Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng

Process control practice and education: Past, present and future

B. Wayne Bequette
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Process control is a relatively young field, with commercial PID-type controllers developed largely in the
Received 4 February 2019 1930 s. Initial publications were applications-focused and authored primarily by instrumentation and con-
Revised 4 June 2019
trol vendors. While some chemical engineering departments had instrumentation and control courses by
Accepted 8 June 2019
the 1940 s, process control textbooks with a theoretical basis did not appear until the mid-1950 s, yet
Available online 18 June 2019
by 1950 there was already a concern about a theory vs. practice “gap.” Evolving views on this gap are
Keywords: discussed, and course content, delivery and textbooks used during the past 75 years are reviewed.
Process control The focus then turns to a flipped classroom, where students view screencasts, read textbook material
Flipped classroom and take an on-line quiz before class, which has been implemented in a process dynamics and control
Industrial process control course. The class periods involve brief lectures summarizing what they have studied, and include discus-
Chemical process control conferences sions and advanced problem solving using MATLAB and Simulink.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
This is an extension and update to a paper presented at PSE
2018 (Bequette, 2018), which was nominally on the flipped class-
room approach that I have been using at RPI. Since a keynote talk
should not solely cover one’s own work, I expanded my presenta-
tion to include other course delivery methods, topics covered, etc.
While I had briefly summarized a “history of automatic control”
in other talks, primarily to biomedical audiences, for this presen-
tation I became more interested in when process control began to
be considered unique enough to be adopted as a chemical engi-
neering course – rather than a more general automatic control or
similar course taken by most engineers, particularly electrical and
mechanical. Further, I became interested in the history of process
control system development and application in the process indus-
tries. While the “retiring generation” of process control educators
thinks of the “gap” between control theory and process control
practice as a concern raised in the late 1960’s (e.g. Foss, 1973), we
found evidence of these concerns much earlier. Sparked, however,
by some key perspective articles in the 1970’s, there was a seri-
ous attempt to understand and reduce this gap through a number
of activities, including a series of conferences on chemical process
control (CPC) held at five-year intervals. Thus, one of my objec-
tives is to review these conference outcomes and trace progress in
industrial application, process control theory to meet the industrial
needs, and process control education (focussing on the undergrad-
uate process control course). Most courses revolve around the use
E-mail address: bequette@rpi.edu
of a key textbook, thus I also review the numerous textbooks that
have been used during the past seven decades, noting changes in
content and presentation style.
In reviewing this history I realized that the way that I teach,
and many of the motivating examples and anecdotes that I use
during my lectures, are based on my experience as a process en-
gineer in the refining industry, which I describe in the appendix.
There is nothing like handling actual manufacturing equipment to
make you appreciate systems and control, and I think that this ex-
perience brings important credence to the material covered. A sab-
batical in the Pharma Industry leads to discussions of batch pro-
cesses, scale-up, and the impact of scale on operability. Also, our
efforts to develop a closed-loop automated insulin dosing system,
which has been tested in clinical trials (this opens up a discussion
on performance metrics), is a motivating example for students and
is a clear demonstration of the direct impact of control.
Process control is a core course in the chemical engineer-
ing undergraduate curriculum, yet it sometimes suffers from an
over-emphasis on analytical mathematics without proper motiva-
tion from real process challenges. Our teaching has evolved over
the years from the traditional lecture, combined with computer-
based homework solutions, to a studio classroom where lec-
tures and interactive simulations are combined in the same class-
room, to a flipped classroom where students read the material,
watch screencasts, and answer quizzes on the reading and view-
ing material before attending class. However, before presenting the
flipped/studio/interactive classroom in Section 6, we first provide a
review of process control practice (Section 2), theory (Section 3),
curricula (Section 4), and textbooks (Section 5) used during the
past 75 years.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.06.011
0098-1354/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
2. Process control practice
While there is evidence feedback control applications date
back centuries to the water clocks of Ancient Greece, an early
use of feedback control for manufacturing purposes was by
Watt to regulate stream turbines in the late 18th century
(Bennett, 1979). Here we focus specifically on process control ap-
plications. Thompson (1917) summarizes a Chemical Engineering
Exposition and notes that there are a number of pieces of equip-
ment for the purpose of controlling temperature, and to some ex-
tent, pressure. Brown (1918) describes a thermocouple-solenoid ar-
rangement that allows the manipulation of fuel gas or oil valves
to control furnace temperature; since the valve can easily go all
the way open or closed, it is placed in a by-pass line so that some
moderate flow is always going to the furnace without danger of
flame extinction. Indeed, for the next 15 years we find that, be-
cause of the high controller gains used, many controllers were
effectively on-off. Clark (1922) presents a pneumatically operated
temperature chart/controller and notes applications to rubber and
milk manufacturing. Peters (1923) describes a fractionating column
with constant reflux ratio, where bottoms level is controlled by
manipulating the feed to the column, and a tray temperature is
controlled by steam flow to the bottom of the column.
Swan (1928) presents two-position (on-off) pressure and tem-
perature controllers based on the adjustment of the “differential”
(deadband). Ginsberg (1929) summarizes progress in process con-
trol applications, including examples of temperature, pressure and
humidity control, and stresses the importance of recording as well
as controlling. He also describes a “differential temperature” con-
troller that appears identical to modern split-range controllers that
can manipulate both heating and cooling media to regulate tem-
perature.
Riddle and Royal (1930) detail the evolution of the role of
measurements and control over a 10-year period in a ceramic
manufacturing plant. Dow (1930) discusses labor-savers in chem-
ical plant operations, including larger scale equipment, automatic
analysis, automatic operation (control), and the use of contin-
uous processes that are automatically controlled and operated.
Grebe et al. (1933) describe an effort at Dow that started in
1924, largely because of a lack of satisfactory commercial con-
trollers for a pH problem. After discussing limitations to on-off
control through a series of graphs, the authors develop a propor-
tional + “anticipatory” (derivative) + damping (integral) controller;
they then show how this can implemented in pneumatic and elec-
trical devices. In addition the authors mention ratio control and
conclude that it is important to design plants that are easy to con-
trol – and that control must be considered at the design stage.
Thomas (1937), in summarizing a symposium on automatic
control held at an ACS meeting, refers to automatic control as
a special branch of chemical science. deFlorez (1937) discusses
the limitations to on-off control and indicates that controllers
now have other modes of action; he also notes that over a
10–12 year period refining processes have moved from the or-
der of 10 0 0 Bbl/day to 10,0 0 0 Bbl/day, largely due to automatic
control systems. Velton (1937) shows a number of ratio con-
trol applications, including air-fuel ratio on furnace combustion.
McMahon (1937) describes a cascade control system where the
output of a level controller is the setpoint to a flow controller.
Grebe (1937) uses a neutralization example to illustrate the princi-
ples of ratio, proportional, damping (integral) and rate (derivative)
control, similar to the Grebe et al. (1933) paper.
All of the previously cited papers are descriptive in nature and
are lacking quantitative details. Ivanoff (1933) is the first to ap-
ply rigorous mathematical techniques, specifically to a tempera-
ture control problem. He analyzes on-off, floating (integral), pro-
portional and proportional+ floating methods. What is particu-
539
larly interesting is the 8-page discussion with comments from 8
contributors; one discussant mentions the method of “prevision”
which appears similar to feedforward control.
In the 1930’s the ASME had an active Process Industries Di-
vision. Motivated by a lack of common terminology and anal-
ysis methods, Smith (1936) issued a challenge to the process
control community to develop standards through a collabora-
tive ASME report. He provided equations for a few common
mechanical/hydraulic based controllers and includes on-off, pro-
portional, floating (I) and proportional-floating (PI). Mason and
Philbrick (1940) present a third-order process with several dif-
ferent types of control algorithms, including “two-position” (on-
off), proportional + “floating” (integral); they develop analytical so-
lutions for the resulting 3rd and 4th order differential equations
and discuss the effect of tuning parameters on the closed-loop re-
sponses. Mason and Philbrick (1941) analyze surge vessels, includ-
ing a level cascaded to flow control system and study the follow-
ing inlet flowrate disturbances: (i) step, (ii) high frequency, and (iii)
low frequency.
The publication by Ziegler and Nichols (1942) on PID controller
tuning lead to rapid application and verification in the process in-
dustries. For example, Allen (1943) discusses problems associated
with controlling a distillation tray temperature by manipulating a
steam control valve, using a Foxboro temperature controller. He
finds that the original tuning procedure and parameters selected
did not provide good control, but the Ziegler–Nichols parameters
(developed based on a Taylor Instruments controller) yielded good
results. Allen (1944) further compares the continuous-cycling and
response-based methods. More et al. (1945) discuss heat exchanger
temperature control and use the Ziegler–Nichols response-based
method.
Wilson (1951) in a summary of an instrumentation sympo-
sium held in Cleveland as part of the American Chemical Soci-
ety, Division of the Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, expresses
a view that Instrumentation should be taught to undergraduate
chemical engineers. Five papers (with only one from academia)
from the symposium appear in an Ind. Eng. Chem. special section.
Dobson (1951) provides many examples of strategies to control
product properties, such as concentration. An isobutane/n-butane
column, for example, uses a differential vapor pressure sensor to
change the distillation column pressure, while a tray temperature
controller is cascaded to a reboiler hot oil flow controller; other
loops include feed and reflux flowrates, and reflux drum and bot-
tom levels. Other examples shown include superheat, water vapor,
pH, specific gravity, conductivity, and viscosity control.
During the period of 1945-1950 the frequency response tech-
niques of Nyquist and Bode began to be applied to feedback con-
trol system design and analysis (see section 3), particularly in
servomechanism applications. Tustin (1951) in a paper in Nature,
summarizes an automatic control conference held at Cranfield Uni-
versity, and indicates that one day of the conference was devoted
to extending control system theory to the chemical and process in-
dustries. There was a vigorous discussion among the “process en-
gineers” and the “servo engineers”, who apparently used different
terms, drew diagrams in different directions and used inverse vari-
ables; he proposed more joint meetings to convince both parties
to develop a standard nomenclature. Tustin indicated that the pro-
cess engineering papers used transfer functions for the pneumatic
controllers and plant elements in a form that permits use in the
“familiar frequency response” type of analysis.
There were a series of articles in a 1952 special issue in
Scientific American devoted to Automation. An ad from Taylor
Instruments notes that, in 1905, they were among the first com-
panies to offer an automatic feedback temperature controller.
Brown and Campbell (1952) present a number of industrial control
applications, and discuss the impact of automation and control on
540 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
education, business and operating personnel. Ridenour
(1952) compares and contrasts analog and digital computing and
presents a vision that includes the ability of computers to respond
to faults much faster than any human can. Ayers (1952) provides
an overview of the importance of instrumentation and control in
the petroleum refining industry. One picture shows a control panel
with the instrumentation displayed similar to a flowsheet; I should
note that 30 years later, most of the process units at American
Petrofina in Port Arthur, Texas, where I was a process engineer in
1980-82, were still operating with the same instrumentation and
control panels!
Cohen and Coon (1953) developed a set of PID controller tuning
rules based on a first-order + deadtime model. Their performance
criterion is based on rejection of step input load disturbances, and
they also refer to the “well-known” frequency response techniques.
One thing particularly striking, after reading many articles from
this era using the pronoun “he”, is to find that Geraldine Cohen
was a “she.” Also in 1953 we find the first published process con-
trol article to use frequency response techniques. Ceaglske and Eck-
man (1953) provide a detailed frequency response analysis of an
experimental pressure control process, using P-only control. They
suggest that a 45° phase margin yields more acceptable results
than the Ziegler–Nichols tuning parameters. They do not refer to
the amplitude and phase plots as Bode diagrams, but simply cite
textbooks by Brown and Campbell (1948) and Ahrendt and Ta-
plin (1951) for the methodologies.
It is particularly striking that the early process control articles
are written primarily by instrumentation and control vendors (e.g.
Taylor Instruments, Foxboro, Leeds and Northrup) or manufactur-
ing companies (e.g. Dow Chemical). Also, the papers often include
a detailed discussion by one or more reviewers followed by closure
from the authors (see the Trans. ASME papers, for example). It is
interesting that the problem of reset (integral) windup is not ex-
plicitly discussed; Astrom and Hagglund (2005) note that integral
windup was well-known in the early analog controllers and that
manufacturers kept the solutions (called preloading, batch unit and
other terms) as trade secrets.
A 1956 special issue on control with 12 articles, based on a
1955 Symposium sponsored by the ACS Division of Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry, is summarized by Friend (1956), with com-
mentary from Vannah and Slater (1956). Papers included a tutorial,
focused on modeling and frequency response analysis by Ceaglske
(1956a,b), distillation control by Williams et al. (1956), pulse test-
ing of heat exchangers by Lees and Hougen (1956), and analysis of
cascade control by Franks and Worley (1956), among other papers.
Seven of the 12 papers were from industry, perhaps that last time
that an academic journal issue had more industrial than academic
process control papers.
While the control of biological systems has only recently been
a focus in undergraduate control courses and textbooks, Fuld and
Dunn (1957) present applications of process control to fermenta-
tion.
Industrial computer process control became an active area in
the 1950’s, with the efforts nicely reviewed by Astrom (1985), and
Stout and Williams (1995). A Ramo-Wooldridge RW-300 computer
achieved closed-loop control in 1959 at the Texaco Refinery in Port
Arthur Texas. The installation was on a small catalytic polymer-
ization unit which was selected because of the economic bene-
fit, availability of operating records to estimate performance im-
provement, and because the small unit was isolated from the re-
finery mainstream (crude unit, etc.) so any unit problems would
not impact the entire plant. 100 analog signals (pressure, flowrate,
temperature) were digitized and sent to the computer, in addition
to two chromatographic measurements. The computer outputted
5 direct digital signals to control valves, and 9 setpoint signals to
analog controllers; thus, this first installation included both super-
visory and direct digital control (DDC). There continued to be de-
bate of direct digital control vs. supervisory control for many years,
and computer control continued to be implemented in process
plants. The development of the Honeywell TDC 20 0 0, announced
in 1975, had perhaps the most profound impact on the industry.
There were many benefits of computer control, but the pri-
mary motivation was improved real-time economic return using
a hierarchical strategy, with plant-wide steady-state optimization
(roughly daily) cascading to more frequent operating unit opti-
mization. The unit operations layer still cascaded to lower-level PID
controllers, with override protections, anti-reset-windup, etc. in or-
der to enforce constraints (important since the optimum operat-
ing point usually occurs at one or more constraints). Model pre-
dictive control (MPC) techniques, largely developed in the 1970’s
in the refining industry in both the US and France, enabled the
simultaneous control of multiple outputs using multiple, possibly
constrained, inputs. Dynamic matrix control (DMC) was first ap-
plied at Shell in 1973, but the US academic world largely learned
of these approaches from the presentations by Cutler and Ramaker
(1980) and Prett and Gillette (1980). To this day MPC remains the
most widely applied advanced control technique, and the impact
of MPC in industrial applications is summarized in a number of
articles in Section 3.
During the past four decades there have been continuous ad-
vances in the use of process systems engineering techniques at all
levels in the corporate hierarchy, including planning and schedul-
ing and supply chain management, the use of “big data” techniques
for predictive maintenance, fault detection and related topics. A
major challenge has been in the use of proprietary systems that
often require a system-wide upgrade if major changes are desired.
Goals of recent activities in open process automation and “Smart
Manufacturing” include the development of communication and
software standards that make it easier to “plug and play” hardware
and software from different vendors to implement and/or maintain
advanced automation and control systems. These developments are
discussed further in Section 3.
3. Process control theory and the “Gap” with practice
Process control instrumentation and application to chemical
processes largely led the development of relevant control theory
by over 30 years; thus, there was an initial “gap” where industrial
process control practice was conducted with little control theory,
or basic tuning methods, to support it. In this section we focus ini-
tially on theories that are covered, to some extent, in undergrad-
uate process control courses (which are covered in Section 4) and
textbooks (covered in Section 5). We also address the “gap” that
was based on the perception that control theory had moved far
ahead of industrial practice. By reviewing highlights of the series
of Chemical Process Control conferences, which occur at five-year
intervals, we track the progress of the development and applica-
tion of advanced industrial process control techniques.
While there was an evolution of techniques to find the char-
acteristics of the roots of a polynomial (Bennett, 1979), which
can be used to analyze the stability of a closed-loop system, the
general form using an array is based on the methods of Routh
and Hurwitz (Hurwitz, 1895). The frequency response techniques
by Nyquist (1932) and Bode (1940) largely serve as the basis for
control system design and analysis. Frequency response techniques
so rapidly permeated the literature that Bode diagrams were often
presented without attribution to the original Bode paper (Bode,
1940) or book (Bode, 1945). Ferrell (1945) and Harris (1946) both
note that the design techniques used by radio and communication
engineers could be applied to servo-mechanisms.
The commercial controllers discussed in the previous section
and developed largely in the 1930s were primarily PID controllers;
 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
Bennett (2001) notes that the derivative component became stan-
dard in Taylor and Foxboro products in 1939, although they
had used derivative (called “pre-act” by Taylor) in special in-
stallations for a few years before that. The first publication ex-
plicitly proposing PID was by Minorsky, on ship steering, in
1922 (Minorsky, 1922) (for an interesting history of this, see
Bennett, 1984). It is unlikely that process control engineers re-
viewed that paper and, in any event, tuning was largely ad-hoc un-
til the Ziegler–Nichols methods were proposed in 1942. It should
be noted that pneumatic (this is also true of electrical analog) con-
trollers typically implemented a series or “interacting” form (or
something similar) of a PID controller and not the ideal (parallel
or “non-interacting”) form. That is, while an ideal (non-interacting)
PID controller has the following transfer function
 1
 name “relative gain” and included it in his Process-Control Systems
u ( s ) = kc 1 + + τD s e ( s )
τI s
the series (interacting) version is represented by
 
1   ply them.
u(s ) = kc 1+  1 + τD e(s )
τI s
and, in practice, an ideal derivative cannot be implemented and is
therefore represented as a filtered derivative. Bennett (2002) notes
that Aikman and Rutherford (1951) identified five different types
of interaction in their analysis of commonly used controllers.
Cohen and Coon (1953) include tuning parameters for both the
parallel and series forms.
Rutherford in 1949, as cited by Dillon (2012), finds a wide gap
between theory and practice and states “It is not felt that the ma-
jority of the articles listed will provide any useful reading for the
average Process Control engineer, but it was felt worthwhile in-
cluding everything that had been seen, even if only as a warning to
others not to waste time searching for articles and reading them.”
Block diagram and transfer function techniques make analy-
sis and, more importantly, synthesis techniques relatively easy.
Truxal (1955) details what is now known as “direct synthesis” to
design a controller based on the desired closed-loop response char-
acteristics. The review paper by Johnson (1958) on automatic con-
trol, which clearly provided an outline for his textbook (1967),
could be used as the basis for roughly 2/3 of a current undergrad-
uate course.
Optimal and state space based techniques that formed the ba-
sis for “Modern Control Theory” developed at a rapid pace in the
late 1950’s (Athans, 1976). Within less than a decade there were
concerns about a gap between theory and practice (Fuller, 1963).
Indeed, Bode (1960) provides a review of the development of feed-
back control, including his contributions; at the time Bode was the
Vice President of Bell Labs, and had not worked in the control field
for 20 years. He uses the analogy of visiting one’s hometown af-
ter having not been there for several decades. He expresses a few
misgivings he had “concerning the present logical structure of the
control field, which, like my grandparents’ hometown, seems to be-
come more sprawling as it grows…” While this does not directly
refer to a “gap” it does indicate that there was not as clear of a
focus of the field; part of his concern was also about the “mixed-
marriage” of communication and feedback control.
Axelby (1964) notes that there has been recent discussion about
the gap between theory and application, but that the gap has not
been well-defined; he also notes that there had been significant
applications of modern control theory, citing the Apollo space pro-
gram as one example. Chestnut (1965) claims that the gap has
been a concern for almost a decade. He summarizes a meeting in
New York in March, 1964, on the subject “Bridging the Gap Be-
tween Theory and Practice.” Three groups, Universities, Suppliers
of Equipment, and Users of Equipment all have different objectives
and constraints. Proposed solutions included: (1) Company spon-
541
sored education, (2) component study in universities, (3) promo-
tion of economic incentives, and (4) publication policies (tutorial
papers involving new theory or applications, and evaluation papers
to highlight significant achievements). Clark (1965) indicated that
there was effort at the 1965 Joint Automatic Control Conference
(JACC) to invite more applications papers to reduce the imbalance
between theory and application. I should note that the 1965 JACC,
held on campus at RPI in Troy, NY, while referred to as “large”
with four parallel sessions, was certainly much smaller than recent
American Control Conferences, which have 22-24 parallel sessions.
Ed Bristol, with Foxboro, in a 1.5 page “correspondence” pa-
per in IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, in 1966 proposes
a “new measure of interaction for multivariable process control.”
Greg Shinskey, also with Foxboro, apparently gave this measure the
book in 1967. Shinskey, in the preface to this book, refers to a com-
munication problem between the scientists “searching for more
advanced control concepts” and the plant personnel that must ap-
Foss (1973) presents process control challenges that are not par-
ticularly well addressed by the modern control approaches. These
include the types of disturbances that occur, uncertain and com-
plex models, limited measurements, multivariable systems, and
somewhat irrelevant objective functions for optimal control. He
suggested that the “gap” needed to be closed by theoreticians that
were not addressing the real challenges, rather than the common
view that people applying control strategies did not understand or
were not properly using control theory. There is evidence that this
paper influenced the research activities of many process control
faculty that have recently retired or are approaching retirement
age; see Stephanopoulos (1983), for example.
The Foss (1973) paper, an NSF process control workshop in
1973, and discussions at the 1974 Joint Automatic Control Con-
ference (JACC), led to a proposal for a Chemical Process Control
(CPC) conference that was held at Asilomar in 1976. The 80 partici-
pants at the conference, co-chaired by Alan Foss and Morton Denn,
were from academia (50%), operating companies (25%), and control
system vendors (25%) (Foss and Denn, 1976). The “gap” weighed
heavily in most of the presentations and the discussions that fol-
lowed; the 2–3 page discussion summaries that follow every ses-
sion of 3–4 papers provide important insights about concerns and
future research opportunities. Foss and Denn suggested that there
was a need for test or theme problems that could be used by re-
searchers to test advanced control theories. Their recommendation
that a conference be held at roughly 5-year intervals was followed,
with individual CPC’s held through CPC-7 (2006), followed by the
joint FOCAPO-CPC conferences in 2012 and 2017.
Lee and Weekman (1976) delineate many of the challenges with
implementing advanced control on chemical processes, using a
fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) as a prime example. They point
out that the primary economic return is through better steady-
state optimization, with improved regulatory control having a rela-
tively minor impact. They do note the need to improve the integra-
tion of design and control, and improving the ease of implement-
ing new control strategies.
CPC2, co-chaired by Dale Seborg and Tom Edgar, was held in
Sea Island Georgia in January 1981, with 113 attendees – 48 from
the process industries, 47 from academia and 17 from control sys-
tem and consulting firms. Perhaps the most interesting session was
on the Design of Control Systems for Integrated Chemical Plants,
including presentations by Morari (1982) and Douglas (1982).
The toluene hydrodealkylation (HDA) plant studied by Douglas is
now used as an example in many papers, and is included in the
process design textbook by Douglas (1988). Mehra and Rouhani
(1982) reported on many industrial applications of Model Algo-
rithmic Control, a form of MPC. The conference summaries are, on
542 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
the whole, quite positive. Seinfeld felt that the distinction between
process engineers and control engineers should be less sharp and
that the integration of design and control is important (Seinfeld,
1982). Foss also noted the heightened interest and unmistakable
confluence in the opinion among industrial practitioners and aca-
demic researchers that plant control was an important problem.
Denn (like at the CPC in 1976) elaborated on the need for a Theme
Problem for Chemical Process Control, and noted that significant
interest appeared to be forming to undertake the project; I should
note that it took almost another decade for this to develop, as part
of a session at the 1990 AIChE Annual Meeting (reported later)
(Denn, 1982).
The effect of process design on the ability to operate/control
chemical process plants became an active research area in
the 1980’s (Douglas, 1982; Morari, 1983), although its impor-
tance had been stressed in papers nearly 50 years earlier.
Grebe et al. (1933) mentioned designing processes that are easy
to control, while Peters (1941) stated that engineers should know
how results obtained depend upon process characteristics. Sim-
ilarly, van Antwerpen (1942) noted that process design is usu-
ally based on steady-state analysis, without consideration of dy-
namics or instrumentation and control. Arant (1948) questioned
what changes could be made to improve controllability, and sug-
gested the inclusion of at least one semester of work (dynamics
and control) in the curriculum of every progressive chemical engi-
neering school. Young (1955) used the term “controllability” in his
industrially-based process control book, largely referring to chal-
lenges induced by lags and time-delays.
CPCIII, co-chaired by Manfred Morari and Tom McAvoy, was
held at Asilomar in January 1986, with 145 attendees – 78 from in-
dustry and 67 from academia. Model predictive control continued
to have a major industrial impact with presentations on IDCOM by
Froisy and Richalet, DMC by Garcia and Prett (1986), and UDMC by
Morshedi; the UDMC paper outlined a general nonlinear approach,
yet without specific applications. The “gap” remained an underly-
ing theme, and the conference closed with a presentation by Greg
Shinskey, who delineated three types of process control engineers.
This was followed by “several hours” of comments from the audi-
ence; in abbreviated and edited form the presentation and discus-
sion covered 15 pages in the final published volume. As mentioned
earlier, Shinskey, included (indeed, named) the Bristol (1966) rel-
ative gain (array) technique in his 1967 book (Shinskey, 1967),
but the RGA did not appear in any academic textbook until 1984!
Morari and McAvoy noted several take-home messages from the
conference: (i) interest in process control had increased dramat-
ically, and roughly 100 more registrants could not be accommo-
dated in order to retain the conference format, (ii) academic re-
search has shifted to more practical problems, and (iii) future
progress will depend on intensive university/industry cooperation.
The proposed university/industry cooperation began to ramp-
up through several avenues –industrial challenge problems (Shell,
Tennessee Eastman and others), faculty spending time in indus-
try (DuPont), either as postdocs or on sabbatical, and Indus-
try/University Cooperative Research Centers and related Process
Systems and Control consortia. In the 1980s the NSF began to sup-
port Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers, and a num-
ber of these involved process systems and control. Relevant cen-
ters included the Lehigh Chemical Process Modeling and Control
consortium (1984), Washington Center for Process Analysis and
Control (1984), Massachusetts Center for Process Design and Con-
trol (1985), CMU Computer-Aided Process Design laboratory (1985),
McMaster Advanced Control Consortium (1988), and Texas Control
Consortium (1993) (eventually including Wisconsin and California),
among others.
The Second Process Control workshop in 1986 (Prett and
Morari, 1987; Morari, 1987; Morshedi, 1986) had 12 academic and
23 Shell participants. The 3.5-day workshop structure was simi-
lar to a CPC, with lectures in the morning and evening and tu-
torial workshops during the first 2 afternoons; 3 of the 14 re-
search presentations were by Shell personnel, and 11 by academics.
Morari provided a perspective on what had been accomplished
in response to the three key perspective papers from the 1970s
(Foss, 1973; Lee and Weekman, 1976; Kestenbaum et al., 1976) and
found that significant progress had been made during the previ-
ous decade, with the theory-practice gap narrowed, with a better
understanding of the effect of uncertainty, and with the success
of model predictive control. During the first afternoon workshop
participants were presented a challenge problem with a heavy oil
fractionator with seven outputs and five inputs, multiple objectives
and constraints, and parametric uncertainty. The main limitation
to this as a test case was that the input-output relationships were
all first-order + deadtime transfer functions. Shell agreed to pub-
lish the challenge problem and the academics agreed to work on
the problem and present solutions at a later date (Morari, 1988).
A second Shell Process Control workshop was held in 1988,
growing substantially to 18 academic and 32 Shell employees; the
proceedings were published in Prett et al. (1989). 12 of the papers
were related to the Shell challenge problem while “distinguished
papers” covered a range of topics including statistical process con-
trol (MacGregor, Moore) and artificial intelligence (Stephanopou-
los). Morari (1988) provided an overview of past results as well
as a vision for the future. One suggested challenge “how can one
detect deteriorating valves and sensors from on-line measurements
before these control elements have failed entirely?” remains a cur-
rent active area of research, involving machine learning and “big
data” techniques.
Like Shell, DuPont had an active corporate process control re-
search activity that even included neural physiologists, and a num-
ber of faculty spent time with this group. An example outcome
was a series of papers illustrating process control algorithms that
mimicked the baroreflex mechanism, which uses multiple physio-
logical inputs to regulate blood pressure and cardiac output (blood
flowrate); see Henson et al. (1994, 1995) for examples.
CPCIV, co-chaired by Yaman Arkun and Harmon Ray, was held
in Padre Island, Texas in February 1991, with 158 participants –
80 from industry and 78 from academia. The conference, with the
theme “Future Needs and Challenges in Process Control”, had many
model predictive control papers, with three from industry and
five from academia. Industrial contributions were from Cutler and
Yocum (1991) (DMC Corp. and GE), Caldwell and Dearwater (Profi-
matics), and Garcia et al. (1991) (Shell), while academic contribu-
tions were from Ricker, Zafiriou, Clarke, (1991), Morari and Lee, and
Biegler and Rawlings (Morari and Lee, 1991; Ricker, 1991). As part
of their paper on “A View from North American Industry (Zafiriou,
1991; Biegler and Rawlings, 1991)”, Downs and Doss (Tennessee
Eastman) critiqued current and future process control education.
They felt that process control was taught from too general of a per-
spective, applicable to any “system” but without a chemical pro-
cess focus. They proposed that a better understanding of process
dynamics was important and that teaching unit operations control,
with case studies, would be a better approach.
A special session on industrial process control challenge prob-
lems was held at the 1990 Annual AIChE meeting. Five of these
were published in a special issue of Computers and Chemical Engi-
neering in 1993 (Mellichamp, 1993). The Tennessee Eastman prob-
lem (Downs and Vogel, 1993), a reactor/separator/recycle process
with 12 manipulated inputs, 41 measured outputs, has been the
most popular, and has been cited by at least 1981 other papers.
CPCV was held in Lake Tahoe in January 1996, and co-chaired
by Jeff Kantor and Carlos Garcia (with Brice Carnahan co-editing
the published volume in 1997). Qin and Badgwell (1997) pro-
vided a survey of industrial model predictive control applications.
 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
Details on the types of algorithms and models are provided for five
vendors and six technologies (one vender had two methods); the
vendors cited over 2200 MPC applications to date. The largest ap-
plication, by DMC Corp., was 603 outputs and 283 inputs. Morari
(1997) provided an assessment of the progress in chemical process
control during the 20-year period beginning with the first CPC. By
virtually all metrics the field had grown substantially – funding,
Ph.D.’s granted (tripling durng the past decade), and published pa-
pers. He noted that nine consortia, with an average of 13 member
companies, raised about 30% more support than the NSF-CTS di-
vision in 1995. He also noted that company hiring of Ph.D.s had
shifted from corporate research centers to the production units. It
is interesting to note that, during the conference AspenTech an-
nounced that it had purchased two companies, Setpoint and DMCC,
with different cultures and approaches to model predictive control.
DMCC had evolved from the DMC approach developed by Cutler
(Cutler and Ramaker, 1980), while Setpoint had evolved from ID-
COM (Froisy and Richalet, 1986).
CPCVI was held in Tucson in January 2001, and co-chaired by
Jim Rawlings and Tunde Ogunnaike, with 135 attendees – 65 from
industry and 70 from academia and government. The continuing
diversification of the industries served by the process control com-
munity was noted. Also, the meeting discussions seemed to be
less acrimonious than the past. A number of papers focused on
the continuing application of model predictive control in indus-
try. Downs (2002) suggested than classical decentralized control
techniques should be used during the first year of operation of
a new plant; advanced control, including MPC, could be added
later when the operating characteristics are better known. He also
felt that Eastman had benefited by having a central group man-
age all control-related activities. Vogel and Downs (2002) provided
an overview of how MPC was implemented at Eastman, by devel-
oping their own software based on the approaches presented by
Muske and Rawlings (1993). A parallel cracking furnace example
included 33 controlled outputs, 40 manipulated inputs and 32 con-
strained variables. Young et al. (2002) provided an overview of the
development and application of nonlinear model based techniques
used at ExxonMobil. An early motivation was a new polymeriza-
tion plant with a new catalyst system being started up in 1990.
Since they deemed linear MPC as insufficient they worked with
academic collaborators on model development and state estima-
tion techniques to incorporate into a nonlinear MPC-based strategy.
The 4 input, 4 output process had roughly 50 states and 120 DAEs.
They decided to commercialize the nonlinear control methodology,
with an award to DOT Products to develop a commercial version
of the software.
CPCVII was held in Banff, Canada in January 2006, co-chaired
by Mike Henson and Tom Badgwell (2006), with the theme “As-
sessment of Core Technologies and Emerging Applications,” with
70 academic (including 15 students), and 43 industrial participants.
Froisy (2006) provided a perspective overview of the development
of a new state space-based MPC product at AspenTech; the user in-
terface was particularly important, to shield the user from critical
underlying checks and balances that assure detectability, etc. The
initial prototype was developed in 1999, based on the approach
presented by Muske and Rawlings (1993); several years later the
fourth phase of the prototype was applied to a chemical process
with 8 inputs, 20 outputs and 109 states. Froisy showed exam-
ples to illustrate how additional measurements can improve un-
measured disturbance rejection using a disturbance model in a
Kalman Filter framework, and to illustrate the effect of assump-
tions when implementing an infinite horizon strategy. He ended
the paper with expected future developments including batch ap-
plications, nonlinear models and better Kalman Filter tuning meth-
ods. Vinson (2006) provided an overview of high performance pro-
cess control applied to Air Separation Units. Cox et al. (2006) pro-
543
vided an overview of the development and use of the TMODS sim-
ulator at DuPont; a key highlight was the ease of use in compari-
son to many commercial simulators. Similarly, Alford (2006) noted
that the simulator at E.I. Lilly had many features, including integra-
tion with a data historian, that were not available in commercial
simulators. Results of an education panel discussion are presented
in Section 4.
It was recognized by some members of the process opera-
tions and process control communities that there was much over-
lap in their interests, particularly in actual industrial applications.
Thus, the originally independent conferences on the Foundations of
Computer Aided Process Operations (FOCAPO) and CPC were com-
bined for the first International FOCAPO-CPC conference in 2012,
held in January in Savannah, Georgia. A total of 182 participants
registered for the two conferences, with 76 people attending both
conferences; 52 participants were students or postdocs. FOCAPO
had 139 and CPCVIII had 119 registrants, thus the number of peo-
ple only registering for FOCAPO was 63, while the CPCVIII-only
registration was 43. The CPCVIII co-chairs were Don Bartusiak and
Prodromos Daoutidis, with FOCAPO chaired by Nick Sahanidis and
Jose Pinto, while I served as a general chair to promote interactions
between the groups. Some of the proceedings papers were pub-
lished in a special issue of Computers and Chemical Engineering
in (2013), with others appearing in 2012. Davis et al. (2012) pro-
vided an overview of “Smart Manufacturing” and activities of the
Smart Manufacturing Leadership Coalition (SMLC). A Smart Manu-
facturing platform would enable (i) reduction of development and
deployment costs for manufacturing oriented modeling and simu-
lation, (ii) reduced costs for IT infrastructure, (iii) access to “apps”
for a wide-variety of problems, (iv) an enterprise layer for applied
manufacturing intelligence and performance metrics, (v) test bed
demonstrations, and (vi) involvement of small, medium and large
enterprises.
Common themes expressed by an industrial panel included
(Daoutidis and Bartusiak, 2013):
• improved integration of control, optimization, and planning;
• MPC performance monitoring;
• more-complete, more-accurate representation of process behav-
ior via data-driven methods beyond currently available identifi-
cation techniques;
• more-extensive use of first principle models fit to the process,
including dynamic simulations for rapid prototyping of control
applications; greater interoperability of control applications, in-
cluding cooperative MPC and real time optimization;
• reducing the information technology complexity or barriers to
technology transfer with current process control systems;
• a significant increase in sensor data enabled by low-cost net-
working or wireless technologies; and
• more explicit assessment and measurement of the economic
benefits of the use of process control technology to motivate
research, attract investment and sustain implementation
FOCAPO-CPC 2017 with the theme “Bringing Research to Prac-
tice and Practice to Research” was held in Tucson in January 2017,
with 206 participants with 68 coming from industry, 6 from Gov-
ernment and National Labs, and 132 from Universities. Erik Ydstie
and Larry Meagan were the CPCIX co-chairs, Christos Maravelias
and John Wassick were the FOCAPO co-chairs, and I served as a Li-
aison to encourage discipline overlap. The conference included 56
invited talks and 86 contributed papers (55 in FOCAPO and 31 in
CPCIX). The final day concluded with an ideation session to sug-
gest grand challenges and future directions. Thirty papers were re-
vised/extended and published in a special issue of Computers and
Chemical Engineering in 2018.
Two of the lasting contributions/ideas post-classical control,
developed in the 1960s and 1970s, the relative gain array
544 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
(Bristol, 1966), and model predictive control (e.g. Cutler and Ra-
maker, 1980), were ideas generated in industry. It took around
15 years for the Bristol paper to stimulate academic research
on the topic, which led to more fundamental studies by
McAvoy (1983) and Grosdidier et al. (1985), and widespread use in
undergraduate control courses and textbooks. The period between
the DMC presentations in 1979/1980 and the initial academic con-
tributions from Garcia and Morari (1982), Marchetti et al. (1983),
and Ricker (1985) was shorter, but sparked fundamental contribu-
tions that continue to this day. The academic contributions from
Muske and Rawlings (1993) have been incorporated into MPC
strategies at ASPEN and at Tennessee Eastman, as examples.
It is clear that, while discussions about a “gap” will always be
with us (after all, a “driving force” is needed for progress in any
endeavor), process control research and industrial practice in ad-
vanced process control are in a relatively good state. Thru con-
sortia, collaborations, and interactions at major conferences, aca-
demics are working on applications and challenges of interest to
industry. Ph.D. graduates continue to be hired by industry, largely
into operating divisions since corporate research centers have typ-
ically been downsized. In the next section we focus on undergrad-
uate process control curricula and how it has evolved over time,
partially in response to industrial needs.
4. Process control curricula and course delivery
Van Antwerpen (1980) and Hougen (1967) suggest that process
control began to assume importance in the chemical engineering
curriculum during the 1935–1945 decade, yet no process control-
oriented textbooks were available until at least 1945. Purdue Uni-
versity (Wankat and Peppas, 2011) introduced an Engineering In-
strumentation course in 1937, which included “the measurement,
recording, and controlling of various quantities, including pressure,
temperature, flow, viscosity; applications of telemetering, electron-
ics.” The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute course catalog of 1946
lists a course on instrumentation that includes the principles of
automatic control.
Stout and Ceaglske (1945) present a process control labora-
tory at Washington University that is used in undergraduate and
graduate education. Johnson (1951), at Princeton University, used
a pneumatic multiple tank system for both undergraduate edu-
cation and graduate research; its development was inspired by
a demonstration unit used by Bristol Co. in summer courses for
teachers of instrumentation. At the undergraduate level the fo-
cus is on the different types of valves and controllers, and no at-
tempt is made to present control theory in a quantitative fashion.
Munch (1951) notes that “chemical engineering departments in
some of our more progressive technical schools now have courses
designed to teach their students the fundamentals of instrumenta-
tion.”
Brown and Campbell (1952) outline the need for interdisci-
plinary study in systems and control; except for a few masters de-
gree programs, this idea did not take hold in the US. For a brief pe-
riod in the 1970’s the RPI School of Engineering created a Division
structure, with systems and control as a division, including faculty
from many departments. Every decade or so a Dean will attempt
to consolidate departmental courses into a general course, but this
always received pushback from the faculty; the common impres-
sion is that students learn better when studying examples of di-
rect interest to them. Naturally, at the graduate level more general
systems and control courses are taught. For example, our Electri-
cal Computer and Systems Engineering (ECSE) department teaches
the introductory graduate course on Systems Analysis Techniques,
taken by graduate students in all departments. And, while some
research occurs as part of Center activities (for example, our Cen-
ter on Automation Technologies and Systems (CATS)), PhD degrees
are awarded by individual departments.
Williams (1958) notes that AIChE had established a committee
to help Universities in setting up and presenting process control
and process dynamics courses. He also provides an extensive list-
ing of process instrumentation and control articles published in
1957. McKetta and Schechter (1961) list automatic control as an
important course in a flexible undergraduate chemical engineering
curriculum.
It is natural that process control faculty would be involved in
early implementation of computers in the undergraduate curricu-
lum. Stice and Swanson (1963) report the use of analog computing
in an undergraduate process control course at IIT.
Eisen et al. (1975), in a survey with 101 chemical engineering
departments responding, found that all but six departments of-
fered at least one undergraduate process control course. The fol-
lowing topics were covered: fundamental modeling (78%), empiri-
cal modeling (33%), control (88%), instrumentation (27%); approx-
imately 1/3 use classroom demonstrations and audio-visual aids
and 3/4 rely on laboratory work (including digital and analog sim-
ulation) to complement classroom lectures. Most of the survey re-
sponses listed frequency response as a difficult concept.
A 1978 survey of 158 chemical engineering departments in the
US and Canada, reported by Seborg (1980), yielded 143 responses,
with 136 departments reporting the teaching of an undergraduate
control course, with 75% requiring such a course. Laboratory ex-
periments were reported by 70% of the departments. For example,
Morari and Ray (1980) report a series of experiments in real-time
computing and control used at the University of Wisconsin.
Ray (1983), in a review of multivariable control, summarizes
topics that have entered the undergraduate curricula over the
decades. In the 1940’s measurements and controller hardware, PID
control, linear systems, controller tuning, cascade and ratio ap-
pear. In the 1950’s step responses, transfer functions, stability,
analog computation and frequency responses are added. In the
1960’s nonlinear SISO analysis and pulse testing are included. In
the 1970’s feedforward control, digital simulation, computer con-
trol and multivariable systems are added.
Eisen (1985), in a survey with 110 chemical engineering de-
partments responding, found that all departments offered at least
one undergraduate process control course. The following topics
were covered: fundamental modeling (82%), empirical modeling
(49%), control (98%), instrumentation (30%); 40% use classroom
demonstrations and 41% audio-visual aids and 68% rely on labo-
ratory work (including digital and analog simulation) to comple-
ment classroom lectures. While the 1985 survey did not indicate
what simulators were used, it is likely that many were “home
grown” with students and faculty contributing software programs.
Holt et al. (1987) reported that the University of Wisconsin CON-
SYD interactive control system design and simulation package was
used by many universities and companies. Within a short period of
time MATLAB and Simulink from the MATHWORKS made CONSYD
obsolete.
While the majority of departments report a single 3-hr
semester course in process control, Williams and Tarrar (1986), at
Auburn, present a two-quarter (4-credit hours each) sequence in
a lecture-based course, with an additional 2-credit control labora-
tory course with 5 or 6 experiments (some pneumatic, some dig-
ital). Koppel and Sullivan (1986) report the use of an industrial
process control system (IBM’s Advanced Control System) to con-
trol simulated industrial processes. In addition to Purdue and Wa-
terloo, similar facilities were available at LSU, Imperial College and
Queensland.
Edgar (1990) summarizes control courses ca. 1988, and presents
a vision for 20 0 0, which includes more discrete modeling and con-
trol, optimization-based methods (PID tuning and MPC) and expert
 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
systems. Edgar also mentions the coverage of safety, particularly
when considering plantwide control, but surprisingly, it does not
appear as a separate topic in any survey until 2015. Griffith, in a
1993 survey with 124 departments replying, found that the lecture
in % time covered was process dynamics and modeling (28.1%),
feedback control and tuning (22.1%), stability and frequency anal-
ysis (14.2%), computer simulation (8.9%), advanced control tech-
niques (8.4%), control system hardware (7.7%), computer control
systems (4.8%), and other (5.7%). Also, MATLAB was the most
widely used (30 departments) software package, followed by PI-
CLES (16), TUTSIM (13), CC (12), and DIRA (8).
In the early 1990’s Doug Cooper at UConn developed PI-
CLES to simulate realistic process dynamics and control prob-
lems (Cooper, 1996); this evolved into ControlStation, which
is also used as a training tool for a number of companies.
Doyle et al. (1998) developed a set of process control modules
based on MATAB; these were published as a workbook, including
electronic files, in 20 0 0 (Doyle et al., 20 0 0). Bequette (1998) re-
ported the use of MATLAB and Simulink-based learning modules
for process dynamics and control, as well as an initiative at RPI to
develop internet-based learning materials to integrate mathematics
throughout the science and engineering curriculum.
One of the goals of the Computer Aids for Chemical Engineer-
ing (CACHE) corporation (a non-profit) is to create learning mod-
ules and software to undergraduate education. As part of a 25-
year history of CACHE, Arkun and Garcia (1996) summarize process
control education activities, including the development of a Model
Predictive Control Toolbox, which is now distributed by the Math-
Works as part of MATLAB. Two of the primary future education
challenges outlined are the integration of control with process de-
sign, and plantwide control. Certainly the methods of Douglas, par-
ticularly as presented in his textbook (Douglas, 1988) have helped
integrate design and operability. The Seider et al. (2016) textbook
considers operability and control directly in the design process.
The ASPEN-based books by Luyben devoted to chemical reactors
(Luyben, 2007) and distillation (Luyben, 2013) can be used as sup-
plemental material in process design, or advanced process control,
courses to assist students in implanting steady-state and dynamic
simulations.
Shinskey (2002), while misrepresenting much of the coverage
of process control courses, points out that these courses tend to
overemphasize setpoint changes, and that IMC-based design tends
to result in inferior load disturbance rejection. Perkins (2002) as-
sesses the past, present and future of process systems education,
including process control and process design. He notes that early
process control textbooks focused on analysis, whereas more re-
cent (pre-2002) texts included more synthesis (but perhaps not as
much as he desired).
Edgar et al. (2006) summarize the content of typical process
control courses, which differs little from 1988. The following
changes are suggested: (i) incorporation of biological content
(particularly important, given that many departments had changed
their name to chemical and biological engineering, or something
similar), (ii) development of non-traditional examples, (iii) batch
vs. continuous processing emphasis, and (iv) reducing the em-
phasis on Laplace transforms, frequency response and controller
tuning. With coverage of additional topics, such as safety, it is
recognized that the control course is getting squeezed. They
also report a survey of people from industry, who provide the
following rankings (scale of 1 to 10, with 10 most important):
Process or operation optimization (8.6), Data statistical analysis
and experimental design (7.2), physical dynamic process mod-
eling (7.0), statistical/empirical dynamic process modeling (6.9),
multivariable interactions (6.6), statistical process control and
process monitoring (5.3), PID loop design and tuning (5.1), non-
linear dynamics and nonlinear system analysis (3.9), frequency
545
response analysis (2.4), expert systems and artificial intelligence
(1.9).
Silverstein et al. (2016) in a 2015 survey titled “How we teach
process control” found substantial variability in course content; the
survey was much more specific about the course content, with
30 topics listed. For example, the following topics were covered:
multiple loops (43%), frequency response (50%), ratio (51%), safety
(63%), modeling in time domain (68%), cascade (77%), feedfor-
ward (80%), transfer functions (88%), feedback tuning (92%), and
PID control (96%). Topics receiving little coverage included discrete
control (7%), plantwide (11%), real-time optimization (11%), batch
(12%) and process monitoring/statistical process control (14%), and
model predictive control (28%). So, two of the major post-classical
techniques, the RGA for multiple SISO loop synthesis (pairing),
and model predictive control, are covered in less than 50% of un-
dergraduate classes. The survey indicates that 70% of courses use
project or problem-based learning and 45% of courses use com-
puters in the classroom. Note the low adoption of topics proposed
in the Edgar (1990) vision for 20 0 0: discrete modeling and con-
trol (7%), optimization-based methods (PID tuning (11%) and MPC
(28%) and expert systems (not surveyed, but likely near 0%) has
not come to pass in most courses. A comparison of the industry
needs with the current academic coverage is in Table 1. Also, the
2015 survey results are compared with the 1988 actual and 20 0 0
proposed (Edgar, 1990) in Table 2; topics for the 2015 survey were
only included if they were covered in more than 50% of the re-
sponses. Note that little has changed in most courses during the
25-year period!
In a 2015 NSF-sponsored AIChE study on the Chemical
Engineering Industry-Academia Alignment (Luo and Westmore-
land, 2015), the common industrial view was that a better under-
standing of process control and of dynamics was needed. A con-
cern of academics was that it was hard to justify a faculty po-
sition in control because of limited research funding in the area.
There was also a concern that most faculty hired during the past
30 years have no industrial experience. Perhaps of greater concern
is that more and more science-oriented faculty, particularly in the
areas of bio- and nano-technology, have been hired, with no ex-
posure to core ChE topics in their education or research. The 2016
survey by Silverstein et al. indicated that 22% of process control in-
structors had no industrial experience. Of those that had industrial
experience, the average time was 4.1 years, compared to 11.3 years
(omitting those with no experience) for those teaching process de-
sign.
It is likely that faculty without a background in control, that are
teaching the control course, will focus on the mathematical anal-
ysis. While the students can benefit from linear systems theory,
Laplace transforms, etc., it is possible that they walk away assum-
ing that control problems are clearly defined and that there is a
single correct solution to the problem. When control-oriented fac-
ulty teach the course they can bring a broader perspective that ties
in safety, economics and other important issues into the discus-
sion. Rather than simply designing a control strategy for a steam
drum – which is interesting because it incorporates feed-forward,
feedback and cascade (three mode) control – they can tie-in safety.
Should the boiler feedwater to the drum be fail-open or fail-
closed? If the water overflows into the superheating section it can
blow out those tubes. If the level drops into the furnace tubes, they
can overheat and fail, or have a reduced lifetime. Similarly, when
the load to a furnace changes, should the combustion air “lead” or
“lag” the fuel gas flowrate? Naturally this depends on whether the
fuel gas flow is increasing or decreasing, and the strategy requires
a combination of high/low selectors and ratio controllers; the point
is, an instructor with a strong control background is much more
likely to cover this material than one that is only comfortable with
the mathematics related to modeling and control.
546 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556

Table 1
Comparison of industry needs (2006) vs. academic coverage (2015).

Table 2
Comparison of 1988, predicted future 20 0 0, and estimated average 2015 courses.

Topic 1988 20 0 0 (proposed) 2015

Intro, feedback/feedforward 1 week 1 week

Math modeling 1 week 1 week
Linear, Laplace Transforms 2 weeks 2 weeks
Dynamic simulation 2 weeks 1 week
Response characteristics 1 week 1 week 2 weeks
Discrete-time models 1 week
Conventional & predictive structures 2 weeks
Controller hardware, Inst. 1 week 1 week
Closed-loop analysis, stability 1 week 1 week
Optimization methods for cont. design 2 weeks
Tuning PID 2 weeks 1 week 1 week
Frequency response 1-2 weeks 1-2 weeks
Adv. FF, cascade, MV, adaptive, etc. 3-4 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks
Digital hardware/implementation 1 week
Plant control, case studies 1 week
Expert Systems 1 week
Misc. topics 1 week (safety)

While it would be great to have better integration and control
across the curriculum, this is difficult with the “decentralized” ap-
proach to teaching assignments – most departments give signifi-
cant autonomy to the individual instructors for the content cov-
ered. So, while certain key overall learning objectives are common
between instructors, there is potentially a wide variability in fo-
cus. In the next section we review undergraduate process control
textbooks, including the increasing amount of material covered, in
part, to meet the needs of individual instructors.
5. Process control textbooks
It is interesting to note that there was much control-related
textbook publishing activity immediately after World War II, par-
ticularly related to “servomechanisms” (e.g. James et al., 1947;
Brown and Campbell, 1948), yet the earliest textbook involved pro-
cess control. The Principles of Industrial Process Control book (235
pages) by Eckman at Case (with the support of the Brown instru-
ment company), published in 1945 (Eckman, 1945), is largely fo-
cused on chemical process examples. In the preface he states that
the book is intended for the student in chemical, metallurgical,
mechanical or electrical engineering. The are chapters providing
reasonably detailed explanations of measuring and control instru-
mentation, and the majority of the examples are those that we use
in process control courses today: interacting tanks, stirred tanks,
stirred tank heaters. He discusses step response-based modeling,
including how these models are used in the Ziegler–Nichols open-
loop procedure. While differential equation models are shown,
there is no block diagram analysis, and no frequency response
analysis. Cascade, ratio and split-range control strategies are pre-
sented. His chapter on “control theory” covers “two-position” (on-
off), “floating” (integral only), proportional, proportional-reset (PI),
and proportional reset + rate (PID); thus, in 1945 the common PID
terms used today were not in common use.
An Introduction to Process Control System Design (379 pages)
by Young at ICI in 1955 used frequency response plots that were
in the “opposite direction” with period rather than frequency as
the x-coordinate, and attenuation, defined as the ratio of the input
to the output (rather than the amplitude ratio of output/input), as
the y-coordinate. Cascade, ratio, averaging and feedforward (called
disturbance-feedback) control are covered. While his definition of
controllability is somewhat vague (generally related to lags and
time-delays), he stresses the importance of designing processes for
controllability. Two detailed chapters cover PID algorithms in com-
mercial pneumatic and electro-pneumatic controllers, in compari-
son with the ideal parallel PID algorithm.
Automatic Process Control for Chemical Engineers (228 pages)
by Ceaglske at Minnesota in 1956 (Ceaglske, 1956a,b) provides de-
tails on instrumentation, and introduces block diagrams and trans-
fer function analysis. It does not cover Routh stability, but includes
frequency response analysis. It does not present more complex
control strategies such as feedforward, cascade or ratio. The open-
loop Ziegler–Nichols procedure is covered.
Automatic Process Control (368 pages) by Eckman at Case, pub-
lished in 1958 (Eckman, 1958), is an extensive update of his previ-
ous (1945) book. While he suggests that the textbook is for engi-
neers in general, there is definitely a process focus appropriate for
undergraduate chemical engineers. Block diagrams, frequency re-
sponse, Routh stability, cascade and ratio control are covered. The
open-loop Ziegler–Nichols method is covered. Feedforward control
is not covered. It is interesting that Eckman also describes a form
of extremum-seeking control.
 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
Techniques of Process Control (303 pages) by Buckley at DuPont
in 1964 was targeted more towards practicing engineers than un-
dergraduate students; indeed, it assumes a relatively sophisticated
mathematical background as Laplace Transforms, frequency re-
sponse, block diagrams and z-transforms are all reviewed in the
first 44 pages! It is the first process control book to present digital
control in detail. Nonlinear valve and sensor characteristics, valve
stiction, feedforward, cascade, and ratio control are all covered.
There is much discussion about the difference in time scales be-
tween “material balance” and “quality control” loops. Models and
control strategies are presented for a large number of unit opera-
tions.
Process Control (374 pages) by Harriott at Cornell, published
in 1964 (Harriott, 1964), begins to look like many current process
control textbooks. In addition to block diagram, Routh stability and
frequency response analysis, he covers feedforward, cascade and
ratio control, and introduces the challenges associated with multi-
ple control loops. He covers different types of pneumatic and elec-
tronic analog controllers and provide an analysis of the difference
between series (interacting) and parallel forms of a PID controller.
He covers both the Ziegler–Nichols reaction curve (open-loop) and
continuous oscillation methods, and also proposes a damped oscil-
lation method that is more appropriate for process plants. There
are chapters devoted to heat exchangers, level, flow, distillation,
reactor (including multiple steady-states), pH and blending pro-
cesses.
Process Systems Analysis and Control (485 pages) by
Coughanowr and Koppel at Purdue in 1965, while widely
considered the precursor to current process control textbooks,
surprisingly does not cover feedforward, cascade or ratio control
(Buckley, 1965). It does cover control loop interaction through
a distillation control example. Like Harriott, they cover different
types of pneumatic controllers and provide an analysis of the
difference between series (interacting) and parallel forms of a PID
controller. Nonlinear phase-plane analysis and multiple steady-
state behavior of a CSTR is studied. Finally, analog simulation
methods are covered. Coughanowr was the sole author of the
second edition (Coughanowr and LeBlanc, 2009, 566 pages), which
added cascade, feedforward, ratio, Internal Model Control and dig-
ital control to the previous topics. In addition, state space models,
additional multi-loop content, and some BASIC programming is
added. Finally, the third edition (2009, 602 pages), with LaBlanc
and Coughanowr as authors, incorporates MATLAB, Simulink and
Excel examples throughout the text. The digital control content
is reduced, and there is no coverage of the relative gain array or
model predictive control.
Introduction to Chemical Process Control (204 pages) by Perl-
mutter at Penn in 1965 (Perlmutter, 1965), while concise, manages
to cover frequency response, cascade, feedforward and control-loop
interaction. He also covers phase plane analysis for nonlinear sys-
tems. While frequency response and process reaction curve meth-
ods are discussed, the Cohen-Coon and Ziegler–Nichols PI parame-
ters appear only as student exercise problems.
Automatic Control of Processes (467 pages) by Murrill at LSU
in 1967 (Murrill, 1967) covers feedforward, cascade and ratio con-
trol, frequency response, and the Cohen-Coon and Ziegler–Nichols
open-loop methods. There are chapters on analog computer based
simulations and controller hardware (pneumatic and electronic).
Automatic Process Control (272 pages) by Johnson at Princeton
in 1967 (Johnson, 1967), like Perlmutter, is concise while covering
frequency response, cascade, feedforward, and ratio control. While
he shows an example multi-loop P&ID, he provides no numerical
analysis. He does show how a pneumatic PID control results in an
“interacting” (series) controller transfer function, such that the pro-
portional gain is not truly independent of the integral and deriva-
tive tuning parameters. Digital control receives a brief treatment.
547
Frequency response is introduced early, with the notion of gain and
phase margins presented by page 22!
Process Engineering Control (466 pages) by Tyner and May at
Florida in 1968 (Tyner and May, 1968) compares ideal (parallel)
and actual (series for pneumatic) PID controllers, includes dead-
time and inverse response compensation (using a Smith predictor),
and appendices for a Fortran program for pulse testing and ana-
log computing. Feedforward and cascade, but not ratio, control are
covered; the only discussion of multiloop systems refers to cascade
control.
Process Dynamics and Control (Vol. 1, 367 pages; Vol. 2, 447
pages) by Douglas at Syracuse in 1972 develops the most exten-
sive modeling book to-date, including state space and distributed
parameter models (Douglas, 1972). Volume 1 is focused on model-
ing, while volume 2 is focused on process control, including mul-
tivariable control, optimal control and periodic processing. While
he notes the sections that are appropriate for an undergraduate
course, this is largely a textbook for graduate level courses in mod-
eling and control.
An Introduction to Process Dynamics and Control (434 pages)
by Weber at Buffalo in 1973 (Weber, 1973), provides a chapter on
control actions early in the text, before applying them in the con-
text of feedback control later. While the text covers frequency re-
sponse methods and feedforward control, it does not cover cascade
or ratio control.
Process Modeling, Simulation and Control for Chemical Engi-
neers (558 pages) by Luyben at Lehigh in 1973 (Luyben, 1973),
represents the first process control textbook to provide extensive
coverage of digital computation methods. In the preface he refers
to the pioneering textbook by Ceaglske (1956a,b), as well as other
process control textbooks, but points out the limited mathemati-
cal modeling and no digital simulation content. The second edition
(Luyben, 1990, 721 pages) adds dynamic matrix control (DMC), sin-
gular value analysis and the relative gain array, and Tyreus–Luyben
modifications to Ziegler–Nichols tuning. Luyben and Luyben (1997,
584 pages) note the growth in textbook length and thus reduce
the amount of content for their textbook on the “Essentials of Pro-
cess Control.” Some of the mathematical details are reduced, while
Fortran and MATLAB code is supplied.
The Eisen et al. (1975) survey found that Coughanowr
and Koppel (51.9%), Luyben (12.5%), Weber (7.7%) and Harriott
(7.7%) were the more commonly used textbooks. The survey by
Seborg (1980) found that the leading textbooks were Coughanowr
and Koppel (50.7%), Luyben (15.4%), Weber (6.6%), Harriott (4.4%),
Douglas (4.4%), Perlmutter (2.2%), Smith (1.5%), with 19 other texts
reported.
Chemical Process Control: An Introduction to Theory and Prac-
tice (696 pages) by Stephanopoulos at MIT in 1984 provides a com-
prehensive treatment of many topics, including more mathematical
modeling, and the design of control systems for entire plants – us-
ing the HDA example from Douglas (1982). Also, somewhat sur-
prisingly, given the power for multi-loop synthesis, this is the first
textbook to cover Bristol’s relative gain array (RGA) analysis for
MV-SISO controller synthesis. While the book has a strong model-
based focus, it does not include internal model control or MPC;
it does include digital control, including model-based techniques
such as Dahlin’s controller. Clearly this book had an immediate
impact, as the Eisen (1985) survey found that 48% of the courses
used Stephanopoulos, 20% Coughanower and Koppel, 11% Luyben
and 20% other.
Principles and Practice of Automatic Process Control (614 pages)
by Smith and Corripio at South Florida and LSU in 1985 (Smith and
Corripio, 1985) presents frequency response analysis, feedforward,
cascade and ratio control, the use of the relative gain array and de-
coupling for multi-loop systems, and includes a chapter on simula-
tion techniques. The second edition (Smith and Corripio, 1997, 768
548 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
pages) expands the first-principles modeling content, adds digital
control (including discrete IMC) and presents DMC examples. The
third edition (Smith and Corripio, 2005) (2005, 580 pages) expands
the modeling and simulation content and includes two case stud-
ies for plantwide control.
Process Dynamics and Control (736 pages) by Seborg, Edgar
Mellichamp, in 1989, at UCSB and UT-Austin includes direct syn-
thesis, internal model control (IMC), digital control and is the first
process control textbook to treat model predictive control. The
Griffith (1993) survey found that 46% of the courses used Seborg,
Edgar and Mellichamp, 20% Stephanopoulos, 11% Smith and Corri-
pio, and 11% Luyben. So, like in 1985 (when Stephanopoulos was
most popular), the newest book was the most widely used. The
second edition (2004, 713 pages) reduces some digital control con-
tent, places safety into a separate chapter, and adds process mon-
itoring, batch and plantwide control and a brief appendix on the
use of MATLAB. The third edition (528 pages, 2010) with Doyle as
a co-author, adds two chapters on biological systems, and reduces
content by using supplemental material in digital form. The fourth
edition (512 pages, Seborg et al., 2016) downsizes slightly by fur-
ther reducing lengthy derivations.
Process Dynamics, Modeling and Control (1260 pages) by Ogun-
naike and Ray at DuPont and Wisconsin in 1994 (Ogunnaike and
Ray, 1994) is a comprehensive tome covering virtually every pro-
cess control topic, including statistical process control and several
case study examples. The books length is due to the particulary
large number of examples; since many different types of dynamic
behaviors are studied in-depth, the feedback control system design
chapter does not begin until page 461! Many of the more com-
plex examples are from Professor Ray’s lab at Wisconsin, and from
studies by Ogunnaike and colleagues at DuPont, so the book could
easily be used as part of an introductory graduate course in pro-
cess control.
Process Control: Designing Processes and Control Systems for
Dynamic Performance (954 pages) by Marlin at McMaster in 1995
(Marlin, 1995) stresses the importance and integration of process
design, operability and safety. The majority of the P&ID are more
realistic than the over-simplified ones found in most textbooks.
The textbook is also integrated with an interactive learning web-
site and a set of workshops or learning moduels. The second edi-
tion (Marlin, 20 0 0, 1017 pages) adds additional case study content.
It should be noted that the book is no longer distributed by Mc-
Graw Hill and is available for no cost by download as a .pdf.
Chemical Process Control (361 pages) by Riggs at Texas Tech
in 1999 (Riggs, 1999) presents an applied focus, with less transfer
function and no frequency response analysis. The second edition,
expanded to 545 pages, was published in 2002 (Riggs, 2002). The
third edition with Karim (2007, 578 pages) incorporates biological
systems, adds examples, includes a process simulator, and expands
on model predictive control. The fourth edition (570 pages, Riggs
and Karim, 2016) adds process safety, MATLAB and Simulink con-
tent.
A Real-Time Approach to Process Control (307 pages) by
Svrcek et al. (20 0 0) presents a simulation-based approach with less
focus on transfer functions and does not cover frequency response.
Distillation control is used as an example for a number of control
loops, and a series of eight workshops provide “hands on” rein-
forcement of the methods covered. The second edition (2006, 325
pages) adds some material on decoupling. The third edition (2014,
342 pages) adds brief coverage of model predictive control.
Process Control: A First Course with MATLAB (330 pages) by
Chau at UC San Diego in 2002 (Chau, 2002) is the first process
control textbook to incorporate MATLAB, and includes a compre-
hensive set of seven MATLAB Tutorial Sessions. The book con-
tent is certainly reduced compared to more recent books, with
less multi-loop coverage, no digital or model predictive control,
no discussion of plantwide control or the optimization and control
hierarchy.
My textbook on Process Control: Modeling, Design and Simu-
lation (800 pages) published in 2003 (Bequette, 2003), provides a
more general treatment of state space models, as well as a compre-
hensive treatment of model-based control and has a set of modules
that can be used as tutorial examples throughout a dynamics and
control course. The textbook fully integrates MATLAB-based exam-
ples. As I write the second edition I am realizing that I have over-
emphasized Internal Model Control (IMC), so this content will be
reduced and placed a supplemental material.
Introduction to Process Control (528 pages) by Romagnoli and
Palazoglu at Louisiana State University and UC-Davis in 2006
(Romagnoli and Palazoglu, 2006), while a concise introduction, also
includes elements of process monitoring and data reconciliation.
The second edition (Romagnoli and Palazoglu, 2012, 643 pages)
provides more exercises.
Silverstein et al. (2016), in a 2015 survey with a 48.7% insti-
tutional response rate, cited the following textbook usage: Seborg
et al. (48%), Riggs and Karim (15%), Ogunnaike and Ray (12%),
Bequette (6%), Smith and Corripio (6%), with all others receiving
13%. Thus, the dominant textbooks for the following periods were:
1965–1984: Coughanowr and Koppel, 1985–1990: Stephanopoulos,
1991-current: Seborg et al.
Designing Controls for the Process Industries (394 pages) by
Seames at North Dakota in 2017 (Seames, 2017a,b) has reduced
transfer function-based content (which appears in appendices),
providing a focus on the process and specific unit operations con-
trol problems.
There is certainly no shortage of available process control text-
books. Current process control textbooks cover much of the same
analysis content as Coughanowr and Koppel (1965), which was the
textbook used in the course that I took in 1979. Most books have
added topics and examples and make use of computer-aided soft-
ware, such as MATLAB. Generally, the texts cover far too many top-
ics for a one-semester course, so it is important that an instructor
be selective about the material covered. As summarized in Fig. 1,
the textbooks grew in length during the 1980-20 0 0 period, but
have generally been reduced in length with supplemental material
placed on websites.
While the most important fundamental topics covered in pro-
cess control textbooks has changed little over the decades, per-
haps we should be satisfied with the knowledge they same is true
of control engineering textbooks used in electrical and mechanical
engineering as well. Dorato (2007) notes that most undergraduate
control engineering textbooks (for examples: Franklin et al., 2006;
Phillips and Harbor, 20 0 0) do not cover theory developed after
state-space methods of the 1960s. Typical topics include modeling
(transfer functions and state space models), dynamic response, sta-
bility (Routh–Hurwitz), root-locus, frequency response, and digital
control; these topics are typically covered during the first semester.
Topics covered during the second semester often include state-
space design (state and state-estimate feedback, LQR design), digi-
tal control (state space design), and nonlinear systems; appendices
typically include matrices and complex variables.
6. The flipped classroom approach at RPI
6.1. Evolution of teaching by the author
My initial experience teaching process control was at UC-Davis
in 1987–88. I used the Stephanopoulos (1984) textbook and ana-
lytical solutions. I arrived at RPI in 1988 and was impressed with
the computing facilities and software, so I scheduled a weekly
computer laboratory for the process control class. Initially I used
the IBM simulation package, CSMP, but switched to MATLAB after
 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
Fig. 1. Length (pages) of process control textbook by publication year.
a year or so. The regular classroom sessions remained largely
lecture-based with handwritten derivations, but with as much
engagement and active discussions with students as possible. To
further motivate students we developed a set of case studies that
the students, in groups of two, would work on during the final 4
weeks of the course (Bequette et al., 1998). They would select from
a set 4 topics, perform a literature review, develop models based
on step-testing, design SISO controllers, then use the relative gain
array (RGA) to decide on controller pairings for the multivariable
case. Requirements included short reports each week, a final writ-
ten report and a final presentation. I would serve as the advisor
for one case study, while the TA and two of my other graduate
students would be the advisors for the other three case studies.
This was very time-intensive but the students were clearly moti-
vated by the opportunity to choose a case study in their area of
interest.
6.2. Studio classrooms
Interactive learning is the hallmark of the Montessori method
developed over 100 years ago and used primarily in classrooms
with young children. At the college level interactive learning often
included students solving problems at the chalkboard (see Fig. 2.),
and at RPI there are still many classrooms where chalkboards line
every wall of the room.
The studio classroom approach was pioneered at RPI, with ini-
tial courses in physics and calculus in 1993 (Wilson, 2002). The
mantra was to change the instructor’s role from “the sage on the
stage” to the “guide on the side.” The basic idea was to have re-
duced lecture content, and instead, promote learning through dis-
cussion and problem-solving. The first studio classrooms had net-
worked computer workstations, with 2–4 students per computer.
I started using a studio classroom for process dynamics and con-
trol in 1999 (Bequette et al., 1999). That classroom could handle
up to 40 students that could face forward during lectures and dis-
cussions, then swivel 180° to work at computer workstations in
groups of two. This was not an efficient use of space, and in 1999
RPI began requiring that entering freshmen (class of 2003) pur-
chase laptop computers supplied with relevant computational soft-
ware (Bequette, 2005).
549
6.3. Screencasts
A common characteristic of the flipped classroom is that stu-
dents read and view important lecture material outside the class
so that more time can be spent using engaging, interactive learning
techniques in the classroom. I feel that it is better for the students
to view a couple of short “screencasts” of 5–7 min each, rather
than viewing a videotaped lecture of 50 min in length. The idea is
to focus on a specific topic or technique and to have their full at-
tention during the short screencast. The University of Colorado has
developed a large set of screencasts for most of the core chemical
engineering courses, available at learncheme.com, with 58 videos
related to process control. Sometimes the notation is slightly dif-
ferent than that used in my course, so I warn students of this both
pre- and post-viewing.
6.4. Brief on-line quizzes
The flipped classroom works best if all of the students have
read or viewed the lecture material in advance. I require the stu-
dents to take a brief on-line quiz, automatically graded, before
class. This typically consists of 5 multiple choice or true-false ques-
tions that are relatively easy if they have covered the material.
Questions are sometimes related to the previous lecture, often in-
volving impromptu discussions. For example, when Hurricane Har-
vey hit the Gulf Coast in August 2017, we discussed refining capac-
ity and the effect of plant shutdowns on gasoline prices. I noted
that I had worked at a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas and asked
the students to name a famous former blues/rock singer from that
area; since no one could name Janis Joplin the next quiz included
questions based on a Wikipedia page on Janis Joplin.
6.5. In-class simulation exercises
In-class simulation exercises change in difficulty throughout the
semester. During early exercises I have the students construct sim-
ple Simulink diagrams. As we get into more difficult problems, e.g.
cascade control, I supply them with .mdl and script files that they
can modify. I feel that over the years some Simulink blocks have
gotten too flexible and difficult for students to follow; I need to
550 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
Fig. 2. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute classroom, early 1900 s. Used with permission.
spend time explaining and discussing the different ways to im-
plement a continuous PID controller, for example. Indeed, when I
cover digital control I supply my own block that corresponds to my
preferred derivation and implementation of digital PID.
6.6. Weekly homework assignments
Homework problems are assigned weekly and cover analyti-
cal and MATLAB/Simulink-based solutions. At the time of the as-
signment the particular topics have not been covered yet, so we
quickly go over the assignment and the particular challenges to
motivate them for the techniques being covered that week. The
daily in-class exercises are used as a springboard for the solution
of the weekly homework assignments.
6.7. Case studies and detailed problems
Most years I have used case study projects for the final month
of the semester, as discussed in Section 6.1. The past two years
I decided to use a distillation control problem as a multivari-
able study example. Another detailed example used and discussed
throughout the course is an automated insulin delivery system, as
presented in Section 6.11.
6.8. Mid-term and final exams
While the in-class exercises and weekly homework assignments
involve the use of MATLAB and Simulink, the two mid-term exams
and the final exam are based on analytical solution techniques and
fundamental modeling and control understanding.
6.9. Additional topics: safety, process design, boilerhouse tour
Process safety is discussed, in one way or another, in almost ev-
ery lecture. Most control strategies involve a discussion of whether
a fail-open or fail-closed value should be used, for example. Early
on most students do not have an appreciation of how a valve
can be specified for a particular failure mode, so I present cross-
sectional diagrams of typical valves and actuators for discussion.
When discussing liquid surge drums we think about realistic val-
ues for the high and low level alarms. We also take groups of stu-
dents on a boilerhouse tour with the operator pointing out the var-
ious vessels, sensors, actuators and the control room and control
system. This is of particular benefit to students that have not had
summer industrial experience.
6.10. Course topic overview
Chemical Process Dynamics and Control is a 4-credit course
scheduled for 3 days/week (Tu/We/Fr) for one hour and 50 min
each class period. As a practical matter, to give adequate time for
homework problem solving and to accommodate the instructors
travel schedule, during many weeks the third class period serves
as a recitation, with the TA reinforcing material, and assisting with
MATLAB, as examples. Since it is a 4-credit course, we tend to
cover about 33% more topics than is covered in most 3-credit pro-
cess control courses. A typical 15-week semester will include 32
lecture/regular classes, 7 recitations, 2 in-class exams, 1 campus
boilerhouse tour, 1 final course review, and 1 final exam. A sum-
mary of topics is provided in Table 3, with specific examples in
Table 4.
6.11. Motivating example: automated insulin delivery
In this learning module we first review the natural physiologic
control loops involved when a healthy pancreas regulates blood
glucose. We then describe the lifestyle of an individual with type
1 diabetes, who must monitor blood glucose levels and administer
insulin, either through multiple daily injections or using a contin-
uous insulin infusion pump. We describe typical ranges for basal
(steady-state) insulin infusion, carb-to-insulin ratios for meals, and
correction factors (amount of insulin required to reduce a glu-
cose level by a certain amount). Someone with type 1 diabetes
serves as a controller (feedforward and feedback) through constant
 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
Table 3
Course topics.
Incentives/Motivation for Process Control
Mathematical modeling
Linearization, state space models
Laplace transforms, transfer function analysis
Connection between poles and eigenvalues
Dynamic behavior, step and impulse inputs
Introduction to feedback (FB) control, PID
Closed-loop stability
Real PID, filtering, derivative on output
Internal Model Control and IMC-based PID
Digital PID and digital filtering
Cascade (CC) and feedforward (FF)
Anti-reset-windup
Nonlinear PID – surge vessel example
Closed-loop control interaction, RGA
Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)
Plantwide control, startup/shutdown (brief)
Model predictive control (brief)
Statistical process control (brief)
Optimization: Linear Programming (brief)
Table 4
Example processes.
Gas and liquid surge vessels
Insulin pharmacokinetics
Biochemical reactor
Jacketed reactors (batch & continuous)
Steam drum, 3-mode (FF/FB/CC)
Gasoline blending – ratio control
Automated insulin delivery for type 1 diabetes:
(i) response to meals w and w/o feedforward,
(ii) effect of sensor bias, quantization & noise
Drug infusion in anesthesia – multiple loops
Distillation control – multiple loops
Gasoline blending – LP problem
Fig. 3. Example of an automated insulin delivery system currently under study. The
components, using Bluetooth communication, include a continuous glucose monitor
(CGM), a control algorithm on the smart phone and insulin infused by the insulin
pump.
diligence; this motivates the development of an automated insulin
delivery system shown in Fig. 3.
After reading this module and performing the studies a student
is able to:
• Appreciate the challenges someone with type 1 diabetes faces
in managing blood glucose. Meals increase and insulin de-
creases blood glucose. One challenge is providing the correct
insulin bolus to compensate for a meal. Uncertainty in the car-
551
bohydrates in a meal makes it safer to under-bolus to avoid hy-
poglycemia.
• Appreciate the importance of maintaining a consistent healthy
value of blood glucose. Blood glucose that is too low (hypo-
glycemia) can cause short-term dangers, such as drowsiness
or a diabetic coma. Blood glucose that is too high (hyper-
glycemia) causes long-term risks, such as micro- and macro-
vascular problems resulting in retina and other problems.
• Understand the metrics used in reporting clinical perfor-
mance of glucose control strategies, such as mean glucose,
time-in-range (70–180 mg/dL), time in hypoglycemia (less than
70 mg/dL), time in hyperglycemia (greater than 180 mg/dL), and
total daily insulin dose (insulin used each day).
• Approximate the dynamic behavior between insulin and meal
inputs and blood glucose outputs using low-order transfer func-
tion models.
• Understand the importance of sensors that report discrete
quantized values (for example, a continuous glucose sensor re-
ports to the nearest 1 mg/dL).
• Understand the effects of sensor noise and bias on control sys-
tem performance. A mis-calibrated glucose sensor can be off by
10–20 mg/dL or more.
• Understand that providing an insulin bolus at mealtime (feed-
forward control) leads to improved glucose control performance
compared to feedback-only control.
Students are provided with a Simulink diagram (Fig. 4)
that includes the insulin-meal-blood glucose model of
Hovorka et al. (2004) and Wilinska et al. (2005). We added
additional lags for the dynamics between the blood and interstitial
fluid and the sensor lag, with possible bias and measurement
noise. The simulation model also includes a digital PID controller,
and it is suggested that the students begin with the tuning param-
eters proposed by Palerm (2011). An outcome of the simulation
exercise is to suggest controller tuning and an appropriate blood
glucose setpoint if the sensor can be biased by up to 20 mg/dL,
with the objective of reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia to
less than 5% (that is, less than 72 min per day spent less than
70 mg/dL).
6.12. Discussion
In a process dynamics and control course the specific examples
used may not be as important as the instructors enthusiasm in
presenting them. I have been fortunate to be involved in a wide-
range of automation and control related problems, ranging from
classic chemical processes (petroleum refining, pharma batch reac-
tors) to biomedical systems (automated insulin delivery, drug in-
fusion in anesthesia). It certainly helps that I can bring specific
examples that I have worked on into the classroom – such as re-
sponding to level sensor failures while serving as an operator in
the refining industry, and conducting clinical trials of an automated
insulin delivery system. The final course survey results, specifically
for the instructor-added questions, shown in Table 5 indicates,
that students were generally satisfied with the course; indeed it
Table 5
Course survey responses to instructor-added questions (median, out of 5).
The screencasts have been useful 4.28
On-line quizzes have been useful 3.60
Studio approach has been useful 4.40
I have benefited from reading the textbook 4.14
I have adequate time for homework 4.13
I appreciate the importance of process control in industry 4.62
MATLAB has been easy to use 2.75
The boilerhouse tour was useful 4.62
552 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
Fig. 4. Simulink diagram for automated insulin delivery. Includes open-loop behavior by setting the controller gain to 0.
appears that the on-line quizzes actually provided encouragement
for them to read the textbook.
6.13. Approaches and material from other sources
Huang (2017) discusses the results of integrating three
MATLAB-based learning modules into a flipped classroom by us-
ing teaching videos to be viewed a week before class and quizzes
taken at the beginning of class. Marlin (2017) discusses “blended
learning” and develops a flipped classroom as one example. E-
lessons consist of pre-prepared slides with audio that can be stud-
ied via the internet at any time, followed by an un-graded quiz.
Class time then involves a mini-lecture reviewing the e-lesson,
then workshops (hands-on, interactive learning) to reinforce learn-
ing material, followed by a mini-lecture on the next e-lesson).
Seames (2017a,b) takes a simulation-based approach, including a
new textbook, and requires outside material be studied, with on-
line quizzes; re-quizzes can be taken up to 3 weeks later. It
should be noted that the text by Svrcek et al. (2014) also takes
a simulation-based approach.
There are many learning resources available on the internet. For
example, cache.org contains links to material from many sources.
The learncheme.com site is particularly strong in the use of screen-
casts. The Hedengren process dynamics and control course at BYU
has lecture material and a low-cost temperature control experi-
ment (Hedengren, 2018; Learncheme, 2019).
7. Conclusions of flipped classroom
A flipped classroom makes better use of a students and instruc-
tors time. Students come to class prepared, after taking an on-line
quiz, and are more engaged in discussions and problem solutions.
Because of the interactive nature of the class-time, it is important
to have a teaching assistant willing to engage with the students.
8. Comments/Perspective on process control practice and
education
I particularly enjoyed reading the detailed discussions at the
end of early process control papers. This discussion summary was
also a very valuable record of the international conferences on
chemical process control through 2006. Now that selected papers
appear in special issues of Computers and Chemical Engineering
their has only been a brief overall summary in the preface of the
special issue – I would like to see future CPCs include panel pre-
sentations and discussions as part of the published special issue.
The scope of the process control course (and to a larger
extent the process control textbooks) has grown tremendously
over the years, with an early focus on single loop PID de-
sign/analysis/tuning. The current course at many schools could
probably be better titled process operations, with some safety, sta-
tistical process/quality control, multivariable and even model pre-
dictive control at least briefly covered.
There are several challenges in educating students in process
control. One, it would be nice if students were introduced to more
general dynamic balance equations in their introductory material
and energy balances course. Also, process control students are of-
ten using MATLAB for the first time, and any software package re-
quires a certain amount of time to learn. At RPI we are now teach-
ing our own numerical computing class, which includes basic pro-
gramming skills. We have chosen MATLAB as the programming en-
vironment, which should be a tremendous help in the student use
of MATLAB in the process control course. I would also like to see
better integration of control topics in other courses. For example,
when I teach chemical reaction engineering I give examples and
assignments that require a temperature controller to keep a reac-
tor operating “isothermally.”
There are many important topics that are relevant to process
control and design courses, including “big data” and data analytics,
and at RPI there is now a “data dexterity” requirement, where stu-
dents take two data intensive course, including one in their major.
This has not been fully implemented, and likely we will include
 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
data intensive modules in more than one of our core chemical en-
gineering courses.
So what is the practical reality of process control education dur-
ing the next 20 years? Content wise, it is not likely that much will
change. To maintain a 128–135 h eight-semester curriculum with
various breadth and depth requirements, the total chemical en-
gineering content cannot change much. Newer teaching methods,
such as the flipped classroom approach, make the learning process
more efficient – to me, by properly combining screencasts, on-line
quizzes, homeworks and in-class discussions, we can make certain
key concepts clearer. Can we truly get them to “learn” the entire
content presented in a 10 0 0 page textbook? No. Then again, text-
books have covered too much material for a long time to enable
instructors to “pick and choose” the content they wish to cover.
This works well for instructors with expertise in process control
applications, but can be very difficult for instructors with other
backgrounds. My experience is that those instructors focus more
on the development of mathematical models and their analytical
solution, often barely getting through basic PID loops before the
end of the semester. Now, this is not such a bad thing as long as
the students have developed an appreciation for process dynamics
and the importance of mathematical models.
Acknowledgments
I wish to acknowledge the enthusiasm and clear love of teach-
ing that Jim Turpin exhibited in my undergraduate process con-
trol course at Arkansas. The various engineering projects, and time
spent serving as a process operator during strike duties at Amer-
ican Petrofina motivated me to focus on process control in my
graduate students. Fortunately, Tom Edgar accepted me in to his
research group at Texas – his ability to multi-task is unparalleled
and he has been a great influence on me throughout my academic
career. Also at Texas I had the chance to “co-teach” (OK, provide
a few lectures) in a course on Advanced Process Control that Jim
Rawlings was teaching; his unique ability to question the “standard
assumptions” involved in what, I thought, were solved problems,
was quite impressive and I have enjoyed our many discussions over
the years. As this paper was coming together I had the opportunity
to serve as a “second opponent” for a thesis in Sigurd Skogestad’s
group at NTNU in Trondheim. I was lucky that the “first opponent”
was Karl Astrom; during our discussions as we walked between
the hotel and campus each day I learned a lot about his experi-
ences with computer control at IBM in the late 1950’s and with
different forms of PID controllers. I also wish to acknowledge the
outstanding efforts of Edmund Tang, Sambit Ghosh, Shu Yang and
Pranesh Navarathna, who served as the TAs the first three times I
used a flipped classroom approach.
Appendix. Background and biases of the author
I was an undergraduate at the University of Arkansas, a school
that was applications oriented and took a “unit operations” rather
than “transport phenomena” approach in most courses, and I was
fortunate to have co-operative education experience in specialty
chemicals and summer process engineering work experience in
refining. I was also fortunate to take an elective course in pro-
cess control from Jim Turpin, who used Coughanowr and Kop-
pel (1965) as the textbook. Professor Turpin used the chalkboard
approach, with a pace that encouraged much thought and discus-
sion; while fewer topics were taught than in a typical current pro-
cess control course, I would argue that the ones covered were pre-
sented in more depth. I’ll admit, however, that I did have this vi-
sion of operators cycling plant inputs to get frequency response re-
sults – but, more on that later.
553
After graduation, my first day as a process engineer occurred
immediately after the refinery (American Pertrofina, Port Arthur,
Texas) went on strike, so I began working 12 h shifts as a process
operator in the boilerhouse unit. Since all process units either con-
sume or generate steam, return condensate to the boilerhouse, and
take or contribute to the fuel gas system, it was a good way for
me to understand the entire refinery operation. My first stint dealt
with the de-ionization unit, which was largely a sequential batch
operation, with beds being switched on and off-line, being regen-
erated, etc. An important part of my responsibility was to intervene
and force relays to switch to the proper position when they failed
to do so automatically. The unit supplied de-ionized water to the
boilerhouse, with a storage tank that had a least a 12-hour resi-
dence time. Thus, I could play with the few continuous controllers
in the de-ionization unit, setting up continuous oscillations, for ex-
ample, without worrying about causing problems in the rest of the
plant.
I then moved to the main boilerhouse, where three boilers pro-
duced much of the plant steam needs. Although this was 1980,
all process units had analog pneumatic controllers, except for one
that had been retrofitted with electric analog controllers in the
1960s. Some of the controllers were the circular chart recording
controller variety (many textbook P&IDs still show TRC or PRC
symbols for temperature or pressure-recording-controller), where I
quickly learned that knocking the recording pen changed the con-
troller output because of the direct hardware linkage. Many impor-
tant variables were recorded in log books at different times during
the shift – often, if you did not like a gauge reading, you could
tap the gauge and the needle would jump to a different value. A
control room in those days did not suffer from “alarm flooding” –
there were only a few alarms and when they were activated you
knew to take immediate action. I got plenty of exercise sprinting
up a level of stairs whenever the deaerator level alarm went off.
I got experience switching to manual control under certain con-
ditions – for example, when a drum level sensor failed. In that
case the redundant “sensor” consisted of a light shining through
the sight glass into a mirror that was angled towards the ground;
thus, an operator could monitor the level visually, typically main-
taining it by setting the boiler firing rate to a constant value and
making minor feedwater flowrate adjustments.
My primary role as a process engineer did not directly involve
process control, but rather on “energy conservation,” Thus, my
main activities were justifying retrofit projects that could reduce
plant energy consumption, and there were many projects with a
payout period of less than two years. I then was given the respon-
sibility as serving as the lead process engineer for project involv-
ing the installation of an Aromatics Extraction Unit. Although the
bulk of the design work was done by a contract engineering firm, I
was responsible for the raffinate splitter design, including develop-
ing the P&ID. I certainly made use of the books by Greg Shinskey
in this endeavour. In any event, when I decided to go to gradu-
ate school (my plan all along), there was no doubt that I wanted
to study process control, and who better to study with than Tom
Edgar at the University of Texas (see acknowledgements section).
While at RPI I spent a one semester sabbatical at Merck work-
ing on reaction calorimetry and performing simulations for a new
multi-scale pilot plant that was proposed to use different heat
transfer fluids than previous plants. My focus, then, was to un-
derstand the effect of proposed changes on the ability to control
a wide range of reactor sizes and characteristics. This experience
provided examples that I use in the control class.
Early in my career at RPI I became involved with Rob Roy (an
anesthesiologist and head of Biomedical Engineering) and Howard
Kaufamn (adaptive control) on a drug infusion project, with goals
of regulating blood pressure and cardiac output during and post-
surgery. This effort provided motivating case study examples of
554 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
multivariable control for students. After Rob retired I began to fo-
cus my biomedical control activities in the field of automated in-
sulin dosing for people with type 1 diabetes; Bruce Buckingham at
Stanford became a long-time collaborator of mine in this area.
References
Ahrendt, W.R., Taplin, J.F., 1951. Automatic Feedback Control. McGraw-Hill.
Aikman, A.R., Rutherford, C.I., 1951. The characteristics of air-operated controllers.
Automatic Manual Control: Proceedings of the Cranfield Conference. Butter-
worths, Tustin A (ed.) pp. 176–187.
Alford, J.S., 2006. Bioprocess control: advances and challenges. Comput. Chem. Eng.
30, 1464–1475.
Allen Jr., L.H., 1943. Industrial control instrument settings. Ind. Eng. Chem. 35 (12),
1223–1229.
Allen Jr, L.H., 1944. Automatic-control instrument adjustment. Ind. Eng. Chem. 36
(8), 687–693.
Arant, J.B., 1948. Process instrumentation in chemical engineering curriculum. J.
Chem. Educ. (May) 283–285.
Arkun, Y., Garcia, C.E., 1996. Process control. In: Carnahan, B. (Ed.), Computers in
Chemical Engineering Education. CACHE, pp. 193–210.
Astrom, K.J., 1985. Process control – past, present and future. IEEE Control Syst. Mag.
(August) 3–10.
Astrom, K.J., Hagglund, T., 2005. Advanced PID Control. ISA.
Athans, M., 1976. Trends in modern systems theory. In: Foss, A.S., Denn, M.M. (Eds.).
Chemical Process Control, 72 AIChE Symposium Series, Number 159. pp. 4–12.
Axelby, G, 1964. The gap – form and function. IEEE TAC 125–126.
Ayers, E., 1952. An automatic chemical plant. Sci. Am. 187 (3), 82–96.
Bennett, S., 1979. A History of Control Engineering. Peter Peregrinus, pp. 1800–1930.
Bennett, S., 1984. Nicolas Minorsky and the automatic steering of ships. IEEE Control
Syst. Mag. (November) 10–15.
Bennett, S., 2001. The past of PID controllers. Ann. Rev. Control 25, 43–53.
Bennett, S., 2002. Production control instruments in the chemical and process in-
dustries. In: Morris, P.J.T. (Ed.), From Classical to Modern Chemistry: The Instru-
mental Revolution. Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 149–167.
Bequette, B.W., Schott, K.D., Prasad, V., Natarajan, V., Rao, R.R., 1998. Case study
projects in an undergraduate process control course. Chem. Eng. Educ. 32 (3),
214–219.
Bequette, B.W., Chow, J.H., Li, C.J., Maby, E., Newell, J., Buckbee, G., 1999. An inter-
disciplinary control education studio. In: Proc. Conf. Decision & Cont. Phoenix,
pp. 370–374.
Bequette, B.W., 1998. Computer applications in process dynamics and control
courses. Comp. Applic. Eng. Educ. 6 (3), 193–200.
Bequette, B.W., 2003. Process Control: Modeling, Design and Simulation. Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bequette, B.W., 2005. A laptop-based studio course for process control. IEEE Control
Syst. 25 (1), 45–49.
Bequette, BW., 2018. Innovations in process control education: a flipped class-
room/studio approach. In: Eden, M, Ierapetritou, M, Towler, GP (Eds.), Proceed-
ings of the 13th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering – PSE
2018. San Diego, CA, pp. 63–70.
Biegler, L.T., Rawlings, J.B., 1991. Optimization approaches in nonlinear model pre-
dictive control. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Chem-
ical Process Control (CPC IV). Padre Island, TX. February 17-21 (1991) CACHE,
pp. 543–571.
Bode, H.W., 1940. Relations between amplitude and phase in feedback amplifier de-
sign. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 19, 421–454.
Bode, H.W., 1945. Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design. Van Nostrand.
Bode, H.W., 1960. Feedback – the history of an idea. In: Bellman, R., Kalaba, R.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Active Networks and Feedback Sys-
tems. Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. Reprinted in Selected Papers on Mathe-
matical Trends in Control Theory. Dover, pp. 126–143. 1964.
Bristol, E.H., 1966. On a new measure of interactions for multivariable process con-
trol. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 133–134 AC-11.
Brown, G.S., Campbell, D.P., 1948. Principles of Servomechanisms. Wiley.
Brown, G.S., Campbell, D.P., 1952. Control systems. Sci. Am. 187 (3), 57–64.
Brown, R.P., 1918. The automatic control and measurement of high temperatures.
Ind. Eng. Chem. 10 (2), 133–135.
Buckley, P., 1965. Techniques of Process Control. Wiley.
Ceaglske, N.H., Eckman, D.P., 1953. Automatic control of a pressure process. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 45 (9), 1879–1885.
Ceaglske, N.H., 1956a. Automatic Process Control for Chemical Engineers. Wiley.
Ceaglske, NH., 1956b. Fundamentals of automatic process control. Ind. Eng. Chem.
1002–1007.
Chau, P.C., 2002. Process Control: A First Course with MATLAB. Cambridge University
Press.
Chestnut, H., 1965. Bridging the gap in control – status 1965. IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control 125–126.
Clark, H.A., 1922. Some phases of automatic process control. Ind. Eng. Chem. 14 (11),
1016–1017.
Clark, R.N., 1965. 1965 Automatic Control Conference. IEEE Spectrum, pp. 81–82.
Clarke, D.W, 1991. Adaptive Generalized Predictive Control. In: Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Chemical Process Control (CPC IV). February
17-21 (1991). CACHE, Padre Island, TX, pp. 395–417. Padre Island, TX, February
17-21 (1991). CACHE.
Cohen, G.H., Coon, G.A., 1953. Theoretical considerations of retarded control. Trans.
ASME 827–834.
Cooper, D.J., 1996. Picles: a simulator for “Virtual World” training in process dynam-
ics and control. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 4 (3), 207–215.
Coughanowr, D.R., Koppel, L.B., 1965. Process Systems Analysis and Control. Mc-
Graw-Hill, New York.
Coughanowr, D.R., LeBlanc, S.E., 2009. Process Systems Analysis and Control, third
ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cox, R.K., Smith, J.F., Dimitratos, Y., 2006. Can simulation technology enable a
paradigm shift in process control? Modeling for the rest of us. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 30, 1542–1552.
Cutler, C.R., Ramaker, B.L., 1980. Dynamic matrix control - a computer control al-
gorithm. In: Proc. Joint Automatic Control Conference. San Francisco, CA Paper
WP5-B.
Cutler, C., Yocum, F.H., 1991. Experience with the DMC inverse for identification. In:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Chemical Process Control
(CPC IV). Padre Island, TX, February 17-21 (1991). CACHE, pp. 297–317.
Daoutidis, P., Bartusiak, D., 2013. Perspective on CPCVIII. Comput. Chem. Eng. 51,
1–3.
Davis, J., Edgar, T., Porter, J., Bernaden, J., Sarli, M., 2012. Smart manufacturing, man-
ufacturing intelligence and demand-dynamic performance. Comput. Chem. Eng.
47, 145–156.
deFlorez, L., 1937. Automatic Control and the Chemical Industries. Ind. Eng. Chem.
1210–1213.
Denn, M.M., 1982. Industrial theme problems in process control. In: Seborg, D.E.,
Edgar, T.F. (Eds.), Proceedings of CPC2, pp. 609–612.
Dillon, C., 2012. Models: what do engineers see in them? In: Bissell, C, Dillon, C.
(Eds.) Ways of Thinking, Ways of Seeing: Mathematical and other Modelling in
Engineering. Springer, pp. 47–69.
Dobson, J.G., 1951. Quality control in the process industries. Ind. Eng. Chem. 43 (12),
2695–2703.
Dorato, P., 2007. Review of introduction to feedback control. IEEE Control Syst. Mag.
(February) 75–76.
Douglas, J.M., 1972. Process Dynamics and Control. Prentice Hall Volumes 1 and 2.
Douglas, J.M., 1982. Process operability and control of preliminary designs. In:
Edgar, T.F., Seborg, D.E. (Eds.), Chemical Process Control 2. Engineering Foun-
dation, pp. 497–524.
Douglas, J.M., 1988. Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes. McGraw-Hall.
Dow, H.H., 1930. Economic trend in the chemical industry. Ind. Eng. Chem. 22 (2),
113–116.
Downs, J.J. 2002. Linking control strategy design and model predictive control. In
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Chemical Process Control.
Rawlings, J.B., Ogunnaike, B.A. and Eaton, J.W. (eds.), CACHE/AIChE, pp. 328–341.
Downs, J.J., Vogel, E.F., 1993. A plant-wide industrial process control problem. Com-
put. Chem. Eng. 17 (3), 245–255.
Doyle III, F.J., Gatzke, E.P., Parker, R.S., 1998. Practical case studies for undergradu-
ate process dynamics and control using process control modules. Comput. Appl.
Eng. Education 6 (3), 181–191.
Doyle III, F.J., Gatzke, E.P., Parker, R.S., 20 0 0. Process Control Modules: A Software
Laboratory for Control Design. Prentice Hall.
Eckman, D.P., 1945. Principles of Industrial Process Control. Wiley.
Eckman, D.P., 1958. Automatic Process Control. Wiley.
Edgar, T.F., 1990. Process control education in the year 20 0 0: a round table discus-
sion. Chem. Eng. Educ. 24 (2), 72–77.
Edgar, T.F., Ogunnaike, B.A., Downs, J.J., Muske, K.R., Bequette, B.W., 2006. Ren-
ovating the undergraduate process control course. Comput. Chem. Eng. 30,
1749–1762.
Eisen, E.O., Hubbard, R.M., Perna, A.J., 1975. Summary report: teaching of under-
graduate process dynamics and control. Presented at the 1975 AIChE Annual
Meeting, Los Angeles, November.
Eisen, E.O., 1985. Summary Report: teaching of undergraduate process dynamics
and control. Presented at the 1985 AIChE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Ferrell, E.B., 1945. The servo problem as a transmission problem. In: Proceedings
IRE, November, pp. 763–767.
Foss, A.S., 1973. Critique of chemical process control theory. AIChE J. 19, 209–214.
Foss, A.S., Denn, M.M. (Eds.), 1976. Chemical process control. AIChE Symposium Se-
ries, 72 Number 159.
Franklin, G.F., Powell, J.D. and Emami-Naeimi, A. 2006. Feedback control of dynamic
systems. fifth ed. Prentice Hall.
Franks, R.G., Worley, C.W., 1956. Quantitative analysis of cascade control. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 48 (6), 1074–1079.
Friend, L., 1956. Transient chemical process behavior and control. Ind. Eng. Chem.
48 (6), 999.
Froisy, J.B., Richalet, J., 1986. Industrial applications of IDCOM. In: Morari, M.,
McAvoy, J.T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Chem-
ical Process Control – CPCIII. CACHE and Elsevier, pp. 233–244.
Froisy, J.B., 2006. Model predictive control – building a bridge between theory and
practice. Comput. Chem. Eng. 30, 1426–1435.
Fuld, G.J., Dunn, C.G., 1957. New process control applications in fermentation. Ind.
Eng. Chem. 49 (8), 1215–1220.
Fuller, A.T., 1963. Directions of research in control. Automatica 1, 289–296.
Garcia, C.E., Morari, M., 1982. Internal model control. 1. A unifying review and some
new results. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 21, 308–323.
Garcia C.E. and Prett, D.M. 1986. Advances in industrial model predictive control.
In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Chemical Process Con-
trol (CPCIII), Janurary 12-17, 1986. Morari, M and McAvoy, T.J. (eds.) CACHE and
Elsevier pp. 245–293.
 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
Garcia, C.E., Ramaker, B.L., Pollard, J.F., 1991. Total process control – beyond the de-
sign of model predictive controllers. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Chemical Process Control (CPC IV). Padre Island, TX. February
17-21, 1991 CACHE, pp. 335–361.
Ginsberg, 1929. Automatic control in the chemical industries. Ind. Eng. Chem. 21
(6), 410–414.
Grebe, J.J., 1937. Elements of automatic control. Ind. Eng. Chem. 29 (11), 1225–
1228.
Grebe, J.J., Boundy, R.H, Cermak, R.W., 1933. The control of chemical processes.
Trans. AIChE 29, 211–256.
Griffith, D.J., 1993. The teaching of undergraduate process control. Survey prepared
by the Chemical Engineering Education Projects Committee. AIChE, 4 November
1993.
Grosididier, P., Morari, M., Holt, B.R., 1985. Closed-loop properties from steady-state
gain information. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 24, 221–235.
Harriott, P., 1964. Process Control. McGraw Hill.
Harris, H., 1946. The frequency response of automatic control systems. Transactions
65, 539–545.
Hedengren, J. 2018. Dynamics and control. (accessed 7 February 2018) http://
apmonitor.com/che436/index.php/Main/HomePage.
Henson, M.A., Ogunnaike, B.A., Schwaber, J.S., Doyle, F.J., 1994. The baroreceptor re-
flex: a biological control system with applications in chemical process control.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 33 (10), 2453–2466.
Henson, M.A., Ogunnaike, B.A., Schwaber, J.S., 1995. Habituating control strategies
for process control. AIChE J. 41 (3), 604–618.
Henson, M.A., Badgwell, T.A., 2006. Preface: CPC-VII. Comput. Chem. Eng. 30, 1425.
Holt, B.R., Jerome, N.F., Buck, U., et al., 1987. CONSYD—integrated software for com-
puter aided control system design and analysis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 11 (2),
187–203.
Hougen, O.A., 1967. Progress and future in chemical engineering education. Phillips
Petroleum Lectureship. Oklahoma State University 11 May 1967 https://che.
okstate.edu/sites/default/files/u14/pls1967hougen%5B1%5D.pdf.
Hovorka, R, Canonico, V, Chassin, LJ, Haueter, U, Massi-Benedetti, M, Federici, MO,
Pieber, TR, Schaller, HC, Schaupp, L, Vering, T, Wilinska, ME, 2004. Nonlinear
model predictive control of glucose concentration in subjects with type 1 dia-
betes. Physiol. Meas. 25, 905–920.
Hurwitz, A., 1895. On the conditions under which an equation has only roots with
negative real parts. Mathematische Annalen. In: Bellman, R., Kalaba, R. (Eds.).
In: Reprinted in Selected Papers on Mathematical Trends in Control Theory, 46.
Dover, pp. 273–284. (1964), pp. 70-82.
Ivanoff, A., 1933. Theoretical foundations of the automatic regulation of tempera-
ture. J. Inst. Fuel 7 (33), 117–130 Followed by a discussion on pages 130-138.
James, H.M., Nichols, N.B., Phillips, R.S., 1947. Theory of servomechanisms. Vol. 25
of MIT Radiation Lab Series. McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, E.F., 1951. A pneumatic process analog for instruction and research. Ind.
Eng. Chem. 43 (12), 2708–2711.
Johnson, E.F., 1958. Automatic process control. Adv. Chem. Eng. 2, 33–90.
Johnson, E.F, 1967. Automatic Process Control. McGraw Hill.
Kestenbaum, A., Shinnar, R., Thau, F.E., 1976. Design concepts for process control.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 15 (1), 2–13.
Koppel, L.R., Sullivan, G.R., 1986. Use of IBM’s advanced control system in under-
graduate process control education. Chem. Eng. Educ. 70–106.
Learncheme.com, 2019. Educational Resources for Chem. Eng. Univ of Colorado,
Boulder Process Control Screencasts http://www.learncheme.com/screencasts/
process-controls.
Li, X., Huang, Z., 2017. An inverted classroom approach to educate MATLAB in chem-
ical process control. Educ. Chem. Eng. 19, 1–12.
Lee, W., Weekman, W.W., 1976. Advanced control practice in the chemical process
industry: a view from industry. AIChE J. 22, 27–38.
Lees, S., Hougen, J.O., 1956. Pulse testing a model heat exchange process. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 48 (6), 1064–1068.
Luo, Y., Westmoreland, P.R., 2015. Chemical engineering academia-industry align-
ment: expectations about new graduates. 1 November 2015. AIChE accessed
13 January 2018. https://www.aiche.org/sites/default/files/docs/conferences/
2015che_academicindustryalignmentstudy.compressed.pdf.
Luyben, W.L., 1973. Process Modeling. Simulation and Control for Chemical Engi-
neers. McGraw Hill.
Luyben, W.L., 1990. Process Modeling Simulation and Control for Chemical Engi-
neers, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Luyben, M.L., Luyben, W.L., 1997. Essentials of Process Control. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Luyben, W.L., 2007. Chemical Reactor Design and Control. Wiley.
Luyben, W.L., 2013. Distillation Design and Control using ASPEN Simulation, second
ed. Wiley.
McKetta, J.J., Schechter, R.S., 1961. A flexible undergraduate chemical engineering
program. J. Chem. Educ. 38 (5), 260–262.
McMahon, J.B., 1937. Control of liquid level in vessels under pressure. Ind Eng.
Chem. 29, 1219–1224.
Marlin, T.E., 1995. Process Control: Designing Processes and Control Systems for Dy-
namic Performance. McGraw Hill, New York.
Marlin, T.F., 20 0 0. Process Control: Designing Processes and Control Systems for Dy-
namic Performance, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Marlin, T.F., 2017. Flipping the chemical engineering process control class with e-
lessons. 2017 ASEE Ann. Mtg., Columbus, OH, June 2017 http://cache.org/files/
sum17- flipping- class- asee.pdf.
555
Mason, C.E., Philbrick, G.A., 1940. Automatic control in the presence of process lags.
Trans. ASME 295–308.
Mason, C.E., Philbrick, G.A., 1941. Mathematics of surge vessels and automatic aver-
aging level control. Trans. ASME 63 (7), 589–601.
McAvoy, T.J., 1983. Interaction Analysis. ISA.
Marchetti, J.L., Mellichamp, D.A., D.E. Seborg, D.E., 1983. Predictive control based
on discrete convolution models. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 22 (3), 488–
495.
Mehra, R.K., Rouhani, R., 1982. Model Algorithmic Control (MAC): Review and Re-
cent Developments. Chemical Process Control 2. In: Edgar, T.F., Seborg, D.E.
(Eds.), Engineering Foundation, pp. 287–309.
Mellichamp, D.A., 1993. Foreword: industrial challenge problems in process control.
Comput. Chem. Eng. 17 (3), v–ix.
Minorsky, N., 1922. Directional stability of automatically steered bodies. J. Am. Soc.
Naval Eng. 342, 280–309.
Morari, M., Ray, W.H., 1980. Integration of real-time computing into teaching: part
II, the undergraduate course. Chem. Eng. Educ. 14 (1), 32–36.
Morari, M., 1982. Integrated plant control: a solution at hand or a research topic
for the next decade? In: Seborg, D.E., Edgar, T.F. (Eds.) Proceedings of CPC2,
pp. 467–495.
Morari, M., 1983. Flexibility and resiliency of process systems. Comput. Chem. Eng.
7 (4), 423–437.
Morari, M., 1987. Three critiques of process control revisited a decade later. In:
Prett, D.M., Morari, M. (Eds.), Shell Process Control Workshop. Butterworths,
pp. 309–321.
Morari, M., 1988. Process control theory: reflections on the past and goals for the
next decade. In: Prett, D.M, Garcia, C.E., Ramaker, B.A. (Eds.), The Second Shell
Process Control Workshop. Solutions to the Shell Standard Control Problem.
Butterworths, pp. 469–488.
Morari, M., Lee, J.H., 1991. Model predictive control: the good, the bad, and the
ugly. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Chemical Pro-
cess Control (CPC IV). Padre Island, TX, February 17-21 (1991). CACHE, pp. 419–
4 4 4.
Morshedi, M., 1986. Universal Dynamic Matrix Control (UDMC). In: Morari, M.,
McAvoy, J.T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Chem-
ical Process Control – CPCIII. CACHE and Elsevier, pp. 547–577.
More, J.L., Quail, F.J., Bain, J.W., 1945. Application of automatic controllers to heat
exchangers. Ind. Eng. Chem. 37 (10), 912–916.
Munch, R.H., 1951. Instrumentation. Ind. Eng. Chem. 43 (1), 63A–66A.
Murrill, P.W., 1967. Automatic Control of Processes. Int. Textbook Co.
Muske, K.R., Rawlings, J.B., 1993. Model predictive control with linear models. AIChE
J. 39 (2), 262–287.
Nyquist, H., 1932. Regeneration theory. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 11, 126–147.
Ogunnaike, B.A., Ray, W.H., 1994. Process Dynamics, Modeling and Control. Oxford
University Press.
Palerm, C.C., 2011. Physiologic insulin delivery with insulin feedback: a control sys-
tems perspective. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 102 (2), 130–137.
Peters, J.C., 1941. Getting the most from automatic control. Ind. Eng. Chem. 33 (9),
1095–1103.
Peters, W.A., 1923. Automatic fractionating columns. Ind. Eng. Chem. 15 (7),
734–735.
Perkins, J., 2002. Education in process systems engineering: past, present and future.
Comput. Chem. Eng. 26, 283–293.
Perlmutter, D.D., 1965. Introduction to Chemical Process Control. Wiley.
Phillips, C.L., Harbor, R.D., 20 0 0. Feedback Control Systems, fourth ed. Prentice Hall.
Prett, D.M., Gillette, R.D., 1980. Optimization and constrained multivariable control
of a catalytic cracking unit. In: Proceedings of the Joint Automatic Control Con-
ference. San Francisco paper WP5-C.
Prett, D.M, Morari, M., 1987. The Shell Process Control Workshop. Process Control
Research: Industrial and Academic Perspectives. Butterworths.
Prett, D.M, Garcia, C.E., Ramaker, B.A., 1989. The Second Shell Process Control Work-
shop. Solutions to the Shell Standard Control Problem. Butterworths.
Qin, S.J., Badgwell, T.A., 1997. An overview of industrial model predictive control
technology. In: Proceedings CPC-V. Lake Tahoe, CA, pp. 232–256.
Ray, W.H., 1983. Multivariable process control – a survey. Comp. Chem. Engng. 7 (4),
367–394.
Ricker, N.L., 1985. Use of quadratic programming for constrained internal model
control. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 24, 925–936.
Ricker, N.L., 1991. Model-predictive control: state of the art. In: Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Chemical Process Control (CPC IV). Padre
Island, TX, February 17-21 (1991). CACHE, pp. 271–296.
Riddle, F.H., Royal, H.F., 1930. Process control in continuous production. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 22 (1), 14–20.
Ridenour, L.N., 1952. The role of the computer. Sci. Am. 187 (3), 116–131.
Riggs, J.B., 1999. Chemical Process Control. Ferret Publishing, Lubbock, TX.
Riggs, J.B., 2002. Chemical Process Control, second ed. Ferret Publishing, Lubbock,
TX.
Riggs, J.B., Karim, M.N., 2007. Chemical and Bio-Process Control, 3rd ed. Ferret Pub-
lishing, Lubbock, Texas.
Riggs, J.B., Karim, M.N., 2016. Chemical and Bio-Process Control, fourth ed. Ferret
Publishing, Lubbock, Texas.
Romagnoli, J.A., Palazoglu, A., 2006. Introduction to Process Control. Taylor and
Francis.
Romagnoli, J.A., Palazoglu, A., 2012. Introduction to Process Control, second ed. CRC
Press.
556 B.W. Bequette / Computers and Chemical Engineering 128 (2019) 538–556
Seames, W.S., 2017a. Updating the process controls and dynamics course for the
21st century. Presented at the 2017 AIChE Ann. Mtg., session 145d. Minneapo-
lis, MN (Oct. 2017) Abtract (accessed 7 February 2018). https://www.aiche.org/
conferences/aiche- annual- meeting/2017/proceeding/paper/145d- updating-
process-controls-and-dynamics-course-21st-century.
Seames, W.S., 2017b. Designing Controls for the Process Industries. CRC Press.
Seborg, D.E., 1980. A survey of process control education in the United States and
Canada. Chem. Eng. Educ. 14 (1), 42–44.
Seborg, D.E., Edgar, T.F., Mellichamp, D.A., Doyle, F.J., 2016. Process Dynamics and
Control, fourth ed. Wiley, New York.
Seider, W.L, Lewin, D.R., Seader, J.D., Widagdo, S., Gani, R., Ng, K.M., 2016. Prod-
uct and process design principles: synthesis. Analysis and Evaluation, fourth ed.
Wiley.
Shinskey, F.G., 1967. Process Control Systems. McGraw-Hill.
Shinskey, F.G., 2002. Process control: as taught vs. as practiced. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
41 (16), 3745–3750.
Seinfeld, J.H., 1982. Control strategies for process control and estimation. In: Seborg,
Edgar (Eds.), Proceedings of CPC 2, pp. 619–621.
Silverstein, D.L., Vigeant, M.A., Staehle, M., 2016. How we teach process control:
2015 survey results. Presented at 2016 ASEE Ann. Conf. & Expo. New Orleans,
LA (accessed 8 Feb 18) doi:10.18260/p.25495.
Smith, C.A., Corripio, A.B., 1985. Principles and Practice of Automatic Process Con-
trol. Wiley, New York.
Smith, C.A., Corripio, A.B., 1997. Principles and Practice of Automatic Process Control,
second ed. Wiley, New York.
Smith, C.A., Corripio, A.B., 2005. Principles and Practice of Automatic Process Con-
trol, third ed. Wiley, New York.
Smith, E.S., 1936. Automatic regulators, their theory and applications. ASME Trans.
58 (4), 291–303.
Stephanopoulos, G., 1983. Synthesis of control systems for chemical plants: a chal-
lenge for creativity. Comput. Chem. Eng. 7 (4), 331–365.
Stephanopoulos, G., 1984. Chemical Process Control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Stice, J.E., Swanson, B.S., 1963. The use of analog computers in teaching process con-
trol. Chem. Eng. Educ. (March) 23–26.
Stout, L.E., Ceaglske, N.H., 1945. Automatic control laboratory installed at Washing-
ton University. Chem. Eng. 23 (14), 1245–1247.
Stout, T.M, Williams, T.J., 1995. Pioneering work in the field of computer process
control. IEEE Ann. Hist. Comput. 17 (1), 6–18.
Svrcek, W.Y., Mahoney, D.P., Young, B.R., 20 0 0. A Real-Time Approach to Process
Control. Wiley, Chichester.
Svrcek, W.Y., Mahoney, D.P., Young, B.R., 2014. A Real-Time Approach to Process Con-
trol, third ed. Wiley, Chichester.
Swan, C.J., 1928. Automatic control through temperature or pressure. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 20 (11), 1152–1155.
Thomas, C.A., 1937. Symposium on automatic control. Ind. Eng. Chem. 29 (11), 1209.
Thompson, G.W., 1917. The progress of american chemical engineering. Ind. Eng.
Chem. (November) 1007 Page.
Truxal, J.G., 1955. Automatic Control System Synthesis. McGraw-Hill.
Tustin, A., 1951. Automatic Control. Nature 168 (4271), 404–406.
Tyner, M., May, F.P., 1968. Process Engineering Control. Ronald Press.
Van Antwerpen, F.J., 1942. The automatic control problem. Ind. Eng. Chem. 34 (4),
387–391.
Van Antwerpen, F.J., 1980. The origins of chemical engineering. Chapter 1 in history
of chemical engineering. Advances in Chemistry (Furter, ed.). American Chemi-
cal Society (1980).
Vannah, W.E., Slater, L.E., 1956. Process control enters a new era. Ind. Eng. Chem. 48
(6), 10 0 0–10 01.
Velton, H.J., 1937. Automatic mixing and proportioning of gases and liquids. Ind.
Eng. Chem. 29 (11), 1214–2128.
Vinson, D.R., 2006. Air separation control technology. Comput. Chem. Eng. 30,
1436–1446.
Vogel, E.F., Downs, J.J., 2002. Industrial experience with state space model predic-
tive control. In: Rawlings, J.B., Ogunnaike, B.A., Eaton, J.W. (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Sixth International Conference on Chemical Process Control. CACHE/AIChE,
pp. 438–442.
Wankat, P.C. and Peppas, N.A. 2011. 100 years of chemical engineering at Purdue
University, 1911–2011. (accessed 1 January 2019). https://engineering.purdue.
edu/ChE/aboutus/publications/100_years.
Weber, T.W., 1973. An Introduction to Process Dynamics and Control. Wiley.
Wilinska, M.W., Chassin, L.J., Schaller, H.C., Schaupp, L., Pieber, T.R., Hovorka, R.,
2005. Insulin kinetics in type-1 diabetes: continuous and bolus delivery of rapid
acting insulin. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 52 (1), 3–12.
Wilson, E.D., 1951. Introduction – instrumentation. Ind. Eng. Chem. 43 (12), 2694.
Wilson, J., 2002. The development of the studio classroom. In: Goodan, P.S. (Ed.),
Technology-Enhanced Learning: Opportunities for Change. Lawrence Erlbaum
Assoc, Mahwah, NJ Preprint: (accessed 7 Feb 18). http://www.jackmwilson.net/
ArticlesTalks/Studio20 0 0.pdf.
Williams, D.C., Tarrar, A.R., 1986. Undergraduate process control. Chem. Eng. Educ.
20 (2), 74–77.
Williams, T.J., Harnett, R.T, Rose, A., 1956. Automatic control in continuous distilla-
tion. Ind. Eng. Chem. 48 (6), 1008–1019.
Williams, T.J., 1958. Process control and automation. Ind. Eng. Chem. 50 (3),
520–524.
Young, A.J., 1955. An Introduction to Process Control System Design. Longman, New
York.
Young, R.E., Bartusiak, R.D., Fontaine, R.W., 2002. Evolution of an industrial nonlin-
ear model predictive controller. In: Rawlings, J.B., Ogunnaike, B.A., Eaton, J.W.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Chemical Process
Control. CACHE/AIChE, pp. 342–351.
Zafiriou, E., 1991. On the effect of tuning parameters and constraints on the robust-
ness of model predictive controllers. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Chemical Process Control (CPC IV). Padre Island, TX. February
17-21 (1991) CACHE, pp. 362–393.
Ziegler, J.G., Nichols, N.B., 1942. Optimum settings for automatic controllers. Trans.
ASME. 64, 759–765.