2.
24 Real-Time Performance Assessment
J. P. GERRY (2005)
INTRODUCTION
To optimize the regulatory control loops in a plant, one first
needs to assess the current performance. How are the loops
operating now? Could they be performing better? By assess-
ing the performance in real time, a number of benefits can
be obtained:
• Knowledge, on a real-time basis, of the health of the
plant, unit operations, and loops can be acquired.
• Poor-performing loops can easily be flagged.
• Continual performance assessment allows one to
record the history of performance, so that differences
in performance between time periods can be com-
pared. For example, one can evaluate the effect of the
following variables on performance:
• Seasonal changes
• Grade changes
• Feed changes
• Shift changes
• Equipment changes
The tools of optimization should be readily accessible in the
performance monitor.
PLANT ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING
Process variable, set-point, and controller output data should
be collected from the plant for every control loop. In order
to maintain accuracy, these data should be collected while
all software compression is turned off. Ideally, the data
should be collected at intervals of roughly 1/10 of the dead
time of the loop. Generally once per second is adequate, but
the collection frequency of some loops such as temperature
can be longer. As of this writing, standard connection meth-
ods are available using OPC or Ole for Process Control,
which is a standard developed by the OPC Foundation
(www. opcfoundation.org).
Loop Performance and Health Assessment
The overall performance of a control loop or loop health may
be different for different businesses. It can also vary from
plant to plant depending on the business objectives. For
example, in paper mills, the variability of the paper is often
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
a key variable to be assessed, whereas in refineries the aver-
age temperature error can be a key of assessment.
The definition of loop health can also vary from loop to
loop. For example, a flow loop may have different perfor-
mance objectives than the level in a surge tank. A flexible
definition is the best since it allows for improvements and
refinements over time.
Loop health can be evaluated by considering the key
assessments, baselines, thresholds, and economic significance.
Assessment Criteria of Loop Health Assessments are cal-
culated over “assessment intervals.” This interval should be
defined for each unit operation and should be at least 6 times
longer than the longest cycle in the unit or at least 100 times
the longest process dead time. Generally, the assessment
interval should be 4 hours or longer.
Loop health can be evaluated and assessed on the basis
of many criteria, and the reader should be familiar with the
related terminology, described below in alphabetic order. Any
of the following criteria or their combinations can be used
as key assessments, which refer to criteria that are relevant
to the health of a control loop:
• Average error is the average of the absolute error that
has existed between the setpoint and measurement
during the assessment period.
• The Harris Index (normalized) is defined as the ratio
between the error (PV − SP) variance during this
assessment over the variance achievable by a mini-
mum variance controller. The larger the value of the
Harris Index, the poorer the performance of the loop.
The Harris Index will vary as a number between one
and infinity. A value of one is perfection or minimum
variance control. As the quality of loop performance
drops, the index rises. However, sluggish tuning usu-
ally causes the Harris Index to drop. Cyclic response
or overly aggressive tunings will make the Harris
Index rise. The Harris Index is considered to be high
when it is between 50 and 100, but it can get much
higher. However, these numbers may vary from loop
to loop and also depend on the occurrence of set-point
changes and load upsets. The amount and pattern of
noise can greatly influence the Harris Index.
311
312 Control Theory
• Noise band is determined on the basis of statistical
analysis of the noise, which during the assessment
period is superimposed on the process variable,
expressed in percentage. The noise band is the stan-
dard deviation (sigma) of the process variable during
the quietest time. The minor variations in the process
variable that are not caused by the controller, by set
point changes, or by load upsets are considered to be
normal process noise. Such noise may be caused by
electrical interference, magnetic fields, flow turbu-
lence loops, waves in a tank in level loops, etc. Gen-
erally, the larger the noise band, the poorer the
performance of the loop. The cycling of a process
variable in an unstable and fast control loop might also
appear as noise to this assessment.
• Oscillation detection confidence value is a value between
0 and 100%, where 100% indicates full confidence that
the loop is continuously oscillating. This assessment is
performed by analyzing the pattern of the error signal.
• Oscillation diagnosis confidence value is between 0
and 100%, where 100% indicates full confidence that
the oscillation is caused by one of the three causes:
valve stiction or hysteresis, bad tuning, or causes exter-
nal to this loop.
• Output standard deviation is the standard deviation in
the controller output during the assessment period.
• Output at a limit is the percentage of time that the
controller output was at a limit.
• Probable Performance Increase Index is a measure of
the performance increase, which is possible by using the
fastest PID tuning with a safety factor of 2.5. It is the
“percent probable” performance increase in integrated
absolute error (IAE) terms, when the loop is responding
to a load upset, assuming the controller does not over-
shoot with either settings. This index shows the improve-
ment in process response to upsets with the new tuning.
This index is often proportional to the savings that the
plant can achieve from improved control loop tuning.
• Set-point crossings is the number of times the process
variable (PV) crosses the set point in one day.
• Time in Normal is the term for the time period in
percentage that the loop spends in the Normal mode.
Most often the Normal mode is the Automatic mode,
but not always.
• Valve travel is the total distance the controller output
moves during the assessment period, which is normal-
ized to be on a 24-hour basis. It is found by summing
the absolute value of the controller output changes that
occur between each sample.
• Valve reversals is defined as the number of times the
controller output changes direction during an assess-
ment period normalized to a 24-hour basis. It is a value
between zero and infinity. This value is of interest
because more reversals usually result in more valve
wear.
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
• Variability is the relative value of variance (defined in
the next paragraph) in the process variable during the
assessment period. It is expressed as a percentage of
the mean and so allows comparison between the level
of variability in different processes.
Variability = 2(Standard Deviation)(100/Abs(Mean))
2.24(1)
where Abs = absolute value; Standard Deviation =
sqrt(Variance); and Variance = sum(Mean – x(i)) /
2
(npts − 1).
• Variance measures the spread or dispersion of the
process variable during the assessment period. “Vari-
ance, normalized” is dimensionless because it has
been normalized with 100 divided by the span of the
PV, squared:
Variance = [sum(Mean − x(i)) (100) ]/[(npts − 1)
2 2
× (span of PV) ]
2
2.24(2)
Related Assessments Criteria
The following assessments provide beneficial diagnostics but
are not contributors to loop health.
• Three largest oscillation periods and strengths. This
value is obtained by spectral analysis of the error data
during the assessment time. The three oscillations of
the process variable having the most power (and their
amplitudes) provide the six assessments. The power
should be evaluated using a cluster of peaks and not
just a single peak, and the zero frequency component
should be ignored. This assessment can provide some
very beneficial diagnostics but is not viewed as a con-
tributor to loop health. For example, if the cause of
loop oscillation is unknown, by sorting the loops by
oscillation period, one can identify the loops having
the same period of oscillation — even when it is “hid-
den” in other information. This can help in pinpointing
the cause of oscillation.
• Process model parameters. These are parameters of
the process model — dead time, gain, lag times, and
integration time, including second-order coefficients
that allow for imaginary roots. The process model is
usually not a key assessment of control loop health.
• Model quality. This is an assessment of the accuracy
of the fit between the actual process and its model.
The quality of the process model is usually not a key
assessment criterion in the evaluation of the health of
the control loop.
• Robustness. Robustness is a relative number giving an
indication of how robust or sensitive the loop is to
process upsets or changes. The larger this number, the
more robust the loop. There is always a tradeoff

between fast tuning and robustness. The robustness
number is discussed in detail in Section 2.26 in this
handbook. The robustness number is normalized since
it uses gain and dead time ratios. It can be used as a
comparison between loops.
• The relative response time (RRT) is a relative indicator
of the speed of the control loop. The smaller the rel-
ative response, the faster the loop. The higher the
relative response value, the slower the loop. This num-
ber is used for comparison purposes. The RRT is
dependent on the controller’s speed of response and
can be changed by adjusting the PID settings. If one
uses fast tuning, the controlled process variable often
will oscillate around the set point after it is changed.
The period of this oscillation in the time response is
roughly the same as the RRT. The value of the RRT
is found by:
1. Calculating the closed loop frequency response to a
load upset
2. Finding the frequency where the amplitude ratio
peaks
3. Converting this to a time period
Interacting loops and RRT. In order to prevent inter-
action, the PID tuning settings should be so adjusted
that the RRTs of the loops differ by a factor of three.
For example, if there are three interacting loops and
the fastest one has a period of 1 second, the tuning of
the other two controllers should be readjusted so that
their RRTs are at least three and nine.
Cascade Loops and RRT. For cascade loops, the
master (outer) loop should have an RRT that is three
times slower than that of the inner loop. This relation-
ship is obtained by first tuning the slave (inner) loop,
and then the master. If the cascade master loop has an
RRT that is less than 3 times that of the slave (inner)
loop, the master should be de-tuned so that its RRT
will be 3 times that of the slave.
Baseline and Threshold Values The baseline time is a win-
dow or period of time when the plant is running well. The
baseline time can be used as a reference for comparison. The
length of the baseline period should exceed six and should
preferably equal 30 assessment periods. For statistical meth-
ods of evaluation, at least 30 assessments are suggested.
Every assessment can have a baseline value. A baseline
value represents either the ideal value or the value from a
time when the plant was running well. For example, a base-
line value for average error might be zero, since zero error
is ideal. The baseline for process dead time might be the
average or minimum dead time that is present during the
baseline time period.
Thresholds represent values of the assessed criteria that
one would prefer not to exceed. Thresholds represent limits
or boundaries between which the assessment criteria would
remain if the plant is running well. All thresholds should be
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
2.24 Real-Time Performance Assessment 313
bidirectional. For example, a threshold may be set above the
baseline and/or below the baseline.
For example, a threshold for variability might be calcu-
lated by looking at a number of assessments from a period
when the plant was running well. In that case, one should find
the standard deviation and average value of the variability
during these assessments. The standard deviation is also called
the sigma value. X number of sigma values over the average
value is called the X sigma value. So setting the threshold of
variability to six standard deviations over the average would
be setting it to the six sigma value. This is one strategy for
setting thresholds.
Thresholds could also be set to the minimum or maxi-
mum value of an assessment over the baseline time.
Loop Health Calculation The calculation of loop health
should be flexible enough to allow for different interpretations
depending on the nature of the plant or process. It should
allow for different categories of loops to have different health
requirements. For example, a temperature loop may need to
be fast and responsive whereas a level loop may need to allow
for large level variations before causing a change in flow.
Loop health calculation should also allow different
loops to have different priority ratings based on the relative
importance of the loops.
Key Assessment Criteria
In order to quantitatively evaluate the performance of a loop,
one has to select assessments that in combination define the
loop’s health. These are called key assessments. The key
assessments should be those that are important to the oper-
ation of the plant, and any assessment can therefore be
selected to be a key assessment.
Percent towards Threshold Every assessment can poten-
tially provide a contribution to describing the health of the
loop. For each assessment during every assessment period, a
“Percent towards Threshold” is found:
Percent towards Threshold = (Current Value − Baseline)/
(Threshold − Baseline)100
2.24(3)
Next, an “Average Percent towards Threshold” is found. The
Average Percent towards Threshold is the average of all the
Percent towards Threshold values for all the key assessments
during an assessment period. Using this calculation, lower
values of Average Percent towards Threshold mean a better-
performing loop. Larger values mean a poorer-performing
loop. A patent is pending for this technology, which is used
in performance assessment.
Loop Health = (Average Percent towards Threshold)/
(Economic Significance) 2.24(4)
314 Control Theory

Economic Significance is a divisor that incorporates a factor of Results should be shown in both graphical and tabular
economic importance to the health of each loop. For example, form. All of these results should be up to date on a real-time
if two loops are exhibiting the same “Average Percent towards basis as much as possible.
Threshold” the one with the higher economic significance
(lower divisor) will bubble to the top of a priority list of loops. Plant Overview

An overview window should provide an assessment of loop

Historization of Assessments The assessments for every
loop should be historized. This allows for performance com-
parisons at different time periods. This information can be
very valuable in troubleshooting and optimizing operations.
Accessibility and Presentation of Results Currently, the most
accessible method for distribution of the results seems to be via
a browser-based interface. This means the performance moni-
toring system should be a Web server; it should be able to serve
up the performance results in an easy-to-read format for plant
personnel. Most plant personnel are already familiar with nav-
igation in browser interfaces and Web pages. Any personnel
with access to a computer that is connected to the plant local
area network (LAN) will have access to such information.
A network bridge allows this same connectivity on the
office LAN. A network bridge uses two network interface cards
in the server machine running the plant monitoring software.
Using two cards enables the plant LAN to be totally separate
from the office LAN. A Web server running the monitoring
software can send assessment results to the office LAN.
health in the various sections of the plant and also in the overall
plant. Each plant area should have a history of assessments in
that area. For example, Figure 2.24a shows a table and plot of
loop health for 1 week. The two lines at the top and bottom
represent two plant sections (unit operations), while the line
in the middle describes the health of the entire plant. In the
table below the chart, the health of the two unit operations
making up the plant is listed as the third and fourth rows.
Prioritization of Problem Areas
The interface for users of assessment software should allow
for default and for the generation of priority lists, which are
configured by the user. The user should be able to sort the
control loops in the plant on the basis of any combination of
assessment criteria chosen by the user.
Priority List of Loops Having Most Impact One of the lists
that is generated includes, in their order of priority, the loops
needing attention. Both the engineering and plant maintenance

Boiler feed 45%

39% 39% 39% 38% 39% 39% 38%
preheater 40%
Condensate 35%
unit
30%
Entire plant 25% 25% 26% 25% 25% 24% 25%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
4/7/2003 4/9/2003 4/11/2003 4/13/2003
Time
Latest data on the left Latest data on the right

Location 4/7/2003 4/8/2003 4/9/2003 4/10/2003 4/11/2003 4/12/2003 4/13/2003

Entire plant 33.3% 33.7% 33.6% 33.0% 33.7% 32.8% 32.5%
Boiler Feed Preheater 24.9% 24.9% 25.9% 25.1% 25.4% 23.9% 24.6%
Condensate Unit 38.9% 39.5% 38.8% 38.3% 39.2% 38.8% 37.8%

FIG. 2.24a
1
Visual and tabular overview of the health of unit operations in a plant.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

 2.24 Real-Time Performance Assessment 315

Biggest payback loops

Refresh PlantTriage home page Snoozed loops Help

Loop name Unit operation Description Average economic assessment Snooze loop

FIC100 Condensate unit Condensate return 34.0% Snooze

TIC101 Boiler feed preheater Preheat temperature 33.5% Snooze

LIC100 Condensate unit Knockout drum level 23.0% Snooze

FIC101 Boiler feed preheater Preheat steam condensate flow 14.7% Snooze
PIC100 Condensate unit LP Steam makeup 0.5% Snooze

Average economic assessment

FIC100 34.0%
TIC101 33.5%
LIC100 23.0%
FIC101 14.7%
PIC100 0.5%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FIG. 2.24b
1
A sample list with the control loops listed in order of their need of engineering or maintenance attention.

departments should find this list useful. The order of the loops
in the list should reflect their potential for improving the pro-
ductivity of the operation. To allow the user to obtain more
information about the various unit operations, a clickable “drill
down” can be provided, with more detail about the area in
question. Figure 2.24b shows an example of such a page.
Custom Loop Lists The loop performance assessment soft-
ware allows users to create their own lists of loops. The rows
and columns are selected by the user and can contain both
custom loop lists and custom assessment lists as they are
chosen by the user. Once set up, the software allows the user
to recall the custom loop lists.

Listing Oscillating Loops The system should also include

a list of oscillation assessments. Time of oscillation detection,
diagnosis, period, and strength are some of the valuable data
collected. Sorting by “oscillation detection” shows all loops
that are oscillating.
Sorting by oscillation period groups the loops by their
periods of oscillation. If the oscillation of several loops is
caused by the same problem, they are likely to have similar
oscillation periods. The top three oscillation periods for each
loop should be included in the sort so that any secondary
oscillations can be picked up.
Model and Quality Loop List A list containing columns of
Model Quality and Probable Performance Increase Index
makes it possible to improve the tuning of many PID loops
all at once. In the list, high model quality means that good
identification exists and hence good PID tuning is possible
and is readily available for that loop. For those loops with a
high model quality and where the Probable Performance
Increase shows that better tuning is available, the improve-
ments can be made to several loops simultaneously.
In such cases, the user, using the analysis software for each
loop, would request the data used by the performance moni-
toring software to arrive at the model. As is discussed in more
detail later, the analysis software displays the optimal PID
tuning along with time simulations and robustness analysis.
Recording Tuning Changes PID tuning values and changes
are recorded by the performance monitor. A time window of
the history of these changes is available for viewing in the
browser-based Web interface. This feature also allows the
user to enter notes or events. When several tuning adjust-
ments are made to a PID loop, this information can be used
as an indication that a problem exists with that loop.
Figure 2.24c shows events that were automatically picked
up by the performance monitor and also shows some user-
entered events. The data in the rows containing PID settings
were detected and automatically entered by the system.
Performance Monitoring Software Capabilities
A brief listing is provided here of the types of testing and
reporting that should be available as part of the performance
monitoring software:
• Stiction and hysteresis testing and reporting. Many
plant oscillation problems are caused from poorly
operating valves
• Valve wear analysis. This analysis compares valve
travel and reversals with differing PID tuning values
and with and without the use of various types of process
variable filters.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

316 Control Theory

Event log

Event Log over a 2 week period.

Ending Thursday April 3 2003

Loop, unit
operation or Loop types Pattern match
group

All loops All

Refresh PlantTriage home page Help New event Submit

Time Loop P I D Author Summary

Sort Sort Sort Sort Sort Sort Sort

8:05 AM Tank
LIC100 Joe.Blogs@expertune.com
4/3/2003 Shakedown
5:40 AM Moved
PIC100 john.gerry@expertune.com
3/30/2003 probe
10:33 AM P. I
FIC101 100 0.2 0 john.gerry@expertune.com
3/28/2003 changed
Re-
10:27 AM
LIC100 Joe.Blogs@expertune.com calibrated
3/28/2003
xmitter
10:24 AM unknown - please P. I
3/28/2003 PIC100 12 0.64 0
acknowledge changed
9:24 AM unknown - please P. I
3/28/2003 TIC101 350 1.4 0
acknowledge changed

FIG. 2.24c
1
Part of an event log listing.

• PV filter analysis. This analysis finds the largest pos-
sible filter that will reduce valve movement but will
not inhibit speed of response or reduce robustness.
• Unfiltering capability. The software should have the
ability to remove the effects of a PV filter so the
unfiltered PV can be viewed graphically by the user
and the analysis software.
• Model identification and display. The model is used
by the analysis software for time simulations, robust-
ness analysis, and valve wear analysis. The model
should be identified with minimal prior user knowl-
edge of the dynamics; the software should find the
best model structure and dead time without the user
estimating these. The model can be used by model
predictive controllers.
• Optimal PID tuning. A variety of methods including
set point or lambda tuning should be used to minimize
load upsets (minimum IAE).
• Robustness. There is always a tradeoff between tuning
for fast response and sensitivity to process load
changes. Robustness analysis is critical to providing
practical PID tuning settings for the loop. Robustness
analysis should reflect the changes that occur in pro-
cess dead time and process gain.
• Simulating the loop performance using a variety of
tuning settings and PV filter values. Simulations must
include both set-point response simulations and
responses to load upsets. The simulations should dis-
play and compare the performance with both the exist-
ing and the proposed settings. Simulations should
describe the response of the loop to noise and should
compare the response of the model of the process to
that of the real process.
• Linearization analysis including characterization and
characterizer builder. This allows linearization of non-
linear loops through the use of a characterizers. This
software should be suitable to both the types of pro-
cesses whose linearity changes with load and those
whose nonlinearity depends on setpoint (pH).
• Power spectral density. This allows a detailed anal-
ysis plot of power in a signal at all frequencies or
periods.
• Statistical analysis including a histogram. This allows
for the generation of statistical comparisons to evalu-
ate and document the benefits of work done.
• Time line analysis. This analysis describes time rela-
tionships between components.
• Integrated reporting.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

 2.24 Real-Time Performance Assessment 317

Oscillating 110
Osc - Hardware 100
Osc - Tuning 90
Osc - Load 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1/26/2003 2/14/2003 3/6/2003 3/25/2003
Time

FIG. 2.24d
The oscillation of a flow loop on a paper machine was detected by the assessments of “oscillation detection” and “oscillation from tuning,”
1
signaling a need to re-tune the PID when the paper grade is changed.

CASE STUDIES
Model Predictive Controlled Refinery
In a refinery, model predictive controllers (MPC) tend to
move the process toward its constraints as far as possible to
maximize the resulting economic gain. How close the con-
troller can push the process to its constraints is related to set-
point crossings, average absolute error, and variability. These
criteria of assessments infer the ability of the control loop to
closely approach the constraint. High-quality performance is
indicated when this assessment value is low and if the base-
lines are lower than thresholds.
In order for an MPC controller to work, the loops tied to
it need to be in their normal operating mode and not at a
limit. The assessments “time in Normal” and “output at a
limit” assess the performance of these. Time in Normal
should be maximized and should have a high baseline and
low threshold whereas output at a limit should be minimized:
it should have a low baseline.
In a fluidic catalytic cracker the side valves are very
expensive — costing upwards $100,000 each, and the entire unit
must be shut down when the valve needs service. Therefore,
the assessments of “valve reversal” and “valve travels” can be
used to measure the wear and tear on these valves. The lower
the assessment values the better. Baselines should be low and
thresholds high for these assessments.
Grade Change in a Pulp Mill
Figure 2.24d describes the assessment of the oscillation of a
flow loop in a pulp mill. The two lines reflect the assessments
of “oscillation detection” and “oscillation from tuning” or a
diagnosis that the oscillation was caused by the PID control-
ler with the wrong tuning settings.
Later, it was learned that the plant changed the paper
grade, which would have required re-tuning and resulted in
oscillation. It was noted that oscillation can be avoided if the
tuning settings are automatically changed whenever that
grade of paper is run.
CONCLUSIONS
Assessing the performance of a plant in real time requires
the careful selection of the appropriate software, but the
benefits are also compelling. Process plants will benefit from
considering this option.
Reference
1. These visual aids are provided courtesy of ExperTune Inc.
Bibliography
Gerry, J., “Prioritizing and Optimizing Problem Loops Using a Loop
Monitoring System,” ISA, Chicago, October 2002.
Gerry, J., “Process Monitoring and Loop Prioritization Can Reap Big
Payback and Benefit Process Plants,” ISA, Chicago, October 2002.
Mansfield, E., Basic Statistics with Applications, New York: W.W. Norton,
1986.
Paulonis, M., and Cox, J., “A Practical Approach for Large-Scale Controller
Performance Assessment, Diagnosis, and Improvement,” Journal of
Process Control, Vol. 13, 2003.
Ruel, M., “Learn How to Assess and Improve Control Loop Performance,”
ISA, Chicago, October 2002.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták