ISA Transactions ()

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

ISA Transactions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans

Research article

Design of a new PID controller using predictive functional control

optimization for chamber pressure in a coke furnace$
Jianming Zhang 1
State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Technology, Institute of Cyber-Systems & Control, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, PR China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An improved proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller based on predictive functional control
Received 19 August 2016 (PFC) is proposed and tested on the chamber pressure in an industrial coke furnace. The proposed design
Received in revised form is motivated by the fact that PID controllers for industrial processes with time delay may not achieve the
31 October 2016
desired control performance because of the unavoidable model/plant mismatches, while model pre-
Accepted 15 November 2016
dictive control (MPC) is suitable for such situations. In this paper, PID control and PFC algorithm are
combined to form a new PID controller that has the basic characteristic of PFC algorithm and at the same
Keywords: time, the simple structure of traditional PID controller. The proposed controller was tested in terms of
PID control set-point tracking and disturbance rejection, where the obtained results showed that the proposed
Predictive functional control
controller had the better ensemble performance compared with traditional PID controllers.
time delay processes
& 2016 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
ensemble performance

1. Introduction
Coke furnace plays an important role in the petroleum re-
ning industry by providing different oil products for in-
dustrial needs [14]. Since the yield, quality and safety of the
process are associated with proper operation, modeling based
control of relevant process variables are very important [5,6].
However, due to the interactions in the whole coke process and
batch operation, accurate modeling may result in complex
model structure or higher order and poses some complexity for
the subsequent controller design [7,8]. From control point of
view, PID controllers are the most common ones with wide-
spread applications. It is well-known that good performance of
a PID controller depends on the tuning of its parameters,
therefore, a lot of tuning methods have been proposed. Ziegler
and Nichols rst proposed the famous tuning guidelines called
Z-N method and had been referred to numerous times in
practical applications [9]. In order to compensate for the in-
sufciency of Z-N method in dealing with time delay processes,
Cohen and Coon proposed an improved parameters tuning
approach [10]. Tyreus and Luyben came up with a special
A novel PID controller optimized by predictive functional control (PFC) is pro-
posed and tested on chamber pressure in the industrial coke furnace in this paper.
The resulting controller displays the performance of both PFC and PID control with
easy implementation in practice. The performance of the proposed PID controller is
compared with traditional PID controller, from which results show that the pro-
posed PID controller provides better performance than traditional PID controller.
E-mail address: jmzhang@csc.zju.edu.cn
1
Tel.: +86-571-87952233.
parameters tuning method for rst-order plus dead time pro-
cesses (FOPDT) [11]. Later, internal model control based PID
tuning method was proposed to improve the dynamic re-
sponses of the closed-loop system [12]. Nowadays, substantial
research results on PID tuning for different process models are
available [1317].
However, for industrial coke processes with long time delay
and nonlinearity, the application of the aforementioned traditional
PID controllers may not achieve the desired effect [1821]. In order
to solve this problem, smith predictor was proposed and known as
an advanced PID control algorithm to deal with the time delay
processes [2226]. Unlike PID controllers, smith predictor converts
the closed-loop system transfer function into a formula in which
time delay is separated alone, which results in the fact that the
response curve of the entire closed-loop system is the same as a
corresponding closed-loop system without time delay. However, it
is not very easy to enhance process performance with smith pre-
dictor due to the fact that accurate process models cannot be ob-
tained for industrial processes.
With the development of computer control technologies,
model predictive control (MPC) was proposed as an effective
advanced algorithm and signicantly researched in handling
chemical processes with time delays, together with the relevant
issues of input-output modeling and state space model identi-
cation or estimation [2740]. MPC is successful because it
bears the prediction and an effective feedback correction me-
chanism in designing a control law, which can consider the
complex process behavior with uncertainties. However, How-
ever, limited by the cost, hardware and so on, the application of
MPC is more troublesome than PID, which makes it necessary to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.11.006
0019-0578/& 2016 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Zhang J. Design of a new PID controller using predictive functional control optimization for chamber pressure
in a coke furnace. ISA Transactions (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.11.006i
2 J. Zhang / ISA Transactions ()
nd a compromise between MPC and PID. Some representative
strategies are as follows. Xu, Li, and Cai proposed a novel PID
controller that was optimized by generalized predictive control
(GPC) and obtained the similar performance as GPC [41], how-
ever, the resultant PID is obtained through linear approxima-
tion. A novel multivariable predictive fuzzy-PID control system
was developed by incorporating the fuzzy and PID control ap-
proaches into the predictive control framework by Savran [42].
Lee and Yeo developed a new PID controller on the basis of
simplied GPC [43]. Many other advanced control algorithms
have also been introduced to improve the performance of tra-
ditional PID controllers in dealing with time delay processes
[4448].
In this study, a predictive functional control (PFC) algorithm is
used to derive a new PID controller, which has the excellent
performance of PFC algorithm and simultaneously, the same
structure as traditional PID controllers. The chamber pressure in
a coke furnace is considered as a case study, where the well-
known PID controllers tuned by the Z-N method, T-L method and
IMC method are used for comparison with the proposed PID
controller.
2. Process model for the chamber pressure and conventional
PID control strategies
Though industrial processes are generally nonlinear with un-
certainties, linear models based on step-response test can gen-
erally grasp the main process characteristics [49,50]. For process
uncertainties, the subsequent controller design and tuning will
play an important role. For simplicity and in accordance with the
chamber pressure control case study later in this article, we
choose the FOPDT model as follows.
Kes
G (s ) =
Ts + 1 (1a)
where K is the steady process gain, T is the time constant and is
the time delay of the process.
In this section, the conventional PID controller tuning methods
used in this paper are introduced as follows. In the following,
Kp, Ti, Td will be denoted as the proportional coefcient, integral
time and differential time of the PID controller respectively.
For the Z-N method, its formulas are
Kp = 0.6Ku, Ti = 0.5Pu, Td = 0.125Pu (1b)
where Ku, Pu are the critical gain and the cycle of critical oscillation.
The T-L method can be described as
Kp = Ku/2.2, Ti = 2.2Pu, Td = Pu/6.3 (1c)
where Ku is the critical gain. Pu is the cycle of critical oscillation.
The detailed calculation formulas of IMC-PID are as follows.
(T + 0.5 ) T + Kd (k )(e1 (k ) 2e1 (k 1) + e1 (k 2))e1 (k ) = c (k ) y (k ) (7)
Kp = , Ti = T + 0.5 , Td =
K ( + 0.5 ) 2T + (1d)
where is a tunable parameter, and usually > 0.8 .
Note that the process is modeled as the common rst order
plus dead time model, where this will facilitate the corresponding
controller design. The controller design will be based on this
simple model to cope with the uncertainty caused by modeling
error using the PFC optimization based PID.
3. Proposed parameters tuning method of the PID controller
In this section, PFC algorithm is introduced to optimize the
Please cite this article as: Zhang J. Design of a new PID controller using predictive functional control optimization for chamber pressure
in a coke furnace. ISA Transactions (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.11.006i
parameters of the PID controller, where the obtained PID con-
troller has the same performance as PFC algorithm and the simple
structure as traditional PID controllers simultaneously.
The aforementioned process model can be transformed into a
corresponding differenced equation model by adding a zero-order
holder at the sample time Ts .
ym (k ) = am ym (k 1) + K (1 am ) u (k 1 L ) (2)
where ym (k ) is the output of the process model at time instant k ,
am = eTs/ T , u (k 1 L ) is the input of the process model at time
instant k 1 L , L is the time delay with L = /Ts .
Based on Eq. (2) and to obtain the performance of PFC, we need
to construct a process model without time delay, which results in
the following formulation
ymav (k ) = am ymav (k 1) + K (1 am ) u (k 1) (3)
where ymav (k ) is the output of the process model that is free of
time delay at time instant k .
The output prediction based on Eq. (3) after P steps is
ymav (k + P ) = am P ymav (k ) + K (1 am P ) u (k ) (4)
where ymav (k + P ) is the output prediction of the process model
that is free of time delay for time instant k + P made at time in-
stant k , P is the prediction horizon.
Then we need to calculate the corrected process output as
follows
ypav (k ) = yp (k ) + ymav (k ) ymav (k L ) (5)
where yp (k ) is the actual output of the process at time instant k ,
ypav (k ) is the corrected output of the process at time instant k .
We choose the reference trajectory yr (k + P ) and the cost
function J1 as
yr (k + P ) = P yp (k ) + (1 P ) c (k )J1
= min (yr (k + P ) ymav (k + P ) e (k ))2
e (k ) = ypav (k ) ymav (k ) (6)
where is the smoothing factor, c (k ) is the set-point at time
instant k , e (k ) is the error between the corrected output and
the process model that is free of time delay at time instant k .
Note that the prediction horizon P and the smoothing factor
both have the impact on the nal control input calculation,
which are deemed as the tuning parameters. They will be
chosen to result in a stable and acceptable closed-loop control
system.
The PID controller used here is an incremental PID controller as
follows.
u (k ) = u (k 1) + Kp (k )(e1 (k ) e1 (k 1)) + Ki (k ) e1 (k )
where Kp (k ) , Ki (k ) , Kd (k ) are the proportional coefcient, the in-
tegral coefcient and differential coefcient at time instant k re-
spectively, e1 (k ) is the error between the set-point and the process
output at time instant k .
Eq.(7) can be converted into the following
u (k ) = u (k 1) + w (k ) E (k )w (k ) = w1 (k ), w2 (k ), w3 (k )
w1 (k ) = Kp (k ) + Ki (k ) + Kd (k ), w2 (k ) = Kp (k ) 2Kd (k ),
w3 (k ) = Kd (k )E (k ) = e1 (k ), e1 (k 1), e1 (k 2)
(8)
From Eqs. (3)(8) and taking a derivative of the cost function J1,
we can obtain the optimal control law
 J. Zhang / ISA Transactions () 3

residual oil Table 1

Flue damper 1
Steady state operating conditions.
Flue damper 2
u1 u2
Coke furnaces
FRC8103 FRC8104
37.2 t/h 36.9 t/h
Radiation output temperature 495 C
Convection output temperature 330 C
Chamber temperature 800 C
Oxygen content 5%
Circulating oil ow 35 t/h
Coke fractionating tower
Pressure
Set-point Pressure Tower bottom temperature 350 C
y1 y2 Set-point Tower liquid level 70%
PC P1 P2 PC
Coke towers
Tower top temperature 415 C
Tower bottom temperature 300 C
Temperature after cooling 85 C
Tower top pressure 0.25 Mpa

FRC8107 FRC8108
43.5 t/h 43.6 t/h

Table 2
Circulating oil from pumps
102/1,2,3
Tuning parameters for servo problem.

To T102 Parameters IMC-PID T-L Z-N

Furnace 3

Kp
125
119
157

To T101/5,6
Ti 170 397 90
Fig. 1. Overall ow of coke unit. Td 17.65 28.57 22.5
Parameters PFC-PID
P 2
0
(yr (k + P ) m Pymav (k ) Km (1 m P) u (k 1) e (k )) E (k )
w (k ) =
Km (1 m P ) E (k ) E (k ) (9)

then Kp (k ) , Ki (k ) , Kd (k ) are obtained
Kp (k ) = w2 (k ) 2Kd (k )
Ki (k ) = w1 (k ) KP (k ) Kd (k )
Kd (k ) = w3 (k )
It can be easily seen that w will be innite if (k ) E (k ) is ap-
proximating zero, that is, Kp (k ) , Ki (k ) , Kd (k ) will be innite and is
unrealistic for the PID controller when the control system has
reached the steady state. Thus it is necessary to set a small per-
missible error limitation , where Kp (k ) , Ki (k ) , Kd (k ) remain un-
changed as the previous sampling instant
and the nal PID controller is implemented on the process. The
advantages are that the process controller is designed based ad-
vanced control using PFC theory and three PID parameters are
obtained but not xed through optimization for the controller to
(10) achieve improved control performance.
E
4. Case study: furnace pressure system control in the coke
furnace
4.1. Coke unit description

Kp (k ) = Kp (k 1) In Fig.1, a sketch of the unit is given. The residual oil is sepa-

Ki (k ) = Ki (k 1) e1 (k ) rated into two ramications (FRC8103,FRC8104) rstly and sent

into the furnace (F101/3) to be heated to about 330C, then they go
Kd (k ) = Kd (k 1)
to the fractionating tower (T102) to exchange heat with gas oil.
Kp (k ) = w2 (k ) 2Kd (k )
After the heat exchange, the mixed oil is called circulating oil and
Ki (k ) = w1 (k ) KP (k ) Kd (k ) e1 (k ) > is sent to enter the furnace (F101/3) to be heated to about 495 C.

Kd (k ) = w3 (k ) (10a) The two branches add together and go to the coke towers (T101/
5,6) for coke removing nally.
The control input at sampling instant k is

u (k ) = u (k 1) + Kp (k )(e1 (k ) e1 (k 1)) + Ki (k ) e1 (k ) 4.2. The control target

+ Kd (k )(e1 (k ) 2e1 (k 1) + e1 (k 2)) (11) The chamber pressure in the coke furnace is one of the im-
At each time instant, if e1 (k ) , Kp (k ) , Ki (k ) , Kd (k ) will keep the portant output variables. Here the manipulated variable is the
same value as the previous time instant. If e1 (k ) > , w (k ) is obtained opening the ue damper and the steady state operating point is
by Eq. (9), then Kp (k ) , Ki (k ) , Kd (k ) can be acquired form Eq. (10). summarized in Table 1.

Remark 1. It is shown that the proposed PID parameters are op- 4.3. The process model
timized, where in fact a PFC is designed for the considered process
Under the conditions of Table 1, the process model is roughly
modeled as

Please cite this article as: Zhang J. Design of a new PID controller using predictive functional control optimization for chamber pressure
in a coke furnace. ISA Transactions (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.11.006i
4 J. Zhang / ISA Transactions ()

Output disturbance responses Input disturbance responses

2 2
Set-point Set-point
PFC-PID PFC-PID
IMC-PID IMC-PID
1.5 Z-N 1.5 Z-N
T-L T-L
y(k)

y(k)
1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
k k
200 200
PFC-PID PFC-PID
IMC-PID IMC-PID
100 Z-N 100 Z-N
T-L T-L
0 0

u(k)
u(k)

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300

-400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
k k

Fig. 2. (a) Closed-loop servo response under output disturbance for Case 1 (sampling time Ts 20 s). (b) Closed-loop servo response under input disturbance for Case 1
(sampling time Ts 20 s).

Input disturbance responses Input disturbance responses

2 2
Set-point Set-point
PFC-PID PFC-PID
IMC-PID IMC-PID
1.5 Z-N 1.5 Z-N
T-L T-L
y(k)
y(k)

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
k k
200 200
PFC-PID PFC-PID
IMC-PID IMC-PID
100 Z-N 100 Z-N
T-L T-L
0 0
u(k)
u(k)

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300

-400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
k k

Fig. 3. (a) Closed-loop servo response under output disturbance for Case 2 (sampling time Ts 20 s). (b) Closed-loop servo response under input disturbance for Case 2
(sampling time Ts 20 s).

Please cite this article as: Zhang J. Design of a new PID controller using predictive functional control optimization for chamber pressure
in a coke furnace. ISA Transactions (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.11.006i
 J. Zhang / ISA Transactions () 5

Output disturbance responses Input disturbance responses

1.8 1.8
Set-point Set-point
1.6 PFC-PID 1.6 PFC-PID
IMC-PID IMC-PID
1.4 Z-N 1.4 Z-N
T-L T-L
1.2 1.2

y(k) 1 1

y(k)
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
k k
300 300
PFC-PID
IMC-PID PFC-PID
200 200
Z-N IMC-PID
T-L Z-N
100 100 T-L
0 0
u(k)

u(k)
-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300

-400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
k k
Fig. 4. (a) Closed-loop servo response under output disturbance for Case 3 (sampling time Ts 20 s). (b) Closed-loop servo response under input disturbance for Case 3
(sampling time Ts 20 s).

Table 3 Table 4
Statistical results for each method. Mean tracking error (MTE) for each method.

Case item Overshoot (%) Response time (s) Settling time (s) Case item Output disturbance Input disturbance

Case 1 PFC-PID 15.89 140 320 Case 1 PFC-PID 0.0410 0.0373

IMC-PID 36.13 120 420 IMC-PID 0.0420 0.0387
T-L 20.59 120 1020 T-L 0.0699 0.0621
Z-N 97.3 100 1120 Z-N 0.0732 0.0705

Case 2 PFC-PID 5.63 140 440 Case 2 PFC-PID 0.0399 0.0366

IMC-PID 26.73 120 500 IMC-PID 0.0425 0.0396
T-L 13.29 120 1500 T-L 0.0855 0.0786
Z-N 86.4 100 1380 Z-N 0.0807 0.0780

Case 3 PFC-PID 0.65 80 320 Case 3 PFC-PID 0.0268 0.0278

IMC-PID 30.39 80 420 IMC-PID 0.0307 0.0316
T-L 25.9 80 1240 T-L 0.0642 0.0664
Z-N 78.54 80 1980 Z-N 0.1419 0.1427

The three cases of parameter uncertainties are generated as below:

0.02e40s
G (s ) =
150s + 1
4.4. Performance of the proposed PID controller and discussions
A comparison with the aforementioned PID controllers tuned
by Z-N method, T-L method and IMC method was made to verify
the performance of the proposed PID controller.
In this study, we obtain the parameters of model/plant mis-
matches by Monte Carlo simulation. For the chamber pressure
process, we assume the maximum of 30% uncertainty from the
original process model, which are K = 0.02, T = 150, = 40.
(12) Case 1. the mismatched process parameters are estimated as
K = 0.025, T = 187, = 49.
Case 2. the mismatched process parameters are estimated as
K = 0.016, T = 113, = 51.
Case 3. the mismatched process parameters are estimated as
K = 0.024, T = 121, = 29.
Simulations are as follows. The set-point is changed from 0 to
1 at time instant k = 0. A continuous disturbance with amplitude
of
0.1 and an input disturbance with amplitude of 30 are added

