Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 897 905

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Tuning of multivariate PID controllers based on characteristic matrix

eigenvalues, Lyapunov functions and robustness criteria
M.A. Garca-Alvarado , I.I. Ruiz-Lpez, T. Torres-Ramos
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Instituto Tecnolgico de Veracruz, Av. Miguel Angel de Quevedo 2779, 91897 Veracruz, Ver. Mxico

Received 28 January 2004; accepted 22 September 2004

Available online 23 November 2004

Abstract
A tuning criterion for multiple inputmultiple output (MIMO) PID controllers based on characteristic matrix eigenvalues and Lyapunov
functions was suggested. In this method, the tuning problem is stated as an optimization one in which the Lyapunov quadratic index variation
with respect to dynamic parameters was minimized with constrains in eigenvalues. Proposed criterion was applied to the multivariate
controls of a distillation column, and a nonlinear biochemical reactor.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Robust control; MIMO PID controllers; Lyapunov functions

1. Introduction controllers of nonlinear plants based on Lyapunov functions.

Among the advances in control theory, PID control
algorithm is the main control action applied in industrial
controllers (Ho et al., 2003). Wang et al. (2002) stated that
sophisticated control algorithms, such as model predictive
control, are built on the basis of PID algorithm. Even in
nonlinear control development, PID control action has been
used as comparison reference (Alvarez et al., 1989). Some
of the reasons for this success of PID algorithm are its
mathematical simplicity and the fact that this algorithm as-
sures reduction to zero of the error, if the system is stable
and input is time constricted. Additionally, evidence exists
that PID algorithm has robustness characteristics (Alvarez
et al., 1998; Nava et al., 2002). Some new research has been
developed recently over tuning PID controllers. Sylemez
et al. (2003) reported that the stable region for PID control
parameters is a nite polyhedral region in the parameter
space. Ho et al. (2003) proposed an iterative feedback
tuning incorporated into relay auto-tuning of the PID con-
troller. Tan et al. (2002) suggested a tuning criterion for PID
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +52 229 9345701.
E-mail addresses: miguelg@itver.edu.mx, gaam61@yahoo.com.mx
(M.A. Garca-Alvarado).
The whole of the references listed above, have suggested
tuning or stabilizing PID controllers for single inputsingle
output (SISO) processes. In multiple inputsmultiple out-
puts (MIMO) processes may exist cross effect and there-
fore decoupling actions are required (Wang et al., 2002).
Bao et al. (1999) proposed the tuning of a MIMO PID ro-
bust control based on H criterion. Alvarez-Ramirez and
Monroy-Loperena (2001) designed a MIMO PI robust con-
trol based on their previous theory for SISO PI controllers
(Alvarez et al., 1998). PID algorithm may be generalized
if it is represented in matrix form for multivariate control
in which the decoupling effects are implicit. In this work,
we show an alternative tuning of robust MIMO PID algo-
rithm on the basis of the characteristic matrix eigenvalues
and Lyapunov functions of the generalized representation.
2. Theory
Any plant with multivariate PID control action may be
represented by
dx

= ax + b + cu, (1)
dt

0009-2509/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2004.09.047
898 M.A. Garca-Alvarado et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 897 905

y = dx + e, (2) This nth order equation may be written as Eqs. (4) if auxil-
iary variables are dened as
du d(yd y) d2 (yd y) dx1 (t)
=f + g(yd y) + h , (3) x1 (t) = x(t), x2 (t) = ,...,
dt dt dt 2 dt
dxn1 (t)
xn (t) = .

where x is an n1 matrix whose elements are state variables, dt
 is an m1 matrix whose elements are inputs variables, u is
an s 1 matrix whose elements are control variables, y is an The plant described with Eqs. (1)(3) may be rewritten in
r 1 matrix whose elements are output-controlled variables. terms of increased state

and a are n n matrices whose elements are dynamic dx
parameters for state variables, b is an n m matrix whose
= a x + b  , y = d x + e  , (5)
dt
elements are dynamic parameters for input variables, c is
an n s matrix whose elements are dynamic parameters for where increased space and input, expressed as transpose
control variables, d is an r n matrix whose elements are the form, are
relationship between state variables and output-controlled
x = [xT uT ],
T
variables, e is an r m matrix whose elements are the  
T d
T d2 T T 2 T
relationship between input variables and output-controlled T T dyd d yd
variables, f is an s r matrix whose elements are the pro-  =  yd
dt dt 2 dt dt 2
portional gains of PID, g is an s r matrix whose elements
are the integral times of PID, and h is an s r matrix whose and increased matrices are dened as
elements are the derivative constants of PID. The diagonal  
elements of f, g and h matrices are the well-known kp , ki and In 0

= ,
kd parameters. The non diagonal elements represent decou- hd
1 a + fd hd
1 c + Is
 1 
pling parameters with proportional, integral and derivative
a
1 c
a = , d = [d 0]. (6)
actions. gd 0
If
elements are constant and a, b, c, d and e are constant
or x,  or u functions, the plant is quasi-linear. If
, a, b, Matrices b and e do not have effect into criterion. There-
c, d and e elements are constant the plant is linear and time fore, the characteristic matrix (n + s) (n + s) that denes
invariant. It is important to note that Eq. (1) may represent the plant dynamic is
a delay by using auxiliary variables through the following
A = (
)1 a . (7)
theorem.
It is well known that control system (5) is stable, if and
Theorem 1. Any delay of the form x(t) =
(t d ) may only if, all the real parts of matrix A eigenvalues (i ) are
be approximately represented by the following system of n nonpositives. Moreover, the dynamic behavior of control
differential equations: system is characterized by these eigenvalues. The stabiliz-
ing time may be minimized if the minimal real part of the
nd dxn (t) eigenvalues is maximized. Therefore, it is logical to assume
+ + d x2 (t) + x1 (t) =
(t), that a feasible tuning criterion may be
n! dt
dxn1 (t) dx1 (t) Find f, g, h such that
= xn (t), . . . , = x2 (t). (4)
dt dt rmin Max, (8)
Proof. In Laplace dominium x(s)=ed s
(s) or ed s x(s)= subject to

(s). Applying Taylor series expansion
Re(i ) < 0 i = 1, 2, . . . , (n + s), (9)


2d s 2 n s n where
1 + d s + + + d + x(s) =
(s).
2! n!
rmin = Min{abs[Re(i )]}. (10)

Coming back to time dominium, and truncating the series Constrains (9) assure that the control will be stable and
after the nth element yields with dynamic behavior limited by eigenvalues characteris-
tics.
However, optimization problems dened by Eqs. (8)(10)
dx(t) 2d d2 x(t) nd dn x(t)
x(t) + d + + + =
(t). may have multiple solutions. Therefore, other conditions
dt 2! dt 2 n! dt n are required for a tuning criterion. If V (x) = x Px is a
T
 M.A. Garca-Alvarado et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 897 905 899

Lyapunov function of x, the quadratic performance index of Control system (5) with matrices dened as in (20) (a
output variables may be MIMO proportional control) may be optimized with respect
   to quadratic performance index
x d Qd x dt
T T
IL = (yT Qy) dt =
0 0  
T T
= x (0)Px (0) x (t)Px (t)|t ,
(11) I= xT Qx + uT Ru dt, (21)
0
where
by using the Riccati equation (Wiberg, 1971) in terms of Eq.
AT P + PA = d Qd .
T
(12)
(5) matrices,
If system (1)(3) is stable, then matrix P exists and it is
symmetric and positive dened (Wiberg, 1971). Addition-  T    T

1 a P+P
1 a P
1 c R1
1 c P+Q = 0
ally, if the system is such that
(22)
x (t)Px (t)|t 0
T
(13)
and
then, the Lyapunov quadratic index (IL ) depends only on
dynamic characteristics and initial conditions. It is evident 
that an optimal tuning criterion may be f = R1 (
1 c)T P d1 , (23)
Find f, g, h such that
IL Min, (14) where dd1 = Ir .
In practice, these criteria were applied in sequence. First,
subject to optimal P control was obtained with Eq. (23) at different
Re(i ) < 0 i = 1, 2, . . . , (n + s). (15) R values. These R values dene the bounds of u. Result
for f may be used as initial guest for minimization problem
On the other hand, the above criteria do not take into (14) and (15). Finally, the robust criterion is applied (Eqs.
account any robustness characteristics. Robust control is (16)(18)) with 1 dened in problem (14) and (15) results.
dened as a control tuned in such way that dynamic re- Two applications of the criterion dened in Eqs. (8)(23)
sponse would be minimally affected by parameter uncer- were presented. In Section 3, a MIMO PID control of a dis-
tainty (Alvarez et al., 1998; Nava et al., 2002). In terms of tillation column is described. This distillation column was
matrix A, the robustness criterion may be expressed as the represented using an empirical dynamic model reported in
following optimization problem: the literature (Bao et al., 1999). In Section 4, a MIMO PID
Find f, g, h such that control of a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) is con-
sidered. The CSTR was represented by a mechanistic dy-
Var(IL ) Min, (16)
namic mode obtained from heat and mass balances.
subject to Matrices operations were solved with Matlab 6.0 routines.
Optimization problems required an algorithm that could ma-
IL < 1 , (17) nipulate the target function and the implicit constrain dened
Re(i ) < 0 i = 1, 2, . . . , (n + s), (18) by (15) or (18). We found that the classical algorithm pro-
posed by Box (1965) satised the requirements, because it
where does not use functions derivatives, it can manipulate discon-


 * IL  2
tinuous functions and it can introduce implicit constrains.
Var(IL ) = , (19) In order to avoid local optimums, different initial guesses
j i
*aij were used. Quadratic variations of performance index IL
(19) were evaluated by using nite differences. Target func-
and aij are the elements of matrix A subject to uncertainty. tions, constrains and the optimization algorithm were pro-
This criterion, called minimal Var(IL ) (MVIL), suggests grammed in Matlab 6.0. Differential equations of process dy-
the tuning of a robust PID control in which the sum of square namic were solved with fourth-order RungeKutta method,
of variations of the quadratic performance index (11) with using discrete PID algorithms. Final performance of control
respect to dynamic parameters would be minimal. system was additionally evaluated with the quadratic perfor-
However, there is a limitation. If the control algorithm mance index of the error
tends to the proportional one (P ), i.e., matrices g and h tend
to null matrix, s eigenvalues of matrix A tend to zero with-  tf 
out affecting the stability or stabilizing time. Under these Ie = (yd y)T Q(yd y) + uT Ru dt, (24)
0
considerations
x = x,  = ,
= In , a =
1 (a cfd). (20) calculated form simulation results by trapezoidal rule.
900 M.A. Garca-Alvarado et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 897 905

