MPC Grande Porte

Distributed model predictive control of large-scale
systems
James B. Rawlings1 , Aswin N. Venkat1

and Stephen J. Wright2
1 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering

2 Department of Computer Sciences
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Assessment and Future Directions of Nonlinear Model Predictive

Control
Zollernblick, Freudenstadt-Lauterbad, Germany
August 27, 2005
Rawlings, Venkat and Wright (Wisconsin) Distributed, Large-scale MPC 2005 NMPC Workshop 1 / 39
Outline
1 Introduction
2 The Geometry of Decentralization, Communication and Cooperation
3 Results for Distributed MPC

Models
Communication Based MPC
Cooperation Based MPC
MPC with Partial Cooperation
4 Conclusions
Introduction
Most large-scale systems consist of networks of

interconnected/interacting subsystems
Chemical plants, water distribution networks, power grids etc.
Traditional approach: Decentralized control

Wealth of literature from the early 1970’s on improved decentralized
control (Sandell-Jr. et al. [1978], Siljak [1991], Lunze [1992])
Well-known that poor performance may result if the interconnections
are not negligible
Introduction
Steady increase in available computational power has provided the

opportunity for centralized control
Most practitioners view centralized control of large, networked
systems as impractical and unrealistic
Centralized control law grows exponentially with system size
Difficult to tailor a centralized controller to meet operational objectives
A divide and conquer strategy is essential for control of large,
networked systems (Ho [2005])
Centralized control: A benchmark control framework for comparing
and assessing other control formulations
Introduction
Linear MPC
Mid-Late 90’s: Linear MPC became a dominant advanced control
technology (Morari and Lee [1997], Young et al. [2001], Qin and
Badgwell [2003])
Properties of centralized linear MPCs well established (Sznaier and
Damborg [1990], Rawlings and Muske [1993], Mayne et al. [2000],
Bemporad et al. [2002])
Efficient large-scale solution strategies available (Antwerp and Braatz
[2000], Bartlett et al. [2002])
Current focus
Possibility of horizontal integration of subsystems’ MPCs to improve
overall system performance
Introduction
Integrating subsystem-based MPCs

Notion of Nash equilibrium and Pareto optimality in multi-agent
games (Li and Başar [1987], Cohen [1998], Başar and Olsder [1999])
Distributed optimization algorithms (Bertsekas and Tsitsiklis [1989])
Potential benefits and requirements of cross-integration within the
MPC framework (Kulhavý et al. [2001], Lu [2003])
Available discrete time distributed MPC formulations in the literature
(Camponogara et al. [2002], Jia and Krogh [2002], Keviczky et al.
[2004])
Nominal properties (feasibility, optimality, closed-loop stability) have
not all been established for any single distributed MPC framework
Nomenclature: Consider Two Interacting Units
Objective functions and Φ1 (x1 , x2 ), Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

decision variables for units x1 , x2

Decentralized Control min Φ
e 1 (x1 ) min Φ
e 2 (x2 )
x1 x2

e 1 (x1 ) min Φ
e 2 (x2 )
x1 x2
Communication-based Control min Φ1 (x1 , x2 ) min Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

x1 x2
(Nash equilibrium)

e 1 (x1 ) min Φ
e 2 (x2 )
x1 x2

x1 x2
(Nash equilibrium)
Cooperation-based Control Φ = w 1 Φ1 + w2 Φ2
(Pareto optimal) min Φ(x1 , x2 ) min Φ(x1 , x2 )
x1 x2

e 1 (x1 ) min Φ
e 2 (x2 )
x1 x2

x1 x2
(Nash equilibrium)
Cooperation-based Control Φ = w 1 Φ1 + w2 Φ2
(Pareto optimal) min Φ(x1 , x2 ) min Φ(x1 , x2 )
x1 x2
Centralized Control min Φ(x1 , x2 )

x1 ,x2
(Pareto optimal)
Noninteracting systems
2
n, d, p
1 b
Φ2 (x)
x2 0
a
-1 Φ1 (x)
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
x1
Weakly interacting systems
0.5
Φ2 (x)
0 b n, d
p
-0.5
x2
-1 Φ1 (x)
a
-1.5
-2
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x1
Moderately interacting systems
1.5 Φ1 (x)
a
1
Φ2 (x)
0.5
x2 p
0 b d
-0.5
n
-1
-1.5
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x1
Strongly interacting (conflicting) systems
2
1.5 Φ1 (x)
a
1
Φ2 (x)
0.5 p
x2 0 b d
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x1
Strongly interacting (conflicting) systems
160
n
140
120
100
80
x2
60
40
20
Φ2 (x)
0 Φ1 (x)
-20
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
x1
Modeling for distributed MPC
Decentralized, interaction models
Decentralized Model
xii (k + 1) = Aii xii (k) + Bii ui (k)
ui yi (k)
(Aii , Bii , Cii )
(local subsystem inputs)
Decentralized, interaction models
Decentralized Model
xii (k + 1) = Aii xii (k) + Bii ui (k)
P
ui yi (k) = j Cij xij (k)
(Aii , Bii , Cii )
++
(local subsystem inputs)
Interaction Model
xij (k + 1) = Aij xij (k) + Bij uj (k)
uj6=i
(Aij , Bij , Cij )
(external subsystem inputs)
The composite plant model
x11 A11 x11

2 3 2 32 3
6 . 7 6 .. 76 . 7
6 . 7 6
.
76 . 7
6
6 . 7
7
6
6
76
76 . 7
7
6 x A1M 76 x
6 1M
7 6
7 6 1M
7
7 6 7
. .
6 7 6 76 7
6
.
7
(k + 1) =
6 .. 76
. 7 (k)
7
.
6 7 6 76
6
6 . 7
7
6
6
76
76 . 7
7
6 xM1 7 6 AM1 7 6 xM1 7
6 7 6 76 7
6 . 7 6
..
76 . 7
6 . 7 6
.
76 . 7
4 . 5 4 54 . 5
xMM AMM xMM
B11
2 3
6
6 .. 7
7
6
6 . 7
72
B1M u1
6 7 3
6 7
. 76 .
6 76 7
+6 7 (k)
6
. 74 .
6
6 . 7
7 . 5
6 BM1
6
7
7 uM
..
6 7
6 7
4 . 5
BMM
The composite plant model
x11
2 3
6 . 7
6 . 7
6 . 7
36
6 x
7
y1 C11 ··· C1M
2 3 2
6 1M
7
7
. 7 76 .
7
6
(k) =
6 .. 76 7 (k)
7
6 . 7 6 .
4 . 5 4 . 56
6 . 7
6 7
yM CM1 ··· CMM 6 xM1
6
7
7
6 . 7
6 . 7
4 . 5
xMM
Centralized model
A minimal realization of the composite plant model
Distributed MPC
Assumptions and formulations
Assumptions
All MPC cost functions are positive definite, quadratic
Each subsystem represented by a linear, state-space model
All interaction models are stable
Local input inequality constraints (e.g., input bounds)
Formulations for distributed MPC

Communication Based MPC
Cooperation Based MPC
Communication-based MPC1
MPC 1 Prediction MPC 2 Prediction
Exchange of state and input

trajectory information Prediction horizon Prediction horizon
between MPCs State trajectory Controlled input trajectory
Setpoint trajectory Process-process interactions
Subsystems’ MPC
optimizations solved until u1 u2
state and input trajectories MPC 1 MPC 2
converge
First move in each converged
input trajectory injected into Process Process
the plant 1 2
y1 y2
1
Similar schemes proposed by Jia and Krogh [2001], Camponogara et al. [2002]
Communication-based MPC1
MPC 1 Prediction MPC 2 Prediction
Exchange of state and input

trajectory information Prediction horizon Prediction horizon
between MPCs State trajectory Controlled input trajectory
Setpoint trajectory Process-process interactions
Subsystems’ MPC
optimizations solved until u1 u2
state and input trajectories MPC 1 MPC 2
converge
First move in each converged
input trajectory injected into Process Process
the plant 1 2
y1 y2
1
Similar schemes proposed by Jia and Krogh [2001], Camponogara et al. [2002]
Communication-based MPC
Distillation column of Ogunnaike and Ray [1994]
0.5
Outputs T21 , T7 ; Inputs L, V 0.25
setpoint
cent-MPC
comm-MPC
Two SISO MPCs 0
-0.25
Intentionally choose bad pairing: T21
-0.5
MPC-1 : T21 − V -0.75
MPC-2 : T7 − L -1
-1.25
Can communication-based MPC fix 0 50 100
Time (sec)
150 200
this kind of bad design choice? 1.5

cent-MPC
1 comm-MPC
0.5
V 0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
Communication-based MPC
An unreliable plantwide control strategy

Lack of provable convergence properties
Suboptimal, even at convergence of the state and input trajectories
Cannot fix bad design choices (e.g., bad pairing choices)
Can lead to closed-loop instability in some cases
Cooperation-based MPC
Tasks involved
Model interconnections between subsystems
Exchange state and input trajectories among interconnected
subsystems
Replace local objectives by a suitable global objective e.g.,
X M
X
Φ= w i Φi wi ≥ 0, wi = 1
i i=1
Cooperation-based MPC
Intermediate termination
Implementation issues for large-scale systems

Optimal (centralized) performance at convergence
Unrealistic for large-scale systems
Computational time for convergence >> sampling interval
Intermediate termination may be necessary
Cooperation-based MPC terminated at an intermediate iterate

1 Feasible ?
2 Stable ?
Feasible cooperation-based MPC (FC-MPC)
Tasks involved
Model interconnections between subsystems
Exchange input trajectories among interconnected subsystems
Replace local objectives by a suitable global objective e.g.,
X M
X
Φ= w i Φi wi ≥ 0, wi = 1
i i=1
Eliminate the state variables using the model equality constraints
Each MPC solves an optimization problem in the local input variables
Geometry of FC-MPC
Φ2
Φ1
u2
u1
Geometry of FC-MPC
Pareto optimal surface
Φ2
Φ1
p
u2
u1
Geometry of FC-MPC
Φ
Φ2
Φ1
p
u2
u1
Geometry of FC-MPC
Φ
Φ2
Φ1
p
u2
0
FC − MPC1(u1)
u1
Geometry of FC-MPC
FC − MPC2(u2)
Φ
Φ2
Φ1
p
u2
0
FC − MPC1(u1)
u1
Geometry of FC-MPC
FC − MPC2(u2)
Φ
∗(0)
Φ2
Φ1
p
u2
0
FC − MPC1(u1)
u1
Geometry of FC-MPC
FC − MPC2(u2)
Φ
∗(0)
Φ2
Φ1
p
u2
1
0
FC − MPC1(u1)
u1
Feasible cooperation-based MPC (FC-MPC)
Properties
1 All iterates are plantwide feasible
2 The sequence of cost functions is a non-increasing function of the
iteration number
Also bounded below, hence convergent
3 The sequence of iterates converges to an optimal limit point
(centralized MPC solution)
Closed-loop properties of FC-MPC
Distributed MPC control law

First input move in the last calculated input trajectory of each subsystem’s
FC-MPC injected into the plant
Properties
Nominal closed-loop stability under intermediate termination
Disturbance scenarios that destabilize FC-MPC also destabilize
centralized MPC
Performance of FC-MPC
0.5
setpoint
cent-MPC
comm-MPC
Two SISO MPCs 0
-0.25
-0.5
MPC-1 : T21 − V -0.75
MPC-2 : T7 − L -1
-1.25
Communication-based MPC cannot 0 50 100
Time (sec)
150 200
fix this kind of bad design choice

1.5
cent-MPC
1 comm-MPC
0.5
V 0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
Performance of FC-MPC
0.5
setpoint
cent-MPC
comm-MPC
Two SISO MPCs 0 FC-MPC (1 iterate)
-0.25
-0.5
MPC-1 : T21 − V -0.75
MPC-2 : T7 − L -1
-1.25
Communication-based MPC cannot 0 50 100
Time (sec)
150 200
fix this kind of bad design choice

1.5
cent-MPC
FC-MPC can fix this kind of bad 1 comm-MPC
FC-MPC (1 iterate)
design choice 0.5
V 0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
Integrated styrene polymerization plants
Plant 1
Plant 1:
Fs0 , cs, Tf0 Manipulate Finit0 to control
Frecy, Cmr , Tr
Fm0 , cm0 , Tf0
T1
Finit0 , ci0 , Tf0 End use grade fraction: (1 − β)
Plant 2
Produces grade A (lower
Fc0 , Tc0 grade) of polymer
Fm1 , cm1 , T1 Plant 2:
Fs2 , cs2 , Tf2
Fm2 , cm2 , Tf2
Two units–polymerization
Finit2 , ci2 , Tf2
L D reactor and separator
Fm3 , cm3 , T2
MPC manipulates Finit2 ,
Fc2 , Tc2 V
Frecy and V to control T2 ,
B
Cp, Cmbot , Cinitbot Cmr and Cp
Produces grade B (higher
grade) of polymer
Two MPCs, one for each plant
Modeling and control of a styrene polymerization reactor well studied

(Hidalgo and Brosilow [1990], Russo and Bequette [1998])
Transport of material between plants causes significant time delays
Time delays and recycle dynamics known to complicate control
(Luyben [1993], Samyudia and Kadiman [2002], Monroy-Loperena
et al. [2004]).
Performance of different MPC frameworks
0 setpoint 0 setpoint
Centralized MPC -1 Centralized MPC
-2 Decentralized MPC Decentralized MPC
-2
-4 -3
T1 T2 -4
-6
-5
-8 -6
-10 -7
-8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)
0.05 0.5
Centralized MPC Centralized MPC
0 Decentralized MPC 0.4 Decentralized MPC
-0.05
0.3
-0.1
Finit0 Finit2 0.2
-0.15
0.1
-0.2
-0.25 0
-0.3 -0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Performance of different MPC frameworks
0 setpoint 0 setpoint
Centralized MPC -1 Centralized MPC
-2 Decentralized MPC Decentralized MPC
FC-MPC (1 iterate) -2 FC-MPC (1 iterate)
-4 -3
T1 T2 -4
-6
-5
-8 -6
-10 -7
-8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.05 0.5
Centralized MPC Centralized MPC
0 Decentralized MPC 0.4 Decentralized MPC
FC-MPC (1 iterate) FC-MPC (1 iterate)
-0.05
0.3
-0.1
Finit0 Finit2 0.2
-0.15
0.1
-0.2
-0.25 0
-0.3 -0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Controller performance measure

k M
1 XX
Λcost (k) = L [xi (j), ui (j)]
k
j=0 i=1
Performance comparison
Λcost Performance loss
(w.r.t centralized MPC)
Centralized-MPC 18.84 -
Decentralized-MPC 1608 8400%
FC-MPC (1 iterate) 18.94 0.54%
FC-MPC (5 iterates) 18.84 0%
MPC with partial cooperation
An industrially motivated scenario

pFC − MPC1

Operational objective. Use u1

y1
u1 Plant

to track y1 , u2 to track y2
Weak interaction Decentralized control gives poor
u2
Strong interaction
control performance

Centralized control uses both u1
y2
and u2

pFC − MPC2
Design MPCs to explicitly handle operational objectives

Performance may not be Pareto optimal
Modular multivariable controller (MMC) approach (Meadowcroft
et al. [1992])
An industrially motivated scenario

pFC − MPC1

Operational objective. Use u1

y1
u1 Plant

to track y1 , u2 to track y2
Weak interaction Decentralized control gives poor
u2
Strong interaction
control performance

Centralized control uses both u1
y2
and u2

pFC − MPC2
pFC − MPC1 min Φ1

u1
pFC − MPC2 min Φ = w1 Φ1 + w2 Φ2

u2
Geometry of pFC-MPC
0.5
0.25 Φ2 (x)
n
0 b d
-0.25
x2 Φ(x)
-0.5 p p0
-0.75
-1 Φ1 (x)
a
-1.25
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x1
Weight for output y2 = 50 × weight for output y1

2 1.8
setpoint 1.6
1.5 cent-MPC 1.4
pFC-MPC
1.2
1 1
y1 y2 0.8
0.5
0.6
0.4 setpoint
0
0.2 cent-MPC
pFC-MPC
-0.5 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time Time
1.5 0.35
1 0.3
0.25
0.5 0.2
u1 0 u2 0.15
-0.5 0.1
0.05
-1 cent-MPC 0 cent-MPC
pFC-MPC pFC-MPC
-1.5 -0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time Time
Conclusions
The explicit model and prediction horizon of MPC provide a wealth of

opportunities for integrating unit level MPCs.
Conclusions

In this talk we used communication and cooperation to achieve
distributed control that approaches the performance of centralized
optimal control while maintaining the unit control structure.
Conclusions

Intermediate termination of the cooperation control law retains
nominal closed-loop stability and robustness to disturbances.
Conclusions

Intermediate termination of the cooperation control law retains
nominal closed-loop stability and robustness to disturbances.
Structured cooperation (modular control) is also transparently
implemented, but its general closed-loop properties remain unclear.
Future research
Develop identification methods for “minimal” modeling of the unit

interactions.
Future research

interactions.
Develop structured optimization methods to compute the distributed
control law.
Future research

interactions.
control law.
Extend these ideas to nonlinear models.
Future research

interactions.
control law.
Extend these ideas to nonlinear models.
Test and implement the approach on industrial applications.
Acknowledgments
Support from the U.S. National Science Foundation through grant

CTS–0456694.
Collaboration with and support from Aspentech, Eastman,
ExxonMobil and Shell Global Solutions.
Further Reading I
J. Antwerp and R. Braatz. Model predictive control of large scale processes. J. Proc.
Control, 10:1–8, 2000.
T. Başar and G. J. Olsder. Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory. SIAM, Philadelphia,
1999.
R. Bartlett, L. Biegler, J. Backstrom, and V. Gopal. Quadratic programming algorithms
for large-scale model predictive control. J. Proc. Cont., 12(7):775–795, 2002.
A. Bemporad, M. Morari, V. Dua, and E. Pistikopoulos. The explicit linear quadratic
regulator for constrained systems. Automatica, 38(1):3–20, 2002.
D. P. Bertsekas and J. N. Tsitsiklis. Parallel and Distributed Computation.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
E. Camponogara, D. Jia, B. H. Krogh, and S. Talukdar. Distributed model predictive
control. IEEE Ctl. Sys. Mag., pages 44–52, February 2002.
J. E. Cohen. Cooperation and self interest: Pareto-inefficiency of Nash equilibria in finite
random games. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95:9724–9731, 1998.
P. M. Hidalgo and C. B. Brosilow. Nonlinear model predictive control of styrene
polymerization at unstable operating points. Comput. Chem. Eng., 14(4/5):481–494,
1990.
Further Reading II
Y.-C. Ho. On Centralized Optimal Control. IEEE Trans. Auto. Cont., 50(4):537–538,
2005.
D. Jia and B. H. Krogh. Distributed model predictive control. In Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 2001.
D. Jia and B. H. Krogh. Min-max feedback model predictive control for distributed
control with communication. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
Anchorage,Alaska, May 2002.
T. Keviczky, F. Borelli, and G. J. Balas. A study on decentralized receding horizon
control for decoupled systems. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
Boston, Massachusetts, July 2004.
R. Kulhavý, J. Lu, and T. Samad. Emerging technologies for enterprise optimization in
the process industries. In J. B. Rawlings, B. A. Ogunnaike, and J. W. Eaton, editors,
Chemical Process Control–VI: Sixth International Conference on Chemical Process
Control, pages 352–363, Tucson, Arizona, January 2001. AIChE Symposium Series,
Volume 98, Number 326.
S. Li and T. Başar. Distributed algorithms for the computation of noncooperative
equilibria. Automatica, 23(4):523–533, 1987.
Further Reading III
J. Lu. Challenging control problems and emerging technologies in enterprise
optimization. Control Eng. Prac., 11(8):847–858, August 2003.
J. Lunze. Feedback Control of Large Scale Systems. Prentice-Hall, London, U.K, 1992.
W. L. Luyben. Dynamics and control of recycle systems. 1. simple open-loop and
closed-loop systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 32:466–475, 1993.
D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V. Rao, and P. O. M. Scokaert. Constrained model
predictive control: Stability and optimality. Automatica, 36(6):789–814, 2000.
T. Meadowcroft, G. Stephanopoulos, and C. Brosilow. The Modular Multivariable
Controller: 1: Steady-state properties. AIChE J., 38(8):1254–1278, 1992.
R. Monroy-Loperena, R. Solar, and J. Alvarez-Ramirez. Balanced control scheme for
reactor/separator processes with material recycle. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 43:
1853–1862, 2004.
M. Morari and J. H. Lee. Model predictive control: past, present and future. In
Proceedings of joint 6th international symposium on process systems engineering
(PSE ’97) and 30th European symposium on computer aided process systems
engineering (ESCAPE 7), Trondheim, Norway, 1997.
B. A. Ogunnaike and W. H. Ray. Process Dynamics, Modeling, and Control. Oxford
University Press, New York, 1994.
Further Reading IV
S. J. Qin and T. A. Badgwell. A survey of industrial model predictive control
technology. Control Eng. Prac., 11(7):733–764, 2003.
J. B. Rawlings and K. R. Muske. Stability of constrained receding horizon control. IEEE
Trans. Auto. Cont., 38(10):1512–1516, October 1993.
L. P. Russo and B. W. Bequette. Operability of chemical reactors: multiplicity behavior
of a jacketed styrene polymerization reactor. Chem. Eng. Sci., 53(1):27–45, 1998.
Y. Samyudia and K. Kadiman. Control design for recycled, multi unit processes. J.
Proc. Control, 13:1–14, 2002.
N. R. Sandell-Jr., P. Varaiya, M. Athans, and M. Safonov. Survey of decentralized
control methods for larger scale systems. IEEE Trans. Auto. Cont., 23(2):108–128,
1978.
D. Siljak. Decentralized Control of Complex Systems. Academic Press, London, 1991.
M. Sznaier and M. J. Damborg. Heuristically enhanced feedback control of constrained
discrete-time linear systems. Automatica, 26(3):521–532, 1990.
R. E. Young, R. D. Bartusiak, and R. W. Fontaine. Evolution of an industrial nonlinear
model predictive controller. In J. B. Rawlings, B. A. Ogunnaike, and J. W. Eaton,
editors, Chemical Process Control–VI: Sixth International Conference on Chemical
Process Control, pages 342–351, Tucson, Arizona, January 2001. AIChE Symposium
Series, Volume 98, Number 326.

MPC Grande Porte

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MPC Grande Porte

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Distributed model predictive control of large-scale

James B. Rawlings1 , Aswin N. Venkat1

1 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering

Assessment and Future Directions of Nonlinear Model Predictive

2 The Geometry of Decentralization, Communication and Cooperation

3 Results for Distributed MPC

Most large-scale systems consist of networks of

Traditional approach: Decentralized control

Steady increase in available computational power has provided the

Integrating subsystem-based MPCs

Objective functions and Φ1 (x1 , x2 ), Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

Objective functions and Φ1 (x1 , x2 ), Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

Objective functions and Φ1 (x1 , x2 ), Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

Communication-based Control min Φ1 (x1 , x2 ) min Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

Objective functions and Φ1 (x1 , x2 ), Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

Communication-based Control min Φ1 (x1 , x2 ) min Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

Objective functions and Φ1 (x1 , x2 ), Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

Communication-based Control min Φ1 (x1 , x2 ) min Φ2 (x1 , x2 )

Centralized Control min Φ(x1 , x2 )

The composite plant model

x11 A11 x11

The composite plant model

Formulations for distributed MPC

MPC 1 Prediction MPC 2 Prediction

Exchange of state and input

MPC 1 Prediction MPC 2 Prediction

Exchange of state and input

this kind of bad design choice? 1.5

An unreliable plantwide control strategy

Implementation issues for large-scale systems

Cooperation-based MPC terminated at an intermediate iterate

Eliminate the state variables using the model equality constraints

Each MPC solves an optimization problem in the local input variables

Pareto optimal surface

Distributed MPC control law

fix this kind of bad design choice

fix this kind of bad design choice

Modeling and control of a styrene polymerization reactor well studied

Controller performance measure

An industrially motivated scenario

Design MPCs to explicitly handle operational objectives

An industrially motivated scenario

pFC − MPC1 min Φ1

pFC − MPC2 min Φ = w1 Φ1 + w2 Φ2

Weight for output y2 = 50 × weight for output y1

The explicit model and prediction horizon of MPC provide a wealth of

The explicit model and prediction horizon of MPC provide a wealth of

The explicit model and prediction horizon of MPC provide a wealth of

The explicit model and prediction horizon of MPC provide a wealth of

Develop identification methods for “minimal” modeling of the unit

Develop identification methods for “minimal” modeling of the unit

Develop identification methods for “minimal” modeling of the unit

Develop identification methods for “minimal” modeling of the unit

Support from the U.S. National Science Foundation through grant

Вам также может понравиться