Please cite this article as: Zhang J. Design of a new PID controller using predictive functional control optimization for chamber pressure
in a coke furnace. ISA Transactions (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.11.006i
6 J. Zhang / ISA Transactions ()
to the output at time instant k = 100 respectively. Here if the
tracking error is small enough and acceptable, we think that the
controlled system is indeed well controlled. Compared with the
set-point (here selected as 1), we deem that the permissible error
as 10
4 is small enough. It means that the parameters of the
proposed PID controller is invariable and remain the same as the
previous sampling instant when the absolute value of the error
between actual chamber pressure value and set-point is less-than
10
4. The parameters of PFC algorithm and the traditional PID
controllers are shown in Table 2.
Figs. 24 show the responses of three cases. The ensemble
performance of the proposed PID controller is better than the
other three PID controllers. In Fig. 2, we can see that the responses
of proposed method and IMC method are smoother than the other
two methods that show more drastic oscillations. Specically, the
response of Z-N method shows an unacceptable overshoot,
whereas the tracking performance of T-L method is worse than the
other three methods. Compared with the proposed method, the
performance of IMC method is inferior because its curve shows a
bigger overshoot and a more drastic oscillation. In Figs. 34, the
situation is the same as that in Fig. 2, where the performance of
proposed method is better than the other three methods. Here Z-N
method shows an unsatisfactory overshoot and oscillation which
is more obvious in Fig.4, T-L method presents the bad tracking
performance, whereas performance of the IMC method still loses
to the proposed method in control performance.
Table 3 shows the statistical results of overshoot, response time
and settling time for each method. We can easily nd that the
ensemble control performance of the proposed PFC-PID control
strategy is the best. The settling time of the proposed method is
the smallest under all cases.
The statistical results of mean tracking error (MTE) for each method
are shown in Table 4. It is obvious that the MTE of the proposed PID
controller is the smallest, which veries the aforementioned results.
5. Conclusion
An improved PID controller optimized by PFC algorithm in this
paper. The case study on the chamber pressure of a coke furnace
shows that the proposed PID controller shows improved perfor-
mance than traditional PID controllers under conditions of various
disturbances and model/plant mismatches, where simultaneously
has the same structure as PID controller.
References
[1] Sawarkar AN, Pandit AB, Samant SD, Joshi JB. Petroleum residue upgrading via
delayed coking: a review. Can J Chem Eng 2007;85(2):124.
[2] Haseloff V, Friedman YZ, Goodhart SG. Implementing coker advanced process
control. Hydrocarb Process 2007;86(6):99103.
[3] Zhang R, Cao Z, Lu R, Li P, Gao F. State-space predictive-p control for liquid
level in an industrial coke fractionation tower. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng
2015;12(4):151624.
[4] Zhang R, Xue A, Gao F. Temperature control of industrial coke furnace using novel
state space model predictive control. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 2014;10(4):208492.
[5] Cao Z, Yang Y, Yi H, Gao F. Priori knowledge based online closed-loop iden-
tication for batch process with an application to injection molding. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2016;55(32):881829.
[6] Zhang WY, Huang DX, Wang YD, Wang JC. Adaptive state feedback predictive
control and expert control for a delayed coking furnace. Chin J Chem Eng
2008;16(4):5908.
[7] Cao Z, Zhang R, Lu J, Gao F. Two time dimensional recursive system identi-
cation incorporating priori pole and zero knowledge. J Process Control
2016;39:10010.
[8] Cao Z, Zhang R, Lu J, Gao F. Online identication for batch processes in closed
loop incorporating priori controller knowledge. Comput Chem Eng
2016;90:22233.
[9] Ziegler J, Nichols N. Optimum settings for automatic controllers, 64. Trans.
ASME; 1942. p. 75968.
Please cite this article as: Zhang J. Design of a new PID controller using predictive functional control optimization for chamber pressure
in a coke furnace. ISA Transactions (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.11.006i
[10] Cohen GH, Coon GA. Theoretical investigation of retarded control. Trans ASME
1953;75:82734.
[11] Tyreus BD, Luyben WL. Tuning PI controllers for integrator/dead time pro-
cesses. Trans ASME 1992;31(11):262831.
[12] Bequette BW. Process control: modeling, design and simulation.Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2003.
[13] Rivera D, Morari M, Skogestad S. Internal model control 4. PID controller de-
sign. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des Dev 1986;25:25265.
[14] Venkatashankar V, Chidambaram M. Design of P and PI controllers for un-
stable FOPTD model. Int J Control 1994;60(1):13744.
[15] Luyben WL. Tunning proportional-integral-derivative controllers for in-
tegrator/dead time processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 1996;35(10):34803.
[16] Lee Y, Lee M, Park S, Brosilow C. PID controller tuning for desired closed-loop
responses for SISO systems. AIChE J 1998;44(1):10616.
[17] Padma R, Srinivas MN, Chidambaram M. A simple method of tuning PID controllers
for stable and unstable FOPTD systems. Comput Chem Eng 2004;28(11):220118.
