Predictive Functional Control of an Autoclave
Aleksander Preglej1, Igor Steiner1, Igor Škrjanc2
1
INEA d.o.o., Stegne 11, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Tržaška 25, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
E-mail: aleksander.preglej@inea.si
Abstract. This paper represents mathematical model and further predictive functional control of an autoclave.
Key words: autoclave, mathematical model, predictive functional control, temperature, pressure
Matematični model in prediktivno funkcijsko vodenje avtoklava
Povzetek. V članku je predstavljen matematični model in
nadalje prediktivno funkcijsko vodenje avtoklava.
Ključne besede: avtoklav, matematični model, prediktivno
funkcijsko vodenje, temperature, tlak
1 Introduction
****************not yet finished****************
The mathematical modelling is presented in [1].
The paper is organized in the following way: in
Section 2 the predictive control is introduced, in Section
3 predictive functional control law is described, in
Section 4 the linearization and reduction of the non-
linear model and determination of controller parameters
of the inner model is presented, in Section 5
proportional control of the pressure changes is presented
and in Section 6 PFC control of the heating and cooling
process is presented.
****************not yet finished****************
2 Introduction in the predictive control
The name Model Based Predictive Control (MPC)
covers more algorithms [2], which base on use of the
inner model for prediction of the process output,
estimation of the control signal with minimization
criterion function and the strategy of the moving
horizon. These algorithms differ in used process model,
criterion function and noise they try to minimize.
The main advantages [2] are:
 attractive for operators because for work with
these controllers relatively little knowledge is
needed and estimation of the parameters is easy,
Received xx.xxxx, 2011
Accepted xx.xxxx, 2011
 we can control very easy or very complex
processes, processes with delays, non-minimum
phase systems and non-stable systems,
 such control can be implemented in multi-variable
systems,
 obtained control laws are linear and easy to
implement.
The main disadvantages are the lack of theoretical
knowledge as stability and robustness in key points, and
the need of knowing the process model.
The methodology of MPC controllers can be
collapsed in three points [3]:
1. At some time point with help of the model we
predict process outputs for Nth horizon, which base
on previous inputs and outputs, and future control
signal that will be estimated and sent to the
system.
2. The future control signal is estimated with the
optimization of the criterion function, which
minimizes the sum of squared error between
reference signal and model output.
3. The control signal is sent to the system and in the
next time point is this procedure repeated.
The easiest and in industry most used model is step
response model presented in transfer function form.
3 Predictive functional control – PFC
Predictive functional control approach is analytically
solvable. The main idea [3] is that in the some point
the given reference process output coincides with
real process output, which means that we estimate and
minimize criterion function in mentioned point. Another
requirement, when we estimate prediction, is the same
control signal:
2 Preglej, Steiner, Škrjanc

. (1)
In equation (8) stands for trajectory transfer
function. The parameter is chosen by us
In equation (1) stands for control signal, stands
, where stands for desired trajectory time
for time point and stands for number of all time
constant. From transfer function (8) we can with similar
samples. Above, stands for time point of criterion
derivation as for equation (4) get:
minimization, which is also PFC controller parameter.
. (9)
Most of the real processes can be good enough
described with first order model with delay or with In equation (9) stands for reference output and
second order model with delay. Our process of stands for reference signal.
autoclave heating and cooling will be approximated
with first order transfer function: Suppose that at time appears the reference change
. (2) and so in time the process output must change
for:

In equation (2) stands for model transfer (10)

function, stands for model gain, stands for model ,
time constant and stands for model delay.
and process model changes for:
3.1 Control law for the first order model
First we transform continuous transfer function into (11)
discrete transfer function with sample time : .

, (3)
In equation (10) stands for process output.

where , and Next we equalize both differences and , and

. we get:

For start, we will take the model without delay. . (12)

Process output prediction can be presented as following:
(4)
If we presume and , we
(5)
can write equation (12) in more transparent form:
. (13)

(6)
. The above control law (13) can be presented as seen
in Figure 1.
In equations (4) to (6) stands for model output
prediction.
Taking requirement (1) and
into account
we get:

(7)
.
Figure 1. Block scheme for the process without delay.
Reference trajectory is also given with first order
transfer function: Slika 1. Blokovna shema za proces brez zakasnitve.

