This paper presents an easy-to-use and reliable tuning strategy for unconstrained SISO dynamic
matrix control (DMC) and lays a foundation for extension to multivariable systems. The tuning
strategy achieves set point tracking with minimal overshoot and modest manipulated input
move sizes and is applicable to a broad class of open loop stable processes. The derivation of an
analytical expression for the move suppression coefficient, λ, and its demonstration in a DMC
tuning strategy is one of the significant contributions of this work. The compact form for the
analytical expression for λ is achieved by employing a first order plus dead time (FOPDT) model
approximation of the process dynamics. With tuning parameters computed, DMC is then
implemented in the classical fashion using a dynamic matrix formulated from step response
coefficients of the actual process. Just as the FOPDT model approximation has proved a valuable
tool in tuning rules such as Cohen-Coon, ITAE, and IAE for PID implementations, the tuning
strategy presented here is significant because it offers an analogous approach for DMC.
f)
{0
(
M 3.5τp
500 T
+2-
(M - 1)
2 )
M)1
M>1
λ ) fK2p
6. Implement DMC using the traditional step response matrix of the actual process and the following parameters computed
in steps 1-5:
sample time, T
model horizon (process settling time in samples), N
prediction horizon (optimization horizon), P
control horizon (number of moves), M
move suppression coefficient, λ
Background
Model predictive control (MPC) has established itself
over the past decade as an industrially important form
of advanced control. Since the seminal publication of
Model Predictive Heuristic Control (later Model Algo-
rithmic Control) (Richalet et al., 1976, 1978) and
Dynamic Matrix Control (Cutler and Ramaker, 1980,
1983), MPC has gained widespread acceptance in aca-
demia and in industry. Several excellent technical
reviews of MPC recount the significant contributions in
the past decade and detail the role of MPC from an
academic perspective (Garcı́a et al., 1989; Morari and
Figure 1. Moving horizon concept of model predictive control.
Lee, 1991; Ricker, 1991; Muske and Rawlings, 1993) and
from an industrial perspective (Richalet, 1993; Clarke, Dynamic matrix control is arguably the most popular
1994; Froisy, 1994; Camacho and Bordons, 1995; Qin MPC algorithm currently used in the chemical process
and Badgwell, 1996). industry. Qin and Badgwell (1996) reported about 600
MPC refers to a family of controllers that employs a successful applications of DMC. It is not surprising why
distinctly identifiable model of the process to predict its DMC, one of the earliest formulations of MPC, repre-
future behavior over an extended prediction horizon. A sents the industry’s standard today. A large part of
performance objective to be minimized is defined over DMC’s appeal is drawn from an intuitive use of a finite
the prediction horizon, usually as a sum of quadratic step response (or convolution) model of the process, a
set point tracking error and control effort terms. This quadratic performance objective over a finite prediction
cost function is minimized by evaluating a profile of horizon, and optimal manipulated input moves com-
manipulated input moves to be implemented at succes- puted as the solution to a least squares problem.
sive sampling instants over the control horizon. Closed- Because of its popularity, this work focuses on an overall
loop optimal feedback is achieved by implementing only tuning strategy for DMC.
the first manipulated input move and repeating the Another form of MPC that has rapidly gained ac-
complete sequence of steps at the subsequent sample ceptance in the control community is Generalized
time. This “moving horizon” concept of MPC, where the Predictive Control (GPC) (Clarke et al., 1987a,b). It
controller looks a finite time into the future, is il- differs from DMC in that it employs a controlled
lustrated in Figure 1. autoregressive and integrated moving average (CA-
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997 731
RIMA) model of the process which allows a rigorous phisticated analysis tools and an advanced knowledge
mathematical treatment of the predictive control para- of control concepts for their implementation. Hence,
digm. The GPC performance objective is very similar there still exists a need for easy-to-use tuning strategies
to that of DMC but is minimized via recursion on the for DMC.
diophantine identity (Clarke et al., 1987a,b; Lalonde and Tuning of unconstrained SISO DMC is challenging
Cooper, 1989). Nevertheless, GPC reduces to the DMC because of the number of adjustable parameters that
algorithm when the weighting polynomial that modifies affect closed-loop performance. These include the
the predicted output trajectory is assumed to be unity following: a finite prediction horizon, P; a control
(McIntosh et al., 1991). Therefore, without any loss of horizon, M; a move suppression coefficient, λ; a model
generality, the tuning strategy proposed in this paper horizon, N; and a sample time, T.
is directly applicable to GPC. The first problem that needs to be addressed is the
Unconstrained SISO DMC. DMC does not always selection of an appropriate set of tuning parameters
compete with, but sometimes complements, classical from among those available for DMC. Practical limita-
three-term PID (proportional, integral, derivative) con- tions often restrict the availability of sample time, T,
trollers. That is, it is often implemented in advanced as a tuning parameter (Franklin and Powell, 1980;
industrial control applications embedded in a hierarchy A° ström and Wittenmark, 1984). The model horizon is
of control functions above a set of traditional PID loops also not an appropriate tuning parameter since trunca-
(Prett and Garcı́a, 1988; Qin and Badgwell, 1996). tion of the model horizon, N, misrepresents the effect
The unconstrained SISO DMC formulation considered of past moves in the predicted output and leads to
in this work (eq 1) does not unleash the full power of unpredictable closed-loop performance (Lundström et
MPC. This restricted form of DMC does not allow al., 1995).
multivariable control while satisfying multiple process Sensitivity Study and Final Selection of DMC
and performance objectives. However, the analysis Tuning Parameters. Based on the above discussion,
presented here provides a foundation upon which more candidate parameters for developing a systematic tun-
advanced tuning strategies may be developed, and this ing strategy for DMC include the prediction horizon, P,
is illustrated later in the work with an extension to a the control horizon, M, and the move suppression
tuning strategy for multivariable DMC. coefficient, λ. Though this simplifies the task of sensi-
In any event, unconstrained SISO DMC does offer tivity analysis, the appropriate choice of these param-
some useful capabilities. For example, past comparison eters is strongly dependent on the sample time and the
studies between unconstrained DMC and traditional PI nature of the process.
control (e.g., Farrell and Polli, 1990) show that DMC Over the past decade, detailed studies of DMC pa-
provides superior performance when disturbance tuning rameters have provided a wealth of information about
differs significantly from servo tuning. DMC has also their qualitative effects on closed-loop performance
demonstrated superior performance in the case of plant- (Marchetti et al., 1983; Garcı́a and Morshedi, 1986;
model mismatch, except for process gain mismatch. Downs et al., 1988; Maurath et al., 1988a). In this
Additionally, incorporation of process knowledge in section, a brief sensitivity study investigates the extent
the controller architecture provides DMC with anticipa- to which various parameters affect DMC performance.
tory capabilities and facilitates control of processes with This study is targeted toward selection of appropriate
nonminimum phase behavior and large dead times. The tuning parameters for developing a DMC tuning strat-
form of the performance objective provides a convenient egy.
way to balance set point tracking with control effort, A base case process is employed to illustrate the effect
leading to an intuitive tradeoff between performance of adjustable parameters on DMC response for a step
and robustness. Also, the DMC form considered in this change in set point (Figures 2-4). The base case
work allows the introduction of feed-forward control in process has the transfer function
a natural way to compensate for measurable distur-
bances.
process 1
Challenges in SISO DMC Tuning. Tuning of
unconstrained and constrained DMC for SISO and e-50s
multivariable systems has been addressed by an array Gp(s) ) (2)
of researchers. In the past, systematic trial-and-error (150s + 1)(25s + 1)
tuning procedures have been proposed (e.g., Cutler,
1983; Ricker, 1991). Marchetti et al. (1983) presented Figure 2 illustrates the importance of λ in tuning
a detailed sensitivity analysis of adjustable parameters DMC with a control horizon greater than one manipu-
and their effects on DMC performance. The method of lated input move. The sample time is selected for this
principal component selection was presented by Maurath base case such that the T/τp ratio is 0.1. This sample
et al. (1985, 1988b) as a method to compute an ap- time to overall time constant ratio lies within the
propriate prediction horizon and a move suppression recommended range for digital controllers (Seborg, 1986;
coefficient (Callaghan and Lee, 1988). To simplify DMC Ogunnaike, 1994). A FOPDT model approximation of
tuning, Maurath et al. (1988a) also proposed the “M ) the process described by eq 2 yields a process gain, Kp
1” controller configuration of DMC. ) 1, an overall time constant, τp ) 157, and effective
Other tuning strategies for DMC have concentrated dead time, θp ) 70. The prediction horizon and model
on specific aspects such as tuning for stability (Garcı́a horizon are fixed at 54 and represent the complete
and Morari, 1982; McIntosh, 1988; Clarke and Scat- settling time of process 1 in samples.
tolini, 1991; Rawlings and Muske, 1993), robustness Graph a of Figure 2 illustrates the response to a step
(Ohshima et al., 1991; Lee and Yu, 1994), and perfor- change in set point when the control horizon is 1 (M )
mance (McIntosh et al., 1992; Hinde and Cooper, 1993, 1) and no move suppression is used (λ ) 0). Note that
1995). Although some of the above methods provide a for M ) 1, the set point step response is sluggish and a
complete design of DMC, they also require fairly so- λ > 0 will only further slow the process response.
732 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997
∑ a ∆u(n + j - i) - d(n) )
algorithm is a discrete convolution or step response
ysp(n + j) - y0 -
model of the process that predicts the output (ŷ(n + j)) i)j+1
i
j ∑a ∆u(n + j - i)
i j ) 1, 2, ..., P (8)
ŷ(n + j) ) y0 + ∑
i)1
ai∆u(n + j - i) + i)1
}
∑ ai∆u(n + j - i)
i)j+1
(3) The terms on the left in eq 8 represent the error between
the predicted output and the set point that will exist
over the next P sampling instants provided no further
}
effect of past moves manipulated input moves are made by the controller.
The term on the right represents the effect of the yet
undetermined current and future manipulated input
In eq 3, y0 is the initial condition of the measured moves.
output, ∆ui ) ui - ui-1 is the change in the manipulated Equation 8 is a system of linear equations which can
input at the ith sampling instant, ai is the ith unit step be represented as a matrix equation of the form
[]
734 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997
[ ]
·
· The expression for the predicted error from eq 8 can be
modified to eliminate y0 using eq 5:
e(n + P)
·
P×1
N-1
a1
a2
0
a1
0
0
· · · 0
0
e(n + j) ) ysp(n + j) - y0 - ∑ ai∆u(n + j - i) -
i)j+1
a3 a2 a1 ·
· 0 d(n)
× N-1
·
0
· · ·
∑
· · ·
a·M aM-1
· aM-2
· a1 ) ysp(n + j) - ŷ(n) - (ai+j - aj)∆u(n - j)
j)1
· · · · (16)
[ ]
· · · ·
a·
P a·P-1 a·
P-2 ... aP-M+1
·
P×M Substituting eq 16 in eq 15 gives
∆u(n) P
∆u(n + 1) ∆u(n) ) ∑ ci{ysp(n + i) - ŷ(n) -
∆u(n + 2) (9) i)1
N-1
∆u(n + M - 1) M×1 ∑
j)1
(ai+j - aj) ∆u(n - j)} (17)
or in a compact matrix notation as Let ysp(n) be a weighted average of the desired set
point profile over P future sampling instants:
ej ) A∆u
j (10)
P
where ej is the vector of predicted errors over the next
P sampling instants, A is the dynamic matrix, and ∆u j ∑
i)1
ciysp(n + i)
is the vector of manipulated input moves to be deter- ysp(n) ) (18)
mined. P
An exact solution to eq 10 is not possible since the ∑ ci
number of equations exceeds the degrees of freedom (P i)1
> M). Hence, the control objective is alternatively posed
as a least-squares optimization problem with a qua- Using eq 18 in eq 17, the latter becomes
dratic performance objective (cost function) of the form P
j ]T[ej - A∆u
Min J ) [ej - A∆u j] (11)
∆u(n) ) ∑
i)1
ci{ysp(n) - ŷ(n)} -
∆u
j
P N-1
( ( ))
modified performance objective has the form
u(z) 1
Min J ) [ej - A∆u T
j ] [ej - A∆u
j ] + [∆u
j ] λ[∆u
j ] (13) T D(z) ) )
∆u e(z) P
∑
j
ciai+j
N-1
where λ is the move suppression coefficient. For the 1
+ ∑
i)1
modified performance objective the closed form solution (1 - z )
-1
- aj z-j
P P
∑ ∑
takes the form (Marchetti et al., 1983; Ogunnaike, j)1
1986): ci ci
i)1 i)1
j ) (ATA + λI)-1ATej
∆u (14) (21)
DMC Transfer Function. The DMC transfer func- Although eq 21 provides insight into the form of the
tion is developed by building upon prior work by Gupta DMC transfer function, theoretical analysis of the
(1987, 1993). Let ci denote the ith first row element of closed-loop system is very complicated (even after the
the pseudoinverse matrix, (ATA + λI)-1AT. Then, ∆u(n), assumption of a FOPDT model approximation of the
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997 735
process). This is primarily because it is difficult to G(z) ) y(z)/u(z) ) KpG̃(z) (26)
represent the elements, ci, of the pseudoinverse matrix
analytically in terms of the step response coefficients.
Consequently, eq 21 does not serve as a convenient Using eq 25 and eq 26, the open-loop transfer function
starting point for devising the analytical expression for is of the form
computing λ. However, as shown in the next section,
some useful information regarding the form of the move D(z)G(z) ) y(z)/e(z) ) (D̃(z)/Kp)KpG̃(z) ) D̃(z)G̃(z)
suppression coefficient rule can be extracted from the (27)
DMC transfer function.
Gain Scaling of the Move Suppression Coef-
ficient. Previous work has proposed that the choice of and the closed-loop transfer function is of the form
the move suppression coefficient can be made indepen-
dent of the process gain (Lalonde and Cooper, 1989; y(z) D(z)G(z) D̃(z)G̃(z)
McIntosh et al., 1991). Gain-scaling is a term coined ) ) (28)
ysp(z) 1 + D(z)G(z) 1 + D̃(z)G̃(z)
to represent a transformation where a mathematical
expression is stripped of the effects of process gain for
analysis independent of gain. For example, gain-scaling By casting the move suppression, λ, as a scaled
of the move suppression coefficient can be done by
expressing it as a product of a scaled move suppression coefficient, f, times the square of the process gain, K2p,
the SISO DMC response looks similar for all first-order
coefficient, f, and the square of the process gain, K2p.
Note that this approach is restricted to DMC applied systems when the time dimension is scaled appropri-
to SISO systems and cannot be directly extended to ately. In other words, eq 28 shows that, by gain-scaling
multivariable systems. λ as in eq 22, the closed-loop performance is rendered
Consider a form of the move suppression coefficient independent of the process gain. As a result, derivation
given by of an analytical expression for λ yields a scaled coef-
ficient, f, that is a function of parameters other than
λ ) fK2p (22) the process gain.
The step response coefficient of any linear system can Derivation of an Analytical Expression for λ
be written as
The analysis of the gain-scaled system matrix, ÃTÃ,
ai ) Kpãi (23) involves the development of an approximate form of the
gain-scaled system matrix. Such an approximation is
where ãi represents the part of the unit step response made possible with the use of a FOPDT model ap-
coefficient that is independent of the process gain, Kp. proximation of the process. It must be emphasized that
Using eq 22 and eq 23, it is possible to separate the gain-
the use of this FOPDT approximation is employed only
related effects from the first row elements, ci, of the
in the derivation of the analytical expression for λ. The
pseudoinverse matrix:
examples presented later in this work all use the
traditional DMC step response matrix of the actual
ci ) ith first row element of {(ATA + λI)-1AT}
process upon implementation.
) ith first row element of {(K2pÃTÃ + fK2pI)-1KpÃT} An Approximate Form of the ÃTÃ Matrix. A
) 1/Kp × ith first row element of {(ÃTÃ + fI)-1ÃT} FOPDT model with zero-order hold is represented by a
discrete transfer function as
) c̃i/Kp (24)
( ( ))
D(z) ) u(z)/e(z) ) k ) θp/T + 1 (30)
1
) D̃(z)/Kp
P In eq 30, θp is the effective dead time in the process.
1 N-1
∑ c̃iãi+j From eq 29, the step response coefficients of a FOPDT
+ ∑
i)1 process are given by
Kp(1 - z )
-1
- ãj z-j
P P
∑ ∑
{
j)1
c̃i c̃i 0 0ejek-1
i)1 i)1 ãi ) (31)
(1 - e-(T/τp)(j-k+1)) kej
(25)
Similarly, the gain dependence of a linear process Using a FOPDT model approximation of the process
transfer function is separable from the remaining and the gain-scaled step response coefficients from eq
process parameters: 31, the dynamic matrix from eq 9 has the form
736 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997
e e
e e e
e e e e
e e e e
e e e e e
Figure 5. Comparison of the true and approximate condition
numbers of the ÃTÃ matrix for large values of the prediction
e e e e e horizon, P.
[ ]
proximate form of the matrix that results is
An approximate form of the gain-scaled system matrix
can be obtained by approximating individual terms of ÃTÃ =
the matrix in eq 33 for large values of the prediction 3T 3T 3 3T
horizon, P, and small sample times, T (small T/τp). Let P-k- +2 P-k- + P-k-
2 τp 2 τp 2 2 τp
+1 · · ·
R̃ij (i,j ) 1, 2, ..., M) be the term in the ith row and jth
column of the gain-scaled system matrix. The ap- 3T 3 3T 3T 1
P-k- + P-k- +1 P-k-
2 τp 2 2 τp 2 τp 2
+ · · ·
proximation of one such term, R̃11, is shown in eq 34.
Recognizing that the summation terms in R̃11 are in 3T 3T 1 3T
P-k- +1 P-k- + P-k-
geometric progression results in the exact expression 2 τp 2 τp 2 2 τp · · ·
· · · ·
P-k+1 M×M
∑
· · · ·
(1 - e-i(T/τp))2 (37)
· · · ·
R̃11 )
[ ]
i)1
P-k+1 Let β ) R̃11 = P - k - (3/2)(T/τp) + 2, then
) ∑
i)1
(1 - 2e -i(T/τp)
+e -2i(T/τp)
)
1
β β- β-1
2
· · ·
-(T/τp) -(P-k+1)(T/τp)
2e (1 - e ) 1 3
) (P - k + 1) - + β- β-1 β-
(1 - e-(T/τp)) ÃTÃ ) 2 2
· · ·
(38)
3
e-(2T/τp)(1 - e-2(P-k+1)(T/τp)) β-1 β- β-2
2
· · ·
-(2T/τp)
(34)
(1 - e ) · · · ·
· · · · M×M
· · · ·
With a FOPDT model approximation available, the
Note that the approximate ÃTÃ matrix has a Hankel
prediction horizon, P, can be computed as the open-loop
matrix form with the added feature that the elements
process settling time in samples as P ) (5τp/T) + k. This
of every row successively decrease by 0.5 from left to
supports the findings of past researchers (Garcı́a and
right. The approximate matrix of eq 38 is singular when
Morshedi, 1986; Maurath et al., 1988a; Lundström et
M g 3. This supports the observation made by prior
al., 1995) that P should be large enough to include the
researchers (Marchetti et al., 1983) that the ATA matrix
steady state effect of all past input moves.
(hence, the ÃTÃ matrix) becomes increasingly singular
For large values of prediction horizon, the term in eq
for large values of the prediction horizon, P, and control
34 simplifies to
horizon, M.
Figure 5 provides evidence that the approximate gain-
2e-(T/τp) e-(2T/τp) scaled system matrix is a good approximation of the true
R̃11 = (P - k + 1) - -(T/τp)
+ (35)
(1 - e ) (1 - e-(2T/τp)) system matrix, especially for the analysis of the ÃTÃ +
fI matrix in the DMC control law. Specifically, Figure
Notice that the approximation in eq 35 becomes increas- 5 shows the condition number for the exact and ap-
ingly accurate as P increases and is exactly true for an proximate ÃTÃ + fI matrix as a function of the scaled
infinite horizon implementation of DMC. A first-order move suppression coefficient, f, for different choices of
Taylor series expansion, e-(T/τp) ) 1 - T/τp, that is valid the control horizon. The prediction horizon employed
for small sample times (T/τp e 0.1), can be applied to in Figure 5 is (5τp)/T + k, which is the open-loop settling
eq 35 to yield time of the process based on a FOPDT model ap-
3T
R̃11 = P - k - +2 (36)
2 τp
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997 737
proximation of the process. This value of prediction eq 45 by solving the system of equations that result from
horizon is recommended in the proposed tuning strategy the top left partitioned block using eq 38 and eq 42.
based on closed-loop stability considerations (Garcı́a and Thus, a and b are given by
Morari, 1982; Clarke and Scattolini, 1991; Rawlings and
Muske, 1993; Scokaert and Clarke, 1994). From Figure
5 it can be seen that, for large values of prediction
horizon, the condition number of the approximate
a)M β- { (M - 1)
2 }
system matrix in eq 38 closely follows the true condition Mx(M - 1)(M + 1)
number. b)- (46)
QR Factorization of the Approximate ÃTÃ + fI 2x12
Matrix. Since the approximate form of the system
matrix (eq 38) was shown above to be a reasonable Now, the ÃTÃ + fI matrix, to be inverted in DMC
[ ]
approximation of the true system matrix (eq 33), the control law, has the form
following treatment of the ÃTÃ + fI matrix is based on
this approximate form. ÃTÃ + fI )
Consider two linearly independent M-vectors: 1
β+f β- β-1
2
· · ·
T
h
h 1 ) (1 1 1 ‚‚‚ 1)1×M 1 3
β- β-1+f β-
2 2
· · ·
(47)
T 3
h
h 2 ) (0 1 2 ‚‚‚ M - 1)1×M (39) β-1 β- β-2+f
2
· · ·
The approximate ÃTÃ matrix (eq 38) can be written in ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· M×M
terms of these vectors as · · · ·
Adopting the factored form in eq 45 and eq 46, eq 47 is
h 1T + h
ÃTÃ ) νj‚h h 1‚νjT (40) written as
where
[ ]
ÃTÃ + fI ) [ej 1 ej 2 ... 0]M×M ×
β 1
νj ) hh - h (41) a+f b
·
0
2 1 2 2
h ·
b f
·
Hence, h h 2 form a basis for the approximate ÃTÃ
h 1 and h [ej 1 ej 2 ... 0]TM×M (48)
· · · · · · · · ·
matrix.
0 fI
·
A Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization of h1 and h2 · M×M
·
yields the orthonormal basis for ÃTÃ:
Equation 48 can now be used to determine explicit
T 1 analytical expressions for the eigenvalues of ÃTÃ + fI.
ej 1 ) (1 1 1 ‚‚‚ 1)1×M From eq 47 it is clear that the approximate form of ÃTÃ
xM + fI has eigenvalues µ ) f with multiplicity (M - 2).
Therefore
x
12
ej 2T ) (0 1 2 ‚‚‚ M - 1)1×M -
M(M - 1)(M + 1) µmin ) f (49)
(M - 1)
(1 1 1 ‚‚‚ 1)1×M (42) The remaining two eigenvalues are found from the
2
top left partitioned block as the µ that satisfies
Therefore, h
h 1 and h
h 2 can be QR factored as
h1 h
[h h 2]M×2 ) [e1 ej 2]M×2R2×2 (43) |ab + f - µ b
f-µ
)0 | (50)
where R is upper triangular and invertible. Using eq A solution to eq 50 (using eq 46) yields the larger of the
43, eq 40 can be transformed to two eigenvalues as
h 1T + h
ÃTÃ ) νj‚h h 1‚νjT ) µmax )
[ej 1 ej 2]M×2 [
a
b
b
0 ]
2×2
T
[ej 1 ej 2]2×M (44) Mβ+2f -
M(M-1)
2
+
x M2β2-M2(M-1)β+
2
(M-1)M2(2M-1)
6
[ ]
that the ÃTÃ matrix (eq 38) is nearly singular for M )
2 and is perfectly singular for M > 2. Therefore, the
a b
·
· 0 minimum absolute eigenvalue of ÃTÃ for M g 2 is close
to or exactly zero. When a constant quantity, f, is added
b 0
·
[ej 1 ej 2 ... 0]TM×M (45) to the leading diagonal of such a matrix, all its eigen-
· · · · · · · · · values shift by that quantity (Hoerl and Kennard, 1970;
0 0 Ogunnaike, 1986). Hence, the minimum absolute eigen-
·
· M×M
· value of the resultant ÃTÃ + fI matrix, µmin, is equal to
Analytical expressions for a and b can be obtained from f (eq 49).
738 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997
( )
successively increasing dimensions (M × M). By rec- 2 2
(M - 1) (M - 1)
ognizing that the various coefficients in the analytical β2 - (M - 1)β + ) β- (55)
expressions follow a series pattern that is a function of 4 2
the matrix dimension (M × M), a general formula for
the maximum eigenvalue can be obtained as a function With this simplification, the expression for the gain
of M. This general analytical expression is identical to scaled coefficient becomes
( )
the analytical expression obtained in eq 51.
M (M - 1)
Formulation of the Analytical Expression for λ. f) β- (56)
Past researchers (e.g., Ogunnaike, 1986) have indicated c 2
that the move suppression coefficient, λ, serves a dual
purpose in the DMC control law. Its primary role in Past researchers (Maurath et al., 1988a,b; Callaghan
and Lee, 1988; Farrell and Polli, 1990) have indicated
DMC is to suppress otherwise aggressive controller
typical condition numbers for a moderately ill-condi-
action when M > 1. Additionally, λ serves to improve
tioned DMC system matrix. Condition numbers re-
the conditioning of the system matrix by rendering it
ported range from about 100 for single-input single-
more positive definite. output systems to about 2000 for multivariable systems.
One premise underlying this work is that both these Apart from the variety of systems considered, the
effects are interrelated. When λ is increased, the approximate relation, c ∝ M(P - k)/f, indicates that
manipulated input move sizes decrease, as does the some of the differences are due to the different predic-
condition number. Clearly, if the effect of λ on the tion and control horizons used by the individual design-
condition number of the system matrix can be analyti- ers. In this work, a condition number of 500 is selected
cally expressed, then this condition number can be to represent the upper allowable limit of ill-conditioning
maintained within specified bounds by an appropriate in the system matrix (corresponding to modest control
choice of λ. An upper bound on the condition number effort).
would, in turn, prevent the manipulated input move The choice of the condition number, and hence the
sizes from becoming excessive. upper allowable limit of ill-conditioning in the system
The condition number is defined for a square matrix matrix, lies with the individual designer. Depending
on the criterion for good closed-loop performance for a
as
given application, the condition number can be conve-
niently fixed. The choice of a condition number of 500
|µmax| was motivated by the rule of thumb that the manipu-
c) (52)
|µmin| lated input move sizes for a change in set point should
not exceed 2-3 times the final change in manipulated
input (Maurath et al., 1985; Callaghan and Lee, 1988).
where µmax and µmin represent the maximum and
However, if a faster or slower closed-loop response is
minimum eigenvalues of the matrix. From eqs 49, 51,
more desirable, a larger or smaller condition number
and 52, the condition number for the ÃTÃ + fI matrix respectively, can be used instead.
is Substituting the expression for β in eq 56, with P )
(
(5τp)/T + k, the analytical expression for the move
1 M(M - 1) suppression coefficient, λ, is given by
c) Mβ + 2f -
( )
2f 2
+
) M 7 τp (M - 1)
M
x 2
β - (M - 1)β +
(M - 1)(2M - 1)
6
(53)
f)
500 2 T
+2-
2
λ ) fK2p (57)
An interesting approximate relation from eq 53 is that
the condition number of the DMC gain-scaled system The analytical expression for λ in eq 57, applied in
matrix, c ∝ M(P - k)/f. conjunction with the recommended values for the other
Equation 53 is rearranged to give an expression for tuning parameters, gives the tuning strategy for DMC
the scaled move suppression coefficient as with M > 1.
Note that eq 57, which computes the move suppres-
f)
M
(
2c
β-
(M - 1)
2
+
sion coefficient, does not contain a dead time term. The
reason is not intuitively obvious but is an interesting
)
one. The elements, and the condition number, of the
[ ]
true only if the prediction horizon is chosen as P ) (5τp/ controlled variable weights, ΓTΓ, has the form
T) + k (settling time of the process).
γ21IP×P 0 0
· ·
Extension of Tuning Strategy to Multivariable · ·
Systems · · ·
·
· · · ·
·
· · · ·
T
The selection of tuning parameters for multiple-input γ22IP×P
· ·
Γ Γ) 0 · · 0 (61)
multiple-output (MIMO) DMC is significantly more · ·
challenging for the practitioner. The analytical expres- · · · · · · · · · · ·
sion that computes the move suppression coefficient (eq
· ·
0 · 0 ·
·
· P‚R×P‚R
57), developed in the previous section for SISO DMC, · · ·
provides the foundation upon which a similar analytical
expression can be developed for MIMO DMC. This is Hence, the controlled variable weights are γ2i (i ) 1, 2,
possible in a straightforward fashion even though the ..., R).
performance objective for MIMO DMC is defined over Similar to SISO DMC, adjustable parameters that can
several manipulated inputs and measured outputs and be used to alter closed-loop performance for MIMO DMC
results in a more complex MIMO DMC control law. include the prediction horizon, P, the control horizon,
For a system with S manipulated inputs and R M, the model horizon, N, the sample time, T, and the
measured outputs, the MIMO DMC performance objec- move suppression coefficients, λ2i . In addition, MIMO
tive (cost function) has the form (Garcı́a and Morshedi, DMC has yet another set of adjustable parameters in
1986) the form of the controlled variable weights, γ2i .
Just as with the SISO case, practical limitations often
j ]TΓTΓ[ej - A∆u
Min J ) [ej - A∆u j ]TΛTΛ[∆u
j ] + [∆u j] restrict the availability of sample time, T, as a tuning
∆u
j parameter for MIMO DMC (Franklin and Powell, 1980;
(58)
A° ström and Wittenmark, 1984). The model horizon, N,
is also not an appropriate tuning parameter since
In eq 58, ej is the vector of predicted errors for the R truncation of the model horizon can lead to unpredict-
measured outputs over the next P sampling instants, able closed-loop performance (Lundström et al., 1995).
A is the multivariable dynamic matrix, and ∆u j is the As demonstrated earlier for SISO DMC, the control
vector of M moves to be determined for each of the S horizon, M, does not have a significant effect on closed-
manipulated inputs. ΛTΛ is a square diagonal matrix loop performance, especially in the presence of move
of move suppression coefficients with dimensions (M‚S suppression.
× M‚S). Similarly, ΓTΓ is a square diagonal matrix that
The controlled variable weights, γ2i , serve a dual
contains the controlled variable weights (equal concern
purpose in MIMO DMC. These weights can be ap-
factors) with dimensions (P‚R × P‚R).
propriately chosen by the user to scale measurements
A closed-form solution to the MIMO DMC perfor-
of the R measured outputs to comparable units. Also,
mance objective (eq 58) results in the MIMO DMC
it is possible to achieve tighter control of a particular
control law (Garcı́a and Morshedi, 1986):
measured output by selectively increasing the relative
weight of the corresponding least-square residual. Hence,
j ) (ATΓTΓA + ΛTΛ)-1ATΓTΓej
∆u (59) controlled variable weights are usually specified by the
The MIMO DMC control law (eq 59) is similar to the user for a certain application and cannot be employed
SISO DMC control law (eq 14), except for the form of as the primary tuning parameters for MIMO DMC.
the move suppression coefficients, ΛTΛ, and the intro- Analogous to SISO DMC, the move suppression
duction of controlled variable weights, ΓTΓ. coefficients can be conveniently used to fine tune MIMO
The move suppression coefficients in multivariable DMC for desired closed-loop performance. Since the
DMC follow a notation slightly different from SISO dual benefit of the move suppression coefficients, λ2i , is
DMC. Λ is a square diagonal matrix with dimensions again to improve the conditioning of the MIMO DMC
(M‚S × M‚S). This matrix can be divided into S2 square system matrix (ATΓTΓA) and move size suppression for
blocks, each with dimensions (M × M). The leading the S inputs, a strategy analogous to SISO DMC can
diagonal elements of the first (M × M) matrix block be used to extend eq 57 to compute the move suppres-
along the diagonal of Λ are λ1, the leading diagonal sion coefficients for MIMO DMC.
elements of the next (M × M) matrix block along the Building upon the analogy, an approximation of the
diagonal of Λ are λ2, and so on. All off-diagonal MIMO DMC system matrix, (ATΓTΓA), has the form of
elements of the matrix Λ are zero. Hence, the matrix a mosaic Hankel matrix (not shown here) comprised of
[ ]
of move suppression coefficients, ΛTΛ, has the form S2 Hankel matrix blocks. The S2 Hankel matrix blocks,
each with dimensions (M × M), have a form identical
to that obtained earlier (eq 47) from a similar ap-
λ21IM×M 0 0 proximation of the scaled SISO DMC system matrix,
· ·
· ·
· · ÃTÃ.
The impact of a change in the ith manipulated input
· · · · · · · · · · ·
T
λ22IM×M
· ·
Λ Λ) 0 · · 0 (60) on all measured outputs is reflected in the ith diagonal
· · Hankel matrix block. Hence, it is possible to select the
ith move suppression coefficient, λ2i , such that the
· · · · · · · · · · ·
· ·
0 · 0 ·
·
· M‚S×M‚S condition number of the ith diagonal matrix block is
always bounded by a fixed low value. By holding the
· · ·
Thus, in the MIMO DMC control law (eq 59), the move condition number of the ith diagonal matrix block at a
suppression coefficients that are added to the leading low value, desirable closed-loop performance is achieved
diagonal of the multivariable system matrix, (ATΓTΓA), while preventing the ith manipulated input move size
are λ2i (i ) 1, 2, ..., S). Similarly, the matrix of from becoming excessive.
740 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997
With this understanding, an analytical expression An additional criterion for sample time selection is
that computes the move suppression coefficients for that the sampling rate should be high enough to sample
MIMO DMC can be obtained as two or three times per effective dead time of the process,
T e 0.5θp (Seborg et al., 1986). This criterion is not a
[ ( )]
stringent requirement for DMC. However, if sample
M R
3 τpij (M - 1)
λ2i ) ∑
500 j)1
γ2j Kp2ij P - kij -
2 T
+2-
2
time can be chosen, the prudent approach is to pick the
largest T that satisfies both criteria mentioned above.
(i ) 1, 2, ..., S) (62) Once T is fixed, the discrete dead time, k, is calculated
from the effective dead time of the process, θp in step 3.
Using eq 62, the S move suppression coefficients, one Step 4 computes a model horizon, N, and a prediction
for each input, can be computed for a given sampling horizon, P, from τp, θp, and T. Note that both N and P
time, T, control horizon, M, and controlled variable cannot be selected independent of the sample time, T.
weights, γi. For DMC, it is imperative that N be equal to the open-
In eq 63, it is not possible to substitute P ) (5τp)/T + loop process settling time in samples to avoid truncation
k as was done for the SISO case since the MIMO DMC error in the model prediction (Lundström et al., 1995).
architecture requires a single value of the prediction For computing P, a rigorous treatment by past research-
horizon to be selected for all manipulated input and ers (Garcı́a and Morari, 1982; Clarke and Scattolini,
measured output pairs. Nevertheless, the analytical 1991; Rawlings and Muske, 1993; Scokaert and Clarke,
expression for MIMO DMC is similar in form to that 1994) has shown that a larger prediction horizon
obtained for SISO DMC (eq 57). In fact, for a single- improves nominal stability of the closed loop. For
input single-output process, the analytical expression practical applications this translates to using a reason-
for MIMO DMC (eq 62) reduces to the analytical ably large but finite P. Bearing in mind this important
expression for SISO DMC (eq 57) when P ) (5τp)/T + k. requirement for stability, P is also set equal to the open-
loop process settling time in samples. With a FOPDT
model approximation available, prediction horizon and
Implementation of the DMC Tuning Strategy model horizon can both be computed as P ) N ) (5τp/
T) + k.
The proposed DMC tuning strategy, which includes
the analytical expression for the move suppression In an industrial setting, there can be barriers to
coefficient, λ, is presented in Table 1. This tuning selecting different P and T values for different SISO
strategy can be applied to unconstrained DMC in closed DMC controllers. Also, the MIMO DMC architecture
loop with a broad class of SISO processes that are open- requires that a single P and a single T be selected for
loop stable, including those with challenging control all manipulated input and measured output pairs. If
characteristics such as high process order, large dead the user has the freedom to select a sample time in such
time, and noniminimum phase behavior. a scenario, a conservative choice would be the smallest
value of T that satisfies eq 63 for all individual ma-
Step 1 (Table 1) involves the identification of a first
nipulated input and measured output pairs. Based on
order plus dead time (FOPDT) model approximation of
this sample time (or the fixed sample time), a single
the process. An accurate identification of the FOPDT
prediction horizon can be computed as P ) max {(5τpij)/T
model parameters is essential to the success of this
+ kij (i ) 1, 2, ..., S; j ) 1, 2, ..., R)} for a system with S
tuning strategy. Since a model is only as good as the
data it fits, it is necessary that the input-output data manipulated inputs and R measured outputs.
used for model fitting be rich in dynamic information Step 5 requires the specification of a control horizon,
of the process. Typically, this is achieved by perturbing M, and the computation of an appropriate move sup-
the process to obtain a signal-to-noise ratio greater than pression coefficient, λ. Recommended values of M range
10:1 (Seborg et al., 1986). Additionally, the data must from 1 through 6. However, selecting M > 1 provides
be collected over a reasonable period of time to capture advance knowledge of the impending manipulated input
the complete process dynamics. An FOPDT fit thus moves by the controller and can be very useful to the
obtained often reasonably describes the process gain, practitioner (Ogunnaike, 1986). Also, Rawlings and
Kp, overall time constant, τp, and effective dead time, Muske (1993) have shown that the stability of infinite
θp, of higher-order processes. horizon MPC can be guaranteed if M is greater than or
Step 2 involves the selection of an appropriate sample equal to the number of unstable modes in the process.
time, T. In most practical applications the user does The strategy for computing λ depends on the choice
not have the freedom to choose sample time. The tuning of M. As demonstrated earlier, with M ) 1 the need
strategy does require that T be known. In cases where for a move suppression is obviated and λ is set equal to
the designer can select the sample time, certain rules zero. However, if M > 1, a scaled move suppression
of thumb that guide in its selection are available. Rules coefficient, f, is first computed from an analytical
that select T for a desired closed-loop bandwidth, ωB, expression (eq 57). The product of the scaled move
have been proposed in the past, e.g., T e 2π/10ωB suppression coefficient, f, and the square of the process
(Middleton, 1991). Since the choice of T is related to gain, K2p, determines an appropriate value for λ.
the overall time constant, τp, and the effective dead time Step 6 summarizes the DMC tuning parameters. For
of the process, θp (Seborg et al., 1986), the estimated certain applications, more specific or stringent perfor-
FOPDT model parameters provide a convenient way to mance criteria regarding the manipulated input move
select T. A good rule of thumb is to select T such that sizes or the nature of the measured output response may
the sampling rate is not less than 10 times per time apply. For such cases, it may be necessary to fine tune
constant. Hence, for DMC, the recommended sample DMC for desired performance by altering P and λ from
time is the starting values given by the tuning strategy. The
recommended approach is to increase λ for smaller move
T e 0.1τp (63) sizes and slower output response.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997 741
Validation of the DMC Tuning Strategy
All the simulation examples presented in this work
use the traditional DMC step response matrix of the
actual process upon implementation and a negligible
plant-model mismatch is assumed. In the past, several
researchers have investigated the effects of plant-model
mismatch on controller performance (Morari and Zafir-
iou, 1989; Zafiriou, 1991; Ohshima et al., 1991; Gupta,
1993; Lee and Yu, 1994; Lundström et al., 1995).
Hence, this work focuses strictly on the capabilities of
the tuning strategy in providing desirable closed-loop
performance.
Processes with a range of characteristics that pose
specific challenges in process control are employed for
the purpose of tuning strategy validation. Specifically,
characteristics such as large dead time, minimum phase
behavior, inverse response, and high process order and
their effects on the performance of the tuning strategy
are investigated. The impact of user-specified sample
time, T, and control horizon, M, is also explored.
Disturbance rejection performance of DMC tuned using
the tuning strategy is evaluated. The proposed exten-
sion of the tuning strategy (eq 62) is also validated with
an example application to binary distillation column
control.
Figure 6. Effectiveness of the DMC tuning strategy demonstrated
Tuning Strategy Validation for Challenging for process 2 for different choices of the control horizon, M, and
Processes. For validation of the proposed tuning sample time, T.
strategy, three example higher-order processes with
different dynamic characteristics are considered in represents the performance of DMC tuned using the
addition to process 1: rules in Table 1, for a user-selected control horizon of 2
or 6 and sample time with a T/τp of 0.05 or 0.15.
process 2
Figure 6 shows the tuning results for process 2
(FOPDT fit: Kp ) 1.0; τp ) 163; θp ) 105). The benefit
(1 - 50s)e-10s of a FOPDT model approximation as a basis for the
Gp(s) ) (64)
(100s + 1)2 tuning strategy is evident here as the initial inverse
response (due to the zero in the right half plane) of
process 3 process 2 is approximated as an additional dead time
in the FOPDT model fit. The additional dead time
(50s + 1)e-10s results in a larger P for this inverse response process
Gp(s) ) (65) (compared to the value of P recommended for the
(100s + 1)2 minimum phase process in Figure 7). Consequently, the
DMC controller is able to look beyond the initial inverse
process 4 response. Also, the initial inverse response prevents the
output response from overshooting the final set point.
e-10s Nevertheless, with the computed tuning parameters, a
Gp(s) ) (66)
(50s + 1)4 desirable closed-loop response results while also pre-
venting the manipulated input move sizes per unit gain
Process 1 (eq 2) is a second-order process with a of the process from becoming excessive.
relatively large dead time, process 2 exhibits inverse Figure 7 illustrates the tuning results for process 3
response characteristics, process 3 has a minimum (FOPDT fit: Kp ) 1.0; τp ) 148; θp ) 18). Despite the
phase behavior, and process 4 is a fourth-order process second-order characteristics of this process, the FOPDT
with sluggish open-loop dynamics. model approximation results in a short dead time. This
The results of the tuning strategy applied to DMC is because the process exhibits minimum phase behavior
with process 1 are not explicitly shown since they are (due to the zero in the left half plane). The graphs in
already demonstrated in Figures 2-4. For example, Figure 7 show that the measured output exhibits a
Figure 2c represents the results of the tuning strategy modest overshoot and has a faster rise time than the
applied to process 1 (FOPDT fit: Kp ) 1.0; τp ) 157; θp process with the initial inverse response in Figure 6.
) 70). Here, the sample time, T, is selected such that However, the tuning parameters given by the tuning
T/τp ) 0.1 and the control horizon M ) 4. The effective- strategy result in acceptable closed-loop performance
ness of the tuning strategy in selecting appropriate with manipulated input moves of a similar magnitude.
values for the tuning parameters for processes with a Figure 8 represents the results from the application
fairly large dead time is clear from these demonstra- of the tuning strategy to process 4 (FOPDT fit: Kp )
tions. 1.0; τp ) 124; θp ) 99). Due to the high order of the
Figures 6-8 are simulation results when the tuning process, and the associated initial sigmoidal response,
strategy is applied to processes 2-4, respectively. These the FOPDT model approximation provides a larger dead
figures illustrate the response of the respective pro- time estimate. The graphs in Figure 8 show that the
cesses to a step change in set point. Specifically, each high order of the process results in a closed-loop
figure shows a matrix of four graphs, where each graph response to a set point step that is more underdamped
742 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997
[ ]
can be written as
12.8e-s -18.9e-3s
[ ]
XD(s)
XB(s)
)
(16.7s + 1)
6.6e-7s
(21.0s + 1)
-19.4e-3s [ ]
RF(s)
QV(s)
(67)
(10.9s + 1) (14.4s + 1)
Here, XD represents the mole fraction of methanol in
the distillate, XB the mole fraction of methanol in the
Figure 9. Effectiveness of the DMC tuning strategy in distur- bottoms, RF the reflux flow, and QV the vapor boil-up
bance rejection demonstrated for process 1 (T ) 16, T/τp ) 0.1, P rate. All the times are given in minutes.
) 54, M ) 4). A sample time, T, of 3 min was used in this study.
The prediction horizon, P, and model horizon, N, were
measurable disturbances. Several researchers (Asb- computed to include the steady state terms in the step
jornsen, 1984; Yocum and Zimmerman, 1988; Taka- response of all manipulated variable and measured
matsu et al., 1988; Glova et al., 1989; Hokanson et al., output pairs as P ) N ) max{(5τpij)/T + kij (i ) 1, 2, ...,
1989; Muske and Rawlings, 1993; Prada et al., 1993; S; j ) 1, 2, ..., R)}. Equal controlled variable weights
Soroush and Kravaris, 1994) have studied the perfor- were used for both measured outputs, i.e., ΓTΓ ) I. The
mance of feed-forward DMC and demonstrated that it move suppression coefficients, ΛTΛ, were computed from
enhances the disturbance rejection capability of DMC, the analytical expression for MIMO DMC in eq 62 for
provided an accurate model of the disturbance to output two different choices of the control horizon, M ) 2 and
model is available. However, the addition of a feed- M ) 6. For the control horizon, M ) 2, eq 62 computes
forward feature in DMC does not affect the selection of the diagonal elements of the matrix Λ as λ1 ) 4.9 and
tuning parameters, and the tuning strategy presented λ2 ) 9.1. For M ) 6, the diagonal elements computed
in this paper applies directly to a feed-forward config- are λ1 ) 8.3 and λ2 ) 15.2.
uration of DMC. For the same reason, this paper Figure 10 illustrates the response of the two mea-
demonstrates the effectivness of the proposed tuning sured outputs and the corresponding manipulated input
strategy only for DMC without feedforward. moves for a step change in the XD set point. The results
Graphs a-c of Figure 9 demonstrate the effect of the in Figure 10 show that, for a user-specified control
move suppression coefficient, λ, on disturbance rejection horizon of M ) 2 or M ) 6, the analytical expression
for DMC without feed-forward and process 1 (eq 2). The for MIMO DMC computes move suppression coefficients
disturbance to output dynamics considered also have a that result in desirable closed-loop performance. In
transfer function given by eq 2. In this study, all tuning either case, the output response tracks the set point
parameters other than the move suppression coefficient rapidly without exhibiting overshoot and the corre-
are fixed at values computed using the DMC tuning sponding manipulated input moves are modest in size.
strategy in Table 1. Despite the interactions inherent in the moderately
ill-conditioned Wood and Berry column, the effect of
Figure 9a shows that disturbance rejection is most
interactions on the measured output, XB, are dampened
effective when the move suppression is eliminated (λ )
effectively. This demonstration confirms that the tun-
0). Interestingly, with no move suppression, the ma-
ing strategy presented for SISO DMC holds potential
nipulated input sizes are not excessive for disturbance
for a formal extension to the more challenging problem
rejection. However, λ ) 0 is not an appropriate choice
of tuning MIMO DMC.
of the move suppression as it results in undesirable
aggressive manipulated input moves for set point track-
ing. This was demonstrated earlier in Figure 2b. Conclusions
Disturbance rejection performance for the move sup- A tuning strategy for DMC, with a novel analytical
pression coefficient computed using the analytical ex- expression for the move suppression coefficient, λ, was
744 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997
Morari, M.; Lee, J. H. Model Predictive Control: The Good, the Ricker, N. L. Model Predictive Control: State of the Art. In Proc.
Bad and the Ugly. In Proc. Chem. Process Control Conf., CPC Chem. Process Control Conf., CPC IV, Fourth International
IV, Fourth International Conference on Chemical Process Conference on Chemical Process Control; Arkun, Y., Ray, W.
Control; Arkun, Y., Ray, W. H., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, H., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, Holland, 1991.
Holland, 1991. Scokaert, P.; Clarke, D. W. Chapter: Stability and Feasibility in
Muske, K. R.; Rawlings, J. B. Model Predictive Control with Linear Constrained Predictive Control. Advances in Model Based
Models. AIChE J. 1993, 39, 262. Predictive Control; Oxford University Press: New York, 1994.
Ogunnaike, B. A. Dynamic Matrix Control: A Nonstochastic,
Industrial Process Control Technique with Parallels in Applied Seborg, D. E.; Edgar, T. F.; Shah, S. L. Adaptive Control Strategies
Statistics. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1986, 25, 712. for Process Control: A Survey. AIChE J. 1986, 32 (6), 881.
Ogunnaike, B. A.; Ray, W. H. Process Dynamics, Modeling and Soroush, M.; Kravaris, C. Synthesis of Discrete-Time Nonlinear
Control. In Topics in Chemical Engineering; Gubbins, K. E., Feed-Forward/Feedback Controllers. AIChE J. 1994, 40, 473.
Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, 1994. Takamatsu, T.; Hashimoto, I.; Ohshima, M.; Ohno, H. Study of
Ohshima, M.; Hashimoto, I.; Takamatsu, T.; Ohno, H. Robust model predictive control (MPC) in terms of its structure and
Stability of Model Predictive Control (MPC). Int. Chem. Eng. degrees of freedom. Int. Chem. Eng. 1988, 28 (4), 661.
1991, 31 (1), 119.
Prada, C.; Serrano, J.; Vega, P.; Piera, M. A. A comparative study Wood, R. K.; Berry, M. W. Terminal Composition Control of a
of DMC and GPC controllers. In Advances in Model-Based Binary Distillation Column. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1973, 28, 1707.
Predictive Control; Clarke, D., Ed.; Oxford Science Publica- Yocum, F. H.; Zimmerman, J. M. Real Time Control of Inverse
tions: New York, 1993; p 38. Response using Dynamic Matrix Control. Am. Control Conf.
Prett, D. M.; Garcı́a, C. E. Fundamental Process Control; Butter- 1988, 1, 266.
worths: Boston, MA, 1988. Zafiriou, E., The Robustness of Model Predictive Controllers. Proc.
Qin, J. S.; Badgwell, T. A. An Overview of Industrial Model CPC IV, San Padre Island, TX, 1991.
Predictive Control Technology. Prepr. Proc. Chem. Process
Control Conf., CPC V; Tahoe City, CA, 1996.
Rawlings, J.; Muske, K. The Stability of Constrained Receding Received for review July 19, 1996
Horizon Control. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1993, 38, 1512. Revised manuscript received November 6, 1996
Richalet, J. Industrial Applications of Model Based Predictive Accepted November 6, 1996X
Control. Automatica 1993, 29 (5), 1251.
Richalet, J.; Rault, A.; Testud, J. L.; Papon, J. Algorithmic Control IE9604280
of Industrial Processes. 4th IFAC Symposium on Identification
and System Parameter Estimation; Tbilisi, USSR, 1976.
Richalet, J.; Rault, A.; Testud, J. L.; Papon, J. Model Predictive
X Abstract published in Advance ACS Abstracts, January 1,
Heuristic Control: Applications to Industrial Processes. Au-
tomatica 1978, 14, 413. 1997.