[18] Zhang R, Cao Z, Li P, Gao F. Design and implementation of an improved linear
quadratic regulation control for oxygen content in a coke furnace. IET Control
Theory Appl 2014;8(14):130311.
[19] Zhang RD, Wang SQ. Support vector machine based predictive functional
control design for output temperature of coking furnace. J Process Control
2008;18(5):43948.
[20] Garpinger O, Hgglund T, strm KJ. Performance and robustness trade-offs in
PID control. J Process Control 2014;24(5):56877.
[21] Miccio M, Cosenza B. Control of a distillation column by type-2 and type-1
fuzzy logic PID controllers. J Process Control 2014;24(5):47584.
[22] Palmor Z. Stability properties of Smith dead-time compensator controllers. Int
J Control 1980;32(6):93749.
[23] Boudjehem D, Sedraoui M, Boudjehem B. A fractional model for robust frac-
tional order Smith predictor. Nonlinear Dyn 2013;73(3):155763.
[24] Wu S, Zhang R, Lu R, Gao F. Design of dynamic matrix control based PID for
residual oil outlet temperature in a coke furnace. Chemom Intell Lab Syst
2014;134:1107.
[25] Tsai MH, Tung PC. Modied Smith predictor with a robust disturbance re-
duction scheme for linear systems with small time delays. EXPERT SYSTEMS
2012;29(4):394410.
[26] Vanavil B, Uma S, Rao AS. Smith predictor based parallel cascade control
strategy for unstable processes with application to a continuous bioreactor.
Chem Product Process Model 2012;7(1):22.
[27] Qin SJ, Badgwell TA. A survey of industrial model predictive control technol-
ogy. Control Eng Pract 2003;11(7):73364.
[28] Cao Z, Yang Y, Lu J, Gao F. Two-time-dimensional model predictive control of
weld line positioning in bi-Injection molding. Ind Eng Chem Res 2015;54
(17):4795804.
[29] Zhang R, Gao F. An improved decoupling structure based state space MPC
design with improved performance. Syst Control Lett 2015;75:7783.
[30] le Roux JD, Padhi R, Craig IK. Optimal control of grinding mill circuit using
model predictive static programming: a new nonlinear MPC paradigm. J
Process Control 2014;24(12):2940.
[31] Cao Z, Yang Y, Lu J, Gao F. Constrained two dimensional recursive least squares
model identication for batch processes. J Process Control 2014;24(6):8719.
[32] Zou Q, Jin Q, Zhang R. Design of fractional order predictive functional control
for fractional industrial processes. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 2016;152:3441.
[33] Cole WJ, Morton DP, Edgar TF. Optimal electricity rate structures for peak
demand reduction using economic model predictive control. J Process Control
2014;24(8):13117.
[34] Cao Z, Zhang R, Yang Y, Lu J, Gao F. Discrete-time robust iterative learning
Kalman ltering for repetitive processes. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2016;61
(1):2705.
[35] Teh PS, Trinh H. Design of unknown input functional observers for nonlinear
systems with application to fault diagnosis. J Process Control 2014;23:116984.
[36] Zhang R, Lu R, Xue A, Gao F. New minmax linear quadratic fault-tolerant
tracking control for batch processes. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2016;61
(10):304551.
[37] Tadic P, Durovic Z. Particle ltering for sensor fault diagnosis and identica-
tion in nonlinear plants. J Process Control 2014;24:4019.
[38] Cao Z, Lu J, Zhang R, Gao F. Iterative learning Kalman lter for repetitive
processes. J Process Control 2016;46:92104.
[39] Hong JJ, Zhang J, Morris J. Progressive multi-block modelling for enhanced
fault isolation in batch processes. J Process Control 2014;24:1326.
[40] Zhang R, Lu J, Qu H, Gao F. State space model predictive fault-tolerant control
for batch processes with partial actuator failure. J Process Control 2014;24
(5):61320.
[41] Xu M, Li SY, Cai WJ. Practical receding-horizon optimization control of the air
handling unit in HVAC systems. Ind Eng Chem Res 2005;44(8):284855.
[42] Savran A. A multivariable predictive fuzzy PID control system. APPLIED SOFT
COMPUTING 2013;13(5):265867.
[43] Lee KN, Yeo YK. Predictive PID tuning method based on the simplied GPC
control law. J Chem Eng Jpn 2009;42(4):27480.
[44] Saad MS, Jamaluddin H, Darus IZM. PID controller tuning using evolutionary
algorithms. WSEAS Trans Syst Control 2012;7(4):13949.
[45] Zhang R, Cao Z, Bo C, Li P, Gao F. New PID controller design using extended
nonminimal state space model based predictive functional control structure.
Ind Eng Chem Res 2014;52(8):323645.
[46] Ribic AI, Matausek MR. A dead-time compensating PID controller structure
and robust tuning. J Process Control 2012;22(7):13409.
 J. Zhang / ISA Transactions () 7

[47] Papadopoulos KG, Margaris NI. Optimal automatic tuning of active damping
PID regulators. J Process Control 2013;23(6):90515.
[48] Slavov T, Roeva O. Application of genetic algorithm to tuning a PID controller
for glucose concentration control. WSEAS Trans Syst 2012;11(7):22333.
[49] Zhang R, Tao J, Gao F. A new approach of Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy modeling using
improved GA optimization for oxygen content in a coke furnace. Ind Eng Chem
Res 2016;55(22):646574.
[50] Zhang RD, Xue AK, Lu RQ, Li P, Gao FR. Real-time implementation of improved
state space MPC for air-supply in a coke furnace. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
2014;61(7):35329.

Please cite this article as: Zhang J. Design of a new PID controller using predictive functional control optimization for chamber pressure
in a coke furnace. ISA Transactions (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.11.006i