. (8)

On the principle of Smith predictor [3] we add delay
in the control law (14) and the scheme presented in
Figure 2, and so we get:
(14)
.
In equation (14) stands for delayed model
output prediction.
Figure 2. Block scheme for the process with delay on the
principle of the Smith predictor.
Slika 2. Blokovna shema za proces z zakasnitvijo na osnovi
Smithovega prediktorja.
4 Linearization and reduction of the non-
linear model
For desired control with PFC controller we must set
inner model parameters and parameters and , which
can be for stable processes easily estimated from model
transfer function.
When dealing with first order model with delay, we
have to set three parameters, process gain, process time
constant and delay.
4.1 Linearization in the working point
Our mathematical model is non-linear and so we have to
fix the value of that is included in the heat transfer
coefficient equations .
Without material placed in the autoclave we have
the system of third order, which we linearized in
working point . Next we can transform
linearized differential equations into the state space,
from where it is easy to get the model transfer function.
Because the process is affected by one input (heaters
or cooler) and one disturbance input (environment
temperature), naturally we get two transfer functions,
from which has the input transfer function major
influence. For our linearization we used before
mentioned input transfer function with slightly
increased gain with already mentioned optimization
Predictive Functional Control of an Autoclave 3
method to cover also the influence of the disturbance
input transfer function:
, (15)
. (16)
In equations (15) and (16) stands for heating
process transfer function and stands for cooling
process transfer function.
4.2 Reduction of the higher order model
For the reduction of the third order to the first order
models we used the method Hankel minimum degree
approximation (MDA) without balancing. Basis of this
method is that for a stable system Hankel singular
values indicate the respective state energy of the system
and so the reduced order can be directly determined by
examining the system Hankel singular values. This
method guarantees an error bound, which is computed
based on Hankel singular values of transfer function, on
the infinity norm of the additive error for well-
conditioned model reduced problems [4]:
. (17)
In equation (17) stands for original transfer
function, stands for reduced transfer function,
stands for desired reduced order, stands for total
singular values number and stands for single singular
value.
The algorithm of the mentioned method, which
truncates the original state space model to the order
reduced model, when we have state space model with
matrixes , , , and the desired reduced order , is
presented in continuation of this paper.
First it finds the controllability and observability
grammians and .
Next, forms the descriptor
, (18)
where , and descriptors state space.
Then it takes singular values of the descriptor and
partitions the result into order truncation form:
, (19)
. (20)
Afterwards, it applies the transformation to the
descriptors state space equation (20):
4 Preglej, Steiner, Škrjanc

(21)
,

, (22)

, (23)
Figure 3. Original (solid line) and reduced (dashed line)
heating process model in frequency domain.
. (24)
Slika 3. Originalen (polna črta) in reduciran (prekinjena črta)
proces segrevanja v frekvenčnem prostoru.
And finally, it forms the equivalent state space
model:

(25)
.

The final order Hankel MDA is stable part of the

equation (25).

The proof of the Hankel MDA algorithm can be Figure 4. Original (solid line) and reduced (dashed line)
found in [5]. The error system between the original cooling process model in frequency domain.
system and the Zeroth Order Hankel MDA is an Slika 4. Originalen (polna črta) in reduciran (prekinjena črta)
all-pass function [4]. proces hlajenja v frekvenčnem prostoru.

Our transfer functions were well presented with
reduced transfer functions, but the steady state error,
which must be minimized for the system control, was
too big. Therefore we used acquired pole and preserved
steady state gain from the original third order transfer
function.
With described MDA method and preserved steady
state gain we got process reduced transfer functions:
, (26)
We can see that in the reduced transfer functions the
gain is preserved and that in the beginning of the
frequency area reduced transfer functions follows the
original transfer function very good, but then the
following is worse and worse.
4.3 Determined parameters for the heating process
We approximated heating third order model with first
order model response very good as presented in Figure
5.

(27)

In equations (26) and (27) stands for heating

process reduced transfer function and stands for
cooling process reduced transfer function.

The original and the reduced transfer functions can

be best compared in frequency response in Bode
diagram. In Figure 3 and Figure 4 are presented
comparisons of heating and cooling process transfer
functions in Bode diagrams. Figure 5. Third (solid line) and first (dashed line) order
heating model response comparison.
 Predictive Functional Control of an Autoclave 5

Slika 5. Primerjava odzivov procesa segrevanja tretjega (polna

črta) in prvega (prekinjena črta) reda.

From equation (26) we can notice

and , and delay of the real process is
approximately .

4.4 Determined parameters for the cooling process

Next we approximated cooling third order model with
first order model response also relatively good as
presented in Figure 6.
Figure 7. ON/OFF (solid line) and P (dashed) controlled
pressure comparison, both following the reference signal
(dotted line).
Slika 7. Primerjava ON/OFF (polna črta) in P (prekinjena črta)
vodenega tlaka, kjer oba sledita referenčnemu signalu (črtkana
črta).

Figure 6. Third (solid line) and first (dashed line) order

cooling model response comparison.
Slika 6. Primerjava odzivov procesa ohlajanja tretjega (polna
črta) in prvega (prekinjena črta) reda.

From equation (27) we can notice
and , and delay of the real process is
approximately . Slika 8. Izhod P regulatorja: naraščanje (polna črta) in padanje
5 Proportional control of the pressure
changes
The real process pressure changes are controlled with
ON/OFF controller, because the entry and escape valves
are discrete.
We designed simulation of the proportional
controlled pressure changes and compared its responses
to the real process responses. We set the controllers
proportional part on value 25 and limited its output for
the valve opening from 0 to 1.
In Figure 7 we can see that limited P controller is
basically a bit improved ON/OFF controller. While the
increasing and decreasing slope of the real process with
proportional controller would be the same as with
ON/OFF controller, the improvement would be quicker
nearing to the set point, which is of course dependent of
the controllers proportional part value, and reduced
steady state error. In Figure 8 are presented both P
controllers outputs.
Figure 8. P controller output: pressure increasing (solid line)
and decreasing (dashed line).
(prekinjena črta) tlaka.
6 PFC control of the heating and cooling
process
In section 9 we concerned with the settings of the inner
model parameters and in this sections we deal with the
settings of the parameters and , which affect the
system response speed.
First we considered proposed [3], [6] settings rules:
, (28)
, (29)
which did not return satisfying results, because we
needed faster responses and also steady state error
smaller than 0,5 °C and maximum ramp tracking error
smaller than 5 °C, so we appreciable decreased . For
the parameter settings we tried various values
meeting requirements from equation (29) and finally
fixed it to the value .
6 Preglej, Steiner, Škrjanc

In simulation of step tracking, ramp tracking and

load disturbance rejection we used the same settings,
which were for the heating process
and , and for the
cooling process and
.

*****************not yet tested*****************

In the real system we used slightly changed
parameters settings.
*****************not yet tested*****************
Figure 11. Simulated processes step tracking errors: heating
(solid line) and cooling (dashed line) error.
6.1 Step tracking
Slika 11. Napaka simuliranega sledenja stopnici: segrevanje
6.1.1 Simulation (polna črta) in hlajenje (prekinjena črta).
In Figure 9 is presented simulated PFC controlled step
tracking of both processes heating and cooling, in From presented Figure 9 to Figure 11 it can be seen
Figure 10 are presented simulated step tracking PFC that the PFC controller tracks the step very good
controller outputs and in Figure 11 are presented both because the response is quick, there is no overshoot and
errors. the error in steady state is less than 0,5 °C.

6.1.2 Real process

*****************not yet tested*****************
In Figure 12 is presented real PFC controlled step
tracking of both processes heating and cooling, in
Figure 13 are presented real step tracking PFC
controller outputs and in Figure 14 are presented both
errors.

Figure 9. PFC controlled step tracking of the simulated

processes: the reference (solid line) and the autoclave
temperature (dashed line).
Slika 9. Simulirano sledenje stopnici s PFC regulatorjem:
referenca (polna črta) in temperatura avtoklava (prekinjena
črta).

Figure 12. NOT REAL FIGURE: PFC controlled step tracking

of the real processes: reference (solid line) and autoclave
temperature (dashed line).
Slika 12. Realno sledenje stopnici s PFC regulatorjem:
referenca (polna črta) in temperatura avtoklava (prekinjena
črta).

Figure 10. Simulated step tracking PFC controller outputs:

heating (solid line) and cooling (dashed line) controller.
Slika 10. Izhod PFC regulatorjev simuliranega sledenja
stopnici: segrevanje (polna črta) in hlajenje (prekinjena črta).

Figure 13. NOT REAL FIGURE: Real step tracking PFC
controller outputs: heating (solid line) and cooling (dashed
line).
Slika 13. Izhod PFC regulatorjev realnega sledenja stopnici:
segrevanje (polna črta) in hlajenje (prekinjena črta).
Figure 14. NOT REAL FIGURE: Real processes step tracking
errors: heating (solid line) and cooling (dashed line) error.
Slika 14. Napaka realnega sledenja stopnici: segrevanje (polna
črta) in hlajenje (prekinjena črta).
From presented Figure 12 to Figure 147 it can be
seen that the PFC controller tracks the step very good.
*****************not yet tested*****************
6.2 Ramp tracking
6.2.1 Simulation
In Figure 15 is presented simulated PFC controlled
ramp tracking of both processes heating and cooling, in
Figure 16 are presented simulated ramp tracking PFC
controller outputs and in Figure 17 are presented both
errors.
Predictive Functional Control of an Autoclave 7
Figure 15. PFC controlled ramp tracking of the simulated
processes: reference (solid line) and autoclave temperature
(dashed line).
Slika 15. Simulirano sledenje rampi s PFC regulatorjem:
referenca (polna črta) in temperatura avtoklava (prekinjena
črta).
Figure 16. Simulated ramp tracking PFC controller outputs:
heating (solid line) and cooling (dashed line) controller.
Slika 16. Izhod PFC regulatorjev simuliranega sledenja rampi:
segrevanje (polna črta) in hlajenje (prekinjena črta).
Figure 17. Simulated processes ramp tracking errors: heating
(solid line) and cooling (dashed line) error.
Slika 17. Napaka simuliranega sledenja rampi: segrevanje
(polna črta) in hlajenje (prekinjena črta).
From presented Figure 15 to Figure 17 it can be seen
that the PFC controller tracks the ramp even better that
the step because the response is also quick, there is no
overshoot and the error in steady state is less than 1,5
°C.
8 Preglej, Steiner, Škrjanc
6.2.2 Real process
*****************not yet tested*****************
In Figure 18 is presented real PFC controlled ramp
tracking of both processes heating and cooling, in
Figure 19 are presented real ramp tracking PFC
controller outputs and in Figure 20 are presented both
errors.
Figure 18. NOT REAL FIGURE: PFC controlled ramp
tracking of the real processes: reference (solid line) and
autoclave temperature (dashed line).
Slika 18. Realno sledenje rampi s PFC regulatorjem: referenca
(polna črta) in temperatura avtoklava (prekinjena črta).
Figure 19. NOT REAL FIGURE: Real ramp tracking PFC
controller outputs: heating (solid line) and cooling (dashed
line) controller.
Slika 19. Izhod PFC regulatorjev realnega sledenja rampi:
segrevanje (polna črta) in hlajenje (prekinjena črta).
Figure 20. NOT REAL FIGURE: Real processes ramp
tracking errors: heating (solid line) and cooling (dashed line)
error.
Slika 20. Napaka realnega sledenja rampi: segrevanje (polna
črta) in hlajenje (prekinjena črta).
From presented Figure 18 to Figure 207 it can be
seen that the PFC controller tracks the ramp very good.
*****************not yet tested*****************
6.3 Load disturbance rejection
Although PFC tracks signals very well, it is quite bad in
the load disturbance rejection. Because the disturbance
appears before the process and it is not measurable, is
the actual process input different than the expected input
and so are different also actual process and model
responses.
In Figure 21 is presented simulated disturbance of
heaters power fall and the bad PFC’s load disturbance
rejection. It can be seen that the output signal is rising
again, but very slowly as in 12000 seconds the
disturbance is not rejected yet.
In Figure 22 is presented simulated disturbance of
coolers power rise and the bad PFC’s load disturbance
rejection. It can be seen that the output signal is falling
again, but very slowly as in 9000 seconds the
disturbance is not totally rejected yet.
In both Figure 21 and Figure 22 the disturbance is
presented illustrative.
Figure 21. Disturbance and the bad PFC's load disturbance
rejection by heating: disturbance (solid line) from the
reference (dotted line) and autoclave temperature (dashed
line).
Slika 21. Motnja in slabo regulacijsko delovanje PFC
regulatorja pri segrevanju: motnja (polna črta) od reference
(črtkana črta) in temperatura avtoklava (prekinjena črta).
 Predictive Functional Control of an Autoclave 9

correction joint value 20981 by heating and 0,0173 by

cooling.
Correction P joint really improves load disturbance
rejection by heating as the disturbance is rejected in less
than 800 s as seen in Figure 24. In Figure 25 is
presented PFC controllers and added correction P joints
output by heating.

Figure 22. Disturbance and the bad PFC's load disturbance

rejection by cooling: disturbance (solid line) from the
reference (dotted line) and autoclave temperature (dashed
line).
Slika 22. Motnja in slabo regulacijsko delovanje PFC
regulatorja pri hlajenju: motnja (polna črta) od reference
(črtkana črta) in temperatura avtoklava (prekinjena črta).

To improve PFC’s load disturbance rejection we
must add the loop presented in Figure 23, which on the
base of model and process output difference
additionally affects control signal.
Figure 24. Load disturbance rejection with PFC controller and
added correction P joint by heating: disturbance (solid line)
from the reference (dotted line) and autoclave temperature
(dashed line).
Slika 24. Regulacija motnje s PFC regulatorjem in dodanim
korekcijskim P členom pri segrevanju: motnja (polna črta) od
reference (črtkana črta) in temperatura avtoklava (prekinjena
črta).

Figure 23. Improved PFC scheme for the load disturbance

rejection.
Slika 23. Shema izboljšanega PFC regulatorja za odpravo
motenj.

Afterwards we must carefully set the PFC and Figure 25. PFC controllers and added correction P joints
correction joints parameters that the added correction output (solid line) by heating.
joint does not have too negative affects in tracking and
at the same time it well rejects load disturbance. Slika 25. Izhod PFC regulatorja in dodanega korekcijskega P
člena (polna črta) pri regulaciji motnje pri segrevanju.
The most intuitive correction joint is [3] proportional
(P) joint with P part set to , where
Correction P joint also perceptibly improves load
parameter varies between values 0,3 and 0,7
disturbance rejection by cooling as the disturbance is
dependent on the model and the real process difference.
rejected in less than 700 s as seen in Figure 26. In
The bigger is the model and the real process
Figure 27 is presented PFC controllers and added
difference, the greater is the correction joints affect on a
correction P joints output by cooling.
transient phenomenon and we have to be careful with
the parameter settings.

6.3.1 Simulation
Our PFC controller is because of the small tracking
errors requirements already close to instability, so we
set parameter to lowest value 0,3, which gives us P
10 Preglej, Steiner, Škrjanc
Figure 26. Load disturbance rejection with PFC controller and
added correction P joint by cooling: disturbance (solid line)
from the reference (dotted line) and autoclave temperature
(dashed line).
Slika 26. Regulacija motnje s PFC regulatorjem in dodanim
korekcijskim P členom pri hlajenju: motnja (polna črta) od
reference (črtkana črta) in temperatura avtoklava (prekinjena
črta).
Figure 27. PFC controllers and added correction P joints
output (solid line) by cooling.
Slika 27. Izhod PFC regulatorja in dodanega korekcijskega P
člena (polna črta) pri regulaciji motnje pri hlajenju.
With these settings of PFC and P part parameters we
encounter stability problems by the step and ramp
tracking, so we should increase PFC parameters and
, but then we would not meet small tracking errors
requirements.
Easy practical solution for meeting the small
tracking errors requirements and good load disturbance
rejection is to turn the correction joint on just in steady
state and turn it off at the reference change.
7 Conclusion
****************not yet finished****************
Designed PFC control shows great response tracking
performance, because we easily kept the errors within
the requirements by the simulation and real process. The
PFC has problems with load disturbance rejection,
which we reduced with added P correction joint, but
then it impairs response tracking performance. So we
must pay attention and turn the correction joint on just
in steady state and turn it off at the reference change.
****************not yet finished****************
8 References
[1] Preglej, A., Karba, R., Steiner, I., Škrjanc, I.
Mathematical Model of an Autoclave. Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, vol. , no. , pp. 1-14, 2011
[2] E. F. Camacho, C. Bordons, Model Predictive Control,
Springer, London, 1999
[3] Dovžan, D., Škrjanc, I. Self-Tuning Algorithms for
Predictive Functional Controller. Electrotechnical
Review: Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 205-210, 2009
[4] K. Glover, All Optimal Hankel Norm Approximation of
Linear Multivariable Systems and Their -error
Bounds, Int. J. Control, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1145-1193,
1984
[5] M. G. Safonov, R.Y. Chiang and D.J.N. Limebeer,
Optimal Hankel Model Reduction for Nonminimal
Systems, IEEE Trans. on Automat. Contr., vol. 35, no. 4,
pp. 496-502, 1990
[6] I. Škrjanc, D. Matko, Predictive Functional Control
Based on Fuzzy Model for Heat-Exchanger Pilot Plant,
IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 705-
712, 2000
Aleksander Preglej received his B. Sc. degree in electrical
engineering from the University of Ljubljana in 2008. He is
currently employed as young researcher in economy by the
company INEA, Ljubljana. His main research interests are in
advanced process control.
Igor Steiner received the B.Sc. and the M.Sc. degrees in
electrical engineering, in ___ and ____, respectively, from the
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of
Ljubljana, Slovenia. He is currently employed as automation
project manager by the company INEA, Ljubljana.
Igor Škrjanc received the B.Sc., the M.Sc. and the Ph.D.
degrees in electrical engineering, in 1988, 1991 and 1996,
respectively, from the Faculty of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. His main
research interests are in adaptive, predictive, fuzzy and fuzzy
adaptive control systems.