Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of commercially available model predictive control (MPC) technology, both linear and
nonlinear, based primarily on data provided by MPC vendors. A brief history of industrial MPC technology is presented first,
followed by results of our vendor survey of MPC control and identification technology. A general MPC control algorithm is
presented, and approaches taken by each vendor for the different aspects of the calculation are described. Identification technology
is reviewed to determine similarities and differences between the various approaches. MPC applications performed by each vendor
are summarized by application area. The final section presents a vision of the next generation of MPC technology, with an emphasis
on potential business and research opportunities.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
0967-0661/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 7 - 0 6 6 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 8 6 - 7
734 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
In recent years the MPC landscape has changed the process considered by Kalman and co-workers can
drastically, with a large increase in the number of be described by a discrete-time, linear state-space model:
reported applications, significant improvements in xkþ1 ¼ Axk þ Buk þ Gwk ; ð1aÞ
technical capability, and mergers between several of
the vendor companies. The primary purpose of this yk ¼ Cxk þ nk : ð1bÞ
paper is to present an updated, representative snapshot
of commercially available MPC technology. The in- The vector u represents process inputs, or manipulated
formation reported here was collected from vendors variables, and vector y describes measured process
starting in mid-1999, reflecting the status of MPC outputs. The vector x represents process states to be
practice just prior to the new millennium, roughly 25 controlled. The state disturbance wk and measurement
years after the first applications. noise nk are independent Gaussian noise with zero
A brief history of MPC technology development is mean. The initial state x0 is assumed to be Gaussian
presented first, followed by the results of our industrial with non-zero mean.
survey. Significant features of each offering are outlined The objective function F to be minimized
and discussed. MPC applications to date by each vendor penalizes expected values of squared input and state
are then summarized by application area. The final deviations from the origin and includes separate state
section presents a view of next-generation MPC and input weight matrices Q and R to allow for tuning
technology, emphasizing potential business and research trade-offs:
opportunities. XN
F ¼ EðJÞ; J¼ ðjjxkþj jj2Q þ jjukþj jj2R Þ: ð2Þ
j¼1
2. A brief history of industrial MPC
The norm terms in the objective function are defined as
This section presents an abbreviated history of follows:
industrial MPC technology. Fig. 1 shows an evolution- jjxjj2Q ¼ xT Qx: ð3Þ
ary tree for the most significant industrial MPC
algorithms, illustrating their connections in a concise Implicit in this formulation is the assumption that all
way. Control algorithms are emphasized here because variables are written in terms of deviations from a
relatively little information is available on the develop- desired steady state. It was found that the solution to
ment of industrial identification technology. The follow- this problem, known as the linear quadratic Gaussian
ing sub-sections describe key algorithms on the MPC (LQG) controller, involves two separate steps. At time
evolutionary tree. interval k; the output measurement yk is first used to
obtain an optimal state estimate x# kjk :
2.1. LQG x# kjk1 ¼ Ax# k1jk1 þ Buk1 ; ð4aÞ
The development of modern control concepts can be x# kjk ¼ x# kjk1 þ Kf ðyk Cx# kjk1 Þ: ð4bÞ
traced to the work of Kalman et al. in the early 1960s Then the optimal input uk is computed using an optimal
(Kalman, 1960a, b). A greatly simplified description of proportional state controller:
their results will be presented here as a reference point
for the discussion to come. In the discrete-time context, uk ¼ Kc x# kjk : ð5Þ
2000
DMC+
RMPCT 4th generation
MPC
SMCA RMPC
1990 3rd generation
SMOC PFC PCT
IDCOM-M HIECON MPC
1970
LQG
1960
Here, the notation x# ijj refers to the state estimate at time requiring time-dependent output weights or additional
i given information up to and including time j: The logic to delineate different operating modes. However,
Kalman filter gain Kf is computed from the solution of a the most significant reasons that LQG theory failed to
matrix Ricatti equation. The controller gain Kc can be have a strong impact may have been related to the
found by constructing a dual Ricatti equation, so that culture of the industrial process control community at
the same numerical techniques and software can be used the time, in which instrument technicians and control
for both calculations. engineers either had no exposure to LQG concepts or
The infinite prediction horizon of the LQG algorithm regarded them as impractical.
endows the algorithm with powerful stabilizing proper- This environment led to the development, in industry,
ties. For the case of a perfect model, it was shown to be of a more general model based control methodology in
stabilizing for any reasonable linear plant (stabilizable which the dynamic optimization problem is solved on-
and the states are detectable through the quadratic line at each control execution. Process inputs are
criterion) as long as Q is positive semidefinite and R is computed so as to optimize future plant behavior over
positive definite. a time interval known as the prediction horizon. In the
Extensions to handle practical issues such as control- general case any desired objective function can be used.
ling outputs, achieving offset-free control, and comput- Plant dynamics are described by an explicit process
ing the steady-state targets followed rapidly model which can take, in principle, any required
(Kwakernaak & Sivan, 1972). However, constraints on mathematical form. Process input and output con-
the process inputs, states and outputs were generally not straints are included directly in the problem formulation
addressed in the development of LQG theory. so that future constraint violations are anticipated
LQG theory soon became a standard approach to and prevented. The first input of the optimal
solve control problems in a wide range of application input sequence is injected into the plant and the problem
areas. Goodwin, Graebe, and Salgado (2001) estimate is solved again at the next time interval using
that there may be thousands of real-world applications updated process measurements. In addition to
of LQG with roughly 400 patents per year based on the developing more flexible control technology, new
Kalman filter. However, it has had little impact on process identification technology was developed to allow
control technology development in the process indus- quick estimation of empirical dynamic models from test
tries. The most significant of the reasons cited for this data, substantially reducing the cost of model develop-
failure include (Richalet, Rault, Testud, & Papon, 1976; ment. This new methodology for industrial process
Garc!ıa, Prett, & Morari, 1989): modeling and control is what we now refer to as MPC
technology.
* constraints; In modern processing plants the MPC controller is
* process nonlinearities; part of a multi-level hierarchy of control functions. This
* model uncertainty (robustness); is illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows a conventional
* unique performance criteria; control structure on the left for Unit 1 and a MPC
* cultural reasons (people, education, etc.). structure on the right for Unit 2. Similar hierarchical
structures have been described by Richalet, Rault,
It is well known that the economic operating point of Testud, and Papon (1978) and Prett and Garc!ıa
a typical process unit often lies at the intersection of (1988). At the top of the structure a plant-wide
constraints (Prett & Gillette, 1980). A successful optimizer determines optimal steady-state settings for
industrial controller for the process industries must each unit in the plant. These may be sent to local
therefore maintain the system as close as possible to optimizers at each unit which run more frequently or
constraints without violating them. In addition, process consider a more detailed unit model than is possible at
units are typically complex, nonlinear, constrained the plant-wide level. The unit optimizer computes an
multivariable systems whose dynamic behavior changes optimal economic steady state and passes this to the
with time due to such effects as changes in operating dynamic constraint control system for implementation.
conditions and catalyst aging. Process units are also The dynamic constraint control must move the plant
quite individual so that development of process models from one constrained steady state to another while
from fundamental physics and chemistry is difficult to minimizing constraint violations along the way. In the
justify economically. Indeed, the application areas conventional structure this is accomplished by using a
where LQG theory had a more immediate impact, such combination of PID algorithms, lead-lag (L/L) blocks
as the aerospace industry, are characterized by physical and high/low select logic. It is often difficult to translate
systems for which it is technically and economically the control requirements at this level into an appropriate
feasible to develop accurate fundamental models. conventional control structure. In the MPC methodol-
Process units may also have unique performance criteria ogy this combination of blocks is replaced by a single
that are difficult to express in the LQG framework, MPC controller.
736 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
Local Economic
Unit 1 Local Optimizer Unit 2 Local Optimizer Optimization
(every hour)
Dynamic
PID PID Model Predictive Control Constraint
L/L
(MPC) Control
(every minute)
SUM SUM
Basic Dynamic
Unit 1 DCS- PID Controls Unit 2 DCS-PID Controls Control
(every second)
FC PC TC LC FC TC LC
PC
Fig. 2. Hierarchy of control system functions in a typical processing plant. Conventional structure is shown at the left; MPC structure is shown at the
right.
manipulated variables (MVs) which the controller real economic benefits come at level 2 where better
adjusts, and disturbance variables (DVS) which are dynamic control allows the controlled variable setpoint
not available for control. Process outputs are referred to to be moved closer to a constraint without violating it.
as controlled variables (CVs). They chose to describe the This argument provides the basic economic motivation
relationship between process inputs and outputs using a for using MPC technology. This concept of a hierarchy
discrete-time finite impulse response (FIR) model. For of control functions is fundamental to advanced control
the single input, single output (SISO) case the FIR applications and seems to have been followed by many
model looks like: practitioners. Prett and Garc!ıa (1988), for example,
X
N describe a very similar hierarchy.
ykþj ¼ hi ukþji : ð6Þ Richalet et al. describe applications of the MPHC
i¼1 algorithm to a fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU)
main fractionator column, a power plant steam gen-
This model predicts that the output at a given time
erator and a poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) plant. All of
depends on a linear combination of past input values;
these examples are constrained multivariable pro-
the summation weights hi are the impulse response
cesses. The main fractionator example involved
coefficients. The sum is truncated at the point where
controlling key tray temperatures to stabilize the
past inputs no longer influence the output; this
composition of heavy and light product streams. The
representation is therefore only possible for stable
controller adjusted product flowrates to compensate
plants.
for inlet temperature disturbances and to maintain
The finite impulse response was identified from plant
the level of a key internal tray. The power plant
test data using an algorithm designed to minimize the
steam generator problem involved controlling the
distance between the plant and model impulse responses
temperature and pressure of steam delivered to the
in parameter space. The control problem was solved
turbine. This application is interesting because
using the same algorithm by noting that control is the
the process response time varied inversely with load on
mathematical dual of identification. The iterative nature
the system. This nonlinearity was overcome by
of the control algorithm allows input and output
executing the controller with a variable sample time.
constraints to be checked as the algorithm proceeds to
Benefits for the main fractionator application were
a solution. Because the control law is not linear and
reported as $150; 000=yr; due to increasing the flowrate
could not be expressed as a transfer function, Richalet
of the light product stream. Combined energy savings
et al. refer to it as heuristic. In today’s context the
from two columns in the PVC plant were reported as
algorithm would be referred to as a linear MPC
$220; 000=yr:
controller.
The MPHC algorithm drives the predicted future
output trajectory as closely as possible to a reference 2.3. DMC
trajectory, defined as a first order path from the current
output value to the desired setpoint. The speed of the Engineers at Shell Oil developed their own indepen-
desired closed-loop response is set by the time constant dent MPC technology in the early 1970s, with an initial
of the reference trajectory. This is important in practice application in 1973. Cutler and Ramaker presented
because it provides a natural way to control the details of an unconstrained multivariable control algo-
aggressiveness of the algorithm; increasing the time rithm which they named dynamic matrix control (DMC)
constant leads to a slower but more robust controller. at the 1979 National AIChE meeting (Cutler & Ra-
Richalet et al. make the important point that dynamic maker, 1979) and at the 1980 Joint Automatic Control
control must be embedded in a hierarchy of plant Conference (Cutler & Ramaker, 1980). In a companion
control functions in order to be effective. They describe paper at the 1980 meeting Prett and Gillette (1980)
four levels of control, very similar to the structure described an application of DMC technology to an
shown in Fig. 2: FCCU reactor/regenerator in which the algorithm was
* Level 3—Time and space scheduling of production. modified to handle nonlinearities and constraints.
* Level 2—Optimization of setpoints to minimize costs Neither paper discussed their process identification
and ensure quality and quantity of production. technology. Key features of the DMC control algorithm
* Level 1—Dynamic multivariable control of the plant. include:
* Level 0—Control of ancillary systems; PID control of
valves. * linear step response model for the plant;
* quadratic performance objective over a finite predic-
They point out that significant benefits do not come tion horizon;
from simply reducing the variations of a controlled * future plant output behavior specified by trying to
variable through better dynamic control at level 1. The follow the setpoint as closely as possible;
738 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
* optimal inputs computed as the solution to a least- decision to add the equation had to be made on-line, the
squares problem. matrix inverse solution had to be recomputed at each
control execution. Prett and Gillette developed a matrix
The linear step response model used by the DMC tearing solution in which the original matrix inverse
algorithm relates changes in a process output to a could be computed off-line, requiring only the matrix
weighted sum of past input changes, referred to as input inverse corresponding to active time variant constraints
moves. For the SISO case the step response model looks to be computed on-line.
like: The initial IDCOM and DMC algorithms represent
X
N 1 the first generation of MPC technology; they had an
ykþj ¼ si Dukþji þ sN ukþjN : ð7Þ enormous impact on industrial process control and
i¼1
served to define the industrial MPC paradigm.
The move weights si are the step response coefficients.
Mathematically the step response can be defined as the 2.4. QDMC
integral of the impulse response; given one model form
the other can be easily obtained. Multiple outputs were The original IDCOM and DMC algorithms provided
handled by superposition. By using the step response excellent control of unconstrained multivariable pro-
model one can write predicted future output changes as cesses. Constraint handling, however, was still some-
a linear combination of future input moves. The matrix what ad hoc. Engineers at Shell Oil addressed this
that ties the two together is the so-called Dynamic weakness by posing the DMC algorithm as a quadratic
Matrix. Using this representation allows the optimal program (QP) in which input and output constraints
move vector to be computed analytically as the solution appear explicitly. Cutler et al. first described the QDMC
to a least-squares problem. Feedforward control is algorithm in a 1983 AIChE conference paper (Cutler,
readily included in this formulation by modifying the Morshedi, & Haydel, 1983). Garc!ıa and Morshedi
predicted future outputs. In practice the required matrix (1986) published a more comprehensive description
inverse can be computed off-line to save computation. several years later.
Only the first row of the final controller gain matrix Key features of the QDMC algorithm include:
needs to be stored because only the first move needs to
be computed. * linear step response model for the plant;
The objective of a DMC controller is to drive the * quadratic performance objective over a finite predic-
output as close to the setpoint as possible in a least- tion horizon;
squares sense with a penalty term on the MV moves. * future plant output behavior specified by trying to
This results in smaller computed input moves and a less follow the setpoint as closely as possible subject to a
aggressive output response. As with the IDCOM move suppression term;
reference trajectory, this technique provides a degree * optimal inputs computed as the solution to a
of robustness to model error. Move suppression factors quadratic program.
also provide an important numerical benefit in that they
can be used to directly improve the conditioning of the Garc!ıa and Morshedi show how the DMC objective
numerical solution. function can be re-written in the form of a standard QP.
Cutler and Ramaker showed results from a furnace Future projected outputs can be related directly back to
temperature control application to demonstrate im- the input move vector through the dynamic matrix; this
proved control quality using the DMC algorithm. allows all input and output constraints to be collected
Feedforward response of the DMC algorithm to inlet into a matrix inequality involving the input move vector.
temperature changes was superior to that of a conven- Although the QDMC algorithm is a somewhat ad-
tional PID lead/lag compensator. vanced control algorithm, the QP itself is one of the
In their paper Prett and Gillette (1980) described an simplest possible optimization problems that one could
application of DMC technology to FCCU reactor/ pose. The Hessian of the QP is positive definite for linear
regenerator control. Four such applications were plants and so the resulting optimization problem is
already completed and two additional applications were convex. This means that a solution can be found readily
underway at the time the paper was written. Prett and using standard commercial optimization codes.
Gillette described additional modifications to the DMC Garc!ıa and Morshedi wrapped up their paper by
algorithm to prevent violation of absolute input presenting results from a pyrolysis furnace application.
constraints. When a predicted future input came The QDMC controller adjusted fuel gas pressure in
sufficiently close to an absolute constraint, an extra three burners in order to control stream temperature at
equation was added to the process model that would three locations in the furnace. Their test results
drive the input back into the feasible region. These were demonstrated dynamic enforcement of input constraints
referred to as time variant constraints. Because the and decoupling of the temperature dynamics. They
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 739
reported good results on many applications within Shell matrix for three general cases. The square plant case,
on problems as large as 12 12 (12 process outputs and which occurs when the plant has just as many MVs as
12 process inputs). They stated that above all, the CVs, leads to a control problem with a unique solution.
QDMC algorithm had proven particularly profitable in In the real world, square is rare. More common is the fat
an on-line optimization environment, providing a plant case, in which there are more MVs available than
smooth transition from one constrained operating point there are CVs to control. The extra degrees of freedom
to another. available in this case can be put to use for additional
The QDMC algorithm can be regarded as represent- objectives, such as moving the plant closer to an optimal
ing a second generation of MPC technology, comprised operating point. When valves become saturated or lower
of algorithms which provide a systematic way to level control action is lost, the plant may reach a
implement input and output constraints. This was condition in which there are more CVs than MVs; this is
accomplished by posing the MPC problem as a QP, the thin plant case. In this situation it will not be possible
with the solution provided by standard QP codes. to meet all of the control objectives; the control
specifications must be relaxed somehow, for example
2.5. IDCOM-M, HIECON, SMCA, and SMOC by minimizing CV violations in a least-squared sense.
Fault tolerance is also an important practical issue.
As MPC technology gained wider acceptance, and Rather than simply turning itself off as signals are lost, a
problems tackled by MPC technology grew larger and practical MPC controller should remain online and try
more complex, control engineers implementing second to make the best of the sub-plant under its control. A
generation MPC technology ran into other practical major barrier to achieving this goal is that a well
problems. The QDMC algorithm provided a systematic conditioned multivariable plant may contain a number
approach to incorporate hard input and output con- of poorly conditioned sub-plants. In practice an MPC
straints, but there was no clear way to handle an controller must recognize and screen out poorly condi-
infeasible solution. For example it is possible for a tioned sub-plants before they result in erratic control
feedforward disturbance to lead to an infeasible QP; action.
what should the control do to recover from infeasibility? It also became increasingly difficult to translate
The soft constraint formulation is not completely control requirements into relative weights for a single
satisfactory because it means that all constraints will objective function. Including all the required trade-offs
be violated to some extent, as determined by the relative in a single objective function means that relative weights
weights. Clearly some output constraints are more have to be assigned to the value of output setpoint
important than others, however, and should never be violations, output soft constraint violations, inputs
violated. Would not it make sense then to shed low moves, and optimal input target violations. For large
priority constraints in order to satisfy higher priority ones? problems it is not easy to translate control specifications
In practice, process inputs and outputs can be lost in into a consistent set of relative weights. In some cases it
real time due to signal hardware failure, valve saturation does not make sense to include these variables in the
or direct operator intervention. They can just as easily same objective function; driving the inputs to their
come back into the control problem at any sample optimal targets may lead to larger violation of output soft
interval. This means that the structure of the problem constraints, for example. Even when a consistent set of
and the degrees of freedom available to the control can relative weights can be found, care must be taken to avoid
change dynamically. This is illustrated in Fig. 3, which scaling problems that lead to an ill-conditioned solution.
illustrates the shape of the process transfer function Prett and Garc!ıa (1988) commented on this problem:
MV's
MV's
MV's
Thin Square Fat
CV's Plant CV's CV's
Plant Plant
The combination of multiple objectives into one to controlling another when a measured disturbance
objective (function) does not allow the designer to causes a constraint violation. A third example demon-
reflect the true performance requirements. strates the need for the controllability supervisor. When
an oxygen analyzer fails, the controllability supervisor is
These issues motivated engineers at Adersa, Setpoint,
left with only flue gas temperature and regenerator bed
Inc., and Shell (France) to develop new versions of MPC
temperature to consider. It correctly detects that control-
algorithms. The version marketed by Setpoint was called
ling both would lead to an ill-conditioned problem; this is
IDCOM-M (the M was to distinguish this from a single
because these outputs respond in a very similar way to
input/single output version called IDCOM-S), while the
the inputs. Based on a pre-set priority it elects to control
nearly identical Adersa version was referred to as
only the flue gas temperature. When the controllability
hierarchical constraint control (HIECON). The ID-
supervisor is turned off the same simulation scenario
COM-M controller was first described in a paper by
leads to erratic and unacceptable input adjustments.
Grosdidier, Froisy, and Hammann (1988). A second
Setpoint engineers continued to improve the IDCOM-
paper presented at the 1990 AIChE conference describes
M technology, and eventually combined their identifica-
an application of IDCOM-M to the Shell Fundamental
tion, simulation, configuration, and control products
Control Problem (Froisy & Matsko, 1990) and provides
into a single integrated offering called SMCA, for
additional details concerning the constraint methodo-
Setpoint Multivariable Control Architecture. An im-
logy. Distinguishing features of the IDCOM-M algo-
proved numerical solution engine allowed them to solve
rithm include:
a sequence of separate steady-state target optimizations,
* linear impulse response model of plant; providing a natural way to incorporate multiple ranked
* controllability supervisor to screen out ill-condi- control objectives and constraints.
tioned plant subsets; In the late 1980’s engineers at Shell Research in
* multi-objective function formulation; quadratic out- France developed the Shell Multivariable Optimizing
put objective followed by a quadratic input objective; Controller (SMOC) (Marquis & Broustail, 1998; Yousfi
* controls a subset of future points in time for each & Tournier, 1991) which they described as a bridge
output, called the coincidence points, chosen from a between state-space and MPC algorithms. They sought
reference trajectory; to combine the constraint handling features of MPC
* a single move is computed for each input; with the richer framework for feedback offered by state-
* constraints can be hard or soft, with hard constraints space methods. To motivate this effort they discussed
ranked in order of priority. the control of a hydrotreater unit with four reactor beds
in series. The control system must maintain average bed
An important distinction of the IDCOM-M algorithm temperature at a desired setpoint and hold temperature
is that it uses two separate objective functions, one for the differences between the beds close to a desired profile,
outputs and then, if there are extra degrees of freedom, while preventing violation of maximum temperature
one for the inputs. A quadratic output objective limits within each reactor. Manipulated variables
function is minimized first subject to hard input include the first reactor inlet temperature and quench
constraints. Each output is driven as closely as possible flows between the beds. A typical MPC input/output
to a desired value at a single point in time known as the model would view the manipulated variables as inputs
coincidence point. The name comes from the fact that and the bed temperatures as independent outputs, and a
this is where the desired and predicted values should constant output disturbance would be assigned to each
coincide. The desired output value comes from a first bed temperature. But it is clear that the bed tempera-
order reference trajectory that starts at the current tures are not independent, in that a disturbance in the
measured value and leads smoothly to the setpoint. first bed will ultimately affect all three downstream
Each output has two basic tuning parameters; a reactors. In addition, the controlled variables are not the
coincidence point and a closed-loop response time, used process outputs but rather linear combinations thereof.
to define the reference trajectory. State-space control design methods offer a natural
Grosdidier et al. (1988) provide simulation results for solution to these problems but they do not provide an
a representative FCCU regenerator control problem. optimal way to enforce maximum bed temperature
The problem involves controlling flue gas composition, constraints.
flue gas temperature, and regenerator bed temperature The SMOC algorithm includes several features that
by manipulating feed oil flow, recycle oil flow and air to are now considered essential to a ‘‘modern’’ MPC
the regenerator. The first simulation example demon- formulation:
strates how using multiple inputs can improve dynamic
performance while reaching a pre-determined optimal * State-space models are used so that the full range of
steady-state condition. A second example demonstrates linear dynamics can be represented (stable, unstable,
how the controller switches from controlling one output and integrating).
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 741
* An explicit disturbance model describes the effect of * Additional flexibility in the steady-state target opti-
unmeasured disturbances; the constant output dis- mization, including QP and economic objectives.
turbance is simply a special case. * Direct consideration of model uncertainty (robust
* A Kalman filter is used to estimate the plant states control design).
and unmeasured disturbances from output measure- * Improved identification technology based on predic-
ments. tion error method and sub-space ID methods.
* A distinction is introduced between controlled vari-
ables appearing in the control objective and feedback These and other MPC algorithms currently available in
variables that are used for state estimation. the marketplace are described in greater detail in the
* Input and output constraints are enforced via a QP next section.
formulation.
The SMOC algorithm is nearly equivalent to solving 3. Survey of MPC technology products
the LQR problem with input and output constraints,
except that it is still formulated on a finite horizon. As The industrial MPC technology has changed con-
such, it does not inherit the strong stabilizing properties siderably since the publication of our first survey 5 years
of the LQR algorithm. A stabilizing, infinite-horizon ago (Qin & Badgwell, 1996), which included data from
formulation of the constrained LQR algorithm would five vendors: Adersa, DMC, Honeywell, Setpoint, and
come only after academics began to embrace the MPC Treiber Controls. In late 1995 Honeywell purchased
paradigm in the 1990s (Rawlings & Muske, 1993; Profimatics and formed Honeywell Hi-Spec. In early
Scokaert & Rawlings, 1998). 1996, Setpoint and DMC were both acquired by Aspen
The IDCOM-M, HIECON, SMCA, and SMOC Technology. Two years later Aspen purchased Treiber
algorithms represent a third generation of MPC techno- Controls so that three of the companies in our original
logy; others include the PCT algorithm sold by Profi- survey had merged into one. These mergers, continued
matics, and the RMPC algorithm sold by Honeywell. product development, and the emergence of viable
This generation distinguishes between several levels of nonlinear MPC products (Qin & Badgwell, 1998)
constraints (hard, soft, ranked), provides some mecha- changed the MPC market enough for us to believe that
nism to recover from an infeasible solution, addresses an updated survey would be worthwhile.
the issues resulting from a control structure that changes We began collecting data for the present survey in
in real time, provides a richer set of options for mid-1999, when we solicited information from eight
feedback, and allows for a wider range of process dyna- vendors in order to assess the current status of
mics (stable, integrating and unstable) and controller commercial MPC technology. The companies surveyed
specifications. and their product names and descriptions are listed in
Tables 1 and 2. In this survey we added two new
companies offering linear MPC products: Shell Global
2.6. DMC-plus and RMPCT Solutions (SGS) and Invensys Systems, Inc. (ISI) (Lewis,
Evans, & Sandoz, 1991) in the UK. Three nonlinear
In the last 5 years, increased competition and the MPC vendors were also included: Continental Controls,
mergers of several MPC vendors have led to significant
changes in the industrial MPC landscape. In late 1995
Honeywell purchased Profimatics, Inc. and formed Table 1
Honeywell Hi-Spec Solutions. The RMPC algorithm Companies and products included in Linear MPC technology survey
offered by Honeywell was merged with the Profimatics Company Product name Description
PCT controller to create their current offering called
Adersa HIECON Hierarchical constraint control
RMPCT. In early 1996, Aspen Technology Inc. PFC Predictive functional control
purchased both Setpoint, Inc. and DMC Corporation. GLIDE Identification package
This was followed by acquisition of Treiber Controls in Aspen Tech DMC-plus Dynamic matrix control package
1998. The SMCA and DMC technologies were subse- DMC-plus Identification package
model
quently merged to create Aspen Technology’s current
Honeywell RMPCT Robust model predictive control
DMC-plus product. DMC-plus and RMPCT are Hi-Spec technology
representative of the fourth generation MPC technology Shell Global SMOC-IIa Shell multivariable optimizing control
sold today, with features such as: Solutions
Invensys Connoisseur Control and identification package
* Windows-based graphical user interfaces. a
SMOC-I was licensed to MDC Technology and Yokogawa in the
* Multiple optimization levels to address prioritized past. Shell global solutions is the organization that markets the current
control objectives. SMOC technology.
742 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
DOT Products, and Pavilion Technologies. We believe vendor representatives. Results of the linear MPC
that the technology sold by these companies is survey are summarized in Tables 3, 4 and 6. Nonlinear
representative of the industrial state of the art; we fully MPC survey results are summarized separately in Tables
recognize that we have omitted some MPC vendors 5 and 7. While the data are provided by the vendors, the
from our survey, especially those who just entered the analysis is that of the authors. In presenting the survey
market (e.g., Fisher-Rosemount, ABB). Some compa- results our intention is to highlight the important
nies were not asked to participate, some chose not to features of each algorithm; it is not our intent to
participate, and some responded too late to be included determine the superiority of one product versus another.
in the paper. Only companies which have documented The purpose of showing the application numbers is to
successful MPC applications were asked to participate. give a relative magnitude on how MPC is applied to
It should be noted that several companies make use of different areas. The absolute numbers are not very
MPC technology developed in-house but were not important as they are changing fast. The numbers are
included in the survey because they do not offer their not exactly comparable as the size of each MPC
technology externally. These MPC packages are either application can be very different. With this under-
well known to academic researchers or not known at all standing in mind, we first discuss the overall procedure
for proprietary reasons. The SMOC algorithm originally for control design and tuning. Then we describe the
developed at Shell France is included in this survey various model forms used for both the linear and
because it is now commercially available through SGS. nonlinear technology. The last two sections summarize
MDC Technology, Inc. and Yokogawa had license the main features of the identification and control
agreements with Shell. products sold by each vendor.
Initial data in this survey were collected from
industrial MPC vendors using a written survey. Blank
copies of the survey form are available upon request 3.1. Control design and tuning
from the authors. Survey information was supplemented
by published papers, product literature (DMC Corp., The MPC control design and tuning procedure is
1994; Setpoint Inc., 1993; Honeywell Inc., 1995), and generally described as follows (DMC Corp., 1994;
personal communication between the authors and Setpoint Inc., 1993; Honeywell Inc., 1995):
Table 3
Comparison of linear MPC identification technology
Table 4
Comparison of linear MPC control technology
* Download the configured controller to the destina- directly. Tuning parameters are computed to optimize
tion machine and test the model predictions in open- performance for the worst case model mismatch.
loop mode. Robustness checks for the other MPC controllers are
* Close the loop and refine the tuning as needed. performed by closed-loop simulation.
All of the MPC packages surveyed here provide 3.2. Process models
software tools to help with the control design, model
development, and closed-loop simulation steps. A The technical scope of an MPC product is largely
significant amount of time is currently spent at the defined by the form of process model that it uses. Tables
closed-loop simulation step to verify acceptable perfor- 3 and 5 show that a wide variety of linear and nonlinear
mance and robustness of the control system. Typically, model forms are used in industrial MPC algorithms. It is
tests are performed to check the regulatory and servo helpful to visualize these models in a two-dimensional
response of each CV, and system response to violations space, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The horizontal axis refers
of major constraints is verified. The final tuning is then to the source of information used for model develop-
tested for sensitivity to model mismatch by varying the ment, and the vertical axis designates whether the model
gain and dynamics of key process models. However, is linear or nonlinear. The far left side of the diagram
even the most thorough simulation testing usually represents empirical models that are derived exclusively
cannot exhaust all possible scenarios. from process test data. Because empirical models mainly
Of the products surveyed here, only the RMPCT perform fitting between the points of a data set, they
package provides robust tuning in an automatic way. generally cannot be expected to accurately predict
This is accomplished using a min–max design procedure process behavior beyond the range of the test data used
in which the user enters estimates of model uncertainty to develop them. At the far right side of the diagram lie
744 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
Table 5
Comparison of nonlinear MPC control technology
models derived purely from theoretical considerations principles models, nonlinear empirical models, and
such as mass and energy balances. These first-principles linear empirical models. The various model forms can
models are typically more expensive to develop, but are be derived as special cases of a general continuous-time
able to predict process behavior over a much wider nonlinear state-space model:
range of operating conditions. In reality process models
used in MPC technology are based on an effective x’ ¼ f% ðx; u; v; wÞ; ð8aÞ
combination of process data and theory. First principles
models, for example, are typically calibrated by using y ¼ g% ðx; uÞ þ n; ð8bÞ
process test data to estimate key parameters. Likewise,
empirical models are often adjusted to account for where uARmu is a vector of MVs, yARmy is a vector of
known process physics; for example in some cases a CVs, xARn is a vector of state variables, vARmv is a
model gain may be known to have a certain sign or vector of measured DVs, wARmw is a vector of
value. unmeasured DVs or process noise, and nARmx is a
The MPC products surveyed here use time-invariant vector of measurement noise. The following sections
models that fill three quadrants of Fig. 4; nonlinear first- describe each model type in more detail.
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 745
Table 6
Summary of linear MPC applications by areas (estimates based on vendor survey; estimates do not include applications by companies who have
licensed vendor technology)a
where q1 is a backward shift operator. The output error converted to a discrete-time model form for use in the
identification approach (Ljung, 1999) minimizes the control calculations.
measurement error nk ; which results in nonlinear
parameter estimation. Multiplying ½I Uy ðq1 Þ on both 3.2.3. Nonlinear empirical models
sides of the above equation results in an autoregressive Two basic types of nonlinear empirical models are
model with exogenous inputs (ARX), used in the products that we surveyed. The Aspen
yk ¼ Uy ðq1 Þyk þ Uu ðq1 Þuk þ Uv ðq1 Þvk Target product uses a discrete-time linear model for the
state dynamics, with an output equation that includes a
þ Uw ðq1 Þwk þ fk ; ð12aÞ linear term summed with a nonlinear term:
where xkþ1 ¼ Axk þ Bu uk þ Bv vk þ Bw wk ; ð17aÞ
1
fk ¼ ½I Uy ðq Þ nk : ð12bÞ
yk ¼ Cxk þ Du uk þ Nðxk ; uk Þ þ nk : ð17bÞ
This model form is used by the RMPCT, PFC, and
Connoisseur algorithms. The equation error identifica- Only stable processes can be controlled by the Aspen
tion approach minimizes fk ; which is colored noise even Target product, so the eigenvalues of A must lie strictly
though the measurement noise nk is white. The RMPCT within the unit circle. The nonlinear function N is
identification algorithm also provides an option for the obtained from a neural network. Since the state vector x
Box–Jenkins model, that lumps the error terms in to one is not necessarily limited to physical variables, this
term ek : nonlinear model appears to be more general than
measurement nonlinearity. For example, a Wiener
yk ¼ ½I Uy ðq1 Þ 1 ½Uu ðq1 Þuk þ Uv ðq1 Þvk model with a dynamic linear model followed by a static
þ ½He ðq1 Þ 1 Ue ðq1 Þek : ð13Þ nonlinear mapping can be represented in this form. It is
claimed that this type of nonlinear model can approx-
For a stable system, a FIR model can be derived as an
imate any discrete time nonlinear processes with fading
approximation to the discrete-time transfer function
memory (Sentoni, Biegler, Guiver, & Zhao, 1998).
model 11:
It is well known that neural networks can be
X
Nu X
Nv X
Nw
unreliable when used to extrapolate beyond the range
yk ¼ Hui uki þ Hvi vki þ Hwi wki þ nk : ð14Þ of the training data. The main problem is that for a
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
sigmoidal neural network, the model derivatives fall to
This model form is used by the DMC-plus and zero as the network extrapolates beyond the range of its
HIECON algorithms. Typically the sample time is training data set. The Aspen Target product deals with
chosen so that from 30 to 120 coefficients are required this problem by calculating a model confidence index
to describe the full open-loop response. An equivalent (MCI) on-line. If the MCI indicates that the neural
velocity form is useful in identification: network prediction is unreliable, the neural net non-
X
Nu X
Nv linear map is gradually turned off and the model
Dyk ¼ Hui Duki þ Hvi Dvki calculation relies on the linear portion fA; B; Cg only.
i¼1 i¼1 Another feature of this modeling algorithm is the use of
X
Nw EKF to correct for model-plant mismatch and unmea-
þ Hwi Dwki þ Dnk : ð15Þ sured disturbances (Zhao, Guiver, & Sentoni, 1998). The
i¼1 EKF provides a bias and gain correction to the model
An alternative model form is the finite step response on-line. This function replaces the constant output error
model (FSR) (Cutler, 1983); given by: feedback scheme typically employed in MPC practice.
X
N u 1
The MVC algorithm and the Process Perfecter use
yk ¼ Sui Duki þ SuNu ukNu nonlinear input–output models. To simplify the system
i¼1 identification task, both products use a static nonlinear
X
N v 1 model superimposed upon a linear dynamic model.
