2011 Garcia Vilas Santos Alonso JJPC BW
2011 Garcia Vilas Santos Alonso JJPC BW
2011 Garcia Vilas Santos Alonso JJPC BW
Abstract
∗
Corresponding author
Email addresses: [email protected] (Mı́riam R. Garcı́a),
[email protected] (Carlos Vilas), [email protected] (Lino O. Santos),
[email protected] (Antonio A. Alonso)
1. Introduction
2
Distributed parameter systems (DPS) are examples of infinite dimen-
sional nonlinear dynamic systems that challenge the efficiency of MPC im-
plementations due to a number of reasons directly or indirectly related with
the following issues: the high level of spatial discretization required to ap-
proximate the original set of partial differential equations; the dependence of
the discretization scheme on the dynamic properties of the plant; the poten-
tially stiff nature of the resulting nonlinear differential algebraic or ordinary
equations or the usually large times of convergence associated with the sub-
sequent optimization problems.
This may be tackled by formulating simpler ODE (Ordinary Differen-
tial Equation) models to describe the behavior of the DPS. For instance,
in [19, 20] NMPC of a fixed-bed water-gas shift reactor is formulated using
a simplified model with fewer equations and states. Also a lumped model-
ing approach is considered in [21] where a lexicographic optimization based
MPC is applied to control a continuous pulp digester. In a strategy to apply
on-line MPC to an experimental drying process [22], the partial differential
equations are solved off-line, and then a linearized PDE (Partial Differen-
tial Equation) model around the previous off-line behavior is used to find
the optimal variations for the on-line predictive control. This MPC strategy
combines a two phase approximation of the PDE model in an internal model
control (IMC) structure [23, 24]. Also, in [25, 26] to avoid the spatial dis-
cretization of the system the authors develop a neural network based model
for the predictive controller. From another perspective, the development of
more efficient NMPC algorithm strategies can greatly reduce the computa-
tional burden associated to the large-scale problems that arise in distributed
3
parameter systems when using a full discretization of the PDE model [27].
Besides the various approaches taken in the aforementioned works, these
challenges have been usually overcome in control and optimization applica-
tions by the so-called projection techniques [28, 29, 30, 31]. These techniques
stand on the dissipative nature of the parabolic (diffusion based) PDE set
and the time scale separation of dynamic modes, transforming the original
PDE model into a low dimensional dynamic system capturing the most repre-
sentative (slow) dynamics [32]. This approach has been successfully applied
in the context of dynamic matrix control [33, 34] and MPC [35, 36, 37].
The so-called POD (Proper Orthogonal Decomposition) technique lies
into this category. It was firstly proposed by Sirovich [38] and exploited by
the group of Holmes and Lumley [39, 40, 41] in the context of fluid dynamics
as a way to explore the routes to turbulence phenomena, and was rapidly
extended to other fields such as chemical reaction and biological systems. In
this technique, measurements of the spatio-temporal evolution of the field are
employed to derive the ROM (Reduced Order Model). We can envisage the
application of these techniques in processes with process tomography devices
to measure spatial state fields, that is, to capture the so called snapshots of
the spatial distribution in order to track the states spatial variations inside
the process. In fact, a recent review on control of DPS recognizes that the
POD has emerged as a popular tool for model reduction towards model-
based control applications [42] and it has been exploited as an off-line model
reduction technique for MPC [43].
The main disadvantage of PODs however, lies in that their accuracy is
limited to a certain region of the state space defined by the field measure-
4
ments employed to derive the ROM [44]. In the context of Model Predictive
Control, this limitation translates into a divergence between the plant and
its reduced order representation known as plant-process mismatch that if not
properly assessed, for instance at the control design stage, it will deteriorate
control performance or even drive the plant unstable. A detailed discus-
sion about different approaches to waive this limitation can be found in [45]
and references therein. Among those, particularly interesting is the work by
[46] which presented a methodology to update the snapshots based on an
optimization procedure which is able to find those regions where the ROM
significantly differs from the full model. Although the aforementioned tech-
niques increase the validity region of the POD technique, problems may arise
when plant perturbations lead the system far away from such region. From
another point of view, Atwell and King [47, 48] approached the problem for
closed loop systems by using an alternative type of input collection which
takes into account the derivation of the infinite dimensional feedback law.
Using this input collection does not require guesswork and, as pointed out
by the authors, controllers designed in this way perform better as compared
with those designed using the traditional snapshot approach.
Independently of the order reduction technique, however, the dissipative
nature of convection-diffusion-reaction systems ensures the existence of a
reduced order representation capable of approximating at arbitrary accuracy
the real plant dynamics for a given operation region [32]. Therefore, it is
desirable to update the ROM currently in use by an MPC controller whenever
closed loop performance and/or stability can not be guaranteed.
In this work a sufficient condition for robust stability of nominal MPC
5
with modeling error similar to the one proposed in [49, 50] will be extended
to the application of MPC of dissipative distributed process systems. It will
be employed to select a reduced order model of the plant among a sequence
of possible approximations so that the stabilizing properties of MPC are
preserved despite uncertainties and disturbances. The authors in [49, 50]
address the question of how much mismatch a given MPC algorithm can
tolerate and how it can be assessed for stability of the MPC controller. Then
an off-line procedure is developed to evaluate constants which determine
sufficient conditions for robust stability. In this work, the proposed sufficient
condition is applied to trigger the needed on-line updates of the ROM model
used by the MPC controller in order to ensure robust stability. Therefore,
when the sufficient condition is not satisfied, new plant measurements are
taken to update on-line the POD basis, thus overcoming the reduced order
model accuracy limitations discussed above.
Since the model is built on-line, based on actual measurements from the
plant, the proposed approach can be interpreted as an MPC controller mak-
ing use of multiple models, that is, a multi-model predictive control (MMPC).
Early versions of the proposed strategy have been reported in [51, 52] and
were applied to the control of simulated moving bed (SMB) separation pro-
cesses [53]. The present contribution concentrates on the theoretical of the
approach related with the model selection criterion and the convergence of
the resulting control configuration.
The paper is organized as follows: The class of systems under consider-
ation in this work is described in Section 2. This includes the role of dissi-
pation in model reduction, the POD method and its main properties to be
6
exploited later in the MMPC strategy. Section 3 summarizes the robust MPC
approach to tackle plant/reduced order model mismatch and discusses con-
ditions under which the closed-loop system remains stable. The final MMPC
configuration comprising the reduced model update scheme and MPC, and
its convergence properties, are described along Section 5. The performance
of the MMPC strategy is illustrated by simulation experiments on a problem
that involves the reactant concentration control of a tubular reactor with
recycle (Section 6). Finally, main conclusions are drawn in Section 7.
∂z(ξ, t) ∂j(z)
+ = f (z) + p(ξ, t) , (1)
∂t ∂ξ
7
convective and diffusive fluxes so that:
∂z(ξ, t)
j(z) = vz(ξ, t) − k . (2)
∂ξ
As it is standard in tubular reactors, we will assume that the velocity field
∂v
v will be independent of space, thus = 0. Note however that equivalent
∂ξ
conclusions can be drawn for the more general case of v ≡ v(ξ) as it is
described in [55]. The terms f (z) and p(ξ, t) represent the nonlinear reaction
term and the, possibly distributed, control input, respectively. The system
is completed with boundary conditions of the form:
∂z(ξ, t)
n· k + hz(ξ, t) = 0, (3)
∂ξ ξ=B
where n is a unit normal vector pointing outwards of the boundary B and h >
0 is a constant representing a property (mass or energy) transfer coefficient
at the boundary. In what follows some of the function arguments will be
omitted for the sake of clarity. We assume that the system is dissipative in
the sense of references [56, 55]. This implies, among other things, that k in
(2) must be positive and that the nonlinear term f (z) satisfies the following
assumption:
8
where hg, hiV should be understood as integration over V, i.e., hg, hiV =
R T
V
g h dξ. Given a field z(ξ, t), let us define a L2 norm as follows: kzk22 =
hz, ziV .
As shown in [32, 55] a field that obeys equations (1)-(4) is dissipative
and therefore bounded in L2 , provided that the control input field p(ξ, t) is
bounded. On the other hand, since f (z) is Lipschitz, it is also bounded and
thus belongs to L2 . Because of this, both functions accept Fourier series
expansions of the form [57]:
∞
X ∞
X
z(t, ξ) = mi (t)φi (ξ) , f (z) = σi (t)φi (ξ) , (6)
i=1 i=1
where mi (t) and σi (t) are the system dynamic modes, and φi (ξ) are eigen-
functions that constitute the solutions of the so-called Euler-Lagrange equa-
tion [58] (see also [32] for a discussion in the context of distributed passive
systems):
∂ 2 φi (ξ)
= −λi φi (ξ) . (7)
∂ξ 2
Equation (7) must be solved with the appropriate boundary conditions (in
our case equation (3)) to produce a complete set of orthonormal eigen-
functions {φi (ξ)}∞ ∞
i=1 with their corresponding positive eigenspectrum {λi }i=1
9
The background material we have just outlined in this section will allow us
to construct a dynamic approximation of the plant capable of reproducing
the behavior of the system at arbitrary precision (reduced order models).
These will constitute the models employed by the predictive controllers to
command the operation. A brief description of reduced order models (ROMs)
is presented in Appendix A. The dynamics of the error associated to the
approximation and its bounds are discussed next.
10
In the remaining of the paper, we will employ the subindex A to denote the
part of the field related to the finite dimensional contribution in Eqns (10)-
(13) and a subindex B to refer to the part of the field corresponding to the
infinite dimensional contribution. In this way,
N
X ∞
X
rA (ξ, t) = αi (t)φi (ξ); rB (ξ, t) = αi (t)φi (ξ)
i=1 i=N +1
∂z(ξ, t)
with r(ξ, t) representing any of the fields z(ξ, t), f (ξ, t), p(ξ, t) or ,
∂ξ
and α(t) denoting the time dependent coefficients m(t), σ(t), π(t) or τ (t).
In all the expressions above, N + 1 will turn out to be the mode number
after which one can assure that the remaining modes will relax exponentially
fast. This will be shown next together with the fact that under Assumption
1 such N can always be found.
To simplify the notation we denote z ≡ z(ξ, t), zA ≡ zA (ξ, t), zB ≡
zB (ξ, t). In addition, by orthogonality of the eigenfunctions and relations
(10) we have that hzA , zB iV = 0, so that:
By the same token, and using expansions (10) and (13), it follows that:
∂z ∂zB ∂z ∂zB
zB , = zB , and zB , = zB , .
∂t V ∂t V ∂ξ V ∂ξ V
11
Let us now examine the different terms in the RHS of equation (15). Using
the first Green’s identity, the convection term in (15) is given by:
Z
∂zB 1 ∂ 1
v zB , = v zB2 dξ = v zB2 (L) − zB2 (0) , (16)
∂ξ V 2 V ∂ξ 2
Taking into account that the smallest eigenvalue in the previous series is
P
λN +1 and kzB k22 = ∞ 2
i=N +1 mi , the diffusive terms can be bounded as
∂ ∂zB
zB , k 6 −kλN +1 kzB k22 = −2kλN +1 W . (18)
∂ξ ∂ξ V
Finally, invoking the Lipschitz condition (4) in its integral form (5), we derive
a bound on the nonlinear term in (15), being of the form:
12
Combining (17), (18), and (19), with (15), we obtain the following inequali-
ties:
dW
6 −vW (L) − 2kλN +1 W + 2µW + hzB , pB iV
dt
6 −2εN W + hzB , pB iV , (20)
1/2 1
W 1/2 6 W1 + 1/2
(W − W1 ) . (23)
2W1
13
2
1 β
Let W1 be of the form W1 = ω2 2εN
, with 0 < ω < 1 an auxiliary
parameter. Substituting W1 in (23), inequality (22) can be rewritten as:
!
dW β 1/2
6 −2 εN − 1/2
W + βW1
dt 2W1
β2
6 −2εN (1 − ω)W + .
2ωεN
β2
W (T ) 6 exp (−rT )W (0) + (1 − exp (−rT )) . (24)
4ε2N ω(1 − ω)
The second term on the right hand side attains a minimum for ω = 1/2 for
which r = εN . Consequently, a minimum bound for the propagation of the
approximation error kzB k22 takes the form given by Eqn (21). 4
Note that the larger N (and hence εN ), the smaller the bound on the
field zB . Thus the error associated to neglecting the field zB can be made
arbitrarily small by increasing the number of modes in the field zA .
14
For the case considered in this work, and in order to construct the cost
function to be minimized during operation we define the state and control
variables in deviation form with respect to a reference which is chosen as the
controller setpoint, i.e.,
where z ∈ Rq and p ∈ Rr are the vector fields, and q and r are the number
of states and control variables, respectively. From (25) it follows that at the
setpoint we have that z = 0, and p = 0.
• Cost function at time tk
In the MPC problem formulation we consider a predictive horizon M and a
control horizon Mc , with Mc 6 M . Let zk , and pk represent the deviation
variables at every sampling time tk , k > 0. Let us define a positive definite
function h(z, p) : Rq × Rr → R+ , and denote by h(zk , pk ) the value of such
function at time tk . A possible candidate cost function, frequently employed
in the MPC formulations, is the quadratic function:
1 T
h(zk , pk ) = zk Qz,k zk + pTk Qp,k pk , (26)
2
where Qz,k and Qp,k are appropriate positive definite symmetric matrices.
We define the functional (cost function) to be minimized over the spatial
domain V with boundary B subject to dynamic system (9) as follows:
Z
J(zk , Pk ) = H(zk , Pk )dξ , (27)
V
where zk is the field initial condition and Pk collects the control actions
(control fields) over a control horizon of Mc sampling times, Pk = {pi }k+M
i=k
c −1
.
15
Accordingly, Pk produces over the predictive horizon the state sequence Zk =
{zi }k+M
i=k+1 . Function H(zk , Pk ) in (27) takes the form:
k+M
X−1
H(zk , Pk ) = h(zi , pi ) + hF (zk+M ) , (28)
i=k
T
with hF (zk+M ) = zk+M Qz,k+M zk+M . It is important to remark that since
functions h(z, p) and hF (z) are lower bounded there exists a positive constant
αh such that:
dmA
= AA mA + FA , (30)
dt
P
with each field is approximated as z ≈ zA = N
i=1 φi mi . With some abuse of
16
problem to be solved at every k is then stated as:
3.1. Assumptions
Assumption 3. Both the plant model (9) and the reduced order model (30)
17
satisfy zk+1 = 0 for the steady state reference values (zk , pk ) = (0, 0). Note
that because of cost function definition (26), it follows that J(0, P∗k ) = 0.
Consider the optimal solution of problem (31) at time index k, P∗k , with
cost J(zk , P∗k ), and hF (zk+M ) = 0, and apply the first element of the optimal
control sequence (p∗k ). As a result, the system will evolve to a state zk+1
∗
18
optimal one). Then, we can write:
Z k+M
X−1 Z
∗ 0 ∗
J(zk , Pk ) − J(zk+1 , Pk+1 ) = h(zi , pi )dξ + hF (zk+M )dξ
V i=k V
Z k+M
X Z
− h(zi , p∗i )dξ − hF (zk+M +1 )dξ
V i=k+1 V
Z Z
= h(zk , p∗k )dξ − hF (zk+M +1 )dξ (32)
V V
Thus the sequence J(zk , P∗k ) over n time indices decreases, and because h(·)
is bounded from below by zero it converges, and h(zk , p∗k ) → 0 with k → n.
19
stability of the closed-loop system. In essence, the criterion will be employed
to show that approximations of the slow dynamics for system (9) can always
be found such that the system is closed-loop stable in the presence of the
plant/reduced order model mismatch.
In this way, for any pair of initial conditions z1,k and z2,k there exists a
positive constant αP such that:
With these preliminary observations we are in the position to state next the
main robustness condition.
1
Note that the set of optimal control actions must be itself function of the initial
condition
20
where ρ ∈ [0, 1).
Moreover, at each k it is always possible to find a number N of slow modes
so to ensure that the above inequality (mismatch condition) holds.
Proof: To prove the first part we add and subtract J(zA,k+1 , P∗A,k+1 ) to the
LHS of (34) so that:
Note that since at time index k state measurements are available, zA,k ≡ zk .
Thus, applying (34) to the first term on the RHS of equation (38) leads to:
Z
∗ ∗
J(zk , Pk ) − J(zk+1 , Pk+1 ) > h(zk , p∗k )dξ
V
− J(zk+1 , P∗k+1 ) − J(zA,k+1 , P∗A,k+1 ) . (39)
Since h(zk , p∗k ) is bounded from below by a quadratic function of the field
(Eqn (29)) we also have:
21
According to proposition 1, kzB,k+1 k22 is bounded by its corresponding norm
at k as:
2β 2
kzB,k+1 (T )k22 6 kzB,k k22 exp (−εN T ) + (1 − exp (−εN T )) . (42)
ε2N
and the result follows since for any kzB,k k22 , εN → ∞ as N → ∞ so the right
hand side can be made arbitrarily small by increasing N . 4
22
calculation – and “non-standard optimization”. The only difference between
both is the initial condition. In the former such initial condition is the current
measure of the field zk while in the “non-standard optimization” it is given
by zA,k which is to be estimated by using the previous field measurement
zk−1 and the approximation of the system.
In the case that (43) is not satisfied, we need to update the model, i.e., to
recalculate the set of PODs representative of the current range of operation.
To this purpose we make use of the last Nm measurements obtained from the
plant, i.e. {zk−Nm , ..., zk }. The technique to re-calculate the PODs is outlined
in Appendix A, and the criterion to choose the dimension of the POD set
is determined by the percentage of energy captured by the approximation.
It must be highlighted that considering different sets of snapshots will, in
general, lead to different sets of PODs. Therefore, the number of PODs nec-
essary to capture a given percentage of energy will depend on the considered
set of snapshots. A nominal criterion for the energy captured could be 99%
as proposed by [38]. A good selection of number of measurements, Nm , and
the energy captured by the PODs, E(%), could accelerate considerably the
computation of the optimal profiles. When Nm and E(%) are small, numer-
ous updates must be done. On the contrary, when these indices are large, few
updates of the model are required but its dimension is higher. Consequently
it leads to an increase of the computational effort to solve the optimization
problem.
Simulation studies with the system described in Section 6, indicate that
these parameters must be selected with a compromise between the quality of
the model approximation and the computational cost to solve the optimiza-
23
tion problem.
When implementing this technique, there are also other important as-
pects which will speed up substantially the calculations (see Figure 1). For
example, the RHS term required at time tk in (43) is implicitly calculated
by the “standard optimization” at time tk−1 . The schematic representation
of the algorithm in Figure 1 gives also the basic steps to follow taking into
account scenarios where numerical errors may result in unnecessary updates
of the model. Note that when the plant is close to the reference point, the
terms in (43) are close to zero and therefore very small values may trigger
unnecessary model updates. As it is illustrated in Section 6, this can be
avoided by permitting model updates only when the cost function value is
higher than a given tolerance , i.e.,
24
[27] report the application of their advanced-step NMPC to a distributed
system described by a DAE model with 350 states and differential-algebraic
equations. Thus, the adoption of the reduced order methodology described
in this work can contribute to the application of existing advanced NMPC
technology to distributed systems of higher dimension.
6. Case study
25
The values of the parameters are chosen from [63, 65]:
PeC = 7 , BC = 0.1 , γ = 10 ,
PeT = 7 , BT = 2.5 , βT = 2 .
26
of discretization (31 nodes in this example) is selected such as further dis-
cretizations do not significantly alter the solution. The model employed to
approximate the plant behavior is constructed using the POD technique (see
(46b)-(46c)) where the number of slow modes in the approximation (NC , NT )
is computed using the energy criteria (see Appendix A for more details).
Some relevant aspects of the MMPC implementation are outlined next (see
also Figure 1):
27
sampling time, ∆t = 0.5 time units.
5. Before each new optimization problem, criteria (43) and (44) are checked.
In case they do not fulfill, new POD basis that captures 99.5 % of the
energy is computed using the snapshots obtained from the measure-
ments in step 4, and a new ROM is derived. Note that the value of
energy in this step is lower than that one considered in step 2 because
a richer information (snapshots) is available at this point. Also it was
selected larger than the one recommended in [38] because it ensures
a good representation of the plant behavior while keeping the model
dimensionality adequate for MPC purposes.
6. Steps 3-5 are repeated.
2
` and v correspond with physical reactor length and fluid velocity, respectively
28
target the concentration setpoint nor to stabilize the system. This is the
case illustrated in Figures 3 and 5. Alternatively a more representative sam-
pling could capture the precise behavior but at the expenses of exhaustive
off-line experiments to be carried out beforehand.
On the contrary, the proposed MMPC methodology is able to detect
through (43) and (44) when the current ROM is not accurate enough to
track the outlet concentration setpoint producing new representative POD
sets in the sense of ensuring controller stability. The circle marks in Figures
5 and 6 indicate when the model was updated using the new available state
measurements. Figures 4 and 5 show that the MMPC approach is able to
stabilize the system around the desired outlet concentration setpoint. Four
model updates were required, respectively at t = 3, 10, 12, and 12.5 units
of time. It is important to note that the ROM obtained with 99.5 % of the
energy always consisted of less than 6 ODEs per field.
Finally, the evolution of objective function (46a) as well as inequality
(43) are represented in Figure 6 illustrating that, for the MMPC approach,
asymptotic convergence is ensured. Besides, the evolution of the mismatch
term, expressed in terms of the L2 norm of the differences between the mea-
sured (real) states, y = [Cout , Tout ], and the predicted states, ŷ = [Ĉout , T̂out ])
is also represented in Figure 6. When applying the conventional MPC scheme
this term keeps oscillating whereas the MMPC approach is able to reduce it
to zero.
29
7. Conclusions
30
Acknowledgments
This work has been also partially founded by the Spanish Ministry of Sci-
ence and Innovation (SMART-QC, AGL2008-05267-C03-01), the FP7 CAFE
project (KBBE-2007-1-212754), the Project PTDC/EQU-ESI/73458/2006
from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and PI grant
07/IN.1/I1838 by Science Foundation Ireland. Also, the authors acknowledge
financial support received by a collaborative grant GRICES-CSIC. Finally,
we want to thank the reviewers for their useful comments.
where λi corresponds with the eigenvalue associated with each global eigen-
function φi . In this work, the proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) will
be selected as the technique to compute the basis functions due to its effi-
ciency [54]. In the POD, the kernel R(ξ, ξ 0 ) in equation (A.2) corresponds
31
with the two point spatial correlation function, defined as follows [54]:
1 X̀
R(ξ, ξ 0 ) = z(ξ, tj )z(ξ 0 , tj ). (A.3)
` j=1
where z(ξ, tj ) corresponds with the value of the field at each instant tj and the
summation extends over a sufficiently rich collection of uncorrelated snap-
shots at j = 1, · · · , ` [38]. The basis functions obtained by means of the
POD technique are also known as empirical basis functions or POD basis.
The dissipative nature of the kind of systems considered in this work
allows us to separate the system dynamics in two subsets [67, 68, 31]: one
stable with fast dynamics and infinite dimensional (zB ) and the other (zA )
composed by a finite number of elements with slow dynamics which may be
unstable and will capture the relevant dynamics of the system. The number
of elements (N ) in the stable subset is usually chosen using a criteria based
on the energy captured by the POD basis. Such energy is connected to the
eigenspectrum {λi }`i=1 or, to be more precise, to the inverse of the eigenvalues
µi = 1/λi as follows (for a deeper insight see [63, 38]):
N
X
µi
i=1
E(%) = 100 × (A.4)
X̀
µi
i=1
32
the number of discretization points. For most of 1D problems this should
not be an issue. However, when considering 2D or 3D systems, solving (A.2)
may render impractical for MPC purposes. In those cases, the method of
snapshots or strobes proposed in [38] can be employed.
Finally, in order to recover the field zA (ξ, t), the original PDE system (9)
is projected onto the slow basis set3 . As a result, the following set of ODEs
is obtained:
dmA
= AA mA + FA (A.5)
dt
T ∂ ∂φA ∂φA
where mA = [m1 , m2 , · · · , mN ] , AA = φA , k −v , FA =
∂x ∂x ∂x V
hφA , f (z) + p(x, t)iV and φA = [φ1 , φ2 , · · · , φN ]T .
It is important to highlight that, as shown in section 2, the number of
elements N in the slow subset zA can be increased to approximate the original
state z with an arbitrary degree of accuracy.
In order to show the conditions under which the first derivative can be
expanded in convergent series of the form (13) let us start with a definition:
with p and y being, respectively, the input and the output of the system.
3
R
The basis set has been previously normalized so that V
φi φi dξ = 1, ∀i = 1, .., N .
33
1
Consider the quadratic function W(t) = 2
hz, ziV = 12 kzk22 . Multiplying
Eq (9) by z and integrating over the spatial coordinates, we obtain:
dW ∂ ∂z ∂z
= z, k − z, v + hz, f iV + hz, piV (B.2)
dt ∂ξ ∂ξ V ∂ξ V
The first two terms on the RHS of Eq (B.2) were proved to be non positive
in [55], therefore using Eq (5) with µ = 0 leads to:
dW
6 −L0 + hz, piV (B.3)
dt
Note that this inequality implies that W(T ) is upper bounded for all T > 0
provided that the controls are also bounded so that hz, piV < ∞.
Let us now consider the diffusive term in Eq (B.2):
Z Z
∂ ∂z ∂z ∂z ∂ ∂z
zk dξ = k dξ + z, k
V ∂x ∂ξ V ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ V
It should be noted that, making use of boundary condition (3), the LHS is
negative and we obtain
Z
∂z ∂z ∂ ∂z
− k dξ > z, k ⇒
V ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ ∂ξ V
2
∂z
∂ ∂z
−k
∂ξ
> z, ∂ξ k ∂ξ (B.5)
2 V
34
Substituting expression (B.5) into (B.2) and using the Lipschitz condition
(5) with µ = 0:
2
dW
∂z
∂z
6 −k
− z, v − L0 + hz, piV
dt ∂ξ 2 ∂ξ V
∂z
Taking into account that z, v > 0 – see Eqn (17) –
∂ξ V
2
dW
∂z
6 −k
∂ξ
− L0 + hz, piV
dt 2
Since the all the terms in the RHS are upper bounded – see Eq. (B.4) – we
conclude that the first derivative is bounded.
References
35
[4] E. F. Camacho, C. Bordons, Model Predictive Control, 2nd Edition,
Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal Processing, Springer-Verlag,
London, 2004.
[8] M. Morari, J. H. Lee, Model predictive control: Past, present and future,
Computers & Chemical Engineering 23 (4-5) (1999) 667–682.
[12] M. Henson, Nonlinear model predictive control: current status and fu-
ture directions, Computers and Chemical Engineering 23 (2) (1998) 187–
202.
36
[13] M. Cannon, Efficient nonlinear model predictive control algorithms, An-
nual Reviews in Control 28 (2) (2004) 229–237.
37
[21] N. Padhiyar, S. Bhartiya, Profile control in distributed parameter sys-
tems using lexicographic optimization based MPC, Journal of Process
Control 19 (1) (2009) 100 – 109.
38
predictive control, Computers & Chemical Engineering 33 (10) (2009)
1735 – 1746.
39
[35] H. Shang, J. F. Forbes, M. Guay, Model predictive control for quasilinear
hyperbolic distributed parameter systems, Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research 43 (9) (2004) 2140–2149.
40
[43] W. Xie, C. Theodoropoulos, An off-line model reduction-based tech-
nique for on-line linear mpc applications for nonlinear large-scale dis-
tributed systems, Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 28 (2010) 409–
414.
41
[49] L. O. Santos, L. T. Biegler, A tool to analyze robust stability for model
predictive controllers, Journal of Process Control 9 (11) (1999) 233–246.
42
[56] A. A. Alonso, B. E. Ydstie, Stabilization of distributed systems using
irreversible thermodynamics, Automatica 37 (11) (2001) 1739–1755.
43
[64] C. Antoniades, P. D. Christofides, Integrating nonlinear output feedback
control and optimal actuator/sensor placement for transport-reaction
processes, Chemical Engineering Science 56 (15) (2001) 4517–4535.
44
Plant (Distributed process)
zk
kth “standard opti-
mization” J(zk , P∗k )
P∗k
Store P∗k ,
k > 1 and No R kth “standard opti-
h(zk , p∗k )dξ
J(zk , P∗A,k ) > V
mization” J(zk , P∗k )
and zk−Nm , ..., zk
kth “non-standard
check sufficient No Update PODs
optimization”
condition (43) (see Appendix A)
J(zA,k , P∗A,k )
45
C(ξ, t)
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0.0
-0.6
0.2
-0.8
0.4
-1.0
0.6 ξ
0
5
10 0.8
15
t 20
25 1.0
T (ξ, t)
1.6
1.2
0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.6 ξ
0
5
10 0.8
15
t 20
25 1.0
46
C(ξ, t)
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0.0
-0.6
0.2
-0.8
0.4
-1.0
0.6 ξ
0
5
10 0.8
15
t 20
25 1.0
T (ξ, t)
1.6
1.2
0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.6 ξ
0
5
10 0.8
15
t 20
25 1.0
47
C(ξ, t)
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0.0
-0.6
0.2
-0.8
0.4
-1.0
0.6 ξ
0
5
10 0.8
15
t 20
25 1.0
T (ξ, t)
1.6
1.2
0.8 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.6 ξ
0
5
10 0.8
15
t 20
25 1.0
Figure 4: Closed-loop concentration and temperature responses with the MMPC strategy
using updated ROMs that capture 99.5 % of the energy.
48
0.0
a)
-0.2 b)
-0.4 Csp
Cout
1.6 a)
b)
1.2 MMPC model update
Tout
0.8
0.4
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.10
a) b)
MMPC model update
0.05
Tc
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
0 5 10 15 20 25
t
Figure 5: Outlet reactor concentration and temperature closed-loop responses, and con-
troller actuation: a) conventional MPC; b) MMPC strategy. The dots on the MMPC
profiles indicate when a model update occurred.
49
a) b)
Jk∗
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
1.5
k−1 )dξ
0.5
V
R
0.0
Jk∗ − JA,k −
-0.5
∗
-1.0
-1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.15
a) b) MMPC model update
2
yk − ŷk
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
t
Figure 6: Evolution of the optimal cost function in (46a), inequality (43), and of the
states plant/model mismatch: a) conventional MPC; b) MMPC strategy. The dots on the
MMPC profiles indicate when a model update occurred.
50