Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
H. Takatsu, T. Itoh (1999)
Future needs for control theory in industry-report of the control technology survey in Japanese industryIEEE Trans. Control. Syst. Technol., 7
M. Haeri (1999)
EDMC control design for nonlinear processes with sign changes of steady state gainICECS'99. Proceedings of ICECS '99. 6th IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems (Cat. No.99EX357), 2
P. Lundstrom, Jay Lee, M. Morari, S. Skogestad (1995)
Limitations of dynamic matrix controlComputers & Chemical Engineering, 19
B. Kouvaritakis, J. Rossiter, A. Chang (1992)
Stable generalised predictive control: an algorithm with guaranteed stability, 139
K. Narendra, Jeyendran Balakrishnan (1993)
Improving transient response of adaptive control systems using multiple models and switchingProceedings of 32nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
R. Shridhar, D. Cooper (1997)
A Tuning Strategy for Unconstrained SISO Model Predictive ControlIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 36
W. Li, L. Biegler, C. Economou, M. Morari (1990)
A constrained pseudo-newton control strategy for nonlinear systemsComputers & Chemical Engineering, 14
T. Peterson, E. Hernández, Y. Arkun, F. Schork (1992)
A nonlinear DMC algorithm and its application to a semibatch polymerization reactorChemical Engineering Science, 47
C. Kravaris, P. Daoutidis (1990)
Nonlinear state feedback control of second-order nonminimum-phase nonlinear systemsComputers & Chemical Engineering, 14
E. Camacho, C. Bordons (1995)
Model predictive control in the process industry
K. Passino (1989)
Disturbance rejection in nonlinear systems: examples, 136
M. Henson, D. Seborg (1992)
Nonlinear control strategies for continuous fermentersChemical Engineering Science, 47
Y. Al‐Assaf
Long range nonlinear predictive control
EDMC represents extended dynamic matrix control, which can be applied to nonlinear process control. In this method, control inputs are determined based on a linear model that approximates the process and is updated during each sampling interval. Since nonlinear relation still exists between the prediction error and the control input, numerical (iterative) methods are used to solve the optimization problem defined in the method. For nonlinear processes with high variation and/or sign changes in their steady‐state gain, iterative methods do not converge properly to an acceptable solution for some desired outputs or external disturbances. To eliminate the problem, we augment the process with its steady‐state gain inverse (or pseudo inverse whenever required) such that the steady‐state gain for the new augmented system is constant or contains slow variations. In the case of unstable processes, the method may be applied after stabilizing the process using a proper state or output feedback. Effectiveness of the method has been examined using computer simulations of some benchmark processes. Some of the obtained results are presented in this paper.
COMPEL: The International Journal for Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jun 1, 2004
Keywords: Modelling; Non‐linear control systems; Optimal control
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.