JID: EJCON

ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Control

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

Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant:

Experimental analysis
Juraj Oravec∗, Michaela Horváthová, Monika Bakošová
Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Institute of Information Engineering, Automation and Mathematics, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava,
Radlinskeho 9, SK-812 37 Bratislava, Slovak Republic

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

Article history: The paper provides an extensive experimental analysis of offset-free multivariable robust model predic-
Received 11 April 2020 tive control (MPC) of a neutralisation plant. The behaviour of the neutralisation plant was nonlinear and
Revised 30 May 2020
asymmetric. The controlled variable was a pH value of the outlet stream, and the manipulated variables
Accepted 30 July 2020
were the inlet volumetric flow rates of the acid and base. The observer was designed to estimate the
Available online xxx
system states. Operating conditions make the tuning of the robust controller a challenging task. First, the
Recommended by Prof. T Parisini conventional robust MPC was designed. The control setup was tuned and experimentally analysed in vari-
ous operating conditions. Based on the measured data, the novel approach of the real-time compensation
Keywords:
Neutralisation plant of the asymmetric behavior was investigated. Implementation of the proposed control strategy leads to
Robust model predictive control improved control performance. The real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour can be considered
Real-time compensation of asymmetric for the control of other systems with nonlinear behaviour.
behaviour
© 2020 European Control Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Linear matrix inequalities

1. Introduction compared with standard PI and scheduled PI controllers for a pro-

The industrial production needs to implement the technologies
that minimise energy consumption and carbon footprint to en-
sure near-zero CO2 emissions. By managing process control and au-
tomation systems, smart manufacturing leads to a much lower cost
and improved energy productivity [10]. Implementation of the ad-
vanced optimisation-based control strategies for industrial plants
enables to fulfil the goals of sustainable production. Continuous
stirred-tank reactors (CSTRs) belong to the key equipment in var-
ious branches of the chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, and
food industries, e.g., see [4]. Neutralisation plant and pH value con-
trol, play a key role in industrial production. Control performance
of these plants directly influences the environmental impact of in-
dustrial production. A common way to control the pH value of
the neutralisation process is to consider a set of tanks in series
controlled by a simple PI or PID controller at each tank. These
stages have different references gradually approaching the desired
pH value. This approach increases the input costs as multiple con-
trol units are required and creates a need for a single control unit
dealing with nonlinear behaviour [12]. In [11], the control perfor-
mance of multi-linear model-based controllers was analysed and
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: juraj.oravec@stuba.sk (J. Oravec),
michaela.horvathova@stuba.sk (M. Horváthová), monika.bakosova@stuba.sk (M.
Bakošová).
cess of pH neutralisation in a stirred tank. The best control perfor-
mance was observed when a robust H∞ controller was considered.
The H∞ controller incorporated robustness to handle model-plant
mismatch, originating in the nonlinear behaviour of the process.
An adaptive control scheme, based on fuzzy logic systems, was
considered for real-time control of pH value in [31]. Effectiveness
of the adaptive controller was analysed using experimental stud-
ies. Results indicate that the proposed controller outperformed a
conventionally tuned PI controller. Optimal utilisation of a neutral-
isation plant is a complex task because of the nonlinear behaviour,
stability issues, multiple steady-states, heat effects of the chemi-
cal reactions, and influence of time-varying uncertain parameters,
see [19], chap. 1]. To fulfil this challenging control task, advanced
control strategies are implemented. The so-called model predictive
control (MPC) is the state-of-art optimisation-based multivariable
control approach, e.g., see [22]. MPC explicitly optimises control
performance criteria representing yields/profit maximisation or en-
ergy consumption (input costs minimisation) [20]. Stability and
safety guarantee are explicitly included in the MPC design proce-
dure. Industrial applications benefit from respecting the constraints
on the manipulated and controlled variables, and also from imple-
menting the advanced techniques including the trajectory preview
and slew-rate constraints, e.g., see [6].
MPC is usually implemented in the receding horizon fashion to
minimise the plant-model mismatch [20]. If the impact of the un-
certain parameters is significant, the robust MPC is designed, e.g.,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
0947-3580/© 2020 European Control Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

2 J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx

Symbols tc communication time, s

tF control time, s
A system matrix of the state space system toptim time to solve optimisation problem, s
A (v ) vertex system matrix of the state space system ts sampling time, s
(v )
A vertex system matrix of the augmented state space T time constant, s
system TA time constant of the system identified using step
B input matrix of the state space system change of Pump A, s
B (v ) vertex input matrix of the state space system TB time constant of the system identified using step
(v )
B vertex input matrix of the augmented state space change of Pump B, s
system u vector of manipulated variables, mL s−1
cA molar concentration of the acid, mol dm−3 uA manipulated variable related to volumetric flow of
cB molar concentration of the base, mol dm−3 the acid, mL s−1
C output matrix of the state space system uB manipulated variable related to volumetric flow of
C (v ) vertex output matrix of the state space system the base, mL s−1
(v )
C vertex output matrix of the augmented state space usat limit value of the manipulated variable, mL s−1
system U auxiliary matrix of the controller design
D time delay, s v vertex of the polytopic uncertain system
DA time delay of the system identified from step V Lyapunov function
change of pump A, s VCL closed-loop system Lyapunov function candidate
DB time delay of the system identified from step Vcstr volume of the reaction vessel
change of pump B, s w reference value x vector of system states
e control error x0 initial conditions of system states
F gain matrix of the state-feedback control law xA system state related to pH value of acid in the reac-
G transfer function tion vessel
I identity matrix xB system state related to pH value of base in the re-
k sample of discrete time domain, s action vessel
L gain of Luenberger observer 
x augmented vector of system states
F gain matrix of the controller 
x0 initial conditions of the augmented vector of system
nF total number of the stabilising state-feedback gains states
nk total number of the control steps X weighted inverse of the Lyapunov matrix
nu total number of the manipulated variables y system output
nv total number of the uncertain system vertices ysat limit value of the system output
nx total number of the system states Y auxiliary matrix of controller design
ny total number of the system outputs Z system gain
P Lyapunov matrix ZA system gain identified using step change of Pump A,
PCL closed-loop system Lyapunov matrix mL−1 s
pHs steady state of pH value ZB system gain identified using step change of Pump B,
q volumetric flow rate, mL s−1 mL−1 s
qs steady-state working point of manipulated variable,
Greek letters
mL s−1
qA volumetric flow rate of acid, mL s−1
γ auxiliary optimised parameter
qsA steady state working point of volumetric flow rate Abbreviations
of acid, mL s−1 CPU central processing unit
qB volumetric flow rate of base, mL s−1 CSTR continous stirred-tank reactor
qsB steady state working point of volumetric flow rate IF improvement factor
of base, mL s−1 ISE integral value of squared error
q volumetric flow rate difference, mL s−1 ISDI integral value of squared difference of input
q A difference of volumetric flow rate of acid, mL s−1 ISI integral value of squared input
qsA difference of steady state working point of volumet- LMI linear matrix inequality
ric flow rate of acid, mL s−1 LTI linear time-invariant
q B difference of volumetric flow rate of base, mL s−1 MPC model predictive control
qsB difference of steady state working point of volumet- PID proportional integral derivative
PLC programmable logic controller
ric flow rate of base, mL s−1
RAM random access memory
Qi integration-like penalty matrix of system states
RMPC robust model predictive control
Qo observer design penalty matrix of system states
SDP semidefinite programming
Qp proportional-like penalty matrix of system states

Q penalty matrix of the augmented vector of system
states
see [2] and references therein. The issues of the real-time imple-
R penalty matrix of manipulated variables
mentation of the robust MPC were analysed in [40].
Ro observer design penalty matrix
Various robust MPC design methods were developed in the past
R Euclidean space of the real numbers
three decades. The so-called MIN-MAX robust control approach
s parameter of Laplace transform
was introduced in [33]. Linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) [7] rep-
t time, s
resent an efficient tool to deal with the model uncertainties and
the disturbance rejection problem [38]. The robust MPC design us-

Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

ing LMIs leads to the convex optimisation problem of semidefinite

programming (SDP), see [34]. However, the industrial implementa-
tion of robust MPC is limited by the computational burden, e.g.,
see [32].
The pioneering work on LMI-based robust MPC control was
introduced in [17]. The conservativeness of this approach was
reduced in many later works. In [8] and [21], the parameter-
dependent Lyapunov function was implemented. Robust MPC de-
sign with the time-varying terminal constraint set was presented
in [35]. Explicit MPC [3] enables to implement MPC on the em-
bedded hardware for the systems with fast dynamics. Explicit ro-
bust MPC was presented in [36]. In [14], a region-less explicit MPC
was designed and experimentally validated considering a labora-
tory CSTR. The control performance was improved by implement-
ing a reference governor closed-loop control scheme. The advanced
handling of the constraints using LMIs was introduced in [39]. In
[38], LMI-based observer and controller were designed for the class
of systems often used to model the chemical, petrochemical and
Fig. 1. Controlled reactor of Armfield PCT 40: (I) CSTR, (II) pH sensor, (III) pump A,
pharmaceutical plants. The simulation results confirmed the effec-
(IV) pump B.
tiveness of the proposed method. A novel robust control approach
for discrete time-varying systems affected by disturbance was pro-
posed in [30]. This method used the synergetic control theory and tion range because of the complexity of the optimisation problem.
was validated also considering a simulation of CSTR control for the This case study demonstrates that this control strategy is nowadays
reference tracking problem. The novel robust output feedback MPC ready to be successfully implemented in the industrial conditions,
of linear time-varying systems affected by the bounded state and as the computational power of embedded hardware increased.
output disturbances was presented in [37]. The properties of the The reference tracking problem is investigated in 4 operating
designed robust MPC were analysed by simulation of CSTR con- condition considering a set of 4 robust MPC control setups. Various
trol. The novel LMI-based robust observer-based controller design control setups of penalty matrices are investigated. Analysis of the
method for a nonlinear discrete-time system affected by the distur- control performance is ensured using both, measured trajectories
bance was introduced in [24]. The conservativeness was reduced and a set of sum-of-squared-based quality criteria. Compared to
by an independent evaluation of the observer and controller gains. [26,28], this paper implements the multivariable control. Although
In [15], the novel LMI-based one-step ahead robust MPC design in [27], the multivariable control of CSTR was introduced, just half
method was presented. The online effort was reduced by evalu- of the operating points were investigated and only 1 robust MPC
ating the controller parameters using the solution of the optimi- setup was analysed.
sation problem from the previous control step. In [25], the LMI- Next, based on the measured data, the novel method for real-
based MPC for switched nonlinear systems was designed and vali- time compensation of the asymmetric behaviour of CSTR is pro-
dated using simulation example of CSTR control. The LMI-based ro- posed [13]. The well-known LMI-based robust MPC design method
bust distributed MPC was presented in [41]. The experimental case pioneered in [17] is considered to introduce the real-time com-
study considering 2 CSTRs confirmed that the introduced method pensation approach and later works originated in [17] are suitable
outperformed PID control. for the extension, e.g., see [9,21,39,42]. The properties of the in-
Experimental identification of the neutralisation plant was pre- troduced method are also analysed based on the experimentally
sented in [26]. The step-response-based identification method was evaluated data.
used to obtain an idealised linear time-invariant (LTI) mathemati- The paper is structured as follows. The neutralisation plant and
cal model with uncertain parameters. The derived model was val- its mathematical model is described in Section 2. Section 3 de-
idated experimentally considering LMI-based robust MPC design scribes the considered LMI-based robust MPC design method. The
with integral action. In [27], the sets of reliable LMI-based robust real-time compensation method is presented in Section 4. The ex-
MPC control setups were determined using an extensive labora- perimental results are discussed in Section 5, followed by main
tory case study. Multivariable robust MPC setup for CSTR was in- conclusions in Section 6.
troduced in [27]. The state observer was designed to evaluate the
state-feedback control law of robust MPC. 2. Neutralisation plant
This paper directly extends the results obtained in earlier works
[26–28]. The closed-loop control performance of multivariable ro- This section describes in detail a laboratory neutralisation plant,
bust MPC design in LMI framework is investigated. i.e., CSTR used in the case study. The controlled CSTR of Armfield
The main contributions of this paper are: (i) the novel method PCT40 is in Fig. 1.
of real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour improving the Neutralisation ran in a reaction vessel (Fig. 1, (I)), which had
control performance; (ii) extensive experimental case study of neu- volume Vcstr = 1.5 dm3 . The chemical reaction is described as fol-
tralisation plant; and (iii) the extensively tuned penalty matrices lows:
that can be considered to speed up the tuning of other systems
with analogous behaviour. There are many simulation case stud- NaOH (aq ) + CH3 COOH (aq ) → CH3 COONa (aq ) + H2 O (l ), (1)
ies devoted to LMI-based robust MPC design for CSTRs, but the
where the reactants were sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and acetic acid
number of experimental implementations is limited. To the best
(CH3 COOH). The products of the neutralisation were salt – sodium
authors’ knowledge, there is no such extensive laboratory investi-
acetate (CH3 COONa) and water (H2 O). The controlled output was
gation of the control performance of the robust MPC designed for
pH (potential of Hydrogen) value of the outlet flow from the reac-
a CSTR.
tion vessel, which is defined as
First, the conventional robust MPC [17] was designed. The con-
trol strategy pioneered in [17] originally had a limited applica- pH = − log[H+ ], (2)

Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

4 J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 weak base leads to the equivalence point placed below the neutral
Identified parameters of the neutralisation plant.
pH value. Therefore, the presence of different types of reactants
Value ZA [s/mL] ZB [s/mL] TA [s] TB [s] DA [s] DB [s] would change the parameters of the mathematical model ZA , ZB ,
Minimum −2.7 0.7 92.9 94.6 2.9 1.8 TA , TB . Further technical details of identification are described in
Nominal −1.5 1.5 137.9 134.2 4.1 3.3 [27].
Maximum −0.6 2.3 182.8 174.0 5.3 4.7 The mathematical model was obtained in the form of 2 trans-
fer functions having the form as described in (3). These transfer
functions were transformed into the discrete-time domain uncer-
where [H+ ] is the concentration of hydrogen cations. The pH value tain state-space system
(pH) is a number within interval [1,14]. If pH value is equal to 7, x(k + 1 ) = A(v ) x(k ) + B(v ) u(k ), x ( 0 ) = x0 , (4a)
then the solution is neutral, pH value below 7 indicates an acidic
solution, and solution with pH value greater than 7 has alkaline
properties. The real-time values of pH in a reaction vessel were y(k ) = C x(k ), (4b)
measured by a pH probe, see Fig. 1, (II).
The manipulated variables were inlet flow rates of the acid so-
    
lution qA , and the base solution qB . The peristaltic Pump A (Fig. 1, A(v ) , B(v ) ∈ convhull A ( v ) , B ( v ) , ∀v , (4c)
(III)) was used to feed the acid solution to the reaction vessel.
To deliver the base solution, the peristaltic Pump B (Fig. 1, (IV)) where k ≥ 0 is an instance of the discrete-time domain, x(k ) ∈ Rnx
was used. The input voltage of the peristaltic pumps was within is the vector of system states, u(k ) ∈ Rnu are the control inputs,
[0, 5] V. The input concentrations of acid and base were cA = y(k ) ∈ Rny are the system outputs. Parameter x0 represents the
0.01 mol dm−3 , cB = 0.01 mol dm−3 , respectively. measured or estimated vector of the system initial conditions, A ∈
Considered CSTR has a significant nonlinear and asymmetric be- Rnx ×nx is a system-state matrix, B ∈ Rnx ×nu represents a matrix of
haviour, see [26]. This behaviour is a consequence of the nonlinear system inputs, C ∈ Rny ×nx is a matrix of the system outputs. Param-
shape of the titration curve. Titration curve depicts the dependence eter (v ) represents vth vertex of the system, v = 1, . . . , nv , where
of pH on the volume of reagent added to the solution. nv is the total number of uncertain system vertices.
Because of the complex behaviour of the controlled system, the The robust controller design aimed to remove the steady-state
parameters of the mathematical model were identified introduc- control error. In order to reach this goal, the vector of system states
ing the interval uncertainties. The boundary values of the uncertain x(k ) was extended by an integral action in the following way:

parameters were experimentally determined by generating the set x (k )
of multiple negative and positive step changes either of the flow x (k ) =

k , (5a)
j=0 e ( j )
rate qA or the flow rate qB . Step responses were measured in var-
ious operating conditions. The step-response-based identification e ( k ) = w ( k ) − y ( k ), (5b)
method [23] was applied to identify the parameters of the transfer
function in the form: where e(k ) ∈ is the control error and w(k ) ∈
Rny is the refer- R ny
ence.
Z
G (s ) = e−Ds , (3) Then, the augmented system is defined as follows:
Ts + 1
x (k + 1 ) = 
 x(k ) + 
A (v )  B(v ) u(k ), x (0 ) = 
 x0 , (6a)
where s is a complex number frequency parameter of Laplace
transform, Z is the gain, T represents the time constant, and D
stands for the time delay. y(k ) = 
Cx(k ), (6b)
Uncertain parameters were expressed using intervals bounded
by minimum and maximum values of each system parameter, i.e., satisfying
 
the gains ZA , ZB , the time constants TA , TB , and the time delays
A (v ) 0 (v )  
DA , DB . Throughout the paper, the subscript A corresponds to the (v ) =
A , (v ) = B
B , = C
C 0 , (7)
−tsC (v ) I 0
acid solution and the subscript B represents the base solution. The
minimal and maximal transfer function parameters including the where  A, B, 
C are the matrices of the system augmented with re-
nominal, i.e., mean parameters, are summarised in Table 1. Param- spect to (w.r.t.) the integral action.
eters ZA , TA , and DA were determined measuring and identifying First, the steady-state operating point of the CSTR was experi-
step responses on the step changes of the input flow rate qA . If mentally determined as follows: qsA = qsB = 5 mL s−1 and pHs = 7.
the amount of acid in the reaction vessel increases, then the pH The superscript s represents the steady-state value.
value of the solution decreases. This behaviour represents an in- Then, the steady-state operating point of the closed-loop sys-
versely proportional dependence leading to the negative values of tem was normalised, i.e., it was shifted to the origin. Particularly,
the gains ZA , see Table 1. The parameters listed in Table 1 were in (6) we became:
identified subject to the controlled variable and manipulated vari- 
xA ( k )
able in the deviation form.
x (k ) =
 x (k ) , (8a)
Identified system parameters are strongly dependent on the
k B
specific type of acid and base considered in the reaction, as well j=0 e ( j )
as on their input concentrations. Considering the different type of  
acid or base would change the shape of the titration curve and uA ( k ) q (k ) − qsA
u (k ) = = A , (8b)
would move the equivalence point of an acid-base reaction. There- uB ( k ) qB(k ) − qsB
fore, it would changes the volume of the reagents necessary for
the process of neutralisation. In this case study, the considered re-  
y(k ) = pH(k ) − pHs . (8c)
action of the weak acid and strong base leads to the equivalence
point located above the neutral pH value. Considering a reaction As the states of the augmented system in (8a) were not mea-
of the strong acid and strong base, the equivalence point could be surable, the state observer was introduced to estimate the system
placed at pH = 7. Finally, considering a pair of the strong acid and states.

Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

In order to minimise the negative influence of the measurement

noise caused by pH probe, the Hebky filter was introduced [16]. 
X 
The technical details concerning the design and implementation of
0, Ui,i ≤ usat,i , ∀i ∈ Nn1u , (13d)
Y U
the Hebky filter for a neutralisation plant were described in [26].

3. Robust MPC 

 X  

C 
A (v ) X + 
B (v ) Y y2sat I
0, (13e)
This section describes the theoretical principles of the consid-
ered robust MPC approach. The robust MPC method introduced in
[17] was considered. Although this well-known LMI-based method
was refined by many later works reducing the conservativeness, we
use this control strategy to demonstrate the efficacy of the real-
time compensation of the asymmetric behaviour. The benefit of the
proposed real-time compensation method is that it can be imple-
mented to all later works derived from [17], e.g., see [9,21,39,42],
and references therein.
3.1. Robust MPC formulation
The advantage of the robust MPC design is its ability to con-
where the decision variables are X, Y, U, γ . The parameter X ∈
Rnx ×nx is the weighted inverse of the Lyapunov matrix P. Y ∈
Rnu ×nx is the auxiliary matrix of controller design. U ∈ Rnu ×nu is
the auxiliary matrix of the controller design, which ensures taking
into account the constraints on manipulated variables in each con-
trol step. The parameter γ ∈ R is the weight parameter of X. The
SDP in (13) was optimised in each control step, i.e., robust MPC
was implemented in receding-horizon-based framework. The sym-
bol  in (13) represents the symmetric structure of the LMIs, and
y2sat denotes element-wise power of 2.
Similar to the approach in [17], the quadratic Lyapunov func-
sider symmetric constraints on the manipulated variables and the tion V(x(k ) ) = γ x(k ) X−1 x(k ) was used. The recursive feasibility of
controlled variables in the form: the optimisation problem is established by the robust positively in-
−usat  u(k )  usat , −ysat  y(k )  ysat , ∀k ≥ 0, (9) variant set in (13b). The objective function in (13a) maximises the
volume of robust positively invariant set, see [5]. The asymptotic
where usat ∈ Rnu ,
ysat ∈ Rny
are the limit values of the symmetric
stability in the sense of Lyapunov is ensured by LMIs in (13b) w.r.t.
constrains.
the penalty matrices in the quality criterion in (10). In (13c), I is an
The aim of robust MPC design was to ensure offset-free ref-
identity matrix and 0 is a zero matrix of appropriate dimensions.
erence tracking minimising well-known LQR-based control perfor-
LMI in (13c) ensures the control performance set by the penalty
mance criterion formulated w.r.t. the augmented system states in
matrices defined in (10). LMIs in (13d), (13e) take into account
(6a):
the constraints on manipulated variables and controlled variables
∞ 
  in (9).
min x(k ) Q + u(k ) R ,
 2 2
(10)
Based on the feasible solution of X and Y in (13), the gain ma-
k=0
trix is computed as follows:
where R ∈ Rnu ×nu
0 is the penalty matrix of manipulated vari-

F = Y X−1 .
ables. 
Q ∈ R2 nx ×2 nx
0 is the penalty matrix of the extended vec- (14)
tor of states 
x, which has the following form:
 3.2. Robust MPC setup
 Qp 0
Q= , (11)
0 Qi
From the controller design viewpoint, there are 3 challenges of
where penalty matrix  Q consists of the proportional-like penalty robust MPC: (i) feasibility – to satisfy the constraints in (9), (ii)
matrix Qp of system states, and integration-like penalty matrix Qi optimality – to tune the penalty matrices Q , R to minimise the
of the integral action in (5a). The considered objective function quadratic criterion in (10), and (iii) implementation – to estimate
represents an LQR-like objective function for the uncertain system. the system states in (6). Therefore, the considered robust MPC had
Therefore, the infinite prediction horizon is considered. The robust the following setup.
MPC designed for an infinite prediction horizon outperforms the The robust MPC took considered constraints on the manipulated
standard MPC designed for a finite prediction horizon. The optimi- variables and the controlled variables as defined in (9). The flow
sation problem handles the infinite prediction horizon by formu- rates of the acid qA and base qB were constrained within interval
lating the tractable optimisation problem using the LMIs. [0, 10] mL s−1 . The controlled variable, pH, was constrained within
The robust MPC computes a gain matrix  F ∈ Rnu ×(nx +ny ) of the interval [0, 14] by definition. Therefore, the considered constrains
state-feedback control law: were in the following form:
u(k ) = [Fp(k ) Fi(k )] 
x(k ) = 
F(k ) 
x(k ), (12) −5  u(k )  5, −7  y(k )  7, ∀k ≥ 0. (15)
where Fp(k ) and Fi(k ) are the proportional and the integral parts Penalty matrices in (10) had the form:
of the state feedback linear control law. The gain matrix  F is con- 

structed by solving the following optimisation problem of SDP, see Qp,A 0 0 
RA 0
[17]: Qp = 0 Qp,B 0 , R= , (16)
0 RB
0 0 Qi
minγ ,X,Y,U γ (13a)
where Qp,A , Qp,B are the proportional-like penalty matrices, Qi is
 the penalty of integral action, RA , RB are penalties of the manipu-
1  lated variables. The set of experiments was performed to investi-
s.t. :
0, (13b)

x(k ) X gate various setups of the penalty matrices, see Table 2.
⎡ X   
⎤ The subject of the case study was a neutralisation plant with
a single controlled variable, i.e., the pH of the reaction mixture.
⎢
A (v ) X + 
B (v ) Y X   ⎥ However, two manipulated variables were available, i.e., the flow
⎣ 1/2 ⎦
0, (13c)
Q X 0 γI  rate of acid qA and the flow rate of base qB . Both manipulated vari-
1/2
R Y 0 0 γI ables have a significant influence on the controlled variable, but

Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

6 J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2 4.2. Closed-loop system stability subject to switching control law

Penalty matrices of RMPC setup.

RMPC setup Qp,A Qp,B Qi RA RB Switching between the pair of penalty matrices can cause sta-
RMPC1 1 1 1 10 10 bility issues. This subsection investigates the closed-loop system
RMPC2 1 1 10 1 1 stability based on the quadratic Lyapunov function. The closed-
RMPC3 1 1 10 10 10 loop system Lyapunov function candidate VCL (x) has the form of
RMPC4 10 10 1 10 10 a quadratic function:
VCL (x ) = x(k + 1 ) PCL x(k + 1 ), (21)
their influences represent internal states of the system. These in- where PCL is the Lyapunov matrix of the closed-loop system satis-
ternal states were not measurable directly. As the robust MPC de- fying
signs the state-feedback control law in (12) considering the values

of the states, the state observer is required. The Luenberger ob- PCL = PCL
0. (22)
server was designed to estimate the system states xA , xB of the Substituting the control law (12) into (6), we obtain the following
augmented state vector  x in (8a). Considering only the nominal robust stability condition:
model of CSTR, the LQR-based optimal pole placement strategy
[23] was used to design the observer L ∈ Rnx ×ny . The associated
penalty matrices were experimentally tuned as follows:

0.5 0
Qo = , Ro = 0.1,
0 1
where Qo ∈ Rnx ×nx and Ro ∈ Rnu ×nu are the penalty matrices of the
observer design. The Luenberger observer L was computed:
 
L = −1.1646 2.3917 .
4. Real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour
This section describes theoretical principles of real-time com-
pensation of asymmetric behaviour of CSTR. From the implemen-
tation point of view, it is not limited by the particular structure of
the SDP optimisation problem. Stability of the closed-loop system
considering the switching control law is also investigated.
4.1. Implementation of switching control law
MPC is usually designed w.r.t. the linear time-invariant (LTI)
prediction model. The influence of the nonlinear and asymmet-
ric behaviour is minimised by considering a set of LTI systems.
However, so-called plant-model mismatch decreases the control
performance. The idea of proposed real-time compensation of
asymmetric behaviour is based on the observation that imple-
menting robust MPC with a certain penalty matrix setup has a
satisfactory control performance when applied to a negative step
changes of the reference. On the other hand, the same control
setup causes a decrease of control performance when applied to a
positive step changes in the reference. The tuning of penalty ma-
trices to obtain a single reliable setup is difficult and conservative.
Therefore, we introduce a real-time compensation, that
switches between two reliable control setups. In order to deter-
mine the switching rule, multiple robust MPC setups were anal-
ysed. Finally, based on the evaluated control performance, the con-
trol setups denoted as RMPC2 and RMPC3 were determined as the
most suitable, see Table 2. The switching function determined the
control setup based on the sign of the control error as follows:
 mented. The overall experiment setup is illustrated in Fig. 2.
1 : 10 : 10, e(k ) > 0
Qp : Qi : R =
1 : 10 : 1, e(k ) ≤ 0.
If the control error at a given time instant e(k) had a non positive
value, then RMPC2 control setup was implemented. Otherwise, if
the value of e(k) was positive, then RMPC3 control setup was con-
sidered, see Table 2. It is obvious, that only penalty matrix R varies
in (19). Then, the switching rule in (19) was formulated in a com-
pact form:
R = 1 + 4.5(1 + sign(e(k ))) sign(e(k )).
Further discussion on the results is in Section 5.
Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
    
(v ) + B
A (v ) F(i ) (v ) + B
PCL A (v ) F(i ) − PCL  0, v = 1, . . . , nv ,
(23)
(17) where F(i ) is the ith gain matrix of nF robust MPC setups consid-
ered to compensate the asymmetric behaviour, i = 1, . . . , nF .
Given is uncertain system in (6) and the set of nF stabilising
feedback gains F(i ) , i = 1, . . . , nF . If there exists such Lyapunov ma-
trix PCL in (22) satisfying (23) for all v = 1, . . . , nv , i = 1, . . . , nF ,
(18)
then the closed loop system is stable. Therefore, the stability of
switching control law is certified in advance by solving the set of
(nv × nF ) LMIs in (23).
5. Results and discussion
This section discusses the results of the experimental imple-
mentation of 4 LMI-based robust MPC setups (Table 2) and in-
vestigates the control performance of the robust MPC with real-
time compensation of asymmetric behaviour. Each control setup
was analysed w.r.t. the set of quality criteria.
5.1. Experiment setup
Laboratory CSTR used in the experimental case study was man-
ufactured by Armfield, see Fig. 1. The closed-loop control was
designed in MATLAB/Simulink R2018a environment using CPU i7
3.4 GHz and 8 GB RAM. Real-Time Windows Target v4.1 toolbox
ensured the communication with CSTR, and the communication
time was tc = 0.2 s. Sampling time of the control was ts = 10 s.
MUP toolbox [29] was used to formulate robust MPC, SDPs were
formulated using YALMIP [18], and solved by MOSEK [1]. The aver-
age time necessary to solve the optimisation problem in (13) was
toptim = 0.2 s. Therefore, the value of sampling time ts was signif-
icantly greater than toptim that provides sufficient amount of time
to process the data and to delegate the optimal control action to
the plant.
The control performance criteria were evaluated considering
tF = 500 s, i.e., initial nk = 50 control steps. In order to obtain the
value of non-measurable states, state observer in (18) was imple-
(19) The offset-free reference tracking problem was investigated.
The control performance was investigated considering 4 operating
points represented by the following sequence of the step changes
of the reference pH value: (i) 6 → 7, (ii) 7 → 8, (iii) 8 → 7, and (iv)
7 → 6.
5.2. Experimental results
Figs. 3–6 show the experimental results for 4 robust MPC se-
(20)
tups summarised in Table 2. The trajectories of the controlled vari-
able and the estimated values of pH are plotted in Figs. 3(a)–6(a).
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Fig. 2. Scheme of the control setup.

Fig. 4. RMPC without real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour for ref-

Fig. 3. RMPC without real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour for ref-
erence step change 7 → 8. (a) Controlled variable – measured pH: RMPC1 (dark
erence step change 6 → 7. (a) Controlled variable – measured pH: RMPC1 (dark
red), RMPC2 (dark blue), RMPC3 (dark green), RMPC4 (dark orange); estimated pH:
red), RMPC2 (darkblue), RMPC3 (dark green), RMPC4 (dark orange); estimated pH:
RMPC1 (light red), RMPC2 (light blue), RMPC3 (light green), RMPC4 (light or-ange);
RMPC1 (light red), RMPC2 (light blue), RMPC3 (light green), RMPC4 (light or-ange);
reference (black dotted). (b) Manipulated variables - volumetric flow rate of acid so-
reference (black dotted). (b) Manipulated variables – volumetric flow rate of acid
lution (dashed): RMPC1 (dark red), RMPC2 (dark blue), RMPC3 (dark green), RMPC4
solution (dashed): RMPC1 (dark red), RMPC2 (dark blue), RMPC3 (dark green),
(dark orange); volumetric flow rate of alkaline solution (solid): RMPC1 (light red),
RMPC4 (dark orange); volumetric flow rate of alkaline solution (solid): RMPC1 (light
RMPC2 (light blue), RMPC3 (light green), RMPC4 (light or-ange); constraints (black
red), RMPC2 (light blue), RMPC3 (light green), RMPC4 (light or-ange); constraints
dash-dotted).
(black dash-dotted).

Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

8 J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 6. RMPC without real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour for ref-

Fig. 5. RMPC without real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour for ref-
erence step change 8 → 7. (a) Controlled variable – measured pH: RMPC1 (dark
red), RMPC2 (dark blue), RMPC3 (dark green), RMPC4 (dark orange); estimated pH:
RMPC1 (light red), RMPC2 (light blue), RMPC3 (light green), RMPC4 (light or-ange);
reference (black dotted). (b) Manipulated variables - volumetric flow rate of acid so-
lution (dashed): RMPC1 (dark red), RMPC2 (dark blue), RMPC3 (dark green), RMPC4
(dark orange); volumetric flow rate of alkaline solution (solid): RMPC1 (light red),
RMPC2 (light blue), RMPC3 (light green), RMPC4 (light or-ange); constraints (black
dash-dotted).
erence step change 7 → 6. (a) Controlled variable – measured pH: RMPC1 (dark
red), RMPC2 (dark blue), RMPC3 (dark green), RMPC4 (dark orange); estimated pH:
RMPC1 (light red), RMPC2 (light blue), RMPC3 (light green), RMPC4 (light or-ange);
reference (black dotted). (b) Manipulated variables - volumetric flow rate of acid so-
lution (dashed): RMPC1 (dark red), RMPC2 (dark blue), RMPC3 (dark green), RMPC4
(dark orange); volumetric flow rate of alkaline solution (solid): RMPC1 (light red),
RMPC2 (light blue), RMPC3 (light green), RMPC4 (light or-ange); constraints (black
dash-dotted).

nk −1

ISE ( pH ) = ts ( pH (k ) − pH s )2 , (24)
k=0
Step change of reference pH value 6 → 7 is depicted in Fig. 3(a).
The other positive step change 7 → 8 is depicted in Fig. 4(a). Nega-
tive step changes 7 → 6 and 8 → 7 are shown in Figs. 5(a) and 6(a). evaluated the precision of the reference tracking of the controlled
The associated manipulated variables are depicted in Figs. 3(b)– variable.
6(b), where the dashed curve represents the flow rate of acid and The integral value of squared input, ISI(q), determined by:
the solid curve shows the flow rate of the base. As can be seen in
Figs. 3–6, the estimated values of pH tracked the measured values
with satisfying precision. Based on the estimated values of system 
nk −1

ISI (q ) = ts (qA (k ) − qsA )2 + (qB (k ) − qsB )2 , (25)
states, the robust MPC ensured offset-free reference tracking for all
k=0
operating points (Figs. 3(a)–6(a)), and the evaluated manipulated
variables did not violate the constraints (Figs. 3(b)–6(b)).
Control performance was analysed using the set of sum-of- evaluated the consumption-like value of acid and base solutions.
square-based quality criteria [23]. First, integral value of squared er- Finally, the integral value of squared difference of input, ISDI(q),
ror, ISE(pH), given by was evaluated by

Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

Table 3
Closed-loop control performance criterion ISE(pH).

Setup pH: 6 → 7 pH: 7 → 8 pH: 8 → 7 pH: 7 → 6

RMPC1 73.02 10.78 23.55 24.90

RMPC2 5.96 55.08 8.23 27.61
RMPC3 50.04 28.29 20.85 39.54
RMPC4 115.75 211.07 6.30 14.23

Table 4
Closed-loop control performance criterion ISI(q) × 104 .

Setup pH: 6 → 7 pH: 7 → 8 pH: 8 → 7 pH: 7 → 6

RMPC1 1.20 0.25 1.53 1.38

RMPC2 0.24 1.48 1.41 1.28
RMPC3 1.26 1.67 1.33 1.53
RMPC4 1.23 1.63 0.30 0.26

Table 5
Closed-loop control performance criterion ISDI(q).

Setup pH: 6 → 7 pH: 7 → 8 pH: 8 → 7 pH: 7 → 6

RMPC1 12.34 2.18 15.31 7.54

RMPC2 1.69 21.38 9.71 21.09
RMPC3 21.51 22.23 20.83 20.98
RMPC4 8.67 2.31 6.28 7.63

Table 6
Closed-loop control performance criterion ISE(pH).

RMPC setup pH: 6 → 7 pH: 7 → 8 pH: 8 → 7 pH: 7 → 6

RMPC2 5.96 55.08 8.23 27.61

RMPC3 50.04 28.29 20.85 39.54
RMPC2&3 51.74 39.31 16.59 64.96
IF(ISE) † 1.06 1.14 †


nk −1

ISDI (q ) = ts (qA (k ) − qsA )2 + (qB (k ) − qsB )2 (26)
k=0

and its value penalises the oscillation of flow rate. As the actuators
were the peristaltic pumps, minimisation of this criterion max-
imises the life-cycle of actuators. Fig. 7. RMPC with real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour for reference
The control performance was simultaneously judged by the step change 6 → 7. (a) Controlled variable – measured pH (dark red); estimated pH
quality criteria in (24)–(26). The evaluated values of these criteria (light red dashed); reference (black dotted). (b) Manipulated variables – volumetric
flow rate of acid solution (red), volumetric flow rate of alkaline solution (blue);
are summarised inTables 3–5.
constraints (black dash-dotted).
It is possible to observe, that each operating condition had a
particular RMPC setup ensuring the best control performance, as Table 7
the consequence of nonlinear and asymmetric behaviour of the Closed-loop control performance criterion ISI(q) × 104 .
plant. In order to minimise the influence of these properties, real- RMPC setup pH: 6 → 7 pH: 7 → 8 pH: 8 → 7 pH: 7 → 6
time compensation of asymmetric behaviour was considered. The
RMPC2 0.24 1.48 1.41 1.28
theoretical backgrounds of the compensation were introduced in
RMPC3 1.26 1.67 1.33 1.53
Section 4. Based on the data summarised in Tables 3–5, the RMPC RMPC2&3 0.23 0.24 0.36 0.24
setups with minimum values of ISE(pH), ISI(q), and ISDI(q) were IF(ISI) 3.26 6.56 3.80 5.85
determined for the implementation of real-time compensation of
asymmetric behaviour. More specifically, setups RMPC2 and RMPC3
were selected as suitable setups for the compensation. Therefore, factor (IF) was evaluated. The relative improvement factor for ISE
the real-time compensation-based control setup in (20) is denoted criterion is given by:
by RMPC2&3.
1
Control performance of robust MPC with real-time compen- (ISE (RMPC2 ) + ISE (RMPC3 ) )
sation of asymmetric behaviour is depicted in Figs. 7–10, where IF (ISE ) = 2 . (27)
Figs. 7(a)–10(a) show the controlled variable (solid curves) and the ISE (RMPC2&3 )
estimated pH values (dashed curves). The associated manipulated The evaluation of IF(ISI) and IF(ISDI) was analogous to (27). If the
variables are in Figs. 7(b)–10(b), where the dashed curves repre- improvement was not achieved, the improvement factor is denoted
sent acid solution and the solid curves denote alkaline solution. by symbol †, see Table 6.
The quality criteria in (24)–(26) were also evaluated, see Implementing the real-time compensation of asymmetric be-
Tables 6–8. The generated data were analysed w.r.t. control setups haviour improved the majority of the analysed quality criteria.
RMPC2 and RMPC3 that were considered to construct the real-time However, implementation of this method increased the value of
compensation. For each quality criterion, the relative improvement ISE(pH) criterion for two of four operating points, see Table 6.

Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]

10 J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 9. RMPC with real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour for reference

Fig. 8. RMPC with real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour reference step
change 7 → 8. (a) Controlled variable – measured pH (dark red); estimated pH (light
red dashed); reference (black dotted). (b) Manipulated variables - volumetric flow
rate of acid solution (red dashed), volumetric flow rate of alkaline solution (blue);
constraints (black dash-dotted).
step change 8 → 7. (a) Controlled variable – measured pH (dark red); estimated pH
(light red dashed); reference (black dotted). (b) Manipulated variables - volumetric
flow rate of acid solution (red dashed), volumetric flow rate of alkaline solution
(blue); constraints (black dash-dotted).

Table 8 high, then the actuator suffers and its life-cycle is shortened. The
Closed-loop control performance criterion ISDI(q). decrease in this criterion minimises the maintenance costs. The
RMPC setup pH: 6 → 7 pH: 7 → 8 pH: 8 → 7 pH: 7 → 6 value of this criterion was on average reduced by 85.6 % compared
to original RMPC setup.
RMPC2 1.69 21.38 9.71 21.09
RMPC3 21.51 22.23 20.83 20.98
RMPC2&3 1.68 2.81 1.52 4.96 6. Conclusions
IF(ISDI) 7.41 7.76 10.04 4.24

The paper addresses the extensive case study of LMI-based ro-

On the other hand, the control performance of the manipulated-
variable-based criteria ISI and ISDI were significantly improved, see
Tables 7 and 8. The main goal of the case study was to experi-
mentally investigate the properties of the proposed method of real-
time compensation of asymmetric behaviour.
The quality criterion ISI(q) decreased on average by 78 % for
each step change of the reference pH value. ISI(q) approximates
total consumption of reactants. Therefore, this criterion also rep-
resents production costs. It means that the compensation of asym-
metric behaviour reduces production costs.
The criterion ISDI(q) is interpreted as the approximation of
the actuator oscillation rate. If the valve or pump oscillation rate is
bust MPC design for a laboratory CSTR. The state observer was
designed to enable multivariable control. The control performance
of the offset-free reference tracking was investigated considering
4 operating points. The set of 4 robust MPC setups was analysed
using both, control trajectories and the set of quality criteria. The
goal was to investigate the influence of each penalty matrix on the
particular property of the control performance. The penalty matri-
ces were extensively tuned and they can be considered to speed-
up the tuning of other plants that have analogous behaviour.
The measured data did not lead to a straightforward conclusion
of an optimal control setup. Based on the analysis of the measured
data, 2 RMPC setups were determined for the implementation of
the novel concept of the real-time compensation of asymmetric

Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 10. RMPC with real-time compensation of asymmetric behaviour for reference
step change 7 → 6. (a) Controlled variable – measured pH (dark red); estimated pH
(light red dashed); reference (black dotted). (b) Manipulated variables - volumetric
flow rate of acid solution (red dashed), volumetric flow rate of alkaline solution
(blue); constraints (black dash-dotted).
behaviour. The compensation is based on the switching between
2 RMPC setups in real-time control. Switching is conditioned by
the sign of the control error. The generated results confirmed that
the proposed approach improved most of the control performance
criteria. The improvement was also interpreted as a reduction in
production and maintenance costs. The production costs associ-
ated with the consumption of reactants were on average improved
by factor 4.9, i.e., approximately five times less than without real-
time compensation. Moreover, maintenance costs were on average
reduced by factor 7.4. The implemented LMI-based robust MPC de-
sign method served as a suitable benchmark approach for imple-
menting real-time compensation. As the proposed novel method of
real-time compensation is independent of the particular structure
of the SDP optimisation problem, this approach can be directly im-
plemented to all later works based on the pioneer method in [17].
The application range of the proposed method is not limited by the
systems with input saturation, as the constraints on control inputs
are taken into account, nor by the time-delayed system, if the ap-
propriate model is available. Further research will be also focused
on the comparison of the proposed control approach to the other
Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
[m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]
11
conventional methods designed for controlling the neutralisation
plant.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge Linda Hanulová for her help in real-
ising the laboratory experiments. The authors gratefully acknowl-
edge the contribution of the Scientific Grant Agency of the Slovak
Republic under the grant 1/0545/20, the Slovak Research and De-
velopment Agency under the project APVV-15-0 0 07, and the Re-
search & Development Operational Programme for the project Uni-
versity Scientific Park STU in Bratislava, ITMS 26240220084, sup-
ported by the Research 7 Development Operational Programme
funded by the ERDF.
References
[1] MOSEK ApS, MOSEK, 2019 https://mosek.com/.
[2] A. Bemporad, M. Morari, Robust model predictive control: A survey, in: Ro-
bustness in Identification and Control, Springer, London, 1999, pp. 207–226.
[3] A. Bemporad, M. Morari, V. Dua, E.N. Pistikopoulos, The explicit linear
quadratic regulator for constrained systems, Automatica 38 (1999) 3–20,
doi:10.1016/S0 0 05-1098(01)0 0174-1.
[4] B. Bequette, Process Dynamics: Modeling, Analysis and Simulation, Prentice
Hall, 1998.
[5] F. Blanchini, Set invariance in control, Automatica 35 (1999) 1747–1767, doi:10.
1016/S0 0 05-1098(99)0 0113-2.
[6] F. Borrelli, A. Bemporad, M. Morari, Predictive Control for Linear and Hybrid
Systems, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
[7] S. Boyd, L.E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix Inequalities in
System and Control Theory, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
Philadelphia, USA, 1994.
[8] F.A. Cuzzola, J.C. Geromel, M. Morari, An improved approach for constrained
robust model predictive control, Automatica 38 (2002) 1183–1189, doi:10.1016/
S0 0 05-1098(02)0 0 012-2.
[9] B. Ding, Y. Xi, S. Li, M.T. Cychowski, T. O’Mahoney, A synthesis approach for
output feedback robust constrained model predictive control, Automatica 44
(2008) 258–264, doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2007.04.005.
[10] T.F. Edgar, E.N. Pistikopoulos, Smart manufacturing and energy systems, Com-
put. Chem. Eng. 114 (2018) 130–144, doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.10.027.
[11] O. Galana, J.A. Romagnoli, A. Palazoglub, Real-time implementation of multi-
linear model-based control strategies an application to a bench-scale pH neu-
tralization reactor, J. Process Control 14 (2004) 571–579, doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.
20 03.10.0 03.
[12] A.W. Hermansson, S. Syafiie, Model predictive control of pH neutralization
processes: A review, Control Eng. Pract. 45 (2015) 98–109, doi:10.1016/j.
conengprac.2015.09.005.
[13] L. Hanulová, Robust Model Predictive Control Design for the Laboratory Chem-
ical Reactor (in Slovak), Master’s thesis, supervisor J. Oravec, Slovak University
of Technology in Bratislava, 2018.
[14] J. Holaza, M. Klaučo, J. Drgoňa, J. Oravec, M. Kvasnica, M. Fikar, MPC-based
reference governor control of a continuous stirred-tank reactor, Comput. Chem.
Eng. 108 (2018) 289–299, doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.09.020.
[15] J. Hu, B. Ding, One-step ahead robust MPC for LPV model with bounded dis-
turbance, Eur. J. Control 52 (2020) 59–66, doi:10.1016/j.ejcon.2019.09.004.
[16] M. Kárný, A. Halousková, J. Bohm, R. Kulhavý, P. Nedoma, Design of Linear
Quadratic Adaptive Control: Theory and Algorithms for Practice, Kybernetica,
Academia, Prague, 1985.
[17] M.V. Kothare, V. Balakrishnan, M. Morari, Robust constrained model predic-
tive control using linear matrix inequalities, Automatica 32 (1996) 1361–1379,
doi:10.1016/0 0 05-1098(96)0 0 063-5.
[18] J. Löfberg, YALMIP: a toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB, in:
Proceedings of the CACSD Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 2004.
[19] W.L. Luyben, Chemical Reactor Design and Control, John Wiley & Sons, New
Jersey, USA, 2007.
[20] J. Maciejowski, Predictive Control with Constraints, Prentice Hall, London,
20 0 0.
[21] J.W. Mao, Robust stabilization of uncertain time-varying discrete systems and
comments on “an improved approach for constrained robust model predic-
tive control”, Automatica 39 (2003) 1109–1112, doi:10.1016/S0 0 05-1098(03)
0 0 069-4.
[22] D.Q. Mayne, Model predictive control: Recent developments and future
promise, Automatica 12 (2014) 2967–2986, doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2014.10.
128.
JID: EJCON
ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová / European Journal of Control xxx (xxxx) xxx
[23] J. Mikleš, M. Fikar, Process Modelling, Identification, and Control, Springer Ver-
lag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007.
[24] C.M. Nguyen, P.N. Pathirana, H. Trinh, Robust observer-based control designs
for discrete nonlinear systems with disturbances, Eur. J. Control 44 (2018) 65–
72, doi:10.1016/j.ejcon.2018.09.002.
[25] I. Nodozi, M. Rahmani, LMI-based model predictive control for switched non-
linear systems, J. Process Control 59 (2017) 49–58, doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2017.
09.001.
[26] J. Oravec, M. Bakošová, L. Hanulová, M. Horváthová, Design of robust MPC with
integral action for a laboratory continuous stirred-tank reactor, in: Proceedings
of the 21st International Conference on Process Control, Štrbské Pleso, Slovakia,
2017, pp. 459–464, doi:10.1109/PC.2017.7976257.
[27] J. Oravec, M. Bakošová, L. Hanulová, Experimental investigation of robust MPC
design with integral action for a continuous stirred tank reactor, in: Proceed-
ings of the 57th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Miami, Florida, USA,
57, 2018a, pp. 2611–2616, doi:10.1109/CDC.2018.8619737.
[28] J. Oravec, M. Bakošová, L. Hanulová, A. Mészáros, Multivariable robust model
predictive control of a laboratory chemical reactor, in: Proceedings of the 28th
European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, 28, Elsevier,
2018b, pp. 961–966, doi:10.1016/B978- 0- 444- 64235- 6.50169- 8.
[29] J. Oravec, M. Bakošová, Software for efficient LMI-based robust MPC design, in:
M. Fikar, M. Kvasnica (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference
on Process Control, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Štrbské Pleso,
Slovakia, 2015, pp. 272–277, doi:10.1109/PC.2015.7169975.
[30] S. Rastegar, R. Arajo, J. Sadati, J. Mendes, A novel robust control scheme for
LTV systems using output integral discrete-time synergetic control theory, Eur.
J. Control 34 (2017) 39–48, doi:10.1016/j.ejcon.2016.12.006.
[31] S. Salehi, M. Shahrokhi, A. Nejati, Adaptive nonlinear control of pH neutraliza-
tion processes using fuzzy approximators, Control Eng. Pract. 17 (2009) 1329–
1337, doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.20 09.06.0 07.
[32] M. Saltik, L. Özkan, J. Ludlage, S. Weiland, P.V. den Hof, An outlook on robust
model predictive control algorithms: Reflections on performance and computa-
tional aspects, J. Process Control 77 (2018) 77–102, doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2017.
10.006.
Please cite this article as: J. Oravec, M. Horváthová and M. Bakošová, Multivariable robust MPC design for neutralisation plant: Experi-
mental analysis, European Journal of Control, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.07.012
[m5G;August 21, 2020;11:47]
[33] P. Scokaert, D. Mayne, MIN-MAX feedback model predictive control for con-
strained linear systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 43 (1998) 1136–1142,
doi:10.1109/9.704989.
[34] L. Vandenberghe, S. Boyd, Semidefinite programming, SIAM Rev. 38 (1996)
49–95.
[35] Z. Wan, M.V. Kothare, Efficient robust constrained model predictive control
with a time varying terminal constraint set, Automatica 48 (2003) 375–383,
doi:10.1016/S0167-6911(02)00291-8.
[36] Z. Wan, M.V. Kothare, An efficient off-line formulation of robust model predic-
tive control using linear matrix inequalities, Automatica 39 (2003) 837–846,
doi:10.1016/S0 0 05-1098(02)0 0174-7.
[37] R. Yadbantung, P. Bumroongsri, Tube-based robust output feedback MPC for
constrained LTV systems with applications in chemical processes, Eur. J. Con-
trol 47 (2019) 11–19, doi:10.1016/j.ejcon.2018.07.002.
[38] Y. Yang, S. Dubljevic, Linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) observer and controller
design synthesis for parabolic PDE, Eur. J. Control 20 (2014) 227–236, doi:10.
1016/j.ejcon.2014.05.002.
[39] W. Yang, G. Feng, T.J. Zhang, Robust model predictive control of uncertain lin-
ear systems with persistent disturbances and input constraints, in: Proceedings
of the European Control Conference, Zürich, Switzerland, 2013, pp. 542–547,
doi:10.23919/ECC.2013.6669673.
[40] M.N. Zeilinger, D.M. Raimondoe, A. Domahidid, M. Morari, C.N. Jones, On real-
time robust model predictive control, Automatica 50 (2014) 683–694, doi:10.
1016/j.automatica.2013.11.019.
[41] S. Zhang, D. Zhao, S. Spurgeon, Robust distributed model predictive control
for systems of parallelstructure within process networks, J. Process Control 82
(2019) 70–90, doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2019.06.005.
[42] L. Zhang, J. Wang, K. Li, Min-max MPC for LPV systems subject to actuator
saturation by a saturation-dependent Lyapunov function, in: Proceedings of the
Chinese Control Conference, Xi’an, China, 2013, pp. 4087–4092.