þ Svi Dvki þ SvNv vkNv Martin, Boe, Keeler, Timmer, and Havener (1998)
i¼1 and later Piche, Sayyar-Rodsari, Johnson, and Gerules
NX
w 1 (2000) describe the details of the Process Perfecter
þ Swi Dwki þ SvNw wkNw þ nk ; ð16Þ modeling approach. Their presentation is in single-
i¼1
P input–single-output form, but the concept is applicable
where Sj ¼ ji¼1 Hi and Hi ¼ Si Si1 : The FSR to multi-input–multi-output models. It is assumed that
model is used by the DMC-plus and RMPCT algo- the process input and output can be decomposed into a
rithms. The RMPCT, Connoisseur, and PFC algorithms steady-state portion which obeys a nonlinear static
also provide the option to enter a Laplace transfer model and a deviation portion that follows a dynamic
function model. This model form is then automatically model. For any input uk and output yk ; the deviation
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 747
and (ii) operators may intervene during the test to avoid disturbance (Cutler & Yocum, 1991). However, the
critical situations, but no synchronizing or correlated velocity form is sensitive to high frequency noise.
moves are allowed. One may merge data from multiple Therefore, DMC-plus-Model allows the data to be
test periods, which allows the user to cut out a period of smoothed prior to fitting a model. The FIR coefficients
data which may be corrupted with disturbances. are then converted into FSR coefficients for control.
If the lower level PID control tuning changes Connoisseur uses recursive least squares in a prediction
significantly then it may be necessary to construct a error formulation to implement adaptive features.
new process model. A model is identified between the It is worth noting that subspace model identification
input and output, and this is combined by discrete (SMI) (Larimore, 1990; Ljung, 1999) algorithms are
convolution with the new input setpoint to input model. now implemented in several MPC modeling algorithms.
It appears that PRBS or PRBS-like stepping signals SMOC uses canonical variate analysis (CVA) to identify
are the primary test signals used by the identification a state-space model which is also the model form used in
packages. The GLIDE package uses a binary signal in the SMOC controller. Several other vendors are
which the step lengths are optimized in a dedicated way. developing and testing their own versions of SMI
Others use a step test with random magnitude or more algorithms.
random signals like the PRBS (e.g., DMC-plus-Model, RMPCT adopts a three-step approach: (i) identify
Connoisseur, and RMPCT). either a Box–Jenkins model using PEM or an FIR
model using Cholesky decomposition; (ii) fit the
3.3.2. Linear model identification identified model to a low-order ARX model to smooth
The model parameter estimation approaches in the out large variance due to possible overparametrization
MPC products are mainly based on minimizing the in the FIR model. The output error approach is used to
following least-squares criterion, fit the ARX model via a Gauss–Newton method; and
X
L (iii) convert the ARX models into Laplace transfer
2
J¼ jjyk ym
k jj ; ð24Þ functions. As an alternative to (ii) and (iii), RMPCT has
k¼1 the option to fit the identified model directly to a fixed
using either an equation error approach or an output structure Laplace transfer function. When the model is
error approach (Ljung, 1987). The major difference used in control, the transfer function models are
between the equation error approach and the output discretized into FSR models based on a given sampling
error approach appears in identifying ARX or transfer interval. The advantage of this approach is that one has
function models. In the equation error approach, the flexibility to choose different sampling intervals than
past output measurements are fed back to the model in that used in data collection.
Eqn. (12a), Model uncertainty bounds are provided in several
products such as RMPCT. In GLIDE, continuous
yk ¼ Uy ðq1 Þym 1 1
k þ Uu ðq Þuk þ Uv ðq Þvk ; ð25Þ transfer function models are identified directly by using
while in the output error approach, the past model gradient descent or Gauss–Newton approaches. Then
output estimates are fed back to the model, model uncertainty is identified by a global method,
which finds a region in the parameter space where the
yk ¼ Uy ðq1 Þyk þ Uu ðq1 Þuk þ Uv ðq1 Þvk : ð26Þ
fitting criterion is less than a given value. This given
The equation error approach produces a linear least- value must be larger than the minimum of the criterion
squares problem, but the estimates are biased even in order to find a feasible region.
though the measurement noise n in Eqn. (11) is white. Most linear MPC products allow the user to apply
The output error approach is unbiased given white nonlinear transformations to variables that exhibit
measurement noise. However, the ARX model para- significant nonlinearity. For example, a logarithm
meters appear nonlinearly in the model, which requires transformation is often performed on composition
nonlinear parameter estimation. One may also see that variables for distillation column control.
the equation error approach is a one-step ahead
prediction approach with reference to ym k ; while the
output error approach is a long range prediction 3.3.3. Nonlinear model identification
approach since it does not use ym
k: The most difficult issue in nonlinear empirical
Using FIR models results in a linear-in-parameter modeling is not the selection of a nonlinear form, be it
model and an output error approach, but the estimation polynomial or neural network, but rather the selection
variance may be inflated due to possible overparame- of a robust and reliable identification algorithm. For
trization. In DMC-plus-Model, a least-squares method example, the Aspen Target identification algorithm
is used to estimate FIR model parameters in velocity discussed in Zhao et al. (1998) builds one model for
form (Eqn. (15)). The advantage of using the velocity each output separately. For a process having my output
form is to reduce the effect of a step-like unmeasured variables, overall my MISO sub-models are built. The
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 749
following procedure is employed to identify each sub- 3.4. MPC control technology
model from process data.
MPC controllers are designed to drive the
1. Specify a rough time constant for each input– process from one constrained steady state to another.
output pair, then a series of first order filters They may receive optimal steady-state targets
or a Laguerre model is constructed for each from an overlying optimizer, as shown in Fig. 2, or they
input (Zhao et al., 1998; Sentoni et al., 1998). may compute an economically optimal operating point
The filter states for all inputs comprise the state using an internal steady-state optimizer. The general
vector x: objectives of an MPC controller, in order of importance,
2. A static linear model is built for each output fyj ; j ¼ are:
1; 2; y; my g using the state vector x as inputs using
partial least squares (PLS). 1. prevent violation of input and output constraints;
3. Model reduction is then performed on the input- 2. drive the CVs to their steady-state optimal values
state–output model identified in Steps 1 and 2 using (dynamic output optimization);
principal component analysis and internal balancing 3. drive the MVs to their steady-state optimal values
to eliminate highly collinear state variables. using remaining degrees of freedom (dynamic input
4. The reduced model is rearranged in a state-space optimization);
model ðA; BÞ; which is used to generate the state 4. prevent excessive movement of MVs;
sequence fxk ; k ¼ 1; 2; y; Kg: If the model con- 5. when signals and actuators fail, control as much of
verges, i.e., no further reduction in model order, go the plant as possible.
to the next step; otherwise, return to step 2.
5. A PLS model is built between the state vector x and The translation of these objectives into a
the output yj : The PLS model coefficients form the C mathematical problem statement involves a number
matrix. of approximations and trade-offs that define the
6. A neural network model is built between the PLS basic character of the controller. Like any design
latent factors in the previous step and the PLS problem there are many possible solutions; it is no
residual of the output yj : This step generates the surprise that there are a number of different MPC
nonlinear static map gj ðxÞ: The use of the PLS latent control formulations. Tables 4 and 5 summarize how
factors instead of the state vectors is to improve the each of the MPC vendors has accomplished this
robustness of the neural network training and reduce translation.
the size of the neural network. Fig. 5 illustrates the flow of a representative MPC
calculation at each control execution. The first step is to
A novel feature of the identification algorithm read the current values of process inputs (DVs and
is that the dynamic model is built with filters MVs) and process outputs (CVs). In addition to their
and the filter states are used to predict the output numerical values, each measurement carries with it a
variables. Due to the simplistic filter structure, each sensor status to indicate whether the sensor is function-
input variable has its own set of state variables, making ing properly or not. Each MV will also carry informa-
the A matrix block-diagonal. This treatment assumes tion on the status of the associated lower level control
that each state variable is only affected by one input function or valve; if saturated then the MV will
variable, i.e., the inputs are decoupled. For the typical be permitted to move in one direction only. If the
case where input variables are coupled, the algorithm MV controller is disabled then the MV cannot be used
could generate state variables that are linearly for control but can be considered a measured
dependent or collinear. In other words, the resulting disturbance (DV).
state vector would not be a minimal realization. The remaining steps of the calculation essentially
Nevertheless, the use of a PLS algorithm makes the answer three questions:
estimation of the C matrix well-conditioned. The * where is the process now, and where is it heading?
iteration between the estimation of A; B and C matrices
(output feedback);
will likely eliminate the initial error in estimating the * where should the process go to at steady state? (local
process time constants.
steady-state optimization);
Process nonlinearity is added to the model * what is the best way to drive the process to where it
with concern for model validity using the model
needs to go? (dynamic optimization).
confidence index. When the model is used for extra-
polation, only the linear portion of the model is used.
The use of EKF for output error feedback in Aspen The following sections describe these and
Target is interesting; the benefit of this treatment is yet other aspects of the MPC calculation in greater
to be demonstrated. detail.
750 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
sensible disturbance models for MPC applications is a problem to prevent moving the MV in the wrong
ripe area for future academic research, especially for direction. If the lower level control function is disabled,
nonlinear systems. the MV cannot be used for control. In this case it should
For stable processes, the constant output disturbance be treated as a DV. From these decisions a controlled
model provides integral action to the controller, subprocess is defined at each control execution. In
effectively removing steady-state offset due to distur- general the shape of the subprocess changes in real-time
bances and model mismatch (Rawlings et al., 1994). For as illustrated in Fig. 3.
integrating and unstable processes, however, the con- In applications, it is typical to include the low level
stant output disturbance model fails because the control outputs (e.g., valve positions) in the MPC
estimator contains the unstable poles of the process control formulation as additional CVs. These CVs are
(Muske & Rawlings, 1993). This can be addressed easily then forced to stay within high and low saturation limits
through the use of input or state disturbance models, by treating them as range or zone control variables. This
but most industrial MPC are forced to address the issue serves to keep the lower level controllers away from
using ad hoc fixes, since they do not incorporate a valve constraints that would otherwise compromise their
Kalman filter. The approach used in the DMC-plus performance.
product is typical, where it is assumed that a constant In most MPC products, sensor faults are limited to
integrating disturbance has entered the process, and a complete failure that goes beyond pre-specified control
rotation factor is used to describe the fraction of limits. Sensor faults such as significant bias and drifting
prediction error due to the constant integrating dis- that are within normal limits are generally not detected
turbance, relative to the constant output disturbance. or identified in these products.
For a specific output variable that is an integrating The DMC-plus, Connoisseur, and RMPCT algorithms
mode, the corresponding disturbance model can be distinguish between a critical CV failure and a non-
represented as: critical CV failure. If a noncritical CV fails, the RMPCT
xkþ1 ¼ xk þ bu uk þ bv vk þ bw wk þ apk ; ð30aÞ and DMC-plus algorithms continue control action by
setting the failed CV measurement to the model predicted
pkþ1 ¼ pk ; ð30bÞ value, which means there is no feedback for the failed
CV. If the noncritical CV fails for a specified period of
yk ¼ cxk þ duk þ xk þ pk ; ð30cÞ time, RMPCT drops this CV from the control objective
function. If a critical CV fails, the DMC-plus and
where a is the rotation factor. In this case it can be RMPCT controllers turn-off immediately.
shown that the disturbance pk is observable only if the
rotation factor a is nonzero. While this scheme provides
offset-free control for integrating systems, choice of an 3.4.3. Removal of ill-conditioning
appropriate rotation factor is difficult in practice, and At any particular control execution, the process
control of noisy integrating systems is often poor. encountered by the controller may require excessive
The MPC products include features to address a input movement in order to control the outputs
variety of feedback scenarios encountered in applica- independently. This problem may arise, for example, if
tions. In some cases the CV measurement may not be two controlled outputs respond in an almost identical
available at each control execution; this may happen, for way to the available inputs. Consider how difficult it
example, when the CV measurement is provided by an would be to independently control adjacent tray
analyzer. In this case a typical solution is to skip the bias temperatures in a distillation column, or to control
update for the affected CV for a number of control both regenerator and cyclone temperature in an FCCU.
intervals. A counter is provided to disable control of the It is important to note that this is a feature of the process
CV if too many executions go by without feedback. to be controlled; any algorithm which attempts to
control an ill-conditioned process must address this
3.4.2. Determining the controlled sub-process problem. A high condition number in the process gain
After the process state has been estimated, the matrix means that small changes in controller error will
controller must determine which MVs can be manipu- lead to large MV moves.
lated and which CVs should be controlled. In general, if Although the conditioning of the full control problem
the measurement status for a CV is good, and the will almost certainly be checked at the design phase, it is
operator has enabled control of the CV, then it should nearly impossible to check all possible sub-processes
be controlled. An MV must meet the same criteria to be which may be encountered during future operation. It is
used for control; in addition, however, the lower level therefore important to examine the condition number of
control functions must also be available for manipula- the controlled sub-process at each control execution and
tion. If the lower level controller is saturated high or to remove ill-conditioning in the model if necessary.
low, one can add a temporary hard MV constraint to the Two strategies are currently used by MPC controllers to
752 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
accomplish this task; singular value thresholding, and constraints. Constant disturbances estimated in the
input move suppression. output feedback step appear explicitly in the steady-
The singular value thresholding (SVT) method used state optimization so that they can be removed. Rao and
by the RMPCT controller involves decomposing the Rawlings describe a representative formulation of the
process model based on singular values using URV problem (Rao & Rawlings, 1999). The local steady-state
decomposition. Singular values below a threshold optimization uses a steady-state model which may come
magnitude are discarded, and a process model with a from linearizing a comprehensive nonlinear model at
lower condition number is then reassembled and used each control execution or may simply be the steady-state
for control. The neglected singular values represent version of the dynamic model used in the dynamic
directions along which the process hardly moves even if optimization.
a large MV change is applied; the SVT method gives up The Connoisseur controller uses a Linear Program
these directions to avoid erratic MV changes. This (LP) to do the local steady-state optimization. The
method solves the ill-conditioning problem at the distinguishing feature of an LP solution is that the
expense of neglecting the smallest singular values. If optimal steady-state targets will lie at the vertex of
the magnitude of the neglected singular values is small the constraint boundary. If the constraint boundary
compared to the model uncertainty, it may be better to changes frequently due to model mismatch or noise, the
neglect them anyway. After SVT, the collinear CVs are optimal steady-state solution may bounce around
approximated with the principal singular direction. In unnecessarily, leading to poor overall control perfor-
the case of two collinear CVs, for example, this principal mance. Typical solutions to this problem include heavily
direction is a weighted average of the two CVs. Note filtering the output signals and detuning the optimizer
that the SVT approach is sensitive to output weighting. by adding a term that minimizes movement of the
If one CV is weighted much more heavily than another, solution. These solutions slow down the movement of
this CV will represent the principal singular direction. the steady-state target but also hamper rejection of
Controllers that use input move suppression (IMS), process disturbances. An alternative solution based on
such as the DMC-plus algorithm, provide an alternative direct incorporation of model uncertainty has been
strategy for dealing with ill-conditioning. Input move proposed, but has not yet been implemented commer-
suppression factors increase the magnitude of the cially (Kassmann, Badgwell, & Hawkins, 2000).
diagonal elements of the matrix to be inverted in the The RMPCT, PFC, Aspen Target, MVC, and process
least-squares solution, directly lowering the condition perfecter algorithms use Quadratic Programs (QP) for
number. The move suppression values can be adjusted the steady-state target calculation. The QP solution does
to the point that erratic input movement is avoided for not necessarily lie at the constraint boundary, so the
the commonly encountered sub-processes. In the case of optimal steady-state targets tend not to bounce around
two collinear CVs, the move suppression approach gives as much as for an LP solution.
up a little bit on moving each CV towards its target. The The DMC-plus algorithm solves the local steady-state
move suppression solution is similar to that of the SVT optimization problem using a sequence of LPs and/or
solution in the sense that it tends to minimize the norm QPs. CVs are ranked by priority such that control
of the MV moves. In the limit of infinite move performance of a given CV will never be sacrificed in
suppression the condition number becomes one for all order to improve performance of a lower priority CV.
sub-processes. It would be useful to find a set of finite The prediction error can be spread across a set of CVs
move suppression factors which guarantee that all sub- by grouping them together at the same priority level.
processes have a condition number greater than a The calculation proceeds by optimizing the highest
desired threshold value; the authors are not aware of priority CVs first, subject to hard and soft output
any academic work that addresses this question. constraints on the same CVs and all input hard
constraints. Subsequent optimizations preserve the
3.4.4. Local steady-state optimization future trajectory of high priority CVs through the use
Almost all of the MPC products we surveyed perform of equality constraints. Likewise inputs can be ranked in
a separate local steady-state optimization at each priority order so that inputs are moved sequentially
control cycle to compute steady-state input, state, or towards their optimal values when extra degrees of
output targets. This is necessary because the optimal freedom permit.
targets may change at any time step due to disturbances All of the products we surveyed enforce hard input
entering the loop or operator inputs that redefine the constraints in the steady-state optimization. One can
control problem. The optimization problem is typically always find steady-state targets that are feasible with
formulated so as to drive steady-state inputs and respect to the input constraints, provided they are
outputs as closely as possible to targets determined by defined in a sensible way. The same is not true, however,
the local economic optimization (just above the MPC for output constraints. This is because if a large
algorithm in Fig. 2), without violating input and output disturbance enters the process, it may not be possible,
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 753
given the available input space, to completely and subject to inequality constraints:
remove the disturbance at steady-state. For this reason, y sj pykþj py% þ sj 8j ¼ 1; P;
the DMC-plus, SMOC, MVC, and Process Perfecter %
products provide for soft output constraints in the sj X0 8j ¼ 1; P;
ð31cÞ
steady-state optimization. These allow for some viola- upukþj pu% 8j ¼ 0; M 1;
tion of an output constraint, but the magnitude of the %
DupDukþj pDu% 8j ¼ 0; M 1:
violation is minimized in the objective function. The %
remaining products may be subject to steady-state The objective function in Eq. (31a) involves four
infeasibility problems unless other precautions are conflicting contributions. Future output behavior is
taken. controlled by penalizing deviations from the desired
Similar infeasibility problems may arise due to failure output trajectory yrkþj ; defined as eykþj
ykþj yrkþj ;
to zero out integrating modes of the process at steady over a prediction horizon of length P: Output constraint
state. The DMC-plus algorithm, for example, includes violations are penalized by minimizing the size of output
an explicit constraint that forces integrating (ramp) CV constraint slack variables sj : Future input deviations
variables to line out at steady state. If this constraint is from the desired steady-state input us are controlled
violated, due perhaps to a large disturbance entering the using input penalties defined as eukþj
ukþj us ; over a
loop, the DMC-plus product will shut off with a control horizon of length M: Rapid input changes are
warning message. Other products most likely address penalized with a separate term involving the moves
this issue in a similar way. An alternative solution is to Dukþj : The size of the deviations is measured by a vector
penalize the violation using a soft constraint, so that the norm, usually either an L1 or L2 norm ðq ¼ 1; 2Þ: The
controller will try its best to line out the integrating CVs relative importance of the objective function contribu-
at steady state without shutting off. If the disturbance tions is controlled by setting the time dependent weight
diminishes, or the operator provides more room with the matrices Qj ; Tj ; Sj ; and Rj ; these are chosen to be
input constraints, it is possible that the next steady-state positive semi-definite. The solution is a set of M input
calculation will be feasible. adjustments:
The NOVA-NLC controller does not perform a uM ¼ ðuk ; ukþ1 ; y; ukþM1 Þ: ð32Þ
separate steady-state optimization; the steady-state and
dynamic optimizations are performed simultaneously. Most of the MPC controllers use a quadratic objective
This may improve controller performance as long function similar to 31a ðq ¼ 2Þ for the dynamic
as the steady-state and dynamic objectives do not optimization. For this case the dynamic optimization
conflict. For example, with separate objectives takes the form of a QP, and can be solved reliably using
it is possible that a steady-state target may be computed standard software. However, for very large problems, or
that cannot be achieved, due to constraints that appear very fast processes, there may not be sufficient time
only in the dynamic optimization. Combining the available to solve a QP. For these reasons the DMC-plus
objectives leads to a more complex numerical problem, and PFC algorithms use fast sub-optimal algorithms to
however. generate approximate solutions to the dynamic optimi-
zation. In the DMC-plus algorithm, when an input is
predicted to violate a maximum or minimum limit it is
3.4.5. Dynamic optimization
set equal to the limit and the calculation is repeated with
At the dynamic optimization level, an MPC controller
the MV removed. The PFC algorithm performs the
must compute a set of MV adjustments that will drive
calculation without constraints and then clips the input
the process to the desired steady-state operating
values if they exceed hard constraints. Both of these
point without violating constraints. All of the
techniques will prevent violation of hard input con-
MPC products we surveyed can be described (approxi-
straints but will, in general, involve a loss of perfor-
mately) as minimizing the following dynamic objective
mance that is difficult to predict. Typically the resulting
function:
performance is acceptable, but the solutions do not
X
P satisfy the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker necessary conditions
JðuM Þ ¼ fjjeykþj jjqQj þ jjsj jjqT g for optimality.
j¼1
The DMC-plus and SMOC algorithms penalize only
X
M1
the last input deviation in order to drive the system
þ fjjeukþj jjqRj þ jjDukþj jjqSj g ð31aÞ
towards the optimal steady state:
j¼0
Rj ¼ 0 8joM 1;
subject to a model constraint:
RM1 b0: ð33Þ
xkþj ¼ fðxkþj1 ; ukþj1 Þ 8j ¼ 1; P;
ð31bÞ If the final input weight is large enough and the process
ykþj ¼ gðxkþj ; ukþj Þ 8j ¼ 1; P is stable, this is approximately equivalent to having a
754 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
terminal state constraint. If the dynamic solution at the 0; q ¼ 2). The Aspen Target and MVC products include
end of the horizon is significantly different from the all four terms with constant weights (Qj ¼ Q; Tj ¼ T;
steady-state targets, which means the terminal states are Rj ¼ R; Sj ¼ S; q ¼ 2). The NOVA-NLC product adds
not effectively constrained, the DMC-plus controller to this the option of one norms (Qj ¼ Q; Tj ¼ T; Rj ¼
will automatically turn off. This setting effectively R; Sj ¼ S; q ¼ 1; 2).
provides nominal stability for DMC-plus controller. Instead of using a reference trajectory, the Process
The final input weights are also applicable to integrating Perfecter product (Tj ¼ T; Rj ¼ 0; Sj ¼ 0; q ¼ 2) uses a
processes where the derivative of the integrator is driven dynamic objective with trajectory weighting that makes
to zero. Qj gradually increase over the horizon P: With this type
The RMPCT, HIECON, PFC, and SMOC algo- of weighting, control errors at the beginning of the
rithms do not penalize input moves directly (Sj =0). The horizon are less important than those towards the end of
HIECON and PFC algorithms use a predefined output the horizon, thus allowing a smoother control action.
reference trajectory to avoid aggressive MV moves. The
RMPCT controller defines a funnel, which will be
described later in the paper, and finds the optimal 3.4.6. Constraint formulations
trajectory and optimal MV moves by minimizing: There are three types of constraints commonly used in
industrial MPC technology; hard, soft, and setpoint
X
P
approximation. These are illustrated in Fig. 6. Hard
ðuM ; yr Þ ¼ arg min jjykþj yrkþj jj2Q
j¼1
constraints, shown in the top of Fig. 6, are those which
should never be violated. Soft constraints, shown in the
þ jjukþM1 us jj2R ð34Þ middle of Fig. 6 are those for which some violation may
subject to the funnel constraints. The relative priority of be allowed; the violation is typically minimized using a
the two terms is set by the two weighting matrices. In the quadratic penalty in the objective function.
case that the first term is completely satisfied, which is
typical due to the funnel formulation, the CV error will
vanish and the minimization is in fact performed on the
second term only. In this case the results will be similar
to having two separate objectives on CVs and MVs. In
the case of an infinite number of solutions, which is also
typical due to ‘‘relaxing’’ the trajectory, a minimum
norm solution to the MVs is obtained due to the use of Hard Constraint
singular value thresholding. past future
Using a single objective function in the dynamic
optimization means that trade-offs between the four
contributions must be resolved using the relative weight
matrices Qj ; Tj ; Sj ; and Rj : The HIECON algorithm
resolves conflicting dynamic control objectives by
quadratic penalty
solving separate CV and MV optimization problems.
The decision is made, a priori, that CV errors are more
Soft Constraint
important than MV errors. A quadratic output optimi-
past future
zation problem is solved first, similar to 31 but including
only the eykþj terms. For the thin and square plant cases
this will provide a unique solution and the calculation
terminates. For the fat plant case there are remaining
degrees of freedom that can be used to optimize the
input settings. For this case the controller solves a
separate quadratic input optimization problem, similar quadratic penalty
to 31 but including only the eukþj terms. The input Setpoint approximation of Soft Constraint
optimization includes a set of equality constraints that past future
preserve the future output trajectories found in the
output optimization. This eliminates the need to set Fig. 6. The three basic types of constraint; hard, soft and setpoint
weights to determine the trade-off between output and approximation. Hard constraints (top) should not be violated in the
future. Soft constraints (middle) may be violated in the future, but the
input errors, at the cost of additional computation.
violation is penalized in the objective function. Setpoint approximation
The PFC controller includes only the process input of constraint (bottom) penalizes deviations above and below the
and output terms in the dynamic objective, and uses constraint. Shades areas show violations penalized in the dynamic
constant weight matrices ðQj ¼ Q; Tj ¼ 0; Rj ¼ R; Sj ¼ optimization. Adapted from Froisy (1994).
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 755
it penalizes the output when it happens to drift too than a reference trajectory allows, the controller will
quickly towards the setpoint, as might happen in take no action. This effectively frees up degrees of
response to an unmeasured disturbance. If the CV freedom for the controller to achieve other objectives. In
moves too quickly due to model mismatch, however, the the same situation, other controllers would move the
reference trajectory is beneficial in that it will slow down inputs to bring the CV back onto the defined trajectory.
the CV and minimize overshoot. The reference trajec- This is illustrated in Fig. 8 for the case of the RMPCT
tory can be interpreted mathematically as a filter in the funnel.
feedback path, similar to the robustness filter recom- All of the MPC algorithms surveyed here provide MV
mended by IMC theory (Morari & Zafiriou, 1989). In setpoints to drive the inputs towards their optimal
general, as the reference trajectory time constants values when there are sufficient degrees of freedom.
increase, the controller is able to tolerate larger model
mismatch.
The NOVA-NLC reference trajectory is slightly more 3.4.8. Output horizon and input parameterization
general in that it allows separate specification of upper Industrial MPC controllers generally evaluate future
and lower trajectories with different dynamics and CV behavior over a finite set of future time intervals
setpoints. In the controller objective, only deviations called the prediction horizon. This is illustrated at the top
above the upper trajectory and deviations below the of Fig. 9. The finite output horizon formulation is used
lower trajectory are penalized. This provides additional
freedom during the transient that the controller can
utilize for other tasks.
The RMPCT algorithm attempts to keep each CV
within a user defined zone, with setpoints defined by Finite Horizon
setting the maximum and minimum zone limits equal to
each other. When the CV goes outside the zone, the
RMPCT algorithm defines a CV funnel, shown at the past future prediction horizon P
bottom of Fig. 7, to bring the CV back within its range.
The slope of the funnel is determined by a user defined
performance ratio, defined as the desired time to return
to the zone divided by the open-loop response time. A
weighted average open-loop response time is used for
multivariable systems.
The SMOC algorithm uses a variation of funnel when
a zone CV falls out of its range. In this case a zone with Coincidence Points
reference trajectory bounds is defined to drive the CV
past future
back into the control zone.
The NOVA-NLC upper and lower trajectories,
Fig. 9. Output horizon options. Finite horizon (top) includes P future
RMPCT funnel, and SMOC reference trajectory bounds points. A subset of the prediction horizon, called the coincidence
are advantageous in that if a disturbance causes the points (bottom) may also be used. Shaded areas show violations
predicted future CV to reach the setpoint more quickly penalized in the dynamic optimization.
DV DV
SP SP
B B
A A
Funnel
CV CV
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. MPC based on a funnel allows a CV to move back to the setpoint faster than a trajectory would require if a pulse disturbance releases. A
trajectory based MPC would try to move away from the setpoint to follow the trajectory.
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 757
by all of the algorithms discussed in this paper. The parameterization, referred to as multiple moves, means
length of the horizon P is a basic tuning parameter for that a separate input adjustment is computed for each
these controllers, and is generally set long enough to time point on the control horizon. Performance
capture the steady-state effects of all computed future improves as M increases, at the expense of additional
MV moves. computation. To simplify the calculation, the Aspen
Most of the MPC controllers use a multiple point Target, Connoisseur, and RMPCT algorithms provide a
output horizon; this means that predicted objective move blocking option, allowing the user to specify
function contributions are evaluated at each point in the points on the control horizon where moves will not be
future. The PFC, Process Perfecter, and Aspen Target computed. This reduces the dimension of the resulting
controllers allow the option to simplify the calculation optimization problem at the possible cost of control
by considering only a subset of points in the prediction performance.
horizon called coincidence points. This concept is The HIECON and MVC algorithms compute a single
illustrated at the bottom of Fig. 9. A separate set of future input move, as shown in the middle of Fig. 10.
coincidence points can be defined for each output, which This greatly simplifies the calculation for these algo-
is useful when one output responds quickly relative to rithms, which is helpful for the HIECON algorithm
another. The full finite output horizon can be selected as where two separate dynamic optimizations are solved at
a special case. each control execution. However, using a single move
Industrial MPC controllers use three different meth- involves a sacrifice of closed-loop performance that may
ods to parameterize the MV profile; these are illustrated be difficult to quantify.
in Fig. 10. Most of the MPC algorithms compute a The PFC controller parameterizes the future input
sequence of future moves to be spread over a finite profile using a set of polynomial basis functions. A
control horizon, as shown at the top of Fig. 10. The possible solution is illustrated at the bottom of Fig. 10.
length of the control horizon M is another basic tuning This allows a relatively complex input profile to be
parameter for these controllers. The most common specified over a large (potentially infinite) control
horizon, using a small number of unknown parameters.
This may provide an advantage when controlling
nonlinear systems. Choosing the family of basis func-
u tions establishes many of the features of the computed
input profile; this is one way to ensure a smooth input
Multiple Moves
signal, for example. If a polynomial basis is chosen then
the order can be selected so as to follow a polynomial
setpoint signal with no lag. This feature is often
past future important for mechanical servo control applications.
control horizon M
3.4.9. Numerical solution methods
It is interesting to consider the various numerical
solution methods used in the MPC control calculations.
u
Here we focus on the dynamic optimization step, which
takes the form of the nonlinear program 31. For the
Single Move
linear MPC technology, this reduces to a QP. The PFC
algorithm with linear models solves this QP in the
simplest possible way, using a least-squares solution
past future
followed by clipping to enforce input constraints. While
this is clearly sub-optimal, only a single linear system
must be solved, so the PFC controller can be applied to
very fast processes. The DMC-plus algorithm is slightly
more complex in that it solves a sequence of least-
u squares problems in order to more accurately approx-
Basis Function imate the QP solution.
The remaining linear products use various active set
QP methods to solve for the input profile. Unfortu-
past future
nately, these algorithms do not exploit the problem
structure efficiently, and the solution time generally
grows in proportion to M 3 ; where M is the control
Fig. 10. Input parameterization options. Multiple move option (top), horizon. More efficient solutions are possible if the
single move option (middle), basis function parameterization (bottom). model is retained as an equality constraint, yielding a
758 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
solution time that grows linearly in proportion to M: For example, in some cases a single application may be
Rao, Wright, and Rawlings describe one such method defined as a large MPC controller that encompasses an
based on interior point techniques (Rao, Wright, & entire chemical plant. In other cases, such as an
Rawlings, 1998). automobile engine control, the vendor may report a
The nonlinear MPC products must of course use single application even when several thousand copies of
more powerful solution techniques; these are usually the completed controller are sold. Note also that this is a
based upon a sequence of iterations in which a linearized count of MPC applications performed by the vendors
version of the problem is solved. The Aspen Target themselves; this does not include a significant number of
product uses a multi-step Newton-type algorithm in-house applications performed by licensees of vendor
developed by De Oliveira and Biegler (1995, 1994), technology, such as ExxonMobil and DuPont. Nor does
named QPKWIK, which has the advantage that it include any consideration of MPC technology
intermediate solutions, although not optimal, are developed completely in-house by operating companies
guaranteed feasible. This permits early termination of such as Eastman Chemical.
the optimization algorithm if necessary which guaran- More than 4600 total MPC applications are reported
tees a feasible solution. Aspen Target uses the same in Tables 6 and 7, over twice the number in our previous
QPKWIK engine for local steady-state optimization and survey from 5 years earlier (Qin & Badgwell, 1997). It is
the dynamic MV calculation. therefore safe to conclude that overall usage of MPC
The MVC and process perfecter products use a technology is still growing rapidly. All of the vendors
generalized reduced gradient code called GRG2 devel- report a significant number of applications in progress
oped by Lasdon and Warren (1986). The NOVA-NLC so it is likely that this number will continue to increase
product uses the NOVA optimization package, a in the coming years. It should be noted that the size of
proprietary mixed complementarity nonlinear program- these applications ranges from a single variable to
ming code developed by DOT Products. several hundreds of variables. Therefore, one should not
The PFC controller, when used with a nonlinear use the number of applications as an indication of
model, performs an unconstrained optimization using a market share.
nonlinear least-squares algorithm. The solution can be Tables 6 and 7 show that MPC technology can now
computed very rapidly, allowing the controller to be be found in a wide variety of application areas. The
used for short sample time applications such as missile largest single block of applications is in refining, which
tracking. Some performance loss may be expected, amounts to 67% of all classified applications. This is
however, since input constraints are enforced by also one of the original application areas where MPC
clipping. technology has a solid track record of success. A
significant number of applications can also be found in
petrochemicals and chemicals, although it has taken
4. Applications summary longer for MPC technology to break into these areas.
Significant growth areas include the chemicals, pulp and
Tables 6 and 7 summarize the reported applications of paper, food processing, aerospace and automotive
linear and nonlinear MPC technology through 1999. It industries.
is important to note that the vendors were free to define Table 6 shows that AspenTech and Honeywell Hi-
what constitutes an application; for this reason one must Spec are highly focused in refining and petrochemicals,
be careful when drawing conclusions from these data. with a handful of applications in other areas. Adersa
Table 7
Summary of nonlinear MPC applications by areas (estimates based on vendor survey; estimates do not include applications by companies who have
licensed vendor technology)
and Invensys apparently have a broader range of output signal into the feedback path. It is not possible,
experience with applications in the food processing, in general, to represent an unstable process using an
mining/metallurgy, aerospace and automotive areas, impulse response model. All of these problems can be
among others. The applications reported by Adersa overcome by using an auto-regressive parametric model
include a number of embedded PFC applications, so it is form such as a state-space or ARX model.
difficult to report their number or distribution. While The bias update feedback technique used by industrial
only a total number was reported by SGS, this includes MPC controllers is probably the best assumption that
a number of in-house SMOC applications by Shell, so can be used for stable plants in the total absence of
the distribution is likely to be shifted towards refining disturbance and measurement information, but better
and petrochemical applications. feedback is possible if the distribution of disturbances
The bottom of Table 6 lists the largest linear MPC can be characterized more carefully. The bias update
applications to date by each vendor, in the form of method implicitly assumes that there are no stochastic
(outputs)(inputs). The numbers show a difference in disturbances affecting the system state, and the mea-
philosophy that is a matter of some controversy. surement is perfect. Measurement noise is typically dealt
AspenTech prefers to solve a large control problem with separately in applications using ad hoc filtering
with a single controller application whenever possible; techniques. The bias update fails for purely integrating
they report an olefins application with 603 outputs and systems, so a number of ad hoc methods have been
283 inputs. Other vendors prefer to break the problem developed by practitioners to handle this case. These
up into meaningful sub-processes. methods tend to work poorly in the presence of
The nonlinear MPC applications reported in Table 7 significant measurement noise. Industrial practitioners
are spread more evenly among a number of application need to recognize that the Kalman filter provides a rich
areas. Areas with the largest number of reported NMPC framework to address these problems. Muske and
applications include chemicals, polymers, and air and Rawlings have demonstrated how better performance
gas processing. It has been observed that the size and can be achieved for MPC applications by using a state-
scope of NMPC applications are typically much smaller space model and an optimal state observer (Muske &
than that of linear MPC applications (Martin & Rawlings, 1993). Of course, these problems motivated
Johnston, 1998). This is likely due to the computational the original development of the SMOC algorithm
complexity of NMPC algorithms. (Marquis & Broustail, 1998), which uses a Kalman filter
for feedback.
Tuning MPC controllers for stable operation in the
5. Limitations of existing technology presence of constraints may be difficult, even when the
process model is perfect. Currently much effort is spent
Many of the currently available industrial MPC on closed-loop simulation prior to commissioning a
algorithms suffer from limitations inherited from the controller. It must be recognized, however, that
original DMC and IDCOM technology. Problems with simulating all possible combinations of active con-
the control technology, which have been discussed by straints is impossible in practice. It seems far better to
others (Morari & Lee, 1991; Muske & Rawlings, 1993), build an algorithm that is inherently stable in all such
include: cases; in control theory this is known as a nominally
stabilizing algorithm. Scokaert and Rawlings (1998)
* limited model choices;
show how this can be done for the linear case by using
* sub-optimal feedback;
infinite prediction and control horizons. Chen and
* lack of nominal stability;
.
Allgower present a quasi-infinite horizon method for
* sub-optimal or inefficient solution of the dynamic
nonlinear systems (Chen & Allgower, 1995). Research
optimization.
results for the nonlinear case are covered thoroughly by
Two of the linear MPC algorithms, DMC-plus and Mayne et al. (2000). None of the currently available
HIECON, rely on convolution models (impulse and step industrial MPC algorithms makes full use of these ideas.
response). This can be problematic when controlling a Sub-optimal solutions to the dynamic optimization 31
process with widely varying time constants; for this case are used in several of the packages, presumably in order
it is typical to sacrifice dynamic control of the fast to speed up the solution time. This seems difficult to
process modes in order to keep the model length justify for the case of refining and petrochemical
reasonable. A potentially more significant problem with applications, where the controllers run on the order of
the impulse and step response models is that they are once each minute. Goodwin et al. (2001) give an
limited to strictly stable processes. While it is certainly example where unconstrained LQR solution with anti-
possible to modify the algorithms to accommodate a windup has significant performance deterioration com-
pure integrator, these modifications may lead to other pared to an MPC solution under severe constraints.
problems, such as adding the derivative of a noisy However, for high speed applications where the
760 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
controller must execute in a few milliseconds, such as be very useful for on-line model updating or adaptive
tracking the position of a missile, it may not be feasible MPC implementation;
to solve a QP at every control execution. For this case a * there is no systematic approach for building non-
good sub-optimal solution may be the only option. linear dynamic models for NMPC. Guidelines for
None of the linear MPC products exploit the plant tests are needed to build a reliable nonlinear
structure of QP in the dynamic optimization. The model. This is important because even more test data
singular value technique in RMPCT is one of the few will be required to develop an empirical nonlinear
efforts in using robust numerical techniques. By model than an empirical linear model.
properly exploiting the structure of the problem, it
should be possible to handle significantly larger and/or
faster processes (Rao et al., 1998). 6. Next-generation MPC technology
Model uncertainty is not addressed adequately by
current MPC technology. While most of the identifica- MPC vendors were asked to describe their vision of
tion packages provide estimates of model uncertainty, next-generation MPC technology. Their responses were
only one vendor (Honeywell) provides a way to use this combined with our own views and the earlier analysis of
information in the control design. All of the MPC Froisy (1994) to come up with a composite view of
algorithms provide a way to detune the control to future MPC technology.
improve robustness, but the trade-off between perfor-
mance and robustness is generally not very clear. Until 6.1. Basic controller formulation
this connection is made, it will not be possible to
determine when a model is accurate enough for a Because it is so difficult to express all of the relevant
particular control application. There are many robust control objectives in a single objective function, next-
MPC results available in the academic literature, but generation MPC technology will utilize multiple objec-
most focus only the dynamic optimization and will not tive functions. The infinite prediction horizon has
work for something as simple as a setpoint change. beneficial theoretical properties and will probably
Promising results that may eventually impact MPC become a standard feature. Output and input trajectory
practice include the robust stability conditions presented options will include setpoints, zones, trajectories and
by Vuthandam et al. for a modified QDMC algorithm funnels. Input parameterization using basis functions
(Vuthandam, Genceli, & Nikolaou, 1995); the robust may become more widespread, and infinite control
MPC algorithm presented by Kothare, Balakrishnan, horizons with moves computed at each control interval
and Morari (1996) and the robust steady-state target may also become possible.
calculation described by Kassmann, Badgwell, and
Hawkins (2000). More research is needed in this area. 6.2. Adaptive MPC
Current model identification technology suffers from
a number of limitations: A few adaptive MPC algorithms such as the GPC
algorithm introduced by Clarke et al. have been
* plant test signals are typically step-like and require proposed (Clarke, Mohtadi, & Tuffs, 1987) but only
close attention of experienced engineers during the two adaptive MPC algorithms have reached the market-
test; place (Connoisseur from Invensys and STAR from Dot
* there is no tool to determine whether the collected Products (Dollar, Melton, Morshedi, Glasgow, &
data are adequate to represent the process dynamics Repsher, 1993)). This is despite the strong market
for MPC design; in practice the plant is generally over incentive for a self-tuning MPC controller. This reflects
tested, increasing the implementation cost during the the difficulty of doing adaptive control in the real world.
test period; Barring a theoretical breakthrough, this situation is not
* identification algorithms are mainly of the least- likely to change in the near future.
squares type; there are only a few that use modern On the other hand, adaptive and on-demand tuning
subspace identification and prediction error methods; PID controllers have been very successful in the
* statistical efficiency and consistency of identification marketplace. This suggests that adaptive MPC con-
algorithms are not addressed; trollers may emerge for SISO loops as adaptive PID
* there is a lack of model validation methods to verify technology is generalized to handle more difficult
whether the identified model is adequate for control dynamics.
or whether significant model deterioration
has occurred after the MPC controller has been 6.3. Robust MPC
commissioned;
* there is little practice except in Connoisseur in With one exception (Honeywell), industrial MPC
multivariable closed-loop identification which would controllers rely solely on brute-force simulation to
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 761
evaluate the effects of model mismatch. Robust stability * Increased applications by end-users who license MPC
guarantees would significantly reduce the time required software from vendors.
to tune and test industrial MPC algorithms. It is likely
that recent robust research results (Kassmann et al., Current generation linear MPC technology offers
2000; Kothare et al., 1996; Scokaert & Mayne, 1998) will significant new capabilities, but several unnecessary
eventually make their way into MPC products. Robust limitations still remain. Some products do not allow
stability guarantees will then be combined with un- the use of parametric models. Feedback options are
certainty estimates from identification software to severely limited, often leading to poor control of
greatly simplify design and tuning of MPC controllers. integrating systems and slow rejection of unmeasured
disturbances. The algorithms are not nominally stabiliz-
ing, so that tuning choices must be tested extensively
6.4. Nonlinear MPC
through closed-loop simulation. None of the linear
MPC algorithms makes use of modern numerical
Next-generation MPC technology will allow non-
solution methods, limiting the size and speed of
linear models to be developed by seamlessly combining
processes that they can be applied to.
process knowledge with operating data. A continuous-
Applications of nonlinear MPC products will con-
time fundamental model will be defined from a graphical
tinue to grow in those areas where linear MPC
representation of the plant. Process test signals will be
technology has proven difficult to apply, such as control
designed automatically so as to explore important
of polymerization processes. The nonlinear MPC algo-
regions of the operating space where the model is
rithms reported here differ in the simplifications used to
inadequate for control. Closed-loop process tests will be
generate a tractable control calculation. The models are
conducted using PRBS signals, with minimal on-site
usually specified as linear dynamic subsystems with
time requirements. Owing to the difficulty in data based
added nonlinearity. The NOVA-NLC controller is the
modeling of nonlinear processes, first principles models
only current offering that allows the use of a rigorous
and other alternative modeling methods (Foss, Loh-
nonlinear model derived from first principles.
mann, & Marquardt, 1998) will become necessary in
An important observation is that the majority of
practice.
industrial MPC controllers use empirical dynamic
models identified from test data. Improvements in
identification technology that result in shorter overall
7. Discussion and conclusions process testing times will have a large positive impact on
the bottom line for MPC technology users.
MPC technology has progressed steadily since the first Choosing an MPC technology for a given application
IDCOM and DMC applications over 25 years ago. Our is a complex question involving issues not addressed in
survey data show that the number of MPC applications this paper. Here, we have emphasized the technical
has approximately doubled in 4 years from 1995 to capabilities of MPC technology. However, if a vendor is
1999. MPC applications show a solid foundation in to be selected to design and implement an advanced
refining and petrochemicals, and significant penetration control system, it would be wise to weigh heavily their
into a wide range of application areas from chemicals to experience with the particular process in question.
food processing. The MPC technology landscape has Research needs as perceived by industry are mostly
changed dramatically in recent years, making it difficult control engineering issues, not algorithm issues. Indus-
for us to keep track of the swift progress in academic trial practitioners do not perceive closed-loop stability,
research and industrial applications. Major recent for example, to be a serious problem. Their questions
developments include: are more like: Which variables should be used for
control? When is a model good enough to stop the
* Technological changes due to the development of identification plant test? How do you determine the
new algorithms by academia and industry, computer source of a problem when a controller is performing
hardware and software advances, and the breadth of poorly? When can the added expense of a nonlinear
industrial applications. MPC controller be justified? How do you design a
* Organizational changes due to acquisitions and control system for an entire plant? How do you estimate
mergers, such as the acquisition by Aspen Technol- the benefits of a control system? Answering these
ogy of DMCC, Setpoint, Treiber Controls, and questions will provide control practitioners and theore-
Neuralware. ticians with plenty of work in the foreseeable future.
* Integration of MPC technology into Distributed Just as academicians do not agree on which control
Control System (DCS) platforms, illustrated by the algorithms are best, industrial practitioners also have
acquisition of Predictive Control Ltd. by Invensys, very different views on the future trends of MPC. Just as
the parent company of Foxboro. PID controllers have many different implementations
762 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
(series form, parallel form, etc.), MPC controllers are Cutler, C. R., & Yocum, F. H. (1991). Experience with the DMC
not anticipated to converge to a single form in the inverse for identification. In Y. Arkun, W. H. Ray (Eds.), Chemical
foreseeable future. While academic research will con- process control—CPC IV. Fourth international conference on
chemical process control (pp. 297–317). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
tinue to develop new algorithms and prove new facts in Demoro, E., Axelrud, C., Johnston, D., & Martin, G. (1997). Neural
the MPC domain, industrial development will consider network modeling and control of polypropylene process. In Society
its own priorities with a healthy interaction with of plastics engineers international conference, Houston, TX.
academia. Although there is still plenty of room to DMC Corp. ½DMC TM (1994). Technology overview. Product literature
refine or develop new MPC algorithms, pushing the from DMC Corp., July 1994.
Dollar, R., Melton, L. L., Morshedi, A. M., Glasgow, D. T., &
technology to new application areas could be at least
Repsher, K. W. (1993). Consider adaptive multivariable predictive
equally important and challenging. Given the uneven controllers. Hydrocarbon Processing, 10, 109–112.
distribution in the MPC applications today, it is safe to Downs, J. J. (2001). Linking control strategy design and model
anticipate that much more development in both theory predictive control. In Preprints: Chemical process control-6,
and practice is still ahead of us. assessment and new directions for research (CPC VI), Tuscon,
AZ, January 2001 (pp. 411–422).
Foss, B. A., Lohmann, B., & Marquardt, W. (1998). A field study of
the industrial modeling process. Journal of Process Control, 8(5,6),
Acknowledgements 325–338.
Froisy, J. B. (1994). Model predictive control: Past, present and future.
The authors wish to thank the vendor representatives ISA Transactions, 33, 235–243.
who responded to our MPC survey for their time and Froisy, J. B., & Matsko, T. (1990). IDCOM-M application to the Shell
fundamental control problem. AICHE annual meeting, November
effort. We also wish to thank the following people for 1990.
their constructive criticism of this paper: Pierre Carrette, Garc!ıa, C. E., & Morshedi, A. M. (1986). Quadratic programming
Jim Downs, Harry Forbes, Brian Froisy, Pierre Gros- solution of dynamic matrix control (QDMC). Chemical Engineer-
didier, John Guiver, Rob Hawkins, Dean Kassmann, ing Communications, 46, 73–87.
Geoff Lewis, Joseph Lu, Greg Martin, Steve Piche, Jim Garc!ıa, C. E., Prett, D. M., & Morari, M. (1989). Model predictive
control: Theory and practice—a survey. Automatica, 25(3), 335–348.
Rawlings, Jaques Richalet, Andy Speziale, Douglas
Goodwin, G. C., Graebe, S. F., & Salgado, M. E. (2001). Control
White, Robert Young, and Hong Zhao. system design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grosdidier, P., Froisy, B., & Hammann, M. (1988). The IDCOM-M
controller. In T. J. McAvoy, Y. Arkun, & E. Zafiriou (Eds.),
References Proceedings of the 1988 IFAC workshop on model based process
control (pp. 31–36). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Hillestad, M., & Andersen, K. S. (1994). Model predictive control for
Allgower, F., Badgwell, T. A., Qin, S. J., Rawlings, J. B., & Wright,
grade transitions of a polypropylene reactor. In Proceedings of the
S. J. (1999). Nonlinear predictive control and moving horizon
4th European symposium on computer aided process engineering
estimation—an introductory overview. In P. M. Frank (Ed.),
Advances in control: highlights of ECC ’99. Berlin: Springer. (ESCAPE 4), Dublin, March 1994.
Allgower, F., & Zheng, A., (Eds.). (2000). Nonlinear model predictive Honeywell Inc. (1995). RMPCT concepts reference. Product literature
control, progress in systems and control theory. Vol. 26. Basel, from Honeywell, Inc., October 1995.
Boston, Berlin: Birkhauser Verlag. Kailath, T. (1980). Linear systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Bartusiak, R. D., & Fontaine, R. W. (1997). Feedback method for Hall.
controlling non-linear processes. US Patent 5682309. Kailath, T., Sayed, A. H., & Hassibi, B. (2000). Linear estimation.
Berkowitz, P., & Papadopoulos, M. (1995). Multivariable process Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
control method and apparatus. US Patent 5396416. Kalman, R. E. (1960a). Contributions to the theory of optimal control.
Berkowitz, P., Papadopoulos, M., Colwell, L., & Moran, M. (1996). Bulletin de la Societe Mathematique de Mexicana, 5, 102–119.
Multivariable process control method and apparatus. US Patent Kalman, R. E. (1960b). A new approach to linear filtering and
5488561. prediction problems. Transactions of ASME, Journal of Basic
Chen, H., & Allgower, F. (1995). A quasi-infinite horizon nonlinear Engineering, 87, 35–45.
model predictive control scheme with guaranteed stability. Auto- Kassmann, D. E., Badgwell, T. A., & Hawkins, R. B. (2000). Robust
matica, 34(10), 1205–1218. steady-state target calculation for model predictive control.
Clarke, D. W., Mohtadi, C., & Tuffs, P. S. (1987). Generalized A.I.CH.E. Journal, 46(5), 1007–1024.
predictive control—Part I. The basic algorithm. Automatica, 23(2), Keeler, J., Martin, G., Boe, G., Piche, S., Mathur, U., & Johnston, D.
137–148. (1996). The process perfecter: the next step in multivariable control
MVC 3.0 User Manual (1995). Continental Controls, Inc. Product and optimization. Technical report, Pavilion Technologies, Inc.,
Literature. Austin, TX.
Cutler, C., Morshedi, A., & Haydel, J. (1983). An industrial Kothare, M. V., Balakrishnan, V., & Morari, M. (1996). Robust
perspective on advanced control. In AICHE annual meeting, constrained model predictive control using linear matrix inequal-
Washington, DC, October 1983. ities. Automatica, 32, 1361–1379.
Cutler, C. R., & Ramaker, B. L. (1979). Dynamic matrix control—a Kouvaritakis, B., & Cannon, M. (Eds.) (2001). Nonlinear predictive
computer control algorithm. AICHE national meeting, Houston, control, theory and practice. London: The IEE.
TX, April 1979. Kulhavy, R., Lu, J., & Samad, T. (2001). Emerging technologies for
Cutler, C. R., & Ramaker, B. L. (1980). Dynamic matrix control—a enterprise optimization in the process industries. In Preprints:
computer control algorithm. In Proceedings of the joint automatic chemical process control-6, assessment and new directions for
control conference. research (CPC VI), Tuscon, Arizona, January 2001 (pp. 411–422).
S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764 763
Kwakernaak, H., & Sivan, R. (1972). Linear optimal control systems. Poe, W., & Munsif, H. (1998). Benefits of advanced process
New York: Wiley. control and economic optimization to petrochemical processes. In
Larimore, W. E. (1990). Canonical variate analysis in identification, Hydrocarbon processing’s process optimization conference, Houston,
filtering and adaptive control. In Proceedings of the 29th conference TX.
on decision and control (pp. 596–604). Prett, D. M., & Garc!ıa, C. E. (1988). Fundamental process control.
Lasdon, L. S., & Warren, A. D. (1986). GRG2 user’s guide. Cleveland, Boston: Butterworths.
OH: Cleveland State University. Prett, D. M., & Gillette, R. D. (1980). Optimization and constrained
Lee, J. H., & Cooley, B. (1997). Recent advances in model predictive multivariable control of a catalytic cracking unit. In Proceedings of
control and other related areas. In J. C. Kantor, C. E. Garcia, B. the joint automatic control conference.
Carnahan (Eds.), Fifth international conference on chemical process Propoi, A. I. (1963). Use of linear programming methods for
control, AICHE and CACHE, (pp. 201–216b). synthesizing sampled-data automatic systems. Automatic Remote
Lee, E. B., & Markus, L. (1967). Foundations of optimal control theory. Control, 24(7), 837–844.
New York: Wiley. Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (1996). An overview of industrial model
Lee, J. H., Morari, M., & Garc!ıa, C. E. (1994). State-space predictive control technology. In Chemical process control—CPC
interpretation of model predictive control. Automatica, 30(4), V, CACHE. Tahoe City, CA, January 1996.
707–717. Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (1997). An overview of industrial model
Lewis, D. G., Evans, C. L., & Sandoz, D. J. (1991). Application of predictive control technology. In J. C. Kantor, C. E. Garcia, & B.
predictive control techniques to a distillation column. Journal of Carnahan (Eds.), Chemical process control—V, Fifth international
Process Control, 1, 17–26. conference on chemical process control CACHE and AICHE, (pp.
Ljung, L. (1987). System identification: theory for the user. Englewood 232–256).
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (1998). An overview of nonlinear model
Ljung, L. (1999). System identification: theory for the user. Englewood predictive control applications. In F. Algower, & A. Zheng (Eds.),
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Nonlinear model predictive control workshop—assessment and future
Maciejowski, J. M. (2002). Predictive control with constraints. Engle- directions, Ascona, Switzerland.
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (2000). An overview of nonlinear model
Marquis, P., & Broustail, J. P. (1998). SMOC, a bridge between state predictive control applications. In J. C. Kantor, C. E. Garcia, & B.
space and model predictive controllers: Application to the Carnahan (Eds.), Nonlinear model predictive control. Basel:
automation of a hydrotreating unit. In T. J. McAvoy, Y. Arkun, Birkhauser.
& E. Zafiriou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1988 IFAC workshop on Rao, C. V., & Rawlings, J. B. (1999). Steady states and constraints in
model based process control (pp. 37–43). Oxford: Pergamon Press. model predictive control. A.I.CH.E. Journal, 45(6), 1266–1278.
Martin, G., & Boe, G., Keeler, J., Timmer, D., Havener, J. (1998). Rao, C. V., Wright, S. J., & Rawlings, J. B. (1998). Application of
Method and apparatus for modeling dynamic and steady-state interior-point methods to model predictive control. Journal of
processes for prediction, control, and optimization. US Patent. Optimization Theory Application, 99, 723–757.
Martin, G., & Johnston, D. (1998). Continuous model-based Rawlings, J. B. (2000). Tutorial overview of model predictive control.
optimization. In Hydrocarbon processing’s process optimization IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 20, 38–52.
conference, Houston, TX. Rawlings, J. B., Meadows, E. S., & Muske, K. (1994). Nonlinear
Mayne, D. Q. (1997). Nonlinear model predictive control: An model predictive control: a tutorial and survey. In Proceedings of
assessment. In J. C. Kantor, C. E. Garcia, & B. Carnahan (Eds.), IFAC ADCHEM, Japan.
Fifth international conference on chemical process control Rawlings, J. B., & Muske, K. R. (1993). Stability of constrained
AICHE and CACHE, (pp. 217–231). receding horizon control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
Mayne, D. Q., Rawlings, J. B., Rao, C. V., & Scokaert, P. O. M. 38(10), 1512–1516.
(2000). Constrained model predictive control: Stability and Richalet, J. (1993). Industrial applications of model-based control.
optimality. Automatica, 36, 789–814. Automatica, 29, 1251–1274.
Morari, M., & Lee, J. H. (1991). Model predictive control: The good, Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J. L., & Papon, J. (1976). Algorithmic
the bad, and the ugly. In Y. Arkun, & W. H. Ray (Eds.), Chemical control of industrial processes. In Proceedings of the 4th IFAC
process control—CPC IV, Fourth international conference on symposium on identification and system parameter estimation.
chemical process control (pp. 419–444). Amsterdam: Elsevier. (pp. 1119–1167).
Morari, M., & Zafiriou, E. (1989). Robust process control. Englewood Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J. L., & Papon, J. (1978). Model
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. predictive heuristic control: Applications to industrial processes.
Muske, K. R. (1995). Linear model predictive control of chemical Automatica, 14, 413–428.
processes. PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Ricker, N. L. (1991). Model predictive control: State of the art. In Y.
Muske, K. R., & Rawlings, J. B. (1993). Model predictive control with Arkun, W. H. Ray (Eds.), Chemical process control—CPC IV,
linear models. A.I.CH.E Journal, 39(2), 262–287. Fourth international conference on chemical process control (pp.
Ohshima, M., Ohno, H., & Hashimoto, I. (1995). Model predictive 271–296). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
control: Experiences in the university-industry joint projects and Scokaert, P. O. M., & Mayne, D. Q. (1998). Min–max feedback model
statistics on MPC applications in Japan. International workshop on predictive control for constrained linear systems. IEEE Transac-
predictive and receding horizon control, Korea, October 1995. tions on Automatic Control, 43(8), 1136–1142.
De Oliveira, N. M. C., & Biegler, L. T. (1995). An extension of Scokaert, P. O. M., & Rawlings, J. B. (1998). Constrained linear
newtontype algorithms for nonlinear process control. Automatica, quadratic regulation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
31, 281–286. 43(8), 1163–1169.
De Oliveira, N. M. C., & Biegler, L. T. (1994). Constraint handling Sentoni, G. B., Biegler, L. T., Guiver, J. B., & Zhao, H. (1998). State-
and stability properties of model-predictive control. A.I.CH.E space nonlinear process modeling. A.I.CH.E Journal, 44(10),
Journal, 40(7), 1138–1155. 2229–2239.
Piche, S., Sayyar-Rodsari, B., Johnson, D., & Gerules, M. (2000). Setpoint Inc. (1993). SMC-IDCOM: A state-of-the-art multivariable
Nonlinear model predictive control using neural networks. IEEE predictive controller. Product literature from Setpoint, Inc.,
Control Systems Magazine 53–62. October 1993.
764 S.J. Qin, T.A. Badgwell / Control Engineering Practice 11 (2003) 733–764
Shinskey, F. G. (1994). Feedback controllers for the process industries. Zafiriou, E. (1990). Robust model predictive control of processes with
New York: McGraw-Hill. hard constraints. Computers in Chemical Engineering, 14(4/5),
Vuthandam, P., Genceli, H., & Nikolaou, M. (1995). Performance 359–371.
bounds for robust quadratic dynamic matrix control with end Zhao, H., Guiver, J., Neelakantan, R., & Biegler, L. T. (1999). A
condition. A.I.CH.E Journal, 41(9), 2083–2097. nonlinear industrial model predictive controller using integrated
Young, R. E., Bartusiak, R. B., & Fontaine, R. B. (2001). Evolution of PLS and neural state space model. In IFAC 14th triennial world
an industrial nonlinear model predictive controller. In Preprints: congress, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China.
Chemical process control—CPC VI, Tucson, Arizona (pp. 399– Zhao, H., Guiver, J. P., & Sentoni, G. B. (1998). An identification
410). CACHE. approach to nonlinear state space model for industrial multi-
Yousfi, C., & Tournier, R. (1991). Steady-state optimization inside variable model predictive control. In Proceedings of the 1998
model predictive control In Proceedings of ACC’91, Boston, MA American control conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia (pp.
(pp. 1866–1870). 796–800).