlinear PI control is desired, then classic gain scheduling
would be simpler. It appears that FLC and ES are better
suited for higher level applications, such as coordinated
control of parallel streams, to change cycling periods as
carbon bed absorption capacity degrades, or automation of
other supervisory activities of the process operator.
(3) Advanced Process Control—generally multi-input–multi-
output (MIMO).
(a) Model Predictive Control—This is the most often consid-
ered component of APC. MPC packages may include some
are all of the following features:
(i) SISO or MISO constraint-handling control—Action
now could lead to violating a constraint in the future.
Model-based Constraint-handling controllers forecast
the impact of past MV and disturbance influences
on the future of the process, and choose a future
MV sequence that will avoid or minimize constraint
violation. If the model is linear, the least squares
inverse is relatively easy to obtain. If nonlinear
but static, Dynamic Programming can calculate a
best path, which can be placed in a look-up table.
Either case imposes an inconsequential computational
burden for on-line, real-time calculations. However,
if the process model is non-stationary the controller
must calculate an optimal MV sequence at each stage.
5
(ii) Linear MIMO Control—If interactive, decouplers can
solve that problem. If subject to measurable distur-
bances, feedforward can handle that. Override can
handle constraints, when they are hit. These tech-
niques, however, may be impractical in situations of
very high number of interacting MVs, in situations
where avoidance of future constraints is an impor-
tant consideration, in situations where there are con-
flicting constraints, and finally, in situations where
DoF > 0 calls for economic optimization or where
DoF < 0 calls for balancing CV objectives. Model Pre-
dictive Control handles these in a unified framework.
MPC typically uses a finite impulse response (FIR)
model of the process, a vector of CV values after an MV
impulse, with a vector length (time duration) equal
to the time required for the CV to return to within a
noisy vicinity of its original value. Feedback of process-
model-mismatch (residual) corrects all future model
predictions by the current residual. Tempering control
action is by either CV damping (CV reference trajec-
tory) or MV damping (a penalty for large MV moves).
Optimization handles the DoF ̸= 0 case. Vendors use
a variety of optimizers. Compared with the number of
options available with PID (velocity mode, rate before
reset, proportional band, set point softening, bumpless
transfer, external reset feedback, . . . ), there are even
more options within the concept of MPC.
(iii) Nonlinear MIMO Control—Some processes are so
nonlinear that linear control only has a limited
useful range. Nonlinear MPC can accommodate for
the nonlinearity. There are a variety of approaches,
including the use of neural network static models,
first-principle models, expert estimates, switching
between several linear models as operating conditions
change, and grouped NNs to individually predict select
future process values. Most commercial products
use linear (stationary) dynamic representations and
either nonlinear static gains or multiple linear models.
However, some companies are offering true nonlinear
control approaches.
(b) Other—Depending upon the corporate organization and
culture, there are other technologies that are sometimes
considered as within the realm of APC. These include
expert systems, artificial neural nets, optimization, abnor-
mal situation management, alarm management, safety in-
strumented systems, etc. They are not ‘‘control’’ per se,
however. There are also many other advanced control ap-
proaches used outside of the CPI.
4. Comparisons of ARC and APC
4.1. Experimental
Subawalla et al. [6] evaluated MPC (a commercial product
[DMC]⃝ r
), PMBC, IMC, and ARC algorithms on a commercial-scale
plasma etch reactor and a lab-scale distillation column. Joshi
et al. [7] evaluated ARC, IMC, MPC, PMBC, GMC, FLC, and MPC–NN
(a neural network based model within an MPC structure) control
algorithms for on a pilot-scale fluid flow and heat exchange
unit. Ou and Rhinehart [8] evaluated grouped neural network
MPC on lab-scale distillation. Collectively the processes express
classic problems associated with MIMO, interactive, nonlinear,
varying dynamics, measurement noise, and substantial dead time.
Although the test processes expressed many control problems
(ill-behaved dynamics, disparate dynamics, noise, interactive,
disturbances, nonlinear), they all were of low dimension (2–4 MVs)
6 Editorial / ISA Transactions 50 (2011) 2–10
Table 1
Advanced control strategy impact on humans.
