979 views

Uploaded by m awais

A survey on different optimization methods used in model predictive control for industrial aapplications.

- MPC CEP Qin Badgwell
- Model Predictive Control Tutorial
- Model Predictive Control
- Model Predictive Control
- Lennart Ljung-System Identification_ Theory for the User-Prentice Hall (1999) (1)
- Nonlinear systems
- Tutorial Model Predictive Control Technology
- Model Predictive Control
- MPC_Froisy
- Predictive Control
- MPC Morari Lee
- Model Predictive Control
- model predictive control
- Final Thesis process modeling simulation and control of multi component batch distillation
- Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of a Reactive Distillation Column
- Rawlings, 2000 - Tutorial Overview of Model Predictive Control
- Model Predictive Control of an Inverted Pendulum, mpc
- Predictive control - an introduction to main concepts
- Model Predictive Control
- Basics of MPC

You are on page 1of 8

M. A. Abbas

FEAS, UOIT, Canada.

Abstract— This paper presents a comprehensive survey of Until 70s MPC was only used for plants with slow dy-

different optimization methods used in Model Predictive Con- namics. It was widely applied in petro-chemical and related

trol (MPC) systems. We discuss optimization methods for industries where satisfaction of constraints was particularly

both linear and non-linear systems and describe advan-

tages/disadvantages for each method and also the specific important because efficiency demands operating points on or

conditions in which each method should be used. State of the close to the boundary of the set of admissible states and

Art in this field is described together with current and future control. One of the primary advantages of this technique

research trends. is its explicit capability to handle constraints. However, the

fact that the optimisation procedure is to be repeated every

I. I NTRODUCTION time-step, is the reason that the application of MPC has

Control theory is a branch of engineering and mathematics been limited to the slow dynamics of systems in the process

which deals with the behaviour of dynamical systems[1]. industry until recently. The boom in MPC started in 1990s

There are many control strategies in use today like intelligent when faster computer became available together with rapid

control, adaptive control, stochastic control, optimal control development of optimization algorithms. These days MPC is

etc. Optimal control is such a control technique in which we applied to various types of plants with fast dynamics such

minimize certain cost index to achieve desired performance. as airplanes, satellites, robotics, automotives etc.

The two types of optimal control techniques are

B. Purpose of this survey

• Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG)

• Model Predictive Control (MPC)

With our discussion above, many theoretical issues arise

in MPC by application of control law. One of the major

In this survey we consider optimization problems in Model

issues in model predictive control is finding the appropriate

Predictive Control technique only because it is most widely

optimization algorithm to be employed in order to reduce

used in industry as opposed to LQG which was termed as

future errors. In our survey, we focus on these varieties of

failure. The reasons cited for this failure are [2], [3]:

optimization methods. This is, however, a general survey

• constraints covering common optimization techniques used in MPC.

• process nonlinearities Due to space limitation, we do not go into detail of each

• model uncertainty (robustness) algorithm, rather touch many of them with little detail and

• unique performance criteria focus on general trends and methodology employed.

• cultural reasons (people, education, etc.)

C. Organization of paper

A. Brief History This paper is organized in 6 sections. Section I provides

History of optimal control can be traced back to 1960s introduction to the problem in hand, whereas Section II

when two ground breaking paper by Kalman appeared formulates the problem mathematically. In Section III and

[4], [5]. These papers were in fact the first to introduce IV we survey various optimization methods for Linear and

the algorithm for computing the state feedback gain of Nonlinear MPC respectively. Section V details some practical

the optimal controller for a linear system with a quadratic implementations of MPC in industrial processes. In section

performance criterion. Kalman introduced the notions of IV we conclude our discussion and predict some future

controllability and observability, and their exploitation in research trends.

the regulator problem, which is considered as principal

contribution of the paper. These papers had a significant II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION

effect on researchers working in the field of optimal Model predictive control (MPC) algorithms utilize an

controls. It was this development of of Linear Quadratic explicit process model to predict the future response of a

Gaussian (LQG) controller that later led to the development plant. At each control interval an MPC algorithm attempts

of Model Predictive Control theory. MPC is basically a to optimize future plant behaviour by computing a sequence

form of LQG controller with added finite prediction horizon of future manipulated variable adjustments. The first input

and constraints handling. in the optimal sequence is then sent into the plant, and the

entire calculation is repeated at subsequent control intervals.

Unconst. infinite horizon Linear MPC = simple LQG Thus optimizer solves an optimization problem during each

sampling interval of the controller.Figure 1 shows the oper- desired behaviour we need to define the system’s future

ation of MPC residual function.

Residual = e2 (t + ih), i = 0, 1, .., n (5)

Our objective is to use appropriate optimization algorithms

and find future inputs that minimize this residual i.e., find

M in(Residual). With the value of c well defined, our

optimized input Uoptimized is now well defined. The whole

optimization procedure is depicted in Figure 2

controller input

+b1 y(t − h) + b2 y(t − 2h) + .... (1)

Fig. 2. MPC Optimization Flow

0 0

Ypredicted (t) = a1 u(t − h) + a2 u(t − 2h) + ......

0 0

To probe further, we divide our discussion into two sec-

+b1 y(t − h) + b2 y(t − 2h) + .... (2) tions

• Linear Model Predictive Control

• Non-Linear Model Predictive Control

where t = t − h is the time step. Equation (1) describes

system desirable input/output behaviour of our system to Both linear and nonlinear systems have specific problem

achieve goals within its operational limits. Meanwhile equa- statements and utilize different optimization methods. It is

tion (2) empirically predicts system’s future behaviour based important to describe each of them separately. Below is the

on system’s past input u(t − h) and output y(t − h). brief discussion and optimization methods used for each of

The error between predicted and desired output can be these types of MPC.

calculated as III. L INEAR MPC

e(t) = Ypredicted (t) − Ydesired (3) A. Problem Formulation

Consider a linear time-invariant and discrete-time system

Uoptimized (t) = ce(t) (4) described by following set of equations:

Equation (4) scales the error by c and predicts the cal- xt+1 = Axt + But (6)

culated optimized input Uoptimized (t) based on previous yt = Cxt (7)

calculations. Equations (1),(2),(3) and (4) describe system

subject to the following constraints

behaviour for one future time step. We now iterate the four

equations for time t + h,t + 2h,.... to predict system future ymin ≤ yt ≤ ymax (8)

I/O profile similar to that shown in Figure 1. By this iteration umin ≤ ut ≤ umax (9)

we also get associated errors e(t), e(t + h), e(t + 2h) + ...

for each time step. To optimize the system i.e., minimize where xt ∈ Rn ,ut ∈ Rm and yt ∈ Rp are state, input and

the deviation between predicted output of the system from output vectors respectively. Subscripts min and max denote

lower and upper bounds respectively. Generally our objective 1. We solve this problem (12) repeatedly at eact time t

in linear MPC is minimization of cost function of the form for current measurement xt and predicted state variable,

xt+1|t , ..., xt+k|t at time steps t + 1, ..., t + k and corre-

J = xt Qx + ut Ru (10) sponding optimal control actions U ∗ = {u∗t , ..., u∗t+k−1 } is

Majority of industrial MPC applications use linear empirical obtained. The first predicted input is applied to the system as

models, therefore most of MPC products and optimization first control action i.e., ut = u∗t . This procedure is repeated

algorithms are based on this model type. at time t + 1 based on new state xt+1 .

The the tuning cost function matrix P and state feedback

B. Optimization Methods gain K is generally used to guarantee closed loop stability of

Main challenge in MPC is to find fastest ways of optimiza- ststem (12). Algebraic solution of this system depends upon

tion as time required for solving on-optimization is very lim- finding the values of P and Q matrices. P is found by the

ited. Thus we need real-time optimal solution. Sometimes we solution of discrete Lyapunov equation

find a trade off by looking for a suboptimal solution which is

P = A0 P A + Q.

less complex. Constraints are linear. Exact solution methods

are well studied for linear MPC. The optimal solution relies Assuming the problem is unconstrained, infinite horizon

on a linear dynamic model of the process, respects all input i.e., Nc = Nu = Ny = ∞ we can find the state feedback

and output constraints, and minimizes a performance figure. gain K by solving the Algebraic Ricatti equation:

This is usually expressed as a quadratic or a linear criterion,

so that the resulting optimization problem can be cast as a

quadratic program (QP) or linear program (LP), respectively, K = −(R + B 0 P B)−1 B 0 P A,

for which a rich variety of efficient active-set and interior- P = (A + BK)0 P (A + BK) + K 0 RK + Q

point solvers are available[10]. Solution of Lyapunov and Algebraic Ricatti equations is

1) Linear Programming (LP): A few authors have inves- the most popular method to find the values of K and P

tigated MPC optimization based on linear programming [6], matrices[13], [14] thus solving the problem algebraically.

[7], [8]. If we have objective function of the form

N

X −1 3) Quadratic Programming (QP): Rawlins and Morari

minJ = min ||P xN ||∞ + ||Qxk ||∞ + ||Ruk ||∞ [10], [11], [12] proved that linear MPC can be posed as

k=0 Quadratic Programming (QP) problem. If we incorporate the

(11) following realtion

subject to constraints k−1

X

xt+k|t = Ak xt + Aj But+k−1kj

Gz ≤ W + Sx(t)

j=0

then MPC law can be defined by the solution of a Linear into system represented by set of equations (12) then it gives

Program[9]. Schechter[9] proved that this is true for any us the following quadratic programming (QP) optimization

sum of convex piecewise affine costs. problem [18]

1 0 1

2) Algebraic Method: If we consider the following objec- J ∗ (xt ) = min U HU + x0t F U + x0t Y x(t) (13)

tive function: 2 2

Ny −1 subject to constraints

X

minJ = x0t+Ny |t P xt+Ny |t + x0t+k|t Qxt+k|t Gz ≤ W + Sx(t)

k=0

+u0t+k Rut+k (12) where U , [u0t , ..., u0t+N u−1 ]0 ∈ Rs , and s , mNu , is

a vector of optimization variables, H = H 0 0, and

subject to constraints H, F, Y, G, W, E matrices are obtained from state constraint

matrix S and input matrix R. MPC is applied by solving

ymin ≤ yt ≤ ymax , k = 1, 2, ..., Nc

QP problem (13) repeatedly at each time t ≥ 0 for xt , the

umin ≤ ut ≤ umax , k = 0, 1, ..., Nc current state value .Despite the fact that efficient QP solvers

and system dynamics are available to solve , computing the input ut online may

require significant computational effort [15].

xt+k+1 = Axt+k|t + But+k , k ≥ 0,

yt+k|t + Cxt+k|t , k ≥ 0, 4) Multi Parametric Quadratic Programming (mp-QP):

ut+k = Kxt+k|t , Nu ≤ k ≤ Ny , In MPC our goal is to reduce online optimization time

because system operates in real-time. These days, substantial

where matrices Q = Q0 ≥ 0, R = R0 ≥ 0 and P ≥ 0. research is being carried out to fiend more efficient opti-

Nu , Ny , Nc are input horizon, output horizon and constraint mization algorithms. Bemporad et. al. [13], [16], [17] solved

horizon respectively such that Ny ≥ Nu and Nc ≤ Ny − the problem (12) by multiparametric quadratic programming

TABLE I

IV. N ONLINEAR MPC

A DVANTAGES / D ISADVANTAGES OF OPTIMIZATION METHODS USED IN

L INEAR MPC Model predictive control (MPC), also referred to as mov-

ing horizon control or receding horizon control, has become

Algebraic LP QP Constrained QP an attractive feedback strategy, especially for linear processes

Difficulty Small Medium Large Larger [21]. Many systems are, however, in general inherently

Optimization No Yes Better Better nonlinear. This, together with higher product quality specifi-

Constraints No Yes No Yes

cations and increasing productivity demands, tighter environ-

mental regulations and demanding economical considerations

in the process industry require to operate systems closer to

(mp-QP) which avoids repetitive optimization. They trans- the boundary of the admissible operating region. In these

formed the QP problem (13) into multiparametric optimiza- cases, linear models are often not good enough to describe

tion problem by using the following linear transformation: the process dynamics and nonlinear models have to be used.

Fortunately, considerable progress has been achieved in the

z , U + H −1 F 0 xt last decade that allows to reduce both, computational delays

and approximation errors. This progress is possible by the

where z ∈ Rs is optimization variable parameter. Then QP development of dedicated real-time optimization algorithms

problem (13) can be written as following (mp-QP) problem: for NMPC and moving horizon estimation (MHE) that allows

nowadays applying NMPC to plants with tens of thousands

1

Vz (xt ) = min z 0 Hz (14) of states or to mechatronic applications. By now linear MPC

2 is widely used in industrial applications (Qin and Badgwell;

subject to constraints Garca et al; Morari and Lee; Froisy)[22]. The basic structure

of nonlinear MPC is depicted in Figure 3

Gz ≤ W + Sxt

S = E + GH −1 F 0

only appears in right hand side of constraints and not in

objective function. As opposed to Equations (13) where state

vector xt appears on right hand sides of both constraints and

objective function. Thus in Equation (14) z can be obtained

as affine function of x for complete feasible space of x [15]. Fig. 3. Basic NMPC control loop [21]

Vassilis et.al [15] proved that the set of feasible parameters

Xf ⊆ X is convex, the optimal solution, z(x) : Xf 7−→ The basic NMPC scheme works as follows:

Rs is continuous and piecewise affine, and the optimzation 1) Obtain measurements/estimates of the states of the

objective function Vz (x) : Xf 7−→ R is continuous, convex, system

and piecewise quadratic. 2) Compute an optimal input signal by minimizing a

According to our survey the optimization methods can be given cost function over a certain prediction horizon

tabulated according to Table I. in the future using a model of the system

Normally, limits on the storage space or the computation 3) Implement the first part of the optimal input signal until

time restrict the applicability of model predictive controllers new measurements/estimates of the state are available

(MPC) in many real problems. Morari et. al. [19] introduced 4) Continue with 1

a new approach combining the two paradigms of explicit

and online MPC to overcome their individual limitations. A. Problem Formulation

His developed algorithm computed a piecewise affine ap- Consider a nonlinear discrete time dynamic system de-

proximation of the optimal solution that warm-started an scribed by following set of equations[23]

active set linear programming procedure. A pre-processing

method was introduced that provided hard realtime, stability xk = fts (xk−1 , uk−1 )

and performance guarantees for controller. Doing so, the

researcher was able to trade off some optimization perfor- yk|k−1 = g(xk )

mance in-order to find faster processing time. Advantage

subject to the following constraints

with this method is that its easy to implement and makes on-

line evaluation faster. Disadvantage is that, with increasing U = u ∈ Rm |umin ≤ u ≤ umax

states of system, the controller regions may become large

thus making algorithm difficult to implement. X = x ∈ Rn |xmin ≤ x ≤ xmax

Where xk is a vector of states, uk is the vector of

manipulated inputs, and yk is a vector of outputs.ts is sample

5x (X ∗ , λ∗ , µ∗ ) = 0 (21)

time; the k|k − 1 subscript notation is used to indicate the

∗

prediction at step k based on measurements at step k-1. Here G(X ) = 0 (22)

umin , umax and xmin , xmax are given constant vectors. The 0 ≥ H(X ∗ ) ⊥ µ∗ ≥ 0 (23)

error in the model is calculated by this equation

Here we have used the defination of Lagrange function

dk = yk − yk|k−1

L(X, λ, µ) = F (X) + G(X)T λ + H(X)T µ

so the objective is to minimize the error as much as possible

to get the optimal output which is given by this equation and the symbol ⊥ between the two vector valued inequal-

ities in (23) that also the complementarity condition should

xk+1 = fts (xk ), uk hold.

All the Newton type optimization try to linearize the

yk+1|k = g(xk+1 ) + dk problem functions and for this they use Sequential Quadratic

Based on this dynamic system form, the following sim- Programming (SQP) type method.

plified optimal control problem in discrete time is given by a) Sequential Quadratic Programming: First step to

these set of equations solve the KKT system is to linearize all nonlinear functions

appearing in (21)-(23) by using the conditions of quadratic

N

X −1 prgramming(QP)

minimize Li (xi , zi , ui ) + E(xN ) (15)

x,z,u

i=0 (

k G(X k ) + 5G(X k )T (X − X k ) = 0

minimizeFQP (X)s.t

X H(X k ) + 5H(X k )T (X − X k ) ≤ 0

subject to x0 − x̄o = 0 (16)

xi+1 − fi (xi , zi , ui ) = 0, i = 0, . . . , N − 1, (17)

gi (xi , zi , ui ) = 0, i = 0, . . . , N − 1, (18) with objective function

hi (xi , zi , ui ) ≤= 0, i = 0, . . . , N − 1, (19) k 1

FQP (X) = 5H(X k )T (X) + (X − X k )T (24)

r(xN ) ≤ 0. (20) 2

52x L(X k , λk , µk )(X − X k )

B. Optimization Methods for Nonlinear MPC

52x L(X k , λk , µk ) is called the Hessian matrix it is positive

There are many methods to solve these problems, in this semidefinite, this QP is convex so that global solution can

survey we cover two methods to solve these NMPC problems be found reliably. This general approach to address the non-

• Newton Type Optimization linear optimization problem is called Sequential Quadratic

• Numerical Method Programming(SQP).

1) Newton type optimization: Newton’s method for solu- b) Powell’s Classical SQP Method: One of the most

tion of a nonlinear equation R(W) =0 starts with an initial successfully used SQP variants is due to Powell [25]. It

guess that W 0 and generates a series of iterates W k that each uses exact constraint Jacobians, but replaces the Hessian

solves a linerazation of the system at the previous iterates, matrix 52x L(X k , λk , µk )by an approximation Ak . Each new

i.e, for given W k the next iterate W k+1 shall satisfy Hessian approximation Ak+1 is obtained from the previous

approximation Ak by an update formula that uses the differ-

R(W k ) + 5(W k )T (W k+1 − W k ) = 0. ence of the Lagrange gradients,

γ = 5x L(X k+1 , λk+1 , µk+1 ) − 5x L(X k , λk+1 , µk+1 )

Newtons method has locally a quadratic convergance rate

(25)

whics is as fast as making any numerical analyst happy[22].If

the jacobian 5R(W k )T is not computed or inverted exactly, Aim of these Quasi-Newton or Variable-Metric methods

this leads to slower convergance rates , but cheaper iteration, is to collect second order information in Ak+1 by satisfying

and gives rise to the larger class of ”Newton type methods”.A the secant equation

good overview of the field is given in [24].

Ak+1 σ = γ.

The NMPC problem as stated above is the specially

structured form of a generic nonlinear program that has the The most widely used update formula is the Broyden-

form ( Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS) update[26]

G(X) = 0 Ak + γγ T Ak σσ T Ak

minimizeF (X) s.t Ak+1 = −

X H(X) ≤ 0 (γ T σ) (σT Ak σ)

for the optimal solution X* must satisfy the famous Karush- Quasi-Newton methods converge very linearly under mild

Kuhn-Tucker(KKT) conditions which are: conditions, and had a tremendous impact in the field of

nonlinear optimization. Successful implementations are the and Plitt [33]. Thus, the QP subproblem has the following

packages NPSOL and SNOPT for general NLPs [27], and form:

MUSCOD-II [28] for optimal control. N

X −1

c) Constrained Gauss-Newton Method: Another partic- minimize LQP,i (xi , zi , ui ) + EQ P (xN ) (27)

x,z,u

ularly successful SQP variant the Constrained (or General- i=0

ized) Gauss-Newton method is also based on approximations

of the Hessian. It is applicable when the objective function subject to x0 − x¯0 = 0

is a sum of squares: (28)

0

F (X) =

1

||R(X)||22 xi+1 − fi − Fix xi − Fiz zi − Fiu u = 0, i = 0, . . . , N − 1,

2 (29)

0

For this case Hessian is defined as gi + Gxi xi + Gzi zi + Gui ui = 0 i = 0 . . . , N − 1,

Ak = 5R(X k ) 5 R(X k )T (30)

0

(31)

k 1

||R(X k ) + 5R(k )T (X − X k )||22

0

FQP (X) = r + RxN ≤ 0.

2

The constrained Gauss-Newton method has only linear This partially reduced QP can be post-processed either by

convergance but often with a surprisingly fast contraction a condensing or a band structure exploiting strategy[32].

rate. Newton type SQP methods use approximation of Hes-

sain, as well as the constrained jacobians which was analysed C. Advantages and Disadvantages of NMPC

in [31],[29] It uses approximations Ak , bk , ck of the Hessian In general one would like to use an infinite prediction

matrix whic is already defined in the SQP and also called and control horizon, to minimize the performance objective

”modified gradient”. determined by the cost. However, solving a nonlinear optimal

control problem over an infinite horizon is often computa-

ak = 5x L(X k , λk , µk ) − Bk λk − Ck µk (26) tionally not feasible. Thus typically a finite prediction hori-

Now QP objective is defined as zon is used. In this case the actual closed-loop input and state

1 trajectories differ from the predicted open-loop trajectories,

k

FadjQP (X) = aTk X + (X − X k )T Ak (X − X k ) even if no model plant mismatch and no disturbances are

2

present. This can be explained considering somebody hiking

and this is the equation of QP which is solved in each in the mountains without a map. The goal of the hiker is to

iteration: take the shortest route to his goal. Since he is not able to

( see infinitely far (or up to his goal), the only thing he can

k G(X k ) + BkT (X − X k ) = 0 do is to plan a certain route based on the current information

minimizeFadjQP (X)s.t (skyline/horizon) and then follow this route. After some time

X H(X k ) + CkT (X − X k ) ≤ 0

the hiker re evaluates his route based on the fact that he

In this equation it is shown that by using a modified might be able to see further. The new route obtained might

gradient ak allows to locally converge to solutions of the be significantly different from the previous route and he will

original nonliner NLP even in the presence of inequality change his route, even though he has not yet reached the end

constraint Jacobians [29], [30], [31]. of the previous considered route [21]. Basically, the same

2) Numerical Method: When Newton type optimization approach is employed in a finite horizon NMPC strategy.

is applied to the optimal control problem (15)-(20). By At a recalculation instant the future is only predicted over

using sequential approach, where all state variables x, z are the prediction horizon. At the next recalculation instant the

eliminated and the optimization routine only sees the control prediction horizon moves further, thus allowing obtaining

variables u, the specific optimal control problem structure more information and re-planning.

plays a minor role. Thus, often an off-the-shelf code for

nonlinear optimization can be used. This makes practical V. MPC IN I NDUSTRY

implementation very easy and is a major reason why the For complex constrained multivariable control problems,

sequential approach is used by many practitioners [32]. model predictive control (MPC) has become the accepted

a) The Linearized Optimal Control Problem: Let us standard in the process industries [20]. So we found it worth-

regard the linearization of the optimal control problem (15)- while to extend our survey to different practical applications

(20) within an SQP method, which is a structured QP. It turns and technologies being used in the industry.

out that due to the dynamic system structure the Hessian of

the Lagrangian function has the same separable structure as A. Applications

the Hessian of the original objective function (26), so that According to Badgwell [40] there are 4500+ succesful

the quadratic QP objective is still representable as a sum of industrial applications of linear MPC and 50+ applications

linearquadratic stage costs, which was first observed by Bock of nonlinear MPC. In Table II some applications of MPC are

TABLE II

– Other Features: 3rd generation technology.

MPC APPLICATIONS

• HMPC (Horizon multivariable Predictive Control), RM-

Application Sampling Rate Company PCT (Robust Model Predictive Control Technology),

Integrated room automation [34] 0.002 Siemens 1991

Adaptive cruise control [35] 2 Chrysler

– Company: Honeywell.

Mechanical systems with backlash [36] 25 –

– Other Features: Different to any other scheme, no

Car automatic steering [37] 30 Ford

data available due to proprietary reasons.

Automotive hybrid traction control [38] 50 Ford

• DMC-plus and RMPCT, 2000

Electronic throttle control [39] 200 Ford

DC-DC voltage Inverters [41] 10 × 103 – – Company: Honeywell + Profimatics + Treiber Con-

Induction motors torque control [42] 40 × 103 ABB trols

DC-DC converters / power balance [43] 50 × 103 STM

– Model Type: Linear and non linear

– Optimization method: Multiple optimization meth-

ods depending on control objective.

– Other Features: 4th generation cutting edge tech-

tabulated with emphasis on controller operating frequency, nology in use today.

which is the most critical constraint in the development of

VI. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE R ESEARCH T RENDS

industrial MPC.

In this paper, we presented a survey of different opti-

B. Commercial Technologies and Softwares mization methods use in linear / non-linear MPC. MPC

There are many versions of MPC software depending technology has progressed steadily since its conception. With

upon developer group. These different versions are similar the availability of faster computing power, it has now become

in principles but differ in implementation procedure, model possible to implement better optimization methods (requiring

type, objective function and optimization method used. immense computing power) for control systems. There is

Below we list some of the most popular MPC technologies plenty of room to develop new algorithms and prove new

used in industry and optimization procedure used in each of facts in MPC domain. Also, there is a need to extend

them: current MPC implementations to new areas because existing

implementation domains are uneven. Many researchers are

• IDCOM (Identification and Command) [44], 1987 working to reduce time and find better solutions to opti-

– Company: Set point, Inc. USA mization problem. MPC is finding new application on small-

– Methodology: Model algorithmic control scale, fast loops as well as large-scale, networked systems.

– Model Type: Impulse response, linear in inputs or Specifically researchers are working in following fields:

internal variables. • Reducing complexity of online optimization [47]

systems, input and output constraints included in • Combination of online and explicit off-line optimization

the formulation, 1st generation technology. • MPC Optimization for non-linear plant models

• Robustness of MPC

• DMC (Dynamic Matrix Control) [45], 1985

• MPC for stochastic systems [49]

– Company: Shell Co.

• Adaptive MPC

– Methodology: Dynamic Matrix control

• MPC for switched / hybrid systems

– Model Type: Step response

• MPC for hierarchical / decentralized structures

– Optimization method: LP method

In future we hope to see amazing developments to fill

– Other Features: Direct interface to Honeywell MPC

in the vacuum in the field of optimal control systems.

systems, 1st generation technology.

• OPC (Optimum Predictive Control), 1987 R EFERENCES

– Company: Treiber Controls, Inc. [1] Pierre-Alain Muller, Olivier Barais,“Control-theory and models

at runtime,” Lancaster University, Computing Department, [On-

– Model Type: Step response line] Available: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/˜bencomo/MRT07/papers/

– Optimization method: LP method MRT07 Muller Barais.pdf.

– Other Features: Controller design and simulation [2] Garclia, C. E., Prett, D. M., Morari, M., “Model predictive control:

Theory and practice-a survey. ”, Automatica, 25(3),pp. 335-348, 1989.

can be performed on personal computers [3] Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J. L., Papon, J.,“Algorithmic control of

• PCT (Predictive Control Technology), 1994 industrial processes”, Proc. The 4th IFAC symposium on identification

and system parameter estimation. pp. 1119-1167, 1976.

– Company: Profimatics, Inc. [4] R.E. Kalman, “Contributions to the Theory of Optimal Control,” 1960.

– Model Type: Combines aspects of IDCOM and [5] R.E. Kalman, “A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction

DMC Problems,” 1960.

[6] T. S. Chang, D. E. Seborg., “A linear programming approach for

– Optimization method: Solves optimization for one multivariable feedback control with inequality constraints.” Int. Journal

control move only. of Control, 37(3): pp. 583-597, 1983.

[7] P.J. Campo, M. Morari., “Model predictive optimal averaging level [31] Wirsching, L, “An SQP algorithm with inexact derivatives for a direct

control,” AIChE Journal, 35(4): pp. 579-591, 1989. multiple shooting method for optimal control problems,” Masters thesis,

[8] C.V. Rao and J.B. Rawlings., “Linear programming and model predic- University of Heidelberg, 2006.

tive control,” J. Process Control, 10: pp. 283-289, 2000. [32] Moritz Diehl, Hans Joachim, and Niels haverbeke,“Efficient Numerical

[9] M. Schechte, “Polyhedral functions and multiparametric linear program- Methods for Nonlinear MPC and Moving Horizon Estimation,” Non-

ming.” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 53(2), pp. linear Model Predictive Control Springler, LNCIS 384, pp. 391-417.

269-280, May 1987. [33] Bock, H.G., Plitt, K.J, “A multiple shooting algorithm for direct

[10] Alberto Bemporad, Francesco Borrelli, Manfred Morari., “Model Pre- solution of optimal control problems,” Proceedings 9th IFACWorld

dictive Control Based on Linear Programming - The Explicit Solution,” Congress Budapest, pp. 243247. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1984.

Tech. Report AUT01-06, 2001. [34] Frauke Oldewurtel, Dimitrios Gyalistras, Markus Gwerder, Colin N.

[11] D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V. Rao, P. O. M. Scokaert, “Con- Jones, Alessandra Parisio, Vanessa Stauch, Beat Lehmann, Manfred

strained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,” Automatica Morari, “Increasing Energy Efficiency in Building Climate Control

36, pp. 789-814, 2000. using Weather Forecasts and Model Predictive Control,” Automatic

[12] M. Morari, J.H. Lee,“Model predictive control: Past, present and Control Laboratory, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2008.

future,” Computers & Chemcial Engineering, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 667- [35] Rainer Mbus, Mato Baotic, Manfred Morarii, “Multi-object Adaptive

682, 1999. Cruise Contro” DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology Assisting

[13] Bemporad, A., Morari, M., Dua, V. and Pistikopoulos, E. N., “The Systems, (RIC/AA), 70546 Stuttgart, Germany, 2003.

explicit linear quadratic regulator for constrained systems,” Automatica, [36] P. Rostalski, T. Besselmann, M. Bari, F. van Belzen and M. Morarii,

38, pp. 3-20, 2002. “A hybrid approach to modelling, control and state estimation of

[14] M. Scokaert, J. B. Rawlings, “Constrained linear quadratic reg- ula- mechanical systems with backlash.” International Journal of Control.,

tion,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 43, pp. 1163-1169, Vol. 80, No. 11, 1729-1740, 2007.

1998. [37] Th. Besselmann, M. Morarii, “Hybrid Parameter-Varying MPC for

[15] Vassilis Sakizlis, Konstantinos I. Kouramas, Efstratios N. Pistikopou- Autonomous Vehicle Steering,” European Journal of Control vol. 14,

los, “Linear Model Predictive Control via Multiparametric Pro- no. 5, pp. 418 - 431, 2008.

gramming,” Book: Process Systems Engineering: Volume 2: Multi- [38] F. Borrelli, A. Bemporad, M. Fodor, D. Hrovat, “A Hybrid Approach

Parametric Model-Based Control, Chapter 1, Wiley, March 2007. to Traction Control,” International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Com-

[16] Bemporad, A.,Morari, M., Dua, V., Pistikopoulos, “The Explicit Linear putation and Control, Roma, Italy, 2001.

Quadratic Regulator for Constrained ystems” E. N., Tech. Rep. AUT99- [39] M. Vasak, M. Baotic, M. Morari, I. Petrovic, N. Peric, “Constrained

16, Automatic Control Lab, ETH Zrich, Switzerland, 1999. optimal control of an electronic throttle” International Journal of

[17] E.N. Pistikopoulos, V. Dua, N.A Bozinis, A. Bemporad, M. Morari Control, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 465-478, 2006.

“On-line optimization via off-line parametric optimization tools” Com- [40] S. Joe Qina, Thomas A. Badgwell, “A survey of industrial model

puters and Chemical Engineering,vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 175-185, 2002. predictive control technology,” Control Engineering Practice , pp. 733-

[18] M. Sznaier, M. Damborg, “Suboptimal control of linear systems with 764, 2003.

state and control inequality constraints”, Proceedings of the 26th IEEE [41] S. Marithoz, M. Herceg, M. Kvasnica, “Model Predictive Control

Conference on Decision and Control , pp. 761-762, 1987. of buck DC-DC converter with nonlinear inductor,” IEEE COMPEL,

[19] M.N. Zeilinger, C.N. Jones, M. Morari, “Real-time suboptimal Model Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power Electronics, Zurich,

Predictive Control using a combination of Explicit MPC and Online Switzerland, 2008.

Computation,” IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, IFA 3110, [42] G. Papafotiou, T. Geyer, M. Morari, “A hybrid model predictive control

2008. approach to the direct torque control problem of induction motors,”

[20] S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell. “An overview of industrial model predictive International Journal of Robust & Nonlinear Control, vol. 17, pp. 1572-

control technology,” In Chemical Process Control, AIChe Symposium 1589, 2007.

Series - American Institute of Chemical Engineers, volume 93, no. 316, [43] S. Marithoz, A.G. Beccuti, M. Morari, “Model Predictive Control of

p. 232256, 1997. multiphase interleaved DC-DC converters with sensorless current limi-

[21] Findeisen, Frank Allgower,“ An Introduction to Nonlinear Model Pre- tation and power balance,” IEEE PESC, Power Electronics Specialists

dictive Control,” Institute for Systems Theory in Engineering, University Conf., Rhodes, Greece, pp. 1069 - 1074, 2008.

of Stuttgart, 70550 Stuttgart, Germany. [44] Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J. L., Papon, J., “Model predictive

[22] Findeisen, Frank Allgower “Nonlinear Model Predictive Control:A heuristic control: Applications to industrial processes,” Automatica, 14,

Sampled-Data Feedback Perspective” Institute for Systems Theory in pp. 413-428, 1978.

Engineering, University of Stuttgart, 70550 Stuttgart, Germany. [45] Cutler, C. R., Ramaker, B. L., “Dynamic matrix control - a computer

[23] B. Wayne Bequette,“ Non-Linear Model Predictive Control: A Per- control algorithm” In Proceedings of the joint automatic control con-

sonal Retrospective,” Department of Chemical and Biological Engineer- ference, 1980.

ing, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, U.S.A. 12180-3590. [46] S. Joe Qina, Thomas A. Badgwell, “A survey of industrial model

[24] Deuflhard, Newton Methods for Nonlinear Problems, Springer, New predictive control technology,” Control Engineering Practice, pp. 733-

York, 2004. 764, 2003.

[25] Powell, M.J.D, “A fast algorithm for nonlinearly constrained optimiza- [47] Y. Wang, S. Boyd., “Fast model predictive control using online

tion calculations,” In: Watson, G.A. (ed.) Numerical Analysis, Dundee optimization” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 18(2),

1977. LNM, vol. 630, Springer, Berlin, 1978. pp.267278, March 2010.

[26] Nocedal, J., Wright, S.J, Numerical Optimization, Springer, Heidel- [48] C.N. Jones, M. Baric, M. Morari, “Multiparametric Linear Program-

berg, 1999. ming with Applications to Control” European Journal of Control, vol.

[27] Gill, P.E., Murray, W., Saunders, M.A,“SNOPT: An SQP algorithm for 13, no. 2-3, pp. 152-170, 2007.

largescale constrained optimization.” Technical report, Numerical Anal- [49] Y. Wang, S. Boyd, “Performance bounds for linear stochastic control,”

ysis Report 97-2, Department of Mathematics, University of California, Systems and Control Letters, 58(3), pp.178182, 2009.

San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 1997.

[28] Leineweber, D.B., Bauer, I., Schafer, A.A.S., Bock, H.G., Schloder,

J.P, “An efficient multiple shooting based reduced SQP strategy for

large-scale dynamic process optimization (Parts I and II).” Computers

and Chemical Engineering, 27, 157174, 2003.

[29] Bock, H.G., Diehl, M., Kostina, E.A., Schloder, J.P, “Constrained opti-

mal feedback control of systems governed by large differential algebraic

equations,” Real-Time and Online PDE-Constrained Optimization, pp.

322. SIAM, Philadelphia, 2007.

[30] Diehl, M., Walther, A., Bock, H.G., Kostina, E, “An adjoint-based

SQP algorithm with quasi-newton jacobian updates for inequality con-

strained optimization,” Technical Report Preprint MATH-WR-02-2005,

TU Dresden, 2005.

- MPC CEP Qin BadgwellUploaded byVictor_Rocha
- Model Predictive Control TutorialUploaded byMohammad Arif Hossain
- Model Predictive ControlUploaded byMuhammad Faiz Fudzaili
- Model Predictive ControlUploaded bySyamsul Rizal Abd Shukor
- Lennart Ljung-System Identification_ Theory for the User-Prentice Hall (1999) (1)Uploaded byWaldomiro
- Nonlinear systemsUploaded bylhomssi
- Tutorial Model Predictive Control TechnologyUploaded byYijia Zhu
- Model Predictive ControlUploaded bySafiya Vachiat
- MPC_FroisyUploaded byVictor_Rocha
- Predictive ControlUploaded byDina Garan
- MPC Morari LeeUploaded byVictor_Rocha
- Model Predictive ControlUploaded bychethan
- model predictive controlUploaded byeryanco
- Final Thesis process modeling simulation and control of multi component batch distillationUploaded byP V Radha Krishna adari
- Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of a Reactive Distillation ColumnUploaded bySurya Budi Widagdo
- Rawlings, 2000 - Tutorial Overview of Model Predictive ControlUploaded byluisfilipe85
- Model Predictive Control of an Inverted Pendulum, mpcUploaded byerdsan
- Predictive control - an introduction to main conceptsUploaded byjarossiter
- Model Predictive ControlUploaded bymaripopescu
- Basics of MPCUploaded bytvsking
- Model Predictive ControlUploaded byPhạm Văn Tưởng
- Study of Model Predictive Control Using Ni LabviewUploaded byBrankko Jhonathan Torres Saavedra
- Model Predictive ControlUploaded byOlabanjo Ogunlowore
- Maciejowski - Predictive Control With ConstraintsUploaded byRafael Gonçalves de Lima
- E. F. Camacho, C. Bordons Model Predictive Control 1999.pdfUploaded bydougmart8
- Khalil - Nonlinear Systems SlidesUploaded byAndre Gomes
- applied nonlinear controlUploaded byFlyfy David
- Nonlinear Control Systems.Uploaded byronhill
- Process DesignUploaded byramms_73

- Using UML for Modeling Complex Real-TimeUploaded bym awais
- 00493 Hikayat e Rumi UrduUploaded byTalib Ghaffari
- Sample ResumeUploaded bym awais
- Printable GRE English Vocabulary: 333 High Frequency Words ListUploaded bym awais
- 100 Azeem Aadmi (Hundred Great People) Translated by M. Aasim ButtUploaded bym awais
- Non-Liner Model Predictive Control for Autonomous VehiclesUploaded bym awais
- Vs Commands Steer ControlUploaded bym awais
- Optimal Control Systems (Electrical Engineering Handbook) - MalestromUploaded bynguyenvanthoaqb
- The 100 - wrote by Michael Hart Citadel...uploaded by Arslan kianiUploaded byArslan Kiani
- Chalte Ho to Cheen Ko Chaliay by Ibne InshaUploaded bym awais
- Ullu Hamare Bhai Hain by Mustansar Hussain TararUploaded bym awais
- Taubat-Un-Nusooh by Deputy Nazeer AhmedUploaded bym awais

- CS302Uploaded bymm8871
- Wapt Quick StartUploaded byBui Huu Dao
- ManualOracle12c-e22624Uploaded bygoyin
- TCS AspireUploaded bydurkaganes
- Www Quora Com How Did Bucky Roberts Learn So Many Programmin (1)Uploaded byDanish
- C Language 3Uploaded byANILBENIWAL
- Arjun DotnetUploaded byvalli
- A Simplistic Way for Power Profiling of Mobile DevicesUploaded byAntônio Sá Barreto
- _Readme!.txtUploaded byKurt Comendador
- a.k.t.u.-B.Tech._CSE-4th year_ _19_05_2016Uploaded byGaurav Sharma
- Basic Programming ConceptUploaded byNana Ilham
- BASIS Tips N TricksUploaded byAvinash Kallem
- Automating Database Startup and Shutdown on LinuxUploaded byWALTER KIBET
- Introduction EJB3Uploaded byapi-27341052
- jQuery TokeninputUploaded bymako2887
- Windows Azure Platform PDC FAQ FINAL 02-24-10Uploaded bySuresh Velagapudi
- SnapDrive 4.1.1 Linux Installation and Administration GuideUploaded byfishbrain00
- Ucs Director Admin GuideUploaded byhyperlite12
- Enforce Transport Naming Conventions or Create a Sign Off Procedure Using CTS_REQUEST_CHECKUploaded byJamie MacCuish
- Redundancy PAS CC ManualUploaded bysahilcc
- sap_sql2005_best practicesUploaded byAzfar Raza
- asm_linuxUploaded byKerbela Hüseyin
- Advanced Complexity TheoryUploaded bynricci02
- Python Programming a Complete Step by Step Guide for BeginnersUploaded byveldman
- Epicor905 Install Guide SQLUploaded byhereje73
- Customs ManagementUploaded byraju
- Fresher Resume Format (3)Uploaded byPiyush Kumar
- log_1_bkUploaded byvissusamurai
- Valient Killzone Shadow Fall Demo PostmortemUploaded byshamanu8
- Morgan & Claypool Publishing User-Centered Agile Methods (2010).pdfUploaded bybreezeee