This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

485-144|Views: 7|Likes: 0

Published by Ahmed Chahine Zorgane

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/93761533/485-144

06/26/2014

text

original

**WINSTON. GARCÍA-GABÍN
**

Escuela de Ingeniería Eléctrica

Universidad de Los Andes

Av. Tulio Febres Cordero, Mérida 5101

VENEZUELA

EDUARDO.F. CAMACHO

Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas y Automática

Universidad de Sevilla

Camino de los Descubrimientos, Sevilla 41092

ESPAÑA

Abstract: - This paper demonstrates how instability problem will be present for a Model Predictive Control

(MPC) in the case of it is applied to non-minimum phase systems. Instability appears when the control horizon

has the same value that the prediction horizon and the control weight is zero, because MPC achieves its

performance by cancelling the plant zeros including the unstable zeros, which leads to a loss of internal

stability of the feedback system. It is demonstrated that the instability problem can be solved with an adequate

tuning of horizon values without using a big control weight as it is suggested in the literature. The results are

illustrated with a non-linear example.

Key-Words: - Model predictive control, Non-minimum phase systems, stability, tuning controller.

1 Introduction

Generalized Predictive Control was proposed by

Clarke, et al.[1] and has become one of the most

popular MPC methods both in industry and

academia. It has been successfully implemented in

many industrial applications, showing good

performance. The basic idea of MPC is to calculate

a sequence of future control signals in such a way

that it minimizes a multistage cost function defined

over a prediction horizon. The index to be optimized

is the expectation of a quadratic function measuring

the distance between the predictive systems output

and some predictive reference sequence over the

horizon plus a quadratic function measuring control

effort. In order to implement a MPC, a model of the

plant is used to predict the future plant outputs. This

prediction is based on past and current values of the

input and the output of the plant. The process model

plays, in consequence, a decisive role in the

controller performance, and thus it is desirable to

choose a model quite similar to the plant in order to

predict accurately.

A system is said to be a non-minimum phase process

if it has Right Half Plane Zeros (RHPZ) or in the

discrete case if at least one of the zeros of the

transfer function is located outside the unit circle.

These processes are common in industrial

applications and they are characterized by their

inverse response. The control engineers must beware

with this kind of process, because they are an

important source of problems in practical

applications. It is well known that non-minimum

phase systems present difficulty in applying control

strategies, because they have an initial inverse

response to step input in the opposite direction from

the steady state, [2]. The presence of unstable zero

in a process transfer function is thus identified as

being responsible for its difficult dynamic behavior;

it is also the source of a considerable amount of

difficulty in controller design. Another aspect of

controlling a process with unstable zero is the

instability problem, which arises in order to achieve

high performance when the controller contains an

inverse of the process model [3].

The instability problems applying MPC to Single

Input Single Output (SISO) systems with RHPZ

have been reported in literature.[4,5,6,7,8,9] showed

that non-minimum phase systems produce instability

when prediction horizon and control horizon are

equal to one. Also an unstable behaviour in SISO

MPC has been reported by [10,11] when it is applied

to a non minimum phase systems. This can be

solved using a control weight parameter

[1,6,7,12,13].

This paper demonstrated how instability problem

will be present for whatever non-minimum phase

systems, when the control horizon has same value

that the prediction horizon and control weight is

zero, because MPC achieves its performance by

canceling the plant zeros, including the unstable

zeros, which leads to a loss of internal stability of

the feedback system. It is demonstrated that the

instability problem can be solved with an adequate

tuning of horizon values without use a big control

weight as it is suggested in the literature.

This article is organized as follows: Section 2 gives

a brief review of formulation of MPC, Section 3

shows the procedure used to obtain MPC closed

loop relationships. Section 4 shows the application

of this controller for linear and non-linear non-

minimum phase systems. Finally, the conclusions

are presented.

2 Model Predictive Control

Most of the SISO plants, when considering

operation around a particular set-point and after

linearization, can be described by:

( ) ( )

( )

t t t

z C

u z B y z A ξ

∆

+ ·

−

−

− −

1

1

1 1

(1)

Where:

t

y

: Output signal process

t

u

: Input signal process

t

ξ

: Zero mean white noise

A, B, C are the following polynomials in the

backward shift operator z

-1

A(z

-1

) = 1 + a

1

z

-1

+ … + a

n

z

-na

B(z

-1

) = b

0

+ b

1

z

-1

+ … + b

n

z

-nb

C(z

-1

) = 1 + c

1

z

-1

+ … + c

n

z

-nc

This model is known as the CARIMA Model

(Controller Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving-

Average). It has been argued that for many industrial

applications in which disturbances are non-

stationary an integrated CARIMA model is more

appropriate [14].

The MPC algorithm consists of applying a control

sequence that minimizes a multistage cost function

(2). This minimization produces ∆u(t), ∆u(t+1) ,…,

∆u(t+Nu), but only ∆u(t) is applied. At time, t+1 a

new minimization problem is solved. This

implementation is called the Receding Horizon

controller.

( ) [ ]

[ ]

∑

∑

·

− +

·

+ +

∆

+ − ·

u

N

j

j t

N

N j

j t j t

u

r y t u J

1

2

1

2

2

1

,

λ

(2)

Subject to ∆ut+j=0, j=Nu, ..., N2

Where:

N

1

: Minimum prediction horizon

N

2

: Maximum prediction horizon

N

u

: Control horizon

λ :Control weight

r : Reference trajectory

In order to solve the problem posed by the

minimization of (2), the y(t+1) has been computed.

The j-step ahead output for j = N

1

...N

2

based on the

information known at time t and the future values of

the control increments. The following Diophantine

equation is considered,

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

1 1 1 1 − − − − −

+ ∆ · z F z z A z E z C

j

j

j

(3)

The polynomials E

j

and F

j

are uniquely defined with

degrees j-1 and na respectively.

Combining the plant model (1), and Diophantine

equation (3), the follow prediction output equation

can be obtained,

1

ˆ

− + +

∆ + ·

j t

j

t

j

j t

u

C

B E

y

C

F

y

(4)

In this expression

j t

y

+

ˆ

is a function of a known

signal values at time t and of future control inputs,

which have not been computed yet. To distinguish

past and future control values a second Diophantine

equation (5) has been used.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( )

1

1 1 1 1

− −

− − − −

Γ

+ ·

z z

z C z G z B z E

j

j

j j

(5)

The following expression of the prediction was

obtained.

f

t j

f

t j j t j j t

y F u u G y + Γ + ∆ ·

− − + + 1 1

ˆ

(6)

Where

f

t

u ∆

and

f

t

y

are

( )

( )

t

f

t

t

f

t

y z C y

u z C u

1 1

1 1

− −

− −

·

∆ ·

(7)

(8)

Finally, (6) can be rewritten as:

( )

t j t j t j j t

y u z G y

+ − +

−

+

+ ∆ · ˆ ˆ

1

1

(9)

Where

t j t

y

+

ˆ

is the free response prediction of

j t

y

+

assuming that future control increments after time t-

1 will be zero,

( ) ( )

f

t j

f

t j t j t

y z F u z y

1

1

1

ˆ

−

−

−

+

+ Γ ·

(10)

Substituting Ej(q-1) of (3) into (5), this yields

( )

( )

1

1 1

− −

− − −

∆

+ Γ + · ∆

C A BF z

C z G A B

j

j

j

j

j

(11)

Define the vector f, composed of the free response

predictions,

[ ]

T

t N t t t t t

y y y f

2 1

2

ˆ , , ˆ , ˆ

+ + +

·

(12)

the vector of future control increments,

[ ]

T

N t t t

u

u u u u

1 1

, , ,

~

− + +

∆ ∆ ∆ ·

(13)

and the vector of the predicted plant outputs,

[ ]

T

N t t t

y y y y

2 1

2

ˆ , , ˆ , ˆ ˆ

+ + +

·

(14)

From the prediction (10) the predicted input-output

relationship of the plant can be written as the vector

equation,

f u G y + ·

~

ˆ

(15)

Where the matrix G is composed of the step

response parameters g

i

of the plant model.

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

·

− − −

− −

u

u u

N N N N

N N

g g g

g g g

g g

g

G

2 2 2

2 1

0 2 1

0 1

0

0

0 0

(16)

The quadratic minimization of (2) becomes a direct

problem of linear algebra, assuming there are no

constraints on the control signal, which leads to:

) ( ) (

~ 1

f r G I G G u

T T

− + ·

−

λ

(17)

3 Closed loop relationships

Closed loop relationships can be obtained for the

MPC in order to show how the tuning parameters

N1, N2, λ might affect the stability of the controlled

plant. MPC is a receding horizon controller so

therefore only components α

i

of the first row of the

matrix equation (17) were considered. They can be

rewritten as,

2

2

2

2 2

1

1

1

1

N t

N

i

i N

i

t

N

i

i i t i

N

i

i

r z C

y F u z C

+

·

+ −

·

−

·

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

− · ∆

,

_

¸

¸

Γ +

∑

∑ ∑

α

α α

(18)

With definitions for the polynomials R, S and T1,

(18) is given by,

2

1 N t t t

r CT Sy u R

+

+ − · ∆

(19)

Substituting (19) into CARIMA model (1), the close

loop relationship was obtained,

t

c

N t

c

t

CP

R

r

CP

BT

y ξ + ·

+

2

1

(20)

Where, the characteristic polynomial can be defined

as:

( )

(

( )

c

N

i

i

i i

N

i

i i i

CP

z G A B

A C

z BF A

C A BSz R A

·

,

_

∆ −

+ ∆ ·

+ ∆Γ

+ ∆ · + ∆

∑

∑

·

−

·

−

−

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

α

α

(21)

When the control weight is zero, (17) is given by,

) ( ) (

~ 1

f r G G G u

T T

− ·

−

(22)

If the prediction horizon and the control horizon

have the same value N

u

=N

2

=N, the first row of

u

~

is

given by,

xN

g

1

0

0 ... 0 0

1

1

]

1

¸

(23)

Therefore, the characteristic polynomial becomes,

( )

0

0

0

1

g

B

C g A B

g

A C P

C

·

,

_

¸

¸

∆ − + ∆ ·

(24)

The characteristic polynomial has the numerator

polynomial of the process model B. Consequently,

close loop poles are the zeros of the plant model.

3.1 Solution using tuning parameters

The unstable behavior produced by RHPZ when

N

2

=N

u

with λ=0 can be solved with an adequate

difference between prediction horizon and control

horizon. This can be confirmed as follow,

Increasing the prediction horizon (N

2

∞

) and

using an unitary control horizon (N

u

= 1) the control

signal during the prediction horizon are,

u t u

N t u t u t u t u

∆ + − ·

− + · + · + ·

) 1 (

) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 1 ( ) (

2

(25)

the control increment u ∆ is calculated to achieved

the final values of process output y(t+N

2

) must be

the reference r(t+N

2

) , hence using a big prediction

horizon,

) ( ) ( ) (

1

k t w k t u z G Lim

z

+ · +

→

(26)

thus,

) ( ) (

1

k t r G k t u + · +

−

(27)

Then, the closed loop response in the prediction

horizon is obtained,

) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) (

1

k t r G z G k t y + · +

−

(28)

Thus, the output dynamics is given by the open loop

poles.

The above results can be summarized as follow,

when MPC is applied to process with RHP zeros,

the tuning parameters can be adjusted to avoid

N

u

=N

2

with λ=0 because this produce the

cancellation of RHP zeros with RHP poles. Stable

behavior can be obtained using a prediction horizon

bigger than control horizon. Using a big prediction

horizon and unitary control horizon the closed loop

poles are given by the open loop poles.

4. Simulation examples

Two examples have been used to illustrate the

results, a linear system to show the influence of the

tuning parameters in the pole placement and a non-

linear system to compare the tuning methods.

4.1 linear non-minimum phase system

The following linear non-minimum phase system

was considered to obtain the pole placement of the

controller in function of its tuning parameters.

1

1

1

9 . 0 1

5 . 1 1

) (

−

−

−

−

+ −

·

z

z

z G

(29)

Using the closed loop polynomial characteristic (21)

the Biggest Pole Magnitude (BPM) is obtained for

each tuning parameters set. Figure 1, shows the

BPM when the Prediction horizon (N

2

) was changed

from N

2

=1 to N

2

=100 with N

u

=1 and λ=0. When

N

2

=1 the controller has its pole in z = 1.5, it has the

same value of RHPZ of the plant model, this

produces an unstable behavior. Subsequently, the

prediction horizon was increased. When the N

2

value

is close to N

u

, the controller has an unstable pole, if

N

2

is bigger than N

u

the pole will be inside the unit

circle (the magnitude is smaller than one). Note that

the closed loop pole tends towards the open loop

pole when N

2

is increased.

Fig.1 BPM vs. Prediction horizon

The control weight parameter has the function of

including a penalty on the control signal of the

multistage cost function (2). Fig. 2, shows the BPM

obtained for the control weight change from λ=0 to

λ=10, using the same prediction horizon and control

horizon.

Fig.3. BPM vs Control weight (λ). N

2

=N

u

=5.

Despite of the horizons have the same value, when

the control weight parameter was increased the BPM

of the controller was changed tending to inside the

unit circle. This is the solution proposed in the

literature to allow a stable behavior [1,6,7,12,13].

4.2 Non linear reactor

In order to compare the tuning methods a non-linear,

non minimum phase process has been used. The

isothermal Van de Vussen reaction systems involve

series and parallel reactions. The equations that

govern the systems are:

( )

V

F

C C C k C k

dt

dC

a in a a a

a

− + − − ·

2

3 1

(26)

V

F

C C k C k

dt

dC

b b a

b

− − ·

2 1

(27)

The desired output is the concentration of B, C

b

[mol/l], C

a

and C

a in

are the concentrations of A

[mol/l] in the reactor and in the feed respectively,

the manipulate input,

F is the dilution rate [l/min], V is the volume [l], and

the rate constants are given by k

1

=5/6 [min

-1

], k

2

=5/3

[min

-1

],k

3

=1/6 [mol/(liter·min)] [15]

After linearizing model (26,27) about the operating

point, the physical model gives the following

transfer function (30). The discretization has been

made with a sampling rate (T

s

=0.2 min).

2 1

1

3951 . 0 2573 . 1 1

1745 . 0 0939 . 0

) (

− −

−

+ −

+ −

·

z z

z

z G (30)

The transfer function has a zero in 1.8584.

Fig. 1 shows a step changes in the reference of

controlled variable when MPC is tuning with N

2

=8,

N

u

=8, λ=0. The reactor has an unstable response,

this behavior verified the cancellation of the

unstable zero with an unstable pole that was

demonstrated in Section 3.

Fig. 3. MPC tuning with N

2

=8, N

u

=8, λ=0

To contrast the controller performance with two

different sets of tuning parameters a set-point

change was produced. Fig. 4 shows the proposed

tuning method against the tuning method proposed

in the literature. The proposed method avoids the

instability using a prediction horizon bigger than

control horizon. The Fig. 4 illustrate that the raised

time is a 28 % of the raised time required by the

method proposed in the literature, that avoids the

instability increasing the control weight. Thus, as

can be observed the MPC with a high value of

control weight produces a soft control signal as well

as a soft output process. The proposed method

allows adjusting a small control weight as

consequence the raised time is reduced considerably.

Fig. 4. Proposed tuning method (- -) vs method that

increase the control weight (-)

4 Conclusion

This paper has presented how the presence of RHP

zeros in the process model produces an unstable

dynamics in MPC. The instability is produced by the

cancellation RHP zeros with RHP poles. A tuning

method is proposed to solve it. The method is based

in use a prediction horizon bigger than control

horizon. It is showed that an appropriate selection of

the difference between the prediction horizon and

the control horizon produce a stable performance. In

spite of the method proposed in the literature

produces a stable behavior, a better raised time is

obtained employing the proposed method. The bad

performance is obtained because the control weight

parameter produces soft moving of manipulate

variable as consequence a soft behavior in the

controlled variable.

In summary, small values of control weight

parameter with a convenient difference between

prediction horizon and control horizon, it seems to

work well for MPC applied to non-minimum phase

systems.

References:

[1] Clarke, D., C. Mohtadi and P. Tuffs,

Generalized predictive Control-Part I. Basic

Algorithm, Automatica, 23, 1987,137-148.

[2] Ogunaike, B., W. Harmon Process Dynamics.

modeling, and Control. Oxford University

Press,1994.

[3] Bardley, R., and M. Morari Design of

Resilient processing Plants. Chemical

Engineering Science, 40,1985, 59-74.

[4] R. K. Mehra and R. Rouhani. Theoretical

considerations on model algorithmic control for

non minimum phase systems. Joint Automatic

Control Conference,1980.

[5] Clarke, D., C. Mohtadi and P. Tuffs,

Generalized predictive Control-Part II Extensions

and Interpretations, Automatica, 23,1987,149-

160.

[6] M.J. Grimble. Generalized Predictive

Optimal Control: an introduction to the

advantages and limitations. International Journal

of Systems Science, 23, 1992,85-98.

[7] W.S. Levine (Ed). The Control Handbook

CRC Press,1996.

[8] J. M. Martín and J. Rodellar, Adaptive

predictive control: from the concepts to plant

optimisation,Prentice Hall,1996

[9] J.M. Maciejowski, Predictive Control with

Constraints, Prentice Hall,2001

[10] D. Seborg and E. Thomas and D.

Mellichamp, Process Dynamics and Control.

John Wiley and Sons,1989

[11] T. E. Marlin. Process Control: Designing

Processes and Control Systems for Dynamic

Performance, McGraw-Hill, 1995.

[12] Bitmead, R., M. Gevers, and V. Wertz,

Adaptative Optimal Control. Prentice Hall, 1990.

[13] R. Soeterboek. Predictive Control: A

Unified Approach, Prentice Hall,1991.

[14] Camacho, E.F., and C. Bordons. Model

Predictive Control, Springer 1999.

[15] B. Wayne Bequette, Process Dynamics:

Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation, Prentice

Hall,1998.

∆u(t+Nu). . yt + j = ˆ Fj C yt + ˆ y EjB C ∆u t + j −1 (4) In this expression t + j is a function of a known signal values at time t and of future control inputs. C are the following polynomials in the backward shift operator z-1 A(z-1) = 1 + a1z-1 + … + anz-na B(z-1) = b0 + b1z-1 + … + bnz-nb C(z-1) = 1 + c1z-1 + … + cnz-nc This model is known as the CARIMA Model (Controller Auto-Regressive Integrated MovingAverage). The j-step ahead output for j = N1... t ) = j = N1 ∑[ y N2 Nu j =1 t+ j − rt + j t + j −1 ] ] 2 + (2) ∑ λ [ ∆u 2 Subject to ∆ut+j=0. It has been argued that for many industrial applications in which disturbances are nonstationary an integrated CARIMA model is more appropriate [14]. and Diophantine equation (3). implementation is called the Receding Horizon controller. when considering operation around a particular set-point and after linearization. It is demonstrated that the instability problem can be solved with an adequate tuning of horizon values without use a big control weight as it is suggested in the literature.. N2 Where: N1 : Minimum prediction horizon N2 : Maximum prediction horizon Nu : Control horizon λ :Control weight r : Reference trajectory In order to solve the problem posed by the minimization of (2). Section 3 shows the procedure used to obtain MPC closed loop relationships. but only ∆u(t) is applied..This paper demonstrated how instability problem will be present for whatever non-minimum phase systems. The following Diophantine equation is considered. This minimization produces ∆u(t). To distinguish past and future control values a second Diophantine equation (5) has been used. which leads to a loss of internal stability of the feedback system. ∆u(t+1) .N2 based on the information known at time t and the future values of the control increments. can be described by: Az Where: ( )y −1 t =Bz ( ) −1 C z −1 u t −1 + ξt ∆ ( ) (1) C z −1 = E j z −1 A z −1 ∆ + z − j F j z −1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (3) ξ t : Zero mean white noise A. j=Nu. t+1 a new minimization problem is solved.…. Combining the plant model (1). 2 Model Predictive Control Most of the SISO plants. The MPC algorithm consists of applying a control sequence that minimizes a multistage cost function (2). B. J ( u. the conclusions are presented. including the unstable zeros. This article is organized as follows: Section 2 gives a brief review of formulation of MPC. At time. Finally. when the control horizon has same value that the prediction horizon and control weight is zero. ˆ y t + j = G j ∆u t + j −1 + Γ j u tf−1 + F j y tf (6) . Section 4 shows the application of this controller for linear and non-linear nonminimum phase systems.. E j z −1 B z −1 = G j z −1 C z −1 + −j −1 j ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) z Γ (z ) (5) The following expression of the prediction was obtained. because MPC achieves its performance by canceling the plant zeros. the y(t+1) has been computed. the follow prediction output equation can be obtained. This y t : Output signal process u t : Input signal process The polynomials Ej and Fj are uniquely defined with degrees j-1 and na respectively. which have not been computed yet.

the close loop relationship was obtained. ∆ut + N u −1 [ (18) T (13) and the vector of the predicted plant outputs. y t + 2 . (14) ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ y = y t +1 . which leads to: ~ u = (G T G + λI ) −1 G T (r − f ) (17) y t + j t = Γ j z −1 u tf−1 + F j z −1 y tf ˆ Substituting Ej(q-1) of (3) into (5). y t + N 2 [ ] T R∆u t = − Sy t + CT1 rt + N 2 (19) From the prediction (10) the predicted input-output relationship of the plant can be written as the vector equation. Where. λ might affect the stability of the controlled plant. N2 N2 C + ∑ α i Γi z −1 ∆u t = − ∑ α i Fi y t i =1 i =1 N2 + C ∑ α i z − N 2 + i rt + N 2 i =1 B ( A∆ ) −1 = G j + z − j Γ j C −1 + z − j BF j ( A∆C ) −1 (11) Define the vector f. . composed of the free response predictions. N2. S and T1. ∆ut +1 . y t + 2 t . With definitions for the polynomials R.Where ∆u tf and ytf are ut = C f −1 −1 yt = C f ( z ) ∆u (z )y −1 −1 t t + j −1 t (7) (8) Finally. y The quadratic minimization of (2) becomes a direct problem of linear algebra. this yields ( ) ( ) (10) 3 Closed loop relationships Closed loop relationships can be obtained for the MPC in order to show how the tuning parameters N1. MPC is a receding horizon controller so therefore only components αi of the first row of the matrix equation (17) were considered. f = y t +1 t . They can be rewritten as. (18) is given by. the characteristic polynomial can be defined as: . ~ ˆ y = Gu + f yt = (15) BT1 R rt + N2 + ξt CPc CPc (20) Where the matrix G is composed of the step response parameters gi of the plant model. (6) can be rewritten as: yt + j = G j z ˆ ˆ y ( )∆u −1 + yt + j t ˆ (9) g0 g 1 G= g N u −1 g N 2 −1 0 g0 g Nu −2 g N2 −2 0 0 g0 g N2 − Nu (16) Where t + j t is the free response prediction of t + j assuming that future control increments after time t1 will be zero. . ~ u = ∆ut . y t + N 2 t ˆ ˆ ˆ [ ] ] T (12) the vector of future control increments. assuming there are no constraints on the control signal.. Substituting (19) into CARIMA model (1).

a linear system to show the influence of the tuning parameters in the pole placement and a nonlinear system to compare the tuning methods. The characteristic polynomial has the numerator polynomial of the process model B. Stable behavior can be obtained using a prediction horizon bigger than control horizon. Therefore. When the control weight is zero.. the controller has an unstable pole. the tuning parameters can be adjusted to avoid Nu=N2 with λ=0 because this produce the cancellation of RHP zeros with RHP poles. ~ u = (G T G ) −1 G T (r − f ) (22) If the prediction horizon and the control horizon ~ have the same value Nu=N2=N. Note that the closed loop pole tends towards the open loop pole when N2 is increased. Lim G ( z )u (t + k ) = w(t + k ) z →1 (26) .9 z −1 (29) u (t ) = u (t + 1) = u (t + 2) = u (t + N 2 − 1) = u (t − 1) + ∆u (25) the control increment ∆u is calculated to achieved the final values of process output y(t+N2) must be the reference r(t+N2) .A∆ + BSz R −1 = A∆ + C thus. G ( z −1 ) = − 1 + 1. Increasing the prediction horizon (N2 ∞ ) and using an unitary control horizon (Nu = 1) the control signal during the prediction horizon are. = CPc y (t + k ) = G ( z )G (1) −1 r (t + k ) (21) (28) Thus. shows the BPM when the Prediction horizon (N2) was changed from N2=1 to N2=100 with Nu=1 and λ=0. the prediction horizon was increased. When the N2 value is close to Nu. if N2 is bigger than Nu the pole will be inside the unit circle (the magnitude is smaller than one).5. the first row of u is given by.5 z −1 1 − 0. When N2=1 the controller has its pole in z = 1. close loop poles are the zeros of the plant model. Figure 1.. (17) is given by. the characteristic polynomial becomes.1 Solution using tuning parameters The unstable behavior produced by RHPZ when N2=Nu with λ=0 can be solved with an adequate difference between prediction horizon and control horizon. 0 1xN (23) 4. when MPC is applied to process with RHP zeros. 1 g0 0 0 . Simulation examples Two examples have been used to illustrate the results. 3. the closed loop response in the prediction horizon is obtained. The above results can be summarized as follow. Consequently.1 linear non-minimum phase system The following linear non-minimum phase system was considered to obtain the pole placement of the controller in function of its tuning parameters. α Γ ∑ i ( A∆ i + BF i ) z −1 = C ( A∆ + i= 1 N2 u (t + k ) = G −1 r (t + k ) (27) α ∑ ( B − A∆G ) z i= 1 i i N2 i− 1 Then. Subsequently. the output dynamics is given by the open loop poles. This can be confirmed as follow. it has the same value of RHPZ of the plant model. Using a big prediction horizon and unitary control horizon the closed loop poles are given by the open loop poles. this produces an unstable behavior. hence using a big prediction horizon. 1 PC = C A∆ + ( B − A∆g 0 ) = C B g0 g0 (24) 4. Using the closed loop polynomial characteristic (21) the Biggest Pole Magnitude (BPM) is obtained for each tuning parameters set.

The isothermal Van de Vussen reaction systems involve series and parallel reactions. non minimum phase process has been used. The proposed method avoids the instability using a prediction horizon bigger than control horizon. The proposed method 4. MPC tuning with N2=8.2 min). Fig. the physical model gives the following transfer function (30).13]. V is the volume [l]. (30) Fig. λ=0.3. The equations that govern the systems are: dC a F 2 = − k1C a − k 3C a + ( C a in − C a ) dt V dC b F = k1 C a − k 2 C b − C b dt V (26) (27) . the manipulate input.6. Prediction horizon The control weight parameter has the function of including a penalty on the control signal of the multistage cost function (2).k3=1/6 [mol/(liter·min)] [15] After linearizing model (26.7. − 0. using the same prediction horizon and control horizon. Thus. this behavior verified the cancellation of the unstable zero with an unstable pole that was demonstrated in Section 3.27) about the operating point. that avoids the instability increasing the control weight. The Fig. shows the BPM obtained for the control weight change from λ=0 to λ=10.8584. 2. BPM vs Control weight (λ). Nu=8. and the rate constants are given by k1=5/6 [min-1]. Fig. Fig. This is the solution proposed in the literature to allow a stable behavior [1. 3. 4 shows the proposed tuning method against the tuning method proposed in the literature. F is the dilution rate [l/min]. N2=Nu=5. The discretization has been made with a sampling rate (Ts=0. Nu=8. as can be observed the MPC with a high value of control weight produces a soft control signal as well as a soft output process. 4 illustrate that the raised time is a 28 % of the raised time required by the method proposed in the literature. Ca and Ca in are the concentrations of A [mol/l] in the reactor and in the feed respectively.3951z −2 The transfer function has a zero in 1. Cb [mol/l].1 BPM vs.2 Non linear reactor In order to compare the tuning methods a non-linear. Despite of the horizons have the same value.The desired output is the concentration of B.1745 z −1 G( z) = 1 − 1. λ=0 To contrast the controller performance with two different sets of tuning parameters a set-point change was produced.12. Fig.2573 z −1 + 0.0939 + 0. when the control weight parameter was increased the BPM of the controller was changed tending to inside the unit circle. Fig. The reactor has an unstable response. 1 shows a step changes in the reference of controlled variable when MPC is tuning with N2=8. k2=5/3 [min-1].

In summary. Analysis.85-98. Generalized predictive Control-Part I.149160. C. 23. D. [5] Clarke. McGraw-Hill. R. 23. [8] J.. Wayne Bequette. Mohtadi and P. Process Control: Designing Processes and Control Systems for Dynamic Performance. E. The Control Handbook CRC Press. [13] R. Mehra and R. Adaptive predictive control: from the concepts to plant optimisation. Tuffs. Mellichamp. [14] Camacho.J. Soeterboek. Wertz.1989 [11] T. M.. Joint Automatic Control Conference. 1990. and M. 1995. [7] W.1996. Marlin. C. it seems to work well for MPC applied to non-minimum phase systems. Basic Algorithm. John Wiley and Sons. Automatica.1980. [15] B. It is showed that an appropriate selection of the difference between the prediction horizon and the control horizon produce a stable performance. a better raised time is obtained employing the proposed method. The instability is produced by the cancellation RHP zeros with RHP poles. M. 4. Seborg and E. Bordons. and Simulation. D.1991. Predictive Control with Constraints. Rouhani. Harmon Process Dynamics.1996 [9] J.1998.1985. Prentice Hall. [1] Clarke. 1992. Martín and J. K. The bad performance is obtained because the control weight parameter produces soft moving of manipulate variable as consequence a soft behavior in the controlled variable.-) vs method that increase the control weight (-) 4 Conclusion This paper has presented how the presence of RHP zeros in the process model produces an unstable dynamics in MPC. Model Predictive Control. Prentice Hall. Chemical Engineering Science.allows adjusting a small control weight as consequence the raised time is reduced considerably. [4] R. 23. B. A tuning method is proposed to solve it. Morari Design of Resilient processing Plants. modeling. and C. Theoretical considerations on model algorithmic control for non minimum phase systems.1987. Process Dynamics and Control.. Process Dynamics: Modeling. Gevers. Oxford University Press. Grimble.1994. Maciejowski. [12] Bitmead. Prentice Hall. Tuffs. Predictive Control: A Unified Approach. and Control. .137-148. International Journal of Systems Science. Proposed tuning method (. and V. [2] Ogunaike. Thomas and D.Prentice Hall. References: [3] Bardley. Springer 1999. Generalized Predictive Optimal Control: an introduction to the advantages and limitations. [6] M..M. Prentice Hall. Adaptative Optimal Control. small values of control weight parameter with a convenient difference between prediction horizon and control horizon. Levine (Ed). The method is based in use a prediction horizon bigger than control horizon. In spite of the method proposed in the literature produces a stable behavior.2001 [10] D. W.F. 1987. Mohtadi and P. R. Rodellar... 59-74. Fig. Generalized predictive Control-Part II Extensions and Interpretations. Automatica. E.S. 40.

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd