CPA Industrial Applications

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


The chapter describes review of the industrial CPA applications. Practical aspects of the real control quality assessment project are presented. The aspects of the Cyber Physical Systems are addressed together with the cyber security. The concludes with the list of the available CPA software and reported information about industrial CPA applications.


  1. 1.
    Arjomandi, R.K.: Statistical methods for control loop performance assessment. In: 2011 International Conference on Communications, Computing and Control Applications (CCCA), pp. 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bai, J., Li, Y., Chen, J.: Real-time performance assessment and adaptive control for a water chiller unit in an HVAC system. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 121, no. 005, p. 052 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belli, P., Bonavita, N., Rea, R.: An integrated environment for industrial control performance assessment, diagnosis and improvement. In: Proceedings of the International Congress on Methodologies for Emerging Technologies in Automation (ANIPLA) (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bode, C.A., Ko, B.S., Edgar, T.F.: Run-to-run control and performance monitoring of overlay in semiconductor manufacturing. Control Eng. Pract. 12(7), 893–900 (2004). pC-B02-Process Control IFAC 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Campbell, I., Uduehi, D., Ordys, A., van der Molen, G.: pH process control system benchmarking. In: Proceedings of the 2001 American Control Conference, vol. 6, pp. 4332–4335 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    di Capaci, R.B., Scali, C., Pestonesi, D., Bartaloni, E.: Advanced diagnosis of control loops: experimentation on pilot plant and validation on industrial scale. IFAC Proc. 46(32), 589–594 (2013). 10th IFAC International Symposium on Dynamics and Control of Process SystemsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, J., Wang, W.Y.: Performance assessment of multivariable control systems using PCA control charts. In: 2009 4th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications, pp. 936–941 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, J.A., Cockroft, J., Conner, S., Hand, J.W., Kelly, N.J., Moore, R., O’Brien, T., Strachan, P.: Simulation-assisted control in building energy management systems. Energy Build. 34(9), 933–940 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crnjac, M., Veza, I., Banduka, N.: From concept to the introduction of industry 4.0. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 8, 21–30 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Du, G.X., Quan, Q., Xi, Z., Liu, Y., Cai, K.Y.: A control performance index for multicopters under off-nominal conditions, arXiv:1705.08775v2, Cornell University Library (2017)
  13. 13.
    Dziuba, K., Góra, R., Domański, P.D., Ławryńczuk, M.: Multicriteria control quality assessment for ammonia production process (in Polish). In: Zalewska, A. (ed.) 1st Scientific and Technical Conference Innovations in the Chemical Industry, Warszawa, Poland, pp. 80–90 (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farenzena, M., Trierweiler, J.O.: LoopRank: a novel tool to evaluate loop connectivity. IFAC Proc. Vol. 42(11), 964–969 (2009). 7th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical ProcessesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Gonzalez, R., Qi, F., Huang, B.: Process Control System Fault Diagnosis: A Bayesian Approach. Wiley, Chichester, UK (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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, AIAA 2005, San Francisco, CA, USA, p. 6451 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haarsma, G.J., Nikolaou, M.: Multivariate controller performance monitoring: Lessons from an application to a snack food process. In: AIChE Annual Meeting (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harris, T.J., Seppala, C.T., Jofriet, P.J., Surgenor, B.W.: Plant-wide feedback control performance assessment using an expert-system framework. Control Eng. Pract. 4(9), 1297–1303 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hölttä, V.: Plant performance evaluation in complex industrial applications. Ph.D. thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Control Engineering, Espoo, Finland (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoo, K.A., Piovoso, M.J., Schnelle, P.D., Rowan, D.A.: Process and controller performance monitoring: overview with industrial applications. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. 17(7–9), 635–662 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Howard, R., Cooper, D.: A novel pattern-based approach for diagnostic controller performance monitoring. Control Eng. Pract. 18(3), 279–288 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang, B.: Bayesian methods for control loop monitoring and diagnosis. J. Process Control 18(9), 829–838 (2008). Selected Papers From Two Joint Conferences: 8th International Symposium on Dynamics and Control of Process Systems and the 10th Conference Applications in BiotechnologyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang, B., Shah, S.L., Kwok, K.E., Zurcher, J.: Performance assessment of multivariate control loops on a paper-machine headbox. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 75(1), 134–142 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ikuma, L.H., Koffskey, C., Harvey, C.M.: A human factors-based assessment framework for evaluating performance in control room interface design. IIE Trans. Occup. Ergon. Hum. Factors 2(3–4), 194–206 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ingimundarson, A., Hägglund, T.: Closed-loop performance monitoring using loop tuning. J. Process Control 15(2), 127–133 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jämsä-Jounela, S.L., Poikonen, R., Halmevaara, K.: Evaluation of level control performance. In: 15th Triennial IFAC World Congress (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jelali, M.: An overview of control performance assessment technology and industrial applications. Control. Eng. Pract. 14(5), 441–466 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jelali, M.: Performance assessment of control systems in rolling mills—application to strip thickness and flatness control. J. Process Control 17(10), 805–816 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jelali, M.: Control Performance Management in Industrial Automation: Assessment, Diagnosis and Improvement of Control Loop Performance. Springer, London (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    Jiang, H., Patwardhan, R., Shah, S.L.: Root cause diagnosis of plant-wide oscillations using the concept of adjacency matrix. J. Process Control 19(8), 1347–1354 (2009). Special Section on Hybrid Systems: Modeling, Simulation and OptimizationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jofriet, P., Bialkowski, W.: The key to on-line monitoring of process variability and control loop performance. In: Proceedings Control Systems ’96, p. 187 (1996)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    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
  36. 36.
    Knierim-Dietz, N., Hanel, L., Lehner, J.: Definition and verification of the control loop performance for different power plant types. Technical report, Institute of Combustion and Power Plant Technology, University of Stuttgart (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kozub, D.J.: Controller performance monitoring and diagnosis. Industrial perspective. IFAC Proc. Vol. 35(1), 405–410 (2002). 15th IFAC World CongressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kozub, D.J., Garcia, C.: Monitoring and diagnosis of automated controllers in the chemical process industries. In: Proceedings of the AIChE (1993)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Krause, H.M.: Turning ideas into reality: the journey of one leading manufacturer into the industrial IoT. In: Manufacture 2017, Tallin, Estonia (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Landman, R., Jämsä-Jounela, S.L.: Hybrid approach to casual analysis on a complex industrial system based on transfer entropy in conjunction with process connectivity information. Control Eng. Pract. 53(Complete), 14–23 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Landman, R., Kortela, J., Sun, Q., Jämsä-Jounela, S.L.: Fault propagation analysis of oscillations in control loops using data-driven causality and plant connectivity. Comput. Chem. Eng. 71, 446–456 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li, S., Wang, Y.: Performance assessment of a boiler combustion process control system based on a data-driven approach. Processes 6, 200 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Li, X., Zhou, C., Tian, Y., Xiong, N., Qin, Y.: Asset-based dynamic impact assessment of cyberattacks for risk analysis in industrial control systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 14(2), 608–618 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lindner, B., Auret, L., Bauer, M.: Investigating the impact of perturbations in chemical processes on data-based causality analysis. Part 1: defining desired performance of causality analysis techniques. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50(1), 3269–3274 (2017). 20th IFAC World CongressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liu, K., Chen, Y.Q., Domański, P.D., Zhang, X.: A novel method for control performance assessment with fractional order signal processing and its application to semiconductor manufacturing. Algorithms 11(7), 90 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mäkelä, M., Manninen, V., Heiliö, M., Myller, T.: Performance assessment of automatic quality control in mill operations. In: Proceedings of Control Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    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
  48. 48.
    McNabb, C., Ruel, M.: Best practices for managing control loop performance—roadmap to success. In: Conference Proceedings from PAPTAC Annual Meeting (2009)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Meng, Q.W., Zhong, Z.F., Liu, J.Z.: A practical approach of online control performance monitoring. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 142, 107–116 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mitchell, W., Shook, D., Shah, S.L.: A picture worth a thousand control loops: an innovative way of visualizing controller performance data. In: Invited Plenary Presentation, Control Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nissinen, A., Nuyan, S.: Performance improvements and sustainability through a remote monitoring, analysis, and warning system—benchmarking performance for long-term stability. In: Tappi PaperCon 2012 Conference (2012)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Oborski, P.: Social-technical aspects in modern manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 22(11), 848–854 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    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
  54. 54.
    Paulonis, M.A., Cox, J.W.: A practical approach for large-scale controller performance assessment, diagnosis and improvement. J. Process Control 13(2), 155–168 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pillay, N., Govender, P., Maharaj, O.: Controller performance assessment of servomechanisms for nonlinear process control systems. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science (WCECS), vol. II (2014)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Prabhu, A.V.: Performance monitoring of run-to-run control systems used in semiconductor manufacturing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, US (2008)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rojko, A.: Industry 4.0 concept: Background and overview. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 11(5) (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Salahshoor, K., Arjomandi, R.K.: Comparative evaluation of control loop performance assessment schemes in an industrial chemical process plant. In: 2010 Chinese Control and Decision Conference, pp. 2603–2608 (2010)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Salahshoor, K., Karimi, I., Fazel, E.N., Beitari, H.: Practical design and implementation of a control loop performance assessment package in an industrial plant. In: Proceedings of the 30th Chinese Control Conference, pp. 5888–5893 (2011)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    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
  61. 61.
    Shneiderman, B.: Tree visualization with treemaps: a 2-D space-filling approach. ACM Trans. Graph. 11(1), 92–99 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Streicher, S.J., Wilken, S.E., Sandrock, C.: Eigenvector analysis for the ranking of control loop importance. In: Klemeš, J.J., Varbanov, P.S., Liew, P.Y. (eds.) 24th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, vol. 33, pp. 835–840. Elsevier (2014)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tang, C.Y.: Key performance indicators for process control system cybersecurity performance analysis. Technical Report NISTIR 8188, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce (2018)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Thornhill, N.F., Sadowski, R., Davis, J.R., Fedenczuk, P., Knight, M.J., Prichard, P., Rothenberg, D.: Practical experiences in refinery control loop performance assessment. In: UKACC International Conference on Control ’96 (Conf. Publ. No. 427), vol. 1, pp. 175–180(1996)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Thornhill, N.F., Oettinger, M., Fedenczuk, P.: Refinery-wide control loop performance assessment. J. Process Control 9(2), 109–124 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Veronesi, M., Visioli, A.: An industrial application of a performance assessment and retuning technique for PI controllers. ISA Trans. 49(2), 244–248 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wang, J., Wang, Y.: Control performance assessment for ILC-controlled batch processes based on MPC benchmark. In: 2018 IEEE 7th Data Driven Control and Learning Systems Conference, pp. 129–134 (2018)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wang, J., He, Q.P., Edgar, T.F.: Control performance assessment and diagnosis for semiconductor processes. In: Proceedings of the 2010 American Control Conference, pp. 7004–7009 (2010)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wang, J., Su, J., Zhao, Y., Pang, X., Li, J., Bi, Z.: Performance assessment of primary frequency control responses for thermal power generation units using system identification techniques. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 100, 81–90 (2018a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wang, J., Pang, X., Gao, S., Zhao, Y., Cui, S.: Assessment of automatic generation control performance of power generation units based on amplitude changes. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 108, 19–30 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wang, Y., Gao, Y., Su, W., Zheng, W., Jiang, X., Huang, Q.: The control system assessment based on a class of disturbance characteristics. In: 2018 37th Chinese Control Conference, pp. 8596–8600 (2018b)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wang, Y., Zhang, H., Wei, S., Zhou, D., Huang, B.: Control performance assessment for ILC-controlled batch processes in a 2-D system framework. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 48(9), 1493–1504 (2018c)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wei, D.: Development of performance functions for economic performance assessment of process control systems. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology, University of Pretoria (2010)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    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
  75. 75.
    Yang, F., Xiao, D.: Progress in root cause and fault propagation analysis of large-scale industrial processes. J. Control Sci. Eng. 478, 373 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Yuan, H.: Process analysis and performance assessment for sheet forming processes. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (2015)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yuan, T., Qin, S.J.: Root cause diagnosis of plant-wide oscillations using granger causality. J. Process Control 24(2), 450–459 (2014). aDCHEM 2012 Special IssueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Zhao, F., Fan, J., Mijanovic, S.: Pi auto-tuning and performance assessment in HVAC systems. In: 2013 American Control Conference, pp. 1783–1788 (2013)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Zheng, Y., Qin, S.J., Barham, M.: Control performance monitoring of excessive oscillations of an offshore production facility. IFAC Proc. 45(8), 25–32 (2012). 1st IFAC Workshop on Automatic Control in Offshore Oil and Gas ProductionCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations