Advertisement

Does Control Quality Matter?

  • Paweł D. DomańskiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 245)

Abstract

This chapter initiates the book narration. It formulates the rationale for the Control Performance Assessment (CPA). Process improvement is the main raison d’être for control systems. The relationship is straightforward. Better control causes higher performance. Despite this clear relation and common understanding of the fact, the majority of the industrial loops is neither well tuned nor properly designed. Control engineers require tools and indexes that would measure how good the control system is. Moreover they require suggestions for what should be done to improve existing poor situation. The CPA research history started in 1960s and continues till nowadays. The research is ongoing. Its importance did not decrease. During fifty years of the interest several different approaches have been investigated, like data driven or model-based approaches defined using different domains. Simultaneously, as new control strategies have emerged, according assessment approaches have developed as well. Almost each control strategy, starting from SISO PID loops up to advanced control predictive and adaptive algorithms, has been addressed in the research and specific methodologies have been proposed. It has to be noted that CPA task has been initiated by industry, is being done for industry and is perpetually validated by industry. Practical aspects, especially derived from the process industry are addressed and constitutes an important aspect of this chapter and the whole book.

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal, N., Huang, B., Tamayo, E.C.: Assessing model prediction control (MPC) performance. 2. Bayesian approach for constraint tuning. Indus. Eng. Chem. Res. 46(24), 8112–8119 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alagoz, B.B., Tan, N., Deniz, F.N., Keles, C.: Implicit disturbance rejection performance analysis of closed loop control systems according to communication channel limitations. IET Control Theor. Appl. 9(17), 2522–2531 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ali, M.K.: Assessing economic benefits of advanced control. In: 5th Asian Control Conference, Process Control in the Chemical Industries, Chemical Engineering Department, pp. 146–159. King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Åström, K.J.: Computer control of a paper machine—an application of linear stochastic control theory. IBM J. 11, 389–405 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Åström, K.J.: Introduction to Stochastic Control Theory. Mathematics in Science and Engineering, vol. 70. Academic Press (1970)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Badwe, A.S., Gudi, R.D., Patwardhan, R.S., Shah, S.L., Patwardhan, S.C.: Detection of model-plant mismatch in MPC applications. J. Process Control 19(8), 1305–1313 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basseville, M.: On-board component fault detection and isolation using the statistical local approach. Automatica 34(11), 1391–1415 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bauer, M., Craig, I.K.: Economic assessment of advanced process control—a survey and framework. J. Process Control 18(1), 2–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer, M., Craig, I.K., Tolsma, E., de Beer, H.: A profit index for assessing the benefits of process control. Indus. Eng. Chem. Res. 46(17), 5614–5623 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bauer, M., Horch, A., Xie, L., Jelali, M., Thornhill, N.: The current state of control loop performance monitoring—a survey of application in industry. J. Process Control 38, 1–10 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Begum, G.K., Rao, S.A., Radhakrishnan, T.K.: Performance assessment of control loops involving unstable systems for set point tracking and disturbance rejection. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 85, 1–17 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhandare, D.S., Kulkarni, N.R.: Performances evaluation and comparison of PID controller and fuzzy logic controller for process liquid level control. In: 2015 15th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS), pp. 1347–1352 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bialic, G.: Methods of control performance assessment for sampled data systems working under stationary stoachastics disturbances. Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation of Technical University of Opole, Poland (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bialic, G., Błachuta, M.J.: Performance assessment of control loops with PID controllers based on correlation and spectral analysis. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics, MMAR 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Botelho, V.R., Trierweiler, J.O., Farenzena, M., Longhi, L.G.S., Zanin, A.C., Teixeira, H.C.G., Duraiski, R.G.: Model assessment of MPCs with control ranges: an industrial application in a delayed coking unit. Control Eng. Pract. 84, 261–273 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boverie, S., Demaya, B., Ketata, R., Titli, A.: Performance evaluation of fuzzy controllers. IFAC Proc. Vol. 25(6), 69–74 (1992). IFAC Symposium on Intelligent Components and Instruments for Control Applications (SICICA’92), Malaga, Spain, 20–22 May 1992Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Box, G.E.P., Jenkins, G.M.: Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control. Holden-Day, San Franciso, CA (1970)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cano-Izquierdo, J.M., Ibarrola, J., Kroeger, M.A.: Control loop performance assessment with a dynamic neuro-fuzzy model (dFasArt). IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 9(2), 377–389 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carelli, A.C., da Souza Jr, M.B.: GPC controller performance monitoring and diagnosis applied to a diesel hydrotreating reactor. IFAC Proc. Vol. 42(11), 976–981 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen, J.: Statistical methods for process monitoring and control. Master’s thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Choudhury, M.A.A.S., Shah, S.L., Thornhill, N.F.: Detection and quantification of control valve stiction. IFAC Proc. 37(9), 865–870 (2004a). 7th IFAC Symposium on Dynamics and Control of Process Systems 2004 (DYCOPS -7), Cambridge, USA, 5–7 July 2004Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choudhury, M.A.A.S, Shah, S.L, Thornhill, N.F.: Diagnosis of poor control-loop performance using higher-order statistics. Automatica 40(10), 1719–1728 (2004b)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cross, R., Iqbal, A.: The rank xerox experience: benchmarking ten years on. In: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Benchmarking—Theory and Practice, pp. 3–10 (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Daneshwar, M.A., Noh, N.M.: Detection of stiction in flow control loops based on fuzzy clustering. Control Eng. Pract. 39, 23–34 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Das, L., Srinivasan, B., Rengaswamy, R.: Multivariate control loop performance assessment with Hurst exponent and mahalanobis distance. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 24(3), 1067–1074 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Desborough, L., Harris, T.J.: Performance assessment measures for univariate feedback control. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 70(6), 1186–1197 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Desborough, L., Harris, T.J.: Performance assessment measures for univariate feedforward/feedback control. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 71(4), 605–616 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    DeVries, W., Wu, S.: Evaluation of process control effectiveness and diagnosis of variation in paper basis weight via multivariate time-series analysis. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 23, 702–708 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Domański, P.D.: Non-Gaussian and persistence measures for control loop quality assessment. Chaos Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 26(4), 043105 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Domański, P.D.: On-line control loop assessment with non-Gaussian statistical and fractal measures. In: Proceedings of 2017 American Control Conference, Seattle, USA, pp. 555–560 (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Domański, P.D., Ławryńczuk, M.: Assessment of predictive control performance using fractal measures. Nonlinear Dyn. 89, 773–790 (2017a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Domański, P.D., Ławryńczuk, M.: Assessment of the GPC control quality using non-Gaussian statistical measures. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 27(2), 291–307 (2017b)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Domański, P.D., Ławryńczuk, M.: Control quality assessment of nonlinear model predictive control using fractal and entropy measures. In: Preprints of the First International Nonlinear Dynamics Conference NODYCON 2019, Rome, Italy (2019)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Domański, P.D., Golonka, S., Jankowski, R., Kalbarczyk, P., Moszowski, B.: Control rehabilitation impact on production efficiency of ammonia synthesis installation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55(39), 10366–10376 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Duarte-Barros, R.L., Park, S.W.: Assessment of model predictive control performance criteria. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 9, 127–135 (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    El-Ferik, S., Shareef, M.N., Ettaleb, L.: Detection and diagnosis of plant-wide oscillations using GA based factorization. J. Process Control 22(1), 321–329 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ender, D.: Process control performance: not as good as you think. Control Eng. 40(10), 180–190 (1993)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eriksson, P.G., Isaksson, A.J.: Some aspects of control loop performance monitoring. In: 1994 Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Control and Applications, vol. 2, pp. 1029–1034 (1994)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ettaleb, L.: Control loop performance assessment and oscillation detection. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Farenzena, M.: Novel methodologies for assessment and diagnostics in control loop management. Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation of Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (2008)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gabor, J., Pakulski, D., Domański, P.D., Świrski, K.: Closed loop NOx control and optimization using neural networks. In: IFAC Symposium on Power Plants and Power Systems Control, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 188–196 (2000)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Galvez, J.M.: Performance assessment of model reference adaptive control—a benchmark based comparison among techniques. In: ABCM Symposium Series in Mechatronics, vol. 5, pp. 186–195 (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gao, J., Patwardhan, R., Akamatsu, K., Hashimoto, Y., Emoto, G., Shah, S.L., Huang, B.: Performance evaluation of two industrial MPC controllers. Control Eng. Pract. 11(12), 1371–1387 (2003). 2002 IFAC World CongressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gao, X., Yang, F., Shang, C., Huang, D.: A review of control loop monitoring and diagnosis: prospects of controller maintenance in big data era. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 24(8), 952–962 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gao, X., Yang, F., Shang, C., Huang, D.: A novel data-driven method for simultaneous performance assessment and retuning of PID controllers. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56(8), 2127–2139 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ghraizi, R.A., Martínez, E.C., de Prada, C.: Control loop performance monitoring using the permutation entropy of error residuals. IFAC Proc. Vol. 42(11), 494–499 (2009). 7th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical ProcessesGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gomez, D., Moya, E.J., Baeyens, E.: Control performance assessment: a general survey. In: de Leon, F., de Carvalho, A.P., Rodriguez-Gonzalez, S., de Paz Santana, J.F., Rodriguez, J.M.C. (eds.) Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence: 7th International Symposium, pp. 621–628. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Grimble, M.J.: Controller performance benchmarking and tuning using generalised minimum variance control. Automatica 38(12), 2111–2119 (2002a)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Grimble, M.J.: Restricted structure controller tuning and performance assessment. IEE Proc. Control Theor. Appl. 149(1), 8–16 (2002b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grimble, M.J.: Restricted structure control loop performance assessment for PID controllers and state-space systems. Asian J. Control 5(1), 39–57 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Guo, Z., Xie, L., Ye, T., Horch, A.: Online detection of time-variant oscillations based on improved ITD. Control Eng. Pract. 32, 64–72 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gupta, P., Guenther, K., Hodgkinson, J., Jacklin, S., Richard, M., Schumann, J., Soares, F.: Performance monitoring and assessment of neuro-adaptive controllers for aerospace applications using a Bayesian approach. In: Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, San Francisco, CA, USA, AIAA 2005, p. 6451 (2005)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gustafsson, F.: Adaptive filtering and change detection. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hadjiiski, M., Georgiev, Z.: Benchmarking of process control performance. In: Problems of Engineering, Cybernetics and Robotics, vol. 55, pp. 103–110. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria (2005)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hägglund, T.: Automatic detection of sluggish control loops. Control Eng. Pract. 7(12), 1505–1511 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hang, C.C., Tan, C.H., Chan, W.P.: A performance study of control systems with dead time. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. Control Instrum. IECI 27(3), 234–241 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Harris, T.J.: Assessment of closed loop performance. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 67, 856–861 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Harris, T.J., Seppala, C.T.: Recent developments in controller performance monitoring and assessment techniques. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Chemical Process Control, pp. 199–207 (2001)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Harris, T.J., Seppala, C.T., Desborough, L.D.: A review of performance monitoring and assessment techniques for univariate and multivariate control systems. J. Process Control 9(1), 1–17 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Horch, A.: A simple method for detection of stiction in control valves. Control Eng. Pract. 7(10), 1221–1231 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Horch, A., Heiber, F.: On evaluating control performance on large data sets. IFAC Proc. Vol. 37(9), 535–540 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Howard, R., Cooper, D.: A novel pattern-based approach for diagnostic controller performance monitoring. Control Eng. Pract. 18(3), 279–288 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Huang, B.: Multivariate statistical methods for control loop performance assessment. Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, Department of Chemical and Material Engineering, Canada (1997)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Huang, B., Shah, S.L.: Limits of control loop performance: practical measures of control loop performance assessment. In: AlChE Annual Meeting (1996)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Huang, B., Shah, S.L., Kwok, E.K.: On-line control performance monitoring of MIMO processes. In: Proceedings of the 1995 American Control Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1250–1254 (1995)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Huang, Q., Zhang, Q.: Research on multivariable control performance assessment techniques. In: 2011 International Symposium on Advanced Control of Industrial Processes (ADCONIP), pp. 508–511. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Huba, M.: Performance measures and the robust and optimal control design. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51(4):960–965 (2018). 3rd IFAC Conference on Advances in Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control PID 2018Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hugo, A.: Process control performance monitoring and assessment. Control Arts Inc. http://www.controlarts.com/ (2001)
  69. 69.
    Jelali, M.: An overview of control performance assessment technology and industrial applications. Control Eng. Pract. 14(5), 441–466 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jelali, M.: Estimation of valve stiction in control loops using separable least-squares and global search algorithms. J. Process Control 18(7), 632–642 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Jelali, M.: Estimation of valve stiction using separable least-squares and global search algorithms. In: Jelali, M., Huang, B. (eds.) Detection and Diagnosis of Stiction in Control Loops: State of the Art and Advanced Methods, pp. 205–228. Springer, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Jelali, M.: Control Performance Management in Industrial Automation: Assessment, Diagnosis and Improvement of Control Loop Performance. Springer-Verlag, London (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jelali, M., Thormann, M., Wolff, A., Müller, T., Loredo, L.R., Sanfilippo, F., Zangari, G., Foerster, P.: Enhancement of product quality and production system reliability by continuous performance assessment of automation systems (AUTOCHECK). Technical Report Final report to Contract No RFS-CR03045, EUR 23205, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg (2008)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jiang, D.Y., Hu, L.S., Shi, P.: Performance assessment of switched control systems based on tensor space approach. Int. J. Adap. Control Sig. Process. 30(4), 634–663 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jiang, H., Choudhury, M.A.A.S., Shah, S.L.: Detection and diagnosis of plant-wide oscillations from industrial data using the spectral envelope method. J. Process Control 17(2), 143–155 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Jiang, H., Shah, S.L., Huang, B., Wilson, B., Patwardhan, R., Szeto, F.: Performance assessment and model validation of two industrial MPC controllers. IFAC Proc. Vol. 41(2), 8387–8394 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jimoh, M.T.: A vision for MPC performance maintenance. Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation of the College of Science and Engineeiring, University of Glasgow (2013)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Julien, R.H., Foley, M.W., Cluett, W.R.: Performance assessment using a model predictive control benchmark. J. Process Control 14(4), 441–456 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kadali, R., Huang, B.: Controller performance analysis with LQG benchmark obtained under closed loop conditions. ISA Trans. 41(4), 521–537 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kala, H., Deepakraj, D., Gopalakrishnan, P., Vengadesan, P., Iyyar, M.K.: Implicit disturbance rejection performance analysis of closed loop control systems according to communication channel limitations. Int. J. Innov. Res. Electric. Electron. Instrum. Control Eng. 2(3), 1311–1314 (2014)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kalman, R.E.: Contribution to the theory of optimal control. Bol. Soc. Math. Mex. 5, 102–119 (1960)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kendra, S.J., Cinar, A.: Controller performance assessment by frequency domain techniques. J. Process Control 7(3), 181–194 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Khamseh, S.A., Sedigh, A.K., Moshiri, B., Fatehi, A.: Control performance assessment based on sensor fusion techniques. Control Eng. Pract. 49, 14–28 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Khan, M., Tahiyat, M., Imtiaz, S., Choudhury, M.A.A.S., Khan, F.: Experimental evaluation of control performance of MPC as a regulatory controller. ISA Trans. 70, 512–520 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kinoshita, T., Ohnishi, Y., Yamamoto, T., Shah, S.L.: Design of a performance-driven control system based on the control assessment. In: 44th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2018, pp. 5383–5388 (2018)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Knierim-Dietz, N., Hanel, L., Lehner, J.: Definition and verification of the control loop performance for different power plant types. Institute of Combustion and Power Plant Technology, University of Stutgart, Technical report (2012)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Ko, B.S., Edgar, T.F.: Performance assessment of cascade control loops. AIChE J. 46(2), 281–291 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ko, B.S., Edgar, T.F.: PID control performance assessment: the single-loop case. AIChE J. 50(6), 1211–1218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Laing, D., Uduehi, D., Ordys, A.: Financial benefits of advanced control. Benchmarking and optimization of a crude oil production platform. In: Proceedings of American Control Conference, vol. 6, pp. 4330–4331 (2001)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lee, K.H., Huang, B., Tamayo, E.C.: Sensitivity analysis for selective constraint and variability tuning in performance assessment of industrial MPC. Control Eng. Pract. 16(10), 1195–1215 (2008a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Lee, K.H., Xu, F., Huang, B., Tamayo, E.C.: Controller performance analysis technology for industry: implementation and case studies. IFAC Proc. Vol. 41(2), 14912–14919 (2008b). 17th IFAC World CongressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Li, X., Wang, J., Huang, B., Lu, S.: The DCT-based oscillation detection method for a single time series. J. Process Control 20(5), 609–617 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Li, Y., O’Neill, Z.: Evaluating control performance on building HVAC controllers. In: International Building Performance Simulation Association, pp. 962–967, Hyderabad, India (2015)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Li, Z., Evans, R.J.: Minimum-variance control of linear time-varying systems. Automatica 33(8), 1531–1537 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Liu, M.C.P., Wang, X., Wang, Z.L.: Performance assessment of control loop with multiple time-variant disturbances based on multi-model mixing time-variant minimum variance control. In: Proceeding of the 11th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, pp. 4755–4759 (2014)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lopez, A., Murrill, P., Smith, C.: Controller tuning relationships based on integral performance criteria. Instrum. Technol. 14(12), 57–62 (1967)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Loquasto, F., Seborg, D.E.: Monitoring model predictive control systems using pattern classification and neural networks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42(20), 4689–4701 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lynch, C.B., Dumont, G.A.: Control loop performance monitoring. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Control and Applications, vol. 2, pp. 835–840 (1993)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Lynch, C.B., Dumont, G.A.: Control loop performance monitoring. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 4(2), 185–192 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Maboodi, M., Khaki-Sedigh, A., Camacho, E.F.: Control performance assessment for a class of nonlinear systems using second-order volterra series models based on nonlinear generalised minimum variance control. Int. J. Control 88(8), 1565–1575 (2015)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Mäkelä, M., Manninen, V., Heiliö, M., Myller, T.: Performance assessment of automatic quality control in mill operations. In: 2006 Proceedings of Control Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Marlin, T.E., Perkins, J.D., Barton, G.W., Brisk, M.L.: Benefits from process control: results of a joint industry-university study. J. Process Control 1(2), 68–83 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Mason, D.G., Edwards, N.D., Linkens, D.A., Reilly, C.S.: Performance assessment of a fuzzy controller for atracurium-induced neuromuscular block. Br. J. Anaesth. 7(3), 396–400 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Meng, Q.W., Fang, F., Liu, J.Z.: Minimum-information-entropy-based control performance assessment. Entropy 15(3), 943–959 (2013a)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Meng, Q.W., Gu, J.Q., Zhong, Z.F., Ch, S., Niu, Y.G.: Control performance assessment and improvement with a new performance index. In: 2013 25th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), pp. 4081–4084 (2013b)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Micic, A.D., Matausek, M.R.: Closed-loop PID controller design and performance assessment in the presence of measurement noise. Chem. Eng. Res. Design 104(Supplement C), 513–518 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Mitchell, W., Shook, D., Shah, S.L.: A picture worth a thousand control loops: an innovative way of visualizing controller performance data. Invited Plenary Presentation, Control Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Moridi, A., Armaghan, S., Sedigh, A.K., Choobkar, S.: Design of switching control systems using control performance assessment index. In: 2011 Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, vol. II, pp. 186–195 (2011)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Naujoks, F., Wiedemann, K., Schőmig, N., Jarosch, O., Gold, C.: Expert-based controllability assessment of control transitions from automated to manual driving. MethodsX 5, 579–592 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Nesic, Z., Dumont, G., Davies, M., Brewster, D.: CD control diagnostics using a wavelet toolbox. In: Proceedings CD Symposium, IMEKO, vol. XB, pp. 120–125 (1997)Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Nissinen, A., Nuyan, S., Virtanen, P.: On-line performance monitoring in process analysis. In: 2006 Proceedings of Control Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    O’Connor, N., O’Dwyer, A.: Control loop performance assessment: a classification of methods. In: Proceedings of the Irish Signals and Systems Conference, Queens University Belfast, pp. 530–535 (2002)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ohtsu, K., Kitagawa, G.: Statistical analysis of the AR type ship’s autopilot system. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 106(3), 193–202 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Olaleye, F., Huang, B., Tamayo, E.: Industrial applications of a feedback controller performance assessment of time-variant processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43(2), 597–607 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    O’Neill, Z., Li, Y., Williams, K.: HVAC control loop performance assessment: a critical review (1587-rp). Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 23(4), 619–636 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Perrier, M., Roche, A.A.: Towards mill-wide evaluation of control loop performance. In: Proceedings of the Control Systems, pp. 205–209 (1992)Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Pillay, N., Govender, P.: A data driven approach to performance assessment of PID controllers for setpoint tracking. Proc. Eng. 69, 1130–1137 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Pillay, N., Govender, P.: Multi-class SVMs for automatic performance classification of closed loop controllers. J. Control Eng. Appl. Inf. 19(3), 3–12 (2017)Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Pour, N.D., Huang, B., Shah, S.: Performance assessment of advanced supervisory-regulatory control systems with subspace LQG benchmark. Automatica 46(8), 1363–1368 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Pryor, C.: Autocovariance and power spectrum analysis derive new information from process data. Control Eng. 2, 103–106 (1982)Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Qin, S.J.: Control performance monitoring—a review and assessment. Comput. Chem. Eng. 23(2), 173–186 (1998)Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Recalde, L.F., Yue, H.: Control performance monitoring of state-dependent nonlinear processes. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50(1), 11313–11318 (2017). 20th IFAC World CongressGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Salsbury, T.I.: A practical method for assessing the performance of control loops subject to random load changes. J. Process Control 15(4), 393–405 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Salsbury, T.I.: Continuous-time model identification for closed loop control performance assessment. Control Eng. Pract. 15(1), 109–121 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Salsbury, T.I., Alcala, C.F.: Two new normalized EWMA-based indices for control loop performance assessment. In: 2015 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 962–967 (2015)Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Scali, C., Marchetti, E., Esposito, A.: Effect of cascade tuning on control loop performance assessment. In: IFAC Conference on Advances in PID Control PID’12 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Schäfer, J., Cinar, A.: Multivariable MPC system performance assessment, monitoring, and diagnosis. J. Process Control 14(2), 113–129 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Schlegel, M., Skarda, R., Cech, M.: Running discrete Fourier transform and its applications in control loop performance assessment. In: 2013 International Conference on Process Control (PC), pp. 113–118 (2013)Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Seborg, D., Edgar, T.F., Mellichamp, D.: Process Dynamics & Control. Wiley, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Seem, J.E., House, J.M.: Integrated control and fault detection of air-handling units. HVAC & R Res. 15(1), 25–55 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Sendjaja, A.Y., Kariwala, V.: Achievable PID performance using sums of squares programming. J. Process Control 19(6), 1061–1065 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Seppala, C.T.: Dynamic analysis of variance methods for monitoring control system performance. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (1999)Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Shah, S.L., Patwardhan, R., Huang, B.: Multivariate controller performance analysis: methods, applications and challenges. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Chemical Process Control, pp. 199–207 (2001)Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Shang, C., Huang, B., Yang, F., Huang, D.: Slow feature analysis for monitoring and diagnosis of control performance. J. Process Control 39, 21–34 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Shang, L., Tian, X., Cai, L.: A multi-index control performance assessment method based on historical prediction error covariance. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50(1), 13892–13897 (2017). 20th IFAC World CongressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Shardt, Y., Zhao, Y., Qi, F., Lee, K., Yu, X., Huang, B., Shah, S.: Determining the state of a process control system: current trends and future challenges. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 90(2), 217–245 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Shinskey, F.G.: How good are our controllers in absolute performance and robustness? Meas. Control 23(4), 114–121 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Skarda, R., Cech, M., Schlegel, M.: Simultaneous control loop performance assessment and process identification based on fractional models. IFAC—PapersOnLine 48(8), 859–864 (2015). 9th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical Processes ADCHEM 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Smuts, J.F., Hussey, A.: Requirements for successfully implementing and sustaining advanced control applications. In: Proceedings of the 54th ISA POWID Symposium, pp. 89–105 (2011)Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Sotomayor, O.A.Z., Odloak, D.: Performance assessment of model predictive control systems. IFAC Proc. Vol. 39(2), 875–880 (2006). 6th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical ProcessesGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Spinner, T.: Performance assessment of multivariate control systems. Ph.D. thesis, Texas Tech University (2014)Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Spinner, T., Srinivasan, B., Rengaswamy, R.: Data-based automated diagnosis and iterative retuning of proportional-integral (PI) controllers. Control Eng. Pract. 29, 23–41 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Srinivasan, B., Rengaswamy, R.: Automatic oscillation detection and characterization in closed-loop systems. Control Eng. Pract. 20(8), 733–746 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Srinivasan, B., Spinner, T., Rengaswamy, R.: Control loop performance assessment using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA). Automatica 48(7), 1359–1363 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Srinivasan, B., Spinner, T., Rengaswamy, R.: A reliability measure for model based stiction detection approaches. IFAC Proc. Vol. 45(15), 750–755 (2012b). 8th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical ProcessesGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Srinivasan, B., Nallasivam, U., Rengaswamy, R.: An integrated approach for oscillation diagnosis in linear closed loop systems. Chem. Eng. Res. Design 93, 483–495 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Srinivasan, R., Rengaswamy, R., Miller, R.: A modified empirical mode decomposition (EMD) process for oscillation characterization in control loops. Control Eng. Pract. 15(9), 1135–1148 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Stanfelj, N., Marlin, T.E., MacGregor, J.F.: Monitoring and diagnosing process control performance: the single-loop case. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32(2), 301–314 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Starr, K.D., Petersen, H., Bauer, M.: Control loop performance monitoring—experience over two decades. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(7), 526–532 (2016). 11th IFAC Symposium on Dynamics and Control of Process SystemsIncluding Biosystems DYCOPS-CAB 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Stockmann, M., Habera, R., Schmitz, U.: Pattern recognition for valve stiction detection with principal component analysis. IFAC Proc. Vol. 42(8), 1438–1443 (2009). 7th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety of Technical ProcessesGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Su, A.J., Yu, C.C., Ogunnaike, B.A.: On the interaction between measurement strategy and control performance in semiconductor manufacturing. J. Process Control 18(3):266–276 (2008). Festschrift honouring Professor Dale SeborgCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Sun, Z., Qin, S.J., Singhal, A., Megan, L.: Performance monitoring of model-predictive controllers via model residual assessment. J. Process Control 23(4), 473–482 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Tangirala, A.K., Shah, S.L., Thornhill, N.F.: PSCMAP: a new tool for plant-wide oscillation detection. J. Process Control 15(8), 931–941 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Tepljakov, A., Petlenkov, E., Belikov, J.: A flexible MATLAB tool for optimal fractional-order PID controller design subject to specifications. In: 2012 31st Chinese Control Conference (CCC) (2012)Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Thornhill, N.F., Hägglund, T.: Detection and diagnosis of oscillation in control loops. Control Eng. Pract. 5(10), 1343–1354 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Thornhill, N.F., Shah, S.L., Huang, B., Vishnubhotla, A.: Spectral principal component analysis of dynamic process data. Control Eng. Pract. 10(8), 833–846 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Thornhill, N.F., Huang, B., Shah, S.L.: Controller performance assessment in set point tracking and regulatory control. Int. J. Adap. Control Sig. Process. 17(7–9), 709–727 (2003a)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Thornhill, N.F., Huang, B., Zhang, H.: Detection of multiple oscillations in control loops. J. Process Control 13(1), 91–100 (2003b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Tolfo, F.: A methodology to assess the economic returns of advanced control projects. In: 1983 American Control Conference, pp. 1141–1146. IEEE (1983)Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Torres, B.S., de Carvalho, F.B., de Oliveira Fonseca, M., Filho, C.S.: Performance assessment of control loops - case studies. In: IFAC ADCHEM Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Tulsyan, A., Huang, B., Gopaluni, R.B., Forbes, J.F.: Performance assessment, diagnosis, and optimal selection of non-linear state filters. J. Process Control 24(2), 460–478 (2014). ADCHEM 2012 Special IssueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Tyler, M.L., Morari, M.: Performance assessment for unstable and nonminimum-phase systems. IFAC Proc. Vol. 28(12), 187–192 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Tyler, M.L., Morari, M.: Performance monitoring of control systems using likelihood methods. Automatica 32(8), 1145–1162 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Ulaganathan, N., Rengaswamy, R.: Blind identification of stiction in nonlinear process control loops. In: 2008 American Control Conference, pp. 3380–3384 (2008)Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Kumar, V., Rana, K.P., Gupta, V.: Real-time performance evaluation of a fuzzy PI + fuzzy PD controller for liquid-level process. Int. J. Innov. Res. Electric. Electron. Instrum. Control Eng. 13(2), 89–96 (2008)Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Vatanski, N., Jämsä-Jounela, S.L., Rantala, A., Harju, T.: Control loop performance measures in the evaluation of process economics. In: 16th Triennial IFAC World Congress (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Veronesi, M., Visioli, A.: Performance assessment and retuning of PID controllers for load disturbance rejection. IFAC Proc. Vol. 45(3), 530–535 (2012). 2nd IFAC Conference on Advances in PID ControlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Veronesi, M., Visioli, A.: Process parameters estimation, performance assessment and controller retuning based on the final value theorem: Some extensions. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50(1), 9198–9203 (2017). 20th IFAC World CongressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Vishnubhotla, A.: Frequency and time-domain techniques for control loop performance assessment. Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, Department of Chemical and Material Engineering, Canada (1997)Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Visioli, A.: Method for proportional-integral controller tuning assessment. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45(8), 2741–2747 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Wan, S., Huang, B.: Robust performance assessment of feedback control systems. Automatica 38(1), 33–46 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Wang, J., Huang, B., Lu, S.: Improved DCT-based method for online detection of oscillations in univariate time series. Control Eng. Pract. 21(5), 622–630 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Wei, D., Craig, I.: Development of performance functions for economic performance assessment of process control systems. In: 9th IEEE AFRICON, pp. 1–6 (2009)Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Wei, S., Cheng, J., Wang, Y.: Data-driven two-dimensional LQG benchmark based performance assessment for batch processes under ILC. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(8), 291–296 (2015). 9th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical Processes ADCHEM 2015Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Wei, W., Zhuo, H.: Research of performance assessment and monitoring for multivariate model predictive control system. In: 2009 4th International Conference on Computer Science Education, pp. 509–514 (2009)Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Wu, Z., Ran, Z., Xu, Q., Wang, W.: Dynamic performance monitoring of current control system for fused magnesium furnace driven by big data. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Taiwan, pp. 1–2 (2018)Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Xia, C., Howell, J., Thornhill, N.F.: Detecting and isolating multiple plant-wide oscillations via spectral independent component analysis. Automatica 41(12), 2067–2075 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Xie, L., Lang, X., Horch, A., Yang, Y.: Online oscillation detection in the presence of signal intermittency. Control Eng. Pract. 55, 91–100 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Xu, F., Huang, B., Tamayo, E.C.: Assessment of economic performance of model predictive control through variance/constraint tuning. IFAC Proc. Vol. 39(2), 899–904 (2006). 6th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical ProcessesGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Xu, F., Huang, B., Akande, S.: Performance assessment of model pedictive control for variability and constraint tuning. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46(4), 1208–1219 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Yan, Z., Chen, J., Zhang, Z.: Using hidden markov model to identify oscillation temporal pattern for control loops. Chem. Eng. Res. Design 119, 117–129 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Yang, S.H., Dai, C., Knott, R.P.: Remote maintenance of control system performance over the Internet. Control Eng. Pract. 15(5), 533–544 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    You, H., Zhou, J., Zhu, H., Li, D.: Performance assessment based on minimum entropy of feedback control loops. In: 2017 6th Data Driven Control and Learning Systems (DDCLS), pp. 593–598 (2017)Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Yu, J., Qin, S.J.: Statistical MIMO controller performance monitoring. Part II: Performance diagnosis. J. Process Control 18(3–4), 297–319 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Yu, W., Wilson, D.I., Young, B.R.: Eliminating valve stiction nonlinearities for control performance assessment. IFAC Proc. Vol. 42(11), 506–511 (2009). 7th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical ProcessesGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Yu, W., Wilson, D., Young, B.: Control performance assessment for block-oriented nonlinear systems. In: IEEE ICCA 2010, pp. 1151–1156 (2010a)Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Yu, W., Wilson, D.I., Young, B.R.: Nonlinear control performance assessment in the presence of valve stiction. J. Process Control 20(6), 754–761 (2010b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Yu, W., Wilson, D.I., Young, B.R.: A comparison of nonlinear control performance assessment techniques for nonlinear processes. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 90(6), 1442–1449 (2012a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Yu, W., Wilson, D.I., Young, B.R.: Control performance assessment in the presence of sampling jitter. Chem. Eng. Res. Design Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. Part A 90(1), 129–137 (2012b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Yu, Z., Wang, J.: Performance assessment of static lead-lag feedforward controllers for disturbance rejection in PID control loops. ISA Trans. 64, 67–76 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Yu, Z., Wang, J., Huang, B., Bi, Z.: Performance assessment of PID control loops subject to setpoint changes. J. Process Control 21(8), 1164–1171 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Yuan, H.: Process analysis and performance assessment for sheet forming processes. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (2015)Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Zabiri, H., Ramasamy, M.: NLPCA as a diagnostic tool for control valve stiction. J. Process Control 19(8), 1368–1376 (2009). Special Section on Hybrid Systems: Modeling, Simulation and OptimizationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Zhang, J., Jiang, M., Chen, J.: Minimum entropy-based performance assessment of feedback control loops subjected to non-Gaussian disturbances. J. Process Control 24(11), 1660–1670 (2015a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Zhang, J., Zhang, L., Chen, J., Xu, J., Li, K.: Performance assessment of cascade control loops with non-Gaussian disturbances using entropy information. Chem. Eng. Res. Design 104, 68–80 (2015b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Zhang, K., Huang, B., Ji, G.: Multiple oscillations detection in control loops by using the DFT and Raleigh distribution. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(21), 529–534 (2015c). 9th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes SAFEPROCESS 2015Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Zhang, Y., Henson, M.A.: A performance measure for constrained model predictive controllers. In: Proceedings of the 1999 European Control Conference, pp. 918–923 (1999)Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    Zhao, C., Huang, B.: Control performance monitoring with temporal features and dissimilarity analysis for nonstationary dynamic processes. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51(18), 357–362 (2018). 10th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical Processes ADCHEM 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Zhao, C., Su, H., Gu, Y., Chu, J.: A pragmatic approach for assessing the economic performance of model predictive control systems and its industrial application. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 17(2), 241–250 (2009a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Zhao, C., Zhao, Y., Su, H., Huang, B.: Economic performance assessment of advanced process control with LQG benchmarking. J. Process Control 19(4), 557–569 (2009b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Zhao, C., Xu, Q., Zhang, D., An, A.: Economic performance assessment of process control: a probability optimization approach. In: International Symposium on Advanced Control of Industrial Processes, pp. 585–590 (2011)Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    Zhao, Y., Xie, W., Tu, X.: Performance-based parameter tuning method of model-driven PID control systems. ISA Trans. 51(3), 393–399 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Zheng, B.: Analysis and auto-tuning of supply air temperature PI control in hot water heating systems. Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation of University of Nebraska (2007)Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    Zhong, L.: Defect distribution model validation and effective process control. In: Proceedings of the SPIE, vol. 5041, pp. 5041–5048 (2003)Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    Zhou, J.L., Wang, X., Zhang, J.F., Wang, H., Yang, G.H.: A new measure of uncertainty and the control loop performance assessment for output stochastic distribution systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 60(9), 2524–2529 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Zhou, Q., Liu, M.: An on-line self-tuning algorithm of pi controller for the heating and cooling coil in buildings. In: Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Fort Worth, TX (1998)Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    Zhou, Y., Wan, F.: A neural network approach to control performance assessment. Int. J. Intell. Comput. Cybern. 1(4), 617–633 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Control and Computation EngineeringWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations