See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228869422

Neural network predictive control of a heat exchanger

Article in Applied Thermal Engineering · September 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.01.026

CITATIONS READS

77 208

4 authors:

Anna Vasičkaninová Monika Bakosova

Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
35 PUBLICATIONS 257 CITATIONS 114 PUBLICATIONS 566 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

A. Mészáros Jiri Klemeš

Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava 432 PUBLICATIONS 9,808 CITATIONS
43 PUBLICATIONS 335 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A new book: Advanced Analytic and Control Techniques for Thermal Systems with Heat Exchangers (Elsevier, Academic Press) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anna Vasičkaninová on 15 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2094e2100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Neural network predictive control of a heat exchanger

Anna Vasi

ckaninová a, *, Monika Bako
sová a, Alojz Mészáros b, Ji
rí Jaromír Kleme
s c
a
Institute of Information Engineering, Automation, and Mathematics, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Radlinského 9,
812 37 Bratislava, Slovakia
b
Institute of Engineering Studies of the Slovak University of Technology, Vazovova 5, 812 43 Bratislava, Slovakia
c
Centre for Process Integration and Intensification e CPI2, Research Institute of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Pannonia,
Egyetem u. 10, 8200 Veszprém, Hungary

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

Article history: The study attempts to show that using the neural network predictive control (NNPC) structure for control
Received 15 November 2010 of thermal processes can lead to energy savings. The advantage of the NNPC is that it is not a linear-
Accepted 15 January 2011 model-based strategy and the control input constraints are directly included into the synthesis. In the
Available online 1 February 2011
designed approach, the neural network is used as a non-linear process model to predict the future
behaviour of the controlled process with distributed parameters. The predictive control strategy is used
Keywords:
to calculate optimal control inputs. The efficiency of the described control approach is verified by
Neural network
simulation experiments and a tubular heat exchanger is chosen as a controlled process. The control
Predictive control
PID control
objective is to keep the temperature of the heated outlet stream at a desired value and minimize the
Tubular heat exchanger energy consumption. The NNPC of the heat exchanger is compared with classical PID control. Compar-
Energy saving ison of the simulation results obtained using NNPC and those obtained by classical PID control
demonstrates the effectiveness and superiority of the NNPC because of smaller consumption of heating
medium.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction become an attractive tool in the construction of models for various

As energy costs are permanently increasing, energy saving is
becoming very important in industrial processes and they have to
be improved in terms of efficiency. Nowadays, various approaches
are applied to reduce energy consumption and implementation of
advanced modelling and control methods can reduce the energy
costs down [1e4].
Predictive control is recently the most widely implemented
advanced process control technology in industrial applications
[5,6]. The predictive control algorithms use an explicit process
model to predict the future behaviour of a plant and so, the term
model predictive control (MPC) or model-based predictive control
(MBPC) is utilized. Although industrial processes usually contain
complex non-linearities, most of the MPC strategies are based on
a linear model of the process [7]. To overcome difficulties con-
nected with non-linearity of the controlled process, model reduc-
tion methodology has been exploited to enable the efficient
application of linear MPC [8]. Recently, neural networks have
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anna.vasickaninova@stuba.sk (A. Vasi

ckaninová), monika.
bakosova@stuba.sk (M. Bako
sová), alojz.meszaros@stuba.sk (A. Mészáros),
klemes@cpi.uni-pannon.hu (J.J. Kleme
s).
types of complex non-linear systems [9,10] and heat exchangers
play important role between them [11,12]. When a neural network
(NN) is combined with MPC approach, it is used as a feed-forward
process model for the prediction of process outputs. The imple-
mentation of the NN MPC varies, a neural network-based controller
is designed for a class of non-linear systems with constant input
and state-feedback delays in [13], an iterative multistep neural
network prediction model in a predictive control strategy for
controlling a non-linear system is described in [14], an NN MPC
method for a class of discrete-time multi-input multi-output
systems is given in [15]. Inclusion of constraints is the other feature
that most clearly distinguishes MPC from other process control
techniques, leading to a tighter control and a more reliable
controller.
Heat exchangers are key devices used in a wide variety of
industrial applications. Control of a heat exchanger is a complex
process due to its non-linear behaviour and complexity caused by
many phenomena such as leakage, friction, temperature-depen-
dent flow properties, contact resistance, unknown fluid properties,
etc [16,17]. Therefore, neural network model based predictive
control is expected to be a better alternative to the PID control [18],
although many industrial applications use PID control to maintain
constant process variables.

1359-4311/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.01.026
 Author's personal copy

A. Vasi
ckaninová et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2094e2100 2095

In this paper, the neural network is used as a non-linear process

model to predict the future behaviour of the tubular heat exchanger
as a system with distributed parameters. The neural network model
with one hidden layer with 6 neurons is trained off line. The
predictive control strategy is used to calculate optimal control
inputs so that the demanded temperature of the heated outlet
stream is assured. The energy consumption measured by heating
water consumption is also followed. The NN MPC of the heat
exchanger is compared with classical PID control.

2. Controlled process

Consider a co-current tubular heat exchanger, where petroleum

is heated by hot water through a copper tube (Fig. 1). The controlled
variable is the outlet petroleum temperature q1out. Among the input
variables, the water volume flow rate qV3(t) is selected as the
control variable, whereas the other inlet variables are constant.
The mathematical model of the heat exchanger is derived under
several simplifying assumptions. The tubes are described by a linear
coordinate z, which measures the distance of a generic section from Fig. 2. Steady-state analysis of the heat exchanger.
the inlet. The fluids move in a plug velocity profile and the petro-
leum, tube and water temperatures q1(z,t), q2(z,t) and q3(z,t) are
functions of the axial coordinate z and time t. The petroleum flow
rate is constant, whereas the water flow rate qV3(t) is a function of vq2 ðz; tÞ
s2 ¼ K1 q1 ðz; tÞ  q2 ðz; tÞ þ K2 q3 ðz; tÞ (2)
time t only, i.e. it can change in time, but it is the same along the vt
whole heat exchanger. The petroleum, water and tube material
densities ri as well as the specific heat capacities CPi, i ¼ 1, 2, 3, are vq3 ðz; tÞ vq ðz; tÞ
s3 þ s3 w3 ðtÞ 3 ¼ q2 ðz; tÞ  q3 ðz; tÞ (3)
assumed to be constant. The simplified non-linear dynamic math- vt vz
ematical model of the heat exchanger is described by three partial where time constants s1, s2, s3, velocities of liquids w1, w3 and gains
differential equations K1, K2 are calculated as follows

vq1 ðz; tÞ vq ðz; tÞ

s1 þ s1 w1 1 ¼ q1 ðz; tÞ þ q2 ðz; tÞ (1)

vt vz d22  d21 r2 CP2
d1 r1 CP1 4q1
s1 ¼ ; w1 ¼ ;s ¼ ;
4h21 pd21 2 4ðd1 h21 þ d2 h32 Þ
d1 h21 d2 h32
K1 ¼ ;K ¼ ;
d1 h21 þ d2 h32 2 d1 h21 þ d2 h32


d23  d22 r3 CP3 4q ðtÞ
s3 ¼ ; w3 ðtÞ ¼
3 
4d2 h32 p d2  d2 3 2

Here, d is the tube diameter, r is the density, CP is the specific heat

capacity, h is the heat transfer coefficient, qV is the volume flow rate.
Parameters and steady-state inputs of the heat exchanger are
enumerated in Table 1, where the superscript s denotes the steady
state and the subscript in denotes the inlet.
The steady-state analysis of the heat exchanger was done at first
and the steady-state dependence of the petroleum outlet temper-
ature q1out on the water flow rate qV3s was obtained (Fig. 2). It
s

confirmed the non-linearity of the heat exchanger.

Fig. 1. Scheme of the tubular heat exchanger.

3. Predictive control using neural network predictor

Table 1
Model-based predictive control (MBPC) includes a broad variety
Heat exchanger parameters and steady-state inputs. of control methods that comprise certain common ideas [19]. A
process model is explicitly used to predict the process output b y for
Variable Unit Value Variable Unit Value
a fixed number N of steps into future and the predictions are
l m 10 r1 kg m3 810
calculated based on information up to time k and on the future
d1 m 0.025 r2 kg m3 8960
d2 m 0.028 r3 kg m3 1000 control actions. A future reference trajectory is known. A future
d3 m 0.05 CP1 J kg1 K1 2100 control trajectory is calculated as a solution of an optimization
h21 W m2 K1 750 CP2 J kg1 K1 418 problem consisting of a cost function and possibly some constraints.
h32 W m2 K1 1480 CP3 J kg1 K1 4186 A receding strategy is used, i.e. only the first control signal u(k) of the
qV1 m3 s1 3.7723  104 qs1in 
C 20
qV3s m3 s1 1.1111  104 qs3in 
C 75
calculated sequence is applied to a controlled process. A useful
feature of MBPC is that the process constraints can easily be
 Author's personal copy
2096 A. Vasi
ckaninová et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2094e2100
incorporated into the design and therefore MBPC is very interesting
for industrial application. MBPC algorithms are also very versatile
and robust in process control applications and they usually outper-
form PID controllers.
The cost function in MBPC comprises future output predictions,
future reference trajectory, and future control actions. The standard
cost function used in MBPC contains quadratic terms of control
error and control increments on a finite horizon into the future and
can have the form (4)
X
Nmax h i2 X
Nu
JðkÞ ¼ Pb
yðk þ jÞ  yr ðk þ jÞ þl ½Duðk þ j  1Þ2
j ¼ Nmin j¼1
where Nu is the control horizon, Nmin and Nmax are the minimum
and maximum prediction horizons respectively, yr is the reference
trajectory, b
y is the predicted controlled output, l, P are the weight
factors, and Du is the sequence of the future control increments that
have to be calculated. The cost function is minimized in order to
obtain the optimum control input that is applied to the non-linear
plant. The control input u may be constrained: umin  uðk þ jÞ 
umax ; j ¼ 1; 2; .; Nu . The length of the control horizon Nu must
satisfy following constraints: 0 < Nu  Numax . The value of Numax
should cover the important part of the step response curve. The role
of the coefficient l is to scale the second sum of squared control
increments against the first sum representing squared predicted
control errors and P scales the predicted controlled output against
the reference signal. The output sequence of the optimal controller
is obtained over the prediction horizon by minimizing the cost
function J with respect to the vector of control inputs.
Fig. 3. Neural network predictive control.
Fig. 4. Neural network plant model.
The reference trajectory is assumed to be known. If it is not the
case, several approaches are possible. The simplest way is to
assume that the future reference is constant and equal to the
desired set point: yr(k) ¼ yr(N). The preferred approach is to use
smooth reference trajectory that begins from the actual output
value and approaches asymptotically via the first order filter to the
desired set point yr(N): yr(k) ¼ y(k), yr(k þ j) ¼ ayr(k þ j  1) þ
(1  a)yr(N). The parameter a determines smoothness of the
trajectory with a / 0 being the fastest and a / 1 being the slowest
trajectory.
(4)
3.1. Neural network predictive control
When the future output of the plant in predictive control
strategy is predicted using neural network plant model, the neural
network predictive control (NNPC) is established. The general
control structure for the NNPC is shown in Fig. 3.
The neural network model of the controlled plant is the
important component of the NNPC methodology. Two-layer
network with sigmoid transfer functions in the hidden layer and
linear transfer functions in the output layer is used in presented
NNPC design. The prediction error between the plant output and
the neural network (NN) output is used as the NN training signal.
The NN plant model uses previous inputs and previous plant
outputs to predict future values of the plant output. The structure of
the neural network plant model is shown in Fig. 4, where u(k) is the
system input, y(k) is the plant output, y ðkÞ is the NN plant model
output, the blocks TDL are the tapped delay lines that store
previous values of the input signals, IWi,j is the weight matrix from
the input number j to the layer number i, LWi,j is the weight matrix
from the layer number j to the layer number i.
The first stage in NNPC is the system identification. The identi-
fication means to train a neural network to represent the feed-
forward dynamics of the plant. The network can be trained off line
in batch mode, using data collected from the operation of the plant.
The procedure for selecting the network parameters is called
training the network. The LevenbergeMarquardt (LM) algorithm is
very efficient for training. The LM algorithm is an iterative tech-
nique that locates the minimum of a function that is expressed as
the sum of squares of non-linear functions [20,21].
4. Control of the heat exchanger
4.1. Neural network predictive control of the heat exchanger
The controlled process is the tubular heat exchanger described
in Section 2. The neural network predictive controller uses a neural
 Author's personal copy

A. Vasi
ckaninová et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2094e2100 2097

Fig. 5. Training data for NN model.

network model (Fig. 4) to predict future heat exchanger responses 4.2. PID control of the heat exchanger
to potential control signals. The first step in NNPC is training the
network. The parameters of the NN model and the parameters for PID controllers described by the transfer function
identification are chosen as follows. The NN model has 3 delayed  
1
plant inputs, 2 delayed plant outputs and 6 neurons in the hidden C ¼ Kp 1 þ þ td s (5)
ti s
layer. The LevenbergeMarquard algorithm is chosen for network
training and the name of the training function in MATLAB is trainlm. with Kp the proportional gain, ti the integral time and td the
The training data were obtained from the controlled process derivative time, were tuned using Cohen-Coon and Strejc methods
with distributed parameters represented by the non-linear model [19,22] on the basis of a linear model of the plant. The model was
of the heat exchanger (1)e(3) with the sampling interval 2 s. Six identified from the step response of the heat exchanger in the form
hundred training samples were used for the neural network of the nth order plus time delay transfer function
training and the number of realized plant training epochs was 6. K
The NN model was trained off line. The results of training are shown S ¼ eDs (6)
ðss þ 1Þn
in Fig. 5 for the training data and in Fig. 6 for the validation data. In
both cases, the prediction error is sufficiently small and the process The transfer function parameters are: the gain K ¼ 3.7  104, the
output and the NN model output fit well. It is possible to state that order n ¼ 3, the time constant s ¼ 18 s and the time delay D ¼ 2.4 s.
the NN training was successful. The other two parameters obtained from identification are
After the NN model is trained, the NNPC starts. The parameters tu ¼ 14.5 s and tn ¼ 66.4 s. Here, tu represents the effective time
for NNPC of the described heat exchanger are chosen as follows: delay, i.e. the time when the tangent line drawn at the inflection
minimum prediction horizon Nmin ¼ 1, maximum prediction point on the step response curve intersects the initial value of the
horizon Nmax ¼ 8, control horizon Nu ¼ 2, weight coefficients in the step response. Analogically, tn represents the effective time
cost function l ¼ 0.5, P ¼ 1, and the parameter for the reference constant, i.e. the time from tu to the time when the tangent line
trajectory calculation a ¼ 0.0022. For computing the control signals intersects the final value of the step response.
that optimize future plant performance, the minimization routine The Cohen-Coon formulae given e.g. in [22] are for the PID
csrchbac was chosen. It is in fact one-dimensional minimization controller parameters
using the backtracking method. The control input constraints were ! !
 
set: 1.5  104  qV3  3.1  104 m3 s1 and control output 1 tn 4 1 tu 32 þ 6ttun 4
Kp ¼ þ ; ti ¼ tu ; t ¼ t :
constraints: 36  q1out  43  C. The controller block was imple- K tu 3 4 tn 13 þ 8ttun
d u
11 þ 2ttun
mented in MATLAB-Simulink.
 Author's personal copy

2098 A. Vasi
ckaninová et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2094e2100

Fig. 6. Validation data for NN model.

The Strejc formulae given e.g. in [19] are for the PID parameters in Table 2. The smallest values of ISE and IAE are assured using
NNPC.
1 7n þ 16 7n þ 16 ðn þ 1Þðn þ 3Þ The energy consumption is measured by the total amount of hot
Kp ¼ ;t ¼ s ; td ¼ s
K 16ðn  2Þ i 15 7n þ 16 water consumed during the control process. The situation for NNPC
and PID control is presented in Fig. 8, and it can be stated that the
smallest energy consumption is assured using NNPC structure.
The PID controller parameters obtained using the Cohen-Coon
formulae are Kp ¼ 1.7  104, ti ¼ 32.7 s, td ¼ 5 s and those obtained
using the Strejc formulae are Kp ¼ 6.2  105, ti ¼ 44.4 s, td ¼ 11.7 s.

4.3. Results

Simulation results obtained using designed neural network

predictive controller and two PID controllers are shown in Figs. 7
and 8. Fig. 7 compares controlled outputs in the task of set point
tracking. The set point changes from 40  C to 39  C at time 300 s,
and then to 40.5  C at time 600 s. The control response obtained by
NNPC is the best one; it has the smallest overshoots and the
shortest settling times. The simulation results were compared also
using integral criteria ISE (integrated squared error) and IAE
(integrated absolute error) defined e.g. in [19] as follows

ZN ZN
2
ISE ¼ ðeðtÞÞ dt; IAE ¼ jeðtÞjdt (7)
0 0
Fig. 7. Comparison of the outlet temperature of the heat exchanger received using the
Here, e(t) is the error between the reference value yr(t) and the neural network predictive control and PID control: d>d NNPC, dBd Strejc PID
actual process output y(t). The values of ISE and IAE are enumerated controller, dVd Cohen-Coon PID controller.
 Author's personal copy

A. Vasi
ckaninová et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2094e2100 2099

h coefficient of heat transfer (W m2 K1)

J cost function
k discrete time (s)
K gain (1)
l length (m)
n system order (1)
N number of steps (1)
qV volume flow rate (m3 s1)
t time (s)
tu effective time delay (s)
tn effective time constant (s)
w velocity (m s1)
u control input
y controlled output
yr set point, reference trajectory
b
y predicted output
z space coordinate (m)

Fig. 8. Comparison of the neural network predictive control and PID control by hot Greek letters
water consumption: d>d NNPC, d;Bd Strejc PID controller, dVd Cohen-Coon PID r density (kg m3)
controller.
s time constant (s)
q temperature ( C)

Table 2
Values of ISE and IAE. Subscripts
Method ISE IAE
1 petroleum
2 copper tube
NNPC 279.35 159.90
PID Cohen-Coon 304.71 212.23 21 from copper tube to petroleum
PID Strejc 297.42 232.96 3 water
32 from water to copper tube d derivative
i integral
5. Conclusion in inlet
min minimum
In this paper, the application of a neural network model based max maximum
predictive control strategy to a tubular heat exchanger as a system out outlet
with distributed parameters is presented. The simulation results p proportional
confirm that NNPC as a not linear-model-based strategy is a good
tool for successful control of heat exchangers. The NNPC is able to
Subscript
assure less oscillating control responses with shorter settling times
s steady state
in comparison to classical PID control. The other advantage of this
approach is that the control input constraints and the controlled
outputs constraints are directly included into the synthesis. Acknowledgements
Because of the optimization procedure used for the control input
calculations, the NNPC is also tool for assuring an optimal or The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the
a nearly optimal behaviour of the controlled process. This fact leads Scientific Grant Agency of the Slovak Republic e grants 1/0537/10,
to smaller consumption of hot water used for heating of petroleum 1/0071/09, the Slovak Research and Development Agency e VV-
in comparison to classical PID control, and it is also confirmed by 0029-07 and the bilateral SK-HU 0023-08 (OMFB-01457/2009)
simulation results. The energy savings would be more significant if Advanced Optimisation and Control Strategies in Energy Saving
the NNPC would be implemented in the frame of the heat Systems.
exchanger network. The NNPC approach can be used also for
practical application. Implementation of NNPC into industrial References
applications is straightforward. The real process is used instead of
the process model and the training data for NN model training are [1] S. Kuntzsch, R. Zwicknagl, A. Berghoff, A. Blesgen, V.C. Hass, Improving the
obtained by measuring corresponding input and output process. energy efficiency of industrial processes using mathematical modelling, Chem.
Eng. Trans. 21 (2010) 97e102. doi:10.3303/CET1021017.
Comparison to classical PID control shows the superiority of the [2] M.H. Panjeshahi, F. Harati, M.M. Nouzari, Improving energy efficiency in
NNPC in both problems, the problem of the set point tracking, as natural gas refineries using exergy analysis, Chem. Eng. Trans. 21 (2010)
well as the problem of energy savings. 121e126. doi:10.3303/CET1021017.
[3] S. Sanaye, H. Hajabdollahi, Multi-objective optimization of shell and tube heat
exchangers, Appl. Thermal Eng. 30 (14e15) (2010) 1937e1945. doi:10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2010.04.018.
Nomenclature [4] L. Sikos, J. Kleme
s, Reliability, availability and maintenance optimisation of
heat exchanger networks, Appl. Thermal Eng. 30 (1) (2010) 63e69.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.02.013.
Symbols [5] S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell, A survey of industrial model predictive control tech-
d diameter (m) nology, Cont. Eng. Prac. 11 (7) (2003) 733e764.
[6] M.L. Darby, M. Harmse, M. Nikolaou, MPC: current practice and challenges, in:
D time delay (s) Symposium Preprints of IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical
CP specific heat capacity (J kg1 K1) Processes ADCHEM 2009, Part 1, Istanbul, Turkey (2009), pp. 88e100.
 Author's personal copy
2100 A. Vasi
ckaninová et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2094e2100
[7] S. Li, B. Kouvaritakis, M. Cannon, Improvements on the efficiency of linear
MPC, in: Joint 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and 28th Chinese
Control Conference, Shanghai, P.R. China (2009), pp. 7394e7399.
[8] W. Xie, C. Theodoropoulos, An off-line model reduction-based technique for
on-line linear MPC applications for nonlinear large-scale distributed systems,
Comp. Aided Chem. Eng. 28 (2010) 409e414. doi:10.1016/S1570-7946(10)
28069-0.
[9] B. ZareNezhad, A. Aminian, A multi-layer feed forward neural network model
for accurate prediction of flue gas sulfuric acid dew points in process industries,
Appl. Thermal Eng. 30 (6e7) (2010) 692e696. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2009.11.017.
[10] Subhra Rani Patra, R. Jehadeesan, S. Rajeswari, S.A.V. Satyamurthy, Artificial
neural network model for intermediate heat exchanger of nuclear reactor, Int.
J. Comp. Appl. 1 (26) (2010) 63e69. doi:10.5120/478-785.
[11] Y. Islamoglu, A new approach for the prediction of the heat transfer rate of
the wire-on-tube type heat exchanger e use of an artificial neural network
model, Appl. Thermal Eng. 23 (2003) 243e249. doi:10.1016/S1359-4311(02)
00155-2.
[12] C.K. Tan, J. Ward, S.J. Wilcox, R. Payne, Artificial neural network modelling of
the thermal performance of a compact heat exchanger, Appl. Thermal Eng.
29 (17e18) (2009) 3609e3617. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.06.017.
[13] J.Q. Huang, F.L. Lewis, Neural-network predictive control for nonlinear
dynamic systems with time-delay, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 14 (2) (2003)
377e389.
View publication stats
[14] P. Kittisupakorn, P. Thitiyasook, M.A. Hussain, W. Daosud, Neural network
based model predictive control for a steel pickling process, J. Process Control
19 (4) (2009) 579e590. doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2008.09.003.
[15] C.H. Lu, C.C. Tsai, C.M. Liu, Y.H. Charng, Neural-network-based predictive
controller design: an application to temperature control of a plastic injection
molding process, Asian J. Control 12 (6) (2010) 680e691. doi:10.1002/asjc.244.
[16] J. Novak, V. Bobal, Predictive control of the heat exchanger using local model
network, in: 17th Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation, The-
ssaloniki, Greece (2009), pp. 657e662.
[17] J.D. Álvarez, L.J. Yebra, M. Berenguel, Repetitive control of tubular heat
exchangers, J. Process Control 17 (9) (2007) 689e701. doi:10.1016/
j.jprocont.2007.02.003.
[18] K. Varshney, P.K. Panigrahi, Artificial neural network control of a heat
exchanger in a closed flow air circuit, Appl. Soft Comput. 5 (4) (2005)
441e465. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2004.10.004.
[19] J. Mikle
s, M. Fikar, Process Modeling, Identification, and Control. Springer,
Berlin, 2007.
[20] G. Lera, M. Pinzolas, Neighborhood based LevenbergeMarquardt algorithm for
neural network training, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 13 (5) (2002)
1200e1203. doi:10.1109/TNN.2002.1031951.
[21] K. Madsen, H.B. Nielsen, R. Tingleff, Methods for Non-linear Least Squares
Problems, Lecture Notes. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 2004.
[22] B.A. Ogunnaike, W.H. Ray, Process Dynamics, Modeling, and Control. Oxford
University Press, New York, 1994.