Extension of dynamic matrix control to multiple models

The purpose of the paper is to extend dynamic matrix control (DMC) to handle different operating regimes and to reject parameter disturbances. This is done by two new multiple model predictive control (MMPC) schemes: one based on actual step response tests and the other on a minimal knowledge based first order plus dead time models (FOPDT). Both approaches do not require fundamental modeling. As a benchmark comparison, the two controllers are compared with a nonlinear model predictive controller (NL-MPC) using an extended Kalman filter (EKF) with no initial model/plant mismatch. The application example is the isothermal Van de Vusse reaction, which exhibits challenging input multiplicity. Simulations include disturbances in the feed concentration, kinetic parameters, and additive input and output noise. The two controllers have comparable performance to NL-MPC and in the case of multiple disturbances can outperform NL-MPC.

[1]  Roderick Murray-Smith,et al.  Multiple Model Approaches to Modelling and Control , 1997 .

[2]  Jay H. Lee,et al.  Diagnostic Tools for Multivariable Model-Based Control Systems , 1997 .

[3]  B. Bequette,et al.  Model predictive control of processes with input multiplicities , 1995 .

[4]  A. Willsky,et al.  The stochastic control of the F-8C aircraft using the multiple model adaptive control (MMAC) method , 1975, 1975 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control including the 14th Symposium on Adaptive Processes.

[5]  Y. Arkun,et al.  On the use of gap metric for model selection in multilinear model-based control , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 American Control Conference. ACC (IEEE Cat. No.00CH36334).

[6]  B. W. Bequette,et al.  A variably tuned multiple model predictive controller based on minimal process knowledge , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 American Control Conference. (Cat. No.01CH37148).

[7]  Francis J. Doyle,et al.  Nonlinear multi-rate mpc with Large scale fundamental models:Application to a continuous kamyr digester , 2000 .

[8]  Vinay Prasad,et al.  A comparison of fundamental model-based and multiple model predictive control , 2001, Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No.01CH37228).

[9]  G. Gattu,et al.  Nonlinear Quadratic Dynamic Matrix Control with State Estimation , 1992 .

[10]  Paul M. Frank,et al.  Advances in control : highlights of ECC '99 , 1999 .

[11]  B. Wayne Bequette,et al.  Control of Chemical Reactors Using Multiple-Model Adaptive Control (MMAC) , 1995 .

[12]  B. Bequette.  Nonlinear control of chemical processes: a review , 1991 .

[13]  Stephen J. Wright,et al.  Nonlinear Predictive Control and Moving Horizon Estimation — An Introductory Overview , 1999 .

[14]  Peter S. Maybeck,et al.  Sensor/actuator failure detection in the Vista F-16 by multiple model adaptive estimation , 1995, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems.

[15]  Manfred Morari,et al.  Level control in the steam generator of a nuclear power plant , 2000, IEEE Trans. Control. Syst. Technol..

[16]  Ramesh R. Rao,et al.  Experimental studies on multiple-model predictive control for automated regulation of hemodynamic variables , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  Michael A. Henson,et al.  Nonlinear model predictive control: current status and future directions , 1998 .

[18]  C. R. Cutler,et al.  Dynamic matrix control¿A computer control algorithm , 1979 .

[19]  John F. MacGregor,et al.  State estimation for semi-batch polymerization reactors , 1992 .

[20]  B. Aufderheide,et al.  Automated regulation of hemodynamic variables , 2001, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[21]  Jay H. Lee,et al.  Extended Kalman Filter Based Nonlinear Model Predictive Control , 1993, 1993 American Control Conference.

[22]  F. Azimzadeh,et al.  Online optimal control of a batch fermentation process using multiple model approach , 1998, Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No.98CH36171).