3. MIMO PID control of a distillation column 0.001. Lyapunov quadratic index (IL ) was evaluated with
Q = I4 , x1 (0) = 0.5, x3 (0) = 0.5, x5 (0) = 0.5, x7 (0) = 0.5,
Bao et al. (1999) refers the following dynamic model for and the rest of x elements equal to 0 at t = 0. Finally,
a distillation column in Laplace dominium error quadratic index was evaluated with Q = I2 , R = 0 and
  tf = 30 min for a unit step change in y1d and y2d .
y1 (s) Results are summarized in Table 1, and the dynamic re-
=
y2 (s) sponse of output variables is plotted in Figs. 1 and 2. IL
33.89 32.63
value obtained for Ricatti solution is not comparable with the
(98.02s + 1)(0.42s + 1) (99.6s + 1)(0.35s + 1) other IL values because the number of elements of x matrix
18.85 34.84
is different to that of the x matrix. rmin obtained for Ricatti
(75.43s+ 1)(0.30s
 + 1) (110.5s + 1)(0.03s + 1) equation and for MVIL are practically the same. This shows
u (s) that rmin tend to a maximum in an optimal control. However
e0.01s 1 , (25)
u2 (s) in Bao et al. (1999) optimal control rmin tends to zero. This
is because ki1 tends to zero, and therefore this control tends
where y1 and y2 are temperatures of trays 21 and 7, respec-
to P . In fact, control dynamic for Ricatti and Bao results
tively, and u1 and u2 are liquid reux and vapor boilup, re-
is similar (Fig. 1), but Ricatti solution shows stationary er-
spectively. Eq. (25) with a MIMO PID control may be rep-
ror. The rmin obtained in Bao et al. (1999) produces a great
resented by Eqs. (1) and (2), and applying the Theorem 1,
value in IL (Table 1). Therefore, the comparison between
as follows
controls must be done using quadratic performance index of
xT = [x1 x2 x12 ]112 , uT = [u1 u2 ]12 , the error (Ie ). The minimal value for Ie was obtained with
yT = [y1 y2 ]12 , MVIL criterion, but this MIMO PID control has decoupled
parameters not included in the control proposed by Bao et
y1 = x1 + x3 , y2 = x5 + x7 , al. (1999). In order to show the robustness, Bao et al. (1999)
    proposed the simulation of the same control system using
kp1 kp12 kp1 ki1 kp12 ki12
f= , g= , the same control parameters but with the following modied
kp21 kp2 22 kp21 ki21 kp2 ki2 22 matrix transfer function:
  33.89 32.63
kp1 kd1 kp12 kd12
h= , (98.01s + 1)(0.43s + 1) (98.5s + 1)(0.33s + 1)
kp21 kd21 kp2 kd2
22
18.85 34.84
where the nonzero terms of matrices are, 11 = 98.2, 22 = (76s + 1)(0.31s + 1) (109.5s + 1)(0.025s + 1)
0.42, 33 = 99.6, 44 = 0.35, 55 = 75.43, 66 = 0.3,
0.1s
77 = 110.5, 88 = 0.03, ii = 0.01 i = 9, 10, . . . , 12, e . (26)
aii =1 i=1, 2, . . . , 12, a12 =33.89, a29 =1, a34 =32.63, Results are plotted in Figs. 3 and 4. It is evident that the
a4,10 = 1, a56 = 18.85, a6,11 = 1, a78 = 34.84, a8,12 = 1, three control systems support the variations in the matrix
c91 =1, c10,2 =1, c11,1 =1, c12,2 =1, d11 =1, d13 =1, d25 =1, transfer function. However, the error quadratic index ob-
d27 = 1. In the original example (Bao et al., 1999) the de- tained
lay of Eq. (25) is not included until the robustness test. We Ie = 6.7 101 for Ricatti, Ie = 4.6 101 for Bao and
include these terms with a small value because of the need Ie = 2.7 101 for MVIL indicates that the MVIL criterion
of auxiliary equations (Theorem 1). is the most robust.
Ricatti equation was evaluated with Q = I2 , and R as a Resuming, the proposed MVIL criterion with a minimal
diagonal matrix 2 2 with rii as diagonal terms equal to tolerance in IL (1 ) is a feasible tuning method that produces

Table 1
PID parameters obtained for distillation column control

Set Type kp1 , ki1 , kd1 , kp2 , ki2 , kd2 , rmin , IL , Var(IL ), Ie
kp12 , kp21 , ki12 , ki21 , kd12 , kd21

1 Ricatti with rii = 0.001 12.696, 0, 0, 10.822, 0, 0, 0.01, 0.36, 8.86, 2.8 101
7.9758, 10.598, 0, 0, 0, 0
2 Bao et al. (1999) 11.25, 2.14723 105 ; 2.14 105 , 23161,
8.2 1010 , 15.49, 0.2584; 2.1 106 , 2.65 101
2.27 107 , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
3 Optimized for MVIL, with 1 = 10 20.2468, 0.3924, 1.9999, 0.01, 6.09, 1.95 103 ,
17.6783, 0.3999, 0.2109, 4.1 102 .
11.1604, 10.0001, 0.1918,
0.2499, 1.5165, 0.688
 M.A. Garca-Alvarado et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 897 905 901

Fig. 1. Simulation results of control performance for y1 response. Fig. 3. Simulation results of control performance for y1 response and
matrix transfer (26).

Fig. 2. Simulation results of control performance for y2 response.

Fig. 4. Simulation results of control performance for y2 response and
matrix transfer (26).
better results than Ricatti equation and similar results to the
tuning criterion suggested by Bao et al. (1999), at least in
this distillation example. dCP 1
Vr = QC P 1
dt
Vr YP /A k0 exp(E/RT 11 )CE1
2 C
A1
4. MIMO PID control for a CSTR + , (29)
km + CA1

The rst example was applied in a process described with dCA1

Vr = Q01 CA0 QC A1
an empirical dynamic model in Laplace dominion. This sec- dt
ond example is applied in a process described with a mech- Vr k0 exp(E/RT 11 )CE1
2 C
A1
anistic dynamic model approximated to a linear one by us- , (30)
km + CA1
ing Taylor series expansion. Suppose that the dynamic of a
CSTR with an enzymatic reaction is described by dT11
CP Vr = CP (Q01 T01 QT 11 ) hA(T11 T12 )
dt
dCA1
Vr = Q01 CA0 QC A1
Hr Vr k0 exp(E/RT 11 )CE12 C
A1
dt + ,
km + CA1
Vr k0 exp(E/RT 11 )CE1
2 C
A1
, (27) (31)
km + CA1
dT12
dCE1 CP Vc = CP Q03 (T02 T12 ) + hA(T11 T12 ).
Vr = Q02 CE0 QC E1 , (28) dt
dt (32)
902 M.A. Garca-Alvarado et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 897 905

Eqs. (27)(32) represent a CSTR in which reactive A is

transformed into a product P in a reaction catalyzed by an
enzyme E. Reaction is exothermic with an amount of
Hr
of released energy. Reaction rates are assumed to be
k0 exp(E/RT )CE2 CA
rA = [=] gA m3 h1 , (33)
km + C A
YP /A k0 exp(E/RT )CE2 CA
rP = [=] gP m3 h1 . (34)
km + C A
The CSRT is assumed to be in complete mixing and covered
with a cooling jacket in which the cooling water is assumed
to be in complete mixing too. Control system target is to keep
the output product concentration (CP 1 ) and output product
temperature (T11 ) in a desired value. Acting variables are
enzyme input ow (Q02 ) and cooling water ow (Q03 ). Fig. 5. CP 1 dynamic simulation for Set 4 control parameters.
The system described is nonlinear and may be rewritten in
an approximate linear form by using Taylor series expansion.
The result produces the following nonzero terms of matrices,
ii = i i =1, 2, . . . , 5, aii =1 i =1, 2, . . . , 5, a12 =k11 ,
a14 =k14 , a31 =k31 , a32 =k32 , a34 =k33 , a41 =k41 , a42 =k42 ,
a45 = k43 , a54 = k51 , c21 = k21 , c52 = k52 , d13 = 1, d24 = 1.
Dynamic parameters denition may be found in Appendix
A. There is not a simple way to represent this system in
Laplace dominion. State matrices are
 
xT = [CA1 CE1 CP 1 T11
 
T11 ]15 ,
uT = [Q02 Q03 ]12 , yT = [CP 1 T11

]12 ,
 
kp1 kp12
f= ,
kp21 kp2 22
 
kp1 ki1 kp12 ki12
g= ,
kp21 ki21 kp2 ki2 22 Fig. 6. T11 dynamic simulation for Set 4 control parameters.
 
kp1 kd1 kp12 kd12
h= ,
kp21 kd21 kp2 kd2 22
where the symbol  expresses a deviation of steady state. As
example

CA1 = CA1 CA1s .
The values for dynamic parameters are the following:
1 = 0.697616, 2 = 6.23131, 3 = 6.23131, 4 = 0.196481,
5 = 0.0301856, k11 = 6.12524, k12 = 0.04966, k13 =
0.110532, k21 = 70.5219, k31 = 6.36605, k32 = 43.7700,
k33 =0.355865, k41 =0.578201, k42 =3.98668, k43 =1.03598,
k44 = 0.0311310, k51 = 0.991487, k52 = 1.39907, k53 =
0.00851259. Units for all  hours and for gains (k) are re-
quired in order to show dimensional consistency (Appendix
A). Lyapunov quadratic index performance (IL ) was evalu-
ated with Q=I7 , CP 1 (0)=1 and T11  (0)=1. Quadratic perfor-
Fig. 7. CP 1 dynamic simulation for Set 5 control parameters.
mance index of error (Ie ) was evaluated with Q = I2 , R = 0,
and tf = 50 h for a step disturbance of 6 C and 2 g cm3
at t = 5 h in T01 and CA0 , respectively, keeping constant the Table 2 lists the result obtained, and the dynamic response
 C
desired values T11d P 1d . In nonlinear simulation a possible of output variables is plotted in Figs. 58. Figs. 5 and 6 show
saturation of Q02 and Q03 was introduced. The limits were the dynamic response obtained with control tuned by Ricatti
0.00.07 m3 h1 for Q02 and 0.02.0 m3 h1 for Q03 . equation. An acceptable behavior was obtained for the linear
 M.A. Garca-Alvarado et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 897 905 903

Table 2
PID parameters obtained for linearized CSTR control

Set Type kp1 , ki1 , kd1 , kp2 , ki2 , kd2 , rmin , IL , Var(IL ), Ie
kp12 , kp21 , ki12 , ki21 , kd12 , kd21

4 Ricatti with rii = 0.5 . . . 0.7795, 0, 0, 0.898, 0, 0, 0.16, 0.34, 0.15, 8.29 101
0.7124, 0.306, 0, 0, 0, 0
5 Optimized for MVIL, 0.5556, 0.2344, 0.5174, 0.16, 5.41, 7.34, 4.6 102
with 1 = 15 0.4333, 0.5245, 0.3439,
0.5215, 0.6769, 0.0152,
0.3315, 0.050, 0.4556

one (Figs. 7 and 8), the Ie values obtained,

Ie = 4.62 102 for MVIL with linear model

(Table 2 set 5)

Ie = 1.77 101 for MVIL with nonlinear model

and the Var(IL ) value are listed in Table 2. This Var(IL )

value obtained for MVIL criterion is greater than those ob-
tained for Ricatti equation criterion. However, these values
cannot be directly compared because in Ricatti equation, the
number of elements in x matrix is lesser than the number
of elements in the x matrix.

Fig. 8. T11 dynamic simulation for Set 5 control parameters.

5. Conclusions

and nonlinear models. The linear model is an approximation
of the rigorous model of the CSTR, when the steady state
is held as constant. If the steady state matrix is actualized
in each step of RungeKutta method, the linear model is
equivalent to the nonlinear model. Therefore, the comparison
of linear dynamic simulation with respect to the nonlinear
one is a way to evaluate the robustness of the MIMO PID
control. The quadratic performance index (Ie ) obtained,
Proposed MVIL criterion is an alternative tuning method
for multivariate PID optimal control. It was shown that
it produces similar results to other MIMO PID tuning
methods. In this work, the method was presented only for
continuous processes. We are working on a generalization
for discrete processes and on the introduction of delay
compensation.

Ie = 8.29 101 for Ricatti with linear model

Notation
(Table 2 set 4)
a, b, c, d, e,
dynamic parameters matrices
Ie = 1.56 100 for Ricatti with nonlinear model, a , b ,
transformed dynamic parameters
matrices
show that, in this example, the control tuned with Ricatti A dynamic characteristic matrix
equation has robustness characteristics. This robustness f, g, h PID parameters matrices
could be presumed by its Var(IL ) value listed in Table 2. I quadratic indexes performance.
However, these responses show the main problem of P K Riccati control matrix
controls: the stationary error, clearly appreciated in Figs. 5 P Lyapunov matrix. Symmetric and
and 6. positive dened
Figs. 7 and 8 show the dynamic simulation with con- Q, R weigh matrices, symmetric and pos-
trol parameters tuned with MVIL criterion. In this case, the itive dened
MIMO PID algorithm had robustness and did not present u, x, y,  control, state, output and input ma-
stationary error. The robustness may be appreciated in the trices
approximate response of the nonlinear model to the linear yd set point matrix
904 M.A. Garca-Alvarado et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 897 905

Acknowledgements Linear coefcients:

Vr k0 exp(E/RT 11s )CE1s
The authors wish to thank the Mexican Consejo Nacional 1 = Q + , 1 = Vr /1 ,
de Ciencia y Tecnologa (CONACyT) for the nancial sup- (km + CA1s )2
port through the projects G35128-B. 2Vr k0 exp(E/RT 11s )CA1s CE1s
k11 = ,
1 (km + CA1s )


Appendix A E Vr k0 exp(E/RT 11s )CA1s CE1s
k12 = ,
RT 11s
2 1 (km + CA1s )
Variable denition for the CSRT
k13 = Q01 /1 ,
A heat transfer area between tank and cool- 2 = Vr /Q, k21 = CE0 /Q,
ing skirt (13.55 m2 )
CA0 concentration of reactive at CSTR input Vr YP /A k0 exp(E/RT 11s )CE1s
3 = Vr /Q, k31 = ,
(CA0s = 15 kg A m3 ) Q(km + CA1s )2
CA1 concentration of reactive at CSTR output
(CA1s = 1.42 kg A m3 ) 2Vr YP /A k0 exp(E/RT 11s )CA1s CE1s
k32 = ,
CE0 concentration of enzyme at CSTR input Q(km + CA1s )
(CE0s = 50 kg E m3 )

CE1 concentration of enzyme at CSTR output E Vr YP /A k0 exp(E/RT 11s )CA1s CE1s
k33 = ,
(CE1s = 0.5 kg E m3 ) RT 11s
2 Q(km + CA1s )
CP 1 concentration of product at CSTR output

(CP 1s = 10.86 kg P m3 ) E
Q4 = QCP + hA
CP heat capacity (4.185 kJ kg1 C1 ) RT 211s
E activation energy (27245 J gmol1 )
Vr
Hr k0 exp(E/RT 11s )CA1s CE1s
h overall heat transfer coefcient ,
between tank and cooling coraze (km + CA1s )
(7200 kJ m2 h1 C1 ) 4 = CP Vr /4 ,
k0 reaction constant (1.66
Vr
Hr k0 exp(E/RT 11s )CE1s
106 kg E2 kgA m3 h1 ) k41 = ,
km Michaelis constant (7 kgA m3 ) 4 (km + CA1s )2
Q ow rate of CSTR output (m3 s1 ) 2Vr
Hr k0 exp(E/RT 11s )CA1s CE1s
Q01 ow rate of reactive solution (0.7 m3 h1 ) k42 = ,
4 (km + CA1s )
Q02 ow rate of enzymatic solution
(Q02s = 0.007 m3 h1 ) k43 = hA/4 , k44 = QCP /4 ,
Q03 ow rate of cooling water
(Q03s = 0.2 m3 h1 ) 5 = Q03s CP + hA, k51 = hA/5 ,
R gases constant (8.314 J gmol1 K 1 )
k52 = CP (T02s T12s )/5 ,
T01 temperature of reactive solution (20 C)
T02 temperature of cooling water input (10 C) k53 = Q03s CP /5 .
T11 temperature of CSTR output
(T11s = 43.15 C)
T12 temperature of cooling water output References
(T12s = 42.87 C)
Vc cooling coraze volume (0.71 m3 ) Alvarez-Ramirez, J., Monroy-Loperena, R., 2001. A PI control
Vr reaction volume (4.42 m3 ) conguration for a class of MIMO processes. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 40, 11861199.
Alvarez, J., Alvarez, J., Gonzlez, E., 1989. Global nonlinear control of
Greek letters a continuous stirred tank reactor. Chemical Engineering Science 44,
11471160.

Hr reaction heat (10000 kJ kgA1 ) Alvarez, J., Morales, A., Cervantes, I., 1998. Robust proportional-integral
 density (1000 kg m3 ) control. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 37, 47404747.
Bao, J., Forbes, J.F., McLellan, P.J., 1999. Robust multiloop PID controller
design: a successive semidenite programming approach. Industrial &
Subscript Engineering Chemistry Research 38, 34073419.
Box, M.J., 1965. A new method for constrained optimization and
s steady state comparison with other methods. Computer Journal 8, 4252.
 M.A. Garca-Alvarado et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 897 905
Ho, W.K., Hong, Y., Hansson, A., Hjalmarsson, H., Deng, J.W., 2003.
Relay auto-tuning of PID controllers using iterative feedback tuning.
Automatica 39, 149157.
Nava, J., Palencia, C.A., Salgado, M.A., Rodrguez, G.C., Garca, M.A.,
2002. Robustness of a proportionalintegral with feedforward action
control in a plant pilot spray-dryer. Chemical Engineering Journal 86,
4751.
Sylemez, M.T., Munro, N., Baki, H., 2003. Fast calculation of stabilizing
PID controllers. Automatica 39, 121126.
905
Tan, K.K., Ferdous, R., Huang, S., 2002. Closed-loop automatic tuning of
PID controller for nonlinear systems. Chemical Engineering Science
57, 30053011.
Wang, Q.G., Zhang, Y., Chiu, M.S., 2002. Decoupling internal model
control for multivariate system wit multiple time delays. Chemical
Engineering Science 57, 115124.
Wiberg, D.M., 1971. State Space and Linear Systems, McGraw-Hill, Inc,
USA.