Enhance operator ability
A good dynamic model can provide a strong training simulator that enhances
operator understanding and ability to respond to abnormal situations.
Automation can correct human error, by revealing the right way to coordinate
MVs.
Control system can disentangle interactions and move multiple MVs in a
dynamically coordinated, constraint avoiding manner.
with relatively simple constraint and degree of freedom (DoF)
aspects. Each group evaluated multiple performance criteria
related to control implementation and operation. Tests included
set point tracking and disturbance rejection.
Their evaluation criteria included:
• Cost (initial, development, equipment, process testing to obtain
models).
• Operator issues (education, convenience, understandability,
engagement, maintenance, supervision/intervention, ease of
adjustment, knowledge development).
• Computational aspects (computer speed, memory require-
ments, ancillary routines, algorithm robustness, execution er-
rors, guaranteed solutions within a defined time).
• DoF handling (excess and insufficient number of MVs, future
constraints, hard and soft).
• Robustness (unexpected upsets, process and instrument faults,
calibration errors, stays tuned, product changeover, production
rate).
• Balance of CV and MV performance (ISE, MV movement, and
propagation of noise).
• Miscellaneous benefits (process knowledge validation and
dissemination, personnel training, process diagnosis and health
monitoring, predictive maintenance, politics).
Their conclusions include:
• None of the control approaches are operator-convenient.
• When any controller contains solutions to all process problems,
it is technically equivalent to any other controller. With the
same features, ARC matches nonlinear-APC.
• DoF handling (future impacts) requires model-predictive con-
trol.
• ARC was best in all categories except in miscellaneous benefits
and DoF (constraint) handling.
• Where a single problem dominates, use the simplest control
approach designed to handle that problem.
4.2. Evaluation
APC or ARC decisions should not be based on CV performance
alone. There are many other benefits to consider.
How does advanced control impact the operators’ ability to
take manual corrective action in response to process events? This
is grounded in operators’ understanding of both the advanced
controller and the process, and complicated controllers can either
diminish or enhance that ability (see Table 1).
The human machine interface (HMI), which displays the
process and controller activity to the operators, is a critical element
in the success of process management. If operators are not engaged
and the control action is not understandable, then their ability to
manage abnormal events in the process progressively diminishes.
How do the modeling outcomes of advanced control benefit
process understanding by the engineer and subsequent process en-
gineering aspects such as trouble shooting, process improvement,
and abnormal management? The better the process knowledge,
the better will be process management decisions related to predic-
tive maintenance, fault/situation diagnosis, knowledge dissemina-
tion, supervisory economic modeling, and process management.
Diminish operator ability
Advanced control can be confusing and reduces process understanding, especially
for relative new personnel.
Control displays may not keep the operators engaged with the process, revealing
nothing that improves their understanding.
Operators are often not able to make sense of what the controllers are doing.
Controller models based on process first-principles can be
especially useful for knowledge validation and dissemination, and
automated process health monitoring.
5. Economic benefits of control and advanced control
5.1. Primary benefits
Bauer and Craig [9] reported the results of a survey of
industrial APC experts (66 responded, 38 users, 28 suppliers),
asking about how to determine the economic benefits of APC. They
covered all major sectors of the CPI. In their study, APC includes
MPC, constraint control, split range control, linear programming,
nonlinear control, dead time compensation, statistical process
control, FLC and Expert systems, IMC, self-tuning and adaptive
control, and others. More than 50% of the 38 users indicated that
they had in-house APC software and expertise to implement it.
They reported the primary reasons for economic benefits,
which are listed in the following. The numbers in parenthesis
are approximations of the proportion of respondents listing that
aspect as important. For instance, 70% of the respondents stated
that ‘‘throughput Increase’’ was an economic benefit associated
with an APC project. Listed in decreasing priority (the percentages
represent the number of respondents citing this as an economic
benefit, not the magnitude of the benefit):
• Throughput increase (70%).
• Process stability improvement (55%).
• Energy consumption reduction (55%).
• Increased yield of more valuable products (50%).
• Quality giveaway reduction (40%).
• Down time reduction (18%).
• Better use of raw materials (15%).
• Responsiveness increase (12%).
• Reprocessing cost reduction (10%).
• Safety increase (9%).
• Operating manpower reduction (7%).
• Other (10%).
Obviously there are many economic benefits. In any one
particular application, one benefit may have been the critical issue;
but overall, the first 5 benefits dominate. And of them, it seems
that most applications used the improved control to increase
throughput.
5.2. Estimating economic benefits of advanced control
The survey [9] also asked APC experts to state the extent
of the economic benefit, the payback period, and how can
one estimate the potential impact from an APC application?
Respondents cited a range of 35%–85% for CV variability reduction
from improved control, averaging about 50%, which matches
the authors’ experience. A reduction in variability means tighter
control. This provides the process owner an opportunity to choose
from the above benefits, and the popularity of the benefits
indicates that owners chose to operate closer to specifications
 Editorial / ISA Transactions 50 (2011) 2–10
and process constraints, which means increased throughput and
yield, and reduced energy consumption. Bauer and Craig [9] report
that ‘‘. . . throughput and quality, which are directly related, were
two frequently named profit factors’’. Canney [10] estimates that
APC increases throughput by about 3%–5%. Some of the Bauer and
Craig [9] respondents cited 5%–10%.
The respondents also indicate that APC projects have a payback
period of 3–9 months. Honeywell [11] reports 6 months on
a particular project, giving credit to the strong involvement
and cooperation between the vendor staff and the user staff.
Canney [12] estimates 9 months on his web site. This makes APC
very high on the investment priority list.
However, it appears that many applications degrade into disuse,
disappointingly rapidly, because resources are not allocated to
maintain the APC [9,13,14]. Wade recalls an estimate of APC
project half-life of about one year, which is consistent with the
authors’ experience. Reasons for disuse include: process operating
conditions (equipment reconfiguration, equipment revamp, or
product mix) change and the models or relationships become
dysfunctional for the new process; rotation of operators and
engineers is not accompanied by adequate training; re-tuning or
restructuring of lower level controllers changes relative gains that
the upper-level MPC experiences; changing valve sizes changes
constraints and nonlinearity. Unless the economic incentive
remains, companies do not justify the economic re-investment to
maintain the control system. For instance, a change in product
distribution or demand, or an improvement in process capacity
could remove the primary APC justification—throughput increase.
This would suggest that a criterion to consider when justifying
an APC application is the expected time over which the economic
incentive will remain strong.
Since the first stage in implementing MPC seems to be
improving the basic control system, it is difficult to separate the
impact of good regulatory control and MPC on the economic
benefits. Hugo [13], for instance asks, ‘‘Were any measurements
added? Benefits are commonly claimed for MPC pushing the plant to
a new measured constraint, but is this benefit due to MPC, or is it due
to new knowledge of the constraint?’’
It is often stated that fixing basic problems with a control sys-
tem that is in need of renovation is often a major contributor to
improvements. For instance devices and inferential measurements
may not be functioning properly, and the strategy may no longer
be matched to how the plant is now being operated; and fixing
such problems may significantly improve process performance.
Kern [15], Darby et al. [16], Ford [14], and Hugo [13] each mention
this. Wade recalls an instance where, in a process study made for
the purpose of designing ARC, a controller was tuned in order to ob-
tain meaningful study results. This action substantially improved
the process performance; so much so, that the process owner re-
ceived more benefit than expected from the ARC upgrade and
wanted to end the project. Refreshingly, even an APC vendor [11]
credits economic improvement to ‘‘. . . several basic control loops
were modified and optimized, yielding improved plant controllability
and stability, which was necessary for a successful APC realization’’.
MPC successes are often credited to fixing and upgrading the
primary control devices and strategy. Perhaps management buy-in
to APC is the mechanism to get the resources needed to take care
of the basics.
5.3. Estimation of costs of implementing APC
Bauer and Craig [9] report that the main costs associated with
implementing APC are:
• Consultant manpower cost (68%).
• Cost of technology (58%).
• Control software (upgrade) (45%).
7
• Internal manpower cost (35%).
• Control hardware (upgrade) (35%).
• Maintenance cost (30%).
• Traveling expenditure (5%).
• Production loss due to installation downtime (4%).
• Other (5%).
Again, numbers in parenthesis represent the number of respon-
dents who placed that category as one of the top three contributors
to implementation cost.
Canney [12] estimates an average MPC implementation cost of
$450k.
6. When to use which?
6.1. Technical aspects
Estimates for the number of MPC product units implemented
world-wide since the 80s range from 10,000–15,000. Estimates of
the proportion of control loops using PID controllers within the
CPI are about 95% with the remaining 5% of loops using something
else (MPC, adaptive, fuzzy, etc.). Application demographics favor
implementing PID, but certain control problems make other
choices technically more favorable.
Use the right tool for the job: A kitchen worker may need
to open a can of touch-up paint. Being familiar with the shape
of a table knife, knowledgeable about where to find one, and
understanding how to use it; the knife may become the chosen tool
to open the paint can. A garage-person may use a screw driver. But,
a paint can opener is the best tool, considering damage to the tool
or to the can lid. However, if the tool works once, then there will
be a tendency to use it next time. Rhinehart says, ‘‘I know I have a
paint can opener somewhere, but I continue to use the screwdriver,
even though it bends the lip on the can top’’. Interestingly, Bauer
and Craig [9] report that ‘‘. . . half of the APC experts choose a control
technology that they are already familiar with, based on favorable
experience with that technology on similar processes’’. Some people
say, ‘‘When you have a hammer, all the world looks like a nail’’. Use
the right tool. Here is a guide for controller selection:
• PI(D)—It is simple, well understood, reasonably functional,
has many enhancements for gain scheduling, overrides, etc.
Products are widely available from most control vendor for PCs,
PLCs, and DCSs. It translates an operator’s experience in one
process to another. Its high reliability makes it appropriate for
most situations where interactions are and constraints are not
significant issues.
• If SISO, nonlinear, with well-behaved dynamics—Use gain
scheduled PI(D). Alternately, use PFC, ADRC, GMC, or PMBC to
clearly embody the process models.
• If SISO, nonlinear, only qualitatively understood, but adequately
understood for good manual control—Use FLC.
• If SISO, linear, and ill-behaved dynamics—Use IMC. This requires
a model of the ill-behaved dynamics (integrating, inverse,
delay).
• If SISO, nonlinear, and non-stationary—Consider adaptive
controllers.
• If MISO, linear, and stationary—Consider inferential control, or
ARC.
• If MISO, linear, well-behaved dynamics—Ratio, cascade, feed-
forward.
• If MISO, nonlinear, well-behaved dynamics—Ratio, cascade,
feedforward, gain scheduling.
• If MISO, constraints on present value of auxiliary variables—Use
override.
• If MISO, with constraints on future PV values—Use APC.
8 Editorial / ISA Transactions 50 (2011) 2–10
• If MIMO, nonlinear, well-behaved, not subject to constraints—
Use PFC, ADRC, GMC, or PMBC. (The authors are not aware of
commercial GMC or PMBC products, so these will have to be
user-structured.)
• If MIMO, linear, interactive, subject to simple constraints, and 2
or 3 MVs—Consider ARC.
• If MIMO, linear, interactive, subject to constraints (DoF < 0)
or opportunities (DoF > 0), large number of MVs, loops that
switch between MAN and AUTO, and similar dynamics for all
CVs—Use MPC (APC, HPC, DMC, etc.). This can be expensive,
which requires strong payout rates. Unless the process never
changes (product mix, physical structure, operating rate),
MPC performance degrades, requiring model re-development.
Payout is usually the consequence of throughput enhancement,
and 6- to 9-month pay-back periods are often indicated.
However, without maintenance, staged decommission by
default by the operators a year later is also often mentioned.
• If MIMO, linear, interactive, subject to constraints (DoF < 0) or
opportunities (DoF > 0), large number of MVs, and dissimilar
dynamics for the CVs—Use a hierarchal control structure with
APC supervising a lower level ARC.
• If MIMO, interactive, subject to constraints, and either nonlinear
or non-stationary—Consider nonlinear MPC, or a hierarchal
structure.
An underappreciated issue with ARC is one of identifying
the required models (e.g., Smith predictors, decouplers), which
are often limited to first-order plus dead time. Most modeling
packages on the market are tailored to MPC not ARC. For more
complicated strategies, where engineering principles cannot be
used to determine the model parameters, trial-and-error tuning of
the model parameters is not a viable option.
Related to choosing an appropriate control strategy, Darby
et al. [16] discuss the ‘‘. . . significant ‘art’ aspect to the application
. . . ’’ and that ‘‘. . . both technical and organizational issues . . . are
critical . . . ’’ Experience with the process, classical control and
model-predictive control is needed to consider whether sensors
are in the right locations, measuring enough variables, and
reliable enough to be able to provide accurate, fault-free, and
complete information in a timely manner. Can reliable inferential
measurements be generated from time-compensation of the
measurements, or from a combination of simpler measurements?
Are valves adequately sized to provide a linear response, and
are they properly functioning to prevent sticktion and constraint
issues? How should plant tests be designed to reveal plant
dynamics without hitting future constraints? When is the model
adequate? In a hierarchical structure, which variables should be
included in the lower level ARC and which in the upper-level APC?
The answers to these questions depend what operating conditions
will affect the plant today, and in the future, which shape the
relative importance of the pros and cons associated with each
choice.
6.2. Non-technical aspects
Consider the following example: A single controlled variable
with significant dead time and one or more significant disturbance
variables are available as feed forwards. Such a strategy could be
implemented as ARC or MPC. If there are skills in the company and
the necessary capability in the distributed control system (DCS),
ARC is a viable option. Issues that might lead to implementing
the strategy in MPC include company expertise and knowledge, a
longer term plan to develop a more extensive MPC strategy, or lack
of a standard DCS platform (e.g., a company with several different
DCS systems) and a decision to standardize advanced applications
with MPC with only base regulatory controls implemented in the
DCS systems. DCS migration of ARC is typically time-consuming;
migration of MPC to a new DCS is typically not.
6.3. Why not use MPC?
The reasons to use MPC are grounded in model-predictive ac-
tion, DoF handling (economics and present and future constraints),
coordinated MIMO control, and reduction in CV variability. But,
there are things that MPC is not best at doing, providing a set of
reasons to not use MPC. Extracting information from [13,14], these
include:
• Cascade and hierarchical applications, which have intermediate
variables and loops with relatively fast dynamics relative to the
primary or upper-level loops.
• Control loops where the primary problem is nonlinearity (gains
or time-constants change with state) or nonstationarity (gains
of time-constants change in time). Linear MPC is not the
solution, perhaps nonlinear MPC is applicable or linear MPC
with gain scheduling or multiple models.
• Batch—nonstationary.
• Processes that cycle through distinct stages, and would need
dynamic models for each stage. (Notable, with any control
scheme, independent tuning may be needed for each stage.)
• Processes with three or fewer interacting MVs.
• Situations where continual engagement of operators on the
process is desired to keep them trained and able to react for
abnormal event management.
• Applications with a small constraint set where economics
dictate a consistent constraint policy.
There are some residual reasons that seem to be disappearing.
• Processes that are likely to change frequently or soon, to the
extent that the model needs to be changed. Nonlinear MPC
and multi-model MPC can cope with this. Regardless, if a
significant change is impending, ARC will likely need retuning
or restructuring also.
• Situations where the controller undesirably causes the process
to jump from one set of constraints to another as supervisory
optimizers economically adjust set points. This is somewhat of
a complaint about earlier MPC implementations, disappearing
as the technology evolves.
• Applications where critical sensors or analyzers are subject to
frequent faults. If ARC has the same functionality as an MPC,
it needs the same sensors. For equivalent performance, the
problem with sensor faults is equivalent with both ARC and
MPC.
7. Commercial MPC products
From the Wikipedia Web site [17]:
‘‘Commercial MPC packages typically contain tools for model
identification and analysis, controller design and tuning, as well
as controller performance evaluation. The commercially available
packages include:
• FLSmidth Automation ECS/Process Expert for Cement and Mineral
Applications.
• Connoisseur control and identification package (Invensys).
• INCA (linear, nonlinear, Batch) from IPCOS.
• Pavilion8 (Pavilion Technologies).
• ADMC & APCX1 (both Cutlertech).
• DMC Plus (Aspen Technology).
• RMPCT (Honeywell).
• 3dMPC & Expert Optimizer (both ABB).
• DeltaV Predict and PredictPRO (Emerson).
• APC Library (Siemens|PCS7).
• MACS (Capstone Technology).
• eMPC (eposC) and Control Station’s LOOP-PRO.
• ControlMV, PharmaMV and WaterMV from Perceptive Engineer-
ing.
 Editorial / ISA Transactions 50 (2011) 2–10
• MATLAB Model Predictive Control Toolbox.
• Prime (RandControls)’’.
With help from [18], here are additions, in alphabetical order
by vendor name, including adaptive, nonlinear, process-model
based, and MPC products. (Notably there are many companies that
provide APC or ARC services. Listed below are only companies with
named products.)
• ABB (Optimize IT).
• Adersa (HIECON, and PFC).
• Aspen Technologies (AspenOne, Aspen Target, DMC-Plus).
• Capstone Technology Corporation 2(MACS).
• ControSoft (Mantra).
• Cutler Technology (ADMC1 Adaptive Multivariable Controller).
• CyboSoft (Model Free Adaptive Control).
• Emerson (Delta-V NN and FLC, and EnTech).
• Expertune (Plant Triage).
• Gensym (G2 products).
• Honeywell (Profit MAX, Profit Suite, and former Dot Products
Nova and STAR).
• Hyperion (DMCplusTM).
• Ipcos (INCA).
• Knowledge Process Solutions (IPC).
• LineStream (ADRC).
• Matrikon (ProcessACT).
• Perceptive Engineering (Perceptive).
• Shell Global (SMOC-II).
• Universal Dynamics (Brainwave).
• Yokogawa (APCSuite).
8. Additional perspectives to guide improvement
8.1. Product improvement
Although research and development in control and related
automation support has provided wonderful tools, room for
improvement remains. Here are some development opportunities:
• Autonomous health monitoring of the process and the control
system; or other such ‘‘cyber employees’’ that observe, evaluate,
and advise operators and engineers.
• Sustainment—monitoring and improving both ARC and APC,
perhaps within 6-sigma plans.
• Autonomous abnormal event (fault, disturbance) recognition,
diagnosis, and compensation.
• Normal event (stage completion) recognition and action trigger.
The event to be recognized might be steady-state, transient
state, draining complete, emulsion stabilization, etc.
• Control of perceived situations from visual, acoustic, sniffer
diagnosis of phenomena (cavitation, impending log jams, im-
pending undesired confluence of events, impending flooding,
clinker formation, foaming, froth, agglomeration, taste, cus-
tomer satisfaction). This is in contrast to controlling state vari-
ables.
• Automation of every routine function of the operators and
engineers (data analysis, transition start & stop, balancing
feeds, adjusting cycle times, initiating calibration, evaluation of
last night’s loop performance, set point adjustments based on
control chart data).
• The use of economic uncertainty to temper control action.
Evaluating the value of intermediate products is even more
difficult than determining a value of the product (considering
Sales activities). But real time optimization (RTO) and APC
actions are strongly grounded in economic values. How can
we prevent RTO and APC from bouncing operating conditions
between constraints when there is an appearance of a penny to
be saved?
9
• The development of robust, accurate, in-process cost account-
ing systems to determine the value of intermediate and final
products.
• Control technology to achieve improvement, not to hold at the
status quo. This would be a supervisory recognition of desired
and undesired outcomes of control action, scheduling, etc. by
monitoring waste, costs, safety, inventory, etc.; which would
lead to autonomous changes in the system management rules.
• Automated model development and adjustment by computer-
observation of data. Automate validation of new observations
with data and comparison to historical models. Using utility as
the evaluation criteria, only update a model when utility reveals
that it is justified.
• Better integration of laboratory analysis as feedback action
when inferential techniques use laboratory data for updates.
• Creation of a modeling framework for control which combines
empirical models and fundamental models (of appropriate
complexity for the application).
• Development of MPC Cascades, or distributed MPC. (This is
already getting research attention and could alleviate some of
the MPC challenges or concerns expressed earlier.)
• Shifting of the marketing of FLC and ES from feedback control
to supervisory applications.
According to [9,14,16,18] here are additional development
needs for control:
• Standard methodology or tool to estimate the cost benefit
analysis of potential APC or RTO application.
• Look-up table of benefits from post application audits on a
per unit per situation basis to facilitate estimation of economic
benefit of new applications.
• Continuous monitoring of economic benefit, total and for each
loop.
• Evaluation of economic impact of ‘‘model degradation’’ (actu-
ally the plant changes which makes the outdated model less
than ideal).
• Integration of planning, scheduling, RTO, and APC. RTO is a
SS model sandwiched between dynamic operations. RTO uses
instantaneous prices and costs, but APC action is devoid of
economics or based on old values. RTO changes can move from
one constraint set to another, with no assessment of the impact
on utilities cost or product variability. Scheduling creates a
wave of change that progresses through the plant, but RTO uses
SS models.
• Improvement in HMI technology so that operators and process
engineers can understand both the process behaviors and the
controller solution.
• The use of multiple objective functions, for priority shedding of
constraints, for instance.
• Creation of adaptive MPC that auto corrects the model,
preventing degradation.
• Development of tuning procedures that are easy to implement
(prevent ill-conditioning, reflect operational priorities, do not
need extensive simulation testing).
• Development of guidelines to indicate when the model is
good enough to stop plant tests. Plantwide control (coordinate
sequential units, overall plant optimization instead of local
units, synthesis of control structure), hierarchy and strategies
for what and how to control in a plant?
• Diagnostic techniques for poorly performing controllers.
• Automation of the hierarchal structure. What variables should
be part of the conventional ARC and what should be inputs
and outputs of the supervisory MPC? Should there be one
supervisory MPC or does the plant isolation of effects indicate
that several smaller MPCs, one for each section, is better?
10 Editorial / ISA Transactions 50 (2011) 2–10
• Development of technology for making MPC action more
aggressive when CV is changed by unmeasured disturbances?
• Automatic and robust updating of inferred property rules
(inferential sensors, soft sensors) which estimate the CV value
for the controllers.
• Automatic and robust updating of steady-state models used in
RTO (real time optimization) to keep them true to the plant.
• Improved robustness to field instruments (sensor transmitters,
communication network, final elements).
• Static transformations to linearize the process I/O so that linear
MPC is applicable.
• Models of the unmeasured disturbance so that future model
predictions are corrected by future estimated residuals.
• Inclusion of consistency relationships in the model. Include
material and energy balances, VLE, unit operation models,
steady-state gains, etc. as constraints in model optimization.
• Continued improvements in methods for closed loop plant
identification.
8.2. Undergraduate process control experience
The topics discussed in this paper also present a challenge to
control educators related to the preparation of students within
undergraduate engineering programs for automation and control
careers. Here are some perspectives on how education should be
changed to support the automation engineering workforce needs:
• Let go of the technology legacy of PID control to a set point,
and prepare engineers to become the parents and coaches of
intelligent controllers who can baby-sit their process. Students
will need to understand the rasion d’etre of their process.
They will need to understand and recognize misbehavior
and know how to correct and prevent it. They will need to
understand health, recognize symptoms, diagnose the disease,
and implement a cure. Control theory is not the essential issue
for undergraduates seeking to go to industry. Present the math
and analysis that is fundamental to control as a secondary,
supporting theme. Do not let the joy of the mathematics mask
the primary course objective. Drop frequency analysis and
z-transforms from undergraduate courses. Diminish Laplace
transforms to the role of a historical language of communicating
process and controller dynamics. For the plant engineer,
Laplace transforms need to be understood only as a carrier of
information such as process order, dead time value, and gain
value. Paraphrasing a comment from Greg Shinskey in a 2003
ISA Division Newsletter: There is too much academic emphasis
on tuning for set point changes—in part due to IMC/lambda tuning
approaches. The key is tuning for disturbances!
• Add process control laboratory experience to the undergrad-
uate program. Automate Unit Operations Laboratory process
equipment. Use pilot-scale equipment. Do not use bench-top
engineering-science experiments or computer simulators for
the chemical engineering lab. Students need to experience
valves, sensors, data logging, loop structure and tuning, signal
transmission, etc.
• Add Automation Engineering degree programs to universities,
or adequate courses to obtain a minor in automation. The one
control course in the ChE program is adequate to reveal the
‘‘tip of the iceberg’’ of PID feedback control to students, but it
does not usually cover instrument system calibration, ARC, APC,
optimization, DCS structure or operation, electronic aspects
(grounding, wiring protocol, isolation), Safety Instrumented
Systems, health monitoring, permissible industrial tuning
practices, etc.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the review and feedback from Dave
Schnelle, Jacques Smuts, and Alan Hugo.
References
[1] Richalet J, O’Donovan D. Predictive functional control: principles and
industrial applications. New York (NY, USA): Springer; 2009.
[2] Han J. Auto-disturbance rejection control and its applications. Control and
Decision 1998;13(1):19–23 [in Chinese].
[3] Gao Z. Active disturbance rejection control: a paradigm shift in feedback
control system design. In: Proceedings of the 2006 American control
conference. 2006. p. 2399–405.
[4] Lee PL, Sullivan GR. Generic model control. Computers and Chemical
Engineering 1998;12(6):573–80.
[5] Rhinehart RR, Riggs JB. Process control through nonlinear modeling. Control
1990;III(7):86–90.
[6] Subawalla H, Paruchurri VP, Gupta A, Pandit HG, Rhinehart RR. Comparison
of model-based and conventional control: a summary of experimental results.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 1996;35(10):3547–59.
[7] Joshi NV, Murugan P, Rhinehart RR. Experimental comparison of control
strategies. Control Engineering Practice 1997;5(7):885–96.
[8] Ou J, Rhinehart RR. Grouped neural network modeling for model predictive
control. ISA Transactions 2002;41(2):195–202.
[9] Bauer M, Craig IK. Economic assessment of advanced process control—a survey
and framework. Journal of Process Control 2008;18:2–18.
[10] Canney WM. The future or advanced process control promises more benefits
and sustained value. Oil & Gas Journal 2003;101(16):48–54.
[11] Honeywell process solutions, BASF ammonia plant increases production and
achieves ROI in six months with profit controller. http://hpsweb.honeywell.
com/Cultures/en-US/NewsEvents/SuccessStories/Success_BaASF [accessed
28.04.10].
[12] Canney WM. WMCanney@ModelPredictiveControl.com [accessed 05.06.10].
[13] Hugo A. Simpler control methods often provide better results. Hydrocarbon
Processing 2000;83–8.
[14] Ford JR. APC: a status report (The Patient Is Still Breathing!), a white paper.
Maverick technologies. www.mavtechglobal.com [accessed 12.06.08].
[15] Kern A. An inferential update. InTECH. May/June 2010. vol. 57. No. 3. 2010. p.
14–6.
[16] Darby ML, Harmse M, Nikolaou M. MPC: current practice and challenges,
ADCHEM 2009. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on advanced
control and chemical processes, an IFAC symposium. Koc University. Keynote
Lecture 3.1. Paper 239. 2009.
[17] Wikipedia. ‘‘Model predictive control’’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_
predictive_control#Overview page was last modified on 15 May 2010 at
11:18 [accessed 02.06.2010].
[18] Qin SJ, Badgwell TA. A survey of industrial model predictive control
technology. Control Engineering Practice 2003;11:733–64.
R. Russell Rhinehart ∗
School of Chemical Engineering,
423 Engineering North, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, OK 74078-5021, USA
E-mail address: rrr@okstate.edu.
Mark L. Darby 1
Principal CMiD Solutions,
13106 Dogwood Blossom Trail,
Houston, TX 77065, USA
E-mail address: darbymark@sbcglobal.net.
Harold L. Wade 2
Principal Wade Associates,
Inc. 17522 Bushy Ruver Ct.,
Houston, TX 77095, USA
E-mail address: wade@wadeco.com.
20 October 2010
Available online 24 November 2010
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 405 744 5280; fax: +1 405 744
6338.
1
Tel.: +1 713 927 8709.
2
Tel.: +1 281 304 9502.